PDA

View Full Version : Baby Armor?



Kilmrak
2008-11-28, 04:09 PM
Alright, im DMing a session and one of my players is a paladin and was wondering if someone (likely his blackgaurd nemisis) wore armor made entirely of living human babies, if he would be moraly allowed to attack him.

I know its a ridiculous notion but I was intriged and wanted to see what others thought.

Crow
2008-11-28, 04:12 PM
Are you trying to start a flame war?

The Glyphstone
2008-11-28, 04:14 PM
Agreed, this topic has nowhere to go but down, and fast.

Mods may want to just lock it pre-emptively...please?

hamishspence
2008-11-28, 04:17 PM
in BoVD the villain who calls himself "The Dread Emperor" has children chained to his armour, to boost his power.

Concerning the Living Shields issue, controversial as it is, it deserves an answer- which is- by BoED rules, yes:

if killing evil children of orc village is evil, when you catch them in the same fireball that was aimed at warriors, than killing Innocent Living Shields must be even more evil.

however, not all fictional moral systems follow this. in Outbound Flight- Thrawn, despite describing Living Shields as the most evil and cowardly form of defense ever conceived, is willing to fire on them anyway.

hamishspence
2008-11-28, 04:25 PM
you never know, this could turn into a long and complicated debate on the whole issue of "Is it OK to kill innocent people in the process if its the only clear way to take out an incredibly evil villain?" and not deteriorate until very late.

I'd like it to go that way, at least :smallsmile:

ColdSepp
2008-11-28, 04:25 PM
in BoVD the villain who calls himself "The Dread Emperor" has children chained to his armour, to boost his power.

Concerning the Living Shields issue, controversial as it is, it deserves an answer- which is- by BoED rules, yes:

if killing evil children of orc village is evil, when you catch them in the same fireball that was aimed at warriors, than killing Innocent Living Shields must be even more evil.

however, not all fictional moral systems follow this. in Outbound Flight- Thrawn, despite describing Living Shields as the most evil and cowardly form of defense ever conceived, is willing to fire on them anyway.

They where the enemy, though. And it was either that or send his own men to die.

hamishspence
2008-11-28, 04:27 PM
and, like I said- the living shields, weren't the enemy- they were hostages. Thrawn always tended toward pragmatism,(which is eventually what got him exiled in the first place)

RTGoodman
2008-11-28, 04:29 PM
This isn't some new idea - people have used this idea to start flame wars all over the internet. It can only end badly, even if the OP didn't intend it that way.

And remember kids - if you're DMing and you're purposefully looking for inane, damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't ways to make your Paladin PC fall, you're Doing It WrongTM and you deserve it when your players leave you.

hamishspence
2008-11-28, 04:31 PM
good point. though there are various non-lethal ways of immobilising the villain.

But yes- as a rule, unless there is a way (even if its a difficult way) to resolve the situation without falling- its unfair to throw it at the player- BoED even says that.

Jack_Simth
2008-11-28, 04:37 PM
Alright, im DMing a session and one of my players is a paladin and was wondering if someone (likely his blackgaurd nemisis) wore armor made entirely of living human babies, if he would be moraly allowed to attack him.

I know its a ridiculous notion but I was intriged and wanted to see what others thought.
As a DM, I would not have the Paladin fall for choosing to try it. While it's not a good act, it's not necessarily an evil one, either. As a DM, when I put a Paladin in such an ambiguous situation, there are no particular repercussions for picking one of two grays. It's when the situation is a lot less ambiguous that there are consequences. I also don't generally tell my Paladin players this - it's an RP opportunity (although this does have a habit of making it look like I like to watch players squirm...).

chiasaur11
2008-11-28, 05:03 PM
Simple.

Smite Evil. The babies, not being evil, will be uninjured, the villain will be hurt, problem solved.

Jack_Simth
2008-11-28, 05:06 PM
Simple.

Smite Evil. The babies, not being evil, will be uninjured, the villain will be hurt, problem solved.
Do note that even on a "failed" smite evil, normal weapon damage still applies....

RTGoodman
2008-11-28, 05:08 PM
Also, thinking about it, I don't think there are any rules anywhere that say what happens when you miss with an attack, especially regarding damage armor (outside of sundering); thus, even if you miss your attack roll, the babies don't get hurt. :smalltongue:

If I were the Paladin, I'd go to town with full PA, Smite Evil, and all that, describing any miss as "I pull the blow to keep from hitting a baby" and each hit as "I maneuver my blade to stab the blackguard through the chink in his baby armor."

