Post/Author/DateTime	Post
TelinArtho 12-13-07, 03:43 PM	THE COURTROOM OF GLADIUS http://www.caterane.de/CoCo/Struktur/Gladius-Courtroom.jpg This is the Courtroom of Gladius. If you seek advice or the answer to a question about the City of Gladius and its physical and metaphysical laws, you have come to the right place. State your question here and one of the judges, also known as the Elders, will address your issue. Whatever the Elders say will be or become law in Gladius unless overruled by the Supreme Court. It sometimes happens that the Elders are not of the same opinion. In that case, they will consult and agree by vote on a final decision. If a final decision among the Elders cannot be reached, it is possible to call upon the Supreme Court, referred to as Game Master. In the next rooms, you will find a list of rulings given to previously asked questions. You should first see if your petition has been addressed in the past. Below, you will find the rules and guidelines on how to ask and receive answers here. Please follow these guidelines. Rules and Guidelines For the most part, this is going to be a rather free-form thread. There are a few simple things that are asked to ensure that this runs as smoothly and efficiently as possible. If the question is currently being discussed, please name the thread that the debate/discussion is taking place. When referencing a currently ongoing debate, please link to the original location of the debate. Please list the names of the parties involved and a summary of sides taken, using quotes as appropriate. If another Elder has weighed in on the topic, please let everyone know. Always try to be polite and courteous!! Occasionally edit your initial post, to add new info and cover all the bases. Please do not hold an active debate in this thread. This is the successor of the Courtroom of Gladius, Ask an Elder and Oracle of Gladius threads. You can ask any question about the D&D and/or Core Coliseum rules. One or more of the Elders will step forward and answer your question. Their decision will become law unless overruled by the Game Master. If you need a decision right away (i.e. to resolve a fight for that week), and either the Elders are still debating it, or no one has given an answer, then the pitlord makes the decision. A subsequent ruling against the pitlord's decision does not warrant a change to the fight if the week is over.
TelinArtho 12-13-07, 03:43 PM	Court Decisions RAW Rulings and Clarifications The section below contains a list of official rules clarifications and determinations that have been made in the Gladius Arena. Below are clarifications of the Rules As Written. If you see something not on the list that you think should be there, don't hesitate to send a message to Prisonlords to see about getting it added! If there is something here that you feel should be reviewed, ask a question about it in the Core Coliseum Tavern thread, and if deemed necessary, a post will be made there to offer further clarification of the issue. Keep in mind that any rulings listed here are subject to change without notice, however these are the operational rules that should be used until such time as they change here. Q: Can you pull out an item during a grapple? A: No, it is not on the actions available during a grapple list. Q: How do Armor Spikes work in grapples? A: As per the 3.5 FAQ, you may either inflict normal damage with them (in place of unarmed damage) using a grapple check (the "Damage Your Opponent" grapple option), or by using them as a light weapon and rolling an attack roll with a -4 penalty (the "Attack Your Opponent" grapple option). Q: Can you score a critical hit on a grapple? A: Yes, on the initial touch attack needed to start a grapple. If it is confirmed as a critical hit, a successful grapple check will deal double damage. This is the only time you may score a critical as a part of a grapple, as grapple checks are not attacks. Q: Can you use a Power Completion item during a grapple? A: No. Due to transparancy, power completion items are restricted just as spell completion items are. Q: Are grapple checks attacks? A: As per the 3.5 FAQ, no. The initial melee touch attack to start a grapple is an attack roll, and is modified by anything that can modify an attack roll. A grapple check is an opposed check, not an attack roll. Q: How long does a pin last? A: A pin lasts one round, but can be maintained each round with a successful grapple check. The person pinned can break the pin by succeeding in a grapple check, an escape artist check, or by the pinner failing their check to maintain the pin. Once the pin is broken, however, both parties are still considered grappling. Q: Can a Sahaugin use his rake ability in a grapple...out of the water? A: As per the 3.5 FAQ, yes. They can also use their rake ability without being in a grapple IF they are underwater. Q: How do natural weapons work in a grapple? A: As per the 3.5 FAQ, under normal circumstances, a creature can attack with only one of its natural weapons while grappling (and it takes a –4 penalty on such attacks; PH 156). A creature that chooses to make grapple checks in place of attacks (that is, to damage its opponent, escape from the grapple, move, pin its opponent, or use its opponent’s weapon) is allowed one grapple check for every attack that its base attack bonus would allow (even if it doesn’t normally make multiple attacks in this manner). A creature with BAB +0 to +5 may make one grapple check in place of an attack, BAB +6 to +10 two, BAB +11 to +15 three, and BAB +16 to +20 four. Q: How does grappling work in combination with a monk's Flurry of Blows? A: As per the 3.5 FAQ, a monk may perform any attack or special attack in a Flurry of Blows as long as a special monk weapon that is normally allowed to be used in a flurry is used. Since unarmed strikes are allowed in a flurry, you can make grapple checks using each attack in the Flurry of Blows attack routine. This is the only exception to the ruling that regulates the amount of grapple checks you can make in a round based upon your base attack bonus. Q: If you have the Trample feat and are riding a mount other than a horse (and something that doesn't have a listed hoof attack - like a Bison...), can the mount make an attack during the overrun? A: As per the 3.5 FAQ, yes. Essentially, it doesn't have to be a hoof attack, but it does have to be an attack made by the "feet" of the mount. So a claw attack is fine (say if you are mounted on a bear or lion), but a riding dog (who has no "foot" attack, just the bite) would get no free attack. Q: If an attack on a mount scores a 20 on the attack roll, how is this handled in relation to the Mounted Combat feat? A: A 20 always hits, regardless of any ride check made to negate the hit allowed by Mounted Combat. For the critical confirmation roll, the roll to confirm is done vs the Ride check allowed by Mounted Combat as normal. If the Ride check is higher, there is no critical strike, but the attack still hits. If the confirmation roll is higher, then the hit is a critical strike, and damage is rolled accordingly. Q: If a mount is restricted to only one action in a round (e.g. in a surprise round or when slowed) and uses that action to move, and the rider takes a standard or full-round action, where are they when that action takes place? A: The action takes place at the mid-point of the mount's move. If the action has penalties associated with performing it while moving (such as requiring a concentration check or imposing an attack penalty), those penalties apply just as if the rider were performing the action during a double-move under normal circumstances. Q: Does the Combat Expertise>Improved Trip>Knockdown feat chain allow you to perform an attack>trip>attack combo? A: No. As Knockdown provides a free trip after a standard action, you do not have a standard action to give up at that point to perform the trip action required to receive the free attack that Improved Trip provides. Q: Does a character mounted on a flying creature receive double damage when making a dive attack? A: No. Only the creature itself receives this bonus. Q: Can the Deflect Arrows feat be used when holding a two-handed weapon? A: Since it is a free action to remove a hand from a weapon, yes you can, provided that all other condition to use the feat are met (such as being aware of the attack and not flat-footed). Q: Can the Psionic Weapon feat be used to charge an unarmed strike for unarmed damage? A: Normally no, however monks are an exception to this rule, as their unarmed strikes are counted as manufactured weapons for the purposes of spells and effects. Q: How does Precise Strike interact with natural weapons? Specifically, is a claw attack considered 'in the other hand'? How about a bite attack? A: As written claws, talons, rakes, slams, hooves are all off hand in this case. A bite or gore would still be allowed. Q: Can a character make a shield bash attack using the shield as a primary weapon or can it be used only as an offhand weapon? A: As per the 3.5 FAQ, a shield bash attack may be made using the shield as either the primary or secondary weapon, and is treated like any other weapon in this regard. Q: Can the Deflect Arrows feat be used to deflect a thrown mind blade? A: Assuming all of the normal conditions to use the feat are met, yes. A mind blade does not fall into any of the categories that would be prohibited to be blocked by Deflect Arrows. Q: Can the Overchannel feat be used on psi-like abilities? A: No. Q: Are there any limitations on attacking characters who currently have total concealment? A: If you are using an area-effect spell/power or ability, you may aim the spell/power at any point to which you have line of effect. Your chances of choosing the correct square will be determined by how you phrase the tactic and how large your opponent is compared to the area of effect (note that since spells are centered on an intersection, even if you choose to aim at the center, you will have to choose one of the four squares that touches that center). If you are using a weapon or a spell/power that requires an attack roll to hit (such as rays or touch attacks), you can designate a square as being the subject of your attack. You cannot use targeted spells or abilities not requiring an attack roll at all unless you have line of sight. Q: When a large or larger creature approaches someone with greater than 5ft of reach, does the creature provoke an AoO for leaving a threatened area even if the square is actually never vacated by said creature. A: This is tough to describe, but no. If the creature never actually leaves the square as it approaches the reach-opponent, no AoO is provoked. Example: Player 1 is a medium size opponent with a reach weapon (10ft). Player 2 is a large opponent with only 5ft reach. Player 2 charges at Player 1. However, since Player 2 never actually leaves a threatened square - he does not provoke an AoO. http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;map=arena;a=Name,M,13,40;b= Name,L,19,41,14,41 This would not provoke an AoO from player 1. http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;map=arena;a=Name,M,13,40;b= Name,L,19,41,15,41,15,40 This would (because the large creature vacates (15,41)) Q: Can you purchase a composite bow tailored to someone with a strength of less than 10? A: No, the default composite bow tailored to strength 10 is the lowest you can go. Q: When attempting to sunder a ranged-only weapon, such as a bow, crossbow, javelin, etc, what do you use for the opposed attack roll needed for the sunder check? A: For any weapon that falls into the ranged-only category, use the PC's BAB + Dex mod + any bonuses to the attack roll provided by the weapon only. Bonuses from other sources, such as halfling's racial bonus to attack with slings, do not apply. Q: Can the psionic magic item modifier, Powerstoring, be added to arrows? A: No, nor can it's arcane magic equivalent, Spellstoring. Q: Can a psionic tattoo be placed on a mount/ally and then activated by someone else later? A: No, you can only activate another's tattoos if they are unconscious. Q: Can a regular suit of clothing be enchanted like armor with the Craft Magic Arms & Armor feat? A: No. Q: Can Metamagic Rods or feats be used to modify Psionic powers? And vice versa can Metapsionic stuff affect spells? A: No. Q: Can Armor Spikes be added onto a suit of armor after it is constructed, or must they be added at the original time of construction? A: You can add them after construction. They can even be made of a different material then the armor. Q: Does using a magical item, such as a Bag of Tricks, require ranks in any specific skill to operate it? A: Unless SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the description of a magical item, no specific skills are required to be able to use it. Q: What armors can be made out of dragonhide? A: All armors normally found in the core rules are eligible to be made from dragonhide. Q: Can metapsionic feats be crafted into psionic items in the way that metamagic feats can be crafted into magic items? A: Yes. Q: Can a wand be used in the hand holding a shield? A: A wand may be used normally in a hand that is holding either a buckler or light shield. It cannot be used in that hand if you are using a heavy or tower shield, as these items do not leave your hand free for anything other than using the shield. Q: When adding the Enlarge Power feat to psionic items, does it increase the cost? A: No. The crafting rules do not assign a cost to expending focus when creating a psionic item. Only additional power point expenditure can raise the cost. Therefore, adding the Enlarge Power feat to a psionic item is effectively free. Q: When using a psionic item that requires the expenditure of psionic focus, is this something that must be done by the wielder of the item, or was this done at the time of creation of the item? A: The crafting rules state that all components of an item are built into the item at it's creation. This includes the psionic focus expenditure needed to use the Enlarge Power feat. Q: With regards to the Efficient Quiver, can smaller items be bundled in the shape of items held in the javelin and bow compartments (such as arrows)? A: No. The compartments will only hold those things which are designated by the item description. Q: How does the payment for augmentation, increased manifester levels and/or metapsionic feats work when creating psionic dorjes? A: The formula for buying a dorje is 750 gp x level of the power x manifester level. The crafting rules state that for every 2 manifester levels (with a maximum of 5 above the minimum), you increase the power above the minimum needed to manifest the power, you increase the level of the power by one. This power level will be rounded down in the case of an odd number of additional manifester levels. When you are increasing the level of the power in this fashion, you do not increase it until you have reached the minimum manifester level needed to actually augment the power. As an example, an ML 1 Force Screen dorje would cost 750 gp (750 gp x level 1 power x ML 1). An ML 2 Force Screen dorje would cost 1,500 gp (750 gp x level 1 power x ML 2), an ML 3 would cost 2,250 gp (750 x level 1 x ML 3), an ML 4 would cost 3,000 gp (750 x level 1 x ML 4)...but an ML 5 dorje of Force Screen would then cost 11,250 (750 x level 3 x ML 5), as this is the first ML that you would normally be able to augment this power. Applying metapsionic feats at the time of creation operates in a similar fashion. For every 2 power points spent to add a metapsionic feat to the power, the level of the power increases by one. The manifester level will also increase for every power point used to apply a metapsionic feat to a power. As an example, an ML 1 dorje of Force Screen would cost 750 gp (750 gp x level 1 power x ML 1). The same dorje with the metapsionic feat Extend Power applied to it would cost 4,500 gp (750 gp x level 2 power x ML 3), since the power requires 2 power points to use. Q: Do you get bonus power points from high ability scores more than once if you have multiple psionic classes with different primary ability scores? A: Yes, for classes besides Psionic Fist and Warmind. Q: Does Protection from <alignment> work against the spell Hold Person? A: Yes, please refer to this (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ask/20070917a) article for more information. Q: May Bats & Toads (and other animals without a natural attack) make touch attacks as a familiar for the purposes of discharging touch spells? A: Yes. Q: How do Protection from <alignment> spells work against targets with Spell Resistance? A: Spell Resistance allows a summoned target a chance to touch a warded opponent. Any summoned creature that has spell resistance gets a single chance to bypass a ward. If unsuccessful, no further attempts may be made. Q: Can the spell Prestigitation be used in combat to levitate things such as scrolls to free up your hands? A: No. Q: Can you use Metamorphic Transfer if you Polymorph or change form in some other method that is not the psionic version (Metamorphosis)? A: Yes. Q: Do you become visible after being under the affects of Invisibility before or after a hostile action that can remove the spell? A: After. If a player readies to attack an opponent who is invisible upon line of sight, the invisible player will get one attack in first. Q: Can powers with a range of personal be placed in crawling tattoos? A: No. Exceptions to this are listed in the Crawling Tattoo description. Q: How does an eversmoking bottle work? A: It produces real smoke with its harmful effects. Q: Does the spell Blacklight grant concealment? A: Yes, it grants total concealment. Q: Can a gladiator with levels in both a casting and a manifesting class hold the charge for a touch spell and still be free to manifest psionic powers? (or vice versa with a touch psionic power?) A: Any attempt to cast a spell or manifest a power when already holding a charge of either type would cause the initial charge to dissipate. Q: Can invisible gladiators read scrolls? A: Yes. Q: Can you share spells/powers with a familiar/animal companion/psicrystal that are cast/manifested from a scroll/powerstone, wand/dorje, staff or psicrown? A: Yes. You and your animal companion/familiar/psicrystal can also share effects from magic items, but only if the effect is a spell/power that you can target on yourself. Q: Can the psionic power Dissolving Weapon be used in conjunction with a ranged attack from a bow, crossbow or sling? A: No. Unless specifically stated to do so, spells and powers cast on the launcher (bow, crossbow or sling) do not transfer to ammunition. Q: Does the spell Pass Without Trace make you undetectable by the scent ability? A: No. As stated in the spell, it prevents you from being followed based upon a scent left behind. It does not prevent detection in the area you are currently occupying based upon scent. Q: How does the spell Entangle interact with flying creatures? A: Entangle is considered to not have any reach, therefore it may only affect those subjects that share it's space. Entangle can therefore affect anything in a 5 ft cube that it has been cast upon. Any flying creature that is hovering above these spaces is going to be affected depending upon their maneuverability rating. Good and Perfect flyers can hover at a height of 5 ft above the ground (or whatever surface the entangle spell has been applied to), and therefore would be outside of the area of affect of the spell (unless they intentionally chose to go closer than 5 ft). Creatures with Average or below maneuverability would be considered to have entered the area of affect if they do not have the ability to hover at 5 ft of height, and therefore would be affected. Q: How does the feat Psionic Hole work in relation to psionic items such as dorjes and psicrowns as well as psi-like abilities? A: This feat only has an effect when the underlying psionic effect is specificially said to be manifest using power points. This means that powers manifested by manifesting characters and those manifested by psionic creatures using psi-like abilities and those powers manifested by cognizance crystals, powerstoring items and psicrowns are subject to this feat's effects. Q: Is a multi-class character who has levels in a class that restricts the type of spells he can cast (such as opposed alignment spells for clerics or druids or restricted spell schools for specialist wizards) still able to cast the restricted spells with other spellcasting classes he may have? A: Yes. The restriction on spell types only applies to the spells that come from the class that carries the restriction. Q: When a spell or power with the duration of 'Concentration' that conjures something is employed (such as Summon Swarm), can the result of the spell/power move beyond the listed range of the spell once it exists? A: Yes. Once the result of the spell is in place, it may move to anywhere that it is able, as long as the creator still has the appropriate means to maintain the concentration of the spell. Q: When making a ranged touch attack based on a spell/power used from memory or a scroll, do you provoke attacks of opportunity for the ranged attack itself? A: No. The touch attack is specifically listed as being a part of the casting of the spell or manifesting of the power. So only the act if casting the spell or manifesting the power itself can provoke an attack of opportunity. If the casting of the spell/manifesting of the power is done in a manner that does not provoke (such as by casting/manifest defensively), then you are not also in danger or provoking for the ranged touch attack. Similarly, ranged touch attacks that originate from wands or dorjes do not provoke for the same reason. The use of a wand or dorje never provokes for the use of the item itself, and the touch attack is considered part of the use of the item. Q: Can the spell Minor Creation be used to create alchemical substances or poisons? A: No. Those items fall beyond the scope of the spell's power. Q: Can a character with Cerebral Blind be detected by an opponent with Touchsight active? A: No. Q: With regard to the bag of tricks - what kind of an action is it to order the animal back into the bag? Also - are animals from a bag of tricks hedged out by Protection from Evil? A: A standard action. Animals from the bag of tricks are treated as summoned and therefore are hedged out. Q: Can a psicrystal be affected by the synesthete power? If yes, how does it affect it? A: No, it cannot because a psicrystal has no "physical sensory organs" with which to sense it. Q: With regard to the madness domain's madness score - does it only apply positively to "determining bonus spells and DCs" or does it apply more widely to all aspects of spellcasting that is affected by Wis (Spiritual Weapon attack bonus, ability to cast level x spells, etc)? A: It counts on the more wide definition. Essentially, otherwise it would mean that Madness domain clerics would eventually qualify for lower and lower level spells to cast and that spiritual weapons would become less effective as the character increases in level. Q: Does Anti-life Shell block someone under the influence of Freedom of Movement? A: No. There is a distinction between something that hinders movement (entangle, solid fog, etc) and something that prohibits movement (wall of force, magic circle, anti-life shell). Users of FoM are not hindered but they are still prohibited. Q: If a character chose an animal template for lycanthropy that had wings, would the character gain wings (and equivalent flight speed) when in Hybrid form? A: If the base creature has the ability to fly, then yes, the hybrid form can fly. If the base creature cannot fly, then the hybrid cannot fly. Currently, no creature eligible to be a base creature for the lycanthrope template exists with wings in the core rules. Q: Can monks take the Improved Natural Attack feat and have it apply to their unarmed strike damage? A: As per the 3.5 FAQ, yes. Q: Do medium races with the Powerful Build ability, such as the half-giant, receive wings when adding the half-dragon template? A: No. The Powerful Build ability does not increase a creatures size, so the base race must already be large to receive the wings. Q: Do medium races with the Powerful Build ability, such as the half-giant, do damage with their unarmed strikes as a large creature? A: No. The Powerful Build ability does not increase a creatures size, so the base race must already be large to do large damage with unarmed strikes. Q: Can a barbarian rage as a part of a ready action or an attack of opportunity? A: No. A ready action specifically states that it occurs during your opponent's action, while the rage ability specifically states that it cannot be performed in response to an opponent's action, which is what triggers a ready action. An attack of opportunity also falls into this category, as it occurs during an opponent's action. Q: How does elven sleep immunity work? A: Magic, psionics and things that function like magic or psionics DO NOT work against elves. Poisons and alchemically based effects will cause elves to sleep. Q: How does the soulknife ability Bladewind compare to the feats Whirlwind Attack and Greater Manyshot? A: All three function in a very similar fashion. Each of the abilites allows you to make attacks against multiple opponents with a single action, rather than using the full attack action to use secondary and tertiary attacks. All three abilities resolve themselves in the same way. You use your highest base attack bonus, and roll an attack vs each target within your attack area (depending on the feat/ability). All attacks made in this fashion operate as seperate attacks. Any enchantments or enhancements that do not go away after a successful attack will continue to function for each attack roll you are making. Any single-attack enchantments or enhancements will only apply to the first attack in the sequence, as per the FAQ ruling regarding soulknives, Psychic Strike and Bladewind. Q: When advancing class allies, such as the druid or ranger animal companions, do they receive the ability bonus at 4 HD like PC's? A: Any creature that has it's own hit dice receives this bonus at the appropriate HD increment. Familiars and other things who do not advance using their own hit dice, do not receive this bonus. Q: Do natural attacks of some type count the same as the feat Improved Unarmed Strike as far as meeting prereq's for other feats? A: No. A couple of monsters in the Monster Manual seem to show this, however this has proven to be an error with those individual monsters. Q: When advancing a character with Spell Resistance but without an entry for "X as Characters", does Spell Resistance go up with level? A: Not unless specified in the entry. Q: Is the Crocodile choice for animal companion available at level 1 or not until level 4 (for a druid)? A: A "stealth-errata" change happened to remove the crocodile from the level 1 list (even for aquatic campaigns. We have decided to adopt this errata despite it not being listed in the official errata. Q: Do you have to roll Move Silently while flying under a Fly spell? A: Yes Q: Can you use the concealment granted by the Blur spell to Hide? A: No because there isn't anything being placed in between yourself and anyone that you would be hiding from. Q: Can a trained skill be used if you only have 1/2 of a rank in it? A: No, at least 1 full Rank is required to use a trained skill. Q: What mount animals require the Combat Riding trick package so that they are not easily scared in combat? A: Any animal ridden as a mount must have the Combat Riding package in order to not be easily scared in combat.
TelinArtho 12-13-07, 03:44 PM	Court Decisions Houserule Rulings and Clarifications The section below contains a list of official rules clarifications and determinations that have been made in the Gladius Arena. Below are clarifications of the Core Coliseum Houserules. If you see something not on the list that you think should be there, don't hesitate to send a message to Prisonlords to see about getting it added! If there is something here that you feel should be reviewed, ask a question about it in the Core Coliseum Tavern thread, and if deemed necessary, a post will be made there to offer further clarification of the issue. Keep in mind that any rulings listed here are subject to change without notice, however these are the operational rules that should be used until such time as they change here. Q: Can you ready a move action to avoid a spell being cast at you? A: No. Q: Can a tower shield be readied to be used for total cover against incoming attacks? A: No. Readying an action to take total cover against incoming attacks violates the CoCo houserule that does not allow one to ready an action to dodge incoming attacks. Q: How does grappling a mounted opponent work? A: If you grapple someone who is mounted, you join him on the mount. If the mount cannot carry both of you, you are then considered to be grappling your opponoment adjacent to the mount, with the mount having the opportunity to take an AoO unless the attacker has the Improved Grapple feat. If the mount decides to move, the rider falls off unless he wins an opposed grapple check against the attacker, in which case the attacker is moved along with the rider as the mount moves. Q: If your character can fly, can it start it's fight in the air? A: Creatures with flight that have good or perfect maneuverability are allowed to start at a maximum height of 5 ft off the ground. Creatures with maneuverability below this start at 0 ft. Q: Can psionic energy powers (such as Energy Missile, Energy Ball, etc) be used to sunder attended objects/equipment on a character? A: No, it can only target unattended objects such as a dropped sword or a chair. Q: What is "trained for war?" With regard to animal's that have this wording within their stats. A: Trained for war is synonymous with the Combat Riding package. Q: How much does the Skate power cost when purchased as a Psionic Tattoo? A: Since there is no weight limit to the power when used on yourself, it costs double normal price like other personal tattoos. Q: When using a Pearl of Power, can you use the spell reclaimed by this item to cast a spell other than the one that was reclaimed? A: No. When using a Pearl of Power, you do not reclaim the spell level, but rather the spell itself. This allows you to cast the spell that was reclaimed even if you have already used all allowable spells available in a match under the 1/3 rule. As an example, after casting magic missile and then recalling it with a pearl of power, the spell level used to cast the spell the first time is not reclaimed. However, you are now able to cast magic missile again, even if you have used all of the spell levels available to you in your match. Q: Can a Figurine of Wondrous Creatures be activated prior to entering the arena? A: No. Q: Do lich characters have to pay for their phylactery? A: No. The CL 11 requirement must still be met, however. Q: How does the crafting of magical/psionic items work in CoCo? A: In the item description, just before the feat necessary to craft the item, there is a CL listing. This CL listing is ignored, as per the 3.5 FAQ (this portion is subject to change at a later date, if necessary). Anything listed after the feat needed to make the item is required. You must be able to cast any necessary spells yourself (i.e. you cannot use items or NPC services to do so), and any other requirements (such as creater must be x-level or creater must be x-alignment, etc) must be met. Q: If I hit my enemy with a weapon with the dislocator or greater dislocator weapon enchantments, will he lose the match because of the 10 round rule? A: If you hit an enemy with a dislocator weapon and they fail their save, if they do not find a way to return to the arena within 10 rounds, they will lose. Q: How many spells/powers may I have on a single scroll/powerstone? A: Though the RAW does not state a specific amount in the description of scrolls or powerstones, the random generation table for both scrolls and powerstones specifies 6 as the maximum number. Therefore, this number is used. Q: Are pixie characters able to acquire pixie special arrows? A: No, these items have been banned. Q: Crystal Masks specifically state that they fit medium/small humanoids. Would a version that fits non-humanoids cost credits? A: Yes. It would be similiar to buying an Amulet of Protection (modeled after a Ring of Protection) for your wizard's snake familiar. Q: Are there limits on what expendable items can be purchased? A: Yes. You may only own an amount of expendables (which are defined as oils/potions, tattoos, scrolls and powerstones) up to your ECL 2 x 50 gp. All single use expendable items, including (but not limited to) scrolls, potions, powerstones, tattoos and wondrous items, are limited to a caster/power level equal to your ECL. Scrolls and powerstones are further limited to your CL/ML + 2. Charged items, including (but not limited to) wands, dorjes, staffs, psicrowns and wondrous items are also limited to being purchased up to your ECL in caster/power level. Items with both charges or limited uses as well as a function that is continuous or does not elapse after a certain number of uses may still be purchased at any ECL (an example of this would be a Gem of Brightness, which has both effects that are charge-dependant, and effects that are not). Q: When crafting a custom item, is it allowed to make an item alignment-dependent in order to reduce the overall cost? A: No. The RAW does allow for this possibility, however in this forum this option is not available due to potential balance issues. Q: Does the free and weightless outfit that all gladiators receive count against your mount's encumbrance when mounted? A: By the RAW, there is no such thing as a weightless outfit. Since all gladiators are provided with one, this clothing is weightless for all purposes, which include encumbrance as it relates to mounts. Q: How does the spell Gate work in CoCo? A: This spell is banned in all its forms. Q: How does the power Psychic Reformation work in Gladius? A: This power has been banned to prevent abuse. Q: How does the spell Reincarnate work in the arena? A: This spell has been banned to prevent abuse. Q: What type of damage does the power Matter Agitation deal? A: As listed, the damage is untyped. It is presumed that this is an error, so we have ruled that the power deals fire damage, and carries the [Fire] descriptor for all purposes in this forum. Q: How is Dispel Psionics's Augmentation used in the CoCo? A: The elders of the CoCo have determined through popular vote that the augmentation line of Dispel Psionics is either a) misleading or b) incorrect. As such, we have house-ruled the following line as the new augmentation line: "Augment: For every additional power point you spend, the maximum ML bonus on your dispel check increases by 2 (to a maximum bonus of +20 for a 5-point expenditure)." Q: How are shared spells handled with regard to spells like Vigor/Protection from Energy and spell like Invisibility/True Strike? A: The correct interpretation is the one where a shared spell is simultaneously considered one spell for the purpose of effects that end it, and two spells for the purpose of using up points or protections provided by it. Q: Can you find invisible creatures by merely entering their squares? A: No. You can not find invisible creatures merely by moving through thier square- they can merely opt to let you pass by. The only exception is if you end movement in the same square as an invisible creature- you will then effectively know an invisible creature was there because you will be "moved" to the last legal square you occupied. Q: Can the bardic song ability Fascinate be used in the arena? A: No. However, it can be used in MiniQuests, Quests and Campaigns, with combat being defined as "When initiative has been rolled." Q: How are psicrystals handled in CoCo? A: Psicrystals are treated as the psionic equivalent to familiars. In any circumstance where the psicrystal rules are ambiguous or can be interpreted in more than one way, the corresponding rules for familiars are then used for clarification. Q: How do you deal with leveling up a PC monster that gains a level adjustment as it increases in HD? A: When you spend the credits to increase your Level Adjustment, you gain xp/gp as though you had also increased your level as well. It operates the same way that the acquisition of a template to an active character does. Q: Does a Hide in Plain sight (ie - Shadowdancer, high level ranger or assassin) require concealment or cover to use? A: No. HiPS does not require concealment or cover to use- it merely requires a shadow nearby that is not their own. This shadow does not have to be visible to the observer or even grant any sort of concealment itself. Q: Can an animal be trained to use grapple attacks? A: Yes, it is considered a custom trick that is not listed within the Handle Animal skill description. Q: Can animals be taught new tricks that are not included on the Handle Animal list? A: Yes, but they require an Elder's or the Pitlords account's approval. Q: How does the Listen skill work with the various walls and obstacles in the CoCo? A: Because none of the walls in the CoCo arena enclose any areas that players can enter none of the modifiers for Listening through walls apply. Q: Is there any way for animals to be proficient with armor besides taking the armor usage Feats? A: If an animal has the Combat Riding trick package they are considered proficient with all armor. Q: How does hiding work in the arena? A: You are autospotted if you leave cover/concealment and your opponent has line of sight to you. This includes moving from cover/concealment to cover/concealment. The exception to this condition is that if you are moving from cover/concealment to cover/concealment and are within 1 ft/rank of cover/concealment at all times, you are still considered hidden and an opposed check would be required for anyone with line of sight to see you. Q: How is the distance measured when determining the number of feet away from cover or concealment you are when attempting to hide, since you can hide up to 1 ft/Hide rank away from cover or concealment? A: The ACTUAL distance is what matters. This would be the distance 'as the crow flies', rather than the distance you would have to actually move to reach cover or concealment. Q: Do penalties for multiclassing apply? A: Yes. They apply to both XP and GP in order to prevent abuse. Q: Do you have to list customized feats & skills for purchased animals on the Blackmarket thread? A: No, these do not cost credits and thus do not have to be listed. Q: How does a pitlord calculate the XP and gp rewards that gladiators receive from defeating multiple monsters in an arena fight? A: You calculate the rewards for each monster individually. Q: What are the rules for stealing and using your opponents expendables? A: Items of yours that are used by your opponent are restored to you after your fight in the same state they were in when they were taken from you.
TelinArtho 12-13-07, 03:45 PM	Flight consists of two types. There is natural flight and supernatural flight. Natural flight is that associated with the Half-Dragon template and large size. Supernatural flight is that awarded by Fly spells or Winged Boots. The distinction is important for anti-magic effects, tripping, entanglement, trampling, etc. If you are awarded flight by a supernatural effect then it is negated by an anti-magic field or possibly a dispel magic effect. Entanglement, tripping or trampling have no effect on the ability of someone with supernatural flight to stay in the air. If, however, your flight is natural, then it is negated by entanglement, tripping or trampling and you will fall. Direction you face is of major importance with flight. The pitlord must keep track of the direction each flying character faces during his movement and at the end of his turn. Most flying characters can only move forward, and changing the direction they face is of importance for the direction of movement. As a movement type, flight has an associated speed and maneuverability class. The speed of flight carries the same meaning as any other movement speed. The maneuverability class will place further limits on how a character can move. I'll describe those limits on each maneuverability class from Perfect to Average (the most common ones). Perfect This maneuverability class allows movement in 3D with no special limitations. All the typical rules for 2D movement still apply in the 3rd dimension, but no additional limitations are in place. Characters with this type of flight can climb vertically at full speed and can move down at double speed. Movement in the downward direction is doubled the only movement that can be doubled. If a character drops 20 ft in altitude and moves forward 20 ft, then he spends 20 ft of movement for the forward motion and only 10 ft for the downward motion, for a total of 30 ft of movement. Good This maneuverability class allows all possible movements, but large changes in direction and moving in the upward direction have increased movement cost. Below is how some of the common flight actions are affected by good maneuverability. Hover: This action allows you character to stop forward movement and stay in place at no penalty. Move Backward: The action allows you move backward without turning around (changing the direction you face), and with Good maneuverability it costs 5 ft of movement to begin to move backward, but further movements backward do not cost extra movement speed. Turn: Each square of forward movement allows a character to turn some amount for free. With Good Maneuverability you can turn the direction you face by 90 degrees with 5 ft of movement. Turn in Place: With Good maneuverability you can spend additional movement to turn in a particular square. For example, you can hover in place and turn 180 degrees by using 10 ft of movement. Or you can move forward 5 ft and get 90 degrees of movement for free and spend an additional 5 ft of movement to turn an additional 90 degrees in that square. So by moving 5 ft forward and spending 10 ft of movement you can turn around 180 degrees and face the opposite direction. Average This and all lower maneuverability classes place limits on how much you can change direction in a single square. Also, no character with this or any lower maneuverability class has the ability to hover naturally. Below is how some of the common flight actions are affected by average maneuverability. Minimum Forward Speed: This is the minimum distance that must be moved forward to stay in the air if you’re using natural flight. This distance is critical if a character's movement is impeded in any way. This can also be particularly difficult for some characters that have very high movement speeds and are required to move great distances to stay in the air. This distance is calculated as the distance a character has actually moved. Turn: With Average maneuverability, all forward movement allows a free 45 degrees of turning. Turn in Place: You can also use an additional 5 ft of movement speed to turn more rapidly in any square. Average maneuverability awards 45 degrees for 5 ft of movement. The movement spent to turn more rapidly does not count as forward movement for the minimum forward speed. Maximum Turn: With Average maneuverability, you can turn a maximum of 90 degrees in any particular square of movement. Up Angle: This sets the maximum upward angle you can use to gain altitude. For Average maneuverability, this is 60 degrees, which corresponds to roughly 10 ft upward for every 5 ft horizontal (in other words, 25 ft of movement to gain 10 ft in altitude and 5 ft of horizontal movement). This counts as 15 ft of forward movement for the purpose of the minimum forward speed. Between Down and Up: This statistic is most likely to be checked during the use of the feat Fly-by Attack. A character can swoop down, but must maintain horizontal movement for at least 5 ft before he can gain altitude again. Below is some other miscellaneous flight information that you should be aware of. Altitude In CoCo we calculate altitude as the height of the bottom of your square. So a large character with an altitude of 35 ft occupies a volume that stretches up to 45 ft high. Downward Spiral Characters with the Average maneuverability class (most flying mounts have this) can use a "downward spiral" to change direction very rapidly. By using only 5 ft of movement, a character can drop 10 ft in altitude. Those 10 ft of actual movement will allow an Average maneuverability class to change direction by 90 degrees. This character can also spend an additional 5 ft of movement in each downward square of movement to turn an additional 45 degrees each time. This allows a total of 180 degrees of direction change with a 10 ft drop in altitude at the cost of 15 ft of movement. This movement will also count as 10 ft of movement for the minimum forward movement. Dive Attack Characters with a fly speed can perform a dive attack. This is a special attack similar to a charge attack. The character must move at least 30 ft and there must be at least 10 ft of vertical drop (thus using 25 ft of movement speed). Also, only claw or talon attacks can be used in a dive, but they cause double damage. Flying Charge Characters with a fly speed can charge while flying. This is executed in the same way as a typical charge attack. Only characters with perfect maneuverability are able to charge along a line that involves upward movement. Hover The Hover feat can be taken by any creature with a fly speed. The benefits granted by this feat are similar to, but different from, those granted by the Good maneuverability class. For example, to begin Hovering with this feat, you must spend a move action, while with Good maneuverability it is not necessary to use a move action. Also, the Hover feat grants large or larger creatures the ability to create drafts while hovering within 20 ft of a ground covered in dust or loose debris. The drafts can produce a cloud granting concealment. Hovering due to having Good maneuverability does not produce this effect. Threatening an Area While flying, you threaten an area that is typical in the horizontal direction, but increased in the vertical direction. For example, if you are medium sized, you threaten squares 5 ft below and 10 ft above your current altitude. If you are medium and riding a large mount, you will threaten squares 5 ft below and 15 ft above your current altitude. If you are large in size you threaten an area 10 ft below your altitude and 20 ft above it.
