Razz's page

He stated they're using the "Invisible" condition to make it easier to remember any modifications, it is NOT invisibility, per say.

See Invisibility (and the like) are magicks that pierce through illusions that conceal. The idea of being stealthy is your movement is so inconspicuous, the targets simply just don't perceive you yet. See Invisibility and the like don't increase your Perception, they just unveil what's magically hidden from sight.

Stealth isn't magical, it's a skill. Meaning you've mastered methods and techniques to stay out of sight and to move with little to no noise in order for your enemy to accept you as nothing to notice as any threat (or to not notice you at all). See Invisibility has nothing to do with that.

Razz, check your email.

If it's the IP address, it's because we live in the same house as he is renting.

Also, you never replied to my email on the fact that I had a friend (who I am now angered at still) that was on my laptop during a gaming session and shared one of my purchased products with another, who must've then went on, apparently, to share online with my info on it without my knowledge.

Of course you have no proof of that but you also have no proof I am wrong, either. Circumstantial things do happen, after all. I'm angered at such circumstances leading to such a wrongful assumption.

Yeah, please don't have shoddy editing as bad as WotC's. We don't want to live with the nightmare of their editing work ever again.

I mean, maybe this is just me. But what's the appeal of high level play beyond 20th? At 17th or so things begin getting to the point you really have to adjudicate things on the fly because the PCs have such a high aggregate power compared to what you can throw at them.

Yes, it's cool to say your character is the stompiest of the stompy, but at level 20 there's very few obstacles (barring you playing Forgotten Realms) to doing as you please.

There is a huge appeal. I think the problem is many DMs do not see it. The appeal in my groups is very simple. Think of the anime Naruto/One Piece, or just about any heavily violent Shonen anime, or even better, think of the game God of War.

My players want a Fighter that can bull rush three great wyrms through an adamantine wall.

They like a wizard that can topple a mountain with one spell.

They enjoy taking on monsters 100 times their size and having, say, a Monk flying kick such a creature through the throat and out the other side.

They enjoy a Cleric calling divine light from the heavens to smite an army of undead.

They want a Barbarian that can fend off 1,000 orcs by themself and hit a solid rock wall down in one club smash.

A Rogue that can penetrate a demon stronghold and assassinate a pit fiend one by one.

All this legendary stuff but in a fantasy setting. It can be done.

I'd like to be spiteful towards WotC and say what I think the real reason is for, yet, another set of layoffs. It's the continuing failure of something that starts with a number and ends in a letter and has the nerve to call itself by a name that it no longer resembles, but we've all beat that horse dead long ago :D

For example, four characters have the Shield Wall teamwork feat. A character increases their shield bonus if adjacent to an ally with a shield and the feat (+1 if light shield, +2 if heavy).

So, if 4 characters with heavy shields and one is adjacent to his 3 comrades, would his shield bonus increase by +6? (+2 for each ally) or does it not stack and remains at only an extra +2?

What exactly is allowed with this spell?

What if you make an image of darkness, can you hide in it?

What if you create an image of a tree, can you use it as cover to make a Stealth check?

I assume if you make an image of a wall you have "total cover" and cannot be seen (but not really cover, since it's not real).

Just curious on the clarification.

In 3.5e, Sunder was rarely used by PCs and, also DMs. Unless the DM

For PCs, this was because no one wanted to destroy their eventual "treasure". Even though I have had PCs learn that you can probably have an easier time hitting the enemy or weakening its abilities if you just sunder their shield or their staff or wand or whatever.

For DMs, nothing angers PCs than having their precious magic items "gunned" for. Despite how much sense it would make for, say, a highly intelligent creature to just destroy that particular piece of equipment to better take on the PC, you're considered an evil DM for doing so.

What made sunder such a less-used attack was due to two things:

1) How easy it was to destroy non-shield/weapons. Shield and weapons were opposed attack rolls, but destroying anything else simply had to hit a really low AC. Only the item's size and wielder's Dexterity bonus counted.

2) How with all magic items, except armor, shields, and weapons, it only takes one hit to destroy. Cloak's hardness and hp? 0 hardness, probably 2 or 4 hp. Amulet? Hardness 2, 5, or 10, and 2 hp. Boots? Hardness 2, maybe 10 if they were greaves, hp 4 probably, maybe 5.

Pathfinder did a good job at solving Number 1. By using CMD for Sunder, more experienced, strong, and quicker enemies have an easier time protecting their equipment from being struck than weaker ones. This balanced everything out just fine.

That still leaves Number 2, the one-hit break problem.

So, is there an eventual solution to this? I know a few WotC 3.5e spells that can drastically increase the hardness and hp of items and it seems to me that all magic items should get this automatically, or there should be a rule allowing increased hardness and hit points based on the Caster Level of the item created. Say Hardness equal to caster level and hp equal to five times caster level. A CL 12th ring would have Hardness 12 and 60 hp.

The main question is what were the thoughts of the designers for this issue? Or did it slip away when putting the rules together?