Search results

Given that someone posted about how Skip contradicted himself *in the same Sage Advice article*, I think that's fairly safe to do. :)

Hell, I out and out told my players that they could reroll their stats if they didn't like the ones that they got. They didn't. I don't think it'll ever be an issue for my group, barring a simple math error...

I don't buy that for a minute. I don't see how influencing and/or controlling minds has anything to do with life or death. I'd think it would be a darn sight easier to affect the mind of, say, a vampire, than of something alien like an otyugh.

I had in mind something like what the Rules forum operates under, but I see your point, there.

I might have to do that sort of thing, but it seems inelegant. It doesn't seem like even third party companies have done anything like this...

Well, you've got two. (Three, if you count grandma-unfriendly ones.) Mine: no, no, no, druids and rangers are weak enough as it is! Shilsen: sure, but crank up the DC. Take yer pick. :)

In 2e, I always let players, in effect, have spontaneous casting. Back in the day, I remember the pain of the spellcasters taking thirty minutes of *real* time to pick out spells. After we played 3e for a while, I went back to spontinaity. It's worked fine for us -- the other classes don't...

How did that happen, anyway? :)

Arkhandus: then give the wizard spontaneous casting (from what they know in their spellbook) and a d6 HD. In my experience, spontaneous casting balances them out without the d6 HD -- but they could use it, anyway. That's what Monte Cook thought; Arcana Evolved has no d4 HD at all.

So do you think balance is important? And, if it is important to you, and you feel they are failing at achieving game balance, does that hurt your enjoyment of the game any?

Hmm. *Maybe*, if the animals know the Down trick, I might allow that. Maybe. I still think it's poaching on an already unimpressive ability.

The designers at WotC think game balance is extremely important for a roleplaying game. How important do y'all think it is?

Feats, prestige classes, anything? I know that there are ways to use bardic abilities against undead and plants, at least, but that's different. Has anything similar been made for enchantment spells?

All spellcasting should be spontaneous. Fortunately, now that we have the warlock, we can just replace the sorcerer entirely and get on with our lives. :)

That could get you arrested, you know. :uhoh:

If you "handle" someone else's "animal", Eric's Grandma is going to slap you and give you a week's banning. :p What? ;) I'd say you can't do jack, 'cause that is the province of animal empathy. Animal empathy is weak enough without letting handle animal poach on its territory.

If everyone is drow, then there's no need to bother with level adjustments. Just pretend it doesn't exist. As for spell resistance: how annoying would all the extra rolls be? And do you think it would ruin the fun for the spellcasters? Personally, I think it would be an important part of...

Fox's cunning isn't *as* good any more, but the Int bonus is necessary, I think. Anyone know of good prestige classes? Mindbender has icky spell progression, and isn't quite in character for what I had in mind. I could go with the munchkin wizard defaults (loremaster and/or divine oracle)...

No, I'm going for the enchanter. It strikes me as the worst wizard specialist. I'm not taking the easy way out! :)

I must be reading things incorrectly, because I simply *can't* be seeing people imply that a person using fly would fall if they went unconscious. Since the spell has safety precautions built in -- feather fall -- no *sensible* person could possibly say such a thing. So I must not have just...