Saern's page

Hello again, everyone. I used to be a regular here a looooong time ago, starting back when Paizo was still publishing Dungeon (in print!) during the 3.5 days. I was just in high school, learning to be a netizen by posting in these boards, right when Age of Worms came out. As I was moving off to college and had less time for gaming or posting, WotC was canceling Paizo's contract so they could chase digital subscriptions for an online publication (how did that work out?), and Paizo was using the OGL to launch Pathfinder. Years later, life got more stable, I got a new gaming group, but we played 5e.

Now, here we are again, WotC back to its old bad habits, launching a divisive new "edition" (???), still chasing online subscription revenue, splitting the community, and I find myself turning back to Paizo. Everything feels like it's coming full-circle. But I thought I'd say hi, and see if anyone is still around from a long time ago.

Have you played any adventuring games? Nobody needs metal armor to survive? Really? So why is the paladin wearing it? The cleric? Why does the barbarian have his mithral breastplate? Metal armor makes the likelihood of survival much greater in many cases (swimming would be one where it may actually be more harmful than good). As for predatory animals eating meat, as you point out meat may be the easiest way, but then if things were easy we wouldn't be having this discussion. Your whole point is that the druid is making life hard for himself, thus it must be hard for his companion as well. So go tofu lion!

I have to agree with Tequila on this. We are discussing a divine class; whether they adhere to the teachings of a specific deity or a general philosophy, they are making an oath based on spiritual and ethical beliefs about the world. Practicality does not enter into the discussion. All kinds of beliefs dictate all kinds of oaths and actions which are very inconvenient for their adherents, but they do them anyway because the world view of the adherents is at stake. Now, it would be possible for those restrictions to change: the Vatican has reversed many long-standing elements of doctrine. So there is the possibility for a bunch of arch-druids to get together and pow-wow with the tree gods and say "Not wearing armor is a pain in our often-furry behinds. Can we, pretty please with cherries on top?" But that is irrelevant to the current state of the rules, which says that the oath exists. I can think of no reasonable account for why that oath exists in this game other than reflection of personal ethical commitments not to wear metal armor. In which case, training the animal to do so, yes, enters into the realm of a double standard.

I find the argument against letting Fluffy haz full-plate more convincing than the argument for.

Is 3rd ed that similar to PFRPG?

Yes. Extremely. Though some people will debate the extent of those differences, and how much they change the nature or feel of the games, extensively. You can find more pages than you could or could want to read about the differences here on the boards if you do an archive search. 3.5 was essentially a "patch," in computer game terms, to the 3.0 system. PFRPG is like a patch or expansion pack on to 3.5.

I came to D&D in the short-lived 3.0, soon 3.5 (often referred to collectively as 3.x). You should know, if preparing to dive into older editions of D&D, that there is a LOT of stuff out there. Also, 1st and 2nd edition are quite different from 3.x/PFRPG. While finding old adventures and rules may (?) be difficult nowadays, you can get an approximate feel (and have a lot of fun) with the old computer game, Baldur's Gate and/or Baldur's Gate II. (In case you have trouble convincing your friends to take up playing the "actual" old stuff with you) As for 3.x, you'll want to look into Paizo's other pre-PFRPG adventure paths (APs): Age of Worms and Savage Tide. Age of Worms is the quest to defeat the minions, and eventually stop the rebirth of, a demigod of undeath. It's a very classic "feeling" adventure, intentionally so. Savage Tide starts as a swashbuckling campaign, mixed with lost-jungle exploration; but then turns into a demon-fighting campaign, eventually even going to the Abyss itself and pitting you against the Prince of Demons, Demogorgon.

Before becoming a gaming system, Pathfinder was also a 3.5 setting with some adventures and APs of its own. Rise of the Runelords is the first, about the re-awakening of an ancient evil wizard; Curse of the Crimson Throne is next, about a hidden evil which threatens to destroy the city of Korvosa. Second Darkness follows, and is about an evil plot of the drow (sorry, not as familiar with the PF 3.5 material after CotCT). All of those are set in Varisia (at least initially; I think Second Darkness goes some other places, including some [quasi-?]time-travel?). Legacy of Fire goes to the southern deserts of Golarian and is an "Arabian Nights"-themed adventure about the machinations of an evil genie.

After that was the switch to PFRPG, and the end of 3.5 material. But the titles I've mentioned are a collection of some really well done adventure paths from the 3.5 rules-set (which I still run my games with) that is enough for quite a few years of gaming and a lot of fun!

Sorry, Azmyth. Tonight obviously didn't work out, and I'm not sure I'll be free to skype for a while (ironically enough). E-mail is probably the best way to communicate for me at the moment.

Thanks to the others. I've seen maptools and looked at some tutorials on youtube. It does indeed look like, if I were to get proficient at it, the system would be ideal. However, I doubt either I or a number of my players have the time or ability to tackle that. If I get time in the future, I'll check it out, but for now it will have to be shelved. :(

Thanks, everyone. Azmyth, I sent you an e-mail a while ago. Did it get through to you?

Wow, that solved that issue quick! I had thought about doing google searches for images I could then simply print cut out, but that seemed like it would take a lot of time to find appropriate pictures; and I know of no way to guarantee they would fit to the scale needed (and my guess is most would almost certainly not. This is perfect, though! Thanks a million, Lilith. This more than covers all the cookies I believe I've been promised in years passed. ;)

As mentioned in another thread about finding cheap miniatures, I will soon be attempting to transfer my gaming to skype. I've moved away from my group, but none of us wish to abandon the game we are currently in. The thought of drastically decelerating the game by switching to PbP didn't appeal to the players. Rather, they want to try effectively video conferencing our games.

The plan is to have all the players gather at someone's home with a good internet connection, with their sheets and books. I will DM from the other side of the connection, with the battlemap and all my supplies. I'm a little worried about what will happen when they are effectively sitting around in a room with only a disembodied voice to DM for them. I'm also somewhat worried about using my webcam (which isn't very good) to try giving them an image of the battlemap (which will mean even less visual contact between them and myself during combat). I'm also worried about the lack of sound: I've been making playlists of Grooveshark to add background music to our games, and think it has improved the quality of our sessions dramatically. However, I'm not sure that it will work well over skype if I simply play music on my end and hope my microphone and their speakers are good enough to transmit it somewhat faithfully. Trying to get them to copy or share, and then coordinate our playlists sounds clunky, too. On the other hand, I should be able to show them a lot of visual aids without having to print anything off, and keep a lot of windows open on my computer to switch between stat blocks, etc., quickly and without the typically page flipping that accompanies and slows down a game. Keeping notes should be cleaner as well. I will also have the PCs' stat blocks, allowing me to see their abilities and make secret rolls for them without tipping anyone off so easily.

What I'm looking for in this thread are thoughts and suggestions. Does anyone here have experience playing D&D in this way? What tips do you have for running a good game? Alternately, what about pitfalls and problems you may have run into, and any suggestions you may have to avoid them? Even if you don't have direct experience with this, feel free to throw your two cents in!

Until this point, I've been fortunate enough that one of my players has always had miniatures to supply for our D&D games. However, I have moved away from my group and plan to continue our games through skype. Part of this will involve using a webcam to let them see the battlemap. Of course, this means I have to get some kind of markers or miniatures. My players and I have, in a pinch, used various knick-knacks from around the home of whoever was hosting our game; spare coins, spools of thread, paper-weights, etc. However, I think with the webcam, they would really benefit from having some actual miniatures that were easier to discern and keep track of over a video connection; I feel that they may get confused by the brick-a-brack approach. However, I have little interest in collecting and (especially) painting pewter miniatures; nor do I wish to wade through the random assortments of figurines which WotC sells (or used to?). I looked for a few e-bay deals but didn't find anything particularly well-priced for the selection offered. I even considered lego figures, however they appear to be nearly (if not equally) as expensive as normal plastic pre-painted miniatures. Does anyone have any suggestions about how to build a serviceable (not exhaustive) miniature collection quickly and cheaply? Thanks!

I second the use of grimlocks for minions. I've always found them particularly creepy. I would have the PCs encounter the grimlocks when they are nearing the hag herself, or maybe in the adventure before they will meet the hag, as a good way to build up the creepiness.

I'm fond of hags as purveyors of discreet magic to the desperate for a cost, especially while masquerading as wilderness witches. I've toyed with the idea of having a Romeo and Juliet plot in which the love is the product of an elixir provided to a hapless or even corrupt noble by a hag, possibly to arrange an advantageous marriage. It would be easy to make the hag continue blackmailing the corrupt noble as part of a larger scheme. Alternately, if you went the hapless route, the hag could have given the elixir of love to the lover knowing that someone would find the circumstance suspicious, and it would only be a matter of time before somebody (the PCs?) discovered the truth of the two lovers' affections, perhaps ruining the otherwise innocent man who made a bad deal with the hag (a maneuver which could also feature into a longer term plan).

