Shadowbane stalker: the best class in the universe?
Jasin Zujovic
It's a rogue/cleric hybrid from Complete Arcane, with strong evil-
huntin' flavour.
I don't think it's really overpowered (hey, it's based on cleric,
diluting that in any way is just a step down) but it's truly the
compleat adventurer.
Divine? Obviously, as it's a cleric PrC. You lose at least three caster
levels, but that's 17 points out of 20. Not the best, but good.
Warrior? Hey, you''ve got cleric spells. Once you get access to divine
power, who cares what your BAB is? The bit of sneak attack you get from
rogue and the PrC doesn't hurt either.
Adventurer? 6 skill points/level, good skills, flat bonuses to search
and sense motive, burn cleric slots for bonuses to hide and move
silently. Interestingly, you're the best trapfinder in the game: you can
easily max search, you get a bit of a bonus on top... and then cast
detect traps on top of that!
Arcane? Well, you have to *not* have something, and arcane is it. Drown
your sorrow in your maxed UMD.
And yet, I don't remember seeing anyone complain that it's overpowered,
and really, it doesn't seem to be to me either. But a ninja inquisitor
would be a perfect character for the game I mentioned (rooting out
cultists in Karrnath)...
--
Jasin Zujovic
Some Guy
I'm using one as an NPC in my current campaign, and the characters
either already have or will eventually come in contact with one. I'll
let you know how it worked out for me when that happens.
Eric P.
Some Guy <noemailfo...@anyplace.invalid> wrote:
> Jasin Zujovic wrote:
> > What are your thoughts about this class?
> >
> > It's a rogue/cleric hybrid from Complete Arcane, with strong evil-
> > huntin' flavour.
Why do I not see Shadowbane Stalker in Complete Arcane?
- E
Christopher Adams
> Some Guy wrote:
>> Jasin Zujovic wrote:
>
>>> What are your thoughts about this class?
>>>
>>> It's a rogue/cleric hybrid from Complete Arcane, with strong evil-
>>> huntin' flavour.
>
> Why do I not see Shadowbane Stalker in Complete Arcane?
Jasin obviously tripped over his own brain. The shadowbane stalker and
shadowbane inquisitor are in Complete Adventurer.
--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
-------
What can change the nature of a man?
-------
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigeclasslist.html
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatelist.html
Some Guy
Djinnis moved it over to Complete Adventurer when you weren't looking.
Eric P.
"Christopher Adams" <mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
> Eric P. wrote:
> > Some Guy wrote:
> >> Jasin Zujovic wrote:
> >
> >>> What are your thoughts about this class?
> >>>
> >>> It's a rogue/cleric hybrid from Complete Arcane, with strong evil-
> >>> huntin' flavour.
> >
> > Why do I not see Shadowbane Stalker in Complete Arcane?
>
> Jasin obviously tripped over his own brain. The shadowbane stalker and
> shadowbane inquisitor are in Complete Adventurer.
Mercy buckets *S*
- E
Some Guy
All them "A" words look alike to me. ;-)
Eric P.
Some Guy <noemailfo...@anyplace.invalid> wrote:
Checkin' out the class now. Looks cool! I don't do much with stealthy
types, but this is something worth working toward.
What are the relative merits of starting out as a cleric and starting
out as a rogue, to work toward this PrC?
Thanks,
Eric
Some Guy
If you're building a high-level character, none unless you want to max
out cleric class skills. It's better to start as rogue for the extra
skill points in most cases.
Eric P.
Some Guy <noemailfo...@anyplace.invalid> wrote:
In that case, I'll work up a Rog1, decide when to add cleric (and how
many levels), then take the PrC. First, I must gather the shadows of
thought and weave them together for a character concept. Already I'm
envisioning a rogue who has a cleric make a favorable impression,
indoctrinates said rogue, then reveals enough details of the
organization to which the Shadowbane Stalkers belong...yes, this could
come together quite well :)
Happy gaming,
Eric
Jasin Zujovic
noemailfo...@anyplace.invalid says...
> >>>What are your thoughts about this class?
> >>>
> >>>It's a rogue/cleric hybrid from Complete Arcane, with strong evil-
> >>>huntin' flavour.
> >
> > Why do I not see Shadowbane Stalker in Complete Arcane?
>
> Djinnis moved it over to Complete Adventurer when you weren't looking.
Right, right!
--
Jasin Zujovic
Jasin Zujovic
mhacde...@yahoo.invalid says...
> Eric P. wrote:
> > Some Guy wrote:
> >> Jasin Zujovic wrote:
> >
> >>> What are your thoughts about this class?
> >>>
> >>> It's a rogue/cleric hybrid from Complete Arcane, with strong evil-
> >>> huntin' flavour.
> >
> > Why do I not see Shadowbane Stalker in Complete Arcane?
... Arcane? WTF?
> Jasin obviously tripped over his own brain. The shadowbane stalker and
> shadowbane inquisitor are in Complete Adventurer.
... oops!
Chris is quite right, of course. :)
--
Jasin Zujovic
Jasin Zujovic
eri...@sbcglobal.net says...
> What are the relative merits of starting out as a cleric and starting
> out as a rogue, to work toward this PrC?
Rogue: buckets o' skill points.
Cleric: +2 hp.
You decide. :)
--
Jasin Zujovic
Eric P.
Jasin Zujovic <jzuj...@inet.hr> wrote:
That's right...and the long, long list of class skills :) I'll go
rogue...er, so to speak.
Thanks,
Eric
Donald Tsang
>Jasin Zujovic <jzuj...@inet.hr> wrote:
>> > What are the relative merits of starting out as a cleric and starting
>> > out as a rogue, to work toward this PrC?
>>
>> Rogue: buckets o' skill points.
>>
>> Cleric: +2 hp.
>>
>> You decide. :)
>
>That's right...and the long, long list of class skills :) I'll go
>rogue...er, so to speak.
Of course, if your first two levels are going to be Cleric and Rogue,
the real difference is only 1 hp on average by 2nd (8 + 3.5avg vs 6 + 4.5avg).
If you're actually starting at 1st level, some other differences to
consider are:
(a) armor proficiencies
(b) weapon proficiencies
(c) saving throw progression
(d) spells vs sneak attack, of course.
You might consider taking a level of Monk or Ranger first... :)
Donald
Eric P.
ts...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (Donald Tsang) wrote:
I have a growing character concept going, so I'm gonna let it develop
further. Perhaps I'll write a few test characters up at first level.
Either they'll be involved in the same Order chapter, or they'll be
independent of each other. I'll just let inspiration take its course.
I always give max hp at first level, so if the rogue ends up with a high
CON, I won't cry over lost hp. A cleric could begin with a lower CON,
and it would all balance out. I'll let the dice fall as they may.
Starting such a character out with a different class, such as suggested
above, would mean it would take longer for the character to attain the
PrC. I prefer to avoid that, and "fast-track" the character(s).
- E
- E
Jasin Zujovic
eri...@sbcglobal.net says...
> I always give max hp at first level, so if the rogue ends up with a high
> CON, I won't cry over lost hp. A cleric could begin with a lower CON,
> and it would all balance out. I'll let the dice fall as they may.
>
> Starting such a character out with a different class, such as suggested
> above, would mean it would take longer for the character to attain the
> PrC. I prefer to avoid that, and "fast-track" the character(s).
Not necessarily. What you need is a level of rogue, a level of cleric
and 5 levels in total. Mnk1/Rog1/Clr3 gets you there as fast as
Rog1/Clr4.
But Rog1/Clr4 probably is the most powerful route, long term, because of
the spellcasting.
--
Jasin Zujovic
Eric P.
Jasin Zujovic <jzuj...@inet.hr> wrote:
That's the way I'll go, then, for the first test character. Just rolled
one up last night, a male Human. How's this look?
STR 14
DEX 17
CON 15
INT 14
WIS 17
CHA 16
I wasn't thrilled with CON, but I see that DEX, WIS, and CHA will give
the character advantages in the best places, which was a lucky break for
me. I rolled 4d6 for each, in order, dropping the lowest die each time.
That's the start. I'll give him feats and allocate skill points today.
To encourage the character to take cleric levels, I've envisioned that
he becomes badly hurt during an early adventure, near dying, and is
healed by a cleric, who's affiliated with a local group of Shadowbane
Stalkers and their close associates. Perhaps the cleric becomes
interested enough in this fellow that he/she begins to guide him along
the path...
