Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

[CAMPAIGN] Setup thread

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 6:06:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

NOTE: All threads related to the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil
campaign will (and should) be tagged with the [CAMPAIGN] thread. This
will make them easier to find for those who are interested, and easier
to filter for those who aren't.

Once the campaign is underway, I will be posting a summary of events,
fairly rarely (in real-life terms). There shouldn't be a significant
amount of clutter. If previous online campaigns are any indication, one
post monthly sounds about right.

DM: Laszlo
Players: Justisaur, Billy Yank, David Alex Lamb, tussock

The purpose of this thread is as follows:

1) Discussing the characters. Ideally, the party should be
well-rounded. Goofy characters can be great. Inntentionally
underpowered characters, however, or ones who have nothing to offer the
party, are not really ideal for this adventure.

Regarding what you can use: Basically, I'm willing to consider allowing
anything, from any source.If you want something from non-Core sources,
please discuss it with me first. I'm very likely to allow it; if I ban
something for balance reasons, I'm always willing to discuss a
compromise. If you just have a character idea in mind (not a specific
prestige class or feat or
whatever), then you can just tell me that and we'll make it work.


2) Finding a place to play. I've sent a DM application for the WotC
board: http://boards1.wizards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=278. I may or may
not get approved (it generally takes a couple of days to get a reply);
regardless, if anyone has other, better ideas, I'm all ears. I'd really
like a place that everyone can read (ruling out PBEM), and the ability
to use different text styles and colours; a lot of information (like
battle maps) can be conveyed much better with colours.


Laszlo

More about : campaign setup thread

Anonymous
July 1, 2005 7:37:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Decaying Atheist wrote:
> I would be interesting in jumping in, but I'm not sure what kind of
> time I would have.
> I think knowing a bit more about the setup, where we are planning on
> playing in terms
> of posting, contribution level required, etc would tell me if I should
> just sit this one out
> or if I'll have the option to join.

Well, the place where we're going to play is still under discussion. I
quite like Jasin's suggestion
(http://forum.rpg.net/forumdisplay.php?f=30).

As for contribution level: you should be able to post at least once
every 24 hours, on a regular basis. Occasional lapses are fine (summer
vacation, etc), but please try to give advance notice of such lapses.

Generally, you'll need to be able to allocate about 15-20 minutes a day
to catch up on posts, and post your actions.

> I'll start considering character options but put nothing in stone
> until I some kind of
> idea on what you guys want to do with running the game.

Sure thing.

Compared to a normal game, play-by-post has distinct advantages and
disadvantages. The first thing you'll probably notice is that things
generally go somewhat slower in play-by-post. On the other hand, it's
easier to make time for these types of games (a single lunch break, for
example, can be enough). Also, I like them because the quality of
roleplaying is often better.

Laszlo
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 7:42:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> NOTE: All threads related to the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil
> campaign will (and should) be tagged with the [CAMPAIGN] thread. This
> will make them easier to find for those who are interested, and easier
> to filter for those who aren't.
>
> Once the campaign is underway, I will be posting a summary of events,
> fairly rarely (in real-life terms). There shouldn't be a significant
> amount of clutter. If previous online campaigns are any indication, one
> post monthly sounds about right.
>
> DM: Laszlo
> Players: Justisaur, Billy Yank, David Alex Lamb, tussock
>
> The purpose of this thread is as follows:
>
> 1) Discussing the characters. Ideally, the party should be
> well-rounded. Goofy characters can be great. Inntentionally
> underpowered characters, however, or ones who have nothing to offer the
> party, are not really ideal for this adventure.
>
> Regarding what you can use: Basically, I'm willing to consider allowing
> anything, from any source.If you want something from non-Core sources,
> please discuss it with me first. I'm very likely to allow it; if I ban
> something for balance reasons, I'm always willing to discuss a
> compromise. If you just have a character idea in mind (not a specific
> prestige class or feat or
> whatever), then you can just tell me that and we'll make it work.

Some quick info about character generation: you start with 6300 XP (300
XP past ECL 4), and 5700 GP each. You may spend the GP on anything you
like, but no single item should be worth more than 1500 gp.
Spellcasters can use their 300 extra XP to craft stuff, if they want.

Laszlo
Related resources
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 10:13:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote in message
news:1120251985.880789.196200@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> NOTE: All threads related to the Return to the Temple of Elemental
> Evil
> campaign will (and should) be tagged with the [CAMPAIGN] thread.
> This
> will make them easier to find for those who are interested, and
> easier
> to filter for those who aren't.
>
> Once the campaign is underway, I will be posting a summary of
> events,
> fairly rarely (in real-life terms). There shouldn't be a significant
> amount of clutter. If previous online campaigns are any indication,
> one
> post monthly sounds about right.
>
> DM: Laszlo
> Players: Justisaur, Billy Yank, David Alex Lamb, tussock
>
> The purpose of this thread is as follows:
>
> 1) Discussing the characters. Ideally, the party should be
> well-rounded. Goofy characters can be great. Inntentionally
> underpowered characters, however, or ones who have nothing to offer
> the
> party, are not really ideal for this adventure.
>
> Regarding what you can use: Basically, I'm willing to consider
> allowing
> anything, from any source.If you want something from non-Core
> sources,
> please discuss it with me first. I'm very likely to allow it; if I
> ban
> something for balance reasons, I'm always willing to discuss a
> compromise. If you just have a character idea in mind (not a
> specific
> prestige class or feat or
> whatever), then you can just tell me that and we'll make it work.
>
>
> 2) Finding a place to play. I've sent a DM application for the WotC
> board: http://boards1.wizards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=278. I may or
> may
> not get approved (it generally takes a couple of days to get a
> reply);
> regardless, if anyone has other, better ideas, I'm all ears. I'd
> really
> like a place that everyone can read (ruling out PBEM), and the
> ability
> to use different text styles and colours; a lot of information (like
> battle maps) can be conveyed much better with colours.
>
>
> Laszlo

I would be interesting in jumping in, but I'm not sure what kind of
time I would have.
I think knowing a bit more about the setup, where we are planning on
playing in terms
of posting, contribution level required, etc would tell me if I should
just sit this one out
or if I'll have the option to join.

I'll start considering character options but put nothing in stone
until I some kind of
idea on what you guys want to do with running the game.

DA
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 11:03:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> > NOTE: All threads related to the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil
> > campaign will (and should) be tagged with the [CAMPAIGN] thread. This
> > will make them easier to find for those who are interested, and easier
> > to filter for those who aren't.
> >
> > Once the campaign is underway, I will be posting a summary of events,
> > fairly rarely (in real-life terms). There shouldn't be a significant
> > amount of clutter. If previous online campaigns are any indication, one
> > post monthly sounds about right.
> >
> > DM: Laszlo
> > Players: Justisaur, Billy Yank, David Alex Lamb, tussock
> >
> > The purpose of this thread is as follows:
> >
> > 1) Discussing the characters. Ideally, the party should be
> > well-rounded. Goofy characters can be great. Inntentionally
> > underpowered characters, however, or ones who have nothing to offer the
> > party, are not really ideal for this adventure.
> >

I'd like to play a Kobold, some variation of wizard or sorcerer, or
possibly a warlock, I just saw those the other day, and they looked
interesting. - and I'm interested in the wildmage PRC from complete
arcane I think. Do you have any house rules that would affect this I
would need to know about? Would you consider dropping the Con penalty
for PCs (like 3.0)?

> > Regarding what you can use: Basically, I'm willing to consider allowing
> > anything, from any source.If you want something from non-Core sources,
> > please discuss it with me first. I'm very likely to allow it; if I ban
> > something for balance reasons, I'm always willing to discuss a
> > compromise. If you just have a character idea in mind (not a specific
> > prestige class or feat or
> > whatever), then you can just tell me that and we'll make it work.
>
> Some quick info about character generation: you start with 6300 XP (300
> XP past ECL 4), and 5700 GP each. You may spend the GP on anything you
> like, but no single item should be worth more than 1500 gp.
> Spellcasters can use their 300 extra XP to craft stuff, if they want.

How are we generating ability scores?

- Justisaur
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 3:25:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <1120257772.602130.89020@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote:
>Some quick info about character generation: you start with 6300 XP (300
>XP past ECL 4), and 5700 GP each. You may spend the GP on anything you
>like, but no single item should be worth more than 1500 gp.
>Spellcasters can use their 300 extra XP to craft stuff, if they want.

Elite array for abilities?

We're not supposed to know too much about the setting, but I presume from the
title we're expecting to face a lot of Evil creatures. So my first thought
for a character was a Paladin -- thankfully, Jeff isn't running, so I am
guessing I might not have to face his "nobody can run a Paladin properly"
standards. I'd be quite happy to negotiate something else based on what the
party decides it needs.

Any other potential characters?
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 3:27:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Repent !" said the Ticktockman. "Get Stuffed!" replied. Then he added:

> Some quick info about character generation: you start with 6300 XP (300
> XP past ECL 4), and 5700 GP each. You may spend the GP on anything you
> like, but no single item should be worth more than 1500 gp.
> Spellcasters can use their 300 extra XP to craft stuff, if they want.
>

I'll download a chargen program and start playing around with some
concepts. BTW, this is my first 3.x game so if I do something stupid in my
chargen, I'd appreciate a heads-up.

