UltimaGabe's page

So, I don't know if anyone will ever see this (I'm replying to a fifteen-year-old blog post about a limited edition product that hasn't been sold since) but I was cleaning out some old gaming stuff today and I found an unpainted set of Writhing Stranglers! (#79 of 500) Thinking back, my gaming group bought me these as a gift while I was running the Age of Worms; I think they arrived right around the time that we finished our campaign and since I didn't have any experience painting minis, I put them in a box for the eventual day when I would paint them (and then use them in another AoW campaign? I hadn't thought that far ahead).

Anyway, coincidentally, I've finally started to get into painting minis (the current Covid-19 quarantine has given me lots of free time) so I just might finally get around to it!

The second episode has just hit the shelves. Check it out, and submit some questions of your own!

Inter-Party Conflict Episode 2: Lawyers, Rule

Inter-Party Conflict is an advice podcast for the tabletop gamer. We discuss listener-submitted questions about topics like gamer etiquette, house rules, and character/campaign creation, and hopefully have a fun time doing it. If that sounds like something you'd be interested in, give it a listen! We're on iTunes, Stitcher, and probably some other places too.

And if you feel like submitting questions to be discussed on-air, please feel free! Any kind of questions are fair game- silly ones, serious ones, specific ones, general ones, whatever. If it's a question you want answered by two guys with a lot of varied tabletop experience, then it's a great question for the podcast. Send any questions to InterPartyConflict@gmail.com!

Just wanted to let everybody know- we recorded the first episode today! I'm hoping to have it up for download/streaming by the end of the week, if not sooner. Thanks for your submissions, and feel free to submit more!

InterPartyConflict@gmail.com

* Should a GM enforce racism against drow in-setting if a player is honestly wanting to play a heroic drow?

* Should a GM alter the setting heavily to make it more palatable to players who have issues with some, or even many, elements?

* At what point do house rules become excessive?

* Should the GM keep a tight rein on the setting, or should the GM allow the players some room to add details?

* Can a gnome be house trained?

Just wanted to make sure, MagusJanus- do you mind if I use your username on the podcast? (Or is there a name you'd prefer?)

* Can a gnome be house trained?

Oh come now, we all know the answer to that. No, but they can be burrow-trained.

Hello Paizo! As the title suggests, I'm starting a podcast in January called Inter-Party Conflict, dedicated to answering questions and giving advice to tabletop roleplayers. The show will consist of my co-host and myself answering questions that gamers face every week at the gaming table, like:

* How to deal with a rules dispute at the table?

* Should I use a character voice and/or props during the game?

* How often should a DM use a DMPC? (Spoiler: Almost never)

The tone will be light-hearted and with a healthy dose of reminiscing over past games and editions, so I think it's something anybody interested in the hobby can enjoy.

So, my fellow gamers, I need some questions! Anything you've ever wanted answered about playing a roleplaying game- serious questions, goofy questions, questions about builds, campaign structure, house rules, questions from a player, questions from a DM- anything you can think of. Be as specific or as broad as you want- just be sure to include the name/edition of the ruleset you're using, and whether or not you'd us to use your name in the podcast.

Direct any questions for the show to InterPartyConflict@gmail.com, and if you feel like generating some discussion, come and join me on Reddit (though there isn't much to see there at the moment)!

So come on down, and let's all have a great game!

I went garage sailing with my wife today, and found a Dreamcast in a bin with some other stuff. I asked the owners how much for the Sega Dreamcast, and they responded with, "The what?"

They told me to make an offer, so I figured I'd completely low-ball them (since I was just curious- I had very little intention of actually buying it, as I have practically no time or money to spend on video games these days) so I said $2. They countered with $3.

Sold!

It came with a power cord (no video cord, unfortunately), three controllers, and a memory card. No games. I've never owned a Dreamcast, so I really don't know much of anything about it (though I know that everyone that I've talked to that owned one says it was the greatest system they ever owned).

I guess my question is- should I keep it and buy some games (and a video cord)? Or should I just sell it for far more than I paid for it? I have very little time for video games these days so I'm usually very hesitant to spend money on them (hence why I low-balled the seller- I wasn't planning on spending more than like $10 today so I wasn't expecting to wind up with a Dreamcast!).

Any opinions would be greatly appreciated!

Lazy halfling wizard with an earth elemental familiar in the shape of an easy chair so it can carry him around.

Why do I get an image of Rygel from Farscape?

If I may give my feedback, I think that even if the player's HP is represented by magical guards and wards, if the DM says you look singed, you look singed.

Imagine it like this- if you get hit by a Fireball, and the DM says, "and, since you took damage, you now glow blue", you don't argue it, because the DM told you what happened to your character. Just like if the DM says, "he kicks you in the stomach with his +15 unarmed attack" you don't say, "actually, my HP represents by an inability to hit anything but my aura"- the guy just kicked you in the stomach, so he kicks you in the stomach.

I guess my point is, if the DM says you look like you just got hit by fire, then you look like you got hit by fire. If he leaves it completely up to you, it's completely up to you. But what the DM says goes.

Wow. A novel solution, but this just goes to show how broke the crafting system is.

Ineffective =/= broken. In my opinion, this just shows that crafting is not meant to be done by PCs. Making something out of adamantine is a big deal- and it should take a long time. Maybe not years, but then again, it wouldn't be crafted by Joe Schmoe in his garage- it would be crafted by the nation's foremost craftsman with a team of helpers and masterwork equipment. (Even then it would take a long time, but once again, it's a big deal!) The fact that it can be accomplished with magic much much faster isn't a flaw- that's just how things are. Commoners aren't going to have access to magic, and in fact, most people will go their entire lives never meeting a person of high enough level to cast Fabricate.

It seems to me like it's working as intended.

Back in 3.5 this was a lot more understandable, especially considering crafting cost the crafter a resource that literally couldn't be repaid (XP)- it was more than reasonable for the crafter to charge whatever he felt appropriate. Nowadays, it still costs you a non-renewable resource (one or more feats) but it seems like players in general are still irked by it.