And that's the way it is, Wednesday, September 20th, 2006 :)
- E
Rast
eri...@sbcglobal.net says...
[cleric/rogue]
> STR 14
> DEX 17
> CON 15
> INT 14
> WIS 17
> CHA 16
>
> I wasn't thrilled with CON, but I see that DEX, WIS, and CHA will give
> the character advantages in the best places, which was a lucky break for
> me. I rolled 4d6 for each, in order, dropping the lowest die each time.
Was this your only try? Did you use physical dice?
The chance of rolling 14+ on 4d6 drop lowest is 460/1296=.355
The chance of doing this with all six stats is .355^6=.00200
And your character is still better, with three stats at 16+. The math
for that is complicated, but safe to say that he's one in a thousand.
--
"It's only possible to betray where loyalty is due," said Sandy.
"Well, wasn't it due to Miss Brodie?"
"Only up to a point," said Sandy.
- Muriel Spark
Eric P.
Rast <ra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <ericp06-6CA23D...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> eri...@sbcglobal.net says...
>
> [cleric/rogue]
>
> > STR 14
> > DEX 17
> > CON 15
> > INT 14
> > WIS 17
> > CHA 16
> >
> > I wasn't thrilled with CON, but I see that DEX, WIS, and CHA will give
> > the character advantages in the best places, which was a lucky break for
> > me. I rolled 4d6 for each, in order, dropping the lowest die each time.
>
> Was this your only try? Did you use physical dice?
Yes, I only ever roll once through, with 3-dimensional dice that I roll
by hand *L* They are blue, with whitish marble swirls, and gold numbers
instead of dots (not that I NEED them to be numbers...). No rerolls for
any stat.
This set of ability scores is only slightly above the majority of
characters I roll up in recent years. As I recall, many characters I
rolled up in the earlier years of gaming were almost obscene, with 16
being the average score for any given ability.
I'd call this one "toned down," but for the pair of 17s. I'd say this
qualifies him as remarkable, but by no means godlike.
> The chance of rolling 14+ on 4d6 drop lowest is 460/1296=.355
> The chance of doing this with all six stats is .355^6=.00200
>
> And your character is still better, with three stats at 16+. The math
> for that is complicated, but safe to say that he's one in a thousand.
Dunno what to say. Good rolling surface, perhaps :)
Got feats and skill points all sorted this morning. Now to gear up and
play the character some.
- E
Jasin Zujovic
eri...@sbcglobal.net says...
> > > I always give max hp at first level, so if the rogue ends up with a high
> > > CON, I won't cry over lost hp. A cleric could begin with a lower CON,
> > > and it would all balance out. I'll let the dice fall as they may.
> > >
> > > Starting such a character out with a different class, such as suggested
> > > above, would mean it would take longer for the character to attain the
> > > PrC. I prefer to avoid that, and "fast-track" the character(s).
> >
> > Not necessarily. What you need is a level of rogue, a level of cleric
> > and 5 levels in total. Mnk1/Rog1/Clr3 gets you there as fast as
> > Rog1/Clr4.
> >
> > But Rog1/Clr4 probably is the most powerful route, long term, because of
> > the spellcasting.
>
> That's the way I'll go, then, for the first test character. Just rolled
> one up last night, a male Human. How's this look?
>
> STR 14
> DEX 17
> CON 15
> INT 14
> WIS 17
> CHA 16
... it looks like a set of stats worthy of the best class in the
universe. You do know you're supposed to roll 4d6 *and drop lowest*,
don't you? :)
--
Jasin Zujovic
Jasin Zujovic
eri...@sbcglobal.net says...
> Got feats and skill points all sorted this morning. Now to gear up and
> play the character some.
Out of curiosity, how can you just think up a character and start
playing him? Are games wanting player so plentiful in your parts? Or are
you retiring some other character? Or did this thread just happen to
come in the right time when you were getting read for a new game?
What feats did you take? I'm thinking a shadowbane stalker could make a
pretty terrifying TWF-er and at higher levels... But if I play mine,
I'll probably just go for Spring Attack.
--
Jasin Zujovic
Eric P.
Jasin Zujovic <jzuj...@inet.hr> wrote:
> In article <ericp06-8425C3...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> eri...@sbcglobal.net says...
>
> > Got feats and skill points all sorted this morning. Now to gear up and
> > play the character some.
>
> Out of curiosity, how can you just think up a character and start
> playing him? Are games wanting player so plentiful in your parts? Or are
> you retiring some other character? Or did this thread just happen to
> come in the right time when you were getting read for a new game?
Well, as this is a test, I'll be flying solo...er, so to speak. I know
of only two other people nearby who play (and there are probably more,
but my time wouldn't allow for proper commitment to a regular play
schedule, unlike in the "old days"), and I rarely even talk with them
lately. As for retiring, I do that only when a character dies, and then
only when I really don't want to play the character anymore.
Ideally, there would be a game starting up where I could insert this
character, and that would be easy to do if I was living in the south SF
Bay area, where I knew plenty of gamers, but I'm fairly isolated these
days, living in a strange place and attending school.
> What feats did you take? I'm thinking a shadowbane stalker could make a
> pretty terrifying TWF-er and at higher levels... But if I play mine,
> I'll probably just go for Spring Attack.
You may not be impressed by my choice of feats, but you might object to
how many the character has. I use the _Iron Heroes_ and _Arcana
Unearthed_ approaches, where you give a beginning character two traits,
one ceremonial feat, one talent or regular feat, and one feat for being
a Human. Here's what I arrived at:
Trait: City Rat (Face in the Crowd) - gives you +2 on Survival checks in
the city, even if you don't have that skill; use a standard action to
blend into a crowd on a Disguise check. Crowd must not be hostile, and
must be of same race and ethnicity.
Trait: Lithe Acrobat - +2 to Tumble checks, use Tumble to move at full
rate without penalty.
Talent: Ambidexterity - ignore the standard -4 penalty to use an
off-hand weapon, as you have no "off" hand.
Human: Nimble Fingers - as per core rules.
Off to a good start, I'd say, and just enough starting cash to deck
himself out with a few weapons, a shield, some studded leather (I know,
no imagination there), and maybe a bit of useful gear.
- E
Tim
"Eric P." <eri...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ericp06-63FDE2...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <MPG.1f7bbfec8...@news.iskon.hr>,
> Jasin Zujovic <jzuj...@inet.hr> wrote:
>> Out of curiosity, how can you just think up a character and start
>> playing him? Are games wanting player so plentiful in your parts? Or are
>> you retiring some other character? Or did this thread just happen to
>> come in the right time when you were getting read for a new game?
>
> Well, as this is a test, I'll be flying solo...er, so to speak.
So no DM? You're running through a 1-player module, and you're the DM and
player? Is that how you're doing it?
Tim
Madkaugh
Eric P. wrote:
> In article <MPG.1f7b171ae...@news.iskon.hr>,
> Jasin Zujovic <jzuj...@inet.hr> wrote:
>
> > In article <ericp06-6E5E33...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> > eri...@sbcglobal.net says...
> >
> > > I always give max hp at first level, so if the rogue ends up with a high
> > > CON, I won't cry over lost hp. A cleric could begin with a lower CON,
> > > and it would all balance out. I'll let the dice fall as they may.
> > >
> > > Starting such a character out with a different class, such as suggested
> > > above, would mean it would take longer for the character to attain the
> > > PrC. I prefer to avoid that, and "fast-track" the character(s).
> >
> > Not necessarily. What you need is a level of rogue, a level of cleric
> > and 5 levels in total. Mnk1/Rog1/Clr3 gets you there as fast as
> > Rog1/Clr4.
> >
> > But Rog1/Clr4 probably is the most powerful route, long term, because of
> > the spellcasting.
>
> That's the way I'll go, then, for the first test character. Just rolled
> one up last night, a male Human. How's this look?
>
> STR 14
> DEX 17
> CON 15
> INT 14
> WIS 17
> CHA 16
It looks like a 56 point character. That is twice what
you use for a Living Greyhawk character.
Arandor
> Eric P. wrote:
> > STR 14
> > DEX 17
> > CON 15
> > INT 14
> > WIS 17
> > CHA 16
>
> It looks like a 56 point character. That is twice what
> you use for a Living Greyhawk character.
