If there is no item in PF which specifies that it can destroy the cord then arguably the first statement might well be true.There is no such item, which rather undercuts Anzyr's argument.
There is a creature with a special ability to cause the thread to recoil, but that's not what the spell is referencing because the consequences are completely different from cutting the cord. So "very few things" clearly means something else than what Anzyr's claiming. What that might be...
..."requires moderate to extensive GM adjudication, any arguments along these lines are undecidable outside of a particular table and thus basically useless for this discussion."
Huh, I thought the Shulsaga severed cords. Regardless, the cord has no means to be targeted. Therefore at the moment RAW, it's impossible to sever an Silver Cord. Good stuff.
Huh, I thought the Shulsaga severed cords. Regardless, the cord has no means to be targeted. Therefore at the moment RAW, it's impossible to sever an Silver Cord. Good stuff.
No, I'm not. Since there are very few methods of severing them, you'd have to find such a method RAW.
And we're once again into "this spell requires moderate to extensive GM adjudication, any arguments along these lines are undecidable outside of a particular table and thus basically useless for this discussion."It doesn't. It isn't destroyable by many means, so a means has to specify that it can before it does. The one item that can attack Silver Cords does so. Sorry.
That's beyond generous in reading. No where in the game does "not many," translate to "must specifically be called out." And that is particularly true bucause there ARE places where, "must specifically be called out," IS required by the game text.
Name a method that is effective then? Since RAW there isn't one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
... guys, i'm pretty sure the 'silver' part of 'silver cord' is in reference to the colour, not to the material. The 'very few things' is legacy text refering to silver swords, which no longer exist: a GM needs to decide what else would break them.
Both sides are also being super contradictory here. The cord clearly needs DM adjudication in the same manner as simulacrum does. Guess what: the whole GAME needs adjudication. Pathfinder RAW is just too weak to stand alone, so you guys are going to be arguing exploits which neither of you will agree work until the end of time.
But, this entire argument, on both sides, has long since passed into the farcical - so whatever I guess?.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
okay, so anzyr and co. arguing about semantics aside; wizard build yet?
Name a method that is effective then? Since RAW there isn't one.
Raw says "very few" with no qualifications. A sword can sever a silver cord.
Anything with the ability to cut a silver cord by the material description in the equipment chapter can do it. If you can't cut a silver cord with an axe it sounds like a personal problem to me...
wizard build yet?
I had one outlined with what it was using. (spell-list, stats, gear, ect.)
To find it, you must either search through my post history, or this thread.
Bwuahahahaha!
okay, so anzyr and co. arguing about semantics aside; wizard build yet?
I'm waiting on a neutral RAW GM. And a challenger who can agree to some conditions for the build/match.
Name a method that is effective then? Since RAW there isn't one.Raw says "very few" with no qualifications. A sword can sever a silver cord.
Anything with the ability to cut a silver cord by the material description in the equipment chapter can do it. If you can't cut a silver cord with an axe it sounds like a personal problem to me...
Please feel free to list it's stats here then. Inquiring minds want to know.
okay, so anzyr and co. arguing about semantics aside; wizard build yet?
No chance. Schrödinger's wizard doesn't need a stat block.
okay, so anzyr and co. arguing about semantics aside; wizard build yet?No chance. Schrödinger's wizard doesn't need a stat block.
Challenge me then.
I'm waiting on a neutral RAW GM. And a challenger who can agree to some conditions for the build/match.What conditions? At this point, I'd assert you're so entrenched that you can't trust anyone to be a neutral GM. I'm also curious to see just how much your conditions on a contender would directly or indirectly favor your preferred scenario.
Someone who isn't confused as to how Simulacrums work would be a good starting point. Then I'd need an agreeable point buy (though I'll be running loops around my stats anyway) and an agreeable arena or terms of engagement. Details are important.
Weren't you the person saying that the contest should only happen if stat blocks were hidden. Seems contradictory to demand one if an actual test will be run.okay, so anzyr and co. arguing about semantics aside; wizard build yet?No chance. Schrödinger's wizard doesn't need a stat block.
At this point I think they've realized I've been only using my commonly mentioned tactics and not anything I save for actual contests and are now afraid that if they accept they will not be successful. Though in fairness, the first thing that will be said is that my build is completely unfair. But then... I intend it to be.
Someone who isn't confused as to how Simulacrums work would be a good starting point.AKA someone who agrees with your interpretation of it.
The RAW. Not my interpretation. The RAW however, doesn't tie SLAs to HD. Though you'd be suprised what I can do with Su and Ex abilities.
Please feel free to list it's stats here then. Inquiring minds want to know.Name a method that is effective then? Since RAW there isn't one.Raw says "very few" with no qualifications. A sword can sever a silver cord.
Anything with the ability to cut a silver cord by the material description in the equipment chapter can do it. If you can't cut a silver cord with an axe it sounds like a personal problem to me...
10 hp per inch and hardness of 8. I will generously grant a full inch of thickness and still accept the use of the term "cord."
Where did you get those stats from? Because guess what? They don't exist. Thus it's impossible to destroy absent a means to do so.
Someone who isn't confused as to how Simulacrums work would be a good starting point.AKA someone who agrees with your interpretation of it.
And here I thought Anzyr was recusing himself.
Weren't you the person saying that the contest should only happen if stat blocks were hidden. Seems contradictory to demand one if an actual test will be run.okay, so anzyr and co. arguing about semantics aside; wizard build yet?No chance. Schrödinger's wizard doesn't need a stat block.