If you ask me, it's reasonable. You're spending a portion of your character on crafting feats, and you're STILL giving the other players a HUGE discount (only charging 10% extra is practically nothing compared to full price)- not to mention in-game time (which, during periods of long downtime it's not an issue, but if time is of the essence, it CAN be a problem) but some players are still going to be upset. It's probably going to depend on the maturity of the players, and their personal preference.

unless I'm wrong, it seems that you can do everything flanking with ranged as you would with a melee weapon.

You are wrong.

FireberdGNOME quoted the relevant rules text above.

Flanking

When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.

When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers' centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.

Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.

Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.

Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can't flank an opponent.

It doesn't matter if you can threaten with a bow. It doesn't matter if you can take Attacks of Opportunity with your bow. Heck, it doesn't matter if you have some sort of bladed bow that can also be used as a melee weapon.

If you aren't making a melee attack, your attack does not flank.

Does Snap Shot turn a ranged attack into a melee attack? No. Does Point Blank Master turn a ranged attack into a melee attack? No. Even if you had a "bladed bow" that could be used as a melee attack, you could ONLY flank if you were indeed making a melee attack. Firing the bow, by the RAW, cannot flank because it is a ranged attack. End of story. Full stop.

Is this RAI? Who knows. Is this reasonable? That's up for the DM to decide. But are those the rules? Yes, indeed.

Ed, I'm sorry I have nothing to add to this conversation, but your username is hilarious.

I haven't actually had a chance to play him yet, but I once made a character that I nicknamed "The Shoulder".

He's a human Barbarian who is very big, brutish, and unintelligent. He tries to solve everything by hitting it- with either his preferred weapon (armor spikes, preferably those on his shoulder) or with his back-up weapon (a greatclub that was once the arm of a statue- he hits the enemies with the part that was once the statue's shoulder). When asked for a solution to a problem, his go-to response is to yell, "The Shoulder!" and then hit something. In fact, this is his response to pretty much any question or statement. His party members aren't entirely sure he knows any words other than those two.

----------------

I had another character concept (never played either) that I thought was clever. He was named Captain Jack (or something else pirate-sounding)- the story being that he was a pirate captain who was shipwrecked or mutineed or whatever, and stranded on a desert island. He prayed to the goddess of pirates (her name escapes me) and asked her for a ship that could rescue him from his cursed place and allow him to take vengeance on those who wronged him. Just then, he saw a demonic ship off in the distance- so far off it looked tiny- and praised his goddess for sending him rescue. Except as he watched it get closer, and closer, and closer, he realized that it wasn't very far away at all- the ship was four feet long, complete with a tiny demonic crew of pirates manning the sails and everything. Well, not one to look a gift horse in the mouth, Captain Jack hopped on top of the tiny ship (which was luckily able to support his weight) and they rode off towards home.

The character was a summoner- a summoner whose eidolon took the form of a (comically tiny) pirate ship. It would use the serpentine base form, and its attacks would be described as its tiny cannons or harpoons launched by the tiny demonic crew. It would start with a swim speed and a climb speed, eventually gaining a fly speed (yet always looking like it was traveling through water, even when it was moving across land or up a wall or through the air) and as it got larger (with the large or huge size evolutions) eventually it would be big enough for Captain Jack to squeeze himself into the captain's quarters (though even at its largest, it would be nowhere near the size of a real ship, and even his quarters would be a hilariously tight fit- so his head would probably stick out the door, the bed would be big enough for his leg to fit on, etc).

I guess I'll throw my two cents in here. On the topic of the general issue of whether Druids can be technological innovators (as deusvult put it), I am of the opinion that there's nothing in the Druid description that prohibits that. I understand that most people's interperetations of Druids show them as being treehugging nomads that live completely on their own and rely on nothing more than the wild to sustain and protect them, but I also recognize that that's only one interperetation (of hundreds, if not thousands). In fact, there's nothing saying a gnome, for example, can't be a Druid and a gnomish tinker at the same time. There's nothing prohibiting a Druid from spending every single skill point in skills like Knowledge: Architecture & Engineering or Profession: Blacksmith or anything of the sort. (In fact, there's nothing stopping a druid from being the head of a multinational corporation if the player was able to make it work.) I understand that Druids essentially worship nature, to the extent that a Cleric worships their deity, but just as how Clerics can be of all different faiths, I feel that Druids should be able to be of all different faiths as well (especially considering the diametrically opposed alignments possible for Druids)- I see nothing inherently unnatural about civilization or invention (to an extent), so I see nothing wrong with some Druids being completely devoted to furthering civilization and invention while still worshipping and respecting nature.

(I would, of course, consider these acting against the norm, but I see no problem with a player playing a Druid that goes against the Druidic norms- in fact, it would provide great roleplaying opportunities whenever he's confronted by any of his brethren that see his devotion to technology as completely heretical, and they spend all of their free time trying to figure out just how in the world he is still granted spells when his views vary so much from their own.)

I'm not part of the player in question's group, but I've had various (small-scale) discussions with some of the people in the group, and so far it seems like everyone except this particular player are of the opinion that a Druid should, in no way whatsoever, do anything to further the cause of civilization and/or technology. (One player even went so far as to say that he was appalled by the concept of a Druid taking classes to learn about engineering, saying that such a concept of a class or school was the complete antithesis of what he considered a Druid.) I even pointed out the fact that the plane of Mechanus exists in most D&D cosmologies- a plane where the majority of its native beings are clockwork constructs, and are- by definition- just as natural as any creatures living on the material plane- but no dice. (The aforementioned anti-school player's exact words to me, minus some censorship, "Bulls#!t and f@&k your Mechanus.")

So, anyway, that's my thoughts on the matter. If a player can give me a good reason why his Druid should be able to invent a machine, and he can back it up with good enough skill rolls and the money it takes to develop something like that, I say go for it. (Yes, that includes something as modern as an airplane with an internal combustion engine, but of course the player would have to rationalize the steps leading up to it and what he is using as a fuel source, where he got the idea, etc.- not to mention some pretty ridiculous skill checks.)

