Takes twice the time to put on, but you can make it fall away cleanly as a standard action. DC 30 Disable Device to have someone do it to you during combat, DC 15 if you're sleeping in it or something.
@Novian The BotGS is a group of PCs from a 4thed campaign. They were designed to be easy for a very new DM to run adventures for. Basic thought pattern is "THere's some plot. Let's do it."
@Novian Sorry, it's reflex. My first D&D group conditioned me to evaluate the air-droppability of EVERYTHING. My second group then regularly air-dropped a level 30 dwarven defender in lieu of digging, because digging is hard but flying three miles up and dropping a guy isn't.
@BESW And now you're reminding me of the rocket-dwarf powered moosile that ended the Age of Sorrows and started the second age in one of my Fair Folk games.
@somori Sounds like the time a gnome tinkerer from a more advanced dimension took a clan of soviet dwarves (all dwarves in my campaigns are Russian; it makes more sense) and grafted them with lightning-powered magipunk wings. Get enough of them together and they could do the shocker lizard trick, but with a different decimal location on the dice count.
@Novian ttfn
@somori One of the oldest continuous webcomics in existence.
@BESW treating any RPG ruleset as a NP-complete legal document. It's pointless and IMO actively harmful to the hobby. It's valueless pedantry. 3.5e/Pathfinder got suckered into it by listening to people crying "we need more rules coverage for X! Now for Y!" and now it gives the impression that if there's not rules for taking a dump, you can't do it.
Obsessing over RAW past the level where common sense kicks in has never and will never add a single iota of enjoyment to real play sessions.
@mxyzplk Well that's just not reading the books; the manuals are quite clear about the improvisational nature of the game and the need for a DM who can adjudicate.
The only value to realizing monks aren't explicitly listed as proficient with punches, for example, is at the Zen level of "oh maybe I shouldn't be expecting the rules to describe the blazingly obvious".
The thing is, they don't try to be complete. They've just given people too much of what they've asked for over time. Now people foolishly assume they should be complete.
@mxyzplk I disagree. Realizing monks aren't explicitly listed as proficient with punches should immediately create the need for a non-trivial decision about what to do: abandon the system? houserule it? try to play within the RAW? these may seem like intuitive ideas to many of us, but it's not a universal truth.
and when you consider that this problem was brought up repeatedly during Paizo's publicity stunt, it might make you realize something about the company you're dealing with
and @KRyan that's only true if one expects a game company to define a successful game as one that does everything including wipe your little lips clean of gruel.
because I'll be blunt: Paizo is staffed with ignorant, narrow-minded, unprofessional idiots, who are utterly incapable of accepting or responding to criticism, and are utterly convinced their every utterance is not just the law of the game, but obviously and clearly the only sensible way things could be
to be more blunt, @mxyzplk, you are exceedingly quick to judge people based on your perception of their relationship with RAW. No one plays 100% strict RAW; it's literally impossible, but you're pretty quick to assume that people A. are doing so, and B. are having badwrongfun that is "actively harmful to the hobby." You are extremely antagonistic towards those you have so judged. I don't know about the hobby as a whole, but that's certainly "actively harmful" to this web site.
@KRyan Yeah, I thought 'shmoo' was an indicator that if this conversation had any potential, it sure wasn't in the comments of some poor guy's simple question.
If there's going to be a conversation, rather than a flamewar, I'd love to discuss why trying to understand a game's foundation might be harmful to fun.
If there's going to be insults rather than discussion of theory or experience, I'm out.
Anyway, @BESW, the fact that the decision of what to do about the monk not being listed as knowing how to punch might cause a nontrival crisis of rules-faith is a problem that has to be solved not by patching the rules, but by patching the approach to the rules.
@KRyan mods are participants on the site too. If you think we are some paid cadre of people that should just sit back and do nothing but impartial busywork, you misunderstand the SE format. We don't let personal opinion influence our mod decisions, but we also participate fully in the site with our own playstyles and opinions and questions and answers.
