(then again, I once tasted root beer and it tasted like toothpaste...why would anyone want to drink such vile thing, I cannot understand).
You, ma'am, have besmirched my nation's traditional drink and you shall pay.
Search Posts
If a yuan-ti uses a class ability he doesn't have in the woods and no one is around to see it, does it make a sound? At first blush, it seems like an oversight- the important thing is that all remaining members of his party are cured between fights in order to preserve the adventure's balance. How you choose to have this accomplished is irrelevant, since the players aren't there to witness it.
Indeed- same to you. I've been known to alienate people when I argue, so it's good to see this isn't gonna be one of those.
I thought the philosophy behind it, though, was sort of roundabout. The idea is that you're hustling everywhere, but since a normal move action is only hustling for half a round, you only move half your hustle speed (meaning your normal walk speed). Idunno, maybe everyone else found it less interesting.
Zherog's already pointed it out, but again, the rules do not say what you think they say. The scout would get that bonus on the first shot and that's it. My bad. Greater Manyshot. He'd have to wait until level 9. Yeah, except the instances in which you can move and make a full attack are extremely limited. If you want to play the what-if game, then I submit that a four armed rogue with permanent invisibility is way better than a scout because all his attacks get sneak attack damage. Yes, I can see how a four-armed rogue with permanent invisibility is no more ridiculous than an archer who moves ten feet every turn. I'm not sure what players you have, but with mine, you have the kind who use the bow as a secondary weapon and the type who use it as a primary weapon. The primary-weapon ones tend to spend a lot of time taking five- and ten-foot moves to get out of AOO range before taking their shot. They rarely have difficulty doing this, since they keep their range of engagement at about, well, 30 feet. Again, I'm not sure where you stumbled upon this idea that a 30 foot radius provides no room to move around without getting AOO'd, or whatever is causing you to say that on the table players won't move 10 feet often, even if it gets them an extra 10d6 damage, but even in a dungeon, it's plenty of room for them to be able to. Even if manyshot were to do what you think it does (which it doesn't), a rogue at the level when the scout could access that feat will also have easy access to invisibility, feinting, and other methods to ensure he gets a sneak attack on every single attack. Of course, 10 feet of movement is beyond most players' grasp, but impenetrable invisibility is pouring from fountains over here. If invisibility were as easy to use as that, sneak attack wouldn't matter anyhow and feint requires a whole bundle of feats to be useful and then also negates full round attack. Again, moving ten feet is the easier option when compared with most things, especially considering that most rogues have to TUMBLE ten feet just to get off a sneak attack in the best of times. If that's what we were talking about, it would be unreasonable. You're pretending like the rogue is a straight out of the box short sword wielding dufus who gets limited attacks per turn and comparing him with a tricked out scout that somehow manages to exploit a loophole to trigger his ability each turn. Try comparing apples to apples, say a tricked out rogue designed to exploit his sneak attack triggers and compare it against your tricked out rogue. The only thing that comes to mind a Tumble-heavy elf with a longsword and shortsword and all his feats poured into dual wield. That same elf with a nice bow, though, could get similar bonuses with multiple shots, and any time the rogue has to jump over a dude to get a shot, the stalker pulls ahead. Add in the fact that he's getting more sneak attack damage to begin with and those AC bonuses and they're comparable at worst. Add that to the fact that you look at the Scout & Stalker and there's a whole other CLASS in there. One with nice saves, great BAB progression, high-level ranger abilities, and in the Scout's case, a few bonus feats, and it's a little concerning. Here's the argument you're making: the barbarian is way better than the fighter because he rages, thereby getting +2 to hit and damage and +2 hps per level! Plus, the barbarian suffers no negatives from the ability. You're comparing one ability in a vacuum and not acknowledging all the costs of using said ability. You have this thing for strawmen and it's concerning. Here's what I'm saying: if the fighter didn't get any bonus feats and instead got rage without the HP bonus along with some nice charisma-based skills and the barbarian got to hide in any terrain, the barbarian would be way better than the fighter. Again, you don't know the rules well enough to make your arguments. Try playtesting. The other players are not pre-empting each other, you are pre-empting them through lack of understanding of how the game actually plays. I clearly don't know them as well as many, but I do know that saying, "That class would be perfectly fine if you tripled the damage that special ability does from what it is now!" is ridiculous. As I stated in my last post, there's nothing wrong with the Highland Stalker, but if the ability were cumulative, there would be. I don't know if you just really have a thing for +d6 abilities or a thing against people who are nervous around them, or you really think the class is underpowered as written, or if you're trying to save face from earlier saying that the class was probably cumulative and that was awesome, but it's a little out of hand now that we've gotten to the point of saying "Well, if rangers are just moving 10 feet willy-nilly, why not throw some four-armed rogues in the mix?" As it is, the posts are getting longer and they really aren't going anywhere, so I'm going to go ahead and say that you're right about most everything in this thread. Topping a perfectly fine prestige class off with an additional +4 AC and +6d6 damage on an ability that can be unlocked 1/turn on a good day, though? Not so much.
