PDA

View Full Version : Super broken magic item [4e]



kjones
2009-08-25, 04:56 PM
I don't know if this has been posted here before, but check out the Throne of Dominion from the Adventurer's Vault 2.

(Here's the text:)
Throne of Dominion Level 12
This throne is carved with ornate filigree and reliefs showing a king ruling over subjects that span the chair’s entire surface.
Wondrous Item 13,000 gp
Property: While you sit on the throne, when a creature you can see attempts to deceive, disobey, or betray you, it is stunned (save ends). All creatures you can see take a –3 penalty to attack rolls that target your Will.
Power (Daily Charm): Standard Action. Make an attack: Ranged sight; Charisma + 5 vs. Will; on a hit, the target is dominated until the end of your next turn.

The broken-ness should be pretty obvious - what happens if the person in the throne orders everyone in the room to "Surrender", "Commit suicide", or (best of all) "Act like you're stunned"? One might argue that this is clearly not an item intended for PCs, but any party with an ounce of creativity will figure out a way to steal the throne and bring it with them. (One obvious solution - Tenser's Floating Disk.)

Seriously, Wizards, what were you thinking?

Vortling
2009-08-25, 04:59 PM
I'm fairly certain that it's not meant to be portable and that any attempts to move it should be met with a "no" from the gamemaster. It is in the section that is for items for the PCs home base.

Boci
2009-08-25, 05:01 PM
I don't know if this has been posted here before, but check out the Throne of Dominion from the Adventurer's Vault 2.

(Here's the text:)
Throne of Dominion Level 12
This throne is carved with ornate filigree and reliefs showing a king ruling over subjects that span the chair’s entire surface.
Wondrous Item 13,000 gp
Property: While you sit on the throne, when a creature you can see attempts to deceive, disobey, or betray you, it is stunned (save ends). All creatures you can see take a –3 penalty to attack rolls that target your Will.
Power (Daily Charm): Standard Action. Make an attack: Ranged sight; Charisma + 5 vs. Will; on a hit, the target is dominated until the end of your next turn.

The broken-ness should be pretty obvious - what happens if the person in the throne orders everyone in the room to "Surrender", "Commit suicide", or (best of all) "Act like you're stunned"? One might argue that this is clearly not an item intended for PCs, but any party with an ounce of creativity will figure out a way to steal the throne and bring it with them. (One obvious solution - Tenser's Floating Disk.)

Seriously, Wizards, what were you thinking?

Its pretty bad, but easily fixable. Remove disobey from the list of things that stun, jack up the price a bit and leave DM's common sense to sort the rest.


I'm fairly certain that it's not meant to be portable and that any attempts to move it should be met with a "no" from the gamemaster. It is in the section that is for items for the PCs home base.

As written it still makes anyone invincible in their own home, which is not good.

kjones
2009-08-25, 05:07 PM
Its pretty bad, but easily fixable. Remove disobey from the list of things that stun, jack up the price a bit and leave DM's common sense to sort the rest.


Of course it's fixable - that's not the point. You could also fix it by making the stun effect an attack vs. will rather than an automatic effect.

But rather than having to fix my game system, is it too much to ask for it to not have this kind of ridiculous stuff in the first place?

Dixieboy
2009-08-25, 05:07 PM
If a standard team meets a big bad with that thing, problems could arise.

But invincibility?
No.

Why?
It gives a -3 to stuff targetting your WILL.
The fighter can still pound your face in.

Granted, the stunning is overpowered to an extend, but if you go into some overlord lair and the worst thing that happens to you is STUN the DM is doing it rong.

Sir Homeslice
2009-08-25, 05:09 PM
If a standard team meets a big bad with that thing, problems could arise.

But invincibility?
No.

Why?
It gives a -3 to stuff targetting your WILL.
The fighter can still pound your face in.

Xemnas on the Throne says a command as a free action. Fighter is stunned.

Dixieboy
2009-08-25, 05:11 PM
Xemnas on the Throne says a command as a free action. Fighter is stunned.

No, I don't even have to explain anything.
Just, no.

FoE
2009-08-25, 05:11 PM
As written it still makes anyone invincible in their own home, which is not good.

Unless I'm reading it wrong, it hardly makes you invincible. It's a daily charm that can possibly dominate a single foe for one round; that's powerful, but it's not exactly game-breaking. And, as Vortling pointed out, it's not like the thing is portable.

Mando Knight
2009-08-25, 05:13 PM
Xemnas on the Throne says a command as a free action. Fighter is stunned.

Wizard uses Invisibility and a power that slides. Xemnas is no longer on his Throne, Rogue sits on it and commands Xemnas to stab himself repeatedly. Xemnas is stunned.

kjones
2009-08-25, 05:14 PM
I guess it wasn't quite obvious enough - let me clarify the broken part.


While you sit on the throne, when a creature you can see attempts to deceive, disobey, or betray you, it is stunned (save ends).

Getting people to disobey you is pretty easy. Thus, you can stun people as a free action, as giving an order (talking) is a free action.

There's basically no way around this, other than immunity to stun - even if you do manage to escape, the throne-sitter can just stun you again the next round.

The penalty to defense and the charm effect are chump change in comparison.

EDIT:

Wizard uses Invisibility and a power that slides. Xemnas is no longer on his Throne, Rogue sits on it and commands Xemnas to stab himself repeatedly. Xemnas is stunned.

Where's that wizard getting the action to cast Invisibility? Xenmas has a sign (or a Magic Mouth, if you're classy) that says "Drop your weapons, don't move or speak" above his throne.

Boci
2009-08-25, 05:15 PM
Of course it's fixable - that's not the point. You could also fix it by making the stun effect an attack vs. will rather than an automatic effect.

But rather than having to fix my game system, is it too much to ask for it to not have this kind of ridiculous stuff in the first place?

If all errors were like that (i.e. blatantly obvious and easily fixable), I would be happy. Yes it is annoying they do not notice these things but its preferable to errors less easy to fix.

Boci
2009-08-25, 05:17 PM
Wizard uses Invisibility and a power that slides. Xemnas is no longer on his Throne, Rogue sits on it and commands Xemnas to stab himself repeatedly. Xemnas is stunned.

Its still a problem because now the PCs are abusing it. And wouldn't the BBEG ready an action to talk + have slide resistence?


Unless I'm reading it wrong, it hardly makes you invincible. It's a daily charm that can possibly dominate a single foe for one round; that's powerful, but it's not exactly game-breaking. And, as Vortling pointed out, it's not like the thing is portable.

Thats not the problem. The problem is the auto stun affect.

BBEG readies an action to orders all PCs to kill themselves as soon as they eter the room.


No, I don't even have to explain anything.
Just, no.

He is just pointing out that that is how it works as written.


I
Where's that wizard getting the action to cast Invisibility? Xenmas has a sign (or a Magic Mouth, if you're classy) that says "Drop your weapons, don't move or speak" above his throne.

I think action points allow it. Not that that justifies it, but there are ways.

Milskidasith
2009-08-25, 05:19 PM
Also, an invis'd wizard would obviously be deceiving him, so he'd still be stunned.

kjones
2009-08-25, 05:22 PM
Also, an invis'd wizard would obviously be deceiving him, so he'd still be stunned.

Ok, so the fighter tries to bullrush/Tide of Iron him off the throne!

But wait! The king quickly makes friends with the fighter, thus turning his attack into a savage betrayal, and the fighter is stunned!

If it weren't so prone to abuse, this throne could yield a lot of hilarity. (Or maybe abuse is just a different kind of hilarity...)

Myshlaevsky
2009-08-25, 05:24 PM
You need to be able to see the target, so the invisible wizard wouldn't be stunned.

Really, any respectable BBEG should have the Throne surrounded by glass walls and ceiling, as you cannot be pulled, pushed or slid through objects.

Mando Knight
2009-08-25, 05:25 PM
Where's that wizard getting the action to cast Invisibility? Xenmas has a sign (or a Magic Mouth, if you're classy) that says "Drop your weapons, don't move or speak" above his throne.

He planned ahead, casting Invisibility before he entered the room. With Xemnas unable to see him, he is unaffected by the throne's power. :smallwink:

...Or if it's a level 26 or higher campaign, the party divine character can revere Bahamut, and summon a bunch of canaries (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20090824) to allow him to bull rush the guy off of his throne anyway...

Boci
2009-08-25, 05:25 PM
Ok, so the fighter tries to bullrush/Tide of Iron him off the throne!

But wait! The king quickly makes friends with the fighter, thus turning his attack into a savage betrayal, and the fighter is stunned!

If it weren't so prone to abuse, this throne could yield a lot of hilarity. (Or maybe abuse is just a different kind of hilarity...)

This is were you hope your DM can employ common sense. Betrayal means the target must be allied o the BBEG, invisibility does not count as deciete, ect


You need to be able to see the target, so the invisible wizard wouldn't be stunned.

"Everyone who isn't my minnion kill themselves" still affect an invisible target.


He planned ahead, casting Invisibility before he entered the room. With Xemnas unable to see him, he is unaffected by the throne's power. :smallwink:

Yes he is. See above. And just because I am curious. are you actually arguing that power wise this item is fine?

Dixieboy
2009-08-25, 05:25 PM
He is just pointing out that that is how it works as written.
Except it doesn't really work like that. :smallsigh:

I'll go find you a bit that says just why that wouldn't work.
BRB.

Edit: Cannot find it, will be back after sleep.

FoE
2009-08-25, 05:26 PM
You're just failing to see the loopholes.

I would argue that the throne would only affect a traitor if they were serving you to begin with. I can't "betray" someone to whom I never pledged allegiance. It's a great tool for keeping your henchmen in line (Vecna's probably saying "where was this thing when I was alive?"), but unless that group of assassins hired to kill the possessor of the throne were previously on the PC's payroll, I would rule as the DM that the throne is useless against them. Ditto for that mob of marauding orcs who just broke into the palace or ragtag bunch of rebels out to depose a ruthless tyrant.

