Clean but unlikely solution:
Dispel Magic dispels on one spell. The caster must have identified the spell's aura with a spellcraft check. If the spell ongoing on a creature, that creature is allowed a will save. If the spell is cast on a object, that object gets save. A spell that is independent of objects and creatures saves with it's caster's relevant Ability Bonus + Spell Level + Save DC modifiers. You can ready an action to counterspell.
If will saves aren't to your liking, we could always make it a ray. ;)
Requiring the caster to pick a magical aura he can detect eliminates the need to cascade through a dozen rolls. Weakening the spell is a trade off for always nailing the exact spell you want to dispel. It's much more viable now that casters can prepare Detect Magic as a Spell-like Ability.
Area Dispel should be a higher level effect, and please lord get rid of the cascade. The area dispel may as well be called "Emergency Brake" with an effect of "Reflex save or make the turn drag on for five minutes."
(Yeah, there are obvious problems with this being completely dependent on Detect Magic, and so on. Still, I think there might be something workable.)
Requiring casters to first cast detect magic and identify an effect before dispelling it would be the death knell for dispel magic.
Requiring casters to first cast detect magic and identify an effect before dispelling it would be the death knell for dispel magic.
Now now, death knell is another spell entirely!
Well, I didn't say they would have to ID the spell. And technically, I don't think they'd need to detect it. But you're right, it's probably not workable. Nor is it simpler.
I do think the spell should more or less reliably remove one spell effect. Are most people really happy with this spell as printed? If so, I'll just suck it up, I suppose.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Well let's see... First of all it sounds like an array of immunities is making only damage work. That doesn't make damage good.
Of course it does. More precisely, it is good by comparison to the array of SoS effects that are, if not trivially, then easily (and even predictably) nerfed or countered by defenses that high-level parties are likely to have.
Second, dispel magic etc by the enemies? That's the DM doing me a favor. Please do spend your action trying to remove a few buffs Mr. High Level Caster. Since you will only get 1, maybe 2 chances ever to attack me, you're doing me a favor.
It is interesting to me that a lot of the CharOp cant seems based on a 1-on-1 face-off. YMMV, but in my experience of D&D that is rarely the case. Even when you have BBEG battles, there are typically minions and lieutenants aplenty. One bad guy dispels defenses. Bad guy #2 takes advantage of dispelled defenses. This trick works best in combination with a spell like greater arcane sight that gives you a HUD of what spells and magical effects the enemy has going.
It also assumes that the dispel itself does not cause its own inherent trouble: e.g., dispelling water breathing/FoM underwater, dispelling flight in the air, dispelling energy resistance/protection in a damaging environment, dispelling heroes' feast in poisonous atmosphere, dispelling death ward in a negative energy zone - any of which is an eminently possible place to find yourself in a high-level game.
About the fly/dispel example I gave, I had in mind but did not state explicitly a low/mid level game, where your 5th-7th level wiz is flying around raining doom on low/mid-level enemies unable to reach him, and then the enemy's low/mid-level caster boinks him with DM. But falling out of the combat zone can still be troublesome at high levels. If the combat is up in the sky and you end up on the ground, you may have some issues.
Third, defense is cheaper? No. Your offense (accuracy) is practically high by default. Very little of it comes from equipment. Your offense (damage) will need a bit more help from special properties such as Vicious, but then to hit is directly convertible to damage so not as big a deal.
Defense is pure equipment (though some spells duplicate the effects cheaper). AC? You're looking at enhancement on armor, enhancement on floating shields (sword and board is a trap), natural armor amulets, deflection AC rings, defending armor spikes... Saves? Simpler ironically despite being more important. Resistance, and maybe a green ioun stone or luck stone etc. Immunities? Now we're talking Mind Blank, Death Ward, etc.
I'll give you the point that inherent BAB/spell attacks go up and AC doesn't with level (unless you are a duelist or similar class with AC bonuses). Saves go up plenty, esp. if you are a multiclasser. Save bonuses also stack like crazy (items plus spells).
As far as equipment, improving your saves is vastly cheaper than improving your save DCs as a caster.
The cost of immunities is highly variable, often expensive but you get what you pay for.
Improving your AC against everything is cheaper than improving your attacks against everything. It is not necessarily cheaper than improving ONE method of attack. It is cheaper than improving ALL methods of attack, and if you think one method of attack always works then we are playing very different games.
