Q: Can a Fighter with a 12 Constitution still use scale armor?
A: The Armor Proficiency (Scale) feat requires a 13 Constitution, but all fighters gain proficiency with scale armor for free (regardless of the prerequisites).
Kane Red Robe on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Some of the dragon articles are online now.
The Description of Yeenoghu is bad ass, as wickedly written as the book of vile darkness.
Check out this attack:
R Bloody Phlegm (standard; at will) ✦ Acid
Ranged 10; +30 vs. Reflex; 1d8 + 6 acid damage, and
the target is blinded (save ends).
He Coughs blood in your face...as a weapon....this isn't even the big dog, its from his Exarch!
I could stand a few months of open beta if we get this kind of content...
dscrilla on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited June 2008
I have a solution for monsters I want to implement into my campaign [converting my old 3rd ed tactical dungeon crawl to 4th] to avoid being blade cascaded into oblivion. This is one of the powers Tai'Khan will posses towards the end of the campaign:
Unbreakable Defense When he fought the barbarian hordes from the north, who would hack and bash away at any opponent without regard to themselves to inflict many mortal blows upon their enemies, they would instead find their first strike was their last and only blow.
Daily ✦ Martial, Weapon.
Immediate Interrupt Personal
Trigger: You are hit by a subsequent attack after the first from any single opponent in melee
Effect: This ability triggers each time you are struck beyond the first successful blow, imposing a -2 penalty to the attack roll on every strike after the first, up to a cumulative total of -10.
I don't see Blade Cascade as a huge deal, mainly because it all depends on you not rolling like shit.
I mean yeah, Elven Accuracy and such can help, but still you can only get an AC so low, so even if you hit on a 5 I doubt you'd get all that many hits in before you miss.
Paladins can, fighters can't. Which strikes me as odd but whatever.
Arkady on
LoL: failboattootoot
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited June 2008
Because this isn't a house rule, this is me doing whatever I want with rules that I can make up perfectly freely.
There are two things I avoid doing in any game system, regardless of what it is:
1) Modifying the core books, especially the players hand book
2) Willy nilly adjusting things when in reality, such a blade cascade build (to make use of it) is equally as much a metagame build as building in an ability. In addition, because I can adjust for blade cascade in other ways, it's not significant enough of a problem like Harm was for me to fiat rule differently.
I'm sure someone can explain to Pony what "Using the core rules consistently that anyone you don't know or hasn't played with you before doesn't need to get a second PHB written by your DM ahead of time with all their modifications" might mean as a concept. He won't get it, but you can try.
But I doubt he'll understand such a complicated concept.
Aegeri if you're going to make house-rules to solve the issue, why not just stick a hard-cap into Blade Cascade.
Like, "you can only make X many attacks with Blade Cascade, regardless of how many times you hit".
There, potentially-game-breaking-ability fixed
Instead of hamfisting abilities into your epic monsters in order to protect them from a single potentially broken power from a single class.
Someone else may want to explain this to Aegeri, he's got me on ignore.
This is really the best solution, I think. Either a fixed number(I see 4 tossed around a lot), or else equal to the Ranger's Dex mod. That way it still has the potential for crazy awe-inspiring devastation, but nobody will be one-shotting Orcus.
Paladins can, fighters can't. Which strikes me as odd but whatever.
Scale mail is not awful compared to plate mail. Plate mail is better, but scale mail isn't terribly far behind.
It's debatably better, one less ac but no check penalty. It just still strikes me as odd is all.
Arkady on
LoL: failboattootoot
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited June 2008
Either a fixed number(I see 4 tossed around a lot), or else equal to the Ranger's Dex mod.
Another commonly proposed solution is after X attacks there is a penalty of some sort, so that you start suffering a -2 cumulative penalty. One good idea proposed that you get up to your dex modifier in penalty-less attacks and then after that each attack suffers -2 per roll. Of course, it's still completely ridiculous and I expect it to end up having some errata eventually, but I've 'solved' the problem for when it actually affects my campaign (I know this is an alien concept to some people) by making a completely invisible [to the players*] solution. Nobody needs to ask me about everything I've potentially changed/not changed, they just learn what their books tell them, sit down, play and have fun.
Just like what I'll be doing in approximately 30 minutes from now when I run the 4th edition module.
*And by this I mean, when I come up with my own antagonists and everything about them, I can do whatever the hell I want as the DM. If I feel it needs specific protection from something I have a legitimate concern about, I make an ability that does exactly what I want and logically justify it within the context of both the campaign and creature. Then I cease caring about the original problem and nobody needs to wonder if I'm going to go all arbitary on their ass because they realised they could do 3000 damage and isn't that awesome. In my experience, players don't mind monsters have special protections or abilities if they make sense, but they do dislike DMs who change rules on them. I merely go from A -> C instead of A -> B -> C. Where B is a completely visible solution to problem A.
