Zolan Ulivestra

Agénor's page

378 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 71 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Another thing to keep in mind is that most characters has resources that regenerate each day usually, those are spells, powers and the such, even H.P. indirectly.

Your group should be facing several challenging encounters by between two regenerations. If they don't feel they have to make choices when it comes to expending those resources, then they aren't challenged enough times over the course of a day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can I ask why you choose to play Mythic or simply high level?

It seems from your description that you'd more enjoy the game at lower levels of power.

Also, it seems a lot of your game revolves around combat. My experience at high level is more politics & influence and less combat but when combat happens, it is an epic battle that will resound in history for centuries afterwards.

Not to go badwrongfun but options 1 and 3 are the kind of discussions to be had at session zero. In short, discuss with the player and come to a tentative solution as a group as this issue is meta-game rather than game hence the G.M. is in this only another player at the table.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I'm still here. 2E didn't kill my participation, work and life did.

As the swashbuckler said. Life always finds a gets in the way.

Both my Pathfinder groups have been finding less time to play and one of the two groups alternates Pathfinder with other games (L5R and Shadowrun). The existence of 2E has little to do with the lessened activity. If anything, it keeps us playing PF1 campaigns as we know the Golarion setting is still actively written for.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I see monetary resources of such a magnitude as more than ingots of gold. The finances of a character represent the will of others to work for said character, constantly being maintained and renewed.

A bit like a character levelling up can be narrated as having trained for a long time to acquire the techniques but it is only at level up that it is reflected upon mechanically, I see removing said amount from the inventory of a character as having been spent on a longer period of time, for research, goods, discussion, experimentation, by the character or by others. The moment when the gold is removed from the character sheet is only when the sum of all this is gathered, compiled and used in a way to produce the object.

There is a lot of meta-game in it.

The characters are doing much more than what the players have them do. Only most of it doesn't reflect in the mechanics. It is when a lead materialises that the cost is paid. A character doesn't get to react quicker from one day to the next in the story, she gets better at it time after time and when she has reached sufficient results, the players gets to write «Improved Initiative» on the sheet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And judiciary truth often has nothing to do with reality.

Ever done science before?^^


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TxSam88 wrote:
When you don't have data/evidence you can use to prove a point, you then rely on people who have experienced the situations in question.

When one doesn't have reliable data, one doesn't make strong affirmative statements as if they were self-evident truths.

Literally, you don't know enough hence you don't know. You didn't state an opinion or a personal experience, you've stated a fact. You didn't leave open the possibility of someone answering «Well, I've had a different experience.» but left open the possible answer of «No, TxSam88, you are wrong.»

When you don't have evidence to prove a point, you can't prove it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PCScipio wrote:
You don't need an official party leader, but someone should be driving the plot forward. This is particularly important in play-by-post games, which are very prone to running out of steam.

I think the O.P. was specifically asking about those cases where all the characters are not on equal footing, where one is hierarchically superior to the others in whatever hierarchy the players believe in.

He is talking about a character leading other characters, not particularly a player leading the other players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

MrCharisma sees it well, Chaotic Evil if the character is willing to harm others for personal gain, Chaotic Neutral otherwise.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

- In case this needs to be said, the profound and wise thoughts I have read here make me like this community even more. Keep up fighting the good fight! -


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thread Necromancers' Guild wrote:
Anyone know an overzealous paladin?

Isn't this a pleonasm?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Laprof wrote:
That's what I think as well, but I'm afraid there will be discussion about it...

You are the Game Master, Good and Evil and what constitutes them as meta-physical concepts, in a universe where meta-physics has a strong tendency to become physics^^, is your purview as the creator of said universe. It is actually the first privilege of the Game Master, in terms of story-telling rather than adjudication of rules, to decide on the fundamental powers and views of the universe. Whether you play in a published universe such as Golarion or one created by you for the purpose of the game doesn't change a thing, you are running it, it moves through you and you decide how it moves and why it moves.