I suppose they could still lie to you, but I wouldn't rely on the trolls currently circling your throne suddenly confessing that they'd rather be knitting.

Milskidasith
2009-08-25, 05:28 PM
The thing is, it says "disobey" not "betray." Disobey can mean not obeying you at all.

I wonder how this interacts with scrying or other ways to "see" people. It would make a great method of DM railroading; the guy on the throne is constantly scrying the party and if they go off the rails, BOOM, stunned. :P

Myshlaevsky
2009-08-25, 05:28 PM
You're just failing to see the loopholes.

I would argue that the throne would only affect a traitor if they were serving you to begin with. I can't "betray" someone whose allegiance I never recognized. Therefore, it's a great tool for keeping your henchmen in line, but unless that group of assassins hired to kill me or mob of marauding orcs who just broke into the palace were previously on my payroll, I would rule that the throne is useless against them.

I suppose they could still lie to you, but I wouldn't rely on the trolls currently circling your throne suddenly confessing that they'd rather be knitting.

"Disobey" is much harder to work around though.

The Throne of Dominion is definitely a broken item, but it's easily fixable. Even in with it in an unfixed state it's possible to overcome it with invisibility and stealth.

Milskidasith
2009-08-25, 05:29 PM
Aren't there methods to detect invisibility pretty easily?

Boci
2009-08-25, 05:30 PM
"Disobey" is much harder to work around though.

The Throne of Dominion is definitely a broken item, but it's easily fixable. Even in with it in an unfixed state it's possible to overcome it with invisibility and stealth.

Its very vague though. If I have writting on the wall commanding you to not harm me and you do, have you disobeyed me? Or do I have to voice it?

Milskidasith
2009-08-25, 05:31 PM
The magic knows, even if you don't. It's magic.

Mando Knight
2009-08-25, 05:32 PM
"Everyone who isn't my minnion kill themselves" still affect an invisible target.

No, it doesn't, unless he can see through invisibility.


Property: While you sit on the throne, when a creature you can see attempts to deceive, disobey, or betray you, it is stunned (save ends).(Emphasis mine)

Thus, if he can't see you, you can kill him. Ways to do this include blinding him, using invisibility, knocking him unconscious...

...Ooh! Invisibility + Orb of Ultimate Imposition + Sleep.

FoE
2009-08-25, 05:33 PM
The ability to give out orders implies authority. A parent can order a child, a master can order a servant and a commander can order a solider. But authority is just an illusion. No one can truly command another person's allegiance unless they allow it.

Also, the Invisibility trick works as advertised.

Myshlaevsky
2009-08-25, 05:36 PM
The ability to give out orders implies authority. A parent can order a child, a master can order a servant and a commander can order a solider. The king has no authority over the assassin who's come to slit his throat.

You're reading into things in an effort to say this isn't broken. It is. Nothing in the rules supports this definition of disobedience regarding the Throne of Dominion.

This is the kind of thing I would institute where I to give it to a BBEG in one of my games. I'd have it conditional on a pledge of obediance or similar act.

Boci
2009-08-25, 05:37 PM
No, it doesn't, unless he can see through invisibility.

(Emphasis mine)

Thus, if he can't see you, you can kill him. Ways to do this include blinding him, using invisibility, knocking him unconscious...

...Ooh! Invisibility + Orb of Ultimate Imposition + Sleep.

Okay I missread that, but the item is srill broken, because there is a way to get around it, assuming invisibility is used. This is problomatic on so many levels. The wizard has to cast invisibility, and it must remain intact. What if you do not know invisibility?

You cannot honestly argue that a 13K item that makes you auto win unless the enemy takes specific actions is balanced in any way shape or form. Name an equally powerful example.

FMArthur
2009-08-25, 05:37 PM
Bring your own chair. Problem solved.

...

Okay, problem amplified. But it's not your problem anymore.

kc0bbq
2009-08-25, 05:41 PM
Okay I missread that, but the item is srill broken, because there is a way to get around it, assuming invisibility is used. This is problomatic on so many levels. The wizard has to cast invisibility, and it must remain intact. What if you do not know invisibility?
You fill the room with smoke. Any number of things. It's not broken.

kjones
2009-08-25, 05:41 PM
Okay I missread that, but the item is srill broken, because there is a way to get around it, assuming invisibility is used. This is problomatic on so many levels. The wizard has to cast invisibility, and it must remain intact. What if you do not know invisibility?

You cannot honestly argue that a 13K item that makes you auto win unless the enemy takes specific actions is balanced in any way shape or form. Name an equally powerful example.

This is really all I'm trying to say here. Of course, it can be countered. Everything can. But the intent of the item and its actual capabilities are wildly divergent.

FoE
2009-08-25, 05:41 PM
You're reading into things in an effort to say this isn't broken. It is. Nothing in the rules supports this definition of disobedience regarding the Throne of Dominion.

But I'm not stretching. I really don't see how this has to be a huge issue. In fact, when I first saw this thread, I thought the Dominate effect was the problem.

Maybe it's just my Chaotic nature coming to the fore.

Myshlaevsky
2009-08-25, 05:44 PM
But I'm not stretching. I really don't see how this has to be a huge issue.

Maybe it's just my Chaotic nature that lets me see that.

Honestly? You're really trying to say that it's my inherent lawfulness that makes me unable to accept your definition of the rules?

"Disobeying" a command is as simple as not doing it. That's how it works. This is an item which is far, far too powerful for the cost and level. By all means, institute a change which relies upon stricter terms of obediance. I approve of that - but that's not the way it's written.

I don't think it is a huge issue either, it's just one overly powerful - and still limited - item.

Edit: I see you have edited your original post. I've stricken my reaction to the part that was.

Boci
2009-08-25, 05:45 PM
You fill the room with smoke. Any number of things. It's not broken.

Just wow. You think auto stun (in the sense that there is no attack, not that there is no way to conuter it) as a free action is not broken. Name someother way of acomplishing this using 13K in your base.

AgentPaper
2009-08-25, 05:48 PM
You fill the room with smoke. Any number of things. It's not broken.

If you don't plan specifically for it you CAN NOT WIN an encounter involving it. If that's not broken, I don't know what is.

That said, it's very easy to fix. Just change the text so that it only stuns someone if they've sworn an oath to you or something, and then try to break it while you can see them.

Kaun
2009-08-25, 06:21 PM
Stop me if im going out on a wierd tangent here but rather then all this magic hocus pocus couldnt the players just wear ear plugs or something else which prevents them from hearing who ever is in the throne?

Or fail that silence the guy in the throne so he cant issue orders?

Boci
2009-08-25, 06:24 PM
Stop me if im going out on a wierd tangent here but rather then all this magic hocus pocus couldnt the players just wear ear plugs or something else which prevents them from hearing who ever is in the throne?

Or fail that silence the guy in the throne so he cant issue orders?

Even if we assume that verbal commands are the only acceptable way to trigger the stun affect, the party still needs to silence the BBEG, which means they have wasted actions. Also, all the counter measures so far assume the PCs know about the chair, which is not always going to be the case.

Milskidasith
2009-08-25, 06:24 PM
The PCs don't have to hear it for it to be an order; it could be written. Silencing him might work (if he didn't have them written) but it would be something that could easily be thwarted by a combination of scrying, Magic Mouth, and Alarm. I'm not sure if those spells exist in 4e, but many utility spells could easily cause them to be in LoS when the magic mouth issues an order.

quick_comment
2009-08-25, 06:27 PM
You could just have signs on the entrance to the throne room that say

"You are ordered to refrain from violence inside this room unless specifically authorized to do so by Lord Evilius."

Kaun
2009-08-25, 06:33 PM
Even if we assume that verbal commands are the only acceptable way to trigger the stun affect, the party still needs to silence the BBEG, which means they have wasted actions. Also, all the counter measures so far assume the PCs know about the chair, which is not always going to be the case.

This seems like a magic item that would generate a bit of a reputation. If the DM is sending a party against a BBEG or any bad guy with this item with out the chance of getting any prior warrning of what they might be up against then it seems more like bad DMing then un balanced item.

That being said the automatic stun thing is a bit harsh.

Also non virbal comands probably do work but it takes alot more time and effort to use one then the free action of a verbal comand.

EDIT: Also with the signe out the front theroy i dont belive that would work otherwise said lord could hand out signe's saying drop your weapons and surrender by comand of lord whatshisname to all of his men.

Milskidasith
2009-08-25, 06:36 PM
Not really. Permanent signs with some way of looking at them (Scrying along with alarm spells alerting you somebody is approaching a sign), simply saying "say password A001" or something similar would allow anybody who you didn't want in to be stunned, and it's trivial to kill them once they are stunlocked. Finding out about it should be hard. That's just for signs in your house that aren't in your direct LoS; in your throne room you just write orders everywhere.

Boci
2009-08-25, 06:36 PM
This seems like a magic item that would generate a bit of a reputation. If the DM is sending a party against a BBEG or any bad guy with this item with out the chance of getting any prior warrning of what they might be up against then it seems more like bad DMing then un balanced item.

That being said the automatic stun thing is a bit harsh.

Also non virbal comands probably do work but it takes alot more time and effort to use one then the free action of a verbal comand.

Nope, because you can make a written command before battle. They are even better than verbal commands.

And saying its not that good because its so good everyone will nkow about it is like saying casters are not overpowered because they are so powerful all the monsters will try and kill them and not the melee-ers.

quick_comment
2009-08-25, 06:40 PM
Heck, the item doesnt even mention that the target needs to be aware he is disobeying you.

