WWWW's page

TriOmegaZero wrote:

icehawk333 wrote:

Explosive runes.

Requires reading, not just looking.

if they're written in a language the looker comprehends and he sees them, the way language centers in the brain work is the looker cannot "not read" them.

If you see it, the brain automatically processes it. You can NOT turn it off and see "I prepared Explosive Runes" as a series of nonsignificant scribbles if they are in fact the written form of a language you can read.

Huh, you've never, say, looked at the written word out of the corner of your vision, at an extreme angle, or from far enough away that you can see that something is there but can not read it.

You know, I was going to say something about the class not being so great, but then I remembered when assassins lost their spellcasting and I decided that they had suffered enough already.

FWIW - I think the objection I repeated that someone raised earlier (that a spell is not inherently "arcane" but becomes so based on the class of the caster - if the fighter/Archmage tries to cast wish it won't meet the definition of an arcane spell, since it hasn't been cast by a sorcerer, wizard or bard) is a decent RAW rebuttal. It's certainly the best I've been able to come up with.

Eh, it would seem that scrolls can be used to classify spells. That at least allows for classification of all spells that have ever been made into scrolls even if one objects to generalizing that to all spells.

WWWW wrote:

Hmm, this is a neat trick.

Though what would be the attribute for the save DC calculation. I am unaware of where, if anywhere, pathfinder might have listed casting stat DC priority.

That comes from individual class features. At best your DCs are looking at 10+spell level.

Hmmm. Now that you mention it, I suppose one could interpret the parenthetical in the saving throw difficulty class subsection of the magic section as modifying "your bonus for the relevant ability" so that it actually reads, your bonus for the relevant ability (if any). That would probably be the easiest way to adjudicate the situation.

WWWW wrote:

Er, right. So you're saying that the non-light parts disintegrate since there are no forces holding them together.

Are you saying that the description says these things? I'm not sure if you're trying to put words in my mouth or if you're wondering what I'm saying.

My claim is this. The whole description of Brilliant Energy is as follows:
** spoiler omitted **

I think everything here applies. But to shorten it down, if I remove the parts that only deals with very pure mechanical terms and that are not disputed anyway, this is the disputed parts, what's left:
A brilliant energy weapon has its significant portion transformed into light, although this does not modify the item's weight. A brilliant energy weapon ignores nonliving matter.
I think all this applies:
1. A brilliant energy weapon has its significant portion transformed into light.
2. This does not modify the weight of the item.
3. A brilliant Energy weapon ignores nonliving matter.

That is the gist of it. That is what I think is relevant to the mechanical gameplay (in addition to the removed parts that deal with shining and AC bonuses etc that no-one contends).

Some people seemed to object to this by saying that it "doesn't make sense" or similar things. I then tried to come up with reasons on how it would not be contradictory. That is what I used the "magic" explanation for. Not to ignore any part, but to make it non-contradictory. Because I don't think it's _inherently_...

Oh, so you were talking about something unrelated to my comment. Well I suppose that explains that.

Well anyway, since you seem to have been discussing something else I have nothing more to say. Unless there is something you wish to say to me I will consider this sub-discussion over for the time being.

Rynjin wrote:

Why does a Ranger need only refer to himself as a Ranger?

For me, personally, the answer is because I view classes similar to professions or careers...

I see them this way, not only because that is how classes are viewed in 2nd edition, but because IRL, when someone is asked: "Hey, what do you do?"

More often than not, in my experience, the answer is: "I AM a Biologist!" (or whatever it is that they do for a living), and is seldom answered: "I work in biology."

Your experience may be different than that...

Right, so how do characters tell the the classes apart in game. Is there some sort of diviners guild that hands out ID cards for this or something.

WWWW wrote:

So why did becoming evil make the character an NPC. Is it some sort of arbitrary no evil PCs rule. That would make the anecdote relevant as that is another example of why the alignment system is terrible.

What I find most disturbing was the utter disregard for the character the PC had constructed. The character's ways were so much an ingrained part of the character that the PC would rather make an entirely new character that was conceptually different rather than change him, and then Aelyrinth took the character, made him his own NPC, and then began changing him in front of the player to boot.

If I was even going to consider using a former PC as an NPC in a similar fashion, I'd get the express permission of the player in question an run any changes and directions past the player beforehand because it's not my character, I'm not invested in it like (s)he would be.

Ugh...I have no words.

