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 - Ziegander

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 35
D&D 5e / Re: What Happened to People?
« on: January 11, 2015, 07:04:36 PM »
I do want to make a note that at least Invisibility doesn't make Stealth obsolete.

Certainly not, but when it can allow a caster to hide right in front of a creature that can see you, something a +50 modifier w/Stealth will never allow you to do, I will never understand anyone trying to claim that Stealth is outright, always better.

D&D 5e / Re: Second 5e Build: the AniMonk
« on: January 01, 2015, 02:58:34 AM »
Wow, it's the claws that deal 2d6 damage, not the bite. That's a lot of dice. 1d8+4 and 6d6+12 is an average of 45.5 damage! That's enough to very nearly kill a Yeti in one round. Nice.

Homebrew and House Rules (D&D) / Re: [D&D PF and 4E] Homebrew Compendium
« on: December 20, 2014, 11:46:34 PM »
4th Edition

The SwordsageClass/Power/Path: Not to be confused with the swordmage, or the rare and moderately painful construct the swordpage.

You know what? Even though I really didn't like the edition, I managed to do produce something truly cool and unique with this class, so kudos to me! I stand by this class even today, and I say it's awesome!  :tongue

D&D 5e / Re: What Happened to People?
« on: December 20, 2014, 10:57:54 PM »
Q: What Happened to People?
A: You're getting old and could swear that these new kids that keep popping up are even dumber than you used to be and ten times louder. ;)

It's true. I'm almost 30 now! Hell, I don't feel old at all.

What ever happened to walking in and asking a question instead of saying the answer right? Like, I'm lazy and poorly motivated. Can you summarize the GitP thread for me because I've barely read up on 5th and couldn't tell the difference on my own.

No, I mean, the thread isn't all that important, just the gist of it is that there are a few rational people over there mentioning that, yeah, 5e is way more balanced than 3e core, and mundanes got a lot better, and even though spellcasters got way nerfed they still have WAAAAAY more options in combat and out, but those few get shouted down by a few rtards constantly parroting the same arguments that you can do anything you want with ability and skill checks and a Rogue with Expertise is better at anything than a spellcaster trying to do anything remotely similar. And they honestly think that spellcasters can't do anything that's not covered by skills/ability checks aside from teleportation, summoning, and like... I don't know something else. Literally, I will have to quote you for this, because you have to see it to believe it, but multiple people have made the claim that there's only three or four things any caster can do, even with 9th level spells, that a mundane can't do with ability checks/spells.

Quote from: Silveralen
Again, this isn't true. Invisibility, charm, and suggestion spells actually are less effective than a normal rogue. Many classes lack the spell selection and slots to be that versatile. Druid and Wizard are two of the better ones in this regard (rituals, regain some spells on short rest, reasonably fleshed out spell lists) but even then flying, teleports, and bringing the dead to life are about the limit of things martials can't do narratively that casters can (and to be fair I'm not sure anyone wants those abilities for martials regardless).

That's the only quote I could find, but I know he's not the only one to insist that invisibility is worse than Stealth and that those are the only things magic can do that mundanes can't. He's even said that I must be unfamiliar with the system because I disagree with him.

Oh, and also, even though 1st level damage spells got a massive boost (Magic Missile, Inflict Wounds, even Burning Hands), and even though there are guidelines in the DMG specifying a 1st level healing spell should heal 2d10 damage, there are people arguing, for many pages, that Cure Wounds is a balanced spell, despite it staying exactly the same spell it was in 3.5, while Magic Missile tripled in effectiveness.

welcome back.

Oh! Also, I meant to say: "Thank you!"

D&D 5e / Re: What Happened to People?
« on: December 20, 2014, 01:02:08 PM »
There's just so many people saying, "martials have just as much versatility as casters, because SKILLS, DUH," when they really mean "mundanes" is besides the point (except when they confuse themselves by using the term "martials"), and then I say casters get just much benefit from skills as everyone else and they go, "nuh-uh, Rogue!"

When I, or anyone else, mention that skills do next to nothing, they argue that they do everything you can imagine, and I'm just not being imaginative enough to use them. The whole concept of DM fiat flies over their heads, and they seem to apply this mentality with a point of pride, like when they play a mundane they can be more imaginative than when they play a caster. One person went so far as to say that if a caster uses skills, skills must be better than spells. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE?!

