Post/Author/DateTime	Post
LLMadCow 08-02-04, 05:12 PM	Rules of the Core Collosseum There are no rolls out of the arena. This has been a longstanding rule that I have always felt shortchanged many of the players and their available tactics. I have seen its impact on my characters, and I am sure many others out there would have done things differently, if allowed. What I propose is that we radify this rule. As the rule stands, people cannot use Poisons[/] outside of combat, unless they have a special ability that makes them immune. (This, in particular, got me steamed since I had a character who managed to successfully apply poison to their weapons and lose the fight! The result [I]should have been that the weapon was still poisoned since I wasted actions in a fight to get it that way, but the ruling was that it was removed and had to be done over again!) As the rule stands, people cannot use [I]Use Magic Device[/] outside of combat, even though it has plenty of legitimate reasons to be used. I am sure that there are other areas that this rule impacts, but given what I have listed as two fine examples, I have a recommendation: There are no rolls outside of the posted fight. The end result is that when a person wants to apply poison, the roll is made as if they were applying it prior to the fight; if they make a mistake, the mistake comes into play when they fight. If they have a way to heal/cure/restore when the fight starts, then they would be allowed to do that whenever they wanted to, once the fight has started. (In an extreme response, the player could pay for the poison, a Potion of [Whatever fixes poison] and cover all of the bases; realistically the impact is the same. If I was risking poisoning myself, I would likely have the ability to heal myself on hand as well; anything short of that has in impact on the fight I am preparing for!) In the example of Use Magic Device, the player would have to detail what they want, and the Pitlord running the fight would make the quick rolls. This is a really simple solution that benefits everyone.
Jindl 08-02-04, 05:47 PM	@LL - Not that you don't have a legitimate concern / suggestion to discuss, but this really would be better in the Tavern. We've had a LOT of side debate threads open lately, many of them without even trying to discuss in the Tavern. We're trying to discourage that, because we want to keep things relatively clean and easy to find. So the next time, please start the discussion in the Tavern, and if it grows big enough we'll move it to its own thread. Thanks! -Jindl
LLMadCow 08-02-04, 06:34 PM	There are two reasons I didn't go that route: 1 - We have our own forum, so we don't have to. 2 - People often ski over and ignore portions of the tavern. That's all.
Tellish_of_Ket 08-04-04, 10:26 PM	Just wanted to cut/paste this. This topic was heatedly debated back in the day. Which proves my point (and the few that stood by me) that you can trip flyers. -ToK Originally posted by Psifon I just got this e-mail from the Sage on this subject. I have put the questions in bold text for ease of distinguishing. This is origionally from another thread (adress below), that I have re-posted for ease of reference. In a message dated 2/19/04 1:25:45 AM, psifon@earthlink.net writes: The rules on Tripping and prone are extremely problematical. Ever since standing up provokes an Attack of Opportunity, these rules have gone under the spotlight. As a result, several questions have emerged:<< A little common sense ought to deal with most of these. As a general rule, it helped to remember that the rules in the PH generally cover Medium or Small humanoids dealing with other Medium or Small humanoids. >>Given that being prone means that you are lying on the ground (PHB pg 311), who can be prone? Can oozes be prone? What about creatures with no limbs like snakes? What about incorporeal creatures?<< Anybody can be "prone." Creatures with limbs have to use a free action to drop prone and must use a move action to stand up again. Limbless creatures can go prone or "stand up" as a free action. (No attack of opportunity when a snake "stands up.") >>Being tripped makes you prone. Who can be tripped? Beholders? Gelatinous Cubes? What effect does tripping have on these creatures? Can a prone character be tripped again? What about flying and swimming creatures? Many creatures have neither legs nor any relationship to the ground or gravity. How does tripping effect them?<< Anything using limbs for locomotion can be tripped. Things that don't need limbs for locomotion can't be tripped. You just plain can't trip a snake or a beholder--you won't find this in the rules, but then it really doesn't need to be in there. A creature flying with wings can be "tripped," in which case the creature stalls (see Tactical Aerial Movement in the DMG). You can't make an incorporeal creature fall down. You also can't trip a prone creature (it already fell down and went "boom.") >>When a character gets up from prone, when does the Attack of Opportunity go off? When he is still prone? When he is standing? Can the attacker choose? In one case, the attacker can get a +4 to hit, in the other he can get another trip attack off.<< All attacks of opportunity happen before the actions that trigger them (see Chapter 8 in the PH and my upcoming article on attacks of opportunity in Rules of the Game. When you make an attack of opportunity against someone who's getting up, your target is effectively prone (no AoO against limbless critters that are "getting up.") >>Can a character who is prone move? The rules on crawling would obviously apply here, but this question also includes things like limbless creatures and oozes. It also includes things like: Can a creature tumble while prone? Can he use his tumble to get out of the threatened area? How fast would he move? What is a "normal move" anyway?<< If you have no limbs, you move at your normal speed when prone, otherwise you must crawl or tumble. I imagine there should be a penalty for prone tumbling, say –5. Then you can simply make a tumble check to roll away for foes that threaten you. A "normal move" is using a move action to travel up to your speed. A prone tumbler rolling away from a foe can move up to half speed. >>Is there any way to avoid the Attack of Opportunity provoked by standing up? Oriental Adventures and the Epic Level handbook both state that you can stand from prone as a free action with a DC 35 tumble check. However, they make no mention of avoiding Attacks of Opportunity since standing did not provoke AoO's when the rules were written. How is this 3.0/3.5 discrepency resolved?<< A DC 35 tumble check ought to do it (think Jackie Chan). Whew! Well, that was a bunch of questions. Now, in the spirit of loving my hobby, I would like to direct you to the following thread: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=184340 I and a bunch of other WotC posters have been working on these questions. If nothing else, it might cut down your research time (assuming you decide to answer at all). If the link doesn't work, the thread is titled: "Trip, Prone, and the law of unintended consequences" and it is in the "Skills and Feats, Combat and Weapons" section of the WotC boards.<< You can go ahead and post this if you like. Please ask anyone who has a response to copy me at this address. I'll probably work it into a column after the fans get a chance to kick it around awhile. -- Skip Williams
Jindl 08-04-04, 10:53 PM	@Tellish - The ruling on tripping is that you can trip things that use natural means of locamotion for flight (such as wings). You cannot trip a creature that flies by magical ability, such as a ravid, a fighter under the effect of a fly spell, or a beholder. If flying is a purely mental action, then the creature cannot be tripped. If they fly by a physical ability, then they can. Tripping a flyer = causing a stall. For more about this, see the Rules of the Game - Movement section on the WoTC website. Skip prolly just cut/pasted it :lol: -Jindl
Tellish_of_Ket 08-04-04, 11:27 PM	Yes i understand that, but your previous position was that you couldn't trip flyers at all...i think. <scratches head> I'm in agreance with your current statement though so all is fine. -ToK
Jindl 08-04-04, 11:38 PM	Originally posted by Tellish_of_Ket Yes i understand that, but your previous position was that you couldn't trip flyers at all...i think. <scratches head> I'm in agreance with your current statement though so all is fine. -ToK Well, I had never really though about those who fly with wings. I was concentrating more on those who fly using magic.
Tellish_of_Ket 08-08-04, 08:45 PM	Big, important rules question here; If you buy a wand of silenced-fireball, is it actually silent? or is there still verbal issues when activating? Activation: "To activate a wand, a character must hold it in hand and point it in the general direction of the target or area." It says that you only need to point it in the general direction, so shouldn't wand use be silent anyhow? -ToK
Jindl 08-08-04, 09:04 PM	Wands have no components, because they are spell trigger items not spell completion items. Their use is akin to a sword (in other words, you have to wield it in some manner). So there is little purpose in getting a wand of silenced fireball. A regular wand of fireball can be silently activated anyway. -Jindl
Tellish_of_Ket 08-08-04, 09:31 PM	That's what i figured and suspected. Thx. -ToK
Caterane 08-08-04, 11:13 PM	Originally posted by Jindl Wands have no components, because they are spell trigger items not spell completion items. Their use is akin to a sword (in other words, you have to wield it in some manner). So there is little purpose in getting a wand of silenced fireball. A regular wand of fireball can be silently activated anyway. -Jindl This is wrong. DMG, p213: "...and a single word must be spoken." which is Dc0 like casting a spell. A silenced wand is useless because it doesn't mute the spell trigger. - Caterane CoCo Ruleslawyer
Ashenai 08-09-04, 03:18 AM	Just a quick note: apparently, Skip Williams is no longer the Sage. He is no longer the ultimate arbiter of rules. He has been replaced by Andy Collins. http://azure.bbboy.net/niftymessageboard-viewthread?forum=6&thread=863 I assume this means that Skip's rulings will remain law until and unless Andy countermands them. We'll see.
Tellish_of_Ket 08-09-04, 01:03 PM	I wanna bring up the issue of advanced cover. Despite some pitlords allowing it and others not, we need to set a standard. The rocks are 5x5. That means a medium sized human can easily take full cover by not even doing anything special. Any condition that allows you to take full cover SHOULD by nature allow you to take advanced cover because it's less than full cover. I've always allowed gladiators to use advanced, full, or normal cover in their tactics, and i know some others do as well. This is, imho, a perfectly legit tactical option for those who chose it. I argued a lot with Cat before the figth saying that it was perfectly legal. He countered with the fact that he's been denied adv. cover by some pitlords and was feeling a little left out as to why there are so few pitlords that allow it. The arena formation and the size of the blocks, clearly allow for UP TO FULL COVER, and since adv. cover is less than full cover, why can this option not be used? It seems perfectly logical to me. I'm just wondering if i have any support or am i the only one who's gonna continue to use adv. cover and also allow it in the fights i pitlord? Seems odd when such a simple little rule isn't used. Mostly because i think people think it's strong. But not nearly as strong as floating tower shields, or even taking full cover behind a rock which is better, no? Anyhow, just would like some thoughts on this. For the record, i'm still going to allow adv cover in fights that i pitlord (it's core, it's in the rules, and the arena rocks allow for it). -ToK @Cat: thx for clarifying the wand issue. Seems i might have been wrong, and i missed that part about spell triggers.
Druid Roxors 08-09-04, 01:12 PM	This is my opinion: - I will grant cover (standard +4 to AC) to creatures with cover according to the rules oooooooo oooooooo oooooooo oooooooo oooooooo PLAYERS OBSTACLE - I will grant improved cover to creatures who's square (or squares) are under at least 60% cover. That is, if lines drawn from any 1 point of the attacker's square traced to the defender are blocked 60% of the time. oooooooo oooooooo oooooooo oooooooo oooooooo PLAYERS OBSTACLE - I will grant Full cover to creatures who have no line of effect to the other creature's square. oooooooo oooooooo oooooooo oooooooo oooooooo PLAYERS OBSTACLE Edit: Clarified the first "Cover"
Tellish_of_Ket 08-09-04, 01:24 PM	Originally posted by Druid Roxors This is my opinion: - I will grant cover to creatures with cover according to the rules Your statement and examples are contradictions. Advanced cover is IN THE RULES! So if someone, with cover, choses to use the availability of adv. cover it should be granted provided that full cover could normally be granted. -ToK
Druid Roxors 08-09-04, 01:31 PM	Originally posted by Tellish_of_Ket Your statement and examples are contradictions. Advanced cover is IN THE RULES! So if someone, with cover, choses to use the availability of adv. cover it should be granted provided that full cover could normally be granted. -ToK Nono, I am not contradicting myself, although it is confusing. Cover (+4 to AC) != Cover (the dictionary word) Cover (read: Standard cover +4 to ac) will be granted as the rules state. The other cover states will be granted as I see fit.
