Rules Discussion.   Posted by Wanderer.Group: 0
Arcantos
 player, 77 posts
Wed 23 Dec 2015
at 21:07
Re: Rules Discussion
Hmmm, alright then. With the rules going that way, I'll swap my 38 levels in Psychic Warrior for 20 levels in Psychic Warrior and 17 levels in Warlock.

Admittedly, this might change again, depending on the rulings of the Incarnum reworks. So I won't be making any actual changes...

Wanderer
 GM, 116 posts
Wed 13 Jan 2016
at 20:42
Re: Rules Discussion
Arcantos, I haven't had time to read through the Incarnum re-write yet.  I will read it and comment by this weekend though (which is fortunately a 3-day weekend for me).

Does anyone else have any opinion?  Has anyone else considered playing an Incarnum character?  If not, is it because they are too weak?  Too strong?  Too complicated?  Any insight would be helpful.  I have never played one just because I always had other stuff I wanted to use, so I don't really have much experience in seeing how they play.
Arcantos
 player, 82 posts
Thu 14 Jan 2016
at 01:00
Re: Rules Discussion
Glad to get an update from you Wanderer! I can wait, no rush!

Not like I'm doing anything else here currently anyway.

Gegorath
 player, 11 posts
Thu 14 Jan 2016
at 15:26
Re: Rules Discussion
crit vs AC???

if a crit is threatened and confirmed, does that attack breach an AC that is still higher than the critical that was rolled?




and what is the ruling on crits confirmed with crits...confirmed with crits

This message was last edited by the player at 15:28, Thu 14 Jan 2016.

Wanderer
 GM, 117 posts
Fri 15 Jan 2016
at 03:23
Re: Rules Discussion
I'm not sure I understand the question, but let me try to go over it.

A natural 20 always hits, and threatens a crit, regardless of your opponent's AC.  To confirm the crit, your confirmation roll has to hit the AC of your opponent.  If it doesn't, the natural 20 just results in normal damage.

If your attack threatens on more than a natural 20, you only threaten on such a roll if the dice roll is within the threat range, and the attack would hit your opponent's AC.  If both of those criteria are met, you threaten a crit.  If your crit confirmation roll would hit the AC of your opponent, it results in a critical hit.  If not, you would deal normal damage.

Rolling a crit on your crit confirmation roll has no additional effect, even if it is two natural 20s in a row.
Thrainkell
 player, 3 posts
Fri 15 Jan 2016
at 04:49
Re: Rules Discussion
In reply to Wanderer (msg # 193):

I've never used Incarnum so I can't add anything to that discussion. Don't have the book.
Wanderer
 GM, 118 posts
Wed 20 Jan 2016
at 14:53
Re: Rules Discussion
Ok, sorry, took longer than expected.  And had less time over the weekend than expected. Anyway.

The Incarnum rewrite is too long.  I think using it would discourage people from playing Incarnum characters, just because they wouldn't want to have to read through everything in the rewrite.

I am willing to go with at least some of the basic changes proposed, since I gather that Incarnum characters are generally considered less powerful than many other options.

For essentia capacity, I am fine with using the adjusted formula pre-epic, but in epic I would want to go with something midway between the 1/4 formula and the existing 1/10 formula.  I am thinking of using 1/6 in epic.  That would give a total essentia capacity of 10 at 50th level.

I'm ok with giving bonus essentia, equal to Con bonus/2.

I'm ok with increasing the rate at which chakra binds are gained.  This would be essentially doubled.  So, for a Totemist, you would gain a chakra bind at every even-numbered level.

Some of the Incarnum PRCs are already listed as giving +1 meldshaping level.  If you think one of the other PRCs should also give +1 meldshaping, let me know.
Gegorath
 player, 15 posts
Thu 21 Jan 2016
at 13:49
Re: Rules Discussion
quote:
Soulbreaker: This weapon has a special ability that functions only upon scoring a successful critical hit. On a successful critical hit, a soulbreaker weapon bestows one negative level on the foe. One day after being struck, if the negative levels have not been purged, the subject must succeed on a DC 18 Fortitude save for each negative level or lose a character level.
Strong telepathy; ML 12th; Craft Psionic Arms and Armor, mindwipe; Price +3 bonus.


