Baba Yaga

Ximen Bao's page

800 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 800 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

The Raven Black wrote:
Anorak wrote:
Ashanderai wrote:
I'm leaning towards the "one" to die being Gozreh. With the Elemental Lords being around, Gozreh always felt more superfluous to me than the other gods. Now, after Rage of Elements and the return of more Elemental Lords, I feel that way even more strongly.
I like this. Removing Gozreh would make room for Arazni, who is a much more interesting god for players.
I think it will not be Gozreh because who would even want to kill them ?

I don't think Gozreh's going to bite the dust, but if I was going to write it, I'd have them get dragged into the Charon/Hanspur feud. Hanspur is on the ropes and flees to Gozreh as a last ditch attempt at safety with his putative creator, and now we've brought the Horsemen into play and maybe do something with the Oinodaemon/Bound Prince which plays back into undeveloped bits of the Windsong Testament.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can't find anywhere where the rules officially define 'adjacent'. If you need rules support for that, if you read the reach rules together you can attack adjacent creatures included those on diagonals, so adjacent has to include diagonals.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=192
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=352

So the spikes should stick into the diagonals as well, and since they're not occupying those squares, you could put a berm within range of another berm's spikes.


I may be missing something regarding Change Shape.

Change shape automatically succeeds to appear as a member of the new ancestry or creature type.

It doesn't let the shapechange appear as a specific individual.

But it gives the shapechanger a +4 status bonus to deception to keep people from seeing through it's disguise.

As far as I can tell, the uses of this result in automatic success or failure. You can always appear as another ancestry or creature type. You can never disguise yourself as a specific individual.

What's the +4 for? Just the instances where it does let you appear as a specific individual?

Bonus question, the Vrykolakas Master (https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=843) get the Change Shape ability, but says it has the effects of an unlimited duration Humanoid Form. But Humanoid Form requires deception checks to pass as a member of the humanoid ancestry chosen. Which takes precedence: Change Shape's auto-success or Humanoid Form's not-auto-success?

Change Shape

https://2e.aonprd.com/MonsterAbilities.aspx?ID=8

(concentrate, [magical tradition], polymorph, transmutation) The monster changes its shape indefinitely. It can use this action again to return to its natural shape or adopt a new shape. Unless otherwise noted, a monster cannot use Change Shape to appear as a specific individual. Using Change Shape counts as creating a disguise for the Impersonate use of Deception. The monster's transformation automatically defeats Perception DCs to determine whether the creature is a member of the ancestry or creature type into which it transformed, and it gains a +4 status bonus to its Deception DC to prevent others from seeing through its disguise. Change Shape abilities specify what shapes the monster can adopt. The monster doesn't gain any special abilities of the new shape, only its physical form. For example, in each shape, it replaces its normal Speeds and Strikes, and might potentially change its senses or size. Any changes are listed in its stat block.


breithauptclan wrote:

Windup Poppets would certainly hope so.

I don't think the rules actually specify. But PF2 is not a game to play with the GM trying to read loopholes into the rule wording to prevent players from doing things. The game uses the d20 to inject failures and setbacks into the story. The GM doesn't need to add more.

Fair enough. This was actually going to be in use by an NPC and I needed to know how tempting it would be to loot/trade for.


Primarily concerned with the clockwork bumblebees. They have a 10 minute wind up and a 10 minute operating time. It takes 1 pilot, 2 crew to fly, and can carry 1 passenger.

If you don't have to turn off a clockwork to wind it, the passenger could wind it in flight to keep it going.

Real world clocks don't have to be stopped to wind, but these aren't real-world clockworks.

I can't tell the design intent. RAW I think it works, especially if the bolded section holds that they're generally re-wound once they get half wound down.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=331

"Wind-Up: To remain operational, a clockwork vehicle or creature must be wound with a unique key by a creature. This takes an amount of time listed in the clockwork's wind-up entry, which also lists how long the clockwork remains operational once wound; after this duration, the clockwork becomes inactive and immobile until it's wound again. Some clockworks' abilities require them to spend some of their remaining operational time. They can't spend more than they have and shut down immediately once they have 0 time remaining. If it's unclear when a clockwork was last wound, most are re-wound approximately halfway through their operating time."


Greater Retrieval Prism let's you recall any object in your posession as a free action, but the normal Retrieval Prism doesn't have that restriction. You designate one object when you affix it to your armor and then can recall it as a free action, the only restrictions being the object is 1 bulk or less, you have a free hand, and the object is on the same plane.

