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.


Messages - Keldar

Pages: 1 ... 46 47 48 49 50 [51] 52
1001
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: D&D doesn't have a true tier system.
« on: February 29, 2012, 04:09:41 AM »
Unless there is some particular definition of what tier means outside of ranking system, I don't see how a party of Tier 4s failing invalidates it.  All it really shows is that tier 4s can't properly perform as a party due to a lack of a needed subset of abilities.  It reinforces what everyone knows, you need a well rounded group to succeed.  A group full of Glass Cannons, Big Stupid Fighters, and Wastes of Space isn't going to succeed.

It certainly doesn't help the argument that the four rangers could have been beaten by blocking the damn arrow loops with something solid.  A group of four level 7 Commoners could have done alright if they did that.  Standing in the open futilely exchanging fire while waiting for the door to be opened is the dumbest response possible.

1002
General D&D Discussion / Re: List of Races
« on: February 29, 2012, 02:55:27 AM »
Have you considered Goblins?  Hexblade could fit interestingly there, especially if a sub level was to give them wolf (warg, ect.) options for their familiar.

1003
General D&D Discussion / Re: List of Races
« on: February 29, 2012, 12:02:41 AM »
There isn't one by alignment that I know of, nor is there any good reason to have one.  However take a look at the list, if there is a race you don't know the alignment tendencies of, I'd be willing to find it for you.

1004
General D&D Discussion / Re: 4E Lessons for 5E
« on: February 26, 2012, 07:40:30 PM »
They get gnome respect!  Gnome respect, I tell ya! 

1005
Gaming Advice / Re: Increasing AoOs without Combat Reflexes
« on: February 22, 2012, 11:47:38 PM »
Knight Protector (Cwar) gives an extra AoO at 6th and 9th, not that the class is any good.

1006
Warlock 17/Hellfire Warlock3 // Rogue 5/Enlightened Spirit 10/Rogue+5  Takes advantage of Enlightened Spirit's usually crap interaction with Warlock to stack Eldritch Blast damage to 14d6 base and add on more invocations.  The only time the PrC has any value.

1007
General D&D Discussion / Re: Which Would You Prefer? (And Why?)
« on: February 21, 2012, 11:16:51 PM »
Decouple.  Mostly for accounting simplicity, no need to remember what you did between turns.  Sometimes that can be a huge amount of time if someone is slow or the pizza shows.

1008
General D&D Discussion / Re: 4E Lessons for 5E
« on: February 21, 2012, 08:14:07 PM »
The big lessons from 4 are:  If you go for balance first, you have to do the math.  The guys at WotC aren't very good at math.   :smirk
It isn't D&D without some sacred cows.  Fighter, Wizard and D20s do not D&D make.

1009
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: DARKNESSSSSSSS
« on: February 20, 2012, 12:49:29 AM »
Sounds like the third level arcane spell Blacklight from the FRCS.  A darknesssssss effect the caster can see through, that explicitly foils darkvision.

1010
Min/Max 3.x / Re: Ki Strike
« on: February 19, 2012, 09:42:14 PM »
Enlightened Fist (CArc) has Ki Strike (Magic) and doesn't actually require a Monk level to enter, though it is far easier with one.  That is the only one I can find in all the obvious sources.

1011
General D&D Discussion / Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« on: February 18, 2012, 11:02:47 AM »
Quote
I cannot speak to the new edition, except to say that the team has already written a very large check -- All D&D Editions beneath one roof. I am concerned that I have seen a lot of comment on the net along the lines of "Congratulations on revising D&D -- here are my non-negotiable demands". The only advice I can give is that each major edition change had strong reasons (from a design side as well as marketing one) to improve the earlier editions. Looking at what drove those editions forward will help shape the next iteration.
-Grubb

For those that care, but not enough to read it all.  Very large check, indeed.

1012
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: What is the point of traps?
« on: February 15, 2012, 12:20:55 AM »
The problem with that idea is its a monumental waste of time at the table by RAW.  Running down time on buffs can be done quite well by the presumed time it takes to loot, rather than OCD rolling that most gamers got sick of long before they considered themselves gamers.

1013
Min/Max 3.x / Re: Surviving in space?
« on: February 13, 2012, 04:40:39 PM »
Iridescent Spindle Ioun Stones also deal with the breathing issue.

