>> Ask Ashiel Anything <<


Off-Topic Discussions

3,351 to 3,400 of 3,557 << first < prev | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Never had the occasion to do so. I downloaded OSRIC and thought it might be amusing to give it a go but haven't really had much interest beyond that. I don't really see it as a system I would use to run anything serious or long term without some serious re-tooling.

2E and back, for example, have a lot of mechanics that are antithetical to roleplaying (the dual-classing rules spring to mind here, as do the racial class limits), so using those for framing our stories seems pretty pointless. The over emphasis on mechanics ("You like tables? We got tables!") while having a heavy lack of good mechanics ("Wtf is THAC0?") makes it an interesting trip for academic or nostalgic pursuits, but little else I'm afraid.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I play a knock off of Bakuryu in a high level game on these boards.
He's a Mole Zoanthrope (think natural lycanthrope) were-mole ninja 16| monk 16 with most of the dimensional agility feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I will just leave this here and ask what you think about it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Klara Meison wrote:
I will just leave this here and ask what you think about it.

Going to watch all of these. It seems super interesting. I can't do it right now though, 'cause I'm spending the day with my brother (we rarely get to see each other these days). I'll check it out in full tonight though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just got done watching episode #1. Most of it seemed to be general design overview stuff but really cool/interesting design overview stuff. While it's probably not what people writing an AP are looking for, anyone making indie games with RPG maker (or something else) or running a sandbox tabletop could probably get a lot of mileage out of understanding the placement and build up for Durlag's Tower.

Starting #2...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just finished #2. I'm beginning to wonder if Baldur's Gate rubbed off on me more than I realized playing it over the years. I had never really thought about Durlag's Tower or the design elements behind it very deeply (I think I've only gone all the way through it twice), but there's a remarkable amount of stuff here that reminds me of my own games.

For example, the ghouls and the stinking cloud trap sound like something pulled right out of one of my games. I'm not usually one to use a lot of high level enemies but prefer using lower level foes and traps in ways that I think make sense, often building encounters with traps as though they were individual creatures (here's a six year old example).

The emphasis on teaching players through gameplay so they will be prepared for the challenges later is pretty much identical to how I GM (during my games, on the route from 1-20+, you'll very likely learn to deal with a wide variety of obstacles and tactics, so you aren't overwhelmed by bigger versions of them at higher levels).

I'll probably recommend this video series to GMs in the future, because a of this is super applicable to tabletop as well. :o

Starting #3...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh, before I continue, I forgot to mention something about the setting. I like how he was talking about the cellar with the well and stuff. I had intended to talk about this but didn't really think about it while typing but remembered it while watching #3, so I'm gonna talk about it here since it's related to the doppelgangers - sort of.

Just got done watching #3. Most of this was about contrast and exposition and revealing information through the players experiencing certain things about the environment through play. In this one he points out how the inclusion of the doppelgangers is in itself a sort of exposition as you learn more later about the fall of Durlag and the doppelgangers' hand in that descent.

I like this a lot. I try to provide a certain amount of "soft" exposition into games by leaving things for the players to explore and discover, and I want things to make sense and feel real. Back in episode #2, the inclusion of the well for drawing up water and stuff reminds me of the mundane elements that dot my games. For example, while exploring dwarven ruins, my players in an online game stumbled upon a large lavatory (or restroom for people not familiar with the term). The players were actually taken aback for a moment because they realized they had never been in a dungeon that had a place for creatures to piss, poop, or bathe.

In a similar manner, quite frequently a lot of the elements of my dungeons and adventures have practical purposes. A pit trap with an ooze monster in it for example may serve as a garbage disposal system for inhabitants of the dungeon.

I would probably blame the 3.x DMG for its amazing sections on things like dungeon ecology and such. :)

Starting #4...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just finished #4. More good stuff here. I really appreciate you pointing me to this series. The stuff about the contrast with the bedroom and corpses and such setting more environmental exposition (at least that's the term I'm going to use, not sure if it's the right one, but I'm speaking about conveying a sense of understanding through the environment).

The stuff about the skeleton warrior was on point as well, I feel. It's another good example of teaching players through first hand experience.

