Page 16 of 19 FirstFirst ... 678910111213141516171819 LastLast
Results 451 to 480 of 553
  1. - Top - End - #451
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: To all the Warlock 2 dips: Please just die

    I'm confused as to how defining "power" is such an issue, given that the spell essentially spells out what they mean.

    They state:

    The simulacrum lacks the ability to learn or become more powerful
    and then they actually explain what that means by saying:

    so it never increases its level or other abilities, nor can it regain expended spell slots
    It can't gain levels, recover expended spell slots, learn to play the violin, lift weights to improve its strength, etc. Casting spells (e.g., Haste), using tools (e.g., pants and a sword), etc do not fit that definition so all are allowable.

    Vogonjeltz's interpretation tries to introduce issues where there are none.

  2. - Top - End - #452
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: To all the Warlock 2 dips: Please just die

    well i did mention a while ago that this is a futile argument. he's not willing to be convinced. he wasn't before, he clearly isn't now, and by this point i think we can safely say anyone willing to wade through the many pages of arguing this single point will have sufficient information to make their own decision on how to rule the spell an informed one.

  3. - Top - End - #453
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2015

    Default Re: To all the Warlock 2 dips: Please just die

    Quote Originally Posted by SharkForce View Post
    well i did mention a while ago that this is a futile argument. he's not willing to be convinced. he wasn't before, he clearly isn't now, and by this point i think we can safely say anyone willing to wade through the many pages of arguing this single point will have sufficient information to make their own decision on how to rule the spell an informed one.

    Awwwww, but we're at 16 pages!

    Although this thread has wandered significantly off path.

    For hardheadedness I still think the Echolocation for All thread is still king.
    Last edited by krugaan; 2016-04-20 at 09:18 PM.
    Argue in good faith.

    And try to remember that these are people.

  4. - Top - End - #454
    Troll in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2014

    Default Re: To all the Warlock 2 dips: Please just die

    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Segev
    If a tool use is not equal to a power increase, then using the effect of a spell is not equivalent to a power increase.
    A false equivalency. The simulacrum can't learn to use a new tool, but they already had the ability to use the tool whether they know how to use it right (proficiency) or not (nonproficiency). The simulacrum also can't become more powerful through tool use. (i.e. They can't gain XP by killing with a sword). That doesn't stop them from killing with the sword.

    Same thing: I'm not saying they can't cast spells, I'm saying they can't benefit from spells in such a fashion where they gain more power, which they can't. It's written that way in the spell.

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev
    Ah, then you are saying that they CAN use tools, but they can't get the EFFECT of using them.

    So the simulacrum can pick up and use a sword, but he can't actually hurt anything with it. He can pick up and use thieves' tools, but he can't actually get a lock to open with them. He can cast fireball, but he can't actually cause any damage to anything with it.
    So very very close. But not quite.

    He can use thieves tools, but he couldn't use thieves tools to learn some new thing beyond what he already knew. He could use a sword, and kill with a sword, but he can't gain XP from the killing.

    Same difference with casting the spell. It's fine knowing spells and casting spells. But if the spell effect is a power increase (enhance ability, for example) then it fizzles. If you tried using a comparison that had some similarities, it would be more useful I think.

    Quote Originally Posted by RickAllison
    But if a simulacrum fighter picks up a sword, the effect it has on his damage is an increase in power. By the logic you are providing, it is incapable of using power it already has to change that to a new effect (which is what is occurring when the simulacrum tries to get the effect of a spell). Despite having the ability to use a bag of caltrops, it can't. Spreading the caltrops is gaining power through battlefield control.

    And why wouldn't tool use be a power increase by your logic? By using the tools, he is getting an increased modifier compared to what he would have without the tools. That is an increase in power. So is moving to a more advantageous position, or to a higher elevation. It can't jump because jumping gives it the power to reach something it couldn't before.
    No it does not constitute an increase in power. The simulacrum already had the ability to wield a sword at whatever capacity the simulacrum was capable of. Picking up the sword doesn't grant the sim proficiency or change the damage it would deal using a sword. The damage a character deals with a sword is static, it's not varying. There's no such thing as "the damage a character deals". There's, the damage a character deals with X, where the X in this case is a long sword (for example). But that damage isn't changing at any point. Now, if the simulacrum found bracers of archery or whatever that are supposed to grant proficiency in a particular thing, the simulacrum would be incapable of reaping that benefit. But that's different than merely wielding a weapon or wearing an armor.