@BESW which is what drives my point. The sheer fact that we try to treat RAW as complete or important is what causes people to actually have issues at that point instead of just ruling common sense and moving on, which is what makes real games run.
@mxyzplk Okay, so I'm interested in examining the RAW and seeing where it can be fixed but leaving it alone where it's not broke. That's my current approach to the rules (not one I've always had), based on what I perceive as the need of my current group to have a reliable standard letting them know what to expect.
@BESW which is fine within limits. But it's a neverending chase to a false goal when it goes down every single exception path and every combination of stuff. "What if I'm underwater on the elemental plane of fire, what then, I need rules to tell me..."
@mxyzplk I do not try to treat the RAW as complete, never said I did. I think that if it weren't important, however, we'd be running free-form games with rules of our own choosing.
The real world isn't deterministic. Therefore your actions in a game shouldn't be deterministic. It's a computer-game expectation to have complete foreknowledge of all the rules at hand. As long as your character isn't more unsure about what will work than a player is in the real world, it's all good.
By specifying a [dnd-3.5] or [dresden-files] tag in a question, the participant is giving a framework for the answer he wants. His group said "we want a game that uses these rules," which set forth an attitude, philosophy, and context for their structured play.
The reductio ad absurdum of that is needing rules to take a dump, however. I feel that there's another option to fixing RAW which is pruning it. The only thing wrong with Pathfinder is that 1/3 to 1/2 of its rules page count should be deleted. (same with 3.5, but there more like 3/4 should be deleted).
@mxyzplk Deleted and reorganised. If you can build the useful specific rules from general principles, then those general principles should be the rules instead.
@mxyzplk I can see it would be a lot of fun to play in one of your campaigns, but I don't think my group would like the uncertainty. Computer games aren't the only games with rules. I wouldn't go onto a basketball court if I thought someone else could shoot me without penalty, and I wouldn't play cards if I didn't know how many of each suit were in the deck.
There's a broad space between "no rules" and "infinite rules." The contention you seem to make is that if there's not loads of explicit rules for everything it might as well be freeform. There's 1000 games on the market and 998 of them have less rules than D&D 3.5/Pathfinder.
@mxyzplk But my group chose D&D 4e, and the guy whose question this started in chose 3.5. That indicates a choice about the kind of game they want to play.
If we were playing a game with fewer rules, we'd be more comfortable with ad-hoc rulings because that's the philosophy we chose to play under.
And that's the problem. If we treated poker like D&Ders treat rules, then the Board & Card Games SE would be full of "well the rules don't say I can't have another deck of cards on the table" or "these rules don't say whether I have to put my cards down close edge first or far edge first I CAN'T PLAY THIS SHIT"
Sure. I'm just saying that in my experience, whether you're playing low rules or high rules, expecting 100% complete rules coverage is a vain hope, and that in fact striving for it ends up taking a lot of effort that has zero to do with players enjoying the game.
Even Calvinball has one rule, and you have to understand it intimately if you want to play the game. For RPGs I feel like I have to study the RAW to know where my chosen game system is trying to go, so I can help it get there by --if I may use your very apt metaphor-- pruning it.
@mxyzplk I got over that expectation after a thorough reading of the DMG before my first session, and I'm doing my best not to be insulted that you assume someone interested in RAW must be unable to make that leap. I'm sure you've had some very trying experiences with that attitude in the past.
Sure, read and understand the RAW. But don't take it too seriously. It's like any other field of knowledge. There are many inconsistencies and dilemmas that don't exist for some deep wise reason, they just are.
Heh, yeah some of those experiences were about 15 minutes ago :-)
The RAW is the only communication I have with the developers of the game I want to play, and in that sense it is very important. That statement should have no implications that it is gospel; we frequently joke in my group that Wizards' development team is on crack.
But we sift through the RAW because it is the guidebook for our chosen medium of play, and we want to play D&D, not BESW&D.
(At least as much as we can without it not being fun; RAW can get very unfun if you let it.)