Tellish_of_Ket 08-09-04, 01:32 PM	Originally posted by Druid Roxors Nono, I am not contradicting myself, although it is confusing. Cover (+4 to AC) != Cover (the dictionary word) Cover (read: Standard cover +4 to ac) will be granted as the rules state. The other cover states will be granted as I see fit. Ah, ok. I like the "as you see fit" part. Very, uhm, non-commital. LOL -ToK
Druid Roxors 08-09-04, 01:37 PM	Advanced cover is IN THE RULES! So if someone, with cover, choses to use the availability of adv. cover it should be granted provided that full cover could normally be granted. I think there is a mistake on how you are thinking about full cover. You either have full cover or you dont. You cannot choose to use full cover if you are not within full cover. It depends on line of effect, not how you crouch or whatever. You cannot grant a player Full cover acording to your reasoning, the player either has full cover or he does not have full cover. 3.5 SRD - Cover Total Cover: If you don't have line of effect to your target he is considered to have total cover from you. You can't make an attack against a target that has total cover.
Druid Roxors 08-09-04, 01:43 PM	Originally posted by Tellish_of_Ket Ah, ok. I like the "as you see fit" part. Very, uhm, non-commital. LOL -ToK I dont like commitments :P
Battousai2005 08-09-04, 01:49 PM	Originally posted by Druid Roxors I dont like commitments :P I think we all know that. Anyway, I grant cover depending on situation. If someone is hiding behind a rock, but his opponent is at an elevated position, how much good does that do? Also, someone trying to get cover, IMHO, should get a higher AC bonus than someone trying to shoot and cover at the same time.
Tellish_of_Ket 08-11-04, 06:16 AM	Cut/pasted from the Rules of the Game Sneak Attacks Any spell that requires an attack roll and deals damage can be used in a sneak attack. In this case "damage" is normal damage, nonlethal damage, ability damage, or energy drain. You can sneak attack with a Melf's acid arrow spell, but not with a magic missile spell. Ranged spells are effective as sneak attacks only at ranges of 30 feet or less (just like any other ranged sneak attack). A successful sneak attack with a weaponlike spell inflicts extra damage according to the attacker's sneak attack ability, and the extra damage dealt is the same type as the spell deals. For example, a 10th-level rogue who makes a successful sneak attack with a Melf's acid arrow spell inflicts 2d4 points of acid damage, plus an extra 5d6 points of acid damage from the sneak attack (note that continuing damage from this spell is not part of the sneak attack). Spells that inflict energy drains or ability damage deal extra negative energy damage in a sneak attack, not extra negative levels or ability damage. For example, a 10th-level rogue who makes a successful sneak attack with an enervation spell deals 1d4 negative levels plus an extra 5d6 points of negative energy damage. If the sneak attack with a weaponlike spell results in a critical hit, the damage from the spell is doubled but the extra sneak attack damage is not doubled (as with any sneak attack). With spell effects that allow you to make multiple attack rolls, such as the energy orb spells or the Split Ray feat from Tome and Blood, you must treat the effect like a volley -- only the first attack can be a sneak attack. @Jindl: this passage (that you quoted incidently) shows that you are 100% wrong and clearly shows that ray of enfl can be used with sneak attack. I'll go a little further than what is just quoted (not that i even need to). Ability Score Loss p.289 DMG "Varioius attacks cuase abilty score loss, either ability dmg, or ability drain." So we see there are two "named" methods of ability loss. Basically they go on to say ability dmg is temp and ability drain is perm. Hopet his settles the issue, although i know you hate to say you were wrong, this time you are. :p -ToK
Druid Roxors 08-11-04, 10:13 AM	Actually, Tellish, I think Jindl is correct on this one. Here, let me show you: Rules of the game - Sneak Attacks Any spell that requires an attack roll and deals damage can be used in a sneak attack. In this case "damage" is normal damage, nonlethal damage, ability damage, or energy drain. 3.5 SRD - Ray of Enfeeblement A coruscating ray springs from your hand. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to strike a target. The subject takes a penalty to Strength equal to 1d6+1 per two caster levels (maximum 1d6+5). The subject's Strength score cannot drop below 1.Ray of Enfeeblement provides an enchancement penalty to strenght. It does no damage or drain. In order to see that more clearly, damage or drain cannot be dispelled while a penalty (magical) can.
Tellish_of_Ket 08-11-04, 10:29 AM	Originally posted by Druid Roxors Actually, Tellish, I think Jindl is correct on this one. Here, let me show you: Ray of Enfeeblement provides an enchancement penalty to strenght. It does no damage or drain. In order to see that more clearly, damage or drain cannot be dispelled while a penalty (magical) can. Hmmm, were are you getting the ENHANCEMENT PENALTY from? Now where does it say it's an enhancement penalty. You are using the same baloney analogy for enervation in saying that it's energy drain and you suffer the -5 hp per level drained. You can't have your twisted interpretations both ways. There is no errata for Enervation saying it also acts exactly like an energy drain, nor does ray of enfeeblement say it's an ENHANCEMENT PENALTY. The dmg CLEARLY, and i do mean CLEARLY state that there are two methods of ability loss: Ability drain, and ability damage. If you wish to continue to believe the jindilsm used in messed up interpretations suited to fit ones own particular needs then do so. But fact is fact, ray of enfeeblement IS NOT listed an an ehancement and neither does enervation say you lose 5 hp per level lost VIA THE SPELL. I don't understand people want for misinterpretation to find loop-holes and abuse rules. Especially (and only) because their characters aren't affected by it. This, to me, doesn't make sense. -ToK
Druid Roxors 08-11-04, 10:42 AM	Ok, let me turn this back on you ok? Originally posted by Tellish_of_Ket Hmmm, were are you getting the ABILITY DAMAGE from? Now where does it say it's Ability Damage? You are using the same baloney analogy for enervation in saying that it's energy drain and you suffer the -5 hp per level drained. It is not Baloney, It SAYS it bestows a Negative Level. CLEARLY in the DMG you can SEE that NEGATIVE LEVEL causes HP LOSS. You can't have your twisted interpretations both ways. There is no errata for Enervation saying it also acts exactly like an energy drain, nor does ray of enfeeblement say it's an ABILITY DAMAGE. The dmg CLEARLY, and i do mean CLEARLY state that there are two methods of ability loss: Ability drain, and ability damage. and CLEARLY none of them are bestowed by Ray of Enfeeblement If you wish to continue to believe the jindilsm used in messed up interpretations suited to fit ones own particular needs then do so. But fact is fact, ray of enfeeblement IS NOT listed an an ability damage and neither does enervation say you lose 5 hp per level lost VIA THE SPELL. I don't understand people want for misinterpretation to find loop-holes and abuse rules. Especially (and only) because their characters aren't affected by it. This, to me, doesn't make sense. -ToK [/B] I am left blank. Why oh why do you have to start speaking to me in this manner when I have allways, in the most respectful of ways, expressed my opinion? Are you saying that I am trying to bend the rules just for my convinience or because I like seeing Jindl win? Never have I tried to bend the rules (while knowing) to suit my character. That I thought Control Winds worked a certain way was because I allways read the spell from the SRD. That I thought that it was an Enhancement penalty was because I remembered that in the 3.0 errata, all spells that affect and atribute that are not Ability loss or drain are to be treated as enchancement bonuses to avoid Stacking. Of this I was not sure and I trusted Jindl. In any case, with the argument above, it is CLEARLY you who is trying to bend the rules. Yes, I did take it as an insult.
Myrridin 08-11-04, 10:49 AM	Tellish: after reading the description of Ray of Enfeeblement on the SRD, I'm going to have to agree with Jindl and Druid. If you're allowed an enhancement bonus to your scores, via items, then you're allowed an enhancement penalty to your scores, via a spell in this case. If it turns out that the phrase, "A penalty to your strength" means that it's damage, when it reads a penalty, ie something applied that's an adjustment of some sort; then I'm with you. But in this case, a penalty usually means an adjustment, which doesn't deal damage. It adjusts your strength down a bit. Granted, if I'm wrong, I'm happy, as that means that I can start sneak attacking with Rays of Enfeeblement, and weakening my opponents while I beat the crap out of them. :)
Ashenai 08-11-04, 11:05 AM	Well, first of all, I don't think it's an "enhancement penalty", because I'm pretty sure there's no such thing. Bonuses have types; penalties don't have (or need) types, since--unlike bonuses--they all stack. If it's a penalty, then it's just a (typeless) penalty. Anyway, I'd say Jindl is right on the Enervation thing. It does rather look like a simple oversight in the spell description: it clearly states that the effect is "draining", and "negative levels", both of which are clearly defined terms. The Ray of Enfeeblement is more problematic, and I think it could go either way. For instance, the "short description" on page 192 of the PHB reads: "Ray of Enfeeblement: Ray deals 1d6 +1 per two levels Str damage" (emphasis mine). Of course, the "real", long descriptions take precedence over the short descriptions, but it still makes one wonder. While I'm fairly certain on the Enervation issue, I'm not at all sure about Ray of Enfeeblement. If pressed, though, I'd agree with Jindl on that one as well. The long description doesn't say it's ability damage, and it doesn't heal like ability damage. Neither of these is 100% proof, but...
Druid Roxors 08-11-04, 11:07 AM	I do not think I need to keep claryfing on this but I will do for the good Of the CoCo. 3.5 SRD - ABILITY SCORE LOSS Various attacks cause ability score loss, either ability damage or ability drain. Points lost to ability damage return at the rate of 1 point per day (or double that if the character gets complete bed rest) to each damaged ability, and the spells lesser restoration and restoration offset ability damage as well. They return at that rate, which clearly is not what the spell does. They MAY also be restored through restoration. Lets see the spell description.3.5 SRD Lesser Restoration Lesser restoration dispels any magical effects reducing one of the subject's ability scores or cures 1d4 points of temporary ability damage to one of the subject's ability scores. It also eliminates any fatigue suffered by the character, and improves an exhausted condition to fatigued. It does not restore permanent ability drain.CLEARLY Ability drain, Ability damage and Magical effects reducing ability scores are DIFFERENT THINGS!!
