|
Crosscontaminant posted:I never understood why this was banworthy, frankly. You're only allowed three or four of them in your deck (I forget which) so your chances of drawing it are never very high. In a game with a lot of weird rules, here's possibly the oddest:  Pretty straightforward effect, right? A lot of effects, particularly summoning strong monsters, require you to sacrifice a monster you already have in play to use. So you should be able to sacrifice this guy to summon a monster and draw a card, right? Wrong. That's how it would work if the effect said "You draw a card." But instead it says "You may draw a card." If you were required to draw a card, you'd draw it, but because the card makes it optional, you're actually not allowed to - because of the way the timing rules work, if you sacrifice it as part of a cost, you don't get a chance to make the choice to draw a card, so you just never get to draw one. The effect being optional instead of mandatory makes the effect unusable. The rule is called "Missing the Timing" and is not implied anywhere by any card text.
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2013 02:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 00:53 |
|
|
SystemLogoff posted:So, Yugioh is not quite like Magic, there are very few cards that tell a narrative. So, you often see sets of cards with a theme or that do something. However, quite a few Yugioh cards can have fun interactions when stacked. So, I'm going to post a theme of equip cards* This set as a whole is another fine example of weird rules, since the mechanics seem designed to actively prevent the intended theme from working. The very loose "story" is that there's a set of monsters called Guardians, and each is associated to one of these Equip card weapons, to the point where they can't even fight without them. I don't remember the details, but I definitely remember seeing them in the show as a kid, and each monster fought with its weapon and needed its weapon to fight. In the game, this is represented by giving each Guardian monster a clause saying that it can't be summoned unless its associated Equip card is already in play. So if Gravity Axe - Grarl isn't in play, Guardian Grarl can't be summoned. Here's the problem: Equip cards in Yu-Gi-Oh aren't like Equipment cards in Magic: the Gathering. They're like Aura cards. When they come into play, you must immediately attach them to a monster on the field. Once they're attached to a monster, you can't move them to attach them to another monster, and if the monster they're attached to stops existing, they're destroyed. So if you want to summon Guardian Grarl, you first need to summon a different monster and equip that other monster with Gravity Axe - Grarl. Then, you can summon Guardian Grarl. But now Gravity Axe - Grarl is already in play and attached to a different monster, and there's no real way to attach it to Guardian Grarl instead. The only way to summon the Guardian monsters is to have already given their weapons away so they can't use them. The intended flavor is "These monsters can only fight with their weapons," but the mechanical effect is "These monsters cannot fight with their weapons."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Because "Cannot attack or defend (or whatever the Yugioh equivalent) without X equipped" would have just been too hard. "Cannot defend" is actually another dysfunctional Yugioh mechanic. Combat in Yugioh is very different from combat in Magic; specifically, it puts a lot more power in the hands of the attacker. The attacker attacks with one monster at a time, and when a monster attacks, the attacker chooses which monster it's attacking. It can only attack the opponent directly if the opponent has no monsters. There are several effects that make a monster unable to be targeted by attacks. If every monster you control is unable to be targeted by attacks, can your opponent attack you directly? The answer is... maybe. It depends on exactly which attack-proof monsters you have.   "...your opponent cannot select it [this card] as an attack target" and "Your opponent cannot select this card as an attack target" don't mean the same thing. If your opponent's only remaining monster is Legendary Fisherman (with Umi in play), then you're allowed to attack directly - but if the only remaining monster is Ccapac Apu, you're not. The card text is identical, but the effects are completely different, and there's no way to know that without memorizing arbitrary rulings. Yugioh is full of things like that. "This card cannot be Special Summoned except by [method]" and "This card can only be Special Summoned by [method]" are two completely different conditions with two completely different sets of rules.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Unless I am badly misunderstanding the execution rules, doesn't the player have a chance of coming back as a cylon? Only in the revised rules from Exodus (which created the new problem of degenerate 4 humans versus 1 cylon games). In Pegasus, any human who dies comes back as a guaranteed human. At least the Airlock is expensive to use if Treachery hasn't been handed out. What's particularly annoying is that a lot of crisis cards present the humans with a choice: suffer some major loss of resources or execute someone. Which, since execution is good for the humans, isn't a choice at all.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2013 12:22
|
|
|
e: nevermind also then. An actual weird rule: Exodus introduced Personal Goals, which were private agendas humans needed to complete in order to avoid losing resources. Depending on who happened to be dealt which Personal Goal, you could end up with some bizarre combinations; for example, nothing stops the President from receiving the "Brig the President" goal.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2013 13:16
|
|
|
I think there are enough legitimate funny rules interactions out there that we don't need to resort to this "drowns habitually" type of bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:It uses a reroll to accomplish what you could accomplish with a simple +1, and it values X% of offense at the same weight of X% of defense (when you almost always want the former instead of the latter) Neither of these is true, though? Rerolling 2's is weaker than getting a +1. A +1 means that a certain number that would miss instead hits, but rerolling 2's means that a certain number that would miss instead has a chance of hitting. So it's a smaller effect than a +1 (how much smaller depends on how often you hit; if you usually hit, it might be +3/4, but if you usually miss, it might be +1/4). This also means that the defensive bonus is bigger than the offensive bonus, so they're not being valued at the same weight. It's not very elegant in a vacuum, but it's a lot more elegant than the 3.x trainwreck.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2014 10:04
|
|
|
Caros posted:So assuming you can get past the 1 Minute/level issue of Instant Enemy, what about awaken? This method obviously doesn't work with Awaken, but Instant Enemy can target yourself, so a Ranger/Alchemist could use it to permanently alter themselves with Eternal Potion. Lottery of Babylon fucked around with this message at 06:46 on May 14, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 14, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
