D&D 3e/3.5e/d20The forum for conversations specifically related to the rules and procedures of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition, 3.5 Edition, or any fantasy game using the d20 system or a variant thereof (commercially published or not).
Me- "Remember Final Fantasy II?"
PC-"Yeah, why?"
Me- "The old man that stares at you disappears from your view, as does everything else."
PC- "What?!"
Me- You're dead, he basically cast 8 Meteos, 2 Nukes, and called Bahamut and Jinn all at the same time. An imp walks up an poops on your charred body. Golbez was the loved child, your father hated you, Rosa was cheating on you....with Kain...and Cid."
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redwolf
I'm sorry to disrupt the topic, but that would really be Final Fantasy 4, they just labelled it as Final Fantasy 2 on Super Nintendo outside of Japan because they hadn't released the others. I realize it doesn't matter, but I'm a FF nerd.
Gah! I'm playing though that game for the first time! When I saw FFII, I thought it was the actual FFII. The one with the super exploitable leveling system that gave me 3 healers who use unarmed strike so I never need to buy weapons. Or healing potions, for that matter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Careless
There's also the fact that a Beholder is a giant floating eye. Its kind of easy to guess where you should stab/bludgeon/blast it. Unless it doesn't have a big eye, then you should hit the little ones.
Legend of Zelda gave me favored enemy: Aberration, I think.
Rule of thumb: Stab it either in the eye, the tail, the flashy spot or the oddly colored spot. Or also the head in older games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthteej
I open up the SRD Hypertext and point to the clause that says that sneak attack works on any creature who is denied a dex bonus to their AC.
According to TV Tropes (I'll find the page later), sneak attacks, by RAW, can give extra healing power to wands of cure spells
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthteej
So the only thing that changed was that the debate about whether you could stack TWF and FoB was rendered moot, something that no one in their right mind would do anyway.
And the clause about the +5 sai vs unarmed strikes, I thought they were just plain common sense. Now don't get me wrong, this rule still screws over the zen archer, but everything else seems to be how Flurry worked before.
Couldn't you just repeatedly stab the enemy with your magic sai and render this whole debate moot?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuggyne
OT for great justice:
Spoiler
Heh, fair enough.
If one did, though, perhaps a sort of green?
I ... had not actually thought of that, but oh well, I got no other idea on how to handle that.
OT:
Spoiler
I second this decision to make green the sincerity color.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firechanter
Or to the Halfling Rogue player: "You actually don't need Open Lock and Disable Device, just take Profession: Locksmith and you're good for both."
Wait. Does this actually work?
__________________
Avatar from anythingcomic.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by Razanir
Everyone knows frying pans are actually weapons that people repurpose for cooking
you don't need to go to that trouble. rogues all dump wis, profession is difficult to do well in.
just put ranks in DD. the literal first sentence on it in the PHB (p72) says that you can use it to "jam a lock (either in the open or closed position)" if that's not opening a lock... then I don't know what your DM's thinking.
You could jam it in its current position, but not into another.
__________________
Spoiler
Like one, that on a lonesome road
Doth walk in fear and dread,
And having once turned round walks on,
And turns no more his head;
Because he knows, a frightful fiend
Doth close behind him tread. The Rime of the Ancient Mariner -- Samuel Coleridge Taylor
You could jam it in its current position, but not into another.
Ah, but the RAW is you can do either, from either position. And the RAI is Disable Device replaces Open Lock. Also, if you know how to take the lock apart, you should know how to unlock it.
__________________
Jonny was a chemist's son, but Jonny is no more.
What Jonny thought was H2O, was H2SO4.
Ah, but the RAW is you can do either, from either position. And the RAI is Disable Device replaces Open Lock. Also, if you know how to take the lock apart, you should know how to unlock it.
yep, basic common sense FTW.
I never make anyone put points into open lock, I tell them straight up that DD does that too, and show them the part in the rulebook where it says so. they appreciate saving the points.
though seriously, if you're starting above 1st, a wand of knock will pay for itself many times over.
Huh... The one time I don't put in a qualifier or look up the rules... Still, that's good to know; I'm a fan of rogues.
__________________
Spoiler
Like one, that on a lonesome road
Doth walk in fear and dread,
And having once turned round walks on,
And turns no more his head;
Because he knows, a frightful fiend
Doth close behind him tread. The Rime of the Ancient Mariner -- Samuel Coleridge Taylor
Ah, but the RAW is you can do either, from either position. And the RAI is Disable Device replaces Open Lock. Also, if you know how to take the lock apart, you should know how to unlock it.
Cutting open the lock casing and disassembling the mechanisim does not allow anyone to subsequently unlock a similar lock without a key. Think about it this way, with a screwdriver and a wrench set you can disassemble a TiVo but that will not help you program one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disable Device
The Disable Device check is made secretly, so that you don’t necessarily know whether you’ve succeeded.
The DC depends on how tricky the device is. Disabling (or rigging or jamming) a fairly simple device has a DC of 10; more intricate and complex devices have higher DCs.
If the check succeeds, you disable the device. If it fails by 4 or less, you have failed but can try again. If you fail by 5 or more, something goes wrong.
The amount of time needed to make a Disable Device check depends on the task, as noted above. Disabling a simple device takes 1 round and is a full-round action. An intricate or complex device requires 1d4 or 2d4 rounds.
Disable Device is not a fool-proof substitute for Open Lock. It takes longer and, even if successful, leaves you with a broken/jammed lock. If you just want to bypass the lock you don't even need Disable Device, a hammer and Power Attack will do just fine. But if you don't want to leave a hole where the lock used to be (assuming that it's not a padlock) or you think that locking the door behind you might be useful then you'll need Open Lock or the appropriate magic ability.