    The logic I've used is: Simulacrum when created has certain capabilities (proficiencies, skills, spellcasting or not, ability scores, hit points, xp level). Per the spell, the simulacrum can't improve nor learn new things, nor become more powerful.

    That does not rule out using things it can already use (spellcasting, armors, swords, shields, rope, anything it's physically capable of doing), but it DOES rule out: Wishing to be stronger, wishing to have more spell slots, learning new skill proficiencies, gaining control of minions (see definition of power).

    The tool use doesn't provide the bonus, the proficiency does. If the simulacrum isn't doing something to gain proficiency in the tool, they aren't gaining more power simply by virtue of using the tool. I had no intention of conveying the idea that simply picking up a tool increases power, so if you can quote the exact statement I made (in context) which led you to believe that I was saying that...it would be appreciated.

    Quote Originally Posted by rhouck
    It can't gain levels, recover expended spell slots, learn to play the violin, lift weights to improve its strength, etc. Casting spells (e.g., Haste), using tools (e.g., pants and a sword), etc do not fit that definition so all are allowable.

    Vogonjeltz's interpretation tries to introduce issues where there are none.
    So you don't think that gaining an additional action each turn is in increase in power? It seems to be precisely in the realm of things prohibited as an improvement of their starting abilities, albeit a temporary one.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharkForce
    well i did mention a while ago that this is a futile argument. he's not willing to be convinced. he wasn't before, he clearly isn't now, and by this point i think we can safely say anyone willing to wade through the many pages of arguing this single point will have sufficient information to make their own decision on how to rule the spell an informed one.
    Ahem, NewDM brought the claim, I just noticed it was unsupported.

  5. - Top - End - #455
    Orc in the Playground
     
    The Zoat's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011

    Default Re: To all the Warlock 2 dips: Please just die

    In my opinion, the ridiculous thing is usingn such broad interpretation of "gain power". The ability to tell someone to do something is not necessarily power, and if it is, is a simulacrum incapable of obtaining money and spending it, or intimidating/persuading others?

    It seems far too messy for me to seriously consider the ruling.

    EDIT: and what about being affected by for example auras like the paladin's, or getting advantage to hit a prone target? What about the really ridiculous stuff like killing enemies? If an enemy the simulacrum faces can reduce it's power with a blindness spell, isn't it gaining power when it makes the save? Not arguing that the ruling is strictly wrong, just saying it's impossible to work with and could cause some pretty dumb arguments.
    Last edited by The Zoat; 2016-04-22 at 09:58 AM.

  6. - Top - End - #456
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: To all the Warlock 2 dips: Please just die

    I suggest people interested in the simulacrum debate look at other threads with that spell's name in the title. Vogonjeltz's position and mine have been argued thoroughly in them. His interpretation requires that the spell say something it doesn't, AND not say something it does. But I will debate it no further in this thread. I will simply say he's wrong every time he brings it up, because it really has no bearing on this thread.



    Where were we, anyway? How did we bring up simulacra? I think we were discussing tricks for Warlock 2 dips vs. what a full Warlock build could do vs. what you could do without dipping Warlock for similar ideas.

  7. - Top - End - #457
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grod_The_Giant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: To all the Warlock 2 dips: Please just die

    I think there was a point where half the threads on this forum were arguing about Simulacrum.

    STaRS (and STaRS Lite)
    A non-narrativeist, generic rules-light system, by me. Now officially released!

    Grod's Guide to Greatness
    A big book of player options for 5e, by me

    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use
    Giants and Graveyards: My collected 3.5 class fixes and more.

