Annoying Game Questions You Want Answered

TiaC · Post by **TiaC** » Mon Nov 11, 2013 7:38 am

In WotC material, Swordsage or one of the rogue-gish classes seems to work the best. For homebrew, there are a bunch of monk or warlock fixes that could work. Quick and dirty warlock fix: EB is 1d6/level and an attack action, 2 invocations per level, upgrade the chassis a bit.

Korwin · Post by **Korwin** » Tue Nov 12, 2013 9:09 am

hyzmarca wrote:Hmm.

Charm Person works by making the target believe that the Caster is a trusted friend and ally, according to the text.

Does this mean that making a tactical decision to immediately murder all of your friends and allies as soon as possible is an effective mundane way to counter the combat applications of Charm Person?

What does tactical mean in this context?
If it means the Char. kills all his friends as soon as possible (ie immediatly after becomming friends), why not.
Little hard to explain if he is in an long standing party and they dont have become friends at some point.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Wed Nov 13, 2013 12:24 pm

Just attack the party at the first opportunity. It's fun, and discourages the DM from using Charms again. Randomise who you attack each round, to lower risks and appease the other players.

If you're Charmed by another PC, tell the player to not do that again or you will have all your future characters kill every spellcaster he ever plays, in their sleep, forever after. You play your PC, they play theirs, everyone sleeps safe.

infected slut princess · Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:52 pm

You guys are being ridiculous. First of all, you need to make an opposed CHA check to get the charmed dude to do something he wouldn't ordinarily do -- for example, attack his buddies. The charmed guy is not just going to decide to do that by himself. That's not going to work all the time. And if he gets beat on that opposed check, you fight your bros for a round of two, the party incapacitates you somehow and kills the caster who charmed you. Everyone has a jolly good laugh about it and life goes back to normal. I can't understand why you guys are so butthurt about charm person.

P.S. thanks to everyone for their ninja character recommendations. Some really nice ideas there.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Thu Nov 14, 2013 3:54 am

Actually I think they're trying to justify attacking enemy charmers by saying their character suddenly decides it's tactically valid to attack his friends.

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:50 pm

infected slut princess wrote:You guys are being ridiculous. First of all, you need to make an opposed CHA check to get the charmed dude to do something he wouldn't ordinarily do -- for example, attack his buddies. The charmed guy is not just going to decide to do that by himself. That's not going to work all the time. And if he gets beat on that opposed check, you fight your bros for a round of two, the party incapacitates you somehow and kills the caster who charmed you. Everyone has a jolly good laugh about it and life goes back to normal. I can't understand why you guys are so butthurt about charm person.

I don't think Charm works like that. You might be friendly to the caster but that doesn't mean harmful to your allies.

An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing.

I would consider attacking ones allies a harmful act. That's something more along the lines of what Dominate Person is capable of forcing someone to do.

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Thu Nov 14, 2013 11:43 pm

Prak_Anima wrote:Actually I think they're trying to justify attacking enemy charmers by saying their character suddenly decides it's tactically valid to attack his friends.

Yep.

Of course, it works best if you're in a party comprised entirely of people who absolutely loath each other.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:21 am

I think the point is, that in a world with Charm Person, it makes plenty of sense to murder your friends.

So, in fact, I would have a standing policy that if any three of my friends agreed that another should die, I would brutally and instantly murder my friend.

Charm Person: defeated.

infected slut princess · Fri Nov 15, 2013 4:50 am

sigma999 wrote:
I would consider attacking ones allies a harmful act. That's something more along the lines of what Dominate Person is capable of forcing someone to do.

Well maybe. The whole "never obeys...obviously harmful orders" vs "might be convinced something very dangerous is worth doing" issue is subject to debate I guess.

I mean, attacking your real friends might be harmful but maybe not. What if you're a wizard and you just cast sleep on them all.

Kaelik wrote:So, in fact, I would have a standing policy that if any three of my friends agreed that another should die, I would brutally and instantly murder my friend.

It seems like this could... lead to problems. Like what if three of your friends are replaced by evil dopplegangers. They tell you to murder one of your real friends, so you do it. That seems bad.

Grek · Post by **Grek** » Fri Nov 15, 2013 5:26 am

If 75% of your friends have been replaced by evil dopplegangers, you have bigger problems to worry about.

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Fri Nov 15, 2013 10:40 am

Kaelik wrote:I think the point is, that in a world with Charm Person, it makes plenty of sense to murder your friends.

So, in fact, I would have a standing policy that if any three of my friends agreed that another should die, I would brutally and instantly murder my friend.

Charm Person: defeated.

So the sane people in D&D hear voices telling them to kill people?

Draculmaulkee · Post by **Draculmaulkee** » Fri Nov 15, 2013 11:53 am

The Book of Gears mentions that constructs are no longer immune to critical hits. Does this mean in Tome games they are vulnerable to sneak attack?

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Fri Nov 15, 2013 4:48 pm

Draculmaulkee wrote:The Book of Gears mentions that constructs are no longer immune to critical hits. Does this mean in Tome games they are vulnerable to sneak attack?

