|
Really Pants posted:It's old, and also a stupid way to completely negate the Rakshasa's supposed strength against casters, so I figured even money it'd make it into 5e. It made it into Kolchak.
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 15:06 |
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:The thing is "this monster kills you in one roll if it rolls high" isn't scary. It's shocking. There's no tension. And it leads to not giving a poo poo about your character because they'll just die in one roll anyways. Well you do get at least two chances to avoid the effect here. You have to fail the save and it has to roll high enough on a 3d6 to exceed your Int score. OneThousandMonkeys posted:Are we still treating MonsterEnvy like he isn't a gimmick poster while we patiently wait for this thread to become exactly like the Imp Zone thread? Don't be an rear end in a top hat. Just go back to the Imp Zone thread if you are just going to say stuff like this. Really Pants posted:It's old, and also a stupid way to completely negate the Rakshasa's supposed strength against casters, so I figured even money it'd make it into 5e. It was in the playtest but they removed because too many people knew about it and were instakilling them with it. Rakshasa's don't appear to have a weakness anymore. Hell their curse is worse for Casters then any other class. If they hit with a claw attack, the target is cursed no save and until a remove curse spell or something like it is cast on them. They can't benefit from a short or long rest. While this is bad for all classes it is worse for casters. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Sep 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:You would, however, want to avoid a situation where the players spend 99% of the campaign thinking that the villain is a boring cliche and only find out that it was secretly interesting at the very end. It would work, though, if the PCs know what was up, are in on the secret that this is what the bad guy had done before and is trying to do to them now. Let them have the fun of acting out being cliched heroes in order to receive the benefit of a supervillain training them, simultaneously plotting how to actually take it down once they're powerful enough, limiting the damage he does in setting up paper challenges for them to defeat, and hiding that they know it doesn't actually want to kill them. Well then. Since the All-Devourer is a multitude upon multitude of different personas... Have your players believe there isn't just a single big bad guy. Have them be confronted with a 'cabal' of bad guys. Each encounter faces them with a different facet of the All-Devourer. Say for example the facets will all proclaim to be high priests and leaders of a Cult. The first of few clues to tip them off would be that they only ever appear one at a time. Rigged Death Trap fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Sep 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Well you do get at least two chances to avoid the effect here. You have to fail the save and it has to roll high enough on a 3d6 to exceed your Int score. The range on its ability is short and its best targets are low-Int, poor Int save creatures which leaves... martial player characters. Using the standard array with a Fighter, Barbarian, etc. the best their Int will be is 10, if not their dump stat, giving them exactly +0 to the roll, or worse a -1. Already they have to roll a 12-13 on a d20 to not get nailed with it. The average of 3d6 is around 10.5. So on average, they will fail the save, and it will on average completely drop them to Int 0. Recovery from this, as mentioned earlier in the thread, requires a 9th level spell. Not to be overly antagonistic, but please, do the math and think before you post. edit: I ignored the damage on it. If you throw this at a party of level 2-3 players that is easily half OR MORE of their health AND THEN a guaranteed instant death. Strength of Many fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Sep 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
Strength of Many posted:The range on its ability is short and its best targets are low-Int, poor Int save creatures which leaves... martial player characters. The die roll is finicky and no one knows what the score will be. Added on the fact that they have two chances still makes it more likely for them to not fail then it being a one shot. Also no class other then the Wizard uses Int as it's primary stat so the melee characters could be smarter then the casters in the group if they don't have a Wizard and are using a sorcerer or something, My Fighter in my last game had 12 int. It is all preference there. Also Recovery from this does not require a 9th level spell. It requires a 5th level spell Greater Restoration. Wish can do it as well, but that is kind of a waste. You must have mistook that the party needs a 9th level cleric or Bard, for needing a 9th level spell. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Sep 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
Every MonsterEnvy post: "The system isn't 100% broken. It's only 90% broken"
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Say for example the facets will all proclaim to be high priests and leaders of a Cult. Sure, you could certainly reveal it over time instead of right at the beginning. There'd be plenty of interesting ways to use the core of the idea. My point is that you don't want to literally make it so that "the only difference is this time it actually makes sense."
