Talk:Jaida (3.5e NPC)

From D&D Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Issues[edit]

  • What is her barred school? Evocation or necromancy? Diviners only have one.
  • Has she chosen not to have a familiar?
  • She's missing a 0-level spell (specialist bonus slot).
  • Should have 50 skill points; (3 + 7 lvl) x (2 + 2 Int + 1 Human).

Sledged 12:21, 11 January 2007 (MST)

  • Necromancy. I changed her spellbook to reflect this.
  • Correct. She has no familiar. She prefers to remain unobtrusive at court. If she were to select one, she should choose a snake (tiny viper). At this time she does not.
  • Thanks, I missed that. Added another detect magic.
  • No. Int = 13. First level is 16 ranks. Level 2, +4 ranks. Level 3, +4 ranks. Level four int boost-- +5 ranks. Levels 5, 6, and 7-- +5 ranks per level. Total is 44. She has put ten into Concentration, Knowledge (Arcane), Profession (Courtier), and Spellcraft. I have neglected 4 skill points, which she will put into knowledge (religion). Thanks, though, since I was slightly off (by 4 ranks). Your math was off because you counted her bonus from the headband of intellect into skill point generation, which does not occur.
--EldritchNumen 18:36, 11 January 2007 (MST)
No, I calculated her starting Int to be 14 because she knows three languages. If she started with an Int 13, she has one too many languages, unless she spent 2 skill points to learn a third language. (Odd that wizards don't have Speak Language as a class skill.) —Sledged 19:02, 11 January 2007 (MST)
Ah, you are right (about her having one too many languages). I always add languages last, and forgot to subtract the bonus from the headband. Excellent catch. When I remove Draconic, I believe that the skills and everything will balance out. Is this right? --EldritchNumen 19:48, 11 January 2007 (MST)
Aside from the missing synergy bonus to Spellcraft from Knowledge (arcana), a minor error (you listed Knowledge (religion) with +13 instead of +7) the missing subtype, and a little hyper-linking (all of which I corrected), all looks good. —Sledged 15:06, 12 January 2007 (MST)