At 1st level, offense is cheap. It's cheaper to buy a weapon than a suit of armor. Of course, a sword doesn't help you hit, it just helps you do more damage. You can work the calculus on the equivalency value if you like. You don't have much money so you can't afford great armor.
At 2nd level through most of the middle to early high levels, defense shoots ahead in value. Armor and shields are, compared to your typical wealth, dirt cheap, and you can stack up lots of cheap +1 booster items.
At very high levels, offense makes a comeback because the cost of stacking big defense items (as well as the opportunity cost of using those body slots) for AC overtakes the cost of one super-weapon.
But here's the thing, offense is cheaper only if you think in single-focused terms. For your fighter types, one uber-specialized weapon is great. Until you fight something that countermeasures it, or until it is sundered, or until you fight something you can't reach. If you have to have an uber sword and an uber warhammer and an uber bow, plus different weapons to use vs. each different DR (aligned or metal), that's a lot of coin to dish out. If you don't spend it, you are giving away damage, your supposed trump card of offense.
For your caster types, compare the cost to increase your save DCs (with equipment and stat items/spells, or feats) vs. the cost for opponents to boost their saves (with the same). Which is cheaper?
If you want to argue feat cost, is it cheaper to take Spell Focus and GSF in both enchantment and illusion to boost your save DCs by 2, or to take Iron Will to get +2 to ALL Will saves? I know CharOps hate all of those feats, but you have one defensive feat that is better than 4 offensive feats (as it also works on Will saves vs. necro, div, or any other school).
Also, defense is not all about equipment or feats; it is also about spell economy, where in terms of resources, 1st level spells (PfE) can trump 9th level spells (dominate monster). More to the point, you have long-lasting spells (MCvE, FoM) and even all-day-long spells (heroes' feast, mind blank) that eradicate entire sections of the codex of possible attacks. Unless you have a spell like greater arcane sight going, you don't get to find out what those are ahead of time, so you unleash your salvo of uber-cool offense and get a fizzle. This is, of course, assuming you are fighting a monster (singular or type/category) that is flat-out immune to what you would like to dish out.
As a side tangent, defensive spells can also become pseudo-offensive spells, like the dominated/charmed allies that uber-casters are CharOp-assumed to have marching around. A low-level enemy caster will be able to move up to them within a PfG (1' radius) or MCvG (10' r.) and suddenly they stop following your commands and decide to take revenge on you instead of being your replacement meat shield that assumes the role of the fighter in the uber-caster party. Or, at mid-levels, casts dispel good or DM/GDM and breaks the charm/dominate effect.
Anyway, back to defense, if you step out of core into SC-land, you have an additional array of all-day-long spells (superior resistance, energy immunity) and different types of bonuses (add greater conviction (morale bonus to saves) on top of the already-prevalent resistance bonuses everybody already has if they have any sense).
To have offense and defense at equal levels you'd have to spend several times more on the latter than the former. Simple as that.
I think that covers it.
Actually, it doesn't. I think that does cover it. :)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Requiring casters to first cast detect magic and identify an effect before dispelling it would be the death knell for dispel magic.Well, I didn't say they would have to ID the spell. And technically, I don't think they'd need to detect it. But you're right, it's probably not workable. Nor is it simpler.
I do think the spell should more or less reliably remove one spell effect. Are most people really happy with this spell as printed? If so, I'll just suck it up, I suppose.
I like it fine. It is complicated, but I don't know that there's a way to make it less complicated.
Also, note that using a Will save for the spell would make divine casters generally harder to dispel than arcane because of their generally higher WIS.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
BTW, I happened to look through Beta finally. Not an exhaustive search, but a couple of things:
1. I was actually really glad (esp. from a DMing perspective) to see death ward and mind blank get nerfed down from total immunity to a hefty save bonus and limited immunity.
2. I would also really like to see freedom of movement get this treatment as well. It is already plenty sweet with making you immune to paralysis and slow and entangled and underwater/similar terrain-based movement and combat penalties.
Does it really need to make you immune to grappling too?
My suggestion: It gives either:
A. A flat bonus to resist/escape grapples (use the standard precedent, +10 when you first get it, +20 4 levels later, +30 8 levels later); or,
B. A level-scaled bonus (say, +2 per level, max +30 at 15th).
3. Similarly, if it were up to me I would probably nerf out PfE/MCvE and its anti-charm/dominate effect. I wouldn't mind there being a higher-level version of the spell that does that, and I think it still makes good sense for PfE/MCvE to specifically block possession attacks (the idea being that spirits can't cross the barrier), but the blanket protection vs. mental control I think is way too good for a low-level spell.
