thenobledrake's page

4,097 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,097 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

...but if multiple damage types equaled multiple instances of damage, there'd be no reason for the resistance rules to say the bit it does about resistance to all damage because that'd already be clear from each type of damage being its own "instance".


breithauptclan wrote:
Do you know of anywhere in the rules that defines if it is one damage roll or two damage rolls?

I know that when the rules bring up the steps of applying damage that step 1 mentions multiple dice and increases of dice as being part of the same roll.

I also know there's no reason to treat a weapon and its runes as different damage rolls that wouldn't equally apply to treating every die of a damage total as a separate roll.

It looks to be one of those things which the authors have assumed everyone knows well enough that they don't need to spend word count explaining that how many damage rolls something is or isn't is determined by occasions needing to roll dice rather than by how many dice you feel like putting in your hand at what time or what type of damage each deals. There basically wouldn't need to be any mention of multiple damage types within the same instance of damage if were the case that each different type of damage defaulted to being a different damage roll.


breithauptclan wrote:
The different types of rolled damage from things like Flaming runes - yes, that gets increased additionally. Same with spells that deal multiple types of damage. That is at least how I have been understanding the results of the previous debates on the topic.

If a spell deals 5d6 fire damage and 5d6 positive damage and a feature says increase the damage you deal by +1, the end result is a total of 10d6+1 because if it were 10d6+2 that wouldn't be a valid interpretation of "+1 status bonus to damage rolls" - both because 2 does not equal 1 and because that's not more than one damage roll and you can't stack the same type of bonus on a roll.


breithauptclan wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:
You wouldn't suddenly start treating an attack that does 1d8+4 plus 1d4 persistent as 1d8+5 plus 1d4+1 persistent under an effect like Inspire Courage just because that persistent damage counts as caused by the creature instead of causing itself or whatever the form you pick for it not being the creature takes.
Um... That is exactly what Inspire Courage would do if it was ruled that persistent damage was caused by the character. Inspire Courage applies to all rolled damage that the Bard and allies deal.

So you're saying that if I use inspire courage on a character with a pair of elemental runes on their +2 striking longsword that they'll add +1 damage to the 2d8 slashing, and +1 damage to each of the d6s from the runes? And then they throw an alchemist's fire and it gets the +1 from inspire courage to the damage for the direct hit, the splash, and the persistent damage?

...or is it like I believe it to be and they get +1 to the direct hit of the bomb and to the slashing damage of the sword?


SuperBidi wrote:
Considering that the ongoing damage is still tied to the creature having inflicted it would create lots of problems with bonuses to damage. Bonuses to damage would impact persistent damage and vary if the character is sometimes under damage bonus and sometimes not. On top of being highly illogical, it would improve persistent damage as in general the values are rather low and would benefit greatly from damage bonuses.

Except that no, it wouldn't, because considering the damage as having been done by the creature doesn't necessitate also altering the rule so that damage bonuses apply to it.

You wouldn't suddenly start treating an attack that does 1d8+4 plus 1d4 persistent as 1d8+5 plus 1d4+1 persistent under an effect like Inspire Courage just because that persistent damage counts as caused by the creature instead of causing itself or whatever the form you pick for it not being the creature takes.


It's true that the redeemer feature creates a quandary that the others don't... but since we are dealing with things that are inherently unrealistic and completely made-up, I see no reason to make up a restriction that only has a motivation for implementing of trying to make the fantastical ability that already defies reality "logical".

It's absolutely okay to stick to game-play reasoning and let it function because there's no game-play reason for it to not function, or even to let "it's magic" cover for any issue that isn't making the game unbalanced.

And lastly, if the creature is picking the option to not harm the character they are most likely going to do that on the initial hit so there is no poison in play to be worrying about in the first place rather than be in a situation where the champion didn't react then so the poison came into play but now the champion wants to react to the poison only instead of whatever current attacks the monster is using... which puts us deeply in edge-case territory. We definitely shouldn't be turning edge-case rulings into general purpose ones.


I don't think "expected" is a good word to include in the question because there really isn't an expectation of any kind that this sort of scenario happen on a regular basis (or at all).