--
Billy Yank

Quinn: "I'm saying it's us, or them."
Murphy: "Well I choose them."
Q: "That's NOT an option!"
M: "Then you shouldn't have framed it as one."
-Sealab 2021

Billy Yank's Baldur's Gate Photo Portraits
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze2xvw6/
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 3:41:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Repent David Alex Lamb!" said the Ticktockman. "Get Stuffed!" David Alex
Lamb replied. Then he added:

> Any other potential characters?
>

I wouldn't mind playing the cleric. This is Greyhawk, so standard gods,
right?

--
Billy Yank

Quinn: "I'm saying it's us, or them."
Murphy: "Well I choose them."
Q: "That's NOT an option!"
M: "Then you shouldn't have framed it as one."
-Sealab 2021

Billy Yank's Baldur's Gate Photo Portraits
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze2xvw6/
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 3:52:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <1120251985.880789.196200@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu says...

> 2) Finding a place to play. I've sent a DM application for the WotC
> board: http://boards1.wizards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=278. I may or may
> not get approved (it generally takes a couple of days to get a reply);
> regardless, if anyone has other, better ideas, I'm all ears. I'd really
> like a place that everyone can read (ruling out PBEM), and the ability
> to use different text styles and colours; a lot of information (like
> battle maps) can be conveyed much better with colours.

I think the PBP forums on RPGnet has less strict rules, both for
starting a game and for the level of graphicness that is tolerated...

http://forum.rpg.net/forumdisplay.php?f=30


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 4:59:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Alex Lamb wrote:
> In article <1120257772.602130.89020@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> <laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote:
> >Some quick info about character generation: you start with 6300 XP (300
> >XP past ECL 4), and 5700 GP each. You may spend the GP on anything you
> >like, but no single item should be worth more than 1500 gp.
> >Spellcasters can use their 300 extra XP to craft stuff, if they want.
>
> Elite array for abilities?

No, 32-point buy (DMG, page 169).

> We're not supposed to know too much about the setting, but I presume from the
> title we're expecting to face a lot of Evil creatures.

Yep.

> So my first thought
> for a character was a Paladin -- thankfully, Jeff isn't running, so I am
> guessing I might not have to face his "nobody can run a Paladin properly"
> standards. I'd be quite happy to negotiate something else based on what the
> party decides it needs.

A Paladin sounds good, as long as you can ignore Jeff.

Laszlo
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 5:04:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Billy Yank wrote:
> "Repent David Alex Lamb!" said the Ticktockman. "Get Stuffed!" David Alex
> Lamb replied. Then he added:
>
> > Any other potential characters?
>
> I wouldn't mind playing the cleric. This is Greyhawk, so standard gods,
> right?

Correct. For those who are unfamiliar with the Greyhawk gods, here's a
list:

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/dreadwood/research/deities...

Laszlo
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 5:18:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Justisaur wrote:
> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> > laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> > > NOTE: All threads related to the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil
> > > campaign will (and should) be tagged with the [CAMPAIGN] thread. This
> > > will make them easier to find for those who are interested, and easier
> > > to filter for those who aren't.
> > >
> > > Once the campaign is underway, I will be posting a summary of events,
> > > fairly rarely (in real-life terms). There shouldn't be a significant
> > > amount of clutter. If previous online campaigns are any indication, one
> > > post monthly sounds about right.
> > >
> > > DM: Laszlo
> > > Players: Justisaur, Billy Yank, David Alex Lamb, tussock
> > >
> > > The purpose of this thread is as follows:
> > >
> > > 1) Discussing the characters. Ideally, the party should be
> > > well-rounded. Goofy characters can be great. Inntentionally
> > > underpowered characters, however, or ones who have nothing to offer the
> > > party, are not really ideal for this adventure.
> > >
>
> I'd like to play a Kobold, some variation of wizard or sorcerer, or
> possibly a warlock, I just saw those the other day, and they looked
> interesting. - and I'm interested in the wildmage PRC from complete
> arcane I think. Do you have any house rules that would affect this I
> would need to know about?

Yes. One house rule, specifically for wild mages: the 1d6-3 caster
level modification when casting is to be applied after _all_ other
modifications. In other words, Practiced Spellcaster doesn't combo with
Wild Mage.

And some rules interpretations for spells in general:

Alter Self: No winged humanoids exist, for the purposes of this spell.

Polymorph: You cannot polymorph into a creature larger than one size
category above your own (Large for humans, Medium for kobolds). If your
Polymorphed shape is larger than your natural shape, Polymorph counts
as a magical effect that increases size, and thus doesn't stack with
Enlarge Person or Animal Growth.

All shapechanging spells: you can only shapechange into forms you are
familiar with. Encountering a creature is enough. Researching it in a
library (which may take some time) is also acceptable.

At the beginning of the adventure, you're assumed to be familiar with
all animals (normal and dire), and all creaures of CR 4 or lower in the
Monster Manual.

> Would you consider dropping the Con penalty
> for PCs (like 3.0)?

Hmm... yes, that seems fair.

> How are we generating ability scores?

32-point buy.

Max hit points at level one; at further levels, you may choose to roll,
or take the average, rounded up.

Laszlo
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 5:29:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> Billy Yank wrote:
> > "Repent David Alex Lamb!" said the Ticktockman. "Get Stuffed!" David Alex
> > Lamb replied. Then he added:
> >
> > > Any other potential characters?
> >
> > I wouldn't mind playing the cleric. This is Greyhawk, so standard gods,
> > right?
>
> Correct. For those who are unfamiliar with the Greyhawk gods, here's a
> list:
>
> http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/dreadwood/research/deities...

Or, you know, Player's Handbook page 106.

D'oh.

Laszlo
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 6:04:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

tussock wrote:
> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> > NOTE: All threads related to the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil
> > campaign will (and should) be tagged with the [CAMPAIGN] thread. This
> > will make them easier to find for those who are interested, and easier
> > to filter for those who aren't.
>
> Putting it at the end of the subject line might make various
> programs replies hang onto it a bit more reliably.

Good point, will do.

> > Regarding what you can use: Basically, I'm willing to consider allowing
> > anything, from any source.If you want something from non-Core sources,
> > please discuss it with me first. I'm very likely to allow it; if I ban
> > something for balance reasons, I'm always willing to discuss a
> > compromise. If you just have a character idea in mind (not a specific
> > prestige class or feat or whatever), then you can just tell me that
> > and we'll make it work.
>
> Savage Species alright? Hmm, ECL 3 is perhaps a bit low for an Ogre
> or Bugbear Rogue.

You start at ECL 4. There's a lot of overpowered stuff in Savage
Species, so tread lightly there. The Ogre is fine, though.

> How's the module setting suited to the various
> humanoid races?

Not a problem. You can expect some unpleasant reactions from friendlies
at first if you're an Orc or (especially) an Ogre, but nothing
insurmountable. Think Drizzt Do'Urden.

> More improtantly, what's the adventure hook? It's easier to build a
> character if I know why the party's together, and what our main goal
> will be (other than preventing the coming of a great Evil, if I remember
> my jaunt in the original).

At the beginning of the adventure, you will be completely oblivious to
any "great evil". I'll probably have you guys arrive at Hommlet (now a
peaceful, bustling little town) at sundown, unless anyone gives me
background info I can fashion a tasty plot hook out of. (Perhaps
someone could have a relative living in Hommlet, for instance.)

By default, I'd also like you to have already formed at least a
tentative travelling and/or adventuring group; my experience is that
everyone tends to be bored by the obligatory "let's get everyone in the
same party" bits in the beginning.

Again, this is all negotiable, and a lot will depend on your
backstories. All I'm expecting is for you all to be willing to
adventure; anything beyond that is gravy (but gravy that I can possibly
use to make the adventure more fun).

> Ugh. Too many character builds I've been looking to try, Gnome Bard
> (as Enchanter), Dwarf Barbarian (as Battle Rager), Goblin Druid (as
> Wolf-rider), ....
>
> > 2) Finding a place to play.
>
> rpg.net looks to run the same software as wizards.com, but with a
> more sensible set of dos and don'ts (IMO). Want to take this over there
> and post a link to the thread?

Just looking at the thread requires registration, which is a bit much,
I think, since I'd like to have people commenting on the setup and
rules, if they want (like Decaying Atheist did).

I think it would be best to move over when we're ready to start
playing. Character and house-rule discussion is still charterrific
here.

Laszlo
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 11:19:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

tussock wrote:
> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> > Justisaur wrote:
> >>
> >>I'd like to play a Kobold, some variation of wizard or sorcerer, or
> >>possibly a warlock, I just saw those the other day, and they looked
> >>interesting. - and I'm interested in the wildmage PRC from complete
> >>arcane I think. Do you have any house rules that would affect this I
> >>would need to know about?
> <snip>
> > And some rules interpretations for spells in general:
> >
> > Polymorph: You cannot polymorph into a creature larger than one size
> > category above your own (Large for humans, Medium for kobolds). If your
> > Polymorphed shape is larger than your natural shape, Polymorph counts
> > as a magical effect that increases size, and thus doesn't stack with
> > Enlarge Person or Animal Growth.
>
> Excellent. A further nerf I've used is that stat increases from
> polymorph count as enhancement bonuses, and so don't stack with various
> other ways of increasing stats. Particularly seems a good idea now that
> Con changes officially modify HPs.

Meh, I don't think that's necessary. The Con change to HP is less
useful than it seems at first glance, since they're not like temporary
hit points; damage is damage, and if a Polymorphed mage changes back
with more damage on him than he can normally take, he's gone.

Polymorph is meant to be a powerful and versatile spell, and I don't
have a problem with that. IME the "knowledge" and the size restrictions
keep it under control.