__________________ Niven's Laws, #5
If you've nothing to say, say it any way you like. Stylistic innovations, contorted story lines or none, exotic or genderless pronouns, internal inconsistencies, the recipe for preparing your lover as a cannibal banquet: feel free. If what you have to say is important and/or difficult to follow, use the simplest language possible. If the reader doesn't get it then, let it not be your fault.
Ah, but the RAW is you can do either, from either position.
For a given value of RAW, sure. If they'd used 'into' instead of 'in' I'd have agreed. Can go both ways as it is now, leaning on the intention that 'jam' means 'make stuck where it is'.
Quote:
And the RAI is Disable Device replaces Open Lock.
Does it really seem that way to you? Because to me it seems quite the opposite. There's all the difference between Intimidate and Diplomacy as far as I can see.
Quote:
Also, if you know how to take the lock apart, you should know how to unlock it.
Anyone with a big enough hammer can take the lock apart. That doesn't take much knowledge of locks. I can disassemble most of my electronic equipment, but even if I took careful notes, it might not work properly when I've assembled it again. Because I don't know why what goes where or what gets permanently wrecked if I take it apart.
Also Disable Device does not, to me at least, read like an ability used for taking things carefully apart so you can reassemble them later. It's for wrecking things, albeit in subtle ways.
Aside from that, the house rules at our table make OL and DD into a single skill (like MS/Hide and Spot/Listen). So it's not that I disagree with the idea as such.
I'm with Telok on this.
For a given value of RAW, sure. If they'd used 'into' instead of 'in' I'd have agreed. Can go both ways as it is now, leaning on the intention that 'jam' means 'make stuck where it is'.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hymer
Does it really seem that way to you? Because to me it seems quite the opposite. There's all the difference between Intimidate and Diplomacy as far as I can see.
Rules Compendium page 44 says that the only reason we have Open Locks is due to legacy, and suggests you replace it with Disable Device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hymer
Anyone with a big enough hammer can take the lock apart. That doesn't take much knowledge of locks. I can disassemble most of my electronic equipment, but even if I took careful notes, it might not work properly when I've assembled it again. Because I don't know why what goes where or what gets permanently wrecked if I take it apart.
Also Disable Device does not, to me at least, read like an ability used for taking things carefully apart so you can reassemble them later. It's for wrecking things, albeit in subtle ways.
Aside from that, the house rules at our table make OL and DD into a single skill (like MS/Hide and Spot/Listen). So it's not that I disagree with the idea as such.
You can make a DC 20 Disable Device check to disarm and reset a simple trap (note: although the book doesn't say simple trap, it is a DC 25 check to disarm a complex trap). That suggests to me a level of care that would help you take apart a lock and put it back together. Also it requires thieves tools so you'd probably be making the same kind of actions as opening the lock.
__________________
Jonny was a chemist's son, but Jonny is no more.
What Jonny thought was H2O, was H2SO4.
I don't have the Rules Compedium, so I'll have to take your word for that. And, I agree, we disagree. :) Though it's almost entirely academic, of course, the best sort of disagreement.
Anyone knows blue is for sarcas'ing in · Use of gray may indicate nitpicking · Green is sincerity · "Take 10 SAN damage from Dark Orchid"
I often hop into threads for just one thing
Warforged are made of metal so a rust monster completly eats you after 2 rounds 3 if your lucky
Oh ick that is a bad one.
Please tell me someone corrected him and/or smacked the taste out of his mouth.
__________________
I am not seaweed. That's a B.
Praise I've received
Spoiler
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell
Kelb, recently it looks like you're the Avatar of Reason in these forums, man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTwerewolf
[...] bringing Kelb in on your side in a rules fight is like bringing Mike Tyson in on your side to fight a toddler. You can, but it's such massive overkill.
Please tell me someone corrected him and/or smacked the taste out of his mouth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starbuck_II
Don't worry, page 23 of ECS book says he take damage from a Rust monster, 2d6 damage Reflex 1/2 DC 17 (instead of being destroyed like normal metal).
Why would composite plated WF be eaten by a rust monster? only their Internal structual skeleton is made of metal, the rest is rope and wood, so why would a rust monster go for the chew disgusting fiber guy instead of the fighter's longsword?
Why would composite plated WF be eaten by a rust monster? only their Internal structual skeleton is made of metal, the rest is rope and wood, so why would a rust monster go for the chew disgusting fiber guy instead of the fighter's longsword?
I'm guessing it is like metal alloy over wood, so the rust monbster eats the alloy?
Don't worry, page 23 of ECS book says he take damage from a Rust monster, 2d6 damage Reflex 1/2 DC 17 (instead of being destroyed like normal metal).
I know, that's why he can be corrected as well as smacked, instead of just smacked for making a bad houserule.
__________________
I am not seaweed. That's a B.
Praise I've received
Spoiler
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell
Kelb, recently it looks like you're the Avatar of Reason in these forums, man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTwerewolf
[...] bringing Kelb in on your side in a rules fight is like bringing Mike Tyson in on your side to fight a toddler. You can, but it's such massive overkill.
No it isn't, first if you look at the picture of a warforged it clearly has metal on its outer body. And as stated above the campaign setting book says warforged are vunerable to rusting attacks.
RSS Feeds: 
Re: Worst interpretation of the rules ever?
[/IMG]
that is a bad one.
