Gamespeak 1: For Player's Eyes
Return to Main Menu
Return to Part 7
For Player's Eyes
However, it is usually move convenient to have a personal copy of the rules for easy perusal in and outside of the gaming sessions. To this end, it is advisable to get the Players Handbook (preferably the same edition which the group is playing). There are many other books that might also be helpful; your DM can tell you which, if any, would be good for you to acquire. Beyond that, it is just personal preferences. Nothing else is truly needed, despite what TSR's promotional material may say; however, many people like having a little more than just the PH by their side when they play.
It is when this is combined with other abilities that things get confusing. Here is a handy-dandy little chart to aid in fathoming the mysteries of the interaction of ambidexterity with other abilities: [Select for Preformatted table]
| to-hit penalty | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| normal | ambidextrous | |||
| main | off-hand | main | off-hand | |
| Fighting w/ one weapon | 0 | -2 | 0 | 0 |
| Fighting w/ two weapons* | -2 | -4 | -2 | -2 |
| Fighting w/ Two-weapon Style spec. | 0 | -2 | 0 | 0 |
* The penalty for using two weapons is modified by the character's Reaction Adjustment, based on DEX; however, the penalty can never be lowered beyond 0 by either this modifier or ambidexterity (i.e., the DEX Reaction Adjustment may only lessen the effects of the penalty, not grant any plusses to hit). Any other modifers work as usual.
Ambidexterity does not grant extra attacks per round, but fighting with one weapon in each hand, whether or not a character is specialized in that style, does. The limit is that the one wielded in the off-hand (if a character is ambidextrous, he chooses an "off" hand, but has no penalties for using that hand, and can switch in which hand he uses which weapon) must be smaller in size/weight than the one wielded in the main hand, except when both hands wield daggers. This does not necessarily mean it must be a smaller size class, but that it must be smaller in length and/or weight, which makes for good use of the length/weight charts in the Equipment section of the Players Handbook.
The length requirement is eliminated when a fighter specializes in the Two-Weapon Style, thus allowing a fighter to wield a long sword in each hand. In the Complete Fighters Handbook, one weapon proficiency nets the character Two-Weapon Style, which removes the negative modifiers for using two weapons and also removes the length requirement. In Skills & Powers and Combat & Tactics, one character point nets the character Two-Weapon Style, but only gives the ability to fight well with two weapons; it does not remove the length difference requirement. A second character point must be spent in order to weild two weapons longer than a dagger and of equal length.
Here's a chart to explain the attacks per round of someone fighting with two weapons: [Select for Preformatted table]
| 1 weapon | 2 weapons | | | 2 weapons Att/rnd | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Character level | Att/rnd | Att/rnd | | | main | off-hand |
| Fighter 1-6/all other classes | 1/1 | 2/1 | | | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| Fighter 7-12, 1-6 specialized* | 3/2 | 5/2 | | | 3/2 | 1/1 |
| Fighter 13+, 7-12 specialized | 2/1 | 3/1 | | | 2/1 | 1/1 |
| Fighter 13+ specialized | 5/2 | 7/2 | | | 5/2 | 1/1 |
* "Specialized" refers to whether or not a fighter has specialized in the weapon being used in his main hand, not to "Two-Weapon Style specialization"
Neither the Ambidexterity proficiency nor Two Weapon Style specialization have any effect on the number of attacks per round. As the table shows, the number of attacks per round for the main weapon does not change when a second weapon is picked up; the second weapon only gets one attack per round, regardless of character level. For example, a character who normally has 3/2 att/rnd gets one attack during the first round and two attacks during the second round, alternating each round (the lower number of attacks always occurs during odd-numbered rounds). This character then picks up a second weapon. Technically, the character now gets 5/2 att/rnd, but it breaks down to one attack with the main weapon and one with the off-hand weapon in the first round, and two attacks with the main weapon and one with the off-hand weapon in the second round, alternating each round. A DM may allow ambidextrous characters to switch which hand is the "main" hand and which is the "off" hand during combat so that it is possible to change which weapon gets more attacks in a sequence, but it is likely this will be allowed only when an attack sequence has ended--at the end of any round for 2/1 or 3/1 attacks per round; at the end of any even-numbered rounds for 3/2 or 5/2 attacks per round.
For those of you crying "munchkin!" to all of this, there is a simple limiting factor: a fighter, for example, only has four starting weapon proficiencies (modified by intelligence via number of languages). The weapon of choice is one, specialization in that weapon is one, ambidexterity is one, and two-weapon style is one, taking up all four of the initial slots; if one is using the expanded weapon proficiency rules in Combat & Tactics, this combination requires five proficiencies (two-weapon style is split so that it takes an extra proficiency to use weapons of equal size). In Skills & Powers, this combination requires all eight of a fighter's initial weapon proficiency character points (two each for weapon proficiency, weapon specialization, two-weapon style specialization, and use of weapons of equal size) and four of the average fighter's eight initial nonweapon character points (for ambidexterity). This quickly turns the character into a Johnny One-Note. If there are any other weapons he wishes to use without penalties, he'll have to use any extra language slots from intelligence or left over racial or class character points, which takes away slots from potential non-weapon proficiencies. Without those extra NWP's, the character will be extremely limited in what he can do besides just fight. Alternatively, the character can go with only the single weapon proficiency and gain those extra NWP's; if he then finds himself in a situation where he cannot use his weapon of choice, he will not be very helpful to a group unless the player does some good roleplaying. Skills & Powers also introduces some DM-enforceable drawbacks which may be used to gain more character points and round out the character; these drawbacks then serve to counteract the power this combination can grant and tone down the character to average levels overall.
