Sudden Stunning

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

In the DMG II there is a new weapon special ability, "Sudden
Stunning". I hadn't paid much attention to it, but on Saturday one of
the other players had her PC buy it, with the GM's permission. At the
time my gut feeling was that it's a pretty cheap ability for what you
get. By the end of the session I became certain that it's not just
too cheap, but outright too powerful, though I admit this may be
coloured by the PC with the weapon being about the perfect person to
wield something with this power (a high level fighter/rogue two-
weapons using type with very high Cha).

For those without the DMG II, the ability allows the weapon's weilder
to declare after the weapon has hit that they'll activate the power.
The target then get a Reflex save (DC10 + 1/2 wielder's character
level + Cha mod) to avoid being stunned for 1d4+1 rounds. This power
can be used the wielder's Cha bonus times per day. It has a base
price of +2000 gp.

Now, if someone buys this as an enhancement at 5th level (for
example), their weapon will be worth about 25% of their wealth, half
of it for this boost, and they'll probably have to forgo something
like a Ring of Protect +1 to get it. If they're a paladin or cleric
it's probably not a bad power - for two grand they can stun someone a
time or two a day (though anyone stunning far 1d4+1 rounds is
probably a deader). However, once you a high level rogue with good
charisma this thing becomes a nightmare - even one round of stun when
there's a rogue threatening you is often fatal.

My current opinion is that it should either daze, or if it stuns it
should be for only one round, _and_ it should be priced as a +1
bonus, so it's effective cost scales with level (because high-level
characters generally have weapons with high total bonuses).

Thoughts?

--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history."

****************************************************************************
The Dungeons and Dragons Homepage: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/ The
DND-L
FAQ: http://members.aye.net/~patsite/dndfaq.html The DND-L archives:
http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/dnd-l.html Keywords:
ADMIN,BUSINESS,CUSTOM,FLUFF,MISC,OLD,REVIEW,ROLE,RULES,STAFF To
unsubscribe,
send an email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM with UNSUB DND-L in the
body of
the message.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
49 answers Last reply
More about sudden stunning
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Rupert Boleyn wrote:

    > For those without the DMG II, the ability allows the weapon's weilder
    > to declare after the weapon has hit that they'll activate the power.
    > The target then get a Reflex save (DC10 + 1/2 wielder's character
    > level + Cha mod) to avoid being stunned for 1d4+1 rounds. This power
    > can be used the wielder's Cha bonus times per day. It has a base
    > price of +2000 gp.

    I knew there was a good reason I hadn't seriously considered buying
    the DMG II.... (Actually when I looked at it one of the first things
    I saw was a training school in their town that gave substantial EP
    per day, if it is possible for any reasonable build to run such a
    school then the whole world should be VERY high level.... So this
    is just an additional reason.)

    Anyway: Neat, social Rogues and Paladins rule all the worlds....
    And at 2000 GP per weapon I can carry extras and swap weapons when
    I have spent all my charges.

    When designing powers like this look at stunning fist, remember
    that a feat is worth about 5,000+ GP to add to an item, and
    notice that this is WAY better than the feat for someone who would
    want it.

    Probably a +4 power or so IMAO. Stunning for multiple rounds or
    as part of a normal attack is powerful, that's a durn good save
    DC (comparable to a wizard's best spells), it doesn't have a
    significant cost to activate, and can be used multiple times per
    day.

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

    DougL wrote:
    > Rupert Boleyn wrote:
    >
    > > For those without the DMG II, the ability allows the weapon's weilder
    > > to declare after the weapon has hit that they'll activate the power.
    > > The target then get a Reflex save (DC10 + 1/2 wielder's character
    > > level + Cha mod) to avoid being stunned for 1d4+1 rounds. This power
    > > can be used the wielder's Cha bonus times per day. It has a base
    > > price of +2000 gp.
    >
    > Anyway: Neat, social Rogues and Paladins rule all the worlds....
    > And at 2000 GP per weapon I can carry extras and swap weapons when
    > I have spent all my charges.
    >
    > When designing powers like this look at stunning fist, remember
    > that a feat is worth about 5,000+ GP to add to an item, and
    > notice that this is WAY better than the feat for someone who would
    > want it.

    Where do you get the "feat is worth about 5000 gps" figure?

    > Probably a +4 power or so IMAO. Stunning for multiple rounds or
    > as part of a normal attack is powerful, that's a durn good save
    > DC (comparable to a wizard's best spells), it doesn't have a
    > significant cost to activate, and can be used multiple times per
    > day.

    I agree that +2000 is way too little, but a +4 power? You do know that
    money-wise, that's 48,000 gold MINIMUM? Assuming your "5000+ gold for a
    feat" is correct (though I'd still like to know where you got that
    from), you think this power is equal to about 8-10 feats, or what?

    I think it's reasonable as a +2 power. It _is_ potentially pretty
    powerful, but I wouldn't say it's more powerful than a Wounding weapon.

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

    Rupert Boleyn wrote:
    > On 4 Aug 2005 01:15:31 -0700, laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu carved upon
    > a tablet of ether:
    >
    > > I agree that +2000 is way too little, but a +4 power? You do know that
    > > money-wise, that's 48,000 gold MINIMUM? Assuming your "5000+ gold for a
    > > feat" is correct (though I'd still like to know where you got that
    > > from), you think this power is equal to about 8-10 feats, or what?
    > >
    > > I think it's reasonable as a +2 power. It _is_ potentially pretty
    > > powerful, but I wouldn't say it's more powerful than a Wounding weapon.
    >
    > 1d4+1 rounds of stun and a rogue mean death, pretty much.

    Yes. So at high levels, this means successful melee attack + failed
    save + couple of rounds deling with that opponent = dead opponent.

    Well, the thing is, that's not in any way out of the normal power range
    of high-level abilities. At mid-to-high levels, a mage or cleric has
    save-or-die spells that they can use just as often, that do not require
    a melee roll, and that can kill without having to spend another couple
    of rounds smashing the opponent's face in.

    True, this kind of thing is a spellcaster's main strength, and they
    sacrifice a lot to get these abilities. Still, a "save-or-stun" ability
    for 1d4+1 rounds is not in any way unreasonable.

    To show you the kind of thing that goes down at higher levels, check
    out the feat "Freezing the Lifeblood" (Complete Warrior, I think).
    Despite appearances to the contrary, that feat is NOT horribly broken.

    > I'm thinking
    > you probably can't get a price point for that much stun that's not too
    > cheap until it's simply too much. That's why I think dropping it to a
    > single round of stun (also more in line with Stunning fist) makes
    > sense. Then charge +1 or +2 for it.

    You can do that, and that's fine too. Only make it a +1 ability in that
    case, though.

    I'm just saying that I don't think it's overpowered as-is, as a +2
    ability. +3 weapons don't become the norm until above level 10, and
    this kind of ability just isn't unusual, or overpowered, at those
    levels.

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

    laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    > DougL wrote:
    > > Rupert Boleyn wrote:
    > >
    > > > For those without the DMG II, the ability allows the weapon's weilder
    > > > to declare after the weapon has hit that they'll activate the power.
    > > > The target then get a Reflex save (DC10 + 1/2 wielder's character
    > > > level + Cha mod) to avoid being stunned for 1d4+1 rounds. This power
    > > > can be used the wielder's Cha bonus times per day. It has a base
    > > > price of +2000 gp.
    > >
    > > Anyway: Neat, social Rogues and Paladins rule all the worlds....
    > > And at 2000 GP per weapon I can carry extras and swap weapons when
    > > I have spent all my charges.
    > >
    > > When designing powers like this look at stunning fist, remember
    > > that a feat is worth about 5,000+ GP to add to an item, and
    > > notice that this is WAY better than the feat for someone who would
    > > want it.
    >
    > Where do you get the "feat is worth about 5000 gps" figure?