In my current campaign, I used a hag as a witch selling information in return for services such as collecting spell components, etc. She was disguised as a beautiful young woman, of course. The party suspected something was up and even suggested amongst themselves the witch might have been a hag, but they never confirmed their suspicions. She actually proved to be a great help to them, though they don't love her any more for it.

One of my players borders on being obsessed with hag covens and the magical eyes they possess. Half the random rocks he finds he suspects of actually being hag eyes.

Back to (hopefully) useful suggestions, whatever minions (orcs, goblins, etc.) you opt for, I'd make them have some kind of voodoo theme to emphasize the witch aspect of the campaign. Perhaps that could be the kick-off. A local wizard hears of these tribes performing some kind of strange magic and wants to know more, for the safety of the realm (or unscrupulous personal interest?).

You may also introduce the hags in an ambiguous role, as well. I'm thinking the Weird Sisters from Macbeth. Undoubtedly, they are evil. But you could introduce them early to the PCs in a non-combat way (especially if they are 1st level or so and find themselves amidst a covey of hags; combat would certainly be a poor option then); and keep the players guessing as to what the hags' agenda is and which side of a multi-faceted conflict the hags are really on (trick question: their own, or the side of their secret fiendish overlord; so long as they spread misery and discord, and/or prepare for the master's arrival by doing so, the hags are happy).

Finally, trolls simply seem right as strong bodyguards for hags.

The slaadi are actually the highest possible level of Product Identity, what the ancient Romans would have called "magnum PI".

Saern likes this.

Thanks!

@ Zealot: I haven't seen Yojimbo (alas!), but I agree: Obould can't be the only "smart" orc. I really dislike that portrayal of the race, if only because there is no way they could be such persistent and deadly enemies in the history of the realms if they are really as stupid as commonly portrayed.

@ W E Ray: I had completely forgotten about the Eando Kline story! I do remember that, now. Unfortunately, I am about 300 miles from my PF collection at the moment, but I should be back before they get to that point (and all this should be going into PbP mode, most likely).

And I'm definitely keeping the dragons as reds. They just feel more... right, to me. And I appreciate the suggestion to play up the L V C tensions between the hobgoblins and dragons! If the ruins are at the bottom of a crevasse, a detour through the lower dungeons of the Doomspire may be the only way to reach it. There, in the lowest ranking hobgoblins' barracks, perhaps they find that most of the army dislikes serving such capricious masters. The party may find unexpected allies to assist with getting in and out of the ruins, if the party does a favor in return.

Also, I like the thought of the party coming out of a high mountain cavern they have been traveling through, looking down on the Pass of the Moon, and hearing roaring and the blowing of horns, and an enormous horde of orcs haphazardly spread over the valley floor, using huge mountain beasts to pull giant, clumsy war engines into place as they prepare to slaughter each other the next day. Hasty stealth/diplomacy/skirmishes required to get to the other side. They may find an imperiled party of dwarven explorers on the way; the Nether Mountains were once on the border of Delzoun, so it makes sense there would be some "Dragon Age"-style "deep roads" left there which the PCs could go through, more safely than trying the surface. The band of dwarves would need rescue, but could also come along for advice and help clear things up. Meanwhile, yes, the party is being hunted, and cannot stay in place and wait for the orcs to finish killing each other.

As for the large number of baddies, yes, I'm aware of that problem. I plan to go slow on introducing them and have no more than two larger groups active at any time. Right now, their only clue to the yuan-ti is a book they can't read (From "Within the Circle," which I transplanted to Nesmé and used to kick the game off). They have (unwittingly) given it to an enemy.

I'm making the Cult of the Dragon a heretical faction of Velsharoon worshipers who believe that god was actually a dragon in human form, whose divine ascension is paving the way for the eventual rule of godlike dracoliches over the realms; the rest of the faithful are not so keen on this. They will serve as antagonists/allies throughout, and can provide clues as to what's going on, if only through notes looted off bodies. Starting with the sage who secretly worships Velsharoon, to whom the party accidentally gave the yuan-ti book for translation.

The first arc of the campaign, up through and after the adventure here discussed, will be all about the Cult of the Dragon. There will be peripheral appearances by the others (Zhents, Velsharoon-worshippers) for flavor, but they won't take center-stage. It won't be until they've come to fully understand the Cult of the Dragon that they find out anything more regarding the yuan-ti. At that point, their lower-level conflicts with various groups will largely have lapsed, letting them focus on a smaller number of associations at any given point.

[threadjack]

I'm impressed you remember! Yes and no; I have let go of it for D&D purposes. The things I wish to do with that setting aren't conducive to D&D, at least not without more house-ruling than I've got time for at the moment. However, I am still growing and detailing the setting's regions and their people, and the associated cultures, languages, and histories thereof. It's largely just a hobby at the moment, but there's always the possibility of giving fantasy novel writing a shot using that material later....

[/threadjack]

Thanks, to both of you. I'll be looking over the PDF of the North and probably go over to Candlekeep to see if I can find some NPCs/adventure ideas. To my knowledge, the orc kingdom which Bill mentioned, the Kingdom of Many Arrows, is in the eastern arm of the Spine of the World, which lies a distance from the Nether Mountains. I do plan to play up the tensions between Silverymoon and the Kingdom of Many Arrows, however. I'm making the Silver Marches a much tighter kingdom rather than a loose federation, with Lady Alustriel as a more Galadriel-like Queen of the realm. Their attention on the orcs is important as background, because the party will be dealing with the more imminent threat of an army of lizardfolk rising in the Evermoors, near their home base, Nesmé (I'm using "the Muster of Morach Tor" and "Encounter at Blackwall Keep" [ripped out of context from the AoW AP] to put that war element into the campaign). Ultimately, the PCs are fighting against the servants of a black dragon, who are fighting against each other. The dragon is served both by the Cult of the Dragon, and by a group of scalykind in an ancient Meyeritari elven ruin within the Evermoors, which are trying to awaken a slumbering nation of yuan-ti. The dragon would rather be served by the yuan-ti, as she doesn't particularly want to become a dracolich, but the fanatical Cult of the Dragon is determined to stop the yuan-ti from waking up so they retain their position of influence in the dragon's servitors and can realize their plans of making her into an undead. To accomplish their goals, both sides are competing for mythallars (which I am making significantly smaller than what the FR wiki tells me, and also the source of both Netherese flying cities and high elven mythals).

The PCs will need to out-compete both groups. I plan to run "The Obsidian Eye" and both of the "Shards" adventures from Dungeon, replacing the crystal doo-hickeys in each with a mythallar. The party will already by clashing with Zhentarim agents looking for the mythallars, the Cult of the Dragon, a sect of Vecna they have managed to cheese off, and later, the servants of the yuan-ti. Not all will be active at once, so that the party has some way to keep things straight. Hopefully, they'll end up going for the City of Shadows adventure arc (I'll probably use Everlund for Istivin), so the drow will be playing a role.

More directly, the temple in Shards 2 will be a Netherese ruin laying so far at the bottom of a mountain crevasse that the drow can dwell there without having to adapt to the surface (I'm not so fond of FR above-ground dark elves). But the dragons are definitely going to be reds.

I may use the Underdark for at least some of the travel through the Nether Mountains. I don't want to play up the drow too early; but I can create a dwarfhold abandoned like Mithral Hall was until recently, and the PCs can go through a "Mines of Moria"-type passage (sans the Balrog) to avoid the dragons and harsh conditions which haunt the surface (I may revise "Home Under the Range" for part of that). I could use a "Bridge of Khazad-dum"-like area which is contested ground between the orcs and require both diplomacy and combat to navigate, which this party enjoys mixing together. I think the diplomacy will be necessary to make the players understand a little more that they are dealing with two distinct groups here, which as I said, is something I want. I just need to figure out how to bring that together into a cohesive adventure....

I'm planning to run the second installment of the "Shards of Eberron" campaign arc, an adventure called "Temple of the Scorpion God," from Dungeon #124 (the same which launched the Age of Worms adventure path). The campaign is just beginning and that adventure is intended for 7th level, so I have some time, but always enjoy brainstorming with Paizonians. I am converting the adventure to the Realms, and making "temple" the ruins of a Netherese flying city which crashed into the Nether Mountains. As the adventure is written in Eberron, the party is supposed to reach the location via airship and the various modes of quick transport which exist in Eberron. But do not in the Realms. Which is okay by me, because I believe journeys are great occasions for adventures and detailing a world and shouldn't just be skipped over.