Kaun
2009-08-25, 06:45 PM
Im not saying its not good but its the kind of item that would generate a reputation.

And if signes work then why not letters, He could just start sending letters to everybody asking them to send there money to him and any money they make in the future.

Or heralds, he could have heralds ridding the lands issueing comands how ever he pleases...





.............yeah this item does need its wording imrpoved haha:smalltongue:

Boci
2009-08-25, 06:55 PM
Im not saying its not good but its the kind of item that would generate a reputation.

And if signes work then why not letters, He could just start sending letters to everybody asking them to send there money to him and any money they make in the future.

Or heralds, he could have heralds ridding the lands issueing comands how ever he pleases...





.............yeah this item does need its wording imrpoved haha:smalltongue:

Not quite. You still need to see them for it to work. But yes, it needs to be redefined.

Kaun
2009-08-25, 07:08 PM
Not quite. You still need to see them for it to work. But yes, it needs to be redefined.

Ahh yeah forgot that bit.

If you use the old Medussa trick with a mirror do you think you could bounce his own comands back so he also had to follow them? Pending he didnt word them well enough to get around this....

Milskidasith
2009-08-25, 07:30 PM
1.Do not do anything to harm Lord Evilus, directly or indirectly.
2. Obey Lord Evilus unless it would conflict with rule 1.
3. Do not attempt any kind of violence unless it would conflict with rule 1 or rule 2.

kjones
2009-08-25, 07:32 PM
Ahh yeah forgot that bit.

If you use the old Medussa trick with a mirror do you think you could bounce his own comands back so he also had to follow them? Pending he didnt word them well enough to get around this....

That doesn't really make sense. The king can hear himself talk - does that mean he has to follow his own spoken orders?

Izmir Stinger
2009-08-25, 07:34 PM
Meh, its a moot point in my campaign. See, I have this item that counters this kind of problem, a +3 Tome of OhMyGodsDidYouComeHereToArgueSemanticsOrPlayD&D. It gives me an Aura 3 that negates stupid rules lawyering. It also has a daily power that lets me throw a handful of dice at players that are being deliberately obtuse.

Milskidasith
2009-08-25, 07:38 PM
You can't use rule 0 to argue that something isn't broken, especially considering it actually takes an obtuse interpretation of the rules to make it be anything besides broken. Saying it's "obtuse" to say that disobeying creatures get stunned is like saying it's Obtuse that 3.5e Time Stop allows you 1d4+1 rounds without anybody else getting to do anything.

Mando Knight
2009-08-25, 07:40 PM
One way to beat it: leave the room alone. Then set up an ambush to kill him whenever he leaves the throne. :smallamused:

Milskidasith
2009-08-25, 07:42 PM
One way to beat it: leave the room alone. Then set up an ambush to kill him whenever he leaves the throne. :smallamused:

Why would anybody ever leave one of these thrones? With Magic, you would never actually have to leave; even if you can't move it with you by using magic (which seems plausible), you could still make sure you never had to get up.

Break
2009-08-25, 07:47 PM
Already covered this. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121856) It didn't get much attention then. :smallfrown:

But yeah, the item was not well-written, and Tenser's abuse with it is pretty trivial, and the counters to it are pretty limited. Even limiting it to only working in your lair still makes it pretty iffy - it almost completely negates plots in which you have to, say, assassinate the king. That's the real damage this item does, I feel.

Kaun
2009-08-25, 07:52 PM
If i was the guy on the throne i would be more likely to mount it on some magical construct so it can be moved around. I still think you would be leaving the chair every now and then even if its just to stretch the old legs.

Mando Knight
2009-08-25, 07:55 PM
Why would anybody ever leave one of these thrones? With Magic, you would never actually have to leave; even if you can't move it with you by using magic (which seems plausible), you could still make sure you never had to get up.

Uh huh. And allow your empire to never extend beyond how far you can actually see? I don't think so.

Rule by Magic Mouth and Scrying: expensive.
Rule by flunkies and Scrying: still expensive.
Rule by Tenser's Floating Disk and levitating the chair everywhere: still rather expensive, and your rule is limited by how far you can see.

...Oh, yeah... and each of those have 10-minute casting times, so you're not going to be able to command entire armies except through the Floating Disk method.

Ooh! And sleep. Warforged and Eladrin won't mind, but any other would-be conqueror is going to get owned as soon as they nod off.

And then there's the fact that a lot of people would rather be unable to move than to fulfill your every whim...

Basically, using this item offensively is asking for trouble. Characters with invisibility, non-creatures, Tiamat...

Gralamin
2009-08-25, 07:57 PM
Something Relevant the IRC came up with:


[ 18:57 ] [+GralaminShieldheart] AV2 Saids Lair items must be left behind when a hero goes Exploring.
[ 18:58 ] [+GralaminShieldheart] Thats its only real prerequiste.
[ 18:58 ] [+GralaminShieldheart] So, what counts as Exploring?
[ 18:58 ] [Break] I think that's only because a lot of them aren't practical to carry around, not a real mechanical limitation.
[ 18:58 ] [Break] But that's the closest thing AV2 presents to "only owrks in lairs".
[ 18:58 ] [Break] *works
[ 18:59 ] [+GralaminShieldheart] Now, Page 260 of the PHB saids "A significant part of D&D adventures is exploration, which takes place between encounters"
[ 18:59 ] [+GralaminShieldheart] So strictly speaking, you can't actually move it if its not an encounter.
[ 19:00 ] [Break] The mental image I'm getting of this is pretty hilarious.
[ 19:00 ] [Break] Every encounter, they ****ing scramble to move the throne.
[ 19:00 ] [@NEO|Phyte^] "Get some more orcs in here, quick!"

Even with this RAW limit though, the item is still too strong.

If a DM really wants to use It, I'd say Attack roll vs Will to stun (Save ends), works as an immediate action. So if 4 assassins are coming for you, you can only stop one a round.

Boci
2009-08-25, 08:00 PM
Uh huh. And allow your empire to never extend beyond how far you can actually see? I don't think so.

Rule by Magic Mouth and Scrying: expensive.
Rule by flunkies and Scrying: still expensive.
Rule by Tenser's Floating Disk and levitating the chair everywhere: still rather expensive, and your rule is limited by how far you can see.

...Oh, yeah... and each of those have 10-minute casting times, so you're not going to be able to command entire armies except through the Floating Disk method.

Ooh! And sleep. Warforged and Eladrin won't mind, but any other would-be conqueror is going to get owned as soon as they nod off.

And then there's the fact that a lot of people would rather be unable to move than to fulfill your every whim...

Basically, using this item offensively is asking for trouble. Characters with invisibility, non-creatures, Tiamat...

You are actually still arguing that this item is not broken? Name an equally powerful use of 13k.

Tiki Snakes
2009-08-25, 08:00 PM
You have two options; Leave the throne sometime.

OR

Poo yourself.

Terraoblivion
2009-08-25, 08:03 PM
I have to say, this entire thread baffles me. Why make such a big deal out of this? It is for all practical purposes impossible to avoid having some dodgy rules slip through to publishing, this is just one example of that and an easily avoidable one. I mean if you honestly cannot deviate from the rules in order to arrive at something sane, you can just choose not to use this item. And this doesn't even address why you should stick to a strict interpretation of the item, rather than just apply your own variant that works in a manner more conductive to stable play. Even laws have room for interpretation, it is pretty unfair to assume that game rules shouldn't have. Especially when the problems are so easily fixed.

It is no big deal, unless you demand that every rule published for the game has to be perfectly balanced and non-exploitable as a matter of principle.

Milskidasith
2009-08-25, 08:04 PM
Yeah, prestidigitation kind of makes that useless... or you just have a bag of holding as underwear. :smalltongue:

But seriously, levitating it everywhere isn't really *that* expensive; it's 13k and requires you to cast a spell with no EXP cost.

Myshlaevsky
2009-08-25, 08:08 PM
I have to say, this entire thread baffles me. Why make such a big deal out of this? It is for all practical purposes impossible to avoid having some dodgy rules slip through to publishing, this is just one example of that and an easily avoidable one. I mean if you honestly cannot deviate from the rules in order to arrive at something sane, you can just choose not to use this item. And this doesn't even address why you should stick to a strict interpretation of the item, rather than just apply your own variant that works in a manner more conductive to stable play. Even laws have room for interpretation, it is pretty unfair to assume that game rules shouldn't have. Especially when the problems are so easily fixed.

It is no big deal, unless you demand that every rule published for the game has to be perfectly balanced and non-exploitable as a matter of principle.

That's pretty much what several posters in this thread, along with myself, have been saying. Some other people are either deciding to play Devil's Advocate or seriously believe this item is not broken and should be included as-is in the game.

Not one person has said "How terrible that this is broken!" We're just pointing out that it is and discussing various ways it could be used, manipulated, countered or avoided. There's nothing wrong with discussing those things for however long we like.

Boci
2009-08-25, 08:09 PM
I have to say, this entire thread baffles me. Why make such a big deal out of this? It is for all practical purposes impossible to avoid having some dodgy rules slip through to publishing, this is just one example of that and an easily avoidable one. I mean if you honestly cannot deviate from the rules in order to arrive at something sane, you can just choose not to use this item. And this doesn't even address why you should stick to a strict interpretation of the item, rather than just apply your own variant that works in a manner more conductive to stable play. Even laws have room for interpretation, it is pretty unfair to assume that game rules shouldn't have. Especially when the problems are so easily fixed.

It is no big deal, unless you demand that every rule published for the game has to be perfectly balanced and non-exploitable as a matter of principle.

1. Its a really funny item to talk about
2. There are some people who seem to think that as written it is not broken

Terraoblivion
2009-08-25, 08:12 PM
Nothing wrong with it, just puzzles me why you bother and especially why so many threads along those lines crop up. It just seems to me that this is on the level of discussing the ramifications of a humorous typo in a press release and the like, the people i game with would never even have noticed in the first, it is just that irrelevant.

