-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
willpell
I know that some players like to run with Gods in the Greek mold who are spoiled and petty at the best of times,
Ohh! Me! Me!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
willpell
and still call them Good
Ok, that's not me. The Light aura gods call themselves Good and most mortals are smart enough to not call them on it.
In my games you can totally have a Pelor the Burning Hate paladin selling goblin jerky (it's not cannibalism if it's outside your species) at a road-side stand. You'll just have to put up with an entire goblin clan named Inigo Montoya. I feel it's just more fun to play this way than to bog down in contradictory alignment quotes and pre/post-modern morality shifts.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lord_Gareth
How did this thread turn into an alignment debate?
with enough time, every thread becomes an alignment debate.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Venger
with enough time, every thread becomes an alignment debate.
Then I can only hope that my post was one of quality.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mattie_p
So the clay golem manual has a bonus bless spell that does nothing and costs nothing to add to it
I wonder if the Bless and Prayer were a sneaky reference to the original Kabalistic golem, which was made out of clay by a rabbi. Remind me to play this up in some future game.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Heh. How 'bout dem monks?
I know, we covered it. that's my subtle way of telling you guys to knock off the alignment stuff in this thread. Take it to PMs or a new thread.
Moving on, something from Pathfinder. (That's ok, right?)
The Bard archetype Sound Striker has the following ability:
Quote:
Wordstrike (Su): At 3rd level, the sound striker bard can spend 1 round of bardic performance as a standard action to direct a burst of sonically charged words at a creature or object. This performance deals 1d4 points of damage plus the bard’s level to an object, or half this damage to a living creature.
I don't see a range limit, increment or other notation.
So, get a giant choir of these guys, and kill people half a world away.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wyntonian
Heh. How 'bout dem monks?
I know, we covered it. that's my subtle way of telling you guys to knock off the alignment stuff in this thread. Take it to PMs or a new thread.
Moving on, something from Pathfinder. (That's ok, right?)
The Bard archetype Sound Striker has the following ability:
I don't see a range limit, increment or other notation.
So, get a giant choir of these guys, and kill people half a world away.
I'm assuming it should be within hearing range, but then that raises the question of what is hearing range? Does the inanimate object have to make a listen check to see whether or not it gets hit?
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ksheep
I'm assuming it should be within hearing range, but then that raises the question of what is hearing range? Does the inanimate object have to make a listen check to see whether or not it gets hit?
I don't see why it should have to be within hearing range. It's not audible sound that's dealing sonic damage.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ksheep
I'm assuming it should be within hearing range, but then that raises the question of what is hearing range? Does the inanimate object have to make a listen check to see whether or not it gets hit?
EDIT: Nevermind, I need to learn to read.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ksheep
I'm assuming it should be within hearing range, but then that raises the question of what is hearing range? Does the inanimate object have to make a listen check to see whether or not it gets hit?
Surely its the same range as Bardic Music ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
noparlpf
I don't see why it should have to be within hearing range. It's not audible sound that's dealing sonic damage.
WTF?
Its "sonically charged words", unless, maybe, you can write them down ? :smallbiggrin:
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
nedz
Surely its the same range as Bardic Music ?
WTF?
Its "sonically charged words", unless, maybe, you can write them down ? :smallbiggrin:
I mean, audible sound isn't usually particularly dangerous. I assume the damaging sound waves are beyond human hearing.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
High-intensity sub-sonic sound, then. How much energy is lost per (unit of length) for subsonic sounds traveling through air? Is it on par with sounds in the normal audible range? How many decibels must be produced to damage someone over a distance, and wouldn't it damage everyone who hears it, i.e. everyone in a certain radius?
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ksheep
High-intensity sub-sonic sound, then. How much energy is lost per (unit of length) for subsonic sounds traveling through air? Is it on par with sounds in the normal audible range? How many decibels must be produced to damage someone over a distance, and wouldn't it damage everyone who hears it, i.e. everyone in a certain radius?
I'm working on a vague understanding from about a week in Physics I, but I think it's possible to focus sound. There's a kind of speaker someone told me about that's only audible if you're directly in its path, rather than the regular sort that allows sound to diffuse and diffract. Sort of a like a sound "laser", a focused beam of sound.
