The Gaming Den

The specific overriding the general that I am thinking about is the part on p213 about spell completion items taking a standard action overriding the part about any item that duplicates a spell activating in the same time that the spell does - since 'spell completion items' seem to me to be a subset...

What about:
The specific overrides the general
Or am I in error there?

Anyway, I looked through DMG3.5p213(Using Items) and was amazed by the contradictions in there...

thanks for the headsup, Frank

What is the link? I couldn't find it

ahhh, I see, Pun-pun got deleted. - heh.

heh. Cool, reminds me of something that my GM always declares to be Truth:

Agent Smith, The Matrix wrote:Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague.

MrWaeseL at [unixtime wrote:1155830373[/unixtime]]But why do you have all the books if they suck so much? Didnt you get wise after the first two or three?

The reason why?

Besides, the Ritual of Alignment can add or remove alignment subtypes.

I again bow before the creative prowess of Frank and K

1154946434[/unixtime]] The second thing to do is figure out the time involved in constructing such a thing. This will probably involve craft(type) specific rules based on real world times. For instance, most swords have a single piece that includes the blade and a tapered bit of metal that extends ...

Can you cite a source for the idea that all actions performed by a creature with an alignment subtype are actions of that alignment? Because I don't believe that.[br][br][edit]If you were to have it as a rule that [alignment] creatures could only perform [alignment] actions, then you'd either have a...

The thing is, having the [good/evil] subtypes doesn't make it impossible to do things that are of the opposite alignment, that I know of.

Please cite stuff that says that alignment subtypes actually make it impossible (rather than difficult) to perform alignment-opposed acts.

Saying angels can't fall because if they do, they aren't angels anymore is like saying trees cant be made into furniture because if they are, they aren't trees anymore.

1154760124[/unixtime]] I'm sure someone will be along in a moment to point out the flaws in this system, but it seems better than what we have now. [br][br]Good call.[br][br]If Lawfulness is stagnation, it makes it pretty hard for there to be Lawful actions , doesn't it?[br][br]You can't do the lac...

Anyone got a link to all this 'deontological, generalisable stuff' for beginners?

What I meant was, given that law and chaos seem to be so bad, I am sure that if I look into it, I will find that good and evil are also incomprehensible gibberish - thousands of years of discussion on the subject notwithstanding

When I was studying themodynamics, I had this professor who was really great at lecturing - whilst you were there sitting in the lecture hall, you understood his subject and what he was talking about perfectly - but when you left, the effect wore off and you were confused again :([br][br]Sometimes, ...

Evil 101 gets my vote

Re: undead and critical hit immunity, wouldn't just making their 'immunity to crits' into 'immunity to extra damage from crits (and sneak etc)' work?[br][br]I seem to recall seeing that wording in some of the more recent wizards products anyway.[br][br]That way you can still stake a vampire, or vorp...

Re: Giants and Monstrous Humanoids - I see no reason why (giant) and (monstrous) shouldn't be subtypes, or qualifiers or whatever.[br][br]That way you could have giant animals and giant insects and even stuff like the Titan would be able to be a giant and still be an outsider or whatever, (although ...

Count_Arioch_the_28th at [unixtime wrote:1153618741[/unixtime]]What's a Diety?

Any creature with Deific Rank?

Although I guess that's a bit circular...

How are creatures that can use their front ambulatory limbs as manipulatory limbs (like a dragon, or a baboon) dealt-with slot-wise?[br][br]It seems that they ought to be able to use different items than a horse or a pegasus...[br][br]Or maybe there should just be a 'forelimb' slot, rather than a 'b...

Why not make 'with wings' a subtype?[br][br]So you get Humanoid and Quadruped and you add (Winged) instead of 2 more Types.[br][br]That leaves you with:[br][br]Humanoid (Orc)[br]+ [Winged] (Deva)[br]Humanoid with 4 Arms (Thri-Kreen).[br]Fish (Dolphin)[br]Quadraped (Horse)[br]+ [Winged] (Dragon)[br]O...

I like the type=slots idea. are there any other ideas for what types should be that might turn out even better?

What would you do with the current Type/subtype system?[br][br]My GM and I thought about this a while back, and came up with the idea that all creatures should be one of three types: Animal, Plant and Elemental (depending on what they're made of) (and as a jest on Animal/Vegetable/Mineral) with ever...

I also think that multiple pairs of arms would tend to merit LA.

Assuming the race doesnt have some other nasty downside.

Hmmmm.... sounds like a good idea.. X/day 'until your next action' uses of any one fighter feat you qualify for, graduating up to either 1/round or multiple feats or lasting for more duration or several of those...

Too powerful? Just right?