I'm looking forward to #5 but it doesn't seem to be up yet. :o


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Check out the rest of their videos too, they have some amazing stuff. Most of them focus on videogames, but a fair amount of concepts functions the same across the board, like this for example.

Another thread wrote:
The strongest druid I know how to build has wild shape only as an optional thing.

So how does that work? Don't druids get an amazing powerup when wildshaping into dire tigers and such?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Klara Meison wrote:

Check out the rest of their videos too, they have some amazing stuff. Most of them focus on videogames, but a fair amount of concepts functions the same across the board, like this for example.

Another thread wrote:
The strongest druid I know how to build has wild shape only as an optional thing.
So how does that work? Don't druids get an amazing powerup when wildshaping into dire tigers and such?

They do but my favorite build, and IMHO the one that's most likely to bring pain and ruin to everything while being surprisingly sturdy is my dazing dot druid.

It basically takes something that is traditionally considered terrible (damage over time spells) and makes it amazing.

Brief Explanation of the Hypothesis
Basically blasting spells in general are generally poor uses of resources because you can deal more damage via physical attacks or do more for your team using crowd control, but at least they're good at delivering burst damage.

Druids have a lot of blasting spells but many of them are either low damage (but no SR) or they inflict small amounts of damage over multiple rounds (such as call lightning) which delivers small-ish damage packages which generally means you don't even have the burst damage options.

Enter Dazing Spell. Druids have tons, and I mean tons of spells to attach Dazing Spell to, including things like Thorn Body (no-SR fireshield essentially), Flame Blade, Call Lightning, Stone Call, and lots of other stuff. They have a wide variety of damaging effects that either target Reflex or allow no save (which means Will save vs dazing) which makes them quite versatile in terms of targeting weak saves and getting around things like Evasion.

Dazing spell turns the weaknesses (small pops of damage over time) into a strength, forcing a save vs losing several rounds worth of actions each time you slap someone with your flaming sphere or flame blade or call lightning and so forth. It can shut down virtually anything in the game (aside from a handful of critters in some of the extra bestiaries, nothing is immune to a non-mind affecting daze effect).

Basic Build / Equipment Load
Wisdom prime since you'll be pushing lots of saves (but it doesn't have to be that high since you'll force lots and lots of saves), then everything else as desired (you could focus entirely on being artillery and push Con/Dex to pad saves and AC and such, or you can moonlight as a bear, so wild shape is optional).

Early levels are the dead zone for this type of druid (you'll have to rely on lesser dazing rods for a while) but then you're a druid (you've got a strong animal companion and you're a 3/4 chassis with 9th level casting). The faster you can acquire a metamagic rod of dazing spell (your party can chip in :D) the sooner it comes online but 5th level is probably the earliest it would matter (because you start getting spells like call lightning and such).

You're basically going to do item creation and eventually pick up Craft Rod to make more metamagic rods on the cheap. At mid to late levels, you'll craft incense of meditation which maximizes all the spells you prepare within the 24 hour span while the incense is burning, which means later on you have power AND control.

Wild shaping is optional since you're going to be more focused on doing things like constantly lobbing spells at your enemies that force saves vs losing several rounds worth of actions (which makes it very possible to stun lock something to death). Generally you'll use wild shape in this way to assume forms that are a pain to deal with (going for natural armor, size bonuses to AC, flight, etc).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

An example of why this is a pretty powerful tactic. Let's say you're 9th level and you've got a lesser metamagic rod of dazing spell. That means 3 of your 1st-3rd level spells / day get Dazing on them.

You have 9 shots worth of call lightning. So for 1/3 of your daily uses of dazing spell, you bomb enemies with a Reflex save vs losing 3 rounds worth of actions. You can do this for 9 rounds on 1 spell slot and 1 use of your dazing rod.

If you want to mix it up in combat, you can get into people's faces with flame blade and force a Will save vs losing 2 turns worth of actions every time you hit them (which means forcing a crapload of saves as you get iterative attacks and haste attacks, but they're vs touch AC).

