Author Topic: Poke-Center (OOC Discussion)  (Read 214857 times)

Offline Anomander

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2442
  • I did it to feel.
    • View Profile
Re: Poke-Center (OOC Discussion)
« Reply #900 on: November 27, 2015, 03:51:09 PM »
Quote
Anomander: Hadn't your character already used Cold Sign last round? The Yuki-on-na recharges randomly and I didn't see you roll for that.
Pha has three sources of Cold Sign. She learned it as a maneuver known with two different martial classes. The second one was a God class maneuver.
The third source is the intelligent item that can initiate it through her.

Offline oslecamo

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 10080
  • Creating monsters for my Realm of Darkness
    • View Profile
    • Oslecamo's Custom Library (my homebrew)
Re: Poke-Center (OOC Discussion)
« Reply #901 on: November 28, 2015, 07:11:13 AM »
That's an illegal source, since the same character can't learn the same maneuver twice. It's the whole basis of the idiot crusader combo and everything. And the Intelligent Item will not use a maneuver unless the wielder shouts the name, while Pha has been awfully silent for a Zelda fairy.

SolEiji: The wall of blades fails, as the result ended up not being better than Barkley's regular AC.

Do I apply my damage reduction to Raticate attacks or not? 
Their attacks count as magic and evil, otherwise apply any DR your character has.

and is it ok that my summons are referencing different Nintendo creatures even though you'll need to squint sometimes Bison/rhino?  I should have gone with the fiendish gorilla anyway he's pretty easy to fluff as a Kong.

Sure!
« Last Edit: November 28, 2015, 07:13:01 AM by oslecamo »

Offline Anomander

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2442
  • I did it to feel.
    • View Profile
Re: Poke-Center (OOC Discussion)
« Reply #902 on: November 28, 2015, 10:29:59 AM »
Quote
That's an illegal source, since the same character can't learn the same maneuver twice.
Is that something you decided or is there a rule somewhere confirming that? I reckon two casting classes (wizard/sorcerer/Shugenja) can learn the same spell and never saw a limit to similarly learning the same maneuver from different classes (both under different recovery systems).

Quote
And the Intelligent Item will not use a maneuver unless the wielder shouts the name, while Pha has been awfully silent for a Zelda fairy.
Yes but Pha didn't use it to initiate anything yet either.

Offline oslecamo

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 10080
  • Creating monsters for my Realm of Darkness
    • View Profile
    • Oslecamo's Custom Library (my homebrew)
Re: Poke-Center (OOC Discussion)
« Reply #903 on: November 28, 2015, 11:03:46 AM »
Quote
That's an illegal source, since the same character can't learn the same maneuver twice.
Is that something you decided or is there a rule somewhere confirming that? I reckon two casting classes (wizard/sorcerer/Shugenja) can learn the same spell and never saw a limit to similarly learning the same maneuver from different classes (both under different recovery systems).
I didn't make that one up. Go read the idiot crusader threads that go into more detail. It's already been discussed plenty of times around the net.

Quote
And the Intelligent Item will not use a maneuver unless the wielder shouts the name, while Pha has been awfully silent for a Zelda fairy.
Yes but Pha didn't use it to initiate anything yet either.
Yes she did, since Pha can only know a specific maneuver once regardless of how many different martial classes she may pick.

Offline Anomander

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2442
  • I did it to feel.
    • View Profile
Re: Poke-Center (OOC Discussion)
« Reply #904 on: November 28, 2015, 02:06:52 PM »
Quote
I didn't make that one up. Go read the idiot crusader threads that go into more detail. It's already been discussed plenty of times around the net.
So far I see that it has a problem with getting readied maneuvers from other sources to it. I see no reference to a rule that prevents learning the same maneuver from different martial classes within their own maneuvers known/recovery/readied system the same way casters can know the same spell twice with two different casting classes.

If there is indeed no rule preventing it, I'd rather you make it up than some random joe in a forum somewhere that has no authority over this game.

