DM Says NO!!!!!!!!!'s page

It's not about attacking with the staves..it's about a wizard being able to have say, a quicken/maximize metamagic staff and an extend/intensify one so that he can spontaneously apply more types of metamagic to his spells...

I'm wondering if this seems like it could be within the rules, or if this is a big no-no... and if so the rules stating why not ...

Show me the rules saying you can and you'd be good to go...

Now if I was an evil GM who actually warned the players about this trip before hand and they ignored advice it would only be fair for me to remind myself this. Unless they have Endure Elements on every living thing the food intake in such cold climes is huge...I think about 10K calories per person.
First bit of kit I buy for PCs? Ring of Sustenance. Second bit, Handy Haversack.

Is this Jade Regent?

EDIT: I hear ogre is tasty...Perhaps have them find "The Halfling Cookbook" full of delicious halfling recipes...

Well I'm not the GM and this is a build I was knocking up for a friend so I'll just point them here and sit back!

However the Strong Jaw + Vital Strike + Behemoth Hippopotamus with +5 adamantine vorpal dentures wearing the pink tu-tu of striding and springing is staying...with a fiendish template.

Thanks for the input people

You can't Spring Attack / Vital Strike, sadly =(.

I'm sure SKR or JJ said its totally legal even for PFS play if the hippo is wearing a Pink Tu-Tu of Striding and Springing...or was that a cheese dream...

Strong Jaw + Vital Strike + Behemoth Hippopotamus = Hungry Hungry Hippo!

Now if you get Spring Attack in there as well I'd be impressed.

It can be perceived multiple ways, hence my searching. >_>

LOL.

I did a search and checked the FAQ before posting however my search-fu is weak.

I'll leave it up to the GM how he wants to rule it unless someone can point a yes/no official response.

Thanks for looking!

I swear I saw a FAQ on this before... but I think it only effects whatever natural attack is selected. I'm digging now to try and find that FAQ

There's no FAQ on the D20pfsrd hence my asking.

I have no vested interest in this so it really doesn't worry me.

A friend asked me to rebuild his Druid...it was rubbish.
Now its kinda shifted the other way. He's in for a shock!!

"Each natural attack that creature makes deals damage..."

"... double the amount of damage dealt by each of its natural attacks instead"

Implied? It seems quite explicit for me.

Touching one of the natural attacks is a gesture part of the spell but does not mean that it limits its effect to touched part.

Hmm...

DESCRIPTION
Laying a hand upon an allied creature's jaw, claws, tentacles, or other natural weapons, you enhance the power of that creature's natural attacks. Each natural attack that creature makes deals damage as if the creature were two sizes larger than it actually is. If the creature is already Gargantuan or Colossal-sized, double the amount of damage dealt by each of its natural attacks instead. This spell does not actually change the creature's size; all of its statistics except the amount of damage dealt by its natural attacks remain unchanged.

I take it the enhancement is on the touched natural weapon ONLY and it doesn't effect each natural attack is implied in the test?

In no way or shape should the ranger need to make a 50% miss chance to touch himself. That should be considered automatic.

You may wish to rephrase that...

If you're not comfortable about it just say no.

My cheesy-build sense starts tingling when I see things like this. And it does bug me a little when players automatically assume a right of entitlement when a new book comes out. That said anything below 20 points shouldn't be a problem (Drow Noble aside) just be very careful if they want to build a custom race...

Most of as long as everyone is having fun...who cares?!

When adding new levels of an existing class or adding levels of a new class (see Multiclassing, below), make sure to take the following steps in order. First, select your new class level. You must be able to qualify for this level before any of the following adjustments are made. Second, apply any ability score increases due to gaining a level. Third, integrate all of the level's class abilities and then roll for additional hit points. Finally, add new skills and feats.

Until you do all those things you will stay at 9th... So nope.

Read up and understand the skills being used and stick to the RAW. 90% of the "OMG this is broken!!" is down to players/GMs not understanding the built in limitations (sometimes intentionally most often due to misunderstanding). When I say "understand" look at ways it can be abused and then see if there is a counter within the rules.

Don't try and screw the player over because he made an effective build.

Jacob Saltband wrote:

VERY few players are as smart, wise, or charismatic as their characters can be. So asking them to RP beyond their normal capabilities is just asinine. Asking someone to RP a low ability score is doable.

