Deep 6 FaWtL


Off-Topic Discussions

239,451 to 239,500 of 280,797 << first < prev | 4785 | 4786 | 4787 | 4788 | 4789 | 4790 | 4791 | 4792 | 4793 | 4794 | 4795 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:

Poor Impus Minor just can't win...

** spoiler omitted **

You know what is worse than 4 rounds of daze? 4 rounds of panic in open terrain.

You lose four rounds running away, AND then 4 rounds running back...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
I haven't seen Rick and Morty or Cow and Chicken.

I'll buy Cow and chicken, but how could you miss rick and morty? Its everywhere, brah.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
I haven't seen Rick and Morty or Cow and Chicken.
I'll buy Cow and chicken, but how could you miss rick and morty? Its everywhere, brah.

That would be why.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Someone's getting fired out of a cannon for this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
Someone's getting fired out of a cannon for this.

Attaches a red card to a flaming ten speed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I also never saw Adventure Time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Adventure Time sucks.

A show should be funny, have a good story, or a combination of both.

Adventure Time was not either after 5 episodes of me watching. And don't give me "you have to watch at least X episodes to get good."

Entertainment should entertain, not give me a damn gauntlet of boringness before it gets good.

Rick and Morty, meanwhile, is glorious from minute one, and only gets better. It is so good, it is almost as good as it's own hype.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
Someone's getting fired out of a cannon for this.

I'm rather pleased to say I have no clue what the issue is. I'm going to guess from context that the Badgers are a rival of some college in Minnesota.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

In other news of poor company behavior, the utter desperation for feedback has really gotten out of hand.

Some companies send you weekly emails saying, "If you like us, please review us!"
Some companies send the emails daily until you unsubscribe.

But my absolute favorite are the companies that start badgering you for feedback before you've even received the product.

We're still waiting for the loan to go through.

Yesterday: "So, how was your loan process?"
Today: "Why haven't you responded yet? Were you unhappy with the process?"

I'm sure tomorrow I'll get a sobby, "Oh my goodness! How did we offend you? Why are you so angry with us? How can we possibly make it up to you?!?!?!?"

Er, how about not asking for my feedback until I've actually received the product.
(And it's not just my credit union. Most Amazon third-party sellers are the same way, asking for your feedback before they've even shipped the product. I've taken to giving anyone who asks me for feedback 3 times before I receive the product a 1-star review, citing "incessant badgering" as the reason.)


I imagine this is Cap's normal day, but with Eddie Vedder or Sponge Bob music instead.

(I'm going to have to admit, I actually don't know any of Mr. Vedder's music, so I'm just presupposing either there are singing parts, or CY somehow makes the guitar riffs with his mouth. Honestly, either one works.)

Warning: beautiful, beautiful religious music (with overly heavy acoustics) and exceptionally corny "spontaneous" acting.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I could not stand Rick and Morty. I forced myself through an entire season because kids kept talking about it, and I occasionally like to have talking points with them, and it was just...

I'll grant there's more wit to it than Family Guy, but I can say the same about a croissant.

And I can see why it's popular, but that's...not a great thing. It's basically written by the comment section. Bitter and self-important. Edge without purpose. Not a single character is worth investing in, and the writing couldn't save it for me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scintillae wrote:

I could not stand Rick and Morty. I forced myself through an entire season because kids kept talking about it, and I occasionally like to have talking points with them, and it was just...

I'll grant there's more wit to it than Family Guy, but I can say the same about a croissant.

And I can see why it's popular, but that's...not a great thing. It's basically written by the comment section. Bitter and self-important. Edge without purpose. Not a single character is worth investing in, and the writing couldn't save it for me.

Pretty much a ditto. The characters were detestable. I just wanted everyone in the series to die and the series to end. So didn't care for it at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scintillae wrote:

I could not stand Rick and Morty. I forced myself through an entire season because kids kept talking about it, and I occasionally like to have talking points with them, and it was just...

I'll grant there's more wit to it than Family Guy, but I can say the same about a croissant.