> > All shapechanging spells: you can only shapechange into forms you are
> > familiar with. Encountering a creature is enough. Researching it in a
> > library (which may take some time) is also acceptable.
>
> Knowledge skills (and associated monster lore) count for that?

Sure, that makes sense.

> >>Would you consider dropping the Con penalty for PCs (like 3.0)?
> >
> > Hmm... yes, that seems fair.
>
> Kobolds are already about the best Src/Wiz in the game for most
> builds, let 'im put some points in to buy it up.
>
> Not that it's my descision or anything.

I compared them to Halflings and Goblins, and I think they're balanced
without the -2 Con. And compared to whisper gnomes (Races of Stone),
they're still underpowered.

> Oh, another question for Wizard types. How much downtime is to be
> expected for making scrolls, potions, and other items? Any special rules
> for speeding up the process if the missions are to be continuous in nature?

The adventure handles time nicely, I think. You can pretty much take
downtime whenever you feel like it. Naturally, things will still be
happening... the world won't revolve entirely around your characters.

You can craft items while adventuring, though. Normally, a party
doesn't actually adventure more than one or two hours a day in
high-risk areas; the spellcasters run out of spells quickly. All you
need is 8 hours free every day, and you can manage that most of the
time.

> Are expensive material components/spell focus available somehow
> during the module?

Sure, it's a world. Cities do exist. :) 

The closest one would be Verbobonc, about two days' ride northwest from
your starting position. Perhaps you're actually travelling there.

Just to clarify... the module is termed a "dungeon crawl", because much
of the action takes place indoors. But it's not the the World's Largest
Dungeon module, where the entire thing takes place in a dungeon. You
guys will be able to move around just as you please, and there will be
plenty of stuff to do outdoors.

Laszlo
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 1:15:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jasin Zujovic wrote:
> In article <1120269833.446530.133220@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> justisaur@gmail.com says...
>
> > I'd like to play a Kobold, some variation of wizard or sorcerer, or
> > possibly a warlock, I just saw those the other day, and they looked
> > interesting. - and I'm interested in the wildmage PRC from complete
> > arcane I think. Do you have any house rules that would affect this I
> > would need to know about? Would you consider dropping the Con penalty
> > for PCs (like 3.0)?
>
> What do you mean "like 3.0"? Was there some rule/guidlines in 3.0 that
> allowed you to play kobolds without the -2 Con...?
>

They didn't have the -2 to con at all in 3.0. I was just suggesting
dropping it for play for a PC in 3.5

> Not that I think it would be unfair to anyone; kobolds aren't exactly
> the munchkin's choice PC race as they are. Just that I'm unaware of any
> such rule from 3.0....

No, I just wanted to play one, and wanted to ease off the disads -
after all they are CR 1/6 as opposed to 1/2 for most other LA 0 races.

- Justisaur
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 2:01:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> Justisaur wrote:
> > laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> > > laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> > > > NOTE: All threads related to the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil
> > > > campaign will (and should) be tagged with the [CAMPAIGN] thread. This
> > > > will make them easier to find for those who are interested, and easier
> > > > to filter for those who aren't.
> > > >
> > > > Once the campaign is underway, I will be posting a summary of events,
> > > > fairly rarely (in real-life terms). There shouldn't be a significant
> > > > amount of clutter. If previous online campaigns are any indication, one
> > > > post monthly sounds about right.
> > > >
> > > > DM: Laszlo
> > > > Players: Justisaur, Billy Yank, David Alex Lamb, tussock
> > > >
> > > > The purpose of this thread is as follows:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Discussing the characters. Ideally, the party should be
> > > > well-rounded. Goofy characters can be great. Inntentionally
> > > > underpowered characters, however, or ones who have nothing to offer the
> > > > party, are not really ideal for this adventure.
> > > >
> >
> > I'd like to play a Kobold, some variation of wizard or sorcerer, or
> > possibly a warlock, I just saw those the other day, and they looked
> > interesting. - and I'm interested in the wildmage PRC from complete
> > arcane I think. Do you have any house rules that would affect this I
> > would need to know about?
>
> Yes. One house rule, specifically for wild mages: the 1d6-3 caster
> level modification when casting is to be applied after _all_ other
> modifications. In other words, Practiced Spellcaster doesn't combo with
> Wild Mage.
>

Not sure what you mean by that... You might need to elaberate.

I'm actually leaning toward Warlock, it looks more like what a sorcerer
should be. It seems somewhat similar to a rogue (might stack well with
rogue too, not sure) as well, for combat anyway. So is playing a
warlock alright? If so wildmage probably isn't going to have any use
for one, but I'll have to go over it.


> And some rules interpretations for spells in general:
>
> Alter Self: No winged humanoids exist, for the purposes of this spell.
>

Unless you are playing in Forgotten Realms this is normal anyway.

> Polymorph: You cannot polymorph into a creature larger than one size
> category above your own (Large for humans, Medium for kobolds). If your
> Polymorphed shape is larger than your natural shape, Polymorph counts
> as a magical effect that increases size, and thus doesn't stack with
> Enlarge Person or Animal Growth.
>

Reasonable. I've never had any problems with polymorph, and it's not
really that useful for a kobold as you aren't going to turn into
anything large anyway.

> All shapechanging spells: you can only shapechange into forms you are
> familiar with. Encountering a creature is enough. Researching it in a
> library (which may take some time) is also acceptable.
>

My rules exactly.

> Max hit points at level one; at further levels, you may choose to roll,
> or take the average, rounded up.
>

I'll be taking the rounded up, easier for everyone.
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 2:39:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Justisaur wrote:
> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> > Justisaur wrote:
> > > I'd like to play a Kobold, some variation of wizard or sorcerer, or
> > > possibly a warlock, I just saw those the other day, and they looked
> > > interesting. - and I'm interested in the wildmage PRC from complete
> > > arcane I think. Do you have any house rules that would affect this I
> > > would need to know about?
> >
> > Yes. One house rule, specifically for wild mages: the 1d6-3 caster
> > level modification when casting is to be applied after _all_ other
> > modifications. In other words, Practiced Spellcaster doesn't combo with
> > Wild Mage.
>
> Not sure what you mean by that... You might need to elaberate.

According to the RAW, the Wild Mage gets -3 caster levels, but gets to
add 1d6 to his caster level when he's casting a spell.

If he takes Practiced Spellcaster, then the rules say that Practiced
Spellcaster gets added to his caster level whenever needed, to raise
his caster level to be equal to his character level.

In other words, if a level 4 Wild Mage rolls a 1 on the 1d6, he would
normally cast that spell with a CL of 2. With Practiced Spellcaster,
though, he'd still get the CL of 4. This is what my house rule
prevents.

> I'm actually leaning toward Warlock, it looks more like what a sorcerer
> should be. It seems somewhat similar to a rogue (might stack well with
> rogue too, not sure) as well, for combat anyway. So is playing a
> warlock alright?

There are two potential problems with playing a warlock.

One, you have to be evil or chaotic. With a Paladin in the party, this
could get messy. You guys should talk about this; I'd like your
characters to be at least somewhat happy about adventuring together.

Two, a warlock is not really the traditional arcane support role. This
isn't really a problem, as the adventure doesn't require such a role,
but it's something you should be aware of. To quote the class
description: "Like a bard, [the warlock] often fits best in a party
that already has a spellcaster or two, since his unique abilities
provide him with little magic to use for his companions' benefit."

That said, I have no problems with it; Warlocks can be a lot of fun,
and they avoid the annoying "guys, I've run out of spells, let's go
back to town" wizard syndrome. If you want to play a Warlock, go for
it!

> If so wildmage probably isn't going to have any use
> for one, but I'll have to go over it.

Wild Mage levels and Warlock levels don't stack, because the Warlock is
not an arcane spellcasting class.

Laszlo
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 2:59:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <1120269833.446530.133220@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
justisaur@gmail.com says...

> I'd like to play a Kobold, some variation of wizard or sorcerer, or
> possibly a warlock, I just saw those the other day, and they looked
> interesting. - and I'm interested in the wildmage PRC from complete
> arcane I think. Do you have any house rules that would affect this I
> would need to know about? Would you consider dropping the Con penalty
> for PCs (like 3.0)?

What do you mean "like 3.0"? Was there some rule/guidlines in 3.0 that
allowed you to play kobolds without the -2 Con...?

Not that I think it would be unfair to anyone; kobolds aren't exactly
the munchkin's choice PC race as they are. Just that I'm unaware of any
such rule from 3.0....


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 3:03:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jasin Zujovic wrote:
> In article <1120322096.913124.139970@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> justisaur@gmail.com says...
>
> > I'm actually leaning toward Warlock, it looks more like what a sorcerer
> > should be. It seems somewhat similar to a rogue (might stack well with
> > rogue too, not sure)
>
> A warlock/rogue/arcane trickster might be really nice, if the DM waived
> the spell requirements (since the warlocks never get actual spells) and
> substituted a caster level requirement and/or a particular invocation
> (not that I see anything that's close enough to mage hand).

If Justisaur wants to play something like that, we can work out a
custom PrC class (assuming the other players don't object). Could be
interesting.

> Maybe a bit too nice, even, especially with Practiced Spellcaster...?
> Maybe there's a reason it can't be done by the book.

I firmly believe that anything can be balanced, with enough care and
attention.

> > as well, for combat anyway. So is playing a
> > warlock alright? If so wildmage probably isn't going to have any use
> > for one, but I'll have to go over it.
>
> It's quite possible to be a warlock/wild mage, but I think you're better
> of sticking with warlock...