I feel like the base Retrieval Prism was intended to have the 'in your possession' language, but I don't see anything in the errata about it.


Been a hot minute since I posted here, can't remember the board preference about new threads vs topical necromancy. So arise!

What about if we let tandem strike be ranged? Summoner still doesn't have great proficiencies, so it doesn't seem too broken. I have a summoner considering a gunslinger dedication, and allowing it to work with tandem strike doesn't scream broken to me.


Rub-Eta wrote:
If you keep reading to:
Complex Bomb wrote:
Each discovery modifies half the bomb's damage dice, rounding down. For example, a concussive/frost bomb from a 9th-level saboteur deals 2d4 points of sonic damage + 2d6 points of frost damage.

This is the only lines about the effect of Complex Bomb, it does not mention anything else but the damage dice. Nowehere does it mention that you applie the other effects, such as staggered or deafened from respective bomb.

I disagree. From both a RAW and RAI standpoint.

The discovery states that you can have a bomb modified by two discoveries at once. Those modification normally add special effects. So unless it says otherwise you should get the special effects. Changing the type of damage needs clarification, which is why that's the only topic that gets clarifying text. Adding multiple effects don't conflict and don't require addition text beyond the initial statement that you can combine the modifications that produce them.

From an RAI standpoint, it'd make the discovery a really poor pick. It's a rare occasion where you have multiple enemies of different vulnerabilities clustered together which is really the only situation the 'damage only' interpretation would be useful. And even in that situation I imagine most players would rather go for full damage to knock out the enemies with one of the vulnerabilities so they'd have less turns fighting back. Especially since the 'round down' rule on the halving means you're taking a penalty on your damage for half your levels. Having the combined specials gives a reason for the discovery to exist.


ciretose wrote:

On the other hand, if you raise the goblin as an undead slave, or steal it's soul, or use it's blood in a ritual to gain arcane power...that is just evil.

Regardless of if you plan to use it for "good".

Example (Game of Thrones Spoiler)

Spoiler:

Using your enemy's body/blood/soul/etc... to gain personal power is evil.

But not his possessions. That's ok. You can loot the corpse, you just can't use the corpse itself.

The first is standard noble adventurer behavior, the second is inherently evil.


I still think it's funny that a full human with racial heritage can take elf goodies, but a half-elf isn't close enough to an elf to do so.


If I felt like doing the math, I'd figure what a 20' radius works out to as a sphere and use that in 5 foot increments. 20' tall at the center of the spell, tapering off towards the edges.

Or more likely I'd handwave it and say 10 feet, cause of Speaker's reason


FangDragon wrote:

Is there anything worthwhile taking from eldritch heritage for a caster bard? If so going human and taking Focused study may be good since you can pump perform comedy for versatile performance intimidate checks and qualify for Eldritch heritage and perhaps boost perception too.

Yes, but since you're feat-starved as a bard, there's usually a better (if blander) option.


Zotsune wrote:
Kazaan Elemental Fist requires a BAB of +8 and while the MoMS can select it as a bonus feat it does say that he must meet the requirements for it as shown here ctrl+f Master of Many Styles

It's a point of contention with quite a few heavily faq-flagged threads requesting an answer.

Many read it as not being able to take feats requiring elemental fist until you have elemental first, rather than not being able to take elemental fist without the requirements.


Unfortunately this is not a games that can be explained in short phrases.

It requires either sitting down with the book and learning it, or learning it by playing. Even the latter will require you to read at least a little to get the basic rules down.

Running the game requires more effort.


Umbral Reaver wrote:

Do these arguments happen in non-D&D games? How often does a GM running Exalted run into a player wanting to introduce the lone member of a new caste? Or a vampire player wanting to make up their own clan?

I'm wondering if this is mostly just a D&D/PF thing.

It happens occasionally in my New World of Darkness games. I play with a group and GM for them on smaller secondary campaigns.

I've had my request to play as a ghost accommodated, and I've seen the request to play as a boxing were-kangaroo denied. When I started to run that system and I got asked about said were-kangaroo, the quote of the day from the other GM was "Hah! That's exactly the face I made when he asked me."

eta: That said, if someone asks for something that won't make a mockery of the theme, I'll do my best to make it work. One of the ways is relaxing restrictions on backup characters. Since they'll be joining over the course of the adventure anyway, there's less reason for them to come from a similar lets-all-work-together background and instead have a reason that comes from the campaign, where various weirdness may be found.


