Anzyr |
andreww wrote: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...
Shisumo wrote:..."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."
Huh, I thought the Shulsaga severed cords. Regardless, the cord has no means to be targeted. Therefore at the moment RAW, it's impossible to sever an Silver Cord. Good stuff.
BigDTBone |
Shisumo wrote: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.
That's beyond generous in reading. No where in the game does "not many," translate to "must specifically be called out." And that is particularly true bucause there ARE places where, "must specifically be called out," IS required by the game text.
Uwotm8 |
No, I'm not. Since there are very few methods of severing them, you'd have to find such a method RAW.
Yes, you are. Your assertion is simply not provable.
andreww wrote:If there is no item in PF which specifies that it can destroy the cord then arguably the first statement might well be true.If "very few things" can destroy them, there must be an item that can. In fact, there must be multiple as a plural word was used. That's simple logic. It is possible. It can be destroyed. There are things that can do it, period. That it's described as an incorporeal silver cord, it is easy to also argue given rules that already exist to create such an item. It has to be able to affect incorporeal objects. It's made of silver. There are already rules for both of those things. You easily use the words "very few things affect incorporeal, silver object" within all the rules of Pathfinder. That alone qualifies logically. To say otherwise is being deliberately obtuse. There's nothing in the text of the spell that even implies anything to the effect of "only things that specifically affect these cords can destroy them," nothing.
Blakmane |
... guys, i'm pretty sure the 'silver' part of 'silver cord' is in reference to the colour, not to the material. The 'very few things' is legacy text refering to silver swords, which no longer exist: a GM needs to decide what else would break them.
Both sides are also being super contradictory here. The cord clearly needs DM adjudication in the same manner as simulacrum does. Guess what: the whole GAME needs adjudication. Pathfinder RAW is just too weak to stand alone, so you guys are going to be arguing exploits which neither of you will agree work until the end of time.
But, this entire argument, on both sides, has long since passed into the farcical - so whatever I guess?.
BigDTBone |
Name a method that is effective then? Since RAW there isn't one.
Raw says "very few" with no qualifications. A sword can sever a silver cord.
Anything with the ability to cut a silver cord by the material description in the equipment chapter can do it. If you can't cut a silver cord with an axe it sounds like a personal problem to me...
Anzyr |
Anzyr wrote:Name a method that is effective then? Since RAW there isn't one.Raw says "very few" with no qualifications. A sword can sever a silver cord.
Anything with the ability to cut a silver cord by the material description in the equipment chapter can do it. If you can't cut a silver cord with an axe it sounds like a personal problem to me...
Please feel free to list it's stats here then. Inquiring minds want to know.
Uwotm8 |
I'm waiting on a neutral RAW GM. And a challenger who can agree to some conditions for the build/match.
What conditions? At this point, I'd assert you're so entrenched that you can't trust anyone to be a neutral GM. I'm also curious to see just how much your conditions on a contender would directly or indirectly favor your preferred scenario.
andreww |
AndIMustMask wrote:okay, so anzyr and co. arguing about semantics aside; wizard build yet?No chance. Schrödinger's wizard doesn't need a stat block.
Weren't you the person saying that the contest should only happen if stat blocks were hidden. Seems contradictory to demand one if an actual test will be run.
Anzyr |
Anzyr wrote:I'm waiting on a neutral RAW GM. And a challenger who can agree to some conditions for the build/match.What conditions? At this point, I'd assert you're so entrenched that you can't trust anyone to be a neutral GM. I'm also curious to see just how much your conditions on a contender would directly or indirectly favor your preferred scenario.
Someone who isn't confused as to how Simulacrums work would be a good starting point. Then I'd need an agreeable point buy (though I'll be running loops around my stats anyway) and an agreeable arena or terms of engagement. Details are important.
Anzyr |
BigDTBone wrote:Weren't you the person saying that the contest should only happen if stat blocks were hidden. Seems contradictory to demand one if an actual test will be run.AndIMustMask wrote:okay, so anzyr and co. arguing about semantics aside; wizard build yet?No chance. Schrödinger's wizard doesn't need a stat block.
At this point I think they've realized I've been only using my commonly mentioned tactics and not anything I save for actual contests and are now afraid that if they accept they will not be successful. Though in fairness, the first thing that will be said is that my build is completely unfair. But then... I intend it to be.