Transformation of the Deeps from Stormwrack pg. 123 can deal with the pressure issues.  The psionic power Water-Born on page 127 can help the same way.  The Deep armor ability costs 22,500 gp to add to a suit and can be found on page 128, the spell needed is Transformation of the Deeps.  According to Stormwrack, Elementals, Aberrations and Outsiders with the aquatic subtype are generally immune to pressure.

1014
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: What is the point of traps?
« on: February 13, 2012, 04:00:25 PM »
I see three basic problems with traps.  Forgive me, I'll probably be repeating others some here.  Its just easier for me to keep my thoughts straight this way.

First is trap finding itself.  Its pointlessly time consuming and needlessly restricted to a single class feature.  What is so different about finding secret doors that anyone can do it, but no one can find traps without special training?  I'd say make everyone capable of using Search to find all traps.  Further, allow passive searching with a -10 to the skill, -5 for only moving at half speed.  To replace the exclusivity, the Trapfinding ability removes the penalty for passive searching.  (Alternately lessens it by 5 and add Improved Trapfinding at a later level to eliminate it.)  That deals with the idiocy of people poking every 5 foot square as they travel at the awe inspiring speed of 30 feet a minute!  It makes Rogues less essential, while still being useful for the task.  Active trap searching can be reserved for obvious locations.  Like that sealed off, uninhabited, Pharaoh's tomb, where they serve instead of monsters.

That traps do not scale well is the second issue.  A big part of why is traps continue to focus on bland damage.  A trap's purpose is first and foremost area denial.  The secondary function is resource/manpower depletion.  Traps in D&D almost exclusively focus on the second.  The Trapfinding ability testifies to this mentality.  At higher levels traps need to focus more on the denial aspect.  Alarms are useful, if sufficiently difficult to bypass, at every level.

The single largest issues traps have though is simply they are usually misused.  DMs wind up with bad habits in trap placement thanks to game developers providing poor traps and using them poorly in modules.  Traps don't belong in the middle of heavily traveled hallways or in the middle of a cavern.   When you place an automated trap, you place it where you never plan to go again.  (At least until some sap triggers it and clears the place for you.  :smirk)  They belong in baited locations, out of the way, or in sealed locations you never want to see again.  Traps in inhabited areas should be safe until someone knowingly triggers them.  The traditional method of salting every damn hallway in a dungeon loaded with monsters is just pants on head retarded.

With the right kind of traps in the right area, traps can become encounters in their own right or serve as an extra complication on another encounter.  Making the trap itself obvious, but its trigger impossible to find or disable can serve as a nice area denial device, the modern minefield is a perfect example.

1015
Min/Max 3.x / Re: Fastest way to get Alternate Form as a Changeling?
« on: February 11, 2012, 07:55:47 AM »
Humorously, Races of Eberron gives Changelings a feat: Quick Change.  Which technically would supersede the Savage Species version.  Even if it doesn't, it still is the feat Quick Change providing the same type of benefit as the old one.   Regardless of that, Changelings can get Change Shape by 11th taking Cabinet Trickster from the same book.

You are running into an edition terminology issue.  Alternate Form was not rigidly defined in 3.0 like it was in 3.5.  The example Areana has Alternate Form in 3.0, but Change Shape in 3.5, yet the effects are identical.  That Wild Shape meets a prerequisite for Master of Flies, but does not qualify for Quick Change reinforces the terminology disconnect.  In other words, any shape changing quality should qualify for the Quick Change feat, once you get past the language barrier.

1016
General D&D Discussion / Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« on: January 22, 2012, 10:35:24 PM »
(what is the Craft skill even for?)
Noobs. Didn't you get the memo? ;)

I must be in a cynical mood, because I find myself wondering what new pejorative the bitter grognards will invent for 5e fans. We have '3tards,' '4ons,' what's next? And while we're at it, I'm sure there are a few demeaning generalizations for TSR D&Ders but I can't recall any.
5tupid and 6hay of course.  :smirk  Followd by 7azy in 2023.  As for the old ones, grognard pretty much covers it, with fatbeard being a specific variety.
Damn. How could I forget fatbeard? Sounds like a pirate.

