Messages

Tridents are only "better" in 1.69 insofar as "better" means "now has the same feat options just like any other weapon."  If you're not a fighter, the only feat you can take from that tree is W. Focus anyway (not sure if anyone has Imp. Crit on this server).  But then again, before 1.69 they were simple weapons, and now trident-wielding chars without MWP have to burn a feat for it.

I would argue that the trident is basically the worst weapon in the game; at least a light hammer is finessable.  But my current char didn't burn a feat for MWP just for a trident because of the strength of the weapon.  It was simply the appropriate choice because of her deity.

I certainly would support beefing up tridents in general.  Like Egon said, you could just add 1d8 Massive crits to all tridents and at least make it more or less mechanically the same as a spear.  I don't mean to suggest that all weapons should be equally good or that we should only consider weapons on mechanical value - my char will continue using hers regardless of whether any changes are made under the hood - but it's at least a topic worthy of consideration.  It is a little bit frustrating to be out-weaponed by a stock sorcerer.

That said, the DMs may simply not be in the business of altering the basic characteristics of weapon types, which I would understand.

People in medieval Europe knew that lightning tended to hit high things like church steeples, but their answer was prayer, because they believed strikes to be simply God's will.  It wasn't until Ben Franklin that lightning started to become linked to electricity - medieval people (even Renaissance people) would probably not have known that metal armor would put them in particular danger.  

Maybe some Gondites or Lantanese with experience in electricity might know these things but I doubt even in the FR that this would be common knowledge.  It seems more likely that in a lightning storm, the average character would turn to prayer and then maybe find lower ground, not strip out of their plate.  I've seen some characters give offerings to Talos/Umberlee/whatever during lightning storms and I always thought that was a good RP approach.

In fact, in FR, prayer might objectively be more likely to protect you than wearing non-metal armor.  If we make lightning responsive to metal, we really should also make it check your deity field! (Not actually, that's rhetorical.  I say keep it as is.)

I agree that the trend of people getting raised instead of respawning on quests is a good one: Barring a TPK, you are essentially immortal on a quest unless you decide to perma yourself.  Adventuring is a dangerous occupation and I feel it adds to the immersion when, every so often, that ogre/harpy/whatever actually kills somebody.   Not all the time.

I don't see raising the dead as being any more "miraculous" than another high-level spell.

Mort indicated here that the price of 700 was a bug, so it seems that the likely bug here is not the price of the candle but the fact that Tobar doesn't tell you the correct price.

Maybe under Hide Second Story Tiles option choose "Always" (I think it's in the gameplay section but it might be video or advanced video - look around!)

Unfortunately, some of the newer tilesets - the new castle rural one in particular - don't seem to respond to this setting.

Playing a moderately dumb PC is actually really hard for me.  I mean, I'm no genius, but I've been to college and I use a lot of big words that my character might not.  I sometimes have to catch myself and re-write what I was about to say; I utilize a certain vocabulary in my own life and it's not easy for me to forgo it for something that sounds "less educated" or "less intelligent."

I think RPing a really stupid character is easy because there's basically no vocabulary at all - the sterotypical cavemanesque half-orc comes to mind.  Anyone can do that.  But adequately playing a 10 Int human, who isn't a blockhead but isn't notably bright, either, presents a different kind of difficulty to me.  How do you sound plain without sounding dumb?

Mental ability scores always present some kind of a challenge to RP and I suggest we just let people do their best and not worry about whether the aasimar paladin seems more 16 Cha or more 20 Cha.  Roleplay a character, not a list of stats.

This is actually the description for a lot of potions.  I'd offer to write up brief descriptions for potions that don't have their own, but I'm guessing changing descriptions on potions isn't a top DM priority.

I see no one who is seriously trying to get their hands on a ship, or trying to scout/gather resources, or maybe exploring the deep reaches of the jungle in search of treasures untold.

I don't mean to be snippy, but if this is true you might just not be trying hard enough, as I know characters absolutely obsessed with at least two of these exact goals.

Not everyone works through the forums.

I think you could make knock useful without stepping on rogue toes too much with some changes to knock.  You could make it like a Dispel roll, for instance (1d20+level), where the lock opens if you beat the DC (or just 20+level, since rogues usually get to take 20 on their check, and the rogue with good Dex and a few ranks will probably still have a higher bonus than casters).  The point is that if you can alter knock's script, you could probably find some middle ground between "almost totally useless" and "makes the open lock skill superfluous."

I don't live in the States. Are you trolling or do you really get these automated calls? <_<

Yes.  They are called "robocalls."  I haven't gotten any, but only because I live in California, which isn't a contested state.  Presidential politics here is very mean-spirited.  McCain and his campaign officers have defended this practice in interviews.

What's really sad about it is that very similar tactics were used against McCain in 2000, with callers and push pollers calling him a traitor, implying he had an "illegitimate black baby" (he adopted a daughter from Bangladesh), calling his wife a drug addict, and so on.  Those were certainly worse than his present smears against Obama, but it's a shameful practice in general.