Exactly - and freak rolls like this is exactly the reason I never use
rolling for stats (in games I am GM for; and I strongly suggest
point-buy if I'm a player, too), or hit points. There's enough rolling
in-game without having to start uneven, thank-you-very-much.
And Eric was 'not thrilled' about Con? Sheesh, play a Dwarf (Cha 14 is
still great) or Gnome (ok, so Str 12 is not optimal for a Cleric, but
workable) then...
Marcel Beaudoin
@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
> Madkaugh wrote:
>> Eric P. wrote:
>> > STR 14
>> > DEX 17
>> > CON 15
>> > INT 14
>> > WIS 17
>> > CHA 16
>>
>> It looks like a 56 point character. That is twice what
>> you use for a Living Greyhawk character.
>
> Exactly - and freak rolls like this is exactly the reason I never use
> rolling for stats (in games I am GM for; and I strongly suggest
> point-buy if I'm a player, too), or hit points. There's enough rolling
> in-game without having to start uneven, thank-you-very-much.
The DM in the campaign I am starting in a couple of weeks has us using the
Elite Array set of stats. That works out to 25 in the point buy system
IIRC.
--
Marcel
http://mudbunny.blogspot.com/
Arandor
> The DM in the campaign I am starting in a couple of weeks has us using the
> Elite Array set of stats. That works out to 25 in the point buy system
> IIRC.
Yep, it does. 8 = 0, 10 = 2, 12 = 4, 13 = 5, 14 = 6, 15 = 8; and 0 + 2
+ 4 + 5 + 6 + 8 = 25.
I generally start my players with 28 points (same as Living Greyhawk
IIRC) or sometimes 32, if I want 'high powered'. With 28 points, you
can easily start with your primary stat at 15 or 16 (8 or 10 points),
Con at 14 (6 points) for the hit points, Int at 14 (another 6 points)
for the skill points, and still have a few points to play around with.
You will probably leave a stat at 8; so what? And with 32 points, you
don't even need to do that.
Eric P.
"Madkaugh" <madk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I don't use point systems for building characters. Was never happy with
the results.
This one's definitely a keeper, as long as he's successful :)
- E
Eric P.
"Tim" <t...@nah.com> wrote:
> Tim
Yeah. Have to separate my mind between player and DM for this...
Not my method of choice, but right now it's the only way I can test a
new character, so I'll set up some encounters, as though I was DMing a
play group...which reminds me, I'll have to hook up at least one NPC to
make a party.
I'm still kinda fuzzy on how to balance encounters against parties of 3
or 2, or against a single PC.
- E
Justisaur
for 3 run against encounters for a party 1 level lower.
for 2 run against encounters for a party 2 levels lower.
and for a soloist, run against encounters for a party 4 levels lower.
Soloing is extremely dangerous in 3.x D&D though, even against
encounters for 4 levels lower. I ran some solo games (the way you are
planning) with 1st lv characters and found cleric and sorcerer didn't
make it to 2nd, barbarian didn't make it past 2nd. I had a
rogue/ranger that made it to 4th before I got bored with it. The
stealth aspect allowed him to avoid encounters that looked to be too
tough for him.
- Justisaur
Justisaur
I'd never saddle players with an Elite Array. 25 point buy is worse
than 4d6 drop lowest for average abilities, but it does give you more
choice, so it's possibly a reasonable trade off (not one I'd be happy
with though). However with Elite Array you get no choice, so it's
worse than any method in the DMG. You are basically playing an NPC at
that point.
I do prefer an array however to the unbalanced results 4d6 drop lowest
always seem to give, and the constraints and difficulty of a point buy
system. So that's what I'm using in my current game, although higher
than Elite. I'm using what I'm calling the 'Heroic Array' (and you can
see alternatives I made if you google this group for that) which is 17,
16, 14, 13, 11, 10. It's working out great so far.
- Justisaur
Eric P.
"Justisaur" <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
Why do I hear doomy music in the back of my mind? ;)
Makes me feel like rounding up a gaming group of my own, or finding one
that will welcome this new character *sigh*
...so it goes...
- E
Madkaugh
39 points. Ron used that, IIRC.
MadKaugh
Arandor
> I don't use point systems for building characters. Was never happy with
> the results.
>
> This one's definitely a keeper, as long as he's successful :)
I can understand you are not happy with point systems if you get rolls
like that; this is double what you get in already slightly higher
28-point buy.
With stats like that:
STR 14
DEX 17
CON 15
INT 14
WIS 17
CHA 16
I'd be happy too. And then a Str 12 Dex 15 Con 12 Int 14 Wis 8 Cha 14
(28-point buy) just doesn't seem to cut it...
But will it be fun for the other players if they got more average
results, resulting in 'only' 30-point buy equivalent stats; which means
from the Str 12 Dex 15 Con 12 Int 14 Wis 8 Cha 14 they could e.g. up
the Dex to 16 or the Wis to 10). I certainly would feel a little 'set
back' if I think I have a couple of good rolls and then get completely
blasted out of the water with that array of yours.
You have higher Dex than most starting Rogues, a Wis that a starting
Cleric, Druid or Monk would die for, as well as a Cha that a starting
Bard or Cha would be very happy with. While your Str is decidedly
sub-par for a starting Barbarian or Fighter, you'd do OK-ish,
especially since your AC and hit points don't exactly suck with that
Dex and Con.
Why do you even need the rest of the party? Wouldn't they only cramp
your style? Sure, you rolled your stats fair and square, but would you
keep them if you rolled fair and square Str 9 Dex 11 Con 18 Int 12 Wis
4 Cha 13? Hey, at least your Con is high enough. And your net total
bonus is +2. And, if it weren't for that Wis 4, this is 29-point buy,
so even higher than Greyhawk.
Eric P.
"Arandor" <ara...@gmail.com> wrote:
Companions = strength and safety in numbers, and will increase
survivability. Of course, this character's (still no name yet) first
encounter will be solo, but he'll quickly catch the eye of a cleric
who's scouting/recruiting for the Shadowbane folks, so the cleric will
become his adventuring companion. Another character will join in, and
I'll probably keep the trio as a party for a while.
I would not have kept an ability score of less than 10, as I never do.
The more I think of it, the more I can see that the scores I got for
this character would probably make a decent character of just about any
class.
- E
Madkaugh
What does that mean, you reroll scores less than ten?
You reroll the whole character? Either way, it explains
a lot.
> The more I think of it, the more I can see that the scores I got for
> this character would probably make a decent character of just about any
> class.
>
> - E
You think?
>>> I don't use point systems for building characters.
>>> Was never happy with the results.
Point buy or fixed array systems provide a way for
every player to have a fair character. Rolling produces
an uneven party (like yours will be, if the other players
roll a kosher 4d6 drop 1), ensuring the sessions are
less that fun for some of the players. It should be
pretty lame for you as well, because there should be
little challenge.
You mentioned running this character solo. How does
that work? Do you ever play D&D with other people?
MadKaugh
Eric P.
"Madkaugh" <madk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Eric P. wrote:
> > In article <1158911848....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Arandor" <ara...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Eric P. wrote:
>
> > I would not have kept an ability score of less than 10, as I never do.
>
> What does that mean, you reroll scores less than ten?
> You reroll the whole character? Either way, it explains
> a lot.
For this particular character, I rolled only six times, once for each
ability score. That's the way I normally do it, but I do reroll any
score that would result in a negative modifier, instead of a bonus of 0
or better. I don't do single digits for ability scores.
> > The more I think of it, the more I can see that the scores I got for
> > this character would probably make a decent character of just about any
> > class.
> >
> > - E
>
> You think?
>
>
> >>> I don't use point systems for building characters.
> >>> Was never happy with the results.
>
> Point buy or fixed array systems provide a way for
> every player to have a fair character. Rolling produces
> an uneven party (like yours will be, if the other players
> roll a kosher 4d6 drop 1), ensuring the sessions are
> less that fun for some of the players. It should be
> pretty lame for you as well, because there should be
> little challenge.
I'm good at rolling fumbles, though *L*
> You mentioned running this character solo. How does
> that work? Do you ever play D&D with other people?
>
> MadKaugh
Most of the time, I've played with other people. In cases like this,
though, when I want to test something and there's no other way to do it,
I have to be player and DM in one.
