AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

Forum Post. Wiki isn't maintained nearly as well.

The forum post, in this instance.

That what I thought (and was hoping!). Thanks!

NamelessBard wrote:

That what I thought (and was hoping!). Thanks!

You're welcome!

Here's a general question:
Why am I generally smashing my head against my keyboard lately?

anyone?

anyone?

it's cause of A crashes. my head hurts.

NamelessBard wrote:

That what I thought (and was hoping!). Thanks!

If I remember, I will add a disclaimer to the wiki entry (after update) that the forum is always the principal source of information.

How resistant a Fire Genasi is to mundane fire?

Lore-wise, not at all. Non-magical fire does have listed damage values (see: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/power ... Flames.htm), but fire genasi don't have a listed fire resistance (not even with a "mundane-only" proviso). I don't know why it says they do in the Subraces section, but unless you're RPing being a hard-ass who can put cigarettes out with his eyeball or something it's fluff at best. My source is "Races of Faerun", the Fire Genasi entry. No mention of special resistance to mundane fire. I will note however, they do gain access to a feat which lets them use their Control Flames SLA to gain HP from touching a fire of a given size.

We had one a while back that drank liquid fire. They were told no by DM's. I've seen some claiming fiery hair, as in waving flames for hair. I'm thinking that's a no too. From what I've seen of the lore... aren't genasi similar to Tieflings and Aasimars in that they are essentially human or [insert base race here] with a tiny touch of planar blood? I mean... they're not planars, they're plane-touched. It's supposed to be like generations back or something? It's not like Dad is a Fire elemental. Or, maybe I have it wrong.

This is why I play humans. Simple. Easy.

That Guy wrote:

We had one a while back that drank liquid fire. They were told no by DM's. I've seen some claiming fiery hair, as in waving flames for hair. I'm thinking that's a no too. From what I've seen of the lore... aren't genasi similar to Tieflings and Aasimars in that they are essentially human or [insert base race here] with a tiny touch of planar blood? I mean... they're not planars, they're plane-touched. It's supposed to be like generations back or something? It's not like Dad is a Fire elemental. Or, maybe I have it wrong.

This is why I play humans. Simple. Easy.

Yeah. This is my understanding of it as well. Its enough of a touch that lets them toss fireballs but doesn't grant them immunity.

Lore-wise, it depends on what version of the lore. In their original planescape form, they were immune to nonmagic fire. But that was 2e.

In 3.5, the lore says they have two abilities not mentioned here.

Quote:

Control Flame (Sp): Once per day a fire genasi can cause any nonmagical flame within a 10-foot radius to either diminish to coals or flare to the brightness of daylight and double its radius of illumination. This magical effect does not change the heat or fuel consumption of the fire. This ability lasts for a number of minutes equal to the fire genasi's class level.
Fire Resistance (Ex): Fire genasi gain a +1 racial bonus on all saving throws against fire spells and effects. This bonus increases by +1 for every five additional levels the genasi attains.

Between the two, I'd probably give fire genasi a bit more leeway then others in how intimate they can get with nonmagic fire. But even fire resistant does not mean fire proof, by a long shot. Like Daenerys' fire proof hair? That crap broke my immersion.

The fireball thing here has always left me a bit stumped. It seems a strange choice of compromise.

Last edited by That Guy on Wed, May 20 2015, 17:25 PM, edited 1 time in total.

But... if they don't have those abilities as per our own lore for the subrace... why should they rp they do? Meaning... on our subrace thing on our own forum....

Quote:

Fire Genasi

Fire Genasi hail from the Elemental Plane of Fire, typically, or are conceived or descended from a creature that relates to the Elemental Plane of Fire. Fire Elementals, Efreet, and more are capable of producing Fire Genasi spawn. Fire Genasi native to Toril often originate from Calimshan, where Efreet once ruled.

