Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Caterane 02-08-07, 07:49 AM	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 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.
Prisonlords 02-08-07, 07:50 AM	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: 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: 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. 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: 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: 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.
Prisonlords 02-08-07, 07:51 AM	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: 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: 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: 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.
Prisonlords 02-08-07, 07:51 AM	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.
Prisonlords 02-08-07, 07:52 AM	reserved 3
hogarth 02-13-07, 03:54 PM	Can a non-spellcasting character with a spellcasting leadership cohort buy scrolls with CL > 2 for his cohort to use? Can druid leadership cohorts come with a fully trained animal companion? What about a familiar for wizard cohorts (which usually costs 100 gp)? Does a psicrystal count as a "familiar, special mount or animal companion" for the purposes of a penalty to a character's Leadership score? If a cohort would suffer an XP penalty due to multiclassing, would that affect the main PC?
MindWandererB 02-13-07, 05:22 PM	Can a non-spellcasting character with a spellcasting leadership cohort buy scrolls with CL > 2 for his cohort to use? Can druid leadership cohorts come with a fully trained animal companion? What about a familiar for wizard cohorts (which usually costs 100 gp)? Does a psicrystal count as a "familiar, special mount or animal companion" for the purposes of a penalty to a character's Leadership score? If a cohort would suffer an XP penalty due to multiclassing, would that affect the main PC? 1: The scroll CL is based on your CL or your cohort's, whichever is higher. So max of your cohort's CL+2 in this case. 2: Technically not, although it doesn't make much sense. Cohorts cannot use their skills out of combat, which would involve training. Similarly, a wizard cohort can't spend any money on themselves, so no familiar for them before play. 3: I would say yes (because I'm of the opinion that psicrystals = familiars in most ways), but NiQil and CoCo precedent involving psicrystals would say no. So unless other elders agree with me, the answer is no. 4: No. A cohort's XP is a non-issue. Interesting, I never thought of that.
TelinArtho 02-13-07, 05:26 PM	1. I concur with MWB 2. Although technically they are not allowed to train them - I think it is reasonable in the case of the Animal Companion. The wizard would definitely need to pay for the familiar. Perhaps get Cat to make a ruling and statement to the issue in the rules. 3. I agree with MWB - yes Psicrystals should count for the penalty (the only reason it is not included is because the XPH came out separately and after the PHB (in my opinion)). 4. I concur with MWB - its a non-issue since the cohort advances automatically when it can.
Maraxus 02-14-07, 02:09 PM	So, it's topic in the Fights of the week thread, here is the place, where you Elders should make a decission: Balancing and Grease: The description of the balance skill sais, you loose your Dex-bonus to AC, while balancing (without 5 ranks). Being Attacked while Balancing You are considered flat-footed while balancing, since you can’t move to avoid a blow, and thus you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). If you have 5 or more ranks in Balance, you aren’t considered flat-footed while balancing. If you take damage while balancing, you must make another Balance check against the same DC to remain standing. However it does not actually say, what balancing is. Is it: -standing on a surface that forces balance-checks. -moving over a surface that requires balance checks. -something else (like: "You are balancing for 1 round if you do an action like moving or something that requires much movement.") And do creatures within the area of a grease spell suffer the same effect? A grease spell covers a solid surface with a layer of slippery grease. Any creature in the area when the spell is cast must make a successful Reflex save or fall. This save is repeated on your turn each round that the creature remains within the area. A creature can walk within or through the area of grease at half normal speed with a DC 10 Balance check. Failure means it can’t move that round (and must then make a Reflex save or fall), while failure by 5 or more means it falls (see the Balance skill for details). Arguments posted about grease specificly: Actually, the description of grease doesn't say that (...you are flat-footed without 5 ranks in balance). It says you must make a balance check in order to move. If you don't move, succeeding in the reflex save is enough. My counter argument is: Grease refers to the balancing skill and this one sais you are flatt-fooded when you are balancing. It does not exactly say, what it means to be balancing (moving right the moment, moving since last turn, standing in a balancing-worthy area) but from my understanding of the word "balancing" and the nature of the flat-fooded condition, it makes only sense, that you are balancing whenever on unsave (as describe in the balancing skill) ground. I have hardly ever seen anyone change his mind in an internet-forum-disscussion, so I think you can simply post your opinion here, if anybody wants furtherdiscussion about it, we can make this in the Fights of the week thread. :)
MindWandererB 02-14-07, 03:13 PM	I will paraphrase my FotW post for the sake of consistency: Balance is badly worded. It only makes reference to balancing while moving. It's unclear whether "while balancing" refers to only during the move itself, or during the round in which you move, or any time you're on a surface that calls for a check. Climb may be a good precedent, since it also causes a loss of Dex bonus, and seems clear that it applies any time you're on a vertical surface.
TelinArtho 02-14-07, 03:18 PM	I will agree that it is poorly worded. I would go with the following: If you are in a situation that would require a balance check while moving, you are considered balancing while in that situation. This would include moving through a greased section or staying stationary in one; it would also include standing on the roof on the city map.
Caterane 02-14-07, 09:09 PM	I can normally answer this myself but since I'm currently affected by this I want to have some Elder opinions on the following. A large flying creature in the sewer... is it affected by the water (and thus slowed down) or not? This is what the map description says: Sewer Ceiling: The ceiling is at 10ft. Huge and bigger creatures have to squeeze all the time. The Water: The murky green water is 1ft deep and counts as difficult terrain. Since large creatures use up four squares, they are always affected by the water. IMO pretty clear but Erithmu disagrees with me and has asked for clarification from a third party. Thanks
Maraxus 02-14-07, 10:16 PM	The rules of the game article "All about movement 5" (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040706a) sais, a large creature would be "10 ft across, 5 ft high." - And at least for "long" creatures, I would agree with this (I think the Large (Tall) entry is a Typo. Just notice, that every single other creature from small to Collossal has heigth = reach). Therefor the creature could fly at +5ft and there is no discussion. So, at least for large (long) creatures it should not matter. However generally speaking ... I think 10 ft heigth to the ceiling should be enough for a 10 ft high creature to fly solely above the water and should not be hindered by it. Well, the first part is quite clear, I think (I mean the part about 5 ft high flying large (long) creatures. Whether there is a typo in the large (tall) entry is open to discussion). The second is purely my oppinion and should have no relevance for you elders. ;)
Zevox 02-14-07, 10:18 PM	I'm no Elder, but heres an argument I made 3 weeks ago in the Tavern about this for a fight one my characters is in which was accepted by my opponent and not contested by any of the Elders: So given that the water is 1 foot deep, and they can only fly at 0ft off the ground means that they are affected by the water? So does that mean they effectively fly at 60' normal, 30' when hovering? Nope - when flying, they are above the water (which is at ground level, not above it - if it were above it, it would spill out onto the dry parts of the map, or the dry ground would be only 9' from the ceiling, forcing large creatures to squeeze; and neither of those is true), so they move at full speed. There is precedent for this from previous battles (Morathor, a Half-Celestial Dwarf who used Expansion in that map, for instance, still moved at full speed when he fought the Harvester here). Zevox (Speeds there are for a Pegasus, which is what is involved in that fight.) Zevox
Erithmu 02-14-07, 10:48 PM	Funny ... I ran that fight too ...
MindWandererB 02-15-07, 12:36 AM	Forcing difficult terrain to affect flying creatures is a kettle of fish we don't need, IMO. Then we have to consider the forest--how high does the underbrush go? And in the temple, can a creature fly at 0' without being in the lava? For simplicity's sake, this should just be avoided. Then there's Zevox's point--if the water extends 1' above the "floor," then it's above the solid ground, which makes no sense.
Vathelokai 02-15-07, 01:40 AM	This pertains to a fight I'm running this week. Does energy adaption count as "resistance 10 (all)" or "resistance 10 fire, 10 acid, etc..."? Since energy resistance only protects against a certain ammount per round, this makes a difference if the character is hit by multiple energy types in one round. For example if an energy adapted PC is hit by acid arrow for 9 hp and fireball for 9 hp in the same round, resistance 'all' would mean they take 8 damage, and resistance 'each' would mean they take no damage. You gain resistance 10 against any attack that deals acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic damage. A creature with resistance to energy has the ability (usually extraordinary) to ignore some damage of a certain type each round, but it does not have total immunity.
MindWandererB 02-15-07, 01:45 AM	Vath, you're using the 3.0 edition Energy Resistance rules. In 3.0, it applied per round, but in 3.5, it's per attack. So unless the opponent pulls off a multi-type attack (e.g. Energy Admixture), it's a non-issue.
Abyssal Stalker 02-15-07, 01:48 AM	So let me get this straight. I don't quite follow, so please be patient. I have two options. Situation: Character A is standing somewhere and fighting character B. Character C casts grease on the area where A stands. A doesn't have ranks in balance. Effect: Option 1: A becomes flat-footed immediately, allthough he makes his ref save. Option 2: A has his normal AC as long as he doesn't perform a move action that involves actual movement. When he moves, he needs to make a balance check and thus becomes flat-footed. Option 2 is the one that I've been arguing for all the time. And that is what the spell description seems to say. The balance check is triggered by movement. Once you clarify this, I'll stop arguing the issue. :) Please note that I have no problems reading the balance rules, I fully agree with all that. Only the triggering condition is the problem for me.
jjones 02-15-07, 02:00 AM	So let me get this straight. I don't quite follow, so please be patient. I have two options. Situation: Character A is standing somewhere and fighting character B. Character C casts grease on the area where A stands. A doesn't have ranks in balance. Effect: Option 1: A becomes flat-footed immediately, allthough he makes his ref save. Option 2: A has his normal AC as long as he doesn't perform a move action that involves actual movement. When he moves, he needs to make a balance check and thus becomes flat-footed. Option 2 is the one that I've been arguing for all the time. And that is what the spell description seems to say. The balance check is triggered by movement. Once you clarify this, I'll stop arguing the issue. :) Please note that I have no problems reading the balance rules, I fully agree with all that. Only the triggering condition is the problem for me. K, i'll walk u through this. The VERY FIRST thing that needs to happen when you cast grease in the square Mr. A. must make a reflex save or fall. Any creature in the area when the spell is cast must make a successful reflex save or fall Now, next step is at the BEGINNING of your NEXT turn...This save is repeated on your turn each round that the creature remains within the area. IF he makes his next reflex save and doesn't fall, he is allowed to move with a DC 10 balance check. He doesn't need ranks in balance, it's untrained. He just rolls a D20+Dex Modifier. Succeeding that, he moves at......through the area at half speed.... IF he fails that balance check by 5 or more, then he falls. Just to clear up parts of your post.... 1....Mr. A. NEVER becomes flat-footed as a result of fails or success. Being prone does not negate your dex bonus to AC. Do not read into the balance description (you are flat-footed while balancing) as this isn't the same issue. You are simply making a "Balance Check", and not actually balancing on anything. The floor is larger than 12" wide i'm going to assume and doesn't qualify as "balancing". Remember...you are not being attacked while balancing, you are simply asked to make a "balance check", and there is a difference. If you ever take the Paragon GM test at Origins (like i have), this question may come up. Balancing and "balance check" are not the same. **EDIT** #2....it makes no difference if he makes a move action or not (even if not to move), as the spell description clearly states This save is repeated on your turn each round that the creature remains within the area. JJ
Abyssal Stalker 02-15-07, 02:18 AM	My point is that if A never moves, but instead sticks in the same square and keeps bashing B, he just needs to make his ref save. His AC is unaffected by the spell as long as he doesn't move. This is how I was handling the situation, and then everybody suddenly started to bomb me with balance skill description. (I may sound stupid and stubborn, but that's just because...well...I am.)
jjones 02-15-07, 02:22 AM	My point is that if A never moves, but instead sticks in the same square and keeps bashing B, he just needs to make his ref save. His AC is unaffected by the spell as long as he doesn't move. This is how I was handling the situation, and then everybody suddenly started to bomb me with balance skill description. The bolded part is 100% correct. And his reflex saves will come at the beginning of the mages turn that cast the spell (before the mage acts). JJ
MindWandererB 02-15-07, 02:46 AM	K1....Mr. A. NEVER becomes flat-footed as a result of fails or success. Being prone does not negate your dex bonus to AC. Do not read into the balance description (you are flat-footed while balancing) as this isn't the same issue. You are simply making a "Balance Check", and not actually balancing on anything. The floor is larger than 12" wide i'm going to assume and doesn't qualify as "balancing". Remember...you are not being attacked while balancing, you are simply asked to make a "balance check", and there is a difference. If you ever take the Paragon GM test at Origins (like i have), this question may come up. Balancing and "balance check" are not the same.What... the... hell? Okay... if you're not balancing when you have to make a balance check, then when are you? I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense at all. If you have to make a balance check, you're balancing. It doesn't matter whether it's a greased area, an uneven floor, or a narrow walkway, you're balancing. The only question is, are you considered balancing if you never move? As much as I don't think it makes any sense, the rules don't really support it. If you don't move for a round, you're not balancing that round, and as much as I hate it, it looks like that's just as true if you're on a flagpole as in a Grease spell.
jjones 02-15-07, 02:51 AM	So on a windy day everyone is considered flat-footed? Wow. Never go outside if it's windy less the rogues have a free-for-all. You are "balancing" when the surface is 12" wide or less or running/charging across a difficult surface. JJ
MindWandererB 02-15-07, 03:24 AM	So on a windy day everyone is considered flat-footed? Wow. Never go outside if it's windy less the rogues have a free-for-all. You are "balancing" when the surface is 12" wide or less or running/charging across a difficult surface. JJ On a windy day, everyone has to make Fort saves, not Balance checks. try again, "Paragon." Your opinion is based on nothing concrete. Find a reference that even hints that you might not be "balancing" when making a Balance check. Please.
jjones 02-15-07, 03:29 AM	Well, you can thank Mr. Skip for that ruling. And we all know, he's NEVER wrong. <tries to stop self from laughing maniacally> JJ
Maraxus 02-15-07, 09:31 AM	... 1....Mr. A. NEVER becomes flat-footed as a result of fails or success. Being prone does not negate your dex bonus to AC. Do not read into the balance description (you are flat-footed while balancing) as this isn't the same issue. You are simply making a "Balance Check", and not actually balancing on anything. The floor is larger than 12" wide i'm going to assume and doesn't qualify as "balancing". Remember...you are not being attacked while balancing, you are simply asked to make a "balance check", and there is a difference. If you ever take the Paragon GM test at Origins (like i have), this question may come up. Balancing and "balance check" are not the same. ... A grease spell covers a solid surface with a layer of slippery grease. Any creature in the area when the spell is cast must make a successful Reflex save or fall. This save is repeated on your turn each round that the creature remains within the area. A creature can walk within or through the area of grease at half normal speed with a DC 10 Balance check. Failure means it can’t move that round (and must then make a Reflex save or fall), while failure by 5 or more means it falls (see the Balance skill for details). And those details are: You can walk on a precarious surface. A successful check lets you move at half your speed along the surface for 1 round. A failure by 4 or less means you can’t move for 1 round. A failure by 5 or more means you fall. The difficulty varies with the surface, as follows: Being Attacked while Balancing You are considered flat-footed while balancing, since you can’t move to avoid a blow, and thus you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). If you have 5 or more ranks in Balance, you aren’t considered flat-footed while balancing. If you take damage while balancing, you must make another Balance check against the same DC to remain standing. Accelerated Movement You can try to walk across a precarious surface more quickly than normal. If you accept a -5 penalty, you can move your full speed as a move action. (Moving twice your speed in a round requires two Balance checks, one for each move action used.) You may also accept this penalty in order to charge across a precarious surface; charging requires one Balance check for each multiple of your speed (or fraction thereof) that you charge.
Vathelokai 02-15-07, 09:42 AM	Vath, you're using the 3.0 edition Energy Resistance rules. In 3.0, it applied per round, but in 3.5, it's per attack. So unless the opponent pulls off a multi-type attack (e.g. Energy Admixture), it's a non-issue. Funny; both of the online SRDs have the 'per round' rule. No time now; I'll go check my DMG.
Erithmu 02-15-07, 09:59 AM	Funny; both of the online SRDs have the 'per round' rule. No time now; I'll go check my DMG. Vath: my guess is that it would give resist Acid 10, Fire 10, elec 10 etc etc. I know that it is not against every attack. (and if you do manage to fire off 4 fireballs in my direction, I'll be ticked) So If i got hit for 9 acid and 9 fire that would be negated unless I took another form of fire or acid damage in the same round. I would go with the 'each' option, then again I am biased in this situation.
hogarth 02-15-07, 10:29 AM	Funny; both of the online SRDs have the 'per round' rule. No time now; I'll go check my DMG. This was discussed in the Tavern a couple of weeks ago (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=11356175). It turns out that the DMG/MM description for energy resistance was changed between 3.0 and 3.5, but they didn't change the SRD wording.
Hirumajoe 02-15-07, 11:04 AM	Is there a limit of how high scrolls/powerstones or NPC spell casting services can go in the black market? I thought there was a cap, but it looks like I was misremembering. Could an ECL 3 character purchase, say a Polymorph Any Object spell for 1,600 gp and 17 credits from a 20th level NPC caster and be turned into a Stone Giant (for example) until it gets dispelled (presumably the earliest at the ECL 10 bracket). Also, on semi-related note, does the Polymorph any Object spell function as is described in its table, since it acts like polymorph, but can change any object or creature into another? Given that the polymorph spell limits the maximum HD you can change into to your caster level or the subject's HD or 15 HD, whichever is lower. Since a rock has no HD, can you actually polymorph it into a human as the table suggests? Or take a small 1/2 HD shrew and polymorph it into a manticore? Thanks, Hirumajoe
Zevox 02-15-07, 11:13 AM	Is there a limit of how high scrolls/powerstones or NPC spell casting services can go in the black market? I thought there was a cap, but it looks like I was misremembering. Nope, the cap only exists in the form of the credit cost. Well, and the fact that its not available at all to level 3s. Could an ECL 3 character purchase, say a Polymorph Any Object spell for 1,600 gp and 17 credits from a 20th level NPC caster and be turned into a Stone Giant (for example) until it gets dispelled (presumably the earliest at the ECL 10 bracket). Nope, we have house rules on that spell. See the Meta Rules post here. Not available as a spellcasting service, scroll, or item of any sort. Zevox
hogarth 02-15-07, 11:20 AM	Nope, we have house rules on that spell [Polymorph Any Object]. See the Meta Rules post here. Not available as a spellcasting service, scroll, or item of any sort. Hmmm...it doesn't say anything about Baleful Polymorph. Maybe I should make a monkey out of one of my characters. ;)
Zevox 02-15-07, 11:45 AM	Hmmm...it doesn't say anything about Baleful Polymorph. Maybe I should make a monkey out of one of my characters. ;) Somehow, I don't think anyone will object if you do ;) . Zevox
SauroGrenom 02-15-07, 11:52 AM	Polymorph any Object was banned as a spell casting service. This happened at the same time as the discussion to ban True Mind Switch. I cannot recall exactly what the ruling was, but this discussion about becoming high LA creatures for free was the cause of the restriction. Check out the rules here.
hogarth 02-15-07, 11:58 AM	Somehow, I don't think anyone will object if you do. Hey, for 450 gp, Reginald Molehusband (say) could get: 30 ft climb speed +2 size bonus to AC +8 to Balance/Climb/Hide Weapon Finesse bonus feat bite attack ability to ride creatures of size Small+ Of course, if he failed the Will save... :weep:
SauroGrenom 02-15-07, 12:28 PM	I've researched some of the questions going around right now. On the Balance thing and the Grease spell, I think that despite JJ's Paragon GM status he's totally wrong. Balancing is a game term that is not defined. The only reasonable definition that can be derived from the description of the balance skill and all other rules sources I can find indicate that you are "balancing" so long as you are in a square of the map that requires balance checks to move (otherwise a character is never balancing on another character's turn). On the Large Creatures in the sewer thing, I think that we have a few conflicting reasonable assumptions that play an important part in this. First it's reasonable to assume that the water is 1' deep with the top level to the adjacent stone floor. If the large creature can fit into the stone squares w/o squeezing then there is clearly 10' above the stone floor (not 9'). If all that's true then the flying creature is not in the water when it flies at 0' altitude relative to the stone floor, and the flying creature should suffer no movement penalties. That is my take on the issue of flying creatures at 0' altitude with respect to the water in the sewers. But it's totally unreasonable to assume that large creatures with wings can fly in the sewers to begin with. A griffon has a 35' wingspan. The pegasus would have something similar. That's way way way wider than the tunnels. A nightmare or yeth hound or ogre magi flies due to a supernatural ability w/o wings, so it would have no problem. But wings are another matter. In a TT game I'd rule that a griffon or pegasus couldn't fly in the sewer. For CoCo, such a ruling may be hard to apply to all flying creatures. But we could consider something like this.
Zevox 02-15-07, 01:18 PM	Hey, for 450 gp, Reginald Molehusband (say) could get: 30 ft climb speed +2 size bonus to AC +8 to Balance/Climb/Hide Weapon Finesse bonus feat bite attack ability to ride creatures of size Small+ Of course, if he failed the Will save... :weep: Except of course that while he gets all of that, he loses all of his class features. I don't think that losing your psionics and spellcasting is worth gaining those puny benefits ;) . Not to mention he gets the Monkey's base saves, bab, etc. @ Sauro - Remember though that as far as the rules are concerned, those creatures only take up the 10' cube space that they normally do, wingspan or no. Theres nothing in the rules that would preclude their flying in there, as little sense as it makes. In a tabletop game, certainly a DM wouldn't allow it, but here we're stuck with the rules, and theres no rules precluding it. Zevox
hogarth 02-15-07, 01:19 PM	Except of course that while he gets all of that, he loses all of his class features. I don't think that losing your psionics and spellcasting is worth gaining those puny benefits ;) . Not to mention he gets the Monkey's base saves, bab, etc. That's only if you fail the second save (the Will save). Otherwise it's just a permanent polymorph.
Zevox 02-15-07, 01:24 PM	That's only if you fail the second save (the Will save). Otherwise it's just a permanent polymorph. Take a look again: Baleful Polymorph Transmutation Level: Drd 5, Sor/Wiz 5 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) Target: One creature Duration: Permanent Saving Throw: Fortitude negates, Will partial; see text Spell Resistance: Yes You change the subject into a Small or smaller animal of no more than 1 HD (such as a dog, lizard, monkey, or toad). The subject takes on all the statistics and special abilities of an average member of the new form in place of its own except as follows: * The target retains its own alignment (and personality, within the limits of the new form’s ability scores). * If the target has the shapechanger subtype, it retains that subtype. * The target retains its own hit points. * The target is treated has having its normal Hit Dice for purpose of adjudicating effects based on HD, such as the sleep spell, though it uses the new form’s base attack bonus, base save bonuses, and all other statistics derived from Hit Dice. * The target also retains the ability to understand (but not to speak) the languages it understood in its original form. It can write in the languages it understands, but only the form is capable of writing in some manner (such as drawing in the dirt with a paw). With those exceptions, the target’s normal game statistics are replaced by those of the new form. The target loses all the special abilities it has in its normal form, including its class features. All items worn or carried by the subject fall to the ground at its feet, even if they could be worn or carried by the new form. If the new form would prove fatal to the creature (for example, if you polymorphed a landbound target into a fish, or an airborne target into a toad), the subject gets a +4 bonus on the save. If the subject remains in the new form for 24 consecutive hours, it must attempt a Will save. If this save fails, it loses its ability to understand language, as well as all other memories of its previous form, and its Hit Dice and hit points change to match an average creature of its new form. These abilities and statistics return to normal if the effect is later ended. Incorporeal or gaseous creatures are immune to baleful polymorph, and a creature with the shapechanger subtype (such as a lycanthrope or a doppelganger) can revert to its natural form as a standard action (which ends the spell’s effect). Yeah, you lose all those things as part and parcel of the initial shape shift. The will save later only causes you to lose your memories, hp, and effective HD, effectively turning you totally into that creature, body and mind. Zevox
hogarth 02-15-07, 01:29 PM	Yeah, you lose all those things as part and parcel of the initial shape shift. The will save later only causes you to lose your memories, hp, and effective HD, effectively turning you totally into that creature, body and mind. Oh I see what's going on...the wording got changed at the time the Polymorph/Wild Shape/etc. errata came out. I'm looking at an older copy of the SRD. Never mind.
Erithmu 02-15-07, 01:39 PM	On the Large Creatures in the sewer thing, I think that we have a few conflicting reasonable assumptions that play an important part in this. First it's reasonable to assume that the water is 1' deep with the top level to the adjacent stone floor. If the large creature can fit into the stone squares w/o squeezing then there is clearly 10' above the stone floor (not 9'). If all that's true then the flying creature is not in the water when it flies at 0' altitude relative to the stone floor, and the flying creature should suffer no movement penalties. That is my take on the issue of flying creatures at 0' altitude with respect to the water in the sewers. But it's totally unreasonable to assume that large creatures with wings can fly in the sewers to begin with. A griffon has a 35' wingspan. The pegasus would have something similar. That's way way way wider than the tunnels. A nightmare or yeth hound or ogre magi flies due to a supernatural ability w/o wings, so it would have no problem. But wings are another matter. In a TT game I'd rule that a griffon or pegasus couldn't fly in the sewer. For CoCo, such a ruling may be hard to apply to all flying creatures. But we could consider something like this. Would appreciate a temporary solution (even if the final solution is different), as this has implications for the fight I am running this week. I had plans to run the fight as the wings did not matter (for CoCo ease of use, and the matter that I had done it in the past.)
SauroGrenom 02-15-07, 01:47 PM	Well the current coco rules say that a flying creature's wings do not place any additional requirements on how much space the creature has on the map or haw much space they need to move. So for your fight go with current coco rules. And I think both Telin and I have spoken on the issue of map interpretation that is most important for the fight. If there is 10' from the dry stone floor to the ceiling in the sewers (this is required else a large creature is squeezing everywhere they go), then there is 10' from the top surface of the water to the ceiling. I'm inclined to believe that there is 10' from the dry stone floor to the ceiling, so I'd say a large creature can fly through the tunnels w/o any movement penalty (aside from the restrictions imposed by the maneuverability class).
MindWandererB 02-15-07, 03:25 PM	I concur, with the addendum that there's still no restriction against moving to a corner, landing, turning, and resuming flight. As for the wingspan issue: although I agree with Sauro in principle (and would do so in my home games), there's just no such thing as a "wingspan" mechanic, just as there is no "height" mechanic. An Enlarged human would be more than 10 feet tall, but doesn't have to squeeze in the sewers; a Large creature with large wings is similarly unrestricted. Besides, we don't have wingspan information for many creatures, and we can't prevent flying by Lareg creatures altogether (I would think a Large pixie would have no problems, and of course all wingless fliers would be fine). Regarding Energy Resistance: the online glossary, the Resist Energy spell, and the Resistance to Energy entry in the SRD under "Types, Subtypes, and Special Abilities" all use the "each time" phrasing. Only the entry under "Special Abilities" uses the "per round" phrasing. That one is clearly the error. Regarding Grease: We are all idiots. Every single one of us. Especially JJ. Is a character in the area of a grease spell considered flat-footed? Yes. Any character who is attacked while balancing is considered flat-footed unless he has 5 or more ranks of Balance (Player’s Handbook, page 67).
Caterane 02-15-07, 05:02 PM	It's already sad that many think common sense has no place in D&D and take the PHB for the bible. This book has only so many pages into which WotC had to put all rules plus spells and whatnot. There was no space to write down every stupid situation and make a rule out of it because else the human players act like mindless zombies when something is not covered by the rules ("Hey Joe, there's no rule for starving." - "Cool then we cannot die by hunger or thirst WOOT"). However, what's now taking on ridiculous proportions is that we begin to ignore physical laws. I've been informed by Erithmu about the Elder rule for flying in sewers with wings. I hope everyone knows how wings work but just to make sure I'll explain it again. You extend them to their full length, then flap them up and down which propels you upward. If your body is considered to be 10ft wide and you are in a 10ft tunnel and - assuming the walls are not ethereal or illusions - there's no way that you can extend your wings! Any DM on this world living outside a sanatorium would fall from the chair laughing if one of his players wanted to do that. And rightly so. It's just not possible. In no group on this planet would that be allowed. By ignoring physical laws and the way it is treated at the gaming table, we distance the coco from being a tool for playtesting. It's one thing to grant access to every ressource listed and hand out rewards on gold only (that already removes us from practical application) but relying on pegasi in the sewers is just too much to bear. The random maps were created for a reason: to have different battlefields, some with advantages and some that give you disadvantages. By allowing flyers to fly almost unrestricted on any map, especially the sewer, we have utterly failed to create such diverse enviroments. With this ruling, it doesn't matter at all wether you fly on the plains or the sewers. Well, I wrote my tactics and had that image of Mr. Hood flying forward and backward as if he would stand on McFly's hoverboard, and not on a living horselike creature with wings. It's just ridiculous. As said, the PHB or MM couldn't list every information on every creature but the designers probably didn't think that someone would be so crazy as to interpret a 10x10ft creature with wings being able to fly in a 10x10ft tunnel, no matter what. Well, maybe they did think that the guys in the sanatarium might still get it wrong and just to be 100% on the safe side they even mentioned in the entry that the pegasus has a wingspan of 20ft. They haven't expected the Core Coliseum though. We have to DM here who could fall from the chair laughing that's why we have to put everything down. Hippogriff is 10x10 ft and has a wingspan of 20ft. That's something to work with. We can say that - unless otherwise noted - a creature has twice the wingspan that it has a base width.
TheMagister 02-15-07, 05:12 PM	Cat, while I agree with you on principle I ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to allow any character to be gimped for this battle just because one of your characters is in it. If you want to initiate some kind of house rule change, that's fine. But no jerking of the proverbial carpet out from under my feet, ok? TM
hogarth 02-15-07, 05:15 PM	However, what's now taking on ridiculous proportions is that we begin to ignore physical laws. I've been informed by Erithmu about the Elder rule for flying in sewers with wings. I hope everyone knows how wings work but just to make sure I'll explain it again. You extend them to their full length, then flap them up and down which propels you upward. If your body is considered to be 10ft wide and you are in a 10ft tunnel and - assuming the walls are not ethereal or illusions - there's no way that you can extend your wings! Any DM on this world living outside a sanatorium would fall from the chair laughing if one of his players wanted to do that. And rightly so. It's just not possible. In no group on this planet would that be allowed. By ignoring physical laws and the way it is treated at the gaming table, we distance the coco from being a tool for playtesting. I find it interesting that you have no problem with the realism of a 7' humanoid riding on the back of a horse's skeleton without falling off, though. And it doesn't even have an exotic saddle -- apparently you can just use a normal saddle if you pull the straps really, really tight on it. :D
TheMagister 02-15-07, 05:17 PM	Removed for being non-contributive.
TheMagister 02-15-07, 05:17 PM	I find it interesting that you have no problem with the realism of a 7' humanoid riding on the back of a horse's skeleton without falling off, though. And it doesn't even have an exotic saddle -- apparently you can just use a normal saddle if you pull the straps really, really tight on it. :D :heehee
TelinArtho 02-15-07, 05:21 PM	The problem with adjudicating a rule like that Cat is that it creates hell for the pitlords (which - admit it - we need to make an easier time of... even I have to test my resolve with back to back weeks of 10+ hours per fight...). If we adjudicate a rule where flyers have twice the wingspan of the actual creature, then you get into a hairy situation: Large Flyer in the city. Unless the flyer is above all of the buildings, the pitlord has to take extra effort in calculating the actual width of the being (who suddenly grows to gargantuan size). I adjuticated the "simple" rule for jump attacks. It was short and simple and could be easily explained. It clarifies things so that the players and pitlords can spell things out clearly and concisely. I would feel more confident with restricting flight to medium and smaller flyers in the sewers alone - rather than applying a house rule where we need to add more work to the pitlord. That said - I'm not too keen on changing it for your fight - where the decision to allow large flyers in the sewers has been in place for a few weeks. You can feel slighted if you like - but chiming in with a rules change ONLY when it affects one of your characters - is bad form.
MindWandererB 02-15-07, 05:31 PM	I agree. We've had pegasi, dire bats, and who knows what else flying around in the sewers almost ever since they were created. I would agree with a change to the Sewer rules stating that a Large creature that uses wings to fly cannot do so there. But not the second the GM's character finds himself battling such a character. Cat, if you want to have a hand in rules like this, you need to keep up with this thread. When you don't, you essentially forfeit your right to complain when the rule affects one of your characters. Stepping in with the Iron Fist with this kind of timing is indeed bad form. So I second Telin. We can change it, but not until after this week's fights.
SauroGrenom 02-15-07, 05:41 PM	Cat, If you want to create a new house rule, then that's OK by me as long as it goes into effect next week. Clearly we should think this through before making any hasty decisions. There are a few details that may be overlooked. For example in the standard arena, the pillars are an area where we typically allow characters to dive among them on a winged mount. Kracknol used tactics like that when combating Auburn many months ago in. We've been using this idea of a creature's size for a long time just because it's simple and easy to use. There are no confusions. Also does this wing span apply to all flying creatures with wings? What if the SRD has a different wing span mentioned? Does the "size" increase take place in all dimensions? Is the creature twice as wide and twice as tall and twice as long? Does this influence the vulnerability of the creature to attacks or what size of things are needed to provide cover? Does this increased size effect hide checks? Can a creature fly while squeezing through a tight space? There are lots of complications that arise with the idea you suggest. If you want a new house rule, we'll have to deal with all those.
jjones 02-15-07, 05:46 PM	I find it interesting that you have no problem with the realism of a 7' humanoid riding on the back of a horse's skeleton without falling off, though. And it doesn't even have an exotic saddle -- apparently you can just use a normal saddle if you pull the straps really, really tight on it. :D Not only that, but it's an undead which require standard actions to guide (commanding undead Phb. 159). I'll conceed i don't know all the house rules, and how you've all managed to adjudicate using mounted combat and such riding feats/skills on things that aren't mounts, but i'm sure i'll eventually catch on to these new house rules. JJ
MindWandererB 02-15-07, 05:55 PM	Also does this wing span apply to all flying creatures with wings? What if the SRD has a different wing span mentioned? Does the "size" increase take place in all dimensions? Is the creature twice as wide and twice as tall and twice as long? Does this influence the vulnerability of the creature to attacks or what size of things are needed to provide cover? Does this increased size effect hide checks? Can a creature fly while squeezing through a tight space? There are lots of complications that arise with the idea you suggest. If you want a new house rule, we'll have to deal with all those.Good points, all. If the wingspan does not also increase length and height, then we have to deal with facing, which I think we can all agree is a big no-no. Then there's other space issues, like whether you have line of sight to it ("I cast Magic Missile on its exposed wingtip!"). Probably the best solution would be to prohibit flight with wings by Large creatures in the sewer, and leave it at that. No more general than that. It also parallels the (IMO silly) "impeded flight" rule in the Forest, in that it's a made-up rule to account for an idiosyncratic interpretation of realism.
jjones 02-15-07, 05:58 PM	Good points, all. If the wingspan does not also increase length and height, then we have to deal with facing, which I think we can all agree is a big no-no. Then there's other space issues, like whether you have line of sight to it ("I cast Magic Missile on its exposed wingtip!"). Probably the best solution would be to prohibit flight with wings by Large creatures in the sewer, and leave it at that. No more general than that. It also parallels the (IMO silly) "impeded flight" rule in the Forest, in that it's a made-up rule to account for an idiosyncratic interpretation of realism. Though i have no experience with the map and fights that have evolved therein, i agree to make it as simple as possible. Assuming one was going to be made that is. JJ
TheMagister 02-15-07, 06:01 PM	Not only that, but it's an undead which require standard actions to guide (commanding undead Phb. 159). I'll conceed i don't know all the house rules, and how you've all managed to adjudicate using mounted combat and such riding feats/skills on things that aren't mounts, but i'm sure i'll eventually catch on to these new house rules. JJ The Harvester TURNS undead. He can't command his nightmare skeleton. ... Doesn't that mean that it tries to kill him unless he turns it? THE HARVESTER - 3rd Avatar - http://www.caterane.de/CoCo/Charaktere/Harvester/Harvester3.jpg Avatar of the Harvester Seraph of Death Lawful Neutral ECL 8 (Cle6/Psw1/Half-Giant) Experience: 28062 XP Next level: 36000 XP The Time Roll: ? hours Ongoing Effects: xxxxx Items Used Up: xxxxx Spells/PP Used: xxxxx Abilities Used: xxxxx Free Activity: xxxxx The Time Roll: ? hours Ongoing Effects: xxxxx Items Used Up: xxxxx Spells/PP Used: xxxxx Abilities Used: xxxxx Free Activity: xxxxx The Time Roll: ? hours Ongoing Effects: xxxxx Items Used Up: xxxxx Spells/PP Used: xxxxx Abilities Used: xxxxx Free Activity: xxxxx Abilities: STR....18 (+4) [16,+2race] DEX....13 (+1) [15,-2race] CON....16 (+3) [14,+2race] INT.....14 (+2) WIS....16 (+3) [14,+1level, +1enhance] CHA....08 (-1) Hitpoints:........56 [30.5 (cle) +4.5 (psw) +21 (con)] Bab/Grp:........+4/+16 [+4bab,+4str,+4feat,+4size] Movement:.....30ft; 20ft in armor Initiative:.......+1 [+1dex] Armor Class:...19 (touch 11, flat 18, both 10) [+1dex,+8armor] Saving Throws: For +10 [5(cle) +2(psw) +3(con)] Ref +3 [2(cle) +1(dex)] [+2 vs fire] Will +8 [5(cle) +3(wis)] [+2 empty mind] Race Abilities: Giant type [Half-Giant], Fire acclimated, Powerful build, Naturally psionic (2PP), Stomp [1/d;Dc13], Low-light vision Class Abilities: Turn undead [2/d;Turn-1;Dam2d6+5], Magic domain [CL2], Darkness domain(SRD (http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/DivineDomainsandSpells.rtf)) Regular Feats: Blind fightB, Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Grapple, Craft Woundrous Itemsx, Extend Spellx Skills: 40 total [Skill points: 36cle, 4psi] (xx) Balance:.................1 [0 (rnk) +1 (dex)] Climb:...................4 [0 (rnk) +4 (str)] Concentration:..........13 [10 (rnk) +3 (con)] [10cle] Craft Armor:.............8 [4 (rnk) +2 (int) +2 (tool)] [4cle] Diplomacy:..............14 [10 (rnk) -1 (cha) +5 (item)] [10cle] Hide:...................-5 [0 (rnk) +1 (dex) -6 (acp)] Jump:....................4 [0 (rnk) +4 (str)] Listen:..................3 [0 (rnk) +3 (wis)] Move:...................-5 [0 (rnk) +1 (dex) -6 (acp)] Prof (Soul Harvester):..10 [5 (rnk) +3 (wis) +2 (tool)] [5cle] [140 gold] Psicraft:................3 [1 (rnk) +2 (int)] [2cle(cc)] Ride:...................11 [5 (rnk) +1 (dex) +5 (item)] [4psw,2cle(cc)] [+2 stay in saddle] Speak Auran..............X [---] [2cle(cc)] Spellcraft:..............3 [1 (rnk) +2 (int)] [1cle] Spot:....................3 [0 (rnk) +3 (wis)] Languages: Common, Celestial, Infernal, Auran Attacks: [All weapons are large size] [Ma]Scythe:....................+9 melee, 2d6+6 (20/x3) Armor Spikes:...................+8 melee, 1d8+4 (20/x2) Spiked Gauntlet:...............+8 melee, 1d6+4 (20/x2) Light Crossbow:................+5 ranged, 1d10 (19-20/x2) [80ft] Psionic Powers: [ML1] [PP: 3; Use: 1] 1: Empty mind Cleric Spells: [CL6] [SL: 27; Use: 9] [Dc13+lvl] 0: Guidance, Guidance, Resistance, Detect magic, Detect magic 1: Obscurring mist(D), Magic weapon, Doom, Inflict light wounds, Shield of faith 2: Blindness(D), Bulls strength, Silence, Silence, Resist energy 3: Blacklight(D), Inflict serious wounds, Dispel Magic, Dispel Magic /General Equipment\ (C = self-made) [Weight] Weapons and Armor |=> [Ma]Scythe (336) [20lb] ["Lifemawn"] |=> Armor spikes (cold iron) (150) [20lb] |=> Spiked (cold iron) gauntlet (20) [2lb] |=> Huge Darkwood Club (120) [12lb] |=> Light crossbow (70) [8lb] |=> Crossbow bolts (10) [10lb] [50 bolts] |=> Fullplate (750C) [50lb] (xx) |=> Towershield (30) [45lb] Miscellaneous Items |=> Black tattered Robe (0) [--] |=> Diplomacy+5 headband (1250C/5°) [--] (x) |=> Holy wooden Symbol (1) [--] [5x] |=> Holy silvered Symbol (25) [--] |=> Pearl of Power I (500C) [--] (xx) |=> Pearl of Power II (2000C) [--] (xx) |=> Pearl of Power III (4500C) [--] (xx) |=> Periapt of Wisdom+1 (500C/5°) [--] (x) |=> Spell Component Pouch (10) [4lb] [2x] |=> Spurs of Riding+5 (1252C/5°) [1lb] (xx) /Expendable Items\ [CAP: 2450/2450] Restricted Expendables [CL] (Gold) Arcane: Expeditious retreat [2] (50) Arcane: Invisibility [3] (150) Arcane: Mirror image [3] (150) Arcane: Mount [1] (25) Arcane: Protection from law [2] (50) Arcane: Ray of enfeeblement [2] (50) Arcane: See invisibility [3] (150) [2x] Arcane: Shield [2] (50) [2x] Arcane: Shocking grasp [4] (100) Arcane: Silent image [1] (25) [2x] Arcane: Summon swarm [3] (150) Arcane: True strike [1] (25) [3x] Divine: Bless [1] (25) Divine: Entropic shield [2] (50) Divine: Obscurring mist [1] (25) Divine: Protection from chaos [2] (50) Divine: Protection from evil [2] (50) Divine: Protection from good [2] (50) Divine: Shield of faith [2] (50) Potion: Shillelagh (50) [1lb] [2x] Stone: Animal affinity [3] (150) Stone: Chameleon [1] (25) Stone: Dissolving weapon [3] (150) Stone: ExpansionA [3] (150) Stone: Force screen [2] (50) [2x] Stone: Inertial armor [1] (25) Stone: Skate [2] (50) Stone: Synesthete [1] (25) [2x] Stone: VigorA [2] (50) [2x] Unrestricted Expendables [CL] (Gold) [Weight] Alchem: Alchemist fire (20) [1lb] [4x] Alchem: Antitoxin (50) [1lb] Staff: The Staff of the Night [8] (5700/20°/x) [1lb] [45 charges] |=> Entropic shield (5 charges) |=> [Ext]Blacklight (5 charges) Wand: Magic missile [9] (6750/15°) [1lb] [34 Charges] Wand: Cure Light Wounds [1] (750) [1lb] [34 Charges] Equipment in the Harvester's Cathedral Workforce: 243 souls [Gold] Alchem: Acid flasks (10) [1 lb] [20x] |=> Heavy (wooden) Shield (7) [10lb] |=> Ranseur (20) [24lb] |=> Spiked (silver) gauntlet (60) [2lb] |=> Lance (20) [20lb] |=> Club (-) [6lb] |=> Quivers with 100 (cold iron) bolts (10) [10 lb] |=> Soul Wall (50) [+2 Soulharvesting tool] |=> Soul of an Armorsmith (50) [+2 Craft Armor tool] Servants of the Harvester Allies: Custom Light Warhorse (250) ["Wraith"] Allies: 1 small Air Elemental (quested) ["Restless Spirits"] Allies: Nightmare Skeleton (375/5°) ["Knellstriker"] Miscellaneous statistics: Height: 2,10m (~7ft) Weight: 236 lbs Encumbrance: 0-100 (light), 101-200 (medium), 201-300 (heavy) Equipment: 103 lb; 148 lb w/towershield [MaxCA: 6] Psionically focused Ally: Knellstriker [CR 3] Ally: Restless Spirit [CR 1] . Ally Penalty: 16% Wraith Race: unknown [consider it Light Warhorse] Large ghost-like creature true neutral http://www.caterane.de/CoCo/Charaktere/Harvester/Wraith.jpg Abilities: STR....16 (+3) DEX....13 (+1) CON....17 (+3) INT.....02 (-4) WIS....13 (+1) Cha.....06 (-2) Hitpoints:.......22 (3Hd) [CR 1] Bab/Grp:.......+2/+9 Movement:.....60' (40' with Harvester) Initiative:.......+1 Armor Class:...14 (touch 10, flat 13, both 9) [+4natural,+1dex,-1size] Saves: For +6 [+3 (animal) +3 (con)] Ref +4 [+3 (animal) +1 (dex)] Will +2 [+1 (animal) +1 (wis)] Feats: Endurance, Diehard Skills: Listen+4, Spot+4 Racial: Low-light vision, Scent Tricks: Attack, Come, Defend, Down, Guard, Heel Attacks: Hoof: +4 melee, 1d4+3 (20/x2) Bite: -1 melee, 1d3+1 (20/x2) Full attack: 2 Hooves and 1 Bite Equipment: - Bit and Briddle (2) [1lb] - Military saddle (20) [30lb] Encumberance: Light load: 0-230 lb; Medium load: 231-460 lb; Heavy load: 461-690 lb Knellstriker Race: Advanced Nightmare Skeleton Large undead neutral evil http://www.caterane.de/CoCo/Charaktere/Harvester/Knellstriker.jpg Abilities: STR....18 (+4) DEX....17 (+3) CON....-- (--) INT.....-- (--) WIS....10 (+1) Cha.....01 (-5) Hitpoints:.......64.5 (7Hd) [CR 3] [(12)+(6*6.5)+(7*2)desecrate] Bab/Grp:.......+3/+11 Movement:.....40' land, 90' fly (good) Initiative:.......+7 [Irrelevant] Armor Class:...14 (touch 12, flat 11, both 9) [+2natural,+3dex,-1size] Saves: For +2 [+2 (undead) +0 (con)] Ref +5 [+2 (undead) +3 (dex)] Will +5 [+5 (undead) +0 (wis)] [Undead] Feats: Improved initiative Racial: Immunity to cold, DR 5/bludgeoning, Undead (immune to mind-affecting effects, poisons, sleep effects, paralysis, stunning, disease, death effects, anything requiring a fortitude save (except "object" or "harmless"), critical hits, non-lethal damage, ability drain, energy drain, fatigue, exhaustion, damage to physical abilities, massive damage) Attacks: Hoof: +6 melee, 1d8+4 (20/x2) Bite: +1 melee, 1d8+2 (20/x2) Full attack: 2 Hooves and 1 Bite Equipment: - Bit and Briddle (2) [1lb] - Military saddle (20) [30lb] [u]Encumberance: Light load: 0-300 lb; Medium load: 301-600 lb; Heavy load: 601-900 lb Restless Spirits Souls from the Afterlife [consider it small air elementals] small elemental (air, extraplanar) lawful neutral http://www.caterane.de/CoCo/Charaktere/Harvester/RestlessSpirits.gif Statistics: STR....10 (+0) DEX....17 (+3) CON....10 (+0) INT.....04 (-3) WIS....11 (+0) Cha.....11 (+0) Hitpoints:.......9 (2 HD) [CR 1] Bab/Grp:.......+1/-3 Movement:.....Fly 100' (perfect) Initiative:.......+7 Armor Class:...17 (touch 14, flat 14, both 11) [+1size,+3dex,+3natural] Saves: For +0 [0 (elemental) +0 (con)] Ref +6 [3 (elemental) +3 (dex)] Will +0 [0 (elemental) +0 (wis)] Feats: Improved initiative, Fly-by attack, Weapon finesse Special: Air Mastery, Whirlwind, Darkvision 60, Elemental Traits: Immune to poison, sleep, paralysis, stunning, critical hits, flanking, simple weapons. Do not sleep, eat, or breathe. Skills: Hide:................7 [0 (rnk) +3 (dex) +4 (size)] Listen:..............2 [2 (rnk) +0 (wis)] Move silently:.......3 [0 (rnk) +3 (dex)] Spot:................3 [3 (rnk) +0 (wis)] Attacks: [+1bab,+3dex,+1size] Slam:.................+5 melee, 1d4 (20/x2) Equipment: [Equipment divided among several Spirits] Sling (-) [0 lb] Bullets (10) (-) [5 lb] Alchem: Alchemist fire (20) [1 lb] [10x] Alchem: Tanglefoot bag (50) [1lb] [3x] Miscellaneous statistics: Encumberance: 0-25 (light), 26-50 (medium), 51-75 (heavy) Equipment: 0 lb Background: [Full description: Harvester 1 and Harvester 2] It had begun about a month ago. People reported having nightmares, and awoke with their bed full of their sweat, yet, few could describe their dreams. One thing, however, all these people's descriptions had in common was that of black rotten cloth pieces, like from a tattered robe. Others saw mailed hands or boots, and some described a weapon in form of a scythe. Many dissmissed it as nothing but a coincidence, others took it more seriously, knowing exactly who was the being in their dreams! Rumors of the Harvester's return spread throughout the city, and beyond. Was it possible? Was the Seraph of Death sending one of his avatars back to Gladius? And then, on one stormy moonless summer night, all inhabitants in the city suddenly stopped whatever they were doing! Gossip, bets, daring theories, philosophical discussions, and those just heralding the Apokalypse, were finally provided with new material for in that moment, everyone in Gladius knew it! The Harvester has returned! Living Gladius Combat Record ECL 3: Ch'ch'ili (Begfereth).............HARVESTED (Huan) [+675 xp][+675 gp] ECL 3: Corkus Undercut (TCB).............HARVESTED (Luni) [+900 xp][+957 gp] ECL 3: Anya Starfire (Mindrogue).........HARVESTED (Pittbull) [+900 xp][+957 gp] ECL 3: Cid Highwing (Dr.Funk)............HARVESTED (Usurpator) [+843 xp][+900 gp] ECL 4: Donak (Mal-2).....................HARVESTED (Huan) [+1200 xp][+1276 gp] ECL 4: Shazzelin the Gray (Usurpator)....HARVESTED (Pittbull) [+1200 xp][+1276 gp] ECL 4: Perius (Ravashack)................HARVESTED (SauroGrenom) [+1200 xp][+1276 gp] ECL 5: Lortavos (Gonbow).................HARVESTED (TelinArtho) [+1500 xp][+1700 gp] Quest: Dissonant Dirge...................COMPLETED (Huan) [+1500 xp][+1700 gp] Quest: Immortal Judgement................COMPLETED (Huan) [+1000 xp][+1200 gp] ECL 5: Gaston & Flamehair................HARVESTED (Luni) [+1374 xp][+1667 gp] ECL 6: Cyra Val (Stormwind)..............HARVESTED (LLMadCow) [+1800 xp][+2120 gp] ECL 6: Karen Douglas (Lonewolf)..........HARVESTED (Vathelokai) [+1687 xp][+1995 gp] Quest: Soul Taker........................COMPLETED (Huan) [+1200 xp][+1720 gp] ECL 6: Archdevil Asran (Zevox)...........HARVESTED (SauroGrenom) [+1800 xp][+2120 gp] Quest: Hunting the Night.................COMPLETED (Waywreth) [+974 xp][+1660 gp] ECL 7: Little Daisy (DSugui).............HARVESTED (Pittbull) [+1890 xp][+2480 gp] ECL 7: Morathor (Pittbull)...............HARVESTED (Erithmu) [+1575 xp][+2090 gp] ECL 7: Denshi (Vathelokai)...............HARVESTED (Erithmu) [+1680 xp][+2220 gp] - Banded Mail (200) [35lb] [Sold for 100] - The Rat Portfolio (450C+50/5°) [1lb] [Handle Animal+5] (x) [Refunded] - Rat Cage (1) [10lb] [Refunded] - 48 Rats (quested) ["The Rat Portfolio"] [Dismissed] - Greatclub (10) [16lb] [Sold] Arcane: Expeditious retreat [2] (50) [4x] Arcane: Fly [5] (375) [4x] Arcane: Invisibility [3] (150) [5x] Arcane: Mirror image [3] (150) [3x] Arcane: Mount [1] (25) Arcane: Protection from law [2] (50) Arcane: Silent image [1] (25) [3x] Arcane: Shield [1] (25) Arcane: Shocking grasp [4] (100) [3x] Arcane: True strike [1] (25) [6x] Divine: Bless [1] (25) Divine: Blacklight [5] (375) Divine: Entropic shield [2] (50) Divine: Protection from evil [2] (50) [3x] Divine: Protection from good [2] (50) Divine: Shield of faith [2] (50) Stone: ExpansionA [3] (150) [4x] Stone: Force screen [2] (50) [7x] Stone: Inertial armor [1] (25) Stone: VigorA [2] (50) [14x] Stone: VigorA [4] (200) Refunded due to Expendables Cap: [LINK] Although the Harvester is technically fighting battles in the arena, the character and storyline do not take place in the Arena. Pitlords: if you write a story for the battle, write the battle as if it were out in the wild, wastes, a jungle, or wherever - just not in the arena.
jjones 02-15-07, 06:09 PM	The Harvester TURNS undead. He can't command his nightmare skeleton. ... Doesn't that mean that it tries to kill him unless he turns it? THE HARVESTER - 3rd Avatar - http://www.caterane.de/CoCo/Charaktere/Harvester/Harvester3.jpg Avatar of the Harvester Seraph of Death Lawful Neutral ECL 8 (Cle6/Psw1/Half-Giant) Experience: 28062 XP Next level: 36000 XP The Time Roll: ? hours Ongoing Effects: xxxxx Items Used Up: xxxxx Spells/PP Used: xxxxx Abilities Used: xxxxx Free Activity: xxxxx The Time Roll: ? hours Ongoing Effects: xxxxx Items Used Up: xxxxx Spells/PP Used: xxxxx Abilities Used: xxxxx Free Activity: xxxxx The Time Roll: ? hours Ongoing Effects: xxxxx Items Used Up: xxxxx Spells/PP Used: xxxxx Abilities Used: xxxxx Free Activity: xxxxx Abilities: STR....18 (+4) [16,+2race] DEX....13 (+1) [15,-2race] CON....16 (+3) [14,+2race] INT.....14 (+2) WIS....16 (+3) [14,+1level, +1enhance] CHA....08 (-1) Hitpoints:........56 [30.5 (cle) +4.5 (psw) +21 (con)] Bab/Grp:........+4/+16 [+4bab,+4str,+4feat,+4size] Movement:.....30ft; 20ft in armor Initiative:.......+1 [+1dex] Armor Class:...19 (touch 11, flat 18, both 10) [+1dex,+8armor] Saving Throws: For +10 [5(cle) +2(psw) +3(con)] Ref +3 [2(cle) +1(dex)] [+2 vs fire] Will +8 [5(cle) +3(wis)] [+2 empty mind] Race Abilities: Giant type [Half-Giant], Fire acclimated, Powerful build, Naturally psionic (2PP), Stomp [1/d;Dc13], Low-light vision Class Abilities: Turn undead [2/d;Turn-1;Dam2d6+5], Magic domain [CL2], Darkness domain(SRD (http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/DivineDomainsandSpells.rtf)) Regular Feats: Blind fightB, Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Grapple, Craft Woundrous Itemsx, Extend Spellx Skills: 40 total [Skill points: 36cle, 4psi] (xx) Balance:.................1 [0 (rnk) +1 (dex)] Climb:...................4 [0 (rnk) +4 (str)] Concentration:..........13 [10 (rnk) +3 (con)] [10cle] Craft Armor:.............8 [4 (rnk) +2 (int) +2 (tool)] [4cle] Diplomacy:..............14 [10 (rnk) -1 (cha) +5 (item)] [10cle] Hide:...................-5 [0 (rnk) +1 (dex) -6 (acp)] Jump:....................4 [0 (rnk) +4 (str)] Listen:..................3 [0 (rnk) +3 (wis)] Move:...................-5 [0 (rnk) +1 (dex) -6 (acp)] Prof (Soul Harvester):..10 [5 (rnk) +3 (wis) +2 (tool)] [5cle] [140 gold] Psicraft:................3 [1 (rnk) +2 (int)] [2cle(cc)] Ride:...................11 [5 (rnk) +1 (dex) +5 (item)] [4psw,2cle(cc)] [+2 stay in saddle] Speak Auran..............X [---] [2cle(cc)] Spellcraft:..............3 [1 (rnk) +2 (int)] [1cle] Spot:....................3 [0 (rnk) +3 (wis)] Languages: Common, Celestial, Infernal, Auran Attacks: [All weapons are large size] [Ma]Scythe:....................+9 melee, 2d6+6 (20/x3) Armor Spikes:...................+8 melee, 1d8+4 (20/x2) Spiked Gauntlet:...............+8 melee, 1d6+4 (20/x2) Light Crossbow:................+5 ranged, 1d10 (19-20/x2) [80ft] Psionic Powers: [ML1] [PP: 3; Use: 1] 1: Empty mind Cleric Spells: [CL6] [SL: 27; Use: 9] [Dc13+lvl] 0: Guidance, Guidance, Resistance, Detect magic, Detect magic 1: Obscurring mist(D), Magic weapon, Doom, Inflict light wounds, Shield of faith 2: Blindness(D), Bulls strength, Silence, Silence, Resist energy 3: Blacklight(D), Inflict serious wounds, Dispel Magic, Dispel Magic /General Equipment\ (C = self-made) [Weight] Weapons and Armor |=> [Ma]Scythe (336) [20lb] ["Lifemawn"] |=> Armor spikes (cold iron) (150) [20lb] |=> Spiked (cold iron) gauntlet (20) [2lb] |=> Huge Darkwood Club (120) [12lb] |=> Light crossbow (70) [8lb] |=> Crossbow bolts (10) [10lb] [50 bolts] |=> Fullplate (750C) [50lb] (xx) |=> Towershield (30) [45lb] Miscellaneous Items |=> Black tattered Robe (0) [--] |=> Diplomacy+5 headband (1250C/5°) [--] (x) |=> Holy wooden Symbol (1) [--] [5x] |=> Holy silvered Symbol (25) [--] |=> Pearl of Power I (500C) [--] (xx) |=> Pearl of Power II (2000C) [--] (xx) |=> Pearl of Power III (4500C) [--] (xx) |=> Periapt of Wisdom+1 (500C/5°) [--] (x) |=> Spell Component Pouch (10) [4lb] [2x] |=> Spurs of Riding+5 (1252C/5°) [1lb] (xx) /Expendable Items\ [CAP: 2450/2450] Restricted Expendables [CL] (Gold) Arcane: Expeditious retreat [2] (50) Arcane: Invisibility [3] (150) Arcane: Mirror image [3] (150) Arcane: Mount [1] (25) Arcane: Protection from law [2] (50) Arcane: Ray of enfeeblement [2] (50) Arcane: See invisibility [3] (150) [2x] Arcane: Shield [2] (50) [2x] Arcane: Shocking grasp [4] (100) Arcane: Silent image [1] (25) [2x] Arcane: Summon swarm [3] (150) Arcane: True strike [1] (25) [3x] Divine: Bless [1] (25) Divine: Entropic shield [2] (50) Divine: Obscurring mist [1] (25) Divine: Protection from chaos [2] (50) Divine: Protection from evil [2] (50) Divine: Protection from good [2] (50) Divine: Shield of faith [2] (50) Potion: Shillelagh (50) [1lb] [2x] Stone: Animal affinity [3] (150) Stone: Chameleon [1] (25) Stone: Dissolving weapon [3] (150) Stone: ExpansionA [3] (150) Stone: Force screen [2] (50) [2x] Stone: Inertial armor [1] (25) Stone: Skate [2] (50) Stone: Synesthete [1] (25) [2x] Stone: VigorA [2] (50) [2x] Unrestricted Expendables [CL] (Gold) [Weight] Alchem: Alchemist fire (20) [1lb] [4x] Alchem: Antitoxin (50) [1lb] Staff: The Staff of the Night [8] (5700/20°/x) [1lb] [45 charges] |=> Entropic shield (5 charges) |=> [Ext]Blacklight (5 charges) Wand: Magic missile [9] (6750/15°) [1lb] [34 Charges] Wand: Cure Light Wounds [1] (750) [1lb] [34 Charges] Equipment in the Harvester's Cathedral Workforce: 243 souls [Gold] Alchem: Acid flasks (10) [1 lb] [20x] |=> Heavy (wooden) Shield (7) [10lb] |=> Ranseur (20) [24lb] |=> Spiked (silver) gauntlet (60) [2lb] |=> Lance (20) [20lb] |=> Club (-) [6lb] |=> Quivers with 100 (cold iron) bolts (10) [10 lb] |=> Soul Wall (50) [+2 Soulharvesting tool] |=> Soul of an Armorsmith (50) [+2 Craft Armor tool] Servants of the Harvester Allies: Custom Light Warhorse (250) ["Wraith"] Allies: 1 small Air Elemental (quested) ["Restless Spirits"] Allies: Nightmare Skeleton (375/5°) ["Knellstriker"] Miscellaneous statistics: Height: 2,10m (~7ft) Weight: 236 lbs Encumbrance: 0-100 (light), 101-200 (medium), 201-300 (heavy) Equipment: 103 lb; 148 lb w/towershield [MaxCA: 6] Psionically focused Ally: Knellstriker [CR 3] Ally: Restless Spirit [CR 1] . Ally Penalty: 16% Wraith Race: unknown [consider it Light Warhorse] Large ghost-like creature true neutral http://www.caterane.de/CoCo/Charaktere/Harvester/Wraith.jpg Abilities: STR....16 (+3) DEX....13 (+1) CON....17 (+3) INT.....02 (-4) WIS....13 (+1) Cha.....06 (-2) Hitpoints:.......22 (3Hd) [CR 1] Bab/Grp:.......+2/+9 Movement:.....60' (40' with Harvester) Initiative:.......+1 Armor Class:...14 (touch 10, flat 13, both 9) [+4natural,+1dex,-1size] Saves: For +6 [+3 (animal) +3 (con)] Ref +4 [+3 (animal) +1 (dex)] Will +2 [+1 (animal) +1 (wis)] Feats: Endurance, Diehard Skills: Listen+4, Spot+4 Racial: Low-light vision, Scent Tricks: Attack, Come, Defend, Down, Guard, Heel Attacks: Hoof: +4 melee, 1d4+3 (20/x2) Bite: -1 melee, 1d3+1 (20/x2) Full attack: 2 Hooves and 1 Bite Equipment: - Bit and Briddle (2) [1lb] - Military saddle (20) [30lb] Encumberance: Light load: 0-230 lb; Medium load: 231-460 lb; Heavy load: 461-690 lb Knellstriker Race: Advanced Nightmare Skeleton Large undead neutral evil http://www.caterane.de/CoCo/Charaktere/Harvester/Knellstriker.jpg Abilities: STR....18 (+4) DEX....17 (+3) CON....-- (--) INT.....-- (--) WIS....10 (+1) Cha.....01 (-5) Hitpoints:.......64.5 (7Hd) [CR 3] [(12)+(6*6.5)+(7*2)desecrate] Bab/Grp:.......+3/+11 Movement:.....40' land, 90' fly (good) Initiative:.......+7 [Irrelevant] Armor Class:...14 (touch 12, flat 11, both 9) [+2natural,+3dex,-1size] Saves: For +2 [+2 (undead) +0 (con)] Ref +5 [+2 (undead) +3 (dex)] Will +5 [+5 (undead) +0 (wis)] [Undead] Feats: Improved initiative Racial: Immunity to cold, DR 5/bludgeoning, Undead (immune to mind-affecting effects, poisons, sleep effects, paralysis, stunning, disease, death effects, anything requiring a fortitude save (except "object" or "harmless"), critical hits, non-lethal damage, ability drain, energy drain, fatigue, exhaustion, damage to physical abilities, massive damage) Attacks: Hoof: +6 melee, 1d8+4 (20/x2) Bite: +1 melee, 1d8+2 (20/x2) Full attack: 2 Hooves and 1 Bite Equipment: - Bit and Briddle (2) [1lb] - Military saddle (20) [30lb] [u]Encumberance: Light load: 0-300 lb; Medium load: 301-600 lb; Heavy load: 601-900 lb Restless Spirits Souls from the Afterlife [consider it small air elementals] small elemental (air, extraplanar) lawful neutral http://www.caterane.de/CoCo/Charaktere/Harvester/RestlessSpirits.gif Statistics: STR....10 (+0) DEX....17 (+3) CON....10 (+0) INT.....04 (-3) WIS....11 (+0) Cha.....11 (+0) Hitpoints:.......9 (2 HD) [CR 1] Bab/Grp:.......+1/-3 Movement:.....Fly 100' (perfect) Initiative:.......+7 Armor Class:...17 (touch 14, flat 14, both 11) [+1size,+3dex,+3natural] Saves: For +0 [0 (elemental) +0 (con)] Ref +6 [3 (elemental) +3 (dex)] Will +0 [0 (elemental) +0 (wis)] Feats: Improved initiative, Fly-by attack, Weapon finesse Special: Air Mastery, Whirlwind, Darkvision 60, Elemental Traits: Immune to poison, sleep, paralysis, stunning, critical hits, flanking, simple weapons. Do not sleep, eat, or breathe. Skills: Hide:................7 [0 (rnk) +3 (dex) +4 (size)] Listen:..............2 [2 (rnk) +0 (wis)] Move silently:.......3 [0 (rnk) +3 (dex)] Spot:................3 [3 (rnk) +0 (wis)] Attacks: [+1bab,+3dex,+1size] Slam:.................+5 melee, 1d4 (20/x2) Equipment: [Equipment divided among several Spirits] Sling (-) [0 lb] Bullets (10) (-) [5 lb] Alchem: Alchemist fire (20) [1 lb] [10x] Alchem: Tanglefoot bag (50) [1lb] [3x] Miscellaneous statistics: Encumberance: 0-25 (light), 26-50 (medium), 51-75 (heavy) Equipment: 0 lb Background: [Full description: Harvester 1 and Harvester 2] It had begun about a month ago. People reported having nightmares, and awoke with their bed full of their sweat, yet, few could describe their dreams. One thing, however, all these people's descriptions had in common was that of black rotten cloth pieces, like from a tattered robe. Others saw mailed hands or boots, and some described a weapon in form of a scythe. Many dissmissed it as nothing but a coincidence, others took it more seriously, knowing exactly who was the being in their dreams! Rumors of the Harvester's return spread throughout the city, and beyond. Was it possible? Was the Seraph of Death sending one of his avatars back to Gladius? And then, on one stormy moonless summer night, all inhabitants in the city suddenly stopped whatever they were doing! Gossip, bets, daring theories, philosophical discussions, and those just heralding the Apokalypse, were finally provided with new material for in that moment, everyone in Gladius knew it! The Harvester has returned! Living Gladius Combat Record ECL 3: Ch'ch'ili (Begfereth).............HARVESTED (Huan) [+675 xp][+675 gp] ECL 3: Corkus Undercut (TCB).............HARVESTED (Luni) [+900 xp][+957 gp] ECL 3: Anya Starfire (Mindrogue).........HARVESTED (Pittbull) [+900 xp][+957 gp] ECL 3: Cid Highwing (Dr.Funk)............HARVESTED (Usurpator) [+843 xp][+900 gp] ECL 4: Donak (Mal-2).....................HARVESTED (Huan) [+1200 xp][+1276 gp] ECL 4: Shazzelin the Gray (Usurpator)....HARVESTED (Pittbull) [+1200 xp][+1276 gp] ECL 4: Perius (Ravashack)................HARVESTED (SauroGrenom) [+1200 xp][+1276 gp] ECL 5: Lortavos (Gonbow).................HARVESTED (TelinArtho) [+1500 xp][+1700 gp] Quest: Dissonant Dirge...................COMPLETED (Huan) [+1500 xp][+1700 gp] Quest: Immortal Judgement................COMPLETED (Huan) [+1000 xp][+1200 gp] ECL 5: Gaston & Flamehair................HARVESTED (Luni) [+1374 xp][+1667 gp] ECL 6: Cyra Val (Stormwind)..............HARVESTED (LLMadCow) [+1800 xp][+2120 gp] ECL 6: Karen Douglas (Lonewolf)..........HARVESTED (Vathelokai) [+1687 xp][+1995 gp] Quest: Soul Taker........................COMPLETED (Huan) [+1200 xp][+1720 gp] ECL 6: Archdevil Asran (Zevox)...........HARVESTED (SauroGrenom) [+1800 xp][+2120 gp] Quest: Hunting the Night.................COMPLETED (Waywreth) [+974 xp][+1660 gp] ECL 7: Little Daisy (DSugui).............HARVESTED (Pittbull) [+1890 xp][+2480 gp] ECL 7: Morathor (Pittbull)...............HARVESTED (Erithmu) [+1575 xp][+2090 gp] ECL 7: Denshi (Vathelokai)...............HARVESTED (Erithmu) [+1680 xp][+2220 gp] - Banded Mail (200) [35lb] [Sold for 100] - The Rat Portfolio (450C+50/5°) [1lb] [Handle Animal+5] (x) [Refunded] - Rat Cage (1) [10lb] [Refunded] - 48 Rats (quested) ["The Rat Portfolio"] [Dismissed] - Greatclub (10) [16lb] [Sold] Arcane: Expeditious retreat [2] (50) [4x] Arcane: Fly [5] (375) [4x] Arcane: Invisibility [3] (150) [5x] Arcane: Mirror image [3] (150) [3x] Arcane: Mount [1] (25) Arcane: Protection from law [2] (50) Arcane: Silent image [1] (25) [3x] Arcane: Shield [1] (25) Arcane: Shocking grasp [4] (100) [3x] Arcane: True strike [1] (25) [6x] Divine: Bless [1] (25) Divine: Blacklight [5] (375) Divine: Entropic shield [2] (50) Divine: Protection from evil [2] (50) [3x] Divine: Protection from good [2] (50) Divine: Shield of faith [2] (50) Stone: ExpansionA [3] (150) [4x] Stone: Force screen [2] (50) [7x] Stone: Inertial armor [1] (25) Stone: VigorA [2] (50) [14x] Stone: VigorA [4] (200) Refunded due to Expendables Cap: [LINK] Although the Harvester is technically fighting battles in the arena, the character and storyline do not take place in the Arena. Pitlords: if you write a story for the battle, write the battle as if it were out in the wild, wastes, a jungle, or wherever - just not in the arena. After a brief glance at the character, it's animated...but should still follow the rules governing commanding undead. But, as shown before, i haven't played DnD in 3 years almost and i'm catching up on stuff. I was already partially wrong once, it could happen again. ;) And with this arena board being up for so long, i'm sure ya'll have come to some kind of concession to allow it. JJ
TheMagister 02-15-07, 06:12 PM	Ah, you're probably right. I thought animated skeletons still had to be commanded (you know...being mindless and all that).
MindWandererB 02-15-07, 06:27 PM	They do still have to be commanded, but they're automatically under the control of their creator, whatever energy they channel.
TheMagister 02-15-07, 06:28 PM	So is that like a free action, or what? Does it take a turn attempt to command one?
MindWandererB 02-15-07, 06:31 PM	This spell turns the bones or bodies of dead creatures into undead skeletons or zombies that follow your spoken commands.So yeah, that'd be free. No expense required. Although I'd really like to see Harvey fight an evil cleric, and have them command his pet right out from under him....
Caterane 02-15-07, 06:32 PM	The nightmare is animated, a spell I can cast. It's handled differently than commanded undead which need a standard action to receive commands. I've played such undead from the very beginning of the coco (Harvester 1 is oooold) and that's how it works according to both D&D and CoCo rules. As for the flight issue, I have no problem of allowing it for this fight. I can see that it would look like bias but the reason why I object now and not some weeks ago is that I didn't know about that rule until Rith told me. I gave the Courtroom to the Elders for two reasons: to have more time for other things here and because I think that - as much as I could claim to know the rules - five guys discussing an issue is better than a single person. I fully trust each Elder to be capable of interpreting the rules. But sometimes even they produce results that have to be discussed in detail. So again, TM can have his hoverboard pegasus for this fight and enjoy his maneuverability but I want to remark that I feel a bitter taste in my mouth when looking forward to a battle where my opponent enjoys physically impossible benefits.
MindWandererB 02-15-07, 06:34 PM	I'm sure your bitter taste is far less than the bitter taste TM and the rest of us would feel at having the GM nerf someone in response to being paired with him. If there's no further objection, we can make the change to the Sewer rules at the end of this week.
Caterane 02-15-07, 06:49 PM	I wouldn't have done that.
jjones 02-15-07, 08:19 PM	So yeah, that'd be free. No expense required. Although I'd really like to see Harvey fight an evil cleric, and have them command his pet right out from under him.... Oh yes of course. By my earlier comment, i didn't want to imply it was still a standard action to command him. By all means it follows the rule of the spell..(mental and free). And, uhm...with only 7hd, a well built cleric and phylactery, would/should, easily destroy it. So, how are destroyed special undead allies handled? I am a cleric after all as well, and was planning for my own undead army later in my career. Is it like a pet? If killed, it's auto-resed/restored after my F3 fight? JJ
MindWandererB 02-15-07, 08:55 PM	So, how are destroyed special undead allies handled? I am a cleric after all as well, and was planning for my own undead army later in my career. Is it like a pet? If killed, it's auto-resed/restored after my F3 fight?Yep, same as any allies. Gone if killed mid-cycle, but restored at the end. And no, you can't use your Rebuke to kidnap someone else's undead ally for use in your next fight. BTW, this thread is more for Elder rulings and related discussion. Simple questions like that belong in the Tavern.
Rauul 02-15-07, 09:34 PM	Yep, same as any allies. Gone if killed mid-cycle, but restored at the end. And no, you can't use your Rebuke to kidnap someone else's undead ally for use in your next fight. BTW, this thread is more for Elder rulings and related discussion. Simple questions like that belong in the Tavern. No but you should be able to rebulk thier undead to have it turn against them in the fight they are in.. And Yes i have been looking At harvey very close for when/if Rauul ever makes it to the level to challenge him... Good thing i have 6 levels to plot how to defeat the Harvester of souls :)
Abyssal Stalker 02-16-07, 01:01 AM	I concur, with the addendum that there's still no restriction against moving to a corner, landing, turning, and resuming flight. As for the wingspan issue: although I agree with Sauro in principle (and would do so in my home games), there's just no such thing as a "wingspan" mechanic, just as there is no "height" mechanic. An Enlarged human would be more than 10 feet tall, but doesn't have to squeeze in the sewers; a Large creature with large wings is similarly unrestricted. Besides, we don't have wingspan information for many creatures, and we can't prevent flying by Lareg creatures altogether (I would think a Large pixie would have no problems, and of course all wingless fliers would be fine). Regarding Energy Resistance: the online glossary, the Resist Energy spell, and the Resistance to Energy entry in the SRD under "Types, Subtypes, and Special Abilities" all use the "each time" phrasing. Only the entry under "Special Abilities" uses the "per round" phrasing. That one is clearly the error. Regarding Grease: We are all idiots. Every single one of us. Especially JJ. Well, that about covers it. I was wrong, plain and simple :)
jjones 02-16-07, 02:10 AM	Regarding Grease: We are all idiots. Every single one of us. Especially JJ. So what makes you so special as an Elder to start flaming ppl? Grow up please. Just getting back into the game from like 3 years ago and having a lot of catching up to do. I don't need your flaming to play. I'm sure u've been wrong before, oh mighty perfect one. JJ
McJarvis 02-16-07, 10:21 AM	So what makes you so special as an Elder to start flaming ppl? Grow up please. Just getting back into the game from like 3 years ago and having a lot of catching up to do. I don't need your flaming to play. I'm sure u've been wrong before, oh mighty perfect one. JJ Nope. Much like many of Cat's characters have never lost fights, MWB has never been wrong. (((biiiiiig wink)))
Maraxus 02-16-07, 11:01 AM	So what makes you so special as an Elder to start flaming ppl? Grow up please. Just getting back into the game from like 3 years ago and having a lot of catching up to do. I don't need your flaming to play. I'm sure u've been wrong before, oh mighty perfect one. JJ I don't think he meant it so seriously. You were just most confident, so he made the joke more on your cost. Focus on the part where he sais, that we are all idiots. ;) MWB: I bow before you for your great investigator skillz. Looking at the most obvious place - who cold have thought of this? I searched through the "rules of the game" articles, but those only tell you what you knew anyway (well, most of the time I look there).
Abyssal Stalker 02-16-07, 11:19 AM	Elders, please address this: The Undertaker (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8955577#post8955577) cannot have a fiendish bat familiar since he does not have the subtype specified in the table Improved Familiar by Master's Type/Subtype (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#tableImprovedFamiliarbyTypeSub type). This has been tried before, but I still don't buy this. Improved familiar specificly says that the tables are only examples and thus don't limit the options. The creatures mentioned in the tables should be seen the minimum options for improved familiars. Rules allow even creatures outside the list, allthough we don't (yet) have a CoCo list of allowed creatures. The list in the table above presents only a few possible improved familiars. Almost any creature of the same general size and power as those on the list makes a suitable familiar. Nor is the master’s alignment the only possible categorization. For instance, improved familiars could be assigned by the master’s creature type or subtype, as shown below.
Rauul 02-16-07, 11:24 AM	i'm not an elder.. but #2 on the chart saids it all for me... 2. Or other fiendish animal from the standard familiar list.
hogarth 02-16-07, 11:30 AM	i'm not an elder.. but #2 on the chart saids it all for me... That's not the issue. The issue is that the feat says "improved familiars could be assigned by the master's creature type or subtype, as shown in Table: Improved Familiar by Type/Subtype". The Undertaker doesn't have the Evil subtype, but I believe that Abyssal Stalker is arguing that "could be assigned by [..] type or subtype" means that he's not required to have the subtype in question. I don't have a problem with this, but when I asked before if wizards can pick any familiar they wish from the Improved Familiar lists as long as the alignment fit (e.g. a neutral wizard picking an ice mephit familiar), I was told "no".
TelinArtho 02-16-07, 11:31 AM	Hogarth - please reference that discussion for me so I can use it when I am making a ruling.
hogarth 02-16-07, 11:41 AM	The discussion is on this page (http://boards1.wizards.com/archive/index.php/t-724116-p-6.html). The last comment on the matter was: If you look at the feat, the table with celestial/fiendish familiars is clearly labeled "Improved Familiar by Type/Subtype". The fiendish/celestial familiars are not in the table "Improved Familiar by Alignment". THen send him to prison.
Abyssal Stalker 02-16-07, 11:44 AM	My point is that the feat in question actually offers a huge variety of creatures to choose from. Those listings are only part of the possibilities. I once suggested a list of creatures that would be possible for familiars, (eg. in lines with the creatures on the list and "same general size and power") but that time it got buried under other conversation. I have actually forgot the whole list, but now that hogarth dug this up, I probably need to propose it again.
jjones 02-16-07, 11:48 AM	I don't think he meant it so seriously. You were just most confident, so he made the joke more on your cost. Focus on the part where he sais, that we are all idiots. ;) Oh no, i'm not insulted, no worries. I just found it funny to be new and be singled out, lol. I was MOSTLY right, but there was ONE wrong item in my logic. It's been a while. I'm still trying to get back up to snuff from my past knowledge...if u don't use it, u lose it. Hey, it's all good no worries. JJ
TelinArtho 02-16-07, 11:55 AM	Actually that wasn't the last comment, but the last comment made by an elder. Reading over the full text of the feat, you see that you can choose a familiar either based on alignment or by type/subtype. They do provide two tables with examples for both - but I do not see any reason why the familiars from the type/subtype list could not be chosen based on alignment. I would say as long as the alignment is within one-step of the main character, that any of the creatures in the feat listing would be acceptable. If the alignment wasn't within one step - you could instead do it based on type/subtype.
Hirumajoe 02-16-07, 12:38 PM	Oh yes of course. By my earlier comment, i didn't want to imply it was still a standard action to command him. By all means it follows the rule of the spell..(mental and free). JJ Actually, the spell description said spoken commands, not mental. Thus, a silence spell cast in the viscinity of Harvey's undead mount (not on it, so no saving throw) would cause it to cease following orders. Since in general the nightmare isn't moving on your turn, it would remain sitting there within the silence. Or if you're a melee type character who has a silence effect on him, if you can get close enough (admittedly a difficult feat) you would be able to prevent him from leaving. Edit: You could arguably do it with the Control Sound psionic power also.
MindWandererB 02-16-07, 01:48 PM	Actually that wasn't the last comment, but the last comment made by an elder. Reading over the full text of the feat, you see that you can choose a familiar either based on alignment or by type/subtype. They do provide two tables with examples for both - but I do not see any reason why the familiars from the type/subtype list could not be chosen based on alignment. I would say as long as the alignment is within one-step of the main character, that any of the creatures in the feat listing would be acceptable. If the alignment wasn't within one step - you could instead do it based on type/subtype. My inclination would be to allow: From the "by alignment" table, "the spellcaster may choose a familiar with an alignment up to one step away on each of the alignment axes" as written. From the "by type/subtype" table, I would allow any of the listed creatures to anyone, except for the fiendish and celestial templates. In the spirit of generosity, I suppose I can see anyone with a neutral alignment, or the alignment subtype specified, to take those familiars (though I'd never allow it in a home game).
Caterane 02-16-07, 01:54 PM	Actually, the spell description said spoken commands, not mental. Thus, a silence spell cast in the viscinity of Harvey's undead mount (not on it, so no saving throw) would cause it to cease following orders. Since in general the nightmare isn't moving on your turn, it would remain sitting there within the silence. Or if you're a melee type character who has a silence effect on him, if you can get close enough (admittedly a difficult feat) you would be able to prevent him from leaving. Edit: You could arguably do it with the Control Sound psionic power also. Well it would continue to follow the last command else I would have to continuously say "gogogogogogogogogogo" lol However, it did happen once in the past with Harvester 1 vs Moherajikuyx's Iron the Panza. Nightingale - a huge nightmare cauchemare was trapped in an area of silence before I could give it any command. The Harvester then used his strength domain power to carry it out of the area. That was funny.
hogarth 02-16-07, 02:05 PM	My inclination would be to allow: From the "by alignment" table, "the spellcaster may choose a familiar with an alignment up to one step away on each of the alignment axes" as written. From the "by type/subtype" table, I would allow any of the listed creatures to anyone, except for the fiendish and celestial templates. In the spirit of generosity, I suppose I can see anyone with a neutral alignment, or the alignment subtype specified, to take those familiars (though I'd never allow it in a home game). When you say "anyone with [..] the alignment subtype specified", do you mean "evil characters can take the fiendish template and good characters can take the celestial template for their familiars"? Remember -- alignment != subtype.
MindWandererB 02-16-07, 02:19 PM	When you say "anyone with [..] the alignment subtype specified", do you mean "evil characters can take the fiendish template and good characters can take the celestial template for their familiars"? Remember -- alignment != subtype. Yeah, yeah, you know what I meant. Although I suppose if someone paid credits to get a good character with the evil subtype, or vice-versa, I'd allow them to get a familiar with either alignment subtype.
Macbrea 02-16-07, 02:21 PM	Oddly, according to the rules to good characters with an evil subtype they are affected by both protection from good and protection from evil according to the rules to 'Aligned Subtype'.
hogarth 02-17-07, 09:22 AM	My inclination would be to allow: From the "by alignment" table, "the spellcaster may choose a familiar with an alignment up to one step away on each of the alignment axes" as written. From the "by type/subtype" table, I would allow any of the listed creatures to anyone, except for the fiendish and celestial templates. In the spirit of generosity, I suppose I can see anyone with a neutral alignment, or the alignment subtype specified, to take those familiars (though I'd never allow it in a home game). So it looks like two Elders are in favor of having of allowing the type/subtype creatures to anyone. Can NiQil and/or Sauro add their opinions so we can get a majority ruling?
jjones 02-17-07, 02:45 PM	Since this, as i have been told, is a place to discuss rules....i wanna talk about two-handed weapons doing str *1.5 when used in both hands...as they obviously would. My pitlord seems to think otherwise, and i just want some backup to know that i'm not losing my mind and even after being away 3 years from the game, that they didn't print a DnD 4.0 set of rules that change this. Just looking for some clarification that using a two-handed weapon in both hands nets u str *1.5 dmg. Seeing as i'm an especially big idiot, i figured i would need the validation. JJ
SauroGrenom 02-17-07, 03:20 PM	JJ, You are correct. Two handed weapons grant 1.5 times the str bonus when wielded 2 handed. Look in the srd (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/weapons.html), and scroll down to the section that begins with Two-Handed:. As an aside. This thread is for discussion of new rules, house rules or rules interpretation. Questions like yours (asking for a clarification or confirmation of existing rules) typically belong in the Tavern. Thanks, Sauro
jjones 02-17-07, 03:24 PM	JJ, You are correct. Two handed weapons grant 1.5 times the str bonus when wielded 2 handed. Look in the srd (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/weapons.html), and scroll down to the section that begins with Two-Handed:. As an aside. This thread is for discussion of new rules, house rules or rules interpretation. Questions like yours (asking for a clarification or confirmation of existing rules) typically belong in the Tavern. Thanks, Sauro Then can someone plz inform my Pitlord Rauul of that? He seems to think it's only base str.
SauroGrenom 02-17-07, 03:36 PM	Then can someone plz inform my Pitlord Sauuro of that? He seems to think it's only base str. I assume that your talking about your pitlord Rauul not Sauuro (who is not a CoCo person as far as I know). Send them a pm with a link to my post above. And again, there is no need to clutter up this thread with posts of this nature. This is not the place for it. The tavern is the place for it.
Tellish_of_Ket 02-17-07, 04:11 PM	So it looks like two Elders are in favor of having of allowing the type/subtype creatures to anyone. Can NiQil and/or Sauro add their opinions so we can get a majority ruling? If i can add a little something to the discussion. PC's with aligment DO NOT have the alignment subtype attached to their characters. Otherwise, any good-aligned character would be able to by-pass DR/good. Which is not the case. An elf/orc etc...is a Medium Humanoid (elf)/(orc). That is their subtype. Not Medium Humanoid (elf, good). If you look at the "good" subtype definition..."The creature, usually an outsider, posses an innate bond to the good-aligned Outer-Planes, which determines how it is affected by certain spells." There are some key words there. Usuall = means it's not restricted to, however, the innate bond is very restrictive....to the good-aligned Outer-Planes no less. So unless you spend credits to play a gladitor that is aligned to the outer-planes and has the "good" subtype then i'd say no, you cannot chose a familiar with that subtype. Playing a lich or a vampire wizard would most certainly qualify you for a homonculus familiar when u achieve a caster level 7th because you actually have the subtype "undead". Hope this helps clear things up a bit. Tellish
MindWandererB 02-17-07, 04:37 PM	@ToK: <shrug> It's because of the non-absolute wording of Improved Familiar. The list in the table above presents only a few possible improved familiars. Almost any creature of the same general size and power as those on the list makes a suitable familiar. Nor is the master’s alignment the only possible categorization. For instance, improved familiars could be assigned by the master’s creature type or subtype, as shown below.If we wanted to be truly strict, we would do as you suggest, and allow the listed familiars only if you have the appropriate subtype. That's a perfectly valid ruling. On the other hand... why can you be True Neutral and get an Imp, but you have to have the Evil subtype to get a fiendish toad? There doesn't seem to be any strong rationale for that, so I see no reason to restrict the options on the second list to subtype only.
Tellish_of_Ket 02-17-07, 05:13 PM	@MwB: Oh hey, by all means, do not let me influence any decisions made here. I was just making my opinion based on the spirit of the rules. Imho, there is almost no logical reason for it. I would welcome a rule to implement what you have already suggested for a credit cost without blinking an eye-lash. But seeing as i don't see myself returning anytime soon (and i'm still jonesing btw), it wouldn't be fair for me to say too much on the subject. Tellish
hogarth 02-19-07, 05:01 PM	It's because of the non-absolute wording of Improved Familiar. If we wanted to be truly strict, we would do as you suggest, and allow the listed familiars only if you have the appropriate subtype. That's a perfectly valid ruling. On the other hand... why can you be True Neutral and get an Imp, but you have to have the Evil subtype to get a fiendish toad? There doesn't seem to be any strong rationale for that, so I see no reason to restrict the options on the second list to subtype only. Still no comments on this from NiQil or Sauro? If we get one more opinion in favor of liberally interpreting the Improved Familiar list, then I can retract the violation against The Undertaker.
SauroGrenom 02-19-07, 05:31 PM	In cases like this, where being permissive won't violate rules as written or create an overpowered result, I like to allow creative players to do as they please with their characters. So I'll officially vote for using the more permissive reading of the Improved Familiar Feat.
Macbrea 02-20-07, 11:30 AM	Ok, currently the way that the FAQ and the Statement on Damage reduction in the Rules is written. Conjuration (Summon) monsters are considered spells and give no specific statement in the rules stating that they don't overcome damage reduction. Strictly reading the rules a summoned Dire Bat with Summons Monster V would be considered a spell and therefore overcome damage reduction with any damage that it did. Conjuration (summoning) spells call forth an replica of an original creature that fights for the caster. It cannot really be killed. Conjuration (calling) spells call forth a real creature that can be killed. Summons monster spells are Conjuration (summoning), and as a result are creating a replica spell of a real creature. This entity is not actually real but a spell representation of that creature. And therefore, no provision was written within the rules to actually consider it not a spell for purposes of overcoming damage reduction. What is the elders opinion on Conjuration (summons) monsters and damage reduction?
TelinArtho 02-20-07, 11:57 AM	Although not a "catch-all" argument, I prefer Zevox's explanation to start with: Actually, no, even with the rules as written, summoned creatures aren't spells in and of themselves. The spells just conjure them - they're still monsters. If you want proof (outside of the common sense that the Summon Monster spells don't say the monsters they summon aren't monsters but magical replicas), take a look at the Detect Magic spell - it mentions that Outsiders and Elementals are not magical in their own right, but if they are summoned, the spell that summoned them is detected by the spell. Not them, the conjuration spell. Which means they are distinct from it; i.e. not a spell. First off all, let's examine the different circumstances we are looking at here: How do spells like Evard's Black tentacles and ice storm affect a creature with damage reduction overcome by magic and bludgeoning? Do the tentacles and hailstones deal magical bludgeoning damage? Any damage dealt by a spell or other magical effect is unaffected by damage reduction. Calling: A calling spell transports a creature from another plane to the plane you are on. The spell grants the creature the one-time ability to return to its plane of origin, although the spell may limit the circumstances under which this is possible. Creatures who are called actually die when they are killed; they do not disappear and reform, as do those brought by a summoning spell (see below). The duration of a calling spell is instantaneous, which means that the called creature can’t be dispelled. Creation: A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates (subject to the limits noted above). If the spell has a duration other than instantaneous, magic holds the creation together, and when the spell ends, the conjured creature or object vanishes without a trace. If the spell has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through magic. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on magic for its existence. 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. Notice the difference in wording here. Black tentacles is a creation spell. Since it has a "duration other than instantaneous, magic holds the creation together." Compare this to summoning spells - where the spell merely is the transporter of the creature (if the spell is dispelled, the creature is returned to its location). Compare this to calling spells (Planar ally series for instance), and the duration is instantaneous - it is literally a transportation and the magic is done and gone. Damage reduction will apply to summoned/called creatures. Damage Reduction will not apply to ongoing spells.
Maraxus 02-20-07, 12:56 PM	So the borderline is "Non-Instantaneous Creation" -Evocation: No damage reduction -Non-Instantaneous Conjuration(creation): No damage reduction -Instantaneous Conjuration(creation): Yes damage reduction -Conjuration(calling): Yes damage reduction -Conjuration(summoning): Yes damage reduction And I guess: -Transmutation: Yes damage reduction (Ironwood etc.) Okay, I got it. :rolleyes:
MindWandererB 02-20-07, 05:02 PM	Since these seem to require rulings, I'm moving the conversations here. Regarding mounted overrun: the Trample rule says, "when you attempt an overrun while mounted...." The language seems to imply that the rider is taking the action. Thus, it's the rider's standard action as well. That's my opinion, anyway. Regarding grappling and actions: there seem to be two schools of thought that really need to be hashed out once and for all. 1) A grapple check is in every way like an attack roll as regards timing (for the applications that are described as taking the place of an attack). You can take a full attack action to get multiple grapple checks (if you have a +6 BAB or Flurry), or you can make one grapple check as a standard action and still have a move action left. 2) Grappling rules skip the normal timing rules entirely. If you use any of the grappling options at all, that's your action for the round. My opinion is option 1.
TelinArtho 02-20-07, 05:05 PM	I would agree with that on both accounts. Trample is an action for both the rider and the mount. If you escape the grapple on your first attempt, that allows you a move action to remain.
TheMagister 02-20-07, 06:28 PM	First of all, I'd like to begin by stating my wish that none of this be viewed as affecting the Hood vs. Harvester fight this week. Up to now, it's been allowed, and as such it should stay that way until an official decision can be reached here. I don't like pulling the rug out from under a gladiator. So. What kinds of commands can one give a mindless undead, and how can one expect a mindless undead to react to a given command? There have been several opinions: 1) Undead follow commands to the letter, even if those commands involve complex actions that a mindless undead would normally not be able to conceive of, much less do. Personally, I think that this interpretation is bunk. It is in no way shape or form a free action to give detailed instructions. I remember seeing somewhere that the "Free Action: Talk" action is limited to such things as "Help!" or "He's over here!" or even possibly "I'll tend the wizard. You go fight!" Taking the time to break down a complex action into its simple parts is much more time-consuming and attention diverting. 2) Undead are mindless, and are limited in their scope of control, not by their controller, but by their very nature. While the method of control is not as simple as empathy, it is not as all-encompassing as free speech. No matter how eloquent the controller, a mindless undead simply cannot grasp complex concepts, and is limited to simplistic commands. Examples of valid commands: "Guard this door and let no one pass." "Kill anyone who comes through this door." "Pick these boxes up." "Set the boxes down over there." Examples of invalid commands: "Pick those boxes up and stack them into a wall that blocks the doorway." "Kill anyone who comes through this door unless they're wearing black platemail." "Sweep and mop the room's floor, and throw the dirt into the dustbin and the trash into the trashcan." I'll let someone with time and energy find all the relevent rules.
SauroGrenom 02-20-07, 06:52 PM	I would agree with that on both accounts. Trample is an action for both the rider and the mount. If you escape the grapple on your first attempt, that allows you a move action to remain. I agree with MWB and Telin on this. Infact I think the language used in the FAQ to describe grappling supports at least that part of the ruling. Each grapple roll is made in place of an attack, and that supports the idea that with respect to timing of events in combat, grapple checks are equivalent to attack (otherwise strange things happen).
McJarvis 02-20-07, 06:59 PM	~Yadda Yadda Undead Yadda Essentially, here are the rules that are applicable.(specifically to undead) Commanded: A commanded undead creature is under the mental control of the evil cleric. The cleric must take a standard action to give mental orders to a commanded undead. No mention of the nature of tasks assigned. This spell turns the bones or bodies of dead creatures into undead skeletons or zombies that follow your spoken commands. The undead can follow you, or they can remain in an area and attack any creature (or just a specific kind of creature) entering the place. They remain animated until they are destroyed. (A destroyed skeleton or zombie can’t be animated again.) No mention of the nature is assigned in the initial description of commands, but then it goes and specifies that you can have the undead follow you, or remain in an area & attack any creature(or specific type of creature). [in regard to] A nonintelligent undead creature.... When you control a mindless being, you can communicate only basic commands, such as “come here,” “go there,” “fight,” “stand still,” and so on. Nonintelligent undead won’t resist suicidal or obviously harmful orders. In this case, a very specific set of orders are laid out for what undead can do. Essentially, it is clear that mindless undead(or creatures in general) are incapable of following complex orders in many situations. As such, I think it's fair to say that they are incapable of doing such things in all situations, with the minor exception of when they are under complete telekinetic control of a psion of some sort. ;) As far as precident goes & the fight involved: Harvester clearly broke the rules by giving a command other than those listed in the spell Animate Dead. That's the only consideration that can be given that fight.(Given the strict # of things that Animate Dead mentions, it is questionable as to whether undead can even be used as a suitable mount) However, I have no vested interests in this fight...so if TM is going to just tip his hat to it, then so be it. :)
MindWandererB 02-20-07, 07:04 PM	1) Undead follow commands to the letter, even if those commands involve complex actions that a mindless undead would normally not be able to conceive of, much less do. Personally, I think that this interpretation is bunk. It is in no way shape or form a free action to give detailed instructions. I remember seeing somewhere that the "Free Action: Talk" action is limited to such things as "Help!" or "He's over here!" or even possibly "I'll tend the wizard. You go fight!" Taking the time to break down a complex action into its simple parts is much more time-consuming and attention diverting. 2) Undead are mindless, and are limited in their scope of control, not by their controller, but by their very nature. While the method of control is not as simple as empathy, it is not as all-encompassing as free speech. No matter how eloquent the controller, a mindless undead simply cannot grasp complex concepts, and is limited to simplistic commands.I think all the relevant rules have already been pointed out in the FotW thread. I support option 2 for 2 reasons. One is common sense: they're mindless, for crying out loud. Animals are smarter. Even lizards. They should be limited in their ability to the greatest extent reasonable. The second is that only the Animate Dead spell fails to specify exactly how complex the commands can be. The Skeleton entry in the MM mentions it, as does the Zombie entry (although less explicitly), and the Command Undead spell mentions it for mindless undead specifically. Rebuking undead doesn't mention it, but it can be used on intelligent undead. I would treat mindless undead as sort of like Bag of Tricks animals: they can do anything an animal could be trained to do, but nothing that an animal just isn't capable of. So a command to "Sunder" or "Disarm" would get held weapons but not worn items; they could grapple or pin, or even stalk or ambush. Heck, I'd even give them Perform (with that spiffy 1 Cha). But that's about it. No designating specific targets unless you can point to them, no conditionals, no patterns. Edit: I will disagree with McJ's reading that Animated dead can't do anything but guard a location or follow you. That's a bit strict, and doesn't make much sense. Edit 2: The use of a creature as a mount that must obey spoken commands might be a bit iffy, but I don't feel like looking up the relevant material. No guiding with heels, for instance.
hogarth 02-20-07, 07:37 PM	Edit 2: The use of a creature as a mount that must obey spoken commands might be a bit iffy, but I don't feel like looking up the relevant material. No guiding with heels, for instance. FYI, in Libris Mortis they suggest a -2 penalty on Ride checks to ride a skeleton/zombie, but that's it.
SauroGrenom 02-20-07, 07:46 PM	I think it should be pointed out that mindless undead clearly cannot have the combat riding package. As such there would be limits on how they interact with the use of the ride skill or ride related feats (like combat riding). I'm reminded of the rules of the game articles about mounts. here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050201a) Particularly the sections about aggressive mounts and unruly mounts. Also the unofficial rule about "Riding Along with an Aggressive Mount:" looks like a reasonable compromise to me.
SauroGrenom 02-20-07, 07:50 PM	FYI, in Libris Mortis they suggest a -2 penalty on Ride checks to ride a skeleton/zombie, but that's it. Cat informs me that this is what has been used in CoCo since the crust of the earth cooled.
Horatius 02-20-07, 07:55 PM	For what it's worth, I concur that mindless undead should not be able to follow complex commands, even if they're explained in real time. I've seen plenty of people who couldn't do that, and, in theory at least, they're not mindless. So, the reasons are twofold: First, as implied above, it denies logic - I doubt a mindless being would be able to identify an object to be sundered, let alone sunder it - a dog certainly can't and they're pretty smart. Second, as McJarvis has pointed out, the rules are pretty clear about the type of command they can and can't follow. Mindlessness has advantages, like immunity to mind-affecting abilities, but it also means no writing poetry, among other things. Personally, I would not allow even as much flexibility as MindWandererB is suggesting. I see a mindless creature as significantly less versatile and adaptable than even untrained animals. They're like a really old computer, with about half-a-dozen functions (fight, guard, etc), that just comes back with "does not compute" (stares blankly) when you try anything else. Unlike animals they don't even resist suicidal or obviously harmful orders.
McJarvis 02-20-07, 07:55 PM	Cat informs me that this is what has been used in CoCo since the crust of the earth cooled. I hate to be a rain on the old-guys parade, but shouldn't we be more concerned with what the rules say and less concerned with the crust of Gladius? ;)
Tellish_of_Ket 02-21-07, 12:16 AM	K...i can't find the info at the beginning of the page, so i'll ask here for officiality. A fighter with wisdom 13, wearing full plate, dons a monk's belt. Does he gain the wisdom bonus to his AC? Tellish
Tellish_of_Ket 02-21-07, 12:18 AM	K...i can't find the info at the beginning of the page, so i'll ask here for officiality. A fighter with wisdom 13, wearing full plate, dons a monk's belt. Does he gain the wisdom bonus to his AC? Tellish MWB answered this in tavern. No probs...it is as i suspected. Tellish
Caterane 02-21-07, 07:45 AM	(1) Invalid References: First of all, please stop to use the Command Undead spell or the Rebuke Undead ability as a reference for animated undead as these are two completely different shoes and have nothing to do with each other just like the Command Undead spell and the Command Undead ability are completely different in that one of them requires a standard action and the other one not; this is explicitely mentioned in the description. (2) Complex Commands: The Animate Dead spell says nothing about the nature of the commands given so any restriction we make up is a houserule. The only reference we have is the skeleton description in the MM which says simple commands only. That's okay. As TM already portrayed, simple commands are "Guard this door and let no one pass" or "Attack that" (here: quiver). I never used complex commands like "Kill any soldier but grapple officers of rank captain or higher and bring them to me whereever I am at this moment but only if I don't have a Do not Disturb sign hanging at the door. Oh and go fetch me a coffee". That's complex. (3) Intelligence: The value Intelligence --- is not the same as intelligence zero. It's not dumber than Int 1 or 2, infact it's even outside the intelligence scale and does not belong to the numerical hierarchy. --- means 'special'. For example, if I command "Attack the guard" then the skeleton does that. An Intelligence 1 or 2 animal does not comprehend the term 'guard'. I do not have to say "Raise your left arm and bring it down with full force, using your sharp fingernails to rend the guards flesh". I do not have to explain what a guard or fingernails are as I would have to someone with Int zero, Int one or two, or some of my pupils. The magic of the spell provides that. Unlike with 35ft wingspan griffons flying through a 10ft tunnel unimpeded, we do not have any real-life comparisson when it comes to magic. There's not such thing as 'logic' when talking about a fantasy product. What's left for us is the description in the rules, not what we imagine it to be like if magic would exist. (4) Special Rules for riding mindless Undead: Sauro suggests to use rule for "Unruly Mounts" or "Aggressive Mounts". By just looking at the name (unruly/aggressive) everyone can see that this emotional state cannot be applied to a mindless undead. Here are additional references from Sauro's linked section "All About Mounts" that clearly do not apply to mindless undead: When a mount has an Intelligence score of 2 or less and it has not been specially trained for combat riding (see the Handle Animal skill description), it can prove a detriment in battle. As said above, Intelligence --- is not 'lower than 2'; it's outside the scale. An animal, as with all living sentint natural beings, must be taught how to do things. Zombies and skeletons do not learn things. They know what's what by the nature of the magic that created them. That aside, there are two kinds of rules for mounts: aggressive and unruly (non-aggressive) ones. Let's check them both... Unruly Mounts: Most mounts that aren't battle trained also aren't aggressive and would prefer to flee from danger. A regular camel, horse, mule, or pony is a good example. Clearly, a mindless undead does not flee so this passage (non-battle trained or non-aggressive) does not apply to them. So no ride checks to control it as this section suggests. Let's see the other option then which is defined as: Aggressive Mounts: A character could ride a mount that isn't cowardly in battle, but still isn't trained to carry a rider into combat. You must attempt a Ride check to direct the mount's actions, which is noted in the section on unruly mounts. If you fail, the mount might stick around to fight. If so, the mount moves where it will. I am sure everyone sees that a mindless undead 'that follows my spoken commands' does not 'move where it will' or 'might stick around' if I fail a Ride check. "Knellstriker, attack!" - "Oooooohh, yoooouuu nnooottt niiiccee tooo meeee. Meee waaalllkk offffff". Ridiculous. The rules for both "Unruly Mounts" and "Aggressive Mounts" exclude mindless emotionalless undead by their description, if not by the name (unruly/aggressive) alone. So what else do we have? Nothing but the Animate Dead spell description with the limitation in the skeleton entry about complex commands which I already addressed above. We had such a discussion in the past and it was Elder voted that mindless undead give you -2 to ride checks. Later, the Libris Mortis came out with the exactly same suggestion. It seems, the current rule is a good one and in line with what the designers imagine it to work.