And I can see why it's popular, but that's...not a great thing. It's basically written by the comment section. Bitter and self-important. Edge without purpose. Not a single character is worth investing in, and the writing couldn't save it for me.

I liked the first two seasons. I really liked tales from the citadel, I think its the best episode of the entire series for reasons that go over the heads of many fans.

After season 2, it leans in the scint direction for me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The AT&T Saga, Day 3:
So, I suspect that houses that were actually affected by this idiocy received some kind of notice, because this morning at 8:00 am the "No Parking" posts have been rearranged to clearly indicate certain sections of the block, and there are -0- cars parked there. So our affected residents are apparently doing their part.

But yes, I realize that being punctual isn't typical of any contractor, but 8:20 am and not a single AT&T vehicle or employee in sight for the 3rd day straight.

I'm bemused because I'm unaffected. If I were one of the residents who'd been dutifully parking my car elsewhere for days on end, I'd be pissed.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Rage Against the Machine and Run The Jewels touring together!!!!

Three dates within a hundred miles of us!!!!!!!

Asphyxiates from excitement.

It's like someone plucked the dream concert from my mind and plopped it down onstage.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:

I imagine this is Cap's normal day, but with Eddie Vedder or Sponge Bob music instead.

(I'm going to have to admit, I actually don't know any of Mr. Vedder's music, so I'm just presupposing either there are singing parts, or CY somehow makes the guitar riffs with his mouth. Honestly, either one works.)

Warning: beautiful, beautiful religious music (with overly heavy acoustics) and exceptionally corny "spontaneous" acting.

That's pretty close.

Minus the religious music and indoor setting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Vagrant Erudite wrote:

Adventure Time sucks.

A show should be funny, have a good story, or a combination of both.

Adventure Time was not either after 5 episodes of me watching. And don't give me "you have to watch at least X episodes to get good."

Entertainment should entertain, not give me a damn gauntlet of boringness before it gets good.

Rick and Morty, meanwhile, is glorious from minute one, and only gets better. It is so good, it is almost as good as it's own hype.

I basically felt the exact same way but in reverse.

Otherwise I'm right with NH and Scint.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
Someone's getting fired out of a cannon for this.
I'm rather pleased to say I have no clue what the issue is. I'm going to guess from context that the Badgers are a rival of some college in Minnesota.

Minnesota and Wisconsin have been at war for years, be it sports or the fact that we have more lakes than they do (we just have so much more going for us we don't need to brag about it).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:

I can leave food stuffs on the counter, where the winter mice will get it, or I can leave it on the table, where our dog (who has recently discovered a life of crime) will get it.

Because apparently, I CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS!!!!

Or oreos.

I misread this as "Orthos".

Now I want an Orthos of my very own to leave on my counter. I want nice things dammit.

To be honest, when I reread it so did I and I also wanted my own Orthos for around the house.
Freehold DM wrote:

it has to be a life size cardboard cutout of orthos looking either deadpan or incredibly confused.

Car pool lane, here I come!

I'd keep one for the combination of snark, insight, and interesting conversation, personally. Also pokemon. Pretty sure Orthos actually has real ones, and they'd come with.

If you consider my dog a Houndoom without the bones or fire, or a Mightyena without the laughing, sure.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

<ACE uses HOWL!>

<ATTACK rose!>


Orthos wrote:
The Vagrant Erudite wrote:

Adventure Time sucks.

A show should be funny, have a good story, or a combination of both.

Adventure Time was not either after 5 episodes of me watching. And don't give me "you have to watch at least X episodes to get good."

Entertainment should entertain, not give me a damn gauntlet of boringness before it gets good.

Rick and Morty, meanwhile, is glorious from minute one, and only gets better. It is so good, it is almost as good as it's own hype.

I basically felt the exact same way but in reverse.

Otherwise I'm right with NH and Scint.

Having never seen Adventure Time, I cannot comment on it.

Having seen S1 of Rick and Morty... eeeeeeeehhhhh. I think there is honestly some amount of brilliance - even real intelligence - in the whole thing. I... don't like it. The sheer nihilism and cruelty of most characters, the negligence and emptiness they have is just... well it's empty. "Vanity of vanities" indeed. It felt like since they were nihilistic and didn't really care... why should I? And that really wasn't something I wanted to spend my time filling my head or emotions with.

