Statistics: Posted by Zanaikin — Wed Dec 10, 2008 3:44 pm
]]>
]]>
]]>
furthermore, I'm not going to penalize anyone this battle for it, but after this battle Heroic Surge will be modified to 1/week use, not 1/day.
Statistics: Posted by Zanaikin — Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:06 pm
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
Any spell with a material component that is modified to multiple-targeting must pay the material component separately for each target.
Statistics: Posted by Zanaikin — Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:27 pm
]]>
For all future questions you ask me on why something happened as I ruled it happened (or is/will happen), please do three things :
1. Go read the description of the spell / ability / maneuver in question first, pay attention to the text that describes the action, and not just the stats.
2. Give me a reason on why you think what I ruled should NOT happen. I reserve my right to not answer (and thus not explode) if you can't explain your counter-opinion fully.
3. If you give me a whaleface or "..." as soon as I declare something, then you better excuse me if I refuse to explain it to you, cause you can bet I'll at least be taking an annoyed tone. Why : because you obviously didn't even bother to try think about it first, you just want to bitch and whine about it.
Just for clarifications - I don't enjoy getting angry, in fact I hate it very much since I typically spends the next hour scolding myself for it, but when ppl's pet peeves get triggers or their little toe stepped on, it happens.
Statistics: Posted by Zanaikin — Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:56 pm
]]>
]]>
]]>
1. I don't list EVERYTHING because there is simple too dam much to list. If I tried to list it every time I made one of these decisions, I'd have enough to write a book on. There's a certain limit to how much I'm willing to document, and this goes far over the limit. I'd challenge anyone here to find me that 'perfect' DM who documents every mechanics decision he ever made just so players will always know it... no, I'll remind players every so while, after which I expect them to remember it themselves. And in some cases, players will just have to find out about it, just like NPCs will do sometimes.
2. I know I do tend to act like people are idiots a lot, and I am sorry about this. I guess it's because in my field I've been working with people who think their decisions over, fully, and make sure it makes sense for the most part, before they propose it. Most of the time (and I mark most), when a player raises an argument, I'll THINK (although sometimes that thinking is really fast because I already thought about the issue in advance before I announced it) about it before I return it to them, and same goes before I tell a player something won't work - I drive it through my mind on WHY it wouldn't work first (usually involves an argument of me vs. myself). I guess I sort of expect my players to do the same, apply common sense on why something would work, and if I tell them it doesn't, they'll take the time to consider WHY it doesn't work first before starting to bitch at me immediately over why something isn't fair. There's a reason I'm not going for some customer service job - because while I'm willing to explain to people something they can't understand, I'm NOT willing to explain EVERY LITTLE THING because they're too lazy to think it through on their own first.
So seriously, think it through first before you drop me a "..." or whaleface comment.
Just a note : I hate people who are too lazy to think for themselves and prefer to have others think for them and spoonfeed them, and I get extremely incendiary if someone shows behavior that leads me to deduce that.
3. Yes last night I did say you're willing to bend rules to save PCs, but I also mentioned you're willing to bend rules to have the PCs do something they wouldn't be able to do otherwise. Which is the difference between you and me. I have a much smaller margin where I'm willing to bend reality and allow the PCs a hit in and enjoy it where they otherwise wouldn't, because my sheets and logic tells me it's impossible that attack would have hit, regardless of whether I (on a personal level) believe they tried really hard and deserve it or not.
When I believe the PCs deserve it though, I'm willing to consider the circumstances slight more in favor of the PCs (like give a random +1 to +5 due to this and that weird factor that I made up on the spot), but I usually refuse to change hard facts.
4. You misunderstand what I said to you regarding this campaign is tough. I said in this campaign, the balance of forces is on the Alliance's side - obviously, this translates to that the campaign should be an easy one right ? since you would already have a far advantage over the enemy...
However, the campaign is tough because I am using the same strategy the Imperials would use in the TIP final campaign arc to defeat the Alliance. Which means, in an universe where I AM controlling all of the NPCs (not necessarily to my full extend, I do keep in mind each NPCs abilities, weaknesses, and shortsightings), the Alliance will end up losing this campaign. Basically it translates to : let's see if you guys would do better and turn it around otherwise.