Hirumajoe 02-21-07, 08:05 AM	In regards to the mindless undead debate: Monster Manual Faq, 3.0 Just how smart (or stupid) are creatures that lack Intelligence scores? Can they open doors, use equipment, or carry things? Can they be bluffed or intimidated? Intelligence in the D&D game measures a creature's ability to think, learn, and remember. A creature without an Intelligence score can do none of those things. It can’t figure out puzzles, learn to do tricks, or remember anything. On the other hand, every creature has a Wisdom and a Charisma score, so it can perceive and react to its surroundings and it knows (though perhaps only on an instinctual level) that it exists. A living creature without an Intelligence score, such as a monstrous spider, functions as a biological robot programmed to eat, mate, and preserve itself, usually in that order. The spider is competent to survive in its normal environment and to fulfill its biological niche as a predator. It is hardwired to hunt, defend its territory, and avoid hazards such as fires, falls, or rushing water. It cannot recognize or deal with anything that its evolution has not prepared it to handle. A spider cannot, for example, figure out how to open a door (though if it sees prey escaping though a door it may push on through by dint of sheer strength) nor can it recognize and attack a party’s wizard (though it might show a preference for unarmed or unarmored prey). Unliving creatures with Intelligence scores are slightly more sophisticated, because they usually are created through some kind of magic and so they come equipped with more programming. A golem, for example, can be assumed to have the sort of basic knowledge that its creator takes for granted, such as the ability to open doors or tell a plate from a bowl. It, too, is competent to function in its environment, but in this case, the environment is its creator's. The spell or ritual that creates a construct or an undead creature also provides the person who cast the spell or performed the ritual the power to command the creature. The creature has no intellectual ability to comprehend its orders, but its master has enough control over it to compel it to fulfill them anyway. A construct or an animated undead can fulfill any of the commands listed for animal companions of page 46 of the DUNGEON MASTER’s Guide, except for Track. (The creature can even do that if it has the Track feat or the scent ability.) In addition, these creatures can be ordered to carry any object they can pick up and to follow other short commands such as "march west two days and then attack the first creature you meet." Nonintelligent undead creatures also retain the barest trace of their former lives. So, for example, a skeleton ordered to carry a torch will carry it overhead and if ordered to carry a basin of water or bucket will carry it level so the contents don't spill out. Constructs have a similar ability, based on the creator's knowledge. Most attempts to bluff creatures with Intelligence scores are doomed to fail, simply because these creatures have no ability to communicate. You can use Bluff to perform a feint against a creature with no Intelligence, but that’s about all. Creatures without Intelligence scores are essentially fearless, so they cannot be intimidated. Make of that what you will. Although what I come away from it is, anything a trained animal can do, mindless undead can do, and you can combine them into short orders (such as seek and then attack).
Guildmaster_LOY 02-21-07, 08:33 AM	@Cat: While I appreciate your response, I can't help but feel you didn't actually read my post in this thread. I restricted myself to commenting on each spell/ability concerning mindless creatures individually, and in the end only commented on the Harvey/Hood fight in a "Sense TM has already tipped his hat, there should be no change" sort of way. I sense that you're being defensive about all of this...and my intent is not to penalize Harvy or any of your other characters that use undead. My intent is merely to be certain that we are not subconciously following a house-rule that has not been made(in any court ruling) and does not follow the rules(since only commanding undead by a cleric is completely non-restricted action). All that said and done, I raised concerns about the restrictions on the Animate Dead spell that you did not address at all.
Abyssal Stalker 02-21-07, 08:51 AM	I have to support Cat's suggestions, mostly. The only problem I see is the complexity of commands. There needs to be a clear limit if we don't want to leave this to pitlord's decisions. The intelligence of an undead is a complex thing. We have to remember that there are two kinds of undead: intelligent and unintelligent. The way I see the difference, is that it determines if they have a free will or not. Intelligent undead clearly have a free will and they do what they want. Unintelligent undead probably understand things, but the whole concept of "me" is out of their reach. And obviously, they lack the capability to produce their own ideas. They are like machines. They lack any kind of AI, so they follow their commands strictly without fear of getting hurt on the way. This doesn't necessarily mean that they would walk to the lava pit if that's the shortest route, because they clearly have some kind of "memory" and thus follow certain pre-determined behavior. If they used a bridge in their life, they would probably do so in their undeath too. If someone jumps of a ledge, and the undead are told to attack them, then the order overrides the behavior and they follow. Any command that requires thinking should be out of the question. If the action is within the creatures original behavior, then it should be OK. If the action is simple, but doesn't fit the creatures behavior, it is still forced to obay the command within it's capabilities. Rather philosophical, don't you think :) Edit: Damn, Hirumajoe beat me. Kind of funny that my thinking follows the FAQ answer almost to the letter, allthough I have never even read it!
hogarth 02-21-07, 09:02 AM	The only problem I see is the complexity of commands. There needs to be a clear limit if we don't want to leave this to pitlord's decisions. Frankly, I think this is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be left to the pitlord's discretion. The same goes with commands given to an animal via Speak with Animals, for another example. For instance, I had a fight where my druid told his animal companion to "kill the elf". The pitlord ruled that animals can't distinguish between elves and other humanoids. I disagreed (presumably you can distinguish them by scent), but that was the pitlord's call to make, not mine. You can't possibly enumerate every possible action for every possible creature, so why try?
Horatius 02-21-07, 09:05 AM	First of all, I think the ability of mindless undead to perform complex tasks and the ability of mindless undead to act as a mount are different (though possibly connected) issues. WRT the latter, the Aggressive Mount description seems to cover it fairly well, though, of course, if you are commanding the undead, you can tell it where to go and who to attack. WRT complex tasks, I do not think the references listed are invalid. The Command Undead spell is totally valid. When you control a mindless being, you can communicate only basic commands, such as “come here,” “go there,” “fight,” “stand still,” and so on. Nonintelligent undead won’t resist suicidal or obviously harmful orders. It does not say "when you control a mindless being with this spell", therefore the reference can be applied to other situations "when you control a mindless being". As an analogy: If I added a new reach weapon to the equipment list, everyone would understand that (at medium size) I could use it against a creature 10' away but not an adjacent one. I don't have to state that in the weapon description for everyone to know that, because it's stated under the description of the longspear, for example. Similarly, in the description of Command Undead, a description of how mindless undead can be controlled is given. This applies to any situation in which mindless undead are controlled. Note that the word 'control' is used instead of 'commanded' in the first sentence, making the application significantly broader. That having been said, I think the FAQ from 3.0 is also a relevant source, suggesting that mindless undead can perform tasks similar to those of animals, with the addition of other simple physical tasks, and simple task sequences. As Cat pointed out (and supported by the FAQ) the 'non-intelligence' of the mindless undead does not mean the creature knows nothing. So my earlier assertion that the undead would be unable to identify a quiver is almost certainly wrong. So where does that leave us? I think it leaves us, as the FAQ suggests, around where a trained animal would be. This would allow simple commands, but in my opinion would not allow complex combat manouvers like sunder and disarm. Edit: The problem with leaving this to individual pitlords is that we'll get vastly different fight results based on who is running the fight. It's obviously preferable to avoid that. In your situation ('attack the elf') you could easily override any confusion by actively directing the animal to act according to your wishes (no, attack that one' <points>).
McJarvis 02-21-07, 09:13 AM	It does not say "when you control a mindless being with this spell", therefore the reference can be applied to other situations "when you control a mindless being". As a general point, this sort of logic is faulty within the context of how CoCo reads rules. Since the wording is in the spell description, the elders will automatically assume it is within the context of having control of the Undead with that spell imparticular. Thus my case was more of a "this is what we can expect mindless undead to be able to do" rather than "this is RAW because this spell works this way"
Horatius 02-21-07, 12:59 PM	Thus my case was more of a "this is what we can expect mindless undead to be able to do" rather than "this is RAW because this spell works this way" Um, that was my point, too. I was (perhaps less clearly than I had hoped) trying to point out that the application of the information given in the spell description was not limited to the context of the spell. Regardless, I think the point stands that it is a useful guide.
McJarvis 02-22-07, 08:16 AM	I need a quick(by friday) ruling on a matter that should be trivial, but will ultimately require a Court Decision(and probably will end up being posted in "Court Decisions") edit-> Just read the FAQ entry that NiQil posted...not sure if it's concrete enough, but the implications are certainly there....maybe? The Question: Is Spiritual weapon considered a melee weapon, a ranged weapon, or a spell attack for the purposes of cover, AC when prone, etc, etc. Additionally: What square is Spiritual weapon in when it's attacking an opponent? The square immediately next to the target that is between the target and the caster? the square of the target himself? I don't really care which way the elders decide on this, but it is important that I know. Keeping this in mind, I'll just do the grunt work for you all. (I do not believe you will need any sources other than what I have snipped below) Spiritual Weapon Evocation [Force] Level: Clr 2, War 2 Components: V, S, DF Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level) Effect: Magic weapon of force Duration: 1 round/level (D) Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: Yes A weapon made of pure force springs into existence and attacks opponents at a distance, as you direct it, dealing 1d8 force damage per hit, +1 point per three caster levels (maximum +5 at 15th level). The weapon takes the shape of a weapon favored by your deity or a weapon with some spiritual significance or symbolism to you (see below) and has the same threat range and critical multipliers as a real weapon of its form. It strikes the opponent you designate, starting with one attack in the round the spell is cast and continuing each round thereafter on your turn. 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. As a force effect, it can strike incorporeal creatures without the normal miss chance associated with incorporeality. The weapon always strikes from your direction. It does not get a flanking bonus or help a combatant get one. Your feats or combat actions do not affect the weapon. If the weapon goes beyond the spell range, if it goes out of your sight, or if you are not directing it, the weapon returns to you and hovers. Each round after the first, you can use a move action to redirect the weapon to a new target. If you do not, the weapon continues to attack the previous round’s target. On any round that the weapon switches targets, it gets one attack. Subsequent rounds of attacking that target allow the weapon to make multiple attacks if your base attack bonus would allow it to. Even if the spiritual weapon is a ranged weapon, use the spell’s range, not the weapon’s normal range increment, and switching targets still is a move action. A spiritual weapon cannot be attacked or harmed by physical attacks, but dispel magic, disintegrate, a sphere of annihilation, or a rod of cancellation affects it. A spiritual weapon’s AC against touch attacks is 12 (10 + size bonus for Tiny object). If an attacked creature has spell resistance, you make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against that spell resistance the first time the spiritual weapon strikes it. If the weapon is successfully resisted, the spell is dispelled. If not, the weapon has its normal full effect on that creature for the duration of the spell. The weapon that you get is often a force replica of your deity’s own personal weapon. A cleric without a deity gets a weapon based on his alignment. A neutral cleric without a deity can create a spiritual weapon of any alignment, provided he is acting at least generally in accord with that alignment at the time. The weapons associated with each alignment are as follows. Chaos: Battleaxe Evil: Light flail Good: Warhammer Law: Longsword, My opinion is that it is a melee weapon for this purpose. It moves with its target, so it is unaffected by cover (although breaking LOS causes it to return). McJarvis(follow-up question to MWB): Is it considered to be in the target's square or in the square next to it? If it's the square next to it, I could see there being cover situations(for instance, an archer peering around a corner...only to be met with a spiritual weapon. The corner is then cover for melee purposes) Hogarth(response to my follow-up question): It moves next to your opponent and it always strikes from your direction. So I would say that cover could apply. Abyssal Stalker(response to Hogarth's answer): On the other hand it is beyond normal rules for combat: it has unlimited movement within spell range. It strikes as a spell (whatever that means). It can strike incorporeal creatures. More important, it doesn't provide any flanking bonus. I wouldn't have bothered the council after MWB's response, but further ambiguity from Hogarth's made me think this might be a non-black&white issue. Thank you for your time.
NiQil 02-22-07, 08:22 AM	I need a quick(by friday) ruling on a matter that should be trivial, but will ultimately require a Court Decision(and probably will end up being posted in "Court Decisions") The Question: Is Spiritual weapon considered a melee weapon, a ranged weapon, or a spell attack for the purposes of cover, AC when prone, etc, etc. Additionally: What square is Spiritual weapon in when it's attacking an opponent? The square immediately next to the target that is between the target and the caster? the square of the target himself? I don't really care which way the elders decide on this, but it is important that I know. Keeping this in mind, I'll just do the grunt work for you all. (I do not believe you will need any sources other than what I have snipped below) Spiritual Weapon Evocation [Force] Level: Clr 2, War 2 Components: V, S, DF Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level) Effect: Magic weapon of force Duration: 1 round/level (D) Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: Yes A weapon made of pure force springs into existence and attacks opponents at a distance, as you direct it, dealing 1d8 force damage per hit, +1 point per three caster levels (maximum +5 at 15th level). The weapon takes the shape of a weapon favored by your deity or a weapon with some spiritual significance or symbolism to you (see below) and has the same threat range and critical multipliers as a real weapon of its form. It strikes the opponent you designate, starting with one attack in the round the spell is cast and continuing each round thereafter on your turn. 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. As a force effect, it can strike incorporeal creatures without the normal miss chance associated with incorporeality. The weapon always strikes from your direction. It does not get a flanking bonus or help a combatant get one. Your feats or combat actions do not affect the weapon. If the weapon goes beyond the spell range, if it goes out of your sight, or if you are not directing it, the weapon returns to you and hovers. Each round after the first, you can use a move action to redirect the weapon to a new target. If you do not, the weapon continues to attack the previous round’s target. On any round that the weapon switches targets, it gets one attack. Subsequent rounds of attacking that target allow the weapon to make multiple attacks if your base attack bonus would allow it to. Even if the spiritual weapon is a ranged weapon, use the spell’s range, not the weapon’s normal range increment, and switching targets still is a move action. A spiritual weapon cannot be attacked or harmed by physical attacks, but dispel magic, disintegrate, a sphere of annihilation, or a rod of cancellation affects it. A spiritual weapon’s AC against touch attacks is 12 (10 + size bonus for Tiny object). If an attacked creature has spell resistance, you make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against that spell resistance the first time the spiritual weapon strikes it. If the weapon is successfully resisted, the spell is dispelled. If not, the weapon has its normal full effect on that creature for the duration of the spell. The weapon that you get is often a force replica of your deity’s own personal weapon. A cleric without a deity gets a weapon based on his alignment. A neutral cleric without a deity can create a spiritual weapon of any alignment, provided he is acting at least generally in accord with that alignment at the time. The weapons associated with each alignment are as follows. Chaos: Battleaxe Evil: Light flail Good: Warhammer Law: Longsword, I wouldn't have bothered the council after MWB's response, but further ambiguity from Hogarth's made me think this might be a non-black&white issue. Thank you for your time. As per this FAQ entry, it would appear that the spell does not count as a melee weapon. Does a spiritual weapon get to make attacks of opportunity? Actually, since the spell indicates specifically that spiritual weapon strikes as a spell, and not a weapon, it is not allowed an attack of opportunity when normally provoked. Likewise, the technical definition of an attack of opportunity requires that you threaten the opponent in question (see PHB page 137). While you do direct the spiritual weapon to attack, you are not technically wielding the weapon, and so you do not threaten the square into which it is attacking.
MindWandererB 02-22-07, 01:35 PM	The problem is that it does count as a weapon for some purposes--it has to hit an AC, after all. Just like a ray isn't a ranged weapon, but going prone still helps because it's a ranged attack. Perhaps the better question would be, does Spiritual Weapon count as a melee attack for the purposes of AC modifiers such as being prone and cover? I stick to my original answers: there's no way anything can get between the hammer and its target, so no cover. Being prone reduces your ability to move and makes you effectively a larger target, so that should apply. I would think that concealment (but not total concealment) would not apply, either--the Weappn just isn't fooled. (Total concealment eliminates LOS, so it returns to you.)
hogarth 02-22-07, 01:43 PM	I stick to my original answers: there's no way anything can get between the hammer and its target, so no cover. But what about the part where it says "[t]he weapon always strikes from your direction"? Consider this map: . . | @ @ . . | @ @ . X - - - . . Y . . Any attack from Y's direction towards X would have cover, wouldn't it? I would think that concealment (but not total concealment) would not apply, either--the Weapon just isn't fooled. So in your opinion I suppose it can bypass a Mirror Image spell, too? :confused:
TelinArtho 02-22-07, 01:46 PM	Hmm - I would disagree MWB. In the rare instances where cover would apply in melee, I would say cover would apply as would prone penalties. The thing that does it for me is whether the target gets these modifiers or if these are bonuses of the attacker. For instance, cover is not a -4 to hit, but rather a +4 to AC. Similarly being prone doesn't grant your opponent a +4 to hit, but rather applies a -4 to your AC. Concealment would also apply in my opinion. Total cover and total concealment would apply in that either one means the Spiritual weapon cannot attack. To the original question, the spell is always attacking from the direction of the caster and always from the melee range (even when the spiritual weapon is a long bow) - so being prone wouldn't help versus a spiritual weapon (whether it is a battleaxe or a long bow). That's my take on all of this anyway.
MindWandererB 02-22-07, 01:50 PM	But what about the part where it says "[t]he weapon always strikes from your direction"? Consider this map: . . | @ @ . . | @ @ . X - - - . . Y . . Any attack from Y's direction towards X would have cover, wouldn't it? So in your opinion I suppose it can bypass a Mirror Image spell, too? :confused: It depends on where the weapon actually is. For instance, if your favored weapon is a dagger, I have a hard time imagining the dagger floating 5' away and trying to stab you from there. And what if it's a reach weapon? The only thing I can imagine "[t]he weapon always strikes from your direction" meaning is if you wanted it to get around a tower shield, or some such.
Tellish_of_Ket 02-22-07, 02:22 PM	Hmm - I would disagree MWB. In the rare instances where cover would apply in melee, I would say cover would apply as would prone penalties. The thing that does it for me is whether the target gets these modifiers or if these are bonuses of the attacker. For instance, cover is not a -4 to hit, but rather a +4 to AC. Similarly being prone doesn't grant your opponent a +4 to hit, but rather applies a -4 to your AC. Concealment would also apply in my opinion. Total cover and total concealment would apply in that either one means the Spiritual weapon cannot attack. To the original question, the spell is always attacking from the direction of the caster and always from the melee range (even when the spiritual weapon is a long bow) - so being prone wouldn't help versus a spiritual weapon (whether it is a battleaxe or a long bow). That's my take on all of this anyway. I wholeheartedly concur. It doesn't matter what the weapon is, bow, melee, or reach weapon. It always attacks from your direction. If there is cover then, then the opponent still gains the benefit to their AC. Breaking LOS is easy though. You don't have to end your move out of LOS, you just have to break it. Tellish
McJarvis 02-22-07, 02:24 PM	Just my ponderings on this issue: Let's assume the spiritual weapon occupies a 5' square of its own. We know that so long as the caster has sight on the target, he can attack the target with the spiritual weapon. Suppose they're fighting on a battlefield that is 50x1 (5' squares) Suppose the target is directly behind an ally of his. Now the spiritual weapon has to be in the same square as the ally of the target. o_O I can only conclude that the spiritual weapon must be in the square of the intended target, on the side between the caster and the target. (this negates cover-> unless any cover between you and the caster counts as cover)
TelinArtho 02-22-07, 02:40 PM	But that's the thing - the spiritual weapon doesn't "need" to have space. All it needs is: a) the target is within 100ft + 10ft/CL of the caster b) LOS to the target If the opponent has a cover-sized barrier between the weapon and the target - then cover would apply. If the weapon is attacking from the same direction of another enemy or ally (it doesn't matter which), it would not suffer from cover. If it is easiest for you to conceptualize it by giving it a 5ft space, that is fine as long as anything can move through and stop in that space without retribution from the SW.
McJarvis 02-22-07, 02:44 PM	If the opponent has a cover-sized barrier between the weapon and the target - then cover would apply. If the weapon is attacking from the same direction of another enemy or ally (it doesn't matter which), it would not suffer from cover. I do not understand what you are trying to say. It is possible to have cover from someone who is adjacent to you but only touching a corner of your square(not the side) So when does it suffer from cover? Of course, Ride checks could be used for cover...always?
TelinArtho 02-22-07, 02:47 PM	Why not? x y Where there is a thin but noticeable barrier between x and y at about waist height - that's cover isn't it? (it would seem paper thin on the map - but could just be a 6 inch wide, 4ft high wall that doesn't hinder movement in either adjacent square, but that does hinder attacks going across it. However without that barrier, if y was just another person, the spiritual weapon would not have to worry about cover.
McJarvis 02-22-07, 02:50 PM	Why not? x y Where there is a thin but noticeable barrier between x and y at about waist height - that's cover isn't it? (it would seem paper thin on the map - but could just be a 6 inch wide, 4ft high wall that doesn't hinder movement in either adjacent square, but that does hinder attacks going across it. However without that barrier, if y was just another person, the spiritual weapon would not have to worry about cover. Oh, I see..you're drawing a distinction from soft cover(other allies//enemies) and terrain cover that seperates squares. Gotcha :)
MindWandererB 02-22-07, 02:50 PM	But that's the thing - the spiritual weapon doesn't "need" to have space. All it needs is: a) the target is within 100ft + 10ft/CL of the caster b) LOS to the target If the opponent has a cover-sized barrier between the weapon and the target - then cover would apply. If the weapon is attacking from the same direction of another enemy or ally (it doesn't matter which), it would not suffer from cover. If it is easiest for you to conceptualize it by giving it a 5ft space, that is fine as long as anything can move through and stop in that space without retribution from the SW. It sounds like you believe that in this situation: http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;map=arena;a=Cast,M,9,25,Cas ter;b=Vict,M,10,32,Victim;los=9,25,10,32 ,1 The victim would get cover. That makes no sense to me--just because there's cover between the caster and the target, doesn't mean there's cover between the weapon and the target. There's clearly no way here that there should be anything in the weapon's way. Edit: Oh, that's not what you meant. I misunderstood that at first. But it sounds like there's no way to not assign it a "space," for which I'm not sure there's support.
TelinArtho 02-22-07, 02:52 PM	No MWB - actually if you notice I specify cover between the weapon and the target - not the caster and the target.
McJarvis 02-22-07, 02:56 PM	@MWB: your victim doesn't have cover from that caster anyway ;) edit-> Even one as faultless as myself makes alot of mistakes...
MindWandererB 02-22-07, 03:08 PM	@MWB: your victim doesn't have cover from that caster anyway ;) Yes, it does. LOS lines added to make the point. Of course, I misunderstood at first, anyway. To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).
McJarvis 02-22-07, 03:10 PM	O_O Oh...guess you learn something new every day, right? I've never noticed that "border" part of the definition...
hogarth 02-22-07, 03:27 PM	Edit: Oh, that's not what you meant. I misunderstood that at first. But it sounds like there's no way to not assign it a "space," for which I'm not sure there's support. I agree there's no real support for saying the weapon is in one space or another. But look at it this way: No one is suggesting that a spiritual weapon would ignore the shield bonus from a tower shield. So why would it ignore the +4 bonus to AC when a gladiator tries to shield himself with a doorway or a low wall?
McJarvis 02-24-07, 09:48 PM	Slow day in the courts. Might as well bring this up.(MWB and I were discussing it on AIM) CoCo House rule on Polymorph: "Size Restriction: Polymorph forms must be within one size category just like Alter Self. " This is blatantly in the face of Polymorph rules as written. (and for no reason, I might add) This spell functions like alter self, except....*snip*...The assumed form can’t have more Hit Dice than your caster level (or the subject’s HD, whichever is lower), to a maximum of 15 HD at 15th level. You can’t cause a subject to assume a form smaller than Fine If you treat the "You can't cause a subject to assume a form smaller than fine" as an additional restriction ON TOP of Alterself's restriction of 1 size category, then it would be logical to treat the HD the same way. "The assumed form can't have more Hit Dice than your caster level", with an absolute cap of 5 HD because alter self is treated that way. This, however, is obviously not the way Polymorph is intended to be treated...all the "negatives" after the except part of the spell Polymorph are actually a broadening of Alterself's power. Because Polymorph is two spell levels higher. These rules are not further restrictions on Alterself, but rather new boundries that can be explored. I fully agree that Polymorph can't increase your size by more than 1 increment, but it CAN decrease you down to fine, no matter what. (Though I do not know why you would want to turn into a puppeteer-> nor do I know why this house rule is in gladius on both ends of polymorph when it clearly states you can become smaller than 1-size away.)
Tellish_of_Ket 02-24-07, 10:01 PM	WHOA! Then i guess you haven't read the new FAQ concerning polymorph, shapechanging, alter-self, druid-wildshape? They have been completely nerfed (or balanced if you ask me). Tellish
MindWandererB 02-24-07, 10:32 PM	Except that the FAQ says: Alter self (Player’s Handbook, page 197), the base spell in the polymorph chain, says that the new form must be within one size category of your normal size. Is the same true of other spells in the chain? Not necessarily, although the rules aren’t as clear as they could be. Polymorph, and any spell that refers back to it (such as polymorph any object), allows the new form to be of any size of Fine or greater. Shapechange specifically delineates its size limitations (Fine to Colossal), which is a much clearer way of saying the same thing.So it has nothing to do with the "official" nerfing; it's a CoCo house rule. Although I'm not against the elimination of familiar remorhazes, as long as the rationale is consistent.
Tellish_of_Ket 02-25-07, 12:07 AM	Except that the FAQ says: So it has nothing to do with the "official" nerfing; it's a CoCo house rule. Although I'm not against the elimination of familiar remorhazes, as long as the rationale is consistent. Actually, i was more referring to these two passages: If my goliath is transformed into a stone giant by polymorph*, can he wield Huge weapons? What if the wizard just casts enlarge person on him instead? Alter self, the base spell for the polymorph chain, states that you lose any extraordinary special attacks or qualities “from your normal form that are not derived from class levels.” Since powerful build is an extraordinary quality derived from your form (it’s a racial trait), it’s lost when he takes a new form. (The same is true of half-giants, who also have this trait.) (On the bright side, your now-Large character can still wield the Large weapons he was carrying around before the polymorph took effect, which is more than the half-orc barbarian polymorphed into a stone giant can say.) Most simple size-change effects, such as enlarge person, allow the character to retain all racial traits. A goliath whose size increased to Large could wield Huge weapons without penalty (and if reduced to Small size, he could wield Medium weapons without penalty). Enlarge person and reduce person wouldn’t accomplish this (since they work only on humanoids, not on monstrous humanoids like goliaths), but the expansion psionic power would. When my human uses polymorph* to take the form of another creature, he loses any extraordinary special attacks and qualities. Does this include his bonus feat and bonus skill points? If so, how do I figure out which feat and skill points are derived from his racial traits? A human’s bonus feat and bonus skill points—like most other racial traits—are considered extraordinary qualities, and thus are lost when the character would lose such abilities (including when polymorphed). This is a good reason to keep track of which feat is your human bonus feat, since it might have wide-reaching effects. (For instance, if Dodge was your bonus feat, you’d lose the benefits of any other feats that have Dodge as a prerequisite, such as Mobility and Spring Attack.) Keeping track of where your bonus skill points are spent is more onerous, and likely less significant to play. If most of your skills are maxed out (that is, their rank equals your level +3, or half that for a cross-class skill), it’s probably easiest simply to designate one skill as the repository for all your bonus skill points. For ease of play, some DMs ignore this side effect, but doing so represents a clear benefit granted to humans. Be aware that players of nonhuman characters may resent this “freebie.” Those are very different than what most ppl have been running with polymorph. Human druids wild-shaping would lose a lot of skill pts and its bonus feat. If he had other feats that rely on the bonus feat for a chain of feats, then they are also lost. Tellish
MindWandererB 02-25-07, 12:17 AM	Urgh. I hate that ruling. Not only is it impossible to adjudicate, it makes no sense. Not every ability falls into the extraordinary/supernatural/spell-like trichotomy. It's actually better for nonhumans--they can polymorph into a human, and gain a bonus feat of their choosing. Use PaO or Persistent Spell, and you can even pull off crap like temporarily acquiring an item creation feat, using it to create an item, then swapping it out for a different one. Oh, and it doesn't apply to druids, anyhow, since Wild Shape doesn't reference Polymorph anymore.
McJarvis 02-25-07, 03:20 PM	Not every ability falls into the extraordinary/supernatural/spell-like trichotomy. Feats are, by definition, extraordinary...except in the case of those good-aligned feats from exalted deeds. Regardless, the errata on Poly says nothing regarding the CoCo poly rule I outlined.
Hirumajoe 02-25-07, 03:48 PM	I've recently been told that I can't have a psicrystal be "driving" a mount while the psion is on said mount. I admit, I take advantage of the initiative rules when doing so, having the psicrystal and mount act just before the psion, in order to let the psion have a full set of actions (admittedly, with any appropriate riding penalties such as concentration checks). Also, it might be nice to iron out what riding type things you can do while a "passenger". For example, can you ride: cover while not "driving". I believe the approriate references are the Rules of the Game: All about Mounts parts 2 and 5. Specifically the Riding along with Aggressive Mounts and passengers section. I've used tactics like these in the past without problems, but I'd like to get an Elder majority opinion on this for future reference. (I don't intend to influcence the current fight, I'll let that run however the pitlords feels is necessary). Thanks, Hirumajoe
MindWandererB 02-25-07, 05:57 PM	For the simpler point: I don't think you should be allowed to make any Ride checks at all if you're not in control of your mount. For the more complex one: Regardless of what the rules say, you're talking about abusing the timing rules, and we'll never allow that. You can't both move and get a full melee attack in the same round by being transported like this.
TheMagister 02-25-07, 07:12 PM	For the simpler point: I don't think you should be allowed to make any Ride checks at all if you're not in control of your mount. For the more complex one: Regardless of what the rules say, you're talking about abusing the timing rules, and we'll never allow that. You can't both move and get a full melee attack in the same round by being transported like this. Didn't someone wanna do this with a wagon (a.k.a. - a "chariot") a while back?
Tellish_of_Ket 02-25-07, 07:20 PM	I think the rule is pretty specific. It states "if your mount takes more than a 5' step..." it says nothing about you being the controller. If you are on the mount and it moves more than a 5' step, you are limited in your actions. Tellish
SauroGrenom 02-25-07, 08:01 PM	I think the rule is pretty specific. It states "if your mount takes more than a 5' step..." it says nothing about you being the controller. If you are on the mount and it moves more than a 5' step, you are limited in your actions. TellishWhat are you specifically mentioning here? Which rule in what place? BTW My general opinion is that trying to "ride" a mount that someone else is "riding" is slicing the baloney to thin. It would be kind of wrong to let someone gain all the benefits of riding a mount while never dealing with the problems or limitations.
McJarvis 02-25-07, 08:54 PM	What are you specifically mentioning here? Which rule in what place? BTW My general opinion is that trying to "ride" a mount that someone else is "riding" is slicing the baloney to thin. It would be kind of wrong to let someone gain all the benefits of riding a mount while never dealing with the problems or limitations. ...I think ToK was saying the opposite. If you're on a mount, you're "riding it"...and therefore subject to the limitations that stem from that.
TheMagister 02-25-07, 09:17 PM	Can you guys check the Tavern for a rules question that affects my Mission that I'm 'lording ATM? It's pretty important. Thanks!
Hirumajoe 02-26-07, 08:05 AM	I think the rule is pretty specific. It states "if your mount takes more than a 5' step..." it says nothing about you being the controller. If you are on the mount and it moves more than a 5' step, you are limited in your actions. Tellish I was reading the above in conjuction with the following excerpts: Riding Along with an Aggressive Mount: If your mount isn't trained for war but chooses to fight with you aboard, you can just give the mount its head. You and your mount make separate initiative rolls. Because there are some full-round actions you cannot perform while your mount moves (see Parts Three and Four), you must delay until after your mount's turn to use such actions if your mount's turn in the initiative order comes before your own turn comes. Even then your mount's movements could keep you from performing your intended action. When it's finally your turn to act, you must succeed on a DC 10 Ride check to adjust your actions to fit your mount's uncontrolled movements. The check is a move action for you, but it does not provoke attacks of opportunity. (You're looking after yourself, not your mount.) If you fail, your mount's movements keep you from taking any actions this round. If you succeed, you can use a standard action. Just remember that you're allowing your mount to take you where it will, so your options might prove limited. The above indicates that you need to make a move action ride check in order to take an action on an aggressive uncontrolled mount (implying a full-rounds worth of actions). It also explicits states that there are some full-round actions which you need to delay in order to use (and only until after your mount's initiative - not next round). Intelligent Mounts According to the Dungeon Master's Guide, a mount with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher acts like an NPC ally rather than a mount. Riding such an ally works much like riding an aggressive mount in battle (see Part Two), except that you don't have to make a Ride check to act while riding. (If your mount carries you willingly, the ride is smooth enough so your actions aren't restricted.) You also cannot make a Ride check to control the mount's actions, but you can make a Diplomacy (or possibly a Wild Empathy) check to get the mount to accept your direction. If you do, your mount acts just like a mount trained for combat riding. Even if you cannot (or do not choose to) direct your mount's actions, you still can ride along, making your own initiative roll and possibly delaying until after your mount acts, as noted in Part Two. Riding as a Passenger You're riding on a mount or a vehicle as a passenger if you're aboard but someone else is controlling the mount or vehicle. This also works just like riding an intelligent mount, except that you don't have the option of taking control of the mount. (If you did, you wouldn't be a mere passenger.) The above indicate for an intelligent mount, you do not need to take the move action ride check to control your mount. And by an extension as a passanger you don't need to make it either. Thus, as I read it, you can take full-round actions as long as you wait until after the mount's turn in initiative order (assuming you are where you want to be when the time comes to act). Presumably, you could take a full-round action before the mount moves if your initiative were before it. These articles are where I got the idea for the delay/full-round action in the first place. However, as MWB pointed out, just because the rules allow it doesn't mean the CoCo should. If the Elders feel the above is too strong/abusive, then feel free to do so. However, in that case, I would like to know what the options are for a character as a passanger/riding an intelligent mount and how that interacts with the initiative system. In regards to what ride skill benefits you can have while a passanger, I have no opinion. I can see it either way, since in some cases its purely a question of rider skill that needs no interaction with the mount (i.e. soft fall and such), while other obviously need control (mount leaping). Anyways, thanks for your consideration.
Iced 02-26-07, 08:00 PM	Casting a summon is a full round action. If i started and completed the spell in round 2 it would appear and act as soon as it appeared - attacking the enemy. There shouldn't be any sort of delay period... Ah! Common misconception! Originally Posted by PHB, pg 174: Casting Time <snip> A spell that takes 1 round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. YOu then act normally after the spell is completed. <snip> So Anixx starts casting on (say) Round 2, initiative count 20. He finishes casting on Round 3, initiative count 21. ... i'm not so sure about that one. Originally Posted by SRD This spell summons an extraplanar creature (typically an outsider, elemental, or magical beast native to another plane). It appears where you designate and acts immediately, on your turn. It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability. If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions. That sounds to me like it's supposed to show up round of and i've always run summoning spells that way. You are the DM and get the final say, but i think you're mistaken on this one. So go to the tavern and ask! All I can tell you is that what I quoted is what's written. "On your turn" is "On your turn". ... You have a turn every round. Since the Casting Time is 1 round, I would think that the "On your turn" that they're referring to is the beginning of your next turn, just like the section under Casting Time says. Get an Elder to agree with you. I value MWB's opinion, personally. Or even ask Vathelokai or Telin, they've both run Summoners. Do any elders have an opinion on this one?
MindWandererB 02-26-07, 08:01 PM	Do any elders have an opinion on this one? No need to double-post, Iced. It's in the Tavern.
Rauul 02-27-07, 03:49 AM	After reading and searching through the FAQ3.5 undated version 12/20/2006 iI can find nothing on to Support the Ruling that Protection from <Alignment> dosen't suppress the effects of Hold person.. it dosen't negate it, but Suppress Enchantment (compultion Spells) and according to the SRD, Players handbook and Rules of the game.. Hold Person is Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting] So please Quote the ruleing, or the FAQ or a link to the acual rule. thank you for your time..
hogarth 02-27-07, 06:52 AM	After reading and searching through the FAQ3.5 undated version 12/20/2006 iI can find nothing on to Support the Ruling that Protection from <Alignment> dosen't suppress the effects of Hold person.. it dosen't negate it, but Suppress Enchantment (compultion Spells) and according to the SRD, Players handbook and Rules of the game.. Hold Person is Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting] So please Quote the ruleing, or the FAQ or a link to the acual rule. thank you for your time.. I think the issue is that it's not a "enchantment (compulsion) effect that grant[s] the caster ongoing control over the subject". Paralysis is not "ongonig control" according to the FAQ. My question is: Does Protection from Evil guard against the Brain Lock power? It's somewhat similar to Hold Person, but is concentrating on locking someone's brain "ongoing control"?
McJarvis 02-27-07, 07:59 AM	I think the issue is that it's not a "enchantment (compulsion) effect that grant[s] the caster ongoing control over the subject". Paralysis is not "ongonig control" according to the FAQ. Where does it say this? I did a search on "hold person" and "protection from evil" and found nothing.(though I've failed to find things in the FAQ before...) If you Dominate person someone and tell them to hold perfectly still, it is effectively the same as paralysis...and in fact, is mimicing the Hold person spell perfectly. The paralysis that is caused by Hold Person is completely based on "having control" over the target in question by limiting them to no action(and indeed-> giving them the paralyzed state) If someone could actually quote the FAQ, I would be satisfied. (not that this will influence the fight in question in any way...I see that TAG has saved vs the Hold Person)
hogarth 02-27-07, 08:22 AM	If someone could actually quote the FAQ, I would be satisfied. (not that this will influence the fight in question in any way...I see that TAG has saved vs the Hold Person) I believe it's in the 3.0 FAQ. Note that Protection from Evil has changed between 3.0 and 3.5, but I don't think that invalidates this particular answer. The second function of the protection from evil spell blocks any attempt to possess the warded creature or to exercise mental control over the creature. What, exactly, counts as mental control? “Mental control” includes all spells of the school of Enchantment that have the Charm subschool, such as animal friendship, charm person, and charm monster. It also includes some Enchantment spells of the Compulsion subschool if those spells grant the caster ongoing control over the subject; such spells include dominate person and dominate monster. Compulsions that merely dictate the subject’s action at the time the spell takes effect are not blocked. Such spells include command, hold person, geas/quest, hypnotism, insanity, Otto’s irresistible dance, random action, suggestion, and zone of truth.
McJarvis 02-27-07, 09:04 AM	It also includes some Enchantment spells of the Compulsion subschool if those spells grant the caster ongoing control over the subject; such spells include dominate person and dominate monster. Compulsions that merely dictate the subject’s action at the time the spell takes effect are not blocked. ....brain....hurting.... -_- ongoing control & being able to dictate actions are synonymous in my book.
sonofzeal 02-27-07, 09:19 AM	....brain....hurting.... -_- ongoing control & being able to dictate actions are synonymous in my book. I think the difference is whether the spell dictates their actions, or whether the caster does. Zone of Truth - spell dictates actions, not blocked Dominate Person - caster dictates actions, is blocked
McJarvis 02-27-07, 09:23 AM	I think the difference is whether the spell dictates their actions, or whether the caster does. Zone of Truth - spell dictates actions, not blocked Dominate Person - caster dictates actions, is blocked If that's the logic they are using, then it should specify that it blocks any magical commands from a spellcaster of the alignment specified in the protection spell(which, IMO, would make alot more sense)
hogarth 02-27-07, 09:32 AM	If that's the logic they are using, then it should specify that it blocks any magical commands from a spellcaster of the alignment specified in the protection spell(which, IMO, would make alot more sense) That might make sense, but it specifically states the opposite: "This second effect works regardless of alignment."
McJarvis 02-27-07, 09:33 AM	That might make sense, but it specifically states the opposite: "This second effect works regardless of alignment." Hence why I said "it should"(the spell) rather than "it works this way..." ;)
TelinArtho 02-27-07, 12:12 PM	I would like to get a handle on what qualifies under this clause: Special Qualities: A skeleton loses most special qualities of the base creature. It retains any extraordinary special qualities that improve its melee or ranged attacks. There are a couple of areas of gray that I want specifically addressed: 1. The specific "sprint" ability of the cheetah. While it doesn't give a bonus to attack or damage, it does improve the melee attack by allowing a 500ft long charge. 2. What elements of racial abilities are qualities that would qualify. The following is a short list of examples and should not be taken as a comprehensive list: a. Dwarven ability to attack orcs, goblinoids (+1 to attack rolls), Gnome ability to attack Kobolds (+1 to attack rolls) b. Maenad outburst ability c. Half-giant powerful build The flavor text around the maenad's outburst does specify some mental capacity - so I am more inclined to argue that it would not be brought forward. The rest though I think would qualify. I am specifically looking for an elder vote, though any perspective is welcome for discussion.
MindWandererB 02-27-07, 01:23 PM	1. The specific "sprint" ability of the cheetah. While it doesn't give a bonus to attack or damage, it does improve the melee attack by allowing a 500ft long charge. 2. What elements of racial abilities are qualities that would qualify. The following is a short list of examples and should not be taken as a comprehensive list: a. Dwarven ability to attack orcs, goblinoids (+1 to attack rolls), Gnome ability to attack Kobolds (+1 to attack rolls) b. Maenad outburst ability c. Half-giant powerful buildI would personally approve 1 and 2c. The racial attack bonus is described as being a function of training, and the maenad ability is, as you say, a sort of a mental discipline.
SauroGrenom 02-27-07, 02:19 PM	I would approve only the cheetah charge and the half giant size thing. MWB's reasoning is essentially the same as what I would site.
MitzaVolchenko 02-27-07, 04:36 PM	I believe it's in the 3.0 FAQ. Note that Protection from Evil has changed between 3.0 and 3.5, but I don't think that invalidates this particular answer. 3.0 is not a FAQ we use. It needs to either come from the 3.5 FAQ, the Rules of the Game articles, or be noted as a CoCo house rule. I searched with Rauul for some time and ultimately told him to follow the court decision until someone responded with where that decision actually came from. After looking through everything, Prot from Alignment should prevent Hold Person.
Rauul 02-27-07, 05:00 PM	I would personally approve 1 and 2c. The racial attack bonus is described as being a function of training, and the maenad ability is, as you say, a sort of a mental discipline. Personnelly after looking at the Templates for Skeleton where troll loose thier rend Ability (very combat related) i would have to disagree with half giants getting Powerful build (as they are bones and have no muscle mass) they would just be big boned medsize humanoid..
TelinArtho 02-27-07, 05:03 PM	The thing is - Rend is specifically listed as a Special attack. Compare that to the special quality of the cloud giant (oversized weapon - which is similar to the benefits of powerful build) - which is kept.
Tellish_of_Ket 02-27-07, 05:15 PM	I'm not an elder, but i'll chime in with just 2c. A cheetah's sprint ability is definately muscle related. And the reason it's only 1/hour is because it is endurance that lessens it. If you suddenly drop out the con and no more shortness of breath, you are essentially saying it can sprint at 500' forever. You may as well just change the Move: 50' (10 squares) text with Move: 500' (50 squares). There isn't anything really really 100% specific saying it's "combat based". A cheetah will even use it's speed to dodge persuers (pack of heyna). The thing is - Rend is specifically listed as a Special attack. Compare that to the special quality of the cloud giant (oversized weapon - which is similar to the benefits of powerful build) - which is kept. And ettins keep their superior twf. Tellish
MindWandererB 02-27-07, 05:35 PM	3.0 is not a FAQ we use. It needs to either come from the 3.5 FAQ, the Rules of the Game articles, or be noted as a CoCo house rule. I searched with Rauul for some time and ultimately told him to follow the court decision until someone responded with where that decision actually came from. After looking through everything, Prot from Alignment should prevent Hold Person.3.0 is a FAQ we use, in those instances where the relevant rule has not changed. The intent here--that Prot. Alignment prevents mind control, but not enchantments in general--is the same across editions. We would be foolish to discard a relevant source just because it wasn't reprinted. Remember, the FAQ isn't rules, it's clarifications. @ToK: While the issue of endurance is debatable, one thing is clear: the cheetah as written cannot use the sprint ability on any movement other than a charge. So your claim that "[y]ou may as well just change the Move: 50' (10 squares) text with Move: 500' (50 squares)" is simply untrue.
hogarth 02-27-07, 05:45 PM	@ToK: While the issue of endurance is debatable, one thing is clear: the cheetah as written cannot use the sprint ability on any movement other than a charge. So your claim that "[y]ou may as well just change the Move: 50' (10 squares) text with Move: 500' (50 squares)" is simply untrue. "I charge the invisible pixie 500' in front of me. What? My attack missed because there's no pixie there? Too bad." :D
Tellish_of_Ket 02-27-07, 05:49 PM	"I charge the invisible pixie 500' in front of me. What? There's no pixie there? Too bad." :D Exactly. Hence the FAQ on Expertise saying you could no longer just take a swipe in the air saying you were "attempting to attack an invisible opponent". It prevents such abuse. And i admit, i was HUGELY abusing it as well with my Ftr/Mnk whirlwind attacker. Tellish
MitzaVolchenko 02-27-07, 05:57 PM	3.0 is a FAQ we use, in those instances where the relevant rule has not changed. The intent here--that Prot. Alignment prevents mind control, but not enchantments in general--is the same across editions. We would be foolish to discard a relevant source just because it wasn't reprinted. Remember, the FAQ isn't rules, it's clarifications. Okey dokey. I'll have to see if I can get my copy of the 3.0 FAQ to work and get to reading. I was under the impression that since 3.5 changed a virtual ton of items, 3.0 FAQ no longer applied.
McJarvis 02-27-07, 05:58 PM	3.0 is a FAQ we use, in those instances where the relevant rule has not changed. The intent here--that Prot. Alignment prevents mind control, but not enchantments in general--is the same across editions. We would be foolish to discard a relevant source just because it wasn't reprinted. Remember, the FAQ isn't rules, it's clarifications. I more or less agree with this. I'm far more interested in the intent behind the rules than I am about taking advantage of what the rules don't say-> and the 3.0 FAQ pretty clearly outlines what the intent behind the dubious Pro: Evil wording means.
False_Keraptis 02-27-07, 06:00 PM	Regarding the recent talk about what exactly protection from evil can stop, I humbly petition the court for a complete list of the spells that it will stop. In the court rulings, I can only find reference to hold person; now I would reason by analogy that hideous laughter, sleep, and the like also get through, but it would be nice to have that chiseled into stone somewhere. With the limited number of spells and powers in core, I think someone with authority should go through and list the ones that will be stopped by the protection from <blank> family.
McJarvis 02-27-07, 06:03 PM	Regarding the recent talk about what exactly protection from evil can stop, I humbly petition the court for a complete list of the spells that it will stop. In the court rulings, I can only find reference to hold person; now I would reason by analogy that hideous laughter, sleep, and the like also get through, but it would be nice to have that chiseled into stone somewhere. With the limited number of spells and powers in core, I think someone with authority should go through and list the ones that will be stopped by the protection from <blank> family. I believe the 3.0 FAQ has a more complete list & the court decisions references this.
Rauul 02-27-07, 06:10 PM	3.0 is a FAQ we use, in those instances where the relevant rule has not changed. The intent here--that Prot. Alignment prevents mind control, but not enchantments in general--is the same across editions. We would be foolish to discard a relevant source just because it wasn't reprinted. Remember, the FAQ isn't rules, it's clarifications. @MWB Not to argue, but when everyone tells me as a new pitlord/player here to Shut up and look at the 3.5 FAQ i did, i searched it, i downloaded it and i searched it for 5 frigging hours.. and now you want to point at 3.0 FAQ thats was last updated in 2003, the Court Specificly point to 3.5 FAQ.. I feel as if i wasted almost a week here cause i thought we were the Core Rules Colluseum that followed 3.5 rules and not 3.0.. Point you links to the correct links is ALL that as a Player/Pitlord is that i ask.. BTW in 3.0 Hold person didn't get a save every round like it does in 3.5 hence the reason i suggest it Suppress the effect, not cancel it..Unless i am reading my 3.0 book wrong
MindWandererB 02-27-07, 06:14 PM	I do apologise--when I saw that the Court Decisions referenced the FAQ, I assumed it actually did. Getting a new saving throw every round doesn't change the fact that HP doesn't actually grant the caster mental control over the target, which is the point.
NiQil 02-27-07, 09:30 PM	Regarding the Pr: Evil/Hold Person issue... At the time that issue was added to the Court Decisions, that item *was located in the 3.5 FAQ. Everyone is assuming that they remember it from the 3.0 one, but I have never in my life looked at the 3.0 FAQ, and I remember seeing the entry. If memory serves, they used a paladin as an example in the explanation. It would appear that the entry has been removed from the FAQ, as I, like everyone else, cannot find it in the 3.5 FAQ. However, the ruling that is in the Court Decisions is accurate, and the reasoning that has been presented here is accurate for the reasons behind that ruling. I will do my best to go through old copies of the FAQ that I have and see if I can find it, but I don't have them all, so I make no promises, as I have no idea when it was removed. Also, as to the 3.0 FAQ itself, the rules in 3.0 are still very much valid, unless something about them was changed in 3.5, in which case the 3.0 rule is no longer valid. But any 3.0 rule that has not been altered is still a valid rule.
McJarvis 02-27-07, 09:37 PM	Regarding the Pr: Evil/Hold Person issue... ~~etc, etc~~ As I've said-> I'd like the court ruling to reference the 3.0 FAQ now regardless. I think only Mitza was trying to argue that the 3.0 FAQ was invalid(I earlier was merely commenting that I couldn't find the 3.5 FAQ reference)
MitzaVolchenko 02-27-07, 09:46 PM	Idon't argue that the 3.0 FAQ has nothing to offer, I argue that it cannot be broadly applied. It adds another rather lengthy document that is no longer part of Core Rules. I have no personal investment either way beyond that it adds another item that I need to read through to be able to effectively pitlord ;)
NiQil 02-27-07, 10:03 PM	Idon't argue that the 3.0 FAQ has nothing to offer, I argue that it cannot be broadly applied. It adds another rather lengthy document that is no longer part of Core Rules. I have no personal investment either way beyond that it adds another item that I need to read through to be able to effectively pitlord ;) Actually, it still very much a part of the core rules. As I stated, when 3.5 first came out, WotC stated that anything not changed in a ruling by the 3.5 rules is still valid from the 3.0 rules. Granted.....most of it changed, but there are still some things in there that can be used.
Macbrea 02-28-07, 08:58 AM	Question: Can a bat swarm be entangled? Strict reading of the rules: A swarm may be affected by an area of effect. Entangled and held in place isn't any of the following states that a swarm is immune to: 'Swarms are never staggered or reduced to a dying state by damage. Also, they cannot be tripped, grappled, or bull rushed, and they cannot grapple an opponent.' Spirit of the rule: A Entangle spell is a large pile of plants each grappling the bats to the ground. Since, the swarm cannot be grappled it cannot be entangled either.
McJarvis 02-28-07, 09:04 AM	Spirit of the rule: A Entangle spell is a large pile of plants each grappling the bats to the ground. Since, the swarm cannot be grappled it cannot be entangled either. At the same time, you could say the spirit of the rule is "a large pile of plants grappling each bat individually", and thus it is not "grappling a swarm" Just a thought.
TheMagister 02-28-07, 12:17 PM	It does say that it uses grass. However, don't bats fly (rhetorical question)? Entangle has no reach, so it'd only get to effect bats if they were at elevation 0'. Now, if they are at elevation 0', I'd give them a reflex save to avoid. On a failure, I think they'd be stuck.
McJarvis 02-28-07, 01:03 PM	However, don't bats fly (rhetorical question)? While they do, in a swarm I like to think that every single round every single bat hits every single spot in a given square it is in, so they would all fly close enough to be grappled(elevation 0)
Macbrea 02-28-07, 01:26 PM	I have a silly question. Why does an entangle have no reach on the forest map? Quote Entange: Grasses, weeds, bushes, and even trees wrap, twist, and entwine about creatures in the area or those that enter the area, holding them fast and causing them to become entangled. Quote forest Map: Impeeded Flight: Since the forest is so dense, all flight on this map is impeeded, which is to say, any square of movement counts as two squares of movement while flying. This does not hinder other forms of movement, except where noted. This makes it sound like all squares are filled with plants from top to bottom. An Air elemental is unable to fly through the forest at full rate because it's path is impeeded. This means plants reach from top of map to bottom of map. Therefore, do to a rules of a spread. The entangle spell should affect upword in a dome shape on the forest map.
SauroGrenom 02-28-07, 01:48 PM	I have a silly question. Why does an entangle have no reach on the forest map?Because we want to keep things simple when we can. And the Forest Map is annoying enough already with lots of differences to a normal map (movement impediments, concealment, hide bonuses, listen dc's different... so on).
MindWandererB 02-28-07, 02:02 PM	Hmm. Actually, I just brought up in the Tavern that pitlords have consistently given Entangle reach in the forest when it was applied to my characters. I adopted the same ruling, because it makes sense to me. It's not any more complicated, and doesn't require a house rule or exception--it's just the way Entangle works.
Rauul 02-28-07, 02:43 PM	Because we want to keep things simple when we can. And the Forest Map is annoying enough already with lots of differences to a normal map (movement impediments, concealment, hide bonuses, listen dc's different... so on). Area: Plants in a 40-ft.-radius spread <snip> Grasses, weeds, bushes, and even trees wrap, twist, and entwine about creatures in the area or those that enter the area, holding them fast and causing them to become entangled. So i would Feel safe to say that flying creatures would have to be ABOVE 40ft to not get held in the forest map.. and thats about as simple as you can get..
MindWandererB 02-28-07, 02:45 PM	So i would Feel safe to say that flying creatures would have to be ABOVE 40ft to not get held in the forest map.. and thats about as simple as you can get.. Not quite, because the spell can always be centered on a point in mid-air.
Tellish_of_Ket 02-28-07, 02:58 PM	Not quite, because the spell can always be centered on a point in mid-air. Actually it can't be cast at a point in mid air. You can't get entangled by air, and the spell doesn't "search" for growth within 40', to then make it spread over 40'. The growth must exist at the point of casting (and throughout the 40'). If you cast it on the rooftop of a tree, then your entangle will only be the radius of the crown of the tree. You can't make roots spring from air. I know i wasn't around for the debate of the use of the spell, but the description is quite obvious. 40' RADIUS spread. A spread spell spreads out like a burst but can turn corners. You select the point of origin, and the spell spreads out a given distance in all directions. Figure the area the spell effect fills by taking into account any turns the spell effect takes. (ex. fireball). Looking at fireball it is a 20' radius spread as well...this to me would imply that, in the forest, where there are trees, it would encompass the entire 40', including upwards...provide your point of origin was the ground. If your point of origin was the middle of a tree, i'm afraid your 40' radius spread would be more like a 5' radius spread...as there isn't anything in the air to entangle you. And nothing in contact with the ground for the spread to actually...well...spread. Tellish
MitzaVolchenko 02-28-07, 03:00 PM	The court decision says they need to be 5' above the affected surface. In that forest that means the canopy as anything in a spread radius below the canopy is going to provide grabby branches.
Tellish_of_Ket 02-28-07, 03:09 PM	The court decision says they need to be 5' above the affected surface. In that forest that means the canopy as anything in a spread radius below the canopy is going to provide grabby branches. I agree. I didn't mean to imply a single tree in an open field would entangle you for all 40' radius. My bad if it sounded like that. I'm just saying that all vegetation in that 40' radius (assuming point of origin on the ground), would have a chance to entangle you. I would deem anyone standing next to a tree (up to the radius effect) would have a chance to entangle you. But if you made ur save, a simple 5' step would get you out of the way easily enough. Tellish
MindWandererB 02-28-07, 03:17 PM	That's not what I meant to imply, either, but in an area with vines, tree branches, and whatnot--enough to impede flight in all areas--the 40' radius should be 100% full of affected area.
MindWandererB 02-28-07, 04:40 PM	Here's another issue that should be hashed out formally: DURATION Concentration: The power lasts as long as you concentrate on it. Concentrating to maintain a power is a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Anything that could break your concentration when manifesting a power can also break your concentration while you’re maintaining one, causing the power to end. You can’t manifest a power while concentrating on another one. Some powers may last for a short time after you cease concentrating. In such a case, the power keeps going for the given length of time after you stop concentrating, but no longer. Otherwise, you must concentrate to maintain the power, but you can’t maintain it for more than a stated duration in any event. If a target moves out of range, the power reacts as if your concentration had been broken.Now, that last line is only in the Psionics material, not in Magic. So the question is, is that line a clarification of the existing rules, or is it specific to psionics?
Tellish_of_Ket 02-28-07, 05:30 PM	Here's another issue that should be hashed out formally: Now, that last line is only in the Psionics material, not in Magic. So the question is, is that line a clarification of the existing rules, or is it specific to psionics? Specific to psionics i believe. I will try to find the relevant quote in PHB or other source to indicate otherwise. Just my two cents though. From the time i was here, we've always used swarms as moving far far out of spell range and continue to concentrate on it. I'll get looking. Tellish
hogarth 02-28-07, 07:29 PM	--changed my mind--
Tellish_of_Ket 03-01-07, 08:00 AM	Conversation moved here because of relevance... What I find incredibly lame is that if you see a big ball of darkness, you can't attack the centre of it. Because...because..."Waah, waah, no fair guys! I'm telling!" ;) I second that vote. lol The way around it is to close your eyes and take the 50% miss chance...oh wait a second...why does it matter? You get a 50% miss chance even if your eyes are open. lemme get this straight...i can target an invisible dude in a square...50% chance....if blinded i can still fire an arrow and target a square, 50% miss chance...but suddenly because you are surrounded by a ball of blacklight, i cannot attack the center of it for the same miss-chance? Absolutely ridiculous. That goes totally against the grain of giving the 50% miss chance anyhow. So, a blinded caster can NEVER EVER EVER cast a spell, cuz he can't see? Not picking on anyone in particular, but i read the harvesters fight this week and i almost fell off my chair laughing at the notion of what's being implied. The same LAME rule should apply to anyone in an Obscuring mist too...cuz it's 100% concealment. Makes no difference of the source (blacklight or fog). If i'm in the middle of it, you can never target a square within it. OMG...i'm trying to stand straight...getting dizzy from all the laughing and rules-bending ideas. Tellish Here is some items towards my argument that YOU CAN attack someone within the radius of blacklight/OM/etc... Bold areas are my emphasis. When you can't see a creature (for whatever reason), you still can attack it, but first you must determine or guess at its location on the battlefield. If you locate an unseen creature (or you're just guessing where it is), you can direct a melee or ranged attack into that location. If a spell has a target or targets entry, you must see or touch your target to aim the spell at it. Even if you know where your unseen target is, you still can't aim a targeted spell at it if you don't see or touch it. There is no reason why you can't FIREBALL the center of a blacklight or Darkness or similar spells of obfuscation. I want this "i have blacklight so i'm immune to attacks" nonesense to stop. Tellish
Tellish_of_Ket 03-01-07, 08:21 AM	moved to here.... According to the ruling, even if you closed your eyes your character wouldn't "know" which square to attack. Ruling or not...it's the RULES in the actually game that matter...no one persons power tripping favourable interpretation. The whole point of 100% concealment, 50% miss chance is exactly what it is. Tellish moved to here as well... You misunderstood what he said. The ruling is that you can't determine which square the center is....so I guess the pitlord has to roll a 1d9 or something to figure out if you guess right, then you get a 50% miss chance. Actually, to add to my last post....that's not entirely true. The spell is cast on an object (assumed to be in your possession) or a point in space. If it's a point in space, you obviously can't move around with it. So if ur just standing there forever in your blacklight, i can see how it could confound an attacker. If it's on an object/you, and you are moving, there should be absolutely no confusion as to the center. Especially if that person is mounted...that's 27 squares of occupied space...which totally blows out the center, making any directed ranged attack in the center, targeting the caster. Tellish
Abyssal Stalker 03-01-07, 08:21 AM	I would allow casting an area effect (fireball, entangle) inside the blacklight/darkness/whatever. What I wouldn't allow is using a spell that affects only one square (call lightning) in the center of the spell that creates concealment, because that would be overkill. You see a massive blob of darkness, but how can you tell where the center is exactly. We shouldn't allow auto-pinpointing someone who is hiding inside a darkness spell. A very annoying tactic is casting darkness on your gear and hiding inside the sphere. If we allow pinpointing the center of the spell, we could as well say that the one hiding autofails his hide check. What I'm trying to say: You can say where the center of a darkness spell is, approximately. But you shouldn't be able to pinpoint the center. Let's say that you are tossed inside an empty room and someone has turned off the lights. How can you say where's the center of the room?
Tellish_of_Ket 03-01-07, 08:30 AM	What I'm trying to say: You can say where the center of a darkness spell is, approximately. But you shouldn't be able to pinpoint the center. A mounted rider occupies 27 squares, nearly ALL of the blacklight area. How can you miss? Call lightning on anything but the edge of the blacklight, means you should hit the rider and mount. http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;map=arena;a=Uber,L,29,50,mo unt and rider,Mount;n=Darkness,30,50,2;style=s;o pacity=70 Just move the blacklight area down one square cuz the map won't allow me to overlap it with rider pin, and u'll see....it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to miss. Call lighting, anwhere other than the very edge, hits both rider and mount, no miss chance. Tellish
McJarvis 03-01-07, 08:32 AM	I would allow casting an area effect (fireball, entangle) inside the blacklight/darkness/whatever. What I wouldn't allow is using a spell that affects only one square (call lightning) in the center of the spell that creates concealment, because that would be overkill. You see a massive blob of darkness, but how can you tell where the center is exactly. We shouldn't allow auto-pinpointing someone who is hiding inside a darkness spell. A very annoying tactic is casting darkness on your gear and hiding inside the sphere. If we allow pinpointing the center of the spell, we could as well say that the one hiding autofails his hide check. What I'm trying to say: You can say where the center of a darkness spell is, approximately. But you shouldn't be able to pinpoint the center. Let's say that you are tossed inside an empty room and someone has turned off the lights. How can you say where's the center of the room? Honestly? Pinpointing the center isn't a big deal. A mounted character can just ride 'towards' the center & give his mount the seek command. Now you have a sniffing horse moving towards you every round and a rider who is ready to hit you in the head the moment he finds you. One of the reasons Mort was so successful(for the three fights she actually was around for...) is she often put her pendant of deeper-darkness on her psi-crystal or snake & wasn't in the center of the darkness herself(or even, at times she wasn't in the darkness at all!) I think ToK is confusing the issue(not as in he's confused himself: as in he's confusing everyone else) of uberhiders with the issue of chars like harvey using blacklight as an effective shield against spellcasting.
hogarth 03-01-07, 08:43 AM	I would allow casting an area effect (fireball, entangle) inside the blacklight/darkness/whatever. What I wouldn't allow is using a spell that affects only one square (call lightning) in the center of the spell that creates concealment, because that would be overkill. You see a massive blob of darkness, but how can you tell where the center is exactly? The same way that a wizard casting fireball into darkness knows exactly where he's targeting, I guess. By the way, there's nothing preventing a darkness-user from being clever (like casting darkness on the end of a 10-foot pole so that he's not located at the exact centre of the effect). I'm not totally against the idea of having some uncertainty where the centre of a darkness effect is, but saying "You have absolutely no idea how far 20' is because there's some shadowy light in the way" is ridiculous. Also, it makes sense to me that the amount of uncertainty should be proportional to the radius of the effect, and that any uncertainty should apply to targeting area effect spells, too. That is, if a character is standing in a 20' radius Darkness spell, it should be relatively clear where the centre is compared to a 60' radius Deeper Darkness spell -- whether the attacker is using an arrow or a Fireball.
Abyssal Stalker 03-01-07, 09:02 AM	Yes, I think moving towards the center is OK. But you surely can't charge from outside the spell area towards the center and then suffer only the 50% miss chance. Harvey's tactic smells like cheese. But what can you expect from a guy who collects souls in a rotten morningcoat? EDIT: @hogarth: That's just what I'm trying to say. (Sorry I messed the radius of darkness and deeper darkness) The main problem is that D&D allows characters to have complete control of complicated 3D geometry.
MindWandererB 03-01-07, 01:54 PM	But the thing is, D&D does allow characters to have complete control of complicated 3D geometry. A wizard never risks accidentally catching himself in his own fireball. In fact, he has the leisure to very carefully plot the center of a burst in 3D space so that it catches exactly the targets he wants. In the MQ I ran for Uhme, I had this issue--I had to break out the distance calculator and build 3D models to prove that two of the hieracosphinxes were just barely too far away from each other to be caught in one Energy Ball. If we were in a TT game, the DM would draw the precise area of the Darkness on the battle mat, or use a shape template or something. It would be easy for a PC to guess at a square to target. ToK's illustration is quite correct--you would have at worst a 50% chance of guessing a correct square if you picked one of the middle ones. (Although his precise example is wrong--Call Lightining has a 5' diameter, not a 5' radius--it covers only one square in 2D.) And if you charged at a middle square, you'd probably crash right into the character in question. If this happened in a TT game, and a player wanted to say, "I shoot an arrow at that square," what are you going to do? Say, "sorry, you don't actually know enough to do that?" Bogus. (Elder's note: I'm not trying to nerf stealth further here. Heck, what I'd really like to do in this case is ban the 3.0 Divine material entirely. But many have made it clear that this is not going to happen.)
Tellish_of_Ket 03-01-07, 02:14 PM	(Elder's note: I'm not trying to nerf stealth further here. Heck, what I'd really like to do in this case is ban the 3.0 Divine material entirely. But many have made it clear that this is not going to happen.) I'm not an elder, but you'd have my vote. I voted against it way back in the day, but as usual, i was outvoted. Blacklight (and honestly, i'm not just picking on Cat here), is a supremely overpowered spell for the level when compared to other spells of equal/near-equal level such as darkness/deeperdarkness/solid fog. I remember when people where using energy missile/ball to destroy absolutely every item a character possessed beecause of poor wording. If you got hit with one ball, u'd be naked. I'm not sure where the logic has been where a RAW reading of h/ms needed to be nerfed and things like blacklight and psioncics with poor wording continue to be abused. Like it sounds, i was constantly frustrated at trying to keep the balance between RAW, Spirit, and balance. I have no real regrets, it is what it is, but there were times like i felt i was the only one that made sense. The inability to fire at the heart of a blacklight (100% concealment,which is all it really is and should be seen as), makes ZERO ZERO sense. You know, if the unmounted caster casts is on a rock and drops the rock in the square infront/behind him, i can see that being tactically sound...but it's stationary. I say unmounted because according to my diagram, if you are mounted you have absolutely no choice but being in the center...otherwise portions of you are visible outside the radius. If he's mounted (remember, a mounted pc shares all spaces with the mount), then there is no way you can't take a shot at him for a 50/50 miss chance as the 100% concealment rule indicates. That's RAW, that's Spirit, and anything otherwise (imho of course, not trying to sound overbearing) is proposterous. Tellish
Hirumajoe 03-01-07, 02:34 PM	Here's the problem as I see it. A character knows exactly where things are that he can see. He can see the edges of the darkness effect, since they don't have a hide skill, the edge is auto-spotted. The entire edge. If I'm allowed to cast a spell exactly between myself and some target location (say an opponent I can see), why the heck can't I cast a spell exactly between two points I can see, such as the southern most and northern most points of the darkness effect? In the case of the blacklight effect, he can see which square is the southern (or eastern or western or whatever) most square. He also can see the edge where its tanget to his line of sight. Any wizard who can toast 3 characters with a perfectly placed fireball in 3D should be able to work out the simple geometry of two perpendicular lines intersecting. Again, from points he can see.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-01-07, 03:26 PM	Since it's not already in the list of courtroom decisions, can i ask for an elder vote on the Matter Agitation issue? That way we can compile it in the first post and lay the issue to rest once and for all? 1) Fire typed dmg 2) unnamed (ie. can't use resist energy or similar psionic feats to apply DR) Tellish (doudtbul i get a vote, but i'd vote 1, if it's any concilation) Current Status: 1) 3 votes 2) 0 votes Voters thus far: MWB, TelinArtho, SauroGrenom It's a pass. This is my official request to have this added to the front page of rulings plz. Q: What, if any, energy type is Matter Agitation? A: Fire type. Thx
MindWandererB 03-01-07, 04:17 PM	And speaking of Elder decisions, I seem to be the only one speaking up on the "can I guess at squares within a concealment-granting AoE" issue. You can put me down in favor of yes, you can. You could be wrong, but you can guess.
TelinArtho 03-01-07, 04:22 PM	So sorry - yes I would agree with it as well. Sometimes I forget to speak up...
Tellish_of_Ket 03-01-07, 04:24 PM	And speaking of Elder decisions, I seem to be the only one speaking up on the "can I guess at squares within a concealment-granting AoE" issue. You can put me down in favor of yes, you can. You could be wrong, but you can guess. You are not wrong. Not sure if it needs a ruling, cuz this one is straight out of the spell targeting rules, and ranged targeting rules, and any other targeting rules. I think sometimes we just needs a strong cup of joe and be woken up out of our dreamy sleep. lol lol lol It prolly needs to be put in the "clarification" section. Q: Can you designate a point within an obfuscated zone as the cross-point for an AoE spell. A: YES! Q: If a mounted rider within the area of obfuscation, can i make a ranged attack and only suffer the 50/50 miss chance for total concealment? Or do i need to choose a square first? A: As per the rules, you choose a square. In this case, you can chose the central most area, and if your target is in that square, you suffer the regular 50% miss chance that total concealment grants. K, so next issue is at hand is up. How is the wording? Needs work? Needs more detailed answers? Need references? Or just completely wrong and area's of obfuscation grant those inside it total immunity? I know you already spoke ur vote MWB, but maybe something with my wording is off that could be improved. In case it gets overlooked, i will also be PM'ing all the elders with this post for a discussion and decision. Tellish
MindWandererB 03-01-07, 04:35 PM	You are not wrong. Not sure if it needs a ruling, cuz this one is straight out of the spell targeting rules, and ranged targeting rules, and any other targeting rules. I think someone just needs a strong cup of joe and be woken up out of their dreamy sleep. lol lol lol It prolly needs to be put in the "clarification" section. Q: Can you designate a point within an obfuscated zone as the cross-point for an AoE spell. A: YES! Q: If a mounted rider within the area of obfuscation, can i make a ranged attack and only suffer the 50/50 miss chance for total concealment? Or do i need to choose a square first? A: As per the rules, you choose a square. In this case, you can chose the central most area, and if your target is in that square, you suffer the regular 50% miss chance that total concealment grants. K, so next issue is at hand is up. How is the wording? Needs work? Needs more detailed answers? Need references? Or just completely wrong and area's of obfuscation grant those inside it total immunity? I know you already spoke ur vote MWB, but maybe something with my wording is off that could be improved. In case it gets overlooked, i will also be PM'ing all the elders with this post for a discussion and decision. TellishYeah, let's clean that up a little. Q: What are your options for attacking a character hiding in an area that grants total concealment, such as Obscuring Mist or a character successfully hiding within Deeper Darkness? A: If using an area-effect spell or ability, you may aim the spell at any point to which you have line of effect. If using a weapon or weapon-like spell, you can designate a square as being the subject of your attack; 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 (although 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). You cannot use targeted spells or abilities at all unless you have line of sight. Does that cover all the bases?
Tellish_of_Ket 03-01-07, 04:39 PM	Yeah, let's clean that up a little. Q: What are your options for attacking a character hiding in an area that grants total concealment, such as Obscuring Mist or a character successfully hiding within Deeper Darkness? A: If using an area-effect spell or ability, you may aim the spell at any point to which you have line of effect. If using a weapon or weapon-like spell, you can designate a square as being the subject of your attack; 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 (although 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). You cannot use targeted spells or abilities at all unless you have line of sight. Does that cover all the bases? AMEN BROTHER! I love that. K, lets put it to a vote, barring any other suggestions from other elders. Current Status: In Favour: 2 "I still believe in obfuscation immunity": 0 Voters thus far: MWB, TelinArtho(?) temporarily putting yes for telin since he supported your last argument which was the same as your clarified post. Tellish
TelinArtho 03-01-07, 04:40 PM	Hey! Don't speak for me... :) Yes, I support that brand of statement...
SauroGrenom 03-01-07, 05:26 PM	Yeah, let's clean that up a little. Q: What are your options for attacking a character hiding in an area that grants total concealment, such as Obscuring Mist or a character successfully hiding within Deeper Darkness? A: If using an area-effect spell or ability, you may aim the spell at any point to which you have line of effect. If using a weapon or weapon-like spell, you can designate a square as being the subject of your attack; 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 (although 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). You cannot use targeted spells or abilities at all unless you have line of sight. Does that cover all the bases?What happens if you have effects that stack... Say that Magic and Shadow Domain Cleric H has Mirror Image up as well as is standing inside of a darkness area. Then Wizard V decides to cast scorching ray at a square where his listen check indicates H is located in. Obviously the miss chance for total concealment applies, but does the mirror image also apply (Caster V cannot see the images)?
SauroGrenom 03-01-07, 05:36 PM	Also related is a correct reading of the rules regarding the spell Backlight. I think it's been used incorrectly for a while now. The description reads 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. 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. To me that suggests that a caster who is located within the blacklight area cannot see out. The first underlined sentence tells us that the caster can see normally everything inside of the spells area. That means that no matter where the caster is located he can see into the area of the spell. The second underlined section tells us that the caster cannot see through the spell's area. So the far side of the spell's area blocks LOS to anything beyond that. This means that the caster's LOS is blocked when it leaves the area of the spell, but not blocked when it enters the area of the spell. The logical extension of this is that a caster in the center of the effect cannot see out, but the caster can see normally within the limited area of the spell (and no one else can see normally).
TelinArtho 03-01-07, 05:42 PM	What happens if you have effects that stack... Say that Magic and Shadow Domain Cleric H has Mirror Image up as well as is standing inside of a darkness area. Then Wizard V decides to cast scorching ray at a square where his listen check indicates H is located in. Obviously the miss chance for total concealment applies, but does the mirror image also apply (Caster V cannot see the images)? That's answered within the wording of mirror image: An attacker must be able to see the images to be fooled. If you are invisible or an attacker shuts his or her eyes, the spell has no effect. (Being unable to see carries the same penalties as being blinded.)
Tellish_of_Ket 03-01-07, 05:47 PM	Also related is a correct reading of the rules regarding the spell Backlight. I think it's been used incorrectly for a while now. The description reads as follows: To me that suggests that a caster who is located within the blacklight area cannot see out. The first underlined sentence tells us that the caster can see normally everything inside of the spells area. That means that no matter where the caster is located he can see into the area of the spell. The second underlined section tells us that the caster cannot see through the spell's area. So the far side of the spell's area blocks LOS to anything beyond that. This means that the caster's LOS is blocked when it leaves the area of the spell, but not blocked when it enters the area of the spell. The logical extension of this is that a caster in the center of the effect cannot see out, but the caster can see normally within the limited area of the spell (and no one else can see normally). I initially thought that as well SauroG, but there are two ways to read that. Creatures OUTSIDE the area (of blacklight), including the caster... I'm assuming if the caster LEAVES his area of blacklight, he cannot see within it without re-entering. I like the fairplay way, meaning the caster (within) cannot see beyong the radius of his own blacklight. At least that would brink it back in line with similar spells of similar level. But, the consistent poor wording with 3.0 stuff makes it hard to determine the exact effect. Darkness, deeper darkness...etc... Tellish
SauroGrenom 03-01-07, 06:12 PM	But, the consistent poor wording with 3.0 stuff makes it hard to determine the exact effect.That's why I think there needs to be a clarification. Blacklight is way more powerful than greater invisibility. Blacklight is a 3rd level spell. Greater Invisibility is a 4th level spell. Blacklight is countered by another 3rd level spell. Greater Invisibility is countered by a 2nd level spell. Blacklight blinds opponents within 20' of you. Greater Invisibility does nothing to impair the abilities of opponents nearby. Sure Blacklight can be defeated by blindsense and scent and all the stuff that defeats invisibility. But no matter how you compare the two spells, Blacklight (the way we've been using it) is better than Greater Invisibility and it's a lower level spell. That tells me that we've been reading this thing wrong. The way we interpret this spell description, it's on par with 5th level spells. No 3rd level spell should be that good. The only reasonable way to interpret the RAW and bring this spell back down to the equivalent of other 3rd level spells is to say that the caster can see into the effect or within the effect no matter where the caster is located. Also the caster cannot see on the other side of the AoE if he's outside of it, and he cannot see out of the AoE if he's inside of it.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-01-07, 06:18 PM	That's why I think there needs to be a clarification. Blacklight is way more powerful than greater invisibility. Blacklight is a 3rd level spell. Greater Invisibility is a 4th level spell. Blacklight is countered by another 3rd level spell. Greater Invisibility is countered by a 2nd level spell. Blacklight blinds opponents within 20' of you. Greater Invisibility does nothing to impair the abilities of opponents nearby. Sure Blacklight can be defeated by blindsense and scent and all the stuff that defeats invisibility. But no matter how you compare the two spells, Blacklight (the way we've been using it) is better than Greater Invisibility and it's a lower level spell. That tells me that we've been reading this thing wrong. The way we interpret this spell description, it's on par with 5th level spells. No 3rd level spell should be that good. The only reasonable way to interpret the RAW and bring this spell back down to the equivalent of other 3rd level spells is to say that the caster can see into the effect or within the effect no matter where the caster is located. Also the caster cannot see on the other side of the AoE if he's outside of it, and he cannot see out of the AoE if he's inside of it. I can fully 100% endorse that. Tellish
hogarth 03-01-07, 06:21 PM	I initially thought that as well SauroG, but there are two ways to read that. Creatures OUTSIDE the area (of blacklight), including the caster... I'm assuming if the caster LEAVES his area of blacklight, he cannot see within it without re-entering. I like the fairplay way, meaning the caster (within) cannot see beyong the radius of his own blacklight. At least that would brink it back in line with similar spells of similar level. But, the consistent poor wording with 3.0 stuff makes it hard to determine the exact effect. Here's the wording of that part of the Blacklight description in 3.5 (Spell Compendium) in case it helps: You create an area of total darkness. The darkness is impenetrable to normal vision and darkvision, but you can see normally within the blacklit area. Creatures outside the spell’s area, even you, cannot see through it. Seems straightforward -- if the caster leaves the Blacklight area, he can't see through it.
MindWandererB 03-01-07, 06:23 PM	The only reasonable way to interpret the RAW and bring this spell back down to the equivalent of other 3rd level spells is to say that the caster can see into the effect or within the effect no matter where the caster is located. Also the caster cannot see on the other side of the AoE if he's outside of it, and he cannot see out of the AoE if he's inside of it.I'm sorry, but I just can't interpret the RAW that way. That's not what it says, and to say that it does would be another bizarre house rule. Better balancing options: 1) It's not 3.5 at all, so it has no place in our game. The spell is specifically banned. 2) The spell works like all the other Darkness-subschool spells. In 3.0, they granted total concealment; in 3.5, they grant concealment only. Blacklight should be treated the same way. This effect is easily on par with other 3rd-level spells like Displacement (only 20% concealment, but also allows hiding). Yes, it would be a house rule, but since we're using a 3.0 spell in a 3.5 game, I posit that a house rule is vitally necessary. At least this one would make sense. Edit: It's in the Spell Compendium? I so need to buy that. It sounds like it's phrased exactly the same way as it was in 3.0, though. Grr.
hogarth 03-01-07, 06:28 PM	Edit: It's in the Spell Compendium? I so need to buy that. It sounds like it's phrased exactly the same way as it was in 3.0, though. Grr. Yes, but there's a 1st level spell that negates it (Ebon Eyes).
SauroGrenom 03-01-07, 06:47 PM	Look. The way this spell is used is that casters cast it on themselves. Then what happens... It's like Invisibility Sphere with a 20' radius, and it's like greater invisibility because it doesn't end when you attack, and it's like an area effect powerword blind because it grants no save or SR on a temporary blindness effect to those within 20' and when using our legal rules sources it's harder to counter with a spell than invisibility spells. My clarification of the spell description above totally hinges on how you interpret the words "see through". All I'm saying is that if you're inside the spell's area and looking out, then you are trying to "see through" the area of the spell. In my way of reading the spell, "through" is defined as any LoS that leaves the spell's area. I see basically three ways of interpreting this spell as written: 1- The area blocks LoS for everyone but the caster. For the caster only, the area does not block LoS within the AoE or that leaves the AoE but does block LoS that enters the AoE. (This is the way we've been using it.) 2- The area blocks LoS for everyone but the caster. For the caster only, the area does not block LoS within the AoE or that enters the AoE but does block LoS that leaves the AoE. (This is the way I'd rather read it.) 3- The area blocks LoS for everyone but the caster. For the caster only, the area does not block LoS within the AoE but does block LoS that enters or leaves the AoE. (This defines the edge of the area as the region the caster cannot "see through".)
Tellish_of_Ket 03-01-07, 07:04 PM	Actually, i don't think Sauro's interpretation is a house-rule. That's how i originally read it to read as well. We really have two options. one is as MWB suggests...ban it. two, use it in the most balancing interpretation of the reading as Sauro suggests. I'm in favour of either or. Tellish
MindWandererB 03-01-07, 08:33 PM	My clarification of the spell description above totally hinges on how you interpret the words "see through". All I'm saying is that if you're inside the spell's area and looking out, then you are trying to "see through" the area of the spell. In my way of reading the spell, "through" is defined as any LoS that leaves the spell's area. I see basically three ways of interpreting this spell as written: 1- The area blocks LoS for everyone but the caster. For the caster only, the area does not block LoS within the AoE or that leaves the AoE but does block LoS that enters the AoE. (This is the way we've been using it.) 2- The area blocks LoS for everyone but the caster. For the caster only, the area does not block LoS within the AoE or that enters the AoE but does block LoS that leaves the AoE. (This is the way I'd rather read it.) 3- The area blocks LoS for everyone but the caster. For the caster only, the area does not block LoS within the AoE but does block LoS that enters or leaves the AoE. (This defines the edge of the area as the region the caster cannot "see through".)It's not about "see through." It's "creatures outside the spell’s area." If the caster isn't outside the area, this doesn't apply, and I just don't see how it can.
SauroGrenom 03-01-07, 08:43 PM	But it also doesn't say the caster can see out of the area when within. All it says is that the caster can "see normally within the blacklit area". If we want to be strict, then that's all the area the caster can see. Effectively the caster's sense of vision is changed by the spell. The caster can only see with blacklight and no longer with normal light. For the caster, as long as he's inside the AoE, he can only see with blacklight vision that extends only 20'.
hogarth 03-01-07, 08:51 PM	Look. The way this spell is used is that casters cast it on themselves. Then what happens... It's like Invisibility Sphere with a 20' radius, and it's like greater invisibility because it doesn't end when you attack, and it's like an area effect powerword blind because it grants no save or SR on a temporary blindness effect to those within 20' and when using our legal rules sources it's harder to counter with a spell than invisibility spells. Frankly, I think a lot of Blacklight's super-power goes away if you're allowed to guess where the centre of the effect is. Then you can either automatically pinpoint the creature that it's on (if it's cast on a creature), or you can pick up use the object that it's on and use it yourself (if it's cast on an object).
MindWandererB 03-01-07, 09:25 PM	But it also doesn't say the caster can see out of the area when within. All it says is that the caster can "see normally within the blacklit area". If we want to be strict, then that's all the area the caster can see. Effectively the caster's sense of vision is changed by the spell. The caster can only see with blacklight and no longer with normal light. For the caster, as long as he's inside the AoE, he can only see with blacklight vision that extends only 20'. Oh, come on. In the absense of specific information, the general rule applies. Entangle doesn't say you can see within it, so we should assume you can't? If the spell doesn't specifically say you can't see in a particular area, then you can.
McJarvis 03-01-07, 09:58 PM	It isn't our job to fix broken things-> we just ban them when they are too powerful. I say leave it as is(insanely powerful) or ban it, but anything in the middle will be unsatisfactory. Long lists of house rules are already a big downfall of CoCo.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-01-07, 10:03 PM	I don't know MWB...i'm a bit on the fence on this one, cuz i originally read it and interpreted as SauroGrenom did. I will admit the wording is iffy. Like i said, we really have a few options to work with, and i'd rather we use our time to discuss the pro's and cons constructively then try to argue about wording. We've all said our peace, we know what we all think and stuff, so lets bring it to some kind of concensus. First the pros and cons need to be discussed. 1) banned 2) Sauro's interpret (caster cannot see beyond the radius of his own blacklight) 3) Leave as is (equivilant to invis sphere, greater invis, super power-word blind effect as a 3rd level spell). I must say, i'm not really in any favour of discussing option 3. I only presented it because that's the status quo that you've been using for some time. I'm not an elder, and i can't vote, and both 1 and 2 are appealing. Option 2: would have to be deemed a house rule, and we'd have to admit it and stick with THAT particular interpretation of it. 1 is obviously the easiest choice. Tellish
Etiquette_Gnome 03-01-07, 10:06 PM	What are the rules on crafting? If the result × the DC equals double or triple the price of the item in silver pieces, then you’ve completed the task in one-half or one-third of the time. Other multiples of the DC reduce the time in the same manner. As the raw materials to make something is represented by paying a third of the retail value, could you therefore make something like a quarterstaff/club/sling instantly (with the craft check) because they have a market price of zero gold?
Tellish_of_Ket 03-01-07, 10:11 PM	What are the rules on crafting? As the raw materials to make something is represented by paying a third of the retail value, could you therefore make something like a quarterstaff/club/sling instantly (with the craft check) because they have a market price of zero gold? If they cost ZERO gold why would u need to craft them? If you are making them masterwork then they are no longer zero gold, and now 300gp, and now, no longer free.
McJarvis 03-01-07, 10:16 PM	If they cost ZERO gold why would u need to craft them? Because if you can instantaneously craft them, then you can just create them out of thin air. Example: Artificer of Gladius is strolling along in the forest. He picks up a stick. He has now crafted a lovely ordinary quarterstaff.....
Etiquette_Gnome 03-01-07, 10:19 PM	As for why I would need to craft them, I'm speaking for purposes of in the middle of battle to gain a weapon. Look at the quote I refer to that crafting time is proprotionally reduced by the amount you exceed the cost with your check. As even a single silver piece is technically infinitely more than 0gp, I would make the staff almost instantly. Edit: What McJarvis said.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-01-07, 10:21 PM	That's what you used to call "jindlizing". No go. To "instantly" create something, there are rules already for that, and for the most part, they are called spells. lol Tellish ***BUMPING DOWN**** I don't know MWB...i'm a bit on the fence on this one, cuz i originally read it and interpreted as SauroGrenom did. I will admit the wording is iffy. Like i said, we really have a few options to work with, and i'd rather we use our time to discuss the pro's and cons constructively then try to argue about wording. We've all said our peace, we know what we all think and stuff, so lets bring it to some kind of concensus. First the pros and cons need to be discussed. 1) banned 2) Sauro's interpret (caster cannot see beyond the radius of his own blacklight) 3) Leave as is (equivilant to invis sphere, greater invis, super power-word blind effect as a 3rd level spell). I must say, i'm not really in any favour of discussing option 3. I only presented it because that's the status quo that you've been using for some time. I'm not an elder, and i can't vote, and both 1 and 2 are appealing. Option 2: would have to be deemed a house rule, and we'd have to admit it and stick with THAT particular interpretation of it. 1 is obviously the easiest choice. Tellish
Tellish_of_Ket 03-01-07, 10:30 PM	Just wanted to point out a VERY important fact. Even if we read it as status QUO, it ony affects the caster. Harv constantly has his allies moving about normaly within the radius. His allies would suffer all the negative effects of being within the blacklight. So his mount is stuck moving at half speed, and his allies cannot see him to get any direction from Harv unless is verbal...increasing the DC to listen. ToK
McJarvis 03-01-07, 10:31 PM	Just wanted to point out a VERY important fact. Even if we read it as status QUO, it ony affects the caster. Harv constantly has his allies moving about normaly within the radius. His allies would suffer all the negative effects of being within the blacklight. So his mount is stuck moving at half speed, and his allies cannot see him to get any direction from Harv unless is verbal...increasing the DC to listen. ToK Undead don't see in the first place.
hogarth 03-01-07, 10:35 PM	Undead don't see in the first place. That's not even 1% true. Undead see normally with regular vision and 60' darkvision.
McJarvis 03-01-07, 10:36 PM	That's not even 1% true. Undead see just fine with regular vision and 60' darkvision. As in, they are unaffected by darkness. Skeletons and zombies don't see, they just know their surroundings.(forget my source-> but I know I read it!)
MindWandererB 03-01-07, 10:39 PM	As in, they are unaffected by darkness. Skeletons and zombies don't see, they just know their surroundings.(forget my source-> but I know I read it!) That's a common but apocryphal belief. Undead use normal senses, even if they lack the relevant organs. @ToK: At least add my other option to the list: that Darklight grant concealment, rather than total concealment, the same way all the other darkness spells were nerfed. In any event, it's one of those spells that isn't great in normal D&D (because of your party), but is great here. I'll wait to see if anyone else endorses Sauro's reading. I don't see how it's possible, but if other elders think it is, then I'll go with the majority. (BTW: It feels very strange calling myself an elder with you around, Tellish, since you predate me here by God knows how long. But we work with what we have.)
McJarvis 03-01-07, 10:41 PM	That's a common but apocryphal belief. Undead use normal senses, even if they lack the relevant organs. Hum...maybe I read it in a 3.0 book somewhere? I distinctly remember a DM telling me & showing me a book saying it in a WotC product post-3.0. If it's not the case, I don't see any mention of zombies or skeletons having sight. Nor do I see anything saying humans have only 2 arms! /me starts plotting his 6-armed human. /me falls unconscious from exhaustion.
hogarth 03-01-07, 10:43 PM	As in, they are unaffected by darkness. Skeletons and zombies don't see, they just know their surroundings.(forget my source-> but I know I read it!) I know where I read an argument to the contrary -- Sean K. Reynolds' "Why can't undead see through illusions?" rant. http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/undeadseethroughillusions.html
Zevox 03-01-07, 10:43 PM	Re: Blacklight - I know I'm no Elder, but put me down as "use it as is or ban it." I don't care which personally, but another house rule for an overpowered spell is not something I'd like to see. The elaborate one for the Polymorph line we already have is more than enough. Zevix
Tellish_of_Ket 03-01-07, 10:44 PM	Gonna keep bumping this down until we can get a concensus to vote. :) ________________________________________ _____ Like i said, we really have a few options to work with, and i'd rather we use our time to discuss the pro's and cons constructively then try to argue about wording. We've all said our peace, we know what we all think and stuff, so lets bring it to some kind of concensus. First the pros and cons need to be discussed. 1) banned 2) Sauro's interpret (caster cannot see beyond the radius of his own blacklight) 3) Leave as is (equivilant to invis sphere, greater invis, super power-word blind effect as a 3rd level spell). I must say, i'm not really in any favour of discussing option 3. I only presented it because that's the status quo that you've been using for some time. I'm not an elder, and i can't vote, and both 1 and 2 are appealing. Option 2: would have to be deemed a house rule, and we'd have to admit it and stick with THAT particular interpretation of it. 1 is obviously the easiest choice. Tellish Addendum: Just wanted to point out a VERY important fact. Even if we read it as status QUO, it ony affects the caster. Harv constantly has his allies moving about normaly within the radius. His allies would suffer all the negative effects of being within the blacklight. So his mount is stuck moving at half speed, and his allies cannot see him to get any direction from Harv unless is verbal...increasing the DC to listen. ToK **EDIT** So far the major concensus is ban. But we still need official votes. PM me if you wish. **EDIT AGAIN** ] he can't exclude his allies from the effect - if he casts it on himself he'll always be in the middle (and thus pinpointed from outside) That's what the majority concensus is. That is the third such reply from my other contactcs. votes for: 1) banned - 1 2) reword and house-rule - 0 2a) reword to "grants concealment only" - 0 (maybe 1?) 3) leave as is (nothing wrong with overpower cheese abuse) - 0
Tellish_of_Ket 03-01-07, 10:50 PM	That's a common but apocryphal belief. Undead use normal senses, even if they lack the relevant organs. @ToK: At least add my other option to the list: that Darklight grant concealment, rather than total concealment, the same way all the other darkness spells were nerfed. In any event, it's one of those spells that isn't great in normal D&D (because of your party), but is great here. I'll wait to see if anyone else endorses Sauro's reading. I don't see how it's possible, but if other elders think it is, then I'll go with the majority. (BTW: It feels very strange calling myself an elder with you around, Tellish, since you predate me here by God knows how long. But we work with what we have.) Added. Thx I don't mind not being an elder and just a lippy gladiator who stands up for the underdog. lol
Etiquette_Gnome 03-02-07, 01:32 AM	So, how long does it take to make a quarterstaff/sling/club?
MindWandererB 03-02-07, 02:08 AM	So, how long does it take to make a quarterstaff/sling/club? Answer: It takes a free activity. Such is life.
Rauul 03-02-07, 03:49 AM	Is there a reason behind having to pay credits to craft a wand thats not listed in the DMG/SRD, I mean this is a level 5 feat, that allows us to craft wands, that hold spells, Dorjes are basicly the psionic version of a wand, yet they have NO premades listed so are they credits to make any? NO they aren't.. So why are wands.. Dorjes have power levels, just as wands have spell levels.. Maybe this should be looked into..
Tellish_of_Ket 03-02-07, 04:14 AM	Is there a reason behind having to pay credits to craft a wand thats not listed in the DMG/SRD, I mean this is a level 5 feat, that allows us to craft wands, that hold spells, Dorjes are basicly the psionic version of a wand, yet they have NO premades listed so are they credits to make any? NO they aren't.. So why are wands.. Dorjes have power levels, just as wands have spell levels.. Maybe this should be looked into.. I plan on looking into it after the current debates have been settled in the courtroom. ToK
McJarvis 03-02-07, 12:42 PM	regarding wands/dorjes: When I first started playing in CoCo dorjes always cost credits, no matter what you wanted in them. Now they don't...and the world didn't explode. In fact, there are very few dorjes out there(or maybe an equal number in relation to wands). I would love for wands to be unrestricted & I don't think it'll cause the world to explode. But then again, it doesn't affect me *too* much, because I can already just heave credits at the system to get the wands I want. [And I have a pretty good credit income] Then again-> Credits are not necessarily about game balance, but rather giving rewards for Pitlording and error checking. Wands are a pretty good motivator for this, since if you pick the right wand it won't be used up *right* away, and thus you don't need to have a million credit-per-week income....
Rauul 03-02-07, 04:28 PM	regarding wands/dorjes: When I first started playing in CoCo dorjes always cost credits, no matter what you wanted in them. Now they don't...and the world didn't explode. In fact, there are very few dorjes out there(or maybe an equal number in relation to wands). So when did Dorjers stop costing credits? and what was the reasoning behind it? Then again-> Credits are not necessarily about game balance, but rather giving rewards for Pitlording and error checking. Wands are a pretty good motivator for this, since if you pick the right wand it won't be used up *right* away, and thus you don't need to have a million credit-per-week income.... After looking at Harvey... hate to say this but Credits are the game Inbalancer.. And i Don't Blame cat or anyone who works thier butt off to get Globs of credits and buff up thier charater, Credits give the players an Advantage, and having wands work like they were suppost to will negate what? Not much.. except Some people would have wands of Daylight and then darklight wouldn't be the win all of spells..
hogarth 03-02-07, 04:32 PM	After looking at Harvey... hate to say this but Credits are the game Inbalancer.. And i Don't Blame cat or anyone who works thier butt off to get Globs of credits and buff up thier charater, Credits give the players an Advantage, and having wands work like they were suppost to will negate what? Yes, credits give an advantage. But it takes work to keep this board running. Do you have a better suggestion?
Tellish_of_Ket 03-02-07, 04:34 PM	So when did Dorjers stop costing credits? and what was the reasoning behind it? After looking at Harvey... hate to say this but Credits are the game Inbalancer.. And i Don't Blame cat or anyone who works thier butt off to get Globs of credits and buff up thier charater, Credits give the players an Advantage, and having wands work like they were suppost to will negate what? Not much.. except Some people would have wands of Daylight and then darklight wouldn't be the win all of spells.. It isn't the win-all spell he claims or how it's been run. It's just been adjuticated very improperly for some time. ToK
SauroGrenom 03-02-07, 04:40 PM	So when did Dorjers stop costing credits? and what was the reasoning behind it?Honestly I don't recall Dorje's ever costing credits. Powerstones either. There are none listed in the SRD at all, so if we are going to allow any we need to allow all. Dorje's and powerstones are allowed w/o credits so long as the CL/ML is within the limits imposed by the character's CL/ML. Wands not listed in the SRD have always cost credits.
MitzaVolchenko 03-02-07, 04:53 PM	I woud like to propose a limit to the number of credits worth of equipment a single character can have at one time. Rauul suggested ECL*10. That still allows a lot of custom stuff but limits down just how abusive it can get at lower levels.
Zevox 03-02-07, 05:01 PM	Dorje's and powerstones are allowed w/o credits so long as the CL/ML is within the limits imposed by the character's CL/ML. Wands not listed in the SRD have always cost credits. Which is what Rauul is asking we consider repealing. You know, making so you can make wands of any CL of any spell they're allowed to have within the limit of you CL? Same as with Dorjes? Personally, I'm with him. I just can't see why we limit them to that chart when its pretty clearly spelled out that they're intended to allow any spell level 4 or below. Especially for those with the Craft Wand feat, which outright says "You can create a wand of any 4th-level or lower spell that you know." Zevox
TheMagister 03-02-07, 05:08 PM	I agree with Rauul and Zevox. Free the wands! TM
Rauul 03-02-07, 05:11 PM	Honestly I don't recall Dorje's ever costing credits. Powerstones either. There are none listed in the SRD at all, so if we are going to allow any we need to allow all. Dorje's and powerstones are allowed w/o credits so long as the CL/ML is within the limits imposed by the character's CL/ML. Wands not listed in the SRD have always cost credits. Yet at level 5 a wizard can take the feat and should be able to make a wand that they have in thier spell book as long as they have the gold to support this.. and if it's not on the SRD it costs Credits, yet the same level 5 psion can craft a Dorje with any power they have and not cost credits... How is this balanced.. See below.. The base price of a dorje is its manifester level × the power level × 750 gp A newly created dorje has 50 charges. The base price of a wand is its caster level × the spell level × 750 gp. A newly created wand has 50 charges. So basicly the only difference i see is that someone in the Core rules took and Modified the chart that has been uses since 2nd AD&D, and the Psi being basicly rewritten AFTER the core rules as a Different form of magic didn't take the time to make a chart (See magic transparency) So here in Coco the Psi has the free hand cause there was no chart made for Psionic Tattoos and Dorje's just "Power level" Still the same way to make and both are trigger activations.. well thats my 2.5 cents
McJarvis 03-02-07, 05:34 PM	Honestly I don't recall Dorje's ever costing credits. Powerstones either. There are none listed in the SRD at all, so if we are going to allow any we need to allow all. That's probably why the cred cost on Dorjes was lifted-> you needed credits to use them at _all_. After looking at Harvey... hate to say this but Credits are the game Inbalancer.. And i Don't Blame cat or anyone who works thier butt off to get Globs of credits and buff up thier charater, Credits give the players an Advantage, and having wands work like they were suppost to will negate what? Not much.. except Some people would have wands of Daylight and then darklight wouldn't be the win all of spells.. I think you're dead wrong. If Cat did a character without spending credits he would likely have just as good of a record. The reason his characters spend lots of credits is because he makes a god-awful lot of credits. If you remove the credit cost for wands just because they offer an "advantage of choice" to some gladiators, then that opens the door for allowing UA stuff to just any char because they give an advantage. Cat has said often(as I recall), that credits should not = power, but they should certainly offer more choices.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-02-07, 05:38 PM	That's probably why the cred cost on Dorjes was lifted-> you needed credits to use them at _all_. I think you're dead wrong. If Cat did a character without spending credits he would likely have just as good of a record. The reason his characters spend lots of credits is because he makes a god-awful lot of credits. I will agree. We've had many ppl go with large undefeated records without credits. I hardly use credits at all with my guys, and i have 4 or 5 old guys that totalled for 53-3. Some never used any credits. Credits help, but they aren't the be-all-win-all of a gladiators arsenal. And besides, if Cat wasn't taking care of the CoCo, do you think there even be a CoCo to argue about win records? :P ToK
McJarvis 03-02-07, 05:48 PM	Addition: Credits just allow you to do unique stuff. For instance, TIM(one of my characters) takes alot of credits-> both to make and maintain. But in the end you could do a very similar build as either a cleric with the magic domain, or a cleric 1(magic domain)+druid X. There isn't much of a difference in power... And then there's The Artificer, who really hasn't spent many credits yet(just a +1 int headband for optimal leveling purposes...5 cred). The point is-> the player at the helm matters far more than the credits spent. As far as max-credits spent per character goes, how would this be regulated? I have some characters that would be totally shut down with this kind of ruling(TIM comes to mind-> he needs to buy a new 10cred Intimidate skill item every level to maintain one of his prime offense capabilities. Mort is another offender-> she needs at least 4->5 creds per 3FC for deeper darkness ATM). # of credits doesn't have a meaningful relationship to being overpowered(especially in the example of TIM & other would-be custom +skill item users). Such a ruling on max credits would just ensure that credits are only spent in the most optimal way possible. (And think of spellcasting services, or other "one time use" credit purchases...what a nightmare)
TheMagister 03-02-07, 05:56 PM	Personally, I have a hard time finding things to use my credits on. When I finally broke down and bought Hood an advanced pegasus, I swear I heard the sound of millions of voices crying out in agony somewhere in the gamerverse. The next idea I have is for an amulet of mighty fists that adds psychokinetic damage to unarmed strikes. You know, the amulet of flaming fists, but +1d4 untyped. That'll be a 15 credit cost. :)
TheMagister 03-02-07, 06:00 PM	Q: If one was to want to take a paladin and take him into the blackguard prestige class, could the alignment change and the outsider contact both be done in the same quest, or would there have to be two seperate quests done in order to accomplish both requirements? A: You could easily accomplish both in one quest. @TheMagister: Rubicanti can have only 1 questgoal What?! If a blackguard can contact an outsider and change his alignment in one quest, why can't the burn down a building and change alignment be done in one quest? Isn't that like, the same thing?!
Zevox 03-02-07, 06:11 PM	What?! If a blackguard can contact an outsider and change his alignment in one quest, why can't the burn down a building and change alignment be done in one quest? Isn't that like, the same thing?! It is odd Cat would say that (unless he didn't look closely enough at what your goals were). Perhaps he simply forgot that questing to change your alignment isn't required anyway, so its really just an RP thing to begin with. Zevox
McJarvis 03-02-07, 06:17 PM	The real answer is that it is likely that Cat didn't have time to question whether it was legal or not, so he just bold-faced denied it. When he approves something that is illegal it looks far worse than when he denies something that is legal. Pairings are such a monstrous job...
TheMagister 03-02-07, 06:20 PM	Well, I would like a clarification to include the alignment change in my current mini. I'll send a PM to Cat.
Zevox 03-02-07, 06:20 PM	But back to wands... I don't think the wands thing is so much an issue of credits conferring an advantage as it is that the restriction really has no reason to exist to begin with. Its certainly not going to be unbalancing to allow wands to be made with any spell they're capable of holding - the only one I can think of that may be a problem is a Wand of True Strike, and even then we have a character who got one of those via credits now, and hes a Failure. Certainly I wouldn't bat an eye at wizards nabbing CL 2 Wands of Shield or CL 1 Wands of Mage Armor because they're cheaper in the long run than all the scrolls they'd normally purchase of those two spells, which I suspect would be the only major effect of this (perhaps not the Mage Armor though, since many just nab Extend Spell so they can cast that once and be done with it). It just doesn't seem like a necessary or beneficial restriction, especially in light of the necessary lack of such a restriction on dorjes. Zevox
Zevox 03-02-07, 06:21 PM	Well, I would like a clarification to include the alignment change in my current mini. I'll send a PM to Cat. Just remember that such will merely be an RP thing. You still need to pay credits for the change and all that good stuff. Zevox
False_Keraptis 03-02-07, 06:42 PM	So here in Coco the Psi has the free hand cause there was no chart made for Psionic Tattoos and Dorje's just "Power level" Still the same way to make and both are trigger activations.. This is inarguably true, and I would like to add my name to the list of those in favor of opening up wands. Well, either that or house-ruling a similarly-sized list of freely accessible dorjes and charging credits for the rest. I don't like how psionics gets all these little edges over magic due to obvious oversights; the psicrystal stuff being another example. Full disclosure: I'd also like to abuse a few wands with my full plate magic domain cleric. It's quite wrong, I know, but it's not like Gundmir's an unstoppable juggernaut anyway.
Rauul 03-02-07, 07:18 PM	This is inarguably true, and I would like to add my name to the list of those in favor of opening up wands. Well, either that or house-ruling a similarly-sized list of freely accessible dorjes and charging credits for the rest. I don't like how psionics gets all these little edges over magic due to obvious oversights; the psicrystal stuff being another example. Full disclosure: I'd also like to abuse a few wands with my full plate magic domain cleric. It's quite wrong, I know, but it's not like Gundmir's an unstoppable juggernaut anyway. Acully it isn't abusive, now you just have to have credits to get the wands, your magic domain charater can USE any wand, so as of now you can use any wand thats on the list, spend gold (has the limitation of being +2cl of your 1/2 caster level for the domain) So your level 4 magic domain cleric can use CL 4 level 1-2 spells/scorlls/wands as if he is a wizard.. even in full plate.. but as long as it's on the list.. just costs gold..
Zevox 03-02-07, 07:21 PM	Acully it isn't abusive, now you just have to have credits to get the wands, your magic domain charater can USE any wand, so as of now you can use any wand thats on the list, spend gold (has the limitation of being +2cl of your 1/2 caster level for the domain) So your level 4 magic domain cleric can use CL 4 level 1-2 spells/scorlls/wands as if he is a wizard.. even in full plate.. but as long as it's on the list.. just costs gold.. Actually, minor correction, wands and other "charged" items are restricted to your ECL only. Its single-use scrolls and powerstones that are your CL +2. Zevox
Tellish_of_Ket 03-02-07, 07:24 PM	If you are a Level 4 Cleric with the Magic Domain, your arcane caser level is actually 2, not 4. ToK
Rauul 03-02-07, 07:28 PM	If you are a Level 4 Cleric with the Magic Domain, your arcane caser level is actually 2, not 4. ToK You can still use Wands that are CL 3 and 4 as long as they are from Level 1 correct? Edit=> Example an 4 cleric of the magic Domain can use a wand of magic missiles thats CL 3 (example is harveys cl 9 wand, or even Rauuls Cl 3 wand of magic Missiles)
Tellish_of_Ket 03-02-07, 07:30 PM	You can still use Wands that are CL 3 and 4 as long as they are from Level 1 correct? If it's not standard in DMG, it's a custom item and will cost you credits. If your talking about MM (3), then yup, you must certainly can. ToK
Zevox 03-02-07, 07:37 PM	If it's not standard in DMG, it's a custom item and will cost you credits. He knows that. If you'll take note, thats what is being argued should be changed here... Zevox
Rauul 03-02-07, 07:39 PM	If it's not standard in DMG, it's a custom item and will cost you credits. If your talking about MM (3), then yup, you must certainly can. ToK So according to CoCo rules, it would cost me a 0 credits and 2K+ gold to buy a cl 3 wand of magic missiles, but to purchuse a cl 1 wand of Doom costs me 750 gold and 5 credits? Or a psion can purchuse a Dorje of (any level 1 power) for 750gold and 0 credits.. All because Wand of Doom isn't on a chart...
