DM's Help? Whispers ot Vamp Blade+Art L5 [Archive] - Wizards Community

DM's Help? Whispers ot Vamp Blade+Art L5 [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Elderich
11-07-05, 05:54 PM So my party is chasing the vampire through the country at high speed and we keep getting hit with undead creatures. We level to 5 and the artificer buys some magical supplies at a passing caravan.

Next day a hord of skeletons attack us in the middle of the night. The Artificer casts armor enhancement greater, and chooses undead control twice for his shield.

1) Do you agree it is legal?, why or why not?
2) Artificer now has 2, 13 level castings of a 7th level spell, for a 3rd level infusion slot, and 100GP ointment. Balanced?

The DM feels this is rather unbalancing, especially in an undead campaign. Note the DM is generally giving us one hard encounter a day, (as the rest of day we are zipping along in a carraige chasing the BBEG). Not the expected 4.

This is leading to a small amount of hard feelings. If you have any suggestions please share.
jonthegm
11-07-05, 06:38 PM I disagree, but qualified disagreement.

I don't believe enchanting a shield with +1 and then with +1 should work either.

However, I don't know what the specifics of Undead Control is, because it's not core, and I don't have any non-core material at my fingertips.
a_psh
11-07-05, 08:51 PM I disagree, but qualified disagreement.

I don't believe enchanting a shield with +1 and then with +1 should work either.

However, I don't know what the specifics of Undead Control is, because it's not core, and I don't have any non-core material at my fingertips.
It is core:
Undead Controlling

The wearer of a suit of armor or a shield with this property may control up to 26 HD of undead per day, as the control undead spell. At dawn each day, the wearer loses control of any undead still under his sway. Armor or a shield with this ability appears to be made of bone; this feature is entirely decorative and has no other effect on the armor.

Strong necromancy; CL 13th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, control undead; Price +49,000 gp. (link (http://d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicArmor.htm#undeadControlling))

...

I think it's perfectly legitimate. I can see the DM being slightly miffed if you just dominate the hell out of the vampire, but, since we're talking skeletons here... would the DM be angry if a cleric just turned the lot of them?

Vampire can dominate people and command animals. This means two things:
1. The vampire can actually more easily send living things against the party than undead anyway (and with, say, dominated human soldiers, you probably have to work extra-hard to make sure you don't just defeat them, but also that you don't kill them).
2. He can dominate the party. The party can dominate him. I call that a fair shot.

ADDENDUM: You can't stack casting of the armor or weapon enhancement infusions, though. At best, the artificer could enchant his shield and his armor both once, or his own gear and an ally's.
Sieylianna
11-08-05, 07:16 AM It's not going to stack, he's only going to have one undead control in effect. And I'd have to read the artificer rules in detail to know if this is even legal. If it's legal, it's only because they unwisely made it a GP cost instead of an item enhancement bonus.

There is also a will saving throw for the undead.

I think it's a waste on skeletons, any cleric worth his salt is going to destroy skeletons at level 5.

Ed
MarkB
11-08-05, 08:22 AM Spells providing the same bonus or penalty usually do not stack with each other, so casting Greater Armour Augmentation twice on the same object for the same effect would not stack.

Additionally, you seem to be implying that he got both augmentations from a single casting. This is definitely completely wrong - Armour Augmentation gets you a single armour or shield ability worth up to +5 or 100,000 gp, not a shopping-list of individual abilities totalling that value.

However, the spell could be cast twice on two different shields to similar effect.

EDIT: One more thing - I presume the character did burn an Action Point to cast that infusion? If he didn't, it would have taken 1 minute to cast, by which time the battle would be over.
Chiyo
11-08-05, 12:39 PM As MarkB said, you can't stack the same augmentations twice. You can't give a sword two flaming enchantments or two keen enchantments and have them stack. Same for armor enhancements. Even if artificer used two different infusions which she would have to in this case.

Furthermore, this is not legal. Armor enhancement infusion wording states that "you can choose any special ability". If it could provide more than one, "ability" would have had a plural added such as "ability(ies)". It could have been written as "you can choose any number of special abilities whose total market price ..." Thus, artificer can have control undead but nothing else even if that's only 49000 gp worth and infusion would allow up to 100,000 gp. Especially not twice the number of HD.