  8. - Top - End - #458
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GnomeWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    California
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: To all the Warlock 2 dips: Please just die

    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    I think there was a point where half the threads on this forum were arguing about Simulacrum.
    And it all came from the claim that the entire game is broken and unbalanced because this one spell exists and might be abused in a game where a GM is willing to let it happen and while also not incorporating it into the story so that poor GM's game becomes overrun with those crafty players. And that poor GM is just unable to do anything about it.

    Let us lament for that poor GM, who is forced to abide by RAW and can do nothing to stop the maliciousness of players abusing the rules of the game. All the while those players give a half smile and a slight shrug - after all, there's nothing they can do about it, either. They have to use the rules, and the rules don't stop abuse - they're forced to ruin the GM's game, because it's RAW.

    If only there was something they could do about it.
    Numenera PBP
    Rame, an Inquisitive Jack Who Controls Gravity
    M 12/12 (0), S 13/13 (0), I 14/15 (1), Effort 1, XP 3

  9. - Top - End - #459
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Goblin

    Join Date
    Aug 2015

    Default Re: To all the Warlock 2 dips: Please just die

    So, how about them warlocks? How much meddling from their patron do you make your warlocks deal with?

  10. - Top - End - #460
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grod_The_Giant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: To all the Warlock 2 dips: Please just die

    Quote Originally Posted by mgshamster View Post
    If only there was something they could do about it.
    Oh, I doubt one group in a thousand would even consider using the loop, much less allow it. I don't think anyone on any side saw it as a practical thing. But we do so love to send RAW...

    Quote Originally Posted by Temperjoke View Post
    So, how about them warlocks? How much meddling from their patron do you make your warlocks deal with?
    Not much, I wouldn't think. About the same amount of individual spotlight as anyone else gets. One session where the Warlock has to deal with his patron, one session where the Cleric deals with church politics, one where the Fighter finds the men who killed his master... It all need to even out.

    STaRS (and STaRS Lite)
    A non-narrativeist, generic rules-light system, by me. Now officially released!

    Grod's Guide to Greatness
    A big book of player options for 5e, by me

    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use
    Giants and Graveyards: My collected 3.5 class fixes and more.

  11. - Top - End - #461
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    PirateWench

    Join Date
    Oct 2015

    Default Re: To all the Warlock 2 dips: Please just die

    Quote Originally Posted by Temperjoke View Post
    So, how about them warlocks? How much meddling from their patron do you make your warlocks deal with?
    Make them collect souls/interesting entities. I love he concept of a researching patron, always seeking new specimens to examine...
    Quote Originally Posted by krugaan
    All it takes is once:

    "Grandpa, tells us that story about the Ricalison the Great again!"

    Hours later...

    "... and that, kids, is how he conquered the world with dancing lights."

  12. - Top - End - #462
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: To all the Warlock 2 dips: Please just die

    Quote Originally Posted by mgshamster View Post
    And it all came from the claim that the entire game is broken and unbalanced because this one spell exists and might be abused in a game where a GM is willing to let it happen and while also not incorporating it into the story so that poor GM's game becomes overrun with those crafty players. And that poor GM is just unable to do anything about it.

    Let us lament for that poor GM, who is forced to abide by RAW and can do nothing to stop the maliciousness of players abusing the rules of the game. All the while those players give a half smile and a slight shrug - after all, there's nothing they can do about it, either. They have to use the rules, and the rules don't stop abuse - they're forced to ruin the GM's game, because it's RAW.
    nah.

    at good half of the posts were from people who were also busy insisting that the loophole isn't a problem because RAW, rubies might not exist and the simulacrum might not actually obey you even though it says it does and you can't hand off control and the simulacrum cannot possibly gain any power in any way except some ways with no method of discerning which ways work and which don't... all so that they can avoid the dreaded house rule and/or gentleman's agreement.

  13. - Top - End - #463
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2015

    Default Re: To all the Warlock 2 dips: Please just die

    Quote Originally Posted by RickAllison View Post
    Make them collect souls/interesting entities. I love he concept of a researching patron, always seeking new specimens to examine...
    Eldritch blast ... crackling beams of energy. That sounds almost like a ... proton beam. And by proton beam, I mean, like the kind that is emitted by a proton pack. Who else collects souls / interesting entities?