Technically, by the RAW, while Warlock levels _do_ qualify you for the
Wild Mage PrC, you can't actually stack the Wild Mage levels with the
Warlock levels, becasue it's not a spellcasting class.

I have no problem waiving this; in that case, though, the Wild Mage
levels would only stack with the warlock levels for CL and invocations
known (number and grade). He'd lose out on all other warlock special
abilities: damage reduction, fiendish resilience, energy resistance,
etc.

> BTW, what's your opinion on the hideous blow invocation, that lets you
> make a melee attack as a standard action and deal eldritch blast damage
> in addition to weapon damage?

Kind of weak, especially considering that using the Hellish Blow
invocation draws AoO.

> I very much like the idea of a hellish swordsman (I like all kinds of
> warrior-mages!) but it seems utterly pointless to spend an ability to
> turn your ranged touch attack into a normal melee attack, especially for
> someone with d6 and medium BAB.
>
> I think it would be more appropriate if it let you channel eldritch
> blast damage on every melee attack. So each round you have to choose
> between one ranged touch attack, or a couple of melee normal attacks.
> OTOH, that's some pretty impressive melee damage: like a sneak attacking
> rogue, but you don't have to bother to flank and don't have to worry
> about undead, constructs, fortification...

Yes, potentially way too powerful IMO. Not so much for straight
Warlocks, but for a warrior/warlock hybrid.

> Perhaps bonus damage to every
> attack, but only half eldritch blast damage (half damage, half the
> number dice, round up/down... as needed to best balance it).

The problem with this method is that it scales badly. It makes the
invocation ridiculously unusable at low levels, kind of weak at
mid-levels, and kinda-sorta balanced at high levels.

Laszlo
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 3:06:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jasin Zujovic wrote:
> In article <1120313951.976096.258920@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu says...
>
> > > > All shapechanging spells: you can only shapechange into forms you are
> > > > familiar with. Encountering a creature is enough. Researching it in a
> > > > library (which may take some time) is also acceptable.
> > >
> > > Knowledge skills (and associated monster lore) count for that?
> >
> > Sure, that makes sense.
>
> What about other people's knowledges? An aasimar sorc trying to
> polymorph into an erinyes, with the cleric giving him pointers using
> knowledge (the planes)?
>
> > > >>Would you consider dropping the Con penalty for PCs (like 3.0)?
> > > >
> > > > Hmm... yes, that seems fair.
> > >
> > > Kobolds are already about the best Src/Wiz in the game for most
> > > builds, let 'im put some points in to buy it up.
> > >
> > > Not that it's my descision or anything.
> >
> > I compared them to Halflings and Goblins, and I think they're balanced
> > without the -2 Con. And compared to whisper gnomes (Races of Stone),
> > they're still underpowered.
>
> Many thins are, aren't they? :) 
>
> > > Oh, another question for Wizard types. How much downtime is to be
> > > expected for making scrolls, potions, and other items? Any special rules
> > > for speeding up the process if the missions are to be continuous in nature?
> >
> > The adventure handles time nicely, I think. You can pretty much take
> > downtime whenever you feel like it. Naturally, things will still be
> > happening... the world won't revolve entirely around your characters.
> >
> > You can craft items while adventuring, though. Normally, a party
> > doesn't actually adventure more than one or two hours a day in
> > high-risk areas; the spellcasters run out of spells quickly. All you
> > need is 8 hours free every day, and you can manage that most of the
> > time.
>
> Whoah! That's an extremely beneficial-for-the-PCs house rule! Not that
> I'm against it... in retrospect, my own campaign might have been better
> if I ruled it this way, because the epic world-saving plot line demanded
> almost constant time pressure.

It's not a house rule. :) 

>From Rules of the Game:

"Other than the loss of prerequisite spells (see the section on
prerequisites), and the time requirement, item creation doesn't impose
any restrictions on your activities during the days when you work on an
item."

Laszlo
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 3:11:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jasin Zujovic wrote:
> In article <1120313951.976096.258920@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu says...

(forgot about answering these bits)

> > > > All shapechanging spells: you can only shapechange into forms you are
> > > > familiar with. Encountering a creature is enough. Researching it in a
> > > > library (which may take some time) is also acceptable.
> > >
> > > Knowledge skills (and associated monster lore) count for that?
> >
> > Sure, that makes sense.
>
> What about other people's knowledges? An aasimar sorc trying to
> polymorph into an erinyes, with the cleric giving him pointers using
> knowledge (the planes)?

I'm gonna have to say no to this. You have to have a clear mental image
of what you're trying to polymorph into, and descriptions just aren't
good enough.

I allow researching a creature in a library because I assume that to
grant much more "in-depth" knowledge than just another character
describing the creature: I imagine the wizard poring over tomes of
arcane biology, ending up with a good working knowledge of the
creature's anatomy.

> > > >>Would you consider dropping the Con penalty for PCs (like 3.0)?
> > > >
> > > > Hmm... yes, that seems fair.
> > >
> > > Kobolds are already about the best Src/Wiz in the game for most
> > > builds, let 'im put some points in to buy it up.
> > >
> > > Not that it's my descision or anything.
> >
> > I compared them to Halflings and Goblins, and I think they're balanced
> > without the -2 Con. And compared to whisper gnomes (Races of Stone),
> > they're still underpowered.
>
> Many thins are, aren't they? :) 

Well, yes. I'm not a huge fan of whisper gnomes. :) 

Laszlo
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 3:23:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <1120269833.446530.133220@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
justisaur@gmail.com says...

> I'd like to play a Kobold,

Oh, also, if you're a kobold fan, did you remember to Vote For Meepo? :) 

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20050510a


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 5:49:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Alex Lamb wrote:
> In article <1120325986.563068.201260@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> <laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote:
> >There are two potential problems with playing a warlock.
> >
> >One, you have to be evil or chaotic. With a Paladin in the party, this
> >could get messy. You guys should talk about this; I'd like your
> >characters to be at least somewhat happy about adventuring together.
>
> I've said before I'm happy to take some other character type to balance out
> the party. I've even run evil characters before, though that might not be
> appropriate in a module where we're expected to *fight* evil creatures.

Yep, probably best if no one is evil.

> That said, the way I see things, a chaotic companion wouldn't necessarily be a
> problem like an evil one would. Chaotic could lead to interesting/fun
> "arguments"; Evil would lead to fights [part of the reason why I'm glad Jeff
> isn't running this]

A lot depends on how your character (if you do end up with a paladin)
interprets his own "paladinness". I believe that there's plenty of room
for different takes on life, even for Lawful Good paladins. (I
personally hate the Lawful Stupid paladin stereotype)

Incidentally, there's a Paladin of Freedom (Chaotic Good) variant class
available. It's in Unearthed Arcana, page 53; or you can find it here:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharac...

(if your newsreader truncates that, try this: http://tinyurl.com/bnosm)

Anyway, it's up to you guys.

Laszlo
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 6:22:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> Justisaur wrote:
> > laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> > > Justisaur wrote:
> > > > I'd like to play a Kobold, some variation of wizard or sorcerer, or
> > > > possibly a warlock, I just saw those the other day, and they looked
> > > > interesting. - and I'm interested in the wildmage PRC from complete
> > > > arcane I think. Do you have any house rules that would affect this I
> > > > would need to know about?
> > >
> > > Yes. One house rule, specifically for wild mages: the 1d6-3 caster
> > > level modification when casting is to be applied after _all_ other
> > > modifications. In other words, Practiced Spellcaster doesn't combo with
> > > Wild Mage.
> >
> > Not sure what you mean by that... You might need to elaberate.
>
> According to the RAW, the Wild Mage gets -3 caster levels, but gets to
> add 1d6 to his caster level when he's casting a spell.
>
> If he takes Practiced Spellcaster, then the rules say that Practiced
> Spellcaster gets added to his caster level whenever needed, to raise
> his caster level to be equal to his character level.
>
> In other words, if a level 4 Wild Mage rolls a 1 on the 1d6, he would
> normally cast that spell with a CL of 2. With Practiced Spellcaster,
> though, he'd still get the CL of 4. This is what my house rule
> prevents.
>

Oh o.k. that's stupid and abusive, wouldn't expect it to work that way.

> > I'm actually leaning toward Warlock, it looks more like what a sorcerer
> > should be. It seems somewhat similar to a rogue (might stack well with
> > rogue too, not sure) as well, for combat anyway. So is playing a
> > warlock alright?
>
> There are two potential problems with playing a warlock.
>
> One, you have to be evil or chaotic. With a Paladin in the party, this
> could get messy. You guys should talk about this; I'd like your
> characters to be at least somewhat happy about adventuring together.
>

Was planning chaotic good, maybe neutral, don't see it would cause much
of a problem, but will check.

> Two, a warlock is not really the traditional arcane support role. This
> isn't really a problem, as the adventure doesn't require such a role,
> but it's something you should be aware of. To quote the class
> description: "Like a bard, [the warlock] often fits best in a party
> that already has a spellcaster or two, since his unique abilities
> provide him with little magic to use for his companions' benefit."
>

Well, I'm expecting (or hoping at least) that the Use Magic Device will
help overcome that.

> That said, I have no problems with it; Warlocks can be a lot of fun,
> and they avoid the annoying "guys, I've run out of spells, let's go
> back to town" wizard syndrome. If you want to play a Warlock, go for
> it!

Cool, will write him up.