The party will be traveling east from Silverymoon. I've done some research on the Nether Mountains (by which I mean whatever I could find in the 3.0 FR Campaign Setting book and the Forgotten Realms wiki, since I am not a master of Realmslore by any means) and found some promising material. I've read that there is a mountain in the east of the range called Dragondoom, home to a family of blue dragons, served by a tribe of hobgoblins in a nearby fortress called the Doomspire. I don't see why there should be blue dragons in the Nether Mountains, though, so I'm making them reds. The adventure features surface-dwelling drow and a dragon guardian in the "temple," which will now become a Young red dragon and his hobgoblin minions.

However, I want something to build an adventure out of for the trip between Silverymoon and Dragondoom. The Forgotten Realms wiki says that the Moon Pass, between those two points, is plagued by two warring orc tribes, the Thousand Fists and the Ripped Guts. I'd love to create an encounter which put the players between these two orc tribes, either fighting both (but somehow understanding that it's not just one homogenous band of orcs) or, better, interacting with them in some way to pit the two against each other, with the goal of safe passage for the party through the pass. They should be 6th or 7th level when they get to this stage of the campaign. I'm interested in plot points, monsters to consider using, exciting locations for battles, etc. And... go!

You could do Age of Worms adventure path and engineer their failure at the Champion's Belt. If you're familiar with that adventure, the result could quickly become a zombie (or rather wight) apocalypse in Waterdeep. You can also do an archive search here; I know the subject was discussed quite a bit when the adventure was first released.

You had to go and use a three-letter word, didn't you? ;)

Hey, I calls it like I sees it!

And I understand about the familiars, too. I do enjoy the option to choose between a bonded object or a familiar in PFRPG. I think I may keep that in my next 3.5 game, but also have the familiar grant a feat or something to make the option more appealing to my players, who (save one) have traditionally thought familiars to be fairly useless.

... not everything WoW is bad...

Complete agreement. But I feel like they it's just a periphery thing thrown on at the last minute. I would say that is what bugs me more than where it came from, but that would imply that I'm annoyed about D&D/PFRPG borrowing from WoW, which I'm not. Just do it well if you're going to do it at all, I say!

I also don't really like the HD/BAB link. It's an illusion, anyway, because they didn't change the barbarian (not saying they should); and while I'm okay with rogues getting a d8, rangers going back to a d10 struck me as weird. I like the feel of a ranger as tough, but not as much as a fighter. It's never stopped any of my players from getting into combat and doing well, and added a little more variety to the classes, I felt.

I'm sticking with 3.5 myself. Like so many others, I want to stick with a system I know the in's and out's of very well, rather than one which is subtly and, sometimes perhaps, confusingly different because of that subtlety. I don't want the extra prep time in converting my 3.5 to PF; and I like the feeling that my D&D book collection is complete and I don't have to go hunting the next publication.

But one thing that bothers me about PFRPG that I haven't seen so many others posting about is that I feel their extra tweaks to the classes are somehow more limiting. From a DM's perspective, a lot of the little, almost-at-will abilities which low-level spellcasters get can be annoying when designing NPCs. They feel superfluous and like ability bloat. It's unlikely that they will often come up for the NPC in combat, but there they are, all the same. Plus, on that specific issue, it feels like the lack being addressed (running out of spells at very low level) was covered by the "infinite cantrips" rule. So again, it feels rather superfluous. And even though they provided many different paths to choose amongst with each of the spellcasting classes, the fact that you will get (possibly unnecessary and very secondary) ability X at level Y, feels more restrictive, more cookie-cutter, than just not having anything there at all. There may not be splatbloat alongside PFRPG yet (though it seems like they are releasing quite a number of books), but all the little tweaks to their classes seem more arbitrary than the more bare-bones 3.5 classes, and therefore less flexible.

Plus, many of those changes felt a little WoW-like. As I've said before, I have no problem with WoW or its influence over tabletop RPGs. But considering a lot of the hubbub over 4e revolved around how much it felt like WoW, it's strange to anything like that included in PFRPG. They felt tacked-on, too. If a game is going to borrow from WoW-style design, I'd rather they implement it more fully in the system, like in 4e, than just give a nod at the surface, which is what PFRPG seems to have done.

In the end, I feel it's easier and more satisfying for me to house rule my old 3.5 stuff, perhaps with some contributions from PFRPG (I'm looking at you, skills) than it is to switch completely.

Lancelot for Paladins

I would have gone with Gawain, personally, or perhaps Galahad. I've always thought of Lancelot as a philandering @$$.

Maybe some are of the opinion that the warlock might seems a bit too "videogamey" to them due to that "all-day-at-will-no-downtime" arcane blast. Personally, I don't agree with such a viewpoint but it does seem to exist.

Agreed. I'm not sure if that sentiment occurs in this thread, but it does occur repeatedly in general across the boards. I don't understand the condescension that runs so often from the D&D community toward video games. What high ground to we claim to stand on that lets us look down our noses? Video games have become, along with novels, one of (I would say, co-equal with novels, THE) primary venues through which modern fantasy is created, sustained, and culturally disseminated. And good fantasy, at that, or at least as good as 90% of said novels (I'm thinking BioWare here, which is often even better than many of the novels I've looked at). D&D isn't so inherently perfect that it is blasphemous to take game design advice or ideas from its electronic cousins/nephews.

Beside, the "all-day-at-will-no-downtime" seems more consistent with folkloric and literary precedent to me than the Vancian system. When did Merlin say, "Damn! I'm out of fireballs for today!" Or did Gandalf ever say, "Fly, you fools, and rest for 8 hours before continuing on!" Traditionally, if a wizard knows a spell, he can cast it, unless it's unbelievably powerful (I would conjecture something like Merlin moving Stonehenge from Ireland to England), in which case the exhaustion is usually rendered as physical rather than mental.

All of which only amounts to me saying, D&D already breaks from a lot of tradition about fantastic events, creatures, and people, so doing a little more doesn't hurt anything; and what does it matter if video games and D&D influence each other?

They would be flying around using their invisibility to good advantage, and attacking from areas the fighter can't reach easily.

Which would accomplish... what? Equal combat effectiveness to any other standard player class? It doesn't matter where the warlock gets himself off to. His damage isn't ever going to wow anyone. It may not be as laughable as some people make it out to be, but it certainly isn't amazing. Yes, he can last much, much longer than other arcanists (if the warlock even properly belongs in that category), but in my experience as a DM with warlocks over a variety of levels (player and NPC), that advantage of endurance seemed to come to the following points.

First, it could be a life-saver, and a game saver. If the rest of the party is knocked out in some fashion or simply depleted of resources so much that the group is facing a TPK, then the warlock's inexhaustible abilities come in handy. In this case, the players are glad for it, and so are friendly DMs (I like to consider myself one such). However, serving as the party's last ditch effort against total and complete failure hardly means you are regularly a star performer. It's not a flattering roll. "Yeah, if everything else fails or we all botch things massively, I guess you could have an impact then."

Otherwise, that advantage is... irrelevant. Sure, you don't have to run off to rest and refresh after fights and thus help break the party of the 15-minute adventuring day cycle. Except you don't, because everyone else with daily abilities in the party still conforms to that cycle. You're welcome to go on adventuring without them while they rest up, but I don't think anyone will sincerely claim that's a good standard operating procedure. You may make a conservative party last somewhat longer. Good for you. Not amazing.

Alternately, the party does what it does, and you participate, and the combats still last their usual 3-5 rounds, and the party still has their normal rest cycle and encounter cycle, in which case your ability to outlast everyone is, again... irrelevant.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the warlock is a wimp class that should be shunned and run out of the party, rocks whipping past its head as it goes. The warlock contributes. However, not as much as other party members. You can char-op a warlock, of course, but you can char-op any class, and often to much greater effect and with more options. In my experience, the warlock has to use that superior mobility and hard-to-hit-ness just to keep up with everyone else. Which, when done right, they can. But only if the rest aren't powergamers. If you keep in mind the warlock's non-combat roles, then yes, they are even more useful. But they will never make a wizard or sorcerer green with envy. Which is the reaction people are looking for when deeming a class overpowered or not.

EDIT: I missed the last page of this discussion in which everyone has moved past countering perceptions of the warlock as overpowered and moved on into the more productive terrain of actually suggesting how to modify or run them well. In which case, please interpret my post as advocating, along with other already, the warlock's ability to be an effective member of the party if they focus on their mobility, scouting potential, and aforementioned "hard-to-hit-ness." If the player focuses on upping the warlock's AC (which isn't a bad idea, since there's not a lot to buy with all that gold to actually improve their eldritch blast), they can make all-right tanks, to support a more traditional and dedicated tank, or if the party otherwise lacks someone filling that roll. I've seen it done. The can't stand still and take it like a fighter or a paladin (high AC only goes so far to compensate for a d6 Hit Die), but if they dance around the front lines (hideous blow helps here) and keep the enemies moving after them, the rest of the party can build their tactics around that central play and turn a fight to their advantage fairly well.