I am not saying you shouldn't explain to your players if their characters are savvy about cosmogony - and otherwise, the core of things will remain a mystery to them. I even advocate co-operative story-telling, having the players sometimes decide elements outside of their characters. But on something as fundamental as what is Good and what is Evil, once the game has been going for a while and especially when there is power at stakes for the characters, I think it is a mistake to make it a discussion. Explain but there is no negotiation to be had, your thoughts are the universe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This becomes a discussion about alignement^^

Good alignement is doing good unto others, not accepting one's own well-being deriving from the suffering of others and actively opposing those that inflict suffering upon others.
Neutral alignement is not actively fighting them and refusing one's own-well being deriving from too blatant suffering of others.
Evil is selfishness, caring only about one's own well-being, making others suffer to improve it if it happens to yield positive results.

As such, using clearly Evil methods when one could choose not to is incompatible with being Good.

So the way I see it, the voluntary use of demonic implants is incompatible with someone alignement being Good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

From the rules, I know of Blessed Keepsake.

This being said, I can imagine using parts of a demon to use among other things in a ritual to summon an even more powerful demon. Or as components to make a curse more potent. Or to have a victim eat/drink then becoming more and more corrupt. Or use them as a graft to become a vessel for demonhost....

They are made from demon, they are «such stuff as [nightmares] are made on». They are not made of organic matter, they are made of horror coalesced.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dunelord3001 wrote:

I never said they couldn't I said they aren't.

People who play orcs as the bad guys want to escape a complicated world for a few hours.

Escapism, exactly, escapism in which I'd like societal issues like racism to be fought and defeated, wrongs to be corrected so why can't I escape there because someone else would like dominion/us-them/[take your pick] to be found acceptable behaviour in-universe? Why should I leave the table rather than the other way around?

Also, I know of at least one rather influential fantasy comics of the nineties that straightforwardly shows the holy knights in shining armour to be the racists genociding the orcs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Coriat, I think VoodistMonk's position is not about semantics. I read «slavery» above to be understood as a synecdoche, specifically the name of a given element used to refer to the whole set, here coercion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I see various possibilities for summoning. Those summoners that care about others could have made a pact with the summoned creatures, like Elric had with the elemental lords. It could be plain coercion as well for those summoners that don't care about the well-being of those they bring forth. I think there is room to fluff it in many ways but, no, summons are not shadows.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My favourite druid is the protocol one, it is fluent in over six million forms of communication^^


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Daermoth wrote:
What about those with a permanent duration? Such as bestow curse and others. Does the curse/effect disappear?

A Djinni can cast Major Creation with a Duration of Permanent for vegetable matter. In the case of a summoned Djinni, through the spell Summon Genie for example, this Djinni would be able to cast Major Creation, choosing to create vegetable matter of some kind, this created matter would disappear when the Summon Genie spell ends, regardless of what the duration of Major Creation would be.

Because it doesn't seem to be clear for all, there is a distinction between Duration : Permanent and Duration : Instantaneous. The first one is Bestow Curse, it stays until removed, the second one is Fireball, it exists for an instant only.

In the case of summoned creatures, those spells that end when the summoned creature disappears are those spells the creature has cast that haven't ended already. Instantaneous spells end the instant after they are finished being cast, as such, whether the caster is a summoned creature or not is irrelevant.
Also to be noted, the consequences of a spell are not the spell itself, if a castle collapsed because a spell sent a critical part of one of its load-bearing walls to another plane, dissipating the spell brings the part of the wall back but the doesn't undo the collapse of the castle.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I do not have the rules in front of me so I can't quote. I think it can be found on the Magic section of the core rulebook.

Spells and abilities that have a duration that are cast by summoned creatures end when the summoning spell ends, be it from the summoning spell having run its course or the summoned creature having died.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Real-life account of a bear in modern warfare.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I knew a thread with «rouge» in the title would attract Diego Rossi^^


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quixote wrote:
Idealistic farmland struggling to control their newfound abilities.

