More just dungeons and dragons in general, but it's funny that the Wisdom stat is both judgement ability and perceptive ability.
"The sage understanding of the universe of an old scholar, and good eyesight, these are the same thing, right? Like if you have one, you obviously have the other."
Perception isn't good eyesight. Its how well you recognize details or pick up on small inconsitencsies. A person could have perfect eyesight, yet fail to notice trail sign of a grizzly bear. A person can be blind, but pick out an inconsitency in someone's story or speech pattern when they are lying.
Perception is just the ability to pick up on small details that others miss. Good eyesight would help, yes, but they are not intertwined.
Perception is both. I was obviously over-simplifying things for humor's sake, in the spirit of the thread, but to say Perception doesn't encompass the senses at all is just false.
From the 5E Handbook. It clearly states that perception encompasses "The Keenness of the Senses". I don't know why we're arguing as if words have 1 definition, or DnD Stats only encompass one thing.
Just a couple highlights from how this whole discussion got started, with the moments where you said it wasn't both and I said it was bolded for emphasis.
More just dungeons and dragons in general, but it's funny that the Wisdom stat is both judgement ability and perceptive ability.
"The sage understanding of the universe of an old scholar, and good eyesight, these are the same thing, right? Like if you have one, you obviously have the other."
Perception isn't good eyesight. Its how well you recognize details or pick up on small inconsitencsies. A person could have perfect eyesight, yet fail to notice trail sign of a grizzly bear. A person can be blind, but pick out an inconsitency in someone's story or speech pattern when they are lying.
Perception is just the ability to pick up on small details that others miss. Good eyesight would help, yes, but they are not intertwined.
Perception is both. I was obviously over-simplifying things for humor's sake, in the spirit of the thread, but to say Perception doesn't encompass the senses at all is just false.
From the 5E Handbook. It clearly states that perception encompasses "The Keenness of the Senses". I don't know why we're arguing as if words have 1 definition, or DnD Stats only encompass one thing.
Just a couple highlights from how this whole discussion got started, with the moments where you said it wasn't both and I said it was bolded for emphasis.
@Chronicler Looks like we have a classic misunderstanding here. I was saying that perception was neither only ONLY good eyesight, or that good eyesight had to be present for someone to be perceptive. I thought you were saying the latter of the two throughout your posts.
It is customary, when ordering at a tavern, to walk behind the bar and get directly in the tavern keepers face. Occasionally bringing all your companions back with you. Really, nobody will mind.
It is customary, when ordering at a tavern, to walk behind the bar and get directly in the tavern keepers face. Occasionally bringing all your companions back with you. Really, nobody will mind.
What about some summons as well?
Oh... and don't forget familiars and animal companions...
also even if in the rl you have the other people become more friendly and willing to share with you gossips and information if you offer them something to drink in the magic bg world it happens if you buy the drinks for yourself, the more you are drunk the more the people is friendly with you and willing to talk with you, does not matter if they are maybe completely sober and don't have much money in their pockets to buy themselves a drink.
thing that is often true as you can see if you pick pocket them, often they have a single gp in the pocket.
also even if in the rl you have the other people become more friendly and willing to share with you gossips and information if you offer them something to drink in the magic bg world it happens if you buy the drinks for yourself, the more you are drunk the more the people is friendly with you and willing to talk with you, does not matter if they are maybe completely sober and don't have much money in their pockets to buy themselves a drink.
thing that is often true as you can see if you pick pocket them, often they have a single gp in the pocket.
Is that what the implication was there?
I thought it was just that as you stayed longer, drinking and socializing, you got more information. Not that anybody's lips became looser or anything. It's just a social establishment where you go to hear rumors and such.
What you say kind of makes sense though, in terms of this being a drinking establishment, and the booze itself having certain implications for information gathering. Maybe I've been reading this all wrong the whole time.
well. if you park the party inside a tavern and let the timer go you can spend there many in game days, or even rl ones, and you will never hear a gossip or new.
but as soon as you drink...
the more you drink the better it is, hic, burp, sorry, too much beer, i have to go to piss now
It is customary, when ordering at a tavern, to walk behind the bar and get directly in the tavern keepers face. Occasionally bringing all your companions back with you. Really, nobody will mind.
What about some summons as well?
Oh... and don't forget familiars and animal companions...