Quote
Quote
Quote
And the Intelligent Item will not use a maneuver unless the wielder shouts the name, while Pha has been awfully silent for a Zelda fairy.
Yes but Pha didn't use it to initiate anything yet either.
Yes she did, since Pha can only know a specific maneuver once regardless of how many different martial classes she may pick.
If the rules prevent it then I'll have her initiate it through the intelligent item and whisper something dramatically. Otherwise she is using her own God readied maneuvers for it and can afford to freeze stuff without additional dramatics.

Offline ketaro

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4241
  • I'm always new!
    • View Profile
Re: Poke-Center (OOC Discussion)
« Reply #905 on: November 28, 2015, 04:04:30 PM »
From how I see the text, knowing a single maneuver from multiple sources doesn't mean anything. The important part is about Readying maneuvers. If you have 2 instances of Cold Sign as a Known maneuver, and you choose to Ready Cold Sign, you're not Readying Cold Sign A or Cold Sign B, you're Readying Cold Sign. When you use Cold Sign, Cold Sign is expended for the rest of the encounter or until Recovered.

Martial Adepts do not have Maneuver Slots reminisce of a Mage's Spell Slots, the language in the ToB is consistent in how it talks about Maneuvers being either Known or not Known; Readied or not Readied. To step outside the book a moment, this can be further inferred by that there is such language specifically saying spellcasters being able to Prepare the same spell more than once in the PHB and how such language is not even hinted at within the ToB. This is all quite plainly said in each Adept's Maneuver section of the classes and further in the Blade Magic section of the book.

Lack of explicit language does not automagically infer something being allowed within the rules; that is infact making it something that exists outside the rules and thus not actually an intended part of the game. If the language and/or rules lacks the explanation, you ask your DM well beforehand instead of just assuming you can go ahead with your plan and then later on facing this exact problem when trying to execute it.

Offline Anomander

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2442
  • I did it to feel.
    • View Profile
Re: Poke-Center (OOC Discussion)
« Reply #906 on: November 28, 2015, 04:22:35 PM »
Quote
If the language and/or rules lacks the explanation, you ask your DM well beforehand instead of just assuming you can go ahead with your plan and then later on facing this exact problem when trying to execute it.
That wasn't the idea. I reckon reading the rules on readying maneuvers and it stating that when you ready a maneuver you can only ready those that you know.

Each class has access to their own pool of maneuvers known, taken among the disciplines they have access to.

There is no restriction on having the same maneuver known for different classes.
Readying maneuvers work only for maneuvers known, and each work at an initiator level proper to the class that has learned the maneuver initiated.
One could claim a case of readied maneuvers being uniform across all classes so that those earned for two classes stack together so that they can only be used to ready a maneuver known, no matter which class it is known by, but mechanically that isn't so as each readied maneuver works independently of those earned by a different class as they are not recovered by the same method.

So Readied Maneuvers A can only ready the A maneuvers Known and Readied Maneuvers B can only ready the B Maneuvers Known.
If both A and B can both have  Maneuver X as a Maneuver Known, you can therefore have it readied with both once with the Readied Maneuvers A and once with the Readied Maneuvers B. For me the Readied Maneuvers section logically allow it as long as there is no restriction on different classes being able to know the same maneuver.

I didn't and do not feel like the rules lack an explanation. The language doesn't seem to block the logic either though I'll reread the whole thing again just in case once I'm back to my books.

Edit: Oh, to be clear, I don't mind changing it later when I've got time either way if only so Osle's more comfortable with it.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2015, 06:18:48 PM by Anomander »

Offline oslecamo

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 10080
  • Creating monsters for my Realm of Darkness
    • View Profile
    • Oslecamo's Custom Library (my homebrew)
Re: Poke-Center (OOC Discussion)
« Reply #907 on: November 29, 2015, 12:04:49 AM »
On the contrary, I'm only asking you to stop changing things at your whims. Martial initiators are not spellcasters. A specific maneuver is the same maneuver regardless of what martial class learned it, while a bard's Suggestion is different from a wizard's Suggestion is different from a cleric's Suggestion.

