Knights & Knaves Alehouse

I haven't really checked it out, but I do like weapon spec and cantrips.

Mudguard wrote:I haven't really checked it out, but I do like weapon spec and cantrips.

Haha two of my least favorite things (outside of the classes of course).

Actually the idea of cantrips (little displays of magic, like making a spoon levitate) isn't bad as long as they aren't spelled out and don't actually do anything useful.

AxeMental wrote:Actually the idea of cantrips (little displays of magic, like making a spoon levitate) isn't bad as long as they aren't spelled out and don't actually do anything useful.

I disagree. Cantrips are great in a system that uses magic points or mana or whatever, but in a Vancian magic system they suck.

I always treated cantrips (even during the 2e era) as things the magic-user could do at will. Every PC got to pick four.

HackMaster has some great Cantrips.

godentag wrote:

AxeMental wrote:Actually the idea of cantrips (little displays of magic, like making a spoon levitate) isn't bad as long as they aren't spelled out and don't actually do anything useful.

I disagree. Cantrips are great in a system that uses magic points or mana or whatever, but in a Vancian magic system they suck.

Well, we used cantrips for awhile. I think playtesting them we found them far too powerful if used creatively, and the tricks got very repetitive (ie predictable). They tended to take the place of good ol' ingenuity (want to distract a guard use tried and true x cantrip, want to hide at first level use y) rather then talking over different ideas. I think of pre-UA low level 1E MUs as a guy with 1 or 2 bullets in a gun. You better fucking make them count and NOT miss (so a big bang but than the show is over). Cantrips made that like a bunch of pellets. Not deadly, but effective if creatively employed, perhaps even more so then the standard spell. This created problems with DMs (where one guy would allow you to pull something off with a cantrip and another say "no way", your abusing the idea). What I would have liked is a cantrip system where you got 1 per level automatically, and you could choose from 100s (or even make them up), with non of them being particularly useful in battle or for destractions. But cleaning up a spilt drink in a tavern, lighting a candle(s), . I'd make them take at least 1/2 round to cast and have to be memorized.

Alpharius wrote:We're probably going to have to re-start my local campaign soon, and I'm going to be playing an Illusionist for the first time ever - and I'm really looking forward to it!

Say, you didn't roll up an illusionist after all. I guess we can wait for the next death to create a need for a new pc.

On topic - I don't use cavaliers, and I have a very watered down weapon specialization (1 extra slot +1 to hit, 2 extra slots +2 to damage as well). I thought about dropping the +2 damage down to +1, but decided the +1/+2 is pretty well ingrained at this point.

Back in high school, I had a player play a drow elf cavalier wielding a longsword in each hand. He used a wish to get his magic resistance back, and was pretty much the biggest bad-ass that ever was. Never again.

I really enjoy the UA spells, especially stuff that doesn't get talked about like mount, deeppockets, vocalize, reflecting pool, giving illusionists dispel magic, negative plane protection, etc. Aid is a huge buff spell, because in my game if you only take temporary hit point damage, you don't lose concentration on a spell.

Don't worry Ken, that Illusionist and his life long friend the Bard wannabe are still on my mind!

I'm sure another giant snake or some such will do in a character or two sooner or later!

suggest the cleric takes slow poison or snake charm?

genghisdon wrote:suggest the cleric takes slow poison or snake charm?

Still first level.

Another fault line in Unearthed Arcana is whether or not thieves should get access to studded armour and short bows. Personally, I think this was one of the better ideas in the book, but not everybody agrees!

Matthew wrote:Another fault line in Unearthed Arcana is whether or not thieves should get access to studded armour and short bows. Personally, I think this was one of the better ideas in the book, but not everybody agrees!

The short bow used to be a thief fighter thing, hated to see that go. Also, the original thief you could argue leather referred to either type. We had always allowed it pre-UA based on this lax reading.

I'm OK with thieves having short bows and studded leather.

Actually, whenever I've played a thief under UA rules, I'm usually looking for a way to get the "no armor" bonuses instead of using the studded leather penalties.

How the hell does a short bow relate to Thievery? It was simply a power creep move. Leave the archery to warriors & warrior/X characters. The UA could have corrected the disparity between slings & short bow that makes no sense when the sling IRL was mostly superior to the bow. But nope.

As for extra armor types for Thieves, huzza. How it was implemented, with utterly crippling penalties for an armor ("studded leather") that is probably no worse to encumbrance & agility than leather; that sucks

The UA is crap, even when it shows the glimerings of good ideas. Implement rules yourself, you cannot likely do worse.

AxeMental wrote: The short bow used to be a thief fighter thing, hated to see that go. Also, the original thief you could argue leather referred to either type. We had always allowed it pre-UA based on this lax reading.

Since we started with second edition and rarely used multi-class characters (sign of the munchkin!) we admittedly never really experienced it that way. That said, I think thieves are relatively weak enough and fighter/thieves strong enough to accommodate it.

Eye of the Beholder wrote: Actually, whenever I've played a thief under UA rules, I'm usually looking for a way to get the "no armor" bonuses instead of using the studded leather penalties.

Yeah, the penalties for studded armour are rather heavy, I would probably be inclined to lighten them.

genghisdon wrote: How the hell does a short bow relate to Thievery? It was simply a power creep move. Leave the archery to warriors & warrior/X characters. The UA could have corrected the disparity between slings & short bow that makes no sense when the sling IRL was mostly superior to the bow. But nope.

Might as well ask what swords and armour have to do with thievery, not much is the answer; of course, if the thief is a more unconventional rural sort, a poacher of the king's deer for instance, the bow might have a lot to do with his trade. As far as slings and bows go, the rules seem perfectly reasonable to me. Similar damage, better range and armour penetration for the sling, faster shooting rate for the bow.

genghisdon wrote: As for extra armor types for Thieves, huzza. How it was implemented, with utterly crippling penalties for an armor ("studded leather") that is probably no worse to encumbrance & agility than leather; that sucks. The UA is crap, even when it shows the glimmerings of good ideas. Implement rules yourself, you cannot likely do worse.

As I say, it does seem that the associated penalties are over-severe, to movement especially; not sure we ever made much use of them. Indeed, the thief I am playing in Apprentice's Dragonlance play-by-post has never taken them into account to the best of my recollection.