Maya Deva's page

Maya Deva wrote:

Holy Smite is a 20 foot burst: a sphere, not a disc. Ergo, it is quite possible to aim the centre in mid-air so that it does not affect the 5' cube near the floor. Since your average human is over 5 foot tall, he'd be creamed while the baby on the floor was unaffected.

So, in my campaign, while the baby, being NN, would certainly be toasted by a Holy Smite, the cleric could easily aim the effect so as to avoid hitting the baby (assuming no ceilings etc getting in the way). Same for a wizard casting fireball.

I suppose that is true. But then how do we avoid the next question of "What percentage of the BBEG's body need be in the AOE to apply full damage? Does he get a save for only being partially in the square?"? Things of that nature.

While I admit that is ridiculous, and I wouldn't pull that crap as the DM, I could certainly see my players arguing with me over it if the shoe were on the other foot. :-)

I'd rule that unless the PC is less than 5' tall, he's in and therefore affected: you're either all in or all out (same as a colourspray follows the squares on the battlemat whereas in reality it's an arc). Technicallities like ducking are already covered in the saving throw :)

Zog of Deadwood wrote:

Babies are neutral, unless, as raised earlier, in this game world or according to the tenets of the faith in question they are NOT neutral after being baptized (presumably many would then slide downward with age).

However...was this baby being held? Or was it on the ground or low bed? Was there a ceiling and if so, how high was it?

I ask because it seems at least possible in some circumstances to place a Holy Smite high enough to hit a standing villain of Medium size and miss an infant of Tiny size.

BTW, someone earlier using inductive logic, came to the conclusion that Holy Smite should not hurt babies because it would be ridiculous for it to cause late term abortions. That at least is not a concern. It wouldn't harm them at all, as there is no line of effect.

The infant was in the same 5 foot square, lying on the floor. But, I think the intent of the games rules are fairly clear in that if it affects one person in a 5 foot square, it affects everything in that same square. These rulings where "I place the spell just so it affects him from the nose up, thereby saving the baby he is cradling in his arms" is stretching the intent and making things overly complicated. That's just me.

Holy Smite is a 20 foot burst: a sphere, not a disc. Ergo, it is quite possible to aim the centre in mid-air so that it does not affect the 5' cube near the floor. Since your average human is over 5 foot tall, he'd be creamed while the baby on the floor was unaffected.

Archlich is the one I was thinking of, thanks.
Bealnorn seem to be basically the same, except for their function in soceity, which I agree is kinda weird. I can see a good-aligned individual having the urgent desire to stay in the world beyond death, but a whole group of them? Meh.

Not to mention a Good leading a small army of undead saints against the Evil Cleric's equal army of undead just seems really dang epic to me.

You mean like this? Order of the Stick

For the rest, in my campaign mindless undead are neutral aligned, lacking the brains to have an alignment.
And they ARE mindless, just as a computer is mindless despite being able to do some really complicated things. There's a program that can look at pictures and identify the animals the scientist using the program is interested in, and give a beep (or other signal) when it sees such an animal. It won't beep for rocks, plants, or even other animals (unless they really look pretty similar), and yet it is small and simple enough to run on a cell phone.
In a similar way, I see skeletons etc as being able to use weapons or follow spoken instructions because they have been magically programmed to do so.
Currently (in my campaign) their ability to detect life is blocked by a wall, but not by a bedsheet, though this may chance as I kinda like the idea of huddling under a blanket actually *working*.

Ghouls, ghasts and the like are intelligent, but generally are evil because their mind is not functioning properly: that's not Uncle Jack, that's just his body, and while the brain functions, the soul is gone, although random memories popping up *might* make it act in unexpected ways like hesitating before attacking somebody the real Uncle Jack knew in life.
Uncle Jack meanwhile is happily spending his time in the afterlife.

Truly INTELLIGENT undead such as vampires and liches can and do have any alignment, though they do tend towards evil, or at least towards being utterly indifferent to what mortals would considder important.
This has a lot to do with people acting in the way (they think) they are expected to, as seen in psychological experiments where the subjects are told that it's OK to do a certain thing that normally would be somewhat or even extremely NOT ok.
Nevertheless, just as some people will refuse to obey a direct order if they considder it bad, some undead will refuse to "act the part", and maintain their original alignment.