Rauul 03-02-07, 07:45 PM	Craft Wand Prerequisite [I]Caster level 5th. Benefit You can create a wand of any 4th-level or lower spell that you know. Crafting a wand takes one day for each 1,000 gp in its base price. The base price of a wand is its caster level × the spell level × 750 gp. To craft a wand, you must spend 1/25 of this base price in XP and use up raw materials costing one-half of this base price. A newly created wand has 50 charges. Any wand that stores a spell with a costly material component or an XP cost also carries a commensurate cost. In addition to the cost derived from the base price, you must expend fifty copies of the material component or pay fifty times the XP cost. At Coco since you don't use xp lost it costs 1/2 in gold, still takes the same time, and if it's not listed on the treasure chart it's nonstandard and costs 5 credits... What part of the word ANY is failing to be seen..
Tellish_of_Ket 03-02-07, 07:45 PM	He knows that. If you'll take note, thats what is being argued should be changed here... Zevox I know, and i'm in agreement. It does need to be discussed. We just have another BIG issue on the table right now that we're waiting for Elder input. I like dealing with one task at a time, crunch the numbers, get it done, and then move on to the next problem. No worries, i fully intend of bringing the customizing wand issue up, as soon as we're done with Blacklight. ToK
MindWandererB 03-02-07, 07:46 PM	Just my quick comment: I agree that the fact that psionic dorjes are unrestricted, but magic wands are, is just unbalancing. Psionics are already better than magic in many respects; this just makes it more so. The list of wands in the DMG was never meant to be be exhaustive; the fact that they never put a list in the XPH at all seems to me to be proof of that. The same thing goes for potions vs. tattoos.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-02-07, 07:48 PM	Actually on another note...i see from the beginning of this thread that two discussions that have been ruled upon, are still not archived at the front for quick reference. I sent prisonlords PM's. ToK
Zevox 03-02-07, 07:54 PM	I know, and i'm in agreement. It does need to be discussed. We just have another BIG issue on the table right now that we're waiting for Elder input. I like dealing with one task at a time, crunch the numbers, get it done, and then move on to the next problem. No worries, i fully intend of bringing the customizing wand issue up, as soon as we're done with Blacklight. ToK Ah right, I forgot that was still technically under discussion. Might I suggest a quick recap post and requests for the Elders to speak up? Zevox
Rauul 03-02-07, 07:54 PM	hmm maybe rauul needs to spend the credits on a wand of blacklight :) Wand of Blacklight 11,250 gp and 5 credits... hmmmm
Tellish_of_Ket 03-02-07, 07:57 PM	Ah right, I forgot that was still technically under discussion. Might I suggest a quick recap post and requests for the Elders to speak up? Zevox I don't wanna really come off as pushy or offend anyone with thinking i'm spamming the court and trying to force anyone's hand. We all took part in the discussion, and it's only been 2 days. We'll let the Elders stew it over. We know the position of a couple of elders, but there are still missing opinions (NiQil, Pitpull). ToK
Zevox 03-02-07, 07:59 PM	I don't wanna really come off as pushy or offend anyone with thinking i'm spamming the court and trying to force anyone's hand. We all took part in the discussion, and it's only been 2 days. We'll let the Elders stew it over. We know the position of a couple of elders, but there are still missing opinions (NiQil, Pitpull). ToK Yeah, I wouldn't count on Pitbull's getting added anytime soon. Hes been away long enough and is so out of contact that Cat had to remove his character from his campaign because he couldn't reach him at all. I'm actually kind of surprised he hasn't been replaced as an Elder yet... Zevox
Tellish_of_Ket 03-02-07, 08:04 PM	Well, there are two elders on currently, and TelinA will be back shortly, so i'll just toss up the summary vote. RE: Concerning Blacklight 1) banned 2) re-word to just "concealment" Votes: 1) 4 2) 2 ToK
MindWandererB 03-02-07, 08:32 PM	I support either the complete ban or the change to normal concealment. I'm even okay, if necessary, with keeping it as it is (since apparently it was unaltered in Spell Compendium). The one decision I do not support at all is that the caster can't see out of it.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-02-07, 08:38 PM	I support either the complete ban or the change to normal concealment. I'm even okay, if necessary, with keeping it as it is (since apparently it was unaltered in Spell Compendium). The one decision I do not support at all is that the caster can't see out of it. I think all the earlier problems with Blacklight was that it was being misadjudicated. It only benefits the caster, not his allies. I'll put you down as 1 vote for each, it might help to break any ties. ToK
Zevox 03-02-07, 08:42 PM	Just a quick point to make: switching to just giving concealment makes it useless. It becomes a Darkness with a 1 round/level duration, effectively. At the same spell level you can get Deeper Darkness which would do the same with a 1 day/level duration. Zevox
MindWandererB 03-02-07, 08:53 PM	Just a quick point to make: switching to just giving concealment makes it useless. It becomes a Darkness with a 1 round/level duration, effectively. At the same spell level you can get Deeper Darkness which would do the same with a 1 day/level duration. Zevox But Deeper Darkness affects you, too. Compare it to Displacement, rather, which has the same duration and grants 50% concealment, but only affects you rather than an area around a target of your choice, and is more easily defeated.
hogarth 03-02-07, 09:12 PM	If you remove the credit cost for wands just because they offer an "advantage of choice" to some gladiators, then that opens the door for allowing UA stuff to just any char because they give an advantage. Cat has said often(as I recall), that credits should not = power, but they should certainly offer more choices. It's a fact that credits allow you (in some cases) to get strictly better goods for the same price. Compare a 3 HD hippogriff (CR 2) Handle Animal ally versus a 5 HD hippogriff (CR 2) Handle Animal ally with customized feats that costs credits. Which is better? Compare a 6 HD nightmare skeleton (CR 3) versus a 7 HD nightmare skeleton (CR 3) that costs credits. Which is better? Compare a wand of shocking touch versus a wand of sonic substituted shocking touch that costs credits. Which is better? I don't necessarily have a huge problem with it, but to pretend that credits don't give an advantage is silly.
Zevox 03-02-07, 09:41 PM	Compare a wand of shocking touch versus a wand of sonic substituted shocking touch that costs credits. Which is better? Neither, I'd say. You can still resist it with the same simple spells/powers most folks use for energy resistance. Theres the odd Half-Fiend/Celestial it'll bypass resistances on, but those are rare enough I'd not say their existence confers the sonic version an advantage. Zevox
NiQil 03-02-07, 10:39 PM	Regarding the blacklight issue: I am fully in favor of banning it, along with the rest of the divine SRD, as those are clearly still 3.0 rules listings. That being said....blacklight will never be banned. Cat will never allow that. You know it. I know it. The guy sitting behind you reading the old Sports Illustrated knows it. So the vote, while nice to see where everyone stands, is really an exercise in futility. @ Tok: I will examine the rulings you sent me....don't expect to see them updated into the Court Decisions until this weekend when I also do the Prison Roll Call....I tend to do that stuff all at once.
McJarvis 03-02-07, 11:06 PM	It's a fact that credits allow you (in some cases) to get strictly better goods for the same price. Actually, I think the real power of the credit goes towards things like this: Harvey changing Extend Spell for Deflect Arrows[[Upon seeing that one of the few opponents he has at higher levels is a power-archer]] Or eventually: The Artificer of Gladius changing Improved Unarmed Strike & Deflect Arrows for a Spell Focus & Greater Spell Focus. One consideration when I made Arty was that I have the credits to push around for his choice of feats to benefit him now & perhaps change them around later to help him out then too.
MindWandererB 03-02-07, 11:11 PM	Yeah, that's just cheese. For the character I'm currently working on, there's no way I can give him the stats I want, and still qualify for the feats I want. At ECL 3, there's normally no fix for that--but a 5-credit, 1000 gp Gloves of Dexterity +1 fixes that problem neatly. And that's not even using that +1 to boost an odd score to an even one. That's a flat-out power increase, and is one of my most despised uses of credits (in addition to adding 1 or 2 HD to an ally, which I could swear we prohibited a few months ago, but it's not in the rules now).
Rauul 03-02-07, 11:35 PM	Yeah, that's just cheese. For the character I'm currently working on, there's no way I can give him the stats I want, and still qualify for the feats I want. At ECL 3, there's normally no fix for that--but a 5-credit, 1000 gp Gloves of Dexterity +1 fixes that problem neatly. And that's not even using that +1 to boost an odd score to an even one. That's a flat-out power increase, and is one of my most despised uses of credits (in addition to adding 1 or 2 HD to an ally, which I could swear we prohibited a few months ago, but it's not in the rules now). thats ok Diplomacy & animal handling allys are about 2-3 times more powerful than a leadership cohort... is it suppost to be this way? are skills suppost to overpower feats?
Tellish_of_Ket 03-03-07, 12:05 AM	Regarding the blacklight issue: I am fully in favor of banning it, along with the rest of the divine SRD, as those are clearly still 3.0 rules listings. That being said....blacklight will never be banned. Cat will never allow that. You know it. I know it. The guy sitting behind you reading the old Sports Illustrated knows it. So the vote, while nice to see where everyone stands, is really an exercise in futility. @ Tok: I will examine the rulings you sent me....don't expect to see them updated into the Court Decisions until this weekend when I also do the Prison Roll Call....I tend to do that stuff all at once. Roger that. Well, the role of the elders is just that. Adjudicate...and that is what is being done...adjudicating. With a Unanimous decision, even he doesn't really have a choice. When he and I first created the elders, that's what the purpose was. And we also agreed that we wouldn't go against the grain of a unanimous decision, which this most certainly is. Even if he does pull "rank", at least we have the clarfication, that assists pitlords with adjudicating it. It won't be his (or anyone elses) personal little anti-magic/immunity bubble anymore. Even a partial victory of having to settle for "concealment" will be good. ToK
MitzaVolchenko 03-03-07, 03:21 AM	My request regarding credit cap is not on credits spent to gain allies, change alignment, go on quests, etc. I am suggesting that there is a point where credit cost equipment is unbalancing. A single character with 50 credits worth of stuff that the same person without 50 credits to spend cannot access is a bit extreme. ECL * 5 still allows up to 15 credits of equipment on a level three character. You can buy that non-standard +1 stat boost. You can add a HD to your ally. You cannot add to your stat, upgrade your ally, and bring a ton of illegal expendables. We capped expendables because of over use and abuse. This seems a logical extension to me. I intend this to only apply to equipment and possibly allies on the sheet at one given time...or perhaps just available to enter the arena at one time. If you sell off that +1 stat boost item later, it is no longer going toward your total on the character. Not that I count for much, but I think the Divine stuff ought to go away too.
Vathelokai 03-03-07, 03:35 AM	Regarding the blacklight issue: I am fully in favor of banning it, along with the rest of the divine SRD, as those are clearly still 3.0 rules listings. I think banning the entire divine SRD is a bit extreme. Many of the items there were reprinted unaltered in 3.5 books. Things like energy substitution and many of the domains are hardly a problem. Even blacklight has been reprinted. Remember that in a regular team game it's an annoying and unfriendly spell. {I know, I'm rehashing}
MindWandererB 03-03-07, 03:40 AM	I think banning the entire divine SRD is a bit extreme. Many of the items there were reprinted unaltered in 3.5 books. Things like energy substitution and many of the domains are hardly a problem. Even blacklight has been reprinted. Remember that in a regular team game it's an annoying and unfriendly spell. {I know, I'm rehashing}Energy Substitution is actually an example of why it should be banned. Sonic energy was removed as one of the options; the 3.5 version only covers fire, cold, electric, and acid.
NiQil 03-03-07, 05:16 PM	@ Elders: I want to double check something, now that I have had a chance to sit down and review the discussion regarding Matter Agitation... By defining the damage this power deals as fire damage, you are taking a weak arena power and making it even weaker. By giving it an energy descriptor, you are making it defeatable by the likes of Resist Energy, etc. Consider very carefully the addition of a game mechanic to a power that currently does not have this mechanic. The power already takes 3 rounds of concentration to do any significant damage to a person, or 2 to objects. By giving it an energy descriptor, I feel that it will make this power virtually unusable here. I don't think we should be in the habit of altering spells and powers as they stand. This goes for blacklight as well. Either accept it as is, or ban it entirely. Clearly, if an energy descriptor was going to be placed on this power, it would have been. By adding one, we are creating a houserule where, in my opinion, one is not needed. Has anyone ever objected that matter agitation was overpowered because it's damage was untyped? I don't recall it ever happening. So why now do we feel the need to make the power even less powerful?
MindWandererB 03-03-07, 05:26 PM	This decision isn't motivated by a need to nerf, it's motivated by what we consider to be an obvious error. The power clearly deals damage by causing the target to become hot. The fact that there is no energy type specified is what we believe to be an obvious omission. Any time we make a ruling that I know if I showed to a non-CoCo player, and they would say, "what the heck are you thinking! You're all idiots!" I know we're doing the wrong thing. Ruling that Matter Agitation doesn't do fire damage would be one such instance. I can pretty much guarantee that in the home game of any of the designers, they'd rule this way without a second thought.
TheMagister 03-03-07, 05:41 PM	I checked the Courtroom of Gladius thread, and sure enough, you can do an alignment change along with another quest goal. I posted in the Courtroom about it. Can you check up on it and then recant what you said about Rubicanti only having one questgoal? I'd appreciate a PM to Rauul, my QL, too. Thanks! TM Then that's wrong. Quests and miniquests have only 1 questgoal, campaigns up to 6. It's in the rules and Elders cannot change existing rules. Hmph.
NiQil 03-03-07, 05:42 PM	This decision isn't motivated by a need to nerf, it's motivated by what we consider to be an obvious error. The power clearly deals damage by causing the target to become hot. The fact that there is no energy type specified is what we believe to be an obvious omission. Any time we make a ruling that I know if I showed to a non-CoCo player, and they would say, "what the heck are you thinking! You're all idiots!" I know we're doing the wrong thing. Ruling that Matter Agitation doesn't do fire damage would be one such instance. I can pretty much guarantee that in the home game of any of the designers, they'd rule this way without a second thought. At least that is reasoning I can live with. Alright...now to the other one that ToK sent me regarding targeting in magical darkness effects. What exactly are weapon-like spells? I think what is being referred to are things like Spiritual Weapon, but if we are going to create a new term like that, then we need to define it before I can put it in the Court Decisions.
TheMagister 03-03-07, 05:43 PM	spells that need an attack roll to hit are weapon-like spells.
NiQil 03-03-07, 05:44 PM	Hmph. Well....DM still trumps Elders...so I guess I will adjust that ruling.
TheMagister 03-03-07, 05:45 PM	Somebody said that Alignment changes don't require a quest, just credits. Is that true?
NiQil 03-03-07, 05:46 PM	spells that need an attack roll to hit are weapon-like spells. No, because Rays are not weapon-like spells, but need an attack roll. Here is the PM I got from ToK, so you can see what I am talking about: Q: What are your options for attacking a character hiding in an area that grants total concealment, such as Obscuring Mist or a character successfully hiding within Deeper Darkness? A: If using an area-effect spell or ability, you may aim the spell at any point to which you have line of effect. If using a weapon or weapon-like spell, you can designate a square as being the subject of your attack; 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 (although 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). You cannot use targeted spells or abilities at all unless you have line of sight. Based on that information, a weapon-like spell cannot have that definition, because that would include rays, and rays are targeted spells, which would contradict the above statement.
MindWandererB 03-03-07, 05:47 PM	At least that is reasoning I can live with. Alright...now to the other one that ToK sent me regarding targeting in magical darkness effects. What exactly are weapon-like spells? I think what is being referred to are things like Spiritual Weapon, but if we are going to create a new term like that, then we need to define it before I can put it in the Court Decisions. My apologies. That term is used in some of the supplements; I forgot it isn't defined in Core. You can replace it with "spells that require an attack roll to hit, such as rays and touch spells." Edit: you would then have to change "targeted spells or abilities" to "targeted spells or abilities other than those that require an attack roll to hit"
NiQil 03-03-07, 05:49 PM	Somebody said that Alignment changes don't require a quest, just credits. Is that true? That is in the Rules (or possibly the Blackmarket, I don't remember)....if memory serves it costs 5 credits for each step of alignment you are changing. So as an example, to go from Lawful Good to Chaotic Evil would be 5 to go from Lawful to Neutral, 5 from Neutral to Chaotic, 5 from Good to Neutral, and 5 from Neutral to Evil, totalling 20 credits.
NiQil 03-03-07, 05:58 PM	Alright...I've cleaned up the wording on both of those rulings...here is what will be going into the Court Decisions either tonight or tomorrow when I update everything: 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 (although 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: 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.
TheMagister 03-03-07, 06:02 PM	Okay, here's a bone between me and like, EVERYBODY. Targeted Spell: A spell with the "Target: x" entry in its header. Ray: A spell with the "Effect: ray" entry in its header. For example: Spiritual Weapon has an "Effect: magic weapon of force" entry in its header. It is a weapon-like spell. However, it has that little limiter: "If the weapon goes beyond the spell's range, if it goes out of your sight, or if you have not designated an opponent, the weapon returns to you and hovers." So you couldn't target a creature in a blacklight with a spiritual weapon (which makes it a bad example). Now, Ray of Enfeeblement! RoE has the "Effect: Ray" entry in its header. You can target anything or anyone or anywhere you want with it, whether you can see it or not. You can target the floor with the ray and successfully hit it, but you won't do anything to the floor. In a magically darkened room, you could aim it in any direction and that's the direction it would go until it hit something or the spell's range was exceeded. A blinded caster could cast ray of enfeeblement in the direction of a noise that he heard. Hold Monster. Hold Monster has a "Target: One living creature" entry in its header. A creature could NOT target a another creature in the area of a Blacklight spell with Hold Monster, because he can't see it to target it. He couldn't cast it UNLESS he were touching that creature! If a wizard wandered into a blacklight AoE and readied an action to cast hold monster on the first creature he touched, and managed to walk into a creature's space, he could cast hold monster on that creature. If that creature is an undead, he wasted his spell and is probably a dead duck (illegal target). If it's a living creature, bring on the will save. Am I the only one who thinks like this? Ref: pg 175 PHB, under Aiming a Spell.
MindWandererB 03-03-07, 06:18 PM	TM is technically correct. I'm not sure this requires an official ruling, since it's a non-contested rule in the RAW: You can always cast a targeted spell as a touch spell, even if you cannot see the target. I don't consider rays to be targeted spells, but since NiQil did, I figured it was easier to write the exception than argue the point--especially since it was needed for touch range spells anyhow.
NiQil 03-03-07, 06:46 PM	It depends on your definition of a targeted spell. If you define it as any spell that has a target entry in it's description, then rays are not targeted spells. If you define a targeted spell as any spell that requires an attack roll, then they are, since they do.
TheMagister 03-03-07, 06:48 PM	It's not our definition that counts, though. It's the one on pg. 175 of the PHB that we'd follow.
Macbrea 03-04-07, 10:28 AM	Why is ray a question on whether it can be targeted on something with total concealment? Some effects are rays. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack. As with a ranged weapon, you can fire into the dark or at an invisible creature and hope you hit something. You don’t have to see the creature you’re trying to hit, as you do with a targeted spell. Intervening creatures and obstacles, however, can block your line of sight or provide cover for the creature you’re aiming at. Says outright that you can target creatures with total concealment. And since a ray isn't a melee weapon you really cannot deal a normal touch attack with it. You do have to have line of effect from your square to the next square though. And therefore, in adjacent squares may make a ranged attack. Same as a fighter with a longbow cannot make a melee attack with the longbow.
Macbrea 03-06-07, 05:23 PM	Hmm, we use the rules of the game articles. But here is a questoin. The latest rules of the game articles on animals 4 reads: Animal Companions and Magic Items A great way to both protect your companion and perhaps give it some offensive power is to equip it with magic items. Consider purchasing items for your companion or just give it items you no longer need (such as your +1 ring of protection when you acquire a +2 ring of protection). Once you do so, however, you and your DM face a potentially difficult decision. Exactly which items can animals use? Since most magic items fit users of any size, the simple answer is this: pretty much any item. No animal companion can use an item that requires spell completion or spell knowledge because they are not spellcasters. Likewise animals cannot speak, so they can't use command word items. Animals also lack weapon proficiencies and prehensile appendages, so they cannot employ weapons, either. That leaves us with the following: potions (though you may have to open the potion vial and pour out the liquid), rings, and most items that can be worn or carried. Your DM may decide that your companion's body type simply does not allow some items to fit your companion. For example, you might persuade your DM to let your wolf wear boots, but don't count on your snake wearing boots. Creatures like owls and hawks may have a hard time with cloaks (since the garment interferes with their wings). Other than the exceptions noted here, all animals have locations for magic items similar to those noted for characters on page 214 of the Dungeon Master's Guide. For example, a quadruped uses its back feet for the "foot" location and its front feet for the "hand" location. The hind legs correspond to a humanoid's legs and the front legs correspond to a humanoid's arms. For avians, treat the feet and legs as hands and arms, and the wings as legs and feet. The creature can wear "leg" items on its wings or hind legs, but not both. A snake simply wears items over its head or body. In most cases, even if your companion can't use an item you've found, it should be possible to make (or have made) an item it can use. For example, you might fashion wing bands of speed for your owl's or hawk's wings, and they would work just like boots of speed for your companion. For an in-depth look at what items an animal can use or wear, check out Wild Life (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/re/20031125a). You will note that it refereances a Random Encounters article. Do we assume that the slots information from the random encounters article is the correct information to use for CoCo? Those slots for an animal are: * One skull cap or helm * One pair of lenses or goggles * One collar * One saddle blanket or vest * One saddle or jacket * One belt or strap worn in front of or over the haunches * One pectoral or harness worn over the chest or shoulders * One pair foreleg bracers * One pair of foreleg shoes or mitts -- hoofed creatures wear shoes and creatures with paws wear mitts * Two rings -- creatures with toes wear rings on the toes and creatures with hooves wear "rings" just above fore hooves * One pair of hind leg shoes or mitts -- hoofed creatures wear shoes and creatures with paws wear mitts
MindWandererB 03-06-07, 05:28 PM	I think we can use that for quadrupeds. I'd change "1 collar" to "1 collar, necklace, periapt, or brooch," but otherwise it looks okay.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-07-07, 03:19 AM	Next Item on the BAN list: I reccomend the crafting Libram/Tomes of inherent stat bonuses as well as the casting of said spells. Any 17th caster wizard/cleric gets an automatic 5 points added to all their stats, while everyone else needs to pay 810,000gp for the same thing. The reason to rid the crafting (cuz if you can cast it, why craft it), is so you don't "give them" to your ally as a loop-hole. Maybe this has already been discussed, maybe not. But it's not on the ban list, so i thought i'd bring it up. Maybe i'm way off here, and stepping on a lot of single caster class toes, trying to rob them of a just reward for their sacrificing in staying true to their craft, but it does kind of throw the balance off quite a bit. Any feedback? ToK {ducks as rotten tomatoes go flying by his head}
Rauul 03-07-07, 03:47 AM	Next Item on the BAN list: I reccomend the crafting Libram/Tomes of inherent stat bonuses as well as the casting of said spells. Any 17th caster wizard/cleric gets an automatic 5 points added to all their stats, while everyone else needs to pay 810,000gp for the same thing. The reason to rid the crafting (cuz if you can cast it, why craft it), is so you don't "give them" to your ally as a loop-hole. ToK {ducks as rotten tomatoes go flying by his head} Bah like a wizard/cleric is gonna come up with an extra 400k gold to craft one... and get to levels to cast the spells in the Arena... I hear it's cold at the top... a Little Frozen :P I would Rather Debate about Wands... I think everyone knows where I stand on Wands and the Making of Wands.. and How they cost credits and Dorjes don't... heck you can even buy Augmented Dorjes without credits do to there NOT being a list like there is a wands...
Macbrea 03-07-07, 08:45 AM	Next Item on the BAN list: I reccomend the crafting Libram/Tomes of inherent stat bonuses as well as the casting of said spells. Any 17th caster wizard/cleric gets an automatic 5 points added to all their stats, while everyone else needs to pay 810,000gp for the same thing. The reason to rid the crafting (cuz if you can cast it, why craft it), is so you don't "give them" to your ally as a loop-hole. Maybe this has already been discussed, maybe not. But it's not on the ban list, so i thought i'd bring it up. Maybe i'm way off here, and stepping on a lot of single caster class toes, trying to rob them of a just reward for their sacrificing in staying true to their craft, but it does kind of throw the balance off quite a bit. Any feedback? ToK {ducks as rotten tomatoes go flying by his head} First of all. Wish costs exp even in CoCo. So, casting 5 wishes at the same time isn't a very viable method of advancement of your stat. You will notice that your spending 25,000 xp. We do not allow characters to not advance in CoCo. They must advance when they reach the level. This is because Cat moves them upto the next league based off the amount of experience they have on the character. 25,000xp by the way isn't avaible on a character until level 25. This becomes a non-issue in coco. As to the books and librams, if someone is willing ot spend that much money on a magic item let them. The addition of 1 to your stat for 27k gold isn't that powerful in game terms. Assuming you played your way from 3rd to 18th your gold would be about 496,140gp + profession money. This assumes that the character didn't use a single expendable or have to waste money in some fashion. Now, the books themselves might need to be made an exception to the rule in that they cost the experience listed on the item. This would fix an odd abuse that can occur. Currently the write-up of the books state that they are 6,250 gp + 25,500 XP (+5); Which playing around with the coco rule of crafting exp is free. This means that it costs 6,250gp for a +5 to your stat. This is quickly fixed by either stating you must craft books at half their market costs and/or by stating you cannot craft any item with a greater experience cost then would drop you a level. Example: The Manual of Bodily health +5 (6,250 gp + 25,500 XP (+5) ) cannot be crafted by a 18th level wizard. It is physically impossible in a world that requires you level as soon as you have enough experience to Level. They must be crafted by a character of at least 25th level. He is the only character that could possibly have that much experience laying around.
Macbrea 03-07-07, 08:52 AM	Also, note: Casting Wish in CoCo is crazy expensive: There is one exception though: Spells. If a spell has an XP Cost associated with casting it, you have to deduct this amount from your XP aswell as a certain amount of Gold which depends on your ECL and the amount of XP lost which is shown in the following table. For example, if you are ECL 10 and cast a spell with an XP Cost of 100 XP, then you also lose 193 GP in addition (100*1.93). So, an 17th level character casting wish for 5000xp would have to have 35,250gp on hand to cast a single wish. That would be consumed in the casting of the spell. Without that much gold he wouldn't be able to cast it. So, if a wizard is walking into the arena with 705lbs of gold. You can guess he is going to cast wish.
SauroGrenom 03-07-07, 09:31 AM	I have two rules issues that we need to discuss. First is the question of multiple riders on a mount. I've already seen one person using a psycrystal to "ride" the mount while the primary character is just a passenger. This kind of situation raises several rules issues. For example , say they want to spur the mount... who makes the ride check to spur the mount? Can they both spur the mount, what happens if both succeed on the ride check? Does the untyped speed bonus double? What happens with the mounted combat feat? Who makes the ride check to defeat the hit? Can everyone who's "riding" get cover on a ride check? If only one rider is "riding" and the other is a passenger, how do we want to run that with initiative and movement and ride skill uses? Secondly we are now seeing a proliferation of "characters as mounts". We have one currently running around, and it looks like at least two similar characters are expected to arrive on the scene soon. These characters introduce a host of similar rules questions. First we need to decide if characters can be mounts. Assuming that answer is yes, then we need to figure out if characters can be "spurred" or if the mounted combat feat can be used to protect characters from attacks. If we allow those options, then we need to decide what kinds of characters can be "mounts". The DMG says that giants are ill suited to be mounts. Can humanoids be mounts? How about humanoid shaped outsiders (like a hound archon)? Perhaps the limit is that bipedal creatures cannot be mounts? Then what about giant eagles or Giant Owls and Dire Bats or animals like the Destrican? OK What about pseudo-bipedal animals (like the gorilla)? Or should we allow monstrous humanoids (like the gargoyle) to be mounts? How about constructs? Effectively I'm asking, "Where do we draw the line?" If we allow characters to be mounts, we need to define what is suitable to be a mount. Whatever decision is made, the line should be clear and straight. Perhaps a huge list of all allowable mount characters? I say we just kick this whole mess to the curb and simply say that characters can be mounts but cannot be spurred or receive the benefits of mounted combat used by a "rider".
Macbrea 03-07-07, 10:01 AM	Or you could start with a list like the following and prune out the non-acceptable mounts based like any other DM. Blink Dog Centaur Destrachan Deinonychus Elasmosaurus Megaraptor Triceratops Tyrannosaurus Dire Badger Dire Bat Dire Bear Dire Boar Dire Lion Dire Rat Dire Tiger Dire Weasel Dire Wolf Dire Wolverine Black Dragon Blue Dragon Green Dragon Red Dragon White Dragon Brass Dragon Bronze Dragon Copper Dragon Gold Dragon Silver Dragon Dragonne Eagle, Giant Gorgon Griffon Hell Hound Hippogriff Hydra Krenshar Lamia Manticore Nightmare Owl, Giant Pegasus Pseudodragon Razor Boar Shadow Mastiff Shocker Lizard Sphinx Unicorn Winter Wolf Worg Wyvern Yeth Hound Badger Bat Bear, Black Bear, Brown Bear, Polar Bison Boar Camel Cat Cheetah Crocodile Crocodile, Giant Dog Dog, Riding Donkey Eagle Elephant Hawk Horse Hyena Leopard Lion Lizard Lizard, Monitor Mule Owl Pony Pony, War Rat Raven Rhinoceros Tiger Toad Weasel Wolf Wolverine Giant Ant Giant Bee Giant Bombardier Beetle Giant Fire Beetle Giant Stag Beetle Giant Wasp
hogarth 03-07-07, 10:13 AM	Or you could start with a list like the following and prune out the non-acceptable mounts based like any other DM. You'll probably need three categories: normal mount rules apply ill-suited mount rules apply (-5 to Ride checks) cannot be ridden at all
Macbrea 03-07-07, 10:28 AM	I choose to remove all humanoid style and odd style creatures from the list such as Black puddings. I figured pruning the list down the first time would be easy. You will also notice there are some things in that list that are definitely poorly suited to be mounts. IE the toad, he is alittle small for riding. Once, we get a nice easy to use list. From there it's pretty simple. It just takes elder agreement on what items are acceptable. Then editing the Rules of CoCo or Court rulings. Now, I will suggest that there should be two states on mounts. Rider = 1 person in control of mounts direction Passenger = All other people on riders back with no control of the mount This prevents a huge number of abuses, such as putting 20 goblins on Razorfangs back and having them all make ride checks each round to negate hits. Common sense would tell a Dm that cannot happen.
Hirumajoe 03-07-07, 10:28 AM	Ok, being one of the guilty parties, I'll state how I think the rules read, at least to myself. First, if a character is designated as a passenger they are explicitly not in control of the mount and cannot use ride feats/skill uses associated with controlling the mount. When I mean ride skill uses controlling the mount I include spur, jumps, and possible ride for cover (not sure about that last one). Actions not related to controlling the mount, but done by the ride skill include staying in your saddle, soft fall, fast mount/dismount, and so forth. If you could do it on an uncontrolled aggressive mount, I think you should be able to do it as a passanger. In regards to ride feats, remember that nothing is simultaneous in D&D *except* a mount and his rider. Thus, a passenger can never gain the benefits of a spirited charge since his actions *must* occur before or after the charge, never during. Similarly, Ride-by-attack would be unusable by a passanger. Lastly for Mounted Combat to work I would think you need to be in control of your mount, which a passenger is explicitly not. In regards to switching riders, its the same conditions as someone mounting up on an intelligent pegasus. The mount would have to delay his initiative until the new rider's initiative and then both would begin acting as the single unit rider/mount. In regards to characters as mounts. I personally believe rules applied to NPCs should be applied to PCs equally. Thus if an NPC pegasus can be spurred, providing the total rider/mount unit with a 10' speed bonus, why shouldn't a PC pegasus be spurred, providing the entire rider/mount unit with a 10' speed bonus? Why are we giving extra advantages to humanoid PCs with mount allies? In regards to what can be used as a mount, I'd suggest the DMG and common sense as guide. Ok, so maybe common sense isn't such a great guide in D&D, but oh well. If Giants are ill-suited, anything thats generally "human-shaped" should also be ill suited. I would suggest that a house (or perhaps merely a clarification of the PHB and DMG) state that ill-suited mounts like Giants and humanoids cannot be ridden at all, rather than applying the -5 penalty. Since that seems to be the indication in the DMG, yet the ride skill has that clause. As far as a limit on what can be ridden, I would suggest that a mount must have a broad, flat back (or surface) that is horizontal when the mount moves normally. This being a "common sense" argument though. Thus most bipedal creatures won't work. A Giant Eagle or a Bat fly "horizontally" and have their head out front, so I should think they still work. As for "kicking it the curb" and stating that PCs can't be mounts, that doesn't address the question of what can be a mount. Having asked the question, it still needs to be answered. I mean, an NPC Iron Golem mount might be nice against some wizards, especially if you can put up an Anti-magic field around yourself... :D Anyways those are my non-elder two cents.
McJarvis 03-07-07, 11:01 AM	If my opinion means anything, I always thought giants were ill-suited for two reasons. 1) Humanoid shape. 2) Sheer size. I think that we ought to institute maximum mount sizes that characters(or NPCs) can ride. It would be silly to think that a puppeteer(I think I have the name right-> the fine sized psi-creature) could ride a tarrasque. We should be able to refine this even further, perhaps to a "you can not ride anything that is more than two size incriments larger than you". I mean...so long as we're interpreting what an "ill-suited mount" is. Maybe a -5 check for 3 size incriments larger, then any more is impossible?
TelinArtho 03-07-07, 11:12 AM	If my opinion means anything, I always thought giants were ill-suited for two reasons. 1) Humanoid shape. 2) Sheer size. I think that we ought to institute maximum mount sizes that characters(or NPCs) can ride. It would be silly to think that a puppeteer(I think I have the name right-> the fine sized psi-creature) could ride a tarrasque. We should be able to refine this even further, perhaps to a "you can not ride anything that is more than two size incriments larger than you". I mean...so long as we're interpreting what an "ill-suited mount" is. Maybe a -5 check for 3 size incriments larger, then any more is impossible? So no human can ride an elephant? or do you just want to exclude small sized characters from riding huge size (and other similar adjustments)? In either case, I'm opposed to it. With the issues that Sauro has brought up, I have no problem with characters being mounts, and I even have no problem with spurring the character. I am still looking things up and trying to choose my words carefully, so give me a bit to put out my entire statement though.
McJarvis 03-07-07, 11:34 AM	So no human can ride an elephant? Are elephants greater than three size categories larger than humans? /me checks Nope, they're two size incriments larger. (M->L->H, right?) Given what I suggested, they are three size incriments larger than a small creature & this would either be impossible or incur a -5 penalty.
SauroGrenom 03-07-07, 11:35 AM	I feel that I must remind everyone that we aren't in the business of making up new rules from whole cloth. I think we should avoid doing that whenever possible.
McJarvis 03-07-07, 11:37 AM	I feel that I must remind everyone that we aren't in the business of making up new rules from whole cloth. I think we should avoid doing that whenever possible. I'm not making up rules-> I'm just defining exactly what "ill-suited" means. A giant's great size(depending on the giant) could just as easily be why they are ill-suited as their bi-pedal nature.
hogarth 03-07-07, 11:44 AM	If my opinion means anything, I always thought giants were ill-suited for two reasons. 1) Humanoid shape. 2) Sheer size. I think that we ought to institute maximum mount sizes that characters(or NPCs) can ride. It would be silly to think that a puppeteer(I think I have the name right-> the fine sized psi-creature) could ride a tarrasque. We should be able to refine this even further, perhaps to a "you can not ride anything that is more than two size incriments larger than you". I mean...so long as we're interpreting what an "ill-suited mount" is. Maybe a -5 check for 3 size incriments larger, then any more is impossible? I was going to say something along these lines, but McJarvis beat me to it. Here's my personal impression of the three types of categories for prospective mounts. "Normal mounts" includes anything that is ridden in real life (like horses, camels, elephants, etc.), plus monsters which mention being a mount in their description (like griffons, pegasi, etc.), plus maybe some standard "fantasy" mounts (like wolves, dragons, etc.). "Ill-suited mounts" includes a variety of creatures that are quadrupedal or winged, but aren't commonly heard of as mounts (like bison, dire boars, dire bats, etc.). Also, here I'd include normal mounts which are three sizes larger than the rider (like a halfling riding an elephant or a human riding a roc -- it could be done, but it would be more difficult than usual to guide such an enormous beast). "Not mounts" includes things that don't pass the sniff test (like a human riding a gelatinous cube, a gnome riding a snake ;), a flea riding a human, or a psicrystal riding a horse). Note that this type of "mount" could still carry a "rider" in some cases (like a half-giant carrying a halfling), but it wouldn't involve using the Ride skill or Mounted Combat feats. Just my $0.02. I feel that I must remind everyone that we aren't in the business of making up new rules from whole cloth. I think we should avoid doing that whenever possible. It's not a matter of making up new rules. The problem is that the existing rule (i.e. that some mounts are "ill-suited") requires interpretation (since "ill-suited" isn't defined).
Hirumajoe 03-07-07, 11:50 AM	I was going to say something along these lines, but McJarvis beat me to it. Here's my personal impression of the three types of categories for prospective mounts. "Normal mounts" includes anything that is ridden in real life (like horses, camels, elephants, etc.), plus monsters which mention being a mount in their description (like griffons, pegasi, etc.), plus maybe some standard "fantasy" mounts (like wolves, dragons, etc.). "Ill-suited mounts" includes a variety of creatures that are quadrupedal or winged, but aren't commonly heard of as mounts (like bison, dire boars, dire bats, etc.). Also, here I'd include normal mounts which are three sizes larger than the rider (like a halfling riding an elephant or a human riding a roc -- it could be done, but it would be more difficult than usual to guide such an enormous beast). "Not mounts" includes things that don't pass the sniff test (like a human riding a gelatinous cube, a gnome riding a snake ;), a flea riding a human, or a psicrystal riding a horse). Note that this type of "mount" could still carry a "rider" in some cases (like a half-giant carrying a halfling), but it wouldn't involve using the Ride skill or Mounted Combat feats. Just my $0.02. The problem is that there is an existing rule (i.e. that some mounts are "ill-suited") that is rather ill-defined. If a horse fit into category one, and category two when the rider is really small how does it also fit into category three? In that case, you're defining the psicrystal as ill-suited to be a rider, which is a different, although quite possibly valid designation. :D I mean, if a psicrystal can use the handle animal skill to direct a horse, why can't it ride it? (Although if you want to say a psicrystal can't ride, I'm not all that attached to the tactic. All quartz does is say go here and attack that. I'll just switch to Reginald's psicrystal's handle animal direction methods... :)) I also agree that the ill-suited statement needs clarification. And which is where most of the slippery slope problems may exist.
hogarth 03-07-07, 11:52 AM	If a horse fit into category one, and category two when someone is really small how does it also fit into category three? Like McJarvis, I suggested "exactly three sizes larger" would make a mount ill-suited. "Four or more sizes large" would be unrideable (but you could easily carry the "rider" in most cases).
TelinArtho 03-07-07, 11:55 AM	Okay, let's get to Sauro's issues. First issue: multiple riders on a mount. I admit this hasn't come up often, but it seems simple enough to declare one person as the rider and all others as the passengers. That said, all people involved are under the same restrictions of the mounted rules - meaning they all act at essentially the same time. A saddle is only designed to hold one person. So anyone who is in addition to the original person needs to make ride checks as if they were riding bareback (-5 penalty). They would need to make checks to "attack with mount," and would still suffer penalties as appropriate for mounted archery, concentration checks for casting spells, etc. The passengers would not be eligible to try to spur, use the mount for cover, nor benefit from spirited charge, ride by attack (so the mount and rider wouldn't get AoO against them, but the passengers would), or even the mounted archery feat. For especially large mounts (hydras, elephants, etc), saddles might be able to hold more passengers - I'm frankly not sure about that. In summary: One of the people riding is designated as the "rider" - he is the one who makes the bulk of the ride checks and the only one who can benefit from the mounted combat chain feats. The others make ride checks as riding bareback (-5 penalty) and still make ride checks to attack, quick dismount, fall, etc. They cannot ride for cover. Everyone acts essentially on the same initiative count and when applicable fire when at the center point of a double move. Second issue: characters as mounts I still don't see this as really an issue, but since it has been brought up, categorizing what is suitable and what is not suitable seems a valid point to get across. I do not have a problem with a character being "spurred" nor do I have a problem with a character having his rider use mounted combat to negate a hit. In terms of rules on specifying suitable vs unsuitable, I would probably blanketly apply that quadrupeds (or mounts with more than 3 legs) would be "suitable," mounts with wings would be "suitable," and mounts with swim speeds would be "suitable while in water." Everything else I would blanketly apply as unsuitable. That's how I would adjudicate it.
MindWandererB 03-07-07, 12:02 PM	I have two rules issues that we need to discuss. First is the question of multiple riders on a mount. I've already seen one person using a psycrystal to "ride" the mount while the primary character is just a passenger. This kind of situation raises several rules issues. For example , say they want to spur the mount... who makes the ride check to spur the mount? Can they both spur the mount, what happens if both succeed on the ride check? Does the untyped speed bonus double? What happens with the mounted combat feat? Who makes the ride check to defeat the hit? Can everyone who's "riding" get cover on a ride check? If only one rider is "riding" and the other is a passenger, how do we want to run that with initiative and movement and ride skill uses?As one of the Elders who first ruled on this, I stand by my opinion (which is also Hirumajoe's). You designate a rider, and only that creature gets to make Ride checks, except for things like fast mount and soft fall. You can re-designate a rider as a free action, but you have to delay so that the mount's initiative doesn't change. Since the passenger doesn't act at the same time as the rider/mount, it can't benefit from a charge, but it also can't make a full melee attack if it was carried more than 5', and would have to make Concentration checks for being on a moving mount as if they had acted simultaneously. Secondly we are now seeing a proliferation of "characters as mounts". We have one currently running around, and it looks like at least two similar characters are expected to arrive on the scene soon. These characters introduce a host of similar rules questions. First we need to decide if characters can be mounts. Assuming that answer is yes, then we need to figure out if characters can be "spurred" or if the mounted combat feat can be used to protect characters from attacks.Based on the RotG, it seems like this is a lot like the above situation, except that the mount itself is always in control, so it has no "rider," only a passenger. A strict reading of this would mean that a character riding a centaur cannot benefit from Spirited Charge, etc. at all. If we allow those options, then we need to decide what kinds of characters can be "mounts". The DMG says that giants are ill suited to be mounts. Can humanoids be mounts? How about humanoid shaped outsiders (like a hound archon)? Perhaps the limit is that bipedal creatures cannot be mounts? Then what about giant eagles or Giant Owls and Dire Bats or animals like the Destrican? OK What about pseudo-bipedal animals (like the gorilla)? Or should we allow monstrous humanoids (like the gargoyle) to be mounts? How about constructs?The choices here are to create a list, or to have a general ruling and permit items case-by-case. I think an exhaustive list would be a pain in the butt, but if folks wanted to do it, go ahead. In general, I would be in favor of banning only true bipeds (apes would be allowed) and mounts that would specifically be unwilling (like centaurs).I say we just kick this whole mess to the curb and simply say that characters can be mounts but cannot be spurred or receive the benefits of mounted combat used by a "rider".Which is what I'm saying, but with a justification. :)
Macbrea 03-07-07, 12:14 PM	It is obvious some creature are meant to be mounts. Example: If you read Goblin. They are meant to ride Worgs. Goblin reads: Goblins have a +4 racial bonus on Move Silently and Ride checks. Goblin cavalry (mounted on worgs) usually select the Mounted Combat feat in place of the Alertness feat, which reduces their Spot and Listen check modifiers from +3 to +1. Which seems to indicate the Worg benefits from Mounted Combat feat taken by the goblin rider. Otherwise it would be stupid to even write the creature up in such a fashion.
McJarvis 03-07-07, 12:27 PM	Otherwise it would be stupid to even write the creature up in such a fashion. Rule #1 of Eldering: Never point at the monster manual and say "WoTC would have to be STUPID to put that in there...." it just doesn't help your case. We already know wotc is dumb ;)
Hirumajoe 03-07-07, 01:00 PM	Based on the RotG, it seems like this is a lot like the above situation, except that the mount itself is always in control, so it has no "rider," only a passenger. A strict reading of this would mean that a character riding a centaur cannot benefit from Spirited Charge, etc. at all. Ouch. According to that then: 1) All the pegasus builds with mounted combat don't work (nor can they can cover with the ride skill) 2) Paladin mounts can't benefit from mounted combat feats, nor can the paladin even charge on his special mount 3) Casting a Fox's Cunning spell on your mounted opponent's horse suddenly prevents him from gaining the benefits of his ride skill and feats. I believe the ROTG specifically allows an intelligent mount to be used in the normal unintelligent way however. Intelligent Mounts According to the Dungeon Master's Guide, a mount with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher acts like an NPC ally rather than a mount. Riding such an ally works much like riding an aggressive mount in battle (see Part Two), except that you don't have to make a Ride check to act while riding. (If your mount carries you willingly, the ride is smooth enough so your actions aren't restricted.) You also cannot make a Ride check to control the mount's actions, but you can make a Diplomacy (or possibly a Wild Empathy) check to get the mount to accept your direction. If you do, your mount acts just like a mount trained for combat riding. Even if you cannot (or do not choose to) direct your mount's actions, you still can ride along, making your own initiative roll and possibly delaying until after your mount acts, as noted in Part Two. I honestly read the above bolded parts as saying you can choose to (if you can convince the intelligent mount) treat the intelligent mount as a normal unintelligent one trained for combat. The passenger essentially becomes a rider. In which case you both act on the same initiative at the same time, can benefit from the ride skill and mounted feats that the rider has, and so forth. Otherwise, large portions of what we take for granted and certain seeming valid build types go down the drain.
MindWandererB 03-07-07, 01:00 PM	<points at Matter Agitation and its lack of a [Fire] descriptor> "WoTC would have to be STUPID to put that in there...." (Hey, at least it's not the MM.)
MindWandererB 03-07-07, 01:03 PM	I honestly read the above bolded parts as saying you can choose to (if you can convince the intelligent mount) treat the intelligent mount as a normal unintelligent one trained for combat. The passenger essentially becomes a rider. In which case you both act on the same initiative at the same time, can benefit from the ride skill and mounted feats that the rider has, and so forth. Otherwise, large portions of what we take for granted and certain seeming valid build types go down the drain.Heh... I didn't necessarily say I endorsed that standpoint... just that it would be the natural extension of a strict reading. I think perhaps the cleanest fix would be to say that all passengers act simultaneously with the mount, regardless of intelligence. It contradicts the RotG, but it might be one of those cases like readying an action+5' step where we just have to change the rule to prevent abuse.
MitzaVolchenko 03-07-07, 01:08 PM	Heh... I didn't necessarily say I endorsed that standpoint... just that it would be the natural extension of a strict reading. I think perhaps the cleanest fix would be to say that all passengers act simultaneously with the mount, regardless of intelligence. It contradicts the RotG, but it might be one of those cases like readying an action+5' step where we just have to change the rule to prevent abuse. Silly point, but don't we often end up changing rules to prevent abuse (while ignoring others) and end up creating new abuses? Most ride and combat riding checks are made at any time. Initiative seems to me to be immaterial, since you can make those checks whenever you like and an intelligent creature can allow its passenger/rider to make those checks at will. So it didn't see the incoming arrow, its rider did, it chooses to trust its rider's judgement. Why would my unicorn ever not listen to her cohort when it knees her to get her out of the way of the incoming attack? Rules to being an evil overlord: Trust your trusted lieutenants...that is why they are trusted lieutenants.
MindWandererB 03-07-07, 01:14 PM	Rules to being an evil overlord: Trust your trusted lieutenants...that is why they are trusted lieutenants.As I'm sure Kos said to Vecna....
Hirumajoe 03-07-07, 01:14 PM	Heh... I didn't necessarily say I endorsed that standpoint... just that it would be the natural extension of a strict reading. I think perhaps the cleanest fix would be to say that all passengers act simultaneously with the mount, regardless of intelligence. It contradicts the RotG, but it might be one of those cases like readying an action+5' step where we just have to change the rule to prevent abuse. I gotcha. Trying to prevent the full run on initiative 20 with full attack by passanger on initative 21. It also prevents my silly manifest, run, delay, manifest routine. :) I can understand that. And having it clearly stated in the house rules section would certainly ease my pitlord/tactics issues on that point. However, with the simultaneous passangers case you are allowing passengers to gain the benefits of a mounted charge, since they're charging simultaneously. At which point I must ask, does Spirit Charged work for passengers, since its no longer a clear cut case. @Mitza: Actually, passengers being simultaneous doesn't prevent the intelligent mount from having a rider. I don't think MWB is saying a Centaur couldn't have a rider using their feats (but only one designated rider). What he is trying to prevent is Valen and his psicrystal on their horse doing the full run (psicrystal riding of course) on initative 20, with Valen Sky making a full attack on initiative 21 since he delayed. (Which according to the RoTG article is fine). Which essentially is giving Valen Sky a 300' "charge" distance. For the cost a feat and a few hundred gold. (Admittedly its gets shot out from under him in under 12 seconds flat in most ECL 7 fights, but hey...)
Rauul 03-07-07, 03:16 PM	As I'm sure Kos said to Vecna.... Now now lets not get into D&D mythology.. cause i am fairly certain you don't wanna open that can of worms with all the cleric of Darkness/Magic we have here... Since in D&D there is no god good or neutral that gives those....
False_Keraptis 03-07-07, 04:02 PM	I would Rather Debate about Wands... I think everyone knows where I stand on Wands and the Making of Wands.. and How they cost credits and Dorjes don't... heck you can even buy Augmented Dorjes without credits do to there NOT being a list like there is a wands... Hear, hear!
Guildmaster_LOY 03-07-07, 04:14 PM	RE: Wands I really understand all your points-> Spellcasters are underpowered & really could use that extra boost of not needing credits. Heck, spell casters are so underpowered I would go so far as to say it's unfair that they have to spend credits to buy some kinds of wands, even though there is a pretty good variety of them to choose from in the books credit-free. I'm soooo for removing the credit cost from wands. :rolleyes:
MindWandererB 03-07-07, 04:18 PM	RE: Wands I really understand all your points-> Spellcasters are underpowered & really could use that extra boost of not needing credits. Heck, spell casters are so underpowered I would go so far as to say it's unfair that they have to spend credits to buy some kinds of wands, even though there is a pretty good variety of them to choose from in the books credit-free. I'm soooo for removing the credit cost from wands. :rolleyes: Right. And psions are soooo much weaker than spellcasters that they really deserve the extra boost by having more readily accessible items. :yuck:
McJarvis 03-07-07, 04:21 PM	Right. And psions are soooo much weaker than spellcasters that they really deserve the extra boost by having more readily accessible items. :yuck: The reasoning behind that is that they wouldn't be able to use dorjes at all without credits otherwise. Dorjes used to cost credits-> now they don't because making them cost credits made certain feats require credits, whereas with wands you just get to make other nifty things with credits(on top of what you can already do credit-free)
Tellish_of_Ket 03-07-07, 04:28 PM	I believe it should be fair all the way around. I can see paying credits for "buying" wands not on the list, but if you sacrifice a feat to take "craft wands" i really don't see the reason it requires credits. You have the craft feat, you have the spells, i don't see the problem. Q: Should those who invest in the "Craft Wands" meta-magic feat be exempt from paying credits if they are crafting a wand with a spell in their repetoire? Answer: 1) YES 2) NO ToK
Macbrea 03-07-07, 04:29 PM	The problem with the wand list is it seems to be heavily in favor of the wizard/sorceror list. If you check the 1st level spells alone you will notice that it comes out: 2 Bard 2 Cleric 1 Druid 6 wizard This means everyone but wizards has pay credits for wands related to their spell set.
McJarvis 03-07-07, 04:37 PM	The problem with the wand list is it seems to be heavily in favor of the wizard/sorceror list. If you check the 1st level spells alone you will notice that it comes out: 2 Bard 2 Cleric 1 Druid 6 wizard This means everyone but wizards has pay credits for wands related to their spell set. Though most clerics(as far as I can see) have the magic domain & bards have UMD, so this really just leaves druids out.
False_Keraptis 03-07-07, 05:12 PM	The reasoning behind that is that they wouldn't be able to use dorjes at all without credits otherwise. True, true. Another reasonable fix would be to create a list of dorjes (with CL) that are available without a credit cost.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-07-07, 05:14 PM	True, true. Another reasonable fix would be to create a list of dorjes (with CL) that are available without a credit cost. I don't think that is reasonable. I mean, how and what powers do you chose and what to base the decision on? I think, personally, it's easier to award those with the Craft Wands feat the ability to craft a wand from a spell from their repetoire credit free. Simple and easy. I like that. ToK
Macbrea 03-07-07, 05:17 PM	That druid one was Wand of Cure Light Wounds. So, they aren't going to be doing much with it. :P
False_Keraptis 03-07-07, 05:33 PM	I don't think that is reasonable. I mean, how and what powers do you chose and what to base the decision on? Well, you could look at the list of wands and choose roughly similar powers. Yes, it would be subjective. I just don't like all the little edges psionics gets over magic. Allowing any dorje (all of them expanded for free, I might add) while restricting wands makes no sense. Your solution would make the craft wand feat worth taking, but psionic characters could still buy any dorje they want, with or without a feat. I think both should be treated the same: either allow all spells for wands without credits, or limit the freely available dorjes. The way I look at it, freely available wands make the most sense; like scrolls, it seems obvious that wands are supposed to hold any spell. However, I can understand why people wouldn't want to make wands any more effective than they already are.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-07-07, 05:50 PM	I'm not sure what you're getting at. I know my Magic Item Creation knowledge isn't the greatest but from what i remember you could put your meta-magics into a wand just like other ppl do with dorjes. If you wanted to make an empower/extended wand of Melf's Acid Arrow, you could. Melf's is a 2nd level spell and you can put any spell of 4th or lower. If you also have the metamagic feats to enhance it i don't see the problem with that. A metamagic spell doesn't increase the spell level of the spell, it only occupies a slot of that level. You need heighten spell to actually increase the level of the spell. I could be way off base though, i haven't read the recent FAQ's or RoTG lately in a long time. Just going from memory 2 or 3 years ago. ToK
TelinArtho 03-07-07, 05:51 PM	Enlarge power doesn't cost any extra power points, so using it in a dorje or powerstone is essentially free.
SauroGrenom 03-07-07, 05:59 PM	This whole wands thing is silly. The only question that matters is "What's in the core rules?" We are the Core Coliseum. If it's not in Core, or one of the other approved open source rule books, then we don't allow it unless you use credits for special consideration (with the notable exception of our Diplomacy and HA allies rules). In the SRD there is a table titled "Wands", and that table lists a bunch of wands. In the SRD there is a table titled "Dorjes" and it lists the Power Level and Market Price of dorjes of any power of the appropriate level. That's it. Unless we want to become the House Rule Coliseum, we are stuck with what we have. I'm not convinced by the arguments of fairness. I don't think that wands or dorjes are imbalanced the way we use them. I don't think that anything that's been said on the issue is a convincing argument that there is any kind of problem that needs to be fixed. Psionics doesn't have a decisive advantage over arcane or divine magic. If it did, then we'd see far more psions with the great renown tag by their names. A quick check of the 8 Great Renown Characters in ECL10 shows that only 1 is a full psionic class. Three of Cat's characters have 1 or 2 levels in a psionic class. That doesn't look like there's more success going to psionic characters relative to other character types. In fact I can see that if we open up all sorts of custom wands w/o credits, then we devalue credits even more. That's not a good thing. Please drop this and let's get on to other issues that are currently on the table.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-07-07, 06:04 PM	.....convo moved to Council. ToK
MindWandererB 03-07-07, 06:42 PM	This whole wands thing is silly. The only question that matters is "What's in the core rules?" We are the Core Coliseum. If it's not in Core, or one of the other approved open source rule books, then we don't allow it unless you use credits for special consideration (with the notable exception of our Diplomacy and HA allies rules). In the SRD there is a table titled "Wands", and that table lists a bunch of wands. In the SRD there is a table titled "Dorjes" and it lists the Power Level and Market Price of dorjes of any power of the appropriate level. That's it. Unless we want to become the House Rule Coliseum, we are stuck with what we have.Funny... scrolls are exactly the same as wands. Should we restrict scrolls to only what's on the list, and only at the listed caster level? Hey, look, Alter Self isn't on that list! Do you really want to open that kettle of fish? @ToK: Put me down as a Yes, please.
McJarvis 03-07-07, 07:49 PM	I guess another thought is that the credit cost on wands is almost transparent. If you really want a character with multiple wands, then that character is going to be of high level. Shouldn't you be contributing to the CoCo at that point? :P Thus people's chars who can afford wands should already have the credits-> no power struggle issue. And all that aside-> I think the Elders are supposed to be debating/ruling on rule interpretation, not structuring what costs credits & what doesn't.
MindWandererB 03-07-07, 07:56 PM	Almost true--we should be making board decisions in the Council, not the Courtroom. The Courtroom is for decisions we are empowered to make. @ToK: Move your poll, please. NiQil can't post this kind of decision without Cat's approval.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-07-07, 08:10 PM	Almost true--we should be making board decisions in the Council, not the Courtroom. The Courtroom is for decisions we are empowered to make. @ToK: Move your poll, please. NiQil can't post this kind of decision without Cat's approval. hunh? Which thread should i move it to? Didn't know where to post it i guess. ToK
MindWandererB 03-07-07, 08:27 PM	hunh? Which thread should i move it to? Didn't know where to post it i guess. ToK The Council is for these sorts of discussions.
McJarvis 03-07-07, 08:29 PM	Almost true--we should be making board decisions in the Council, not the Courtroom. hunh? Which thread should i move it to? Didn't know where to post it i guess. ToK The Council is for these sorts of discussions. :rofl:
Rauul 03-07-07, 08:40 PM	Direct from the SRD Creating Wands (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm#creatingWands) To create a magic wand, a character needs a small supply of materials, the most obvious being a baton or the pieces of the wand to be assembled. The cost for the materials is subsumed in the cost for creating the wand—375 gp × the level of the spell × the level of the caster. Wands are always fully charged (50 charges) when created. The creator must have prepared the spell to be stored (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any focuses the spell requires. Fifty of each needed material component are required, one for each charge. If casting the spell would reduce the caster’s XP total, she pays the cost (multiplied by 50) upon beginning the wand in addition to the XP cost for making the wand itself. Likewise, material components are consumed when she begins working, but focuses are not. (A focus used in creating a wand can be reused.) The act of working on the wand triggers the prepared spell, making it unavailable for casting during each day devoted to the wand’s creation. (That is, that spell slot is expended from her currently prepared spells, just as if it had been cast.) Crafting a wand requires one day per each 1,000 gp of the base price. Item Creation Feat Required Craft Wand. you will notice on that page also there is a little chart oh hpw much it costs to make the wand.. and it you go to the Creating Dorjes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/items/creatingPsionicItems.htm#creatingDorjes) There is no table.. again.. so basicly Wands cost credits and Dorjes don't.. :confused: :confused: :confused:
MitzaVolchenko 03-09-07, 11:16 PM	Where does one get their Leadership followers? Does one simply make them up? The rules say that one must quest for one's cohort, but followers are not the same level of effective. I asked this once before and someone (Telin? MWB? Zevox?) said you just get them. As I have a current build under construction that may need them and has an absurd Leadership score, I would kinda like to know where they come from and whether I can just add some of them as pre-existing.
Zevox 03-09-07, 11:21 PM	Where does one get their Leadership followers? Does one simply make them up? The rules say that one must quest for one's cohort, but followers are not the same level of effective. I asked this once before and someone (Telin? MWB? Zevox?) said you just get them. As I have a current build under construction that may need them and has an absurd Leadership score, I would kinda like to know where they come from and whether I can just add some of them as pre-existing. I'd guess you get them from the same quest as your Leadership Cohort. Can't honestly see any reason why not. I don't see them being obtained without a quest - the only allies you can get that way are class ones - but I think it'd be rather silly to require them to be obtained separately from the cohort. I'm not an Elder, of course, so my word ain't law, but thats my 2 coppers. Zevox
MitzaVolchenko 03-09-07, 11:22 PM	I'd guess you get them from the same quest as your Leadership Cohort. Can't honestly see any reason why not. I don't see them being obtained without a quest - the only allies you can get that way are class ones - but I think it'd be rather silly to require them to be obtained separately from the cohort. I'm not an Elder, of course, so my word ain't law, but thats my 2 coppers. Zevox And does one have to quest for them when they are not gained inthe course of play but rather are pre-existing to the character at inception?
Zevox 03-09-07, 11:25 PM	And does one have to quest for them when they are not gained inthe course of play but rather are pre-existing to the character at inception? Like I said, only class allies can be obtained without a quest by our rules. You can't start with handle animal allies at level 3, even if in RP you've raised them from birth. You can't start with a leadership cohort if you start with enough HD to have that feat. It follows that you can't start with leadership followers either. Zevox
NiQil 03-09-07, 11:33 PM	Something that has been bugging me, that I feel needs to be addressed....regarding psicrystals. We need to be uniform in how we treat psicrystals. On the one hand, we treat them as class allies, in that they do not affect fight rewards and do not count against your ally cap. On the other hand, we treat them as monsters, in that they advance differently from things like familiars because they have a monster entry, and we have created a whole plethora of rules defining what they can and cannot do. So I propose that either we dissolve the rules we have made that are posted in the Court Decisions and treat the psicrystal in all ways like a familiar (except in the difference in how they are gained), or, we start having psicrystals count against your MaxCA like any other non-class ally and start affecting players fight rewards. As McJarvis often points out, we should strive for consistancy, and we have rules for psicrystals that directly conflict with others. So...I put it to the other Elders: Which should it be? Should we eliminate the rules in the Court Decisions and treat them as familiars, or should we start having them affect your MaxCA and rewards? Note that I am not asking if we should do something....but rather which of the two we should do. Clearly something must be done to fix this issue.
Zevox 03-09-07, 11:37 PM	Eh, NiQil, you have a slight problem with one of those. Namely, the idea of treating them as part of your max CA. Challenge Rating: Included with master. Yeah. No individual CR for them. Unless we make one up (which would be a complete house rule), they have to be treated as class allies. Zevox
NiQil 03-09-07, 11:41 PM	Eh, NiQil, you have a slight problem with one of those. Namely, the idea of treating them as part of your max CA. Yeah. No individual CR for them. Unless we make one up (which would be a complete house rule), they have to be treated as class allies. Zevox Then that would sort of point to removing the Court Decision rules, wouldn't it? And no, actually, they don't have to be treated like class allies, because the aren't class allies. They are an option. They just present a small enough challenge on their own to not require a CR in it's monster entry. If they were a class ally, they wouldn't require a feat to obtain. But if the Elder's feel that they should be treated as such, I am fine with that. I don't really care which way we rule, because I never use them. But we have contradictory rules, so something needs to change.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-09-07, 11:48 PM	So...I put it to the other Elders: Which should it be? Should we eliminate the rules in the Court Decisions and treat them as familiars, or should we start having them affect your MaxCA and rewards? Note that I am not asking if we should do something....but rather which of the two we should do. Clearly something must be done to fix this issue. I have always believed that was the intent and spirit of the rules. Psicrystals should be treated in the exact same manner as familiars. It's clear the spirit of the rules should be the governing factor. They were meant to be the psionic equivilant, and should be treated as such. ToK
Zevox 03-09-07, 11:53 PM	And no, actually, they don't have to be treated like class allies, because the aren't class allies. I meant they have to be treated as class allies because those are the only type of allies here that don't count against your max CA, which psicrystals can't given their lack of CR. I didn't say they were class allies. Zevox
MitzaVolchenko 03-09-07, 11:56 PM	Like I said, only class allies can be obtained without a quest by our rules. You can't start with handle animal allies at level 3, even if in RP you've raised them from birth. You can't start with a leadership cohort if you start with enough HD to have that feat. It follows that you can't start with leadership followers either. Zevox Problem is that I can't actually find *anything* in any rules here that indicate either of those things. The rules we have in place are for advancing up and gaining said ally. It seems to be a grey area which is akin to being able to train your advanced companion prior to the character entering the arena. The above mentioned HA situation would automatically be a no go due to our rule that handle animal allies must be CR of your ECL-4. That doesn't really apply in this case. It is impossible to have any handle animal ally prior to ECL5. The Leadership question does not seem to have been covered, and I can't find an example of someone starting with the feat in play to use as a precedent. It also appears that none of leadership folks are using straight up followers so I don't have that for a basis of comparison either.
Zevox 03-10-07, 12:04 AM	Problem is that I can't actually find *anything* in any rules here that indicate either of those things. The rules require that you go on quests to obtain those types of allies. You cannot go on quests before starting your career in the arena. Ergo, you cannot have allies that require questing before starting in the arena. Thats how it was explained to me, and it makes sense. A=B, B=C, therefore A=C. Presuming leadership followers require questing for - and as I said, since only class allies don't, its hardly conceivable that these wouldn't - you therefore can't have them before questing for them, and therefore can't have them prior to entering the arena. The above mentioned HA situation would automatically be a no go due to our rule that handle animal allies must be CR of your ECL-4. That doesn't really apply in this case. It is impossible to have any handle animal ally prior to ECL5. Eh, no, it isn't. You can always have CR 1 or lower allies, at any level. Explanation: What does Acr>max(ECL-4,1) mean? If your Allies do not have a LA, then you need to use their CR to calculate your ally limit. Your Ally's CR must be 4 lower than your ECL. This rule does not count for allies of CR 1 or lower. That is meant by Acr>max(ECL-4,1). Zevox
MindWandererB 03-10-07, 02:47 AM	Something that has been bugging me, that I feel needs to be addressed....regarding psicrystals. We need to be uniform in how we treat psicrystals. On the one hand, we treat them as class allies, in that they do not affect fight rewards and do not count against your ally cap. On the other hand, we treat them as monsters, in that they advance differently from things like familiars because they have a monster entry, and we have created a whole plethora of rules defining what they can and cannot do. So I propose that either we dissolve the rules we have made that are posted in the Court Decisions and treat the psicrystal in all ways like a familiar (except in the difference in how they are gained), or, we start having psicrystals count against your MaxCA like any other non-class ally and start affecting players fight rewards. As McJarvis often points out, we should strive for consistancy, and we have rules for psicrystals that directly conflict with others. So...I put it to the other Elders: Which should it be? Should we eliminate the rules in the Court Decisions and treat them as familiars, or should we start having them affect your MaxCA and rewards? Note that I am not asking if we should do something....but rather which of the two we should do. Clearly something must be done to fix this issue.And hell hath frozen over. Yes, please, treat them like familiars. I'm not sure why they were converted from class allies to a feat in 3.5, but it wasn't a big decision on WotC's part--there is no mechanical difference between a feat and a feature in their eyes, other than method of attainment. I would say that for every piece of information that is missing or ambigious about psicrystals, then the relevant rule for familiars applies.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-10-07, 02:58 AM	And hell hath frozen over. Yes, please, treat them like familiars. Make a united petition to Cat to reverse that rule. Assuming it's a CoCo rule and not a clarification. If it's a clarification then the elders can vote on it. I am assuming there has been ample discussion that have taken place to formulate an opinion one way or another? If it's a clarification, a quick vote and edit to include it in the clarification thread can be accomplished before IMT. If it's a CoCo thing, then a PM (plea) should be sent to him with one uniting, unanimous voice to ask it be changed before IMT. ToK
MindWandererB 03-10-07, 03:03 AM	Make a united petition to Cat to reverse that rule. Assuming it's a CoCo rule and not a clarification. If it's a clarification then the elders can vote on it. I am assuming there has been ample discussion that have taken place to formulate an opinion one way or another? If it's a clarification, a quick vote and edit to include it in the clarification thread can be accomplished before IMT. If it's a CoCo thing, then a PM (plea) should be sent to him with one uniting, unanimous voice to ask it be changed before IMT. ToK It's a clarification. Basically, anything in the Court Decisions is NiQil's jurisdiction; anything in the Rules (or Guild Hall) is Cat's. The psicrystal thing is in the former. NiQil knows what he's doing--if it wasn't something the Elders could change, he would have brought it up in the Council thread instead of this one.
TheMagister 03-10-07, 07:35 AM	Hood has no problem with Bob being a familiar-type fellow. It would bring the power-balance in that relationship back where it should be. Hood, to Bob, "And where have you been, hmm?" {Bob buzzes telepathically} Hood, to Bob, "And they don't have messengers at the bar? I was worried sick!" {Bob shoots Hood the ectoplasmic bird and heads back out the door} Hood rushes to the door, near tears, and shouts into the street, "FINE! I HATE YOU!" {bursts into tears} :P
SauroGrenom 03-10-07, 09:49 AM	Something that has been bugging me, that I feel needs to be addressed....regarding psicrystals. We need to be uniform in how we treat psicrystals. On the one hand, we treat them as class allies, in that they do not affect fight rewards and do not count against your ally cap. On the other hand, we treat them as monsters, in that they advance differently from things like familiars because they have a monster entry, and we have created a whole plethora of rules defining what they can and cannot do. So I propose that either we dissolve the rules we have made that are posted in the Court Decisions and treat the psicrystal in all ways like a familiar (except in the difference in how they are gained), or, we start having psicrystals count against your MaxCA like any other non-class ally and start affecting players fight rewards. As McJarvis often points out, we should strive for consistancy, and we have rules for psicrystals that directly conflict with others. So...I put it to the other Elders: Which should it be? Should we eliminate the rules in the Court Decisions and treat them as familiars, or should we start having them affect your MaxCA and rewards? Note that I am not asking if we should do something....but rather which of the two we should do. Clearly something must be done to fix this issue.The issue is that the SRD clearly states that psicrystals have a CR. It's included in the CR of the master character. Psicrystals are effectively CR0 allies. They aren't really class allies. So there isn't any inconsistency in how they are treated. They are simply CR0 monster allies gained as a result of a feat. They are unique in that their skills, HP and saves are not calculated in the typical manner. Instead of being based on HD, these features are based on the master's abilities. That''s it. In all other ways they are just a monster with CR0. I don't see the inconsistency. Infact I think it would be an inconsistency to treat psicrystals in a non-core manner by making up house rules that place additional restrictions on the nature/abilities of this kind of monster. We don't place non-core restrictions on cohorts or leadership followers. Edit: If you want to slap ally penalties on this (which by core rules would be a CR0 ally anyway), then you also need to be consistent and slap ally penalties on improved familiars (which have a monster entry and listed CR).
McJarvis 03-10-07, 10:01 AM	Edit: If you want to slap ally penalties on this (which by core rules would be a CR0 ally anyway), then you also need to be consistent and slap ally penalties on improved familiars (which have a monster entry and listed CR). This is a bad correlation since Improved Familiar specifically broadens what you can choose for an ally from an existing class feature. When choosing a familiar, the creatures listed below are also available to the spellcaster. Psicrystal Affinity, on the other hand, is not a class feature at all. (anyone can obtain one with the right feat choices-> and you yourself have mentioned that it is akin to a weaker version of leadership) As for the CR entry under Psicrystals in the Psionic Monster section: It doesn't say CR: 0. It says CR: Included with Master. This implies that they are not a monster unto themself. (they have no CR, not 0.
SauroGrenom 03-10-07, 10:12 AM	It says CR: Included with Master.Didn't I already say that? This implies that they are not a monster unto themselves.That doesn't follow as a logical conclusion to me, but whatever. Unless you know something I dont, there isn't anything that says having a CR is a requirement for being a monster. Edit: Besides they have a "monster" entry. Cumon, what more does it take to be a monster? The fact is they are a monster of such fantastically weak effect on the battlefield that they have no independent CR. Rather their CR is included with the master's CR. In other words, the CR of this monster is a net 0 because the master surrenders a feat (and all combat prowess associated with that) in exchange for this diminutive ally. The CR of the encounter with the master does not go up or down as a result of having a psicrystal. This little guy has no CR on it's own. Let me ask you this. If you have no cash, how much cash do you have? The answer is zero.
McJarvis 03-10-07, 10:21 AM	Didn't I already say that? Yes, but you seemed to think it meant something regarding how they should be treated for MaxCA(As a CR 0 Ally). It doesn't. That doesn't follow as a logical conclusion to me, but whatever. Unless you know something I dont, there isn't anything that says having a CR is a requirement for being a monster. This is the problem: The Psionic Monster section is obviously poorly written. In the past there have been many Elder decisions made on the idea that the psionics rules are poorly written(Energy Missile, Energy Ball, Matter Agitation come to mind). Another good example is that all astral constructs have more BAB than HD. This is clearly a mistake and should be treated as such. However, for some reason, Psicrystals are treated as infallible & thus like every other monster ever (hd=feats), but at the same time like a class ally. Bad elder decisions kill kittens, make you blind, and cause angels to cry. You don't want angels to cry, do you?
hogarth 03-10-07, 10:33 AM	I think the arguments either way for psicrystals have been hashed out enough times (certainly enough that there's already a court decision on it!). If you guys want to vote again, then do so.
SauroGrenom 03-10-07, 10:42 AM	Bad elder decisions kill kittens, make you blind, and cause angels to cry. You don't want angels to cry, do you?As long as that angle is Ixenthor, yes make him cry. Make him cry a river to drown the whole world. :evillaugh If I do some searching I can probably find the old elder discussion about these issues in the archive somewhere. It's an ancient rule that familiars and improved familiars and class allies and psicrystals are all treated as CR0 for the purposes of our ally calculations. I think this was back in the days of Jindle and Company. Unless we want to treat psicrystals different from all other things, and overthrow old elder rulings, we already have the correct ruling. Besides the crusade against psicrystals is kind of misplaced. Psicrystals are not overpowerd. The feat Psicrystal Affinity is not an overpowered feat (compare it to craft wondrous items). This is just as bad as the wand crusade. As far as I'm concerned, if it ain't broke don't try to fix it. Psicrystals are not broke. They are not more common than leadership cohorts among the Great Renown gladiators. If you wnt to fix something that's broken, then focus your attention on diplomacy allies.
TheMagister 03-10-07, 10:56 AM	Fellows, I can't believe this actually needs clarification, but I'm encountering surprising resistance on an issue which I didn't consider to be arguable. Can a monk make touch attacks as part of a flurry? MindwandererB thinks not, because "touch attack" is not specifically listed in the options under the Flurry of Blows description. Macbrea happens to agree partially with her. EVERYONE ELSE AND THEIR GRANDMOTHER has always allowed monks to flurry to make touch attacks to start a grapple, which is exactly the same thing as flurrying to make touch attacks to deliver a touch spell/power, just without the whole "holding on to the other guy after I touch him" thing. Please chime in. TM
hogarth 03-10-07, 10:59 AM	Fellows, I can't believe this actually needs clarification, but I'm encountering surprising resistance on an issue which I didn't consider to be arguable. Can a monk make touch attacks as part of a flurry? Specifically: "Can a monk use a held touch spell/power as part of a flurry?" Obviously there are some touch attacks which can be part of a flurry (grapple attempts) and some which can't (an unbodied's incorporeal touch attack), so let's clarify what you're asking about.
TheMagister 03-10-07, 11:01 AM	EVERYONE ELSE AND THEIR GRANDMOTHER has always allowed monks to flurry to make touch attacks to start a grapple, which is exactly the same thing as flurrying to make touch attacks to deliver a touch spell/power, just without the whole "holding on to the other guy after I touch him" thing. What's the difference? Edit: nevermind; Macbrea found the answer in the FAQ. Sorry for the fuss.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-10-07, 02:11 PM	What's the difference? Edit: nevermind; Macbrea found the answer in the FAQ. Sorry for the fuss.But, he didn't find the answer. You were looking for TOUCH ATTACKS, and he could regular flurry attacks. You can't flurry touch. ToK
TheMagister 03-10-07, 03:03 PM	Let's take this to the tavern FotW, since I don't think it deserves to be here just yet.
McJarvis 03-10-07, 03:13 PM	Besides the crusade against psicrystals is kind of misplaced. Psicrystals are not overpowerd. Who said I thought they were overpowered? I'm on a "crusade" to make CoCo decisions in spirit with the rules. (and less stupid looking to new-comers) You're apparently the only Elder that not only doesn't want a simpler solution(ie-> one that generates less paperwork//feat selections), but also is in favor of an interpretation that is obviously not what WotC intended. I say this because you are the only person who ever speaks up in support of the previous court ruling.
NiQil 03-10-07, 03:32 PM	Re: Psicrystals I am going to go ahead and tabulate votes here. I also fall to the side of treating them like familiars, as it is clear to me that this was the intent, regardless of the method of acquisition (feat vs summoning). 1) Treat them as familiars 2) Treat them as monsters Elders: 1) NiQil, MindWandererB 2) SauroGrenom The rest: 1) Abyssal Stalker, False_Keraptis, Hirumajoe, hogarth, McJarvis, Rauul, Tellish_of_Ket, TheMagister, Zevox 2)
Tellish_of_Ket 03-10-07, 03:36 PM	I didn't realize i got a vote, but i would vote 1) hands down all the way. Not even a close afterthought for me. ToK
Rauul 03-10-07, 03:38 PM	Well if my vote acually counts... Since it has One little clause in the description... "Share Spells/Powers, Deliver touch attacks" to me that makes them a familiars or Companion (druid/ranger companions and a paladummy warhorse)
Zevox 03-10-07, 03:39 PM	Hey, if you're counting us laymen here, put me down as "treat them as familiars." From where I'm sitting, its about a glaringly obvious as it can get that they're intended to be the psionic version of familiars. I've never agreed with Sauro's reasoning for making the original ruling here, and I still don't. Zevox
NiQil 03-10-07, 03:40 PM	I like to tabulate everyone's votes, so that no one feels like their voice has no weight. Ultimately it will fall to the Elders to make the decision, but everyone should have a chance to chime in. So please, if you have an opinion on the psicrystal issue, speak now or forever hold your peace.
SauroGrenom 03-10-07, 03:46 PM	Hey, if you're counting us laymen here, put me down as "treat them as familiars." From where I'm sitting, its about a glaringly obvious as it can get that they're intended to be the psionic version of familiars. I've never agreed with Sauro's reasoning for making the original ruling here, and I still don't. Zevox FYI I wasn't my ruling to begin with. It was another elder who is now gone, and it was made at a time when I wasn't an elder. However I think the decision was made correctly in the past.
NiQil 03-10-07, 03:50 PM	FYI I wasn't my ruling to begin with. It was another elder who is now gone, and it was made at a time when I wasn't an elder. However I think the decision was made correctly in the past. Luni was the one who pushed it through, with no other opinions voiced from any other Elders at the time. And most of the interaction on the issue was between her and yourself. Not all, but most. That's why it gets attributed to you....you had a very large hand in creating the ruling, and have since been vocal in keeping the ruling. Edit: Also, if memory serves, it was you who originally brought the issue up for her to rule on in the first place, in the old Ask an Elder thread.
Zevox 03-10-07, 03:53 PM	FYI I wasn't my ruling to begin with. It was another elder who is now gone, and it was made at a time when I wasn't an elder. However I think the decision was made correctly in the past. Eh, pardon, but I'm pretty sure my memory on this one is quite good. Luni compiled the research for this ruling, but it was you who picked it up after she vanished and made the actual ruling. Unless my mind is playing tricks on me, that is. Zevox
NiQil 03-10-07, 03:54 PM	Eh, pardon, but I'm pretty sure my memory on this one is quite good. Luni compiled the research for this ruling, but it was you who picked it up after she vanished and made the actual ruling. Unless my mind is playing tricks on me, that is. Zevox See above.
Hirumajoe 03-10-07, 03:58 PM	Psicrystals: I really think they were intended to be familiar-like, not an advancing leadership ally. Although, while we're on the related topic, I was curious why in the court decisions, the only "psionic classes" are the base classes in regards to the level of the abilities of a psicrystal? Given that its a feat and not a class feature, why doesn't levels in something like Warmind increase the abilities of a psicrystal (where as apparently soulknife levels do, when they don't even qualify the character for the feat...) Or am I just misreading the court decisions on this?
hogarth 03-10-07, 03:58 PM	So please, if you have an opinion on the psicrystal issue, speak now or forever hold your peace. I vote for "treat them as familiars" (i.e. no skill points, BAB, or feats gained from hit dice).
Zevox 03-10-07, 03:58 PM	See above. Hm... for some reason, I can't recall Luni actually making a ruling on the matter before she up and vanished. I could've sworn Sauro had to pick it up when he replaced her as Elder. Oh well, I still disagree with all the reasons I've yet heard for the ruling, whoever made it. Zevox
Abyssal Stalker 03-10-07, 04:34 PM	Psicrystals=familiars.
SauroGrenom 03-10-07, 05:48 PM	Luni was the one who pushed it through, with no other opinions voiced from any other Elders at the time. And most of the interaction on the issue was between her and yourself. Not all, but most. That's why it gets attributed to you....you had a very large hand in creating the ruling, and have since been vocal in keeping the ruling. Edit: Also, if memory serves, it was you who originally brought the issue up for her to rule on in the first place, in the old Ask an Elder thread.That's not how I recall it at all. But I gather from the tone of the things being said that what actually happened matters only as much as what the rules actually say. Clearly what's more important is what people wish the rules said. If this motion is successful, it will be a sad day for CoCo. It won't be the first time that rules are rewritten for the CoCo environment, but it will be the first time that rules are rewritten just because it's a popular thing that most of the people think should be (as opposed to rewriting rules to prevent abuse or maintain balance).
MitzaVolchenko 03-10-07, 06:06 PM	So psicrystals are a feat ally...we gonna make folks quest for them? They aren't a class ally.
NiQil 03-10-07, 06:21 PM	That's not how I recall it at all. But I gather from the tone of the things being said that what actually happened matters only as much as what the rules actually say. Clearly what's more important is what people wish the rules said. If this motion is successful, it will be a sad day for CoCo. It won't be the first time that rules are rewritten for the CoCo environment, but it will be the first time that rules are rewritten just because it's a popular thing that most of the people think should be (as opposed to rewriting rules to prevent abuse or maintain balance). Might I direct your attention to the recent Matter Agitation ruling? I think it is actually a great day for CoCo if this ruling is made, because, as clearly shown, the majority of those who have voiced an opinion agree that psicrystals are meant to be the psi version of familiars, and should be treated as such. In fact, so far, you are the only one who thinks otherwise. So are we all in error, or are you?
False_Keraptis 03-10-07, 06:27 PM	So please, if you have an opinion on the psicrystal issue, speak now or forever hold your peace. Mark me down in the "treat them as familiars" column, please.
Macbrea 03-10-07, 06:36 PM	Ok, I need a ruling on this one. Can a monk make a flurry of blows with melee touch attacks? Holding the Charge If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the discharge of the spell (hold the charge) indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. (If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack.) If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge. Can a monk make disarm, sunder, and trip attacks during her flurry of blows? What about grapple checks? What about bull rushes, overruns, or other special combat Maneuvers? As long as every attack is made with one of the monk’s special weapons (that is, weapons allowed as part of a flurry), the monk can perform any special attack that takes the place of a normal attack. She’s free to disarm, sunder, trip, and grapple to her heart’s content. She couldn’t bull rush or overrun (since those don’t use special monk weapons), nor could she aid another (which requires a standard action) or feint (which requires a move action).
NiQil 03-10-07, 06:44 PM	Ok, I need a ruling on this one. Can a monk make a flurry of blows with melee touch attacks? Holding the Charge If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the discharge of the spell (hold the charge) indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. (If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack.) If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge. The key line is in the second part of your quote...I'll quote it below: As long as every attack is made with one of the monk’s special weapons (that is, weapons allowed as part of a flurry), the monk can perform any special attack that takes the place of a normal attack. I think touch attacks would fall into the category of special attacks. So yes, I would say that monks can flurry touch attacks. HOWEVER, I do not feel that monks can make flurry touch attacks while holding a spell, because when you are holding a spell, you are considered armed, and being armed with a spell is not a special monk weapon that would allow a flurry. So, in summary, yes, a monk can make flurry touch attacks, but no, a monk cannot make flurry touch attacks to deliver a spell as a spell is not a special monk weapon allowed in a flurry.
Macbrea 03-10-07, 06:46 PM	That quote I did was from the spell description of HOLDING A SPELL for touch attacks.
NiQil 03-10-07, 06:56 PM	Yes, I know. What you didn't quote is this: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack So you are armed when holding a charge. Then we add your FAQ quote to it, and we see that a held charge is not a special monk weapon, so is not allowed in a flurry. So yes, monks can use touch attacks in a flurry, but they can't use touch attacks in a flurry to deliver touch spells, because a held charge is not a special monk weapon allowed in a flurry. That's my take, unless someone has something further to bring to light that I have not mentioned here.
SauroGrenom 03-10-07, 07:25 PM	So are we all in error, or are you?Depends on how you define "error". I'm in "error" if and only if that is defined as being in disagreement with the majority despite being in agreement with the rules as written. I feel you all are in error in so far as you are pretending to be interpreting the rules when in fact you are trying to write new ones more in agreement with you opinions. That in my opinion is a heinous perversion of the CoCo philosophy.
SauroGrenom 03-10-07, 07:29 PM	Then we add your FAQ quote to it, and we see that a held charge is not a special monk weapon, so is not allowed in a flurry. So yes, monks can use touch attacks in a flurry, but they can't use touch attacks in a flurry to deliver touch spells, because a held charge is not a special monk weapon allowed in a flurry. I agree. That's the RAW. The only thing I would add is that a monk can use an unarmed strike to deliver a touch spell. And a monk can flurry with unarmed attacks. In such a case the monk must hit his opponent's normal AC (instead of the touch AC).
hogarth 03-10-07, 08:08 PM	I feel you all are in error in so far as you are pretending to be interpreting the rules when in fact you are trying to write new ones more in agreement with you opinions. That in my opinion is a heinous perversion of the CoCo philosophy. The problem is that the rules don't specify one way or the other. So whichever way it is ruled, supporters of the other side are going to see it as a house rule. For instance, according to the monster listing a psicrystal has a BAB of +0, but our current ruling is that a psicrystal has HD*(3/4) BAB. How is that not writing a new rule?
TelinArtho 03-10-07, 08:45 PM	Just to finish off the elders on the psicrystal issue - I am in the same side of the boat as NiQil and MWB - psicrystals are essentially psionic-version familiars.
NiQil 03-10-07, 08:58 PM	Just to finish off the elders on the psicrystal issue - I am in the same side of the boat as NiQil and MWB - psicrystals are essentially psionic-version familiars. And with that...I am going to alter the Court Decisions accordingly. Here is how they are currently listed: Q: How are psicrystals handled in CoCo? A: Psicrystals Abilities are granted by having levels in any Psionic Class (Psion, Psychic Warrior, Soulknife, Wilder). You still have to have Manifester Level 1 to get a Psicrystal. Psionic Prestige Classes do not gain special abilities for their Psicrystals. Use the stat block in the monster section of the XPH or SRD to build a psicrystal, but alter it with the following information. The Hit Dice of a psicrystal is always the same as it's master's HD, and not just Psion/Wilder levels. A psicyrstal's Base Attack Bonus (BAB) is the same as a construct (progressing like a psychic warrior). It has a -17 penalty on grapple checks (-12 size, -5 Str). The skills of a psicrystal are the same as it's owner, plus a minimum of 4 ranks in Listen, Move Silently, Search and Spot (these minimum ranks are in addition to any gained from the owner). Psicrystals do not get skill points of their own. Also, a psicrystal with Self-Proplusion added has a bonus to Climb of +10. All psicrystals start with Alertness as their 1 HD feat. Additional feats may be taken as their master gains levels. Psicrystals can't carry anything unless they have self-propulsion turned on. If self propulsion is activated, it's carrying capacity is 0 - 1.5 lbs (light), 1.6 - 3 lbs (medium), 3.1 - 5 lbs (heavy). Since psicrystals don't have arms (only 2 sets of legs), they cannot carry items to hand to their owner. Magical slots available to a psicrystal include one robe or suit of armor on the body (over a vest, vestment, or shirt), one vest, vestment, or shirt on the torso, one belt around the haunches (over a robe or suit of armor), one pair of bracers or bracelets on the forelegs, one pair of boots or shoes on the forelegs, one pair of boots or shoes on the hindlegs, and one ring on each foreleg between bracers and boots. Here is what I propose to replace it with: Q: How are psicrystals handled in CoCo? A: Psicrystals are viewed as the psionic equivalent to familiars. Psicrystals will follow their own listed rules. However, anytime an issue is ambigious, poorly worded, or not covered in the psicrystal literature, we then fall back on the literature for familiars as the base rules for psicrystals. If the issue is still not covered, then a clarification may be required by Elder decision. I would like feedback (especially from the Elders) on this and if I should add/remove/alter anything.
SauroGrenom 03-10-07, 09:37 PM	The problem is that the rules don't specify one way or the other. So whichever way it is ruled, supporters of the other side are going to see it as a house rule. For instance, according to the monster listing a psicrystal has a BAB of +0, but our current ruling is that a psicrystal has HD*(3/4) BAB. How is that not writing a new rule? Obviously the psicrystal in the monster entry is a psicrystal with 1 HD. It has appropriate stats for 1 HD. Psicrystals of more HD should follow the rules of advanced creatures of greater HD except on the points where the rules specificially state otherwise. But none of that matters. Apparently the SRD can be rewritten by a majority of Elders. What a crock of poo.
SauroGrenom 03-10-07, 09:41 PM	I would like feedback (especially from the Elders) on this and if I should add/remove/alter anything.That's not nearly explicit enough to achieve your aim. You're going to need to write a new monster entry with all your desired edits and simply state that CoCo uses a replacement monster entry. Nothing short of that will accomplish your goal of making a psicrystal into a familiar. The rules are clear and explicit as written in the monster entry. There is no ambiguity in the rules as written. You want to write new rules, so go for it. Write totally new rules, but don't claim that the rules written are ambiguous. What you have as your "clarification" is a total crap shoot. It just requires elder rulings on every point of the monster entry that differs from a familiar or from a typical monster.
sonofzeal 03-10-07, 09:56 PM	Originally Posted by Court Decisions Q: How are psicrystals handled in CoCo? A: Psicrystals are viewed as the psionic equivalent to familiars. Psicrystals will follow their own listed rules. However, anytime an issue is ambigious, poorly worded, or not covered in the psicrystal literature, we then fall back on the literature for familiars as the base rules for psicrystals. If the issue is still not covered, then a clarification may be required by Elder decision. I would like to propose the following: Originally Posted by Court Decisions Q: How are psicrystals handled in CoCo? A: Psicrystals are viewed as the psionic equivalent to familiars. Psicrystals will follow the rules for familiars, except as noted in the appropriate sections of the Psionics SRD. If the issue is still not covered, then a clarification may be required by Elder decision.
hogarth 03-10-07, 09:57 PM	Obviously the psicrystal in the monster entry is a psicrystal with 1 HD. No, it clearly says "Hit Dice: As master’s HD" and "Base Attack: +0". You're just reading into it what you want to see. So how can you blame other people for reading in what they want to see?
NiQil 03-10-07, 09:59 PM	That's not nearly explicit enough to achieve your aim. You're going to need to write a new monster entry with all your desired edits and simply state that CoCo uses a replacement monster entry. Nothing short of that will accomplish your goal of making a psicrystal into a familiar. The rules are clear and explicit as written in the monster entry. There is no ambiguity in the rules as written. You want to write new rules, so go for it. Write totally new rules, but don't claim that the rules written are ambiguous. What you have as your "clarification" is a total crap shoot. It just requires elder rulings on every point of the monster entry that differs from a familiar or from a typical monster. Alright...whether you intend it or not, you are coming across as extremely combative and inflammatory at the moment. You have made it painfully obvious that you don't agree with this ruling. We understand that. However, of all that have spoken, you are the only one who does. Everyone else who voiced an opinion disagreed with you. So in the interest of this forum, I'm going to ask you to do your best to let this one go. You appear to be getting more and more vehement in your posts on this issue, and it's not helping anything.
Rauul 03-10-07, 09:59 PM	That's not nearly explicit enough to achieve your aim. You're going to need to write a new monster entry with all your desired edits and simply state that CoCo uses a replacement monster entry. Nothing short of that will accomplish your goal of making a psicrystal into a familiar. The rules are clear and explicit as written in the monster entry. There is no ambiguity in the rules as written. You want to write new rules, so go for it. Write totally new rules, but don't claim that the rules written are ambiguous. What you have as your "clarification" is a total crap shoot. It just requires elder rulings on every point of the monster entry that differs from a familiar or from a typical monster. So mephits aren't advanceds Familiar, and Quasits and Imps.. ect.. all for the improved Familiar feat? Come on Sauro.. Monsters are Familiar and psicrystals can be Monsters.. just that the ones gained with feats aren't Monsters they are considered Familiar... <start sarcasm> Better yet.. with Sauro's reasoning... why not remove feats all together.. No Improved Familiar, no psi crystals, no crafting wands, just cookie cutter charaters.. unless they spend credits to get the feats... Wee wouldn't that be fun.. <end Sarcasm>
McJarvis 03-10-07, 10:25 PM	No, it clearly says "Hit Dice: As master’s HD" and "Base Attack: +0". You're just reading into it what you want to see. So how can you blame other people for reading in what they want to see? No need to bite off his head The psicrystal described here is that of a 1st-level manifester. No manifesters would have anything but a BAB: 0 at level 1.
hogarth 03-10-07, 10:29 PM	No manifesters would have anything but a BAB: 0 at level 1. A 1st-level war mind would have more than 1 BAB. At any rate, nowhere does it say that it ever gets more than +0 BAB. Or more feats than Alertness. That's a possible extrapolation, but it's only an extrapolation.
McJarvis 03-10-07, 10:31 PM	A 1st-level war mind would have more than 1 BAB. At any rate, nowhere does it say that it ever gets more than +0 BAB. Or more feats than Alertness. That's a possible extrapolation, but it's only an extrapolation. H'm...hadn't thought of it meaning the literal manifester level rather than "a manifester with 1 character level".
SauroGrenom 03-10-07, 10:42 PM	Alright...whether you intend it or not, you are coming across as extremely combative and inflammatory at the moment. You have made it painfully obvious that you don't agree with this ruling. We understand that. However, of all that have spoken, you are the only one who does. Everyone else who voiced an opinion disagreed with you. So in the interest of this forum, I'm going to ask you to do your best to let this one go. You appear to be getting more and more vehement in your posts on this issue, and it's not helping anything. Alright. You hammer this out. Please, juts make sure that it's watertight. I don't want to ever see this again.
SauroGrenom 03-11-07, 12:59 PM	Q: How are psicrystals handled in CoCo? A: Psicrystals are viewed as the psionic equivalent to familiars. Psicrystals will follow the rules for familiars, except as noted in the appropriate sections of the Psionics SRD. If the issue is still not covered, then a clarification may be required by Elder decision. Obviously you all want to nerf psicrystal before the tournament. You guys need to get something more explicit than the above "clarification" in the next few hours and all ECL9 and 10 characters need to be reported to the prison in the next few hours if you want to accomplish your goals on this.
TheMagister 03-11-07, 01:47 PM	I am prepared to fight for this. I can't really believe that it's even up for argument! Even so, here I go. The key line is in the second part of your quote...I'll quote it below: I think touch attacks would fall into the category of special attacks. So yes, I would say that monks can flurry touch attacks. HOWEVER, I do not feel that monks can make flurry touch attacks while holding a spell, because when you are holding a spell, you are considered armed, and being armed with a spell is not a special monk weapon that would allow a flurry. So, in summary, yes, a monk can make flurry touch attacks, but no, a monk cannot make flurry touch attacks to deliver a spell as a spell is not a special monk weapon allowed in a flurry. I aim to prove: 1) that a monk whose hand is charged with a spell/power is still armed with her unarmed strike, and can choose to disregard the existence of the spell that currently charges her hand. Definitions: Touch Attack: an attack in which the attacker must connect with an opponent but does not need to penetrate armor. Touch attacks may be either melee or ranged. The target's armor bonus, shield bonus, and natural armor bonus (including any enhancement bonuses to those values) do not apply to AC against a touch attack. Touch Spell: a spell that delivers its effect when the caster touches a target creature or object. Touch spells are delivered to unwilling targets by touch attacks. Unarmed Strike: a successful blow, typically dealing non-lethal damage, from a character attacking without weapons. A monk can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike, but others deal non-lethal damage. Unarmed Attack: a melee attack made with no weapon in hand. Grab: the initial ttack required to start a grapple. To grab a target, the character must make a successful melee touch attack.[/b] <snip> When using flurry of blows a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons (kama, nunchuku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham).<snip> You are considered to be armed even when unarmed -- that is, you do not provoke attacks of opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed. However, you still get an attack of opportunity against any opponent who makes an unarmed attack on you. IN addition, your unarmed strikes can eal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your option. Touch: You must touch a creature or object to affect it.<snip> First Point: Okay. Examples of when a character touches things and provokes an AoO. 1) The touch attack to initiate a grapple. 2) The attack roll to disarm a weapon or item or anything else. 3) Bull Rush. 4) The melee touch attack made at the beginning of a Trip. 5) A character without the Improved Unarmed Strike feat who attempts to attack an opponent while unarmed. Notice that there are ways to accomplish each of the above actions without provoking an AoO. Mostly this is accomplished by taking the appropriate feat (Improved Grapple for #1, Improved Disarm for #2, Improved Unarmed Strike for #5) or by arming the attack (holding the charge of a touch spell for #5). Please remember that a monk is always considered to be armed even when she's unarmed. If she's holding the charge on a touch spell, she does not suddenly " become armed". An unarmed monk can touch an opponent in melee all she wants without provoking an AoO. For example, if a monk with darkvision were fighting a monster in a lightless environment, and she wanted to paint the opponent with glow-in-the-dark paint for her human friends, she could dip her hands in glow in the dark paint and slap the creature repeatedly, "painting" the creature with glow-in-the-dark paint and revealing its location for her friends. She could flurry while she does this. She would not provoke AoOs for her efforts, because she's considered armed even while unarmed. Because she has paint on her hands, is she suddenly unable to touch opponents with her hands because "paint" is not a special monk weapon? No, of course not. The paint doesn't decrease her skills; it exists outside of them. It's incidental. A touch spell is no more a hindrance to a monk's unarmed skill than a coat of paint would be. It's incidental. Second point: it is well known that a straight caster can charge a touch spell and hold the charge, but then elect to deliver the touch spell with an unarmed strike. If he chooses to do so, he provokes an AoO as normal for attacking while unarmed, even though he's holding the charge of a touch spell. Why? He provokes an AoO because he has no skill in fighting unarmed. The existence of the touch spell is ignored in this case because the threat level of the attack depends on the attacker, not the touch spell itself. Otherwise, the caster would always be considered "armed" if he were holding the charge of a touch spell. He can choose to revert back to his previously "unarmed" state. By RAW and logic, the related correlation is true. A monk can choose to revert back to her former state and simply be "armed with her unarmed strike", ignoring the existence of the touch spell. Note: it is worth mentioning that attacking an armed character while unarmed and not provoking attacks of opportunity requires a certain level of skill (quantified by the taking of a feat). Notice that no training is required to attack an armed character with a touch spell. It is so easy that anyone can do it without provoking an AoO. Third and final point: As long as every attack is made with one of the monk’s special weapons (that is, weapons allowed as part of a flurry), the monk can perform any special attack that takes the place of a normal attack. This quotation has been much used in this discussion, but I feel that it hasn't really been read, so to speak (like hearing something and then really hearing it). Niqil has put forth that touch attacks are "special attacks" (and I agree with him). As long as the touch attack is made with a monk's unarmed strike (which qualifies as a special monk weapon), the monk 1) does not provoke an AoO and 2) the monk can flurry with that attack. Q: Where does the charge of a touch spell go? A: Onto the caster's hand. Q: Is a monk's hand considered a special monk weapon? A: Yes. Q: How would a monk make a touch attack? A: She could deliver it with her hands, knees, feet, head, elbows, or whatever part of her body she wishes. Monks are highly trained in fighting unarmed. Q: If a monk is a caster, and charges her hand with a touch spell, does she suddenly forget how to make a skillful touch attack with that hand? A: Yep. Wait. WHAT? Obviously not. Please reconsider. I would also like to say that MWB's opinion is strongly appreciated in the discussion. However, if an elder vote is held, I would like to request that he abstain because of his character's involvement with this issue this fight week. Thanks. TM
MindWandererB 03-11-07, 03:37 PM	I am prepared to fight for this. I can't really believe that it's even up for argument! Even so, here I go. I aim to prove: 1) that a monk whose hand is charged with a spell/power is still armed with her unarmed strike, and can choose to disregard the existence of the spell that currently charges her hand. Definitions: First Point: Okay. Examples of when a character touches things and provokes an AoO. 1) The touch attack to initiate a grapple. 2) The attack roll to disarm a weapon or item or anything else. 3) Bull Rush. 4) The melee touch attack made at the beginning of a Trip. 5) A character without the Improved Unarmed Strike feat who attempts to attack an opponent while unarmed. Notice that there are ways to accomplish each of the above actions without provoking an AoO. Mostly this is accomplished by taking the appropriate feat (Improved Grapple for #1, Improved Disarm for #2, Improved Unarmed Strike for #5) or by arming the attack (holding the charge of a touch spell for #5). Please remember that a monk is always considered to be armed even when she's unarmed. If she's holding the charge on a touch spell, she does not suddenly " become armed". An unarmed monk can touch an opponent in melee all she wants without provoking an AoO. For example, if a monk with darkvision were fighting a monster in a lightless environment, and she wanted to paint the opponent with glow-in-the-dark paint for her human friends, she could dip her hands in glow in the dark paint and slap the creature repeatedly, "painting" the creature with glow-in-the-dark paint and revealing its location for her friends. She could flurry while she does this. She would not provoke AoOs for her efforts, because she's considered armed even while unarmed. Because she has paint on her hands, is she suddenly unable to touch opponents with her hands because "paint" is not a special monk weapon? No, of course not. The paint doesn't decrease her skills; it exists outside of them. It's incidental. A touch spell is no more a hindrance to a monk's unarmed skill than a coat of paint would be. It's incidental. Second point: it is well known that a straight caster can charge a touch spell and hold the charge, but then elect to deliver the touch spell with an unarmed strike. If he chooses to do so, he provokes an AoO as normal for attacking while unarmed, even though he's holding the charge of a touch spell. Why? He provokes an AoO because he has no skill in fighting unarmed. The existence of the touch spell is ignored in this case because the threat level of the attack depends on the attacker, not the touch spell itself. Otherwise, the caster would always be considered "armed" if he were holding the charge of a touch spell. He can choose to revert back to his previously "unarmed" state. By RAW and logic, the related correlation is true. A monk can choose to revert back to her former state and simply be "armed with her unarmed strike", ignoring the existence of the touch spell. Note: it is worth mentioning that attacking an armed character while unarmed and not provoking attacks of opportunity requires a certain level of skill (quantified by the taking of a feat). Notice that no training is required to attack an armed character with a touch spell. It is so easy that anyone can do it without provoking an AoO. Third and final point: This quotation has been much used in this discussion, but I feel that it hasn't really been read, so to speak (like hearing something and then really hearing it). Niqil has put forth that touch attacks are "special attacks" (and I agree with him). As long as the touch attack is made with a monk's unarmed strike (which qualifies as a special monk weapon), the monk 1) does not provoke an AoO and 2) the monk can flurry with that attack. Q: Where does the charge of a touch spell go? A: Onto the caster's hand. Q: Is a monk's hand considered a special monk weapon? A: Yes. Q: How would a monk make a touch attack? A: She could deliver it with her hands, knees, feet, head, elbows, or whatever part of her body she wishes. Monks are highly trained in fighting unarmed. Q: If a monk is a caster, and charges her hand with a touch spell, does she suddenly forget how to make a skillful touch attack with that hand? A: Yep. Wait. WHAT? Obviously not. Please reconsider. I would also like to say that MWB's opinion is strongly appreciated in the discussion. However, if an elder vote is held, I would like to request that he abstain because of his character's involvement with this issue this fight week. Thanks. TMLet me address the last point first: the fight is apparently done, even though I have other, unrelated problems with it, so my bias in the matter is moot. The issue seems to lie in a portion of the rules we haven't actually covered yet: namely, whether you can discharge a weapon's ability when you use it for a purpose other than an attack for damage. TM's argument makes perfect sense if you allow this. For instance, this would involve a "suite" of the following options: 1) Manifest Dissolving Weapon on a guisarme and use it to trip. The DW is discharged and deals its damage if the touch attack is successful. 2) With a guisarme with the Flaming property, do the same. Since "A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit," the touch attack would do the 1d6 fire damage. 3) You don't actually have to perform a trip attempt or use a trip weapon to accomplish these things--you can just declare the attack as a touch attack that deals no damage. (There is precedent for this in Tome of Battle, BTW.) 4) All of the above would apply to any sort of "rider" effect that does not involve dealing damage. Spell Storing requires damage, but most other abilities do not. Psionic Weapon and Deepcrystal are unclear--they don't say you must deal damage, but it does refer to their effects as "additional damage," which implies it. 5) Optional--this could potentially apply to ranged attacks as well. I really wish I could find the source that says that you can deliver a touch spell with an unarmed/natural attack--it would help to clear things up immensely.