Myshlaevsky
2009-08-25, 08:16 PM
Nothing wrong with it, just puzzles me why you bother and especially why so many threads along those lines crop up. It just seems to me that this is on the level of discussing the ramifications of a humorous typo in a press release and the like, the people i game with would never even have noticed in the first, it is just that irrelevant.

That's your opinion; you'll just have to accept that others find it interesting or amusing to talk about the applications of such items in a game world. You might not intend it, but you're kind of coming across as saying, "No, don't talk about this kind of thing! It's badwrongfun!"

You say your gaming friends would not have noticed it. I'll say that if I had not caught this before my players they would have abused the hell out of it.

kjones
2009-08-25, 08:16 PM
Nothing wrong with it, just puzzles me why you bother and especially why so many threads along those lines crop up. It just seems to me that this is on the level of discussing the ramifications of a humorous typo in a press release and the like, the people i game with would never even have noticed in the first, it is just that irrelevant.

A slightly un-diligent DM could drop this item into his game without fully understanding the consequences, and possibly screw up his game pretty badly as a result. (If you gave this to a BBEG without realizing what it could do, you could easily wind up with a TPK.) If people see threads like these, they'll know to watch out for these broken items.

(On the flip side, a player could try to slip this past an unwitting DM, with similarly bad consequences.)

Think of it as a "product recall" notice.

Terraoblivion
2009-08-25, 08:42 PM
I did not mean to say it is wrong to have fun talking about the possible ramifications of such an item in a non-serious manner. It is treating it like it is a serious issue that must be addressed or crafty players will abuse it to destroy the campaign, like several people have stated after i expressed my confusion first, that puzzles me. Essentially it is the attitude towards what the rules is that is strange to me. It comes off as if rules are absolute and takes precedence over intention with the game to a lot of people, which is just not like what i know or even have a frame of reference to imagine in any kind of detail.

Mando Knight
2009-08-25, 08:46 PM
2. There are some people who seem to think that as written it is not broken

...It really isn't. You're unstoppable while inside your throne room. Okay. Fine. Lots of Big Bads are, whether or not they've got an actual item that says they are. I blockade your throne room. What now?

You float out with your throne to beat me up? My Elf Avenger ally was hidden. Now his sword is in your face, using Sequestering Strike to teleport you off of your throne. And the Eladrin Wizard, also formerly hidden, now teleports onto the throne.

Powerful? Yes. Useful? Yes. "OMG Broken!1!!1"? No.

Milskidasith
2009-08-25, 08:48 PM
Talking is a free action. You can literally do it in the middle of somebody attacking you. STOP! would actually just stun everybody (or force them to not move).

And of course, Floating Disc makes you invulnerable everywhere. It costs 13k; it shouldn't require somebody to have an absurd hide modifier and ways to teleport you against your will while being invisible and disabling your ways to see invisibility just to get rid of it.

kjones
2009-08-25, 09:00 PM
Talking is a free action. You can literally do it in the middle of somebody attacking you. STOP! would actually just stun everybody (or force them to not move).


It's a free action, not an immediate action, so you can't actually do it during someone else's turn.

Mando Knight
2009-08-25, 09:07 PM
Talking is a free action. You can literally do it in the middle of somebody attacking you. STOP! would actually just stun everybody (or force them to not move).
Except... you can't see them. They're hidden. And when they attack, they still gain the benefit of being hidden (i.e. invisibility) until the end of the action that makes them not-hidden. Anyone can bullrush. Any Rogue could dispel your Tenser's Floating Disk with a Dust of Disenchantment, which costs 8000 less gold, so now you have to spend another 10 minutes to get your flying fortress back in order. Any push/pull/slide/teleport effect can disable your power.

A Black Dragon can destroy you easily...

Fishy
2009-08-25, 09:15 PM
I think the item, as written, is hilarious and evocative.

Provided that you don't use it and some minions as an instant TPK the first time you reveal it. "How dare you challenge me in my sanctum! Pfah! Guards, throw them out!"

kjones
2009-08-25, 09:42 PM
I think the item, as written, is hilarious and evocative.


That's all well and good, but I don't think it's intended to be hilarious.

quick_comment
2009-08-25, 09:47 PM
Except... you can't see them. They're hidden. And when they attack, they still gain the benefit of being hidden (i.e. invisibility) until the end of the action that makes them not-hidden. Anyone can bullrush. Any Rogue could dispel your Tenser's Floating Disk with a Dust of Disappearance, which costs 8000 less gold, so now you have to spend another 10 minutes to get your flying fortress back in order. Any push/pull/slide/teleport effect can disable your power.

A Black Dragon can destroy you easily...

It doesnt matter if they are hidden or not, they are still disobeying your orders not to attack you.

kjones
2009-08-25, 10:00 PM
It doesnt matter if they are hidden or not, they are still disobeying your orders not to attack you.

But you can only use the stun power on a target you can see.

dragoonsgone
2009-08-25, 10:39 PM
You need to be able to see the target, so the invisible wizard wouldn't be stunned.

Really, any respectable BBEG should have the Throne surrounded by glass walls and ceiling, as you cannot be pulled, pushed or slid through objects.

Am I the only one who thought Pope mobile? Head of a religious order sitting on one as he rides in the back of a cart through town.

FoE
2009-08-26, 12:08 AM
That's pretty much what several posters in this thread, along with myself, have been saying. Some other people are either deciding to play Devil's Advocate or seriously believe this item is not broken and should be included as-is in the game.

I don't think it's broken because I'm not misinterpreting it. The throne is obviously meant to only work on the user's servants; why the hell would they include a daily Domination charm if the chair is that powerful? It's adhering to the strictest definition of "disobey" that people seem to have trouble with.

EDIT: But I see now that most people are simply arguing for some better wording on the item. All right, that I'll support. I can see why it's confusing.

Thajocoth
2009-08-26, 12:30 AM
Look at other abilities that require somebody to do something or suffer consequences... They get to do that thing first. They still get their turn. At the end of their turn, if they've disobeyed, THEN they're stunned. And being the end of their turn, they get an immediate save.

Also, it essentially boosts your will by 3. But... You're sitting. Personally, I would use the prone mechanics for a person who's sitting. That's -2 to hit, -2 to be hit with ranged and grant CA for melee.

And it's a throne, so anyone behind you has total concealment...

And... You're immobilizing yourself by deciding to remain sitting on it to gain it's power. You can get up, sure, but if you're stubborn enough to keep sitting, you're gonna get hit a lot.

Then, there's the fact that... Let's say you say "Commit suicide." The enemies say "Alright, I'll put it on my to-do list." They haven't disobeyed yet. Not until they die by non-suicidal means. Or... "I already have. Attacking you is suicide, isn't it?" It all just requires crafty wording.

Myrmex
2009-08-26, 01:02 AM
I don't know if this has been posted here before, but check out the Throne of Dominion from the Adventurer's Vault 2.

(Here's the text:)
Throne of Dominion Level 12
This throne is carved with ornate filigree and reliefs showing a king ruling over subjects that span the chair’s entire surface.
Wondrous Item 13,000 gp
Property: While you sit on the throne, when a creature you can see attempts to deceive, disobey, or betray you, it is stunned (save ends). All creatures you can see take a –3 penalty to attack rolls that target your Will.
Power (Daily Charm): Standard Action. Make an attack: Ranged sight; Charisma + 5 vs. Will; on a hit, the target is dominated until the end of your next turn.

The broken-ness should be pretty obvious - what happens if the person in the throne orders everyone in the room to "Surrender", "Commit suicide", or (best of all) "Act like you're stunned"? One might argue that this is clearly not an item intended for PCs, but any party with an ounce of creativity will figure out a way to steal the throne and bring it with them. (One obvious solution - Tenser's Floating Disk.)

Seriously, Wizards, what were you thinking?

1/day you can force a save or die vs. a single target?
Is that really so bad?

FoE
2009-08-26, 01:21 AM
1/day you can force a save or die vs. a single target? Is that really so bad?

Heh. You made the same mistake I did, Myrmex.

The problem lies with the highlighted portion:

"While you sit on the throne, when a creature you can see attempts to deceive, disobey, or betray you, it is stunned (save ends). All creatures you can see take a –3 penalty to attack rolls that target your Will."

How that's being interpreted is that the person sitting on the throne can simply bark out commands like "Kill yourself!" to anyone he can see. Since they probably won't obey an order like that, they get stunned because they are technically disobeying the order.

Really, that's not how the item is supposed to be used; I've argued, apparently unsuccessfully, that the throne's power would only apply to the user's servants or slaves. It's cheese at its worst, taking advantage of some poor wording to make the item way over-powered.

But in the end, WotC really should clarify its wording.

Myrmex
2009-08-26, 02:16 AM
Heh. You made the same mistake I did, Myrmex.

The problem lies with the highlighted portion:

"While you sit on the throne, when a creature you can see attempts to deceive, disobey, or betray you, it is stunned (save ends). All creatures you can see take a –3 penalty to attack rolls that target your Will."

How that's being interpreted is that the person sitting on the throne can simply bark out commands like "Kill yourself!" to anyone he can see. Since they probably won't obey an order like that, they get stunned because they are technically disobeying the order.

Really, that's not how the item is supposed to be used; I've argued, apparently unsuccessfully, that the throne's power would only apply to the user's servants or slaves. It's cheese at its worst, taking advantage of some poor wording to make the item way over-powered.

But in the end, WotC really should clarified its wording.

:smalleek:

...oh my.

Myshlaevsky
2009-08-26, 03:30 AM
Heh. You made the same mistake I did, Myrmex.

