Rothandalantearic's page

Love the Stats Olaf. I am hoping to get my group to play this adventure path next, after we finish with Tomb of Horrors and Expedition to Castle Greyhawk. It looks like many folks are taking about 2 to 2 1/2 years to get through it. Would anyone like to nmake a guess on the length of time it will take your groups?

-Roth

Is there a D&D version of the Anklosaurus, or Stegasaurus(sp)? I always imagined those as a good mounts for a dwarf. Goes with the mean and ugly theme mentioned before. ;-)

-Roth

I'd have to say I get the most use out of all of the Compendium books. (Including the Dragon Compendium)

They do exactly what a book of their type should, consolidate knowledge from a bunch of diverse sources into one easy to digest book.

Whats not to like?

-roth

I have to agree with Big Jake on this one.

Though I will not be playing 4.0 on a regular basis for some time to come, D&D Day is a great opportunity to get out and meet fellow gamers in the area, compare notes, and have a good time doing what we love... gaming.

Checking out 4.0 and it's big differences to 3.5 will be tops on my list this time around. I have not had any real interest from my players about switching over at this time, but a good DM always has as much info at his fingertips as possible.

D&D Day in November was great, and I have a sneaking suspicion that I'll have a good time at the next one too...

-Roth

Great, I will add onto Lori's list from earlier. This is good stuff for me. Thanks again Rclifton.

Does the mother game as well? If it was just the Dads I had as players I'd have more confidence that the player would be able to make time. Eventually the lovely mother gets sick of Dad hovering around and 'takes a break' by allowing him to go off and roll dice for a few hours but in this case the players are the mothers, which presumably means bringing baby along and all the hassles that involves. Not sure if this will have much effect or not - guess I will see.

That said I'm not hugely concerned. My game will continue regardless. I've literally got at least five people that have expressed an interest in joining the group should a seat ever open up. I just don't want to tell the young mothers that their off the roster, I'd rather them tell me how they want to handle this.

No, despite my best efforts my wife isn't the gaming type.

If your Mother/Gamers are the caring, well intentioned types that I suspect they are. (I can't see you hanging out with the other type Jeremy)They, like my wife, will be taking a month or two off from EVERYTHING.

I took two weeks myself, and didn't feel like it was long enough babywise. Coming back to game after a month off was like sweet nectar though, so you shouldn't count them out completely. In fact, make sure to invite them to play again in a few months, a person can start to feel trapped by the baby. I have found that outside of a round of golf, I can still do just about anything I did before. Is your game "full" at the moment? It sounds like a shame that those other five folks can't join in. Do they already have a main game they play in?

-roth

As a new Dad, it has been a bit of a strain to keep the dice rolling, but I assure anyone out there that it can be done.

Don't give up! Socializing with your fellow gamers may end up being the only time you have to talk to another human that doesn't look up at you with unconditional love... then drool all over their shirt. :-)

(my daughter really wants to roll those dice... just got to work on that hand eye coordination...) :-)

-roth

Did I miss any?

Awesome Lori, thanks a bunch!

-roth

From Dungeon: Mad God's Key (with a few modifiers for the groups level)

Salvage Operation (they almost took down the squid!)

Unfamiliar Ground (to the point, good layout)

From the original 3.0 series of adventures:

The Forge of Fury (my players still talk about the fight at the entrance to the dungeon after all these years)

The Speaker in Dreams (well written adventure that did not "railroad" the group. memorable bad guys)

Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil (the extra work done in this one to create memorable NPC's should be standard in all published adventure modules IMO)

From 3.5:

Expedition to Castle Greyhawk (again, great work done to create a memorable backdrop and NPC's. it makes the players truly believe in the adventure)

From Necromancer Games:
Rappan Athuk - The Dungeon of Graves (solid... and huge!)

I hope all the posters here on Paizo will chime in on their favorite
adventures. Good material should be shared! I have already written down several titles that some above posters recommend. Thanks!

-Roth

I'd love to see this list too.

A good place to start would be the copyright dates for each book. Any book with a copyright date after the one for the 3.5 version of the PHB should be a 3.5 book... and any thing before that should be 3.0.

Problem is I haven't actually got all the books... so I haven't got a comprehensive list.

If you do stumble across such a list please let us know!