Produce flame is a decent candidate as well, serving a similar function to call lightning except it targets Toch-AC/Will (making it a decent option against characters with Evasion, such as Rangers).

Spells like burst of nettles and stone call have AoE potential as well. Against landbound enemies, spike growth is stupid (forces a save vs 3 rounds of dazing each time they take damage, lasts hours per level, massive AoE, a hell of a mean trap). Thorny entangle is pretty vicious too.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:

Just finished #2. I'm beginning to wonder if Baldur's Gate rubbed off on me more than I realized playing it over the years. I had never really thought about Durlag's Tower or the design elements behind it very deeply (I think I've only gone all the way through it twice), but there's a remarkable amount of stuff here that reminds me of my own games.

For example, the ghouls and the stinking cloud trap sound like something pulled right out of one of my games. I'm not usually one to use a lot of high level enemies but prefer using lower level foes and traps in ways that I think make sense, often building encounters with traps as though they were individual creatures (here's a six year old example).

The emphasis on teaching players through gameplay so they will be prepared for the challenges later is pretty much identical to how I GM (during my games, on the route from 1-20+, you'll very likely learn to deal with a wide variety of obstacles and tactics, so you aren't overwhelmed by bigger versions of them at higher levels).

I'll probably recommend this video series to GMs in the future, because a of this is super applicable to tabletop as well. :o

Starting #3...

>there's a remarkable amount of stuff here that reminds me of my own games.

I figure that there aren't all that many ways you can do DnD design in a good way, so different people are bound to converge on some similar general strategies. Doesn't necessarily have to be because they are copying one another.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Do you like cake? If you do, what kind?

EDIT: >Enter Dazing Spell.

Well that's one way to do it. What is your opinion on that feat from a purely mechanical design perspective?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

The feat is s@@+.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Klara Meison wrote:
Do you like cake? If you do, what kind?

I like some cakes. I prefer cakes the have fruit in them (such as apple, pineapple, bananna, lemon, etc), but I also like chocolate cake as well.

I don't usually eat a lot of sugary sweet stuff (I just lack desire, it's not a conscious health choice or anything) so I don't usually eat much, though if I had fruity cakes more often, I'd probably eat those more often.

Quote:

EDIT: >Enter Dazing Spell.

Well that's one way to do it. What is your opinion on that feat from a purely mechanical design perspective?

It's hard to say, really. I'm tempted to say it's overpowered but it might not be. The awkward thing about dazing spell is the way it's set up, it's extremely good when combined with certain kinds of spells (acid arrow is really nice on the mage side of things), and it can turn any damage dealing spell into a pseudo-save or die effect (losing several turns worth of actions is harsh).

For example, with the druid, once you can reliably pop dazing call lightning storm, each time you pop someone with one of those bolts, they make a Reflex save or lose 5 turns. If you want to be the emperor of dicks, dazing wall of thorns will get you the most dirty looks ever. :P

Aside from stopping the spell damage (which is really hard to do as many of the damages are non-elemental and spells explicitly ignore DR) or making the save, there's little way to defend against it.

That said, I admit that it's one of those things that's probably unfair but is still damn fun to play around with. There's something very satisfying about making a druid who wields dazing flame blades while daring anyone to strike her back and risk the wrath of her dazing thorn body. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
(which is really hard to do as many of the damages are non-elemental and spells explicitly ignore DR)

Unless you follow the dumb FAQ by the design team that explicitly changes the rules.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Why wouldn't you follow that FAQ?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Given the coversation we had a few pages back, I though I would repost this.

Look what JJ posted in his ask me anything thread:

James Jacobs wrote:

...

Apart from the elf thing, yeah, a few come to mind. I'm not gonna repeat some of them here because I'd rather have them fade away, since they were terrilbe ideas to begin with.

But one that IS still in the game is the whole "Cult of the Dawnflower" element of Sarenrae's worship, which is at the root somewhat nonsensical. Sarenrae is the greatest agent of good in the core 20 deities and a goddess of healing and redemption, but some early authors misunderstood this and set up her faithful, in the form of Qadirans, as super aggressive warmongers. So that's why we have this schism going on in the church now, with the warmonger side being "wrong" and the traditional church being frustrated by them; they want to redeem the Cult but the cult is stubborn.