D&D 5e / What Happened to People?
« on: December 19, 2014, 09:36:39 PM »
I've been following 5e, in fact, I'm a huge fan of 5e, and I've been running it for a group of players for a while now, but... what happened to the D&D internet community since 3e? Yes, I realize a lot has changed from 3e to 5e, casters are no where near what they used to be, and core 5e is WAY better balanced than core 3e, but I'm watching some old 3e stalwarts, well-versed with the system and the theory behind criticizing it, turn nearly 180 and talk about things like DM fiat and mundanes with no versatility like they're great design and the whole point of the system and that anyone who thinks otherwise are just missing the point. Someone literally just said something to the effect of, "yeah, that's D&D, casters have all the power, if you don't want that, play a different game." What happened to the old homebrew mentality, the old fix-it spirit in these guys, where a little rational thought and some creativity could make D&D so much more than its published parts?

This thread ( is becoming a source of dread for me.  I've stopped posting about it, because what I say just seems to fly over everyone's heads, and the opposition will just repeat the exact same points over and over again. Hell, in a thread discussing a lack of mundane versatility, someone, quite seriously, argued that it's not a problem that the Bard, a full-caster with its own powerful 1st through 9th level spells, has more mundane versatility than any mundane character short of the Rogue (and can be argued to have just as much mundane versatility as the Rogue). There was nothing I could do to convince anyone that the Bard, a powerful wizard, having greater mundane ability than the Barbarian and Fighter was an issue. Nobody wanted to hear it. Nobody believed it.

General D&D Discussion / Re: What did 1E & 2E do better than 3.x/PF?
« on: November 03, 2012, 06:58:14 PM »
New book ...

I got a look at this last night.  It's all his stuff, and it "feels" like old D&D.
I'll take a longer looks soon, but I usually don't need help with the fluff.
No crunch, cross-edition setting material.  Dude has been at it a long time.

What is this by the way?

Homebrew and House Rules (D&D) / Re: Codex Alera: Furycrafting [D&D 3.5]
« on: October 05, 2012, 06:11:06 PM »
I'm going to finish the last book before I start helping, want all facts.  See you in 2 days.

Sounds good. This is a fantastic, amazing series, with a totally awesome and, from what I understand, original magic system. Great writing, awesome characters, and fun stuff. Enjoy!

If you take Widget Training +1 at 2nd, Widget Mastery at 6th, and Armor Training +1 at 10th, vs. doing the same thing but with Widget Mastery delayed to 10th and Armor Training moved up to 6th, you wind up with the same abilities except that Armor Training is at +2 instead of +1. Ergo, you are strictly better or worse off for taking the same options in a different order, despite being the same level and having the same other abilities.

Ah, right, and what do you think I should do about that?

The issues that make [Knight's Challenge] like a mindless rage are (as I see them):
- Must move to attack.
- Must always attack in melee.
- Can't surrender.
- Can't retreat.
- Can't use your actual competencies.
- Fight to the death.
- Keep beating up a defeated target for several rounds (until you succeed on a save) if you drop the Paladin.

What is it's true purpose? I can't really tell you how to make it great until I know what you were trying to achieve.

The purpose is an ability that lets the Paladin call out a foe and challenge him/her/it to an honorable Knight's duel. So stuff like, "attack in melee," and "can't surrender/retreat," is exactly as intended. The only thing unintended in there is the beating up the Paladin after he's already dropped.

Is there something about the ability you don't like or that you think could be improved?

Regardless, I've added the full descriptions for the Iron Heart maneuvers.

It's in brackets as reminder text, at the end of the sentence. It incorrectly asserts that the odd level bonus feats make you effectively gain one feat at each level.

Ah, thank you. That's what I get for copy-pasta. Fixed.

Many abilities require some bonus in a specific category. For example, Widget Mastery requires Widget Weapons +3. If, at your previous level, you had Widget Weapons +2, it should increase to +3 at this level when you select a new group or a new ability. However, the wording seems to indicate that the bonuses of your existing abilities don't increase until AFTER you pick the ability. It is a bit unclear though. Can you select Widget Mastery?