Tellish_of_Ket 08-11-04, 11:22 AM	Not trying to be insulting, it just irks me is all. You guys are extrapolating one thing from another. Ok, so then let me get this straight Druid, if the ray of enfeeblement is an unamed penalty, then it should stack should it not? Now don't get me wrong, i still don't think they stack because it's a spell effect with a duration, just like multiple bear's endurance don't stack. About enervation/ray of enfl: Druid, honestly it seems like you're using one kind of argument to support one side, while using the same analogy to destroy the other. That's was irks me. Ok, since i'm a big fan of third party opinions, i'll post it on the Living Greyhawk rules web-site. Since they involve most of the circle (designers), and skip and andy, i'll go there. Sorry if you took it as an insult but dubious interpretations where no FAQ or errata exists always strike me funny. Enervation is a very potent spell in it's own right. The fact that the -5 hp "is an oversight", which btw you have no claim to support, doesn't make sense to me. And when you quoted me, you twisted my words, nothing more. My quotes were verbatim from the sources i quoted them. Your interpretations rely on multiple areas and pulling them together to get one interpretation. I didn't have to do that with ray of enfl, it was all there in "Rules of the Game." Ok, so lets try to come to an agreement then, and forget any bickering. Don't want to turn this nasty just because of a disagreement on rules interpretation. Let me pose some basic questions about it then. What type of penalty is Ray of enfl? How is the ability loss accounted for? You are saying that the dmg is implying that ability loss is from creatures which doesn't apply to the spell. But you are using the same argument to prove enervation wrong, that it doesn't matter if it's an undead doing the energy drain, the effects are similar and can be extrapolated, correct? So why doesn't the same extrapolation apply to ray of enfl as you are using for enervation? -ToK
Tellish_of_Ket 08-11-04, 11:28 AM	Originally posted by Druid Roxors I do not think I need to keep claryfing on this but I will do for the good Of the CoCo. They return at that rate, which clearly is not what the spell does. They MAY also be restored through restoration. Lets see the spell description.CLEARLY Ability drain, Ability damage and Magical effects reducing ability scores are DIFFERENT THINGS!! Ahh, i see, just like enervated levels return at a rate. i gotchya. [/mild sarcasm, humor] Oops, there's that magical abilty thing again, which enervation is. [/mild sarcasm, humor] Not saying this to tick you off (i'd never do such a thing, :D ), but Druid, please, you have to see what i'm trying to say right? You're using the fact that ray of enfl is a magical effect and doesn't follow the Ability Loss part in the DMG and if so, then why don't you use that same analogy for enervation? It's a magical affect, not an actual energy drain from a creature. -ToK
Druid Roxors 08-11-04, 11:32 AM	Originally posted by Tellish_of_Ket About enervation/ray of enfl: Druid, honestly it seems like you're using one kind of argument to support one side, while using the same analogy to destroy the other. That's was irks me.Actually, Tellish, I am using the exact same argument. Open your mind a little and find out why. Sorry if you took it as an insult but dubious interpretations where no FAQ or errata exists always strike me funny. Enervation is a very potent spell in it's own right. The fact that the -5 hp "is an oversight", which btw you have no claim to support, doesn't make sense to me.The simple and Absolute fact is that the spell BESTOWS. Yes, it says LITERALLY on the spell description. "You point your finger and utter the incantation, releasing a black ray of crackling negative energy that suppresses the life force of any living creature it strikes. You must make a ranged touch attack to hit. If the attack succeeds, the subject gains 1d4 negative levels." Clearly, literally, any exception is only that, an exception which should be in the spell description. For which you have ho claim to support. The spell does not list that Exeption, that exception does not exist. Period And when you quoted me, you twisted my words, nothing more. My quotes were verbatim from the sources i quoted them. Your interpretations rely on multiple areas and pulling them together to get one interpretation. I didn't have to do that with ray of enfl, it was all there in "Rules of the Game."Are you sure you are talking about the same thing? In the article, "Rules of the Game" I can quote directly, without any need for twisting or searching multiple areas, "Ability score Damage or Drain" Nothing more. I can also quote Literally from the spell description "Ability score Penalty". How much clearer do you need it? Let me pose some basic questions about it then. - What type of penalty is Ray of enfl?Type, Unnamed, non-stacking.- How is the ability loss accounted for? There is no ability Loss, there is only a penalty. - You are saying that the dmg is implying that ability loss is from creatures. But you are using the same argument to prove enervation wrong, that it doesn't matter if it's an undead doing the energy drain, the effects are similar and can be extrapolated, correct? ??? - So why doesn't the same extrapolation apply to ray of enfl?It does, Ability penalty does not appear in your quoted source as applying for sneak attack damage
Druid Roxors 08-11-04, 11:36 AM	Originally posted by Tellish_of_Ket You're using the fact that ray of enfl is a magical effect and doesn't follow the Ability Loss part in the DMG and if so, then why don't you use that same analogy for enervation? It's a magical affect, not an actual energy drain from a creature. -ToK Quite simply: Does Ray of enfeeblement say "Ability Loss" or anythign similar in the same way you can find "Negative Level" on the enervation description? See where I am getting? I am not interpreting anything from the enervation description, It is a magical power which bestows negative level with the exceptions listed. There is no exeption to "-5 hp" but there is a Clear spot where it says "bestows Negative level" Ray of enfeeblement, differently, does Not say "Negative level/Ability Loss/Ability Damage" That, my friend, you are making up.
Tellish_of_Ket 08-11-04, 11:54 AM	@Druid: Your lucky i'm a very reasonable and open minded man. LOL Ok, i am keeping an open mind, at least for the ray of enfl thing. But in the spell description for enervation it doesn't say "with this ray you gain the ability to energy drain". I might be stubborn on this one, but if they wanted the effect to be exactly like an energy drain why didn't they just say it like with the vampire or the wight? Energy drain can easily be read from it's source instead of confusing it. Wight Energy Drain(su): Living creatures hit by a whight's slam attack gain one negative level. Blah, blah, blah. They don't go into an exact description of what is gained (or lost). The spell enervation does. I think it does this for a reason. To show that it's not as powerful as a full-blown energy drain attack. Druid, these levels return at 1/hr, as opposed to a REAL energy drain attack, which last 24hrs and must be saved against, or be made permanent. Ok. NEXT! Ok. This brings me to our next debate which i just noticed, while looking to make characters ready for this weeks pairings. Pre-Buffs: Mage armor (self) False life (self x2) Let me take a stab at what happens, then ya'll can tell me i'm wrong. LOL This pc has two false lives, each rolled on their own. Lets say 18 and 15 respectively. The 18 are in the forefront (higher of the two bonuses). When said pc gets wacked for 15 hp by an arrow, those are subtracted from the original 18 temp, leaving that casting of False life iwth 3 temp hp. Now, since only the "higher of two bonuses apply", that means the second false life comes into the forefront correct? Or, the pc gets hit for a critical of 90 pts of dmg, the 18 are first absorbed, then his regular hp, then he is reduced to -8. His initiative comes and the second False life comes to the forefront and the pc is at 4 hp. OR does it take from both false live's simulataneously? This i doubt, but just checking. -ToK
Ashenai 08-11-04, 12:07 PM	This won't work, in the same way that you can't manifest Vigor multiple times on yourself to grant yourself a colossal number of temporary hit points. If someone insists on doing it, I'd say both sets of temporary hit points deplete at the same time. So, in effect, only the False Life with the better roll would "count", unless something like a Dispel Magic takes one of them out. So if the wizard had rolled 15 for False Life #1 and 12 for False Life #2, he'd have 15 temporary hit points, and no more. If he gets hit for 6 damage, he now has 9 temp. HPs. And if False Life #1 gets dispelled at this point (but #2 remains), then he would have 6 temp. HPs left. HERE (http://www.rpg-network.de/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=45) is a chat log with the Sage which clarifies the temp. hit point thing. It doesn't talk about False Life specifically, but the discussion on Vigor parallels it exactly.
Tellish_of_Ket 08-11-04, 01:18 PM	I concurr Ash. I thought it was a little suspicious. So then lets think up something else, since we are on the topic. If the pc has one false life running (18 pts) and gets hit for 15 pts, down to 3 temp hp's, and casts a second false life and gains 15 temp hp on this casting. I know they don't stack, but their are multiple spell effects here. Does the 1st false life stay at 3 temp hp, and the newer one (false life #2) with the higher bonus prevails? Giving the pc 15 temp hp that is active? I believe it makes total sense to have them both deplete at the same time once the two are running. So now if the pc is hit for 12 pts of dmg, the first false life equals 0 temp hp, and the second one equals 3, correct? I'm not trying to confuse things, just trying to be really clear for when pitlords run fights and end up with that character. Ok, so no secrets then, the numbskull is Sven. LOL (sorry mike, had to say it, lol) @Market_Share: If you didn't know, your false lives won't stack. I'm surprised you didn't know that btw. -ToK
Druid Roxors 08-11-04, 01:21 PM	Originally posted by Tellish_of_Ket @Druid: Your lucky i'm a very reasonable and open minded man. LOL Ok, i am keeping an open mind, at least for the ray of enfl thing. What, no Wait! You... You can't change your mind!! how will I keep with the bickering if you agree!!!? :P But in the spell description for enervation it doesn't say "with this ray you gain the ability to energy drain". I might be stubborn on this one, but if they wanted the effect to be exactly like an energy drain why didn't they just say it like with the vampire or the wight? Energy drain can easily be read from it's source instead of confusing it.Although difficult to read and confusing, that is the role of the elders. To interpret vague rullings. In my opinion, this was simply an omission, one that was not spotted in time for the Errata. Please, do check for the final rulling on this at the boards you describe as having assistance from the Developers. Wight Energy Drain(su): blah blah They don't go into an exact description of what is gained (or lost). The spell enervation does. I think it does this for a reason. To show that it's not as powerful as a full-blown energy drain attack. Druid, these levels return at 1/hr, as opposed to a REAL energy drain attack, which last 24hrs and must be saved against, or be made permanent.Perhaps, but we cannot be sure. I could say that polymorph is a powerful spell. If I rulled that polymorph would not bestow the consitution score it would still remain a viable option and a very powerful spell. Saying that a spell does not work in a certain way because of its relative strenght is not an adequate way to interpret spells since many spells suck and rock throughout the levels. I believe that Enervation is a powerful 4th level spell, be it with or without the -5 per level thingy. Also, if you check the Energy Drain spell description, it works just like Enervation but with an altered duration. This means that the -5 per level hp thingy wouldn't apply to it? I concurr with Ashenai's rulling on 2+ Temporary hitpoint spells.
Tellish_of_Ket 08-11-04, 01:35 PM	Originally posted by Druid Roxors I believe that Enervation is a powerful 4th level spell, be it with or without the -5 per level thingy. Also, if you check the Energy Drain spell description, it works just like Enervation but with an altered duration. This means that the -5 per level hp thingy wouldn't apply to it? I did note something very peculiar about enervation that might lend credence to your argument. Undead struck by the ray gain 1d4*5 temporary hp. So if they get 5 hp per level enervated, it might make sense that the individual struck loses 5 hp per level enervated as well. -ToK
Druid Roxors 08-11-04, 01:42 PM	Originally posted by Tellish_of_Ket I did note something very peculiar about enervation that might lend credence to your argument. Undead struck by the ray gain 1d4*5 temporary hp. So if they get 5 hp per level enervated, it might make sense that the individual struck loses 5 hp per level enervated as well. -ToK Good find, one I didn't notice. You see, if this spell description is to be taken literal; Energy Drain, a powerful level 9 spell, wouldn't deal the -5 damage either because, like polymorph, it is a chained description. Thanks for keeping an open mind. :) Something some other pitlords, who always think they are right, do not do.
Ashenai 08-11-04, 01:46 PM	@ToK: Yes, I think that's exactly how it would work. The end result of your hypothetical situation would be one False Life at 0 hp and one at 3 hp.
