-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
willpell
Presumably he wasn't worshipping Pelor at the time; maybe he just forgot to take off the now-inappropriate holy symbol, or now used it as an unholy symbol while acting as a cleric of the force of Evil (there's something fitting in that).
or the more popular theory that Pelor is secretly an evil aligned deity, Pelor the Burning Hate
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
That seems like a bigger stretch, since it would mean actually Good-aligned clerics who tried to worship him would get a driver conflict. He's stated to be the most widely-worshipped deity in human lands, so presumably lots of clerics worship him; someone would notice if they were all evil.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
I forget how it really goes, but basically Pelor is an evil god, has tricked the other gods into thinking he is good, and grants spells to good aligned clerics as a way to hide. Should some cleric figure out that he is evil, it wouldn't be too hard to see him being granted a separate list of spells to further Pelor's evil agendas, without the good clerics knowing about it.
EDIT:Seems that is about the only true statement of my post.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
If you want an evil (or at least nongood) sun god, you can find a better candidate than Pelor. I'm rather fond of Taiia from Deities and Demigods, who's neutral and has both a Creator aspect and a Destroyer side. She's presented as an example of monotheism, but it wouldn't be hard to power her down a little and just slot her into Pelor's place. By a strict interpretation she wouldn't be allowed to have LG or CG clerics anymore, but the same would be true of an evil god, and you could always opt to waive that rule in the case of ultra-powerful and amoral deities (Boccob for instance doesn't seem like he ought to be that picky).
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
It is just a silly thread that was started to try to rationalise some minor inconsistencies in Pelor's portrayal in some sourcebooks (including the Jozan casting of symbol of pain). I linked it a few pages back if you want to read it ( I would link again; but I am posting from my phone and linking like this is a bitch).
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
willpell
If you want an evil (or at least nongood) sun god, you can find a better candidate than Pelor. I'm rather fond of Taiia from Deities and Demigods, who's neutral and has both a Creator aspect and a Destroyer side. She's presented as an example of monotheism, but it wouldn't be hard to power her down a little and just slot her into Pelor's place. By a strict interpretation she wouldn't be allowed to have LG or CG clerics anymore, but the same would be true of an evil god, and you could always opt to waive that rule in the case of ultra-powerful and amoral deities (Boccob for instance doesn't seem like he ought to be that picky).
Taiia is one of my favourite deities from the D&D worlds.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Back on topic, fire elementals can burn to death in the desert.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DMofDarkness
Back on topic, fire elementals can burn to death in the desert.
Well that's just silly.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DMofDarkness
Back on topic, fire elementals can burn to death in the desert.
they are also RAW vulnerable to a pyrokineticist's overheat special ability
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Venger
they are also RAW vulnerable to a pyrokineticist's overheat special ability
Makes sense. They're already so hot that overheating them should be a cinch.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Silence is a Bard Spell.
Bards cannot use Silent Spell, and whilst they are all about sonic spells Silence is the opposite of that.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
nedz
Silence is a Bard Spell.
Bards cannot use Silent Spell, and whilst they are all about sonic spells Silence is the opposite of that.
It's not unreasonable that a bard should be able to use sound to cancel other sounds. In fact, that is how noise cancelling headphones work. Also, this is not too dissimilar to counter-song.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
There's an old Russian army joke to that effect:
Sergeant: Private, turn off* that engine!
Private: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
*Zaglushi can be taken to mean both "turn off" or "drown out". This is the joke.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Pelor, the burning hate.
It's mostly a joke, but some of the stuff is pretty fishy.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Cover rules on PhB, Page 133, table 8-9.
Total cover does not give you a bonus to AC or Reflex saves.
The SRD does not have the table, btw.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wookie-ranger
Cover rules on PhB, Page 133, table 8-9.
Total cover does not give you a bonus to AC or Reflex saves.
The SRD does not have the table, btw.
That's because total cover makes you immune to anything that would need either of those numbers.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Personally, I like how your Swim check is apparently not hindered in the slightest by having your hands full, as long as the things you're holding don't weigh enough to encumber you and inflict an ACP. Even in 3.0 where you used every single pound of gear to calculate a penalty, you could still swim just as well with a magically weightless polearm in one hand and a magically weightless kite shield in the other as you could with your hands free. (I can imagine using a wooden shield as a floatation device, but the fact that a masterwork metal shield has 0 ACP means that it has no effect on your Swim check in 3.5, and your weapon never does unless it weighs enough to encumber you.)
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
A mathematical reading of cold snaps in pathfinder shows that they increase temperature by ten degrees.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ninja PieKing
A mathematical reading of cold snaps in pathfinder shows that they increase temperature by ten degrees.
I beg your pardon? (I can't tell what you're referring to with a quick look around.)
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tuggyne
I beg your pardon? (I can't tell what you're referring to with a quick look around.)
I'm going to guess it says something like, "The temperature is reduced by -10 degrees."
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
noparlpf
I'm going to guess it says something like, "The temperature is reduced by -10 degrees."
I'm pretty sure that's not the only case of "a -X penalty" in the D&D rules....
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
willpell
I'm pretty sure that's not the only case of "a -X penalty" in the D&D rules....
Actually, "a -X penalty" isn't necessarily wrong, simply because of the nature of the word "penalty" compared to "reduced". The latter implies a particular direction; the former merely implies a detriment of some sort. You take a -X and that's the penalty. But reducing it by -X means increasing it. The semantics are different.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
It is because subtracting a negative creates a positive
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
You don't take a "+X penalty" in any wording of anything ever, though. This is a penalty, and its value is -X. It is a -X penalty. They explain that this is how they word things. The wording on cold snaps must be more vague.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
It says cold snaps (weather effect, not the spell) reduce the temperature by -10 degrees.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Random NPC
It says cold snaps (weather effect, not the spell) reduce the temperature by -10 degrees.
What do you know, I got it right.
So yeah, a cold snap increases the temperature by ten degrees.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Do you think it's intentional that orcs do not have the ability to treat Orcish Double Axes as martial weapons, the way dwarves and gnomes can for their races' double weapons?
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
willpell
Do you think it's intentional that orcs do not have the ability to treat Orcish Double Axes as martial weapons, the way dwarves and gnomes can for their races' double weapons?
Yes. The Orcish Double Axe is a trick used by Orcs to reduce the combat performance of enemy armies, not an actual weapon they make to use.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Under the Disarm option:
Quote:
Note: A defender wearing spiked gauntlets (page 118) can’t be
disarmed. A defender using a weapon attached to a locked gauntlet
(page 124) gets a +10 bonus to resist being disarmed.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wearing a spiked gauntlet does not actually prevent you from holding a weapon in that hand. (If it did, then it's not much of a gauntlet, but more like a stump spike, worn over the hand instead of replacing it, but making it useless nonetheless). So, by holding your +12 Sword of Ungainliness in one spiked-gauntleted hand, your opponent can't knock it out of your head. This makes the Locked Gauntlet quite useless by comparison.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
That rule is clearly intended to mean that the spiked gauntlet itself cannot be removed from the character by a disarm. But yes, you're right about what the actual wording exactly as written means. Of course, by that same reading you could have a spiked gauntlet on one hand and it would grant disarm immunity to the weapon you're holding in your other hand.