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:What is your problem with the new save system. It's poo poo. Specifically, it's poo poo that builds on three of the absolute worst ideas that 3e came up with. 3e collapsed 2e's save system and unified it into a series of Good and Poor saves that scaled based on your class. Good: 2 + 1/2 level + ability score modifier + misc bonuses Poor: 1/3 level + ability score modifier + misc bonuses So a fighter would have a Good Fortitude save, but Poor Reflex and Will saves, while a Rogue would have a Good Reflex save but Poor Fortitude and Will saves, and a Wizard would have a good Will but Poor Fortitude and Reflex saves. These were then modified by your ability scores and miscellaneous bonuses from things such as cloaks of resistance. Meanwhile, your 1d20 + save bonus is compared to the DC of the thing you're trying not to get screwed over by. The DC formula is common throughout 3e. DC= 10 + 1/2 level (or HD) + ability score modifier + misc bonuses In the case of spells it becomes: DC = 10 + Spell level + ability score modifier + misc bonuses (Note that most casters receive a new spell level every other level, making it roughly approximate to the 1/2 level from before, though your lower level spells will have lower DCs) At this point you might think "well, that's not too bad, your Good saves will keep pace with the DCs and allow you to save against something on a roll of 10 or higher, while Poor saves just mean that you have a weakness." Unfortunately, this isn't really the case. Just for starters, you might have noticed that the saves scale at different rates, which means that the gap will grow with level. There's a 2 point difference between your Good saves and your Poor saves at level 1, which grows to a 6 point difference at level 20, which means that all other things being equal if you're up against the same DC you're 30% more likely to fail if they target your Poor saves at level 20. The other major problem is that all other things will never be equal. Both point buy and random rolling mean that your character's ability scores are likely to be spread out with a few good ability scores and then some not-so-good ones. Obviously, you will put your good numbers into ability scores that are most relevant to the character you feel like playing. Ability scores can be bolstered as you level and with magic items, but you can't boost all your ability scores at the same time so you need to make some decisions- which usually amounts to "do what you did before better" because investing resources to make the good into the awesome is much more fun than sinking resources into something so you can become staggeringly mediocre. Games where all the player characters have high stats and stat boosters are somewhat frowned upon as giving the players too much for some weird reason. It's a compounding problem where your class has a Poor save because that's not really part of your character concept and then you don't boost the ability score tied to that save because it also doesn't fit your concept and you'd rather be doing what your character does best. So while you might have a gap of 2 to 4 points between your best and worst saves at 1st level, it's incredibly common to find characters a gap of 10 or more points between their best and worst saves at high levels (the Tarrasque has an 18 point gap between its best and worst saves because it's a big beefy monster with a Good Fortitude and high Constitution that also combines a Poor Will save with next to Wisdom). This means that a DC designed to challenge those who are good at that area and require a 10 or higher is one that will effortlessly stomp someone who is lacking in that area (Pathfinder has this problem). As you level, you will fail saves. Even 4e had this problem despite not having two different scaling rates for your saves/defenses and allowing you to choose between two different ability scores for them- you simply didn't have enough points to boost all three as you leveled and thus you'd have a gap widen in your defenses. You might shrug your shoulders and say "of course you're going to fail some saves, why would you want a game where nothing can hurt you?" but that's one of those things that severely under estimates just how much this game ramps up as you level. Failing a save at lower levels can leave you with some damage or a penalty to your attacks or something, basically leaving you inconvenienced but still capable of taking steps to fix poo poo. Failing a save at higher levels takes your character out of the game by leaving you paralyzed, petrified, mind-controlled, banished to another plane, dead or worse (such as having your soul destroyed to prevent resurrection). One slip-up and you are done... but it's basically a slip-up that's going to happen somewhere as you level just because there are too many vectors of attack and your resources are too limited to cover all of them at the same time. 5e looks at this problem and says "you know what? I can make this even worse." Instead of three different saves you have to dedicate resources to covering you now have six. But all saves are not created equal. Constitution, Dexterity and Wisdom saves have are used as the default shorthand for Fortidue, Reflex and Will saves from 3e and thus make up the vast bulk of the saves you will have to make. But Strength, Intelligence and Charisma saves still exist, even if you only encounter them a handful of times. The math for Next is pretty simple. Save: 1d20 + ability score mod + proficiency bonus (if proficient) + misc bonuses (which are rare) DC= 8 + proficiency bonus + ability score mod + misc bonuses (also rare) Major warning bell: Proficiency bonuses are always added to the DC, but