>
> > If so wildmage probably isn't going to have any use
> > for one, but I'll have to go over it.
>
> Wild Mage levels and Warlock levels don't stack, because the Warlock is
> not an arcane spellcasting class.
>

Supposedly the +1 caster level increases the eldrich blast level &
incantaion level, I'm a little fuzzy on it, but after looking at it, I
think I'd probably just go full out warlock. Once you get to 12 and
can make items things would look to get really fun, of course I don't
really expect to get that far anyway.

- Justisaur
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 6:28:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jasin Zujovic wrote:
> In article <1120313951.976096.258920@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu says...

> > You can craft items while adventuring, though. Normally, a party
> > doesn't actually adventure more than one or two hours a day in
> > high-risk areas; the spellcasters run out of spells quickly. All you
> > need is 8 hours free every day, and you can manage that most of the
> > time.
>
> Whoah! That's an extremely beneficial-for-the-PCs house rule! Not that
> I'm against it... in retrospect, my own campaign might have been better
> if I ruled it this way, because the epic world-saving plot line demanded
> almost constant time pressure.
>

Yes, I rather like this option, consider it stolen for my own campain.
My last one made it rather difficult for the item crafters. And I
generally run games where down time is almost non-existant.

- Justisaur.
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 6:37:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
>
> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
>
>>Correct. For those who are unfamiliar with the Greyhawk gods, here's a
>>list:
>>
>>http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/dreadwood/research/deities...
>
>
> Or, you know, Player's Handbook page 106.
>
> D'oh.

Well, the link you provided contains more gods than the PHB does. In
fact, for an even longer, more official list:

http://www.wizards.com/rpga/downloads/LG_Deities_v1-3.z...

(in PDF format.)

-Will
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 7:11:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Justisaur wrote:
> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:

> > That said, I have no problems with it; Warlocks can be a lot of fun,
> > and they avoid the annoying "guys, I've run out of spells, let's go
> > back to town" wizard syndrome. If you want to play a Warlock, go for
> > it!
>
> Cool, will write him up.
>

PS, any particular format, program, etc you'd like characters in?

> - Justisaur
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 11:47:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <1120320944.462622.93400@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
justisaur@gmail.com says...

> > > I'd like to play a Kobold, some variation of wizard or sorcerer, or
> > > possibly a warlock, I just saw those the other day, and they looked
> > > interesting. - and I'm interested in the wildmage PRC from complete
> > > arcane I think. Do you have any house rules that would affect this I
> > > would need to know about? Would you consider dropping the Con penalty
> > > for PCs (like 3.0)?
> >
> > What do you mean "like 3.0"? Was there some rule/guidlines in 3.0 that
> > allowed you to play kobolds without the -2 Con...?
>
> They didn't have the -2 to con at all in 3.0. I was just suggesting
> dropping it for play for a PC in 3.5

Ah, I had misparsed it.

> > Not that I think it would be unfair to anyone; kobolds aren't exactly
> > the munchkin's choice PC race as they are. Just that I'm unaware of any
> > such rule from 3.0....
>
> No, I just wanted to play one, and wanted to ease off the disads -
> after all they are CR 1/6 as opposed to 1/2 for most other LA 0 races.

As I've said, I don't think it'd be unfair. Although perhaps I might
prefer (even as a player) lowering the Str penalty to -2 instead.
Between Small size, Str as a likely dump stat, there might be a danger
that kobold sorceres encumbered from wearing clothes and component
pouch... But perhaps -4 Str, +0 Con is more in style for the kobolds
than -2 Str, -2 Con: really wimpy, but not any easier to put down
because of it. :) 


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 11:47:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <1120313951.976096.258920@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu says...

> > > All shapechanging spells: you can only shapechange into forms you are
> > > familiar with. Encountering a creature is enough. Researching it in a
> > > library (which may take some time) is also acceptable.
> >
> > Knowledge skills (and associated monster lore) count for that?
>
> Sure, that makes sense.

What about other people's knowledges? An aasimar sorc trying to
polymorph into an erinyes, with the cleric giving him pointers using
knowledge (the planes)?

> > >>Would you consider dropping the Con penalty for PCs (like 3.0)?
> > >
> > > Hmm... yes, that seems fair.
> >
> > Kobolds are already about the best Src/Wiz in the game for most
> > builds, let 'im put some points in to buy it up.
> >
> > Not that it's my descision or anything.
>
> I compared them to Halflings and Goblins, and I think they're balanced
> without the -2 Con. And compared to whisper gnomes (Races of Stone),
> they're still underpowered.

Many thins are, aren't they? :) 

> > Oh, another question for Wizard types. How much downtime is to be
> > expected for making scrolls, potions, and other items? Any special rules
> > for speeding up the process if the missions are to be continuous in nature?
>
> The adventure handles time nicely, I think. You can pretty much take
> downtime whenever you feel like it. Naturally, things will still be
> happening... the world won't revolve entirely around your characters.
>
> You can craft items while adventuring, though. Normally, a party
> doesn't actually adventure more than one or two hours a day in
> high-risk areas; the spellcasters run out of spells quickly. All you
> need is 8 hours free every day, and you can manage that most of the
> time.

Whoah! That's an extremely beneficial-for-the-PCs house rule! Not that
I'm against it... in retrospect, my own campaign might have been better
if I ruled it this way, because the epic world-saving plot line demanded
almost constant time pressure.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 11:47:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <1120322096.913124.139970@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
justisaur@gmail.com says...

> > Yes. One house rule, specifically for wild mages: the 1d6-3 caster
> > level modification when casting is to be applied after _all_ other
> > modifications. In other words, Practiced Spellcaster doesn't combo with
> > Wild Mage.
> >
>
> Not sure what you mean by that... You might need to elaberate.

IIRC, from 1st level on, a wild mage takes a -3 penalty to his caster
level. However, for every spell he casts, he rolls 1d6 and adds that to
his effective caster level. On the average, that's +0.5 caster level
over a regular caster, but it's a gamble, so it's a kinda neat idea for
a wild mage.

But! This means that you're a level 10 character with a caster level of
7, so taking Practiced Spellcaster would raise it to 10, letting you add
your 1d6 bonus to that. While it might not *terribly* overpowered, IMO
it's not the intended effect: the idea is for the wild mage to have a
varying but essentialy the same caster level as a normal caster, not a
caster level increased by a varying bonus.

> I'm actually leaning toward Warlock, it looks more like what a sorcerer
> should be. It seems somewhat similar to a rogue (might stack well with
> rogue too, not sure)

A warlock/rogue/arcane trickster might be really nice, if the DM waived
the spell requirements (since the warlocks never get actual spells) and
substituted a caster level requirement and/or a particular invocation
(not that I see anything that's close enough to mage hand).

Maybe a bit too nice, even, especially with Practiced Spellcaster...?
Maybe there's a reason it can't be done by the book.

> as well, for combat anyway. So is playing a
> warlock alright? If so wildmage probably isn't going to have any use
> for one, but I'll have to go over it.

It's quite possible to be a warlock/wild mage, but I think you're better
of sticking with warlock...


BTW, what's your opinion on the hideous blow invocation, that lets you
make a melee attack as a standard action and deal eldritch blast damage
in addition to weapon damage?

I very much like the idea of a hellish swordsman (I like all kinds of
warrior-mages!) but it seems utterly pointless to spend an ability to
turn your ranged touch attack into a normal melee attack, especially for
someone with d6 and medium BAB.

I think it would be more appropriate if it let you channel eldritch
blast damage on every melee attack. So each round you have to choose
between one ranged touch attack, or a couple of melee normal attacks.
OTOH, that's some pretty impressive melee damage: like a sneak attacking
rogue, but you don't have to bother to flank and don't have to worry
about undead, constructs, fortification... Perhaps bonus damage to every
attack, but only half eldritch blast damage (half damage, half the
number dice, round up/down... as needed to best balance it).


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 11:50:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <1120325986.563068.201260@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote:
>There are two potential problems with playing a warlock.
>
>One, you have to be evil or chaotic. With a Paladin in the party, this
>could get messy. You guys should talk about this; I'd like your
>characters to be at least somewhat happy about adventuring together.

I've said before I'm happy to take some other character type to balance out
the party. I've even run evil characters before, though that might not be
appropriate in a module where we're expected to *fight* evil creatures.

That said, the way I see things, a chaotic companion wouldn't necessarily be a
problem like an evil one would. Chaotic could lead to interesting/fun
"arguments"; Evil would lead to fights [part of the reason why I'm glad Jeff
isn't running this]
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 12:35:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> NOTE: All threads related to the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil
> campaign will (and should) be tagged with the [CAMPAIGN] thread. This
> will make them easier to find for those who are interested, and easier
> to filter for those who aren't.

Putting it at the end of the subject line might make various
programs replies hang onto it a bit more reliably.

> DM: Laszlo
> Players: Justisaur, Billy Yank, David Alex Lamb, tussock

Hello all.

> The purpose of this thread is as follows:
>
> 1) Discussing the characters. Ideally, the party should be
> well-rounded. Goofy characters can be great. Inntentionally
> underpowered characters, however, or ones who have nothing to offer the
> party, are not really ideal for this adventure.

Offers so far are a Paladin, Cleric, and Sorcerer (or Wiz), which
covers everything but the scout/rogue. I reckon a high Str Rogue should
cover that nicely, and beef up the parties melee a bit at the same time.

> Regarding what you can use: Basically, I'm willing to consider allowing
> anything, from any source.If you want something from non-Core sources,
> please discuss it with me first. I'm very likely to allow it; if I ban
> something for balance reasons, I'm always willing to discuss a
> compromise. If you just have a character idea in mind (not a specific
> prestige class or feat or whatever), then you can just tell me that
> and we'll make it work.