TelinArtho 12-13-07, 03:46 PM	All animals/vermin with the celestial/fiendish templates become Magical Beasts. Their intelligence is also automatically boosted to 3. The augmented summoning feat adds +4 Str and +4 Con to all summons. The stats below all reflect these features to ease the burden on Pitlords who are running summoners. Celestial Dog LG, Small Animal, HD 1d8+4; hp 8; init +3; speed 40ft; AC 15 (+1 sz, +3 dex, +1 nat), touch 14, flat-footed 12; Bite +4 melee (1d4+4 dmg); Saves +6/+5/+1; S 17 D 17 C 19 I 3 W 12 Ch 6; Skills: Jump +9, Listen +5, Spot +5, Survival +1*; Feats: Alertness, TrackB; Specials: Smite Evil (+1 dmg for 1 attack), Low light Vision, Scent, Darkvision 60ft, Acid, Cold and Electricity Resistance 5, SR 6 Celestial Owl LG, Tiny Animal, HD 1d8+2; hp 6; init +3; speed 10ft, Fly 40ft (avg); AC 17 (+2 sz, +3 dex, +2 nat), touch 15, flat-footed 14; Talons +5 melee (1d4-1 dmg); Saves +4/+5/+2; S 8 D 17 C 14 I 3 W 14 Ch 4; Skills: Listen +14, Move Silently +17, Spot +6; Feats: AlertnessB, Weapon Finesse; Specials: Smite Evil (+1 dmg for 1 attack), Low light Vision, Darkvision 60ft, Acid, Cold and Electricity Resistance 5, SR 6 Celestial Giant Fire Beetle NG, Small Vermin, HD 1d8+2; hp 6; init +0; speed 30ft; AC 16 (+1 sz, +5 nat), touch 11, flat-footed 16; Bite +3 (2d4+3 dmg); Saves +4/+0/+0; S 14 D 11 C 15 I 3 W 10 Ch 7; Specials: Darkvision 60ft, Vermin traits, Smite Evil (+1 dmg for 1 attack), Acid, Cold and Electricity Resistance 5, SR 6 Celestial Porpoise NG, Medium Animal (aquatic), HD 2d8+6; hp 15; init +3; speed Swim 80ft; AC 15 (+3 dex, +2 nat), touch 13, flat-footed 12; Slam +4 (2d4+3 dmg); Saves +6/+6/+1; S 15 D 17 C 17 I 3 W 12 Ch 6; Skills: Listen +8*, Spot +7*, Swim +10; Feats: Weapon Finesse; Specials: Smite Evil (+2 dmg for 1 attack), Blindsight 120 ft., hold breath, low-light vision, Darkvision 60ft, Acid, Cold and Electricity Resistance 5, SR 7 Celestial Badger CG, Small Animal, HD 1d8+4; hp 8; init +3; speed 30ft, Burrow 10ft; AC 15 (+1 sz, +3 dex, +1 nat), touch 14, flat-footed 12; 2 Claws +4 melee (1d2+1 dmg) and Bite -1 melee (1d3 dmg); Saves +6/+5/+1; S 12 D 17 C 15 I 3 W 12 Ch 6; Skills: Escape Artist +7, Listen +3, Spot +3; Feats: Agile, TrackB, Weapon FinesseB; Specials: Smite Evil (+1 dmg for 1 attack), Rage (+4 str/con, -2 ac if wounded, doesn't end until it is dead or opponent is dead), Low-light vision, scent, Darkvision 60ft, Acid, Cold and Electricity Resistance 5, SR 6 Celestial Monkey CG, Tiny Animal, HD 1d8+2; hp 6; init +2; speed 30ft, Climb 30ft; AC 14 (+2 sz, +2 dex), touch 14, flat-footed 12; Bite +4 melee (1d3-2 dmg); Saves +4/+4/+1; S 7 D 15 C 14 I 3 W 12 Ch 5; Skills: Balance + 10, Climb +10, Hide +10, Listen +3, Spot +3; Feats: Agile, Weapon FinesseB; Specials: Smite Evil (+1 dmg for 1 attack), Low-light vision, Darkvision 60ft, Acid, Cold and Electricity Resistance 5, SR 6 Fiendish Dire Rat LE, Small Animal, HD 1d8+3; hp 7; init +3; speed 40ft, climb 20ft; AC 15 (+1 sz, +3 dex, +1 nat), touch 14, flat-footed 12; Bite +4 melee (1d4+3 dmg, x2, disease); Saves +5/+5/+3; S 14 D 17 C 16 I 3 W 12 Ch 4; Skills: Climb +11, Hide +8, Listen +4, Move Silently +4, Spot +4, Swim +11; Feats: Alertness, Weapon Finesse; Specials: Smite Good (+1 dmg on 1 attack), Disease (Filth fever, Fort DC 13, 1d3 days, 1d3 dex and con), Low-light vision, scent, Darkvision 60ft, Fire and Cold Resistance 5, SR 6 Fiendish Raven LE, Tiny Animal, HD 1/4 d8+2; hp 3; init +2; speed 10ft, fly 40ft; AC 14 (+2 sz, +2 dex), touch 14, flat-footed 12; Claws +4 melee (1d2-3 dmg, x2); Saves +4/+4/+2; S 5 D 15 C 14 I 3 W 14 Ch 6; Skills: Listen +3, Spot +5; Feats: Weapon Finesse; Specials: Smite Good (+1 dmg for 1 attack), Low-light vision, Darkvision 60ft, Fire and Cold Resistance 5, SR 6 Fiendish Monstrous Centipede NE, Medium vermin, HD 1d8+2; hp 6; init +2; speed 40ft, climb 40ft; AC 14 (+2 dex, +2 nat), touch 12, flat-footed 12; Bite +2 melee (1d6+1 dmg, x2, poison); Saves +4/+2/+0; S 13 D 15 C 14 I 3 W 10 Ch 2; Skills: Climb +10, Hide +10, Spot +4; Feats: Weapon Finess; Specials: Smite Good (+1 dmg for 1 attack), Poison (Fort DC 12, 1d3 dex, 1d3 dex), Darkvision 60ft, Vermin traits, Fire and Cold Resistance 5, SR 6 Fiendish Monstrous Scorpion NE, Small vermin, HD 1d8+4; hp 8; init +0; speed 30ft; AC 14 (+1 sz, +3 nat), touch 11, flat-footed 14; 2 Claws +2 melee (1d3+1 dmg, x2, improved grab) Sting -3 melee (1d3 dmg, x2, poison); Saves +6/+0/+0; S 13 D 10 C 18 I 3 W 10 Ch 2; Skills: Climb +3, Hide +8, Spot +4; Feats: Weapon Finesse; Specials: Smite Good (+1 dmg for 1 attack), Improved Grab (if successful, auto claw damage from constriction), Poison (Fort DC 14, 1d2 con, 1d2 con), Darkvision 60ft, Tremorsense 60ft, Vermin traits, Darkvision 60ft, Fire and Cold Resistance 5, SR 6 Fiendish Hawk CE, Tiny Animal, HD 1d8+2; hp 6; init +3; speed 10ft, fly 60ft; AC 17 (+2 sz, +3 dex, +2 nat), touch 15, flat-footed 14; Talons +5 melee (1d4 dmg, x2); Saves +4/+5/+2; S 10 D 17 C 14 I 3 W 14 Ch 6; Skills: Listen +2, Spot +14; Feats: Weapon Finesse; Specials: Smite Good (+1 dmg for 1 attack), Low-Light vision, Darkvision 60ft, Fire and Cold Resistance 5, SR 6 Fiendish Monstrous Spider CE, Small vermin, HD 1d8+2; hp 6; init +3; speed 30ft, climb 20ft; AC 14 (+1 sz, +3 dex), touch 14, flat-footed 11; Bite +4 melee (1d4 dmg, x2, poison); Saves +4/+3/+0; S 11 D 17 C 14 I 3 W 10 Ch 2; Skills: Climb +11, Hide +11, Jump +0, Spot +4; Feats: Weapon Finesse; Specials: Smite Good (+1 dmg for 1 attack), Poison (Fort DC 12, 1d3 str, 1d3 str), Web (10ft range incr, up to medium size target, as net, Escape Artist DC 12, Break DC 16, 4 hp), Darkvision 60ft, Tremorsense 60ft, Vermin traits, Darkvision 60ft, Fire and Cold Resistance 5, SR 6 Fiendish Octopus CE, small animal (aquatic), HD 2d8+4; hp 13; init +3; speed 20ft, swim 30ft; AC 16 (+1 sz, +3 dex, +2 nat), touch 14, flat-footed 13; Arms +5 melee (0 dmg, improved grab), Bite +0 melee (1d3+1 dmg, x2); Saves +5/+6/+1; S 16 D 17 C 15 I 3 W 12 Ch 3; Skills: Escape Artist +13, Hide +11, Listen +2, Spot +5, Swim +9; Feats: Weapon Finesse; Specials: Smite Good (+1 dmg for 1 attack), Improved Grab (with arms, if successful, auto bite), Ink Cloud (10ftx10ftx10ft, 1/min as a free action, total concealment), Jet (backward as a full round action at speed of 200ft, straight line, but no AoO), Low-light vision, Darkvision 60ft, Fire and Cold Resistance 5, SR 7 Fiendish Snake CE, Small Viper, HD 1d8+2; hp 6; init +3; speed 20ft, climb 20ft, swim 20ft; AC 17 (+1 sz, +3 dex, +3 nat), touch 14, flat-footed 14; Bite +4 melee (1d2 dmg, x2, poison); Saves +4/+5/+1; S 10 D 17 C 15 I 3 W 12 Ch 2; Skills: Balance +11, Climb +11, Hide +11, Listen +7, Spot +7, Swim +6; Feats: Weapon Finesse; Specials: Smite Good (+1 dmg for 1 attack), Poison (Fort DC 12, 1d6 con, 1d6 con), Scent, Darkvision 60ft, Fire and Cold Resistance 5, SR 6 Celestial Giant Bee LG, Medium Vermin, HD 3d8+6; hp 19; init +2; speed 20ft, Fly 80ft (good), AC 14 (+2 dex, +2 nat), touch 12, flat-footed 12; Sting +4 melee (1d4+3 dmg, poison); Saves +5/+3/+1; S 15 D 14 C 15 I 3 W 12 Ch 9; Skills: Spot +5, Survival +1; Specials: Smite Evil (+3 dmg for 1 attack), Poison (Injury, Fort DC13, 1d4 Con, 1d4 Con, dies after successful hit), Darkvision 60ft, Acid, Cold and Electricity Resistance 5, SR 8 Celestial Giant Bombardier Beetle NG, HD 2d8+8; hp 17; init +0; speed 30ft; AC 16 (+6 nat), touch 10, flat-footed 16; Bite +4 melee (1d4+4 dmg); Saves +7/+0/+0; S 17 D 10 C 18 I 3 W 10 Ch 9; Specials: Smite Evil (+2 dmg for 1 attack), Acid Spray (10ft cone of acidic vapor 1/round, Fort DC 15, 1d4+2 acid damage), Darkvision 60ft, Acid, Cold and Electricity Resistance 5, SR 7 Celestial Riding Dog NG, Medium Animal, HD 2d8+8; hp 17; init +2; speed 40ft; AC 16 (+2 dex, +4 nat), touch 12, flat-footed 14; Bite +5 melee (1d6+6 dmg); Saves +7/+5/+1; S 19 D 15 C 19 I 3 W 12 Ch 6; Skills: Jump +10, Listen +5, Spot +5, Swim +5, Survival +1*; Feats: Alertness, TrackB; Specials: Smite Evil (+2 dmg for 1 attack), Low-light vision, scent, Darkvision 60ft; Acid, Cold and Electricity Resistance 5, SR 7 Celestial Eagle CG, Small Animal, HD 1d8+3; hp 7; init +2; speed 10ft, Fly 80ft (avg); AC 14 (+1 sz, +2 dex, +1 nat), touch 13, flat-footed 12; 2 Talons +3 melee (1d4+2 dmg) and Bite -2 melee (1d4+1 dmg); Saves +5/+4/+2; S 14 D 15 C 16 I 3 W 14 Ch 6; Skills: Listen +2, Spot +14; Feats: Alertness, Weapon FinesseB; Specials: Smite Evil (+1 dmg for 1 attack), Low-light vision, Darkvision 60ft; Acid, Cold and Electricity Resistance 5, SR 6 Lemure (devil) LE, Medium outsider (Lawful, evil, extraplanar), HD 2d8+4; hp 13; init +0; speed 20ft; AC 14 (+4 nat), touch 10, flat-footed 14; 2 Claws +4 hit (1d4+2 dmg, x2); Saves +5/+3/+3; S 14 D 10 C 14 I -- W 11 Ch 5; Specials: DR 5/good or silver, Darkvision 60ft, Immune to Fire and Poison, Acid and Cold Resistance 10, Mindless, See in Darkness Fiendish Squid LE, Medium animal (aquatic), HD 3d8+6; hp 19; init +3; speed swim 60ft; AC 16 (+3 dex, +3 nat), touch 13, flat-footed 13; Arms +6 melee (0 dmg, improved grab), Bite +1 melee (1d6+2 dmg, x2); Saves +5/+6/+2; S 18 D 17 C 15 I 3 W 12 Ch 2; Skills: Listen +7, Spot +7, Swim +10; Feats: Alertness, Endurance; Specials: Smite Good (+3 dmg for 1 attack), Improved Grab (with arms, if successful, auto bite), Ink Cloud (10ftx10ftx10ft, 1/min as a free action, total concealment), Jet (backward as a full round action at speed of 240ft, straight line, but no AoO), Low-light vision, Darkvision 60ft, Fire and Cold Resistance 5, SR 8 Fiendish Wolf LE, Medium animal, HD 2d8+8; hp 17; init +2; speed 50ft; AC 14 (+2 dex, +2 nat), touch 12, flat-footed 12; Bite +5 melee (1d6+4 dmg, x2, trip); Saves +7/+5/+1; S 17 D 15 C 19 I 3 W 12 Ch 6; Skills: Hide +2, Listen +3, Move Silently +3, Spot +3, Survival +1; Feats: Track, Weapon Focus (bite); Specials: Smite Good (+2 dmg for 1 attack), Trip (if bite hits, auto trip attempt (+1 on opposed check)), Low-light vision, scent, Darkvision 60ft, Fire and Cold Resistance 5, SR 7 Fiendish Monstrous Centipede NE, Large vermin, HD 3d8+6; hp 19; init +2; speed 40ft, climb 40ft; AC 14 (-1 sz, +2 dex, +3 nat), touch 11, flat-footed 12; Bite +4 melee (1d8+4 dmg, x2, poison); Saves +5/+3/+1; S 17 D 15 C 14 I 3 W 10 Ch 2; Skills: Climb +10, Hide +6, Spot +4; Feats: Weapon Finesse; Specials: Smite Good (+3 dmg for 1 attack), Poison (Fort DC 13, 1d4 dex, 1d4 dex), Darkvision 60ft, vermin traits, Fire and Cold Resistance 5, SR 8 Fiendish Monstrous Scorpion NE, Medium vermin, HD 2d8+8; hp 17; init +0; speed 40ft; AC 14 (+4 nat), touch 10, flat-footed 14; 2 Claws +4 melee (1d4+3 dmg, x2, improved grab) Sting -1 melee (1d4+1 dmg, x2, poison); Saves +7/+0/+0; S 17 D 10 C 18 I 3 W 10 Ch 2; Skills: Climb +5, Hide +4, Spot +4; Specials: Smite Good (+2 dmg for 1 attack), Improved grab (if successful, auto claw damage from constriction), Poison (Fort DC 15, 1d3 con, 1d3 con), Darkvision 60ft, Tremorsense 60ft, Vermin traits, Fire and Cold Resistance 5, SR 7 Fiendish Shark NE, Medium animal (aquatic), HD 3d8+9; hp 22; init +2; speed swim 60ft; AC 15 (+2 dex, +3 nat), touch 12, flat-footed 13; Bite +5 melee (1d6+4 dmg, x2); Saves +6/+5/+2; S 17 D 15 C 17 I 3 W 12 Ch 2; Skills: Listen +6, Spot +6, Swim +9; Feats: Alertness, Weapon Finesse; Specials: Smite Good (+3 dmg for 1 attack), Blindsense (30ft radius), Keen Scent (180 ft radius, blood for 1 mile), Darkvision 60ft, Fire and Cold Resistance 5, SR 8 Fiendish Monstrous Spider CE, Medium vermin, HD 2d8+6; hp 15; init +3; speed 30ft, climb 20ft; AC 14 (+3 dex, +1 nat), touch 13, flat-footed 11; Bite +4 melee (1d6+3 dmg, x2, poison); Saves +6/+3/+0; S 15 D 17 C 16 I 3 W 10 Ch 2; Skills: Climb +11, Hide +7, Jump +0, Spot +4; Feats: Weapon Finesse; Specials: Smite Good (+2 dmg for 1 attack), Poison (Fort DC 14, 1d4 str, 1d4 str), Web (10ft range incr, up to large size target, as net, Escape Artist DC 14, Break DC 18, 6 hp), Darkvision 60ft, Tremorsense 60ft, Vermin traits, Fire and Cold Resistance 5, SR 7 Fiendish Medium Viper Snake CE, Medium animal, HD 2d8+4; hp 13; init +3; speed 20ft, climb 20ft, swim 20ft; AC 16 (+3 dex, +3 nat), touch 13, flat-footed 13; Bite +4 melee (1d4+1 dmg, x2, poison); Saves +5/+6/+1; S 12 D 17 C 15 I 3 W 12 Ch 2; Skills: Balance +11, Climb +11, Hide +12, Listen +5, Spot +5, Swim +7; Feats: Weapon Finesse; Specials: Smite Good (+2 dmg for 1 attack), Poison (Fort DC 13, 1d6 con, 1d6 com), Scent, Darkvision 60ft, Fire and Cold Resistance 5, SR 7 Celestial black bear LG, Medium Animal, HD 3d8+12; hp 25; init +1; speed 40ft; AC 13 (+1 dex, +2 nat), touch 11, flat-footed 12; 2 Claws +8 melee (1d4+6 dmg) and Bite +3 melee (1d6+3 dmg); Saves +7/+4/+2; S 23 D 13 C 19 I 3 W 12 Ch 6; Skills: Climb +6, Listen +4, Spot +4, Swim +10; Feats: Endurance, Run; Specials: Smite Evil (+3 dmg for 1 attack), Low-light vision, Scent, Darkvision 60ft, Acid, Cold and Electricity Resistance 5, SR 8 Celestial bison NG, Large Animal, HD 5d8+25; hp 47; init +0; speed 40ft; AC 13 (-1 sz, +4 nat), touch 9, flat-footed 13; Gore +10 melee (1d8+12 dmg); Saves +9/+4/+1; S 26 D 10 C 20 I 3 W 11 Ch 4; Skills: Listen +7, Spot +5; Feats: Alertness, Endurance; Specials: Smite Evil (+5 dmg for 1 attack), Stampede (Large size or smaller target takes 1d12 dmg for every 5 bison, Reflex DC20 for half-damage), Low-light Vision, Scent, Darkvision 60ft, Acid, Cold and Electricity Resistance 5, SR 10, DR 5/magic Celestial dire badger CG, Medium Animal; HD 3d8+21; hp 34; init +3; speed 30ft, burrow 10ft; AC 16 (+3 dex, +3 nat), touch 13, flat-footed 13; 2 Claws +6 melee (1d4+4 dmg) and Bite +1 melee (1d6+2 dmg); Saves +9/+6/+4; S 18 D 17 C 23 I 3 W 12 Ch 10; Skills: Listen +6, Spot +6; Feats: Alertness, Toughness, TrackB; Specials: Smite Evil (+3 dmg for 1 attack), Rage (if wounded, +4 Str/+4 Con, -2 AC until opponent is dead), Low-light vision, Scent, Darkvision 60ft, Acid, Cold and Electricity Resistance 5, SR 8 Celestial hippogriff CG, Large Magical Beast; HD 3d10+15; hp 31; init +2; speed 50ft, Fly 100ft (avg); AC 15 (-1 sz, +2 dex, +4 nat), touch 11, flat-footed 13; 2 Claws +8 melee (1d4+6 dmg) and Bite +3 melee (1d8+3 dmg); Saves +8/+5/+2; S 22 D 15 C 20 I 3 W 13 Ch 8; Skills: Listen +4, Spot +8; Feats: Dodge, Wingover; Specials: Smite Evil (+3 dmg for 1 attack), Low-light vision, Scent, Darkvision 60ft, Acid, Cold and Electricity Resistance 5, SR 8 Elemental, Small Air N, Small Elemental (air, extraplanar); HD 2d8+4; hp 13; init +7; speed Fly 100ft (perfect); AC 17 (+1 sz, +3 dex, +3 nat), touch 14, flat-footed 14; Slam +5 melee (1d4+3 dmg); Saves +2/+6/+0; S 14 D 17 C 14 I 4 W 11 Ch 11; Skills: Listen +2, Spot +3; Feats: Flyby Attack, Improved InitiativeB, Weapon FinesseB; Specials: Air Mastery (-1 to hit and dmg for attacks against the air elemental from airborne creatures), Whirlwind (1/10 minutes, duration 1 round, 10-20ft high, Reflex DC13, Dmg 1d4, see entry for more details), Darkvision 60ft, Elemental Traits Elemental, Small Earth N, Small Elemental (earth, extraplanar); HD 2d8+6; hp 15; init -1; speed 20ft; AC 17 (+1 sz, -1 dex, +7 nat), touch 10, flat-footed 17; Slam +7 melee (1d6+7 dmg); Saves +6/-1/+0; S 21 D 8 C 17 I 4 W 11 Ch 11; Skills: Listen +3, Spot +2; Feats: Power Attack; Specials: Earth Mastery (Elemental gains +1 to hit and damage if both it and opponent are landbound. Elemental suffers -4 to hit vs Airborne or Waterborne creatures), Push (can start Bull Rush withou provoking AoO), Darkvision 60ft, Earth Glide (can move through earth as easily as water), Elemental Traits Elemental, Small Fire N, Small Elemental (fire, extraplanar); HD 2d8+4; hp 13; init +5; speed 50ft; AC 15 (+1 sz, +1 dex, +3 nat), touch 12, flat-footed 14; Slam +4 melee (1d4+3 dmg plus 1d4 fire); Saves +2/+4/+0; S 14 D 13 C 14 I 4 W 11 Ch 11; Skills: Listen +3, Spot +2; Feats: Dodge, Improved InitiativeB, Weapon FinesseB; Specials: Burn (Reflex DC13 or catch on fire for 1d4 rounds. Burning creatures can take a move action to put out the flames), Darkvision 60ft, Elemental Traits, Immune to Fire, Vulnerable to Cold. Elemental, Small Water N, Small Elemental (water, extraplanar); HD 2d8+6; hp 15; init +0; speed 20ft, swim 90ft; AC 17 (+1 sz, +6 nat), touch 11, flat-footed 17; Slam +6 melee (1d6+6 dmg); Saves +6/+0/+0; S 18 D 10 C 17 I 4 W 11 Ch 11; Skills: Listen +2, Spot +3; Feats: Power Attack; Specials: Water Mastery (+1 to hit and dmg when both elemental and target are in water, -4 to hit for elemental if target or elemental is not in the water), Drench (puts out nonmagical fires of large size or smaller automatically, Dispels Magical fire (CL2), Vortex (1/10 minutes, duration 1 round, 10-20ft high, Reflex DC15, Dmg 1d4), Darkvision 60ft, Elemental Traits Fiendish Ape LE, Large animal, HD 4d8+19; hp 37; init +2; speed 30ft, climb 30ft; AC 14 (-1 sz, +2 dex, +3 nat), touch 11, flat-footed 13; 2 Claws +9 melee (1d6+7 dmg, x2) Bite +4 melee (1d6+3 dmg, x2); Saves +8/+6/+2; S 25 D 15 C 18 I 3 W 12 Ch 7; Skills: Climb +14, Listen +6, Spot +6; Feats: Alertness, Toughness; Specials: Smite Good (+4 dmg for 1 attack), Low-light vision, scent, Darkvision 60ft, Fire and Cold Resistance 5, SR 9, DR 5/magic Fiendish Dire Weasel LE, Medium animal, HD 3d8+6; hp 19; init +4; speed 40ft; AC 16 (+4 dex, +2 nat), touch 14, flat-footed 12; Bite +6 melee (1d6+6 dmg, x2, attach, blood drain); Saves +5/+7/+4; S 18 D 19 C 14 I 3 W 12 Ch 11; Skills: Hide +8, Listen +3, Move Silently +8, Spot +5; Feats: Alertness, Stealthy, Weapon Finesse; Specials: Smite Good (+3 dmg for 1 attack), Attach (successful bite latches, AC12 to hit or grapple to remove), Blood Drain (1d4 con damage/round while attached), Low-light vision, Scent, Darkvision 60ft, Fire and Cold Resistance 5, SR 8 Hell hound LE, Medium Outsider (evil, extraplanar, lawful, fire); HD 4d8+12; hp 30; init +5; speed 40ft; AC 16 (+1 dex, +5 nat), touch 11, flat-footed 15; Bite +7 melee (1d8+4 dmg, x2, 1d6 fire); Saves +7/+5/+4; S 17 D 13 C 17 I 6 W 10 Ch 6; Skills: Hide +13, Jump +12, Listen +7, Move Silently +13, Spot +7, Survival +7; Feats: Improved Initiative, Run, Track; Specials: Breath Weapon (10ft. cone, 1/2d4 rounds, 2d6 fire dmg, Reflex DC 15 for half damage), Fiery bite (bite does 1d6 fire damage), Darkvision 60ft, Immune to Fire, Scent, Vulnerable to Cold Fiendish Constrictor Snake LE, Medium animal, HD 3d8+12; hp 25; init +3; speed 20ft, climb 20ft, swim 20ft; AC 15 (+3 dex, +2 nat), touch 13, flat-footed 12; Bite +7 melee (1d3+7 dmg, x2, improved grab); Saves +6/+6/+2; S 21 D 17 C 17 I 3 W 12 Ch 2; Skills: Balance +11, Climb +14, Hide +10, Listen +7, Spot +7, Swim +11; Feats: Alertness, Toughness; Specials: Smite Good (+3 dmg for 1 attack), Improved grab (with a bite, starts to grapple), Constriction (1d3+4 dmg from grappling), Scent, Darkvision 60ft, Fire and Cold Resistance 5, SR 8 Fiendish Boar NE, Medium animal, HD 3d8+18; hp 31; init +0; speed 40ft; AC 16 (+6 nat), touch 10, flat-footed 16; Gore +6 melee (1d8+6 dmg, x2); Saves +8/+3/+2; S 19 D 10 C 21 I 3 W 13 Ch 4; Skills: Listen +7, Spot +5; Feats: Alertness, Toughness; Specials: Smite Good (+3 dmg for 1 attack), Ferocity (continues to fight while disabled/dying), Low-light vision, scent, Darkvision 60ft, Fire and Cold Resistance 5, SR 8 Fiendish Dire Bat NE, Large animal, HD 4d8+20; hp 38; init +6; speed 20ft, fly 40ft (good); AC 20 (-1 sz, +6 dex, +5 nat), touch 15, flat-footed 14; Bite +7 melee (1d8+7 dmg, x2); Saves +9/+10/+6; S 21 D 22 C 21 I 3 W 14 Ch 6; Skills: Hide +4, Listen +12, Move Silently +11, Spot +8; Feats: Alertness, Stealthy; Specials: Smite Good (+4 dmg for 1 attack), Blindsense 40ft; Darkvision 60ft, Fire and Cold Resistance 5, SR 9, DR 5/magic Fiendish Monstrous Centipede NE, Huge vermin, HD 6d8+18; hp 45; init +2; speed 40ft, climb 40ft; AC 16 (-2 sz, +2 dex, +6 nat), touch 10, flat-footed 14; Bite +7 melee (2d6+7 dmg, x2, poison); Saves +8/+4/+2; S 21 D 15 C 16 I 3 W 10 Ch 2; Skills: Climb +11, Hide +2, Spot +4; Specials: Smite Good (+6 dmg for 1 attack), Poison (Fort DC 16, 1d6 dex, 1d6 dex), Darkvision 60ft, Vermin traits, Fire and Cold Resistance 5, SR 11, DR 5/magic Fiendish Crocodile CE, Medium animal, HD 3d8+15; hp 28; init +1; speed 20ft, swim 30ft; AC 15 (+1 dex, +4 nat), touch 11, flat-footed 14; Bite +8 melee (1d8+9 dmg, x2, Improved grab) or Tail Slap +8 melee (1d12+9 dmg, x2); Saves +8/+4/+2; S 23 D 12 C 21 I 3 W 12 Ch 2; Skills: Hide +7, Listen +4, Spot +4, Swim +12; Feats: Alertness, Skill Focus (Hide); Specials: Smite Good (+3 dmg for 1 attack), Improved grab (with bite to start grapple), Hold breath (for 4x Con score rounds (84 rounds)), Low-light vision, Darkvision 60ft, Fire and Cold Resistance 5, SR 8 Dretch (demon) CE, Small outsider (chaotic, extraplanar, evil), HD 2d8+8; hp 17; init +0; speed 20ft; AC 16 (+1 sz, +5 nat), touch 11, flat-footed 16; 2 Claws +6 melee (1d6+3 dmg, x2), Bite +4 melee (1d4+1 dmg, x2); Saves +5/+3/+3; S 16 D 10 C 18 I 5 W 11 Ch 11; Skills: Hide +9, Listen +5, Move Silently +5, Spot +5, Search +2, Survival +0 (+2 following tracks); Feats: Multiattack; Specials: Spell-like Abilities (1/day - Scare (DC12), Stinking Cloud (DC13), CL 2), Summon Demon (another dretch (35%) - not usable when summoned), DR 5/Cold Iron or Good, Darkvision 60ft, Immune to Electricity and Poison, Acid, Cold and Fire Resistance 10, Telepathy 100ft Fiendish Large Viper Snake CE, Large animal, HD 3d8+6; hp 19; init +7; speed 20ft, climb 20ft, swim 20ft; AC 15 (-1 sz, +3 dex, +3 nat), touch 12, flat-footed 12; Bite +4 melee (1d4+3 dmg, x2, poison); Saves +5/+6/+2; S 14 D 17 C 15 I 3 W 12 Ch 2; Skills: Balance +11, Climb +11, Hide +8, Listen +5, Spot +6, Swim +8; Feats: Improved Initiative, Weapon Finesse; Specials: Smite Good (+3 dmg for 1 attack), Poison (Fort DC 13, 1d6 con, 1d6 con), Scent, Darkvision 60ft, Fire and Cold Resistance 5, SR 8 Fiendish Wolverine CE, Medium animal, HD 3d8+21; hp 34; init +2; speed 30ft, burrow 10ft, climb 10ft; AC 14 (+2 dex, +2 nat), touch 12 flat-footed 12; 2 Claws +6 melee (1d4+4 dmg, x2), Bite +1 melee (1d6+2 dmg, x2); Saves +9/+5/+2; S 18 D 15 C 23 I 3 W 12 Ch 10; Skills: Climb +10, Listen +6, Spot +6; Feats: Alertness, Toughness, Track; Specials: Smite Good (+3 dmg for 1 attack), Rage (if wolverine takes damage, it rages, gains +4 Str/Con, -2 AC, cannot end rage voluntarily), Low-light vision, scent, Darkvision 60ft, Fire and Cold Resistance 5, SR 8 Archon, Lantern LG, Small Outsider (archon, extraplanar, good, lawful), HD 1d8+2; hp 6; init +4; speed Fly 50ft (perfect); AC 15 (+1 sz, +4 nat), touch 11, flat-footed 15; 2 Light Rays +2 ranged touch (1d6 dmg); Saves +4 (+8 vs poison)/+2/+2; S 5 D 11 C 14 I 6 W 11 Ch 10; Skills: Concentration +6, Diplomacy +4, Knowledge (the planes) +2, Listen +4, Sense Motive +4, Spot +4; Feats: Improved Initiative; Specials: Spell-like Abilities (At will (CL3) - Aid, Detect Evil, Continual flame), Aura of Menace (Will DC12, see description), DR 10/evil and magic, Darkvision 60ft, Immune to Electricity and Petrification, Magic Circle against Evil, Teleport, Tongues Celestial giant owl LG, Large Magical Beast; HD 4d10+12; hp 34; init +3; speed 10ft, Fly 70ft (avg); AC 15 (-1 sz, +3 dex, +3 nat), touch 12, flat-footed 12; 2 Claws +9 melee (1d6+6 dmg) and Bite +4 melee (1d8+3 dmg); Saves +7/+7/+3; S 22 D 17 C 16 I 10 W 14 Ch 10; Skills: Knowledge (nature) +2, Listen +17, Move Silently +8*, Spot +10; Feats: Alertness, Wingover; Specials: Smite Evil (+4 dmg for 1 attack), Superior Low Light Vision, Darkvision 60ft, Acid, Cold and Electricity Resistance 5, SR 9, DR 5/magic Celestial giant eagle CG, Large Magical Beast; HD 4d10+12; hp 34; init +3; speed 10ft, Fly 80ft (avg); AC 15 (-1 sz, +3 dex, +3 nat), touch 12, flat-footed 12; 2 Claws +9 melee (1d6+6 dmg) and Bite +4 melee (1d8+3 dmg); Saves +7/+7/+3; S 22 D 17 C 16 I 10 W 14 Ch 10; Skills: Knowledge (nature) +2, Listen +6, Sense Motive +4, Spot +15, Survival +3; Feats: Alertness, Flyby Attack; Specials: Smite Evil (+4 dmg for 1 attack), Low Light Vision, Evasion, Darkvision 60ft, Acid, Cold and Electricity Resistance 5, SR 9, DR 5/magic Celestial lion CG, Large Animal; HD 5d8+20; hp 42; init +3; speed 40ft; AC 15 (-1 sz, +3 dex, +3 nat), touch 12, flat-footed 12; 2 Claws +9 melee (1d4+7 dmg) and Bite +4 melee (1d8+3 dmg plus grab); Saves +8/+7/+2; S 25 D 17 C 19 I 3 W 12 Ch 6; Skills: Balance +7, Hide +3*, Listen +5, Move Silently +11, Spot +5; Feats: Alertness, Run; Specials: Smite Evil (+5 dmg for 1 attack), Pounce (full attack on a charge with 2 rakes), Improved Grab (if bite hits, free check to start grapple. If successful, 2 rakes in a grapple), 2 Rakes (+9 melee, 1d4+3 dmg), Low-light vision, Scent, Darkvision 60ft, Acid, Cold and Electricity Resistance 5, SR 9, DR 5/magic Mephit (any) N Fiendish Dire Wolf LE, Large animal, HD 6d8+30; hp 57; init +2; speed 50ft; AC 14 (-1 sz, +2 dex, +3 nat), touch 11, flat-footed 13; Bite +13 melee (1d8+13 dmg, x2, trip); Saves +10/+7/+6; S 29 D 15 C 21 I 3 W 12 Ch 10; Skills: Hide +0, Listen +7, Move Silently +4, Spot +7, Survival +2; Feats: Alertness, Run, Track, Weapon Focus (bite); Specials: Smite Good (+6 dmg for 1 attack), Trip (If bite hits, auto trip attempt (+13 on opposed check)), Low-light vision, scent, Darkvision 60ft, Fire and Cold Resistance 5, SR 11, DR 5/Magic Fiendish Giant Wasp LE, Large vermin, HD 5d8+20; hp 42; init +1; speed 20ft, fly 60ft (good); AC 14 (-1 sz, +1 dex, +4 nat), touch 10, flat-footed 13; Sting +8 melee (1d3+9 dmg, x2, poison); Saves +8/+2/+2; S 22 D 12 C 18 I 3 W 13 Ch 11; Skills: Spot +9, Survival +1; Specials: Smite Good (+5 dmg to 1 attack), Poison (Fort DC 16, 1d6 dex, 1d6 dex), Darkvision 60ft, Vermin Traits, Fire and Cold Resistance 5, SR 10, DR 5/magic Fiendish Giant Praying Mantis NE, Large vermin, HD 4d8+16; hp 34; init -1; speed 20ft, fly 40ft (poor); AC 14 (-1 sz, -1 dex, +6 nat), touch 8, flat-footed 14; Claws +8 melee (1d8+6 dmg, x2, grab) and Bite +3 melee (1d6+3 dmg, x2); Saves +8/+0/+3; S 23 D 8 C 15 I 3 W 14 Ch 11; Specials: Smite Good (+4 dmg to 1 attack), Improved Grab (on claw hit, establish hold and auto bite), Darkvision 60ft, Vermin Traits, Fire and Cold Resistance 5, SR 9, DR 5/magic Fiendish Shark NE, Large animal, HD 7d8+21; hp 52; init +6; speed swim 60ft; AC 15 (-1 sz, +2 dex, +4 nat), touch 11, flat-footed 13; Bite +9 melee (1d8+7 dmg, x2); Saves +10/+7+3; S 21 D 15 C 17 I 3 W 12 Ch 2; Skills: Listen +8, Spot +7, Swim +11; Feats: Alertness, Great Fortitude, Improved Initiative; Specials: Smite Good (+7 dmg for 1 attack), Blindsense 30ft, Keen Scent (180ft, 1 mile for blood), Darkvision 60ft, Fire and Cold Resistance 5, SR 12, DR 5/magic; Yeth Hound NE, Medium Outsider (Extraplanar, evil), HD 3d8+12; hp 25; init +6; speed 40ft, fly 60ft (good); AC 20 (+2 dex, +8 nat), touch 12, flat-footed 18; Bite +8 melee (1d8+7 dmg, x2, trip); Saves +7/+5/+5; S 21 D 15 C 19 I 6 W 14 Ch 10; Skills: Listen +11, Spot +11, Search +7, Survival +11; Feats: Improved Initiative, Track; Specials: Bay (300ft radius, Will DC 11 or become panicked for 2d4 rounds, Sonic mind-affecting fear effect), Trip (if bite hits, auto trip attempt (+5 on opposed check), DR 10/Silver, Darkvision 60ft, Flight, Scent Fiendish Monstrous Spider CE, Large vermin, HD 4d8+12; hp 30; init +3; speed 30ft, climb 20ft; AC 14 (-1 sz, +3 dex, +2 nat), touch 12, flat-footed 11; Bite +6 melee (1d8+6 dmg, x2, poison); Saves +7/+4/+1; S 19 D 17 C 16 I 3 W 10 Ch 3; Skills: Climb +11, Hide +3, Jump +2, Spot +4; Specials: Smite Good (+4 dmg for 1 attack), Poison (Fort DC 15, 1d6 str, 1d6 str), Web (10ft range incr, up to huge size target, as net, Escape Artist DC 15, Break DC 19, 12 hp), Darkvision 60ft, Tremorsense 60ft, Vermin Traits, Fire and Cold Resistance 5, SR 9, DR 5/magic Fiendish Huge Viper snake CE, Huge Animal, HD 6d8+18; hp 45; init +6; speed 20ft, climb 20ft, swim 20ft; AC 15 (-2 sz, +2 dex, +5 nat); Bite +8 melee (1d6+7 dmg, x2, poison); Saves +8/+7/+3; S 20 D 15 C 17 I 3 W 12 Ch 2; Skills: Balance +10, Climb +11, Hide +3, Listen +7, Spot +7, Swim +11; Feats: Improved Initiative, Run, Weapon Focus (bite); Specials: Smite Good (+6 dmg for 1 attack), Poison (Fort DC 16, 1d6 con, 1d6 con), Scent, Darkvision 60ft, Fire and Cold resistance 5l, SR 11, DR 5/magic Howler CE, Large Outsider (Extraplanar, evil, chaotic), HD 6d8+24; hp 51; init +7; speed 60ft; AC 17 (-1 sz, +3 dex, +5 nat), touch 12, flat-footed 14; Bite +12 melee (2d8+7 dmg, x2) and 1d4 quills +6 melee (1d6+3 dmg, x2, special); Saves +9/+8/+7; S 25 D 17 C 19 I 6 W 14 Ch 8; Skills: Climb +14, Hide +8, Listen +13, Move Silently +12, Search +7, Spot +13, Survival +2; Feats: Alertness, Combat Reflexes, Improved Initiative; Specials: Quills (Reflex DC16 or quill breaks, causing -1 to attacks, saves and checks for victim per quill, remove DC20 Heal check or take 1d6 damage), Howl (N/A), Darkvision 60ft Archon, hound LG, Medium Outsider (archon, extraplanar, good, lawful), HD 6d8+18; hp 45; init +4; speed 40ft; AC 19 (+9 nat), touch 10, flat-footed 19; Greatsword +10/+5 melee (2d6+6 dmg, 19-20/x2) and Bite +5 melee (1d8+2); Saves +8 (+12 vs poison)/+5/+6; S 19 D 10 C 17 I 10 W 13 Ch 12; Skills: Concentration +12, Diplomacy +3, Hide +9*, Jump +17, Listen +10, Move Silently +9, Sense Motive +10, Spot +10, Survival +10* (+12 following tracks); Feats: Improved Initiative, Power Attack, Track; Specials: Spell-like Abilities (Aid, Continual Flame, Detect Evil, Message, CL6th), Aura of Menace (Will DC16), Change Shape, DR 10/evil, Darkvision 60ft, Immunity to Electricity and Petrification, Magic Circle Against Evil, Scent, SR 16, Teleport, Tongues Celestial brown bear, LG, Large animal, HD 6d8+36; hp 63; init +1; speed 40ft; AC15 (-1 size, +1 dex, +5 nat), touch 10, flat-footed 14; 2 Claws +13 melee (1d8+10, improved grab) and Bite +8 melee (2d6+5); Saves +11/+6/+4; S 31 D 13 C 23 I 3 W 12 Ch 6; Skills: Listen +4, Spot +7, Swim +12; Feats: Endurance, Run, Track; Specials: Smite Evil (+6 dmg for 1 attack), Improved Grab, Scent, Low-light vision; Darkvision 60ft, Acid, Cold and Electricity Resistance 5, SR 11, DR 5/magic Celestial giant stag beetle NG Celestial sea cat1 NG Celestial griffon CG Elemental, Medium (any) N Achaierai, Large outsider (Extraplanar, lawful, evil), HD 6d8+24; hp 51; init +1; speed 50ft; AC 20 (-1 sz, +1 dex, +10 nat), touch 10, flat-footed 19; 2 Claws +11 melee (2d6+6 dmg, x2) and Bite +6 melee (4d6+3 dmg, x2); Saves +9/+6/+7; S 23 (+6) D 13 (+1) C 18 (+4) I 11 W 14 (+2) Ch 16 (+3); Skills: Balance +10, Climb +13, Diplomacy +5, Hide +6, Jump +21, Listen +11, Move Silently +10, Sense Motive +11, Spot +11; Feats: Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack; Specials: Black Cloud (3/day, 10ft radius, 2d6 dmg, Fort DC 17 or be affected by Insanity (as spell by 16th lvl caster), Darkvision 60ft, SR 19 Devil, bearded, Medium outsider (Extraplanar, lawful, evil), HD 6d8+30; hp 57; init +6; speed 40ft; AC 19 (+2 dex, +7 nat), touch 12, flat-footed 17; Glaive +11/+6 melee (1d10+6 dmg, x3, infernal wound) or 2 Claws +10 melee (1d6+4 dmg, x2, beard); Saves +10/+7/+5; S 19 (+4) D 15 (+2) C 21 (+5) I 6 (-2) W 10 Ch 10; Skills: Climb +11, Diplomacy +2, Hide +11, Listen +9, Move Silently +9, Sense Motive +9, Spot +9; Feats: Improved Initiative, Power Attack, Weapon Focus (glaive); Specials: Infernal Wound (bleeds for 2 dmg/round until healed), Beard (if both claws hit, auto hit with beard, 1d8+2 dmg, Fort DC 18 or Devil Chills), Battle Frenzy (2/day, +4Str/Con, +2 Will, -2 AC, 6 rounds), Spell-like Abilities (Greater Teleport at will as 12th lvl caster), Summon Devil (not usable in summon), DR 5/silver or good, Darkvision 60ft, Immune to Fire and Poison, Cold and Acid Resistance 10, See in Darkness, SR 17, Telepathy 100ft Fiendish deinonychus, Large animal, HD 4d8+24; hp 42; init +2; speed 60ft; AC 16 (-1 sz, +2 dex, +5 nat), touch 11, flat-footed 14; Talons +8 melee (2d6+6 dmg), 2 Foreclaws +3 melee (1d3+3 dmg) and Bite +3 melee (2d4+3 dmg); Saves +10/+8/+2; Skills: Hide +8, Jump +26, Listen +10, Spot +10, Survival +10 Feats: Run, Track; Specials: Smite Good (+4 dmg for 1 attack), Pounce (if charge, full attack), Low-light vision, scent, Darkvision 60ft, Fire and Cold Resistance 5, SR 9, DR 5/magic Fiendish dire ape, Large animal, HD 5d8+23; hp 45; init +2; speed 30ft, climb 15ft; AC 15 (-1 sz, +2 dex, +4 nat), touch 11, flat-footed 13; 2 Claws +10 melee (1d6+8 dmg, rend) and Bite +5 melee (1d8+4 dmg); Saves +8/+6/+5; S 26 (+8) D 15 (+2) C 18 (+4) I 2 (-4) W 12 (+1) Ch 7 (-2); Skills: Climb +14, Listen +5, Move Silently +4, Spot +6; Feats: Alertness, Toughness; Specials: Smite Good (+5 dmg for 1 attack), Rend (if both claws hit, Rend for 2d6+16 dmg), Low-light vision, scent, Darkvision 60ft, Fire and Cold Resistance 5, SR 10, DR 5/magic Fiendish dire boar, Large animal, HD 7d8+35; hp 66; init +0; speed 40ft; AC 15 (-1 sz, +6 nat), touch 9, flat-footed 15; Gore +14 melee (1d8+14 dmg); Saves +10/+5/+8; S 31 (+10) D 10 C 21 (+5) I 2 (-4) W 13 (+1) Ch 8 (-1); Skills: Listen +8, Spot +8; Feats: Alertness, Endurance, Iron Will; Specials: Smite Good (+7 dmg for 1 attack), Ferocity (continues to fight while disabled and dying), Fire and Cold Resistance 5, Darkvision 60ft, SR 12, DR 5/magic Fiendish shark, Huge animal, HD 10d8+40; hp 85; init +6; speed swim 60ft; AC 15 (-2 sz, +2 dex, +5 nat), touch 10, flat-footed 13; Bite +12 melee (2d6+10 dmg); Saves +13/+9/+4; S 25 (+7) D 15 (+2) C 19 (+4) I 1 (-5) W 12 (+1) Ch 2 (-4); Skills: Listen +10, Spot +10, Swim +13; Feats: Alertness, Great Fortitude, Improved Initiative, Iron Will; Specials: Smite Good (+10 dmg for 1 attack), Blindsense, Keen Scent, Darkvision 60ft, Fire and Cold Resistance 10, SR 15, DR 5/magic Fiendish monstrous scorpion, Large vermin, HD 5d8+20; hp 42; init +0; speed 50ft; AC 16 (-1 sz, +7 nat), touch 9, flat-footed 16; 2 Claws +8 melee (1d6+6 dmg, grab and constrict) and Sting +3 melee (1d6+3 dmg, poison); Saves +8/+1/+1; S 23 (+6) D 10 C 18 (+4) I -- W 10 Ch 2 (-4); Skills: Climb +8, Hide +0, Spot +4; Specials: Smite Good (+5 dmg for 1 attack), Poison (Fort DC 16, 1d4 Con, 1d4 Con), Constrict (1d6+4 dmg when grabbed), Improved Grab (starts grapple if a claw hits, +11 grapple), Darkvision 60ft, Tremorsense 60ft, Vermin traits, Fire and Cold Resistance 5, SR 10, DR 5/magic Shadow mastiff, Medium outsider (Extraplanar), HD 4d8+20; hp 38; init +5; speed 50ft; AC 14 (+1 dex, +3 nat), touch 11, flat-footed 13; Bite +9 melee (1d6+7 dmg, trip); Saves +9/+5/+5; S 21 (+5) D 13 (+1) C 21 (+5) I 4 (-3) W 12 (+1) Ch 13 (+1); Skills: Hide +8, Listen +8, Move Silently +8, Spot +8, Survival +8; Feats: Dodge, Improved Initiative, Track; Specials: Bay (300ft radius, Will DC 13 or panicked for 2d4 rounds), Trip (on successful bite, free trip attack (+3 modifier)), Darkvision 60ft, Shadow Blend (total concealment in shadows), Scent Fiendish dire wolverine, Large animal, HD 5d8+33; hp 55; init +3; speed 30ft, climb 10ft; AC 16 (-1 sz, +3 dex, +4 nat), touch 12, flat-footed 13; 2 Claws +10 melee (1d6+8 dmg) and Bite +5 melee (1d8+4 dmg); Saves +10/+7/+5; S 26 (+8) D 17 (+3) C 23 (+6) I 2 (-4) W 12 (+1) Ch 10; Skills: Climb +14, Listen +7, Spot +7; Feats: Alertness, Toughness, Track; Specials: Smite Good (+5 dmg for 1 attack), Rage (if hurt, rage +4 Str/Con, -2 AC until opponent or it is dead), Low-light vision, scent, Darkvision 60ft, Fire and Cold Resistance 5, SR 10, DR 5/magic Fiendish giant crocodile, Huge animal, HD 7d8+42; hp 73; init +1; speed 20ft, swim 30ft; AC 16 (-2 sz, +1 dex, +7 nat), touch 9, flat-footed 15; Bite +13 melee (2d8+15 dmg, grab) or Tail slap +13 melee (1d12+15 dmg); Saves +11/+6/+3; S 31 (+10) D 12 (+1) C 23 (+6) I 1 (-5) W 12 (+1) Ch 2 (-4); Skills: Hide +1*, Listen +5, Spot +5, Swim +16; Feats: Alertness, Endurance, Skill Focus (Hide); Specials: Smite Good (+7 dmg for 1 attack), Improved Grab (free grab with bite), Hold Breath (92 rounds before checking to drown), Low-light vision, Darkvision 60ft, Fire and Cold Resistance 5, SR 12, DR 5/magic Fiendish tiger, Large animal, HD 6d8+30; hp 57; init +2; speed 40ft; AC 14 (-1 sz, +2 dex, +3 nat), touch 11, flat-footed 12; 2 Claws +11 melee (1d8+8 dmg, grab) and Bite +6 melee (2d6+4 dmg, grab); Saves +10/+7/+3; S 27 (+8) D 15 (+2) C 21 (+5) I 2 (-4) W 12 (+1) Ch 6 (-2); Skills: Balance +6, Hide +3*, Listen +3, Move Silently +9, Spot +3, Swim +11; Feats: Alertness, Improved Natural Weapon (bite), and Improved Natural Weapon (claw); Specials: Smite Good (+6 dmg for 1 attack), Improved grab (with either claw or bite, +14 grapple, rake if successful), Pounce (full attack on charge), Rake (+9 melee, 1d8+4 dmg), Low-light vision, Scent, Darkvision 60ft, Fire and Cold Resistance 5, SR 11, DR 5/magic Celestial polar bear LG Celestial orca whale1 NG Bralani (eladrin) CG Celestial dire lion CG Elemental, Large (any) N Janni (genie) N Chaos beast CN Devil, chain, Medium outsider (Extraplanar, lawful, evil), HD 8d8+32; hp 68; init +6; speed 30ft; AC 20 (+2 dex, +8 nat), touch 12, flat-footed 18; 2 Chains +12 melee (2d4+4 dmg, 19-20/x2); Saves +10/+8/+6; S 19 (+4) D 15 (+2) C 19 (+4) I 6 (-2) W 10 Ch 12; Skills: Climb +13, Craft (blacksmithing) +17, Escape Artist +13, Intimidate +12, Listen +13, Spot +13, Use Rope +2 (+4 with bindings); Feats: Alertness, Improved Critical (chain), Improved Initiative; Specials: Dancing Chains (20ft range, all chains can attack as main attack, held chains get a DC 15 will save), Unnerving Gaze (30ft range, Will DC 15 or -2 to hit for 1d3 rounds), DR 5/silver or good, Darkvision 60ft, Immune to Cold, Regeneration 2, SR 18 Xill, Medium outsider (Extraplanar), HD 5d8+20; hp 42; init +7; speed 40ft; AC 20 (+3 dex, +7 nat), touch 13, flat-footed 17; 2 Short Swords +7 melee (1d6+4, 19-20/x2) and 2 Claws +7 melee (1d4+2, grab and bite) or 2 Longbows +4 ranged (1d8, x3); Saves +8/+7/+5; S 19 (+4) D 16 (+3) C 19 (+4) I 12 (+1) W 12 (+1) Ch 11; Skills: Balance +13, Climb +10, Diplomacy +2, Escape Artist +11, Intimidate +8, Listen +9, Move Silently +11, Sense Motive +8, Spot +9, Tumble +11, Use Rope +3 (+5 with bindings); Feats: Improved Initiative, Multiattack, Multiweapon Fighting; Specials: Implant (lay eggs, 90 days incubation), Improved Grab (+7 (+2 for each claw beyond the first) grapple, if successful, bites for paralysis (no damage)), Paralysis (Fort DC 16, 1d4 hours), Darkvision 60ft, Planewalk, SR 21 Fiendish monstrous centipede, Gargantuan vermin; HD 12d8+36; hp 90; init +2; speed 40ft, climb 40ft; AC 18 (-4 sz, +2 dex, +10 nat), touch 8, flat-footed 16; Bite +13 melee (2d8+12 dmg, poison); Saves +11/+6/+4; S 27 (+8) D 15 (+2) C 16 (+3) I -- W 10 Ch 2 (-4); Skills: Climb +14, Hide -2, Spot +4; Specials: Smite Good (+12 dmg for 1 attack), Poison (Fort DC 19, 1d8 dex, 1d8 dex), Darkvision 60ft, Vermin traits, Fire and Cold Resistance 10, SR 17, DR 10/magic Fiendish rhinoceros, Large animal; HD 8d8+56; hp 92; init +0; speed 30ft; AC 16 (-1 sz, +7 nat), touch 9, flat-footed 16; Gore +15 melee (2d6+15 dmg); Saves +13/+6/+3; S 30 (+10) D 10 C 25 (+7) I 2 (-4) W 13 (+1) Ch 2 (-4); Skills: Listen +14, Spot +3; Feats: Alertness, Endurance, Improved Natural Attack (gore); Specials: Smite Good (+8 dmg on one attack), Powerful Charge (4d6+30 dmg on charge attack), Low-light vision, Darkvision 60ft, Fire and Cold Resistance 10, SR 13, DR 5/magic Fiendish elasmosaurus, Huge animal; HD 10d8+86; hp 131; init +2; speed 20ft, swim 50ft; AC 13 (-2 sz, +2 dex, +3 nat), touch 10, flat-footed 11; Bite +15 (2d8+15 dmg); Saves +17/+9/+4; S 30 (+10) D 14 (+2) C 26 (+8) I 2 (-4) W 13 (+1) Ch 9 (-1); Skills: Hide -4*, Listen +4, Spot +9, Swim +16; Feats: Dodge, Great Fortitude, Toughness (2); Specials: Smite Good (+10 dmg on 1 attack), Low-light vision, scent, Fire and Cold Resistance 10, SR 15, DR 5/magic Fiendish monstrous spider, Huge vermin; HD 8d8+32; hp 68; init +3; speed 30ft, climb 20ft; AC 16 (-2 sz, +3 dex, +5 nat), touch 11, flat-footed 13; Bite +11 melee (2d6+9 dmg, poison); Saves +10/+5/+2; S 23 (+6) D 17 (+3) C 14 (+2) I -- W 10 Ch 2 (-4); Skills: Climb +12, Hide -1*, Jump +4*, Spot +4*; Specials: Smite Good (+8 dmg for 1 attack), Poison (Fort DC 18, 1d8 str, 1d8 str), Web (10ft range incr, up to gargantuan size target, as net, Escape Artist DC 18, Break DC 22, 14 hp), Darkvision 60ft, Tremorsense 60ft, Vermin Traits, Fire and Cold Resistance 10, SR 13, DR 5/magic Fiendish snake, giant constrictor, Huge animal; HD 11d8+36; hp 85; init +3; speed 20ft, climb 20ft, swim 20ft; AC 15 (-2 sz, +3 dex, +4 nat), touch 11, flat-footed 12; Bite +15 melee (1d8+13 dmg, grab); Saves +10/+10/+4; S 29 (+9) D 17 (+3) C 17 (+3) I 1 (-5) W 12 (+1) Ch 2 (-4); Skills: Balance +11, Climb +17, Hide +10, Listen +9, Spot +9, Swim +16; Feats: Alertness, Endurance, Skill Focus (Hide), Toughness; Specials: Smite Good (+11 dmg on 1 attack), Improved Grab (+23 grapple), Constrict (1d8+13 dmg), Scent, Darkvision 60ft, Fire and Cold Resistance 10, SR 16, DR 5/magic Celestial elephant LG Avoral (guardinal) NG Celestial baleen whale1 NG Djinni (genie) CG Elemental, Huge (any) N Invisible stalker N Devil, bone, Large outsider (Extraplanar, lawful, evil), HD 10d8+70; hp 115; init +9; speed 40ft; AC 25 (-1 sz, +5 dex, +11 nat), touch 14, flat-footed 20; Bite +16 melee (1d8+7 dmg), 2 Claws +14 melee (1d4+3), and Sting +14 melee (3d4+3, poison); Saves +14/+12/+11; S 25 (+7) D 21 (+5) C 25 (+7) I 14 (+2) W 14 (+2) Ch 14 (+2); Skills: Bluff +15, Concentration +18, Diplomacy +6, Disguise +2 (+4 acting), Hide +14, Intimidate +17, Knowledge (any one) +15, Listen +17, Move Silently +18, Search +15, Sense Motive +15, Spot +17, Survival +2 (+4 following tracks); Feats: Alertness, Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Multiattack; Specials: Spell-like Abilities (At will - greater teleport, dimensional anchor, fly, invisibility, major image (DC15), wall of ice. CL 12), Fear Aura (5ft radius, Will DC 17 or as Fear spell (CL 7)), Poison (Fort DC 22, 1d6 str, 2d6 str), Summon Devil (not usable in summon), DR 10/good, Darkvision 60ft, Immune to Fire and Poison, Acid and Cold Resistance 10, See in Darkness, SR 21, Telepathy 100ft Fiendish megaraptor, Huge animal, HD 8d8+59; hp 95; init +2; speed 60ft; AC 16 (-2 sz, +2 dex, +6 nat), touch 10, flat-footed 14; Talons +11 melee (2d8+7 dmg), 2 Foreclaws +6 melee (1d4+3 dmg), and Bite +6 melee (2d6+3 dmg); Saves +12/+8/+4; S 25 (+7) D 15 (+2) C 25 (+7) I 2 (-4) W 15 (+2) Ch 10; Skills: Hide +5, Jump +27, Listen +12, Spot +12, Survival +12; Feats: Run, Toughness, Track; Specials: Smite Good (+8 dmg on 1 attack), Pounce (full attack on charge), Low-light vision, scent, Darkvision 60ft, Fire and Cold Resistance 10, SR 13, DR 5/magic Fiendish monstrous scorpion, Huge vermin, HD 10d8+50; hp 95; init +0; speed 50ft; AC 20 (-2 sz, +12 nat), touch 8, flat-footed 20; 2 Claws +13 melee (1d8+8, grab) and Sting +8 melee (2d4+4, poison); Saves +12/+3/+3; S 27 (+8) D 10 C 20 (+5) I -- W 10 Ch 2 (-4); Skills: Climb +10, Hide -4, Spot +4; Specials: Smite Good (+10 dmg on 1 attack), Constrict (1d8+8 dmg), Improved Grab (on successful claw, +21 grapple, constrict), Poison (Fort DC 20, 1d6 con, 1d6 con), Darkvision 60ft, Tremorsense 60ft, Vermin Traits, Fire and Cold Resistance 10, SR 15, DR 5/magic Babau (demon), Medium outsider (Extraplanar, chaotic, evil), HD 7d8+49; hp 80; init +1; speed 30ft; AC 19 (+1 dex, +8 nat), touch 11, flat-footed 18; 2 Claws +14 melee (1d6+7) and Bite +9 melee (1d6+3); Saves +12/+6/+6; S 25 (+7) D 12 (+1) C 24 (+7) I 14 (+2) W 13 (+1) Ch 16 (+3); Skills: Climb +15, Disable Device +12, Disguise +13, Escape Artist +11, Hide +19, Listen +19, Move Silently +19, Open Lock +11, Search +20, Sleight of Hand +11, Survival +1 (+3 following tracks), Use Rope +1 (+3 with bindings); Feats: Cleave, Multiattack, Power Attack; Specials: Sneak Attack (as rogue, +2d6 dmg), Spell-like abilities (At will- darkness, dispel magic, see invisibility, greater teleport - CL 7), Summon Demon (not usable by summons), DR 10/Cold Iron or good, Darkvision 60ft, Immune to Electricity and Poison, Protective Slime (1d8 acid damage to any thing that touches it. Magic weapons and persons (from touch attacks, etc) may make Reflex DC 20 to negate damage)), Acid, Cold, and Fire Resistance 10, SR 14, Telepathy 100ft Fiendish giant octopus, Large animal; HD 8d8+27; hp 63; init +2; speed 20ft, swim 30ft; AC 18 (-1 sz, +2 dex, +7 nat), touch 11, flat-footed 16; 8 Tentacles +12 melee (1d4+7, 20ft reach, grab) and Bite +7 melee (1d8+3); Saves +9/+8/+3; S 24 (+7) D 15 (+2) C 17 (+3) I 2 (-4) W 12 (+1) Ch 3 (-4); Skills: Escape Artist +12, Hide +12, Listen +4, Spot +6, Swim +13; Feats: Alertness, Skill Focus (Hide), Toughness; Specials: Smite Good (+8 dmg on 1 attack), Improved Grab (tentacle to constrict, +15 grapple), Constrict (2d8+6 dmg), Ink Cloud (20ft cube, 1/minute as free action, total concealment), Jet (1/round as a full-round action, speed 200ft, straight line, no AoO), Low-light vision, Darkvision 60ft, Fire and Cold Resistance 10, SR 13, DR 5/magic Fiendish girallon, Large Magical Beast; HD 7d10+34; hp 72; init +3; speed 40ft, climb 40ft; AC 16 (-1 sz, +3 dex, +4 nat), touch 12, flat-footed 13; 4 Claws +14 melee (1d4+8, rend) and Bite +9 melee (1d8+4); Saves +9/+8/+5; S 26 (+8) D 17 (+3) C 18 (+4) I 2 (-4) W 12 (+1) Ch 7 (-2); Skills: Climb +14, Move Silently +8, Spot +6; Feats: Iron Will, Toughness (2); Specials: Smite Good (+7 dmg on 1 attack), Rend (2+ claw hits, rend for 2d4+16 dmg), Darkvision 60ft, Low-light vision, scent, Fire and Cold Resistance 5, SR 12, DR 5/magic
