TRPG General Chat

12:02 AM

can someone who understand the system give this a good edit please?

0

Q: DnD 3.5 Undead resurrected , Will i lose all my undead's traits?

I have a strange question. I have a ghost template in this new horror avventure. If i die and after resurrected ,and i return like human my previous race , i will lost all my Su and undead'triats of my template , isn't it?

AgentPaper

I can fix the grammar and spelling at least

one sec

Phil

I wasn't sure what 'Su' meant

so didn't feel I should edit it

BESW

Supernatural; a mechanical term for a kind of creature quality.

doppelgreener

Didn't we already have a question about what happens to all your undead progression when you return to being alive?

Phil

Ah, glad I didn't edit it then

BESW

12:04 AM

I think that was about undead classes, rather than undead templates?

doppelgreener

or was that just covered by answers as part of some other question?

@BESW it's not in dnd-3.5e undead unless I've missed it...

AgentPaper

Done. Mostly makes sense now, and I asked him to link the ghost template he's using

BESW

There's this, which isn't quite the same...

5

Q: How does resurrecting destroyed undead affect their level progression?

While answering this question it brought up this current situation. I thought I had seen this answered here before but I can't find it anywhere. How does casting "Resurrection" on a destroyed undead affect their level progression? Example: Borris is a level 5 cleric of Wee Jas. He is killed ...

dnd-3.5e undead character-levels

@AgentPaper Grats on 999.

doppelgreener

IIRC there was a question about a lich resurrecting themselves as being alive again, and at least one of the answers talked about how you'd lose all your levels and go back to how you were before you became a lich (minus one level?)

maybe I'm thinking of that one (which should probably be marked with [undead])

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

@BESW "core class" hunts?

trogdor

12:16 AM

I think you don't lose that level if it was a higher level resurrection spell?

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

(at our contractor's office, so AFK mostly)..

trogdor

like True Resurrection or some such, not sure but I think that spell exists, and it lets you rez someone without costing them a level.

at least in 3.5 if that was indeed the system here

I suppose you could be talking about Pathfinder, in which case I disavow any knowledge of anything

nope, I looked like, a few posts up, looks like it is 3.5

XD

I R Smart

doppelgreener

@trogdor exceptioooons

trogdor

yes

but you can't quite assume the loss of a level in every case

just in most

doppelgreener

There is a D&D 5e spell called Shield which states the following: "An invisible barrier of magical force appears and protects you. Until the start of your next turn, you have a +5 bonus to AC, including against the triggering attack, and you take no damage from magic missile." (From a quotation in this answer) Note that it calls out Magic Missile explicitly by name.

I am waiting for the day they release another auto-hit spell, like Magic Missile, and someone notices Shield, and asks us here: "Wait... does that apply to this other spell too?"

that was a slightly mean rant but I'm pretty confident it's going to happen and I really wish they'd change their authoring practices so as to make the game not be exception-based ;_;

Tritium21

12:32 AM

4 more questions

I should compose a doozey

doppelgreener

@Tritium21 on some common topic?

Tritium21

...actually, no, I would end up writing the most trolling question in the history of trolls

so scratch that

Miniman

@doppelgreener Why would it apply to any other spell?

doppelgreener

@Miniman is magic missile currently the only auto-hit no-chance-to-miss spell?

Miniman

@doppelgreener That's not what I mean. Even if another spell auto-hits, why would Shield stop it?

If it was a Magic Missile variant, like the Missile Storm spells from the NWN games, I could understand why you might think Shield would block it.

trogdor

12:42 AM

@doppelgreener most of here feel your pain

I think the reasoning is just that magic missile is the only auto hit

and that this spell could have the intention to block all auto hits that exist, but that they did not bother to put the thought to a future where any other auto hit spells are made

doppelgreener

@trogdor that is exactly it

@miniman ^

trogdor

I thought so

I was so accurate most likely because I have been frustrated by this very same practice

both in 3.5 and 4E

Miniman

Huh. It never occurred to me that Shield stops MM because it auto-hits.

That might even be worth a question, why does Shield stop MM?

doppelgreener

@Miniman so that trail of logic could lead people to ask: "hey, this Shield spell blocked the only auto-hit spell at the time of writing. Now there's another. Is it supposed to block that too?" (Though hopefully they'll also errata Shield when they release whatever spell that is.)

Miniman

@doppelgreener More hopefully there won't be any more auto-hit spells, they don't really belong in the game.

trogdor

12:47 AM

the thing is, they could have said "no attack that auto hits can damage you"

and simply have given Magic Missile as the example

doppelgreener

@Miniman i think it's because it's supposed to be a defensive spell, including against the attack that hits you, but MM doesn't care about the mechanisms they use otherwise. (but then again, since spells don't generally target your AC anyway and you wouldn't be defending against them any better even with Shield, it's an odd thing to single out MM)

Miniman

@trogdor The vast majority of spells don't have attack rolls

trogdor

mm true

so my change being auto hit

because most spells still care about spell resist or saves

Miniman

@doppelgreener It goes back editions too. Maybe it's just so that there is one way to stop MM?

AgentPaper

That was how I interpreted it.

Basically, magic Missile shoots projectiles of pure magical force, whereas most spells use magic to create something else that deals the damage. Shield, being a wall of pure magical force, happens to negate it perfectly.

It's just a unique interaction of two spells. If any other spells come out that work similar to magic missile, then you can simply note in them that they are blocked by a shield spell.

trogdor

12:52 AM

but then why should there not be a way to stop anything else that shares this category with MM?

that is the thing

AgentPaper

What category?

doppelgreener

@AgentPaper better would be to note they're blocked by anything that blocks Magic Missile, lest we wind up with the exact same situation in the inverse when another thing comes out that stops Magic Missile. ;P

trogdor

the category of "this will hit you, get used to it"

Miniman

@doppelgreener @.@

@trogdor His point is that Shield blocking MM is a thematic interaction, not anything to do with MM's auto-hit-ness

trogdor

yes, I saw that

AgentPaper

12:54 AM

Shield doesn't block magic missile because magic missile auto-hits. Shield blocks magic missile because it's magic missile.

doppelgreener

the moral being: specifying spells by name is bad for extensibility, specifying spells by property is good for it - it allows your system to remain making sense when new spells sharing those properties are added.

trogdor

and it is a good point

Miniman

So any other spells in the category of 'pure magical force' should be blocked by Shield.

trogdor

XD

oh god, we started this whole thing again

Miniman

@doppelgreener That was what 3.5's descriptor system was for, but they took it out in 5.

trogdor

12:55 AM

lol

doppelgreener

@Miniman and 4e's, which fitted more naturally into the system's paradigm (because in 3.5e, they were still referring to spells by name very often)

AgentPaper

But then you're just making it harder to connect the dots between shield and magic missile, and for what, the slight chance that you add a bunch of "pure magical force" spells in the future? Better to simply spell it out and, if need be, spell it out again in the future.

doppelgreener

@AgentPaper yes, it can help if you specify it again in the future, if you remember to do so.

Miniman

@doppelgreener Yeah, I didn't say they utilised the descriptor system well.

doppelgreener

if 5e becomes remotely as enormous as 3.5e though, this will be an issue somewhere, and the amount of material would make it fairly likely this will happen - even in 3rd party products.

AgentPaper

1:00 AM

Well, that might be a problem if they were expecting to release anything close to the number of splat books that 3.5 did, or if they expected everyone to use every single one.

doppelgreener

3.5e has a lot of spells which inflict ailments (diseases, poisons, being turned to stone, or whatever else someone came up with) which then specify they can only be cured by certain spells (by name). this leaves later-released (and more powerful) spells being weirdly incapable of curing those ailments. unless those spells happen to name "this can cure everything cured by the spells X, Y, Z."

Miniman

@doppelgreener There's plenty of examples of this problem, yeah.

(Still not sure Magic Missile and Shield is a good one, but I can certainly see it.)

doppelgreener

@Miniman yeah, magic missile vs shield has a decent chance because there might be some guideline that Magic Missile is the only spell that auto-hits and you don't get to make other spells which do the same thing.

if there isn't though, there's a decent chance that after enough volumes, someone will have decided: "hey it'd be cool to have another spell that does that thing Magic Missile does"

Miniman

@doppelgreener Yeah...I still reckon the problem there is when someone makes an enhanced version of Magic Missile, rather than auto-hit spells in general

Mordenkainen's Really Big Magic Missile.

Then someone else makes an enhanced version of Shield, of course.

Otiluke's Particularly Resilient Shield.

Adeptus

@Miniman Mordenkainen's Massive Magic Missile

Miniman

1:15 AM

@Adeptus I knew there was something there, I couldn't come up with it.

doppelgreener

1:34 AM

@Adeptus That is an excellent name.

AgentPaper

For the record, while I can appreciate the alliteration, I prefer Mordenkainen's Really Big Magic Missile.

I guess I just like the idea of a really skilled wizard coming up with crazy new spells, but he gives them all silly names like that.

Adeptus

ooh! ooh! Mordenkainen's Megaton Magic Missile! :D

BESW

2:10 AM

Mordenkainen's Metaphysical Magic Missile: throw your d20 at the player.

I'ma go copy-paste some notes for next week's adventure in the Spoil-Lair.

Brian Ballsun-Stanton

Mordenkainen's Metaontological Missile: On failing a save, the player must spend d4 minutes explaining the character's reason for existence and fundamental nature. Play continues while this occurs.

BESW

(@Magician One of your ideas will probably get used in the next adventure.)

@BrianBallsun-Stanton I've played with people who seem to have been hit with a permanent version of that one.

Transcript for