Five Senses
Moderator: Moderators
Five Senses
Skip Vs. Polymorph
My favorite part is the thing about the "five senses".
Thanks to Zherog for pointing this out over on Nifty.
Game On,
fbmf
My favorite part is the thing about the "five senses".
Thanks to Zherog for pointing this out over on Nifty.
Game On,
fbmf
Re: Five Senses
The Sixth Sense then would be smell. I can smell dead people!
Of course, most people can smell them so I wouldn't make a movie out of it.
Of course, most people can smell them so I wouldn't make a movie out of it.
-
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: Five Senses
Skip's blanket definiton of Natural Abilities includes the "Spells" ability. He also says that you gain the Natural Abilities of anything you polymorph into.
Sign me up, I'm polymorphing into a Abeil Queen like nowish.
-Username17
Sign me up, I'm polymorphing into a Abeil Queen like nowish.
-Username17
Re: Five Senses
Yeh,
I'm going to get a guy to PAO me into one of them, and then I'll use my own powers to change myself into different ones, each with a unique spell list(since you can turn yourself anything in the "normal" range for the creature.
Sweet.
I'm going to get a guy to PAO me into one of them, and then I'll use my own powers to change myself into different ones, each with a unique spell list(since you can turn yourself anything in the "normal" range for the creature.
Sweet.
- Count Arioch the 28th
- King
- Posts: 6172
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: Five Senses
My god, I wish Skip would realize that he just needs to say "Look, We fucked up. We need to fix it. Excuse us a few while we do so"
Because this constant trying to justify the rules just makes him lose more and more credibility.
Of course, I don't think he ever had much, I have a bunch of really old Dragon issues, and he was giving dumb advice about 1E back then, and I assume that he did so for 2E too.
Because this constant trying to justify the rules just makes him lose more and more credibility.
Of course, I don't think he ever had much, I have a bunch of really old Dragon issues, and he was giving dumb advice about 1E back then, and I assume that he did so for 2E too.
In this moment, I am Ur-phoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my int score.
Re: Five Senses
Along the lines of the Polymorph spell ... is something I've noticed about the Fiendform spell (a Forgotten Realms spell that is a lower-level, watered-down version of Shapechange).
It first started out in the MoF book. Then got revised in the UE or RoF. And now got revised *again* in the PGtF book. Each of the 2 revisions further nerfed it. And now its kinda useless. Feh. Too bad, because the spell is really cool.
Yeah, I agree with the rest of you. I have no freakin' clue what the Skipster is going to pull outta his ass in this multi-part treastise on the nuances of Polymorph. So far, I'm scared ...
****
One other note about the PGtF book, the Otherworldly feat makes you into a Native Outsider if you are an Elf and whatnot. Very, very nice for a Sun Elf Wizard who casts Alter Self spell a lot. Especially if you like altering yourself into uber-forms such as a Lesser Xorn, Ravid, & Xill. Hell, the Ravid gives you +15 Natural Armor right off the bat! Not bad for the cost of a feat that also gives you 60' Darkvision, a Diplomacy bonus ... and a 2nd level spell.
It first started out in the MoF book. Then got revised in the UE or RoF. And now got revised *again* in the PGtF book. Each of the 2 revisions further nerfed it. And now its kinda useless. Feh. Too bad, because the spell is really cool.
Yeah, I agree with the rest of you. I have no freakin' clue what the Skipster is going to pull outta his ass in this multi-part treastise on the nuances of Polymorph. So far, I'm scared ...
****
One other note about the PGtF book, the Otherworldly feat makes you into a Native Outsider if you are an Elf and whatnot. Very, very nice for a Sun Elf Wizard who casts Alter Self spell a lot. Especially if you like altering yourself into uber-forms such as a Lesser Xorn, Ravid, & Xill. Hell, the Ravid gives you +15 Natural Armor right off the bat! Not bad for the cost of a feat that also gives you 60' Darkvision, a Diplomacy bonus ... and a 2nd level spell.
-
- Prince
- Posts: 3506
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: Five Senses
Count_Arioch_the_28th at [unixtime wrote:1084388666[/unixtime]]My god, I wish Skip would realize that he just needs to say "Look, We [EDITED]ed up. We need to fix it. Excuse us a few while we do so"
Yeah, you can say that again.
I'm still annoyed over that stupid ruling in his other rules of the game article that blind creatures can't be flanked. What's up with that?
-
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 636
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: Five Senses
That's not 3.5, though, right?
-
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: Five Senses
The_Hanged_Man at [unixtime wrote:1084396250[/unixtime]]That's not 3.5, though, right?
Sort of.
It's in the 3.0 FAQ, which means that unless it is directly contradicted in 3.5, it stands. Now, it is directly contradicted in the 3.5 rules, so seemingly it is out.
Of course, it was directly contradicted in 3rd eidition as well, which means that if you ever used it, there's no reason for you to stop using it in 3.5.