What we really need is epic level rules, stats for gods, and an AP that starts at level 20.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you wholeheartedly. We don't NEED those things, and if you ask me, those kinds of things would do more harm than good. Why, you ask?

Most people don't know how to use high-level content correctly. Most DMs don't know how to deal with players who have almost everything in the game at their disposal, and most players have misconceptions or just misunderstand what it means to be a high-level character.

Stats for gods? In my opinion, such a thing is a terrible concept. Sure, it's nice to look at them and say, "Ooh, that's really cool", but such a thing should in no way be the norm, and such a thing shouldn't be player knowledge. If a deity's stats are going to come into play, it should be something specific to the campaign, made up by the DM of the campaign in question. The moment a deity's stats are printed, people all over the world start statting up characters specifically designed to kill that specific deity, and then the entire mystery or intrigue of that deity is gone.

I'm not saying there aren't campaigns where it can work, but in the campaigns where it can work, you're better off making something specifically tailored to that campaign. So far, Paizo hasn't come out with anything epic, and I applaud them for that. I'm sure some day they'll give in to the pressure and the dollar signs that will come from it, but in no way do we NEED epic level rules or stats for deities. If you want them, make them up yourself.

Think of it this way- you have resistance to ALL damage. However, your nemesis is going to do whatever he can to find a specific way to get through your defenses, because, after all, he's your nemesis. Everyone else, who isn't your nemesis, can't get through it because they haven't dedicated their entire being to getting through your exact defenses.

Does that make better sense?

I, of course chose the child and he made me fall because i let someone die in cold blood.

Wow. That, my friend, is a DickDM©.

A lot of people (including a couple in this thread) don't seem to understand what it means to have low force of personality. It doesn't mean you're abrasive, it means people flat-out don't have any reason to notice or listen to you. You're that guy that when you and the rest of the gang go out to eat, people you pass by honestly didn't even realize you were there. You can talk, but you probably don't. Maybe you speak really quietly, but whenever you do speak, you don't get your point across at ALL. People may not like you, but they don't necessarily actively dislike you- because they probably don't even know who you are, even though you've been to their house a dozen times. You could choose to roleplay your character as abrasive or a gibbering wreck if you wanted, but remember that if you leave a strong impression on people you meet, you're not playing a low Charisma.

One especially important note, though, is that the lowest a human can naturally have in Charisma is 3. So even the most extreme real-world examples of people with social disorders or whatever are MORE charismatic than you, since your Charisma is even lower than that. Simply put, you have the charisma of an animated chair or a zombie. Real-world examples are a good baseline, but take it up (or down?) two notches.

A long time ago, I came up with the Curse of the TerrorBoner, but never put it to good use.

When under the effects of this curse, a male target will, immediately upon sight of a member of the opposite sex (or same sex, depending on the target's orientation), develop a particular anatomic enlargement that will refuse to go away under any circumstances, EXCEPT when the target finds himself in a situation where said enlargement would be advantageous. At that point, the enlargement reverses itself, and no manipulation will be able to return it to any other state until the advantageous situation no longer applies.

Best when cast Silent & Stilled right before your political rival goes out to make an important public speech.

*shrug* If you don't see the distinction between characters w/ supernatural abilities and a Superhero RPG, I'm not interested in delving into it.

Sorry, let me just try and wrap my head around this.

You're okay with high-level PCs flying, even under their own (innate and/or permanent) power. You're okay with high-level PCs shooting energy beams from their hands capable of literally vaporizing creatures and objects alike. You're okay with high-level PCs bashing through steel with their bare hands. You're okay with high-level PCs creating force fields that are impenetrable by any and all physical means. You're okay with high-level PCs moving objects with their minds. You're okay with high-level PCs creating duplicates and illusions of themselves or others. You're okay with high-level PCs altering time and space, including teleporting. You're okay with high-level PCs regenerating wounds, even including lost limbs. You're okay with high-level PCs being capable of withstanding more damage than it would take to kill a hundred average men and still standing.

But you scoff at the idea of a high-level PC falling into a vat of acid and surviving? Or being struck by a guillotine blade and living to tell the tale? Or falling from a cliff and walking it off?

Keep in mind that the majority of people who complain that "lava shud be insta=kill d00dz cuz itz moar relistik" don't bother to actually work out the numbers and realize that even at level 20, the majority of PCs without magical protection that fall into a vat of lava or acid are still toast 90% of the time. But what is it about "certain-death situations" that are so unbelievable compared to people raising zombies from the dead or riding on the back of angelic dinosaurs? You can act as elite as you want by not addressing my earlier claim, but go ahead and call me ignorant if it means you'll enlighten me as to what makes one superheroic trait acceptible and another superheroic trait arbitrarily unacceptible.

Then there's your difference. D&D isn't a superhero game.

It's not?

My high-level D&D characters can fly, shoot energy beams from their hands, regenerate damage, bash through stone walls with their fists, teleport, create impenetrable force fields, run at super speed, move objects with their minds, create duplicates of themselves, warp time, and withstand 100x the amount of damage that would kill the average joe schmoe. If that doesn't make it a superhero game, then please, explain to me what DOES?

That player, and others like him, are the exception, not the rule. Any player who tells the DM how the adventure is supposed to go is missing the entire point of the game, and has no place in a roleplaying game.

I hope that didn't discolor your opinion of modern gaming in general. It certainly has changed over the years, but don't let one bad apple spoil the bunch.

Please, someone, at least try to prove me wrong using actual logic, not a "just because" response.

Except that, as someone trying to determine something not included in the rules, YOU are responsible for the burden of proof. Bracers of Armor do exactly what Bracers of Armor are said to do, no more, no less. To ask for someone to prove you wrong is like asking someone to prove that you can't use a longsword to cast Magic Missile or use a Cube of Force to turn Spellcraft into a class skill. They don't need to say what you CAN'T do, because that's not what the rules are for.