That people can't grasp why this is an important concept for people new to Dungeons and Dragons in particular is beyond me (especially because the people I've rallied up to play in my campaign last night, 3 have never played DnD before and 1 is vaguely familiar with NWN).
I would think that if you had the power end on any miss without a chance to re-roll it shouldn't be an issue. I don't have the PHB yet but if it's like 3.5 the offhand is likely going to miss within a few swings.
FanciestWalnut on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I would think that if you had the power end on any miss without a chance to re-roll it shouldn't be an issue. I don't have the PHB yet but if it's like 3.5 the offhand is likely going to miss within a few swings.
Yeah, but that means you need to be consistent with that ruling [that re-rolls end an effect chain] and I'm not sure what other abilities, that are perfectly balanced with regards to re-rolls, may end up being affected.
Paladins can, fighters can't. Which strikes me as odd but whatever.
Scale mail is not awful compared to plate mail. Plate mail is better, but scale mail isn't terribly far behind.
It's debatably better, one less ac but no check penalty. It just still strikes me as odd is all.
Also the specialization feat for Scale removes the speed penalty (as well as adding one to the AC bonus), making it pretty much completely better. The Plate specialization feat only adds the +1 to AC, which leave plate with one greater AC than Scale, but both a speed and a skill penalty.
I would think that if you had the power end on any miss without a chance to re-roll it shouldn't be an issue. I don't have the PHB yet but if it's like 3.5 the offhand is likely going to miss within a few swings.
The first level Warlord in Keep can add a +5 to all attacks against a target for a round. There are a number of powers that can temporarily lower AC, toss in CA or something and an enemy you can hit reasonably (50%) is an enemy who is only missed on a 1.
Paladins can, fighters can't. Which strikes me as odd but whatever.
Scale mail is not awful compared to plate mail. Plate mail is better, but scale mail isn't terribly far behind.
It's debatably better, one less ac but no check penalty. It just still strikes me as odd is all.
Also the specialization feat for Scale removes the speed penalty (as well as adding one to the AC bonus), making it pretty much completely better. The Plate specialization feat only adds the +1 to AC, which leave plate with one greater AC than Scale, but both a speed and a skill penalty.
The only thing that I can think of off the top of my head in response to this is that perhaps magical plate can be made better.
I would think that if you had the power end on any miss without a chance to re-roll it shouldn't be an issue. I don't have the PHB yet but if it's like 3.5 the offhand is likely going to miss within a few swings.
The first level Warlord in Keep can add a +5 to all attacks against a target for a round. There are a number of powers that can temporarily lower AC, toss in CA or something and an enemy you can hit reasonably (50%) is an enemy who is only missed on a 1.
This is part of my logic for just making my own power for whatever I need to stick it on. It's actually just being consistent with the rules, because there are plenty of abilities that institute penalties, reduce damage on hits and similar. The profile on the previous page is actually based on some random shield block power (I forget which class right off the top of my head).
I would think that if you had the power end on any miss without a chance to re-roll it shouldn't be an issue. I don't have the PHB yet but if it's like 3.5 the offhand is likely going to miss within a few swings.
Yeah, but that means you need to be consistent with that ruling [that re-rolls end an effect chain] and I'm not sure what other abilities, that are perfectly balanced with regards to re-rolls, may end up being affected.
Well ya, but personally the way the text is read the second you miss the power ends, while this could be and probably is wrong it seems like a simple way to fix anybodies "problem".
Because this isn't a house rule, this is me doing whatever I want with rules that I can make up perfectly freely.
There are two things I avoid doing in any game system, regardless of what it is:
1) Modifying the core books, especially the players hand book
2) Willy nilly adjusting things when in reality, such a blade cascade build (to make use of it) is equally as much a metagame build as building in an ability. In addition, because I can adjust for blade cascade in other ways, it's not significant enough of a problem like Harm was for me to fiat rule differently.
I'm sure someone can explain to Pony what "Using the core rules consistently that anyone you don't know or hasn't played with you before doesn't need to get a second PHB written by your DM ahead of time with all their modifications" might mean as a concept. He won't get it, but you can try.
But I doubt he'll understand such a complicated concept.
That's a valid point, really.
I mean, I don't take as reverent an attitude towards the Core Books, but then, I also don't generally play D&D with random strangers at conventions or hobby stores either.