It does make for an interesting element of the church, but for a lot of people the subtleties are completely lost and folks (including many freelancers we use who have to constantly be corrected) keep mistakenly assuming Sarenrae is a war goddess.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Why wouldn't you follow that FAQ?

Because DR explicitly only works against normal attacks and spells explicitly ignore it.

Core Rulebook wrote:

Damage Reduction

Some magic creatures have the supernatural ability to instantly heal damage from weapons or ignore blows altogether as though they were invulnerable.

The numerical part of a creature's damage reduction (or DR) is the amount of damage the creature ignores from normal attacks. Usually, a certain type of weapon can overcome this reduction (see Overcoming DR). This information is separated from the damage reduction number by a slash. For example, DR 5/magic means that a creature takes 5 less points of damage from all weapons that are not magic. If a dash follows the slash, then the damage reduction is effective against any attack that does not ignore damage reduction.

Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury poison, a monk's stunning, and injury-based disease. Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact.

Attacks that deal no damage because of the target's damage reduction do not disrupt spells.

Spells, spell-like abilities, and energy attacks (even nonmagical fire) ignore damage reduction.

So the FAQ is outright lying.

The damage type of a spell still affects or could affect other things. For example, if you damage certain ooze monsters with a spell that deals slashing damage the ooze can split because it activates their "slashing damage" stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:

Given the coversation we had a few pages back, I though I would repost this.

Look what JJ posted in his ask me anything thread:

James Jacobs wrote:

...

Apart from the elf thing, yeah, a few come to mind. I'm not gonna repeat some of them here because I'd rather have them fade away, since they were terrilbe ideas to begin with.

But one that IS still in the game is the whole "Cult of the Dawnflower" element of Sarenrae's worship, which is at the root somewhat nonsensical. Sarenrae is the greatest agent of good in the core 20 deities and a goddess of healing and redemption, but some early authors misunderstood this and set up her faithful, in the form of Qadirans, as super aggressive warmongers. So that's why we have this schism going on in the church now, with the warmonger side being "wrong" and the traditional church being frustrated by them; they want to redeem the Cult but the cult is stubborn.

It does make for an interesting element of the church, but for a lot of people the subtleties are completely lost and folks (including many freelancers we use who have to constantly be corrected) keep mistakenly assuming Sarenrae is a war goddess.

The problem I see here is that until they retcon it, that's the boat they're sitting in. Actions speak louder than words so while she may say she's not a goddess of war, until she stops providing spells to her warmongering followers, well...if the shoe fits.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Why wouldn't you follow that FAQ?

Because DR explicitly only works against normal attacks and spells explicitly ignore it.

Core Rulebook wrote:

Damage Reduction

Some magic creatures have the supernatural ability to instantly heal damage from weapons or ignore blows altogether as though they were invulnerable.

The numerical part of a creature's damage reduction (or DR) is the amount of damage the creature ignores from normal attacks. Usually, a certain type of weapon can overcome this reduction (see Overcoming DR). This information is separated from the damage reduction number by a slash. For example, DR 5/magic means that a creature takes 5 less points of damage from all weapons that are not magic. If a dash follows the slash, then the damage reduction is effective against any attack that does not ignore damage reduction.

Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury poison, a monk's stunning, and injury-based disease. Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact.

Attacks that deal no damage because of the target's damage reduction do not disrupt spells.

Spells, spell-like abilities, and energy attacks (even nonmagical fire) ignore damage reduction.

So the FAQ is outright lying.

The damage type of a spell still affects or could affect other things. For example, if you damage certain ooze monsters with a spell that deals slashing damage the ooze can split because it activates their "slashing damage" stuff.

It would make for a sensible errata, honestly. I don't see why a spell that creates a spear that stabs an enemy would have different effects from a fighter stabbing an enemy with a spear. It's still ultimately a sharp stabby thing that affects the enemy, right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:

...

So the FAQ is outright lying.
...

I wouldn't go as far as to call it lying.