Can I play some farmland please? - I assume the newfound abilities are sentience and emotions^^ -

Joke aside, not specific to Pathfinder, the tone of the game and what the characters are expected to be and to become in-universe over the length of the game and whether this game is a long scenario in a few acts or a full-fledged campaign.
Specific to Pathfinder, with a group of beginners, with the system, I'd advise not to over-read the breadth of options available for characters to be created but rather to spend time understand the core of the rules, that pertains to everyone. Also, it is easy to get obsessed with number-crunching, which is only fun if everyone does it to somehow the same extent so let players help each other there.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I once played at a table with a notoriously difficult game master. I thought I could manage as long as I was in good faith.

During the first game, I had my character go to the town market, looking to purchase a pint of oil for her lamp. The game master told me I had found a merchant that had oil, the price was acceptable. I signalled that my character makes the purchase. The game master described that the merchant took the coins then proceeded to pour a pint of oil at the feet of my character, as I had not specified my character also wanted a container.

Hearing this, I waited a bit less than a minute, closed my notes, packed my dice, declared my character died for I had not said she kept on breathing and I left the table in the middle of the game.

No role-playing of quality will come from one of ill faith.

Willingly reading the rules in a way that is legalistic so as to thwart the validity of the characters of other players is ugly behaviour.

The rules aren't sent by a deity nor written in marble, there can be issues of all kinds in them and they can be amended.

- trivia : There is a spelling mistake in the current French constitution. Would you rule it makes the relevent passage inapplicable as the sentence doesn't mean anything in correct French or would you, like every one else, rule that the meaning is obvious, this is only a language problem, not a rules problem? -


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am also glad the climate here is more serene and less antagonistic.

What I wish is that discussions about Golarion, which are relevant to both editions, yet not about a specific published campaign, had a place outside of General Discussion on either PF1 or PF2 fora.
I stay away from those on the PF2 sections for the reasons that have been mentionned above.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Loren Pechtel wrote:
Yup. Arrows can't reasonably take down a door because their area of damage is simply too small. I don't care how hard you hit it, you only punch a small hole.

Structural damage is poorly modelled in Pathfinder. What matters is coherence, even more so than verisimilitude, particularly because verisimilitude while magic is involved is very fuzzy. I know what an arrow shot from a longbow at a thick wooden panel, such as a door, looks like, driven in or bouncing or breaking.... I am not sure I know what a +3 arrow shot from a +4 composite bow of strength looks like.

The door is resistant to piercing damage, sure, but to negate it entirely, I disagree. If stone can be destroyed with the blade of a sword then a wooden door can be destroyed by arrows.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Tacticslion is dotting this thread on his account. Having posted in it, the title of thread will now appear to him followed by a dot. It is a way of bookmarking threads one finds interesting to be able to easily reference it later going through one's own paizo forum account.

Go ask the owners of your friendly local game store how much they earn on average per hour worked. It is lower than you believe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As they've said, it is mostly the scroll for which you can't Take 10, as a failure could have consequences that would prevent simply trying again right away.

Take 10 for crafting, using the relevant roll, usually a skill, is allowed. I'd even say it is expected. To be able to Take 10, you must be in a place quiet enough, any place suitable for one to prepare one's daily spells in is suitable for one to Take 10 with regards to quietness.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Why Chaotic? I can envision a religious nutcase appointing himself legislator, police, judge, jury and executioner, reciting his law while attacking and killing someone that was detected as Evil. From the point of view of the paladin, the wicked person was armed, resisted arrest and tried to escape.
I do not see Chaos there, on the contrary, I see following the letter of the law, to punish the wicked and show them no mercy.
- pure Awful Stupid -


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yep, which is why I don't see it as a problem that the summoned creature would potentially stay indefinitely.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, they are un-armed strikes, lacking arms certainly isn't a problem^^


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What Diego Rossi says is sensible.
I could also see the creature staying indefinitely as long as it isn't destroyed, with the limitation that only one can be in existence at a time from a given vial as well as I could see the creature staying around for only a few minutes. 25k gold for a CR4 pet that can be called back from the dead once a week doesn't feel overpowered to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In case it is relevant, the fifth level Cleric spell Righteous Might increases the caster's Size by one among other effects while taking a Standard Action to cast.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Agreed, Balacertar.

