Annoying Game Questions You Want Answered

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Sat Apr 26, 2014 8:50 pm

icyshadowlord wrote:How many different write-ups are there for Incantatrix, anyway?

At least two. One of which, IIRC, requires you to ban two more schools.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sat Apr 26, 2014 8:57 pm

I believe it depends on whether you were a specialist wizard before you became an incantatrix

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:10 pm

MoF wrote:In effect, the incantatrix is a specialist in the school of Abjuration (gaining all the benefits of specializing in a school), and the incantatrix must choose an additional prohibited school or schools (although an incantatrix can never choose Transmutation as an opposed school).
[ . . . ]
If the incantatrix already is a wizard specialized in Abjuration, she does not need to choose another prohibited school. A bard or sorcerer who becomes an incantatrix must still choose a prohibited school to gain the benefits of specialization.

momothefiddler · Post by **momothefiddler** » Tue Apr 29, 2014 5:16 pm

What's the origin of the DR ##/XX formatting? Like, I know that now it means that you can subtract ## damage from any source that's not XX, but why on earth is that represented by "##/XX"?? I can't see why that means "unless you have".

Like, I originally read it as division. Is there a version where DR 15/silver functions as DR 5 against a +3 silver weapon? Is it an "or", like in "and/or", and it's between "DR ##" and "XX", meaning either is an option, and I'm just getting tripped up by the space and focusing on "##/XX" in isolation?

schpeelah · Post by **schpeelah** » Tue Apr 29, 2014 7:13 pm

As far as I can tell, the slash is a generic "we skipped a bunch of words, you know what they are" sign in English.

momothefiddler · Post by **momothefiddler** » Tue Apr 29, 2014 7:35 pm

schpeelah wrote:As far as I can tell, the slash is a generic "we skipped a bunch of words, you know what they are" sign in English.

I can't think of any examples of this but also I feel like you might be right and I'm just drawing a blank because reasons.

Huh.

Schleiermacher · Post by **Schleiermacher** » Tue Apr 29, 2014 8:15 pm

I know that in Pathfinder, you can't sneak attack with flasks anymore.
But is that errata, or is it part of the original core rules?

I ask because I'm going to play in a short campaign with a friend who refuses to be convinced that 3.5 is superior to PF, but they're very casual and not a Paizil. We're only using the core rulebook and won't be paying any attention to whatever nonsense Skip Williams has been spewing since it was published.

Roog · Post by **Roog** » Tue Apr 29, 2014 8:52 pm

The no sneak attacks with flasks rule is core (and has been in PF since at least the Beta release).
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/c ... ash-Weapon

Pathfinder also bans PA and Deadly Aim (ranged PA) with all touch attacks, although guns have a special exemption.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-fe ... at---final
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-fe ... aim-combat
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---fin ... earm-Rules

radthemad4 · Post by **radthemad4** » Fri May 02, 2014 12:56 pm

Does the Ultimate Magus count as 'an arcane spellcasting class' for the sake of advancement via Mystic Theurge, Arcane Hierophant or Fochlucan Lyrist?

Schleiermacher · Post by **Schleiermacher** » Fri May 02, 2014 2:01 pm

No. You have to actually have a native spell progression, not just advance spellcasting.

radthemad4 · Post by **radthemad4** » Fri May 02, 2014 2:32 pm

Thanks.

I'd probably rule zero it because it would still be missing higher level spells.

Longes · Post by **Longes** » Fri May 02, 2014 8:01 pm

Can someone tell me about Pendragon? Good things, bad things, traps, etc.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Mon May 05, 2014 5:18 am

If I wanted to do an adventure about magical fantasy land luddites, how the hell would I do that? If they are Luddites Against Magic, then they're DMFs trying to take on wizards, and pitiable losers. If they're Luddites For The Old Ways... well, there aren't really old ways (unless maybe I make Psionics the old ways. And then I possibly confuse players because then Psionics is "alien magic that shaped the Suel Imperium and Baklunish Empire" and "The Old Ways which Luddites use trying to get rid of magic"). If I go with Luddites Against Magitech/Tech... well, I haven't set up that magitech/tech is a big thing my world.