Fire Genasi are moody, temperamental, highly emotionally charged, and relatively quick to anger. They act impulsively, and tend highly towards the chaotic end of the Law/Chaos spectrum. They're often seen as dangerous in society, since a Fire Genais's natural tendency to Wizardy and Magic, combined with impulsiveness, is an incredibly dangerous mixture. Their language, Ignan, sounds like the crackle of a gentle fire, or the roar of a wild blaze, depending on the emotions of the speaker.

Fire Genasi tend to have a few traits reflecting their heritage. Fire red hair or eyes, hair that waves like fire, a perpetual smell of soot and smoke, perpetually "hot" or sweaty skin, and an unnatural resistance to non-magical fire are only some of the factors that Fire Genasi often experience.

Racial traits: +2 Intelligence, -2 Charisma, Bonus Feat: Darkvision, Spell-Like Ability: Fireball, Racial Change: Outsider
Favored Class: Fighter
Recognized Keywords: fire

Ok, it says unnatural resistance to non-magical fire. But... it's not part of the subrace mechanics. I'm thinking this was just copied and pasted from a book. Why don't we have that line in the description removed or give them the resistance? I see it as a bit confusing myself.

Monsters of Faerun is probably the best choice cannon wise (being both 3.5 and FR) and is the source of Casvenx quote on 3.5 abilities. It also is pretty bold with depictions of how outsider blood shows itself in people like fire Genasi to quote it

Quote:

"Specific traits that distinguish fire
genasi from their human
ancestors can include deep
red or coal-black skin, red
hair that moves on its own
like waving flames, a voice
that crackles like the sound of
burning wood, warm or hot
flesh, or fiery eyes that glow
with flamelike
intensity"

So while no ACTUAL flame hair (without something like a DM approved DD type route for your Plannar-touched blood), is seems that flame-like hair is well within the norms.

Flame like, yes, I am talking ACTUAL flames for hair. That's a no.

There's a lot of 2e we don't use, and while it's a cool ability it doesn't really work consistently with 3e rules. That's why I won't lose my breakfast if I see one of them putting out matches with their armpits or whatever, but neither of my two fire genasi PCs (since retired) exhibited that sort of behaviour.

... Wait, what? In the books, Daenerys's hair does burn away, including later when [spoilerz]... (although really let's not try to find consistency in magical fireproofing).

Last edited by Casvenx on Wed, May 20 2015, 17:37 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Races of Faerun (is that 3, or 3.5?) actually gives them the ability to heal themselves with nonmagic fire.... and gives stats for bonfires and burning inns.

That 4e fire-hair nonsense was bad. I've always figured their 'fire-like' hair to be something like red hair dancing on heat waves.

Also as per our lore they really probably should get the same +1 per five levels to saving throws related to their relevant relation. Our mechanic on the server not reflecting lore correctly if more the issue it this particular case, whether it was a mistake or for balance, unless specified that Amia has home brewed the lore to the contrary I always take from the most cannon lore source.

But yeah actual flame hair and the like are most likely just generally not allowed (even in P&P) since to have actual flaming hair all the time is too high a level as it would entail constant, active and very skilled control over fire, which is not something Genasi should start with (although I wouldn't mind some interesting max level requests from specialized Genasi characters myself).

Casvenx wrote:

Races of Faerun (is that 3, or 3.5?) actually gives them the ability to heal themselves with nonmagic fire.... and gives stats for bonfires and burning inns.

That 4e fire-hair nonsense was bad. I've always figured their 'fire-like' hair to be something like red hair dancing on heat waves.

3.0, hey I already brought that up ):

MOF and ROF are the best choices to go off of (Both from later 3.0 but better than anything after). Players Guide to Faerun is 3.5 and contains some Genasi stuff but that is hardly the focus and it shows.

That Guy wrote:

But... if they don't have those abilities as per our own lore for the subrace... why should they rp they do? Meaning... on our subrace thing on our own forum....

