Also they are excellent at flanking the giant for one round.
Ah, that makes sense. However, at the risk of sounding like a nit-picker, how would a giant be realistically threatened by a badger? It would seem the flanking rules break in this case, at least from the point of view of realism. The digging utility is good though.
*boggles* That was my first rules-related criticism I've ever posted anywhere. I feel my Geek ScoreTM increasing!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-03-26 04:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-26 05:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-26 08:59 pm (UTC)We don't need no stinking badgers!!
Sorry, someone had to say it...
no subject
Date: 2005-03-27 03:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-26 11:27 pm (UTC)Celestial Badgers Saved My Buddy's Life
Date: 2005-03-27 12:49 am (UTC)Who saved him?
MY CELESTIAL FUCKING BADGER, THAT'S WHO.
Bastard.
Also they are excellent at flanking the giant for one round.
Re: Celestial Badgers Saved My Buddy's Life
Date: 2005-03-27 01:39 pm (UTC)Ah, that makes sense. However, at the risk of sounding like a nit-picker, how would a giant be realistically threatened by a badger? It would seem the flanking rules break in this case, at least from the point of view of realism. The digging utility is good though.
*boggles* That was my first rules-related criticism I've ever posted anywhere. I feel my Geek ScoreTM increasing!
Re: Celestial Badgers Saved My Buddy's Life
Date: 2005-03-27 03:10 pm (UTC)Sure, it's one turn of "Get away from me!" Get away!"
You still shouldn't Summon a Monster until 5th level, anyway.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-27 01:34 pm (UTC)Why does the celestial badger have large spikes on its back?
no subject
Date: 2005-03-27 03:12 pm (UTC)Hmm. Must think tactically from now on.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-27 03:24 pm (UTC)That's assuming we ever play again. Why do they bother with summoning spells at that low of a level?
no subject
Date: 2005-03-27 05:09 pm (UTC)