Search Posts
That is a good time for me. If I could play any thing i would have to think. YOu are still first level? Correct. We are all still first level. If you can contact me, or give me a contact address for you, I can send you our intro packet with all the applicable house rules and the like. Looking forward to seeing you in game...
I have done a far about of gameing with players Skyping. When do you play? And what do you have or need Character wise? Great, hope we can get you to join us. We game Saturday mornings, 9 AM Central time, usually for 3-4 hours. We currently have 4 players, and fill the 4 major roles, giving you the option of almost anything you wish. Does the time work well for you?
That's an interesting addition, and thanks for it. However, that doesn't square well with the galley slavery practiced throughout the Mediterranean in the 14th-16th centuries. There was a great need for slaves to power the galleys, and the Christians and Turks regularly raided each other (and their own) for galley slaves. Everything I've ever read about it says they were treated very harshly, and the mortality rate was huge. How do you square that with your division, or do you think galley slavery was simply an exception to that rule?
WELL IF THAT IS THE CASE I MUST DECLINE. My skype/MSN live is not reliable as I live in an isolated community. I would love to game like that though, it would be perfect in so many ways. Good luck! Sorry to hear that, would have been good to get a new player. So, anyone else? We still have an open slot.
I would like to play. I am pretty reliable at one post a day. can't promise more than that though. We'd be glad to have you. But this is not a play by post. We have an actual session once a week, using maptools for live play, and speaking over Skype. It's a live session, just remote. If you're still interested, we'd be happy to have a new player.
We are running a game of Kingmaker, using D&D 4.0 rules. The game is online, using maptools for the game, and Skype for voice communication. We just had a player drop, and are looking for a replacement. We keep a campaign log at Campaign Log, if you'd like to see what has gone so far. We typically play Saturday mornings, around 9AM Central time. If you are interested in joining this campaign, please let me know. Thanks, Andrew Garrett
Psst... you have the genders backwards.See, that scene made me so angry, I temporarily lost control of my pronouns. :) Spoiler:
You weren't the only one thinking that, I did too. The best I could come up with is that neither Jin nor Sun actually believes they'll ever get off the island, so they might as well go out together.
Spoiler: Sayid's death was a huge surprise to me. Well, not so much his death as the means of it. I thought he'd gone over to Smoke Locke, and become corrupted. But here he died as a hero, directly opposing Locke, and sacrificing himself for others. While I can't say for sure what it means, it certainly implies Locke's control is nowhere near as complete as he seems to think, and it also has some good implications for Claire.
We'll be starting this campaign in a few weeks, and one of my players had a question I couldn't answer, and haven't seen discussed yet. In the kingdom roles - what do the Marshal and Warden actually do? This isn't a question of what stats they use, or what effect they have on the kingdom - those are spells out. What is the actual job? Thanks for any help.
I enjoyed the episode, but not as much as you seemed to... Spoiler: - I was disappointed they bought Rush back so quickly. He should have stayed out for at least 2 episodes before returning. This felt like a cheat. - The doubts about Young swirling through the crew felt forced. It's hard to say what would have worked better, but I wasn't very happy with what they did. - Another crew member dead, but I was very pleased that there seemed to be a reaction this time. There are a limited number of crew, and they're doing a good job of not bringing in replacements. I'd like to see something closer to a count - but I like this aspect. - It does look like they're building to another Rush/Young power struggle, but Young is definitely getting darker. In this episode, I'd say he was clearly in the wrong. Keep it up.
Spoiler: I don't know, seeing Ben in the flash-sideways was quite surprising. He was on the island when the bomb went off, and we know the island sank under the ocean from this season's premiere. So how is it he didn't die? For a season that's supposed to be answering questions, they sure are raising a lot...
Although lying to the crew when he got back seems lika a bad idea, particularly when most of them would have cheered Col. Young's decision. It can only lead to problems when Rush inevatably returns. Which leads to my question. Any bets on how long it is until Rush returns? My initial guess would be the season finale, for the drama. But as I think on it more, I don't see them waiting that long. Rush was the most interesting character in the crew, and the interplay with Young is one of the primary drivers of the show. I just don't see them leaving him off the show that long, or turning him into a Lt. Ford style periodically occurring villain. So for now, I'm guessing he'll be off the show for 3-6 episodes, and will then return and rejoin the crew.