Theaitetos, I do not like receiving orders nor having my behaviour dictated by others.

I have made my point clear and coherent. Whether one agrees with it or not is not the matter. The rule is unclear and either way could have been better written as shown by the above discussion.

*bows*


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Mare-tial arts^^


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The relevant part of the rules that shows a single AM field doesn't block itself is the spell entry itself. Its existence is proof that it doesn't block itself, since, you know, it works.

I am not claiming either way whether the line of effect is magic in itself. I do not know what the laws of the universe are, I only know the rules of the game, from which I can make an educated guess about these laws.

From there, if a pane of transparent glass blocks line of effect, if someone entirely behind a thin pane of glass from the point of the view of the caster, in an otherwise featureless plain, then this someone is protected from Dominate Monster. This is the intent of the designers. By this token, saying that magic is blocked from happening by glass but not by an intervening AM plane is not coherent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

At any rate, as Diego Rossi said above, both interpretations of the rules have internal coherence. As such, it is a matter of deciding which makes more sense, of interpreting what was meant by the author. Neither the rules nor the narration break with either point of view. Choose the one you feel most comfortable with and make sure your table is on the same wavelength, as as this thread has demonstrated, this isn't an obvious clear-cut case.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The line of effect is as much part of the spellcasting as anything else. The line needs to be present while the magic is being created/gathered/harvested/whatever. As such, the line being disrupted impedes the apparition of the magic effect.

How do you know there aren't magic particles travelling? How magic works or for that matter how physics work in Pathfinder is not explained. The rules only show the results of the laws of the universe, not the laws themselves.

In fact, I think the rule for line of effect is a strong hint towards magic having some underlying law there of particles/string/dipole/wave/whatever type.

However, this is the rules forum, narration matters not and therefore narrations may differ. I narrate a successful attack that deals some damage to a full-health character as a blow that she was forced to dodge, putting her out of breath and in poor footing to dodge further oncoming ones, other often narrate such an attack as drawing blood. It doesn't matter with the rules as long as the damage is correctly sustracted from the total H.P.

How the line of effect is narrated doesn't matter, what matters is that the line of effect is how magic works and as such, it is the results of the underlying laws of physics to which are bound universes governed by the Pathfinder ruleset.

By the existence of the line of effect, the game asks you to check at all times of spell casting that the target remains a valid one for the travelling of the spell from the caster to the target. Besides spells of which the charge can be held, one can't cast a spell without a valid target.

Antimagic field doesn't block its own line of effect, otherwise it wouldn't exist. Two antimagic fields can overlap, they don't suppress one another though they are both created by spells and as such at least one should cancel the other. How does one reconcile overlapping magically created AM fields and suppression of magic in such a field? Well, specific trumps general, the rules say it works. The same goes for a single emanation of AM, it works because the rules says so.
Same for Wall of Force and the other spells, those work because they work. Maybe their creator took into account the existence of AM while researching those spells but again, this is matter of narration.
Also, the text for AM field is about an already-existent Wall of Force on which an AM field would be placed. The casting of Wall of Force isn't Wall of Force, it still requires line of effect hence is prevented from happening by an intervening AM field between the caster and where she would have placed the Wall.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AwesomenessDog wrote:
It's only Crane Wing that requires a hand free to gain its benefit. Style is fine.

Note that the horse could still learn Crane Wing, as it would meet the pre-requisites, only it couldn't use it^^


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am not disputing that a solid barrier blocks line of effect. I am saying there are other things besides a solid barrier that block line of effect.

An anti-magic field on the path blocks the path of magic, so from the sentence just before the one you've bolded, an anti-magic field blocks the path of effect.

About the examples of movement of a magical effect in the field, those you've given are carried by something else, an object or a creature, a target that isn't suppressed by the field. If the magic effect isn't carried by a target, it cannot cross the field. This is what I was saying.

