Recent content by tricky_bob

I have made the "Turn" either channel positive Healing OR positive Damaging energy. I didn't like the idea of Evil Cleric with undead minions getting healed at the same time as the PC's are getting damaged. But more than that I hate the idea that a Turn can heal the party AND harm undead at...

I understand if a PC attacks a Projected Image with a melee attack the DM secretly roll a Will save to see if the PC realizes that the target isn't exactly what he thought it was, but what about ranged attacks and ranged spells? If an archer shoots an arrow from 100ft. away do they get a Will...

no, just the revised version that I'm using :)

I'm currently using +4, but Pathfinder at the moment is only +2. I must say that I'm leaning toward making the DC 11 + CMB [as with caster level checks] and keeping the Imp XXX Feats at +2, the reason? well, as azhrei_fje said, two even PC's will only have a 30% chance of success [11 would...

Pathfinder Combat Manoeuvre Bonus (CMB) Special Combat Actions Combat Manoeuvres During combat, you can attempt to perform a number of manoeuvres that can hinder or even cripple your foe, including bull rush, disarm, grapple, overrun, sunder, and trip. Although these manoeuvres have vastly...

3.5 fix. Melee: Offer the ToB classes as the only melee options. Or possibly offer Manoeuvres on non-Feat levels for the Fighter [would probably stick with Crusader options] Cleric: Remove any Feat that gives alternative uses to Turn attempts. Use the Pathfinder Turn rules [30ft burst...

Dude, there is a HUGE difference between supporting 3P [and getting to continue to use the books I already have] and having to completely start over. Starting from scratch just because WotC want me to...NO!

Fair enough, I apologise for the tone of my post. I just don't understand why so many people are jumping on the 4.0 bandwagon before it has been released. 3P may not be perfected yet, but at least we get a look and a say on how it develops, which can't be a bad thing. But the most important...

Buying into it supports this. Saying NO means maybe the current players will get what they want. WotC wanting us to buy it doesn't mean we want to buy it.

Well I'm guessing you don't want a ROLE-playing game. Its a challenge to role-play in the 3.5 system but 4.0 is just another step towards a board game version of WOW.

You're right, but what it means is that, on the whole, we're happy with what we have. We don't want WotC 's excuse to bleed us dry because we want to continue to play D&D.

Maybe, but those editions had major flaws and the number of players were far fewer than now and I'm assuming you are relating this to your post bag because the internet as today didn't exist and the average player didn't get any say in it or an opportunity to voice an opinion. I don't remember...

Sure but why? Is it not possible that we already have all the races, classes, game worlds that we could ever need to make adventures for the next 10+ years ? The answer is yes we do. What we don't need is a computerised rpg bastard child made entirely for greed. Look at the later 3.5 books...

The Advantage 3P has over 4.0 is that if you don't like the extra stat bonuses given to each Race, either don't use them or adjust your points buy system. If you don't like the skill max ranks idea, use skill points, etc. etc. The point is, is that its Alpha... YOU get to try it out and have a...

I agree, without magic items D&D is going to lose something. I think one of the best books released is the Magic Item Compendium. Why give D&D players a whole book stuffed with great magic items for all budgets if you're going to take them all away a year later??? It makes no sense.