Now, that's still 1 undead control ability which could get 26 HD of undeads as per the control undead spell. Note however that the control undead spell has a will save (DC 19), and SR. If it was in my campaign, Lucan would ALWAYS make his save and I'd still roll for all the skeletons since some might make it.

Additionally, the undead controlling would only last the duration of the infusion. Once infusion duration runs out, the controlled undead would then turn onto the PCs normally.

Like someone said above, using it to end up controlling some skeletons is somewhat underwhelming for the 100 gp cost plus an action point. Depends on how many and whether you have a cleric in group but still, those should start becoming yard trash at lvl 5 if not from the cleric but from the fireballing wizard and the rest of the group.

Even assuming the artificer turns those skeletons onto Lucan, he's immune to their attacks for the most part due to his DR and can just flee the scene and come back an hour later having regenerated once the skeletons are no longer in the artificer's control. They're a nice hassle tactic and I'd be fine with letting the artificer blow 100 gp a few times a day for it. It's not even giving XP for killing the skeletons since those are summoned by Lucan and thus part of his XP value. Not really much more than a hassle and the trip is long enough such that the artificer will lose his shirt if he keeps that up a couple of times per day (not to mention run out of action point quickly).

Also Lucan is smart. the second time around, his first action will be trying to charm the artificer and run away if that fails. If need be he can try it a couple of times. It could turn ugly. Artificer casts infusion, gets in control of skeletons, gets charmed by Lucan and tries to finish off the rest of the party with the help of Lucan and the mass of controlled skeletons.

This ability is very powerful but I think that in this case, it's manageable if DM is careful about it.
a_psh
11-08-05, 02:40 PM Additionally, (don't read if you're playing it at the moment) other than Lucan and a big zombie near the end, I don't think there are even any undead in the entire adventure.
Elderich
11-12-05, 01:04 PM Sorry for the delay in getting back to you all.

As Chiyo correctly noted, I was not asking about stacking the infusions, but using the infusion to get the same armor ability twice.

And note that we are still in the first?? chase of Lucan, and the DM may have spiced up the adventure with "random" undead encounters to further the theam/flavor.

You can't give a sword two flaming enchantments or two keen enchantments and have them stack. Same for armor enhancements. Even if artificer used two different infusions which she would have to in this case.While this is the case, it is not strictly so. The Keen and Flaming enhancements do not stack because they are from the same source. Same source not stacking rules apply. This is not strictly true for things like blinding, which one could put on twice and activate each seperatly with different targets. The target is not being effected twice from the same source.Furthermore, this is not legal. Armor enhancement infusion wording states that "you can choose any special ability". If it could provide more than one, "ability" would have had a plural added such as "ability(ies)". It could have been written as "you can choose any number of special abilities whose total market price ..." Thus, artificer can have control undead but nothing else even if that's only 49000 gp worth and infusion would allow up to 100,000 gp. Especially not twice the number of HD.While one could infer a singular case, it should be pointed out the wording does not restrict uses to only one case of one enhancement, such as a wording like "you may only choose one ehnacement to apply once" would do. Such a restricted wording is used in cases in which a restricted intent is desired. Is it so overpowering to allow the whole enhancment budget cost be used, considering the 100GP casting cost and the 3rd level slot? On the other side there is no mechanism explained for getting, for example; one +2 and one 40,000 GP enhancement. One could use the item creation rules, but, strictly, it is not explained.

I do not wish to debate the wording. Let us agree one could assume only one enhancement, or multiple, and each group may discuss it and decide amongst themselves.Now, that's still 1 undead control ability which could get 26 HD of undeads as per the control undead spell. Note however that the control undead spell has a will save (DC 19), and SR. If it was in my campaign, Lucan would ALWAYS make his save and I'd still roll for all the skeletons since some might make it.