EDIT: Not to mention, certain characters in this campaign doesn't exist / doesn't matter at all when I did my strategic planning simulation for both sides for the final TIP arc : most notably Teodor and Samael, and your contributions may make or break the marginal differences in a war like this. I can tell you Judson's METAAC grenades (even if I put most of the final touches together) doesn't exist in my TIP decisions, so that already affects things ( not saying anything on whether it'll make a big enough difference, but it's something different ).
Not to mention Drew, even if this arc is meant to be a hopeless one to win for the players ( such arcs do exist in stories and myths, but this arc is NOT meant to be that way ), it might still be a required one. There are numerous stories where protagonists are stuck in a (or 'no-win') scenario, just so they can develop the characters in question, have them learn and gain experience, and keep the story going. Thus, even in a D&D game, I don't believe the DM should never hand out a no-win scenario for a battle or, an entire arc. I may actually give one eventually, but in the current arc I DID design it so the players would have a chance - how much chance it decided by yourselves, of course.
Statistics: Posted by Zanaikin — Thu Oct 23, 2008 5:55 pm
]]>
Additionally, I'm sure it sounds to you like we're all just trying to find loopholes so we can cheat the system, but, regrettably this behavior is typical of PCs who feel as though chance itself it set against them. Make no mistake, we expect any DnD game to have a relevant amount of difficulty. Very few gamers are looking for a campaign where everything is set to God-Mode.
Personally, up until the current phase in the campaign, I would have ranked this as, quite possibly, the best DnD game I've ever played in. The challenges were good, the fights were epic (many kudos to the arial dogfight with the Doom Guards), and story seemed to be on track. But with the start of the current arch, I can't help but feel that something has gone awry with with latter point.
Make no mistake, I'm not arguing that epic challenges should not be epic, that should be a given. But its not the challenges that concern me its the overall mindset of the campaign. My willingness to participate in any DnD hinges up a point that I adhere to as both a DM and a PC: The PCs should be given a chance.
I understand that some DMs may find this particular point questionable, but the fact is that players don't engage in DnD games for a joy of frustration and loss. Again, not knocking the level of challenge, but merely pointing out that the entire scheme of the game should not be set against the "heros". Maybe its my tendency to play paladins and other "holy warriors", but I find it enjoyable to watch the goodly PCs overcome the evil badies, as much, if not more, than I enjoy watching warforged get melted into towers.
During our discussions last night, you brought up the point that I tend to alter reality to save the PCs, and, haven been given time to mull it over, I feel inclined to point out that this statement is a bit misleading. I don't save PCs, I offer them a chance to shine. The most epic moments are often found in the midst of desperation, where a single miss or hit can decide the outcome of hours of preparation and intensity. I like those moments, and, as a DM, I try to promote them as much ass possible. Why do you think I invented the stunts system?
As much as I enjoy watching my creations rip apart PCs on occasion (that black dragon from Temple of Challenges v1.0 still brings me glee), I have to realize, as a DM, that its not about merely my enjoyment, but their's as well. Call it weakness, if you want, if I sense that my PCs are collectively not enjoying my game, then I feel like I've failed as a Game Master.
So, do I spare PCs on occasion? Yes. But only if I feel it might positively effect the gaming experience for both myself and them. For example, during one of the more intensive periods during the naval portion of the Battle of Sasserine, there came a point in which a vrock was about to tare Alexius into tiny pieces. My original plan was to let things go as planned, but then I thought to myself: That would be no fun. To have battled all this way to be taken out by a vrock with 9 hp (it was around that number). So, I gave him a cutscene, he fried the vrock, Alexius got to live, and I've yet to receive any complaints (which, as you've noticed I intend to inquire about after most of my games).
The point I'm trying to make here, is that whether we see the PCs as heros are just chess pieces, it should be implied within the foundations of the game world that we have the ability to make an impact, and that we have a chance. The former point, is, admittedly, a rather shaky one, as I believe our notions of 'said point are simply different. But, surely we can agree that the latter point, that of chance, is an unwritten law amongst DMs.
Whether the PCs feel like they're making an impact or not, they have to feel as though they have a chance to do so. Without the ability to imagine a a victorious circumstance, PCs loose interest, and morale breaks. Last night, in the midst of our discussions, you ran the risk of killing every bit of motive I had to play in this game with a single comment. A single line that runs on the same level of faux-pas as Obama's "Guns and Religion" comment.
And I paraphrase:
"this campaign is supposed to be tough, mostly because the PCs are supposed to loose."
