Author Topic: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition  (Read 111669 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

McPoyo

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3783
    • Email
Re: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition
« Reply #720 on: September 27, 2010, 01:43:24 PM »
Q277: Unusually question here. Premise: I cast Awaken Construct on a 1 HD effigy, manifest True Mind Switch on it, and then play that as a character. My class HD erase pre-existing effigy HD, for all intensive purposes, via True Mind Switch, but does that mean if I later improve my effigy that those HD also wouldn't stack with my class HD? We are admittedly in murky waters here, because WotC really did there best to prevent playing a construct altogether, but nonetheless one can make interpretations from various sources. SRD references are best, but it is worth noting that I have a lenient DM, so a good argument is probably a successful argument.
Anger... rising...
The mad linguist strikes again! Ah, multidefinition words. Were would we be without you?

Don't take her too seriously, bearofsmiting.

It was more the "intensive purposes" instead of the correct "intents and purposes", I'd wager. It bothers the hell out of me when people do it, too.

I missed that on first reading.  Now the ex-English major in me is nerd-raging.  Good job.   :p



.... i dont get it
Ignore the bolded part. It is irrelevant. It's the fact that a sounds-similar-when-people-nearly-always-lazily-pronounces-it phrase that makes no sense at all was used instead of the proper one. Essentially we're just being elitest pricks.
[Spoiler]
A gygaxian dungeon is like the world's most messed up game show.

Behind door number one: INSTANT DEATH!
Behind door number 2: A magic crown!
Behind door number 3: 4d6 giant bees, and THREE HUNDRED POUNDS OF HONEY!
They don't/haven't, was the point. 3.5 is as dead as people not liking nice tits.

Sometimes, their tits (3.5) get enhancements (houserules), but that doesn't mean people don't like nice tits.

Though sometimes, the surgeon (DM) botches them pretty bad...
Best metaphor I have seen in a long time.  I give you much fu.
Three Errata for the Mage-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Barbarian-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Monks doomed to die,
One for the Wizard on his dark throne
In the Land of Charop where the Shadows lie.
[/spoiler]

snakeman830

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3494
  • BG's resident furry min/maxxer
Re: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition
« Reply #721 on: September 27, 2010, 01:51:30 PM »
Ongoing Supernatural abilities can also be dispelled
No they can't.
Quote
Supernatural abilities are magical and go away in an antimagic field but are not subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or to being dispelled by dispel magic.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#supernaturalAbilities
Which is interesting when you consider half of the monster Supernatural abilities say otherwise.
I am constantly amazed by how many DM's ban Tomb of Battle.  The book doesn't even exist!

Quotes:[spoiler]
By yes, she means no.
That explains so much about my life.
hiicantcomeupwithacharacterthatisntaghostwhyisthatamijustretardedorsomething
Why would you even do this? It hurts my eyes and looks like you ate your keyboard before suffering an attack of explosive diarrhea.
[/spoiler]

If using Genesis to hide your phylactry, set it at -300 degrees farenheit.  See how do-gooders fare with a liquid atmosphere.

betrayor

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 522
    • Email
Re: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition
« Reply #722 on: September 27, 2010, 01:53:04 PM »
Ongoing Supernatural abilities can also be dispelled
No they can't.
Quote
Supernatural abilities are magical and go away in an antimagic field but are not subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or to being dispelled by dispel magic.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#supernaturalAbilities
Which is interesting when you consider half of the monster Supernatural abilities say otherwise.

I suppose that the general rule is that the can not be dispelled except when it says otherwise(like in these monster supernatural abilities you mention....)

Arz

  • Domesticated Capuchin Monkey
  • **
  • Posts: 105
    • Email
Re: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition
« Reply #723 on: September 27, 2010, 02:43:13 PM »
Q281

snakeman830

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3494
  • BG's resident furry min/maxxer
Re: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition
« Reply #724 on: September 27, 2010, 02:49:50 PM »
Q281
It would still only be 3/day, as that limitation is built into the feat.
I am constantly amazed by how many DM's ban Tomb of Battle.  The book doesn't even exist!