Here is the broad picture. Paizo has decided, for better or worse, that errata is only to be released when they print a new run of a hardback. They have also decided that fixing rules errors, making rules revisions and giving rules clarifications are going to be handled under the same two systems (FAQs and errata) as if they are all the same thing. Lastly, they have decided that new printings of a book will not change the page numbers that other mechanics refer to, even if that means problems go unaddressed. Now, it is fair to say that these are extremely questionable decisions.

But...

Given that this is the case, FAQs are the only mechanism we have for addressing a rules issue which a)does not take months or years to happen, and b) is independent of the physical layout of a hardback.

The FAQ isn't lying about magical damage vs DR. The FAQ is part of a system for ongoing rules clarification and revision that was given a very misleading name. There might be stupidity involved, but that FAQ in particular isn't it

Since the DR rules are spread across a whole number of books, the chances of seeing all of them errata'd are roughly nil. That FAQ is all we are going to get, because that is Paizo's only way of handling rules which even comes close to resembling "lightweight"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not very helpful when the FAQ isn't even accurate. >:|

Also, obscenely unhelpful when you have to browse through an FAQ that's not even linked to from the PRD, to find descriptions (not rules, descriptions of rules) that either do not exist or are directly contrary to what the manual actually says. Which means if you read your rulebook or the PRD or whatever, you will find something wildly different from the FAQ.

Even worse is the way they have flip-flopped in the past.

Vastly inferior to WotC's method of handling errata and FAQs.

I really cannot say anything positive about Paizo's FAQ system because there is nothing positive about it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Klara Meison wrote:
It would make for a sensible errata, honestly. I don't see why a spell that creates a spear that stabs an enemy would have different effects from a fighter stabbing an enemy with a spear. It's still ultimately a sharp stabby thing that affects the enemy, right?

It could be, yeah. I'm not saying it's a terrible house rule. I'm just saying that it isn't how the game actually works. They really need to learn what a FAQ actually is.


Do you use any optional systems introduced in Unchained? For example, Background Skills?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Klara Meison wrote:
Do you use any optional systems introduced in Unchained? For example, Background Skills?

Nope. Not currently. I see the appeal of the background skill system and Aratrok and I have discussed some ideas for mechanics that are similar at least on a sort of fundamental level (such as the possibility of splitting skills into major and minor skills relative to their impact and function in the game) for D20 Legends but nothing has been ironed out yet.

I haven't been GMing much recently due to juggling shifting work schedules, socializing with friends and family, and trying to be productive, so I haven't really been doing much with any optional systems outside the usual house rules my group(s) usually run with.

I intend for my next game that I run to be some variation of d20 legends though, so it might not even come up then. :P

The skill system for d20 legends is still in a state of extreme...uhhh...flux. Mostly because there are a lot of ways to handle things and we're still debating internally on some things (which reminds me that I need to have a talk with Aratrok about that stuff 'cause he pitched some thoughts over Discord and I haven't got a chance to really discuss them with him yet).

But I need a nap before that happens (I worked night shift, need to crash) so I'm going to go do that now. XD


> Not currently.

Have you been using any previously? How did it go?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Why wouldn't you follow that FAQ?
Because DR explicitly only works against normal attacks and spells explicitly ignore it.

The physical damage from a spell is a normal attack. It's why the conjuration spells that deal fire damage don't have to deal with SR like the fire from evocation spells. DR/magic wouldn't be able to defend against it, but other DRs would.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

see i'm personally interested in the automatic bonus progression optional rule. never met anyone that has tried it just think it would be cool to have magic items that do thing instead of just boost combat stats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Klara Meison wrote:

> Not currently.

Have you been using any previously? How did it go?

Nope, but I've played in a few games briefly that had some of the optional mechanics like Stamina and stuff. From what I've seen from my friends' (I haven't bought Unchained) I haven't had a want to buy the book. I'm not going to rule out that there's nothing in the book I'm interested in, merely that at the moment I haven't seen anything that jumps out to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
see i'm personally interested in the automatic bonus progression optional rule. never met anyone that has tried it just think it would be cool to have magic items that do thing instead of just boost combat stats.