If you do like convention gaming, or playing pick-up games with new folks or people you met via your local game store, I can see how your approach has merit. It fortifies the "everyone is playing the same game" mentality that is pretty much central to a good pick-up game experience, and it puts the ball in your court as the DM to respond to potentially game-breaking problems with clever monster or encounter design, rather than simply changing rules which are nonsensical.
It's a valid approach, although personally, I don't apply it. Again, this is something centered around playing regularely with folks who have the same views and approaches to the game I do and where "Dude, that's twinky bullshit, knock that shit off" is a reasonable solution to a twinky game-breaking power or spell or whatever.
I would think that if you had the power end on any miss without a chance to re-roll it shouldn't be an issue. I don't have the PHB yet but if it's like 3.5 the offhand is likely going to miss within a few swings.
The first level Warlord in Keep can add a +5 to all attacks against a target for a round. There are a number of powers that can temporarily lower AC, toss in CA or something and an enemy you can hit reasonably (50%) is an enemy who is only missed on a 1.
First there is no Warlord in Keep, second if the enemy you are fighting is someone you can hit 50% of the time with a group of 5 they are likely to be dead in a few rounds anyway.
I would think that if you had the power end on any miss without a chance to re-roll it shouldn't be an issue. I don't have the PHB yet but if it's like 3.5 the offhand is likely going to miss within a few swings.
The first level Warlord in Keep can add a +5 to all attacks against a target for a round. There are a number of powers that can temporarily lower AC, toss in CA or something and an enemy you can hit reasonably (50%) is an enemy who is only missed on a 1.
But then you've got many party members helping the Ranger do some serious damage.
Because this isn't a house rule, this is me doing whatever I want with rules that I can make up perfectly freely.
There are two things I avoid doing in any game system, regardless of what it is:
1) Modifying the core books, especially the players hand book
2) Willy nilly adjusting things when in reality, such a blade cascade build (to make use of it) is equally as much a metagame build as building in an ability. In addition, because I can adjust for blade cascade in other ways, it's not significant enough of a problem like Harm was for me to fiat rule differently.
I'm sure someone can explain to Pony what "Using the core rules consistently that anyone you don't know or hasn't played with you before doesn't need to get a second PHB written by your DM ahead of time with all their modifications" might mean as a concept. He won't get it, but you can try.
But I doubt he'll understand such a complicated concept.
That's a valid point, really.
I mean, I don't take as reverent an attitude towards the Core Books, but then, I also don't generally play D&D with random strangers at conventions or hobby stores either.
If you do like convention gaming, or playing pick-up games with new folks or people you met via your local game store, I can see how your approach has merit. It fortifies the "everyone is playing the same game" mentality that is pretty much central to a good pick-up game experience, and it puts the ball in your court as the DM to respond to potentially game-breaking problems with clever monster or encounter design, rather than simply changing rules which are nonsensical.
It's a valid approach, although personally, I don't apply it. Again, this is something centered around playing regularely with folks who have the same views and approaches to the game I do and where "Dude, that's twinky bullshit, knock that shit off" is a reasonable solution to a twinky game-breaking power or spell or whatever.
I really think that is the core of the issue, if your group isn't friendly enough to agree on something that is overpowered why are you playing D&D?
Paladins can, fighters can't. Which strikes me as odd but whatever.
Scale mail is not awful compared to plate mail. Plate mail is better, but scale mail isn't terribly far behind.
It's debatably better, one less ac but no check penalty. It just still strikes me as odd is all.
Also the specialization feat for Scale removes the speed penalty (as well as adding one to the AC bonus), making it pretty much completely better. The Plate specialization feat only adds the +1 to AC, which leave plate with one greater AC than Scale, but both a speed and a skill penalty.
The only thing that I can think of off the top of my head in response to this is that perhaps magical plate can be made better.
I would think that if you had the power end on any miss without a chance to re-roll it shouldn't be an issue. I don't have the PHB yet but if it's like 3.5 the offhand is likely going to miss within a few swings.
The first level Warlord in Keep can add a +5 to all attacks against a target for a round. There are a number of powers that can temporarily lower AC, toss in CA or something and an enemy you can hit reasonably (50%) is an enemy who is only missed on a 1.
This is part of my logic for just making my own power for whatever I need to stick it on. It's actually just being consistent with the rules, because there are plenty of abilities that institute penalties, reduce damage on hits and similar. The profile on the previous page is actually based on some random shield block power (I forget which class right off the top of my head).
Some types of magic armor bonuses are exclusive to Plate, just off the top of my head.
I don't know if any of them are, like, good enough to justify the desparity but there you go. You'd have to really take a good eye at it to see if that balances out.