Note that the PHB separates movement into tactical, local, and overland. Hustling as you defined it happens in local and overland movement, but in combat, you use the section on tactical movement, which specifies that a single move action is like hustling for half a round (and presumably, a double-move action is like hustling for the whole round).
1. The ability text is very clear on the fact that the Highland Stalker's Skirmish numbers aren't cumulative, so there's no worries here. 2. If they were cumulative, it would be quite possible for a scout/stalker to have a higher skirmish damage than a party rogue has sneak attack. The scout would go into the class at level 7 with 2d6 damage (the rogue gets 4d6 at level 7) and they'd end at 17 with 11d6 damage (the rogue gets 9d6 at level 17). 3. Using manyshot, a scout/stalker could have as many attacks in a single action as a rogue has in his entire round. The stalker has a fighter's base attack bonus progression, so even after the negs, the staker's bonus would be comparable to a rogue's attack bonuses, especially since all attacks are at the stalker's highest bonus + negs, where a rogue has -5 to each successive attack. Since flanking isn't required, the stalker can use ranged attacks consistently and still receive the bonus, provided they stay within 30 feet of the target. Basically, if the skirmish ability were cumulative on this class, it'd be like having sneak attack, except you get to move between full attacks, get more damage, an AC bonus, and your first attack is at a neg and your second attack is at a bonus. Also, you get fun class skills like Camoflauge. Oh, and you don't have to flank anyone, just move. Which, of course, is why the class is entirely reasonable, because they aren't cumulative, which is why I was very, very wrong about this class. However. Acting like 9d6 damage worth of easier-to-use sneak attack damage is no big thang and definitely wouldn't give the rogue an inferiority complex is just silly. DM's aren't allowed to pre-empt player abilities, and neither should other players.
Okay, I decided to give the book took another look- the PrC in question was actually the Highland Stalker. I figured out what it was that bothered me about it- see how the PrC has a progression each level on their Skirmish ability? The player had tried to sell me that those changes were cumulative. Naturally, a level 20 +9d6, +6 AC skirmish ability was not something I was pleased with, especially over a 10-level area. While I sincerely, absolutely apologize for railing against Skirmish now that I know its limits, I'd like to point out that there's no rule saying you can't take a full attack action. Any haste effects or anything else which allows you to take an action before a full attack will allow you the same possibilities afforded to a rogue. In fact, the ability specifically states that the effect is applied to ALL attacks taken by the character. In an epic level game, over a long enough timeline, scouts will pass up rogues in usefulness. Of course, in an epic level game, over a long enough timeline, a lot of things will go wrong... As for "how things actually play out on the table", how it plays out when two players have the same central ability only one is much, much easier to use is, the other one doesn't do much. As to the blackguard paladin... I... uh... okay, man, you really got me here. :( I was very, very, very wrong. Sorry. I do still stick to my initial point, though, that banning all PrC's is overkill, but you have to be careful with non-core source material. And that if a player signs up for responsibilities through his PrC, you should hold him to those responsibilities.
What EXACTLY does that have to do with the paladin's code? Nothing. So I think there's no reason to do anything to the paladin anyways I think everyone's in agreement about the OP's situation, in that the paladin wasn't responsible. The conversation's sort of moved onto what qualifies as lawful. While there's certainly plenty of room for moral relativity in real life and in other alignments, Lawful Good is a universalist alignment. Those who hold it (generally, and unless specified otherwise by the DM running the game) believe in a single, cohesive moral code that can be applied to every situation. The ends don't generally justify the means and while he certainly doesn't have to agree to fight a spawn of evil one-on-one, he does have to be honest. You don't get to wriggle out of promises you make based on who you're making them to. Moreover, regardless of who your enemy is, you have to act honorably. It's one of the major things that separates paladins from other classes. A lot of people are talking about exalted or non-exalted, but when it comes to paladin's code, unless something otherwise is explicitly stated by the DM, the Book of Exalted Deeds just defines something that was already true: that paladins have to be both lawful and good no matter who they're dealing with. EDIT: I'd like to reiterate that while LN and LE can choose WHAT code they choose to adhere to, LG and Paladins in particular have a much narrower, more intuitive vision of what constitutes law. Namely, the legal code of the nearest neutral or good civilization and a standard, uniform moral law that is agreeable to most civilized lifeforms.
