Is it just me or is he not making sense anymore?
Is it just me or is he not making sense anymore?
That is his tactic, he starts attacking part of what you said, trying to disprove any one single part of it if you can not point word for word to everything you said in the book
He switches gears , hoping that he can gets folks arguing about some random point and totally forget about what the topic or argument he was not winning was about, and it works often.
I always know this is fixing to happen when he starts making fun of my spelling or how I said something and so on. So I knew he was gonna move the goals
Evey thing about the post was nonsensical and you are the one that is instigating something.
Is it just me or is he not making sense anymore?That is his tactic, he starts attacking part of what you said, trying to disprove any one single part of it
This is called logic.
As I already said, your entire argument depends on the one assumption that you can use Spellcraft to tell whether a spell is arcane or divine in nature. Every single one of your assertions past that point depend only on that one assertion.
Thus, logically, if I can disprove that one assertion, I automatically disprove all of the ones following it.
---
By the way, I find it refreshingly ironic that I'm the one that gets the bad rap when the last dozen posts are each and every one full of personal attacks and insults directed at me, while not a single one of my posts in this thread contains any sort of personal attack or insult.
I count 7 for the druid losing his powers and 1 against and several that were irrelavent to the topic or were unclear enough to place (no more than 3 against in any case). Zurai, did you ever vote on the actual topic at hand?
I count 7 for the druid losing his powers and 1 against and several that were irrelavent to the topic or were unclear enough to place (no more than 3 against in any case). Zurai, did you ever vote on the actual topic at hand?
14th post in the thread:
Just like Paladins who are forced to commit evil acts, they lose their powers. The restriction isn't against willingly wearing metal armor, after all. And hey, druids only suffer for 24 hours after removal of the metal armor. A Paladin who is dominated and forced to kill a baby is a glorified Warrior until he finds a priest of his faith to grant him an atonement.
Note that I was further corrected by another poster (Pathfinder changed the rules so that involuntary evil acts don't cause a Paladin to fall), and I then posted an acceptance of that correction and apologized for the misinformation.
Some big bad nasty troll I am, huh?
I never said you were a big nasty troll.
8 for it working, 1 against (no more than 2 against, still not sure how to rate TriOmegaZero) and several irrelevant comments to the topic at hand.
For the record, I'd still say the Druid would lose their powers while wearing the armor, at the least. I'm not sure about the 24 hours afterwards thing, though, any more. I could go either way there.
EDIT: And further for the record, the "big nasty troll" comment wasn't really directed at you, although I do see how it could have seemed that way. I apologize for that.
Same here. About the whole "identifying druids based on spell casting thing", can we drop it? It's not really relevant to the thread and it is making it messy so other people will not want to get involved with it.
*Edit* there was a monk prestige class that lost there powers for carrying weapons in 3.5, even unintentionally (The sacred Fist). I vote that as precedence.
About the whole "identifying druids based on spell casting thing", can we drop it?
Fine with me. I accepted quite a long time ago that seeker holds his convictions very tightly, so I argue with him mostly for ... well, fun isn't the right word. Entertainment, I guess.
Yeah I can drop it. kinda off topic anyhow. It does seem most folks at lest agree that he would loose it while he had it one at the very lest.
In place of the ham handed "Magic Dead Cell" you could weld them into a set of heavy armor and put a type of locked gauntlet on their hands that prevented finger movement and caused a 100% arcane spell failure chance.
That would be a dangerous way of constraining the wizard and only be done by inexperienced Jailers (or those without access to metagaming information...) since it only prevents him from using spells with somatic components.
(and material components, of course, unless the components were locked gauntlets...)
In place of the ham handed "Magic Dead Cell" you could weld them into a set of heavy armor and put a type of locked gauntlet on their hands that prevented finger movement and caused a 100% arcane spell failure chance.That would be a dangerous way of constraining the wizard and only be done by inexperienced Jailers (or those without access to metagaming information...) since it only prevents him from using spells with somatic components.
