Vegepygmy's page

Does acid and sonic damage ignore hardness? Because it says to apply it normally...

From the 3.5 FAQ:

Hardness applies to all types of damage unless specifically stated otherwise by the effect. (Page 165 in the Player’s Handbook is sometimes misinterpreted to suggest that hardness doesn’t apply to acid and sonic damage; in fact, the phrase “apply [damage] normally after a successful hit” simply means that the damage isn’t halved or quartered, as other energy damage is.)

Deflection bonuses stack with all other bonuses to AC except for deflection.

All bonuses stack with all other bonuses except themselves (and some, like dodge bonuses, stack even then), so there's nothing special about deflection bonuses in this regard.

Oh -I hear ya', Vegepygmy, but I don't think of it as a premise -I'm just taking the SRD's word for it...

No, you're not just taking the SRD's word for it; you're reading something additional into the fact that the SRD only uses "dive" in the context of a dive attack. That's not the same as saying: "dive" = "dive attack."

You CAN use a move action to make an attack when it is combined under the special charge rules, which is what is at issue here. Those rules, including the dive variation, allow you to move and attack as one action...

But that one action is never a move action. It is either a full-round action or a standard action. It is incorrect to state, as you do here, that you can use a move action to make an attack.

I read and read and read -"dive" is only ever used in reference to "dive attack" -it doesn't show up anywhere else, ESPECIALLY in aerial movement references, and the longer I use these rules, the more I see that such careful usage of terms is rarely an accident...

I agree with you that game-defined terms are used carefully. The problem is that the critical game-defined term in this case is "move action," not "dive." :)

(This is for publication purposes, so I have to get it right!)

Good luck! I'm pretty sure that no matter which way you come down on it, someone is going to insist you got it wrong! ;)

SO, should the flyby attack feat read either:

"the creature can take a move action (including a dive ATTACK)"

or

"the creature can take a move action (including a DOWN SPEED movement)"

Accepting for purposes of argument your premise that all references to a "dive" are intended to be read as "dive attack," Flyby Attack would properly have to read: "the creature can take a move action (including a 'down speed' movement)," because you can't use a move action to make an attack.

If the intent were to allow movement before and after a diving charge, Flyby Attack would have to be written much more like Spring Attack or Ride-By Attack.

But frankly, I don't accept your premise. I read "dive" in this context to mean simply double-speed downward movement.

EDIT: FWIW, the "Rules of the Game" articles All About Movement (Part Four) and All About Movement (Part Five) pretty clearly use "dive" synonymously with down-speed movement.

Good catch, Saern.

However, since the creature is diving, it CAN move double speed.

The rules on this are not as clear as they could be, but I concur with you. Because upward aerial movement generally "costs" twice as much, and downward aerial speed is generally doubled, a diving attacker should be able to move four times its normal speed on a full-round charge, and two times its normal speed on a standard-action charge.

Am I right in saying that during the surprise round, the Roc can dive (as a single-action charge) 160' and get a single flyby attack as part of that movement? Basically, the roc gets a standard-action-only charge action, but can take the attack at any point of the move (thanks to flyby attack) and still gets double movement since it is diving?

Absolutely not. To benefit from Flyby Attack, you have to use a move action and a standard action. In a surprise round, you get only one of those.

The roc can dive up to 160 feet and make an attack during the surprise round, but it can't move (during the surprise round) after it makes its attack. To move away before its prey can react, it will have to win initiative.

EDIT: It's also worth noting that a roc can't really do what you want it to (swoop down, grab prey, and fly off before anyone can react) in any case. Its Snatch feat allows the roc to start a grapple when it hits with a claw or bite attack, but once you're grappling with a creature, you have to use the "move the grapple" option to carry it off, which requires a standard action of its own.

So the way the roc would actually do it is: in the surprise round, the roc dives, attacking its chosen prey with a talon (getting a +2 bonus on its attack roll for the dive), and if it hits, using Snatch to start a grapple and establish a hold. Then, on the first full round of combat, the roc uses a standard action to "move the grapple" by winning an opposed grapple check and flying 40 feet (half its speed) away.

