101
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
102
Gaming Advice / Re: The Tao of D&D: A Pox Upon Thee
« on: January 13, 2018, 02:27:14 PM »The effort of creating a new character in 3e and newer might be an issue for players loathing to have their character die, especially at higher levels. One thing we did to mitigate this issue is to have players build replacement characters beforehand, so that the workload can be put before the session and so that they can be popped in on short notice as soon as it would make sense within the fiction.
That isnt uncommon (though not mandatory) in my group as well. Even if a character sheet isnt in the waiting, many of us will have character concepts and builds ready for deployment.
3e does take effort to get a character into play at higher levels even with that though. One of the reasons I have taken a liking to 5e is it is much quicker to get into.
103
Gaming Advice / Re: The Tao of D&D: A Pox Upon Thee
« on: January 12, 2018, 10:57:20 PM »
Getting handed a background like that really irks me. I can understand a DM barring some concepts to fit into the world and to work with the player on suggestions or requirement so the character, but to take it out of the players hands like that really bothers me.
Of course, having a character die can suck, especially in the scenario described and if you did invest into the character. The reaction described seems quite immature to me though. If you are going to play these games where death is a possibility, you should be well aware that your character is not immortal and made need to be replaced if killed. I can also understand as a DM that plotting around a particular character and then having that character die can cause issues, but as with the above you should already be aware that characters can die, so you should either be having those plots on the side or not be writing your plot in that fashion. If you must have the plot, you can always fudge rolls to keep stuff like crits one shotting characters (within reason of course), I suspect most DMs already fudge things when needed already. These are not problems with the game, but with players.
The article seems to imply that having an attachment to a character is a bad thing, but I disagree. Investment into a character at least for myself motivates me to roleplay my character and do something with them. If I had a character background just handed off to me and my character is otherwise just a pile of stats I rolled and class I chose, I can't imagine myself getting terribly invested into the game.
Now I can understand wanting to have a lighthearted game where you just want to kill some monsters, solve some puzzles, etc, without worrying about some grand background and goal for the characters involved, but it is not an issue otherwise as long as the people playing are mature enough for it (which isnt a tall order).
Of course, having a character die can suck, especially in the scenario described and if you did invest into the character. The reaction described seems quite immature to me though. If you are going to play these games where death is a possibility, you should be well aware that your character is not immortal and made need to be replaced if killed. I can also understand as a DM that plotting around a particular character and then having that character die can cause issues, but as with the above you should already be aware that characters can die, so you should either be having those plots on the side or not be writing your plot in that fashion. If you must have the plot, you can always fudge rolls to keep stuff like crits one shotting characters (within reason of course), I suspect most DMs already fudge things when needed already. These are not problems with the game, but with players.
The article seems to imply that having an attachment to a character is a bad thing, but I disagree. Investment into a character at least for myself motivates me to roleplay my character and do something with them. If I had a character background just handed off to me and my character is otherwise just a pile of stats I rolled and class I chose, I can't imagine myself getting terribly invested into the game.
Now I can understand wanting to have a lighthearted game where you just want to kill some monsters, solve some puzzles, etc, without worrying about some grand background and goal for the characters involved, but it is not an issue otherwise as long as the people playing are mature enough for it (which isnt a tall order).
104
Touhou Battle Grimoire / Re: Races
« on: January 10, 2018, 07:00:06 AM »
Size refers to Lunarians.
Should they have the Shapechanger subtype?
Should they have the Shapechanger subtype?
105
Oslecamo's Improved Monster Classes / Re: General Discussion and Sugestions
« on: January 04, 2018, 03:48:13 PM »
Eww a Kotaku article.
106
Min/Max 3.x / Re: Non-Evil, Non-Leadership Massive Stat Cheese
« on: January 02, 2018, 06:37:38 PM »Given the nature of the game and your build goals, it might be more appropriate to be posting this over in You Break it You Buy it.
What's the difference exactly? Done anyway.
It is where most of the cheesiest stuff is
107
Min/Max 3.x / Re: Non-Evil, Non-Leadership Massive Stat Cheese
« on: January 02, 2018, 06:21:09 PM »
Given the nature of the game and your build goals, it might be more appropriate to be posting this over in You Break it You Buy it.
108
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: [PF] Classes/Feats that Buff Allied Spellcasters?
« on: December 25, 2017, 11:07:12 PM »
[PF]
No 3.5
No 3.5
109
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / [PF] Classes/Feats that Buff Allied Spellcasters?
