I know how Blink Dogs can be Sorcerers!
** spoiler omitted **
I lol'd. :D
|
Next people are going to be saying Flumphs can't be sorcerers.
Flumphs don't have tails. So of course they can't be sorcerers.
I defy you to find me general ruling in the Core Rulebook that says that a creature without a tail can be a sorcerer. There are a few case-by-case exceptions, such as humans and elves and a few others. But otherwise, you gotta have a tail. And flumphs don't have tails.
Next people are going to be saying Flumphs can't be sorcerers.In my House Rules they can be, but they're limited to the following Bloodlines: Frisbee, Trash Can Lid, and Manhole Cover.
How could you forget pancake?
|
Next people are going to be saying Flumphs can't be sorcerers.Flumphs don't have tails. So of course they can't be sorcerers.
I defy you to find me general ruling in the Core Rulebook that says that a creature without a tail can be a sorcerer. There are a few case-by-case exceptions, such as humans and elves and a few others. But otherwise, you gotta have a tail. And flumphs don't have tails.
It's on page 100 in mine.
Of course it's in crayon....... <.<
|
|
How could you forget pancake?Next people are going to be saying Flumphs can't be sorcerers.In my House Rules they can be, but they're limited to the following Bloodlines: Frisbee, Trash Can Lid, and Manhole Cover.
I disallowed that bloodline after twenty sorcerers in a row were eaten.... by their own companions. O_o
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How could you forget pancake?Next people are going to be saying Flumphs can't be sorcerers.In my House Rules they can be, but they're limited to the following Bloodlines: Frisbee, Trash Can Lid, and Manhole Cover.
Does the pancake bloodline include the ability to summon a rabbit animal companion for a mount?
|
|
Next people are going to be saying Flumphs can't be sorcerers.Flumphs don't have tails. So of course they can't be sorcerers.
I defy you to find me general ruling in the Core Rulebook that says that a creature without a tail can be a sorcerer. There are a few case-by-case exceptions, such as humans and elves and a few others. But otherwise, you gotta have a tail. And flumphs don't have tails.
Could have sworn that under 3.5 you could use a tentacle in any place tails are specified as being required. Maybe that was an FAQ ruling though.
This is really simple to solve...
If you think they needs still spell, great, give them still spell
If you don't think they need still spell, don't give them still spell.
To me, it's the difference between sorceror and wizard, Sorcs are natural born, it's in their blood, thus in my game, they don't need the feat.
Use your imagination and come up with some logical answer that works in your game.
You mean you don't have to have everything spelled out for you? :O
That's just crazy talk. ;P
|
Next people are going to be saying Flumphs can't be sorcerers.In my House Rules they can be, but they're limited to the following Bloodlines: Frisbee, Trash Can Lid, and Manhole Cover.
Wait, can I use the Skillsaw Blade Bloodline? I saw it on the Net *
-Uriel
* I have a guy, who saw every wacky BS thing possible 'On the Net'. Oh wait, it was 3.0...It probably WAS on the Net.
|
|
Can you describe the somatic component to any spell in the game?
Here's how to use the Summon Monster spells to summon a fiendish ape.
|
How could you forget pancake?Next people are going to be saying Flumphs can't be sorcerers.In my House Rules they can be, but they're limited to the following Bloodlines: Frisbee, Trash Can Lid, and Manhole Cover.
And the lesser known, and endangered varieties:
Vinyl LP
Hubcap
Pita
and Toupee
You and I in a little dungeon
Find a bag of flumphs spilling over the top
Set them free at the break of dawn
'Til one by one they were gone
Back at lodge, venture captains scared
Flash the message, something's out there
Floating in the summer sky
Ninety-nine red-skin flumphs go by
Ninety-nine red-skin flumphs
Floating in the summer sky
Panic bells, it's red alert
They're lawful good but noone knows
The paladin he springs to life
Opens up one eager eye
Focusing it on the sky
As ninety-nine red skin flumphs go by
Ninety-nine decisions treat
Ninety-nine venture captains meet
To worry, worry, super scurry
Call out the rogues now in a hurry
This is what we've waited for
This is it, boys, the collection needs more
The Curator is standing by
As ninety-nine red skin flumphs go by
Ninety-nine dreams I have had
And every one a lawful flumph
It's all over, and I'm standing pretty
In the dust by Absalom city
I could find a souvenir
To take back to the lodge here
Here it is, a red-skin flumph
I think of you and let it go
|
Isn't it enough to see in a book: "Blink Dog sages are often sorcerers", and think "Cool"No.
If you crack open a book to yank a monster out so you can throw it at your players just because it's "cool", it kinda ruins the mood.
I, for one, rather enjoy immersion. I'm afraid I don't quite get the thrill of rolling dice across a table for the mere amusement of watching them tumble.Questions are the hallmark of the creative mind, and the curious cat finds the cream. "What if" and "Why not" are great questions.
A dog casting spells won't ruin your immersion, but them being able to do it without needing a metamagic feat specifically geared to humanoids does?
Someone, cue up TAPS for the rule of cool.