Anyway, that's not the point of this at all; the point is, there's no range on the ability, and that's dysfunctional. Sonic effects are largely magic, and that's good enough for me.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ksheep
High-intensity sub-sonic sound, then. How much energy is lost per (unit of length) for subsonic sounds traveling through air? Is it on par with sounds in the normal audible range? How many decibels must be produced to damage someone over a distance, and wouldn't it damage everyone who hears it, i.e. everyone in a certain radius?
It should just be an inverse square law. I don't think that the frequency will matter. There is nothing in the description which states that this sound is either above, below or within the range of human hearing; but then the description is generally lacking.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
I prefer to assume that it conjures tiny sound fairies that scream in your face until your eyes and ears start bleeding.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wyntonian
The Bard archetype Sound Striker has the following ability:
I don't see a range limit, increment or other notation.
So, get a giant choir of these guys, and kill people half a world away.
The spell Sending didn't change in Pathfinder, combo it and kill people on other planes of existence. Granted that Sending isn't on the bard spell list, but it shouldn't be too hard to work around that with a magic item or a feat.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Curmudgeon is good at turning up places where the RAW is 110% silly, and this one just caught my eye:
Quote:
You would be able to reach some of the creature's squares inside the Antimagic Field, while being outside the AMF yourself. With a melee attack the position of the attacker is where the attack is adjudicated, so you would receive the magical benefits of your weapon. It would be another story with missile attacks, because those are adjudicated in the defender's position.
So if you stand 5 feet away from a guy on the edge of an AMF and stab him with a teensy weensy +5 Whateverbane Dagger of Slaying, your magic works, but if you're five miles away sniping with a +5 Distance Seeking Bow of Unlimited Range, your enhancement bonus doesn't work, and it's dubious whether you can hit at all because the magic enabling you to make the shot suddenly stops working an inch before the arrow hits.
Conversely, you can also stab someone with a magic longspear from 10 feet away without the AMF interfering, but standing 5 feet away for a Point Blank Shot means the AMF applies.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Telok
The spell
Sending didn't change in Pathfinder, combo it and kill people on other planes of existence. Granted that Sending isn't on the bard spell list, but it shouldn't be too hard to work around that with a magic item or a feat.
Ah yes, "combo it" the most legitimate of options when spell-casting. Every DM appreciates Players mixing and matching spell effects with class features on the fly, especially when it allows them to attack people with an obscure energy type from across the multiverse. :smalltongue:
But yeah, that's not really a move that's going to work.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
noparlpf
I prefer to assume that it conjures tiny sound fairies that scream in your face until your eyes and ears start bleeding.
OK. this is.... kind of... awesome! I either need to home-brew a spell for that, or make this a thing for major image.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Drunken master isn't proficient with improvised weapons. Dunno how that one went unmentioned for 37 pages.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CardCaptor
Drunken master isn't proficient with improvised weapons. Dunno how that one went unmentioned for 37 pages.
No one is proficient with improvised weapons; they're not designed to be used as weapons, so everyone takes the nonproficiency penalty with them.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
I know, but the whole shtick of Drunken Master is to fool around with improvised weapons, no?
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
I found an interesting one.
Monk 17: Tongue of the Sun and Moon
A monk can speak with any living creature. It does not say that the monk can understand the speech any living creature.
Even if you follow the RAI then while a monk who does not have Undercommon as a learned language can understand a living creature using Undercommon, he cannot understand an undead creature using the same language. Even if the living and undead speakers of Undercommon are standing right next to each other and saying the same thing.
Are there things other than undead and constructs that don't count as living?
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wyntonian
Heh. How 'bout dem monks?
I know, we covered it. that's my subtle way of telling you guys to knock off the alignment stuff in this thread. Take it to PMs or a new thread.
Moving on, something from Pathfinder. (That's ok, right?)
The Bard archetype Sound Striker has the following ability:
I don't see a range limit, increment or other notation.
So, get a giant choir of these guys, and kill people half a world away.
I'm now imagining a rap battle where the winner is easily determined because the other guy is bleeding out. :smallbiggrin:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CardCaptor
I know, but the whole shtick of Drunken Master is to fool around with improvised weapons, no?
