Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Soft Insanity

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9
1
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: AoO disrupting ranged attack
« on: April 16, 2018, 12:41:58 AM »
Looking at the D20 Modern core rulebook, page 131, shows that attacks of opportunity say nothing about disrupting the ranged attack that triggered the AoO, thus it means the AoO does not disrupt it.

His claim when i pointed that out was that it doesn't say it doesn't.  To which I responded that all melee attacks must provoke.

It's truly frustrating and the whole incident came across as him trying to TPK the party (who were all ranged and noncombat characters).  He was on about how he was having trouble getting players to stick with the game (it's online) and now I understand why.

His argument hinged on his 12 years of experience where that's always been the case.

2
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / AoO disrupting ranged attack
« on: April 15, 2018, 11:27:26 PM »
I'd like some clarification.  I just left a game where the gm declared that the attack of opportunity from using a ranged weapon in melee forced the attack to miss due dealing damage.  I tried to explain that's the grapple rules, but he insisted that it's always been that way.  The ruleset is d20 modern with some 3.5.  Even spellcasters get a concentration check, so i'm perplexed.

3
You might want to check out "node granted spells" (underdark 50).  Basically high power nodes are akin to the spell pool a mage of the arcane order gets.  Time is the only factor to be overcome.  For a single cast of node genesis you're looking at 10 epic spells once it starts producing epic spells.  It's unclear who gets to design and choose these spells.

4
I'm curious as to why you're not using Shapechange instead.  Reserves of Strength is your strongest feat option due to no epic spellcasting, and it works wonders with that spell.  It's easier to raise your caster level than your wildshape level.

Anyway, I don't know if it's been mentioned, but the skin of kaletor from dragon magazine is worth a look.

5
Handbooks / Re: Travel Magic
« on: September 23, 2016, 12:21:38 AM »
The first thing I looked for was "Lay of the Land".  It's the only spell I'm sure to cast in every game.
There's a few ways I've found to get artificer banned from games:
1. Natural Weapon Augmentation: Dislocator.  If I can find some ash, I can slap us out of this jail cell the DM is starting us in.  Feel free to add this as an extremely low level no-line of sight teleport.  Amazingly, not found in handbooks because nobody cares about infusions.  Games ended/booted from for this: 5.
2. Lay of the land.  Really, we're not lost.  I swear.  If you can't make a scroll of this, you'll just have to wait until level 2 and spell store it.  Running tally on games this has ended in the last few years: 3.  Mostly because we were supposed to be lost.
3. Of course Weapon Augmentation: Bane Weapon, but at level 3, it becomes Armor Augmentation: Bane Blind.  Bane Blind just ends encounters if you decide to scout, or are in a setting with a single type of enemy.  Sure it costs money in oil, but that's why you steal their loot as you pass through.  Haven't had a game end because of this alone, but I consider it bonkers strong.  So much so that I'm always afraid the DM will use it against me.

6
Min/Max 3.x / Re: [3.P] Merchant Build
« on: August 13, 2016, 12:07:06 PM »
You linked the web version of Power of Faerune.  The book itself includes expanded rules for the dmg 2, starting on page 62.
If I were going to make a merchant character who used the DMG 2 rules, I'd go for an artificer who specializes in portals and lightning rails.  The stat block for the epic level merchant on page 82-83 as well as the leadership rules pertaining to business at the beginning of the chapter makes it pretty clear you can own an entire network of businesses.  The artificer can also "cheese" his skill checks for long duration to great effect up to and including changing bonus types on skill boosting items.(if those are allowed)
My favorite aspect of the system is that you only suffer a minor penalty comparatively by just ignoring your business.  Once a month, you just show up, make a standard action skill check, and you're good.  This indicates that you can use spells such as guidance of the avatar and divine insight on checks even tho it would normally seem counter intuitive to do so.  Just use concurrent infusion "spell storing" to cast those spells for free.(it has no component/xp cost)
Your skills should be selected in such a way as to be able to score the "franchise" option if the monthly chart is in play.  If it's not in play, I'd just get the minimum required on secondary skills.  Once you get the franchise, you're looking at some pretty disgusting numbers if you can afford the payoff.
Basically, My level 20 merchant character would be Artificer 18/Chameleon 2, with an Artificer/Chameleon companion.  Take a bunch of reduction feats including the portal specific one and elemental artisan, and go nuts playing railroad tycoon.

7
You run into a problem where the most helpful things you can do for the party require oils as a component.  Best advice I can give is to really look into what you can accomplish with infusions and focus on item creation as a secondary function of the character.  I'd be more concerned about getting oil than making magic items tbh.

8
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: Wildshape vs. Improved Wildshape
« on: April 24, 2016, 09:54:07 PM »
Then his opinion didn't really matter, unless he'd convinced the DM of it.

True, but do you really want to play a game with somebody like that?

9
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: Wildshape vs. Improved Wildshape
« on: April 24, 2016, 09:38:05 PM »
I'd try to express how annoying it is to explain it to him, but I gave up and ultimately left the game.  The worst part being that it all started over my wanting to purchase wilding clasps and use them with my armor.  His knee jerk reaction was to say "they don't work on armor and won't size the armor".   Normally I wouldn't give any thought to it, but my character wasn't the only one planning on using the clasps.  And no, he wasn't the DM.

10
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: Wildshape vs. Improved Wildshape
« on: April 24, 2016, 08:59:41 PM »
He pretty much is under the impression that since it is named differently it's not the same thing.