The lightning bolt isn't an accurate example for several reasons, I'd like to propose another one, magic missile, as it requires targetting.
Can one target something inside the field? I say yes, you say no. You say the missiles would fly into the field then disappear, I say they wouldn't fly in the first place as there is no line of effect.
About the lightning bolt, it doesn't require targetting, it simply progresses, square by square, centimetre by centimetre, Planck length by Planck length - whatever you use a metric for your narration. This progression is part of the magical effect and as such is suppressed when entering the field. Since all of the effect is suppressed inside the field, the bolt doesn't progress hence doesn't emerge from the other side.

Edit: @Diego Rossi, apologies for the poor formatting and the lack of quotes to the point I am answering to, as well as for the order of the answers. On my phone, the virtual keyboard isn't co-operative.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Being able to target through an anti-magic field wouldn't be much different then than being able to cast a non-instaneous spell into it, it would only be suppressed.
This isn't the case.

One can't cast Greater Magic Weapon on a weapon in such a field and for the same reason, one can't cast across of such a field.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Characters level 10 are superheroes. If Superman and the rest of the Justice League bump into a group of soldiers harassing civilians, it will be sorted in half a page at most.
The same applies here, this isn't an encounter worth having mechanically. Ask the players what their plans are when they manifest the desire to intervene then narrate it. From experience, players like it when the Game Master takes it upon herself to describe positively and with lively detail the actions of a P.C. Everyone likes to shine once in a while^^

- I do not like the system in the Elder Scrolls series where the level of encountered monsters scales with that of the character. If you don't scale down the ancient red wyrm for them to be able to best at level 3, don't scale regular infantry up -

That you want to challenge your players by presenting them with dangerous fights is an excellent thing. The P.C.s being level 10 means they rule, officially or informally, the region where they live. They have long stopped being mundane people at this point. N.P.C.s of similar levels are rulers, head of their orders and in general in positions of power. Just like the adventures of the Justice League aren't about mundane threats in order to be interesting, the same goes with your group. Time for them to travel through the planes^^


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Interesting question.

The antimagic field does block the line of effect.

From the rules about Line of Effect you've kindly linked to:

Quote:
You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect. You must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin of any spell you cast.

This means that for any point the caster wishes to affect, she must be able to affect any intervening point between herself and the point of her choosing. She can't affect inside the field so she can't affect on the other side of the field.

I do not like some consequences of this rule, that an infinitely small point of antimagic midway between two casters prevents them from mind-controlling each other.
On the other hand, I like that an infinitely big antimagic plane perpendicular to the line of effect between these casters does prevent them from the same mind-control - or summons or whatnot.

I get that one can't cast Dominate Monster on someone in the next room. I don't like that one still can't target through a closed window and I don't like that magic has to go in a straight line, as long as the caster can see/accurately sense the target.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xavram5 wrote:

isn't that essentially "stacking" the two spells?

Thanks!

«Stacking» in Pathfinder refers to (near-)identical effects from different sources. A bonus to saves and an extra attack are not similar hence benefiting from both isn't what Pathfinder calls stacking.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
yukongil wrote:


do you actually GM? Again serious question. Cause nothing you have said makes any sense as coming from someone with any GMing experience. Most of your job is adhoc ruling, because, surprise-surprise, no system can account for even a quarter of the things that players try and pull. DC to climb the Titan, how many halflings can I carry in one hand, what is the hardness and hitpoints of a wall of bodies, why don't moving bodies then have that? Can I shoot an arrow at someone in a fog cloud? Etc, etc, etc...

@Kitty Catoblepas,

I want to signal that I thought your post made a lot of sense and had a lot of good faith in it. As both a G.M. and a player in numerous systems for more than twenty years, I appreciated a lot the way you worded things. Thank you for it. In fact, when I read your post, I favourited it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hugo Rune wrote:
I'm wondering how many people who think the wand sharing trick is okay, would feel the same if the GM used the same loophole against the players.

As a player, I'd be no more bothered by it than by n spellcasters delaying to act all together, each pulling a scroll of the same spell and releasing its magic at the party, instead of passing the blunt wand around, as it changes nothing in the narration and will not create any dissonance, those are expendables we wouldn't have been able to loot anyhow.