Well, the first thing I can tell you is that encounter speed does not change much at the various tiers. Whether you consider that a strength or weakness, you don't generally run into the problem of encounters stretching out as characters go up levels. That said, I've had the same problem with average encounter length being too long. There are a few things that can help. First, limit your use of brutes and soldiers. The additional hit points of the first, and AC of the second tend to make encounters go longer. Second, make good use of minions - they keep the fights dangerous, but also help make them short (and give controllers a chance to shine.) If you're using beasts, remember they can flee - I generally have them flee when bloodied, if they don't have an owner/controller around. Players know this by now, so they also know to take down the controllers, then drive off the beasts. But this isn't a bad general rule. If the encounter is over, except that players have to drop the last couple of enemies, let them run. These things help, but I still find my average encounter time running around 45 min - 1 hr. For a while I ran encounters with fewer monsters, but that makes controllers a fifth wheel, so I was never happy with that solution. At the moment, I just go with this time, and keep looking for other ways to speed it up.
A player wishes to take the Pact Initiate Feat (multiclass warlock) and take the Vestige Pact (from Arcane Power.) The vestige pact at-will power, Eyes of the Vestige, lets the caster place his Warlock's Curse on the target of that power, or someone else standing nearby. Now, the question. If the caster has gotten this power by multiclassing, does he have a Warlock's Curse to place? He certainly does not have the class feature, so could not otherwise place this curse, but does he get to place a curse 1/encounter as a result of this power? Thanks for any help.
Just to add to this, I've run Rise of the Runelords in 4th edition, and am currently just starting up Legacy of Fire in 4th. The mechanics do not cause any particular difficulty at all. We find Golarion and the mechanics to be a fine fit. For those who want the difficulties, though, I can give you those too... Races: 4th added new races, and their PHB2 makes it look like they will continue the trend. Wizards' points of light setting is just fine for regularly introducing new races, but that's not really so in Golarion. At the moment, we're restricting it to 3.5 races, plus those in the original 4th edition PHB (for which we've got good fluff invention.) Size: In many cases, the rooms in adventure paths are not quite large enough, since 4th edition is built with the idea of group-on-group combat. Converting the encounters is not that bad (but see below), and my usual response is to simply double the printed dimensions where that seems necessary. Sometimes we come up with areas that are a little too large, but we've mostly agreed to ignore that. Encounters: One thing that does come up frequently in encounters is that the published module has an encounter against a group of 1 type of monster. Again, 4th edition's bias is towards mixed groups. So I need to come up with pairings (or trios) that still make sense in the adventure. I'll add that 4th edition has a greater bias towards the fantastic - we don't see too many normal animals, and those are a staple of low-level 3rd edition play. But if you're doing a conversion, you've got to get used to making up or reskinning monsters anyway. Traps: This is honestly the hardest part of conversions for me. The role of the trap has changed drastically from 3rd to 4th edition. Most traps in the adventure paths are intended as an encounter unto themselves. In 4th, they're expected to be one component of an encounter, effectively replacing a monster or two. But the layout and adventure only rarely make it possible to retrofit those. It's usually one of the harder parts of the conversion for me. Anyway, that's a quick overview. Converting them is a reasonable amount of work, so I'd only recommend it as an experiment, or if you actually prefer the 4th edition mechanics (I'm in that latter category.) But the feel of the world - that's not a problem. Drew Garrett
That might also have something to do with the modularity of the new design. I know I'm much more open to allowing new powers at the table than I was in past editions. But I also have a table rule that if I think a power is unbalancing, I can require players to swap it out the next time they level up (and it's considered a free swap-out, they can still do their normally allowed swap as well.) That type of flexibility was much more difficult in past editions. Anyway, that table rule lets me be much more open about allowing in other sources of material, and my players seem to appreciate it. So I think it's the game design, more than an official status of Dragon Magazine, that encourages that use. Drew Garrett
Actually, that shouldn't be a major problem. The monastery is specifically made of stone. The rafters and upper floor of the chapel are wood, so they should reasonably be able to burn that out without much risk of the fire spreading outwards. Unless I'm missing something, of course. Would the rooftop of a monastery be made of wood? But then why hasn't it rotted/collapsed like most of the wood buildings? Do they have roof tiles that are held on by tar? That seems it could work, as then a fire would endanger the whole building. OK, but is that common enough knowledge? Actually, danger to the roof seems like one of the best reasons to get them to hold off on a fire. But I'd still like to hear any other ideas... Thanks a lot.
