hobbygamers ~ View topic

There's a feat that gives a power (I believe it's in Dragon) that allows warforged to make a critical hit do normal damage. (what i mean is not maximum damage).

I thought Warforged was only living construct. I believe it didn't have immunities.

EDIT: Just checked MM and Dragon. It has construct keyword, though it's also living construct. weird, can something be both?

How about something like having the Colossus's body being so tough that it makes what would've been a devastating blow into a normal hit.

Mechanically speaking, whenever a crit is scored against the Godforged Colossus, he makes a saving throw (with a slight bonus), if he succeeds the attack just does regular damage.

@oghma:I don't see a need for a bonus. Pass on 10-20 is already awesome chances.

@erwin: Living Construct is a subtype of construct. For ease of reference, they don't put in construct anymore.

Besides, the keyword says that most have resistance or immunity, not all.

oghma, since you are playing the first Warforged PC, would you like to do the honors of fleshing out the Godforged ED? Write it down in standard format (the 4e SRD will be helpful).

Once we have a decent version, we'll nitpick it again. But basically, while huge benefits defenders in general, it should remain as a viable choice for the other roles.

Sure do!

Should I make a new thread for it?

When your alpha is finished, sure. XD

Wish Upon A Star (Dragon 366)

Been looking through this article, and much as I'd love to use it immediately, some interesting notes about some of the feats and powers that I can see so far. As written, they may go beyond what I believe are the intended scope. What do you guys think?

Sacrifice to Caiphon (Dragon 366, p 46): While it is a warlock exclusive feat, the text itself does not specify that the encounter attack power to be regained be a warlock encounter attack. I'm assuming that the original intent here is to allow you to recover warlock powers and warlock paragon powers only. Of course, it's also interesting as written. :p

Caiphon's Hungry Mercy (p 51): Nice power, but I'm interested in a timing issue here...Is a power considered expended once triggered? I'm asking because I'm considering what would happen if the caster rolled a 6. Does that mean that the player could then regain Caiphon's Hungry Mercy? I know it's still limited by healing surges, but still, feels quite strong for me...at the least, you may end up being the entire party's best friend. :p

Caiphon's Abominable Melody (p 50): Interesting...This feels a bit strong...Combo with a wizard or a warlock who can screw around with saves and this is mondo effects laden. Okay, a solo still won't have too many problems getting out of this schtick...but still.

Oh, also found it interesting to find a bunch of powers in here that use
Intelligence as an attack stat, making Star Pact even more of the vanilla stat pact. Razz

Sacrifice to Caiphon: We'll use RAW over RAI.

Caiphon's Hungry Mercy: In MtG, I cannot play Reclaim to get that very same Reclaim. The same timing issue applies here.

Caiphon's Abominable Melody: It's a level29 Daily. Barring the fact that powers of this level are supposed to be strong, we are still too far from epic to regard problems with it.

In any case, the article is not yet a player resource.

I know, I wanted to raise these in the event that it becomes a player resource. All in all, I like it, and it expands needed bits of the star-pact into charisma, constitution and intelligence powers.

Ok, since it's the end of the month now, we're going to review Dragon 366. (am i right?)

What's on it:
*Mithrendain, Citadel of Feywild
*Wish Upon A Star
*Ritually Speaking
*Trapped (?)

Plus, do we include FRPreviews? If so, there's Purple Dragon Knight PP and Warwizard of Cormyr too.

I'm currently good with all these, with no edits.

Is there any point of concern for these articles?

The article with the character background benefits, however, I'm not so jolly about. We should probably not open that one.

-I like the Characters of War article...which is probably why we should not use it at the moment. I love free stuff, and the backgrounds here give a lot of stuff for free. Debatably too much...and it's all free. So there.

-I'm somewhat curious about the Mithrendain article not having a heavyblade power for eladrin longswords, but what the hell, minor quibble. Has anyone compared the PP to others?

-Has anyone noticed any major changes to the Star Pact article besides the editing of Twofold Pact? I'm curious if somebody noticed something that was tweaked in the powers available.

-I don't know enough yet about Rituals to give useful info on the Ritually Speaking article.