So instead I'll answer how I think this could be run without the players feeling overly disadvantaged:

Step one for that is to not have both the NPCs get the bonuses from the PCs' gear and the PCs be facing encounters un-geared. So either use the "they've got your gear" as a flavor detail that barely (if at all) modifies the enemy stats, or have the PCs face the encounters with useful gear that just happens to not be their own (such as what their captors would have been using prior to capturing the PCs).

Step two is to make sure there are numerous avenues to deal with recovery that aren't just possible, but are actually relatively equally viable. For example, being able to isolate and overwhelm a small number of foes (even just 1), or utilize environmental elements to take down a foe and recover some gear (something as simple as being able to improvise a trap to lure someone into), or even a way for the party to say "let's just get out of here" and go get some kind of help to come back later and recover their belongings.


A wall of fire placed so no one is harmed by it is a wildly different situation than the question of poison - at least any poison that is not similarly set down somewhere and completely harmless until such an event as a character chooses to interact with it.

That's more like not being able to block the falling damage someone takes slipping down a set of stairs, even if the person that built the stairs is within required distance at the time, than it is like the claim of "that's not the creature that did that, it's the poison"


I tend to build encounters "plot-first" so I think of where the encounter is going to happen, what kind of purpose I want it to have in the scope of the campaign's tale, and why creatures are there and motivated to act in the way the encounter needs them to act - and then once I know those details I go browsing through monster books to find creatures that fit.

For example, let's look at a traveling section of an adventure: I start with where the party is traveling, and how, such as if they are following a trade road up the coastline with a wagon and some horses. Then I think about whether I'm trying to show the area as dangerous, wild, or more well-patrolled and "safe". Let's say I am looking to give the players a sense that the road basically belongs to criminals, so there's going to be some kind of bandits present to try and get some valuables off of the characters. Since I'm wanting it to seem like the criminals feel like they can do whatever they want and no one is going to bother trying to stop them or resisting, I'll set it up like it is a toll booth - the criminals are just here, camped out in plain sight by the road so everyone has to pass them, telling everyone that wants to pass to hand over something valuable of they'll take it by force. Then I go looking for (or building) specific NPCs that fit that encounter design/purpose.


I don't see any practical difference in times the reaction can get used or amount of damage it can mitigate whether it's allowed to trigger on damage over time, nor any text specifying that damage is meant to be handled as not caused by the creature that started it, so I don't see any reason to prevent the reaction from working that way.

Also poison being an affliction, not persistent damage, means the initiative timing is on the turn of the inflicting creature not at the end of the afflicted creature's turn, technically speaking (I do treat it like persistent damage for timing purposes in my home-games because it's easier to remember, especially in cases where the poisoning foe is defeated before the poison has run its course). So the reaction is still even happening in the same time frame as it would while being used against a fresh attack from the same creature.


HumbleGamer wrote:

I disagree.

The game is meant to be simple.

It's hilarious to me that you're phrasing something I just said in other words as a disagreement.

The game being meant to be simple is exactly why I said that it's not asking the players to draw a line between the action the golem took and the results with "well, technically..." reasoning.

And can you show one piece of text from the book which indicates an intention to separate "directly" from "indirectly" even if the trigger of an ability just says "damages"? Because the only part of the rules text I can think of that brings up that separation is where the rules talk about hostile actions, and if the rules are consistent between what counts as a hostile action and what counts as a creature doing damage then that means directly vs. indirectly does not creature a difference; it's still a hostile action and, unless something else proves me wrong, it's still creature did X, X results in damage, thus creature did damage.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Meckerdrache wrote:
The Golem didn't damage the Sorcerer directly

Yes it did.

It is as much the golem damaging the sorcerer via the poison breath as it would be the golem, not a sword, damage the sorcerer if it had struck the sorcerer with a sword.

And besides that, the reaction doesn't say the damage has to be "direct" just that it has to be an enemy doing it, so there's no reason to try and go down the shaky path of "it wasn't the creature that did the damage, it was the damaging thing that the creature was using that wouldn't have done any damage if not for the creature's actions" that has no logic to it because it would make literally only unarmed attacks count as the enemy rather than 'something else' having done the damage.