You know, you could easily use a dragon/wyrmling as a boss on a quest and then script it to "fly away" when defeated.  That way it could be a credible scripted quest boss without creating the problem of "massive dragon death."

Maybe they exist and I just haven't found them yet, but I'd like to see more underwater quests (and not just because I play an Umberlant!).  This is the first server I've been on that does underwater areas well and I think it would be great if it took some advantage of that.  Some ideas:

- A Sahuagin sea cave, led by a cleric of Sekolah.  You could even make the chief cleric a were-shark :)

- An underwater shipwreck, infested by undead drowned men, maybe Lacedons (underwater ghouls).  Give the ghoulish pirate captain an undead parrot, too.

- A sea cave lair, with a covey of Sea Hags (three bosses at once!), served by a small tribe of Merrow (aquatic ogres).

Any underwater quest would have to be balanced so air pockets come at just the right time - not too soon, or it would be too easy, and not too late, or low-Con PCs would have a lot of trouble.  Quests that make you burn all your gold on Bubbleberries won't be taken very often.

I'm uncertain how anyone could take "socialist" as a serious charge.  It's one of the oldest tricks in the Republican playbook - Heck, Goldwater called JFK a socialist.  Most people who respond most negatively to charges of "socialism" or "sharing the wealth" seem to have very little concept of what socialism means, and seem to be unaware that the progressive income tax has been around for quite some time.  Even if Obama is elected and passes his tax proposals, the wealthiest Americans still won't be paying any more than they were under Reagan.

The other argument that rings hollow to me is the one of experience.  Undoubtedly McCain has more experience in government than Obama does, but this is touted like it's a complete argument.  The historian in me asks: is experience actually a predictor of performance?  James Buchanan had tremendous amounts of political experience and was a horrible president.  Compared to other presidents, Nixon and Ford were very experienced; one was a petty grudge-holding criminal and the other was profoundly mediocre.  In contrast, both Roosevelts - often cited as heroes of both parties - had about 10 years of experience between the two of them.  Any way you look at it, there is no statistical correlation between experience and performance, not even a weak one.

Without his "socialist" and "experience" arguments, all McCain really has left is his cry of "Maverick."  But a real "maverick" doesn't coddle the religious extremists he once called "agents of intolerance," or support passing the tax cuts he once opposed, or say he'd vote against his own immigration bill, or make an about face on issues like torture, or commit to running a positive campaign and then turn to an almost completely negative strategy, offering the lame and painfully childish excuse that it was Obama's fault for not doing town meetings with him.  Certainly Obama has made his own reversals, his broken commitment to public financing being chief among them, but nobody has tried as hard as McCain to make an end run around their own record and compromise so many political positions to energize the party base.  In 2000, "maverick" might have been apt, but there's not much of that McCain left - or if there is, his handlers and managers won't let it out.  The McCain I respected then and came close to voting for in 2000 no longer exists.  He is, in the deepest and most profound sense of the word, a sell-out.


I hope everyone will vote, no matter which way you lean.  But I also hope you'll vote based on the candidate's policy positions instead of irrelevant noise, whether it's guilt by association, cheap shots about how many houses somebody owns, or meaningless political catchphrases like "socialism."  If everyone in this country ignored that rubbish and voted for the policies that are best for themselves and for the country, we would be a much stronger community and a better democracy.  Start with your own vote.

That's some serious irony right there.

But the rest of you - vote!

Some DR... is.. special one might say. There is Damage Resistance, and there is Damage Reduction. I'm not sure if they are the same, or one just blocks all sorts of damage. >_>

Damage REDUCTION is effective against physical damage and can be overcome with a certain level of item attack bonus.  This is the kind bestowed by blur/stoneskin/etc., and the kind that magic weapon lets you overcome (if the reduction is X/+1; if it's x/+2 or higher you'll need greater magic weapon)

Damage RESISTANCE is effective against a specific kind of energy or attack type (e.g. fire, negative, slashing).  Damage resistance to a physical damage type (slashing, piercing, bludgeoning) can't be overcome regardless of your weapon's attack bonus.  You'll need to switch weapons, or if the resistance is rather low (5/-), do more damage than the creature can resist.  This is the kind bestowed by the endure/resist/protection/energy buffer spells, but only against energy attacks.

Finally, damage IMMUNITY means a creature is immune to some percentage (including 100%) of damage dealt by a specific kind of energy or attack.  A creature with 50% immunity to piercing damage will always take half damage regardless of your weapon's attack bonus.

I won't go into possible spoilers about specific creatures, but weapons with attack bonuses will only overcome the first kind (reduction).  If the target has resistance or immunity to the damage type (piercing, in the case of the crossbow), the attack bonus vs. undead won't overcome the ability.  The three types are often confused because it's not always immediately obvious why your attacks aren't very effective.  Experiment!

But that's just my point - people are doing things, they're just not necessarily taking place where you can see them.  Like I said, these things seem to take time.

Personally, I'd rather see this discussion IC/IG - surely characters have opinions on what to build and develop.