I tried implementing bandoleers and such to keep track more closely of the items the party had at the ready. They rebelled and said "We're all allowed one free set of clothes at the beginning of the game. We're adventurers. Isn't it possible to assume the clothes we have include something like pockets or a belt with pouches?" It became more of a struggle than it was worth with them to argue for keeping track of that kind of thing. If it was an obviously combat item, such as a potion or scroll or wand, it was assumed to be somewhere readily accessible because the adventurer would have made certain of that before leaving town. I can see other groups paying more attention to where object X is located, but my players broke me of the habit so early, it rarely even enters my consciousness anymore. I know it's not the most "realistic" system in many interpretations, but theirs regarding the frequency of appropriate pouches and storage space made sense enough and didn't hurt our games.

Regarding the afore-posited scenario of going for a potion when low on HP and needing to know the outcome of an AoO to see if the character lives or dies: This was different for us because we were so used to thinking of drinking a potion as a move action from 3.0 that we didn't notice the change to a standard in 3.5, and when we did, decided to keep the old version as a house rule. Yes, it technically allowed a character to get two spell effects active in a single round, but it was more dangerous in combat.

So, the players argued, if we were going to run things that way, then going for the potion would provoke AoO, and so would drinking it. It might be worth the risk if there is only one provoked AoO, but with two, the action economy didn't favor even attempting the potion, meaning it was effectively useless to them and they might as well just attack or try withdrawing to an ally (which was not always a good option). So being less picky about where the potion was stored and how long it took to retrieve and whether that provoked AoO favored them because it reduced the AoO under our system to one. In fact, reflecting on that decision, I think the potion action economy is what drove their logic more than anything else. I have no problem with changing a rule like that based on game balance issues rather than "realism," since the game already does that very thing in so many places.

The "combat gear" section has nothing to do with in game verisimilitude. The "combat gear" section was invented purely because too many DMs ran published adventures, using stat blocks they did not write and were therefore less familiar with, and forgot that, say, a certain cleric in a certain three-faced temple had a certain potion of protection from arrows, which would have made him a really scary boss instead of arrow bait (true story from my time running AoW). It is purely for the convenience of the DM, and doesn't reflect any alteration or special arrangement of the game world's reality.

Fortunately or unfortunately, I also tend to be very heavily "left brained" and tend to over-analyse the logic of certain rules.

Oh, I completely understand. I used to be the same way, looking at all the infrequent but completely possible situations which various rules disallow, and nitpicking said rules in response. But then I realized that the rules have to be generalized, or they will be too cumbersome to use on a routine basis. And the game has always supported the tradition of ad hoc adjudications for unusual circumstances, if the DM and players so choose. Which, after consulting the rules and the opinions of other players, is ultimately what you have to make with Hide or other unclear mechanics.

Concealment would then apply to the crowded tavern or crowded street scenario. Each would have a blocking of "line of sight" if only momentarily, allowing for the rogue to begin hiding.

Correct. Depending on the situation, I could see crowds being treated as either cover or concealment. But for the purposes of Hide and opposed Spot checks, I would definitely consider a crowd to be concealment.

Now, for the sake of argument, if the bugbear then turned his head to see the "10" rogue, would he automatically see the "20" rogue who was standing right next to him? I'm guessing yes, just like a group is only as silent as it's quietest member.

No. If they were in a wide open space, that would make sense; except they couldn't have been hiding in the first place. Let's say the bugbear is in a forest. Then the rogue who rolled a 10 was spotted through a hole in the foliage, whereas his ally managed to stay concealed. Or some other such justification appropriate to the "fluff" of the scenario. One rogue beat the bugbear's Spot check, and therefore the bugbear doesn't notice him. It's up to the DM or players to figure out what that translates into as narrative description, but the end effect of the rules shouldn't change.

Likewise, to examine your analogy to Move Silently, if a party is trying to pass unheard by a monster, and some fail their rolls, the monster only hears those characters who failed said rolls. In moving to investigate, the monster may then come to discover the rest of the party as well through more failed rolls, but he does not immediately discern them.

So, in your mind, a turned head can only be fooled for 1 round? Even if the bugbear guard fails his Spot, if the rogue doesn't directly act (sneak attack, say) or find cover/concealment, the bugbear will see him on the following round?

Yes, that's how I look at it. Unless the character has Hide in Plain Sight, they need cover or concealment to continue hiding. It makes sense they would be able to move from source to source of that cover or concealment if they are close together; but there needs to be some limit to how long they can remain undetected when moving away from whatever they are hiding behind.

But I will hear counter my earlier position after looking at the SRD again. Since you can move faster than half speed and still make a Hide check at a penalty, I would say the distance involved is irrelevant. What's important is the amount of time you remain in the open. I think a round is a reasonable limitation.

Given this, you can imagine a fortress with a large front gate and a guard tower to observe it. If a rogue is hiding behind one wall of the gate and wants to get to the other side, say 20 feet away, we can imagine him making a quick dash when the guard looks away for a moment, taking a penalty for moving more than 15 feet but hopefully successful when the rolls are compared and distance modifiers applied. If, however, the rogue wants to dart between two buildings which are separated by a field so large that the rogue couldn't even run between them in a single round, ignoring the problem of the -20 Hide penalty for running, I would simply rule it impossible because he would be exposed for more than a round.

"Cover" is a nebulous term, used to indicate a general level of distraction.

No, it isn't; especially when used in conjunction with concealment. Cover means a physical barrier blocking partial or total line of sight and line of effect. It's primary statistical effect is providing a static AC bonus. Concealment blocks line of sight, but not line of effect, such as foliage or fog. It's primary statistical effect is to provide a miss chance represented by a static percentage.

No Hide check is necessary behind total cover or total concealment because there is no line of sight in the first place. If you are hiding around a corner and not peaking out at all, and all other things are equal, neither of us can see each other. No skill roll necessary. The same goes for total concealment.

Move Silently may still be necessary, however, depending on the exact circumstances.

My question is the same as I put to ghettowedge: is a turned head considered "cover" or "concealment"?

Neither. It's a failed Spot check, assuming a situation in which a Hide check could be attempted in the first place. Just as the rules don't cover facing, they don't take into account turned heads. These are relegated to descriptions of why skill checks failed, rather than as modifiers affecting the skill checks themselves while still being rolled.

Alternately, you can use a Bluff check to create an opportunity to Hide by forcing the observer(s) to turn away, as per the RAW and SRD, but that still is neither concealment nor cover.

As far as requiring cover or concealment to Hide, I read it as necessary to attempt a Hide check and to remain hidden if moving out of cover for more than half one's movement. In other words, if a human rogue with an unaltered speed of 30 feet wants to begin using his Hide skill, he needs to be unobserved and find some kind of cover and concealment. If he wants to dart from curtain to curtain to remain hidden, he can do so with successive Hide checks so long as the curtains are no more than 15 feet apart, and both begins and ends his movement behind said curtains. If he wants to sneak out and attack someone, he can also do so with a successful Hide check so long as the target is within 15 feet of the curtain behind which the rogue was standing at the start of his turn. Any attempt to remain hidden without cover or concealment for a distance of greater than 15 feet automatically fails.

Part my reasoning here is that the rogue needs to be able to step away from cover or concealment at least momentarily to move in on a target. Otherwise, if such a move is completely invalid, then the entire strategy of sneaking up on someone is also completely invalid. While the Hide skill would still not be useless in such an interpretation, its effectiveness is diminished greatly, and it seems like an extremely arbitrary decision on the part of the game designers to disallow such a classic tactic. I can't see any justification for it, nor does such a limitation seem in keeping with the tone established throughout the rest of the Player's Handbook/SRD.

In conclusion, I admit the rules can be interpreted variously here, as in many parts of the SRD. The DM and players therefore need to reconcile within their own ranks what reading they accept, and why. The above is mine and my justification thereof. I'm sure others have their own.

Do not try to reconcile "reality" with fantasy. Do not try to blend in physics, economics, linguistics, or any other "-ics," more than the minimum level necessary for an internally cohesive world.

A 500 lbs. statue gets dropped from 100 feet onto a wooden bridge. How do you find out whether it breaks the bridge or not? Velocity and momentum and gravitation and all that jazz that I obviously know nothing about because I'm not a scientist to any degree? Nope. You have a break DC for wood and a modifier for the statue. Roll and see what happens. Realistic? Who knows. But it works in the game.