TL;DR: "the snake didn't damage me, the venom did" is not a distinction the game is asking you to make.


Errenor wrote:
...and spellcasters' fragility...

Spellcasters are not nearly as fragile as some people make them out to be.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Oozes are occult because their origin isn't universally "a wizard did this" and that means they are just as unfathomable as the eldritch horrors from beyond the stars because no one understands why this soup eats you.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
A link to the original source is misinformation?

When you present the link as leading to a "different position" but the link actually leads to an agreeing position (since both Logan in the video, and the post in question here say that having a spellcasting archetype allows you to use scrolls, staves, and wands), yes, that is misinformation.

Plenty of people will take you at your word and never click the link to see what was really said and thus will believe the incorrect position that what was said in the post you respond to is wrong, thus they would be misinformed as a result of believing your claim.


First bullet point on the Craft activity.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:
..."enough acts" would never have been included intentionally as part of the rules for this if they really meant "any acts" IMO.

You're misrepresenting what everyone else has said.

No one has said "any" is the correct amount, because it isn't.

What has been said is that "a number, which could be 1 depending on the actual act in question" is the correct amount, because that's "exactly what it says and it means what it says."

And no, that staff discussion didn't actually need clarification either - that you weren't the one that read it wrong in that case has no bearing on your ability to be wrong in this case. The difference is that this is even more of a waste of time because the clarification will only be that, yes, the number of acts varies depending on what exactly the acts were and the context surrounding them.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

"enough acts" is a vague enough phrase that we don't know if it refers to a specific un-weighted count of acts (for example 8 acts being "enough", severity or intent not factoring in any way) or if it refers to a weighted estimation of acts (for example dozens of minor or unintentional infractions, a handful of infractions that include some deliberate or severe infractions, or just one big severe and deliberate act and that is "enough").

So basically, yes actually, "enough acts" can linguistically mean one.


Errenor wrote:
That is true because it's explicitly written in the Invisibility spell.

Correct. That's what I was saying; the clause that results in you losing your Hidden condition is determined by whatever gave you the hidden condition, not the hidden condition itself - thus there is no universal timing of losing the hidden condition that separates Strikes and spell attacks.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jared Walter 356 wrote:

Also RAW,

Ambiguous Rules
Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is.

a druid constantly wearing metal armor and not losing their powers, clearly falls into TGTBT territory.

And not just, but the idea of being able to wear metal armor indefinitely and have no consequence triggers the other half the ambiguous rules guidance too; If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed.

Anathema never having consequences because "how many infractions does it take?" is not explicitly mentioned is clearly not working as intended.


Squiggit wrote:

IT's the line I missed earlier that Errenor pointed out:

Quote:
If you do anything else, you become observed just before you act
Strictly scrutinizing this, you can't benefit from the flat-footed condition because you are no longer hidden when you cast a spell.

Since that's not text of the hidden condition itself, it depends on how you've obtained the hidden condition.

So if you just used the Hide action it's correct, but if for example you used an invisibility spell that keeps you unobserved until after the action.


I don't see any actual text in the rules supporting the conclusion that some activities which break the hidden condition do so before they resolve and some break the hidden condition after they resolve.

Thus I see no text that supports saying that the target of a spell attack isn't flat-footed just like they would be if it were a Strike instead.


No, casting a spell is not "literally" louder, more visible, nor mor easily detected than a firearm.

You're misapplying the point of the text in the game book; No one is unsure whether or not a hand canon firing can be seen and heard and is hard to conceal what has happened in the instant and definitely not just a decision the user can make in the moment, so the book need not spend any word count saying "you can't shoot a firearm quietly."

On the other hand everyone would be unsure whether you can make your somatic gestures less obvious (because what the gestures are isn't defined) and everyone could be mistakenly sure that they are allowed to speak as quietly as a whisper - except for that the rule book specifies that, without feats at least, you can't hide any part of that you're casting a spell unless that spell says so.