Pony on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Because this isn't a house rule, this is me doing whatever I want with rules that I can make up perfectly freely.
There are two things I avoid doing in any game system, regardless of what it is:
1) Modifying the core books, especially the players hand book
2) Willy nilly adjusting things when in reality, such a blade cascade build (to make use of it) is equally as much a metagame build as building in an ability. In addition, because I can adjust for blade cascade in other ways, it's not significant enough of a problem like Harm was for me to fiat rule differently.
I'm sure someone can explain to Pony what "Using the core rules consistently that anyone you don't know or hasn't played with you before doesn't need to get a second PHB written by your DM ahead of time with all their modifications" might mean as a concept. He won't get it, but you can try.
But I doubt he'll understand such a complicated concept.
That's a valid point, really.
I mean, I don't take as reverent an attitude towards the Core Books, but then, I also don't generally play D&D with random strangers at conventions or hobby stores either.
If you do like convention gaming, or playing pick-up games with new folks or people you met via your local game store, I can see how your approach has merit. It fortifies the "everyone is playing the same game" mentality that is pretty much central to a good pick-up game experience, and it puts the ball in your court as the DM to respond to potentially game-breaking problems with clever monster or encounter design, rather than simply changing rules which are nonsensical.
Because this isn't a house rule, this is me doing whatever I want with rules that I can make up perfectly freely.
There are two things I avoid doing in any game system, regardless of what it is:
1) Modifying the core books, especially the players hand book
2) Willy nilly adjusting things when in reality, such a blade cascade build (to make use of it) is equally as much a metagame build as building in an ability. In addition, because I can adjust for blade cascade in other ways, it's not significant enough of a problem like Harm was for me to fiat rule differently.
I'm sure someone can explain to Pony what "Using the core rules consistently that anyone you don't know or hasn't played with you before doesn't need to get a second PHB written by your DM ahead of time with all their modifications" might mean as a concept. He won't get it, but you can try.
But I doubt he'll understand such a complicated concept.
That's a valid point, really.
I mean, I don't take as reverent an attitude towards the Core Books, but then, I also don't generally play D&D with random strangers at conventions or hobby stores either.
If you do like convention gaming, or playing pick-up games with new folks or people you met via your local game store, I can see how your approach has merit. It fortifies the "everyone is playing the same game" mentality that is pretty much central to a good pick-up game experience, and it puts the ball in your court as the DM to respond to potentially game-breaking problems with clever monster or encounter design, rather than simply changing rules which are nonsensical.
It's a valid approach, although personally, I don't apply it. Again, this is something centered around playing regularely with folks who have the same views and approaches to the game I do and where "Dude, that's twinky bullshit, knock that shit off" is a reasonable solution to a twinky game-breaking power or spell or whatever.
I really think that is the core of the issue, if your group isn't friendly enough to agree on something that is overpowered why are you playing D&D?
You should re-read his post again, because he does actually hit the nail on the head exactly in the first couple of paragraphs. Because of my PhD (but still love of DnD and things roleplaying) the most frequent things I do for my DnD/Changeling/CoC fix are one off modules with friends or random people (say their DM is out of town) or online. Because of this I play with a very wide and diverse group of people. This means I need to make rules as consistently as possible and I can't just go willy nilly modifying things as I see fit on people I have never played with before.
I would think that if you had the power end on any miss without a chance to re-roll it shouldn't be an issue. I don't have the PHB yet but if it's like 3.5 the offhand is likely going to miss within a few swings.
The first level Warlord in Keep can add a +5 to all attacks against a target for a round. There are a number of powers that can temporarily lower AC, toss in CA or something and an enemy you can hit reasonably (50%) is an enemy who is only missed on a 1.
But then you've got many party members helping the Ranger do some serious damage.
Which is pretty much a good thing, right?
So while all these guys are helping out Mr. Ranger do his omfg awesome damage. The rest of the monsters in the encounter are being ignored.
I would think that if you had the power end on any miss without a chance to re-roll it shouldn't be an issue. I don't have the PHB yet but if it's like 3.5 the offhand is likely going to miss within a few swings.
The first level Warlord in Keep can add a +5 to all attacks against a target for a round. There are a number of powers that can temporarily lower AC, toss in CA or something and an enemy you can hit reasonably (50%) is an enemy who is only missed on a 1.
First there is no Warlord in Keep, second if the enemy you are fighting is someone you can hit 50% of the time with a group of 5 they are likely to be dead in a few rounds anyway.
It's on the wizard's site and has been mentioned her and elsewhere repeatedly. Pretty much everything can be hit about 50% of the time by most of the members of the party. Bad guys have a fuck ton of hit points so fights go on for a few rounds....unless one guy attacks 72 times in a single round.