@mxyzplk If I may offer some input based on very recent personal experience, I admire your ability to separate your mod duties from your personal participation on this site. But the mod tag is still there and this colors peoples' responses to your actions regardless of which hat you may feel you're wearing at the time.
Well, but what is your point then? This came up in the context of the monk not begin explicitly listed with unarmed proficiency. In that case, following RAW is clearly dumb. And in the larger context of the other questions on unarmed attacks/natural attacks, people are using that section of rules which clearly doesn't value completeness as justification for all kinds of bizarre "oh all animals should get to attack their natural attacks and then unarmed too!" constructions.
I think perhaps there's a difference between "understanding RAW,as much as it can be", which you're advocating, and "playing strict RAW," which I contend is impossible and undesirable.
@mxyzplk I don't have any opinions on how people should or should not approach the RAW, except that it should be good for their group. On this site, people quickly learn to specify "please cite RAW when possible" or "speculation is all I expect to get" or whatever when they ask questions.
well, that's the value of the site though. It's not all about the questioner. Often questioners put qualifiers on their questions that may or may not be prudent, and answers can challenge those - and community votes work independently of answer acceptance.
@mxyzplk Yeah, I admire this site's structure and the way the rules are built to very specifically reward desired behavior and limit inappropriate actions.
But part of that is not getting upset if someone tells me that my answer just didn't address their question.
RPG players are not, inherently, a community with a common bond. It's like expecting people who like beans to all get along just because they like beans. I can say that I prefer to use salt when I cook them, but I really shouldn't call someone names because they think salt ruins the beans.
And if they ask for non-salt recipes and I give them a salt one, that's my right and theirs is to say "Gee, no thanks."
Now I gotta go pick up my car and salt some beans. Metaphorically speaking.
Oh if it's airships even better. You don't prey on other sky-people, that would be too fair. Just go crap on some random hamlet and sell all their stuff
@Novian If this is Treasure Island We Are Pirates, I can see it; that's a gritty realistic setting where being a pirate is, ultimately, a pretty rotten deal. If it's Pirates of the Caribbean We Are Pirates, then it's a different kind of story altogether.
As an amusing quirk of RAW, in 3.5 it doesn't matter how much gravel you drop from how high; each stone weighs under a pound and thus falling gravel cannot deal damage.
(In my floating-islands campaign, of course, we devastated entire cities with gravel.)
It's not that I don't like them or have my nose in the air about their approach to the Holy Grail of Science (I think they're doing a good job educating people about the scientific method, in a rough kind of way). I just... eh.
Jean Lafitte ( – ) was a French pirate and privateer in the Gulf of Mexico in the early 19th century. He and his elder brother, Pierre, spelled their last name Laffite, but English-language documents of the time used "Lafitte." The latter has become the commonly seen spelling in the United States, including for places named for him.
Lafitte is believed to have been born either in France or the French colony of Saint-Domingue. By 1805, he operated a warehouse in New Orleans to help disperse the goods smuggled by his brother Pierre Lafitte. After the United States government passed the...
So, it's really cool when you're at the table and a rules question comes up, and someone does some research and starts showing me answers on RPG.SE. Gives me a great warm and fuzzy.
@BESW yeah, 3x is definitely not a rules only game
@C.Ross Even games with very strict unbendable rules are really about how you work within them, but RPGs (even the most rule-heavy ones) are definitely toward the other end of the spectrum.
@BESW depends on the game and the players, but ... D&D started as a game with a lot of room for "creative interpretation" to put it mildly, and 3.X only changed that so much
@BESW I haven't really played them myself, but if you read the works of those times, and talk to the grognards you can clearly tell from the culture that it wasn't that way
My groups like the feeling that there are rules to fall back on for most situations, and that for situations the RAW doesn't cover (or covers poorly), it still provides a strong sense of how things should be ruled, philosophically (realistically, or for the best game balance, or what have you).
