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 - liquid150

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6
1
D&D 5e / Re: Started Running my First 5e Game
« on: January 14, 2015, 11:39:39 PM »
It's been a few weeks and a lot has happened. We are loving the death rules. I have had to keep combat fairly lethal, but that is unsurprising with the group that I have. No more outright deaths yet, and they just hit 3rd level.

I'm not really sure if any of them have accounts here, so I won't go into plot details. I doubt they do.

I'm seeing that sleep and color spray are powerful with their no-save effects. I'm also seeing that healing is comparatively sparse. The lack of ability to purchase magic items changes the game quite a bit. I like the change actually.

It seems like the rogue is pretty strong, and is incredibly fast.

AC seems to matter. Then again, it's 1st-3rd level.

Spells that have saves seem harder to land.

2
D&D 5e / Re: Started Running my First 5e Game
« on: December 20, 2014, 09:26:16 PM »
My first week with combat encounters was quite interesting.

The very first attack of the game killed the Mormon bard. I won initiative and natural 20 crit him in the face with a crossbow. He rerolled and joined later with a new character.

My players found that combat is still quite lethal at low levels, obviously. I think 3 of them either died or made death saves as some point in the evening.

I found what I would call the limits of a first level party's capabilitities. My players overcame 7 first level fighters with their standard party of 4, but only barely. The wizard won the day with a Color Spray.

We are loving the new skills and advantage rules. Getting accustomed to combat may take a while however.

3
D&D 5e / Re: Started Running my First 5e Game
« on: December 16, 2014, 07:20:13 PM »
Fortunately for me, most of my players were more than willing to give me plot bait with which to work. The wizard is our newest player, and he didn't really do much for me. Other than that, right now the hook is that the rogue's former thieves' guild, who set him up, is running an operation in his new home. He will want to know why they are there.

The bard was hilarious all night. His stat rolls were pretty bad, and he used them to their utmost. His character needs to be a bard, although he is very religious and wants to connect with Pelor. However, he can't for some reason (his WIS score is not high enough). He can heal and cast spells, and he can preach up a storm (his performance). Well, somewhat...he's been (mis)quoting Joseph Smith.

Everybody seems to have picked up the idea of the rules well enough, but combat will be different.

4
D&D 5e / Started Running my First 5e Game
« on: December 13, 2014, 02:40:36 PM »
The players and I are long time buddies. So far they finished their characters, and we roleplayed a bit in a tavern. They bit my hook, sending them to hunt some thugs in a warehouse. We'll see how combat goes next week.

I have a Bard, Fighter, Wizard, and a Rogue. I may gain a barbarian next week as well, we'll see.

5
Introduce Yourself / I'm Back!
« on: December 08, 2014, 09:44:09 PM »
I'm back for 5.0e!

I had some PM's from before, not sure if any of those guys will see this. No, I am not Sunic Flames. I did know him for a while though, from playing MMO's and PbP. Wonder if he's lurking here? LOL

Anyway, just saying Hi.

Hi.


6
Min/Max 3.x / Re: 3.5 Build Help Requested: A "survivor" Arcane Caster or Warlock.
« on: August 23, 2012, 06:08:40 PM »
Quote from: AugustusGloop on August 23, 2012, 06:00:31 PM
I can take master spellthief as my 3rd level feat, does that mean that as a spellthief 1/wizard 4 I gain third level spells?  Or am I still behind on spells known, just casting spells as a 5th level wizard?
The second one.

7
Min/Max 3.x / Re: Geomancer + DMM Persist?
« on: February 20, 2012, 06:27:44 PM »
Quote from: zook1shoe on February 20, 2012, 01:58:16 PM
Quote from: ClayQ on February 20, 2012, 04:31:46 AM
Quote from: zook1shoe on February 20, 2012, 03:39:55 AM
Could you use features on spells like elemental savant's focus (fire) to increase non-fire spells? Since its mixing features to gain the best spell

Unless elemental savant has an ability that makes all thier spells have the fire subtype, I would have to say no. It specifically says spellcasting parameters of spellcasting classes not of spells themselves.

How is that very different than changing a sorcerer spell to a paladin spell for Battle Blessing, since Sor/Wiz would be one of the parameters of the spell, albiet a one that is easily changed
Because [fire] is not a class-based parameter, it is a parameter of the spell itself. Geometer specifically calls out that the parameter must be based on your class. This means it's okay to treat an arcane spell as if it were being cast by a cleric (divine, no ASF chance, DMM applicable) but it's not okay to cast a spell that is not [fire] as if it were, or to cast a Necromancy spell as if it were a Conjuration (i.e. apply Spell Focus: Conjuration).