Additionally, the undead controlling would only last the duration of the infusion. Once infusion duration runs out, the controlled undead would then turn onto the PCs normally.Agreed. And note we are still "chasing". I have not used it on Lucan directly. I do not know the adventure, but it seems that at the end of the adventure, after a bit of a battle it might make a good way to bring him in alive. Assuming it does actualy work and he fails his save.Like someone said above, using it to end up controlling some skeletons is somewhat underwhelming for the 100 gp cost plus an action point. Depends on how many and whether you have a cleric in group but still, those should start becoming yard trash at lvl 5 if not from the cleric but from the fireballing wizard and the rest of the group.The party is more for fun, and we have no wizard or cleric. Hence the situation came up. I belive the casting is a standard action.

Since I was unclear about the stacking of infusions (which is not what i intended to ask) I ask thoes who wish to revisit to comment on...
1) Should the armor enhancement be allowed to include more than one enhancement? Why, or why not?

2) Does the existance of a 3rd level infusion (costing 100GP per cast) that gives a 5th level character an Undead effecting 13th level casting of a 7th level spell make the artificer somehow unbalanced?
jonthegm
11-12-05, 01:53 PM I do not wish to debate the wording.

Let us agree one could assume only one enhancement, or multiple, and each group may discuss it and decide amongst themselves.Agreed. And note we are still "chasing". I have not used it on Lucan directly. I do not know the adventure, but it seems that at the end of the adventure, after a bit of a battle it might make a good way to bring him in alive. Assuming it does actualy work and he fails his save.The party is more for fun, and we have no wizard or cleric. Hence the situation came up. I belive the casting is a standard action.
You're wrong, though, it says "Ability" and from the examples given it CLEARLY means that you can only choose one.

2) Does the existance of a 3rd level infusion (costing 100GP per cast) that gives a 5th level character an Undead effecting 13th level casting of a 7th level spell make the artificer somehow unbalanced?
No, because the casting time is 1 minute, and it only lasts 10 minutes per level. That's about an hour.

If you burn an action point, that drops it to a FULL ROUND action, not a standard action. Lucan should EASILY be able to disrupt your infusion (his to-hit is INSANE)

From the ECS: Hasten Infusion: On his turn, an artificer can spend 1 action point to imbue an infusion in 1 round, even if the infusion's casting time is normally longer than 1 round.

also, Control undead lasts 13 minutes. You can control Lucan for... I'd say a couple hours a day, and then he gets you because you've burned two level 3 infusions.
Elderich
11-12-05, 02:01 PM You're wrong, though, it says "Ability" and from the examples given it CLEARLY means that you can only choose one.Oh, well I have been told I was wrong by someone on the internet. Let me go and contemplate the depth of thought that went into such a well reasoned argument.
jonthegm
11-12-05, 02:06 PM Oh, well I have been told I was wrong by someone on the internet. Let me go and contemplate the depth of thought that went into such a well reasoned argument.
It's not my fault you didn't read Lesser Armor Enhancement. "The armor or shield you touch temporarily gains a special ability commonly found on magic armor or shields."

Clearly singular.
Elderich
11-12-05, 02:08 PM It's not my fault you didn't read Lesser Armor Enhancement. "The armor or shield you touch temporarily gains a special ability commonly found on magic armor or shields."

Clearly singular.but not exclusivly so, and with lessers very small boost the possability of different enhancements is just not there.

Again with the good thinking.
jonthegm
11-12-05, 02:14 PM but not exclusivly so, and with lessers very small boost the possability of different enhancements is just not there.

Again with the good thinking.
This is all beside the point, critical reading failures aside, because Undead Controlling is a crappy enchantment when it only lasts for 50 minutes, and the undead get a saving throw every 13 minutes.
Elderich
11-12-05, 02:16 PM This is all beside the point, critical reading failures aside, because Undead Controlling is a crappy enchantment when it only lasts for 50 minutes, and the undead get a saving throw every 13 minutes.So can't think your way out so you change the subject?

You only need to fail once, as you then command them to kill the remainders, then each other.

I mean really. Stop and think before you post.
jonthegm
11-12-05, 02:25 PM So can't think your way out so you change the subject?

You only need to fail once, as you then command them to kill the remainders, then each other.

