| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 14 Jun 2003 : 16:44:56
We've had several new weapons, items, and spells, new skills and feats, and even a discussion that included some discorse on the bard spell list. We've had a small discussion on technology and firearms and at least three new character races. All of these have been fan-based.
But what else is out there? Do you have new rules, rulings, or techniques that you've had in campaigns? Or just things you wonder about but haven't tested for whatever reason?
Step right up and post 'em here! You've just entered the Candlekeeper's Review Board! |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 23 Feb 2004 : 00:42:30
As you should have noticed by now in your own PbeM, Mumadar, I'm less interested in making the most of things, and more in making things actually make sense -- both in balanced gameplay and in balanced roleplay. When I find something that doesn't seem to make sense to me -- in anything -- I simply have to stop and see if I can make it fit, or if all else fails, replace it. You wouldn't believe the number of times I've figured out answers to what I saw as errors in old science texts, only to find out in later publications that someone else already published a more elegant version.
Anyway, while you're here, why don't you mention the house rules you play under, Mumadar? |
| Mumadar Ibn Huzal |
Posted - 22 Feb 2004 : 14:41:11
quote:
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
Let me brush this old scroll off to ask about another issue.
A specialist wizard gains +1 spell per day per spell level, and a +2 Spellcraft bonus on spells from his/her favored school. The specialist then loses one or more schools, including scrolls and wands, and takes a -4 penalty on checks to identify prohibited spells. In D&D 3.5e, this changes to two prohibited schools (unless the specialist is a Diviner), with the same bonus.
Put in this way, what idiot would want this option?
What I'd like to know is if anyone has any thoughts on just how balanced this is, and if there are any homebrewed fixes for it.
I'll throw my 2cp into this discussion. Someone who's less interested getting the maximum out of the rules might want to opt for the 3.5e rules. Besides, if we're talking about specialization than said wizard would probably not miss the spells of the prohibited schools - after all he is specialized in something else, and a specialist tends to use his specialization to overcome hindrances and obstacles of any nature - otherwise the term specialization doesn't make much sense... |
| The Sage |
Posted - 22 Feb 2004 : 13:00:12
quote:
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
Actually, what I was thinking was to remove the +1 spell, but allow the speciallist to cast favored spells at +1 caster level. Thoughts?
I agree, it's a good suggestion, although until it's play-tested you can never really know.
The funny thing about this is though, that during the revision period just before the 3.5 rules were released, it was said on the WotC forums that the wizard's bonus spell 'difficulties' in 3.0e would be improved and players would be presented with a better alternative in 3.5e. So far I've seen nothing that outweighs the potential inbalance evident with the old rules.
|
| Arivia |
Posted - 22 Feb 2004 : 06:16:53
It has promise, but needs playtesting. Both variants treat different specializations better. Evokers would want the +1 CL, while an enchanter would want the extra spell. |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 22 Feb 2004 : 06:09:38
Actually, what I was thinking was to remove the +1 spell, but allow the speciallist to cast favored spells at +1 caster level. Thoughts? |
| Arivia |
Posted - 22 Feb 2004 : 06:00:14
Well, okay...It's not perfect, but it works. Most every specialist(and for that matter, general mage) that I've played has had one or two schools that they get no use out of. Occasionally, I may want claws of darkness or such for an abjurer, but I feel it's worth losing invisibility and such for an extra dispel magic and banishment per day. I may end up redoing this at some point(as sometime soon, I'll have to expand it to take into account Aslarian energy mages), but for generic D&D and FR campaigns, I feel it works well enough. However, one of the major things keeping me from changing it is the 3.0 incantatrix prestige class, which gets heavy use out of a forced specialization in Abjuration. As we know that this is being redesigned for inclusion in the Player's Guide to Faerun, and I highly suspect that it will lose the obligatory specialization in that printing, my thoughts may change in late March. I haven't touched either part yet because they do work together well, both see use, and both are balanced. If someone does a nice enough job to remove the connection, then I don't know. |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 22 Feb 2004 : 05:44:30
Really? You think that an extra spell per spell level is worth losing one or more entire schools? |
| Arivia |
Posted - 22 Feb 2004 : 05:38:40
My solution: Go back to the 3.0 specialization rules. They made a lot more sense, and didn't make a diviner completely useless. I haven't found that any changes need to be made. |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 22 Feb 2004 : 05:30:40
Let me brush this old scroll off to ask about another issue.
A specialist wizard gains +1 spell per day per spell level, and a +2 Spellcraft bonus on spells from his/her favored school. The specialist then loses one or more schools, including scrolls and wands, and takes a -4 penalty on checks to identify prohibited spells. In D&D 3.5e, this changes to two prohibited schools (unless the specialist is a Diviner), with the same bonus.
Put in this way, what idiot would want this option?
What I'd like to know is if anyone has any thoughts on just how balanced this is, and if there are any homebrewed fixes for it. |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 09 Jul 2003 : 00:42:47
Here's something I was thinking of. What if you wanted to play a character that had less than eight points in an ability score, but you were using a point-buy system? In an idle moment a bit ago, I thought of another personality -- someone kind, but who nonetheless rubs people the wrong way. Not his/her fault, it's just something (s)he was born with. This would be represented, of course, by a score of Cha 3.
How would that work, though? Could you subtract points and give them to another ability? Perhaps consider points 3-8 to be worth a half point? That way, when the excess is added to another ability, it doesn't over balance the system -- you only get two points out of that. Of course then a character, if at three points, would have a half-point left over. Maybe consider 3-7 to be half-points, and 8 to be one point.