Hirumajoe 12-18-07, 03:14 PM	I'd like some clarification about hiding penalties and when one can hide at all. 1) If a normal character attacks from hiding, then moves to full cover and then to concealment, what is the penalty on the hide check assuming a full move (default penalty of -5)? 1A) -5 1B) -20 1C) -25 2) Can a character with HIPS enabled simply choose to make a standard attack and a hide check at a -20 penalty at the same time (both through the attack and after)? Can he do this with melee and ranged? (This is a distinct difference from Sniping, which uses a move action to give the ability to remain hiding *while* attacking which is normally not allowed without HIPS because attention is focused on them). 2A) Yes - any standard attack 2B) Yes - but only melee 2C) No 3)Can a character with HIPS enabled make a full attack witha hide check at -20 penalty at the same time to remain hidden while attaking (both through the attack and after)? 2A) Yes 2B) No I direct people to the 3.5 FAQ section on Spring Attacking and HIPS and also the description of the Hide Skill for references. Thank you for your consideration.
MindWandererB 12-18-07, 03:53 PM	1) If a normal character attacks from hiding, then moves to full cover and then to concealment, what is the penalty on the hide check assuming a full move (default penalty of -5)? 1A) -5 1B) -20 1C) -25There are two hide checks involved here. There's one check at -20 made when the character attacks (to determine whether the target is flat-footed), and there's a second check made at -5 after the character moves out of full cover (to determine whether the character can be seen at the end of the round). 2) Can a character with HIPS enabled simply choose to make a standard attack and a hide check at a -20 penalty at the same time (both through the attack and after)? Can he do this with melee and ranged? (This is a distinct difference from Sniping, which uses a move action to give the ability to remain hiding *while* attacking which is normally not allowed without HIPS because attention is focused on them). 2A) Yes - any standard attack 2B) Yes - but only melee 2C) NoAccording to the example in the FAQ, not quite. One check at -20 to remain hidden while attacking, and one at no penalty to hide again afterwards. 3)Can a character with HIPS enabled make a full attack witha hide check at -20 penalty at the same time to remain hidden while attaking (both through the attack and after)? 2A) Yes 2B) NoAs near as I can figure, you'd need to make a check at -20 for each individual attack in the routine. And again, you'd need to make one final check to remain hidden afterwards.
McJarvis 12-18-07, 05:01 PM	Hm. That would make it impossible for a level 1 rogue to sneak attack off of anything but winning initiative & flanking. 4 ranks +4 dex +3 distance(max) - 30 ft SA range +8 misc - Forest gnome or halfling with skill focus - 20(attacking) = -1 DC spot check [no distance mods left to add] So the level 1 rogue can only(if he's super tweaked out) sneak attack against someone with a negative spot check & that rolls low. I'm not sure if I'm comfortable with a -20 hide check to catch the opponent flat footed- especially since the section on sniping says nothing about this.
MindWandererB 12-18-07, 05:06 PM	Hm. That would make it impossible for a level 1 rogue to sneak attack off of anything but winning initiative & flanking. 4 ranks +4 dex +3 distance(max) - 30 ft SA range +8 misc - Forest gnome or halfling with skill focus - 20(attacking) = -1 DC spot check [no distance mods left to add] So the level 1 rogue can only(if he's super tweaked out) sneak attack against someone with a negative spot check & that rolls low. I'm not sure if I'm comfortable with a -20 hide check to catch the opponent flat footed- especially since the section on sniping says nothing about this. That's intentional on the part of the developers, and fine by me. A -20 penalty is indicated for an action that is "practically impossible." A level 1 character shouldn't be able to pull off anything of that nature, and a -20 penalty for hiding while attacking is clearly indicated. As interesting as the concept might be, it's just not what D&D combat is designed for.
McJarvis 12-18-07, 05:08 PM	That's intentional on the part of the developers, and fine by me. A -20 penalty is indicated for an action that is "practically impossible." A level 1 character shouldn't be able to pull off anything of that nature, and a -20 penalty for hiding while attacking is clearly indicated. As interesting as the concept might be, it's just not what D&D combat is designed for. What I mean is I don't think a level 1 character should be able to snipe- but surely a level 1 rogue should be capable of using sneak attack outside of the surprise round and flanking!! edit- On a different level- I don't think it's "practically impossible" to hide from someone and shoot them while catching them by surprise with a crossbow from 30 ft away. I don't encourage real life examples like that- but come on. Shooting them and keeping my position a secret might be hard, but actually catching them off guard would be freakishly easy. [I have enough experience with nerf guns in college to know this]
lonewolf 12-18-07, 05:11 PM	What I mean is I don't think a level 1 character should be able to snipe- but surely a level 1 rogue should be capable of using sneak attack outside of the surprise round and flanking!! edit- On a different level- I don't think it's "practically impossible" to hide from someone and shoot them while catching them by surprise with a crossbow from 30 ft away. I don't encourage real life examples like that- but come on. Shooting them and keeping my position a secret might be hard, but actually catching them off guard would be freakishly easily. Thats what bluff is for. :) also he could alternate between shooting and hiding next turn again without penalty. Not easy but possible.
McJarvis 12-18-07, 05:14 PM	also he could alternate between shooting and hiding next turn again without penalty. Not easy but possible. No, he couldn't. What MWB is saying is this: Level 1 rogue hides. He finds his target after initiative starts. He makes his ranged attack. The target then gets a spot check vs a hide DC -20 to avoid the attack catching him flat footed. !!!!!!
Hirumajoe 12-18-07, 05:15 PM	Although, there's a difference between remaining hiding during the attack and being hidden before the attack. Refering back to an old Sage Advice: Q: Dear Sage, If a rogue has successfully hidden behind some bushes and fires an arrow at a target less than 30 feet away from her, does she deal sneak attack damage? --Todd A: Yes. The rules don’t come right out and say this, but a character who has successfully hidden from an opponent is considered invisible for the purpose of rendering that foe flat-footed, and thus deals sneak attack damage. I think the first attack you make reveals your location, but by then its too late to prevent the first sneak attack. Although I could be interpreting the above incorrectly.
MindWandererB 12-18-07, 05:17 PM	I agree, but the D&D rules just don't have any way of supporting that. Our combat system differs from the normal D&D system in that initiative is rolled before contact between the two parties is made. The rules assume that initiative is rolled when one party detects the other, that both parties will be aware of the other by the end of the surprise round, and that no one is going to break off combat in the middle to go hide somewhere. Now that I think of it, most likely what we should be doing (and should have been doing all along) is that all parties act simultaneously and outside of initiative until contact is made. Unfortunately that leads to issues of who makes contact with whom and where (in a TT game the DM decides whether the party is approaching the monsters or vice-versa), but it would be closer to the intent of the system. It would also give a high initiative modifier relevance again. That would be a major change, of course, and not something I'd suggest lightly. But it's worth considering (especially before we enable 4e). Edit: I forgot about that Sage Advice, which makes me wonder what the FAQ is talking about. What does the Hide check at -20 accomplish if you can start hidden and go back to hiding without penalty? Is it just to prevent a readied action?
Hirumajoe 12-18-07, 05:34 PM	Edit: I forgot about that Sage Advice, which makes me wonder what the FAQ is talking about. What does the Hide check at -20 accomplish if you can start hidden and go back to hiding without penalty? Is it just to prevent a readied action? Actually, now that I re-read the FAQ, I'm as confused as you are. Normally, I'd say that it was, in fact, to prevent the readied action. But the FAQ seems to expressly contradict the Sage Advice column. Or perhaps we are reading too much into the Sage Advice column and they forgot to include a -20 penalty. Although it doesn't read like that.
McJarvis 12-18-07, 05:39 PM	It could be that the -20 is specifically supposed to be for melee attacks while hiding. [which I would imagine are harder]
Salrantol 12-18-07, 05:42 PM	The Hide check at -20 has two benefits: 1) Avoiding readied actions. 2) Opponents not knowing whence the attack comes. Without sniping, you are always visible until you break LoS. Even if you had previously hidden successfullly, attacking reveals your location to anyone with LoS, and allows readied actions against you, unless you snipe successfully.
McJarvis 12-18-07, 05:43 PM	The Hide check at -20 has two benefits: 1) Avoiding readied actions. 2) Opponents not knowing whence the attack comes. Without sniping, you are always visible until you break LoS. Even if you had previously hidden successfullly, attacking reveals your location to anyone with LoS, and allows readied actions against you, unless you snipe successfully. I can get behind that.
MindWandererB 12-18-07, 05:52 PM	That's not a bad point. It also means that without HiPS or total cover/concealment, you'd need to make the attack at -20 to stay hidden, and even with HiPS your opponent would know which way to go to look for you (and you'd better hope you had a move action left!).
Hirumajoe 12-18-07, 05:54 PM	Hm. That would make it impossible for a level 1 rogue to sneak attack off of anything but winning initiative & flanking. 4 ranks +4 dex +3 distance(max) - 30 ft SA range +8 misc - Forest gnome or halfling with skill focus - 20(attacking) = -1 DC spot check [no distance mods left to add] So the level 1 rogue can only(if he's super tweaked out) sneak attack against someone with a negative spot check & that rolls low. Actually your assessment is slightly off. That list right there gives you a 1d20-1 roll, or 0-19. Against an opponent with a +0 spot mod, you'll succeed roughly 45% of the time. It doesn't require a negative spot check or even a low roll on your opponents part. Edit: Hmm.... So can I translate the above discussion as approval for Valen to start pulling off Full Attack ranged attacks while remaining hidden? (With hide checks at -20 for each attack of course...).
lonewolf 12-18-07, 05:54 PM	Im confused. I thought this was common knowledge...
hogarth 12-18-07, 06:33 PM	For what it's worth, the way I thought it worked in the CoCo was that the target of an attack detects his attacker automatically (exception: sniping) and the -20 penalty for hiding while attacking applies to third parties trying to detect the attacker.
CrazyArtificer 12-20-07, 07:54 AM	Now that I think of it, most likely what we should be doing (and should have been doing all along) is that all parties act simultaneously and outside of initiative until contact is made. Unfortunately that leads to issues of who makes contact with whom and where (in a TT game the DM decides whether the party is approaching the monsters or vice-versa), but it would be closer to the intent of the system. It would also give a high initiative modifier relevance again. I'd like this change, and the problem could be solved by house-rouling that the one with the highest initiative modifier makes contact with the other (or the party which got the highest average initiative modifier)
McJarvis 12-20-07, 07:57 AM	Now that I think of it, most likely what we should be doing (and should have been doing all along) is that all parties act simultaneously and outside of initiative until contact is made. Unfortunately that leads to issues of who makes contact with whom and where (in a TT game the DM decides whether the party is approaching the monsters or vice-versa), but it would be closer to the intent of the system. It would also give a high initiative modifier relevance again. That would be a major change, of course, and not something I'd suggest lightly. But it's worth considering (especially before we enable 4e). This would be a house-rule. So far as I know, round-by-round combat doesn't happen outside of initiative, so we couldn't really buff until init got rolled....
whitebaron 12-20-07, 08:54 AM	@mwb: i don't like the proposed change to initiative one little bit. it is fair the way it is. you can't really let them act outside of initiative, as their buffs end at their initiative counts. (so, if you delay, the buff would normally end outside of your turn!) @hiding: i think we got different issues here, and i'll try to adress them one by one as i see them. Snipe Obviously, you need to take the -20 penalty to stay hidden after sniping. not succeeding in sniping means you're auto-spotted. Hide after shooting Your opponent will have you spotted. So he knows your exact square and you count as being observed. you still can hide in the same square, though, if you have HIPS (and there should be no penalty for that). Move after shooting and then hide You should be able to do this, at the usual penalties for movement. However, your opponent knows quite likely where you are. (since he saw you before rehiding) Full attack + hide This is outside of Sniping rules. Sniping a) definitely is only for ranged attacks, and b) You cannot snipe (aka stay hidden) while full attacking as it needs a move action to hide. Either way, you still get all bonusses for your opponent being flat-footed on the first attack. Note that many shot only gets precision based damage on the first shot. So, in 2,3,4 you will be autospotted even though i believe you should be able to rehide at normal penalties in 2 and 3, not incurring the -20.
Hirumajoe 12-20-07, 02:15 PM	So, in 2,3,4 you will be autospotted even though i believe you should be able to rehide at normal penalties in 2 and 3, not incurring the -20. I tend to disagree with your assessment of 4. Since you can hide while making a non-sniping attack (see FAQ sblock). Not sure what Manyshot has to do with this though. The reason you are auto-spotted on an attack is because your opponent's attention is now focused on you. As far as I can tell in the rules, there's nothing special about attacks, except the -20 modifier listed for them. Which is listed in the same sentence as running, which I know doesn't cause you to be auto-spotted. Does a character become auto-spotted when he takes a non-movement action? For instance if he's taking a full round action to use the track skill or manifest a non-offensive, non-displaying power? I would then imagine, because HIPS removes the restriction on hiding while being observed, you'd be able to hide while attacking (continuously without ever becoming visible for a moment). Your Hide check is opposed by the Spot check of anyone who might see you. You can move up to one-half your normal speed and hide at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than one-half but less than your normal speed, you take a -5 penalty. It’s practically impossible (-20 penalty) to hide while attacking, running or charging. You need cover or concealment in order to attempt a Hide check. Negated by HIPS Total cover or total concealment usually (but not always; see Special, below) obviates the need for a Hide check, since nothing can see you anyway. If people are observing you, even casually, you can’t hide. You can run around a corner or behind cover so that you’re out of sight and then hide, but the others then know at least where you went. Negated by HIPS Action Usually none. Normally, you make a Hide check as part of movement, so it doesn’t take a separate action. However, hiding immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action. Special If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Hide checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Hide checks if you’re moving. If you remove the strikeout sections, there is nothing that indicates attacks are an auto-spot. The next closest rule comes from Invisibility: If an invisible creature strikes a character, the character struck still knows the location of the creature that struck him (until, of course, the invisible creature moves). The only exception is if the invisible creature has a reach greater than 5 feet. In this case, the struck character knows the general location of the creature but has not pinpointed the exact location. If there was a rule that opponents are auto-spotted when they attack, then you would pinpoint any invisible attacker at any distance they attacked you from. HIPS is basically all the functionality of improved invisibility without the Total Concealment to fall back on and no +20 hide modifier. And you can get that spell as a full caster a level before you can get Shadowdancer as a rogue. :) Can a character with Spring Attack who begins her turn hidden move up to a foe, attack him, then return to a position of hiding? Is she considered to be hiding (that is, invisible to the foe) when she makes the attack? What if the character has the camouflage or hide in plain sight class features? Normally, a character can’t make a Hide check right after attacking a foe, since that foe’s attention is now focused on her (even if the attacker started her turn hidden or invisible). The sniping option (on page 76 in the Player’s Handbook) allows a character to make a move action to hide immediately after making a ranged attack against a foe at least 10 feet away, but this doesn’t apply to melee attacks (even those made with reach). Even if the character has Spring Attack, she simply can’t make a Hide check while she is being observed. As far as your second question goes, unless the character’s approach remains entirely in an area where she can hide (that is, an area with sufficient cover or concealment to attempt a Hide check), the character is not considered to be hidden still when she makes the attack. Conceivably, your character might begin her turn hidden in overgrowth, move up through the undergrowth to attack a target, then move back to a hiding place within the plants, having never left the area of concealment. In this case, she’d be considered hidden when she made the attack, although she’d have a –20 penalty on her Hide check. The third part of your question changes the situation entirely. Separately, both the camouflage and hide in plain sight class features make this tactic more useful, but together, they’re incredibly effective. A character with the hide in plain sight class feature (described on page 48 in the Player’s Handbook) can make a Hide check even if she’s being observed. This doesn’t require any extra action to accomplish (unlike the sniping maneuver). The character could attack a foe, then move to a place with sufficient cover or concealment to allow a Hide check, making the Hide check as part of movement. The character doesn’t need Spring Attack to pull this off, although that feat would allow her to move (potentially from a place of hiding, although that’s not necessary), make an attack, and then move again to a place of hiding. Still, unless the character has cover or concealment for her approach, she’s not considered to be hidden when she delivers the attack. The camouflage class feature (also on page 48 in the Player’s Handbook) allows the character to make a Hide check in any sort of natural terrain, even if it doesn’t provide cover or concealment. This means that the character could begin hidden, move up to a target across open terrain, and make an attack while still being considered hidden (although she’d still suffer the –20 penalty on her Hide check). Even if the character has Spring Attack and moves away after the attack, she can’t make a Hide check to hide after the attack. Put all three of these elements together—such as in the hands of a high-level sneaky ranger—and here’s what you get: 1. The character begins his turn hidden (as long as he’s in natural terrain, he doesn’t even need cover or concealment). 2. He moves up to a foe across natural terrain and makes an attack (making a Hide check with a –20 penalty to be considered hiding when he attacks). 3. He then moves back from the foe and makes a new Hide check to disappear from view (again, he doesn’t need cover or concealment while in natural terrain). 4. The foe then, if still standing, says, “Hey, what hit me?!”
MindWandererB 12-20-07, 04:46 PM	This would be a house-rule. So far as I know, round-by-round combat doesn't happen outside of initiative, so we couldn't really buff until init got rolled.... Actually, it does. I don't own the 3.5 DMG, but on page 61 of the 3.0 DMG (Chapter 3->Combat->Starting An Encounter->Both Sides Aware at the Same Time->Example (Both Aware, but Cannot Interact Immediately)) there's a detailed description of exactly how this would work.
mucki 12-21-07, 03:52 AM	Action Usually none. Normally, you make a Hide check as part of movement, so it doesn’t take a separate action. However, hiding immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action. (emphasis added by me) I think that covers the question of full-attack and hiding. Unless you somehow get an additional move action per round, its impossible to do a full round action and then a move action to hide.
whitebaron 12-21-07, 05:58 AM	As mucki already quoted - Normally, you make a hide check as part of a movement. full attack - no movement - no hide. as far as many-shot is concerned: you can snipe with manyshot. though the target is flat-footed for both shots, you deal only sneak attack once.
McJarvis 12-21-07, 06:59 AM	The FAQ specifically covers hiding while full attacking with HiPS & spring attack. Of course, there is movement involved...
whitebaron 12-21-07, 07:03 AM	The FAQ specifically covers hiding while full attacking with HiPS & spring attack. Of course, there is movement involved... you can't spring attack AND full attack. that's a misconception. spring attack allows only 1 attack.
hogarth 12-21-07, 07:13 AM	Since I can't find the ruling that I thought, I'll ask this again here: Can you upgrade a Bag of Tricks (from gray -> rust -> tan) instead of selling the old one and buying a new one?
McJarvis 12-21-07, 08:03 AM	Since I can't find the ruling that I thought, I'll ask this again here: Can you upgrade a Bag of Tricks (from gray -> rust -> tan) instead of selling the old one and buying a new one? On a related note- I'd like to know if the same can be done for PoP's
TelinArtho 12-21-07, 08:50 AM	I'd say no for both.
whitebaron 12-21-07, 10:04 AM	I'd say no for both. and i'd like to know why, seeing that you can upgrade a headband of intellect or amulet of wisdom/cloak of charisma, which is not covered in the rules either. i think, grouped items as the pearl of power and the stat booster/skill booster items should always be upgradeable (same spell/different caster levels). - as there is a different spell in each of the bag of tricks, i'd understand that you don't want to upgrade them. with the PoP, i don't know why it should not work though.
McJarvis 12-21-07, 10:14 AM	and i'd like to know why, seeing that you can upgrade a headband of intellect or amulet of wisdom/cloak of charisma, which is not covered in the rules either. i think, grouped items as the pearl of power and the stat booster/skill booster items should always be upgradeable (same spell/different caster levels). - as there is a different spell in each of the bag of tricks, i'd understand that you don't want to upgrade them. with the PoP, i don't know why it should not work though. I believe Telin's logic(which I have heard before) is that the new "upgraded" effect does not encompass the previous old effect. It's only better. Whereas a +2 weapon is like an augmented +1 weapon. and a +6 headband of intellect obviously encompasses the function of a +4 headband of intellect. edit- so by the logic of "upgraded=upgraded" you could upgrade a +2 flaming sword to a +1 vorpal sword, but by Telin's logic you could only turn a +2 flaming sword into a +2 flaming sword, but better. [+3, or +2 flaming lightning, or...etc, etc] In the same way- a PoP 2nd level can't recover a 1st level spell slot, and a greater bag of tricks can't produce the animals of the lesser bag of tricks. [and that +1 vorpol sword I mentioned doesn't have the flaming enhancement of the +2 flaming sword] Personally, I can see it either way.
Stormwind 12-21-07, 12:55 PM	I would agree entirely with Telin's assessment. In my opinion, you can only upgrade something if the upgraded version includes the functions of the initial version. A few examples: +1 armor -> +1 shadow armor -> +1 improved shadow armor These are valid upgrades as the previous versions are still fully included in the upgrade. In particular the 'shadow' ability (+5 hide) is included in the 'improved shadow' ability (+10 hide). +1 flaming greatsword -| +2 frost greatsword This is not a valid upgrade as the flaming ability is no longer present in the second item +2 headband of intellect -> +4 headband of intellect -> +6 headband of intellect This is a valid upgrade as the previous versions are still fully included in the upgrade. In particular the +2 headband (+2 int) is included in the +4 headband (+4 int) which is in turn is included in the +6 headband (+6 int). Pearl of power (1st) -| Pearl of power (2nd) This is not a valid upgrade since the function of the first item is not included in the second item. where ('->' indicates that it can be upgraded) ('-|' indicates that it cannot be upgraded) As mentioned above, this is just my opinion, but to the best of my knowledge it has been the way upgrades have been handled so far in the CoCo.
whitebaron 12-21-07, 02:12 PM	well, if this is the reasoning behind it, you should not be allowed to upgrade any item except some weapon/armor-enchantments. an item that is upgraded from +2 to +4 does not contain any of the previous bonusses - it's just plain +4. it is not +2 enhancement and +2 enhancement (which would not stack), and it is not +2 enhancement and +2 other bonus. Basically, its effect did change, too. you remove the +2 enhancement, and add the +4 enhancement. this is NOT different to the pearl of power. note that you CAN recall a lvl 1 spell with a PoP 2. so its effect is still there. about the frost to flaming changes: this is not allowed because it uses a different spell, and you would change another effect than the one you'd be upgrading. this would be like having a custom item of wis+1, con+2 and while upgrading it to wis+2, saying, ok, its natural armor instead of constitution. no one argues that. my proposed ruling for that is really easy: as long as it's a grouped item in the srd, and requires only different caster level, it should be upgradeable. this includes all stats and skill boosters, PoP and bag of holding. Bag of tricks though, uses different spells, so should not be allowed. --edit: since the srd does not allow upgrading items, and there is neither a house rule in the rules thread, nor a decision in the council, i believe all the upgrading done in the coco is illegal by its current rules. ;)
Salrantol 12-21-07, 02:51 PM	Actually, whitebaron, the SRD does address this.ADDING NEW ABILITIES A creator can add new magical abilities to a magic item with no restrictions. The cost to do this is the same as if the item was not magical. Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal sword minus the cost of a +1 sword. If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character’s body the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%. For example, if a character adds the power to confer invisibility to her ring of protection +2, the cost of adding this ability is the same as for creating a ring of invisibility multiplied by 1.5.
Salrantol 12-21-07, 03:04 PM	well, if this is the reasoning behind it, you should not be allowed to upgrade any item except some weapon/armor-enchantments. an item that is upgraded from +2 to +4 does not contain any of the previous bonusses - it's just plain +4. it is not +2 enhancement and +2 enhancement (which would not stack), and it is not +2 enhancement and +2 other bonus.And how is that different from going from a +2 weapon to a +4 weapon, which is explicitly allowed in the SRD? After all, you're still replacing a +2 enhancement bonus with a +4 enhancement bonus.
whitebaron 12-21-07, 03:39 PM	And how is that different from going from a +2 weapon to a +4 weapon, which is explicitly allowed in the SRD? After all, you're still replacing a +2 enhancement bonus with a +4 enhancement bonus. thats why i said some -> +2 to +4 would be not allowed, +2 to +2 +special ability: yes. this was assuming the reasoning is like it was presented above. as for the srd-passage you quoted: no wonder i didn't find it, as it's not called updating :rolleyes:
MindWandererB 12-21-07, 04:01 PM	By the same logic, though, I'd say you could upgrade a level 1 to level 6 PoP to a PoP (two spells).
Hirumajoe 12-21-07, 06:07 PM	I think that covers the question of full-attack and hiding. Unless you somehow get an additional move action per round, its impossible to do a full round action and then a move action to hide. So if we take Valen, who has hustle (5pp for an extra move action), and makes a full attack, manifests hustle and moves, would he be be considered hiding for all his attacks of the full attack and then hidden afterwards? How many rolls would you require for this and at what penalties? But then I'm confused on another point. Does any non-movement full, standard, move equivalent or free action prevent one from hiding? If the answer is yes, then I can understand why you can't hide during a Full-round attack with HIPS. Or if you need to take a move action each round to remain hiding, I'll also understand why. But mostly I'm confused because we have direct contradictions to making hide only when moving. (Unless the term "normally" means there are exceptions, which are poorly defined to say the least). Take the spring attack example. There are 2 rolls made, one at the moment of the attack and a second during the move away. Each applies only to their moment. If you succeed on the first, but not the second, you strike as if invisible, but are seen as you move away. If you fail on the first, but not the second, you are seen for the duration of the attack, but then disappear again as you move away. Or imagine a character during a surprise round or under the effects of a slow spell. They succeeded earlier in hiding in some bushes. They take a standard action to attack their target (either ranged or melee), but apparently need to roll hide -20 to be considered hidden during the attack. They've just rolled a hide check without being able to move that turn. They're not considered hiding after the attack though, but the only rule that I can find that says why, is the "you cannot hide while being observed". And for my last example, if you need to move to hide, why do immobile invisible creatures gain a +40 bonus to their hide check. :) Edit: I apologize for the long laundry list of questions, but I hope with direct answers to these, it should clear up my understanding of the hide rules.
whitebaron 12-21-07, 06:37 PM	no. he would be considered hiding for the first attack. the rolls would be: all attack rolls, then move, then hide at movement-penalty (either -4 or no penalty) about only when moving: this means you need some time to hide. once you are hidden, you are hidden. BUT, if you do something that breaks hide, you need to rehide, and this uses up a move action, but can be performed while moving. also note, that there are NOT 2 rolls for hiding when sniping. you only make a rehide-check afterwards. if you can't take the move action, you can't snipe. @immobile+invis: they are hidden via invisibility already. you don't need to take another action to remain hidden once hidden.
MindWandererB 12-21-07, 06:40 PM	Well, here are my answers: Valen would have to make a Hide check at -20 for each attack. If he fails at any time, any subsequent attacks will not be against the target's flat-footed AC. He can use Hustle to hide again if he didn't fail any of the previous checks (or got HiPS). (Note: some places say that sniping is a full-round action, others that it's a standard action and a move action. I'm inclined to believe the latter, because the former precludes sniping with a spell, Manyshot, etc.) I think that no actions "prevent" you from hiding, but attacking, running, or charging incur a -20 penalty. It's never totally impossible unless you're being observed. I don't know why you need a move action to re-hide (or stay hidden) after an attack; normally, no, you don't need to move to make a Hide check. But that's the way the FAQ describes it.
whitebaron 12-21-07, 06:47 PM	I don't know why you need a move action to re-hide (or stay hidden) after an attack; normally, no, you don't need to move to make a Hide check. But that's the way the FAQ describes it. i'd have to oppose this with the description of the hide-skill: "Normally, you make a Hide check as part of movement, so it doesn’t take a separate action. " all this means is that if you move, you can hide for free. else you need to take an action. (which would be - a move action) if you are hidden, you need nothing to maintain being hidden.