What on this fucking planet would possess you to tell a PC that? If I didn't possess a DM's insight, then I'd probably be writing my resignation post. Seriously. How would you would feel if you walked into a job interview, and spent the better part of an afternoon telling the interviewer about yourself, only to have them say at the end: "Well, we weren't actually going to hire anyone. We just wanted to see if anyone would show up."
My first thought when I read that was, "Why bother?". Why should I, as a PC, bother to continue in a campaign where the outcome is already set against me? How am I suppose to pull victory from guaranteed defeat?
The obvious retort to this comment is: "Then why bother having challenges in the first place?" We have challenges, because in the end, its not a question "who's supposed to win". The enemies have an agenda, the PCs have a mission, and one of them is going to overcome the other. The PCs may have a lot of things going against, but but by the gods they have a chance.
In closing, I'd like to point that this should be taken as purely editorial commentary. I am not here to assert that this game requires a radical change in direction, nor am I here to say that you, Dai, are a bad DM. I am simply giving my opinion as a DM on the current state of the campaign. If I am incendiary at times, it is only because I wish to make a point. Finally, I wish to let it be known that I claim to speak for no-one but myself.
Statistics: Posted by Mr_Praetorian — Thu Oct 23, 2008 5:01 pm
]]>
]]>
You must ready against a specific TARGET and an ACTION. Saying "do this if I am attacked" means that your readied action comes in AFTER you are attacked (because TARGET=you and ACTION=attacked). You can say "if that character comes to attack me, then do this", or for ranged attacks, you can specify a group of enemies coming in from the same vector instead, like "if the oncoming squad fires at me, then do this".
You can also do things like "if my indomitability triggers, do this", thus specifying TARGET=you and ACTION=indomitability triggering. The action you ready however only comes into effect after the indomitability triggers.
Remember you can't predict the future, if you try something like "if my indomitability is about to trigger, do this" then I'll have to call bullcrap on you. "If someone attack me, do this" is also illegal since you're not specifying a target.
And if you try something like "if I'm about to be attacked, do this", I'll just make your readied action useless - there will be no warnings offered.
mind, this doesn't apply to immediate actions, just readied.
Statistics: Posted by Zanaikin — Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:00 pm
]]>
( How to deal with AMF assault mages. Because of the sheer skill and prowess required to be an AMF assault mage, they're pretty much considered rare and extremely dangerous elites amongst any army, although Airindale fields the most of any nation )
--Blasters usually maintain distance, keep themselves under Invisibility/Superior, and move after each shot to keep the enemy from knowing their exact location.
--Blasters and support mages usually keep from drawing the attention of AMF-assault-mages. For blasters, just the fact you're devastating their troops is attention-drawing enough. For support mages, if they notice you, they'll take you out to cut the healing / negate the buffs.
--Ready either a shaped AMF field yourself, or a good range teleport (e.g. Dimension Door), in case they notice you anyways and come charging after you.
--Epic level blasters or support-mages should invest in Permanent Emanation (Antimagic Field). This may be turned on/off as a free action, thus you can turn it on at the start of your turn, and turn off at end of your turn.
( How to protect mages )
--High level meleers invest heavily in Combat Expertise anyways. A feat that will allow you to help parry blows against adjacent (and must be adjacent) friendlies is Allied Defense (FR:Shining South). The feat isn't very often used, thus often AP-emulated instead. Martial maneuvers like Shield Block and Shield Counter also work wonders.
Statistics: Posted by Zanaikin — Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:14 pm
]]>
Statistics: Posted by Zanaikin — Tue Oct 21, 2008 1:22 am
]]>
]]>
in the case of buffer spells like Protection, the stronger one takes effect, but once the stronger one discharges? the weaker ones are still there... they haven't been drained of anything.
so yeah, it's something I'll allow, and you can be certain the NPCs aren't abusing it ( I don't case more than one of a buff, except maybe certain key ones which are twinned to make them twice as hard to dispel ). PCs are welcome to abuse it if they want, I simply give no mercy.
And don't remember given the campaign, you're likely to be fighting day after day ( my rule on you can only rest to recover spells once per 24hrs stand ), and your spell slots are responsible for more than just the spells you cast - Spell-Shields, Glyphic Grenades, Rechargeable Staves, Rod of Absorptions... all that included. And if you think the troops have slots to spare for you, I'm going to laugh.