All this of course being my own home brewn campaign which you can ignore at will :)

PS: WHAT was the name of those good-aligned liches that WotC brought out at some point? I think they were in the Spelljammer supplement?

Sword born, I disagree on its bearing. the other schools maximize a theme of spells, but Divination huge advantage is the initiative. They are supposed to always go first. So spending a feat and a trait isn't OMHO going overboard. You could also sub out the feat and use the familiar for the bonus initiative. Either way, this allows their battle field control, enchantments, buffs/de-buffs or blasting spells to be maximized in their effectiveness.

In terms of RP'ing, yes you can play it like a "Big Brother is Watching You", Or you can see it as a paranoid blaster (or summoner, or ...) whose afraid that something will jump out of the shadows at him. It all depends how you look at it.

Exactly. THe question was what are good schools at low level; I hold that Diviner is a good school at ALL levels. The wizard I built has strong reasons to be jumpy and suspicious, and uses her magic to protect herself and her younger sister, but that is outside the scope of this discussion.

I'm rather happy with my Diviner.
For a boom wizard, few things are as powerfull as the ability to go FIRST, and always being able to act in the surprise rond is pretty darn good, especially coupled with a +9 or higher on Initiative (Dex 14, Improved Initiative, +2 init trait, +1 per 2 levels from Diviner).
Add in a starting Int of 20, and there will be a lot of monsters going down before they know what hit them, never mind being able to act.
If the monsters are still too far off, you can Haste or otherwise buff the party before they spread out too much, which is also a good thing.

Ninévriseï, her feet snug and warm in knee-high fur boots, grins at the blue gnome and raises her glass in greeting.

I'd say it depends more on the deity than on the settlement. I would imagine a nature/hunting deity to have a more indiviualistic religion, and so be more into a simple shrine, possibly tended by the local druid, possibly not even that.
A deity of law and order on the other hand I'd envision being worshipped communally in a church, with a clear program of what prayers/rites are performed when, and an equally clear structure of clergy attending.

Frodo and Samwise never wanted to go adventuring in the first place.

Aragorn kept fighting with the Riders of Rohan even after he got married and became king.

So not good examples.

I thought you listed unwilling heroes as part of the group that would want to continue if not for lasting death issues. Must have misread something.

Also, remember, SKR is advocating removing the cash penalty as well. So it wouldn't be about scraping cash. It would be about basically nothing at all but the spells.

IF that is how he wants to play, that's his choice. If Pathfinder decided to remove the gold cost in the books, I'd not be greatly concerned either, though I'd probably houserule some sort of quest, it's just too good a plot hook to pass up on.

I am not opposed to the roleplaying suggestions, but they don't seem realistic plug in options beyond Material Component:Maguffin on a side quest, and they don't answer the questions of "What happens if you fail the side quest" or worse "What if someone dies on the side quest?"

Hm? I thought that one was pretty obvious: if the quest fails, no Raise Dead. Or if that already happened, you still owe the church/deity a big one, and still need to find a way to settle the score. If somebody dies on said quest, well, then you will have to arrange for ANOTHER Raise Dead.

My main thing is I don't want it to be a "press continue" type scenario that kills the narrative.

Now that I can agree with, though it would depend on the story. To me, at low level death is a big issue; the party generally doesn't have the means to cast the spell themselves, and the cost is pretty significant. So, lots of roleplay opportunities.

Conan the Barbarian as an example? I'd rather use Beowulf as one, since he went to kill a dragon while he himself was an old man.

Not Conan, COHEN the barbarian, from the Discworld tale The Last Hero (and various other books)by Terry Pratchett.

Maya Deva wrote:

ciretose wrote:

At that point, nothing has a lasting impact on a player. There is basically no reason to hang up your sword other than old age.

Assuming this was aimed at my post: Well yes, that is entirely correct.