TheMagister 03-11-07, 04:12 PM	I'm sorry, I don't understand what do magical weapons have to do with any of this. My situation has to do with a monk's unarmed strike and its relationship to touch spells and touch attacks (which are a totally different animal than weapon special abilities). I think MWB's last post is a red herring, and is unrelated. Edit: I think that source that you're looking for is in the FAQ, though. I wish I had access to it! Edit2: Thanks Sutro! Something to think about! If you try to touch an opponent with a weapon that isn't normally used for that purpose, you're using it as an improvised weapon and take a -4 penalty to attacks with it.
Sutro 03-11-07, 04:21 PM	Got it for ya, MWB: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#standardCastaSpell Go down to "Touch Spells" and then "Holding the Charge." Here's the applicable portion: Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. (If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack.) If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.
sonofzeal 03-11-07, 04:30 PM	I'm sorry, I don't understand what do magical weapons have to do with any of this. My situation has to do with a monk's unarmed strike and its relationship to touch spells and touch attacks (which are a totally different animal than weapon special abilities). I think MWB's last post is a red herring, and is unrelated. I think I see how it relates. He's saying that any game dynamic, short of an explicit exception, that allows monks to flurry-touch to deliver touch spells, will also allow a whole class of other behaviour that he sees as improper. Whether or not it IS improper is something I'm not sure about, but that's a different question. I for one think he's right - if a monk can do that, then a psiwarrior can use an arrow as a touch attack from 100 feet away to deliver Dissolving Weapon damage. Also, using "Weapon of Energy" as a guideline, it seems fairly obvious to me that the same could be done with Fire/Ice/Shock damage enhancements. Potential cheese - a Grig psiwarrior using rapid shot arrows with multiple energy enhancements on it as touch attacks every round, indefinitelly.
Sutro 03-11-07, 04:42 PM	For my part, I side with TM, and here's why: Flurry of blows is not defined as a special action or a special attack action. It's simply defined as "she may make one extra attack in a round at her highest base attack bonus, but this attack takes a -2 penalty, as does each other attack made that round." Thus, it is simply an extra -normal- unarmed attack. Much different than tripping or such.
TheMagister 03-11-07, 04:48 PM	I think I see how it relates. He's saying that any game dynamic, short of an explicit exception, that allows monks to flurry-touch to deliver touch spells, will also allow a whole class of other behaviour that he sees as improper. Whether or not it IS improper is something I'm not sure about, but that's a different question. I for one think he's right - if a monk can do that, then a psiwarrior can use an arrow as a touch attack from 100 feet away to deliver Dissolving Weapon damage. Also, using "Weapon of Energy" as a guideline, it seems fairly obvious to me that the same could be done with Fire/Ice/Shock damage enhancements. Potential cheese - a Grig psiwarrior using rapid shot arrows with multiple energy enhancements on it as touch attacks every round, indefinitelly. Well, thankfully claw of energy specifies that it doesn't stack with itself. So it could only add an additional +1d6 (energy) to a weapon. Regarding Dissolving Weapon: you've always only needed "a successful attack" to discharge the acid, right? The power specifically says "as dissolving touch, except your weapon is charged with acid until you make a successful attack". Not "successful melee attack" or "successful attack that deals damage". If you choose to make a melee touch attack against your opponent with your greatsword, you take a -4 penalty for using it as an improvised weapon (it's not meant to be a whip) and then you discharge the acid if you successfully touch your victim. You're better off with dissolving touch. As far as using a bow to make ranged touch attacks: that grig would have to be really high level psiwar to do that. By that time, he's an ECL what...10, right? A 3d6 touch attack is pretty penny-ante stuff at that level. Even stacking dissolving weapon on top of it is a lot less intimidating than a wilder's wild-surged energy ray. :)
MindWandererB 03-11-07, 04:57 PM	I'm sorry, I don't understand what do magical weapons have to do with any of this. My situation has to do with a monk's unarmed strike and its relationship to touch spells and touch attacks (which are a totally different animal than weapon special abilities). I think MWB's last post is a red herring, and is unrelated.It's very simple. If a monk can perform a touch attack with an unarmed strike to discharge a carrier effect (like a touch spell), then anyone can perform a touch attack with any weapon to do the same. I'm not saying it's an abuse or improper, I'm just saying that this ruling has ramifications beyond the monk.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-11-07, 05:07 PM	It's very simple. If a monk can perform a touch attack with an unarmed strike to discharge a carrier effect (like a touch spell), then anyone can perform a touch attack with any weapon to do the same. I'm not saying it's an abuse or improper, I'm just saying that this ruling has ramifications beyond the monk. Then I will say it.... Woot...i'm gonna whip out my Quarterstaff +1 frost/thunder/shock/flame. With twt/imp twf, and flurry/greater flurry, i'll be laying the smackdown with touch attacks doing 28d6 per round...WOOT!!!! Bhaha...NOT! No, you simply cannot do what TM or others are suggesting with flurry touch attacks to discharge spells. Plz understand the ramifications of what you are proposing. ToK
TheMagister 03-11-07, 05:15 PM	I just gotta say this: And a single manifestation of Energy Adaptation will completely nullify that 200,000 gp weapon. ;)
Tellish_of_Ket 03-11-07, 05:23 PM	I just gotta say this: And a single manifestation of Energy Adaptation will completely nullify that 200,000 gp weapon. ;) You might be surprised it only costs about 52k. Not very expensive. Cheaper if you are a cleric/monk and can craft it yourself. But i hope i made my point, lol. ToK
TheMagister 03-11-07, 05:31 PM	It's a quarterstaff. You have to enchant both ends as seperate weapons (which makes it hella expensive).
Hirumajoe 03-11-07, 05:32 PM	You might be surprised it only costs about 52k. Not very expensive. Cheaper if you are a cleric/monk and can craft it yourself. But i hope i made my point, lol. ToK Actually, a Cleric can't craft shock, since neither Call Lightning or Lightning bolt are on their class list. Also, thundering only does damage on a critical hit, so you're actually looking at 7 attacks of 3d6 in general, not 4d6. So about 21d6 instead of 28d6. Also, you'd need to be a minimum of a level 11 monk to get the 2 bonus attacks from Flurry to get 7 attacks. So to fit in under ECL 10, at best you'd be getting 5 attacks at 3d6, for 15d6. At an attack of +6+Strength and +1+Strength. Assuming you spent all your money on your weapon, as opposed to see invisibility or flight options. But yeah, 50,000 for the +5 modifiers (5*5*2000 = 50k). On both ends equals 100,000.
sonofzeal 03-11-07, 05:35 PM	As far as using a bow to make ranged touch attacks: that grig would have to be really high level psiwar to do that. By that time, he's an ECL what...10, right? A 3d6 touch attack is pretty penny-ante stuff at that level. Even stacking dissolving weapon on top of it is a lot less intimidating than a wilder's wild-surged energy ray. :) But that's the point, he can do it from level1, he'd just lose the arrow portion of the damage, which is negligable for him anyway. If you can use a touch attack instead of a regular attack as part of a flurry, you can do it as part of a rapidshot. And since Weapon of Energy would work on a touch attack, energy enhancements should too. The only advantage of Fell Shot is it would let the arrow damage count too.
SauroGrenom 03-12-07, 11:50 AM	My position is that a touch attack is a kind of weapon (usually a spell) in all cases except the grapple attempt and trip attempt where the touch attack is part of an attack of a different nature. The Touch Attack weapon is not a monk weapon. This kind of interpretation makes sense in the way that touch attacks do not provoke AoO's and they can be used to threaten an area. If we do anything else, we get rather funny results with creative thinking. For example suppose that "Touch Attack" is a weapon anyone can use. That means that anyone, even if unarmed or not threatening a square with the wielded weapon, will be able to take AoO's with a trip or grapple attempt. All it takes to free up a hand is to remove one from your bow. Now you can grapple or trip anyone in your threatened area even though you have a threatened area when you're not wielding a melee weapon? A touch attack is clearly a melee weapon in the rules, so I guess everyone has a threatened area regardless of what they are wielding. We cannot allow this kind of stuff. It contradicts the rules in other places. So to prevent it, I suggest the following. Q: What is a touch attack and how does it interact with attack options like a monk's Flurry of Blows? A: In most cases touch attack is considered a melee weapon that does not require proficiency (usable by any creature). It is not a monk weapon. It cannot be used in a flurry, although touch attacks can be delivered by unarmed strikes which can be used in a flurry (against the target's normal AC not touch AC). In special attack forms like grappling and trip attacks touch attacks are rolled, but they are not considered to be weapons (and thus a monk can use these attack forms in a flurry).
TheMagister 03-12-07, 01:02 PM	Sauro, I'm sorry, but that's in direct disagreement with the RAW. An unarmed melee touch attack always provokes an AoO unless either: 1) the toucher has a feat that corresponds to the type of touch attack he's making (e.g. - touch attack to initiate a grapple, touch attack to trip, etc.), or; 2) the toucher is holding the charge to a touch spell/power. An unarmed melee touch attack is a special attack that is made with an unarmed strike. If the toucher's unarmed strike provokes an AoO, then the unarmed melee touch attack provokes an AoO. If the toucher's unarmed strike does NOT provoke an AoO, then the unarmed melee touch attack does not provoke an AoO. This makes the simplest kind of sense, and is backed up with by the RAW that I quoted in both my post and the RAW that was quoted from the SRD concerning "Touch Attacks and Holding the Charge". Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. (If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack.) If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge. Also: Touch Attack: an attack in which the attacker must connect with an opponent but does not need to penetrate armor. Touch attacks may be either melee or ranged. The target's armor bonus, shield bonus, and natural armor bonus (including any enhancement bonuses to those values) do not apply to AC against a touch attack. Unarmed Strike: a successful blow, typically dealing non-lethal damage, from a character attacking without weapons. A monk can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike, but others deal non-lethal damage. Originally Posted by Glossary Unarmed Attack: a melee attack made with no weapon in hand. Grab: the initial ttack required to start a grapple. To grab a target, the character must make a successful melee touch attack.[/b] Improved Unarmed Strike You are considered to be armed even when unarmed -- that is, you do not provoke attacks of opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed. However, you still get an attack of opportunity against any opponent who makes an unarmed attack on you. IN addition, your unarmed strikes can eal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your option. Originally Posted by Magic; Spell Descriptions; Range Touch: You must touch a creature or object to affect it.<snip> Originally Posted by FAQ Flurry of Blows As long as every attack is made with one of the monk’s special weapons (that is, weapons allowed as part of a flurry), the monk can perform any special attack that takes the place of a normal attack.
SauroGrenom 03-12-07, 01:49 PM	So that just makes it clear that a touch attack isn't a weapon at all. Rather a touch attack is a type of attack (like a ranged attack or some similar classification of attacks). Thus you cannot flurry with a touch attack at all. You can only flurry with certain weapons. To try and flurry with touch attacks is like trying to flurry with ranged attacks. Flurry of Blows is executed with a weapon not a classification of attack types. As has been said before, you can flurry with unarmed strikes and deliver a charged spell if you hit the opponent's normal AC instead of the touch AC, but you cannot flurry with the weapon being a charged of a spell. Spells aren't monk weapons. That seams clear enough. Edit: Also we have specific details in the FAQ that say monks can use flurry of blows for additional grapple checks. It's not explicitly stated but implied that grappling is a "monk weapon" and thus the monk can grapple with a flurry of blows.
TheMagister 03-12-07, 01:57 PM	Ah. So an unarmed touch attack is not an unarmed attack is what you're saying. Unarmed Attack: a melee attack made with no weapon in hand. Q: Is an unarmed touch attack an unarmed attack? A: Yep. Q: Can monks flurry unarmed touch attacks? A: Per FAQ on grapple touch attacks, yes. Q: What is a touch attack? an attack in which the attacker must connect with an opponent but does not need to penetrate armor. Touch attacks may be either melee or ranged. The target's armor bonus, shield bonus, and natural armor bonus (including any enhancement bonuses to those values) do not apply to AC against a touch attack. Grab: the initial attack required to start a grapple. To grab a target, the character must make a successful melee touch attack. Q: Is an attack with a touch spell a melee touch attack? A: Yes, unless it's a ranged touch spell.
SauroGrenom 03-12-07, 02:03 PM	What I'm saying is that touch attacks are a classification of attacks. And delivering a touch attack spell is using a specific type of weapon. That weapon is the touch spell. Spells are not monk weapons. Go ahead and deliver unarmed touch attacks all you want. But as soon as you are using a touch attack to deliver a spell, it's no longer unarmed. Now it's an armed touch attack delivering a spell. The spell effectively becomes a weapon in the hand of the attacker, and that's a weapon that monks cannot use to flurry.
hogarth 03-12-07, 02:08 PM	Q: Can monks flurry unarmed touch attacks? A: Per FAQ on grapple touch attacks, yes. Here's the part where I think your reasoning breaks down. Just because a monk can flurry one particular type of touch attack doesn't mean that they can flurry every type of touch attack. E.g. I can kill an animal by swatting it with my hand (namely, a mosquito). An elephant is an animal. Therefore I can kill an elephant by swatting it with my hand.
TheMagister 03-12-07, 02:20 PM	And to both of those posts, all I can reply with its this: What I'm saying is that touch attacks are a classification of attacks. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. (If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack.) If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge. and Flurry of Blows As long as every attack is made with one of the monk’s special weapons (that is, weapons allowed as part of a flurry), the monk can perform any special attack that takes the place of a normal attack. If a spellcaster can choose to ignore the spell and make an unarmed strike, so can a monk. If a monk can make a touch attack without provoking an attack of opportunity, he can do so while his touch attack is holding the charge of a touch spell/power. If the touch attack is made with a monk's unarmed strike, a monk can flurry the touch attack. A=B, B=C, A=C.
SauroGrenom 03-12-07, 02:29 PM	Clearly the special attacks they reference are sundering, tripping, grappling and disarming. Using a touch spell is not a "special attack". If you reference the whole section of the FAQ where that comes from you find it's from a discussion about special maneuvers, and it lists all the special maneuvers. They are not saying that a monk can put any weapon they are not proficient with an use it in a flurry as long as they make special attacks with it. A monk cannot pick up a Guisarme and use it to trip with a flurry of blows. This is an identical situation where you are asking for a monk to hold a weapon (charged touch spell) and use it to make unarmed touch attacks. The first quote specifies that charged spells can be delivered by an unarmed attack using all the normal rules for determining if the unarmed attacks hit (normal AC not touch AC) or cause damage or provoke AoO's. Really it doesn't apply to this discussion at all.
hogarth 03-12-07, 02:34 PM	Flurry of Blows As long as every attack is made with one of the monk’s special weapons (that is, weapons allowed as part of a flurry), the monk can perform any special attack that takes the place of a normal attack. If a spellcaster can choose to ignore the spell and make an unarmed strike, so can a monk. Of course. If a monk can make a touch attack without provoking an attack of opportunity, he can do so while his touch attack is holding the charge of a touch spell/power. A touch attack for what? For a grapple? To start a trip? Not all touch attacks are created equally. If the touch attack is made with a monk's unarmed strike, a monk can flurry the touch attack. Here's the issue, though: Is a touch attack spell a "special attack that takes the place of a normal attack"? If so (as is the case with a grapple attempt), then I agree with you. If it doesn't "take the place of a normal attack", then you're out of luck. One example of a touch attack that doesn't "take the place of a normal attack" is a natural weapon (like a rust monster's antenna attack or an unbodied's incorporeal touch attack); you can't mix those with a normal iterative attack routine. Is the effect from Hammer more like a natural weapon, or like a grab attempt? Beats me, but I don't think it's quite as obvious as you say.
SauroGrenom 03-12-07, 02:37 PM	If a spellcaster can choose to ignore the spell and make an unarmed strike, so can a monk.Yes the monk can ignore the spell and make a normal unarmed strike. I've been saying this all along. The only sacrifice is that you make an attack against the normal AC of the opponent instead of touch AC. If a monk can make a touch attack without provoking an attack of opportunity, he can do so while his touch attack is holding the charge of a touch spell/power.Sure. But he's making a touch attack with what? Is he making a touch attack with his unarmed strike? Is he making a touch attack with a weapon of some kind? If he's making a touch attack to deliver a spell, then he's using a spell as a weapon and he cannot flurry. If the touch attack is made with a monk's unarmed strike, a monk can flurry the touch attack.Yes you can make all the unarmed strike touch attacks you want, but that's not going to deliver the spell. The spell is a different weapon unless you are going to deliver it with an unarmed strike. If you are using a unarmed strike to deliver a charged spell, then you must hit the opponent with the unarmed strike (against normal AC).
TheMagister 03-12-07, 02:39 PM	Yes the monk can ignore the spell and make a normal unarmed strike. I've been saying this all along. The only sacrifice is that you make an attack against the normal AC of the opponent instead of touch AC. Sure. But he's making a touch attack with what? Is he making a touch attack with his unarmed strike? Is he making a touch attack with a weapon of some kind? If he's making a touch attack to deliver a spell, then he's using a spell as a weapon and he cannot flurry. The monk is making a touch attack with his unarmed strike. That's all I've ever been talking about. Yes you can make all the unarmed strike touch attacks you want, but that's not going to deliver the spell. The spell is a different weapon unless you are going to deliver it with an unarmed strike. If you are using a unarmed strike to deliver a charged spell, then you must hit the opponent with the unarmed strike (against normal AC). A: "If the caster touches anything, even unintentionally, the spell discharges." I don't remember where that is, but it's there. Maybe I can find it. Edit: Found it: PHB, pg 140-142 - Touch Spells in Combat It's too long to quote the whole thing. Relevant passages: Since you need only touch your enemy, you make a touch attack instead of a regular attack. Touching an opponent is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The touch spell provides you with a credible threat that the defender is obliged to take into account just as if it were a weapon. <snip> Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks (for touches made with, say, your hand) and ranged touch attacks. Sounds like he's making a special attack that takes the place of a normal attack, hey? Holding the Charge: <snip> If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you are not considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. (If your unarmed attack or natural weapon doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack.)<snip> So a "normal" unarmed attack option is an unarmed touch attack, right? I can flurry an unarmed touch attack to start a grapple; on that we all agree. Even if you insist that a grapple touch attack is different (with all the evidence to the contrary), couldn't I just claim that I hold the charge to a touch spell and then ignore it, and then flurry to start a grapple and intentionally fail the checks to maintain a hold?! What's the difference?! (Note: I'm not angry. I'm insistent.)
SauroGrenom 03-12-07, 02:46 PM	The monk is making a touch attack with his unarmed strike. That's all I've ever been talking about.Touch attacks with an unarmed strike will not deliver the touch spell. As long as you understand that, there isn't a problem. Imagine the monk touches you with his foot, knee and elbow although his left hand crackles with a shocking grasp. The touches delivered with unarmed strikes are pointless and cause no damage nor do they deliver a spell effect. If you want to deliver the touch spell with an unarmed strike you must hit the normal AC of the opponent. If you want to deliver the spell as a touch attack, then you use the spell as a weapon and deliver the touch attack (but you cannot flurry with it). A: "If the caster touches anything, even unintentionally, the spell discharges." I don't remember where that is, but it's there. Maybe I can find it.Doesn't matter for the purposes of combat and delivering an attack to an opponent with an unarmed strike. You quoted the section of the rules above that says: Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. (If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack.) If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge. Clearly the spell doesn't take effect if the unarmed strike misses.
TheMagister 03-12-07, 02:58 PM	I edited my post. Please read the edits. Touch attacks with an unarmed strike will not deliver the touch spell. {Grits teeth} They will if the unarmed strike has been charged with a touch spell...
SauroGrenom 03-12-07, 03:05 PM	The difference is that you are assuming any touch attack made by the character is the same touch attack that has the spell charged up on it. This is not the case. The spell is a separate touch attack weapon different from the others unless you exercise the option to combine it with an unarmed strike (against normal AC). If you were to use flurry and grapple with a touch attack and fail the grapple check it wouldn't discharge the spell. It would be like using your other hand (not holding the spell) or your legs and elbows to put a hold on the opponent. The monks unarmed strike is a different weapon than the spell unless you specifically try to combine them into a single attack where the spell rides on the unarmed strike and is contingent on the unarmed strike hitting in its normal fashion (against normal AC).
SauroGrenom 03-12-07, 03:09 PM	They will if the unarmed strike has been charged with a touch spell...If you hold the charge of a touch spell then you have two options: 1)Use the spell as a touch attack against touch AC. 2)Or use the spell to charge up your unarmed strike with extra umph and apply it against an opponent's normal AC. In option 1, you cannot flurry. In option 2, you can flurry but must hit normal AC.
TheMagister 03-12-07, 03:12 PM	The difference is that you are assuming any touch attack made by the character is the same touch attack that has the spell charged up on it. This is not the case. The spell is a separate touch attack weapon different from the others unless you exercise the option to combine it with an unarmed strike (against normal AC). If you were to use flurry and grapple with a touch attack and fail the grapple check it wouldn't discharge the spell. It would be like using your other hand (not holding the spell) or your legs and elbows to put a hold on the opponent. The monks unarmed strike is a different weapon than the spell unless you specifically try to combine them into a single attack where the spell rides on the unarmed strike and is contingent on the unarmed strike hitting in its normal fashion (against normal AC). Grab: the initial attack required to start a grapple. To grab a target, the character must make a successful melee touch attack. I don't need a successful grapple check to "grab" a target. I just need a successful melee touch attack. If I have a touch spell charged, the act of touching another creature or object "even unintentionally" discharges the spell. TM
hogarth 03-12-07, 03:20 PM	I don't need a successful grapple check to "grab" a target. I just need a successful melee touch attack. If I have a touch spell charged, the act of touching another creature or object "even unintentionally" discharges the spell. I gotta agree with TM on this part -- if a monk is willing to (possibly) provoke attacks of opportunity for grab attempts or trip attempts, that's one kind of touch attack that can definitely be flurried and will trigger the touch spell (possibly unintentionally).
SauroGrenom 03-12-07, 03:20 PM	I don't need a successful grapple check to "grab" a target. I just need a successful melee touch attack.Doesn't matter. This touch attack is not made with the spell. Think of it as a character with two weapons, one in each hand. The secondary weapon is poisoned with Dragon Bile (contact) and the primary has Purple Worm Poison (injury). If the character hits with the primary weapon, he cannot claim that he's made contact with the Dragon Bile and has used that poison as well. These are two separate weapons. The spell is a separate weapon from all the other attacks of the character, unless the character specifically combines them (then he must hit normal AC). If I have a touch spell charged, the act of touching another creature or object "even unintentionally" discharges the spell.Doesn't matter while in combat and using it against an opponent. You can only use a spell against an opponent if you hit their touch AC or deliver it with an unarmed strike against the normal AC. You cannot unintentionally hit an opponent with a touch spell.
SauroGrenom 03-12-07, 03:21 PM	I gotta agree with TM on this part -- if a monk is willing to (possibly) provoke attacks of opportunity for grab attempts or trip attempts, that's one kind of touch attack that can definitely be flurried and will trigger the touch spell (possibly unintentionally).Not even here. Read my above post.
TheMagister 03-12-07, 03:26 PM	Not even here. Read my above post. You're forgetting, "Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. (If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack.) If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge." If I can flurry to grab for a grapple, I can flurry to grab for a grapple "as normal" and have the spell discharge when I touch my opponent. Besides, there is no off-hand for a monk. I can flurry with both legs tied to both arms while wrapped in sailcloth as long as my head's free. As a DM, I'd assign penalties, but I couldn't disallow it.
SauroGrenom 03-12-07, 03:52 PM	I'm not forgetting, you are. The spell is a weapon. You cannot use that weapon while using flurry of blows. The spell is not a monk weapon. Whenever you apply the spell to an unarmed touch attack (different from the unarmed strike option you quote), it becomes an armed touch attack and is no longer a monk weapon viable for a flurry of blows. If you want to apply the spell to an unarmed strike, then you use the rules you just quoted to make a normal unarmed attack (against normal AC). You can flurry all you want, and if you hit the normal AC the spell goes off (as described in your quote.) If you miss with the unarmed attacks, then the charge remains. That's the only way to combine the spell with the same unarmed attacks used in a flurry. As you point out nearly any part of the body of the monk can be used in an unarmed strike, but that does not give you free choice to use the spell in a flurry. Effectively whatever body part holds the charge is an unavailable body part for flurry of blows (unless you use an unarmed attack against normal AC). There are specific rules for delivering a touch attack. There are specific rules for delivering an unarmed strike or using a flurry of blows. There are even specific rules for delivering a touch attack with an unarmed strike or natural weapon. Those rules (as you've quoted time and time again) state that a touch spell can be delivered with an unarmed strike when used against normal AC. You are trying to abuse the language of incidentally discharging a touch spell to put a touch spell on an unarmed strike. If there were no rules specifically describing how this is done, then you'd have your way. But there is that often quoted section of the rules that describes how to combine touch spells and unarmed strikes. This is described in detail, and we cannot ignore those detailed rules. Once again, if you want to discharge a touch spell with an unarmed strike, then you can flurry but you resolve attacks against normal AC. I never mentioned anything about offhand weapons. I'm just making the point that when you hold a touch spell charge, it is one weapon. The monk clearly has other weapons. Just because you attack with the other weapons doesn't mean your touch spell goes off. To use the touch spell you must use it as a spell weapon or use the given detailed rules on how to combine it with an unarmed strike.
TheMagister 03-12-07, 04:12 PM	{throws up hands in disgust} I'm not the one making stuff up. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. (If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack.) If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge. Show me where it says that I HAVE to roll against the normal AC. It makes a point of using the language "unarmed attack and not "unarmed strike". An unarmed strike is made against the target's normal AC. True. An unarmed attack can be an unarmed strike. True. An unarmed strike can be used to make an unarmed touch attack. True (see grapple and grab). Normally, an unarmed touch attack provokes AoOs. True. Monks do not provoke AoOs when attacking while unarmed. True (see Improved Unarmed Strike). A monk can touch an opponent with an unarmed strike instead of dealing lethal or non-lethal damage. True (see Grapple and Grab). A character can choose to make a normal unarmed attack instead of holding the charge. True (as you say, time and time again). A monk can touch an opponent as a normal unarmed attack. TRUE, and even you say so. The existence of the spell is incidental. Its presence does not obviate a monk's abilities. I have more RAW than you do. Show me where a touch spell is its own weapon. I know what you're thinking of...it's this: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke AoOs. The touch spell provides you with a credible threat that the defender is obliged to take into account just as if it were a weapon. A monk already has Improved Unarmed Strike. She provides a credible threat that the defender is obliged to take into account all by her lonesome. The existence or absence of a touch spell doesn't make her any more or less armed. Please note that a touch spell is not its own weapon, it presents a threat "just as if it were a weapon". It doesn't present a threat "because it is a weapon". TM
TelinArtho 03-12-07, 04:17 PM	Okay guys - its time to take a step back. You both are going around and around. Sauro doesn't agree with TM, TM doesn't agree with Sauro. That's fine. TM Is looking for a ruling from the elders and I think there's been enough information presented to get that ruling. I know where I stand - I happen to agree with TM's argument more than Sauro's argument (note that I'm not sure which is actually correct, but I think TM's argument is closer to the spirit of the rules than Sauro's). Sauro obviously doesn't agree. What about MWB and NiQil?
TheMagister 03-12-07, 04:19 PM	Deal. I simply request that voting elders please read all the evidence presented (even though it's pretty long).
Yitzi 03-12-07, 04:54 PM	While that's going on, I have another question, that has relevance for an upcoming fight involving me (and about which I am in disagreement with my opponent): According to the PHB (under the Ride skill), someone using his mount as cover cannot use spells or attack. -Does this also apply to psionics (which just wasn't said because it's in the PHB, pre-psionics), or only magic? -Does it apply to use of scrolls (and powerstones if psionics also apply)? -Does it apply to use of wands (and dorjes if psionics also apply)? -Do touch/ranged touch attacks to deliver a spell count as attacks for this purpose? Thanks. On a related note, do ranged touch attacks count as ranged weapons for the point blank shot feat?
TelinArtho 03-12-07, 05:02 PM	Pretty much the only time you can't use your mount for cover is when you are in the process of using a spell/power/item or making an attack. Bear in mind that you can drop down for cover in reaction to your opponent's attack and then act normally during your own initiative. If you are casting/manifesting or whatever, and your opponent's ready action triggers - you cannot take cover at that point. If you are charging, you can't drop down for cover from a ready action or an AoO. If the ranged touch attack is within 30ft, then yes, PBS would apply as long as the ranged touch deals damage. So - a Scorching ray would get this bonus to hit and damage, but a ray of enfeeblement would only get the bonus to hit (no bonus to damage since it doesn't deal damage).
Tellish_of_Ket 03-12-07, 05:06 PM	I've read all the evidence as well. They simply are not the same. I'm with Sauro. I don't get a vote, but hey...i get an opinion. And i will only disagree with one thing Telin said. I don't agree it's within the spirit of the rules. And that's my specialty. It's rare that i don't see eye to eye with most of the members on something when the spirit of the rule should reign because i'm all about spirit over abuse. And if you're allowed to flurry a basic touch attacks, your opening the door to another Maven. My $0.02. ToK
TheMagister 03-12-07, 05:09 PM	If the ranged touch attack is within 30ft, then yes, PBS would apply as long as the ranged touch deals damage. So - a Scorching ray would get this bonus, but a ray of enfeeblement wouldn't. If I could be so bold, I would like to suggest that the +1 to hit from PBS would apply, but the +1 to damage would not (because a Ray of Enfeeblement does not do damage). TM
TelinArtho 03-12-07, 05:14 PM	If I could be so bold, I would like to suggest that the +1 to hit from PBS would apply, but the +1 to damage would not (because a Ray of Enfeeblement does not do damage). TM Good point and of course that is correct as well. I will edit the above to reflect that.
SauroGrenom 03-12-07, 05:41 PM	Show me where it says that I HAVE to roll against the normal AC. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. (If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack.) If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.It makes a point of using the language "unarmed attack and not "unarmed strike".The only place that "Unarmed Attacks" is defined is the Equipment section of the SRD in the table titled Weapons. It lists two unarmed attacks. The unarmed strike and the gauntlet. An unarmed strike is an unarmed attack. Unarmed attack also includes attacks with a gauntlet. These are the only two kinds of unarmed attacks in the book. They are the only two that apply to the above passage from the SRD. So if your making a normal attack with an unarmed strike or spiked gauntlet, then you resolve that attack against normal AC. An unarmed strike can be used to make an unarmed touch attack. True (see grapple and grab).It makes sense to allow that, but it's not stated by the rules you reference. Rather the rules actually state that a grapple attempt begins with a melee touch attack roll, and the FAQ says that a monk is able to make a grapple attempt for every attack in a flurry of blows. There are subtle distinctions in the language used that do not equate an unarmed strike with a melee touch attack. A monk can touch an opponent with an unarmed strike instead of dealing lethal or non-lethal damage. True (see Grapple and Grab).That's a generalization of the rules from grapple into other areas. This may or may not be valid, but either way it probably doesn't matter. A monk can touch an opponent as a normal unarmed attack. TRUE, and even you say so.Sure it makes sense that if you can hit your foe, you can touch them instead. But no place in the rules does it actually say this is possible. Even if we were to house rule and allow it, such a touch would cause no damage and be pointless unless it's a precursor to an special attack like grapple or trip. Show me where a touch spell is its own weapon.A spell being a weapon is implied but not stated for melee touch spells specifically. Ranged touch spells are weapons, and they apply for feats like weapon focus and psionic shot. The clarification of melee touch spells into weapons is the whole reason that I've taken up this issue. We've nearly ruled this in the past when we allowed familiars and psicrystal w/o a natural attack to deliver touch spells. If we say that melee touch spells are weapons it brings a sense of consistency to previous elder rulings, and it's in agreement with the rules.
TheMagister 03-12-07, 05:57 PM	One more, Telin, and then I promise I'll stop. The only place that "Unarmed Attacks" is defined is the Equipment section of the SRD in the table titled Weapons. It lists two unarmed attacks. The unarmed strike and the gauntlet. An unarmed strike is an unarmed attack. Unarmed attack also includes attacks with a gauntlet. These are the only two kinds of unarmed attacks in the book. They are the only two that apply to the above passage from the SRD. So if your making a normal attack with an unarmed strike or spiked gauntlet, then you resolve that attack against normal AC. That's not true. It is here as well. Give me a moment to see what else applies. Unarmed Attack: a melee attack made with no weapon in hand. Sure it makes sense that if you can hit your foe, you can touch them instead. But no place in the rules does it actually say this is possible. I disagree. If A=B then B=A. If you can touch your foe, you can choose to hit him instead. The reverse MUST be true. It makes sense to allow that, but it's not stated by the rules you reference. Rather the rules actually state that a grapple attempt begins with a melee touch attack roll, and the FAQ says that a monk is able to make a grapple attempt for every attack in a flurry of blows. There are subtle distinctions in the language used that do not equate an unarmed strike with a melee touch attack. It is true that a grapple attempt begins with a successful melee touch attack roll. It also states that a touch spell discharges on either 1) a successful melee touch attack roll, or an 2) accidental touch. There is no difference, subtle, implied, or otherwise, between a melee touch attack to start a grapple and a melee touch attack to discharge a spell. A melee touch attack is exactly what it says it is: Touch Attack: an attack in which the attacker must connect with an opponent but does not need to penetrate armor. Touch attacks may be either melee or ranged. The target's armor bonus, shield bonus, and natural armor bonus (including any enhancement bonuses to those values) do not apply to AC against a touch attack. Okay. I'm finished.
SauroGrenom 03-12-07, 06:07 PM	I disagree. If A=B then B=A. If you can touch your foe, you can choose to hit him instead. The reverse MUST be true.Rather if A contains B, then B does not necessarily contain A. There does not need to be logical equivalence. Besides your glossary definition is far too broad. If any melee attack w/o a weapon is an unarmed strike, and you are correct in that spells do not count as weapons, then these two suppositions imply that all melee touch attack spells should grant an AoO when used by those w/o the improved unarmed strike feat. That's not true, so one or both of the suppositions must be incorrect. Since you like to use logical sequences I'll transpose the above. if A+B=>C and C is false, then A and/or B cannot be true.
TheMagister 03-12-07, 06:27 PM	Sorry, Telin. I'm rarely a liar (I'd say "never", but I'd be lyin'). Rather if A contains B, then B does not necessarily contain A. There does not need to be logical equivalence. Besides your glossary definition is far too broad. It is as specific as it needs to be. What else could it mean? If any melee attack w/o a weapon is an unarmed strike, and you are correct in that spells do not count as weapons, then these two suppositions imply that all melee touch attack spells should grant an AoO when used by those w/o the improved unarmed strike feat. That's not true, so one or both of the suppositions must be incorrect. A touch attack made while holding a charge is treated as an armed attack. Were it not for that specific qualifier, the nonsense in your quote would indeed be true. Since you like to use logical sequences I'll transpose the above. if A+B=>C and C is false, then A and/or B cannot be true. And if C is true, then A and/or B cannot be false. A = an attack made with no weapon in hand is an unarmed attack. + B = monks and those with the IUS feat do not provoke AoOs as normal when making unarmed attacks. + C = Monks can flurry with unarmed strikes. + D = an unarmed melee touch attack can be made with the monk's unarmed strike. + E = a touch spell discharges on a successful unarmed melee touch attack. A touch spell makes this attack be considered as an armed attack. + F = you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. (If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack.) [see B] I'm not smart enough to make a flow chart that can add all that up. But the total is (should be) obvious. Okay. I PROMISE I'm done now.
SauroGrenom 03-12-07, 06:40 PM	Clearly Ranged Touch Attacks (Rays) are weapons for the purposes of feats and modifiers to weapon damage and attack rolls, why not melee touch attacks? The rules don't specificity state that melee touch attacks are weapons, but it's implied in a couple places. Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. However, the act of casting a spell does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack. Your opponent’s AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.Clearly it's an armed attack, and you are armed with what? Obviously you are armed with the spell as the weapon. Not all touch attacks are armed touch attacks, but if you have a touch spell going you are armed, and it's with a weapon of some kind. That weapon is a spell effect. The two kinds of touch (melee and range) spells should be treated the same, in my opinion. Treat them both as weapon in their own right. It allows us to remove previous "clarifications" about familiars and psicrystal delivering touch spells. There are horrible broken implications to allowing a monk to flurry with touch attacks and ignore the weapon in the situation. For example a monk can wield a non-monk guisarme or spiked chain and flurry with trip attempts. Or if you want to say that only spells don't count as weapons for the purpose of flurry of blows, the a Psion Monk could flurry with quickened energy rays or quickened dissolving touch applied on 8 different parts of his body. This is so utterly broken that the more I think about it the more it seems ridiculous to even consider allowing monks to flurry touch spells.
SauroGrenom 03-12-07, 07:03 PM	And if C is true, then A and/or B cannot be false. A = an attack made with no weapon in hand is an unarmed attack. + B = monks and those with the IUS feat do not provoke AoOs as normal when making unarmed attacks. + C = Monks can flurry with unarmed strikes. + D = an unarmed melee touch attack can be made with the monk's unarmed strike. + E = a touch spell discharges on a successful unarmed melee touch attack. A touch spell makes this attack be considered as an armed attack. + F = you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. (If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack.) [see B] D) Is incorrect. There's nothing in the rules that says a monks unarmed strike can deliver an unarmed melee touch attack. If you use an unarmed strike, it does not initiate a grapple or trip. You can replace attacks with grapple attempts, and thereby get a touch attack in place of an unarmed strike even in a flurry. In this case the monk is not making an unarmed strike to begin with. She's replacing an unarmed strike with an unarmed touch attack for the purpose of a grapple or trip. E) Is incorrect. The touch attack to deliver a spell is never an unarmed touch attack. It is always an armed touch attack. It doesn't discharge on unarmed melee touch attacks, because the presence of the charged spell in the first place makes the touch attack an armed touch attack. If you are using an unarmed attack (instead of a touch attack) to deliver the spell, then it's a normal unarmed attack using an unarmed strike or spiked gauntlet and it's resolved against the normal AC of the opponent.
Yitzi 03-12-07, 08:36 PM	Pretty much the only time you can't use your mount for cover is when you are in the process of using a spell/power/item or making an attack. Bear in mind that you can drop down for cover in reaction to your opponent's attack and then act normally during your own initiative. If you are casting/manifesting or whatever, and your opponent's ready action triggers - you cannot take cover at that point. If you are charging, you can't drop down for cover from a ready action or an AoO. And after dropping down, you can get back up as a free action? The language of the PHB "You can't attack or cast spells while using your mount as cover" seems to imply more than just "you can't use this action in the middle of an attack or casting a spell". Plus, a nearly penalty-free +4 to AC whenever riding a mount from Ride check 15 seems a bit excessive to me. On the other hand, it does say "react instantly"-of course, it says the same thing about the Guide with Knees application, which is done at the start of the turn. But overall, whatever the elder's (or elders') final verdict is goes.
McJarvis 03-12-07, 09:04 PM	Q: How are psicrystals handled in CoCo? A: Psicrystals are viewed as the psionic equivalent to familiars. Psicrystals will follow the rules for familiars, except as noted in the appropriate sections of the Psionics SRD. If the issue is still not covered, then a clarification may be required by Elder decision. Obviously you all want to nerf psicrystal before the tournament. You guys need to get something ... if you want to accomplish your goals on this. I find it difficult that you're really this paranoid-> but to each his own. The definition proposed by NiQil is adequate by my standards.
NiQil 03-12-07, 09:06 PM	@ Telin & everyone else regarding the FoB/ touch attack issue: My opinion is what started this discussion, and I have seen nothing here that has changed my mind. My logic is very simple. When holding a touch spell charge, you are considered armed. You can only flurry with unarmed strikes or special monk weapons. Since you are considered armed with a touch spell, you are neither using unarmed strikes nor using special monk weapons, therefore you cannot flurry with a touch spell. I have already stated that I believe that monks can flurry touch attacks....just not touch attacks while holding a charge, because holding the charges cause you to be considered armed for the purposes of attacking. A fine, but distinct difference.
NiQil 03-12-07, 09:07 PM	In point of fact, I am actually holding off on enforcing the psicrystal info until after the IMT so that no current characters that may be entered there have to scramble to make changes. So it will be updated (shortly), but I won't be enforcing any violations on the issue until after the IMT ends....though I may notify people affected that they need to make the necessary changes.
McJarvis 03-12-07, 09:10 PM	@ Telin & everyone else regarding the FoB/ touch attack issue: My opinion is what started this discussion, and I have seen nothing here that has changed my mind. My logic is very simple. When holding a touch spell charge, you are considered armed. You can only flurry with unarmed strikes or special monk weapons. Since you are considered armed with a touch spell, you are neither using unarmed strikes nor using special monk weapons, therefore you cannot flurry with a touch spell. I have already stated that I believe that monks can flurry touch attacks....just not touch attacks while holding a charge, because holding the charges cause you to be considered armed for the purposes of attacking. A fine, but distinct difference. I don't think this distinction is valid. If a monk is holding a quarterstaff two-handed, he could still hit the opponent with his knuckles & deal unarmed damage. Currently being "armed" wouldn't prevent him from slapping his opponent with whatever part of his fists are not covered. (since every inch of his body is actually a weapon) On the topic as a whole: I really have no opinion. At the very least, if the monk has improved grapple he should be able to flurry grapple attempts & just neglect to do anything after the touch attack.
Yitzi 03-12-07, 09:13 PM	@ Telin & everyone else regarding the FoB/ touch attack issue: My opinion is what started this discussion, and I have seen nothing here that has changed my mind. My logic is very simple. When holding a touch spell charge, you are considered armed. You can only flurry with unarmed strikes or special monk weapons. Since you are considered armed with a touch spell, you are neither using unarmed strikes nor using special monk weapons, therefore you cannot flurry with a touch spell. I have already stated that I believe that monks can flurry touch attacks....just not touch attacks while holding a charge, because holding the charges cause you to be considered armed for the purposes of attacking. A fine, but distinct difference. The problem with that logic is that a monk is "considered armed" even when not holding a touch spell-such is one of the effects of improved unarmed strike, which all monks have. Clearly "unarmed strike" for purposes of FoB and "unarmed" for purposes of AoO are two different things.
NiQil 03-12-07, 09:23 PM	@ Yitzi & McJarvis: What you are both forgetting is you can only flurry with unarmed strikes or special monk weapons. In McJarvis' example....he is absolutely correct. If a monk is using a quarterstaff and wants to flurry with it and also kick someone in the head, he can do it, because both unarmed strikes and quarterstaves are monk weapons. But by replacing that quarterstaff with a guisarme cause the monk to no longer be able to flurry with the held weapon because a guisarme is not a special monk weapon. Now replace the guisarme with a held touch spell charge....same rule applies, in my eyes. As to Yitzi's contention...again, you are absolutely correct. A monk is always considered armed due to his IUS. So he can always flurry with it. But as soon as the touch spell charge gets added into the mix, he can no longer flurry, because a touch spell charge is not a special monk weapon. No one is disputing that when a monk has a held charge, that he is still armed with his unarmed strikes. What is in dispute is whether the touch spell still qualifies as an unarmed strike, or if it qualifies as a weapon. I feel that it qualifies as a weapon. And since that weapon is not a special monk weapon, it is not allowed in a flurry.
McJarvis 03-12-07, 09:30 PM	What you are both forgetting is you can only flurry with unarmed strikes or special monk weapons. In McJarvis' example....he is absolutely correct. If a monk is using a quarterstaff and wants to flurry with it and also kick someone in the head, he can do it, because both unarmed strikes and quarterstaves are monk weapons. But by replacing that quarterstaff with a guisarme cause the monk to no longer be able to flurry with the held weapon because a guisarme is not a special monk weapon. Now replace the guisarme with a held touch spell charge....same rule applies, in my eyes. Replace it with a Guisarme & he can still flurry with his knuckles while grasping the guisarme.(despite his fingers being tightly around the guisarme itself-> which was the point I was making & accidentally chose a monk weapon to make it with) Put it this way: Either you can flurry with touch attacks or you can't, but if initiating a grapple delivers a touch spell-> then delivering any touch attack delivers a touch spell.
templer10 03-13-07, 08:14 AM	i would appriciate elders and whoever else feels like it to post their opinion about this question about the cost to create dorja's referenced in this reported (and untrue) violation of Lord lorian here. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11751334&postcount=1003)
hogarth 03-13-07, 08:22 AM	the book is 100% clear on this - for every 2! manifester levels you want to increase the power level in you need to increase the power levels by 1 so the conclution is that the example given in the hypertext SRD is wrong or misleading and contradicted by both the official SRD and the book itself which we know is more official. The wording in the Hypertext SRD is the same wording as in the official errata (zipped PDF file here (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/ExpPsiHdbk_Errata02062006.zip)) -- the errata supercedes the normal SRD and the XPH.
templer10 03-13-07, 08:47 AM	The wording in the Hypertext SRD is the same wording as in the official errata (zipped PDF file here (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/ExpPsiHdbk_Errata02062006.zip)) -- the errata supercedes the normal SRD and the XPH. so by your reckoning increasing a dorja's ML by 1 increase it's power level by 1 also?
hogarth 03-13-07, 08:50 AM	so by your reckoning increasing a dorja's ML by 1 increase it's power level by 1 also? I'm open to other interpretations, but that's what it looks like according to a literal reading of the rules. I'd be delighted to be proven wrong, though. If an augmentable power is incorporated into a dorje at a higher manifester level than the minimum level required to manifest the power, each discharge of the power from the dorje is augmented to the limit of that higher manifester level. Alternatively, if you want to have a higher manifester level in the dorje, you must pay for the dorje as if the power was one level higher for each additional two manifester levels you want. For example, energy missile is a 2nd-level kineticist power with a minimum manifester level of 3rd. If you wanted to make a dorje of energy missile with a manifester level of 8th (five higher than the minimum), you would pay for the creation of the dorje as if energy missile was a 5th-level power.
templer10 03-13-07, 09:03 AM	I'm open to other interpretations, but that's what it looks like according to a literal reading of the rules. I'd be delighted to be proven wrong, though. the problm is- first the example spesificly contradicts the text of the description that mention for every 2 manifester levels increased you increase the power level by 1 - the sense behind this rule is probably becuase 99% of augmantable powers that do dmg allow a save and are augmentable to increase it's dmg by 1 D6 for each additionl 1 pps (and 1 manifester level) and to increase it's save DC by 1 for each 2 PPS augmanted (and so you need 2 more manifester levels) for example - mind thrust, energy missile, energy push, energy stun, energy bolt, energy burst, and so on and so forth) when you understand that reasoning it makes sense to increase the power level each time the augmentation increase the save DC to offset for the higher DC, but it doesnt make sense to increase the power level and so the cost of the dorja on levels that just increase the dmg and not DC. what do the elders think about this?
Macbrea 03-13-07, 12:00 PM	Why exactly are we using the rule that Dragons cannot wield weapons in CoCo? It was printed in a non-core source, one in which we don't use for CoCo at all.
SauroGrenom 03-13-07, 12:29 PM	Why exactly are we using the rule that Dragons cannot wield weapons in CoCo? It was printed in a non-core source, one in which we don't use for CoCo at all.We had a long discussion and made a ruling. Honestly I don't care one way or the other, but a majority of elders decided it. If I recall correctly the discussion started with the question of whether a dragon's claws are suitable to use a bow (sharp claws and bow strings). We also talked a lot about the range of motion that a dragon could have with it's limbs. A dragon's limbs and their range of motion is more similar to a dog's leg-paw than to a human arm-hand. The non-core source was mentioned, and it was adopted as a reasonable compromise. Besides this isn't the first time we've looked to non-core sources to adjudicate gray areas in the rules or add in new content. The BoVD has a rule in it about undead mounts (-2 on ride checks) that we use. Also BoVD has more playable undead races that we have incorporated into CoCo. Those are two example off the top of my head where we use non-core sources to augment or clarify things in CoCo.
Rauul 03-13-07, 12:52 PM	Question for you Elders... Questlords - Treasure (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6467294#post6467294).. Can a Specialized necromancer with the proper Spells, keep the corpses gained on a quest outside the Nimbus as treasure.. to be animated Example. next week i will be doing either a Miniquest, or Most likely a full quest for my Necromancers leadership Cohort, can he by taking the option of doing the quest outside the Nimbus, keep the corpses of monsters he encounters as treasure.. and if so what would the GP cost be deducted from the Quest..
SauroGrenom 03-13-07, 12:58 PM	Question for you Elders... Questlords - Treasure (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6467294#post6467294).. Can a Specialized necromancer with the proper Spells, keep the corpses gained on a quest outside the Nimbus as treasure.. to be animated Example. next week i will be doing either a Miniquest, or Most likely a full quest for my Necromancers leadership Cohort, can he by taking the option of doing the quest outside the Nimbus, keep the corpses of monsters he encounters as treasure.. and if so what would the GP cost be deducted from the Quest..No. A quest has only one quest goal. Your quest goal appears to be gathering a cohort. Another quest is required to gather the animated dead allies.
Rauul 03-13-07, 01:11 PM	No. A quest has only one quest goal. Your quest goal appears to be gathering a cohort. Another quest is required to gather the animated dead allies. So then i would do it as a miniquest instead of spending the credits and hoping for a chance to get a corpse to use before my next level... Ok Is there an Undertaker in Gladius that sells corpses.. since i can buy a horse and kill it and animate without a quest.. Will pay Credits for the corpses.. or just take a ton of animated warhorses/mules in the arena till his next level... :)
Tellish_of_Ket 03-13-07, 01:32 PM	So then i would do it as a miniquest instead of spending the credits and hoping for a chance to get a corpse to use before my next level... Ok Is there an Undertaker in Gladius that sells corpses.. since i can buy a horse and kill it and animate without a quest.. Will pay Credits for the corpses.. or just take a ton of animated warhorses/mules in the arena till his next level... :) Donkey would actually be your best choice. It's the cheapest and lowest CR at 1/6th. As Zombies, they would become CR 1/2. That's a nice chunk of mules that can "aid another" for defense or whathaveyou. ToK
TheMagister 03-13-07, 01:34 PM	nevermind
Rauul 03-13-07, 01:48 PM	Donkey would actually be your best choice. It's the cheapest and lowest CR at 1/6th. As Zombies, they would become CR 1/2. That's a nice chunk of mules that can "aid another" for defense or whathaveyou. ToK yea costs more for the black onyx gem then it does for the Mules.. (75 gp gem per mule (they are 3hd)) Mules cost 8gp. with a CR 5 max limit.. thats 10 zombie mules or 5 zombie mules and 5 skeletal mules.. Or Dogs... med sized riding mutts.. a little more expensive, but more movement... Mix them up with Zombies for slam attack, and skeletons for the claw attacks.. (or just to keep them distracted or busy... till the Full blown attack comes) *wonders why Adamantine Horsehoes would cost 3001 gp*
Caterane 03-13-07, 02:33 PM	Can Shillelagh be cast on a Greatclub?
TheMagister 03-13-07, 02:34 PM	They wouldn't allow it for Sdentch... Technical correction: Q: Can shillelagh be cast on a greatclub? A: Yep. Q: Will it benefit from the spell? A: Since it's not a club or a quarterstaff, nope.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-13-07, 02:47 PM	Can Shillelagh be cast on a Greatclub? No it can't. We've gone through this 100 times. ToK
hogarth 03-13-07, 02:59 PM	No it can't. We've gone through this 100 times. You could cast it on a Large/Huge/Gargantuan club, though.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-13-07, 03:01 PM	You could cast it on a Large/Huge/Gargantuan club, though. But you couldn't use it. A medium pc can use a "large club" with a -2 size penalty, and it becomes two-handed. He couldnt' use a "huge" club, because it's too big for his size. A half-giant could however, with the same -2 size penalty. (add expansion and sillelagh, and it's pretty nasty) ToK
Yitzi 03-13-07, 03:30 PM	As to Yitzi's contention...again, you are absolutely correct. A monk is always considered armed due to his IUS. So he can always flurry with it. But as soon as the touch spell charge gets added into the mix, he can no longer flurry, because a touch spell charge is not a special monk weapon. No one is disputing that when a monk has a held charge, that he is still armed with his unarmed strikes. What is in dispute is whether the touch spell still qualifies as an unarmed strike, or if it qualifies as a weapon. I feel that it qualifies as a weapon. And since that weapon is not a special monk weapon, it is not allowed in a flurry. It is very possible it counts seperately, or maybe it also counts as an unarmed strike. I wouldn't know. All I was objecting to was your argument that "When holding a touch spell charge, you are considered armed," which I understood to mean that since you are armed for purposes of AoO when holding a touch spell, it is not considered an "unarmed strike", which clearly does not work, since such logic would deprive any monk with Improved Unarmed Strike (i.e. every standard monk) from using his unarmed strike in a flurry, which is clearly absurd. Perhaps you meant something different with that line, and I misunderstood.
templer10 03-13-07, 05:03 PM	the problm is- first the example spesificly contradicts the text of the description that mention for every 2 manifester levels increased you increase the power level by 1 - the sense behind this rule is probably becuase 99% of augmantable powers that do dmg allow a save and are augmentable to increase it's dmg by 1 D6 for each additionl 1 pps (and 1 manifester level) and to increase it's save DC by 1 for each 2 PPS augmanted (and so you need 2 more manifester levels) for example - mind thrust, energy missile, energy push, energy stun, energy bolt, energy burst, and so on and so forth) when you understand that reasoning it makes sense to increase the power level each time the augmentation increase the save DC to offset for the higher DC, but it doesnt make sense to increase the power level and so the cost of the dorja on levels that just increase the dmg and not DC. what do the elders think about this? could i get some elders ruling about the question when you augment a dorja of a level 1 power - energy ray by only 1 manifester level - to manifester level 2 do the the power level increase from power level 1 to power level 2- there seem to be a contradiction between the first part of the description in the SRD that mention that for every 2 levels you increase the the manifester level you increase the power level by 1 and the example given at the end of the SRD in which a manifester level was increased by 5 and power level by 3.
TheMagister 03-13-07, 05:04 PM	It takes a while, Templar. Not everyone's on every day, or even every 3 or 4 days. Patience my friend. :) I know pairings is coming, but there's really nothing for it but to wait. Poor Rubi is in limbo until I get an official ruling for him.
templer10 03-13-07, 05:08 PM	It takes a while, Templar. Not everyone's on every day, or even every 3 or 4 days. Patience my friend. :) I know pairings is coming, but there's really nothing for it but to wait. Poor Rubi is in limbo until I get an official ruling for him. same here- and i need to know what to do with the item.
hogarth 03-13-07, 05:11 PM	same here- and i need to know what to do with the item. Me too -- Reginald Molehusband and Kilpquabjeg's dorjes may get bumped down a power level.
SauroGrenom 03-13-07, 05:16 PM	Templar, I just don't want to touch that. Generally I like to read the RAW. The RAW is somewhat contradictory on this issue (depending on what assumptions you bring to the table). I don't think that we need to make dorje's more expensive if the ML is increased by 1 and the power cannot be augmented by that. I'd like to split the hair and state that if the ML increase on the dorje is not enough to augment the power, then the power level for the purpose of price is not increased. In other words for this purpose we don't consider a power to be augmentable unless the ML the power is manifest at is sufficient to actually augment the power. So a dorje of force screen ML2 is still considered a 1st level power. But a dorje of expansion ML3 is considered a 2nd level power (because it's augmented).
TelinArtho 03-13-07, 05:17 PM	I think I've said this elsewhere, but I am of the opinion that the wording of the errata is in error. RAW it does seem the power level increases with all augmentable powers even if it is raised by only one ML. Until a ruling comes down though - you should probably plan for it to stay as the way it is written. If you can afford to - sit out with that character until the ruling comes down officially, or simply plan to post a couple of changes in the Training Hall. [EDIT] Sauro's post is a reasonable way to go as well. I can get behind that.
MindWandererB 03-13-07, 05:31 PM	Re: unarmed attacks + touch spells: Actually, NiQil, I started this whole mess with Maya vs. Rubicanti. I still agree with my original standpoint--but I do have to wonder: if you can deliver a touch spell with an unarmed attack, can you do the same with an unarmed attack to trip or grapple? Why/why not? And if not, what happens if you try? Remember that I have no reason to be biased anymore: Maya lost her fight even ruling against TM's interpretation (even though I have entirely unrelated issues with that outcome). Re: dorje augmentation: I just don't understand why they errata'd that. If they wanted us to round up, why didn't they just say that? In instances where the rule and the example are in contradiction, the rule takes precedence. Edit: However, the rules seem pretty strict that dorjes are automaticall augmented to the best of their ML. You cannot buy a dorje that has an increased ML but is not augmented. In fact, if you buy a dorje that has an ML increased by 2, but is not augmented, you still pay as if it were.
TheMagister 03-13-07, 05:48 PM	Well, I seem to have four elder opinions on the "can monks deliver touch attacks with a flurry" question: NO Niqil Sauro YES Telin MAYBE MWB So I lose by split decision? Or do you guys wanna talk about it some more? Or is it enough of a gray area to allow it until/unless it becomes abusive? A monk couldn't flurry with a powerstoring guisarme because he couldn't flurry with a guisarme to begin with. The only reason a monk could flurry a touch attack is because he could flurry his unarmed strike (which is the vehicle by which the touch attack is delivered normally).
Tellish_of_Ket 03-13-07, 05:54 PM	Well, I seem to have four elder opinions on the "can monks deliver touch attacks with a flurry" question: NO Niqil Sauro YES Telin MAYBE MWB So I lose by split decision? Or do you guys wanna talk about it some more? Or is it enough of a gray area to allow it until/unless it becomes abusive? A monk couldn't flurry with a powerstoring guisarme because he couldn't flurry with a guisarme to begin with. The only reason a monk could flurry a touch attack is because he could flurry his unarmed strike (which is the vehicle by which the touch attack is delivered normally). BUT if he is holding on to the guisarme, he could still flurry because unarmed strikes for a monk aren't limited to his hands. He could flurry with any part of his body. You add a touch spell, and suddenly everything changes. It's ONLY his hands and not a monk weapon, because an unarmed monks weapon is his WHOLE body. By your definition a monk could still flurry touch attacks with his feet while holding on to said guisarme. ToK
McJarvis 03-13-07, 05:59 PM	Please note that under the description of touch spells, NOWHERE does it say you deliver the spell with your hands. A monk could ass-punch his opponent in the face & deliver a touch spell in that fashion. The question is really if you can flurry touch attacks. Obviously you can flurry regardless of whether you're holding a touch spell or not.
Zevox 03-13-07, 06:00 PM	In case it matters, my opinion on Dorjes aligns with Sauro's. It seems to me clear that A) the example of Dorjes Hogarth is showing clearly refers to the PL increase in the context of augmenting powers only, and B) simple common sense says that theres no reason to charge someone with a dorje of higher ML but no augmentation extra. The example is obviously poorly worded when it comes to non-augmented, higher ML dorjes, although I must reluctantly agree that it indicates we round up for augmented versions. Zevox
TheMagister 03-13-07, 06:10 PM	BUT if he is holding on to the guisarme, he could still flurry because unarmed strikes for a monk aren't limited to his hands. He could flurry with any part of his body. You add a touch spell, and suddenly everything changes. It's ONLY his hands and not a monk weapon, because an unarmed monks weapon is his WHOLE body. By your definition a monk could still flurry touch attacks with his feet while holding on to said guisarme. ToK In this situation, the monk couldn't flurry a touch attack using the powerstoring (or flaming) guisarme as the vehicle, because monks can't already flurry with a guisarme. And you realize that you just contradicted yourself. "A monk can flurry with any part of his body." "It's ONLY his hands and not a monk weapon, because a monk's weapon is his WHOLE body." A monk's hand is part of his body, even if it has a touch spell on it. And, unless the touch spell description says that it charges your hand specifically (like chill touch, for example), then YES, a monk could deliver touch spells with his feet or his rear-end or his head. A monk could flurry with both hands tied to his feet while wrapped in a sheet as long as he has one appendage left to swing with. As a DM I'd apply some serious circumstance penalties to hit, but I couldn't legally stop him from doing it. TM
Rauul 03-13-07, 06:25 PM	on the Dorjes Augmented powers are Cast at higher levels (expanded, enlarged ect.. are prepared at a higher Level) So basicly as i see it with the "transparency rules" if a ML 2 Dorje is augmented it is Augmented to ML 3-6 depending on the Augmentation used..
TheMagister 03-14-07, 07:02 AM	Clarification needed for Iron Man Tournament: Concealing Amorpha. Is the effect mobile or stationary? Stationary effects specifically state that they are stationary (like Globe of Invulnerability)
templer10 03-14-07, 07:40 AM	on the Dorjes Augmented powers are Cast at higher levels (expanded, enlarged ect.. are prepared at a higher Level) So basicly as i see it with the "transparency rules" if a ML 2 Dorje is augmented it is Augmented to ML 3-6 depending on the Augmentation used.. thats no neceserly true and totally depended on the power involved for example- the power - expansion can be used as a non augmented at ML 3 and normally cost 1 pps then it last 3 rounds or it can be used as augmented at ML3 cost 3 pps and last 30 MINUTES- same ML - big diffrense. some power on the other hand it is almost true- becuase a power like energy ray there is no point almost (exept to overcome PR) to manifest it at ML2 or above without augmenting it. About meta psionic feats- it's a special type of augmentaion which the rules to create psionic items dont mention but common sense will dictate that on metapsionic feats taht increase the cost of a power by a set amount of PPS also incearse the power level by that amount of power level's divided by 2. on another note- enlarge power doesnt cost extra pps and is essentially a free metapsionic feat on dorja's.
Erithmu 03-14-07, 04:49 PM	Question regarding Deep Crystal charging as a free action. It has been discussed that a rapidshot archer can charge each arrow with deep crystal (2pp each). Is there a limit to the number of different weapons a PC could charge in a single round? Ex: TWF dual wielding DC weapons, charging each one before an attack in a full attack? Or more exaggerated: a Xill using multi attack and 4 DC weapons.
Yitzi 03-14-07, 04:54 PM	The way I see it, metapsionic feats are equivalent to metamagic feats, while augmentation is analogous to one of 2 effects that magic gets -magic gets increased damage dice from increased CL, psionics do not get more dice from increased ML unless they pay the extra pp. (They often get an appropriate bonus to DC as well). This is supported by the fact that the spellpoints variant for magic (which works very similarly to psionics, and probably helped inspire it) also forces casters to pay for their extra damage dice, to compensate for the extra versitality. -Since psionics users have so much fewer powers they can know at each level, they get the ability to count an entire "chain" (e.g. charm person, charm monster, etc.) as a single effect, and they augment to give it a more poweful effect, in line with a stronger spell. So augmenting is the equivalent by transparency of either (1) doing 8d6 damage with a CL 8 fireball instead of 5d6 with a CL 5 fireball, or (2) casting charm monster instead of charm person, or something along those lines.
TheMagister 03-14-07, 05:01 PM	You're limited by the amount of free actions that your DM allows. For CoCo purposes, there's no limit to the quantity of deepcrystal weapons you could charge in a round. If you had the pp, you could have a 9th level xill psychic warrior with Multiweapon Fighting and Improved Two Weapon Fighting who gets (let's see here) Primary: +4/-1, and three off hands +4/-1 for a total of eight attacks. He could charge the first round for 8 pp, and (if they all hit) charge the second round for 8 pp. Seems like a poor expenditure/damage ratio, though. TM
Tellish_of_Ket 03-14-07, 05:01 PM	Clarification needed for Iron Man Tournament: Concealing Amorpha. Is the effect mobile or stationary? Stationary effects specifically state that they are stationary (like Globe of Invulnerability) I would not believe it is. It's centered on you...seems reasonable to assume it goes where you go. It's the exact same thing as blur, minus the funky wording. ToK
Erithmu 03-14-07, 05:07 PM	You're limited by the amount of free actions that your DM allows. For CoCo purposes, there's no limit to the quantity of deepcrystal weapons you could charge in a round. If you had the pp, you could have a 9th level xill psychic warrior with Multiweapon Fighting and Improved Two Weapon Fighting who gets (let's see here) Primary: +4/-1, and three off hands +4/-1 for a total of eight attacks. He could charge the first round for 8 pp, and (if they all hit) charge the second round for 8 pp. Seems like a poor expenditure/damage ratio, though. TM Yea ... but I'm not using it for that ... call it a rabbit trail.
MitzaVolchenko 03-15-07, 02:43 PM	Time to clarify traps. Do people with no trapmaking skill get to jsut buy whatever they care tomake up with the trap design rules? Are they limited to whatis actually listed as examples? Is there a credit cost? Blah blah blah. To me this is hitting the realm of custom allies of the purchased variety and should be subject to at least the doubling effect on cost. For this week I am going to runthe customized trap as legal, but these need to be hashed out before Pyschosis runs rampant :P
Rauul 03-15-07, 02:46 PM	Ok Elders.. here goes.. Attack and defend Prebuffs.. Can a Player who has Alternate Allies that can be switched and brought make a Default List. IE if Attacking he brings in (select minions) if he is Defending he brings in (Select alternate minions) This would go for thieves with the trap defense package also, since it seems that they can't use a trap they must have on thier prebuffs if they are attacking but take the Allies penalty for.. And this would go for any player to has Alternate Allies and Associates to make a Attack/Defend prebuff Section Example: (will use my future charater for example) Prefight Actions (Defend) Bring Gravedigger (Familiar) Bring Wagon, Pulled by Moses(Zombie mule), with Bones and Gnaw(skeleton dog x2) rideing in the back Check Spell Components Prefight Actions (Attack) Bring Gravedigger (Familiar) Bring The Reaper (leadership cohort) Check Spell Components
MindWandererB 03-15-07, 02:48 PM	Apparently, Cat just clarified to ToK that this is allowed. This seems to contradict the rules, which could stand to be clarified on this issue anyway.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-15-07, 02:49 PM	Well, he didn't say anything about what Rauul is suggesting. Only with regards to the use of packages.
MindWandererB 03-15-07, 06:30 PM	Well, he didn't say anything about what Rauul is suggesting. Only with regards to the use of packages.But it interacts with packages inextricably. If you say: Prefight Actions (Defend) Bring Gravedigger (Familiar) Set Ginsu trap (CR 1) Check Spell Components Prefight Actions (Attack) Bring Gravedigger (Familiar) Bring light warhorse (CR 1) Check Spell ComponentsThen you're basically in the same boat.
Rauul 03-15-07, 07:15 PM	But it interacts with packages inextricably. If you say: Then you're basically in the same boat. So this would be legal... Prefight Actions Bring Gravedigger (Familiar) Bring Wagon, Pulled by Moses(Zombie mule), with Bones and Gnaw(skeleton dog x2) riding in the back (if attacking) Bring Reaper (leadership cohort) (if Defending) Check Spell Components
Tellish_of_Ket 03-15-07, 07:36 PM	But it interacts with packages inextricably. If you say: Then you're basically in the same boat. With the new rules i've written up, that will be the only exception to the rule. Otherwise, you have a 50/50 chance of even getting to use it, then a 50/50 (or worse) to have it affect ur opponent. I've submitted to Cat a modified and updated trap rules that will exempt traps (as specified from the defenders point of view) to the pre-buffing of allies rules. Because even at the upper echelons, like the IMT, why would you want to spend like 5k-10k on a CR6 trap that has a 25% chance (or less) to affect ur opponent, when you could just as easily bring in an ECL 8 ally every fight for total buttkicking? It makes traps completely unplayable. When pairings are rolled, you see if you are attacker/defender as does your opponent, so it's not like "SURPRISE" i left my trap at home, meet my hungery dinosaur. ToK
Erithmu 03-15-07, 08:46 PM	Ambush + teams + Allies In the case where one team member has ambush who is part of a team or has allies: 1) The ambushing character ONLY gets the surprise round 2) The ambushing character and his/her allies get the surprise round 3) The whole team gets the surprise round.
MitzaVolchenko 03-15-07, 09:24 PM	Ambush + teams + Allies In the case where one team member has ambush who is part of a team or has allies: 1) The ambushing character ONLY gets the surprise round 2) The ambushing character and his/her allies get the surprise round 3) The whole team gets the surprise round. attack/defend packages only work on 1 vs 1 fights.
MindWandererB 03-15-07, 09:54 PM	attack/defend packages only work on 1 vs 1 fights. Hm. Dang it, that seems to be correct.
MitzaVolchenko 03-15-07, 10:04 PM	Hm. Dang it, that seems to be correct. LOL...yeah I am occasionally right.
MindWandererB 03-15-07, 10:27 PM	LOL...yeah I am occasionally right. Sorry, didn't mean to imply anything. I was just acknowledging that Silis doesn't get to use his Ambush package, which would have helped a bit vs. Uhme.
MitzaVolchenko 03-15-07, 10:33 PM	Sorry, didn't mean to imply anything. I was just acknowledging that Silis doesn't get to use his Ambush package, which would have helped a bit vs. Uhme. Wasn't feeling abused...was laughing at myself.
Cerebus13 03-16-07, 10:46 AM	So has there been any official ruling on how Blacklight should be handled? Curious because I'm toying with the idea of resurrecting some old characters, and this would influence what I play a lot.
hogarth 03-16-07, 11:28 AM	So has there been any official ruling on how Blacklight should be handled? Curious because I'm toying with the idea of resurrecting some old characters, and this would influence what I play a lot. I think the latest set of Elder opinions was something like... MWB and ToK: You can target any square within the darkness without needing to pinpoint a creature first. Sauro: Ban it/nerf it. NiQil and Telin: No comment.
Erithmu 03-16-07, 11:31 AM	Strangely enough I would love to know the official elder ruling (assuming Ban/Nerf is not an option) on Blacklight as it affects how I am writing tactics.
Vathelokai 03-16-07, 11:38 AM	Strangely enough I would love to know the official elder ruling (assuming Ban/Nerf is not an option) on Blacklight as it affects how I am writing tactics. Check the Gladius Meta-rules. Cat changed them to make blacklight more powerful, actually.
hogarth 03-16-07, 11:43 AM	Check the Gladius Meta-rules. Cat changed them to make blacklight more powerful, actually. The discussion was about overturning the "no guessing where the person/center is" clause. Of course, if Cat decides to exercise his veto power, there's not much that can be done about it.
Erithmu 03-16-07, 11:44 AM	Check the Gladius Meta-rules. Cat changed them to make blacklight more powerful, actually. What I am saying is that that rule was under discussion by the elders.
Vathelokai 03-16-07, 11:53 AM	What I am saying is that that rule was under discussion by the elders. Was under discussion. Seems Cat exercised Divine Right of Kings. As for the other parts of discussion (seeing in/out/through the blacklight), I don't think there was a ruling.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-16-07, 03:00 PM	Was under discussion. Seems Cat exercised Divine Right of Kings. As for the other parts of discussion (seeing in/out/through the blacklight), I don't think there was a ruling. Concealment: A character concealed by an area effect (Obscurring Mist, Darkness, Blacklight, etc) cannot be targetted by 'aiming at its center' but must be pinpointed normally. Whoah! That goes completely against the grain of targetting rules. Even Cat can't house-rule that. So, that house-rule CAN and SHOULD be ignored. So, the discussion and clarification stands as discussed by the elders. NiQil still has it in his possession. ToK
Zevox 03-16-07, 03:03 PM	Whoah! That goes completely against the grain of targetting rules. Even Cat can't house-rule that. Try telling him that. Seriously, please do. I'd love to see someone convince him of such. Zevox
SauroGrenom 03-16-07, 03:17 PM	Total concealment blocks LOS, so how are you going to target something when you cannot even see it? It doesn't necessarily apply to arrows and rays (which can target a square), but definitely to targeted spells. Even if you target a square with a ray or ranged attack, since spells are centered on a grid intersection there's 4 squares that are adjacent to the "center" of an area effect. So you've got the pick the correct one (then roll miss chance for total concealment). If you can defeat that, then you may have a chance with Cat. From what I understand that is the basis of his opinion about concealment effects and targeting the "center".
hogarth 03-16-07, 03:19 PM	Even if you target a square with a ray or ranged attack, since spells are centered on a grid intersection there's 4 squares that are adjacent to the "center" of an area effect. So you've got the pick the correct one (then roll miss chance for total concealment). Cat's wording makes it look like you can't even guess at a square, period (which is ridiculous).
SauroGrenom 03-16-07, 03:25 PM	Cat's wording makes it look like you can't even guess at a square, period (which is ridiculous).Well. No. Cat's wording says that the character cannot be targeted (which is true of any character with total concealment for any reason except the displacement spell). Cat's Meta-Rule says nothing about targeting a square.
Zevox 03-16-07, 03:28 PM	Well. No. Cat's wording says that the character cannot be targeted (which is true of any character with total concealment for any reason except the displacement spell). Cat's Meta-Rule says nothing about targeting a square. That may be how you read it Sauro, but its not how Cat has insisted it is to be read in the past. Hes been insisting you can't guess at targeting the center of such an effect with anything at all. He even referenced that as a reason why Little Daisy couldn't pick a square in Harveter's Blacklight to fire Call Lightning bolts at when they fought. Zevox
McJarvis 03-16-07, 03:35 PM	Out of curiosity-> if the spell is centered on an item the character is holding, how do you decide which corner of the square is the center of the spell?
Tellish_of_Ket 03-16-07, 03:38 PM	Well. No. Cat's wording says that the character cannot be targeted (which is true of any character with total concealment for any reason except the displacement spell). Cat's Meta-Rule says nothing about targeting a square. Well, i'm talking to him now. I agree obviously you can't use targetted spells like hold person and stuff. We'll see what comes of it. I think the "clarification" that we all unanimously agreed to, that NiQil has should be used. ToK
MindWandererB 03-16-07, 03:40 PM	That may be how you read it Sauro, but its not how Cat has insisted it is to be read in the past. Hes been insisting you can't guess at targeting the center of such an effect with anything at all. He even referenced that as a reason why Little Daisy couldn't pick a square in Harveter's Blacklight to fire Call Lightning bolts at when they fought. Zevox Well, the fun news is that the house rule is ambiguous (mentions targeting only), and in the case of ambiguous rules, the Courtroom/Court Decisions/Elders are empowered to clear up the ambiguity. We did, and that ruling is now official unless Cat explicity turns it over--which he would have to do after the fight in which he complains about it.
sonofzeal 03-16-07, 06:47 PM	Can I get a ruling on what point Alchemist's Fire secondary damage applies? You can throw a flask of alchemist’s fire as a splash weapon. Treat this attack as a ranged touch attack with a range increment of 10 feet. A direct hit deals 1d6 points of fire damage. Every creature within 5 feet of the point where the flask hits takes 1 point of fire damage from the splash. On the round following a direct hit, the target takes an additional 1d6 points of damage. If desired, the target can use a full-round action to attempt to extinguish the flames before taking this additional damage. Extinguishing the flames requires a DC 15 Reflex save. Rolling on the ground provides the target a +2 bonus on the save. Leaping into a lake or magically extinguishing the flames automatically smothers the fire. There seems to be three options: 1) At the beginning of the next literal round (as if it had an infinitely high initiative modifier) 2) On the thrower's next turn 3) On the victim's next turn Every other effect I can think of (poison, casting SNA, etc) goes by the place in the initiative order where the initial event took place. Is there a specific rule dealing with this situation that I'm missing?
MindWandererB 03-16-07, 06:51 PM	Can I get a ruling on what point Alchemist's Fire secondary damage applies? You can throw a flask of alchemist’s fire as a splash weapon. Treat this attack as a ranged touch attack with a range increment of 10 feet. A direct hit deals 1d6 points of fire damage. Every creature within 5 feet of the point where the flask hits takes 1 point of fire damage from the splash. On the round following a direct hit, the target takes an additional 1d6 points of damage. If desired, the target can use a full-round action to attempt to extinguish the flames before taking this additional damage. Extinguishing the flames requires a DC 15 Reflex save. Rolling on the ground provides the target a +2 bonus on the save. Leaping into a lake or magically extinguishing the flames automatically smothers the fire. There seems to be three options: 1) At the beginning of the next literal round (as if it had an infinitely high initiative modifier) 2) On the thrower's next turn 3) On the victim's next turn Every other effect I can think of (poison, casting SNA, etc) goes by the place in the initiative order where the initial event took place. Is there a specific rule dealing with this situation that I'm missing? I would agree with that. It should occur on the same initiative as the initial attack, the next round. If the attacker did not delay, it would be at the start of the attacker's turn.
TelinArtho 03-16-07, 06:53 PM	I've always done things as if they take place just before the initiative count when it happened on the following round. IE Caster 1 acts on initiative 20 Fighter 2 acts on initiative 10 Caster 1 throws an alchemists fire on fighter 2. Fighter 2 takes damage from the hit. Fighter 2 smacks Caster 1 Next Round: Caster 1's alchemist fire deals damage Caster 1 Acts. Etc. I admit I haven't looked into it further - but that's the way I've always run it.
MitzaVolchenko 03-16-07, 06:57 PM	If someone moves and readies an action, but is then caught flat-footed, does their readied action go off?
Tellish_of_Ket 03-16-07, 07:06 PM	I would agree with that. It should occur on the same initiative as the initial attack, the next round. If the attacker did not delay, it would be at the start of the attacker's turn. In our fight...it actually does. I'm at the top of the round...and the dmg from alchy fire is done at the top of the round. ToK
MindWandererB 03-16-07, 07:12 PM	If someone moves and readies an action, but is then caught flat-footed, does their readied action go off? It is impossible to be flat-footed after readying an action--after your first initiative comes up, you're not flat-footed anymore. I assume you're referring to something else, then?
hogarth 03-16-07, 07:27 PM	It is impossible to be flat-footed after readying an action--after your first initiative comes up, you're not flat-footed anymore. I assume you're referring to something else, then? Presumably "flat-footed" meant "caught unawares" (i.e. without Dex modifier).
MitzaVolchenko 03-16-07, 07:39 PM	Presumably "flat-footed" meant "caught unawares" (i.e. without Dex modifier). Correct...unaware. This is in regards to a similar situation to the new ruling regarding monk deflect and a hidden archer. Can someone ready an action, be unaware of their attacker and get their readied action before the stealthy attacker gets their attack.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-16-07, 07:42 PM	Correct...unaware. This is in regards to a similar situation to the new ruling regarding monk deflect and a hidden archer. Can someone ready an action, be unaware of their attacker and get their readied action before the stealthy attacker gets their attack. Don't know if this is proper, because it's a bit of a time-warp, but here's how it's been adjudicated in the past in CoCo. The surprise attacker, gets his attack, THEN the readied guy goes. As per readied rules though, he still gets his initiative reset to JUST before the surpriser attacks. ToK
Macbrea 03-16-07, 07:44 PM	I don't think he initiative should reset. As his readied action goes off once he is aware of the attack. Or after the attack has occured.
MindWandererB 03-16-07, 07:54 PM	Don't know if this is proper, because it's a bit of a time-warp, but here's how it's been adjudicated in the past in CoCo. The surprise attacker, gets his attack, THEN the readied guy goes. As per readied rules though, he still gets his initiative reset to JUST before the surpriser attacks. ToK It depends on what the ready trigger is. For instance, if it's "on sight" but the other character is invisible, the trigger doesn't go off until after the target becomes visible, i.e. after they attack.
Erithmu 03-16-07, 07:56 PM	It depends on what the ready trigger is. For instance, if it's "on sight" but the other character is invisible, the trigger doesn't go off until after the target becomes visible, i.e. after they attack.Or not at all if the attacker successfully snipes.
NiQil 03-16-07, 10:17 PM	Well, i'm talking to him now. I agree obviously you can't use targetted spells like hold person and stuff. We'll see what comes of it. I think the "clarification" that we all unanimously agreed to, that NiQil has should be used. ToK Here is the ruling I believe you are referring to (why is it no one bothered to check the Court Decisions to see that it was there already?) 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.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-16-07, 10:24 PM	Ah...i thought i checked and didn't see it. Man, gotta clean my glasses. ToK
MitzaVolchenko 03-16-07, 10:30 PM	I need to understand this whole "unaware" vs. flat-footed. The only reference that I can find to unaware opponents is in the surprise round and pretty much says they are flat-footed. Flat-footed sasy only before acting in a combat. CoCo defines that as once init is rolled, nobody is flat-footed anymore, ie combat starts at init and that is it. Soooo...happy little cleric is walking through the dark nasty cave readied to cast Die you rotten goblin which is a standard action to cast. Rotten goblin is laying in wait to charge happy little cleric with his +9 spear of cleric smiting. Hapy little cleric sees and hears nothing of the goblin, goblin charges. Does happy little cleric take his readied action? He was unaware of his assailant. Would this be different if goblin were chucking his spear? Shooting a bow? They are all -20 to stealth kinda actions.
hogarth 03-16-07, 10:30 PM	Here is the ruling I believe you are referring to (why is it no one bothered to check the Court Decisions to see that it was there already?) Why would I check the rulings when my memory is obviously 100% accurate? :embarrass
MindWandererB 03-16-07, 10:40 PM	I need to understand this whole "unaware" vs. flat-footed. The only reference that I can find to unaware opponents is in the surprise round and pretty much says they are flat-footed. Flat-footed sasy only before acting in a combat. CoCo defines that as once init is rolled, nobody is flat-footed anymore, ie combat starts at init and that is it. Soooo...happy little cleric is walking through the dark nasty cave readied to cast Die you rotten goblin which is a standard action to cast. Rotten goblin is laying in wait to charge happy little cleric with his +9 spear of cleric smiting. Hapy little cleric sees and hears nothing of the goblin, goblin charges. Does happy little cleric take his readied action? He was unaware of his assailant. Would this be different if goblin were chucking his spear? Shooting a bow? They are all -20 to stealth kinda actions.In that example, the goblin definitely gets blasted when it leaves cover (or gets further than 1 foot per rank in Hide, per house rules). If it uses a ranged attack... I believe that the most recent ruling is that if the goblin fails the Hide check at -20, the cleric gets her spell off first.
NiQil 03-16-07, 10:43 PM	I need to understand this whole "unaware" vs. flat-footed. The only reference that I can find to unaware opponents is in the surprise round and pretty much says they are flat-footed. Flat-footed sasy only before acting in a combat. CoCo defines that as once init is rolled, nobody is flat-footed anymore, ie combat starts at init and that is it. Soooo...happy little cleric is walking through the dark nasty cave readied to cast Die you rotten goblin which is a standard action to cast. Rotten goblin is laying in wait to charge happy little cleric with his +9 spear of cleric smiting. Hapy little cleric sees and hears nothing of the goblin, goblin charges. Does happy little cleric take his readied action? He was unaware of his assailant. Would this be different if goblin were chucking his spear? Shooting a bow? They are all -20 to stealth kinda actions. What you seem to be confusing is the terms "flat-footed" and "denied your Dex to AC". One does not equal to the other. You can be denied your Dex to AC without being flat-footed. A good example of this is someone that is in a grapple that is being attacked by someone outside of a grapple. They are denied their Dex to AC, but they are not considered flat-footed. Being unaware, as defined in the FAQ, means to not be flat-footed. A good example of when you are considered flat-footed is if you have to make balance checks, such as when walking over the logs on the forest maps. In answer to your example, it would all depend on how the ready action trigger was worded. Without being more specific, that question can't be answered accurately.
MitzaVolchenko 03-16-07, 11:15 PM	*sighs* Tired of chasing this in circles. Assuming readied is 'on sight', and CoCo gives autospot outside of within ranks of cover, more or less the rules abuse only a monk trying to deflect...everyone else gets happy free shots.
Vathelokai 03-17-07, 01:36 AM	Need a quick definition from the elders for my iron man fight. This will effect tactics most likey (I havn't gotten them yet). A single Large or smaller creature can be captured thus and held immobile until the command word is spoken to bring the bands into spherical form again. I'm wondering how immobile the person held is. The Condiiton Summary (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/conditions.htm) has many different effects that could make someone immobile, ranging from dazed to helpless. How should I adjudicate this?
Tellish_of_Ket 03-17-07, 02:16 AM	Need a quick definition from the elders for my iron man fight. This will effect tactics most likey (I havn't gotten them yet). I'm wondering how immobile the person held is. The Condiiton Summary (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/conditions.htm) has many different effects that could make someone immobile, ranging from dazed to helpless. How should I adjudicate this? Personally, i would adjudicate it as though they were pinned in a grapple. It seems to mimic that effect. ToK
Rauul 03-17-07, 08:57 AM	Personally, i would adjudicate it as though they were pinned in a grapple. It seems to mimic that effect. ToK with a DC 30 str check to break or a DC 30 escape artist to slip free.. Pinned Held immobile (but not helpless) in a grapple. really don't know what you can do except try to get out of them.. as who ever has you held, rips you apart..
McJarvis 03-17-07, 09:37 AM	with a DC 30 str check to break or a DC 30 escape artist to slip free.. really don't know what you can do except try to get out of them.. as who ever has you held, rips you apart.. You could cast dimension door, go ethereal, teleport(if you have such an ability), etc, etc, etc. You might be able to grow in size to the point that they can't handle you...but I dunno.
Maraxus 03-17-07, 11:40 AM	Personally, i would adjudicate it as though they were pinned in a grapple. It seems to mimic that effect. ToK Not completly. Obviously you can still talk and you need not make concentration checks to use poweres/still spells. Pinning has a some effects: All grapple effects, -4 AC against everybody not pinning you, escaping the pin goes into grappley and: Immoblised for one round. (In the lack of any rule clarification anywhere we asume that the other effects of the pin only last one round, too - but nobody can really know that (;)). The effects of immoblised are (if my memory serves me right): -Dex treated as 0, this includes that your Dex-Bonus to AC is set to -5 and you can't move untill the immoblisation is broken. -A rogue can sneak attack you (you are considdered "loosing your Dex-Bonus to AC" for other abilities, that work with this trigger.)
Vathelokai 03-17-07, 12:01 PM	Next question: Enemies attempting to attack you or cast spells at you must select from among indistinguishable targets. Generally, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment. Any successful attack against an image destroys it. An image’s AC is 10 + your size modifier + your Dex modifier. Figments seem to react normally to area spells (such as looking like they’re burned or dead after being hit by a fireball). It says that 'any successfull attack' destroys an image. Then it goes on to say that area effects cause the images to 'react normally.' So, durring an area attack are they destroyed or not. I generally call area attacks 'attacks', so the description seems to contradict itself. Is there a clairification somewhere that I missed?
Tellish_of_Ket 03-17-07, 12:09 PM	Next question: It says that 'any successfull attack' destroys an image. Then it goes on to say that area effects cause the images to 'react normally.' So, durring an area attack are they destroyed or not. I generally call area attacks 'attacks', so the description seems to contradict itself. Is there a clairification somewhere that I missed? AoE does not destroy images. ToK
TheMagister 03-17-07, 12:49 PM	Agreed. "Act Normally" means (to me) that the images' robes get scorched, they flinch away from the fireball's heat, etc. It's put there so that a fighter couldn't ready an action to shoot the only mage that gets burned by the wizard's fireball.
TheMagister 03-17-07, 12:52 PM	Agree with the "pinned" condition seeming to best fit the Iron Bands condition. Isn't that bad enough?! TM
MitzaVolchenko 03-17-07, 01:06 PM	When initially discovered, this very potent item appears to be a 3-inch-diameter rusty iron sphere with bandings on the globe. When the proper command word is spoken and the spherical iron device is hurled at an opponent, the bands expand and then contract to bind the target creature on a successful ranged touch attack. A single Large or smaller creature can be captured thus and held immobile until the command word is spoken to bring the bands into spherical form again. The creature can break (and ruin) the bands with a DC 30 Strength check or escape them with a DC 30 Escape Artist check. Iron bands of binding are usable once per day. Strong evocation; CL 13th; Craft Wondrous Item, grasping hand; Price 26,000 gp;Weight 1 lb. Sure, I'll take it as the opponent pinned, and since to me immobile means no jaw flapping (which is an option in pin), they are helpless until that DC 30 Str or EA check is made. The only reason a normal grapple pin is not considered helpless is that it has to be maintained by an opposed check each round. With no maintenance on the bands, the person (dragon) using them should be free to CDG at will.
TheMagister 03-17-07, 01:15 PM	Pinned does not equal Helpless. Immobile (like being stuck with tanglefoot) also does not equal helpless. Pinned + Immobile does not equal Helpless. UNCONSCIOUS = helpless. SLEEPING = helpless. HELD = helpless. Those are the only conditions I can think of off the top of my head that allow the helpless condition, which is required for the CDG action. Just my opinion. TM
MitzaVolchenko 03-17-07, 01:43 PM	A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent’s mercy. I'd say that wrapped so tightly in magical iron that you cannot even speak qualifies.
NiQil 03-17-07, 02:02 PM	I'd say that wrapped so tightly in magical iron that you cannot even speak qualifies. I would disagree. A bound person is still able to wiggle or hop around to dodge attacks, or roll on the ground if prone. And no where does it say that binding a person prevents speaking. That is one of the options in a pin, but it is not a condition of being bound by the item, as per the item description above. I agree that adjucating the bound condition as a pin is probably the best way to handle it, but that does not mean that all of the options that can be done in a pin are automatically applied. I lean towards TM's interpretation regarding being helpless, but need to research the issue further.
MitzaVolchenko 03-17-07, 02:29 PM	I would disagree. A bound person is still able to wiggle or hop around to dodge attacks, or roll on the ground if prone. And no where does it say that binding a person prevents speaking. That is one of the options in a pin, but it is not a condition of being bound by the item, as per the item description above. I agree that adjucating the bound condition as a pin is probably the best way to handle it, but that does not mean that all of the options that can be done in a pin are automatically applied. I lean towards TM's interpretation regarding being helpless, but need to research the issue further. Funny...the definition of helpless includes bound. Additionally the item says immobile...no hopping, no wiggling. The item is based on a 7th level spell that is used to grapple. It all seems rather logical to me. Yes that is one powerful little toy, Indivara has...at 26k gold and only useful once in three fights, it is the equivalent of a one shot save or die spell. The difference being that it will take her eons to earn its cost back where the save or die spell is infinitely reuseable and not limited to one per 3 fights.
templer10 03-17-07, 05:57 PM	Funny...the definition of helpless includes bound. Additionally the item says immobile...no hopping, no wiggling. The item is based on a 7th level spell that is used to grapple. It all seems rather logical to me. Yes that is one powerful little toy, Indivara has...at 26k gold and only useful once in three fights, it is the equivalent of a one shot save or die spell. The difference being that it will take her eons to earn its cost back where the save or die spell is infinitely reuseable and not limited to one per 3 fights. diffrence is This isnt so much a save or die then Die or Die since all she has to do is hit with ranged touch which is much better chance then to sucseed on a save or die spell.
MitzaVolchenko 03-17-07, 07:11 PM	diffrence is This isnt so much a save or die then Die or Die since all she has to do is hit with ranged touch which is much better chance then to sucseed on a save or die spell. Don't know what fights you've been watching but, Leif, for instance hits her twice with aranged touch and she dies (enervation)...no save...or once with an uber-scorching ray. The item is no more powerful and arguably less since Touch AC can be buffed. And Leif can cast those multiple times. She gets one throw in three fights, period. Cost, SR armor, uber wands, and a number of other fun stuff.
Macbrea 03-17-07, 07:11 PM	It's how the item is written. You are held immobile if effected by it. If you don't like the concept of a hit and single kill item in CoCo your going to have a hard time with those spells that are coming up in the 10-15 range. A harm with a quickened Inflict light wounds is pretty much an instant kill.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-18-07, 03:19 AM	someone was looking for this earlier....hope it helps. Can you score a critical hit with a grapple check made to damage your opponent? No. Despite its similarity, a grapple check is not an attack roll, and thus can’t score a critical hit (nor does it automatically succeed on a natural 20 or fail on a natural 1). ToK
Tellish_of_Ket 03-18-07, 03:23 AM	...oh, and this one too. Tumbling While Crawling: Though the rules don't say so, there's no reason you can't can tumble 5 feet as a move action when prone. The check DC is 20. ToK
MindWandererB 03-18-07, 04:29 PM	someone was looking for this earlier....hope it helps. Yeah... I know that one, but we've got a strange interpretation in our Court Decisions: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.I personally disagree with this ruling, but there it is. I didn't know you could tumble when prone. Good to know, seeing as how the majority of my characters have either Tumble or Improved Trip.
templer10 03-18-07, 05:08 PM	Yeah... I know that one, but we've got a strange interpretation in our Court Decisions:I personally disagree with this ruling, but there it is. I didn't know you could tumble when prone. Good to know, seeing as how the majority of my characters have either Tumble or Improved Trip. tumbling 5 feet as move action wont really help against a guy with improved trip since most of these guys have 10 or more foot reach.
MindWandererB 03-18-07, 05:24 PM	tumbling 5 feet as move action wont really help against a guy with improved trip since most of these guys have 10 or more foot reach. Often, but not always. Plus, if they charged to perform the trip, then you're always at the edge of their reach anyway. And many use normal reach weapons, so you might be able to tumble closer to them rather than further, and take a less dangerous AoO from their armor spikes.
Zevox 03-18-07, 05:39 PM	Okay, so then, since the Roll Call just indicted a few characters for it, can we get a ruling on the Dorje issue? IIRC, we had Sauro and Telin as willing to rule that unaugmented ones don't need to cost more, while MWB was for taking the quote Hogarth had as literally as possible and making so that any ML increase equated to a PL increase. NiQil? Tellish? Zevox
MindWandererB 03-18-07, 05:48 PM	Okay, we need a firm decision on the cost of dorjes with increased manifester levels. TelinArtho: We do it the way we've been doing it: you round down when the ML is increased by an odd number, and the cost is increased for an augmentation only if you actually augment. So ML 3 Offensive Prescience costs only 2250 gp (750x1x3), and ML 4 augmented Offensive Prescience costs 6000 (750x2x4). (Telin is also willing to back Sauro's stance, below.) SauroGrenom: You round up, but the cost is still increased for an augmentation only if you actually augment. So the ML3 Offensive Prescience would still cost 2250, but the ML4 one would cost 9000 (750x3x4). Myself: You round down, but you have to pay extra even if the augmentation doesn't apply (or if there is no augmentation). This would make the ML3 Offensive Prescience cost 4500 (750x2x3), and the ML 4 one 6000. (My reasoning is that rules trump examples, and since the errata doesn't say you round up, the example is in error. But it seems clear that the cost is not related to whether there is an augmentation.) hogarth, and currently the Prison: You round up, and you increase costs even if there is no augmentation. So the Offensive Prescience would cost 4500/9000. That's three votes, but since all three opinions are different, it would be good to hear from NiQil, Tellish, and/or Cat. If we don't get those opinions, we go with Sauro's choice, since Telin is willing to back it.
NiQil 03-18-07, 06:42 PM	For me, the issue is relatively simple. I base my decision of of these excerpt: Dorjes are normally created at the minimum manifester level required to manifest the power, and powers that can be augmented are not augmented when stored in a dorje. A dorje’s wielder cannot augment the power contained within the dorje. However, dorjes can be created at a higher manifester level than required to manifest the power. In this case, the dorje that holds an augmentable power is augmented, to the limit of the manifester level and the power’s augmentation maximums, if any. The manifester level of a dorje cannot be more than five higher than the minimum manifester level to use the power it contains. If an augmentable power is incorporated into a dorje at a higher manifester level than the minimum level required to manifest the power, each discharge of the power from the dorje is augmented to the limit of that higher manifester level. Alternatively, if you want to have a higher manifester level in the dorje, you must pay for the dorje as if the power was one level higher for each additional two manifester levels you want. What this says to me is that if you have a higher ML in the dorje than the minimum, then you are assumed to have augmented the dorje to the maximum allowable pp expenditure per charge for the ML that you are creating the item at, and therefore must pay for the augmentation accordingly. Incidently, in the second quote above, I know lots of people are confused by the world "Alternatively". Replace that word with the phrase "In other words", and it will make much more sense. That's what they are trying to get across...the same point of rules stated two different ways. So as an example: An ML 1 dorje of Crystal Shard would be 750 gp (750 x level 1 power x ML 1) An ML 2 dorje of Crystal Shard would be 1,500 gp (750 x level 1 power x ML 2) An ML 3 dorje of Crystal Shard would be 4,500 gp (750 x level 2 power x ML 3) An ML 4 dorje of Crystal Shard would be 6,000 gp (750 x level 2 power x ML 4) An ML 5 dorje of Crystal Shard would be 11,250 gp (750 x level 3 power x ML 5) An ML 6 dorje of Crystal Shard would be 13,500 gp (750 x level 3 power x ML 6) The example given in the errata is broken down thus: An ML 8 dorje of Energy missile breaks down to 24,000 gp (750 x level 4 power x ML 8). Therefore, I think the errata is in error, and the example given there should be as a level 4 power, rather than a level 5 power. As an aside, the roll call showing the violations is not an indication of the validity of a violation....I rarely read the violations when I am doing the roll call. It's just recorded because it was posted as a violation.
SauroGrenom 03-18-07, 07:44 PM	So what's your opinion of what to do if the power is not augmentable at the ML used. Say a dorje of Force Screen ML4? How much should it cost?
NiQil 03-18-07, 07:54 PM	So what's your opinion of what to do if the power is not augmentable at the ML used. Say a dorje of Force Screen ML4? How much should it cost? You apparantly missed the bolded sections above. If it has a higher manifester level than minimum, it is automatically considered augmented to the maximum allowed. So to answer your question, a ML 4 Force Screen dorje would be 6000 gp (750 x level 2 power x ML 4), the same as in my Crystal Shard example above.
SauroGrenom 03-18-07, 08:34 PM	You apparantly missed the bolded sections above. If it has a higher manifester level than minimum, it is automatically considered augmented to the maximum allowed. No. I didn't miss the bolded sections. I simply asked for you to clarify how you would price a specific dorje. This reveals what you consider to be an augmentable power. The bolded sections begin with "If an agumentable power..." So if an power is not augmentable, then what follows doesn't apply. For example skate and psionic grease cannot be augmented, and they would be priced as 1st level power no matter the ML of the dorje. For me and Telin, in order for a power to be "augmentable" it must be manifest at a ML that allows to augment the power. At ML4 I wouldn't consider Force Screen to be augmentable. So In my opinion, a dorje with ML4 Force Screen should not be priced as if augmentable.
NiQil 03-18-07, 08:47 PM	Ahh....now I see what you are saying. My response to that would be that Force Screen is an augmentable power, as defined by the psionic rules, you simply gain no benefit from the augmentation until you reach the ML that allows you to take advantage of the augmentation listed. In other words, if you are going to buy a dorje of force screen at ML 4, the only differences between that and an ML 1 version would be the cost and the duration of the power, which is based on the ML. Keep in mind that by your reading, you are creating a new definition for augmentation. Augmentation is already defined. Force Screen can be augmented, as per the definition of augmentation, therefore it follows the augmentation pricing rules. What you are stating is that it only counts as augmentation if you actually gain a benefit from the augmentation, which is not mentioned in the pricing formula for dorjes, and therefore has no bearing. The text only states that if the power is augmentable, then you use the altered level pricing. If it isn't, then you don't.
SauroGrenom 03-18-07, 09:26 PM	I've looked, and "augmentable" is not as clearly defined as you suggest. I found this:Augment: Many powers vary in strength depending on how many power points you put into them. The more power points you spend, the more powerful the manifestation. However, you can spend only a total number of points on a power equal to your manifester level, unless you have an ability that increases your effective manifester level. Looks to me like you cannot augment if you don't have sufficent ML to augment the power in question. As far as I'm concerned, that means that the power isn't augmentable in a circumstance where the ML is not high enough to actually augment the power. *Shrug* If you make a comparison to wands and the way that spells scale with caster level, I think that augmenation is intended to sort of increase spell level by increasing save DC and effectiveness. If the ML of the power in question hasn't reached the next threshold to increase effectiveness of the power, then you probably shouldn't have to pay extra for getting nothing.
NiQil 03-18-07, 09:39 PM	I get what you are saying...if the ML 4 Force screen only gives you the extra duration of the ML 1 version, then you should only be paying the difference in cost for the ML. I could get behind that. It doesn't seem that that is how the rules are written, but I can see that as balanced.
MindWandererB 03-19-07, 12:08 AM	Okay... sounds like we have at least a working consensus on that part: the price only goes up if you actually augment. As for the rounding issue, we have NiQil and myself saying that you round down, Sauro saying that you round up, and Telin originally saying to round down but willing to go along with Sauro. Sounds like the general consensus is down. ...which leaves us with the exact same rule we've been using all along. Can everyone get behind that officially?
NiQil 03-19-07, 12:28 AM	Okay... sounds like we have at least a working consensus on that part: the price only goes up if you actually augment. As for the rounding issue, we have NiQil and myself saying that you round down, Sauro saying that you round up, and Telin originally saying to round down but willing to go along with Sauro. Sounds like the general consensus is down. ...which leaves us with the exact same rule we've been using all along. Can everyone get behind that officially? Here would be the clarification added to the Court Decisions: Q: How does the payment for augmentation and increased manifester levels 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 6,000 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. Let me know if everyone is ok with this, or if anything needs to be adjusted.
SauroGrenom 03-19-07, 01:04 AM	Aye
Rauul 03-19-07, 01:08 AM	One question... does this cover Augmented dorje, augmented with metapsionic feats? (extend, expand, maximize ect..)
MindWandererB 03-19-07, 01:52 AM	Looks, good, but add a reference to metapsionics in the question title, and add at the end: "The same formula applies to dorjes enhanced with metapsionics: for every 2 PP by which the cost would increases, the effective power level increases by 1 and the manifester level increases by 2."
hogarth 03-19-07, 06:33 AM	Here would be the clarification added to the Court Decisions: Let me know if everyone is ok with this, or if anything needs to be adjusted. I would also note (for the sake of clarity) that the same formula applies for power stones and tattoos.
TelinArtho 03-19-07, 03:23 PM	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 6,000 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. I concur as well. Though, in the example - the ML4 is incorrect.
MindWandererB 03-19-07, 03:29 PM	I concur as well. Though, in the example - the ML4 is incorrect.Right, that comes out to 3000, not 6000.
TheMagister 03-19-07, 03:39 PM	Hmm. So Rubi has a little more money now. That's good. Speaking of Rubicanti, what was the final tally of votes on the flurrying of touch attacks? When I last checked on it, it was two against (Niqil, Sauro), one for (Telin), and one undecided (MWB). That might be a flawed remembrance; it's been a busy week. TM
SauroGrenom 03-19-07, 04:03 PM	We need a ruling on the surprise round and otherwise limited actions in a round for mount and rider actions. We've discussed this at length in the Ironman Gossip thread. I feel the definitive rules get mentioned in this place and onward (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=11767512#post11767512). IMO the RoTG article has a complete list of the kinds of things you can do while mounted. The main point is that many actions can be performed before or after a single move, or in the middle of a double move, but not in the middle of a single move. Certainly you cannot use a standard action at the end of a single move in a surprise round.
MindWandererB 03-19-07, 04:07 PM	Whereas my contention was that both the rider and the mount are allowed a single move/standard action during a surprise round, so if the mount moves and the rider takes a standard action, then the action takes place at the midpoint of the move, the same as a double-move in a normal round. The problem is that the RotG does not address mounted actions in a surprise round (or slowed, or riding a zombie, etc.) at all, so we are forced to improvise, IMO.
SauroGrenom 03-19-07, 04:15 PM	Whereas my contention was that both the rider and the mount are allowed a single move/standard action during a surprise round, so if the mount moves and the rider takes a standard action, then the action takes place at the midpoint of the move, the same as a double-move in a normal round.Which is a rather reasonable extrapolation of the RAW into uncharted territory. However as I point out a couple posts down in the thread I reference in my last post, allowing a standard action (or even full round action) in the middle of a move action will result in some additional options in combat for casters and ranged combatants. This kind of interpretation clearly expands the effectiveness of mounts beyond what the rules as written allow.
MindWandererB 03-19-07, 04:26 PM	True. It wouldn't be that hard to phrase it in such a way as to only apply in those circumstances which are under debate. 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), that penalty applies just as if the rider were performing it during a double-move under normal circumstances. Does that cover it?
SauroGrenom 03-19-07, 04:51 PM	That mostly accomplishes your goal (I'd not say things about full round actions it's confusing and suggests that you can take afull round action durring any of your mounts move actions even if you are restricted to less that that in actions). In any case you're writing new stuff into the rules and giving more options to a mounted combatant who already has many combat options that others do not have. This is writing new rules from whole cloth, and I cannot agree with it.
MindWandererB 03-19-07, 05:40 PM	That mostly accomplishes your goal (I'd not say things about full round actions it's confusing and suggests that you can take afull round action durring any of your mounts move actions even if you are restricted to less that that in actions). In any case you're writing new stuff into the rules and giving more options to a mounted combatant who already has many combat options that others do not have. This is writing new rules from whole cloth, and I cannot agree with it.Okay, you're entitled to your opinion. I don't believe this is creating new options at all (a rider gets their standard action, and you're trying to take it away). I don't agree that the full-round action part is confusing (you need it for when your mount is restricted, but you're not). But we need a tiebreaker. Telin, Tellish, NiQil?