Tellish_of_Ket 08-11-04, 02:09 PM	Contingency + silence: Do contingency spells have any components to them when they activate? can you make a spellcraft check to see a "contingency" going off? If you ready to disrupt with an area silence upon spell casting, and your opponent goes, his contingency goes off, and he begins casting a spell, does the contingency get disrupted as well?" As usual, i will try to answer my own questions first. 1- no. The components are laid out at the time of the castings. 2- no. You cannot see, nor hear any components 3- no. The contingency is listed as "instantly appearing" when triggered. Now given that i'm right, and i ALWAYS AM (lol), here's my scenario. pre-buff - false life (self) - Contingency (false life upon being damaged) Hehe, i know i like to make things complicated. I should start my own column and award prizes for right answers. OK, ok, for now let's just ignore the first false life, in either case, the END result is obvious. Since the description of contingency says the spell "instantly" appears, does it actually "interrupt of sorts" the dmg, to apply the contingent effect, then the dmg? The spell description seems to imply that it does and describes someone being thrown into water with a contingent water breathing. If the "instantly appears" effect of contingency didn't precede the actual drowning, the pc in question would still need to make a check would he not? If it appears at the "splash" part, before the drowning, thus interrupting it in a way, would it not also work the same way with false life and dmg? The pc is struck for 10 pts of dmg, BUT "instantly" as the arrow begins to peirce the flesh, the contingency is activated and the false life absorbs the 10 pts. Is this correct or should the dmg be dealt, and then the false life kicks in? That however would make the water-breathing example almost stupid, because a person could begin to drown, be reduced to 0 hp, right off the bat. Ok, so now he can breathe water, but is nothing more than a buoy in the water bobbing up and down restricted to move actions. lol. Obviously a better method would be: prebuff: False life (self) Contingency (endurance x condition) -ToK
Jindl 08-11-04, 02:25 PM	@Tellish - 1,2,3 = no (same reasons you listed). As for the contingent false life upon damage, contingencies do not interrupt (they are not readied actions). They would occur immediately after the triggering condition, which must be percieved by the spellcaster. So for your example, the caster would be damaged (taking the full amount), which he would percieve, which would cause the contingent effect to occur. So the contingent false life would happen immediately after the total damage was applied. -Jindl
Druid Roxors 08-11-04, 03:37 PM	Originally posted by Tellish_of_Ket Contingency + silence: Do contingency spells have any components to them when they activate? can you make a spellcraft check to see a "contingency" going off? If you ready to disrupt with an area silence upon spell casting, and your opponent goes, his contingency goes off, and he begins casting a spell, does the contingency get disrupted as well?" 1. No 2. Yes/No. If the contingent spell has any sort of visual display you can try to identify it (and perhaps conclude that the spell was quickened). DC 20+lvl for display or 25+lvl for attacks. Now given that i'm right, and i ALWAYS AM (lol), here's my scenario. :rolleyes: For your next example, I believe that the action occurs right after the conditions have been met. In other words, right after taking damage, not during.
Tellish_of_Ket 08-11-04, 03:39 PM	Originally posted by Druid Roxors Although difficult to read and confusing, that is the role of the elders. To interpret vague rullings. In my opinion, this was simply an omission, one that was not spotted in time for the Errata. Please, do check for the final rulling on this at the boards you describe as having assistance from the Developers. And to put it another way for the edification of Dude1-Dude3.... When a spell description does "XXX" to a target, and "XXX" is defined precisely elsewhere (either DMG or MM, I can't remember which), you look to that location to get the full understanding of the effect. For example to understand the strength damage of Chill Touch, you have to go look up ability damage. This is the same thing. Enervation says it bestows a negative level. This is precisely defined. It goes on to say how this effect is different from the "normal" definition (it doesn't have a long enough duration to force fortitude saves for permanence). The -5 hp are part of the negative level description. You have to apply it. On the plus side, if your buddy gets a restoration in combat those hp come back instantly. There were a couple of replies, and all seem to be coming back with what is reflect in the above quote. -ToK
cellardweller 08-13-04, 02:03 AM	In the past we have allowed gladiators to use a towershield for full cover while their mount attacked (usually protected by mounted combat). This shouldn't work. A rider occupies all squares of thier mount, so if all of these squares have full cover, then the mount can't attack either.
Tellish_of_Ket 08-15-04, 01:46 PM	The quoted sections are from our conversations. The responses are from the rules lawyers. Ray wrote: Druids who wildshape, and then animal growth, do they get the hp bonus from animal growth? Only if the druid wild shaped into an animal of his own size or smaller. You can't enlarge something that is already magically enlarged, even via different spells or abilities. Since you can't gain the benefits of another spell/effect that gives size bonuses do these two effects stack? No. By direct interpretation of the rule they don't seem to, but some would argue otherwise. Any comments? Those who argue othewise are looking for a loophole that doesn't exist. No stacking of such magic effects. Here's a quote from some conversations. "I would normally have posted this in the Tavern, but I felt there was quite enough to read there right now, and I didn't want to clutter it up with what could potentially escalate into a huge rules discussion. Browsing through some of the older fights, I was struck by how many top-notch pitlords appear to miss the ramifications of an important part of the Animal Growth spell. Specifically, the last sentence of the spell description: "Multiple magical effects that increase size do not stack." Wild shape is (Su), and as such, a magical effect. Therefore, according to the rules, a Wildshaped druid can only grow further with Animal Growth if he/she Wildshaped into a shape that is smaller than or equal to their original form in size. In practice, this means that Medium-size druids Wildshaping into Large Dire Bats cannot grow to Huge size with Animal Growth. Their animal companions can; the druid cannot. This also nixes the Strength and Con bonus from Animal Growth, as well as the Dex penalty, since those are size bonuses. Whether the natural armor increase, the granted DR, and the saving throw bonus can stay is open to interpretation, and should probably be decided on ASAP. There's a very interesting and in-depth treatment of this subject HERE. Please note that it is for the Living Greyhawk campaign setting, and thus in no way Core; in fact, several of the rules they mention there have been overruled by Skip Williams (in his infinite wisdom). However, many of their arguments (including the one I mentioned) are based 100% on Core rules, and as such, should be of interest to us." A good analysis. Another Quote: "Polymorph is not considered a magic effect that increases size. It also does not offer any size bonuses to any thing. The magical effects which increase size are: enlarge person righteous might animal growth expansion This was officially described in a thread by Rich Baker (I think). I'll try to look for it." Incorrect. Polymorph to a larger sized creature is a magical effect that increases size. When you polymorph into a larger creature you also gains it's size modifier included in it's stats. If it didn't modify your size you would always end up polymorphing into medium sized versions of what you are polymorphing into. Yet another quote from the same series of conversation: "Multiple magical effects that increase size do not stack." Well, first of all Wildshape is clearly not a spell, It is a supernatural ability that "happens to work as a spell". Just that they are too lazy to point out how it works." Supernatural and spell-like abilities are magical, extraordinary are not (MM page 315, Special Abilities). They are magical effects, even though they are not spells. Now, Animal Growth is a spell that increases size, all spells that do so specifically say so in their description. Wildshape/Polly does not Increase size It CHANGES size. Although a technicallity, I believe that the fact that Wildshape does no reference to "magical effects that increase size do not stack" is a clear reason why it should work. That is because wild shape or polymorph can increase, descrease, or leave unchanged the size of the subject. Increase is a change. If wild shape results in an increase in the subjects size, then it is a magical effect that increases size. The rules aren't meant to create loopholes based on the words used, they are meant to be consistent when common sense is used. Now, on to the spirit of the rules. If you compare all other casters you will find that they have 2 spells/abilities in common, let me demonstrate: Divine Power - Wildshape - Polymorph Righteous Might - Animal Growth - Tensers/AGrowth With this I presume that Animal growth was intended for use along with Wildshape as Righteous might was designed to be used with Divine power."[/quote[ No such intent is evident. [quote]Another quote: "When you have permanent Enlarge Person you can't cast Righteous might? If you can, then bear with me. You can't gain the benefis of a size increase when your size is already increased. He gets the better benefits of the two increases. An Enlarged, Righteousmighted individual has a +2 (size) bonus to Strength and a -2 (Size) penalty to Dexterity. So when this individual uses Righteous Might then he will get a +8 (size) bonus to Strength that does not stack thus replacing the bonus from Enlarge Person. In this case, the subject's size would remain the same but the bonus would be augmented. I agree. Applying this to Wildshape, You get an unnamed bonus (or just a switch) to Strength to reach your Dire bear Str (31) and When you cast Animal Growth, you get a +8 size bonus to strength. This stacks completely with the other Unnamed bonus and thus the effect would remain but not the size. No. Wild shaping to dire bear give you adjustments to Str. etc. based on the size (Str 14 druid will gain +17 Str, +8 of it because of Large size (note that brown bears and polar bears have +8 Str compared to black bears due to size)). See MM Chapters 4-5 on Improving Monsters and Making Monsters. Wild shape to a larger creature already gives you at least as much increase in Str, etc. as a spell like animal growth or righteous might. So, in effect, you have a Large dire bear with 39 Str No Huge penalty to Att and AC and lower reach. Thats not bad at all, It could even be better then the original animal growth due to the space allowed for movement in the arena." Any thoughts? I'd really like to see what others have to say. See responses above. -ToK ps. I'm really hoping this settles the issue. Although i know it won't for those still seeking to loop-hole the rules.
Ashenai 08-15-04, 01:59 PM	Great analysis and summary, thank you! What will the status of this question be, then? a) Decision is official, binding, and final, and affects this week's fights retroactively. b) Decision is official, binding, and final, starting from next week. c) Question will go to the Council; until they come to a decision, default ruling is that Wildhape + Animal Growth do not stack (if the druid Wildshapes into a Large creature). d) Question will go to the Council; until they come to a decision, druids may continue to stack Wildshape and Animal Growth freely. I'd also like to know whether druids Wildshaped into Large creatures then casting Animal Growth will get 1) the natural armor increase 2) the DR 3) the resistance to saving throws? I would personally say "yes" to 2 and 3, and "maybe" to 1, but I can go along with a different decision, too.
Tellish_of_Ket 08-15-04, 02:06 PM	Originally posted by Ashenai Great analysis and summary, thank you! What will the status of this question be, then? a) Decision is official, binding, and final, and affects this week's fights retroactively. b) Decision is official, binding, and final, starting from next week. c) Question will go to the Council; until they come to a decision, default ruling is that Wildhape + Animal Growth do not stack (if the druid Wildshapes into a Large creature). d) Question will go to the Council; until they come to a decision, druids may continue to stack Wildshape and Animal Growth freely. I'd also like to know whether druids Wildshaped into Large creatures then casting Animal Growth will get 1) the natural armor increase 2) the DR 3) the resistance to saving throws? I would personally say "yes" to 2 and 3, and "maybe" to 1, but I can go along with a different decision, too. 1 - the better of the two 2 - yes 3 - yes I would begin applying to this weeks fights. But i can already start hearing the screaming. If i say, next week fights, i can hear the screaming from the honest people who know they don't stack. The thing is, is that people hate saying they were wrong, or there are other ways to see points. To me, others, and the rest of the sane world ( :D ) it's clear. They simply do not stack. I would begin applying it to this weeks fight since it is the correct interpretation. To not apply means we are allowing the pc's to cheat (and the loser definately wouldn't like that). I will talk to both Freemoody and Market_Share to see about the result of their particular fights. But for fights not yet posted i would ask that it be run with the fact that they do not stack. -ToK
Magagumo 08-15-04, 02:07 PM	Nice summary there, ToK, I agree that it makes ots of sense. @Ash I agree with you that the druid would get "2" & "3". As for the natural armor, I would say that because the natural armor they are gaining is not entirely based on size (Black Bears have +2 natural armor, non-sized based, which is augemented by +3 [for growing Large] to a total of +5 as a Brown Bear), I would say you handle it in the following way: Medium or smaller forms which are Animal Growthed gain the full +4 natural bonus. Large forms gain an additional +1 bonus (+4-3 from size) Huge Forms do not benefit. And, as stated before, Animal Companions really benefit here :) Edit: As much as I hate to burden poor Free, I think it's necessary to make these changes ASAP. There might be debates, but I honestly believe this is a "closed-book case."