That doesn't make spells louder than guns, it just makes them also not something you can easily hide.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dancing Wind wrote:
Although Archives of Nethys gives you all the rules you need, they are not displayed in an easy-to-read chapter format.

If you click "Rules" on the menu it actually brings up a list of rule sources and those that are fully rules books are then laid out in the same chapter format as the books are and you can read through chapter by chapter.

The only difference from the actual books at that point is the layout aesthetic and the lack of art.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's not exactly related to picking monsters, but it's a very useful tip: Don't use hazards that are higher level than the characters are when they are facing the hazard.

The guidance for building hazards says they're suppose to have one extreme trait (i.e. if it's really hard to find it won't be as hard to disable/avoid once found or survive if triggered, or if it's really deadly if triggered it won't be hard to notice), but if the hazard is higher level than the party any trait that was set to normal numbers for its level will effectively be extreme due to how level factors into all the checks and DCs in the game.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

Rules representing lore does not inherently require NPC rules to be the same as the PC rules.

And that's besides the fact that every system anything remotely like Pathfinder that claimed to build NPCs on the same rules as the PCs are built has been dishonest about that because NPCs have different options and no inherent limitations.

None of that is really all that relevant though because, to use the example of Ferocity, it doesn't matter if it is lore of "literally all orcs are hard to kill" or lore of "some orcs are hard to kill" that is still a rule that creates and participates in representing a piece of lore.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There's no explicit text preventing this, nor anything explicitly enabling it, since the two features are phrased in ways that don't interact with each other.

My take on it though is that one of your spells of each level is meant to be locked to your arcane school and it feels "too good to be true" to effectively unlock it by trading that specific spell slot (with no explicit permission to pick and choose which of your otherwise identical slots you are trading) for a different level of spell.

Plus as a player I find it an entertaining challenge to try and pick out a school spell of each spell level and make it actually useful, which can actually be a pretty big challenge for certain schools of spell. So when I played this sort of wizard I kept at least one spell of each level prepared from my arcane school (of conjuration, which might be one of the easiest to do this with).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

To me there's really not as much separation between rules and lore as people tend to say there is; not outside of the core mechanics of how the game works at least.

For example, in the core book it's mostly just the Skills and Playing the Game chapters that have rules that aren't lore-soaked. All the other major rule sections (ancestries & backgrounds, classes, spells, feats even, and more) the rules that are there either create lore or are the representation of lore - and if a book tries to present rules content of that sort and pretends it doesn't have any lore, just rules, it comes off as really bland (if not contradictory, like how some games will present an option called dwarf that has bonuses to wield axes and hammers like that isn't lore) and for me at least makes the book really hard to actually read.

So I like the blend where it is currently at.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
lemeres wrote:
Think of it this way- if the players often used this spell, and the GM suddenly said "these enemies are wearing bone armor", then that could be seen as an attempt to nerf the spell.

Correct, context matters.

If a GM is saying "this is bone armor now" to avoid their player's strategy it's just like the GM loading enemies up with effects that do something special vs. metal armor when the party happens to mostly wear metal - the context is the GM is deliberately screwing with things.

In the context I said that letting a player of a druid just have a bone breastplate instead of a metal one with no extra hoops to jump through or costs to pay, no one is trying to screw with anyone else - the context is just a player wishing to have the same AC they would otherwise have but with their strength a little higher than their dexterity. And they aren't even trying to dodge their anathema. The "worst" thing the GM is doing in this context is being "lazy" and not altering the hardness and HP of the armor because it's so rare that those details matter that it isn't worth the time and effort (and there's nowhere to track it on the character sheet anyway because the designers know it so rarely matters as to be generally ignored too).

And as Richard pointed out above you can even have the metal-affecting effects work as normal for an invented reason if you're genuinely concerned that the character has some "unfair advantage".


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Ah yes, pointing out the spells that specify interaction with metal like those come up in 100% of campaigns targeted at player characters and thus it's a note-worthy alteration to the rules for a character to have armor that is bone instead of metal... totally got me there, not at all a non-difference in all but a few weirdly-specific and GM-chosen situations.