What would reasonably cause some thing or some one to be immune to this?

My initial thoughts would be the following:
  • immune to neg energy would not work because it is not based on a Stygian power.
  • immune to crit would not work because it doues not attack the body
  • immune to mind effecting would work because it is attacking the mind and it's ability to tell the body what it should be able to do
  • immune to energy drain and ability damage Should only work if it says specifically mental ability scores or all ability scores.
  • racial HD and racial levels would not be drained by this because that is hardware and firmware not software.
    • Exception: 1% chance to regress dragon one age catagory


Please discuss.
Thrainkell
 player, 4 posts
Thu 21 Jan 2016
at 15:51
Re: Rules Discussion
In reply to Gegorath (msg # 196):

Since the DM's creation rules state we have magic-psionic transparency. Then potentially a lot of things.

The very first thing would be Spell Resistance which acts as Power Resistance given the above rule. Since all characters have at least 75 Spell Resistance, such a power is probably ineffective against any of us sine he also has ruled an item cannot have more than a 50 Caster Level (making it impossible for an item to beat anyone's SR or PR). I base this upon the fact that mindwipe allows Power Resistance.

Immunity to Mind Affecting would also make you immune.

I would probably argue that immunity to level loss also makes one immune.

Okay with all this said though Might be away a few days with the impending snowstorm
Wanderer
 GM, 120 posts
Thu 21 Jan 2016
at 20:48
Re: Rules Discussion
As far as what would and wouldn't protect against the Soulbreaker ability, my thoughts are:

1. Immune to negative energy: No, this wouldn't protect against Soulbreaker, since it isn't a negative energy effect.

2. Immune to crits: No, this doesn't help.  I wasn't initially sure, but found the rule for it in the SRD:
quote:
Magic Weapons and Critical Hits

Some weapon qualities and some specific weapons have an extra effect on a critical hit. This special effect functions against creatures not subject to critical hits, such as undead, elementals, and constructs. When fighting against such creatures, roll for critical hits as you would against humanoids or any other creature subject to critical hits. On a successful critical roll, apply the special effect, but do not multiply the weapon’s regular damage.


3. Immune to mind-affecting: Yes, this should protect against it, since the ability is based on the mindwipe power, which is itself mind-affecting.

4. Immune to energy drain/ability damage: Neither of these would help, since it isn't that type of effect.

Regarding racial HD/racial levels: Gaining a negative level doesn't actually remove levels (regardless of whether they are class or racial levels), nor does it prevent you from using abilities gained at those levels.  The penalties for negative levels are outlined in the SRD.  Level loss only occurs if 24 hours pass and a save is failed, which wouldn't come up in this game.  Because it doesn't address psionics, I would be inclined to say that psionic PCs who gain negative levels would lose power points equal to the cost of the highest level power they are able to use.

quote:
A creature takes the following penalties for each negative level it has gained:
• -1 on all skill checks and ability checks.
• -1 on attack rolls and saving throws.
• -5 hit points.
• -1 effective level (whenever the creature’s level is used in a die roll or calculation, reduce it by one for each negative level).
• If the victim casts spells, she loses access to one spell as if she had cast her highest-level, currently available spell. (If she has more than one spell at her highest level, she chooses which she loses.) In addition, when she next prepares spells or regains spell slots, she gets one less spell slot at her highest spell level.


If a spell/ability/magic item/etc gave immunity to level loss or immunity to taking negative levels (as opposed to energy drain or negative energy), I agree that it should still protect against the Soulbreaker effect.

On Spell Resistance, I read through the SRD, and it is not clear.  The Spell Resistance entry says:

quote:
Only spells and spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance. Extraordinary and supernatural abilities (including enhancement bonuses on magic weapons) are not.