Tellish_of_Ket 08-15-04, 02:17 PM	Originally posted by Magagumo Nice summary there, ToK, I agree that it makes ots of sense. Edit: As much as I hate to burden poor Free, I think it's necessary to make these changes ASAP. There might be debates, but I honestly believe this is a "closed-book case." i've pm'd Free, and called Market_Share. I know Mike's opinion without asking, "Uh..uh? what? ya, i don't care...just do it." So it will depend on Freemoody and what he wants to do with the fight. -ToK
Magagumo 08-15-04, 02:24 PM	*laughs* IS MIke simply that laidback? or is it other things? :whatsthis: :devil:
Druid Roxors 08-15-04, 02:58 PM	Excelent resume about what has transpired on the other Discussion Thread. Nevertheless, you have failed to include perhaps the most important quote, here let me fetch it for you:Here you go: Sage Chat log (http://www.rpg-network.de/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=45) Q: Magical size growths don't stack, but a druid wildshaping into a large bear is a supernatural ability and is only bigger as a by-product of the animal type. So, can a druid in large form then be Animal Growthed? A: Animal growth only works on animals. Technically, when you wildshape, you gain the animal type, so you could use a spell like animal growth. Your size increase is a function of wildshaping, not of becoming an animal. If I was behind the DM's screen, I would not allow you to use animal growth to get bigger (I'm not so thrilled about giving you the animal type, either, but I'd probably allow other party members to talk to you via speak with animal, so I couldn't disallow animal growth on that basis). If you're planning to use this trick in a game, talk to your DM about it ahead of time. So, It is legal but he feels its a bit too powerful. If he was the DM he would seriously give it a thought. As could we. And later Also, in a separate note. If you think that the primary concern for implementing this is Balance, you should compare it with a Divine Powered, Righteous Mighted, and Quickened Divine Favored Cleric carrying a Large (Now Huge) weapon. Should this be nerfed (and I am not against it) then the cleric should also be placed on the spotlight.So, if this houserule is going to be based on balance, It is natural that we will have to take action upon the other clases "Melee combos" The last two quotes you took from me on your compilation are, IMO, still valid. In any case, I am not willing to discuss on this topic any further unless the other druid users step in (Jindl/Freemoody/Motherbast). My character has no plans to (and never has) use animal growth and wildshape.
Tellish_of_Ket 08-15-04, 03:05 PM	Yeah, but what he also fails to say Druid is that wildshaping is a supernatural ability. And i also think his examples actually lends support to why they don't stack. The size growth as he says IS caused by wildshaping. Wildshaping is a magical effect that increases your size. THUS when used in conjuntion with animal growth, they simply don't stack. It's not a house-rule at all. But a very good interpretation of how it functions. -ToK *EDIT* and besides, it's just a sage chat. Not an FAQ or Errata. I don't think he actually sat down and looked at all that is happening before answering. I don't think his answer should be in anyway considered official on any level.
MotherBast 08-15-04, 04:20 PM	While I like your summery ToK, it also can't be concidered "offical", and should not in any way effect this weeks fights. Even if we do decide that this summery is how its supposed to work, we can't implement it in this weeks fights for the simple reason that when tactics were written this week, it still worked. Not to give anything away for Dra'kel, but I will state right now that I used AG in my tactics, and I wrote those tactics expecting the spell to function as it has every other time I've casted it. If that were to suddenly change AFTER I have already submited tactics, and after other Druids have already had fights posted, then this is a HUGE hit to anyone expecting the spell to work. Besides, even a summery this good dosen't make something law. Untill an offical stance on this is reached, which probably wont happen untill we have Elders to vote on it, then its pointless to debate wether or not it applys to this weeks fights, as right now, it isen't "offical" that wildshape + AG dosen't stack, so we must stick with the precident set in previous fights that the do, untill an offical decision is reached. Not likely to occure before this weeks fights are over.
Tellish_of_Ket 08-15-04, 09:30 PM	I concurr MB, which is why i ran the fight with them stacking. However, in light of the conclucsions drawn, Freemoody is more than free to change the outcome, but in no way obligated. -ToK
freemoody 08-15-04, 10:30 PM	Originally posted by Tellish_of_Ket I concurr MB, which is why i ran the fight with them stacking. However, in light of the conclucsions drawn, Freemoody is more than free to change the outcome, but in no way obligated. -ToK I wrote tactics assuming that the spells stack, If they truely do not stack (which I believe that they do), then it would have been a very different fight. As my tactics may have been very different. I believe that the fight was run correctly in reguards to Animal Growth.
Ashenai 08-16-04, 03:13 AM	Okay, here's a thing. Mounts. I have seen people do the following many, many times. Round 1, have the mount double-move towards the opponent, then cast a spell (or shoot, or manifest a power, or whatever) at the end of the mount's second move. This does not work. Read the "Mounted Combat" section on page 157 of the PHB. Note that if you want to take pretty much any action on a mount that's running or double-moving, you have to do it no later than at half the mount's movement. If it's double-moving, that means you have to take your action no later than at the end of its first move, or you lose your action. If it's running, you have to take your action when the mount moved double its speed (half of its max. run movement for the round), or before. The specific actions mentioned are ranged attacks and spells. While these are the worst offenders, I'd assume that actions such as drinking potions, etc--in effect, any standard action you would want to take on a mount--would work the same way.
LLMadCow 08-17-04, 03:07 PM	Expansion: The book says it lasts 1 min per level. What is the point to the tattoo if it only lasts for 1 round? It has been errata'd, but it is still incorrect, somewhere. The description says it lasts 1 min per level and the errata is to correct the 3rd Augment to say that if you spend an extra 2 PP, it lasts for 10 min per level ... as opposed to 1 round per level. My take is that for an extra 2 PP, it lasts 10x as long. It is COMPLETELY unprecidented to last 100x as long for 2PP. That would be totally broken. I stand behind Expansion lasting for 1 min/level. Now I understand the problem everyone is having is that the XPHB says 1 min/level but the SRD 3.5 says 1 round/level. Expansion is supposed to be just like Enlarge, except for the ability to augment it. What else gets augmented and lasts 100x as long? Nothing that I have found. What else gets augmented and lasts 10x as long? Plenty. The standard progression is: Rounds = (x10)=> Minutes =(x10)=> 10 Minutes, etc. People have argued against it, but thus far, the arguemnt hasn't been any more sound than "Because I said so" and I would like to get some SOLID responses, using the Books and/or the SRD as reference. I have posted a solid arguement and expect nothing less for a reply unless you happen to agree with me, in which case - thanks. :)
cellardweller 08-18-04, 07:52 AM	Originally posted by LLMadCow People have argued against it, but thus far, the arguemnt hasn't been any more sound than "Because I said so" and I would like to get some SOLID responses, using the Books and/or the SRD as reference. It is quite clear what the rules say: SRD Duration: 1 round./level (D) XPHB Erata: 3. If you spend 2 additional power points, this power's duration is 10 minutes per level rather than 1 round per level. Originally posted by Ashenai This does not work. Read the "Mounted Combat" section on page 157 of the PHB. Note that if you want to take pretty much any action on a mount that's running or double-moving, you have to do it no later than at half the mount's movement. If it's double-moving, that means you have to take your action no later than at the end of its first move, or you lose your action. If it's running, you have to take your action when the mount moved double its speed (half of its max. run movement for the round), or before. This was discussed over some time ago. You can make a standard action any time after the mounts first movement has finished by using readied actions. You can take any standard action at the mount's midpoint, so you execute a readied action for whatever point of the mounts movement you want it to happen at. eg Mount moves. Mage readies magic missile for when his opponent is in sight. Mount keeps moving, establishing LoS. Readied action interrupts and MM is cast after the mount has moved twice. Strictly speaking the mage in the above example doesn't even need to make a concentration check because the mount didn't move after he cast.
Ashenai 08-18-04, 10:29 AM	This was discussed over some time ago. You can make a standard action any time after the mounts first movement has finished by using readied actions. You can take any standard action at the mount's midpoint, so you execute a readied action for whatever point of the mounts movement you want it to happen at. eg Mount moves. Mage readies magic missile for when his opponent is in sight. Mount keeps moving, establishing LoS. Readied action interrupts and MM is cast after the mount has moved twice. Strictly speaking the mage in the above example doesn't even need to make a concentration check because the mount didn't move after he cast. That's clever. I think it's an exploit with readied actions, and I wouldn't allow it in a real campaign, but it's clever.
Druid Roxors 08-18-04, 10:39 AM	On the bad side, you might as well lose your action because "LoS" never occured (Invisibility). Risky and clever ;)
LLMadCow 08-18-04, 01:03 PM	Originally posted by cellardweller It is quite clear what the rules say: (What happened to my request for a thought out and good response? You quoted a little bit and ignored EVERYTHING else that mattered in my post! That is no response, since it is a misrepresentation of what was posted and does NOTHING towards clearing up, or even acknowledging, the confusion between the SRD 3.5 and the XPHB!) No, it is not quite clear what the RULES say. It is very clear what the book (Physical copy of the Expanded Psionics Handbook that is in my hand right now!) says. It is also very clear what the SRD 3.5 (The nice digital file that I keep on my PC for quick and easy reference!) says. They are both copies of The Rules! The point I am making is: THEY SAY TWO DIFFERENT THINGS! People keep giving me the brush off and ignoring my arguement. I am willing to bet that in time the SRD will be corrected and the Errata will be properly listed. WHO OWNS THE XPHB? Would someone who owns the book please post to verify that there is a discrepancy between the XPHB and the SRD 3.5? Everyone else has been nice enough to talk down to me and treat me like I am nuts. I know that Jindl is aware of the difference, but hus far he has only said that the Core 3 take precedence over the SRD 3.5, but the XPHB does not take precedence over the SRD 3.5 because it is not core; this sounded odd to me and so I brought it here for more debate. Please do not bother replying unless you own the XPHB or are understanding of exactly what this post means.
Druid Roxors 08-18-04, 01:07 PM	Yes, the way I have been handling this is 1m/level in my campaign. My players said that it was useless as 1r/plvl (they used the SRD) and I check the xphb. So for me, the spell is obviously 1m/lvl with augmentation to 10m/lvl.
Magagumo 08-18-04, 01:14 PM	Snark and I both own the XPHB (mildly redundant) and yes, Expansion is clearly listed as lasting rounds/level. Given my opinion on a 100 gp tatoo that increases your size (despite race) for 1 minute, I believe 1 rd/lvl to be the accurate amount. You may agree or disagree with the next step being 10 min/lvl, but yea- 1 rd. So Expansion sucks for a 1st or 2nd Manifester (get a power stone of ML 3rd), but from then on it's clear sailing...