    >From existing items that grant feats, there are some, and
    5000 GP is the minimum price for a feat in the existing items.

    That is rule one for how to price items, compare with existing
    ones.

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

    Rupert Boleyn wrote:
    > On 3 Aug 2005 16:32:37 -0700, "DougL" <lampert.doug@gmail.com> carved
    > upon a tablet of ether:
    >
    > > Anyway: Neat, social Rogues and Paladins rule all the worlds....
    > > And at 2000 GP per weapon I can carry extras and swap weapons when
    > > I have spent all my charges.
    > >
    > > When designing powers like this look at stunning fist, remember
    > > that a feat is worth about 5,000+ GP to add to an item, and
    > > notice that this is WAY better than the feat for someone who would
    > > want it.
    > >
    > > Probably a +4 power or so IMAO. Stunning for multiple rounds or
    > > as part of a normal attack is powerful, that's a durn good save
    > > DC (comparable to a wizard's best spells), it doesn't have a
    > > significant cost to activate, and can be used multiple times per
    > > day.
    >
    > The save's about as good as a Monk's Stunning Fist, it can't be used
    > as many times (except maybe at lower levels), but you activate after
    > hitting and get 1d4+1 rounds - more than enough to sneak attack just
    > about anything stunnable to death.

    Base stunning fist at level 20 is usable 5 times a day, is
    declarable in advance, requires that you be unarmed attacking,
    and has fairly nasty prerequisites indicating that it is
    considered an above average feat.

    This works with weapons and their other enchantments, can
    easily be usable more times per day than the stunning fist
    feat at effectively any level, is declared only after you hit,
    works far better when it works (stunning fist wears off PRIOR
    to the next round's attacks), and has a low, flat cost.

    Monk stunning fist is a class feature more than a feat and not
    comparable with the ordinary feat. Compared to the FEAT this
    is a killer power obviously orders of magnitude more powerful.

    Yes, I know, high level characters are supposed to have killer
    powers and nasty gear, that's why they have 100,000+ GP for
    gear! At 2000 GP this should be a MINOR power comparable to
    an extra level one spell.

    > I suspect it was playtested at low-mid levels with clerics and
    > paladins, and not at high levels with a social rogue, especially not
    > one with maxed-out TWF.

    I doubt that it was playtested even with mid level paladins,
    this strikes me as a must have for such a character. What else
    can he possibly do that is as effective for only 2000 GP?

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

    DougL wrote:
    > Rupert Boleyn wrote:
    > > On 3 Aug 2005 16:32:37 -0700, "DougL" <lampert.doug@gmail.com> carved
    > > upon a tablet of ether:
    > >
    > > > Anyway: Neat, social Rogues and Paladins rule all the worlds....
    > > > And at 2000 GP per weapon I can carry extras and swap weapons when
    > > > I have spent all my charges.
    > > >
    > > > When designing powers like this look at stunning fist, remember
    > > > that a feat is worth about 5,000+ GP to add to an item, and
    > > > notice that this is WAY better than the feat for someone who would
    > > > want it.
    > > >
    > > > Probably a +4 power or so IMAO. Stunning for multiple rounds or
    > > > as part of a normal attack is powerful, that's a durn good save
    > > > DC (comparable to a wizard's best spells), it doesn't have a
    > > > significant cost to activate, and can be used multiple times per
    > > > day.
    > >
    > > The save's about as good as a Monk's Stunning Fist, it can't be used
    > > as many times (except maybe at lower levels), but you activate after
    > > hitting and get 1d4+1 rounds - more than enough to sneak attack just
    > > about anything stunnable to death.
    >
    > Base stunning fist at level 20 is usable 5 times a day, is
    > declarable in advance, requires that you be unarmed attacking,
    > and has fairly nasty prerequisites indicating that it is
    > considered an above average feat.

    I disagree. It has fairly nasty prerequisites to make damn sure that
    Monks will be the only ones who have it.

    An above average feat? Name _one_ reasonable character build that takes
    Stunning Fist without Monk levels.

    > > I suspect it was playtested at low-mid levels with clerics and
    > > paladins, and not at high levels with a social rogue, especially not
    > > one with maxed-out TWF.
    >
    > I doubt that it was playtested even with mid level paladins,
    > this strikes me as a must have for such a character. What else
    > can he possibly do that is as effective for only 2000 GP?

    This, however, I agree with. 2000 gp is a ridiculously small amount for
    the ability.

    Your original suggestion, thoough (making it a +4 bonus) would make it
    utterly useless, and horrendously overpriced.

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

    laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    > DougL wrote:
    > > Rupert Boleyn wrote:
    > > > On 3 Aug 2005 16:32:37 -0700, "DougL" <lampert.doug@gmail.com> carved
    > > > upon a tablet of ether:
    > > >
    > > > > Anyway: Neat, social Rogues and Paladins rule all the worlds....
    > > > > And at 2000 GP per weapon I can carry extras and swap weapons when
    > > > > I have spent all my charges.
    > > > >
    > > > > When designing powers like this look at stunning fist, remember
    > > > > that a feat is worth about 5,000+ GP to add to an item, and
    > > > > notice that this is WAY better than the feat for someone who would
    > > > > want it.
    > > > >
    > > > > Probably a +4 power or so IMAO. Stunning for multiple rounds or
    > > > > as part of a normal attack is powerful, that's a durn good save
    > > > > DC (comparable to a wizard's best spells), it doesn't have a
    > > > > significant cost to activate, and can be used multiple times per
    > > > > day.
    > > >
    > > > The save's about as good as a Monk's Stunning Fist, it can't be used
    > > > as many times (except maybe at lower levels), but you activate after
    > > > hitting and get 1d4+1 rounds - more than enough to sneak attack just
    > > > about anything stunnable to death.
    > >
    > > Base stunning fist at level 20 is usable 5 times a day, is
    > > declarable in advance, requires that you be unarmed attacking,
    > > and has fairly nasty prerequisites indicating that it is
    > > considered an above average feat.
    >
    > I disagree. It has fairly nasty prerequisites to make damn sure that
    > Monks will be the only ones who have it.
    >
    > An above average feat? Name _one_ reasonable character build that takes
    > Stunning Fist without Monk levels.
    >
    > > > I suspect it was playtested at low-mid levels with clerics and
    > > > paladins, and not at high levels with a social rogue, especially not
    > > > one with maxed-out TWF.
    > >
    > > I doubt that it was playtested even with mid level paladins,
    > > this strikes me as a must have for such a character. What else
    > > can he possibly do that is as effective for only 2000 GP?
    >
    > This, however, I agree with. 2000 gp is a ridiculously small amount for
    > the ability.
    >
    > Your original suggestion, thoough (making it a +4 bonus) would make it
    > utterly useless, and horrendously overpriced.
    >

    +4 seems like a pretty good ammount to me, +5 is vorpal, and is only
    possibly better. It's only on a 20, so you have no control over it,
    instantly kills anything living with a head. The effect here is a
    stun, so it takes the target out of the fight, not quite as good as
    instant kill, but close, and can be more useful in certain
    circumstances, because it affects more things than those that happen to
    have heads it's better in that respect, It's got a high character based
    save - which you only look at things like staves for, and even those
    arent this good on the save - vorapl has no save though, so it's better
    in this respect. There's no other similar core weapon ability in this
    case. You activate it after you've hit, which is totally unheard of,
    and you choose to activate it. Both of those are far better than
    vorpal. But you can only use it so many times a day. So we have 3
    portions far better than vorpal, and 3 just barely not as good. It's
    actually looking closer to a +5, or even epic ability to me.

