Thomas Long 175's page

Organized Play Member. 3,157 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 4 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 3,157 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Flame Blade, Snowball, and shadow projection!

Renegadeshepherd wrote:

I admit this is a powerful trick but your still only doing the same trick. If your enemies ever get around this trick your absolutely screwed. I mean what if I happen to have a cleric, sorcerer/wizard who has dismissal or even its bigger brother banishment? Protection from alignment X spells? depending on how well, or how lucky, the summoners opponent made his prepared spells it is possible to shut down a summoner's summons but a summoner with his watered down list is unable to shut down a full caster.

The summoner has an enormously big and mighty hammer but full casters have a big toolbox. if they find and use the correct tool they can make that summoner cry. Some people don't want to play with a master summoner just because he is a broken record and I cant blame em too much.

True, but he's not asking for a big toolbox. He's asking for pure summoning.

Not to mention that even banishment can only do up to 2 HD per caster level, whereas the master summoner its not all that unusual to waltz around a dungeon with 3-4 of a step below your highest level of power running, aka a small army. How many banishments do you expect your enemies to keep on them?

Furthermore, the one thing that summoners do have on their mitigated spell list is pretty much every aoe buff they could find on the wizard lists. They get haste a level lower than wizards and frankly can make wands and such on the cheap.

So even supposing you're right and they pull the big old banishment. We assume CL of 4 higher than the summoner. So a 9th level summoner and a 13th level wizard just to say? A standard action summon will kick out approximately 3 Hound archons for 18 HD. Even assuming every single one fails their save, that means that a wizard 4 levels higher (or using some combination of hated items) using the improved version of dismissal would still only be able to banish 1 more Hound archon than you summoned each turn.

My vote goes to master summoner hands down. Walk into the dungeon, summon yourself a small army, go through the entire dungeon without ever having to summon again.

Never mind that there is a feat that they can take repetitively that basically gives them another usage of the highest spell level of summon that would be possible at that level.

Extra summons I'll happily take an extra 9th level spell for a feat.

gamer-printer wrote:

Nothing I discussed in the entire thread had anything to do with whom you kill. By RAW its any person, "someone", for no other reason than to become an assassin. Why would I argue otherwise, its plainly stated.

In the several assassins I've played even long before 3x, all were always loners and never part of a guild of assassins. I'm not an advocate for nor against the inclusion of a guild of assassins. Whatever works in your game is fine by me.

Just the assumption of a guild is not some "out of nowhere" (and must be a houserule) idea with how an assassin works, they've been around (and later disappeared) since 1e, and assassin guilds were a thing since then. That doesn't mean a guild is a must-have, just that assuming there are is not far-fetched.

Ah, well then you entered in on the wrong argument. The argument was that an assassin could choose whomever they wished to kill to qualify for the prestige class, including people whom were evil, enemies of the state, etc.

The other side argued that a guild exists that gets to select whom you must murder in order to qualify for the prestige class and the guild and thus all assassins exist merely to make money off of the profession. I.e. every single one must be cold blooded loners who will kill anyone for enough coin.

The argument is over whether there is a default assumption of a guild for the purpose of determining who gets to select who is killed for the purpose of qualifying for the class.

gamer-printer wrote:
Right, because its a conversion from 3x, with specific wording deviating from the previous, thus the change in rules and meaning. That said, the new version of assassin doesn't specifically discount the existence of a guild, just that it no longer requires a guild's participation. It is not a mistake or houserule to believe that a guild still may be involved. The change in wording doees not imply that all previous descriptions of the rule (in a different rule system) are negated, only that that more specification has been applied.

As said before though, allowing them to select for you who to choose in order to join the prestige class is a house rule. They don't get to pick or choose who you kill, and to make it so is in fact a house rule.

gamer-printer wrote:


And changing the wording makes sense, since indeed many assassins today, in the RL are individuals not part of a larger organization, but hired as a professional within the criminal community.

Using 3x history, Assassins were members of an assassin's guild. These rules don't exist in a vaccuum, the PF variant of the rules is for clarification of not requiring to be in a guid. However, an expectation that there is an assassin's guild is appropriate.

But no where is your silly argument that anything else applies - such Will Smith, etc. I didn't just start playing PF with no reference to any previously published RPG....