So basically please do stop bringing the spell rules to a maneuvers arguments.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2015, 12:07:23 AM by oslecamo »

Offline Anomander

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2442
  • I did it to feel.
    • View Profile
Re: Poke-Center (OOC Discussion)
« Reply #908 on: November 29, 2015, 02:52:01 AM »
Quote
A specific maneuver is the same maneuver regardless of what martial class learned it
Where's your source? It sounds like a personal interpretation and I would be curious to know what you read that lead to it.

Quote
So basically please do stop bringing the spell rules to a maneuvers arguments.
The book itself keeps bringing spell rules in to explain the ways maneuvers differ from them. I am mostly bringing in the issue of how multiclassing works when using a class system that gains a set of abilities that are Known; Spells known, powers known, maneuvers known...

A bard's Suggestion is an SLA ability of the spell of the same name. The ToB specifically states at page 46 that maneuvers have a SLA equivalent as well.
Your comparison is an argument in my favor.

When the book explains how maneuvers known/readied/expended works, they keep explaining that you have to keep track of those separately when multiclassing. What one base martial class in a build does is independent of the others. It has its own maneuvers progression and maneuvers known, its readied maneuvers can only ready the maneuvers that class knows and the IL used for these maneuvers is the IL of that classe's own martial progression.
Even maneuvers gained from the Martial Study feat before having a martial class are handled separately.
A Maneuver that gets readied through reading a martial script has no clause against using it to initiate a maneuver that you already know or have readied as it is handled separately. Same goes for the Crown of White Ravens and its variants.
So it isn't just a case of the book simply forgetting to mention you cannot know the same maneuver with different classes or alternate means to get maneuvers. It also goes out of its way to clarify that the maneuvers you have access to, can ready, initiate and recover is all handled separately for each source.

Which only leads me to feel that any interpretation that different classes cannot learn the same maneuver is probably the result of a confusion over the rules. Probably stemming from the idea that, since Readied maneuvers are a system that do not work like spell slots, power points, spells prepared, mana points and their likes, that Maneuvers Known are also under a completely different multiclassing mechanism than Spells Known or Powers Known... for some reason (that is nowhere to be found). The similar terminology is another hint.

When a new element in the rules is different from what people are familiar with the author usually explains how they differ and keeps everything else the same for simplicity's sake.
Which is in tune with how they compared maneuvers with how spells work many times throughout their explanation of the system to explain where they are different. They explained how readied maneuvers work differently because they do. They didn't do that for maneuvers known, likely because there is no difference and so far I see nothing across the entire books that explicitly suggests the contrary. Nor anything that does so implicitly.

Offline Nanshork

  • Homebrew Reviewer
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13393
    • View Profile
Re: Poke-Center (OOC Discussion)
« Reply #909 on: November 29, 2015, 01:11:18 PM »
Anomander, just FYI your interpretation isn't the one commonly decided as RAW both here and on other boards.  In fact, you're the only one that I've seen express this interpretation in a long time.

Offline Anomander

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2442
  • I did it to feel.
    • View Profile
Re: Poke-Center (OOC Discussion)
« Reply #910 on: November 29, 2015, 04:07:32 PM »
Nevertheless I detailed why this is both RAW and most likely RAI.

I'd be glad to read explanations on why it doesn't work. Merely saying that a lot of people think something doesn't constitute an argument. You'd be surprised how many people make mistakes on their understanding of basic rules that are very plainly explained in the books, so nevermind slightly more complex ones such as this.