- E
Some Guy
> Madkaugh wrote:
>
>>Eric P. wrote:
>>
>>>STR 14
>>>DEX 17
>>>CON 15
>>>INT 14
>>>WIS 17
>>>CHA 16
>>
>>It looks like a 56 point character. That is twice what
>>you use for a Living Greyhawk character.
>
>
> Exactly - and freak rolls like this is exactly the reason I never use
> rolling for stats (in games I am GM for; and I strongly suggest
> point-buy if I'm a player, too), or hit points. There's enough rolling
> in-game without having to start uneven, thank-you-very-much.
I let my players roll stats, but it's interesting to see the disparity
in results, particularly for those who roll in front of me verus those
who show up with a character they've rolled.
> And Eric was 'not thrilled' about Con? Sheesh, play a Dwarf (Cha 14 is
> still great) or Gnome (ok, so Str 12 is not optimal for a Cleric, but
> workable) then...
>
I guess if he's upset that his lowest score is 14, he's got rather high
expectations.
I like dice rolling, so what I do for NPCs instead of assigning the
elite array is to make a huge set, say 100 or so, of 6 x 4d6 rolls and
then cross out the invalid characters using the PC standards. In the
five years I've been DMing 3E I've only every had a character as good as
Eric's show up randomly, so I don't blame him for wanting to keep it.
It's pretty rare.
Eric P.
Some Guy <noemailfo...@anyplace.invalid> wrote:
> Arandor wrote:
> > Madkaugh wrote:
> >
> >>Eric P. wrote:
> >>
> >>>STR 14
> >>>DEX 17
> >>>CON 15
> >>>INT 14
> >>>WIS 17
> >>>CHA 16
> >>
> >>It looks like a 56 point character. That is twice what
> >>you use for a Living Greyhawk character.
> >
> >
> > Exactly - and freak rolls like this is exactly the reason I never use
> > rolling for stats (in games I am GM for; and I strongly suggest
> > point-buy if I'm a player, too), or hit points. There's enough rolling
> > in-game without having to start uneven, thank-you-very-much.
>
> I let my players roll stats, but it's interesting to see the disparity
> in results, particularly for those who roll in front of me verus those
> who show up with a character they've rolled.
>
> > And Eric was 'not thrilled' about Con? Sheesh, play a Dwarf (Cha 14 is
> > still great) or Gnome (ok, so Str 12 is not optimal for a Cleric, but
> > workable) then...
I wasn't unimpressed because of the number itself, but I always hope for
a CON of at least 16.
In an earlier incarnation of the rules, when there was an alternate rule
for "demi-humans" to use larger numbers of d6 for each ability score,
most of my characters came out with two scores of 18 on the average.
Every roll I've ever made has been legit, though. Some characters that
I've inherited from others have had some lower scores than I'd have
liked, but I accepted that and dealt with it. Now, I think I need to
shake my reservations about lower scores, since we can increase any
score we like by virtue of levels and feats.
> I guess if he's upset that his lowest score is 14, he's got rather high
> expectations.
Guilty as charged, M'lord ;) It's an old habit. I need to just not worry
about it.
> I like dice rolling, so what I do for NPCs instead of assigning the
> elite array is to make a huge set, say 100 or so, of 6 x 4d6 rolls and
> then cross out the invalid characters using the PC standards. In the
> five years I've been DMing 3E I've only every had a character as good as
> Eric's show up randomly, so I don't blame him for wanting to keep it.
> It's pretty rare.
I used to roll up lists of ability scores and just keep 'em handy for
whenever I needed to write up a new character, but a little voice nagged
me away from such practices, so now I roll no sooner than necessary.
Not all my rolls come out so well, though. I've seen characters with all
14s and 15s. OTOH, I've had characters starting with as many as three
18s, on rare occasions before applying any ability modifiers! There's
one character of whom I'm fond, a female Moon Elf Warpriest of Tempus,
CN. Her rolls initially came out to three 16s and three 17s. I was
amazed, and so was the DM, but it was all legit, and it took several
levels before she became a force with which to be reckoned. Her
enthusiasm for warfare has always far outweighed her combat ability.
- E
Madkaugh
Eric P. wrote:
> In article <1158943326....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> "Madkaugh" <madk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Eric P. wrote:
> > > In article <1158911848....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Arandor" <ara...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Eric P. wrote:
> >
> > > I would not have kept an ability score of less than 10, as I never do.
> >
> > What does that mean, you reroll scores less than ten?
> > You reroll the whole character? Either way, it explains
> > a lot.
>
> For this particular character, I rolled only six times, once for each
> ability score. That's the way I normally do it, but I do reroll any
> score that would result in a negative modifier, instead of a bonus of 0
> or better. I don't do single digits for ability scores.
The average attribute when you roll 3d6 is 10.5
The average attribute when you roll 4d6 drop 1 is 12.24
If you also reroll all results of 9 or less, the average is 13.18
MadKaugh
Cayzle
I have put a lot of thought into this prestige class, which I just
posted about at great length on my blog:
But let me give you the executive summary. My personal opinion is that
the DMG Prestige Classes (PrCs) are the golden rule by which to judge
all others. By that rule, the Shadowbane Stalker (SbS) is overpowered
and not suitable for play.
Its hit die is too large, skill ranks too generous, and bonuses granted
by class abilities too big. If you are going to give only 8 spell
casting levels, you should make the levels that do NOT add to caster
level be levels 1 and 6 to prevent dipping. It uses a nonstandard
mechanic (giving up prepped spells to gain special ability uses)
instead of a standard number of uses per day.
All that said, there are ways to nerf the PrC back into playability.
Check out my blog for ideas.
Is it "the best class in the universe?" IMNSHO, only if you think that
unbalanced = best!
>
> It's a rogue/cleric hybrid from Complete Arcane, with strong evil-
> huntin' flavour.
>
> I don't think it's really overpowered (hey, it's based on cleric,
> diluting that in any way is just a step down) but it's truly the
> compleat adventurer.
>
> Divine? Obviously, as it's a cleric PrC. You lose at least three caster
> levels, but that's 17 points out of 20. Not the best, but good.
>
> Warrior? Hey, you''ve got cleric spells. Once you get access to divine
> power, who cares what your BAB is? The bit of sneak attack you get from
> rogue and the PrC doesn't hurt either.
>
> Adventurer? 6 skill points/level, good skills, flat bonuses to search
> and sense motive, burn cleric slots for bonuses to hide and move
> silently. Interestingly, you're the best trapfinder in the game: you can
> easily max search, you get a bit of a bonus on top... and then cast
> detect traps on top of that!
>
> Arcane? Well, you have to *not* have something, and arcane is it. Drown
> your sorrow in your maxed UMD.
>
> And yet, I don't remember seeing anyone complain that it's overpowered,
> and really, it doesn't seem to be to me either. But a ninja inquisitor
> would be a perfect character for the game I mentioned (rooting out
> cultists in Karrnath)...
>
>
> --
> Jasin Zujovic
Eric P.
"Madkaugh" <madk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I've been aware of average die rolls for many, many years. That doesn't
stop my dice from rolling loads of 14s and 15s. I don't think they
understand averages ;) And no, they're not weighted, nor do I attempt to
influence the die roll results in any way.
- E
Jasin Zujovic
cay...@gmail.com says...
> > What are your thoughts about this class?
>
> I have put a lot of thought into this prestige class, which I just
> posted about at great length on my blog:
>
> http://www.cayzle.com
>
> But let me give you the executive summary. My personal opinion is that
> the DMG Prestige Classes (PrCs) are the golden rule by which to judge
> all others. By that rule, the Shadowbane Stalker (SbS) is overpowered
> and not suitable for play.
Is it more powerful than a barbarian?
Is it more powerful than a wizard?
Is it more powerful than a cleric?
> If you are going to give only 8 spell
> casting levels, you should make the levels that do NOT add to caster
> level be levels 1 and 6 to prevent dipping.
Dipping is prevented by the requirements. Someone who just wants to be a
cleric and is looking to grab a couple of freebies is better off as a
straight cleric, instead of taking the Rog level you need. Someone who
wants to be a rogue/cleric is better off taking shadowbane stalker all
the way than dipping.
> It uses a nonstandard
> mechanic (giving up prepped spells to gain special ability uses)
> instead of a standard number of uses per day.
