Results 661 to 690 of 1495
-
2012-05-13, 01:06 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
- Location
- Mountain View, CA
- Gender
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Yes, it is. "Bonus" refers specifically to positive modifiers. "Penalty" refers specifically to negative modifiers. If a rule applies to both, it uses the word "modifier". The rule in question is You can’t use your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) while flat-footed.. Thus, creatures with a dexterity penalty still suffer from it when flat-footed.
Like 4X (aka Civilization-like) gaming? Know programming? Interested in game development? Take a look.
Avatar by Ceika.
Archives:
SpoilerSaberhagen's Twelve Swords, some homebrew artifacts for 3.5 (please comment)
Isstinen Tonche for ECL 74 playtesting.
Team Solars: Powergaming beyond your wildest imagining, without infinite loops or epic. Yes, the DM asked for it.
Arcane Swordsage: Making it actually work (homebrew)
-
2012-05-13, 01:26 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
- Location
- Danville
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
That actually makes sense. Being caught off guard by an attack might eliminate any advantage that an agile person would get in a fight, but I don't see why being caught off guard would make someone who is unusually clumsy become less so all of a sudden!
-
2012-05-16, 11:01 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2011
- Location
- Someplace Nice
- Gender
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Random thing: with a very technical reading of Improved Precise Shot, you will hit whoever you are aiming for without a roll. Not quite a failed rule, but one where the feat should have been worded a bit better.
LGBTA+itP
-
2012-05-17, 12:29 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2009
- Location
- Fl
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Honestly though, being able to ignore AC at level 11 on an underpowered way of attacking is not all that bad an idea for a feat when the wizard+a 0th level cleric spell can erase you from existence if you don't have a good fortitude save from 210 feet away minimum.
-
2012-05-17, 09:03 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
- Gender
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
-
2012-05-17, 03:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2011
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Characters take nonlethal damage from hunger and thirst, so you can't die from starvation or dehydration.
-
2012-05-17, 05:14 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
- Location
- 127.0.0.1
- Gender
-
2012-05-17, 05:23 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
No, it doesn't.
For reference:
Your ranged attacks ignore the AC bonus granted to targets by anything less than total cover, and the miss chance granted to targets by anything less than total concealment. Total cover and total concealment provide their normal benefits against your ranged attacks.
In addition, when you shoot or throw ranged weapons at a grappling opponent, you automatically strike at the opponent you have chosen.
If you refer to the last sentence, then you have confused the game terminology: "strike at" is different from "hit".
-
2012-05-17, 05:39 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Gender
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Source? I suspect this is a houserule, as I don't recall seeing this in the SRD, and a few quick searches turn up nothing relevant.
Generally it should be impossible to die from non-lethal damage alone. (In particular, this would make defeating monsters with regeneration considerably easier.)Projects: Homebrew, Gentlemen's Agreement, DMPCs, Forbidden Knowledge safety, and Top Ten Worst. Also, Quotes and RACSD are good.
Anyone knows blue is for sarcas'ing in · "Take 10 SAN damage from Dark Orchid" · Use of gray may indicate nitpicking · Green is sincerity
-
2012-05-17, 06:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
It's not a completely divergent reading, it's easy to see how he gets it. If it was meant to only apply to covers lesser than total cover, it would say "all covers" not "anything."So RAW says this feat negates the AC bonus of anything that gives a smaller one than being in total cover. You're right about the second part, though, since it defines being "struck" as something different under Combat Modifiers.
Avatar by TinyMushroom.
-
2012-05-17, 06:13 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2006
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Just at a guess on Improved Precise Shot? "Your ranged attacks ignore the AC bonus granted to targets by anything less than total cover, and the miss chance granted to targets by anything less than total concealment. Total cover and total concealment provide their normal benefits against your ranged attacks. "
Total Cover means you can't hit the target at all: "You can’t make an attack against a target that has total cover." - thus, any AC bonus is "less than total cover", and thus, ignored. That +10 Mountain Plate? Less than total cover - the AC bonus it grants is ignored. That +10 Dexterity modifier? Less than total cover - the AC bonus it grants ignored. That +10 Tower Shield? Ditto. That +8 Size modifier to AC for being Fine? It's less than Total Cover too! Ignore it. You're always targetting AC 10 or less, technically, if you are attacking at range with Improved Precise Shot.
They probably should have worded that first clause something like "Your ranged attacks ignore the AC bonus from cover granted targets by anything less than total cover"Of course, by the time I finish this post, it will already be obsolete. C'est la vie.
-
2012-05-17, 10:12 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- Location
- CA
- Gender
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Its existing wording works. "Your ranged attacks ignore the AC bonus granted to targets by [anything less than total] cover" as opposed to "Your ranged attacks ignore the AC bonus granted to targets by anything less than [total cover]".
Could have made it a bit clearer, I suppose, but it'll do well enough.A role playing game is three things. It is an interactive story, a game of chance, and a process in critical thinking.
If brevity is the soul of wit, I'm witty like a vampire!
World of Aranth
M&M 3e Character Guide
-
2012-05-17, 11:11 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
- Location
- 127.0.0.1
- Gender
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
-
2012-05-17, 11:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2012
-
2012-05-18, 12:20 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
-
2012-05-18, 02:00 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Location
- ☢CAUTION☢
- Gender
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
I believe there is a rule about it in PF, but I'm not sure which 3.5 book might have inspired it or whether the rules (About constant non-lethal damage = eventual death) actually existed.
