|
Doesn't the cleric spell "Restoration" remove level drains? Or is that only in the PC games of D&D.
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2007 01:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:35 |
|
|
It does, but he doesn't have a cleric.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2007 01:46
|
|
|
They have at least one paladin. Can't they get cleric spells?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2007 03:47
|
|
|
Spikey posted:They have at least one paladin. Can't they get cleric spells? Yeah, but it's a 4th level Paladin spell. He needs to be at least 14th level to cast it. That would put him on par with the PCs, and put him ahead of nearly all the other (now deceased) Paladins of Azure City.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2007 04:16
|
|
|
Aren't the parties just dealing with chump change when it comes to encounters and stuff so far? I think there might be a level gap between them and Roy when he finally gets rezzed, but nothing so huge it can't be surmounted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2007 04:26
|
|
|
Not sure how it works, but couldn't Roy be gaining quest or character development XP while in the afterlife?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2007 13:55
|
|
|
 New (erfworld) comic!  http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0089.html Containing Vinnie Doombats, plot, and absolutely no jokes about the Internet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2007 19:44
|
|
|
ZorbaTHut posted:
drat you, I got so excited at the " New" part, but then I saw it was just Erfworld.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2007 23:00
|
|
|
KOraithER posted:drat you, I got so excited at the " If sirens make you excited, I recommend you speed more. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2007 23:08
|
|
|
GigaPeon posted:Not sure how it works, but couldn't Roy be gaining quest or character development XP while in the afterlife? Strickly by D&D 3.5 Core rules, your spirit can't earn XP while dead. Generally, I believe Rich sticks to that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2007 01:00
|
|
|
Altamir posted:Strickly by D&D 3.5 Core rules, your spirit can't earn XP while dead. Generally, I believe Rich sticks to that. But traditionally, being dead means you're out of action, so you don't get XP.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2007 01:36
|
|
|
Roy should just have his wizard dad make a gate to the material world. Or maybe the androgynous elf could invest in a "summon Roy" spell. I figure a 1d4 rounds + spellcaster level duration should be fine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2007 02:04
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Strictly by D&D 3.5 Core rules, there's no rules given for how being dead differs from being alive. There are many, many mostly-joking arguments that characters can die, and then just keep on fighting, since nothing describes the ways in which being 'dead' hinders your actions. Moreso, there's at least a dozen ways for your character to continue adventuring after they bite the big one, be it prestige classes or templates. The book of Vile Darkness and the book of Exalted Deeds are especially bad for this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2007 09:44
|
|
|
NutShellBill posted:Moreso, there's at least a dozen ways for your character to continue adventuring after they bite the big one, be it prestige classes or templates. The book of Vile Darkness and the book of Exalted Deeds are especially bad for this. Not to mention Ghostwalk
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2007 10:18
|
|
|
Heh, Thats why I said core rules! I should have known better .... Either way, its Rich's world and he'll do what he wants with it. Thought I would personally find it rather cheesy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2007 12:17
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Strictly by D&D 3.5 Core rules, there's no rules given for how being dead differs from being alive. There are many, many mostly-joking arguments that characters can die, and then just keep on fighting, since nothing describes the ways in which being 'dead' hinders your actions. I'm gonna have to try that next time I've got a rules-lawyer GM. "The sharkwolf gets a critical hit on you. You're dead." "I stab the sharkwolf." "You can't. You're dead." "Yeah? Find me the bit in the rules saying so! I'm stabbing the sharkwolf!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2007 09:48
|
|
|
ZorbaTHut posted:I'm gonna have to try that next time I've got a rules-lawyer GM. Don't do this, any real rules-lawyer knows that the first thing you do with a sharp exploit like that is to just turn it around on the person. No one can really argue with consistency: "Ok, you stab the Sharkwolf, killing it. Now it attacks again" "What, but... oh poo poo" If the DM didn't punch you right in the face, you'd never make it through your next encounter. And if you somehow do (Just running away or trapping the zombie enemy, wait till he starts sending something with vorpal attacks. Sure, death might not stop yo, but how about limb loss...?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2007 16:09
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:Don't do this, any real rules-lawyer knows that the first thing you do with a sharp exploit like that is to just turn it around on the person. No one can really argue with consistency: Well, as long as we're being silly, there's nothing in the rules that says that losing a limb prevents you from using said limb. You'd just go all Vectorman on the Sharkwolf, and it would degrade into one of those fights we all had when we were young, and would play with imaginary guns. "I shot you!" "Nyuh uh! I have bulletproof skin!" "Well, the bullets I used go through bulletproof skin!" "Ok, but the bullet didn't kill me anyway!" "I shot you in the head! Six times!" "I'm a robot, we don't have brains in our heads, they're in our... *thinks on this, and giggles* butts!" "Oh yeah, well take this!" *Kid gets pistol whipped in the rear end, fight breaks out, and Xmas is ruined.* Sometimes you just gotta play dead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2007 19:26
|
|
|
NutShellBill posted:it would degrade into one of those fights we all had when we were young, and would play with imaginary guns. Incidentally, this is the best way of describing D&D I've found whenever somebody asks. I give that example, then say that you have actual rules to govern it so it doesn't descend into that. I've heard of other good examples from first edition rulebooks and the like, but I still prefer that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2007 19:35
|
|
|
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0516.html I dont know how to do the new strip is up hyperlink so :L-(
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2007 09:33
|
|
|
Aww, that poor shoeless wight.