Now if you take this feature, when do you get the sneak attack dice?

Unearthed Arcana, page 58: "A class feature gained works just as it did for its original class, including the level at which it is gained and any other effects..."

So the fighter gains sneak attack dice at Ftr1, Ftr3, Ftr5, etc.

Another related question; I hear there is a feat or something that allows you to use a spiked chain as a double weapon. Does anyone know where this feat is, if it exists?

The closest I know of is an Exotic Weapon Master trick (from Complete Warrior), flurry of strikes. It gives you an extra attack at your highest bonus for a -2 penalty on all attacks that round, much as if the spiked chain were a double weapon, but it doesn't actually allow you to use a spiked chain "as a double weapon."

I am 70% certain that it origionates off of the point in space at the middle of your square, 10 feet out. I say this because I beleive I recall a Sage Advice answering to that effect.

I don't doubt that the Sage gave such an answer, but I question his correctness if he did. The general rules for area spells are clear enough (PHB, page 175):

Regardless of the shape of the area, you select the point where the spell originates, but otherwise you don’t control which creatures or objects the spell affects. The point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection.

That having been said, the antimagic field spell description states: "An invisible barrier surrounds you and moves with you." I take that to mean that if you are a colossal creature, the field nevertheless covers your entire body. And since I think it would be cheesy and lame for the spell to cover only your entire body and nothing more, I personally rule that it extends another 10 feet around you.

But I honestly haven't got a clue what the "official answer" is to this question.

Can magical traps be detected by a detect magic spell or (more efficiently at higher levels) by arcane sight?

Generally, yes. And FWIW, I don't see this as any kind of problem at all.

Can detect magic be used to identify magical traps? Would nondetection block this?

Detect magic locates magical traps, but it can’t identify anything more than the location and strength of the aura revealed (and, with a successful Spellcraft check, the school of magic involved). Thus, technically the spell doesn’t actually reveal the fact that the magical trap is, in fact, a trap.

Nondetection wards a trapped object from detect magic (requiring a caster level check to pierce the nondetection). An even better option is Nystul’s magic aura, which can conceal a magic trap’s aura (or change it to appear as that of another spell of your choice).

"A flat-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any)"

This.

With 30 year of playing D&D, I'm pulling rank/seniority on Veritas.

With over 30 years, I join you.

And good point, SmiloDan.

I second what SmiloDan said.

Ok, I think I see where the confusement is coming in - you don't seem to be reading "blocks line of sight" as the same thing as "total obscurement", which is what it is. (Blocks line of sight = line of sight is blocked, and thus total concealment is in place for anyone looking in, through or out of the cloud.)

I'm not sure (all of) the authors intended "blocks line of sight" to mean "grants total concealment," as you claim.

Look at the text for wall of fog (page 162): "The fog grants concealment to creatures in its space and blocks line of sight." How can creatures in its space gain only normal (not total) concealment if the fog blocks line of sight, if "blocks line of sight" means what you say it does?

But compare wall of fog to acid storm (page 167): "The cloud blocks line of sight, providing total concealment to creatures inside it." On the one hand, this seems to imply that "blocks line of sight" equals "provides total concealment." But if so, why call out the total concealment? If "blocks line of sight" always "provides total concealment," it's completely redundant to say so again.

Furthermore, look at the pre-errata Stealth rules (page 188): "If a creature has unblocked line of sight to you (that is, you lack any cover or concealment), the creature automatically sees you (no Perception check required)." That seems to indicate that any cover or concealment (not just total cover or concealment) "blocks line of sight."

Finally, look at the post-errata Stealth rules: "You can make a Stealth check against an enemy only if you have superior cover or total concealment against the enemy or if you’re outside the enemy’s line of sight." Again, if "no line of sight" equals "total concealment," why do the rules call out both "total concealment" and "outside the enemy's line of sight"?