That sounds about right.

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Fri Nov 15, 2013 8:44 pm

Draculmaulkee wrote:The Book of Gears mentions that constructs are no longer immune to critical hits. Does this mean in Tome games they are vulnerable to sneak attack?

Yes, as they should be.

I'm still waiting for the Book of Trees though. Probably never coming.

Post by **fbmf** » Sat Nov 16, 2013 1:07 am

The closest we'll get is the free preview at the back of one if the tomes.

Game On,
fbmf

Red_Rob · Post by **Red_Rob** » Sat Nov 16, 2013 6:54 am

Draculmaulkee wrote:The Book of Gears mentions that constructs are no longer immune to critical hits. Does this mean in Tome games they are vulnerable to sneak attack?

Well...... not really.

The Book of Gears was an incomplete document, and therefore in order to use anything in it you have to basically finish it yourself. Tome Magic items are a case in point - someone would have to go through and make a whole list of powers or something before they were useable...

Anyway, with Constructs the Book of Gears rightly says that the Type gives too many abilities that don't make sense in every case, and therefore should be stripped down to the essentials. However the other side to that is you then need to rewrite every Construct up to give back the specific immunities and abilities that are appropriate to that creature - and that was never done. Only the Simulacrum was ever statted up. So, you can either use the Tome Construct type and accept that you will then have to house-rule every construct you use on an ad-hoc basis, or use the basic Construct type and live with the illogical results, but at least everyone knows how things work.

On a side note, isn't it weird that the Book of Necromancy goes on a big tirade about how players and GM's won't accept changes to basic creature types and therefore Undead get special subtypes, but in the BoG that goes out the window and the Construct type gets re-written?

TheJerkStore · Post by **TheJerkStore** » Sat Nov 16, 2013 5:46 pm

Probably because people don't really care about constructs that much and would resist change to them less.

TheJerkStore · Post by **TheJerkStore** » Sun Nov 17, 2013 6:41 pm

Pathfinder question:

How would True Seeing interact with Natural Invisibility (Ex)?

Dean · Post by **Dean** » Sun Nov 17, 2013 10:38 pm

Looking at the material I think Natural Invisibility wins. Natural Invisibility seems to be for creatures that are invisible in some intrinsic way. If we take True Seeing's wording of "Sees invisible creatures or objects normally" to mean "Sees invisible creatures or objects as if they were not invisible" and we assume that Naturally invisible creatures have no visible form then they would still be invisible under True Seeing's effects. So even if True Seeing was removing their "Invisibility" there would still be nothing to see underneath.

Granted there's a lot of reading between the lines there. Still I think the intent is for naturally invisible creatures to just be non visible entities so the spell counters don't matter.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Sun Nov 17, 2013 10:41 pm

pfsrd, true seeing wrote:sees invisible creatures or objects normally

"Normally", for things that don't have a visible form (which is what Natural Invisibility means in Pathfinder), is still invisible. So it does nothing. The idea behind true sight is that you see things as they truly are, and for some things that's invisible.

EDIT: Ninja'd.

K · Post by K » Sun Nov 17, 2013 10:50 pm

True Seeing simply alters your vision of things within 120 feet. It doesn't show you the truth.

This is why it shows you the true form of polymorphed things. The reality is that the creature really is that form now, but true seeing overlays an image in your vision because it's a divination spell that sends you information (in this case, the form of the creature without the spell).

It can even be fooled. Spells like Mislead or Non-detection totally fool True Seeing because it's just a divination spell sending you information.

This means that Ex invisibility is no defense.

icyshadowlord · Post by **icyshadowlord** » Sun Nov 24, 2013 8:59 pm

Can a Paladin worship a Lawful Neutral God in 2nd edition?

The setting is Greyhawk, and the deity of choice would be Zilchus.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Mon Nov 25, 2013 12:15 pm

I think in 2nd edition it's up to the God. Either they allow Paladins to follow them or they don't, and if they don't then trying won't help, because they're a God and they win that argument. But I'm not looking it up, so could easily be completely in opposite land again. Maybe that was just a Forgotten Realms thing.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sat Nov 30, 2013 4:37 am

So a friend suggested I run World's Largest Dungeon. I've read others' accounts on here, so I'm going to jiggle things a bit before I do, but one thing in particular is that the WLD was made such that xp... doesn't work. The areas were scripted such that each is good for a range of three levels, but has sufficient encounters that if normal xp rules are used characters will outpace the areas. So it suggests just having players level twice per region.

No big deal, really. However, I'm concerned that healing will be rare in the dungeon and don't particularly want to have a gigantic list of dead characters.

So I'm considering a more standard xp distribution method and a house rule which allows players to spend xp to heal. Any thoughts on the house rule?

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Sat Nov 30, 2013 4:55 am

It means they'll hunker down in safe havens (or try to establish one) refuse to move and not spend XP. Or stockpile wands of healing at any and every opportunity. Burning Xp for something as temporary as healing is, for most players, a non-starter.