-Trapped! at the moment reads more like practical DM guidelines for trap construction and use, rather than a player resources. It's all good by me, but I'm not formally tech team, just dropping in my 2 centavos on the matter.

Btw, do we have a general thread about monster/character/unique creatures proposals?

@Xtian: A thread for monsters/unique entities that need to be statted? We have none yet, but we can set up one.

@DMs: Right now, I appreciate the monsters that are being posted by the DM's, but I must insist that you follow my format. Please?

@Tech Team: Updated Player Resources to include all of Dragon #366, except the Characters of War.

Okay, so DnDi is online.

A question that arises is to whether or not we should allow future issues of Dragon/Dungeon Magazine, when it definitely won't be available to everyone...

otoh, it seems that it would be unfair to pay for something you won't be able to use.

On yet another scenario, too many resource material can flood a potential DM.

So, what are your thoughts on the matter?

For now, I'd recommend sticking to what we have. DDI is not universally accessible, and we need new material of our own. We need to cook up our own stuff, whether new paths, powers, feats, or items.

Ok. It seems we're going slow this pass few days (weeks?), maybe because of last sem's ending, sembreak, and enrollment.

It's time to get working again, and here's some of my concern:

1. BT character updates. Apparently not everybody gets to update his OL sheet fast, but some just don't update at all. We should encourage players to post their updates, at least every other session.

2. Godforged Colossus. I think mechanically we're done with it, we're just waiting for fluff for it. Though we have to ready a playtest session/s for it.

3. Playing Kobolds. So far I'm handling this, but feats made to it are still susceptible for change. I was thinking giving kobolds mob attack as a racial feature, rather than a feat. Also, still trying to work on that Skylord Captain though no progress so far.

4. Dragon Magazine as Character Resources. I believe BJ is right on this one. Let's not allow any dragon mag stuff for now, since it's not accesible for non-DDi users, and possibly too many resource a DM could handle.

5. Lack of BT original stuff (Tech-wise). I'm not saying we've not doing this, but I think we're not being productive enough, or maybe just we don't have much result. As BJ pointed out before, we should probably focus on BT's main aspect: Lack of gods. Divine power source related stuff would be nice. We already have GFC, but we need moar. Probably feats, particularly channel divinity stuff.

Even though this is Tech Team Thread, it doesn't necessarily mean only Tech Team members are allowed to post here. I encourage others post here if they have ideas in their minds, and it's tech team's job to utilize the idea. Maybe a random idea thread would be nice (posting all your possible tech (fluff as well?) related ideas, and we'll just handpicked some of it.

Proposal:

Approval of Dragon Magazines as a BT player resource.

Revan and I thought it would be allowed 1 month after a Dragon Mag is completed.

Too many resources, IMO, for most DM's to handle.

Besides, not all DMs will be able to access it.

Against. But if outnumbered, I won't impose.

I'm with BJ on this one. I think Dragon mags provide too much material, strangely enough. Also against.

(although, if a DM wants to use one or two specific issues in his/her campaign, that's another thing entirely, yes?)

A DM, after coordinating with the tech team, may indeed open up specific issues for game use. If such is the case, either the player has to retrain it out after that campaign (doesn't count as normal retraining), or the tech team opens it up as a resource.

In the latter case, I'm still undecided on the specifics. I think allowing it for just the characters of that particular game will work best. (example, opening up The Gladiator article permanently for Fhrayle, who was in the game, but not to Ereth, even though it's controlled by the same player). It won't be too hard to track, as we already have a working resume for each character.

Exceptions will exist, of course. I am open-minded about allowing Playtest Articles, for example, as they will appear in future supplements that we will allow anyway.

I'm on the approval of Dragon Mags, as BT player resource for all campaigns, not per DM consensus.

If players want to use a feat/power/etc. from a Drgaon Mag, he has to have the copy (printed) of such in during games. If he hasn't, such feat/power/etc doesn't work, or up to DM's judgment.

IMO, this also gives benefits to those who subscribe to DDi, such as BJ, whether as a DM or player.

Playtest Articles, iirc, are usually open for all, meaning they are intended to played, and I don't think WotC are going to make them exclusive.