    Looking in the SRD we have brilliant energy & Dancing to compare for a
    +4, and speed for a +3, Those are too different to really say for sure
    either way how they compare. And all the the +2 items are IMHO way less
    powerful. But there is something we can compare with there, which is
    disruption, and it's a better match than vorpal. So disruption -
    Destroys undead on DC 14 will save (still not as often as vorpal, but
    as long as there's a hit, there's at least a 1 in 20 chance of
    destroying). We have a far more limited set of creatures affected,
    which is much worse, but destroys which is better, it always effects
    the target which is much better, but the save is set at a fairly low
    ammount, and doesn't add any of the character's attributes to it, so
    this is far worse. So we have 3 far worse, 1 much better and 1 barely
    better. Obviously the sudden stunning is better than disrupting, so
    it's at least a +3.

    The thing we should really be comparing it with would be Spell
    Storing... one could easily put a hold person spell in a spell storing
    weapon. You'd need about 3 for comparable effect, so that's about +3.
    However the stun affects far more than people, so you are really
    looking at hold monster, which is higher level than spell storing can
    handle. But it's not as versatile. Balancing that out, it's probably
    at least a +3, and I'd say higher.

    And no one's mentioned bards yet, which is who I would imagine would
    usually be using it. This is far better than any of thier natural
    abilities, If so focused they can fight almost as well as fighter.
    This would be quite a terror in a high cha bard's hands as well.

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

    Werebat wrote:
    > Quentin Stephens wrote:
    >
    > > Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
    > > news:qpg2f19qskvgj812fk113m20ckchut24pq@4ax.com:
    > >
    > >
    > >>For those without the DMG II, the ability allows the weapon's
    > >>weilder to declare after the weapon has hit that they'll
    > >>activate the power.
    > >
    > >
    > > And herein lies the problem. It should be declared before the attack
    > > roll is made.
    >
    > (Sudden Stunning joins the chorous line with Nymph's Kiss, Energy Stun,
    > Item Familiar, etc.):
    >
    > "Power creep! Power creep! Just gotta love that power creep! Power
    > creep! Power creep! Core feats are ob-so-lete!"

    Hong! Hong! He's our man! If he can't ban it no one can!

    There is a solution to all these problems.

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

    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
    news:qpg2f19qskvgj812fk113m20ckchut24pq@4ax.com:

    > For those without the DMG II, the ability allows the weapon's
    > weilder to declare after the weapon has hit that they'll
    > activate the power.

    And herein lies the problem. It should be declared before the attack
    roll is made.
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Quentin Stephens wrote:

    > Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
    > news:qpg2f19qskvgj812fk113m20ckchut24pq@4ax.com:
    >
    >
    >>For those without the DMG II, the ability allows the weapon's
    >>weilder to declare after the weapon has hit that they'll
    >>activate the power.
    >
    >
    > And herein lies the problem. It should be declared before the attack
    > roll is made.

    (Sudden Stunning joins the chorous line with Nymph's Kiss, Energy Stun,
    Item Familiar, etc.):

    "Power creep! Power creep! Just gotta love that power creep! Power
    creep! Power creep! Core feats are ob-so-lete!"

    - Ron ^*^
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    DougL wrote:
    > Werebat wrote:
    >
    >>Quentin Stephens wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
    >>>news:qpg2f19qskvgj812fk113m20ckchut24pq@4ax.com:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>For those without the DMG II, the ability allows the weapon's
    >>>>weilder to declare after the weapon has hit that they'll
    >>>>activate the power.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>And herein lies the problem. It should be declared before the attack
    >>>roll is made.
    >>
    >>(Sudden Stunning joins the chorous line with Nymph's Kiss, Energy Stun,
    >>Item Familiar, etc.):
    >>
    >>"Power creep! Power creep! Just gotta love that power creep! Power
    >>creep! Power creep! Core feats are ob-so-lete!"
    >
    >
    > Hong! Hong! He's our man! If he can't ban it no one can!
    >
    > There is a solution to all these problems.

    Sadly, it involves either cutting out all of the perfectly fine stuff in
    the newer splatbooks, or constantly banning this, that, and the other
    thing and dealing with fallout from that.

    - Ron ^*^
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 3 Aug 2005 16:32:37 -0700, "DougL" <lampert.doug@gmail.com> carved
    upon a tablet of ether:

    > Anyway: Neat, social Rogues and Paladins rule all the worlds....
    > And at 2000 GP per weapon I can carry extras and swap weapons when
    > I have spent all my charges.
    >
    > When designing powers like this look at stunning fist, remember
    > that a feat is worth about 5,000+ GP to add to an item, and
    > notice that this is WAY better than the feat for someone who would
    > want it.
    >
    > Probably a +4 power or so IMAO. Stunning for multiple rounds or
    > as part of a normal attack is powerful, that's a durn good save
    > DC (comparable to a wizard's best spells), it doesn't have a
    > significant cost to activate, and can be used multiple times per
    > day.

    The save's about as good as a Monk's Stunning Fist, it can't be used
    as many times (except maybe at lower levels), but you activate after
    hitting and get 1d4+1 rounds - more than enough to sneak attack just
    about anything stunnable to death.

    I suspect it was playtested at low-mid levels with clerics and
    paladins, and not at high levels with a social rogue, especially not
    one with maxed-out TWF.


    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 4 Aug 2005 01:15:31 -0700, laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu carved upon
    a tablet of ether:

    > I agree that +2000 is way too little, but a +4 power? You do know that
    > money-wise, that's 48,000 gold MINIMUM? Assuming your "5000+ gold for a
    > feat" is correct (though I'd still like to know where you got that
    > from), you think this power is equal to about 8-10 feats, or what?
    >
    > I think it's reasonable as a +2 power. It _is_ potentially pretty
    > powerful, but I wouldn't say it's more powerful than a Wounding weapon.

    1d4+1 rounds of stun and a rogue mean death, pretty much. I'm thinking
    you probably can't get a price point for that much stun that's not too
    cheap until it's simply too much. That's why I think dropping it to a
    single round of stun (also more in line with Stunning fist) makes
    sense. Then charge +1 or +2 for it.


    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote:
    >laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    >> DougL wrote:

    >>> I doubt that it was playtested even with mid level paladins,
    >>> this strikes me as a must have for such a character. What else
    >>> can he possibly do that is as effective for only 2000 GP?

    >> This, however, I agree with. 2000 gp is a ridiculously small amount for
    >> the ability.

    >> Your original suggestion, thoough (making it a +4 bonus) would make it
    >> utterly useless, and horrendously overpriced.


    >+4 seems like a pretty good ammount to me, +5 is vorpal, and is only
    >possibly better.

    [snip most all of analysis, ending with a comparison to /of disruption/]

    >handle. But it's not as versatile. Balancing that out, it's probably
    >at least a +3, and I'd say higher.

    You could also look at the pricing guide for spells in items. I'm
    running Q&D numbers, but /power word: stun/ has some of the effects
    of the enhancement. Let's posit a lesser version that's Range: touch
    and only does 1d4+1 rounds of stun (but to anything that fails its
    save). I'm going to call it a 7th-level spell, although it's not
    vastly weaker than /pw:s/ (removing the hitpoint cap improves it,
    but touch attack and save weaken it).

    Anyhow, a use-activated item of this hypothetical spell would cost
    182,000 gp. The saving throw's based on the minimum stat required
    (17, so a +3 bonus), so let's say it works 3 times a day. That
    reduces the cost to 109,200 gp. The formula for weapon bonus prices
    is (total bonus)**2*2000 => a weapon with this power would be about
    a +7 item. Thus the power could be considered an epic weapon
    enhancement. (More so because the actual power does more than the
    spell I eyeballed to judge it against.)

    Now I'm inventing a spell because I don't recall anything other than
    /pw:s/ to compare against. If someone wants to use a real spell,
    go ahead (a sixth-level spell would indicate it's a +5 enhancement,
    BTW).