It is certainly disappointing but not so surprising, considering how often people, even the writers, use alignment as a straightjacket despite the statement that it should not be so. Alignment being used for the DM to take control of a character is just another reason why alignment is terrible.

Admittedly in this case it would seem that there is an element of the DM just banning characters because he doesn't like how they are played and using alignment as scapegoat. But alignment being used as a scapegoat to justify disruptive actions, e.g. my character does that because alignment, is also something that makes alignment harmful.

The reason why it is often important that fluff be backed up by crunch is because if it is not then your character is clearly delusional. If a character believes they have certain abilities but can't actually ever demonstrate them then they're crazy.

As for example one, the question would be if having an oversize blade does anything at all ever. If the oversize blade was just a meaningless visual quirk then there is no need for crunch to back it up because it has no effect. But if the oversize blade, say, made it so only the super special PC could use the sword, or something like that, then the character's going to start looking a bit crazy when mook number 3 disarms him and wields his sword without problem.

For example 2 class names are fluff. Now, if there's some sort of in setting organization or something that can tell if you don't have the right class levels then that would be a different matter, but in a vacuum you're talking about official fluff versus custom fluff not fluff versus crunch, so it doesn't really apply.

Is an explanation really a good one if it requires extra explanation to be understood.

OldSkoolRPG wrote:

"Devil's Advocate" wrote:

Source has always referred to the specific spell, feat, class/racial ability, not the some undefined broad category.

You start off admitting that there have been a small group that disagrees but then say your view is just how it has always been. A majority of people holding an incorrect view doesn't magically make that view correct. The FAQ just confirmed that the majority was wrong all along, at least with regards to PF, not that they were right and now it has changed.

I don't think this is the case. The design team has reached the conclusion that they don't intend double-dipping except when they do, but that doesn't mean that the "source" language was actually intended to mean that originally.

Eh, given such as the monk flurry ruling I wouldn't say that. Who can know what the developers intended to change in the move from 3.5. Plus with multiple people on the project there might not have even been a concrete intention. In any case, it does not seem unreasonable that they might have wanted to change the source of a bonus from the effect that grants the bonus to the appropriate ability modifier derived statistic, especially given the number in this thread that desired that when the situation had no ruling.

Anyway, that really doesn't matter. Developer intent is not necessarily the right or wrong choice to use. In this case it seems to me like an overly complicated and confusing choice for no apparent gain, and thus what I would consider a poor choice.

Hmm, so what the faq really means is that "bonuses do not stack if they come from the same source." should be changed to "bonuses that have one or more of their sources in common do not stack (typed bonuses and untyped bonuses that do not reference an ability modifier have only one source, an untyped bonus that references an ability modifier has two sources, one of which is that same ability modifier)."

Eh, randomly changing from the old one source method seems needlessly complicated for little to no benefit.

It's not imbalance really. Rather it is when the game material doesn't give people what they need to make well informed decisions and not really a problem when it does. For example, the rules don't present NPC classes as equal to the other classes so nobody cares that they are worse then their counterparts.

So, lets assume that the mouse-cord thing wasn't a joke and move on to the rest of the point. They didn't take anything away from high level martials. They took away something from a cord that any 0 level commoner had access to. Gunslingers can still TWF with double-barreled pistols, they just need a Glove of Storing or the Gun Twirling feat now. The weapon cord errata literally had nothing to do with high level martials, it had to do with the relative expedience of leather cords.

Wasn't the whole thing originally about gunslingers and free action reloading.

Wait, huh. You know, that's a change I had not actually noticed that pathfinder made. In 3.5 extraordinary abilities, "do not qualify as magical, though they may break the laws of physics." So there wasn't really anything keeping EX abilities from doing whatever; tome of battle or what have you.

Ascalaphus wrote:

@andreww: CRB devil? I suppose you mean Bestiary I devils?

It only takes 1 lawyer to let 7 other devils in.

---

Don't get me wrong. Planar Binding is a powerful spell, with the potential to hand you temporary minions with "stuff you're not supposed to have" according to your current level.

But if you start drawing the attention of unsavoury planes, you have no right to cry foul if that makes your life more "interesting".

I love XP and treasure that comes to me. Where do I sign up? Free +5 Inherent bonus to stats as a sign up bonus, oh wow what a bargain.