Hirumajoe 12-21-07, 07:58 PM	@MWB: Thanks for your answers. Those are the ones I'm leaning towards as well. I'm guessing that you need to make a hide check in the spring attack case after the attack because its a different type of action from the attack. Any time you move, you need to make a hide check which spring attack definitely does. The thing is there are two different modifiers being applied (say one for moving at half (+0) or full speed (-5) and one at -20 for the attack. So rather than stacking them, since they're easily identified parts of the action, they make it two separate rolls. no. he would be considered hiding for the first attack. the rolls would be: all attack rolls, then move, then hide at movement-penalty (either -4 or no penalty) I'm confused as to why he is not hiding for the second attack roll if he successfully hid for the first one. The spring attack example in the FAQ shows a perfect transition (i.e. the attacker is never visible) since the defender is left wondering what even hit him. So why can't a perfect transition occur in the full attack case? You're basically saying he becomes auto-spotted immediately after the attack when the FAQ expressly indicates otherwise. about only when moving: this means you need some time to hide. once you are hidden, you are hidden. BUT, if you do something that breaks hide, you need to rehide, and this uses up a move action, but can be performed while moving. Can you define the actions which break hiding? I'd love to see that list and the reasoning (and the references to rules in the SRD, FAQ or other source). This might actually answer my first point (why are you auto-spotted after attacking). It might help me see what I'm missing in your argument. also note, that there are NOT 2 rolls for hiding when sniping. you only make a rehide-check afterwards. if you can't take the move action, you can't snipe. But there are two rolls in the spring attack example. And you're correct, you can't snipe if you can't take the move action. But sniping is a special action of the hide skill, not the general application. Since there is no specific rule under the Hide skill for spring attacks and the attack action (other than the -20 modifier while attacking) I can only presume the spring attack example encompasses the more general application. In my previous examples, I wasn't asking to use the snipe action, I've been trying to apply the general hide rules to Hide in Plain sight and full attacks. @immobile+invis: they are hidden via invisibility already. you don't need to take another action to remain hidden once hidden. This then goes back to the question of what action break hiding then. Since if once hidden, you don't need to continue to take move actions to remain hiding. i'd have to oppose this with the description of the hide-skill: "Normally, you make a Hide check as part of movement, so it doesn’t take a separate action. " all this means is that if you move, you can hide for free. else you need to take an action. (which would be - a move action) if you are hidden, you need nothing to maintain being hidden. Lets take a look at the full quote: Action Usually none. Normally, you make a Hide check as part of movement, so it doesn’t take a separate action. However, hiding immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action. It says "Usually none". Then it goes on to say as an exception (the "However" indicates this) Sniping takes a move action. I'd personally interpret movement as any type of bodily motion. Say taking a potion from a pack or waving your arms or even swinging a sword. Thus, in answer to my own question, I'd say you roll a hide check for any action which involves some form of motion, even if the character doesn't move from his square (like drinking a potion). Thus no action inherently breaks hiding, but they may require you to roll a hide check at the penalties listed in the hide skill. Presumably none for most actions, -5 for move actions at full speed, and -20 for run, attack and charge actions.
Stormwind 12-22-07, 03:20 AM	<snip> Basically, its effect did change, too. you remove the +2 enhancement, and add the +4 enhancement. this is NOT different to the pearl of power. note that you CAN recall a lvl 1 spell with a PoP 2. so its effect is still there. <snip> I have to admit that I had forgotten that a PoP could be used to recall a lower level spell. This naturally changes my opinion on it as it obviously (IMHO) fufills the requirements for upgrading items. Thus, <snip> Edit: As MWB stated below, (and after rereading RAW), each PoP is specific to a given level spell and thus I would return to my previous statement, That 'upgrades' can only be done where the abilities of the original item are all included in the abilities of the upgraded item. I think this would encompass the part of RAW quoted earlier by Salrantol here, where RAW describes adding new abilities to an item. It also gives us guidelines in the CoCo for which items can be upgraded.
MindWandererB 12-22-07, 04:14 AM	I have to admit that I had forgotten that a PoP could be used to recall a lower level spell. This naturally changes my opinion on it as it obviously (IMHO) fufills the requirements for upgrading items. Thus, Pearl of power (1st) -> Pearl of power (2nd) This is not a valid upgrade since the function of the first item is not included in the second item. Um, no, you can't. The recalled spell must be of the particular level.
CrazyArtificer 12-27-07, 11:54 AM	I need your help with a fight.. I have a wizard which just greased the saddle of the Paladin. What would happen now? 1) The Paladin falls from his horse. 2) The saddle is covered with a coat of grease, but he's entitled a second Reflex save to avoid falling. 3) The saddle is covered with a coat of grease, but he's entitled a Balance check followed by a second Reflex save to avoid falling. I believe greasing a saddle isn't exactly the same as greasing a sword. The first difference is related on who should make the reflex save. The Paladin or the horse? In this particular fight it wouldn't matter, but I tend to say the horse (even though the saddle is being used by the Paladin, the horse is the one who wears it). Then, it's the horse which should drop the saddle, and the rider with it. It's really driving me crazy :P To add insult to injury, grease happened as a result of a readied action in the middle of a charge :)
Hirumajoe 12-27-07, 12:25 PM	Templer10 and myself seem to have opposing viewpoints on psicrystal abilities and prestige classes. (Which is directly affecting a prison violation of Valen Sky's.) He believes that psionic prestige classes (such as slayer) should stack with the base psionic classes to determine psicrystal abilities. He points out the wording of the psicrystal affinity feat stating that its abilities are determined by levels in psionic classes. I believe prestige classes do not increase the psicrysal abilities, because of the wording associated with prestige classes in their powers known section, where it states all other abilities, such as psicrystal abilities) do not increase. I need an official ruling one way or the other so I can resolve the prison violation correctly. Thanks.
hogarth 12-27-07, 12:45 PM	Re: psicrystal advancement -- I'm not an Elder, but here's my logic. Premise 1: The situation is ambiguous. Premise 2: We have a house rule that says "In case of ambiguity in the rules surrounding psicrystals, we treat a psicrystal like a familiar." Premise 3: Familiars are only advanced by levels in wizard or sorcerer, not prestige classes. Conclusion: Psicrystals are only advanced by levels in wilder or psion, not prestige classes.
TelinArtho 12-27-07, 01:12 PM	That was very succinct hogarth - I could not have stated it better myself. So I'll just say I would agree with those statements.
TelinArtho 12-27-07, 02:02 PM	I need your help with a fight.. I have a wizard which just greased the saddle of the Paladin. What would happen now? 1) The Paladin falls from his horse. 2) The saddle is covered with a coat of grease, but he's entitled a second Reflex save to avoid falling. 3) The saddle is covered with a coat of grease, but he's entitled a Balance check followed by a second Reflex save to avoid falling. I believe greasing a saddle isn't exactly the same as greasing a sword. The first difference is related on who should make the reflex save. The Paladin or the horse? In this particular fight it wouldn't matter, but I tend to say the horse (even though the saddle is being used by the Paladin, the horse is the one who wears it). Then, it's the horse which should drop the saddle, and the rider with it. It's really driving me crazy :P To add insult to injury, grease happened as a result of a readied action in the middle of a charge :) I've been avoiding answering the question while I researched what has been done in the past. Sir Valkin, for instance, was the victim of grease early in his career against Ch'ch'ili. But in that case, the grease was put underfoot of Sir Valkin's horse, the horse failed the reflex save and the mount and rider went a-flyin'. In this case, the reflex save of the initial effect should be on the horse (since the saddle is the attended item of the horse). If the horse fails the reflex save, it then becomes a question of how this affects the rider. This is clearly not covered by the rules, but here's some possibilities: 1. A saddle is meant to keep a rider in place. A greased saddle imposes a -2 circumstance penalty to all checks to stay in the saddle (normally a DC5 Ride check). This effect would essentially negate the bonus the military saddle gives. 2. A saddle is merely a platform to keep a rider seated. A greased saddle is akin to a greased seat. A balance check must be made to remain in the saddle (DC10 - per the grease description). A failure by more than 5 means he falls out of the seat; a failure by less than 5 means the character can perform no other action during that round. A military saddle would clearly give a +2 circumstance bonus in this case. I'm not real sure about which case to take (the former being much better for the rider; the latter being much better for the caster), and there are certainly other options. I'm leaning towards item 2 here - but I'm not really sold on it. Since this isn't really covered, you can use your Pitlord rights here to make a off-the-cuff decision in order to keep the fight going. Up to you.
templer10 12-27-07, 02:20 PM	Re: psicrystal advancement -- I'm not an Elder, but here's my logic. Premise 1: The situation is ambiguous. Premise 2: We have a house rule that says "In case of ambiguity in the rules surrounding psicrystals, we treat a psicrystal like a familiar." Premise 3: Familiars are only advanced by levels in wizard or sorcerer, not prestige classes. Conclusion: Psicrystals are only advanced by levels in wilder or psion, not prestige classes. ACtually in all cases (i think) exept the Slayer - you are wrong. the FAQ say about this: "What class's contribute towards a psicrystal's abilities? What about monsters with psi-like abilities - do their racial HD Count too? Any class or Prestige class that grants the ability to manifests psionic powers contribute its level for the purpose of determining a psicrystal's abilities, unless the class states otherwise. Racial Hit dice doesnt contribute towards this purpose, even if the creature has a power point reserve or psi-like abilities" so - in this - slayer doesnt count since it say so, but i dont remmber reading other PRC's that mention psicrystals, might be wrong. btw - the reason behind this IMHO - you need a feat to gain a psicrytal, you don for a familiar so they are "better" in this way.
hogarth 12-27-07, 02:30 PM	A) We have a house rule to the contrary, so it doesn't really matter what the FAQ says. But I was a bit hasty in what I said above -- in my opinion levels in the psychic warrior class should also count towards psicrystal abilities (at the very least). B) Even if we listen to the FAQ, it says "any class or prestige class that grants the ability to manifest psionic powers". The Slayer class does not grant the ability to manifest psionic powers; it just improves an existing manifesting class. But taking the FAQ's ruling, it would allow levels in War Mind and Psionic Fist to advance psicrystals (since they grant the ability to manifest).
TelinArtho 12-27-07, 02:31 PM	Well, a good look at the Psionic prestige classes reveals the same text in the slayer prestige class as in the cerebremancer, elocator, psion uncarnate and thrallherd. Psionic Fist and Warmind get their own powers (so they qualify) and Metamind doesn't specifically exclude it. Pyrokineticist is questionable - but I think it still qualifies as a psionic class and therefore would still count for the crystal's abilities.
Stormwind 12-27-07, 02:36 PM	I have a question regarding natural attacks and the feat Two-weapon fighting. In particular, can you use a natural attack instead of an unarmed strike for both attacks for two-weapon fighting? This question has arisen due to a recent prison post on Varjo. The discussion thus far has been between myself and hogarth and now I would ask for an elder ruling on the matter. My opinion is simply that natural attacks may replace unarmed attacks. hogarth's opinion is best stated by himself, but to give a brief account of the discussion:As far as I know, natural attacks can't replace unarmed attacks in most cases. For my interpretation, first I checked the Combat section of the SRD under "Two-Weapon Fighting". There it says "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon." Later it implies that an unarmed strike can be used as well. Second, if you read the Rules of the Game article "Unarmed Attacks (Part Two)", they state that there are only two ways that you can combined unarmed attacks and natural attacks (I know your case doesn't involve an unarmed attack, but bear with me). #1 - You can make an unarmed strike as a normal attack (with possible iterative attacks) and a natural attack as a secondary attack. #2 - You can make a natural attack as a primary attack and an unarmed strike as an off-hand attack. Note that they don't say that you can make an unarmed strike as a normal attack and a natural attack as an off-hand attack (which your interpretation would allow). I also looked at the Rules of the Game article "Two-Handed Fighting (Part Two)". It again says that you can use an unarmed strike as one of your weapons while two-weapon fighting, but it doesn't say you can use a natural weapon.
hogarth 12-27-07, 02:47 PM	I have one more minor comment about two-weapon fighting with natural weapons that I didn't mention above. Even if I thought it were possible (which I don't), it still wouldn't allow a creature to make two attacks with the same natural weapon (e.g. a naga making two bite attacks), IMO.
TelinArtho 12-27-07, 02:48 PM	I'd say it is not possible. Natural Weapons: Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature. A creature making a melee attack with a natural weapon is considered armed and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Likewise, it threatens any space it can reach. Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons. The number of attacks a creature can make with its natural weapons depends on the type of the attack—generally, a creature can make one bite attack, one attack per claw or tentacle, one gore attack, one sting attack, or one slam attack (although Large creatures with arms or arm-like limbs can make a slam attack with each arm). Refer to the individual monster descriptions. Unless otherwise noted, a natural weapon threatens a critical hit on a natural attack roll of 20. I don't see a reference in the SRD indicating that unarmed strikes can be used interchangeably with natural attacks. Unarmed strikes are iterative (or able to be), natural attacks are not. I do see a reference in the SRD that says creatures with natural weapons are considered "armed" for the purposes of unarmed strikes (and thus do not draw AoO when making unarmed strikes) - but that does not say anything about using them interchangeably.
Stormwind 12-27-07, 03:11 PM	Hmm ... points are well taken, however then what damage would an incorporeal creature do if they were to do an unarmed strike? If they can indeed make an unarmed strike?
lonewolf 12-27-07, 03:13 PM	I would think that performing an unarmed strike is a physical action that can only be performed by material creatures.
hogarth 12-27-07, 03:24 PM	I would think that performing an unarmed strike is a physical action that can only be performed by material creatures. Not quite. Incorporeal creatures can attack each other normally. So nothing is stopping Varjo from kicking an unbodied in the nuts, for instance. It would do the normal amount of damage -- 1d3 nonlethal for a Medium creature.
Durzulgor 12-27-07, 03:35 PM	In this case, the reflex save of the initial effect should be on the horse (since the saddle is the attended item of the horse). If the horse fails the reflex save, it then becomes a question of how this affects the rider. This is clearly not covered by the rules, but here's some possibilities: well, my idea behind it was to affect an item attended by the rider (since he is actually "using" the saddle, the horse has it merely attached to it), but, well, I don't really care if it's the horse that makes the save. Why I was thinking he should actually drop is: Taken from the SRD, Grease: "The spell can also be used to create a greasy coating on an item. Material objects not in use are always affected by this spell, while an object wielded or employed by a creature receives a Reflex saving throw to avoid the effect. If the initial saving throw fails, the creature immediately drops the item."
CrazyArtificer 12-27-07, 03:50 PM	well, my idea behind it was to affect an item attended by the rider (since he is actually "using" the saddle, the horse has it merely attached to it), but, well, I don't really care if it's the horse that makes the save. Why I was thinking he should actually drop is: Taken from the SRD, Grease: "The spell can also be used to create a greasy coating on an item. Material objects not in use are always affected by this spell, while an object wielded or employed by a creature receives a Reflex saving throw to avoid the effect. If the initial saving throw fails, the creature immediately drops the item." Yes, my final ruling saves your main idea. The horse makes the save. The horse is moving and the saddle slips away. The rider can attempt a fast mount/dismount to stay on horseback. If the rider fails can try to avoid damage from falling.
McJarvis 01-01-08, 12:17 PM	RE: Grease- Didn't read what everyone said, but I see no rules that indicate a balance check is required when grease is cast on an object. The issue here is whether the saddle should be treated as equipment or armor- equipment will be dropped[and the rider will be riding bareback], armor merely gives an escape artist check to the horse. I know this sounds weird- but I'm pretty sure riders don't auto-fall when saddles are sundered either, so no balance check at all. [otherwise you could cast grease on, say, someone's shoes and require they balance everywhere]
lonewolf 01-02-08, 06:11 AM	@Incorporeal creatures & grappling: (see discussion in Tavern & this weeks fight thread) For this weeks fight I went ahead and made a pitlord decision, but for the future there should be a courtroom decision: SRD clearly says that incorporeal creatures cannot be grappled and cannot grapple themself. A RotG article says that incorporeal creatures can grapple other incorporeal creatures. I suggest we ignore the second part and just use the SRD: Incorporeal creatures cannot be grappled, ever. Not with Telekinesis, not with Telekinetic Maneuver, not by other incorporeal creatures.
CrazyArtificer 01-02-08, 06:26 AM	RE: Grease- Didn't read what everyone said, but I see no rules that indicate a balance check is required when grease is cast on an object. The issue here is whether the saddle should be treated as equipment or armor- equipment will be dropped[and the rider will be riding bareback], armor merely gives an escape artist check to the horse. I know this sounds weird- but I'm pretty sure riders don't auto-fall when saddles are sundered either, so no balance check at all. [otherwise you could cast grease on, say, someone's shoes and require they balance everywhere] I treated it as equipment, but I cannot figure how a horse could drop the saddle without dropping a rider on it with the saddle. That's why I don't believe a rider could automatically succeed on a check to ride bareback, unless he somehow had time to recognize the spell and react accordingly. In that particular fight I decided to use a ride check instead than a balance check because I considered staying on horseback like the fast mount or dismount action, in such a case. If you read across the forums you'll notice that some people have fun actually casting grease on the shoes of a frienzed berseker ;)
whitebaron 01-02-08, 07:45 AM	i believe, greasing a saddle should go like this: first of all, it's an attended object. as it is attended by both rider and horse, both should get a reflex save. only if both fail, the saddle drops from the horse - and with it, its rider. if only the horse fails its save: rider gets a ride check DC 15 (+5 bareback) to stay on horse, all subsequent ride checks are without saddle, so probably -5 penalty. if only the rider fails its save: he falls. saddle stays greased, but on horse. if you want to remount, rechecks like in the greas spell description.
McJarvis 01-02-08, 08:00 AM	only if both fail, the saddle drops from the horse - and with it, its rider. That's the thing though- i can't find anywhere in the rules where it says you're dismounted if you lose your saddle. I'd love for this to be the case[thorell could start sundering saddles!], but I don't think it is.
whitebaron 01-02-08, 08:05 AM	That's the thing though- i can't find anywhere in the rules where it says you're dismounted if you lose your saddle. I'd love for this to be the case[thorell could start sundering saddles!], but I don't think it is. well, if you sunder the saddle, the rider should get a check to stay in saddle. i nowhere said that you auto-fall if your saddle goes. you already failed a reflex save and grease says, that you fall prone then. and even if you fall out of your sundered saddle, you could naturally remount bareback. but maybe the dc should only be 10 for all of those (stay in saddle DC 5 + 5 bareback)
McJarvis 01-02-08, 08:07 AM	well, if you sunder the saddle, the rider should get a check to stay in saddle. i nowhere said that you auto-fall if your saddle goes. you already failed a reflex save and grease says, that you fall prone then. and even if you fall out of your sundered saddle, you could naturally remount bareback. but maybe the dc should only be 10 for all of those (stay in saddle DC 5 + 5 bareback) grease only makes you fall prone for the "version" that affects the ground. f I grease your sword failing a save won't make you fall prone ;) while it would be a neat hosuerule, I'd like the elders to consider just having the spell work as-is, regardless of how weird it is to lose a saddle and remain mounted. I hate excessive house-rules for micro-effects of spells.
whitebaron 01-02-08, 08:20 AM	grease coats either the ground, or your saddle. if you are mounted on your saddle, it IS your ground. i don't see any raw discrepancies here. you don't grease a persons saddle, you grease a horses saddle. if you dismount, the saddle stays on the horse, so the horse attends the object, while you are just ON it. that said, i think it would be much wiser to grease the area below the horse, as their reflex saves tend to be lower overall and they could not make a ride check to avoid.
CrazyArtificer 01-02-08, 08:33 AM	i believe, greasing a saddle should go like this: first of all, it's an attended object. as it is attended by both rider and horse, both should get a reflex save. only if both fail, the saddle drops from the horse - and with it, its rider. if only the horse fails its save: rider gets a ride check DC 15 (+5 bareback) to stay on horse, all subsequent ride checks are without saddle, so probably -5 penalty. I considered the two reflex saves option, but then it seemed too penalizing for the caster, turning a spell which requires just one save into one requiring 2. The ride check is in my opinion a better option, even though it was a bit hard for me to come up with a decent DC. if only the rider fails its save: he falls. saddle stays greased, but on horse. if you want to remount, rechecks like in the greas spell description. Thinking a bit, I really can't see how a greased saddle could stay on a gallopping horse :) That's why I'd keep a single save on the horse. It's either the spell affects the saddle (with all ill consequences which arise) or not. It shouldn't matter if the rider is on the saddle or not, in such a case. @McJarvis: While it's true that the rules doesn't say anything about being dismounted if your saddle is sundered, I guess here it's different. You are riding and suddendly you find yourself on a greased saddle getting away from the horse. I believe that you won't simply stay on horse back, unless you can somehow react (ride check)
Durzulgor 01-02-08, 10:32 AM	that said, i think it would be much wiser to grease the area below the horse, as their reflex saves tend to be lower overall and they could not make a ride check to avoid. I so totally agree with you, but it's just so much more fun to grease the saddle! ;-))) Damn, I do love this spell!
whitebaron 01-03-08, 12:53 PM	For one of this weeks fights, i need elder decisions on some points, some others are just a mere interest of mine on related points, which i'd like to get clarified. Section 1: Familiar+Share Spells: a) Shared Spell - True Strike As the spell description goes, your next SINGLE attack roll gains an insight bonus. as the spell explicitly tells that it is only one, i believe only either the familiar or the master should be able to attack like this. b) Shared Spell - Invisibility I already asked before Christmas, and MWB backed me up on that one, but i'd like to have it officially, too. Invisibility should go away for both if either of the two attack. a and b are backed up by rules of the game, Familiars(Part Two) When the familiar and the master share a spell, they function as one being where the spell's effects are concerned. [...] A shared mirror image spell creates duplicates of both the master and the familiar, and a successful hit on either the master's or the familiar's image eliminates one duplicate master and one duplicate familiar. A shared protection from energy spell shields both the master and the familiar, but all energy damage that either the familiar or the master suffers is deducted from the total amount of energy the spell can absorb. c) Shared Spell - Expeditious Retreat If the familiar leaves the masters 5ft-range, what is his total speed for this round? i see two options here: (1) normal speed (2) normal speed+10 1 assumes that you cannot move more than your normal speed in any move action. 2 assumes that you can use the benefits from E.R. as long as they last - even if this would split your move action in two parts. ----- Section 2: Riding Animals. d)Which conditions do allow you to attack from the back of any animal when it has attacked too? The SRD states "war-trained-mount" - which is pretty vague. Is the combat riding package enough to attack with your mount? I'd say no, or you could co-attack with a retrained light horse. Also note, that in the descriptions e.g. of the hippogriff or the nightmare, it is also explicitly stated that the rider can co-attack. So i deduct that this description is needed. Seeing this, i concluded that you cannot attack from the back of a dire wolf, dire bat, or in my current case, camel, if it attacks too.
McJarvis 01-03-08, 01:05 PM	The SRD states "war-trained-mount" - which is pretty vague. Is the combat riding package enough to attack with your mount? I'd say no, or you could co-attack with a retrained light horse. Also note, that in the descriptions e.g. of the hippogriff or the nightmare, it is also explicitly stated that the rider can co-attack. So i deduct that this description is needed. The reason a light/heavy regular horse can not attack while mounted by a rider is that their description specifically says they can not. This has nothing to do with being war trained. [light warhorse/heavy warhorse are two entirely different creatures from regular light/heavy horses.]
TelinArtho 01-03-08, 01:11 PM	Section 1: Not sure on these because they were recently changed in the FAQ/RotG I believe. My instinct is to say (for a and b) that the spell ends for both once the condition ends for one of them (ie - if True Strike is cast - the first of either the master or the familiar to attack will end the spell). For c, if it is a shared spell, it would end as in 1. This is as much to keep consistency as it is to keep sanity... Section 2: Combat riding makes the animal war-trained for the CoCo. If the animal is not trained this way, in order to control it, you have to make a control mount check (Ride DC20). If the animal is trained this way, you can attack in the same round it does by make a Fight with "warhorse" check (Ride DC10). Warhorse can be substituted with "mount" here. [EDIT] In seeing McJ's response above - I would also agree there. The reason why the non-warhorses cannot attack while bearing a rider is because it is specifically mentioned in their entry.
whitebaron 01-03-08, 01:20 PM	telin, pls note the difference between the 1) ride in combat/control in battle and 2) fight with warhorse entries in the ride skills. the first requires a skill package or otherwise trained animal, while the latter one specifically states "war-trained mount", not warhorse. if combat riding-package = war trained, any ecl 3 character can have a horse that attacks with him. it would be highly inconsistent to have it any other way. and actually, i don't see any reason then, why hippogriffs should have their entry worded as it is: A hippogriff requires training before it can bear a rider in combat. Training a hippogriff requires six weeks of work and a DC 25 Handle Animal check. Riding a hippogriff requires an exotic saddle. A hippogriff can fight while carrying a rider, but the rider cannot also attack unless he or she succeeds on a Ride check. if combat riding would be enough, why doesn't it say so? same with the nightmare: A nightmare can fight while carrying a rider, but the rider cannot also fight unless he or she succeeds on a Ride check. wouldn't it be enough to say it has the combat riding trick?
TelinArtho 01-03-08, 01:26 PM	Well - it might be enough to say that - but we didn't write the SRD... Q: What mount animals require the Combat Riding trick package so that they are not easily scared in combat? A: Any animal ridden as a mount must have the Combat Riding package in order to not be easily scared in combat. Now - fighting with a warhorse is simple. In order to attack in the same round as your mount, you must make a DC10 ride check. That said, Light horses and Heavy horses (both non-warhorses), cannot attack when bearing a rider - ever: A heavy horse cannot fight while carrying a rider. A light horse cannot fight while carrying a rider.
McJarvis 01-03-08, 01:33 PM	whitebaron is saying that a halfling riding a riding dog shouldn't be able to attack while it attacks, because the nightmare can't. This would have pretty large effects on CoCo- since direbats also can not be "war trained" under the rules. [there are just no mechanics for it] This is why CoCo equates the combat riding package with war training. War training is not defined. To add to the confusion, there _is_ a war trained riding dog, but no mention of how to train one. edit- To allay the confusion, I only see two options. 1) As we have done it in the past- with combat riding. 2) The handle animal skill says training an animal for a "general purpose" is a DC 15 or 20 check. War Training would be it's own thing, and thus would be a DC20 handle animal package all unto its own. The problem with this option is to have an effective war-mount you would need a mount with 12 tricks. [both ugh and impossible for druids]
whitebaron 01-03-08, 02:18 PM	first of all, @mcj: never again try to interpret my wording and explain it. first, i don't like this as it opens up new misunderstandings, and second, you got it wrong - as usual. ok, back to the topic. @telin: you are actually quoting things unrelated to my original question. i did never ask about that part of the rules. rule 1: what do you have to do to ride a light horse, heavy horse, pony or any other animal in the coco at all - easily answered by the rules. Control Mount in Battle: As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for warhorses or warponies. this is already answered in the srd, and was clarified via courtroom. rule 2: what does an animal need to do to attack in battle? probably the full combat riding package, but this is nowhere to be found in the core rules. if you state that a light horse cannot attack in battle, you'd also have to quote the following from the srd: A horse not trained for war does not normally use its hooves to attack.You may also “upgrade” an animal trained for riding to one trained for combat riding by spending three weeks and making a successful DC 20 Handle Animal check. So, if you rule that combat riding is enough to enable any animal to attack, it should be the same for ordinary light horses, as it only states "not normally" - a dire bat does not normally carry a rider. a dire wolf is not normally carrying a rider either. rule 3: what does it take for an animal to enable a rider to co-attack in battle? again, the srd says only "war-trained mount" but, if war trained mount = animal with combat riding, then also simple horses should be able to attack, once they are retrained with combat riding. about dire bats: haven't seen anyone in ages have his dire bat attack AND sit on it AND attack as well. so the impact on coco you are seeing is not so big after all. Note that fight with warhorse only applies to attacking, not to spellcasting or the like.
McJarvis 01-03-08, 02:22 PM	So, if you rule that combat riding is enough to enable any animal to attack, it should be the same for ordinary light horses, as it only states "not normally" - a dire bat does not normally carry a rider. a dire wolf is not normally carrying a rider either. You should probably read the section telin quoted instead of the section you cherry-picked. As far as my examples go- I fail to see how they are not what you really mean. Using horses as examples pulls us off course, since a "war trained light horse" is not the same as a "light warhorse"- as Telin and I have stated multiple times- the rules specifically prohibit a light horse from attacking while it is mounted, regardless of how much training it has. A light warhorse is a different matter. Using common druid animal companions, on the other hand(riding dog, dire bat, dinosaurs, etc) are much better examples since they do not have this language.
TelinArtho 01-03-08, 02:36 PM	Well, McJarvis was trying to alleviate some barrier of communication. Even if he failed to do so - he was trying to help. Since we are from different backgrounds, and I am clearly having trouble understanding what the problem is - I appreciate the help he was trying to provide. If he got the clarification of your question wrong, please be courteous in saying so - after all, he was just trying to help. Onto the actual problem, I am not sure what your specific issue is. 1. The CoCo defines "war-trained" as the combat riding package. 2. Any creature trained in the combat riding package can be used as a war-trained mount. Now, normally, any animal used as a mount can attack while being used as a mount. There are a few specific exceptions - see the quotes I provided for the light horse and the heavy horse. There might be more (I didn't go through all of the animals...). If that does not answer your question, please restate it specifically because I am clearly missing it.
whitebaron 01-03-08, 02:42 PM	You should probably read the section telin quoted instead of the section you cherry-picked. [...] Using common druid animal companions, on the other hand(riding dog, dire bat, dinosaurs, etc) are much better examples since they do not have this language. 1: re-read my words. i just extended what telin cited and gave reasons why this could affect the ordinary horse, too. 2: druid animal companions are nowhere in the srd quoted to be the equivalent to a warhorse. so where does this make any difference to the discussion at hand?
McJarvis 01-03-08, 02:45 PM	1: re-read my words. i just extended what telin cited and gave reasons why this could affect the ordinary horse, too. Sorry- you quoted. Combat A horse not trained for war does not normally use its hooves to attack. Which is a statement of how horses fight- not necessarily with a rider. Telin quoted a different section... The statistics presented here describe large breeds of working horses such as Clydesdales. These animals are usually ready for heavy work by age three. A heavy horse cannot fight while carrying a rider. Which speaks about heavy/light horses not being able to fight while carrying a rider- no "normal" in there at all. So you used the wrong reference. 2: druid animal companions are nowhere in the srd quoted to be the equivalent to a warhorse. so where does this make any difference to the discussion at hand? We're speaking about a broad issue of what it takes to train an animal for war. Since light and heavy horses have specific rules against fighting while being ridden, and light and heavy warhorses are _already_ trained for war- it makes more sense to me to talk about animals that... a) Are not trained for war already. b) Can attack normally while being ridden. Druid animal companions fit both of these requirements. They work _especially_ well since a few of them[riding dog comes to mind] even specify changes in their abilities if they are trained for war.
Zevox 01-03-08, 02:46 PM	For one of this weeks fights, i need elder decisions on some points, some others are just a mere interest of mine on related points, which i'd like to get clarified. Section 1: Familiar+Share Spells: a) Shared Spell - True Strike As the spell description goes, your next SINGLE attack roll gains an insight bonus. as the spell explicitly tells that it is only one, i believe only either the familiar or the master should be able to attack like this. I'd agree with this. One spell, one use - sharing lets the familiar be the one to use it instead. b) Shared Spell - Invisibility I already asked before Christmas, and MWB backed me up on that one, but i'd like to have it officially, too. Invisibility should go away for both if either of the two attack. Likewise, I'd agree. c) Shared Spell - Expeditious Retreat If the familiar leaves the masters 5ft-range, what is his total speed for this round? i see two options here: (1) normal speed (2) normal speed+10 1 assumes that you cannot move more than your normal speed in any move action. 2 assumes that you can use the benefits from E.R. as long as they last - even if this would split your move action in two parts. I'd go with 1, personally. Though I don't think this will see much use either way, since most familiars fly, and e-retreat doesn't boost fly speed. d)Which conditions do allow you to attack from the back of any animal when it has attacked too? The SRD states "war-trained-mount" - which is pretty vague. Is the combat riding package enough to attack with your mount? I'd say no, or you could co-attack with a retrained light horse. Also note, that in the descriptions e.g. of the hippogriff or the nightmare, it is also explicitly stated that the rider can co-attack. So i deduct that this description is needed. Seeing this, i concluded that you cannot attack from the back of a dire wolf, dire bat, or in my current case, camel, if it attacks too. Thus far we've always just used combat riding package unless the description explicitly states otherwise (i.e. a Light/Heavy Horse can never attack while ridden), and I think thats probably the best way to work it. I know I'm not an Elder anymore, but I figured I'd toss my two coppers out anyway :) . Zevox
McJarvis 01-03-08, 02:49 PM	I know I'm not an Elder anymore, but I figured I'd toss my two coppers out anyway :) . Zevox Yeah, we don't like it when non-elders speak their mind. <_< >_> ....
Salrantol 01-03-08, 02:51 PM	Yeah, we don't like it when non-elders speak their mind.first of all, @mcj: never again try to interpret my wording and explain it. first, i don't like this as it opens up new misunderstandings, and second, you got it wrong - as usual for a non-Elder.Creative editing ftw.
Zevox 01-03-08, 02:54 PM	Yeah, we don't like it when non-elders speak their mind. <_< >_> .... *shrugs* Well, whitebaron did ask for an Elder ruling specifically. Eh, I guess it mostly feels a bit odd no longer being one during discussions like this. Which is weird, because I always though I'd never get used to being an Elder. Zevox
whitebaron 01-03-08, 03:26 PM	@zevox: well, i wanted it to be ruled, so it can be cited over again, as this will come up again and again. mcjarvis basically turned this into a tavern-style discussion, which i wanted to avoid. @mcj: i know you are good at distracting. but please keep it to a minimum. about the rules of the game. WHY do we even use these? the wording for share spells on animal companions and familiars in the srd is EXACTLY the same. though, different ROTG articles used different explanations for shared spells, they even used the same spell as example! (protection from energy) - all i have to add about this, is that whoever writes those rules of the game must be a great person - but his rules knowledge is not good, as the interpretations change every time he revisits the rules.
McJarvis 01-03-08, 03:28 PM	@...mcjarvis basically turned this into a tavern-style discussion, which i wanted to avoid. @mcj: i know you are good at distracting. but please keep it to a minimum. I'm not really sure what you're talking about. If you want to discuss why light/heavy horses can't attack with a rider we can have that discussion- but the rules are very clear on this. I thought you *wanted* to talk about war-training. edit- The RotG on animal companions has this to say on the share-spells issue. link (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070206a) When you and your animal companion share a spell, you're effectively adding one free target (your animal companion) to the spell's effect. In simple cases, the spell just affects both of you in the same way. For example, when you share a cure light wounds spell with your animal companion, the spell provides healing equal to 1d8 + your caster level for both you and for your animal companion. A shared spider climb spell gives both you and your animal companion the power to climb sheer, smooth surfaces. A shared protection from energy spell provides a separate ablative shield against the chosen energy type to you and to your animal companion. As WB pointed out, this is completely contradictory to the RotG article on familiars. Also, it is the way we've been running things in CoCo. [when I ran TIM I shared bulls strength to get more riding capacity out of my horse & pump my damage- I did _not_ give +2 to TIM and +2 to the horse the way the RotG on familiars says you're supposed to. I gave +4 to both the way the RotG on animal companions says I'm supposed to. Of course, the horse _was_ an animal companion....]
TelinArtho 01-03-08, 03:31 PM	With regard to RotG - I have said it before elsewhere, but it bears repeating: it should be used only when it clarifies - not when it adds, contradicts or otherwise confuses the rules in the SRD. With regard to the ruling you were seeking - this is already there and was put in one of the earlier posts. When something asks for "trained for war" this equates to the combat riding package in the CoCo.
whitebaron 01-03-08, 03:39 PM	With regard to the ruling you were seeking - this is already there and was put in one of the earlier posts. When something asks for "trained for war" this equates to the combat riding package in the CoCo. more questions: 1: ok, so where is this decision? cannot find it anywhere, neither coco rules nor court decisions. it should be added in, as well. 2: why does this later addition to a light horse does not change its behaviour/why should it be possible not to attack - as every animal can only attack once it is trained for combat riding, and a normal riding horse can be retrained to combat riding - what's the difference? why doesn't it override the animals description? 3: can warhorses learn different tricks than combat riding? i'd suppose yes due to its description as trained for war is the same as combat riding, and thats what a warhorse learns innately (i.e. without using tricks). about the sharing of spells that don't go off as one: this would allow a nice multiclassing character to actually gain true strike attacks from animal companion and familiar, while staying invis, recasting true strike, ... dont you feel that's broken? @telin: the ruling that was posted in the previous post concerns what you need for an animal to not be scared to be ridden in the arena. it does say nothing about the "attack with warhorse" option of the ride skill. i really hate to say this, but: you didn't read my post. :(
McJarvis 01-03-08, 03:45 PM	about the sharing of spells that don't go off as one: this would allow a nice multiclassing character to actually gain true strike attacks from animal companion and familiar, while staying invis, recasting true strike, ... dont you feel that's broken? This is already possible. [regardless of this ruling]. Consider the following: Wiz1/DruidX build. Wizard casts invisibility from scroll on himself(not shared). Rides out on [pick your battle-companion] When basing target, he casts truestrike from a wand, sharing it on the animal companion. The animal companion attacks with a +20 to hit and does damage. Next round, the wizard/druid does it again. In this specific example, invisibility wouldn't go down. Is it broken? I doubt it would be super viable at higher levels, but at ECL3 it'd be crazy powerful.
TelinArtho 01-03-08, 03:51 PM	In the Court Decisions, the following two questions already existed: Q: What mount animals require the Combat Riding trick package so that they are not easily scared in combat? A: Any animal ridden as a mount must have the Combat Riding package in order to not be easily scared in combat. Q: Is there any way for animals to be proficient with armor besides taking the armor usage Feats? A: If an animal has the Combat Riding trick package they are considered proficient with all armor. Since that apparently doesn't cover it all, I am adding this third one: Q: What is "trained for war?" With regard to animal's that have this wording within their stats. A: Trained for war is synonymous with the Combat Riding package. Training a creature for war enables those creatures to be competent in battle up to their limitations. Light/Heavy horses specifically cannot attack while bearing a rider - training the horse for war would not change this fact. If a warhorse is not trained in combat riding it should not be treated as trained for war (since it does not have the combat riding package). The share spells issue may need to be revisited since it has had multiple revisions over the years.
whitebaron 01-03-08, 04:25 PM	@telin: seeing that you already added it to the court decisions, isn't there some formal vote that needs to be done? these are the kind of actions, from what i've heard, made cat unpopular. @mcj: jup, that way it would work, too. still, allowing both to close in undetected is a big factor in this kind of tactic. if you see a riderless mount, shoot it - just for good measure.
TelinArtho 01-03-08, 04:32 PM	If it hadn't already been voted and discussed upon in the past - yes it would probably need one. That said - it had been discussed in the past - hence the reason for the two questions that were already in the Court decisions. I added the third since you felt that those two questions did not sufficiently close the issue. (and since I know you'll ask - yes I will dredge up where that discussion took place...) EDIT: Okay... if you go back to the original council thread (around August 2005) - you will find the discussion that already took place with regard to Combat Riding = Trained for War. Unfortunately, Cat opened a poll in order to finalize that discussion that I have not yet been able to find.
McJarvis 01-03-08, 04:40 PM	@mcj: jup, that way it would work, too. still, allowing both to close in undetected is a big factor in this kind of tactic. if you see a riderless mount, shoot it - just for good measure. At higher levels the caster could target himself with invisibility sphere, then do the same trick & they'd be hidden the whole way in. I really don't think there is much abuse to be had in sharing spells like true strike/invisibility with animal companions & familiars, except at low levels. But those levels are were those spells are powerful in their own right anyway. MWB's suggestion of using invis sphere as a guide is probably best, since that is a 1-shot spell with multiple targets. [sort of]
TelinArtho 01-03-08, 04:59 PM	And here (http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-488454.html) is the poll that was originally done to determine the result. Please tip your waiters.
hogarth 01-03-08, 04:59 PM	MWB's suggestion of using invis sphere as a guide is probably best, since that is a 1-shot spell with multiple targets. [sort of] Actually, MWB was using Mass Invisibility as a guide (where if one subject breaks the invisibility, the whole effect ends) more than Invsibility Sphere (where a secondary subject can break the effect without breaking it for the primary subject).
whitebaron 01-03-08, 05:25 PM	And here (http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-488454.html) is the poll that was originally done to determine the result. Please tip your waiters. seen it, and don't understand the poll done. wearing barding nowhere specifies war-trained, at least i did not find it in the srd. the FAQ, directly contrasts to this decision. The Monster Manual says a creature isn’t proficient with armor unless it is specifically listed as such (or is wearing armor in its description). What about warhorses and riding dogs, which are often protected by barding? Technically, such creatures aren’t proficient in armor, and thus suffer a penalty on attack rolls equal to the armor check penalty. Many DMs choose to ignore this penalty for animals trained for combat (such as warhorses and riding dogs), which is perfectly reasonable. i always believed coco tries to take the core rules way and not the house rules... @mcj: invisibility sphere is not an appropriate example because it's an area effect.
McJarvis 01-03-08, 05:29 PM	@mcj: invisibility sphere is not an appropriate example because it's an area effect. So is mass invisibility, in effect. 2nd level- Invisibility: Invisibility+ familiar/AC invisibility 5' radius 3rd level- Invis sphere: Invisibility 10' radius 7th level- mass invis: invisibility 90 ft radius the big difference is invis sphere & invis are range touch spells.
TelinArtho 01-03-08, 05:41 PM	1: ok, so where is this decision? cannot find it anywhere, neither coco rules nor court decisions. it should be added in, as well. I pointed to where the decision was, where it was voted upon: Here (http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-488454.html) The question is how we define 'trained for war'. - Option 1: Tricks needed are Attack, Come, Defend, Down, Guard, Heel. That leaves no slots open for any other trick than mentioned ones. It would exclude all Int 1 creature from wearing armor. On the other hand it might be a balanced trade off for all three armor feats. - Option 2: Trick required are Attack, Down, Stay. Fewer requirements than Option 1 thus easier to teach. It makes armor proficiency available for all handle animal allies, incl. vermin and other Int 1 creatures. - Option 3: The Attack trick is the simplest and easiest to handle requirement but it might be considered too cheap for the armor feats. - Option 4: Animals need to take armor proficiency feats to be proficient with armor. No trick can substitute that. In order to be able to use armor, the CoCo rules must be opened a bit to allow modifying feats on animals (example: exchange run with light armor proficiency). And then at the end of the thread: Alright, the Elders have decided, with a 3 votes majority on Option 1, Tok Option 3 and MadCow abstaining. With the recent addition of exchanging feats, there are now 2 options to get the armor proficiency for mounts: - you can either train the whole Combat Riding Package (all 6 tricks), or - you can give the animal the armor proficiency feats in place of their default ones. Trained for War means Combat Riding for purposes of the Dog being able to make trip attacks. So Trained for War = Combat riding. Now - the FAQ entry you are pointing to is exactly why we made this rule. The FAQ is suggesting that often the issue of armor on animals is ignored as irrelevant. In the CoCo it is very relevant - so we needed a handle on how to define trained for war. And to correct this statement: seen it, and don't understand the poll done. wearing barding nowhere specifies war-trained, at least i did not find it in the srd. —Proficient with no armor unless trained for war. This also resolved the question about the dog's trip attack.