The problem lies with the highlighted portion:

"While you sit on the throne, when a creature you can see attempts to deceive, disobey, or betray you, it is stunned (save ends). All creatures you can see take a –3 penalty to attack rolls that target your Will."

How that's being interpreted is that the person sitting on the throne can simply bark out commands like "Kill yourself!" to anyone he can see. Since they probably won't obey an order like that, they get stunned because they are technically disobeying the order.

Really, that's not how the item is supposed to be used; I've argued, apparently unsuccessfully, that the throne's power would only apply to the user's servants or slaves. It's cheese at its worst, taking advantage of some poor wording to make the item way over-powered.

But in the end, WotC really should clarify its wording.

Yeah, all it really needs is a "when a creature you can see who has sworn allegiance to you attempts to deceive, disobey or betray you, it is stunned (save ends)."

There is additionally the possibility that it was only intended to affect any given target once. So... the party enters the throne room, the BBEG gives them an order to kill themselves and they are all stunned - but once they make their saves that's it, he's only got the Domination attack left. I'm actually more inclined to think it was intended to work in this manner than in the manner which you suggest, but that's a moot point.

Boci
2009-08-26, 03:38 AM
Look at other abilities that require somebody to do something or suffer consequences... They get to do that thing first. They still get their turn. At the end of their turn, if they've disobeyed, THEN they're stunned. And being the end of their turn, they get an immediate save.

Possibly, but even with this interpretation you can still do so as a free action, with no chance of missing. Also, do you have any official references to back that claim up?


Also, it essentially boosts your will by 3. But... You're sitting. Personally, I would use the prone mechanics for a person who's sitting. That's -2 to hit, -2 to be hit with ranged and grant CA for melee.

You think that offsets the benefits?


And it's a throne, so anyone behind you has total concealment...

If you've spent 13K on a chair, you may as well buy a lot of mirrors.


And... You're immobilizing yourself by deciding to remain sitting on it to gain it's power. You can get up, sure, but if you're stubborn enough to keep sitting, you're gonna get hit a lot.

Depends how many PCs save against their stun. Each turn.


Then, there's the fact that... Let's say you say "Commit suicide." The enemies say "Alright, I'll put it on my to-do list." They haven't disobeyed yet. Not until they die by non-suicidal means. Or... "I already have. Attacking you is suicide, isn't it?" It all just requires crafty wording.

"Commit suicide immeduatly by stabbing yourself with that knife on the table there"

Find aloophole in that.

Boci
2009-08-26, 03:40 AM
Powerful? Yes. Useful? Yes. "OMG Broken!1!!1"? No.

Then name an equally powerful use of 13k. If you cannot, then it is at least overpowered.

Killer Angel
2009-08-26, 04:06 AM
You fill the room with smoke. Any number of things. It's not broken.

Neither is Dust of Sneezing and Choking: you just need a necklace of adaptation to be safe, so it's not broken.
Well, sarcasm apart, maybe it's not broken, but it's clearly overpowered. And hope that the party knows a little what to expect, or the risk is a TPK.

tcrudisi
2009-08-26, 04:34 AM
And of course, Floating Disc makes you invulnerable everywhere. It costs 13k; it shouldn't require somebody to have an absurd hide modifier and ways to teleport you against your will while being invisible and disabling your ways to see invisibility just to get rid of it.

I don't see how Floating Disk would make one invulnerable everywhere. In fact, all "lair items", which is the category this item falls under, comes with the following restriction:

Unlike most magic items, lair items aren’t portable; they must be left behind when a hero goes exploring.

So if I have the book telling me that a lair item must be left behind, then I interpret that to mean that a lair item must be left behind. If players want to move it, sure. But for it to work, it must be in their lair/home.

Or am I missing something?

I am not arguing that this item is not broken. Clever players can still find a way to get the BBEG to come to them at their lair, but if the players are that creative, then they deserve it. Home-field advantage should be a big thing.

FoE
2009-08-26, 04:42 AM
So if I have the book telling me that a lair item must be left behind, then I interpret that to mean that a lair item must be left behind. If players want to move it, sure. But for it to work, it must be in their lair/home.

Or am I missing something?

No, the book does indeed say that this is a Lair item to be left behind in your Lair. But that's all it says, and it doesn't spell out why. This sort of vagueness just has people dreaming up excuses to bring their new toy with them.

Boy, Boci, you're really out to declare this "ZOMG MOST BROKEN THING EVAR", aren't ya?

Boci
2009-08-26, 04:49 AM
Boy, Boci, you're really out to declare this "ZOMG MOST BROKEN THING EVAR", aren't ya?

I like a chalange and I hate being wrong. I said it was broken, others said it was not, therefor I need to prove it is.

oxybe
2009-08-26, 04:55 AM
alright, so the item's obviously overpowered.

all we've come to the conclusion is that people are mean loophole abusing jerks and unless all items be passed through a lawyer, a rules lawyer and the grand poobah of the munchkins, it shouldn't be put in a book because the previously mentioned jerks will be mean and abuse the loophole.

sounds like standard D&D operating procedure since it's creation.

i'll handle it the same way i handle all D&D shenanigans: houserule when the time comes, ignore otherwise.

Boci
2009-08-26, 05:01 AM
alright, so the item's obviously overpowered.

all we've come to the conclusion is that people are mean loophole abusing jerks and unless all items be passed through a lawyer, a rules lawyer and the grand poobah of the munchkins, it shouldn't be put in a book because the previously mentioned jerks will be mean and abuse the loophole.

sounds like standard D&D operating procedure since it's creation.

i'll handle it the same way i handle all D&D shenanigans: houserule when the time comes, ignore otherwise.

Not quite. Most of us have agreed is it stupid and needs fixing. A number of possible methods have been presented.

1. It only works once per target per day
2. The command must be issued as an immidiate interuption
3. It only works on creatures who have pledged loyalty
ect

No one on this thread has said, "I am so going to use this item for my PC, thanks for the rule lawyering tips" or anything like that.

The problem is some people still insist that as written it is fine, a view I feel compleled to argue.

Gralamin
2009-08-26, 05:02 AM
I don't see how Floating Disk would make one invulnerable everywhere. In fact, all "lair items", which is the category this item falls under, comes with the following restriction:

Unlike most magic items, lair items aren’t portable; they must be left behind when a hero goes exploring.

So if I have the book telling me that a lair item must be left behind, then I interpret that to mean that a lair item must be left behind. If players want to move it, sure. But for it to work, it must be in their lair/home.

Or am I missing something?

I am not arguing that this item is not broken. Clever players can still find a way to get the BBEG to come to them at their lair, but if the players are that creative, then they deserve it. Home-field advantage should be a big thing.

Exploring in 4e is basically "Not an Encounter" So really, by RAW, A Lair item cannot be moved OUTSIDE OF AN ENCOUNTER. In an Encounter, you can move it as much as you want.

lesser_minion
2009-08-26, 05:37 AM
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say "not broken". Yes, it can currently confer theoretical invincibility while the character remains in one very specific spot and does not move. You're free to argue that that makes it overpowered for a level 12 magic item.

So?

The item could use a little clarification, but as it is relatively simple to contrive circumstances where it confers no benefit, I would not consider it 'super broken' as it is.

The item cannot be used outside of an enclosed space (unless you have an incredibly liberal interpretation of the word 'lair'). So Tenser's Floating Disk cheese doesn't work. And I'm pretty sure that the DM would be justified in requiring LoE to use the effect (that is, unfortunately, unclear).

And as soon as someone comes up with an elaborate set of circumstances where they can 'see' and thus target everyone in a wide radius, the DM is absolutely free to throw the dice, books and everything else at the offender. Everything has limitations which are not stated but left to the DM because the alternative is to write a seven-hundred page book on how characters may walk across a room.

Fiendish_Dire_Moose
2009-08-26, 05:41 AM
It's a throne. Which means chances are disobey means they normally would have to obey. Not just being told to sit on a tack and not doing so.
It's not something you just get. A throne is for royalty.

Boci
2009-08-26, 05:45 AM
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say "not broken". Yes, it can currently confer theoretical invincibility while the character remains in one very specific spot and does not move. You're free to argue that that makes it overpowered for a level 12 magic item.

So?


So name another item for 13k that is even remotly this powerful.


It's a throne. Which means chances are disobey means they normally would have to obey. Not just being told to sit on a tack and not doing so.
It's not something you just get. A throne is for royalty.

No, its for everyone with 13k. With is royalty, but also most BBEG.

Myshlaevsky
2009-08-26, 05:45 AM
It's a throne. Which means chances are disobey means they normally would have to obey. Not just being told to sit on a tack and not doing so.
It's not something you just get. A throne is for royalty.

There's nothing to enforce this in the written rules, however. It's a sensible rule to institute, but something like it needs clarified in the actual item text.

Reading into the terms "throne", "betray", "deceive" and "disobey" is pretty much just fiddling with semantics in an attempt - for some reason I don't understand - to make this thing seem less powerful than it actually is. Maybe in your world a throne is purely for royalty, but by RAW the PC's - or a BBEG - can get this for 13k.


Disobey - refuse to go along with; refuse to follow; be disobedient;

That is the meaning of the word. It is astoundingly easy to contrive scenarios in which you will be disobeyed.

Fiendish_Dire_Moose
2009-08-26, 05:49 AM
That is the meaning of the word. It is astoundingly easy to contrive scenarios in which you will be disobeyed.

The thing about obedience, is obedience comes from necessity, or order. In the military you are obedient to your superiors, in a monarchy you are obedient to the head of the monarchy. In middle eastern societies women are by default obedient to men. Dogs are generally obedient to their owners (whom they percieve as pack masters). It means they HAVE to do as they are told. There is generally a law, or social stigma, or innate behavior driving them to.
Random BBEG being told by a PC to sit and spin, is not being disobedient. it's not semantics. The PC does not command anything over the BBEG, unless the BBEG is introduced THROUGH disobedience. They would have to go against the law, or social stigma, or innate behavior.
Rules as written are vague, but it takes someone seeking to manipulate the rules to say it works no matter what.