« on: December 25, 2017, 05:51:15 PM »
Are there any classes that buff allied Spellcasters? Specifically, affecting their spells (be it increasing caster level, adding metamagic, etc).
From my cursory check, all I spotted was Magician Bard, but I doubt that is all there is.
Feats (or anything else really) are fine as well, presuming that they do not require the buffed spellcaster to take them (or the character has a way to provide the feat to the ally)
3rd Party Material is fine, though 1st Party is always preferred.
From my cursory check, all I spotted was Magician Bard, but I doubt that is all there is.
Feats (or anything else really) are fine as well, presuming that they do not require the buffed spellcaster to take them (or the character has a way to provide the feat to the ally)
3rd Party Material is fine, though 1st Party is always preferred.
110
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / [PF] Can Geminate Invoker Barbarians cast Spells?
« on: December 18, 2017, 09:43:09 PM »
The Geminate Invoker Barbarian has the Trance class feature which modifies Rage.
The ability states at the beginning of its 2nd paragraph: "Instead of the normal rage bonuses and penalties," and goes on to lists its bonuses, but does not list any penalties.
It notably states you can use skills normally restricted while raging, but doesn't say anything about concentration. It was a little fuzzy if this means they still can't cast spells while in a trance or not, but I decided to compare it to the Moment of Clarity Rage Power, which states "The barbarian does not gain any benefits or take any of the penalties from rage for 1 round." It goes on to clarify that these bonuses/penalties include the restrictions to actions. This seems to indicate the action restrictions are a penalty.
With that in mind, would Trance allow a Barbarian to cast spells while it is active, given it doesn't have the normal penalties of rage?
The ability states at the beginning of its 2nd paragraph: "Instead of the normal rage bonuses and penalties," and goes on to lists its bonuses, but does not list any penalties.
It notably states you can use skills normally restricted while raging, but doesn't say anything about concentration. It was a little fuzzy if this means they still can't cast spells while in a trance or not, but I decided to compare it to the Moment of Clarity Rage Power, which states "The barbarian does not gain any benefits or take any of the penalties from rage for 1 round." It goes on to clarify that these bonuses/penalties include the restrictions to actions. This seems to indicate the action restrictions are a penalty.
With that in mind, would Trance allow a Barbarian to cast spells while it is active, given it doesn't have the normal penalties of rage?
111
D&D 5e / Re: 5e Psionics
« on: December 16, 2017, 02:01:02 PM »As aside, in this video Githyanki and Githzerai in Dungeons & Dragons there seems to be many historical facts that are mysteries.
Now I understand the difficulties in predicting future events in D&D. But with spells and powers like Commune, Contact Other Plane, Hypercognition, Legend Lore, Limited Wish, Metafaculty, Miracle, Vision, Wish, in the game how can the historical facts still be unknown? (and that's not even counting magic items/relics and epic level shenanigans)
Further, would/could there be any historical facts (theoretically) that would be left unknown with all those spells and powers available?
Cheer,
Necro
Many historical facts that are mysteries is code for DMs can make up whatever they want, IMO.
112
Oslecamo's Improved Monster Classes / Re: General Discussion and Sugestions
« on: December 09, 2017, 09:47:09 PM »
Well Natural Armor bonuses don't stack last I checked, so you would wake the highest bonus of the two. Plenty of monster classes say they gain a +1 increase in Natural armor instead if the creature already has higher Nat AC from a different source.
I guess if one of the Natural Amors become higher then the other (thru ability damage or similar) they would switch places.
I would assume.
I guess if one of the Natural Amors become higher then the other (thru ability damage or similar) they would switch places.
I would assume.
113
General D&D Discussion / Re: WotC 3.x articles down.
« on: December 08, 2017, 04:30:21 AM »
Ah, so https is breaking it. I wonder what they did to do that, I have had a forced https plugin for a while without issue.
114
General D&D Discussion / Nevermind https is just fucking things up.
« on: December 07, 2017, 08:46:50 PM »
So I have noticed that links on google to web articles for old 3.x content on the wizards site aren't working again. They did this before when they broke all the links to these articles when they revamped the site, though I don't know if they just fucked up the links again or deleted the articles entirely. All I know is anything I try to look up that was at archive.wizards.com brings up their annoying 404 error page.
115
Oslecamo's Improved Monster Classes / Re: General Discussion and Sugestions
« on: November 17, 2017, 02:12:32 AM »
Eh I've used these monster classes for NPCs quite a few times, it works out pretty well as is. There are a few issues here and there for sure, but I still definitely prefer it over pulling monsters from the books for customization alone (and since I usually do this for e6 I can further customize with feats in any number I want).