Neither did I, but I recognize enough to know that just because things applied in 3.5 does not mean they still apply in Pathfinder. My "thieves" don't get extra xp for stealing anymore either.

The 3.5 may have had that as a baseline assumption. Pathfinder does not. And it is still no more appropriate to say that it is an automatic expectation of the game than for crack pilots. Because hey, we've got technology in this game too now!

Cerberus Seven wrote:
Spring Attack only prevents attacks of opportunity based on movement. Maneuvers you do not possess the requisite "Improved <maneuver>" feat for would still provoke from the target. I understand your reading but it would not fly at any PFS table or a game in which the GM knew what they were doing.

... Or in games where GM's disagreed with your statement and that spring attack ignores all AOO's from the designated target.

And PFS it would be illegal for them to ignore it.

Ravingdork wrote:
Thelemic_Noun wrote:
In the same spirit of correcting bullshït, George Washington Carver did not invent peanut butter, Columbus didn't discover North America, Amelia Earhart's body was found, and we know damned well what happened at Roanoke island.

Cite sources or it didn't happen!

(Said the guy who apparently didn't need sources to believe those things in the first place.)

EDIT: Seriously though, please provide sources, as I'm quite curious about some of those things. I didn't know that Earhart's body was found or that people said that GWC invented peanut butter.

And I don't even know what Roanoke island is about.

Roanoke island was a pre james town colony located in the new england area that was said to have died off in its 2nd winter. Apparently, when the ships arrived next season the establishment was still there but the people were all gone with no trace of what happened to them.

Thelemic_Noun wrote:
Jaçinto wrote:

Oh for earlier when someone said RL assassin/hashashin never cared about payment, yeah no. They were paid in hashish. They were paid in drugs so they could see what they thought was heaven from what I remember. Yes they had goals, but they were also drug addicts.



It is pure coincidence that hashish and hashashin sound similar.

In the same spirit of correcting bullshït, George Washington Carver did not invent peanut butter, Columbus didn't discover North America, Amelia Earhart's body was found, and we know damned well what happened at Roanoke island.

Mild curiosity, do we know what happened to the vikings that landed in northern canada?

gamer-printer wrote:
But its also an assumption that a guild does not exist. The rules don't specifically say there is no assassin's guild - only you are (and calling it a houserule to include one). You're reading in information that is not there.

It also doesn't say the aliens from independence day and will smith aren't there. Is it a house rule to say things aren't assumed to be in the setting if they're not explicitly called out in the setting? I'd say not. It's not assumed to be in the game unless the game calls out that it is there.

Just like any other existence, the burden of proof lies on existence itself, not lack of existence. Otherwise, Will Smith, ace pilot and alien killer is assumed to be in every setting until explicitly told he's not there.

Indeed, by the book there is currently no assumed guild that sets the prerequisite kill for you. There can of course be a guild, but it will be 100% a house rule to say that you have to fulfill a contract to join the prestige class.

Aka, if its not mentioned in the core to exist its an assumption to assume that it exists. Its a house rule to include one basically in the prerequisites to join the class.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, it seems pretty blatantly to be the intent RD. It says full round action to move and make a single melee attack, then move again. Grapple is a standard action, just like vital strike. Can't be used with spring attack unless you have the grab ability (in which case you're not really using the grapple option so much as it comes with the attack)

Sometimes we force constitution checks, and depending on who with, fortitude checks the next day.

The endurance feat of course applies to the first.

David knott 242 wrote:
But the requirement is that you kill the person for no other reason than to qualify to become an assassin. You are introducing a bunch of other reasons to kill your designated victim. I am not sure that you would even be given a choice of who to kill.

Once again. Its not an organization. There is no dark brotherhood that is handing out assignments. Unless your gm house rules otherwise, you may kill whomever you wish in the quest to become an assassin.

Oh wonderful, back when I started it was illegal and never bothered to look again lol. :P

Gevaudan wrote:

Be really careful about using incorporeal creatures like shadows. One of them could pretty easily wipe a party with no magic, barring every player playing some sort of non-magic alchemist.

Two or three shadows at once is wildly dangerous to normal low level parties. Non-magic gimps really badly in that situation.

Technically alchemical bombs are still non magical last I checked and incorporeal creatures are immune to every non magical form of attack. This would include elemental ones.

Holy water only works because it specifically calls it out in the ability.