That's the beauty of terrible and infensible rulings - it's not like you can make them any less legal - they already start as a contradiction of everything RAW and sensible at the same time.
-Username17
-
- Prince
- Posts: 3506
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: Five Senses
Well, in the rules of the game article here, Skip actually confirms that awful blindness ruling.
To the best of my knowledge, all the rules of the game articles are fully 3.5, so it would seem the blind barbarian stupidity is back.
You get a flanking bonus from any ally your foe can see (and who is in the correct position to flank). If your foe can't see you, you don't provide a flanking bonus to any ally. You literally cannot flank a blind creature; however, a blind creature loses its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against your attacks (so you can sneak attack it), and you get a +2 to attack it to boot. Creatures with the blindsight ability effectively "see" within blindsight range and can be flanked.
To the best of my knowledge, all the rules of the game articles are fully 3.5, so it would seem the blind barbarian stupidity is back.
-
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 636
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: Five Senses
Hoo boy. I didn't read that carefully when it came out. Here's an exceptionally screwy part of this ruling:
Any sighted creature has the option of being flanked, or taking "blind" penalties, whichever is most advantageous. A creature w/ blindsight cannot. Make sense to you?
Any sighted creature has the option of being flanked, or taking "blind" penalties, whichever is most advantageous. A creature w/ blindsight cannot. Make sense to you?
Re: Five Senses
Skippy wrote:You get a flanking bonus from any ally your foe can see (and who is in the correct position to flank). If your foe can't see you, you don't provide a flanking bonus to any ally. You literally cannot flank a blind creature; however, a blind creature loses its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against your attacks (so you can sneak attack it), and you get a +2 to attack it to boot. Creatures with the blindsight ability effectively "see" within blindsight range and can be flanked.
In light of this, just how effective are the following 2 mechanics in dealing with flanking scenarios?
1. Blindfight (Feat)
2. Uncanny Dodge (Class Ability)
-
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: Five Senses
It's of course clearly absurd, since Uncanny Ddge negates the penalties of being blind, but Improved Uncanny Dodge negates the penalties of being flanked.
So under this bizzare ruling, a character with uncanny dodge can simply close his eyes at the end of his own turn and gain the practical benefits of Improved Uncanny Dodge several levels early.
It's retarded. And completely not defensible with anything actually printed in the rules.
-Username17
So under this bizzare ruling, a character with uncanny dodge can simply close his eyes at the end of his own turn and gain the practical benefits of Improved Uncanny Dodge several levels early.
It's retarded. And completely not defensible with anything actually printed in the rules.
-Username17
Re: Five Senses
Why is it required to see someone to recognize them as a threat? I mean, you can feel the pointy thing going your way behind you so you have to pay attention to it, effectively providing a flanking bonus to both people trying to stab you. Sight isn't the be all and end all of combat.
-
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 636
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: Five Senses
That do be the question. Particularly since every other mechanic is based on not have field of vision, facing, etc.
-
- Prince
- Posts: 3506
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: Five Senses
Boulie_98 at [unixtime wrote:1084440064[/unixtime]]Why is it required to see someone to recognize them as a threat?
I'm guessing skip is trying to prevent people from having an invisible creature flank someone yet never attack. Of course, to do that his ruling opens up lots of other potential loopholes, but then skip was never one known for analyzing his decisions.
-
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 636
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: Five Senses
. . . to prevent people from having an invisible creature flank someone yet never attack
I'm not doubting your analysis, but why would anyone care if an invisible creature never attacked and somebody else got flanking bonuses? That's just inane.
-
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: Five Senses
The_Hanged_Man at [unixtime wrote:1084483494[/unixtime]]. . . to prevent people from having an invisible creature flank someone yet never attack
I'm not doubting your analysis, but why would anyone care if an invisible creature never attacked and somebody else got flanking bonuses? That's just inane.
I couldn't tell you, but I've seen people get their hair on fire about it many times.
The prospect of some enemy which their character doesn't know about granting flanking bonuses to some other character sends some people in paroxysms.
I don't know why, it seems like pretty standard fog of war type stuff to me.
-Username17
Re: Five Senses
I've always liked this
[counturl=2]ruling. rule[/counturl]
[counturl=2]ruling. rule[/counturl]
-
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: Five Senses
Part 2 is out.
Interesting notes:
1. Skip says that Familiars are treated as type "Animal" for the purpose of Alter Self, even though they are specifically treated as type "Magical Beast" for the purposes of all spell effects which care about type.
2. Skip says that you can make separate choices for a spell shared to your familiar - which has interesting implications for Holy Star and Contingency.
3. Interesting note: Only "Racial Hit Dice" count for the purposes of Hit Die limits. This means, among other things, that transforming into some of the Cannomorphs which are advanced by class level and granted their own write ups in monster books is a go. Remember that most class features are natural abilities - and thus that you can pick up quite a bit of Cleric Spellcasting if you play your cards right.
