NeverNever's page

It isn't about trust, it can be something as simple as a player interpreting or stumbling onto something the GM hadn't noticed, and I'll be very honest if these forums have shown me anything, it's that a lot of people have knee jerk reactions without bothering to see if it's actually valid.

I'm just saying don't bust out rule 0 in the middle of a game just because some-one found something you consider strong and expect them to be perfectly fine with the apparent decision too target that person over everyone else, try talking it out instead of being a dictator.

Well, that post got away from me a little but my acutal point here is, rule 0 is an important rule, no-one denys that, but it can lead to people feeling victimised if it isn't handled carefully. With great power... yadda yadda. Try too look at things from your players perspectives, no-one likes having the rules changed from what they expected without warning.

Don't bother arguing with him Mister E, a lot of wizards players don't seem to realise that Schroedinger doesn't transfer well to a actual combat situation, you done very well and your clone strategy was rather original. Kudos.

For the record, I'll be interested in seeing how this duel turns out once it actually happens.

As powerful as wizards have the POTENTIAL to be this is often not quite the case in any situation where the player doesn't, in fact, have full knowledge of every variable.

In a weird way a wizards versatility is often it's weakness. There is so much it CAN do that the best way of doing something can be very difficult too find.

Ignore the previous poster.

What you need is to win initative. Make a dex focused vivisectionist/beastmorph. Focus him on throwing alchemist fires, two weapon fighting toss the alchemist fires, with sniper goggles (+2 damage per sneak attack die rolled), you still gain int to damage for thrown splash weapon so have a decent int score.

Build your items around having as high a dex/initative/int as poissble.

Wizards in a straight up fight without buffing time die just as easy as anything else.

If he somehow survives (which would require him either having built his touch ac up with items specifically to stop this build, or having a buff before hand) Then having the beastmorph archtype and some way to see through invisibility will allow you to pounce, with the agile enchantment too add dex to damage on your weapons, hopefully allowing you to finish him off. (enjoy the bite 2 rakes, plus normal weapon attacks on the charge).

But honestly if he gets one turn to cast you'll probably lose.

What's the rules on buffing? because that has a lot to do with whether you can win or not.

Edit:- what's the starting distance? This build would require you to be at least 35 feet away to work. Otherwise you'll still wanna go dex based with agile enchantment beastmorph/vivsectionist, have boots of speed and any speed boosts poissble so you can first turn pounce him before he can react.

I've gotta admit, in my head I had associated it with the magic monk specific gloves that neverwinter nights had added for monks, weird how a gaming company noticed that giving them a half decent way to buff attacks wouldn't overpower them even with high damage rolls, but on the actual pen and paper it's taking so long.

How does vestigal whatever and tentacle help with drinking potions?

Are tentacles even opposable?

Accelrated drinker trait for his bomb based alchemist, requires you to have the potion in hand, vestigal and tentacle specifically call out being used to hold extra potions and the like, as in the description.

As such it is not as clear cut as 'you're being a munchkin stop it.'

This is exactly why I weighed in. While I personally believe that paladins probably are meant to be using positive energy with LOH, I took offence at the various implications that asking a question, then backing up his points some-how equated to him being a munchkin bending the rules to his advantage to get what he wanted, when a lot of the arguments where simply "It's meant to be positive, nothing says specifically that but I know it's meant to be so stop disagreeing with me"