Search results

My point is that one combat a day makes spellcasters and classes with daily use abilities much more powerful, because they're unlikely to exhaust their spells and/or abilities, even without the use of AP to get extra uses. The rules balance classes with daily use abilities and spells with those...

If you're leveling up so fast that you can afford to spend 2 AP per combat to get an extra Smite, without considering what else your AP can be spent on, that's not the fault of the Paladin class or Action Points. Even without AP, if you're only going through one combat a day, any class that has...

Although really, since you'd need to burn 2 AP to get another use of a class ability like Smite Evil, that would amount to an extra two Smites over an entire level for an 18 Charisma - and that's not even guaranteeing that they'll hit. For most Paladins, they might be better off spending those...

Rings of Protection. Just about every PC has one, because at one point or another, they're going to encounter NPCs that have one (especially if they encounter NPCs from the DMG). Cloaks of Resistance and items that boost ability scores tend to be popular items as well. It gets kind of boring...

I take it you alter the Charisma scores of most of the NPCs in WotC's books (and all of the 1st level warriors of pretty much any race in MM). "Sir, scouts report that the enemy army is approaching... and they're all slouching and cussing". "Orcs?" "No sir, Elves!" ;) MadBlue

I like this. A lot, actually. It functions outside the NPC attitude table used by Diplomacy, and the descriptions are generic enough that they allow NPCs to react according to their nature, but modified by the character's Charisma score. For example, a noticibly high Charisma might get you...

There has been research that suggests that it's the cuteness factor of children (and other young mammals) that evokes a caretaker response in adults, so the findings of that study don't surprise me. That doesn't have anything to do with what Charisma represents in D&D, though. Also, that study...

No. I'm saying that it shouldn't improve or degrade an NPC's intitial attitude. And it doesn't, so it's not like I'm suggesting taking something away from Charisma. Just that I don't think adjusting NPC initial attitudes is the way to go if one wants to add something. Cyberzombie, I agree with...

Interesting. I'm assuming that the affects are there for flavor. For example, an indifferent NPC would still start off as indifferent, he'd just do it in a way that shows more respect for someone with a higher Charisma than for someone with a lower Charisma. Is it relative, though? For example...

Why would a Chaotic Evil NPC feel servility - or even equality - to anyone, unless it were out of fear? And why would a Good NPC feel the urge to dominate a low Charisma character for any reason whatsoever? MadBlue

Just another thought, toadies aren't necessarily evil, but they're usually "slinky, shifty" sorts, or at the very least, uncharismatic sycophants. How are they going to get the chance to toady up to anyone with the system you propose if low-Charisma types tend to get greeted with spits and...

So a Lawful Evil NPC is going to want to toady up to a Cleric of Tymora who walks into the room, just because the character is charismatic? More likely, his reaction would be "got to get this exceptionally charismatic do-gooder out of the picture before he converts too many people to the cause...

The thing is that NPCs' initial attitudes are set according to their nature and circumstances, and it's unlikely that simply meeting a character is going to be enough to shift the NPC's attitude towards the character one way or another. For example, would an evil aligned NPC act more favorably...

Then again, many arcane PrCs are built with the Wizard in mind and require Feats the Wizard has access to as bonus Feats. For every Wizard who has to spend one of their bonus Feats in order to qualify for a PrC, there are probably 10 Wizards saying "What metamagic or item creation Feat am I...

I came up with a workable Bonus Feats for high Charisma rule on the WotC boards. In a nutshell, this is what it looks like: Sorcerers and Bards get their powers through Charisma because of "inborn talent and ability". High Charisma characters are described as "confident" (PHB p10), the MM says...

IMHO it's better as an unnamed bonus, because it leaves the reason why the creature type is a Favored Enemy to the player. My 1/2 Elf Ranger/Scout has FE (Human). He grew up among Elves, but he's utterly intrigued by his human side, so he learned as much about them as he could. I like the idea...

Well, DC 20 means a 5% chance if you have no bonus to your Fort save at all. However, even with a bad Fort Save, a 1st level character with a 12 Con or a 3rd level character with a 10 Con already has a 10% chance to make a DC 20 Fort save (which is what the chances of stabilizing are now). So...

The Dragonlance Campaign Setting has a Noble class. It's a lot like the Aristocrat NPC class, but it has special abilities similar to the Star Wars Noble. It's worth checking out. Dragonlance Campaign Setting was done by WotC for 3.5, so it should be easy to insert the Noble into your game.

The problem is that a human Fighter can get all of those Feats at 1st level. Like Staffan suggested, the combat style Feats that a Ranger gets at levels 6 and 11 should have prerequisites, such as BAB, that would require a Ranger taking the Feats as normal Feats to be around the same level he is...

The way I see it (and actually, it's not really my house rule, it's Andy Collins', so I can't take the credit/blame), Sorcerers should be able to choose the way they apply their Charisma rather than be potentially better at bluffing than anything else. According to the Sorcerer's flavor text...