8
Off Topic Fun / Re: Fucking hate intellectual bigots.
« on: February 18, 2012, 02:36:54 PM »
I'm not going to touch the feminist discussion, as most of my opinion has been expressed by X-Codes and others.

On the vegan issue, I hate militant vegans/PETA fucktards. I love animals, I have two dogs right now, and one of them I don't even really want to have. I am taking care of her and actively finding a suitable home, and keeping her out of the shelter so she doesn't get sick (making it difficult to be adopted). Nobody can tell me that I am not an animal-lover.

However, I eat meat, and that's never going to change. I have a vegan ex-girlfriend, and honestly her food beliefs were one of the issues that came between us. She became vegan in the middle of our relationship, and started going on saying things such as "meant won't be allowed in my house" and "my children will be raised vegan." I tried tackling this on multiple fronts, including 1. that I ought to have the right to have food I like in the house, and 2. that our children ought to have the right to decide if they want to be vegan. For somebody so emphatic about not forcing children to believe in a religion she was blind to the fact that doing this was no different.

Luckily, she wasn't/isn't militant, and doesn't do stupid stuff to people different than her. There was a while where she tried to convince me to change my diet, but after several times of me telling her that it will never happen and to drop it, she finally did.

9
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: So you wanna take a hit...
« on: February 18, 2012, 12:06:41 PM »
Quote from: snakeman830 on February 18, 2012, 11:30:23 AM
Honestly, I'm not sure where the idea came from that you can cast Magic Vestment on a Shield spell.  It doesn't create a shield, it creates "an invisible, tower shield-sized mobile disk of force."

Doesn't look like it's a shield at all, just that it is shaped-like one.
Right, and technically Luminous Armor creates an "aura" and Mage Armor creates "an invisible, tangible field of force."

That's pretty much exactly my point. I don't know where the idea came from either, that's why when I saw it posted I asked questions.

10
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: So you wanna take a hit...
« on: February 18, 2012, 11:11:26 AM »
Quote from: X-Codes on February 17, 2012, 11:21:09 PM
Are you insisting that I engage SorO_Lost in a debate?
No, not at all.

Did I misunderstand your post? I thought you were saying that I was wrong, and that by changing his mind and agreeing with me that Soro was wrong. If I was incorrect in my assumption, I apologize for misinterpreting your sentiments.

I had thought you were saying that you can cast MV on a Shield, Mage Armor, or Luminous Armor. If that is what you were saying, I am asking what RAW proof there is, because so far in this thread I have only moved closer to the opinion that it is not possible based on the rules.

11
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: So you wanna take a hit...
« on: February 17, 2012, 08:26:19 AM »
Quote from: X-Codes on February 16, 2012, 10:39:36 PM
Quote from: SorO_Lost on February 14, 2012, 11:45:01 PM
Quote from: liquid150 on February 13, 2012, 06:30:18 PM
The actual text from the PHB has "shield" italicized, which by precedent and standard procedure of the rules, indicates that the sentence refers to the spell name, not to the shield as an object. The same is true of Luminous Armor.

And yeah, maybe this is slightly more of an argument now, because I'm becoming more convinced that you can't actually do this.
And believe it or not you have something there too. This minor change in font can make a huge difference in how something is read. Like the PHB's entry is using a proper noun where as in the SRD could be read it using one of several types of nouns which creates an ambiguity the reader must distinguish him self.
Or you're wrong...

Again.
Prove it.

I would like for it to work, and have repeatedly asked for rules support showing that it does. If it works, then I am happy, but there needs to be support behind it and not just "I don't like the RAW conclusion." If there are RAW that prove it to be possible, then fine, but I don't see any.

12
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: So you wanna take a hit...
« on: February 13, 2012, 08:55:01 PM »
Right, but two armor bonuses don't stack, even if one is an enhancement bonus. If you have a shirt with a +0 armor bonus and a +5 enhancement bonus to armor, but also wear regular full plate with no enhancement bonus, the enhancement bonus is wasted as it does not stack. Therefore, even with a shirt having a +5 enhancement bonus, if you have cast Greater Luminous Armor your shirt will not stack with the spell.

13
General D&D Discussion / Re: Rolling dice Vs point buy
« on: February 13, 2012, 08:20:38 PM »
I prefer point buy and use maximum hit points.

14
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: So you wanna take a hit...
« on: February 13, 2012, 06:30:18 PM »
Um, okay, whatever.

The actual text from the PHB has "shield" italicized, which by precedent and standard procedure of the rules, indicates that the sentence refers to the spell name, not to the shield as an object. The same is true of Luminous Armor.

