Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hopeless" data-source="post: 3117834" data-attributes="member: 36349">Hoping this is understandableSeriously, I recommend retiring the character and starting again. That restriction is just evil.Personally I thought the second player chose it because he noticed I was playing a multi-class version, but he roleplayed well the only bit I queried about was why he bothered with the Maximise Spell but that’s just me.Okay, starting to get a bit worried about this DM now...The Halfling is involved in a campaign played by a different dm this one is much better at Call of Cthulhu and tried to add bits of that to his Greyhawk campaign using the Book of Vile Darkness. Energy Substitution would probably have been a better choice. In general, Metamagic feats are more useful for high-level casters than low. However, since you mention it below, why didn't you take Eschew Materials?This was 3.0 and under its rules you need any metamagic feat before being able to select Eschew Material otherwise I would have risked selecting it at 1st level or even 3rd had that restriction not been in place.Okay, remember I said I was worried about that DM?Well, firstly, mixing editions is a really bad idea. What was 'balanced' in 2nd Edition just isn't under 3.x, and vice versa. Heck, even mixing 3.0 and 3.5 can have unexpected consequences. So, that 2nd Ed Flame Strike is a red warning sign, for me.That was just a sample, there were many more and after he killed off my cleric I gave it up for a little over a month only returning because I really preferred the Greyhawk campaign to the Faerun. (PS: When my cleric finally got to use Flame Strike the rules reverted to 3.0)What material component problem? Either take the Eschew Materials feat or, failing that, buys a Spell Component Pouch. It's in the PHB, costs 5 gp, and essentially solves that problem in most cases (and the ones that wouldn't be covered aren't helped by EM).Bought the Spell Component Pouch, just didn’t want to be bogged down with gathering spell components.Yes, in 3.0 Shield is a very nice spell. The mage armour components are included in the SPC, though.Unfortunately my experiences in the Faerun campaign led me to expect to be harried about spell components in all campaigns regardless if the dm.Um, I thought the 3.0 Identify only gave the basic function of the item? Don't you need Analyse Dweomer (or some such) to get the full story?That was one of the changes between 3.0 and 3.5 - the 3.5 Identify gives all powers of a single item, instead of a single power of each of many items.Oh, and I suspect your Extended Detect Magic wouldn't help, either.Its being run under 3.0 rules although I did design the Halfling under 3.5 (Mongoose Pocket Handbook) and only found out about Dancing Lights effects under 3.0 rules since I chose it as a component less version of a Light spell. Didn’t know about Analyse Dweomer though.I'm guessing, but I don't think that's what he meant.I assumed he meant the 3.5 rules for swapping spells for Sorcerors when they reach 4th level or so, which don’t apply under 3.0 rules which is why I messed around with the variant rules in the Book of Familiars.Regarding Identify:So you don’t crush the pearl to add to the cup of fine wine, which I stirred by the owl feather before the mixture is drunk then?Actually I was more worried about the Paladin’s player who’s the usual dm for the Faerun campaign and I really don’t want to lumber you with the other problems I had in his game… To be honest, I most certainly would not play a sorcerer under this DM, and I might well simply not play under this DM at all. If your posts have been an accurate sample of the campaigns, I suspect I would have no fun in such a game. I'm just saying...Please don’t make me tell you what he did in the Greyhawk campaign, I’ve already tried that twice since he literally vilified Paladins’ as far as I’m concerned and I’ve told him to his face that while he’s great at roleplaying a fanatic I can never run a Paladin again after witnessing what he did. And for the record I have no idea how the DM of Greyhawk campaign can still claim he didn’t violate his Paladin’s code because he darn well broke a few under 1st edition rules!That's your argument against Warlocks? That they can see through their own magical darkness? OddHad a bad reaction when another table ran one and made claims that made me wonder if I was hallucinating especially as he claimed he could see through all forms of darkness which is ridiculous as it would make the class better off as a prestige class which is why I mentioned the Shadowdancer.</blockquote>

Verification