Statistics: Posted by Zanaikin — Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:19 am
]]>
From the SRD:
Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths
In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the best one applies.
In the case of Protection from Range, this would indicate that the character would be protected by only the latest spell that has been cast on him. For example, if two Protection from Range spells are cast on a character, the first protecting from 100 points and the second from 150, this would be "two... identical spells... operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths." This means that only the spell providing the 150 points of protection would apply to the target, and the 100 points of protection provided by the first spell would be superseded and ignored.
This interpretation seems closer to the actual text of the rules, and prohibits insanity like stacking dozens of Mass Protection From Range effects on a group to make them nigh-invulnerable to enemy fire.
Statistics: Posted by TheDude51 — Mon Oct 13, 2008 11:19 pm
]]>
Commanding Volley, War Master's Charge, White Raven Tactics - You may not receive bonuses from any of these maneuvers more than once a round (e.g. partake in charge but not its initiator). This does not affect the number of times you may initiate these maneuvers yourself.
Statistics: Posted by Zanaikin — Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:48 pm
]]>
•Take 20 on any saving throw, or automatically resist any one condition (even if it doesn't allow a save).
•Take a full-round action.
Statistics: Posted by Zanaikin — Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:21 am
]]>
10. Antimagic Fields
Due to the contradicting nature of overlapping antimagic field, the DM makes no promises on whatever may happen within the an area where more than one antimagic field crosses one another. Any magic item or spell that would normally be affected by antimagic fields may behave normally, become suppressed, dispelled, disjunctioned, or struck by other strange effects when operating within the area of an overlapping AMF (as determine by the DM's at-the-moment judgment of circumstantial factors, and his dice). Unless extreme circumstances this will not affect any item worn by an entity who emanates an AMF, but no promises will be given to his or her weapons. There will be no arguments - cross antimagic fields at your own risk.
However, because of this decision and the fact it was ME who persuaded Judson to use Shaped-AMF rather than Golem Armor. Judson, you may rebuild your char for Golem Armor instead of for Shaped AMF ( however any changes I see which does not correlate to this change of defense base will be denied ). If you choose to: 1. drop me a note and 2. if you so choose, the changes are effective immediately ( no retconning of the damage you've received or spells lost though ), before you guys engage the Imperials.
Statistics: Posted by Zanaikin — Tue Sep 30, 2008 4:24 pm
]]>
and yeah Mage's Mansion goes under extradimension, it sure isn't shrinking anything
Statistics: Posted by Zanaikin — Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:14 am
]]>
I'm not sure whether it would work normally or just kill everyone nearby with an Astral rift.
Statistics: Posted by TheDude51 — Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:31 am
]]>
]]>
An item of continuous Energy Immunity, as per the spell, costs 66,000gp according to the formulas in the DMG. Can be get an item like this, or do we need to use the effect of the epic item Ring of Energy Immunity, which costs 240,000 gp, to gain energy immunity?
Statistics: Posted by TheDude51 — Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:22 am
]]>
heal both? that seriously doesn't make any sense. And don't whine, heal spells are even more nerfed OFF penthiae. I've only kept it closer to norm because people wouldn't get use to it otherwise (shrug).
Statistics: Posted by Zanaikin — Thu Aug 28, 2008 8:49 pm
]]>
Arcane spellbooks may acquire spells from the artificer, bard, and wizard spell-lists (but not sorcerer-only spells).
Divine prayerbooks may acquire spells from the cleric, evangelist (divine bard), and paladin spell-lists.
You may not record spells added to a spell-list from a class ability (e.g. Domains) or feat (e.g. Arcane Disciple) to your spellbook unless you also have said class ability or feat. You may add sorcerer-only spells to your spellbook only if you have sufficient sorcerer casting to cast it.
( well, technically you can record it... you just won't be able to cast it if you tried, henceforth lack of point in recording it. )
Conjuration Attack Spells
Elemental attack spells of the conjuration school or creation subschool are considered to create and fire physical shots, which are no longer treated as normal spells once they are created. They may only be countered while casting and not after being created (opposed range). They pierce AMF, may ignore spell-only wards such as Dispelling Screen and Globe of Invulnerability, and cannot be affected by abilities (e.g. Absorb Spell) or items (e.g. Absorption Rods) that only affect spells.
Statistics: Posted by Zanaikin — Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:42 pm
]]>
6. Poisons
Poisons require a constitution check instead of a fortitude save, with the same DC as current (maximum DC 25).