MindWandererB 01-03-08, 05:45 PM	@Zevox: You're not an Elder, but you do have the Oldtimer title. If you recall, Huan had full Elder voting privileges when he became the first Oldtimer. So don't hesitate to add your comments. Re: Familiars vs. Animal Companions: I really, really hate what happened here. The grappling RotG was edited when Skip realized he'd gotten it wrong, but he never did the same for share spells. The official WotC policy is that the most recent version of a rule is the correct one (which is ironic, because the original official policy was that the RAW version of a rule is the correct one unless errata'd. Officially now, Rules Compendium trumps the RAW, which would give us no end of trouble if we allowed the use of supplements). So where the animal companion and familiar entries contradict each other, use the most recent, i.e. the animal companion rules.
whitebaron 01-03-08, 05:58 PM	@telin: why are you reciting me from another, not the most recent post? does not make any sense, except for blemishing. the last quote from the srd, though is the bit that was missing for the big picture. so, a light horse could be trained for war, wearing barding, but still not attack. since you'd need to have a war-trained mount to attack with it, any animal trained to wear barding could automatically attack without need for a further entry in its monster description. correct? this definition also excludes any other creature type. magical beasts for example, cannot wear barding without non-proficiency penalties. correct? @animal companions: since the wording for animal companions share spells, and familiar share spells is the same, does this mean it's usage is the same for familars as in the rotg: animals?
MindWandererB 01-03-08, 06:33 PM	@animal companions: since the wording for animal companions share spells, and familiar share spells is the same, does this mean it's usage is the same for familars as in the rotg: animals?Yes. That's what I meant to convey, above.
whitebaron 01-03-08, 06:38 PM	Yes. That's what I meant to convey, above. second question: so according to the second rule of the game, shared invis again works like invisibility sphere, not mass invisibility? and true strike can be used twice? can we make any guidelines on this, please?
McJarvis 01-03-08, 07:29 PM	second question: so according to the second rule of the game, shared invis again works like invisibility sphere, not mass invisibility? and true strike can be used twice? can we make any guidelines on this, please? Given the exact wording of their mention on protection from energy, it seems that when you "share" it means they are essentially two separate spells- not the same spell. Otherwise pro:energy would give out after 12dmg protection/caster level overall. [instead of 12dmg protection/caster level to both the druid and animal companion] But I'll understand when you wait for an elder to voice up :)
hogarth 01-03-08, 09:26 PM	second question: so according to the second rule of the game, shared invis again works like invisibility sphere, not mass invisibility? and true strike can be used twice? can we make any guidelines on this, please? Note that sharing Vigor with a psicrystal (for twice as many temporary hp) is very popular. I'm not saying it's right, just popular. :)
templer10 01-04-08, 06:56 AM	Note that sharing Vigor with a psicrystal (for twice as many temporary hp) is very popular. I'm not saying it's right, just popular. :) I fought i think all the current elders using the vigor/share pain/psicrystal thing (and also fought vs some other peeps using it) and i dont think anyone objected exept maybe once or twice and it was ruled that it is possible.
whitebaron 01-04-08, 07:02 AM	I fought i think all the current elders using the vigor/share pain/psicrystal thing (and also fought vs some other peeps using it) and i dont think anyone objected exept maybe once or twice and it was ruled that it is possible. yes, but where's the difference/dividing line to 2 true strikes? if vigor gives temp hp to both, cure light wounds heals both, protection from energy saves both from the same amount of damage - obviously, true strike should work the same - so both get the true strike. all i want to really know is - is there any limiting factor to this, or is, in fact, as per the current rulings, every spell just doubled in effect and works for each target up to the rules? or is it, that any effect that ends or limits the spell prematurely ends it for both, but any variable effect applies to both? so protection from energy would protect each for 10 dam/level, but invis ends once one attacks?
templer10 01-04-08, 10:48 AM	yes, but where's the difference/dividing line to 2 true strikes? if vigor gives temp hp to both, cure light wounds heals both, protection from energy saves both from the same amount of damage - obviously, true strike should work the same - so both get the true strike. all i want to really know is - is there any limiting factor to this, or is, in fact, as per the current rulings, every spell just doubled in effect and works for each target up to the rules? or is it, that any effect that ends or limits the spell prematurely ends it for both, but any variable effect applies to both? so protection from energy would protect each for 10 dam/level, but invis ends once one attacks? As i read the rules - Everything is doubled, Invisibility ends seperetly, only limiting factor is the 5 feet Range thing.
SauroGrenom 01-04-08, 01:32 PM	In the past we've discussed Invisibility in the light of the Share Spell ability. In those cases, we've decided that the spell is "shared" not twinned into two copies of the spell. Same goes for Truestrike. So if either or both of the participants in a shared spell end the spells duration, then the other participant has their spell effect ended. My sense is that this is the correct way to deal with shared spells. After reading what's been said, I now understand how there's a conflict between the way we are using shared Invisibility vs shared Protection from Energy. One way to deal with this is to change the ruling so that it's consistent with respect to all spells. Another way to deal with this is to get out the razor and draw a fine line between spells which are "ended" by a specific event and spells which are "used up". Then we can allow spells which are "used up", like Vigor or Protection from Energy, to use separate point totals for the participants of a shared spell. Where things which "end" a spell will end it for both participants, like attacking while invisible or using a charged touch attack.
whitebaron 01-04-08, 01:58 PM	Another way to deal with this is to get out the razor and draw a fine line between spells which are "ended" by a specific event and spells which are "used up". Then we can allow spells which are "used up", like Vigor or Protection from Energy, to use separate point totals for the participants of a shared spell. Where things which "end" a spell will end it for both participants, like attacking while invisible or using a charged touch attack. i think this is the way it should be handled, but only elders could make it so. :)
MindWandererB 01-04-08, 04:09 PM	That sounds good to me, too. Each participant gets their own "points," but it's still only one copy of the spell. This has an interesting effect with Dispel Magic, though--it would get two chances to dispel the same spell.
whitebaron 01-04-08, 04:19 PM	That sounds good to me, too. Each participant gets their own "points," but it's still only one copy of the spell. This has an interesting effect with Dispel Magic, though--it would get two chances to dispel the same spell. as it is not two instances of the same spell, one dispel would be enough to end it for both. there are not 2 dispel checks involved, if you do it like this. so you cannot specifically dispel the spell on the familiar or the master - you dispell just one spell, which effects both.
CrazyArtificer 01-04-08, 04:30 PM	as it is not two instances of the same spell, one dispel would be enough to end it for both. there are not 2 dispel checks involved, if you do it like this. so you cannot specifically dispel the spell on the familiar or the master - you dispell just one spell, which effects both. That's exactly what I wanted to add. I add my vote (even if it won't count that much :P ) to SauroGrenom proposal
Stormwind 01-04-08, 04:30 PM	as it is not two instances of the same spell, one dispel would be enough to end it for both. there are not 2 dispel checks involved, if you do it like this. so you cannot specifically dispel the spell on the familiar or the master - you dispell just one spell, which effects both. I would guess that MWB might have been referring to an area dispel in this case, which could give two chances to dispel the spell (with the spell being dispelled if either dispel attempt is successful)
whitebaron 01-04-08, 04:33 PM	I would guess that MWB might have been referring to an area dispel in this case, which could give two chances to dispel the spell (with the spell being dispelled if either dispel attempt is successful) no, not even with area dispel. that's exactly the point i wanted to make. if it is only one spell, even with area dispel, it cannot be tried twice as it is one spell and you get in an area dispell 1 attempt per spell.
MindWandererB 01-04-08, 05:07 PM	No, you get one attempt per creature per spell. The spell first checks for creatures, then it goes down that creature's list of active spells, trying to dispel each one until it succeeds. If one spell is active on more than one creature (and isn't an area spell), it would potentially "find" the same spell twice.
whitebaron 01-04-08, 05:34 PM	so, if there are two dispel-checks, only one of those effects will be suppressed, even though its one spell. its much like the familiar leaves master - effect. the other still has the effect. everything else would be unfair to the spell-sharer.
Stormwind 01-04-08, 05:36 PM	no, not even with area dispel. that's exactly the point i wanted to make. if it is only one spell, even with area dispel, it cannot be tried twice as it is one spell and you get in an area dispell 1 attempt per spell. I would disagree. Area Dispel: When dispel magic is used in this way, the spell affects everything within a 20-foot radius. For each creature within the area that is the subject of one or more spells, you make a dispel check against the spell with the highest caster level. If that check fails, you make dispel checks against progressively weaker spells until you dispel one spell (which discharges the dispel magic spell so far as that target is concerned) or until you fail all your checks. The creature’s magic items are not affected. Thus if a mage and his familiar have a shared invisibility, but no other spell buffs up, then and area dispel would give 1 dispel check for the mage, and 1 dispel check for the familiar. If the mage (and his familiar) have several buffs up then the situation becomes more unlikely as an area dispel, dispel's a maximum of 1 spell per creature.
McJarvis 01-04-08, 05:37 PM	I do not understand why complex rules are necessary- unless someone can point out exactly why having the spell merely be a copy is broken. ? Personally- I see share pain+shared vigor as far more dangerous/abusable than invisibility or true strike not wearing off for the familiar. [especially considering 1 level higher- invis sphere- does the same thing, but the target doesn't have to be a familiar or animal companion] Essentially- we could side-step all of these complex rules regarding dispels & just stick with not only what is simple, but what is supported by the most recent RotG article.
McJarvis 01-07-08, 11:11 AM	On a different note- this courtroom decision is no longer valid(I believe) Q: Does Protection from <alignment> work against the spell Hold Person? A: No. The Protection from <alignment> spells state that they block Enchantment (Compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject. Hold Person is an Enchantment (Compulsion) effect, but does not grant ongoing control over the subject. link (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ask/20070917a) Q: Dear Sage What exactly does the second effect of protection from evil do, anyway? .... The first part of this phrase describes the basic criteria by which the DM should judge protection from evil’s effect: If the incoming effect attempts to exercise mental control over the creature, protection from evil likely suppresses that effect. The parenthetical portion of the phrase provides two specific examples (pointed, obviously, at rules elements of the Player’s Handbook) to help judge what exactly is meant by that: Enchantment (charm) effects. Simple enough--protection from evil automatically suppresses any enchantment (charm) effect, such as charm person or enthrall. Enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject. This is where adjudication gets trickier, because you have to decided what “ongoing control” means. The Sage recommends a broad definition, which includes any non-instantaneous effect that prevents the target from exercising full control over its own actions. Examples would include the obvious (such as command or dominate person), but also the less obvious, such as daze, sleep, and Tasha’s hideous laughter. Such effects would be suppressed for as long as protection from evil lasts on the target. There are still plenty of enchantment (compulsion) effects that don’t grant the caster ongoing control over the subject. Heroism, crushing despair, mind fog, power word blind, rage, and touch of idiocy are examples. Protection from evil has no effect on such spells. This court decision happened wayyyyy before that ask wizards went up.
TelinArtho 01-07-08, 12:04 PM	Fixed. Thanks McJ.
hogarth 01-08-08, 07:30 AM	I do not understand why complex rules are necessary- unless someone can point out exactly why having the spell merely be a copy is broken. ? Personally- I see share pain+shared vigor as far more dangerous/abusable than invisibility or true strike not wearing off for the familiar. [especially considering 1 level higher- invis sphere- does the same thing, but the target doesn't have to be a familiar or animal companion]. I agree completely. Any ruling that bans something fairly innocuous like getting two True Strikes (how often are both master and familiar attacking on the same round within 5' of each other?) but still allows something powerful like getting twice as many hp from Vigor (via Share Pain -- effectively allowing psions to quadruple their hp in some cases) is unnecessary, IMO. We should either specify that you get two separate copies or one single, shared copy for every spell/power for consistency.
McJarvis 01-08-08, 10:50 AM	This post is meant to be a summary of all the discussion on share spells that has happened thus far. [so that any elder not wishing to read through 50 posts can read this at their convenience] I will bold the only difference between magic/psionics(I'm not sure it's relevent anyway) These wordings are identical in Animal Companion and Familiar descriptions. Share Spells: At the master’s option, he may have any spell (but not any spell-like ability) he casts on himself also affect his familiar. The familiar must be within 5 feet at the time of casting to receive the benefit. If the spell or effect has a duration other than instantaneous, it stops affecting the familiar if it moves farther than 5 feet away and will not affect the familiar again even if it returns to the master before the duration expires. Additionally, the master may cast a spell with a target of “You” on his familiar (as a touch range spell) instead of on himself. A master and his familiar can share spells even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the familiar’s type (magical beast). Here is the description for psicrystals. Share Powers (Su): At the owner’s option, he can have any power (but not any psi-like ability) he manifests on himself also affect his psicrystal. The psicrystal must be within 5 feet of him at the time of the manifestation to receive the benefit. If the power has a duration other than instantaneous, it stops affecting the psicrystal if it moves farther than 5 feet away, and will not affect the psicrystal again, even if it returns to its owner before the duration expires. Additionally, the owner can manifest a power with a target of “You” on his psicrystal (as a touch range power) instead of on himself. The owner and psicrystal cannot share powers if the powers normally do not affect creatures of the psicrystal’s type (construct). There are two rules of the games articles that directly contradict each other. link (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050913a) Bolded is a section of interest, since it correlates to the RotG article on Animal Companions. When the familiar and the master share a spell, they function as one being where the spell's effects are concerned. For example, if the master chooses to share a teleport spell with his familiar, the familiar doesn't count toward the spell's creature limit. Likewise, if the master shares a water breathing spell with his familiar, the familiar shares the master's portion of the spell's duration and does not count as another creature touched. A shared mirror image spell creates duplicates of both the master and the familiar, and a successful hit on either the master's or the familiar's image eliminates one duplicate master and one duplicate familiar. A shared protection from energy spell shields both the master and the familiar, but all energy damage that either the familiar or the master suffers is deducted from the total amount of energy the spell can absorb. link (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070206a) Bolded is a section of interest, since it correlates to the RotG article on Familiars. When you and your animal companion share a spell, you're effectively adding one free target (your animal companion) to the spell's effect. In simple cases, the spell just affects both of you in the same way. For example, when you share a cure light wounds spell with your animal companion, the spell provides healing equal to 1d8 + your caster level for both you and for your animal companion. A shared spider climb spell gives both you and your animal companion the power to climb sheer, smooth surfaces. A shared protection from energy spell provides a separate ablative shield against the chosen energy type to you and to your animal companion. Bolded sections in the following quotes are my additions to try and help set the context of the quotes. Context: How does CoCo treat the interaction of Share Spells and various types of spells? Familiar+Share Spells: a) Shared Spell - True Strike As the spell description goes, your next SINGLE attack roll gains an insight bonus. as the spell explicitly tells that it is only one, i believe only either the familiar or the master should be able to attack like this. b) Shared Spell - Invisibility I already asked before Christmas, and MWB backed me up on that one, but i'd like to have it officially, too. Invisibility should go away for both if either of the two attack. All of these have been said- but don't necessarily reflect the Elder's current opinion. Not all of the above information was available at the time of some of these comments. My instinct is to say (for a and b) that the spell ends for both once the condition ends for one of them (ie - if True Strike is cast - the first of either the master or the familiar to attack will end the spell). In reference to item "a" I'd agree with this. One spell, one use - sharing lets the familiar be the one to use it instead. In reference to item "b" Likewise, I'd agree. where the animal companion and familiar entries contradict each other, use the most recent, i.e. the animal companion rules. Then in a different post, in response to Sauro's That sounds good to me, too. Each participant gets their own "points," but it's still only one copy of the spell. This has an interesting effect with Dispel Magic, though--it would get two chances to dispel the same spell. In the past we've discussed Invisibility in the light of the Share Spell ability. In those cases, we've decided that the spell is "shared" not twinned into two copies of the spell. Same goes for Truestrike. So if either or both of the participants in a shared spell end the spells duration, then the other participant has their spell effect ended. My sense is that this is the correct way to deal with shared spells. After reading what's been said, I now understand how there's a conflict between the way we are using shared Invisibility vs shared Protection from Energy. One way to deal with this is to change the ruling so that it's consistent with respect to all spells. Another way to deal with this is to get out the razor and draw a fine line between spells which are "ended" by a specific event and spells which are "used up". Then we can allow spells which are "used up", like Vigor or Protection from Energy, to use separate point totals for the participants of a shared spell. Where things which "end" a spell will end it for both participants, like attacking while invisible or using a charged touch attack. These are not meant to be representative of the opinions of all non-elders who put up an opinion- but rather a place to flesh out the newly introduced thoughts. There was a bit of discussion on how Dispel magic- both targeted and area effect- would interact with various hypothetical rulings. Suffice to say- this is another issue that will need to be considered. I do not understand why complex rules are necessary- unless someone can point out exactly why having the spell merely be a copy is broken. ? Personally- I see share pain+shared vigor as far more dangerous/abusable than invisibility or true strike not wearing off for the familiar. [especially considering 1 level higher- invis sphere- does the same thing, but the target doesn't have to be a familiar or animal companion] Essentially- we could side-step all of these complex rules regarding dispels & just stick with not only what is simple, but what is supported by the most recent RotG article. In response to what I said I agree completely. Any ruling that bans something fairly innocuous like getting two True Strikes (how often are both master and familiar attacking on the same round within 5' of each other?) but still allows something powerful like getting twice as many hp from Vigor (via Share Pain -- effectively allowing psions to quadruple their hp in some cases) is unnecessary, IMO. We should either specify that you get two separate copies or one single, shared copy for every spell/power for consistency. If you feel I missed something, please PM me with a link to the post I missed. I will add it immediately. Let's try to keep the courtroom clean so the Elders can decide without spending five hours reading.
TelinArtho 01-10-08, 12:06 PM	Just to keep this moving, I would prefer to see something simple here - so despite my personal feeling that having separate instances of True Strike/Invisibility end on their own - I recognize that the "simple" solution here is to remain in line with the RotG on this.
SauroGrenom 01-15-08, 09:15 PM	Since the written rules are wonky, but functional I feel we shouldn't write new ones. I prefer the above interpretation where a shared spell is simultaneously considered one spell for the purpose of effects that end it, and two spells for the purpose of using up points or protections provided by it.
Vathelokai 01-16-08, 01:13 AM	For the moment, I'll second Sauro's statement. However, I will review the argument again tomorrow in case I misses something. P.S. Sorry for all the absence.
Rauul 01-16-08, 03:34 AM	*shrugs* Well, whitebaron did ask for an Elder ruling specifically. Eh, I guess it mostly feels a bit odd no longer being one during discussions like this. Which is weird, because I always though I'd never get used to being an Elder. Zevox As an Oldtimer, you has almost as must weight as an Elder... infact if a tie breaker is needed your input is used (or was when Tellish was an oldtimer)
hogarth 01-16-08, 06:47 AM	Since the written rules are wonky, but functional I feel we shouldn't write new ones. I prefer the above interpretation where a shared spell is simultaneously considered one spell for the purpose of effects that end it, and two spells for the purpose of using up points or protections provided by it. I agree we shouldn't write new rules. But where in the existing rules does it say "if it's True Strike, it's you share one effect & if it's Vigor, you get one effect for each person"? In the case of genuine ambiguity, any attempt to clarify things is effectively writing new rules.
Erithmu 01-20-08, 12:32 AM	Ok ... 3 day weekend means I get to catch up here. You would think that they would look at some of their old rulings or at least consider them. ok I'm done Basically I agree w/ Sauro. Shared spells should function as a single for the purpose of spells that end/are discharged. And separate shields for HP buffers (Pro Energy/Vigor/False Life/etc) As for the dispel issue (which is just summed up as 'what happens?') I would say that if the spell is shared then if it is dispelled (by either area or targeted) then it is dispelled on the shared party as well. This gives area dispels a good chance to hit something, at the same time area dispels only affect one spell per target.
McJarvis 01-21-08, 09:11 PM	Decision Made Regarding shared spells & "copies" of spells//interaction with.. Effects like true strike/Invis Effects like vigor/pro:energy Summary of problem (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14773128&postcount=128) Those for using the most up to date RotG article: Telin (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14793717&postcount=129) Those for using Sauro's rules: Sauro (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14840452&postcount=130) Vath (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14842200&postcount=131) Rith (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14871252&postcount=134) Absent: Macbrea The correct interpretation is the one where a shared spell is simultaneously considered one spell for the purpose of effects that end it, and two spells for the purpose of using up points or protections provided by it. Telin should update the court rulings & link this post. If anyone wants to hash out the dispel issue that's fine- but I believe this leaves the floor open for other topics, if any are pressing.
TelinArtho 01-25-08, 02:14 PM	Thanks McJ. I have added this to the Houserules post in the Magic and Psionics section. Going forward, I will try to link new questions and answers so that they are more referenceable (in case my explanation isn't as clear as I intend it to be).
Macbrea 01-25-08, 02:22 PM	As many of you have noticed, I have been horridly busy and unable to actually do anything board wise. I will be moving to another state in March of this year and have to make sure everything is going to work out. So, you may want to pick another elder for my position.
McJarvis 01-27-08, 05:01 PM	Widespread violation issue. I'm building a high-level caster for CoCo and I decided to look at some existing casters. I've noticed that no one(or at least- close to no one) is paying for all their scribed spells in their spellbook after prestiging or taking levels in a paragon class. When a new arcane trickster level is gained, the character gains new spells per day as if he had also gained a level in a spellcasting class he belonged to before adding the prestige class. He does not, however, gain any other benefit a character of that class would have gained, except for an increased effective level of spellcasting. If a character had more than one spellcasting class before becoming an arcane trickster, he must decide to which class he adds the new level for purposes of determining spells per day. Spells: A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/ wizard spell list. A wizard m....<snip> Spellbooks: A wizard must study her spellbook each day to prepare her spells. She cannot prepare any spell not recorded in her spellbook, except for read magic, which all wizards can prepare from memory. A wizard begins play with a spellbook containing all 0-level wizard spells (except those from her prohibited school or schools, if any; see School Specialization, below) plus three 1st-level spells of your choice. For each point of Intelligence bonus the wizard has, the spellbook holds one additional 1st-level spell of your choice. At each new wizard level, she gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that she can cast (based on her new wizard level) for her spellbook. At any time, a wizard can also add spells found in other wizards’ spellbooks to her own. Spellbooks is a different class ability from spellcasting. Prestige classes do not grant 2 free spells per level in the spellbook. I decided that since no one seem to be adhering to this, there might be a FAQ entry I'm not seeing, or a houserule I'm not seeing. (So I'm posting this here rather than dragging 5+ gladiators to the prison)
lonewolf 01-27-08, 05:20 PM	IIRC this was clarified either in the FAQ or on "ask wizards": Wizards do get those 2 free spells into their spellbook even when advancing their casting with a PrC.
TelinArtho 01-27-08, 07:17 PM	Actually - McJ is correct and it is something I asked about a while ago for confirmation (before I was an elder). At the time I only had one example of a violation (one of Myrridin's characters). If there are examples now - they are in violation.
Rauul 01-27-08, 08:06 PM	Actually - McJ is correct and it is something I asked about a while ago for confirmation (before I was an elder). At the time I only had one example of a violation (one of Myrridin's characters). If there are examples now - they are in violation. Actually i think Red Wizards PrC does.. but i could be wrong... need to look it up..
hogarth 01-27-08, 08:43 PM	Actually - McJ is correct and it is something I asked about a while ago for confirmation (before I was an elder). At the time I only had one example of a violation (one of Myrridin's characters). If there are examples now - they are in violation. From the 3.0 FAQ: Prestige Classes "I can’t find any information about how many spells prestige class spellcasters know. I am going on the presumption that those that gain bonus spells per day of their existing class (such as loremaster and spellsword) do not automatically add additional spells to their spellbook as they gain levels." They do add spells to their lists. For example, a wizard /loremaster gains 2 spells for her spellbook when using a loremaster level to increase spellcasting. A sorcerer/loremaster would learn more spells as well. Adding spells to your spellbook or personal repertoire is part of spellcasting.
TelinArtho 01-28-08, 01:29 AM	Well - I wasn't aware of that... it appears I'm wrong again. Yay!
whitebaron 01-28-08, 03:09 AM	if it was anything else, you could never take any prestige class as sorcerer. spells known != spells cast. also most of the prestige descriptions would only say you get more spells/day. but obviously, that increase is worded poorly.
SauroGrenom 02-04-08, 10:56 PM	What's the deal with Sunder and enhancement bonuses? There's several places in the SRD which talk about not being able to damage an opponent's magical item unless the weapon being used has a high enough enhancement bonus... The shatterspike sword has a description saying it counts as +4 for this effect. There's also this: "Hardness and Hit Points: An attacker cannot damage a magic weapon that has an enhancement bonus unless his own weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon or shield struck. Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to a weapon’s or shield’s hardness and +10 to its hit points." Is this in effect? I seam to recall there being something that complicated this further, but I cannot find it right now.
Erithmu 02-04-08, 11:59 PM	What's the deal with Sunder and enhancement bonuses? There's several places in the SRD which talk about not being able to damage an opponent's magical item unless the weapon being used has a high enough enhancement bonus... The shatterspike sword has a description saying it counts as +4 for this effect. There's also this: "Hardness and Hit Points: An attacker cannot damage a magic weapon that has an enhancement bonus unless his own weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon or shield struck. Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to a weapon’s or shield’s hardness and +10 to its hit points." Is this in effect? I seam to recall there being something that complicated this further, but I cannot find it right now. If your looking at the White background/Red Sidebar SRD, that is not updated with the current errata (Mar 04??). That issue was taken out of the rules. I think they just forgot to take it out of the Shatterspike description.
TelinArtho 02-05-08, 12:23 AM	Check the errata Sauro - they cover it fully in there.
Zevox 02-05-08, 12:50 AM	Yeah, I remember stumbling over that with Asran. Apparently its an artifact from 3.0. Zevox
whitebaron 02-05-08, 11:12 AM	Some Bag of Tricks questions for anyone? :) background story Altair(Hirumajoe) stated in his last tactics, that he would ego-whip a bag of tricks animal and then climb it, in order to prevent me from getting a new one. The animal serves the character who drew it from the bag for 10 minutes (or until slain or ordered back into the bag), at which point it disappears. the problem While i believe his tactics to be very innovative, it poses many questions to me: a) does the animal actually have to get back physically into the bag? i'd say no, as it is nowhere stated in the item description. b) can the animal disappear, even if it is unable to do something? this i'm not so sure about. i'd say "maybe" - depends if the bag ends the spell or if the summoned animal goes back to its plane by its own will. the item obviously does not state anything about that. c) can you put the animal back into the bag physically, without commanding it? - this is obviously only really important if the answer to b is no. i'd say, no. the item does not say that you can do this, therefor you can't. if b+c=no, then bag of tricks animals suddenly look a lot less good than they did some moments before. ;)
McJarvis 02-05-08, 11:20 AM	Previous Pitlord ruling(by me): You can order a bag of tricks animal into the bag and it dissapears, regardless of it's own abilities. This is a function of the bag itself, not the animal. In addition to WB's concerns, I'd also like it addressed whether BoT animals are "summoned" animals for the purposes of Pro:Evil. I always assumed they were, but someone(I think Rith?) mentioned in chat that they might not be.
TelinArtho 02-05-08, 11:46 AM	I'd say it is a function of the bag to order an animal back into the bag - so it matters not whether the animal can do anything or not. They are summoned creatures though - the bag duplicates the effects of the SNA series and should be hedged out by Prot. from Evil.
MindWandererB 02-05-08, 04:54 PM	I'd say it is a function of the bag to order an animal back into the bag - so it matters not whether the animal can do anything or not. They are summoned creatures though - the bag duplicates the effects of the SNA series and should be hedged out by Prot. from Evil. I agree on the first point--hesitatingly--but not on the second. The Bag of Tricks uses SNA as a creation prerequisite, but the effects do not duplicate the spell in any way. Duration and range are different, the animals are smarter, and most importantly, the animals come from fuzzy balls instead of from thin air. On the other hand, the bag does have a Conjuration aura, and the effect certainly seems closer to a conjuration (summoning) than a conjuration (calling) effect.
Hirumajoe 02-12-08, 08:46 PM	How does the power Synesthete interact with Psicrystals? You receive one kind of sensory input when a different sense is stimulated. In particular, you can either feel light or feel sound. You can shift your stimulated sense between these two options once per round as a swift action. Your senses continue to work normally as well, unless they are impaired for some reason. Your face must be uncovered to use this power, because it is the skin of your face that acts as the sensory receiver. If you are feeling light by absorbing ambient light onto your skin, you have your normal visual abilities (except for darkvision), even if your eyes are closed or you are blinded. If your eyes are working normally, you gain a +4 circumstance bonus on all Spot and Search checks. While feeling light, you are immune to gaze attacks. If you are feeling sound by absorbing sound onto your skin and your ears are working normally, the expanded audio input provides you with a +4 circumstance bonus on Listen checks. Psionic or magical displacement effects, invisibility effects, illusions, and other similar effects confuse your synesthete senses just as they would your normal senses. You can also use this power to see sound if you are deafened, or hear light if you are blinded, thus removing all penalties associated with either condition (though you gain no bonuses for using the power in this way if you are not deafened or blinded). Sighted (Ex) Although it has no physical sensory organs, a psicrystal can telepathically sense its environment as well as a creature with normal vision and hearing. Darkness (even supernatural darkness) is irrelevant, as are areas of supernatural silence, though a psicrystal still can’t discern invisible or ethereal beings. A psicrystal’s sighted range is 40 feet. 1) Psicrystals are unaffected by it - A psycrystal has no physical sensory organs and no ability to simulate touch, and thus cannot feel anything, light, sound, or even physical objects. It can sense only telepathically. 2) Psicrystals gain the ability to see as a normal creature (such as a human would) beyond 40'. They have no physical sensory organs and thus are blind in the traditional sense, and can only see because of a (EX) ability, similar to blindsight but different. Since it now has a way to actually detect light (as opposed to telepathically sensing nearby objects) by letting the light hits its surface, it can see normally. It does not gain a +4 bonus to spot and listen because of the either/or nature of the power. 3) Same as 2, except gains the +4 bonus to spot and listen within 40', since it can now both sense telepathically *and* see within that range. 4) Psicrystals only gain the +4 bonus to spot and listen within 40' and do not gain any other sensory abilities. Thanks.
SauroGrenom 02-12-08, 11:03 PM	Does Cerebral Blind ability of a slayer foil the effects of touchsight? The ability specifies that it foils attempts to locate the character using clairsentience. It also says several really high level powers (wish and limited wish) are defeated by this ability. But since touchsight is a psychokinetic power, it shouldn't be effected by this as far as I can tell. However I can see the argument that if much higher power like reality revision cannot beat cerebral blind, then a 3rd level touchsight should have no advantage over that.
McJarvis 02-12-08, 11:11 PM	Does Cerebral Blind ability of a slayer foil the effects of touchsight? The ability specifies that it foils attempts to locate the character using clairsentience. It also says several really high level powers (wish and limited wish) are defeated by this ability. But since touchsight is a psychokinetic power, it shouldn't be effected by this as far as I can tell. However I can see the argument that if much higher power like reality revision cannot beat cerebral blind, then a 3rd level touchsight should have no advantage over that. Perhaps more important than the level of the spells are the schools. Those high-level spells/powers include two universal spells and one evocation spell. Of course, on the other hand- the only spell that is said to be able to puncture it specifically is a Clairsentience power itself. edit- The real question here is whether the second sentence of the ability restricts what the first sentence means, or if it helps define just how broad the protection is. For those too lazy to look up the ability- Cerebral Blind (Su): After reaching 6th level, a slayer is protected from all devices, powers, and spells that reveal location. This ability protects against information gathering by clairsentience powers or effects that reveal location. The ability even foils bend reality, limited wish, miracle, reality revision, and wish when they are used to gain information about the slayer’s location (however, metafaculty can pierce this protective barrier). In the case of remote viewing or scrying that scans an area a slayer is in, the effect works, but the slayer simply isn’t detected. Remote viewing or scrying attempts that are targeted specifically at a slayer do not work. This ability is active as long as the slayer is psionically focused. I believe that as it is worded, Cerebral Blind will stop touchsight. It does not say "only clar. powers are stopped", it just further defines these powers as also stopped. Given that the entire entry talks almost exclusively about these powers, including examples of scrying, I'd personally say the intent was for it to stop Clairsentience & divinations, with added exceptions. [indeed- I don't even think the writer was thinking about battle-type situations. They seem totally fixated on scrying//RP type stuff].
MindWandererB 02-12-08, 11:40 PM	I believe we've discussed this before--but now, I don't remember the upshot. The bolded portion depends on how you read the clauses: This ability protects against information gathering by (clairsentience (powers or effects)) that reveal location. This ability protects against information gathering by (clairsentience powers) or (effects that reveal location).However, the sentence before it simply says, "[The] slayer is protected from all devices, powers, and spells that reveal location." That suggests Touchsight is included.
Zevox 02-13-08, 12:05 AM	Last time it was brought up, the general consensus was that Touchsight was included, and that MWB's #2 was the correct way to read that. Didn't that make it into the Court Decisions or FAQ or something? Then again, that was a tavern discussion, not a courtroom one, so I suppose it may not have. Zevox
Hirumajoe 02-13-08, 12:32 AM	I also remember the tavern discussion and that MWB's option 2 held sway. As an aside, I believe Mind Blank was also discussed then and that it didn't block Touch sight because its wording was slightly different. Basically it was missing the general clause that Cerebral blind has. (Although it also explicitly stops 2 Universal and an Evocation spell when used to determine information about the target's location). Edit: Bump: Also, if anyone has any thoughts on the psicrystal + synesthete question...
Zevox 02-13-08, 01:07 AM	Edit: Bump: Also, if anyone has any thoughts on the psicrystal + synesthete question... As far as I'm concerned, either your #3 or #4 should be the way we handle it. #1 requires using the "fluff" (man I hate using that term, but I can't think of any other that fits here) text of the power to determine its effect, something I'm pretty sure we avoid here, and #2 also makes use of that. Ergo, I'd say we either allow it to grant full normal sight (reasonable, since it does grant sight to blinded characters) or allow it to just grant the stat boost within the sighted range of the psicrystal. I'm not sure which to go with myself, since both seem reasonable, so I'll wait to see what others have to say. Zevox
whitebaron 02-13-08, 03:07 AM	@synesthete: #1 is the way to go. The description of Synesthete is always referring to senses, and a psicrystal has none. If it is ruled that this is not important, maybe we should revisit Matter Agitation and similar decisions as well - since the heating is just that - fluff text. Psicrystals are immune to blindness and deafness, and should not need such a power. @touchsight: is stopped. the entry specifically states "protected from all devices, powers, and spells that reveal location" and touchsight - "you can detect and pinpoint all creatures within 60 feet. " to me, pinpointing == revealing location
mucki 02-13-08, 04:47 AM	I agree on the cerebral blind issue. Reading the entry makes me think that the slayer just edits himself out of the brain of all people trying to detect him, so it doesn't really matter how they try to detect him (as opposed to say invisibility, which works on a, for the lack of a better word, physical level). What I find interesting though is that the rules do not seem to consider eyes as a "device to reveal location", since the effect does not seem to include invisibility to a normal observer.
TelinArtho 02-18-08, 03:44 PM	As said elsewhere, the elders will be playing a little bit of catchup in the next few weeks, and I am no exception. Here's the current issues on the plate for discussion. I will revive others that I don't yet have in the court decisions that still need review. If they are resolved, I will update the decisions and edit the response in here (or a later post if this post is not the most recent...) Item 1: Bag of Tricks Sub Item 1a: What kind of an action is it to "force the animal back into the bag"? Telin and MWB responded that it is a standard action no matter the current location or state of the animal. Hirumajoe, Zevox and CrazyArtificer all agree as well - so this is settled. Sub Item 1b: Are animals brought from a bag of tricks hedged by Prot. from Evil? I answered yes, MWB answered no. Hirumajoe and CrazyArtificer answered yes; Zevox voted no. While we don't have a unanimous decision - we have enough to settle this as well. Item 2: Synesthete for Psicrystals Can psicrystals be affected by Synesthete and if yes - how? My answer is no on that one (they have no physical sensory organs with which to enhance). Zevox responded that it should work despite the "fluff" description and would go for "works normally" or just the bonuses to skill checks provided (which is pretty much "works normally" since a psicrystal cannot be blinded or deafened). Hirumajoe and CrazyArtificer both agree with the no answer here for the same reason I provided. Item 3: Touchsight vs Cerebral Blind Can touchsight breach Cerebral Blind? MWB and Zevox responded no (referring to a previous discussion). I agree with them on the matter. If needed, I can look up the original discussion for further review - but otherwise - this looks like it is resolved.
Hirumajoe 02-18-08, 04:27 PM	I guess I should start taking part in these: Item 1: A) I'll go along with the standard action - akin to dismissing spells. B) I think they should be hedged like a summoned creature by Protection from Evil. Its clear they're simply not miniaturized creatures already present in the bag, since its random at the time of pulling out. Thus, they must be coming from somewhere else, which seems like the definition of a summoning effect. And especially if they can simply be dismissed per part A). Item 2: Psicrystals: My feeling is they don't have a sense of touch (no physical sensory organs) and thus cannot benefit from Synesthete. Item 3: No, Touchsight does not breach Cerebral Blind, per the original discussion.
Zevox 02-18-08, 05:20 PM	Item 1: Bag of Tricks Sub Item 1a: What kind of an action is it to "force the animal back into the bag"? Telin and MWB responded that it is a standard action no matter the current location or state of the animal. Sub Item 1b: Are animals brought from a bag of tricks hedged by Prot. from Evil? I answered yes, MWB answered no. Since it seems this is the only one I didn't reply to: A) Standard action seems fine, and no matter the condition of the animal seems fine too. I don't know about "no matter the current location of the animal" though - I'd tend to think you'd need the animal next to you to force it back into the bag. Its not like it gets magically transmitted there if you have to "force it back in." B) Strictly by the rules, I don't think they are. Pro. Evil protects against summoned creatures, and technically these are being created by an item. I'd be all for ruling it otherwise, however, since the concept seems to be the same, and summoning spells are what is used in making the bag. Zevox
whitebaron 02-18-08, 05:28 PM	be careful what you open up with that discussion: if an animal from the bag of tricks is not subjected to the same effects, as its creating spell, why should it work differently with other items? like e.g. necklace of fireballs not doing magical fire damage. @zevox: about a) the item description states that you can order it back, not that you "force it back" - and since it IS a summoning spell (see point b), distance should not be a factor. edit: the only things not affected by these similarities between spells and their items are clearly weapons. though their type stays the same - fire is fire.
McJarvis 02-18-08, 05:30 PM	like e.g. necklace of fireballs not doing magical fire damage. That's not really the same kind of situation- neckless of fireballs specifically says it works as the fireball spell does. Bag of tricks doesn't quite say that the bag works like the summon nature's ally spell does.
Zevox 02-18-08, 05:38 PM	@zevox: about a) the item description states that you can order it back, not that you "force it back" - and since it IS a summoning spell (see point b), distance should not be a factor. Hm, interesting point - the item description is slightly different from Telin's wording there. I'm not sure I like the idea, but it does look like distance shouldn't be a factor after all. Zevox
MindWandererB 02-18-08, 05:59 PM	be careful what you open up with that discussion: if an animal from the bag of tricks is not subjected to the same effects, as its creating spell, why should it work differently with other items? like e.g. necklace of fireballs not doing magical fire damage.The spheres are detachable by the wearer (and only by the wearer), who can easily hurl one of them up to 70 feet. When a sphere arrives at the end of its trajectory, it detonates as a fireball spell (Reflex DC 14 half ).Bag of Tricks lacks that language.
CrazyArtificer 02-18-08, 06:38 PM	Item 1: Bag of Tricks Sub Item 1a: What kind of an action is it to "force the animal back into the bag"? Telin and MWB responded that it is a standard action no matter the current location or state of the animal. Sub Item 1b: Are animals brought from a bag of tricks hedged by Prot. from Evil? I answered yes, MWB answered no. Like Hirumajoe it's time for me to begin taking part in these discussions. I'll start with the Bag of Tricks issue. 1a)I believe that forcing the animal into the bag should take a standard action. In the SRD it is clearly stated that Activate a magic item other than a potion or oil is a standard action Although it may make no sense, the more we stick to the RAW, the better. As forcing it back to the bag is after all a feature of the magic item it shouldn't cause any Attack of Opportunity (like every magic item activation) and it should be possible to do from anywhere on the map (as you don't need to physically force the animal back, but to activate that magic item ability) 1b) As the Bag of Tricks summons the animals from somewhere and doesn't create them, I believe Protection from Evil should hedge them out as it does with every summoned creature. Item 2: Synesthete for Psicrystals Can psicrystals be affected by Synesthete and if yes - how? My answer is no on that one (they have no physical sensory organs with which to enhance). Zevox responded that it should work despite the "fluff" description and would go for "works normally" or just the bonuses to skill checks provided (which is pretty much "works normally" since a psicrystal cannot be blinded or deafened). Well.. the power says: You receive one kind of sensory input when a different sense is stimulated. In particular, you can either feel light or feel sound. You can shift your stimulated sense between these two options once per round as a swift action. Your senses continue to work normally as well, unless they are impaired for some reason. Your face must be uncovered to use this power, because it is the skin of your face that acts as the sensory receiver. If you are feeling light by absorbing ambient light onto your skin, you have your normal visual abilities (except for darkvision), even if your eyes are closed or you are blinded. If your eyes are working normally, you gain a +4 circumstance bonus on all Spot and Search checks. While feeling light, you are immune to gaze attacks. If you are feeling sound by absorbing sound onto your skin and your ears are working normally, the expanded audio input provides you with a +4 circumstance bonus on Listen checks. Psionic or magical displacement effects, invisibility effects, illusions, and other similar effects confuse your synesthete senses just as they would your normal senses. You can also use this power to see sound if you are deafened, or hear light if you are blinded, thus removing all penalties associated with either condition (though you gain no bonuses for using the power in this way if you are not deafened or blinded) Psicrystals lack a face, so they can't use the power. Is it fluff? Probably, but as it writes "it must" then I'd take that as a requirement for the spell to work. Item 3: Touchsight vs Cerebral Blind Can touchsight breach Cerebral Blind? MWB and Zevox responded no (referring to a previous discussion). I agree with them on the matter. If needed, I can look up the original discussion for further review - but otherwise - this looks like it is resolved. Agreed as well. Touchsight doesn't spoil Cerebral Blind.
TelinArtho 02-19-08, 04:12 PM	I have edited my summary above to include the recent answers of the new elders to chime in. I have also edited the Court Rulings post to reflect these answers.