I like dropping items into my games that have x/day effects. Quite frequently actually. It's easy as a GM to drop these sorts of items into the game (or add these sorts of effects to the big six) because x/day effects tend to be relatively cheap compared to alternatives.

It means a lot of the magic items you'll find in my games have spiffy little effects you can play around with a few times per day. They're more fun on NPCs as well since their relatively low cost makes them affordable on NPC wealth.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One of my DM's just made a ball that would expand and shrink by a command word youd be surprised how much use we got out of that


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
One of my DM's just made a ball that would expand and shrink by a command word youd be surprised how much use we got out of that

I probably wouldn't.

It sounds like another Feather Token:Tree to me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Man, those tree tokens. XD


1 person marked this as a favorite.

i feel there is a story im missing here


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
i feel there is a story im missing here

Tree tokens are just kind of infamous for being a magic item that sounds semi-useless at first glance but you can end up doing sooooo much with them. Plant a tree anywhere to climb, get cover, use for tree stride, block a door, fill a hallway, support a structure, use for firewood, use for fabricate, make a distraction, make something to tie a rope to, start a forest somewhere, use as portable trees for that druid spell that creates treants, etc, etc, etc.

The list of possibilities is pretty exhausting actually. Any situation where you can say "Man, would a bigass oak tree be nice right here?" is probably good for a tree token, and if you have tree tokens, you'd be surprised how frequently the answer to that question becomes "Yes".

Most of the feather tokens are pretty good. Heck, in a pinch, the anchor token has a lot of potential too. At the very least you can pretend you can pretend to be a loony toon and drop anchors on people. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
i feel there is a story im missing here

Dozens of stories, more like.

Any story involving a feather token usually involves hilarious shenanigans.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

See now that is the kind of game I like to run and play in rewarding creative uses of what you have to work with.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If someone dropped a tree token under a creature, what would happen and how damaged would that creature end up?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Best place for a large oak to appear? Right inside the stomach of the purple worm that just swallowed me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
Best place for a large oak to appear? Right inside the stomach of the purple worm that just swallowed me.

That would just cause that worm to gain Paladin levels, which seems to be counter to your intentions. Probably a lot of them, too, that stick is a big one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Klara Meison wrote:
If someone dropped a tree token under a creature, what would happen and how damaged would that creature end up?

Welp, the tree is 5 ft thick, 60ft wide, and a quick google search tells me it probably weighs somewhere in the region of 20 metric tonnes. The length is on the high end for a Gargantuan creature, and weight is on the low end. Lets say it counts as a Gargantuan object.

On that basis, the rules say that it deals 8d6, half that if it fell <30ft, and double that if it fell more than 150ft. Unfortunately, it appears that deliberately dropping it on someone involves making a touch attack with horrific range penalties and giving them a reflex save to reduce damage if they are aware of what is happening. The good news is that since you aren't throwing the object, you can drop it from more than 5 range increments away, letting you drop it from 160ft with a -16 penalty (which isn't insurmountable if you are making a touch attack vs flatfooted AC) to deal 16d6 damage. If you want to have sane ranged penalties, 8d6 from 40ft with a -2 penalty is much less harsh, and it is easy enough that a familiar could do a pretty good bombardier impression.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

We had a player use that to break the grapple the mudlord had on him. It was interesting to see a tree spring up out of the water.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Klara Meison wrote:
If someone dropped a tree token under a creature, what would happen and how damaged would that creature end up?

Under a creature, I'd probably rule that it forces creatures occupying the space into another adjacent space as it pushes them away as it expands and grows.

Tels brings up a rather brilliant and probably horrific use of the token and quite frankly I'd need to think about the effects of that. At the very least I would need to rule that the creature vomits the contents of its stomach up violently (automatically freeing anyone inside) but rationally I think I'd need to have it deal some obscene amounts of damage to the creature since the tree would be expanding and so large in such a short time that the creature should very well rupture violently, and very likely just outright die unless it has some sort of regeneration.