I see what you're saying. At 2nd, you pick Widget Training for the +1, and then at 10th you want to pick Widget Mastery which requires Widget Training +3. Yes, you can do that. I'll come up with an effective and explicit wording sometime in the near future.

Any chance it could be made so that you're not penalized for taking the same options in a different order?

I'm not sure what you mean by penalized? Are you asking if I'll change it so you can take the special abilities at 2nd level and still get your +X bonuses? If so, that's not something I want to do, no.

Feels mechanically more like a mindless rage as it is now.

Any suggestions on how to improve it?

Rage seems to be the core of this class. The class features after that aren't the sort you can really rely upon for a full character, so the rage needs to be good. Improved Rage and Rage Powers look like they'll fit the bill, but I can't really comment until there's more than just a few blurbs of concepts. However, the large difference between enraged and not enraged may be an issue. If you don't spend any rounds on powers, you should have enough rounds for the day at most levels, I think. Probably will run short for the last encounter of the day, though. Using any rage powers will probably cost you an encounter's worth of rage, however, or more for the higher level ones.

Yeah, and something to keep in mind, that I need to remember to explicitly state, is that Rage Powers don't require you to be Raging to use. There will also be a decent Extra Rage feat to help fill in those gaps should you want to be a crazy Raging Rage Power using Rage Monster.

(click to show/hide)
I'm going to need to look that up, because you're the second person to say that I mentioned that you gain a feat every level, but I can't find that. I know that it says you gain a feat every odd level...

Changing bonus feats is interesting. Has a small typo, though ("fopr" instead of "for" when talking about keeping prereqs).

K, thx, I'll fix that.

Fighter training: Less than amazed with the way this works. The base options are all numerical bonuses, which is a decent fallback, but isn't as impressive. The fact that they are tied to specific weapons or armor kind of negates the Warrior's Aptitude ability, which is all about NOT being tied to specific weapons or armor.

Well, the two are supposed to be filling different conceptual design space. Also, the training doesn't apply to "specific" weapons or armors per se, but rather to whole groups of weapons/armors.

The alternative abilities are more interesting. I don't see anything for shield use in there, though. For the requirements, are the bonus requirements before or after the +1 to everything you already have that you get alongside the new ability?

I'm having a hard time parsing your question. Do you mean to ask if the special abilities' extra stuff in addition to the normal bonuses? Because, if that's what you're asking, then the answer's yes.

Also, the way the bonuses scale (new weapon/armor groups come in at low bonuses), you're encouraged to grab all the groups you want at low levels, and only take special abilities at high levels.

Yeah, that is the idea.

The fact that you only get 5 options in total, at least one of which (two in practice since there aren't enough abilities you'll qualify for) has to be a weapon/armor group, you don't have that many options in here. They also feel rather limited in scope.

I'm not sure how limited they are, they feel like they can definitely be character defining abilities. Anyway, they aren't supposed to be superb in power or versatility, as the Fighter gets that from his bonus feats (what with Style Training and the re-written feats I have and am planning).

Field Commander: Shouldn't this require that the ally's contingent action be an action he could take? It seems to imply that the ally's contingent action could be actions the ally can't take.

I'll have to take a second look at this, because that's exactly how I meant for it to read (that the ally's contingent action can't be an action that said ally can't take).

Code: Losing out on circumstance bonuses to attack rolls seems a bit more open-ended than intended. For example, Marshal auras are circumstance bonuses. Also, according to the SRD, flanking isn't even a circumstance bonus (which seems to be the intent to forgo). Also, Paladins flat-out lose to Undead and Constructs and other creatures immune to nonlethal (get flat-footed or just fall prone, and he's not allowed to harm you).

Hmm... that's weird. Flanking bonuses should totally be circumstance bonuses. Anyway, since that's not the case, well, crap, I have to edit this again and it can't be as clean as I'd like it to be. Oh, well.

Why is Shocking Grasp the only direct damage spell on the spell list?

Don't worry, the spell list is totally not done by a long shot.

Ally divine bond: Do you only gain one effect? Do you gain all effects of equal or lesser hp expenditure value

None of the divine bond shit is anywhere close to done, it's just placeholder rules put there so I know where I'm going with it when I get there. lol.