I would think that if you had the power end on any miss without a chance to re-roll it shouldn't be an issue. I don't have the PHB yet but if it's like 3.5 the offhand is likely going to miss within a few swings.
The first level Warlord in Keep can add a +5 to all attacks against a target for a round. There are a number of powers that can temporarily lower AC, toss in CA or something and an enemy you can hit reasonably (50%) is an enemy who is only missed on a 1.
But then you've got many party members helping the Ranger do some serious damage.
Which is pretty much a good thing, right?
So while all these guys are helping out Mr. Ranger do his omfg awesome damage. The rest of the monsters in the encounter are being ignored.
You're forgetting that where Cascade of Blades has it's best effect is on single one off "big boss" type monsters vs. the party encounters. This is where it truly shines, though I'm certain Orcus is probably sporting a sizable army of undead with him.
Pretty much we both recognize the potential abuse of a power like Blade Cascade, Aegeri, but we simply have different approaches to resolving such an issue.
You prefer not modifying the power-as-written but instead build in to some of your more important monsters a safeguard against a twinky player trying to do something BS.
I, on the other hand, would either put a hard rule change in to simply stop it from getting out of hand or, more likely, just ask the player to not do such nonsense.
Both approaches have merit, but work differently. Some DMs like the "Okay, guys, I guess you could twink and metagame here, but the way I designed these monsters it's really not going to be that beneficial" and others are like "Dude, stop that shit. You know what you are doing. Knock it off."
You fall into the former camp, I fall into the latter, at least on this sort of issue.
There's nothing wrong with either attitude, really, they just suit different game styles.
Pony on
0
Options
FeriluceAdrift on the morning star.Aberdeen, WARegistered Userregular
I would think that if you had the power end on any miss without a chance to re-roll it shouldn't be an issue. I don't have the PHB yet but if it's like 3.5 the offhand is likely going to miss within a few swings.
The first level Warlord in Keep can add a +5 to all attacks against a target for a round. There are a number of powers that can temporarily lower AC, toss in CA or something and an enemy you can hit reasonably (50%) is an enemy who is only missed on a 1.
But then you've got many party members helping the Ranger do some serious damage.
Which is pretty much a good thing, right?
So while all these guys are helping out Mr. Ranger do his omfg awesome damage. The rest of the monsters in the encounter are being ignored.
You're forgetting that where Cascade of Blades has it's best effect is on single one off "big boss" type monsters vs. the party encounters. This is where it truly shines, though I'm certain Orcus is probably sporting a sizable army of undead with him.
In the case of an actual deity, I'm sure that whatever the rest of the party can do to buff the ranger isn't going to help as much as against some random grunt. If it's possible to get to the point the ranger can only miss, say Orcus, on a 1 or even 1-5 it may cheapen things.
One thing to remember though is they have to get to him first, and a lot can happen between the start of a dungeon and the final encounter.
I would think that if you had the power end on any miss without a chance to re-roll it shouldn't be an issue. I don't have the PHB yet but if it's like 3.5 the offhand is likely going to miss within a few swings.
The first level Warlord in Keep can add a +5 to all attacks against a target for a round. There are a number of powers that can temporarily lower AC, toss in CA or something and an enemy you can hit reasonably (50%) is an enemy who is only missed on a 1.
But then you've got many party members helping the Ranger do some serious damage.
Which is pretty much a good thing, right?
So while all these guys are helping out Mr. Ranger do his omfg awesome damage. The rest of the monsters in the encounter are being ignored.
You're forgetting that where Cascade of Blades has it's best effect is on single one off "big boss" type monsters vs. the party encounters. This is where it truly shines, though I'm certain Orcus is probably sporting a sizable army of undead with him.
Even though Orcus is a Solo monster, the example Encounter with him in it in the MM gives him minions.
Because this isn't a house rule, this is me doing whatever I want with rules that I can make up perfectly freely.
There are two things I avoid doing in any game system, regardless of what it is:
1) Modifying the core books, especially the players hand book
2) Willy nilly adjusting things when in reality, such a blade cascade build (to make use of it) is equally as much a metagame build as building in an ability. In addition, because I can adjust for blade cascade in other ways, it's not significant enough of a problem like Harm was for me to fiat rule differently.
I'm sure someone can explain to Pony what "Using the core rules consistently that anyone you don't know or hasn't played with you before doesn't need to get a second PHB written by your DM ahead of time with all their modifications" might mean as a concept. He won't get it, but you can try.
But I doubt he'll understand such a complicated concept.