Anzyr |
Anzyr wrote:Someone who isn't confused as to how Simulacrums work would be a good starting point.AKA someone who agrees with your interpretation of it.
The RAW. Not my interpretation. The RAW however, doesn't tie SLAs to HD. Though you'd be suprised what I can do with Su and Ex abilities.
BigDTBone |
BigDTBone wrote:Please feel free to list it's stats here then. Inquiring minds want to know.Anzyr wrote:Name a method that is effective then? Since RAW there isn't one.Raw says "very few" with no qualifications. A sword can sever a silver cord.
Anything with the ability to cut a silver cord by the material description in the equipment chapter can do it. If you can't cut a silver cord with an axe it sounds like a personal problem to me...
10 hp per inch and hardness of 8. I will generously grant a full inch of thickness and still accept the use of the term "cord."
BigDTBone |
BigDTBone wrote:Weren't you the person saying that the contest should only happen if stat blocks were hidden. Seems contradictory to demand one if an actual test will be run.AndIMustMask wrote:okay, so anzyr and co. arguing about semantics aside; wizard build yet?No chance. Schrödinger's wizard doesn't need a stat block.
You should read my posts before talking about them. I SPECIFICALLY said I would happily share my stat block with the designated GM.
Anzyr |
AFAICT, there were already a couple fighter builds posted. If that's true, the only person holding out is you, Anzyr. So, you're way off base saying others are afraid. Simply, either put up or shut up.
I'm offering challenges. I'm not going to put up my sheet prior to that obviously. Though I will be asking the GM to not disclose it, because I'll be using some of my meaner tactics. But feel free to step up.
AndIMustMask |
uh, anzyr--people HAVE been challenging you. like, constantly.
you started off the thread saying 'oh but i dont need to stat it out', and as of page five i've seen at least two fighters and one set of 'rules' for a match that were relatively agreed to.
a large majority of what i've seen in this thread has been either people telling you to put your money where your mouth is, or arguing against whatever harebrained exploit you're advocating at the time. it's kinda sad to watch.
now, i personally think the wizard will win hands down, even without this silliness--mostly because spells are hilariously overpowered, and mythic spells even moreso.
i'm going to go back through the thread and find said rules post and return with it, and hopefully at least you personally can put forth a build, everyone can argue between it and a fighter build for a few hundred posts, and then everyone can go home because this is just ridiculous.
Anzyr |
andreww wrote:You should read my posts before talking about them. I SPECIFICALLY said I would happily share my stat block with the designated GM.BigDTBone wrote:Weren't you the person saying that the contest should only happen if stat blocks were hidden. Seems contradictory to demand one if an actual test will be run.AndIMustMask wrote:okay, so anzyr and co. arguing about semantics aside; wizard build yet?No chance. Schrödinger's wizard doesn't need a stat block.
Funny, so would I.
Anzyr |
uh, anzyr--people HAVE been challenging you. like, constantly.
you started off the thread saying 'oh but i dont need to stat it out', and as of page five i've seen at least two fighters and one set of 'rules' for a match that were relatively agreed to.
a large majority of what i've seen in this thread has been either people telling you to put your money where your mouth is, or arguing against whatever harebrained exploit you're advocating at the time. it's kinda sad to watch.
now, i personally think the wizard will win hands down, even without this silliness--mostly because spells are hilariously overpowered, and mythic spells even moreso.
i'm going to go back through the thread and find said rules post and return with it, and hopefully at least you personally can put forth a build, everyone can argue between it and a fighter build for a few hundred posts, and then everyone can go home because this is just ridiculous.
I'll disclose it to a neutral RAW GM.
Anzyr |
Anzyr wrote:I'm offering challenges. I'm not going to put up my sheet prior to that obviously. Though I will be asking the GM to not disclose it, because I'll be using some of my meaner tactics. But feel free to step up.That's meaningless chest thumping. Post a build.
Nope! I agreed to do a challenge and I will wait.
Shadowkire |
Where did you get those stats from? Because guess what? They don't exist. Thus it's impossible to destroy absent a means to do so.