    Who you gonna call?

    The idea is semi-thematic as well. Maybe he can keep the souls in Pokeballs and give them to the shady patron liaison every week or so.
    Argue in good faith.

    And try to remember that these are people.

  14. - Top - End - #464
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GnomeWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    California
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: To all the Warlock 2 dips: Please just die

    Quote Originally Posted by SharkForce View Post
    nah.

    at good half of the posts were from people who were also busy insisting that the loophole isn't a problem because RAW, rubies might not exist and the simulacrum might not actually obey you even though it says it does and you can't hand off control and the simulacrum cannot possibly gain any power in any way except some ways with no method of discerning which ways work and which don't... all so that they can avoid the dreaded house rule and/or gentleman's agreement.
    To be fair, all those people started off with the disclaimer that they'd rather just house rule it or come to a gentleman's agreement - and then went on to say that if they were forced to abide by RAW, this is something they could do. I think a lot of people forgot that during the debates.
    Numenera PBP
    Rame, an Inquisitive Jack Who Controls Gravity
    M 12/12 (0), S 13/13 (0), I 14/15 (1), Effort 1, XP 3

  15. - Top - End - #465
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2015

    Default Re: To all the Warlock 2 dips: Please just die

    Quote Originally Posted by mgshamster View Post
    To be fair, all those people started off with the disclaimer that they'd rather just house rule it or come to a gentleman's agreement - and then went on to say that if they were forced to abide by RAW, this is something they could do. I think a lot of people forgot that during the debates.
    Really, there should be some kind of formatting wrapper for "the player in me is RAI, but the rules lawyer in me thinks..."

    like:

    [LAWYER]Strawman / fallacy / blah blah[/LAWYER]

    or

    [RAW] Quote me a passage, please. [/RAW]
    Argue in good faith.

    And try to remember that these are people.

  16. - Top - End - #466
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grod_The_Giant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: To all the Warlock 2 dips: Please just die

    Quote Originally Posted by krugaan View Post
    Really, there should be some kind of formatting wrapper for "the player in me is RAI, but the rules lawyer in me thinks..."

    like:

    [LAWYER]Strawman / fallacy / blah blah[/LAWYER]

    or

    [RAW] Quote me a passage, please. [/RAW]
    We should try to make that a thing; I think it might help civility. Hey, GitP, let's try to make this a thing: when you're arguing optimization strategies, RAW-logic, and similar such things that you'd never actually use in a game, tag your post [THEORETICAL] and/or use green text

    STaRS (and STaRS Lite)
    A non-narrativeist, generic rules-light system, by me. Now officially released!

    Grod's Guide to Greatness
    A big book of player options for 5e, by me

    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use
    Giants and Graveyards: My collected 3.5 class fixes and more.

  17. - Top - End - #467
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2015

    Default Re: To all the Warlock 2 dips: Please just die

    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    We should try to make that a thing; I think it might help civility. Hey, GitP, let's try to make this a thing: when you're arguing optimization strategies, RAW-logic, and similar such things that you'd never actually use in a game, tag your post [THEORETICAL] and/or use green text
    grunt, yes, I think that's actually a really good idea.

    Or smilies, or something.

    Too bad real life doesn't have XML tags too, lol
    Argue in good faith.

    And try to remember that these are people.

  18. - Top - End - #468
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grod_The_Giant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: To all the Warlock 2 dips: Please just die

    Quote Originally Posted by krugaan View Post
    Too bad real life doesn't have XML tags too, lol
    How I wish that was the case.

    STaRS (and STaRS Lite)
    A non-narrativeist, generic rules-light system, by me. Now officially released!

    Grod's Guide to Greatness
    A big book of player options for 5e, by me

    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use
    Giants and Graveyards: My collected 3.5 class fixes and more.

  19. - Top - End - #469
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2016

    Default Re: To all the Warlock 2 dips: Please just die

    As a DM, I would make them lose their warlock abilities if they failed to continue to serve their patron. Just my opinion though.