I find it odd that Knight's Challenge makes Paladins as good or better at hunting Lawful creatures than Evil ones. Also, archers, spellcasters, and other ranged combatants get arbitrarily screwed.

Screwing spellcasters was definitely part of the intention. Ranged combatants less so, but, I dunno. The ability needs work, I'll give you that, but I think it's salvageable, very flavorful, and can get to a place that it's very awesome.

Daunting Challenge refers to the Divine Challenge ability. I don't see Divine Challenge anywhere.

Thx, will edit.

Edit: I assume Equipment Divine Bond will be changed soon to use the new special weapon/armor properties instead of the (weaker) SRD ones?

Eventually, yeah. It's all in flux all the time. :D

LOTS of new mechanics for Barbarians and Fighters (in the form of Improved Rage, Rage Powers, and Advanced Training options) if anyone is interested in taking a look and seeing what I've been working on. Some new feats as well. More Barbarian/Fighter stuff to come as the week moves forward. :)

Again, HERE's the link.

Off Topic Fun / Re: Got Published
« on: September 17, 2012, 09:49:14 PM »
And not just any scientific journal, but the Oxford University Press. Fantastic. Well done! :clap

Base attack bonus changes: Alright, I can get behind making that more meaningful. I think Legend does something along those lines too in that there's no such thing as a full attack action.

Good, good.

Barbarian: The modular rage is nice. Daily limit on rounds is less so, but with 4 plus your Constitution modifier plus your class level, you've probably got plenty. The rage powers might chew through that duration, though. I'm assuming exiting a rage is a free action as well?

You'll definitely have plenty of daily rounds to go through on just normal applications of Rage. For heavy Rage Power users, there will be the Extra Rage feat which is always handy. In fact, I might go so far as to let the feat treat you as having four more Barbarian levels for the purposes of Improved Rage and for rounds of rage, but that might be going overboard. Rage Powers will come in a variety of effects and start costing 3 rounds, going all the way up to 9 rounds for spectacularly powerful ones.

The fast healing and regeneration values seem very small. Regeneration 1 I can see if all you want is to make the barbarian effectively unkillable by damage unless you do it with acid or negative/positive energy, but as far as fast healing goes, that barely seems like it'd be worth tracking. Is that just a formality so you can say "alright, it's been a few minutes since your last fight, you're all healed up"?

Exactly right, a formality. With Fast Healing, 10 minutes out of combat is 100 points of healing after all.

Fighter: Hey whoa, those are intermediate save progressions. Just being used for the fighter, or are you planning to incorporate these into something else?

Just being used for the Fighter for the time being, though I think I'm going to edit in a Good Reflex save for Barbarians and a Good Will save for Paladins. I may also use Intermediate saves for a few monster classes.

Plethora of feats, weapon aptitudes, specialization, tactical genius, good good good.

It was fairly simple and I rather like how it turned out.

Paladin: Eeesh, codes of conduct. Not my cup of tea, but that's a personal preference. I would tighten it up, though. Right now you've got this weird thing going on where you can't hit someone standing in grease, so you wait politely until they fall down, then beat them senseless.

Yeah, it is something I probably need to work on a little more. She won't attack someone denied their Dexterity bonus though, so after a creature falls prone in Grease is it no longer flat-footed? That would be weird. The disconnect I think we're having is that a prone creature isn't necessarily any less dangerous or ready to defend itself than a creature standing up. A creature that is denied its Dexterity bonus certainly is though.

I think I will merely limit it to the Paladin does not receive circumstance bonuses to her attack rolls against enemies and will not deal lethal damage against enemies that are denied their Dex bonus or that are prone.

It is nice to see them getting 5th level spells, though.

I'm trying to turn them into a Tier 3 Divine Duskblade.

Does Knight's Challenge end if you don't attack the challenged creature every turn, or only on the turn you activate the ability? If it's the former, that won't sit well with Banishing Challenge.

Every turn. Good point. I'll have to amend Banishing Challenge.

New feats: Going to toss in my vote with everyone else that Combat Reflexes probably isn't as potent as all that. Definitely not enough to justify giving it iterative penalties, even if you cap it at a number of extra attacks based on your BAB.

