1. The only other one that will matter for me is Precise Strike.
2. Also, FYI, with the feat changes and no longer turning in my armor profs for combat expertise, I no longer qualify for any improved (combat maneuver) feats. So...Sheraviel is going to be quite a bit more changed and limited in her capabilities. Just in case you need that information while planning things next session.
3. Trog's AC is 15. That's with a 19 dex and a 16 in wisdom. I understand why you don't want to give a big bonus to anything at first level...but she has no options to raise her AC, as a monk. I'm not sure exactly what to do about it.
1. I'll look at that one when I get home, and maybe fix the Precise Strike wording (if needed) to avoid potential problems. Offhand, I don't think that one will be an issue; if it requires a 1-handed piercing weapon and nothing in your off-hand, then it still improves for an EldKt by the same logic as Canny Defense.
2. Hmmm... Armor and shields go to canny defense and Dodge. That leaves you a feat and a talent (which you'd spent on a bonus feat), which gives you Combat Expertise and Improved Disarm. Or am I missing something?
3. Hmmm. I'd wanted to avoid monk being a "must-be" 1-level dip for anyone with decent Wis and low armor, but I can definitely see the problem here. I really hate to add something as artifical and lame as "however much you take in canny defense, you're stuck progressing as a monk unil that's paid off," though. OTOH, +1 dodge at 1st level doesn't help much, but it's better than nothing... maybe make the monk's dodge bonus exactly mirror Power Attack and Combat Expertise? That way it's +1 at 1st level, +1 per 4 levels thereafter, which seems reasonable and has a nice symmetry to it.
Opinions?
|
1. I'll look at that one when I get home, and maybe fix the Precise Strike wording (if needed) to avoid potential problems. Offhand, I don't think that one will be an issue; if it requires a 1-handed piercing weapon and nothing in your off-hand, then it still improves for an EldKt by the same logic as Canny Defense.
I editted a previous post to mention that precise strike and insightful strike are nearly copies of each other. You might wnat to consider choosing one or the other as a possibility too.
2. Hmmm... Armor and shields go to canny defense and Dodge. That leaves you a feat and a talent (which you'd spent on a bonus feat), which gives you Combat Expertise and Improved Disarm. Or am I missing something?
No, you're not. But I'm only going to get one talent. To help Sheraviel actually be a threat, I need to choose something that will up her ability to damage enemies while still allowing her to fit within the campaign's swashbuckling theme. Precise strike or weapon training are the real choices there, and precise strike fits the flavor best. I'll take imp. disarm or trip when I can, but I can't have it now, as I need Combat Expertise to get it.
Canny defense raised my ac by 1, but it removed combat expertise as a "free" trade in feat, which means I no longer qualified for improved disarm with my first level feat, so I took combat expertise. That's all.
3. Hmmm. I'd wanted to avoid monk being a "must-be" 1-level dip for anyone with decent Wis and low armor, but I can definitely see the problem here. I really hate to add something as artifical and lame as "however much you take in canny defense, you're stuck progressing as a monk unil that's paid off."
OTOH, +1 dodge at 1st level doesn't help much, but it's better than nothing... maybe make the monk's dodge bonus exactly mirror Power Attack and Combat Expertise? That way it's +1 at 1st level, +1 per 4 levels thereafter, which seems reasonable and has a nice symmetry to it.
Opinions?
that might work. It's similar to the solution I offered.
Monks are pretty MAD classes, still, so not getting the full wisdom bonus to AC is usually only going to delay full AC bonuses by 1-3 levels. The first two levels, with low damage, low speed and low defenses are going to be really really rough, though.
the other option is: If you have levels in any class other than monk, you can only gain a bonus to your AC equal to your levels in monk or your wisdom modifier, whichever is lower.
1. I edited a previous post to mention that precise strike and insightful strike are nearly copies of each other. You might want to consider choosing one or the other as a possibility too.
2. To help Sheraviel actually be a threat, I need to choose something that will up her ability to damage enemies while still allowing her to fit within the campaign's swashbuckling theme. Precise strike or weapon training are the real choices there, and precise strike fits the flavor best. I'll take imp. disarm or trip when I can, but I can't have it now, as I need Combat Expertise to get it.