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: Poke-Center (OOC Discussion)
« Reply #911 on: November 29, 2015, 04:38:02 PM »
In retrospective, I may've been too harsh, the Hylian warrior is indeed somewhat MAD so you can have Wis to shield back. Rest of your character seems fine. Mind just hoping in the battle as the hero rival to Jeremy?
Sure, but I have no idea who he is :p

Also it seems I've fallen behind in the thread again with the holidays, looks like I missed a big argument.
When the book explains how maneuvers known/readied/expended works, they keep explaining that you have to keep track of those separately when multiclassing.
Actually the rules say readied, expanded, and recovery of expanded Maneuvers are tacked separately for each class (pg40), "Known" wasn't included.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2015, 04:53:44 PM by SorO_Lost »

Offline Anomander

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2442
  • I did it to feel.
    • View Profile
Re: Poke-Center (OOC Discussion)
« Reply #912 on: November 29, 2015, 11:05:35 PM »
Quote
Actually the rules say readied, expanded, and recovery of expanded Maneuvers are tacked separately for each class (pg40), "Known" wasn't included.
That section is exclusively about recovering maneuvers. How to handle known maneuvers thus naturally isn't the subject it is detailing. It would be completely off topic.

Still, that passage supports my claim in that it confirms that the readied maneuvers are handled separately between the muticlassed base classes.
And that is merely because you can only ready a maneuver that you know. Both martial classes can thus ready the same maneuver since the maneuvers known that a class can ready isn't affected nor limited by those readied with the other classes.

For maneuvers known being handled separately, for example, take that passage on p.96 that explains how martial progression affect multiclass characters when the PrC gains new martial stuff.
*When you get a new maneuver known, you must choose which standard base class gets it. Which means the others don't get it. Which in turn confirms that each class has its own pool of maneuvers known from which they can ready their maneuvers independently of the other martial classes the character has.
Therefore one cannot say "I learned that maneuver with class X so class Y and class Z now also know it, which prevents them from learning it."
Which makes sense since every base classes as different approach to the Sublime Way and how they use it.
Two classes that know the same maneuver wouldn't use it the same way, which is demonstrated in how the initiator level used for it isn't shared.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2015, 11:26:16 PM by Anomander »

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: Poke-Center (OOC Discussion)
« Reply #913 on: November 29, 2015, 11:49:13 PM »
That section is exclusively about recovering maneuvers.
So you'll claim you can Know them multiple times, Ready them multiple times, but it's impossible to recover them? Ok.

Still, that passage supports my claim in that it confirms that the readied maneuvers are handled separately between the muticlassed base classes.
Again, it does not include Known, it doesn't support you at all.
Affirming the consequent – the antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A.

Quote from: Anomander
The book itself keeps bringing spell rules in to explain the ways maneuvers differ from them. I am mostly bringing in the issue of how multiclassing works when using a class system that gains a set of abilities that are Known; Spells known, powers known, maneuvers known...
I also missed this one before but you assert Maneuvers are to be treated like Spells, but unlike Maneuvers "same spell more than once" appears twice in the PHB when discussing Wizard Preparation and no such text appears for Maneuvers and it's only that text that matters, nothing else.
False equivalence – describing a situation of logical and apparent equivalence, when in fact there is none.

For maneuvers known being handled separately, for example, take that passage on p.96 that explains how martial progression affect multiclass characters when the PrC gains new martial stuff.
The section you're talking about is about PrCing as a muticlass character and how if a PrC adds a new Known Maneuver you must associate it with a base Class which in turn determines IL/Ready/Recover rules. This has nothing to do with confirmation that you can, or cannot, learn the same Maneuver twice using two different classes but saying it does is an:
Incomplete comparison – in which insufficient information is provided to make a complete comparison.

Ultimately, the test in the Tome of Battle is ambiguous. It uses singular text, like the entire Martial Power section, but that isn't quite enough to confirm it's limited to Known being binary or not. Which causes people like you to spring up, but the lack of text that allows you to breed bad thoughts is also your undoing.
Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.

All that really matters is that officially WotC has already provided an answer.
Q: Can you know the same maneuvers (from Tome of Battle) more than once? Can you ready the same maneuver more than once at a time?
A: Actually no, you cannot learn the same maneuvers more than once, nor can you ready the same maneuver more than once at a time.
And so has your DM.

I feel like personally adding if you're wanting to stage an appeal to the matter, IE you think he's cockblocking you with a houserule, you're probably going about it the wrong way.

