The Snowbluff asking thread.

[Snowbluff]

Simple. Ask me questions, and I'll answer to the best of my abilities. Use it to get second opinions on things, rulings, my opinions, etc. I'll use this as an exercise as a player and DM to get better by applying hypothetical questions to my gaming.

[Tvtyrant]

Jean is shorter than Brutus but taller than Imhotep. Imhotep is taller than Jean, but shorter than Lord Scotland. Lord Scotland is twice the height of Jean and Brutus combined but only one-tenth of the height of Millsy. Millsy is at a constant height of x − y. If Jean stands exactly one nautical mile away from Lord Scotland, how tall is Imhotep?
Imhotep is invisible.

[mootoall]

Jean is shorter than Brutus but taller than Imhotep. Imhotep is taller than Jean, but shorter than Lord Scotland. Lord Scotland is twice the height of Jean and Brutus combined but only one-tenth of the height of Millsy. Millsy is at a constant height of x − y. If Jean stands exactly one nautical mile away from Lord Scotland, how tall is Imhotep?
Imhotep is invisible.

Look around you. Just ... look around you. Do you see what it is we're looking for? That's right. It's white text.

[Snowbluff]

Jean is shorter than Brutus but taller than Imhotep. Imhotep is taller than Jean, but shorter than Lord Scotland. Lord Scotland is twice the height of Jean and Brutus combined but only one-tenth of the height of Millsy. Millsy is at a constant height of x − y. If Jean stands exactly one nautical mile away from Lord Scotland, how tall is Imhotep?
Imhotep is invisible.

Ok, I should of put some boundaries on this thread. No math, including cake simple algebra. This is in a 3.5 thread lol.




:smalltongue:I'll get some paper and solve this anyway, in terms of x and y.

[Snowbluff]

Look around you. Just ... look around you. Do you see what it is we're looking for? That's right. It's white text.

I don't think our problem is the state of Immi's visiblity, but rather the relationship between his height and what-her-name's.

[Drelua]

Jean is shorter than Brutus but taller than Imhotep. Imhotep is taller than Jean, but shorter than Lord Scotland. Lord Scotland is twice the height of Jean and Brutus combined but only one-tenth of the height of Millsy. Millsy is at a constant height of x − y. If Jean stands exactly one nautical mile away from Lord Scotland, how tall is Imhotep?
Imhotep is invisible.

Is it just me, or did you just say that Jean is taller than Imhotep who is taller than Jean? J > I > J? A paradox by the second sentence. Nice work. :smalltongue:

[Anderlith]

Who would win in a fight. Teddy Roosevelt or Winston Churchhill?
Why do people think that a man fighting unarmored with his fists (monk) is going to be able to be as good in a fight as a trained swordsmen with metal armor or someone who can cast magic? I mean, we developed weapons for a reason.

Does x-y= monk?
Or is it x-monk=z?

[Tvtyrant]

It was a question from the show Look Around You. Its hilarious!

[Quietus]

Look around you. Just ... look around you. Do you see what it is we're looking for? That's right. It's white text.

Look at your post. Now back to me. The question is now diamonds!

[Gnome Alone]

Snowbluff, I'm going to say seriously what others are saying as a joke: This idea for a thread doesn't really make sense. Half (or more) of this forum are the posts of people asking advice to the general public. There's no particular reason anyone would seek advice from you, or anyone, in particular. Instead, why not just feel free to give your own answers to any and all of the staggering plethora of questions that are posted all the live-long day?

[mootoall]

It was a question from the show Look Around You. Its hilarious!

This is correct.


Look at your post. Now back to me. The question is now diamonds!

This would make a fantastic crossover.

[Metahuman1]

Who would win in a fight. Teddy Roosevelt or Winston Churchhill?


Well, Rosevelt was an exceptional marksman, a skilled swordsman, had at least as much lead form the front military credentials as Churchhill, and use to hold his white house meetings while he was having regularly scheduled boxing, wrestling, and fencing sparring matches with reigning champs of the day, and was able to consistently hold his own and even win often enough to have what would be considered a respectable track record.

So, yeah, Roosevelt.

[mootoall]

Well, Rosevelt was an exceptional marksman, a skilled swordsman, had at least as much lead form the front military credentials as Churchhill, and use to hold his white house meetings while he was having regularly scheduled boxing, wrestling, and fencing sparring matches with reigning champs of the day, and was able to consistently hold his own and even win often enough to have what would be considered a respectable track record.