1. Did I leave insightful strike in there? Grrr! Lemme check when I get home and fix that. Thanks!
2. Ah... I see now. Combat Experise was doing double-duty before as AC boost AND feat prerequisite. Would it be better if you had the option to pick either Combat Expertise or canny defense? The latter could then be added to the talents list as well.
|
|
1. I edited a previous post to mention that precise strike and insightful strike are nearly copies of each other. You might want to consider choosing one or the other as a possibility too.
2. To help Sheraviel actually be a threat, I need to choose something that will up her ability to damage enemies while still allowing her to fit within the campaign's swashbuckling theme. Precise strike or weapon training are the real choices there, and precise strike fits the flavor best. I'll take imp. disarm or trip when I can, but I can't have it now, as I need Combat Expertise to get it.
1. Did I leave insightful strike in there? Grrr! Lemme check when I get home and fix that. Thanks!
2. Ah... I see now. Combat Experise was doing double-duty before as AC boost AND feat prerequisite. Would it be better if you had the option to pick either Combat Expertise or canny defense? The latter could then be added to the talents list as well.
Better in the short run, but not the long run. All it means is she's got to gain a little more skill with fighting before she can easily disarm an enemy (I will be taking disarm or trip at level 2). It's mostly painful because I had it and lost it due to class changes, not because it's "unfair" or anything.
Hehe, happiest for me would be to give up light and heavy shield use for Combat Expertise. This has the added benefit of making fighting without shields make sense as something more than an elven fashion statement. ;)
Hehe, happiest for me would be to give up light and heavy shield use for Combat Expertise. This has the added benefit of making fighting without shields make sense as something more than an elven fashion statement. ;)
Hmmm... Dodge is a feat. Combat Expertise is a feat. In an ideal world, a feat should equal a feat, and trading one for another shouldn't be a problem. So...
Yes. Go for it!
|
|
Hehe, happiest for me would be to give up light and heavy shield use for Combat Expertise. This has the added benefit of making fighting without shields make sense as something more than an elven fashion statement. ;)Hmmm... Dodge is a feat. Combat Expertise is a feat. In an ideal world, a feat should equal a feat, and trading one for another shouldn't be a problem. So...
Yes. Go for it!
sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet.
Are we just going to let this thread die a horrible death of ignorance? No, I say. Let it live on another day.
Sure! I'm here!
How about this one for discussion:
I'd like to allow both the new Cleave feats (as in the Pathfinder rules, but without the silly -2 to AC) and the old Cleave feats (gotta drop the guy, but doesn't take a full-round action) as options. The question is, which ones get renamed?
1. If people are used to the old names for the old effects, we can keep "Cleave" and "Great Cleave" as per the 3.5 SRD, and rename the new ones something like "Reactive Cleave" and "Sword Wall" to simulate what they actually do.
2. On the flip side, if people want to apply the names as in the Pathfinder rules, the old feats can be renamed "Killing Cleave" and "Slaughtering Cleave" or something, in reference to their effects.
Suggestions/comments?
Quiet, I'm stinking..... er.... thinking.
BTW, on the question of Athletics or Acrobatics, I feel that Climb and Swim could be added to Athletics. I notice that you had already done that. Just wanted to add my voice to the discussion.
|
Eh, we just like doing stuff differently. Rename stuff, make stuff up, houserule the living hell out of everything.
Gotta make 3x/PFRPG playable somehow, ya know...
;)
Kirth should have been a game designer, seriously. Jess should have been a game editor.
I would be a good playtester to determine how quickly depressed characters can snuff themselves at the hands of deformed goblins and wizards...
|
|
Eh, we just like doing stuff differently. Rename stuff, make stuff up, houserule the living hell out of everything.
Gotta make 3x/PFRPG playable somehow, ya know...
;)
Kirth should have been a game designer, seriously. Jess should have been a game editor.
I would be a good playtester to determine how quickly depressed characters can snuff themselves at the hands of deformed goblins and wizards...
Everyone has a niche.
Is it required they be renamed? Let them specific Cleave(3.5) or Great Cleave(PF) at the time of choosing. Then either feat can fill prerequisites for other feats/prestige classes. Or does that clash with your intent?
I have no problem with mixing/matching prerequisites, and will probably spell that out in the descriptions. I do recommend renaming one set, though, so that there's no confusion during play: "Wait, didn't you do a Pathfinder-type cleave last time?" If they're treated as being interchangeable, and also share a name, then I foresee a lot of people using the Pathfinder rules until they hit 6th level, and then all of a sudden "remembering" that they "meant to use the 3.5 rules all along." Giving the feats separate names (even if all the names have "Cleave" in them somewhere) alleviates this sort of confusion.