So, as I said, any more than just circumstantial evidence? The argument in favor thus far holds very little water. The Magic Vestment spell clearly calls for "armor or shield touched." Nowhere in the spell descriptions are Shield, Mage Armor, and Luminous Armor referred to as a suit of armor or a shield in the context of them being an object, they are always referred to in the context of the spell name through italicization.

And yeah, maybe this is slightly more of an argument now, because I'm becoming more convinced that you can't actually do this.

15
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: So you wanna take a hit...
« on: February 13, 2012, 08:12:41 AM »
Quote from: SorO_Lost on February 13, 2012, 01:14:13 AM
Quote from: liquid150 on February 12, 2012, 09:56:57 PM
Am I missing something? Is there another precedent for being able to cast Magic Vestment on Mage Armor or Luminous Armor?
Yes.

1.
(click to show/hide)

2.
(click to show/hide)

Any questions?

I am pretty sure I wasn't arguing, I was asking for rules quotes and precedents. Saying "your rebuttal" implies that I was arguing, and I clearly wasn't.

Also, that second quote appears to be saying exactly the same thing that I did.

Any questions?

Any MORE than just circumstantial evidence that the effect of Shield is called a "shield" just once? It could very well just be the name of the spell, just as mage armor uses. What about Greater Luminous Armor? IIRC it's only called an "aura."

16
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: So you wanna take a hit...
« on: February 12, 2012, 09:56:57 PM »
Quote from: liquid150 on February 12, 2012, 05:33:32 PM
Quote from: Jackinthegreen on February 12, 2012, 05:21:35 PM
Quote from: liquid150 on February 12, 2012, 04:50:41 PM
Quote from: SorO_Lost on February 12, 2012, 12:59:00 AM
Abjurant Champion up a Shield spell and cast Magic Vestment on it for a +14 bonus if you don't extend the class. :)
Is there a rules precedence to make this work (Magic Vestment, that is)? I haven't ever seen one, nor that you can cast MV on Mage Armor or Greater Luminous Armor.
MV can be cast on regular clothes anyway, so the point is pretty moot.
I guess this is true, and the enhancement bonus to armor should stack with the armor bonus, just as natural armor and an enhancement bonus to natural armor stack...makes sense to me anyway.
After reviewing the definition of "enhancement bonus," I'm not convinced this works. It states that it improves the armor bonus of a suit of armor, meaning that if you cast it on your clothing while having Mage Armor active, since it is two items providing an armor bonus (despite one being enhancement, because of the wording of enhancement bonus) the two do not stack.

Am I missing something? Is there another precedent for being able to cast Magic Vestment on Mage Armor or Luminous Armor?

17
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: So you wanna take a hit...
« on: February 12, 2012, 05:33:32 PM »
Quote from: Jackinthegreen on February 12, 2012, 05:21:35 PM
Quote from: liquid150 on February 12, 2012, 04:50:41 PM
Quote from: SorO_Lost on February 12, 2012, 12:59:00 AM
Abjurant Champion up a Shield spell and cast Magic Vestment on it for a +14 bonus if you don't extend the class. :)
Is there a rules precedence to make this work (Magic Vestment, that is)? I haven't ever seen one, nor that you can cast MV on Mage Armor or Greater Luminous Armor.
MV can be cast on regular clothes anyway, so the point is pretty moot.
I guess this is true, and the enhancement bonus to armor should stack with the armor bonus, just as natural armor and an enhancement bonus to natural armor stack...makes sense to me anyway.

18
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: So you wanna take a hit...
« on: February 12, 2012, 04:50:41 PM »
Quote from: SorO_Lost on February 12, 2012, 12:59:00 AM
Abjurant Champion up a Shield spell and cast Magic Vestment on it for a +14 bonus if you don't extend the class. :)
Is there a rules precedence to make this work (Magic Vestment, that is)? I haven't ever seen one, nor that you can cast MV on Mage Armor or Greater Luminous Armor.

19
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: My base rules for a 99% by-the-book 3.5e campaign I'm prepping
« on: February 11, 2012, 11:34:29 AM »
Most looks pretty solid. I also use a lot of houserules that improve mundanes and ranged, a lot of them are very similar to Roy's houserule thread on the old BG. I realize that somewhat eliminates your "99% by the book" goal, though.

20
D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder / Re: What is the point of traps?
« on: February 11, 2012, 11:31:16 AM »
All I have to say has pretty much been said. I just wanted to pipe in to say it is a rare occurrence for me to use traps, except to increase the difficulty of an encounter when there are powerful PC's present. I don't like forcing one player to play a trapfinding class, and the tediousness of the players searching every door, every hall, and every object for traps subtracts from the fun and feel of the game, IMO.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6