Incorporeal Quality


An incorporeal creature has no physical body. It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities. It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms. Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it takes only half damage from a corporeal source (except for channel energy). Although it is not a magical attack, holy water can affect incorporeal undead. Corporeal spells and effects that do not cause damage only have a 50% chance of affecting an incorporeal creature. Force spells and effects, such as from a magic missile, affect an incorporeal creature normally.[/url]

Ah fair enough, I don't usually take magical knack into account as its not PFS legal last I checked.

No offense but whats his AC at lower level. Looks like you're getting all your AC from wands, barkskin etc.

At level 1 it appears you have a Dex of 14 and Wis of 16. Meaning outta the gates you'd be a front liner with an AC 15 and 10 HP. Don't get me wrong, it stacks up at higher levels but you're gonna be really vulnerable at lower levels.

Tacticslion wrote:

Hm. So what you're saying is, "Even though specific trumps general, and we're talking about the specific, I'mma stick with the general crunch, despite the specific proof that there are plenty of places where magic fails in many settings."

Cool. Cool. :)

(Also the more mutable one is the mechanics, right? I mean, that's what you mean, right? That's why we have FAQ and Errata, after all. On the other hand, I've never actually seen any instance of magic being warped, weakened, prone to failure, or other such issues ever being retconned. At least none to my knowledge, though links to the contrary are always welcome!)

Specific trumps general in rules, but last I checked the actual rules don't include magic failing. Its not something that can occur anywhere. Magic warping and all that crap occurs in a few places because the designers thought "hey it would be neat if this area had this."

So hey, you might have something if they decided to have sex in the mana wastes. Till then though.

And no, I didn't mean mechanics were more mutable. You don't get to control FAQ or errata. And it certainly does alter the game when they do so. Fluff is by far more mutable. It doesn't matter one whit if I want to make my fighter shoot lasers from his finger tips so long as I keep all the balance checks of wielding a longbow and such.

I miss the old feats from players handbook 2 that allowed you to move and get your 2nd attack, then move and take your 3rd attack.

Tacticslion wrote:

Oh, you're talking to me! How nice!



In addition to the mana wastes, there are:
- wish craft gone wrong
- failed wards
- degenerated magic items
- malfunctioning or cursed magic items
- primal magic surges

... and that's just in Pathfinder, off the top of my head. Throughout the history of the game, despite the fact that in-rules there is little to indicate this, in-literature based off of the game, there are plenty of times magic fails.

If you craft a specific setting in which magic cannot fail, that's great! I love stuff like that!

That's not the official setting canon, though.

Actually, that is. The official setting canon has stated rules. And those rules include nothing for magical failure.

Now literature may have been created for this canon that defies the rules presented. But that's fluff. And I think we all know just how hard coded fluff is for mechanics. (Aka my Dire Bear can be a fluffy bunny so far as the rules are concerned as long as nothing is changed.)

The rules shown for our canon society is this. Magic does not fail. You may have fluff that says otherwise, but I have rules that support my side. 10 guesses which is more malleable ;)

Edit: and to be more clear. Specific cases may have been created where this exists. There is no logic whatsoever to support it occurring here. There is no basis to support it occurring here. There is nothing, fluff or mechanical that would suggest it will occur here.

And trying to say because there are incidences of it in fluff means it can suddenly happen and is cannon is like me saying there's a rule in one ap where if you strike a golden dragon with a sword, because that specific instance has a 50% chance of the sword shattering that is now canon that gold dragons can shatter swords with their hide. No. It isn't. It's them creating a special rule for a one case scenario.

Or should we bring up paladin's worshiping evil deities again? :P

And all you need to be an assassin is to be evil and to have committed one murder with no restrictions on how the target is obtained for no other purpose than to become one.

It isn't a club where people dictate how you act afterwards. You can have any motivation you want both before and after. You just have to commit the murder for the purpose of becoming an assassin.

See paladin requires you be a LG paragon of virtue because its baked into the mechanics for it.

Assassin? Gotta be evil, and commit one murder just to become an assassin. There is nothing else there in requirements. You do not have to be without loyalty whatsoever. You do not have to be in it only for the coin. You do not have to learn the super secret handshake of a guild of greedy butchers.

Doesn't exist here.

Jaçinto wrote:
Again, at your table you can do how you like but those descriptions, by default, are not throw away. Everything and I mean -everything- in the rule book is a rule but every GM has the authority to use as much of it as they like.