I don't see that as a bad thing at all. Nonstandard mechanics (if
they're good) mean the class has something unique to offer, instead of
being just a pile of standard building blocks like evasion, uncanny
dodge, and spell-like abilities usable X/day.
--
Jasin Zujovic
Jasin Zujovic
eri...@sbcglobal.net says...
> > The average attribute when you roll 3d6 is 10.5
> >
> > The average attribute when you roll 4d6 drop 1 is 12.24
> >
> > If you also reroll all results of 9 or less, the average is 13.18
>
> I've been aware of average die rolls for many, many years. That doesn't
> stop my dice from rolling loads of 14s and 15s. I don't think they
> understand averages ;) And no, they're not weighted, nor do I attempt to
> influence the die roll results in any way.
Well, if they consistently roll above average, they're *somehow* screwy
pretty much by definition, no?
--
Jasin Zujovic
Madkaugh
Eric P. wrote:
> In article <1159251657....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "Madkaugh" <madk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Eric P. wrote:
> > > In article <1158943326....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Madkaugh" <madk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Eric P. wrote:
> > > > > In article <1158911848....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > "Arandor" <ara...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Eric P. wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I would not have kept an ability score of less than 10, as I never do.
> > > >
> > > > What does that mean, you reroll scores less than ten?
> > > > You reroll the whole character? Either way, it explains
> > > > a lot.
> > >
> > > For this particular character, I rolled only six times, once for each
> > > ability score. That's the way I normally do it, but I do reroll any
> > > score that would result in a negative modifier, instead of a bonus of 0
> > > or better. I don't do single digits for ability scores.
> >
> > The average attribute when you roll 3d6 is 10.5
> >
> > The average attribute when you roll 4d6 drop 1 is 12.24
> >
> > If you also reroll all results of 9 or less, the average is 13.18
> >
> >
> > MadKaugh
>
> I've been aware of average die rolls for many, many years.
You had calculated that average?
Kudos, it's not a trivial calculation.
I modified a spreadsheet I wrote for 4d6
to handle dropped rolls.
> That doesn't stop my dice from rolling
> loads of 14s and 15s. I don't think they
> understand averages ;)
A long run of high or low values
is not unusual; it has to happen
sometimes. If it never ends, the
chances are good that there is
another factor.
> And no, they're not weighted,
That's not necessarily true, they could
have been weighted as a flaw in the
manufacturing process, perhaps an
air bubble in the plastic. Are they
transparent?
Are they are marked as normal dice,
1 through 6? Some places sell cheaters,
and the die could have been misplaced
in the wrong bin.
> nor do I attempt to influence the die roll
> results in any way.
>
> - E
I didn't say you were. I was curious how
much dropping bad rolls influenced the
outcome. It is a significant bias, but less
than I thought it would be.
MadKaugh
Madkaugh
No, it is only very likely, not certain.
At some confidence threshold, you
decide, 'I'm certain enough.'
Madkaugh
Cayzle
Apples and oranges. Very hard to make a comparison.
> Is it more powerful than a wizard?
Wizard: poor BAB, only 1 good save, poor skill ranks, d4 hit dice, +10
spellcast levels over 10 class levels, extra ability every five levels,
familiar gets better.
SbS: medium BAB (more powerful), 2 good saves (more powerful), great
skill ranks (more powerful), d8 hit dice (more powerful), +8 spellcast
levels over 10 class levels (less powerful), extra ability EVERY level
(much more powerful), no familiar progression (less powerful).
As a wizard, would I give up two levels of spellcasting and familiar
improvement for saves, BAB, specials, etc etc? Hell yeah! LOL! Of
course, there's an inherent "cleric spells are not as good as wizard
spells" argument to be made, but I still think 10 levels or SbS are
more potent than 10 levels of wizard.
> Is it more powerful than a cleric?
Cleric: medium BAB, 2 good saves, poor skill ranks, d8 hit dice, +10
spellcast levels over 10 class levels, undead turning gets better.
SbS: medium BAB (same), 2 good saves (same), great skill ranks (more
powerful), d8 hit dice (same), +8 spellcast levels over 10 class levels
(less powerful), extra ability EVERY level (much more powerful), no
undead turning improvement (less powerful).
Are the extra 4 ranks per level and gaining a feat-equivalent ability
every level worth giving up 2 caster levels? IMNSHO, hell yes!
BUT of course these kinds of conversations tend to boil down to "I
think it is unbalanced" vs "I think it is fine." Of course, if you like
it and it works for you as is, then more power to you, Jason. I only
posted here because you asked for an opinion.
> > It uses a nonstandard
> > mechanic (giving up prepped spells to gain special ability uses)
> > instead of a standard number of uses per day.
>
> I don't see that as a bad thing at all. Nonstandard mechanics (if
> they're good) mean the class has something unique to offer, instead of
> being just a pile of standard building blocks like evasion, uncanny
> dodge, and spell-like abilities usable X/day.
This is an important point, so please let me be clear. I have NO
problem with adding new abilities. The idea of adding an AC bonus by
activating an ability is fine! The idea of picking someone's pocket
from 30 feet away (the Arcane Trickster's Ranged Legerdemain) is fine.
The idea of Dimension Dooring every 1d4 rounds (the Horizon Walker's
ability) is fine.
What I object to is the new *mechanic*.
In olde tyme D&D, you rolled a d6 to find secret doors. You rolled
percentiile dice to find a trap. Those are two mechanics both used for
searching. Lame. It was a real positive movement to just use one
mechanic -- the d20 roll -- to resolve both.
Similarly, the game is much better without a percentile resurrection
roll; a save vs rod, staff, and wand; a roll to open a door and another
one to bend bars; etc. Simplifying the game made it much better.
Similarly, there is already a way to use special powers a few times a
day: assign a certain number of uses per day to each ability. Adding a
brand new mechanic -- giving a prepped spell to use a special ability
-- is unnecessary, clumsy, inefficient, and wasteful. If you want
something unusual, go with using Turn Checks to activate special
abilities.
That's what Rich Burlew does in his Divine Trickster ...
http://www.giantitp.com/articles/5M5QGsJ5mpbLfAHduZG.html
... which, by the way, is a better rogue/cleric PrC than the SbS, I
think, though still a little overpowered.
Madkaugh
Cayzle wrote:
> > What are your thoughts about this class?
> It uses a nonstandard mechanic (giving up
> prepped spells to gain special ability uses)
To do so only makes sense when the meta-reason
is that you are in effect casting spells - in the sense
a cleric turns prepared spells into healing. Then it is
a good fit.
Otherwise, why not power a magic attack with the
your hit points or the gold in your pocket? It gets
silly pretty fast. But I've seen games that do this.
> instead of a standard number of uses per day.
Number of uses per day works well as a game
mechanic. That said, it hurts my suspension of
disbelief every time I see it. Why should my ring
of blah, blah, blah care whether the sun went up
and down?
MadKaugh
Madkaugh
Cayzle wrote:
>
> What I object to is the new *mechanic*.
>
> In olde tyme D&D, you rolled a d6 to find secret doors. You rolled
> percentiile dice to find a trap. Those are two mechanics both used for
> searching. Lame. It was a real positive movement to just use one
> mechanic -- the d20 roll -- to resolve both.
D&D still uses per cent for many fixed range
checks where skill and ability do not affect
the outcome. Stabilization checks, for
example.
MadKaugh
Jasin Zujovic
cay...@gmail.com says...
> > Is it more powerful than a wizard?
>
> Wizard: poor BAB, only 1 good save, poor skill ranks, d4 hit dice, +10
> spellcast levels over 10 class levels, extra ability every five levels,
> familiar gets better.
>
> SbS: medium BAB (more powerful), 2 good saves (more powerful), great
> skill ranks (more powerful), d8 hit dice (more powerful), +8 spellcast
> levels over 10 class levels (less powerful), extra ability EVERY level
> (much more powerful), no familiar progression (less powerful).
>
> As a wizard, would I give up two levels of spellcasting and familiar
> improvement for saves, BAB, specials, etc etc? Hell yeah! LOL! Of
> course, there's an inherent "cleric spells are not as good as wizard
> spells" argument to be made, but I still think 10 levels or SbS are
> more potent than 10 levels of wizard.