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

    Dave Butler <ci915@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote:
    >
    > You could also look at the pricing guide for spells in items. I'm
    > running Q&D numbers, but /power word: stun/ has some of the effects
    > of the enhancement. Let's posit a lesser version that's Range: touch
    > and only does 1d4+1 rounds of stun (but to anything that fails its
    > save). I'm going to call it a 7th-level spell, although it's not
    > vastly weaker than /pw:s/ (removing the hitpoint cap improves it,
    > but touch attack and save weaken it).
    >
    > [...] a weapon with this power would be about a +7 item. Thus the
    > power could be considered an epic weapon enhancement.


    Touch attack doesn't weaken it *much* because you don't decide to use it
    until *after* you've already touched. While it still requires a touch
    in order to be effective at all, you've already determined that you
    *have* touched.

    Minor point, to be sure. As your numbers show, based on your
    assumptions it's still way more powerful than 2000gp would indicate.

    Now, it might be worth backing it off *slightly* (to +6) since you can
    only apply this to something that's already got a +1 enhancement. OTOH,
    that means the +6 here is worth about 96k (rather than the 126k it'd be
    if it were +7-on-top-of-+1-enhancement).


    Keith
    --
    Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
    keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
    keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
    http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Justisaur wrote:
    > laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    >
    > > This, however, I agree with. 2000 gp is a ridiculously small amount for
    > > the ability.
    > >
    > > Your original suggestion, thoough (making it a +4 bonus) would make it
    > > utterly useless, and horrendously overpriced.
    > >
    >
    > +4 seems like a pretty good ammount to me, +5 is vorpal, and is only
    > possibly better. It's only on a 20, so you have no control over it,
    > instantly kills anything living with a head. The effect here is a
    > stun, so it takes the target out of the fight, not quite as good as
    > instant kill, but close,

    Um... no. Stunning is not close to instant kill in power. Sure, an
    opponent who's stunned for 1d4+1 rounds can probably be killed without
    too much trouble...

    .... assuming that enemy is completely alone. Throw allies into the
    equation, and it suddenly becomes a very different story.

    > and can be more useful in certain
    > circumstances, because it affects more things than those that happen to
    > have heads it's better in that respect,

    I'm pretty sure more enemies have stun immunity than lack heads.

    > It's got a high character based
    > save - which you only look at things like staves for, and even those
    > arent this good on the save - vorapl has no save though, so it's better
    > in this respect. There's no other similar core weapon ability in this
    > case. You activate it after you've hit, which is totally unheard of,
    > and you choose to activate it. Both of those are far better than
    > vorpal. But you can only use it so many times a day. So we have 3
    > portions far better than vorpal, and 3 just barely not as good. It's
    > actually looking closer to a +5, or even epic ability to me.

    I don't think you can compare advantages and disadvantages by _number_.
    It doesn't make any sense. For example, you say "You activate it after
    you've hit, which is totally unheard of, and you choose to activate it.
    Both of those are far better than vorpal." How are these far better
    than vorpal?


    > But there is something we can compare with there, which is
    > disruption, and it's a better match than vorpal. So disruption -
    > Destroys undead on DC 14 will save (still not as often as vorpal, but
    > as long as there's a hit, there's at least a 1 in 20 chance of
    > destroying). We have a far more limited set of creatures affected,
    > which is much worse, but destroys which is better, it always effects
    > the target which is much better, but the save is set at a fairly low
    > ammount, and doesn't add any of the character's attributes to it, so
    > this is far worse. So we have 3 far worse, 1 much better and 1 barely
    > better. Obviously the sudden stunning is better than disrupting, so
    > it's at least a +3.

    Again, I don't think you can compare disadvantages by number.

    > The thing we should really be comparing it with would be Spell
    > Storing... one could easily put a hold person spell in a spell storing
    > weapon. You'd need about 3 for comparable effect, so that's about +3.
    > However the stun affects far more than people, so you are really
    > looking at hold monster, which is higher level than spell storing can
    > handle. But it's not as versatile. Balancing that out, it's probably
    > at least a +3, and I'd say higher.

    Hold is a lot more powerful than stun, because you can Coup de Grace a
    Held opponent.

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

    Dave Butler wrote:
    > Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote:
    > >laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    > >> DougL wrote:
    >
    > >>> I doubt that it was playtested even with mid level paladins,
    > >>> this strikes me as a must have for such a character. What else
    > >>> can he possibly do that is as effective for only 2000 GP?
    >
    > >> This, however, I agree with. 2000 gp is a ridiculously small amount for
    > >> the ability.
    >
    > >> Your original suggestion, thoough (making it a +4 bonus) would make it
    > >> utterly useless, and horrendously overpriced.
    >
    >
    > >+4 seems like a pretty good ammount to me, +5 is vorpal, and is only
    > >possibly better.
    >
    > [snip most all of analysis, ending with a comparison to /of disruption/]
    >
    > >handle. But it's not as versatile. Balancing that out, it's probably
    > >at least a +3, and I'd say higher.
    >
    > You could also look at the pricing guide for spells in items. I'm
    > running Q&D numbers, but /power word: stun/ has some of the effects
    > of the enhancement. Let's posit a lesser version that's Range: touch
    > and only does 1d4+1 rounds of stun (but to anything that fails its
    > save). I'm going to call it a 7th-level spell, although it's not
    > vastly weaker than /pw:s/ (removing the hitpoint cap improves it,
    > but touch attack and save weaken it).

    No offense, but your spell balancing needs work. I'd put your "7th
    level spell" at about level 2 or 3. It's definitely _way_ weaker then
    Flesh to Stone or Baleful Polymorph. It's comparable to Ghoul Touch,
    though slightly more powerful; the effect works on more opponents
    (Ghoul Touch only works on humanoids), but Ghoul Touch's effect is far
    more powerful, and lasts longer.

    We can argue about the exact level, but I'll accept your "level 7"
    spell when you manage to explain how it can _possibly_ be at the same
    power level as Finger of Death, which is RANGED, KILLS (not stuns), and
    does something even if the save is made.

    > Now I'm inventing a spell because I don't recall anything other than
    > /pw:s/ to compare against. If someone wants to use a real spell,
    > go ahead (a sixth-level spell would indicate it's a +5 enhancement,
    > BTW).

    The effect is clearly a lot weaker than Baleful Polymorph. That makes
    it level 4 at best. Since it has at least three big strikes against it
    compared to Baleful Polymorph (requires touch, lasts for a short time
    only, and stun immunity is a lot more common than polymorph immunity),
    I'd definitely put it at level 2 or 3.

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

    Keith Davies wrote:
    > Dave Butler <ci915@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote:
    > >
    > > You could also look at the pricing guide for spells in items. I'm
    > > running Q&D numbers, but /power word: stun/ has some of the effects
    > > of the enhancement. Let's posit a lesser version that's Range: touch
    > > and only does 1d4+1 rounds of stun (but to anything that fails its
    > > save). I'm going to call it a 7th-level spell, although it's not
    > > vastly weaker than /pw:s/ (removing the hitpoint cap improves it,
    > > but touch attack and save weaken it).
    > >
    > > [...] a weapon with this power would be about a +7 item. Thus the
    > > power could be considered an epic weapon enhancement.
    >
    >
    > Touch attack doesn't weaken it *much* because you don't decide to use it
    > until *after* you've already touched. While it still requires a touch
    > in order to be effective at all, you've already determined that you
    > *have* touched.
    >
    > Minor point, to be sure. As your numbers show, based on your
    > assumptions it's still way more powerful than 2000gp would indicate.

    Absolutely true. Though his assumptions are deeply flawed.

    > Now, it might be worth backing it off *slightly* (to +6) since you can
    > only apply this to something that's already got a +1 enhancement. OTOH,
    > that means the +6 here is worth about 96k (rather than the 126k it'd be
    > if it were +7-on-top-of-+1-enhancement).

    You people are crazy. No offense.