(and material components, of course, unless the components would be locked gauntlets...)
A) Not really, wizards need spell books, for the most part. Knock him out for 24 hours then just don't let him have a spellbook. Works wonders.
B) Sorcerers and other spellcasters are harder. In my world, when a sorcerer or cleric or whatever is tried and found guilty, one of two things happen. If it's a minor infraction, they get fined. If they refuse to pay the fine, then they get shackled with collar that has AMF enchanted into it, so they can cast all they want but to no effect. Then the price of the collar is added to their fine, and they have to work off their debt for all the extra trouble, the fine, and then serve time if necessary. If it's a major infraction, then they go straight to the collar. Note that if it's a capital offense, they just get their heads chopped off and bodies burned to ash. If it's someone that's really really dangerous, they toss them into a portable hole, toss that into a handy haversack (using some rope and a pit) and then write the expense off as cheaper than building a jail to hold them.
A) Not really, wizards need spell books, for the most part. Knock him out for 24 hours then just don't let him have a spellbook. Works wonders.
For the record, spells remain prepared until they are cast or until they are intentionally "un-prepared". So, knock him out for 2 hours, 24 hours, or 24 days, he'll still have whatever spells prepared that he had before you knocked him out. I don't even think killing spellcasters makes them lose spells any more, although I'm feeling too lazy to search that out right now.
Doesn't invalidate divorcing him from his spellbook, though, of course.
This is all IIRC. I reserve the right to be wrong. :p
A) Not really, wizards need spell books, for the most part. Knock him out for 24 hours then just don't let him have a spellbook. Works wonders.For the record, spells remain prepared until they are cast or until they are intentionally "un-prepared". So, knock him out for 2 hours, 24 hours, or 24 days, he'll still have whatever spells prepared that he had before you knocked him out. I don't even think killing spellcasters makes them lose spells any more, although I'm feeling too lazy to search that out right now.
Doesn't invalidate divorcing him from his spellbook, though, of course.
This is all IIRC. I reserve the right to be wrong. :p
Hmm, good point. Assuming you don't exercise your right of course. :)
Not really, wizards need spell books, for the most part.
That's why spell mastery should always be considered.
If they refuse to pay the fine, then they get shackled with collar that has AMF enchanted into it, so they can cast all they want but to no effect.
Couldn't figure it out - what is AMF?
they toss them into a portable hole, toss that into a handy haversack (using some rope and a pit) and then write the expense off as cheaper than building a jail to hold them.
Hehehe...
For the record, spells remain prepared until they are cast or until they are intentionally "un-prepared". So, knock him out for 2 hours, 24 hours, or 24 days, he'll still have whatever spells prepared that he had before you knocked him out. I don't even think killing spellcasters makes them lose spells any more, although I'm feeling too lazy to search that out right now.
There should be some kind of discharging device for mages.
Couldn't figure it out - what is AMF?
Anti Magic Field
Ah, yes. Of course.
+2
+3
|
8 for it working, 1 against (no more than 2 against, still not sure how to rate TriOmegaZero) and several irrelevant comments to the topic at hand.
count me as non-voting. I would not use it but wouldn't object to someone else doing it. I think proper knowledge rolls should be made to avoid metagaming, but the dc should not be high.
A kind of expensive option for keeping spell casters locked up:
Animated manacles. Everytime the caster goes to cast the manacles attack causing a concentration check.
This is in addition to the animated choker which starts strangling the mage everytime he goes to cast.
A kind of expensive option for keeping spell casters locked up:
Animated manacles. Everytime the caster goes to cast the manacles attack causing a concentration check.
This is in addition to the animated choker which starts strangling the mage everytime he goes to cast.
Only really useful if you just want to hurt them. If you don't want them to cast, you just do the choker of AMF and be done with it.