Myshlaevsky
2009-08-26, 05:54 AM
The thing about obedience, is obedience comes from necessity, or order. In the military you are obedient to your superiors, in a monarchy you are obedient to the head of the monarchy. In middle eastern societies women are by default obedient to men. Dogs are generally obedient to their owners (whom they percieve as pack masters). It means they HAVE to do as they are told. There is generally a law, or social stigma, or innate behavior driving them to.
Random BBEG being told by a PC to sit and spin, is not being disobedient. it's not semantics. The PC does not command anything over the BBEG, unless the BBEG is introduced THROUGH disobedience. They would have to go against the law, or social stigma, or innate behavior.
Rules as written are vague, but it takes someone seeking to manipulate the rules to say it works no matter what.

We'll just agree to disagree then. I hate to be accused of rule manipulation for pointing out that something is too strong or easily abusable and disregarding an opposing argument that lends weight to words that there is no necessity for them to have.

A command is as simple as giving an order; disobeying that command is as simple as not carrying out that order.

When I use this item in my games I will either limit it to one effect per target per day or make it dependant on an oath of obedience. I will, however, acknowledge that this is using Rule 0.

lesser_minion
2009-08-26, 06:00 AM
So name another item for 13k that is even remotly this powerful.

No, its for everyone with 13k. With is royalty, but also most BBEG.

Any other item will actually improve your capabilities while you aren't sitting on a throne achieving absolutely nothing of note. Not as powerful, but actually a lot more useful. That includes the 1st level ones.

Note also that 'disobey' actually means to neglect or refuse to disobey. As a DM, you are also quite within your rights to rule that a character is incapable of doing something and thus free to ignore such orders without penalty. You are certainly in your rights to rule that it is impossible to contrive someone else's disobedience.

Fiendish_Dire_Moose
2009-08-26, 06:02 AM
We'll just agree to disagree then. I hate to be accused of rule manipulation for pointing out that something is too strong or easily abusable and disregarding an opposing argument that lends weight to words that there is no necessity for them to have.

A command is as simple as giving an order; disobeying that command is as simple as not carrying out that order.

When I use this item in my games I will either limit it to one effect per target per day or make it dependant on an oath of obedience. I will, however, acknowledge that this is using Rule 0.
Not accusing you of manipulation, sorry if you felt assaulted, but that's all in your head.
A command is a command no matter what, but the command means nothing without authority, the right to give the command is not yours. Thus, disobedience isn't as grave, or even truly has the same meaning. In the military disobeying a direct order from a commanding officer could mean your career. On the streets disobeying a direct order from Dr. Hobo means that you ignored a raving lunatic.
If you perceive this item working automatically no matter what, then the item isn't broken, you're making it broken by making disobedience mean simply ignoring ANYTHING.
If an NPC says, "Look at me when I'm talking to you!", and the PC merely glances out the corner of his eyes, are you still going to stun the PC? The phrase commands that eye contact be made, or at the very least the subjects attention be fully turned toward the speaker, but it is not directly stated.

The point is, you have to establish what terms mean. Seriously. If you're going to say that disobedience means not doing what someone sitting on the throne tells you no matter what authority they have/do not have, then you personally are making the item broken. All items have unwritten limitations. It being a throne implies the one sitting in it should have the authority to give an order. Not just Joe Blow Hobo telling the King to get down and lick it.

BobVosh
2009-08-26, 06:07 AM
dis·o·bey (dĭs'ə-bā')
v. dis·o·beyed, dis·o·bey·ing, dis·o·beys

v. intr.
To refuse or fail to follow an order or rule.


lair1  /lɛər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lair] Show IPA
Use lair in a Sentence
See web results for lair
See images of lair
–noun 1. a den or resting place of a wild animal: The cougar retired to its lair.
2. a secluded or hidden place, esp. a secret retreat or base of operations; a hideout or hideaway: a pirate's lair.
3. British. a place in which to lie or rest; a bed.

I'm really, REALLY humored with the image of a floating disk with a bed on it, a throne balanced on the bed, rear view mirrors installed, and signs written on all sides of the throne, with the BBEG fairly tan (lots of time on his mobile lair) saying random things. Anyone who doesn't obey is standing slacked jaw.

Mobile Lair + Throne=none of those problems with your exploration without a throne.

I'm sure there is something in 4ed that works like an apparutus of the crab, or mobile fortress. All you need is something to see em.

What a silly game.

Myshlaevsky
2009-08-26, 06:09 AM
I understand what you are saying about the inherent need for defintion, but in my eyes that's just the problem with it. I have already said that I will enforce my own defintion onto this item, but you are doing the same thing by saying that authority is required to use the power of the Throne of Dominion. The item text says nothing about that, just as it says nothing about the limitations I will use.

Fiendish_Dire_Moose
2009-08-26, 06:09 AM
dis·o·bey (dĭs'ə-bā')
v. dis·o·beyed, dis·o·bey·ing, dis·o·beys

v. intr.
To refuse or fail to follow an order or rule.


lair1  /lɛər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lair] Show IPA
Use lair in a Sentence
See web results for lair
See images of lair
–noun 1. a den or resting place of a wild animal: The cougar retired to its lair.
2. a secluded or hidden place, esp. a secret retreat or base of operations; a hideout or hideaway: a pirate's lair.
3. British. a place in which to lie or rest; a bed.

I'm really, REALLY humored with the image of a floating disk with a bed on it, a throne balanced on the bed, rear view mirrors installed, and signs written on all sides of the throne, with the BBEG fairly tan (lots of time on his mobile lair) saying random things. Anyone who doesn't obey is standing slacked jaw.

Mobile Lair + Throne=none of those problems with your exploration without a throne.

I'm sure there is something in 4ed that works like an apparutus of the crab, or mobile fortress. All you need is something to see em.

What a silly game.
Senor Cardgage in the Mobile Oppression Palace maybe?

BobVosh
2009-08-26, 06:13 AM
Senor Cardgage in the Mobile Oppression Palace maybe?

Very much so.

Boci
2009-08-26, 06:35 AM
Any other item will actually improve your capabilities while you aren't sitting on a throne achieving absolutely nothing of note. Not as powerful, but actually a lot more useful. That includes the 1st level ones.

So an item that swing between incredably powerful and absolutly useless is not broken.


Note also that 'disobey' actually means to neglect or refuse to disobey. As a DM, you are also quite within your rights to rule that a character is incapable of doing something and thus free to ignore such orders without penalty. You are certainly in your rights to rule that it is impossible to contrive someone else's disobedience.

If the throne is in your game, you'd better hope the DM rules not to use it as written.

Thajocoth
2009-08-26, 06:43 AM
Possibly, but even with this interpretation you can still do so as a free action, with no chance of missing. Also, do you have any official references to back that claim up?My references are all other abilities that require somebody to do something or suffer consequences. Avengers get a few and Paladin's Divine Challenge is one as well. They all specify. This fails to. With no concrete wording in place, I'd go with the most common result.


You think that offsets the benefits?Yes.


If you've spent 13K on a chair, you may as well buy a lot of mirrors.I still don't think that'd work. Thrones have a very high back. I would let the person make a Stealth check if they're behind the throne and to the left or right if mirrors were involved instead of just letting them have CA. Directly behind the throne though, I'd still give them CA. Though, being seated, I guess I'd grant CA anyway, so what does it really matter the source of the CA?


Depends how many PCs save against their stun. Each turn.Should be most of them, by my experience. Also, almost all should have several forced movement effects. If they knock you off the throne before their turn ends, the property vanishes before it has a chance to stun them, so they would all be using their forced movement effects right away. You might stay on for a player's turn or two... But I'd be real surprised if more than three players wound up stunned from this before you were pulled off the chair.


"Commit suicide immeduatly by stabbing yourself with that knife on the table there"

Find aloophole in that.I didn't say there were no good phrases, but usually the first few said won't be as well thought out. And, really, the person sitting only has one real chance.

lesser_minion
2009-08-26, 06:55 AM
So an item that swing between incredably powerful and absolutly useless is not broken.
If the throne is in your game, you'd better hope the DM rules not to use it as written.

It's situational. It's easy to contrive a situation where it doesn't confer a benefit, but it confers a major benefit outside of that situation.

As written, it doesn't fit with the conventions of the game, but it doesn't break it either.

As for 'commit suicide' - the DM is quite free to rule that ignoring that order is not disobedience. There are no rules for commiting suicide, but at the same time, it's still a very unusual kind of person who can do so. As a DM, I would certainly not consider it against RAW to assume that an order to commit suicide cannot be consciously obeyed or disobeyed.

Boci
2009-08-26, 07:02 AM
It's situational. It's easy to contrive a situation where it doesn't confer a benefit, but it confers a major benefit outside of that situation.

As written, it doesn't fit with the conventions of the game, but it doesn't break it either.

As for 'commit suicide' - the DM is quite free to rule that ignoring that order is not disobedience. There are no rules for commiting suicide, but at the same time, it's still a very unusual kind of person who can do so. As a DM, I would certainly not consider it against RAW to assume that an order to commit suicide cannot be consciously obeyed or disobeyed.

"As quickly as you can take a knife from the table over there and slit your throat with it"

As written, you need to either do that or be auto stunned.

quick_comment
2009-08-26, 07:03 AM
As for 'commit suicide' - the DM is quite free to rule that ignoring that order is not disobedience. There are no rules for commiting suicide, but at the same time, it's still a very unusual kind of person who can do so. As a DM, I would certainly not consider it against RAW to assume that an order to commit suicide cannot be consciously obeyed or disobeyed.