Nevertheless, there are a few situations where slitting a throat might be a necessity. Mercy killing is one, as the onset of death is quick. Dealing with guards who would otherwise raise an alarm is another, but more questionable one. In either case, if the action does not haunt the character for a long while, then it is quite possible that the character is a closet sociopath, and therefore is not actually of his stated alignment.
The question of orc babies is a tough ethical question, and is a curve which many DM's like to throw at their players. After a party sacks an orcish camp and completely annihilates the entire adult male population, they are left with the women and children. If they kill them, they are denying that orcs have any chance at all at redemption, regardless of whether or not the orc in question is a newborn. If they do not kill the orcs, then the party is leaving behind a future horde of orcs who want revenge for the slaughter of their fathers--and almost definitely will thirst for revenge if the DM has ruled that all orcs are naturally and automatically evil beings.
This is a perennial problem which each character must sort out on their own. However, it is much easier for evil characters to make a decision than neutral, and somewhat easier for neutral than good; but knowing this does not make the decision simpler.
One question which good characters should weigh in their minds: Is it better for me to not kill in cold blood, or better that the potential for future difficulties be taken care of while the solution is easily accomplished?
In third edition D&D, morality is absolute rather than relative, so orcs are almost always evil and their society is geared to raising children who grow up to be evil themselves-- though there can be individual orcs who are exceptions to that rule. Also, certain creatures (such as demons) are always evil, without exception.
The question arises when a mage attempts to cast spells while wearing armor. For a more in-depth survey of the rules, potential reasoning behind the rules, some house rules, and some possible ramifications of those house rules, see Joel Hahn's Mages and Armor treatise. In brief, while the core rulebooks state that wizards may not wear armor while casting spells, many players do not like this rule, both because lack of armor gets many a mage killed and because they can't think of a logical in-game reason behind the no armor while casting rule that doesn't also have some major negative or illogical ramifications (e.g. if it is because it is too constrictive, so is heavy winter clothing and that has no penalties; if metal disrupts the magical energies, then wrapping all captured mages with chains becomes standard and mages could have problems casting while standing on a metal grate, etc.; if it's because wizards aren't trained in wearing armor, then fighter/wizards belie the rule, since they have been trained in wearing armor). Here are several possible quick solutions to this situation:
For priests, the solution is simple. Have the character pray for miracles, and let the DM decide which spells the cleric gets that day. Level doesn't matter, and the deity is seen to be more omniscient if he/she/it can provide in advance the spells which are most likely to be needed.
For mages, there have been several good solutions posited. One is to do away with the memorization time. Another is to use some sort of mana point system. A third is to let the mage cast any spell in his grimoire, without memorizing it first, but with a chance of spell failure. There are an infinite number of variations on these and other themes.
Rewriting the entire spell system is a task not fit for a FAQ, but it is not too difficult to construct your own based on the rough ideas above, or to just take a system from some other game and transplant it into your campaign.
Over the years, many people have expanded this concept to include other varieties of "holy warriors"--especially evil counterparts to paladins--and several varieties of anti-paladins and demi-human paladins have sprung up over the years. The most-often cited (and looked for) article on the subject appeared in Dragon #106; it was titled "A Plethora of Paladins" and was written by Christopher Wood. This article detailed paladins of every alignment except Lawful Good ("true" paladins) and Chaotic Evil (anti-paladins, covered in an article in Dragon #39 and Best of Dragon, vol. 2). For those looking for a copy of this article, but who haven't managed to turn up a copy of Dragon #106, you can find it on the author's web page, in a somewhat revised version.
The third edition DMG includes a special class called the Blackguard that is similar in many ways to an "anti-paladin"; otherwise, third edition paladins still must always be lawful good, even if this puts the character in conflict with the default alignment for his race.
According to TSR's Arms & Equipment Guide, p. 82, the AD&D morning star is #1 above. This is borne out by the arrangement of the Tight Groups on p. 59 of the CFH and the description of the weapon on p. 140 of C&T. (Note that this is true for 1st edition AD&D as well, as evidenced by the description of bugbears on p. 12 of the MM and the illustration of Hruggek on p. 105 of DDG.)
Sources that support this description:
Description #3 appears to have come into use in the early to mid-19th century. Many sources that use this interpretation can be apparently traced back to a German treatise on medieval weaponry written around 1850 by F. Kottenkamp. The section on morning stars was based on an English work written around 1830, and seems to suffer from a number of mistranslations, as that page has a number of incongruities and contradictions.