Nah, don't be silly. As we all know, whenever an adventuring party bothers any outsider (planar bound or otherwise) the DM is obligated to TPK the party with an appropriately themed encounter. I mean, what kind of self respecting outsider is going to let live adventurers that have wrecked years of work when they slaughtered a cult or something.

Uh, that creature is very dead. What exactly is it going to do? Or are you going with "It doesn't say Dead creatures can't take actions"?

I assume he means that it will anger the dead creature's friends who will then kill you. Clearly in his games the party can not kill, injure, capture, or otherwise hinder any creature without performing a thorough background check. Whoops, that guard you just killed was actually the Lich Lord's great grandson; you die. Oh no, that kobold was the Dragon King's favorite chess partner; you die. Dang, that rat was the escaped pet of the high priestess's daughter; you die.

You just demonstrated why there is no need for it to be more flexible.

You're right. The fact that the paladin class is completely extraneous, as demonstrated in that example, clearly means it should just be removed and replaced with the barbarian class. The page savings can be used on a new core class.

This is a silly discussion. The proposal for unlimited healing is utter cheese. From the above comments, many players seem to feel entitled to unlimited healing between fights. This sense of entitlement is a bad thing that should be painfully squashed by the GM.

Nah, this is DM entitlement if anything given that they are presumably the ones asking for things to be officially changed from the original wording.

No. Why would you change the way you roleplay the character?

I have no idea since I generally think alignment is something best ignored.

Well this is pretty vague so it is hard to answer completely.

I get that you are trying to show that if the words change and you still play the same, then the words didn't matter. True, the words themselves don't matter, what matters is what they define. You could call lawful-neutral-chaotic, douche-lame-cool, but if they are defined the same way, then being douche-good still indicates a lawful-good mindset.

What this situation tells me is that the player, the GM, and the group didn't clearly outline exactly where the lines should be drawn for the alignments. The problem appears to be that the definitions of the GM don't match the definitions of the player. It doesn't appear that GM and player disagree about the mindset itself, merely where that mindset resides.

So let's say the player thinks the mindset is indicative of a lawful neutral alignment, but a GM thinks it is a lawful good alignment. Now if those discussions were done, as they should be, at the time of character creation, the player could have accurately placed the alignment as Lawful Good, and no shift in the name would have had to occur.

So the issue is poor communication, not the alignment system.

As to the issue of whether I would change the way I play the character. Assuming that there is absolution no issue with the new alignment (as opposed to say I shift to Lawful Evil for eating meat, i.e. taking pleasure in harming "innocent sentient beings", by my vegan GM and Evil alignments are not allowed). Then I would keep playing the character consistently and...

Nah, this isn't about how alignment is an arbitrary shorthand. I feel that it is so obvious that I don't think there is a need to demonstrate it.

Rather we can talk about how the fact that alignment is an arbitrary shorthand that means different things to different people is actively harmful.

The first is because the system requires an extraordinarily burdensome amount of information to be communicated. Really, there are just too many situations for agreement and in depth understanding to be made for all of them before the game starts. I mean, alignment stuff comes up in all sorts of places, betraying the party, not betraying the party, caring about family members, casting mind control spells, seducing barmaids, talking to villains instead of attacking, going undercover, casting a fireball spell indoors, etc. And it's different for everyone so you really have to go over everything to be sure and that just doesn't work.

Also, there is the problem of actually understanding how stuff works. I have had discussions on minutia of the alignment of things that has gone on and on and even then no understanding was reached. And that's just me and one other person; kicking that up by 3 or 4 makes things vastly more complicated. I mean, just look at this thread for examples of disagreement about the super basic and foundational consideration of whether alignment is prescriptive or descriptive.

Now, of course, these problems with the alignment system only occur if the people care about the alignment of their characters. I don't (and apparently you don't either given that you can shift the definitions you use on a whim) since I consider alignment an arbitrary mishmash. However there are people that do care and for them that means that alignment puts on unnecessarily burdensome restrictions. Just for starters, if the group has differing definitions of alignment that puts friction in place for no reason. And if there's an alignment change scenario, well now they are stuck with either changing their rollplaying to get back to where they want to be or must suffer under the dissonance of having an alignment they consider wrong.

And, as you bring up characters with mechanical reason to care about alignment, the whole thing can't always be ignored so easily. Now the alignment system can end up forcing people to compromise one part of their character for another, play the DM mind reading game, or whatever and that's terrible.