That's a valid point, really.
I mean, I don't take as reverent an attitude towards the Core Books, but then, I also don't generally play D&D with random strangers at conventions or hobby stores either.
If you do like convention gaming, or playing pick-up games with new folks or people you met via your local game store, I can see how your approach has merit. It fortifies the "everyone is playing the same game" mentality that is pretty much central to a good pick-up game experience, and it puts the ball in your court as the DM to respond to potentially game-breaking problems with clever monster or encounter design, rather than simply changing rules which are nonsensical.
It's a valid approach, although personally, I don't apply it. Again, this is something centered around playing regularely with folks who have the same views and approaches to the game I do and where "Dude, that's twinky bullshit, knock that shit off" is a reasonable solution to a twinky game-breaking power or spell or whatever.
I really think that is the core of the issue, if your group isn't friendly enough to agree on something that is overpowered why are you playing D&D?
You should re-read his post again, because he does actually hit the nail on the head exactly in the first couple of paragraphs. Because of my PhD (but still love of DnD and things roleplaying) the most frequent things I do for my DnD/Changeling/CoC fix are one off modules with friends or random people (say their DM is out of town) or online. Because of this I play with a very wide and diverse group of people. This means I need to make rules as consistently as possible and I can't just go willy nilly modifying things as I see fit on people I have never played with before.
Maybe I didn't make myself clear, I don't understand why anybody would want to do this, the game of D&D by itself isn't that fun, but doing it with a group of friends is.
Maybe I didn't make myself clear, I don't understand why anybody would want to do this, the game of D&D by itself isn't that fun, but doing it with a group of friends is.
....obviously people disagree with you. Also, some people can have pleasant social interactions with people they do not label "friends".
Because this isn't a house rule, this is me doing whatever I want with rules that I can make up perfectly freely.
There are two things I avoid doing in any game system, regardless of what it is:
1) Modifying the core books, especially the players hand book
2) Willy nilly adjusting things when in reality, such a blade cascade build (to make use of it) is equally as much a metagame build as building in an ability. In addition, because I can adjust for blade cascade in other ways, it's not significant enough of a problem like Harm was for me to fiat rule differently.
I'm sure someone can explain to Pony what "Using the core rules consistently that anyone you don't know or hasn't played with you before doesn't need to get a second PHB written by your DM ahead of time with all their modifications" might mean as a concept. He won't get it, but you can try.
But I doubt he'll understand such a complicated concept.
That's a valid point, really.
I mean, I don't take as reverent an attitude towards the Core Books, but then, I also don't generally play D&D with random strangers at conventions or hobby stores either.
If you do like convention gaming, or playing pick-up games with new folks or people you met via your local game store, I can see how your approach has merit. It fortifies the "everyone is playing the same game" mentality that is pretty much central to a good pick-up game experience, and it puts the ball in your court as the DM to respond to potentially game-breaking problems with clever monster or encounter design, rather than simply changing rules which are nonsensical.
It's a valid approach, although personally, I don't apply it. Again, this is something centered around playing regularely with folks who have the same views and approaches to the game I do and where "Dude, that's twinky bullshit, knock that shit off" is a reasonable solution to a twinky game-breaking power or spell or whatever.
I really think that is the core of the issue, if your group isn't friendly enough to agree on something that is overpowered why are you playing D&D?
You should re-read his post again, because he does actually hit the nail on the head exactly in the first couple of paragraphs. Because of my PhD (but still love of DnD and things roleplaying) the most frequent things I do for my DnD/Changeling/CoC fix are one off modules with friends or random people (say their DM is out of town) or online. Because of this I play with a very wide and diverse group of people. This means I need to make rules as consistently as possible and I can't just go willy nilly modifying things as I see fit on people I have never played with before.
Maybe I didn't make myself clear, I don't understand why anybody would want to do this, the game of D&D by itself isn't that fun, but doing it with a group of friends is.
In a way, what Aegeri has is a "beggers can't be choosers" problem and he would like to be able to play the game in a way that facilitates the only way he can play it.
Pony on
0
Options
FeriluceAdrift on the morning star.Aberdeen, WARegistered Userregular
Maybe I didn't make myself clear, I don't understand why anybody would want to do this, the game of D&D by itself isn't that fun, but doing it with a group of friends is.
....obviously people disagree with you. Also, some people can have pleasant social interactions with people they do not label "friends".
I've made friends by joining a D&D game with people I didn't know. Sure I didn't like some of the other players, but it worked out most of the time.
Posts
what?
I can't tell if you're just being facetious, but here is the official answer: http://wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1396
Edit: Specifically:
When?
