Search results

You don't. Let them run around with lowered maximum Hit Points. I agree with Remathilis here. We're all talking past each other. This is the Internet. We should all know by now that it's impossible to change people's minds. :p I'm sorry you're dissatisfied with things as they are, KM.

I'm sorry, KM, but I feel like you're being intentionally argumentative here. The bottom line is that if it doesn't work for the party in question, you can ignore those few words and your players likely won't even know the difference. Instead of just shrugging and embracing that power, though...

Nope. Non-magical weapons that aren't adamantine. In 3rd edition parlance, it's an "or."

If just ONE is magical, it bypasses the Immunities of all of them.

I think a better question would be, "Will you cast Magic Weapon on this?"

I think they're just going to move the line about "even if you're incapable of casting spells" to the general description for wands, as opposed to tacking it onto every wand individually.

Sounds to me like it'd be the perfect name for him to use.

I thought I'd link the source material, in case anyone was wondering where we were getting these. http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/excerpt-golems

So, the Clay Golem's hit point drain on its slam attacks doesn't come back with a rest like other hit point drain abilities we've seen, requiring a restoration or such. How does the EN World community feel about this?

Could work. I have to say that I'm partial to monstrous PCs being... y'know, monstrous. It always made me cringe when a level 1 character of a monstrous race (which had been brought in line with normal PC races) was far weaker than his "run-of-the-mill" compatriots.

How would you handle proficiency bonus? By level, by hit dice, by CR?

I wasn't aware of this connection. Neat. Thanks for enlightening me.

Large creatures get an extra dice on their weapon damage. 1d8 -> 2d8; 2d6 -> 4d6; and so on. This could definitely be a balance issue. It's equivalent to critting on every attack. Now, there's nothing saying you have to give PCs that benefit, but it might tweak the verisimilitude crowd's...

So... we've got a member of the Lords' Alliance, the Order of the Gauntlet and (presumably, based on the color of her clothes) the Harpers. Do we think the party will naturally grow to include the other factions?

I think sage was meant to fill that role, though it does so imperfectly. As for missing backgrounds... I'm with you in that I think campaign-specific backgrounds are really the way to go forward.

But what if I want my bard to be a poet? Or a juggler? Keeping the names generic allows us to refluff them to suit or concept without being locked into generic lute bard #57.

Locally (back when 2E was going strong), there was a lot of speculation about DS being FR in the distant future. As I recall, it was primarily based on a lot of shared similarities between the two maps. Deserts where lakes had been, mountain ranges that persisted from one map to the next...

I'm not sure how I feel about splats being linked to APs. On the one hand, it will make the AP much more tempting if characters are tied directly to it. On the other hand, will the information and options therein be useful for homebrew campaigns or story arcs later down the line?

Sure. More choices are always better.

3d6 drop the highest, in order! Or the array. Player's choice.