Just pointing out that some things are probably not mentioned in our NWN specific lore because it couldn't be done in NWN. I mean, if we are looking at our game here, -no one- takes damage from non-magic flames, because they (mostly) don't actually deal damage (notable exceptions to a few environmental effects in some areas). So we are talking about RP abilities and what is acceptable there, not mechanics. A lot of fluff stuff isn't mentioned in our lore. The control flames and nonmagic fire resistance is fluff stuff. Most fluff gets referred back to canon lore.

I don't think that line should be removed either. If air and water genasi can breathe (or not breathe at all) underwater, fire genasi can have some nonmagic fire fluff.

I thought this will be a far more simpler answer, or I'd open a thread in Lore. Still unsure how resistant they are though.

For resistance I'd probably ballpark it as "flame resistant" just like if anyone has worn any thing "water resistant". For small amounts? Not bad at all. But anything actually serious and it really doesn't help much.*

*Of course that is opinion based on their given bonuses to saves listed in the mentioned documents.

Are druids confined to follow nature-based gods to receive their druid powers?

A nature based god, one of the Elemental Lords, or one of the Gods of Fury, I believe. I couldn't find a list, but there probably is one. A rule of thumb might be a deity having Plant, Animal, or an Element (Air, Water, Earth, Fire) in their portfolio is a possible candidate for druids.

The shortlist according to FRCS is apparently as follows:
Chauntea, Eldath, Gwaeron Windstrom,
Lurue, Malar, Mielikki, Nobanion, Shiallia, Silvanus, Talos, Ubtao,
Ulutiu, Umberlee, Anhur, Isis, Osiris, Sebek, Set, Thard Harr, Aerdrie
Faenya, Angharradh, Deep Sashelas, Rillifane Rallathil, Baervan
Wildwanderer, Segojan Earthcaller, and Sheela Peryroyl

Amia makes a specific exception for the four elemental lords. Of any other exceptions I can't say for sure.

Talona, Solonor Thelandira, Oberon, Titania, Auril, Ghaunadar, and Fenmarel Mestarine along with the Elemental Lords: Kossuth, Grumbar, Istishia, and Akadi should be on that list, too.

So... yeah. This.

Dark Immolation wrote:

A nature based god, one of the Elemental Lords, or one of the Gods of Fury, I believe. I couldn't find a list, but there probably is one. A rule of thumb might be a deity having Plant, Animal, or an Element (Air, Water, Earth, Fire) in their portfolio is a possible candidate for druids.

Are there certain armour models that are request only? I've seen a few around that don't seem to show up when I'm adjusting my armour appearance in game.

MadrikVale wrote:

Are druids confined to follow nature-based gods to receive their druid powers?

The almost complete list of deities that support druids:

Faerun Pantheon: Silvanus, Mielikki, Eldath, Nobanion,
Gwaeron Windstrom, Shiallia, Lurue, Chauntea, Grumbar, Istishia,
Akadi, Kossuth, Ulutiu, Talos, Malar, Umberlee, Auril, Talona.

Mulhorandi Pantheon: Osiris, Anhur, Isis, Sebek, Set.

Elven Pantheon: Rillifane Rallathil, Angharradh, Aerdrie Faenya,
Deep Sashelas, Fenmarel Mestarine, Solonor Thelandira, Khalreshaar.

Gnome Pantheon: Baervan Wildwanderer, Segojan Earthcaller.

Hin Pantheon: Sheela Peryroyl.

Dwarf Pantheon: Thard Harr.

Sylvan Pantheon: Oberon, Titania

Last edited by Naivatkal on Thu, May 21 2015, 14:20 PM, edited 2 times in total.

So, thought this would be the best place for this:

Considering the alignment of a character and I have an example. If any of you have seen the play/movie Into the Woods (I love how it is rife with morally quandaries) then you know what I am talking about, the witch from it. I'm wondering what alignment classification she would be. I spoilered the spoilers!

Part of what made me wondering was the whole thing about giving the boy to the giant because otherwise the giant would kill everyone. I mean, it logically made sense given he killed the giant's husband.

Granted there was another solution but it seemed to suggest that the witch was willing to make the unpalatable choice to 'fix' things. Plus the quote: "I'm not good, I'm not nice, I'm just right." I'd cast her as Neutral or Evil, but I can't tell what Law/Chaos axis she would go under.