  20. - Top - End - #470
    Troll in the Playground
     
    georgie_leech's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: To all the Warlock 2 dips: Please just die

    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    We should try to make that a thing; I think it might help civility. Hey, GitP, let's try to make this a thing: when you're arguing optimization strategies, RAW-logic, and similar such things that you'd never actually use in a game, tag your post [THEORETICAL] and/or use green text
    I'm'a stick that in my sig, if you don't mind.
    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    We should try to make that a thing; I think it might help civility. Hey, GitP, let's try to make this a thing: when you're arguing optimization strategies, RAW-logic, and similar such things that you'd never actually use in a game, tag your post [THEORETICAL] and/or use green text
    Quote Originally Posted by Lvl 2 Expert View Post
    So a ranger is like a Bachelor of Applied Druidology.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kid Jake View Post
    What's the word for 'fear of being eaten by a mounted bear in half-plate' again? Because that's the one I have.

  21. - Top - End - #471
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2015

    Default Re: To all the Warlock 2 dips: Please just die

    Quote Originally Posted by georgie_leech View Post
    I'm'a stick that in my sig, if you don't mind.
    Damn! I should have added colors in mine.
    Argue in good faith.

    And try to remember that these are people.

  22. - Top - End - #472
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grod_The_Giant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: To all the Warlock 2 dips: Please just die

    Quote Originally Posted by georgie_leech View Post
    I'm'a stick that in my sig, if you don't mind.
    Please, go ahead. I'd put it in mine, but it's full of things I really care about. (Though maybe I could lose the D&D in M&M link, I dunno)

    STaRS (and STaRS Lite)
    A non-narrativeist, generic rules-light system, by me. Now officially released!

    Grod's Guide to Greatness
    A big book of player options for 5e, by me

    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use
    Giants and Graveyards: My collected 3.5 class fixes and more.

  23. - Top - End - #473
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: To all the Warlock 2 dips: Please just die

    Quote Originally Posted by Temperjoke View Post
    So, how about them warlocks? How much meddling from their patron do you make your warlocks deal with?
    Death isn't the end for my players, they don't typically have a revolving door of PCs.

    Had a fiend Warlock who died during a battle. The fiend placed his soul into another body... Essentially reincarnated him and they had so many weeks before that body would rot and die... They had to get his body back and go through a ritual that actually opened a portal...

    But I have to say, my favorite Warlock spell is currently Hellish Rebuke. May not be the best but it is absolutely fun.

  24. - Top - End - #474
    Troll in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2014

    Default Re: To all the Warlock 2 dips: Please just die

    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    We should try to make that a thing; I think it might help civility. Hey, GitP, let's try to make this a thing: when you're arguing optimization strategies, RAW-logic, and similar such things that you'd never actually use in a game, tag your post [THEORETICAL] and/or use green text
    How would that help when the disagreement is about what is true? It sounds like anyone who disagrees about what the rule is would still disagree.

    For example:
    Quote Originally Posted by Segev
    I suggest people interested in the simulacrum debate look at other threads with that spell's name in the title. Vogonjeltz's position and mine have been argued thoroughly in them. His interpretation requires that the spell say something it doesn't, AND not say something it does. But I will debate it no further in this thread. I will simply say he's wrong every time he brings it up, because it really has no bearing on this thread.
    Is just a bunch of made up statements. Him saying he doesn't think it's a good idea wouldn't change that he's wrong about the rules invoked. So I don't see it as anything more than a fig leaf for claiming ones position is the one true position without having to actually defend it.

  25. - Top - End - #475
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: To all the Warlock 2 dips: Please just die

    Quote Originally Posted by Vogonjeltz View Post
    Is just a bunch of made up statements. Him saying he doesn't think it's a good idea wouldn't change that he's wrong about the rules invoked. So I don't see it as anything more than a fig leaf for claiming ones position is the one true position without having to actually defend it.
    And Vogonjeltz saying that I'm wrong won't change the fact that he's redefining words, adding text by assumption, and then claiming that because he's added this text the spell works as he describes. And, because it works as he describes, his added MUST be inherently implicit to what is actually written.

    While he fails to provide actual backup for why his arbitrary distinctions are the right arbitrary distinctions to make, and simply asserts that they are because he says the spells do what he says they do, and nothing else, which means that of COURSE his assertions are right as proven by the spells.