Gonna have to disagree here. Fluff is suggestions. Its the basic default interpretation. It is by no means every member of a class ever. It also is not, and certainly has never been, a rule.

They are throw away. They're suggestions. They have absolutely zero mechanical bearing on the creation of your characters. They interact with the system as a whole in absolutely zip ways.

Fluff is not now and will never be rules.

So this is for everyone who feels I've insulted them.

No. Just no. I don't do subtle. I may tell you your ideas are bad. Perhaps even blatantly so. But that isn't telling you that you're bad. Not all our ideas are gems, and I just gotta convey that no this is a terrible idea.

So for future reference to avoid people feeling like I'm insulting them when it is in no way intended. Here is a step by step process to tell if I'm insulting you.

1) I saunter over (yes I did say saunter, that's important), big smile, real slow like.
2) I lean over, torso at 30 degrees from the horizontal, still smiling.
3) I look you in the eye and I say, "That idea was bad and you should feel bad."

Without the feel bad part it is not an insult, its just telling you your idea is bad. Other things that may be, but are not necessarily required for this process include archons crying at said person's logic.

Further references to me insulting people without said pattern listed above will result in ranged touch attacks including but not limited to: puddings, jams, water balloons filled with maple syrup, etc...

It will be messy. It will get in your hair. It will take forever to get out. It will be thoroughly unpleasant.

I apologize to all who feel I've insulted them in the past due to the lack of said system. Hopefully this clears up future confusion.

I will be here all week. Hopefully, next week as well, Lambertz allowing. Love ya Chris!

Have a wonderful evening all.

Diego Rossi wrote:
Again, irrelevant. It is a flat surface? No, it isn't if there is a tree in it.

Then you are in concordance with me. I shall remember to carry 20 arrows in your game and stick one in the ground in my square. Then when any wizard attempts to cast create pit under me, I will tell you "Can't, not a flat surface, there's something poking out."

Later on, I'll get an immovable rod so you can't use mage hand or such on it.

Diego Rossi wrote:

Exactly what is "part of the ground"?
And why it should matter as the spell say nothing about the ground? It say: "You must create the pit on a horizontal surface of sufficient size."
It can be a tarpaulin stretched over some poles, a piece of flat ground, the third floor of a house. It don't matter. What matter is that it should be a 10'x10' horizontal surface.

I suppose I should say surface but for the purpose of my argument with Artanthos is he claims a tree should auto block the casting of the spell as it counts as a protrusion and part of the ground, therefore making the ground no flat.

My objection is a good bit this. Nowhere in the spell does it say nothing can stick out of the ground. It says the surface must be flat. Ok. The surface is flat with something that is not part of the surface sticking out of it.

At which point it got into an argument for all intents and purposes of when does something then become part of the ground? I can come up with all kinds of shenanigans that auto negate the entire create pit series of spells simply by inserting an object into the ground. I feel like this is a major flaw in the ruling in and of itself that a stick shoved into the ground would negate the casting of even higher level magics. However that is the logical outcome of saying things poking out of the ground auto negate them.

I like Human divisions ruling a tad more, where basically a square requiring squeezing would block the casting of the spell, but that gets into things resting on the surface block the casting of this spell. Not to mention, whether an area requires squeezing to fit there is rather ambiguous in most cases, making casting the spell hit or miss and entirely up to fiat. Something, if it hasn't caught on, I entirely disdain.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly if anyone brings up the mana wastes as a reason a paladin's magic birth control can fail I've got one answer for them.

If your paladin is having enough sex that his birth control is equaling the magic of an entire nation of wizards across thousands of years, he's got bigger issues than having a kid.

Yeah there is a spell that simply requires 8 BAB and you can ignore as much negative damage as you want. The only part that would be arguable is if condition sets in if it no longer applies at the end of the round it delays it for.

The Human Diversion wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Not really, though at this point we're arguing the merits of each interpretation for the OP to decide which he prefers to use.

With mine it gets into an area of possible structural damage.

With yours, every single instance is going to have to be argued separately. There isn't really any consistency its more of "Do I feel like this tree I made up right now and has no actual specifications for its size is large enough to block the spell?"

For Artanthos it comes down to an immovable rod being shoved into the ground auto negates every pit spell in the game.