I can't watch Sponge Bob - too... frenetic or something. Over-the-top, I guess. I have the same problem with other shows, too - always hated the one about those awful dogs I can't remember and simply couldn't watch despite my peers discussing it incessantly. Wait! Got it: Ren and Stempy. Of course that one was too... gross, I guess?... as well. I can't quite put my finger on why I always disliked Cow and Chicken, or Rocko's Modern Life for that matter. Something always felt... wrong about them. Bad wording, I know.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Pretty much every show mentioned here is on my do not watch list.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't exactly hate SpongeBob I work with children. I would die of a rage aneurysm if I did., but I do think it ran out of material long ago and has been on a steady decline.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scintillae wrote:
I don't exactly hate SpongeBob I work with children. I would die of a rage aneurysm if I did., but I do think it ran out of material long ago and has been on a steady decline.

a fair criticism.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scintillae wrote:
I don't exactly hate SpongeBob I work with children. I would die of a rage aneurysm if I did., but I do think it ran out of material long ago and has been on a steady decline.

That's true of every show out for 10-15 years.

I personally haven't watched a new episode of The Simpsons in at least a decade.

Edit: Which is to say that I agree with you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I disliked it from the start, I just find everything about the main characters grating.

But my dad has always loved it and still does so it's a constant in our house.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scintillae wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
Scintillae wrote:

So. Um. I may have spent my plan period assembling a Duolingo Owl from colored paper to hang beside a sign reading "Have you finished your English homework?" today.

It may have caused several kids familiar with the memes to freak.

I must admit - I am familiar with the app, but not the memes.

I'm not sure, but I think it started with the false alarm missile alert in Hawaii. That pushed an alert to everyone in the area's phones.

DuoLingo, if you have the app, also has push notifications. These seem...vaguely ominous. "Looks like you forgot your Spanish lessons again. You know what happens now!" Meaning, presumably, you lose your streak.

Someone in the area must have had the app, forgot their lesson due to the, um, missile alert, and posted a screenshot of their lockscreen:

"Looks like you forgot your Spanish lessons again. You know what happens now!"
"EMERGENCY ALERT: BALLISTIC MISSILE THREAT INBOUND. SEEK SHELTER IMMEDIATELY."

Therefore, the internet decided that you must remember your daily streak, or Duo will find you.

And, being a terrible person, I decided to put a reminder of that in my classroom.

Uhu! Uhu! Uhu!

We're coming to PUNISH you!!!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

OK,
I bought (And like!) the "Rick & Morty vs D&D" comic. THAT was fun, and had SO many 'in' jokes it was too good not too like.
But otherwise, as most peeps above, the show is too 'edgy' or 'grimdark' or 'nihilistic' or all of the above to enjoy. Most of their jokes I dont find funny, it just seems, sad.

Phineas & Ferb, THAT was pure entertainment. The exact opposite of Rick & Morty. (IMHO, YMMV) ;)
(TO be fair, my younger brothers name is Rick, and he bought a little dog, whose name is Morty,...Sooo,...) ;P

I used to love the Simpsons, havent watched it in years.

'Older' shows, such as Cow & Chicken, Ren and Stimpy, Beavis & Bu##head, etc etc, (SO many that I have mentally blocked out)

My question is "WHEN did bad drawing and worse writing become good cartoons?" I couldn't stand to watch them. and I certainly didnt let my kids watch them when they were little. (Now they are older, they can make up their own minds. And If I dont like their choices we can have big-kid conversations as to why.) ;P

Goes to show, different strokes for different folks! :) They obviously have an audience, or they wouldn't have a series (some still going)
;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ragadolf wrote:

OK,

I bought (And like!) the "Rick & Morty vs D&D" comic. THAT was fun, and had SO many 'in' jokes it was too good not too like.
But otherwise, as most peeps above, the show is too 'edgy' or 'grimdark' or 'nihilistic' or all of the above to enjoy. Most of their jokes I dont find funny, it just seems, sad.