Where is the line to be drawn? Should we bring in thermodynamics? Think of what that would do to energy damage. Hell, think of the absurdity that acid is a kind of energy damage at all.

I don't find it odd at all that a character could have such a strength score. You do. That's subjective. Going by subjective rulings gets people angry when they don't see eye to eye. One point of having a robust, internally consistent rules-structure written down is that you have a common reference point by which to make such calls sans opinions. I always go by the rules first, then find a way to justify it later.

D&D serves other motives beside simulation, such as game balance, "cinematic" elements, and a nebulous definition of "fun" used in game design. These other masters of the game destroy any attempt to fully reconcile the possibilities within the "reality" of the game with our "reality."

That way madness lies.

There's something scary going on in Anauroch, but it has nothing to do with flying colons with 30+ levels of wizard.

Excellent, in effect but also in description.

Isn't 25-28 standard for point-buy in 3.5? I believe 32 is for an extremely high powered game. My experience is to start them with a lower point buy so they don't get spoiled by it in later games. But I think that has as much to do with the personalities of the players themselves, so you'll just have to make that judgment call.

There isn't much information about the Ancient Baatorians, but there are hints that those that weren't wiped out or driven into hiding may have been coopted (i.e., barbed devils, bone devils, and ice devils, possibly including bearded devils and horned devils). Erinyes, kytons, the Lords of the Nine, as well as pit fiends (corrupted into "stronger" forms) were probably remanants of the fallen celestial host. Hell cats may be advanced/augmented beasts (i.e., similar to hell hounds but further along in the process).

Actually, according to the 3.5 MM, kytons are non-baatezu. Along with imps and hell cats, they are the only entries in the devil section without the baatezu subtype. I can't comment beyond that, except that the Fiendish Codex II also supports the theory of fallen celestials: Asmodeus was originally the Lawful gods' champion against the Abyss, but after ages fighting demons he became cruel and black-hearted, and so was cast into the Lower Planes. When he hit Baator, the impact broke the plane into a pit of descending, increasingly small fragments. Asmodeus now has an agenda against the gods who cast him down, of course, but also never abandoned his hatred of the Abyss and its residents, and continues to wage genocide against it; hence, the Blood War.

Why are you confusing simulating our reality, which wasn't even mentioned by me, with a minimal standards of internal consistensy and verissimilitude?

I'm just going to reply to this, because it seems to get to the root of the problem. I think we're really getting into semantics; not that I think semantics are useless arguments. They are fundamental to establishing a baseline for further discussion.

Calling someone a demigod inherently makes a comparison to "our reality" and expectations about what "normal people" can do. The reason I take issue with it is, because in most D&D settings and certainly every published one I know of, a demigod is an actual thing which exists and can be encountered. The nature of that thing will differ VASTLY depending on the nature of the setting. In one, a demigod may be well within the non-epic challenge range, because epic characters are meant to fight the real gods right from level 21 on up. In others, demigods won't even start popping up as creatures of appropriate CRs until level 30+. It depends on what you think of as a demigod.

Calling someone a demigod also implies to me a certain rarity which, in my conception, is far exceeded by the number of 10th (or even 20th) level characters in the world.

My point isn't that PCs aren't super powerful. They are. They can do incredible things. Except they aren't incredible in a fantasy D&D world, because there are a lot of people running around who can do those things. It's certainly above average, and what high level characters can do is certainly amazing even by the standards of most game worlds. But comparing anything D&D to non-D&D seems fraught with too much subjectivity to be meaningful, because

I fear that the problem is that the rules don't intentionally model anything. They don't model gods coming into their own or Conan type warriors or realistic fighters. The rules are all over the place.

Excellently said, sir. My point exactly. The rules are calibrated at the low levels to represent "realistic" abilities, but also game balance and "fun," whatever that means, which destroys most attempts to render them as good (or even decent, in some cases) simulations of reality. Some making comparisons between the two "systems" is extremely difficult, and often impossible.

It gets worse at later levels, which become calibrated purely on the powers of previous levels with ever decreasing nods toward simulations of "reality."

I'm reminding of a conversation I once had on the boards about including physics in D&D (another thing I believe to be an absolute no-no, because it also just doesn't work). They argued that one could construct a non-Newtonian model of physics that explained the game world. And I replied that the very next book released (though perhaps pointless now with 3.0 and 3.5 D&D) would destroy that model, because the game designers don't care about physics, or even realistic simulation very often.

If there is a DMing stopping someone from doing something normally allowable by the rules because it's "unrealistic," there is indeed a problem. However, I think arguing the PC's case based on "he's a demigod" is the wrong way to go about it. That gets into a realm of too much subjectivity, and subtly enforces the erroneous DM's position that physics, as we study them in the modern world, etc., etc., do have a place in the game world. Better to excise them entirely, don't make comparisons between what happens in game and what can happen "IRL" on any kind of serious basis; and, yes, the RAW allow for some crazy $^%& to happen, which is cool, because it's all fun, because it's a game and that's what it's meant to be.

[Hit points] quite clearly indicate in-setting superhuman toughness?

Except, begging your pardon and no offense, they don't. They might. But hit points are not "clearly" anything, which might be the source of a lot of debates like this. There are numerous ways to interpret what hit points represent, as the 3.x PHB makes clear.

Since the dawn of DnD. In fact, they were even more of demigods then, because you were supposed to kill full gods at level 14. But even in 3.X, which is quite bad about keeping PCs down, at level 10 you are as good as Hercules (fiendish dire lions and nine-headed regenerating hydras with breath weapons are fair battles to you).

And a 10th level character in 3.X is perfectly able to lay another 10th level out with one punch, of course. But just like in RL taking out people as good as you with one punch is not easy and will take some effort (in DnD 3.X, effort of building your character for that).

If I had more time, I'd link to another thread where I discuss the peril and ultimate futility of trying to compare power levels of D&D characters to the "real world." So, in summation: it is perilous and futile.

Everyone has a different idea of what they represent. Some compare literal abilities ("No one can long jump that far! Therefore, you are a demigod.") Others compare between NPCs ("No, I'm pretty sure that would require some kind of template. My sheet just says plain old human.") It will also depend on the power-level of the world ("Dude, this is the Realms! There are 10th level NPCs under every rock; they cannot ALL be demigods!" - "Fine, then, it's like a Supers game.")

It's a fantasy game. Each of those terms are important. It isn't bound to simulate "our reality," nor is it fully meant to. Look at OotS. High level characters like O-Chul take multiple meteor swarms at damn-near point-blank range, and are okay. They aren't demigods in that setting. One might be able to argue it's like a Supers world. But it's also just itself. In whatever setting that place is called (OotS world, I guess), some people are just stronger and can do stuff like that. Others, not so much.

To base an argument off what the game is supposed to represent is far too subjective. We can talk about representations we like, about what we prefer, but to say, "This is right and that is wrong because of my subjective view of what an Xth level character is supposed to be" is, I repeat, perilous and futile.

No offense to anyone, not trying to call people out or step on any toes. Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

So your argument is a friendly history is more important than the stability of the army, that lawful good people can't do what is necessary to maintain the authority of their command, and that it is much more reasonable to impose modern civilian ethics on a fantasy wartime society than it is to apply the internal logic of the situation.

How long do lawful good rulers last in your games? I'd guess a week.

Did I say that? Let me check... nope. Looks like I was saying the paladin's actions were totally out of line for a Lawful GOOD character in the situation being discussed.

Bruno's suggestion is absolutely correct, however; we can agree on that. Having characters kill each other can be wonderful story elements when thoroughly discussed and planned. Otherwise, it's about the worst thing that can happen in-game at your table, in terms of everyone walking away happy with how they chose to spend the last few hours of the evening.

Here's a sincere question for you: Tell me how, in your games, you see the paladin's actions differing from the actions of hypothetically LN or LE characters in his place. I think some of us have different alignment interpretations here, and examining them might help get at some of the roots of the disagreements at hand.

Why not?

The "Good" part, that's why. Perhaps a LN would act that way (depending on the laws of the land), but not LG. ESPECIALLY if the characters had any kind of amicable personal background. You know, what most people might call "friendship."

Right to trial is a modern invention of our laws.

As opposed to... the time of the campaign setting? And when is that? "Medieval times"? I've long had a maxim never to include physics, biology, chemistry, or economics in D&D settings. Now that I'm in a graduate program actually studying the middle ages, I'm adding history to the list.

Allies don't undermine your authority. Enemies do that.

Nice reasoning.

I'm not even sure I'd knock his alignment for it.