EDIT: I'm sure the above seems a little ironic, given the previous post using precisely these spells as defensive examples, but that post was about the game as it is currently; this is about the PFRPG game as we are thinking about the future.
Dennis: I support this product and/or service.
It is interesting to me that a lot of the CharOp cant seems based on a 1-on-1 face-off. YMMV, but in my experience of D&D that is rarely the case. Even when you have BBEG battles, there are typically minions and lieutenants aplenty. One bad guy dispels defenses. Bad guy #2 takes advantage of dispelled defenses. This trick works best in combination with a spell like greater arcane sight that gives you a HUD of what spells and magical effects the enemy has going.
The CharOp cant is whatever you want it to be. We're the guys who teach you how to make the most of your game and character. Yes, Monks suck, but if you wanted to be a Monk you'd get a build pretty quick (which may or may not involve the Monk class, but would definitely be a Monk in every other way).
With that said, my stance is from the perspective of a tough BBEG (level = several higher than the party) and various minions (level = several lower than the party). If the most dangerous guy wants to waste one of his one or two turns casting a Dispel instead of something dangerous, he's doing me a favor. Kinda like that BBEG who spent his one combat action casting Mass Inflict Critical Wounds which healed some undead a little bit, and did some minor damage to a few PCs. Then he takes multiple attacks to the face for about oh... 208 damage. The minions don't hold up very long either. I believe that they got hit with a Flensing, multiple AoEs, some melee attacks... yeah.
I'll give you the point that inherent BAB/spell attacks go up and AC doesn't with level (unless you are a duelist or similar class with AC bonuses).
Well, Duelists are crap. Monk dips are worth it for certain characters, but then it's stat based. Not level based.
Further, resistance to saves does not get you ahead. It makes you catch up. Also, DR isn't that hard to get around. Hint: Save the golf bag.
If your DM is using Sunder, he hates you and is out to kick you in the crotch. Please return the favor by showing him the wrath of a Cleric or Druid.
The rest of that is just straw man arguments (I know the CO people, none of them recommend large amounts of dominated allies) or repeats of the above. So I'm not touching it.
|
|
The CharOp cant is whatever you want it to be. We're the guys who teach you how to make the most of your game and character. Yes, Monks suck, but if you wanted to be a Monk you'd get a build pretty quick (which may or may not involve the Monk class, but would definitely be a Monk in every other way).
It's that kind of attitude that makes people not like optimizers. We can make perfectly good characters, even potent characters, without having to pour through splatbooks and obsess over numerical combinations. I certainly don't need your "help".
DM is using Sunder, he hates you and is out to kick you in the...
Oh, heaven forbid the DM use something on you that you have no way of working around. Yeah, you can actively try to disrupt a game with character builds but if the DM uses a core rule that disarms you, he is being a jerk.
It's that kind of attitude that makes people not like optimizers. We can make perfectly good characters, even potent characters, without having to pour through splatbooks and obsess over numerical combinations. I certainly don't need your "help".
If someone comes on the CharOp boards and asks about x, guess what? We answer. So... answering questions posed to you makes you unlikeable? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. You misrepresent the CO position, CO people correct you. That's how it works. You don't like CO help, you don't use it. Simple as that.
Oh, heaven forbid the DM use something on you that you have no way of working around. Yeah, you can actively try to disrupt a game with character builds but if the DM uses a core rule that disarms you, he is being a jerk.
Sunder means the DM hates melee, and therefore is destroying your equipment, ensuring you fail even more. You are again straw manning and toeing the line of an attack (at which point I will smite for great justice). I do not 'disrupt the game with character builds'. And when I do make non casters, I make damn sure the DM doesn't have a hate on for me and pulls crap like 'the enemy breaks your shiny sword' or 'you can't buy the magic items you must have, too bad'. Casters do not give a ****. Generally, the solution for problem DMs is a pure classed Cleric or Druid. I've found that this very quickly makes them realize that letting the Fighter keep his few nice things pales before the radioactive fire breathing monster that is CoDzilla.