Made me really wonder what alignment a character that would make such choices would be in DnD. The sort that will make the difficult choice because it has to be done (whether they be morally good choices or not).

There was an alignment discussion/game about figures from other forms of media somewhere in Off Topic, but I'd wager it was buried.

Also, way to spoil the movie! :lol:

>_> I so didn't think of that!

SPoiler tags added, sorry!

Yeah, that's the hard thing about playing a Good PC. Good PCs are not really meant to compromise like that, exchanging one life to save many. There's a bit of leeway, especially with Lawful Good, but it's the start of a dark road. This is why people could envision Paladins falling all the way to Blackguardhood. If I had to guess, a "Good" PC would refuse the deal, a Lawful PC would try to negotiate an alternative or otherwise just firmly refuse and stand ready to stop them, and a Chaotic PC will just attack the offending/aggrieved (depending on perspective) party in what I like to call a "winner takes all" gambit. Destroying one who would take at minimum one life and willingly threatens more is a generally a Good action (unless they surrender, and then it gets murkier). It would probably be "evil" to take such a deal no matter the stakes, even if the odds of forcefully resisting would very likely result in greater loss of life. A PC is accountable for their own actions - if they fail, having tried their best, their conscience/soul is arguably clear. Those who would take the "evil" option would argue that it doesn't matter how badly their actions stain their soul, as long as the arithmetic justifies their choices. A bit of a simplified take as morality is always complicated, but it's consistent with my views of the alignment system.

It's a broken machine, but it's all we've got.

The sacrifice of one to save many, unless self sacrifice, is firmly neutral to me. Evil would choose that as well, if it was an option presented, but they would do so for entirely selfish reasons (sacrificing one to save yourself). Replacing Good with Selfless and Evil with Selfish is a lot less thematic, but makes these situations much clearer most times. The alignment system in this game has always been terrible. If the justification is more situational than structured, I'd put it more towards the chaotic end if that spectrum. So I'd peg that action, not having seen what you're talking about personally, as CN (though easily argued to NE or CE depending on the characters internal reasoning).

I'd personally find that any action where your decision directly affects the survival of one or more people would have to lie somewhere on the good-evil spectrum, rather than the middle. It just kinda bothers me that any such decision can be said to be "normal" or "balanced" in some way. But to be fair, my perception of evil is that it is far more nuanced than mere self-serving behaviour, so we're probably not going to agree on that.

But as for the action - I would say it had to be on the Lawful side because it involves making a (calculated) agreement to keep the peace. I'm curious though, what made you go for chaotic? Not trying to argue, I'm just interested in knowing how you're coming at it.

Because it wasn't a structured response. No trial, no due process. An eye for an eye can be justified, but it's by definition situational. It's individual retribution, which sounds very much like chaotic justice to me. I certainly wouldn't put the sacrifice of one in the good spectrum, but if it's 'for the many' I wouldn't put it in the evil spectrum either. Peace doesn't have to be lawful.

By extension, Hoar should be TN, rather than purely on the lawful end of the spectrum.

Dead wrote:

MadrikVale wrote:

Are druids confined to follow nature-based gods to receive their druid powers?

The almost complete list of deities that support druids:

Faerun Pantheon: Silvanus, Mielikki, Eldath, Nobanion,
Gwaeron Windstrom, Shiallia, Lurue, Chauntea, Grumbar, Istishia,
Akadi, Kossuth, Ulutiu, Talos, Malar, Umberlee, Auril, Talona.

Mulhorandi Pantheon: Osiris, Anhur, Isis, Sebek, Set.

Elven Pantheon: Rillifane Rallathil, Angharradh, Aerdrie Faenya,
Deep Sashelas, Fenmarel Mestarine, Solonor Thelandira, Khalreshaar.

Gnome Pantheon: Baervan Wildwanderer, Segojan Earthcaller.

Hin Pantheon: Sheela Peryroyl.