I'm sure. I would. He was clearly playing LAH (Lawful @$$ Hole).

some like "you are royalty" ok; mabye that should be a feat; but seems more backgound.

I tend to agree, but to play devil's advocate, I could see an argument which stated if the acquisition of a reasonable in-game bonus requires approximately X amount of time and effort (and is an ability which the character essentially either has or doesn't), then it is an acceptable feat. I.e., if being royalty gives significant bonuses to Diplomacy, or some other mechanically-describable ability, and it seems like learning to have that ability would require an equivalent amount of time and effort as, say, learning to trade accuracy for force (Power Attack), then it's an acceptable feat. I do concede even that raises questions of where the line lies; what should be available only through feats, and what can you simply do via background? However, my intent is only to show another possible justification for the creation of such a feat. If the game designers think it would be cool to add something measurable into the game to reward a player's background but don't want to create an entirely new and possibly inconsistent system, just calling it a feat is a good compromise.

As for the larger question of skills, especially in relation to long-lived races. This gets into a whole world of messiness often referred to as the super-elf problem. If my character can go, in newer editions of the game, from level 1 to 20 in a year or two, why aren't all elves epic level? (Answer: the same reason all humans aren't epic level, because that time table would mean every bar tender with above average IQ should be able to learn to sling a meteor swarm at some point in their life, too, but they don't. Same with elves and dwarves, etc.)

Tied to that issue is the question of why a 1st level elf, who is already usually over 100 years old, only as good at any given skill as an essentially teenage human? And what about elven smiths and dwarven tradesmen? What about their skills vs. a human's?

Okay, the second one strikes me as easier to answer than the first. You think that an elf or dwarf, by virtue of their lifespan, should be far more experienced at their craft than a human? Makes sense! So make them higher level. Say the average human smith is 3rd level. It's completely arbitrary and depends on what your concept of 1st level vs. 3rd level vs. any other level represents. But just bear with me.

In that case, all dwarves in the same position would be 5th level. All elves 7th, perhaps. They've been at what they do and are just that much more experienced by virtue of literally hundreds of years more practice.

"But why are their hit points higher too?" Why does a wizard get more hit points per level? I'm an academic, and I can tell you spending all day going through musty tomes does NOT makes you hardier! :) Higher level people are more vital, in many senses of the word. Why should the PCs be the only ones to reap that benefit?

"But how do they gain experience?" By experiencing things. The game is oriented toward combat, and therefore by the RAW only rewards XP for combat encounters, though the 3.x DMG does allow for ad hoc rewards as well (and I'm pretty sure that's in the PFRPG RAW, too). Many publications, including the estimable Dungeon, have made use of that in the past to reward non-combat experience. I'm of the opinion that making even NPCs conform to that incredibly arbitrary method of personal development is senseless. Master smiths become masters by smithing things, not adventuring. It's still experience. I actually award tiny XP bonuses for crafting mundane items, to make this more equitable between PCs and NPCs in my games, though the reward is inconsequential relative to that for old fashioned adventuring.

The trick in this view of the game world is to figure out why your character is different. Why is it that your elf has only the same skill set as a teenage human, rather than that of a trained professional elven smith? There's the background story/role-playing challenge.

Alternately, and I enjoy this method, tinker with the races. Not in the usual, shallow "Maybe these elves have a different skin color and like pie instead of cake" tinkering that most people stop at. How does an elf's perception of the world and time differ from that of a human's? From a dwarf's? What is their social and legal and economic structure like at a young age? What systems would explain the mechanics they end up with? Rather than just observing the mechanics don't make sense, and/or trying to fix them (dangerous), I find it far more satisfying and interesting and manageable to play around with the fluff of the races to make it fit the bonuses the game prescribes.

Sorry for the rambling nature of this post. I haven't the time to craft it into a well-worded thesis. :(

Curing a set number of hit points per level/HD rather than a random die actually mimics the 3.x rules for heal fairly well, though the magnitude is based off the target rather than the caster. Still, there is a nice symmetry. And adding in the relevant ability modifier is also a great idea; one of the main functions of healing is, particularly at low levels, to get someone back on their feet and into the fight. However, if they get back in with only 1 or 2 hp, they'll be out again very quick, and possibly in worse shape than before. Adding in the ability bonus would give a small but significant boost to the effectiveness of the spell. It would certainly be enough to stop PCs from bleeding out in combat. I think it has possibilities as an effective mechanic that is somewhat more justifiable fluff-wise. Healing somewhat closer to a percentage of total hit points could be described as the depth to which the magic takes effect; flesh wounds, internal organs, down to the bone, etc. There's still the corner issue of why a cure light wounds would be able to save someone bleeding out on the floor (a presumably deep wound), but the DM can always render the description such that the healer can physically get closer to the wound via the gaping hole in the chest, and thus the magic can reach the damaged area.

I would be tempted to back this up with a boost to the Heal skill, making it capable of actually significant healing with sufficiently difficult checks. It could be rendered a non-combat ability by simply requiring a minute or more to perform such a skill check (similar to actual battlefield or surgical medical procedures), aimed at letting parties heal up between fights more; or, if the DM thought that unbalancing, making the check deal damage instead of healing it if the check is botched by 5 or more would stop the party from taking 20. Actual surgical medical care still carries that risk in the modern era, and even moreso if the setting has medieval physicians in mind.

That would require the digestive tract to be a simple, open tube. It isn't. Even if the DM is so inclined to treat the T-rex's throat as a hallway (I would call shenanigans), it would have to at least deal enough damage to burn through just like any barrier or door. There is a solid wall of flesh between the swallowed character and the effect of the fireball. There is no line of effect, which means the gut of the dinosaur is not subject to the area of effect of the spell.

This all seems dangerously close to including physics in D&D, which is a no-no because it doesn't work. Additionally, as previously mentioned, although admittedly more subjective, it seems far too punitive toward the player and against the spirit of balance underlying 3.x D&D.

I got the empower feat with a -1 level cost reduction, making it free.

Unless Empower Spell is subject to more houserules in this setting than we've been made aware, it is a +2 spell level adjustment, so the -1 would still have a net +1 for the feat. Just FYI.

Also, it sounds like the campaign Seldriss is running is decidedly higher-power than the standard game, with a large emphasis on damage potential. In which case, while I'd still argue that the orb spells need to be changed to make them internally consistent, I'd leave the end result alone. It sounds like they fit right in to what you've already got going!

I say he takes no damage. He's surrounded by a thick wall of flesh, which while said flesh may be getting burned, I doubt the PC notices anything but a warming sensation. Plus, they guy's already getting digested to death. Coming up with an ad hoc ruling turning his ally's actions against him seems unfair.

Meh I'm lazier than Saern -- it's magic would be my answer.

That typically works for my players, too, but I can never be personally comfortable with that answer in a system which touts internal consistency. Not that always, or hell, even often lives up to it. But I try to justify the stuff anyway. :)

TheWhiteknife wrote:

Moander's dead. Finder killed him.

You're a lot of help. Oh and these undead are immune to critical hits.

Thanks again, everyone. Well, everyone with the exception of TheWhiteKnife since he's useless.

Um... his name was Robert Paulson?

This has bothered me for a long time, too. I've thought about differentiating the effects of cure spells more, but that's no good. Ultimately, I go with fluff about the strength of a person's life-force requiring greater magic to produce the same effects. Kind of like DBZ power levels (or what I gather of them from the parodies on youtube, being my only exposure to the series); but it also seems to work in things like OotS. There are literally such things as "lesser men;" some people are just "better" or "more" than others, and they require stronger magic. At least, that's the only way I can wrap my head around it in-game. Hope that helps.

All good advice. Also, give the cleric some potions of spells not on his list. Invisibility and displacement are great; your AC doesn't matter if there's a flat miss chance, or the party simply can't find you. While invisible, and the party should be occupied with minions (applying the zombie template to giants is a great way to get a massive sack of hit points, which if nothing else, buys time), establish some battlefield control spells. I don't have a cleric's spell list handy at the moment, or the time to check the SRD, but if you can have some wall spells or the like put out, that would be good. Divide and conquer.

Before you even get to that, throw down a forbiddance stacked with unhallow on his throne room (or whatever) for a nasty smack whenever they even enter the place. Chain invisibility purge (it won't affect the cleric's) or, perhaps better, dispel magic to the unhallow. There's a feat in Libris Mortis that lets non-undead heal via negative energy. That would be a huge boon to an evil cleric.