It is a pretty comical flaw that someone can just starve for several years and then suddenly becomes okay once he/she is force fed some bread or given a touch of magical healing. Would make for interesting Mummy(?) encounters or some very wild background story.Avatar by Savannah
-
2012-06-02, 12:50 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Gender
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
So, I was scrounging through the thread from the beginning to find good RACSD candidates, and noticed this one. Fortunately, it's not technically a problem; unfortunately, the reason it isn't is entirely non-obvious. If you have less than 13 Con, you lose access to the feat, and drop back to 1 ability damage recovered per day, rather than recovering, say, -1 ability damage per day at 6 Con. So this is a case of "correct, but probably for the wrong reasons" (or if you like, "someone in Design was entirely too clever for their own good").
Projects: Homebrew, Gentlemen's Agreement, DMPCs, Forbidden Knowledge safety, and Top Ten Worst. Also, Quotes and RACSD are good.
Anyone knows blue is for sarcas'ing in · "Take 10 SAN damage from Dark Orchid" · Use of gray may indicate nitpicking · Green is sincerity
-
2012-06-19, 02:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2011
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Just found that post on the web site of Sean K. Reynolds.
Its a directs re-post, but it needs to be in here.
"Recently I was involved in a discussion on Monte Cook's boards about which was tougher, an iron golem or an iron statue the size of an iron golem, the question came up of whether the golem was solid iron or hollow.
Short answer: An iron golem is not solid.
5,000 lbs of iron = 2,270 kilograms of iron.
2,270 kilograms of iron = .288 cubic meters of iron (iron's density is 7,874 kg/cu meter) or approximately .3 cubic meters of iron.
An iron golem is "twice the height of a human," and we can assume that if it's proportional then it's twice the width and depth as well, and therefore has eight times the body volume of a human (1 human x2 height x2 width x2 depth = x8).
One human has a body volume of approximately 3 cubic feet, which is approximately 1/9 of a cubic yard (27 cubic feet, which for our purposes is essentially the same as a cubic meter). So eight humans is about 8/9 of a cubic meter, or approximately 1 cubic meter.
If an iron golem's body fills a volume of 1 cubic meter and 5,000 pounds of iron only takes up .3 cubic meters of space, then an iron golem (which is made of 5,000 pounds of iron) has to be hollow, for the remaining .7 cubic meters of space that its body fills must be full of air (or marshmallows, or whatever).
FYI, .3 cubic meters of iron is roughly 9 cubic feet of iron, and if a human is 3 cubic feet then 9 cubic feet of iron is enough to make a solid iron statue about 1.45 times the size of a human in all three dimensions, or a figure 8.7 feet tall, which is just shorter than the shortest adult ogre."
-
2012-06-19, 02:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
- Location
- San Jose, CA
-
2012-06-19, 02:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
-
2012-06-19, 03:12 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
-
2012-06-19, 03:16 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
-
2012-06-19, 05:38 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
- Location
- 127.0.0.1
- Gender
-
2012-06-19, 05:42 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2010
- Location
- London, EU
- Gender
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Iron Golems have a soft center ?
π = 4
Consider a 5' radius blast: this affects 4 squares which have a circumference of 40' — Actually it's worse than that.
Completely Dysfunctional Handbook
Warped Druid Handbook
Avatar by Caravaggio
-
2012-06-19, 05:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
- Location
- 127.0.0.1
- Gender
-
2012-06-19, 05:56 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
- Gender
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
-
2012-06-19, 09:14 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2012
- Gender
-
2012-06-19, 10:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Gender
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Speaking of Oozes, I was just reading up on them this morning, and I found out that unless the specific ooze variety has some special ability like Split (Blacks and Ochers do, Grays and Cubes don't), an ooze is exactly as vulnerable to weapon damage as any other sort of creature apart from immunity to critical hits. This means that if you fire arrows into a Gelatinous cube, slash it with a sword, or even swing a club at it enough times, it will eventually die. There's no Damage Reduction or Fast Healing or anything inherent in the Ooze type.
-
2012-06-19, 10:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Gender
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Well, sure, they're just supposed to be annoying and costly to melee, and tricky to archer-kite to death. (Special weapons, or spells, obviously negate this tendency.) At those CR ranges, making something heavily resistant to physical damage (as well as all the other properties) would be quite inappropriate.
Projects: Homebrew, Gentlemen's Agreement, DMPCs, Forbidden Knowledge safety, and Top Ten Worst. Also, Quotes and RACSD are good.
Anyone knows blue is for sarcas'ing in · "Take 10 SAN damage from Dark Orchid" · Use of gray may indicate nitpicking · Green is sincerity
-
2012-06-20, 01:08 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Gender
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
It just seems to me as though a creature which is liquidy enough to be able to Engulf things shouldn't be susceptible to physical damage, like at all. Maybe if you have DBZ power levels, but mostly stabbing an ooze ought to be about as effective as stabbing a lake. Acid and fire and such are "supposed" to be necessary to kill oozes; 3E D&D is one of the few takes on fantasy I've encountered where this doesn't seem to be true.