The Gaming Den

Now ask him what happens when you take Con damage.

I probably would allow it. I don't see how it's different from invisibility combined with, say, directing a flaming sphere.

No cleric and no scroll of the spell? No town nearby?

It not likely that the party is completely unable to do something about level drain over the next 30 encounters. Then again, maybe my DMs are just "nice" or "not dumb".

1078975065[/unixtime]]That's why it's slow. It's an entire quarter of games and you haven't actually passed the point where you could just bring in a new character. [br][br]That's not true. Adding a new character is not explicitly covered by the rules. You could start as a 1st level PC. Obviously, ...

1078941912[/unixtime]]That would be a massive upswell in the relative costs, as the characters would then gain experience as if their level had no changed. As well as the fact that multiple lost levels would remove more absolute XP. [br][br]Except one of the effects of a negative level is:[br]"...

Well, the rules never say what you should and/or shouldn't track what you gain from a level. They're completely mute on the topic. Since we track all this stuff in our games, it's unreasonable to use Skip's innane ruling in the FAQ.[br][br]IMO, the best way to deal with permanent level loss (from a ...

*sigh* The more I play, the more I ignore the FAQs. I either think "duh" or "where are you getting this from and why are you being inconsistent?".

So now the build requires you to use a 3.0 FAQ, but a 3.5 PrC?

1078792510[/unixtime]][br]Get hit for 5 levels of level draining which all come out of your highest class level [br][br]I'm curious. How do you know you take it from the highest level and not the most recent? We've always assumed it was the latter, and I don't find anything suggesting otherwise.[br]

1078364066[/unixtime]]And looking back at the argument before, I have this to add:[br][br]Rules are fundamentally different form bivalent sentential logic. In Sentential Logic we assume that all of the statements are true and then work from there.[br][br]In a system of rules, we have a series of ru...

1078439385[/unixtime]]Your construct was based "logically" on using Contraposition on sets of directives - which is painfully invalid. Consider, Contraposition gives us things such as:[br][br] If you roll a 20 on your attack roll, you hit your opponent. Therefore: If you miss your opponen...

Ok, Frank, other than proving you have a thesaurus, what exactly is your point? That every sentence must necessarily be taken out of the context in which it was written to be understood as a game rule? Your arguments still leak like a sieve.

"While in a defensive stance, a defender cannot use skills or abilities that would require him to shift his position."[br][br]Seeing as Ride is based on Dex, I find it hard to believe you can use it in a DS. But beyond that and the sheer dumbness of a dwarf on a horse ;) it looks OK, techn...

** points to nose **
** points to Oberoni **

1077875369[/unixtime]] Why does the incapacitated vampire regain 1 hit point if you destroy the coffin before 1 hour is up? [br][br]They reform 1 hour after reaching the coffin if they reach the coffin within 2 hours of hitting zero hit points. They don't have to be in the coffin at all during that...

Yeah, I see no reason why they won't both happen. It's nonsensical to think the undead type 0 --> destroy happens, but that's not the case with any other kind of effect (turn, disintegrate, etc.).[br][br]I don't see why vampires lose vulnerabilities with alternate form. They're special qualities (ce...

1077828669[/unixtime]]So, just to make sure I understand:[br][br] Oberoni Fallacy: Even though the DM can fix it in his campaign, the RAW on this subject/topic are broken.[br][br] DMINAGF: If the RAW on this subject/topic are broken, you should expect and assume your DM will not let you use them.[b...

[br][br]Oberoni:[br]A: Haste is broken in 3.0![br]B: Just don't let people cast spells with their action. It's not broken at all.[br][br]Point: Just because you can change it, doesn't mean it isn't broken. It still needs fixing.[br][br][br]DMINAG:[br]Player: I found this PrC on the Internet I'm goin...

SureFrankyou'rerightwhateveryousay.

It's all about the adamantine ring of protection +1, I tell ya.

No, no. They're really quite separate. Oberoni says "it's not balanced just because it can be changed". DMINAGF says "it's not playable just because it's published".[br][br]It's like Presidential veto and Congressional override. Checks and balances. Not too much power in the DM's...

1077742472[/unixtime]]What's that stand for? [br][br]DM Is Not A Gold Fish. That is, just because you bring it to the table doesn't mean it works like that. Especially with variant UA rules.[br][br]It's short for "That's obviously stupid and broken since it renders the game unplayable. No sane...

DMINAGF

Meh. I always thought they should just change it to a flat x10 duration for +3 or +4 levels and let it work on everything in the game that Extend can.

Well, you could use the variant from UA. Drop sneak attack for fighter feat progression (UA p58).