"It's Fatbeard's flag! Hold steady men, he's waving the original Wand of Orcus! Stuff wax in your ears, me hearties! Yo ho, don't listen to his new school tirade! And if'n he captures you, kill yourself before he offers you his Gygax grog!"
:clap :lol
Great, now that sounds like someone I knew.  I'm never going to be able to think of him without a pirate's hat now.   Yo ho ho and a bag of dice! 

1017
General D&D Discussion / Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« on: January 19, 2012, 10:36:46 AM »
(what is the Craft skill even for?)
Noobs. Didn't you get the memo? ;)

I must be in a cynical mood, because I find myself wondering what new pejorative the bitter grognards will invent for 5e fans. We have '3tards,' '4ons,' what's next? And while we're at it, I'm sure there are a few demeaning generalizations for TSR D&Ders but I can't recall any.
5tupid and 6hay of course.  :smirk  Followd by 7azy in 2023.  As for the old ones, grognard pretty much covers it, with fatbeard being a specific variety.

1018
I'll try to build off the base class' concept.  Nothing powerful, but a big jump up from commoner while still building from the basic farmer concept.  All versions are a terror to orcs in defending the orchard from pillaging.   Watch out for that tree!

Johny Appleseed  An apple farmer turned champion of the trees.
(Commoner variant) Human Commoner 8/ Branch Dancer 5/ Fist of the Forest 3/ Forest Reeve 4  BAB is 17, not bad for a commoner.
Branch Dancer is from Dragon 310.  Prerequisite Feats: Track, Great Fortitude Improved Unarmed Strike, Power Attack, Endurance.  Useful Feat: Able Learner  Crank Profession (Farmer)

(Jack variant) Human Expert 4/ Branch Dancer 5/ Fist of the Forest 3/Drunken Master 8
Prerequisite Feats: Track, Great Fortitude, Improved Unarmed Strike, Power Attack, Dodge  Crank Profession (Farmer) and Profession (Brewer)
Uses trees as improvised, magic weapons while drunk on applejack.

(Hippie variant)  Human Paragon3/ Branch Dancer 5/ Forest Reeve 5/ Fist of the Forest 3/ PrC 4
Takes Vow of Poverty, delaying Fist entry

1019
General D&D Discussion / Re: Sacred Cows?
« on: January 10, 2012, 08:44:24 PM »
  :blush  I'll tell you a secret, 4e taught me that D&D needs Vancian Magic.  For all that I despise it, it is a signature of the line and losing it contributes to making the game seem less like D&D.  Honestly, to most its probably D&D magic not Vance Magic by this point.  That said, I still hate it.   :shakefist

I would love to see a well supported alternative to the default Vancian system along side it rather than it being the only, er game in town.  No, one and done optional rules don't count.

1020
General D&D Discussion / Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« on: January 10, 2012, 07:46:20 PM »
That is mentioned over at the Escapist
Quote
revious editions of the game had play testing periods, but Wizards restricted access to freelancers or those connected to the company and those tests were ineffectual at best. I was in a play testing group for 4th edition back in 2007, and we submitted a 30 page annotated document of what we felt worked and what didn't work with the rules we played. Other than my name among the hundreds of play testers in the back of the 4th edition Player's Handbook, nothing I submitted made it into print. Our feedback was summarily ignored, and Mearls admitted that was essentially true of all the feedback Wizards received from the 4th edition play test.

This time it will be different. Starting in the next few months, Wizards of the Coast will open the new rules up to gamers and actively solicit feedback to shape the game. They plan to leverage the relative popularity of the Encounters program - an organized event in game stores where players across the country participate in the same adventure each week - to offer adventures written for the new iteration of D&D using the new rules. Wizards plans to set up a website survey to track players' feedback and get it quickly into the hands of Mearls and the team designing the rules.

"We want to give the community enough time to thoroughly digest each play test package," he said. "Then, we need to make sure we have time to integrate player feedback into each play test cycle so their needs and desires are captured in the final product. This will take time."
How true this proves to be remains to be seen.  But presuming its just a stunt does no good.  Better to participate and be ignored than to not and find they do listen after it is too late.

Pages: 1 ... 46 47 48 49 50 [51] 52