Also -- and this is a secondary reason -- I just like for rules-specific written language to be clear-cut and unambiguous. While playing, you can say, "I wanna get that enchantment on my sword!" and we all know what you mean, but to use "enchantment" in the written rules to mean ANYTHING other than the school of magic is just plain sloppy work. (Look at all the confusion that came up in the Beta testing because Jason kept writing "your level" instead of "your class level" or "your caster level" or "your character level.") Renaming skill levels as "ranks" in 3e was a really excellent thing to do. Having two feats with totally different effects that are both officially named "Cleave" is worse than having two definitions of "level."
I like keeping both versions of Cleave and Great Cleave in the game, but as long as we're renaming it, let's just drop "cleave" altogether from one set of feats, especially since they're essentially two different branches in the Power Attack feat chain.
Keep the 3.5 names the same, since everyone at the table automatically knows what they are without thinking (Power Attack > Cleave > Great Cleave). Change the PF name for cleave to something like "Violent Chop" or "Forceful Slice," which would give you the Power Attack > [PFcleave] > Swordwall feat chain.
However, I was thinking about it as I wrote the above, and with the -2 to AC removed from the PF Cleave, the houserule strongly overshadows the 3.5 Cleave. They are essentially the same attack, except that the 3.5 Cleave means you have to kill a creature before you get to use the feat. Am I missing something?
Am I missing something?
The thing is that the Pathfinder feat, if I read it correctly, requires a standard action you declare in advance; it doesn't activate automatically. Which makes it far worse than the 3.5 version as soon as you hit BAB +6. The penalty to AC is just adding insult to injury.
I was inclined to keep "Cleave" for the 3.5 feat for exactly the reasons you cited; also, your comments regarding dropping "Cleave" from the Pathfinder names completely makes perfect sense to me, in retrospect. So, unless someone has a different idea, I'm also in favor of renaming the PF Cleave chain completely (use of this chain as prerequisites for other stuff remains TBD, but I personally kind of like the idea). The question is what to call them. Let's have a contest!
Cleave --> Reactive Strike, Follow-Through, Violent Chop, Forceful Slice... [make suggestion here]
Great Cleave --> Sword Wall, Improved Follow-Through, Mass Chop, Multi-Slice... [make suggestion here]
Maybe we should offer a prize, like winner gets the renamed Cleave as a bonus feat for one character?
|
|
Cleave --> Reactive Strike, Follow-Through, Violent Chop, Forceful Slice... [make suggestion here]
Great Cleave --> Sword Wall, Improved Follow-Through, Mass Chop, Multi-Slice... [make suggestion here]Maybe we should offer a prize, like winner gets the renamed Cleave as a bonus feat for one character?
Hehe, then you should get a new feat for some NPC. I think Follow-Through is the perfect name (and by extension imp. follow-through). It gives a clear mental picture of the difference between it and Cleave, but provides similar imagery.
Just a reminder that my grasp of the 3.5 rules never fully developed, so when I ask "Am I missing something?" the answer is usually "yes." That said...
The thing is that the Pathfinder feat, if I read it correctly, requires a standard action you declare in advance; it doesn't activate automatically. Which makes it far worse than the 3.5 version as soon as you hit BAB +6. The penalty to AC is just adding insult to injury.
So what you're saying is that after BAB +6, the 3.5 feat has the potential to take affect multiple times a round (dependent on if you drop an enemy), but the PF feat can only occur once a round?
Cleave --> Reactive Strike, Follow-Through, Violent Chop, Forceful Slice... [make suggestion here]
I was trying to work "hack" in there, seeing as how it's a Power Attack feat, but I couldn't think of an adjective that flowed into it very well.
Maybe we should offer a prize, like winner gets the renamed Cleave as a bonus feat for one character?
I would do that for Telekentic Fist all the time!
Yeah, I like "Follow-Through" and "Improved Follow-Through" the most, too. They best describe the feat.
So what you're saying is that after BAB +6, the 3.5 feat has the potential to take affect multiple times a round (dependent on if you drop an enemy), but the PF feat can only occur once a round?