Does some thinking...
Thinking about it carefully, I would probably rule based on how large the creature was relative to the token. If the tree wouldn't fit (the creature was less than colossal size) then I'd probably have it rupture them, immediately inflicting enough damage to burst out of their bodies, and inflict 1d6 Constitution damage and subsequent bleed per size category too large. So if it was a gargantuan creature that swallowed you, in addition to automatically freeing you it would suffer 1d6 Con damage immediately (in addition to the amount of damage for slicing open its stomach) and take 1d6 Con damage each round after. But if the creature was Large size (3 size categories too large) they'd suffer 3d6 Con damage immediately and 3d6 on subsequent rounds.

Essentially representing how you just ruptured their torso in a truly violent and horrific manner by planting a 60 ft. oak tree in their digestive track.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To be fair, based on standard conjuration rules, tree token just wouldn't work if there wasn't enough space for a tree.

CRB wrote:
A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it.

Also

> If the tree wouldn't fit (the creature was less than colossal size) then I'd probably have it rupture them, immediately inflicting enough damage to burst out of their bodies, and inflict 1d6 Constitution damage and subsequent bleed per size category too large.

That just makes me think that every adventurer ever will carry a couple of those and try to feed them to enemies. Especially in d20Legends, since I believe you united strength and constitution, making this twice as painful. "Feeding a tree" would be a very potent tactic.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

After seeing enough tree token shenanigans, my group decided to rule that in case the tree hits a barrier before it finishes growing, it stops growing.

This way you can still block corridors and whatnot, but can no longer burst open creatures and vehicles.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

That's a fair point. Feather tokens are conjuration-based magic items so it would be fair to just not have them do anything when inside a creature, so I might need to revise my view on it (btw, this is how I talk with my players too, so if I make a bad call we can discuss it and fix it later).

I'm pretty sure this question would come up with an instant fortress as well (it literally causes damage from its expansion and requires a save to avoid suffering commoner-dusting levels of damage just from getting hit by its expansion).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy Z wrote:

After seeing enough tree token shenanigans, my group decided to rule that in case the tree hits a barrier before it finishes growing, it stops growing...

This way you can still block corridors and whatnot, but can no longer burst open creatures and vehicles.

Probably a good idea. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:

That's a fair point. Feather tokens are conjuration-based magic items so it would be fair to just not have them do anything when inside a creature, so I might need to revise my view on it (btw, this is how I talk with my players too, so if I make a bad call we can discuss it and fix it later).

I'm pretty sure this question would come up with an instant fortress as well (it literally causes damage from its expansion and requires a save to avoid suffering commoner-dusting levels of damage just from getting hit by its expansion).

>it would be fair to just not have them do anything when inside a creature

On the other hand, I like the idea of expanding trees being used as a counter to being swallowed. Or, at least, expanding something. You would probably make a permanent version to be something less clumsy, like a small box with a couple buttons for different size settings that unfolds into a Czech hedgehog-looking thingy made of steel or adamantium.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Klara Meison wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

That's a fair point. Feather tokens are conjuration-based magic items so it would be fair to just not have them do anything when inside a creature, so I might need to revise my view on it (btw, this is how I talk with my players too, so if I make a bad call we can discuss it and fix it later).

I'm pretty sure this question would come up with an instant fortress as well (it literally causes damage from its expansion and requires a save to avoid suffering commoner-dusting levels of damage just from getting hit by its expansion).

>it would be fair to just not have them do anything when inside a creature

On the other hand, I like the idea of expanding trees being used as a counter to being swallowed. Or, at least, expanding something. You would probably make a permanent version to be something less clumsy, like a small box with a couple buttons for different size settings that unfolds into a Czech hedgehog-looking thingy made of steel or adamantium.

My willingness to let PCs explode creatures with swallow whole probably stems from enjoying the idea of severely punishing the creature for swallowing you like that. Likewise, I generally find that when a creature swallows a player whole, it's usually a death sentence for the creature anyway since it's near impossible to defend itself with the character inside them (nothing says you have to leave its body after dealing enough damage to free yourself, you can just continue to rip the creature to shreds from inside, and the amount of damage from being inside of it is often more manageable than actually getting hit by the thing outside).

3,351 to 3,400 of 3,557 << first < prev | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / >> Ask Ashiel Anything << All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.