Pre-Game Planning Discussion

[GreyWolfVT]

I'm sure I could come up with something more obscure. Lets see.... a Xvart death knight?

[Rex]

I thought about the Wemic, but since urban was mentioned I didn't think that would work so well.

[GreyWolfVT]

might be a bit of a challenge in an urban setting. But who's to say if it is entirely impossible.

[ybn1197]

I remember a humanoid game I played in a number of years back. The leader of the group was a yellowish-orange bugbear named Winslow de Pugh. He wore red armor and carried a shield with a honey pot design. My character was a lizard man monk named K'riz K'roz, he smoked a native herb as part of his meditations.

[greyarea]

I’m glad he didn’t mention my Dragonborn acrobat…

[GreyWolfVT]

oh you mean the juggler that spoke in rhymes?

Is there any more information you guys needs from me? Feel free to PM me character ideas and or questions others already have.

[Monsieur Rose]

How are we using proficiencies? Weapon and Non? Bonus profs for high intel? Warriors can use bonus ones for weapons? Weapon groups?

An escalating scale of permissiveness.

[GreyWolfVT]

Yes Non-Weapon & Weapon Prof. I've missed where Warriors can use bonus ones for weapons? Was that something I missed in the Player's Options?

Weapon Groups?? What do you mean crazy Mr. Rose?

Weapon are the same weapons that the books have in the same groups listed there.

That's what I get for letting a Mr. Rose play

[Rex]

The fighters handbook allows fighters to use non-weapon for weapon and it has broad and tight groups for everyone and style specialization for everyone as well. I forgot that Int adds to the # of prof.

[Monsieur Rose]

The complete handbooks are all kinds of crazy. Warriors using NW as W comes from there.

Bonus NW for INT comes from the Player's Handbook.

Weapon groups come from Skills and Powers, among others. For additional Profs, one can be proficient in all blades for example.

This is the problem with so many add-ons. Too many optional things.
I would just assume Non-Weapon and Weapon Prof. Bonus NW based on INT. Weapon Profs are per individual weapon. But I don't like to assume.

I'll go back in the corner.

[GreyWolfVT]

Bonus NW for INT comes from the Player's Handbook.

(Yup that one is allowed always) Many people forget this as you can see in Rex's reply above us.

The complete handbooks are all kinds of crazy. Warriors using NW as W comes from there.

I only allowed these handbooks tentatively they complicated my life in the past even though I love them. So no not going that route this time around.

Weapon groups come from Skills and Powers, among others. For additional Profs, one can be proficient in all blades for example.

Yes I am allowing this it's part of the approved books mentioned.

I would just assume Non-Weapon and Weapon Prof. Bonus NW based on INT. Weapon Profs are per individual weapon.

that was my intent to keep it simple but I did offer the Player's Option S&P book so both options are ok by me.

I'll go back in the corner.

good Mr. Rose!

[Rex]

2E is the hardest to follow due to the books, but there are some really great ideas in it. Weapon groups are also in the fighters handbook. 2 prof slots for a tight group and 3 for a broad group. One of the better 2E additions in my opinion.

[ybn1197]

2E is the hardest to follow due to the books, but there are some really great ideas in it. Weapon groups are also in the fighters handbook. 2 prof slots for a tight group and 3 for a broad group. One of the better 2E additions in my opinion.

That one just makes sense. By the old rules, you had to be proficient in Short Bows and Long Bows to use both. If you know how to sight and shoot one, it isn't a far call to shoot the other.

[GreyWolfVT]

I agree with you both on that point. I hate having to say sorry you only know how to operate a heavy crossbow you can't possibly figure out how the light version works....Same with bows you know how to use a long bow but once it gets shrunk to short bow you are lost? Now I might see some argument that compound bows vs not is a bit different. But not the basics.

[Storm11]

Well I for one am looking for some restrictions and some nos. Second edition got utterly ridiculous and it’s nice to have a line where people can be told “nope, that’s just not happening.”

Because otherwise it’s just munchkinlandcity and it’s not great and it’s never as fun as we think it is.

[GreyWolfVT]

Worry not Kester I have had to use the "No" word already. Granted I did use a middle ground word too such as "Tentatively" when asked about allowing the complete handbooks. I only allowed the Barbarian one so we could use that class. I'd be willing to allow the one that had a Monk kit if someone wants to play one. But other than that I'm trying to say NO to the others.

[Rex]

I don't see the proficiencies, weapon or non-weapon as too big an issue. Some of the other stuff, yes.

[GreyWolfVT]

Oh yes things really start to get funky when we add in all the special combat stuff from a lot of the other books outside of the PHB & DMG.

NWP which I like to use though don't always make PC's use (I need to work on that) is less of a problem and complication to the game I think.

[tarlyn]

Oh yes things really start to get funky when we add in all the special combat stuff from a lot of the other books outside of the PHB & DMG.

NWP which I like to use though don't always make PC's use (I need to work on that) is less of a problem and complication to the game I think.

For spellcasters, can we use Spells and Magic, Tome of Magic and any spells in Wizards Handbook or the Necromancer handbook?

[GreyWolfVT]

The first two yes the complete handbooks tentatively. PHB 100% yes.