The worst part about all this is that it is a trap for new players. You and I are experienced and can probably generally ignore or work around the pitfalls and restrictions of the alignment system. But new players won't necessarily have that experience available to them.

The Kensai ability seems a lot cooler if the Kensai can make the AoO with his favored weapon and do so even if he's not threatening with anything else. Having katana kensai wear spiked gauntlets so they're always threatening doesn't help make the game better.

Perhaps JJ's responses earlier in the thread show that we're too often slaves of RAW and precedent and should learn to be more adaptive. Unfortunately it is often difficult to gain consensus within a group about what is or isn't balanced and sensible. Letting the Kensai's AoO ability work in a thematic way lots of players would expect it to work doesn't seem like a big stretch to me though.

Eh, I see no reason why one can not both acknowledge the way the ability functions without houserules and yet still implement houserules that modify the ability in particular groups.

You know I always found the biggest problem with nonproficiency was not the penalty to attack rolls, but rather the penalty to initiative.

Hmm, here's a question. For those that say that say psionic classes are more powerful then their existing magical equivalents, what tricks and stuff do the psionic classes have that match up to the various heavy hitters first party magic classes bring to the table. What is the psionic blood money, simulacrum, dazing spell, planar binding, etc. The psionic classes must have options at or above that level of power to really be considered more powerful and being forewarned would be useful should I ever have a player that wishes to use psionics.

leo1925 wrote:

Aelryinth wrote:

I don't mind the Greater Teleport nerf. Not having bar-igura able to kidnap 'port people to the Moon and leave them there, as well as the making the succubi spend a long, boring six months flying instead of teleporting, evens it all out nicely. SOme places you shouldn't be able to reach with an easy spell. Yes, Greater Teleport nerfs teleporting monsters more then wizards. Who'da thunk?

Worldwide range to places that have only been DESCRIBED to you is pretty awesome all by itself.

==Aelryinth

You know that even with the addition of interplanetery teleport (which bring rules issues since the greater hasn't been errata'd) you still don't need 9th level spell to travel to other planets, you just need 2 7th or 5th (if divine) level spells instead of 1. You plane shift from the material plane to another plane of your choice and then you plane shift again to the material plane and you are 5-500 miles within your intented destination; then you use whatever form of travel you wish for those extra miles, it's just that you have the scenic route instead of just going to your destination.

Distant Worlds explains why that doesn't work. The 5d100 miles is based on going back to an anchoring planet that resonates with the caster. If you are moving somewhere else, the error grows far larger and you will wind up in the Dark Tapestry, so far from anything that you will die.

So wait, how do creatures not originally native to the material plane work.

There's still a chance of melee getting through. A CR 5 Very Young Black Dragon has a +9 bite and +9 two claw. That's a 24.3% chance of one hit getting through.

Meanwhile, assume a 5th level monk with Crane Wing. The same dragon needs to hit twice in order for a single hit to actually get through. In order for the dragon to have a 23.9% of actually dealing damage to the monk, the monk needs an AC of 23. That's not difficult to reach, and the monk doesn't suffer armor penalties for movement.

Most importantly, though, can completely negate a critical hit. The fighter had a 13.5% chance of being hit by a critical, while the monk has a 0.7% chance. That's a pretty major difference.

And this is assuming a monster where all three attacks do not have status effects or combat maneuvers attached to them. A monster that relies heavily on grab, trip, swallow whole, etc. will have a much harder time getting any of those effects to hit the Craner.

I'm rather wondering why the dragon doesn't just fly around and breath weapon both characters to death. Do they not get one that young or something.

Well, I asked because I'll be DMing a game where this might come up, and I wanted to ensure I had a defense against something truly ridiculous happening.

None of the casters in my game will be getting to 50 strength, and I wouldn't allow the Restoration trick either, so the worst is averted.

However, the witch could still use this trick to easily cast Raise Dead at a small fraction of the price. That's only 10 strength damage (just borrow your buddy's belt of strength if you're under 10).

I'm honestly surprised that such a blatant gold economy violation was allowed in the first place.

Eh well, unless using those expensive spells permanently handicaps the characters they were going to get the money back anyway.

LOL, I forgot entirely about this thread. I love it whenever someone says "Well, this aspect of the game is troublesome for me because it makes no sense to me."

And the immediate response is "Dude! The game has frickin' DRAGONS in it! Dragons aren't real. Therefore your argument is invalid."