No one even blinks an eyebrow when you walk into the bar with a skeleton warrior walking in your footsteps.
well. if you park the party inside a tavern and let the timer go you can spend there many in game days, or even rl ones, and you will never hear a gossip or new.
but as soon as you drink...
the more you drink the better it is, hic, burp, sorry, too much beer, i have to go to piss now
I mean, yeah, in gameplay terms they haven't implemented an actual bouncer to toss you out on your butt if you try to loiter around in the bar all day without drinking.
I would think the implication would still be that you can't actually just stick around all day loitering if you don't plan on patronizing the establishment within the fiction of the game.
Though I'm starting to realize that I might be over-analyzing things. You brought up that idea and it seemed so interesting and plausible, that I might be buttering up people with drinks to get them to share otherwise closely guarded information, that for a moment I took it seriously and forgot we were in a thread to poke fun at the foibles of the game.
It is customary, when ordering at a tavern, to walk behind the bar and get directly in the tavern keepers face. Occasionally bringing all your companions back with you. Really, nobody will mind.
What about some summons as well?
Oh... and don't forget familiars and animal companions...
No one even blinks an eyebrow when you walk into the bar with a skeleton warrior walking in your footsteps.
Bassilus desecrates some remains and the whole town gets up in arms. You go prancing about with your skeleton servant and nobody says a word.
Hmmm so the conclusion is that to have the most information in game you should go into an alcoholic coma while surrounded by an undead army you just summoned? Maybe a gate spell just before the coma as well to maximize information gathering?
In pen and paper there's apparently a low level druid spell that lets you link your mind to a random wild animal. It's so basic even certain barbarian specs can do it. Basically you'd use it to scout out an area by "seeing" through the eyes of a hawk that's passing by. Or get a sense of who's been here by smelling through the nose of a wolf who's currently sniffing a nearby tree. That sort of thing.
So for maximized information gathering, have your druid companion call a bunch of woodland creatures into the bar. Then you can use them to eavesdrop on every conversation going on simultaneously, ideally while tanked out of your gourd. The bartender obviously would not object to his bar being overrun with badgers, weasels, lemurs, and marmosets.
bg logic: the helm of opposite alignment.
if a chaotic or lawful toon equip it his alignment is changed to the opposite one.
the same is true for good and evil.
but if a toon is neutral he remains neutral.
it seems logical, but it is not so...
why? because the opposite of being neutral, so in the middle, balanced, is to not be balanced, to be all to one side.
so the proper implementation of the helm should make a neutral toon change randomly his alignment into something different.
a druid, true neutral, should become randomly chaotic good or evil or lawful good or evil.
and a neutral evil toon should become randomly chaotic good or lawful good.
this is a proper logic, the bg one is flawed at this regard.
@mlnevese chaotic good and lawful evil are extremes as well, so flip 2 coins, one for each of the 2 factors that determine alignment. and when only one factor is at the center flip the coin only for it and change the other factor to its opposite without flipping. @Chronicler for someone that is already at one extreme the opposite is to be at the other extreme.
even if
in a sf novel from the asimof's foundation saga actually the other extreme of the galaxy at the end reveals to be the center of it as being the galaxy shaped like a disc the edge is a circle, so has not extremes
but to be in the centre, remain neutral, can not be the opposite of being neutral.
Of course To remain neutral isn't the opposite of neutral.
The point is that it has no opposite. You can't reverse it like you would reverse good or evil, law or chaos. Neutral is outside the scope of a Helmet of Opposite Alignment. With nothing to reverse it has nothing to do here.
Edit: got a bit hot headed. This is a petty disagreement and I shouldn't be getting confrontational like that. Edited to be more civil.
That being said, if the helmet of opposite alignment worked like that, I wonder what the implications of that would be for druids.
Does Jaheira become a fallen druid when she puts on the helmet? She no longer meets her class requirements. In theory, whatever higher power grants her druid magic isn't cool with her anymore.
She's already kind of good aligned in practice, but she's considered neutral because she frames her good actions around like nature and trees and stuff. So does Jaheira become a city slicker when she puts on the helmet? An oil tycoon?
also being lawful is not the opposite of being chaotic, the opposite of being chaotic is to be methodical and predictable and the opposite of being lawful is to break the laws or lack of a personal code of conduct.
but in the game lawful and chaotic are words used to define the extremes of a characteristic of the personality, as well as good and evil, even if what is good and what is evil can differ depending on cultural factors, for the spartans to kill the weak babies throwing them down a cliff was good, for us is usually regarded as a very evil thing to do.
and neutral in the game defines to be in the middle, in a balanced positions between the 2 extremes.
and the opposite of being balanced is to be out of balance, to "fall" to one of the extremes.