In the monastery chapel, how would you respond if the players decide to set the rafters / pugwampi nests on fire? We're approaching that point, and I know my players well enough to suspect this option will come up. We know that the wooden outbuildings have collapsed, and the rafters are generally quite weak, giving some reasonable establishment of rot. Also, we're in desert, or at least dry, environment. And most of the monastery is stone, so they don't need to worry too much about destroying their potential safe spot. Now, I've never held to instant blazes, but this seems a pretty good condition for fires, but it also makes the pugwampi encounter easy, and could take out the chief as well. Honestly, my current thought is that lighting the chapel up will not be overly difficult, but will drive the pugwampis and the chief into action, and that could be just as bad as a bloodbath for the PCs. Of course, that also removes any chance of reconsecrating Sarenrae's altar, but I don't expect that consideration to bother my players at all. Anyone else have some thoughts on this?
Obama scares the Far Right, but Middle America likes him. A lot.Gee, his poll numbers have dropped 20 points in the last two months, you sure about that? That's not quite true. His job approval numbers have been dropping like a stone. His personal approval numbers have only fallen slightly - they're surprisingly steady. I can come up with several explanations for this, but have not seen the data to confirm it yet. I lean towards believing that these numbers will come to correspond with each other; that job approval is a leading indicator of personal approval. But it hasn't actually happened yet.
For handling Gods/religion, many divine classes have channel divinity powers in their class. You can use 1 channel divinity power per encounter. You can buy extra such powers with feats, and the available powers depend on the God you follow. The Pathfinder pantheon is larger than the 4E standard pantheon, and a 1-1 correspondence doesn't work too well. Still, you can use the divinity feats as guidelines, and only make up new feats when you have a character worshiping a god you haven't done yet. I am using the Pathfinder setting with 4E rules. We did Curse of the Crimson Throne, and will be starting Legacy of Fire in 2 weeks. It is possible, but it does take a bit of work to convert the modules. Some of my earlier conversions relied too much on elite monsters, trying to keep the number of creatures similar. That proved to be a mistake - it's better to add more monsters, and I usually wind up doubling the size of all the buildings so there's enough room. Traps are the hardest thing to convert, since a trap alone is a good 3.5 encounter, but 4E assumes there will be something else going on, and the trap is just an added element. Drew Garrett
We're not starting until the 11th, but I've got characters from all my players - subject to change until the last minute, judging from previous campaigns ;-) We're playing this as a 4th edition campaign, so... Dalan - Human Warlord seeking his roots
I'm having some trouble understanding the layout for the Pugwampi Hunt, the end of the investigation into the wagon fire. If I've got this right, the cactus field is 25' wide, with the goat at the far end, right by a ravine. The pugwampi is 5' away from the goat, and since the whole field is inside his unluck radius, I assume that means the gremlin is 5' closer to the players. So, why does it take characters 3 rounds to cross the cactus field? If their normal movement is 30', even moving at half speed (for balance checks) this should be 2 rounds. Is it difficult ground, plus the half speed for balance checks? If so, and we round down for movement, it seems it should take 5 rounds to get through (though 3 rounds is right at 7.5' of movement per round.) Barbarians would still get through in 3 rounds, though. Drew Garrett
So what are they spending their money on? With effectively no market in magic items in 4th edition, players seem to run out of things to spend on sometime around 6th-7th level. If you have kept the 3rd edition ideas of a functioning magic item market, that may be a bit different. In that case, they need to see whether they save the component cost, on average, by casting that ritual. If they're rarely attacked at night, or if losing a single surprise round isn't that big a problem, then it's not worth the cash.
