Lucien Malgus's page

Norgrim Malgus wrote:

A Bard Lich playing creepy Dirges to animate minions and using its very unsettling music to buff said minions actually sounds like a very cool idea, just make sure your Lich closely resembles Vincent Price to complete the picture ;)

You mean like this?

And I could see a bard nit only wanting to learn legends, but be one instead... By any means necessary.

That's pretty cool actually, and a good base to build off of to flesh out(no pun intended) the overall concept.

Awesome, sounds like some good times coming then. Have fun with whatever Lich concept you settle on, I know the stereotypical arcane type of Lich gets stale after a time :)

Fair enough.

Or a GM who gets absolutely swamped time and again. Many apologies.

What kind of work do you do?

Well, lol, if you can't bypass a door one way, improvise ;)

lol, now that's an idea for a magic item...Wand of Tooth Fairies.

For one charge, the wand sends forth a Tooth Fairy to claim any tooth as directed by the wand wielder. Can only be used against sleeping opponents who receive no saving throw against this effect. Later, when the target wakes up, it finds a single gold coin underneath whatever was being used as a pillow. This gold coin is provided by the Tooth fairy and not the wand wielder, also, the wand can be used no more than 3 times per day <arbitrary limitation>.

Or maybe a magical boat made from all three types of wands mentioned that allows us to sail anywhere we want regardless of weather considerations and plays the theme of the original Hawaii 5-0 at will. We can name it the....Enterprise, yep, or maybe the S.S. Minnow if we crash on a deserted island....yeah I got nothing!

Yeah.....but then you'd have to remember to brush the wand's teeth every morning and before it goes to sleep........sounds like a lot of effort to me.

Ok GM, one more day goes by without moving forward with these Goblins and I get to write a Wand of Magic Missiles down as recompense right?

Oh, and it has the ability to summon Greater Demons that are fully capable of both carrying a tune and conducting 3 Stooges skits flawlessly....Only the best for my wand I say ;)

They are just using a slightly different way to reach the same result. You can figure what AC you hit in a way that's comfortable to you, lol, I just do it in my head. If I have a THAC0 of 18 and my final to hit result is a 14, I know I hit any AC of 4 or higher on the AC chart.

lol

Poor Goblins ;)

I hope he didn't either, but the show must go on, as the saying goes.

Color me eager, lol, but are we going to resolve actions against the goblins today or tomorrow?

Marroar, did you still need help figuring out your initiative?

Not a problem, I just wanted to make sure we avoid any confusion on the Initiative issue going forward :)

Nothing I have found concerning Dexterity in 2nd ED mentions an Initiative Modifier. It modifies surprise checks, attack rolls with ranged weapons, armor class, and certain saving throw situations. I just want to make sure everyone's on the same page with this, unless the GM is making it a house rule.

Ignoring the brash and somewhat rude elf, Lucien surveys the scene, concentrating on what is an obvious leader of sorts for these goblins. Considering for a moment that he could provide information concerning the happenings of his fellows and their current task, he reaches into a small pouch and grabs a few rose petals.

"I might be able to save us some effort, be wary of my spell please."

Lucien begins to chant in a fashion undecipherable to those without the proper understanding, and as the last of the rose petals fall from his hand, Lucien mimics a great yawn as he focuses on the goblin on the ledge.

Init:1d10 + 1 ⇒ (5) + 1 = 6
Sleep Spell, HD affected: 2d4 ⇒ (4, 4) = 8

Tactics dictating, the casting of the Sleep spell is intended to catch as many with 30' of each other as possible, but the focus is on the leader type goblin while avoiding catching friendlies in the affect.

If the formation needs to move from a diamond to a column in the cave, Marroar would take point as our trap man, Sydney I'm sure would be behind him, followed by myself, Rission and finally, Dlatha.

In the interest of consistency, is everyone ok with this setup as a standard column formation?

"My dear sir, should trouble find us, I shall not impede your ability to deliver your own version of it."

Looks like Marroar is taking point for possible traps, so it stands to reason Sydney and Rission have the flanks, me in the center and Dlatha covering our six. This is all assuming room enough inside to maintain this diamond formation.

Not a problem man, life happens ;)

Lucien says, "Very well, I'll light a torch and carry it."

Lucien looks towards Sydney and asks, "If you could take a closer look at the mouth of the cave, do you think you could determine whether or not it could be collapsed?

