|
The_Mad_Linguist
|
 |
« Reply #580 on: August 16, 2010, 09:32:15 PM » |
|
Nope. The limited range just means it typically gets rendered irrelevant by normal vision.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
geniussavant
|
|
« Reply #581 on: August 17, 2010, 12:04:50 AM » |
|
Q148 are there any templates that effect constructs or are designed for them, besides awaken construct?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I see that you want to solve problems. Not problems like, "What is beauty?," because that would fall within the purview of your conundrums of 'philosophy'. You want to solve practical problems. F'r instance, how are you gonna stop some big, mean Mother Hubbard from tearing you a structurally superfluous new behind? The answer: Use a gun. And if that don't work? Use more gun.
And if that fails try this |
|
|
|
Littha
|
|
« Reply #582 on: August 17, 2010, 12:09:52 AM » |
|
Q148 are there any templates that effect constructs or are designed for them, besides awaken construct?
Dragonborn... needs to have an int score though also awaken construct isn't a template... its a spell effect |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 17, 2010, 12:16:15 AM by Littha »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Amechra
|
|
« Reply #583 on: August 17, 2010, 12:13:04 AM » |
|
A148: Incarnate Construct.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Fighter: "I can kill a guy in one turn." Cleric: "I can kill a guy in half a turn." Wizard: "I can kill a guy before my turn." Bard: "I can get three idiots to kill guys for me." On a strange note, would anyone be put out if we had a post about people or events we can spare a thought for, or if its within their creed, a prayer for? Just a random thought, but ... hells I wouldn't have known about either Archangels daughter or Saeomons niece if I didn't happen to be on these threads.
Sounds fine to me. probably over on "Off-topic". might want to put a little disclaimer in the first post. This is the Min/Max board. We should be able to figure out a way to optimize the POWER OF PRAYER(TM) that doesn't involve "Pazuzu, Pazuzu, Pazuzu". |
|
|
|
kevin_video
|
|
« Reply #584 on: August 17, 2010, 02:31:57 AM » |
|
Q 149 Anyone know why the beholder isn't in the SRD?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I reject your reality, and substitute my own. When God gives you lemons... it's time to find a new God. Like D&D Freakouts? Check out this 4th Ed one. |
|
|
|
Vinom
|
|
« Reply #585 on: August 17, 2010, 02:38:43 AM » |
|
Q 149 Anyone know why the beholder isn't in the SRD?
Same reason the mindflayer isn't, it's iconic enough to be trademarked indepenently with out a public domain origin, like a medusa. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
kevin_video
|
|
« Reply #586 on: August 17, 2010, 02:40:05 AM » |
|
Q 149 Anyone know why the beholder isn't in the SRD? Same reason the mindflayer isn't, it's iconic enough to be trademarked indepenently with out a public domain origin, like a medusa. Interesting. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I reject your reality, and substitute my own. When God gives you lemons... it's time to find a new God. Like D&D Freakouts? Check out this 4th Ed one. |
|
|
|
kevin_video
|
|
« Reply #587 on: August 17, 2010, 03:01:45 AM » |
|
Q 150 Were archliches evil in 2nd Ed? I'm reading up on a being named Deimos who was an archlich in the Mystara world, but arch liches are of the good variety in 3.5, are they not? If that's the case, what would Deimos be now?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I reject your reality, and substitute my own. When God gives you lemons... it's time to find a new God. Like D&D Freakouts? Check out this 4th Ed one. |
|
|
Psithief
Ring-Tailed Lemur
Posts: 66
|
|
« Reply #588 on: August 17, 2010, 07:13:48 AM » |
|
Q 151
If my psiforged psionic artificer thrall takes the warforged artificer substituion level #4 [RoE p130] (the one that trades Craft Homunculus for Tools of War), does it permanently lose the ability to increase the HD of its homunculus(es) even after it gains a Craft (Psionic) Construct feat?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
snakeman830
|
|
« Reply #589 on: August 17, 2010, 07:22:06 AM » |
|
Q152: If someone casts Invisibility, then permanancy on a corpse before casting Animate Dead, how long does the resultant undead remain invisible?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I am constantly amazed by how many DM's ban Tomb of Battle. The book doesn't even exist! Quotes: By yes, she means no.
That explains so much about my life. hiicantcomeupwithacharacterthatisntaghostwhyisthatamijustretardedorsomething
Why would you even do this? It hurts my eyes and looks like you ate your keyboard before suffering an attack of explosive diarrhea. If using Genesis to hide your phylactry, set it at -300 degrees farenheit. See how do-gooders fare with a liquid atmosphere. |
|
|
|
BeholderSlayer
|
|
« Reply #590 on: August 17, 2010, 09:12:57 AM » |
|
Q153: Is the damage from a falling object's weight capped, or does the 20d6 damage from the falling object only apply to the additional damage dealt by the distance it fell?
I think the damage is uncapped by weight, and that the 20d6 cap only applies to the distance it fell (similar to a character falling).
Q154: Is there anywhere I can find the cost of a material, such as granite, adamantine, obdurium, etc. by weight?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
PhaedrusXY
|
|
« Reply #591 on: August 17, 2010, 09:16:22 AM » |
|
Q 146 How screwed is a player with darkvision if everyone else in the party is human, and requires torches?
Not screwed at all. You still have normal vision. It's only those who have low-light vision that'd actually gain anything from it, correct? Your darkvision still functions normally, even with torches around. I thought it was that you had to be immersed in darkness for it to work. That was infravision, in 2nd edition. In 3.X, you can have a flashlight shining in your face and still see perfectly fine in the darkness nearby. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
A couple of water benders, a dike, a flaming arrow, and a few barrels of blasting jelly?