TelinArtho 02-19-08, 04:47 PM	This is in response to the question posed by Sauro in the prison regarding Kitty's SR. lonewolf said that this had been discussed previously, and I finally found the discussion - back in Tavern VI: [Post 1390] Author : lonewolf Date : 09-01-06 02:11 PM Addon to the spellresistance issue: Every creature in the MM with SR that has a "creature as character" - section, has its SR there listed as SR x+Class levels. Can we thus assume that the SR of all creatures that have SR increases whenever they gain a class level? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1392] Author : MindWandererB Date : 09-01-06 02:16 PM Well, the advancement instructions say that only BAB, base saves, and ability DCs increase with racial HD. The "examples" aren't infallible guides; they're kind of like the DMG magic items, which were only kind of created with the formulae. The Hound Archon Hero has no business having a higher SR*. However, I do see that the advanced celestial half-dragon lammasu (phew!) does not enjoy an increase in SLA caster level despite its increased HD. *Edit: However, lonewolf's statement is correct--___s as characters do always say that SR increases with class HD. Presumably racial HD would do the same. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1394] Author : Pittbull Date : 09-01-06 02:33 PM Beside the lammasu example, how shall rule now? 1. Topic: Do SLA-casterlevels and SR increase, if the monster adcances in racial HD? a, Yes! b, No! I would choose a. 2. Topic: If there is no "monster as character"-section, does the mentioned SR increase like SR=X+classlevels, if the character gains class-levels? For example Pseudodragon ---> SR19. a, Yes! b, No! My opinion is a! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1395] Author : MindWandererB Date : 09-01-06 02:38 PM I think those are three questions, not two. 1a) By all indications, caster level for SLAs does not increase with any kind of hit dice. 2) However, it is also moderately clear that SR increases with class hit dice. 1b) If SR increases with class HD, then by all rights it should increase with racial HD, as well. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1396] Author : Pittbull Date : 09-01-06 02:41 PM Yes, you explained it nicely. I think, we can go with this ruling. But, if others like to speak up, they are very welcome. Unless we have a movement to modify this earlier ruling - I'm just adding it now to the rulings. By the way - if anyone knows of a specific item that was debated upon in the past and that is not in the court rulings - let me know and I will research it and hopefully add it. We learned after this discussion that this specifically was addressed in the FAQ and overturned this decision here.
McJarvis 02-19-08, 05:15 PM	I was doing research in forums the other day and I would like to bring the SR discussion to the table again. The houserule I found [from a DM perspective] is +1 SR per +1 CR, and I think that is what we should use. [in light of us going with a houserule any way we turn here] Now for Character-creation guidelines this translates to +1 SR/hd, but for monster creation guidelines it is different, since you can get situations where you add multiple hd per CR.
whitebaron 02-19-08, 06:20 PM	There should be a decision on Madness domain and spells that have wisdom-bonusses in their descriptions/workings. (example: Spiritual Weapon) MWB believes that it works on the negative side for those spells. Telin stated that it should work with the positive. Here are the relevant rules parts for spiritual weapon: The character gains an Insanity score equal to half his or her class level. For spellcasting (determining bonus spells and DCs), the character uses his or her Wisdom score plus his or her Insanity score in place of Wisdom alone. For all other purposes, such as skills and saves, use Wisdom minus Insanity in place of Wisdom. It uses your base attack bonus (possibly allowing it multiple attacks per round in subsequent rounds) plus your Wisdom modifier as its attack bonus. It strikes as a spell, not as a weapon, so, for example, it can damage creatures that have damage reduction
Stormwind 02-20-08, 03:40 AM	There should be a decision on Madness domain and spells that have wisdom-bonusses in their descriptions/workings. (example: Spiritual Weapon) MWB believes that it works on the negative side for those spells. Telin stated that it should work with the positive. Here are the relevant rules parts for spiritual weapon: Personally I would say that due to the clarification in brackets, the text directly implies that the characters Wisdom score is only replaced by their Wisdom score plus their Insanity score for 'determining bonus spells and DCs'. Note that it does not say 'such as' or 'for example', it simply specifies the precise cases to which it applies. 'For all other purposes', is then a catch all which then goes on to give examples of when it applies by the use of the terminology 'such as'. Therefore, in this case, I would interpret RAW to mean that spiritual weapon attacks using BAB + (Wisdom - Insanity) modifier.
McJarvis 02-20-08, 08:26 AM	I think this is a case of clarifications where the writers were not thinking of all exceptions. The intent, IMO, is that the wisdom bonus applies to spellcasting, and for all mundane things it is a hinderance.
SauroGrenom 02-25-08, 10:28 PM	I feel like the madness domain ability should apply to all the aspect of spell casting. The parenthetical clause simply lists the two major effects of an ability score on spell casting ability. Since this is a parenthetical clause, the meaning of the sentence shouldn't change if it's removed. As such, the bonus to wisdom should apply to all aspects of wisdom's effect on spellcasting.
Hirumajoe 02-26-08, 02:03 PM	I tend to go with the interpretation that it is all parts of spellcasting. The bonus spells and DC cannot be an exhaustive list because of: Clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers get bonus spells based on their Wisdom scores. The minimum Wisdom score needed to cast a cleric, druid, paladin, or ranger spell is 10 + the spell’s level. The bolded section has nothing to do with bonus spells or DCs. And thus a madness domain cleric at some point would simply be unable to cast any spells with the strict, exhaustive interpretation. Since this doesn't seem to be the intent, I must side with the group that Spiritual weapon should gain the madness domain positive effects.
CrazyArtificer 02-26-08, 06:22 PM	I also agree with the idea that Madness domain is specifically tailored to improve spellcasting abilities of the character. As such, spiritual weapon should gain the insanity bonus on the Wisdom score.
Huan 02-27-08, 12:04 PM	I have a question I have not seen answered on the boards just yet. In regards to the Awaken spell, which grants an animal human-equivalent intelligence, may we then use said animal as a base creature with which to take class levels and use as a character? I remember WOTC themselves having a few Awakened animal examples: - Splitfang (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/eo/20031003a) (Dire Wolf Barbarian) - Santa's Reindeers (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/Santa.pdf) (Reindeer Rangers) And since the ingredients are only an animal and the Awaken spell (both Core), I should query whether there is a problem playing an awakened animal here in COCO. -Huan
TelinArtho 02-27-08, 12:23 PM	It has been discussed before I believe and I know the answer lies with the fact that Awaken doesn't provide information on LA. If you want me to specifically look up for that discussion, I can - but that would be the end result of it.
TelinArtho 02-27-08, 02:43 PM	With regard to the Madness domain - it looks like we have enough for the decision. Sauro, CrazyArtificer, Hirumajoe and myself all agree that it it should apply to all aspects of spellcasting rather than just the spellcasting DC and the bonus spells per day. MWB is a noted detractor from this agreement - but at the moment he is out-voted. This will be added to the decisions shortly. McJarvis seemed inclined to revisit the previous discussion on SR with regard to monster HD - but no one has commented in reply to it (I should be marked as in agreement with the SRD - ie SR does not improve unless specifically mentioned in the entry).
SauroGrenom 02-27-08, 06:52 PM	I should be marked as in agreement with the SRD - ie SR does not improve unless specifically mentioned in the entry. I agree with Telin on this. In the context of monster PC's this is worry-some in that benefits usually reserved for templates can be found at a discount with some monster's. Also for advanced monsters, since advancement is often 2 or 3 HD/CR the SR of advanced monsters will grow far more rapidly than the CL of "evenly matched" caster characters. These are all imbalancing things in my opinion. So I'd rather just side with the SRD and not increase SR unless the monster entry mentions it.
McJarvis 02-27-08, 06:57 PM	I would prefer Telin & Sauro's approach to this. My suggestion of +1SR/CR was only if it was absolutely necessary to have SR scale with level.
Zevox 02-27-08, 07:12 PM	I'd be fine with either ruling on the monster SR issue. I can see Sauro's point about it being imbalanced in places, but I can also see how it might be unfair to people playing monster PCs not to let it scale (I've written up a couple before myself, though I never actually posted any of them). I'll just defer to the decision of the Elders on this one. Zevox
hogarth 02-27-08, 07:14 PM	These are all imbalancing things in my opinion. So I'd rather just side with the SRD and not increase SR unless the monster entry mentions it. Plus (as MWB pointed out) the FAQ explicitly confirms this.
TelinArtho 02-28-08, 03:04 PM	Plus (as MWB pointed out) the FAQ explicitly confirms this. I had forgotten about that: Do spell resistance, damage reduction, or caster level for spell-like abilities increase as a monster advances by Hit Dice? Unless a monster’s description states otherwise, most monster special abilities aren’t Hit Dice-based, and thus are unaffected by advancement either by HD or by class level. (An exception is the save DC for any monster special ability, which is specifically described as using HD in its calculation). Again, a DM can create exceptions to this rule; for example, increasing spell resistance by +1 per point of Challenge Rating increase (not per HD) is a good way of keeping a monster’s SR relevant.
McJarvis 02-28-08, 03:08 PM	Oh hey- the FAQ agrees with me! It must have been written by an awfully smart fellow :)
tunagolem 02-29-08, 03:26 AM	Can a intelegent monster with claws (like a dragon, avoral or wereowl) hold a weapon?
hogarth 02-29-08, 07:15 AM	Oh hey- the FAQ agrees with me! It must have been written by an awfully smart fellow :) I reserve the right to quote you on this at some time in the future, preferably out of context. :) Can a intelegent monster with claws (like a dragon, avoral or wereowl) hold a weapon? No, for a dragon (we had a debate on it). Probably not for a wereowl (similar to a dragon). Not sure about an avoral.
TelinArtho 02-29-08, 11:53 AM	Here's an old one that never made it into the court decisions. It only occured to me when I went searching for it for S'lertak (who will eventually pick up druid levels): Q: Is the Crocodile choice for animal companion available at level 1 or not until level 4 (for a druid)? A: A "stealth-errata" change happened to remove the crocodile from the level 1 list (even for aquatic campaigns. We have decided to adopt this errata despite it not being listed in the official errata. [Post 751] Author : hogarth Date : 09-30-06 08:53 AM Thread Title : Re: Ask An Elder: A Question & Answer Thread After his fight this week, my elf will level up to a lvl 4 ranger. This gives him an animal companion. According to the SRD... [Blah, blah, blah...A crocodile is a possible 1st-level animal companion.] My question is this: Would I be permitted to give him a crocodile as his companion, since it does have a base land speed, and not just a swim speed? By the way, I noticed a comment on another forum that the crocodile has been deleted from the list of 1st-level animal companions in newer printings of the PHB. It's another stealth errata like fixing the price for the staff of fire, I guess. Here's the thread I'm referring to: http://boards.d20srd.org/viewtopic.php?t=392
hogarth 02-29-08, 12:39 PM	Here's an old one that never made it into the court decisions. It only occured to me when I went searching for it for S'lertak (who will eventually pick up druid levels): Q: Is the Crocodile choice for animal companion available at level 1 or not until level 4 (for a druid)? A: A "stealth-errata" change happened to remove the crocodile from the level 1 list (even for aquatic campaigns. We have decided to adopt this errata despite it not being listed in the official errata. I think there have been fairly explicit declarations that it both does and does not belong on the level 1 list. So take your pick.
CrazyArtificer 03-03-08, 06:59 AM	I need a ruling on Control Object. If I animate a stone or another tiny object, what should be its reach? What size would be required for 5ft reach?
Erithmu 03-03-08, 09:00 AM	I need a ruling on Control Object. If I animate a stone or another tiny object, what should be its reach? What size would be required for 5ft reach? I would say follow the 'animated object' stat blocks in the SRD. So tiny = 0, Small = 5ft. Remember that small in this case is the size of a halfling or gnome.
CrazyArtificer 03-03-08, 09:06 AM	I would say follow the 'animated object' stat blocks in the SRD. So tiny = 0, Small = 5ft. Remember that small in this case is the size of a halfling or gnome. Does weight matter? One could have a small, thin, layer of iron, for example.
hogarth 03-03-08, 10:00 AM	Does weight matter? One could have a small, thin, layer of iron, for example. Weight has nothing to do with size. For instance, a small air elemental weighs 1 lb and a small earth elemental weighs 80 lbs. If you're looking for a light-but-large object to animate, I'd suggest a Large/Huge/Gargantuan suit of padded armor. You might need to buy a donkey to carry it around, though.
TelinArtho 03-03-08, 11:52 PM	I need a ruling on Control Object. If I animate a stone or another tiny object, what should be its reach? What size would be required for 5ft reach? Tiny has a 0ft reach by default. Only exceptions would have a 5ft reach (and exceptions are always specifically mentioned. For Control Object, you would need at least a small sized object for a 5ft reach.
SauroGrenom 03-11-08, 02:12 PM	About Oak Body... The spell description is as follows: Oak Body Psychometabolism Level: Psion/wilder 7, psychic warrior 5 Display: Auditory Manifesting Time: 1 standard action Range: Personal Target: You Duration: 1 min./level (D) Power Points: Psion/wilder 13, psychic warrior 9 This power transforms your body into living oak, which grants you several advantages. You gain damage reduction 10/ slashing and a +5 bonus to natural armor that overlaps (does not stack with) any natural armor bonus you may already have. You are immune to ability damage, blindness, deafness, disease, drowning, poison, stunning, and all powers, spells, or attacks that affect your physiology or respiration, because you have no physiology or respiration while this power is in effect. You take only half damage from cold effects of all kinds. However, you become susceptible to all special attacks that affect wood, and you gain vulnerability to fire. You gain a +4 enhancement bonus to Strength, but you take a -2 penalty to Dexterity (to a minimum Dexterity score of 1), and your speed is reduced to half normal. You can speak but cannot drink (and thus can’t use potions) or play wind instruments. You have an armor check penalty of -4 and an arcane spell failure chance of 25%. Your unarmed attacks deal damage equal to a club sized for you (1d4 for Small characters, 1d6 for Medium characters), and you are considered armed when making unarmed attacks. When you make a full attack against an object or structure using your unarmed strike, you deal double damage. Augment: For every additional power point you spend, this power’s duration increases by 1 minute. The question is if the underlined speed reduction applies to all movement types of the character, or only the "natural" movement types of the character. For example say that a dwarf uses this power, clearly his base land speed is decreased to 10'. Does this decreased speed also effect the fly speed granted by the boots of flying he wears? I think not, since the boots of speed are not themselves part of the natural movement of the character, rather the boots of speed offer a magical form of movement which isn't reasonably effected by the transformation of the character into a block of wood. Opinions of the other elders?
TelinArtho 03-11-08, 02:21 PM	In all cases that I know of - when there is a "halving" or some other fraction of movement - it is applied after all modifiers for movement have been included (see armor reducing speed, terrain reducing speed, slow, etc). As such - I would think that a dwarf would be reduced to 10ft; a dwarf barbarian to 15ft, etc. Since it does not specify to only apply this to land movement, I see no reason why it wouldn't effect the fly speed, swim speed, climb speed, etc methods of movement.
SauroGrenom 03-11-08, 02:44 PM	In all cases that I know of - when there is a "halving" or some other fraction of movement - it is applied after all modifiers for movement have been included (see armor reducing speed, terrain reducing speed, slow, etc). As such - I would think that a dwarf would be reduced to 10ft; a dwarf barbarian to 15ft, etc. Since it does not specify to only apply this to land movement, I see no reason why it wouldn't effect the fly speed, swim speed, climb speed, etc methods of movement. I agree that it should apply to all "natural" modes of movement, but movement granted by spells for example is a bit different. Take for example a wizard wearing heavy armor. If they cast expeditious retreat, or haste, the increase in movement is +30, regardless. This magic item is similar, it grants 60' fly regardless of whether the character weighs 300 lbs or 50 lbs. The only reason that the fly spell is effected by encumberance is because it specifically states that's the case. The above oak body doesn't cause an encumbered state, so I think the penalty doesn't apply to the fly spell.
TelinArtho 03-11-08, 03:02 PM	Um - Sauro - a heavy-encumbered wizard would indeed get less than the +30ft movement while under expeditious retreat or haste. Bonuses to Speed: A barbarian has a +10 foot bonus to his speed (unless he’s wearing heavy armor). Experienced monks also have higher speed (unless they’re wearing armor of any sort). In addition, many spells and magic items can affect a character’s speed. Always apply any modifiers to a character’s speed before adjusting the character’s speed based on armor or encumbrance, and remember that multiple bonuses of the same type to a character’s speed don’t stack.
SauroGrenom 03-11-08, 03:15 PM	Um - Sauro - a heavy-encumbered wizard would indeed get less than the +30ft movement while under expeditious retreat or haste.Alright... you win. Fraid I'll have to retire Kracknol. There's just no way he can compete anymore. No matter what I do, he's always 2 ego whips away from a loss, and the only way to protect against that makes it impossible for him to close to melee... so it's an intractable problem.
Zevox 03-11-08, 03:28 PM	Alright... you win. Fraid I'll have to retire Kracknol. There's just no way he can compete anymore. No matter what I do, he's always 2 ego whips away from a loss, and the only way to protect against that makes it impossible for him to close to melee... so it's an intractable problem. You can pick up Personal Mind Blank as a 6th-level Psychic Warrior power. That would shut that power out entirely. Only problem is it'd take a few more levels to get it. Zevox
McJarvis 03-11-08, 03:39 PM	Alright... you win. Fraid I'll have to retire Kracknol. There's just no way he can compete anymore. No matter what I do, he's always 2 ego whips away from a loss, and the only way to protect against that makes it impossible for him to close to melee... so it's an intractable problem. You could also try a potion of blink as a temporary solution. 150 gp per round for 50/50 protection is alot, but it's better than biting it every time- and it might burn through pp. edit- Did I say potion? I meant wondrous-item token custom item. Blink can't be put in a potion.
SauroGrenom 03-11-08, 07:33 PM	How much does it cost (gold and time), or is it even necessary to have an intelligent cohort carry a rider in combat as a warhorse? There's this RoTG (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050222a) article that suggests it's not necessary. On the other side, is that many mounts are listed in the MM with details on how to train them regardless of their intelligence. So what should I do to give the option for Raskos to ride his cohort Yaurl into combat?
hogarth 03-11-08, 10:04 PM	You can pick up Personal Mind Blank as a 6th-level Psychic Warrior power. That would shut that power out entirely. Only problem is it'd take a few more levels to get it. Or Metamorphosis into a creature of the Plant type (like a Shambling Mound).
McJarvis 03-17-08, 01:46 PM	What happens if I give a 2-intelligence animal companion +1 int when it reaches 4hd? Or if I equip it with a headband of intellect? I can't seem to find it covered in the rules. It is *implied* that magical beasts are animals with 3 or greater int, but nothing actually says that "if an animal aquires an int higher than 2, it becomes a magical beast". Really all I want out of this is to be able to teach it more tricks, though.
mucki 03-17-08, 01:56 PM	I don't think it changes its type. All birds have wings, but that doesn't make everything with wings into a bird.
hogarth 03-17-08, 01:56 PM	What happens if I give a 2-intelligence animal companion +1 int when it reaches 4hd? Or if I equip it with a headband of intellect? I can't seem to find it covered in the rules. It is *implied* that magical beasts are animals with 3 or greater int, but nothing actually says that "if an animal aquires an int higher than 2, it becomes a magical beast". Really all I want out of this is to be able to teach it more tricks, though. I was told that an animal's Int is capped at 2, regardless of any bonuses.
dulsi 03-17-08, 02:21 PM	I was told that an animal's Int is capped at 2, regardless of any bonuses. Looks like that according to animal type in the srd. Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal).
McJarvis 03-17-08, 02:28 PM	Yeah. I guess I was looking at the animal type paired with the magical beast type. Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal). Magical beasts are similar to animals but can have Intelligence scores higher than 2. But I wasn't sure. My specific applications I have in mind are either extra int on thorell's camel or on his newly aquired light warhorse. Thought maybe it would work on the warhorse, transforming it into a magical beast. I guess the cost is about the same to have a druid NPC spellcaster cast "awaken" on it, though. [4k/2(crafting) = 2k for headband of int, vs 250*5 + 10x5x9 = 1,700gp]
TelinArtho 03-18-08, 12:06 PM	How much does it cost (gold and time), or is it even necessary to have an intelligent cohort carry a rider in combat as a warhorse? There's this RoTG (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050222a) article that suggests it's not necessary. On the other side, is that many mounts are listed in the MM with details on how to train them regardless of their intelligence. So what should I do to give the option for Raskos to ride his cohort Yaurl into combat? Hippogriff - 1000gp, Magical Beast Giant Owl - 1000gp, Magical Beast Giant Eagle - 1000gp, Magical Beast Pegasus - 1000gp, Magical Beast Griffon - 1500gp, Magical Beast Spider Eater - 3000gp, Magical Beast But not all "mount-like" creatures have a designation. Centaurs (monstrous humanoid), Nightmares (Outsiders), and Unicorns are all notable ones (and not the only ones). I don't know of a single creature that is not a magical beast (or animal) that has an entry for required training to ride in combat. I'd be inclined to say that creatures that are not listed with specific training and have an Int above 2 do not need specific training. If that option is not desired, I'd think a price around 1000gp-1500gp would be reasonable. EDIT: @McJ - awakening a creature has some issues that I noted in the tavern. I'm not sure that it is a viable solution for you.
McJarvis 03-18-08, 02:19 PM	EDIT: @McJ - awakening a creature has some issues that I noted in the tavern. I'm not sure that it is a viable solution for you. As noted in the tavarn, it is viable- unless you want to bring it up for banning or something. [or unless there is a meta-rule I'm unaware of already covering awaken]
hogarth 03-18-08, 02:34 PM	As noted in the tavarn, it is viable- unless you want to bring it up for banning or something. [or unless there is a meta-rule I'm unaware of already covering awaken] I believe Tellish_of_Ket had a wizard who would polymorph himself into an animal and then pay for a druid to cast "Awaken" on him. It's equally viable, right? :)
McJarvis 03-18-08, 02:37 PM	I believe Tellish_of_Ket had a wizard who would polymorph himself into an animal and then pay for a druid to cast "Awaken" on him. It's equally viable, right? :) I'm not so sure I would want to do that. I mean, if you rolled poorly you'd end up with 3 int- that would totally suck for a wizard, especially since it's not dispellable. edit- That is a *very* interesting hook for an adventure at tabletop though...
hogarth 03-18-08, 02:40 PM	I'm not so sure I would want to do that. I mean, if you rolled poorly you'd end up with 3 int- that would totally suck for a wizard, especially since it's not dispellable. You're right! Better make it a sorcerer instead. :) (Actually, I think the character in question might've been a druid -- back when Wild Shape was based on Polymorph.)
McJarvis 03-18-08, 02:47 PM	On a lighter[and off-topic note], I remember a discussion over at char-op about a goldfish who got a maximized-empowered awaken cast on him, and then took levels in wizard....
TelinArtho 03-18-08, 03:21 PM	Okay - here's all of the discussions I could find on the keyword "awaken" that doesn't pertain to the sleep spell or reference the awaken spell as an aside. Although, as far as I can tell, it was never actually put into the rules as a "banned spell" - Sauro's argument is pretty concise as to why it won't work: [Post 431] Author : Vathelokai Date : 11-05-05 11:04 PM I've been looking around for loopholes for a while so that I can play an animal. So far I've only found the celestial/fiendish templates and the awaken spell. I need an elder to weigh in on this; could I play a character (say a monkey or a hawk) that had been awakened. Awaken adds 2 hd, so an awakened hawk would be ECL 3. NPC spellcasting of awaken would cost 1700 gp and 2 credits. The creature gains the ability to speak languages, and has an int score above 2. This seems viable to me. The only problem I see is that the int. and chr. are rolled randomly. This messes with the point buy system a bit. One could just ignore awakens 3d6 int. and use the 36 point buy system normaly. Or the character could be built using a 30 point buy then take the median value of the awaken roll rounded down, or possibly linking the rolls in the past expenditures (next to the NPC spell casting). Using the minimum values from awaken, then the point buy system would also be workable. [Post 438] Author : Caterane Date : 11-06-05 09:36 AM Awaken: First of all, you may NOT add a template to a non ECL creature. No no no. There are so many abuses for that because anything templated solely based on CR alone is not going to be a balanced ally except for the few basic mounts perhaps and some other exceptions. If you awaken an animal, it becomes a character. Try handle animal on your dad, then you get the point. So those with normal relationship to their fathers can now see that it is not an animal companion anymore but requires something other than handle animal, and since it has no ECL, there's no way you can keep hold on the awakened animal. We can perhaps agree on something if your heart is set on it but if I smell an abuse, you can be sure that it will be gone quicker than you can say "I repent". And Vath ...Awaken does not work on magical beasts, like familiars are. [Post 441] Author : Vathelokai Date : 11-06-05 06:16 PM Book5 reads me right; I'm considering playing a PC that is an animal, not having an ally that is awakened. The whole thing started when there was that debate about the stable of horses for all occasions. I started to wonder exactly how dangerous some of the horse breeds would be. I really wanted to make a phrenic light warhorse with speed of thought and psionic charge, but the phrenic template adds intellegence only to a creature that is already above 2 intelligence, making it unviable as a character. Only celestial/fiendish actually boost a creature to three from 2 (even half celestial dosn't do it). But, as you say, templating the non ECL is banned in COCO, so such a strategy is out. Which leaves me with an awakend warhorse PC. But rolling dice outside of the structured environs of the arena or quest is also banned in COCO. The concept I propose is to make an awakened light warhorse (ECL 5) to see how well an elite creature of that type would fare in the arena. If it's too 'out there' of an idea, then no worries. I understand the importance of balance in the COCO. [Post 1765] Author : DSugui Date : 09-19-06 03:01 PM Thread Title : Re: Core Coliseum Tavern (VI) I have some doubts on how the spell Awaken would work here in the CoCo. Maybe it would be better to ask directly in the Ask an Elder thread, but I'd like to hear everyone's opinion. You awaken a tree or animal to humanlike sentience. To succeed, you must make a Will save (DC 10 + the animal’s current HD, or the HD the tree will have once awakened). First question: how is this Will check resolved? An awakened animal gets 3d6 Intelligence, +1d3 Charisma, and +2 HD. How is this Intelligence score and the increase in the Charisma score rolled? Do the extra HD grant the usual benefits, as feats, ability score increase and skill points? Its type becomes magical beast (augmented animal).Features A magical beast has the following features. 10-sided Hit Dice. Base attack bonus equal to total Hit Dice (as fighter). Good Fortitude and Reflex saves. Skill points equal to (2 + Int modifier, minimum 1) per Hit Die, with quadruple skill points for the first Hit Die. Traits A magical beast possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry). Darkvision out to 60 feet and low-light vision. Proficient with its natural weapons only. Proficient with no armor. Magical beasts eat, sleep, and breathe. Does the animal HD increase to d10? Does it attack bonus increase to equal to total HD? Does it gain Darkvision? XP Cost 250 XP.Experience Loss: Any loss in experience points other than crafting also results in the loss of 5 gold pieces per 1 xp. Examples would be spells with XP costs or the death of a familiar on a quest or campaignSo casting this spell also costs 1250gp? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1766] Author : MindWandererB Date : 09-19-06 05:10 PM Thread Title : Re: Core Coliseum Tavern (VI) I'm surprised that Awaken isn't on the banned list along with other "create-a-person" spells like Reincarnate and PaO. [Post 697] Author : SauroGrenom Date : 09-20-06 04:46 PM Thread Title : Awaken The Awaken spell will cost you both xp and gp to cast. Also you need to keep in mind that Awaken will make an animal not an animal ally anymore since the INT is greater than 2. So your Handle Animal skill will not allow you to have an awakened animal as an ally. Infact since awakened animals are not on the list of allies for diplomacy, you cannot have them as diplomacy allies either. Now to your questions: The extra HD are normal HD and treated as such for all purposes. The stats should be treated like normal CoCo random dice rolls on a character sheet... the average value is given. Since it is a magical beast with the augmented animal subtype, previous HD are not recreated as magical beast HD (simular to a familiar). About the bonus +2HD, it's not clear. They may or may not be magical beast HD. In any case the fact that the awakened creature has an INT of 10 precludes it from being an ally using handle animal or diplomacy skills. Also since it has no LA, it cannot be a playable race. So these creatures simply cannot come into play in any reasonable manner except as an opponent on a quest or campaign. [Post 1588] Author : Macbrea Date : 12-31-06 10:23 AM Thread Title : Re: Core Coliseum Tavern (VII) Well, animal companions may have more tricks then 6. But that would require you be a druid, ranger or some varient class that gets companion. The rule that prevents animals from having higher then 3 int is Type: Animal. It is a hard cap for them to have 2 int. Awaken which is banned would allowed you to turn an animal into a magic beast with an Int 2. But remember creatures with an Int above 2 don't learn tricks at all. They are intelligent and may do complex thoughts. [Post 918] Author : Callix Date : 07-27-07 06:21 AM Thread Title : Re: Core Coliseum Tavern (X) Does anyone know if we support awakened animal PCs? If so, is there some sort of guide to LA? Vague ideas for a second PC abound... [Post 921] Author : Macbrea Date : 07-27-07 08:33 AM Thread Title : Re: Core Coliseum Tavern (X) Awaken is in the banned spells of CoCo for exactly that same reason. Hmm, there was discussion about banning the spell I cannot find were we did eventually do it. It has to do with the problem that your stats are rolled. We don't do that at any time in CoCo. [Post 924] Author : MindWandererB Date : 07-27-07 01:04 PM Thread Title : Re: Core Coliseum Tavern (X) Well, technically PC stats are "rolled" as well, but we follow the common practice of substituting that with point buy. The reason why there's no way of implementing awakened animals is that there's no LA for them. Folks have even bugged WotC to publish them, but their response was to use the LAs in Savage Species for anthropomorphics instead, which was a sad excuse for an answer (that's one of the most broken templates ever!). If they ever give us those LAs, the same way they gave us undead LAs in Libris Mortis, I'd be more than happy to allow them.
McJarvis 03-18-08, 03:26 PM	Sauro didn't address gold-aquired allies. [at least I don't spot that part if he did] As stated in the tavarn- I can see lots of abuse with the spell even on only gold-allies. I think the spell should just be banned outright instead of addressing why it doesn't work already with every instance of animal/plant allies. [no matter how cool I think it would be to have an intelligent warhorse...]
TelinArtho 03-18-08, 03:35 PM	I suppose he didn't. At the same time, Cat's sentiment ("awakened animals are characters") is something I very much agree with. Anyway - if you want this - I guess we just need a little discussion on how it would affect the CR/ECL (if at all) and then vote on it. I'm not in favor of it - but I'm not the only one around here. I still think this discussion should be in the council - as this matters on the rules of the CoCo not on how the rules of D&D are interpreted by the CoCo - but meh. For my part, with the recent push that allies are overpowered (hence the removal of diplomacy allies, advanced allies and putting ECL restrictions on animal allies), I have a hard time agreeing to allow something that would make an animal more powerful without accounting for said power in the creature's CR/ECL. Giving an animal awaken is not the same as giving it a set of gloves of strength +2 - even if the gloves might cost more, the awaken is providing benefits that cannot be removed (duration: Instantaneous - cannot be dispelled)
McJarvis 03-18-08, 03:37 PM	Giving an animal awaken is not the same as giving it a set of gloves of strength +2 - even if the gloves might cost more, the awaken is providing benefits that cannot be removed (duration: Instantaneous - cannot be dispelled) Right- my example was using wish to provide a +X insight bonus to various stats. Instantanious duration = non dispellable. In CoCo *most* instantanious spells are banned for whatever reason. I think that might be something else we want to consider. Moving to council...
whitebaron 03-20-08, 10:27 AM	when running this fight, crazy argued that the bag of tricks states that a dying animal does not go away until it is completely dead (-10). i wonder. since due to our court-decision it replicates the summon nature's ally spell, do monsters from the SNA/SM spells also stay on the map until completely slain? so a slain monstrous spider would stay, its web would stay, it's poison or whatever? this would be the direct implication from this. i remember some part of the rules which stated that summoned monsters (and therefor, their effects) go away if they are disabled, too, but i just can't find them. i can't even find a part that their corpses go away before the summon spell ends. :confused: -- second question: Since a bag of tricks replicates SNA, would a character with augment summoning get an augmented animal out of a bag of tricks? -i'd say yes, since this would be the more consistent answer, and the faq backs me up on that: Does Augment Summoning (PH 89) apply to creatures I summon with a magic item, such as a wand? Yes, as long as the magic item is specifically using a summon spell.
hogarth 03-20-08, 10:59 AM	Since a bag of tricks replicates SNA, would a character with augment summoning get an augmented animal out of a bag of tricks? -i'd say yes, since this would be the more consistent answer, and the faq backs me up on that: Does Augment Summoning (PH 89) apply to creatures I summon with a magic item, such as a wand? Yes, as long as the magic item is specifically using a summon spell. The bag of tricks is not "specificially using a summon spell", though. For instance, there's no Summon Nature's Ally N spell that summons a heavy warhorse (AFAIK).
whitebaron 03-20-08, 11:04 AM	The bag of tricks is not "specificially using a summon spell", though. For instance, there's no Summon Nature's Ally N spell that summons a heavy warhorse (AFAIK). well, i believe you can't nerf things on both sides of the same argumentation, can you? if the warhorse is not summoned, why is it then hedged out by protection from evil? also, i believe that since it was clarified that the monsters pulled out of the BoT are summoned, the same rules should apply for all creatures summoned. (in regards to staying on the map disabled, effects remaining until they are slain or ordered back, or the duraction expires) or would you propose calling the warhorse non-summoned, since it originates from a bag of tricks, but could not be called by its driving spell, SNA V?
hogarth 03-20-08, 11:12 AM	well, i believe you can't nerf things on both sides of the same argumentation, can you? if the warhorse is not summoned, why is it then hedged out by protection from evil? also, i believe that since it was clarified that the monsters pulled out of the BoT are summoned, the same rules should apply for all creatures summoned. (in regards to staying on the map disabled, effects remaining until they are slain or ordered back, or the duraction expires) or would you propose calling the warhorse non-summoned, since it originates from a bag of tricks, but could not be called by its driving spell, SNA V? All I'm saying is that the Bag of Tricks doesn't specifically say the bag is casting Summon Nature's Ally; the duration is wrong and the monster list doesn't quite match, for one thing. The FAQ ruling requires that a summon spell is specifically used (the author's word, not mine). Whether the Bag of Tricks is a Conjuration (Summoning) or a Conjuration (Creation) effect is a different question. The item description just says "Conjuration"; you could probably argue it either way. I guess the Elders decided on Summoning, so Protection from Evil works. I don't have a personal opinion on this issue, but the Augment Summoning bit seems clear to me (and the Protection from Evil bit seems fuzzy).
TelinArtho 03-20-08, 11:16 AM	Frankly - I would prefer to ignore that statement from the FAQ - the last thing you want to see is Kraegin whipping out a Staff with Summon Monster VII and spamming it all day long... That said - this is much bigger than just the Bags of Tricks - the ones that concern me are the elemental gems, the elemental summoning items (granted they are outside of the price range of most people) and the Horn of Valhalla (hmm 1d4+1 summons with the augmentation...). It is certainly arguable that the bag of tricks and the horn of valhalla are not using a specific summons spell, but it seems a double-edged sword given that they are hedged out by PfE and the like.
whitebaron 03-20-08, 11:22 AM	so, you are tending towards the option of banning the FAQ issue altogether, but what about my other question? i wonder. since due to our court-decision it replicates the summon nature's ally spell, do monsters from the SNA/SM spells also stay on the map until completely slain? so a slain monstrous spider would stay, its web would stay, it's poison or whatever? this would be the direct implication from this. i remember some part of the rules which stated that summoned monsters (and therefor, their effects) go away if they are disabled, too, but i just can't find them. i can't even find a part that their corpses go away before the summon spell ends.
TelinArtho 03-20-08, 11:45 AM	I don't see why summoned monsters' effects would go away once they disappear. The poison of the summoned spider would still be coursing through your body. Of course, if there is a specific pointer to this that I am unaware, please let me know. Summoning: A summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this. A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower. It is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can’t be summoned again. When the spell that summoned a creature ends and the creature disappears, all the spells it has cast expire. A summoned creature cannot use any innate summoning abilities it may have, and it refuses to cast any spells that would cost it XP, or to use any spell-like abilities that would cost XP if they were spells. All I see is if they cast a spell - that is removed. Otherwise, I don't see anything about poison or webs or the like.
lonewolf 03-22-08, 10:54 AM	Does Freedom of Movement let you ignore spells like Antilife Shell? Salratol(and I, I guess) argue that Freedom of Movement is written generally enough to include immunity to spells like Antilife Shell. Erithmu argues in the Tavern that "hedging out" is not the same as "impede movement".
McJarvis 03-22-08, 10:58 AM	You have to look at the subtle nature of the examples given. All of them directly impede the movement of the character by either removing their ability to move entirely or slow them down. Protection from evil / magic circle of protection from evil / antilife shell / resilient sphere / wall of force / wall of stone / hold portal / etc, etc, etc do not do these things- and I would say Freedom of Movement should not affect these types of spells.
templer10 03-22-08, 11:35 AM	You have to look at the subtle nature of the examples given. All of them directly impede the movement of the character by either removing their ability to move entirely or slow them down. Protection from evil / magic circle of protection from evil / antilife shell / resilient sphere / wall of force / wall of stone / hold portal / etc, etc, etc do not do these things- and I would say Freedom of Movement should not affect these types of spells. Same opinion here. Also note that the Text on antilife shell reads - "You bring into being a mobile, hemispherical energy field that prevents the entrance of most types of living creatures". Compare this to a Prismatic sphere - it also creates an energy field that prevents you from passing through it (or wall of force, prismatic wall etc) - if lonewolf is right, it meanst that with freedom of movement you can pass through it - which obviously isnt meant to happen.
Erithmu 03-22-08, 11:55 AM	Compare this to a Prismatic sphere - it also creates an energy field that prevents you from passing through it (or wall of force, prismatic wall etc) - if lonewolf is right, it meanst that with freedom of movement you can pass through it - which obviously isnt meant to happen.Point of Clarification: you CAN pass through a prismatic sphere ... the question is why would you? or do you come out on the other side?
lonewolf 03-22-08, 12:00 PM	Point of Clarification: you CAN pass through a prismatic sphere ... the question is why would you? Maybe your suicidal? :rolleyes:
SauroGrenom 03-22-08, 12:07 PM	I'm with Rith on this one. Freedom of Movement releases you from limitations on movement in general (like slow). It doesn't allow a character to "move" through anything or with disregard for any magical or natural barrier's to movement. I see a distinction between a barrier to movement (whether natural or magical) as compared to inhibitors of movement (like slow or swamps) or prohibitions against movement (like being grappled or held). Freedom of Movement allows you to ignore prohibitions against movement and inhibitions of movement, but it doesn't allow you to ignore barriers. Anti-life shield would be a barrier in my opinion.
whitebaron 03-22-08, 12:15 PM	two points here: 1) FoM: i believe that the wording is written as to protect you from any effect that physically prevents movement. since antilife shell is an energy field that prevents entrance, i believe FoM should work. about the PfE things that where brought up, too: since FoM only prevents you from spells that impede movement, it would work like this: a) a summon could enter a Magic Circle, but it could still not attack unless it the caster failed his CL-check against the creatures SR. b) since PfE does not prevent your movement, no harm done - It[the summon] still can not attack, but can move whereever it wants. :) 2) Since it was ruled that bag of tricks animals are summons - does this apply to the bag of tricks? A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower
MindWandererB 03-22-08, 01:51 PM	There was a recent Ask Wizards about FoM, with which I personally disagree, but there it is: Q: Does the freedom of movement spell protect a character from being stunned? The argument is that "stun" is a condition that hinders movement. A: Freedom of movement is one of those tricky spells that has a lot of open-ended wording that might lead to confusion. The spell becomes much more manageable if you just look at it as something that ignores any physical impediment to movement or actions. If you assign this restriction, then it makes sense that freedom of movement works against solid fog, slow, and web; each of these spells puts something in the way of the creature that stops them from moving/acting, or specifically targets the creature’s physical movement. With this interpretation, spells and effects like hold person that apply a mental impediment to taking any action would not be bypassed by freedom of movement. These are mental effects and freedom of movement only helps you bypass physical effects (such as solid fog) or effects that specifically impede just your movement, not spells that stop you from taking any action, as hold person does. In the same vein, freedom of movement would not work on someone who had been turned to stone by a medusa’s gaze or by a flesh to stone spell. To answer the original question, being stunned is one of those mental effects and would normally deny a creature the ability to act at all. Since it’s not specifically focused on just impeding movement, and it is a mental, not physical impediment, freedom of movement would not help a stun creature to act or move normally. This interpretation of freedom of movement may make it easier to adjudicate the effects of the spell, but it is also more restrictive. As always, it will ultimately be up to the Dungeon Master to make the best call as he sees fit for his campaign and play session.Which sort of helps, but only a little. Since the FAQ is going in the direction of RAI rather than RAW (an exception, for Andy Collins), we should probably do the same. I propose the following, in the same spirit. FoM works against spells and effects that: 1) Create a physical barrier or obstacle that hampers movement (web, solid fog, entangle) but does not block it altogether (walls, antilife shell, protection from evil), or 2) Affect a creature directly and prevent or hinder movement in a physical manner (slow, ghoul touch) but not in a mental one (stunning, hold person). I personally dislike that definition of stunning (plenty of effects cause stunning but aren't mind-affecting), and FoM really ought to work against Hold Person IMO, but I'd rather go with the above than against the FAQ.
lonewolf 03-22-08, 01:52 PM	The difference between walking through a Solid Fog or a Wall of Thorns unhindered and walking through a wall of Stone isnt as big as you make it look. Both Solid Fog and Wall of Thorns are also barriers.
mucki 03-22-08, 01:55 PM	two points here: 1) FoM: i believe that the wording is written as to protect you from any effect that physically prevents movement. since antilife shell is an energy field that prevents entrance, i believe FoM should work. If you go by that logic, FoM would let you walk through walls ... I don't think FoM should let you walk through barriers (physical or otherwise).
Salrantol 03-22-08, 02:54 PM	Re: freedom of movement It's odd that hold person would be the counterexample they give, since freedom of movement explicitly ignores paralysis, and all hold person does is inflict paralysis.
CrazyArtificer 03-23-08, 05:02 AM	On the Bag of Tricks issue: The main reason why I argued that Bag of Tricks animal don't disappear when below zero is the underlined line in the magic item wording This small sack appears normal and empty. However, anyone reaching into the bag feels a small, fuzzy ball. If the ball is removed and tossed up to 20 feet away, it turns into an animal. The animal serves the character who drew it from the bag for 10 minutes (or until slain or ordered back into the bag), at which point it disappears. It can follow any of the commands described in the Handle Animal skill. Each of the three kinds of a bag of tricks produces a different set of animals. Use the following tables to determine what animals can be drawn out of each. I always believed that one character is slain just when he reach -10, so that's why the animal should stay. On the Freedom of Movement issue: I agree with MindWandererB proposed ruling and considerations.
whitebaron 03-23-08, 11:16 AM	well... i hate to be like that, but: either the bag of tricks animals are summons (with all ups and downs) or they are not. every thing else would be a very inconsistent ruling.
CrazyArtificer 03-23-08, 12:06 PM	If the item has that wording RAW should override any other consideration.. or not?