only occasionally added to your save bonus. The tide will always go up, but there's no guarantee that your saves will. All classes start out proficient in only two saves- one of the big three (Con/Dex/Wis) and one of the secondary three (Str/Int/Cha). One of those six saves is usually linked to your primary ability score which you use for murdering dudes and thus is probably a good save for you, but that's not a whole lot of help if you're a Dexterity-based fighter with Strength and Constitution proficiency for save bonuses. Your ability scores cap at 20 for a +5 bonus and your proficiency bonus caps at +6, which means that at your best at level 20 you're looking at a +11 before miscellaneous bonuses are added on, but at worst you're looking at +0 or worse if you've got a negative modifier because you probably have one or four of your six saves that haven't changed at all since level 1. You start as nonproficient in four saves and that doesn't easily change with level. Aside from a few class features that grant proficiency such as the monk's Diamond Soul at level 14 or the rogue's Slippery Mind at level 15 (requiring you to go through most of the game without them), the only way to gain proficiency is through the Resilient feat. Unfortunately, feat slots are kind of limited since they're dependent on class and you choose them instead of boosting your ability scores by either +2 to one ability or +1 to two ability scores. Resilient does offer +1 to the respective ability score, but even if you take it four times you won't have too many other feat/ability slots level for anything else, making it a rather expensive method of protecting yourself. Of course even if you're proficient in all saves that just means you're treading water with the scaling proficiency bonuses of your enemies, and still doesn't mean that you have the ability scores necessary to tilt things in your favor thanks to the fact that both rolling and point buy tend to leave you with a spread of scores and you only have a limited number of ability score improvement slots that vary based on class and can be lost through multiclassing if you spread yourself too thin (no class gets an Ability Score Improvement before level 4, and it can vary from 5 improvements to 7 if you're a fighter). Of course, spending your ability score improvements on improving your ability scores or the Resilient feat to improve your saves so you don't get your poo poo pushed in as you level means you're not spending them on feats that allow you to actually modify your character in interesting ways. 3e at least had the fall-back of slathering your character with spells and magic items to cover up your weaknesses on the save front, but with 5e they wanted to reign that in. Most buff spells now require concentration to prevent them from being stacked (though a party with multiple casters each using a different buff can work somewhat), and there's been a big change to the magic item system. At the tail end of the Basic DM Rules comes the rules for magic items, and they've introduced the idea of Attunement wherein certain items require you to spend an hour bonding with them before you can use them, and you can only be attuned to up to 3 items at a time. Notably among those are the items which you can use to either patch up your weak ability scores (such as gauntlets of ogre strength) or boost your saving throws (such as rings of protection), so even if you can actually find those items you're going to be making some hard decisions. They wanted flatter math, which meant that they made it harder to increase numbers by all that much (but then they gave the paladin the ability to add your charisma modifier to any saving throw made by you or an ally within 10 ft while you were conscious, which makes your poor saves acceptable and your good saves incredible  ). Flatter math means that low-level monsters can challenge high level heroes, which is especially true in the case of monsters like the Intellect Devourer. Its Devour Intellect ability is dangerous to a 2nd level fighter with a middling Intelligence and no proficiency in Intelligence saves, and it's just as dangerous to the 20th level fighter who spent those Ability Score Improvements on esoteric concepts such as "fighting". True, the fighter may be able to kill it with one sword swing at level 20, but at level 20 the DM can also justify throwing a dozen or more of those things at the party. That's a lot of rolls you have to make to not get your brain eaten. Any damage it does is paltry when compared to the ability to take a character out of the fight until someone with Greater Restoration and 100 gp worth of diamond dust wants to spend a turn bringing them back in.As you level the game will come up with more and more angles to attack from, and you will not have enough resources to defend against all of them. You don't just have to deal with high level threats, but any low-level threat you couldn't really handle as well. Save-or-lose effects are still in out in full force, only they've been paired with the fact that you have even more ground to cover. Attacks are stronger than defense because attacks always use proficiency bonuses and saves only sometimes use it, so it's all about finding the right angle to strike from. On the flip side, many of the monsters have no save proficiencies at all, relying solely on their ability scores (which can run across a wide array and into the negative modifiers) for saves. Unfortunately, the ability to pick and choose which weak save to target is solely the domain of casters, who can prepare a wide array of spells to cast from without having to worry about preparing the exact number of spells thanks to the new preparation system- noncasters have