Phineas & Ferb, THAT was pure entertainment. The exact opposite of Rick & Morty. (IMHO, YMMV) ;)
(TO be fair, my younger brothers name is Rick, and he bought a little dog, whose name is Morty,...Sooo,...) ;P

I used to love the Simpsons, havent watched it in years.

'Older' shows, such as Cow & Chicken, Ren and Stimpy, Beavis & Bu##head, etc etc, (SO many that I have mentally blocked out)

My question is "WHEN did bad drawing and worse writing become good cartoons?" I couldn't stand to watch them. and I certainly didnt let my kids watch them when they were little. (Now they are older, they can make up their own minds. And If I dont like their choices we can have big-kid conversations as to why.) ;P

Goes to show, different strokes for different folks! :) They obviously have an audience, or they wouldn't have a series (some still going)
;)

I like the first part of the rick and Morty d&d comic, I got the special covers showing everyone's character- all quite playable by 5th ed rules, the action was pure tabletop and the ending for the overall story was heartwarming. I haven't read the second one yet.

I can only take so much Phineas and Ferb. That got old pretty freaking fast, possibly due to the inordinate amount of marathons my friends used to enjoy. I may have punted a Perry stuffie after hearing "where's Perry?!?" one too many times.

Doofenshmirtz is funny, overall, though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So, fair disclosure: AT&T finally started dumping some equipment on the street around 9:30 am, and started working around noon. So they actually showed up today.

We'll see how long it takes before they "accidentally" cut my network access since I'm not an AT&T customer...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

And FWIW, the whole family loves Phineas and Ferb. Very clever writing to deal with the exact same plot episode after episode and still make it interesting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why does www.paizo.com throw a wobbler every time I try to add an avatar to a new alias?

And most modern-day cartoons seem to be streets ahead of 'Rugrats', or 'Fantastic Max', or 'Superted', so there has been some progress.


Limeylongears wrote:
Why does www.paizo.com throw a wobbler every time I try to add an avatar to a new alias?

It's a known issue but it's lower on their list of priorities to fix because they have financial things to work out, first.

Limeylongears wrote:
And most modern-day cartoons seem to be streets ahead of 'Rugrats', or 'Fantastic Max', or 'Superted', so there has been some progress.

Hey, there are a lot of terrible old cartoons. While there are some real stinkers these days, in a lot of ways we've over-all improved.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So I'm lazy and a quick Google search didn't give me the answer, so, "Hey FaWtL! Can you raise a true outsider as an undead?"

Example scenario:
(1) A necromancer casts Planar Binding to summon a babau demon
(2) The necromancer kills the babau with something convenient (Circle of Death comes to mind)
(3) With a fresh babau corpse, the necromancer uses Animate Dead to make something cool, like a babau bloody skeleton

In D&D 3.5, true outsiders didn't leave corpses behind. In a lot of Pathfinder APs, they do (many, many APs love to decorate with dead angels). So, if there are corpses, can you animate them with Animate Dead?

EDIT: I did find one old Paizo thread where the original poster put forth all the (good) arguments in favor. I'm just wondering whether there's something more "official" one way or the other.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:

So I'm lazy and a quick Google search didn't give me the answer, so, "Hey FaWtL! Can you raise a true outsider as an undead?"

Example scenario:
(1) A necromancer casts Planar Binding to summon a babau demon
(2) The necromancer kills the babau with something convenient (Circle of Death comes to mind)
(3) With a fresh babau corpse, the necromancer uses Animate Dead to make something cool, like a babau bloody skeleton

In D&D 3.5, true outsiders didn't leave corpses behind. In a lot of Pathfinder APs, they do (many, many APs love to decorate with dead angels). So, if there are corpses, can you animate them with Animate Dead?

EDIT: I did find one old Paizo thread where the original poster put forth all the (good) arguments in favor. I'm just wondering whether there's something more "official" one way or the other.

A: yes, you can; how you can raise them depends on what you're working with, and often it doesn't work out like you'd hope.