Akriloth wrote:
I kinda find this topic absurd as a Blackblade user, because how can you sunder something which can't be broken?

Because sundering is a combat maneuver while broken is a condition based on HP.

Akriloth wrote:


Does it suddenly shatter without showing some kind of weakness?

You could flavor it that way. Or you could flavor it that it shows signs of damage but the magic makes it retain its function regardless, unless it simply takes too much and gives way.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Isn't there a feat that lets you deal non-lethal sneak attack when using a lethal weapon to deal non-lethal damage?

That's his bludgeoner feat, but it only works with bludgeoning weapons.

He's trying to use a slashing weapon to deal bludgeoning damage with the pommel, so he can get the bonus damage for using a dagger-like-blade and the bonuses for using a nonlethal weapon. Which doesn't work.

What would help is the merciful enchantment, which gives +1d6 damage and converts all damage to non-lethal. It's like a rogue with sap master bribed a wizard to research a new enchantment.


1. I see nothing differentiating it from any other performance.

2. If it works like any other summons, they attack the nearest enemy to the best of their ability until you say otherwise. Which you can do with handle animal. If you've taken rats as one of your animal friend types, you will have +4 to those rolls and the ability to speak with them.


Scavion wrote:
The Robin Hood example isn't a very good one because the wealthy did nothing to earn their money and the people were literally being taxed to death.

And yet, if the act of stealing is always wrong, regardless of motives or consequence and if the act of distributing stolen property is always wrong, regardless of motives or consequence, that doesn't matter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Speaker for the Dead wrote:
mplindustries wrote:

No, dim light exists independent of witnesses.

"Areas of dim light include outside at night with a moon in the sky, bright starlight, and the area between 20 and 40 feet from a torch."

Outside at night is dim light even in places utterly devoid of observers.

It's not dim light if I have a flashlight, or a torch, or <dare I say> if I have darkvision.

Yes it is. Darkvision lets you see in the dark. It doesn't make the dark into light.


never mind then, I thought dragon disciple was a means, not a goal. Alchemist isn't the best option to get there.


I believe you want an alchemist. Optionally beastform

Drink your mutagen! Take on the aspect of the werewolf [beastform only]! Howl as the feral mutagen discovery grows fangs and claws from your flesh! Rend the flesh of your enemies with strength bonuses and magic buffs!


Pretty sure facilitating the murder of minor criminals isn't that ridiculously non-evil an act.

The player didn't disagree with the GM's call, he just thought the GM would make a different one.


brvheart wrote:

Perhaps I am missing something, but I don't see the strength add on the Feral Mutagen:

Benefit: Whenever the alchemist imbibes a mutagen, he gains two claw attacks and a bite attack. These are primary attacks and are made using the alchemist’s full base attack bonus. The claw attacks deal 1d6 points of damage (1d4 if the alchemist is Small) and the bite attack deals 1d8 points of damage (1d6 if the alchemist is Small). While the mutagen is in effect, the alchemist gains a +2 competence bonus on Intimidate skill checks.

Strength is part of the normal mutagen ability itself. Feral Mutagen is a boost to the normal mutagen.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
vikingson wrote:

Although I'd call shenannigans on the homebrew elixier and brewing it ( from what actually does the alchemist produce these ? Does he have access to some sort of fire for brewing/distlling ?) , but that is your call as the GM.

The 'exlir' was apparently the mutagen, which if stripped of the mutagen itself and the alchemy equipment + hour needed to brew it, shouldn't have been available. If they 'just' took his weapon it would work.

But beyond that, feral mutagen is the core of the natural attacking alchemist. It's one of the most by-the-book, least cheesy aspects of building one.

If you strip the other PCs naked and leave the alchemist his stuff; sure he'll outshine them. But if they're all under normal assumptions, you shouldn't see an unusual disparity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wind Chime wrote:
notabot wrote:
Out of curiosity how did you manage to lose your powers?
PC walked out for a smoke whilst the party coup de grac a bunch of petty drug dealers. My PC pretty much knew what they were going to do but I thought I could ignore PVP and moral responsibility by not participating or witnessing the act. The Gm disagreed and I don't really blame him.

This is why I think it's a good idea to tell players before they do something if it's going to be an alignment hit.

Even in cases where the player would be understanding of either decision, there's not sessions of no-fun and character reboots when they guess wrong.

Yeah, it's mostly limited to paladins, but there's also situations regarding intelligent items, NPCs with detect alignment spells, and things like that which can really mess up a character's progression.