(Note: Diseases will also require a constitution check instead of a fortitude save of the same DC. However, due to the abundance of healing potions distributed by Misalin creationists, this is not a problem players need to worry about).
reasons:
1. This actually make poisons useful, zomg! Seeing as everyone has insane fortitude saves. It also makes poisoncrafting worthwhile. Anyone who wish to trade in ranks for craft(poisonmaking), be my guest.
2. You characters can actually get drunk, zomg again! Yes alcohol counts as a poison as far as rules go.
3. Just making things slightly more realistic.
Statistics: Posted by Zanaikin — Wed Aug 06, 2008 12:59 am
]]>
Outside of the lockdown, he casts Ethereal Jaunt, then moves into the lockdown and waits for the duration to expire.
Outside the lockdown, he casts Ethereal Jaunt, then casts Teleport to move 20 ft into the lockdown.
Outside the lockdown, he casts Ethereal Jaunt, then walks into the lockdown, then casts Teleport to move 20 feet further into the lockdown.
Statistics: Posted by TheDude51 — Thu Jul 24, 2008 2:44 am
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
Reason: Drew's game made me notice that players in my game don't take action points nearly as seriously. I may not require excessive descriptions for the purpose of saving game time (which is long enough as it is), but they're still meant for circumstances when a char really needs them, or when characters get either desperate or furious. Besides, since action points in my game are a lot stronger than they are in Eberron or any other game, it only makes sense to have less of them.
EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY (meaning subtract 5 from your current AP count)
( I was tempted to cut it down to 1/3 char level... although I figure that might be too much ).
Statistics: Posted by Zanaikin — Wed Jul 23, 2008 4:42 pm
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
CHARACTER CREATION & LEVELING:
6. Epic
You continue progression of Base Attack Bonus and all Base Saves as normal when above level twenty (consult DM for the BAB and saves of any WOTC Epic Prestige Class).
Furthermore, upon reaching level twenty-one, your character receives an one time bonus of 4 ‘stat-buy’ points to your ability scores, increasing your effective starting scores (before taking in bonuses from stat boost gained by leveling) from 32 point buy to 36 point buy. Upon reaching level twenty-six, you receive another 4 ‘stat-buy’ points, raising your effective starting scores to 40 point buy.
***I use a point-buy system in NPC generation where the point-buy amount is based on level of character. For epic characters it's 36 point buy, and for high-epic characters it's 40 point buy. =P
ACTION POINTS:
Under uses of 1AP:
•Gain the effects of any one feat you choose which does not have a knowledge prerequisite for one round; you must meet all the requirements of the chosen feat.
***Yes, this means you may no longer emulations feats like Arcane Thesis or any War Magic feats (=O). The reason for this is because unlike most other feats, knowledge-based feats are those meant to require considerable research to understand, where the prerequisite ranks are considered the foundation or basics, therefore you simply can't imitate it on a second's notice. Well, that and the fact Arcane Thesis emulation is just outright broken...use either Casting Arrays to power up the metamagic or learn the feat yourself =P.
•Continue to fight without penalty even while disabled or dying for one round (you still die upon reaching –10 hit points).
***Based on the Boar's ferocity ability.
Under uses of 2AP:
•Continue to fight without penalty even when reduced to –10 hit points or below for one round. You must be conscious and above a hit point amount equal to the negative of half your maximum hit points to use this ability. The ‘no penalty’ implies only to the penalties of disabled or dying, but not to the results of major bodily damage (such as loss of limbs) from being critically damaged.
***Given the penalties involved in losing and rebuilding a character, this ability is for you to better keep your characters alive. It's similar to the Knight lvl20 ability.
To assist the above rule, I also implemented this:
6. A character who has consumed his limited amount of action points for the round may continue to use his remaining reserve action points, but at a penalty. For every action point you would normally spent, you must now consume three times that amount. You may not use this ability to produce an action point effect above your standard limits (e.g. take an extra standard action when you do not have the Action Surge feat), nor may you spend above double your normal limit (prior to the tripling of AP costs, thus a character with the Action Surge feat may produce up to the effects of four action points in one round, costing him eight action points total). After using this ability, your character becomes fatigued (or exhausted if already fatigued) for the next 10 minutes, which applies even if you have immunity to fatigue or exhaustion. Exhausted characters may not use this ability. Players are advised to reserve this ability only for emergency life-or-death situations.