Maybe the Maguffin is actually a room. One of the pieces is a key- that, when inserted into any door's lock, opens a door to the room. The room itself is a normal bedroom you might find in a tavern. Scattered around the world are around a hundred objects that were, at one point in time, located in the room- until... *something* happened. Nobody knows what, but all anyone knows is that after this "event" happened, that room, wherever it was originally located, no longer existed in the real world and could only be accessed via the key. All of the objects (quills, coins, chairs, articles of clothing, etc.) that were in the room at the time of this "event" were forever changed, along with the room, and all of them have (fairly random) supernatural powers that can alter reality or defy physics in some way or another. Some people say that a god died in the room, and that all of the objects are pieces of his corpse- and if you were to gather them all in the room, you would be able to talk to this god, or, possibly, become that god. Others say that's crap, and the objects were actually put in the world by that god as some sort of a test, causing people to scour the world for them like pilgrims during the crusades. Other people still say that that's all nonsense, and all of these objects are merely signs that the magic of the world is going haywire.

This may not be exactly what the TC was asking for, but I figured it was worth sharing:

The group I used to play with, that I played with for the majority of my gaming career, had the horrible habit of never committing to anything until the last moment. I, on the other hand, was the opposite.

We would all be hanging out and one person would say, "Let's start a new D&D campaign!" Everyone would cheer. We'd all begin statting up awesome character concepts- none of us (except on rare occasions) tended to play the same types of characters, we always had a good variety. There'd definitely be some level of, "Hmm, I'm not sure what to play. What's everyone else doing, so I can balance out the party?" but it wasn't so bad. Usually, by the end of the night, we'd each have a unique character that fit some sort of a role and the party was mostly balanced. I'd go home, write up a quick (or long-winded) character backstory and start coming up with all sorts of character quirks and even a 20-level plan of what I wanted my character to be.

Then, I'd get back to the group a few days later, and find out that (in the good cases) everybody else decided to change their characters to something completely different. (In the bad cases, they'd decided to scrap the entire campaign and come up with something else.) Balanced party? Out the window. Awesome little backstory tie-ins we had all come up with that connected all of our characters in an interesting narrative? Apparently nobody cared about it. The worst was when I'd go and make a very niche-centered character to fit this balanced group and then find out that at least one other player scrapped their character and made one that was an exact duplicate (or, worse, an even more specialized version) of my character. In the end this rarely amounted to more than one or two sessions before we scrapped the entire campaign and started over, but it was still frustrating. One or two players in particular would ALWAYS wait until half an hour before the session to settle on what kind of a character they wanted to play, whereas I'd always have my character planned & statted out the night the campaign idea was conceived.

It was frustrating.

I can have a cleric of an ideal, but if that Ideal is Aroden it's verboten?

You seem to be misunderstanding what it means to gain spells from your ideal.

You don't simply say, "Fire is cool, so bam I can cast fire spells."

You actually draw your power from fire- or, to be more specific, the concept that is fire grants you spells. If something happened and fire no longer existed in the universe, you would no longer be able to be granted spells by fire.

It's the same when you worship a deity. You don't just say, "Aroden is cool, so bam I can cast spells." If you worship Norgorber, Norgorber himself is granting you a small piece of himself that lets you channel his power. When you worship Desna, Desna chooses to grant you your spells. When you worship Fire or Evil, the primal forces of Fire or Evil, however you need to visualize that, grants you spells. Like I said, if the concept of Evil no longer existed, it wouldn't be able to grant you spells. If you simply worshipped the idea of a deity, instead of the deity themselves, you could be any alignment and you could use your spells granted by that deity to fight directly against that deity's teachings, because by that logic the deity has no say in the matter. But that's not how it is.

You're not worshipping the idea of fire, you're worshipping fire. You can't be a Cleric of Aroden (at least not one who gets spells from him) because he is dead, and cannot choose to grant you spells anymore.

What I don't get about complaining that an Eidolon isn't as good as someone else at skills is that the Eidolon is already better at skills than most PCs. (On top of everything else he can do.) What's wrong with him not being better than an NPC whose entire job (in other words, the entire reason he'd exist in the campaign setting) is skills? Is it not okay that he's just a bit less skilled than an NPC whose entire focus is skills?

Why is it that every "broken" eidolon build turns out to be the product of a player who didn't read a single rule in the Summoner class description?

Back in the 3e Monster Manual 2, there was a creature called (I believe) a Gravorg. The Gravorg was described as being a long, lanky quadruped slightly resembling a sloth or something, and it wasn't a very remarkable creature stat-wise except for its at-will Reverse Gravity (I think).

Anyway, despite its description, the page it was featured on was dominated by a massive picture of one of the cutest, cuddliest, most ferrett-looking black-and-white-striped creatures I've ever seen. Definitely didn't fit the description.

It just isn't this mythical amazing material that cuts through iron and steel like paper etc etc. It just doesn't do that at all.

Except that it absolutely does.

Let's say there's two walls, each with 300 hit points. One is steel, the other is paper.

Destroying the steel wall with a steel weapon, if you deal 15 points of damage per hit, will take 60 hits. Destroying the paper wall with the same weapon dealing the same amount of damage will take 20 hits.

Let's say you have an adamantine weapon dealing the same amount of damage. The steel wall will be destroyed in 20 hits. The paper wall will also be destroyed in 20 hits.

Please explain to me how the adamantine weapon does NOT cut through the steel wall as if it were paper.

It's important to note, guys, that being adamantine is a BIG DEAL. Adamantine ignores hardness of 20 or less. What does that mean? Well, it means that, literally, you cut through even the hardest steel (even unenchanted adamantine itself) AS IF IT WERE FLESH. So if you'd let a normal katana cut through a wall of flesh (or, slightly more commonplace, a giant's stomach or leg or something) then an adamantine katana should be exactly as effective cutting through a wall of stone (or a wall of iron, even).

Set wrote:

A stuffed tyrannosaurus rex.

A 20 ft. high copper piece, standing upright.

A crusty old butler who keeps the place tidy.

I see what you did there.

I don't get it.

