Thomas Seitz wrote:
All I know this year I bought a bottle of Glenfiddich aged 12 years because the 15 year one was 105 dollars... And I don't feel like spending that much.
Are you sure it was a 15 year old one? I just checked the prices here in Old Europe. The only Glenfiddich that approached that price was the 19-year-old. The two 15-year-olds cost between €35 and €40.
Do you have an example?
Please note that I wrote "knives". Scalpels are a kind of knife. Just see the dagger as a symbolic representation of a scalpel.
I didn't need to know about Sapkowski's fantasies.
Pharasma would be my pick, she is everything I would like except for two little flaws, deals with death and has the domain check, deals with fate check, deals with rebirth check, has the healing domain check, true neutral check, favored weapon dagger whyyy??? this should be a scythe, and the most important deal breaker.... she hates undead and wants them all to die.
Because she's the goddess of birth as well as death. Knives are not only used to sever the connection between an infant and the mother (by cutting the umbilical cord), but are also needed to perform a Caesarean section in case something goes wrong.
The Real LG wrote:
May Pharasma and Iomedae forgive this humble soul for committing an act of necromancy. I just got this book and so far it is fantastic, but I have to ask, does anyone else think that a young Ailson Kindler looks just like Larsa and vis versa? If this has any actual meaning to it and is not an unorthodox coincidence, just reply "Spoiler", please and thank you.
Just keep reading.
The diabolist in the book might not have taken levels in the Diabolist PrC.
I think he's an Eidolon.
"Ancestry" sounds incredibly clunky and you will never see a person in the real world use that word in conversation when talking to another person, outside of academia. And even there they would use words like "ethnicity", "nationality" or "race".
Firstly, your personal experience is anecdotal and cannot be generalised. People do use species in everyday conversation when applicable.
Secondly, you are German, are you not? If I'd meet anybody using "Rasse" when talking about human beings (and not about dogs, for example), I'd be extremely wary of that person, for obvious reasons. Btw, "Herkunft" (i. e. Ancestry) is rather common in my experience.
Overall, I think that Planar Survivor is not a big problem in this regard. It is quite easy to come up with an explanation and the GM has the last word.
Battle Medic, OTOH, is pretty silly. It's a feat that would not exist in my game as it is now.
Still, it's not as bad than those "Ah clench muh teef reel hard so muh nose stops bleedin'" feats from the Healer's Handbook or the ridiculousness that is Ricochet Toss. (Not to speak of the 4e core mechanics or the Tome of Battle.)
It may be that the flavour descriptions are not finalised yet, though, and the final product will look different in this respect. Maybe you will need to expend some resources to use Battle Medic.
I think you just erected a completely different goal somewhere on the pitch and now use a spotlight to highlight it.
That's not the same. In your example, using Diplomacy always has to include some method of communication, usually talking. There's your in-game explanation.
If you say so. I find it funny that you're the one having problems coming up with a narrative to fit the rules here.
For example: the more damage you take, the more trouble you have lessening further damage, until you eventually die.
I take it you know how soldier in "the olden times" looked after they had survived a few battles. They were full of scars from superficial wounds. There are a few instances that suggest that people kept fighting after they had suffered severe head trauma.
Also, that's where magical healing comes in. And not some weird rules element that doesn't explain why it heals damage.
I see. You meant to write 'has' instead of 'had'.
In that case, the fighter gets hit, but could twist his body in a way that lessened the blow so that he didn't take the full brunt of it.
He's lying on the ground bleeding. 23-31 equals -8, does it not?
Apparently, that's what we're meant to believe, yes. I would have kept the line from PF1 about turning blows into less serious ones, because it makes more sense in this context.
By definition, in these three systems, when characters gets hit, they get hit. No being exhausted by barely dodging or some such thing.
(Also, the fighter would be at negative hit points and close to death in your second example. I would imagine him bleeding out on the ground.)
A couple of questions: If hit points are meant to be abstract, why are they defined in the playtest as "Hit points represent the amount of punishment a creature can take before it falls unconscious and begins dying"? And why does it say that "damage decreases Hit Points on a 1-to-1 basis and healing restores Hit Points at the same rate"?
The definition is more vague in 3.5 and PF1 (both include the same line of turning blows into less serious ones), but it is pretty clear that hit points are meant to represent health in all three systems, not some abstract concept.
Don't celebrate if you're not willing to spend an extra 5-10 bucks per month for Disney's streaming service. Because that's the only way you're going to be able to watch it (along with all the rest of the Star Wars stuff and the Marvel movies).
Erik Keith wrote:
I'm using Waterfox 56.2.0
I think your number of spellcasters with access to Plant Growth is too high. I'd say you can count out most druids (they are concentrated in the Verdurdan Forest and don't care about agriculture). That mostly leaves clerics of Erastil who took the Plant domain.
Also, spellcasting availability in a settlement doesn't mean that there is an NPC with a PC class living in the vicinity and adepts don't have access to Plant Growth.