Now, you gonna debate or fight?
|
|
I'm not doing either, you have your back up. You specifically said "we" (meaning optimizers) teach "you" (meaning non-optimizers) how to "make the most of our game and characters" (meaning somehow are games are not as good if we don't listen to you).
Now, given that this is the internet, you may have not meant what you wrote. But in the context of the discussion, this is what you said. If this is the case, no argument here.
Can we get the discussion back to where it should be, which is providing Jason with ideas for spells.
|
|
Again, quit with the nice police and put your logic where the sand in your vagina is.<made fun of Jason>You do realize Jason is fully aware of all those things? If you actually read his posts, and some of his other work, you would realize he does.
This thread is making me want to pull my hair out again.
Goodbye.
I'm not doing either, you have your back up. You specifically said "we" (meaning optimizers) teach "you" (meaning non-optimizers) how to "make the most of our game and characters" (meaning somehow are games are not as good if we don't listen to you).
Now, given that this is the internet, you may have not meant what you wrote. But in the context of the discussion, this is what you said. If this is the case, no argument here.
Can we get the discussion back to where it should be, which is providing Jason with ideas for spells.
It means people come to the CO boards seeking help. The CO boards give them the help with whatever they need help with. Now, if you don't need CO help, you don't come to the CO boards. Likewise, if you are a mechanic you don't need to go to a car shop. You can do it yourself. There is nothing offensive about saying not everyone is a professional about everything and therefore needs the help of such a professional.
Paizo put out an open offer for help, when they made playtesting public. I and others gave them that help. Ultimately, it doesn't matter if you want it or not. If you want it, you listen. If not, you don't. Any debate with anyone other than the developers is purely an academic exercise because it's only the developers that actually need the feedback from me or anyone else.
|
|
Sunder means the DM hates melee, and therefore is destroying your equipment, ensuring you fail even more. You are again straw manning and toeing the line of an attack (at which point I will smite for great justice). I do not 'disrupt the game with character builds'. And when I do make non casters, I make damn sure the DM doesn't have a hate on for me and pulls crap like 'the enemy breaks your shiny sword' or 'you can't buy the magic items you must have, too bad'. Casters do not give a ****. Generally, the solution for problem DMs is a pure classed Cleric or Druid. I've found that this very quickly makes them realize that letting the Fighter keep his few nice things pales before the radioactive fire breathing monster that is CoDzilla.
You can Sunder spell components or spell foci. High level spells, particularly in PRPG, have expensive material components. I do it all the time. It drives the players crazy (in a good, challenging, no-holds-barred way), until the party fighter steps up and returns the favour. Failing that, grapple shuts up most spellcasters pretty quickly.
The DM can always give you more treasure later.
Spell component pouches and holy symbols are cheap. Please waste your action to deprive me of 1-5 gold instead of taking the rare opportunity to Sunder my face while you're within melee range. No, I mean it. Please, help me out and waste your chance by very mildly inconveniencing me at worst.
Senior Software Developer
|
Is there a list of banned words somewhere I can read? I just need to know what's acceptable. Are things like "circle-jerk" or "masturbate" acceptable? Vagina? Sand? Logic? Frank? I'd just like to know if there is a list of banned words for the future.
It's not a list of banned words. Don't try to rules-lawyer your way into us giving you permission to be a jerk.
Don't be a jerk, don't insult people. Make your case, defend it, but don't be a jerk.
|
|
Something else Jason could clarify, and I will definitely bring this back up during the Spells discussion:
Do temporary hit points stack or don't they? Nothing I can find in the PRPG, PHB or DMG says they don't, which seems a little absurd. In 3.0, to my recollection, it specifically said they do not.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Spell component pouches and holy symbols are cheap. Please waste your action to deprive me of 1-5 gold instead of taking the rare opportunity to Sunder my face while you're within melee range. No, I mean it. Please, help me out and waste your chance by very mildly inconveniencing me at worst.
It's not an issue of depriving wealth, but an issue of depriving spellcasting ability. If your holy symbol is sundered (or disarmed), then you can't cast most of your spells. Same goes for a spell component pouch. After that, the fighter can hack you to pieces and you as a spellcaster have very limited options (unless you're a sorcerer or have the eschew components feat.)
Also, most divine spells do not require a divine focus. Nearly all the arcane ones require a material component though.
Now, you gonna debate or fight?