This quote happened tonight. The party was trying to rescue a group of slaves, and one of the players came up with a plan.

Player: "Will the halfling fit inside the bear suit with me?"

After I answered yes, the player uttered my favorite quote of the campaign:

"Alright guys, things are gonna get weird."

Here's something I threw in a dragon's horde a while back that I thought was a neat idea:

A painting of the dragon destroying a nearby village, painted by an expert painter.

Many years ago the dragon attacked a village nearby, completely destroying it in a bold display of its power. Many villagers, including a skilled artist, witnessed the flashy attack and took it upon himself to paint the dragon in a menacing pose, unleashing its breath weapon upon a cottage and a group of hapless commoners. It's anybody's guess how the dragon found out about this painting, but it was so impressed with how the artist captured its raw power that it couldn't pass up such an impressive painting. It keeps the painting in a very prominent location in its lair, and it likes to take on the pose from the painting whenever finishing off a group of intruders.

(Warning: HUGE wall of text here. Only read if you are genuinely interested in this character of mine.)

Thanks for the advice, everyone! I definitely did not expect this thread to get this many replies. Allow me to give some information!

First off, as far as making him a spellcaster and/or something other than a Fighter, I am pretty much married to the Human Fighter angle. His backstory is very long and involved (and something I'm very proud of), so I won't include it all here, but here's the gist:
---------------------
Artemis was a stable-boy-turned-Squire for a knight named Harrow, and they were both part of a group of knights exiled by a corrupt king. In their quest to overthrow this corrupt king, they encountered a powerful sorcerer- this sorcerer (known as the "Dark One") was the first individual to master the art of reanimating the dead (both the creation of undead and true raising of the dead). During the big climactic battle against the Dark One, Artemis was killed by a blast of necromantic energy meant for Harrow. After the battle, Harrow was devastated, and with no other option, turned to the Dark One's own magical research for an answer, dabbling in the mystical arts himself. Using this research, they were able to bring Artemis back from the dead within a few days, but a great deal of damage was still done- Artemis was left with the taint of necromancy on him, and a seed of darkness had been planted in Harrow's mind.

Time passed, they continued adventuring, and eventually were able to overthrow the corrupt king and establish a new kingdom. Artemis was made a noble and placed as the head of the military, and Harrow was an advisor to the new king. As the years passed, however, Artemis grew weak, and Harrow grew more and more obsessed with the art of necromancy. One day, a political rival hired an assassin to kill the now-feeble Artemis, and it went as planned. However, immediately after, he rose from the dead- as the first vampire. At first he viewed himself as an abomination that must be put to death, and begged Harrow to kill him- but Harrow, unable to kill his closest friend, but at the same time viewed Artemis as something abhorrent (and, at the same time, he was bitter towards Artemis' connection with his obsession), so unable to make a decision, Harrow fled. Since that day, neither Artemis nor Harrow have viewed each other as anything but mortal enemies. Harrow, on the other hand, eventually mastered undeath himself, transforming himself into the first lich. In time, his amassing power caused him to gather followers- or more like worshippers- who dubbed him "Vecna", or "Dark One" in their tongue. Over the centuries, Artemis and Harrow have clashed many times, including one long and bitter battle during which Artemis severed Harrow's hand and gouged out his eye (with the sword Harrow gave him many years before, no less). To this day the two still battle, but neither is willing to do what it takes to completely destroy the other. Despite their hatred of each other, they both view the other as equals- the only equals in existence. One wouldn't be able to function without the other, if that makes any sense.

So, in other words, it's very important to me that Artemis have no magical ability (as that's what set him aside from Harrow), but instead just be an incredibly powerful and defensive melee fighter. As the first vampire, I always envisioned his abilities as being quite different (in most cases, more powerful) than the typical vampire- he lacks the weaknesses of the typical vampire (since the weaknesses are the result of the vampire lineage being diluted across generations), but he also lacks many of the supernatural abilities most vampires possess- some of them were passed on by some of his more powerful spawn that had supernatural abilities in life, and others are simply natural abilities that he's honed over the thousands of years of his life.

For example, Artemis cannot change form (into animals or otherwise)- the reason that so many can is because one of Artemis' most prolific spawn, a powerful shape-changing Druid, possessed such abilities, and he created many, many spawn in his life (to which he passed on his shapechanging and affinity for animals of the night). He cannot read minds or charm with a gaze- however, because he's had such a long time to learn how the human mind works and how to manipulate others, he is incredibly persuasive and intuitive, often seeming like he can read minds or charm others. He has no weakness to sunlight (that arose in his spawn because of the fact that for the first few decades, he and his spawn only operated at night so as to avoid suspicion), nor is he averse to holy symbols, garlic, crossing water, or entering a home uninvited (though he does tend to have a strong sense of manners :-P).

As for what abilities he DOES have- he's incredibly strong (very, very strong), incredibly fast (I'd consider giving him a "supernatural quickness" ability, something akin to being able to use Dimension Door at will as a move action to represent that), and if he is killed, he doesn't turn to gaseous form like normal vampires. You see, in my campaign world, vampires have a tenuous relationship with their souls- their soul does not inhabit their body, which is why they don't cast a reflection, and when they are destroyed they have to return to their coffin within a certain period of time or be destroyed. (The coffin represents a safe place where their soul can be at rest, and, upon death, most people's souls choose their coffin as its final resting place. That's why they have to return there every night or whatever.) With Artemis, however, his soul does inhabit his body- so he does cast a reflection, and, if he's destroyed, his soul immediately returns to his coffin. Like a lich's phylactery, unless his coffin is destroyed, he reforms there a few days later.

Giving him DR of something like X/Wood makes sense to me- part of the chain of events that got my campaign world to where it is involved Artemis' progeny being cursed with a weakness to ash (it also is a long story, but another living ally of Artemis grew to be a head of a cabal of powerful druids, and upon his death at Artemis' hand he transformed himself into an ash tree, and bestowed upon Artemis and any of his spawn a vulnerability to weapons fashioned from wood taken from an ash tree).