-Roth

Cosmo wrote:

::Looks at thread title and waits for a "Porkchop Express" reference...

I read the title and started hearing "we got trouble, thats right i said trouble, right here in River City..... Trouble with a Capitol T and that rhymes with P and that stands for Pool"

That does it...

Now I really am gonna have to go watch that movie.

Funny side note: If you ever get a chance to watch the DVD w/ the commentary turned on, both Kurt Russell and the director are busy drinking themselves under the table while taping the audio. True story. ;-)

-Roth

Troy Pacelli wrote:

I’m not sure why. The +2 could very well be enough to cause the touch attack roll to fail. You only have to miss it by 1, after all.

Its not a totally serous statement. More a reflection of the fact that, by about mid levels, the chances of missing a touch attack are very uncommon. Its exceedingly difficult to raise a touch AC above 16 or 17. Generally if you can make a touch attack you will hit. It just gets worse as well, by the lower rungs of high level, your touch AC will be around 20 and you'll face opponents that commonly have around +20 to hit with their touch attack.

I've found this to be a very true observation.

The progression of AC verses Attack Bonus over the course of leveling up is more than a bit skewed in favor of the Attack Bonus. Perhaps this was unintentional.... but I doubt it. D&D, like Baseball, is a lot more fun if you are a good hitter. :-)

-Roth

We use the system in a slightly more streamlined way.

We do roll a second d20 to confirm the critical, but then simply roll the damage once, add in the modifiers that may apply (strength bonuses, extra damage from Power attack, magical bonuses from the weapon, etc.) and multiply it by the critical multiplyer (sp?) given for the weapon.

Funny, I was under the impression that that was how it was supposed to be done.... maybe we've been doing it wrong all these years??

As a side note: We have "auto kill" set up as rolling 2 natural 20's in a row, and then on the third roll if you simply hit, you get the auto kill. It works rather well for us, and has only come up a half dozen times in more that three years of weekly play.

just my two coppers,
-Roth

Although, comspiracy theories are always fun, this is probably just not caring about the 3rd Party publishers. They need to have game demonstrations for 4th Edition. It makes sense to have it as near publishing of 4th Edition as possible. I was wondering what they were going to do to kick off 4th Edition since D&D Game Day is in Nov. Now I know.

Edit: That does not make it nice though.

Well, this will give me my excuse to go see what 4.0 is all about... information is power. Besides, I had a blast at the last World Wide D&D Day.

Very cool. Thanks for sharing with us Non-WOW folks. It looks like D&D has yet again inspired others.

Other suggestion that has been given is, a character loses XP equal to 500 x their level. What do you think about that?

Yes. I have also played DDO where this occurs and happen to like the concept quite a bit.

Example: All your players are 10th level and one gets himself killed. He does not lose a level, he simply is behind the group by 5,000 XP. He will have to "pay off this debt" before beginning to advance again. To my mind it keeps things simpler for players as they do not have to try to remember what skill points they awarded themselves when they last leveled up, they don't have to worry about how many hit points to take off, or what feats and special abilities they now have to remove.

They ARE penalized for dying, don't get me wrong. You will now level up long after everyone else, you just don't have to bog yourself down with crummy paperwork by "leveling down".

Just my two coppers,
-Roth

If a person out there can stand up and say they play 3.5, actual honest-to-goodness out-of-the-box(books?) 3.5, with no house rules, modding, tweaking, or alteration of any kind, I'll give them an E-cookie.

Maybe its just me, but I have never met anyone who didn't have at least one house rule or optional rule in play. I'd say, since the game is evolving as people play it and make decisions on what they do and don't like, that very few people have EVER played 3.5, or at least continue to do so. They're all playing 3.501 or higher.

Personally, I was already at about 3.77, on personal house rules. I guess the Pathfinder stuff will bring me fully to 3.8.

I like Black Bards point here. The game was vastly simplified when the 3.0 rules were set forth. Wait, maybe "streamlined" would be a better word to use. People who had never played D&D before were able to grasp its logical rules set.

Having said that however, there were of course things that got held over from previous editions that stretched the new rules sets boundaries. These things HAD to be kept though, they make D&D what it is and not some other system like GURPS or SHADOWRUN.

