MongoLikeCandy's page

How does the Undead Master feat interact with creating a Necrocraft monster? Does it increase the HD limit by 4? Necrocraft requires Make Whole. Do I need to increase the caster level for that as well to be able to boost Necrocrafting? Desecration work as well?

Or, is Necrocraft completely separate and simply has a hard limit of HD cannot exceed your caster level?

MongoLikeCandy wrote:

You're right, he needs to stick to Profession.

Or perform.

It's unclear to me if this is an example of someone with low mental stats or an example of a performer. Either way, keep little girls out of this.

Vivianne Laflamme wrote:

Ashiel's position, that is the "the mechanics matter, fluff is mutable" and "let people play what they want as long as they are following the rules so everyone can shut up and have a good time" positions, expand the range of possible characters. Any concept is allowed, so long as the mechanics are followed. For example, you can play a ranger who is neither a scout, tracker, nor bounty hunter.

The position of strictly interpreting the fluff for ability scores (or just strictly interpreting fluff in general), on the other, limits the number of possible characters. If you go with this approach, all druids must have a lot of willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition. It's not allowed (without building a completely mechanically incompetent character) to roleplay a druid who is more analytically minded than intuitive, whose long years among dusty tomes and alone in the wild has dulled their common sense and awareness among other people.

Why would you want to go with a position that limits the possibilities for roleplay, rather than a position which gives you gives you more freedom in roleplay?

I <3 you so much right now. You totally get it. :O

Didn't you just tell me I can't play a low Charisma character who has low Charisma because of a disfiguring scar, but has no psychological problems with it?

Weirdo wrote:

Several non-skill charisma checks made to influence people have been mentioned. Your failure to take those into account suggests either you are ignoring your opponents' position or intentionally misrepresenting it. Either way it is making it very difficult to engage in rational discussion with you.

Citation please. I've heard mention, but no citation. And I've asked for it.

What has been cited are diplomacy or intimidate checks doing exactly what the skill says it does, within the constraints and limitations of the skill.

I've never said they should have a harder time using the same skill with the same bonuses. I've said that the skill itself doesn't do anything more than the skill indicates, and that not factoring charisma in generic non-skill related NPC interactions makes no sense.

Do you disagree with that?

I believe they refer to the mention of Charisma in opposed contests when trying to command a beguiled person. It's true that the line you are defending could have been written with that in mind. However, it is worded in such a way that it covers ANY check dealing with social interaction.

Checks that represent attempts to influence others. I'm not understanding why anyone thinks this line definitely does NOT cover social interaction, but MUST cover contests of will in a few spell descriptions. It's the old religious debate. You can't prove this line covers initial NPC attitudes. They can't prove that it doesn't. Neither side understands why the other doesn't get it.

I'm of the mind to say it covers both.