10 levels of mystic theurge are unquestionably more powerful than 10
levels of wizard: compared to a wizard, you lose two feats and the
familiar, but gain 10 levels of cleric spellcasting. But despite most
people's initial reaction, experience has shown that mystic theurge
isn't all that; the catch is, you can't take just 10 levels of mystic
theurge.
Similarly, you cannot take 10 levels of shadowbane stalker. You have to
get the prerequisites, and Rog1/Clr4 (the best way to do it, IMO) is a
combination with rather bad synergy.
Of course, the class could still be too much. But I wanted to point out
that I think you cannot just compare 10 levels of one PrC with 10 levels
of another, or 10 levels of a core class. You have to look at the
character as a whole: is a Rog1/Clr4/shadowbane stalker 10 more powerful
than a Clr15, instead of is a "shadowbane stalker 10" more powerful than
a Clr10.
> BUT of course these kinds of conversations tend to boil down to "I
> think it is unbalanced" vs "I think it is fine."
OK, good point, that.
> Similarly, there is already a way to use special powers a few times a
> day: assign a certain number of uses per day to each ability. Adding a
> brand new mechanic -- giving a prepped spell to use a special ability
> -- is unnecessary, clumsy, inefficient, and wasteful. If you want
> something unusual, go with using Turn Checks to activate special
> abilities.
Again, this appears to be a matter of taste, but I thought the "burn
spell slots to improve sneaking" was quite elegant.
Instead of an "improve sneaking X/day" ability on top of regular cleric
spell slots, the shadowbane stalker effectively gets new spells on his
list, and the ability to convert prepared spells into those new spells.
And those new spells improve sneaking.
I think it's a very good mechanic to give spellcasters a new ability
without simply making them a Wizard+ or a SuperCleric: give them the
option to use what they have (spell slots) in new ways.
That's why I like Arcane Strike too.
--
Jasin Zujovic
Eric P.
"Madkaugh" <madk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
To be more specific, I've been aware of average six-sided die rolls. As
for familiarity with dice, I think it had something to do with writing
dice-rolling computer programs.
> I modified a spreadsheet I wrote for 4d6
> to handle dropped rolls.
Were you charting results, or does the spreadsheet have other uses?
> > That doesn't stop my dice from rolling
> > loads of 14s and 15s. I don't think they
> > understand averages ;)
>
> A long run of high or low values
> is not unusual; it has to happen
> sometimes. If it never ends, the
> chances are good that there is
> another factor.
Yeah, I remember reading something about that in a very old issue of
Dragon. It was an article called "Be thy die ill-wrought?"
> > And no, they're not weighted,
>
> That's not necessarily true, they could
> have been weighted as a flaw in the
> manufacturing process, perhaps an
> air bubble in the plastic. Are they
> transparent?
Not transparent, no. And yes, there could be flaws, but they don't
behave (to my mind) as though they're intentionally biased.
> Are they are marked as normal dice,
> 1 through 6? Some places sell cheaters,
> and the die could have been misplaced
> in the wrong bin.
Each die is indeed numbered 1 through 6, inclusively.
> > nor do I attempt to influence the die roll
> > results in any way.
> >
> > - E
>
> I didn't say you were. I was curious how
> much dropping bad rolls influenced the
> outcome. It is a significant bias, but less
> than I thought it would be.
>
> MadKaugh
Heh, just being thorough here. I used to game with a guy who got quite
creative in the way he physically rolled his dice. As for myself, while
rolling ability scores for a character, if 4d6 with the lowest roll
dropped doesn't give me a 12 or higher, I start over for that ability
score, continuing till I get the 12 or higher. I include negative
adjustments for race in this method, as I choose race before rolling,
and I don't want to roll a 12, and have to adjust it down to a 10 or
less.
Haven't rolled many 18s in a while, but as I've said, I get lots of 14s
and 15s. I've conditioned myself to accept these scores for the more
important abilities of a class as well as for the less important ones.
- E
Eric P.
Jasin Zujovic <jzuj...@inet.hr> wrote:
Well, the number 1 comes up quite a bit, but is dropped as the lowest
roll.
- E
Eric P.
"Madkaugh" <madk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I just cup the dice between my hands, shake three times, and roll them
out of my flat left hand. That's my standard die-rolling technique,
except for the d4, which I kinda flip and let drop.
Over the years, I've had a few sets of dice. Some have served well, some
have performed poorly, but most have been sufficiently close to random
(if it can be said that no 3-dimensional die can yield 100% random
results).
- E
Madkaugh
Eric P. wrote:
> > I modified a spreadsheet I wrote for 4d6
> > to handle dropped rolls.
>
> Were you charting results, or does the spreadsheet have other uses?
Just playing with statistics.
> > > And no, they're not weighted,
> >
> > That's not necessarily true, they could
> > have been weighted as a flaw in the
> > manufacturing process, perhaps an
> > air bubble in the plastic. Are they
> > transparent?
>
> Not transparent, no. And yes, there could be flaws, but they don't
> behave (to my mind) as though they're intentionally biased.
If they float they may show a preference to
spin to one particular face.
MadKaugh
Eric P.
"Madkaugh" <madk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hey, that's a good test. Always wondered if there was a simple and
practical way to test dice without damaging 'em.
Thanks!
Eric
Rast
eri...@sbcglobal.net says...
> In article <1159312934.3...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> "Madkaugh" <madk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Eric P. wrote:
> > > Not transparent, no. And yes, there could be flaws, but they don't
> > > behave (to my mind) as though they're intentionally biased.
> >
> > If they float they may show a preference to
> > spin to one particular face.
> Hey, that's a good test. Always wondered if there was a simple and
> practical way to test dice without damaging 'em.
Later, in Eric's bathtub:
\5/
6|5 6|4
/4\
\4/
5|6
\6/
4|5
(they are floating corner upwards, of course)
--
But my situation is not entirely desperate. The Flatlanders are, I
have learned, edible, with a taste something like very moist smoked
salmon. It takes quite a few of them to make a meal, but they are
plentiful, and they are easy to catch. - Rudy Rucker
Jim Davies
>Again, this appears to be a matter of taste, but I thought the "burn
>spell slots to improve sneaking" was quite elegant.
But clerics can already do that. They prepare Cat's Grace. OK, so it's
not exactly the same, but how hard is it to create a spell that's cast
as a Swift action, DF component only, with Spontaneous Substitution
like healing, that provides that same benefit?
>That's why I like Arcane Strike too.
Again, this could be simulated by a spell.
--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim
D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org
Jasin Zujovic
j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org says...
> >Again, this appears to be a matter of taste, but I thought the "burn
> >spell slots to improve sneaking" was quite elegant.
>
> But clerics can already do that. They prepare Cat's Grace. OK, so it's
> not exactly the same, but how hard is it to create a spell that's cast
> as a Swift action, DF component only, with Spontaneous Substitution
> like healing, that provides that same benefit?
But adding such spell to the cleric list would make clerics even more
powerful (or at least versatile), in addition to possibly not being very
appropriate flavour-wise (why should a cleric of Kord have a spell that
improves sneaking?).
Making it a PrC ability means only those with special training get to
use it.
> >That's why I like Arcane Strike too.
>
> Again, this could be simulated by a spell.
Only if wizards could convert prepared spells into such a spell, and if
the sorcerers didn't need to take it as one of their spells known to
cast it.
AFAIU, the idea behind Arcane Strike is to add versatility: so that you
can have (for example) only divinations prepared/known and still be able
to convert them into combat power. The downside is that the effect of
spending a slot on Arcane Power is less then the effect of actually
casting a combat spell of equal level.
--
Jasin Zujovic
Jim Davies
snip
>As for myself, while
>rolling ability scores for a character, if 4d6 with the lowest roll
>dropped doesn't give me a 12 or higher, I start over for that ability
>score, continuing till I get the 12 or higher. I include negative
>adjustments for race in this method, as I choose race before rolling,
>and I don't want to roll a 12, and have to adjust it down to a 10 or
>less.
Uh.... so for a human, you're rejecting any character that isn't at
least 12 12 12 12 12 12? That's not quite what we were expecting and
will skew the average quite a bit (to about 14.5, at a guess).
>Haven't rolled many 18s in a while, but as I've said, I get lots of 14s
>and 15s. I've conditioned myself to accept these scores for the more
>important abilities of a class as well as for the less important ones.
I can see why.