I mean really. Stop and think before you post.
No, really, if the same enchantments don't stack, but are possible to put on one item, you've got two Undead Control enchantments that require a standard action to activate. This is FINE against mook undead. Really, it's not a big problem for GMs at all (or it shouldn't be). If the PCs are burning level 3 infusions on skeletons (and consequently wiping the floor with them), then hit 'em with wolves. Or bats. Or constructs. Or gnomish revolutionaries. This is burning a "command undead" spell (which is VERY limited in scope) instead of a 3d6+5 warforged heal, DR10/Adamantium for the WF tank, or a +2 Magic Weapon on the party damage dealer (which IS a standard action to cast!)

Remember that you're not the only crowd looking to stop Lucan, some may be a bit more... unscrupulous...

Also, as a GM, I'm holding back some information that might ruin the ending for you.
The Soul Blade has an EGO of 18, and is not undead...
Elderich
11-12-05, 02:27 PM Now we are getting somewhere.

Not a big deal, and there are a thousand ways to get around this very small advantage. Thanks
jonthegm
11-12-05, 02:44 PM Now we are getting somewhere.

Not a big deal, and there are a thousand ways to get around this very small advantage. Thanks
Ruminations on endgame and how terrible Undead Control really is.
The soul blade's Save DC is 18. Lucan is the one that makes the save, a significant majority of the time he will fail it. Also, he'll be making that save EVERY round. A run (180 feet) or double move/hustle (80 feet) action will EASILY get Lucan beyond the 55 foot range of the spell, breaking the effect. His Mobility gives him a 29 AC versus attacks of opportunity, his bat form can move even faster...
Lurkalot
11-12-05, 05:46 PM but not exclusivly so, and with lessers very small boost the possability of different enhancements is just not there.

Again with the good thinking.

Why, when you start a thread asking for opinions do you then patronise people who spare you the time to offer them?

Whilst and DM can rule howsoever they choose in their own game, the conventions of English grammar mean that "a special ability" is singular. That may not meet your expectations, but that is what it means and I would say that anyone who allows multiple abilities is house-ruling.