Sigh... Well, using that logic we may as well allow first level characters to carry around Federation matter/anti-matter converters so they can shoot planet-destroying lasers on demand. Got a problem with that?

Dude! The game has frickin' DRAGONS in it! Dragons aren't real. Therefore your argument is invalid.

LOL

Clearly a balance concern and a problem with "realism" (verisimilitude perhaps) are exactly the same thing.

@ WWWW

Except there is nothing irrational about his "houserule." RAW, you can't even really add special effects to AoMF (including Speed) unless they can be applied to Unarmed Strikes, which guess what? None can, because none are. The RAW for that is contradictory; for it to even function, the wording must be changed. This, meaning it's just an Unarmed/Natural Attack enhancer. Does that make sense for AoMF? Not at all, but RAW is contradictory to the obvious RAI.

The same concept can easily be applied to this. Haste unable to affect Monk Unarmed Attacks, by RAW, is legal. Haste unable to affect Monk Unarmed Attacks, by RAI, is ridiculous, and even in terms of game balance, it makes no sense to enforce the rule when there is no reason why they shouldn't get the effect; this interpretation, is what we are arguing for, and is not "blithely ignoring rules".

Yeah, that is the point. Why should cases where the rules not working be ignored. Not just ignored but deliberately glossed over and claimed to not actually exist. If the rules don't work that should be acknowledged so that they can be fixed instead of pretending that they don't actually say what they do. What compensation does the new DM get for the rule causing trouble in his game. What compensation does the person participating in organized play get should his character be ruined when one DM rules one way and another the other. But you are right, it is not "blithely ignoring rules", it is a calculated ignoring to the rules and claiming they say something they do not. Houserules are fine but to call them something other then what they are is not so much.

Snip

I am going to have to disagree. I can see no reason for blithely ignoring what the rules actually say. This is even more important should I believe that the rules do not match their intent as ignoring the problem makes it less likely to be fixed.

Your idea if just ignoring things can be quite detrimental as it allows presumably broken rules to exist. For example, who can say what new DM will play things the way they are written. They do not have the experience that we can draw from and they may trust the rules over their own judgment while learning. Why let their players suffer over such an easily fixed thing. Or alternatively, in any sort of organized play this kind of possible ambiguity can completely mess up characters, should one DM make a houserule and another decide to play the rules as they lie.

I think jj is right and it's vital strike feat that is misworded.

Eh, I would personally say that JJ is right, and so we should ignore when he said that vital strike is misworded.

Personally I dislike rolling because it encourages min-maxing and makes people focus more on mechanics then role playing.

Presumably the reason the spiked chain was nerfed was because taking the feat freed up too much money. Clearly they want melee to have to pay to enchant both their reach weapon and their armor spikes instead of just paying a feat.

Stynkk wrote:

I find it funny that you're still not seeing what I'm saying. Even after talking this out for pages.

It does say ranged touch attacks generate an AoO, that's the rule. It is a 1:1 ratio. If you make another ranged touch attack that also generates an AoO. I hardly think that the devs mean that all ranged touch attacks (in the world) generate a single AoO. That's just... well..

If you make more ranged touches, it provokes more AoOs.

Oh no. I see what you are trying to say quite clearly. I am saying that your interpretation is wrong.

So by the by I was wondering something. Just what is your argument that multiple thing happening simultaneously can not generate more than one attack of opportunity.

The best I can come up with is because it is not realistic for someone to drop their guard 3 times at the same time. But given that you already argued against using realism as a justification you clearly can not be making an argument based on what is or is not realistic.

Thus I am stuck drawing a blank as to the basis of your argument and must ask for clarification.

In my view the Scorching Ray was badly worded. In 3.5 you had ONE Range Touch attack which was applied to all targets. The change to multiple individual ranged touch attack complicated the spell.

Er yeah I don't think it worked that way in 3.5 at all.

Question is, do you fire the rays one after another, or do you create a triplet of rays that launch simultaneously? I see no evidence that indicates either solution to be compelling.

BTW, acting like your hand was a revolver wasn't exactly part of the description of ray-like spells last time I checked...

Eh "The rays may be fired at the same or different targets, but all rays must be aimed at targets within 30 feet of each other and fired simultaneously." would seem to support the simultaneous view.

I believe that Memento Magica were priced at 150% of the equivalent peral of power.

Edit: Oh and the two spells version might not have existed.

Both sides roll initiative as normal.