My reason for altering the way Combat Reflexes worked was never because it was too potent, but just that it seems highly strange for any feat to give you more attacks when it isn't your turn than you have when it is your turn. It may seem like a nerf, but when you can full attack a creature that provokes a single opportunity from you, I think it will feel much more enjoyable, user-friendly, and reasonable.

Deep Impact and Graceful Strike are interesting. It sounds like you're trying to make weapon selection more meaningful.

That wasn't necessarily my intention, but I suppose it comes out that way. I'm planning on using a few weapon keywords and along with the Associated Weapons rule, hopefully, a character's choice of weaponry will become more interesting. Meaningful, I think is more an unintended consequence, but one that certainly is nice.

Style Training is the key way to learn maneuvers, hmm? Definitely makes the fighter more desirable.

Right. Which was the major point. The Fighter was designed to be more bland than the Barbarian or Paladin for this reason. He is meant to fulfill the Warblade niche as "best" or "most-straightforward" maneuver-user.

"To recover maneuvers of the Devoted Spirit fighting style a character must make an attack that reduces a creature of opposing alignment from more than ½ its maximum hit points to ½ or fewer or from more than 0 hit points or to 0 or fewer" should probably be "...or from more than 0 hit points to 0 or fewer."

Yes, good catch.

Does Burning Blade only apply to one weapon, or would it apply to all weapons you touch? Also a question about Searing Blade, I guess.

Hmm... I would think that it should only apply to the weapon you touched upon initiating the boost.

Diamond Mind timeslicing? I approve, very much.

I only worry that Diamond Mind is a bit too powerful, but many of its maneuvers have toned down raw power in exchange for quickness and utility. It may work out, but casters will be attracted to the discipline, even despite the steep cost of entry (which I suppose is decent balance in and of itself).

Flickering Flame works with teleports, I assume? Nice little ability to have.

That was definitely my intention.

Scorching Sirocco is very nice too. You've actually made me like Desert Wind again.

That was actually my primary design goal with Desert Wind. Reimagine it and power it up so that people would actually like it again. I'm very happy to hear you say that. It's not all fire damage, and even when it is fire damage, at least it deals pretty good fire damage with interesting rider effects.

Am I correct in thinking that if you were TWFing, Avalanche of Blades would double those attacks as well?

Yes, because of the way the revised TWFing rules are worded, you can make an attack with one weapon whenever you make an attack with the other. Of course, your attacks will still suffer TWFing penalties as well.

Rising Phoenix's damage is worded oddly to me. Presumably you don't want to deal 10d6 damage per creature to each creature, but rather to choose which creatures take 10d6 damage, yes? Also, you could probably afford to boost your hit point total up a little more after revival - that window of -1 to -9 is narrow enough without worrying that a sneeze will drop you back down there.

I don't want it to be that great of a healing effect, but I did bump it to ½ your BAB. Also, changed the damage dealing portion to just hit all adjacent creatures. None of the other Desert Wind maneuvers spare your allies, so there's no good reason for this one too either.

Inferno Blast should probably specify that you don't damage yourself with it, unless you do.

Good catch. Will edit.

EDIT: Okay, major changes/additions made to the Inferno Blast maneuver. It is basically a small-scale nuclear blast. :) Also, I've added the short descriptions on Iron Heart maneuvers, I plan to finish the discipline up either later tonight or sometime tomorrow. Oh, finally, I've added revised rules for the Sunder special attack HERE. Now there is sundering of manufactured armor as well as all natural attacks! Neato? Let me know what you think.

Will post and edit some stuff here, as I finish reading the materials...

Paladin: that code hurts. Horribly. Is it really needed?

Honestly, I think most players, novices to the game especially, expect and desire a Lawful Good Paladin with a code of conduct. It's much less restrictive and much less damning than the normal PHB Paladin's code. Is it needed? Not particularly, no, but I like it on this Paladin redesign.

Attacks of Opportunity/Combat Reflexes: I don't know.... I can see where you are coming from with your worry over AoOs, but aren't you overthinking this? Also, how does your new feat interact with Robilar's Gambit or Karmic Strike?

Overthinking it in what way? Robilar's Gambit and other similar feats will all have to be rewritten though.

More later...

Looking forward to it!