As for making non-metalized options uncommon, that's also either a non-effect because the player says "Can I have?" and you say "Yes." or is a GM pretending they aren't saying "No." when they are doing exactly that.

Same with making them more expensive; it's either not more expensive enough to matter so it's a waste of you bothering to alter the price, or you're using the price to tell the player "I don't actually want you to have this but I'm pretending to say it's okay if you do" because it is expensive enough to influence the player's decision making process.

But seriously though; demonstrate one thing that is actually broken by a druid having the same AC but with slightly different stats, because I do not believe there is anything.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

High fantasy and technology are not now, nor have they ever been, mutually exclusive.

Also the arquebus didn't debut in 2nd edition AD&D, firearms and high-tech weapons predate that and have been in D&D in some capacity since basically its beginnings. People often just forgot/overlook that because Gygax had an aversion to letting tech into the game (he let a player be a gunslinging wizard from Arizona transfered over to the Greyhawk setting but insisted on a treatment of a "wand of thundering" instead of a revolver though it was in all ways but name a revolver) so his materials shied away from tech, but the other of the big names to have created the original game (the one whose setting gets the tag-line "the first fantasy campaign") threw in high tech energy weapons, space ships, and all kinds of other stuff as elements of the history of the setting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1. It has been extremely rare that a fight goes anywhere near that long, and distracted players has never been much of a thing at my table.
2. I solved the issue of my play group's members that weren't interested in using consumable items by drawing up a complete list of unused consumables at the end of a particularly long campaign years ago and showing them the 65 lines (many of which were multiple count of the same item) of "...but what if we need it later?" - the whole group is now aware that there is no later; there is use it as soon as you find an excuse, or you are wasting time/effort/money on it. So they don't fail to use consumables, and they don't play slowly as a result.
3. Boring people playing it.
4. Literal meaning? No. Their spirit and purpose? Strict as can be.
5. An average of 3.
6. They won't. Dead money don't spend. New characters = new wealth.
7. Every battle? No. Any battle? Yes.
8. To no extent in this set of rules.
9. There is no "skip encounters." There are only encounters and a wide variety of ways to deal with them that I won't even start to list because by the time I got to what I think is the end of the list players will have devised a new one. Encounter doesn't mean combat, by the way. Combat is just one of many types of encounter. And the characters get the same XP no matter which way they get through an encounter.

That should sufficient unload all the loaded questions and provide answers.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

The lore and the mechanics aren't exactly necessarily linked here.

In the lore there can be variances and unique traits to each and every spell that is cast by each and every different caster.

In the mechanics, you can't have any meaningful differences or spells become infinitely more difficult to balance - and when you do get to a meaningful enough difference, that's when you design another hard-coded spell.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
All of the examples you gave are for valid reasons that can be explained in one simple sentence. Wizard has prepared spells. Sorcerers are spontaneous casters. Summoners are about bringing things in from outer planes. Magus blends martial prowess and arcane casting. Etc.

All of the examples I gave were, at there inception, arbitrary differences given definition by the book that first included them; there weren't any "spontaneous spells" for a sorcerer to use to be different from other magic-users - and your explanation of summoner is also just an explanation of conjuring spells that already existed, further highlighting that there's no difference between the changes of then and the change you are strugggling with now.

And just like the answer to wrapping your head around those changes was "the book tells you what it is about" that is the answer now! As another user pointed out the skills of Arcana and Occultism combined with some info in the Recall Knowledge action itself tell you everything you need to know about which one to use for what.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:


Right. Every previous edition of a d20 based game called that Arcane. So again, this feels artificial to me.

So what?

We split "magic-user" into wizard, witch, sorcerer, magus, and probably a few others even though at some point every previous edition had them as the same thing, so why isn't there any room to improve upon the delineation between the studied phenomena underpinning all of a fantasy world and how to wield them and the power lock in the recesses of the mind?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Starocotes wrote:
Very few spells trigger an AoO by themself.

Every spell that has a somatic or material component triggers an attack of opportunity because both of those types of components have the manipulate trait.