You're about ten years too late. AD&D died a long time ago. 3x replaced it with questions like the OP.
|
|
There is not.
However, there is a rule saying they need hands to be able to cast spells with somatic components.
You sure about that?
"You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component." (p. 213)
This is the rule that is contention. In 3.5, creatures without hands were given explicit exception in the SRD. That exception was removed for PF.
As a matter of strict rules interpretation, 'dork has a point. As a matter of playing the game, I think most are fine just making it work as needed in their own game.
"You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component." (p. 213)
That obviously wasn't written addressed to blink dogs since blink dogs don't have hands.
That exception was removed for PF.
Apparently not, since there are a variety of nonhumanoid creatures that cast spells. One can claim PF made the exception implicit, but not that the exception was removed entirely.
Besides, as I've already demonstrated, even an awakened emu can be a sorcerer. :)
Obviously, what is obvious to some is not obvious to all. ;)
Obviously. :)
|
This is the rule that is contention. In 3.5, creatures without hands were given explicit exception in the SRD. That exception was removed for PF.
So, in the d20 SRD, we have:
"To cast a spell, you must be able to speak (if the spell has a verbal component), gesture (if it has a somatic component), and manipulate the material components or focus (if any)."
In the PRD, we've got:
"Somatic (S): A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component."
So because of some humano-centric wording of the <i>same idea</i> suddenly nothing but humanoid creatures can cast spells? Not dragons, not aboleth, not nagas, not harpies? The PRD also says that Verbal components must be spoken in a loud voice - there go Intellect Devourer magic users. So much for filling the Mind Flayer niche; of course, Mind Flayers couldn't speak in a loud voice either...
As a matter of <i>strict rules interpretation</i>, there are no energy types. Energy Types are only ever given in specific spells - the Abjurer specialist ability is completely useless, because it does not tell you what you can resist. There's <i>strict rules interpretation</i> and there's being deliberately obtuse.
Of course they can also all just take Still Spell. Or mayeb the Blink Dog Bloodline includes the Spellpaw bloodline arcana, that let's you cast if 1 or your 4 paws are free to gesture.
Now I want blinklings from B&B to show up in Pathfinder...
|
I don't understand why this debate persists. If we all agree that specific rules trump general ones, then the general rule that you must have a free hand to gesture in order to cast is trumped by the specific rules within the dragon, naga, etc. listings. Yes, that would include blink dog sage since the developers went to the trouble of stating that they "often take sorcerer levels." Why would that entry be added if the intention was that they could not cast spells? Any other interpretation feels like rules-lawyering for the sake of rules-lawyering.
Save I don't really think that analyzing every monster you meet by it's adherence to rules is what counts as "immersive" to me. If anything it's the exact opposite.... that's not immersive roleplaying... that's metagaming.
Following the rules is considered metagaming these days?
I don't understand why this debate persists. If we all agree that specific rules trump general ones, then the general rule that you must have a free hand to gesture in order to cast is trumped by the specific rules within the dragon, naga, etc. listings. Yes, that would include blink dog sage since the developers went to the trouble of stating that they "often take sorcerer levels." Why would that entry be added if the intention was that they could not cast spells? Any other interpretation feels like rules-lawyering for the sake of rules-lawyering.
It persists primarily for two reasons:
1) People making fun of my stance only makes me more stubborn.2) A game designer hasn't popped in to clarify the rule yet.
Save I don't really think that analyzing every monster you meet by it's adherence to rules is what counts as "immersive" to me. If anything it's the exact opposite.... that's not immersive roleplaying... that's metagaming.Following the rules is considered metagaming these days?
I don't understand why this debate persists. If we all agree that specific rules trump general ones, then the general rule that you must have a free hand to gesture in order to cast is trumped by the specific rules within the dragon, naga, etc. listings. Yes, that would include blink dog sage since the developers went to the trouble of stating that they "often take sorcerer levels." Why would that entry be added if the intention was that they could not cast spells? Any other interpretation feels like rules-lawyering for the sake of rules-lawyering.It persists primarily for two reasons:
1) People making fun of my stance only makes me more stubborn.
2) A game designer hasn't popped in to clarify the rule yet.
2 was taken care of by Mr. Twilight. Exception beats general.
1 If you are being stubborn just to be stubborn.What if they say there is no rule for it? Why does it matter? Would you get mad at a DM who have an monster with no arms spellcasting abilities on his own? Would your players get mad if the awakened frost worm had cleric levels?
PS: I don't know if Frost Worms qualify for any awaken spells but that is not the point.
2 was taken care of by Mr. Twilight. Exception beats general.
I suppose I can abide by that, but that still doesn't tell me anything about why the rules were modified.
I would also like to add that the SPECIFIC > GENERAL rule exists in name only, in Pathfinder. I don't believe it is specifically spelled out anywhere, unlike the v3.5 which had it clearly spelled out in the official FAQ.
1 If you are being stubborn just to be stubborn.
I only get stubborn when I feel people have mistreated me in some way (even if minor). Then I dig in like a tick.
What if they say there is no rule for it? Why does it matter?