If you write, I will make it better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2007 15:53
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2007 16:04
|
|
|
Sanford posted:Well, he's an idiot for trying to take off without Belkar. He SAID he rolled a natural 20 on his spot check after all, that's gotta be enough to stick with him. Every time I play D&D I always make sure to use the buddy system in those situations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2007 19:37
|
|
|
As the DM, I take particular glee in pointing out to my players that Nat 20's on skill checks do not equal an automatic success, unless pretty much everything else in the game. Though generally it means you've done well enough to succeed, unless you're spot checking against some twinked build that winds up with 72 Hide (seen it).
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2007 00:50
|
|
|
Am I alone in hoping that Belkar found Mr. Scruffy? I could see him keeping the cat to commemorate the funny old man who made fun of Roy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2007 01:08
|
|
|
Mortanis posted:As the DM, I take particular glee in pointing out to my players that Nat 20's on skill checks do not equal an automatic success, unless pretty much everything else in the game. Though generally it means you've done well enough to succeed, unless you're spot checking against some twinked build that winds up with 72 Hide (seen it). Every DM I have played with has treated natural 20's as automatic success. And natural 1's as automatic failure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2007 01:38
|
|
|
Arctic Baldwin posted:Every DM I have played with has treated natural 20's as automatic success. And natural 1's as automatic failure. That completely removes the fun of massively skill pumping your rogue until you can steal the teeth out of a dragon's mouth without him noticing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2007 01:42
|
|
|
goatface posted:That completely removes the fun of massively skill pumping your rogue until you can steal the teeth out of a dragon's mouth without him noticing. You can still do that; 90% of rolls are normal but sometimes you have incredible luck or misfortune.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2007 02:00
|
|
|
NutShellBill posted:Am I alone in hoping that Belkar found Mr. Scruffy? I could see him keeping the cat to commemorate the funny old man who made fun of Roy. No, I've been hoping for this team up since they first met. Then Belkar broke out the ball of wool 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2007 02:19
|
|
|
NutShellBill posted:Am I alone in hoping that Belkar found Mr. Scruffy? I could see him keeping the cat to commemorate the funny old man who made fun of Roy. Well, he is a Ranger. He could have picked up an animal companion many levels ago.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2007 04:01
|
|
|
Arctic Baldwin posted:Every DM I have played with has treated natural 20's as automatic success. And natural 1's as automatic failure. Just quoting the rules. I'm going to do something special for a Nat 20, skill check or not. But, to be fair, there's nothing so deflating to a player when you call for a spot check, and he rolls a 20 and gets excited. Then you calmly explain they see nothing. And the deflated look on their face is priceless. Then the dawning look of "Oh... crap" when the bad guy they failed to see with said 20 smacks them around.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2007 07:07
|
|
|
Mortanis posted:Just quoting the rules. I'm going to do something special for a Nat 20, skill check or not. But, to be fair, there's nothing so deflating to a player when you call for a spot check, and he rolls a 20 and gets excited. Then you calmly explain they see nothing. And the deflated look on their face is priceless. Then the dawning look of "Oh... crap" when the bad guy they failed to see with said 20 smacks them around. Who the hell does spot checks where the players can see them? That's why GM screens were invented.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2007 10:24
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Who the hell does spot checks where the players can see them? That's why GM screens were invented. That's something I've always considered doing if I was ever not lazy enough to GM. (never) The rogue sounds sincere about watching your possessions for a time. No you are not allowed to know how well you did on that sense motive check.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2007 10:29
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Who the hell does spot checks where the players can see them? That's why GM screens were invented. I roll openly. I don't fudge rolls, and it is such more satisfying to know a player has few hitpoints, and that Big Bad Evil Guy is going to smack then. Check their AC, and calmly explain, "If I roll a 16 or higher, you're dead." Everyone watches the rolls then. There is much cheering when the roll comes up in the player's favor, and a lot of mocking when it comes up in mine. I like suspense. What can I say.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2007 21:11
|
|
|
Mortanis posted:I roll openly. I don't fudge rolls, and it is such more satisfying to know a player has few hitpoints, and that Big Bad Evil Guy is going to smack then. Check their AC, and calmly explain, "If I roll a 16 or higher, you're dead." Everyone watches the rolls then. There is much cheering when the roll comes up in the player's favor, and a lot of mocking when it comes up in mine. "You rolled a 1. You DON'T see the Kobold Ambush directly in front of you."
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2007 02:40
|
|
|
Jonked posted:Sure. But you let them see their spot checks? bbut technically just because they failed a check doesn't mean they should react any differently  I hate that. "Roll a search check." "Five total." "The door's not trapped." "I wanna check again."
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2007 03:44
|
|
|
Kahrytes posted:bbut technically just because they failed a check doesn't mean they should react any differently That's why you just roll dice randomly behind the Cool DM Screen and say things like "Hmmm" and look worried or pleased. Players love that
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2007 08:39
|
|
|
New strip is up! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2007 14:16
|
|
|
big bip posted:That's why you just roll dice randomly behind the Cool DM Screen and say things like "Hmmm" and look worried or pleased. Players love that Man, I do this all the time. "Roll perception." "Five successes! What do I see?" "Well, the building's masonry is in pretty bad condition." "We're standing outside my apartment." "Yeah, you might want to ask the landlord to look at that." The worst part is that I would then write down "masonry crappy, make this cause problems in three sessions if he doesn't talk to the landlord" and I'd actually do it too. Whereas it wouldn't even have existed if I hadn't needed to invent something for his awesome perception roll. I'm kind of a dick sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2007 14:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:35 |
|
|
Sanford posted:Wow, he's been punching 'em out lately. I really hope the next strip's another one of those long Haley fight sequences.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2007 18:31
|
|