The SRD text specifies that you can use the 3.5 Cleave once per round only, but the thing is that you'd have multiple chances to drop someone and make that happen, once your BAB reaches +6. The important thing is, the 3.5 feat can take effect anytime during a full attack, or in conjunction with Vital Strike, etc. -- whereas the Pathfinder feat is written in such a way that you CAN'T take a full attack with it, and you can't use it in conjunction with any other "standard action" feats. What makes up for it is the fact that all you have to do is hit someone.
Yeah, I like "Follow-Through" and "Improved Follow-Through" the most, too. They best describe the feat.
Sold.
|
If they're treated as being interchangeable, and also share a name, then I foresee a lot of people using the Pathfinder rules until they hit 6th level, and then all of a sudden "remembering" that they "meant to use the 3.5 rules all along."
My patch for this issue involves steel folding chairs. But now that we have appropriate names for both, we can avoid the unwelcome police intercessions. ^_^
The SRD text specifies that you can use the 3.5 Cleave once per round only, but the thing is that you'd have multiple chances to drop someone and make that happen, once your BAB reaches +6. The important thing is, the 3.5 feat can take effect anytime during a full attack, or in conjunction with Vital Strike, etc. -- whereas the Pathfinder feat is written in such a way that you CAN'T take a full attack with it, and you can't use it in conjunction with any other "standard action" feats. What makes up for it is the fact that all you have to do is hit someone.
Ah, gotcha. Makes sense, now.
|
|
The SRD text specifies that you can use the 3.5 Cleave once per round only, but the thing is that you'd have multiple chances to drop someone and make that happen, once your BAB reaches +6. The important thing is, the 3.5 feat can take effect anytime during a full attack, or in conjunction with Vital Strike, etc. -- whereas the Pathfinder feat is written in such a way that you CAN'T take a full attack with it, and you can't use it in conjunction with any other "standard action" feats. What makes up for it is the fact that all you have to do is hit someone.Ah, gotcha. Makes sense, now.
There is an additional difference that came up with my paladin player quite often. He kept complaining about it until I reminded him how many more extra attacks he got because he just had to hit another creature, not kill it:
If you deal a creature enough damage to make it drop (typically by dropping it to below 0 hit points or killing it), you get an immediate, extra melee attack against another creature within reach. You cannot take a 5-foot step before making this extra attack. The extra attack is with the same weapon and at the same bonus as the attack that dropped the previous creature. You can use this ability once per round.
As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within reach. If you hit, you deal damage normally and can make an additional attack (using your full base attack bonus) against a foe that is adjacent to the first and also within reach. You can only make one additional attack per round with this feat. When you use this feat, you take a –2 penalty to your Armor Class until your next turn.
Namely, you're not only making the attack against something else within reach of you, the creature also must be adjacent to the creature you just hit.
Namely, you're not only making the attack against something else within reach of you, the creature also must be adjacent to the creature you just hit.
Good catch! Because, for someone like Jerry's glaive-wielder, that's a pretty horrific nerf. Then again, "just hit" vs. "hit and drop" is a pretty big distinction unless you're fighting goblins. So,
Cleave, Great Cleave --> Fighting a horde of kobolds
Follow-Through chain --> Fighting a gang of armored giants
Rim wants the "adjacent enemy" portion of PF Cleave dropped. He sees no reason he can't continue to cleave peoples faces.
Rim wants the "adjacent enemy" portion of PF Cleave dropped. He sees no reason he can't continue to cleave peoples faces.
So far you've been killing everyone, so the 3.5 version would be far more Rim-friendly.
Does that mean my alignment is in jeopardy? If I continue will I not be able to become all I can be as a Prestige Paladin?
|
|
Rim wants the "adjacent enemy" portion of PF Cleave dropped. He sees no reason he can't continue to cleave peoples faces.So far you've been killing everyone, so the 3.5 version would be far more Rim-friendly.
Yeah, but the liklihood of dropping a mob drops sharply as you go up in level. The Pathfinder version shuld remain more useful throughout a character's career.
All right, Kirth. I meant to ask this last night, but I forgot. What's the best route to get to your place?
Normally, I come down 59, exit Hillcroft, and take Richmond over. Is that how you would do it at that time of day?
Normally, I come down 59, exit Hillcroft, and take Richmond over. Is that how you would do it at that time of day?
I timed it from here to Derek's and back, and, counterintuitively, it was actually 2 minutes faster to simply take Richmond all the way here (if you're good at timing the lights) and avoid 59 entirely.