Quotes:[spoiler]
By yes, she means no.
That explains so much about my life.
hiicantcomeupwithacharacterthatisntaghostwhyisthatamijustretardedorsomething
Why would you even do this? It hurts my eyes and looks like you ate your keyboard before suffering an attack of explosive diarrhea.
[/spoiler]

If using Genesis to hide your phylactry, set it at -300 degrees farenheit.  See how do-gooders fare with a liquid atmosphere.

jojolagger

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 951
Re: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition
« Reply #725 on: September 27, 2010, 02:54:27 PM »
It would still only be 3/day, as that limitation is built into the feat.
Actually 3 uses per transfer, 3 transfers per day. that's 9/day.
Countdown to Zombie Apocalypse 97
When you see this, copy it into your sig and -1
:lovefirefox
Quotes [spoiler]
In other words, he thinks there's a "correct" way to play D&D.  *sigh*
There is: Kill shit and loot the corpse!
When you use a tool the way it was designed for -- its intended function -- then it will work very well for you.

But it's not the tool's fault if you use it for something else and you fail utterly, such as trying to eat cereal with a butterknife, pounding nails with a screwdriver, blogging to voice your political opinions, and brushing your teeth with a hammer.
[/spoiler]

Chilastra022

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 74
Re: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition
« Reply #726 on: September 27, 2010, 04:00:34 PM »
Q282: Erudites - regarding their main class feature im curious if im interpreting it correctly.

It says: "If a character with erudite levels gains at least as many levels in another psionic class as he has in his erudite class, he permanently loses the ability to add additional powers (above and beyond the two gained at each new erudite level) to his repertoire of powers known."

Does this mean that as long as i have less levels in any single specific psionic class i belong to than my erudite levels ill retain that class feature? As in, retaining it if im say, erudite 11/thrallherd 10/metamind 10 as an example, since im 1 higher than the other classes would i retain it or lose it?

Edit: Another thing ive been curious about this feature is if PrCs that increase psionic class levels also influence it if the erudite is the one being improved by each level of the PrC?
« Last Edit: September 27, 2010, 04:08:30 PM by Chilastra022 »

PhaedrusXY

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8022
  • Advanced Spambot
Re: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition
« Reply #727 on: September 27, 2010, 04:02:33 PM »
It would still only be 3/day, as that limitation is built into the feat.
Actually 3 uses per transfer, 3 transfers per day. that's 9/day.
That's not the way I read it.
Ongoing Supernatural abilities can also be dispelled
No they can't.
Quote
Supernatural abilities are magical and go away in an antimagic field but are not subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or to being dispelled by dispel magic.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#supernaturalAbilities
Which is interesting when you consider half of the monster Supernatural abilities say otherwise.

It would be interesting if the D&D authors weren't retarded monkeys who do crap like this all the time.
[spoiler]
A couple of water benders, a dike, a flaming arrow, and a few barrels of blasting jelly?

Sounds like the makings of a gay porn film.
...thanks
[/spoiler]

McPoyo

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3783
    • Email
Re: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition
« Reply #728 on: September 27, 2010, 04:10:33 PM »
It would still only be 3/day, as that limitation is built into the feat.
Actually 3 uses per transfer, 3 transfers per day. that's 9/day.
That's not the way I read it.
Difference in wording. The first restriction is 3 uses of the metamorphic ability per day. The second is no more than 3 supernatural transfers per day. RaW, it's 3 uses of up to 3 separate assumptions of abilities.
[Spoiler]
A gygaxian dungeon is like the world's most messed up game show.

Behind door number one: INSTANT DEATH!
Behind door number 2: A magic crown!
Behind door number 3: 4d6 giant bees, and THREE HUNDRED POUNDS OF HONEY!
They don't/haven't, was the point. 3.5 is as dead as people not liking nice tits.

Sometimes, their tits (3.5) get enhancements (houserules), but that doesn't mean people don't like nice tits.

Though sometimes, the surgeon (DM) botches them pretty bad...
Best metaphor I have seen in a long time.  I give you much fu.
Three Errata for the Mage-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Barbarian-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Monks doomed to die,
One for the Wizard on his dark throne
In the Land of Charop where the Shadows lie.
[/spoiler]

BruceLeeroy

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 307
Re: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition
« Reply #729 on: September 27, 2010, 04:11:43 PM »
Q283 Do most people play with Quickened spells as swift actions, instead of free?

Rebel7284

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1585
Re: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition
« Reply #730 on: September 27, 2010, 04:14:17 PM »
Q283 Do most people play with Quickened spells as swift actions, instead of free?

