Jezai's page

So everyone dumps charisma, seems to be a fact of D&D. And I was hoping to change that by implementing this new houserule.

Charisma
*Divide up your charisma modifier and add it evenly to your saves. For example, if you have a charisma of 18 you could do Fort: +1 Ref:+1 Will: +2. Or you could do Fort: +2 Ref: +1 Will: +1. You could NOT do Fort:+2 ref:+2 will: +0 or Fort: +4 Ref: +0 Will: +0

*As a free action you may add +1 to any d20 roll of any ally(Before, or after the roll is revealed). You may do this a number of times per day equal to your charisma modifier.

I'm thinking that for now it won't reduce stats if a player takes a negative(I'm hoping to use the carrot more then the stick, also that would hurt many low-level creatures)

My players seem to like this change, but there is one catch. And that is the oracle revelation Sidestep secret

With this, the oracles saves can be quite high and one of my players thinks that it would be unfair of me to make her pick a new revelation. We've compared numbers and with the changes she has higher saves then your typical paladin and your typical monk.

I assumed this ability was created by pazio, because charisma sucks by itself and giving this ability to oracles wasn't game-breaking. With this new houserule I feel the ability is overpowered.

Do you feel that the oracle should pick a new revelation or am I wrong? And what do you think of the charisma change in general?

My current dungeon master is beyond incompetent when it comes to the rules. Yes, the other players have already talked to him and two chapters of the current campaigned are being skipped so it can be wrapped up and ended.

Basically I want a DM test for basic rules, so that way people can get a general idea of what the rules are before they DM even if they fail it. I would tell them what sections of the core book to read, but that doesn't help when the DM makes ridiculous interpretations. (Like you can draw a greatsword as part of a full-attack because a full-attack is a 'move') Basically I don't want to be arsed to open the rulebook three times an encounter and waste my time anymore.

There is a lot of fair cause to disagree with me and explain how better approaches through communication would work better. But I would still appreciate some sort of 3.5/pathfinder test as I feel it could be beneficial for me and others browsing this forum. I know about herald tests that wizards does but I can't access those and I'm not interested in going through and running games for their stuff just to take the test.

Many people feel that the DM should have absolute power when it comes to the rules. That in order to prevent arguments from getting in the way of playing the DM should have the final say on everything.

This idea has created a policy that many groups follow concerning arguments about rules. Let me illustrate with an example of play.

DM: OK, the hill giant turns towards the wizard who just casted fireball on him and throws one of his javelins.

Player: But I'm 700 feet away, he can't throw it at me. That's too far.

DM: I disagree. But I don't want to waste the session looking up rules. We'll say it works this way for now and look it up afterwards.

After the session.
DM: Well look at that! Javelins CANT fly 700 feet. I guess I was wrong. Well at least now we know for next time.
-------------------------------------

The problem with this system is that all players end up getting screwed at one point or another. Often times this means that the players will feel cheated and there is some loss of resources or glory at the least. It's nice that the correct rule is found but it doesn't change what already happened.

As a DM I do something different with my players. If there is a rules debate between me and one of them then unless I know 100% for sure that they are wrong and it says in clear writing that they can't do x, then I have the rule work how the player says it does. Can player's take advantage of this system? Yes. But I trust my players to not to, just like I trust my DMs to follow the rules.

Kinda crazy right? My thinking is that a player feeling cheated (or their character dying) is far worse then one of my bosses dying unfairly, even if that boss died in such a way that made it un-epic.

What do you think of the way rules arguments are handled? How do you handle rule disputes in your group? Would you feel worse if your character died or was taking out because of a bad ruling? Or if the BBEG died or was taken out because one?

Note that I'm not talking about when DMs make up their own rules or give a ruling when there is clearly nothing in the rulebook that covers a certain topic, that is a whole new can of worms.

So in our last session suggestion was casted on a fighter and she failed her will save. She was then told to "Defend this fortress." This was interpreted that the fighter would defend the fortress with everything in her power, and will proceed to charge and full attack anyone who is attacking the fort. The DM felt this made the spell very powerful and that the spell should have a will save 1/round to shake the spell off.

Do you feel this is an appropriate use of suggestion? What do you believe the ultimate limits of suggestion are regardless of target? (In other words their motives or 'nature') Can this spell cause PCs to attack other PCs? Intelligent monsters to attack other monsters? Do you think it is fair with the 1/round will save? I'm really curious to hear your opinion.

Personally I don't think this was an appropriate use. Using suggestion in this way basically makes it a bad-ass version of Hold Monster that in addition to taking someone (or something) out of combat it causes the creature to waste a lot of resources and do a lot of damage.

I gave my players a riddle last session and several didn't think it very fair after they got the answer after MANY hints. Tell me what the rest of you think.

Order from chaos, giver of life.
All love this, yet all seek to mutilate.
Stronger then giants, more beautiful then nymphs.
What am I?

A few hints. I gave far more to my players.
It is tangible. (So nothing like 'nature')

Ignore "giver of life" if you are having trouble.

So what does everyone think?