But your DM can give you an answer to whether this is allowed. The boards carry no weight there, we offer advice only and if you try to direct your DM to this thread then he is entirely in his rights to ignore everything we say. Your first post asks us to agree if what your party does is legal and says the issue is leading to bad feeling. I'm afraid that the replies so far are unanimous in saying that it isn't legal and even if it were the other way around, your DM would be under no pressure to listen to us.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Elderich 11-07-05, 05:54 PM	So my party is chasing the vampire through the country at high speed and we keep getting hit with undead creatures. We level to 5 and the artificer buys some magical supplies at a passing caravan. Next day a hord of skeletons attack us in the middle of the night. The Artificer casts armor enhancement greater, and chooses undead control twice for his shield. 1) Do you agree it is legal?, why or why not? 2) Artificer now has 2, 13 level castings of a 7th level spell, for a 3rd level infusion slot, and 100GP ointment. Balanced? The DM feels this is rather unbalancing, especially in an undead campaign. Note the DM is generally giving us one hard encounter a day, (as the rest of day we are zipping along in a carraige chasing the BBEG). Not the expected 4. This is leading to a small amount of hard feelings. If you have any suggestions please share.
jonthegm 11-07-05, 06:38 PM	I disagree, but qualified disagreement. I don't believe enchanting a shield with +1 and then with +1 should work either. However, I don't know what the specifics of Undead Control is, because it's not core, and I don't have any non-core material at my fingertips.
a_psh 11-07-05, 08:51 PM	I disagree, but qualified disagreement. I don't believe enchanting a shield with +1 and then with +1 should work either. However, I don't know what the specifics of Undead Control is, because it's not core, and I don't have any non-core material at my fingertips. It is core: Undead Controlling The wearer of a suit of armor or a shield with this property may control up to 26 HD of undead per day, as the control undead spell. At dawn each day, the wearer loses control of any undead still under his sway. Armor or a shield with this ability appears to be made of bone; this feature is entirely decorative and has no other effect on the armor. Strong necromancy; CL 13th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, control undead; Price +49,000 gp. (link (http://d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicArmor.htm#undeadControlling)) ... I think it's perfectly legitimate. I can see the DM being slightly miffed if you just dominate the hell out of the vampire, but, since we're talking skeletons here... would the DM be angry if a cleric just turned the lot of them? Vampire can dominate people and command animals. This means two things: 1. The vampire can actually more easily send living things against the party than undead anyway (and with, say, dominated human soldiers, you probably have to work extra-hard to make sure you don't just defeat them, but also that you don't kill them). 2. He can dominate the party. The party can dominate him. I call that a fair shot. ADDENDUM: You can't stack casting of the armor or weapon enhancement infusions, though. At best, the artificer could enchant his shield and his armor both once, or his own gear and an ally's.
Sieylianna 11-08-05, 07:16 AM	It's not going to stack, he's only going to have one undead control in effect. And I'd have to read the artificer rules in detail to know if this is even legal. If it's legal, it's only because they unwisely made it a GP cost instead of an item enhancement bonus. There is also a will saving throw for the undead. I think it's a waste on skeletons, any cleric worth his salt is going to destroy skeletons at level 5. Ed
MarkB 11-08-05, 08:22 AM	Spells providing the same bonus or penalty usually do not stack with each other, so casting Greater Armour Augmentation twice on the same object for the same effect would not stack. Additionally, you seem to be implying that he got both augmentations from a single casting. This is definitely completely wrong - Armour Augmentation gets you a single armour or shield ability worth up to +5 or 100,000 gp, not a shopping-list of individual abilities totalling that value. However, the spell could be cast twice on two different shields to similar effect. EDIT: One more thing - I presume the character did burn an Action Point to cast that infusion? If he didn't, it would have taken 1 minute to cast, by which time the battle would be over.
Chiyo 11-08-05, 12:39 PM	As MarkB said, you can't stack the same augmentations twice. You can't give a sword two flaming enchantments or two keen enchantments and have them stack. Same for armor enhancements. Even if artificer used two different infusions which she would have to in this case. Furthermore, this is not legal. Armor enhancement infusion wording states that "you can choose any special ability". If it could provide more than one, "ability" would have had a plural added such as "ability(ies)". It could have been written as "you can choose any number of special abilities whose total market price ..." Thus, artificer can have control undead but nothing else even if that's only 49000 gp worth and infusion would allow up to 100,000 gp. Especially not twice the number of HD. Now, that's still 1 undead control ability which could get 26 HD of undeads as per the control undead spell. Note however that the control undead spell has a will save (DC 19), and SR. If it was in my campaign, Lucan would ALWAYS make his save and I'd still roll for all the skeletons since some might make it. Additionally, the undead controlling would only last the duration of the infusion. Once infusion duration runs out, the controlled undead would then turn onto the PCs normally. Like someone said above, using