|
Rocket Ace posted:Isn't there a way to make a rail gun using a line up of peasants a mile long using a free action to pass a canon ball to each other? As it travels so far in such a short amount of time it gathers momentum and can destroy castles? Incorrect! The "peasant rail gun" does not have any inherent momentum mechanics and is actually just a rapid postal system. That said, it is a postal system that takes less than one round to complete. How it works is you need a line of people, all within Reach of each other. This is easiest with a line of peasants because peasants are everywhere in D&D and clearly don't have anything better to do than stand around. That's step 1. Step 2: Have every single peasant take a Readied Action to take an item from the guy next to them. As long as the peasant they are taking the item from consents to give it up, this does not require a roll. Readied actions also happen BEFORE the thing that triggers them - in this case, a guy standing next to them with an item to take. Step 3: Hand the guy on one end of the line an item, say, a 10 foot pole. Suddenly, the Readied Actions kick in, and the guy next to him has the 10 foot pole the moment before the guy you gave it to has it. This repeats on down the line. Step 4: 10,000 peasants later and the moment you hand off the 10 foot pole, the 10 foot pole is now in the next town over. If momentum had mechanics in D&D, it would be traveling above terminal velocity and likely destroy anything in front of it. But D&D 3.5 has no momentum mechanics, so all that happens is you just delivered an item faster than a teleport spell. You can do this trick with anything that the peasants are capable of lifting, including halfling party members.
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2013 02:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 14:26 |
|
|
Gau posted:But the enchant ability targets, and the rules specifically say "as the enchant ability." Is there a differing official ruling on this somewhere? Magic has different rules for when an effect "targets" something and when it "chooses" something. When you "choose" something, there are no limits. Targeting, on the other hand, is blocked by Shroud, Hexproof, Protection, and the target leaving play after you target it but before it resolves. Choosing gets around all of that, and is generally very rare. Which, you know, also fits right into this thread topic.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Gets, not gains, and there's no + in front of the 3d6, unlike the others. It either means that your int becomes 3d6, or you have two intelligence scores running simultaneously, or it means nothing at all. Obviously you just need two castings of Baleful Polymorph - one at the start of the casting time and a second at the end, when it checks you're still a viable target.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2013 18:22
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:Ahaha, oh man, Wizards articles that show you just how little they thought about some things. Always a riot. It isn't a Murphy's Rule, but I like how angry he got about Tanglefoot Bags because they're better than a similar spell, but only because the spell is 4th level, so it should be better than the stupid bag of glue. Caster supremacy is so deeply ingrained in the thought process that is upset with a mundane item being comparable to a mid-level spell, to the point where he's banned them from his games.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2013 21:11
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Clearly copper/silver/gold/platinum are just slang terms for tiny slivers of human souls. That's how it works in Dark Souls.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
Elfface posted:Of course all this talk about orbits assumes a round world... and that space is a vacuum and not water or something High Fantasy. You're not even mentioning the part where the gremlins have a Pigapult, so you could launch your entire army at your enemy from across the map.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Zereth posted:I'm pretty sure in 3.0 and 3.5 there were literally zero high-level fighter-exclusive abilities. All they got were more feats and HP and BAB. The only thing which was actually Fighter-exclusive was Weapon Specialization, which you got at level four. And that wasn't even something they got for free, they still had to spend Feat slots on it. The Fighter spends a feat they can only take once for +2 damage, while the Wizard gets an extra 1d6 damage on every spell for free every time they level up. 3.5 is fair and balanced.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 10:34
|
|
|
Yami Fenrir posted:Pixies are something unique in D&D 4e in that they're tiny-sized, which allows them to be in the square of someone medium sized, and they get some pretty good feats. One of them is the ability to get Partial Cover in the square of an ally. Note that there is no size restriction for this feat. I feel like you're missing the murphy for the trees here, because you can go one step farther. If both the pixie and the revenant(pixie) have the feat, they both grant partial cover to each other. And then they can both make Stealth checks to become hidden. So you can have a zombie hiding behind a pixie hiding behind the zombie in the middle of a featureless room, and no one will spot them without an opposed Perception check.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