At any given point, Artemis has one motivation: To ensure the survival and success of his (living) family. Although he and his wife faked their deaths a few years after their transformations so as to keep their secret, Artemis keeps close tabs on every member of his living family, and those of his family that do know him only know of him as a distant relative who occasionally sends money and advice. If someone or something threatens his family's safety or reputation, he is swift and merciless, doing literally whatever has to be done to ensure his line's survival.
--------------------
Whew! I hope that all made sense to anyone who read it. The whole story is much longer, much more involved, and quite brilliant if I may say so myself, but I had to condense it all quite a bit. Anyone interested in hearing more may contact me at their leisure. :-P

Argh! I came in here to add in The Room and Troll 2, only to find them both already mentioned.

I am fed up with this woruld!

I'm all for Magic 101 physics. I mean dragons can fly and giants can walk around despite comparative real-world gravity, but a cramped space is a cramped space.

This is something I just don't get. You're completely fine with things in a fantasy game defying gravity, but not a cramped space? What's valid fantasy physics and what isn't? When you have an attitude like yours, you end up needing to houserule every single thing in the universe in order to stay consistent, and don't expect your players to be able to keep track of it all. Why not just, you know, go by the rules and leave it at that? If something imposes a penalty, it imposes a penalty (like squeezing). If it doesn't, it doesn't.

Here's an idea.

Let your players do whatever they want, including being caught and tried for trying to/succeeding in destroying the ziggurat. (If they cause that big of a scene, the guards WILL catch them.) They get all their magic gear taken away, mages are bound and gagged, etc. While in prison, they're contacted by Lashonna, who shows up with X number of cloaked figures (X being the number of PCs). The PCs see her hand the guards a bag of gold or something. She lets the PCs out of their cell, and the cloaked figures take off their cloaks, revealing a carbon copy of each PC (down to the last detail), who then hands the cloaks to the matching PCs. She then escorts them out, and the duplicates sit in the cell. For extra points, have a public hanging the next day where the dupes are hanged.

Lashonna then tells the PCs everything she can tell them, and they will (hopefully) be a little creeped out/remorseful for the fact that innocent people were just killed for their crime. (And if possible, have everything Lashonna does seem non-magical. If you can convince the PCs that she's just an ordinary person with lots and lots of money and knowledge, all the better.)

And then, just for shoots & goggles, have those dupes show up during the final fight with Kyuss (complete with class features & unique magic items copied straight from the PCs), except they're now spawns of Kyuss.

(In my game, I had the fight with Kyuss involve a Kyuss-Construct copy of each PC, complete with the exact same stats & modifiers, just because I knew the fight wouldn't be a challenge otherwise. But I didn't have any handy-dandy justification for it, it was just DM fiat.)

Here's one that I had to deal with in my very first game as DM-

The player who refuses to expend any resource "in case he needs it more later".

A player in my group was playing a gnome wizard who wouldn't use any expendable resource (even if it was a daily spell) because he was afraid he might be in an even worse situation later. I understand that it's important not to waste resources on killing a mook when you know your allies can finish it off, but when the player in question is up against a single big bad (during the party's only encounter of the day) and he makes a (and I quote) "tea & cakes check" because he decided to sit back and not use any spells, something is wrong.

Wow. Uh... I've never done anything quite as in-depth as that, but a while back I ran the Age of Worms campaign, and there's a point where the players find a piece of the Rod of Seven Parts, which they are encouraged to give to a powerful NPC they meet shortly afterwards (he's given a different name for the sake of the adventure, but it's Tenser). In return, the powerful NPC gives each player a powerful magic item, which the DM is encouraged to tailor for each specific PC. I had a lot of fun with this one.

I had three PCs, both of which I had been playing with for years (one of them I taught how to play, the other two had been playing a heavily homebrewed version of 2nd edition since they were little kids). The two that had been playing the 2nd edition game had mentioned little tidbits about some of their previous characters at one point or another- one of them mentioned how he had a character who had an axe that would summon Bahamut on a crit (dealing some ridiculous amount of damage), and his previous character was a descendant of Bahamut or something weird like that. (His current character was a very unintelligent Barbarian/Cleric who wielded an axe and was a complete beast in combat.) The second player mentioned he had played a character with an emerald sword, but I was never really able to get much more info beyond that.

Long story short, I started planning this at the beginning of the campaign. When we got to that point in the story, I gave to each player an item that they had each had in a previous campaign- the first player had his axe transform into an axe that looked like a dragon that could summon Bahamut on a crit (on a natural 20, he could choose to either deal normal critical damage or instead deal normal non-critical damage to every enemy in a 20-foot radius), the second player got an emerald sword that gave him the knowledge of every person who had wielded it (he was arguably the weakest character in the group, and he was heavily multiclassed, so I gave him a sword that would allow him to treat each of his classes as five higher for purposes of spells, class abilities, and anything level-dependant, because otherwise he'd never reach a high enough level in any particular class to get the really effective abilities he wanted), and the third player (the one I had taught how to play several years before) was given an intelligent Lawful Good Rust Gauntlet named Ironclaw that I had rolled for randomly in a previous campaign (that his previous character had taken and made good use of).

Not a single person saw it coming (even though I had spoken with them each individually in secret to ask about what I should give the other players), and each one of them practically fell out of their chair when they found out what I was giving them. It was great, and it was one of those moments that really made me proud to be the DM.

He flies into a rage, flips the desk over and starts calling me some horrible things, and then starts insulting the gm for lettin me play.

You know what your response should have been?

"That's my roleplay."

My worst DM story is from last year, and I've already posted it on several "worst DM" and "last straw that made you quit the group" topics. (I honestly love these sorts of topics. So keep 'em coming!)