To some extent, it depends how they treat their prisoner. However, if he's an actual prisoner, I'd expect that to make the initial encounter go a bit easily on the players. Here's proof they were fighting the drow (the elves know the drow exist, after all...) Assuming they're willing to hand him over to the elves, I'd make that their 'introduction,' and use it as a pretext for a rapid audience with the queen. Now, if they want to hang on to the prisoner, or give a hard time about it, that can be used as a seed for the Winter Council's antipathy - a cover for their slightly darker motives. Overall, I don't see that really needing to change much... Drew Garrett
To change the subject completely (which is, of course, a cue that I'm not changing the subject at all), what do you think of the recent Indian Naval action against pirates? Specifically, they stopped trying to arrest them, and simply starting sinking their ships, letting the pirates drown. This is the traditional method to combat piracy. We, and Europe, have stopped taking that action, being highly concerned about the human rights of the pirates. Of course, the result of that has been a nearly explosive growth of piracy off the coast of Africa. Ships have been robbed, people murdered, and even an oil tanker taken now. So, should we let their actions justify ours? Should we start sinking pirate ships again - no quarter given? I'd say yes. I think it'll save lives in the long run, and I applaud the Indian government for trying to protect the Indian Ocean from this scourge. You know, I think I'll go even further, and disagree with your premise. Of course you must justify your actions in terms of your enemies. That is the whole basis behind proportionate response doctrine. It really can't be otherwise. Taking that back to the original discussion, if we were in a war with, say, England, I'd assume we'd both try to treat military prisoners well. I know when we fought Germany, we treated prisoners well, but punished disobedience very harshly (a chaplain ordered a German prisoner to get water, and he refused because the water would be given to a Jew. The chaplain shot him through the head, and repeated the order to the next prisoner - he went and got some water. This example did, I confess, come as we were processing surrenders, not in a POW camp. I also can't find a link at the moment, so am relying on memory.) Just another $.02. Drew Garrett
Can you provide evidence backing this claim? Specifically, the part that it is 'just as likely.' I hear this claim a lot - actually, you're unusually generous to the forced interrogation (or torture, if you prefer) side. I usually hear that it's 'always' or 'almost always' a false confession. Thing is, I've never actually seen any evidence for this on either side. I have very little specialized knowledge on this point, but I will share the very little I know. One of the most important points I'll bring up is that we keep our interrogation manual secret for a reason. The subjects' uncertainty about what we are allowed to do is itself a great weapon for us. We try to keep high-value subjects off-balance, by doing things they are 'sure' we're not allowed to do. The Army Field Manual is very strict about no torture, and I agree with that. But those are field soldiers, and our interrogation manual is something used by experts at interrogation. We know, from public sources, that water-boarding could be authorized at some point, and that we have used it 3 times. Other techniques we know are allowed are the hand-slap (lots of noise, and stinging pain), cold rooms, and sleep deprivation. I do not know what else is or isn't allowed - and please keep in mind, anyone who says they do is either lying or committing a crime by revealing classified info - and if you hear it on the net, it's almost certainly the former. I note the commonality between methods we know we're allowed to use. We pick methods that don't leave lasting harm on a body. As far as that goes, I think it's a pretty good line to draw. I do know that some people will draw the line much further south of that. Drew Garrett
Just recently picked up Anathem, by Neal Stephenson. I'm over halfway through, and am enjoying it. That said, you have to like Stephenson's style, or this one will not be for you. It's a parallel world story, and it takes a while to quite 'get it' as to what is going on. I'd say it took about 200 pages before things really came together for me. And, as is also typical of Stephenson, he occasionally goes on reasonably long digressions, though they're often amusing ones (so far nothing quite as good as the 'How to eat Captain Crunch cereal' of Cryptonomicon.) This is not Snow Crush, the writing style has a lot more in common with his more recent historical fantasies. But, if you liked Cryptonomicon and the Baroque Cycle, I think you'll also really like this one. I certainly do so far. Drew Garrett
Adventure paths seem an odd vehicle for a group that only rarely meets. Still, to each his own - and it's not like I want to deny Paizo a sale. But I do buy these for the adventure path. I loved the first two, but Second Darkness just isn't working well for me - surprising, since between the underworld and the Drow I'd expect to love this one. I think a big part of it is simply that the adventure is now so much less of the book. We're down to 42 pages of adventure. The first 3 set pieces were quite disconnected from the main adventure, though the most recent looks a lot better. I'm glad James said they're looking to the most recent for where they want future set pieces to be. They've been quite responsive to feedback, so I wanted to give mine. I like the long adventures - it's a format you can't get anywhere else, and the first two paths used it very well. I'm still hoping to get it back, but could at least live with them at Blood Below level, if they can also make the shorter adventures seem a bit more complete, and unique at the same time... Drew