Stormwind 03-23-08, 12:27 PM	well... i hate to be like that, but: either the bag of tricks animals are summons (with all ups and downs) or they are not. every thing else would be a very inconsistent ruling. Well if you consider the entire AD&D rules they are really just a few very basic rules and then a whole heap of exceptions to the basic rules (for example: a character does a certain amount of damage with a greatsword, but if they wield it with two hands then they do more damage, and if they have the psionic weapon feat then they do more damage again, and if it is a magic weapon then they do even more damage and ...) Thus I would simply see the specific text of the bag of tricks as yet another exception ... just my 2c worth
Rauul 03-23-08, 02:51 PM	well... i hate to be like that, but: either the bag of tricks animals are summons (with all ups and downs) or they are not. every thing else would be a very inconsistent ruling. I would say that Slain = 0 hps (just like the Summoned Creatures are)
lonewolf 03-23-08, 04:51 PM	I would say that Slain = 0 hps (just like the Summoned Creatures are) I agree
whitebaron 03-23-08, 05:02 PM	If the item has that wording RAW should override any other consideration.. or not? the problem with raw in that case is that it nowhere defines when a summoned creature is in fact, "slain". And if you look it up on summoning, summons return to their native plane once they hit 0 hit points or are otherwise killed. the wording there is suboptimal, too. i'd believe they did it like this so you cannot abuse it with flesh to stone, slay living or similar killing spells.
hogarth 03-23-08, 06:46 PM	I would say that Slain = 0 hps (just like the Summoned Creatures are) I'd make an exception for a boar or another creature with a Ferocity/Diehard ability (but that's just me).
MindWandererB 03-23-08, 09:57 PM	I'd make an exception for a boar or another creature with a Ferocity/Diehard ability (but that's just me). That was mentioned in the FAQ: a summoned boar that reaches 0 HP goes away, even though it doesn't go down.
SauroGrenom 03-25-08, 11:44 AM	I need an answer for this. How much does it cost (gold and time), or is it even necessary to have an intelligent cohort carry a rider in combat as a warhorse? There's this RoTG (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050222a) article that suggests it's not necessary. On the other side, is that many mounts are listed in the MM with details on how to train them regardless of their intelligence. So what should I do to give the option for Raskos to ride his cohort Yaurl into combat?
TelinArtho 03-25-08, 12:31 PM	Hippogriff - 1000gp, Magical Beast Giant Owl - 1000gp, Magical Beast Giant Eagle - 1000gp, Magical Beast Pegasus - 1000gp, Magical Beast Griffon - 1500gp, Magical Beast Spider Eater - 3000gp, Magical Beast But not all "mount-like" creatures have a designation. Centaurs (monstrous humanoid), Nightmares (Outsiders), and Unicorns are all notable ones (and not the only ones). I don't know of a single creature that is not a magical beast (or animal) that has an entry for required training to ride in combat. I'd be inclined to say that creatures that are not listed with specific training and have an Int above 2 do not need specific training. If that option is not desired, I'd think a price around 1000gp-1500gp would be reasonable. EDIT: @McJ - awakening a creature has some issues that I noted in the tavern. I'm not sure that it is a viable solution for you. I responded to the question already - but it would be good to see some further response to it.
SauroGrenom 03-25-08, 02:52 PM	I responded to the question already - but it would be good to see some further response to it. Thanks for pointing that out. I must have skimmed over that post when I was trying to find the answer. I precisely agree with your take on the issue, but I think the responsible thing for me to do is abstain from any vote due to conflict of interest. I'd love to second the motion that other elders weigh in on the issue.
MindWandererB 03-25-08, 03:06 PM	Telin: you missed one critical example, the Howler. Although intelligent, a howler requires training before it can bear a rider in combat. To be trained, a howler must have a friendly attitude toward the trainer (this can be achieved through a successful Diplomacy check). Training a friendly howler requires six weeks of work and a DC 25 Handle Animal check. Riding a howler requires an exotic saddle. A howler can fight while carrying a rider, but the rider cannot also attack unless he or she succeeds on a Ride check.No gp cost there, but definitely training. And it's an outsider. As much as I dislike the idea that intelligent mounts need training at all, the fact that nearly all the ones described as mounts (exception: the dragonne) mention training means that they all should, for the sake of consistency. Since the median and mode price seem to be 1000 gp, I'd go with that.
SauroGrenom 03-25-08, 05:45 PM	Telin: you missed one critical example, the Howler. No gp cost there, but definitely training. And it's an outsider. As much as I dislike the idea that intelligent mounts need training at all, the fact that nearly all the ones described as mounts (exception: the dragonne) mention training means that they all should, for the sake of consistency. Since the median and mode price seem to be 1000 gp, I'd go with that. OK, so that's one vote for training in all cases, and one vote for training only when specifically mentioned. MWB you'll need to also clarify how training like this can be purchased. Characters who are using full activities can perform this training in 3 weeks. Is the same time required to do this for a hired trainer and cohort, or can such training be purchased like a weapon (ie at the end of the 3FC immediately gaining the benefit)?
MindWandererB 03-25-08, 09:17 PM	OK, so that's one vote for training in all cases, and one vote for training only when specifically mentioned. MWB you'll need to also clarify how training like this can be purchased. Characters who are using full activities can perform this training in 3 weeks. Is the same time required to do this for a hired trainer and cohort, or can such training be purchased like a weapon (ie at the end of the 3FC immediately gaining the benefit)? That's a long-standing issue with our training rules, not with this issue in particular. Every example is a DC 25 Handle Animal check over 6 weeks, so they should all be the same (and I can't guess why they're priced differently).
MindWandererB 03-31-08, 05:16 PM	I'd like a quick review of one of our old rulings: Q: Does the Combat Expertise>Improved Trip>Knockdown feat chain allow you to perform an attack>trip>attack combo? A: No. As Knockdown provides a free trip after a standard action, you do not have a standard action to give up at that point to perform the trip action required to receive the free attack that Improved Trip provides.Which I never quite understood anyway, but there's an FAQ item that came out subsequently: If I use Mighty Throw (Tome of Battle, page 73) or another maneuver that allows me to trip a foe, does the Improved Trip feat grant me an extra attack against that opponent? Yes. The Improved Trip feat applies any time you trip a foe in melee combat, even if that trip comes from a special power.Seems to me that Knock-Down would qualify as a special power for this purpose.
TelinArtho 03-31-08, 05:22 PM	Unless there's vast opposition then - I'll update it soon (not today). Interesting that I have something in line to pick up the knockdown feat even without that - but it makes it better for him all the same...
McJarvis 03-31-08, 05:22 PM	Which I never quite understood anyway. The logic was as follows. Once you make a trip, improved trip lets you make a regular attack as if you didn't make a trip attack. Normally these words don't mean much, since you almost always have the option to both regular attack and trip. However, knockdown is a bit different. 1) You make a normal attack & do more than 10 damage. 2) You get a free trip attack. You may not do anything but a trip attack at this step. 3) You make your trip attack. Now improved trip will give you a regular attack as if you didn't make a trip attack- but knockdown doesn't let you make a "regular" attack. So improved trip short-circuits. [since you can't "retrip" the target, and you couldn't have made a regular attack "if you didn't make your trip attack"] I don't really care how it's ruled. Melee-monsters are already powerful at lower levels, and I don't see how giving them more tools like this will make them too powerful at upper-levels. [especially considering tripping flyers is impossible to my knowledge- there is no such thing as "prone" in the air, per RotG]
whitebaron 03-31-08, 05:27 PM	well, i've got a nice counter example handy: take the dire wolf. it has trip. add improved trip, and you get a possible infinite damage combo-loop like in magic. bite, trip, followup bite, trip and so on. tripping actually never states you need to trip someone who is standing, which is kinda strange if you ask me. but same combo could be applied for knockdown. add in multiple attacks for even more fun. :) edit: the above part was in reply to mwb, not mcjarvis. @mcj: i believe the wording to be another example of bad language: all they wanted to say was that you use the same BAB/modifier, if it was from an iterative attack. also, note, that knockdown lacks that language => at what modifier is the knocked down attack? since it does say nothing about this, one could even argue that it should be at full BAB.
McJarvis 03-31-08, 05:31 PM	well, i've got a nice counter example handy: take the dire wolf. it has trip. add improved trip, and you get a possible infinite damage combo-loop like in magic. bite, trip, followup bite, trip and so on. tripping actually never states you need to trip someone who is standing, which is kinda strange if you ask me. but same combo could be applied for knockdown. add in multiple attacks for even more fun. :) edit: this was in reply to mwb, not mcjarvis. imp trip requires int 13, but you are correct that there is an infinite loop with knockdown.
TelinArtho 03-31-08, 05:36 PM	@mcJ - you can trip winged flyers with less than good maneuverability - it is called a "stall" and it forces them to fall because they are unable to keep the required forward movement for one round. @whitebaron - you can't attempt a trip against a prone opponent. It may not be specifically stated in the SRD that I can find right now - but any attempt for an infinite loop like that is just going to be smacked down.
whitebaron 03-31-08, 05:42 PM	@whitebaron - you can't attempt a trip against a prone opponent. It may not be specifically stated in the SRD that I can find right now - but any attempt for an infinite loop like that is just going to be smacked down. well, there are many examples of things not explicitly stated in the srd, and on most occasions coco goes for the "if its not written in the srd, it does not exist" line. there are lots of other examples like "what happens if you go prone into a grapple" - can you stand up? "what happens if you flurry in a grapple" - this was ruled already, but is nowhere stated like we use it. so please don't tell me what is going to be smacked down, try to look at the rules. - i'm not at all in favor of infinite loops, no matter the game.
McJarvis 03-31-08, 05:44 PM	so please don't tell me what is going to be smacked down, try to look at the rules. - i'm not at all in favor of infinite loops, no matter the game. I believe the point was just that if there is an abuse that leads to an infinite loop, it'll get dealt with[not a personal attack or anything]. The immediate concern is whether the FAQ invalidates our ruling. WB is correct that this is an issue, though. If we do repeal this decision, we might as well replace it with a "you can't trip a prone opponent" rule.
MindWandererB 03-31-08, 05:45 PM	The FAQ effectively does say that you can't trip a prone creature--creatures like snakes and oozes can't be tripped because they aren't using legs (or wings) for locomotion. Neither is a prone creature. Considering that Improved Trip is a prereq for Knock-Down, it's impossible to believe the "combo" wasn't considered by WotC. So it's certainly not infinite. The FAQ item throws this into doubt in my mind, because Tome of Battle powers aren't trip attacks. They're resolved in some ways like trip attacks, but they are not in themselves trip attacks.
McJarvis 03-31-08, 05:50 PM	The FAQ item throws this into doubt in my mind, because Tome of Battle powers aren't trip attacks. They're resolved in some ways like trip attacks, but they are not in themselves trip attacks. As I said- that's not really the issue. Knockdown is a trip attack. The issue is you couldn't make a normal attack in place of that trip attack, as knockdown is worded.
SauroGrenom 03-31-08, 06:17 PM	I would totally get behind something along the way of "you cannot trip something/someone which is prone".
whitebaron 03-31-08, 06:23 PM	I would totally get behind something along the way of "you cannot trip something/someone which is prone". as mwb pointed this out already, this is already covered in the srd. you need limbs to get tripped, and cannot be further tripped when prone.
lonewolf 03-31-08, 06:31 PM	2 new issues: 1) Can a character using normal or magical darkness use Hide in Plain sight against Devils who can see in normal or magical darkness? Hide in Plain Sight (Su): A shadowdancer can use the Hide skill even while being observed. As long as she is within 10 feet of some sort of shadow, a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind. She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow. Assuming for a moment that Darkness = shadow, I argue that Hide in plain sight only requires a shadow to be there, not that it has to impose any penalty to the viewer. Otherwise a shadowdancer wouldnt be able to hide in normal darkness from an enemy with darkvision. 2) Can a character run around, hoping to find an invisible or hiding enemy by bumping into him? This issue has seen much discussion in this weeks FotW thread ans I said everything I want to say there.
MindWandererB 03-31-08, 06:33 PM	As I said- that's not really the issue. Knockdown is a trip attack. The issue is you couldn't make a normal attack in place of that trip attack, as knockdown is worded. But the same is true for the ToB powers.
lonewolf 03-31-08, 06:46 PM	One more time... Overrun doesn't apply at all, because overrun is a type of action declared by the character performing it. Telin's characters must attempt an overrun in order for anything in the overrun description to matter in the way that action is resolved. In this case Telin's characters are simply using move actions of the standard type, and those are not overrun actions at all. Your deciding that treating those move actions like an overrun action is beneficial to your character has no bearing on the matter. Only Telin can decide if his characters are performing an overrun, and there's no good reason for him to do that, so those overrun rules and contingencies don't apply. What youre saying here is like: "I want to strike the enemy with my sword but I dont want it to be an attack because that would break my invisibilty." Of course is Torrent trying an Overrun. There are rules covering the "bumping into an enemy" issue and those are the overrun rules. If a character wants to move around trying to find an invisible enemy there are ALSO rules for this and they are called groping an enemy(McJarvis provided a quote in FotW) Refusing to call an action what it is because you dont like the rules that exist for this situation isnt the right way to handle this. Also there is no way that an ingame character would be able to notice such a metagame concept as not beeing able to enter a square because the rules dont allow it.
SauroGrenom 03-31-08, 06:46 PM	For the two questions lonewolf brings: 1) Using the hide skill requires three things. First you need to take an action to hide, second you cannot hide while you are being observed and third you need to have cover or concealment to hide. The HiPS ability absolves the shadowdancer from the second requirement. However it doesn't in any way change the first and third requirements. You still need to take an action, and you need to have cover or concealment. For normal situations, the nearby shadow serves as the concealment. In abnormal situations where shadows don't grant concealment against a foe, then the third requirement is not met, and characters cannot hide w/o another kind of cover or concealment. 2) Generally you cannot occupy a square also occupied by an opponent. The notable exceptions are: first if the opponent is more than 3 size differences than you, second if you are performing an overrun, third if you are tumbling through their square and lastly if you are grappling. The crux of lonewolf's argument appears to be that if you inadvertently bumble into the square occupied by an invisible foe, that's an overrun and all overrun rules apply. My argument is that an invisible opponent cannot upgrade your movement to an overrun for the benefit of the invisible character. Only the moving character can decide if his own action is an overrun (generally a standard action), and the overrun rules don't apply unless an overrun is declared by the moving character.
SauroGrenom 03-31-08, 06:55 PM	From the SRD: Section of Combat you find a table of actions... Check there to find Standard Actions which lists the Overrun as a standard action which doesn't provoke an AoO. Also note that movement is in a different place... ie the move actions section. Now check the section on Special Attacks you find a list of standard actions which are options. This includes grapple, sunder and Overrun. The overrun section begins as follows: OVERRUN You can attempt an overrun as a standard action taken during your move. (In general, you cannot take a standard action during a move; this is an exception.) With an overrun, you attempt to plow past or over your opponent (and move through his square) as you move. You can only overrun an opponent who is one size category larger than you, the same size, or smaller. You can make only one overrun attempt per round. OK... So that means that an overrun is an attempt to plow past or over an opponent. What the searching character is trying to do does not involve an attempt to plow past or through a hidden character. The opposite of that is what's intended. The intended action is to move into each square in search of a square where he is not allowed to stop. Fundamentally, the invisible character doesn't get to decide if the moving character intents to stop in his square, or move on through. The intent is determined by the moving character.
lonewolf 03-31-08, 06:58 PM	For the two questions lonewolf brings: 1) Using the hide skill requires three things. First you need to take an action to hide, second you cannot hide while you are being observed and third you need to have cover or concealment to hide. Wrong. Hiding Doesnt take an Action except when sniping. The HiPS ability absolves the shadowdancer from the second requirement. However it doesn't in any way change the first and third requirements. Hide in Plain Sight (Su): A shadowdancer can use the Hide skill even while being observed. As long as she is within 10 feet of some sort of shadow, a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind. She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow. A shadowdancer doesnt need cover or concealment as long as he is near a shadow. It doesnt mention anywhere that this shadow has to provide concealment. It doesnt even have to be between the enemy and the shadowdancer. You still need to take an action, and you need to have cover or concealment. No you dont. For normal situations, the nearby shadow serves as the concealment. A nearby shadow doesnt provide concealment. However as noted above, a shadowdancer doesnt need concealment to hide. In abnormal situations where shadows don't grant concealment against a foe, then the third requirement is not met, and characters cannot hide w/o another kind of cover or concealment. Since all the arguments are wrong, the conclusion is also wrong.
McJarvis 03-31-08, 06:59 PM	Fundamentally, the invisible character doesn't get to decide if the moving character intents to stop in his square, or move on through. The intent is determined by the moving character. I think you lost me in all of this. The moving character either intends to move into a square or he doesn't. He can't say "I only intend to move into this square if it currently holds no invisible creatures". The character either wants to move in or he doesn't.
whitebaron 03-31-08, 07:07 PM	re shadows+HiPS: It's a supernatural ability, and therefor does not need to make sense. still, we have another house rule in coco, which tells that you are autospotted if there is direct line of sight. so i'd say - yes, you can use hips against devils or other creatures that ignore shadows, BUT: if you don't have cover they auto-spot you as well. (mind that this is just due to the coco house rule) i believe the question is not whether a shadowdancer can actually hide before devils (he can, it's su, and has nothing to do with the actual shadows), but whether direct line of sight should negate hips in the arena. and this is where i believe the answer should be yes as well. everything else would be inconsistent to any other hiding rules coco currently uses. but, this leaves another major problem: many of the currently hips-using characters rely on exactly that, and it is the reason behind hips even existing. coco house rule vs. hips intention. i'd add hips to this houserule, actually, since i like not having to roll spot checks in the arena with bright light. ---- re searching invisible creatures: we all know, from tabletop, that you can let others pass through your square. this is used frequently within parties, but you can also allow your opponent to go through. while this is not the most frequent application, it is the one that should be used here. it is true, that overrun uses that kind of statement, too. but this is more of a clarification, than a rule that is only to be used when you really try to overrun. You can always move through a square occupied by someone who lets you by @sauro:a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind - so your statement about the shadowdancer needs rethinking. @lonewolf: hiding usually needs movement - it is either part of a movement or an explicit action. the question behind all that is another thing - is a 5ft step enough? i believe so.
lonewolf 03-31-08, 07:12 PM	re shadows+HiPS: It's a supernatural ability, and therefor does not need to make sense. still, we have another house rule in coco, which tells that you are autospotted if there is direct line of sight. so i'd say - yes, you can use hips against devils or other creatures that ignore shadows, BUT: if you don't have cover they auto-spot you as well. (mind that this is just due to the coco house rule) i believe the question is not whether a shadowdancer can actually hide before devils (he can, it's su, and has nothing to do with the actual shadows), but whether direct line of sight should negate hips in the arena. and this is where i believe the answer should be yes as well. everything else would be inconsistent to any other hiding rules coco currently uses. but, this leaves another major problem: many of the currently hips-using characters rely on exactly that, and it is the reason behind hips even existing. coco house rule vs. hips intention. i'd add hips to this houserule, actually, since i like not having to roll spot checks in the arena with bright light. Actually, autospot with direct line of sight is not a CoCo houserule. Without HiPS, you need cover or concealment to hide. If you cannot hide, you are autospotted.
SauroGrenom 03-31-08, 07:15 PM	I think you lost me in all of this. The moving character either intends to move into a square or he doesn't. He can't say "I only intend to move into this square if it currently holds no invisible creatures". The character either wants to move in or he doesn't. When a character performs a full round action, they are not required to decide in advance where all the attacks are targeted. If a warrior is surrounded by 5 foes, he can distribute 3 attacks in the full attack sequence so that the first guy gets hit till he drops and the remaining attacks are targeted against another foe in range. Similarly an archer can put arrows into one opponent till they drop and put the remainder of the arrows into the next foe. The same stocastic decision making process is available to a moving character during their move. If a warrior can move 4 squares as a move action, they can move 1 square and decide if they want to upgrade this to a move action instead of a 5' step. Then they can move a second square and decide if they want to move into the third square and so on... Each square the character simply occupies it with no intent to move on to the next square. The intent is malleable, and once the character occupies this square they can generate the intent to move into the adjacent square. A move action doesn't require the entirety of the path and endpoint to be worked out in advance. This is always at the leisure of the player to adjust their character's move as it is happening. This could be very important when using feats like Whirlwind Attack where the end point of the movement may depend on the outcome of the attack (If I slay the Ogre I want to end standing next to the Mage, if I don't slay the Ogre I want to end up flanking the Hill Giant).
McJarvis 03-31-08, 07:23 PM	When a character performs a full round action, they are not required to decide in advance where all the attacks are targeted. If a warrior is surrounded by 5 foes, he can distribute 3 attacks in the full attack sequence so that the first guy gets hit till he drops and the remaining attacks are targeted against another foe in range. Similarly an archer can put arrows into one opponent till they drop and put the remainder of the arrows into the next foe. The same stocastic decision making process is available to a moving character during their move. If a warrior can move 4 squares as a move action, they can move 1 square and decide if they want to upgrade this to a move action instead of a 5' step. Then they can move a second square and decide if they want to move into the third square and so on... Each square the character simply occupies it with no intent to move on to the next square. The intent is malleable, and once the character occupies this square they can generate the intent to move into the adjacent square. A move action doesn't require the entirety of the path and endpoint to be worked out in advance. This is always at the leisure of the player to adjust their character's move as it is happening. This could be very important when using feats like Whirlwind Attack where the end point of the movement may depend on the outcome of the attack (If I slay the Ogre I want to end standing next to the Mage, if I don't slay the Ogre I want to end up flanking the Hill Giant). Right. I was referring to this...(the part you underlined) With an overrun, you attempt to plow past or over your opponent (and move through his square) as you move. So each "step" of your move, you're announcing intent to move into the next square. [as you said] How do you announce "My next step is this square, unless there is an invisible creature there because I don't want to do an overrun attempt"? Wouldn't you have to have another means to identify invisible creatures in the square? I mean, it's not like you 1) "announce intent to move into the square", then 2) "the game asks you if you're sure you want to overrun". Or is it?
SauroGrenom 03-31-08, 07:31 PM	The hide skill says this: Action: Usually none. Normally, you make a Hide check as part of movement, so it doesn’t take a separate action. However, hiding immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action. So hiding is a part of another action, but not an action by itself. This means that if you have not yet taken any actions in combat, say the opponent wins initiative, then you cannot be hidden. So you need to take an action to hide. It's not a "hide" action, but it's any kind of action which you take and hide along with it. So as I said above, one of the requirements of the hide skill is that you take an action (almost any action). Now on to the other stuff. I assume that I don't need to quote the skill description which says you cannot hide while being observed, and that you need cover or concealment. HiPS is an interesting exception to those requirements, but I feel like your interpretation of the text takes it too far. Hide in Plain Sight (Su): A shadowdancer can use the Hide skill even while being observed. As long as she is within 10 feet of some sort of shadow, a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind. She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow.The detail I underline states that using this ability requires nearby shadow. Generally the purpose of shadow with respect to hiding is providing the required concealment. With respect to this supernatural ability you don't actually need to have the concealment on yourself, just nearby. The ability to hide in nearby shadows that don't actually cover your square is what's so distinctive about HiPS. The fact that shadows are required at all tells us that concealment is required as well. The HiPS ability allows you to take advantage of nearby concealment, but it specifically states that you still need to have shadows near else the ability doesn't work. If there's no concealing shadow nearby, then you cannot hide. The way I read it, a shadow doesn't count as a shadow with respect to the hide skill of HiPS unless it grants some form of concealment.
SauroGrenom 03-31-08, 07:35 PM	How do you announce "My next step is this square, unless there is an invisible creature there because I don't want to do an overrun attempt"? Wouldn't you have to have another means to identify invisible creatures in the square? I mean, it's not like you 1) "announce intent to move into the square", then 2) "the game asks you if you're sure you want to overrun". Or is it? Well I see it as this. Overrun allows you to move through an opponent's square, not end your turn in the opponent's square. An overrun attempt requires you to move through the square and out the other side. If you're only moving one square at a time it's not possible to overrun, and thus it's not possible to end a turn in a square occupied by an opponent (unless you're grappling). It's like you 1) "announce intent to move into the square", then 2) "the game informs you that you cannot end your turn in that square". So you must either abort movement or continue movement beyond that square (continuing movement beyond the target square effectively requires that you use tumble or overrun and have enough move to pull it off).
McJarvis 03-31-08, 07:43 PM	Well I see it as this. Overrun allows you to move through an opponent's square, not end your turn in the opponent's square. An overrun attempt requires you to move through the square and out the other side. If you're only moving one square at a time it's not possible to overrun, and thus it's not possible to enter a square occupied by an opponent (unless you're grappling). Alright. I get where you're coming from: and thinking further on it myself, I think the rules break down no matter what. Even if we allow the overrun attempts "unknown", the rules also say... You can make only one overrun attempt per round. ...which means that if you were on the plains map & it was full of invisible zombies that all wanted you to be able to pass through their square, but they were enemies too- you could _at best_ move through the first one, and on the second you'd be out of overrun attempts. [ridiculous example, but it outlines the problem] So we're going to get this weird effect of "blindsense 5ft" in the direction your moving, all the time. I feel like there must be another solution. Can you suggest anything, or do you think it's fine with giving creatures this pseudo-blindsense ability? Regarding ending movement in an "illegal" space[like occupying the same square as an opponent], the rules talk about this too. Accidentally Ending Movement in an Illegal Space: Sometimes a character ends its movement while moving through a space where it’s not allowed to stop. When that happens, put your miniature in the last legal position you occupied, or the closest legal position, if there’s a legal position that’s closer.
lonewolf 03-31-08, 07:44 PM	The hide skill says this: So hiding is a part of another action, but not an action by itself. This means that if you have not yet taken any actions in combat, say the opponent wins initiative, then you cannot be hidden. So you need to take an action to hide. It's not a "hide" action, but it's any kind of action which you take and hide along with it. So as I said above, one of the requirements of the hide skill is that you take an action (almost any action). I didnt believe that it was possible that the two of us agree on something today, but it seems we do here. Now on to the other stuff. I assume that I don't need to quote the skill description which says you cannot hide while being observed, and that you need cover or concealment. HiPS is an interesting exception to those requirements, but I feel like your interpretation of the text takes it too far. The detail I underline states that using this ability requires nearby shadow. Generally the purpose of shadow with respect to hiding is providing the required concealment. With respect to this supernatural ability you don't actually need to have the concealment on yourself, just nearby. The ability to hide in nearby shadows that don't actually cover your square is what's so distinctive about HiPS. The fact that shadows are required at all tells us that concealment is required as well. The HiPS ability allows you to take advantage of nearby concealment, but it specifically states that you still need to have shadows near else the ability doesn't work. If there's no concealing shadow nearby, then you cannot hide. I disagree with your assessment that a shadowdancer needs concealment nearby. If that were true, HIPS would be useless against enemies with Darkvision(except in magical darkness or out of range of darkvision of course). And while I agree that the Devils "See in Darkness" ability is so rare that its interaction with HiPS isnt especially noted, I hope we all can agree that if the intend of HipS is that it doesnt work against creatures with Darkvision, they would have noted that in the HipS description, right?
SauroGrenom 03-31-08, 07:52 PM	So we're going to get this weird effect of "blindsense 5ft" in the direction your moving, all the time. I feel like there must be another solution. Can you suggest anything, or do you think it's fine with giving creatures this pseudo-blindsense ability?This pseudo-blindsense ability is so limited in utility that I feel it's a very reasonable thing to accept as just a part of the rules. It can only be used in situations where the hidden guy has a small number of choices compared to the total amount of movement the searchers can use to find him. It's really very easy to beat, and a terribly ineffective way to find sneaks.
SauroGrenom 03-31-08, 07:57 PM	I disagree with your assessment that a shadowdancer needs concealment nearby. If that were true, HIPS would be useless against enemies with Darkvision(except in magical darkness or out of range of darkvision of course). And while I agree that the Devils "See in Darkness" ability is so rare that its interaction with HiPS isnt especially noted, I hope we all can agree that if the intend of HipS is that it doesnt work against creatures with Darkvision, they would have noted that in the HipS description, right?I cannot agree with you on that. I would totally argue that HiPS won't work in normal darkness against opponents with darkvision, for precisely the same reasons as I've outlined above. And the lack of a specific reference to that fact in the rules does nothing to convince me of the converse. There are so many seemingly obvious omissions, perhaps the rules writers thought it so obvious that there was no need to clarify it. The crux of my point is that I consider "shadow" for the purpose of HiPS or hiding to require concealment.
McJarvis 03-31-08, 08:04 PM	Sauro: Regarding HiPS, I'll admit I didn't read everything that was written. But I don't think the "shadow" you have to be within 10ft of has to grant concealment. For instance: your own shadow never grants concealment to anything(to my knowledge, by the rules), but this is the exception the writers chose to the rule. I think the requirement for a shadow to be nearby is a red-herring in all of this. The shadow either exists or it doesn't, and if it does- you can use HiPS _normally_. The real question is whether the vague statement of "you don't need to hide behind something" negates the need for cover/concealment. [since the two requirements you need to fulfill to _start_ hiding[with whatever action] are not being observed and having cover/concealment]
McJarvis 03-31-08, 08:16 PM	For what it is worth, there are five HiPS abilities in the game. Notice the subtle differences. Hide in Plain Sight (Ex): While in any sort of natural terrain, a ranger of 17th level or higher can use the Hide skill even while being observed. Hide in Plain Sight (Su): At 8th level, an assassin can use the Hide skill even while being observed. As long as he is within 10 feet of some sort of shadow, an assassin can hide himself from view in the open without having anything to actually hide behind. He cannot, however, hide in his own shadow. Hide in Plain Sight (Su): A shadowdancer can use the Hide skill even while being observed. As long as she is within 10 feet of some sort of shadow, a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind. She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow. Hide in Plain Sight (Ex) An urban ranger can use this ability in any area, whether natural terrain or not. At 15th level, the illusionist can hide in plain sight (as the ranger ability, except that the illusionist need not be in natural terrain). I just highlighted what I thought were significant differences from the ranger version.
SauroGrenom 03-31-08, 08:34 PM	For me the issue is that what counts as shadow for hiding from a human is different from what counts as shadow for hiding from a dwarf or a dwarf with trueseeing. The natural way to define a "shadow" is to say it's an area where your ability to see is inhibited by lighting conditions. Translating that into game mechanics, you say shadow is an area where lighting effects grant concealment. Now since the ability to see into any area changes depending on who you are, what qualifies as a "shadow" also changes depending on who's looking. Take the example of a cave with no light sources. For a human the entire cave is filled with one huge shadow. For a dwarf, there's no shadows in the range of his darkvision within that cave. For a Devil there are no shadows even in a cave filled with magical darkness from a darkness spell. A dwarf with truesight is equivalent to a devil for the first 60' in a cave filled with magical darkness... The Shadowdancer ability only applies if you have "shadow" nearby and it's not clear to me what counts as shadow.
McJarvis 03-31-08, 08:37 PM	I don't think the shadow part has to do with obstructing vision. The entire class is themed around the manipulation of shadows and whatnot, I see it far more as a "molding the shadow plane around you" sort of thing, especially given that it is a (su) ability. The "Shadow Illusion" ability, for instance, wouldn't be defeated by darkvision or devil's sight. Now, all the same- the darkvision & devil's sight does get rid of the concealment offered. [bringing us back to the point of whether HiPS of the shadowdancer gets rid of the need for concealment]
SauroGrenom 03-31-08, 08:41 PM	I don't really follow what you're driving at. Could you elaborate/explain a bit more?
McJarvis 03-31-08, 08:42 PM	On the same note- I don't think a "shadow" (the creature) would be naturally impossible for a creature with darkvision to see. edit- You're saying the shadow required in the shadow dancer's ability needs to be seen by the person observing. I'm saying it's not, by the rules. http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;map=arena;a=Name,M,25,39,Sh adow Dancer;b=Name,M,22,35,human;n=Shadow,28, 39,1 Take this image for example. the blue guy is a human, the red guy is a shadow dancer, and the green stuff is a shadow. The shadow is within 10' of the shadowdancer, the shadow dancer has cover relative to the human. I would say the shadowdancer can definitely HiPS, even though the human can't "see" the shadow(it is around a corner). This is a supernatural ability to use shadows(ie- stuff from the shadow plane itself) to HiPS, and is not observer dependent. So that's why I said the shadow mentioned in the entry is a "red herring". I think the shadow just has to exist to normal eyesight, and nothing more. From there it's just a matter of whether the shadow dancer HiPS requires that you gain concealment/cover before hiding.
SauroGrenom 03-31-08, 09:05 PM	I'm getting a bit fatigued, so I'll have to come back to this latter. Hopefully others smarter than myself will have figured it all out by then. I'll concede that you don't need the human in the above situation to see the shadow. But if the human could see the shadow it would provide concealment. The idea of "wrapping shadow around yourself" holds, because the shadow you're working with as a substrate offers concealment to hide behind. It's kind of like wrapping a wall of fire around yourself for protection, only it's no protection against a fire elemental... If that was a devil or dwarf, who could see through the molded shadow, then does the shadow offer concealment and can it be used to hide? I don't know, and my inkling is to say no, but aside from the above arguments about concealment and what counts as shadow (ie source of concealment), I have only opinion. My intuition is to infer that HiPS allows you to derive concealment for the purpose of hiding from any shadow within range. You can use the ability whenever you want, but it only allows you to receive concealment for the purpose of hiding if the shadow you use grants concealment against the foe. In other words the ability allows you to use any shadow within a 10' range for hiding. As long as the shadow you're using grants concealment against the foe, then you can hide.
lonewolf 04-01-08, 01:14 AM	I dont think that there is any chance that Sauro and I are giong to agree on either of those 2 issues. Any chance that we could get some more Elder input in here?
Stormwind 04-01-08, 04:15 AM	Re: the issue about Hide in plain sight First let's look at the rules:Hide in Plain Sight (Su): A shadowdancer can use the Hide skill even while being observed. As long as she is within 10 feet of some sort of shadow, a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind. She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow. Now, (by my reasoning) we would have the following: "A shadowdancer can use the Hide skill even while being observed" This indicates that a shadowdancer does not require concealment in order to hide. "As long as she is within 10 feet of some sort of shadow, a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind" This indicates that a shadowdancer does not require cover in order to hide, but that they do require a shadow within 10ft in order to do so. "She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow" And finally, this indicates that the shadow required to hide can not be their own. From this I would then make the following observations and inferences: The Shadowdancer's ability to Hide in Plain Sight is a supernatural ability The HiPS ability does not directly specify specifically how it works, it simply specifies the mechanics of it. Thus whether the shadowdancer actually hides in the shadow that it requires to hide, or whether the shadowdancer uses the stuff of shadow to cloak it from nearby eyes or whether it does something totally different that I haven't thought of, it is not clearly specified. Thus, ignoring the fluff and just going by the mechanics of the ability, it does not state outright that the shadowdancer is hiding in the shadow, simply that the shadowdancer requires the presence of a shadow in order to hide. Note that as it stands this is independant of whatever abilities an observer might have. The primary point that I believe is the crux of the matter is the following: "She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow" The word "in" in this last sentence implies that the shadowdancer is actually hiding within the shadow it requires to hide, however I would point out that the shadow that is required to hide using the ability can be anywhere within 10ft, which could then negate this implication since the shadowdancer would not necessarily be within that shadow and therefore would not be hiding "in" a shadow at all. Furthermore this last sentence is an exception to the rest of the ability. Not a clarification of how the ability works in general. Note that the arguments that both Sauro and lonewolf present are based on assumptions: Sauro assumes that the HiPS ability means that the shadowdancer is actually hiding within the shadow. lonewolf assumes that the HiPS ability means that the shadowdancer only requires a shadow within 10ft. Well that was my 2 cents worth.
whitebaron 04-01-08, 06:37 AM	re hips, again: i believe that simply ignoring shadows can not be enough to negate the hips ability.(every darkvision would foil it, thus disabling many uses for the shadowdancing, but this is just an opinion) but my facts: the way hips is worded, it has nothing to do with the perception of your enemies. it simply has to do with shadows being next to you, and as SU ability, it needs no direct explanation - you just can do it - every shadowdancer could do it on its own way. the way you're looking at it, it's like telling magical flight does not function in a vacuum, since winged flight would not work either... IT would be very different, if the ability was EX. shadowdancing does not work in an antimagic field, there's got to be some explanation for that (its magic) - and the last time i checked, antimagic field did not cancel natural shadows or concealment. :) --- re invisibility searching: the quote mcj brought up from the srd seems quite viable for the resolution of this, combined with another quote from the srd: Accidentally Ending Movement in an Illegal Space: Sometimes a character ends its movement while moving through a space where it’s not allowed to stop. When that happens, put your miniature in the last legal position you occupied, or the closest legal position, if there’s a legal position that’s closer. You can always move through a square occupied by someone who lets you by Implication 1: If you don't end movement, the square is not illegal since you are moving on. another creature can let you through, though it would not normally do so. Implication 2: If you explicitly end your movement(so, you don't want to continue in any direction) in an occupied square, you are hedged out via the rules. makes 10' search speed for a single creature in any given round(large creatures could search double the squares since they are broader). but this could still be a viable search pattern vs. hips with summons. => this is something i could live with. taking full speed search, though, is ridiculous - no need for even using search checks or spot checks.
dulsi 04-01-08, 12:51 PM	2) Can a character run around, hoping to find an invisible or hiding enemy by bumping into him? If you cannot enter a square occupied by an opponent (except with overrun, grapple, etc.), how do rats or tiny and smaller familiars attack? Seems to me they have to be able to enter the opponent's square.
McJarvis 04-01-08, 01:08 PM	If you cannot enter a square occupied by an opponent (except with overrun, grapple, etc.), how do rats or tiny and smaller familiars attack? Seems to me they have to be able to enter the opponent's square. This is a designated exception. Very Small Creature: A Fine, Diminutive, or Tiny creature can move into or through an occupied square. The creature provokes attacks of opportunity when doing so.
Zevox 04-01-08, 01:25 PM	I dont think that there is any chance that Sauro and I are giong to agree on either of those 2 issues. Any chance that we could get some more Elder input in here? I assume Oldtimer will do just as well, so I'll jump in and add that I'm in complete agreement with lonewolf. Sauro simply seems to be reading things into the HiPS ability that outright are not there. It says: Hide in Plain Sight (Su): A shadowdancer can use the Hide skill even while being observed. As long as she is within 10 feet of some sort of shadow, a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind. She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow. The second sentence is obviously the important one here. The only requirement it gives for the Shadowdancer to use the ability that she be within 10' of some sort of shadow - thats it. Nothing about concealment, or about the shadow being the sort that provides that; it just needs to be a shadow other than that of the Shadowdancer herself. It could be the shadow of a leaf floating in the breeze and it would qualify. It outright says she needs nothing to actually hide behind, and can hide while being observed, so theres no need for cover, concealment, or to be out of sight of her opponent. If there is a shadow nearby, she can hide, no matter the other circumstances; if there is not, she cannot. Simple as that. Zevox
MindWandererB 04-01-08, 01:27 PM	I'm getting the feeling that both these discussions--HiPS and finding invisible creatures by movement--are getting nowhere. Each is based on an interpretation of a single statement, and there's nothing concrete to support either. So I'm going to call for an Elder/Oldtimer vote to just resolve these things based on the arguments presented thus far. My own votes: - Finding invisible creatures by movement: I think not. Looking at the movement rules, the implication seems clear to me that opponents are assumed to never voluntarily let you go by. You can move through an ally's square; you can move through a helpless opponent's square; overrun is described as the only way to move through a non-helpless opponent's square. My reading is that the RAI is that an invisible opponent could let you go through. Exception: if you end your movement in a square containing an invisible opponent (or ally), the rules for accidentally ending in an illegal space apply. - HiPS: Given that rangers and whatnot can use HiPS to hide in an area where there's no concealment at all, and that the opponent doesn't necessarily have to see the area of shadow for it to apply, I'm inclined to follow the interpretation that it doesn't matter whether shadows cause concealment for the opponent or not.
TelinArtho 04-01-08, 01:34 PM	For what its worth, my vote is the same at MWB on the finding invisible creatures by movement. On HiPS, I have not seen much to convince me that a devil's see in darkness ability would be thwarted by HiPS. I am similarly fine with darkvision thwarting it. That said - I'm not overly convinced of the converse either - so I think for now I will have to abstain. On the other side of this, we do have precedent to say that whenever a vote is called for that it does not affect the fight involved - ie - the pitlord is allowed to make a pitlord call and proceed with the fight. As such, Sauro should be given leave to make the call here and move on.
Zevox 04-01-08, 01:39 PM	- Finding invisible creatures by movement: I think not. Looking at the movement rules, the implication seems clear to me that opponents are assumed to never voluntarily let you go by. You can move through an ally's square; you can move through a helpless opponent's square; overrun is described as the only way to move through a non-helpless opponent's square. My reading is that the RAI is that an invisible opponent could let you go through. Exception: if you end your movement in a square containing an invisible opponent (or ally), the rules for accidentally ending in an illegal space apply. I agree with this. And you have my vote on the HiPS issue three posts up. Zevox
McJarvis 04-01-08, 02:04 PM	Out of curiosity, telin, what makes you think creatures with darkvision can't see shadows? I understand that it negates concealment, but I don't see anything that suggests they can not detect shadows. edit- the core of my thought here is that darkvision itself is something that only exists in D&D. To my knowledge "darkvision" of animals in RL depends on small amounts of light- whereas darkvision in D&D is light source independant. But it isn't based on sounds or smells, because that would be blindsight[and you can still be "blinded" with darkvision- making the ability completely nonsensical, IMO]
TelinArtho 04-01-08, 02:48 PM	Well remember that most animals in D&D have low-light vision - not darkvision. I am not saying that creatures with darkvision can't see shadows (or at least - that is not my intent by it) - but rather that shadows are nothing special to those creatures. Even as I say this though - I admit I'm not sure why that would make a difference.
dulsi 04-01-08, 02:49 PM	Very Small Creature: A Fine, Diminutive, or Tiny creature can move into or through an occupied square. The creature provokes attacks of opportunity when doing so. I can see the Murphy's Rule comic already. Wizard in one square wide corridor with toad familiar in square in front of him. Goblin chief asking goblins why aren't they attacking the wizard. Goblin warrior responds that while very small creatures can enter occupied square, other creatures are not allowed to enter an occupied square of a very small creature.
TelinArtho 04-03-08, 09:54 AM	For the HiPS and movement issues - we still need to hear from CrazyArtificer, Erithmu and Hirumajoe - please do speak up you three... I have also edited the first Clarifications post with our recent result for Anti-life shell vs Freedom of movement.
Erithmu 04-03-08, 06:29 PM	Sorry for so long ... first week of class and all the insanity that is involved with that. HiPS: I agree w/ MWB and Zevox. It is not that the shadows give concealment, but just the existence of shadows. I think the other part is that the SD and Asn features are (Su) abilities which implies that they slip into the shadows. Ranger is (Ex) which makes things interesting. Movement vs Invis: Agree w/ MWB, Zevox, Telin
McJarvis 04-11-08, 03:30 PM	Copied from fotw New Rulings - Courtroom The following rulings were voted for by MWB, Zevox, Telin, and Erithmu. Sauro voted against. Seeing as how Hirm is AFK right now & crazy didn't comment, I'm counting them as "decided". You can not find invisible creatures merely by moving through thier square- they can merely opt to let you pass by. The only exception is if you end movement in the same square as an invisible creature- you will then effectively know an invisible creature was there because you will be "moved" to the last legal square you occupied. A Shadowdancer/Assassin's HiPS does not require concealment or cover to use- it merely requires a shadow nearby that is not their own. This shadow does not have to be visible to the observer or even grant any sort of concealment itself.