I'm not sure what says more about Pathfinder: that "trade one level of wizard for eleven levels of cleric" is legal, or that it's weak.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
You can't meaningfully trip someone for trying to stand up, but you can disarm them. Then when they try to pick up their weapon or draw a new one, you trip them. Then when they try to stand up, you disarm them again.kafziel posted:People say that a lot, but is there an actual source for the "AoOs happen before the action that provokes them"? Because it makes no sense. Moving out of a threatened square provokes an AoO. If the move resolved before the attack, the attack wouldn't land because the target would already be out of range. Casting a spell provokes an AoO, and if you get hit you need to make a concentration check or the spell fails. Clearly the spell can't have already resolved, or it would be too late for the spell to fail. It's also explicitly noted that the AoO happens first for certain things that provoke, like attacking unarmed. I can't find a more general rule, but everything seems to indicate that the AoO happens first. e:f;b
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
hyphz posted:I actually tried that too. It looks a lot more sensible if you chart the cumulative probability, but still pretty weird. Even then, depending on the target number rolling more dice is sometimes worse. You're more likely to roll 3+ on a 2d6 than a 3d6, or 4+ on a 3d6 than a 5d6.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Kaza42 posted:Wait, how is that possible? What combination of numbers gives you a 3+ with 2d6, but doesn't if you add an extra result? 13 is worth 3, 113 is worth 2. e: I might be misinterpreting what "highest matching set" meant? But somehow the graph shows that your probability of rolling 2 on 4d6 is higher than your probability of rolling 2 on 3d6. Lottery of Babylon fucked around with this message at 18:35 on May 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 1, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Oh, okay, I misinterpreted hyphz's description then. I think the spikey graph was made with the same misconception, it probably looks a lot cleaner with that resolved.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Why would you want to use a system that forces you to do advanced mathematics when you can just roll a dice and look at anumber insetad? Most people wouldn't consider 4+4 advanced mathematics. If anything, this sounds simpler than the 3.x's system of scouring your character sheet for all fifteen different bonuses that could apply. A system that actually forces you to do advanced mathematics would be pretty funny. "To make an attack, roll 5d20. Deal damage equal to the number of distinct groups up to isomorphism with order equal to the total rolled."
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
kafziel posted:The spikey graph is showing the odds of getting each specific number, not succeeding past a certain point. I'm aware it's not cumulative probability. But if you look at the graph you'll see that, for example, you're more likely to roll exactly 2 on 4d6 than on 3d6 (under the interpretation used, 4d6 has a 120/1296 probability of scoring 2 but 3d6 has the lower 15/216 probability of scoring 2), which means you're more likely to roll 3+ on 3d6 than on 4d6. I didn't mean to imply that the rules misinterpretation was the reason the spiky graph is spiky.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
kafziel posted:You go to the woods, exchange zero money for the raw materials of a club, then create the club in planck time. Makes perfect sense. plank time
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
Isn't this what skeletons have always been for? Even in 1e clerics were good at turing undead.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
homeless poster posted:is this a d&d supplement, and if so, what edition? if it's AD&D / 2E, that makes a ton of sense, because straight in the PHB from the time, there's a bunch of paragraphs in the first section where it explains the character creation process, about how you shouldn't be obsessed with getting perfect stats and how playing a suboptimal character is actually cool and good because it makes you a better roleplayer; the example is something like a thief named Robert who has mediocre dex and bad everything else but the book is like "no see it'll be memorable to play him because if you win it'll be that much cooler and if you lose who care just roll another dude" It was released in 2002, so it's 3e. And regardless of character optimization, it's clear that the attractive personable character clearly shouldn't have the same charisma as the oblivious disliked antisocial character, that's what charisma means.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
GoodBee posted:Was there an edition or some sort of option where you split your Charisma stat into sub categories like "looks" and "personality" or something? I seem to remember having that on a character sheet back in the day but it was before I ever DM'd or really even read rules. There's a well-known system that sub-divides Charisma into Facial Charisma, Vocal Charisma, Kinetic Charisma, and Rhetorical Charisma.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Kaza42 posted:Every natural number (0,1,2,3...) is an integer. There are integers that are not natural numbers (-3). If the rule allows any natural number, the lowest it can go is 0. if it allows any integer, it can go down as far as you want 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
megane posted:Supposing you're a wizard and you roll 3 Con -- unlikely, but definitely possible -- you start with a whopping 2 HP, and on level up you gain 1d6-4 Max HP. This has a 1/3 chance of instantly killing you. Try to avoid accomplishing anything. The real reason wizards spend all their time locked in ivory towers refusing to interact with the outside world.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2016 13:32
|
|
|
Rohan Kishibe posted:I never really got the Mary Sue thing with Kvothe if I'm honest, it always struck me as people using it as shorthand for "character I don't like" in that particular case. Did you get to the part where he fucks a sex goddess and is so good at sex that she doesn't believe he's a virgin and then he gets sex goddess training to be even better at sex and then has sex with an entire city of sex ninjas, or did you wisely stop reading before that point?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 00:53 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:So something that came up just today in a game I'm in is D&D 3.5's Chameleon Prestige Class, which has the following ability: Pathfinder has (had?) a similar trick with the Samsaran race, which let you add several spells from another class's spell list to your own as long as they were of the same type (arcane/divine). Since the Summoner was a 6-level spellcasting class that got a ton of spells at heavily discounted levels so that it could keep pace with the 9-level classes within its field, this let wizards/sorcerers gain things like Haste as a second-level spell, or Summon Monster VII/VIII as fifth/sixth-level spells.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 19:16
|
|