I'm curious as to whether Legacy of Fire will continue with the set pieces introduced in Second Darkness. I'm assuming it's too late to actually change any decisions, but just in case, I'd like to vote against continuing them. Sorry, but they haven't seemed to work quite as well with the adventures (the most recent, The Blood Below, being a notable exception), and I think the shorter adventures have also suffered. Sure, it's possible I just haven't liked Second Darkness as much as the first two paths for other reasons - but I think the set pieces have been a part of that. Alternatively, if you are continuing with the set pieces, are you making any changes to how you do them? As I mentioned, I found Blood Below a step up from the earlier pieces. Are you trying to integrate them a bit more tightly with the adventure, or making any other changes? Thanks, Drew Garrett
I have to disagree with your nitpick. I am not counting shipments, I am measuring days. For measurements, a normal distribution is appropriate. I could be more sympathetic to an argument of throwing out the PF14 data point as a statistical outlier (hmmm, no, I think perhaps systematic error might be a better reason ;-) but only if there is a change in process so it doesn't happen again. If they're following a process in which this remains a possibility, then whether or not it's in their control, it remains a valid data point. Hey, hey, don't look at me that way... Some of us like discussing statistics. Drew Garrett
Given that Pathfinder 14 still hasn't shipped, I decided to run some numbers, to see how long it has been between issues. A quick chart:
These numbers come from my subscriptions, and I know they ship over a period of a few days, so numbers may vary slightly from person to person. Still, with these numbers, we're looking at an average of 30.8 days between issues - which is good. But, there's a standard deviation of 14.6 days, nearly half of the average. That is, to be blunt, terrible. It makes it very hard to plan payments, let alone game schedules. I'm sure this is high on Paizo's priorities - at least, I hope so. Just wanted to actually run and post the numbers to make it clear. Please try to improve schedule regularity. Drew Garrett
Sorry you haven't enjoyed the beta as much as C&C3, but keep in mind it is a beta. I hope you'll pick up the game when it's out. I don't keep up to date on what marketing has and hasn't said, so I'm afraid I'll have to refrain from commenting until after we ship. But I'd be happy to discuss the game further at that point.
Absolutely thrilled to hear you're excited. I'm one of the developers on that game (I do the AI), and we're pretty excited about it too. I got to be on the set the day we were filming George Takei, which was really cool. They did the promo's on another set though, so I didn't get to see his "all your base" clip until Silverman made that dance mix ;-) Drew Garrett
Get it done. Sorry, folks, but it has to be said... I barely see the point in a virtual tabletop, since there are already others out on the market. If Wizards had hired a good development company to do this project, then a centralized server might have been a sufficient draw to let them compete in this market. As it is, they're building up to a failure. DDI is probably vaporware. If it's not, then release it, and develop in place. If they haven't architected with patch streams in mind - well, I wouldn't be overly surprised. But they can at least stop pretending...
I haven't followed this up due to illness, then a busy period in at work. But I'm still interested in this, so by all means...
Judging from the first installment and the outline, I'd probably take it as an opportunity to play up the difference in the two betrayals (and I'm assuming it'll be limited to the two...) Saul is basically scum, who tries to play the players from the beginning. He should try to play up his attempts at redemption, and deliberately play on the characters' sympathies (and you'd know what pulls your players more than I would...) For the group I plan to run this for, having him confess to a bad past, but emphasize he's trying to do right now will probably play well. Once the betrayal becomes clear, of course, they should realize he was never sincere, and was a bad guy all along. The elves look like a very different case. They are trying to do good, they are really fighting the drow, and trying to prevent the world from ending. They turn on the players out of fear. The players are on to a secret that they believe may doom them if it gets out. Now, some of this will depend on the module itself, but I'd try to play this out so that players are reminded of Saul's betrayal. But they should also have friends among the elves who disagree with the Council, and still try to help them. And they should then find the reasons behind it, and see that the Council isn't Saul. Finding this, and seeing the differences, could lead to some interesting play. In short, I'd like the cases to initially seem parallel, but not really be so, and I'd hope to be able to bring that out. Drew Garrett
Well, I appreciate that some folks are reading this, and I hope it comes in handy for others. We've played Rise of the Rune Lords, and were going to play Crimson Throne. But I liked Second Darkness better, so we decided to do that one instead. That's the main reason I've started on these conversions. I'll post more as I do them...
I'd posted this on the Second Darkness forum, and haven't gotten any responses, so figured I'd try again over here. Anyway, I'm working on converting Second Darkness to 4th edition, and started with the Companion - the options for the players. Looking for any comments or suggestions. Thanks, Drew
I have a group that is tentatively interested in trying Second Darkness as a 4th edition game. I started doing some conversion work, and figured it was worth posting here, for some suggestions (and for anyone else to use, if desired.) I'm starting with the Player's Guide, since that is what will go out to players as part of the initial campaign package.