MORALE EFFECTS:
Immunity to Mind-Affecting effects (such as Mind Blank) prevents you from being affected by all morale effects, both good and bad.
LEADERSHIP:
The full ranking system is as followed. This system is not strictly military, and may be adapted to any organization.
...
You may add your rank as an untyped modifier to any of the following:
•Leadership score (as described above), but only for the purpose of attracting cohorts and followers from within your organization.
•Rally checks (see Heroes of Battle p73).
•Diplomacy, gather information, intimidate, and opposed charisma check made against another member of the same organization.
and if you haven't seen this yet:
5. A character with the Heroic Surge feat (free feat at character level twenty-five) may activate it to gain 1 temporary action point per round (each lasting until the end of round) for one round per character level (see Heroic Surge in custom feats for details). The character may spend up to 3 action points per round during this time. This grants the ability to use three action points to perform any of the following:
•Take 20 on any saving throw.
Statistics: Posted by Zanaikin — Fri May 09, 2008 3:48 pm
]]>
and yes Enlarge will work with it.
Statistics: Posted by Zanaikin — Wed Apr 23, 2008 12:28 am
]]>
It has a range, which would imply Enlarge is viable, but it works a bit differently than a normal spell that is Enlarged, which is why I ask.
It also has a variable, numberic effect (1d4+CL eyes), but I am unsure if one could Empower or Maximize this. Also, would Empower also modify the addition to the d4?
That is, would an Empowered Prying Eyes create (1d4)*1.5 + CL eyes, or (1d4+CL) * 1.5 eyes?
Statistics: Posted by TheDude51 — Tue Apr 22, 2008 5:37 pm
]]>
]]>
but yeah, maybe increment to double is better, this requires a lot of thinking about either way.
Statistics: Posted by Zanaikin — Sat Mar 29, 2008 4:54 am
]]>
]]>
although the quad 8d6 greatsword is still frightening
Statistics: Posted by Zanaikin — Sat Mar 29, 2008 3:17 am
]]>
For example, right now Dmitri effectively has 4 attacks each round, each using a touch attack roll and dealing 135 points of damage. No melee character can hope to approach that consistently, and I can blast away from a safe distance, hitting more easily with my touch attack rolls. With the quadruple-damage rule, a melee character gets the ability to deal more damage than such a ranged character as myself or that frostmaster in return for taking the risk of going toe-to-toe with the enemy, which seems a reasonable trade off.
Although I shudder to think of some of the damage numbers a Frenzied Berserker executing a pouncing charge with a Valorous greatsword and full power attack could produce.
If Dai feels up to updating the things that need updating, I say go for it.
Statistics: Posted by TheDude51 — Sat Mar 29, 2008 3:11 am
]]>
Maybe we could knock it down to double. I dunno, seems a bit extreme to go for that. Though I will admit it would be nice to be on the level as casters, for once...
Statistics: Posted by Mr_Praetorian — Sat Mar 29, 2008 2:46 am
]]>
here it is:
Quadruple All Weapon Damage.
shocked yet?
note: this applies only to weapons (including splash weapons like alchemist's fire) and natural elemental effects (like the 2d6dmg from touching lava, 10d6 for being immersed in acid, falling dmg, etc.), does not apply to spells or special magic item effects. (this means certain weapon-like spells like Mage's Sword may need customizing).
why is this added, it's simple:
1. My game is not typical D&D, an untrained peasant will have 2lvls, a typical professional (soldier or skilled worker) will have 4~6lvls, only a child or young teen will likely have 1lvl. This means they'll often have four times the HP as in typical D&D. This needs compensating.
2. It's to help balance out melee vs. magic. No arguments there on that it's needed.
3. With the half-armor-to-DR implemented, even heavy weapons often don't do enough damage.
4. Currently, weapon damage don't increase fast enough with size to make heavy weapons REALLY worth it. Who cares about large->huge +1d6 dmg when the maneuver you use already grant +10d6? Who cares about the idea of sheathing weapons on fire for a +1d6? Well, how about a +4d6 to change your mind?
5. People do not walk off after doing insane things like falling down several hundred feet, or run through an inferno without fire immunity, and still survive with decent amt of hp.
problems:
1. Rebalancing weapon-like spells, there's a lot of them.
2. may cause a lot of confusion, there's simply TOO many things involved.
any thoughts?