In the scenario above, you'd have a babau-shaped bloody skeleton with no other features - mind the limitations and weaknesses of the skeleton and/or zombie template (which mostly strips a body of useful things).

There really is no mechanical reason to prevent it, so long as there is a corpse.

Technically outsider corpses remained in 3.5, too, but only if the outsider was in its native realm (terms and conditions apply, acquire inside for more details).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The only caveat i'd have against it is that their corpse probably should still have their SR.

Get your AD thru that and you're good to go.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just as an example of Paizo rules logic, despite the fact that it's literally never mentioned in the rules, it presupposes that the words are absolute unless explicitly contradicted.

So, for example, even if a mage uses still spell and silent spell (and thus does nothing other than glance at a dude) you can still totally tell they're spellcasting and can Spellcraft to identify the spell - even if it has otherwise no visible emanations.

Why? Because it says you can in the Spellcraft skill. Rather, it says you can identify when someone nearby is spellcasting.

This logic was presumed so solid by the Paizo staff that they later retconned little glowy sigils as part of the spellcasting process (to match the art, one presumes) just so (at least according to explicit explanations and arguments at the time) that you could use the skill as-written, which takes precedence over the fact that something otherwise is not spelled out, explicit, or otherwise in-text.

So if a thing says, "Yeah, you can do this." then you can do that.

Paizo puts the caveat of "apply common sense" but that means different things to different people. Unless there is an explicit rejection, it is RAW to read it as animate dead applying to all corpses - outsider or otherwise; if that were not so, the Spellcraft skill would not function as it did.


Orthos wrote:

The only caveat i'd have against it is that their corpse probably should still have their SR.

Get your AD thru that and you're good to go.

Yeah, probably - they're not able to lower it, after all.

But the undead templates from animate dead explicitly strip it of its abilities, and create undead (et. al.) has extremely specific ability scores, sizes, shapes, and similar (even if that doesn't make sense), so if you use the latter, you're going to have to make house rules (which it kind of presumes anyway, I think).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
Orthos wrote:

The only caveat i'd have against it is that their corpse probably should still have their SR.

Get your AD thru that and you're good to go.

Yeah, probably - they're not able to lower it, after all.

But the undead templates from animate dead explicitly strip it of its abilities, and create undead (et. al.) has extremely specific ability scores, sizes, shapes, and similar (even if that doesn't make sense), so if you use the latter, you're going to have to make house rules (which it kind of presumes anyway, I think).

Right, but those changes are applied after the spell is cast, while the creature - or corpse of said creature - is still whatever it originally was. It doesn't lose those properties until after the spell is cast and the template applied.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This btw is basically exactly how the "can androids/warforged/other lifeforms composed of non standard (i.e., 'not flesh blood and bone') materials be reanimated as undead?" thread eventually concluded that, by the wording of the spell and template, the only thing stopping an Iron Golem from being animated as a skeleton is its lack of skeletal structure; it can become a zombie just fine, as all that template requires is that the base creature be corporeal and not already undead.

Not that you would WANT to, but you could, technically.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:

The only caveat i'd have against it is that their corpse probably should still have their SR.

Get your AD thru that and you're good to go.

Tacticslion wrote:

Yeah, probably - they're not able to lower it, after all.

But the undead templates from animate dead explicitly strip it of its abilities, and create undead (et. al.) has extremely specific ability scores, sizes, shapes, and similar (even if that doesn't make sense), so if you use the latter, you're going to have to make house rules (which it kind of presumes anyway, I think).

Orthos wrote:
Right, but those changes are applied after the spell is cast, while the creature - or corpse of said creature - is still whatever it originally was. It doesn't lose those properties until after the spell is cast and the template applied.

Right. I meant the above in agreement with you - sorry that wasn't clear. My point was only to remind what happens after the spell is cast: acid sweat is stripped away, and you're left with a funky looking skeleton, for example (or just a normal shadow or mummy).