The_Hanged_Man wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

I don't think I do. Dead is dead. Killing is killing.

Do you know who said, "Killing is killing, whether done for duty, profit or fun"?

Richard Ramirez. Real world serial killer and avowed satanist.

You know who else tried to denigrate arguments by pointing out that bad people said similar things?

Hitler!


Mapleswitch wrote:
Think of Synthesist as a body sack similar to that seen on Borat (the movie). While in Synthesist form, your arms and legs do not stick out.

Believe that was clarified to be a flavor option.

I know the faq says you can use your own natural attacks.

http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fz#v5748eaic9obe


DM_Blake wrote:

No.

Moving out of a threatened square provokes. Taking a 5' step out of a threatened square does not provoke.

Moving into an occupied square provokes. Taking a 5' step into an occupied square provokes.

That last bit seems to be in contention. Maybe taking a 5' step into an occupied square should not provoke. We have a very specific rule that says it always provokes and another very specific rule that says it doesn't provoke; they are directly in conflict with each other.

Here's how I resolve it. Create a stack of rules, starting with the most general rule, then add each relevant rule to the stack. Any time one rule directly conflicts with one other rule, those two rules cancel each other out and remove them, just the two conflicting rules, from the stack. Like this:

1. Leaving a threatened square provokes.
2. Entering an occupied square provokes.
3. Taking a 5' Step prevents you from provoking.

Now you have the stack. Find two rules in direct conflict and remove them. Rule 3 directly conflicts with both rule 1 and 2, but you only negate one pair of rules, so I negate the most common pair, rule 1 and rule 3 (that's how most people almost always use the 5' step rule, avoiding an AoO for leaving a threatened space). So remove those two rules and what you have left is:

2. Entering an occupied square provokes.

That's it, that's all you have left on the stack. Therefore, taking a 5' Step into an occupied square should still provoke.

That rule interpretation method seems arbitrary to the point of randomness.


Taenia wrote:
By RAW entering an opponent's square is not the same as movement so you would provoke twice, once for leaving an opponent's threatened square and once for entering, a five foot step will prevent the former but not the latter.

"Taking this five foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity"

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html#_take-5-foot-step

"Never" seems pretty clear. Whether it's moving out of a threatened square or into another, a five foot step never provokes.


He's in disagreement with you. As are the rules, I believe. It's not written like the TWF feat chain.

ITWF and GTWF say that the specific singular attack takes the penalty.

The archetype ability says that combat maneuver checks, plural, take the penalty.


Fastmover wrote:
Could a Monk of the Empty Hand be capable of using guns as a Flurry weapon even if it had first take pre-reqs to use the gun, and use the gun as a club or light hammer?

The way the archetype is written, it could always use the gun as an improvised melee or thrown weapon, but never as a gun.

It says to treat all actual weapons as one of three melee weapons, so I think RAW they can't use any ranged weapons as ranged weapons.


IQuarent wrote:
Ximen Bao wrote:
IQuarent wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
It's a standard action to throw a bomb or drink an extract. It may seem more complicated because of the flavor, but that's all it takes, no additional actions. Potions are the same for an Alchemist as anyone else; normally a move action to pull them out and a standard to drink. Prehensile Tail would let you pull out the potion as a swift iirc, but its still a standard to drink.

Trait: Accelerated Drinker

Trait is FAQed not to work on extracts.

http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fn#v5748eaic9ncw

I thought he was referring to potions because he said 'potion'. I would assume that if he was referring to extracts he would have said 'extract'.

Initial quote referred to bombs, potions, and extracts.

Your statement did not specify its reference.

Mine clarified its application.


I have found that since synthesist's eidolons don't DO unconscious, it is a much stronger ability for them.


Lobolusk wrote:
yes I was thinking ninja taking 4 levels of monk It was recommended to me

If you don't have an idea of what you'd get out of it, I recommend not doing it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:
Quandary wrote:

the stirge ability seems to be an independent ability, not referencing the universal one.

some specific monster COULD reference the universal ability and specify any variations, but that isn't the case here.
there are other cases of monster abilities being identically named to univeral abilities, but working differently (see gibbering mouther/shoggoth vs. engulf).
not to mention class abilities with the same name but working differently (different sources of hide in plain sight).
so stirge attach doesn't have the 'the target is not [considered grappling]' clause,
and the default for if any sort of grapple is going on is for both creatures to gain the grappled condition, so that should be the case per RAW.

the universal ability itself is poorly worded (besides allowing the attacher to maintain without excluding pin/other options). by not explicitly referencing that the target does not gain the grappled CONDITION (it says they aren't considered grappling, a broader concept), that means that they can't reverse the grapple... and thus if they choose to use the 'can... grapple the [attach] creature as normal' option, that would seem to mean that two parallel grapple tracks are established since the first was never broken.

likewise the blood drain ability doesn't follow the universal format, in the special attack line it should read: blood drain (1 Constitution) but the parenthetical damage info is missing (it's mentioned in the write-up, but the offense section is straying from the format).