homeless poster posted:My 300+ hours on record with Steam for Dark Souls 1/2 was not enhanced in any way by having to play the last survivng employee of the Lordran Department of Weights and Measures. The weight system either punishes new people who haven't totally decoded how it works, or rewards experienced players to some extent once they can squeeze the maximum efficiency possible out of it, but both games wouldn't be any less fun if the weight mechanic was entirely absent. This is a large part of why Bloodborne does not have a weight system, and it is a better game for it.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Moinkmaster posted:That's a trick I'd like to hear more about It isn't that complicated. Being on fire in 3.5 was really pitiful - it only deals 1d6 fire damage to you per round, so if you have fire resistance 5, you'll only take 1 damage every 6 rounds or so from being on fire, and if you had more fire resistance being on fire couldn't hurt you. Resistances in the game also incremented in sets of 5, so fire resistance 5 is really basic and fairly easy to get, and resistance 10 is pretty reasonable to have by level 8ish from on-level magic items. HOWEVER, being on fire means anyone trying to grapple you is also set on fire, and you also add 1d6 fire damage to any unarmed attacks you make. So if you're an unarmed fighter like a Monk or a grapple-build character, getting fire resistance 5 just means you can add 1d6 fire damage to all of your attacks and tactics just because, since it will basically never hurt you in any meaningful way. It also deters monsters from eating you, since the devour ability is basically a super-grapple and will set them on fire. And it isn't like setting yourself on fire is hard - both oil and tindertwigs are extremely cheap and available in the player's handbook gear as common goods. So there's this period of time around levels 4-15 or so where being on fire is just plain better than not being on fire, up until everything you encounter has fire resistance 10+ somewhere around level 16. gnome7 fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Nov 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
Moinkmaster posted:I knew all of that except the free d6 on attacks, and I now regret the wasted years not on fire Well it won't help ranged attacks because the extra damage is only with your unarmed strikes. If you're using a weapon, you don't get bonus damage. If your unarmed attacks somehow have reach or can punch a dude across the room (which might be possible, there's like 10 million splatbooks for 3rd edition), then those would get the bonus 1d6 damage, yeah. But your bow won't do more damage just because the archer is on fire. Precambrian posted:The one problem, though, is that you have to make Reflex saves while on fire to keep your gear from taking damage. Anything metal is Hardness 10 (fireproof), so your Fighter can sleep in the campfire if they feel like it. A Wizard would have more difficulty, since their spellbooks tend to be Hardness 0, though that can be enchanted or sidestepped through a dozen different routes. Anyone using a bow, wooden-hafted weapons (such as most axes and clubs), or leather armor are going to find their tools turned to kindling, so sorry Ranger, Barbarian, and Rogue. But while the Monk doesn't use metal equipment, it is, theoretically, not gear dependent, so they can light up like the Fourth of July! Except, just because they don't need gear for bonuses, they still need them for clothes, and the Monk's humble robes are still Hardness 0 cloth, which will burn to ash in twenty seconds. Though that's another Murphy, because there's no mechanical penalty for just going naked and also on fire. Yeah being on fire all the time is basically just a thing for Monks to do, with any real benefit, but there isn't much reason not to set the fighter on fire too if they have the resistances. Less likely to get eaten that way. EDIT: A sorcerer with the proper resistances would probably be fine with being on fire constantly too. They aren't gear dependent like their wizard friends are, so it's nothing but a defensive upgrade! Nobody will want to tackle the guy on fire. gnome7 fucked around with this message at 04:41 on Nov 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
4th edition is pretty much the only edition of D&D that set a solid goal for what kind of play experience it was going to be, and for the most part it completely met that goal. Every other edition is really unfocused, comparatively. They try to do everything and sort of end up doing all of it poorly, with some bits and pieces working better than others but all of it generally failing to do anything in a reasonable way. 4E never pretended to do everything. Like cheetah7071 said, 4E focused on doing the best part of 3E better, and making the tactical combat game actually function correctly and easily. It's still kind of a slog, but its way less of one than every other edition, and it almost completely removed the rules-lawyering nonsense of earlier editions by making every combat effect absolutely clear on what it did. 4E is as good at being D&D as D&D is ever going to get. Anyone who does not like 4E should probably not play any other edition of D&D either, and would likely have more fun with other tabletop games. Anyone who does like 4E should still probably go play Strike! instead, because Strike! is better at all the things 4E is good at. Don't play Dungeons and Dragons, it is bad.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
Freaking Crumbum posted:that's hilarious, and darkly accurate; if you can't speak the local language, you're definitely at risk for being victimized. Wealth is one of the things you can have at chargen, yeah. But part of Wealth's skill kit is clothes for any occasion, so that undoes your missing pants problem. Starting with no pants requires you to roll bad at language while also rolling terribly for wealth.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 14:26 |
|
|
crime fighting hog posted:Again working from hazy memories: if you doubled the price of a magic item, couldn't it be rendered "slotless"? I swear that was in the 3.5 DMG for item creation rules. Wondrous items cost double the cost of other magic items, and do not take up a slot. However, Wondrous Items also had the limitation that they could not boost stats, like a Belt of Giant's Strength could, and generally if you want one to just cast a spell you'd make a Wand, but that's where you'd go to get things like flying carpets and bags of holding. Most of the crazy things you can do with Wondrous Items are already in the game by RAW, like having a bottle full of endless water or a portable fortress in your backpack. Most of the time you're better off just using the slotted version of an item instead of paying double to make it Wondrous.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2016 05:21
|
|