It is. That's why one of the drunken master's class features reduces the penalty he takes when wielding an improvised weapon and adds his unarmed strike damage to the damage roll for the same. (assuming we're talking about the PrC in CW rather than the PF archetype.)
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CardCaptor
I know, but the whole shtick of Drunken Master is to fool around with improvised weapons, no?
That doesn't mean it should be easy. Having to eat that -4 penalty could be worth it just to be able to say that you were halway competent at beating the Captain of the Guard up with a flowerpot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Telok
I found an interesting one.
Even if you follow the RAI then while a monk who does not have Undercommon as a learned language can understand a living creature using Undercommon, he cannot understand an undead creature using the same language. Even if the living and undead speakers of Undercommon are standing right next to each other and saying the same thing.
Makes perfect sense to me. The class feature doesn't let the monk know the language, it lets him communicate via "the communion of souls united through the eternal Akasha" or some such Phlebotinum. It's like all living beings are broadcasting on an FM radio frequency, undead are on AM and you don't have an AM receiver.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Telok
Are there things other than undead and constructs that don't count as living?
Deathless, technically. I might rule Elementals aren't precisely alive, not sure of the RAW implications of that.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Telok
I found an interesting one.
Monk 17:
Tongue of the Sun and Moon
A monk can speak with any living creature. It does not say that the monk can understand the speech any living creature.
Even if you follow the RAI then while a monk who does not have Undercommon as a learned language can understand a living creature using Undercommon, he cannot understand an undead creature using the same language. Even if the living and undead speakers of Undercommon are standing right next to each other and saying the same thing.
For a second there I thought that you were going to point out that Tongue of Sun and Moon never explicitly says that monk can understand or make himself understood to any creature.
Because it doesn't; it just says that he can speak to any creature.
Of course, that's less "dysfunctional rules" and more "excessive rules literalism but it does give me the amusing mental image of a monk spekaing slowly and loudly at an incomprehending animal (like a tourist who never learned any phrases of the local language) while the rest of the party looks on in awe.
Monk: HELLO! SHEEP!
Sheep: Baaaa.
Monk: IS! THIS! THE! WAY! TO! THE! BLACKSMITH?!
Sheep: BAAAA!
Fighter: Amazing! How does he do it?
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
willpell
That doesn't mean it should be easy. Having to eat that -4 penalty could be worth it just to be able to say that you were halfway competent at beating the Captain of the Guard up with a flowerpot.
Yeah, but his schtick isn't being halfway competent, it's being a Master of drunkenly hitting people with things.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Telok
I found an interesting one.
Monk 17:
Tongue of the Sun and Moon
A monk can speak with any living creature. It does not say that the monk can understand the speech any living creature.
So Mark Wahlberg is a level 17 Monk?
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Curmudgeon is really good at finding these (from Simple RAW):
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Curmudgeon
A 23 You can only identify the Humanoid aspects of the creature with Knowlege (local). One of those aspects is that the creature has the shapechanger subtype. If you exceed the minimum DC required for success on the check by enough multiples of 5, you may discover that.
From this it follows that you cannot EVER identify a lycanthrope in its hybrid or animal form, as anything, because it isn't in a Humanoid aspect and it doesn't actually have the Animal type. It can look exactly like a wolf (eg), but no amount of Knowledge: Nature will tell you that it is a wolf, or for that matter that it isn't. You just don't even get to roll because there's no skill that applies to identifying it.
I really want to know how, let alone why, anyone EVER plays "100% RAW, no exceptions", as Curmudgeon at least has stated he does.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
willpell
I really want to know how, let alone why, anyone EVER plays "100% RAW, no exceptions", as Curmudgeon at least has stated he does.
Actually I believe he does use some house rules, monks being proficient with unarmed strikes among them. Found them.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mattie_p
Actually I believe he does use some house rules, monks being proficient with unarmed strikes among them.
Found them.
Maybe I missed something, but that post doesn't say "these are my houserules", it just says "Common houserules are", as in "a lot of people rule as follows". Not disputing what you say or anything, you probably know him better than I do. I was just going by this post in the previous edition of Simple Question, where he says he "never" disregards RAW. (Maybe he's drawing a distinction between "disregard" and "modify slightly" or something.)
Incidentally, that thread is closed, is there a new edition? My game has a slew of houserules and I'm tempted to boast of them.