I'd love clarification on this as I use stirges all the time on my druid. We thought they counted as grappling thanks to the

Quote:
An attached stirge is effectively grappling its prey.
clause which seemed to over ride the general attach rules.

The stirge is grappling the target. It gains the grappled condition.

However, that doesn't mean the target is grappled. It does not gain the grappled condition.

Such is the nature of attach, and nothing here contradicts it.

If the text can simply be read as consistent with the general case, that's how it should be interpreted.


Thotiel wrote:
No, having a ki pool from monk levels does not in and of itself change any of your ninja abilities. You would have a WIS based ki pool from your monk levels, & a CHA based ki pool from your ninja levels, though.

No. Ki pool stacks special.


Lobolusk wrote:
If I take 4 levels of monk and decide to use Wisdom as my main KI pool stat are all my ninja abilities now using 1/2 level +wisdom for things like assassinate, and ninja tricks and such?

No. Nice idea though.

Only things that says it lets you switch the modifier is ki pool.


Fastmover wrote:

Human Master of Many Styles (Archetype)/The Gunslinger

Monk 1. Dodge, Mobility, Panther Style
Monk 2. Panther Claw
Monk 3. Dragon Style
Monk3/Gunslinger2 5. Rapid Reload
Monk3/Gunslinger4 7. Vital Strike, Dragon Ferocity
Monk3/Gunslinger6 9. Point Blank Shot or Deadly Aim or Monastic Legacy

How's about something like this? I'm sure you can find something better but this is my idea; Have your character run through/past a small group of enemy to provoke AoO and use Panther Style to Vital Strike each of them (up to your wisdom modifier) with strong dragon force punches/kicks before making it to the other side of the group and firing a Deadly Vital Shot at one of the targets using touch AC or vice versa.

Vital Strike is a standard action. No AoOs.


Atarlost wrote:


Or you can be an evangelist cleric with a summoning focus. Summon lots of creatures and buff them. It may well trump master summoner.

Explain that one, if you would. I don't see it at all.


IQuarent wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
It's a standard action to throw a bomb or drink an extract. It may seem more complicated because of the flavor, but that's all it takes, no additional actions. Potions are the same for an Alchemist as anyone else; normally a move action to pull them out and a standard to drink. Prehensile Tail would let you pull out the potion as a swift iirc, but its still a standard to drink.

Trait: Accelerated Drinker

Grenadier arch type gives you Precise Bombs automatically.

I would also recommend Explosive Bomb discovery.

That's the route my alchemist is taking. (except the trait)

Trait is FAQed not to work on extracts.

http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fn#v5748eaic9ncw


Unless you knock out a few Wyverns and start a poison milking ranch. The first priority of any self-respecting enterprising poisoner.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Maezer wrote:

If using an electronic roller, I ask that players choose an app that produces results at least as visible to the rest of the players as a die roll, and the player declare what the die roll is for before making it (preferably with a sound effect so people know he is rolling). I have found that players find it too tempting to roll repeatedly if its silent/not visible.

Yes. This.

I HATE cheating. To the point where when I GM I never use a screen.

But when I'm a player, and I just rolled a handful of dice that are JUST short of what I need to succeed, I feel the temptation to fudge.

If you made it so it would be virtually undetectable to re-roll until I got the right result, it would be harder to resist.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kyras Ausks wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
You won't get him to budge on this. Your 'good DMPCs' are just 'normal NPCs' to him, not DMPCs, which are always bad.
ah i will not argue verbiage

Or nouniage, apparently.


bbangerter wrote:

If you are going to say you must use rope to go from pinned to tied up to must also say you can only use rope on a restrained or unconscious person. (Ignoring the strictly pedantic argument of what tied up literally means - or change 'tied up' in the above to restrained or bound).