The greatest thing to me about the game of D&D is a players ability to do ANYTHING as long as they can imagine it. A game like that will always break out of the confining boundaries of any rules system that you impose on it eventually. With this in mind, Black Bard is doing what we all have been doing since the new rules were adapted by our groups. Expanding a very decent rules system to still encompass the imaginations of our players. This is why I frown in principle on bringing in a new (i.e. 4.0) rules system so soon after changing from 2nd edition to 3.0. I just don't feel this rules system has been given enough time.

How much time is enough you may ask? That may be best left to another thread. I personally will chime in for about a 10 year life cycle for a set of rules for the game. One decade has a nice weighty feel to it. Also, with the incredible rate at which computers are expanding their programs and computing power/speed, we may see version 5.0 in the year 2020 being a simulator experience anyway...

Just my two coppers,
-Roth

Some of the spells in the Spell Compendium annoy me, but they haven't broken my game because I have banned them.

KELPSTRAND from the Spell Compendium. Holy Gamestopper Batman! Who ever thought this spell should only be a 2ND level spell was not playtesting their ideas.

Hmm my GM had to NERF my Lion Totem Barbarian. The Pounce thing was just too powerful. It was breaking our game.

P.S. I noticed this too, and was willing to accept a change.

:_)

Thats the sign of a good player.

Made the mistake of carrying over 3.0 stuff after the rules switched to 3.5.

I figured that changing to the new rules could only make my game better (they were an updated, more balanced version right?), but I fumbled the ball by allowing my guys to keep using the expensive books they had diligently purchased from WotC that were 3.0 rules (seemed only fair at the time, as they had spent the money).

My power gamers quickly took the leash and ran with it, using old classes with new equipment and vice versa to come up with some truely "Ho hum, ok, so we kill the three trolls and their beholder master and loot his stuff... next!"

DM: "Gasp! But we havent even finished the first round of initiative yet!"

Dwarven fighter of the group who roled a 5 for initiative: "Groan. I know! This always happens to me!"

I'm going to have to change my vote now from "undecided" to "sticking with 3.5" for now. I just have so much stuff to run!

I'm not saying that 4.0 won't be great, there sounds like a lot of good stuff and interesting changes coming with this edition, but the adventures that are on my shelves already are great stuff, and they don't deserve to be chucked in the trash bin cause the new model came out.

And for the record I agree with a previous poster that by the time I get around to playing 4.0 they will have moved on to 4.5 :-)

I'm sticking with 3.5 unless Wi$ards$ of the coa$t gives back all the hundreds of bucks i invested on 3.5 DnD.

I bet you that they come up with a 4.5 edition by next year.

LOL - thats scary, I had just about the same thought. (a new manual EVERY month at $35 a piece, jeez!)

Rothandalantearic wrote:

I'd love to see someone sit down and take the time to update The Temple of Elemental Evil for 3.5 or 4.0, that would rock.

Here ya go :-)

http://www.enworld.org/downloads/fileinfo.php?id=162

Zipped or unzipped downloads - just click the appropriate button at the bottom of the screen.

Information is power. Thanks a bunch Kamelion, but I meant an updated version of the Original dungeon/adventure, not the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil (which I have and its great too BTW).

Apreciate the thought though!

-Roth

With the rule from the Rules compendium that you can use Detect Magic to Identify magic items, you have the potential to really SPEED UP game play using this house rule. I like it, and may use this in my next campaign.

Can anyone else think of ways to abuse this? The Daze spell came to my mind also at first, as did Acid Splash being used in place of a thief to bypass... well just about anything if you can use it unlimited times per day. (stone walls and iron doors and all locks are what I was thinking of specifically)

Thanks for the info guys. I have also included this 3.0 adventure in my upcoming campaign and was looking for some feed back. I will definitly include it in my adventures. I feel like dungeons such as ToH and ToEE are classics that every group should have to chance to enjoy.

I'd love to see someone sit down and take the time to update The Temple of Elemental Evil for 3.5 or 4.0, that would rock.(Wish I had the time!) As it is I will have to settle for running my guys through part of the Return to the Temple of Elelmental Evil and later in their "careers" have them go looking for Acererak in the Tomb. :-)

Mr. Gygax passed away just 4 days after I finished my campaign "Rappan Athuk - The Adventures of the Mithral Band"

I never got to meet the man, be he and his imagination were a big inspiration to me. I only hope the rest of us can be as much of an inspiration for a future generation.