one gimmick and hope that they don't run into anyone who has a strong showing in that area. Plus, it's a lot easier for a caster to target nonstandard saves such as Intelligence than a noncaster- while a fighter may be able to force a target to make nonstandard Strength saves to trip targets, Strength is often a high ability score on things that want to fight fighters and being tripped isn't a terrible thing if you're already in melee. Meanwhile, a caster can force a target to make an Intelligence save through Feeblemind, which will completely shut down a target's ability to think, use items and cast spells (meaning it's good against a cleric who has neither proficiency nor a strong need for Intelligence). There are plenty of options already and as long as the treadmill keeps running there will be plenty more, meaning it's only a matter of time before you find the spell you need to completely ruin your foe's day by targeting the right crappy save. And thanks to the new system, every spell DC is your best spell DC, so there's always reason to fire off lower level slots if they can shut down an opponent hard enough. It's a terrible system they lifted from 3e, and they honestly should have learned better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
Boing posted:Every MonsterEnvy post: "The system isn't 100% broken. It's only 90% broken" Yeah I'm not replying to him again. I've ignored most of his posts but that last one made me feel prickly. So anyway, how about them Bone Devils? Last I heard talk of them it was people complaining about monsters having weapons players could :gasp: loot and use against them!
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
Nihilarian posted:What, really? I want to see this. Word of Gygax from the 1E MM: "Rakshasas cannot be harmed by non-magical weapons, magical weapons below +3 do one-half damage, but hits by crossbow bolts blessed by a cleric will kill them." They're also flat-out immune to any spell under 8th level, so they're not just "gently caress melee" monsters. Of course, this was 1E, when crossbows were so poo poo no one ever used one.... The 1E rakshasa art is one of Trampier's cooler pieces though. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:The die roll is finicky and no one knows what the score will be... Don't worry guys, you can't fairly accurately predict these things with a formula, you'll be fine
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Also Recovery from this does not require a 9th level spell. It requires a 5th level spell Greater Restoration. Wish can do it as well, but that is kind of a waste. You must have mistook that the party needs a 9th level cleric or Bard, for needing a 9th level spell.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Rakshasa's Immune to all Wizards spells below 7th level. They're also immune to all nonmagical weapons, and vulnerable to piercing magic weapons wielded by good characters [!?!?!?] They also curse you (on hit, no save) with the inability to gain any benefit from resting until you recieve a remove curse spell, which is a hilarious gently caress you all around - if your cleric didn't prepare remove curse, welp. http://imgur.com/xGtvjH2 [whoops, already covered]
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
If the Intellect Devourer's most likely means of incapacitating you is through the damage from its intellect devouring power, and that power will probably also drain your Int to zero by the time it knocks you out (especially if you're a fighter-type), isn't the Int contest kind of meaningless there? If it's drained your Int down to zero, it's impossible for you to beat it when it tries to use Body Thief.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
That's probably what they were going for
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
Boing posted:Every MonsterEnvy post: "The system isn't 100% broken. It's only 90% broken" I have already mentioned that it is not flawless. But it is not broken you are misusing the word and being far too harsh on something that does not deserve it. My main problem here is that your over blowing the problems it has. The last several posts I made before this were not even defending the system just pointing stuff out and correcting things. dwarf74 posted:Greater Restoration does not bring your brain back. Nope you die when that happens. But they can always raise you after and that brings back the brain. But it takes another round for them to get in and control the body anyway which is the thing that destroys the brain. Long enough that another character could kill the thing. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 01:42 on Sep 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I have already mentioned that it is not flawless. But it is not broken you are misusing the word and being far too harsh on something that does not deserve it. My main problem here is that your over blowing the problems it has. No, you are continuously understating the problems the game has, and you do it by MonsterEnvy posted:The last several posts I made before this were not even defending the system just pointing stuff out and correcting things. No, they were you telling us that you "can't tell" what a die roll will be, that your fighter had 12 INT so it's fine, and then MonsterEnvy posted:Also Recovery from this does not require a 9th level spell. It requires a 5th level spell Greater Restoration. Wish can do it as well, but that is kind of a waste. You must have mistook that the party needs a 9th level cleric or Bard, for needing a 9th level spell. dwarf74 posted:Greater Restoration does not bring your brain back. MonsterEnvy posted:Nope you die when that happens. But they can always raise you after and that brings back the brain. But it takes another round for them to get in and control the body anyway which is the thing that destroys the brain. Long enough that another character could kill the thing. Oh look, you were dead wrong about Greater Restoration. But what you really meant was something you didn't initially say, so everyone else is wrong. e: Oh you lying motherfucker. MonsterEnvy posted:Nope you die when that happens. But they can always raise you after and that brings back the brain. Raise Dead spell, page 99 player's PDF posted:...If the creature is lacking body parts or organs integral for its survival—its head, for instance—the spell automatically fails. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Sep 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Nope you die when that happens. But they can always raise you after and that brings back the brain. But it takes another round for them to get in and control the body anyway which is the thing that destroys the brain. Long enough that another character could kill the thing. First of all, I see nothing indicating that you get your brain back after being resurrected. It DOES clearly state that you need to use a Wish spell as the end-all-be-all to restore it. Second of all, where the gently caress are player characters of the level CR2 is expected to challenge, going to get Raise Dead from? Especially with how the setting conceit is written about actual Clerics with actual Divine Magic being rare and not on call for just any schmuck adventurer to bring them back. Ha ha I'm like a stupid animal that doesn't know when to quit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:being far too harsh on something that does not deserve it. Why do you think this? Seriously, I want an answer to why you think this edition of DnD, the FIFTH iteration of a game that is being released into an ocean of alternative systems and is meant to co-exist along other editions of itself that actually perform better, does not deserve to be utterly torn apart? Especially when the core set of books cost some odd $150 (MSRP; I don't give a poo poo about how much you can get it for from a third party website.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:The thing is "this monster kills you in one roll if it rolls high" isn't scary. It's shocking. There's no tension. And it leads to not giving a poo poo about your character because they'll just die in one roll anyways.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
I just realized that when I see a bullshit Next fuckup, my first thought is to check 2e to see how it's supposed to work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
moths posted:I just realized that when I see a bullshit Next fuckup, my first thought is to check 2e to see how it's supposed to work. poo poo, I've been checking AD&D. 2nd ed is probably closer though, and I've got way more stuff for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
The last few posts have mostly been "posting about posting," so how about we change gears to something a bit more palatable? Since the DMG stupidly won't be out until much later, what are people doing for Magical / Wondrous items? I've made up almost two dozen loot cards for my players ranging in usefulness from "a decanter of endless boiling water" to "a greatsword that deals an extra 1d6 damage to draconic foes and gives you a 1/day 'legendary save' power." My players are enjoying the odd items I've cooked up, so what, if anything, have other people come up with?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
So am I having difficulty understanding Pact of the Blade or is it just really poorly described in the PHB? You choose that pact and you get a weapon that just poofs into your hand at will as an action, and later you can improve it with real weapons? As a character with no other apparent synergies for attacking things, this seems real dumb. I guess you can use up a level 5 invocation to be a kind of lovely version of an Eldritch Knight? I kinda think there's cool flavor space for Pact of the Blade, but it seems to do nothing for the character's kit. Am I missing something? EDIT: Asking, because my friend wants to start a 5e campaign (gods help us,) and I'm still trying to decide what to play.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
I've always been a fan of weird non-combat magic items. So have my group. I'm not sure Next supports that sort of thing, but the existing rules don't do anything to prevent it either. Maybe it's more suited to the AD&D or 2e play style, but my group always preferred stuff like this (and I'm just making these up or semi-remembering them) to swords +2: Magic glasses that let you see really far, or in the dark, or whatever. Bags of holding and similar stuff, which might already have a small amount of other weird crap in them. A flask that continually yells insults when opened. The insults are heard by every creature in its own native language. A shovel that lets you dig a superhuman amount of trenches or holes or whatever. Flying carpets, tiny figurines that turn into horses, boats or carts that fold up into something no bigger than a handkerchief, etc. A rope that you can command to climb up walls and magically secure itself. A magic coin bag. Every day it replenishes with a random minor amount of coinage, but you can never completely empty it or it stops working. Basically, stuff that does magical things beyond "cast this spell X/day". Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Sep 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Also I don't get why so many of you have issues with monsters actually being deadly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
