Killatron5000's page

...why can't you vital strike on a charge?

My buddy plays a halfling cavalier, and we're trying to figure his vital strike spirited charge damage on a challenged foe. his strength is sixteen, and he has a +1 charging lance (plus 2d6 damage on a charge. 3.5 magic item compendium pg. 31) We're seventh level. So, are we looking at 6d6+19 (3d6 for the spirited charge, 1d6 for vital strike, two for charging lance, strength and enhancement X 3 for 12 plus 7 for the challenge) or 6d6+33 (same, but multiplying the challenge.) I suppose the essential question is does the challenge ability get multiplied on a charge, or is it considered precision damage and only added once? Last nights game it was treated as the 6d6+19, which still seemed to be plenty, but I have a different buddy wanting to play a cavalier in my upcoming campaign, like to clear that up. thanks y'all.

If you can, take a look at the Conan RPG books that came out a few years back. has good ideas for No magic style.

if you definitely want it to stay d&d, I'd agree with previous posters, you'd need to take a long look at damage reduction, or severely limit the monsters you can use. A CR 7 barghest now gives all your non caster classes fits.

I allow characters to upgrade weapons through nonmagical means. In fact I encourage it. I like the idea of a tenth level fighter who's had his trusty Battleaxe since character creation. I use the same concept as increasing the power on an existing magic item. subtract the cost of the original item from the cost of the new one. Sometimes it takes some in game creative thinking, like plating the weapon in a more durable metal. All in all, if it can be done with a spell, does it really hurt your game in any way to let them use nonmagical means?

One evil alchemist bomber. The new king of the touch attack.

Remember, flurry of blows is it's own seperate full round action. Not a standard full attack. The attacks listed are what you get unless the ability specifically mentions flurry of blows.

Its a common role-playing convention that everyone fights to the death, but its certainly possible that NPC's expect the defeated to surrender and be taken prisoner for ransom. If PC's don't want to be regarded as outlaws and outside the option to surrender, they should also accept surrenders.

Consider making honor a part of interactions, so that honorable PC's who treat prisoners well are recognized and treated well in captivity. PC's who treat prisoners poorly are themselves treated poorly.

This a admittedly works best in a shades-of-gray campaign where rival forces regard one another as worthy of moral consideration and groups want to be protected by the laws of war. In a campaign of stark good vs evil this won't make much sense.

It also works better in a world where the PC's and most people are connected into the fabric of society, belonging to orders, guilds, families, and networks of oaths. Even if a bad guy wouldn't prefer to kill the PC's does he really want to make enemies of several institutions and families? That's how you get people coming after you, and as a wise man once said, there is always a bigger fish.

This also effects how PC's obtain treasure. If you aren't robbing corpses left and right, you need another source of the treasure. Maybe its payment from the orders, guilds, and families for doing good service. Maybe its a reward for freeing captives previously held by the defeated. Arthurian legends are full of damsels who hand out loot to the knight who rescues them.

If death and a world is real, the inhabitants take that into account and respond accordingly. What that means is up to you, but I think a big part of the fix can be in the cultural norms of the place.

Vertico gets it! The prisoner angle is quality, and will be a driving force for one of the early adventures. But then there's the beasties. creatures who don't shackle you up and take you home, they eat you. That's the element giving me headaches.

Mathwei ap Niall wrote:

For a buffbot/healbot/social witch it's actually better to go last. Lets you see everything that's going on first and you have plenty of time to react.

I'd rather go first. Why? Because being last on the first round or being first in the second round is no difference for reacting. ;)

going last is never good. Being the last character to take your turn sure, but being flatfooted a full turn is asking a rogue to shank the dickens out of you. that's right dickens.

When in doubt on Elves, consult Tolkien. The Simarillion is full of all manner of strange elfisms, if you can handle the sometimes painfully dry style of the book.

On the same line, am I the only DM out there mean enough to ban resurrection?

[

#2 If you're playing a campaign without a sense of urgency, you can make having a fully fleshed out family required, and the players could be forced to take over their children / grand children / etc.

The family line fits the play style best, but only really works if they all die at the same time.

If it were my game:
Did you kill the animals or just dig up the corpses? If the later, not evil. Creepy? yes. Bit odd? yes. Evil? nosir. And in terms of getting beat up by a paladin, I make my NPC paladins detect evil before they kill ANYTHING. I think a slightly nutty good aligned Necromancer surrounded by dead beasts could be a lot of fun.

I think combat trick's the way to go if you're looking for maximum effectiveness as a character. One talent does not a rogue make.

I have a low magic home brew setting in the works, but I'm having trouble balancing the reduced power inherent to the setting, with my feeling that resurrections are totally out of place in a world where magic is a very limited and somewhat alien force. I really like the danger conveyed in a "dead is dead" world, but I'm afraid the body count will get ridiculous. Thoughts?