That all said monster classes should first and foremost be made for PC use. If the designers want to add additional features making monsters more suited for NPC use AFTER accomplishing to make the monster a suitable class for PCs then I'm all for it. Hell, I think it should be common practice if we had some base guidelines to follow (replacing what we get out of core and terrible CR), though I don't know how viable that would be to integrate with monster classes. People don't always have time (or a desire for that matter) to do that though, and it shouldn't be expected.
That all said monster classes should first and foremost be made for PC use. If the designers want to add additional features making monsters more suited for NPC use AFTER accomplishing to make the monster a suitable class for PCs then I'm all for it. Hell, I think it should be common practice if we had some base guidelines to follow (replacing what we get out of core and terrible CR), though I don't know how viable that would be to integrate with monster classes. People don't always have time (or a desire for that matter) to do that though, and it shouldn't be expected.
116
Handbooks / Re: Handbook Index
« on: November 15, 2017, 02:38:29 PM »
So the 'Persist Handbook' in the Spell > Metamagic section links to a placeholder for a handbook that was never even started on. Can we remove this?
117
General D&D Discussion / Re: (Pathfinder) Aegis and Graft Armor
« on: November 03, 2017, 03:10:38 AM »
From the reading of the power, it sounds like all it is is Mithril Armor the spell. It still is clearly armor equipped to you occupying your body slot which you can't unequip. I dont know how the Aegis' Astral suits exactly work when used while you already have armor equipped (I imagine it supersedes it), but I imagine this would follow the same rules.
118
Handbook Discussion / Re: The Complete Graft Handbook Discussion
« on: October 25, 2017, 11:36:03 PM »
So it was pointed out to me today that your line under new grafts:
Appears to be incorrect. In RotD:
It specifies Undead Grafts as it's example, which is one of the old style grafts. And presuming that Aboleth Grafts don't have some other rules that allow you to use the new style grafts with them which for some reason wouldnt apply to Undead Grafts despite following the same rules, this seems to indicate that old style grafts and new style grafts are incompatible with one another.
Quote
A single creature can have only 5 New Style grafts. A single creature cannot have more than one type of graft (Construct, Deathless, Dragonic, Plant, or Elemental).
The above does not prevent you from mixing different types outright: You can apply Elemental grafts to someone who all ready has an Aboleth graft, provided you do not have more than 5 Elemental grafts, and do not try to apply a Plant, Dragonic, Construct, or Deathless graft later on.
Appears to be incorrect. In RotD:
Quote
An individual can have a total of fi ve grafts on
his body, and all grafts must be of the same kind. A
single body can support only so many growths before it is
overwhelmed with competing biomagical signals, result-
ing in death or, as is more often the case, utter madness.
No portion of the body (head, skin, fl esh, legs, and arms)
can have more than one graft. Furthermore, no character
can have more than one type of graft—for instance, both
a draconic graft and an undead graft (described on page
70 of Libris Mortis or page 214 of Fiend Folio). Rumors of
attempts to bypass these biological limits abound, but
such monstrosities—for that is what such creatures
become—rarely live long
It specifies Undead Grafts as it's example, which is one of the old style grafts. And presuming that Aboleth Grafts don't have some other rules that allow you to use the new style grafts with them which for some reason wouldnt apply to Undead Grafts despite following the same rules, this seems to indicate that old style grafts and new style grafts are incompatible with one another.
119
Min/Max 3.x / Re: Interesting stuff in Pathfinder
« on: October 22, 2017, 04:20:57 PM »
So how do we get this thing to chain/multitarget/aoe? It doesnt sound like it deals any kind of element damage to qualify for chain power
120
Min/Max 3.x / Re: [Practical Opt] Eberron Sovereign Crusader
« on: October 19, 2017, 06:49:32 PM »
Alternatively there is the Uncanny Trickster as well, which avoids the need for the Legacy Weapon a DM might not allow. If we are taking all levels of Sovereign it is taking up the same number of levels as Legacy Champion in a standard 20 level build.
So what feats are good in this build. I don't think Divine Crusader spell slots count as Domain slots, so the Spontaneous Domains feat is not of much use. Domain Spontaneity only applies to one domain and needs turn undead to boot.
So what feats are good in this build. I don't think Divine Crusader spell slots count as Domain slots, so the Spontaneous Domains feat is not of much use. Domain Spontaneity only applies to one domain and needs turn undead to boot.