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

    You are leaving out one big thing, it's DC scales to level of weilder,
    no spell does that. In that respect it's more powerful than any spell.
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 4 Aug 2005 08:21:11 -0700, "DougL" <lampert.doug@gmail.com> carved
    upon a tablet of ether:

    > Base stunning fist at level 20 is usable 5 times a day, is
    > declarable in advance, requires that you be unarmed attacking,
    > and has fairly nasty prerequisites indicating that it is
    > considered an above average feat.

    I'd forgotten that the feat (as opposed to the Monk's version) was so
    ungenerous with times/day.


    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 4 Aug 2005 10:24:24 -0700, "Justisaur" <justisaur@gmail.com> carved
    upon a tablet of ether:

    > And no one's mentioned bards yet, which is who I would imagine would
    > usually be using it. This is far better than any of thier natural
    > abilities, If so focused they can fight almost as well as fighter.
    > This would be quite a terror in a high cha bard's hands as well.

    I didn't mention bards because it doesn't help them a whole lot more
    than a paladin, who can use it to set someone up for the Power
    Attack/Smite combo from Hell (well, Heaven, really). Besides, it all
    plaes before the social rogue or social fighter/rogue with maxed-out
    two-weapon fighting. Hasted the high level fighter/rogue will get
    eight attacks a round, and if all goes right all but the first will be
    a sneak attack for +8d6 damage (at 20th level). A pure rogue doing the
    same trick will get 'only' seven attacks, with six of them getting
    +10d6. What's more they don't need to move into position, to have
    anyone else there to provide flanking, or to care about how many
    levels of rogue/barbarian the victim has, and this means they've
    bypassed the main limit on a rogue's damage output. It does have the
    benefit of making social characters, including bards, more combat
    capable, but it's too good IMO. It also makes TWF the 'must have' feat
    chain.

    At +4 cost I think what happens is that it's still really cool at high
    levels and unaffordable at low levels where it'd be nice to have a
    boost of the social types. That it's obviously intended as a useful
    option for low-level types is why I'm thinking it should be cut back
    to one round (consistent with Stunning Fist) and charged as a +1 bonus
    - making it cost at least 6000gp.


    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 4 Aug 2005 17:03:36 GMT, Quentin Stephens <stq@stq.gro.ku.invalid>
    carved upon a tablet of ether:

    > Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
    > news:qpg2f19qskvgj812fk113m20ckchut24pq@4ax.com:
    >
    > > For those without the DMG II, the ability allows the weapon's
    > > weilder to declare after the weapon has hit that they'll
    > > activate the power.
    >
    > And herein lies the problem. It should be declared before the attack
    > roll is made.

    That won't make a difference for the twinked out types. The
    fighter/rogue/dread pirate who triggered this get seven uses a day,
    and as we're 18th level she seldom misses anyway.


    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Dave Butler wrote:
    > Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
    > >Dave Butler <ci915@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote:
    > >> save). I'm going to call it a 7th-level spell, although it's not
    > >> vastly weaker than /pw:s/ (removing the hitpoint cap improves it,
    > >> but touch attack and save weaken it).
    >
    > >Touch attack doesn't weaken it *much* because you don't decide to use it
    > >until *after* you've already touched. While it still requires a touch
    > >in order to be effective at all, you've already determined that you
    > >*have* touched.
    >
    > Doesn't a touch spell count as used even if you miss the attack roll?
    > I was certain that that was the case.

    Nope.

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

    Donald Tsang wrote:
    > <laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote:
    > >[Something that stuns a target for 1d4+1 rounds] is clearly a lot
    > >weaker than Baleful Polymorph.
    >
    > Well... Baleful Polymorph can be Dispelled; a stunned condition
    > cannot. In 3.5E, /Heal/ can removed a stunned condition, but I
    > haven't found anything of lower level that will (I remember back
    > in a 1E high-level game, being stunned for multiple rounds was
    > scarier than being dead, since nothing could remove the stunned
    > condition)

    Fair enough. That only makes it much worse than Baleful Polymorph,
    then, not "much worse in every possible aspect".

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

    Justisaur wrote:
    > You are leaving out one big thing, it's DC scales to level of weilder,
    > no spell does that. In that respect it's more powerful than any spell.

    Not as much as you might think. There is no class build (that would
    want to wield this weapon) that would find it worthwhile to build up
    its Charisma as grossly as an average mage builds up his Int.
    Basically, this weapon introduces MAD (multiple Attribute Dependency).
    You need good Str or Dex to hit with it, and good Cha to get any use
    out of it. This, alone, makes the save a lot less scary than a wizard's
    spells, even if he's not using his highest level spells.

    An example: a level 20 Paladin would generally have a Cha of about
    20-22, with items. That makes the save DC with this sword 25-26. That's
    not bad, but nothing to write home about, at all.

    A level 20 mage, on the other hand, would easily have an Int of 28-30,
    at _least_ (32-34 is very possible). That means he'll get the same DC
    (25-26) with his level 6 spells.

    And we haven't even gone into the possibility of Spell Focus.

    Basically, if the weapon granted a Str, or Dex-based save, then it
    would be a lot more powerful. The Cha-based save hurts it a lot at
    higher levels.

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

    Dave Butler wrote:
    > laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    > >Dave Butler wrote:
    >
    > >> Now I'm inventing a spell because I don't recall anything other than
    > >> /pw:s/ to compare against. If someone wants to use a real spell,
    > >> go ahead (a sixth-level spell would indicate it's a +5 enhancement,
    > >> BTW).
    >
    > >The effect is clearly a lot weaker than Baleful Polymorph. That makes
    > >it level 4 at best. Since it has at least three big strikes against it
    > >compared to Baleful Polymorph (requires touch, lasts for a short time
    > >only, and stun immunity is a lot more common than polymorph immunity),
    > >I'd definitely put it at level 2 or 3.
    >
    > It's better than a level two spell (compare /ghoul touch/ which only
    > affects humanoids and allows SR (which any hypothetical spell we're
    > inventing shouldn't have, since the weapon ability doesn't allow SR)).
    > (Admittedly, paralysis is in some ways nastier than stun.)
    >
    > I'd call it 4th level, now that I've seen some of my errors. Regardles,
    > let's just work up a table based on spell level, assuming 3 uses/day:
    >
    > spell level weapon enhancement
    > 1 +1 (or less)
    > 2 +2
    > 3 +2
    > 4 +3
    > 5 +4
    > 6 +5
    > 7 +6
    > 8 +7 or +8
    > 9 +8 or +9
    >
    > So. Just choose what you think is an appropriate spell level, and go
    > from there. (It's not highly precise, because the save scales with the
    > user in a manner that a 3/day item wouldn't, and it's fairly trivial to
    > get more uses out of the power than our comparison item has.)
    >
    > I'd now call it a +4 enhancement; I count the power as a 4th-level
    > spell, and I adjust that up a notch for the scalling with the user
    > ability.

    Well, we're getting closer. I'd still say it's a "level 2.5 spell" (too
    powerful for level 2, too weak for level 3), and adjust that upwards to
    3 for the self-scaling (see my previous post for why I'm not terribly
    impressed by that). Which happens to make it the equivalent of a +2
    enhancement. Yay, consistency.

    I just really don't see the power. Above level 10, a couple of uses per
    day of stunning an enemy for a few rounds if you hit them and they fail
    a middling-difficulty save is just not that exciting in practice. It's
    a useful ability. It sure as hell won't make the character the King and
    Queen of Everything.

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

    laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    > Justisaur wrote:
    > > laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    > >
    > > > This, however, I agree with. 2000 gp is a ridiculously small amount for
    > > > the ability.
    > > >
    > > > Your original suggestion, thoough (making it a +4 bonus) would make it
    > > > utterly useless, and horrendously overpriced.
    > > >
    > >
    > > +4 seems like a pretty good ammount to me, +5 is vorpal, and is only
    > > possibly better. It's only on a 20, so you have no control over it,
    > > instantly kills anything living with a head. The effect here is a
    > > stun, so it takes the target out of the fight, not quite as good as
    > > instant kill, but close,
    >
    > Um... no. Stunning is not close to instant kill in power. Sure, an
    > opponent who's stunned for 1d4+1 rounds can probably be killed without
    > too much trouble...
    >

    Takes em out of the fight. Admittedly not the power of an instant
    kill.