Some more specifics about the dungeon, the foes, the layout, etc., would help us pool resources on the board to set up some good challenges. Also, common tactics of your party. The last big fight I ran, the party faced a vampire. The rogue's sneak attacks were useless, her short swords couldn't pierce the damage reduction faster than the fast healing took care of it; the barbarian had a terrible will save and turned against the druid, dropping him (but not killing, so it was all good) in one round; the sorcerer used fire and negative energy spells, and the vampire was immune to the second and the first he blocked with one protection from energy. It was one of the hardest fights I've ever run, but only because it was tailored to the specifics of the party, down to their feats, spell selection, and standard operating procedures.

Whenever they do get to this dungeon, let us know how it plays out!

either way it sounds like were both haveing fun in our games and thats whats important.

and

I think freehold is correct that we are simply going to have to agree to disagree and as long as it works at our respective tables who cares.

Well enough, indeed! I'm still curious, however, about...

the thing about golems or other constructs is they are honestly very easily handled by summoned creatures or a quick change into a more battle form like ogre or firbolg if you have the hit dice or even Evards black tentatcles and then just get in some ranged practice.

I maintain that SR is over used in 3.5 and that evasion and improved evasion are too good and take far too much away from the role of damage dealing spellcasters.

Unless you're using adamantine weapons, whether melee or ranged, the golem is going to still be highly resistant to just about any kind of attack. They are the kind of creature that is designed to be that way. Personally, I use them extremely sparingly. I suppose I can understand some animosity toward them if you have a DM who spams adventures which are golem-heavy, but I have trouble thinking why there would be so many running (or... not) around. Sounds like an issue with the DM to me.

And along the same lines, regarding evasion, how many opponents with this ability does your DM throw at you? Off the top of my head, only PC classes get this ability, and only two of them at early levels (rangers never get the improved version, either, I believe). There's also animal companions and mounts, but that seems even less frequent. Unless your DM loves using opponents who are near immune to the party's attacks on a regular basis, I once again can't see how you might be encountering enough rogues and monks to make their improved evasion ability, which was really designed for players, a problem.

So what is your gaming experience? Does your DM have some kind of sadistic streak, or separation issues with his NPCs where he can't stand to see them damaged at all? Again, I'm just wondering if there's another issue at play here, because golems and improved-evasion characters have always seemed like corner cases to me.

We are 11th level charecters for goodness sake and a SR of 28+ means that half of our spells are going to fail.

The design philosophy behind spell resistance is that roughly 55% of an appropriately-leveled casters spells will break through. So half of your spells making it in sounds completely in keeping with the intent behind the creature.

we don't need to turn or destroy the undead because that doesn't give us any EXP. so immaterial undead are a real problem for us and the orb spells mean that we have a chance.

Not exactly sure what you're trying to say here, but yes, turning/destroying undead gives XP. If you're DM is running some alternate rule, that's a problem with a table idiosyncrasy rather than the system. And any orb spell other than orb of force will be just as (in)effective against incorporeal undead as, say, a fireball or lightning bolt. The issue there isn't spell resistance, it's the incorporeal attribute.

Can you imagine a fighter being told he does absolutly no damage to the taget AFTER he has used all his attacks in the round because he didn't overcome the targets DR threshhold of 28 per hit. Oh almost forgot the ones that DID manage to get through he gets to dodge out of the way and take half damage as well.

That basically happened in the last fight I ran. The party was up against a vampire. The rogue's sneak attacks were useless, and her weapons weren't strong enough to penetrate the vampire's DR, at least not to an extent that its fast healing didn't easily mop up the next round. The barbarian, who had multi-classed into the obscure "lasher" PrC (good with whips) was in a similar situation. The sorcerer had mainly necromancy spells (useless here) and fire (which the vamp knew about beforehand and blocked with protection from energy). They made it through, but barely. One character death, but not from the vampire.

There will be things that block your strengths and play off your weaknesses. It's an inherent part of the game design. I disagree that there are too many creatures with SR. There are plenty out there that a good old fireball will roast just fine. Sometimes a battle will be hard because of one factor, like SR. Again, that's an intentionally designed part of the game.

Finally, know what spell made all the difference in the vampire fight? One extremely well-placed wall of force.

How I disagree: So it's OKAY for a 10th level Barbarian(2H), Ranger (Archer), Rogue(TWF), Paladin to pour potentially 100+ damage into... let's say a dragon, but it's game breaking-world ending-OMGDAWGONFYRE for the wizard/sorcerer to toss Orb of Force for 60(10d6) damage max? Which he can't even 'Empower' for +50% until 11th level... which is STILL only 90 damage max. Do you know how hard it is to roll ALL 6s on 10-15 dice? Good luck with that.

As for the SR: I played the SR game (blaster-built celestial sorcerer) for an ENTIRE module during the CotCT AP, basically watching as everyone else played for several gaming sessions AND I had Spell Penetration/Greater Spell Penetration. Near the end of the module we leveled and I took an orb spell... I actually got to contribute in the last fight other than layering Dispel Magic, which our cleric already had well under control. My suggestion, roll up a wizard/sorcerer (without conjuration), fight 2-3 months(real time) of SR heavy creatures, let me know how much fun you're having watching the Barbarian and Rogue play.

I have no problem with the damage the spells can dish out, nor even that there are such spells which bypass SR. My problem with the orbs in its entirety is that they are counter-intuitive to the rest of the 3.x system, which is something that 3.x was supposed to avoid. The result isn't an issue, in my eyes; it's the design philosophy behind it. I think that's what really riles up most others, too. The fact that they deal a non-standard damage die, of a higher value than most other spells, just irks them more. But the core is the elemental blasting spell being lumped (cheesily, it feels) into Conjuration just to bypass SR. There were other options open to the designers to achieve that same end effect; the way the spells are written as-is seems cheap and lazy.

Nice to see another Tolkien aficionado...

Indeed! I've just begun graduate school in English and medieval studies, and my link between the fields is Tolkien. There's a whole field of academic study emerging around him, and in addition to some old school early Germanic philology (Old English and Old Norse; I'm interested in the interaction between Anglo-Saxon and Viking cultures), I hope to specialize in Tolkien studies and get into that burgeoning field!

I read Roverandom as a child, but can't remember much about it. And yes, Howe and Lee are great. And the passage in Giles will always stick with me, when (to paraphrase) many of the younger dragons came together and said to each other, "So! Knights really do exist! We thought they were only in stories." :)

And regarding pyroclastic dragons: they get an enthusiastic nod from me on the basis of their name alone!

It may have already been mentioned... but (probably) the biggest reason that the druid was not made a spontaneous caster was because they have always had to prepare their spells in advance. Its one of those Sacred Cow things.

This is my guess above and beyond anything else. D&D players have traditionally tended to be the same kinds of people who get upset when there is a discrepancy between the color of a lightsaber in a book and movie of the Star Wars setting. They take their arbitrary sacred cows very seriously. Just look at the outrage over 4e; it wasn't because the mechanics were bad, it was because they didn't adhere to the traditional concepts of the classes said mechanics represented. This sacred cow tradition is even somewhat evidenced by the mere fact this question was asked.

The sorcerer introduced the concept of spontaneous casting into 3.x. The bard was altered to spontaneous casting as well since it was the only other Charisma-based casting class and they desired some level of internal consistency to reward the concept of game mastery. We can speculate that, at the launch of 3.x, the concept was indeed that Charisma was linked to spontaneous casting, probably because it was meant to represent a more impulsive bending of the universe to one's will rather than rigorous study or pious adherence to a given dogma. But maybe not. What is certain is that the druid had not traditionally been a spontaneous caster, and so without some kind of overwhelmingly compelling reason to alter it into the new spellcasting paradigm, it was left as a prepared spellcaster. Perhaps the thought to change the druid was brought up and dismissed, perhaps it never entered the designer's minds. No one but they can say now, but I would bet money that it had next to nothing to do with design philosophy, but rather was an adherence to tradition first and foremost.

Ancalagon's just a name, essentially. I'd go with Glaurung. Now there's malice.

Aww, man! I was hoping to be the first to claim Glaurung. The moment he emerges from Nargothrond and Turin whirls around and looks him straight in the eye as if to contest wills... and Glaurung has the mastery; I love that scene so much. Pure. Evil. Power.

Chrysophylax appears in JRRT's long short story "Farmer Giles of Ham," available in lots of anthologies through the years and occasionally on its own. The Annotated Farmer Giles of Ham explains some of his inspirations and the linguistic jokes that pop up throughout the story. If the 1st edition dragon-subduing rules ever confused you, here's a chance to see some dragon-subduing in action. It's a good illustration of dragons' greed and ultimate cowardice, if that's how you like your dragons.