I could be wrong, though.


EDIT: @\/: It adds your Charisma mod to your attack roll and your Paladin level to damage.

T-O-E
2008-11-28, 05:10 PM
Doesn't Smite Evil only add a bonus to the damage?

TheCountAlucard
2008-11-28, 05:14 PM
Also, thinking about it, I don't think there are any rules anywhere that say what happens when you miss with an attack, especially regarding damage armor (outside of sundering)...

Actually, you can't use sunder on worn armor, either. Basically, the only way to damage the armor is to roll a 1 on a Reflex save against Fireball or somesuch.

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-11-28, 05:24 PM
Alright, im DMing a session and one of my players is a paladin and was wondering if someone (likely his blackgaurd nemisis) wore armor made entirely of living human babies, if he would be moraly allowed to attack him.


I suppose you could use non-lethal damage and then it would be all right.
Besides I doubt that blackgaurd would be much of a thread, it's doubtful he has exotic armour proficiency: baby armour and the armour check penalty on an armour like that is probably huge.

Pandaren
2008-11-28, 05:26 PM
Do note that even on a "failed" smite evil, normal weapon damage still applies....

Exactly, and considering it's not possible to attack the ....something without hitting the babies, the smites would be wasted, and you'd have dead baby on your hands.



Nonlethal damage would work, by the rules, but punching most babies tends to kill them, smacking them with the flat of a sword would probably kill them in reality.

Raroy
2008-11-28, 05:29 PM
He could get a sword that can only hurt evil. It phases through neutral and good beings.

Pandaren
2008-11-28, 05:31 PM
He could get a sword that can only hurt evil. It phases through neutral and good beings.

Babies are nuetral...? I'm guessing a yes..

hamishspence
2008-11-28, 05:32 PM
thats the advantage of being in a party- a wizard can paralyse the villain.

Fax Celestis
2008-11-28, 05:40 PM
Do note that even on a "failed" smite evil, normal weapon damage still applies....

Smite evil touch attacks deal damage only to evil creatures.

Zeful
2008-11-28, 05:46 PM
Actually, you can't use sunder on worn armor, either. Basically, the only way to damage the armor is to roll a 1 on a Reflex save against Fireball or somesuch.

Which means a paladin can wail away on baby armor all he wants, without harming the babies.

I have a question. If an evil wizard Magic Jard a baby. Could a paladin attack said baby without repercussions?

Pandaren
2008-11-28, 05:47 PM
Smite evil touch attacks deal damage only to evil creatures.

The extra damage is only to evil creatures, the normal damage is still dealt if a good or nuetral creature is hit.



Which means a paladin can wail away on baby armor all he wants, without harming the babies.

I have a question. If an evil wizard Magic Jard a baby. Could a paladin attack said baby without repercussions?

Hitting usually involved cutting through armor, critical hits are the only that do not have to bypass armor, because they attack vital unprotected spots.

Zeful
2008-11-28, 05:49 PM
The extra damage is only to evil creatures, the normal damage is still dealt if a good or nuetral creature is hit.

Touch attacks don't actually do any damage, so adding a smite evil to one only deals cha mod of damage.

Crow
2008-11-28, 05:49 PM
Also, thinking about it, I don't think there are any rules anywhere that say what happens when you miss with an attack, especially regarding damage armor (outside of sundering); thus, even if you miss your attack roll, the babies don't get hurt. :smalltongue:

If I were the Paladin, I'd go to town with full PA, Smite Evil, and all that, describing any miss as "I pull the blow to keep from hitting a baby" and each hit as "I maneuver my blade to stab the blackguard through the chink in his baby armor."

We have a winner.

hamishspence
2008-11-28, 05:50 PM
interesting question- if baby's soul is not in body, does it cease to be "an innocent" when there is a powerful evil soul present?

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-11-28, 05:55 PM
Which means a paladin can wail away on baby armor all he wants, without harming the babies.


Not with only 2-5 smites per day....


Smite Evil (Su)

Once per day, a paladin may attempt to smite evil with one normal melee attack. She adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack roll and deals 1 extra point of damage per paladin level. If the paladin accidentally smites a creature that is not evil, the smite has no effect, but the ability is still used up for that day.


Interpretation depends on the word "with" if this means you attack and smite evil than you still deal normal melee damage if this means you use a smite evil instead of the melee attack then you would deal no damage.
I think the first one is correct but I can see where Fax is coming from.