Tellish_of_Ket 03-20-07, 04:06 AM	Okay, you're entitled to your opinion. I don't believe this is creating new options at all (a rider gets their standard action, and you're trying to take it away). I don't agree that the full-round action part is confusing (you need it for when your mount is restricted, but you're not). But we need a tiebreaker. Telin, Tellish, NiQil? The thing i don't like about RoTG is that there have been MANY (yes, many) instances where they've had to edit their own stuff because it directly contradicts the black and white (phb). I truely think this is another one of those grey areas, unfortunately, RoTG only succeeded in creating more debate. Sure you can point out specific areas of RoTG, but also, you can point to the bible (phb) to counter parts. After hearing both arguments and seeing all the cases drawn up, i'm gonna err on the side of "spirit" for this and agree with MWB. RoTG does not cover a mounted combatants surprise round. Though there is text to support both points of view, it's actually hard to concieve why a rider wouldn't get his action during a surprise round, just like any other combatant would. ToK
TelinArtho 03-20-07, 09:26 AM	I would also agree with this.
hogarth 03-20-07, 10:28 AM	Do Leadership cohorts get maximum hit points at first level? Judging from various character sheets, it seems that the consensus is "yes", but I don't see any rule addressing it other than: Characters get maximum hit points at level 1. [..] Allies do not get a maximized first HD. (This time I'll hold off from spamming the Prison thread with violations. ;))
TelinArtho 03-20-07, 10:45 AM	No allies gain max HP from the first HD. If there are any allies with a listed maximized first HD - throw them in the prison.
hogarth 03-20-07, 10:46 AM	No allies gain max HP from the first HD. If there are any allies with a listed maximized first HD - throw them in the prison. (Uh-oh...I don't want you-know-who to think I'm picking on him...)
McJarvis 03-20-07, 10:59 AM	(Uh-oh...I don't want you-know-who to think I'm picking on him...) I'm pretty sure Zevox won't have a problem. No worries :)
Zevox 03-20-07, 11:20 AM	I'm pretty sure Zevox won't have a problem. No worries :) Heh heh, I'm not the one with 3/5 of his characters with Leadership cohorts though ;) . Anyway, I think between the ones hogarth posted before going offline and the ones I got afterwards everyone in the arena with a cohort made that mistake, so its hardly like anyone can feel like they're being singled out for this. Zevox
MindWandererB 03-20-07, 01:27 PM	The thing i don't like about RoTG is that there have been MANY (yes, many) instances where they've had to edit their own stuff because it directly contradicts the black and white (phb). I truely think this is another one of those grey areas, unfortunately, RoTG only succeeded in creating more debate. Sure you can point out specific areas of RoTG, but also, you can point to the bible (phb) to counter parts. After hearing both arguments and seeing all the cases drawn up, i'm gonna err on the side of "spirit" for this and agree with MWB. RoTG does not cover a mounted combatants surprise round. Though there is text to support both points of view, it's actually hard to concieve why a rider wouldn't get his action during a surprise round, just like any other combatant would. ToK I would also agree with this.Great. NiQil, would you add my suggestion from post#621 to the Decisions? Thanks.
Hirumajoe 03-20-07, 02:14 PM	Could someone clarify the following phrase from "Symbol of Death"? From SRD: Symbol of Death You can’t use a symbol of death offensively; for instance, a touch-triggered symbol of death remains untriggered if an item bearing the symbol of death is used to touch a creature. Likewise, a symbol of death cannot be placed on a weapon and set to activate when the weapon strikes a foe. What is considered an offensive use of this spell? Obviously leaving it on an immoble object or structure is defensive. But apparently, putting them on moving objects like a weapon which is then used apparently negates it while doing so. I'm suddenly wondering if a 9th level Wizard leader automatically wins all regiment fights. Between fly and a Symbol of Sleep on a banner. Since it literally can put an entire army to sleep by flying overhead (or 95% of it). And if so, I'm going to suggest LOY start investing in an Elven Wizard pronto. Only 24300 REC for a win every battle leader... :) - Oh, and 1000gp for the spell. Edit: Can someone also clarify whether its a burst (and hence immoblie once triggered) or an emanation? It actually explicitly says burst, but the description seems to imply emanation. I'd assume emanation, but I'm bugged by the following line. From SRD, Symbol of pain: When triggered, a symbol of death slays one or more creatures within 60 feet of the symbol (treat as a burst) whose combined total current hit points do not exceed 150.
templer10 03-20-07, 02:21 PM	question to you elders- as a result of the debate that was started 2 weeks ago about the dorja and in order to preapere for this week (mar 14th) fight i reduced what had been a ML2 dorja to ML1 becuase i couldnt afford the theoretical higher price thought needed for ML 2 dorja. since now there is a ruling about the Dorja prices can i put it back as ML2? (the dorja wasnt used this week).
MindWandererB 03-20-07, 04:58 PM	question to you elders- as a result of the debate that was started 2 weeks ago about the dorja and in order to preapere for this week (mar 14th) fight i reduced what had been a ML2 dorja to ML1 becuase i couldnt afford the theoretical higher price thought needed for ML 2 dorja. since now there is a ruling about the Dorja prices can i put it back as ML2? (the dorja wasnt used this week). You're talking about Lord Lorian's dorje of Energy Ray, right? That's fine--1500 gp is correct. Just change it on the sheet and dock yourself the difference (again).
Rauul 03-20-07, 06:43 PM	You're talking about Lord Lorian's dorje of Energy Ray, right? That's fine--1500 gp is correct. Just change it on the sheet and dock yourself the difference (again). So an Enlarged(augmented) energy ray ML 2 is still to cost the same as a normal ML2 Dorje? *shakes head*
MindWandererB 03-20-07, 06:49 PM	So an Enlarged(augmented) energy ray ML 2 is still to cost the same as a normal ML2 Dorje? *shakes head*I don't like it either, but to nerf it in any way seems to be contradicting the RAW explicitly. If you can find anything in the rules to suggest otherwise, I'd be happy to hear it.
MitzaVolchenko 03-20-07, 10:11 PM	I don't like it either, but to nerf it in any way seems to be contradicting the RAW explicitly. If you can find anything in the rules to suggest otherwise, I'd be happy to hear it. Since when have we had a problem editing the costs of things to suit ourselves? Or limiting the purchase for that matter?
templer10 03-20-07, 10:31 PM	I would like an elders rulling on teh subject of Tumbling while prone- recently in a fight my char harbinger Who uses spiked chain and improved trip Tripeed several times his opponent. it's not clear in the PHB what length of movement a prone individual can tumble to avoid AOA - rauul who was the pitlord for the fight thinks it's regular tumble - ergo half movement- the ROTG in several articales said exsplisetly (rotg - all about movement 4, all about movement 7, all about tripping 2) explisetly said that while you can tumble while prone you can only tumble 5 feet per move action- and that i's another move action to stand up. i would like elders comments on this as it is critical to harbinager's style of fighting. btw- tellish opinions as noted in the FOTW thread is that iam right. also - if you please do any of you know what is the Tumble DC for standing up from prone and not getting AoA since tha also isnt mentioned anywhere i can see.
NiQil 03-20-07, 10:39 PM	I would like an elders rulling on teh subject of Tumbling while prone- recently in a fight my char harbinger Who uses spiked chain and improved trip Tripeed several times his opponent. it's not clear in the PHB what length of movement a prone individual can tumble to avoid AOA - rauul who was the pitlord for the fight thinks it's regular tumble - ergo half movement- the ROTG in several articales said exsplisetly (rotg - all about movement 4, all about movement 7, all about tripping 2) explisetly said that while you can tumble while prone you can only tumble 5 feet per move action- and that i's another move action to stand up. i would like elders comments on this as it is critical to harbinager's style of fighting. btw- tellish opinions as noted in the FOTW thread is that iam right. also - if you please do any of you know what is the Tumble DC for standing up from prone and not getting AoA since tha also isnt mentioned anywhere i can see. If memory serves, someone (MWB I think) recently posted a link to a RotG article that stated you could use a tumble check and a full round action to crawl 5 ft while prone.
Rauul 03-20-07, 11:11 PM	If memory serves, someone (MWB I think) recently posted a link to a RotG article that stated you could use a tumble check and a full round action to crawl 5 ft while prone. According to the RoTg you can tumble 5ft while prone as a move action, you can then tumble 15 ft (half movement) as a move action with no attack, consider it a 20ft double move action..(tumbling withdraw) once you pass the DC's clearly listed under skills, you +20 and +25 you suffer no Attacks of Oppurtunity.. then next round the tumbler wouldn't be considered prone but would have +3 or 6 to ac's then the attacker has to hit the new ac to retrip.. (Please note that every aspect of tumbling is to Avoid Attacks of Oppertunities) Wash rince and repeat.. either you smash them or they go on the offensive.. yes it's only a 20ft movement, far enough to get away.. maybe even far enough to break LOS.. Does this make a Skill thats only inclass for 2 maybe 3 classes... not anymore that Diplomacy getting you an ally, or handle animal getting you a flanking buddy..
Zevox 03-20-07, 11:18 PM	According to the RoTg you can tumble 5ft while prone as a move action, you can then tumble 15 ft (half movement) as a move action with no attack, consider it a 20ft double move action..(tumbling withdraw) Um, tumbling while prone doesn't automatically let him stand up. If he tumbles back 5' as a move action, he still needs to use a move action to stand up before he can start tumbling at half speed again. then next round the tumbler wouldn't be considered prone but would have +3 or 6 to ac's Say what? Thats for when using the "attack defensively" or "total defense" actions, you don't get that just for tumbling. Zevox
Rauul 03-20-07, 11:23 PM	Um, tumbling while prone doesn't automatically let him stand up. If he tumbles back 5' as a move action, he still needs to use a move action to stand up before he can start tumbling at half speed again. Say what? Thats for when using the "attack defensively" or "total defense" actions, you don't get that just for tumbling. Zevox why would any fool stand up.. and not use thier momentum from tumbling the 5ft to continue on a Tumble move action instead of standing up... So tumbling on a full withdraw isn't considered Total defense? funny if i was tumbling away from a big chain swinging person.. i would be on full defense.. but thats just me...
Zevox 03-20-07, 11:29 PM	why would any fool stand up.. and not use thier momentum from tumbling the 5ft to continue on a Tumble move action instead of standing up... If they're still prone, they can't go 15' with a move action, still just the 5' being prone restricts them to. So tumbling on a full withdraw isn't considered Total defense? funny if i was tumbling away from a big chain swinging person.. i would be on full defense.. but thats just me... Total defense takes a standard action to start. You can't do it when withdrawing since thats a full round action. You could when tumbling normally, but then you'd only get the one move action's worth of tumbling and wouldn't be able to do anything else that isn't a free/immediate/swift action. Zevox
Rauul 03-20-07, 11:33 PM	If they're still prone, they can't go 15' with a move action, still just the 5' being prone restricts them to. Total defense takes a standard action to start. You can't do it when withdrawing since thats a full round action. You could when tumbling normally, but then you'd only get the one move action's worth of tumbling and wouldn't be able to do anything else that isn't a free/immediate/swift action. Zevox what i am trying to say... is that tumbling is a Move action... Standing from prone is a Move action, why stand when you can just tumble away?
Zevox 03-20-07, 11:35 PM	what i am trying to say... is that tumbling is a Move action... Standing from prone is a Move action, why stand when you can just tumble away? Um, because if you're prone, the farthest you can get in one round while tumbling is 10'? Zevox
Rauul 03-20-07, 11:40 PM	Um, because if you're prone, the farthest you can get in one round while tumbling is 10'? Zevox half your normal move..
Zevox 03-20-07, 11:44 PM	half your normal move.. You can't move a normal move when prone. You can crawl 5' as a move action that provokes (which is in the FAQ). You can tumble 5' as a move action with a DC 20 tumble check (according to that RotG article MWB found). Thats it. Zevox
templer10 03-21-07, 12:08 AM	rauul - you might not like the rule - but it's 100% and tottaly clear - you simply cant tumble more then 5 feet while prone and you definently cant tumble MORE then 5 feet AND tumble another 15 while prone and Stand and be onthe defensive or total defense - thats 5 move actions + a standart or full round action all toghter. simply put-the trip mechanisem combined with spiked chain is a powerfull combo which you cant get out so easliy.
Rauul 03-21-07, 12:46 AM	rauul - you might not like the rule - but it's 100% and tottaly clear - you simply cant tumble more then 5 feet while prone and you definently cant tumble MORE then 5 feet AND tumble another 15 while prone and Stand and be onthe defensive or total defense - thats 5 move actions + a standart or full round action all toghter. simply put-the trip mechanisem combined with spiked chain is a powerfull combo which you cant get out so easliy. hence the reason i will proably quit Pitlording except for Quests and miniQuests.. the RoTG is written by Skip (refuses commenting on this person due to the rules of conduct and he is an jacka$$) the Spirit of the Tumbling Skill is to Avoid Attacks of Opportunity, Lower Ac, and make a thief charater survivalbility rate increase.. If you want.. I think i still have the original minutes from the brainstorming at Lake Geneva when the group of DM's to include me hashed out the original version (mid to late 80's GenCon) (I believe Skippy was still in diapers or drunk)
Zevox 03-21-07, 12:51 AM	hence the reason i will proably quit Pitlording except for Quests and miniQuests.. the RoTG is written by Skip (refuses commenting on this person due to the rules of conduct and he is an jacka$$) the Spirit of the Tumbling Skill is to Avoid Attacks of Opportunity, Lower Ac, and make a thief charater survivalbility rate increase.. If you want.. I think i still have the original minutes from the brainstorming at Lake Geneva when the group of DM's to include me hashed out the original version (mid to late 80's GenCon) (I believe Skippy was still in diapers or drunk) If it weren't for that RotG article, you couldn't tumble while prone here, since its not in the core rules and 1/2 of a 5' speed isn't moving at all. Anyway, the spirit of tumbling is working just fine here. You're still avoiding AoOs, you could still take total defense if you want, and its still a useful thief trick. It just isn't as effective when you're prone and so very limited in your mobility. Zevox
TheMagister 03-21-07, 01:06 PM	Dorje of HammerA [ML 3] [44 charges] [.25 lbs][4500 gp] Dorje of Offensive PrecognitionA [ML 4] [45 charges] [.25 lbs][6000 gp] Are these right?
MindWandererB 03-21-07, 03:48 PM	Are these right? Yes.
templer10 03-21-07, 05:26 PM	any chance to get response on the issue about tumbling while prone i raised ealier? it will help if i can point to a ruling while doing tactics for my guy.
MindWandererB 03-21-07, 05:36 PM	any chance to get response on the issue about tumbling while prone i raised ealier? it will help if i can point to a ruling while doing tactics for my guy. Sure. I refer you to the RotG article here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040720a): Prone: When you're prone, you're lying on the ground. As noted in Part One, you can crawl 5 feet while prone as a move action, or you can use a move action to stand up (either of these provokes an attack of opportunity from foes that threaten you). You also can tumble 5 feet without provoking an attack of opportunity (see Part One).
templer10 03-21-07, 05:46 PM	Sure. I refer you to the RotG article here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040720a): so i can take this as an official ruling? - since i had problems with it last fight when the pitlord refused to follow that rule.
MindWandererB 03-21-07, 05:49 PM	so i can take this as an official ruling? - since i had problems with it last fight when the pitlord refused to follow that rule. You don't even need an official ruling. The RotG is an official ruling unless we overturn it--which we do very rarely. If a pitlord refused to follow that, they were in error. However, IIRC, the timing prevented you from doing what you wanted to do. Tumbling 5 feet is a move action, standing is a move action, so that's all you get in a round without Hustle or something like it. You can't also take full defense, or move any distance beyond that 5 feet, or take any standard action.
templer10 03-21-07, 05:58 PM	You don't even need an official ruling. The RotG is an official ruling unless we overturn it--which we do very rarely. If a pitlord refused to follow that, they were in error. However, IIRC, the timing prevented you from doing what you wanted to do. Tumbling 5 feet is a move action, standing is a move action, so that's all you get in a round without Hustle or something like it. You can't also take full defense, or move any distance beyond that 5 feet, or take any standard action. lol- you got me wrong- i was the tripper- he gave the other guy the option multiple times to tumble 20! feet while prone and stand and attack or do something else in the same round. (all on the same tumble roll i might add)
MindWandererB 03-21-07, 06:02 PM	lol- you got me wrong- i was the tripper- he gave the other guy the option multiple times to tumble 20! feet while prone and stand and attack or do something else in the same round. (all on the same tumble roll i might add) Ah, I remember the problem, just not the people. Yep, you seem to be in the right on this one.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-21-07, 06:03 PM	lol- you got me wrong- i was the tripper- he gave the other guy the option multiple times to tumble 20! feet while prone and stand and attack or do something else in the same round. (all on the same tumble roll i might add) I might be wrong, but i thought he realized he erred, and didn't edit the fight because all Weapon had to do was stay prone and attack anyhow, so with all the same rolls, the fight ends the same way. ToK (but, like i said...i could be wrong)
Rauul 03-21-07, 06:06 PM	I might be wrong, but i thought he realized he erred, and didn't edit the fight because all Weapon had to do was stay prone and attack anyhow, so with all the same rolls, the fight ends the same way. ToK (but, like i said...i could be wrong) no you are very correct.... i followed the rules and the silly RoTG.. not that i agree with them
templer10 03-21-07, 06:09 PM	I might be wrong, but i thought he realized he erred, and didn't edit the fight because all Weapon had to do was stay prone and attack anyhow, so with all the same rolls, the fight ends the same way. ToK (but, like i said...i could be wrong) hmm - seems like he did do that - didnt saw that - sorry- worse luck in rolls ever lol - couldnt roll 14 to save my life- literly.
MindWandererB 03-21-07, 07:15 PM	Hmm... I'm writing tactics for Bethirah, and I'd like a formal ruling on this: If the creature normally is allowed to make both weapon attacks and natural weapon attacks as part of the same full attack routine, the monk can do the same (making unarmed strikes in place of weapon attacks). Since a centaur can make two hoof attacks in addition to his longsword attack, a centaur monk can make two hoof attacks in addition to his unarmed strike attack (or attacks, depending on his base attack bonus). The monk can’t use his natural weapon attacks as part of a flurry of blows, but he can make natural weapon attacks in addition to his flurry. Such attacks suffer the same –2 penalty as the monk’s flurry attacks in addition to the normal –5 penalty for secondary natural attacks.Now, I've been assuming that a character with claw attacks is not "allowed to make both weapon attacks and natural weapon attacks as part of the same full attack routine." Have I been correct in making this assumption? If not, I'd really like to be able to use a flurry/flurry/claw/claw/bite routine.
Zevox 03-21-07, 07:22 PM	Hmm... I'm writing tactics for Bethirah, and I'd like a formal ruling on this: Now, I've been assuming that a character with claw attacks is not "allowed to make both weapon attacks and natural weapon attacks as part of the same full attack routine." Have I been correct in making this assumption? If not, I'd really like to be able to use a flurry/flurry/claw/claw/bite routine. I'm no Elder, but I can pretty definitely say that if you're right, its only partially right, since many characters with claws can do that (example: Asran's full attack routine of axe/claw/bite, anything along the lines of Troglodytes or Lizardfolk, etc). I'd certainly put Lycanthropes among those can myself (Werewolf with a sword doing the same type of full attack as Asran seems fine to me), so I'd guess Besthira should get the routine you indicate. Zevox
MindWandererB 03-21-07, 07:26 PM	I'm no Elder, but I can pretty definitely say that if you're right, its only partially right, since many characters with claws can do that (example: Asran's full attack routine of axe/claw/bite, anything along the lines of Troglodytes or Lizardfolk, etc). I'd certainly put Lycanthropes among those can myself (Werewolf with a sword doing the same type of full attack as Asran seems fine to me), so I'd guess Besthira should get the routine you indicate. Zevox Hm, I didn't consider one-handed weapon + claw. And since unarmed strikes are "no-handed," I suppose I'd still have both claws free. Ick. Does anyone else agree? It reeks of cheese....
hogarth 03-21-07, 07:30 PM	Hm, I didn't consider one-handed weapon + claw. And since unarmed strikes are "no-handed," I suppose I'd still have both claws free. Ick. Does anyone else agree? It reeks of cheese.... On the Character Optimization board they call those type of characters "karate bears". ;)
Tellish_of_Ket 03-21-07, 07:40 PM	Hm, I didn't consider one-handed weapon + claw. And since unarmed strikes are "no-handed," I suppose I'd still have both claws free. Ick. Does anyone else agree? It reeks of cheese.... yes, but you will have HUGE minuses.
Zevox 03-21-07, 07:45 PM	yes, but you will have HUGE minuses. Not if she takes Multiattack (and perhaps also Improved Multiattack) in the future. As she is now though, yeah, those natural attacks will be at -7 each, and the unarmed at the usual -2. Zevox
MindWandererB 03-21-07, 07:46 PM	yes, but you will have HUGE minuses. Sure, my secondary attacks will be at -7. But if I'm flurrying anyway, then the extra attacks are "free." Might as well take 'em if I have 'em, right?
templer10 03-22-07, 12:46 AM	Sure, my secondary attacks will be at -7. But if I'm flurrying anyway, then the extra attacks are "free." Might as well take 'em if I have 'em, right? Faq is pretty clear on it and say you can - guess WOTC just love monks. btw- also from logical standpoint there is no reason to disallow it since the flury can be done by any body part - not just the claws- legs, elbow, knees, head butts whatever - it even say so in the monk unarmed strike description.
sonofzeal 03-22-07, 07:33 PM	On a related note, a friend of mine has been wondering how a monk's Flurry works with, say, a vampire's slam attack - the part about negative levels, specifically. I'm guessing the answer is that it doesn't, right?
Tellish_of_Ket 03-22-07, 07:35 PM	On a related note, a friend of mine has been wondering how a monk's Flurry works with, say, a vampire's slam attack - the part about negative levels, specifically. I'm guessing the answer is that it doesn't, right? You are correct. It doesn't. The vampire either slams for energy drain, or makes flurry attacks. ToK
MindWandererB 03-22-07, 07:57 PM	You are correct. It doesn't. The vampire either slams for energy drain, or makes flurry attacks. ToK Actually... according to our recent ruling, it can use both: a flurry/flurry/slam as a single attack routine. The slam takes a -5 to -7 penalty, but it still delivers the negative level.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-22-07, 08:26 PM	Actually... according to our recent ruling, it can use both: a flurry/flurry/slam as a single attack routine. The slam takes a -5 to -7 penalty, but it still delivers the negative level. I think he meant flurring and draining life on each unarmed strike. But of course you can correct in what you are saying as well. I just answered the question based on what it seemed like he was asking if a vampire can flurry-drain. ToK
Abyssal Stalker 03-23-07, 02:26 AM	Really? I have to remember this with Jonathon, allthough usually it's better to use the slam attack with the higher bonus (and thus forget the flurry), because energy drain is a powerful tool. But flurrying with energy drain is a no-no, allthough it seems stupid. Natural attacks can't be used in a flurry. It seems to be different to slam with a fist compared to slamming with your fists fast... :monk:
Hirumajoe 03-23-07, 07:33 AM	I think he meant flurring and draining life on each unarmed strike. But of course you can correct in what you are saying as well. I just answered the question based on what it seemed like he was asking if a vampire can flurry-drain. ToK Hate to break it to you guys, but a vampire can use his energy drain on any natural weapon attack. Last I checked, monk fists counted as both natural and manufactured weapons. However, what is saving you is the fact that a vampire can only use his energy drain once per round. Which also means when a Vampire has a high enough BAB to get 2 slams around, it can't drain twice a round. From the Vampire Template in the SRD: Energy Drain (Su) Living creatures hit by a vampire’s slam attack (or any other natural weapon the vampire might possess) gain two negative levels. For each negative level bestowed, the vampire gains 5 temporary hit points. A vampire can use its energy drain ability once per round. Now my only question is what happens when you miss with first one? It doesn't look like you have to "declare" your energy drain, so as long as its not been used this round, can you use it on your 2nd attack if the 1st missed?
Abyssal Stalker 03-23-07, 07:36 AM	:thumbsup: That's good to hear!
Hirumajoe 03-23-07, 08:21 AM	:thumbsup: That's good to hear! Although be careful, Vampire Spawn have a different section. Their energy drain specifically refers to only their slam. But then again, Vampire Spawn only have a slam attack. So I'm not sure what the intent was there. Here's a dumb question. Does a 4 HD Centaur come back as a Centaur Vampire or a Vampire Spawn.... And are they suddenly two legged human like things if they come back as spawn? All this talk of vampire has me wondering if a Vampire "leader" would be viable in the Co-Co. And by leader, I mean a 3 HD (ECL 11) shrimp being guarded by multiple Vampires and Vampire Spawns. (Since you can chain control with the Create Spawn power).
Abyssal Stalker 03-23-07, 08:25 AM	Although be careful, Vampire Spawn have a different section. Their energy drain specifically refers to only their slam. But then again, Vampire Spawn only have a slam attack. So I'm not sure what the intent was there. Here's a dumb question. Does a 4 HD Centaur come back as a Centaur Vampire or a Vampire Spawn.... And are they suddenly two legged human like things if they come back as spawn? All this talk of vampire has me wondering if a Vampire "leader" would be viable in the Co-Co. And by leader, I mean a 3 HD (ECL 11) shrimp being guarded by multiple Vampires and Vampire Spawns. (Since you can chain control with the Create Spawn power). No, they look just like an undead centaur. They might look like thay are large quadruped, but effectively they are two-legged medium-sized undead. Just like if you have a dead horse and you make it a ghoul, it suddenly becomes a medium creature. Or a wight kills an gargantuan dragon. It becomes a medium-sized creture... That's unlife!
Abyssal Stalker 03-23-07, 08:28 AM	The only undead templates are zombie, skeleton, vampire, ghost and lich. Others are specific creature, no matter what was the original corpse. At least I haven't found any rule that would say that you would need a specific corpse to create a specific undead, as with the spell Create Greater Undead.
hogarth 03-23-07, 08:36 AM	Just like if you have a dead horse and you make it a ghoul, it suddenly becomes a medium creature. Or a wight kills an gargantuan dragon. It becomes a medium-sized creture... That's unlife! Wights and ghouls only make spawn out of humanoid creatures. But along the same lines, a halfling ghoul or wight suddenly grows to twice his original size.
SauroGrenom 03-23-07, 09:25 AM	Hate to break it to you guys, but a vampire can use his energy drain on any natural weapon attack. Last I checked, monk fists counted as both natural and manufactured weapons. However, what is saving you is the fact that a vampire can only use his energy drain once per round. Which also means when a Vampire has a high enough BAB to get 2 slams around, it can't drain twice a round.Slam is a natural weapon, so there are no iterative attacks, no matter how high is your BAB. The Energy Drain is an effect of the slam attack when it hits. The slam attack is not a monk weapon, so you cannot flurry with it. You can use it at the end of a flurry with associated penalties for the flurry and for being a secondary weapon, but a slam cannot be a part of the flurry of blows. No matter what you only get a single slam attack in the round of attacks. You could get an extra slam on an AoO, but you only get energy drain 1/round.
hogarth 03-23-07, 09:35 AM	The Energy Drain is an effect of the slam attack when it hits. The slam attack is not a monk weapon, so you cannot flurry with it. That's true, but note for a vampire "living creatures hit by a vampire’s slam attack (or any other natural weapon the vampire might possess) gain two negative levels". Thus a vampire monk could use his monk's unarmed strike to deliver negative levels since it's a natural weapon (but only once per round at any rate).
templer10 03-23-07, 09:43 AM	That's true, but note for a vampire "living creatures hit by a vampire’s slam attack (or any other natural weapon the vampire might possess) gain two negative levels". Thus a vampire monk could use his monk's unarmed strike to deliver negative levels since it's a natural weapon (but only once per round at any rate). Just wondering - does vampire spawn has diffrent stat adjusments and diffrent LA then full fledged vampire? becuase the SRD doesnt list those for vampire spawn
Abyssal Stalker 03-23-07, 09:45 AM	We are using the given LA in Libris Mortis. You can find the needed information from Rules of Gladius, under "playable races".
Sunwolf 03-23-07, 09:46 AM	D&D Fight club did a vampire-werewolf (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20070323a) which allows the energy drain on a natural weapon attack but only once a round. From reading it looks like the first hit by a natural weapon would apply the energy drain.
Abyssal Stalker 03-23-07, 09:53 AM	Although be careful, Vampire Spawn have a different section. Their energy drain specifically refers to only their slam. But then again, Vampire Spawn only have a slam attack. So I'm not sure what the intent was there. The reason for this is probably that the vampire spawn in SRD possesses only one attack and can't advance in any way. But, in CoCo we are using spawn a playable creature and it should be considered accordingly. My understanding is that there isn't any reason why a vampire spawn's energy drain ability would work differently from a true vampire's. It isn't specifically mentioned, because the SRD spawn can't have any other attack modes, unlike the spawn we are using in CoCo. My suggestion would be that a vampire spawn can use it's energy drain ability in any natural attack it has. I can't see any reason why hitting with a fist would be different from hitting with a fist. Of course, my opinion is biased because my character gets an advantage this way, but it doesn't still make it wrong. Do Elders have any opinion on this?
templer10 03-23-07, 09:56 AM	The reason for this is probably that the vampire spawn in SRD possesses only one attack and can't advance in any way. But, in CoCo we are using spawn a playable creature and it should be considered accordingly. My understanding is that there isn't any reason why a vampire spawn's energy drain ability would work differently from a true vampire's. It isn't specifically mentioned, because the SRD spawn can't have any other attack modes, unlike the spawn we are using in CoCo. My suggestion would be that a vampire spawn can use it's energy drain ability in any natural attack it has. I can't see any reason why hitting with a fist would be different from hitting with a fist. Of course, my opinion is biased because my character gets an advantage this way, but it doesn't still make it wrong. Do Elders have any opinion on this? iam not an edler but i agree with you - a fist IS a fist doesnt matter if it's a monk first or a slam. (do remmber that the whole of the monk's body is 1 big natural weapon).
Abyssal Stalker 03-23-07, 10:01 AM	iam not an edler but i agree with you - a fist IS a fist doesnt matter if it's a monk first or a slam. (do remmber that the whole of the monk's body is 1 big natural weapon). Don't count that Sauro agrees with us. He can even find a difference between touching and touching :P
hogarth 03-23-07, 10:03 AM	:heehee It's funny 'cause it's true.
SauroGrenom 03-23-07, 10:07 AM	This is covered in the FAQ: Exactly how often can a monk attack with a single manufactured weapon when using the flurry of blows ability? For example, if I have a +1 alchemical silver dagger, and I’m allowed three attacks in a flurry, how many of those attacks can be dagger attacks? What if I have two daggers? How about with natural weaponry, such as a claw or bite? For example, if I have a vampire monk, can I flurry with a slam attack and drain energy multiple times from one living foe? If natural weaponry doesn’t work with a flurry, why not? You can’t use a dagger with a flurry of blows at all. When you use the flurry ability, you must attack with either unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons. Only six of the latter are included in the Player’s Handbook (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham). A natural weapon (any natural weapon) is neither an unarmed strike nor a special monk weapon, so you can’t use it along with a flurry. If you have one (or two) special monk weapons, you can freely substitute attacks with those weapons with unarmed attacks in the flurry (see the flurry of blows description on page 46 of the Player’s Handbook). If you’re allowed three attacks in a flurry, and you have a +1 alchemical silver sai (or other special monk weapon), you could use the sai up to three times in the flurry. The examples given in the flurry of blows entry don’t make that completely clear because they don’t cover all the combinations of weapon attacks and unarmed strikes that are possible. If you have two special monk weapons to use, you can use either or both of them in the flurry. For example, if you’re entitled to three attacks using flurry of blows, and you’re armed with a +1 alchemical silver sai and a cold iron sai, you can make three attacks with one sai and no attacks with the other, two attacks with one sai and one attack with the other, one attack with each sai and one unarmed attack, or any other combination of three attacks. Note that having a sai in each hand won’t prevent a monk from making unarmed attacks. A monk with her hands full can still make her full complement of unarmed strikes (see the unarmed strike entry on page 41 of the Player’s Handbook). It might seem a tad strange that you cannot use a natural weapon, such as a slam or a claw when you can use a monk weapon such as a sai or a kama. However, natural weaponry isn’t as handy as manufactured weaponry. You never get extra attacks from a high base attack bonus with natural weaponry, and the monk’s flurry ability is another way to get extra attacks from your base attack bonus. Please note that a vampire monk using its unarmed strike ability is not using its slam attack and cannot drain energy. Also a vampire is different from vampire spawn. You only have the negative level drain on slam attacks with vampire spawn. This energy drain does not apply to all natural attacks for this creature.
Rauul 03-23-07, 10:40 AM	This is covered in the FAQ: Exactly how often can a monk attack with a single manufactured weapon when using the flurry of blows ability? For example, if I have a +1 alchemical silver dagger, and I’m allowed three attacks in a flurry, how many of those attacks can be dagger attacks? What if I have two daggers? How about with natural weaponry, such as a claw or bite? For example, if I have a vampire monk, can I flurry with a slam attack and drain energy multiple times from one living foe? If natural weaponry doesn’t work with a flurry, why not? You can’t use a dagger with a flurry of blows at all. When you use the flurry ability, you must attack with either unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons. Only six of the latter are included in the Player’s Handbook (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham). A natural weapon (any natural weapon) is neither an unarmed strike nor a special monk weapon, so you can’t use it along with a flurry. If you have one (or two) special monk weapons, you can freely substitute attacks with those weapons with unarmed attacks in the flurry (see the flurry of blows description on page 46 of the Player’s Handbook). If you’re allowed three attacks in a flurry, and you have a +1 alchemical silver sai (or other special monk weapon), you could use the sai up to three times in the flurry. The examples given in the flurry of blows entry don’t make that completely clear because they don’t cover all the combinations of weapon attacks and unarmed strikes that are possible. If you have two special monk weapons to use, you can use either or both of them in the flurry. For example, if you’re entitled to three attacks using flurry of blows, and you’re armed with a +1 alchemical silver sai and a cold iron sai, you can make three attacks with one sai and no attacks with the other, two attacks with one sai and one attack with the other, one attack with each sai and one unarmed attack, or any other combination of three attacks. Note that having a sai in each hand won’t prevent a monk from making unarmed attacks. A monk with her hands full can still make her full complement of unarmed strikes (see the unarmed strike entry on page 41 of the Player’s Handbook). It might seem a tad strange that you cannot use a natural weapon, such as a slam or a claw when you can use a monk weapon such as a sai or a kama. However, natural weaponry isn’t as handy as manufactured weaponry. You never get extra attacks from a high base attack bonus with natural weaponry, and the monk’s flurry ability is another way to get extra attacks from your base attack bonus. Please note that a vampire monk using its unarmed strike ability is not using its slam attack and cannot drain energy. Also a vampire is different from vampire spawn. You only have the negative level drain on slam attacks with vampire spawn. This energy drain does not apply to all natural attacks for this creature. then whats the credit cost to play a true vampire.. not a spawn....
SauroGrenom 03-23-07, 10:43 AM	Depends on what ECL you start at. Look in the rules thread post about playable races. It shows the LA on the template. Apply that to whatever base creature you like and pay the credit cost to play at the resulting ECL.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-23-07, 12:05 PM	A natural weapon (any natural weapon) is neither an unarmed strike nor a special monk weapon, so you can’t use it along with a flurry. Well, there goes MWB's theory of using flurry/flurry/claw/claw/bite. Which actually makes sense now that i think of it. I'm a bit on the fence with it. I see both sides. But as usual my stance is to always "err on the side of caution". ToK
templer10 03-23-07, 12:08 PM	Well, there goes MWB's theory of using flurry/flurry/claw/claw/bite. Which actually makes sense now that i think of it. I'm a bit on the fence with it. I see both sides. But as usual my stance is to always "err on the side of caution". ToK err - no- reread the FAQ all the faq say is that you cant use a natural attack as part of a flury as in flurry with Claw/Claw nothing in there prevents you from doing flury/flury with something which isnt listed as a natural weapon - leg, knee, elbow, head butt whatever and then do natural attacks as secondery attacks.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-23-07, 12:15 PM	err - no- reread the FAQ all the faq say is that you cant use a natural attack as part of a flury as in flurry with Claw/Claw nothing in there prevents you from doing flury/flury with something which isnt listed as a natural weapon - leg, knee, elbow, head butt whatever and then do natural attacks as secondery attacks. meh, sounds fishy in the interpretation...but like i said. I'm on the fence, so either is good for me. I don't find it abusive, so it's all good. Makes no diff to me. ToK
Zevox 03-23-07, 12:23 PM	meh, sounds fishy in the interpretation...but like i said. I'm on the fence, so either is good for me. I don't find it abusive, so it's all good. Makes no diff to me. ToK If one doesn't interpret it as Templer10 does, then you have two contradictory FAQ entries, since there is the one MWB quoted here that says explicitly that a Centaur monk could do a flurry and his hoof attacks as the same routine. Zevox
SauroGrenom 03-23-07, 12:24 PM	This is in the FAQ as well: Can a monk who has natural weapon attacks (such as a centaur monk) attack unarmed and still use his natural weapons? For example, let’s say he’s a 4th-level monk. Can he use a flurry of blows and attack at +5/+5/+0 unarmed (plus other bonuses) and then at +0/+0 for 2 hooves? If the creature normally is allowed to make both weapon attacks and natural weapon attacks as part of the same full attack routine, the monk can do the same (making unarmed strikes in place of weapon attacks). Since a centaur can make two hoof attacks in addition to his longsword attack, a centaur monk can make two hoof attacks in addition to his unarmed strike attack (or attacks, depending on his base attack bonus). The monk can’t use his natural weapon attacks as part of a flurry of blows, but he can make natural weapon attacks in addition to his flurry. Such attacks suffer the same –2 penalty as the monk’s flurry attacks in addition to the normal –5 penalty for secondary natural attacks. An 4th-level centaur monk has a base attack bonus of +7 (+4 from his 4 monstrous humanoid Hit Dice, and +3 from his 8 monk levels). If he performs a flurry of blows, he makes three unarmed strikes, at +5/+5/+0. He can add two hoof attacks at –2/–2 (–5 as secondary weapons, and –2 from the flurry).
Tellish_of_Ket 03-23-07, 12:30 PM	If one doesn't interpret it as Templer10 does, then you have two contradictory FAQ entries, since there is the one MWB quoted here that says explicitly that a Centaur monk could do a flurry and his hoof attacks as the same routine. Zevox This is in the FAQ as well: Can a monk who has natural weapon attacks (such as a centaur monk) attack unarmed and still use his natural weapons? For example, let’s say he’s a 4th-level monk. Can he use a flurry of blows and attack at +5/+5/+0 unarmed (plus other bonuses) and then at +0/+0 for 2 hooves? If the creature normally is allowed to make both weapon attacks and natural weapon attacks as part of the same full attack routine, the monk can do the same (making unarmed strikes in place of weapon attacks). Since a centaur can make two hoof attacks in addition to his longsword attack, a centaur monk can make two hoof attacks in addition to his unarmed strike attack (or attacks, depending on his base attack bonus). The monk can’t use his natural weapon attacks as part of a flurry of blows, but he can make natural weapon attacks in addition to his flurry. Such attacks suffer the same –2 penalty as the monk’s flurry attacks in addition to the normal –5 penalty for secondary natural attacks. An 4th-level centaur monk has a base attack bonus of +7 (+4 from his 4 monstrous humanoid Hit Dice, and +3 from his 8 monk levels). If he performs a flurry of blows, he makes three unarmed strikes, at +5/+5/+0. He can add two hoof attacks at –2/–2 (–5 as secondary weapons, and –2 from the flurry). Yup...fair enough. Like i said...it didn't bother me either way.
MindWandererB 03-23-07, 01:45 PM	No, they look just like an undead centaur. They might look like thay are large quadruped, but effectively they are two-legged medium-sized undead. Just like if you have a dead horse and you make it a ghoul, it suddenly becomes a medium creature. Or a wight kills an gargantuan dragon. It becomes a medium-sized creture... That's unlife!Wights and ghouls only make spawn out of humanoid creatures. But along the same lines, a halfling ghoul or wight suddenly grows to twice his original size.I think in the 3.0 MM, some of those entries specifically said that they were based on humans, and ones created from other creatures would have different characteristics. I looked for it in 3.5, and I can't find it, and it's not in the 3.0 SRD.
Vathelokai 03-24-07, 12:54 PM	Was there ever a ruling on what items can be worn by non humanoid creatures? Specificly, who can wear a belt or vest: dragon, xorn, displacer beast, shadow mastif, ravid, arrowhawk?
Macbrea 03-24-07, 01:31 PM	Since, we seems to using the dragonomicon for dragons ability to wield weapons. We might as well use the rest of that entry that pretains to use of magic items. It says they use the following. Have all slots of a humanoid except as follows. Cannot wield weapons in hands. Wear non-humanoid armor similar to barding. Gloves and boots are toeless but otherwise the same.
Vathelokai 03-24-07, 02:58 PM	Well, that's for dragons, but what of other quadrapeds? Seems safe to assume that a dog could wear anything a dragon could. Not so sure about xorn and arrowhawks and octopi. Pitlord discression, maybe?
MindWandererB 03-24-07, 03:16 PM	Well, that's for dragons, but what of other quadrapeds? Seems safe to assume that a dog could wear anything a dragon could. Not so sure about xorn and arrowhawks and octopi. Pitlord discression, maybe? There's a RotG that answers this for quadrupeds. Non-quadrupeds are handed case-by-case.
Prisonlords 03-25-07, 03:09 PM	The Court Decisions have been updated with some recent rulings. I have also added another Miscellaneous section where other things that need to be around but don't quite go anywhere else will be posted. The first entry there is Sauro's Tutorial on Flight, which I know some of you were looking for recently. It is located here.
Vathelokai 03-25-07, 04:41 PM	There's a RotG that answers this [body slots on non-humanoids for carrying magic items] for quadrupeds. Non-quadrupeds are handed case-by-case. Using magic items part 3 (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041123a) It's worth noting that the item location rules in the Dungeon Master's Guide assume a humanoid body. Nonhumanoid bodies have the same set of 12 item locations noted in the Dungeon Master's Guide, though perhaps in slightly different forms. You can find examples in the Draconomicon and in Wild Life, Part Two. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/re/20031125a) Animals part 4 (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070206a) Once you do so, however, you and your DM face a potentially difficult decision. Exactly which items can animals use? Since most magic items fit users of any size, the simple answer is this: pretty much any item. No animal companion can use an item that requires spell completion or spell knowledge because they are not spellcasters. Likewise animals cannot speak, so they can't use command word items. Animals also lack weapon proficiencies and prehensile appendages, so they cannot employ weapons, either. That leaves us with the following: potions (though you may have to open the potion vial and pour out the liquid), rings, and most items that can be worn or carried. Your DM may decide that your companion's body type simply does not allow some items to fit your companion. For example, you might persuade your DM to let your wolf wear boots, but don't count on your snake wearing boots. Creatures like owls and hawks may have a hard time with cloaks (since the garment interferes with their wings). Other than the exceptions noted here, all animals have locations for magic items similar to those noted for characters on page 214 of the Dungeon Master's Guide. For example, a quadruped uses its back feet for the "foot" location and its front feet for the "hand" location. The hind legs correspond to a humanoid's legs and the front legs correspond to a humanoid's arms. For avians, treat the feet and legs as hands and arms, and the wings as legs and feet. The creature can wear "leg" items on its wings or hind legs, but not both. A snake simply wears items over its head or body. In most cases, even if your companion can't use an item you've found, it should be possible to make (or have made) an item it can use. For example, you might fashion wing bands of speed for your owl's or hawk's wings, and they would work just like boots of speed for your companion. For an in-depth look at what items an animal can use or wear, check out Wild Life. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/re/20031125a) So it seems that all creatures have the same total number of items slots, but some of them don't have the same ones as a humanoid. Interesting. But Skip repeatedly refers to WildLife (not one of our rules sources). So I guess it's Pitlord discression. I guess I'll try to stick to amulets and headbands then.
Yitzi 03-26-07, 11:27 PM	Since a significant number of pitlords have not posted their fights for this week yet, and it's getting close to the deadline (I suspect part of the problem was the fact that pairings were a day late), it might make sense to ask, what do you do about preparing for the next fight (and character editing) when your pitlord has not posted your fight by the deadline? Particularly if you want to buy something (at the end of the 3FC) and don't want to wait another 3 fights (also, what if you don't quite have enough cash yet, can you buy stuff using the cash you will have if you lose?)
Tellish_of_Ket 03-26-07, 11:36 PM	Since a significant number of pitlords have not posted their fights for this week yet, and it's getting close to the deadline (I suspect part of the problem was the fact that pairings were a day late), it might make sense to ask, what do you do about preparing for the next fight (and character editing) when your pitlord has not posted your fight by the deadline? Particularly if you want to buy something (at the end of the 3FC) and don't want to wait another 3 fights (also, what if you don't quite have enough cash yet, can you buy stuff using the cash you will have if you lose?) You won't have to wait another 3FC. What generally happens is that the fight is "held over" for that week as a late fight. Besides, it's probably quite rare that a fight gets posted after the character edit deadline, and before pairings...and is subsequently paired. I think it's actually almost impossible to be in the situation you are describing. However, should it ever arise, i'm sure there were be sufficient "extenuating circumstances" to allow a gladiator to level/buy stuff for his/her next fight. ToK
Zevox 03-26-07, 11:43 PM	Since a significant number of pitlords have not posted their fights for this week yet, and it's getting close to the deadline (I suspect part of the problem was the fact that pairings were a day late), it might make sense to ask, what do you do about preparing for the next fight (and character editing) when your pitlord has not posted your fight by the deadline? Particularly if you want to buy something (at the end of the 3FC) and don't want to wait another 3 fights (also, what if you don't quite have enough cash yet, can you buy stuff using the cash you will have if you lose?) 1) Do not edit your character before your fight is posted! I cannot stress that enough. You do that, you automatically lose the fight. 2) If your pitlord doesn't post the fight by the Wednesday editing deadline, the fight is held over. Even if the fight is posted a few minutes later, you can't get in the new week's fights. Sorry. 3) If your pitlord doesn't post the fight by the Tuesday deadline, no problem for you (they just lose their credit for doing the fight). So long as its in before the Wednesday editing deadline, you can still edit your character, purchase items, etc just fine, as long you get the edit in in time for that deadline. Zevox
hogarth 03-27-07, 03:46 PM	Ceilia is currently miniquesting out of cycle for an Animate Dead ally. Is she required to cast Animate Dead as part of the miniquest, or can she collect the corpse in the miniquest and cast the spell at a later date? Quick opinions would be welcomed since this will affect the match drastically!
TelinArtho 03-27-07, 03:48 PM	Since it is a spell used, yes, I would say it is required for the miniquest. This is akin to the cleric who rebukes undead. If they are unsuccessful in commanding with their allotted turn attempts - they simply fail to gain the ally.
SauroGrenom 03-27-07, 04:01 PM	Since it is a spell used, yes, I would say it is required for the miniquest. This is akin to the cleric who rebukes undead. If they are unsuccessful in commanding with their allotted turn attempts - they simply fail to gain the ally.That's not what happened with Cat's Harvester. The quest summary is here. Notice the lack of the Desecrate spell or the Animate Dead spell in the used section. I don't believe he cast that spell during the MQ.
TelinArtho 03-27-07, 04:10 PM	That's not what happened with Cat's Harvester. The quest summary is here. Notice the lack of the Desecrate spell or the Animate Dead spell in the used section. I don't believe he cast that spell during the MQ. Well there's a precedent. Harvester didn't even have it memorized at the time of the quest... In any case - for this quest there's definitely no issue with not casting it at the end - so Ceilia should be fine as long as it is used between cycles (I don't know if the quest is out of cycle or not). Harvester of course is in violation because I don't see any expenditure on the material component - so I'm off to the prison...
Zevox 03-27-07, 04:14 PM	Well there's a precedent. Harvester didn't even have it memorized at the time of the quest... In any case - for this quest there's definitely no issue with not casting it at the end - so Ceilia should be fine as long as it is used between cycles (I don't know if the quest is out of cycle or not). Its out of cycle. So then, this means shes not required to save 5 SL for casting animate and desecrate at the quest's end? That could be a major deciding factor in her fight. Zevox
TelinArtho 03-27-07, 04:16 PM	Correct.
Macbrea 03-27-07, 05:28 PM	Ok, since it's not in the records and I cannot find it searching through all of the threads. Can I please get the following questions answered and added to the court descisions. 1) Can a monk activate Hand afire (ps) and weapon afire (ps) and benefit from both at the same time? 2) Can a dragon activate hand afire (ps) on a claw. 3) Can a dragon use a fire lash(ps)? It has been ruled that we are using the dragonomicon that states dragons may not wield weapons. Is a fire lash a weapon? 4) Can a Pyrokineticist activate more then one fire lash (ps) at the same time? 5) Can a Pyrokineticist activate more then one hand afire(ps) per hand? Yes, i know some of these have been answered but none of those are in the records.
MindWandererB 03-27-07, 05:51 PM	Ok, since it's not in the records and I cannot find it searching through all of the threads. Can I please get the following questions answered and added to the court descisions. 1) Can a monk activate Hand afire (ps) and weapon afire (ps) and benefit from both at the same time? 2) Can a dragon activate hand afire (ps) on a claw. 3) Can a dragon use a fire lash(ps)? It has been ruled that we are using the dragonomicon that states dragons may not wield weapons. Is a fire lash a weapon? 4) Can a Pyrokineticist activate more then one fire lash (ps) at the same time? 5) Can a Pyrokineticist activate more then one hand afire(ps) per hand? Yes, i know some of these have been answered but none of those are in the records.I also don't remember what the ultimate decisions on these were. I offer my opinions. 1) No. This falls under the "same ability twice" clause (like Psionic Fist + Psionic Weapon). 2) I think I would have originally said yes, but a RotG just came out and said that unarmed strike = unarmed attack. Therefore, Hand Afire applies only when you make an unarmed strike, not an attack with a natural weapon. 3) I do remember the ruling on this: yes. This is a specific exception, and really ought to be in the court decisions. 4) The language on Fire Lash is identical to that of Mind Blade. I would use that as a precedent. 5) Heck freaking no, it's definitely the "same ability twice." I can just see this one: Invisibility (or Rope Trick, or burrow, etc.) followed by 18 activations of this ability for +36d6 fire damage per attack. No thank you.
TelinArtho 03-27-07, 06:04 PM	For reference (I'm not including links yet - I'm just finding these things in my saved threads locally...): Oracle of Gladius - starting at post 101 (12/15/2006, TheMagister) Fire Lash for dragons - Ask an Elder post 545ish (8/25/06, Pittbull) Tavern VII - around post 538 (TM) Still looking for more...
Macbrea 03-27-07, 06:09 PM	Sorry. 5 should have been. 5) Can Pyrokineticist activate a hand of flame (ps) on each hand? My error. I know the original is wrong.
Macbrea 03-27-07, 06:42 PM	as the following FAQ answer states that creatures with claws have hands. What happens when creatures use their natural weapons as secondary attacks along with a manufactured weapon? For example, lizardfolk have two claws that also serve as hands. What happens when they wield a onehanded weapon in one hand and nothing in the other? Do they lose both claw attacks in exchange for their attacks with the weapon? Wielding a manufactured weapon doesn’t prevent a creature from using all its natural weaponry, provided that the creature is using the full attack action and the additional natural weapons are free. The example lizardfolk can’t make a claw attack with the “hand” that holds its weapon, although it does get to attack with the weapon itself. But, if it’s using the full attack action, it can use its other claw as a natural secondary attack (–5 to attack rolls, half Strength bonus), and can also bite as a natural secondary attack. In effect, the lizardfolk is using its normal full attack routine with the manufactured weapon attack substituted for one claw attack. Can the dragon cast hand afire on his hand and use his unarmed attack of his closed fist without using the claw damage?
NiQil 03-27-07, 09:16 PM	Ok, since it's not in the records and I cannot find it searching through all of the threads. Can I please get the following questions answered and added to the court descisions. 1) Can a monk activate Hand afire (ps) and weapon afire (ps) and benefit from both at the same time? I am of the opinion that a monk cannot do this. The reason is that the Weapon Afire ability specifically requires a held weapon. A hand is not a held weapon. 2) Can a dragon activate hand afire (ps) on a claw. Agree with MWB 3) Can a dragon use a fire lash(ps)? It has been ruled that we are using the dragonomicon that states dragons may not wield weapons. Is a fire lash a weapon? This might need to be looked into. It is not specifically stated that it is a weapon, but all sources and rulings I have seen classify it as a weapon. This is true in the FAQ ruling that asks about adding a Str bonus to damage. Here is the quote: Because the Pyrokineticist’s Fire Lash creates a whip of fire that requires only a touch attack, can you apply a Str bonus to the damage? Can you power attack with this special weapon? It would seem so. The wording in the description of this psi-like ability indicates that you can take advantage of any feat that would apply to the use of a standard whip. Since one of those feats is Power Attack, then by reason, you must be able to apply your Strength bonus to the damage of a fire lash as well. I don't feel it unbalanced to allow it, but it doesn't appear to be the intention of the ability, based on that quote. It would appear that the fire lash is classified as a special weapon. 4) Can a Pyrokineticist activate more then one fire lash (ps) at the same time? No. Nothing in the fire lash description would allow this ability, and indeed it takes a special class feature for a soulknife to be able to do so with their mind blades. 5) Can a Pyrokineticist activate a hand afire(ps) per hand? No...again....nothing in the listing of the ability indicates that this type of versitility is allowed. In point of fact, the ability goes out of its way to specify that the ability may be activated on one of the pyro's hands.
MindWandererB 03-27-07, 11:08 PM	Can the dragon cast hand afire on his hand and use his unarmed attack of his closed fist without using the claw damage?Yes, definitely. No argument.
TheMagister 03-28-07, 02:28 PM	2) I think I would have originally said yes, but a RotG just came out and said that unarmed strike = unarmed attack. Therefore, Hand Afire applies only when you make an unarmed strike, not an attack with a natural weapon. @ Sauro & Niqil - can you read this and tell me what it means to you and Niqil concerning allowing a monk to flurry with touch spells, please? Thank you. Edit: and would this have ramifications later in Rubicanti's build if he decided to flurry and declare the Hand Afire/Nimbus damage to be discharged on a touch attack? (Just curious.) TM
MindWandererB 03-28-07, 02:49 PM	Edit: and would this have ramifications later in Rubicanti's build if he decided to flurry and declare the Hand Afire/Nimbus damage to be discharged on a touch attack? (Just curious.)Let me come down on that one: Nimbus is explicitly a melee touch attack; Hand Afire is explicitly an unarmed attack (i.e. unarmed strike). Those are two different kinds of attack. However, as always, a touch attack can be delivered with an unarmed strike, so you could make a normal unarmed strike and have it deal +4d6 fire damage. Actually, now I think of it, it isn't quite +4d6, is it? Since Nimbus and Hand Afire are two different "sources" of damage, fire resistance would apply seperately to both, correct?
Macbrea 03-28-07, 02:51 PM	That is correct. It would really be: 1d3+str + (2d6 fire) + (2d6 fire)
Yitzi 03-28-07, 03:49 PM	I have some questions, some of which are related to the current discussion: 1. When you choose to use "damage an opponent" in a grapple, if you have a natural weapon with more damage than an unarmed attack, can you do damage as with that natural weapon? e.g. can a grappling lion damage an enemy with its bite attack by use of an opposed grapple check, or only by attacking at a -4 penalty ("attack an opponent")? 2. Some special attacks (i.e. trip, disarm, and starting a grapple) are made in place of attacks, and can be done multiple times in a full attack if the attacker has a high enough BAB. If these attacks are made unarmed or with special monk weapons, can they be part of a flurry of blows? 3. If you disarm an enemy, is there anything to prevent him from just picking up the item in the next turn (other than the fact that doing so would provoke an AoO)? i.e. can you kick it away or anything like that? 4. Can a mounted character pick up items from the ground? Common sense would seem to imply that he can't reach the ground, but the rules never say it, so what's the rule? Thanks.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-28-07, 03:56 PM	I have some questions, some of which are related to the current discussion: 1. When you choose to use "damage an opponent" in a grapple, if you have a natural weapon with more damage than an unarmed attack, can you do damage as with that natural weapon? e.g. can a grappling lion damage an enemy with its bite attack by use of an opposed grapple check, or only by attacking at a -4 penalty ("attack an opponent")? 2. Some special attacks (i.e. trip, disarm, and starting a grapple) are made in place of attacks, and can be done multiple times in a full attack if the attacker has a high enough BAB. If these attacks are made unarmed or with special monk weapons, can they be part of a flurry of blows? 3. If you disarm an enemy, is there anything to prevent him from just picking up the item in the next turn (other than the fact that doing so would provoke an AoO)? i.e. can you kick it away or anything like that? 4. Can a mounted character pick up items from the ground? Common sense would seem to imply that he can't reach the ground, but the rules never say it, so what's the rule? Thanks. 1 - Yes. The lion would need to dmg an opponent to use its bite. 2 - Yes. 3 - Nothing prevents you from picking it up. Likewise, kicking it away would also draw an AoO. 4 - Yes you can. Common Sense woud say no? You obviously didn't grow up in the country on a farm or seen many rodeo shows. I'm not even an experienced rider and i used to be able to pick up my coke can off the ground all the time as a kid. ToK
MindWandererB 03-28-07, 03:58 PM	I have some questions, some of which are related to the current discussion: 1. When you choose to use "damage an opponent" in a grapple, if you have a natural weapon with more damage than an unarmed attack, can you do damage as with that natural weapon? e.g. can a grappling lion damage an enemy with its bite attack by use of an opposed grapple check, or only by attacking at a -4 penalty ("attack an opponent")? 2. Some special attacks (i.e. trip, disarm, and starting a grapple) are made in place of attacks, and can be done multiple times in a full attack if the attacker has a high enough BAB. If these attacks are made unarmed or with special monk weapons, can they be part of a flurry of blows? 3. If you disarm an enemy, is there anything to prevent him from just picking up the item in the next turn (other than the fact that doing so would provoke an AoO)? i.e. can you kick it away or anything like that? 4. Can a mounted character pick up items from the ground? Common sense would seem to imply that he can't reach the ground, but the rules never say it, so what's the rule? Thanks.1: No. The only way you can do natural weapon damage is with the "attack an opponent" option (or Improved Grab). See the FAQ and Rules of the Game. 2: Yes. This is spelled out in the FAQ pretty clearly. 3: Nope. Thus why Disarm builds aren't terribly popular. 4: There's nothing preventing this. It seems strange, but if we made such a distinction, we'd have to decide case-by-case exactly which mounts are tall enough that you can't reach the ground from their backs.
Yitzi 03-28-07, 04:08 PM	Some more questions: 1. If a character gets an armor or sheild bonus from spells (e.g. mage armor, shield) or powers, (inertial armor, force screen), does that count as using armor or a shield for purposes of class abilities that cannot be used when wearing armor or a shield? e.g. a monk/wizard casts mage armor, does he lose all the monk bonuses that depend on being unarmored? 2. If there is something on the ground in the opponent's square (e.g. because you disarmed him), can you take a 5' step and then pick it up as a move action (taking any applicable AoOs?), then end up back in your square (since you can't stay in his square)? 3. If someone picks something up next to you, can you use your AoO to disarm them of that item?
Macbrea 03-28-07, 04:13 PM	You are unable to enter another persons square who is considered an enemy without initiating a grapple or bullrush.
Hirumajoe 03-28-07, 04:15 PM	3: Nope. Thus why Disarm builds aren't terribly popular. Actually, if you attempt to disarm while unarmed (i.e. nothing in your hands), you wind up with the object in your hands (handy if you're a monk). At which point they need to grab it back from you somehow. (i.e. disarming you back...) Also, tiny, diminutive and fine sized creatures can enter an space occupied by an enemy (otherwise they'd never be able to attack them since they have a reach of 0.) Actually, since you can obviously attack someone 5' distant with unarmed attacks, and in principle you could make a sunder or disarm attempt on an unattended object 5' away, why can't you just pick up an object 5' away (while suffering the any AoOs)? No moving involved.
hogarth 03-28-07, 04:16 PM	2. If there is something on the ground in the opponent's square (e.g. because you disarmed him), can you take a 5' step and then pick it up as a move action (taking any applicable AoOs?), then end up back in your square (since you can't stay in his square)? If you can reach it, you can pick it up (I imagine). So you shouldn't need a 5' step at all to pick it up.
MindWandererB 03-28-07, 04:25 PM	Some more questions: 1. If a character gets an armor or sheild bonus from spells (e.g. mage armor, shield) or powers, (inertial armor, force screen), does that count as using armor or a shield for purposes of class abilities that cannot be used when wearing armor or a shield? e.g. a monk/wizard casts mage armor, does he lose all the monk bonuses that depend on being unarmored? 2. If there is something on the ground in the opponent's square (e.g. because you disarmed him), can you take a 5' step and then pick it up as a move action (taking any applicable AoOs?), then end up back in your square (since you can't stay in his square)? 3. If someone picks something up next to you, can you use your AoO to disarm them of that item? BTW, these questions are better asked in the Tavern. This thread is for questions that are difficult and need an elder ruling. 1: No, definitely not. FAQ, Ask Wizards. 2: No--although hogarth has a good point. 3: No. An AoO takes place just before that action that provokes it, so they don't actually have the item in hand at the time of the AoO. Actually, if you attempt to disarm while unarmed (i.e. nothing in your hands), you wind up with the object in your hands (handy if you're a monk). At which point they need to grab it back from you somehow. (i.e. disarming you back...)True, but you're at a -4 penalty for disarming with your hands. You need a pretty fat bonus to pull that off--although it works well with True Strike....
Yitzi 03-28-07, 04:32 PM	And just one more question-do the +4 for 2-handed weapons and the -4 for light weapons also apply to non-melee weapons (which already have a -4 penalty)? Thanks. And Hogarth's point about picking up something 5' away is official now? Because if so, I can see how disarm might be made to work, although it would require an FRA equivalent to deprive the enemy of their weapon. And the reason I prefer to ask in the courthouse is that I'm not sure how admissable a post in the Tavern is if an argument pops up.
MindWandererB 03-28-07, 05:00 PM	And just one more question-do the +4 for 2-handed weapons and the -4 for light weapons also apply to non-melee weapons (which already have a -4 penalty)? Thanks. And Hogarth's point about picking up something 5' away is official now? Because if so, I can see how disarm might be made to work, although it would require an FRA equivalent to deprive the enemy of their weapon. And the reason I prefer to ask in the courthouse is that I'm not sure how admissable a post in the Tavern is if an argument pops up. Tavern arguments are perfectly admissable. This thread is for when a Court Decision is called for, which is not the case when an answer can be found directly in the FAQ or RotG. It's best if you start in the Tavern; if the discussion is inconclusive, it can be moved here. Non-melee weapons lack a classification as light or two-handed, so those modifiers are inapplicable.
hogarth 03-30-07, 11:02 AM	How much do weapons larger than size Large cost and weigh? Do they follow the same progression as for armor? I.e., Huge - x4 cost, x5 weight Gargantuan - x8 cost, x8 weight Colossal - x16 cost, x12 weight
TelinArtho 03-30-07, 11:09 AM	I think its a consistent application on up: Medium 1x, 1x Large 2x, 2x Huge 4x, 4x Gargantuan 8x, 8x Colossal 16x, 16x Not sure why huge would be x5 weight, when the rest is normal though...
hogarth 03-30-07, 11:29 AM	Not sure why huge would be x5 weight, when the rest is normal though... It's not just huge -- collossal is x12 weight for armor, not x16. EDIT: It's roughly a cubic progression: 13=1, 1.33=2.2, 1.73=4.9, 23=8, 2.33=12.2, etc.
McJarvis 03-31-07, 06:52 PM	I have issues with how Staffs are treated in Gladius right now. Currently the formula is this: [(375 gp) x (caster level of highest spell) x (level of spell) ] / (# of charges it takes to activate the spell) plus one-half value of other abilities It has been clarified that staffs can contain only 1 spell(somewhere-> though I forget where) Here's the issue: When I tried to get less-than-50 charge wands on cupid, Cat said no because they would be "in every way better than a scroll". Well, right now Staffs can be too. 1-time use "Staff of Antimagic": [(375gp)x(11)x(6)]/50 = 495 gp, which we all know is WAY too cheap for this item. (Scroll cost: 6*11*50=3,300 gp) The staff rules expressly say: If desired, a spell can be placed into the staff at only half the normal cost, but then activating that particular spell costs 2 charges from the staff. The caster level of all spells in a staff must be the same, and no staff can have a caster level of less than 8th, even if all the spells in the staff are low-level spells. Yet I see nothing indicating that you can make a spell take more than 2 charges a shot. The only way we could infer this is to use the existing staffs(many examples of 3 charge uses), but we have a standing do-not-reverse-engineer-pricing rules in CoCo[to my knowledge] Is there a place that says you can use more charges than 2? This is a pretty big issue since the Harvester uses a staff that uses spells with 5 charges apiece.
hogarth 03-31-07, 06:56 PM	Yet I see nothing indicating that you can make a spell take more than 2 charges a shot. The only way we could infer this is to use the existing staffs(many examples of 3 charge uses), but we have a standing do-not-reverse-engineer-pricing rules in CoCo[to my knowledge]. Are you kidding me? Reverse engineering prices is popular among some people (various non +2, non-hide Armors of the Rhino are floating around, for instance). I agree that it's hypocritical to allow staffs with 10 uses but not wands with 10 uses.
McJarvis 03-31-07, 06:57 PM	Are you kidding me? Reverse engineering prices is popular among some people (various non-hide Armors of the Rhino are floating around, for instance). I was told in no-certain terms that it was a no-go with my circlet of +cha skills. Regardless-> it was made clear to me that Staffs/Wands should NOT be made in such a way that they're better than scrolls.
MindWandererB 03-31-07, 07:07 PM	I was told in no-certain terms that it was a no-go with my circlet of +cha skills. Regardless-> it was made clear to me that Staffs/Wands should NOT be made in such a way that they're better than scrolls. True. It's like trading credits for money. I'd be in favor of restricting the number of charges per use to a maximum of 2.
hogarth 03-31-07, 08:59 PM	Any more opinions on oversized weapons? 1 vote (Telin) for doubling the weight each level: Size Price Weight Medium 1x, 1x Large 2x, 2x Huge 4x, 4x Gargantuan 8x, 8x Colossal 16x, 16x 0 votes for following the same pattern as oversized armor: Size Price Weight Medium 1x, 1x Large 2x, 2x Huge 4x, 5x Gargantuan 8x, 8x Colossal 16x, 12x
MindWandererB 04-01-07, 03:09 AM	While I think the latter makes the most sense, the former is more closely supported by RAW.
hogarth 04-01-07, 08:28 AM	While I think the latter makes the most sense, the former is more closely supported by RAW. How do you figure? The way I see it is that there's only one chart that shows how to calculate the weights of objects bigger than large (the armor chart). The first method (doubling every size category) is just pure speculation, as far as I can tell. If you could show me some evidence to back up method #1, I'd be more convinced.
MindWandererB 04-01-07, 04:04 PM	How do you figure? The way I see it is that there's only one chart that shows how to calculate the weights of objects bigger than large (the armor chart). The first method (doubling every size category) is just pure speculation, as far as I can tell. If you could show me some evidence to back up method #1, I'd be more convinced. Hmm... you have a good point. All it says is "Halve this number for Small weapons and double it for Large weapons"--which is exactly the same as armor. Except that armor uses a different formula for <Small and >Large. ...which I don't really understand, actually. Say you have Medium padded armor (10 lbs). Double it in size, and it doubles in weight to 20 lbs. Double it in size again (to Huge) and it now weighs 50 lbs. But if you started with Medium studded leather (20 lbs.) and double that in size, it only ends up at 40 lbs. Strange.
Erithmu 04-04-07, 03:04 PM	Kind of an odd question but seeing as this is related to one of our own constructions I figured I would just start here. The scout skill package. 1) How does that work in conjunction with the druid "Traceless Step" ability, and the spell Pass without Trace? (The term Druid from this point on will assume that one of these two effects are in place) Assuming that the druid's animal Companion is the only ally coming: 2a) How does it work if the Druid has a land based Animal Companion? 2b) Flying animal Companion? 3) If the druid is joined by mulitiple allies (Aerryl for example), Does the Druid not count/count toward the multiple numbers? If the case is that the druid cannot be tracked, but the AC can be: 4) Does the skill package kick in? I'm sure there are some other questions that could come from a result of this. I don't think that the situation will come up soon, but Valen is making some quick progress to the point where these questions could be argued after the fact, when we could discuss them before they could happen.
Hirumajoe 04-05-07, 12:35 PM	Kind of an odd question but seeing as this is related to one of our own constructions I figured I would just start here. The scout skill package. 1) How does that work in conjunction with the druid "Traceless Step" ability, and the spell Pass without Trace? (The term Druid from this point on will assume that one of these two effects are in place) Assuming that the druid's animal Companion is the only ally coming: 2a) How does it work if the Druid has a land based Animal Companion? 2b) Flying animal Companion? 3) If the druid is joined by mulitiple allies (Aerryl for example), Does the Druid not count/count toward the multiple numbers? If the case is that the druid cannot be tracked, but the AC can be: 4) Does the skill package kick in? I'm sure there are some other questions that could come from a result of this. I don't think that the situation will come up soon, but Valen is making some quick progress to the point where these questions could be argued after the fact, when we could discuss them before they could happen. Well, when the Scout package was applied against Istima and his pegasus, the pegasus counted towards the tracking roll even though it was a flying creature (and in fact Istima and his psicrystal who are always riding it also counted). I'm guessing for our purposes here, flight doesn't matter (i.e. a flier is tracked as easily as a walker). If it does, then the package rapidly become obsolete at higher ECLs as more and more characters gain flight options. In regards to the traceless step ability (or the spell), I would guess that the person affected by the ability doesn't count towards the multiple numbers. If there is no one left who counts (say you've prebuffed Pass without trace on your animal companion and allies), then the package would fail. As long as there's one person/creature who is trackable in the pre-buffed group, the package should work. An animal companion doesn't not have Traceless Step, so you would definitely need to pre-buff and cast the spell on them (counting against your Spells for the fight). Ditto with a non-druid companion. Given that Valen is a single character who's tracking only works 50% of the time, its probably not worth it to pre-buff the spells. Those are my thoughts on it anyways.
Horatius 04-05-07, 01:23 PM	Can a character activate a tattoo with something in his hand? I couldn't find a ruling on this in the SRD or courtroom rulings. It seems reasonable that he could, but then you probably wouldn't let someone drink a potion with something else in their hand. Thoughts?
Zevox 04-05-07, 01:37 PM	Can a character activate a tattoo with something in his hand? I couldn't find a ruling on this in the SRD or courtroom rulings. It seems reasonable that he could, but then you probably wouldn't let someone drink a potion with something else in their hand. Thoughts? Depends on what it is. If its a two-handed weapon, for instance, they certainly could, since they can always carry the weapon in one hand (just not attack with it thus). If its a one-handed weapon and a heavy shield, or two potions/powerstones/that sort of thing, no, because then those hands can't be used for anything else (though a buckler or light shield still lets the hand using them be used for other things, so then it would be fine). What in particular are you looking at here? Zevox
Horatius 04-05-07, 02:55 PM	A shortsword.
Zevox 04-05-07, 03:48 PM	A shortsword. Just a shortsword? Nothing else? Then theres no problem, because the character would have their other hand free to do the tapping. Zevox
McJarvis 04-05-07, 05:19 PM	Please don't let my genius go to waste. I have issues with how Staffs are treated in Gladius right now. Currently the formula is this: [(375 gp) x (caster level of highest spell) x (level of spell) ] / (# of charges it takes to activate the spell) plus one-half value of other abilities It has been clarified that staffs can contain only 1 spell(somewhere-> though I forget where) Here's the issue: When I tried to get less-than-50 charge wands on cupid, Cat said no because they would be "in every way better than a scroll". Well, right now Staffs can be too. 1-time use "Staff of Antimagic": [(375gp)x(11)x(6)]/50 = 495 gp, which we all know is WAY too cheap for this item. (Scroll cost: 6*11*50=3,300 gp) The staff rules expressly say: If desired, a spell can be placed into the staff at only half the normal cost, but then activating that particular spell costs 2 charges from the staff. The caster level of all spells in a staff must be the same, and no staff can have a caster level of less than 8th, even if all the spells in the staff are low-level spells. Yet I see nothing indicating that you can make a spell take more than 2 charges a shot. The only way we could infer this is to use the existing staffs(many examples of 3 charge uses), but we have a standing do-not-reverse-engineer-pricing rules in CoCo[to my knowledge] Is there a place that says you can use more charges than 2? This is a pretty big issue since the Harvester uses a staff that uses spells with 5 charges apiece.
Horatius 04-05-07, 07:38 PM	Just a shortsword? Nothing else? Then theres no problem, because the character would have their other hand free to do the tapping. No, perhaps I should have been clearer; the question is: can a character activate a tattoo with a shortsword in the hand that is doing the activating? He has a rapier in the other hand. This is from Caspian vs Tagg (this week; ECL 3) Obviously, in the real world, it would be easy to 'tap' (or touch) a tattoo while holding a shortsword. These things do not always translate well (as we all know) for various reasons - hence the question.
sonofzeal 04-05-07, 07:48 PM	No, perhaps I should have been clearer; the question is: can a character activate a tattoo with a shortsword in the hand that is doing the activating? He has a rapier in the other hand. This is from Caspian vs Tagg (this week; ECL 3) Obviously, in the real world, it would be easy to 'tap' (or touch) a tattoo while holding a shortsword. These things do not always translate well (as we all know) for various reasons - hence the question. I've always though of "tap" for tattooes in the M:TG sense, rather than the literal sense. As such, it could require more attention than a hand busy holding a sword is able to give, and since it's designed to be the equivalent of a potion...
Malither76 04-05-07, 09:00 PM	tapping refers to mentaly tapping into the power. Thats why if you come upon a body that has tatoo's on it you can touch the body and have the tatoos move to you, you may also will your tatoos around on your body. Tapping is a standard action but does not require the actual tapping, I think of it more as closing eyes and concentrating, it does provoke attacks of opportunity.
Zevox 04-05-07, 11:12 PM	tapping refers to mentaly tapping into the power. Thats not quite correct. The SRD says: Activation: A psionic tattoo produces its effect when touched by its wearer and willed to do so. So yes, he does need to touch the tattoo. I don't think that would be allowed when the hand is busy holding a weapon, personally, but I'm not an elder and I could see it being argued otherwise, so I'll wait and see what the elders say about this. Zevox
SauroGrenom 04-05-07, 11:17 PM	I'd agree with Zevox on this one. To "tap" a tattoo, you need a free hand. These items are intended to be similar to potions with a psionic flavor. You still have to have a free hand to use one. This is similar to how you need a free hand to use a powerstone. You cannot just tape a powerstone to your arm, and "touch" it for the purpose of activating the item. And you cannot activate a tattoo by just thinking about it.
Abyssal Stalker 04-06-07, 07:46 AM	I'd agree with Zevox on this one. To "tap" a tattoo, you need a free hand. These items are intended to be similar to potions with a psionic flavor. You still have to have a free hand to use one. This is similar to how you need a free hand to use a powerstone. You cannot just tape a powerstone to your arm, and "touch" it for the purpose of activating the item. And you cannot activate a tattoo by just thinking about it. This is definitely the way tattoos should be handled. They are already better than potions - and they should be equivalent. Using a potion requires two steps: retrieve it and use it. (move + standard). You don't need to retrieve a tattoo, so you can always use them in a single standard action and do something else with the move action. Making them even more easier to use would throw them off balance, I think.
Horatius 04-06-07, 09:25 AM	RE: Tattoo Activation Thanks for the opinions. I agree with the arguments suggesting the a free hand is required to activate a tattoo. As Abyssal Stalker suggests, it's a game balance issue as much as anything.
Erithmu 04-06-07, 10:32 AM	Question of intent regarding this rule 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). Does this imply: 1) That a character can both deflect arrows and be able to make AoOs (with a reach 2H weapon) when it is not their turn. 2) That a character must choose between making AoOs or deflecting arrows. Note that free actions can only take place on a character's turn.
TaggIIV 04-06-07, 10:38 AM	Although, I feel I should mention that tattoos cost twice as much as potions - that certainly should be considered part of the balance already. But going with the way other D&D rules work, it probably will require a free hand.
Abyssal Stalker 04-06-07, 10:42 AM	Although, I feel I should mention that tattoos cost twice as much as potions - that certainly should be considered part of the balance already. But going with the way other D&D rules work, it probably will require a free hand. Not all of them, only those with a range of "personal". Of course, many of the most common tattoos are just like that.
TaggIIV 04-06-07, 10:52 AM	Not all of them, only those with a range of "personal". Of course, many of the most common tattoos are just like that. Well, tattoos contain powers that "manifest on their wearers" - no tattoos of energy ray, for example. And all the powers that manifest on their wearers have a range of personal. There may be some that have a range of touch instead but those are few and far between. edit: it may have the clause about personal-range only costs being doubled because of crawling tattoos.
McJarvis 04-06-07, 11:04 AM	Not all of them, only those with a range of "personal". Of course, many of the most common tattoos are just like that. If you could list all the non-personal range tattoos that would be useful as buffs, that'd be great :)
Sunwolf 04-06-07, 11:08 AM	Question of intent regarding this rule Does this imply: 1) That a character can both deflect arrows and be able to make AoOs (with a reach 2H weapon) when it is not their turn. 2) That a character must choose between making AoOs or deflecting arrows. Note that free actions can only take place on a character's turn. I am of the opinion that 2) is the one that applies. One can take thier hand off a two handed weapon as a free action -- but cannot grab it again until their next turn -- so no AoOs with the 2 handed weapon while deflecting arrows.
Zevox 04-06-07, 11:33 AM	Question of intent regarding this rule 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). Does this imply: 1) That a character can both deflect arrows and be able to make AoOs (with a reach 2H weapon) when it is not their turn. 2) That a character must choose between making AoOs or deflecting arrows. Note that free actions can only take place on a character's turn. As you're already aware, my opinion is #2, for the reason you noted. Zevox
Maraxus 04-06-07, 11:57 AM	Yes, this is the rule, as it should be. You can only take free actions (with the explicitly written exception of speaking) during your action. Thus at the end of your turn you would have to choose either to hold your weapon 1- or 2-handed. The court decisions-thread suggests otherwise however, I'd vote for that to be clarified.
Macbrea 04-06-07, 11:59 AM	If you could list all the non-personal range tattoos that would be useful as buffs, that'd be great :) Well. Long ago Mal-2 did just that: Okay, there's not much to work with. I went over all of the 1st through 3rd level powers in the SRD, looking for powers that target a creature or creatures other than the caster. 1st: Astral Traveler, Conceal Thoughts 2nd: Bestow Power, Empathic Transfer, Psionic Repair Damage (only for constructs) 3rd: Time Hop Of those, Astral Traveller, Empathic Transfer, and Time Hop are pretty useless (at least for our purposes). Psionic Levitate is written basically the same way as Skate, so I assume it's out too. Can someone take a look at Concealing Amorpha (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/psionicPowersAtoC.html#concealing-amorpha)? I'm pretty sure it's disqualified for any form of tattoo by the way it's written, but I wasn't 100% sure. Edit: There are, of course, lots of other powers that would qualify, but unless you have a burning desire to find youself stunned, on fire, or worse, you wouldn't put them in a tattoo. :D Heh.. Sauro was going to put the list in Psi but probably forgot.
McJarvis 04-06-07, 03:22 PM	I point you to Sabra vs Gak. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12001142&postcount=738) Who won this fight? As a summary: Both characters are taking damage simultaneously due to a forced share pain. Gak went into negative hp firstI haven't edited it in yet, but there was an error in the fight-> the cover AC from the lava negated Gak's last hit, so they both go under hp-wise together, and then lava damage(20d6 worth) catapulted both gladiators into the negative 10 - zone. Is this a draw, or does Gak lose because he had less hp upon death?
TelinArtho 04-06-07, 04:18 PM	Wow - interesting situation. I'd certainly call it a draw. It shouldn't matter whether one is brought to -20 and the other is brought to -21 if they both are there at the same time. Interesting tactic in any case...
Macbrea 04-06-07, 04:21 PM	You are considered out of the arena if on your turn you are at -10 hps and you fail to take an action. I have a feeling Gak looses on his turn.
MindWandererB 04-06-07, 04:27 PM	You are considered out of the arena if on your turn you are at -10 hps and you fail to take an action. I have a feeling Gak looses on his turn. But that's not the case here--both are reduced to -10 at the exact same time. And we have a precedent that if both characters are in the process of dying, it's an issue of who bleeds out first. And actually, what McJarvis has now may not be correct--it occurs to me that Sabra may have an AC bonus (cover) for being prone in the lava. If Gak does not hit him in the last round, they both go from conscious to dead at the same time. I have an opinion about kamikaze tactics, but since I'm biased, I'll reserve it for after a few folks have spoken their minds.
McJarvis 04-06-07, 05:36 PM	Wow - interesting situation. I'd certainly call it a draw. It shouldn't matter whether one is brought to -20 and the other is brought to -21 if they both are there at the same time. Interesting tactic in any case... Draws are impossible in CoCo-> from a "What Cat would want" perspective, a "What rewards do we give them?" perspective, and a "How is their rating affected?" perspective. Someone had to have won. I just don't know who did.
McJarvis 04-06-07, 05:44 PM	And actually, what McJarvis has now may not be correct--it occurs to me that Sabra may have an AC bonus (cover) for being prone in the lava. If Gak does not hit him in the last round, they both go from conscious to dead at the same time. This is correct. Sabra was prone at the bottom of 5ft of lava-> Sab would have had at least a +4 cover bonus to AC(if she could be hit at all there) I also accidentally made the final lava damage 10d6-> it was supposed to be 20d6. Would you like your gladiators extra crispy? :)
Zevox 04-06-07, 05:46 PM	Wow. A true draw. This is a real first. If it were up to me, I'd have to say whoever had less hp when the killing damage occurred loses, since they would be "more dead" by the rules and dead just slightly sooner by real-life thought. But theres no precedent for this, so I guess we let the (non-involved) Elders make the decision. Zevox
Horatius 04-06-07, 07:31 PM	Rematch?
NiQil 04-06-07, 08:25 PM	Regarding Sabra vs Gak: Let me point out something about the Share Pain, Forced power that I think is being missed here. The power follows the normal Share Pain power, from which this quote is taken: You take half damage from all attacks that deal hit point damage to you I would not call the lava damage an attack that deals hit point damage, but rather an environmental effect that deals hit point damage, primarily due to the fact that no attack roll was made in order for the lava to deal damage. As such, I would rule that the damage from the lava is not transferrable to the opponent with Share Pain. The power is very specific about only being able to transfer damage from attacks. Sabra was not attacked by the lava, so the damage can't be transferred. Sabra suicided....Gak wins.
McJarvis 04-06-07, 08:50 PM	Good catch NiQil!
Etiquette_Gnome 04-06-07, 09:04 PM	*holds breath...calms down...* I...respectfully disagree. Are you saying that Magic Missile, Control Flame, and ALL other spells that just flat-out do damage (or only require a saving throw) don't count as attacks; because I don't see any attack rolls on them? That kind of grammatical rules-lawyering is the worst I've ever seen. Although, heck, this might help certain bards when they can get something like Heat Metal working on their opponent; because there's no attack rolls and thus no attacks on them while they're fascinated
Maraxus 04-06-07, 09:11 PM	While I think that not all Attacks need to make attack rolls (I think a fireball exploding next to me is a good example of an attack), this is a good point for the lava still. Yes, it seams this should not work. Of course, this should not lead to Sabra suiciding without any reason (the character should know his spells better then the player whose live does not depend on knowing them exactly ;) ). PS: For the dictionary: I would define an attack as an action with the intended or negligent accepted effect of harm in another creature. Hehe, one could say, that, after manifesting forced share pain, jumping into lava is an attack - by the jumper against the victim of the force pain. But this rule-lawerish, too. :) I likewise would not share damage from a vicious weapon, allthrough it's an attack effect. The question that should be ask is "does the damage somehow come from your opponent?"
NiQil 04-06-07, 09:20 PM	*holds breath...calms down...* I...respectfully disagree. Are you saying that Magic Missile, Control Flame, and ALL other spells that just flat-out do damage (or only require a saving throw) don't count as attacks; because I don't see any attack rolls on them? That kind of grammatical rules-lawyering is the worst I've ever seen. Although, heck, this might help certain bards when they can get something like Heat Metal working on their opponent; because there's no attack rolls and thus no attacks on them while they're fascinated No, what I am saying is that the lava didn't go out of it's way to harm you...it was simply part of the environment. As I said...I would rule that it was an environmental effect that cannot be shared with Share Pain. Similar to taking damage due to lack of air, or due to falling down a mountain...these are all example of environmental effects that cause damage but are not attacks. The lava did nothing to attack you....it was simply there. If you walk off a cliff and take falling damage, you would not be able to share that damage either, because the ground you are falling on isn't attacking you...it's simply there to be fallen upon. And I also agree that Sabra would not suicide....I simply added that to go along with the fight as it stood. What should most likely happen is that the suicide tactic should be deemed invalid by the pitlord due to the error in understanding how Share Pain works and tactics be improvised or utilized from there.
Etiquette_Gnome 04-06-07, 09:23 PM	What about using Reverse Gravity to drop people? Does that not count as an attack, as all it does is make you fall in a different direction from down? What I'm basically saying is that this is seeming to be someone grasping for straws to make a valid tactic not work. This kind of rules-lawyering is almost as bad as trying to rule that being dead doesn't do anything because the rules don't say you can't act while that status is on you (not AS bad, but getting up there). Heck, I might as well get out the Candle of Invocation and cast spells as a 20th level cleric, thanks to the Use Magic Device skill (search around a bit).
NiQil 04-06-07, 09:38 PM	What about using Reverse Gravity to drop people? Does that not count as an attack, as all it does is make you fall in a different direction from down? What I'm basically saying is that this is seeming to be someone grasping for straws to make a valid tactic not work. This kind of rules-lawyering is almost as bad as trying to rule that being dead doesn't do anything because the rules don't say you can't act while that status is on you (not AS bad, but getting up there). Heck, I might as well get out the Candle of Invocation and cast spells as a 20th level cleric, thanks to the Use Magic Device skill (search around a bit). Actually, what you seem to be doing is to try and find way to make an invalid tactic fit into a very broad definition of what the power allows. Bottom line, in no way did the lava attack anyone, so the damage can't be shared. If the lava had come to life and smacked someone, then by all means share the damage. If the lava had waves and one of the waves washed over you, then go ahead and share it. But in this case the lava did nothing but exist. Ergo, it did not attack, ergo, the damage from the lava does not meet the definition of what can be shared, as per the power description. As for your other examples, the rules aren't there to tell you what you can't do...they are there to tell you what you can do. If they don't say you can, then you can't.
Maraxus 04-07-07, 10:01 AM	Attacks that indirectly lead to damage are indeed an interesting case - as are attacks against yourself.
Rauul 04-07-07, 10:30 AM	I have always thought that share pain is very powerful.. so maybe you can't share the pain from spells and effects that give no saving throws.. Your saving throw is your ability to negate part of the damage, just as AC makes it harder for people to hit you.. So Spells like magic missiles that always hit.. maynot be shared.. no save.. would acually be a balance to Shared pain.. As for the lava.. there is a save for half damage.. as for Suicide tactics... With the Nimbus.. there is no such thing as suicide.. I picture Gladius as where the disgruntled worker jumps off the tower and goes back to work the next day.. Sorry death just stop the boss from hell...
templer10 04-07-07, 11:10 AM	I have always thought that share pain is very powerful.. so maybe you can't share the pain from spells and effects that give no saving throws.. Your saving saving throw is your ability to negate part of the damage, just as AC makes it harder for people to hit you.. So Spells like magic missiles that always hit.. maynot be shared.. no save.. would acually be a balance to Shared pain.. unless you totally and completly igonre the power discription all attacks that cause HP dmg activate the share pain - doesnt matter, save or no save, the text of the power simply doesnt support that. About enviromental hazards not counting as attacks- i have to disagree also - with reservations (not that my opinion has any weight or anything lol) - Niqil base his argument on the fact that the lava is part of the enviorment so getting dmg from it doesnt count as an "attack" as in You push someone into lava - the push itself doesnt cause dmg - the lava does so it's not an attack. in my opinion the disticntion is meaningless- it's the same with saying- i swing a sword at someone - the person gets dmg from the sword not from me so i am not the one attacking. but lets get into envioremntal hazards- say someone is 100 feet in the air flying with wings - he gets tripped and fall down and gets dmg- by that reasoning the dmg doesnt get shared becuase the ground was "there" and didnt mean to cause any damage- but the intent of the tripper was to cause dmg by tripping. Also- if you Bullrush someone into lava - same thing - it was an attack - with an intent to cause dmg- the only diffrence is what causing the dmg - lava in this case and not a sword. in conclusion - neither objects nor the enviorment has "feelings" nor "intent" and it can't "attack" anyone- people attack other people- so as long as 1 person attacks another using whatever with the INTENT to cause dmg by any means - a sword, a fireball or by pushing someone into lava - in my book it's dmg caused by an attack. BUT if someone got the same dmg but it wasnt caused by an attack (say failing a skill check to cross over lava) the dmg isnt shared becuase then the enviroment truly is nuetral. BTW - the objective conclusion to the situation of someone suiciding into lava with share pain going is that the dmg ISNT shared becuase he pushed himself into the lava so he wasnt attacked, if he was pushed by the other guy it would have been shared since he would have been attacked.
McJarvis 04-07-07, 11:26 AM	BTW - the objective conclusion to the situation of someone suiciding into lava with share pain going is that the dmg ISNT shared becuase he pushed himself into the lava so he wasnt attacked, if he was pushed by the other guy it would have been shared since he would have been attacked. By your definitions, someone jumping into lava is effectively attacking themselves.
Erithmu 04-07-07, 11:35 AM	Just a personal thought that I had thought about doing something like this build. However, there is a power that is stronger than Shared Pain, Forced: Fate Link (Seer3) that is discipline only, and has no issues about how the damage is dealt, so I would agree with the 'attacking' rule for SP,F .. since there is a spell that is better than it and discipline only. my 2cp
Etiquette_Gnome 04-07-07, 11:38 AM	Yeah, that's actually a good point, Templer10. I agree that stating the lava isn't an 'attack' opens up some vagaries. Many would consider lava I pick up and shove into some guy's face an attack, and I simply went the next step and shoved it into my own face by crawling in and rolling around. And Fate Link isn't necessarily a good basis, because it's a different power and has a multitude of other advantages with it (and equal level). It has a different saving throw, drastically longer duration, no halving of damage, two-way sharing, & penalties to the survivor with death. All of this makes it better, without having to argue what is and isn't an 'attack'.
templer10 04-07-07, 01:22 PM	By your definitions, someone jumping into lava is effectively attacking themselves. No - you are simply hurting yourself not attacking yourself - you cant by defenition attack yourself.
Vathelokai 04-07-07, 03:16 PM	Wait, intentionally causing hp damage to yourself isn't attacking yourself?! Seriously, everyone is in agreement that the Psionic SRD is the most badly written of rules; yet we are using that to arguee a hard line RulesAsWritten arguement? I realy think we should let reason trump bad writting in this case. Unless 'attack' is definded somewhere in the SRD.
MindWandererB 04-07-07, 03:35 PM	Wait, intentionally causing hp damage to yourself isn't attacking yourself?! Seriously, everyone is in agreement that the Psionic SRD is the most badly written of rules; yet we are using that to arguee a hard line RulesAsWritten arguement? I realy think we should let reason trump bad writting in this case. Unless 'attack' is definded somewhere in the SRD. "Attack" is defined, e.g. in the invisibility spell.
Etiquette_Gnome 04-07-07, 03:46 PM	But don't forget something, as quoted in the Invisibility spell..."For purposes of this spell, an attack includes..." I would consider pushing someone into lava to be an attack; heck, pushing someone at all is generally considered offensive (if the victim happens to agree with it, all the easier).
MindWandererB 04-07-07, 04:34 PM	But don't forget something, as quoted in the Invisibility spell..."For purposes of this spell, an attack includes..." I would consider pushing someone into lava to be an attack; heck, pushing someone at all is generally considered offensive (if the victim happens to agree with it, all the easier). Agreed. Pushing someone, even "safely," would break Invis. But some non-attack action--like, say, pulling a platform out from under someone--that caused them to fall into lava, would not break it.
Vathelokai 04-07-07, 04:40 PM	The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. (Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character’s perceptions.) Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear. Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area. I skimmed over the combat section of the SRD and found that the only things that fall under the description of 'attack' are using a melee or ranged weapon to attempt to inflict damage to hp. Even spells have their own section, and are thus not attacks. As for invis, it's clearly stated above that this definition of attack is "For purposes of this spell". I.E. not a general guideline. Situations like this are good examples of where I draw the line on RAW; the authors assumed everyone knew what 'an attack' was and didn't define it, so it's really a GM call.
hogarth 04-07-07, 06:08 PM	Wait, intentionally causing hp damage to yourself isn't attacking yourself?! Seriously, everyone is in agreement that the Psionic SRD is the most badly written of rules; yet we are using that to arguee a hard line RulesAsWritten arguement? I realy think we should let reason trump bad writting in this case. Unless 'attack' is definded somewhere in the SRD. I agree that this seems to be nitpicking of the lamest kind. If someone throws acid on me Share Pain works, but if I spill some acid on myself it doesn't? Uh...O.K. :rolleyes:
NiQil 04-07-07, 06:12 PM	I agree that this seems to be nitpicking of the lamest kind. If someone throws acid on me Share Pain works, but if I spill some acid on myself it doesn't? Uh...O.K. :rolleyes: So then you think that by throwing yourself into lava, the lava is attacking you (since that is what we are really talking about)? @ EG: Bottom line...I've given my opinion. There are other Elders...if you don't like my ruling...get me overruled. That's why we have more than one.
hogarth 04-07-07, 06:18 PM	So then you think that by throwing yourself into lava, the lava is attacking you (since that is what we are really talking about)? No, I just think it should share all hit point damage whether it comes from an "attack" or not. I think they meant to use the same language as the Shield Other spell -- "all wounds and attacks (including that dealt by special abilities) that deal hit point damage" -- but they just got sloppy and botched it. You're entitled to your opinion as to the writers' intent, though.
Etiquette_Gnome 04-08-07, 02:02 AM	'twould be nice to see other Elder opinions in regard to this question; as all I've seen is Niqil and MWB.
MindWandererB 04-08-07, 02:41 AM	'twould be nice to see other Elder opinions in regard to this question; as all I've seen is Niqil and MWB. And Telin, who was advocating a draw. Unfortunately that makes 1 vote in favor of a draw, one in favor of Sabra's tactic being rejected and improvised by the pitlord, and one who is biased and thus officially abstaining. I'll put an offer out there: scrap and re-run with different tactics. Probably next week, unless time permits. Sabra certainly shouldn't suicide, nor do I think it's fair that an improvisation be used, if the primary tactic was deemed invalid. And a rule be established for next time there is a true simultaneous death.
Vathelokai 04-08-07, 09:54 AM	So then you think that by throwing yourself into lava, the lava is attacking you (since that is what we are really talking about)? I was thinking more along the lines that if you attack youself with lava, then it is an attack. But yes... Sauro is the last elder to have a vote in this.
MitzaVolchenko 04-08-07, 11:51 AM	My two cents on the lava-attack issue. I believe that the reason the word attack is used is actually to point out that it is hp damage. Therefor attacks like Ego Whip do not go through the share pain. The point is that the damage type taken is hit point/physical damage, not stat damage, doomesque saving throw weakening, etc. I applaud that someone finally got to use that lovely creative item to murder their opponent. I have several tactics formulated that use it but have never come up.
MindWandererB 04-09-07, 02:57 PM	All right, since the week is almost up and we need a decision on this, I'm going to express my opinions. Although the text does say "attack," the intent clearly suggests that they just mean damage (they use the word "wounds"). Draws should be avoided at all costs--we just don't have a mechanic to represent this in our system. The closest we could come would be to just make it so that the fight never happened as far as win/loss record and powerrating go, or recording it as two losses but not changing the powerrating. I'd rather avoid this latter option--okay, I'm partially biased because Gakh is previously undefeated--but also because I want to discourage kamikaze tactics, and this doesn't help. Also because I want to discourage kamikaze tactics, I would propose that in the future (not for this fight), these situations be resolved against the instigator. In other words, if one character causes the deaths of themselves and another character simultaneously, the acting character is considered eliminated (first, in the case of FFA/Hunter fights). Because we clearly don't have any fixed way of dealing with the situation at this time, for this fight, and because it seems like none of the elders are considering awarding a win to Sabra, I strongly recommend a do-over with different tactics. (McJarvis still gets his credit, of course.)
TheMagister 04-09-07, 03:04 PM	I thought it was darned clever of E_G. {Shrug}
MindWandererB 04-09-07, 03:11 PM	I thought it was darned clever of E_G. {Shrug} Oh, I agree. It was clever and creative, and was a good idea except for the fact that he was just a smidge too close to death when it happened. If he'd done an Energy Missile first and then taken the plunge, it might have worked.
TelinArtho 04-09-07, 03:13 PM	All right, since the week is almost up and we need a decision on this, I'm going to express my opinions. Although the text does say "attack," the intent clearly suggests that they just mean damage (they use the word "wounds"). Draws should be avoided at all costs--we just don't have a mechanic to represent this in our system. The closest we could come would be to just make it so that the fight never happened as far as win/loss record and powerrating go, or recording it as two losses but not changing the powerrating. I'd rather avoid this latter option--okay, I'm partially biased because Gakh is previously undefeated--but also because I want to discourage kamikaze tactics, and this doesn't help. Also because I want to discourage kamikaze tactics, I would propose that in the future (not for this fight), these situations be resolved against the instigator. In other words, if one character causes the deaths of themselves and another character simultaneously, the acting character is considered eliminated (first, in the case of FFA/Hunter fights). Because we clearly don't have any fixed way of dealing with the situation at this time, for this fight, and because it seems like none of the elders are considering awarding a win to Sabra, I strongly recommend a do-over with different tactics. (McJarvis still gets his credit, of course.) I still think a draw is the best way to handle this - add a Draw counter to anyone who actually gets one. In order to discourage it perhaps give it each participant only 1/2 rewards - or even just loser rewards. The reason why, is because a draw is still entirely possible. Take for instance a caster in very close range with a fighter. The fighter would have him owned except for one last casting of Fireball. He figures - he's got a better reflex save than the fighter - so he casts the fireball both on himself and the fighter. By some fluke though - the caster fails his save and they both die a fiery death. Even if we don't have a mechanic to allow for true draws - I would like to have one included for the exceptionally rare instances they come into play. The text of the situation can include that you can't default surrender to a draw, and a draw can only occur when both opponents are brought to -10 or less at the same time. For FFA - they would take the lesser reward of the two places; For hunters - they would only get exp based on who they killed as before.
McJarvis 04-09-07, 03:13 PM	Oh, I agree. It was clever and creative, and was a good idea except for the fact that he was just a smidge too close to death when it happened. If he'd done an Energy Missile first and then taken the plunge, it might have worked. He didn't have the PP to do that. Spent all his bucks on vigor.
MindWandererB 04-09-07, 03:47 PM	A draw would be possible. Easy enough to add to the roster, and powerratings would just remain unchanged. Loser rewards would probably be best, again to discourage the practice (unless you're a Maven). How's that for a concept, Tellish? Build a Maven around mutual death--your PR could be halfway decent and you'd still be a multimillionaire!
SauroGrenom 04-09-07, 04:31 PM	I favor the idea of a Draw in this situation. The whole argument about what is an "attack" is slicing the baloney too thing in my opinion.
MindWandererB 04-09-07, 04:35 PM	All right, that makes it a majority. So it is written, so shall it be done!
TheMagister 04-09-07, 04:55 PM	I favor the idea of a Draw in this situation. The whole argument about what is an "attack" is slicing the baloney too thing in my opinion. {mildly sarcastic *poke*} The whole argument about what is a "touch attack" is slicing the baloney too thin in my opinion. :banghead:
hogarth 04-10-07, 05:45 PM	Still soliciting more opinions on oversized/undersized weapons. 1 or 2 votes (Telin, maybe MWB) for doubling the weight and price for each level above Large, and halving the weight for each level below Small: Size Price Weight Fine 1x, 0.06125x Diminutive 1x, 0.125x Tiny 1x, 0.25x Small 1x, 0.5x Medium 1x, 1x Large 2x, 2x Huge 4x, 4x Gargantuan 8x, 8x Colossal 16x, 16x 0 votes for following the same pattern as oversized armor: Size Price Weight Tiny (or smaller) 0.5x, 0.1x Small 1x, 0.5x Medium 1x, 1x Large 2x, 2x Huge 4x, 5x Gargantuan 8x, 8x Colossal 16x, 12x
SauroGrenom 04-10-07, 05:49 PM	I vote with Telin.
SauroGrenom 04-10-07, 06:35 PM	On a different question... What's the consensus with regard to magic items that provide bonuses to CL having a cross over bonus to ML? Example: Orange Ioun Stone +1CL. Does this also grant +1 ML? What about a bonus to checks to defeat SR? Example: Robe of the Arch Magi +2 on CL checks to defeat SR. Does this grant a bonus on ML checks to defeat SR? What about UA racial Paragon classes that grant bonuses to "casting classes"? Example: Human Paragon has two of 3 levels that grant +1 CL improvement. Can this bonus be applied to a psionic class? Does a psionitrix also grant a bonus to DC on spells from the related school? Does the feat spell focus cross over and provide a bonus to the related psionic powers? The SRD states "For the purpose of psionics-magic transparency, psychokinesis powers are equivalent to powers of the evocation school (thus, creatures immune to evocation spells are also immune to psychokinesis powers)." It's just not clear to me where you draw the line on the magic/psionics transparency with respect to issues like these.
MindWandererB 04-10-07, 06:49 PM	On a different question... What's the consensus with regard to magic items that provide bonuses to CL having a cross over bonus to ML? Example: Orange Ioun Stone +1CL. Does this also grant +1 ML? What about a bonus to checks to defeat SR? Example: Robe of the Arch Magi +2 on CL checks to defeat SR. Does this grant a bonus on ML checks to defeat SR? What about UA racial Paragon classes that grant bonuses to "casting classes"? Example: Human Paragon has two of 3 levels that grant +1 CL improvement. Can this bonus be applied to a psionic class? Does a psionitrix also grant a bonus to DC on spells from the related school? Does the feat spell focus cross over and provide a bonus to the related psionic powers? The SRD states "For the purpose of psionics-magic transparency, psychokinesis powers are equivalent to powers of the evocation school (thus, creatures immune to evocation spells are also immune to psychokinesis powers)." It's just not clear to me where you draw the line on the magic/psionics transparency with respect to issues like these.My opinions: I'm torn on the CL/ML issue. In my home campaign I would allow it (since I read "mainfester level" to mean "psionic casting level"), but the rules could certainly stand to be clearer. Since PR and SR are identical, I would say that a bonus to caster level checks would also apply to manifester level checks, except where there exists a psionic equivalent (such as the Penetration feats). The psionatrix certainly seems like it should apply.
hogarth 04-10-07, 07:03 PM	What's the consensus with regard to magic items that provide bonuses to CL having a cross over bonus to ML? Does a psionitrix also grant a bonus to DC on spells from the related school? What about a bonus to checks to defeat SR? Example: Robe of the Arch Magi +2 on CL checks to defeat SR. Does this grant a bonus on ML checks to defeat SR? Example: Orange Ioun Stone +1CL. Does this also grant +1 ML? I would say that a psionic version of an ioun stone would cost 5 credits. Ditto for a magic version of a psionatrix or a Robe of the Archpsion. What about UA racial Paragon classes that grant bonuses to "casting classes"? Example: Human Paragon has two of 3 levels that grant +1 CL improvement. Can this bonus be applied to a psionic class? I would prefer not to see "+1 manifester level" and "+1 caster level" classes mixed (e.g. wizard/illithid slayers) personally. Does the feat spell focus cross over and provide a bonus to the related psionic powers? The SRD states "For the purpose of psionics-magic transparency, psychokinesis powers are equivalent to powers of the evocation school (thus, creatures immune to evocation spells are also immune to psychokinesis powers)." I specifically asked about this for Reginald Molehusband and was told "no" in no uncertain terms. Maybe you'll have more luck.
templer10 04-13-07, 05:32 PM	I would like to raise the issue of using wands/dorja that contain a spell that need a ranged touch attack roll to hit. some opinions has been raised to why when using such a wand/dorja you provoke an AOA. so far- saurogrenom said this about it: McJarvis is correct here. There's two events to consider, only one of them grants an AoO, but there's still an AoO. Activating the Dorje doesn't grant the AoO, but the ranged attack does. If he were activating a Dorje of Force screen, then there wouldn't be an AoO. But the absence of an AoO for activation doesn't protect him against the AoO for making a ranged attack. telin on the other hand has this tosay about it: Zodiac (Vathelokai) vs Mithos Durrol (Zevox) As to the matter of a wand provoking an AoO for a ranged touch attack - I would disagree as well. The ranged touch is part of the spell - not a separate action. If the action to activate the spell doesn't draw an AoO (casting defensively, using a wand or staff, activating a wondrous item for instance), neither does the attack roll. MWB also agreed with telin and myself about the issue saying: Here's my tie-breaker on the ray/AoO issue. AoOs are determined by action type, not by outcome. While the "Attack (ranged)" action does provoke an AoO, that's not the action being used here; it's the "Activate a magic item other than a potion or oil" action, even if it is producing a ranged attack. So, no AoO in my opinion. as far as i understand telin he say that activating a dorja/wand is 2 diffren actions - 1)casting the spell/power which doesnt provoke an AoA. 2)using the spell to attack which does. that interpritation is wrong on several places. 1)this is how the SRD say you use a dorja (same description as wand) - "Dorjes use the power trigger activation method, so manifesting a power from a dorje is usually a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. (If the power being manifested has a manifesting time longer than 1 standard action, however, it takes that long to manifest the power from a dorje.) The user must have the power on his class list, even if he knows the command thought. Additionally, to activate a dorje, a character must hold it in hand and point it in the general direction of the target or area to be affected." what is say basicly that to activate a dorja you point it at something or someone and use the power trigger actication method-i dug up what exacly that is and the SRD say about that- "Activating a power trigger item is a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity." it means that even when taken oh so literly and ther are 2 actions - both actions are immune from AoAs becuase IT SAY SO IN THE SRD. 2)sauro diffrentiate betweeen a dorja/wand that you need an attack roll to hit something with and a dorja/wand that you dont need an attack roll to hit- i will give an example to show how that diffrence CANT be made. magic missile dont need an attack roll to hit. by sauros way- when using a wand of magic missile you dont provoke an AOA. acid arrow needs attack roll to hit, by using sauros way when in a wand it DOES provoke an AOA- BUT - can someone please tell me what the diffrence is there between activating a wand o magic missile and a wand of acid arrow? in what way are they used diffrently? answer - there is no diffrence to use the wand/dorja in either case you do the same thing - you point it at someone and say command word or whatever and the spell/power is activated - both take the same physical action. note that in both cases if a spellcaster were casting that spell in melee from memory/scroll using either spell or similar power would have caused an AOA so why make a diffrence just becuase its' a wand/dorja? btw if you want offensive power that in sauro's method wont provoke an AOA when in dorja look at mind thrust, energy missiles and many more - there is simply no real (other then to nerf dorja's) reason to limit the usefullness of dorjas. 3)there is no method listed in the SRD to avoid taking an AOA when using a wand/dorja- unlike casting/manifesting defensivly - IMO becuase it isnt needed since they dont provoke an AOA in the first place. i would appriciate a response from the remaining elders to give this an official ruling type thing.