We've tried some more freeform games, and while some members of the group like them the overall trend is toward strong balance with lots of fiddly bits, and we accept that fiddly bits mean the balance and consistency will suffer and need to be compensated for at the table.
I expect my group membership to change drastically in the next few months--people leaving island--and my group's needs (and thus my questions on this site) will change with it.
@C.Ross Freeform may not be the right word, but.... um.
Games where the mechanics are less fiddly and more generalized so the party has to fill in the action with more creative narration. Dogs in the Vineyard and My Life With Master have both been tried.
This group, right now, prefers to have more granular mechanics so they can fall back on them when the narrative flags.
Less granular mechanics usually require much more intense narrative improv, and sometimes you just want to kick an orc in the face. Our favorite sessions are the ones with nothing but RP, but we can't maintain that energy all the time.
@C.Ross I've got one particular player who loves rules. He approaches PC creation like making a Magic: the Gathering deck.
Which is great, and a lot of fun actually, but sometimes I have to remind him that if I adjudicate a rule in the middle of a game I'll do it in favor of fun --but if I'm pressed to make a general ruling outside of the session, I'll rule in favor of balance.
I guess I feel very strongly that there is no wrong way to play an RPG provided you and your group are safe and happy doing it. There can be not as intended and not in accordance with theory and not traditional and all kinds of other criticisms that all boil down to not the way I want to play. But if I'm not in the group I've got no right to say it's a wrong way to play.
This makes sites like this very challenging to run, and I'm constantly impressed by it.
@BESW Oh, but there are wrong ways to play. Anything which has a good chance to (psychologically or physically) harm participants or bystanders is wrong, and possibly illegal.
I think any discussion of how to play a game should contain a tacit understanding that physical and psychological damage (and probably property damage) should be avoided.
If the context (like LARPing) requires it be explicit, I'll whole-heartedly endorse that and simply be slightly sad it was necessary.
When I was trained to work with kids and youth, the first question was always "are they safe?"
It applies to other situations too. As a DM, if they're safe, then I try to make them happy, and then we worry about rules and theory and balance and so forth.
Because it all boils down to having a safe and happy group. That is the ultimate goal and duty of everyone at the table, though the DM shoulders more of that responsibility than is strictly fair.
@MartinSojka I cannot imagine running a LARP. My hat off to you, good sir or unusually-monikered madam, for shouldering that responsibility.
@BESW It was fun, but also so much work I only did it once. People who manage to run big LARPs for decades - those are the heroes (and quite possibly insane).
@MartinSojka My current group does its best to make fun of LARPers because it's cool, and I don't point out that they're regularly jumping up from the table to enact a cool scene, complete with voices and wild gesticulation.
Someday they will realize.
Meanwhile I shall chuckle into my coffee and encourage their RP.
(They don't actually hold any vitriol for LARP. It's just a knee-jerk reaction from too much exposure to the Naughty Parts of the Internet, sad to say.)
@waxeagle Like alignment discussions, there are so many unspoken assumptions about what's actually being talked about that it's very easy to actually have everyone doing one side of a conversation that no one else is having.
One of the greatest assets to human civilization is our empathy, the ability to feel what another person is feeling. Unfortunately it sometimes leads us to assume that we are thinking the same thing when it's just phantom empathy.
....Sorry, it's midnight and I'm all philosophical.
just found the easiest way to waste some feats that ive ever seen,
combine Martial Study at 6th level with Psionic Meditation and Psychic Renewal to Bonecrusher every round or every other round without being a Warblade
bit unessecary if you want to do damage
just copypasted so I didnt write this
its only +4d6 damage and a save and for 3 feats I can probably do better
There was an interesting question about the maximum speed of a character, with an even more interesting answer that a properly optimized character can break the speed of light. (So, isn't general relativity present in D&D, and is there no time dilation, etc.?)
If someone can reach such ludic...
@C.Ross with a specific edition it might be answerable along the lines of other op questions. It's not practical, but it probably works if we know what edition.