Edit: Artanthos, I really hate to break it to you but trees are not even close to permanent.

I really get the impression you're trying to paint me in a negative light, as though I just whimsicly decide when to allow a spell and when not to and justify it by saying "ooopsie, there was a tree in that square and it doesn't work."

If you're using a published adventure, the maps are pretty clear about what's in a square and what's not. If you're the GM, you should have a clear idea in mind about what's in a square and what's not. To me, if any of the squares are more than 50% filled with impassable terrain, that would make for a non-horizontal surface. It's not really that difficult, and it's not really subject to whimsicle interpretation.

As for "arguing every single instance" It even works for your favorite (or least favorite) trees - is that a tiny little sapling that a medium creature could fit in the same square as without squeezing? Then the spell goes off. Is that a 100 year old tree that takes up the bulk of the square? Then the spell doesn't go off.

To me that's clean cut. I'm sorry if you find tiny flaws and incredibly subjective and unlikely scenarios to use as examples to punch holes in what I see as quick logic that will work in games I run.

Again, you seem like you are set on your interpretation, that's fine, but I certainly don't appreciate that you've been trying to paint me here as...

I never said you were whimsical. If you're reading negative things thats all on you because I haven't insulted you in the least. I disagree with your methodology, as it creates an entirely fiat basis on whether a spell works or not, which is my main argument against it.

As for Artanthos. Show me the rule where it says that create pit at all? Not in the spell? Must not do it. Oh wait, falling damage. Well there you go, it must do falling damage to the now unsupported portion of the structure that falls. Actually as has been shown, your "common sense" has a lot of flaws with people disagreeing on where it works and doesn't?

Just above someone else though it would allow it to work on trees but not structures and RavingDork asked why it would work for one not the other. Honestly, your ruling comes down to, it either works for all of them or none of them, and if it doesn't then because "reasons." Which is honestly a pretty crappy way to make a ruling.

The Human Diversion wrote:
It would seem to me that you came here seeking justification for the way you rule and are not getting that, how about we agree to disagree and you rule it your way and we'll rule it our way? For me, that's going to be, "do any of the 4 squares you're trying to cast into have more than 50% of said square as impassable terrain? If yes, the spell does not go off."

Not really, though at this point we're arguing the merits of each interpretation for the OP to decide which he prefers to use.

With mine it gets into an area of possible structural damage.

With yours, every single instance is going to have to be argued separately. There isn't really any consistency its more of "Do I feel like this tree I made up right now and has no actual specifications for its size is large enough to block the spell?"

For Artanthos it comes down to an immovable rod being shoved into the ground auto negates every pit spell in the game.

Edit: Artanthos, I really hate to break it to you but trees are not even close to permanent.

Diego Rossi wrote:

Artanthos way of managing create pit is way better.
If an obstruction require something more than simply picking up an object and moving it it is relevant enough that it will make the area an invalid target for the spell.

Curse me and my inability to walk away from an argument.

Not really it isn't. Now I can dig a small hole, bury my backpack with just the tip sticking out, and that would be enough to block this spell.

Or are we really going to argue about how much force should be required to pick up the object and move it?

I recently made a character with a heavy load of 45 million. I'm pretty sure he could pick up any number of trees and carry them away. Does this spell automatically work differently for him than a 7 strength halfling?

Because, once again, trees are not attached to the ground. They simply require significant force to uproot them. So they still fit under the classification of picking up an object and moving it.

What it will take to "appease my way of seeing things," as you so rudely put it, is to actually have an internal logic that is function. Aka, trees are not, have never been, and will never be part of the ground anymore that anything else that is buried is part of the ground. And if so, what happens when an adventure sticks an immovable rod in a hole in the ground. Do immovable rods auto counter this spell? What is the necessary level of effort before something becomes "part of the ground" for the purpose of blocking this spell? How did you decide that point, or is it arbitrary?

How are you getting the negatives? Is he flat out telling you the numbers he's at or are you calculating?

If so, don't forget guarded life and greater guarded life. This means when he gets reduced to negatives he turns 2 points per barbarian level into nonlethal instead.

Eventually a barbarian can completely ignore any level of damage for a round, via the deathless frenzy power (though that requires Barbar 12)

If he has 10 Barbar he could have flesh wound, which forces a fortitude save versus the damage dealt. If he succeeds, the damage is auto halved and becomes non lethal.

