Talk:Defiant (3.5e Equipment)

From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Ratings[edit]

RatedNeutral.png Ghostwheel is neutral on this article and rated it 2 of 4.
While I do like the intent behind this, there are a few problems; first, it doesn't say what kind of action it is to change the bonus. And second, it doesn't have a range, meaning you can sit in a cage of rats in the morning and effectively have a few hundred opponents each fight. Plus, carrying the cage of rats would be just as effective if there was a limited range.

I Know I Just Commented, But...

This is even more bookkeeping than the spell it uses. Not only do you have to figure out what X, Y, and Z are each round, you have to decide which option you want up, as well, so let's hope that your party likes increasing the time it takes for you to take your turn by a minute every turn. </snark> --Undead_Knave (talk) 00:29, 22 May 2017 (MDT)

If you can find a better way to do it without ridding it of its functionality, by all means, enlighten me. Rather than range, I'd just considered the number of allies and enemies in that encounter period, so that the numbers are fixed per-encounter until a monster or PC is slain.
As for the snark I've received due to the math I'm "throwing all over the place", there was only one other instance in which that's been raised, and that was addressed. Furthermore... The entirety of this game is either math or roleplaying. Nobody likes calculating how much damage their Empowered Fireball just did to that monster than only takes half damage from Fire, but stuff like this exists all over the game. It's up to the individual DM to decide whether or not to use it. So while I can agree on simplifying it, insinuating that I purposefully or carelessly create math-intensive articles is not only incorrect but rather rude, especially when you aren't doing so in a positive manner. Criticism without suggestion for improvement is little more than vague complaining. I mean no rudeness by this, but if you're not going to attempt to improve the situation, why become involved at all? --Zhenra-Khal (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2017 (MDT)
I'm about to go to bed, but I'm writing this so I remember to actually be more constructive with my criticism tomorrow. I know a lot of my comments tonight haven't been very constructive, so I do apologize for that. --Undead_Knave (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2017 (MDT)
The bigger problem in my eyes is that "enemy" and "ally" are whatever you define them to be. You can define your companions as "enemies" if you want from moment to moment, and nothing in the rules says differently. You'll probably need a more concrete way to define them if you don't want it to be exploited :-3
Perhaps make it based on the number of creatures that used spells, abilities, effects, or attacks that would break invisibility on you? Though I suppose even that has the potential to be exploited if at level 10 your friend summons 1d4+1 CR 1/4 creatures to attack you, but it's a lot less iffy that way. --Ghostwheel (talk) 12:35, 22 May 2017 (MDT)
This is true, specifying enemy and ally should be more clear. Though, to clarify, it might be better to base it off of the other person's attitude toward you rather than how you see them. The armor might thus be able to warn you if one of your allies was turning on you, as well as not counting a charmed foe as an enemy. --Zhenra-Khal (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2017 (MDT)
That could be a bit cheat-y, since it would automatically tell you when hostile things are nearby, even if they were completely undetectable in any other way, or were perfectly bluffing you... In short, I think a better way of delineating friend and foe should be added to the article. --Ghostwheel (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2017 (MDT)
Logical. I shall set to work right away. --Zhenra-Khal (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2017 (MDT)