Yes.  I believe it's even spelled out somewhere that they are swift actions.  Remember, core didn't actually have swift actions in the beginning.
Negative level on a chicken would make it a wight the next day.  Chicken the other wight meat. -borg286

BruceLeeroy

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 307
Re: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition
« Reply #731 on: September 27, 2010, 04:15:28 PM »
I noticed. However, I don't think I've ever read text supporting the retroactive change of Quickened spells to swift actions. If someone could point me to it, I'd appreciate it very much.

Nevermind. Goddamn Rules Compendium.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2010, 04:17:08 PM by BruceLeeroy »

Nanshork

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2146
  • BOO!
    • Email
Re: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition
« Reply #732 on: September 27, 2010, 04:17:09 PM »
I noticed. However, I don't think I've ever read text supporting the retroactive change of Quickened spells to swift actions. If someone could point me to it, I'd appreciate it very much.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#quickenSpell
My babies - A thread of random builds I've come up with over the years.
Notes to self

Maat_Mons

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1041
  • What is a smile but a grimace of happiness?
Re: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition
« Reply #733 on: September 27, 2010, 07:08:53 PM »
I noticed. However, I don't think I've ever read text supporting the retroactive change of Quickened spells to swift actions. If someone could point me to it, I'd appreciate it very much.

Nevermind. Goddamn Rules Compendium.

These books define swift actions and say that quickened spells are swift actions:
  • Complete Adventurer 137
  • Complete Arcane 86
  • Complete Champion 4
  • Complete Mage 4
  • Complete Psionic 4
  • Complete Scoundrel 92
  • Drow of the Underdark 5
  • Dungeon Master's Guide II 237
  • Exemplars of Evil 4
  • Magic of Incarnum 5
  • Player's Handbook II 4
  • Races of Destiny 161
  • Rules Compendium 7 and 125
  • Spell Compendium 4
  • Tome of Battle 44
  • Tome of Magic 5

These books define swift actions but don't say that quickened spells are swift actions:
  • Expanded Psionics Handbook 59
  • Magic Item Compendium 220
  • Miniatures Handbook 29
  • Monster Manual IV 219

There may be others. 

jojolagger

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 951
Re: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition
« Reply #734 on: September 27, 2010, 07:31:27 PM »
Is there a different Minimum CL formula for epic items? (non-epic magic weapons & armor limit bonus to 1/3 CL)
What is the Mimumum Cl Formula for stat boosting items? (cloak of CHA just lists 8 CL, but has 3 separate versions)
Countdown to Zombie Apocalypse 97
When you see this, copy it into your sig and -1
:lovefirefox
Quotes [spoiler]
In other words, he thinks there's a "correct" way to play D&D.  *sigh*
There is: Kill shit and loot the corpse!
When you use a tool the way it was designed for -- its intended function -- then it will work very well for you.

But it's not the tool's fault if you use it for something else and you fail utterly, such as trying to eat cereal with a butterknife, pounding nails with a screwdriver, blogging to voice your political opinions, and brushing your teeth with a hammer.
[/spoiler]

Sobolev

  • Donkey Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 742
Re: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition
« Reply #735 on: September 27, 2010, 07:47:57 PM »
Q285: Why do some people like Pathfinder more than 3.5?

This question isn't as rhetorical as it sounds, people I play with are getting more and more obsessed with Pathfinder and I don't understand why.
Sha'ir Handbook
Binder Handbook


Quote from: Negative Zero on November 04, 2009, 02:16:14 AM
In my humble opinion, CO is haberdashery. Some say we're mad, but we can all agree we're hatters. Yes, we have potential to make very sophisticated hats, very fancy hats, be they dark or light. But the truth is that the color of the hat does not come from the group of us - our community doesn't directly produce hats. We simply give average head circumferences, list current fashion trends, and point out some shiny, obscure baubles to add to the latest hat line.

McPoyo

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3783
    • Email
Re: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition
« Reply #736 on: September 27, 2010, 07:56:39 PM »
Fewer options is usually ciited bythe resident pf guy.
[Spoiler]
A gygaxian dungeon is like the world's most messed up game show.

Behind door number one: INSTANT DEATH!
Behind door number 2: A magic crown!
Behind door number 3: 4d6 giant bees, and THREE HUNDRED POUNDS OF HONEY!
They don't/haven't, was the point. 3.5 is as dead as people not liking nice tits.

Sometimes, their tits (3.5) get enhancements (houserules), but that doesn't mean people don't like nice tits.