-Roth

It would seem to me that there are 2 ways of looking at this:

1) The target has total concealment. You can attack into his square and true strike allows you to ignore the miss chance. However, you don't really know what square he's in. You're using a shadow to determine the location of the shadow's owner. I'd rule that since you know where the shadow is, you can pick which square you want to attack. I'd let either the player choose or allow him to resolve it with a roll (probably a Wisdom check). Pick the right square and you'd probably hit since you get a +16 to the attack. Pick the wrong square and you miss, true strike or not.

2) The target has total cover. This is the hardball DM way to go. If the target has total cover (albeit a tent would be flimsy cover), you can't attack period. True strike doesn't help you in this case.

Best of luck convincing your DM that a bunch of random people on Paizo's message board said he should let you do this. >:)

-Skeld

I think Skeld hit it almost solidly on the head here. The spell works, but like he said you have to PICK YOUR SQUARE to shoot into. The tent provides SOFT COVER and TOTAL CONCEALMENT (Total Cover might be granted by a stone wall, but not by a canvas tent flap IMO), so your target (assuming you pick the right square to shoot into) gets a +4 bonus to his AC from cover but the True Strike spell negates the miss chance from concealment.

This leaves you with:

+16 to hit and NO 50/50 miss chance (IF you pick the square that the tareget is in)

Hope this helps!
Good use of the spell too by the way!

-Roth

Thanks for the quick replies! The party is well aware of the power of a mounted warrior: Though it's a specialized maneuver, a paladin with the right feats using a smite from a charging mount with a lance can equal or exceed the damage of a barbarian. I've long wanted to run an adventure which featured a mounted black-knight figure, though. :)

Anyway, returning to horses. No, I wasn't making them roll checks. Previously, it was just something that came up as an afterthought (you try thinking of the action a horse is likely to take while tracking initiative and running a monster on a random encounter after two hours of playing!). The horses were simply removed from the map and assumed to be conveniently waiting near the edge of the battle, just out of harms way but certainly no hassle to retrieve. Even then it didn't sit right with me, but there were other things to attend to in-game and I never thought about the problem at a time when I could address it until today.

I do like the thought of making the horses have personalities, but they are also good things to kill off to impress or hamper PCs (as previously stated by others). In addition to risking the party simply not buying horses, it certainly dissuades them from making any sort of attachment to the animal. Though I enjoy it, not everyone is up for that level of immersion.

I do like the thought of allowing a Handle Animal or Wild Empathy check (DC 15?), with success indicating that the horse stays fairly nearby and is easily retrieved after the fight. Otherwise, it takes an hour of searching to find the animals (perhaps have this time with a DC 12 Surival check [automatic {and perhaps even shorter? 15 minutes?} for anyone with the Track feat]). What type of action should it take to pull this off? It's kind of important, since this issue mainly comes up when there's a bulette or something charging the party and time is a factor.

Yes, tying up the horses before combat is a good idea, but as I just illustrated, that's often a luxury the party doesn't...

I agree that this can just take up game time that could be better spent actually playing the adventures the DM worked so hard to prepare.

I personally gave my players a "Magic Wagon" that pulled itself so that the whole horses issue could be cut out of the picture, but that does nothing to answer your question Saern...

To make it seem a little realistic, but also not take up too much game time I like the idea of a low difficulty (DC 15) Handle Animal Check to gather up the herd of horses after the battle. If the monsters ambushed the group, or attacked the horses specifically, I would say allowing your players who invested ranks in Survival and characters with Wild Empathy a chance to shine in this moment sounds like a great DM move on your part. It makes the players feel like an otherwise fairly obscure skill has some true value and was worth their time to invest in. In my mind this strikes the right balance between realism and expediting the game.

just my two coppers,
-Roth

Matthew Morris wrote:

primemover003 wrote:

If MI's are legal targets for Cleave then they must be legal targets for MM too.

Did we get a FAQ ruling that they're cleave bait?

Yes, both magic missile and Cleave against mirror image are addressed in the FAQ. Both work (and remove images), and you can spread-target the magic missile. Magic missile, great cleave and whirlwind attack are the easiest ways to nuke images.

Wow, ok. Well, if this is cannon, then I will change my game asap. Good discussion guys!