Devils_Advocate
2008-11-28, 05:58 PM
Do note that even on a "failed" smite evil, normal weapon damage still applies....
Well, by RAW, "the smite has no effect". Normal weapon damage is definitely an effect.

It depends on how you determine "smite" in context. A smite is just a strike, so by the most literal possible interpretation, it's just as though you never struck the target. You could argue that "smite" is intended to mean a use of the Paladin's Smite Evil class feature, but that's purely RAI. :smallamused:

ColdSepp
2008-11-28, 05:59 PM
and, like I said- the living shields, weren't the enemy- they were hostages. Thrawn always tended toward pragmatism,(which is eventually what got him exiled in the first place)

Phf. It was all part of his master plan.

hamishspence
2008-11-28, 06:02 PM
probably. Still, at the time, until he managed to win her over, the less pragmatic Maris Ferasi seemed a bit shocked.

Pandaren
2008-11-28, 06:13 PM
Well, by RAW, "the smite has no effect". Normal weapon damage is definitely an effect.

It depends on how you determine "smite" in context. A smite is just a strike, so by the most literal possible interpretation, it's just as though you never struck the target. You could argue that "smite" is intended to mean a use of the Paladin's Smite Evil class feature, but that's purely RAI. :smallamused:

It all depends on interpretation, but I would like to point out a certain OotS strip...just need link..

I think it's #203 or #204.

Nope it's end of 200, and beginning of 201.

Zeful
2008-11-28, 06:14 PM
Not with only 2-5 smites per day....

You can't damage armor without the Magic effecting Equipment rule. Since the baby armor is equipment rather than creatures. You can't damage the babies. Even if you miss.

F.H. Zebedee
2008-11-28, 06:14 PM
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_T8-K19vnE-k/SCLaeS9XhEI/AAAAAAAAA4g/oj0v_D_Xl8I/s512/IMG_7024.JPG
?

On a more serious note, I think that any armor like that would be rather insanely cumbersome. I'd say it's more likely that the villain would just hide one or two infants tucked into the torso of his armor, at a clearly open point, and reveal it to the hero. (Or even have an illusion of waing infants, and use the "fact" just to make the hero think he's facing that.)

Baby fullplate, tho'? That's cheap if you ignore the drawbacks (cumbersome, stench gives you away to anything with a nose within fifty feet, louder than a sackful of cats, keeping said babies alive...)
As a DM, I'd let my player do various methods to circumvent it. Such as grabbing the blackguard by the throat and throttling him into submission, or smashing him in the exposed face repeatedly with a gauntleted fist. There's no way the blackguard would be covering his face wit- Let's not even touch that subject.

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-11-28, 06:23 PM
You can't damage armor without the Magic effecting Equipment rule. Since the baby armor is equipment rather than creatures. You can't damage the babies. Even if you miss.

I'm on a roll with misquoting today, maybe I should just go to bed, my response was to your touch attack post, which content I somehow mixed up with the post I quoted.(to refrain, I managed to read your post out of context, an impressive feat indeed.)

Ridureyu
2008-11-28, 06:31 PM
Does he have babies covering his head? if not, the Paladin could simply hire a high-level rogue or assassin, arm him with a bow, then go to meet the villain.

Gao
2008-11-28, 06:44 PM
Not another thread about paladins falling.

Zeful
2008-11-28, 07:20 PM
Not another thread about paladins falling.

It's more about invulnerability to damage living armor is.

Fenix- That's okay. We all make mistakes.

Doomsy
2008-11-28, 07:21 PM
Dear God. The villain would be drenched in the least savory of bodily secretions within moments after donning that armor. And the SOUND.


So basically. Your BBEG would be covered in baby poop, baby puke, and be surrounded by the screams of babies.

That is not impressive, but it is scary in its own special way.

ChaosDefender24
2008-11-28, 07:57 PM
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/7099/1226198280092lj2.jpg

RAW, like everyone else said, the babies won't actually get hurt unless you start doing stuff to the guy's armor. It's a very sick idea for a villain, however.

Deme
2008-11-28, 08:26 PM
You'd have to make sure he didn't fall over (I'm assuming the points made about attacks not hitting armor -- unless they were misses, which then might actually hit and bounce off the armor, except it probably wouldn't bounce, what with the babies -- are correct in this case) when he died. You'd have to keep him standing while you detached at least half of the babies, in order to avoid crushed babies.