LLMadCow 08-18-04, 01:21 PM	Originally posted by Magagumo Snark and I both own the XPHB (mildly redundant) and yes, Expansion is clearly listed as lasting rounds/level. Given my opinion on a 100 gp tatoo that increases your size (despite race) for 1 minute, I believe 1 rd/lvl to be the accurate amount. You may agree or disagree with the next step being 10 min/lvl, but yea- 1 rd. So Expansion sucks for a 1st or 2nd Manifester (get a power stone of ML 3rd), but from then on it's clear sailing... I am positive that you and I are not talking about the same book. My book says: COPIED DIRECTLY FROM THE XPHB Expansion Psychometabolism Level: Psychic warrior 1 Display: Olfactory Manifesting Time: 1 standard action Range: Personal Target: You Duration: 1 min./level (D) Power Points: 1 Now, I agree that in the Augment section it contradicts this, but, what I posted above is EXACTLY what my XPHB says! [Edited for COLOR!]
Druid Roxors 08-18-04, 01:24 PM	Could there be 2 slightly different editions? Mine reads as yours LL
Magagumo 08-18-04, 01:27 PM	hmmmm... that's a good question, DRuid. How soon to its release did you snag your book, LL? Mine was around 2 months after initial release.
Druid Roxors 08-18-04, 01:31 PM	Im not sure, I bought it from a friend about 10 days ago. I have no idea when he might have gotten it.
LLMadCow 08-18-04, 01:35 PM	Originally posted by Druid Roxors Could there be 2 slightly different editions? Sure. Let us check this out too! Copied from the XPHB, page 2, owned by LLMadCow, not written in pen and ink (Or crayon, pencil, lead, graphite, paint, blood, or anything else), but is as pristine as the day it was PRINTED in the USA by WotC! First Printing: April 2004 So, guys, what printing is yours? Originally posted by Druid Roxors Mine reads as yours LL PRAISE GOD! :angel: :bounce: :bow: :bounce: :angel: [The Hallelujah Praise Choir is singing in the background!] [Edit: And that is me in the middle of the group!]
Magagumo 08-18-04, 08:11 PM	My apologies (book in front of me now). Spell Block says 1 min/lvl, augment says 1 rd/ lvl.
SnarkHunter 08-18-04, 09:53 PM	Re: readied action mounted spellcasting cheese. This feels a little to disreputable to actually try. In fact I don't recall any gladiator that has used this in a real battle. For Evrams part at least I'll have something different as far as my opening initiative won assualt :).
LLMadCow 08-30-04, 10:40 PM	Suitable Mounts vs. Ill-Suitable Mounts vs. Unsuitable Mounts Recently, there has been some debate about what is a suitable mount and what is not a suitable mount. This issue is compounded by the fact that everyone has different ideas about exactly what this means, how to determine it, and what the ramifications are. This post is intended to answer those questions and give a broad range of information used to come to these conclusions. First, I will start with the Ride skill. Quote from the SRD 3.5 RIDE (DEX) If you attempt to ride a creature that is ill suited as a mount, you take a –5 penalty on your Ride checks. So an ill suited (whatever this term might mean) mount = -5 penalty on Ride checks. Okay, from here we go onto discovering what an ill suited mount is. Let’s look at the DMG and see what it has to say. Quote from DMG, page 204 Unusual Mounts <Flavor Text removed for sake of being brief> Suitable Mounts: You have the final decision on what is or is not a suitable mount. At it's most basic level, a mount should have the following characteristics: Able and willing to carry its rider in a typical fashion. (A camel is able and willing. A tiger might be capable but may not be willing. A giant might be willing but not truly able.) At least one size category larger than the character. Also, a flying mount can carry no more than a light load aloft. The mounts Challenge Rating should be no more than 3 less than the rider's character level. If the mount can fly, its Challenge Rating should be no more than 4 less than the rider's character level. Well, this is a very nice answer as to what a suitable mount is, but what about that ill suited mount? For that, we have to turn to the dictionary and actually look up the term ill suited, since the tem is not clearly defined anywhere in the DMG, PHB, MM or SRD 3.5. Quote from Dictionary ill adjective, comparative of worse and bad. More inferior, as in quality, condition, or effect. Being further from a standard; less desirable or satisfactory. Well, if you look at the definitions of ill, and put them together with suited (or suitable), we get the opposite of suitable, and suitable was already clearly defined above. An easy way to define what the opposite of something is, is to insert words that turn the statement into a negative, or opposite, of what its original meaning was. For ease of understanding, I will again quote the DMG, but this time I will insert negatives at the appropriate points; these will be easy to identify by being BOLD and UNDERLINED. Modified Quote from DMG, page 204 Unusual Mounts <Flavor Text removed for sake of being brief> [Ill suited] Mounts: You have the final decision on what is or is not an ill suited mount. At it's most basic level, an ill suited mount should have the following characteristics: Unable and/or unwilling to carry its rider in a typical fashion. (A camel is able and willing. A tiger might be capable but may not be willing. A giant might be willing but not truly able.) At least one size category larger than the character. Also, a flying mount can carry no more than a light load aloft. (This can most easily be done mathematically: Character Size < Mount Size. The opposite would be Character size = or > Mount size.) The character must be the same size category or larger than the mount The mounts Challenge Rating should be no less than 3 less than the rider's character level. If the mount can fly, its Challenge Rating should be no less than 4 less than the rider's character level. Okay, that may seem a little confusing, but read it through once or twice to let it all sink in. Once one understands that ill suited is the opposite of suitable, this will help solve a lot of problems. Now, this leaves us with one final issue to address. When the DMG was written, it was not intended for the environment of the CoCo and the arena. We have already established that anything requiring a DM to judge is not allowed, so what needs to happen is a nice and simple vote from the Elders/GMs to decide what the arena standard list of suitable mounts are, and anything else would therefore be considered ill suited and impose a –5 penalty to their ride skill. To these ends, I recommend the following be considered suitable mounts: Horse, pony, camel, riding dog, dire wolf, hippogriff, monstrous spider, shark, unicorn, dire boar, dire wolverine, giant eagle, giant owl, pegasus, rhinoceros, sea cat, dire lion, griffon, porpoise, dire bat, dire badger, dire weasel, and monitor lizard. Other mounts could be approved on a character by character basis as needed. The last thing I am going to post here is what IS NOT considered an ill-suited mount. An untrained mount is covered by the Handle Animal skill. An unusual mount is covered under the section Unusual Mounts (DMG, pages 204 & 205), and in no way constitutes ill suited, since it gives a definition of what suitable is and then gives a list of many suitable, unusual mounts. Quote from Dictionary unsuitable adjective Not meant or adapted for a particular purpose. A rock is not meant for, nor has it been adapted for riding. Unsuitable mount. A pony is meant and adapted for riding; regardless of size, if it can carry the weight, it can be a mount. Anything that can be trained and mounted by something one size smaller fits the definition of something that is meant and/or adapted for riding; so, if it is ridden by something of the same size it is then ill suited as opposed to unsuitable. Just for clarification, I have to address one more thing: A mount MUST be strong enough to carry their load. Regardless of the mounts size, if it is not strong enough to carry the load, then it cannot be used as a mount. Please refer to PHB, pages 161 & 162, Carrying Capacities for further information. I will edit this response as needed to further address intelligent and well thought out rebuttals. Please DO NOT respond if you have not read the entire post. Please DO NOT respond with short replies that are confusing or incomplete. Short of some new Errata, this is a solid response to the issue of what is or is not a Suitable Mount.
Ashenai 08-31-04, 10:39 AM	There is, IMO, one fatal flaw in your reasoning. Suitable Mounts: You have the final decision on what is or is not a suitable mount. At its most basic level, a mount should have the following characteristics: Read that line carefully. It says a mount should have the following characteristics. ANY MOUNT. Not just suitable mounts. Your "reversing" argument would only work if it said "at its most basic level, a suitable mount should have (...) " In other words, what is suitable and what isn't is debatable, but ANY mount would have to meet the three bullet points to qualify for being a mount.
cellardweller 08-31-04, 10:46 AM	Repost from old boards> Your argument is logically flawed. quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ /Originally posted by LLMadCow / *Well, if you look at the definitions of ill, and put them together with suited (or suitable), we get the opposite of suitable, and suitable was already clearly defined above.* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The part of noisy definition is "*less* desirable or satisfactory". You have assumed this to mean that there is are only two sets suitable and ill suited mounts. The definition does not carry the weight required to make this assertion - it states "less" not "not". An equally valid statement from the same set of evidence would be that: Suitable mount > ill suited mount > unsuitable mount. Without first proving that the set of all creatures are contained within the two sets of suitable and ill-suited mounts, you cannot make the logical substitution for your last step. This is the fundamental argument - are some creatures unsuitable for mounts and therefore unrideable?
LLMadCow 08-31-04, 11:24 AM	Okay, I have responded to your statements, but I will respond again. (This time, I have given all of the information to a professional linguist and English Major for review and based on what is listed, my arguement is sound and he finds all of these responses humorous!) Ashenai - You are ignoring the word SHOULD. The word should is used as OUGHT TO. In this manner, the implication is that any mount OUGHT TO have the following characteristics, and otherwise something must be done for compensation. This is where the ill-suited clause comes into play from the RIDE skill. So, I agree that ALL MOUNTS SHOULD have those characteristics, but when they do not, they are either ill suited or unsuitable. Cellardweller - Did you read this again to see that I already addressed this arguement? I did not just repost my side of the debate, but I also addressed the issue. Either way, here we go again. With all of the information we have, we can make the following statements: A Large Warhorse is a suitable mount for a Medium human. It is able and willing, and meant and adapted for a particular purpose. Asuuming there is no issue with the CR or Strength, everything is cool. Now that we have established that it is completely suitable, and the fact that the guidlines say SHOULD (read OUGHT TO), we can modify the scenario. A Large Warhorse with a Large Human is ill-suited as a mount. It is ill suited only due to the size issue. Once you can establish what is suitable vs unsuitable, then changing one of the parameters of what is listed as all mounts SHOULD have merely makes it ill suited. Unsuitable would be anything that cannot convey anything. A rock is not meant for, nor has it been adapted for riding. Unsuitable mount. A pony is meant and adapted for riding; regardless of size, if it can carry the weight, it can be a mount. Anything that can be trained and mounted by something one size smaller fits the definition of something that is meant and/or adapted for riding; so, if it is ridden by something of the same size it is then ill suited as opposed to unsuitable. Please, I did not simply repost this, and I have asked time and again for thought out responses to my posts. I have taken the time to reply to EVERY SINGLE issue you guys have thrown at me except for one. Cellardweller - Refuted your post using logic and an understanding of the English Language; I addressed what an unsuitable mount is. Ashenai - Refuted your post using a full understanding of the English language and address the entire sentence, as opposed to only part of it; should is the word you need to address, as opposed to a mount MUST have... Jindl (And one other) - I have no solid response to your statement that since the two things I am quoting are seperate, that they do not work together. That is the most illogical response I have heard to date. I have looked at this in many different ways, and I have decided that my best response is this: From now on when there are multiple components of how something works and they are listed in different sources, I will be sure to point out that it doesn't work since they are seperate listings. This will be despite their similar nature and obvious relationship.