McJarvis 04-13-07, 05:55 PM	As a general add-on to templer's post-> I believe the decision here will change how listen checks on attacks made by spells are dealt with, too. Something to consider(there are farther reaching implications than just the issue at hand.)
SauroGrenom 04-13-07, 05:56 PM	Let's ask a similar question and see what the thought experiment reveals. OK? Say that Bob is casting Acid Arrow at Tom. Bob and Tom are in melee with one another and Tom threatens Bod. Bob casts defensively and succeeds. His casting doesn't provoke and AoO. However Bob is still making a ranged attack, and ranged attacks do provoke an AoO. So does Tom get to take an AoO? I think so. The concentration check prevents the AoO from casting, but not the one from making a ranged attack. Let's try another example shall we? Say that Bob is wielding a dagger instead of trying to cast. Should Bob decide to stab with his dagger, he doesn't provoke any AoO. But should Bob decide to throw his dagger, then he does provoke and AoO, because he's now making a ranged attack. Both kinds of actions are attacks. The difference is that the thrown dagger is also a ranged attack, and as such it provokes an AoO. Attacks in general do not provoke AoO's. Nor does activating spell triggers in general provoke AoO's. But that fact doesn't make ranged attacks no-longer provoke AoO's. Nor should it make ranged touch attacks from wands no-longer provoke AoO's. can someone please tell me what the diffrence is there between activating a wand o magic missile and a wand of acid arrow? in what way are they used diffrently?Activating a wand of acid arrow is different in that it's two kinds of action at once. It is both a ranged attack and activating a magic item. One of these types of action provokes an AoO, the other doesn't. But you still have an AoO being provoked by the one that does provoke an AoO. There are several examples in the rules where an action is more than one kind of action. For example, if Tom wants to disarm Bob of his dagger. Tom is fortunate that he has the Improved Disarm Feat. So his disarm attempt doesn't provoke an AoO. However should Tom choose to disarm with his unarmed strike, he would provoke an AoO because he doesn't have the IUS feat. You see? His attack is both an unarmed strike and a disarm attempt. As such he doesn't provoke an AoO for the disarm attempt, but still does for the unarmed strike.
templer10 04-13-07, 05:57 PM	As a general add-on to templer's post-> I believe the decision here will change how listen checks on attacks made by spells are dealt with, too. Something to consider(there are farther reaching implications than just the issue at hand.) hmm how? you mean that activating a dorja doesnt make a sound? that's arguable and frankly i dont know if it makes a sound or not.
MindWandererB 04-13-07, 06:05 PM	Let's ask a similar question and see what the thought experiment reveals. OK? Say that Bob is casting Acid Arrow at Tom. Bob and Tom are in melee with one another and Tom threatens Bod. Bob casts defensively and succeeds. His casting doesn't provoke and AoO. However Bob is still making a ranged attack, and ranged attacks do provoke an AoO. So does Tom get to take an AoO? ....I understand your argument; you're basically repeating yourself. Do you have a response to my opinion (that it's action types rather than the effect of that action that dictates AoOs)?
TelinArtho 04-13-07, 06:08 PM	For the record - I disagree with both of your examples Sauro. If you are disarming someone with an unarmed attack (ie - grabbing the item), you provoke one attack of opportunity, unless you have the Improved Disarm feat - in which case you do not provoke an attack of opportunity. If your action does not provoke an attack of opportunity, it does not provoke an attack of opportunity. Note that "Attack (ranged)" and "Activate a magic item other than a potion or oil" have values of yes and no specifically and they are both separate actions on that list of actions. There is not a "ranged" subtype to an action to give it an AoO.
SauroGrenom 04-13-07, 06:15 PM	I understand your argument; you're basically repeating yourself. Do you have a response to my opinion (that it's action types rather than the effect of that action that dictates AoOs)?I think that activating a wand of Acid Arrow falls under several classifications of actions. It is a standard action, activating a spell trigger item and a ranged attack. The action in this case is all three "types" of action at the same time. It's just the same as using an unarmed strike for a sunder attempt. That is both an "Attack (unarmed)" and a "Sunder a weapon (attack)" action at the same time. There is no requirement for all actions to fall into one and only one entry in the Table: Actions in Combat. This is one of those cases that's more than one at the same time. There's also "Attack (melee)" and "Cast a spell (1 standard action casting time)" every time someone casts a touch attack spell. If we get creative I'm sure we could come up with more examples.
templer10 04-13-07, 06:16 PM	Let's ask a similar question and see what the thought experiment reveals. OK? Say that Bob is casting Acid Arrow at Tom. Bob and Tom are in melee with one another and Tom threatens Bod. Bob casts defensively and succeeds. His casting doesn't provoke and AoO. However Bob is still making a ranged attack, and ranged attacks do provoke an AoO. So does Tom get to take an AoO? I think so. The concentration check prevents the AoO from casting, but not the one from making a ranged attack. Let's try another example shall we? Say that Bob is wielding a dagger instead of trying to cast. Should Bob decide to stab with his dagger, he doesn't provoke any AoO. But should Bob decide to throw his dagger, then he does provoke and AoO, because he's now making a ranged attack. Both kinds of actions are attacks. The difference is that the thrown dagger is also a ranged attack, and as such it provokes an AoO. Attacks in general do not provoke AoO's. Nor does activating spell triggers in general provoke AoO's. But that fact doesn't make ranged attacks no-longer provoke AoO's. Nor should it make ranged touch attacks from wands no-longer provoke AoO's. Activating a wand of acid arrow is different in that it's two kinds of action at once. It is both a ranged attack and activating a magic item. One of these types of action provokes an AoO, the other doesn't. But you still have an AoO being provoked by the one that does provoke an AoO. There are several examples in the rules where an action is more than one kind of action. For example, if Tom wants to disarm Bob of his dagger. Tom is fortunate that he has the Improved Disarm Feat. So his disarm attempt doesn't provoke an AoO. However should Tom choose to disarm with his unarmed strike, he would provoke an AoO because he doesn't have the IUS feat. You see? His attack is both an unarmed strike and a disarm attempt. As such he doesn't provoke an AoO for the disarm attempt, but still does for the unarmed strike. You still havent answerd my basic argument- to use a dorja- ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS - "to activate a dorje, a character must hold it in hand and point it in the general direction of the target or area to be affected." you do not need to do anything else to activate the dorja. point that dorja at that enemy doesnt by itself provoke an AOA - why? becuase the SRD say in bold that it does just above said text. to actiavete the dorja you dont do anything BUT point it at the target and saying the command word or whatnot. you do not do anything with a droja of energy ray that you ARENT doing with dorja of mind thrust- you do the same exact thing - point at enemy- say command word. the fact that energy ray needs an attack roll is meaningless- it's just a by product of puting that spesific power into the dorja. there is no diffrence in the action you need to do to activate the dorja so there CANT be a diffrence in whether you take an AOA or not. you need to understand something- you dont do a ranged attack to use a dorja of energy ray- YOU POINT THE DORJA AT SOMEONE AND SAY COMMAND WORD(or something). Normally- the reason a ranged attack or casting/manifesting a spell provokes an AOA is becuase it leaves you "open to attack" sort to speak becuase you dont make threatening moves that force an enemy to defend itself and becuase of that when you attack with bow cast spell etc you give someone the oportunity to get an attack in becuase he cant defend himself effectivly. that doesnt happen when using a dorja - why? becuase by the rules - pointing the dorja at someone is considered sufficently threatening to make somone look for their own defenses and so not provoke an AOA. essentialy- the attack roll is made as a non action- it's subsumed in the "bigger" action that is activating the power from the dorja.
McJarvis 04-13-07, 06:17 PM	hmm how? you mean that activating a dorja doesnt make a sound? that's arguable and frankly i dont know if it makes a sound or not. The example running through my head is that I had an ECL 7 character that tried to sneak attack scorching rays. I was told that there was a DC 0 listen check to hear me cast the scorching rays. Naturally, I spent money on metamagic rods of silent spell. I was then told there was still a DC 0 listen check for my enemy because an "attack" generates a DC 0 listen check. The elders know what I'm talking about & understand my motives behind all of this. :) [which is the only reason I'm dedicating some time to this discussion]
SauroGrenom 04-13-07, 06:19 PM	For the record - I disagree with both of your examples Sauro. If you are disarming someone with an unarmed attack (ie - grabbing the item), you provoke one attack of opportunity, unless you have the Improved Disarm feat - in which case you do not provoke an attack of opportunity. If your action does not provoke an attack of opportunity, it does not provoke an attack of opportunity. Note that "Attack (ranged)" and "Activate a magic item other than a potion or oil" have values of yes and no specifically and they are both separate actions on that list of actions. There is not a "ranged" subtype to an action to give it an AoO.Casting Inflict Light Wounds is both "casting a spell" and "Attack (melee)" at the same time. By your argument, I could say that since melee attacks do not provoke and AoO's, then casting my spell shouldn't provoke any AoO either. We both know that's not correct. If an action is one that has multiple classifications and any classification is one that provokes an AoO, then the action as a whole provokes an AoO.
SauroGrenom 04-13-07, 06:25 PM	You still havent answerd my basic argument- to use a dorja- ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS - "to activate a dorje, a character must hold it in hand and point it in the general direction of the target or area to be affected." It doesn't matter if a magic item is activated by pointing it at someone, or sticking in your ear. All that matters is that it's a standard action of a certian classification. There are several examples where actions fall under more than one classification on the Actions in Combat table. In such cases the action provokes an AoO if any of the classifications provokes an AoO. Perhaps the most well know example is with touch spells as I mentioned in my last post replying to Telin.
Zevox 04-13-07, 06:25 PM	Say that Bob is casting Acid Arrow at Tom. Bob and Tom are in melee with one another and Tom threatens Bod. Bob casts defensively and succeeds. His casting doesn't provoke and AoO. However Bob is still making a ranged attack, and ranged attacks do provoke an AoO. So does Tom get to take an AoO? I think so. The concentration check prevents the AoO from casting, but not the one from making a ranged attack. I absolutely disagree. The concentration skill is very explicit that if the caster succeeds in casting defensively, he doesn't provoke any AoOs at all. Take a look: Special: You can use Concentration to cast a spell, use a spell-like ability, or use a skill defensively, so as to avoid attacks of opportunity altogether. <snip for space> If the Concentration check succeeds, you may attempt the action normally without provoking any attacks of opportunity. I don't see how you can misinterpret that. And to state it simply, I'm with Telin and MWB on dorjes/wands provoking. They never do, period, regardless of the type of spell/power they use when activated. Zevox
Zevox 04-13-07, 06:43 PM	Casting Inflict Light Wounds is both "casting a spell" and "Attack (melee)" at the same time. By your argument, I could say that since melee attacks do not provoke and AoO's, then casting my spell shouldn't provoke any AoO either. We both know that's not correct. If an action is one that has multiple classifications and any classification is one that provokes an AoO, then the action as a whole provokes an AoO. I would say thats exactly the opposite of what Telin is arguing. Hes saying that the "attack (type)" portion of this classification you're aiming at does not apply at all, because the attack is a result of casting a spell, and thus is treated by the rules of casting a spell only. Whether the spell requires an attack and what type of attack if it does is totally irrelevant to whether it provokes AoOs, because it is a spell, and they have their own rules regarding AoOs. Zevox
SauroGrenom 04-13-07, 06:52 PM	I would say thats exactly the opposite of what Telin is arguing. Hes saying that the "attack (type)" portion of this classification you're aiming at does not apply at all, because the attack is a result of casting a spell, and thus is treated by the rules of casting a spell only. Whether the spell requires an attack and what type of attack if it does is totally irrelevant to whether it provokes AoOs, because it is a spell, and they have their own rules regarding AoOs. ZevoxThat's alot of conjecture that's not in the rules. But let's go with that for a bit. Let's suppose that all actions have a "primary" component and a secondary one. The primary triggers the secondary, and only the primary results in an AoO if allowed. So then I can always cast or use any ranged attack as a readied action and never provoke an AoO, because Readied actions don't provoke AoO's and any casting or ranged attacks that result from a readied action never provoke an AoO. Obviously that's wrong, so the supposition must also be wrong. We must conclude that in situations where an action has multiple classifications, there is no hierarchy of action classifications where one classifications' AoO status supersedes the others.
SauroGrenom 04-13-07, 06:57 PM	Here's another one. Suppose I use a supernatural or extraordinary ability as a ranged attack. According to your suggestion, there's no AoO. So my monk can use a flurry of blows (extraordinary ability) and shiruken and never provoke any AoO's. Should I keep going?
Zevox 04-13-07, 06:59 PM	That's alot of conjecture that's not in the rules. But let's go with that for a bit. Let's suppose that all actions have a "primary" component and a secondary one. The primary triggers the secondary, and only the primary results in an AoO if allowed. I wasn't saying there is a primary and secondary component to things at all. I was saying that just because a spell involves an attack does not make that spell an attack - it is still a spell, and treated as such, not as an attack. It does not have that "secondary" component at all. So then I can always cast or use any ranged attack as a readied action and never provoke an AoO, because Readied actions don't provoke AoO's and any casting or ranged attacks that result from a readied action never provoke an AoO. ...except for the problem (in addition to what I stated above) that the readied action just allows the normal action to occur. The act of readying doesn't provoke, but it is separate from the act it causes (you ready before your ready goes off, and the action you've readied is not the same as the act of readying it). Not so with spells/powers, which are the effect they cause (if one involves an attack, it occurs when the spell is cast because the spell requires it, and the attack is simply part of the spell). Zevox
Zevox 04-13-07, 07:00 PM	Here's another one. Suppose I use a supernatural or extraordinary ability as a ranged attack. According to your suggestion, there's no AoO. So my monk can use a flurry of blows (extraordinary ability) and shiruken and never provoke any AoO's. Should I keep going? A Monk's flurry of blows just modifies their normal attacks. It also is not a spell or power, and so not relevant to the discussion. Zevox
Maraxus 04-13-07, 07:20 PM	I think this debate about ranged attackes from powers and AoO and such is easy to answer: If you use the attack or full attack action, ranged attacks provoke AoOs. If you just make ranged attack rolls as part of another action, it provokes no (seperate) AoO. -So, firering a bow provokes, ranged attacks in an attack action. -Energy Ray does not provoke (for the ranged attack), becourse it's not an attack action, just an attack roll as part of the "manifesting a power" action. -Produce Flame would provoke AoO. It may be a spell but to throw the flames in later rounds, the attack action (ranged) is used.
Zevox 04-13-07, 07:26 PM	I think this debate about ranged attackes from powers and AoO and such is easy to answer: If you use the attack or full attack action, ranged attacks provoke AoOs, if you just make ranged attack rolls as part of another action, it provokes no (seperate) AoO. -So, firering a bow provokes, ranged attacks in an attack action. -Energy Ray does not provoke (for the ranged attack), becourse it's not an attack action, just an attack roll as part of the "manifesting a power" action. -Produce Flame would provoke AoO. It may be a spell but to throw the flames in later rounds, the attack action (ranged) is used. *nods* A rather fair summary. More clearly stated than I managed, anyway. Zevox
SauroGrenom 04-13-07, 07:48 PM	I wasn't saying there is a primary and secondary component to things at all. I was saying that just because a spell involves an attack does not make that spell an attack - it is still a spell, and treated as such, not as an attack. It does not have that "secondary" component at all.Spells which involve attacks are clearly both attacks and spells. They are just one of many examples of actions that fall under more than one classification on this table at the same time. Monks Flurry of blows is an extraordinary ability. It is not as you say simply a modification of an attack. It is a distinct ability and attacking is a part of using that ability in the same way that attacking is a part of using many spells. It's arbitrary to say that the "Cast a Spell" action is the only one that allows attacks to be a part of it, while other actions are a part of the attacks. ...except for the problem (in addition to what I stated above) that the readied action just allows the normal action to occur. The act of readying doesn't provoke, but it is separate from the act it causes (you ready before your ready goes off, and the action you've readied is not the same as the act of readying it). Not so with spells/powers, which are the effect they cause (if one involves an attack, it occurs when the spell is cast because the spell requires it, and the attack is simply part of the spell).You're arbitrarily stating that supernatural attacks and extraordinary attacks are only classified as attacks, while spell attacks are all classified as spells regardless of what kind of attack is involved. The suggestion is completely arbitrary and not founded in any rules source. You are right in that there is a single action that takes place when someone casts a spell. That however does not require that the resulting action occupy a single classification on the table of actions. I have shown several examples of singular actions that clearly are multiple entries in that table at the same time. You are suggesting that all such actions be reclassified in some arbitrary manner as singular entries in the table. I cannot agree with such an arbitrary approach. I cannot imagine that such an approach can lead to fairness.
SauroGrenom 04-13-07, 07:53 PM	I think this debate about ranged attackes from powers and AoO and such is easy to answer: If you use the attack or full attack action, ranged attacks provoke AoOs. If you just make ranged attack rolls as part of another action, it provokes no (seperate) AoO. -So, firering a bow provokes, ranged attacks in an attack action. -Energy Ray does not provoke (for the ranged attack), becourse it's not an attack action, just an attack roll as part of the "manifesting a power" action. -Produce Flame would provoke AoO. It may be a spell but to throw the flames in later rounds, the attack action (ranged) is used. This is simply an opinion being stated here. If it were true, all supernatural or extraordinary abilities that are ranged attacks then do not provoke an AoO, (since they are part of another action). That means my Flurry of Blows, Phase Arrow, Seeker Arrow or Precise Strike are all ranged attacks that do not provoke AoO's (since they are part of using an extraordinary or supernatural ability).
Zevox 04-13-07, 08:03 PM	Okay, lets bring this to a halt here. I disagree with your arguments Sauro, but its obvious that if we continue here we'll just wind up arguing in circles without end, the way you and TM did over that issue of Rubicanti's several weeks ago (whatever it was - I didn't pay that much attention to it). So then, we disagree with each others' assessments of this issue. Fine then - you're an Elder, and I'm not, so in this case my opinion ultimately doesn't matter. We still have yet to hear from two Elders - NiQil and Tellish - so lets see what their take is, since thats what will decide this issue. Zevox
templer10 04-13-07, 08:50 PM	Okay, lets bring this to a halt here. I disagree with your arguments Sauro, but its obvious that if we continue here we'll just wind up arguing in circles without end, the way you and TM did over that issue of Rubicanti's several weeks ago (whatever it was - I didn't pay that much attention to it). So then, we disagree with each others' assessments of this issue. Fine then - you're an Elder, and I'm not, so in this case my opinion ultimately doesn't matter. We still have yet to hear from two Elders - NiQil and Tellish - so lets see what their take is, since thats what will decide this issue. Zevox niqil commented on it in the FOTW thread supporting MWB, zevox me and all the rest basicly saying wands/dorja absolutly never provoke AOA so it's decided i think.
NiQil 04-13-07, 08:51 PM	Using wands/dorjes *never provokes attacks of opportunity. I give you the description of the action, straight from the SRD: Spell Trigger: Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it’s even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. Anyone with a spell on his or her spell list knows how to use a spell trigger item that stores that spell. (This is the case even for a character who can’t actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin.) The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Activation: Wands use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity. (If the spell being cast, however, has a longer casting time than 1 action, it takes that long to cast the spell from a wand.) To activate a wand, a character must hold it in hand (or whatever passes for a hand, for nonhumanoid creatures) and point it in the general direction of the target or area. A wand may be used while grappling or while swallowed whole. A wand is a spell trigger item. Spell trigger items do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Ergo, wands do not provoke attacks of opportunity, regardless of the spell in them being used. Power Trigger: This is the activation method for dorjes and psicrowns. It requires the special knowledge of power manifestation that a character of the appropriate class would know, and the formation of the appropriate command thought. If a power is on a character’s power list, the character knows how to use a power trigger item that stores that power. The user must still determine what power is stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a power trigger item is a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Activation: Dorjes use the power trigger activation method, so manifesting a power from a dorje is usually a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. (If the power being manifested has a manifesting time longer than 1 standard action, however, it takes that long to manifest the power from a dorje.) The user must have the power on his class list, even if he knows the command thought. Additionally, to activate a dorje, a character must hold it in hand and point it in the general direction of the target or area to be affected. Dorje's are power trigger items. Power trigger items do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Ergo, dorje's do not provoke attacks of opportunity, regardless of the power in them being used. I don't know if I can be any clearer than that.
hogarth 04-13-07, 08:56 PM	If you use the attack or full attack action, ranged attacks provoke AoOs. If you just make ranged attack rolls as part of another action, it provokes no (seperate) AoO. What about a beholder using the full attack action to zap with its ten eye stalks? Does that provoke 10 attacks of opportunity, or not? (I would say no.)
templer10 04-13-07, 09:01 PM	What about a beholder using the full attack action to zap with its ten eye stalks? Does that provoke 10 attacks of opportunity, or not? (I would say no.) Beholder's eye stalk dont provoke AOA becuase they are supernatural abilities (sup) which dont provoke AOA's.
TelinArtho 04-13-07, 09:16 PM	Spells which involve attacks are clearly both attacks and spells. They are just one of many examples of actions that fall under more than one classification on this table at the same time. Monks Flurry of blows is an extraordinary ability. It is not as you say simply a modification of an attack. It is a distinct ability and attacking is a part of using that ability in the same way that attacking is a part of using many spells. It's arbitrary to say that the "Cast a Spell" action is the only one that allows attacks to be a part of it, while other actions are a part of the attacks. You're arbitrarily stating that supernatural attacks and extraordinary attacks are only classified as attacks, while spell attacks are all classified as spells regardless of what kind of attack is involved. The suggestion is completely arbitrary and not founded in any rules source. You are right in that there is a single action that takes place when someone casts a spell. That however does not require that the resulting action occupy a single classification on the table of actions. I have shown several examples of singular actions that clearly are multiple entries in that table at the same time. You are suggesting that all such actions be reclassified in some arbitrary manner as singular entries in the table. I cannot agree with such an arbitrary approach. I cannot imagine that such an approach can lead to fairness. Sauro - again I'm going to say that all actions have one spot on that action list. For the flurry of blows I would like to point the following out: Flurry of Blows (Ex): When unarmored, a monk may strike with a flurry of blows at the expense of accuracy. When doing so, she may make one extra attack in a round at her highest base attack bonus, but this attack takes a –2 penalty, as does each other attack made that round. The resulting modified base attack bonuses are shown in the Flurry of Blows Attack Bonus column on Table: The Monk. This penalty applies for 1 round, so it also affects attacks of opportunity the monk might make before her next action. When a monk reaches 5th level, the penalty lessens to –1, and at 9th level it disappears. A monk must use a full attack action to strike with a flurry of blows. When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham). She may attack with unarmed strikes and special monk weapons interchangeably as desired. When using weapons as part of a flurry of blows, a monk applies her Strength bonus (not Str bonus x 1-1/2 or x 1/2) to her damage rolls for all successful attacks, whether she wields a weapon in one or both hands. The monk can’t use any weapon other than a special monk weapon as part of a flurry of blows. Everything on the list of actions has a hierarchy. You only use the generic when there isn't a specific action to use. Flurry of blows, an extraordinary ability, requires the use of the full attack action. A full attack action usually does not provoke AoO except when using a ranged weapon while threatened. If an extraordinary ability does not have an entry in the list and is not in the description of the ability whether it provokes or not, then you revert to what action says in the list. To put this issue at rest - you have been outruled by your fellow elders on a vote of 3 to 1. Regardless of ToK's view on the matter (should he chime in), the majority has already presented itself.
SauroGrenom 04-14-07, 10:36 AM	OK then. Once again you have decided that with majority vote you can write new rules from whole cloth. There's nothing in the rules about a hierarchy on the list of actions. It's not clear from the rules how to structure such a hierarchy from all the possible combinations of action classifications. But hey! There's apparently nothing from stopping you from writing one into the rules. I just hope you do a good job. All I have to say is, "Have fun playing your game of calvin ball." I'm tired of having the basic rules being "interpreted" by writing new things into the rules. I'm tired of being the whipping boy who tries to reply with civility to everyone's increasingly rabid attacks on my position. I'm tired of being the minority voice who advocates for reading the rules as written. From this point onward, I'm going to phase out my involvement. Effective immediately, I formally resign as an elder and pitlord. I'll finish this weeks commitments, but I'll take on no additional fights. I had lots of fun for a stretch.
Vathelokai 04-14-07, 10:54 AM	From this point onward, I'm going to phase out my involvement. Effective immediately, I formally resign as an elder and pitlord. I'll finish this weeks commitments, but I'll take on no additional fights. I had lots of fun for a stretch. :weep:
hogarth 04-14-07, 11:18 AM	OK then. Once again you have decided that with majority vote you can write new rules from whole cloth. There's nothing in the rules about a hierarchy on the list of actions. It's not clear from the rules how to structure such a hierarchy from all the possible combinations of action classifications. But hey! There's apparently nothing from stopping you from writing one into the rules. I just hope you do a good job. :confused: In this case, it's just an honest disagreement. I can certainly see either side's point of view, but I think it's ambiguous. I'm sorry you feel that people are just making up rules. I dislike that as much as you do, I think (although we may differ on which rules are made-up and which aren't).
Rauul 04-14-07, 12:31 PM	From this point onward, I'm going to phase out my involvement. Effective immediately, I formally resign as an elder and pitlord. I'll finish this weeks commitments, but I'll take on no additional fights. I had lots of fun for a stretch. Only going to say this once... and Probaly get booted from the forum... But when i read something like the Above, and what cat said when He left... i feel like i am Playing with kindergardeners who can't get thier way so they pick up thier toys and leave.. Honestly Folks.. it's a game.. it's not Cancer, or a Heart Attack, it's not a way of life... it's a game.. Step back take a breathe, count to 100 before you post BS like the above.. Do i like the ruleing.. No but most of my friends agree with it... Do i like the Fact that Wands cost credits and Dajores don't. NO and now you see why.. Balance Something Cat forgot about, Something that people aren't seeing.. Psi vs Magic Balance.. Do i like the fact that Touchsight makes an Amulet of Non Detection worthless.. No i don't.. Do i like the fact that Gather Infomation of a Wizard is more powerful than thier Inclass Skills.. But they are rules we have to play by here and i accept what can't be changed, I accept my wins and loses (i have played in games where getting a +1 sword is like finding an artifact, and where Psionics was a myth) So honestly take your toys and go pout if thats what you think is best for the Forum and game.. Now it looks like we need 2-3 elders and MWB will be the new GM (Don't know if ToK is staying or going as his return was a Limited return from his First day here) Or Maybe you want it to look to Cat as if we can't function without him.. To me NOONE is unreplacable Anyone and everyone can be replaced.. Maybe it is time the Elders Started to get fresh Blood and fresh insights into the game... But either way till i am kicked from the forums for being out of line or i deside to move on... I am here to play a game..
McJarvis 04-14-07, 02:46 PM	@Rauul: I was mistaken in jumping the gun before, so I might as well be the one to point that Cat isn't necessarily leaving. ToK is unconfirmed as well, though I suspect if he never comes back he wouldn't come back to say goodbye(I'm expecting Cat to at least make a post giving us his final decision eventually) As far as Sauro goes: We should probably wait for a week or so to see if this is "for real".
Zevox 04-14-07, 02:55 PM	@Rauul: I was mistaken in jumping the gun before, so I might as well be the one to point that Cat isn't necessarily leaving. ToK is unconfirmed as well, though I suspect if he never comes back he wouldn't come back to say goodbye(I'm expecting Cat to at least make a post giving us his final decision eventually) Actually, ToK said before that he had reenlisted in the army (or some branch or another of the military) and was going out on that in a few months, so we know hes departing sometime. Currently though hes just very with RL, as his post in last week's FotW thread indicates. I must repeat hogarth's statement though Sauro, no one is making up new rules here, its a matter of a disagreement about existing ones. We have a clear contradiction in the rules - rules stating that wands/dorjes never draw AoOs and another rule stating ranged attacks do, with nothing addressing what to do with what appears to be a hybrid of the two - and simply have different interpretations of how that contradiction is to be resolved. If you really want to step down like that, thats up to you, but I feel like you're blowing this out of proportion. Zevox
templer10 04-14-07, 02:59 PM	Only going to say this once... and Probaly get booted from the forum... But when i read something like the Above, and what cat said when He left... i feel like i am Playing with kindergardeners who can't get thier way so they pick up thier toys and leave.. Honestly Folks.. it's a game.. it's not Cancer, or a Heart Attack, it's not a way of life... it's a game.. Step back take a breathe, count to 100 before you post BS like the above.. Do i like the ruleing.. No but most of my friends agree with it... Do i like the Fact that Wands cost credits and Dajores don't. NO and now you see why.. Balance Something Cat forgot about, Something that people aren't seeing.. Psi vs Magic Balance.. Do i like the fact that Touchsight makes an Amulet of Non Detection worthless.. No i don't.. Do i like the fact that Gather Infomation of a Wizard is more powerful than thier Inclass Skills.. But they are rules we have to play by here and i accept what can't be changed, I accept my wins and loses (i have played in games where getting a +1 sword is like finding an artifact, and where Psionics was a myth) So honestly take your toys and go pout if thats what you think is best for the Forum and game.. Now it looks like we need 2-3 elders and MWB will be the new GM (Don't know if ToK is staying or going as his return was a Limited return from his First day here) Or Maybe you want it to look to Cat as if we can't function without him.. To me NOONE is unreplacable Anyone and everyone can be replaced.. Maybe it is time the Elders Started to get fresh Blood and fresh insights into the game... But either way till i am kicked from the forums for being out of line or i deside to move on... I am here to play a game.. i couldnt agree more- there was a disagreement- peeps talked- some agreed, some disagreed, it wasnt at any time personal (for me anyway) just an argument on the rules. it's not horrible or anything if you find that a long held opinion you have is considered wrong by some other people- i had this happen to me just a coupel of days hee- i dont have to like it- butwhen a majority of the elders agreed i was wrong i accept it.
MindWandererB 04-14-07, 11:14 PM	OK then. Once again you have decided that with majority vote you can write new rules from whole cloth. There's nothing in the rules about a hierarchy on the list of actions. It's not clear from the rules how to structure such a hierarchy from all the possible combinations of action classifications. But hey! There's apparently nothing from stopping you from writing one into the rules. I just hope you do a good job. All I have to say is, "Have fun playing your game of calvin ball." I'm tired of having the basic rules being "interpreted" by writing new things into the rules. I'm tired of being the whipping boy who tries to reply with civility to everyone's increasingly rabid attacks on my position. I'm tired of being the minority voice who advocates for reading the rules as written. From this point onward, I'm going to phase out my involvement. Effective immediately, I formally resign as an elder and pitlord. I'll finish this weeks commitments, but I'll take on no additional fights. I had lots of fun for a stretch. I'll reiterate what everyone else has been saying: we're not trying to write new rules. We're just trying to figure out what the rules actually say. If you can ask the developers and ask them for 100% sure what they meant to imply, then the argument is over. But in lieu of that, we have to make our best guess, and our best guess is no AoO. As for you leaving: do you think I want everyone to agree with me? Absolutely not. I value dissenting opinions. When everyone agrees with each other, we get the Bay of Pigs. The only way things get done appropriately, is if the members of a team have different things to say. And that's what the elders are: a team. That doesn't mean we should be unanimous in all our decisions; it means we should have a system for resolving disagreements. That's why we even have elders, rather than a dictatorial GM. Any one of us, even the GM, can be outvoted when it comes to rules decisions. (Although the GM does have veto power if it proves to be absolutely necessary.) So yeah; I, too, am hoping you'll stay.
Zevox 04-14-07, 11:49 PM	You know, having some time to reflect upon this at work, I'm no longer so sure of the ruling. The example Hirumajoe gave in the Tavern of the touch spells specifying they are considered armed and "therefore [do] not provoke attacks of opportunity" implies that if they weren't considered armed they would draw AoOs, which seems to me contradictory to the ruling that was just made. But of course I still understand the reasoning behind the ruling itself... I'm no longer sure which side to believe. Guess that doesn't matter since I'm not an Elder, but I thought I'd toss it out there to see if it made anyone else reconsider as well. Zevox
Hirumajoe 04-15-07, 09:44 AM	I originally did not want to post this here because I had thought the issue had been fully discussed and I knew that the Elders had voted. But having seen MWB point out that discussion is good I'll make this one post (admittedly long which I apologize for). And I would also like to express the sentiment that I hope both Sauro and Cat choose to stay, but if they don't, I wish them the best (especially at medical school for Sauro). So please take this in the spirit its offered - a friendly discussion. And while I probably would go with the ruling made by the elders in a home game, to avoid double jeopardy situations which seems a bit odd to me, upon an examination of the rules I find I must agree with Sauro although possibly due to a longer list of reasons than he presented so far. 1) Touch attacks are considered "armed". This is the express reason in the SRD (hence the designer's reason) why touch attacks do not provoke AoOs. Not because they are part of the spell, which is considered a seperate source of AoOs. I also note that the general category of Touch Attacks is expressly broken into Melee and Ranged attacks (on the very next line I might add). Question: This may be a bit obvious, but I'm not sure. I know casting a spell can provoke an attack of opportunity, but it doesn’t if cast defensively. Would a touch attack from a spell cause an attack of opportunity as well? Answer: Casting a spell triggers an attack of opportunity, but delivering a touch spell does not (you're "armed" with the spell). Touch Spells in Combat Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject, either in the same round or any time later. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) the target. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll. Touch Attacks Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. However, the act of casting a spell does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack. Your opponent’s AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally. Holding the Charge If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the discharge of the spell (hold the charge) indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. (If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack.) If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge. 2)Rules of the game expressely notes that melee touch attacks are an additional nonaction that the spell allows you to take upon completion. (Agreeing with the previous interpretation). And nonactions can produce AoOs (since AoOs themselves are nonactions and can provoke AoOs in turn). Its not clear to me why ranged touch attacks shouldn't also be a nonaction in the same manner. Cast a Spell: Most spells require one standard action to cast. To cast any spell, you must provide any components the spell requires. See Rules of the Game: Reading Spell Descriptions for details. Casting a spell usually provokes an attack of opportunity from every foe that threatens you when you cast. As a nonaction, you can make a Concentration check to cast a spell defensively. Doing so allows you to cast the spell without provoking attacks of opportunity, but you must succeed at the Concentration check (DC 15 + spell level) or lose the spell. Other conditions, such as poor weather, continuing damage, or hostile spells also can break your concentration; see the Concentration skill description in the Player's Handbook for details. If you cast a spell with a range of touch, you can touch one recipient as a nonaction that's part of the action you used to cast the spell. You also can opt to hold the charge for a spell with touch range. Though you can lose the charge by accident, you must use a standard action to deliver the spell where you want it. As a full-round action, you can touch up to six friends with a touch spell, but that's worthwhile with only a few spells. See Rules of the Game: Reading Spell Descriptions for details. 3) The attack roll occurs after the action of casting the spell has finished. Note the effect section of spells that require ranged touch attack rolls. They do not say "one creature" but rather "ray" or "one arrow of acid". The end result is a weapon you can use, not the effect occuring on the target. The attack roll occurs after the casting the spell. Its an effect of a spell, not a requirement for it to be cast. Any AoO caused by the ranged attack roll cannot disrupt the spell (an important point). Effect: The spell produces something by either creating it on the spot or by summoning it from somewhere else. When an effect spell summons a creature, the spell's range determines how far away from you the creature can appear. Once it appears, however, the creature is free to move around as it likes or as you direct; the spell range no longer limits it. The same goes for summoned objects; though most objects can't move around on their own, someone could hurl the object or carry it off. 4) Ranged touch attacks are still ranged attacks. Just because your weapon is ray doesn't make it any less of a ranged attack, in the same way as attacking with a boulder by a giant or launching spines by a Manticore (an Ex ability) are ranged attacks. One can apply point blank and weapon focus (ray) bonuses to them. The spell is creating the weapon for you, but it is no less a weapon. And yes, I'd argue that beholder firing 10 eye rays would provoke 10 AoOs. In the same way that a Manticore would provoke 6 AoOs from firing 6 spines. Its just that the Beholder has used a Su ability to produce its weapons while the Manticore grew them (and I presume it doesn't provoke AoOs for growing spines...) Point Blank Shot [General] Benefit You get a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls with ranged weapons at ranges of up to 30 feet. Special A fighter may select Point Blank Shot as one of his fighter bonus feats. Ray Some effects are rays. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack. As with a ranged weapon, you can fire into the dark or at an invisible creature and hope you hit something. You don’t have to see the creature you’re trying to hit, as you do with a targeted spell. Intervening creatures and obstacles, however, can block your line of sight or provide cover for the creature you’re aiming at. If a ray spell has a duration, it’s the duration of the effect that the ray causes, not the length of time the ray itself persists. If a ray spell deals damage, you can score a critical hit just as if it were a weapon. A ray spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit. 5)Lastly, considering the range attack to be a part of the spell and having it fall under the spell action and hence AoO generating capability leads to the dangerous question: "Since you can concentrate to avoid AoOs while making a ranged attack and casting a spell, why can't you concentrate to avoid AoOs while making a ranged attack?" What about casting a spell makes it easier to avoid making AoOs? I realize this is a real world logic argument, and hence doesn't necessarily hold any weight, but I thought I'd throw it out there. Thanks for your consideration.
templer10 04-15-07, 10:46 AM	I originally did not want to post this here because I had thought the issue had been fully discussed and I knew that the Elders had voted. But having seen MWB point out that discussion is good I'll make this one post (admittedly long which I apologize for). And I would also like to express the sentiment that I hope both Sauro and Cat choose to stay, but if they don't, I wish them the best (especially at medical school for Sauro). So please take this in the spirit its offered - a friendly discussion. And while I probably would go with the ruling made by the elders in a home game, to avoid double jeopardy situations which seems a bit odd to me, upon an examination of the rules I find I must agree with Sauro although possibly due to a longer list of reasons than he presented so far. 1) Touch attacks are considered "armed". This is the express reason in the SRD (hence the designer's reason) why touch attacks do not provoke AoOs. Not because they are part of the spell, which is considered a seperate source of AoOs. I also note that the general category of Touch Attacks is expressly broken into Melee and Ranged attacks (on the very next line I might add). Question: This may be a bit obvious, but I'm not sure. I know casting a spell can provoke an attack of opportunity, but it doesn’t if cast defensively. Would a touch attack from a spell cause an attack of opportunity as well? Answer: Casting a spell triggers an attack of opportunity, but delivering a touch spell does not (you're "armed" with the spell). Touch Spells in Combat Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject, either in the same round or any time later. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) the target. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll. Touch Attacks Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. However, the act of casting a spell does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack. Your opponent’s AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally. Holding the Charge If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the discharge of the spell (hold the charge) indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. (If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack.) If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge. 2)Rules of the game expressely notes that melee touch attacks are an additional nonaction that the spell allows you to take upon completion. (Agreeing with the previous interpretation). And nonactions can produce AoOs (since AoOs themselves are nonactions and can provoke AoOs in turn). Its not clear to me why ranged touch attacks shouldn't also be a nonaction in the same manner. Cast a Spell: Most spells require one standard action to cast. To cast any spell, you must provide any components the spell requires. See Rules of the Game: Reading Spell Descriptions for details. Casting a spell usually provokes an attack of opportunity from every foe that threatens you when you cast. As a nonaction, you can make a Concentration check to cast a spell defensively. Doing so allows you to cast the spell without provoking attacks of opportunity, but you must succeed at the Concentration check (DC 15 + spell level) or lose the spell. Other conditions, such as poor weather, continuing damage, or hostile spells also can break your concentration; see the Concentration skill description in the Player's Handbook for details. If you cast a spell with a range of touch, you can touch one recipient as a nonaction that's part of the action you used to cast the spell. You also can opt to hold the charge for a spell with touch range. Though you can lose the charge by accident, you must use a standard action to deliver the spell where you want it. As a full-round action, you can touch up to six friends with a touch spell, but that's worthwhile with only a few spells. See Rules of the Game: Reading Spell Descriptions for details. 3) The attack roll occurs after the action of casting the spell has finished. Note the effect section of spells that require ranged touch attack rolls. They do not say "one creature" but rather "ray" or "one arrow of acid". The end result is a weapon you can use, not the effect occuring on the target. The attack roll occurs after the casting the spell. Its an effect of a spell, not a requirement for it to be cast. Any AoO caused by the ranged attack roll cannot disrupt the spell (an important point). Effect: The spell produces something by either creating it on the spot or by summoning it from somewhere else. When an effect spell summons a creature, the spell's range determines how far away from you the creature can appear. Once it appears, however, the creature is free to move around as it likes or as you direct; the spell range no longer limits it. The same goes for summoned objects; though most objects can't move around on their own, someone could hurl the object or carry it off. 4) Ranged touch attacks are still ranged attacks. Just because your weapon is ray doesn't make it any less of a ranged attack, in the same way as attacking with a boulder by a giant or launching spines by a Manticore (an Ex ability) are ranged attacks. One can apply point blank and weapon focus (ray) bonuses to them. The spell is creating the weapon for you, but it is no less a weapon. And yes, I'd argue that beholder firing 10 eye rays would provoke 10 AoOs. In the same way that a Manticore would provoke 6 AoOs from firing 6 spines. Point Blank Shot [General] Benefit You get a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls with ranged weapons at ranges of up to 30 feet. Special A fighter may select Point Blank Shot as one of his fighter bonus feats. Ray Some effects are rays. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack. As with a ranged weapon, you can fire into the dark or at an invisible creature and hope you hit something. You don’t have to see the creature you’re trying to hit, as you do with a targeted spell. Intervening creatures and obstacles, however, can block your line of sight or provide cover for the creature you’re aiming at. If a ray spell has a duration, it’s the duration of the effect that the ray causes, not the length of time the ray itself persists. If a ray spell deals damage, you can score a critical hit just as if it were a weapon. A ray spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit. 5)Lastly, considering the range attack to be a part of the spell and having it fall under the spell action and hence AoO generating capability leads to the dangerous question: "Since you can concentrate to avoid AoOs while making a ranged attack and casting a spell, why can't you concentrate to avoid AoOs while making a ranged attack?" What about casting a spell makes it easier to avoid making AoOs? I realize this is a real world logic argument, and hence doesn't necessarily hold any weight, but I thought I'd throw it out there. Thanks for your consideration. Note- taht none of this is an attack or anything of that sort on anyone's opinion - since those other peeps opinions are probably products of how they have been playing the game and how The games they played were affected by balance issues in their home game. and now to the subject in hand- First i dont agree there is anything "dangarous" or "wrong" about the ability to concetrate to avoid AoA when casting ranged touch spells- It's a legimate and legal and "balanced" tactic. IMO what is happening here is a classic case of overthinking and overcomplicating the meaning of of the "cast defensivly" action. for me at least- the cast definsivly action is meant to cover the whole range of spellcasting using spell like abilities and skills - Trying to poke and prod in the meaning and exact wording and whatnot is simply trying to twist the wording of the rule to exclude something which is probably considered by some to be overpowerd - the ability of spellcasters to fairly easily cast any spell without provokeing AoA. you asked - What about casting a spell makes it easier to avoid making AoOs? my answer is - i dont know and i dont care - The rule of being able to concatrate to cast a spell defensivly was put in place to avoid a situation in which an unprepeared level 20 wizard (as in with no quickend spells and or ability to quickly get away) Would not be able to overcome 1 level 1 fighters to either side of him preventing him from 5-foot moving away and such any spell cast by him will provoke an AOA. IMO this aspect of the "concetration" skill isn't so much about being able to avoid the blows while still manitaning concetrating or whatever explanation the SRD gives it as in The rules of the game providing the balance to avoid the Balance needed for creating the ridiculos notion of 2 level 1 fighters prventing a level 20 wizard of doing anything he choose to do. Now you ask - why do concatration check dont alllow to make regular (not spell) ranged attacks without provoking AoA- my answer is becuase it doesnt- becuase that level 20 ranger or fighter when he is near 2 level 1 fighters can just as easly take out a sword or graplle them or tumble around them or just take the dmg without flinching since he has 3 times the number of HP the wizard has or whatnot and wipe the floor with them - the wizard cant (ok so he can usually becuase the disparity in level is so large but you get my point i think). also dont forget that when doing a regular ranged attack- even if you get damaged during the attack - you can still make that attack and if ou get damaged while casting a spell you need a seperate - and usually much harde rconcetration check to make. Lastly- the subject here origanlly was wands and dorja's - when you examine those spesific items all the arguments about where ranged touch spells should provoke AOA if you manage concatration check or not goes out the window- YOu dont cast a spell when using a wand- you are using a wand. you arent making an attack when using a wand- YOU ARE USING A WAND so the whole argument is moot - there are spesific rules for dealing with wands/dorja's - they dont provoke AOA's - period. when you start breaking down wands into an action of using the wand which dont provoke AOA and a non action of making the attack with the wand which does you start getting the completly irrational distinction between wands contaning spells that DOESNT need attack rolls -(magic missile) and wands what does need attack rolls (acid arrow) - both types of wands need the exact same action to activate and are subject to the same rules so there cant be distinctions between them- either both types of wands provoke AOA or none of them do. since there is no way for a magic missile wand to provoke AOA since there is no attack roll - there is no way for a wand of acid arrow to provoke AOA. Ill finishe this with a demonstration: a wizard is faced of against a fighter. they are right next to each other and the fighter is threatening the wizard. the wizard has a wand in his hand.the fighter has no ranks in spellcraft. the wizard in his turn - points the wand at the fighter and say the comand word XXX (he is uding the wand)- the fighter seeing that wand is being used on him scared so he is thinking more to defend himself then to attack the wizard (I.E. no AOA) - 2 magic missiles come out of the wand and hit the fighter and he gets XX dmg. now the same wizard is standing near to the same fighter- the wiard is holding a DIFFRENT wand in his hand- the wizard points the wand at the fighter and say the command word XXX the fighter seeing that wand is being used on him scared so he is thinking more to defend himself then to attack the wizard (I.E. no AOA) - an ACID ARROW comes out the tip of the wand and narrowly miss the fighter (natural 1 what a bummer). but still as far the fighter is concerened the wizard did the same thing - he pointed the wand at him and spoke something inteligable - the fighter trying to defend himself- by dodging out of the way- he had no way to know that he cant dodge out of the way of the magic missile- he just did it becuase he wanted to dodge. to sum up my point- if you start saying that a wand containing that spell doesnt provoke AOA and a wand with the other spell do- all logic goes to hell since that dumb fighter- dont have any way to know what wand is being pointed at him and that wizard is doing the exact same thing as far he is concerend using either wand.
Hirumajoe 04-15-07, 02:04 PM	Note- taht none of this is an attack or anything of that sort on anyone's opinion - since those other peeps opinions are probably products of how they have been playing the game and how The games they played were affected by balance issues in their home game. I agree, we're just discussing. and now to the subject in hand- First i dont agree there is anything "dangarous" or "wrong" about the ability to concetrate to avoid AoA when casting ranged touch spells- It's a legimate and legal and "balanced" tactic. IMO what is happening here is a classic case of overthinking and overcomplicating the meaning of of the "cast defensivly" action. I don't believe anyone has been invoking balance arguments. Sauro has been arguing a rules interpretation, of which there is evidence for, and which I have personally found convincing. Balance arguments are much harder to adjucate I find, although possibly just as important. But in this particular case I don't think there's all that much balance shifting going on. And if it is I think its in the right direction, but its really immaterial to the discussion at hand. We're arguing a rules interpretation. Once that interpretation has been determined, then you can come in with balance arguments showing why we should house rule it. for me at least- the cast definsivly action is meant to cover the whole range of spellcasting using spell like abilities and skills - Trying to poke and prod in the meaning and exact wording and whatnot is simply trying to twist the wording of the rule to exclude something which is probably considered by some to be overpowerd - the ability of spellcasters to fairly easily cast any spell without provokeing AoA. Where else are we supposed to look for the meaning of the rules other than in the words of the rules? If you have another source of information that can shed light on this problem, please let me know because I've obviously missed it. How do you know that the form we're twisting it from, a form which I personally don't see, is the correct one? you asked - What about casting a spell makes it easier to avoid making AoOs? my answer is - i dont know and i dont care - The rule of being able to concatrate to cast a spell defensivly was put in place to avoid a situation in which an unprepeared level 20 wizard (as in with no quickend spells and or ability to quickly get away) Would not be able to overcome 1 level 1 fighters to either side of him preventing him from 5-foot moving away and such any spell cast by him will provoke an AOA. I personally think the cast defensively option is meant to do exactly what it says, prevent attacks of opportunity during spellcasting. I really don't think that a general and widely applicable rule was put in just for the situation of wizard being flanked by two first level fighters. Its for when the cleric is up front in melee trying to get a heal off on the fighter, or the 20th level wizard has just been surprised by a pair of 20th level rogues (who I should think should wipe the floor with a surprised, unprepared wizard). Its for all the times when you're casting in a threatened square. And when I asked that question, I asked what about casting a spell and making a ranged attack makes it easier to avoid AoOs than just making a ranged attack. I just find it odd that throwing tail spines from a Manticore can't be protected from AoOs via concentration in the same way that a spell-like ranged attack can be, such as a Beholder's eyes. Which is what the effect of the current Elder's ruling is. IMO this aspect of the "concetration" skill isn't so much about being able to avoid the blows while still manitaning concetrating or whatever explanation the SRD gives it as in The rules of the game providing the balance to avoid the Balance needed for creating the ridiculos notion of 2 level 1 fighters prventing a level 20 wizard of doing anything he choose to do. I'm sorry, but I think I may not have understood the second half of this sentence. But if you ignore the explanations in the SRD, in the RotG, the sage advice column, where are you getting your explanations from? What official source that defines the rules are you using? Now you ask - why do concatration check dont alllow to make regular (not spell) ranged attacks without provoking AoA- my answer is becuase it doesnt- becuase that level 20 ranger or fighter when he is near 2 level 1 fighters can just as easly take out a sword or graplle them or tumble around them or just take the dmg without flinching since he has 3 times the number of HP the wizard has or whatnot and wipe the floor with them - the wizard cant (ok so he can usually becuase the disparity in level is so large but you get my point i think). Oh I agree that the skill doesn't allow you to that. Thats very clear. If it did, we wouldn't really be having this problem (or rather, we'd be arguing over the fact that you need to make 2 concentration checks, one for the spell and one for the ranged attack). However, the reasoning I don't think is necessarily what you propose. Of course, I don't know what it was either (some sort of attempt at realism I guess), but without asking the designers directly, my guess is just that, a guess. I was just trying to pointing out that I felt a dissonance between the ranged attacks getting AoOs and spell-like ranged attacks not getting them. And again, I suggest that balance issues shouldn't inform this decision. They should be used to create house rules, but not the actual interpretation itself. And I note that the spirit of the rules (i.e. designer intent) is different from a balance argument. also dont forget that when doing a regular ranged attack- even if you get damaged during the attack - you can still make that attack and if ou get damaged while casting a spell you need a seperate - and usually much harde rconcetration check to make. I disagree with that assessment. A ranged attack provokes an AoO, at which point the archer's enemy can sunder, disarm, or grapple him with that AoO. All of which could prevent him from finishing the attack action. And on the other hand, what I'm suggesting, that the attack is a seperate nonaction which occurs after the spell has finished casting, means that the AoO caused by the ranged attack cannot disrupt the spell. A ray can still be aimed at your opponent in a grapple, and it can't be sundered or disarmed, so short of killing the wizard, it can't be stopped. The casting on the defensive option allows the wizard to get the spell off no problem. Its what happens after the spell is finished and the wizard now decides what to do with the effects of the spell that causes the AoO. If a wizard cast acid arrow successfully, but then chose not to make the ranged attack, then there would no AoO. Yet the spell would still have been completed successfully (for whatever esoteric reason this might matter). Lastly- the subject here origanlly was wands and dorja's - when you examine those spesific items all the arguments about where ranged touch spells should provoke AOA if you manage concatration check or not goes out the window- YOu dont cast a spell when using a wand- you are using a wand. you arent making an attack when using a wand- YOU ARE USING A WAND so the whole argument is moot - there are spesific rules for dealing with wands/dorja's - they dont provoke AOA's - period. The fact of the matter is however, you are not making the attack with the wand. Look at the spell descriptions. Ray spells have an effect listed as: Ray. Look at Acid arrow, it has an effect listed as: One Acid Arrow. So great, you've activated your wand and suddenly you've now got this ray or this arrow. That didn't provoke an AoO. If you just let the ray or arrow "drop", and don't bother aiming it and it goes nowhere in particular, you don't provoke an AoO. But if you chose to fire it at something, now you're making a ranged attack. Its the same as if you had a dorje of Major Creation (Psionic) and created a bow and arrows or a javelin. The act of creating the javelin doesn't provoke an AoO, but chosing to throw that javelin does. Or the Bolt power. The effect listing for Bolt and Acid Arrow are virtually identical, except one is an acid arrow, and the other is just a bolt. Its what comes after in the description of the spell where they differ. when you start breaking down wands into an action of using the wand which dont provoke AOA and a non action of making the attack with the wand which does you start getting the completly irrational distinction between wands contaning spells that DOESNT need attack rolls -(magic missile) and wands what does need attack rolls (acid arrow) - both types of wands need the exact same action to activate and are subject to the same rules so there cant be distinctions between them- either both types of wands provoke AOA or none of them do. since there is no way for a magic missile wand to provoke AOA since there is no attack roll - there is no way for a wand of acid arrow to provoke AOA. How is it an irrational distinction? There are already fundamental differences. Magic Missile can't crit, ray spells can. One says it is fired like a ranged weapon requiring a ranged weapon roll and the other doesn't. One can be affected by ranged weapon feats and the other can't. One requires aiming, the other just requires you to choose a target. I can see my archery target 50' away no problem. I can "pick" it out no problem. Aiming with a bow and arrow is not so simple. I've presented reasons why they differ. You may not agree with them, but I certainly wouldn't call it an irrational distinction. Ill finishe this with a demonstration: a wizard is faced of against a fighter. they are right next to each other and the fighter is threatening the wizard. the wizard has a wand in his hand.the fighter has no ranks in spellcraft. the wizard in his turn - points the wand at the fighter and say the comand word XXX (he is uding the wand)- the fighter seeing that wand is being used on him scared so he is thinking more to defend himself then to attack the wizard (I.E. no AOA) - 2 magic missiles come out of the wand and hit the fighter and he gets XX dmg. now the same wizard is standing near to the same fighter- the wiard is holding a DIFFRENT wand in his hand- the wizard points the wand at the fighter and say the command word XXX the fighter seeing that wand is being used on him scared so he is thinking more to defend himself then to attack the wizard (I.E. no AOA) - an ACID ARROW comes out the tip of the wand and narrowly miss the fighter (natural 1 what a bummer). but still as far the fighter is concerened the wizard did the same thing - he pointed the wand at him and spoke something inteligable - the fighter trying to defend himself- by dodging out of the way- he had no way to know that he cant dodge out of the way of the magic missile- he just did it becuase he wanted to dodge. I believe the two situations are different because the Wizard has to spend more mental effort to aim a spell that requires a roll than simply mentally say "I choose you!". And apparently, mental effort can be seen in one's expression or something. Since when casting a still, silent spell with an invisible effect a Fighter can still make attacks of opportunity on the Wizard. Its also not a question of the fighter being scared, its a question of the Wizard leaving himself open to attack because he's thinking about something else. He's thinking "aim a little more to the left, a little more up" when he should be thinking "I duck right now or that sword is going to connect with my neck." Lastly, if "being scared" was a reason to prevent AoOs, why doesn't a fighter get "scared" when an archer points an arrow shaft at him from 5' away, or when that 10' Ogre comes up to grapple him? But in anycase, this particular example and my counter comments are really not the point here. At the end of the day, the only thing we can really base rules on are in fact, the written rules. Since there are plenty of examples of rules which contradict common sense in the D&D, but thats how we play them. Thus logical real world arguments hold the least sway. And why I consider my 5th point earlier not to hold any weight. to sum up my point- if you start saying that a wand containing that spell doesnt provoke AOA and a wand with the other spell do- all logic goes to hell since that dumb fighter- dont have any way to know what wand is being pointed at him and that wizard is doing the exact same thing as far he is concerend using either wand. I'm not saying that the use of the wand generates an AoO. I'm saying that what you do with the effects of the spell after it has been completed (either via casting or wand) generates an AoO (as indicated in my Bolt psionic power vs Acid Arrow spell example) if it meets AoO requirements. In this case, being a ranged attack.
NiQil 04-15-07, 02:25 PM	@ Hirmuajoe.. I want to address this last portion of your comment specifically: I'm saying that what you do with the effects of the spell after it has been completed (either via casting or wand) generates an AoO (as indicated in my Bolt psionic power vs Acid Arrow spell example) if it meets AoO requirements. This is completely against this rule regarding casting spells: Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. However, the act of casting a spell does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack. Your opponent’s AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally. Note that the rules on touch attacks do not differentiate between melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks when it comes to attacks of opportunity. They both fall under the heading of "touch attacks", as it relates to the first sentence of the quote. Touch attacks of any kind do not provoke attacks of opportunity, whether they be melee or ranged touch attacks. The art of casting the spell that provides you with the touch attack may cause an attack of opportunity, but once you have the touch attack ready to go, you incur no AoO to make the attack. So how does this relate to wands and dorjes? As I have previously quote, using wands and dorjes do not provoke AoO's when using them to cast a spell. This is the RAW, and irrefutable. Your argument seems to be that now that you have used the wand or dorje to get your spell, you are still subject to AoO depending on what you do with the spell from there (and please correct me if I have misinterpreted what you said). But the above quote I have just provided states that touch attacks do not incur attacks of opportunity, regardless of being melee or ranged. So I have established that I can now use the wand/dorje and not incur AoO, and since I have just given myself a touch spell with it (such as scorching ray or crystal shard), I can now use this touch attack without incurring AoO. I don't see how you can get anything else from those quotes.
hogarth 04-15-07, 02:25 PM	HJ, I understand your argument, but I still feel that they're talking about ranged weapon attacks drawing AoOs, not all ranged attacks. Here's the description that accompanies the "Standard Actions" table: Ranged Attacks With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target that is within the weapon’s maximum range and in line of sight. The maximum range for a thrown weapon is five range increments. For projectile weapons, it is ten range increments. Some ranged weapons have shorter maximum ranges, as specified in their descriptions. I guess I understand that for some people a ray from a wand or a beholder's eye beam is "weapon-like" and so it would provoke an AoO, too. In my case, it's easy for me to understand that using a bow in combat would open up one's guard, but not so much with an eye beam or wand. I thought of another ambiguous case: the spell Tenser's Transformation requires the caster to drink a potion of bull's strength. So does casting it defensively still draw an attack of opportunity?
Hirumajoe 04-15-07, 02:28 PM	HJ, I understand your argument, but I still feel that they're talking about ranged weapon attacks drawing AoOs, not all ranged attacks. Here's the description that accompanies the "Standard Actions" table: I guess I understand that for some people a ray from a wand or a beholder's eye beam is "weapon-like" and so it would provoke an AoO, too. In my case, it's easy for me to understand that using a bow in combat would open up one's guard, but not so much with an eye beam or wand. But then I point you to the explicit definition of Point Blank shot. And weapon focus. Both have been ruled to affect Rays. Point Blank Shot [General] Benefit You get a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls with ranged weapons at ranges of up to 30 feet. Hence, Rays (and other weapon like spells) seem to be being treated as weapons. Edit: As the source of that ruling, I can seem to only find it in the 3.0 Faq at the moment. Since spellcasters can now cast a critical spell with all touch and rays that cause damage, what about Melf’s acid arrow? Assuming that you cause a critical, does the spell cause 4d4 every round or only on the first round? What about rays that cause ability damage, such as ray of enfeeblement? Can you roll a critical with that spell, as well, and thus cause the target to lose a whole pile of Strength? Can I take the Improved Critical feat for touch attacks or ranged touch attacks and expand my critical range for such spells? If you score a critical hit with Melf’s acid arrow, only the initial damage gets boosted with a critical hit. So, the critical hit deals 4d4 points of damage, and the acid deals 2d4 points each subsequent round (while the acid lasts). A spell must require an attack roll and deal damage to score a critical hit. The ray of enfeeblement imposes a Strength penalty; it does not deal damage, so it cannot cause a critical hit. You can use combat-enhancing feats on spells. You must apply these feats to one of the following categories of spells: ray (spells that deal damage and produce ray effects), energy missile (spells such as Melf’s acid arrow), or touch spell (any damage-dealing spell that has a range of touch). See Chapter 2 and Chapter 5 of Tome and Blood for more information on weaponlike spells. Edit 2: Although I freely admit I hadn't considered the rays are not a weapon at all angle. Which if true would certainly mean there's no AoO, since it no longer meets the requirement. I think there's evidence for treating them as weapons as indicated above, but its probably has the least support for it.i Edit 3: Somehow I missed Niqil's response. And yes, you understand my argument perfectly. And (as stated in Edit 2) I didn't think of it that way. That touch ranged attacks are explicitly excepted from AoOs. Admittedly, for the reason that they're "armed" which is odd, but as you say its explicitly listed. Although that very first sentence you quote saying "Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity," is technically only refering to spells with range: Touch. Ray spells technically aren't touch spells. The third sentence refers to touch attacks. And the definition of touch spell is I think made in the previous paragraph from the section you're quoting. Of course, I'm willing to bet thats just sloppy notation, given how its all put together in a single paragraph. But you can perhaps see why I'm confused? You're probably right in that regard though. It probably meant to say "Making a touch attack on an opponent with a touch attack spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity." Which would make it explicit that it applies to rays and so forth. And would have saved me alot of headache. :)
sonofzeal 04-15-07, 07:08 PM	I want to officially raise the issue from the Tavern about whether to apply Str or Dex when resisting having your bow sundered. ToK suggests Str, and I'm prepared to accept that, but I'd like to give other elders a chance to voice an opinion. Oh, and if you decide on Str as opposed to Dex, can that be added to the Rules of Gladius since it doesn't appear to be supported by the RAW?
Zevox 04-15-07, 07:30 PM	To clarify what sonofzeal said there, basically ToK made the claim a few weeks ago that for resisting a sunder, a ranged weapon like a bow would be treated as an improvised melee weapon (and thus use strength instead of dex and take -4 to the check). This doesn't appear to be supported by the rules though. Zevox
Vathelokai 04-16-07, 06:22 PM	Step 2 Opposed Rolls. You and the defender make opposed attack rolls with your respective weapons. The wielder of a two-handed weapon on a sunder attempt gets a +4 bonus on this roll, and the wielder of a light weapon takes a -4 penalty. If the combatants are of different sizes, the larger combatant gets a bonus on the attack roll of +4 per difference in size category. That's all it says about sundering. Despite Tellish's opinion, the rules just say 'attack rolls', and do not specify that the defender has to have any specific type of weapon or how to treat their weapon (except for the +/-4s quoted above). *EDIT* from a common sense perspective, you don't defend against someone cutting your bow in half by resisting; you do it by moving the bow (eg. Dex).
Vathelokai 04-16-07, 06:41 PM	I posted a couple questions in the tavern about our house rules. Since they are about our rules, I was wondering if the elders could clear up some of my confusion about them. I don't nessicarily need a vote, just an opinion or two. Question: Do the ghost ethereal items in the metarules work for any kind of incorporeal creature, or only for ethereal ones? If changed to apply to all incorporeal creatures, this would apply to shadows, wraiths, allips, spectres, and unbodied. The only shadow played (to my knowledge) was Varjo, who existed prior to the ghost equipment rules. Equipment: Since a ghost is incorporal, he cannot touch and use material items normally. Ethereal items, however, are much more difficult to obtain so a special rule had to be created: As a Free Activity, a ghost can buy ethereal items of up to 1000 gold marketprice. As a Full Activity, he can buy ethereal items of up to 7000 gold marketprice per week. Alternatively, the ghost can quest for ethereal items by setting the item as questgoal but it must be a 3-week Quest and the rewards must cover the marketprice in gold. the necromancer specialist from the unearthed arcana has this option Any time a necromancer using this variant creates an undead creature (such as with animate dead, create undead, or create greater undead), all undead creatures created gain a +4 enhancement bonus to Strength and Dexterity, and two additional hit points per Hit Die. This ability does not affect the number or Hit Dice of animated creatures that the necromancer can create or control.Considering the wording, could a necromancer with another method of creating undead (such as a vampires create spawn ability) apply this to their spawn? Does the phrase 'such as with animate dead..." imply only creating undead by spells, or creating undead in general? I asked a similar question in the past; does the rapid summoning alternate ability for conjurers apply to all summon monster spells (as the text states) or only to the ones cast as arcane spells from the conjuration specialists spell slots. The elders replied that it was only for the conjurers slots.
hogarth 04-16-07, 06:50 PM	*EDIT* from a common sense perspective, you don't defend against someone cutting your bow in half by resisting; you do it by moving the bow (eg. Dex). As far as I'm concerned, common sense would say that cutting a bow in half and cutting a carried item of similar size and composition would be equally difficult. If it were up to me, I'd use the "sunder a carried object" rules, not the "sunder a weapon" rules for a bow. But it's not up to me and since the rules don't distinguish between melee and ranged weapons, we have this silly farce where we try to figure out what sort of attack roll you use for a bow in hand-to-hand combat. :rolleyes:
MindWandererB 04-16-07, 06:53 PM	1) Ethereal <> incorporeal. An incorporeal creature can no more use ethereal equipment than a normal creature can. 2) The ability doesn't specify a method, not even by saying it has to be a spell. That's clearly the intention, but that's not what it says. As with the conjurer, this should be a progressive ability rather than a "dip." I would go with only undead created by spells; furthermore, it would have to be by one of the wizard (necromancer) spells (as opposed to the cleric version, e.g. for a mystic theurge).
hogarth 04-17-07, 08:37 AM	I have a question: Can a non-telepathic gladiator recruit a Diplomacy ally who understands a language, but does not speak one? I assume the answer is "yes" based on MWB's character Silis (who has a griffon Diplomacy ally), but the rules aren't clear on that point: You must be able to communicate with your allies. Telepathy counts as any language. Creatures in this category (can understand, but can't speak) would include griffons, shadows, howlers and crysmals (for instance).
sonofzeal 04-17-07, 09:00 PM	To clarify what sonofzeal said there, basically ToK made the claim a few weeks ago that for resisting a sunder, a ranged weapon like a bow would be treated as an improvised melee weapon (and thus use strength instead of dex and take -4 to the check). This doesn't appear to be supported by the rules though. Zevox Does any elder (ToK?) have any comment on this?
TelinArtho 04-17-07, 09:39 PM	Personally, I have run the sunder of a bow as the normal attack bonus for the bow and the bow as a ranged weapon (as opposed to a light weapon or a two-handed weapon - so no +4/-4 modifier for handedness). I'm not saying that this is necessarily correct, but I didn't receive much trouble for it. It clearly is not completely addressed in the rules though.
MindWandererB 04-17-07, 10:26 PM	Personally, I have run the sunder of a bow as the normal attack bonus for the bow and the bow as a ranged weapon (as opposed to a light weapon or a two-handed weapon - so no +4/-4 modifier for handedness). I'm not saying that this is necessarily correct, but I didn't receive much trouble for it. It clearly is not completely addressed in the rules though. For the sake of sanity, that's probably the easiest way... just look in the "Attacks" section of the sheet. If nothing else, this option has that to say for it.
SauroGrenom 04-18-07, 12:00 PM	I'll reiterate what everyone else has been saying: we're not trying to write new rules. We're just trying to figure out what the rules actually say. If you can ask the developers and ask them for 100% sure what they meant to imply, then the argument is over. But in lieu of that, we have to make our best guess, and our best guess is no AoO. As for you leaving: do you think I want everyone to agree with me? Absolutely not. I value dissenting opinions. When everyone agrees with each other, we get the Bay of Pigs. The only way things get done appropriately, is if the members of a team have different things to say. And that's what the elders are: a team. That doesn't mean we should be unanimous in all our decisions; it means we should have a system for resolving disagreements. That's why we even have elders, rather than a dictatorial GM. Any one of us, even the GM, can be outvoted when it comes to rules decisions. (Although the GM does have veto power if it proves to be absolutely necessary.) So yeah; I, too, am hoping you'll stay.I've let this cool in my mind for a while. I still firmly believe that this "clarification" steps over the line between making new rules and inferring from what's written in the rules. This is like the recent "clarification" that psicrystals are like familiars in all ways unless specified to be different. All of these clarifications require putting a new line into the rules that doesn't already exist. I've argued against this every time, and lost every time. Soon there's going to be a new "clarification" that natural 1 and natural 20's being automatic failure or success should be applied to all d20 rolls, not just saves and attack rolls. I'm tired of loosing arguments to a majority vote and seeing that new rules go in under the guise of clarifications. Argument gets me nowhere, I'm not arguing any more. In any case, contrary to Rauul's statements, I'm not leaving nor did I say I would leave. I'm just not going to argue with you about rules any more. I'm afraid that will basically preclude me from being a good pitlord or elder. I'll still be starting the PSI campaign this week, and I'll support the community as a guildmaster and by doing whatever duties I can. Depending on circumstances, I may even run one of my characters every once in a while on a quest. But I'm no longer going to waste my time being vilified as I argue a rules position and reply to everyone's posts on an issue.
templer10 04-18-07, 12:13 PM	I've let this cool in my mind for a while. I still firmly believe that this "clarification" steps over the line between making new rules and inferring from what's written in the rules. This is like the recent "clarification" that psicrystals are like familiars in all ways unless specified to be different. All of these clarifications require putting a new line into the rules that doesn't already exist. I've argued against this every time, and lost every time. Soon there's going to be a new "clarification" that natural 1 and natural 20's being automatic failure or success should be applied to all d20 rolls, not just saves and attack rolls. I'm tired of loosing arguments to a majority vote and seeing that new rules go in under the guise of clarifications. Argument gets me nowhere, I'm not arguing any more. In any case, contrary to Rauul's statements, I'm not leaving nor did I say I would leave. I'm just not going to argue with you about rules any more. I'm afraid that will basically preclude me from being a good pitlord or elder. I'll still be starting the PSI campaign this week, and I'll support the community as a guildmaster and by doing whatever duties I can. Depending on circumstances, I may even run one of my characters every once in a while on a quest. But I'm no longer going to waste my time being vilified as I argue a rules position and reply to everyone's posts on an issue. i havent been here for long (couple of months) But iam sure no one vilify you in any way - i know iam not - sometimes peeps just dont agree on a meaning of a rule or dont even agree if it needs clarification or not - iam sure it's nothing personal against you.
Yitzi 04-19-07, 12:24 AM	Question: In the city, there are hedges, and the consensus in the Tavern is that they can be climbed (otherwise, how could anybody reach the balcony without flying or making a tough jump). The question, which it was suggested I ask in the tavern, is: what's the DC?
templer10 04-19-07, 03:03 AM	Question: In the city, there are hedges, and the consensus in the Tavern is that they can be climbed (otherwise, how could anybody reach the balcony without flying or making a tough jump). The question, which it was suggested I ask in the tavern, is: what's the DC? to get to the balconies you can climb the same as the buildings can be - DC is 15 and it costs 4 squeres of movement to climb 5 feet. (see the description of the city map). (so you need a double move).
Yitzi 04-19-07, 01:29 PM	Except that looking at the map it looks like the hedge surrounds the building. So where would you climb the building without the hedge getting in the way? Also, I don't think non-elders are supposed to answer questions in here.
MindWandererB 04-19-07, 02:36 PM	Question: In the city, there are hedges, and the consensus in the Tavern is that they can be climbed (otherwise, how could anybody reach the balcony without flying or making a tough jump). The question, which it was suggested I ask in the tavern, is: what's the DC? Yeah... I'm really not sure. Have you ever tried to climb a hedge? It's not easy--you have to stick your arms and legs way in there to find a surface strong enough to support your weight, which means you don't have much limb left to shift yourself up and get a higher grip; plus you get all cut up by the branches. I'd be inclined to not allow it--it's basically like impenetrable undergrowth. I'd listen to other opinions, though.
TelinArtho 04-19-07, 02:39 PM	The hedges only provide cover - not total cover - for a medium character. Therefore - someone should have little problem jumping over it (5ft high obstacle at most - probably 3-4ft) with a running start. That said - I'd be inclined to say that Huge or large would only be hindered by the hedges - rather than force them to squeeze in the alleyways that are lined with hedges.
Yitzi 04-19-07, 02:40 PM	But if it is not climbable, is there any way other than jumping/flying to reach the balconies, which are completely surrounded by hedges? And if it is possible in climbing, what is the DC?
Zevox 04-19-07, 02:45 PM	The hedges only provide cover - not total cover - for a medium character. Therefore - someone should have little problem jumping over it (5ft high obstacle at most - probably 3-4ft) with a running start. Hedges: Hedges are marked as green line. They are 5ft high and grant total cover against targets on the opposite site to medium characters if the character attempts to hide behind it. Large creatures must crawl in order to benefit from the cover. Bigger creatures do not benefit from hedges. Zevox
TelinArtho 04-19-07, 02:51 PM	Okay - yes. I have said it before and I will say it again. Open mouth. Insert Foot. Close Mouth. Chew. In light of the actual rules, I think the only way to get around the hedges is to either move around them (most have "entrances" marked on the map) or jump over them (in the cases where no "entrance" has been marked).
Yitzi 04-19-07, 02:54 PM	So you need either flying or making a jump DC 20 in order to reach the balconies then?
hogarth 04-19-07, 02:56 PM	In light of the actual rules, I think the only way to get around the hedges is to either move around them (most have "entrances" marked on the map) or jump over them (in the cases where no "entrance" has been marked). It seems strange that some houses are completely surrounded by impenetrable hedge. I guess some people really don't like door-to-door salesmen.
templer10 04-19-07, 02:59 PM	But if it is not climbable, is there any way other than jumping/flying to reach the balconies, which are completely surrounded by hedges? And if it is possible in climbing, what is the DC? Considering all this trouble is probably for the fight you are going to have with lord lorian i dont care if you just Climb the hedges with the same CLimb DC and rules go down on other side and then climb the wall for the balcony using the regular DC/rules- iam not going to argue about it afterwards.
MindWandererB 04-19-07, 03:26 PM	Considering all this trouble is probably for the fight you are going to have with lord lorian i dont care if you just Climb the hedges with the same CLimb DC and rules go down on other side and then climb the wall for the balcony using the regular DC/rules- iam not going to argue about it afterwards. Problem is that even the walls are surrounded... you'd have to climb an adjacent building and jump to the one with the balcony... that's either DC 30 (since you can't get a running jump from a sloped roof) or DC 20 + a 20-foot drop (from the tower).
templer10 04-19-07, 03:32 PM	Problem is that even the walls are surrounded... you'd have to climb an adjacent building and jump to the one with the balcony... that's either DC 30 (since you can't get a running jump from a sloped roof) or DC 20 + a 20-foot drop (from the tower). err that's bad lol, well i dont know lsat i pitlorded someone just climbed to the blacony from just below it i dont remmber anyone complainig about it.
Yitzi 04-19-07, 04:35 PM	So what is the rule? Can I climb it at DC 15 (but not lower)?
Horatius 04-20-07, 04:43 PM	I know this has been discussed, but it's not in the courtroom decisions: How does a bow respond to sunder attempts? I would assume as a carried object of size equal to its wielder.
hogarth 04-20-07, 04:46 PM	I know this has been discussed, but it's not in the courtroom decisions: How does a bow respond to sunder attempts? I would assume as a carried object of size equal to its wielder. So far, two Elders (Telin and MWB) have voted for it to be counted (for sundering purposes) as a normal weapon (i.e. not two-handed or light) that uses Dex for its attack roll. NiQil hasn't expressed an opinion yet, and Sauro is abstaining from future arguments, I believe. (Personally, I would treat it as a carried object.)
TelinArtho 04-20-07, 04:47 PM	I know this has been discussed, but it's not in the courtroom decisions: How does a bow respond to sunder attempts? I would assume as a carried object of size equal to its wielder. This was answered very recently by myself and MWB. Without further response from Sauro or NiQil - that's all you've got to go with at the moment: Here Personally, I have run the sunder of a bow as the normal attack bonus for the bow and the bow as a ranged weapon (as opposed to a light weapon or a two-handed weapon - so no +4/-4 modifier for handedness). I'm not saying that this is necessarily correct, but I didn't receive much trouble for it. It clearly is not completely addressed in the rules though. For the sake of sanity, that's probably the easiest way... just look in the "Attacks" section of the sheet. If nothing else, this option has that to say for it.
Horatius 04-20-07, 04:57 PM	Good enough. Normal weapon it is. Thanks.
Hirumajoe 04-20-07, 06:32 PM	Just out curiosity, what happens if the attack section includes bonuses from arrows? (Which is very likely for an Arcane Archer I.e. Arrow +5 on a bow of +1 Flaming, Shocking, Frost...)?
templer10 04-20-07, 07:32 PM	Just out curiosity, what happens if the attack section includes bonuses from arrows? (Which is very likely for an Arcane Archer I.e. Arrow +5 on a bow of +1 Flaming, Shocking, Frost...)? ill imagne the enchntment bonus wont stack and use the best option (arrow) but everything else will since the bow confer the flaming. frost etc on ammunation and the arrow itself is +5.
TheMagister 04-20-07, 09:27 PM	Yeah... I'm really not sure. Have you ever tried to climb a hedge? It's not easy--you have to stick your arms and legs way in there to find a surface strong enough to support your weight, which means you don't have much limb left to shift yourself up and get a higher grip; plus you get all cut up by the branches. I'd be inclined to not allow it--it's basically like impenetrable undergrowth. I'd listen to other opinions, though. I'm going to be shouted down for this, but {shrug} it wouldn't be the first time. :P I allow gladiators to "push" through the hedges. "Push"-ing costs x4 movement (like heavy undergrowth; since that's all that a hedge is) and makes a lot of noise (-5 to move silently checks). Hedges aren't brick walls, they're thick, leafy vegetation. No thorns, even. An armored (or even unarmored) gladiator is going to find a normal hedge to be an impediment to movement and sight, but nothing else. The total concealment granted by this specialized form of heavy undergrowth is a special property of this particular map feature. I think we should just treat it like special heavy undergrowth. Seems fair, balanced, and reasonable from both a RAW and RL perspective. Shout away. ;) TM
NiQil 04-20-07, 10:02 PM	Regarding the bow/sunder issue: I can get behind the opinions expressed by TA and MWB. I'll add that clarification to the Court Decisions this weekend when I update.
Hirumajoe 04-21-07, 06:43 AM	Couple question on the application of using the normal attack bonuses when making opposed attack roll when sundering a bows: 1) Does this (and if so, how) does this appy to thrown weapons? Is it different for Javelins compared to Spears? (The former only normally being used at ranged, the later being usable as both melee and range without penalty). 2) Does a Halfling's +1 on thrown weapons and slings apply (assuming the weapon qualifies)? Does point blank shot apply (assuming the one trying to sunder isn't a Gargantuan creature using a Reach weapon...)? 3) Do you choose the better of the melee or ranged listing for thrown weapons which can be used as either? (I.e. if Valen Sky with 16 Dex and 14 Str is wielding a Spear which can be thrown or used in melee, does he get to use his ranged attack modifiers to oppose the sunder?) If don't choose the better, how do you pick and why? 4)If the answer to 3 is yes, can you choose to treat a melee weapon as an improvised thrown weapon to oppose a sunder (say in the case of Valen at ECL 10 being metamorphosized into a Pixie and wielding a quarterstaff)? 5) If the answer to 3 is yes, can you choose to treat a ranged weapon as an improvised melee weapon if your strength is much greater than your dex (say in the case of Valen at ECL 10 being Metamorphosized into an Annis Hag) in order to have a better chance on the opposed attack rolls? Thanks.
MindWandererB 04-21-07, 04:16 PM	Couple question on the application of using the normal attack bonuses when making opposed attack roll when sundering a bows: 1) Does this (and if so, how) does this appy to thrown weapons? Is it different for Javelins compared to Spears? (The former only normally being used at ranged, the later being usable as both melee and range without penalty). 2) Does a Halfling's +1 on thrown weapons and slings apply (assuming the weapon qualifies)? Does point blank shot apply (assuming the one trying to sunder isn't a Gargantuan creature using a Reach weapon...)? 3) Do you choose the better of the melee or ranged listing for thrown weapons which can be used as either? (I.e. if Valen Sky with 16 Dex and 14 Str is wielding a Spear which can be thrown or used in melee, does he get to use his ranged attack modifiers to oppose the sunder?) If don't choose the better, how do you pick and why? 4)If the answer to 3 is yes, can you choose to treat a melee weapon as an improvised thrown weapon to oppose a sunder (say in the case of Valen at ECL 10 being metamorphosized into a Pixie and wielding a quarterstaff)? 5) If the answer to 3 is yes, can you choose to treat a ranged weapon as an improvised melee weapon if your strength is much greater than your dex (say in the case of Valen at ECL 10 being Metamorphosized into an Annis Hag) in order to have a better chance on the opposed attack rolls? Thanks.Ah, ramifications. 1) For weapons that are ranged-only, like javelins, treat them the same as a bow. Weapons that can be used in melee use melee stats. 2) PBS: No. As for halflings... I'm torn. I'll hear someone else's opinion first. 3-5) See #1.
Hirumajoe 04-22-07, 06:49 PM	Do ranged attacks made as part of a Full Attack provoke AoOs individually? I thought they did, but I'm unable to find anything in the SRD or the 3.5 FAQ that indicates this. (In fact I can't find anything that indicates ranged attack made as a Full Attack action provoke at all). If someone answers this, can they point me to the relevant section? I've been able to find that a standard attack action (Ranged) provokes an AoO, but thats about it. Similarly, does Multishot provoke an AoO, since its not a standard attack action? Thanks.
templer10 04-22-07, 07:03 PM	Do ranged attacks made as part of a Full Attack provoke AoOs individually? I thought they did, but I'm unable to find anything in the SRD or the 3.5 FAQ that indicates this. (In fact I can't find anything that indicates ranged attack made as a Full Attack action provoke at all). If someone answers this, can they point me to the relevant section? I've been able to find that a standard attack action (Ranged) provokes an AoO, but thats about it. Similarly, does Multishot provoke an AoO, since its not a standard attack action? Thanks. You mean manyshot i assume- (wow much?) - manyshot uses a standart action to fire 2 arrows instead of 1 but it's still taking a standrat action to do aranged attack so it provokes an AoA. in the same way a full attack with ranged weapon will provoke an AoA simply becuase a single attack does- doing more attacks doesnt suddely make the Bow user immune to AoA. if you mean in your question does every sinle attack in teh full attack is considered a diffrent provoking action so you can get multiple AA's from a full attack- i would probably say Yes for a regular full attack becuase the SRD say You can decide after 1 attack if you want to do the rest of the attacks or to do a move action - so there is a distinctive seperate action for each shot. on the other hand - if you do a rapid shot i would say that becuase the rapid shot feat Foce you to declare a full attack from the start of the round and the second shot is essentially part of the same attack against the same target i would say rapid shot doesnt provoke seperate AoAs. for manyshot- it doesnt provoke seperatly becuase you only shoot the bow once- it's just hat ou shoot 2 arrows with the same single shot.
Hirumajoe 04-22-07, 07:09 PM	You mean manyshot i assume- (wow much?) - manyshot uses a standart action to fire 2 arrows instead of 1 but it's still taking a standrat action to do aranged attack so it provokes an AoA. in the same way a full attack with ranged weapon will provoke an AoA simply becuase a single attack does- doing more attacks doesnt suddely make the Bow user immune to AoA. Sorry, yes I meant Manyshot. And yes I did used to Wow abit. But Many shot isn't the ranged attack standard action. Its a special action defined by the Manyshot feat. As far as I can find, Ranged attacks in and of themselves do not provoke AoOs. The only reference I can find is that the Standard action Attack (Ranged) provokes. And only because its listed on the chart. In the actual text I can't find it. Since Many shot is its own special standard action which neither says it provokes or it does not, its a rather unclear issue. If it actually used the standard action Attack (Ranged) you could do it during the use of the Shot on the run feat. Which you can't. But the only reason you provoke an attack of opportunity is because you're taking the Attack (Ranged) action. When you take the Full Attack action, you're specifically not taking that action, you're taking a Full Action. Similarly, a Full Attack action is a single action, by definition, and since you can't take multiple AoOs for a single provoking act, at best you should be able to take one AoO as far as I can tell. But the Full Attack action specifically is listed as a no for AoOs.
templer10 04-22-07, 07:15 PM	Sorry, yes I meant Manyshot. And yes I did used to Wow abit. Umm. But Many shot isn't the ranged attack standard action. Its a special action defined by the Manyshot feat. As far as I can find, Ranged attacks in and of themselves do not provoke AoOs. The only reference I can find is that the Standard action Attack (Ranged) provokes. And only because its listed on the chart. In the actual text I can't find it. Since Many shot is its own special standard action which neither says it provokes or it does not, its a rather unclear issue. If it actually used the standard action Attack (Ranged) you could do it during the use of the Shot on the run feat. Which you can't. But the only reason you provoke an attack of opportunity is because you're taking the Attack (Ranged) action. When you take the Full Attack action, you're specifically not taking that action, you're taking a Full Action. Similarly, a Full Attack action is a single action, by definition, and since you can't take multiple AoOs for a single provoking act, at best you should be able to take one AoO as far as I can tell. But the Full Attack action specifically is listed as a no for AoOs. i know we like RAW around here but i think this is a case of trying 2 hard to look for hidden meaning where ther are none. normal ranged attack provoke Aoa? yes. what action do you need to do to use manyshot? standrat action. what do you use the standart action for? to shoot a bow, I.E - you make a ranged attack - the fact you shoot 1 arrow doesnt make a diffrence.
templer10 04-22-07, 07:17 PM	Similarly, a Full Attack action is a single action, by definition, and since you can't take multiple AoOs for a single provoking act, at best you should be able to take one AoO as far as I can tell. But the Full Attack action specifically is listed as a no for AoOs. the table doesnt spesify which kind of full attack- ranged or melee- it makes absolutly no sense for a regular ranged attack to provoke an AoA and a full attack with ranged weapon to not provoke at all.
templer10 04-22-07, 07:20 PM	Btw- look at Miscellaneous Actions at the bottom of the page it say about AOA for feat usage - - use feat - The description of a feat defines its effect. since to do manyshot you do stnadrat action with a ranged weapon you provoke AoA.
Hirumajoe 04-22-07, 07:22 PM	the table doesnt spesify which kind of full attack- ranged or melee- it makes absolutly no sense for a regular ranged attack to provoke an AoA and a full attack with ranged weapon to not provoke at all. Oh, I agree it doesn't make any sense. Which is why I was looking for a statement somewhere clarifying it. I noticed the problem when Maraxus mentioned that he assumed it was the attack (ranged) action as opposed to ranged attack itself that provoked the AoO. You're basically saying that ranged attacks, not the attack (ranged) action provoke. But I can't find that simple statement anywhere. Edit: You refering to: "The description of a feat defines its effect." and Certain feats let you take special actions in combat. Other feats do not require actions themselves, but they give you a bonus when attempting something you can already do. Some feats are not meant to be used within the framework of combat. The individual feat descriptions tell you what you need to know about them. That doesn't say you look at the tables, it says the feat themselves define the action. And unfortunately, they didn't indicate in the feat description of Manyshot whether it provokes or not. And just realized an even better question: Does Greater Many shot provoke none, one, or as many as the number of targets AoOs?
NiQil 04-22-07, 07:24 PM	Sorry, yes I meant Manyshot. And yes I did used to Wow abit. But Many shot isn't the ranged attack standard action. Its a special action defined by the Manyshot feat. As far as I can find, Ranged attacks in and of themselves do not provoke AoOs. The only reference I can find is that the Standard action Attack (Ranged) provokes. And only because its listed on the chart. In the actual text I can't find it. Since Many shot is its own special standard action which neither says it provokes or it does not, its a rather unclear issue. If it actually used the standard action Attack (Ranged) you could do it during the use of the Shot on the run feat. Which you can't. But the only reason you provoke an attack of opportunity is because you're taking the Attack (Ranged) action. When you take the Full Attack action, you're specifically not taking that action, you're taking a Full Action. Similarly, a Full Attack action is a single action, by definition, and since you can't take multiple AoOs for a single provoking act, at best you should be able to take one AoO as far as I can tell. But the Full Attack action specifically is listed as a no for AoOs. This may help a little: One of the players in a campaign that I run took the Manyshot feat from the Epic Level Handbook. His character gets three attacks if he takes the full attack action, from a base attack bonus of +6/+1 and the Rapid Shot feat. He claims that with Manyshot he can fire six arrows as a fullround action. I say he can’t, since the feat applies only to standard actions. I think that the feat allows him to fire two shots during a standard action as opposed to the usual single shot that is allowed. Does Manyshot apply to full attack as well as standard actions? I would greatly appreciate it if you could shed some light on the situation. You’re right about Manyshot. It allows the character to shoot two or more arrows as a standard action. It does not allow the character to fire two or more arrows in place of a single attack. Standard actions can’t be combined with full attacks, nor are they part of a full attack. The example character has a base attack bonus of +6; with the Rapid Shot and Manyshot feats, the character has the following options: • Fire one arrow as a standard action (at +6). • Fire two arrows as a standard action (at +2—the second printing of the Epic Level Handbook says the penalty for Manyshot is –4, not –2 as stated in the first printing). • Fire two arrows as a full-round action (+6/+1). • Fire three arrows as a full-round action (+4/+4/–1, with Rapid Shot) Emphasis mine. Is it possible to use the Shot on the Run feat in conjunction with the Manyshot feat? Some people I know insist that you must use the attack action with Shot on the Run, and they further claim that Manyshot is a standard action and not the attack action. But there isn’t any such thing as an attack action, is there? The text on actions in Chapter 8 of the Player’s Handbook (page 138) describes many kinds of actions (standard actions, move actions, fullround actions, and free actions); it even describes things D&D FAQ v.3.5 32 Update Version: 03/23/07 that are not actions and mentions restricted activity. Nowhere, however, do the rules describe attack actions. So, what’s the correct answer? No, you cannot use Shot on the Run and Manyshot together. It is true that no category of actions is called “attack actions” in the D&D game, but there is an action called attack—it’s the first action described under Standard Actions on page 139 in the Player’s Handbook. It might seem that the folks who say no Manyshot with Shot On the Run are slicing the baloney a little thin, but the letter of the rules is on their side, and so is the intent behind the letter of the rules. The Manyshot feat description could say you fire multiple arrows with the attack action, but it doesn’t. Manyshot is a standard action, not a variant on the attack action (see the feat description on page 97 in the Player’s Handbook). Likewise, the Shot on the Run feat could allow you to make any kind of ranged attack while moving, but it doesn’t. When using Shot on the Run, you must use the attack action with a ranged weapon (see the feat description on page 100 in the Player’s Handbook). This rules out using spells, most magic items, or special standard actions such as the Manyshot feat when making a Shot on the Run. That’s because casting a spell would require the cast a spell action (described on page 140 of the Player’s Handbook), using any magic item except for some use-activated items would require the activate magic item action (Player’s Handbook, page 142), and, as already noted here, using the Manyshot feat is a standard action. Most magic weapons are use activated and don’t require any action to activate at all (see page 213 in the Dungeon Master’s Guide), so you can use these weapons along with the attack action. For example, you could use a +1 longbow or +1 arrow (or both) with the attack action, and thus you also could use these items with Shot on the Run.
templer10 04-22-07, 07:27 PM	Oh, I agree it doesn't make any sense. Which is why I was looking for a statement somewhere clarifying it. I noticed the problem when Maraxus mentioned that he assumed it was the attack (ranged) action as opposed to ranged attack itself that provoked the AoO. You're basically saying that ranged attacks, not the attack (ranged) action provoke. But I can't find that simple statement anywhere. err i dont want to Bring up this old example but nowhere in the rules does it say that being dead prevents you from doing anything. (i can bring other examples if i think about it for a while). some things are just what you call "understood" without saying them outright.
TheMagister 04-22-07, 07:35 PM	err i dont want to Bring up this old example but nowhere in the rules does it say that being dead prevents you from doing anything. (i can bring other examples if i think about it for a while). some things are just what you call "understood" without saying them outright. Hear, hear. Hence why monks should be ruled to be able to flurry touch attacks. It should just be "understood". Still snipin', TM
Hirumajoe 04-22-07, 07:47 PM	@Niqil: I'm not exactly sure who you're trying to convince and of what. :) The passage you highlight (and the second segment you quote) indicate that Manyshot is a standard action which is *not* the attack standard action (nor even a variant of it). The standard attack action (ranged) provokes an AoO. Ranged attacks in general as far as I can tell, do not. (Which is in a way is good, since that really does make my earlier arguments regarding seperating spells and their ranged attacks for AoOs even more silly :) ). It also is explicitly stating that the standard action attack (Ranged) does not make up the Full Attack option. @Templer10: So we say Manyshot provokes because its a ranged attack, because its simply "understood". But we really don't have a good reason, other than it should, because the normal one does. Which makes it hard to apply to the real (and first) question of "How many AoOs are provoked by Full attack action?" (And we'll throw in "How many AoOs are generated by a Greater Manyshot?" for good measure). Is it understood that each ranged attack provokes? Or is it the action itself provokes, and since its only one single action, it only provokes once? And thats whats fundamentally bugging me, since its unclear. I had just been assuming for awhile that it was each individual shot. But I'm finding there's really no rules on which to base that assumption. So I'm left wondering.
MindWandererB 04-23-07, 02:39 PM	You're right: technically, the rules say nothing about whether Manyshot provokes or not. The authors undoubtedly considered it so obvious they didn't think to make it explicit. (They're better about that now--almost every special ability now says "as a standard action that [does not] provoke[s] an attack of opportunity.") So we make a judgment call, and I think everyone can agree on what that should be in this instance.
Hirumajoe 04-23-07, 02:45 PM	You're right: technically, the rules say nothing about whether Manyshot provokes or not. The authors undoubtedly considered it so obvious they didn't think to make it explicit. (They're better about that now--almost every special ability now says "as a standard action that [does not] provoke[s] an attack of opportunity.") So we make a judgment call, and I think everyone can agree on what that should be in this instance. Fair enough. I think it should provoke also. But I was hoping the reason why it provokes could shed light on the other questions I had: How many AoOs does the Greater Many shot feat and Full Attack action provoke when used with a ranged weapon? If you could give an answer on that, it'd be great. Thanks. Edit: Basically I guess I'm looking for if 1) Individual ranged attack provoke, in which case a Full Attack with a ranged weapon and the Greater Many Shot feat both provoke as many AoOs as attack rolls they make or 2) If the action itself provokes, thus indicating a single attack of opportunity to both the Full Attack and the Greater Many Shot feat. (Or a 3rd interpretation I'm missing). I personally think it should be the 1st one. But I can't actually back that up with any quotes or facts.
McJarvis 04-23-07, 02:52 PM	I have vampires on the brain. If monks can flurry touch attacks, then vampires should be able to use their slam attack as a touch attack to do 0 damage. Since their energy drain comes into affect upon hitting with their slam attack rather than damaging with their slam attack, this could be quite potent! -McJ-
Macbrea 04-23-07, 03:17 PM	Covered by the FAQ: Exactly how often can a monk attack with a single manufactured weapon when using the flurry of blows ability? For example, if I have a +1 alchemical silver dagger, and I’m allowed three attacks in a flurry, how many of those attacks can be dagger attacks? What if I have two daggers? How about with natural weaponry, such as a claw or bite? For example, if I have a vampire monk, can I flurry with a slam attack and drain energy multiple times from one living foe? If natural weaponry doesn’t work with a flurry, why not? You can’t use a dagger with a flurry of blows at all. When you use the flurry ability, you must attack with either unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons. Only six of the latter are included in the Player’s Handbook (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham). A natural weapon (any natural weapon) is neither an unarmed strike nor a special monk weapon, so you can’t use it along with a flurry. If you have one (or two) special monk weapons, you can freely substitute attacks with those weapons with unarmed attacks in the flurry (see the flurry of blows description on page 46 of the Player’s Handbook). If you’re allowed three attacks in a flurry, and you have a +1 alchemical silver sai (or other special monk weapon), you could use the sai up to three times in the flurry. The examples given in the flurry of blows entry don’t make that completely clear because they don’t cover all the combinations of weapon attacks and unarmed strikes that are possible. If you have two special monk weapons to use, you can use either or both of them in the flurry. For example, if you’re entitled to three attacks using flurry of blows, and you’re armed with a +1 alchemical silver sai and a cold iron sai, you can make three attacks with one sai and no attacks with the other, two attacks with one sai and one attack with the other, one attack with each sai and one unarmed attack, or any other combination of three attacks. Note that having a sai in each hand won’t prevent a monk from making unarmed attacks. A monk with her hands full can still make her full complement of unarmed strikes (see the unarmed strike entry on page 41 of the Player’s Handbook). It might seem a tad strange that you cannot use a natural weapon, such as a slam or a claw when you can use a monk weapon such as a sai or a kama. However, natural weaponry isn’t as handy as manufactured weaponry. You never get extra attacks from a high base attack bonus with natural weaponry, and the monk’s flurry ability is another way to get extra attacks from your base attack bonus. Please note that a vampire monk using its unarmed strike ability is not using its slam attack and cannot drain energy.
McJarvis 04-23-07, 03:23 PM	I wasn't saying a vampire could flurry his slam attack. I was saying that if a monk can flurry touch attack(using his unarmed strikes) then a vampire could slam touch attack(and thus deliver his enervation effect)
Macbrea 04-23-07, 03:26 PM	If you read the last sentence again. You will notice what I was saying. 'Please note that a vampire monk using its unarmed strike ability is not using its slam attack and cannot drain energy.' Seems to say they must make a slam attack to do the level drain. Not just a unarmed strike.
McJarvis 04-23-07, 03:29 PM	If you read the last sentence again. You will notice what I was saying. 'Please note that a vampire monk using its unarmed strike ability is not using its slam attack and cannot drain energy.' Seems to say they must make a slam attack to do the level drain. Not just a unarmed strike. ...try reading what i've been saying. A monk has access to unarmed strikes(and flurry) A vampire has access to a slam attack. If the monk has the option to flurry(a special attack) & just deliver touches, effectively doing 0 physical damage on each strike(in order to deliver spells like chill touch or whatever), then a vampire can make a slam attack as a touch attack for 0 damage, hit the opponent for his touch AC, and because he hit his opponent with the slam attack deal the enervation effect. I'm not saying(nor did I ever in those two posts) that you can deal the enervation without making a slam attack. I'm merely pointing out the raw power of being able to use an attack as a touch-attack to merely "slap" the person with it.
hogarth 04-23-07, 03:31 PM	A monk has access to unarmed strikes(and flurry) A vampire has access to a slam attack. If the monk has the option to flurry(a special attack) & just deliver touches, effectively doing 0 physical damage on each strike(in order to deliver spells like chill touch or whatever), then a vampire can make a slam attack as a touch attack for 0 damage, hit the opponent for his touch AC, and because he hit his opponent with the slam attack deal the enervation effect. The ability of the monk to flurry touch attacks (to start a grapple or to make a trip attempt, say) is a freaky consequence of the fact that a monk's strike is both an unarmed attack and a natural weapon. The same does not apply for a vampire's slam attack (as far as I know). If a vampire wanted to make a touch attack (to start a grapple or to make a trip attempt, say) it would have to do so with an unarmed attack, not with its slam attack. As always, I'd be delighted to review evidence to the contrary.
Hirumajoe 04-23-07, 03:36 PM	Some horrible creatures, especially undead monsters, possess a fearsome supernatural ability to drain levels from those they strike in combat. The creature making an energy drain attack draws a portion of its victim’s life force from her. Most energy drain attacks require a successful melee attack roll—mere physical contact is not enough. Each successful energy drain bestows one or more negative levels (the creature’s description specifies how many). If an attack that includes an energy drain scores a critical hit, it drains twice the given amount. A creature gains 5 temporary hit points (10 on a critical hit) for each negative level it bestows (though not if the negative level is caused by a spell or similar effect). These temporary hit points last for a maximum of 1 hour. The above section from the SRD seems to indicate that even if you could touch attack your opponent, you don't get the benefit of the Energy drain. It has to be a melee attack roll - in the case of the vampire either with its slam attack or one of its natural weapons. Mere physical contact (a touch attack description if ever I heard one) is not enough.
Macbrea 04-23-07, 03:38 PM	I would say that using a natural weapon to do a touch attack is a very loose reading of hitting with a slam attack or any other natural weapon.
McJarvis 04-23-07, 03:40 PM	Some horrible creatures, especially undead monsters, possess a fearsome supernatural ability to drain levels from those they strike in combat. The creature making an energy drain attack draws a portion of its victim’s life force from her. Most energy drain attacks require a successful melee attack roll—mere physical contact is not enough. Each successful energy drain bestows one or more negative levels (the creature’s description specifies how many). If an attack that includes an energy drain scores a critical hit, it drains twice the given amount. A creature gains 5 temporary hit points (10 on a critical hit) for each negative level it bestows (though not if the negative level is caused by a spell or similar effect). These temporary hit points last for a maximum of 1 hour. The above section from the SRD seems to indicate that even if you could touch attack your opponent, you don't get the benefit of the Energy drain. It has to be a melee attack roll - in the case of the vampire either with its slam attack or one of its natural weapons. Mere physical contact (a touch attack description if ever I heard one) is not enough. A melee touch attack is a melee attack roll. So if we were to rule that you can use any special attack(like flurries, etc) to deliver touch attacks of any kind, a vampire would be able to touch-attack with his slam attack to deliver the enervation. But he still wouldn't be able to shake your hand to deliver it. :) I'll admit-> this is less a self-serving inquisition and more a "realize the implications of flurrying touch attacks" line of thought.
hogarth 04-23-07, 03:46 PM	A melee touch attack is a melee attack roll. So if we were to rule that you can use any special attack(like flurries, etc) to deliver touch attacks of any kind, a vampire would be able to touch-attack with his slam attack to deliver the enervation. As I explained above: Any character can make a touch attack with an unarmed attack (e.g. grapple attempts, trip attempts). Monks can flurry their unarmed attack because their strike is also an unarmed attack; it explicitly says so in the rules. I've never seen a rule saying a vampire can make an touch attack with its natural weapon. It could certainly make a touch attack with its unarmed attack, though. Consider the carrion crawler. It has 8 (normal, not touch) melee attacks that do zero damage (plus paralysis). If the game designers had intended for it to be able to make 8 touch attacks instead, wouldn't they have said so?
McJarvis 04-23-07, 03:58 PM	Note that the special attacks mentioned(grapple, trip) provoke AoO's even if you have IUAS. I'm sure I remember that being mentioned somewhere before, though. -_- I don't have my books with me, but I recall there being rules for delivering touch attacks with poisoned weapons. Perhaps more inspiration for this arguement will stem from there. (read: someone go look up the rules on contact poisons)
Macbrea 04-23-07, 04:02 PM	Contact poisons don't requires anything but touching it. Such as done with a touch attack or on an object picked up by the person being poisoned. IE. the top of a chest.
Macbrea 04-23-07, 04:07 PM	Now, if you allowed touch attacks to be done with natural weapons then the following rule on Damage reduction could be termed as the allowing of a vampire to deliver a touch attack slam. Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury type poison, a monk’s stunning, and injury type disease. Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact. This meaning an attack dealing 0 damage still delivers the energy drain.
hogarth 04-23-07, 04:13 PM	Note that the special attacks mentioned(grapple, trip) provoke AoO's even if you have IUAS. I'm sure I remember that being mentioned somewhere before, though. -_- Who said they didn't provoke attacks of opportunity? :confused: Sometimes monks have Improved Grapple (and sometimes Improved Trip) to negate the AoO. Note: as far as I know, only TheMagister is claiming that monks should be able to flurry any type of touch attack.
MindWandererB 04-23-07, 04:25 PM	Damage reduction does not negate... poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact.I would think that any attack that somehow manages to force its victim to ingest a poison would be a case all to itself.... I can think of ways to force the attacker to injest a poison (Swallow Whole, etc.), but none to force the defender to other than stuffing it down their throat while they're immobile.