    "Snidely Whiplash never lies. I know this, because he told me so. Since he never lies, it must be true."


    And that's why we need to stop clogging this thread with this debate, rather than trying to come in and snidely claim that one's position is right and the other is wrong IN THIS THREAD. We have several others we can debate your arbitrary additions to spells and even more arbitrary redefinitions of words in.


    Edit: Okay, to be fair, I did pull a similar stunt. I will apologize for that.

    Vogonjeltz believes in what he's saying. I believe (and discuss at length in other threads) why he's wrong. He believes he's demonstrated I'm wrong; I obviously disagree. The discussion is, in fact, over whether words as written mean what they say or not. Because the divergence from what the spells say is, as far as my mastery of the English language can tell, so far off when one reads it as Vogonjeltz does, I cannot even agree to disagree with him on this matter. That doesn't change that this is the wrong thread in which to continue this. So let's stop trying to snipe at each other here. It's undignified and serves no purpose.

    One of us is wrong. Let's leave it to readers to decide for themselves which is which. Because we can't prove it one way or the other without rehashing the argument.
    Last edited by Segev; 2016-04-23 at 02:59 PM.

  26. - Top - End - #476
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2015

    Default Re: To all the Warlock 2 dips: Please just die

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    And Vogonjeltz saying that I'm wrong won't change the fact that he's redefining words, adding text by assumption, and then claiming that because he's added this text the spell works as he describes. And, because it works as he describes, his added MUST be inherently implicit to what is actually written.

    While he fails to provide actual backup for why his arbitrary distinctions are the right arbitrary distinctions to make, and simply asserts that they are because he says the spells do what he says they do, and nothing else, which means that of COURSE his assertions are right as proven by the spells.

    "Snidely Whiplash never lies. I know this, because he told me so. Since he never lies, it must be true."


    And that's why we need to stop clogging this thread with this debate, rather than trying to come in and snidely claim that one's position is right and the other is wrong IN THIS THREAD. We have several others we can debate your arbitrary additions to spells and even more arbitrary redefinitions of words in.


    Edit: Okay, to be fair, I did pull a similar stunt. I will apologize for that.

    Vogonjeltz believes in what he's saying. I believe (and discuss at length in other threads) why he's wrong. He believes he's demonstrated I'm wrong; I obviously disagree. The discussion is, in fact, over whether words as written mean what they say or not. Because the divergence from what the spells say is, as far as my mastery of the English language can tell, so far off when one reads it as Vogonjeltz does, I cannot even agree to disagree with him on this matter. That doesn't change that this is the wrong thread in which to continue this. So let's stop trying to snipe at each other here. It's undignified and serves no purpose.

    One of us is wrong. Let's leave it to readers to decide for themselves which is which. Because we can't prove it one way or the other without rehashing the argument.
    The crowd wants blood! "To the Death!" the emperor says. One must fall!

    edit: in all seriousness, yes, you two should chillax.

    You aren't getting anywhere, but at least you're doing so in a measured, rational manner.

    I think.
    Last edited by krugaan; 2016-04-23 at 06:13 PM.
    Argue in good faith.

    And try to remember that these are people.

  27. - Top - End - #477
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    City of Wheldrake
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: To all the Warlock 2 dips: Please just die

    Now I'm imagining a setting like Dark Souls, except the curse of the Undead is taking 2 levels of Warlock.
    Quote Originally Posted by Keld Denar View Post
    +3 Girlfriend is totally unoptimized. You are better off with a +1 Keen Witty girlfriend and then appling Greater Magic Make-up to increase her enhancement bonus.
    Homebrew
    To Do: Reboot and finish Riptide

  28. - Top - End - #478
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Essex Junction, VT
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: To all the Warlock 2 dips: Please just die

    Quote Originally Posted by jas61292 View Post
    Ok, so I absolutely hate the Warlock dip, but not because it is so effective that people do it with no care for the logic or RP ramifications. No, I hate it because it works due to a design decision that runs contrary to every other design decision of the entire edition. Agonizing blast is a feature given at level two, but, due to the way eldritch blast works, scales with character level and not class level. Outside of this one feature, only proficiency bonus and cantrip dice scale with character level. But because it is tied to an odd cantrip, somehow you can get all the power of a scaling class feature with only two levels of the class. It is poor design, and that is why I hate it.