Not mentioning magic weapon special abilities leaves it open, depending if the specific ability were considered a spell or spell-like ability.  However, I would like magic weapon special abilities to still be an option, so I am inclined to say that they don't count as spells or spell-like abilities, and are not subject to spell resistance.
Thrainkell
 player, 5 posts
Fri 22 Jan 2016
at 06:10
Re: Rules Discussion
The base power used to make soulbreaker makes it clear that you do lose one of your highest level powers and sufficient power points from their maximum power point total sufficient to manifest that power. I would believe this to be a general expansion of level loss rules.

As for SR/PR, it only mentions enhancement bonus of weapons as not subject to SR/PR. I believe therefore the intent is that SR/PR does apply to special abilities. However if the DM wishes to rule otherwise I will accept such.
Arcantos
 player, 83 posts
Fri 22 Jan 2016
at 12:09
Re: Rules Discussion
The rewrite is hardly longer than a handbook... but eh, least the general changes are allowed, which makes me a happy man.

Now I just need to complete my second character, and maybe I might actually be able to take part in the arena!

Wanderer
 GM, 121 posts
Sat 23 Jan 2016
at 00:32
Re: Rules Discussion
The rewrite, when copied to Word so I could access it off-line, was 124 pages long (single-spaced, but with some extra lines thrown in throughout).  Since players wouldn't know what changed and what didn't, they would presumably need to read most of the rewrite (skipping stuff not specific to their chosen class) before they could build an incarnum character.

If you want to move forward in the Tournament, due to an odd number, one of the NPCs advanced to the next round automatically, so he is ready for a second-round fight.  I don't mind you playing out Arcantos' first-round and second-round matches of the Tournament simultaneously.  So, that is also an option.
Arcantos
 player, 84 posts
Sat 23 Jan 2016
at 16:19
Re: Rules Discussion
That sounds like a good idea to me. Especially with how slow Arcantos' first round is going.
Thrainkell
 GM, 6 posts
Sun 31 Jan 2016
at 22:17
Re: Rules Discussion
In reply to Arcantos (msg # 202):

Just looking into the Complete Psionic book, on page 58 it gives a list of Powers that are considered to be Negative Energy powers and Mindwipe is one of them, so soulbreaker would be as well, so negative energy protection would prevent it from working.

Sorry to reopen it just I found the rule, though I wasn't actually looking for that.
Gegorath
 player, 20 posts
Mon 1 Feb 2016
at 15:40
Re: Rules Discussion
Thrainkell:
In reply to Arcantos (msg # 202):

Just looking into the Complete Psionic book, on page 58 it gives a list of Powers that are considered to be Negative Energy powers and Mindwipe is one of them, so soulbreaker would be as well, so negative energy protection would prevent it from working.

Sorry to reopen it just I found the rule, though I wasn't actually looking for that.

that does make sense, thankyou
Wanderer
 GM, 138 posts
Mon 21 Mar 2016
at 13:56
Re: Rules Discussion
Ok, I received a request from one of the players, proposing a change to the Homebrew feat Hit Them Where It Hurts (which allows players a chance to still deal sneak attacks and crits against people otherwise immune, for whatever reason).

He actually suggested four alternates, so I am posting them below, to see what the other players thought.

You've homebrewed a feat that allows a character to ignore energy immunity (Penetrate Energy Immunity: [Epic]) which has no prerequisite (taken up to 5 times would make all energy immunities obsolete).

As a note, this isn't entirely correct.  The Homebrew feat being referred to allows a PC to get through only half of existing energy immunity.

You have also homebrewed a feat that allows the reduction of the chance to succeed a sneak attack or critical hit by 25% takeable up to 2 times (Hit Them Where It Hurts: [Epic]).

Perhaps an alternative could be considered regarding 'Hit Them Where It Hurts'.

Option A:

The feat can still only be taken twice (but has a 50% chance instead of a 25% chance), the person taking this feat would chose to apply it to either sneak attack or critical hits at the time of taking.  Taking it twice you could have 50% against both sneak attack and critical hits or 100% against one, but 0% against the other.