So, yeah, Roosevelt.

Seriously, the man cured his own asthma. There is nothing he can't accomplish.

Churchill could draw it if he lit his alcohol-soaked body aflame and tackled him though ....

[AzazelSephiroth]

Well, Rosevelt was an exceptional marksman, a skilled swordsman, had at least as much lead form the front military credentials as Churchhill, and use to hold his white house meetings while he was having regularly scheduled boxing, wrestling, and fencing sparring matches with reigning champs of the day, and was able to consistently hold his own and even win often enough to have what would be considered a respectable track record.

So, yeah, Roosevelt.

But Churchhill may be one of the greatest examples of a modern age Bard I have ever seen. His intern legend of quotes alone means that his level was exceptionally high and as such I would not dicount his ability to buff himself, demoralize his opponents and fight in fisticuffs! However I also cannot deny the awesomness of Rosevelt... I would say a draw... then they laugh together over a pint and decide to combine their powers and adventure together!:smallbiggrin:

[Snowbluff]

Snowbluff, I'm going to say seriously what others are saying as a joke: This idea for a thread doesn't really make sense. Half (or more) of this forum are the posts of people asking advice to the general public. There's no particular reason anyone would seek advice from you, or anyone, in particular. Instead, why not just feel free to give your own answers to any and all of the staggering plethora of questions that are posted all the live-long day?

Nah, it wasn't for asking advice, it was for thought exercises and getting to know eachother and such.

Also, some of those life long questions posted are answered really quickly! Someone asked if there was a masculine form of the feminine Icantatrix (or whatever). I have played a bunch of games, and I have experience of how players interact, and I have played a small variety of classes on almost all tiers. My hope was that my particular experiences would answer some of peoples questions, and that some other people would start their own threads. At the same time, I could see what sort problems I could encounter while DMing and have them fixed before they come up in my sessions.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

Dude. You want to give advice, right? Plenty of threads you can do that in. No need to create a thread just for that. :smallannoyed:

[Tael]

Serious Mode Engaged:

What is the best/easiest/any way to kill an Initiate of Mystra inside their AMF when you can't be a spellcaster?

[Daftendirekt]

Also, some of those life long questions posted are answered really quickly! Someone asked if there was a masculine form of the feminine Icantatrix (or whatever).

Yes, there is. It says so in the PrC itself. Incantatar.

[Eurus]

Serious Mode Engaged:

What is the best/easiest/any way to kill an Initiate of Mystra inside their AMF when you can't be a spellcaster?

Be the DM.

[Snowbluff]

Serious Mode Engaged:

What is the best/easiest/any way to kill an Initiate of Mystra inside their AMF when you can't be a spellcaster?

Level 1000 monk.

Seriously, as a player I'd hope for a lucky initiative roll and that I was martial adept, and had the Mage Slayer feat. That way he can not cast defensively, forcing him to make 2 checks when casting (casting defensively is really easy if I recall correctly), and invoking AoO. White Raven Hammer has no save, and stuns.

Or poison. Lots and lots of poison. Hope he doesn't have ward up.

As a DM, SPELL RESIST AND SAVES! T^T Or creepy with really frakked up Ex abilities. Like fleshrakers. Such a powerful setup calls for higher CR encounters right? Otherwise you are wasting your time with fights, since they'll never lose one.

If I would even allow it. If your deity is Mystra, the only reason for that is cheese! Core deities only is a great way to avoid a lot of really odd stuff your players come up with.

PGtF Seems to run some real high power stuff (like the Incantidontrememberhowtospellit) for some of the most powerful classes in the game. I would say everything in it would have to be taken under DM consideration, unless you are running a very high powered campaign.

[Chained Birds]

Well, Rosevelt was an exceptional marksman, a skilled swordsman, had at least as much lead form the front military credentials as Churchhill, and use to hold his white house meetings while he was having regularly scheduled boxing, wrestling, and fencing sparring matches with reigning champs of the day, and was able to consistently hold his own and even win often enough to have what would be considered a respectable track record.

So, yeah, Roosevelt.

Rosevelt also took Judo after sustaining an injury in boxing. Sort of defeats the purpose of quiting a dangerous sport due to injury just to join another dangerous sport. But he is Teddy Rosevelt.
A more respectable comparison would be between Teddy Rosevelt and Chuck Norris.