Statistics: Posted by Zanaikin — Sat Mar 29, 2008 2:25 am
]]>
You're also responsible for telling me if the game needs to move on (unless I notice it myself, which you are not to assume)
Statistics: Posted by Zanaikin — Wed Mar 19, 2008 1:25 am
]]>
I DON'T CARE ANYMORE, HOW'S THAT?
I'm really tired of telling, begging, PLEADING for people to post. This is a game, not me asking people for charity...
I'm also tired of people treating this like work or homework. I'm not getting paid for it, I got no boss to yell at me, it doesn't look good on my resume, so why should I be taking the time to supervise the players?
From now on, if the players feel like posting, I'll put forth some effort and the game will run on.
If the players don't, the DM will pretend the game doesn't exist.
Yes, if you care about this game, YOU are now responsible for making the game move on. (and if you don't, quit so you stop being a drain to my precious time)
Better? Now you won't need to worry about me nagging, and I don't need to feel pissed off that I spent X hours preparing something and the players don't care.
Statistics: Posted by Zanaikin — Wed Mar 19, 2008 1:07 am
]]>
]]>
]]>
primary categories of what I consider metagaming:
--Acting on behalf of information which you character was not present for to know.
--Acting on behalf of having exact DETAILS for which you character should not know. Best example I can think offhand: no Ulrich does not know Kati does not cast Radiant Assault, because there is no reason why Ulrich would know Kati's list of spellsknown/prep'd.
--Directing your allies in their next course of action in detail, particularly when you do not have the ingame means to get said information to them.
--Coordinating efforts on the field (middle of engagement) as "players", not "characters". There should NOT be a discussion of why someone should/shouldn't cast this next spell... because you simply don't have time to do so in the field. Let's the player use his own judgment.
I really don't see how anyone could write an official clarification post listing all the things that define 'metagaming', that would be approaching the scale of defining 'common sense'...
Statistics: Posted by Zanaikin — Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:44 pm
]]>
]]>
I'm not asking for the DM to violently and verbally strike Scott down, but I do think that sending someone a message, warning them out-of-game about your character's future actions is not an acceptable gaming practice, because is directly effects how you're going to run your character in the future.
Just my 2 cps.
Statistics: Posted by Mr_Praetorian — Thu Nov 15, 2007 7:28 pm
]]>
Example:
Good RP: LADY GANT! What's going on down there? are you hurt? who is attacking you? Anyone I should avoid hitting?
Meta Game: Damn that Ulrich, how dare he attack Kati! I'm going to roast him like a Thanksgiving Turkey! him and his bastard church men too!
* As a note, I'm not trying to pick on you scott. I'm sure I do this a little bit as well, and I'm fairly sure Judson suffers from this too. Drew is very good about this kinda thing though. Marty and Dave have a better grip then most, but occasionally succumb to Meta Gaming.
Statistics: Posted by Squall255 — Thu Nov 15, 2007 7:18 pm
]]>
]]>
If a battle sequence is run PBP, you have 24 Hours after it becomes you turn to post an action. If you take longer than this, I will dish out the same effect I give to those who take too long to decide on their turn: your character is set to full-defense mode and does not perform any other actions.
If you drop me a note (IM or PM) that you're busy I'll extend this to 48 hours, although I will reserve every right to not offer this should someone abuse this rule excessively. Appropriate considerations will be given for those who requires clarification of details from the DM to decide (again, abusing this rule to ask something stupid will not grant your a postponing).
If you are unable to reach the internet or simply away from a position for which you can access your character sheet (say: visiting relatives, having a school network crash, going on a trip) you'll be excused from this. However if it becomes stuck on your character for more than two days you should assign another player (or the DM will assign for you) to act on your behalf, just as if you have to be absent for a meeting.
Reason why I do this:
1. You should not spend more than a few minutes (<5) deciding on what your character's actions are. And if you have to open more than 3 books/PDFs to research possibilities or figure out what spells/maneuvers do (or worse: where its from), then I suggest you organize your character-sheet better. Good roleplaying is nice to have but it is a bonus, not a requirement. Either way, you should not spend more than 5mins TOPS figuring out what your character does, and I know you guys have the typing speed to type out your action within 1min. If it takes any longer, you're probably trying to do more than you should, or you character is simply being too indecisive during the round -> cannot makeup his mind -> I have right to skip him.