If you ask me, the 4E designers never really figured out what the rules for concealment and line of sight were going to be. And that's why the answer from CS doesn't really make any sense, either.

I don't know anyone out of the thirty or so gamers I see during a given month that has gone back to D&D 3.5.

I play 4E just about every weekday in a lunch-hour campaign. It's an okay game, but I definitely prefer 3.5. I recently started DMing a new 3.5 campaign on Saturday nights, and I play in a weekly Wednesday night game that went from 3.5 to Warhammer for a couple of months. We all got tired of Warhammer and discussed playing 4E. The majority (who also play 4E on their lunch hours) chose to return to 3.5 rather than start a 4E campaign.

Anecdotal, of course, but still interesting, I think.

Living Greyhawk literally up and died when 4E was released.

Well, it was killed. I wouldn't say it just "up and died." :)

I always us that as my rule of thumb when DMing, but there are plenty of exceptions.

So many, actually, that I don't understand why anyone would even use it as a "rule of thumb."

Tie-breaker, perhaps...but rule of thumb?

Who is right?

You are. Good luck convincing them of it!

My ruling would be that DR protects against falling (bludgeoning) damage, but I can't find any official word on the matter. Physically, falling is no different than being struck by a blunt weapon.

True strike lets you ignore concealment (20% miss chance). That much is explicit in the spell description. Does true strike let you ignore total concealment (50% miss chance)?

Yes.

How does the true strike spell work against invisible opponents? Do you have to know where they are to shoot them? Please explain how you would handle a character trying to use true strike against an invisible foe. I know the spell is supposed to negate any miss chance the attacker has, but what exactly does that mean?

When you use a true strike spell against an opponent you cannot see, the procedure is exactly the same as it would be if you attacked without the benefit of the spell. You must choose a space to attack. If you chose the correct space (the one your opponent occupies) the true strike spell negates the 50% miss chance you would normally have for attacking an unseen foe, you roll normally to hit, and you get the spell’s +20 insight bonus on the attack roll. If you attack the wrong space, you neatly hit the space you’re aiming at, but if there’s nothing there, you hit nothing.

The true strike spell negates any miss chance you might have for the target’s concealment, but not any other miss chance. For example, true strike would negate the miss chance from the displacement spell or the miss chance for attacking in fog or an obscuring mist spell because both of those effects conceal the target. True strike does not negate the miss chance from the blink spell or the miss chance when attacking an incorporeal creature because those miss chances don’t have anything to do with concealment.

Two-Weapons basically works as follows

A non-ranger with a weapon in his off hand does not get a separate attack with that weapon. Instead he adds a bit of damage to his normal attack.

...if he has the Two-Weapon Fighting feat.

By choosing both the ranger may attack with both his main hand weapon and off hand weapon.

Only when using a power such as Twin Strike.

Whereas other characters cannot attack with both weapons and/or would suffer greater restrictions in the off hand weapon choice.

Well, they could attack with both weapons if they had a power like Twin Strike (there's a "tempest" fighter build in Martial Power, for example, that is designed for two-weapon fighting). But they still wouldn't be able to wield a one-handed weapon in their off-hand, like a ranger can.

I haven't come across anything about penalties suffered, can I assume there are not any.

The penalties, if any, are defined by the power that allows you to use both weapons in the first place. For example, the "penalty" for using Twin Strike is that you don't get to add your Dex or Str modifier to the damage you deal with your weapons (as you do with most other attacks).

Thus it's Ranger (two weapon fighting style) Roger's turn to attack he uses his twin strike and attacks with the longsword in his right hand and then the longsword in his left hand. These attacks rolls have identical calculations and identical damage calculations.

Correct.

So, if you all think fighters are 'weak', play in a campaign that uses ONLY the core 3 books (PHB, DMG, MM1), and play a 'converted' 1e/2e adventure. Then come back and tell me fighters suck. After the barbarian has 'raged' 3 times that day and it's not even noon yet, and yet *more* goblins come screaming out of the underbrush, the fighter will still be just as effective as he was right after breakfast.