Then I would be terribly disappointed that they didn't have the foresight to make one, or the wherewithal to make a decent ruling to resolve the matter. Since there already was one such rule in place that was removed, however, this leads me to conclude that there is a rule (whether RAW or RAI) on the matter that can be clarified--either that, or the absence of the rule in the v25/Pathfinder changeover was a mistake, as is the idea that blink dog sorcerers might not need still spell.
In the absence of an official rule, as always, I'd go with my GM's ruling.
Would you get mad at a DM who have an monster with no arms spellcasting abilities on his own?
First, I don't ever get mad about a game. EVER. Getting angry is wholly antithetical to the very concept of gaming (which it to have fun) and it's generally just not worth it what's more (it rarely gets anyone anything but trouble).
I've already stated several times that I have no problem with innate spellcasting (that is, spellcasting from race) so i would have no problem with such a ruling. However, if the unarmed creature was casting spells without class levels, I would ask the GM if the monster had some racial ability, the Still Spell feat, or something similar that allowed him to do it.
If not I would ask the GM for his interpretation of the rules in regards to the matter so that we were thereon on the same page. (GM's ruling trumps my beliefs, but in extreme cases, may be reason for me to no longer play in that circle.)
Would your players get mad if the awakened frost worm had cleric levels?
If the frost worm didn't find a way around the non-sentience or the no hands rule (such as by using Still spell) I would be accused of being nothing less than a cheater.
My players hold me to a higher standard, so I have to be knowledgeable on the rules.
A new variant of a creature than can cast without hands is reasonable. This is for home games of course. Maybe they had to learn to cast without hands for whatever(insert story of race struggling against hardier foes) in order to survive.
PS: I used to be worry about every little rule also. The frost worm could have been trained on how to move its body to cast spells.
|
|
1) People making fun of my stance only makes me more stubborn.
2) A game designer hasn't popped in to clarify the rule yet.
Yes, a game designer, actually two, Sean and the author of the blink dog, have both popped into here, you are just too stuborn/ literal minded to listen to what they said.
Your loss.
Why everyone else continues to try and convince you is beyond me. Waste of time.
1) People making fun of my stance only makes me more stubborn.
2) A game designer hasn't popped in to clarify the rule yet.Yes, a game designer, actually two, Sean and the author of the blink dog, have both popped into here, you are just too stuborn/ literal minded to listen to what they said.
Your loss.
Why everyone else continues to try and convince you is beyond me. Waste of time.
What we have are people dancing around the issue and either discarding the need for a clarification in favor of a more immediate home ruling or grandstanding in various ways to make themselves feel superior (all the while belittling my stance). Such is the way of the internet I suppose.
As for Sean and Adam? Sean made an (decent) attempt at humor while Adam actually apologized for blink dog sages (further showing it as an error).
Neither one of them clarified much of anything.
|
|
1) People making fun of my stance only makes me more stubborn.
2) A game designer hasn't popped in to clarify the rule yet.Yes, a game designer, actually two, Sean and the author of the blink dog, have both popped into here, you are just too stuborn/ literal minded to listen to what they said.
Your loss.
Why everyone else continues to try and convince you is beyond me. Waste of time.
What we have are people dancing around the issue and either discarding the need for a clarification in favor of a more immediate home ruling or grandstanding in various ways to make themselves feel superior (all the while belittling my stance). Such is the way of the internet I suppose.
As for Sean and Adam? Sean made an (decent) attempt at humor while Adam actually apologized for blink dog sages (further showing it as an error).
Neither one of them clarified much of anything.
I doubt Adam thinks blink dog sages are an error.
As for Sean and Adam? Sean made an (decent) attempt at humor while Adam actually apologized for blink dog sages (further showing it as an error).
No, he didn't. Note the winky smile:
I apologize for blink dog sages. It seemed so reasonable. ;)
As far as somatic components go, I can imagine pawing at the ground, gratuitous tail wagging, a leap, a shake of the head, a strangely lolling tongue, a shake that ripples from snout to tail, you know, movements "of the body".
Adam actually apologized for blink dog sages (further showing it as an error).
you are just too stuborn/ literal minded to listen to what they said.
Why everyone else continues to try and convince you is beyond me. Waste of time.
Huh. Guess there isn't any point in this thread.
I must have overlooked the winky smile. Apologies.
Still not a rules clarification though. At best, it's an indication of intent, doesn't mean the intent is following the RAW.
Huh. Guess there isn't any point in this thread.
No point? Outrageous! Click here for the point. :)
Huh. Guess there isn't any point in this thread.No point? Outrageous! Click here for the point. :)
That's a very fun-looking critter you have there. Shame it would never fly in my games. ;)
|
|
That's a very fun-looking critter you have there. Shame it would never fly in my games. ;)Huh. Guess there isn't any point in this thread.No point? Outrageous! Click here for the point. :)
Did you just make a pun?
|
|
He must be punished :PDid you just make a pun?That's a very fun-looking critter you have there. Shame it would never fly in my games. ;)Huh. Guess there isn't any point in this thread.No point? Outrageous! Click here for the point. :)
No, I actually didn't think he had a sense of humor. Seriously.