Dervag
2008-11-28, 08:56 PM
Does he have babies covering his head? if not, the Paladin could simply hire a high-level rogue or assassin, arm him with a bow, then go to meet the villain."How about his face? Is his face wearing armor?"


You'd have to make sure he didn't fall over (I'm assuming the points made about attacks not hitting armor -- unless they were misses, which then might actually hit and bounce off the armor, except it probably wouldn't bounce, what with the babies -- are correct in this case) when he died. You'd have to keep him standing while you detached at least half of the babies, in order to avoid crushed babies.Hmm... what you need are paralysis and save-or-suck effects that will disable him while you remove his armor. Hold Person, that kind of thing.

FinalJustice
2008-11-28, 09:03 PM
Cheese. If it doesn't solve the problem, you are not throwing enough of it in.

And what kind of cheese should ya throw if your DM comes up with something as ridiculous as a baby armor? Simple. An always active item of Wraithstrike. There, your weapon pass by armor harmlessly (ie. babies) and you can Power Attack the hell of the guy BBEG. If you can't get you wizard to do one of those, try a wand and UMD it.

Jayngfet
2008-11-28, 09:07 PM
Better idea, throw knives at the kids, have them catch them and stab him to death. Problem solved.

Unless you're DM decides that the babies should get all the XP.

Keld Denar
2008-11-28, 09:12 PM
Man, I saw the title of this thread and I thought it was going to be about the cost of crafting full plate mail for a toddler, including unique armor enchantments like "Changing" or "Pacifying".

How disappointing. :(

Jayngfet
2008-11-28, 09:24 PM
Man, I saw the title of this thread and I thought it was going to be about the cost of crafting full plate mail for a toddler, including unique armor enchantments like "Changing" or "Pacifying".

How disappointing. :(

To be honest, that was also my first thoughts.

Seffbasilisk
2008-11-28, 10:45 PM
Mine as well.

As for bypassing the Baby-fullplate, try a wand of magic missile. The missiles will automatically hit, and dodge around the babies to do so. Failing at that, attempt a grapple check. Odds are, the babies will skew the grapple check against the blackguard, and you can pull enough babies free to be able to attack freely before his penalty is reduced enough so he can gain the upper hand in the grapple.

Pie Guy
2008-11-28, 11:12 PM
Man, I saw the title of this thread and I thought it was going to be about the cost of crafting full plate mail for a toddler, including unique armor enchantments like "Changing" or "Pacifying".

How disappointing. :(

Random people on the internet think alike, I guess.

Anyway, if the paladin had a piercing weapon, everything would be alright. If the villain's armor covered all gaps, the babies on the inside would suffocate, become a breeding place for disease, and the rest of the babies would die of the plague, or appropriate infectous sickness. Nothing wrong with stabbing dead babies.

The Glyphstone
2008-11-28, 11:13 PM
Just don't start telling jokes about them.

Ridureyu
2008-11-28, 11:13 PM
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/7099/1226198280092lj2.jpg

RAW, like everyone else said, the babies won't actually get hurt unless you start doing stuff to the guy's armor. It's a very sick idea for a villain, however.

WHERE DID THIS PICTURE COME FROM?!?!?

Lemur
2008-11-28, 11:24 PM
Just don't start telling jokes about them.

How many dead babies do you need to make a breastplate?

Do I smell funny, or is it just all these dead babies I'm wearing?

Funny story: the armor was originally supposed to be made of live babies, but it turns out they lose their appetites after being sewn together.
-There's nothing funny about that at all.
Y'know, mister paladin, you remind me a lot of the babies. Noisy and malcontent.

zaei
2008-11-28, 11:56 PM
What if the babies were all blackguards?

What if all of the baby blackguards were also wearing baby blackguard armor?

What if all the baby blackguards on the baby blackguards... ?

It's like, a fractal of evil.

Vexxation
2008-11-28, 11:57 PM
It's like, a fractal of evil.

WWMD?
(What Would Mandelbrot Do?)

Ravens_cry
2008-11-29, 12:01 AM
WHERE DID THIS PICTURE COME FROM?!?!?
It is the rather surreal work of a photographer named Phillip Toledano. The other stuff is equally weird, if not more so. But I am not allowed to link to it apparently. That's fine, if you really want to hurt your brain, go ahead and search for it. You have been warned.

Ridureyu
2008-11-29, 12:06 AM
Note - link not entirely Safe For Work.

I am going to go and pour bleach in my ear.