Really? What do you think all those samurai did? Daimyo ordered their retainers to commit suicide all the time.

lesser_minion
2009-08-26, 07:08 AM
"As quickly as you can take a knife from the table over there and slit your throat with it"

As written, you need to either do that or be auto stunned.

If "commit suicide" didn't work, then doing anything obviously suicidal also won't. The bottom line is that a character ordered to kill himself can be assumed to be mentally incapable of doing so, unless there is a good reason to assume otherwise.

You could, admittedly, order a character to surrender, so you are still invincible, but that still requires you to sit on a throne all day and achieve precisely nothing of note. The item does not break the game even if used as written.


Really? What do you think all those samurai did? Daimyo ordered their retainers to commit suicide all the time.

Seppuku was a somewhat different matter. And samurai hardly qualify as ordinary people. They had it drilled into them from birth that seppuku was socially acceptable, and that they should commit suicide rather than face capture or defeat. For most 4e societies, those rules do not apply.

Mando Knight
2009-08-26, 07:10 AM
Then name an equally powerful use of 13k. If you cannot, then it is at least overpowered.

An Orb of Ultimate Imposition +2 in the hands of a Deva Wizard. Oh, wait. I've got a whole lot of extra cash now...

Boci
2009-08-26, 07:13 AM
An Orb of Ultimate Imposition +2 in the hands of a Deva Wizard. Oh, wait. I've got a whole lot of extra cash now...

Something that is race and class specific verses something useable by anyone.

lesser_minion
2009-08-26, 07:15 AM
Something that is race and class specific verses something useable by anyone.

Well, one of them can be used anywhere. The other can only be used by a character who remains stationary within a confined space.

It is very powerful as things obtained for 13k go, but it is far too limited to actually break the game.

The item violates 4e conventions, is somewhat more powerful than it should be (in the few cases where it is unarguably usable) and needs a re-write. It is not, however, 'broken', super or otherwise.

Compare and contrast a real 'super broken' magic item like 3e's Candle of Invocation, which is basically the main reason why the Efreet do not grant wishes any more.

Boci
2009-08-26, 10:57 AM
Well, one of them can be used anywhere. The other can only be used by a character who remains stationary within a confined space.

Yes, but the throne hardly limits npc creation. They can still be of any race or class. To use orb of implosion, you do not have half the versatility.


It is very powerful as things obtained for 13k go, but it is far too limited to actually break the game.

The item violates 4e conventions, is somewhat more powerful than it should be (in the few cases where it is unarguably usable) and needs a re-write. It is not, however, 'broken', super or otherwise.

Compare and contrast a real 'super broken' magic item like 3e's Candle of Invocation, which is basically the main reason why the Efreet do not grant wishes any more.

As written, there are two ways the BBEG can gain a use of the throne.
All: The BBEG is in his lair. Its worth much more than 13k
Nothing: The BBEG is not in his lair. Its worth 0k

In my oppinion that qualifies it as a broken item. You either make the BBEG more powerful, by giving him abilities worth far more than 13k, or make him weaker because they spent 13k and has no abilities to show for it. It is very hard to conceive a middle ground.

quick_comment
2009-08-26, 11:03 AM
Seppuku was a somewhat different matter. And samurai hardly qualify as ordinary people. They had it drilled into them from birth that seppuku was socially acceptable, and that they should commit suicide rather than face capture or defeat. For most 4e societies, those rules do not apply.

During WWII, japanese peasents killed themselves en-masse as the marines took the islands.

Ritual suicide is something that is rare only in modern times.

sofawall
2009-08-26, 11:23 AM
Just because there are ways to make something not broken doesn't mean it isn't broken.

Wizards, by and large, are defeated by AMF+Walls of Stone. They have little to do (well, I mean, they could escape, but it severely weakens them for a while. Does this make Wizards less broken?

Oh, wait, crap, this is a 3.5 example. Well, it still works. Just because there is a counter or a situation is doesn't work doesn't make it less broken. Enervation+metacheese is broken. Doesn't work on, undead or (I think) constructs. Doesn't make it any less broken.

lesser_minion
2009-08-26, 11:38 AM
In my oppinion that qualifies it as a broken item. You either make the BBEG more powerful, by giving him abilities worth far more than 13k, or make him weaker because they spent 13k and has no abilities to show for it. It is very hard to conceive a middle ground.

If we're going to argue the definition of broken, then I don't want a part in it.

I've conceded that the item should be rewritten and explained why, but I do not consider it broken because it does not break the game.

As for the "BBEG spends 13k and has nothing to show for it" issue: if we're talking BBEGs, then there is no reason to count it, IIRC. It certainly has no value to the PCs if it cannot be moved (unless they move into the villain's lair, in which case it is still not going to unbalance your game) so it isn't treasure. And at the same time, if it's making the villain all-powerful, then the game becomes more interesting as the players are forced to find a way around that.

@sofawall: This is a lot more limited than either of the examples you gave. It can literally only work in one quite specific situation. It's more analogous to a 3e designer making a spell which automatically kills an enemy without recourse to any defence at all, whatsoever, provided that you ask them to jump off a cliff in elvish while they are more than six miles from the coast and wearing pink lingerie.

sofawall
2009-08-26, 11:42 AM
@sofawall: This is a lot more limited than either of the examples you gave. It can literally only work in one quite specific situation. It's more analogous to a 3e designer making a spell which automatically kills an enemy without recourse to any defence at all, whatsoeveror they're stunned, provided that you ask them to jump off a cliff in elvish while they are more than six miles from the coast and wearing pink lingerie.

Fixed it for you.

Tiki Snakes
2009-08-26, 11:49 AM
Just because there are ways to make something not broken doesn't mean it isn't broken.

Wizards, by and large, are defeated by AMF+Walls of Stone. They have little to do (well, I mean, they could escape, but it severely weakens them for a while. Does this make Wizards less broken?

Oh, wait, crap, this is a 3.5 example. Well, it still works. Just because there is a counter or a situation is doesn't work doesn't make it less broken. Enervation+metacheese is broken. Doesn't work on, undead or (I think) constructs. Doesn't make it any less broken.

RAI, and arguably RAW, you do not get to take the throne with you. That's the entire point of Lair Items, after all.
It is powerful, as long as you are currently sitting down in your own lair, and nice flavour otherwise.

Likewise, it Potentially provides a BBEG with a single, well defended location in his own lair.
But it's his Lair. He's just as likely to be able to instal pit-traps with acid-breathing sharks inside, fit a giant death laser to the front door-bell, or make the flushing the toilet on floor 4 collapse the entire room on you.

I find it a bit iffy to argue that a magic item is broken on account of what an npc or bbeg can do with it, basically.

NPC's and BBEG are not limited to wbl, or any of that. They are limited by PLOT and by whatever Resources the DM considers logical for them to have.

If the BBEG, the Dread King of Cloudmire, is famed for his magical throne that makes it impossible for any to deny him, then a PC party that attacks him in his lair and charges his throne-room is basically asking for it, really. This is what knowledge related checks are for.

Mando Knight
2009-08-26, 11:50 AM
@sofawall: This is a lot more limited than either of the examples you gave. It can literally only work in one quite specific situation. It's more analogous to a 3e designer making a spell which automatically kills an enemy without recourse to any defence at all, whatsoever, provided that you ask them to jump off a cliff in elvish while they are more than six miles from the coast and wearing pink lingerie.

And only if they're in ur base, killin' ur d00ds.

As a boss fight, it's not a problem, it's a challenge. As a player's item, I would say that the Throne needs to be placed prominently in a throne/court room, and the stunning effect is only resolved after the disobedient action is attempted.

Furthermore, the throne doesn't stun for procrastination. :smallwink:

Boci
2009-08-26, 12:08 PM
NPC's and BBEG are not limited to wbl, or any of that. They are limited by PLOT and by whatever Resources the DM considers logical for them to have.

Different playing styles then. If I deicde my BBEG has a wealth of X and give him the throne, he now has a wealth equal to X-13k, even if he never uses the throne.


If the BBEG, the Dread King of Cloudmire, is famed for his magical throne that makes it impossible for any to deny him, then a PC party that attacks him in his lair and charges his throne-room is basically asking for it, really. This is what knowledge related checks are for.

An item's power should not be increased the way the throne is if the PCs do not know about it.

HamHam
2009-08-26, 12:57 PM
Even if the thing has to stay in the lair, is there any rule saying the lair itself can't be mobile? Just get yourself a nice wagon, designate it as your lair, put the throne on top with some mirrors and ride around ordering people to give you all their money.

That just leaves the problem of getting the wagon into dungeons. But I'm sure you could come up with something.

Thajocoth
2009-08-26, 02:41 PM
It says it can't be moved. I'd say that once it's 5' from it's original position, it's now an expensive chair.

Boci
2009-08-26, 02:47 PM
It says it can't be moved. I'd say that once it's 5' from it's original position, it's now an expensive chair.

Clearly it can be moved unless the place were they are made becomes the lair permenantly.

Thajocoth
2009-08-26, 03:04 PM
Clearly it can be moved unless the place were they are made becomes the lair permenantly.

I disagree. I think the intent was simply that it's a stationary object. Could be considered ambiguous, but I wouldn't allow a wagon to count as a lair. Lairs are big. Unless you've got, like, a flying castle... That's the smallest scale I'd let it be moved and still work with. And moving it from one lair to another and having it still work would be out of the question. The PCs would have to get the BBEG's existing lair to fly. All of it, not just the final room they fought him in.

sofawall
2009-08-26, 03:05 PM
If this were 3.5, it'd be trivial. I know nothing of 4e, really.