Seems to me this is the biggest reason you are on this thread. I thought this was a 'discussion' about spells. Every time I turn around you have your back up about something. How about a little more discussion and a little less 'debate or fight'?
|
|
Multiple pouches.Spell component pouches and holy symbols are cheap. Please waste your action to deprive me of 1-5 gold instead of taking the rare opportunity to Sunder my face while you're within melee range. No, I mean it. Please, help me out and waste your chance by very mildly inconveniencing me at worst.It's not an issue of depriving wealth, but an issue of depriving spellcasting ability. If your holy symbol is sundered (or disarmed), then you can't cast most of your spells. Same goes for a spell component pouch. After that, the fighter can hack you to pieces and you as a spellcaster have very limited options (unless you're a sorcerer or have the eschew components feat.)
Move action (at least) to draw a new pouch or holy symbol.
Also, most divine spells do not require a divine focus.
Seems like an awful lot to me.
Doing a quick count, 50 of the first 90 divine spells require a DF (mostly thanks to druid spells, so obviously you don't sunder druids).
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Glitterdust. Baleful Polymorph. Flesh to Stone. Magic Jar. Imprisonment. You sir, are made of fail.Well let's see... First of all it sounds like an array of immunities is making only damage work. That doesn't make damage good.Of course it does. More precisely, it is good by comparison to the array of SoS effects that are, if not trivially, then easily (and even predictably) nerfed or countered by defenses that high-level parties are likely to have.
Cute. Someone made a new alias.
Glitterdust = nice spell but tiny AoE and low save DC. Also, if your party has telepathic bond going (which any sane HL party should have) you can still point the blinded person in the direction they need to go and they can still attack if they wish, or perform other actions (like, say, whip a potion of cure blindness out of their handy haversack (both trivially cheap magic items for a high-level character) and cure their own blindness. Blindness does suck royally, but it is hardly stunning or paralysis.
Magic Jar = blocked by PfE/MCvE (if you, as you suggest, read the book, or the SRD if you are too poor to afford a book)
BP is good. No auto-nerf defenses (well, not in core anyway). Then again, it's also dispellable. Since most people generally play D&D with parties of characters rather than 1-on-1, it is no more than a one-round inconvenience. Also, if you are fighting a creature that possesses shapechanging abilities it can still use those. Spell-like abilities and supernatural abilities are likewise unimpeded, as are psionics and metamagicked spells (what, nobody uses Still Spell, Silent Spell, or Eschew Materials any more?).
Still, better, now you're warming to the task.
Flesh to stone: Now we're getting somewhere. Fire away. Maybe they'll fail their save. Maybe they won't and you just fizzled your turn. Meanwhile, the other enemies besides the one you targeted continue to act normally.
Imprisonment: Great spell, as it should be. It's 9th level. If it didn't rock hard it shouldn't be that high level (yes, we know, some 9th level spells suck by comparison). But it's also a touch spell, so our caster has to go into melee, allows both SR (what, you never fight creatures with high SR?) and a Will save for zip. The save will be tough, as it should be.
You appear to be confused on two points:
1. I compared damage to "the array of SoS effects that are... [nerfed]," whereas you seem to think I stated that all SoS spells were always nerfed by everything.
2. You appear to be under the misapprehension that "fail" is a noun. It's a verb. You could look it up on dictionary.com if you don't have one handy.
As for the rest... blah blah blah. DM/GDM are no absolute solutions, to be sure. But they can be fairly hardcore "screw you" effects vs. casters, especially when quickened (and there are, of course, both core and non-core tricks to quicken besides the straight-up feat itself).
I was referring more targeted dispel than area dispel, though I didn't say so specifically. Targeted in this case could mean either targeted at a specific creature or targeted at a specific spell (yes, DM does allow you to selectively dispel "the water breathing spell being used by those creatures" or "that holy aura spell"). You don't need to dispel all of their defenses; just the ones that matter vs. the attack you intend to make.
As for real players stacking up on the energy immunity/resistance (ex), yes that would be great. Aside from polymorphing, which itself is dispellable, how exactly are your "real players" stacking up on these (ex) resistances? I'd love to hear it so I can go get me some.
By the way, I'm not really sure what sand and vaginas have to do with D&D, but I suppose you'd be the expert on that, eh? Sounds uncomfortable to me.
|
Senior Software Developer
|
It was an honest question. Is there a list or no?
As I just posted, there is no list.