As I understand it, Dwarves have a deeper knowledge of stonework and rock that others do not. Unless we use torches within which greatly increases the risk of bringing a horde of these fellows upon us, some of us will be blind and stumbling in the dark."

Excellent shot Dlatha, Lucien quietly states.

I guess Marroar brings up the rear with his crossbow.

Dlatha has the rear, you and Rission have the flanks.

I appreciate the concern, but if injury or even death should find me this day, It will be on my terms, not the Goblins. Lucien falls into the center of Sydney's diamond formation.

A spell of sleep. I find it to be a very formidable enchantment.

Lich, it is far less problematic.

Walking towards to Dlatha, It would appear so, but any element of surprise they had hoped to achieve has failed.

Lucien hurries over to wake Marroar Gellantara, and once he is awake, moves among the remaining members of the caravan to awaken them as well.

Lucien's eyes pop open at the sound of Sydney's call, and he scrambles to his feet as fast as he can.

Sounds like Goblin troubles, Lucien mutters to himself.

Ah goblins, when there is one, there are bound to be more.

and more, and more, and... ;)

Lucien Malgus wrote:

BigDTBone wrote:

Lucien Malgus wrote:

seebs wrote:

I do think the comma argument is a much better argument than the "I don't buy it" argument.

It's not an argument my friend, that is sentence structure. If the second half had started following a period, with no 'but', then the argument for 'cannot die' would have merit; it would stand alone, but it doesn't, it represents completing the overall thought or idea of the first half of the sentence. Not trying to be snarky, but this is how it was intended to be read.

It isn't just a matter of punctuation placement. In that sentence that comma is paired with the previous one. The comma isn't being used to signify the end of a clause in a compound sentence but instead is used to mark the end of the aside statement, "as regeneration." Additionally, the conjunction choice is poor if the intent was to note that the subsequent text was meant to complete a thought. Instead of "but" they should have used "therefore" or "thus."

The use of 'but' is to signify the difference between the descriptions of the words "regeneration" and "fast healing" in the sentence describing regeneration. How it should have been written is "Creatures with regeneration heal damage at a fixed rate, as with fast healing, but unlike fast healing, they cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning (although creatures would still fall unconscious when hits points are below zero). In this respect, it does complete a thought or idea because the entire sentence relates to damage. If the intent was simply 'you cannot die while regeneration is in effect', then there is no need for any other text than 'you cannot die while regeneration is in effect'.

If that is what they wanted to say then it should have been a parenthetical aside rather than a serial use of comma delineated clarifiers. In fact, serial use of comma delineated clarifiers would be pretty terrible writing.

No, the comma represents a pause in thought and the use of several in sentences has been around for a long time. It's like me calling Mark Twain a terrible writer because he favors the use of semi-colons.

I'm done debating it and I'm sure several people have already used the FAQ option to push this towards resolution.

Profile updated

If you still see regeneration the same way, then hopefully that FAQ can finally clear it up for you one way or the other.

Lucien Malgus wrote:

seebs wrote:

I do think the comma argument is a much better argument than the "I don't buy it" argument.

It's not an argument my friend, that is sentence structure. If the second half had started following a period, with no 'but', then the argument for 'cannot die' would have merit; it would stand alone, but it doesn't, it represents completing the overall thought or idea of the first half of the sentence. Not trying to be snarky, but this is how it was intended to be read.

It isn't just a matter of punctuation placement. In that sentence that comma is paired with the previous one. The comma isn't being used to signify the end of a clause in a compound sentence but instead is used to mark the end of the aside statement, "as regeneration." Additionally, the conjunction choice is poor if the intent was to note that the subsequent text was meant to complete a thought. Instead of "but" they should have used "therefore" or "thus."

The use of 'but' is to signify the difference between the descriptions of the words "regeneration" and "fast healing" in the sentence describing regeneration. How it should have been written is "Creatures with regeneration heal damage at a fixed rate, as with fast healing, but unlike fast healing, they cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning (although creatures would still fall unconscious when hits points are below zero). In this respect, it does complete a thought or idea because the entire sentence relates to damage. If the intent was simply 'you cannot die while regeneration is in effect', then there is no need for any other text than 'you cannot die while regeneration is in effect'.

I do think the comma argument is a much better argument than the "I don't buy it" argument.

It's not an argument my friend, that is sentence structure. If the second half had started following a period, with no 'but', then the argument for 'cannot die' would have merit; it would stand alone, but it doesn't, it represents completing the overall thought or idea of the first half of the sentence. Not trying to be snarky, but this is how it was intended to be read.