Savage Species alright? Hmm, ECL 3 is perhaps a bit low for an Ogre
or Bugbear Rogue. How's the module setting suited to the various
humanoid races?
A strait Orc is always good, other than the Int penalty; or just a
Human if it suits the party better.

More improtantly, what's the adventure hook? It's easier to build a
character if I know why the party's together, and what our main goal
will be (other than preventing the coming of a great Evil, if I remember
my jaunt in the original).


Ugh. Too many character builds I've been looking to try, Gnome Bard
(as Enchanter), Dwarf Barbarian (as Battle Rager), Goblin Druid (as
Wolf-rider), ....

> 2) Finding a place to play.

rpg.net looks to run the same software as wizards.com, but with a
more sensible set of dos and don'ts (IMO). Want to take this over there
and post a link to the thread?

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 2:00:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Laszlo, please e-mail me by fixing the vowel in my given addy.

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 2:04:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Alex Lamb wrote:

> In article <1120325986.563068.201260@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> <laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote:
>
>>There are two potential problems with playing a warlock.
>>
>>One, you have to be evil or chaotic. With a Paladin in the party, this
>>could get messy. You guys should talk about this; I'd like your
>>characters to be at least somewhat happy about adventuring together.
>
>
> I've said before I'm happy to take some other character type to balance out
> the party. I've even run evil characters before, though that might not be
> appropriate in a module where we're expected to *fight* evil creatures.
>
> That said, the way I see things, a chaotic companion wouldn't necessarily be a
> problem like an evil one would. Chaotic could lead to interesting/fun
> "arguments"; Evil would lead to fights [part of the reason why I'm glad Jeff
> isn't running this]

But kobolds are supposed to be snippety little Lawful rules-lawyering
bastards that shrilly damand "their rights" at every turn... That's
part of the FUN of playing a kobold!

:^)

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 3:18:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Repent David Alex Lamb!" said the Ticktockman. "Get Stuffed!" David
Alex Lamb replied. Then he added:

> That said, the way I see things, a chaotic companion wouldn't
> necessarily be a problem like an evil one would. Chaotic could lead
> to interesting/fun "arguments"; Evil would lead to fights [part of the
> reason why I'm glad Jeff isn't running this]
>

My thoughts exactly. I was thinking of going LG myself. (Heironious if I
choose human, Moradin if I'm a dwarf.)

--
Billy Yank

Quinn: "I'm saying it's us, or them."
Murphy: "Well I choose them."
Q: "That's NOT an option!"
M: "Then you shouldn't have framed it as one."
-Sealab 2021

Billy Yank's Baldur's Gate Photo Portraits
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze2xvw6/
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 3:18:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> Justisaur wrote:
>>
>>I'd like to play a Kobold, some variation of wizard or sorcerer, or
>>possibly a warlock, I just saw those the other day, and they looked
>>interesting. - and I'm interested in the wildmage PRC from complete
>>arcane I think. Do you have any house rules that would affect this I
>>would need to know about?
<snip>
> And some rules interpretations for spells in general:
>
> Alter Self: No winged humanoids exist, for the purposes of this spell.

Those winged elves and such are obviously Monstrous Humanoids; some
of those editors just have no idea of game balance.

> Polymorph: You cannot polymorph into a creature larger than one size
> category above your own (Large for humans, Medium for kobolds). If your
> Polymorphed shape is larger than your natural shape, Polymorph counts
> as a magical effect that increases size, and thus doesn't stack with
> Enlarge Person or Animal Growth.

Excellent. A further nerf I've used is that stat increases from
polymorph count as enhancement bonuses, and so don't stack with various
other ways of increasing stats. Particularly seems a good idea now that
Con changes officially modify HPs.

> All shapechanging spells: you can only shapechange into forms you are
> familiar with. Encountering a creature is enough. Researching it in a
> library (which may take some time) is also acceptable.

Knowledge skills (and associated monster lore) count for that?

>>Would you consider dropping the Con penalty for PCs (like 3.0)?
>
> Hmm... yes, that seems fair.

Kobolds are already about the best Src/Wiz in the game for most
builds, let 'im put some points in to buy it up.

Not that it's my descision or anything.

>>How are we generating ability scores?
>
> 32-point buy.
>
> Max hit points at level one; at further levels, you may choose to roll,
> or take the average, rounded up.

Average, rounded up, it is.


Oh, another question for Wizard types. How much downtime is to be
expected for making scrolls, potions, and other items? Any special rules
for speeding up the process if the missions are to be continuous in nature?
Are expensive material components/spell focus available somehow
during the module?

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 3:18:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <42c67789@clear.net.nz>, scrub@clear.net.nz says...

> > Polymorph: You cannot polymorph into a creature larger than one size
> > category above your own (Large for humans, Medium for kobolds). If your
> > Polymorphed shape is larger than your natural shape, Polymorph counts
> > as a magical effect that increases size, and thus doesn't stack with
> > Enlarge Person or Animal Growth.
>
> Excellent. A further nerf I've used is that stat increases from
> polymorph count as enhancement bonuses, and so don't stack with various
> other ways of increasing stats. Particularly seems a good idea now that
> Con changes officially modify HPs.

Very interesting. This never occured to me, but it does sound like it
could normalize polymorph, without too much work. I'd also think about
counting the natural armour increase as an enhancement bonus; those can
get pretty wacky too, especially with a tiefling or an aasimar in the
party.

However, I don't think I'd like to apply the same rules to wild shape...
hm. So wildshape works "as polymorph, see PHB" and polymorph works "see
house rules".

> >>Would you consider dropping the Con penalty for PCs (like 3.0)?
> >
> > Hmm... yes, that seems fair.
>
> Kobolds are already about the best Src/Wiz in the game for most
> builds, let 'im put some points in to buy it up.

I may be missing something, but... wha?

Small size + 30 ft. speed is nice, as is +2 Dex. But I'd rather be a
halfling and have Str and Con higher by 2 and +1 to all saves and +2 vs.
fear, and buy boots of striding and springing.

Goblins have +2 Dex, Small size and 30 ft. speed, and they only get -2
Str and -2 Cha, making them a much better choice for a wizard.

Sure a kobold sorcerer might be cool for because of the whole dragon-
blooded thing, but I really don't see how it is a particularly good
choice from a power-gaming perspective.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 3:45:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <1120327860.331191.148590@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu says...

> > > > > All shapechanging spells: you can only shapechange into forms you are
> > > > > familiar with. Encountering a creature is enough. Researching it in a
> > > > > library (which may take some time) is also acceptable.
> > > >
> > > > Knowledge skills (and associated monster lore) count for that?
> > >
> > > Sure, that makes sense.
> >
> > What about other people's knowledges? An aasimar sorc trying to
> > polymorph into an erinyes, with the cleric giving him pointers using
> > knowledge (the planes)?
>
> I'm gonna have to say no to this. You have to have a clear mental image
> of what you're trying to polymorph into, and descriptions just aren't
> good enough.
>
> I allow researching a creature in a library because I assume that to
> grant much more "in-depth" knowledge than just another character
> describing the creature: I imagine the wizard poring over tomes of
> arcane biology, ending up with a good working knowledge of the
> creature's anatomy.

But a character with a high knowledge skill could concievably write such
tomes...

Actually, I agree with you as far as balance goes, it just doesn't seem
to make much sense.

Perhaps say that a hurried description such as "POLYMORPH INTO A HAG
THEY"RE BIG AND HAV CLAWS, QUICKLY OR THE TROLL WILL KILL US!1!!", or
one given in leisurely conversation while travelling isn't enough, but
if you invest as much time in learning from a character with knowledges
as you would in studying in a library, it's OK?

So, if you got stuck on a desert island, you're much better off if you
have a knowledgeable guy, but if you're in a town with a library, it's
much the same (other than perhaps saving a couple of gp on library
fees).

> > > I compared them to Halflings and Goblins, and I think they're balanced
> > > without the -2 Con. And compared to whisper gnomes (Races of Stone),
> > > they're still underpowered.
> >
> > Many thins are, aren't they? :) 
>
> Well, yes. I'm not a huge fan of whisper gnomes. :) 

I though they're very cool, and the ninja gnome girl was kind of cute,
but they are a bit overpowered, I think.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 3:45:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <1120327397.035823.116540@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu says...

> > A warlock/rogue/arcane trickster might be really nice, if the DM waived
> > the spell requirements (since the warlocks never get actual spells) and
> > substituted a caster level requirement and/or a particular invocation
> > (not that I see anything that's close enough to mage hand).
>
> If Justisaur wants to play something like that, we can work out a
> custom PrC class (assuming the other players don't object). Could be
> interesting.
>
> > Maybe a bit too nice, even, especially with Practiced Spellcaster...?
> > Maybe there's a reason it can't be done by the book.
>
> I firmly believe that anything can be balanced, with enough care and
> attention.

Oh, of course, I just meant that it might be a bit too good if you just
substituted "arcane caster level 5th" for "3rd-level spells and mage
hand".