I agree completely.

On the other hand, 3E does, after all, assume that you're going to have...what is it, four?...encounters and then rest. It's hard to fault people who cut their teeth on 3E for playing it the way it was intended to be played.

I suggest that Detect Magic - by the 3rd round of use - would at the very most pinpoint the square in which the Shadowdancer is hiding, but that the Shadowdancer would still have total concealment (50% miss chance).

I agree.

By comparison, See Invisibility (a L 2 spell, one level higher than Detect Magic) will not even reveal the presence of creatures who are simply hiding. It doesn't seem logical that a spell one level lower (Detect Magic) will actually pierce the Shadowdancer's Hide in Plain Sight ability/skill.

Of course it does. The two spells do entirely different things, and therefore are more (or less) effective in different situations.

Or does it not "seem logical" that fireball works better against frost giants than cone of cold does? Fireball is two levels lower than cone of cold! How could it be more effective!? ;)

Except that I meant Detect Magic, not Dispel. My bad. Sorry.

I'm kinda surprised I didn't catch that, either. Oh, well. It doesn't matter, anyway. We both knew what we meant.

I still think that my hidden shadowdancer is hidden because of her Hide in Plain Sight.

She is hidden. It's just that hiding doesn't interfere with detect magic. :)

....but Dispel Magic does require a "line of sight".

Only if you want to make a Spellcraft check to determine an aura's school of magic. You need line of sight to do that, but otherwise dispel magic works just fine without line of sight.

Are you sure the Shadowdancer has to be hiding behind something?

I don't think you understood what Majuba was saying.

The shadowdancer doesn't have to hide behind something to hide, but unless there's something between him and the caster to block the spell's line of effect, detect magic will work as normal on him.

Even that is not entirely accurate, however, because detect magic doesn't require line of effect to the auras it detects. It specifically penetrates barriers (though 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt blocks it).

In short, the shadowdancer has no special immunity to detection by virtue of his Hide in Plain Sight ability. All that ability does is let him make Hide checks while being observed, and without actual cover or concealment. If whatever method of detection is being used would reveal an ordinary hidden person, it will reveal a shadowdancer, too.

I really like this one: Savage Progressions Vampire Template

I strive to follow the "one-page rule," so mine are pretty short and simple.

Core Only (with a few exceptions): The only non-core base classes I currently allow are ninja, scout, swashbuckler, and the racial paragon classes from Unearthed Arcana. Non-core spells can only be learned by capturing enemy spellbooks or similar means. Non-core feats and prestige classes must be DM-approved on a case by case basis.

Hit Points Are Gained at a Fixed Rate: DMG, page 198. Also, to reduce swinginess at low level, 1st-level PCs begin with twice the normal amount of hit points they would have, but do not gain additional hit points from leveling until the normal amount of hit points they would have exceeds this beginning amount. This seems to do a pretty good job of reducing low-level swinginess.

Save or Die: Any effect that would kill a creature regardless of damage inflicted (e.g., death spell, coup de grace, death from massive damage, etc.) instead reduces the creature's current hit points to -1.

A player character is considered to be "dying" until his negative hit points equal one-half his normal total.

Trapfinding: Any character can find and disable traps (whether magical or non-magical) regardless of the DC involved; these abilities are not restricted only to rogues. However, a character with the trapfinding ability is entitled to make a Search check to notice a trap before triggering it as if he were actively looking for it (similar to the way an elf detects secret doors). Note that this means dwarves and other creatures with stonecunning have a chance to automatically detect stonework traps.

Combat Casting is replaced wherever it appears by Skill Focus (Concentration).
Dodge provides a simple +1 dodge bonus to AC, and is not limited to a single opponent.

Magic Items can be sold for 20% of their market value (rather than 50%), and are not normally available for purchase. PCs who want to buy a particular magic item have to find a seller (using Gather Information checks, role-playing, etc.) or hire a craftsman to make it.
Alchemical Items are similarly rare.