Ok, that should actually settle it, the 'they cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning' comes after a comma. In other words, that final piece of the overall sentence is what completes the thought, or idea. So yes, it is in fact tied directly to the 'heal damage at a fixed rate'. Unless my memories of my English classes have truly failed me.

2nd edition is cooler about giving players special abilities. In 3rd edition you wonk up the CR system if you do, and there is an expectation that every entity in the game below the level of deities needs to function the same way. In essence, you would have to make that special ability the function of a template or something.

Not only that, but it also felt more special if/when it happened.

Lucien Malgus wrote:

Yeah, it wasn't meant in a serious tone.

OK. It's hard for me to tell -- in every one of the endless threads on that topic, people make that same argument and are actually serious about it.

Nah, I love making allowances for players in 2e, such as the optional rules governing demi-human advancement, but nothing as absurd as what I posted in jest earlier.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Lucien Malgus wrote:

You should feel bad by not allowing the Halfling Dragon-Paladin who's 'special mount' at 4th level is a young Gold Dragon character concept into the game you're running. Like...what the hell man? Stop being uncreative ;)

So, by allowing stuff beyond the core races, one must also allow the characters to start with superpowers and artifacts, and ignore all of the game rules at will. Fascinating.

(It's just sarcasm, roll with it. Although, believe me, I've met players like this. Egad, the things they'd require...)

Yeah, it wasn't meant in a serious tone. I would have thought the ;) would have given it away. This was actually something that my friend was trying to make happen back in the day for his Dragon-Paladin concept, Human, not Halfling.

Stefan Hill wrote:

In 3e+ I had to now modify the rules to disallow Halfling Archmages, and was therefore seen as a restrictive or bad DM.

Yeah, I love being labeled a bad, or... and I REALLY like this one - "an uncreative DM" just because I do not allow (or make allowances for) everything-under-the-sun in every game...

You should feel bad by not allowing the Halfling Dragon-Paladin who's 'special mount' at 4th level is a young Gold Dragon character concept into the game you're running. Like...what the hell man? Stop being uncreative ;)

Lucien says "good night" as he lays down next to one of the wagons.

Hey, if that's how you roll in the game and everyone's cool with it, that's fine. I'm going to jump on the 'agree to disagree' freedom train and ride off into the sunset ;)

-Play with no level limits while giving humans something more than unlimited levels with classes. A +1 to two attributes . Or two starting weapon or nonweapons proficiencies.

^^This demonstrates that by allowing unlimited advancement for demi-humans, you do not need to reinvent the wheel to add a couple of beneficial abilities. Bad game design? Ok, I'll grant that their reasoning could have been better, but at the end of the day, we all had a good time with the system.

Lucien Malgus wrote:

I'm curious, how would you reconcile Energy Drains? I couldn't see regeneration helping when it's your life-force being threatened. It's not hit point damage and regeneration is not immortality.

I dunno. I think you'd just end up being really, really, damaged and screwed up, but not dead, because nothing has suppressed your regeneration. Sounds sucky.

That's just it though, regeneration heals hit point damage and even lost limbs, but your life energy is not something regeneration actually deals with. Energy Drains operate outside of those two conditions and attacks the very essence of who you are. If you are focused only on the 'you cannot die' part of the description, then it is no longer regeneration, it's immortality. It opens the idea that suffocation, dehydration, starvation, among other things, cannot kill the target. Regeneration is a potent ability, but not that powerful.

Honestly, if I had to make a choice between 3.x/PF and 2ed and never being able to play the other again, I would select 2ed. I never had the kind of rules interpretations, debates, character balancing issues, which spells to ban, which classes to ban, and so on when dealing with 2ed as compared to 3.x/PF.

I'm curious, how would you reconcile Energy Drains? I couldn't see regeneration helping when it's your life-force being threatened. It's not hit point damage and regeneration is not immortality.

Lucien says, "Rission recommended running a cold camp, and I see the wisdom in those words. I defer to those of you with experience in such matters."

Looking now towards the forest, then back to the elf, Lucien says, "Your concerns are valid, but so were Dlatha's questions, if you feel that strongly about the risk then perhaps both you and Sydney should bring your concerns to Letrane to discuss tactics. Forgive me my lack of manners and not greeting you first. I am Lucien Malgus, son of Hadrius, I am pleased to make your acquaintance."