Offline Anomander

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2442
  • I did it to feel.
    • View Profile
Re: Poke-Center (OOC Discussion)
« Reply #914 on: November 30, 2015, 04:18:19 AM »
Quote
So you'll claim you can Know them multiple times, Ready them multiple times, but it's impossible to recover them? Ok.
No. I'm affirming that you took a quote from a passage that does not discuss maneuvers known at all to try to prove a point about maneuvers known. The title of that section is "Recovering expended maneuvers", after all. I don't see what gave you that idea.
What I see you do now is put words into my mouth and attack that position to affect my credibility. You know what we call that.

Quote
Again, it does not include Known, it doesn't support you at all.
Your quote did not apply to maneuvers known to begin with so it had no value and wasn't used properly. However, it applies to maneuvers readied, which can ready maneuvers known, which is an important detail to be able to ready the same maneuver known by two different classes. It does not prove that two classes can know the same maneuver but proves that if that can be done, the rest works. What that texts details then indeed is in agreement with my position. Read the whole thing please before dismantling the argument and taking only the single element out of context you can argument against.
Affirming the consequent does not apply since if my argument needs both A and B to be true, then a statement proving B but not A nevertheless contributes to my argument.

Quote
I also missed this one before but you assert Maneuvers are to be treated like Spells, but unlike Maneuvers "same spell more than once" appears twice in the PHB when discussing Wizard Preparation and no such text appears for Maneuvers and it's only that text that matters, nothing else.
That argument was to show that there is continuity in terminology in the use of the term Known.

Also, the argument again isn't about comparing it with spells but with how multiclassing handles the resources of abilities known in general. The book specifies that a wizard can prepare the same spell more than once because that is a rule within its own class; it has no application to how that works when multiclassing so that argument is dodging the subject and going somewhere else entirely.

It isn't written anywhere that if a Bard gets a spell known, he cannot have it known as a sorcerer as well. That is an example of resources being handled separately between two different base classes that have access to the same thing. It is similarly not written in the book that maneuvers should be treated differently in the same scenario, so what in the book suggests that we should? The continuity in the terminology remains a good indicator of how it is intended to work.

Quote
The section you're talking about is about PrCing as a muticlass character and how if a PrC adds a new Known Maneuver you must associate it with a base Class which in turn determines IL/Ready/Recover rules. This has nothing to do with confirmation that you can, or cannot, learn the same Maneuver twice using two different classes
It certainly confirms that you cannot determine that what prevents two base classes from learning the same maneuver is that when a maneuver is known by all classes it is considered known for all classes. Disproving that argument is what I aimed to do and that serves my argument by itself. That taken out, what's left in the book that gives the rule or impression that two classes cannot or at least shouldn't learn the same maneuver?

Quote
Ultimately, the test in the Tome of Battle is ambiguous. It uses singular text, like the entire Martial Power section, but that isn't quite enough to confirm it's limited to Known being binary or not. Which causes people like you to spring up, but the lack of text that allows you to breed bad thoughts is also your undoing.
I've already given plenty of arguments in favor of how the texts seems intended to allow my point to function and, in the games, the DMing attitude that often trumps actual RAW is what seems to be read as intended. In the absence of a true RAW element to back a point, if such is the case, RAI has more weight than anything else.
So far all I got in favor of maneuvers not being knowable by more than a single standard class at once here is "that absence of proof in the text that disproves my point has less weight that the absence of proof that supports it" and a giant appeal to authority (not from you so far, though), which is only false logic.
Is there a logical argument in favor of that position, using whats in the text?

Also, I'll note that using terms like "people like me" and "bad thoughts" is getting into the personal attacks territory. I do not consider your efforts to be bad thoughts even though they may be wrong. I am equally perfectly aware that I may be wrong myself, which is why I even bother about this exchange, otherwise I'd just roll with it and internally consider the ruling as worthless for all future games and only something I have to put up with for now. If there is a logical reasoning on what is written behind the reason people accept that rule as the norm, I'd love to know it rather than assume there is one.

Quote
All that really matters is that officially WotC has already provided an answer.
Without entering into the whole "Ask the Sage credibility" thing in the matter of their given rules, I'll concede that if we stick to the notion that WotC gave them actual authority to decide on what is to be considered an official ruling, the Sage's word is the law.