No Spell Resistance vs. Energy: Spell resistance cannot prevent energy (acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic) damage or force damage, though it still works against any other effects of spells dealing such damage.

What is interesting is that the "official" answer posted above contradicts what was said in Dungeonscape, which states that an invisible creature doused in flour is visible until the next round, by which time the flour largely falls off or is covered up/integrated into its already invisible frame.

So according to Dungeonscape, flour negates invisibility for one round, and then everything goes back to normal next round.

The only reference to flour I could find in Dungeonscape is the "flour pouch," a mundane item of negligible weight (which must therefore contain not a lot of flour). But that item's description doesn't say the effect only lasts 1 round. It says:

Coating an invisible creature in flour lets you keep track of its position and reduces the miss chance to 20% (instead of the normal 50% for total concealment). While an invisible creature is coated in flour, its bonus on Hide checks is reduced to +10 if the creature is moving, or to +20 if it is not moving (PH 76). If the creature moves through water, is subjected to a gust of wind, or spends a full-round action brushing the flour off, all the flour is removed from its body.

And that's for what must be a very small amount of flour. I would imagine that larger amounts of flour would be even more effective.

When an invisible creature is hit by a tangle bag, cloud of flour or similar visible area effect, you get better idea where the target is: thus reduction in concealment is in order. In most cases it doesn't however completely remove the concealment (the only exceptions are effects which cover the target completely and clearly, eg. Glitterdust and being completely underwater).

Nitpick: An invisible creature in the water "is still hard to see and benefits from concealment." (DMG, page 295)

You may want to take note that the spell Glitterdust states that while the spell does "visibly outlining invisible things", it does not state that it cancels out the miss chance.

It doesn't need to explicitly say so. The only reason there's a miss chance in the first place is because the target is visually undetectable (i.e., invisible). Since glitterdust visibly outlines the target, it is no longer "invisible," and thus there is no miss chance.

For comparison, see faerie fire, which specifically states that "Outlined creatures do not benefit from concealment normally provided by darkness...blur, displacement, invisibility, or similar effects."

The DM argued that he would still have 100% concealment thus I still only have a 50% chance of hitting him even though my character can see the glue and knows his tangled. The DM went on to say that the Orc could simply touch the glue or put his cloak over the glue to it would also be invisible.

I think your DM made a poor judgment call. I checked the Rules Compendium and it doesn't change the "flour" rule from the DMG, so it's pretty clear to me that the glue would have rendered the orc at least partially visible.

Also, how does exactly does throwing a sack of flour and hitting with it on a invisible opponent? Shouldn't you be able to see a fairly clear outline of the invisible opponent who a bunch of flour on him and would that not decrease the concealment buy a certain %?

The problem is that the DMG is vague as to what exactly happens when you coat an invisible creature in flour. It seems clear to me that you can pinpoint the square such a creature is in, but whether it still benefits from concealment is not stated.

But since outlined creatures don't gain the benefit of concealment (see following post), I'd rule that a flour-coated creature doesn't, either.

It means the monster attacks with 1 claw when making a standard attack, and makes two attacks (1 claw + 1 claw) when using the Full Attack action.

Where do folks who play D&D 3.x RAW go for future modules, supplementary material, etc.?

Speaking for myself, I don't have any need for more modules, and I don't want any more supplements. I've got tons and tons of adventure material I still haven't used yet, so I'm not looking for any support sites like you're talking about.

Does the favored soul’s resistance to energy class

feature stack with resistance to energy gained as a racial
trait?

No. Resistance to energy from multiple sources doesn’t
stack-—it’s simply a set value. A 5th-level aasimar favored soul
who chooses resistance to acid would have resistance to acid 10
from his class levels and resistance to acid 5 from his race, so
he’d use the higher value.

It’s theoretically possible for a special ability (whether
from a class, race, or other source) to improve a character’s
existing resistance to energy, but it would have to state that
specifically as the effect.

How do you do it?