Maybe I'll give that a shot. 59 isn't normally the problem, though. It's the feeder when I exit and Hillcroft. 59 and Richmond are smooth sailing.
Maybe I'll give that a shot. 59 isn't normally the problem, though. It's the feeder when I exit and Hillcroft. 59 and Richmond are smooth sailing.
Exactly, the on/off ramps and feeders seem to cost a disproportionate amount of time, compared to the lights on Richmond.
|
|
Do Aviona elves have Golarion bug eyes?
Oh, and Cleave wrt Rim's glaive:
I found combat reflexes better. I took the Tome of Battle stanceThicket of Blades. It's a 3rd level maneuver, so it requires five levels of progression in a class with access to it, and it reuqires a swift action to activate it. It's on until you switch stances or fall unconcious.
While you are in this stance, any opponent you threaten that takes any sort of movement, including a 5 foot step, provokes an attack of opportunity from you Your foes provoke this attack before leaving the area you threaten. Your opponents also cannot use the withdraw action to treat the square they start in as no longer threatened by you.
This made a combat reflexes reach fighter extremely annoying. I stacked it with stand still from the XPH to become the wall between the "squishies" behind me and the enemy.
If you were going to turn this ability into a feat, what would it look like?
It's a pseudo-spell expenditure for the Crusader to use, so it will need some further balancing to make it a viable feat.
I think first, it's not going to be balanced to make such a feat simply have combat reflexes and/or stand still as a feat - you'd want those anyway, and the possibility that every enemy you ever fight would have the ability, with a few feats, to attack and move and prevent you from taking a five foot step or withdraw yourself shows that a simple feat without some changes would be seriously unbalanced.
Here's a possibility:
Thicket of Blades
Prerequisites: Defensive Combat Training, (There are lots of possibilities here.) Base Attack Bonus +6
As a full attack action you enter a defensive stance that allows you to hold yourself ready against any advance or retreat of your enemies. Any movement within the area you threaten, including 5-foot steps and the first five feet of movement during a withdrawal action provoke an attack of opportunity from you. You do not gain the benefit of this feat if you move this round.
Do Aviona elves have Golarion bug eyes?
Only if they wear funky contact lenses. Seriously, I dislike the bulging bug eyes, and always imagine smaller, almond-shaped ones. But with smaller eyes, that means that less of the "white" is showing compared to the iris. Typical (but by no means exclusive) colors would be hazel, amber, green (anywhere from light green to pine green), blue (again, a range of hues), hazel with green flecks, etc. Violet eyes are a sure sign of distant Gray Elven blood.
Of course, there's no reason you can't be a weird bug-eyed, bunny-eared elf from Golarion who got lost in a gate somewhere, if that's what you really want...
If I ever get the Gazeteer ready, I'll have physical descriptions of all the races.
If you were going to turn this ability into a feat, what would it look like?
Heh heh. I'm ahead of you: I already added it as a barbarian rage power. Maybe as an advanced fighter talent, too: I'll have to go look. But overall it seems better than a feat, but just right for a martial class feature.
|
|
Do Aviona elves have Golarion bug eyes?Only if they wear funky contact lenses. Seriously, I dislike the bulging bug eyes, and always imagine smaller, almond-shaped ones. But with smaller eyes, that means that less of the "white" is showing compared to the iris. Typical (but by no means exclusive) colors would be hazel, amber, green (anywhere from light green to pine green), blue (again, a range of hues), hazel with green flecks, etc. Violet eyes are a sure sign of distant Gray Elven blood.
Of course, there's no reason you can't be a weird bug-eyed, bunny-eared elf from Golarion who got lost in a gate somewhere, if that's what you really want...
If I ever get the Gazeteer ready, I'll have physical descriptions of all the races.
No. I can't draw the bug eyes without them looking like alien Grays or Stargate asgard without atrophied bodies.
Golarion elves don't have the bunny ears. That was an unfortunate misunderstanding with the artist who drew the races art used in the beta. He played too much WoW. :)
No. I can't draw the bug eyes without them looking like alien Grays or Stargate asgard without atrophied bodies.
I've seen your character art. All your characters have those Anime-trademark eyes with the funky wedge of color missing out of the top of the iris! ;-P
|
|
No. I can't draw the bug eyes without them looking like alien Grays or Stargate asgard without atrophied bodies.I've seen your character art. All your characters have those Anime-trademark eyes with the funky wedge of color missing out of the top of the iris! ;-P
Those are light reflections!