[Tokuhara]

Well, Rosevelt was an exceptional marksman, a skilled swordsman, had at least as much lead form the front military credentials as Churchhill, and use to hold his white house meetings while he was having regularly scheduled boxing, wrestling, and fencing sparring matches with reigning champs of the day, and was able to consistently hold his own and even win often enough to have what would be considered a respectable track record.

So, yeah, Roosevelt.

I agree. And let's not forget Roosevelt survived getting shot and finished a speech.

Don't mess with the Bull Moose

[Anderlith]

Rosevelt also took Judo after sustaining an injury in boxing. Sort of defeats the purpose of quiting a dangerous sport due to injury just to join another dangerous sport. But he is Teddy Rosevelt.
A more respectable comparison would be between Teddy Rosevelt and Chuck Norris.

Chuck Norris would lose. Teddy Roosevelt is the de facto father of Chuck Norris. It happened one day when Teddy was kicking *** in the ring whilst debating with a scholar, & a single drop of sweat landed on a woman spectator. Teddy's sweat was so potent with the essence of "Man" that the woman became impregnated, giving birth do Chuck Norris.

[Yvanehtnioj]

My question / comment is about balancing for 3rd edition.


As far as I am aware of, in 3rd ed., the classes all use the same xp progression from one level to the next.

However, in 2nd ed., the classes each had their own xp progression table. I feel that this made it balanced because the melee guys rose in level faster than the spell-wielding ones.

Thus, the speed of leveling was: Rogues > Fighters > Clerics > Mages.

Question: Why not bring that aspect of 2nd ed. back and make it official for 3rd, 3.5, or the new 5th when it comes out? Wouldn't it solve the ages old dilemma of how to balance the 3rd ed. Tier 1 classes, with the other Tiers?

If so, then maybe something like what I have below?

(Rogue progression = e.g. rogue, bard, scout, shadowdancer ...)
(Fighter progression = e.g. fighter, barb, pally, blackguard, ranger ...)
(Cleric progression = e.g. cleric, favored soul, druid ...)
(Mage progression = e.g mage, sorcerer, warlock, psionicist ...)


Thank you for your time.

[Anderlith]

My question / comment is about balancing for 3rd edition.


As far as I am aware of, in 3rd ed., the classes all use the same xp progression from one level to the next.

However, in 2nd ed., the classes each had their own xp progression table. I feel that this made it balanced because the melee guys rose in level faster than the spell-wielding ones.

Thus, the speed of leveling was: Rogues > Fighters > Clerics > Mages.

Question: Why not bring that aspect of 2nd ed. back and make it official for 3rd, 3.5, or the new 5th when it comes out? Wouldn't it solve the ages old dilemma of how to balance the 3rd ed. Tier 1 classes, with the other Tiers?

If so, then maybe something like what I have below?

(Rogue progression = e.g. rogue, bard, scout, shadowdancer ...)
(Fighter progression = e.g. fighter, barb, pally, blackguard, ranger ...)
(Cleric progression = e.g. cleric, favored soul, druid ...)
(Mage progression = e.g mage, sorcerer, warlock, psionicist ...)


Thank you for your time.

i like this idea, & would like to see it in the next edition

[skycycle blues]

My question / comment is about balancing for 3rd edition.


As far as I am aware of, in 3rd ed., the classes all use the same xp progression from one level to the next.

However, in 2nd ed., the classes each had their own xp progression table. I feel that this made it balanced because the melee guys rose in level faster than the spell-wielding ones.

Thus, the speed of leveling was: Rogues > Fighters > Clerics > Mages.

Question: Why not bring that aspect of 2nd ed. back and make it official for 3rd, 3.5, or the new 5th when it comes out? Wouldn't it solve the ages old dilemma of how to balance the 3rd ed. Tier 1 classes, with the other Tiers?

If so, then maybe something like what I have below?

(Rogue progression = e.g. rogue, bard, scout, shadowdancer ...)
(Fighter progression = e.g. fighter, barb, pally, blackguard, ranger ...)
(Cleric progression = e.g. cleric, favored soul, druid ...)
(Mage progression = e.g mage, sorcerer, warlock, psionicist ...)


Thank you for your time.


What do you do for people that multiclass or for prestige classes?

[0nimaru]

My take on this is that you want the experience answering ad-libbed or non-raw questions that you normally only gather from playing in lots of games. Generating that experience artificially is possibly impossible, but I'll give it a bite.

A) I am a trip built fighter and my party encounters a trip-build foe. We are both clearly using Spiked Chains. I'm silly and don't think I can counter trip him. I propose readying my turn, watching his moves, and attempting to tangle up his chain when he tries to trip my allies. How would you respond to this request and how would you handle it in game?