moths posted:I just realized that when I see a bullshit Next fuckup, my first thought is to check 2e to see how it's supposed to work. In 1e through 3e the Intellect Devourer has special forms of energy resistance that vary between editions, so martial characters aren't necessarily the only ones who get arbitrarily hosed over against it, and it specifically detects and stalks psionic characters using its various stealth abilities so it can ambush them while they're alone. The 1e version in particular is written up to come across as specifically a monster that acts as a counterbalance for psionic characters, which is kind of a good thing considering how randomly overpowered psionic wild talents could be in both editions of AD&D. In 2e it's valued at 6000 XP and in 3.0e/3.5e it's CR 6, versus the ridiculous CR of 2 and 250 XP reward that are given for it in 5e. And in 4e the adult versions are paragon-level threats (even the squishy larval form is level 7); one of the adult versions has the body thief power, which of course doesn't kill the host outright, and the other adult version has different powers that variously let it dominate a living creature or animate and dominate an already-dead corpse instead of bodily burrowing into the victim's brain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
Raise Dead spell, page 99 player's PDF posted:
Wouldn't this rule make raise dead fail like 70% of the time, because if you die in combat it usually means you missing some integral for survival, like if your a vindictive DM you could easily interpret that as one stab to the heart or stomach and you can't rez the guy anymore. Heck if you get liberal with the interpretation of of the word organ you could say that someone who had there throat ripped out couldn't be brought back.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
Vorpal Cat posted:Wouldn't this rule make raise dead fail like 70% of the time, because if you die in combat it usually means you missing some integral for survival, like if your a vindictive DM you could easily interpret that as one stab to the heart or stomach and you can't rez the guy anymore. Heck if you get liberal with the interpretation of of the word organ you could say that someone who had there throat ripped out couldn't be brought back. No. Hit points are vague that way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I've always been a fan of weird non-combat magic items. So have my group. I'm not sure Next supports that sort of thing, but the existing rules don't do anything to prevent it either. Hah those are all pretty cool. I also have a lantern that eats light before deploying a magical sphere of pure darkness, a ring that generates an antimagic field if enough spells are cast near it, and a ring that allows the user to see up to 100ft away when looking through its tiny loop. A coat that randomly contains a spell component in one of it's 20 pockets A club that emits light in a 60ft cone when held up A headpiece that allows the wearer to see eldritch horrors. A pair of boots that allow the wearer to stomp really hard, causing a 20ft tall pillar of stone to spring from the floor
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
Vorpal Cat posted:Wouldn't this rule make raise dead fail like 70% of the time, because if you die in combat it usually means you missing some integral for survival, like if your a vindictive DM you could easily interpret that as one stab to the heart or stomach and you can't rez the guy anymore. Heck if you get liberal with the interpretation of of the word organ you could say that someone who had there throat ripped out couldn't be brought back. I don't think that's realistic, given the wording. I'll quote the full spell text to demonstrate what I'm talking about. quote:You return a dead creature you touch to life, provided that it has been dead no longer than 10 days. If the creature’s soul is both willing and at liberty to rejoin the body, the creature returns to life with 1 hit point. The bolded part is what's relevant. It closes mortal wounds. It explicitly doesn't replace missing body parts. If a vital organ is missing, it doesn't replace it and the spell fails. If you've just been stabbed in the brain, I'd guess that's what "closes mortal wounds" is for. If your brain has been eaten (or your heart has been ripped out and fed to the owlbears, or your lungs have been teleported into a volcano), it's missing and the spell fails. I mean, sure, a vindictive DM could rule that you've lost a chunk of artery when you died and so the spell fails, but saying "the DM will intentionally gently caress it up" is as pointless as saying "the DM will undoubtedly fix it". Glukeose posted:Hah those are all pretty cool. I can't take credit for them, I'm pretty sure that something very much like every single one of those things is in the AD&D and 2e DMG. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Sep 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Vorpal Cat posted:Wouldn't this rule make raise dead fail like 70% of the time, because if you die in combat it usually means you missing some integral for survival, like if your a vindictive DM you could easily interpret that as one stab to the heart or stomach and you can't rez the guy anymore. Heck if you get liberal with the interpretation of of the word organ you could say that someone who had there throat ripped out couldn't be brought back. This is just reminding me of that dude on ENWorld who said it was literally impossible to lose limbs in D&D because there were no rules for it (since rules are physics), and that any DM that introduced an NPC with any missing body part at all was breaking verisimilitude because "missing limbs don't exist in setting".