If that is all that matters to you then that settles it as far as you are concerned. For me that feels unsatisfactory as the hired Sage offers no explanation to back up the rule he settles on; He just makes a statement. All DMs remain perfectly justified in using it as a way to align their decision on a matter if their own impression of the text doesn't suffice them. One could also claim that since they are hired by WotC they technically have as much authority on the rules presented in a book than the book itself has authority on the rules it presents so I'll accept it as a valid argument.
I do not recognize the Sage as a valid source for anything but that's my problem until I'm the DM. Thank you for solving the matter of RAW.
I'm still concerned about RAI.

Quote
And so has your DM.
That sounded more like an appeal to authority than a ruling based on logic, which is why I discussed it. The extra reference to the idiot crusader combo that isn't really related also made it feel like he confused two rules together, so I wanted to be sure. Which is why I immediately asked where the rule came from. Being answered by another appeal to authority didn't help confirming if that was indeed an actual rule.
If the only reason that rule is accepted so far is because of the Sage's rule, then he can certainly accept the Sage's authority on the matter.

Quote
I feel like personally adding if you're wanting to stage an appeal to the matter, IE you think he's cockblocking you with a houserule, you're probably going about it the wrong way.
I already said I'm all right with it if it makes him feel more comfortable about it, no matter the outcome.
I'm only debating the point for future reference (and because its entertaining). I've seen it before in other games, the DM let it work and I agreed with the reasoning.

I hope you've got not negative feelings on the entire exchange. I appreciate the exercise and the time you take to use your wits on the matter. Thanks.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2015, 04:36:05 AM by Anomander »

Offline oslecamo

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 10080
  • Creating monsters for my Realm of Darkness
    • View Profile
    • Oslecamo's Custom Library (my homebrew)
Re: Poke-Center (OOC Discussion)
« Reply #915 on: November 30, 2015, 06:21:32 AM »
In retrospective, I may've been too harsh, the Hylian warrior is indeed somewhat MAD so you can have Wis to shield back. Rest of your character seems fine. Mind just hoping in the battle as the hero rival to Jeremy?
Sure, but I have no idea who he is :p
Well, it was mostly a joke since Jeremy used to be a pokemon trainer but ended up as the candidate for hero-that-saves-the-world. What was your idea for background?

Also thanks for your work with Anomander.

I'm still concerned about RAI.

One of the most basic points of ToB is that it's not easy to spam the same maneuver over and over. It's a core concept for the whole system, great for balance and loved by pretty much all of the fans. Claiming that the Intention of Tome of Battle was to allow you to use the same maneuver over and over all along without stopping to recharge is nothing short of mind-blogging.

At least you admitted that the guys hired by Wotc to write stuff are higher in the validity chain than what you write yourself, which is an important first step.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2015, 06:23:58 AM by oslecamo »

Offline Anomander

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2442
  • I did it to feel.
    • View Profile
Re: Poke-Center (OOC Discussion)
« Reply #916 on: November 30, 2015, 11:05:49 AM »
Sure, though I still believe that what a standard class can do is a system independent of what other standard classes can do. That is how it works in general.
A single class cannot know the same maneuver more than once nor ready the same maneuver more than once, but two different classes might.
The Q&A of the Sage on the matter isn't clear as he most probably was talking about what a single class cannot do. The question lacked that distinction since that answer would have been the same for, say, any other class even though that doesn't apply. Such as the bard & sorcerer situation.