Anything not mentioned in this section can be assumed to remain as written.
Spoiler:
DRAGONBORN These creatures appear to be native to the Green World. Their appearance on Golarion has never been explained, but they appear to come occasionally through long-forgotten Azlanti Gates. They have never existed in Golarion in sufficient numbers to form any community, and no Dragonborn birth has ever been recorded on Golarion (one presumes there is no such problem on their home world…) Golarion’s dragons have a well-known antipathy for Dragonborn, which makes them generally unwelcome. Riddleport is a generally safer spot for Dragonborn than many more orderly cities, as they are accustomed to ‘welcoming’ the unwanted.
As written. Note that while elves and eladrin can distinguish each other on sight, they are identical species to outsiders. As such, everything written about elves also applies to eladrin.
The section on elves covers everything to be said about eladrin also. While elves and eladrin can distinguish each other on sight, they are identical species to outsiders. The two species do not get along well. Eladrin maintain a stronger connection to the First World, but that connection weakens as they stay in this world. It is possible for eladrin to give birth to an elf. In this world, the converse is not possible.
As written. Players choosing to play a gnome will use the rules from the Monster Manual.
As written. Players choosing to play a half-orc will use the rules from the Monster Manual.
As written.
Spoiler:
While this does not exist as a class, barbarians certainly do exist. Feel free to use the name, despite the actual class. Shoanti barbarians tend towards Rangers, while Ulfen tend towards Rogues or Paladins.
Another class that has not been carried over to 4th edition yet. Given the general dislike towards this class, I’m considering this an NPC option, and not bothering with much more at this time. If someone is dying to play a bard-equivalent, let me know, we’ll discuss it.
Note that the Golarion gods are the ones supported here. I have not converted all the divine feats. Please let me know what God you’d like to follow, we can work on that one. The Gods mentioned in this section remain the primary Gods in Riddleport.
While the class has not been carried over, Clerics of Besmara and Gozreh are occasionally called Druids.
Another class that has not been carried over to 4th edition yet. This has never been an hugely popular class, so I’m again relegating it to NPC status, pending a new release of the class.
Use wizard. They are no longer easy to distinguish mechanically. Wizards study, sorcerers seem to have a natural gift. They are thus distinguished by background.
Like wizards, many warlocks come to Riddleport to obsess over the monuments, and try to divine their hidden secrets. Several have joined the Order of Cyphers, although that order officially does not welcome warlocks. There is generally a darker edge with warlocks than with wizards, though. Many warlocks report feeling drawn to Riddleport, and have great difficulty leaving. They have been known to work themselves to death poring over the Cyphergate. Riddleport is a dangerous flame, but it draws warlocks like moths.
Just as Riddleport always needs strong arms and sharp weapons, it also needs people to lead them. They’ve never developed a strong military or guard position, so leadership tends to fall to those who will take it. Many of the more effective gangs have a warlord at their core. Some would go very far, but there is usually competition from a neighboring gang, possibly with its own leader. This never stops a new warlord from trying, hoping to be the one to make it big.
Spoiler:
We’ll have these too. All characters gain 2 traits, one of which must be a Campaign Trait. I have adapted the first half of all the basic traits. If there is a trait on the unconverted list that particularly intrigues you, feel free to discuss it. It’ll probably go faster if you also present a conversion yourself. Note that the changes listed are mechanical only. The reasons, or background, behind the trait remains as written unless specifically changed.
Additional Traits: As written. This is a heroic tier feat.
1. Anatomist: You do an extra +1 damage on a critical hit. This goes to +2 at 11th level, and +3 at 21st.
1. Birthmark: You gain a +2 trait bonus to your Will when targeted by a power with the charm keyword.
1. Classically Schooled: You gain a +2 trait bonus to your Arcana skill when using it as a knowledge check.
1. Adopted: As written (note that there are no racial traits as yet.)
1. Fools for Friends: You gain +1 trait bonus to and Aid Another action, whether you take it to aid another, or they take it to aid you. You gain +1 to your Will defense against any power with the charm keyword, provided you have an ally within 6 squares.
