|
True Seeing won't help you with Astral Projection. And again this is assuming you can even hit (which is a very big assumption). Even if you do hit, your dead, the Wizard is fine. And I have a plan to make sure you don't come back. This is pretty much a guaranteed Wizard victory.That's fine. He's dead after he attacks me and at worst all I lose is an Astral Projection (assuming his attack is even successful).Since he's incorporeal and has true seeing, I'm not sure I'd risk astral projection. That seems like you'd lose really fast.
Um, pretty sure it would. There's a big, shiny, visible (to the guy with true seeing) silver cord coming out of your back. That the fighter can attack. With his ghost touch, likely artifact, weapon. That is not you, so your protections probably don't work, you don't even know where he is and die without any chance to react.
SLAs aren't tied to HD. I need a citation they are. If you can't provide one, please discontinue this argument as it won't be in good faith.
I already cited a general rule covering what is tied to HD.
You have not showed that the wish SLA for the solar is an exception.
|
|
SLAs aren't tied to HD. I need a citation they are. If you can't provide one, please discontinue this argument as it won't be in good faith.I already cited a general rule covering what is tied to HD.
You have not showed that the wish SLA is an exception.
Moreover, it's still not what is "legal," it's what's "appropriate," so it's still GM fiat anyway!
The Fighter is only undetecable while Invisible. I'm fine with Carpet Bombing areas with Dispel. Also, the First attack on me will reveal his general area at least at which point the Fighter is as good as dead. In order to approach me the Fighter would have to move through a wall of Simulacrums. And since even while invisible and undetectable he can't share a space, I'll be able to find the Fighter that way.This is your 4th "the first thing I would do," suggestion. The single biggest advantage you give yourself as the wizard is access to the fighters stat block and the ability to plan and prep your responce to his strategy after the combat starts.
Did you really fill all your 6th and 3rd level slots with dispel?
I'm seriously beginning to believe that if you were actually in a blind situation that your hubris would be your undoing. At best you are going to be sitting on 250 hp and a 50 AC and you seriously think that the fighter won't outright kill you in one blow? You are begging to eat a tree branch that I call an arrow for 20d6+385 damage as my standard action in the surprise round I get on you.
This post made no sense. I've explained several times that at most the Fighter would kill an Astral Projection. All this does is give away the Fighter's Position which will absolutely cause them to lose. The first thing I'd do changes naturally depending on the situation. If we are both aware of each other the first I do, would naturally be different. Not that I even said "The first thing I'd do" in that last post. And hey, I'm waiting for a neutral RAW GM, an agreed upon condition and an opponent. Then I won't mind being completely unfair.
Moreover, it's still not what is "legal," it's what's "appropriate," so it's still GM fiat anyway!SLAs aren't tied to HD. I need a citation they are. If you can't provide one, please discontinue this argument as it won't be in good faith.I already cited a general rule covering what is tied to HD.
You have not showed that the wish SLA is an exception.
What is legal is appropriate.
You have only shown that some might be Marroar Gellantara please try harder.
You have only shown that some might be Marroar Gellantara please try harder.
You sir either do not argue in good faith or have a poor grasping of the rules.
Considering your conduct in this thread, I am inclined to think the latter. Consider your opinions on this matter disregarded from myself henceforth.
Good day!
You have only shown that some might be Marroar Gellantara please try harder.You sir either do not argue in good faith or have a poor grasping of the rules.
Considering your conduct in this thread, I am inclined to think the latter. Consider your opinions on this matter disregarded from myself henceforth.
Good day!
Sorry but the Solar's SLA says nothing about being HD dependent. The rules say what is reduced Shisumo and provided they are it is appropriate. The rules don't give the GM any more say here then they do for how power attack works.
|
|
The rules say special abilities have to be appropriate to the new HD. The fact that they are specifically mentioned as requiring adjustment means "leave them alone" isn't really an option.
Serious question here. Do you believe the sentences "What is legal is appropriate" and "Creating a monster is part science and part art" are compatible with one another?
Sorry but the Solar's SLA says nothing about being HD dependent. The rules say what is reduced Shisumo and provided they are it is appropriate. The rules don't give the GM any more say here then they do for how power attack works.You have only shown that some might be Marroar Gellantara please try harder.You sir either do not argue in good faith or have a poor grasping of the rules.
Considering your conduct in this thread, I am inclined to think the latter. Consider your opinions on this matter disregarded from myself henceforth.
Good day!
The open FAQ with 45 hits makes it clear that it isn't so certain as you believe.
|
|
For additional information, here's James Jacobs' approach to the spell.
To highlight one part in particular:
...rebuild the monster as appropriate for something of its rebuilt hp as it works out on Table 1–1 of the Bestiary. This means that some monsters are more potent than others when you simulacrum them, and if a monster is kinda broken when you make a simulacrum (such as would happen with a glabrezu or a noble genie or another creature that has wish as a spell-like ability) I do remove the broken aspects in an ad-hoc manner.
Of course, Mr Jacobs' ruling is not definitive. It clearly requires some adjudication.
But then, that's what I've been saying all along.
For additional information, here's James Jacobs' approach to the spell.