Although in reality, most PCs at some point (read: when the players decide they want to play something else) will settle down and get married, and spend their days raising kids and running their lands, be it a farmstead or a kingdom.
You seem to imply this is a bad thing, but neither I nor my players have ever found it so.

I am implying that when you remove disincentive and fear from death, you change the narrative of the game.

Adventurers, by definition, prefer to adventure rather than settle down. The narrative historically is the adventurer hung up his sword when it got to dangerous or they got to old.

Too dangerous becomes much less of a factor if death isn't an actual problem. That changes the narrative.

In games I've played in 3.5, generally if a player started falling behind the party because of multiple deaths, they retired. They could catch up because of the leveling system in 3.5, but often it was just a concept that stopped working at higher levels, leading to death and and party (and player) frustration.

I don't think "most" adventurers retire in the narrative of the worlds we adventure in. Most die adventuring, while a lucky few get out before that happens with enough loot to live comfortably.

Only, if you remove the penalty for death..."Daddy, don't go to the cave with all the treasure, it would be too dangerous, we would have to find a cleric to keep bringing you back over and over again until you beat the level!"

Although there are many tales of heroes riding off onto the sunset to their next adventure, there are at LEAST as many of the hero saving the day, marrying the princess, and... settling down. Especially the ones that never DID want to be a hero, but were forced into the role by circumstances. Frodo sails to the elven ancetral lands to settle, Samwise gets married. So does Aragorn.

Yes, by removing the penalties from death you change the narrative: you get a different story. Whether or not this is a bad thing depends entirely on the type of story you want.
Our group makes a big deal of dying roleplay-wise, especially when there wasn't enough cash to pay for the spell and an alternative method of payment had to be found.
But loosing a level (or a con point) was one of the first things that got houseruled out as unrealistic and undesirable.

At that point, nothing has a lasting impact on a player. There is basically no reason to hang up your sword other than old age.

Assuming this was aimed at my post: Well yes, that is entirely correct.

The origin of the weakness was born from the myth of vampires themselves, the creatures were so terrifying the myth needed something built in to protect from it. Things like Garlic were extremely common back in those days to mask things like slightly rotten meat (no fridges) and it was extremely common to live near natural running water.

Rivers, streams, brooks as such is listed as something many undead can't pass over.

Simply pouring water (unless it's holy water) on or pass a vampire doesn't work, so there for the decanter of endless water wouldn't work. It has to be running water, not poured water, so natural sources of running water are it.

Other wise water balloons would be devastating!

It's not just the availability; running water is generally seen as a source of life and thus anathema to the undead. Similarly, garlic protects against decay -and thus again the undead.

Traditionally, holy symbols also work when presented boldly, even by non-priests. In D&D, the GM might allow a holy symbol to deal damage like, say, a dagger. Possibly with a touch attack, as merely holding it agains a vampire's clothing is enough to burn them. Alternatively, a boldly presented symbol might function like a Sanctuary spell (level 1 cleric spell, will save to ignore).

Just as a side note, I've always assumed that removing the XP cost from crafting etc was a direct result from the Living GReyhawk game, where casters would deliberately craft items not because they needed them, but in order to burn xp and thus remain in the campaign for longer. This became more prominent as the campaign's level cap dropped: I've DM'd for people who practically begged me to kill their character so they'd loose a level and could continue playing.

Anyway, in my own campaign death is a roleplaying issue, and otherwise ignored. In the real world, breaking a leg used to be a really serious issue. I don't think anyone is complaining that these days it's a problem, but generally not exactly life threatening. All sorts of deadly diseases are now a matter of seeing the doktor and taking your pills.
In D&D, it's even less, as a quick visit from the local cleric will see you right as rain again in moments.
Personally, I have no problems with death being treated in a similar way: accidents happen, but with the proper help, you'll be back on your feet soon enough. YMMV of course.
We've never much bothered with explaining the cost involved: one spell requiring a 5K diamond is no more incongruous than another requiring a pinch of sulphur or the hairs of a cat. It may be less convenient to the PCs, but that's not something a force of nature cares about.