Don't forget raging vitality. If he increases his con by 6 while raging that 18 goes to 24 and it becomes 24 + 24 for 48 total negative possible.

Racial heritage would allow him to pass as a half orc for the purpose of the deathless initiate chain.

Heroic Defiance technically allows you to stave off death for a single round, as dead is a condition.

There's probably something that could grant him ferocity for the tenacious survivor feat, but I'm not too familiar.

Edit: Oh yeah, courageous +4 weapon would increase the con bonus to +8 while raging with raging vitality which would mean he could survive down to 26 + 24, or 50 with a normal 18 con.

The Human Diversion wrote:

If something above the surface of a 10'x10' square is significant enough to be providing structure, then the 10'x10' square is not a suitable location to place the spell. That's my personal ruling. You're free to rule it any way you want, but just like my ruling you may or may not have people disagreeing.

If you cast it on a 10'x10' space and there's a chair or dog or potted plant there, the spell would go off and they'd likely fall (although the dog would get a saving throw). If you cast it on a 10'x10' space and there's a tree that is taking up enough of a 5' square to make that impassable terrain, it's not a horizontal surface.

I use similar logic in maps of caves. If the majority of the 5' square is covered in rock, you'd have to squeeze to occupy that square. If they majority of any one of the 4 squares you want to cast Create Pit into is occupied by non-passable terrain, it's not a horizontal surface.

So technically small enough trees and pillars should still allow this to go off... I'm just going to facepalm and walk away.

Artanthos wrote:
Creatures are not typically physically attached to the surface upon which they are standing.

Technically neither are trees. They're just buried enough to become difficult to move. And using that definition when a person is, once again, buried significantly enough, they are now one with the earth. They're not attached anymore than a person behind a mostly closed door is attached to the door because the door is resistant to you pulling them through the door frame.

The Human Diversion wrote:

A protrusion makes something that's normally horizontal not completely horizontal. I would personally rule that requiring a horizontal surface means just that; if the surface is not completely horizontal, the spell fizzles. I've even seen rulings that say you can't cast create pit in the area someone just cast stone call because it has just created difficult terrain and that is non-horizontal.

Then technically by that definition you can't cast it when things are sitting under the surface and thus can't cast create pit under a creature. We know this is both ridiculous and not true because the spell specifically mentions you casting it under a creature.

So what is the difference between casting it under a creature and under a rock? Or a tree for that matter? What percentage has to be under the ground for it to be part of the surface, because a tree is not and never will be literally part of the ground. And if so, does the spell automatically fail if a person buries themselves to that extent under it?

I think you can see how ridiculous this becomes, but that is what it implies if you say that things sitting on a surface are part of the surface for purpose of this spell. That means you may never under any circumstance cast it underneath of a creature standing on the surface. Blatantly untrue, simply by reading the spell

Edit: And to artanthos I extend my question? At what point do you have to be buried for the spell to fail? Because anyone who knows anything about trees will tell you that the percentage of of the tree that resides under the ground varies enormously between species of trees. Does this spell then work on some trees and not others? Where is the cutoff point?

Can I spend a move action to dig a small hole with my hands and the entire area becomes incapable of having this spell cast on it?

Kazaan wrote:
The spell needs to be cast upon a horizontal surface; that's your key word. If there's a pillar, tree, or other solid obstacle in the way, it wouldn't entirely be a horizontal surface but, rather, would be part horizontal and part vertical. That doesn't count so the spell would fizzle.

I'd have to disagree, things sitting on top of the surface do not count as protrusions to the surface. A tree is not literally part of the ground anymore than if I dug a hole and buried my feet up to my ankles I would be.

Otherwise, any adventure that manages to bury their feet in a small hole in the ground would cause create pit to fail.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Damaging Objects

Unattended, Non magical Objects wrote:
Unattended Non-Magical Items: Non-magical, unattended items never make saving throws. They are considered to have failed their saving throws, so they are always fully affected by spells and other attacks that allow saving throws to resist or negate. An item attended by a character (being grasped, touched, or worn) makes saving throws as the character (that is, using the character's saving throw bonus).

So the object should fall in the hole and take falling damage. Now as far as structural support goes, there really aren't rules for that.