11
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Wildshape vs. Improved Wildshape
« on: April 24, 2016, 07:53:03 PM »
I had another player telling me just now that anything the works with wildshape won't work with improved wildshape.  It sounds weird to me.  What do you think?

12
Min/Max 3.x / Re: Rules Question about Charging
« on: March 20, 2016, 01:58:14 AM »
Thanks, I knew it was somewhere.

13
Min/Max 3.x / Rules Question about Charging
« on: March 20, 2016, 01:11:10 AM »
So Charging doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity according to the rules compendium page 8.  My question is, does the movement related to charge provoke attacks of opportunity?  If you charge through threatened squares of others, do you provoke?

14
Yeah, I did and he said it dosen't stack, he also said that if Soft Insanty ever tried using hearsay and alledged claims to prove a point you should never listen to him. :p

Can't wait to see what wrong conclusion you also jump to.

15
Whether or not I like FoI has nothing to do with the basis for my argument. You're deliberately mischaracterizing what I'm saying and questioning my motives in a feeble attempt to dismiss what I'm saying.

Which is why I was trying to give you an out but you eventually saw the same thread I saw from 2013.  You know, the one where everybody changed their mind like you just did.  Well, imagine that thread from 2013 as it was in 2009, except now imagine someone actual told the truth about what the author said in the email (that it is triangular).  I played alot of factotums back in 2009, and that thread was pretty important due to being timely.

You never bothered to address my prior points because you already dismissed them even tho they are all perfectly valid.  Honestly, would you rather have to remove the retraining rules from your game, or have the feat stack as intended?

If you're running a game with your interpretation, you might as well give up on any sort of fair play once a player realizes you only need 2 fonts, downtime, and a few gold to get as much inspiration as they desire.  My point remains...the system never bothers to go back and check if something overlaps, ONLY IF IT STACKS.

16
What the feat enables the character ("you" in the feat description) to do. If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.

"Indicated Otherwise" is not the same as "it says so".  If they want it to be "it says so" they would have wrote that, going along with your whole what the author says and means argument.  See how that turns around on you when pointing to any rule and not just the one you're misinterpreting?

At the end of the day, if you don't like font of inspiration, don't question how people read it...just say "it works this way in my game" and be done with it.  While you're at it I suggest just upping the inspiration points for the factotum to something reasonable, limiting the extra standard actions to 1 per turn, and still telling players it's a complete waste of a class for anything more than 3 levels.  Let's be honest, Brains over Brawn is the real star of the class.

17
Either that or your very poorly arguing that the words "they stack" MUST be added to ANY feat regardless of wording or it cannot stack with itself even if the grammatical text indicates otherwise.

That's part of why I'm having trouble following his logic.  I've been playing so long that when I look at something that obviously stacks, it never occurs to me that someone would say "it doesn't stack".

The funniest part is, if they don't stack...you can retrain the under font to a top font.  The game never goes back to look because they don't stack, now does it?  That is to say:
Font 1 gives you 1 point
Font 2 gives you 2 points, never cares about Font 1 again
retrain Font 1 to Font 3
Font 3 gives you 3 points, never cares about Font 2 again
retrain Font 2 to Font 4
....
profit.

That's the most obvious reason to me why stacking is important.  It's so devastating that the whole int max font thing has no bearing on it at all.

18
The failing of the wording of the feat is in that it does not directly say "taking this feat multiple times stacks", but instead says it through the description of granting additional inspiration points per successive selection of the feat.

The true failing of the feat is that it doesn't increase your refresh-able pool at all.  It just says "have some points" and by the rules once you use them they vanish and all you have to show is an empty feat.  If the OP had said that, I'd have nothing to say.  As it is, and as you further elaborated on, the grammar supports the current handling of the feat the same as it does psionic talent.

So yes, font of inspiration does grant fewer points than people think...because they never refresh after being used.  Only the ones gained through class do. (per the last sentence in the inspiration entry)

Most players take it 4-5 times anyway.  The reality is, factotum is a terrible class once you realize belt of battle can 1. be made with more charges and 2. be made slotless.  That's even before considering that psionic talent is actually a stronger feat capable of giving you more standard actions.

19
Holy cow I've been replaced!

Seriously through, you went against common forum misconception and read the material and drew your own conclusions, and found appropriate inherited rules to back the interpretation. And then shared it publicly, even knowing it's a nerf which generally less than well reachieved by any user base.

Great job Robby, both on the research and the step forward.

Except he's wrong.  And therefore you are too.  You're ignoring the "here's the exception" that's in the rule you quoted.  It's a willful ignorance that I find quite charming.

20
Except somebody emailed the author and asked him how it works.  Basically, it works like everybody has been using it.  (I'm too lazy to link it because I don't have to, but it's out there)  He then said something along the line of if you don't like it, don't use it.

It's not the only feat that works using the (N^2+N)/2 formula either.

Behold:

Psionic Talent [Psionic]
You gain additional power points to supplement those you already had.

Prerequisite
Having a power point reserve.

Benefit
When you take this feat for the first time, you gain 2 power points.

Special
You can take this feat multiple times. Each time you take the feat after the first time, the number of power points you gain increases by 1.

The difference being the formula is now (N^2+N+2)/2

For some strange reason, that VERY OLD feat has worked the same way and had the same wording and never gets discussed because it's not as important as Font.  I wonder why nobody ever brought it up before font was a thing...I mean there were only years in between.

Oh, yeah "unless indicated otherwise in the description."  Both of them make use of that clause.  Now it all makes sense.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9