While I admit it's a bit of a leftover from 2E, I've always ran it so that when the wizard takes a week of downtime to craft, the cleric does the same, as does any other PC with a crafting feat, while the tank, the rogue and so on take a training course to practize the new abilities they mastered at last level-up, or want to take next time.
Or sometimes they do a stint as caravan guard, or escort for a wealthy prince or elderly wizard -despite what some people seem to think, amazingly enough, such jobs often DON'T involve fighting off big bands of brigands or marauding dragons, and when the PC's return home 3 weeks later, they may have gained a few coins and a nice tan, but certainly nothing the stay-at-home crafters need to feel jealous about.
At higher level, while Lady Startree is crafting a headband +6/+6/+6, Lord McGreatsword is setting the affairs of his keep in order, dealing with all those decisions his scheneschal lacks the power to make.

In short, as others have said, while the crafters craft, the non-crafters do other non-adventuring things.

Regarding crafting time: It's not come up so far in my gaming, but I could see having a properly equiped lab reduce crafting time. I could also see it as a nice money sink for those worried about WBL, if handled well.

As far as I understand it, technically, they're still using the spell Raise Dead, it's just that the IC explanation of how it actually works that's different.
So a scroll of Raise Dead (which includes the 5000gp cost already) would be an IOU from an entity capable of returning the dead to life, be it the deity itself or some other powerfull being, and it's still the cleric who's reading the scroll, or someone with sufficient ranks in UMD.

As an aside, in my home brew campaign there's something known as a Diamond Heart, a traditional wedding gift for the very well off.
It is a magical, heart-shapes jewel (usually a pendant) consisting of a large diamond in a platinum setting rimmed with tiny saphires and inscribed with a single word. Touching the heart to a dead being while speaking the inscribed word will return the being to the land of the living.
Take a wild guess at the pricing ;)

Also, stop the game for a few minutes (not too long, mind) to allow the player to look through his paperwork for mitigating circumstances like a favour he can call in to turn that failed save into a success.
Meanwhile, other players can do the same if they wish, and you can check your math to make sure that hit really WAS a hit. Mistakes happen, and both as a player and DM I've forgotten to factor in a bonus/penalty that turned out to be the difference between life and death for the PC.

I haven't read the complete discussion yet, but wanted to post my 0.02 anyway ;)

Regarding Wealth By Level: I've always considdered this to be a rough guideline, to be checked when the DM starts getting the feeling the party is consistently over- or undergeared to the point where it negatively affects the game (ignoring stuff like Everdry Socks and other fluff).
To me, it's a tool to guestimate when it's time to throw in a couple of encounters with extra wealthy monsters, or (more likely), some poor NPCs in desperate need of expensive charity.
Sí signores, el bandits burned our whole village to the ground and made off with the harvest!

As for the original topic of diamonds and raising the dead, most adventurers in my campaign soon learn to invest in a Money Pouch, wich will turn any coins and gems into whatever coin or gem is desired by the user, making it easy to transport wealth and still pay for a beer at the bar. Obviously, gems generally have a fixed value based on size, and getting a 5000gp diamond IS a simple (if at times painfull) matter of forking over sufficient cash.

Actually Raising a PC doesn't come up a lot as we do considerably more roleplaying than combat, but the last time was when the PCs were around level 8, and PC A, a fighter, had, through some serious stupidity, caused the death of PC B: the party cleric.
Once the body was at the temple and the situation explained, the priests conversed with their god, then explained that under the circumstances, a Raise was possible, but for a price: a life for a life was only fair. This caused some serious debate among the players, but PC A, somewhat pale and sweaty, eventually agreed that yes, this was fair and he would willingly pay the price. Whereupon the ritual was performed, and the priests presented the party with a living PC B, and PC A with a set of holy garments, a prayer book he was instructed to study closely, and orders to go forth and spread the Good Word.
Not long after, PC A dutifully multiclassed into a cleric, and the party undertook a series of adventures to help him adjust his stats and equipment to match his new vocation.

For all you font-a-holics: The Font Temple has loads of free fonts.
The 3rd font on this page, Merlin, is one of my favorites for readable fantasy fonts. Of course, as a DM, I take sadistic pleasure in using the occasional *almost* unreadble font, with Alchemist being one of my favorites ;)