Depending on the situation, it could be interesting play, say for example we knew beforehand they'd use such a tactic, forcing us to rush our actions to take down as many of them as possible to lessen the nuke before it goes off, or it could be boring if each of them could have acted in a more tactically sound way to threaten us as n times the same thing could be not as effective as each of them throwing a different effect at us.

Hence it has nothing to do with the wand and all with Delay Action.

In the worst possible case, it would be a powerful wand stolen from the party by the enemies. What would annoy me most would be them expending *our* charges of *our* wand^^ In this case, it is about the resources, those of the party that are getting depleted. Once again, it wouldn't be about the effectiveness of the combat tactic, it would be able emptying the wand as quickly as possible. Then, yes, maybe I'd find it of poor taste. Same feeling than being surrounded by rust monsters. Sundering our wand would achieve the same goal without the icky feeling.

Diego Rossi wrote:
there are situations where picking up and using an item in the same round is awesome (the paladin and friend example above)

I feel warm inside, thanks for the compliment^^


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Say a might holy warrior and his young squire and battling a demon. Initiative order is holy warrior, demon then squire.

The holy warrior swings her sanctified weapon at the foul creature, the sacred words etched on the blade annihilating the very essence of the demon, leaving the monster but a thread from utter destruction. The demon then unleashes all its might at the holy warrior, overcoming her defenses, leaving her on the floor, with a terrible wound at her side, dying, her sword having fallen at the feet of the squire with a loud clang on the stone floor of the mausoleum. Can the squire grab the weapon and hope their goddess to guide his hands as he tries to transpierce the demon?

Or because the sword has been used already in this round, he has to wait six seconds?

- there is no difference besides fluff between this scenario and the one mentionned above -


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hugo Rune wrote:
I recently posted my interpretation of the rule of cool and the rule of cheese. This is cheese. It is using the turn based nature of the game rules to disrupt the simultaneous activity they are trying to portray. If a player tried that im my game they would be told that they spent the last six seconds waiting for the sorcerer to use the wand and hand it to them.

This is the rules forum.

You telling the playing they've spend the last six seconds waiting for the sorcerer flies in the face of Delay Action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If they can use the wand, they aren't peasants^^


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Diego Rossi, the example of firearms has at its crux the physical limitations of a given weapon, a rate of fire, n rounds in x seconds. Wands have no such thing and as far back as I can recall into AD&D, they never had.

I do not know mythic rules well. Can a mythic character use a wand twice per round? Can a mythic character use more times per round an item that has an internal limit on the number of times per round it can be used? Can several mythic characters have a mount move further than usual by mounting and dismounting during the round?
From what I understand, mythic characters can use a wand twice in a round because those characters can act more. If those same characters could act even more, they could use the wand even more times. If they have scrolls instead of a wand, they could use them without a problem. What now if a scroll has multiple spells on it? Can't a mythic character read more than one in a round? - not sure whether scrolls with multiple spells still exist in Pathfinder, they did in D&D3.X -

I believe a party using a wand multiple times per round is ingenious use of the rounds and initiative systems by the players, not any different than choosing which spell to cast according to their guess of the save bonuses of the monsters. They still pay each price, in action economy and in wand charges.
It is the rounds and initiative systems that are designed in such a way. Using a wand multiple times in a round isn't a bug, it is a feature. One can't remove it without dumping the core of those systems.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The question isn't about the actions.
If for some reasons a character were to have a second standard action in a round, could this character use the wand twice?
Or what if there are three characters coordinating, the first one using the wand then dropping it, the second one picking it up then sticking it in the hands of the third one who would then use it.

I think nothing prevents such things and for good reason, the same could be done with a sword or anything else. It is an utterly valid tactic against an enemy immune to common damage type. Say the group of adventurers only has one weapon that can damage the monster, adventurers delays to act after the monster then the first one, wielding the weapon swings at the monster using however many attacks she got then drops the weapon, the second adventurer picks it up, swings once, drops it, the third one does the same as the second and so on....

Would you rule this foul play or inventive?

1 to 50 of 71 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>