Only really useful if you just want to hurt them. If you don't want them to cast, you just do the choker of AMF and be done with it.A kind of expensive option for keeping spell casters locked up:
Animated manacles. Everytime the caster goes to cast the manacles attack causing a concentration check.
This is in addition to the animated choker which starts strangling the mage everytime he goes to cast.
I think the choker of AMF would probably be more expensive than the constructs would be, and if the mage tries to cast until he passes out why is this a problem? He's in jail -- you don't really want him to keep trying to cast right? Damage hurts and pain (for the character) is real, if it doesn't work often enough (and he's losing spells each time he fails the damage concentration check) he'll eventually stop trying.
|
I just think this shows how stupid the metal armor restriction is.
Metal is natural! It occurs in nature! Metal armor is no less natural for being worked than any other material.
Untrue : most (almost all in fact) metal items are made from cast metal. Which means the metal had its state artificially changed after its natural occurence (from solid to liquid and back to solid again).
Such is not the case for wood or leather.
I would allow a druid to use metal that has only been hammered and cut but never liquefied and still keep his powers. However, it would be very very rare and thus quite expensive.
For the purposes of the OP I'd have to go with the "lost powers" for 24 hours... it's due to "my perception of the fluff" that I reserve the right to be wrong on, because I'm pulling this out of my rear, lol.
I just read the Wiki article and I'll quote and spoiler as such:
Base metal
In chemistry, the term base metal is used informally to refer to a metal that oxidizes or corrodes relatively easily, and reacts variably with dilute hydrochloric acid (HCl) to form hydrogen. Examples include iron, nickel, lead and zinc. Copper is considered a base metal as it oxidizes relatively easily, although it does not react with HCl. It is commonly used in opposition to noble metal.In alchemy, a base metal was a common and inexpensive metal, as opposed to precious metals, mainly gold and silver. A longtime goal of the alchemists was the transmutation of base metals into precious metals.
In numismatics, coins used to derive their value primarily from the precious metal content. Most modern currencies are fiat currency, allowing the coins to be made of base metal.
Ferrous metal
The term "ferrous" is derived from the Latin word meaning "containing iron". This can include pure iron, such as wrought iron, or an alloy such as steel. Ferrous metals are often magnetic, but not exclusively.Noble metal
Noble metals are metals that are resistant to corrosion or oxidation, unlike most base metals. They tend to be precious metals, often due to perceived rarity. Examples include tantalum, gold, platinum, silver and rhodium.Precious metal
A precious metal is a rare metallic chemical element of high economic value.Chemically, the precious metals are less reactive than most elements, have high luster and high electrical conductivity. Historically, precious metals were important as currency, but are now regarded mainly as investment and industrial commodities. Gold, silver, platinum and palladium each have an ISO 4217 currency code. The best-known precious metals are gold and silver. While both have industrial uses, they are better known for their uses in art, jewelry, and coinage. Other precious metals include the platinum group metals: ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, osmium, iridium, and platinum, of which platinum is the most widely traded. Plutonium and uranium could also be considered precious metals.
The demand for precious metals is driven not only by their practical use, but also by their role as investments and a store of value. Palladium was, as of summer 2006, valued at a little under half the price of gold, and platinum at around twice that of gold. Silver is substantially less expensive than these metals, but is often traditionally considered a precious metal for its role in coinage and jewelry.
I think this has something to do with the classical "iron" and the Fey... at least originally, I mean sure, now in d20/3.x/PF it's "cold iron" that hurts the fey, but in the old tales I'm pretty sure it's just Iron.
Now to say that Iron disrupts what may be a "grant from the fey" IE druidism, then it's the "metal" that messes with them, and not divine mandate per say, it's like sticking a Radio in a concrete basement... your going to have a disruption in signal, and if the rules say that it takes 24 hours to "realign yourself" with the power source, then that's the deal... Not to be a jerk DM, but that's my two copper on it.
Why is it that I kill any thread I conversate in? (not all, and it's not just this board).