All I need is some guidelines.
The guidelines are: Don't be a jerk. So far, 80 percent of your posts on this thread have been unacceptable under those guidelines.
Until I have guidelines I'll assume effective language is acceptable for debate.
You might want to think of this less as a debate, and more of a conversation.
"Effective" language on paizo.com is not the same as other barfights on the internet. Here, effective language is that which does not insult other people, treats them with respect and keeps the conversation going in a productive manner.
(Having a "productive" conversation is more of a Pathfinder RPG messageboard thing than a paizo.com thing -- see the off-topic forum for wildly non-productive, but enjoyable, conversation.)
Edit: "Stop spouting nonsense" is also not helping.
It was an honest question. Is there a list or no? All I need is some guidelines. Until I have guidelines I'll assume effective language is acceptable for debate. Please, just give me some guidelines.Is there a list of banned words somewhere I can read? I just need to know what's acceptable. Are things like "circle-jerk" or "masturbate" acceptable? Vagina? Sand? Logic? Frank? I'd just like to know if there is a list of banned words for the future.It's not a list of banned words. Don't try to rules-lawyer your way into us giving you permission to be a jerk.
Don't be a jerk, don't insult people. Make your case, defend it, but don't be a jerk.
Pretty much any personal attack, and the phrase "Sand in your XXX" is definitely a personal attack. As is calling someone a moron or any other direct insult. Generally referencing parts of your anatomy or anyone else's is probably pretty much out.
As Gary says, there are no specific "rules" to what being a jerk is. Here is the easiest one, pretend the guy you are talking to is in the same room as you.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Move action (at least) to draw a new pouch or holy symbol.Multiple pouches.Spell component pouches and holy symbols are cheap. Please waste your action to deprive me of 1-5 gold instead of taking the rare opportunity to Sunder my face while you're within melee range. No, I mean it. Please, help me out and waste your chance by very mildly inconveniencing me at worst.It's not an issue of depriving wealth, but an issue of depriving spellcasting ability. If your holy symbol is sundered (or disarmed), then you can't cast most of your spells. Same goes for a spell component pouch. After that, the fighter can hack you to pieces and you as a spellcaster have very limited options (unless you're a sorcerer or have the eschew components feat.)
Sure, someone who's had this happen to them would have multiples, but it's a trick you can use once at least. I would be surprised to find many players actually have multiple pouches or symbols listed on their equipment list.
....and now back to our discussion of actual spells. I think permanancy should have a duration of instantaneous, despite the name of the spell being permanancy. Otherwise, it's too high of a cost to warrant since it can simply be dispelled.
Now, you gonna debate or fight?Seems to me this is the biggest reason you are on this thread. I thought this was a 'discussion' about spells. Every time I turn around you have your back up about something. How about a little more discussion and a little less 'debate or fight'?
Only people I've attacked so far is the The Authority and Jal. Both of which struck first, and Jal is only borderline flaming. Everyone else, agree or not I've been civil with. So what are you talking about?
Edit: Make Permanency use the magic item rules. Dispel suppresses for 1d4 rounds. Done.
It was an honest question. Is there a list or no? All I need is some guidelines. Until I have guidelines I'll assume effective language is acceptable for debate. Please, just give me some guidelines.Is there a list of banned words somewhere I can read? I just need to know what's acceptable. Are things like "circle-jerk" or "masturbate" acceptable? Vagina? Sand? Logic? Frank? I'd just like to know if there is a list of banned words for the future.It's not a list of banned words. Don't try to rules-lawyer your way into us giving you permission to be a jerk.
Don't be a jerk, don't insult people. Make your case, defend it, but don't be a jerk.
Hi ubernoob,
I'm not actually a moderator, but I would like to answer your question. Stop insulting people. Period. That's all you have to do. It's not the words you use, it's how you use them.
No list of words.
Here are the behavior guidelines: don't insult people. Be nice if possible.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Something else Jason could clarify, and I will definitely bring this back up during the Spells discussion:
Do temporary hit points stack or don't they? Nothing I can find in the PRPG, PHB or DMG says they don't, which seems a little absurd. In 3.0, to my recollection, it specifically said they do not.
If I'm the Jason you mean, you're out of luck; I recall it stipulated that they don't in 3.0 but like you I couldn't give you a cite for 3.5.
d20srd.org entry for temporary hit points doesn't say, and neither does the false life spell. Odd.