Ravens_cry
2008-11-29, 12:23 AM
Note - link not entirely Safe For Work.

I am going to go and pour bleach in my ear.
Yeah, it is a tad on the strange side.

Deth Muncher
2008-11-29, 12:23 AM
Note - link not entirely Safe For Work.

I am going to go and pour bleach in my ear.

You're not the King of Denmark, are you? That's generally the only time you get something poured in your ear.

FoE
2008-11-29, 12:29 AM
If by chance you ever encounter an NPC wearing armour made of babies, here's what you do:

1) Find a newspaper.
2) Roll it up.
3) Smack your DM for being an idiot, and then never return to his table again.

That has got to be one of the dumbest and most impractical ideas for armour I've ever heard.

Tengu_temp
2008-11-29, 12:29 AM
Weird, but not brain bleach-worthy.

Ridureyu
2008-11-29, 12:31 AM
This whole thing deserves an archive thread for Silly Ways To Try To Force A Paladin to Fall.

FoE
2008-11-29, 12:35 AM
What's more, it wouldn't even work.

Clearly it's not beneficial for the babies to be strapped to this guy's body; given their rather fragile little bodies, he probably killed hundreds of infants just trying to fasten them to his body and move around.

I would rule that the paladin is actually in danger of falling if he did not attack. After all, he's basically condemning these children and many others to death if he stands by.

Kris Strife
2008-11-29, 12:57 AM
Yeah, but by BoED, the lesser of two evils or comitting an evil deed for good purposes still counts as evil and fall worthy.

Lemur
2008-11-29, 01:05 AM
I thought we already established that you couldn't even damage the babies if you wanted to, since they're being worn as armor. Thus saving the paladin from any potential moral dilemma.

Kris Strife
2008-11-29, 01:12 AM
I thought we already established that you couldn't even damage the babies if you wanted to, since they're being worn as armor. Thus saving the paladin from any potential moral dilemma.

do you think a DM that would give that armor to an enemy would let logic stop him from making the paladin fall?

Ridureyu
2008-11-29, 01:12 AM
Yeah, but by BoED, the lesser of two evils or comitting an evil deed for good purposes still counts as evil and fall worthy.

Using that, fighting him causes a fall, not fighting him causes a fall, getting help causes a fall, trying to pacify the guy causes a fall (what if he hurts the babies anyway?), etc. Essentially, there is no way not to fall if a man duct-tapes babies to his head.

So yeah, I think maybe the BoED doesn't quite jibe with other such things.

RTGoodman
2008-11-29, 01:15 AM
do you think a DM that would give that armor to an enemy would let logic stop him from making the paladin fall?

No, but like I said before, if you're that bad of a DM then you DESERVE for players to leave your games until you shape up.

Zeful
2008-11-29, 01:17 AM
do you think a DM that would give that armor to an enemy would let logic stop him from making the paladin fall?

Yes because that is the RAW. And all DMs everywhere play by RAW.[/sarcasm]

Kris Strife
2008-11-29, 01:19 AM
If by chance you ever encounter an NPC wearing armour made of babies, here's what you do:

1) Find a newspaper.
2) Roll it up.
3) Smack your DM for being an idiot, and then never return to his table again.

That has got to be one of the dumbest and most impractical ideas for armour I've ever heard.

Would yelling 'SMITE STUPID' or 'SMITE IDIOT' as I hit him be in bad taste?

FMArthur
2008-11-29, 01:21 AM
I think this is the just the right amount of silly combined with the right amount of evil to be a strategy Xykon might devise.

Ridureyu
2008-11-29, 01:23 AM
Yes because that is the RAW. And all DMs everywhere play by RAW.[/sarcasm]

It's one INTERPRETATION of RAW. For example, what if I said, "Technically, nobody is entirely good-hearted. Well, you've got enough evil in you to fall, anyway!"

"But I rescued orphans!"

"For the glory."

"No I didn't!"

"But you got glory. Didn't it feel good?"

"Nope! My paladin is too humble, and he felt uncomfortable!"

"Proud about being humble, eh? Too bad."




...I have to try that sometime, even if it's just a joke with no actual consequences.

Lemur
2008-11-29, 01:26 AM
Okay: alternate solution. The paladin just has to wait the baddie out. Sooner or later he's going to get so covered in baby poo that he won't even be able to hold his sword properly, and that's assuming he can even tolerate the smell.

@Ridureyu: I like it.