Ashenai 08-31-04, 11:56 AM	Ashenai - You are ignoring the word SHOULD. The word should is used as OUGHT TO. In this manner, the implication is that any mount OUGHT TO have the following characteristics, and otherwise something must be done for compensation. This is where the ill-suited clause comes into play from the RIDE skill. So, I agree that ALL MOUNTS SHOULD have those characteristics, but when they do not, they are either ill suited or unsuitable. Okay, here are a bunch of quotes from the SRD: "At it's most basic level, a mount should have the following characteristics:" If there is still a tie [when rolling initiative], the tied characters should roll again to determine which one of them goes before the other.So what happens when they do not? The cohort should be equipped with gear appropriate for its level."What happens if it isn't? Any prestige class feature that calculates a save DC using the class level should add only half the character?s class levels above 10th.What will happen if it adds more or less than half? The player should roll 2d6 and consult the table below to determine the dice's affects (sic).So, as a DM, what would you do if I wanted to roll 3d6 instead of the 2d6 I "should" roll? When multiplying spell levels to determine value, 0- level spells should be treated as 1/2 level.What happens if they're not? I can bring up plenty of similar examples. Either demonstrate how my examples differ from the original text, or apply your argument to my examples as well. Ashenai - Refuted your post using a full understanding of the English languageI'll assume you didn't mean to have that sound as condescending as it did. :)
LLMadCow 08-31-04, 12:23 PM	Ash, I apologie for coming off as condescending as I did. In reply to your long post, I will have to wait until I get home from work tonight. I do not have time right now, but I can start by saying that the word should has different uses and I would have to address each one of them. The usage of a word has to be determined by its contextual clues within the sentence. So, if you really want, I can give a basic English lesson on the usage of the word should and it's many different meanings and how to determine which way it is intended to be used. However, I am not going to go through the entire SRD and define each and every use of the word should. It is expected that people can judge this for themselves.
Ashenai 08-31-04, 12:30 PM	I accept that the word "should" has different meanings in different contexts. However, I made sure to select examples where "should" was used in as similar a context to the debated text as possible. In any case, you are now arguing that: It is expected that people can judge this for themselves.That is likely so, but most people appear to be in favour of the "should = must" interpretation in this specific case, including at least two GMs (if I remember correctly; that part of the debate was unfortunately wiped). In any case, if it's a matter of interpretation, I expect it would be an appropriate topic for a vote, once the Council starts doing its thing.
Jindl 08-31-04, 12:57 PM	That is likely so, but most people appear to be in favour of the "should = must" interpretation in this specific case, including at least two GMs (if I remember correctly; that part of the debate was unfortunately wiped). In any case, if it's a matter of interpretation, I expect it would be an appropriate topic for a vote, once the Council starts doing its thing. Both Tellish and I (in agreement with Magagumo and MotherBast) have stated that: While Shape and Temperment limitations can be overcome with a -5 penalty to the ride check, Size and Strength limitations may not. A creature *must* be one size category larger and strong enough to bear its rider for it to be used as a mount. You may feel free to disagree and argue the ruling, but it is the ruling. -Jindl
Ashenai 08-31-04, 05:38 PM	Here's a rules question. Does a dazed flyer fall down? Actually, this is two questions: 1) If a magically flying creature (Beholder, mage with Fly spell) is dazed, what happens? 2) If a flying creature with wings (Dragon, Avoral, Giant Owl) is dazed, what happens?
Druid Roxors 08-31-04, 06:02 PM	Here's a rules question. Does a dazed flyer fall down? Actually, this is two questions: 1) If a magically flying creature (Beholder, mage with Fly spell) is dazed, what happens? 2) If a flying creature with wings (Dragon, Avoral, Giant Owl) is dazed, what happens? Since Daze means you cannot take actions (much like stunned, but without penalties and dropping things), you cannot take the move action required to stabilize your flight. If you fly by virtue of magic, you still cannot stay aloft. Beholders are the exception, they float. They have a special ability called bouyancy (sp, I think). I would say that a Dazed creature is not staggered but must continue with its movement since you cannot take a hover action. What I would do is make the character fly in the same direction in a 45° angle downward.
SnarkHunter 08-31-04, 06:16 PM	I would submit that for something with perfect or good mobility they could be dazed and stay aloft. Otherwise I expect that they would stall and fall-thud.
Magagumo 08-31-04, 06:26 PM	I'm going to agree with Snark here- as a humanoid doesn't suddenly fall prone while dazed (his/her legs still support them), I would expect a Perfect/Good flyer would continue to exert the minimal effort to keep themselves stationary/aloft. As for the Beholder, it's extrodinary :-P Otherwise, Polymorphing into one would result in a very frustated head rolling about on the ground! ^_^ (Or, if two were to fight, they would end up cancel each other's bouyancy with their eyes... another amusing image... ala Futurama's Bender v. Nixon)
LLMadCow 09-01-04, 08:39 PM	What is an ill suited mount? Okay guys, since I now have no chance of winning anyone over, I will ask everyone else to define some phrases. What is an ill suited mount, as referred to in the Ride skill? Temperment? So, tyring to ride an unruly mount is not handled under the Handle Ainimal skill? Wild Shape? Huh? How does this come into play in any way?
Jindl 09-01-04, 10:00 PM	Both Tellish and I (in agreement with Magagumo and MotherBast) have stated that: While Shape and Temperment limitations can be overcome with a -5 penalty to the ride check, Size and Strength limitations may not. A creature *must* be one size category larger and strong enough to bear its rider for it to be used as a mount. You may feel free to disagree and argue the ruling, but it is the ruling. -Jindl That's "W-H-I-L-E _ _ S-H-A-P-E" ;) Basically shape and temperment limitations and the main qualifiers as "ill suited" under the Ride skill, thus the -5 penalty to the ride check. Strength and size limitations cannot be overcome using the Ride skill. The creature simply cannot be mounted. -Jindl
Beldin 09-04-04, 06:45 AM	When you are under effect the Blink spell: "You strike as an invisible creature (with a +2 bonus on attack rolls), denying your target any Dexterity bonus to AC." Does see invisible negate that? ( you are "blinking", not invisible, the spell description only states that see invisibility lessens the miss change )
cellardweller 09-04-04, 07:27 AM	Ethereal condition: Ethereal creatures are invisible, inaudible, insubstantial, and scentless to creatures on the Material Plane. Even most magical attacks have no effect on them. See invisibility and true seeing reveal ethereal creatures.
Ashenai 09-04-04, 10:11 AM	Okay, a question. ARE we enforcing the loss of XP (that is, gold) for a familiar being dismissed or dying? I'm only asking because I've seen several mages who I believe haven't deleted the appropriate amount of gold when their familiar died (or was dismissed)... and I haven't seen a single mage (with the exception of Ildechai) who has. No names at present, because I'm not 100% sure, but if the answer is yes, then I'm going to look them over more carefully and post the results. I'm okay with Ildechai being fairly penalized for losing his familiar, but not if every other mage gets to ignore the penalty. So could at least two GMs please chime in and confirm this? Do mages lose 1000 gp/caster level (DC 15 Fort save halves) if their familiar dies or is dismissed? Yes or no?
LLMadCow 09-04-04, 12:04 PM	Okay, a question. ARE we enforcing the loss of XP (that is, gold) for a familiar being dismissed or dying? I'm only asking because I've seen several mages who I believe haven't deleted the appropriate amount of gold when their familiar died (or was dismissed)... and I haven't seen a single mage (with the exception of Ildechai) who has. No names at present, because I'm not 100% sure, but if the answer is yes, then I'm going to look them over more carefully and post the results. I'm okay with Ildechai being fairly penalized for losing his familiar, but not if every other mage gets to ignore the penalty. So could at least two GMs please chime in and confirm this? Do mages lose 1000 gp/caster level (DC 15 Fort save halves) if their familiar dies or is dismissed? Yes or no? ALL Wizards must make roll for the save and lose GP either way. This is a long standing rule that has been ignored. I just have not had the time to sort through all of them to discover who has and has not had to worry about this. So, if you have a list, go for it. Post it, share it and we will all be better off. Okay, well mages will be ticked, but things will be more fair. Some people may go into GP debt until they advance, but that is something to worry about for later.
Tellish_of_Ket 09-04-04, 05:08 PM	5 gp per xp lost. -ToK
Jindl 09-04-04, 06:26 PM	Okay, a question. ARE we enforcing the loss of XP (that is, gold) for a familiar being dismissed or dying? I'm only asking because I've seen several mages who I believe haven't deleted the appropriate amount of gold when their familiar died (or was dismissed)... and I haven't seen a single mage (with the exception of Ildechai) who has. No names at present, because I'm not 100% sure, but if the answer is yes, then I'm going to look them over more carefully and post the results. I'm okay with Ildechai being fairly penalized for losing his familiar, but not if every other mage gets to ignore the penalty. So could at least two GMs please chime in and confirm this? Do mages lose 1000 gp/caster level (DC 15 Fort save halves) if their familiar dies or is dismissed? Yes or no? Confirm. We need to check this when auditing PC's... -Jindl
Caterane 09-04-04, 06:33 PM	If we have to pay for deceased familiars, that's again such a thing where one can damage his opponoment financially, something which shouldn't be possible. Also, what happens if you lose 6000 gold but don't have that much? Are you now running around with a negative account until you level in some weeks? That's weird. Though that's not something where I would pull my hair out to block it, I'd still like to see that there is no penalty for a deceased or dismissed familiar. Oh, and speaking of such, Kelek still has his familiar and still hasn't substracted the -2 from his leadership score.
KerlanRayne 09-04-04, 07:10 PM	We could have free res of familiars but charge for dismissing and getting a different one. Also, res would be mandatory so you couldn't use death to make free switch to another familiar. KerlanRayne
Tellish_of_Ket 09-05-04, 01:56 AM	If we have to pay for deceased familiars, that's again such a thing where one can damage his opponoment financially, something which shouldn't be possible. Also, what happens if you lose 6000 gold but don't have that much? Are you now running around with a negative account until you level in some weeks? That's weird. Though that's not something where I would pull my hair out to block it, I'd still like to see that there is no penalty for a deceased or dismissed familiar. Oh, and speaking of such, Kelek still has his familiar and still hasn't substracted the -2 from his leadership score. That's because the familiar was acquire AFTER the cohort. Please re-read the leadership section before posting numbness. Leadership score is determined WHEN YOU ACQUIRE your cohort, not after. A cohort, in theory, can level to be equal to yours but never be higher. If something happens that you lose a level and your cohort exceeds your level then he goes away, and since we don't lose levels and he only gains one level at a time he never goes away. -ToK
MotherBast 09-06-04, 08:57 AM	Hey ToK, can you post where it says that leadership score is only taken into account when acuring the cohort, and not after you have one? I've read it twice, and I can't find that. I know that acording to Skip Williams, if your chort gets enough EXP to level, but it would put him over the "MAX Level" for your leadership score, then the cohort stops 1 EXP short of leveling. So its impossable for a cohort to level past its max level, determanied by your leadership score. While no clerafactations exist that I know of reguarding what happens to a cohort if its already at max level, and your leadership score drops do to some effect (such as attaining a familure), I would personaly rule the cohort stops acting as a cohort untill such time as he is again withen the relm of your leadership score. Even if we treat it differently here in the arena, a cohort above his max level will not atain any new levels untill his leader's score can accomade the new levels, for the reason I listed above.