Okay, fair enough. It's only been about a month or so and they sound busy, so I'll just hang loose and keep writing for the time being. I can't really check my spam filter for messages- I get about 150 legitimitely spam emails a day, so sifting isn't really an option. EDIT: Actually, it might be more like two weeks. I'm just antsy.
I haven't received word back about my CW yet from the gatekeeper- is that a good sign? Will I get word prior to meeting? Did my spam filter eat my rejection letter? These are great mysteries.
Reminds me the rgr/bbn/sor/ftr/asn fiendish half-orc wendigo I used to play before my DM killed it... You, sir, have made me cry. I feel for your DM.
That said, this does constitute a chaotic action on the part of the NG gnome. He had the opportunity to (a) not attack the knight and (b) presumably keep the berserker from interfering as well. Instead he said, "screw the deal my party member just made, let's do this." Hopefully the paladin recognizes this and will act accordingly. The paladin, though, isn't responsible for circumstances beyond his control and situations like this don't fall on his shoulders unless they become a pattern and he doesn't move to stop it. EDIT: I don't think the "Yeah, but what's his code." thing really applies here. -IF- the paladin were responsible for what happened, it would have been a clear-cut case of deception, which cannot be allowed under any Lawful Good code.
I've never had any problems with the CORE prestige classes (although I have a rule about no ex-paladin blackguards), but you have to be careful with the additional source material. I forget which book it was (complete adventurer? warrior? song & silence?) but it introduces a new ability that allows extra damage from an archer provided they make a ten-foot movement before each shot. We're talking, like, additional d6's. One class had a damage progression for this ability identical to the rogue's sneak attack (1d6 extra every other level), but all he had to do was make a 10ft. movement before shooting- no catching the guy off-guard, no flanking, nothing. It was ridiculous, and I disallowed it. The player couldn't understand why. That said, I think PC's are an important part of the game, and if used right, can be the subject of many great adventures. The thing to keep in mind is that the core classes are really, actually, quite powerful, and in only a few situations have my players not regretted taking their prestige class at later levels. Essentially, taking a prestige class needs to mark a fundamental change in the player's playstyle and character direction. Having an adventure to take the class is a good idea. Having more adventures to keep the class is also a good idea. Classes that conceivably require tasks of the character- Dwarven Defenders and Blackguards are two great examples- should require something of the character. Hell, ESPECIALLY blackguard. If your player wants to play the evilest of the evil, put him in a situation where he'll have to stop chuckling about how he totally stole that peasant's gold and make him make serious moral decisions. And for God's sake, put him in a situation where being evil is the least-profitable route, and see what he thinks of his alignment then. Sorry, ranted. :-P
What do you mean by munchkin-like? Like, immune to nearly everything? That wouldn't be much fun. I think the rule of thumb is that you're trying to pleasantly surprise the players with an encounter that breaks up monotony, rather than bring forward a boss they can't handle.
Clarification: In 3.0, your swim check was subject to a -1 for each 5 pounds you had on your person. In 3.5, that is changed and you are simply subject to double your armor check penalty. However! Be advised that if you are wearing light armor and you have a medium or heavy load, your armor check penalty is not the one listed on the armor.
I really like this rule!
I'm pretty lenient about it. If you're divvying treasure correctly and giving them enough access to higher-level stuff when they have the scratch, one level can be a huge penalty. If you're being a DM-Dick about it, the one-level neg seems like a GP bonus. The irony is that DMs who cut off their players from accumulating stuff at the correct rate are usually the ones who have a good time killing their players, so death becomes the primary method of advancement.
I tend to do the multiply-rather-than-reroll too, for a variety of reasons, though I always feel bad when the player gets a 1 on their damage roll. It keeps the game moving and the players don't complain when they roll high. ;)
Yes, the dress is unrealistic. So are her magical powers. In fantasy, both women and men are cast under the auspicies of traditional beauty. Men are unrealistically muscled and have nicer teeth than normal people. Women have bigger breasts and leave less to the imagination. As for the idea that god's laws never change, only man's interpretation of them, two hundred years ago, the commandment against graven images was interpreted to mean that pictures of living things were against god's law (engraved = graven, get it?). Some sects still live by this. Do you? Man, sounds like you keep putting words in god's mouth to fit your lifestyle.
Heh- fantasy + nudity existed long before Dungeon and will live long after.
I'd like to hear your reasoning, but female nudity in D&D art is what you might call a tradition.
Does anyone know if the Render is still doing workbook submissions? I just submitted my (FIRST!!!) Critical Threat, and it would be awesome if I heard back about it in the next... year. ;) |