-Roth

I might mention that the above are fine houserules, but an attack roll is not necessary, merely a directed attack is. My wife stumbled on a way to fairly effectively neutralize mirror image, magic missile. Send a missile at each image, and if they are fake the pop and if it is the real mage they get hit (assuming they don't have shield cast or a brooch of shielding). Since this is not an area effect, but directed attacks they do destroy the false images, and no dice roll necessary.

We also just treat all of the images to be in the same square, which got a little humorous in the last session when the mage had multiple castings going, a small army in one square. You could spread them out farther, but I would reserve that for special boss type situations (e.g. Conan the Destroyer scene with the mirrored room type of thing).

I had a player try to make this argument to me but had to throw up the following question... Can you use Magic Missiles on illusions? MM only does damage to real creatures....

IIRC, you certainly can both Charge and Run while flying.

All the rules for both those situations on the ground apply in the air as well, so you need to have no obstructions blocking your straight line. If there is nothing blocking your way, go for it!

Kaisius wrote:

Has anyone come up with a good (simple) way to adjudicate this spell?

I agree with Pygon, however I'd like to add, that for ease of use with minis, we consider all of the images to occupy the same square and be constantly dancing around like a boxer (though doing whatever the caster is doing). So it'd kinda look like one of those images from the Matrix movies when Neo moves so fast it looks like there's 3 or 4 of him doing something (usually doding or blocking I think).

That negates the ability to track which one you hit and hurt before as well, though you have a chance to hurt the caster each time, you can't track him without some kind of supernatural sense (blindsight, blindsense).

So I don't quite use the letter of the RAW, but what I do, I do for simplicity on the spell.

-c

My method closely mirrors freeclints. All images are in the same squares as the caster, and bob and weave making it impossible to distinguish which is which. Only direct attacks can get rid of an image, so the old "I throw 50 copper pieces at him" trick does not get the job done. I do allow the "I close my eyes and swing at him" trick, but if the attacker misses in this fashion, I do not allow for any of the mirror images to be removed.

Actual dice rolls are (5 images plus the caster for example) : Attacker rolls to hit and annouces what AC he struck. If it matches the Casters AC then the Attacker rolls a d6 and the Caster rolls a d6, if both rolls come up the same number, the caster is struck. If not, an image is taken away. If the Attacker missed with their attack, but the miss could have hit the Casters Touch AC, a roll is called for because this is the AC of the images.

All in all, this method has worked very well for us, bringing balance and fast play to the spell.

-Roth

So, if I interperate this correctly, the "obviously harmful act" needs to be something that harms the subject of the spell?

If so, then the following sounds reasonable to me:

Reasonable Suggestion:
"That fighter over there isn't nearly as powerful as you, kill him!"

Obviously Harmful:
"That fighter over there is much too powerful for you to fight. Go run through that Blade Barrier spell three times instead."

Catfolk warlocks?

Curious to hear more details about this one, as I am allowing a catfolk in my next camapign...

Heros of Battle really helped me run a battle where my group joined forces with a bunch of knights to take back a keep that had been lost by the knights. The system of generalising the majority of the combat outside of what the PC's did really sped things up. Then, when the PC's start winning, the whole tide of the battle turns in their favor.

Method A: Do nothing. Wait until game night. Grab random minis and throw together some encounters. Surprisingly, this works well sometimes. When it doesn't, it does suck.

Method B: Flowchart the adventure. Look at various ways in which the PCs can approach what's going on and where they might go. Prep 50% of the options before I run out of time. At least one time in four, PCs go exactly where you never thought of. Two in four, they go after stuff you haven't prepped. One in four, they go right where you want. Then you really make them beg for mercy.

Method C: Make a map. Think up a few encounters. Read some books that might have some monsters I want to use. Jot down a few notes. Two days later scrap most of it. Start over. This time make some terrain or props to go in the adventure. Consult with a knowledgeable friend on a couple possible twists. Read a book instead of finishing prep. On game day, get a great idea, jot it down, and rush through the process of getting all the pieces of it together.

By the way, it sounds like I'm being a tad facetious, but I'm not....