Jim Davies
>In article <e63jh2t9h8d3o5k13...@4ax.com>,
>j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org says...
>
>> >Again, this appears to be a matter of taste, but I thought the "burn
>> >spell slots to improve sneaking" was quite elegant.
>>
>> But clerics can already do that. They prepare Cat's Grace. OK, so it's
>> not exactly the same, but how hard is it to create a spell that's cast
>> as a Swift action, DF component only, with Spontaneous Substitution
>> like healing, that provides that same benefit?
>
>But adding such spell to the cleric list would make clerics even more
>powerful (or at least versatile), in addition to possibly not being very
>appropriate flavour-wise (why should a cleric of Kord have a spell that
>improves sneaking?).
Who said anything about the cleric list? This is on the shadowbane
stalker list, which supplements the cleric list.
>Making it a PrC ability means only those with special training get to
>use it.
Indeed it does, being on a special list.
>> >That's why I like Arcane Strike too.
>>
>> Again, this could be simulated by a spell.
>
>Only if wizards could convert prepared spells into such a spell, and if
>the sorcerers didn't need to take it as one of their spells known to
>cast it.
>
>AFAIU, the idea behind Arcane Strike is to add versatility: so that you
>can have (for example) only divinations prepared/known and still be able
>to convert them into combat power. The downside is that the effect of
>spending a slot on Arcane Power is less then the effect of actually
>casting a combat spell of equal level.
The same arguments could in theory be made as above. I do like the
spontaneous chenneling (as at present) it more for Arcane Strike than
for stealth or other applications, simply because it's just
redirecting raw power without any precision.
Consider that converting a Fireball (10d6 to many targets) into arcane
strike adds only 3d4 damage to one thing and you appreciate the crude
inefficiency of it. This doesn't have an accurate parallel in the
Shadowbane abilities.
Eric P.
Jim Davies <j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote:
> On the grave of "Eric P." <eri...@sbcglobal.net> is inscribed:
>
> snip
> >As for myself, while
> >rolling ability scores for a character, if 4d6 with the lowest roll
> >dropped doesn't give me a 12 or higher, I start over for that ability
> >score, continuing till I get the 12 or higher. I include negative
> >adjustments for race in this method, as I choose race before rolling,
> >and I don't want to roll a 12, and have to adjust it down to a 10 or
> >less.
>
> Uh.... so for a human, you're rejecting any character that isn't at
> least 12 12 12 12 12 12? That's not quite what we were expecting and
> will skew the average quite a bit (to about 14.5, at a guess).
Not only that, but in pre 3e, the DM I had most often would always bump
below-average scores up to average, or reroll them himself, in addition
to the standard practice of bumping primary ability scores for a class
up to minimum needed.
> >Haven't rolled many 18s in a while, but as I've said, I get lots of 14s
> >and 15s. I've conditioned myself to accept these scores for the more
> >important abilities of a class as well as for the less important ones.
>
> I can see why.
It's still not easy to accept, but I don't want all my characters to be
Superman.
- E
Jim Davies
>In article <r18oh292ndccki40r...@4ax.com>,
> Jim Davies <j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote:
>
>> Uh.... so for a human, you're rejecting any character that isn't at
>> least 12 12 12 12 12 12? That's not quite what we were expecting and
>> will skew the average quite a bit (to about 14.5, at a guess).
>
>Not only that, but in pre 3e, the DM I had most often would always bump
>below-average scores up to average, or reroll them himself, in addition
>to the standard practice of bumping primary ability scores for a class
>up to minimum needed.
Pre-3e, it was common practice for characters to have at least 15 in
the relevant stat(s), usually including Con and Dex. But that's no
longer necessary, because bonuses start at 12.
>> >Haven't rolled many 18s in a while, but as I've said, I get lots of 14s
>> >and 15s. I've conditioned myself to accept these scores for the more
>> >important abilities of a class as well as for the less important ones.
>>
>> I can see why.
>
>It's still not easy to accept, but I don't want all my characters to be
>Superman.
So don't roll them like that.
For any given stat, the percentage chance of each result is:
12: 20.9
13: 21.5
14: 20.0
15: 16.4
16: 11.8
17: 6.8
18: 2.6
Mean 14.1
Assuming that the overall populace has a 3d6 distribution in each stat
(so variance of 52.5 across all 6 stats), your average PC is 2.96
standard deviations above the mean.
In other words, you are playing characters selected from the top 0.2%
of the population.
On average, you have a 41 point character. Given that the DMG calls 32
points a "high-powered" campaign, it's not surprising that they seem a
bit godlike. The only saving grace is that you don't reorder the
stats.
Jasin Zujovic
j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org says...
> >> >Again, this appears to be a matter of taste, but I thought the "burn
> >> >spell slots to improve sneaking" was quite elegant.
> >>
> >> But clerics can already do that. They prepare Cat's Grace. OK, so it's
> >> not exactly the same, but how hard is it to create a spell that's cast
> >> as a Swift action, DF component only, with Spontaneous Substitution
> >> like healing, that provides that same benefit?
> >
> >But adding such spell to the cleric list would make clerics even more
> >powerful (or at least versatile), in addition to possibly not being very
> >appropriate flavour-wise (why should a cleric of Kord have a spell that
> >improves sneaking?).
>
> Who said anything about the cleric list? This is on the shadowbane
> stalker list, which supplements the cleric list.
Well... yes, you could do that, but then what's the problem with the
shadowbande stalker ability? It does exactly the same thing, only it's
described differently.
Sure, the ability is a new mechanic, but creating one spell per spell
level, adding them to the list (and only that list) of a PrC which
otherwise continues Clr spellcasting and allowing the class to cast
those spells spontaneously... it's a new mechanic in everything but
name, IMO.
> >> >That's why I like Arcane Strike too.
> >>
> >> Again, this could be simulated by a spell.
> >
> >Only if wizards could convert prepared spells into such a spell, and if
> >the sorcerers didn't need to take it as one of their spells known to
> >cast it.
> >
> >AFAIU, the idea behind Arcane Strike is to add versatility: so that you
> >can have (for example) only divinations prepared/known and still be able
> >to convert them into combat power. The downside is that the effect of
> >spending a slot on Arcane Power is less then the effect of actually
> >casting a combat spell of equal level.
>
> The same arguments could in theory be made as above. I do like the
> spontaneous chenneling (as at present) it more for Arcane Strike than
> for stealth or other applications, simply because it's just
> redirecting raw power without any precision.
OK, fair enough.
> Consider that converting a Fireball (10d6 to many targets) into arcane
> strike adds only 3d4 damage to one thing and you appreciate the crude
> inefficiency of it. This doesn't have an accurate parallel in the
> Shadowbane abilities.
The stalker ability is more efficient than Arcane Strike, probably, but
I still think it's inferior to simply spells as far as raw power goes.
Burn a 4th-level slot for +8 to stealth for 4 minutes. I don't think
that's better that (or even near as good as) freedom of movement, death
ward or divine power.
--
Jasin Zujovic
Eric P.
Jim Davies <j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote:
Next time I roll up a character, I'll let the dice fall as they may, in
order, rerolling nothing, adjust for race where appropriate, and take
what I get. I just realized that this will create additional challenges
and opportunities for the character to grow and develop.
Indeed, old habits die hard...
Thanks,
Eric
Arandor
> Next time I roll up a character, I'll let the dice fall as they may, in
> order, rerolling nothing, adjust for race where appropriate, and take
> what I get. I just realized that this will create additional challenges
> and opportunities for the character to grow and develop.
>
> Indeed, old habits die hard...
Next, try to keep the single-digit scores that you will get as well...
could actually be fun.
Eric P.
"Arandor" <ara...@gmail.com> wrote:
Roger that!
- E
Jasin Zujovic
eri...@sbcglobal.net says...
> > > Next time I roll up a character, I'll let the dice fall as they may, in
> > > order, rerolling nothing, adjust for race where appropriate, and take
> > > what I get. I just realized that this will create additional challenges
> > > and opportunities for the character to grow and develop.
> > >
> > > Indeed, old habits die hard...
> >
> > Next, try to keep the single-digit scores that you will get as well...
> > could actually be fun.
>
> Roger that!
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/roger
to roger (third-person singular simple present rogers, present
participle rogering, simple past rogered, past participle rogered)
1. (transitive) (coarse slang) Of a man, to have sexual intercourse
with (someone), especially in a rough manner.