You can't selectively say only rope is allowed from pinned to tied up, but other forms of restraint are allowed or restrained or unconscious.

Doing so means you've taken apart a list of entries in the sentence and tried to apply a restriction (that is not spelled out in the rules) to only one of them. If you want to apply a restriction and make a claim of remaining in strict RAW the restriction must apply to all three.

Its not a case so much of what the rules say, but a lack of what they say. They do not say, "If you have a target pinned the only option you have (in terms of making their condition more secure) is to use a rope to tie them up."

What they say is a person that is pinned, restrained, or unconscious (all three go together) can be tied up. They are silent on whether you could use manacles (or any other form of restraint) in any of those conditions - leaving it up to GM adjudication.

It's completely unrelated to being restrained/unconscious.

It's a question of whether you are trying to tie-up as part of a grapple check.

If you're trying to tie someone up as part of a grapple, you can only use rope.

If you're trying to just put manacles on someone apart from grappling, more power to you.


bbangerter wrote:
Ximen Bao wrote:
bbangerter wrote:


only specifically calls out tying someone with a rope. But I'd be quite flabbergasted if I was told I couldn't put manacles on a unconscious person, so it can't be...
No one would say that (probably). But you'd likely get some pushback if you tried to do it as part of a grapple check.
I agree some GM's might push back on that. But the full text shows that such push back is not strict RAW.

Where does it say that?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bbangerter wrote:


only specifically calls out tying someone with a rope. But I'd be quite flabbergasted if I was told I couldn't put manacles on a unconscious person, so it can't be...

No one would say that (probably). But you'd likely get some pushback if you tried to do it as part of a grapple check.


Monkplayer wrote:
勝20100 wrote:

You can’t use manacles instead of rope.

It should be easier to use modern day manacles than rope; not sure about medieval ones with separated locks.

Contingency spell lasts 1 day per level.
You mention a condition and the spell is casts when the condition is met. For the first spell, it would probably be “When I am grappled”. The spell is cast on the caster, so Break can not be used, and [b]Hold Person[/i] would be a bad idea.

--
That part is more advice than rules:

The Chokehold feat from Ultimate Combat allows to stop someone from breathing and speaking, so no more spells with Verbal components.

I don’t think it is in the rules but you can probably gag and blind-fold an helpless opponent (one that is tied up for example).

Why can't you use manacles in place of rope?

Because there is no mechanic in place to allow you to do so.

You quoted it yourself in your first post "you can use rope to tie him up." Not manacles, vines, thongs, twisted canvas, or anything else that might make sense from a real-world perspective.

RAW, your options are rope, rope, and rope.


You're right. You've read the attach ability description and it fully supports you. That's all there is. The ttirge description doesn't say anything that specifically overides the general case.

And while it's good you didn't slow the game down and went with the ruling in play, there's nothing wrong with going forward using the correct rule


seebs wrote:
Ginglebrix wrote:

From some of the posted examples above, it being melted by lava or acid or black pudding or dragon's fire, etc, does not "break it". I would never say that a flow of lava "broke" the sword. Although it certainly destroyed it.

Maybe my hang up is wanting to keep the sword immune to chipping and/or snapping in half due to blunt force trauma from other weapons, a frost giant trying to break it across his knee, etc. This is more "unbreakable" in my mind and not necessarily "unmeltable" or "invulnerable" or "indestructible".

I am very confused. If we use this interpretation, then say the sword takes more than half its hit points in fire or acid damage. It's not immune to that by your analysis, because that's not "breaking". So it's not immune, and thus as an item which has taken more than half its hit points in damage, it has gained the "broken" condition. Even though it hasn't actually been snapped or whatever.

I think the thing you're missing is the phrase: "Term of art". A term of art is a specialized term which has a meaning which need not be remotely the same as the meaning you would normally get for that word from the dictionary.

To steal an example from 4E: In 4E, in general, creatures at half health or less are "bloodied". Lots of creatures have special powers which activate only when they are bloodied. Your argument here is roughly equivalent to arguing that a thri-kreen barbarian can't use a rage power which requires them to be "bloodied" because insects have ichor, rather than blood.

A weapon which "has the broken condition" is not necessarily "broken" in the sense of chipped, snapped, or whatever. It might be melted. It might just be sulking and refusing to fight effectively for no particular reason. "Broken" in this context is just a word to denote a set of rules, with no real relation to the physical state of any object.

Remember we're talking about an item which is specifically and specially immune to the broken condition.

1 to 50 of 800 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>