Edit: I checked online for how other people treat the subject and it seems one Sage also covered the multiclass situation. Still, on that site's request for an answer on the subject KRyan covers pretty much the way I see that situation; logically-inconsistent.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2015, 01:46:29 PM by Anomander »

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: Poke-Center (OOC Discussion)
« Reply #917 on: November 30, 2015, 07:47:09 PM »
(click to show/hide)

Well, it was mostly a joke since Jeremy used to be a pokemon trainer but ended up as the candidate for hero-that-saves-the-world. What was your idea for background?
Hyih! Yaah aiieee. Hi hi haaa! *pottery being smashed*
[I'll think of something tomorrow, because running around yelling vowels would probably get old pretty fast]

Edit - So how about OoT stealing?
If I'm not mistaken the party was in the woods talking to TN-is-really-nature's-evil Fadore. Ty could be a human taken in by a tree to live there for mysterious reasons. He slept in again as he often does and when he hurried in to watch their dual against the Hero's Shade he found out he missed it. The pretty much a treehugging hippy manchild bearing strange items guy was abandoned in his infantile age and developed a very odd Maleficent-like relationship with a treeplant that pretty much dislikes all humans. When he got there, Fadore gave him some crap about how at least they walked away with more than bruises and decided that they fared so well (well they did get bonuses) to send Ty with them.

Ty in turn knows something is up but has never gotten much more out of Fadore's tight lips beyond "you don't need to burn the forest down to make an egg". There is something he hasn't been told, the sparring, the items, he's obviously grown older than all the other Kokiri, the old dirtlicker has been preparing him for something. Maybe it has something to do with the creeping moonface in the sky that's getting closer? These adventurers are part of it, and they may be able to tell him something about his past or who he is along the way.

Also I kind of like 5th's idea of Background bonuses for free. Like does anyone ever taken a Rank in Profession, Survival, or Craft even through they are like 18+ and grew up working for a living ever since they could carry something? I smell homebrew potential!
Also fun fact, did you know there is a 60,000 character limit in a post? I thought it was higher :(
« Last Edit: December 01, 2015, 02:38:08 PM by SorO_Lost »

Offline ketaro

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4241
  • I'm always new!
    • View Profile
Re: Poke-Center (OOC Discussion)
« Reply #918 on: December 02, 2015, 02:08:52 AM »
QUESTION!

Considering the feat Ranged Threat's wording of threatening every square within 15ft, can you flank with it without needing to be physically behind an enemy?

Offline oslecamo

  • Honorary Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 10080
  • Creating monsters for my Realm of Darkness
    • View Profile
    • Oslecamo's Custom Library (my homebrew)
Re: Poke-Center (OOC Discussion)
« Reply #919 on: December 02, 2015, 02:49:59 AM »
No, since that would mean huge dudes with chains would be able to flank without needing to be physically behind an enemy as well.

Hyih! Yaah aiieee. Hi hi haaa! *pottery being smashed*
[I'll think of something tomorrow, because running around yelling vowels would probably get old pretty fast]

Edit - So how about OoT stealing?
If I'm not mistaken the party was in the woods talking to TN-is-really-nature's-evil Fadore. Ty could be a human taken in by a tree to live there for mysterious reasons. He slept in again as he often does and when he hurried in to watch their dual against the Hero's Shade he found out he missed it. The pretty much a treehugging hippy manchild bearing strange items guy was abandoned in his infantile age and developed a very odd Maleficent-like relationship with a treeplant that pretty much dislikes all humans. When he got there, Fadore gave him some crap about how at least they walked away with more than bruises and decided that they fared so well (well they did get bonuses) to send Ty with them.

Ty in turn knows something is up but has never gotten much more out of Fadore's tight lips beyond "you don't need to burn the forest down to make an egg". There is something he hasn't been told, the sparring, the items, he's obviously grown older than all the other Kokiri, the old dirtlicker has been preparing him for something. Maybe it has something to do with the creeping moonface in the sky that's getting closer? These adventurers are part of it, and they may be able to tell him something about his past or who he is along the way.
Sounds good.

Also I kind of like 5th's idea of Background bonuses for free. Like does anyone ever taken a Rank in Profession, Survival, or Craft even through they are like 18+ and grew up working for a living ever since they could carry something? I smell homebrew potential!
There's a reason I like using obscure skills for my martial schools. :p

Also fun fact, did you know there is a 60,000 character limit in a post? I thought it was higher :(
Considering I had to split up multiple of my homebrews because of that, yes.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2015, 07:32:34 AM by oslecamo »