To highlight one part in particular:
...rebuild the monster as appropriate for something of its rebuilt hp as it works out on Table 1–1 of the Bestiary. This means that some monsters are more potent than others when you simulacrum them, and if a monster is kinda broken when you make a simulacrum (such as would happen with a glabrezu or a noble genie or another creature that has wish as a spell-like ability) I do remove the broken aspects in an ad-hoc manner.Of course, Mr Jacobs' ruling is not definitive. It clearly requires some adjudication.
But then, that's what I've been saying all along.
That's what he has to do in his home game, because that's not what the rules say (in addition to that not being a ruling). The rules of Simulacrum are clear. Overpowered particularly for some creatures, which he even acknowledges and has to houserule. So thank you for proof that Table 1-1 agrees with me.
The rules of Simulacrum are clear.The open FAQ with 45 hits makes it clear that it isn't so certain as you believe.Clarity's a funny thing, I guess.
Only 45 people are confused on it. That seems like it must be pretty clear eh?
Only 45 people are confused on it. That seems like it must be pretty clear eh?The rules of Simulacrum are clear.The open FAQ with 45 hits makes it clear that it isn't so certain as you believe.Clarity's a funny thing, I guess.
Not a chance. 45 FAQ's puts it in the top 10 of all FAQ requests ever for PFRPG.
|
|
Um, pretty sure it would. There's a big, shiny, visible (to the guy with true seeing) silver cord coming out of your back. That the fighter can attack. With his ghost touch, likely artifact, weapon. That is not you, so your protections probably don't work, you don't even know where he is and die without any chance to react.And again for the record, True Seeing is s&@@ against high level casters because Mind Blank makes you immune to it and lasts for 24 hours with a single casting. True Seeing also has a fairly small range.
120 feet isn't that small a range, but more to the point, I'm not seeing any reason to think that mind blank would protect your silver cord. It's not you. Yes, it would appear to run up to your back and simply vanish, but it could still be cut.
Can't the Ethereal, Invisible, Undetectable fighter just cut the wizard's silver cord? Or follow it back to the wizard's body while he "carpet bombs" the area with Dispel?
He can't see it. Because the Wizard is also undetectable. And I'll just quote the spell "Luckily, very few things can destroy a silver cord."
Or someone could drop an AMF on the cord. Being a product of magic that would "break" the section inside the area, killing the wizard.Luckly, "very few things" is flavor text. There is no mention of what CAN destroy the cord, and no info on what stops "most things" from destroying it.Sure. So what hardness or HP does the astral cord have? In the absence of a number you have no way to destroy it.
What andreww said, plus the Wizard is immune to AMF.
Luckly, "very few things" is flavor text. There is no mention of what CAN destroy the cord, and no info on what stops "most things" from destroying it.Sure. So what hardness or HP does the astral cord have? In the absence of a number you have no way to destroy it.
Hardness and HP of silver. You know, the material it says it is made of and has stats in the equipment chapter for.
And we're once again into "this spell requires moderate to extensive GM adjudication, any arguments along these lines are undecidable outside of a particular table and thus basically useless for this discussion."
It doesn't. It isn't destroyable by many means, so a means has to specify that it can before it does. The one item that can attack Silver Cords does so. Sorry.
|
|
And we're once again into "this spell requires moderate to extensive GM adjudication, any arguments along these lines are undecidable outside of a particular table and thus basically useless for this discussion."It doesn't. It isn't destroyable by many means, so a means has to specify that it can before it does. The one item that can attack Silver Cords does so. Sorry.
Once again, your flat pronouncements aren't actually rules. "Can see invisible and attack incorporeal" is a pretty exclusive group, and would easily meet the requirements. Feel free to disagree if you like, but as with the question of being able to see the cord via true seeing versus mind blank, your answer will only matter for the tables you're running.
Actually the spell says it can be destroyed, it doesn't specify how or what. So either it can be destroyed by the methods already discussed or a GM is required to make a call. Outside of those two options Astral Projection becomes essentially becomes "illegal" because an entire aspect of the spell lies outside of RAW.And we're once again into "this spell requires moderate to extensive GM adjudication, any arguments along these lines are undecidable outside of a particular table and thus basically useless for this discussion."It doesn't. It isn't destroyable by many means, so a means has to specify that it can before it does. The one item that can attack Silver Cords does so. Sorry.
No it says "very few things can destroy it". There is an item that can do so. It specifies as much. Therefore, that line is required to acknowledge the existence of that one item. You like to claim things are not RAW when in fact they are. The cord is there, but it gives you no means to destroy it. That is because outside of means that specifically say they can, nothing can.
It isn't destroyable by many means[...]No it says "very few things can destroy it".Dude, quit contradicting yourself.
Uh those statements are not contradictory, please reread them.
|
|
If there is no item in PF which specifies that it can destroy the cord then arguably the first statement might well be true.
There is no such item, which rather undercuts Anzyr's argument.
There is a creature with a special ability to cause the thread to recoil, but that's not what the spell is referencing because the consequences are completely different from cutting the cord. So "very few things" clearly means something else than what Anzyr's claiming. What that might be...
..."requires moderate to extensive GM adjudication, any arguments along these lines are undecidable outside of a particular table and thus basically useless for this discussion."