Is this actually a story D&D can tell?

Avoraciopoctules · Post by **Avoraciopoctules** » Mon May 05, 2014 5:26 am

Prak_Anima wrote:If I wanted to do an adventure about magical fantasy land luddites, how the hell would I do that? If they are Luddites Against Magic, then they're DMFs trying to take on wizards, and pitiable losers. If they're Luddites For The Old Ways... well, there aren't really old ways (unless maybe I make Psionics the old ways. And then I possibly confuse players because then Psionics is "alien magic that shaped the Suel Imperium and Baklunish Empire" and "The Old Ways which Luddites use trying to get rid of magic"). If I go with Luddites Against Magitech/Tech... well, I haven't set up that magitech/tech is a big thing my world.

Is this actually a story D&D can tell?

If you are rejecting one take because of your specific setting conceits, then you should be asking whether your setting can support it. Not D&D in general.

D&D can totally have people arbitrarily rejecting the use of something. If someone asked me to do it, I'd have two groups that decry a school of magic. One rejects conjuration and embraces enchantment, the other does the reverse. They are horrible jerks who magically enslave others to do all the work, and you should stab them and take their stuff.

More generally, you could have primal demons who reject the idea of taking on mortal semblance to better influence them humies.

deaddmwalking · Post by **deaddmwalking** » Mon May 05, 2014 12:19 pm

Prak_Anima wrote:If I wanted to do an adventure about magical fantasy land luddites, how the hell would I do that? If they are Luddites Against Magic, then they're DMFs trying to take on wizards, and pitiable losers. If they're Luddites For The Old Ways... well, there aren't really old ways (unless maybe I make Psionics the old ways. And then I possibly confuse players because then Psionics is "alien magic that shaped the Suel Imperium and Baklunish Empire" and "The Old Ways which Luddites use trying to get rid of magic"). If I go with Luddites Against Magitech/Tech... well, I haven't set up that magitech/tech is a big thing my world.

Is this actually a story D&D can tell?

Just a couple thoughts...

It's possible that 'completely rejecting magic' can be represented by increasing SR (that can't be willingly lowered). If they reject magic as 'coming from the devil' or somesuch, they're not denying it's usefulness - but if it 'separates you from a relationship with the divine', that could work.

Alternatively, the Amish might serve as a real-life cultural example:

http://www2.etown.edu/amishstudies/Technology.asp

The Amish do not consider technology evil in itself but they believe that technology, if left untamed, will undermine worthy traditions and accelerate assimilation into the surrounding society. Mass media technology in particular, they fear, would introduce foreign values into their culture. By bringing greater mobility, cars would pull the community apart, eroding local ties. Horse-and-buggy transportation keeps the community anchored in its local geographical base.

Your anti-magic folks could be anti-globalization, which considering a lot of things that magic can do isn't far off. Taking further, the group might not be against all magic, but might use it selectively.

Also, keep in mind that magic-users might not have much interest in 'temporal power'. What's the point of having a bunch of peasants growing you food when you're eating a Heroe's Feast 3/day? What's the point of having servants if you have a Succubi Harem fulfilling every desire? Being an evil wizard and taking over the world has got to go as a cliche because they honestly have better things they could be doing with their time. That's why building a reclusive tower is such a 'wizardly' thing to do.

The Luddites could be focused on preventing people from 'starting down the path' rather than actively antagonizing existing wizards.

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Mon May 05, 2014 4:13 pm

Prak_Anima wrote:If I go with Luddites Against Magitech/Tech... well, I haven't set up that magitech/tech is a big thing my world.

This is actually a good thing for your story. Luddism generally isn't "tech is bad" it's "change is scary." New technologies are distrusted, established ones are not.