2. If you consistently take multiple days to post an action, then any other player also has the right to take multiple days to post an action... roll this up for 6 players and 1 DM and we'll have 2-3 weeks time to go thru ONE ROUND, meaning = we'll NEVER get anything done. Don't give me crap on other PBP games' posting speed because the typical PBP post speed is reason why most PBP games fail!
Statistics: Posted by Zanaikin — Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:57 pm
]]>
so... the free spell rules is modified to:
3. Free Cantrips/Orisons
Level 0 spells of all classes are considered ‘free’ spells and may be cast with no daily limit.
Statistics: Posted by Zanaikin — Mon Nov 05, 2007 5:13 pm
]]>
]]>
3. Free Spells:
A caster or manifester may use spells equal or below one-third his/her highest spell level once every minute without burning a spell/day slot. All level 0 spells may be used as a free spell, level 1 spells are free once you gains level 3 spells, level 2 when you gain level 6 spells, and level 3 when you gain level 9 spells.
To a class that must prepare spells, this ‘free spell’ may be of any spell he/she has prepared that day, whether or not if it has already been expended. However, classes that must prepare spells gain only one free spell per minute.
Manifesters who augment / metapsionic the ‘free power’ may only raise it to a maximum number of power points equal to the minimum manifester level for the highest ‘free power’ level he/she has. Thus, a psion (level 9 powers) can use a maximum of 5 power points (minimum manifester level of level 3 powers) for his/her ‘free powers’.
If you already used your ‘free spell’ or ‘free power’ in the available minute rounds, you may spend 1 action point to gain another use.
This spell/power is strictly temporary in nature and cannot be stored using any means (including Rods of Absorption).
Statistics: Posted by Zanaikin — Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:46 pm
]]>
and here it is!
BASE DEFENSE BONUS:
DM Note: The following rules comes as a set for the maintenance of game balance.
1. Basics
Base Defense Bonus is a class and level dependent boost to AC as a dodge bonus. This bonus is denied if you are wearing any armor, carrying more than a light load, or denied your dexterity modifier to AC. This bonus is calculated by the following equation:
Base Defense Bonus = Base Attack Bonus + Base Reflex Save – Character Level
Your Base Defense Bonus is a minimum of 0 (it cannot penalize your AC).
2. Armor to DR
You receive DR/– equal to half your armor AC (rounded down). If you are wearing adamantine armor, you receive DR/– equal to your armor AC instead.
3. Mage Armor
Mage Armor, Bracers of Armor, and similar spells and items no longer grant armor AC. They now grant deflection AC instead. Armor AC may only be gained through real physical armor or magically enhanced clothing (e.g. +5 robes)
DM Suggestion: Arcane spellcasters who do not benefit from Base Defense Bonus should invest upon Twilight Mithral Chain Shirts (0% ASF).
SPELLS SECTION:
8. Bonus Type Clarifications (Also for Items):
•Armor bonus are no longer granted by spells as Mage Armor or items as Bracers of Armor, instead they grant deflection bonus.
•Deflection bonus to AC may be up to +10 for non-epic equipment and costs (bonus^2 x 1,000gps)
as most of you already have Bracers of Armor or Rings of Protection, this will require some upgrading:
If you have Bracers of Armor (or similar +AC mage-armor-ish effect), change it to deflection instead, simple enough.
If you have Rings of Protection (or similar +deflect AC), double the bonus (do the math and you'll realize you're on the high end of the bargain stick here so I don't want to hear any complaints
)My custom Arcane Armor spells are hereby declared obsolete...
also, an PHBII feat I edited for the new armor-to-DR rules. This + adamantine makes wearing armor actually well worth it
. And don't forget this rule also increases the values of feats like Heavy Armor Optimization.ARMOR SPECIALIZATION [FIGHTER]
Requirements: Base Attack Bonus +12, Proficiency with selected armor type
Benefit: Choose light, medium, or heavy armor with which you are proficient. When wearing masterwork armor (including magic armor) of that type, you gain damage reduction equal to armor AC instead of half armor AC. Any time you lose your dexterity bonus to armor class, you lose the benefits of this feat.
Special: If you wear adamantine armor, you gain damage reduction equal to one-and-half times your armor AC instead of your armor AC.
Statistics: Posted by Zanaikin — Wed Oct 31, 2007 3:45 pm
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>