    > > and can be more useful in certain
    > > circumstances, because it affects more things than those that happen to
    > > have heads it's better in that respect,
    >
    > I'm pretty sure more enemies have stun immunity than lack heads.
    >

    I think you are mistaken. There are things with a head that stunning
    won't effect, most of those actually loosing thier head isn't going to
    kill either, like undead and constructs.

    > > It's got a high character based
    > > save - which you only look at things like staves for, and even those
    > > arent this good on the save - vorapl has no save though, so it's better
    > > in this respect. There's no other similar core weapon ability in this
    > > case. You activate it after you've hit, which is totally unheard of,
    > > and you choose to activate it. Both of those are far better than
    > > vorpal. But you can only use it so many times a day. So we have 3
    > > portions far better than vorpal, and 3 just barely not as good. It's
    > > actually looking closer to a +5, or even epic ability to me.
    >
    > I don't think you can compare advantages and disadvantages by _number_.
    > It doesn't make any sense. For example, you say "You activate it after
    > you've hit, which is totally unheard of, and you choose to activate it.
    > Both of those are far better than vorpal." How are these far better
    > than vorpal?
    >

    You choose when to activate it, so you can activate it any time. You
    don't choose to activate vorpal. Tactially having a 1/20 chance verses
    an aproximately 1/2 (you actually have to hit first with it) chance to
    activate is far better.

    > > The thing we should really be comparing it with would be Spell
    > > Storing... one could easily put a hold person spell in a spell storing
    > > weapon. You'd need about 3 for comparable effect, so that's about +3.
    > > However the stun affects far more than people, so you are really
    > > looking at hold monster, which is higher level than spell storing can
    > > handle. But it's not as versatile. Balancing that out, it's probably
    > > at least a +3, and I'd say higher.
    >
    > Hold is a lot more powerful than stun, because you can Coup de Grace a
    > Held opponent.

    Ah, hadn't thought of that. Of course Hold also gives you a save every
    round.

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

    Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
    >Dave Butler <ci915@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote:
    >> save). I'm going to call it a 7th-level spell, although it's not
    >> vastly weaker than /pw:s/ (removing the hitpoint cap improves it,
    >> but touch attack and save weaken it).

    >Touch attack doesn't weaken it *much* because you don't decide to use it
    >until *after* you've already touched. While it still requires a touch
    >in order to be effective at all, you've already determined that you
    >*have* touched.

    Doesn't a touch spell count as used even if you miss the attack roll?
    I was certain that that was the case.

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

    laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    >Dave Butler wrote:

    >We can argue about the exact level, but I'll accept your "level 7"
    >spell when you manage to explain how it can _possibly_ be at the same
    >power level as Finger of Death, which is RANGED, KILLS (not stuns), and
    >does something even if the save is made.

    Error on my part: in modifying /pw:s/ I forgot to account for the fact
    that I was adding a save (which /pw:s/ lacks). That drops the level
    dramatically. Good catch.

    >> Now I'm inventing a spell because I don't recall anything other than
    >> /pw:s/ to compare against. If someone wants to use a real spell,
    >> go ahead (a sixth-level spell would indicate it's a +5 enhancement,
    >> BTW).

    >The effect is clearly a lot weaker than Baleful Polymorph. That makes
    >it level 4 at best. Since it has at least three big strikes against it
    >compared to Baleful Polymorph (requires touch, lasts for a short time
    >only, and stun immunity is a lot more common than polymorph immunity),
    >I'd definitely put it at level 2 or 3.

    It's better than a level two spell (compare /ghoul touch/ which only
    affects humanoids and allows SR (which any hypothetical spell we're
    inventing shouldn't have, since the weapon ability doesn't allow SR)).
    (Admittedly, paralysis is in some ways nastier than stun.)

    I'd call it 4th level, now that I've seen some of my errors. Regardles,
    let's just work up a table based on spell level, assuming 3 uses/day:

    spell level weapon enhancement
    1 +1 (or less)
    2 +2
    3 +2
    4 +3
    5 +4
    6 +5
    7 +6
    8 +7 or +8
    9 +8 or +9

    So. Just choose what you think is an appropriate spell level, and go
    from there. (It's not highly precise, because the save scales with the
    user in a manner that a 3/day item wouldn't, and it's fairly trivial to
    get more uses out of the power than our comparison item has.)

    I'd now call it a +4 enhancement; I count the power as a 4th-level
    spell, and I adjust that up a notch for the scalling with the user
    ability.

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

    <laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote:
    >[Something that stuns a target for 1d4+1 rounds] is clearly a lot
    >weaker than Baleful Polymorph.

    Well... Baleful Polymorph can be Dispelled; a stunned condition
    cannot. In 3.5E, /Heal/ can removed a stunned condition, but I
    haven't found anything of lower level that will (I remember back
    in a 1E high-level game, being stunned for multiple rounds was
    scarier than being dead, since nothing could remove the stunned
    condition)

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

    In news:o295f15etrj3mil5v3lj87rqqctgc7ql90@4ax.com,
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> typed:
    > That won't make a difference for the twinked out types. The
    > fighter/rogue/dread pirate who triggered this get seven uses a day,
    > and as we're 18th level she seldom misses anyway.

    Ummm... What level opponents are you using if high level means autohit?

    --
    T. Koivula
  32. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Dave Butler <ci915@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote:
    > Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
    >>Dave Butler <ci915@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote:
    >>> save). I'm going to call it a 7th-level spell, although it's not
    >>> vastly weaker than /pw:s/ (removing the hitpoint cap improves it,
    >>> but touch attack and save weaken it).
    >
    >>Touch attack doesn't weaken it *much* because you don't decide to use it
    >>until *after* you've already touched. While it still requires a touch
    >>in order to be effective at all, you've already determined that you
    >>*have* touched.
    >
    > Doesn't a touch spell count as used even if you miss the attack roll?
    > I was certain that that was the case.

    No, it counts has 'held' until released (you hit, you give the spell up,
    etc.... I don't think there's necessarily a time limit). Casting
    another spell uses up the held spell, though.


    Keith
    --
    Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
    keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
    keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
    http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
  33. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <1123252668.197819.209160@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
    laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:

    > Dave Butler wrote:

    > > Now I'm inventing a spell because I don't recall anything other than
    > > /pw:s/ to compare against. If someone wants to use a real spell,
    > > go ahead (a sixth-level spell would indicate it's a +5 enhancement,
    > > BTW).
    >
    > The effect is clearly a lot weaker than Baleful Polymorph. That makes
    > it level 4 at best. Since it has at least three big strikes against it
    > compared to Baleful Polymorph (requires touch, lasts for a short time
    > only, and stun immunity is a lot more common than polymorph immunity),
    > I'd definitely put it at level 2 or 3.

    Bear in mind that the saving throw, in the hands of a high level
    character, is going to be much harder than the saving throw against a
    2nd or 3rd level spell would be in the hands of an equally high level
    character.

    The best comparison would be to a 2nd or 3rd level spell that has been
    Heightened, possibly quite substantially.

    --
    Kevin Lowe,
    Tasmania.
  34. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <dd00fb$jkh$1@oravannahka.helsinki.fi>, plistat@hotmail.com
    says...

    > > That won't make a difference for the twinked out types. The
    > > fighter/rogue/dread pirate who triggered this get seven uses a day,
    > > and as we're 18th level she seldom misses anyway.
    >
    > Ummm... What level opponents are you using if high level means autohit?

    Appropriate?

    I can't really say I've done any serious research, but it is my
    impression that at high levels warrior-types do hit with their primary
    attack almost automatically.