There's also the "machines are taking our jobs" aspect, which was the primary motivation for the original Luddites. They weren't opposed to technology in general, they were opposed to technology that rendered them obsolete. Highly skilled and well-paid professionals get replaced by low-paid entry-level workers and a machine. Those highly skilled professionals are understandably pissed.

Luddism is generally associated with class conflict and working class discontent.

This means that you can (and should) just introduce civilization changing tech to the setting and watch the fireworks. When you introduce the stocking frame your Luddites will be literal Luddites, skilled knitters who have been working their craft for decades and who just got replaced by a kid with a week of OJT. Add spinning frames and power looms and suddenly they entire textile industry has been replaced by kids making minimum wage and giant machines that do the job in absurd volumes.

Rapid change in technology produces rapid unemployment produces pissed off artisans.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Tue May 06, 2014 11:07 am

The Luddites of the time the term was invented were of the mind that losing your skilled job to a machine you have to run for a fraction of your previous wage, one producing crappy products and also tending to take people's arms off at an alarming rate, which seems like a bad deal for everyone but the machine owner. WTF?

If you want that sort of game, a perpetual-motion Zombie workforce is ideal. Everyone's unemployed or drastically underpaid, the produced goods are terrible quality, smell bad, and carry disease, and every now and then the Zombies kill and/or eat people in the night (whom the Necromancer animates into more Zombies). But Zombies are cheaper and the way of the future, so ... you're just being Luddites. Flesh Golems make excellent enforcers, on account of the insanity. If only Zombies were cheaper in D&D.

Emerald · Post by **Emerald** » Tue May 06, 2014 11:28 am

tussock wrote:If only Zombies were cheaper in D&D.

A 1-HD zombie costs 25 gp to animate, and untrained laborers earn 1 sp per day, so a zombie pays for itself after at most 250 days--more like ~80 days if you work it around-the-clock, and why wouldn't you in this dystopic scenario? Seems plenty economically feasible to me.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Tue May 06, 2014 4:36 pm

Well, if I take nothing else away from this discussion, I at least now know I shouldn't really use the term Luddite against people who fear technology for no good reason...

Neurosis · Post by **Neurosis** » Tue May 06, 2014 4:47 pm

Emerald wrote:
tussock wrote:If only Zombies were cheaper in D&D.
A 1-HD zombie costs 25 gp to animate, and untrained laborers earn 1 sp per day, so a zombie pays for itself after at most 250 days--more like ~80 days if you work it around-the-clock, and why wouldn't you in this dystopic scenario? Seems plenty economically feasible to me.

They have this in Heroes Die XD. It's a commercially available service. It's called "rent-a-ghoul" or something.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Wed May 07, 2014 1:22 am

So, what's the best published D&D setting to run explicitly for the PCs to "beat"? Ideally, ones where the designers didn't actually want you to.

I can see a few good contenders for the position:
1. Forgotten Realms: you have a few specific NPCs that players would love to either kill or simply upstage. You have a whole bunch of organisations that they could topple or rule. It's up to its what, fifth death god? I think that gives an idea as to how replaceable deities are, so it's well within reason for PCs to do that (assuming you use your own system for gods and attaining godhood, and set Deities and Demigods on fire).

2. Rokugan: it's a pretty good setting as a baseline. You can have lots of fun with it, and get your weeaboo on. There are clans for the players to end up toppling/ruling/realigning, so once they're done stabbing things they can play Diplomacy and Dragons. There are big bad "totally unkillable" Mary Sue NPCs and super-unstoppable CR 15 unique monsters, and the PCs would be all too happy to prove that wrong. Also, as real D&D characters, they can just surpass all those samurai chumps.

3. Iron Kingdoms: unlike above, it's not an interesting or internally consistent setting to start with. That said, the writers have jerked themselves raw over how awesome the NPCs and unique monsters are, so walking in as regular D&D characters without the IK limitations and actually giving the dragons statlines rather than "This just kills everyone" would be appealing to them.