Crusader, he's talking to ubernoob, not you.
He quoted me, using my line. *shrugs*
Bad quoting. Bad, bad quoting!
Well, I'm officially lost.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Is there a list of banned words somewhere I can read? I just need to know what's acceptable. Are things like "circle-jerk" or "masturbate" acceptable? Vagina? Sand? Logic? Frank? I'd just like to know if there is a list of banned words for the future.It's not a list of banned words. Don't try to rules-lawyer your way into us giving you permission to be a jerk.
Don't be a jerk, don't insult people. Make your case, defend it, but don't be a jerk.
Hey, that was my Rule -1. I claim copyright infringement!
|
|
Well, I'm officially lost.He was responding to this:
It was an honest question. Is there a list or no? All I need is some guidelines. Until I have guidelines I'll assume effective language is acceptable for debate. Please, just give me some guidelines.
Gary,
Actually, I think CoL was replying to Dennis da Ogre who did quote him and what he said makes more sense in the contxt of what CoL said rather than what Chris Self said. This is the problem when replying to a fast moving thread. The replies can get very mixed up if not quoted properly.
My suggestion is that any spell that gives the party a free rest (e.g. rope trick, teleport, MMM) should have a costly material component. The 15-minute adventuring day and scry 'n' die would be less favoured if you have to pop 500 or 1,000 gp every time you wanted a nap or teleport in somewhere. From an economic point of view it makes more sense for wizards to actually build towers to live in rather than MMMing, and for the transportation of goods to be by mundane means.
The only concern I have is with Teleport and it's role as a GTFO spell in a tight situation. Perhaps the material component could be a gold ring or something that's always "on hand".
I don't understand this logic. Why does he hate rope trick? Why was this considered a good idea. What is this 15 min adventuring day?
Is it the 4 fights a day that the original designers of 3.5 tested the game on, or are you refering to something else?I mean Lets say a combat runs 10 rounds thats one minute. Are you saying you have 15 combats a day?
Please explain...
Crusader, he's talking to ubernoob, not you.He quoted me, using my line. *shrugs*
I was talking about you. It just seems like you are wanting to be confrontational... Not offensive, just confrontational. Just that phrase "fight or debate" is itself a bit confrontational.
Meh... don't worry about it. Just pretend I didn't say it.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Jason wrote:
About the fly/dispel example I gave, I had in mind but did not state explicitly a low/mid level game, where your 5th-7th level wiz is flying around raining doom on low/mid-level enemies unable to reach him, and then the enemy's low/mid-level caster boinks him with DM. But falling out of the combat zone can still be troublesome at high levels. If the combat is up in the sky and you end up on the ground, you may have some issues.
Pease go read the fly spell. Specifically how slowly you fall.
http://www.d20srd.org/
It's ok if you're too poor to afford a PHB. Just read the rules for free before you waste the time of more important people (me for instance).
I forgot, given your importance, that I should not forget to address your very, very important comment about falling if fly is dispelled.
If you read the above, I didn't say the dispelled flyer would take damage, only that he would "end up on the ground" or "fall out of the combat zone." 60' per round isn't too far (esp. if you reach the ground before your 1d6 rounds of floating expires), but it is enough distance to make you "have some issues" vis-a-vis the place you intended to be on (or above) the battlefield.
Maybe you were confused because in a separate post, talking about future changes to PFRPG, I stated that I would prefer for fly to revert to its 1st Ed. roots, where if you get dispelled or the spell ends, you fall, and not the floaty kind.
For the purpose of discussion, though, it really doesn't matter.
Hope that clears things up for you.
P.S. You misspelled the word "please," unless you were using an Olde English version of the plural of the word "pea."
Well, I'm officially lost.He was responding to this:
It was an honest question. Is there a list or no? All I need is some guidelines. Until I have guidelines I'll assume effective language is acceptable for debate. Please, just give me some guidelines.Gary,
Actually, I think CoL was replying to Dennis da Ogre who did quote him and what he said makes more sense in the contxt of what CoL said rather than what Chris Self said. This is the problem when replying to a fast moving thread. The replies can get very mixed up if not quoted properly.
Yes. Dennis seemed to think I was overly aggressive. I corrected him by stating what little aggression I have shown here has been solely directed at those who attacked me without provocation.
With that said, those that do attack me I don't hold back much against.