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I've always been a fan of weird non-combat magic items. So have my group. I'm not sure Next supports that sort of thing, but the existing rules don't do anything to prevent it either. All of those are cool and would fit in any fantasy RPG - they don't explicitly use any mechanics, so the rules don't need to support them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
Mr Beens posted:All of those are cool and would fit in any fantasy RPG - they don't explicitly use any mechanics, so the rules don't need to support them. Well yeah. That's what I've always liked though. "Sword +1, +3 against the Lizard People of Skull Mountain" has always struck me as a bit boring. My group in the early 90s would literally have preferred to get a spoon that turns water into stew than to get another slightly better longsword. e: This is probably way more related to the sandboxy hex/dungeon crawl playstyle where "can't starve" is at least as important as "slightly better at killing" than it is to anything intrinsic to that kind of item. e2: And that's what I meant by "Next's rules don't support or prevent these things". Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 03:53 on Sep 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:This is just reminding me of that dude on ENWorld who said it was literally impossible to lose limbs in D&D because there were no rules for it (since rules are physics), and that any DM that introduced an NPC with any missing body part at all was breaking verisimilitude because "missing limbs don't exist in setting". At least I can sleep safely knowing that this isn't the case in Pathfinder.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I don't think that's realistic, given the wording. I'll quote the full spell text to demonstrate what I'm talking about. Well then couldn't you rez someone who died to brain eating if you put the stomach of the Intellect Devourer into the corpse's skull? That way the brain isn't missing, its just chewed up and partially digested
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
Vorpal Cat posted:Well then couldn't you rez someone who died to brain eating if you put the stomach of the Intellect Devourer into the corpse's skull? That way the brain isn't missing, its just chewed up and partially digested Yes, but not if it's done by an Intellect Devourer, because quote:If it wins the contest, the intellect devourer magically consumes the target’s brain, teleports into the target’s skull, and takes control of the target’s body. Your brain is magically gone, replaced by the creature itself, which is the size of a brain and is now physically in your skull. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 03:59 on Sep 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Yes, but not if it's done by an Intellect Devourer, because Well I suppose that depend on if you interpret magically consumed as magically vanished, or as literally magically consumed as in the Devourer ate the brain without need to use it mouth but the remains of the brain are still physically inside it. edit: yes I know the creatures not big enough to realistically fit a brain inside it and still fit inside the skull of the victim, but then again where dealing with a creature that can teleport and magically eat brains I don't think the amount it should realistically be able to fit in its stomach has any bearing on what it does. Vorpal Cat fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Sep 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
moths posted:Is there enough core system to actually support those promised modules? The combat module would essentially be a new game, and "freeform story game" kinda needs to be that way from the start.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 15:06 |
|
|
Vorpal Cat posted:Well I suppose that depend on if you interpret magically consumed as magically vanished, or as literally magically consumed as in the Devourer ate the brain without need to use it mouth but the remains of the brain are still physically inside it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 04:14
|
|