Sounds like the makings of a gay porn film.
...thanks
|
|
|
jolt
Domesticated Capuchin Monkey
Posts: 114
|
|
« Reply #592 on: August 17, 2010, 10:34:19 AM » |
|
Q155: I can't find the source, so I want to be sure. You can't have 2 familiars right? So a wizard that gets one and doesn't throw it away through alternate class abilities that takes the Obtain Familiar feat won't result in 2 familiars.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
PhaedrusXY
|
|
« Reply #593 on: August 17, 2010, 10:50:21 AM » |
|
Q155: I can't find the source, so I want to be sure. You can't have 2 familiars right? So a wizard that gets one and doesn't throw it away through alternate class abilities that takes the Obtain Familiar feat won't result in 2 familiars.
A155 It is possible to have more than one familiar through some sources, but most things that grant them explicitly say they won't give you a second one if you already have one (IIRC Obtain Familiar says this). So the things that can give you another seem to be the exception rather than the norm. I'm not sure if it is outright stated anywhere that you can't have two as a general rule, though. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
A couple of water benders, a dike, a flaming arrow, and a few barrels of blasting jelly?
Sounds like the makings of a gay porn film.
...thanks
|
|
|
Viletta Vadim
Curious George
Posts: 337
Metal Genocider, maximum shooto!
|
|
« Reply #594 on: August 17, 2010, 10:50:55 AM » |
|
I seem to recall reading somewhere that in 3.x that raising undead et al was all completely evil. Something along the lines of you're bringing more "Negative Energy" (as in the technical D&D term) into the Material plane, so there's no way to do the undead thing without at the least helping the cause of evil, if not being evil yourself. Of course, that could pretty easily be considered nothing more than fluff. The only real crunch I'm aware of is the [evil] tag that might be applied to any given spell or effect for creating undead. Except... negative energy isn't evil. Deadly, yes, but not evil. Or [evil]. Q 149 Anyone know why the beholder isn't in the SRD? Clicky. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Beltendu
Ring-Tailed Lemur
Posts: 85
|
|
« Reply #595 on: August 17, 2010, 11:50:36 AM » |
|
I seem to recall reading somewhere that in 3.x that raising undead et al was all completely evil. Something along the lines of you're bringing more "Negative Energy" (as in the technical D&D term) into the Material plane, so there's no way to do the undead thing without at the least helping the cause of evil, if not being evil yourself. Of course, that could pretty easily be considered nothing more than fluff. The only real crunch I'm aware of is the [evil] tag that might be applied to any given spell or effect for creating undead. Except... negative energy isn't evil. Deadly, yes, but not evil. Or [evil]. Which is why I was thinking it was mostly fluff. Probably in BoED or BoVD, come to think of it. Which means it mostly depends on your DM. I might have to consider playing a necro that way, flavoring it more as the Deathless, and see if my DM buys it ...  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
wotmaniac
|
|
« Reply #596 on: August 17, 2010, 12:26:19 PM » |
|
I seem to recall reading somewhere that in 3.x that raising undead et al was all completely evil. Something along the lines of you're bringing more "Negative Energy" (as in the technical D&D term) into the Material plane, so there's no way to do the undead thing without at the least helping the cause of evil, if not being evil yourself. Of course, that could pretty easily be considered nothing more than fluff. The only real crunch I'm aware of is the [evil] tag that might be applied to any given spell or effect for creating undead. Except... negative energy isn't evil. Deadly, yes, but not evil. Or [evil]. Which is why I was thinking it was mostly fluff. Probably in BoED or BoVD, come to think of it. Which means it mostly depends on your DM. I might have to consider playing a necro that way, flavoring it more as the Deathless, and see if my DM buys it ... The thing is, all of the spells that are available for creating undead have the [evil] descriptor -- which is why I assume that all undead creatures that can be created by those spells also have the [evil] sub-type (even the mindless ones, unlike in previous editions). Frank and K's Tome of Necromancy needs to be mandatory reading for every game (or at least for every DM) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 If you stop ignoring 289 pages telling what the intent is to stretch "more power" in your own god complexion of your interpretation trumps all to cover ability adjustments from aging then I will ignore a quarter page of rules that exist within a sidebar.
I think in this case the grammar is less important than whether the Str and Dex bonus provided to your created undead scales.
Greenbound Summoning RAIExpanded GestaltMore Savage ProgressionsReport any wrongs I have done here. |
|
|
|
kevin_video
|
|
« Reply #597 on: August 17, 2010, 01:14:43 PM » |
|
Q 156 Where can I find info on the Riyakaa creature?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I reject your reality, and substitute my own. When God gives you lemons... it's time to find a new God. Like D&D Freakouts? Check out this 4th Ed one. |
|
|
|
The_Mad_Linguist
|
|
« Reply #598 on: August 17, 2010, 01:16:26 PM » |
|
The thing is, all of the spells that are available for creating undead have the [evil] descriptor Not finger of death. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zemyla
Ring-Tailed Lemur
Posts: 60
Rampant Changeling Fetishist
|
|
« Reply #599 on: August 17, 2010, 02:04:27 PM » |
|
Q157: If I had a psionic contingency to manifest anticipatory strike with the condition "I want to manifest this power when an enemy would otherwise act before I do", then does that automatically make me go first?
And what if I were attacked by a deity with Supreme Initiative? Would I still go before he does?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