In addition, "Farmer Giles of Ham" alongside "Smith of Wooten Major" serve to demonstrate Tolkien's idea of what constitutes a genuine "fairy-tale," what we would call good fantasy; as opposed to cheap crap with all the trappings and none of the substance which Tolkien felt many of his contemporaries tried to foist off; especially toward children, thinking they lacked the capacity to understand quality in a story, or lack thereof.

Neither work, nor "Leaf by Niggle," has anything to do with Middle-Earth and thus, while very important to understanding Tolkien and great works in and of themselves (Giles is HILARIOUS!), they are fairly obscure.

While we're talking about Tolkien's other writings, I heartily believe every lover of fantasy in any form should read "On Fairy-Stories." Who am I kidding? I think everyone should read it whether they like fantasy or not! :)

Thanks, Atrus. I had figured that I was either missing or misusing some calculation rule, or that the writers had simply changed the price to fit it better. That makes sense.

Saern, I like the idea of putting a limitation on it to lower the price. I'll bring that up to my DM. One thing though, you calculated the charges wrong. You said "times 5/3" when it's "divide by 5/3" in the rules. That would put it at 54,000gp. Much more manageable, but still a "good chunk of change." Thanks for your help. You'd understand why I want this item if you saw how I roll. Haha!

Thanks! I thought that price seemed awfully high, but I know there are many items which have a very large price tag for their effect, and I wouldn't be COMPLETELY surprised if the rules indicated the same for this item; +20 is nothing to scoff at!

That being said, I was thinking 50,000 would have been a better base price anyway, perhaps lower with the class restriction. You may want to ask your DM about putting a clause on how this item interacts with real rods of metamagic. If you made lesser, normal, and greater versions of it, you may be able to get some for your lower level spells like ray of enfeeblement and scorching ray for relatively cheap. You may also want to put a clause in about not being able to stack the effects of this rod with any rod of metamagic, claiming that it is related to them and they don't stack with themselves, so this wouldn't either. The point being clarifying limitations that don't affect what you actually plan to do with the rod in order to drop the price. Let us know what you and your DM settle on!

Yes, if you're using a quickened true strike into an item, it would require an appropriate caster level as well. For a wizard, this would be CL 9 for the 5th level spell slot. SL 5 * CL 9 * 2,000gp * 5/(charges per day)= base price of the item. If you're basing the thing on a metamagic rod, then the charges per day should be 3. 5 * 9 = 45 * 2,000gp = 90,000gp * 5/3 = 150,000gp.

That seems quite steep to me. If you're making it for a wizard to use with his touch spells (which seems well within the intent of the spell as written, since it's effect is limited to the caster), I would put in a class restriction to sorcerer/wizard and drop the price significantly. Still, it looks like this kind of item is going to cost you a good chunk of change in return for some essentially auto-hit ranged touch spells per day.

My problem with the orb spells is tied to both their school and the fact they bypass SR. Not from a game balance perspective, mind you, but from what tatters of internal consistency the 3.5 rules claim to be clinging to; or were, until the orb spells appeared. Why is orb of fire conjuration, but fireball evocation? I know there are some fuzzy areas about spell school classifications even within the SRD (why is wall of force evocation but mage armor conjuration; why is mage armor not abjuration, for that matter?). However, I find the effects different enough to justify, however flimsily, the way the spells are. The orb spells are just too similar to precedent spells which are lumped under evocation, and therefore are subject to SR. I normally take the perspective that rules come first, justifying it in game comes second; but the orb spells go a little too far for me. Possibly because I can't justify them in game without it just seeming... weird. Too weird. They strike me as spells that are overly self-aware of their own mechanics and come off as a shallow gimmick. I would argue that allowing the orb of acid and even the orb of force to remain conjuration, though perhaps dropping their damage die, is enough. The others should be evocation and subject to SR. If you want to counter the nerf somewhat, fiddle with the severity of the status effect produced on a failed save.

Also, some people have thrown around that they are balanced in the RAW because, while they bypass SR, they require a touch attack. That is not the rule of thumb in D&D. The rule of thumb is SAVE or TOUCH ATTACK. Scorching ray and ray of enfeeblement require touch attacks, and therefore allow no save; but they are still subject to SR. Only acid arrow is different because its, well, acid; a material substance rather than an energy type, and thus easily conceived as existing on its own in a non-magical state once the initial spell has conjured the goo. An little sphere of fire or, good lord, pure force, which somehow doesn't rely on magic for the brief but definitely measurable amount of time it exists? It flies too far in the face of precedents within the system for me to approve.

Thanks, everyone! Mr. Lichman, excellent point regarding the nature of spell-like abilities, and one I'm sure will be useful in explaining wonkiness in the future; spell-like abilities are not spells and thus governed by separate, though generally very similar, rules.

As for the effects of the level loss, I think I have a better grasp on the situation of losing a spell or spell slot. The wording indicates the character has some kind of choice, or that there is a separate consideration, which determines whether they lose a spell or spell slot; but it's really a matter of applying a single rule to either prepared or spontaneous spellcasters.

For future reference, I will most likely go with the less-punitive, easier-to-calculate system of deducting a single spell slot but not denying access to the spell itself even if the caster level drops below the technical minimum for normal access to said spell level. If the character later fails the necessary saves and the drained levels become permanent, then such recalculations will be imposed. It's justifiable within the game as well, as the withering curse taking time to fully settle in on the character.

Not that it's likely to matter as much in the immediate future of this campaign. Although the party has to square off against the vampire again to seal the deal on her destruction, the sorcerer won't be joining them on account of death by wraith Constitution drain when encountering the guardian undead around the vampire's coffin. So, no more enervation spamming for now.

Yesterday, my 10th level PCs went through two separate fights, and the events of each raised questions about the other. First, the party fought a bone devil. The group's sorcerer used enervation a few times and drained about 4 levels from the monster. In a ruling, which I am more than willing to reverse if there seems to be a consensus I was in the wrong, I said that while it's caster level, and therefore duration, etc., of its spell-like abilities was affected, its access to them was not. I made this ruling because it has always seemed to me, in 3.x D&D and its derivatives, that there is a disconnect between whether a monster has a spell-like ability, and the caster level it uses for said ability. For example, a quasit can cast commune as a spell-like ability, but its caster level is only 6th instead of the 9th a PC would need to cast the spell. So the fact that the osyluth was drained of caster level seemed, at the time, to indicate it shouldn't necessarily lose the ability to cast any of his spell-like abilities.

Fast forward to the boss fight, against a vampire. The vampire gives the sorcerer a taste of his own medicine with a level draining slam, and the sorcerer is afflicted with two negative levels. I tell him he therefore loses access to his 5th level spells (which at 10th level he only has one of: forcewall). Later in the fight, while flipping madly through his player's handbook and, subsequently, the conditions section at the rear of the dungeon master's guide, he says there is nothing in the energy drain or negative level descriptions which indicate he should lose access to said spell. He said that the write ups for the status effect in both books indicate he simply loses a spell slot and the effects derived from his caster level as applicable to the spell, not that he lost access to the spell itself. He referenced my call earlier in the night with the bone devil. I told him I was sure enough of my interpretation that I didn't want to break momentum at the time, but would raise the question here after the game.

I did, however, say that he had access to the spell slots, and could use them to cast more of his lower level spells (which, as it turned out, were all necromancy, mind-affecting, and fire-based spells; since the vampire had scryed the party in action and knew their penchant for fire, one protection from energy rendered all of the sorcerer's spells useless except for magic missile, which he proceeded to empower and maximize out the wazoo through the rest of the fight).

Upon reviewing the descriptions, they are somewhat ambiguous. They do say that you lose a spell slot, or a spell, of your highest level (player's choice if more than one spell or spell slot meets the criteria). Which is clear as mud. If he loses the spell, then I was correct in my ruling. If he loses the spell slot, I was diametrically opposed to what the rules actually say. This also raises the question of, if he loses the spell or spell slot, is that just a feature of gaining negative levels, of losing a caster level regardless of the source, or would both those things stack? (i.e., loses a spell or spell slot from the negative level, then loses more from re-calculating his caster level at a lower point; which I doubt is the case because it seems needlessly compounded)

Additionally, I swear I have repeatedly read that if you lose the prerequisites for an ability, be they ability score, level, another feat, etc., then you lose all dependent and derivative abilities as well. However, that rule could not be found in the mad shuffle of last night's combat, and I have no idea where to look for it now. It seems directly relevant to the energy drain and negative level question at hand.

Finally, there is the lingering question of whether a bone devil drained of caster levels loses access to his upper-tier spell-like abilities as a character would (?), or is the fact that a quasit can cast commune with an inappropriately low caster level an implicit indication that monsters' spell-like abilities don't operate under exactly the same rules as spellcasting PCs?

Thanks for wading through that long post and its questions. I look forward to your interpretations!