> > > as well, for combat anyway. So is playing a
> > > warlock alright? If so wildmage probably isn't going to have any use
> > > for one, but I'll have to go over it.
> >
> > It's quite possible to be a warlock/wild mage, but I think you're better
> > of sticking with warlock...
>
> Technically, by the RAW, while Warlock levels _do_ qualify you for the
> Wild Mage PrC, you can't actually stack the Wild Mage levels with the
> Warlock levels, becasue it's not a spellcasting class.
>
> I have no problem waiving this; in that case, though, the Wild Mage
> levels would only stack with the warlock levels for CL and invocations
> known (number and grade). He'd lose out on all other warlock special
> abilities: damage reduction, fiendish resilience, energy resistance,
> etc.

That's exactly how it works by the book, I think. See "Warlocks and
Prestige Classes" in CA.

> > BTW, what's your opinion on the hideous blow invocation, that lets you
> > make a melee attack as a standard action and deal eldritch blast damage
> > in addition to weapon damage?
>
> Kind of weak, especially considering that using the Hellish Blow
> invocation draws AoO.

Oh come one. Sure, you could just use concentration, the DC is 16,
right? Not that tough, but... come on. Are they for some reason actively
trying to make HB the stupidest invocation ever? :) 

> > Perhaps bonus damage to every
> > attack, but only half eldritch blast damage (half damage, half the
> > number dice, round up/down... as needed to best balance it).
>
> The problem with this method is that it scales badly. It makes the
> invocation ridiculously unusable at low levels,

Not more than it already is, I think. :) 

> kind of weak at
> mid-levels, and kinda-sorta balanced at high levels.

I don't know... half the number of dice, round up seems OK to me.

1st: +1d6
5th: +2d6
9th: +3d6
14th: +4d6
20th: +5d6

BTW, I've only just noticed that the eldrich blast progression isn't the
same as for sneak attack after 11th level. Huh.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 3:45:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <1120327585.807741.34660@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu says...

> > > You can craft items while adventuring, though. Normally, a party
> > > doesn't actually adventure more than one or two hours a day in
> > > high-risk areas; the spellcasters run out of spells quickly. All you
> > > need is 8 hours free every day, and you can manage that most of the
> > > time.
> >
> > Whoah! That's an extremely beneficial-for-the-PCs house rule! Not that
> > I'm against it... in retrospect, my own campaign might have been better
> > if I ruled it this way, because the epic world-saving plot line demanded
> > almost constant time pressure.
>
> It's not a house rule. :) 
>
> >From Rules of the Game:
>
> "Other than the loss of prerequisite spells (see the section on
> prerequisites), and the time requirement, item creation doesn't impose
> any restrictions on your activities during the days when you work on an
> item."

What... the.. hell!?

Is this a change from 3.0, or were we just being stupid for the last
three years!?

I would have sworn that the rule was that you cannot engage in strenous
activity (spellcasting, adventuring) when you're crafting items, but I
can't find it in the SRD. In fact, the SRD says: "The caster works for 8
hours each day. He cannot rush the process by working longer each day.
But the days need not be consecutive, and the caster can use the rest of
his time as he sees fit." which is pretty much what you said.

My players are going to have my head when they find out about this...


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 5:46:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jasin Zujovic wrote:
> In article <1120327860.331191.148590@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu says...
>
> > > > > > All shapechanging spells: you can only shapechange into forms you are
> > > > > > familiar with. Encountering a creature is enough. Researching it in a
> > > > > > library (which may take some time) is also acceptable.
> > > > >
> > > > > Knowledge skills (and associated monster lore) count for that?
> > > >
> > > > Sure, that makes sense.
> > >
> > > What about other people's knowledges? An aasimar sorc trying to
> > > polymorph into an erinyes, with the cleric giving him pointers using
> > > knowledge (the planes)?
> >
> > I'm gonna have to say no to this. You have to have a clear mental image
> > of what you're trying to polymorph into, and descriptions just aren't
> > good enough.
> >
> > I allow researching a creature in a library because I assume that to
> > grant much more "in-depth" knowledge than just another character
> > describing the creature: I imagine the wizard poring over tomes of
> > arcane biology, ending up with a good working knowledge of the
> > creature's anatomy.
>
> But a character with a high knowledge skill could concievably write such
> tomes...
>
> Actually, I agree with you as far as balance goes, it just doesn't seem
> to make much sense.
>
> Perhaps say that a hurried description such as "POLYMORPH INTO A HAG
> THEY"RE BIG AND HAV CLAWS, QUICKLY OR THE TROLL WILL KILL US!1!!", or
> one given in leisurely conversation while travelling isn't enough, but
> if you invest as much time in learning from a character with knowledges
> as you would in studying in a library, it's OK?

Oh yeah, sure. I just meant you couldn't learn a new form from
somewhere else inside a dungeon (at least, not in a reasonable amount
of time).

> > > > I compared them to Halflings and Goblins, and I think they're balanced
> > > > without the -2 Con. And compared to whisper gnomes (Races of Stone),
> > > > they're still underpowered.
> > >
> > > Many thins are, aren't they? :) 
> >
> > Well, yes. I'm not a huge fan of whisper gnomes. :) 
>
> I though they're very cool, and the ninja gnome girl was kind of cute,
> but they are a bit overpowered, I think.

Yup.

Laszlo
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 5:49:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Justisaur wrote:
> Justisaur wrote:
> > laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
>
> > > That said, I have no problems with it; Warlocks can be a lot of fun,
> > > and they avoid the annoying "guys, I've run out of spells, let's go
> > > back to town" wizard syndrome. If you want to play a Warlock, go for
> > > it!
> >
> > Cool, will write him up.
>
> PS, any particular format, program, etc you'd like characters in?

No preference, as long as it's easy to find all the info.

Here's the character sheet format I've been using so far; I've found it
perfectly logical and usable:

http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=3169575&postc...

But it's up to you.

Laszlo
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 5:52:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat wrote:
> Laszlo, please e-mail me by fixing the vowel in my given addy.

Sorry, I can't see your given addy. Google Groups obfuscates all email
adresses.

Just email me at laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu, (that's laszlo_spamhole
(at) freemail (dot) hu) and I'll reply from my real addy.

Laszlo
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 6:19:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Here's the current draft of my human Paladin character. With 3 feats by 4th
level, I figured Weapon Focus (longsword) was obvious, but am puzzled over
what to do about the others. Since turning as a first level cleric seems
fairly weak, I am considering some Divine feats (convert turning attempts to
various benefits). Any other suggestions?

Str 14 6
Dex 12 4
Con 16=15 8 +1(4th level)
Int 8 0
Wis 12 4
Cha 16 10
32
HP 10+6+6+6 + 3*4 = 40

Diplomacy 12 = 7r + 3(cha) +2(K(nr))
Knowledge(nobility&royalty) 5 = 5r + 0(int)
Ride 3 = 2r + 1(dex)

3 feats at levels 1, 1, 3. Weapon Focus(longsword), ?, ?

Equipment is not optimally focussed for underground exploration, but makes
sense for a traveling Paladin. I might have gone for half-plate (and reduced
dex to 10) except cost of a +1 version was over the campaign setup limit
(1500).

Tithe 570
Banded +1 1400
Shield, heavy steel 1180
MW Longsword 315
Composite longbow (Str +2) 300
Arrows (20x2) 2
Backpack 2
Traveller's outfit 1
Warhorse, heavy 400
Military saddle 20
Bit&bridle 2
Saddlebags 4
Flint&Steel 1
Ink 8
Quill (pen) .1
Paper, sheet x 20 8
Masterwork manacles 50
Travel rations x10 5
Light horse (pack) 75 Carries armour and other goods
Bit&bridle 2
Pack saddle 5
Rope, 50' silk 10
Spade 2
Tent 10
Bedroll .1
Blanket .5
Noble's outfit 75
Sewing needle .5
Lance 10
Holy symbol (Hieronymous) 25
Everburning torch 110
----
4455.2

Longsword Dmg d8+2 19-20/x2 Atk +7 = +4(bab)+2(str)+1(MW)
Bow Dmg d8+2 x3 Atk +5 = +4(bab)+1(dex)
Lance (horseback) Dmg d8*2+2 x3 Atk +6 = +4(bab)+2(str)
AC 21 = 10 + 7(banded) +1 (dex) +3 (shield)
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 6:31:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jasin Zujovic wrote:
> In article <42c67789@clear.net.nz>, scrub@clear.net.nz says...
<snip>

>>>>Would you consider dropping the Con penalty for PCs (like 3.0)?
>>>
>>>Hmm... yes, that seems fair.
>>
>> Kobolds are already about the best Src/Wiz in the game for most
>>builds, let 'im put some points in to buy it up.
>
> I may be missing something, but... wha?
>
> Small size + 30 ft. speed is nice, as is +2 Dex. But I'd rather be a
> halfling and have Str and Con higher by 2 and +1 to all saves and +2 vs.
> fear, and buy boots of striding and springing.

Kobolds get them too, 30' is the same speed as the monsters (and is
thus to be avoided for squishy things like arcanists).


Hmm, there's an idea, with a Paladin and Cleric the party will have
two 20' move tanks, yes? Speed's not near so important for the Rog and
Wiz if the front line is going to stay put when things turn bad.
Perhaps a tank Rogue might be interesting. Nah, mithral Breastplate
too expensive. Boy, a Brb level would come in handy ....


> Goblins have +2 Dex, Small size and 30 ft. speed, and they only get -2
> Str and -2 Cha, making them a much better choice for a wizard.

You know, I don't think I've ever even considered a Goblin Wizard.
Clerics and Adepts, but never a Wizard. They just make such great
stealth Rogues with +4 Hide/MS.

> Sure a kobold sorcerer might be cool for because of the whole dragon-
> blooded thing, but I really don't see how it is a particularly good
> choice from a power-gaming perspective.