Maerok
2008-11-29, 01:26 AM
Holy word them into a stupor. Although a baby might be True Neutral...

A mass aging spell to make everyone in range fifty years older? Unless the bad guy is an elf or elan or something.

The wizard can probably research something.

Ridureyu
2008-11-29, 01:37 AM
"I use Detect Evil."

"Why?"

"Chances are that at least one of those babies is evil. okay, readying Sword of Holy Stabbing..."

Mushroom Ninja
2008-11-29, 01:46 AM
"I use Detect Evil."

"Why?"

"Chances are that at least one of those babies is evil. okay, readying Sword of Holy Stabbing..."

That is a formula for pure Win.

Keld Denar
2008-11-29, 01:47 AM
Hold on, hold on, hold on.

I got a good one.

PALADINS FALL, EVERYONE DIES!

Get it?

Kris Strife
2008-11-29, 01:55 AM
Hold on, hold on, hold on.

I got a good one.

PALADINS FALL, EVERYONE DIES!

Get it?

*pelts with rotten fruit*

Yukitsu
2008-11-29, 01:59 AM
Glamer is a PHB armour property. Make your armour "look" like it's made out of babies.

Vorpal Soda
2008-11-29, 08:54 AM
What happens if the party wizard casts Mass Enlarge Person on the babies?

Zeful
2008-11-29, 09:03 AM
What happens if the party wizard casts Mass Enlarge Person on the babies?

It'd also enlarge the blackguard?

Learnedguy
2008-11-29, 09:06 AM
It's at situations like these you go for the third option. Badassness:smallcool:

Namely, saving those poor children from the wicked villain. As a paladin, you need to prioritize:smallyuk:!

(Seriously though, newborn lives go before smithing. Hell, protecting the innocents was the reason you got into this whole holy vow business in the first place!!)

Vorpal Soda
2008-11-29, 09:29 AM
It'd also enlarge the blackguard?

Actually, if my reading of the spell is correct, you have full control over who gets enlarged, and who doesn't, so you could enlarge the babies, leaving the blackguard trying to stand whilst wearing armour that now weights quite a lot more.

zaei
2008-11-29, 12:02 PM
It's at situations like these you go for the third option. Badassness:smallcool:

Namely, saving those poor children from the wicked villain. As a paladin, you need to prioritize:smallyuk:!

(Seriously though, newborn lives go before smithing. Hell, protecting the innocents was the reason you got into this whole holy vow business in the first place!!)

I now have this horrible mental image of the blackguard toiling over his raging furnace and anvil, forging his baby armor from living human infants.

*squishclang* *squishclang* ...

hamishspence
2008-11-29, 12:07 PM
Sounds exactly like a 40k villain. a robe of living flesh, plate of living flesh and bone, say. creepy.

Neithan
2008-11-29, 12:26 PM
I see no problem with killing the babies at all. Unless he's just carrying a dozen of those backpack-carrier-thingies, I don't think the babies of a baby armor could be saved anyway, so killing them might actually be the best thing to do.

zaei
2008-11-30, 01:11 AM
Someone should start a website called FallBlog, where everyone can post pictures of paladins falling, or situations which would cause paladins to fall.

Raging Gene Ray
2008-11-30, 01:20 AM
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/7099/1226198280092lj2.jpg


Look at that guy's head...wouldn't it be easy to just stab him in the eye with a called shot (That's only a -4 penalty). Besides, most of those babies would already be dead from being fastened together and flung around as the sicko moves.

Also, yes...I was just looking for an excuse to pea roast that picture.

Doresain
2008-11-30, 02:03 AM
i just had an epiphany...blackguard uses armor made from undead babies

FMArthur
2008-11-30, 02:39 AM
Greater Consumptive Field FTW. You just need enough productive couples to keep up a supply.

The Glyphstone
2008-11-30, 06:58 AM
Have we discovered another practical application of the BoEF?

ChaosDefender24
2008-11-30, 09:32 AM
We'd have to give the babies good reason to not eat the blackguard, though... lichloved, I guess

it just gets worse and worse

chiasaur11
2008-11-30, 03:01 PM
The stabbing is getting more excusable, however.

EchoPrime
2008-12-01, 05:47 PM
The baby armor should act like cover instead of adding AC. Thus you would be unable to attack him without hitting the babies. If the face is described as visible (which it should be), then you could attack if you have the precise shot or precise swing feats. That is, unless something has changed from the 3.5 that I know, as I dont have 4.0 yet.