Mage Sniper

Ginglebrix's page

Organized Play Member. 117 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.



1 person marked this as a favorite.

Many DMs are way too harsh on Paladin behavior. They look for any reason to strip away the special abilities they have.

That being said, many players are unable to maintain a non-chaotic way of playing and want to act like all of our characters did when we were teenagers.

Here are some examples that may help all of us:

Think of Lancelot. He did not fall because of his lustful thoughts. He did not fall by making mostly-false reasons not to attend court. He did not fall by championing the queen in order to hide their secret feelings. He fell from grace after laying with the queen, abandoning his duties, and absconding from the kingdom.

Think of Anakin Skywalker. He did not fall when he constantly questioned authority. He did not fall when he became emotional. He did not fall when he took vengeance for his mother. He did not fall when he questioned his own morals. He fell when he killed members of his fellow order to join a more powerful and anger driven anti-order.

Now both of these examples detail minor misbehaviors that can be described as a "slippery slope" that eventually led to their fall, however, those examples in and of themselves did NOT cause the fall. The cause was the ultimate choice to indulge in powerful/lustful emotions and abandoning everything they stood for.

My point being, unless the paladin in your party has done something that all reasonable players would agree to be evil or unworthy of a paladin, then let it slide. Quit looking for an opportunity to say "Hahahah, I got you!" That kind of DM-ing is bad for everyone. Use those behaviors as ways to develop plot hooks and/or court/church politics.

As players, if you are not willing or are personally unable to conduct any of your PCs in a paladin-like fashion, then it would be best to create one of the many other character classes.

The solution to the OPs question is two-fold between the GM and player and is so easy that I am stumped by the constant problems with this topic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"...obvious things do not need to be defined."

This is how I felt/feel when this thread first began. Having an ability called "Unbreakable" seems pretty obvious to me.

I understand that sundering "destroys" the item. Fine. I still have bad feelings about that.

However, sundering my blackblade with your mace does not turn it into a puddle of slag, it "breaks it", which it is supposed to be immune to as long as the item retains 1 arcane pool point.

sunder
[suhn-der]
verb (used with object)
1. to separate; part; divide; sever.

break
[breyk]
verb (used with object)
1. to smash, split, or divide into parts violently; reduce to pieces or fragments

The definitions are nearly identical as they are each defined with multiple synonyms of the same base word.

I believe some people in the "we can break your blade side" of this argument would find less resistance from the "my blade is unbreakable side" if they stopped portraying us as being less intelligent or abnormally stubborn.

My entire post is written under the assumption that the oracle on the mountain entries were never submitted, lol.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or maybe using the current iconics and applying them to a couple of the archetypes under their character classes to show some diversity =)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ximen Bao wrote:

You need to connect your analogy better. As it is you're just imagining a GM ignoring a rule for no particular reason and with no logical connection.

With misfire chance of zero, if you roll a 1 nothing happens. No score is kept.

With immunity to the broken condition, if the item takes damage, it doesn't gain the broken condition. But it still took the damage, we still track the HP loss. If it reaches 0, the fact that it never gained the broken condition does nothing to prevent its destruction.

There is no obvious parallel.

Let's use the formula from your own analogy.

A monster is immune to non-lethal damage. So we track the non-lethal damage anyway, and when they reach 0 hp due to this non-lethal damage that has no effect, the creature is staggered anyways, per RAW, then goes unconscious anyways when the non-lethal damage that has no effect is tracked to negative hp.

This is ridiculous.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

mdt,

I would argue that this section tells you what you can do to repair or replace your blade HAD YOU NOT saved that 1 arcane pool point.

It does not necessarily equal "proof"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sundering has no effect on a blackblade as long as it maintains 1 arcane pool point.

I'm sure RAI were not to make the weapon immune to one condition but not the furtherance of the same condition.

That would be like saying:

The blackblade cannot be burned, but it can be incinerated.

The blackblade cannot be shocked, but can be electrocuted.

Makes no sense.