B) A new game is beginning and the party is Warlock, Crusader, and Ardent. I would like to make an Archivist, and I know what I'm doing as a player. How do you respond? Do you act immediately, or see how it plays out?

C) Pazuzu?

[Douglas]

Serious Mode Engaged:

What is the best/easiest/any way to kill an Initiate of Mystra inside their AMF when you can't be a spellcaster?
Iron Heart Surge to get rid of the AMF. Then bring in your own AMF with an Antimagic Torc (item from Forgotten Realms: Underdark) to suppress his buffs since IoM only works against an AMF that you're already in when you cast. Season with Extraordinary killing methods to taste.

[Metahuman1]

I agree. And let's not forget Roosevelt survived getting shot and finished a speech.

Don't mess with the Bull Moose

Actually, he got an hour and a half farther into the speech and had to stop. He'd bleed over the paper he was reading from and could not decipher the last couple of pages.

And he was up Sanwan hill first, on foot, weapons drawn, getting shot at as he ran dead sprint uphill at the people shooting at him. That takes serious backbone!

And a great Comparison would be Teddy Roosevelt to Batman, actually.





Serious question time. Does anyone know if there's a rules legal way to graft the arms of a construct, such as an iron or Mithrial Golem, onto a humanoid character?

[Tokuhara]

And he was up Sanwan hill first, on foot, weapons drawn, getting shot at as he ran dead sprint uphill at the people shooting at him. That takes serious backbone!


Backbone? That takes Tarrasquian-Sized Huevos....

[Snowbluff]

My question / comment is about balancing for 3rd edition.


As far as I am aware of, in 3rd ed., the classes all use the same xp progression from one level to the next.

However, in 2nd ed., the classes each had their own xp progression table. I feel that this made it balanced because the melee guys rose in level faster than the spell-wielding ones.

Thus, the speed of leveling was: Rogues > Fighters > Clerics > Mages.

Question: Why not bring that aspect of 2nd ed. back and make it official for 3rd, 3.5, or the new 5th when it comes out? Wouldn't it solve the ages old dilemma of how to balance the 3rd ed. Tier 1 classes, with the other Tiers?

If so, then maybe something like what I have below?

(Rogue progression = e.g. rogue, bard, scout, shadowdancer ...)
(Fighter progression = e.g. fighter, barb, pally, blackguard, ranger ...)
(Cleric progression = e.g. cleric, favored soul, druid ...)
(Mage progression = e.g mage, sorcerer, warlock, psionicist ...)


Thank you for your time.

Yeah, except when you consider more useful Martial Adepts, and how spellcasters scale the last you need is to lower their leveling speed. Either way your casters will get the more powerful spells sooner or later, and that is where the problems lies. Changing their leveling will also bring up more issues, like lower caster health and scaling, BAB scaling. And how about lower power players, or Tier 3-4 casting classes? Should they get their own progression? Wouldn't this add unneeded complexity and ultimately solve nothing? Is their any point to making your casters wait even more levels to become relatively effective?

TL;DR This would make a Linear Warrior, Exponential-1 Wizard situation.

[Snowbluff]

My take on this is that you want the experience answering ad-libbed or non-raw questions that you normally only gather from playing in lots of games. Generating that experience artificially is possibly impossible, but I'll give it a bite.

A) I am a trip built fighter and my party encounters a trip-build foe. We are both clearly using Spiked Chains. I'm silly and don't think I can counter trip him. I propose readying my turn, watching his moves, and attempting to tangle up his chain when he tries to trip my allies. How would you respond to this request and how would you handle it in game?

B) A new game is beginning and the party is Warlock, Crusader, and Ardent. I would like to make an Archivist, and I know what I'm doing as a player. How do you respond? Do you act immediately, or see how it plays out?

C) Pazuzu?

A) Make a Disarm Check in response to his Trip attempt.

B) If by "Know what you are doing", you mean not to screw it up for everyone else, they go ahead. Although, the first thing I would do would be to ask you to do something else. Really, my decision would be based how I have seen you play, and how well you get along with the others.

A jerkass would never get to touch even a tier 2 with that kind of team. If the team is really well optimized, I probably wouldn't have a problem (though this never happens).

C) The last thing I would do is call a demon something so silly. I was thinking "Discord" or "Nightmare Moon"

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Locked for review.