Speaking as an engineer however, there are likely to be more pillars than necessary to hold it up, and they will be sturdier than necessary. Should be a safety factor of 10 (10 times the expected load at peak traffic) for things that lives will depend on to hold up.

However, removing enough pillars will alter the way stress affects the bridge, so removing enough of them should cause it to collapse. It just won't be one, unless this is a really shoddy bridge.

Petty Alchemy wrote:
Super Weight is a good measure of power.

Level 7 is the narrator.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ability to give gm's aneurisms. Its rated on a scale of frequency, intensity, and variety of gm's it affects.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:

Don't eidolons already have a max number of attacks? It's right in their stat block.

Eidolon one specifies natural attacks.

TOZ wrote:
I think some people have theirs surgically removed. :(

nah, It gets popped and deflates when the stick is inserted.

Tirisfal wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:

I'm just gonna keep calling em people if that's all right with everybody and if someone wants to be called something other than the regular thing they can ask and I'll be happy to oblige.

Call most people little one regardless of gender or size anyways.

What is this "regular" of which you speak?

For a person I have no clue about I default to he or they, then I go with whatever first guess I get based on what they look like, then I go with whatever they ask me to.

Its basically a guide to pronouns. None of my transgender friends really seemed all that offended the first time, they asked me to change my pronouns and I complied (Though I will say I don't think there isn't a person in the group who hasn't slipped up on pronouns yet :P )

I come from idaho... We're pretty frank and really don't care for PC when it comes to pronouns.

Or in other words... "a rose by any other name, would I still set it on fire? Yes. Yes, I would"

DominusMegadeus wrote:
Heymitch wrote:
Succubi are always redeemable. They just need snuggling.
9/10 bards agree. The 10th was holding out for an Incubus.

Why not both?

wraithstrike wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Long story short, no written rule will ever say that you get extra attacks for having multiple arms.

This is correct, so if you(general statement) are a RAW guy then you will have to go back and edit a few monsters, even those with the multi-attack special ability. Otherwise you play the RAI game.

Generally I just don't include them in any of my games for this explicit reason. Technically their attack sequences are wrong.

As for the person who asked where it specified only for the second weapon. Its found in the combat area of core where it goes over the rules of Two weapon fighting, rather than the feat.

Two Weapon Fighting

Two Weapon Fighting wrote:
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.

Edit: Wraith you beat me to it. :P Fancy seeing you in this thread. It's been a while since we had this argument. Like 5 days now?

Artemis Moonstar wrote:
Nobody could ever figure out if that was a serious character, or a parody....

Perhaps he takes all of his parodies seriously?

I'm just gonna keep calling em people if that's all right with everybody and if someone wants to be called something other than the regular thing they can ask and I'll be happy to oblige.

Call most people little one regardless of gender or size anyways.

Long story short, no written rule will ever say that you get extra attacks for having multiple arms.

People will talk about implications in multiweapon fighting, show monsters, etc.

But brass tax, there will never be a rule shown that explicitly gives extra manufactured attacks for any number of extra arms, natural ones or otherwise. The core rule book allows for one extra attack with a second weapon and that's the closest you'll ever get for an actual rule.

There is no RAW irredeemable. By RAW everything is redeemable. Ever.

Nohwear wrote:
If you actually call yourself evil, you are likely beyond saving.

I have a lot of friends that are irredeemable it would seem

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Greylurker wrote:
Kind of depends on if it's a two way street. If you are limiting their enemies to no magic as well it's not too bad. Game works just fine if you are keeping it to Martials vs. Martials

I'd actually say it still doesn't work too well. While stat drains are horrific for martials, and DR will very much become a pain, I'd say you're missing the ones that will be the worst.

Any form of higher CR swarm will be nearly unstoppable. As long as they remain comprised of diminutive or such creatures its literally impossible to damage them with normal weapons. Things like alchemist fire will really only chip away at their hp bit by bit after they get enough hp.

While stat draining creatures in general will be a pain, incorporeals will be flat destruction to the party. With no magic and no magic weapons they have 0 ways to damage them, excepting of course alchemist potions (Though I'm not really seeing anything on the list short of cure spells that would damage incorporeals anyways)

In short, avoid things that are immune to non magic weapons.

Edit: Ah yes, holy water would do it. Though even then, holy water would damage very slowly in comparison to their touch attack no save strength damage most of them carry

1 to 50 of 3,157 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>