That means the vast majority of spells trigger attacks of opportunity.


A critical hit with an Attack of Opportunity can disrupt spells that provoke attacks of opportunity when they are cast.

Further there is a fighter feat called Disruptive Stance makes concetrate action provoke and also disrupts concentrate and manipulate actions (so spells being cast or sustained) on a hit rather than a critical hit.


Castilliano wrote:
In a plain reading this makes B optional. So the controller can say "act in X way" and that's it; target acts that way

That is not supported by the further text. The "plain reading" is that they do both - not that they can choose one or the other; they both determine your overall behavior and command each of your actions.

And even if that's not the conclusion arrived upon by reading that part, you hit the Ambiguous Rules 'too good to be true' clause when you try to argue that it's just one order that was unacceptable so only one save is allowed ever even if it takes hours, days, or weeks of repeated effort to follow through rather than being a save every round during.

Castilliano wrote:
Also, the way you two would have it there'd be a saving throw for each separate action, even Reaction.

I already covered that, and you're wrong about where I landed on it. I even gave reasons.


How It's Played not citing an actual source is the same as if I were to say "I got clarification that it works how I say it does" - which is to say it's not a valid supporting evidence for the claim.

I'm not even saying the guy is lying; just you can't say an unnamed person told you something and call that definitive because no one can ask that person what they said, you aren't saying what exactly they said, and you could have misunderstood or they could have misspoke.

Especially when the outcome doesn't 100% mesh with the rule-book and you're claiming that "normal damage instead of double damage" actually means "normal damage instead of any kind of damage beyond that which is only happening because of a critical result." or the less verbose "normal damage."


6 people marked this as a favorite.
pauljathome wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:
" so my advised ruling on not stressing about this because it doesn't matter still holds.

I presume that you also eliminate all cleric and champion Anathema? At least the ones the players find inconvenient?

And the barbarian instinct restrictions?

You're creating a false equivalence, and I think you know it.

I'm not having druids use metal armor; I'm having the process of finding alternative materials be one that doesn't have increased cost or altered mechanics. The lore, and the game balance, remain intact.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Castilliano wrote:
I disagree that the commands have to be so granular.

It's your prerogative to disagree with the book whenever you want to, but in the Rules Discussion section of the forum I prefer not to talk about people's home-rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Breithauptclan, I don't know if you have heard this before or not, but, personal incredulity isn't actually an argument nor is it support for an argument.

Everyone else, developers included, to have weighed in on the topic has provided some kind of evidence whether it is the wording or what would be accomplished without including parts of that wording... and you're basically just saying everyone else is wrong and you are right and the only reason you've given is because you think the way everyone else says it works is silly.

And no, this "war" isn't happening at basically any tables at all statistically speaking. Statistically speaking the majority of people playing the game either already realized how the rule worked, or when having it pointed out will say "oh, alright, cool" and change how they play to match, or will simply never even hear about this ruling and have no reason to care whether their table matches up or not. The people that will find out about this ruling and have someone in their group that disagrees about how it works will, to make a statistical analogy, be lottery winners - and even then most of them will have a 20 second conversation about it, come to a decision, and move on, rather than "war" about it.


There is not significant enough difference in the meaning of the two phrasings in question to insist that the inclusion of the word "each" changes the meaning.

It's just how some people talk to throw the "each" in there even though it is technically unnecessary, such as "I'm taking something from home for each of my lunches this week" instead of "I'm taking something from home for my lunches this week" or "I'm taking something from home for each lunch this week" which are all synonymous phrases.


Castilliano wrote:
If the controller issues one command, "Kill Mr. X", I don't see how a lack of future commands equates to giving new orders. And that one command doesn't have an expiration that I see, nor does it appear to need blow-by-blow (or six-second by six-second) restatement. I see no reason it needs to be refreshed at all; it's one singular, ongoing command. The controlled target doesn't have the minion trait and can keep acting toward that given goal w/o the controller even being present or conscious.

You'd have a point if the controlled condition said something like that you do your genuine best to achieve the tasks your controller sets for you... but it doesn't.