Spoiler:
To Do: Convert poisons (see DMG p. 51)
Spoiler:
Paragon Path Prerequisite: Rogue class. Good or Unaligned.
Liberator’s Action (11th Level): You may spend an action point to rally your allies. Any ally within 6 squares may make an immediate saving throw against any fear effect, and they may make an immediate attempt to escape if applicable. Any such attempt, save or escape, gains a +4 bonus. Note that the liberator may include himself in this effect. Neutralize the Slaver’s Weapon (11th Level): The liberator gains a +2 bonus to his Fortitude defense against any poison effect, and gains a +2 to save against any poison effect. Enter Quickly Now (16th Level): The liberator may use the Thievery skill to open locks as a move action without penalty. If this is part of a skill challenge in combat, he may use the skill twice in one round (once as a standard action, once as a move action.) Sunder Weapon Liberator Attack 11
Instant Escape Liberator Utility 12
Turn their Weapons Against Them Liberator Attack 20
Spoiler:
Hero’s Brew Level 15 A potent brew made exclusively by the Church of Cayden Cailean. Imbibers feel the spirit and courage of the God Himself, but also some of the God’s less pleasant effects. Potion 1,000 gp Power (Consumable * Divine): Minor Action. Drink the potion and spend an action point (this counts as the one action point you may spend per encounter). For the rest of the encounter, you receive +2 to all attacks, and +2 to all saves. But, you also receive -2 to Will Defense, -2 to all Wisdom checks, and automatically fail your first save against any effect that attacked your Will Defense. Luthier’s Blade Level 8+
Ring of Emancipation Level 16
Spoiler:
I am changing these from spells to rituals.
Level: 4
Level: 5
No idea on this one as of yet. This may become a wizard power, though I’m resistant to that as the verbal component mechanic is now a bit too foreign to the game (as is extending casting times.) I can’t come up with a useful ritual form of this either. Ideas welcome.
Level: 3
NEW FEATS
Not done yet. Open to ideas.
Not done yet. Open to ideas.
Spoiler:
Caver’s Hammock Level 6
Mushroom Vest Level 4
Portable Stalactite Level 5
Ring of the Stone Sibling Level 13
Note: Need defenses and hit points for duplicate… Salt Lamp Level 3
Sporeblade Level 13+
Spelunker’s Mail Level 7+
Trackless Boots Level 7
Spoiler:
Not converted as of yet. No plans to do so unless necessary. Thanks for any help, Drew Garrett
I have run a few skill challenges, and while I like some aspects of them, I have yet to be fully satisfied with any of them. The part I like is that all the players get to be involved in non-combat situations. I have a mixed group of players, some of whom usually sit out the 'talky bits' (that phrase coined by one of the players who usually sits them out.) I have other players who really enjoy the non-combat situations. Anyway, skill challenges have proven a way to keep everyone involved in them, as there's the promise of dice-rolling for everyone, even if my role players do more of the talking. But, I generally find I have to spell out the challenge a bit more than I like. I tell them what I consider the primary skills, and any special rules I'm laying out for this one. That's how I can keep my more combat-oriented players involved, but it feels to me like I'm channeling things too much. We also go around the table, like we would in a combat, with each person getting his addition to the skill challenge. It keeps everyone involved, but there are also times where it feels like I'm breaking the flow of the encounter. ("OK, you're making great progress trading stories with the Duke, he's definitely warming to you. Oops, next person's turn...") Like I said, I find the skill challenges a generally good addition to the game, but I'm still struggling to make them work as well as I think they should. Drew Garrett
Your questions fit much better into 3.5's simulationist view than they do into the more gamist 4.0, but I'll do my best at answering them - keeping in mind this is my opinion, of course... A PC is worth the same XP as any other creature at his level. The PC is neither an elite nor a solo creature. If you tack on a PC class template to a monster, it becomes an elite creature, as it then has both the class and its own roster of abilities, hit points, etc. Now, a PC does have advantages over the creature - that's why we expect them to win most fights. But many of the class' advantages come over the course of multiple encounters. If you want to stat up a PC for the players to fight, it should still give the same XP as any other creature of its level. If you add an NPC to a party, you should probably add more monsters to the opposing side for balance. But if you don't want to increase threats, count the NPC the same as you would a player of the same level. Numbers matter, and adding someone else to the players' team decreases their risk, so it should decrease reward as well. I'm not aware of any guidance for the cost in gold for hiring NPCs, whether for combat or non-combat roles. My own opinion would be that combat roles would go for an equal share of the treasure. For non-combat roles, you're largely on your own. But -- 4.0 has finally given up pretending that they're trying to simulate a real economy. They go over the buying and selling of adventuring gear, magic items, etc. You should probably follow suit, and separate out non-adventuring costs. If your players are amenable to obviously cooked excuses (no, the merchants dealing in magic items insist on ancient coins, and won't take the copper and chickens people deal with in town...) you can let your PCs run businesses, manage lands, and the like. It's less of a problem to have adventuring coin support these ventures, but there is an assumption that things can't go the other way. Anyway, that seems to be a built-in guideline for 4.0. Drew Garrett