Description #2 is a recent effort, constructed in an attempt to reconcile the first and third interpretations.
If you wish to use descriptions #2 or #3 in your games, that is your decision, and is something that many people have done over the years. It may not follow the rulebooks, nor necessarily history itself, but on your own campaign world, you can declare that the grass is purple and the sky is chartreuse, if that works for your world. Just be sure to label this as the way things are done IYC when discussing the weapon on the newsgroup in order to avoid flames.
For handy reference, here are brief descriptions of the various weapons of the affected types (flail and club):
Flail-like:
Club-like:
All characters can potentially attack anyone within a certain range, depending on the weapon weilded. For example, most standard D&D weapons have a "threat range" of 5 feet, and most pole-arms have a threat range of between 5 and 10 feet. If an opponent in that area drops his guard, you can attempt to take advantage of that by making an attack of opportunity.
The PH lists many actions which, if done while you are in a "threatened" area, allow any opponent(s) who "threaten" that area to attempt an attack of opportunity, in addition to your normal number of attacks per round. Basic movement and casting spells are the most commonly seen of these. Note that movement only incurs attacks of opportunity as you leave a "threatened" area (especially important for pole-arms) or if you move around inside of a threatened area. Exceptions to this are discussed in the next question.
Standard characters can only attempt a single attack of opportunity per round, no matter how many opponents within range drop their guard; the Combat Reflexes feat increases this to a number of attacks equal to your Base Attack Bonus, with the exception that you can never attempt more than one attack of opportunity on any given opponent more than once per round. Also, you are not required to attempt an attack of opportunity if an opening presents itself; since most characters only get one attack of opportunity per round, you may want to save it in case a more important target gives you the opportunity later in the round.
Some DM's may make an exception to this if you are hasted or something similar--since in that case you can make an extra partial action in addition to your normal actions and movement that around--in which case, they might rule that you could take a five-foot step as part of your normal action sequence and then move as your partial action. However, this is an exception; under the standard rules, even when hasted you are limited to a total movement of five feet in one round if you want to avoid in that manner attacks of opportunity caused by movement.
The exceptions to stacking are standard armor and shields (which both provide armor bonuses, yet stack with each other though they do not stack with any other armor bonuses), enhancement bonuses on standard armor and shields (which still stack with each other, but not with enhancement bonuses that affect other armor bonuses), enhancement bonuses on ranged weapons and their ammunition, and dodge, synergy, and some circumstance bonuses (which stack with any other dodge and synergy bonuses, and any circumstance bonus not caused by the exact same circumstances).
Bonuses and penalties are always totalled separately, then each number is applied to the character, regardless of type. Cursed armor provides only an armor penalty (rather than an armor bonus and an enhancement penalty).
Some examples:
A fighter with a 13 Dexterity, +3 chainmail, a +1 shield, bracers of armor +2, a ring of protection +1, who has just drunk a potion of haste and a potion of maximized cat's grace, has an AC of 26.
The cat's grace adds +5 to his Dexterity, making it 18, and thus changes the AC bonus from Dexterity from +1 to +4. The shield and chainmail's armor bonuses stack, as do their enhancement bonuses. The bracers of armor do not stack with either the chainmail or the shield, so the chainmail's higher bonus is used and the bracers' bonus is ignored. Everything else stacks, resulting in a +17 AC bonus and a total AC of 26.
Note that the bracers of armor aren't completely useless to this character because they provide a "force" effect. If he finds himself up against an incorporeal creature (such as a spectre), the incorporeal creature's attacks bypass all armor that is not made of force or that does not have the "ghost touch" ability. Against such a creature, the fighter's AC bonus would lose 8 for the chainmail and 2 for the shield, but would gain two for the bracers, resulting in an AC of 18.
A wizard with a Dexterity of 13, Intelligence of 18, a headband of intellect +6, and a scarlet & blue ioun stone, who has drunk a potion of maximized fox's cunning and a potion of maximized cat's grace, has a total Dexterity of 18 and Intelligence of 24.
The headband, ioun stone, and fox's cunning all provide enhancement bonuses to the wizard's Intelligence, so they do not stack; only the highest, the headband, is counted. Even though cat's grace provides an enhancement bonus, since it does not enhance the same ability as the other enhancement bonuses, it takes full effect.
Note that the ioun stone and fox's cunning aren't completely useless; if the headband of intellect is destroyed while the others are in effect, the +5 from fox's cunning immediately applies, and the wizard's Intelligence only drops from 24 to 23. Then, when the duration runs out on the spell, the +2 from the ioun stone immediately applies, and the wizard's Intelligence drops from 23 to 20. (The wizard's memorized spells may be significantly affected, however, as fox's cunning and a headband of intellect have different effects on memorized spells.)
The best thing to do, in any case, is find a system which the group prefers to use and stick with that. If the group doesn't feel like taking the time to learn a new system, then the current one still works just fine for thousands of players, especially with a few house rules to customize it to the specific campaign.
Continue on to Part 9
Copyright © 2002 by Joel A. Hahn