Min/Max 3.x / Re: What can you do with this? (strange AoE stun)
« on: September 14, 2012, 07:01:08 PM »
I'm planning to take a PrC that allows you to deal your unarmed strike damage in a 30ft. cone as energy damage (your choice of fire/cold/acid/sonic/electricity). It costs two stunning fist uses and allows a Reflex save for halving the damage. You also can give up an additional stunning fist attempt to stun the enemy (vs regular stunning fist DC). It's a supernatural ability.
What can you do with this? How would I get enough stunning fists per day to use this and how can I maybe change the AoE (ie more range - is that possible?)

Where is this PrC from?

Homebrew and House Rules (D&D) / Re: [D&D 3.5] Homebrew Compendium
« on: September 14, 2012, 06:08:55 PM »
Done. Right now I've got your stuff under both your names (bkdubs and Ziegander); would you like it under only one of those?

Um, just Ziegander would be perfectly fine, my good sir.

The Akashic Records / Re: Discussion and Suggestion Thread
« on: September 13, 2012, 12:57:37 AM »
I love this. That's all I wanted to say at the moment. I have lots of new material to read. :)

Gaming Advice / Re: Ghoul Touch: 1 save or 2?
« on: September 09, 2012, 03:48:58 PM »
Hmmmm.  I've always played it allowed a saving throw vs paralysis, since I was so used to the touch of an actual ghoul allowing a saving throw it never even occurred to me to think otherwise.

That's also how I've always played it, but it just doesn't read that way. To me anyway.

I've looked thru some other touch spells.  Some say "negates" only in the statistics block and not in the text, others say it in both, so you can't simply go by Ghoul Touch not mentioning it in the text part.  Since the statistics part does say "Fortitude negates" and not "special" or "see text", I think the target gets a fort save to avoid paralysis, and the fort save mentioned in the text is indeed a second fort save for those not specifically targeted by the spell.

Of course, now you make a good argument here. :P

Hit Dice, Creature Level, and Assorted Bonuses
HD no longer carries any special weight as far as a creature's basic chassis, or Effective Character Level for that matter. A creature can have 30 HD and still be a 1st level Character, theoretically speaking. Total HD has no effect on a creature's Base Attack Bonus, Base Save Bonuses, or Skill Points per level.

Creature Level is the better indication of a creature's basic chassis, and combined with character class (or racial class, as the case may be), gives a creature it's basic chassis bonuses.

For example, an Ogre is a 3rd level creature with "Medium" Base Attack Bonus (+3/4 per levels), "Good" Base Fort Bonus (+2 at 1st level + 1/2 levels), "Poor" Base Ref Bonus (+1/3 levels), "Poor" Base Will Bonus (+1/3 levels), and "Poor" Skill Points Per Level (2 + Int per level). It has 4 HD, 3 of which were obtained through its racial class, the fourth because of its Toughness feat. Its total HD have no effect on its Creature Level or its base bonuses or skill points.

Another example (this one with changes made because of the new rules): a Tendriculos is a 6th level creature with 8 HD (6 of which were obtained through its racial class, the last two because of its Toughness feats), and "Poor" BAB, "Medium" Fort, "Poor" Ref, "Poor" Will, and "Poor" Skill Points Per Level. This gives it a Base Attack Bonus of +3, a Base Fort Bonus of +3, a Base Reflex Bonus of +2, a Base Will Bonus of +2, and 6 skill points (-4 Int modifier, minimum 1 skill point per level).

Prerequisites: Con 13
Benefit: Choose one size of Hit Dice you possess. You gain an extra Hit Dice of that size. Also, you gain extra Hit Points equal to the number of Hit Dice you possess (including the extra one you gained through this feat).
Special: You may take this feat any number of times.


The monster types/subtypes rules would need to be changed quite a bit, especially cosmetically, to fit these new rules, but I think the changes will make the game a lot more friendly to martial-type characters in the end. It also helps a DM to design monsters and encounters more easily, as these rules can serve as a replacement for Challenge Rating (or at least as as good guide to better inform encounter CR). A monster's Creature Level will balance out its core bonuses, and its HP doesn't matter as much. Now Undead and Constructs don't necessarily need to have inflated HD to be a threat, and big baddies with lots of HP aren't necessarily epic level Fighters either! Yay?

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 35