Extra miniatures, one for each image, or just say it's all in one square and determine which one gets hit randomly?

All in one square. That's how I ruled on it before the FAQ also suggested doing so, and I've never seen any reason to do otherwise.

Until they put something out that you want.

Unless they put something out that he wants.

"Until" implies a certain inevitability, that everyone who dislikes 4E will eventually come around and embrace it, which I'm sure you didn't intend to suggest. Oh, no. Not you.

Having played a lot of 3.5, having a high Constitution ends up being a lot more important to a Wizard than having a high Dexterity. This holds true at low levels and at high levels.

Having played a lot of 3.5, your preferred style of play will affect every opinion you form of "the system." What is indisputably true for you will be demonstrably false for others. This holds true at low levels and at high levels.

If he's been using the knowledge of the adventure to help his character, then yeah, it's cheating. If he's been able to separate player knowledge from character knowledge, it's not.

I respectfully disagree with James. IMO, the only way it can not be considered cheating is if the player informs the DM at the earliest possible opportunity: "By the way, I have knowledge of this adventure. Is it still okay for me to play in it?" (And the DM says it's okay.)

Anything else is cheating, regardless of how well the player thinks he can compartmentalize his knowledge.

After the game, the player protested this ruling since sanctuary does not specifically target a single creature and I now have my doubts. What are your thoughts on this situation?

Well, it's clear to me that sanctuary doesn't attempt to target the swarm, so the player is right about that much.

The question is: does a swarm "directly attack?" It doesn't actually make an attack; it just deals damage automatically. But it seems to me as if that damage is dealt "directly," so I'd say sanctuary works. I can see the opposite argument, however.

I understand where you are coming from but you do not see people hammering PFRPG on that board or d20/OGL on that board, and it would not be tolerated. Why is it tolerated here?

Maybe there's a lingering vestige of respect for the concept of freedom of speech, even on a privately owned message board. Yes, I understand that "censorship" only applies to governments, yadda yadda yadda. But honestly, don't you see that an inability to withstand harsh criticism is indicative of weakness? If 4E/3.x/whatever is really as good as its proponents believe, it should be able to handle being "hammered" just fine.

Remember, as the great Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, "the cure for allegedly bad speech is not regulation, but more speech."

Out of curiosity, for non-Americans, what did politico say?

Apparently, he wrote: "It may be typical of the pro-Obama Dungeons & Dragons crowd to disparage a fellow countryman's memory of war from the comfort of mom's basement, but most Americans have the humility and gratitude to respect and learn from the memories of men who suffered on behalf of others."

(EDIT: ninja'd, of course)

Frankly, I have no idea who he thinks the "Dungeons & Dragons crowd" is. The mom's basement part I get, but pro-Obama and anti-war/military service? That would be the first I've ever heard of such a correlation.

ArchLich wrote:

Bad situation there (Bad DM reasoning). I don't restrict a class or spell without first reading it and considering it. I also provide an explanation why (besides "because").

I disagree. If the DM wants to be clear about which books will or will not be allowed in her campaign thats her right. Even if the DM says Core only.
-
In fact I think the DM has very clear and succinct reasoning here. Your not allowed to cherry pick some abilities becuase then everyone would have to be allowed to do that and the DM would have to spend time reviewing it and potentially dealing with the fall out of allowing some players to have some stuff while saying no to other players request.

I agree 100% with Jeremy. It may seem as if the DM is being arbitrary and capricious, but what he is actually doing is enforcing a fair and reasonable (in light of his available free time) standard that applies to everyone equally.

If your DM doesn't want to allow other options you should either be willing to DM yourself or accept that he doesn't have the free-time available to constantly ramp-up encounters to challenge an ever increasing discrepancy between the party's level and what will challenge them.

What Fake Healer said. Especially the boldfaced text.

I would say no you can't see an invisible creature through use of detect magic/alignment spells. Since they are inherently visual feedback spells...

But they aren't inherently visual feedback spells. In fact, they work just fine through up to "1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt," all of which will block any visual feedback.