    If you want to play a warlock that leaves the class and ignores the pact for some reason, go ahead, so long as you play it well. I honestly don't mind. But I hate the badly made rules that allow it to be so effective.
    As a DM, this is VERY easy to mitigate with a houserule (as I'm sure everyone understands anyways). The Warlock choice often comes with strings attached. I would be on the lookout, as a DM, not to nerf the player, but to put a price on the use of the dip. This lends to lots of RP opportunities. For instance, a Lore Bardlock 3/2 could suffer from eldritch burn (my own invention) if they use their spells too often. For this, I give the character as many uses of the spell as their ability modifier without penalty. If they use it beyond that, they stand to get eldritch burn (Con save 15). This is an affect that literally burns the spell out of their system until they heal during a long rest. There is no HP loss, it's simply a disconnect due to their use of such an otherworldly power. Three burn-outs during one campaign and the character is visited by their patron. And it's not usually pleasant. "You are too weak to handle my power you pathetic excuse for a worm. I was wrong to entrust you to represent me. I shouldn't even consider it, but I will give you another chance, but it will cost you..." See? Perhaps you throw a task in there that the character or his/her party wouldn't otherwise do. Perhaps you have the character pay EXP to get it back. Whatever you choose, it fills your story with lots of flavor. And...I love that it puts a risk/reward to the spell and doesn't break the lock dip, nor does it discourage the player from using it. It's simply a limit on a spell that otherwise has few limitations and adds LOADS of flavor to your adventures without necessarily derailing the campaign. Even still, a magic missile should be so good!

    Let me know what you all think, good or bad. I'm open to tweaking it.
    "When being chased by two orcs and you know you're down to your last drop of blood, feel free to throw yourself down into the 50 foot pit where your cleric fell in and shout, "CATCH ME! HEAL ME!" and hope he has a healing spell ready." ~Finn Blackstone, survivor of the 50 foot drop onto his fellow cleric.

  29. - Top - End - #479
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: To all the Warlock 2 dips: Please just die

    With the exceptions of not having a PC dominate the game or Win (Lose) D&D, I don't think it's the DM's job to tell players how to build their characters. It's the player's character. It's the only thing in the game he gets to control and interact with the game world through decisions he makes. If a player wants to multiclass two levels of warlock, that's his business. Now certainly there's nothing wrong with the multiclassing inspiring a roleplaying plot hook, but it should be because it enhances the game not as a DM punishment to the player for the audacity of multiclassing how dare he that min/maxing rollplaying munchkin who does the player think he is making the character he wants to play.
    Quote Originally Posted by OgresAreCute View Post
    "Welcome to Dungeons and Dragons fifth edition, where the DCs are made up and the rules don't matter."

  30. - Top - End - #480
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grod_The_Giant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: To all the Warlock 2 dips: Please just die

    Quote Originally Posted by Ohillion View Post
    Let me know what you all think, good or bad. I'm open to tweaking it.
    Do you impose similar limits on other characters? Do you take away other classes' main features if they use them more than a fraction as often as they're expected to? Because otherwise you're being blisteringly unfair to the Warlock class and anyone who takes it. (FYI: It's significantly worse than HP damage, which the game has many ways to easily recover from).

    The mechanical cost of the Warlock dip is the lost levels in your original class. That's the point of a class-based game. And yes, the Warlock class has mechanical hooks aplenty, but so should every character. The Warlock's patron should bug him about as often as the Cleric's deity, the Fighter's old army buddies, or the Bard's ex-lovers.

    STaRS (and STaRS Lite)
    A non-narrativeist, generic rules-light system, by me. Now officially released!

    Grod's Guide to Greatness
    A big book of player options for 5e, by me

    Quote Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant View Post
    Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use
    Giants and Graveyards: My collected 3.5 class fixes and more.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •