@SPavel heave you been reading the megadungeon series?

No

I don't really like the Angry DM

Fairy 'nuff. He puts plenty out there to not like =)

But this actually reminds me of my other plan

@SPavel I must say agree. EVerything i've read of his has generally annoyed me. ALthough I have used some of it :)

@nitsua60 He has good ideas but he picks the worst possible way of getting them across

Which is not all that unexpected for the hobby.

Socially aware, we are not.

I'd love a chrome add-on that filters out the 30% noise/inanity/insults/profanity.

@nitsua60 Generally useful on the internet, that ;)

Anyway, my project - there's a juicy bit in either Savage Species or Book of Vile Darkness that says monstrous characters are welcomed by evil communities, and shunned by good ones

Which is hilarious

If he kept the angry tone and explicit content but dropped the condescension I think it'd be improved by about 90%.

So I designed an entire setting based around this idea

Basically, Zarus (the god of human racism from BoVD) steals the Prime Material and rearranges it to suit his fancy - the humanoid races have empire and civilization, and monsters exist only to be slain by them.

@ACuriousMind Yeah. I guess I'm sheltered because this is just-about the only online community with which I engage.

All the monsters that are not into dying horribly banded together and formed a city as far away as possible from the human lands, but it was built with all kinds of beings in mind - amorphous, gaseous, huge, tiny, ethereal, etc

@SPavel Sounds like you've already got your megadungeon: imagine when the humans find out about this city!!!

@nitsua60 it's not a bad thing. I've generally decided this is the only resource I use for verifying rulings. And it's pretty friendly here. I spend too much time on GiTP where things can get salty.

@nitsua60 Well I don't engage in those communities, either. Doesn't mean I can always avoid stumbling across them :/

@nitsua60 The humans know about this city, and crusade endlessly to destroy it

but yes, rpg.SE does pretty well on the "being civilized" front as far as I can see :)

@SPavel that is an amazingly disturbing world. i love it!

The problem is that between the city and the human empires are a whole bunch of wastelands, all sorts of unsavoury folks like necromancers that live outside polite society, kingdoms of the vampire lords and dragons that decided to strike out on their own, and so forth.

Plus, the humans themselves are always fighting with one another.

Think the actual Crusades - how effective were they at reclaiming the Holy Land? Pretty dang ineffective. Now imagine that instead of Saracens, you have Great Wyrms.

@SPavel They're humans, how could they not? :P

And Zarus believes too much in the superiority of humanoidkind and their will and drive to succeed

@nitsua60 How do you find all the posts in a particular series in order? There doesn't seem to be a tag system (at least not one that I can see) and the best thing I can do to find the next chronological post is to look at the dates on the related posts section, which I'm never sure is reliable.

So he can't help out of principle

@Yuuki this is all the megadungeon articles, for instance. But they're in reverse-chrono =(

Then there's a bunch of fluffy stuff, like how living in proximity to humans decays a monstrous being's power, so there are a bunch of Warforged in human lands that used to be mighty golems, and imps that were once archfiends

@SPavel Well, back and forth, and they did actually capture and hold Jerusalem for a number of years. Ineffective in the very long run, yes, but the Europeans did conquer a few times by my recollection.

It's like not like they were repelled at the walls at every attempt.

Well sure, but Jerusalem was far from the heartland of the Arab world

I don't think their goal was the heartland of the Arab world.

Which is sort of the idea here - humans can and do take plenty of land, but they lose it to either time or war

The analogy isn't perfect

Fair enough. The Crusades were a massive drain on the European economy that ended mostly in a net negative. Although I think on the whole, they served to weaken the power that the Catholic Church had at the time.

It doesn't help that Zarus has banned "monstrous" magic - summoning/calling of monsters, shapeshifting into monsters, or creating monsters (necromancy, golemcraft, etc)

You may recognize these as all the good spells

@SPavel but ou can still shapeshift into beasts? Can a druid shapeshift into an elemental?

No, das ist verboten

The humanoid form is the best form, granted by Zarus to superior souls

How dare you taint it with your heretic beast-shapes

Interesting.

To the wastelands with you!

so is the druid outlawed as a class?

*moondruid

This is 3.5, so there's ACFs that get around the problematic aspects

@NautArch (Or just relegated to ranger-status?)

For example, you can trade out animal companion for some barbarian goodies - the druids are very angry that they lose their class feature!

@SPavel very interesting. do you have druids living with the monsters and supporting them? Could be an interesting thread for a good/bad guy.

Yeah, there are a number of humans that defect, or try to.

Those that succeed in making it to the City gradually take on monstrous features of their own, if they manage to survive.

Most settle for joining - or building - citadels in the wastelands, where they can practice necromancy, binding, or whatever until adventurers come and knock them over

Some will seek out dragon fiefdoms - in inaccessible mountains - and pledge their service.

And naturally, you have a fair share of (variably competent) heretics living in civilized lands, and nations will frequently accuse others of being heretical and do the war business.

For instance, the nation based on the Roman Empire that focuses on sorcery is a frequent target, and nobody likes the nomads that roam the more hospitable areas of the wasteland (though waging war on nomads is hard)

A bit late to comment, but I've pretty much moved on from the Angry DM

Like someone said above, he has some good ideas, but he can't explain them worth anything

And he acts like he is the first person to have them, instead of them being mostly common sense and simple problem solving

Indeed. Ideas are cheap - I had a hundred ideas on the way to work this morning. Skillful dissemination and execution, that's the hard part.

Plus his spelling and grammar suck

I must say though one thing I really liked of his was his 3-ish part series on how to adjudicate actions. It was really well done.

Today in Awesome Job Requirements: "The only requirement seems to be that any nominee must have the 'mana, skills, knowledge, and experience to achieve the purpose and perform the functions' of the office. The bill doesn’t define 'mana,' but I guess you know it when you see it."

@nitsua60 "Mana" is the Maori word for "power."

@nitsua60 In the usage described in the NZ bill you quoted from, it means something like personal prestige or great character.

That makes sense - the river should be guarded by the person who has the clout to guard it.

@nitsua60 odd

@LegendaryDude So, they're NOT looking for a Planeswalker with a suite of land at their disposal? Disappoint.

@SPavel Preferably someone who can cast Protection From Evil or Protection From Global Warming.

@Karelzarath I mean, it does sound like a job well-suited to Kiora, Master of the Depths.

@Yuuki But those aren't mana-based spells

@Yuuki Global warming is a myth. 0.1% of scientists say so!

@SPavel Depends on the system, I guess. Clearly New Zealand doesn't use Vancian magic.

Gah, I really like BotW's theme music, but it really needs to appear more in the game itself.

I wonder if any cultures developed a resource-based magic system in their folklore

There's a bit of an implicit one everywhere - you can't sit and pray for every tiny little thing

But there's nothing along the lines of "you only have 5 Hail Marys per day, which sins would you like to atone for"

another interesting other-forum questionthat I don't think i'll post: WHat happens if you are wearing gauntlets of ogre power and a shadow drains your strength?

That is actually a really cool question. My gut reaction is you continue having ogre strength

Nothing happens, because your STR is set by the gauntlets :D

@NautArch I would personally apply the enchantment bonus first (the gauntlet) and then the drain

so if you remove the gauntlet, the shadow drain still takes effect

so if you're original strength was 8 and then 19 with gauntlets, would it become 7/18?

@NautArch yeah. When you're wearing the gauntlets it wouldn't matter.

My reaction was you have 19 and 7

But your base STR score would be changed by the drain.

Oh, no, sorry read your numbers wrong

The drain wouldn't affect your STR at all with the gauntlets on

It's similar to the armor rule. If you have more than one way of calculating, choose only one.

i hate stealing questions, but i keep finding good ones i don't know the answer to :)

@LegendaryDude so, if you get attacked by a bunch of shadows and they would have drained your strength score to 0 and killed you, you will die if you take the gauntlets off?

I disagree. I think the gauntlets just give you a larger pool to drain from.

@Adam That was my interpretation

@Adam Interesting edge case. It could go either way.

one of the responders asked JC

I'm curious if there's any official wording on this

@Karelzarath Not the way the gauntlets are written. They set your STR to 19, full stop.

we'll see if there's an official answer

@Karelzarath If the gauntlets say "When you attune/wear/equip this item your strength becomes [new strength]" I might agree

But if they set your strength to 19, full stop. Then that's your new strength. and the shadow should drain that. (is someone else's argument)

5e's extremely vague magic items are frustrating.

In 5e at least though, the item just says "Your Strength score is 19 while you wear these gauntlets"

@NautArch Yes. This.

@NautArch that's mine

@Adam This is what I'm talking about.

it's a matter of effect application order

If you are wearing the gauntlets, your strength is 19, full stop.

Doesn't matter if you've been drained.

If you were drained before you got the gauntlets, then put them on, the gauntlets would make your STR 19.

I'd argue that making you immune to Strength damage and drain is a little powerful for that item.

i think these are the options:

(using my knowledge of how complicated effect stacking in magic is)

There is no stacking in this case. You have one way of calculating your STR when you wear the gauntlets.

The gauntlets are continuously applying an effect which is boosting your strength. That effect isn't being changed by the shadow's attacks

It overrides anything else that has happened to you before or after.

@Karelzarath but you're not immune. It's still draining your strength (your actual strength, not your magically enhanced strength)

and if it's brought to zero and you happen to hit an anti-magic field....

@Adam Exactly. Remove the gloves, though, and you'll feel the drain.

@LegendaryDude is there anything in the rules that covers that?

not being argumentative, just would like to see what the rules say in this manner

@DForck42 Rulings over rules and a general feeling for how these things should go. Other than that, AC is very similar. You get one source for AC; AC doesn't stack (except for shields which give a +2).

@LegendaryDude shields aren't even an exception. They are an AC bonus rather than an AC calculation

@Adam Correct; they are not a way of calculating AC so technically it's not even an exception.

@LegendaryDude the one source for AC statement doesn't make sense to me, cause it's a formula from my understanding. ie, 10 + Armor + whatever else

I'd say the same for the gauntlets; they're another way of calculating your strength score.

@DForck42 You can have multiple possible calculations.

What do the 5e rules say about ability damage/drain? I can't find anything online.

@Karelzarath They don't in general. The rules for ability drain are only listed in the monsters which apply that drain

@Karelzarath There isn't a subset of rules for that; it's contained within the ability that causes it.

Same with the way magic works.

Magic only has very general rules about targeting and area of effect. Everything else is in the spell (unlike 3.5/PF which has special rules for each school of magic -- yeeeuuucchhh).

Hmm.

@DForck42 The basic way of calculating armor Class without armor is 10 + dex. If you put on armor, the armor is effectively saying "No, don't use that! Use this new calculation instead."

@DForck42 So if you have a feature that puts your AC at 16 and armor that puts it at 16 + DEX and a +1 DEX mod, you choose one or the other. You either have 16 OR 17.

@Adam Or unarmored defense for monks (10 + DEX + WIS) and barbs (10 + DEX + CON).

Exactly. Each one is giving you a different way to calculate AC

@LegendaryDude But, I... I like the special rules. >.>

@Karelzarath I don't like having to remember that all spells of type X have special rules outside of the spell text, in a different place that I have to reference to make sure I have everything right about the spell.

In 5e, a spell just tells you how it works.

Like with spell targets the other day -- it doesn't have a "target" stat. It just tells you in the text what type of thing it can target.

merricb.com/2014/09/13/armour-class-in-dungeons-dragons-5e has a pretty good explanation of AC.

I'm not a fan of not having a central place I can look to see how a mechanic works.

@LegendaryDude And, for better or worse, the general answer when a question comes up about how a spell works is "look really closely at the text and ask the DM"

@Karelzarath A magic spell's text is the one place you have to look in 5e, so that isn't a problem.

so then, what's the shadow drain thingie say?

In PF/3.5, you need to read the spell text then reference another rule in another place in the book.

@DForck42 "the target's Strength score is reduced by 1d4"

@DForck42 "[melee attack and damage]...and the target's Strength score is reduced by 1d4. The target dies if this reduces its Strength to 0. Otherwise, the reduction lasts until the target finishes a short or Long Rest."

@DForck42 "The target dies if this reduces its Strength to 0. Otherwise, the reduction lasts until the target finishes a short or long rest. If a non-evil humanoid dies from this attack, a new shadow rises from the corpse 1d4 hours later."

jinx

ninja'd

lol

so... @LegendaryDude I'm still not convinced it's not GoOS - 1d4

@DForck42 Your Strength score is 19 while you wear these gauntlets.

@LegendaryDude full stop, no exceptions listed in the item's text

So either you reduce the 19 to 17, but then you read the gauntlet rules again and reset it back 19, or you reduce your character's STR and leave it at 19 until the gauntlets are off.

IMO, that's a very narrow read on that item.

@Karelzarath It's literally one of two sentences in the description.

Right, but you're reading in the stat reset part.

It doesn't say it makes you immune to effects that would reduce your Strength.

The only other text is "They have no effect on you if your Strength is already 19 or higher without them."

No, it doesn't say that and I'm not saying they make you immune to STR drain.

I'm saying they aren't a bonus to STR. They make your STR 19 no matter what.

If you were drained before you put the gauntlets on, putting the gauntlets on would make your STR 19 too.

I'm still thinking the gauntlets are a magically enhanced value, and not youra ctual strength value. Your strength value is still your original ability score. The gauntlets can be turned on/off and are masking your real score with a 19

I think the real TL;DR is that it can going either way and the reasoning for both is just as equally justifiable

@NautArch This, exactly.

@DForck42 There can be only one! :D

@LegendaryDude My quibble is with "no matter what."

@NautArch and I interpret it as "your strength score is now 19" and then other effects happen against hat value

@Karelzarath There is literally only one way to interpret "Your Strength score is 19 while you wear these gauntlets."

@DForck42 Same

@LegendaryDude It seems that there is room for another interpretation.

@Karelzarath I think you're approaching the 5e rules from a very crunchy 3.5/PF perspective.

I'm curious to see what the official ruling, should there be one, says.

that's not my twitter, by the way

@LegendaryDude I absolutely, unabashedly am.

mostly because i don't have a twitter

Am I misremembering or didn't they errata those to essentially say they give you a str floor of 19?

@Karelzarath Please don't take this the wrong way but that is the wrong approach to 5e.

@CTWind Yeah. Now they say they have no effect if your str. is 19 or higher. But we are assuming a strength strictly less than 19

@LegendaryDude I can absolutely appreciate that sentiment. And you're most likely correct that 5e is not the game for me.

Very similar now that I think about it to the effect of Barkskin

@LegendaryDude so, to turn it the other way around, if you got something that gave your STR a boost, the gauntlets would override that (as long at the total STR is < 19 obviously) rather than add it onto the 19

@DForck42 No, see the comments about errata.

Oh sorry. Yeah.

lol

No, err. The errata address that.

Sorry, kinda trying to work at the same time as I chat.

^^

For example, downing a potion of giant strength will work without consequence.

Similarly, I assume someone affected by both Slow and Barkskin (with a base AC of 10 or whatever) would still have AC 16?

@CTWind Yeah, barkskin would override slow.

Barkskin is another weird AC thing, though.

Actually, thinking about it, it's the perfect AC corollary to gauntlets of ogre power.

With barkskin your AC can't be below 16.

That's what I was going for :)

(I really need to play a char that gets Slow. It actually seems incredibly potent the more I reread it.)

@CTWind It's much better than haste, for once.

So you roll damage on Magic Missile (5e) once per cast rather per missile?

@CTWind Slow is incredible and doesn't nearly get used enough

but it's a defensive spell, and those are no fun :P

@Yuuki Yup. And I refuse to do that :D

@LegendaryDude I'm searching, but can't yet find, support for my answer on wall of force. I'm debating deleting.

@NautArch I really think it's an "ask your DM" question. As with most 5e questions, honestly.

I can't even imagine modern gamers trying to play 2e. :|

> Not me, but my friend. My DM and friend were roommates and not getting along very well at their apartment. My friend jumps 14 feet off a banister and the DM says "roll a dex check." My friend flubs it and takes a bit of damage and ends up prone. He's running a ninja type guy, so he's pissed, saying it's an easy jump. Him and the DM get into a yelling match about it, fight ends with my friend jumping off a 2nd floor balcony to prove that if he can do it, then so can his character.

good lord...

Worth it.

@Yuuki and...

> Yeah, pretty sure he begrudgingly gave it to him. He was kicked out of the game a few weeks later though, so that was a short-lived victory and an awkward living situation.

@Yuuki I mean, said guy could have just as easily flubbed his landing and hurt himself

@Adam You know, you have much more potential to do more damage by rolling once and multiplying it by number of darts, without changing the average amount of damage. In fact I think I'd rather take the single damage roll * 3, looking at the numbers

@DForck42 Also worth it.

Statistically yes. It might be a better choice. But I find rolling 1d4 quite underwhelming

@LegendaryDude I think the math works out that over the long run, average damage is the same. Multiplying a single roll just results in more spiky damage.

the more I think about the wall of force, the less i agree with my answer AND therefore the utility of this spell. I think i'm going to delete it. The way I read it, it very much seems you must create a singular Wall (made up of 10x10 panels) across one plane. The language of "shape a flat surface" doesn't appear in Wall of Stone which in fact says "the wall can have any shape you desire" which force doesn't.

@Yuuki It is the same (10.5 avg damage).

@Yuuki However, it's not spiky, it's swingy. You are as likely to do 6 damage as you are to do 15 (big swing). Rolling 3 dice means you're always going to hit 10's and 11's more than any other result.

And have less than 2/100 chance of hitting max damage.

1.5625% chance of hitting 15 with 3d4+3, compared to 25% with 1d4 +1 x 3

@LegendaryDude Ah, wrong word choice then.

@Yuuki O_O

I hear these horror stories all the time and I'm seriously confused about why some people play like this.

@LegendaryDude hmm, that might be a good option to give newbie players or players that can't add good

or those that just don't wanna roll and would rather move on

and then let those that like rolling do their rolls

@DForck42 I think I'm going to start doing it the RAW way at my table.

@LegendaryDude what's that?

@LegendaryDude interesting, so it's 1d4 * number of missiles?

Rules say "A spell tells you which dice to roll for damage and whether to add any modifiers." Magic missile says "A dart deals 1d4 + 1 force damage to its target."

It's more fun to roll more dice

So you roll 1d4, add 1, and that's your dart damage for each dart for that casting.

Ergo, roll for each die

Empowered Evocation works better with Magic Missile with the RAW interpretation, I think?

To be fair, standard d4's don't exactly roll.

@SPavel But crawford thinks rolling dice slows down the game, so...

@SPavel You must love playing Shadowrun ;)

@NautArch It does. And it doesn't take much