Honestly, I've used all of these methods, and they all work... but are not for the "faint of heart" DM's. :-)

From beyond the rolling hills you hear a sound like pounding thunder. The dust cloud tells you that whatever approaches is BIG. Cresting the rise comes a sight worthy of the worst sweat soaked nightmare as a bloodcurdling howl cuts the air.

The Ogre digs his spurs into the Tyrannosaurus he rides, driving it to even greater speeds as he bears down on the party....

Disclamer: I didn't think this one up myself, but was stuck by the imagery when I wrapped my brain around the concept of big monsters riding even Bigger things.

The few adventures I have written have always been for specific characters within an ongoing campaign. This having been said, the plot line of the adventure takes priority, since it is tailored to my group. The monsters/ setting/ environment/ roleplaying are made to be challenging and fun for the PC's.

I try to throw one or two things for each character into the adventure. The thief has a cool trap to find and disarm, the monk has a particular fight where interesting acrobatics may help the group overcome the bad guys. A certain spell or knowledge check the wizard can perform moves the plot line forward... etc.

However, I should point out that I always make it possible to solve every situation in MULTIPLE ways. No problem you set in front of the party should only have one possible solution. That is a recipe for frustration and disaster for the players if they get stumped.

Not A Realms basher here.

Just prefer Greyhawk.

As someone said up-post, it "speaks to me" more. Perhaps it's the fact that I started playing D&D before FR came out...

As many have heard me say before in other threads, I run a group of anywhere from 7 to 11 players depending on who can make it to the games each week. Rez brought up sevral great points, and I hope to emphasize some that work for us and expand on his list.

Definitly give summoned creatures, animal companions, cohorts and familiars a BIG backseat to sit in for your group. With that many players there is no real need for more things to slow down combat. Summoned creatures for the bad guys are fine, and in some cases very nesessary to make the monster fit its CR.

Combat - play your dumb monsters dumb, and your smart monsters smart. Don't overthink things behind that DM screen, cause you have lots of people twiddling their thumbs while you do.

Make it a hard and fast rule to use an Initiative Board and have each player roll both thier attack and damage dice together. Keep the board propped up somewhere where everyone can see it. (I keep mine right in front of the DM screen, sometimes with a color picture of the monster/s the group is fighting next to it if I don't have the right minis.)

Role Playing is Fun, but so is dice chucking. With large groups I find that not everyone wants to roleplay. Some just want to kick in the bad guys door and get to it. Some players get shy roleplaying in front of so many other folks, but everyone can get involved in a fight.

If you are running Pre Written adventures, use one that is one to two levels higher than the groups average level. I made the mistake early on in my campaign of thinking the group couldn't handle it, but boy was I wrong. It also has the benefit of moving your campaigns along faster, as the group levels up faster... so they need harder adventures... so they level up faster.... so they need harder adventures... etc.

Rez mentioned creating a Website for admin stuff. This is a WONDERFUL idea that has really enhanced our games. Those shy folks who can't think of anything to say during your sessions? Well they bloom into roleplaying professionals when given the time to think about what they will say, and then post it on the web site. We do lots of our downtime roleplaying by posting during the week in between games. I personally can recommend Yahoo Groups, though there are several services out there that do the same thing.

Large groups are a challenge, but as a DM I am hooked on the high my players give me when I look up from my notes to see 10 smiling faces looking back at me. Hope you get to feel the same way!

just my two coppers,
-Roth

If you feel like a balance issue is at stake here then I would say go with "Option A". It sounds the most fair to me and keeps your game rolling, which is also very important.

Its never too late to get in on a good thing. :-) Give it a try, i'll bet your players would love it, and the time it saves you to use a prewritten adventure is the only thing that keeps me in the DM chair. With out prewritten adventures I'd have to just sit back and be a player all the time. Thanks Paizo!

I'm going to argue its non-associated myself. Yes adding class levels to giants kicks butt. They make surprisingly good sorcerers as well since they can be fairly high level and not pay full price for that - thus becoming sorcerers with loads of hps. Still there really is something of a difference between a hil giant cleric and a hill giant Barbarian or Fighter. The Cleric sure can be good but had to buff. Has neat spells to help keep it going or support the other hill giants but can't do that and fight. Their good but I'm not sure their really comparable to a hill giant Fighter or Barbarian which really do play to their strengths.