    Just look at the monsters vs. themselves (we can assume that the PCs
    will have roughly similar attack/AC values): a balor hits another balor
    on a 2. A pit fiend hits another on a 10. A nightcrawler hits another on
    a 6. Dragons sometimes still hit themselves on a 2 even after taking
    Combat Expertise or Power Attack or similar penalties. I once made a CR
    20 (more or less) succubus bard/blackguard that had AC 36 and +41
    attack.

    AC is still important, since it protects against lower-BAB iterative
    attacks, and prevents the opponent from using Power Attack all the way
    to 11, but it's pretty much only hp that save you from a warrior's
    primary attack.


    --
    Jasin Zujovic
    jzujovic@inet.hr
  35. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
    >Dave Butler <ci915@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote:
    >> Doesn't a touch spell count as used even if you miss the attack roll?
    >> I was certain that that was the case.

    >No, it counts has 'held' until released (you hit, you give the spell up,
    >etc.... I don't think there's necessarily a time limit). Casting
    >another spell uses up the held spell, though.

    It turns out I was remembering the rule for /water breathing/ and the
    like; also touch spells, but you only have the round you cast it in
    to touch people.

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

    Werebat wrote:
    > DougL wrote:
    > > Werebat wrote:
    > >
    > >>Quentin Stephens wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
    > >>>news:qpg2f19qskvgj812fk113m20ckchut24pq@4ax.com:
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>>For those without the DMG II, the ability allows the weapon's
    > >>>>weilder to declare after the weapon has hit that they'll
    > >>>>activate the power.
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>And herein lies the problem. It should be declared before the attack
    > >>>roll is made.
    > >>
    > >>(Sudden Stunning joins the chorous line with Nymph's Kiss, Energy Stun,
    > >>Item Familiar, etc.):
    > >>
    > >>"Power creep! Power creep! Just gotta love that power creep! Power
    > >>creep! Power creep! Core feats are ob-so-lete!"
    > >
    > >
    > > Hong! Hong! He's our man! If he can't ban it no one can!
    > >
    > > There is a solution to all these problems.
    >
    > Sadly, it involves either cutting out all of the perfectly fine stuff in
    > the newer splatbooks, or constantly banning this, that, and the other
    > thing and dealing with fallout from that.

    You have it backward, you don't constantly ban stuff, you ban
    EVERYTHING and then let some things in. Anything that you or
    one of your players wants and that looks ballanced can be let
    in after examination. But the default is PHB/DMG/MM only with
    variants and things that are explicitly optional in the DMG
    not used.

    Hence no need to constantly ban stuff. One giant banning at
    the start of the campaign followed by letting stuff in when
    you need it.

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

    Rupert Boleyn wrote:
    > On 5 Aug 2005 07:20:46 -0700, laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu carved upon
    > a tablet of ether:

    > > > and can be more useful in certain
    > > > circumstances, because it affects more things than those that happen to
    > > > have heads it's better in that respect,
    > >
    > > I'm pretty sure more enemies have stun immunity than lack heads.
    >
    > Heck yes. Any construct or undead, for starters.
    >

    As noted in my previous reply, these aren't going to be slain by the
    loss of thier head.

    > > Hold is a lot more powerful than stun, because you can Coup de Grace a
    > > Held opponent.
    >
    > OTOH a Held opponent can still do purely mental things, such as cast a
    > Silent Teleport.
    >
    >

    Or if they've got spell-like abilities, such as a Pit Fiend they can
    toss off a couple of fireballs point blank.

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

    DougL wrote:
    > Werebat wrote:
    >
    >>DougL wrote:
    >>
    >>>Werebat wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Quentin Stephens wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
    >>>>>news:qpg2f19qskvgj812fk113m20ckchut24pq@4ax.com:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>For those without the DMG II, the ability allows the weapon's
    >>>>>>weilder to declare after the weapon has hit that they'll
    >>>>>>activate the power.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>And herein lies the problem. It should be declared before the attack
    >>>>>roll is made.
    >>>>
    >>>>(Sudden Stunning joins the chorous line with Nymph's Kiss, Energy Stun,
    >>>>Item Familiar, etc.):
    >>>>
    >>>>"Power creep! Power creep! Just gotta love that power creep! Power
    >>>>creep! Power creep! Core feats are ob-so-lete!"
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Hong! Hong! He's our man! If he can't ban it no one can!
    >>>
    >>>There is a solution to all these problems.
    >>
    >>Sadly, it involves either cutting out all of the perfectly fine stuff in
    >>the newer splatbooks, or constantly banning this, that, and the other
    >>thing and dealing with fallout from that.
    >
    >
    > You have it backward, you don't constantly ban stuff, you ban
    > EVERYTHING and then let some things in. Anything that you or
    > one of your players wants and that looks ballanced can be let
    > in after examination. But the default is PHB/DMG/MM only with
    > variants and things that are explicitly optional in the DMG
    > not used.
    >
    > Hence no need to constantly ban stuff. One giant banning at
    > the start of the campaign followed by letting stuff in when
    > you need it.

    The net result is the same.

    - Ron ^*^
  39. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 5 Aug 2005 07:20:46 -0700, laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu carved upon
    a tablet of ether:

    > Um... no. Stunning is not close to instant kill in power. Sure, an
    > opponent who's stunned for 1d4+1 rounds can probably be killed without
    > too much trouble...
    >
    > ... assuming that enemy is completely alone. Throw allies into the
    > equation, and it suddenly becomes a very different story.

    Not really. You found time to hit the enemy, and it can't provide any
    help to its allies. If the enemy was worth stunning in the first place
    it's almost certainly worth finishing off, especially if that's only a
    round or two by someone (quite possible if the 'someone' is a rogue).

    > > and can be more useful in certain
    > > circumstances, because it affects more things than those that happen to
    > > have heads it's better in that respect,
    >
    > I'm pretty sure more enemies have stun immunity than lack heads.

    Heck yes. Any construct or undead, for starters.

    > Hold is a lot more powerful than stun, because you can Coup de Grace a
    > Held opponent.

    OTOH a Held opponent can still do purely mental things, such as cast a
    Silent Teleport.


    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  40. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 18:26:35 +0300, "T. Koivula" <plistat@hotmail.com>
    carved upon a tablet of ether:

    > In news:o295f15etrj3mil5v3lj87rqqctgc7ql90@4ax.com,
    > Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> typed:
    > > That won't make a difference for the twinked out types. The
    > > fighter/rogue/dread pirate who triggered this get seven uses a day,
    > > and as we're 18th level she seldom misses anyway.
    >
    > Ummm... What level opponents are you using if high level means autohit?

    Not "autohit" - "seldom misses", and we're encountering CR16-20
    opponents, as you'd expect for an 18th level party of three. Admitedly
    they tend to not be PC-classed NPCs much. ACs in the low-mid 30s, as a
    quick check of the various MM's shows is typical.


    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  41. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 09:22:02 +0200, Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr>
    carved upon a tablet of ether:

    > > Ummm... What level opponents are you using if high level means autohit?
    >
    > Appropriate?
    >
    > I can't really say I've done any serious research, but it is my
    > impression that at high levels warrior-types do hit with their primary
    > attack almost automatically.

    In a party of three 18th-19th level PCs plus a 16th level cohort the
    only character who has trouble hitting things with normal attacks is
    my Loremaster, so she stays at the back in Pit Fiend form, with her
    AC61 (all buffed up) and Disintegrates and Prismatic Sprays things.


    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  42. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 6 Aug 2005 14:24:51 -0700, "Justisaur" <justisaur@gmail.com> carved
    upon a tablet of ether:

    > > OTOH a Held opponent can still do purely mental things, such as cast a
    > > Silent Teleport.
    >
    > Or if they've got spell-like abilities, such as a Pit Fiend they can
    > toss off a couple of fireballs point blank.

    As noted in the recent 'created undead can kill their pit fiend
    creator' thread, yes.