2. (intransitive) (coarse slang) To have sexual intercourse.
:)
--
Jasin Zujovic
Arandor
> > Roger that!
>
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/roger
>
> to roger (third-person singular simple present rogers, present
> participle rogering, simple past rogered, past participle rogered)
>
> 1. (transitive) (coarse slang) Of a man, to have sexual intercourse
> with (someone), especially in a rough manner.
> 2. (intransitive) (coarse slang) To have sexual intercourse.
>
> :)
Ok, I didn't know that. Does that mean Eric is telling me to, pardon
the word, "fuck it", or does he want to have sexual intercourse?
Or did he just say "hey, you know what, I might even try that (playing
a character with a single-digit score, that is)".
One has to wonder...
Eric P.
Jasin Zujovic <jzuj...@inet.hr> wrote:
That was, of course, not my usage of the term *L* Didn't know it was
used in the same way as "bugger" and the like. I've never heard it used
in this way in the States.
- E
Eric P.
"Arandor" <ara...@gmail.com> wrote:
I was responding in the affirmative, of course. No penetration was
implied or desired.
From dictionary.com (probably a more trusted source than anything wiki):
- interjection
1. Informal, all right; O.K.
2. message received and understood (a response to radio communications).
It's used in the vulgar sense in British slang. I use American English.
- E
Eric P.
> In article <ericp06-E37F01...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> eri...@sbcglobal.net says...
>
> > > > Next time I roll up a character, I'll let the dice fall as they may, in
> > > > order, rerolling nothing, adjust for race where appropriate, and take
> > > > what I get. I just realized that this will create additional challenges
> > > > and opportunities for the character to grow and develop.
> > > >
> > > > Indeed, old habits die hard...
> > >
> > > Next, try to keep the single-digit scores that you will get as well...
> > > could actually be fun.
I gave it a try last night, rolling four sets of ability scores without
making any adjustments, so they can be used for any race. 4d6, reroll
lowest die of the four once each time:
1 2 3 4
15 13 12 10
15 16 13 14
9 14 14 10
11 15 9 12
11 16 12 11
14 13 14 14
Under my old habits, I'd reject all these sets except for the second
one, but my curiosity will now compel me to use each set. I just have to
decide whether to take each set in order (STR, DEX, CON, etc.), or to
rearrange the order. I'll examine each set with the core PC races in
mind, to determine which race would be the best choice for each set.
Talk amongst yourselves :)
- E
Christopher Adams
>
> That was, of course, not my usage of the term *L* Didn't know it was
> used in the same way as "bugger" and the like. I've never heard it used
> in this way in the States.
Specifically, as you may or may not be aware, rogering is usually used to refer
to heterosexual intercourse whereas buggery is, traditionally, homosexual
intercourse (and, as it used to be legally defined, any kind of "unnatural" sex
act like fucking a monkey or oral sex).
--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
-------
What can change the nature of a man?
-------
Sydney-based gamers - Get in touch with
SUTEKH at the University of Sydney!
http://forum.sutekh.info/
Donald Tsang
>I gave it a try last night, rolling four sets of ability scores without
>making any adjustments, so they can be used for any race. 4d6, reroll
>lowest die of the four once each time:
Umm, reroll or drop?
>15 13 12 10
>15 16 13 14
> 9 14 14 10
>11 15 9 12
>11 16 12 11
>14 13 14 14
points:
8+8+1+3+3+6 = 28
7+10+6+8+10+5 = 46
4+5+6+1+4+6 = 26
2+6+2+4+3+6 = 23
--
Donald
Eric P.
ts...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (Donald Tsang) wrote:
> Eric P. <eri...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >I gave it a try last night, rolling four sets of ability scores without
> >making any adjustments, so they can be used for any race. 4d6, reroll
> >lowest die of the four once each time:
>
> Umm, reroll or drop?
D'oh! I meant drop the lowest *L* I have only 3d6 in my collection, so I
roll one over again to get four numbers, then drop the lowest.
- E
Justisaur
Only 3d6?!?! Get yourself some dice man! You can pick up d6s at
practically every corner store (at least in CA, other states/countries
may vary)
- Justisaur
Madkaugh
Roger that!
Madkaugh
Eric P.
"Justisaur" <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yeah. At the height of my dice empire, I had about fourteen or fifteen
d6. While I was living in England, I gave my dice bag to a nephew. After
returning to the States, I picked up a little set of polys that included
a single d6, so I bought another pair, knowing I'd need at least three.
Time to grow the empire again :)
- E
Jim Davies
>
>Yeah. At the height of my dice empire, I had about fourteen or fifteen
>d6.
Empire? Call that an empire? I have twice that many d12s!!
--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim
D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org
D.J.
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 20:12:56 +0100, Jim Davies
<j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote:
]On the grave of "Eric P." <eri...@sbcglobal.net> is inscribed:
]
]>
]>Yeah. At the height of my dice empire, I had about fourteen or fifteen
]>d6.
]
]Empire? Call that an empire? I have twice that many d12s!!
So few dice...
Myself, I have over 800 dice. Around 200 d6s, probably 50 d4s and 50
d12s. I don't have the Guinness record though, but Kevin does:
http://www.dicecollector.com/
JimP.
--
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://crestar.drivein-jim.net/ Oct 2, 2006
http://www.drivein-jim.net/ Jan 5, 2006: Drive-In movie theatres
http://poetry.drivein-jim.net/ poetry blog July 26, 2006
Eric P.
D.J. <alph...@ekisocableone.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 20:12:56 +0100, Jim Davies
> <j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote:
> ]On the grave of "Eric P." <eri...@sbcglobal.net> is inscribed:
> ]
> ]>
> ]>Yeah. At the height of my dice empire, I had about fourteen or fifteen
> ]>d6.
> ]
> ]Empire? Call that an empire? I have twice that many d12s!!
>
> So few dice...
>
> Myself, I have over 800 dice. Around 200 d6s, probably 50 d4s and 50
> d12s. I don't have the Guinness record though, but Kevin does:
> http://www.dicecollector.com/
>
> JimP.
I wouldn't want to own more dice than I could carry using one
hand...comfortably...but that's just me :) I used to have a clear
plastic case for my dice, with a hinged lid and little metal latches on
the front of the lid. I only ever needed the one case, as I had about
three times as many d6 as I had other-sided.
It was a modest collection, but I liked it. I'm seriously in need of
expansion again in the dice department. Just no $$ to spend on 'em right
now.
- E
Jim Davies
>
>On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 20:12:56 +0100, Jim Davies
>]Empire? Call that an empire? I have twice that many d12s!!
>
>So few dice...
>
>Myself, I have over 800 dice. Around 200 d6s, probably 50 d4s and 50
>d12s. I don't have the Guinness record though, but Kevin does:
>http://www.dicecollector.com/
I last bought any dice about 12 years ago. I guess I have about 300 in
all, of which maybe 40 get used.
tussock
> Eric P. <eri...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Hmm, an adventuring party in the making.
>> 10/14/10/12/11/14
This guy's the weakest, so lets give him first choice. With Dex,
Cha, and a little Int he's an obvious Rog or Brd, maybe Src. Gnome is
the obvious twink option, and Gnome Brd looks good.
>> 12/13/14/09/12/14
Hmm. Next up, Con and Cha with some base physical stats. Hard to
say, another Src or Brd could work, especially with two solid physical
types to come. Call it a Human Src, easy enough to avoid duping the
Brd's abilities.
>> 15/15/09/11/11/14
Ow. Howzabout some archery goodness. Perhaps a Human Pal mounted
archer to try and make some use of the Cha. Should manage to be useful,
though may need to start with a couple of Ftr or Rgr levels for better
archery.
>> 13/16/14/15/16/13
That's a Mnk. In fact, that's a Half-Orc Mnk. A little soft for a
front-line guy, but should manage OK.
> points:
> 23/26/29/44
Point buy doesn't really work in reverse. Each character above
could be built much stronger those points as
08/14/14/10/09/15 (Gnm Brd)
08/14/14/08/12/16 (Hum Src)
16/16/14/10/09/08 (Hum Ftr)
17/16/16/09/16/08 (O/2 Mnk)
all having 14+ Con and appropriate dump stats.
--
tussock
Aspie at work, sorry in advance.