Orthos wrote:

This btw is basically exactly how the "can androids/warforged/other lifeforms composed of non standard (i.e., 'not flesh blood and bone') materials be reanimated as undead?" thread eventually concluded that, by the wording of the spell and template, the only thing stopping an Iron Golem from being animated as a skeleton is its lack of skeletal structure; it can become a zombie just fine, as all that template requires is that the base creature be corporeal and not already undead.

Not that you would WANT to, but you could, technically.

Heh.

Those adamantine golems and their soft golden hands.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:
Scintillae wrote:

I could not stand Rick and Morty. I forced myself through an entire season because kids kept talking about it, and I occasionally like to have talking points with them, and it was just...

I'll grant there's more wit to it than Family Guy, but I can say the same about a croissant.

And I can see why it's popular, but that's...not a great thing. It's basically written by the comment section. Bitter and self-important. Edge without purpose. Not a single character is worth investing in, and the writing couldn't save it for me.

Pretty much a ditto. The characters were detestable. I just wanted everyone in the series to die and the series to end. So didn't care for it at all.

I never seen absolutely any of it.

Regardless of the content, the graphic design is terribly meh.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drejk wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:
Scintillae wrote:

I could not stand Rick and Morty. I forced myself through an entire season because kids kept talking about it, and I occasionally like to have talking points with them, and it was just...

I'll grant there's more wit to it than Family Guy, but I can say the same about a croissant.

And I can see why it's popular, but that's...not a great thing. It's basically written by the comment section. Bitter and self-important. Edge without purpose. Not a single character is worth investing in, and the writing couldn't save it for me.

Pretty much a ditto. The characters were detestable. I just wanted everyone in the series to die and the series to end. So didn't care for it at all.

I never seen absolutely any of it.

Regardless of the content, the graphic design is terribly meh.

Yeah. Have to agree.

Might be petty but the omnipresent smear of spit (vomit? Beer? Mad science chemicals?) on Rick's mouth is alone a massive turnoff for me.


Ragadolf wrote:

OK,

I bought (And like!) the "Rick & Morty vs D&D" comic. THAT was fun, and had SO many 'in' jokes it was too good not too like.
But otherwise, as most peeps above, the show is too 'edgy' or 'grimdark' or 'nihilistic' or all of the above to enjoy. Most of their jokes I dont find funny, it just seems, sad.

Phineas & Ferb, THAT was pure entertainment. The exact opposite of Rick & Morty. (IMHO, YMMV) ;)
(TO be fair, my younger brothers name is Rick, and he bought a little dog, whose name is Morty,...Sooo,...) ;P

I used to love the Simpsons, havent watched it in years.

'Older' shows, such as Cow & Chicken, Ren and Stimpy, Beavis & Bu##head, etc etc, (SO many that I have mentally blocked out)

My question is "WHEN did bad drawing and worse writing become good cartoons?" I couldn't stand to watch them. and I certainly didnt let my kids watch them when they were little. (Now they are older, they can make up their own minds. And If I dont like their choices we can have big-kid conversations as to why.

Somewhere around 1920-ies...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:

So, fair disclosure: AT&T finally started dumping some equipment on the street around 9:30 am, and started working around noon. So they actually showed up today.

We'll see how long it takes before they "accidentally" cut my network access since I'm not an AT&T customer...

... And for the first time in years, NH knows where his mobile phone is, ready to call the lawyer and sue the hell out of AT&T.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:

So I'm lazy and a quick Google search didn't give me the answer, so, "Hey FaWtL! Can you raise a true outsider as an undead?"

Example scenario:
(1) A necromancer casts Planar Binding to summon a babau demon
(2) The necromancer kills the babau with something convenient (Circle of Death comes to mind)
(3) With a fresh babau corpse, the necromancer uses Animate Dead to make something cool, like a babau bloody skeleton

Babaus are corporeal so they can become zombies and they have skeletons so they can be turned into skeletons.

Quote:
In D&D 3.5, true outsiders didn't leave corpses behind. In a lot of Pathfinder APs, they do (many, many APs love to decorate with dead angels). So, if there are corpses, can you animate them with Animate Dead?