Boci
2009-08-26, 03:09 PM
I disagree. I think the intent was simply that it's a stationary object. Could be considered ambiguous, but I wouldn't allow a wagon to count as a lair. Lairs are big. Unless you've got, like, a flying castle... That's the smallest scale I'd let it be moved and still work with. And moving it from one lair to another and having it still work would be out of the question. The PCs would have to get the BBEG's existing lair to fly. All of it, not just the final room they fought him in.

No you do not disagree. You acknowledge that it can be moved. Your post highlights yet another problem with the item's vague discription. Although not having the Adventurer's vault 2, I do not know how clearly lair is defined.

Myshlaevsky
2009-08-26, 03:14 PM
I disagree. I think the intent was simply that it's a stationary object. Could be considered ambiguous, but I wouldn't allow a wagon to count as a lair. Lairs are big. Unless you've got, like, a flying castle... That's the smallest scale I'd let it be moved and still work with. And moving it from one lair to another and having it still work would be out of the question. The PCs would have to get the BBEG's existing lair to fly. All of it, not just the final room they fought him in.

Got to be honest, a giant flying glass castle would pretty much sell me this item.

Thajocoth
2009-08-26, 03:16 PM
No you do not disagree. You acknowledge that it can be moved. Your post highlights yet another problem with the item's vague discription. Although not having the Adventurer's vault 2, I do not know how clearly lair is defined.

I don't think a party of 4e adventurers is able to pick up an entire lair. I think, even at level 30, there's nothing they can have that would enable them to perform such a feat... So my prerequisite is impossible. I believe it can only be lifted by plot (the DM). So yes, I do disagree.

Unfortunately, I also lack an AV2... It's contents have not yet been added to the Char Builder.

eepop
2009-08-26, 03:29 PM
I don't think a party of 4e adventurers is able to pick up an entire lair. I think, even at level 30, there's nothing they can have that would enable them to perform such a feat... So my prerequisite is impossible.

Incorrect, there is a ritual to raise the earth from the ground and make an earthmote. With a specific epic destiny it can even be done as a standard action.

Thajocoth
2009-08-26, 03:47 PM
Incorrect, there is a ritual to raise the earth from the ground and make an earthmote. With a specific epic destiny it can even be done as a standard action.

Oh, cool. Sounds like Epic Tier really does live up to it's name then...

Mando Knight
2009-08-26, 04:03 PM
Oh, cool. Sounds like Epic Tier really does live up to it's name then...

Occasionally. There's a good number of Epic Destinies (more than just Demigod, actually!) that have to do with becoming a god at the end of the game...

Mr. Mud
2009-08-26, 04:04 PM
Occasionally. There's a good number of Epic Destinies (more than just Demigod, actually!) that have to do with becoming a god at the end of the game...

But being a God looks a lot more shiny, at level one opposed to 30. Y'know, cause you've probably killed a few by then :smalltongue:.

warrl
2009-08-26, 04:20 PM
If a standard team meets a big bad with that thing, problems could arise.

But invincibility?
No.

Why?
It gives a -3 to stuff targetting your WILL.
The fighter can still pound your face in.

Granted, the stunning is overpowered to an extend, but if you go into some overlord lair and the worst thing that happens to you is STUN the DM is doing it rong.

So the overlord sits on the throne and orders "Everyone in the room, attack the invaders!"

Your options, as one of the invaders in the room, are: a) attack your allies, or b) be stunned, and thus an easy target to attack.

The overlord only needs a sling to take out the entire party.

(Possible way out: all the melee weapon fighters look at each other in pairs and say "I'll attack you - over there!" and thus surround the throne. Then the area-attack guys attack all the melee weapon fighters surrounding the throne. Of course this only works if the overlord is locally short on minions.)

Of course, I'm the sort of guy that if given a chance would toss the overlord out of the chair, sit down, and order the overlord and all his minions to disobey me...

warrl
2009-08-26, 04:45 PM
It is treating it like it is a serious issue that must be addressed or crafty players will abuse it to destroy the campaign, like several people have stated after i expressed my confusion first, that puzzles me.

If my character is aware of this thing's properties, and does NOT try to use it to put down the BBEG (or, as you put it, "abuse it to destroy the campaign"), then I am doing a very bad job of roleplaying.

lesser_minion
2009-08-27, 03:27 AM
Different playing styles then. If I deicde my BBEG has a wealth of X and give him the throne, he now has a wealth equal to X-13k, even if he never uses the throne.

An item's power should not be increased the way the throne is if the PCs do not know about it.

Erm... there isn't actually much of a problem with that. Yet again, it's a bit ambitious for 4e, but the game is actually robust enough to handle it.

Fiendish_Dire_Moose
2009-08-27, 05:19 AM
Of course, I'm the sort of guy that if given a chance would toss the overlord out of the chair, sit down, and order the overlord and all his minions to disobey me...
See, that's not hard. The Overlord just kills himself. His actions prevent the paradox since the action would first have to go through for it to be considered anything. Then when the question of whether he is stunned or not comes up, he's already dead.

Kaun
2009-08-27, 06:32 AM
"As quickly as you can take a knife from the table over there and slit your throat with it"

As written, you need to either do that or be auto stunned.


throat  /θroʊt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [throht] Show IPA ,
Use throat in a Sentence
See web results for throat
See images of throat
–noun Anatomy, Zoology. 1. the passage from the mouth to the stomach or to the lungs, including the pharynx, esophagus, larynx, and trachea.
2. some analogous or similar narrowed part or passage.
3. the front of the neck below the chin and above the collarbone.
4. the narrow opening between a fireplace and its flue or smoke chamber, often closed by a damper.
5. Nautical, Machinery. swallow 1 (def. 13).
6. Nautical. a. Also called nock. the forward upper corner of a quadrilateral fore-and-aft sail.
b. jaw 1 (def. 5).

7. the forward edge of the opening in the vamp of a shoe.
8. Automotive. barrel (def. 14).

I choose definition #4 since you did not specify and seeing as how i don't own a stove i can't slit it and will just take my actions as normal thank you.

Boci
2009-08-27, 06:53 AM
throat  /θroʊt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [throht] Show IPA ,
Use throat in a Sentence
See web results for throat
See images of throat
–noun Anatomy, Zoology. 1. the passage from the mouth to the stomach or to the lungs, including the pharynx, esophagus, larynx, and trachea.
2. some analogous or similar narrowed part or passage.
3. the front of the neck below the chin and above the collarbone.
4. the narrow opening between a fireplace and its flue or smoke chamber, often closed by a damper.
5. Nautical, Machinery. swallow 1 (def. 13).
6. Nautical. a. Also called nock. the forward upper corner of a quadrilateral fore-and-aft sail.
b. jaw 1 (def. 5).

7. the forward edge of the opening in the vamp of a shoe.
8. Automotive. barrel (def. 14).

I choose definition #4 since you did not specify and seeing as how i don't own a stove i can't slit it and will just take my actions as normal thank you.

Problem is you have at best 12 inteligence, BBEG has more so he took that into account when phrasing it. Plus now whenever you use warlocks curse in combat, the DM rules the nearest enemy is the ant that was just about to sting your toe.

Grumman
2009-08-27, 06:56 AM
throat  /θroʊt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [throht] Show IPA ,
Use throat in a Sentence
See web results for throat
See images of throat
–noun Anatomy, Zoology. 1. the passage from the mouth to the stomach or to the lungs, including the pharynx, esophagus, larynx, and trachea.
2. some analogous or similar narrowed part or passage.
3. the front of the neck below the chin and above the collarbone.
4. the narrow opening between a fireplace and its flue or smoke chamber, often closed by a damper.
5. Nautical, Machinery. swallow 1 (def. 13).
6. Nautical. a. Also called nock. the forward upper corner of a quadrilateral fore-and-aft sail.
b. jaw 1 (def. 5).

7. the forward edge of the opening in the vamp of a shoe.
8. Automotive. barrel (def. 14).

I choose definition #4 since you did not specify and seeing as how i don't own a stove i can't slit it and will just take my actions as normal thank you.
Did he mention that the Overlord is a Ranger that took weasels as their favoured enemy?

What's next, "That depends on what your definition of 'is' is?"

oxinabox
2009-08-27, 07:18 AM
Yep, totally getting one of these, mounting it on a sedan chair, and having it carried 2 orcs riding giant ants.

Kletian999
2009-08-27, 09:50 AM
Breaking it down conceptually What we have here is one of the following:

1. An Item PCs can obtain that they can't take anywhere to use. Thus to only time it can be used if the enemies are storming YOUR base rather than vice versa.

2. An Item PCs can obtain that can lawyered around anywhere, turning it into an I win button.

3. An Item PCs were never meant to obtain, that makes NPCs leathally dangerous unless the players know exactly how it works enough to reliably counter it.

Any of the above run counter to the basis of 4e- options are useful, allowable almost anywhere, and balanced. If we want players to use them, then the effect needs to be toned down greatly (or clarified that it isn't nearly as powerful as people are reading), if we don't want players to use them, then it should be made a trap/hazard, given experience value in the encounter, an attack roll, and a means to disable.

Roderick_BR
2009-08-27, 01:44 PM
Ok, so the fighter tries to bullrush/Tide of Iron him off the throne!

But wait! The king quickly makes friends with the fighter, thus turning his attack into a savage betrayal, and the fighter is stunned!

If it weren't so prone to abuse, this throne could yield a lot of hilarity. (Or maybe abuse is just a different kind of hilarity...)
OCP Boss: "Richard, you're fired!"



Where's that wizard getting the action to cast Invisibility? Xenmas has a sign (or a Magic Mouth, if you're classy) that says "Drop your weapons, don't move or speak" above his throne.
If the BBeG have a magic item that forces everyone to obey, he doesn't even need that throne.