it to end up controlling some skeletons is somewhat underwhelming for the 100 gp cost plus an action point. Depends on how many and whether you have a cleric in group but still, those should start becoming yard trash at lvl 5 if not from the cleric but from the fireballing wizard and the rest of the group. Even assuming the artificer turns those skeletons onto Lucan, he's immune to their attacks for the most part due to his DR and can just flee the scene and come back an hour later having regenerated once the skeletons are no longer in the artificer's control. They're a nice hassle tactic and I'd be fine with letting the artificer blow 100 gp a few times a day for it. It's not even giving XP for killing the skeletons since those are summoned by Lucan and thus part of his XP value. Not really much more than a hassle and the trip is long enough such that the artificer will lose his shirt if he keeps that up a couple of times per day (not to mention run out of action point quickly). Also Lucan is smart. the second time around, his first action will be trying to charm the artificer and run away if that fails. If need be he can try it a couple of times. It could turn ugly. Artificer casts infusion, gets in control of skeletons, gets charmed by Lucan and tries to finish off the rest of the party with the help of Lucan and the mass of controlled skeletons. This ability is very powerful but I think that in this case, it's manageable if DM is careful about it.
a_psh 11-08-05, 02:40 PM	Additionally, (don't read if you're playing it at the moment) other than Lucan and a big zombie near the end, I don't think there are even any undead in the entire adventure.
Elderich 11-12-05, 01:04 PM	Sorry for the delay in getting back to you all. As Chiyo correctly noted, I was not asking about stacking the infusions, but using the infusion to get the same armor ability twice. And note that we are still in the first?? chase of Lucan, and the DM may have spiced up the adventure with "random" undead encounters to further the theam/flavor. You can't give a sword two flaming enchantments or two keen enchantments and have them stack. Same for armor enhancements. Even if artificer used two different infusions which she would have to in this case.While this is the case, it is not strictly so. The Keen and Flaming enhancements do not stack because they are from the same source. Same source not stacking rules apply. This is not strictly true for things like blinding, which one could put on twice and activate each seperatly with different targets. The target is not being effected twice from the same source.Furthermore, this is not legal. Armor enhancement infusion wording states that "you can choose any special ability". If it could provide more than one, "ability" would have had a plural added such as "ability(ies)". It could have been written as "you can choose any number of special abilities whose total market price ..." Thus, artificer can have control undead but nothing else even if that's only 49000 gp worth and infusion would allow up to 100,000 gp. Especially not twice the number of HD.While one could infer a singular case, it should be pointed out the wording does not restrict uses to only one case of one enhancement, such as a wording like "you may only choose one ehnacement to apply once" would do. Such a restricted wording is used in cases in which a restricted intent is desired. Is it so overpowering to allow the whole enhancment budget cost be used, considering the 100GP casting cost and the 3rd level slot? On the other side there is no mechanism explained for getting, for example; one +2 and one 40,000 GP enhancement. One could use the item creation rules, but, strictly, it is not explained. I do not wish to debate the wording. Let us agree one could assume only one enhancement, or multiple, and each group may discuss it and decide amongst themselves.Now, that's still 1 undead control ability which could get 26 HD of undeads as per the control undead spell. Note however that the control undead spell has a will save (DC 19), and SR. If it was in my campaign, Lucan would ALWAYS make his save and I'd still roll for all the skeletons since some might make it. Additionally, the undead controlling would only last the duration of the infusion. Once infusion duration runs out, the controlled undead would then turn onto the PCs normally.Agreed. And note we are still "chasing". I have not used it on Lucan directly. I do not know the adventure, but it seems that at the end of the adventure, after a bit of a battle it might make a good way to bring him in alive. Assuming it does actualy work and he fails his save.Like someone said above, using it to end up controlling some skeletons is somewhat underwhelming for the 100 gp cost plus an action point. Depends on how many and whether you have a cleric in group but still, those should start becoming yard trash at lvl 5 if not from the cleric but from the fireballing wizard and the rest of the group.The party is more for fun, and we have no wizard or cleric. Hence the situation came up. I belive the casting is a standard action. Since I was unclear about the stacking of infusions (which is not what i intended to ask) I ask thoes who wish to revisit to comment on... 1) Should the armor enhancement be allowed to include more than one enhancement? Why, or why not? 2) Does the existance of a 3rd level infusion (costing 100GP per cast) that gives a 5th level character an Undead effecting 13th level casting of a 7th level spell make the artificer somehow unbalanced?