I can draw slightly creepy pupil-less eyes, infrared-seeing drow eyes, Age of Worms rainbow lamp reflecting eyes, albino red eyes, robot glowy eyes, henge-youkai cat people eyes, changeling all white creepy eyes, arcane sight blue shiny eyes and weird dinosaur eyes, angry flat black eyes and typical humongous anime eyes that, if they were real, would be the size of a softball. But I can't do bug eyes. :P
Those are light reflections!
Sure. That's what they all say. But I know the truth -- that missing wedge of color is a gap in the continuity of the universe, through which they can suck your soul as a gaze attack.
|
|
Normally, I come down 59, exit Hillcroft, and take Richmond over. Is that how you would do it at that time of day?I timed it from here to Derek's and back, and, counterintuitively, it was actually 2 minutes faster to simply take Richmond all the way here (if you're good at timing the lights) and avoid 59 entirely.
I take Richmond from my apartment (Alabama and Sheppard), and it takes maybe 15 minutes to get to Kirth's place at 6pm.
Richmond, Houston's best kept rush hour secret ;)
Normally, I come down 59, exit Hillcroft, and take Richmond over. Is that how you would do it at that time of day?I timed it from here to Derek's and back, and, counterintuitively, it was actually 2 minutes faster to simply take Richmond all the way here (if you're good at timing the lights) and avoid 59 entirely.I take Richmond from my apartment (Alabama and Sheppard), and it takes maybe 15 minutes to get to Kirth's place at 6pm.
Richmond, Houston's best kept rush hour secret ;)
I live down near Westheimer and Montrose, but I'll still give Richmond a shot next week.
I live down near Westheimer and Montrose, but I'll still give Richmond a shot next week.
Man... you can walk to Katz's Deli from there... I'd weigh 700 pounds.
Or maybe we could rent out the upstairs room at the Black Labrador for games...
Some thoughts I had from last session:
1. Drawing a weapon as part of a move action at BAB +1 should be reinstated, because rolling every time the fighter pulls her sword is needlessly annoying, IMHO. I'd still keep a Sleight of Hand check for a character with BAB +0 to pull that off, or for a rogue of any level to pull a concealed dagger "out of nowhere."
2. Remember that hero points can keep you from dying! Use one to auto-stabilize, to reroll an attack or failed save that drops you, or to "conveniently" notice helpful tactical situations.
Example:
Player: "I look around. What are the odds that Taggart's Ale House has big wagon-wheel chandeliers, and that one of them is over the Bravo's and Skanky Chick's heads?"
GM: "Those odds are one out of one, if you spend a hero point..."
Player: "Done! I cut the rope holding the chandelier up!"
At that point, I'd probably drop 2d6 bludgeoning damage on them (Reflex half, and they go to the end of the initiative count if it fails).
|
|
I live down near Westheimer and Montrose, but I'll still give Richmond a shot next week.Man... you can walk to Katz's Deli from there... I'd weigh 700 pounds.
Or maybe we could rent out the upstairs room at the Black Labrador for games...
That's where my old job was. :) The new job is quite convenient for getting to Kirth's place.
Hmm. I always take Westpark to work. Do you think Richmond would be faster?
|
|
Some thoughts I had from last session:
1. Drawing a weapon as part of a move action at BAB +1 should be reinstated, because rolling every time the fighter pulls her sword is needlessly annoying, IMHO. I'd still keep a Sleight of Hand check for a character with BAB +0 to pull that off, or for a rogue of any level to pull a concealed dagger "out of nowhere."
1. I'll keep ranks in sleight of hand anyway - would that allow me to draw my weapon as a free action - during a surprise round, for example?
I'll keep ranks in sleight of hand anyway - would that allow me to draw my weapon as a free action - during a surprise round, for example?
That seems reasonable; I'll look things over and revise the skill description with appropriate tasks and DCs.
Hmm. I always take Westpark to work. Do you think Richmond would be faster?
Westpark Tollway is usually pretty good. You could maybe try Richmond instead only if the WT is really backed up at that time of day. @ Andostre: If you decide you prefer freeways to surface streets and want to keep taking 59, I'd get off at Westpark instead of Hillcroft for sure.