4. Skip in no way clarifies the Dog Fu vs. Octopus Fu question - amply providing ammunition for both sides.
Terrible.
-Username17
Interesting notes:
1. Skip says that Familiars are treated as type "Animal" for the purpose of Alter Self, even though they are specifically treated as type "Magical Beast" for the purposes of all spell effects which care about type.
2. Skip says that you can make separate choices for a spell shared to your familiar - which has interesting implications for Holy Star and Contingency.
3. Interesting note: Only "Racial Hit Dice" count for the purposes of Hit Die limits. This means, among other things, that transforming into some of the Cannomorphs which are advanced by class level and granted their own write ups in monster books is a go. Remember that most class features are natural abilities - and thus that you can pick up quite a bit of Cleric Spellcasting if you play your cards right.
4. Skip in no way clarifies the Dog Fu vs. Octopus Fu question - amply providing ammunition for both sides.
Terrible.
-Username17
-
- Prince
- Posts: 3506
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: Five Senses
I always thought octopus fu was the norm based on what the 3.5 MM says about natural attacks.
Really tho, Skip shouldn't even bother trying to clarify polymorph in its current form. The only way you can reasonably "balance" a spell like that is to just say "The DM allows any abilities he believes won't be unbalancing to the game."
It's the only thing you can do, when everything is based on the monster manual.
A better solution would be to just rewrite polymorph, though I just don't see skip doing that.
Really tho, Skip shouldn't even bother trying to clarify polymorph in its current form. The only way you can reasonably "balance" a spell like that is to just say "The DM allows any abilities he believes won't be unbalancing to the game."
It's the only thing you can do, when everything is based on the monster manual.
A better solution would be to just rewrite polymorph, though I just don't see skip doing that.
-
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 636
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: Five Senses
What is the Dog Fu v. Octopus Fu question?
-
- Prince
- Posts: 3506
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: Five Senses
The_Hanged_Man at [unixtime wrote:1084918740[/unixtime]]What is the Dog Fu v. Octopus Fu question?
Basically if you can use natural attacks as iterative attacks or if you pick up the creature's natural attack routine and use it that way.
So assume a BaB of +16.
So if you turned into a dire wolf, would you get one bite or 4?
If you were an octopus would you get 8 tentacle attacks of only 4?
According to 3.5, the answer is one and eight respectively.
The thing with this answer is either way you answer it it's broken, it just means different creatures are broken. Well... actually more or less it just means polymorph is broken.
-
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 636
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: Five Senses
I thought he had. His example shows natural attacks used non-iteratively, and he says you can make attacks that are
IOW, you can attack iteratively, or use naturaly attacks, but not both at the same time."normal" for you or normal for your assumed form, but you can't combine them.
-
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Re: Five Senses
Octopus Fu is:
You take a creature which has access to a crap load of attacks. Then you layer bonuses on top of that which apply to each attack in the sequence. Then you do ludicrously more damage than any creature of your level has a right to do.
Dog Fu is:
You take a creature which does a tremendous amount of damage with its one attack. Then you use it with normal BAB, Cleave, and Combat Reflexes and do way more damage than any creature of your level has a right to do.
The thing is, either one is justifiable by the RAW. And the two interpretations are mutually exclusive. That is, a reading that allows Octopus Fu by definition bans Dog Fu and vice versa.
Skip's reading of it is itself contradictory. He says that you can't get extra attacks for becoming a multiarmed creature and that you can use your own attack routine. This explicitly bans Octopus Fu and explicitly allows Dog Fu. But he also says that you can't combine attack routines and you can use the normal attack routine of the creature - this explicitly allows Octopus Fu and implicitly forbids Dog Fu.
So, um... the argument still rages. Basically if you select part of the text you can clearly show that one is legal and the other is not - but which is which is variant depending upon the text you isolate.
Also note that either version is essentially just as breakable with the proper effort.
-Username17
You take a creature which has access to a crap load of attacks. Then you layer bonuses on top of that which apply to each attack in the sequence. Then you do ludicrously more damage than any creature of your level has a right to do.
Dog Fu is:
You take a creature which does a tremendous amount of damage with its one attack. Then you use it with normal BAB, Cleave, and Combat Reflexes and do way more damage than any creature of your level has a right to do.
The thing is, either one is justifiable by the RAW. And the two interpretations are mutually exclusive. That is, a reading that allows Octopus Fu by definition bans Dog Fu and vice versa.
Skip's reading of it is itself contradictory. He says that you can't get extra attacks for becoming a multiarmed creature and that you can use your own attack routine. This explicitly bans Octopus Fu and explicitly allows Dog Fu. But he also says that you can't combine attack routines and you can use the normal attack routine of the creature - this explicitly allows Octopus Fu and implicitly forbids Dog Fu.
So, um... the argument still rages. Basically if you select part of the text you can clearly show that one is legal and the other is not - but which is which is variant depending upon the text you isolate.
Also note that either version is essentially just as breakable with the proper effort.
-Username17