Though sometimes, the surgeon (DM) botches them pretty bad...
Best metaphor I have seen in a long time.  I give you much fu.
Three Errata for the Mage-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Barbarian-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Monks doomed to die,
One for the Wizard on his dark throne
In the Land of Charop where the Shadows lie.
[/spoiler]

kevin_video

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4833
    • Email
Re: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition
« Reply #737 on: September 27, 2010, 08:01:53 PM »
Q285: Why do some people like Pathfinder more than 3.5?

This question isn't as rhetorical as it sounds, people I play with are getting more and more obsessed with Pathfinder and I don't understand why.
I like PF if only because it updated the core classes, and it gives you a chance to play them in a regular game, and feel like everyone's not overpowering you. A fighter is decent, but they're no Tier 1 class. Especially in 3.5, but don't feel like a Tier 5 class anymore either.
I reject your reality, and substitute my own.

When God gives you lemons... it's time to find a new God.

Like D&D Freakouts? Check out this 4th Ed one.

Benly

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 436
    • Email
Re: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition
« Reply #738 on: September 27, 2010, 08:17:08 PM »
Q285: Why do some people like Pathfinder more than 3.5?

This question isn't as rhetorical as it sounds, people I play with are getting more and more obsessed with Pathfinder and I don't understand why.

A285: In my case, it's because Pathfinder core + APG is better balanced than 3.5 at pretty much any level of sourcebook allowance and allows options about on par with D&D core + completes. The balance isn't perfectly fixed by a long shot, but in general classes are at least nudged in the right direction towards balance and the game balance starts to fall apart badly more around level 15 than the level 7 or so that 3.5's game balance falls apart.

Note that this does not apply if you're allowing unchecked 3.5 sourcebook access in addition to Pathfinder materials, because by necessity a lot of the balancing for casters came from nerfing some of their spells and letting in Spell Compendium pretty much undoes that entirely. I do think it's fine to work in older PrCs on a case-by-case basis, though.

Sobolev

  • Donkey Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 742
Re: Simple Q&A #17 -- the "your mama's so ___ ... " edition
« Reply #739 on: September 27, 2010, 08:26:35 PM »
Q285: Why do some people like Pathfinder more than 3.5?

This question isn't as rhetorical as it sounds, people I play with are getting more and more obsessed with Pathfinder and I don't understand why.

A285: In my case, it's because Pathfinder core + APG is better balanced than 3.5 at pretty much any level of sourcebook allowance and allows options about on par with D&D core + completes. The balance isn't perfectly fixed by a long shot, but in general classes are at least nudged in the right direction towards balance and the game balance starts to fall apart badly more around level 15 than the level 7 or so that 3.5's game balance falls apart.

Note that this does not apply if you're allowing unchecked 3.5 sourcebook access in addition to Pathfinder materials, because by necessity a lot of the balancing for casters came from nerfing some of their spells and letting in Spell Compendium pretty much undoes that entirely. I do think it's fine to work in older PrCs on a case-by-case basis, though.

This is what's always cited to me as well, but it seems like Fighters and Paladins went in the right direction, Druids got nerfed, Clerics got nerfed a little (mostly spells), Wizards went nowhere and Sorcerers got buffed.  lolwut?

Fighters and Paladins still hit people with sticks, and the other classes still cast spells.  I've been told that Oracles do a mean combat as well, embarassing fighters.

I'm in a Core PF game with a Fighter and some other people and I'm playing a Sorc and it seems just as dumb as it ever did (though I guess I can do a smaller number of foolish things).

They also nerfed combat manuevers (Improved Trip is now two feats now) and made terrible feats like Elephant Stomp. (While I'm sure 3.5 has a ton of bad feats and I can name several, it's more glaring when there are less feats since each one is effectively one option that isn't even actually an option)

I dunno, don't want to hijack the thread but just wanted to update with "That's what I've heard" and "I don't buy it."  I'd be willing to hear other ideas.
Sha'ir Handbook
Binder Handbook


Quote from: Negative Zero on November 04, 2009, 02:16:14 AM
In my humble opinion, CO is haberdashery. Some say we're mad, but we can all agree we're hatters. Yes, we have potential to make very sophisticated hats, very fancy hats, be they dark or light. But the truth is that the color of the hat does not come from the group of us - our community doesn't directly produce hats. We simply give average head circumferences, list current fashion trends, and point out some shiny, obscure baubles to add to the latest hat line.