SauroGrenom 04-11-08, 04:54 PM	Whatever happened to voting on the question of costs/requirement for useing an intelligent cohort as a mount? Last I recall, Telin was saying that he felt it wasn't necessary unless specifically required. Then MWB said he thought it was... And I feel the conversation ended at that point. I don't think there was a vote or other form of official resolution on the issue.
Stormwind 04-14-08, 03:54 AM	Cross-posted from the Tavern: I want to confirm something - If you have Hide in plain sight (shadowdancer) and flyby attack - if you use both you start hidden, Attack become visible then move rehiding with -20? so someone readying to attack could attack when the HIPS user becomes visible - i.e. - after the attack and before the move away? As far as I know, with HiPS you can start hidden, attack and remain hidden (as per sniping with -20 modifier to hide), and then move and hide. As I recall this follows an official example but I forget where it was ... might have been RotG. I'm going to cross-post this in the courtroom so that a firm decision can be made by the elders on this as I can't find anything in the courtroom decisions. Basically I'm looking for a clear decision on how HiPS works with melee attacks: - Can you remain hidden during the attack (as per sniping with a -20 modifier to hide)? - What is the hide modifier during a move after an attack? Is it 0, or -20?
templer10 04-14-08, 05:56 AM	Cross-posted from the Tavern: Basically I'm looking for a clear decision on how HiPS works with melee attacks: - Can you remain hidden during the attack (as per sniping with a -20 modifier to hide)? - What is the hide modifier during a move after an attack? Is it 0, or -20? I would think no to the first question - Snipe spesified a ranged attack, not a melee attack, and -20 to the second question since hiding after an attack (any) is done at -20.
MindWandererB 04-14-08, 01:35 PM	There's a walkthrough of this process in the FAQ. Take a look there and ask again if you need clarification.
McJarvis 04-16-08, 09:08 AM	Copied from fotw New Rulings - Courtroom The following rulings were voted for by MWB, Zevox, Telin, and Erithmu. Sauro voted against. Seeing as how Hirm is AFK right now & crazy didn't comment, I'm counting them as "decided". You can not find invisible creatures merely by moving through thier square- they can merely opt to let you pass by. The only exception is if you end movement in the same square as an invisible creature- you will then effectively know an invisible creature was there because you will be "moved" to the last legal square you occupied. A Shadowdancer/Assassin's HiPS does not require concealment or cover to use- it merely requires a shadow nearby that is not their own. This shadow does not have to be visible to the observer or even grant any sort of concealment itself. bump and Whatever happened to voting on the question of costs/requirement for useing an intelligent cohort as a mount? Last I recall, Telin was saying that he felt it wasn't necessary unless specifically required. Then MWB said he thought it was... And I feel the conversation ended at that point. I don't think there was a vote or other form of official resolution on the issue. bump
CrazyArtificer 04-16-08, 09:12 AM	@First couple of issues: I've been a bit busy lately and I missed this, but I agree with most elders conclusion @Intelligent mounts: I cannot see why an intelligent mount should be trained to be able to guard, seek and so on. It just doesn't make sense to me
McJarvis 04-16-08, 09:21 AM	@Intelligent mounts: I cannot see why an intelligent mount should be trained to be able to guard, seek and so on. It just doesn't make sense to me Ah! I will summarize. For example, the Pegasus is an “intelligent mount” – it has an int of 10. (average human) But the entry for it specifically mentions that it requires training in order to bear a rider in combat. So Sauro is asking about intelligent creatures that don’t have this language.
hogarth 04-16-08, 10:00 AM	@Intelligent mounts: I cannot see why an intelligent mount should be trained to be able to guard, seek and so on. It just doesn't make sense to me It's not about learning tricks (IMO). It's about learning "a kick in the side means 'go faster', a yank on your mouth means 'slow down', etc." until you don't have to think about it any longer. To use an analogy, I'm a reasonably intelligent person who can drive, but that doesn't mean that I can perfectly translate specific directions from someone in the back seat: "go right 5 cm, speed up 1 km/h, turn 5 degrees clockwise, etc".
McJarvis 04-16-08, 10:08 AM	It's not about learning tricks (IMO). It's about learning "a kick in the side means 'go faster', a yank on your mouth means 'slow down', etc." until you don't have to think about it any longer. To use an analogy, I'm a reasonably intelligent person who can drive, but that doesn't mean that I can perfectly translate specific directions from someone in the back seat: "go right 5 cm, speed up 1 km/h, turn 5 degrees clockwise, etc". Hm. By that logic perhaps I should edit that fight between TEDS and Flutterthought- I'm not sure I'd be able to isolate the 5ft square someone was talking about just because they said "over there!" and pointed. ;) If it matters at all- I am in agreement with Telin on this. No need to enforce training rules for intelligent mounts except where it is explicitly stated the training is necessary.
CrazyArtificer 04-16-08, 10:23 AM	Hmm.. I still think that enforcing training rules for such creatures is wrong. Even though you have a point with your example I think it's silly to train a dragon.. are there in the books other intelligent mounts with such wording?
hogarth 04-16-08, 12:07 PM	Hm. By that logic perhaps I should edit that fight between TEDS and Flutterthought- I'm not sure I'd be able to isolate the 5ft square someone was talking about just because they said "over there!" and pointed. ;) I agree that's a bit fishy, too. "The pixie is floating about 10' above that kind of rectangular splotch on the ground. No, not that one, the other one." :) How about this -- if there's a training price listed in the SRD, then training is required. If there's no training price listed in the SRD, then training isn't required BUT it's considered "ill-suited" for a mount (and gives a -5 penalty). (I guess that penalizes people who use a nightmare as a mount, though.)
TelinArtho 04-16-08, 12:12 PM	Ok Mcj - I added the two you keep bumping to the Houserules section. Now if you only spent half the time on bumping and used that extra time for your campaign... (bump bump) :P In the future - I might combine the two posts - because the difference between a "clarification" and a "houserule," frankly, is unimportant. Keeping them separate just makes it harder to find a particular ruling.
MindWandererB 04-22-08, 11:15 PM	Question about an item of the Ride skill: Fight with Warhorse: If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action.I've always interpreted this line that you first need to use Handle Animal to direct your mount to attack; if you then want to add your attacks to its, you need to make a DC 10 Ride check; if you fail, the animal attacks but you cannot. Apparently pitlords have been using the DC 10 Ride check as the only check. My reasoning is that the ability is called "Fight with Warhorse" not "Have Warhorse Fight with You," and the ability allows you to "make your own attack or attacks normally" given that you "direct your war-trained mount to attack" rather than the reverse (e.g. "if you attack while mounted, you may direct your war-trained mount to attack").
McJarvis 04-23-08, 12:26 AM	I believe most people[including myself] have read that passage to mean "Fight with Warhorse: If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle[using this action], you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action." I can certainly see where MWB is coming from- but it never occurred to me to read the skill like that.
Yitzi 04-23-08, 12:06 PM	Of course, once you make the HA once (or if the enemy attacks you and the mount knows the defend skill), you don't have to make the HA check again, any more than you would have to for an animal ally you're not riding.
McJarvis 04-23-08, 12:14 PM	Of course, once you make the HA once (or if the enemy attacks you and the mount knows the defend skill), you don't have to make the HA check again, any more than you would have to for an animal ally you're not riding. I'm still confused where people get this idea from. This is the passage related to getting an animal to perform a trick(in this case, attack): Handle an Animal: This task involves commanding an animal to perform a task or trick that it knows. If the animal is wounded or has taken any nonlethal damage or ability score damage, the DC increases by 2. If your check succeeds, the animal performs the task or trick on its next action. The language doesn't say the animal starts doing it until told to stop- it just says the animal does it on the next available action.
MindWandererB 04-23-08, 02:18 PM	How much sense does it make that you'd have to keep re-issuing the same command? If you tell a dog to "sic 'em," is it going to take one nip at the target, then come back to you, panting and wagging its tail? If you tell a dog to "heel," do you have to give that command again every few feet? (assuming it's well-trained). Or using one of the more exotic tricks, if you command it to "steal," will it travel its move speed, then give up because it couldn't reach the target in one round? No--the animal obeys the command on its next action, and continues to obey until the task is complete or is no longer applicable.
McJarvis 04-23-08, 02:20 PM	How much sense does it make that you'd have to keep re-issuing the same command? If you tell a dog to "sic 'em," is it going to take one nip at the target, then come back to you, panting and wagging its tail? If you tell a dog to "heel," do you have to give that command again every few feet? (assuming it's well-trained). Or using one of the more exotic tricks, if you command it to "steal," will it travel its move speed, then give up because it couldn't reach the target in one round? No--the animal obeys the command on its next action, and continues to obey until the task is complete or is no longer applicable. how much sense would it make if you told a dog to "roll over" and it just continually started rolling over until you told it to stop? I don't think common sense plays a part here.
MindWandererB 04-23-08, 02:30 PM	how much sense would it make if you told a dog to "roll over" and it just continually started rolling over until you told it to stop? I don't think common sense plays a part here. No--the animal obeys the command on its next action, and continues to obey until the task is complete or is no longer applicable.I stand by this.
Zevox 04-23-08, 02:34 PM	See also: the "Down" trick. Down (DC 15): The animal breaks off from combat or otherwise backs down. An animal that doesn’t know this trick continues to fight until it must flee (due to injury, a fear effect, or the like) or its opponent is defeated. Certainly a good indication that MWB is correct if you ask me. Zevox
McJarvis 04-23-08, 02:48 PM	Define "complete"? The problem with nerfing animals based on their intelligence is they don't fully understand the nature of the arena. Can they even attack an invisible opponent? Can you even tell them to attack specific opponents? Can they really tell the difference between friend and foe until attacked themselves? I'm uncomfortable with picking over handle animal with "common sense" like this. The rules are pretty darn clear on what happens- the animal performs the trick in the next action. It does not "start" the trick, it does not "perform the trick until a task is done", etc, etc. There are a few tricks that do not work with "handling" the animal. [Like defend, the combat riding package, etc]. These "steady-state" tricks might be what you want if you want your animal attacking enemies constantly.
whitebaron 04-28-08, 02:22 PM	Blacklight is either broken, poorly worded, or a 3.0 relict. currently it features the following traits: - greater invis against anyone not having touchsight - utter darkness that works even against darkvision (and works in 3.0 style, not 3.5-concealments) - a spell that is only dismissible by 2 other spells - dispel and daylight. all those in one single level 3 (!) spell. since blacklight is from 3.0, and was never converted to 3.5 rules, i believe it should be worded for 3.5 as follows: The caster creates an area of total darkness. The darkness is impenetrable to normal vision and darkvision, but the caster can see normally within the blacklit area. shadowy illumination out to a 20-foot radius, but the caster can see normally within the blacklit area. All creatures in the area gain concealment (20% miss chance). Even creatures that can normally see in such conditions (such as with darkvision or low-light vision) have the miss chance in an area shrouded in magical darkness.Creatures outside the spell’s area, even the caster, cannot see through it. The spell can be cast on a point in space, but the effect is stationary cast on a mobile object. A character can cast the spell on a creature, and the effect then radiates from the creature and moves as it moves. Unattended objects and points in space do not get saving throws or benefit from spell resistance. Blacklight counters or dispels any light spell of equal or lower level. The 3rd-level cleric spell daylight counters or dispels blacklight.
Zevox 04-28-08, 02:39 PM	Actually, it was reprinted for 3.5, unchanged. I can't recall which book it was, but someone brought it up during our last big discussion on the spell. I'm fairly sure we house-ruled it somehow shortly after Cat left, too - though that may just have been to get rid of his claim that you couldn't simply target the center of it with a spell to try and hit your target. Looking for such, we do have something on it in the Court Decisions: Q: Does the spell Blacklight grant concealment? A: Yes, it grants total concealment. Zevox
MindWandererB 04-28-08, 02:50 PM	Blacklight was "converted" to 3.5 rules; it's in Spell Compendium. It was not changed. I assume the reason is because it's of extremely limited use when you're not alone, which is the assumption.
whitebaron 04-28-08, 03:08 PM	spell compendium? well. this is the place where one could find most of the broken spells ever. and just because the spell was printed in there, does not mean it was ever touched for 3.5 - spell compendium is just making money out of spell-hungry players, without taking to much effort on wotcs side. as it stands, blacklight is really tough to anyone not able to cast daylight. everyone else would have a chance to dispel it, but then again ... the chances are still 50-50. seems like i'd have to pickup blacklight with verren, and use it every fight, so it gets banned or changed from coco...
Zevox 04-28-08, 03:36 PM	seems like i'd have to pickup blacklight with verren, and use it every fight, so it gets banned or changed from coco... Trust me, that won't do it. We've had plenty of wizards and clerics abuse that spell extensively, from Sindorin's Va'ria Theladrais to Cat's legendary menace The Harvester. If they haven't gotten it banned or altered extensively, I doubt it ever will be. Zevox
whitebaron 04-28-08, 03:53 PM	well, the wording both zevox and mwb use hints towards they share my resentiment, but don't want to agree to such a change due to various reasons. i wonder why coco is such a split environment in decisions... some things are banned and changed without so much as a minor discussion, others are never touched due to historical or nostalgical reasons... well, if harvey used it, it must be ok, right?
Zevox 04-28-08, 04:43 PM	well, if harvey used it, it must be ok, right? Hardly. If memory serves, Harvey's antimagic staff managed to get some restrictions on custom staves put in place, at the very least. The thing is, near as I can tell, the only possible ways to deal with the spell are to house-rule it to a weaker state, which will generally leave it as near-useless (your alterations, for instance, presuming we remove the "creatures outside the area cannot see through it", given thats the main offending line to begin with, would render it as a 1 round/level version of the 2nd-level spell Darkness) or ban it outright, which for some reason we've never been able to get enough of a consensus to do in spite of how badly its been abused. Plus, there is at least one other spell that will negate it: the Cleric version of Continual Flame (any light spell level 3+ can counter Blacklight, not just Daylight, after all). For those without darkvision, thats a nice spell to have cast on some piece of equipment to begin with due to the possibility of dark lighting, so its not like its a spell that would be completely without benefits to purchase as a spellcasting service either. Zevox
whitebaron 04-28-08, 04:59 PM	so... if continual flame dispels blacklight... does an everburning torch do so, too? after all it uses continual flame as the spell cast on it. i don't think that anyone will prepare continual flame as a spell, though. as for spellcasting services: since continual flame is permanent, would you have to pay for it once to have it on an item until dispelled?
Zevox 04-28-08, 05:44 PM	so... if continual flame dispels blacklight... does an everburning torch do so, too? after all it uses continual flame as the spell cast on it. Not sure. There you have the complication that the torch could be created either using the Cleric version of the spell (level 3, affects Blacklight) or the Wizard version (level 2, does not affect Blacklight). We may need a ruling on that if it becomes an issue. i don't think that anyone will prepare continual flame as a spell, though. as for spellcasting services: since continual flame is permanent, would you have to pay for it once to have it on an item until dispelled? Not quite sure what you're asking here. I can tell you that, to my understanding, part of how light/darkness spells interact is that when their radii overlap, two of equal level will negate each other in the area that overlaps (leaving it at normal lighting), while if one is higher level than the other it will smother the other, taking precedence. This is what I was speaking of with Continual Flame. It was how I planned to deal with Blacklight on a number of my characters, like Ceilia Durrol and Arden Tarmik. Not so hot of an option for archers or long-range spellcasters though, I admit. Zevox
McJarvis 04-28-08, 06:00 PM	As I believe Zevox pointed out to me- continual flame does not negate darkness spells- it dispels and counters them. Since an everburning torch has the spell already cast on it, it would have no effect on blacklight. As a sidenote- lonewolf mentioned that being in complete darkness does not confer the "blinded" condition on an opponent. Why not? I always just assumed that if your sight is taken away, you are blinded.
whitebaron 04-28-08, 06:07 PM	As a sidenote- lonewolf mentioned that being in complete darkness does not confer the "blinded" condition on an opponent. Why not? I always just assumed that if your sight is taken away, you are blinded. well, i do not share his opinion on this, but you were wrong in your tactics, too. blinded and invisibility is exactly the same thing. so it's not like you get +2 to hit, and verren gets -2 to ac. it's either-or, but not both. in this case, it would be the blinded condition, but since verren is already blind in the darkness, you'd get no bonus whatsoever for being invisible.
McJarvis 04-28-08, 06:09 PM	well, i do not share his opinion on this, but you were wrong in your tactics, too. blinded and invisibility is exactly the same thing. so it's not like you get +2 to hit, and verren gets -2 to ac. it's either-or, but not both. in this case, it would be the blinded condition, but since verren is already blind in the darkness, you'd get no bonus whatsoever for being invisible. Why either-or but not both? They are different effects. It's not even two boni- it's a bonus and a penalty. edit- Does invisibility specifically not have an effect unless the creature perceiving you is sighted, similar to MI? I suppose that makes sense.
McJarvis 04-28-08, 06:10 PM	As far as the divine section of the SRD goes- I am not a fan. I think that subdual substitution is overpowered as well, and it is only overpowered due to being a 3.0 feat. [I'm pretty sure the 3.5 version keeps the energy type] But when in Rome, do as the greeks- eh? Erm.. ;)
McJarvis 04-28-08, 06:22 PM	Oh- and everyone missed that an area dispel magic will work against it, maybe.[or at least I didn't see anyone mention it when I glanced through this discussion- I have missed things before]
hogarth 04-28-08, 11:17 PM	Not quite sure what you're asking here. I can tell you that, to my understanding, part of how light/darkness spells interact is that when their radii overlap, two of equal level will negate each other in the area that overlaps (leaving it at normal lighting), while if one is higher level than the other it will smother the other, taking precedence. This is what I was speaking of with Continual Flame. The overlapping effect is only true for spells which specifically state so (like Daylight). In general, the "counters and dispels" wording in Continual Flame means that (a) you can use Continual Flame to counterspell a spell with the [Darkness] descriptor (not very useful) and (b) if you cast Continual Flame on a target that has a [Darkness] spell on it of equal or less power, the [Darkness] spell is dispelled (like casting Haste on a target that's Slowed dispels the Slow effect). As far as the divine section of the SRD goes- I am not a fan. I think that subdual substitution is overpowered as well, and it is only overpowered due to being a 3.0 feat. [I'm pretty sure the 3.5 version keeps the energy type] Not quite -- it's still untyped nonlethal damage, but it's a +1 metamagic and it only works on one type of energy (e.g. Nonlethal Substitution [electric]).
CrazyArtificer 05-17-08, 08:43 AM	Proposed addendum to the clarifications. Q: What happens if a rider is stunned or paralyzed and the mount withdraws? Is the rider taking an AoO because he cannot perform the withdraw action? A: A mount and rider's movement is shared. If one withdraws, the other does too. Because you and your mount move as one, you reasonably can assume that you involuntarily withdraw as well and that you also get the benefit of the withdraw action.
Nabuchadnezzar 05-21-08, 11:12 AM	I have a question about Red Wizard's Enhanced Specialization and spells copied to spellbook. A discussion started here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=15912659#post15912659) and I need clarifications that may be useful to every Red Wizard ;) Enhanced specialization states that by 1st level of Red Wizard PRC the PC can't learn new spells of the newly prohibited school. He retains the ability to memorize the spells already in his book however. The question is: Can that wizard learn higher level spells of a school of magic before entering the Red Wizard PRC (for instance, Greater Invisibility at wizard level 5) and then select that same school (in this sample, Illusion) for his new prohibited school at level 6 and still be able to cast Greater Invisibility at level 7 since he already learnt that spell? In the SRD (Adding Spells to a Wizard's Spellbook (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/arcaneSpells.htm#addingSpellstoaWizardsS pellbook)) there are two ways to copy a spell whose SL is higher than the highest SL the wizard can cast: from another wizard's spellbook (I don't know if there is a rule here preventing access to a higher level spell only to copy it to the spellbook) or from a scroll (higher level scrolls actually can be bought at blackmarket for credits if they exceed ECL even if the "copy from another wizard's spellbook" isn't viable for some reason that I don't know) The wizard must then make a spellcraft check DC 15+SL in order to successfully copy the spell. In most cases, if he takes 10 he auto-succeeds (and there is nothing in the rules preventing him to take 10 to the spellcraft check, since the risk of failure and the "only 1 check" limitation aren't an issue with Taking 10 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#taking10)) EDIT: Erithmu is an Elder and took part in the discussion. (S)he said that taking 10 isn't possible in that spellcraft check because of risk of failure, and since failure is possible, that check can't be done and so a wizard can't learn higher level spells, but the SRD states otherwise (the single check and the risk of failure are issues on taking 20, not taking 10) and if (s)he was right, then a 3rd level wizard usually can't learn new 2nd level spells (he would need a +16 spellcraft to auto-succeed without taking 10, not usual at 3rd level).
hogarth 05-21-08, 11:26 AM	Proposed addendum to the clarifications. Q: What happens if a rider is stunned or paralyzed and the mount withdraws? Is the rider taking an AoO because he cannot perform the withdraw action? A: A mount and rider's movement is shared. If one withdraws, the other does too. Because you and your mount move as one, you reasonably can assume that you involuntarily withdraw as well and that you also get the benefit of the withdraw action. I disagree with this interpretation. The rider can't Withdraw if he's paralysed. We've always ruled that the rider must take the full round Withdraw action in order to avoid attacks of opportunity from movement.
TelinArtho 05-21-08, 11:31 AM	To me the question is whether a spellcaster can learn a spell that s/he cannot cast - and the answer to that question is no (as far as I know).
Nabuchadnezzar 05-21-08, 11:43 AM	To me the question is whether a spellcaster can learn a spell that s/he cannot cast - and the answer to that question is no (as far as I know). Uhm, I don't see this answer in the SRD, but if this is going to be a houserule rather than a rule I'm still okay with the ruling (it would have been really cheesy otherwise, and I can see the balancing issue)... should be pointed out somewhere though, so please add this question and answer in the 1st page since RAW it's at least ambiguous ;) Thank you!
McJarvis 05-21-08, 11:48 AM	Uhm, I don't see this answer in the SRD, but if this is going to be a houserule rather than a rule I'm still okay with the ruling (it would have been really cheesy otherwise, and I can see the balancing issue)... should be pointed out somewhere though, so please add this question and answer in the 1st page since RAW it's at least ambiguous ;) Thank you! You can scribe spells to your spellbook before you can cast them. I used to do this in 3.0 to avoid leveling mid-adventure and not having access to wizard spells at a new(and exciting!) level. [now it's less-used because of the auto-gaining of 2 spells upon levelup...] -- I'm almost hesitant to address this issue though, because the Red Wizard class is a *very* complex class with many points on it that could just plain break CoCo without house rules. I would rather be debating the existance of the red wizard in CoCo in the first place, rather then proposing "fixes" to workarounds of the restrictions on the class.
Nabuchadnezzar 05-21-08, 12:24 PM	You can scribe spells to your spellbook before you can cast them. I used to do this in 3.0 to avoid leveling mid-adventure and not having access to wizard spells at a new(and exciting!) level. [now it's less-used because of the auto-gaining of 2 spells upon levelup...] -- I'm almost hesitant to address this issue though, because the Red Wizard class is a *very* complex class with many points on it that could just plain break CoCo without house rules. I would rather be debating the existance of the red wizard in CoCo in the first place, rather then proposing "fixes" to workarounds of the restrictions on the class. Two different ruling. My wizard is still level 3 so he has time to spare until level 5, but please let us know if wizards in CoCo can learn higher level spells (as I think RAW states) or they can't (as a reasonable CoCo houserule) Yes, Red Wizards are powerful. But no Red Wizard is in the roster now. If they could just plain break CoCo, why isn't the roster full of them? I think that the 3rd banned school in core limited spell list really hurts hard, especially if a houserule will prevent wizards from learning higher level spells. And to make a good use of their most powerful ability (magic circle) they must at least be ECL 10 and use an [ECL of PC]-3 cohort (needs Leadership) and an ECL 1 follower (because of MAX CA limitation and at least 2 participants needed other than the leader for a magic circle), preventing the red wizard from having an [ECL of PC]-2 Cohort (like other classes) whose different class can compensate the wizard's weaknesses at medium levels. As your sig. states: "the quality of player matters far more than how many caster levels you have" and I agree with that. Besides, I'm not going to play a Red Wizard to break the CoCo. I like playing focused specialist wizards and since focused specialists and master specialists cannot be used, the red wizard is the closest thing I can play to better fit the flavor of the PC I like.
McJarvis 05-21-08, 12:31 PM	(edit2- there is a red wizard on the roster- Owen. he's in ECL14ish..mabe 13 or 15, I forget) I don't think many people understand the true power potential of the red wizard. I have had many conversations with 'Rith and MWB about abuses that I have found to exist for it- though I don't think this thread is the place to get into all the raw mechanics that combine to create such a powerful force. I personally avoid the class because, contrary to popular belief, I don't enjoy breaking things to ridiculous degrees. Rith himself, I know, does not use the class to its full potential because he does not like cheese tactics. I did consider submitting a Red Wizard for the cheese man competition, though :) [though the competition never actually happened...sigh] edit- As far as your intentions go, if you do not want to break the class then play the class as it seems to have been intended to be played. Pre-scribing is a trick that works within the rules- but I don't think the authors of the class intended for it to be played like that.
lonewolf 05-21-08, 12:44 PM	I just cant help but notice the irony of having McJarvis simultaneously argue one issue on the hard RAW side(halfgiant-axe) and one issue on the RAI side suggesting that RAW isnt as important there(Red Wizard). A little bit of cherry-picking, isnt it? :rolleyes:
Nabuchadnezzar 05-21-08, 12:52 PM	As far as your intentions go, if you do not want to break the class then play the class as it seems to have been intended to be played. Pre-scribing is a trick that works within the rules- but I don't think the authors of the class intended for it to be played like that. I have no problems in doing so (therefore having up to level 3 spells from the would-be prohibited school), but I'd like to see a houseruling here that makes this reasonable thing an official ruling ;)
McJarvis 05-21-08, 01:02 PM	I just cant help but notice the irony of having McJarvis simultaneously argue one issue on the hard RAW side(halfgiant-axe) and one issue on the RAI side suggesting that RAW isnt as important there(Red Wizard). A little bit of cherry-picking, isnt it? :rolleyes: Heh. I believe in hard-RAW except in situations where balance would be overturned. The Red Wizard is a sleeping dragon around here, which is why I say I'd rather just ban the whole class than go through the long laundry list of issues it can be abused with. I encouraged him to police himself to stay within RAI, rather than say I want a houserule to enforce such things. I don't believe a system with a large book of house rules will ever be fun- abstraction is very key to D&D surviving. Note that I also supported the "offensive prescience doesn't work on ego whip" ruling, because it would upset whatever small amount of balance we have here. On the other hand(with regards to weapon sizes)- As hogarth pointed out, psiwarriors can attain the same damage levels just by using power attack to modify their attacks with normal weapons.
whitebaron 05-21-08, 02:23 PM	Spells of the prohibited school or schools are not available to the wizard, and she can’t even cast such spells from scrolls or fire them from wands. I believe, this kind of formulation is there for a reason. you can not cast spells prohibited to you - DOT. even if you learned it beforehand, it should still be forbidden to you as caster of the given class. so if red wizard forbids you something, you may not cast it unless you gained it via another class. the example with greater invis is a good one - since you'd be banning the school, you would never be able to cast it again, even though it is in your spellbook - the thesis is just not graspable anymore to you. conclusion: it would not be possible to cast a spell from a now forbidden school, even if you learnt if beforehand, unless you get access to it via another class. (this is not exactly raw, but how it should be handled nevertheless) about pre-scribing: should not be an issue then, every wizard can have spells as much as he can afford with spellcraft and gps. (this is core rules, btw.)
Nabuchadnezzar 05-21-08, 02:28 PM	I believe, this kind of formulation is there for a reason. you can not cast spells prohibited to you - DOT. even if you learned it beforehand, it should still be forbidden to you as caster of the given class. so if red wizard forbids you something, you may not cast it unless you gained it via another class. the example with greater invis is a good one - since you'd be banning the school, you would never be able to cast it again, even though it is in your spellbook - the thesis is just not graspable anymore to you. conclusion: it would not be possible to cast a spell from a now forbidden school, even if you learnt if beforehand, unless you get access to it via another class. (this is not exactly raw, but how it should be handled nevertheless) about pre-scribing: should not be an issue then, every wizard can have spells as much as he can afford with spellcraft and gps. (this is core rules, btw.) Well, simply NOT. He can still use the prohibited spells he knew prior to becoming a Red Wizard, including using items that are activated by spell completion or spell trigger. If I select illusion as my 3rd banned school, I'll still be able to memorize and cast invisibility if that spell is in my book since before I entered the prestige class. EDIT: Don't worry for my PC however... I had a nice private messaging with McJarvis. At the end, neither my PC nor his cohort will learn higher level spells ever ;) But other red wizards may not be as reasonable :D I still think that introducing a "you can't learn spells that you couldn't cast yet" houserule will be fine, but that's just my 0.02 € :) Cheers
lonewolf 05-21-08, 02:29 PM	I believe, this kind of formulation is there for a reason. you can not cast spells prohibited to you - DOT. even if you learned it beforehand, it should still be forbidden to you as caster of the given class. so if red wizard forbids you something, you may not cast it unless you gained it via another class. the example with greater invis is a good one - since you'd be banning the school, you would never be able to cast it again, even though it is in your spellbook - the thesis is just not graspable anymore to you. conclusion: it would not be possible to cast a spell from a now forbidden school, even if you learnt if beforehand, unless you get access to it via another class. (this is not exactly raw, but how it should be handled nevertheless) about pre-scribing: should not be an issue then, every wizard can have spells as much as he can afford with spellcraft and gps. (this is core rules, btw.) Except that the Red Wizard specifically says that you can still cast spells of that newly banned school(also from items) that he knew before entering the PrC. He just isnt allowed to learn new ones. EDIT: ninja´d
whitebaron 05-21-08, 02:32 PM	ok, now i agree with mcj: ban the red wizard ... (especially since i can never look it up) and btw: ban everything else that is NOT in the srd.
Nabuchadnezzar 05-21-08, 02:45 PM	ok, now i agree with mcj: ban the red wizard ... (especially since i can never look it up) and btw: ban everything else that is NOT in the srd. I don't agree. And not because I want to break the CoCo. McJ can state that. Others can say "ban the psionics, they are too broken!" but I'm fine with them. It all comes down to how you use them and what's your goal. Mine is fun and roleplay.
McJarvis 05-21-08, 02:59 PM	I don't agree. And not because I want to break the CoCo. McJ can state that. Others can say "ban the psionics, they are too broken!" but I'm fine with them. It all comes down to how you use them and what's your goal. Mine is fun and roleplay. Well, I would go out on a limb and say you couldn't "break" psionics if you wanted to ;)
Nabuchadnezzar 05-21-08, 03:15 PM	Well, I would go out on a limb and say you couldn't "break" psionics if you wanted to ;) Yes, but let me play brokeable things if I don't want to break them ;) I know perfectly that psionic isn't broken, it's perhaps the most balanced form of "magic" in core. I mean... I agree, red wizards may be the most broken things in the CoCo. McJ did show that to me really well. But I won't play a broken red wizard because the red wizard that I have in mind is not compatible with all that cheese. Am I stuck to play a simple specialist wizard because a red wizard may be broken? I repeat... Let me play brokeable things if I don't want to break them! Do you want to see my full build and the flavor behind it? I don't think that it's fair to prevent honest players from playing what they like because what they like can be taken into brokeness by powerplayers.
whitebaron 05-21-08, 03:17 PM	@nab: it's not because of the brokenness. its because i can never look anything up, starting with tattoo focus and ending with the various red wizard class features. sure, the red wizard and some strange feats are still within the core rulebooks, but they are not in the srd - and thus, not available to quite some players here. i have my share of dnd books, but almost none of them was a phb or dmg. the first time i'll own a full set of core rules will be 4e. (and that more or less due to an accident)
Nabuchadnezzar 05-21-08, 03:27 PM	@nab: it's not because of the brokenness. its because i can never look anything up, starting with tattoo focus and ending with the various red wizard class features. sure, the red wizard and some strange feats are still within the core rulebooks, but they are not in the srd - and thus, not available to quite some players here. i have my share of dnd books, but almost none of them was a phb or dmg. the first time i'll own a full set of core rules will be 4e. (and that more or less due to an accident) Red wizard class features (and the feat) are all easy to write down on a character sheet and read them (possibly whith the exceptions of the one more banned school and the magic circle, but it's viable) If you have problems to run fights with red wizards involved, please PM me :D
McJarvis 05-21-08, 03:29 PM	i have my share of dnd books, but almost none of them was a phb or dmg. heh- Oh hey- I own alot of dnd books too, and I'd wager that only 2/20 are either a phb or a dmg. ;)
CrazyArtificer 05-21-08, 03:31 PM	I disagree with this interpretation. The rider can't Withdraw if he's paralysed. We've always ruled that the rider must take the full round Withdraw action in order to avoid attacks of opportunity from movement. But we had two fights where two different pitlords (me and McJarvis) ruled it that way. This is what we found to support our ruling. All about mounts 2 If your check fails, the mount does what it will. Your uncontrolled mount most likely uses the withdraw action to make a double move away from danger. Doing so prevents attacks of opportunity against the mount when it leaves its first space, but not when it leaves other spaces where foes threaten it (see page 143 in the Player's Handbook). Because you and your mount move as one, you reasonably can assume that you involuntarily withdraw as well and that you also get the benefit of the withdraw action. Your frightened mount also might break into a run, which would leave it and you subject to attacks of opportunity from the first space the pair of you leave. Plus, a nice point from McJ (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=15872698&postcount=37). A mount and rider's movement is shared. If one withdraws, the other does too. Simple Consider the alternative: The rider couldn't move with the horse if he were paralyzed. Or, if you were going to say the horse is "just carrying" the rider & the rider doesn't move himself, then why do riders get a +2 bonus when they charge with a mount? they can't move themselves- and they are just along for the ride. There are more examples-> but they all point to the rider & mount sharing a landspeed.(and all types of movement) The mount is the one who controls the landspeed, though. If the rider is paralyzed, the mount/rider can still move/charge/withdraw. If the mount is paralyzed, the rider must dismount to move/charge/withdraw
whitebaron 05-21-08, 03:36 PM	i agree on a paralyzed mount being able to withdraw with a rider that is bound to it as luggage. but i don't see how he can even stay on the horse like that. the horse moves, every tried to have a statue sit on a suddenly moving horse and stay in the saddle? @nab: it's not about pitlording or brokenness. it's just a distaste for being so selective in allowing srd only, and adding just a bit that happens to be in the main dmg. why not phb II or similar rules-only compendiums... that's where my uneasyness with that comes from. @mcj: i meant over the normal share of rulebooks - i own 0 3.5 rulebooks, dragonmarked, and about 30 novels. (and the adnd2 phb)
McJarvis 05-21-08, 03:41 PM	I will admit that what crazy is quoting from me was kind of seat-of-my-pants thinking while pitlording. I haven't given the issue a ton of thought.
Nabuchadnezzar 05-21-08, 03:42 PM	i agree on a paralyzed mount being able to withdraw with a rider that is bound to it as luggage. but i don't see how he can even stay on the horse like that. the horse moves, every tried to have a statue sit on a suddenly moving horse and stay in the saddle? Paralysis means that dexterity drops to 0 (-5) Ride checks are keyed on dexterity. Ride to stay in saddle (DC 5) may not be so easy anymore ;)
CrazyArtificer 05-21-08, 03:43 PM	i agree on a paralyzed mount being able to withdraw with a rider that is bound to it as luggage. but i don't see how he can even stay on the horse like that. the horse moves, every tried to have a statue sit on a suddenly moving horse and stay in the saddle? Well, I always thought about that event this way: 1) You are paralyzed in place 2) When the horse moves you "fall" in some direction (the d100 stay in saddle check). 3) If you are lucky you fall just on horse back and avoid falling to the ground.. maybe your belt got struck to the saddle or whatever else
McJarvis 05-21-08, 03:45 PM	Well, I always thought about that event this way: 1) You are paralyzed in place 2) When the horse moves you "fall" in some direction (the d100 stay in saddle check). 3) If you are lucky you fall just on horse back and avoid falling to the ground.. maybe your belt got struck to the saddle or whatever else Heh. you just made that up, didn't you? ;) edit- What Nab said right above your post resonates are more true to me. Can you even use dex-based skills while your dex is 0? If you can't- then you auto-fall out when paralyzed.
whitebaron 05-21-08, 03:49 PM	Heh. you just made that up, didn't you? ;) edit- What Nab said right above your post resonates are more true to me. Can you even use dex-based skills while your dex is 0? If you can't- then you auto-fall out when paralyzed. you cannot move when your dex falls to 0. all dex based skills are bound to movement, actually.
Nabuchadnezzar 05-21-08, 03:49 PM	Heh. you just made that up, didn't you? ;) edit- What Nab said right above your post resonates are more true to me. Can you even use dex-based skills while your dex is 0? If you can't- then you auto-fall out when paralyzed. Also, an unconscious rider has 50% to stay in saddle (75% with military saddle) and it's maybe worse than being paralyzed. I think that a rider can make the ride check even if his dex is zero. It will be harder to stay in saddle with a -5 to dex.
CrazyArtificer 05-21-08, 03:51 PM	Heh. you just made that up, didn't you? ;) edit- What Nab said right above your post resonates are more true to me. Can you even use dex-based skills while your dex is 0? If you can't- then you auto-fall out when paralyzed. Actually that's how I always handled it when describing the scene in my tt games as a DM :) I think that Nab point doesn't apply. The confusion comes from the wording (which is the same) for two different checks, actually. Nab is referring to this check Stay in Saddle: You can react instantly to try to avoid falling when your mount rears or bolts unexpectedly or when you take damage. This usage does not take an action. while I believe it should apply this one If You Are Dropped: If you are knocked unconscious, you have a 50% chance to stay in the saddle (or 75% if you’re in a military saddle). Otherwise you fall and take 1d6 points of damage. Without you to guide it, your mount avoids combat. While it's true that mechanically you aren't unconscious when paralyzed it's also true that you cannot expect to control a mount either. You are prevented to act and I believe you should be treated as a crappy weight on the back of the horse.
Nabuchadnezzar 05-21-08, 03:54 PM	Yes, I think that 50% (or 75% with military saddle) chance to stay in saddle sounds good too :D
whitebaron 05-21-08, 03:55 PM	Also, an unconscious rider has 50% to stay in saddle (75% with military saddle) and it's maybe worse than being paralyzed. I think that a rider can make the ride check even if his dex is zero. It will be harder to stay in saddle with a -5 to dex. where did you get that 50%? about ride check: no, you can't take any action while paralyzed, only purely mental ones - which definitely does not involve riding. about paralysis, though: He is rooted to the spot, frozen and helpless. Not even friends can move his limbs. He may take purely mental actions, such as casting a spell with no components. A winged creature flying in the air at the time that it becomes paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls. A swimmer can’t swim and may drown. so, if he is frozen in the spot, this might mean: a) his limbs are too tight for the horse to move properly b) his limbs are in the right location - he sits above and stays on it c) his limbs are opened to far and he falls.
CrazyArtificer 05-21-08, 03:57 PM	where did you get that 50%? Check under SRD, Mounted Combat, If you are dropped.
Nabuchadnezzar 05-21-08, 03:58 PM	where did you get that 50%? From here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#mountedCombat): If You Are Dropped If you are knocked unconscious, you have a 50% chance to stay in the saddle (or 75% if you’re in a military saddle). Otherwise you fall and take 1d6 points of damage. EDIT: Ninja'ed
whitebaron 05-21-08, 04:01 PM	please, don't reply that fast and that often - i already read that ^^ crazy's post was written while i did mine - after all, i had some text to write and it was really closely timed. i believe the same check for paralysed and unconscious should be applied. there's a core rule in place, which does pretty much the same, just the game mechanic why you can't do anything is different.
McJarvis 05-21-08, 04:03 PM	please, don't reply that fast and that often - i already read that ^^ crazy's post was written while i did mine - after all, i had some text to write and it was really closely timed. i believe the same check for paralysed and unconscious should be applied. there's a core rule in place, which does pretty much the same, just the game mechanic why you can't do anything is different. Without any other rules to apply to the situation- I would concur.
CrazyArtificer 05-21-08, 04:07 PM	Fine. Now that we know a character might stay in saddle, what about the original issue? Would he withdraw as well, even involuntarily?
hogarth 05-21-08, 04:14 PM	A mount and rider's movement is shared. If one withdraws, the other does too. Simple Consider the alternative: The rider couldn't move with the horse if he were paralyzed. Or, if you were going to say the horse is "just carrying" the rider & the rider doesn't move himself, then why do riders get a +2 bonus when they charge with a mount? they can't move themselves- and they are just along for the ride. I don't see the contradiction that's supposed to be in that last paragraph. A paralysed rider is dead weight that a horse is "just carrying". A charging rider gets a +2 on attacks because the rider is using the "charge" action. What I don't want to see is a mounted character who avoiding attacks of opportunity by ordering his horse to withdraw, even though he's spending actions doing other stuff (activating wands, attacking other foes, etc.).
CrazyArtificer 05-21-08, 04:18 PM	What I don't want to see is a mounted character who avoiding attacks of opportunity by ordering his horse to withdraw, even though he's spending actions doing other stuff (activating wands, attacking other foes, etc.). That is an option who was immediately ruled out. The only exception to the rule of spending a withdraw action to withdraw for both the rider and the mount would be when the rider is unconscious, paralyzed or stunned.
hogarth 05-21-08, 04:25 PM	That is an option who was immediately ruled out. The only exception to the rule of spending a withdraw action to withdraw for both the rider and the mount would be when the rider is unconscious, paralyzed or stunned. But why do we need an exception? What purpose does it serve? Why do characters suddenly get better at dodging attacks once they fall asleep? :)
McJarvis 05-21-08, 04:25 PM	I don't see the contradiction that's supposed to be in that last paragraph. A paralysed rider is dead weight that a horse is "just carrying". A charging rider gets a +2 on attacks because the rider is using the "charge" action. In the example in my paragraph, the rider himself is not actually moving- the horse is doing that for him. That's why it is a contradiction- you can't charge if you don't move 10 ft in a round[the rider didn't move himself, the horse did that]- and you certainly have to attack at the end of a charge, which the horse doesn't do if it isn't a warhorse. [but the rider did] The basic idea is that actions are shared between a horse and rider. Of course, on the other hand- I wouldn't say that a paralyzed rider would be "forced" to charge if his mount did.