I like ranged touches, tactical mobility, and AC in my Src/Wiz
builds, and a Kobold is simply the best at that set. The +2 Dex/Int on
the Grey Elf makes for better power with save focused Wizards of course.

I guess there's not alot in it, really. DM's choice, regardless,
and doesn't affect my character. 8]

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 6:31:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <42c6a4dd@clear.net.nz>, scrub@clear.net.nz says...

> Perhaps a tank Rogue might be interesting. Nah, mithral Breastplate
> too expensive. Boy, a Brb level would come in handy ....

'Scuse me for going on a rant but...

After recently playing a Mnk3/Ftr10 with Wis 10 and a mithral
breastplate, I got thinking: how viable would a high-Str melee rogue be?

For example, 32 pts.:

Str 17
Dex 14
Con 14
Int 13
Wis 10
Cha 8

Adjust to taste: drop Int to 10 if you don't want Combat Expertise,
raise Wis if you want to do the... well, wise... thing and protect
yourself agains Will attacks.

With a mithral breastplate, you shouldn't be much worse off than my
monk/fighter (he had starting Dex 16), and he seemed to achive a decent
level of defense (although my perception might be skewed by the fact
that he had a bunch of defensive feats like Karmic Strike, Defensive
Strike, Elusive Target...).

Take MWP (greatsword) with the feat you save by not having to take
Weapon Finesse, and you could be dealing some pretty nice damage.

Of course, once you're going that way, you might as well take a level of
fighter for the feat and the proficiencies, and then another one for the
other feat, and then just two more for Specialization... but then you're
a regular run-of-the mill Ftr/Rog, and I'd like to try a greatsword-
wielding straight rogue precisely because it a bit off from the
established stereotypes.

And now I've had another unorthodox rogue idea: take Educated and take a
bunch of knowledge skills! So this guy is a scholarly warrior whose
deadly precision comes from studying anatomy and the fighting routines
of various monsters, not from being a sneaky rat bastard. Of course,
scholarly pursuits don't leave you in ideal adventuring shape, hence the
d6. :)  And knowledges can be very useful, especially if the DM uses
exotic monsters and/or the players are expected to firewall monster
info, if they know it, for reasonably common monsters with some obscure
qualities (do vampires have DR X/silver or DR X/silver and magic? do
young reds get spellcasting already? what level?)

Damn, now I want to play this guy!


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 6:31:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

My PC in the local P&P game is a Thug/Rogue (Thug from the UA "Fighter
Variant" rules). He's pretty righteous.

His race is a little odd but canonical (if you want to know more e-mail
me (especially whoever is playing the kobold), the other players have
spying eyes here). He tells everyone he is a Tiefling and he looks a
lot like a Gem'Hadar from DS9.

Krass, CN Rog3/Thug4/XWM2

Str 20 (22 W/Gauntlets of Ogre Power)
Dex 15
Con 16
Int 14
Wis 8
Cha 14

Level Tree as follows:

1. Rog1 * * (Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes)
2. Thg1
3. Thg2 * * (XWP: Spiked Chain, Improved Trip)
4. Rog2
5. Thg3
6. Thg4 * * (Wpn Fcs: Spiked Chain, Wpn Spec: Spiked Chain)
7. Rog3
8. XWM1 [Flurry of Strikes]
9. XWM2 * (Force of Personality) [Exotic Trip Attack]

Substitute Iron Will for Force of Personality if you have a low Cha, but
considering the useful Cha rogue skills you will probably want a higher one.

Besides the standard trip monkey stuff, this guy has some cool skills
and sneak attack ability. Skills focused on are Intimidate, Use Magic
Device, Bluff, Spot, Gather Information, Knowledge: Local, and a couple
of others. The first level of rogue let him invest skill points in
Sense Motive, Listen, Perform (weapons drill), Tumble, and a few others.
Not a sneaker or a trapmaster, just a street-hardened thug.

He's a lot of fun to play.

- Ron ^*^



Jasin Zujovic wrote:

> In article <42c6a4dd@clear.net.nz>, scrub@clear.net.nz says...
>
>
>> Perhaps a tank Rogue might be interesting. Nah, mithral Breastplate
>>too expensive. Boy, a Brb level would come in handy ....
>
>
> 'Scuse me for going on a rant but...
>
> After recently playing a Mnk3/Ftr10 with Wis 10 and a mithral
> breastplate, I got thinking: how viable would a high-Str melee rogue be?
>
> For example, 32 pts.:
>
> Str 17
> Dex 14
> Con 14
> Int 13
> Wis 10
> Cha 8
>
> Adjust to taste: drop Int to 10 if you don't want Combat Expertise,
> raise Wis if you want to do the... well, wise... thing and protect
> yourself agains Will attacks.
>
> With a mithral breastplate, you shouldn't be much worse off than my
> monk/fighter (he had starting Dex 16), and he seemed to achive a decent
> level of defense (although my perception might be skewed by the fact
> that he had a bunch of defensive feats like Karmic Strike, Defensive
> Strike, Elusive Target...).
>
> Take MWP (greatsword) with the feat you save by not having to take
> Weapon Finesse, and you could be dealing some pretty nice damage.
>
> Of course, once you're going that way, you might as well take a level of
> fighter for the feat and the proficiencies, and then another one for the
> other feat, and then just two more for Specialization... but then you're
> a regular run-of-the mill Ftr/Rog, and I'd like to try a greatsword-
> wielding straight rogue precisely because it a bit off from the
> established stereotypes.
>
> And now I've had another unorthodox rogue idea: take Educated and take a
> bunch of knowledge skills! So this guy is a scholarly warrior whose
> deadly precision comes from studying anatomy and the fighting routines
> of various monsters, not from being a sneaky rat bastard. Of course,
> scholarly pursuits don't leave you in ideal adventuring shape, hence the
> d6. :)  And knowledges can be very useful, especially if the DM uses
> exotic monsters and/or the players are expected to firewall monster
> info, if they know it, for reasonably common monsters with some obscure
> qualities (do vampires have DR X/silver or DR X/silver and magic? do
> young reds get spellcasting already? what level?)
>
> Damn, now I want to play this guy!
>
>
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 6:31:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Benjamin Adams wrote:
> Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote in
> news:MPG.1d30f16b4057e6bd989729@news.iskon.hr:
>
> > I think it would be more appropriate if it let you channel eldritch
> > blast damage on every melee attack. So each round you have to choose
> > between one ranged touch attack, or a couple of melee normal attacks.
> > OTOH, that's some pretty impressive melee damage: like a sneak
> > attacking rogue, but you don't have to bother to flank and don't have
> > to worry about undead, constructs, fortification... Perhaps bonus
> > damage to every attack, but only half eldritch blast damage (half
> > damage, half the number dice, round up/down... as needed to best
> > balance it).
>
> How about this: invoking is a swift action (which does not provoke
> AoOs) and adds +1 per die of Blast damage to all melee attacks
> that round. Essentially, it's a cut-down (but inexhaustible)
> version of Arcane Strike.

Fine by me. Still can't really see it used with a viable build.

Laszlo
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 6:36:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Nikolas Landauer wrote:
> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> > tussock wrote:
> > > laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> > > > Justisaur wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Would you consider dropping the Con penalty for PCs
> > > > > (like 3.0)?
> > > >
> > > > Hmm... yes, that seems fair.
> > >
> > > Kobolds are already about the best Src/Wiz in
> > > the game for most builds, let 'im put some points
> > > in to buy it up.
> > >
> > > Not that it's my descision or anything.
> >
> > I compared them to Halflings and Goblins, and I think
> > they're balanced without the -2 Con. And compared to
> > whisper gnomes (Races of Stone), they're still
> > underpowered.
>
> As a note, while I'm not in this, I always frown at *any* rule that's
> different for PCs and NPCs/Monsters. I prefer fixing the problem at
> its root.
>
> As an idea, Laszlo, you could use my current campaign's Kobolds house
> rule:
>
> Quoted from my House Rules:
> "
> In order to make the kobold a viable LA +0 race, and to remove the
> silliness of the average kobold being physically weaker than the
> average halfling, the kobold has the following changes:
> Racial Ability Modifiers: -2 Str, +2 Dex, -2 Con, +2 Cha. This
> replaces the ability score modifiers listed in the Monster Manual, and
> the example kobold War1 has the following stat changes: +2 Str, +2
> Cha. Kobolds are small, frail and weak, but agile, and their draconic
> heritage gives them a force of will other races lack.
> Natural Armor: The kobold's natural armor bonus is +2.
> Racial Skill Bonus: Kobolds gain a +2 racial bonus to all Knowledge
> (dungeoneering) skill checks, including untrained checks which would
> be Knowledge (dungeoneering) checks if trained. This is in addition to
> the skill bonuses listed in the Monster Manual.
> All other abilities and qualities of the kobold remain as listed in
> the Monster Manual, and the kobold retains the ability to take the
> Light Adaptation feat to remove their light sensitivity.
> "
>
> This makes them *good* sorcerers, and brings them in line with the
> other PC races, while keeping them in their niches: sorcery, and
> underground trap-makers. I think the -2 Con is an important balancing
> factor for the kobold (it'd be silly to remove the elf's -2 Con, for
> instance), and they just needed other "PC race" bennies added in.

IMO this actually makes them overpowered, though. There aren't any LA 0
races with mental ability bonuses (that I know of), except for the Grey
Elf, which has proven itself to be rather overpowered. This is because
spellcasters rely on a single ability score much more than other
classes.

Laszlo
!