    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  43. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <cebJe.78519$rb6.67776@lakeread07>, ranpoirier@cox.net
    says...

    > > You have it backward, you don't constantly ban stuff, you ban
    > > EVERYTHING and then let some things in. Anything that you or
    > > one of your players wants and that looks ballanced can be let
    > > in after examination. But the default is PHB/DMG/MM only with
    > > variants and things that are explicitly optional in the DMG
    > > not used.
    > >
    > > Hence no need to constantly ban stuff. One giant banning at
    > > the start of the campaign followed by letting stuff in when
    > > you need it.
    >
    > The net result is the same.

    Not quite: the difference is that when you buy a new book with 16 PrCs,
    45 feats and 59 spells, you only have to review the one PrC and two
    feats the players want now.

    Of course, after a session or two, you'll have to review another feat,
    and three more spells &c., but you don't have to go through the whole
    book at once, and the players don't need to wait for you to go through
    the whole book before they can take the one thing they want, and they
    know up front they can't just make Complete Unearthed Exalted
    Warrior/Adventurer of Sandstorm and say "I made it before you banned
    Nymph's Kiss, if you take it away now I'll have to reworke the whole
    character, you nerfmeister, you!"


    --
    Jasin Zujovic
    jzujovic@inet.hr
  44. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jasin Zujovic wrote:

    > In article <cebJe.78519$rb6.67776@lakeread07>, ranpoirier@cox.net
    > says...
    >
    >
    >>>You have it backward, you don't constantly ban stuff, you ban
    >>>EVERYTHING and then let some things in. Anything that you or
    >>>one of your players wants and that looks ballanced can be let
    >>>in after examination. But the default is PHB/DMG/MM only with
    >>>variants and things that are explicitly optional in the DMG
    >>>not used.
    >>>
    >>>Hence no need to constantly ban stuff. One giant banning at
    >>>the start of the campaign followed by letting stuff in when
    >>>you need it.
    >>
    >>The net result is the same.
    >
    >
    > Not quite: the difference is that when you buy a new book with 16 PrCs,
    > 45 feats and 59 spells, you only have to review the one PrC and two
    > feats the players want now.

    Well, then I am already doing what you suggest. I buy the book and
    don't promote it or forbid it, and half the time I don't look at the
    feats/spells/whatever until someone wants to take them. Then I decide
    if I want to disallow them.


    > Of course, after a session or two, you'll have to review another feat,
    > and three more spells &c., but you don't have to go through the whole
    > book at once, and the players don't need to wait for you to go through
    > the whole book before they can take the one thing they want, and they
    > know up front they can't just make Complete Unearthed Exalted
    > Warrior/Adventurer of Sandstorm and say "I made it before you banned
    > Nymph's Kiss, if you take it away now I'll have to reworke the whole
    > character, you nerfmeister, you!"

    Myself and the other local DM do ask players to give "PC plans"
    revealing what they plan to do with their characters and at what levels.
    This comes with a warning that if they don't provide plans, they can't
    get mad that they didn't learn until later on that a particular thing
    isn't going to be allowed.

    So far, no one has actually presented either of us with a PC plan. What
    ends up happening is that people discuss their plans a level or two in
    advance, and we end up checking stuff out then. It's only happened once
    that someone scrapped their character over one of our decisions to
    alter/forbid stuff mid-campaign, and that was with a psion who had the
    direct-damage energy powers (Energy XXX). Kineticist? When I decided
    to reign in the pumpable DCs for the energy powers, the player decided
    he didn't want to deal with me changing things and scrapped the PC.

    As I said, the net result is the same. Well, maybe *slightly*
    different, but more or less the same.

    - Ron ^*^
  45. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <HQ1Ke.111726$rb6.84522@lakeread07>, ranpoirier@cox.net
    says...

    > Myself and the other local DM do ask players to give "PC plans"
    > revealing what they plan to do with their characters and at what levels.
    > This comes with a warning that if they don't provide plans, they can't
    > get mad that they didn't learn until later on that a particular thing
    > isn't going to be allowed.
    >
    > So far, no one has actually presented either of us with a PC plan.

    I make plans like that for most of my characters. While I don't actually
    provide the DM with a copy, I ask explicitly about most or all non-core
    options I plan to use. Most people in my group(s) don't actually make
    level-by-level plans (I think), but most ask about non-core stuff they
    plan to use well in advance.


    --
    Jasin Zujovic
    jzujovic@inet.hr
  46. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jasin Zujovic wrote:

    > In article <HQ1Ke.111726$rb6.84522@lakeread07>, ranpoirier@cox.net
    > says...
    >
    >
    >>Myself and the other local DM do ask players to give "PC plans"
    >>revealing what they plan to do with their characters and at what levels.
    >> This comes with a warning that if they don't provide plans, they can't
    >>get mad that they didn't learn until later on that a particular thing
    >>isn't going to be allowed.
    >>
    >>So far, no one has actually presented either of us with a PC plan.
    >
    >
    > I make plans like that for most of my characters. While I don't actually
    > provide the DM with a copy, I ask explicitly about most or all non-core
    > options I plan to use. Most people in my group(s) don't actually make
    > level-by-level plans (I think), but most ask about non-core stuff they
    > plan to use well in advance.

    It's pretty much the same here, too.

    - Ron ^*^
  47. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 21:56:54 -0400, Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net>
    raised a finger to the sky and proclaimed:
    >Jasin Zujovic wrote:
    >
    >> In article <HQ1Ke.111726$rb6.84522@lakeread07>, ranpoirier@cox.net
    >> says...
    >>
    >>
    >>>Myself and the other local DM do ask players to give "PC plans"
    >>>revealing what they plan to do with their characters and at what levels.
    >>> This comes with a warning that if they don't provide plans, they can't
    >>>get mad that they didn't learn until later on that a particular thing
    >>>isn't going to be allowed.
    >>>
    >>>So far, no one has actually presented either of us with a PC plan.
    >>
    >>
    >> I make plans like that for most of my characters. While I don't actually
    >> provide the DM with a copy, I ask explicitly about most or all non-core
    >> options I plan to use. Most people in my group(s) don't actually make
    >> level-by-level plans (I think), but most ask about non-core stuff they
    >> plan to use well in advance.
    >
    >It's pretty much the same here, too.
    >
    > - Ron ^*^

    Strange - most of my group knows exactly what levels they will be
    taking, whether going into a prestige class, or staying straight or
    multiclassed. We're just the opposite of your group.

    --
    Either way, I hate you Count Chocula, if I didn't already.
    - Drifter Bob, rec.games.frp.dnd
  48. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    See, I can't plan it out ahead of time too stringently. I'll know what
    I'm intending the character to do, eventually, but that can change.
    After all, what if campaign events cause the characters needs to
    change? I may start out a character with aspirations towards
    knighthood-type things (ie, aspirations to full plate, cavalier PrC,
    etc) only to have campaign events requring the character evolve more
    towards a stealthy scout type.

    That said, I think it's a good idea to have a least a rough outline of
    what you want to do with the character, so you're not forcing yourself
    to wait three extra levels because you forgot you needed a feat...
  49. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:

    > Dave Butler wrote:
    >
    >>Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Dave Butler <ci915@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>save). I'm going to call it a 7th-level spell, although it's not
    >>>>vastly weaker than /pw:s/ (removing the hitpoint cap improves it,
    >>>>but touch attack and save weaken it).
    >>
    >>>Touch attack doesn't weaken it *much* because you don't decide to use it
    >>>until *after* you've already touched. While it still requires a touch
    >>>in order to be effective at all, you've already determined that you
    >>>*have* touched.
    >>
    >>Doesn't a touch spell count as used even if you miss the attack roll?
    >>I was certain that that was the case.
    >
    >
    > Nope.

    But is IS discharged if you cast ANY other spell.

    - Ron ^*^
Ask a new question

Read More

Video Games