The controlled action has the controlling character choose your actions for you, and that's how even while working towards the same task new orders are being issued every time it is your turn.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pauljathome wrote:
Uh, no. Breastplate has significantly different stats than Hide armour.

How is the same AC contribution cap, the same check penalty, and different specialization effect (that you don't naturally have any access to because druids don't get armor specialization) "significantly different"?

If anything, people should be looking at the higher cost and higher strength needed to ignore the check penalty and saying that even with my "go ahead and say it's bone and use it" ruling that players would want to avoid that option anyways.

pauljathome wrote:
And full plate is a thing I'd have loved to get on my druid

That's still going to cost an extra feat investment whether you have to actually find some special suit that is made of non-metal, or are allowed to just say "it's not metal but has the same stats" so my advised ruling on not stressing about this because it doesn't matter still holds.


AfKbX wrote:
From the posts above, I get that it would be every turn, if the command is to "kill your allies" every turn, even though it is technically the same command as the last turn (compared to a totally different command, for example: "stay still, do nothing").

Each round the controller wants you to try to kill your allies should be treated as a new order because "new order" can both mean assignment of a new task and the act of making you do a thing, so the definition we interpret it as being should be the one that makes for better game-play (which is the one where you have more than one chance to stop trying to fulfill an unacceptable order after you critically failed to resist the spell entirely - especially since this kind of spell is usually coming from a higher-level bad guy so the odds already aren't on your side).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HumbleGamer wrote:
There are plenty slight differences between medium armors ( Specialization, materials, runes, item/dex bonus ), but the most important ( talking about druids ) is that the hide armor requires +2 dex, while a breastplate just +1.

Slight differences aren't worth stressing over, especially not the ones Druids don't even get by default. And for every case of being able to spend feats towards getting those things or making them less slight, you're talking deeper investment which means it's not an issue still because you're getting something you paid for, and it's still not anything more than a "slight difference."

Even "now I can leave my dexterity at +1 instead of going to +2" isn't a big deal; it's actually almost always going to be a 1 point less to more important traits for a 1 point more to less important traits, especially in the case of a druid who is probably treating even Dex as 2nd or lower priority among their scores.

Castilliano wrote:

I agree it does matter for Druids.

Moving to breastplate from hide allows a shift in stats which favors Strength which Wild Shape Druids do have a use for.

They kind of don't, though. You don't add your Strength modifier to Athletics, attack rolls, or even damage when wild shaped.

If you're a wild order druid that plans on focusing on wild morph instead of wild shape, you've got more use for strength. You're still not going to feel like you got a super cool advantage if you get to wear a bone breastplate instead of just not having that armor stat option at all, and you'll still feel like your are shortchanging yourself if you have to jump through some hoop or pay some extra cost to get that armor stat option when you could have chosen to use hide and just had both some strength and some dex because ability scores aren't actually hard to come by in this edition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, the critical failure clause is saying that the controller has to give an unacceptable order that turn for you to get a saving throw at the end of your turn.

It's not every time the controller makes you use an action toward an unacceptable order as it says "only if you give" rather than "every time you give" so it's not changing the timing/frequency of the saving throw that is established by the failure condition outside of when there aren't unacceptable orders involved.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
pauljathome wrote:
While I like this answer in general it is WAY too good for a druid. So I'd allow it only for non druids.

It's really not, though, since all armor within a category is effectively equal in mechanical terms.

"I'm gonna take this breasplate and says it's made from bones like from an elephant or something." Big deal, same AC you could have hit with hide.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

It's a general preference, not a universal requirement.

So how I hand this is... I don't. A player playing a lizardfolk picks out whatever armor they want to wear that their character can afford, and I don't question it.

And if a player comes to me saying they want to match that little bit of lore but they don't see any stone, ivory, glass, or bone armors, I say to them "grab whichever armor you like the stats of, pay normal price for it, and we'll just leave the game mechanics as-is but you can describe it as being made out of that stuff." because it genuinely doesn't matter.

1 to 50 of 4,097 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>