Detect magic specifies that if the aura is in your line of sight, you can attempt to identify its school of magic...and that makes it pretty clear that you don't have to see the aura to know its strength and location.

A druid could be anything from a wild hermit who despises civilization to an urban gardener who thinks that civilization and nature can co-exist in balance with each other.

This. Reverence for nature != antipathy toward civilization.

Greyhawk. No other setting has ever had the same "it's there, waiting for you to discover it" feel for me.

What would happen if the spell description just DROPPED completely the "Immediately upon completion of the spell, and" part? By your interpretation THERE WOULD BE NO DIFFERENCE IN EFFECT besides the first bolt happening one initiative 'tick' ahead of the casters turn, right?

If the spell description stated merely: "Once per round, you may call down a 5-foot-wide, 30-foot-long, vertical bolt of lightning..." I think it would not be clear that the first bolt of lightning is meant to appear immediately before the caster's turn on Round Two.

Thus, I would look to the later statement: "However, each round after the first you may use a standard action (concentrating on the spell) to call a bolt," and conclude that the caster gets no bolt as part of the full-round action taken in Round One, and must use a standard action on his turn in Round Two to call the first bolt. Every round after that, he'd be able to call another bolt as a standard action.

So there would be a slight difference in effect, in that the caster would have to use one full-round action plus one standard action to get his first bolt into play, as opposed to just one full-round action.

If I rewrote the spell, I would clarify it by adding that ALL the bolts actually manifest just before the caster's next turn, which keeps the bolts all spaced 1 round apart, and is more in line with the idea of a Druid "calling" upon Nature...

I think that's an excellent idea, and captures the flavor of the spell nicely.

(Some people don't want to fiddle with the rules, though. That's why my first response in this thread begins: "Strictly by the rules..." I don't mean to suggest that following the printed rules strictly is the best way to play the game.)

Why? As I read the spell description it says each round after the first I may spend a standard action and call down a bolt. As I read it, the first round would be the round that I spent my full turn,

Nope. Let's look at the spell description: "Immediately upon completion of the spell, and once per round thereafter, you may call down a 5-foot-wide, 30-foot-long, vertical bolt of lightning..."

When did you spend your full-round action? Round One. When do you complete the spell? Round Two.

So what is "thereafter" referring to? Round Two, when you completed the spell.

Also, there is no wording in the spell description that says I only get one bolt per round...

Look again.

"...and once per round thereafter..."

That's a hard limit, my friend. It doesn't matter how many standard actions you are able to take, you can still only call a bolt once per round.

I personally don't know of anyway to get more than one standard action in a round...

Shapechange into a choker will do it. (But that's a 9th-level spell.)

All three of these interpretations was brought up and discussed during my latest gaming session...

Strictly by the rules, #3 is correct. And here's why:

...so according to the rules the spell completes just before the beginning of my next round, and...

-
...because the first one hit before my round started, but...

There's no such thing as "your" round. There is only your turn.

round: A 6-second unit of game time used to manage combat. Every combatant may make at least one action every round.

-
turn: The point in the round at which you take your action(s). On your turn, you may perform one or more actions, as dictated by your current circumstances.

The round belongs to everybody. Your turn is your own.

You begin casting call lightning in Round One. You finish casting it in Round Two, immediately before your turn that round. Since you already called down one bolt in Round Two (upon completing the casting), and you only get one per round thereafter, you cannot actually call another bolt on your turn in Round Two. You have to wait until your turn in Round Three.

Was that actually the writer's intent? I don't know. IMO, it's certainly not broken to allow the caster to call two bolts in Round Two. (I've played a druid and used call lightning. It's an okay spell, but nothing I'd worry about.)

He was a Monty Hall sort of GM and let things get out of hand...

...cornering the offending player's character...

???

At that point I took my character sheet, handed it to the GM and said "Do what you like. I'm done," and left. That was the last time I ever gamed with that guy.

Which guy? The "offending player," or the DM who created the problem and then had you come in and execute a player's character?