Option B:

The feat still only allows an increase of 25% (but can be taken up to 4 times) with the person select sneak attack or critical hit when picking the feat and allowing it to be taken up to 4 times.  Thus he could gain 50% vs both sneak attack and critical hits, 75% against sneak attack or critical hits and 25% against the other, or 100% sneak attacks and 0% critical hits, or 100% critical hits and 0% sneak attacks.

Option C:

Same as option A but can be taken up to 4 times; thus providing up to 100% against both sneak attacks and critical hits.

Option D:

Same as Option B but can be taken up to 8 times; thus providing up to 100% against sneak attacks and critical hits.

Option A provides up to 100% to either sneak attack or critical hits with the taking of 2 epic feats.

Option B provides up to 100% to either sneak attack or critical hits with the taking of 4 epic feats.

Option C provides up to 100% to both sneak attack or critical hits with the taking of 4 epic feats.

Option D provides up to 100% to both sneak attack or critical hits with the taking of 8 epic feats.


So, I guess the primary question is, do the players want there to be a method to get a 100% chance to bypass immunity to sneak attack and/or crit immunity?  If not, then none of the options are acceptable.  If so, it's just a matter of agreeing on how many feats it should take.
Chuck
 player, 1 post
Mon 21 Mar 2016
at 14:06
Re: Rules Discussion
Perhaps, to parallel the energy immunity feats...perhaps you can take feats to boost your chances but you still only deal 1/2 of the die damage rolled.
Gegorath
 player, 27 posts
Mon 21 Mar 2016
at 14:25
Re: Rules Discussion
I am not a fan of either option, there are feats out there that already do that.

immunity is immunity for a reason something about the way the base race "is" allows them to be immune, so i vote a max of 50%

feats that increase by 10% maxing out at +50%

magic
slashing
piercing
bludgeon
fire
cold
sonic
shock

these feats would be improvements of established core feats like scorching spell and freezing spell which allow a penetration of immunity to deal 50% damage

thus requiring a total of 6 feats to deal 100% damage to a creature normally immune to a damage type. and 6 more for another damage type...thus requiring 48 feats to deal 100% in my above mentioned damage types.


I would not have a problem with a "fighter only feat progression" that allowed an accelerated and extended progression for the melee damages.

slashing
piercing
bludgeon

but said acceleration would require such focused study and practice as to exclude "full caster" classes from being able to take them (number of any caster classes not to exceed 10% of HD).



additionally if you allow a feat to "cut through" an immunity/resistance you also need a comparable feat to raise said immunity/resistance
Chuck
 player, 2 posts
Thu 24 Mar 2016
at 22:05
Re: Rules Discussion
For the record, my vote goes to option C
Thrainkell
 GM, 15 posts
Tue 5 Apr 2016
at 13:29
Re: Rules Discussion
In reply to Chuck (msg # 208):

I'd vote for A

Though I wouldn't mind seeing this feat and the one to penetrate energy immunity go away, though in a way I can understand why they were made, at this level of play it is possible to make yourself almost immune to everything....which is kinda scary :)
Wanderer
 GM, 146 posts
Tue 19 Apr 2016
at 13:27
Re: Rules Discussion
Does anyone else have an opinion on getting through immunity to crits and sneak attacks?  Right now, we have one vote for option A, one for option C, and one not in favor of any of the proposed options.

As there doesn't appear to be a consensus, unless we get some additional votes, I will keep the current homebrew feats as is.
Arcantos
 player, 97 posts
Tue 19 Apr 2016
at 16:26
Re: Rules Discussion
I say just leave it as it is.
Chuck
 player, 4 posts
Tue 19 Apr 2016
at 23:27
Re: Rules Discussion
for the record, I'd be happy with A.  so technically, that could be seen as 2 votes A.
Nineda
 player, 21 posts
Fri 22 Apr 2016
at 12:45
Re: Rules Discussion
I think I'm out, after much deliberation. All of these suggested rule changes and voting options to change some things that have already been established within the game may lead to better combat between characters at this level, but it's also very confusing trying to keep up with them. Thanks for your time and the opportunity to play.