This is just an idle question coming out of an idle moment, but I'm interested in what the DMs would have to say about it. |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 04 Jul 2003 : 10:08:22
Well, for you . . . like I said, it suits you. Me, I like my hood and white beard. (Not that I'd have the latter in Real Life -- too itchy.) |
| The Sage |
Posted - 04 Jul 2003 : 09:54:13
Mournblade said -
quote:
I guess Bookwyrm won the debate....
It really wasn't a question of anyone winning anything, I just simply became tired of the fact that several visitors to Candlekeep were getting both Bookwyrm and I mixed up. Besides, this avatar seems more 'sagely' anyway...
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 03 Jul 2003 : 22:24:58
Gasp! I no longer see myself without a mirror!
Good face, I think it suits you. |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 03 Jul 2003 : 20:39:54
WOW!!! I can actually tell which one is TALKING!!!!!
I guess Bookwyrm won the debate....
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 03 Jul 2003 : 11:53:28
I think it may have been my cousin  .
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 03 Jul 2003 : 11:48:16
Who made that man a scribe, anyway?  |
| The Sage |
Posted - 03 Jul 2003 : 11:29:50
Very droll
Perhaps, or maybe I am just going around and around at Ludicrous Speed!.
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 03 Jul 2003 : 11:21:12
'Course I'm right. When I'm right, I'm right. And me, I'm always right. Even when I'm paraphrasing a spoof movie that has nothing to do with FR whatsoever . . . . |
| The Sage |
Posted - 03 Jul 2003 : 11:18:06
I guess your right  .
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 03 Jul 2003 : 11:15:09
Yes, I suppose so . . . there're so many different feats, of course, but that one's a simple one. Of course, I did just recently read through that section, so perhaps it was just in my mind better. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 03 Jul 2003 : 10:56:34
 Confound it!. I should have remembered that.
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 03 Jul 2003 : 10:41:34
Erm . . . .
Well, I suppose it looks all right. Problem is, there's an Extra Slot feat already . . . although, this one's mechanics are different. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 03 Jul 2003 : 10:19:31
I intend to do some more tinkering with this, but I just thought I would give you a sample, mainly to encourage comments, and/or suggestions.
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 03 Jul 2003 : 10:17:33
Bookwyrm, I have been tinkering on and off with this idea of mine since the discussion we had a short while back, about extra divine spell slots. What I am about to show here is something that finally came into a coherent picture in my mind during class this morning.
It is still in draft form and may change when I have had more time to research alternatives and make changes on it -
Ultimate Power [Special]
Your PC has an extraordinary talent with, and understanding of, the forces of divine magic
Prerequisites: The PC must have the ability to cast the spells of the required spell level, Cleric, INT 15+
Benefit: Your PC is granted an extra spell slot as shown in the chart below
Special: Your PC can take this feat multiple times. The number of extra spell slots your PC is granted is determined purely by the number of times this feat is taken.
Ultimate Power
---------Extra Spell Slots
---------0/1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9
# Taken
1--------1/1/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0
2--------1/0/1/0/0/0/0/0/0/0
3--------1/1/0/1/0/0/0/0/0/0
4--------1/0/1/0/1/0/0/0/0/0
5--------1/1/0/1/0/1/0/0/0/0
6--------1/0/1/0/1/0/1/0/0/0
7--------1/1/0/1/0/1/0/1/0/0
8--------1/0/1/0/1/0/1/0/1/0
9--------1/1/0/1/0/1/0/1/0/1
Thoughts?
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 02 Jul 2003 : 01:22:08
Here's a question for you. I don't really have much of a problem with bonus languages in this way, but don't you think that separate ranks should be bought for reading and writing in a "purchased" language? I mean, the bonus languages are due to a high intelligence. Even during the game, if bonus ability points are given to Intelligence, the bonus language that comes out of an increase is due to the character being smart enough to pick it up. But if the character is training in that language, as shown by having to "buy" it with skill points, shouldn't reading and writing come differently?
Today, that isn't the case, but our societies all encourage high literacy rates. In a world like the Forgotten Realms, though, that wouldn't really be the case. Some classes would learn it more easily than others, like with the wizard, but others wouldn't. Am I making sense? |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 26 Jun 2003 : 23:53:03
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
Only way my archmage gained his quickened Delayed blast fireball.
Exactly. That's why I was so surprised. After all, I read something in the FRCS (the Innate Spell feat) where it said that spell slots above ninth would be detailed in the Epic Level Handbook. |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 26 Jun 2003 : 20:31:00
In the FR campaign setting they make a suggestion of extending spells AND spell levels for hihg level mages. Can't remember what page it is on, and no time to look as Kim is coming over soon. But it is there. And I used it. Only way my archmage gained his quickened Delayed blast fireball.
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 25 Jun 2003 : 12:15:59
Okay, just wondering. And no, I've never played the Dragonlance setting. I've never even read the books, except for four. (And they really didn't apeal to me. And in case you say I need a better cross-section, one of them was an anthology.) |
| The Sage |
Posted - 25 Jun 2003 : 11:32:26
If you've played in Dragonlance, you could probably understand why the listing was this way. This spell list was originally a conversion made for the Dragonlance setting for the Mystic (Cleric) core class during the Fifth Age. I only made a few alterations, to change it, but as I said, it was my first original working idea. My new system is much better. And as for the new system, I am working on it now, to get it ready for posting...
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 25 Jun 2003 : 11:25:31
And if you have a different way to put it, why not put that up? |
|
|