The DM in question, oh, let's call him Trey. First off, Trey had a whole slew of personal issues (he suffered a back injury at work after being in the army, and so was on painkillers all the time. Except at least one player, who was a long-time friend of his, has a sneaking suspicion that the injury may have been a scam), but whatever. The thing is, Trey had three major flaws as a DM:

1. He always insisted on having a huge group and wouldn't (or couldn't) cope with having a small group. If only one or two players showed up (as was the case almost every session, because for some mysterious reason very few players were willing to put up with Trey for more than one or two sessions) he'd either assign absent players' characters to players who were present (meaning each player would be stuck with one-two characters they had little to no knowledge of on top of their own character, and were expected to roleplay them effectively, and according to their personalities), or he'd just heap on a bunch of NPCs (of course including his god-like DMPC, a half-minotaur [?] named Moo whose stats were never able to be determined by any of us) to make the party large enough. And because we had seven-eight PCs or more, every single fight was against over a dozen creatures of our CR or higher, including one noteworthy fight involving a demonic spider that could one-shot every single character in our group (except Moo, of course). If we complained, he would point out that we had a party of so many characters, with high point-buy, and so there was no reason we should have had any difficulty (despite the fact that the enemy always outnumbered us two-to-one, and very few people in the group could hit their ACs reliably). In the end, one player realized our only hope in any given encounter was to use every resource we had to buff Moo (who could easily take 200+ damage at 5th level and still be standing strong). Oh, and if the DM ever got pissed at you? Expect Moo to suddenly take no interest in joining the fight (more than once spending his turn doing, literally, nothing).

2. Trey did not have a very firm grasp on the 3.5 ruleset (which we were using). He understood it fairly well, except when he remembered a rule from a previous edition (such as heavier weapons affecting your initiative) or just something he made up and mistook for an actual rule (like heavy armor reducing your reflex saves). Worst of all, though (and one of my all-time pet peeves for DMs), he often implemented on-the-spot house rules because, in his opinion, "they made the game more realistic". He ruled that Darkvision ceases to function for thirty minutes any time you are exposed to bright light (including that from a torch), because, and I quote, "the human eye cannot see in the dark for thirty minutes after being exposed to light". There were so many things wrong with this (most notably the fact that Darkvision is a MAGICAL ability, possessed by FICTIONAL BEINGS that are NOT human, yet he was comparing this FICTIONAL MAGICAL ABILITY to human physiology) that I found myself constantly biting my tongue every time this came up (and this came up often). I bit my tongue for DM flaw number 3, which I'll get to in a moment. Other noteworthy houserules included ruling that dead bodies became difficult terrain which you could NOT end your turn in no matter what (which led to one player learning to make tactical use of every dead body on the battlefield to make it so that melee-oriented BBEGs couldn't stand close enough to us to attack) and that attacking through an ally's square with a ranged or reach weapon was literally impossible. (He even tried demonstrating why that last one was impossible, using a physical representation of a horribly flawed interperetation of battle mechanics.)

3. Any time you disagreed with him, be prepared to suffer for it. If you didn't back down IMMEDIATELY, be prepared for the game to suddenly turn against you in every way (including, I kid you not, NPCs and other PCs being given temporary divine powers that you can in no way benefit from), and if that doesn't work, then Trey will be as rude and patronizing to you as he possibly can. Don't expect him to EVER see your way whatsoever. And if you manage to have a hard-and-fast rule to back up your interperetation of one of his rulings? Sure, he'll allow it (you know, the actual rule that's printed in the book), but be prepared for him to bring that up every single time you disagree with him ("I put up with your complaint saying that heavy armor doesn't affect reflex saves, even though it totally should, and now you expect me to let you fire through an ally's space? Impossible.") as if, you know, he did you some kind of favor by FOLLOWING THE RULES IN THE DAMN RULEBOOK.

Overall, Trey was a bitter, hateful person that didn't really care about who or what was listening to him tell his story, he was going to tell his story whether you liked it or not. He actually complained about how he felt none of the players were acting like they cared about the plot- even though by this point, THE ONLY PC THAT WAS AROUND WHEN THE PLOT WAS INTRODUCED WAS HIS DMPC. The combination of every single battle being a near TPK (literally, every single battle resulted in at least two party members being dropped into negatives, and Moo was our only healer- oh, did I forget to mention that the unstoppable tank was a healer? His healing spells were the only resource that seemed to have any limit) and the constant revolving door of players meant that nobody even knew what the story was, let alone wanted to figure it out. The railroading was intense. One session involved one player (let's call him Brent) being wrongfully imprisoned in a town we had come across (after having had no luck whatsoever on getting a single job lead or even successfully buying or selling anything in this town), and then the town gets hit by some sort of a meteor, and the DM wanted the party to investigate. Brent refused, saying he didn't care about this town and he was glad that it got destroyed (which, regardless of his alignment, was not an unexpected reaction, especially when going near the meteor meant taking negative energy and dexterity damage every round), and the DM set a bunch of guards to attack him because he felt he was acting out-of-character.

I emailed Brent about this time, telling him that I was planning on starting my own game (for completely unrelated reasons- I decided I wanted to try out a Pathfinder campaign, and at the time I hadn't quite admitted to myself how much the DM had pissed me off in the interest of keeping my sanity) and I asked if he would be interested in joining. He immediately said yes (after the DM had personally picked on him several times mid-session, as well as berated him over instant message) and I asked one of the other players as well, making it clear that I had no problem with him playing in both my game and Trey's. Well, apparently Trey found out, immediately assumed it was Brent's doing, and immediately kicked Brent out of his game (even though he was still willing to give Trey's game a shot). Trey then insulted Brent over instant message, including many personal jabs and threats, and e-mailed everyone else in the group complaining about how Brent was trying to "destroy his game". So in response, Brent e-mailed everyone in the group with a direct transcript of all of the conversations Trey had with him over instant message.

Next week, I had every member of Trey's group at my apartment starting our first Pathfinder game.

On one hand, I feel bad for disrupting the game, but at the same time, the reason his game fell apart is because he's a terrible person first (and a terrible DM second), and it was already coming apart at the seams even before I made my own group. It would have happened sooner or later.