There was never an explicit general rule saying that outsiders don't leave corpse - which would, BTW, render any spell that uses outsider body parts or fluids as components impossible. The closest thing to that rule was that summoned monsters (which are often, but not always outsiders) vanish when dropped to 0 or less hp and a vague notion that for non-native outsiders their soul and body form a single unit (also, a lot of powerful ones are hard to kill by rejuvenating themselves after a period of time on their home plane, which might explicitly include their bodies vanishing).

To mess it more, a lot of GM used inherited house rules from the times of older editions when it was quite common to ad-hoc rule that extraplanar beings leave no remains — which was in itself a mix of issues with much less strictly defined conjuration/summoning rules, personal assumptions, and mistaking specific descriptions as general conditions.

One might try to argue that killing an outsider that was conjured with a calling effect (which fully brings them bodily to the material plane), ends its service/task, and thus triggers the "return to home plane" clause typically included in calling spells, but it is a matter for debate (or an actual GM's decision, *gasp*).

There is also that small case of outsider zombies and skeletons not being terribly effective as their combat effectiveness is primarily based on HD, size, and natural attacks, without regard for originals special attacks, and special defenses, so more often than not, it's more worthwhile to try to dig out that tyrannosaurus skeleton than trying to animate a dead demon.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Drejk wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:

So I'm lazy and a quick Google search didn't give me the answer, so, "Hey FaWtL! Can you raise a true outsider as an undead?"

Example scenario:
(1) A necromancer casts Planar Binding to summon a babau demon
(2) The necromancer kills the babau with something convenient (Circle of Death comes to mind)
(3) With a fresh babau corpse, the necromancer uses Animate Dead to make something cool, like a babau bloody skeleton

Babaus are corporeal so they can become zombies and they have skeletons so they can be turned into skeletons.

Quote:
In D&D 3.5, true outsiders didn't leave corpses behind. In a lot of Pathfinder APs, they do (many, many APs love to decorate with dead angels). So, if there are corpses, can you animate them with Animate Dead?

There was never an explicit general rule saying that outsiders don't leave corpse - which would, BTW, render any spell that uses outsider body parts or fluids as components impossible. The closest thing to that rule was that summoned monsters (which are often, but not always outsiders) vanish when dropped to 0 or less hp and a vague notion that for non-native outsiders their soul and body form a single unit (also, a lot of powerful ones are hard to kill by rejuvenating themselves after a period of time on their home plane, which might explicitly include their bodies vanishing).

To mess it more, a lot of GM used inherited house rules from the times of older editions when it was quite common to ad-hoc rule that extraplanar beings leave no remains — which was in itself a mix of issues with much less strictly defined conjuration/summoning rules, personal assumptions, and mistaking specific descriptions as general conditions.

One might try to argue that killing an outsider that was conjured with a calling effect (which fully brings them bodily to the material plane), ends its service/task, and thus triggers the "return to home plane" clause typically included in calling spells,...

Yeah, but it's Impus Major, and he's got a dead angel on his hands...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:

This btw is basically exactly how the "can androids/warforged/other lifeforms composed of non standard (i.e., 'not flesh blood and bone') materials be reanimated as undead?" thread eventually concluded that, by the wording of the spell and template, the only thing stopping an Iron Golem from being animated as a skeleton is its lack of skeletal structure; it can become a zombie just fine, as all that template requires is that the base creature be corporeal and not already undead.

Not that you would WANT to, but you could, technically.

Constructs have immunity to necromantic effects. Androids on the other hand, are fair game (as they are more of a synthetic lifeform).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:
Yeah, but it's Impus Major, and he's got a dead angel on his hands...

In his defense, I have to say that I would jump on such occasion too, if I was allowed to play a necromancer in D&D/Pathfinder campaign, just for the sake of having a fancy undead servant.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Anyway you have answered yourself. If there is already a non-evaporated corpse of an outsider, and that outsider has no special rule that says it cannot be animated as an undead, go wild!

239,451 to 239,500 of 280,797 << first < prev | 4785 | 4786 | 4787 | 4788 | 4789 | 4790 | 4791 | 4792 | 4793 | 4794 | 4795 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Deep 6 FaWtL All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.