I agree with Jeremy here. The Hill Giant Cleric is going to spend the first two rounds of combat casting the spells to bump himself up to the level of a Hill Giant Fighter. During those two rounds he will come under attack roughly 20 times from an average party of four adventurers. On the third round he will get his attacks in OR choose to heal the average 200 points of damage he took so far. If he heals himself, the cycle starts all over again. If he fights, he gets his five attacks in, and then drops dead that same round from damage.

Over all, he lasted one more round than the average fight in a D&D game, I'd say its a good monster and I'm definitly going to steal him! :-)

Acid always ignores the hardness of objects, its wicked that way.

Rambling Scribe wrote:

I may be answering a different question than you're asking, but the reason my players and I enjoy a good mix of dungeon crawl is that we are all strategy gamers as well as roleplayers. Anf my brother (the other DM) and I are the most startegy and tactics focused of the bunch. We get our strategy and roleplay fix in one dose. It's like Irish coffee!

I think you make a good point on why some gamers love dungeons and in turn some are not so impressed. The Dungeon often has something of the feel of a tactical wargame or strategy game. If you like this stuff you'll probably like dungeons - especially in 3.5. If wargames and strategy games in general bore you to tears I don't think there is any advice anyone can give you to make a dungeon crawl suddenly seem cool. Fundamentally a dungeon is something of a 'strategy game'. One with great atmosphere, a truly cool plot, interesting encounters both from a combat and non-combat perspective is a great dungeon - but its still a dungeon.

Tactics, Strategy, everyone at the table gets involved. Thats a good thing right? I find in my group that when we get to roleplaying aspects of the adventures, half (or more) of my group stops being involved. Yes, story and plot are important, but more so in the way they lead the group to the next big bad evil guy to take down.

I praise my group when they work together as a team to bring down a monster. To me, part of "roleplaying" means that today I am playing the "role" of the cleric, or the "role" of the wizard so that I know my place in combat.

I agree that it sounds very interesting from a roleplaying stand point, but my main question is how does it change your game to act on this assumption? In the current version of the game one can't prove that what you propose isn't already the case. The dwarves really ARE just short humans. It's not their fault that the records that they keep of their history don't extend far enough back to record this.

Are you trying to get your players to roleplay the characters differently? Do they not "act" dwarven enough? Or too much?

OK, got a combo for a BBEG, Armed with dualwielded Harpoons (both +3 Returning), and a net... The net is made of adamantium, with a rig of four immovable rods at the corners of the net...

BBEG Throws net, locks down PC, throws Harpoon (2d6+3, and again when it returns (they deal damage on removal)), until dead... :D I am thinking of slapping this onto a Seagoing Frost Giant... What do you guys think??

Elvnsword

Put the Combo down and back away slowly elvn.... Ah! Ah! Don't make me use this thing! (waves a Tazer gun in the air)

Seriously though, thats a great combo. Definitly use the "haul them in the air" bit instead of the four immovable rods though. :_)

Have fun! (cause I know that one is gonna have chins hanging on the floor in your group)

-Roth

Matt, Doug,

Both answers were a great help to me thanks. :-)

This is most likely a very old subject for most groups, but it only came up in my group for the first time today.

1 - Does drawing a wand provoke an attack of opportunity?

2 - Do you threaten the squares around you if you have a wand out that deals touch attacks such as a wand of shocking grasp?

I was under the impression (perhaps mistaken) that a wand was considered a weapon for the purposes of drawing and wielding it, but I can't find any evidence to support this?

Thanks in advance for the feedback!

-Roth

I agree with Sebastian, that it will most likely be Hommlet. That seems to fit the bill of a small “starting town” that is more iconic than Saltmarsh. And I doubt they will choose something from either FR or Eberron in the core book, so as not to alienate fans of the setting not chosen if nothing else.

I’m also wary of Hommlet getting the 4E/WotC treatment, or of having this iconic Greyhawk element cut and pasted into the new generic setting. But perhaps if nothing else it will inspire a few new gamers to look into the roots of the place, and discover the original adventures and the Greyhawk setting? (Trying to be optimistic…)

Thats the Spirit! Keep it positive! :-)

For myself the words "village" and "iconic" does in fact bring Hommlet to mind. Now had they said City.... Greyhawk, Sharn or Waterdeep would have a better chance, but I think Hommlet fits the bill.