Honestly, there's nothing in the rules to stop it (as long as the cannon targets creatures rather than squares). If you're trying to nerf it because it just doesn't feel right, then that's your decision, but if he fulfills the conditions for Sneak Attack with a cannon (which I can't imagine being an easy task), then I would urge you to let him do it. It's not going to unbalance the game.

But in my weird circular logic I know a Single Melee attack is also a Standard Action.

Don't think of it that way. Think of it this way:

You have a dollar. (A standard action.)

A dollar can get you one candy bar. (One standard action can get you one attack.)

The store has a sale for frequent shoppers that lets you get several candy bars for two dollars if you're a frequent shopper- some people can get seven or eight candy bars for two dollars. (If you spend a full-round action, which one could argue is like two standard actions, you can, depending on your level/feats/whatever, get multiple attacks.)

If you have a coupon for a free candy bar, you can trade it for one candy bar, but you can't trade it for something else that also costs a dollar because you're not getting a dollar, you're getting a free candy bar. But you CAN use it for any candy bar, not just a Hershey's bar. (If you get a free attack, from an AoO or at the end of a charge or whatever, you can only use it for things that are the equivalent to one attack. A standard action, however, can be used for so many different things, that the two aren't equivalent, even though using a standard action for an attack typically only gets you one attack.)

Does that analogy help, or was that just confusing?

The important thing to note here is that if your entire combat is brought down by a fighter getting a full-round attack, then it's not a very well-built encounter. You could try using passive aggressive options like destroying the carpet (and perhaps you should, once, just to show them they need to realize the consequences of using such a vulnerable tactic), but although this is an effective tactic, it's not the worst thing they could be doing. And the most important thing to remember is that the player spent a large amount of his well-earned money (not only on the carpet, but also on gear for the cohort), and you shouldn't shut him down just because he made an effective (pair of) character/s. It may seem like he's screwing you over, but what he's doing is within the rules, and, once again, he could be doing worse. Try not to nerf him- try to find ways to make the rest of the party shine as much as him. (That was a hard lesson for me to learn when I first started DMing- I hated it when the group came up with an effective tactic because it screwed up my adventures, and so I kept finding myself absentmindedly plotting ways to specifically screw them over. Then I realized the point of the game for the DM isn't to beat the players, but rather to help the entire group create a fun environment.)

And if you just can't figure out a way to make it all work, then TALK TO THE PLAYER. Tell him that you're uncomfortable with the combo he's been using, and work out something else for him instead (allow him to spend the money he spent on the carpet on something else). Please, for the sake of your players, do this before you start willy-nilly destroying his magic items/nerfing his character, because otherwise it'll cause the player to harbor resentment towards you for something that you (albeit unintentionally) allowed.

Expert horse trainers and riders can have terrible accidents, well outside of combat; Christopher Reeves being a famous example.

I think examples like these are exactly the stumbling block in this discussion. Your opinion of whether a 1 should be an auto-success seems to be based on making the game more realistic (something that I find a ridiculous notion to begin with, but that's a separate issue)- and I argue that no, it does not make the game more realistic.

You mention expert horse trainers and riders still having terrible accidents. First, let me posit one question: What do you consider an "expert" in D&D? Because very, very, very few people in real life have what would equate to a +15 skill modifier in D&D. (Depending on the skill, having a +15 is typically a superhuman feat.) I know that D&D doesn't quite translate to real life (hence making the "realistic" hope even more ridiculous), but I'd say that in order for someone to get a +15 in a particular skill, they either need to be an adventurer (you know, someone who fights monsters and uses magic to become more powerful) or they need to spend literally their entire lives working at a skill.

The point I'm trying to make is that there's a fallacy in trying to compare real-life "experts" to someone who's attained superhuman ailities in D&D. In my opinion, no, someone who is effectively a superhuman (and who is likely using magic in order to attain such skill) should NOT fail every now and then, unless there are extenuating circumstances (in order words, circumstantial modifiers allowing them to get a low enough roll to fail). Someone who has spent literally their entire life (in real life, not D&D) training in a particular skill does NOT fail 5% of the time. I'd be willing to bet Christopher Reeves rode a horse far more than 20 times before his accident. In other words, his accident was NOT a result of rolling a 1.

I had a friend from grade school who used to tell me that D&D was satanic. Being Christian myself, I knew there was no truth to that whatsoever- so, I invited him to watch a game or two. He seemed to enjoy it, but for a year or two he never seemed to get the hint that it was just a game involving dice and some things that happened to be called "demons" and "magic spells". But I'll never forget something he said to me one day. This is his exact quote:

"Hey, Gabe- I just played this video game called Balder's Gate. Ever heard of it? It's a lot of fun- it's just like D&D, but not as satanic."

I was literally speechless after hearing that.

Alright, here's an anecdote (not quite a one-liner) that was not only hilarious for everyone involved, but an example of some amazing DMing.

Our characters have just entered an ancient catacomb, including my character, Ichi the human barbarian. One of the other characters opens up a coffin, finds a corpse with some jewelry. Another character opens another coffin, and finds a corpse holding a spear to its chest that radiates magic. I tell the DM I'm opening up a coffin as well.

DM: "Alright, Ichi, you see a corpse in the coffin. You notice that he's got a stick in his chest, and he has rather large teeth. Oh, and he's got a nice shiny gold signet ring on his hand, too."

Everyone at the table begins exchanging glances, snickering among themselves. I don't notice it, because I'm too busy thinking to myself, "Sweet! A gold ring! And a stick or something? Probably another magical spear. Large teeth? Who cares?" And so I respond.

Me: "Sweet. I'm gonna take the ring, and I'll pull out that stick, too."

The entire table goes silent, and everyone, including the DM, stares at me, then they all burst into laughter.

DM: "Alright. The vampire lord rises from the coffin, and sees you holding onto his signet ring. Roll initiative."

It was hilarious. The DM's narration was perfect- my character knew nothing of undead, so he described the vampire exactly as I'd see him- a corpse with big teeth. And he did it so fluidly, I, as a player, didn't think anything of it until it was too late. I tell every new player about this, because it's a great example of how to use in-game knowledge over out-of-game knowledge.