So the focus of 4E players is in the role of adventurers. I get that. What about support people such as the scribe and the bowyer and the innkeeper and etc.? Do they no longer exist? As a DM, I like fleshing out my community. But not everyone has class levels. How do you show this? And what about the player that decides to "settle down" and build an inn? Is that it? So flesh them out. This is easier in 4th edition than it was in 3rd, because you don't have to make sure all the numbers add up. If you want a good town blacksmith, simply note - 'good blacksmith' and you're done. You don't have to figure out where to put his other skill points, whether he's an expert or a commoner, and so on. If you fully statted out all members of your community in 3rd edition... Well, you need to get out more. In any event, no, 4th is not built around that same idea. You can argue that 4th edition is tearing down the role play, as you can't support these non-combat professions with the rules. On the other hand, you can argue that it is enhancing the role play, because you're not expected to cover everything with rules. It all depends how you want to use it.
Getting clearer, but still not there yet ;-) So, to get this straight, we're now talking about obstacles to movement, in non-combat situations, right? No active guardians, just a strictly passive obstacle. And it's a problem that eladrin can move past these? Nope, still not seeing it. Passive obstacles rarely provide a ton of good gameplay for me anyway. Sure, it may take a lot of time for the characters to build/climb/cross the obstacle, but it usually doesn't take much game time. They come up with a solution, and say they implement it. I may or may not have them roll some dice, and we move on. The fact that eladrin have a built-in ability that lets them do this doesn't overly bother me. If I have an obstacle that is supposed to prevent the players from progressing that way for a while, I can block an eladrin as easily as any other character. Just put up an obstacle that blocks line of sight. Given how stubborn most players I've gamed with are, any obstacle that is less than 25' wouldn't stop them anyway - I need something much more than that to get them to go in another direction, anyway... Let's take your 'jets from the wall' example. I'm going to assume the following set up. We have a corridor that is intended to be dangerous to the players - maybe the passage to the sultan's harem ;-) So jets of fire spring from the wall unless someone at the other end, maybe one of the sultan's eunuchs, has turned off the trap. If I'm following rules of architecture, I don't want long hallways - but in rules for dungeon designs, this hallway would probably be about 40' or more anyway (I want the whole party to be able to be in the hall, and I want it to take more than 1 round of normal movement to traverse.) But let's say that I decided to go for realism, and made the corridor 15' long. So, what happens? Our party (and we'll assume an all-eladrin party for the moment) goes into the hallway, and triggers the trap. Whoever is in the lead gets zapped. If there's a delay - like the pressure plate is 5' into the corridor, I might catch 2 or more people. They take their damage, and run out of the corridor. Now what? Well, they can teleport to the end of the corridor, where there's a door. They can try to batter the door down, while taking fire damage. (Of course a non-eladrin party could do the same, after 1 round of movement down the corridor.) Advantage: None. Please, give me a full example you might use in an adventure, or that you think might come up in a game, where this is a problem. Drew Garrett
I'm tempted to just let this drop, since we're not really getting anywhere, but I'm puzzled - so I'll ask. You say I'm using round-by-round rules in a non-combat situation. True, but the rules are the same. I wouldn't break out a battlemat either, but if there's a sequence of actions that is not possible round-by-round, then it wouldn't be possible out of rounds either. But, then, from the game point of view, if there's a non-combat pit, I wouldn't handle it much differently for an eladrin or anyone else. For an eladrin, it's "You fall into a 10' pit and take some damage." "OK, I teleport out of it." For anyone else, it's "You fall into a 10' pit and take some damage." "OK, I climb out." (Or, someone pulls me out, or some other variation.) Drew
|