4. Planescape: let players actually join and then run factions that do real actual things and have some say in how the city works. Have them turf the Lady out of there. Then go run wild over unsuspecting planes.

What are people's thoughts?

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Wed May 07, 2014 1:48 am

Given what we've seen of your games so far, I would pay you to run a "Ruin Rokugon" game and tell us all about it. If, you know, I had money to throw around.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Wed May 07, 2014 4:47 am

Greyhawk, though it's intentionally a place for mid-high level folk to split up and rewrite for lulz.

Darksun, but the official storyline is all about escaping slavery, wandering in the desert for fourty years, conquering ever larger tribes of evil, until you're finally high level enough to kill all the dragon-kings and return to the promised land. Didn't you know.

FR is no go. If you use the big Wizards (and Wizard armies) to their strengths, the rules give many of them unlimited lives and they should just use that to murder all the PCs as soon as they stick their heads up. PCs could kill all the named mundane types in the setting, but meh.

Planescape, I think, would be best. Not for Sigil, but for taking over the Nine Hells and dumping an infinity of Devils into the worlds of your choice. Leave Sigil as it is, so the PCs can hide there away from the reprisals between missions. Use the LOP to clean up the most problematic lords of the nine for you.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Wed May 07, 2014 5:01 am

tussock wrote:Greyhawk, though it's intentionally a place for mid-high level folk to split up and rewrite for lulz.

Greyhawk is completely bland and uninteresting: they wouldn't care if they won the setting.

FR is no go. If you use the big Wizards (and Wizard armies) to their strengths, the rules give many of them unlimited lives and they should just use that to murder all the PCs as soon as they stick their heads up. PCs could kill all the named mundane types in the setting, but meh.

The whole purpose is to take one of the big settings with big names and then let the PCs flatten them - including "writing such things up sensibly so that not every shopkeeper is a Wizard 20/Archmage 10". So the Heads Honcho of the Red Wizards of Thay would all be like Focused Specialist Wizard 5/Red Wizard 5/Master Specialist 5, each in their own grant tower with thematic monsters and guards on the way, but not all of them working together. And only getting pissed off when the PCs start actually messing with them, as opposed to "Uh-oh, someone just hit level ten, a potential threat!"

Use the LOP to clean up the most problematic lords of the nine for you.

Similarly, the weakest Lord of the Nine would be CR 9-ish, leading all the way up to whatshisface at CR 20-ish. And the laws of Hell keep them sitting in their bases so the PCs can make their way there when they're good and ready.

Now I can see Planescape working well because after they do this, they then get to direct silly Blood War things and receive weekly reports on what's happening, and then go play Economics and Dragons in Sigil as they flood someone else's Baatorian Greensteel economy and start a sub-prime soul mortgaging bubble.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Wed May 07, 2014 6:28 am

I don't know, if you're re-writing things that much, you're not really beating the setting at all?

FR is all about insane epic Wizards being harder to kill than gods and just acting as quest-givers and dungeon-stockers, with the Red Wizards and other groups being impossibly well coordinated and still invisible-at-will, yet entirely ineffectual beyond being the excuse for the MagicItem-Mart in 3e. You kill Elminster and then he's behind you, laughing, offering a quest to deal with the nefarious Red Wizards and their dastardly attempts at trade-capitalism.

Birthright, ignoring all the realm stuff and just playing D&D with it, is written to be what you're aiming for there. The background spends the low levels cluing everyone in on the historic ancient-evil big bads and their nefarious doings, and then they're only moderate challenges at high level and you win. I think there's a 3e conversion ... http://www.birthright.net/forums/downlo ... o=cat&id=6

Though if you're never played the setting, it's work to get others into anyway. Eh, I'm out of ideas, if you're up for re-writing the Realms to let people roflstomp mini-Elminster, enjoy.