And thus the spell can't be interpreted RAW, because it says the cord can be destroyed yet doesn't give specifics on how. Thus without a GM an entire aspect of the spell can't even be interpreted without argument.
And without an agreement the spell cannot be properly used.
Though the description of the cord as incorporeal and silver does allow the use of the rules to decide the cord's stats.
Anzyr |
Anzyr wrote:Where did you get those stats from? Because guess what? They don't exist. Thus it's impossible to destroy absent a means to do so.And thus the spell can't be interpreted RAW, because it says the cord can be destroyed yet doesn't give specifics on how. Thus without a GM an entire aspect of the spell can't even be interpreted without argument.
And without an agreement the spell cannot be properly used.
Though the description of the cord as incorporeal and silver does allow the use of the rules to decide the cord's stats.
It can be interpreted RAW. Namely, that anything that doesn't specify it can damage a Silver Cord, can't. See. Easy.
Kthulhu |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uwotm8 wrote:Nope! I agreed to do a challenge and I will wait.Anzyr wrote:I'm offering challenges. I'm not going to put up my sheet prior to that obviously. Though I will be asking the GM to not disclose it, because I'll be using some of my meaner tactics. But feel free to step up.That's meaningless chest thumping. Post a build.
I challenge you to post a build.
Trimalchio |
I've offered to GM, and so have others.
Again, i would simply ban simulacrum or limit to caster only (and limit that to only a handful at most. Also ban blood money. If both are allowed then it seems the discussion just degrades into a numbers game of infinity plus one. "No i have infinite genies", "Ah but no, I infinite genies plus one..."
Blood money essentially breaks any semblance of having a wealth cap, which again makes this a rather pointless discussion if it is allowed.
Anzyr |
I've offered to GM, and so have others.
Again, i would simply ban simulacrum or limit to caster only (and limit that to only a handful at most. Also ban blood money. If both are allowed then it seems the discussion just degrades into a numbers game of infinity plus one. "No i have infinite genies", "Ah but no, I infinite genies plus one..."
Blood money essentially breaks any semblance of having a wealth cap, which again makes this a rather pointless discussion if it is allowed.
Ya, see implementing a bunch of caster nerfs makes you kind of not you know... neutral. But hey I'll accept that if I can pick a bunch of stuff the Fighter can't use.
BigDTBone |
BigDTBone wrote:Challenge me then.AndIMustMask wrote:okay, so anzyr and co. arguing about semantics aside; wizard build yet?No chance. Schrödinger's wizard doesn't need a stat block.
I threw my hat in 3 pages ago! And 5 pages ago I tried to get you to tell me how you would spend your first frakking turn and you had to change your mind 3 times when I pointed out that YOUR TACTICS FAILED TO DEFEAT THE POSTED STAT BLOCK.
I explode runes you.
Dude, contingency with lesser globe.
OH! Well... I uh disjunction first?
Really?, why didn't you say that first?
Yeah, well I do. And I do some stuff with an acid thing and a bunch of questionable rules exploits for some splat book spells.
Um, that stuff doesn't work.
Exploding runez is teh winz!
Dude? What happened with the acid thing? And all the rules you broke?
NO ONE CAN DEFEAT TEH RUUUUUUNNNNNZZZXXXXX!!!!!!!1111eleveneleven
Shadowkire |
Shadowkire wrote:It can be interpreted RAW. Namely, that anything that doesn't specify it can damage a Silver Cord, can't. See. Easy.Anzyr wrote:Where did you get those stats from? Because guess what? They don't exist. Thus it's impossible to destroy absent a means to do so.And thus the spell can't be interpreted RAW, because it says the cord can be destroyed yet doesn't give specifics on how. Thus without a GM an entire aspect of the spell can't even be interpreted without argument.
And without an agreement the spell cannot be properly used.
Though the description of the cord as incorporeal and silver does allow the use of the rules to decide the cord's stats.
Explosive Runes doesn't specifically say it can damage a fighter, but you say it does because rules exist to apply 6d6 force damage to creatures and objects.
Just like there are rules to determine the hardness and hp of a cord made of silver. Astral Project doesn't call out the cord as being made of anything but silver. The sentence starting with "Luckly," and the fact that it is generated by a spell would imply otherwise, but claiming that would be RAI, not RAW.