The Gaming Den

Catharz at [unixtime wrote:1170480543[/unixtime]]Thanks for the ffd20 link.

A question: Does a fighter need the appropriate craft skill to craft magic items, or can I enchant a headband using Craft Trap?

Cathaz, seriously, just pick up craft (mineralworking) or Craft (vegetablecraft), maybe craft (animal goods).

Since everything devolves to either mineral, vegetable or animal.

How about Craft (Atoms)?

That wouldn't work if you wanted some hot nucleus on nucleus fusion action going. I think Craft (relativity) would work, since that covers both mass and energy.

While this is amusing...

[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]
Back to topic, folks.
[/TGFBS]

Meh, just take Craft (Engineering).

That covers pretty much all goods.

Jade Circlet? Sure, it's a shaped piece of stone.

Blade or armour? Sure, worked, machined, folded, heated and slowly (annealed) or quickly (tempered) cooled metal.

Basket weaving? Sure, folded pleats of material, sometimes it's rushes not threads.

Iif you're a capable enough craftsman, you can see how you would go about creating something even if you have never made or seen it done before.

Mostly b/c real skill at a task means that you can improvise that skill to accomplish related tasks.

Which is why it's ranks in Craft (any). Not Craft armour or weapons or blacksmithing or leatherworking or fashion.

Also, Technomancer, you don't need to craft (relativity); once you've got mass or energy in one way you've automatically got both.

Since:
"Energy" = "Mass"*(Speed of Light)^2

It is actually intentional that there is only one Craft skill - it's called "Craft".

So the whole idea of having skills like "Craft: My Ass" or "Craft Disturbing Mental Image" is pretty dumb. The Craft skill should be monolithic, like the Diplomacy skill.

-Username17

FrankTrollman at [unixtime wrote:1170626945[/unixtime]]It is actually intentional that there is only one Craft skill - it's called "Craft".

So the whole idea of having skills like "Craft: My Ass" or "Craft Disturbing Mental Image" is pretty dumb. The Craft skill should be monolithic, like the Diplomacy skill.

-Username17

That's a relief. It also gives a reson for skills like Knowledge (architecture & engineering).

Well, that's always something that I've thought was annoying and I'd try to get around anyway by taking very general crafting skill types.


Also, I just realized that languages only cost 1 skill pts each now. Meaning players will probably pick up languages that they think are cool; opening up new role-playing possibilities.

It's fvcking hilarious to think that someone who is fixing what can be classified as the 'gamist' problems with the system also fixes the 'narrative' problems in one fell swoop.


What kind of doctor were you planning on becoming anyway Frank?

Anything players do opens up new role-playing possibilities. That's a virtue of RPG's, not of this system.

Are you telling me that a DM who only wants his players to roll for initiative is going to allow new role-playing possibilities.

Sometimes they have to be hardwired into the system before some people will even allow them.

Also, making a language equal in cost to other things means that a language doesn't equal any of your skill ranks that should be maxed x2.

Oh, Frank, Kieth I posted your fighter and a link back here over at the Gamecraft forums.

Link here

Ok, something which has been bothering me since I learned about the Sniper exploit:

Fighter 17 can be a dead level.

I don't have any great solutions. One option is switching it out for 'Improved Problem Solver,' which lets a fighter take two feats. Of course, as a 17th level fighter you've already got a frackload of feats, so that would probably be a bad ability. I'm trying to come up with something which isn't already handled as a feat, and wouldn't be better handled as one.

Bah. Let them stack and make it a 90' total Foil.

Essence at [unixtime wrote:1170883123[/unixtime]]Bah. Let them stack and make it a 90' total Foil.

Then it would read a bit weird, but that would make sense. Improved foil action: The fighter increases the range of her Foil Action by 30', normally to 60', but this increase will stack in the most advantageous manner possible (for example, a fighter with the Sniper feat will first have the range of her Foil doubled to 60', and then increased to 90').

I guess the simplest probably is the best...

Technically, the "most advantageous" manner of stacking would result in a 120' foil. I'm not sure how much you want that, though...

Essence at [unixtime wrote:1170947056[/unixtime]]Technically, the "most advantageous" manner of stacking would result in a 120' foil. I'm not sure how much you want that, though...

No it wouldn't. Sniper only benefits abilities which work out to 30,' and it makes those abilities work out to 60' (no specifc operation given).
So, if you increase the range before adding the Sniper feat, you get no increase.

Ack. Sho' 'nuff. My bad.

I just noticed that every humanoid warrior in the MM is listed as having the base stat array 13 11 12 10 9 8. For some creatures using this may give more balanced results than the 'elite flattening' method.

Does Insightful Strike stack with keen edge and similar effects? The feat doesn't have the language that prevents stacking, but the spell does.

The non-stacking of keen edge in 3.5 is bullshit, so yeah it should stack fine. Remember that in D&D land a doubled double is actually only a triple.

The thing abvout multiplying crit chances over and over again is that it's actually provably balanced. It's one of the few things in D&D that is. That is to say that if you add +3 damage to a scimitar you add an average of 3.45 damage and if you add it to a keen scimitar you add an average of 3.9 damage. But crit multipliers don't have that shit. When you add keen or improved crit to those 3 points of scimitar damage you are adding an average of .45 damage. But if you add both you do an baverage of 4.35 damage - which means that both bonuses are still only adding .45.

Andy Collins has said in print that he nerfed crit multiplier stacking because he didn't like the flavor of crit-focused characters. Fvck that noise. If you don't like them, don't play them.

-Username17

I thought it was just an overreaction to Vorpal?

Guest (Unregistered) at [unixtime wrote:1175414831[/unixtime]]I thought it was just an overreaction to Vorpal?

Vorpal was nerfed above and beyond that.

Frank wrote:Andy Collins has said in print that he nerfed crit multiplier stacking because he didn't like the flavor of crit-focused characters.

Do you know where? What's wrong with their flavor?!

Maj at [unixtime wrote:1175455260[/unixtime]]

Frank wrote:Andy Collins has said in print that he nerfed crit multiplier stacking because he didn't like the flavor of crit-focused characters.

Do you know where? What's wrong with their flavor?!

Critical hits don't really have a flavor.

Catharz wrote:Critical hits don't really have a flavor.

+1 to attack doesn't, either.



Regardless, according to Frank, that's not what Mr. Collins said. Mr. Collins didn't like crit-focused characters. That's as uncreative and crappy as if I said something like "I don't like the flavor of high fort save characters."