brdstnstrnglr's page

Okay :)

I thought we had one to do because the second month is coming up when I get my gecko moount

so were we going to be doing the kingdom building here soon or not??

Josh I'm pretty sure you add in your diplomacy bonus to that...

oh well yes in that case please use the above role.

I'm not sure what you mean by innuendo. I sincerely hoped she would take the position and I was anxiously awaiting her response.
but that said if you still think i need a bluff check.
1d20 + 3 ⇒ (18) + 3 = 21

sorry i fat fingered the 6 on that it should be + 14 so that should be 19(sorry it's dark)

Here is the role for my relationship Tim
1d20 + 16 ⇒ (5) + 16 = 21
Todd I will post the build points stuff tomorrow.

please post positions and relevant stats

works for me Todd subtract the points Tim put the new additions in Elfheim if you would.

finally

No worries just trying to keep things moving so that this session is done before w have to start the next one.:)

again as it's been almost 2 weeks I'm going to go ahead and roll for Todd unless he's already done it at work.

1d20 ⇒ 20

1d20 ⇒ 5
1d20 ⇒ 9
1d20 ⇒ 3
1d20 ⇒ 2
1d20 ⇒ 6
1d20 ⇒ 14
1d20 ⇒ 4
1d20 ⇒ 20

biggest magic items first

how many rolls do we need for sell Items?

3 farms in grasslands so minus 6 build points

build 3 new farms i will mark them on our map Is there a difference between plains and hills for farm cost if so let me know and I will let you know where we can build them.

I'm looking into doing a rogue(scout)/fighter. strength based and following the step up tree so that eventually if someone moves up to 10 feet away from squares he threatens I'll be able to follow and make a sneak attack without losing any movement on my turn.

I agree on not expanding this round. as far as establishing and improving hexes how many farms are we able to build right now. There are currently about 13 hexes we could build farms in. And another 3 or 4 that I could ask Tim about.

since this hasn't been done i'm guess josh hasn't done it so i'm going to go ahead and roll for him so we can keep this moving...
1d20 ⇒ 5

per usual i believe we always do the big ones first so first three are major and the next 5 are medium

1d20 ⇒ 12
1d20 ⇒ 12
1d20 ⇒ 8
1d20 ⇒ 11
1d20 ⇒ 9
1d20 ⇒ 11
1d20 ⇒ 2
1d20 ⇒ 13

Looks like there are 6 plains and a bunch of other hills hexes we can make into farmland. so i guess it depends on how many farms we can make per cycle. so if we can make 6 farms then we have the plains space to do it and it would cost us about 12 BP.

I think just the 2 jails at this point

I think we do somewhere, and I definitely agree that we need to focus hard on farms and other things to reduce consumption. Realistically resolving the consumption issue will help take care of the stability issue faster. So if you want we could just focus on that for now too.

I agree on focusing on making farms for now and I'd like to build a few buildings amybee 1 or 2 to help reduce our stability check

My 2 cents:

As a player I see the usefulness of the idea, I have an odd stat and I'd like to make it a nice even number without wasting an extremely valuable stat bump.

As a GM I see the "cheaty" side of it in that it would allow you to carelessly level your stats out across the board.

That said if I were going to allow it I would probably make the cost half of what the regular bonus would be. So for example a +1 item would be half the cost of a +2; a +3 item would be half the cost of +4 and a +5 would be half the cost of a +6. In addition I think I would also not allow players to use item creation feats to use the work around. The idea being there is a very set formula to make a +2,4 or 6 item and once you stray from that formula your "adventurer" character just doesn't have the crafting chops to work outside the +2,4,6 formula. I suppose if the players tied to argue the last point you could let them use item creation feats to make odd numbered items at 3/4 price or something along those lines.

edit: I'd also like to add that it's totally acceptable to ban all base classes, and say that you need to choose from the core classes. I've seen alot of GM's do this because it save them time from having to learn entirely new classes and not get blindsided by abilities they weren't aware that the character might possess.

Not sure if I agree Like you said it'd be one thing to outlaw a class based on campaign setting. I think it's totally different to do it because you as a GM don't want to take the time to learn your players characters. In addition getting blind-sided by abilities happens all the time (met-gaming aside) to players. I think part of the fun is trying to keep my GM on his toes as much as he keeps our group on ours. As a GM you have the ability to throw countless curve balls at your players because you run the world. As a player it's far harder to sneak one past the plate on a GM especially if he has narrowed the field to only the classes he or she is familiar with.

I actually just ran into this tonight at my weekly King Maker game. I ended up grappled under water and talking it over with the GM we decided since I was grappled I could effectively just smash the bomb against the creature and the the fire from the fire bomb would take effect as a steam cloud (the whole heat and water thing). We determined it would do it's additional d6 "fire" damage and being steam under water would disperse immediately after. As far as actually throwing a bomb under water I would say it acts like a ranged attack (although really if you've ever tried to throw anything under water you know it's just not going to happen).