but anyway no one is really talking of changing the helmet, we are only having fun talking of weird or supposed weird logic used it the game. and arguing on the alternative logic proposed has sense only if it adds fun to the topic, at the end is not important that a logic or the other prevails.
i gave my opinion on the helmet and you gave yours, to read about them can be entertaining for the other forum users, and we both have good points to remain each one on his position.
so let's focus on the next topic, the simulacrums.
in the pnp it is stated that the simulacrum clone and his equipment are made of ice, water vapor condensed and frozen.
so a simulacrum clone if he tries to mlee a fire giant or a fire elemental should melt and vanish. before it happens i am not sure if his weapon should do double damage, as water and cold are enemies of fire, or be ineffective as the fire melts the ice.
what do you think about?
so let's focus on the next topic, the simulacrums.
in the pnp it is stated that the simulacrum clone and his equipment are made of ice, water vapor condensed and frozen.
so a simulacrum clone if he tries to mlee a fire giant or a fire elemental should melt and vanish. before it happens i am not sure if his weapon should do double damage, as water and cold are enemies of fire, or be ineffective as the fire melts the ice.
what do you think about?
I'd say whether it's water or ice, it should come with a penalty to fire resistance. I assume that if it melts or dissipates it'll be unable to retain its form, and thus no longer function as a simulacrum. As high level magic you probably couldn't mess it up with like an ordinary torch or anything but that +2 enchanted flame sword is probably gonna mess with its structural integrity above and beyond what it would do against a non-watery opponent.
Instead of the neutral character's alignment changing, perhaps their implementation of it would change. Instead of maintaining balance they seek to disrupt it. I'm just throwing out an idea here, trying to consider it all as I type. What does anyone else think this would look like? Going into "balanced" regions and determining the best course to bring about... Order over chaos? Evil over good? Or would they simply withdraw from life, never again working towards achieving/maintain the balance?
if there is no clear opposite then maybe not having one altogether is the opposite. No negative or positive repercussions throughout the rewards and events any which way you go.
If dragons breathe fire, why don't they suffocate? There's not a lot of fire around to breathe.
I know it really means they exhale fire, but that's not how we normally use the word breathe. We say "humans breathe air," not "humans breathe carbon dioxide."
If dragons breathe fire, why don't they suffocate? There's not a lot of fire around to breathe.
I know it really means they exhale fire, but that's not how we normally use the word breathe. We say "humans breathe air," not "humans breathe carbon dioxide."
Good point.
Fire Elementals on the other hand, probably do breath fire. The Plane of Fire, where they come from, is just made entirely of fire, in different forms and states, from what I understand. The air is fire. The ground is fire. So on and so forth.
Which makes me imagine an anticlimax where you summon your mighty fire elemental and then it just flops around like a fish on dry land gasping for fire.
If dragons breathe fire, why don't they suffocate? There's not a lot of fire around to breathe.
I know it really means they exhale fire, but that's not how we normally use the word breathe. We say "humans breathe air," not "humans breathe carbon dioxide."
I can actually explain that. Dragons don't breathe fire in the sense that they require fire in order to continue breathing but in the sense that they are able to fire....fire (or another element depending on the dragon) at someone they wish to attack. They do not NEED the breath weapon in order to survive but it certain helps to prevent their opponents from surviving.
Comments
Just a couple highlights from how this whole discussion got started, with the moments where you said it wasn't both and I said it was bolded for emphasis.
They don't call you Chronicler for nothing...
What about some summons as well?
Oh... and don't forget familiars and animal companions...
thing that is often true as you can see if you pick pocket them, often they have a single gp in the pocket.
Is that what the implication was there?
I thought it was just that as you stayed longer, drinking and socializing, you got more information. Not that anybody's lips became looser or anything. It's just a social establishment where you go to hear rumors and such.
What you say kind of makes sense though, in terms of this being a drinking establishment, and the booze itself having certain implications for information gathering. Maybe I've been reading this all wrong the whole time.
but as soon as you drink...
the more you drink the better it is, hic, burp, sorry, too much beer, i have to go to piss now
No one even blinks an eyebrow when you walk into the bar with a skeleton warrior walking in your footsteps.
I mean, yeah, in gameplay terms they haven't implemented an actual bouncer to toss you out on your butt if you try to loiter around in the bar all day without drinking.
I would think the implication would still be that you can't actually just stick around all day loitering if you don't plan on patronizing the establishment within the fiction of the game.