jonthegm 11-12-05, 01:53 PM	I do not wish to debate the wording. Let us agree one could assume only one enhancement, or multiple, and each group may discuss it and decide amongst themselves.Agreed. And note we are still "chasing". I have not used it on Lucan directly. I do not know the adventure, but it seems that at the end of the adventure, after a bit of a battle it might make a good way to bring him in alive. Assuming it does actualy work and he fails his save.The party is more for fun, and we have no wizard or cleric. Hence the situation came up. I belive the casting is a standard action. You're wrong, though, it says "Ability" and from the examples given it CLEARLY means that you can only choose one. 2) Does the existance of a 3rd level infusion (costing 100GP per cast) that gives a 5th level character an Undead effecting 13th level casting of a 7th level spell make the artificer somehow unbalanced? No, because the casting time is 1 minute, and it only lasts 10 minutes per level. That's about an hour. If you burn an action point, that drops it to a FULL ROUND action, not a standard action. Lucan should EASILY be able to disrupt your infusion (his to-hit is INSANE) From the ECS: Hasten Infusion: On his turn, an artificer can spend 1 action point to imbue an infusion in 1 round, even if the infusion's casting time is normally longer than 1 round. also, Control undead lasts 13 minutes. You can control Lucan for... I'd say a couple hours a day, and then he gets you because you've burned two level 3 infusions.
Elderich 11-12-05, 02:01 PM	You're wrong, though, it says "Ability" and from the examples given it CLEARLY means that you can only choose one.Oh, well I have been told I was wrong by someone on the internet. Let me go and contemplate the depth of thought that went into such a well reasoned argument.
jonthegm 11-12-05, 02:06 PM	Oh, well I have been told I was wrong by someone on the internet. Let me go and contemplate the depth of thought that went into such a well reasoned argument. It's not my fault you didn't read Lesser Armor Enhancement. "The armor or shield you touch temporarily gains a special ability commonly found on magic armor or shields." Clearly singular.
Elderich 11-12-05, 02:08 PM	It's not my fault you didn't read Lesser Armor Enhancement. "The armor or shield you touch temporarily gains a special ability commonly found on magic armor or shields." Clearly singular.but not exclusivly so, and with lessers very small boost the possability of different enhancements is just not there. Again with the good thinking.
jonthegm 11-12-05, 02:14 PM	but not exclusivly so, and with lessers very small boost the possability of different enhancements is just not there. Again with the good thinking. This is all beside the point, critical reading failures aside, because Undead Controlling is a crappy enchantment when it only lasts for 50 minutes, and the undead get a saving throw every 13 minutes.
Elderich 11-12-05, 02:16 PM	This is all beside the point, critical reading failures aside, because Undead Controlling is a crappy enchantment when it only lasts for 50 minutes, and the undead get a saving throw every 13 minutes.So can't think your way out so you change the subject? You only need to fail once, as you then command them to kill the remainders, then each other. I mean really. Stop and think before you post.
jonthegm 11-12-05, 02:25 PM	So can't think your way out so you change the subject? You only need to fail once, as you then command them to kill the remainders, then each other. I mean really. Stop and think before you post. No, really, if the same enchantments don't stack, but are possible to put on one item, you've got two Undead Control enchantments that require a standard action to activate. This is FINE against mook undead. Really, it's not a big problem for GMs at all (or it shouldn't be). If the PCs are burning level 3 infusions on skeletons (and consequently wiping the floor with them), then hit 'em with wolves. Or bats. Or constructs. Or gnomish revolutionaries. This is burning a "command undead" spell (which is VERY limited in scope) instead of a 3d6+5 warforged heal, DR10/Adamantium for the WF tank, or a +2 Magic Weapon on the party damage dealer (which IS a standard action to cast!) Remember that you're not the only crowd looking to stop Lucan, some may be a bit more... unscrupulous... Also, as a GM, I'm holding back some information that might ruin the ending for you. The Soul Blade has an EGO of 18, and is not undead...
Elderich 11-12-05, 02:27 PM	Now we are getting somewhere. Not a big deal, and there are a thousand ways to get around this very small advantage. Thanks
jonthegm 11-12-05, 02:44 PM	Now we are getting somewhere. Not a big deal, and there are a thousand ways to get around this very small advantage. Thanks Ruminations on endgame and how terrible Undead Control really is. The soul blade's Save DC is 18. Lucan is the one that makes the save, a significant majority of the time he will fail it. Also, he'll be making that save EVERY round. A run (180 feet) or double move/hustle (80 feet) action will EASILY get Lucan beyond the 55 foot range of the spell, breaking the effect. His Mobility gives him a 29 AC versus attacks of opportunity, his bat form can move even faster...
Lurkalot 11-12-05, 05:46 PM	but not exclusivly so, and with lessers very small boost the possability of different enhancements is just not there. Again with the good thinking. Why, when you start a thread asking for opinions do you then patronise people who spare you the time to offer them? Whilst and DM can rule howsoever they choose in their own game, the conventions of English grammar mean that "a special ability" is singular. That may not meet your expectations, but that is what it means and I would say that anyone who allows multiple abilities is house-ruling. But your DM can give you an answer to whether this is allowed. The boards carry no weight there, we offer advice only and if you try to direct your DM to this thread then he is entirely in his rights to ignore everything we say. Your first post asks us to agree if what your party does is legal and says the issue is leading to bad feeling. I'm afraid that the replies so far are unanimous in saying that it isn't legal and even if it were the other way around, your DM would be under no pressure to listen to us.