Where!
Why?
The Description of Yeenoghu is bad ass, as wickedly written as the book of vile darkness.
Check out this attack:
R Bloody Phlegm (standard; at will) ✦ Acid
Ranged 10; +30 vs. Reflex; 1d8 + 6 acid damage, and
the target is blinded (save ends).
He Coughs blood in your face...as a weapon....this isn't even the big dog, its from his Exarch!
I could stand a few months of open beta if we get this kind of content...
Unbreakable Defense
When he fought the barbarian hordes from the north, who would hack and bash away at any opponent without regard to themselves to inflict many mortal blows upon their enemies, they would instead find their first strike was their last and only blow.
Daily ✦ Martial, Weapon.
Immediate Interrupt Personal
Trigger: You are hit by a subsequent attack after the first from any single opponent in melee
Effect: This ability triggers each time you are struck beyond the first successful blow, imposing a -2 penalty to the attack roll on every strike after the first, up to a cumulative total of -10.
Issue solved, if completely metagamy.
Like, "you can only make X many attacks with Blade Cascade, regardless of how many times you hit".
There, potentially-game-breaking-ability fixed
Instead of hamfisting abilities into your epic monsters in order to protect them from a single potentially broken power from a single class.
Someone else may want to explain this to Aegeri, he's got me on ignore.
I mean yeah, Elven Accuracy and such can help, but still you can only get an AC so low, so even if you hit on a 5 I doubt you'd get all that many hits in before you miss.
Paladins can, fighters can't. Which strikes me as odd but whatever.
LoL: failboattootoot
There are two things I avoid doing in any game system, regardless of what it is:
1) Modifying the core books, especially the players hand book
2) Willy nilly adjusting things when in reality, such a blade cascade build (to make use of it) is equally as much a metagame build as building in an ability. In addition, because I can adjust for blade cascade in other ways, it's not significant enough of a problem like Harm was for me to fiat rule differently.
I'm sure someone can explain to Pony what "Using the core rules consistently that anyone you don't know or hasn't played with you before doesn't need to get a second PHB written by your DM ahead of time with all their modifications" might mean as a concept. He won't get it, but you can try.
But I doubt he'll understand such a complicated concept.
Scale mail is not awful compared to plate mail. Plate mail is better, but scale mail isn't terribly far behind.
This is really the best solution, I think. Either a fixed number(I see 4 tossed around a lot), or else equal to the Ranger's Dex mod. That way it still has the potential for crazy awe-inspiring devastation, but nobody will be one-shotting Orcus.
It's debatably better, one less ac but no check penalty. It just still strikes me as odd is all.
LoL: failboattootoot
Another commonly proposed solution is after X attacks there is a penalty of some sort, so that you start suffering a -2 cumulative penalty. One good idea proposed that you get up to your dex modifier in penalty-less attacks and then after that each attack suffers -2 per roll. Of course, it's still completely ridiculous and I expect it to end up having some errata eventually, but I've 'solved' the problem for when it actually affects my campaign (I know this is an alien concept to some people) by making a completely invisible [to the players*] solution. Nobody needs to ask me about everything I've potentially changed/not changed, they just learn what their books tell them, sit down, play and have fun.
Just like what I'll be doing in approximately 30 minutes from now when I run the 4th edition module.
*And by this I mean, when I come up with my own antagonists and everything about them, I can do whatever the hell I want as the DM. If I feel it needs specific protection from something I have a legitimate concern about, I make an ability that does exactly what I want and logically justify it within the context of both the campaign and creature. Then I cease caring about the original problem and nobody needs to wonder if I'm going to go all arbitary on their ass because they realised they could do 3000 damage and isn't that awesome. In my experience, players don't mind monsters have special protections or abilities if they make sense, but they do dislike DMs who change rules on them. I merely go from A -> C instead of A -> B -> C. Where B is a completely visible solution to problem A.
That people can't grasp why this is an important concept for people new to Dungeons and Dragons in particular is beyond me (especially because the people I've rallied up to play in my campaign last night, 3 have never played DnD before and 1 is vaguely familiar with NWN).
Yeah, but that means you need to be consistent with that ruling [that re-rolls end an effect chain] and I'm not sure what other abilities, that are perfectly balanced with regards to re-rolls, may end up being affected.
Also the specialization feat for Scale removes the speed penalty (as well as adding one to the AC bonus), making it pretty much completely better. The Plate specialization feat only adds the +1 to AC, which leave plate with one greater AC than Scale, but both a speed and a skill penalty.