Though I'm starting to realize that I might be over-analyzing things. You brought up that idea and it seemed so interesting and plausible, that I might be buttering up people with drinks to get them to share otherwise closely guarded information, that for a moment I took it seriously and forgot we were in a thread to poke fun at the foibles of the game.
Bassilus desecrates some remains and the whole town gets up in arms. You go prancing about with your skeleton servant and nobody says a word.
So for maximized information gathering, have your druid companion call a bunch of woodland creatures into the bar. Then you can use them to eavesdrop on every conversation going on simultaneously, ideally while tanked out of your gourd. The bartender obviously would not object to his bar being overrun with badgers, weasels, lemurs, and marmosets.
if a chaotic or lawful toon equip it his alignment is changed to the opposite one.
the same is true for good and evil.
but if a toon is neutral he remains neutral.
it seems logical, but it is not so...
why? because the opposite of being neutral, so in the middle, balanced, is to not be balanced, to be all to one side.
so the proper implementation of the helm should make a neutral toon change randomly his alignment into something different.
a druid, true neutral, should become randomly chaotic good or evil or lawful good or evil.
and a neutral evil toon should become randomly chaotic good or lawful good.
this is a proper logic, the bg one is flawed at this regard.
A good character who puts on the helmet doesn't merely become Not Good. They become Evil. There is no equivalent to that for Neutrality.
@Chronicler for someone that is already at one extreme the opposite is to be at the other extreme.
even if
The point is that it has no opposite. You can't reverse it like you would reverse good or evil, law or chaos. Neutral is outside the scope of a Helmet of Opposite Alignment. With nothing to reverse it has nothing to do here.
Edit: got a bit hot headed. This is a petty disagreement and I shouldn't be getting confrontational like that. Edited to be more civil.
Does Jaheira become a fallen druid when she puts on the helmet? She no longer meets her class requirements. In theory, whatever higher power grants her druid magic isn't cool with her anymore.
She's already kind of good aligned in practice, but she's considered neutral because she frames her good actions around like nature and trees and stuff. So does Jaheira become a city slicker when she puts on the helmet? An oil tycoon?
but in the game lawful and chaotic are words used to define the extremes of a characteristic of the personality, as well as good and evil, even if what is good and what is evil can differ depending on cultural factors, for the spartans to kill the weak babies throwing them down a cliff was good, for us is usually regarded as a very evil thing to do.
and neutral in the game defines to be in the middle, in a balanced positions between the 2 extremes.
and the opposite of being balanced is to be out of balance, to "fall" to one of the extremes.
but anyway no one is really talking of changing the helmet, we are only having fun talking of weird or supposed weird logic used it the game. and arguing on the alternative logic proposed has sense only if it adds fun to the topic, at the end is not important that a logic or the other prevails.
i gave my opinion on the helmet and you gave yours, to read about them can be entertaining for the other forum users, and we both have good points to remain each one on his position.
so let's focus on the next topic, the simulacrums.
in the pnp it is stated that the simulacrum clone and his equipment are made of ice, water vapor condensed and frozen.
so a simulacrum clone if he tries to mlee a fire giant or a fire elemental should melt and vanish. before it happens i am not sure if his weapon should do double damage, as water and cold are enemies of fire, or be ineffective as the fire melts the ice.
what do you think about?
What would it entail to lack an alignment?
I'd say whether it's water or ice, it should come with a penalty to fire resistance. I assume that if it melts or dissipates it'll be unable to retain its form, and thus no longer function as a simulacrum. As high level magic you probably couldn't mess it up with like an ordinary torch or anything but that +2 enchanted flame sword is probably gonna mess with its structural integrity above and beyond what it would do against a non-watery opponent.
If dragons breathe fire, why don't they suffocate? There's not a lot of fire around to breathe.
I know it really means they exhale fire, but that's not how we normally use the word breathe. We say "humans breathe air," not "humans breathe carbon dioxide."
Good point.
Fire Elementals on the other hand, probably do breath fire. The Plane of Fire, where they come from, is just made entirely of fire, in different forms and states, from what I understand. The air is fire. The ground is fire. So on and so forth.
Which makes me imagine an anticlimax where you summon your mighty fire elemental and then it just flops around like a fish on dry land gasping for fire.
I can actually explain that. Dragons don't breathe fire in the sense that they require fire in order to continue breathing but in the sense that they are able to fire....fire (or another element depending on the dragon) at someone they wish to attack. They do not NEED the breath weapon in order to survive but it certain helps to prevent their opponents from surviving.