McJarvis 04-23-07, 04:30 PM	I would think that any attack that somehow manages to force its victim to ingest a poison would be a case all to itself.... I can think of ways to force the attacker to injest a poison (Swallow Whole, etc.), but none to force the defender to other than stuffing it down their throat while they're immobile. Perhaps poisoning an implantation attack with an ingestation poison?
TheMagister 04-23-07, 07:20 PM	Who said they didn't provoke attacks of opportunity? :confused: Sometimes monks have Improved Grapple (and sometimes Improved Trip) to negate the AoO. Note: as far as I know, only TheMagister is claiming that monks should be able to flurry any type of touch attack. "Note: as far as I know, only TheMagister is claiming that monks should be able to flurry any type of touch attack that 1) already uses the monk's unarmed strike as the method of delivery, and 2) is already a touch attack by its nature, such as touch spells/powers and special attacks that require a touch attack to hit or initiate (such as a trip's initial touch attack or grapple's initial "grab" touch attack)." {snipe for clarification} TM
Sunwolf 04-25-07, 02:44 PM	I think that letting a mount travel at full speed while in its master's blacklight is not okay. We weren't going to let The Harvester do it with his nightmare. TM Understood. A blind mount on the ground has to go slower due to having to deal with unseen ground. My reasoning is that a blind flying mount is not restricted by anything other than hitting something while moving (while actually flying). Hitting something however should be damaging at least like falling the equivalent distance -- ie move 40 == 40 foot fall damage. I do wonder if a 5 dc for a ride check is enough for guide with knees type direction for control in 3D vs 2D travel (w/ a blind mount). I could certainly be convinced otherwise but will not try to over turn Brilf's fight because of the Thera's movement in blacklight. Might as well bring this up here since this is likely to come up again. Should a mount that is *flying* in its master's blacklight be able to move at full speed -- supposing the master (who can see) is guiding it. As I noted above a mount on the ground has to deal with the ground is slowed (by blindness) since it can't see where it is putting its feet. Also, if full speed movement is allowed by a blind flying mount, what should the ride DC be for the rider giving directions to the blind mount in 3 dimensions? What if the rider wants to just use guide with knees?
MindWandererB 04-25-07, 02:55 PM	Alternatively, if a blinded mount does move at half speed, can it be considered to be maintaining minimum forward speed if it turns at all?
TelinArtho 04-25-07, 02:59 PM	Blinded is blinded - there is no distinction for blinded and on the ground or blinded in the air. If the condition you have states that you are moving at half-speed - then that's the speed you move at. @MWB - a hippogriff's speed is 100ft. In order to stay aloft it only needs to move forward 50ft (1/2 speed). If it is blinded - it can move 50ft per move action. That said - if it turns - it will need to spend a full round action to stay aloft.
Hirumajoe 04-25-07, 03:01 PM	Alternatively, if a blinded mount does move at half speed, can it be considered to be maintaining minimum forward speed if it turns at all? If it double moves, it should be okay. Since I don't think minimum forward speed is applied on a per move action basis. And if it is applied on a per move basis that seems really wierd. If you spend 3 seconds on your flying you need to move X forward, but if you spend 6 seconds on your flying you need to move 2X foward? Edit: Doh, too slow.
Macbrea 04-25-07, 03:04 PM	Turning doesn't cost movement unless the flying creature is turning in place. The number after the degrees angle is the distance you must move forward after a turn. What being blind does prevent is you getting off the ground in the first place if you have a Poor or Clumsy maneuverability. Because 1/2 x 1/2 in DnD is 1/3rd movement. :P Which is less then minimum flight speed. As stated though they can double move to leave the ground.
Hirumajoe 04-25-07, 03:05 PM	Turning doesn't cost movement unless the flying creature is turning in place. The number after the degrees angle is the distance you must move forward after a turn. What being blind does prevent is you getting off the ground in the first place if you have a Poor or Clumsy maneuverability. Because 1/2 x 1/2 in DnD is 1/3rd movement. :P Which is less then minimum flight speed. As stated though they can double move to leave the ground. Actually, in the case of movement, it is actually 1/4th. Hampered Movement Difficult terrain, obstacles, or poor visibility can hamper movement. When movement is hampered, each square moved into usually counts as two squares, effectively reducing the distance that a character can cover in a move. If more than one condition applies, multiply together all additional costs that apply. (This is a specific exception to the normal rule for doubling)
Macbrea 04-25-07, 03:08 PM	Heh.. ah well...
Rauul 04-25-07, 05:45 PM	Well i need to bring up something... the making of custom items with uses per day and charges As it seems there is has been 2 of these items aproved in the past, and now it seems that no more will be approved... the 2 items already approved are Least Ring of the Remorhaz (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11762143&postcount=387) approved on 3-14-07 Lesser Ring of the Cloaker (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11304743&postcount=360) Approved on 01-27-07 It's about the only practical way to use the Gather Information skill..
SauroGrenom 04-25-07, 06:08 PM	Turning doesn't cost movement unless the flying creature is turning in place. The number after the degrees angle is the distance you must move forward after a turn. What being blind does prevent is you getting off the ground in the first place if you have a Poor or Clumsy maneuverability. Because 1/2 x 1/2 in DnD is 1/3rd movement. :P Which is less then minimum flight speed. As stated though they can double move to leave the ground. You're partly correct. Your movement class puts limits on how much free turning you can do with each 5' of forward movement. If you need to turn faster than that, you usually can do so using extra movement. If you maneuverability class is rather low this may be necessary.
SauroGrenom 04-25-07, 06:16 PM	Well i need to bring up something... the making of custom items with uses per day and charges As it seems there is has been 2 of these items aproved in the past, and now it seems that no more will be approved... the 2 items already approved are Least Ring of the Remorhaz (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11762143&postcount=387) approved on 3-14-07 Lesser Ring of the Cloaker (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11304743&postcount=360) Approved on 01-27-07 It's about the only practical way to use the Gather Information skill.. I think Cat was wrong to approve those. Using x/day abilities is identical to placing alignment or racial or class restrictions on your magic items. It only serves to decrease price by taking advantage of the predictable 3FC. There's still plenty of things you can get with your Gather Info skill. Buy single use items of similar function. Or buy ammunition. Or buy scrolls and psistones of increased ML. Or simply buy items usable 1/day instead of charged and usable 3/day.
Rauul 04-25-07, 06:21 PM	I think Cat was wrong to approve those. Using x/day abilities is identical to placing alignment or racial or class restrictions on your magic items. It only serves to decrease price by taking advantage of the predictable 3FC. There's still plenty of things you can get with your Gather Info skill. Buy single use items of similar function. Or buy ammunition. Or buy scrolls and psistones of increased ML. Or simply buy items usable 1/day instead of charged and usable 3/day. So you going against the policy that have been used nearly 6 months.. As an Elder you could of spoke up before when the other items were requested.. Shrug ok I feel it's wrong but then again the making and breaking of the set rules is wrong IMHO..
hogarth 04-25-07, 06:31 PM	I think Cat was wrong to approve those. Using x/day abilities is identical to placing alignment or racial or class restrictions on your magic items. It only serves to decrease price by taking advantage of the predictable 3FC. For those following along at home, the 2 items in question are: Ring of silent image, 50 charges, usable 1/day Ring of enlarged matter agitation, 50 charges, usable 2/day Just to be clear, which aspect of those items do you find objectionable? That the items are usable 1/day and 2/day. That the items are charged. The the items are both limited in uses and charged. Personally, I would lean towards #2: the fact that an item has 50 charges is not particularly limiting in the CoCo unless it's an item you would use repeatedly (like a wand of CLW) or it's an item you intend to sell (in which case the resale value goes down every time you use it). In the case of the two items above, #1 is very limiting, IMO -- I would use the ring of silent image several times per battle if I had the chance to!
McJarvis 04-25-07, 06:34 PM	Personally, I would lean towards #2: the fact that an item has 50 charges is not particularly limiting in the CoCo unless it's an item you would use repeatedly (like a wand of CLW) or it's an item you intend to sell (in which case the resale value goes down every time you use it). Due to our 3FC & guaranteed level-up rewards system both things being charged AND things being x/day are abusable. Look at the cloak of silence (3/day) that got approved at one point-> Is a cloak of silence 3/day really less useful than a cloak of silence infinite charges? Perhaps for certain spam-applications(silencing the whole arena vs a caster?), but in general: no.
SauroGrenom 04-25-07, 06:35 PM	So you going against the policy that have been used nearly 6 months.. As an Elder you could of spoke up before when the other items were requested.. Shrug ok I feel it's wrong but then again the making and breaking of the set rules is wrong IMHO.. It wasn't my responsibility to deal with it at that time. Cat has his sense of judgment, and we don't have the luxury of relying on that right now. The way I'm going to look at it is that items which are spell effects should use pricing listed as options for spell effects. That includes and only includes the following: Single use, spell completion Single use, use-activated 50 charges, spell trigger Command word Use-activated or continuous The only three items that have charges do not produce an explicit spell effect (ring of ram, gem of brightness, cube of force). These are very different from the rings hogarth requested for his characters (which both produce spell effects).
MindWandererB 04-25-07, 06:36 PM	Well, there is the risk of being dispelled, or for some of these things, having the duration run out. And for what it worth, when the frozen leagues open up, it will be quite possible to have 50 fights over the course of a career.
McJarvis 04-25-07, 06:37 PM	Bravo sauro-> this also solves the problem of getting spell effects on wondrous items at less than 50 charges.
SauroGrenom 04-25-07, 06:39 PM	[/LIST] Just to be clear, which aspect of those items do you find objectionable? That the items are usable 1/day and 2/day. That the items are charged. The the items are both limited in uses and charged. Personally, I would lean towards #2: the fact that an item has 50 charges is not particularly limiting in the CoCo unless it's an item you would use repeatedly (like a wand of CLW) or it's an item you intend to sell (in which case the resale value goes down every time you use it). In the case of the two items above, #1 is very limiting, IMO -- I would use the ring of silent image several times per battle if I had the chance to!What I find objectionable is that you are using the fact that it's charged and limited to x/day to produce a price/use that's even lower than you get with a wand with no requirements for class spell list to use it. You've created a loophole that Cat never noticed that allows wondrous items to be better than wands.
hogarth 04-25-07, 06:40 PM	The only three items that have charges do not produce an explicit spell effect (ring of ram, gem of brightness, cube of force). I would exclude the cube of force from that list and add the helm of brilliance, deck of illusions, scarab of protection, and the chime of opening (and maybe the serpentine owl, Keoghtum's ointment, and the robe of useful items). Note that the Chime of Opening does have an implicit spell effect (knock) and the Helm of Brilliance has explicit spell effects (fireball, daylight, wall of fire, prismatic spray) and so does Keoghtum's Ointment (neutralize poison, remove disease, cure light wounds).
Rauul 04-25-07, 06:46 PM	What I find objectionable is that you are using the fact that it's charged and limited to x/day to produce a price/use that's even lower than you get with a wand with no requirements for class spell list to use it. You've created a loophole that Cat never noticed that allows wondrous items to be better than wands. you forget.. wands have no limit except the charges... a Wand of magic missiles can be used 50 times in 1 fight.. now make the same wand with 1 or 2 uses a day it will last longer and cost about 1/2 the cost of the other.. Big difference..
hogarth 04-25-07, 06:47 PM	you forget.. wands have no limit except the charges... a Wand of magic missiles can be used 50 times in 1 fight.. now make the same wand with 1 or 2 uses a day it will last longer and cost about 1/2 the cost of the other.. Big difference.. As people have pointed out, a restriction to 3 uses/day limits short-duration effects a lot and long-duration effects not much at all.
Rauul 04-25-07, 06:48 PM	you forget.. wands have no limit except the charges... a Wand of magic missiles can be used 50 times in 1 fight.. now make the same wand with 1 or 2 uses a day it will last longer and cost about 1/2 the cost of the other.. Big difference.. Oh and don't forget a wand of magic missiles [CL 1] costs all of 750 gp and can blow through a Brooch of Shielding (1500 gp value) in the 50 rounds..
hogarth 04-25-07, 07:39 PM	You've created a loophole that Cat never noticed that allows wondrous items to be better than wands. Thanks for the backhanded compliment! (Implying I'm smarter than Cat...) :D
Yitzi 04-25-07, 08:38 PM	Oh and don't forget a wand of magic missiles [CL 1] costs all of 750 gp and can blow through a Brooch of Shielding (1500 gp value) in the 50 rounds.. And during said 50 rounds what will the wearer of the brooch be doing?
Macbrea 04-25-07, 09:59 PM	Wands have a few more drawbacks. You must wield a wand to use it. It has a spell trigger requiring the spell to be on the users list. I don't think item should have both charges and uses per day. It results in a very low value item that wouldn't be allowed by a real GM. The magic item creation rules have to be judged on what would be allowed and what wouldn't in a real game. Take the following item: Gloves of the healing hand On command heals 2d8+3 damage to those touched. CL 3 Cost: 10,800gp Prerequiste: Craft wonderous and Cure Moderate wounds I am pretty sure noone would allow that in their game. It is made using the pricing from the chart.
Yitzi 04-25-07, 10:51 PM	I think the charges per day option is to modify the continous/unlimited option. As for the "gloves of healing hand", I'm not so sure it's that overpowered in a TT game. You would beat someone with it the same way you beat someone with a wand of CMW: focused fire. (I doubt many peoples' approach to the situation would be "wait till it runs out") Yes, it can be used by fighters and wizards and rogues and won't run out-that's why it costs 2.4 times as much. It's only in the CoCo, where focused fire is near impossible and a cleric in every party is not a given, that a healing item usable by nonclerics and without significant costs per use is overpowered. Even so, it and similar things could be made to work if a rule modification were made stating that any command word unlimited use item has part of its value count toward the expendable cap. If the gloves were allowed but took up 3240 gp of your expendable cap (if the amount were 30%), it would be significantly less appealing, especially since at the point you could use it feasibly many of your opponents might do far more than 2d8+3 damage per round, particularly since you have less defensive equipment after spending 10k on the gloves. Also, remember what the SRD says: Not all items adhere to these formulas directly. The reasons for this are several. First and foremost, these few formulas aren’t enough to truly gauge the exact differences between items. The price of a magic item may be modified based on its actual worth. The formulas only provide a starting point. The pricing of scrolls assumes that, whenever possible, a wizard or cleric created it. Potions and wands follow the formulas exactly. Staffs follow the formulas closely, and other items require at least some judgment calls.
Macbrea 04-25-07, 11:28 PM	You don't think the ability to allow the cleric in the party to take purely combat spells is overpowered? The major limitation in on clerics in a TT game is the fact that they need to spend some of their daily slots to heal injured party members. That 10k item is far more powerful then the Ring of Regeneration (1 hp/5 minutes) for it's 90k cost.
Malither76 04-26-07, 01:20 AM	Here is something to think about, I know Sauro is on board. Diplomacy allies need a big fixin. This should not be stronger than a feat, but at Level 8 you could have an Ogre cohort or you could have 2 ogres with diplomacy assuming your diplomacy is hight enough which for this is only a 24, Max Diplomacy + all 3 synergies + say a +10 item is a 27 without a cha mod added in. Does anyone else think this is really broken?
MindWandererB 04-26-07, 01:40 AM	Okay, I need to put a stop to this discussion about Diplomacy allies. While I don't approve of them either, there will be no changes to that rule until either Cat comes back or he has me officially granted the permanent GM title. It's too big a change to enact during an interim period.
Zevox 04-26-07, 01:08 PM	Here is something to think about, I know Sauro is on board. Diplomacy allies need a big fixin. This should not be stronger than a feat, but at Level 8 you could have an Ogre cohort or you could have 2 ogres with diplomacy assuming your diplomacy is hight enough which for this is only a 24, Max Diplomacy + all 3 synergies + say a +10 item is a 27 without a cha mod added in. Does anyone else think this is really broken? Just to point out, a Leadership Ogre does have some huge advantages over a diplomacy Ogre. They use 25 point buy, for starters, while the diplomacy Ogre is stuck with its base stats unless you cough up credits to give it the elite array (which is still less flexible than 25 pt buy). They can advance with character levels automatically while diplomacy Ogres only advance by racial HD and only if you pay credits to do so. In the shortest term, two diplomacy Ogres might be better than a leadership Ogre, but look ahead a couple of levels and I think the leadership Ogre looks much better. Zevox
Yitzi 04-26-07, 03:16 PM	You don't think the ability to allow the cleric in the party to take purely combat spells is overpowered? The major limitation in on clerics in a TT game is the fact that they need to spend some of their daily slots to heal injured party members. So you think wands of healing (straight from the SRD) are overpowered? Same argument goes there. That 10k item is far more powerful then the Ring of Regeneration (1 hp/5 minutes) for it's 90k cost. First of all, it's 1 per 5 minutes for nonlethal, 1/hour for lethal. But the ring of regeneration's primary benefit, like that of the regeneration spell, is not the healing (compare regeneration's (level 7 spell) 4d8+1/level to the 10/level (with minimum level 11) of heal (level 6 spell) at one less SL to prove this is the case). The main benefit of regenertaion, spell or ring, is limb regeneration.
SauroGrenom 04-26-07, 03:18 PM	Okay, I need to put a stop to this discussion about Diplomacy allies. While I don't approve of them either, there will be no changes to that rule until either Cat comes back or he has me officially granted the permanent GM title. It's too big a change to enact during an interim period.I'm not going to make a crusade out of this. It's just as I said. If I had to choose a single thing to change, diplomacy allies would be that one. I agree. Now is not the time to push for something like that.
Macbrea 04-26-07, 03:46 PM	So you think wands of healing (straight from the SRD) are overpowered? Same argument goes there. First of all, it's 1 per 5 minutes for nonlethal, 1/hour for lethal. But the ring of regeneration's primary benefit, like that of the regeneration spell, is not the healing (compare regeneration's (level 7 spell) 4d8+1/level to the 10/level (with minimum level 11) of heal (level 6 spell) at one less SL to prove this is the case). The main benefit of regenertaion, spell or ring, is limb regeneration. Couple of things... Wand of healing requires you have the spell on your spell list and it only has 50 charges in it. The gloves I mentioned could be worn by a 1st level commoner to heal an entire army. Well. 14,400 of them in one day. And another thing, Name an item in DnD that allows you to remove a limb from a living creature? Regeneration allows for a case that isn't possible.
MindWandererB 04-26-07, 04:16 PM	Couple of things... Wand of healing requires you have the spell on your spell list and it only has 50 charges in it. The gloves I mentioned could be worn by a 1st level commoner to heal an entire army. Well. 14,400 of them in one day. And another thing, Name an item in DnD that allows you to remove a limb from a living creature? Regeneration allows for a case that isn't possible. There are no such effects in core (anymore), other than the vorpal sword (which gives you bigger problems), but there are a few in non-core sources. Or there's just the simple RP factor... your rogue gets caught stealing and has a hand cut off, or whatever.
Yitzi 04-26-07, 04:20 PM	Couple of things... Wand of healing requires you have the spell on your spell list and it only has 50 charges in it. The gloves I mentioned could be worn by a 1st level commoner to heal an entire army. Well. 14,400 of them in one day. Yes, such an item would be very good for a large group that develops hundreds of wounded each day, but with a party-sized group it is not nearly as powerful. If you object to an item because of factors like that, than you have to object to most unlimited use items that can affect others. And another thing, Name an item in DnD that allows you to remove a limb from a living creature? Regeneration allows for a case that isn't possible. Then you're saying the spell is too weak, not that a different item is too strong. Also, the DM can come up with limb-removing scenarios if needed.
hogarth 04-26-07, 04:25 PM	Anyways, can we get a YES/NO vote on whether to allow items with charges + uses per day? Or is this just up to the Blackmarketlord's (to coin a word) personal discretion?
SauroGrenom 04-26-07, 05:25 PM	Anyways, can we get a YES/NO vote on whether to allow items with charges + uses per day? Or is this just up to the Blackmarketlord's (to coin a word) personal discretion? Don't worry. The ones already approved are just that. Approved. You don't have to give them back.
hogarth 04-26-07, 05:30 PM	Don't worry. The ones already approved are just that. Approved. You don't have to give them back. I wasn't worried about that. I just want to know what the rule is going forward. You have stated your ruling, but I don't know if it has to be confirmed by some of the other Elders or not. That's all I was asking.
Rauul 04-26-07, 06:58 PM	Okay, I need to put a stop to this discussion about Diplomacy allies. While I don't approve of them either, there will be no changes to that rule until either Cat comes back or he has me officially granted the permanent GM title. It's too big a change to enact during an interim period. But changing what Cat approved as far as what the blackmarket and gather infomation isn't considered a big deal since it effects 2-3 charaters at the most.. D&D acually had Wondrous Items with charges.. Helm of Brilliance, Brooch of shielding, Chime of Opening, Gem of Brightness, Necklace of Fireballs, Robe of Bones And a Robe of Useful items. And in the magic item Compendium there are 2 items that use Both Charges and uses per day (non core but Still WoTc)..
McJarvis 04-26-07, 07:00 PM	Raul's right. If anyone else wants an exact copy of Hogarth's items they should be welcome to it. Any approval of items using the same formulas, however, still lies with Sauro.
SauroGrenom 04-26-07, 07:20 PM	But changing what Cat approved as far as what the blackmarket and gather infomation isn't considered a big deal since it effects 2-3 charaters at the most.. D&D acually had Wondrous Items with charges.. Helm of Brilliance, Brooch of shielding, Chime of Opening, Gem of Brightness, Necklace of Fireballs, Robe of Bones And a Robe of Useful items. And in the magic item Compendium there are 2 items that use Both Charges and uses per day (non core but Still WoTc).. I need to point out that most of these items have "uses" not "charges". The distinction is important. I haven't looked at the prices of all of those items, but the Necklace of Fireballs is priced as a collection of potions. It's price is calculated using the mechanic listed "Single use, use-activated". Same thing goes for the chime of opening. Many of the others on your list don't actually produce spell effects. Broach of Shielding and Gem of Brightness are two examples. They have effects that get used up, but those effects are not identical to a spell effect.
Vathelokai 04-28-07, 11:29 AM	Recently flight while blind (specifically mounted flight) has come up in a number of flights. I'd like to get to the bottom of how this mechanic works. All quote titles refer to where they are found at d20srd (http://www.d20srd.org/index.htm) {notes in curly brackets added by Vathelokai} Minimum Forward Speed {avg, poor, and clumsy fliers}: If a flying creature fails to maintain its minimum forward speed, it must land at the end of its movement. {minimum speed is always half for the mentioned manuverabilities} Turn in Place {good and avg fliers}: A creature with good or average maneuverability can use some of its speed to turn in place. {turning in place requires 5 ft of movement} Up Speed: How fast the creature can climb. {all except perfect fliers move upward at half speed} 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. Creatures outside the spell’s area, even the caster, cannot see through it. Blinded The character cannot see. He takes a -2 penalty to Armor Class, loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), moves at half speed, and takes a -4 penalty on Search checks and on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Spot checks) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) to the blinded character. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them. Guide with Knees: You can react instantly to guide your mount with your knees so that you can use both hands in combat. Make your Ride check at the start of your turn. If you fail, you can use only one hand this round because you need to use the other to control your mount. 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. Blinded: You're reduced to half speed (see Part One) when you're blinded unless you've got some other ability that makes up for your lack of sight, such as the blind sense or blindsight ability. If you have the Blind-Fight feat, you move at three-quarters speed. This is a kind of hampered movement (and you suffer all the consequences for hampered movement as noted in Part One), but it's easiest to handle this as a reduction in your speed. Multiply your usual speed by 0.75, and round the result down to a nearest multiple of 5 feet. For example, if your speed is 30, your speed when blinded is 20 feet (30 ´ 0.75 = 22.5, round down to 20). You are effectively blinded whenever visibility is reduced to nothing for you, such as when you don't have darkvision and you're in total darkness. Speed: A measure of how fast a creature can move across the battlefield or overland. In the D&D game, speeds are always given in number of feet, and they are always evenly divisible by 5 (because the basic unit of distance in the game is 5 feet). A creature's speed rating before applying any enhancements (usually from magic or from a class feature) or reductions (usually from encumbrance or other impediments) is called its base speed. A creature's speed rating after applying any enhancements is called its current speed. Normal Movement: This is not a standardized game term, but the rules (and this article) use it to indicate times when a creature uses a move action to move up to its speed -- as opposed to running, charging, or performing some other kind of special movement. Hampered Movement: When conditions don't let you move as quickly as your speed would normally allow, your movement is hampered. When a creature enters a square where movement is hampered, it pays at least 10 feet of movement instead of the usual 5 feet. When moving diagonally into a square where movement is hampered, a creature pays at least 15 feet of movement. Uneven surfaces, slippery surfaces, obstacles that leave you room to pass but require you to climb over them or detour around them, thick vegetation -- all these can hamper your movement. A creature cannot charge, run, or take a 5-foot step when its movement is hampered. Half Speed: Some conditions, such as blindness or entanglement, force a creature to move at half speed. A creature reduced to half speed always moves as though its movement is hampered. (Each square costs 10 feet of movement to enter, and each diagonal costs 15 feet.) Creatures reduced to half speed cannot charge, run, or take a 5-foot step. Your mount handles movement for you. When your mount moves, you move along with it, which means that you're using your mount's speed rating. Your mount, however, is actually doing the moving, and that leaves you free to do something else while your mount moves, such as making a ranged attack. You can't always act effectively while your mount moves, however. For example, if your mount moves more than 5 feet and you make a melee attack in the same round, you can make only a single attack. Double Movement Cost When your movement is hampered in some way, your movement usually costs double. For example, each square of movement through difficult terrain counts as 2 squares, and each diagonal move through such terrain counts as 3 squares (just as two diagonal moves normally do). If movement cost is doubled twice, then each square counts as 4 squares (or as 6 squares if moving diagonally). If movement cost is doubled three times, then each square counts as 8 squares (12 if diagonal) and so on. This is an exception to the general rule that two doublings are equivalent to a tripling. So now I have a few questions. 1) Flight says that you have to keep a minimum forward speed. Is this speed half the base flight speed or half of the speed you currently have? Examples: (a) a griffon takes a double move but flies slowly for move silent checks, and it flies at an upward angle - it is flying farther than half it's base speed, but slower than half it's total speed. (b) What if said griffon were blinded and flying - if we say base speed, then by double moving it could stay airborne no matter what movement it made, but if we say total speed then it if it does anything except fly forward or downward it will stall and fall. (c) What if said griffon were hasted, giving it a +30 to it's speed - again the difference between base speed and total speed is the deciding factor. 2) If you have a blinded mount, it is generaly assumed that you can guide the mount. The rules don't seem to touch this issue. For example, 'guiding a mount with knees' in the ride discription says only that the check is to do it without your hands; implying that guiding a mount with your hands is automatic. The 'control mount in battle' ride check gives the option to 'over-ride' an untrained mounts natural inclination to flee in combat; we have used that check to have the rider of a mount fleeing from spell effects (eg, cause fear) regain control and I see some similarities between the situations, but no direct rules. The rules of the game clarifies that mounts do the moving, and presumably watch where they are going for themselves. The rules of the game also clarify that blindness causes hampered movement (meaning each square moved into counts as 2, and has a special stacking rule for this type of movement penalty). So the question would be, how does a blind mount move? Do they take automatic direction from a rider who is guiding them, do they not know where to move at all, do you need a special ride check to 'show' them where to go? To belabor our griffon some more, what of a flying intelligent mount?
hogarth 04-30-07, 01:39 PM	Repeating an old question: Does a gladiator need telepathy to recruit a Diplomacy ally that can understand a language but not speak one (e.g. griffons, shadows, krenshars, howlers, etc.)? I believe that MindWandererB has implicitly voted "no" on this issue (since one of his gladiators has a griffon Diplomacy ally without the benefit of telepathy), but I don't think anyone has actually expressed an opinion.
MindWandererB 04-30-07, 01:42 PM	Repeating an old question: Does a gladiator need telepathy to recruit a Diplomacy ally that can understand a language but not speak one (e.g. griffons, shadows, krenshars, howlers, etc.)? I believe that MindWandererB has implicitly voted "no" on this issue (since one of his gladiators has a griffon Diplomacy ally without the benefit of telepathy), but I don't think anyone has actually expressed an opinion. The list of Diplomacy allies includes the footnote of 1 for allies that need telepathy to recruit; these are the ones than neither speak nor understand any language. By omission therefore, you don't need telepathy for anything else.
TelinArtho 04-30-07, 01:46 PM	Well in that case, I want to review the possibility of a nightmare as an ally through LPA. It doesn't have a listed language but as has been indicated in the entry about Intelligence in the introduction to the monsters, anything with an intelligence above 3 understands at least one language. Intelligence: A creature can speak all the languages mentioned in its description, plus one additional language per point of Intelligence bonus. Any creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher understands at least one language (Common, unless noted otherwise). Since it is not noted in the entry - then the Nightmare understands common.
MindWandererB 04-30-07, 02:18 PM	Well in that case, I want to review the possibility of a nightmare as an ally through LPA. It doesn't have a listed language but as has been indicated in the entry about Intelligence in the introduction to the monsters, anything with an intelligence above 3 understands at least one language. Since it is not noted in the entry - then the Nightmare understands common. There's a difference here, though. A Diplomacy ally just has to like what you have to say. A Planar Ally has to be able to negotiate, which should require dialogue, IMO.
SauroGrenom 04-30-07, 02:40 PM	Well in that case, I want to review the possibility of a nightmare as an ally through LPA. It doesn't have a listed language but as has been indicated in the entry about Intelligence in the introduction to the monsters, anything with an intelligence above 3 understands at least one language. Since it is not noted in the entry - then the Nightmare understands common. Common? Wow. An evil extra-planar outsider understands Common as it's native language? I'd think Infernal or Abyssal would be more appropriate. But I think MWB has it correct. Negotiation is different from understanding, and negotiation is required for all the Planar Ally spells.
TheMagister 05-01-07, 08:19 PM	"If 1,500 gp is enough, tap your hoof twice. If not, neigh once." ;)
Hirumajoe 05-02-07, 04:13 PM	I've been reading up on Metamorphosis (and Polymorph) and discovered that equipment doesn't resize with the power, but if it still fits or could still be held, it is still present. This has lead me to wonder if you can use the Expansion PsiWarrior power (gained through the Expanded Knowledge feat for example) combined with Metamorphosis to change your shape while having your equipment increase in size (since the equipment itself is unaffected by the metamorphosis and wouldn't be stacking size altering affects). Thus allowing you to keep wearing your armor or allow you to use your Greatsword as a Large Greatsword (avoiding size penalties). Clearly, you'd need to manifest the Expansion power first otherwise the equipment you want to affect would be merged with the new form. Also, if this were allowed, what would happen if the Expansion power were dispelled but the metamorphosis power was not?
SauroGrenom 05-02-07, 04:21 PM	I see no reason to not allow your idea. Also many kinds of magical equipment changes size to fit the wearer. Non-magical stuff could be a problem. I think you should be allowed to use expansion to increase in size, then metamorphosis to change into another form. The size changes don't stack, and you can only move one step in size with Metamorphosis. If expansion were dispelled, then your equipment would chance back to its original size.
Hirumajoe 05-02-07, 04:44 PM	If expansion were dispelled, then your equipment would chance back to its original size. Well, what I was more wondering was in regards to the returning to normal size equipment, what would be the consequences? Medium sized armor on a Large Troll? Does the character take damage, is the armor destroyed, is it still hanging on uselessly, is it providing penalties, does it get merged after the fact? Edit: D&D seems to try really hard to avoid answering questions like those... Thus falling to house rules. :)
McJarvis 05-02-07, 04:46 PM	I would say that damage weapons do shouldn't change. This intent seems obvious-> especially since there is an enhancement called "sizing" in non-core that is specifically supposed to address this. edit-> Rethinking this, only magical equipment that doesn't have a specified size changes to fit the wearer(amulets, rings, etc). Armor and weapons, however, never change size to fit the wearer....
Zevox 05-02-07, 04:48 PM	...might I suggest it would just be simplest to house rule that equipment resizes with you when you polymorph/alter self/metamorph, just like when making any other magical size change? Rather than deal with all the questions of how you can get it to resize first, what happens to it if it doesn't, etc. Zevox
SauroGrenom 05-02-07, 04:49 PM	Well, what I was more wondering was in regards to the returning to normal size equipment, what would be the consequences? Medium sized armor on a Large Troll? Does the character take damage, is the armor destroyed, is it still hanging on uselessly, is it providing penalties, does it get merged after the fact? Edit: D&D seems to try really hard to avoid answering questions like those... Thus falling to house rules. :)Not sure. I'd say it falls off in your square, or gets merged into your new form. One or the other.
Hirumajoe 05-02-07, 05:08 PM	...might I suggest it would just be simplest to house rule that equipment resizes with you when you polymorph/alter self/metamorph, just like when making any other magical size change? Rather than deal with all the questions of how you can get it to resize first, what happens to it if it doesn't, etc. Zevox While I would *love* that change, it would be house rule boosting the power of the power/spell. Which seems to be counter to the house rules already implemented (which are trying to limit the power/spell).
Zevox 05-02-07, 05:36 PM	While I would *love* that change, it would be house rule boosting the power of the power/spell. Which seems to be counter to the house rules already implemented (which are trying to limit the power/spell). This isn't one of the problems we had with the spell's power, though (those were chiefly its flexibility in scroll form, shifting more than 1 size category [Wizard-turned-Remorhaz... scary stuff], and the fact that the limiting factor of you being familiar with the form you shift to wasn't addressed before). Those have been corrected by our house rules. This certainly wouldn't reopen any of those issues, only simplify and fix a new one. Seems the way to go to me. Zevox
Yitzi 05-09-07, 01:36 PM	Question (no luck getting an answer in the Tavern): If someone has levels in an arcane and divine casting class, can they cast arcane spells opposed to their own alignment? (assume it's either a druid/ranger or the spell is not opposed to their diety's alignment (e.g. LG cleric of Pelor casts a chaotic spell), so there is no problem of losing their cleric/paladin abilites) Also, does such a person combine spell levels for the 1/3 rule, or does he use seperate accounts of divine spell levels and arcane spell levels? There was disagreement when I asked in the tavern.
TelinArtho 05-09-07, 02:01 PM	Each spellcasting class has its own pool (see Faelto as an example). Sauro is incorrect in his statement and his answer doesn't even agree with Raskos (his own character). As to the divine/arcane caster casting spells that are forbidden according to one class's abilities - I would have to say no. A Good cleric would not be able to cast a spell with the evil descriptor whether that spell was a divine spell, an arcane spell or even a power.
SauroGrenom 05-09-07, 02:09 PM	Each spellcasting class has its own pool (see Faelto as an example). Sauro is incorrect in his statement and his answer doesn't even agree with Raskos (his own character).Yea I was wrong. From the way I read it, the restriction placed on the alignment of spells cast by a cleric is not specified to apply only to divine spells cast with cleric caster levels. As such it's a general restriction, and it should apply to all spell cast by the character.
MindWandererB 05-09-07, 02:20 PM	Question (no luck getting an answer in the Tavern): If someone has levels in an arcane and divine casting class, can they cast arcane spells opposed to their own alignment? (assume it's either a druid/ranger or the spell is not opposed to their diety's alignment (e.g. LG cleric of Pelor casts a chaotic spell), so there is no problem of losing their cleric/paladin abilites) Also, does such a person combine spell levels for the 1/3 rule, or does he use seperate accounts of divine spell levels and arcane spell levels? There was disagreement when I asked in the tavern. There should be no debate over the 1/3 rule: each class of spells is tracked seperately. As for the cleric alignment thing, here's the quote for reference: Spells: A cleric casts divine spells, which are drawn from the cleric spell list. However, his alignment may restrict him from casting certain spells opposed to his moral or ethical beliefs; see Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells, below. A cleric must choose and prepare his spells in advance (see below).Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells: A cleric can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity’s (if he has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaos, evil, good, and law descriptors in their spell descriptions.The druid uses similar language, but oddly, there is no "Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells, below." Now, there are two kinds of restrictions possible. One is the simple inability to perform a certain kind of action, like a specialist wizard casting a prohibited spell. That prohibition is due to an overspecialization in one area of wizardly magic at the expense of another, and has nothing to do with training in other classes. (If you never learn how to cast wizardly enchantment spells, but take a level of sorcerer, it's no different than if you were a fighter who did the same; now you know how.) In fact, this kind of restriction is more like not being granted something, rather than having something taken away. The other is an action that carries a penalty for doing so, like a druid wearing metal armor. They're physically capable, it's just a bad idea. These restrictions apply regardless of multiclassing, but typically still only affect one class (a fighter/monk in metal armor loses no fighter features). So, back to the cleric. That falls into the former category: they simply aren't able to cast alignment-opposed spells. Now, in my opinion, if it was a restriction that applied to all spells and not just cleric ones, they'd be able to, but there'd be a penalty (and unless it's a cleric of Pelor animating dead or the like, I doubt it would be "grossly violat[ing] the code of conduct required by his god"). Certainly a cleric/sorcerer would have the knowledge and ability to cast any sorcerer spell they liked; the question is whether they have a moral prohibition from doing so. I don't see anything that suggests that interpretation. It might, in theory, be against their moral code, but it would depend on the circumstances. Casting Protection from Good to ward off a hostile celestial badger seems like it would be fine.
Yitzi 05-09-07, 02:33 PM	So TelinArtho says no, MWB says yes. What's the rule when there is a disagreement between elders in the Courtroom?
TelinArtho 05-09-07, 02:39 PM	We duke it out until one comes out victorious... In all seriousness, I hold less conviction on my statement, but I am still waiting to hear the rest of the elder's opinions before I change my POV.
hogarth 05-09-07, 02:47 PM	In all seriousness, I hold less conviction on my statement, but I am still waiting to hear the rest of the elder's opinions before I change my POV. For what it's worth, I agree with the "no" camp. My logic is as follows: If Pelor is willing to grant his worshippers a Protection from Law spell, why would a lawful cleric of Pelor be unable to cast it? The only explanation that makes sense to me is that the cleric himself is opposed to doing so. In that case it wouldn't matter if it's an arcane or divine Protection from Law; the same objection would apply. If you need a "rules-as-written" argument to support the position, that's easy to provide: "The rules don't say a good cleric can cast an [Evil] arcane spell, so he can't." 'Nuff said. ;)
Yitzi 05-09-07, 02:53 PM	For what it's worth, I agree with the "no" camp. My logic is as follows: If Pelor is willing to grant his worshippers a Protection from Law spell, why would a lawful cleric of Pelor be unable to cast it? The only explanation that makes sense to me is that the cleric himself is opposed to doing so. In that case it wouldn't matter if it's an arcane or divine Protection from Law; the same objection would apply. By that logic, why only divine casters? Clearly the fact that it's divine as opposed to arcane plays some role.
SoulLord 05-09-07, 02:54 PM	The evil cleric could cast wizard spells with the good descriptor and even if his deity punished him for this by not giving him any more cleric spells until he attones; nothing stops him to continue casting wizard spells with the good descriptor. to bring the example more down to earth. which evil wizard spell does your good cleric want to cast?
Yitzi 05-09-07, 02:58 PM	A good druid casing Prot. from good.
Rauul 05-09-07, 03:27 PM	Congrats to the 2 new Elders..
SauroGrenom 05-09-07, 03:52 PM	MWB, You compare the cleric's prohibition to that on druids and on monks but fail to actually quote those restrictions. I think there's a clear difference. A druid who wears prohibited armor or carries a prohibited shield is unable to cast druid spells or use any of her supernatural or spell-like class abilities while doing so and for 24 hours thereafter.When wearing armor, using a shield, or carrying a medium or heavy load, a monk loses her AC bonus, as well as her fast movement and flurry of blows abilities.Notice how each of these prohibitions delineates a specific penalty for violating the prohibition. The scope of restriction and its effect is defined. But with the cleric this is not the case. However, his alignment may restrict him from casting certain spells opposed to his moral or ethical beliefs; see Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells, below. If the game designers had intended the prohibition against opposite alignment spells to apply to only cleric spells, they would have indicated that. In other cases where a prohibition applies to features of a specific class, the rules state that. In this case the rules don't state that the alignment restriction applies to only cleric spells. So we should assume the prohibition is a general one that applies to all spells.
McJarvis 05-09-07, 03:56 PM	Sauro is indeed correct. It is much the same with Barbarians and Illiteracy-> the restriction specifically says that it is lifted if the Barbarian multicasses. If that sentance wasn't there, barbarians would be Illiterate no matter what(even if they took wizard levels! huzzah! Phere the illiterate mage in my make-believe D&D universe... :-) )
SauroGrenom 05-09-07, 04:08 PM	Sauro is indeed correct. It is much the same with Barbarians and Illiteracy-> the restriction specifically says that it is lifted if the Barbarian multicasses. If that sentance wasn't there, barbarians would be Illiterate no matter what(even if they took wizard levels! huzzah! Phere the illiterate mage in my make-believe D&D universe... :-) ) Am I having a hallucination? Or is the Fabric of the universe unraveling? I think McJarvis just agreed with me.
McJarvis 05-09-07, 04:09 PM	Am I having a hallucination? Or is the Fabric of the universe unraveling? I think McJarvis just agreed with me. When you're right your right :)
Rauul 05-09-07, 04:22 PM	Am I having a hallucination? Or is the Fabric of the universe unraveling? I think McJarvis just agreed with me. RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!
MindWandererB 05-09-07, 04:27 PM	If the game designers had intended the prohibition against opposite alignment spells to apply to only cleric spells, they would have indicated that. In other cases where a prohibition applies to features of a specific class, the rules state that. In this case the rules don't state that the alignment restriction applies to only cleric spells. So we should assume the prohibition is a general one that applies to all spells.Really? Then let's take some extrapolations from that: When wearing armor, using a shield, or carrying a medium or heavy load, a monk loses her AC bonus, as well as her fast movement and flurry of blows abilities.So a monk/barbarian wearing a shield loses the Fast Movement barbarian ability? Then there's this again: 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.So again, if this generalization were to apply, a wizard/sorcerer would be so restricted (despite WotC publications stating otherwise). Or to be even more extreme: Spellbooks: A wizard must study her spellbook each day to prepare her spells. So a wizard/cleric has to prepare cleric spells from a spellbook? Nothing says that "restriction" is changed by multiclassing. And one last argument: Characters never, ever "forget" how to do anything. Even a Red Wizard gets to keep spells thay already knew from now-phohibted schools. So a wizard-turned-cleric still knows how to cast opposite-alignment arcane spells. Their god might not like it much, but they do know how. And since there's no listed penalty for doing so, there's no reason why they can't do it.
SauroGrenom 05-09-07, 05:07 PM	In each of those you mention, the class is specifically mentioned in the sentence. Each of those restrictions apply specifically to the features of the class mentioned. When wearing armor, using a shield, or carrying a medium or heavy load, a monk loses her AC bonus, as well as her fast movement and flurry of blows abilities.This penalty clearly applies to monk abilities, regardless of the fact that there is an ability granted by another class with the same name. 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.Similarly this is a prohibition specifically for wizards. Note how it says it applies to wizards. In all the cases you provide, the rules specify that the restrictions are applying to the features of one class. Look:A cleric casts divine spells, which are drawn from the cleric spell list. However, his alignment may restrict him from casting certain spells opposed to his moral or ethical beliefs; see Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells, below. A cleric must choose and prepare his spells in advance (see below). Every sentence that applies specifically to cleric class features has the word cleric in the sentence. The bolded sentence doesn't specify that it applies to the cleric's abilities. Besides, this isn't an issue about a good cleric/wizard being "able" to cast evil spells. It's about that same character being "allowed" to cast evil spells. This is a restriction placed by ethical beliefs that are a part of the character, not just a part of a character class.
MindWandererB 05-09-07, 05:43 PM	Every sentence that applies specifically to cleric class features has the word cleric in the sentence. The bolded sentence doesn't specify that it applies to the cleric's abilities. Any English teacher will tell you that the pronoun "his" in that sentence refers to "a cleric," in the previous sentence. Besides, this isn't an issue about a good cleric/wizard being "able" to cast evil spells. It's about that same character being "allowed" to cast evil spells. This is a restriction placed by ethical beliefs that are a part of the character, not just a part of a character class.Exactly my point. In every other case, when a character is able but not allowed to perform a specific action, there's a penalty described for doing so. A character always has the free will to violate the ethical restrictions of their class or alignment; they just risk the consequences. In no case is a character completely prohibited from acting outside the moral requirements of a class.
SauroGrenom 05-09-07, 06:20 PM	Exactly my point. In every other case, when a character is able but not allowed to perform a specific action, there's a penalty described for doing so. A character always has the free will to violate the ethical restrictions of their class or alignment; they just risk the consequences. In no case is a character completely prohibited from acting outside the moral requirements of a class.OK, so what is the consequence for a cleric (or other divine caster) who violates their moral code? And how is it different if a character violates his moral code using abilities from one class vs abilities from another? Say that a sorcerer/paladin commits evil acts with her sorcerer spells... Then are you suggesting that the ethical code applies only to the abilities granted by paladinhood? So our sorcerer/paladin can raise all the undead she pleases with sorcerer spells and class features, with no fear of loosing the paladinhood? Or is the paladinhood restored after every fight?
Yitzi 05-09-07, 06:58 PM	And how is it different if a character violates his moral code using abilities from one class vs abilities from another? Say that a sorcerer/paladin commits evil acts with her sorcerer spells... Then are you suggesting that the ethical code applies only to the abilities granted by paladinhood? So our sorcerer/paladin can raise all the undead she pleases with sorcerer spells and class features, with no fear of loosing the paladinhood? Or is the paladinhood restored after every fight? Of course the paladin would lose class abilities for violating their code with any class's abilities. But our good druid casting an arcane protection from evil is not doing anything with loss of class abilities associated with it. A druid who acts against their alignment does not lose class abilities. Similarly a cleric who acts against their own, but not against their diety's, alignment, does not lose class abilities for it. So the analogy doesn't work.
MindWandererB 05-09-07, 07:01 PM	OK, so what is the consequence for a cleric (or other divine caster) who violates their moral code? And how is it different if a character violates his moral code using abilities from one class vs abilities from another? Say that a sorcerer/paladin commits evil acts with her sorcerer spells... Then are you suggesting that the ethical code applies only to the abilities granted by paladinhood? So our sorcerer/paladin can raise all the undead she pleases with sorcerer spells and class features, with no fear of loosing the paladinhood? Or is the paladinhood restored after every fight? This gets into the question of, is it evil to cast a spell with the [Evil] descriptor? We had already decided that a paladin can use Oil of Corrupt Weapon without problems. Raising undead would probably be another story--but it's the act that's evil, not the spell.
SauroGrenom 05-09-07, 07:28 PM	This gets into the question of, is it evil to cast a spell with the [Evil] descriptor? We had already decided that a paladin can use Oil of Corrupt Weapon without problems. Raising undead would probably be another story--but it's the act that's evil, not the spell.Meh. It's not the guns that kill people that are bad, it's the people that use guns incorrectly to kill people....blah...blah...blah... The main point is that violating an ethical standard is stated to be not allowed for clerics or divine casters. But there is the issue of free will, and the issue of the total lack of any kind of repercussion being mentioned for the violators unless they are paladins. So basically there are 3 options: 1) Ignore the ethical standard all together by reclassifying it as a class feature restriction. 2) Make the ethical standard adamant, so that the characters cannot break it. 3) Invent some repercussion for breaking the ethical standards. So which is it? I vote for not #1, and preferably #2.
MindWandererB 05-09-07, 07:38 PM	Meh. It's not the guns that kill people that are bad, it's the people that use guns incorrectly to kill people....blah...blah...blah... The main point is that violating an ethical standard is stated to be not allowed for clerics or divine casters. But there is the issue of free will, and the issue of the total lack of any kind of repercussion being mentioned for the violators unless they are paladins. So basically there are 3 options: 1) Ignore the ethical standard all together by reclassifying it as a class feature restriction. 2) Make the ethical standard adamant, so that the characters cannot break it. 3) Invent some repercussion for breaking the ethical standards. So which is it? I vote for not #1, and preferably #2. I'm strongly against #3; creating rules out of whole cloth is something we should minimize whenever possible. I'm less strongly against revoking free will, but my choice would obviously be #1 (it's a class feature restriction only). Other votes?
Yitzi 05-09-07, 07:49 PM	The main point is that violating an ethical standard is stated to be not allowed for clerics or divine casters. No it isn't. It is stated that clerics cannot violate their diety's ethical or moral standards, and that divine casters cannot cast a spell (and since this comes right after the discussion of spells, it is unclear if this means only spells of this class) opposed to their own alignment, but if a good druid commits an evil act, there is no question that there is no penalty (unless the act harms nature).
Erithmu 05-09-07, 08:02 PM	Personally I lean more in Sauro's line of thinking. If this was tabletop it would probably be #3. But I think there is some need to enforce deities (even if there are 5 million deities with magic domains) and alignment restrictions. I would probably end up in #2 which I am assuming would cross over to other spellcasting classes.
Yitzi 05-09-07, 08:18 PM	So it's 1 elder (who's also the GM) says you can, 1 elder says you can't, 2 nonelders (me, SoulLord) say you can (although I am by no means certain...RAW seems to say you can't but it's iffy, and my be affected by RAI which is almost certainly you can), and 2 nonelders (McJarvis and Erithmu) say you can't. Whatever is decided, this has to go in the list of rulings at the front of the courthouse, as it is definitely ambiguous.
NiQil 05-09-07, 09:17 PM	This is not the argument at hand, but might help offer some insight in to how the designers think it should be handled: Can a cleric/wizard lose a prepared wizard spell to spontaneously cast a cure spell? No. The cleric or druid’s spontaneous casting option applies only to spells from the same class. If the spontaneous casting option only applies to spells from the same class, then the correlation could be made that the alignment restriction on spells would also only correspond to spells from that class. I don't know if I necessarily agree with that (I haven't formed an opinion yet), but it's some food for thought.
McJarvis 05-09-07, 09:17 PM	and 2 elders (McJarvis and Erithmu) say you can't. 'Rith and I are only elders by age, just for the record ;)
hogarth 05-09-07, 09:30 PM	I know this puts me firmly in the minority here, but I like to think of the intent behind the rules and not just minute points of grammar or where a semi-colon is placed. In my mind, clerics and druids are more serious about their beliefs than other classes (to the extent that they can perform miracles), so they won't cast spells that conflict with their moral beliefs. An arcane spell of Protection from Good is just as evil as a divine one; if one is forbidden, then the other should be too. You can now return to your regular game of "It doesn't say you can!" "Oh yeah? Well it doesn't say you can't!" ;)
MindWandererB 05-09-07, 10:08 PM	I know this puts me firmly in the minority here, but I like to think of the intent behind the rules and not just minute points of grammar or where a semi-colon is placed.I resent that a bit, becauss I try to think in terms of intent, too. IMO, clerics can't cast alignment-opposed spells because their deity/source of divine power won't let them. But if they tap into a source of power other than the divine, who's to stop them?
hogarth 05-09-07, 10:26 PM	I resent that a bit, becauss I try to think in terms of intent, too. IMO, clerics can't cast alignment-opposed spells because their deity/source of divine power won't let them. I didn't specifically mean you. ;) But the point remains -- even if the god is willing to grant the spell (like a neutral good god granting a Protection from Law spell), a cleric may not be able to cast it (like a lawful good cleric of the same god). So it can't be dependant on their deity (if they have one).
Yitzi 05-09-07, 10:30 PM	'Rith and I are only elders by age, just for the record ;) Sorry, I meant to say nonelders, I fixed it. I resent that a bit, becauss I try to think in terms of intent, too. IMO, clerics can't cast alignment-opposed spells because their deity/source of divine power won't let them. But if they tap into a source of power other than the divine, who's to stop them? I think of it more as that divine spells require the caster to put more of his beliefs into it, but it comes out the same way. Each explanation has its flaws: hogarth's doesn't explain why specifically spells but not other actions, MWB's doesn't fully explain why a lawful cleric of Pelor can't cast chaotic divine spells, and mine is largely handwavium.
SauroGrenom 05-09-07, 11:24 PM	I resent that a bit, becauss I try to think in terms of intent, too. IMO, clerics can't cast alignment-opposed spells because their deity/source of divine power won't let them. But if they tap into a source of power other than the divine, who's to stop them? I think the intent of the restriction on divine spells is that classes which channel divine spells require the character to adhere to an ethos associated with that source of divine power. Clearly the divine power will not allow its power to be used in a way that is not in accordance with its ethos. Thus you get the fact that everyone is in agreement that clerical spell slots cannot be used to cast spells of an opposing alignment. However I am of the opinion that RAI is clear that clerics and other divine casters have a binding ethos that extends beyond the class features of that class. A cleric/fighter is not absolved from his clerical ethos while acting as a fighter. And a cleric/wizard is not absolved from his clerical ethos while acting as a wizard. An ethos goes beyond a class feature, and it is binding on the character's actions regardless of whether he is using class features of another class. In a TT game there are penalties for a cleric who violates his ethos (namely loosing class features until you atone). In CoCo, we don't have a DM to adjudicate those penalties. So we can either create a standardized penalty or dodge that problem by not allowing a character to violate their ethos.
MitzaVolchenko 05-10-07, 12:38 AM	I resent that a bit, becauss I try to think in terms of intent, too. IMO, clerics can't cast alignment-opposed spells because their deity/source of divine power won't let them. But if they tap into a source of power other than the divine, who's to stop them? I would tend to think that the divine source woud notice the cleric of Pelor using his wizard levels to cast spells raising the dead...or say becoming a lich (in the traditional sense, not the wonky neutral and good variants now available). This being said, I objected to the Oil of Corruption being allowed for a paladin, however the random monster chart doesn't prevent said paladin from being paired off against an LG heavenly creature. In the event of said paladin being faced off against asource of pure, heavenly, power, he ought to simply surrender honorably. However, if we make that rule then we throw out a bunch of monsters for some characters only which wreaks unholy heck with balance. So yeah, for the purpose of the arena, we kinda have to go with option one. Though, I think that restricting them as the price of playing a flappy flappy do-gooder would be nice (note that I don't play flappies, so I am kinda biased).
Vathelokai 05-10-07, 01:12 AM	Overall, this discussion reminds me of my questions about unearthed class features; can the rapid summoner take that class feature and apply it to other multiclass spell casting. The answer was uniformly 'no'. So why should a cleric class feature (it seems like a class feature to me) extend to other classes? As for intent, it seems clear that the ethos is supposed to be a guideline. This works for TT games. I think if there was a clear rule of thumb the writers would have included it, but this game wasn't written for this kind of environment. So basically there are 3 options: 1) Ignore the ethical standard all together by reclassifying it as a class feature restriction. 2) Make the ethical standard adamant, so that the characters cannot break it. 3) Invent some repercussion for breaking the ethical standards. So which is it? As for 3, the only thing mentioned in the PHB is 'gross violations' causing a loss of all cleric abilities. That depends entirely on the god granting the power, and I don't see it as reasonable to come up with a pantheon with a code of conduct for each. Looking over the evil spells... * Animate Dead * Blasphemy * Contagion * Create Greater Undead * Create Undead * Curse Water * Death Knell * Deathwatch * Desecrate * Dispel Good * Eyebite * Magic Circle against Good * Nightmare * Protection from Good * Summon Monster (when summoning evil creatures) * Symbol of Pain * Unhallow * Unholy Aura * Unholy Blight ...I could see reason for a good deity to 'look the other way' if a cleric were to cast one in certain circumstances (deathwatch, prot good). Given that we allow paladins to use oil of corrupt weapon to hunt down good outsiders that have turned to evil, I can't see a place to draw the line clearly. I'd prefer 3, but I don't see it working out well. IMO, clerics can't cast alignment-opposed spells because their deity/source of divine power won't let them. But if they tap into a source of power other than the divine, who's to stop them?In such a scenerio, I could see the deity saying 'well, if you're going to do that, then I'm not helping." I suppose you could repackage it a bit - Could a good cleric hire a neutral cleric to cast circle of prot vs good on the good cleric? Could a good cleric just drink a potion of prot vs good? eh... enough rambling. I'm leaning toward the 'adamant ethos' restriction (ie, agree with Sauro - no align prohibited spells even if they are from other classes). This would mean an overturning of the rule about paladins and their corrupt weapon oils; though I suppose that using magic items from prohibited sources could be up for debate still. Perhaps a compromise: alignment prohibited spells are banned in any class except for abjurations (assuming a good caster - prot good, circle vs good, dispel good, and unholy aura)? I know extra rules are hassles, but I think that would be a reasonable position in a TT game. For example, good druid/sorcerer gets into a brawl with a Denth summoner. What ethos would say 'sorry, I know he's summoning celestial badgers, but you're not allowed to protect yourself from those."
Macbrea 05-10-07, 10:40 AM	Does Synesthete with your eye closed counter the Darkness spell?
Yitzi 05-10-07, 12:43 PM	In a TT game there are penalties for a cleric who violates his ethos (namely loosing class features until you atone). In CoCo, we don't have a DM to adjudicate those penalties. So we can either create a standardized penalty or dodge that problem by not allowing a character to violate their ethos. So I can see why a cleric of Pelor using an arcane "create undead" would be banned, as he would lose his powers for doing so. But what about a good cleric of Boccob (NN) or a good druid using an arcane create undead? He does not lose powers for commiting evil acts, so why should he not be able to cast an evil arcane spell? Essentially, why should casting an evil arcane spell be any different than any other evil act?
McJarvis 05-10-07, 12:47 PM	What ethos would say 'sorry, I know he's summoning celestial badgers, but you're not allowed to protect yourself from those." Something similar to the kind of ethos that would say, "Look, I know he's brainwashed your sister to kill you, but that doesn't make killing her right. She's an innocent." I've always read that the alignment descriptors on spells set the tone for what kind of action morally it is to actually cast the spell. When you cast protection from Good you are creating an aura of evil around you so strong that good characters have great difficulty doing anything to you(thus the + on saves/AC/etc). There seems to be a line of thought going around the spells are merely tools for a job and do not have an alignment in and of themselves. Think for a moment about spell subtypes, though: Fire/elemental: the spell is inheriently firey/etc Mind Affecting: the spell is inheriently mind affecting. Evil/Aligned: the spell is inheriently evil/aligned. So I would say that if your good cleric was allowed to bathe in the blood of freshly killed virgins to ward off some threat that was good-aligned from attacking him, then surely he could cast the spell using arcane class features.
Yitzi 05-10-07, 01:04 PM	Well, since a good wizard can cast that spell without instantly losing his alignment, so your example is probably a bit extreme, but whatever evil act is analogous...since a good wizard can do it, and we're dealing with a divine caster who won't lose class abilities for it, therefore by your logic it should be allowed.
McJarvis 05-10-07, 01:08 PM	Well, since a good wizard can cast that spell without instantly losing his alignment, so your example is probably a bit extreme, but whatever evil act is analogous...since a good wizard can do it, and we're dealing with a divine caster who won't lose class abilities for it, therefore by your logic it should be allowed. I would say a good evil wizard, while perhaps traumatized by having to resort to such a thing, would certainly be able to bathe in freshly-killed virgin blood in order to get through a fight. A cleric, who receives his power from a higher power, might not. But he might be able to. I'm no elder-> the decision isn't mine to make. edit-> Bolded your text above. Ex-Clerics A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons. He cannot thereafter gain levels as a cleric of that god until he atones (see the atonement spell description). Descriptors: They govern how the spell interacts with[snip] alignment[snip]. All snips were only to take away excess material, nothing important :) We're talking about spells that go beyond merely magic missiling the local drunkard so you can steal his wife-> these are so evil/good/lawful/chaotic in and of themselves that they have descriptors to label them as such.
Yitzi 05-10-07, 01:26 PM	I would say a good evil wizard, while perhaps traumatized by having to resort to such a thing, would certainly be able to bathe in freshly-killed virgin blood in order to get through a fight. A cleric, who receives his power from a higher power, might not. But he might be able to. I'm no elder-> the decision isn't mine to make. No. The text says grossly violates the code of conduct required by his god. Boccob does not require a good code of conduct, even from his good worshipers. Pelor does not require a lawful code of conduct even from his lawful worshippers. And nature does not require a good code of conduct, even from good druids. I will admit that if a cleric of a good diety casts an evil spell, even an arcane spell, he may require atonement-as you say, that's not your decision to make. But that is not my question. I am asking about when only the character's alignment, not that of his diety (if any) is opposed to the spell.
McJarvis 05-10-07, 01:31 PM	I am asking about when only the character's alignment, not that of his diety (if any) is opposed to the spell. A cleric can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity’s (if he has one). A cleric can’t cast spells commit actions of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity’s (if he has one). Do you think in the make-believe SRD you would be forbidden from commiting actions of opposed alignment in general, or just actions involving abilities garnered through the cleric class? The answer to that question should answer the first.
Yitzi 05-10-07, 02:39 PM	Whoever mentioned this make-believe SRD? I never claimed a cleric cannot commit actions opposed to his own alignment-in fact, my point is that he can, without penalty (unless he does it so often it changes his alignment or is also against his diety's alignment). The facts on the table are: A cleric/druid can, without penalty: act in a manner that opposes his own alignment, so long as it does not offend his diety (or nature in the case of a druid) A cleric/druid can, but at the cost of his powers until he atones: act in a manner that offends his diety (again, nature in the case of a druid) A cleric/druid cannot (is unable to): use divine spells with a descriptor opposing his own alignment or that of his diety (in the case of a druid, his "deity" has no alignment) The question is whether a cleric/druid can: use arcane spells opposing their alignment but not that of their diety (if any).
McJarvis 05-10-07, 02:49 PM	Whoever mentioned this make-believe SRD? Breath in, breath out, wax on, wax off. I made up that quote myself, just now. My point was that the logic in both of those statements are the same, so your answer to how to impliment them in-game would be the same. I'm not saying that clerics must act in alignment-> merely using that type of language as an example. Thus the "make-believe SRD" that I produced could be used in helping understand what the real SRD is saying.
MindWandererB 05-10-07, 02:53 PM	Does Synesthete with your eye closed counter the Darkness spell? No, it does not. Synesthete lets you feel light with your skin rather than seeing it with your eyes, but if there's no light to begin with, it doesn't help.
Yitzi 05-10-07, 04:28 PM	Breath in, breath out, wax on, wax off. I made up that quote myself, just now. My point was that the logic in both of those statements are the same, so your answer to how to impliment them in-game would be the same. I'm not saying that clerics must act in alignment-> merely using that type of language as an example. Thus the "make-believe SRD" that I produced could be used in helping understand what the real SRD is saying. I see what you're saying. But "commit actions" is not normally a class-based ability for a cleric or druid, "cast spells" is. Just as the term "spell" in the immediately preceding 3 (for a cleric) or 2 (for a druid) sections in the SRD means "spell from this class" (unless you think a druid/wizard's arcane spells have a wisdom-based DC and can be sacrificed to cast SNA), so too most likely does this one. If the line about "commit actions" came after a few sections using the term "commit actions" in a way that clearly means actions from that class only, and the ability to commit actions were one of the main features of the class, then the analogy would be parallel.
Yitzi 05-10-07, 11:06 PM	So, can we have an official ruling about the matter, so we don't have to go through this whole business again? When it says (right after other things using the term "spell" in a way that means only the spells from this class) that druids and clerics cannot cast spells with descriptors opposed to their own alignment, does that mean only spells of that class, or all spells regardless of source?
MindWandererB 05-10-07, 11:12 PM	So, can we have an official ruling about the matter, so we don't have to go through this whole business again? When it says (right after other things using the term "spell" in a way that means only the spells from this class) that druids and clerics cannot cast spells with descriptors opposed to their own alignment, does that mean only spells of that class, or all spells regardless of source? Right now we have Sauro, Vath, and Telin in the "can't" camp, myself in the "can" camp, NiQil abstaining, and I can't find an opinion from Zevox. Looks like the "can't"s have it, unless anyone has any final comments. NiQil, to the Decisions!
NiQil 05-10-07, 11:18 PM	Right now we have Sauro, Vath, and Telin in the "can't" camp, myself in the "can" camp, NiQil abstaining, and I can't find an opinion from Zevox. Looks like the "can't"s have it, unless anyone has any final comments. NiQil, to the Decisions! I'll add it this weekend when I update everything. Incidently, I lean towards the "can't cast them at all, regardless of class" camp. I just hadn't had a chance to read everything on it yet, since the Council grew a second head and a third arm while I was at work today and I had to go slay that beast.
Zevox 05-10-07, 11:19 PM	and I can't find an opinion from Zevox. If you look in the tavern, you'll find plenty. The problem is, neither side has a particularly convincing argument. The wording of the feature is obviously ambiguous on the issue, and theres just no cut-and-dry RAW answer. Personally, I believe, as I said in the tavern, that it should be allowed for a multiclass Cleric/Wizard to cast wizardly spells opposed to his alignment. I won't bother giving RP justifications - as I've said in the tavern, RP-wise I disagree with the rule to begin with. In game terms, what I see is that this feature has the same ambiguous wording as the spontaneous casting ones, and we've previously ruled (correctly in my opinion) that that feature doesn't extend to spells from other classes. Therefor, I'd say that to be consistent, we must likewise rule that the spellcasting restriction class feature also does not. As I said, its not the most convincing argument out there, but none is in this regard. Zevox
MindWandererB 05-10-07, 11:52 PM	If you look in the tavern, you'll find plenty. The problem is, neither side has a particularly convincing argument. The wording of the feature is obviously ambiguous on the issue, and theres just no cut-and-dry RAW answer. Personally, I believe, as I said in the tavern, that it should be allowed for a multiclass Cleric/Wizard to cast wizardly spells opposed to his alignment. I won't bother giving RP justifications - as I've said in the tavern, RP-wise I disagree with the rule to begin with. In game terms, what I see is that this feature has the same ambiguous wording as the spontaneous casting ones, and we've previously ruled (correctly in my opinion) that that feature doesn't extend to spells from other classes. Therefor, I'd say that to be consistent, we must likewise rule that the spellcasting restriction class feature also does not. As I said, its not the most convincing argument out there, but none is in this regard. Zevox In that case, it's three to two with one abstaining. Unless NiQil develops an opinion of his own in favor of allowing it, the decision stands at "can't."
SauroGrenom 05-10-07, 11:54 PM	In that case, it's three to two with one abstaining. Unless NiQil develops an opinion of his own in favor of allowing it, the decision stands at "can't." If the GM is going to be in on these votes all the time, are we going to need another elder to make an odd number of votes?
Rauul 05-10-07, 11:57 PM	If the GM is going to be in on these votes all the time, are we going to need another elder to make an odd number of votes? the end is near... i swear... But i Agree.. MWB should be a vote only in case of a tie breaker.. Granted his opinion means alot as he is the big boss and can veto the elders if he thinks something is game breaking...
MindWandererB 05-10-07, 11:57 PM	If the GM is going to be in on these votes all the time, are we going to need another elder to make an odd number of votes? Nah. In cases of a tie, I get two votes. :) Hey, it's better than a flat-out veto.
NiQil 05-11-07, 12:18 AM	In that case, it's three to two with one abstaining. Unless NiQil develops an opinion of his own in favor of allowing it, the decision stands at "can't." Umm....see above Zevox' post. I gave my opinion LOL
MindWandererB 05-11-07, 06:31 AM	Umm....see above Zevox' post. I gave my opinion LOL Right. Okay, then that settles it.
McJarvis 05-11-07, 08:13 AM	@MWB: Do you really officially get "votes" on these issues anymore? If so, we're kinda opening the door for a hung council...
Yitzi 05-11-07, 09:57 AM	No, because MWB just said that the GM's second vote is the tiebreaker. Of course, what if the GM abstains? Perhaps then each administrator gets a vote to break the tie.
McJarvis 05-11-07, 10:01 AM	Probably the most ellegant solution would be to say MWB gets "half" a vote. Just enough influence to settle a 2v2v(absent?) elder decision, but not enough to prevent 3 elders from agreeing on anything.
Yitzi 05-11-07, 10:06 AM	He's also an elder, so he gets 1.5 votes: 1 for normal, .5 as GM. Which is the same thing as 1 vote+tiebreaker. So he can prevent 3 elders who agree on something if he can get the other 2 to agree with him. The GM should not have less power than an elder.
Zevox 05-11-07, 10:07 AM	He's also an elder No, hes not. We have only 5 Elders here, which are presently myself, Vathelokai, SauroGrenom, TelinArtho, and NiQil. MindWandererB was an Elder, but isn't any longer, now that hes GM instead. Zevox
Yitzi 05-11-07, 10:10 AM	So you think the GM should not get a vote on rules? I find that difficult...in any case, MWB said he gets 1 vote, plus a tiebreaker, and as per rule zero, that's the rule.
McJarvis 05-11-07, 10:10 AM	The GM should not have less power than an elder. The entire point of the elders is to make decisions without the GM getting involved. Don't think for a second that the GM has less power than even all five elders-> Ultimately he has the "power" to overturn any ruling he feels strongly enough about(though personally I don't see MWB doing this any time soon)
Zevox 05-11-07, 10:13 AM	So you think the GM should not get a vote on rules? Of course he does. He can veto any ruling the Elders make. I suspect his present stance is mostly so that he stays involved in the discussions and doesn't need to do the vetoing thing much, if it all. Zevox
MindWandererB 05-11-07, 12:08 PM	Of course he does. He can veto any ruling the Elders make. I suspect his present stance is mostly so that he stays involved in the discussions and doesn't need to do the vetoing thing much, if it all. Zevox That really is the general idea. It also helps that it's rarely a black-and-white vote; one person will say that they're okay with option A, but they'd prefer option B; another will say that option B is all right but they'd really like an option that wasn't even on the table, etc. And I also take community sentiment into consideration--if three elders vote for A and two for B, but five or six other players have spoken up for B, it may well be B.
SoulLord 05-11-07, 01:01 PM	The thing I find odd is protection from good having the evil descriptor. Can a good cleric use a wizard's protection from good wizard spell even though it has the evil descriptor in the RAW? yes As a cleric he cannot even pray to his god for the spell. Is a Good cleric casting protection from good (a spell with the evil descriptor) a gross violation of his ethical code. I don't think so If we were in a TT game and one of your good cleric/wizards casted a protection from good spell when he knew he would be facing good outsiders in an arena would you. A) allow it B) deny it C) allow it and then deny him his cleric powers for gross violation of his code. I personally would allow it. does this mean a good cleric should be able to cast animate dead with his wizard levels? In the Arena I would say yes the gods expect the gladiators to use every means at their disposal to further their cause. Would I allow it outside the Arena. No so that means no animate dead in quests, miniquests or campaigns only on the arena.
Yitzi 05-11-07, 01:58 PM	I would allow him to cast either one, but if his diety is also good, he would lose cleric powers for the animate dead, and possibly even the protection. But the Elder consensus is that it is not allowed.
Vathelokai 05-11-07, 05:22 PM	To reiterate my position; Since we cannot, practicably, micromanage every cleric to determine if and when they are breaking their code though use of 'evil' spells, we need a house rule that covers it entirely. We can either rule that 1) divine PC alignment only applies to 'cleric/druid stuff', or 2) divine PC alignment applies to all aspects of the character. There is no clear RAW to determine which way is correct. Option 1 is the closest to the rules; being that there are no clear rules. Option 2 seems closest to the intent of the rules (after all, why have a code of conduct if it only applies to the 'good' things you do). I choose option 2. I see the point to both rules and feel that they both work. In case of a tie, I lean toward rules as intended (and I belive the alignment codes are intended to apply to all aspects of the cleric/druids life). I would also like to restate my compromise option: all abjuration spells be allowed irregardless of alignment. Considering the nature of CoCo, I could see such a stretch from any deity. However, I do understand the arguement against it (being that the descriptors on spells define their nature, thus the casting of an evil spell is quantifiably evil, no matter the purpose).
McJarvis 05-11-07, 06:01 PM	Option 1 is the closest to the rules; being that there are no clear rules. This isn't even that clear-> What about a cleric with the magic domain? Can they use an arcane wand of "Protection from [Alignment]" or a wand of "Animate Dead"[if evil]? Overall #2 is just simpler and more elegant of a solution.
Rauul 05-12-07, 08:10 AM	wow an edit made a double post... cool
Rauul 05-12-07, 08:20 AM	I do have a Problem with the Spell Descripters being told No can use if your a cleric... Prime Example is the Spell Aid.. IF a Evil cleric casts this spell in a combat vs a Lawful Good paladin... if that really a good act.. Or is it just being smart... the Good descripter means it's a Good domain Spell.. dosen't mean it's a Good or evil act to cast the Spell.. Example.. Arguement breaks out between 2 clerics.. One of Baccob, one of Palor.. a Religous arguement (like this dosen't happen EVER).. each Good aligned.. each fighting for their Gods honor.. Why wouldn't the God grant them the Ability to protect themselves.. Protection from Good is a Evil descriptor spell... But is it an evil act to cast it.. I honestly don't think it is.... Or the neutral druid is Fighting the Good cleric.. and Starts summoning Celestrial SNA1-9 cause the cleric can't defend themselves vs them... Gods are Strict.. but they aren't fools... without Followers they are nothing.. Now if they are of the Good Domain.. then they shouldn't be alowed to cast Evil descriptor Spells [Descriptor] Appearing on the same line as the school and subschool, when applicable, is a descriptor that further categorizes the spell in some way. Some spells have more than one descriptor. The descriptors are acid, air, chaotic, cold, darkness, death, earth, electricity, evil, fear, fire, force, good, language-dependent, lawful, light, mind-affecting, sonic, and water. Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on. A language-dependent spell uses intelligible language as a medium for communication. If the target cannot understand or cannot hear what the caster of a language-dependant spell says the spell fails. A mind-affecting spell works only against creatures with an Intelligence score of 1 or higher. Just some things for you to think about when making your ruling..
Hirumajoe 05-12-07, 10:22 AM	I do have a Problem with the Spell Descripters being told No can use if your a cleric... Prime Example is the Spell Aid.. IF a Evil cleric casts this spell in a combat vs a Lawful Good paladin... if that really a good act.. Or is it just being smart... the Good descripter means it's a Good domain Spell.. dosen't mean it's a Good or evil act to cast the Spell.. Just like to point out that Aid doesn't have the [Good] descriptor. Is it on the good domain list, yes, but its not a [Good] spell. And just to be precise, having the [Good] descriptor doesn't mean its on the Good Domain spell list or vice-versa. As far as I can tell, the alignment descriptors are reserved specifically for those spells that seem to be drawing on the essence of an alignment's ideal. When you use summon monster to get a Devil, it becomes [Lawful] and [Evil] since you're calling upon the Nine Hells. Similarly for the Protection spells or the Holy Word type spells, you're calling upon some external source that epitomizes that alignment. Is it okay to use the blood of an innocent that was shed by some Devil somewhere else in a ritual of protection by a Good Cleric? Because in essence thats what you're doing. You're calling upon an EvilTM somewhere, fueled by evil thoughts and evil deeds to protect you. You may not have commited the evil yourself, but you're now using the results of that evil. For most people, like a wizard, perhaps they can justify it to themselves sometimes. But for a cleric their powers comes from the strength of their convictions. Heck, by core rules they can cast spells without even having a deity! Just enough faith in something. They're also one of the two classes with an Alignment Aura (as strong as an Outsiders I might add). How can you have absolute faith in the power of good when you need to call upon the Abyss to save yourself? Edit: And yes, I do consider casting a spell with the [Evil] descriptor to be an evil act. Do it enough times and I think the GM in a Table top game would be justified in having you switch alignments. Similarly, using an item which creates an [Evil] effect is also an evil act. Unfortunately, the Core Coliseum is somewhat unusual in that it routinely puts good against good and so forth where as that is generally a rare occurance in a table top game.
McJarvis 05-12-07, 10:29 AM	You're calling upon an EvilTM somewhere, EvilTM: We're a growth industry! :)
MitzaVolchenko 05-12-07, 01:39 PM	EvilTM: We're a growth industry! :) Yeah but the room for advancement is a little lacking, and have you ever had to deal with your HR department? *shudders*
Yitzi 05-12-07, 10:57 PM	To reiterate my position; Since we cannot, practicably, micromanage every cleric to determine if and when they are breaking their code though use of 'evil' spells, we need a house rule that covers it entirely. We can either rule that 1) divine PC alignment only applies to 'cleric/druid stuff', or 2) divine PC alignment applies to all aspects of the character. There is no clear RAW to determine which way is correct. Option 1 is the closest to the rules; being that there are no clear rules. Option 2 seems closest to the intent of the rules (after all, why have a code of conduct if it only applies to the 'good' things you do). I choose option 2. I see the point to both rules and feel that they both work. In case of a tie, I lean toward rules as intended (and I belive the alignment codes are intended to apply to all aspects of the cleric/druids life). To reiterate my response to your position, my question applies only to when the spell's alignment definitely does not violate the code of conduct required by the diety, e.g. lawful cleric of Pelor casts a chaotic spell, good druid casts an evil spell. For most people, like a wizard, perhaps they can justify it to themselves sometimes. But for a cleric their powers comes from the strength of their convictions. Heck, by core rules they can cast spells without even having a deity! Just enough faith in something. They're also one of the two classes with an Alignment Aura (as strong as an Outsiders I might add). How can you have absolute faith in the power of good when you need to call upon the Abyss to save yourself? He doesn't have absolute faith in the power of good. He has absolute faith in the power of nature, or of a True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral diety...and happens to be of good alignment himself. I do not believe a cleric of Pelor should be able to summon a devil, even with a wizard spell, (at least not without losing his powers, and perhaps this should be said not at all to avoid having to rule each time). A good druid, however, should be able to. There are really two questions here: 1. How can a cleric do something opposed to his diety's beliefs? 2. The rules under cleric and druid ban spellcasting opposed to one's alignment or that of one's diety (for a cleric). I am asking only whether #2 is a concern, or whether the context in the rules makes it clear it is only speaking of spells from this class. #1 is a seperate question, which I would think he should be able to do, but lose his cleric powers until atoned. But in some cases, #1 does not apply, but #2 does, and that is the case I'm asking about.
Vathelokai 05-12-07, 11:24 PM	To reiterate my response to your position, my question applies only to when the spell's alignment definitely does not violate the code of conduct required by the diety, e.g. lawful cleric of Pelor casts a chaotic spell, good druid casts an evil spell. Note the wording of cleric... A cleric can’t cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or his deity’s (if he has one). So if you're a lawful good cleric of a neutral good deity, you cannot cast any chaotic or evil spells. If you were a chaotic evil cleric of a true neutral deity, you could not cast good or lawful spells. If you were a true neutral cleric of a chaotic neutral deity, you could not cast lawful spells. There are really two questions here: 1. How can a cleric do something opposed to his diety's beliefs? 2. The rules under cleric and druid ban spellcasting opposed to one's alignment or that of one's diety (for a cleric). I am asking only whether #2 is a concern, or whether the context in the rules makes it clear it is only speaking of spells from this class.Well there isn't a rule for that in the SRD or PHB. So we voted (we did vote right; I'm half asleep here...), and the house rule is that the cleric/druid code applies to all abilities of the character, including but not limited to spell casting from multiclassing. So to answer; yes, #2 is a concern.
Yitzi 05-13-07, 12:21 AM	Note the wording of cleric... So if you're a lawful good cleric of a neutral good deity, you cannot cast any chaotic or evil spells. If you were a chaotic evil cleric of a true neutral deity, you could not cast good or lawful spells. If you were a true neutral cleric of a chaotic neutral deity, you could not cast lawful spells. But it doesn't violate your code of conduct if it doesn't oppose your diety's alignment, but you sounded like you were making the argument that you can't cast the spell because you would lose your powers. Well there isn't a rule for that in the SRD or PHB. So we voted (we did vote right; I'm half asleep here...), and the house rule is that the cleric/druid code applies to all abilities of the character, including but not limited to spell casting from multiclassing. So to answer; yes, #2 is a concern. Yes you did vote, the answer was that #2 is a concern, but you sounded in your earlier post like you were saying no based on #1, and Hirumajoe made an argument based on the strong aura which is definitely an aspect of #1 and does not apply in the cases I was asking about.
McJarvis 05-14-07, 09:43 AM	Does equipment resize when you use Alterself/Polymorph effects? Specifically: Weapons. I think not, but it was suggested in the tavarn that I ask here. (so that we can get a "court decision" on it)
Erithmu 05-14-07, 09:53 AM	Does equipment resize when you use Alterself/Polymorph effects? Specifically: Weapons. I think not, but it was suggested in the tavarn that I ask here. (so that we can get a "court decision" on it)I'm pretty sure not. In Complete Arcane Adventurer there is a weapon enhancement called 'sizing'? that adjusts the size of the weapon if you polymorph.
Macbrea 05-15-07, 10:34 AM	Are multi-monster fight calculated off monsters present or the EL of the encounter in CoCo? Example: ECL 5 Chart 86: 2 Worgs and 2d2-1 Goblin Warrior 2 [CR2 and CR1] Fight rolled: 2 Worgs [CR 2] + 3 Goblin warrior 2 [CR 1/2]
TelinArtho 05-15-07, 10:50 AM	All random monsters in the chart should have been removed. That result should be 2 Worgs are 2 Goblin Warrior 2 I believe (MWB will certainly know for sure...)
hogarth 05-15-07, 01:05 PM	I know we have discussed this on numerous occasions, but I'd like to get a definitive ruling: (a) For a spell with duration "Concentration", does the spell "wink out" if the caster or the effect goes out of range? (b) If the answer to (a) is "Yes", does the same apply for a spell from the Conjuration school? Note that the rules specify state that a conjured creature or object does not need to remain within range.
MindWandererB 05-15-07, 01:17 PM	Are multi-monster fight calculated off monsters present or the EL of the encounter in CoCo? Example: ECL 5 Chart 86: 2 Worgs and 2d2-1 Goblin Warrior 2 [CR2 and CR1] Fight rolled: 2 Worgs [CR 2] + 3 Goblin warrior 2 [CR 1/2] That's actually wrong on several levels. As you noticed, a goblin war2 is CR 1/2, not CR 1, so that entry would be wrong even if we were still using random rolls. It should be 2 goblin war3's. If your question is what the rewards should be, you calculate it off of the actual CR's of the monsters in question, individually, just like in a normal D&D game.
TelinArtho 05-15-07, 01:18 PM	a) Yes. So if someone is leaves the range of Matter Agitation or if you try to move a silent image out of range - they would end. b) No. Summon Swarm would not end if it moves out of the area of the range.
MindWandererB 05-15-07, 01:24 PM	I know we have discussed this on numerous occasions, but I'd like to get a definitive ruling: (a) For a spell with duration "Concentration", does the spell "wink out" if the caster or the effect goes out of range? (b) If the answer to (a) is "Yes", does the same apply for a spell from the Conjuration school? Note that the rules specify state that a conjured creature or object does not need to remain within range. Yes and yes. If the target (or effect) that you're concentrating on moves out of range, you aren't able to maintain concentration. Edit: Geez, I could have sworn this was what we'd decided on last time, but I guess that's not what Telin remembers. Didn't it go to the Court Decisions?
TelinArtho 05-15-07, 01:37 PM	The last time I see it being mentioned was by MWB in post 196 of this thread: Here's another issue that should be hashed out formally: DURATION Concentration: The power lasts as long as you concentrate on it. Concentrating to maintain a power is a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Anything that could break your concentration when manifesting a power can also break your concentration while you’re maintaining one, causing the power to end. You can’t manifest a power while concentrating on another one. Some powers may last for a short time after you cease concentrating. In such a case, the power keeps going for the given length of time after you stop concentrating, but no longer. Otherwise, you must concentrate to maintain the power, but you can’t maintain it for more than a stated duration in any event. If a target moves out of range, the power reacts as if your concentration had been broken.Now, that last line is only in the Psionics material, not in Magic. So the question is, is that line a clarification of the existing rules, or is it specific to psionics? Specific to psionics i believe. I will try to find the relevant quote in PHB or other source to indicate otherwise. Just my two cents though. From the time i was here, we've always used swarms as moving far far out of spell range and continue to concentrate on it. I'll get looking. Tellish And then we got into the heated discussion about targetting into blacklight...
McJarvis 05-15-07, 01:42 PM	That's actually wrong on several levels. As you noticed, a goblin war2 is CR 1/2, not CR 1, so that entry would be wrong even if we were still using random rolls. It should be 2 goblin war3's. He ended up fighting 2 Worg's and 3 Goblin War 1's in the fight due to my not seeing that "2" after the entry. Should I have it extended & run it with 2 Goblin War 3's?
MindWandererB 05-15-07, 01:44 PM	He ended up fighting 2 Worg's and 3 Goblin War 1's in the fight due to my not seeing that "2" after the entry. Should I have it extended & run it with 2 Goblin War 3's? <shrug> What's done is done. And it's one of the reasons we use CRs to calculate rewards. I've fixed the table for the future.
Macbrea 05-15-07, 01:44 PM	Please don't.. just void the fight if that is the case.
TelinArtho 05-15-07, 01:49 PM	As far as I can tell - the summon swarm question was brought up by me in relation to the fight between Torel and Farig on January 31st and run by TheMagister. If the FotW for that week hasn't hit the archives - I'll download it and check in there for the final resolution...
Erithmu 05-15-07, 01:51 PM	I know we have discussed this on numerous occasions, but I'd like to get a definitive ruling: (a) For a spell with duration "Concentration", does the spell "wink out" if the caster or the effect goes out of range? (b) If the answer to (a) is "Yes", does the same apply for a spell from the Conjuration school? Note that the rules specify state that a conjured creature or object does not need to remain within range. Just for reference ... I lost a fight because this was decided ... and Anakala (Telin) was the opponent ... I'm pretty sure it is in a FotW thread ... one sec ... Feb 21: And Telin argued for the spell ending Thread Starting around post 270, Rith vs Telin: Pitlord: Macbrea ... And then recants in post 297
TelinArtho 05-15-07, 02:04 PM	Right - but on post 297 - I recanted that argument after looking into it further. And obviously I was wrong about which fight the problem was about - thanks to Rith for finding it for me...
Erithmu 05-15-07, 02:12 PM	Alright then ... can we get an elder vote on this. Most of the discussion took place in that thread which is why it probably never go into the courts. 1) Spell ends once out of range 2) Spell lasts until Conc breaks
SoulLord 05-15-07, 03:28 PM	Just to add some thoughts to the discussion consider acid arrow it won't stop damaging the creature just because its outside of the range. the range & in the case of the summon swarm are only meant for the initial range afterwards the creature can move beyond teh range and not wink out of existance at least until teh concentration ends.
MindWandererB 05-15-07, 03:42 PM	Just to add some thoughts to the discussion consider acid arrow it won't stop damaging the creature just because its outside of the range. the range & in the case of the summon swarm are only meant for the initial range afterwards the creature can move beyond teh range and not wink out of existance at least until teh concentration ends. Acid arrow doesn't require you to concentrate on it. Summon Swarm does.
SoulLord 05-15-07, 06:34 PM	True but both effects can move outside of the initial range of the spell.
MindWandererB 05-15-07, 06:38 PM	True but both effects can move outside of the initial range of the spell. Right... but the entire discussion is about whether you can maintain concentration on a spell that moves out of range, per what was quoted in post #1066, above.
hogarth 05-15-07, 06:42 PM	I think the three main arguments in favor of allowing a caster to concentrate on a summoned swarm at any distance are: There isn't anything in the regular SRD that mentions a maximum distance at which you can concentrate. The part in the Psionic SRD that mentions concentration and range only mentions a target going out of range, not an effect. The wording under the Conjuration school of magic seems to supersede any restriction on range, anyways. At any rate, this issue has been debated several times (just about every time someone casts Summon Swarm), so I think it's probably time to have an Elder vote and be done with it.
SoulLord 05-15-07, 06:51 PM	Actually that it is concentration rather than a set duration I think is irrelevant here are some quotes from the srd. Concentration The spell lasts as long as you concentrate on it. Concentrating to maintain a spell is a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Anything that could break your concentration when casting a spell can also break your concentration while you’re maintaining one, causing the spell to end. You can’t cast a spell while concentrating on another one. Sometimes a spell lasts for a short time after you cease concentrating. Range A spell’s range indicates how far from you it can reach, as defined in the Range entry of the spell description. A spell’s range is the maximum distance from you that the spell’s effect can occur, as well as the maximum distance at which you can designate the spell’s point of origin. If any portion of the spell’s area would extend beyond this range, that area is wasted. Standard ranges include the following. I think that the range in the spell only means how far from you the creature can appear like in the sumon monster spells. the concentration on a spell has no range limit that I know off.
Yitzi 05-15-07, 07:05 PM	I also (for what it's worth) see no reason a concentration requirement should have any effect on range.
Usurpator 05-16-07, 06:52 PM	RANGE A spell’s range indicates how far from you it can reach, as defined in the Range entry of the spell description. A spell’s range is the maximum distance from you that the spell’s effect can occur, as well as the maximum distance at which you can designate the spell’s point of origin. If any portion of the spell’s area would extend beyond this range, that area is wasted. Standard ranges include the following. Reading literally, a spell effect can never occur beyond a spell's range, and thus any spell with a duration should cease to function beyond the indicated range. Obviously this is nonsense, since then a Bull's Strength will stop functioning as soon as the caster is not touching the recipient anymore. Some spells have a specific text which prevents them from functioning out of range like Major Image. This could indicate that other spells *can* function out of the range for the duration (the Major Image text can be considered an exception to the general rule), and that 'range' should only be taken as the 'initial range' at which a spell can be cast, and should only apply to spells with a duration of instantaneous.
Erithmu 05-16-07, 07:18 PM	Alright then ... can we get an elder vote on this. Most of the discussion took place in that thread which is why it probably never go into the courts. 1) Spell ends once out of range 2) Spell lasts until Conc breaks Lost in the mix and still waiting for (any) elder votes. Please note that this involves an already late running MQ, so I would love a vote or forgiveness in the credit department/free week of crafting for my quester if this doesn't get resolved by this weekend.
SauroGrenom 05-16-07, 08:02 PM	I think it should be 1. The reason I say this is that if you are continuing to concentrate on the spell, the range requirement remains. FOr example if you use Brain Lock on someone the power will still end if you move out of range. For most conjurations, there is no continuous magical effect required to maintain them. Usually the spells simply function autonomously. With summon swarm, there is a required caster's concentration to maintain the swarm. This continuous magical effect has a limited range.
hogarth 05-16-07, 10:36 PM	For most conjurations, there is no continuous magical effect required to maintain them. Usually the spells simply function autonomously. With summon swarm, there is a required caster's concentration to maintain the swarm. This continuous magical effect has a limited range. Sauro, I always thought you were a vocal proponent of "don't write new rules" (a sentiment I usually agree with). This really seems to be a case of writing a new rule, though -- the rules say a conjured creature is not limited by range and you're contradicting that. If a majority of Elders agree, I don't have a problem with it. I think the evidence is pretty flimsy, but it really only affects one spell (Summon Swarm).
SauroGrenom 05-16-07, 11:17 PM	Sauro, I always thought you were a vocal proponent of "don't write new rules" (a sentiment I usually agree with). This really seems to be a case of writing a new rule, though -- the rules say a conjured creature is not limited by range and you're contradicting that. If a majority of Elders agree, I don't have a problem with it. I think the evidence is pretty flimsy, but it really only affects one spell (Summon Swarm). I'm drawing a line (perhaps inappropriately) between the conjuration effect and the continuous unnamed magical effect that maintains the swarm as a cohesive single thing. I'm thinking of the spell as having two parts. One part is a conjuration that creates 5000 bats. The second part is some kind of ongoing magical effect that makes 5000 bats act together like a swarm. The conjuration itself is not limited to a particular range per-say. Rather whatever ongoing magical effect (requiring concentration) that maintains the 5000 bats to act together as a swarm has a limited range. If that ongoing magical effect goes out of range of the spell, then it would be inactivated.
Vathelokai 05-17-07, 12:37 AM	Alright then ... can we get an elder vote on this. Most of the discussion took place in that thread which is why it probably never go into the courts. 1) Spell ends once out of range 2) Spell lasts until Conc breaks I'll vote 2. Reasoning: SRD quotes on Conjuration description, Effect description, and not using the Psi-SRD to 'clarify' the base SRD. If you want me to clarify, I can, but I think this one has been pretty thoroughly debated.
TelinArtho 05-17-07, 09:40 AM	I'll take option 2 as well.
McJarvis 05-17-07, 09:46 AM	I'm thinking of the spell as having two parts. One part is a conjuration that creates 5000 bats. The second part is some kind of ongoing magical effect that makes 5000 bats act together like a swarm. So if a random encounter swarm goes into an anti-magic field it suddenly has to break apart into 5,000 different creatures? I don't see a reason to think the spell "Summon Swarm" is really "Summon Rats+bind them into a swarm" -> You're just re-writing the spell.
Zevox 05-17-07, 10:08 AM	Aye, I'll have to go with 2 as well. Same reasoning as Vath. Zevox
Erithmu 05-17-07, 10:10 AM	Sweet ... resolution. Niqil can you add this to the decisions when the world comes back online?
hogarth 05-17-07, 09:28 PM	Sweet ... resolution. Niqil can you add this to the decisions when the world comes back online? Now maybe we can return to Treetall's overdue quest, eh? ;)
Erithmu 05-17-07, 09:33 PM	Now maybe we can return to Treetall's overdue quest, eh? ;) Lemme get to tomorrow morning or later this evening ... I'm trying to finish the reading I need to do for a paper that is due next week, but we will get to it.
Yitzi 05-17-07, 09:37 PM	And mine.
TheMagister 05-19-07, 02:00 AM	Hmm. It never got ugly or anything. {shrug} You're a common-sense kinda fellow. I think you'd've agreed with me. I pretty much had an even split on the issue: Niqil and Sauro totally against, Telin for, and MWB a sympathetic "maybe". I'd actually really appreciate it if You and Vath and Telin and Sauro and Niqil and MWB revisited the issue. It starts here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=787624&page=22), post #434, and continues for 4 blisteringly interesting pages. :) Brought over from the Tavern, concerning the flurrying of touch attacks. Everything has already been said, and I don't have anything else to contribute. I'd appreciate another elder vote! Thanks! TM
Usurpator 05-19-07, 06:29 AM	I'd appreciate if the Elders could inform me if a previous ruling has been changed or reversed (in relation to the post about flurring above): Does touching any object or creature discharge a touch spell? Note: the previous Elder ruling was: yes it does. Note 2: I'm talking about touching in the broadest sense of the word, this includes unarmed strikes, attacks with natural weapons, shaking each other's hand, drawing a weapon and yes, flurrying with unarmed strikes too.
NiQil 05-19-07, 06:35 AM	I'd appreciate if the Elders could inform me if a previous ruling has been changed or reversed (in relation to the post about flurring above): Does touching any object or creature discharge a touch spell? Note: the previous Elder ruling was: yes it does. Note 2: I'm talking about touching in the broadest sense of the word, this includes unarmed strikes, attacks with natural weapons, shaking each other's hand, drawing a weapon and yes, flurrying with unarmed strikes too. Just to paraphrase my point made in the whole flurry/touch discussion... 1) When you are holding a touch spell, you are considered armed. 2) In order to use a flurry, you can only do so with special monk weapons. 3) Since a touch spell is not classified as a special monk weapon allowed in a flurry, you cannot discharge a touch spell as a part of a flurry, similar to how you cannot make an attack with a greatsword as a part of a flurry. So my vote is that no, a touch spell can not be discharged as a part of a flurry.
Usurpator 05-19-07, 06:54 AM	Just to paraphrase my point made in the whole flurry/touch discussion... 1) When you are holding a touch spell, you are considered armed. 2) In order to use a flurry, you can only do so with special monk weapons. 3) Since a touch spell is not classified as a special monk weapon allowed in a flurry, you cannot discharge a touch spell as a part of a flurry, similar to how you cannot make an attack with a greatsword as a part of a flurry. So my vote is that no, a touch spell can not be discharged as a part of a flurry. NiQil, You did not answer my question. I can see where you are coming from, and perfectly happy to follow the logic of your ruling where it concerns flurries. My question was simply if a touch spell still discharges upon any touch, voluntary, involuntary, flurry, no flurry, attack, no attack, the type of touch is irrelevant to my question. The old ruling was that a touch spell discharges even if you don't attack with it as such. Just forget about 'flurry' for now. I want to know if my touch spell still discharges if I draw my greatsword or shake hands with my ally. It is just that a affirmative answer implies that it also discharges on a flurry, unless you want to argue that using a flurry somehow magically blocks this peculiar property of touch spells. To support your ruling you simply gotta strike the peculiar property of touch spells to discharge on any touch.
NiQil 05-19-07, 07:04 AM	NiQil, You did not answer my question. I can see where you are coming from, and perfectly happy to follow the logic of your ruling where it concerns flurries. My question was simply if a touch spell still discharges upon any touch, voluntary, involuntary, flurry, no flurry, attack, no attack, the type of touch is irrelevant to my question. The old ruling was that a touch spell discharges even if you don't attack with it as such. Just forget about 'flurry' for now. I want to know if my touch spell still discharges if I draw my greatsword or shake hands with my ally. It is just that a affirmative answer implies that it also discharges on a flurry, unless you want to argue that using a flurry somehow magically blocks this peculiar property of touch spells. To support your ruling you simply gotta strike the peculiar property of touch spells to discharge on any touch. Actually, I don't have to do any such thing. Using a touch spell prevents flurrying, not the other way around. So if you have a touch spell charged, you are still very much at risk of discharging the spell accidentally, just as the touch spell description indicates. That in no way means that a touch spell can be accidentally discharged in a flurry, because you simply can't flurry with the appendage that is holding the charge. Monks are still free to flurry with knees, elbows, feet, etc...but they cannot use the hand that holds the touch spell as a part of the flurry, because the touch spell prevents it. So, in answer to your question, yes, accidental discharge of a touch spell is still very much possible.
Usurpator 05-19-07, 08:12 AM	Actually, I don't have to do any such thing. Using a touch spell prevents flurrying, not the other way around. So if you have a touch spell charged, you are still very much at risk of discharging the spell accidentally, just as the touch spell description indicates. That in no way means that a touch spell can be accidentally discharged in a flurry, because you simply can't flurry with the appendage that is holding the charge. Monks are still free to flurry with knees, elbows, feet, etc...but they cannot use the hand that holds the touch spell as a part of the flurry, because the touch spell prevents it. So, in answer to your question, yes, accidental discharge of a touch spell is still very much possible. That sounds really funny. So you believe the charge of the touch spells somehow magically prevents (paralyzes/disables) a Monk's appendage so that he is unable to use it in a flurry (but still is able to use it in a regular unarmed attack sequence). So, if I charge my left index finger with a touch spell, I can slap someone with my hand, but my left index finger is magically prevented from touching my opponent by the spell? How about grappling? Does a grapple automatically discharge a held touch spell. Or are you also prevented from grappling (or tripping) for that matter with said appendages if they are charged with a touch spell. I'm just confused now, it doesn't make sense. Does being charged with a touch spell magically prevent you from taking other actions as well? Ok, weird example: Let's say a Monk is charged with a touch spell, then Forget is cast on him and he doesn't know his hands are charged with said spell. He attacks, tries to flurry (using his hands as well, as he is trained to do), but the magical force of the touch spell binds his hands and prevents him from using them? Or a magical force from the touch spell mentally influences him not to use his hands? The touch spell feels like a weighted weapon in his hands preventing them from lifting them properly? As I understand it, a Monk cannot flurry *with* a touch spell, since it is an illegal weapon, fine. But he can flurry just fine while holding a touch spell just as he can flurry just fine when holding a greatsword. But when he is not flurrying *with* a touch spell, said spell will still discharge (involuntarily) as soon as he touches his opponent. The touch spell does not magically bind his appendage to prevent accidental touching when he's flurrying. Note that you are saying that a touch spell does not prevent flurrying, you are claiming that it just (magically) prevents the Monk from using a charged appendage in the flurry. Also note that an 'appendage' for a touch spell is as broad as you can make it. If you are charged with a touch spell, changing shape does not invalidate the touch spell. Ooze wizards can still deliver touch spells even though they lack distinct appendages.
Hirumajoe 05-19-07, 08:22 AM	Actually, I don't have to do any such thing. Using a touch spell prevents flurrying, not the other way around. So if you have a touch spell charged, you are still very much at risk of discharging the spell accidentally, just as the touch spell description indicates. That in no way means that a touch spell can be accidentally discharged in a flurry, because you simply can't flurry with the appendage that is holding the charge. Monks are still free to flurry with knees, elbows, feet, etc...but they cannot use the hand that holds the touch spell as a part of the flurry, because the touch spell prevents it. So, in answer to your question, yes, accidental discharge of a touch spell is still very much possible. Here's the thing, a charge spell is not restricted to a single appendage. In principle, its triggered by any natural or unarmed attack, otherwise natural attacks would never risk accidently discharging touch spells at all. If a monk has this special ability to simply not use the charged appendage, why can't a creature with natural attacks? Its clearly using a specific appendage (a Claw, a bite, a tail). In your case, the monk must be declaring one of his hands as the charged spell. Can a dragon declare his right claw charged, and then simply go on to attack with his bite, other claw, and tail? If he can't, then a monk can't declare his right hand charged. Holding the Charge If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the discharge of the spell (hold the charge) indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. (If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack.) If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.
NiQil 05-19-07, 09:53 AM	After spending a couple of hours reading material regarding flurrying and touch attacks, I am going to withdraw my vote. I am now undecided which way the ruling should be. I can make logical arguments for both sides of the equation. So I am going to abstain and will go along with whatever the other Elders decide.
Vathelokai 05-19-07, 10:33 AM	TheMagister's Original Argument... And More... and More... and More When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham). She may attack with unarmed strikes and special monk weapons interchangeably as desired. ... The monk can’t use any weapon other than a special monk weapon as part of a flurry of blows. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. Link TM's argument makes perfect sense if you allow this. For instance, this would involve a "suite" of the following options: 1) Manifest Dissolving Weapon on a guisarme and use it to trip. The DW is discharged and deals its damage if the touch attack is successful. 2) With a guisarme with the Flaming property, do the same. Since "A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit," the touch attack would do the 1d6 fire damage. 3) You don't actually have to perform a trip attempt or use a trip weapon to accomplish these things--you can just declare the attack as a touch attack that deals no damage. (There is precedent for this in Tome of Battle, BTW.) 4) All of the above would apply to any sort of "rider" effect that does not involve dealing damage. Spell Storing requires damage, but most other abilities do not. Psionic Weapon and Deepcrystal are unclear--they don't say you must deal damage, but it does refer to their effects as "additional damage," which implies it. 5) Optional--this could potentially apply to ranged attacks as well. Link My position is that a touch attack is a kind of weapon (usually a spell) in all cases except the grapple attempt and trip attempt where the touch attack is part of an attack of a different nature. The Touch Attack weapon is not a monk weapon. This kind of interpretation makes sense in the way that touch attacks do not provoke AoO's and they can be used to threaten an area. ... We cannot allow this kind of stuff. It contradicts the rules in other places. So to prevent it, I suggest the following... Q: What is a touch attack and how does it interact with attack options like a monk's Flurry of Blows? A: In most cases touch attack is considered a melee weapon that does not require proficiency (usable by any creature). It is not a monk weapon. It cannot be used in a flurry, although touch attacks can be delivered by unarmed strikes which can be used in a flurry (against the target's normal AC not touch AC). In special attack forms like grappling and trip attacks touch attacks are rolled, but they are not considered to be weapons (and thus a monk can use these attack forms in a flurry). Link Clearly Ranged Touch Attacks (Rays) are weapons for the purposes of feats and modifiers to weapon damage and attack rolls, why not melee touch attacks? The rules don't specificity state that melee touch attacks are weapons, but it's implied in a couple places. Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. However, the act of casting a spell does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack. Your opponent’s AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally. Clearly it's an armed attack, and you are armed with what? Obviously you are armed with the spell as the weapon. Not all touch attacks are armed touch attacks, but if you have a touch spell going you are armed, and it's with a weapon of some kind. That weapon is a spell effect. The two kinds of touch (melee and range) spells should be treated the same, in my opinion. Treat them both as weapon in their own right. It allows us to remove previous "clarifications" about familiars and psicrystal delivering touch spells. There are horrible broken implications to allowing a monk to flurry with touch attacks and ignore the weapon in the situation. For example a monk can wield a non-monk guisarme or spiked chain and flurry with trip attempts. Or if you want to say that only spells don't count as weapons for the purpose of flurry of blows, the a Psion Monk could flurry with quickened energy rays or quickened dissolving touch applied on 8 different parts of his body. This is so utterly broken that the more I think about it the more it seems ridiculous to even consider allowing monks to flurry touch spells. Link My opinion is what started this discussion, and I have seen nothing here that has changed my mind. My logic is very simple. When holding a touch spell charge, you are considered armed. You can only flurry with unarmed strikes or special monk weapons. Since you are considered armed with a touch spell, you are neither using unarmed strikes nor using special monk weapons, therefore you cannot flurry with a touch spell. I have already stated that I believe that monks can flurry touch attacks....just not touch attacks while holding a charge, because holding the charges cause you to be considered armed for the purposes of attacking. A fine, but distinct difference.