You should read my posts before talking about them. I SPECIFICALLY said I would happily share my stat block with the designated GM.
AFAICT, there were already a couple fighter builds posted. If that's true, the only person holding out is you, Anzyr. So, you're way off base saying others are afraid. Simply, either put up or shut up.
I'm offering challenges. I'm not going to put up my sheet prior to that obviously. Though I will be asking the GM to not disclose it, because I'll be using some of my meaner tactics. But feel free to step up.
uh, anzyr--people HAVE been challenging you. like, constantly.
you started off the thread saying 'oh but i dont need to stat it out', and as of page five i've seen at least two fighters and one set of 'rules' for a match that were relatively agreed to.
a large majority of what i've seen in this thread has been either people telling you to put your money where your mouth is, or arguing against whatever harebrained exploit you're advocating at the time. it's kinda sad to watch.
now, i personally think the wizard will win hands down, even without this silliness--mostly because spells are hilariously overpowered, and mythic spells even moreso.
i'm going to go back through the thread and find said rules post and return with it, and hopefully at least you personally can put forth a build, everyone can argue between it and a fighter build for a few hundred posts, and then everyone can go home because this is just ridiculous.
You should read my posts before talking about them. I SPECIFICALLY said I would happily share my stat block with the designated GM.Weren't you the person saying that the contest should only happen if stat blocks were hidden. Seems contradictory to demand one if an actual test will be run.okay, so anzyr and co. arguing about semantics aside; wizard build yet?No chance. Schrödinger's wizard doesn't need a stat block.
Funny, so would I.
uh, anzyr--people HAVE been challenging you. like, constantly.
you started off the thread saying 'oh but i dont need to stat it out', and as of page five i've seen at least two fighters and one set of 'rules' for a match that were relatively agreed to.
a large majority of what i've seen in this thread has been either people telling you to put your money where your mouth is, or arguing against whatever harebrained exploit you're advocating at the time. it's kinda sad to watch.
now, i personally think the wizard will win hands down, even without this silliness--mostly because spells are hilariously overpowered, and mythic spells even moreso.
i'm going to go back through the thread and find said rules post and return with it, and hopefully at least you personally can put forth a build, everyone can argue between it and a fighter build for a few hundred posts, and then everyone can go home because this is just ridiculous.
I'll disclose it to a neutral RAW GM.
I'm offering challenges. I'm not going to put up my sheet prior to that obviously. Though I will be asking the GM to not disclose it, because I'll be using some of my meaner tactics. But feel free to step up.That's meaningless chest thumping. Post a build.
Nope! I agreed to do a challenge and I will wait.
Where did you get those stats from? Because guess what? They don't exist. Thus it's impossible to destroy absent a means to do so.And thus the spell can't be interpreted RAW, because it says the cord can be destroyed yet doesn't give specifics on how. Thus without a GM an entire aspect of the spell can't even be interpreted without argument.
And without an agreement the spell cannot be properly used.
Though the description of the cord as incorporeal and silver does allow the use of the rules to decide the cord's stats.
It can be interpreted RAW. Namely, that anything that doesn't specify it can damage a Silver Cord, can't. See. Easy.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope! I agreed to do a challenge and I will wait.I'm offering challenges. I'm not going to put up my sheet prior to that obviously. Though I will be asking the GM to not disclose it, because I'll be using some of my meaner tactics. But feel free to step up.That's meaningless chest thumping. Post a build.
I challenge you to post a build.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Post a build.
I feel like you should be signing your name at the bottom of such posts.
I've offered to GM, and so have others.
Again, i would simply ban simulacrum or limit to caster only (and limit that to only a handful at most. Also ban blood money. If both are allowed then it seems the discussion just degrades into a numbers game of infinity plus one. "No i have infinite genies", "Ah but no, I infinite genies plus one..."
Blood money essentially breaks any semblance of having a wealth cap, which again makes this a rather pointless discussion if it is allowed.
I've offered to GM, and so have others.
Again, i would simply ban simulacrum or limit to caster only (and limit that to only a handful at most. Also ban blood money. If both are allowed then it seems the discussion just degrades into a numbers game of infinity plus one. "No i have infinite genies", "Ah but no, I infinite genies plus one..."
Blood money essentially breaks any semblance of having a wealth cap, which again makes this a rather pointless discussion if it is allowed.
Ya, see implementing a bunch of caster nerfs makes you kind of not you know... neutral. But hey I'll accept that if I can pick a bunch of stuff the Fighter can't use.
I said i thought I was a raw neutral GM, so I am offering.
I think it is ok to ban simulacrum though
I'll take it sans-Simulacrum ban.
Challenge me then.okay, so anzyr and co. arguing about semantics aside; wizard build yet?No chance. Schrödinger's wizard doesn't need a stat block.
I threw my hat in 3 pages ago! And 5 pages ago I tried to get you to tell me how you would spend your first frakking turn and you had to change your mind 3 times when I pointed out that YOUR TACTICS FAILED TO DEFEAT THE POSTED STAT BLOCK.
I explode runes you.
Dude, contingency with lesser globe.
OH! Well... I uh disjunction first?
Really?, why didn't you say that first?
Yeah, well I do. And I do some stuff with an acid thing and a bunch of questionable rules exploits for some splat book spells.
Um, that stuff doesn't work.
Exploding runez is teh winz!
Dude? What happened with the acid thing? And all the rules you broke?
NO ONE CAN DEFEAT TEH RUUUUUUNNNNNZZZXXXXX!!!!!!!1111eleveneleven