The first level Warlord in Keep can add a +5 to all attacks against a target for a round. There are a number of powers that can temporarily lower AC, toss in CA or something and an enemy you can hit reasonably (50%) is an enemy who is only missed on a 1.
The only thing that I can think of off the top of my head in response to this is that perhaps magical plate can be made better.
If not, I've got nothing.
This is part of my logic for just making my own power for whatever I need to stick it on. It's actually just being consistent with the rules, because there are plenty of abilities that institute penalties, reduce damage on hits and similar. The profile on the previous page is actually based on some random shield block power (I forget which class right off the top of my head).
Well ya, but personally the way the text is read the second you miss the power ends, while this could be and probably is wrong it seems like a simple way to fix anybodies "problem".
That's a valid point, really.
I mean, I don't take as reverent an attitude towards the Core Books, but then, I also don't generally play D&D with random strangers at conventions or hobby stores either.
If you do like convention gaming, or playing pick-up games with new folks or people you met via your local game store, I can see how your approach has merit. It fortifies the "everyone is playing the same game" mentality that is pretty much central to a good pick-up game experience, and it puts the ball in your court as the DM to respond to potentially game-breaking problems with clever monster or encounter design, rather than simply changing rules which are nonsensical.
It's a valid approach, although personally, I don't apply it. Again, this is something centered around playing regularely with folks who have the same views and approaches to the game I do and where "Dude, that's twinky bullshit, knock that shit off" is a reasonable solution to a twinky game-breaking power or spell or whatever.
First there is no Warlord in Keep, second if the enemy you are fighting is someone you can hit 50% of the time with a group of 5 they are likely to be dead in a few rounds anyway.
Which is pretty much a good thing, right?
I really think that is the core of the issue, if your group isn't friendly enough to agree on something that is overpowered why are you playing D&D?
Some types of magic armor bonuses are exclusive to Plate, just off the top of my head.
I don't know if any of them are, like, good enough to justify the desparity but there you go. You'd have to really take a good eye at it to see if that balances out.
:^:
I retract what I said. Exactly.
You should re-read his post again, because he does actually hit the nail on the head exactly in the first couple of paragraphs. Because of my PhD (but still love of DnD and things roleplaying) the most frequent things I do for my DnD/Changeling/CoC fix are one off modules with friends or random people (say their DM is out of town) or online. Because of this I play with a very wide and diverse group of people. This means I need to make rules as consistently as possible and I can't just go willy nilly modifying things as I see fit on people I have never played with before.
So while all these guys are helping out Mr. Ranger do his omfg awesome damage. The rest of the monsters in the encounter are being ignored.
Steam: Feriluce
Battle.net: Feriluce#1995
It's on the wizard's site and has been mentioned her and elsewhere repeatedly. Pretty much everything can be hit about 50% of the time by most of the members of the party. Bad guys have a fuck ton of hit points so fights go on for a few rounds....unless one guy attacks 72 times in a single round.
You're forgetting that where Cascade of Blades has it's best effect is on single one off "big boss" type monsters vs. the party encounters. This is where it truly shines, though I'm certain Orcus is probably sporting a sizable army of undead with him.
You prefer not modifying the power-as-written but instead build in to some of your more important monsters a safeguard against a twinky player trying to do something BS.
I, on the other hand, would either put a hard rule change in to simply stop it from getting out of hand or, more likely, just ask the player to not do such nonsense.
Both approaches have merit, but work differently. Some DMs like the "Okay, guys, I guess you could twink and metagame here, but the way I designed these monsters it's really not going to be that beneficial" and others are like "Dude, stop that shit. You know what you are doing. Knock it off."
You fall into the former camp, I fall into the latter, at least on this sort of issue.
There's nothing wrong with either attitude, really, they just suit different game styles.
In the case of an actual deity, I'm sure that whatever the rest of the party can do to buff the ranger isn't going to help as much as against some random grunt. If it's possible to get to the point the ranger can only miss, say Orcus, on a 1 or even 1-5 it may cheapen things.
One thing to remember though is they have to get to him first, and a lot can happen between the start of a dungeon and the final encounter.
Steam: Feriluce
Battle.net: Feriluce#1995
Even though Orcus is a Solo monster, the example Encounter with him in it in the MM gives him minions.
Maybe I didn't make myself clear, I don't understand why anybody would want to do this, the game of D&D by itself isn't that fun, but doing it with a group of friends is.
In a way, what Aegeri has is a "beggers can't be choosers" problem and he would like to be able to play the game in a way that facilitates the only way he can play it.
I've made friends by joining a D&D game with people I didn't know. Sure I didn't like some of the other players, but it worked out most of the time.
Steam: Feriluce
Battle.net: Feriluce#1995