How exactly is that equitable; a high-stat character isn't obligated to roleplayed as such due to incapacity of the player but a low-stat character is obligated to be played as such? And it still doesn't answer the question as to how the quantity of your intelligence which is reserved for mechanical benefits can dictate the quality of your intelligence when it comes to roleplay. If a 25 int character can fail to come up with an intelligent solution, why can't a 7 Int character succeed in coming up with one? If there's a threshold at which a character is not intelligent enough to come up with a solution, what is the threshold at which a sufficiently intelligent character will simply be handed the solution by the GM and, if such a threshold exists... what's the point of roleplay? I discussed above the matrix of how the quantity of any particular stat interacts with the quality of that stat as...

This is the way I would put it if my personal CHA wasn't so low.

I guess I am fortunate that the maturity(?) of my fellow gamers is such that we don't even bother rolling stats anymore but assign whatever they feel like based around their particular concept...and I have NEVER seen all 18s or all 16 and above. Its always around (oddly) a 20 point buy.

And yes at my table people DO try and pull the silver tongued CHA7 stunt. My reply has always been "Yes, that is what you think you said..." and give my measured response at what would be (IMO) more reasonable and let dice decide the outcome for a Diplomacy check for instance.

VERY few players are as smart, wise, or charismatic as their characters can be. So asking them to RP beyond their normal capabilities is just asinine. Asking someone to RP a low ability score is doable.

If you could point out that asking them to do any of those things I would be grateful.

All I am saying is people get their panties in a twist over this for (IMO) no reason. Everyone seems to come down hard on the Player who RPs his low CHA PC as some kind of sliver tongued charmer and I don't know why.

To some it is annoying to me it isn't. If I make a Diplomacy check I use the Artificial Game Construct CHA bonus/penalties. I don't base it off what the Player has said. I MAY give a +2 Circumstance bonus but that's it. If as a GM you choose to ignore those rules then who's fault is that?

If the player of a CHA17 PC kept RP the character as a mouthy irritating douche are GMs everywhere telling that person they are playing that PC wrong? Or a WIS7 PC is the player forced to make rash choices?

As long as everyone at the table is having fun I don't care.

Jacob Saltband wrote:

How many players feel they can effectively potray a 25 mental stat?

Ignore this post. I was misreading something in one of Kazan's posts.

Actually I think this is relevant...

makes me smile that everyone gets hung up on low stats (especially INT and CHA) but never a squeak about high end ones.

a stat is an artificial game mechanic nothing more, what you do with it outside that mechanic (rules) I don't personally care.

Except it's not an Attack, it's a Move Action by the caster. That's relevant, is it not? I know the word "attack" and the technical term "Attack" are being conflated here, but they shouldn't be.

The mage directing a flaming sphere to move into an enemy is not making an Attack, he's making a Move Action. Therefore his invis doesn't drop. At least that's how I read the OP's question. The distinction with a Move Action vs. an Attack is relevant.

GM: Your Invisiblity drops, you attacked.

Mr.Fishy wrote:

Speaks in the thrid person.

Stupid fish can't spell anything right.

That will be his flappy fins.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
::runs screaming from thread::

What about Gish-Horses? Are they viable?

DM Says NO!!!!!!!!! wrote:

"You can't say "NO" you're squashing my concept! You're a bad DM!"
::runs away from thread::

Hurls +3 ban hammer of throwing 1d20+7

HA! My Black PJs of the Master Ninja provide a +10 Defelection Bonus and misses.

Firest wrote:

Would a rule be included to prevent a player from ping-ponging between Paladin/Anti-Paladin?

Because there's always that one player...

That rules is called the GM saying "NO"

Paladin is LG the Anti-paladin is CE.....I really can not see someone being corrupted so bad they are CE coming back to LG or many gods taking them back as paladins, they have just spread to much evil to ever be the shining example of good.

"You can't say "NO" you're squashing my concept! You're a bad DM!"

NO!!!

You are so strict. It's not like I asked to become a deity. I demand you give me a good reason why I can't play a dragon.

I AM THE DM WHO SAYS NO!!!

DM Says NO!!!!!!!!! wrote:

Mirror, Mirror wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

DM Says NO!!!!!!!!! wrote:

Because I said NO!

If I give you cookies can I play a Dragon?

Dragon? Are we playing Rifts?

NO!!!

"Just curious. What you say if we offer to hook ya up with a group of succubi, Immunity to energy drain,oil and a pack of Viagra?"

Yea thats what they all say...I'm just curious...

NO!!!!

wraithstrike wrote:

DM Says NO!!!!!!!!! wrote:

Because I said NO!

If I give you cookies can I play a Dragon?

Dragon? Are we playing Rifts?

NO!!!

DM Says NO!!!!!!!!! wrote:

Because I said NO!

If I give you cookies can I play a Dragon?

NO!!!

I find throwing myself on the floor and screaming for an hour solves the munchkin problem at my table.

Because I said NO!