Dwarf Pantheon: Thard Harr.

Sylvan Pantheon: Oberon, Titania

Thank you!

Question: Am I just stupid? Before you answer that (hahaha):

"What counts as a shadow for things such as Hide in Plain Sight and Shadow Jumping?

1. Anywhere there's shadows - a difference between light and dark.

2. Anywhere dark or not otherwise having light shown directly on it.

3. Places that are either dark, or spots where there's different levels of light, as a shadow.

4. Darkness and shadows as seen by ordinary vision."

wtf? Does that not confuse anyone else? All four options are basically "a shadow".

I'm pretty sure another NPC exactly answers that ICly. Or maybe a book. Been a minute since I did that. I think it's intended to be a bit confusing, to insure characters specifically learned the lore provided.

It's a word for word thing... yeah. Forget where you get it though. Might be an IC learned thing rather than here on the forum though.....

For Naiv's question, I figure that such a decision could theoretically be made by someone of any alignment. In this instance I think it would depend a lot on motivation, but really, the alignment system and D&D in general isn't designed very well for that kind of moral quandary. In the situation you said, it sounds like the deed was performed out of pragmatism, and possibly because the individual didn't really care beyond immediately solving a problem. That sounds Neutral leaning strongly toward evil to me. All this is just my opinion though!

MadrikVale:

It's intended to require very specific wording which I believe can be found in a book in the Academy library. This is mostly to ensure that you've read the book. Also probably a little bit to be confusing because I can imagine the instructors getting a kick out of that. The questions all have exact answers though.

Yeah I like those types of moral quandaries for sure! I was mostly curious as to what alignment that was generally be accepted as. I figured it was a tough one though! :mrgreen:

Dead wrote:

The almost complete list of deities that support druids:

Faerun Pantheon: Silvanus, Mielikki, Eldath, Nobanion,
Gwaeron Windstrom, Shiallia, Lurue, Chauntea, Grumbar, Istishia,
Akadi, Kossuth, Ulutiu, Talos, Malar, Umberlee, Auril, Talona.

Mulhorandi Pantheon: Osiris, Anhur, Isis, Sebek, Set.

Elven Pantheon: Rillifane Rallathil, Angharradh, Aerdrie Faenya,
Deep Sashelas, Fenmarel Mestarine, Solonor Thelandira, Khalreshaar.

Gnome Pantheon: Baervan Wildwanderer, Segojan Earthcaller.

Hin Pantheon: Sheela Peryroyl.

Dwarf Pantheon: Thard Harr.

Sylvan Pantheon: Oberon, Titania

I think I can add one more suggestion for a druid supporting deity, this from the Sylvan Pantheon: Emmantiensien.

Last edited by MadrikVale on Sun, May 24 2015, 3:18 AM, edited 1 time in total.

Thank you for the responses.

That Guy wrote:

It's a word for word thing... yeah. Forget where you get it though. Might be an IC learned thing rather than here on the forum though.....

I'm not asking for the answer on the forum, not even where to find the answer but if the wording is just confusing, if its intentional or if I'm not getting it. Dotdotdotdotdot

I realized after writing that it could be taken that way.... definitely didn't think that Madrick.

Might be a little late, but better late than never.

So is there a compiled list of widget type request items anywhere? I'm thinking of doing something for my weaponmaster... was curious if anything has been done yet.

Thanks!

Is it correct that an Abjuration/Evocation/Transmutation specialist wizard cannot used EMD because they cannot use Conjuration spells?

I don't think Epic Spells follow the same rules as normal spells in that regard. They're not something that you can read from a spellbook, they're developed by the caster, becoming an innate part of them, which is also why they can cast them without the use of a spell book.

Yeah, that is what I was thinking. Just wasn't sure if we frowned upon it in an RP/lore sense at all for Amia.

I mean, I don't see why you can't I just wanna be sure in case I ever want to make someone that can't Conjure haha.

You won't, however, be able to use raise dead scrolls. Something to keep in mind.

General Questions

Who is online