Caterane 09-06-04, 01:01 PM	That's because the familiar was acquire AFTER the cohort. Please re-read the leadership section before posting numbness. Leadership score is determined WHEN YOU ACQUIRE your cohort, not after. A cohort, in theory, can level to be equal to yours but never be higher. If something happens that you lose a level and your cohort exceeds your level then he goes away, and since we don't lose levels and he only gains one level at a time he never goes away. -ToK Please quote me the text where it says that it only counts at character recrution. So why not drink a potion of charisma, lease a castle for a day, after recruitment acquire a familiar and special mount and ignore every penalty in the DMG. Oh, and attract a follower of your alignment and instantly change it to whatever you need which is of course ok since only the splitsecond of the acquiration counts [/sarcasm] No way, bud. This is exploiting the rules and doing the verb with 'j' at the beginning. Also, the cohort's powercurve the leadership table shows reflects the 1/2 XP gained which your version doesn't: he gets full XP in your theory because he's always the same level relatively to you. Again, this is nowhere written.
cellardweller 09-21-04, 10:32 PM	In recent weeks there have been a number of different rule interpretations with regards to grappling mounted opponents. In the interests of consistency, it is time to standardise the CoCo ruling on grappling mounted characters. Below are the relevant posts that I could find: @Beldin Just for your knowledge (this caught me by surprise when Crest v. Pard) when an individual uses Improved grapple- they end that round which each person in their own respective square, but grappling. However, at the beginning of the intiator's next turn (in this case, Crest/Rain), they must enter the opponent's square. If this is not possible, due to terrain or the opponent being mounted (since the horse and opponent share the same square the grappler cannot enter as well). However, and I just realized this now, if the grappler has a move action elft (say, they grappled the mounted opponent with a std.), they can then use their move to try and "move the grapple" thus pulling the opponent from their saddle. This may allow the opponent to use their Ride chk (as they can vs. Trip) but it does get them off the mount and allow the grappling to continue the following round, rather than forcing the monk, etc. to reinitiate the grapple (in the end, the only real difference is the grappler having to make a touch attack each round, as damage is still dealt and the opponent is grappeld on their own turns.) In the end, the only surefire way to grapple is to be a remorhaz, purple worm, etc, because "Improved Grab" pulls your opponent into your square. Mag: About grappling a mounted character, it is possible, without moving the grapple. If you succeed on your touch attack, and establish the grapple, you move into the mount's space, effectavly mounting the mount yourself, and maintain the grapple. You are not concidered riding the mount, and should the mount move, neither you nor the rider will move with it unless the mount can carry both. I ran it exactly as the rules support it. You can grapple a mounted foe but cannot maintain the grapple because you cannot enter the opponoments space. What options do we have? The mounted PC is dragged from the mount and into the Grapplers space. This sounds weird and is nowhere backed up. The grappler enters the space of the mount. He now grapples the mounted one and the mount? Weird. The grappler initiates a grapple, deals damage, but cannot maintain the hold Something else? The way I ran it and the way it is written in the rules is #3. All positions agree on steps 1-3 of "Starting a grapple" however disagreement arises out of step 4 Step 4: Maintain Grapple. To maintain the grapple for later rounds, you must move into the target’s space. (This movement is free and doesn’t count as part of your movement in the round.) Moving, as normal, provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents, but not from your target. If you can’t move into your target’s space, you can’t maintain the grapple and must immediately let go of the target. To grapple again, you must begin at Step 1. Cat and Mag believe that the presence of the mount prevents the grappler from moving into the mounted character's space. MB and I see no rules to suggest that this is true. The below is an exerpt from the recent Shiaan vs Enilias as run by Cat to illustrate how I beleive it should be handled. Elinias is mounted on Red (a warhorse) and Shiaan is mounted on Shade (a pegusus) Round 1: At the end of the charge, the Thestral grapples Enilias [Shade: melee touch (11+14+2(charge)+1(higher)) = 28 vs Ac19 (touch), success][Grapple: Shade (11+21) = 32 vs Enilias (10+12) = 22, success; Damage (1d6+7) = 11][Shiaan: greatsword (3+19+1(higher)) = 23 vs Ac16 (FF), success; Damage (2d6+13) = 20] while Shiaan deals a tremendous blow to the feeble elf. Round 2: Shade cannot maintain the grapple with Enilias mounted so he must release him. Enilias uses this to 5ft step back to avoid a grappling AoO and rapid shoot Shiaan By MB and my interpretations, at the end of the charging grapple, all 4 combatants would be occupying the same 4 squares. Shade and Enilias would be "in a grapple", Red and Shiaan would not. Shade would have drawn an AoO from Red for moving into its square.
Jindl 09-23-04, 02:54 PM	By MB and my interpretations, at the end of the charging grapple, all 4 combatants would be occupying the same 4 squares. Shade and Enilias would be "in a grapple", Red and Shiaan would not. Shade would have drawn an AoO from Red for moving into its square. That's my interpretation as well. I've not seen anything that says being mounted prevents you from being grappled. Indeed, many action movies show people grappling others who are mounted (classic hero jumps on the enemy who is mounted, resulting in a wrestling match). The FAQ does suggest that a creature who is occupying a square where the grapple is occurring must either be a part of the grapple, be prone, or leave the square as soon as possible. I suppose we could rule that the mount would be under these restricitons once its rider began grappling. -Jindl
Ashenai 10-15-04, 08:05 PM	Quick rules interpretation question. If a character snipes successfully (shoots and re-hides with -20), and his opponent doesn't manage to spot him, does his opponent still know his general direction? If yes, how general? How should this be adjudicated? Personally, I think that a successful snipe means that the opponent should have no idea where the attack came from, and--as far as I know--that's how it was interpreted up to now. But a clarification or definite ruling would be most welcome.
Jindl 10-16-04, 03:02 PM	Quick rules interpretation question. If a character snipes successfully (shoots and re-hides with -20), and his opponent doesn't manage to spot him, does his opponent still know his general direction? If yes, how general? How should this be adjudicated? Personally, I think that a successful snipe means that the opponent should have no idea where the attack came from, and--as far as I know--that's how it was interpreted up to now. But a clarification or definite ruling would be most welcome. You are correct. The opponent has no idea where the attack originated. Keep in mind that there is often a sound accompanying the sniper's ranged attacks (a bow twang, or verbal spell components, etc). So the target may locate the sniper or know his direction from listening.
Beldin 10-16-04, 05:17 PM	I believe the opponent should know the general derection of the attack. At least when he was hit. If you are hit in the back then you should know that there is an enemy behind you.
Caterane 10-21-04, 05:53 AM	Quote from the SRD Speak In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn’t your turn. Speaking more than few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action. Since this was the main reason I cannot give commands during the opponoments turn, I can use Mounted combat with Nightingale/Crimson Sunrise now. Holly Berry Bombs: You turn as many as eight holly berries into special bombs. The holly berries are usually placed by hand, since they are too light to make effective thrown weapons (they can be tossed only 5 feet). If you are within 200 feet and speak a word of command, each berry instantly bursts into flame, ... A command word is a standard action, not a free action.
Ashenai 10-21-04, 11:04 AM	Yeah, I agree with both points. The first one seems fairly ironclad; the second one is a matter of interpretation (is a "word of command" the same thing as the "command word" for magic items?), but I like your interpretation better than the alternative.
Druid Roxors 10-21-04, 11:17 AM	Yeah, I agree with both points. The first one seems fairly ironclad; the second one is a matter of interpretation (is a "word of command" the same thing as the "command word" for magic items?), but I like your interpretation better than the alternative. Question: Can you trigger a command word when an item is not in your hand? I believe command word specifically says that the item is in your hand when you activate it. In other words, Fireseeds cannot be command-word activated. Is that right?
Ashenai 10-21-04, 11:43 AM	Not necessarily. A Mirror of Mental Prowess, for instance, is command-word activated, but clearly does not have to be held in one's hand.
Jindl 10-21-04, 02:00 PM	Since this was the main reason I cannot give commands during the opponoments turn, I can use Mounted combat with Nightingale/Crimson Sunrise now. I don't think so. The reason mindless undead are unsuitable as mounts (and cannot use the mounted combat feats) is because they are unintelligent. The DMG clearly states that in order to be a suitable mount, the creature must have an Int of 1 or more. It even goes one to give an example of a DM making an exception to this rule to allow giant spiders to be used as mounts (becuase as vermin they have an Int of 0).
Caterane 10-21-04, 03:15 PM	Wait a second Jindl. The decision was that I can use Mounted combat during my turn, but not on the opponoments turn because I can only speak during my turn. That was the agreement, not INT 0. Now that this reason is gone, I should be able to use Mounted combat. I spent a feat on it anyway.
Jindl 10-21-04, 04:22 PM	Some of the people involved in the previous discussion may have voiced opinions regarding commanding the undead by voice to perform mounted combat manuevers, but with increasing knowledge of the rules their opinions may change. The two big problems with this idea appear to be: 1. The DMG says that your mount must have an Int >= 1 in order to be a suitable mount (and use the mounted combat feats). 2. Giving voice commands is not enough to grant use of the mounted combat feats. The mount must also recieve training. This is the reason given for why giant eagles, pegasi, griffons, giant owls, and a host of other intelligent creatures who can speak and/or understand the common tongue still have to be trained by an animal handler (DC 25) in order to be used as a mount. If it was as simple as giving voice commands then these creatures wouldn't need any special (and expensive) training. Based on these two big problems, I don't think anyone should be able to use the mounted combat feats on a nonintelligent mount, especially if the mount is only controlled by spoken commands. Perhaps some of the Elders would care to comment on this?
Ashenai 10-21-04, 10:03 PM	1. The DMG says that your mount must have an Int >= 1 in order to be a suitable mount (and use the mounted combat feats). Hm. Could you cite this, please? I can't find any mention of this in my DMG.
T'Var 10-21-04, 11:01 PM	even though it does not specificly state that a mount cannot be mindless Training an Unusual Mount. The players handbook covers training animals under Handle Animal skill discription (page 74 of PHB). Its mentions that magical beasts of intelligence of 1 or 2 may also be trained using this skill, you can deside if it applies to other creatures of this intelligence though not directly coming out and saying that mindless beasts may not be trained it does say that In some cases such as vermin (mindless) you need to make special provisions if you allow the creature to become a mount at all........a special breed of monsterous spider........or a magical item that allows them to act as mounts as long as they are wearing it I know im just here on my second week but from the rules directly out of the DMG and this being a Core Rules only Arena, I would say that mindless creatures (Int - ) could not be mounts because they could never be trained. and since 'custom' magical items are not allowed no magical device could be worn by the mindless creature to allow it to act/serve as a mount.
Jindl 10-22-04, 12:02 PM	Hm. Could you cite this, please? I can't find any mention of this in my DMG. See T'Var's post above.
Caterane 10-22-04, 06:56 PM	Increasing knowledge? We've all read everything about this topic back then and we all came to this agreement. Do we have to rekindle this mammoth discussion again? Alright, I'm in. I need a quick answer. What are the saves for the Phantom Steed now? Can it be targeted by target spells?
T'Var 10-23-04, 06:07 PM	I need a quick answer. What are the saves for the Phantom Steed now? Can it be targeted by target spells? it has HP and AC it can be targeted by spells since it is a quazi-real horse like creature i would say it either uses the saves of a horse(not warhorse because it will not attack)
Ashenai 10-24-04, 01:54 AM	It should be targetable; the spell description makes it clear that it's a creature. Unfortunately, it has no stats block. Anything beyond what the spell description specifies is mere speculation.
Caterane 10-24-04, 06:00 AM	Right. The Elders should vote on that.
Ashenai 11-08-04, 11:27 AM	The latest Rules of the Game article has addressed one of the thorny issues we aren't quite unanimous on. "Although the rules don't mention it, letting go of a two-handed weapon with one hand or putting a free hand back on the weapon is a free action for you." So there we go.