Vathelokai 05-19-07, 10:59 AM	Alrighty; here's my summary of thought... Part 1 Monks can flurry with monk weapons. Charged touch attacks count as armed attacks. An armed touch attack is not a type of arm (i.e. weapon) that can be used in a flurry. Part 2 Charged touch attacks encompass the whole body, and any accidental touch with any part of the body triggers the charge. A monk's whole body is considered a monk weapon. Part 3 Choosing to make a touch attack with a non-touch weapon is allowed and clarified in non-core sources. The FAQ clarifies that if you touch as a free action (i.e. part of another action like grapple, trip, etc.) that you discharge a charged touch attack. The FAQ clarifies that a monk may flurry with special attack actions (grapple, trip, etc.). Responses Part 1: I have to agree with Sauro here. The rule states that a charged touch attack is treated as an armed attack. The rule doesn't specify (to my knowledge) that this only means it threatens space. Since 'weapon' feats can also apply to this, I must assume that the charge is to be treated as a weapon. This weapon is not on the monk list, thus is ineligable for flurry. Part 2: Following from Part 1, this would mean that if a monk has a touch spell active, the monk simply cannot use flurry of blows for some reason. Although this seems to be RAW, it seems quite odd to me (and is contradicted by the FAQ; see below). Also, this invalidates the claim that you can hold a charge and attack with another limb; Any and all limbs are covered by the charge. Part 3: Here the FAQ contradicts the SRD, saying that you can use a monk flurry to discharge a touch attack, but only if the touch attack is a free action that is part of another action. Also, non core sources imply that you can flurry-touch. Result The problem we are facing here is one of contradictory rules. In such a case we have no option but to make a house rule/clarification. Options A: If the FAQ and splat books contradict the SRD, it implies that the writers have changed/updated the rules. We could go with their (assumed) intent and say that flurry-charged-touch spells work as TM believes. B: A strict reading of the FAQ gives the impression that you cannot intentionally use a charge touch in a flurry, but if you 'inadverntantly' touch someone as part of another act, you can flurry with it. Note: this contradicts/clarifies part 1 above. Obviously if you can flurry to grapple while charged, you can flurry while charged. Thus, why can't you make use of the rule allowing charged non-touch attacks? C: We can come up with our own houserule. I'll put some thought into a reasonable on, and post later. Still withholding a vote until I have more time to think on it. EDIT* It just seems preposterous to me that a monk with the imp. grapple feat is allowed to purposefully touch someone on accident as part of a flurry (to start a grapple which the monk intends to fail to enter).
SauroGrenom 05-19-07, 11:52 AM	Vath, Your Part 2 strikes me as silly. I'm not sure from the way you present it if you agree with what's listed there or not, but I must point out the following. If your whole body is "charged" by a touch spell and a touch spell is discharged by any and all accidental touches, then your cloths, equipment or the ground will discharge the spell. That's just silly, and makes it impossible to use any touch spells unless you are naked and flying. Clearly the "charge" must be located on some particular part of your body (like a hand or claw or tentacle).
Usurpator 05-19-07, 12:06 PM	If your whole body is "charged" by a touch spell and a touch spell is discharged by any and all accidental touches, then your cloths, equipment or the ground will discharge the spell. That's just silly, and makes it impossible to use any touch spells unless you are naked and flying. Clearly the "charge" must be located on some particular part of your body (like a hand or claw or tentacle). Sauro, while it certainly makes sense that the charges must be located on a particular part of the body, there is no source bases in the rules for this standpoint as far as I am aware. It also seems that if only a part of the body gets 'charged' the caster is free to decide what part. Obviously, it cannot default to something like 'hand'. If the caster can choose any part, and even an very small part is enough, then the 'accidental touching' problem is virtually meaningless. Also, in such a case the caster can specify 'my hands, arms and torso' making accidental touches virtually garantueed in normal cases. I think D&D rules like to treat touch spells as an abstract power, where you don't need to specifiy exactly with what you touch and how the charge is held. It just becomes a problem because of that stupid 'accidental discharge' rule. As I asked before, what is accidental touching really? Can you even cast touch spells underwater? Does a liquid count as an object? How about a Water Elemental? Your own clothes, are they 'touch-able objects'? If I am an Air elemental wizard, and thus possess an essentially amorphous homogenous body, what part of my body should I choose to touch, and what happens with Air Elemental Wizard/Monks who want to use flurry of blows? @Vath: excellent summary! I think a house rule is needed. Either one that allows flurried touch attacks, or one that discards the 'accidental touches' rule.
Vathelokai 05-19-07, 12:07 PM	Vath, Your Part 2 strikes me as silly. I'm not sure from the way you present it if you agree with what's listed there or not, but I must point out the following. If your whole body is "charged" by a touch spell and a touch spell is discharged by any and all accidental touches, then your cloths, equipment or the ground will discharge the spell. That's just silly, and makes it impossible to use any touch spells unless you are naked and flying.I agree that it is silly. However, that seems (to me) to be the writing of the rules. The arguement and request for clarification on this point has been brought up by Usurpator in the past. Shall we clarify it now?Clearly the "charge" must be located on some particular part of your body (like a hand or claw or tentacle). I don't think it's clear.
SauroGrenom 05-19-07, 12:23 PM	Look there's noting in the rules that says a character has to sleep or eat... ever. Or even breath unless you're underwater or inside of a gass cloud of some kind. So should we assume that everyone just walks around not breathing until they find themselves inside of a gas cloud? Of if we allow this preposterous accidental discharge idea to go to the logical extreme, then you can cast chill touch and when the monk grapples you... BAM.. chill touch to him. It wasn't even your action, and you never made any touch attack, but that's an accidental discharge. Shoot now that wands are free, everyone can get a wand of shocking grasp CL5 and "accidentally" touch their grappling foe over and over w/o needing a touch attack. You simply cannot use this as a viable interpretation. It results in touch spells being largely meaningless, and strangely enough also preposterously overpowered.
Macbrea 05-19-07, 12:52 PM	to quote the SRD: Humanoids breathe, eat, and sleep.
SauroGrenom 05-19-07, 12:54 PM	to quote the SRD: Humanoids breathe, eat, and sleep.So does that mean that humanoids are always breathing, eating and sleeping? Does every adventurer dream and snore there way through ever battle with a sandwich in hand?
Vathelokai 05-19-07, 12:57 PM	Of if we allow this preposterous accidental discharge idea to go to the logical extreme, then you can cast chill touch and when the monk grapples you... BAM.. chill touch to him. It wasn't even your action, and you never made any touch attack, but that's an accidental discharge. Shoot now that wands are free, everyone can get a wand of shocking grasp CL5 and "accidentally" touch their grappling foe over and over w/o needing a touch attack. Actually, this is what I thought the rules were. I do agree with you. I'm just saying that there is no rule for it. We can assume that it's stored in a hand, or in the whole skin, or in a limb of choice, or in one fingernail. But these are assumptions. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. There's the whole rule. How are we going to use it? - you can store the charge wherever you wish and can change it's location as a free action - you can store the charge in any location you wish, but cannot change it after the spell is cast - you must store the charge in the distal 10% of the limb of your choice - you must store the charge in the right hand/claw or psuedopod - clarify: how large of a space does the charge take up? 1 inch3, 10% of a limb, the skin portion of a hand or claw or psuedopod - what is accidental touching? Can you draw a weapon after you charge your hand? If you are already touching something (gloves, a weapon, etc.) is the charge expended automaticly? We should realy send this one to the sage when we're done.
MitzaVolchenko 05-19-07, 12:58 PM	So does that mean that humanoids are always breathing, eating and sleeping? Does every adventurer dream and snore there way through ever battle with a sandwich in hand? No, but there are rules for starvation and exhaustion when you push beyond your normal allowable movement rates, activity cycle, etc. And we all know that there are rules for suffocation and drowning :)
Usurpator 05-19-07, 03:16 PM	So does that mean that humanoids are always breathing, eating and sleeping? Does every adventurer dream and snore there way through ever battle with a sandwich in hand? No there aren't rules for that. And I don't need rules for that. The only thing I can say is that one of my characters was ruled to accidentally discharge his touch spell because he wielded his Greatsword, something I did not expect. Elders ruled that any touch would discharge the spell, and there was no way I could use or wield anything while charged. Now Elders seem to rule I can touch my opponent as a Monk while I have a touch spell charged, and not accidentally release the charge, while I (once again) expected the rule to behave differently. Many people here have different interpretation. I think the message should be clear Sauro, the rule isn't clear and needs clarification. No need to get condescending, I don't think our question are too much to ask. In most cases I don't much care exactly what decision is made, as long as it makes sense, is clear and internally consistent. But it is important to me to know what the rules are in advance, and currently I don't know what they are concerning touch spells
McJarvis 05-19-07, 06:17 PM	No need to get condescending Just FYI-> Sauro doesn't know how to "not be condescending" ;)
Salrantol 05-19-07, 07:02 PM	Apparently, nobody even read Hirumajoe's quote from the "Actions in Combat" portion of the SRD (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/actionsInCombat.html). I took it out of sblocks so you might notice it. I also added an underline for extra emphasis. Holding the Charge If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the discharge of the spell (hold the charge) indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. (If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack.) If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.There's no question. It's unequivocal RAW that you can make a "normal unarmed attack" (which is a monk special weapon) with a touch spell held. As it says, though, it's a normal unarmed attack, so you'll still have to hit the normal AC if you want to use it in a flurry, it appears.
MindWandererB 05-19-07, 07:28 PM	There's no question. It's unequivocal RAW that you can make a "normal unarmed attack" (which is a monk special weapon) with a touch spell held. As it says, though, it's a normal unarmed attack, so you'll still have to hit the normal AC if you want to use it in a flurry, it appears.You're right; there is no question about whether this is allowed. We've been playing it that way. The question is whether you can make a touch attack with an unarmed strike (like, as I suggested before, you can make a touch attack with a guisarme to trip somebody), and if that will discharge the spell/power. As far as I'm concerned, there are three ways of dealing with this issue:Any attack with any "charged" weapon, including a touch attack, discharges the charge to its normal effect. So a Dissolving Weapon'ed guisarme used to trip would deal its acid damage, and a monk with Hammer running would be able to flurry touch attacks with it (to grapple, trip, or to no effect at all). Any attack with any "charged" weapon, including a touch attack, discharges the charge, but without effect. It's like drawing a weapon or touching the ground while holding a charge; it's basically wasted. If you hold a spell charge and then try to trip, the spell is lost. "Charges" can only be delivered in the prescribed manner, and nothing happens if you do something else. If you make a unarmed touch attack to trip while holding a spell charge, then you're still holding the charge afterwards. And if you use a guisarme with Dissolving Weapon to trip, it's still charged with acid, which you can use on the follow-up attack (if you have Improved Trip).As far as I'm concerned, all of these are reasonable interpretations of the rules. All have merits, all have flaws. But I will ask the community (i.e. elders) to choose one of these options; as I mentioned before, spell charges, weapon "bonus-on-touch" effects, and so on should all be treated the same way.
NiQil 05-19-07, 07:37 PM	My vote would be for 3, as I think it most closely resembles the intent of the various rules on the issue. However, I would be willing to support 1, should that garner more support.
TheMagister 05-19-07, 08:27 PM	I'm thankful for all the discussion that's gone into this issue (again!). You guys all know that I choose Option 1 for a couple reasons: 1) it makes RAW sense (to my giant 6th grade educated brain), and; 2) it makes logical sense (holding a magically flaming sword [or even a torch, for that matter] to a piece of parchment would cause the piece of parchment to catch fire). @Niqil - I'd really appreciate it if you'd come down off the fence. ;) Making the tough decisions is tough. It's what you're there for, Mr. Elder. If you're honestly divided, make your decision based on the effect of the ruling on the community. I couldn't possibly hold that against you with any justification (not that you care what I or anyone else thinks of you).
NiQil 05-19-07, 09:14 PM	I'm thankful for all the discussion that's gone into this issue (again!). You guys all know that I choose Option 1 for a couple reasons: 1) it makes RAW sense (to my giant 6th grade educated brain), and; 2) it makes logical sense (holding a magically flaming sword [or even a torch, for that matter] to a piece of parchment would cause the piece of parchment to catch fire). @Niqil - I'd really appreciate it if you'd come down off the fence. ;) Making the tough decisions is tough. It's what you're there for, Mr. Elder. If you're honestly divided, make your decision based on the effect of the ruling on the community. I couldn't possibly hold that against you with any justification (not that you care what I or anyone else thinks of you). Ummmm...isn't that what I just did? Or did you not see the post above yours? I stated my opinion, but stated that I would be willing to support another option, should others not share my opinion.
hogarth 05-19-07, 09:23 PM	As far as I'm concerned, there are three ways of dealing with this issue:[list=1]Any attack with any "charged" weapon, including a touch attack, discharges the charge to its normal effect. So a Dissolving Weapon'ed guisarme used to trip would deal its acid damage, and a monk with Hammer running would be able to flurry touch attacks with it (to grapple, trip, or to no effect at all). This is the only point which I don't understand -- where in the rules does it say you can do a touch attack to do nothing? Does such a hypothetical touch attack provoke an attack of opportunity like the others do?
TheMagister 05-19-07, 09:57 PM	Ummmm...isn't that what I just did? Or did you not see the post above yours? I stated my opinion, but stated that I would be willing to support another option, should others not share my opinion. My misunderstanding of your post, then. I read it to say that you felt one way but would change your mind if enough people felt differently. {Someone should put up a sign next to my monitor: Don't poke the Niqil}
NiQil 05-19-07, 10:07 PM	My misunderstanding of your post, then. I read it to say that you felt one way but would change your mind if enough people felt differently. {Someone should put up a sign next to my monitor: Don't poke the Niqil} More to the point...don't drink the NiQil..or NyQuil if you prefer. "Are you drunk?" "No, I have a cold. I can't seem to shake it. I'm high as a kite and my teeth are green...Merry F'n Christmas!" credit: Denis Leary - No Cure For Cancer
Yitzi 05-19-07, 10:39 PM	I vote 1 (although it still does not discharge if your attack result is lower than the touch AC, of course). Also, I assume the Produce Flame druid spell is subject to the same debate, even though it does not "discharge" (i.e. it's still in effect) on a successful touch attack?
Zevox 05-20-07, 07:29 PM	I've got to admit, some of this RAW discussion about the whole issue has probably gone over my head. I can't keep up with all of it, especially since some of it quickly ceases to make sense. (Ergo why I've taken so long to respond.) With MWB simplifying it to those options, I'd favor option #1. I don't know if its the most RAW answer, but its the most logical one, and the way I've always thought the rules worked anyway. Zevox
TheMagister 05-20-07, 07:58 PM	Of if we allow this preposterous accidental discharge idea to go to the logical extreme, then you can cast chill touch and when the monk grapples you... BAM.. chill touch to him. It wasn't even your action, and you never made any touch attack, but that's an accidental discharge. Shoot now that wands are free, everyone can get a wand of shocking grasp CL5 and "accidentally" touch their grappling foe over and over w/o needing a touch attack. I felt a need to respond to this. Touch spells cannot be discharged when someone (something) else touches the holder of the touch spell. They can only be discharged as a result of an action (or forced action -- see below) taken by the holder of the touch spell. A shocking grasp touch spell is not a fire shield spell. For the RAW: PHB (glossary): Touch Spell: A spell that delivers its effect when the caster touches a target creature or object. Touch spells are delivered to unwilling targets by touch attacks. There's also a clarification somewhere that flat-out states that a touch spell is not automatically delivered just because a holder of the touch spell is contacted in melee. Otherwise, a wizard holding the charge on a shocking grasp spell would incinerate the first sword that touched him. If the wizard were grappled by an opponent, the touch spell still would not discharge. The wizard has to make a touch attack to deliver the spell. It doesn't matter what kind of touch attack it is, but he has to offensively touch his opponent. His opponent (if an accomplished grappler) could even use the "attack your opponent with his own light weapon" to zap the wizard with his own shocking grasp! If a wizard holding the charge on a shocking grasp picked up a sword, that would discharge the spell, because it was an "offensive" action that the wizard initiated. He basically made an automatically successful "touch attack" to hit the sword. I still can't find a way to access the darned FAQ without a direct link to the Adobe page. Could someone shoot that link to me via PM? I can open the Adobe doc, but I can't open the page the Adobe doc is ON. TM
SauroGrenom 05-20-07, 08:01 PM	I vote #3.
Yitzi 05-20-07, 08:39 PM	Also, I assume the Produce Flame druid spell is subject to the same debate, even though it does not "discharge" (i.e. it's still in effect) on a successful touch attack? bump (And I saw something in the Tavern that implied I might be wrong, so I would like this clarified)
Usurpator 05-21-07, 12:48 PM	Touch spells cannot be discharged when someone (something) else touches the holder of the touch spell. They can only be discharged as a result of an action (or forced action -- see below) taken by the holder of the touch spell. So, when we shake hands, are you touching me, I am touching you, both? If we both have touch spells running, which ones will go off? If a sword falls from the sky into my hand, does my touch spell go off? Can someone else put a sword in my hand without the touch spell going off? Either the touch spell goes off *only when you consciously desire it* or it can go off *regardless of your intent or awareness*. I'm for the first option, the involuntary discharge is a complete nonsense rule. It also makes sense if you have to concentrate briefly to deliver the charge from a touch spell, meaning it doesn't mix when you need to concentrate on something else (like performing a flurry). If I were an Elder, I think I would vote for #3, since I think the 'accidental discharge' rule makes even less sense then the 'no-flurry with touch spells' rule. They can't both stay. Edit note: MWB, if #3 is chosen, I will scrap any accidental discharges in the fights I act as Pitlord, and feel other Pitlord's should do to. No point in tripping or grappling with someone and not discharging, but then discharging when you draw your sword. Otherwise I suppose I could try to 'grapple' my sword to draw it without discharge I guess, or perhaps 'disarm' myself of my own weapon to bypass accidental discharge?
MindWandererB 05-21-07, 01:46 PM	bump (And I saw something in the Tavern that implied I might be wrong, so I would like this clarified) Right... Produce Flame isn't a touch spell in a traditional sense. Rather, it creates a weapon that uses touch attacks to resolve hits. So it can't be delivered by an unarmed strike at all.
Yitzi 05-21-07, 01:57 PM	And by the same token, I assume it can't be flurried?
MindWandererB 05-21-07, 02:01 PM	And by the same token, I assume it can't be flurried? Right.
templer10 05-21-07, 02:04 PM	Right. but it can be rapid shotted which is rather cute.
Vathelokai 05-21-07, 07:48 PM	As far as I'm concerned, there are three ways of dealing with this issue:Any attack with any "charged" weapon, including a touch attack, discharges the charge to its normal effect. So a Dissolving Weapon'ed guisarme used to trip would deal its acid damage, and a monk with Hammer running would be able to flurry touch attacks with it (to grapple, trip, or to no effect at all). Any attack with any "charged" weapon, including a touch attack, discharges the charge, but without effect. It's like drawing a weapon or touching the ground while holding a charge; it's basically wasted. If you hold a spell charge and then try to trip, the spell is lost. "Charges" can only be delivered in the prescribed manner, and nothing happens if you do something else. If you make a unarmed touch attack to trip while holding a spell charge, then you're still holding the charge afterwards. And if you use a guisarme with Dissolving Weapon to trip, it's still charged with acid, which you can use on the follow-up attack (if you have Improved Trip). I'll vote 1.
Vathelokai 05-21-07, 07:50 PM	Actually, this is what I thought the rules were. I do agree with you. I'm just saying that there is no rule for it. We can assume that it's stored in a hand, or in the whole skin, or in a limb of choice, or in one fingernail. But these are assumptions. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. There's the whole rule. How are we going to use it? - you can store the charge wherever you wish and can change it's location as a free action - you can store the charge in any location you wish, but cannot change it after the spell is cast - you must store the charge in the distal 10% of the limb of your choice - you must store the charge in the right hand/claw or psuedopod - clarify: how large of a space does the charge take up? 1 inch3, 10% of a limb, the skin portion of a hand or claw or psuedopod - what is accidental touching? Can you draw a weapon after you charge your hand? If you are already touching something (gloves, a weapon, etc.) is the charge expended automaticly? We should realy send this one to the sage when we're done. Could we also resolve this quickly; it's kind of a side note, but I'd like to have a ruling since it's so vague.
TheMagister 05-22-07, 04:59 AM	Niqil: #3, or #1 if there's a split. Vath: #1 Telin: haven't heard, but #1 from last time. Sauro: #3 Zevox: #1 MWB: -- Re: Vath's question - I would push for his second interpretation, with this caveat: -unless the spell designates a specific appendage, you can store the charge on any body part you wish but cannot change it after the spell is cast. The default location is the caster's primary appendage if no particular appendage is specially designated. Or something to that effect. It would mean that a caster could declare that he's "storing" the charge in his primary hand and still draw a wand with his off hand.
hogarth 05-22-07, 06:49 AM	You're right; there is no question about whether this is allowed. We've been playing it that way. The question is whether you can make a touch attack with an unarmed strike (like, as I suggested before, you can make a touch attack with a guisarme to trip somebody), and if that will discharge the spell/power. As far as I'm concerned, there are three ways of dealing with this issue:[list=1]Any attack with any "charged" weapon, including a touch attack, discharges the charge to its normal effect. So a Dissolving Weapon'ed guisarme used to trip would deal its acid damage, and a monk with Hammer running would be able to flurry touch attacks with it (to grapple, trip, or to no effect at all). MWB -- can we get some clarification on how a touch attack "to no effect at all" works? Does it provoke an attack of opportunity like a grab or trip attempt does?
MindWandererB 05-22-07, 01:27 PM	MWB -- can we get some clarification on how a touch attack "to no effect at all" works? Does it provoke an attack of opportunity like a grab or trip attempt does?That's a good question. Since you're basically just trting to hit with an unarmed strike, but not bothering to bypass/penetrate armor or natural armor, then as long as you have IUS there should be no AoO.
McJarvis 05-22-07, 01:33 PM	That's a good question. Since you're basically just trting to hit with an unarmed strike, but not bothering to bypass/penetrate armor or natural armor, then as long as you have IUS there should be no AoO. Given that even with IUAS you provoke for trying to trip or grapple, I think the "conservative" estimate would be that it always provokes an AoO. [No feat to revoke] edit-> I am, of course, thinking more of the cases of a poison immune creature trying to deliver contact poison with their fist.
MindWandererB 05-22-07, 02:25 PM	Given that even with IUAS you provoke for trying to trip or grapple, I think the "conservative" estimate would be that it always provokes an AoO. [No feat to revoke] edit-> I am, of course, thinking more of the cases of a poison immune creature trying to deliver contact poison with their fist.If we went that way, then we'd have people with Improved Grapple who were trying to touch, then voluntarily failing their grapple check. (Trip, less so, because of the countertrip possibility). Contact poison "can be actively delivered via a weapon or a touch attack." A monk's unarmed strike is both. It definitely falls into this same category. The question is, once again, whether you can flurry an unarmed touch attack in this instance. Since this particular quote says nothing about such a touch attack provoking an AoO, it supports the notion that it wouldn't.
McJarvis 05-22-07, 02:27 PM	If we went that way, then we'd have people with Improved Grapple who were trying to touch, then voluntarily failing their grapple check. (Trip, less so, because of the countertrip possibility). I would have no problem with this. Contact poison "can be actively delivered via a weapon or a touch attack." A monk's unarmed strike is both. It definitely falls into this same category. The question is, once again, whether you can flurry an unarmed touch attack in this instance. Since this particular quote says nothing about such a touch attack provoking an AoO, it supports the notion that it wouldn't. I'm kinda neutral on the matter anyway, as you probably recall I'm the one who gave you that reference in the first place ;)
Usurpator 05-22-07, 02:34 PM	If we went that way, then we'd have people with Improved Grapple who were trying to touch, then voluntarily failing their grapple check. (Trip, less so, because of the countertrip possibility). Well, people do need to spend an extra feat for that. And with that feat they are supposed to have trained to *touch* their opponent without drawing an AoO. Contact poison "can be actively delivered via a weapon or a touch attack." A monk's unarmed strike is both. It definitely falls into this same category. The question is, once again, whether you can flurry an unarmed touch attack in this instance. Since this particular quote says nothing about such a touch attack provoking an AoO, it supports the notion that it wouldn't. Actually, I would consider a Monk with contact poison 'armed' for all intents and purposes, just like he would have with a touch spells. But just ignore that, don't want to open that can of worms.
MindWandererB 05-22-07, 02:41 PM	Actually, I would consider a Monk with contact poison 'armed' for all intents and purposes, just like he would have with a touch spells. But just ignore that, don't want to open that can of worms.That's another good point--whether you're flurrying or not, you're carrying a charged spell on that hand, which is supposed to represent a credible threat such that it doesn't provoke an AoO. I'd think that a touch attack with intent to discharge anything that deals damage would be covered under the same intention.
SoulLord 05-22-07, 03:22 PM	Just a clarification A touch attack does not provoque an AoO not for being a touch attack but because the one using it is considered to have a credible threat in his hands. be it poison, magic, lighting, fire or the like. If one were to just to touch someone without the magic,posion,lighting etc.. on his hand he would provoque an AoO. relevant rules Improved Unarmed Strike [General] Benefit You are considered to be armed even when unarmed —that is, you do not provoke attacks or opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed. However, you still get an attack of opportunity against any opponent who makes an unarmed attack on you. In addition, your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your option. Normal Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike, and you can deal only nonlethal damage with such an attack. And form the table of actions in combat Attack (unarmed) Yes and last from touch attacks Touch Attacks Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. However, the act of casting a spell does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack. Your opponent’s AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.
Usurpator 05-22-07, 03:37 PM	That's another good point--whether you're flurrying or not, you're carrying a charged spell on that hand any body part of choice, which is supposed to represent a credible threat such that it doesn't provoke an AoO. I'd think that a touch attack with intent to discharge anything that deals damage would be covered under the same intention. I agree, but my point was that we probably don't need to think or talk about this too much. The whole 'credible threat' wording is really shaky. What if your opponent can't see that you are 'charged', what if your opponent is immune to your 'charge' etc. etc. problems, problems...
SoulLord 05-22-07, 04:11 PM	I agree, but my point was that we probably don't need to think or talk about this too much. The whole 'credible threat' wording is really shaky. What if your opponent can't see that you are 'charged', what if your opponent is immune to your 'charge' etc. etc. problems, problems... fortunately there is no distinction wheter your opponent is inmune, unaware or the like to the threat you pose if you qualify as a threat that's it. no AoO from it.
hogarth 05-22-07, 08:46 PM	That's another good point--whether you're flurrying or not, you're carrying a charged spell on that hand, which is supposed to represent a credible threat such that it doesn't provoke an AoO. I'd think that a touch attack with intent to discharge anything that deals damage would be covered under the same intention. I just want to point out that it seems like things are going farther and farther away from what the rules actually say. I can't stress strongly enough: not all touch attacks can be used in a flurry. For instance, if you have a shadow or unbodied monk, you can't use her natural touch attack in a flurry. The only touch attacks that we know can be used in a flurry are grab attempts and trip attempts; it explicitly states in the FAQ that those are allowed, so there's no argument there. But those are the only ones that I know about (aside from using a feat like Unavoidable Strike). Now we're proposing to add a made-up type of touch attack that does nothing -- I like to think of it as an "unarmed tickle". Apparently this tickle is a monk weapon (for whatever reason) that can be used in a flurry. That's fine, I guess; if enough people are in favour of this house rule I can't complain too much, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that this is a house rule. But why is a handful of poison a monk weapon, too? :confused: Just my $0.02.
MindWandererB 05-22-07, 08:58 PM	I just want to point out that it seems like things are going farther and farther away from what the rules actually say. I can't stress strongly enough: not all touch attacks can be used in a flurry. For instance, if you have a shadow or unbodied monk, you can't use her natural touch attack in a flurry. The only touch attacks that we know can be used in a flurry are grab attempts and trip attempts; it explicitly states in the FAQ that those are allowed, so there's no argument there. But those are the only ones that I know about (aside from using a feat like Unavoidable Strike).You're missing the point. All attacks delivered with an unarmed strike can be flurried. Has nothing to do with whether they're touch attacks. Grabs, trips, sunders, and disarms all qualify, so they can be flurried if done with an unarmed strike (or, for all but the first, with a monk weapon). An unbodied monk uses a natural weapon, not an unarmed strike. So an "unarmed tickle" is delivered with an unarmed strike, and can be flurried. An "armed tickle" delivered with a guisarme (what a tickle!) can (arguably, under option 1) be used to discharge Dissolving Weapon (but can't be flurried). An "armed tickle" delivered with a sai could be both flurried and used to discharge such an effect. -=-=-=-=- In other news: we need a revision on the "prohibited spells when you multiclass" rule, since Ask Wizards overturned out last decision. Since I was against any such restrictions, I'll leave it to others to decide how they feel about it now.
hogarth 05-22-07, 09:01 PM	All attacks delivered with an unarmed strike can be flurried. I must be missing some pages from my Player's Handbook. ;)
NiQil 05-22-07, 09:18 PM	You're missing the point. All attacks delivered with an unarmed strike can be flurried. Has nothing to do with whether they're touch attacks. Grabs, trips, sunders, and disarms all qualify, so they can be flurried if done with an unarmed strike (or, for all but the first, with a monk weapon). An unbodied monk uses a natural weapon, not an unarmed strike. So an "unarmed tickle" is delivered with an unarmed strike, and can be flurried. An "armed tickle" delivered with a guisarme (what a tickle!) can (arguably, under option 1) be used to discharge Dissolving Weapon (but can't be flurried). An "armed tickle" delivered with a sai could be both flurried and used to discharge such an effect. -=-=-=-=- In other news: we need a revision on the "prohibited spells when you multiclass" rule, since Ask Wizards overturned out last decision. Since I was against any such restrictions, I'll leave it to others to decide how they feel about it now. I've already got it updated in the Court Decisions, but haven't posted the update yet. It will be up this weekend when I do my next Prison update. But here is how it will read: 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.
MindWandererB 05-22-07, 10:13 PM	I must be missing some pages from my Player's Handbook. ;) No, you're missing pages from the FAQ: Can a monk make disarm, sunder, and trip attacks during her flurry of blows? What about grapple checks? What about bull rushes, overruns, or other special combat maneuvers? As long as every attack is made with one of the monk’s special weapons (that is, weapons allowed as part of a flurry), the monk can perform any special attack that takes the place of a normal attack. She’s free to disarm, sunder, trip, and grapple to her heart’s content. She couldn’t bull rush or overrun (since those don’t use special monk weapons), nor could she aid another (which requires a standard action) or feint (which requires a move action).
TheMagister 05-23-07, 08:39 PM	Niqil: #3, or #1 if there's a split. Vath: #1 Telin: haven't heard, but #1 from last time. Sauro: #3 Zevox: #1 MWB: -- So, can I get this made official? I'd appreciate it. Rubi's fighting this week.
waywreth 05-23-07, 11:50 PM	But why is a handful of poison a monk weapon, too? :confused: Just my $0.02. Actually in that case there's a 50% chance of raising a hue and cry for the watch, a 25% chance of attacking the person, and a 25% chance of both. Err sorry all. Flashback to first edition there. :P
Salrantol 05-26-07, 07:24 AM	From the Court Decisions: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.Why is the bolded part true when...Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item’s creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed).I don't see why, for example, a sorcerer who didn't take fox's cunning for a spell known couldn't craft a headband of intellect using a scroll.
NiQil 05-26-07, 07:34 AM	This was done primarily to keep Magic Domain clerics from being able to craft anything they wanted, since they can use any arcane scrolls they come across with an appropriate CL check. Also, it prevents wizards from hiring NPC spellcasters to supply a spell that they may not be able to cast because it is from a prohibited school as a way to circumvent the restrictions on specialist wizards.
TheMagister 05-26-07, 07:36 AM	Niqil: #3, or #1 if there's a split. Vath: #1 Telin: haven't heard, but #1 from last time. Sauro: #3 Zevox: #1 MWB: -- So, can I get this made official? I'd appreciate it. Rubi's fighting this week. :bump:
NiQil 05-26-07, 07:40 AM	Talk to TA, as he is the swing vote...though since he stated he was gonna have issues with internet access for a few days, you may not get a ruling this week. In his absence, it would fall to MWB to break the tie.
TheMagister 05-26-07, 08:00 AM	Can't his decision from before count? It's only been a few months, and he hasn't spoken up against his previous decision...
NiQil 05-26-07, 08:09 AM	Can't his decision from before count? It's only been a few months, and he hasn't spoken up against his previous decision... No, because he did state that he would give his opinion after he had a chance to review the discussion. He also hasn't spoke up in favor of his previous decision either. If you want to count his vote from before, then we would have to count the decision as a whole that was made before, meaning that you aren't getting the answer you are hoping for. Patience, my young padiwan learner.
Sjiggie 05-26-07, 08:32 AM	From the Court Decisions:Why is the bolded part true when...I don't see why, for example, a sorcerer who didn't take fox's cunning for a spell known couldn't craft a headband of intellect using a scroll. This was done primarily to keep Magic Domain clerics from being able to craft anything they wanted, since they can use any arcane scrolls they come across with an appropriate CL check. Also, it prevents wizards from hiring NPC spellcasters to supply a spell that they may not be able to cast because it is from a prohibited school as a way to circumvent the restrictions on specialist wizards. Can't this be adjusted to only approving spells from the caster spell list to be available to cast providing they have a scroll of it. That would mean that clerics with the magic domain can't create magic items that need arcane spells because that is not on their class spell list and specialist wizard can't cast from a scroll that belongs to their opposed school.
NiQil 05-26-07, 08:38 AM	Can't this be adjusted to only approving spells from the caster spell list to be available to cast providing they have a scroll of it. That would mean that clerics with the magic domain can't create magic items that need arcane spells because that is not on their class spell list and specialist wizard can't cast from a scroll that belongs to their opposed school. Granted Power: Use scrolls, wands, and other devices with spell completion or spell trigger activation as a wizard of one-half your cleric level (at least 1st level). For the purpose of using a scroll or other magic device, if you are also a wizard, actual wizard levels and these effective wizard levels stack. For the purposes of scroll usage, clerics are treated as having those scrolls on their class list just as if they were a wizard. So your proposal wouldn't change anything there.
Sjiggie 05-26-07, 08:49 AM	Well a simple houserule that you can't use wizard scrolls as a magic domain cleric for item creation feats can still fix it. Sorcerers are greatly nerfed by having to cast the spells themselves for creating items because they have so little spell known.
TheMagister 05-26-07, 09:17 AM	don't you have to cast the spell once each day of the item's creation (for wondrous items)? I mean, using scrolls isn't exactly an inexpensive option, to my knowledge...
Salrantol 05-26-07, 01:10 PM	don't you have to cast the spell once each day of the item's creation (for wondrous items)? I mean, using scrolls isn't exactly an inexpensive option, to my knowledge...For the example I gave of a sorcerer crafting a headband of intellect, it would be 4 days of casting (4000 gp base price), which would be 4 scrolls of fox's cunning, which would cost a total of 2000 gp + 4 x 150 gp = 2600 gp, which is still far less than the 4000 gp it would cost to buy it.
Rauul 05-26-07, 04:37 PM	For the purposes of scroll usage, clerics are treated as having those scrolls on their class list just as if they were a wizard. So your proposal wouldn't change anything there. Magic Domain can use Magic Items as a Wizard of 1/2 thier clerical level.. this limits what they can use.. a 3rd level Magic cleric can use 1st level spells on scrolls and wands.. to be able to use a wand of fireball or a scroll of fly.. they need to be level 10.. (10 / 2= 5= 3rd level access) And Armor penaltys apply to scroll use.. It also states that if a Magic domain Cleric takes Mage levels that they stack so the same level 9 cleric of magic domain/ 1 level wizard can can use the items as if he was a level 5 mage..
templer10 05-26-07, 04:47 PM	Magic Domain can use Magic Items as a Wizard of 1/2 thier clerical level.. this limits what they can use.. a 3rd level Magic cleric can use 1st level spells on scrolls and wands.. to be able to use a wand of fireball or a scroll of fly.. they need to be level 10.. (10 / 2= 5= 3rd level access) And Armor penaltys apply to scroll use.. It also states that if a Magic domain Cleric takes Mage levels that they stack so the same level 9 cleric of magic domain/ 1 level wizard can can use the items as if he was a level 5 mage.. you are wrong there- only scrolls state that you need to be high enough level to cast the spell to be able to use it without caster level check. a magic domain cleric counts has having all wizard levels on his class list for purpose of wands even through he cant actually cast them same so he can even use (in theory) a CL 10 wand of stoneskin. it's essentially the same as a level 1 paladin - he cant actually cast spells but all the paladin spells count as being on his class list so he can acticvate any wand cotaining paladin spells no matter level or CL.
Rauul 05-26-07, 04:57 PM	you are wrong there- only scrolls state that you need to be high enough level to cast the spell to be able to use it without caster level check. a magic domain cleric counts has having all wizard levels on his class list for purpose of wands even through he cant actually cast them same so he can even use (in theory) a CL 10 wand of stoneskin. it's essentially the same as a level 1 paladin - he cant actually cast spells but all the paladin spells count as being on his class list so he can acticvate any wand cotaining paladin spells no matter level or CL. Magic Domain Granted Power Use scrolls, wands, and other devices with spell completion or spell trigger activation as a wizard of one-half your cleric level (at least 1st level). For the purpose of using a scroll or other magic device, if you are also a wizard, actual wizard levels and these effective wizard levels stack. But a Magic domain cleric is DIFFERENT.. they aren't a Wizard.. they are a cleric whos god lets them use Wizard items.. If what you said was true for the cleric.. why are they worded as i quoted..
SauroGrenom 05-26-07, 05:03 PM	you are wrong there- only scrolls state that you need to be high enough level to cast the spell to be able to use it without caster level check. a magic domain cleric counts has having all wizard levels on his class list for purpose of wands even through he cant actually cast them same so he can even use (in theory) a CL 10 wand of stoneskin. it's essentially the same as a level 1 paladin - he cant actually cast spells but all the paladin spells count as being on his class list so he can acticvate any wand cotaining paladin spells no matter level or CL.A magic domain cleric does not have arcane spells on their class spell list. They have the ability to use arcane items as if they were a wizard. The difference is important. Crafting feats, and the Magic Domain are both already very very powerful in an environment where you can get whatever scrolls you want when you want and have any time you want to craft. It's a bad idea to make the Magic Domain even more powerful by giving it the ability to craft any item using arcane scrolls. Access to a limited number of spells is the primary weakness of sorcerers, psions, and other spontaneous casters. This is a built in limitation, that makes some classes less effective as crafting classes compared to prepared casters. This is a balance element built into the game. For balance reasons, it's important for us to maintain that balance in spite of our open marketplace for magical expendables.
templer10 05-26-07, 05:04 PM	But a Magic domain cleric is DIFFERENT.. they aren't a Wizard.. they are a cleric whos god lets them use Wizard items.. If what you said was true for the cleric.. why are they worded as i quoted.. ther eis a diffrence between a magic domain cleric and a wizard- in SCROLLS, not wands - it's simply becuase the only thing that matter for wands is wheter or not the spell is on the spell list for that char. from the SRD - "Spell Trigger Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it’s even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. Anyone with a spell on his or her spell list knows how to use a spell trigger item that stores that spell. (This is the case even for a character who can’t actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin.)" dont forget - even a level 1 magic domain cleric can use a CL5 scroll of fireball - he needs to do a caster level check sure - BUT the spell CAN be casted from the scroll = it is on his class list = he can use it in wand form. you cant have the spell be counted on his class list for 1 purpose and not count for another purpose.
templer10 05-26-07, 05:07 PM	A magic domain cleric does not have arcane spells on their class spell list. They have the ability to use arcane items as if they were a wizard. The difference is important. Crafting feats, and the Magic Domain are both already very very powerful in an environment where you can get whatever scrolls you want when you want and have any time you want to craft. It's a bad idea to make the Magic Domain even more powerful by giving it the ability to craft any item using arcane scrolls. Access to a limited number of spells is the primary weakness of sorcerers, psions, and other spontaneous casters. This is a built in limitation, that makes some classes less effective as crafting classes compared to prepared casters. This is a balance element built into the game. For balance reasons, it's important for us to maintain that balance in spite of our open marketplace for magical expendables. didnt say he can craft items needing wizard spells just that he can use whatever wizard wand he wants without relation to his actual level.
Rauul 05-26-07, 05:10 PM	ther eis a diffrence between a magic domain cleric and a wizard- in SCROLLS, not wands - it's simply becuase the only thing that matter for wands is wheter or not the spell is on the spell list for that char. from the SRD - "Spell Trigger Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it’s even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. Anyone with a spell on his or her spell list knows how to use a spell trigger item that stores that spell. (This is the case even for a character who can’t actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin.)" dont forget - even a level 1 magic domain cleric can use a CL5 scroll of fireball - he needs to do a caster level check sure - BUT the spell CAN be casted from the scroll = it is on his class list = he can use it in wand form. you cant have the spell be counted on his class list for 1 purpose and not count for another purpose. it's not worded that way.. it is worded very specificly as 1/2 their cleric level.. and even saids scrolls, wands, ect.. this is a limitation of not being an acuall wizard..
Rauul 05-26-07, 05:13 PM	didnt say he can craft items needing wizard spells just that he can use whatever wizard wand he wants without relation to his actual level. the Wording under magic domain is VERY specific.. there is a reason for the Use Magic Item Skill..
templer10 05-26-07, 05:13 PM	it's not worded that way.. it is worded very specificly as 1/2 their cleric level.. and even saids scrolls, wands, ect.. this is a limitation of not being an acuall wizard.. just to be clear - are you saying that a first level magic domain cleric CANT use a CL 5 scroll of something? becuase it's the same as a first level wizard trying to cast CL 5 spell from scroll - both need the same caster level check.
SauroGrenom 05-26-07, 05:15 PM	dont forget - even a level 1 magic domain cleric can use a CL5 scroll of fireball - he needs to do a caster level check sure - BUT the spell CAN be casted from the scroll = it is on his class list = he can use it in wand form. Yes the cleric can use the wand as if the spell were on his class list. But the spell isn't actually on his class list. The magic domain does not change the class list of the character. It only allows the cleric to use spell completion and spell trigger items as if the caster were a wizard. Anyway, the whole discussion is going rather far afield. I believe that NiQil's last statement is actually wrong. For the purposes of scroll usage, clerics are treated as having those scrolls on their class list just as if they were a wizard. So your proposal wouldn't change anything there. The magic domain doesn't change anyone's class spell list. It only allows certain items to be used as if the cleric had a different class spell list. In any case he has what I believe to be the correct position (perhaps for the wrong reasons). Sorcerers were never intended to be the best crafters. The limitation on the ability of spontaneous casters to make new magic items is reasonable, part of the core game balance, and shouldn't be destroyed by our open marketplace where scrolls are readily available.
Rauul 05-26-07, 05:20 PM	just to be clear - are you saying that a first level magic domain cleric CANT use a CL 5 scroll of something? becuase it's the same as a first level wizard trying to cast CL 5 spell from scroll - both need the same caster level check. Thats exactly what i am Saying.. a first level Magic Domain cleric has only 1'st level Magic spells added to their Spell list for purposes of Scrolls and wands.. to use a CL 5 3rd level spell fireball, they would need to be CL 9 magic domain
NiQil 05-26-07, 05:20 PM	Yes the cleric can use the wand as if the spell were on his class list. But the spell isn't actually on his class list. The magic domain does not change the class list of the character. It only allows the cleric to use spell completion and spell trigger items as if the caster were a wizard. Anyway, the whole discussion is going rather far afield. I believe that NiQil's last statement is actually wrong. The magic domain doesn't change anyone's class spell list. It only allows certain items to be used as if the cleric had a different class spell list. In any case he has what I believe to be the correct position (perhaps for the wrong reasons). Sorcerers were never intended to be the best crafters. The limitation on the ability of spontaneous casters to make new magic items is reasonable, part of the core game balance, and shouldn't be destroyed by our open marketplace where scrolls are readily available. You and I meant the same thing...I just worded it poorly.
NiQil 05-26-07, 05:25 PM	Thats exactly what i am Saying.. a first level Magic Domain cleric has only 1'st level Magic spells added to their Spell list for purposes of Scrolls and wands.. to use a CL 5 3rd level spell fireball, they would need to be CL 9 magic domain This would be incorrect, because the scroll usage rules state that you can always make a CL check to use a scroll of a higher level. So even though a cleric may be only counted as a certain level of wizard as defined by the Magic Domain ability description, he can still make a CL check (using his defined wizard level) to use a scroll of a higher level.
SauroGrenom 05-26-07, 05:27 PM	Magic Domain can use Magic Items as a Wizard of 1/2 thier clerical level.. this limits what they can use.. a 3rd level Magic cleric can use 1st level spells on scrolls and wands.. to be able to use a wand of fireball or a scroll of fly.. they need to be level 10.. (10 / 2= 5= 3rd level access) And Armor penaltys apply to scroll use.. Just to be perfectly clear and make sure that templer10 and Rauul are both in the clear. The underlined section above is incorrect. Let me quote the SRD to facilitate the discussion:Granted Power: Use scrolls, wands, and other devices with spell completion or spell trigger activation as a wizard of one-half your cleric level (at least 1st level). For the purpose of using a scroll or other magic device, if you are also a wizard, actual wizard levels and these effective wizard levels stack.OK, so the cleric can use a wand or scroll or staff as if she were a wizard of 1/2 level. For scrolls, a CL check is necessary. In the case of a CL check use 1/2 the cleric's levels in the clerical class to calculate the effective wizard CL (and allow that to stack with actual wizard levels). For staffs and wands a wizard of 1st level can use these items, so a magic domain cleric can also use these items. There is no minimal level required to use these items.
templer10 05-26-07, 05:46 PM	Just to be perfectly clear and make sure that templer10 and Rauul are both in the clear. The underlined section above is incorrect. Let me quote the SRD to facilitate the discussion:OK, so the cleric can use a wand or scroll or staff as if she were a wizard of 1/2 level. For scrolls, a CL check is necessary. In the case of a CL check use 1/2 the cleric's levels in the clerical class to calculate the effective wizard CL (and allow that to stack with actual wizard levels). For staffs and wands a wizard of 1st level can use these items, so a magic domain cleric can also use these items. There is no minimal level required to use these items. ty- that is ALL i was saying.
MindWandererB 05-26-07, 08:02 PM	And I should remind all that our rules on expendable limits apply; so, if you're a level 9 magic-domain cleric, you're treated as a level 4 wizard for this purpose, and you can buy arcane scrolls of up to CL 6 (4+2 max 9).
Vathelokai 05-27-07, 12:39 AM	Back to the point real quick.... My memory tells me that it wasn't so much the magic domain causing a problem as NPC spell casting. A Druid with craft wondrous could hire a mage to cast shield once per day at 10gp a piece and make a brooch of shielding. Since it takes all of 2 days, that allows any caster type to just crank out brooches for a couple extra gold.... or elixers, or +skill items, or any of the items that require a specific feat or class, etc... The rule was to stop anyone of any class from being able to craft any magic item in the book, irregardless of what spells were on their list. It's definitely a hassle, but I think it's a reasonable one. Now if we're considering opening the door to crafting with magic items... that's a bit different. I'd have to agree with Sauro; our stores do not replicate your common D&D store; you can get any spell on any item at any level. So you can go grab a wand of something and use all the charges to craft another item and still come out ahead. I don't think I like it, but I'm willing to entertain the idea.
Rauul 05-28-07, 12:44 AM	This would be incorrect, because the scroll usage rules state that you can always make a CL check to use a scroll of a higher level. So even though a cleric may be only counted as a certain level of wizard as defined by the Magic Domain ability description, he can still make a CL check (using his defined wizard level) to use a scroll of a higher level. Since a magic Domain cleric has No Spell list to say they can and cannot use a Spell (Some mages can't use Some spells cause they are restricted) this is why a Magic Domain Cleric of level 5 can't use a level 3 wizard Scroll , it's not on their spell list, as a magic Domain Cleric their Spell list is considered to be as if they were equal to 1/2 their cleric levels.. And if you tell Corrupter he can use a Scroll of mage armor i will laugh at you since it is a restricted class school for him.. Same with ALL Spells above a magic Domain cleric 1/2 levels are for the cleric.. This is the Limitation.. on Magic domain.. or why else would they take any levels of Wizard...
MindWandererB 05-28-07, 01:15 AM	Since a magic Domain cleric has No Spell list to say they can and cannot use a Spell (Some mages can't use Some spells cause they are restricted) this is why a Magic Domain Cleric of level 5 can't use a level 3 wizard Scroll , it's not on their spell list, as a magic Domain Cleric their Spell list is considered to be as if they were equal to 1/2 their cleric levels...What? No. They can use wands and scrolls as if they were a wizard. Period. A 5th-level Magic domain cleric can use scrolls exactly the same way a 2nd-level wizard can. Exactly. Wizard spells are never on their spell list, but they behave as if they are. Since a 2nd-level wizard can use a CL 3 scroll with a caster level check, so can the cleric.
Yitzi 05-28-07, 08:27 AM	or why else would they take any levels of Wizard... Because they want to be able to use higher level scrolls without having a good chance of it blowing up in their faces. The 5th level cleric's CL check for a wizard scroll is made as though he were CL 2.
Khaim 05-28-07, 08:40 AM	or why else would they take any levels of Wizard... To be able to cast Fireball for more than 5d6 damage and without spending 375gp on each one?
Rauul 05-28-07, 05:08 PM	What? No. They can use wands and scrolls as if they were a wizard. Period. A 5th-level Magic domain cleric can use scrolls exactly the same way a 2nd-level wizard can. Exactly. Wizard spells are never on their spell list, but they behave as if they are. Since a 2nd-level wizard can use a CL 3 scroll with a caster level check, so can the cleric. a wizard can if it's on their spell list yes (Corrupter can't cast Enchantment or Conjuration scrolls no matter what And next level he will loos yet another School that he can cast from only if he has them now)... a Magic domain cleric has no spell list till they are acually that level x2 then they have a spell list.. Think of a Magic Domain Cleric as a Specialty Wizard who's spell list is all wizard spells of 1/2 their cleric level.. Spell not on their list.. Spell not castable by them. Your the Boss, if you want magic Domain cleric to be as powerful as Wizards it's your call.. but the Powers of the Domain Specificly mention Scrolls and wands..
Yitzi 05-28-07, 05:22 PM	Your the Boss, if you want magic Domain cleric to be as powerful as Wizards it's your call.. but the Powers of the Domain Specificly mention Scrolls and wands.. They're not as powerful as wizards, they're only half the level and they don't get any memory-based wizard spells.
SauroGrenom 05-28-07, 05:31 PM	a wizard can if it's on their spell list yes (Corrupter can't cast Enchantment or Conjuration scrolls no matter what And next level he will loos yet another School that he can cast from only if he has them now)... a Magic domain cleric has no spell list till they are acually that level x2 then they have a spell list.. Think of a Magic Domain Cleric as a Specialty Wizard who's spell list is all wizard spells of 1/2 their cleric level.. Spell not on their list.. Spell not castable by them. Your the Boss, if you want magic Domain cleric to be as powerful as Wizards it's your call.. but the Powers of the Domain Specificly mention Scrolls and wands..YOu are mistaken. There is no such thing as a class spell list that changes with the level of the character. A 4th level wizard has a class spell list that contains meteor swarm. The features of the magic domain grant a cleric the ability to use spell trigger items and spell completion items as a wizard of a certain level. The domain does not dole out the wizard spell list in bits and pieces. For spell trigger items there is no question of what level you are. You can simply use them if the spell is on your class spell list. For spell completion items, there is a caster level check. This is the only way in which the cleric's ability to use wizard items at 1/2 level comes into play. Furthermore this is not a question of clarification of the rules. This is simply a misunderstanding of the rules as written on Rauul's part. I hope we have this cleared up, but if not then the courtroom thread is not the place to discuss it. You should take it up in a different thread, such as the Tavern.
MitzaVolchenko 05-29-07, 02:31 PM	I maintain that a familiar must be present in the arena and have its full stats listed to give its bonus. The RAW are within in one mile of the master. If we allow familiars to chill out at home (but within a mile of the arena) the master gets a combat edge without risking the ally. That seems counter to the objectives of the arena. I would ask that a clear rule be added to cover this one way or the other. Either way on the distance ruling, no stats on the sheet means no familiar in my mind.
McJarvis 05-29-07, 02:34 PM	I maintain that a familiar must be present in the arena and have its full stats listed to give its bonus. The RAW are within in one mile of the master. If we allow familiars to chill out at home (but within a mile of the arena) the master gets a combat edge without risking the ally. That seems counter to the objectives of the arena. I would ask that a clear rule be added to cover this one way or the other. Either way on the distance ruling, no stats on the sheet means no familiar in my mind. This is, of course, in reference to Davian. I've run many casters in CoCo that use their familiar/psicrystal for boni purposes only & just have the familiar sit in the crowd or other location less than a mile away. It has never been a problem before, and I'm really not sure why it is now.
TelinArtho 05-29-07, 02:37 PM	I posted this in the FotW thread, but I'll repeat it here for posterity. The rules state that it can be within one mile. We don't have any house rules that changes this rule - so no. On the stats - I think that is blindsiding the player. He didn't include stats because he never intended to bring it into the arena - he doesn't list the bonus from alertness when the familiar is within arm's reach for instance. He only lists the well-known bonus from having a toad, the cost that he paid for the familiar.
Rauul 05-29-07, 02:55 PM	I posted this in the FotW thread, but I'll repeat it here for posterity. The rules state that it can be within one mile. We don't have any house rules that changes this rule - so no. On the stats - I think that is blindsiding the player. He didn't include stats because he never intended to bring it into the arena - he doesn't list the bonus from alertness when the familiar is within arm's reach for instance. He only lists the well-known bonus from having a toad, the cost that he paid for the familiar. you mean he paid 100 gp to gain 3 hps.. added to his base.. with no risk of ever loosing the familiar.. dang nice loop hole
TelinArtho 05-29-07, 03:02 PM	And Darrgon paid 100gp for a +2 bonus to his reflex saves. And yes - he can choose to keep his familiar at home as well. Having the familiar in the arena is nice for some characters, and not so nice for others. If he's only utilizing that massive +3 hp bonus out of the familiar, he's not getting any of the other benefits (delivering touch spells is a big benefit for some casters..., alertness, etc).
MitzaVolchenko 05-29-07, 03:19 PM	I asked MWB for a call and have agreed to run the fight with extra rounds for the extra HP's if it makes a difference and then pend those rounds waiting on a court decision. I strongly object to having an ally give a bonus when the opposition cannot affect it. What about the intimidate rules? If it is successful against one of these non-threatened bonus familiars, do they lose the bonus then? The 3 Hp's may not seem like a big deal, but how many fights here are decided by three or fewer hit points?
SauroGrenom 05-29-07, 03:24 PM	I consider the familiar bonus to be a class feature of the class. It's a rather modest class feature, especially considering that it's very fragile and the best abilities of the class feature involve putting it in danger of being destroyed.
McJarvis 05-29-07, 03:30 PM	I asked MWB for a call and have agreed to run the fight with extra rounds for the extra HP's if it makes a difference and then pend those rounds waiting on a court decision. As stated in FotW thread: there is no need. Just count the fight as an loss for Davian if that's what you want. (especially since it's already late anyway)
Khaim 05-29-07, 03:46 PM	I strongly object to having an ally give a bonus when the opposition cannot affect it. As Sauron said, it's a class feature, not an ally. Think of it as a bonus feat at Wiz1/Sor1 that can only be from the list of Skill Focus (limited selection), Lightning Reflexes, Great Fortitude, or Toughness. Are you really complaining that he got Toughness as a free feat?
MitzaVolchenko 05-29-07, 03:46 PM	As stated in FotW thread: there is no need. Just count the fight as an loss for Davian if that's what you want. (especially since it's already late anyway) I have an hour and fifteen minutes to complete the run...not your call to make and silly to surrender a fight in a fit of pique :)
McJarvis 05-29-07, 03:49 PM	I have an hour and fifteen minutes to complete the run...not your call to make and silly to surrender a fight in a fit of pique :) I have no interest in having a fight run if the Pitlord is obviously biased in the first place. Winning and losing doesn't matter to me-> but I'd rather not spend resources on a fight where I'm not being given a fair chance. Considering that my opponent hasn't voiced any angst towards the toad-tactic, the tactic is not some new thing I made up-> this has been used many times in CoCo, and that there are no rules forbidding(only rules allowing) what I did: I have no choice but to assume that you want Davian to lose for some reason. [Or are just having a power trip in the prison-> whatever] Basically-> It doesn't matter that I think Davian would win the fight regardless of the 3hp. I just object to how you're handling things & would rather just forfeit in protest of all of this foolishness.
TelinArtho 05-29-07, 05:09 PM	So, can I get this made official? I'd appreciate it. Rubi's fighting this week. :bump: Sorry I've taken so long to re-review everything. With internet being down and my own crazy schedule and life events - it has made things difficult. That said - I never posted a change in my original statement because I was truly unsure of where my opinion lies. At this point, I'm going to say that I am more in line with Sauro than I am with my original statement. That said - I'm still not 100% sure on the matter. It is however, a decision that I would stand behind. The other way around - I can certainly see there being issues with it.
MitzaVolchenko 05-29-07, 05:18 PM	I would appreciate a court ruling regarding the familiars. There are three questions here, really. 1)Can a familiar be left out of a fight but still give its bonus? 2)If the familiar is allowed to be left out of harm's way and still give its bonus, is it affectable by skill packages like assassinate or intimidate? 3)Do the familiar's full stats have to be listed on the character sheet just as any other ally's stats must be listed? The price of losing a familiar has been dramatically lessened over the editions (this saddens me...the old dead familiar=OUCH for the caster made them something that you had to choose to take and choose to take care of rather than a free stat battery).
Rauul 06-04-07, 03:31 AM	Ok Since this is something that came up with one of my charaters and i am told there is No rules In coco for it... I thought i would bring it up for you Elders to deside... Since it does effect The Red Wizard Prestige Class.. Leadership followers (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#leadership), We have to Quest for Cohorts, but Also with leadership if we have a high enough leadership score Number of Followers by Level The character can lead up to the indicated number of characters of each level. Followers are similar to cohorts, except they’re generally low-level NPCs. Because they’re generally five or more levels behind the character they follow, they’re rarely effective in combat. Followers don’t earn experience and thus don’t gain levels. However, when a character with Leadership attains a new level, the player consults the table above to determine if she has acquired more followers, some of which may be higher level than the existing followers. (You don’t consult the table to see if your cohort gains levels, however, because cohorts earn experience on their own.) Leadership Modifiers Several factors can affect a character’s Leadership score, causing it to vary from the base score (character level + Cha modifier). A character’s reputation (from the point of view of the cohort or follower he is trying to attract) raises or lowers his Leadership score, What We need to know.. is do we need a Miniquest to get the followers.. I would suggest No since the leadership score changes with every level (level + cha for basic score with modifers added or subtracted) or your just making the Player do a miniquest every level... Example.. By ECL 12, Corrupter will have a leadership score of 12+ 3(cha) +2 (+4 cha cloak) -2(familiar) +2 (guild) -1(failure)=16 leadership score (17 if he isn't a failure) 16 =11th(max cohort) 25(level 1) 2(level 2) 1(level 3) 17 =12th(max cohort) 30(level 1) 3(level 2) 1(level 3) 1(level 4) But effectively making a person that leveled do a miniquest every level for Followers (and with 1 miniquest per level rule)
Zevox 06-04-07, 03:39 AM	My opinion on this, as I posted in response to Rauul in the tavern and to Mitza when she asked this question a while back: Leadership followers do require a quest, like any non-class ally. However, the same quest that gets you the leadership cohort qualifies you for them as well, so at any point after doing that quest, you can gain any followers you qualify for that you like without further questing. Zevox
Vathelokai 06-13-07, 12:32 AM	Air gnomes are identical with standard gnomes, except for some differences in racial traits. ... Earth dwarves are identical with standard dwarves, except for some differences in racial traits. I'm curious as to what exactly a 'standard' race is. Does this mean any version of dwarf with no level adjustment? Only the dwarf type in the player races section of the SRD? Can there be air Snirfneblin? If I can get a ruling on this, I'll post that over to the massive updates thread. Personally, I'm fine with interpretation; just want to have it clarified.
NiQil 06-13-07, 12:56 AM	I'm curious as to what exactly a 'standard' race is. Does this mean any version of dwarf with no level adjustment? Only the dwarf type in the player races section of the SRD? Can there be air Snirfneblin? If I can get a ruling on this, I'll post that over to the massive updates thread. Personally, I'm fine with interpretation; just want to have it clarified. Standard race would default to those listed in the PHB. Elves aka high elves would be an example of this. If it is a race not covered in the PHB, then it would default to it's primary MM entry. Goblins would be an example of this.
MindWandererB 06-13-07, 01:20 AM	Standard race would default to those listed in the PHB. Elves aka high elves would be an example of this. If it is a race not covered in the PHB, then it would default to it's primary MM entry. Goblins would be an example of this. Even if it is covered in the PHB, you use the primary MM entry. All the entries describe "elves," "halflings," etc. until you get to subraces, where it says "The information above is for the lightfoot halfling, the most common halfling variety," or something to that effect.
McJarvis 06-19-07, 09:56 AM	I'd like an official ruling on exactly what class features may be used in conjunction with scrolls. Familiar/Animal Companion share casting Augment Summoning Overchannel/Talented Wild Surge UA Variants Red Wizard/Archmage Spell Power Spell Focus Metamagic/Psionics My own opinion no these are yes for Familiar/Augment/Wild Surge/UA Variants/Spell foci, but no to Overchannel/Spell Power/Metamagics. If there are any I missed, feel free to bring them up. I believe my basic rule of thumb was "Can you craft a scroll/power stone with this ability?". If it can be crafted, then I didn't apply it-> if it can't, I did. Example: Overchannel/Spell power don't work because higher SL/ML's can be crafted. Wild surge does make it because there are effects outside of just augmentation/higher CL/ML[enervation, surging euphoria]. Metamagic/metapsionics don't make it because these can be crafted: spell focus/augmented summons do make it b/c they can not be crafted this way. This rule of thumb was totally arbitrary: but the rules are so vague we're going to need an arbitrary method to differ between the various feats/class abilities. [and this one seems to work, except for some weird things like Wilders with 0 PP in reserve getting to wild surge "for free". Well, they get stunned at least...]
SauroGrenom 06-19-07, 10:22 AM	My personal opinion is that unless stated otherwise, class features and such do not effect the ability of a character to use magic items. Casting from a scroll is using a magic item, and there is no reasonable way to distinguish that from using a potion, wand, staff or wondrous item. So unless we are willing to have a potion of mage armor effect the familiars as well as the one who imbibes the potion, then we shouldn't extent any of these things to items that cast spells (except where specifically stated).
McJarvis 06-19-07, 10:27 AM	Casting from a scroll is using a magic item, and there is no reasonable way to distinguish that from using a potion, wand, staff or wondrous item. Scrolls are spell completion items, whereas all the other items you mentioned are spell-trigger or just regular use. I think that's the distinction that RotG articles call on to allow them to share-cast on familiars/be affected by augment summoning. (though I agree that only allowing for what was specifically mentioned in that ruling would be the clearest Black/white decision the court could make, save my own theory on whether an ability is craft-able) So far as I'm concerned, this court decision is only on spell/power-completion items. RotG article ask wizards(?) article specifically allowed the use of class features for] edit-> Actually, considering the remote possibility of a Wilder Thrallherd using multiple PP reductions from thrallherd+wild surging a Dominate powerstone[and all the headaches involved for the pitlord//rules-writer], I'll support Sauro's position of only allowing what is explicitly said by the FAQ/RotG/Ask Wizards things. It's likely the easiest to add to our own Court-rulings and is least likely to get out of hand. ~McJ~
hogarth 06-19-07, 10:57 AM	My unsolicited opinions: Adding metamagic - for wizards: no (can't add metamagic on the fly); for sorcerers: maybe for +0 level metamagic, otherwise no (caster level of item is fixed) Adding metapsionics - maybe for Enlarge Power, otherwise no (can't mix items with power points from another source, manifester level of item is fixed) Wild surge/overchannel - no (can't mix items with power points from another source, manifester level of item is fixed) Increased caster level from death knell - no (caster level of item is fixed) Share spells with familiar/animal companion - yes (specifically mentioned by Sage) Share powers with psicrystal - yes (follows from share spells) Boost construct - yes (specifically mentioned by Sage) Spell focus - yes (follows from boost construct) Thaumaturgist's extended summoning - yes (follows from boost construct) Arcane archer's imbue arrow - probably (follows from boost construct) UA conjurer's rapid summoning - yes (follows from boost construct) UA enchanter's extended enchantment - yes (follows from boost construct) UA diviner's enhanced awareness - yes (follows from boost construct) UA illusionist's chains of disbelief - yes (follows from boost construct) UA evoker's energy substitution/overcome resistance - yes (follows from boost construct) UA evoker's energy affinity/UA domain wizard's increased caster level - no (caster level of item is fixed) No doubt I missed a bunch of possibilities, but I think my overall interpretation is clear: if it's an ability that (a) applies when casting a spell and (b) doesn't increase the spell's spell level or caster level, then it applies when casting a spell from a scroll (resp. manifesting - power - stone). (NOTE: Personally, I don't think any effects should apply other than what the original caster put into the scroll/power stone [like metamagic], but the Sage has clearly ruled otherwise with sharing spells and boosting constructs.)
Zevox 06-19-07, 11:19 AM	Familiar/Animal Companion share casting Augment Summoning Per the FAQ/Ask Wizards, can be used with/affected by scrolls. Overchannel/Talented Wild Surge Red Wizard/Archmage Spell Power Spell Focus Nothing I've ever seen indicates these could be used with items, and given that allowing it could lead to some terrible imbalances, I'm not inclined to allow it. UA Variants Care to be more specific? I'm not sure what precisely you're referring to. Metamagic/Psionics Per the rules, can be crafted into items. Thats it. Zevox
McJarvis 06-19-07, 11:24 AM	Care to be more specific? I'm not sure what precisely you're referring to. There are several UA wizard variants that allow casters to change spells as they are cast. Hogarth posted them all in specific forms. [example: Rapid Summoning variant allows you to cast all Summon Monster spells as standard actions] Again: I should stress that this is not a matter of reading the rules and saying "oh, well they clearly allow this". We did that before and our conclusion was contrary to what FAQ/Ask Wizards came up with, so now we just need to decide how far rulings like the FAQ/Ask Wizards in question should go. [namely, feats/abilities being expressed through spell completion item]. If it stops at just what that article states, then we really should say that in a court decision. [And no matter what, we need a concrete black/white method by which we decide which class features are allowed & which ones are not. Long lists are not going to work well here.]
hogarth 06-19-07, 11:54 AM	Again: I should stress that this is not a matter of reading the rules and saying "oh, well they clearly allow this". We did that before and our conclusion was contrary to what FAQ/Ask Wizards came up with, so now we just need to decide how far rulings like the FAQ/Ask Wizards in question should go. [namely, feats/abilities being expressed through spell completion item]. If it stops at just what that article states, then we really should say that in a court decision. As a general rule, I don't care too much whether the Sage/FAQ rulings are used or not. As far as rulings are internally consistent (e.g. using a scroll is nothing like casting a spell, so nothing that affects spellcasting applies) and they don't change very often, I'm fine with it. What perplexes me are mutually contradictory rule interpretations (from the same person sometimes!) like: "Defensively casting a ray spell doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity because casting defensively never provokes an attack of opportunity." == and == "Taking a 5-ft step to enter an opponent's space provokes an attack of opportunity despite that fact that taking a 5-ft step never provokes an attack of opportunity." :boggle:
SoulLord 06-19-07, 12:02 PM	There are the rules and there are how each pitlord interprets the rules. it seems you don't have a problem with certain rules but rather you have an issue with a pitlord implementation of a rule. A 5 foot step "usually" doesn't provoque AoO unless your foe has something that indicates otherwise like the thicket of blades stance from tome of battle*. *non core book
hogarth 06-19-07, 12:21 PM	A 5 foot step "usually" doesn't provoque AoO unless your foe has something that indicates otherwise like the thicket of blades stance from tome of battle*. *non core book You can move 5 feet in any round when you don’t perform any other kind of movement. Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity. Of course there will be exceptions, but those will say something like "This is an exception to the rule that 5-foot steps never provoke an attack of opportunity," I would think. Sorry for hijacking the thread...
MindWandererB 06-19-07, 12:24 PM	I actually agree with hogarth on every point, except for his NOTE, which is irrelevant anyway. As for whether we use the RotG column to solve our questions: we do that because it's an internationally-used source for determining this stuff. It's hardly perfect, but at least it's a standard. We ignore it only when it's in overt contradiction with the FAQ or RAW (except for the diving w/ weapons thing, but I'm in the minority on that one).
Macbrea 06-19-07, 02:09 PM	The rules that states you take an AoO for entering a square is found in Big and Little creatures in combat: Creatures that take up less than 1 square of space typically have a natural reach of 0 feet, meaning they can’t reach into adjacent squares. They must enter an opponent’s square to attack in melee. This provokes an attack of opportunity from the opponent. Which seems to always indicate if you could enter an opponents square you would take an AoO. The fact it's a 5ft step has nothing to do with the actually thing that provoked an AoO. Example: I pull a bottle from my backpack and drink it, then take a 5ft step. The 5ft step didn't provoke the AoO all the other actions did.
McJarvis 06-19-07, 02:20 PM	I pull a bottle from my backpack and drink it, then take a 5ft step. The 5ft step didn't provoke the AoO all the other actions did. Bad example, since they are actually two seperate actions. [of sorts] Better example: You fire into melee with a ranged touch attack while defensively casting..... erm. Nevermind ;)
Macbrea 06-19-07, 02:24 PM	Heh.. anyways.. it's not the step that causes the AoO. It's the entering the square as per the core rules.
Zevox 06-19-07, 02:28 PM	As for whether we use the RotG column to solve our questions: we do that because it's an internationally-used source for determining this stuff. It's hardly perfect, but at least it's a standard. We ignore it only when it's in overt contradiction with the FAQ or RAW (except for the diving w/ weapons thing, but I'm in the minority on that one). Might I suggest we change that? It seems like every time one of his rulings gets brought up, theres a number of people who disagree with them, and sure enough they often contradict core rules outright (just look at the "All About Mounts" articles - they're chock full of those). Since most of the rulings in the Rules of the Game articles just cause frustration and annoyance around here, might I suggest we stop using them for anything but helping to adjudicate difficult rulings? I know that the only thing from his articles I liked was the dive ruling, but I'd gladly give that up to get rid of the rest of the dumb rulings in those articles. Zevox
MindWandererB 06-19-07, 04:07 PM	Might I suggest we change that? It seems like every time one of his rulings gets brought up, theres a number of people who disagree with them, and sure enough they often contradict core rules outright (just look at the "All About Mounts" articles - they're chock full of those). Since most of the rulings in the Rules of the Game articles just cause frustration and annoyance around here, might I suggest we stop using them for anything but helping to adjudicate difficult rulings? I know that the only thing from his articles I liked was the dive ruling, but I'd gladly give that up to get rid of the rest of the dumb rulings in those articles. Zevox I would second that, but it makes it a little harder to pick and choose what to use. Some of that stuff is clarification and some is cut from whole cloth, but some is, "there's no rule for this, so I'm going to make up a rule." I'd prefer to keep those as well, since we'd just have to invent something anyway. But we can definitely remove anything that just changes a value based on unusual circumstances. In addition to the diving and flying trip rules, there's a mounted trip rule that would be omitted in this case, IIRC. Anything else?
Zevox 06-19-07, 04:15 PM	I would second that, but it makes it a little harder to pick and choose what to use. Some of that stuff is clarification and some is cut from whole cloth, but some is, "there's no rule for this, so I'm going to make up a rule." I'd prefer to keep those as well, since we'd just have to invent something anyway. But we can definitely remove anything that just changes a value based on unusual circumstances. In addition to the diving and flying trip rules, there's a mounted trip rule that would be omitted in this case, IIRC. Anything else? You'd rather keep rules from those that were just made up out of the blue where nothing existed before? Um, why? And what mounted trip rule are you referring to? The core rules are pretty clear about what happens there. Tripping a Mounted Opponent: You may make a trip attack against a mounted opponent. The defender may make a Ride check in place of his Dexterity or Strength check. If you succeed, you pull the rider from his mount. Zevox
McJarvis 06-19-07, 04:18 PM	Honestly, for clarities sake I'd rather we either accept them 100% or not at all. Pitlords[especially inexperienced ones] have enough difficulties knowing all the rules, let alone having to look up which ones trump which & which RotG articles we are choosing to ignore.
TelinArtho 06-19-07, 04:19 PM	I would be fine with cutting it out, but bear in mind that this will be a "learning" experience as people remove the knowledge from those articles from their usage. It will also require each individual item from the articles to be put into the rules that we do want to use. I am actually more comfortable with keeping them in though.
MindWandererB 06-19-07, 04:52 PM	You'd rather keep rules from those that were just made up out of the blue where nothing existed before? Um, why? And what mounted trip rule are you referring to? The core rules are pretty clear about what happens there. Zevox For the first point, let me clarify: There are situations that come up sometimes for which no rules exist. In those cases, anything you come up with is going to be completely arbitrary anyway, so it might as well be from RotG. For the second, apparently, IDRC (I Don't Recall Correctly).
Zevox 06-19-07, 04:59 PM	For the first point, let me clarify: There are situations that come up sometimes for which no rules exist. In those cases, anything you come up with is going to be completely arbitrary anyway, so it might as well be from RotG. That sounds more than a bit like my suggestion that we continue to use them as references for making difficult rulings if you ask me... Zevox
Erithmu 06-20-07, 12:21 AM	Telekinesis (Violent Thrust) and Telekentic thrust spell and power state that they fling weapons at opponents yet are non-specific on how they work. For the second time my character Loddick has tried to Thrust daggers from his own sheaths at opponents only to have an issue with wondering if it is a legal option. The first situation began in the Ironman Thread at post 663 (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=12231754&postcount=663) when Abyssal posted tactics for Raskos vs Loddick and then discussion began. The brief summary is that Sauro thought that TKing weapons from their sheaths was not valid, and Telin agreed. TM and myself reasoned that a person can voluntarily fail a saving throw which was the mechanic that would allow for sheathed weapons to be flung. There was no resolution as we were on a time crunch and agreed to rewrite tactics, and in the end my personal life caught up to me and I had to surrender due to real life. I would like to get some closure on this, and I may need to get a refund on some crafting and switch out a power due to misunderstanding.
MindWandererB 06-20-07, 12:45 AM	...TM and myself reasoned that a person can voluntarily fail a saving throw which was the mechanic that would allow for sheathed weapons to be flung....But it isn't. That's the mechanic for allowing held weapons to be flung. There's nothing for secured items; as with disarming, secured items are harder (if not impossible) to remove than held items.
hogarth 06-20-07, 06:55 AM	But it isn't. That's the mechanic for allowing held weapons to be flung. There's nothing for secured items; as with disarming, secured items are harder (if not impossible) to remove than held items. If someone is complaining that you can't thrust sheathed daggers, then you can always put your unsheathed daggers in a sack. Then you can dump them out at your leisure. The wording does seem to suggest that only held items can be targeted.
McJarvis 06-20-07, 07:19 AM	I do not believe sheathes are statted in D&D, nor do they have in-game advantages the way quivers do. For all we know, you could be holding all your weapons on your belt with strings, blades exposed. [Or, if you're uncomfortable thinking about this with blades, what are you keeping your greatclub in?] The question of whether you can TK from them is somewhat out there & not "rules-based".
Macbrea 06-20-07, 08:40 AM	Actually, a loop is a baldrick. And a legal method of hanging a weapon on your belt. If you check the SRD on 'Drawing or Sheathing a Weapon', it will mention that it must be in a easily gotten to position. To quote it, 'If your weapon or weapon-like object is stored in a pack or otherwise out of easy reach, treat this action as retrieving a stored item.' This is why the efficient quiver has the final sentence of 'Once the owner has filled it, the quiver can produce any item she wishes, as if from a regular quiver or scabbard. The efficient quiver weighs the same no matter what’s placed inside it.'
Zevox 06-24-07, 01:47 AM	Since this seems to be a bit much for the tavern and I'd really like a ruling on it, heres another hopefully-minor issue for review: Query: For animal allies who have had their available tricks filled out, how would one get them new tricks in place of the old? Could you simply train the new trick over the old, or would it cost credits? I'm asking because when Asran trained his Furies, I made the mistake of giving them the "seek" trick, thinking it was part of the combat riding package, when in fact it wasn't. Initially I just gave them armor with no ACP to compensate, but now I'm considering getting him a leadership follower or two that might want to ride one, which requires them to get that trick changed to come. If I can do it without credits, I definitely will, but if its going to cost credits its probably not worth it. Zevox MWB was the only one to respond to the request, with this post: I don't know about in general, but this might help: Combat Riding (DC 20): An animal trained to bear a rider into combat knows the tricks attack, come, defend, down, guard, and heel. Training an animal for combat riding takes six weeks. 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. The new general purpose and tricks completely replace the animal’s previous purpose and any tricks it once knew. Warhorses and riding dogs are already trained to bear riders into combat, and they don’t require any additional training for this purpose. Which implies that this may be possible normally, but perhaps only in the form of training a full package of tricks. So then, the question in short is: can animals be taught tricks over old ones without credits, and if so, can this be done individually, or only by teaching them a full new package of tricks? Zevox
NiQil 06-24-07, 02:01 AM	I don't have the ability to do it at the moment, but you might want to try looking through the RotG and other articles on the D&D site to see if they shed any light on the area.
Zevox 06-24-07, 11:34 PM	Well, there was nothing in the RotG "All About Animals" articles, and nothing else out there looks likely to contain such information. Basically, I suspect we're going to need to just make a ruling on the matter with that one little sentence in the SRD. Zevox
Macbrea 07-02-07, 11:17 PM	Anyone happen to know if Touchsight can spot Incorpreal creatures as they don't have a physical form in the real world and the spell isn't transdimensional.
Zevox 07-03-07, 12:44 AM	Anyone happen to know if Touchsight can spot Incorpreal creatures as they don't have a physical form in the real world and the spell isn't transdimensional. Nope. Incorporeality is one of only two things that can beat that power (the other being a Slayer's Cerebral Blind ability). ...such an overpowered power... Zevox
NiQil 07-03-07, 01:09 AM	Nope. Incorporeality is one of only two things that can beat that power (the other being a Slayer's Cerebral Blind ability). ...such an overpowered power... Zevox You maybe might wanna take a look at Cloud Mind. It seems to me that it would defeat Touchsight. You make yourself completely undetectable to the subject by erasing all awareness of your presence from its mind. This power has the following effects. First, you are invisible and inaudible to the creature. It cannot even detect your presence by means of blindsense, blindsight, scent, or tremorsense. It cannot pinpoint your location by any means. Second, the subject remains unaware of your actions, provided you do not make any attacks or cause any obvious or directly threatening changes in the subject’s environment. If you attack the subject creature, the effect ends. If you take an action that creates a sustained and obvious change in the subject’s environment—for example, attacking a creature aside from the subject or moving a large or attended object the subject can see—the subject immediately gains a new saving throw against the power. An ally of the subject creature that is able to see or perceive you can use a move action to warn the subject and thereby grant it a new saving throw. Emphasis mine.
Zevox 07-03-07, 01:15 AM	You maybe might wanna take a look at Cloud Mind. It seems to me that it would defeat Touchsight. Emphasis mine. Okay, so theres a third. Its a wildly inefficient one (will save for foe, close range, low-level power and so a low DC, wears off once you attack the target), but its there. Zevox
Yitzi 07-03-07, 01:22 AM	...such an overpowered power... Only against sneaks who need to be within 60' of you.
Zevox 07-03-07, 02:08 AM	Only against sneaks who need to be within 60' of you. Oh now, against far more than them. It also negates concealment (don't bother casting blur, displacement, concealing amorpha, greater armopha, blindness, invisibility, greater invisibility, or any darkness-related spells), causes you to auto-spot foes (thats right, not just pinpoint their space), and we have a standing ruling that lets it beat Mirror Image too (which I disagree with, but that discussion has passed). With all it can do, I'd expect it to be a much higher-level power (5th at least, I'd think - in some ways, its better than True Seeing). Zevox
Rauul 07-03-07, 10:14 AM	Oh now, against far more than them. It also negates concealment (don't bother casting blur, displacement, concealing amorpha, greater armopha, blindness, invisibility, greater invisibility, or any darkness-related spells), causes you to auto-spot foes (thats right, not just pinpoint their space), and we have a standing ruling that lets it beat Mirror Image too (which I disagree with, but that discussion has passed). With all it can do, I'd expect it to be a much higher-level power (5th at least, I'd think - in some ways, its better than True Seeing). Zevox Pssttt you forgot the Important one Zevox.... No way in Core/SRD to Counter it.. Plenty of ways out not in Core/SRD Just something else to nerf the Rogues with..
Zevox 07-03-07, 12:09 PM	Pssttt you forgot the Important one Zevox.... No way in Core/SRD to Counter it.. Plenty of ways out not in Core/SRD Just something else to nerf the Rogues with.. Not quite so - as above, three things in the core rules counter it. Being incorporeal (no physical form for it to feel/locate), having the Slayer ability Cererbral Blind, or using the power Cloud Mind. None of them are really practical for your typical sneak to get, of course, which is indeed part of why the power overpowered. Zevox
Macbrea 07-03-07, 12:56 PM	The other non-pracitcal method is Dust of Disappearance that has the broken statement of 'Normal vision can’t see dusted creatures or objects, nor can they be detected by magical means, including see invisibility or invisibility purge.' Which could be read to say that magic sight will not let you see the person no matter what it derives from.
hogarth 07-04-07, 11:37 AM	The rules state that a rogue can perform a nonlethal sneak attack with a sap or an unarmed strike. Is that list exclusive (i.e. those are the only two weapons capable of doing a nonlethal sneak attack) or inclusive (i.e. those are just two examples of weapons capable of doing a nonlethal sneak attack)? The rules clearly specify that a weapon capable of doing lethal damage can't do a nonlethal sneak attack, but what about Noko's Merciful bow, for instance?
Yitzi 07-04-07, 01:07 PM	After saying that about sap/unarmed, it says "She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack...", implying that the qualifying factor is dealing lethal/nonlethal damage normally, and sap and unarmed were just mentioned because those are the only two normal weapons that do nonlethal.
hogarth 07-05-07, 09:49 AM	After saying that about sap/unarmed, it says "She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack...", implying that the qualifying factor is dealing lethal/nonlethal damage normally, and sap and unarmed were just mentioned because those are the only two normal weapons that do nonlethal. Well, whips and bolas do nonlethal damage too, but I guess they're not "normal" rogue weapons. My interpretation is that other weapons that do nonlethal damage "normally" (i.e. without a -4 attack roll penalty) can be used for sneak attacks. Disclosure: I'm thinking about creating an assassin (Balthazar Picsou) with a custom item that does 1d3 nonlethal damage with a melee touch attack (a use-activated item of Subdual Substitution Acid Orb would cost 1000 gp, so I expect the price to be in that range). He would use it for his death attacks.
Vathelokai 07-12-07, 01:10 AM	Just had a quick conversation with Zevox (quoted below). This effects my fight tactics this week, so I'd like to hear back quickly if possible (even a quick 'no, but we can debate it next week' is fine by me; I just need a ruling). I'm wondering if freedom of movement counters hideous laughter. Freedom of movement is worded such that it allows normal movement when movement is prevented. Hideous laughter is worded that it removes the ability to take any action at all. My view is that hideous laugh (essentially) is a compulsion that forces you to take a full round action every round to laugh. I can see it as a movement impeder as well. I'd like to know how you would rule on this before I send tactics. This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell, even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement, such as paralysis, solid fog, slow, and web. This spell afflicts the subject with uncontrollable laughter. It collapses into gales of manic laughter, falling prone. The subject can take no actions while laughing, but is not considered helpless. *deep breath* Big question. Bigger, I think, than I ought to be deciding on my own. My first impression is that yes, FoM would overcome Hideous Laughter, since functionally it is little different from paralysis (save that you're not helpless and can't take purely mental actions). (I'd have to disagree with your assessment, incidentally - it doesn't force you to spend a full round action laughing, it explicitly prevents you from taking any actions at all.) However, I really don't think I ought to be making that ruling all by myself here - its definitely one I could see argued either way. Mayhaps you should bring it up in the courtroom (or at least PM all the other Elders and MWB)? Zevox
MindWandererB 07-12-07, 01:22 AM	I would say no, Freedom of Movement wouldn't help. Two reasons: one, it's against the spirit of the spells--FoM protects aganst things that halt your movement, whereas Hideous Laughter is more of a compulsion (like Dominate). Two, Hideous Laughter doesn't prevent you from moving, per se: it prevents you from acting. It's a subtle difference, but consider the difference when you think about mental-only actions (Hold Person doesn't prevent psionics, but Hideous Laughter does).
hogarth 07-12-07, 06:43 AM	I would say no, Freedom of Movement wouldn't help. I also don't think that Freedom of Movement helps against the dazed condition (essentially the same as Uncontrollable Laughter) or the stunned condition.
Abyssal Stalker 07-12-07, 07:29 AM	I also don't think that Freedom of Movement helps against the dazed condition (essentially the same as Uncontrollable Laughter) or the stunned condition. Or being dead... That kinda hampers movement too... :P
TelinArtho 07-12-07, 09:53 AM	I'll chime in and also agree with MWB on this one. FoM doesn't negate Hideous Laughter.
hogarth 07-12-07, 10:01 AM	I'll chime in and also agree with MWB on this one. FoM doesn't negate Hideous Laughter. Not to piggy-back on Vathelokai's original question, but would this ruling extend to Brain Lock as well? Inquiring Molehusbands want to know.
templer10 07-12-07, 11:07 AM	Not to piggy-back on Vathelokai's original question, but would this ruling extend to Brain Lock as well? Inquiring Molehusbands want to know. i would like an answer to that also - since it can definently affect tactics for me in the Lord lorian get killed by horde of allies fight. p.s- when dazed you cant move or act - Freedom of movement prevent those things from happening so in my book it should work against taht - but then - iam biased.
hogarth 07-12-07, 11:46 AM	p.s- when dazed you cant move or act - Freedom of movement prevent those things from happening so in my book it should work against taht - but then - iam biased. I would say that for dazed characters, you can move (e.g. you can avoid attacks normally) but you can't act voluntarily (whether that action is a movement or otherwise).
templer10 07-12-07, 12:41 PM	I would say that for dazed characters, you can move (e.g. you can avoid attacks normally) but you can't act voluntarily (whether that action is a movement or otherwise). ACtually when dazed you dont suffer minuses to attack anyway so that doesnt mean anything (i.e. even while dazed you can defend yourself)- i would say at the VERY least - freedom of movement negates the dzed effect completly (so can move and attack) but possibly still acnt use psionincs.
Rauul 07-12-07, 01:01 PM	Nope. Incorporeality is one of only two things that can beat that power (the other being a Slayer's Cerebral Blind ability). ...such an overpowered power... Zevox Wonder what a Amulet of Cerebral Blind or Cloud mind would cost.. Should be identical to an Amulet of nondetection only Psionic instead of magical... Hmmm
Zevox 07-12-07, 01:10 PM	Wonder what a Amulet of Cerebral Blind or Cloud mind would cost.. Should be identical to an Amulet of nondetection only Psionic instead of magical... Hmmm Cerebral Blind is a class feature, so such an item wouldn't be allowed. Cloud Mind would be fairly simple to calculate - its a second-level power. But it would also still be very inefficient, since it allows a will save (which would be at a low DC on an item) and wears off when you attack the target. Zevox
Rauul 07-12-07, 03:29 PM	Cerebral Blind is a class feature, so such an item wouldn't be allowed. Cloud Mind would be fairly simple to calculate - its a second-level power. But it would also still be very inefficient, since it allows a will save (which would be at a low DC on an item) and wears off when you attack the target. Zevox So basicly an "Amulet of Proof against Detection and Location" made with Psionic Craft Universal instead of Magical Craft Wonderous. Same DC 19 and Everything... UNLESS with magic Transparency rules the "Amulet of Proof against Detection and Location" works vs touchsight as well as divination spells.. (dought this will happen.. why should a 32,000 gp item effect touchsight) (Cloud mind is a level 2 power, nondetection is a level 2 spell)..
TelinArtho 07-12-07, 03:33 PM	The amulet of Proof against Detection and Location only protects against detection as a non-detection spell - that is to say - Divination spells (and by extension, clairsentience powers). Since Touchsight is a psychometabolism spell (aka - transmutation) - no it would not be blocked by the amulet.
Zevox 07-12-07, 03:36 PM	So basicly an "Amulet of Proof against Detection and Location" made with Psionic Craft Universal instead of Magical Craft Wonderous. Same DC 19 and Everything... UNLESS with magic Transparency rules the "Amulet of Proof against Detection and Location" works vs touchsight as well as divination spells.. (dought this will happen.. why should a 32,000 gp item effect touchsight) (Cloud mind is a level 2 power, nondetection is a level 2 spell).. Actually, nondetection is a 3rd-level spell. But no, an Amulet of Proof Against Detection and Location wouldn't work - it halts divinations, and the Psionic equivalent of that school is clairsentience, but Touchsight is a Psychometabolism power (equivalent of magic's Transmutation school). Zevox
Rauul 07-12-07, 03:39 PM	Cerebral Blind is a class feature, so such an item wouldn't be allowed. Cloud Mind would be fairly simple to calculate - its a second-level power. But it would also still be very inefficient, since it allows a will save (which would be at a low DC on an item) and wears off when you attack the target. Zevox Why would a Class Feature not be allowed... Assassins dagger effects a class feature, as does a Belt of Dwarvenkind.. But i think the cloud mind would be better
Zevox 07-12-07, 03:43 PM	Why would a Class Feature not be allowed... Assassins dagger effects a class feature, as does a Belt of Dwarvenkind.. Because there is no known formula for calculating the cost. Zevox
Rauul 07-12-07, 04:03 PM	Actually, nondetection is a 3rd-level spell. But no, an Amulet of Proof Against Detection and Location wouldn't work - it halts divinations, and the Psionic equivalent of that school is clairsentience, but Touchsight is a Psychometabolism power (equivalent of magic's Transmutation school). Zevox Yea So basicly.... Spell level (2) × caster level (9) × 2,000 gp x2 (for continuous) = 72,000 gp (dc 19) and 15 credits... So worthless for the levels that could benifit from it.. OR.. Spell level (2) X Caster level (10) x 1,800 x 0.4 (2 charges per day) = 14400 gp for a 2 times a day Cloud mind with a dc 20 will save... (range 75 ft) + 15 credits
TelinArtho 07-12-07, 04:10 PM	Yea So basicly.... Spell level (2) × caster level (9) × 2,000 gp x2 (for continuous) = 72,000 gp (dc 19) and 15 credits... So worthless for the levels that could benifit from it.. OR.. Spell level (2) X Caster level (10) x 1,800 x 0.4 (2 charges per day) = 14400 gp for a 2 times a day Cloud mind with a dc 20 will save... (range 75 ft) + 15 credits Don't know where you are getting the heightened DC for it - DC for an item with cloud mind would be DC10+2(PL)+1 (minimum stat = 12)=13. Its not augmentable, so the only way to increase the DC is "heighten power" - which I don't believe is a feat...
templer10 07-12-07, 04:20 PM	can we get a ruling on the effects freedom of movement has whe used versus brain lock and hedius laughter? it's that there are a couple of peeps that need to write tactics partly based on the answer.
hogarth 07-12-07, 04:32 PM	can we get a ruling on the effects freedom of movement has whe used versus brain lock and hedius laughter? it's that there are a couple of peeps that need to write tactics partly based on the answer. If you're referring to Lord Lorian vs. Reginald Molehusband, I'm not sure how Lord Lorian's tactics would be any different, considering he doesn't have access to Freedom of Movement or Brain Lock.
MindWandererB 07-12-07, 04:34 PM	can we get a ruling on the effects freedom of movement has whe used versus brain lock and hedius laughter? it's that there are a couple of peeps that need to write tactics partly based on the answer. We've had several comments in favor of FoM not working. Go with that.
templer10 07-12-07, 05:02 PM	If you're referring to Lord Lorian vs. Reginald Molehusband, I'm not sure how Lord Lorian's tactics would be any different, considering he doesn't have access to Freedom of Movement or Brain Lock. oops - thought i had it on him also. p.s. there were comments on hedius laughter but not on brain lock. (maybe i missed some).
Rauul 07-12-07, 06:58 PM	Don't know where you are getting the heightened DC for it - DC for an item with cloud mind would be DC10+2(PL)+1 (minimum stat = 12)=13. Its not augmentable, so the only way to increase the DC is "heighten power" - which I don't believe is a feat... Was doing it the same way as an Amulet of nondetection is done... don't really matter as it would be to defend against a broken power.. No Magic power can defeat touchsight other than gasouse form.. As far as i can tell no Spell below anti-magic can defeat it.. Hence making it broken and a level 5 psion/wilder Able to negate Spells of 4th level and less.. as long as they have line of effect to a creature or an object to discern it.. Wish i had thought of it in Last weeks Corrupters Fight as to How the psion could DISCERN who was corrupter and who was an Undead from the robe, or how the psion could Discern corrupter from gravedigger... ect.. But thats here nor there.. the point is Touchsight is Broken...
Zevox 07-12-07, 09:53 PM	Was doing it the same way as an Amulet of nondetection is done... Nondetection doesn't have a save DC though, it has an opposed caster level check. Two totally different things. And in any event, a continuous cloud mind item would be impossible, since you need to target a foe with it. Wish i had thought of it in Last weeks Corrupters Fight as to How the psion could DISCERN who was corrupter and who was an Undead from the robe, or how the psion could Discern corrupter from gravedigger... ect.. He could discern Corruptor from the undead because he could see the undead. He couldn't discern Corruptor from Gravedigger, though - I rolled randomly for which he targeted, and he happened to pick Corruptor. Zevox
McJarvis 07-20-07, 07:44 PM	Intelligent Mounts-> Handle Animal says it's for unintelligent creatures. The entry under Giant Eagles suggests that intelligent creatures need training in order to be mounted in combat. What do I need to do to ride an intelligent creature into combat?
TheMagister 07-21-07, 01:30 PM	We still require the Combat Riding Package on intelligent mounts, afaik. Hood's pegasus Hope has it, and that's all anyone's ever said I needed.
hogarth 07-21-07, 01:44 PM	We still require the Combat Riding Package on intelligent mounts, afaik. Hood's pegasus Hope has it, and that's all anyone's ever said I needed. On the other hand, Balrog the centaur has allowed others to hitch a ride on his back without training. My take -- creatures that specifically mention they need to be trained (giant owls, giant eagles, pegasi, howlers, etc.) can be trained to get all mount benefits (e.g. benefits from the Mounted Combat feat, riding for cover, etc.). Anything else uses the "Riding Along with an Aggresive Mount" (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050201a) option that Skip proposed (e.g. "rider" and "mount" have separate initiatives; the "mount" acts however it pleases and the "rider" can only act at all if he successfully makes a DC 10 Ride check as a move action on his turn; riding for cover/Mounted Combat/etc. are impossible since you're just hitching a ride, not directing a mount).
hogarth 07-22-07, 03:41 PM	It's the ever-popular, semi-occasional round-up of questions that haven't been answered yet! 1. Can a non-spellcasting character buy scrolls/power stones for his spellcasting/manifesting cohort (or follower), using the cohort's caster level for the "CL + 2" cap? -Telin: yes, MWB: yes 2. Does a druid cohort's (or follower's) animal come fully trained? Note that otherwise the training might have to be purchased from an NPC (since cohorts can't perform free/full activities like teaching tricks to an animal). -Telin: technically no (but it would be reasonable to allow), MWB: technically no (but it would be reasonable to allow) 3. Is Concealing Amorpha stationary (like a Globe of Invulnerability)? -Telish_of_Ket: no, it moves 4. How immobile do Iron Bands of Bilarro make a person? -Telish_of_Ket: equivalent to "pinned", NiQil: equivalent to "pinned" 5. The spell "Symbol" can't be used offensively. What qualifies as an "offensive" use? Can I activate it and then run up to a person? [more later]
MindWandererB 07-22-07, 04:10 PM	All of those except #5 have been answered. I can see writing an exception for #2 into the rules. As for 5: I would interpret is as that no action of yours can cause the symbol to trigger. Only the victim's action can do so. If you run up to a person with it, it will only go off if they withdraw beyond its range and then come back.
hogarth 07-22-07, 07:19 PM	All of those except #5 have been answered. I can see writing an exception for #2 into the rules. Huh? I can't find more than two votes for any of those in the thread (although maybe I haven't look far enough yet); that's not a majority, which means that they're not official decisions yet. None of those answers has been officially entered into the Courtroom Decisions as a result.
NiQil 07-22-07, 07:32 PM	Not every question that gets answered in this thread goes into the Court Decisions. Court Decisions are for those things that are ambigious and need clarification, or for things that come up a lot. I don't see that any of the things you listed above falls into either category. Also, bear in mind that questions posted here do not always require an Elder vote. A vote is only required if there are differing opinions on the subject. Otherwise, the answer given should be used. This is all outlined in the very first post of this thread.
hogarth 07-22-07, 07:48 PM	Also, bear in mind that questions posted here do not always require an Elder vote. A vote is only required if there are differing opinions on the subject. Otherwise, the answer given should be used. This is all outlined in the very first post of this thread. So if one Elder gives an opinion, that's enough for an official ruling? O.K.
NiQil 07-22-07, 08:18 PM	If no differing opinion is given by another Elder, yes.
TelinArtho 07-22-07, 08:20 PM	And its a good thing. If I see at least one response that is in agreement with me - I won't respond to the issue unless there is further disagreement with it. It helps cut down on my "massive" number of posts that I do... That said - all of the issues in the council do need voices from everyone.
MindWandererB 07-22-07, 08:49 PM	So if one Elder gives an opinion, that's enough for an official ruling? O.K. Right; this thread used to be named "Ask an Elder," and it started off being only LLMadCow that responded to it. The majority of questions have pretty clear-cut answers.
McJarvis 07-22-07, 09:55 PM	I'd love some more elder involvement on the intelligent mounts question :)
MitzaVolchenko 07-23-07, 08:23 AM	I'd love some more elder involvement on the intelligent mounts question :) As would I. There are at least 3 PC's that need that question answered. There is absolutely no reason, IMO that an intelligent mount cannot decide to follow its rider's cues and gain the benefits of mounted combat, etc. with or without trick packages...further if other intelligent mounts can have the trick packages, can a PC have the tricks? Do they have to pay someone to train them for war? etc? *grins* I am having the most lovely vision of someone training Willowmoon "Down...it means 'lay down' not stamp them into the dirt. Fetch...it means retrieve an object, not 'hey, there is that no account grig you used to hang out with'"
hogarth 07-23-07, 08:43 AM	As would I. There are at least 3 PC's that need that question answered. There is absolutely no reason, IMO that an intelligent mount cannot decide to follow its rider's cues and gain the benefits of mounted combat, etc. with or without trick packages... There is absolutely a reason that griffons, pegasi, howlers, giant eagles and giant owls need to be trained in order to be mounts -- because it explicitly says so in the Monster Manual (whether you think that's stupid rule or not). For other creatures, it's unclear but the Rules of the Game article provides guidance which we might or might not use. But I would think that whatever rule the Elders come up with will include some penalty for riding an untrained pegasus vs. riding a trained one. As for how one would train an intelligent creature to be a mount -- did you ever see the movie "Ratatouille"? It's not completely intuitive that yanking a lock of hair means "pick up the spaghetti". :)
Rauul 07-23-07, 12:20 PM	There is absolutely a reason that griffons, pegasi, howlers, giant eagles and giant owls need to be trained in order to be mounts -- because it explicitly says so in the Monster Manual (whether you think that's stupid rule or not). For other creatures, it's unclear but the Rules of the Game article provides guidance which we might or might not use. But I would think that whatever rule the Elders come up with will include some penalty for riding an untrained pegasus vs. riding a trained one. As for how one would train an intelligent creature to be a mount -- did you ever see the movie "Ratatouille"? It's not completely intuitive that yanking a lock of hair means "pick up the spaghetti". :) Oh i wanna see the Rp with Willowmoon if someone trys to train her by pulling a lock of hair.. I really do... Knowing mitza she would return the favor by stomping them into the ground and Training them to NOT touch her hair again!
Zevox 07-23-07, 12:28 PM	Oh i wanna see the Rp with Willowmoon if someone trys to train her by pulling a lock of hair.. I really do... Knowing mitza she would return the favor by stomping them into the ground and Training them to NOT touch her hair again! You know, now I might just have to try that with Nimbus if they both go on Telin's campaign. :) Zevox
Rauul 07-23-07, 02:27 PM	You know, now I might just have to try that with Nimbus if they both go on Telin's campaign. :) Zevox ohhh please do... i will be reading that campaign lol
MindWandererB 07-23-07, 11:30 PM	2. Does a druid cohort's (or follower's) animal come fully trained? Note that otherwise the training might have to be purchased from an NPC (since cohorts can't perform free/full activities like teaching tricks to an animal). -Telin: technically no (but it would be reasonable to allow), MWB: technically no (but it would be reasonable to allow)I'm going to add this to the rules, if no one objects. It'll just simplify things.
Vathelokai 07-27-07, 11:46 PM	I'm in agreement with Telin and MWBs thoughts on the above items. Intelligent Mounts-> Handle Animal says it's for unintelligent creatures. The entry under Giant Eagles suggests that intelligent creatures need training in order to be mounted in combat. What do I need to do to ride an intelligent creature into combat? I would say even the intelligent mounts need combat training. Training for an intelligent mount would basically amount to practice, but the handle animal rules are a good framework for defining that... and the rules to kinda say then need training. So for semantics sake, my view of the handle animal skill includes more activities than just training unintelligent creatures (you can also train moderately intelegent creatures, like football players).
hogarth 07-28-07, 12:03 AM	I would say even the intelligent mounts need combat training. Training for an intelligent mount would basically amount to practice, but the handle animal rules are a good framework for defining that... and the rules to kinda say then need training. So for semantics sake, my view of the handle animal skill includes more activities than just training unintelligent creatures (you can also train moderately intelegent creatures, like football players). The only problem is: how much does it cost to get a creature trained if it doesn't say in the monster description? Any price we come up with will fall squarely under the category of "making stuff up".
Vathelokai 07-28-07, 12:45 AM	prices of training listed in the SRD no price listed - howler 1000 - giant owls, giant eagles, pegasi, hippogriff 1500gp - griffons 3000gp - spidereater dog and horse like creatures without training details barghest, blink dog*, centaur*, dragons*, dragonne*, hell hound*, lamia*, lammasu*, shadow mastiff*, sphinx*, unicorn*, winterwolf*, worg*, wyvern, Yeth Hound*, Zelekhut* and Nightmare* * indicates the creatures has an LA (ie, can be played as a PC or cohort)
Vathelokai 07-28-07, 12:49 AM	so... options 1) intelligent mounts that do not specify training are automatically counted as trained. 2) intelligent mounts that do not specify training can never be trained. 3) intelligent mounts that do not specify training can be trained for an arbitrary amount (to be determined later). Rules as written seems to say 2; there is no mention of it. Rules as intended seems to say 3 (taking the creatures with training details as examples). I'm not convinced any way is best, but I'm leaning toward 3.
SauroGrenom 07-28-07, 03:09 PM	There are conflicting sources on this trained intelligent mounts thing. There's a RoTG article that says untrained intelligent mounts can carry riders w/o training. However, there's direct examples in the SRD saying that some intelligent mounts require training to carry a rider. So there's not a consistent rules source on the issue. With the advent of higher ECL, it becomes possible for cohorts to be mounts. So this is going to become a more common rules issue we'll have to deal with. Also there are now a few "mount" primary characters. As an aside we should also figure out if these mount characters can gain the benefits of mounted feats. Such as mounted combat, trample and similar feats which are possible to apply to characters, but probably weren't balanced with that in mind. Anyway. My DM sense says that carrying a mount into combat is something that should require training, and it should be possible to train anything intelligent and of suitable shape to do so. FYI you missed the Yeth Hound, Centaur, Zelekhut and Nightmare as possible mounts.
Macbrea 07-28-07, 03:56 PM	It should be noted that the entry in Goblin seems to indicate that WOTC thought it was common sense that a goblin riding a worg can benefit it from the Mounted combat feats. To quote goblin, 'Goblins have a +4 racial bonus on Move Silently and Ride checks. Goblin cavalry (mounted on worgs) usually select the Mounted Combat feat in place of the Alertness feat, which reduces their Spot and Listen check modifiers from +3 to +1.' Which clearly shows that they meant it to be used. Otherwise there is no point of making that entire entry on goblin.
MitzaVolchenko 07-28-07, 04:05 PM	so... options 1) intelligent mounts that do not specify training are automatically counted as trained. 2) intelligent mounts that do not specify training can never be trained. 3) intelligent mounts that do not specify training can be trained for an arbitrary amount (to be determined later). Rules as written seems to say 2; there is no mention of it. Rules as intended seems to say 3 (taking the creatures with training details as examples). I'm not convinced any way is best, but I'm leaning toward 3. Of those choices 3 seems fine, though I think most mounts are handle animal type allies and could just be trained as normal with cohort mounts automatically coming trained. I am more interested in the context of the mount PC's. Does Willow train herself? She has the handle animal modifier to do it :P We need a solid ruling on Mounted Combat cohorts/allies as well since I need to finish up Willowmoon's cohort prior to going on campaign. I've voiced my opinions on the matter as have the others that have PC's that are suited as mounts. We just need a ruling.
Zevox 07-28-07, 09:23 PM	I'd be willing to go with Vath's option 3: all intelligent mounts require training with the combat riding package to act as mounts. Seems to me this is the most rules-supported option, given the existing rules about Griffons, Pegasi, Hippogriffs, and so on. I'm not so sure about allowing PCs to gain the benefits of Mounted Combat and the like from riders though. Seems to me that would be a pretty serious balance issue - those feats definitely weren't designed with the idea that the PC would be the mount in mind. @ Mitza - Odd as it may be, yeah, Willowmoon could train herself. @ Macbrea - What do you mean? That quote you gave pretty clearly shows that Goblins who ride Worgs just take that feat at level 1 in place of their normal Alterness, not that they get its benefits for free. Zevox
MitzaVolchenko 07-28-07, 09:38 PM	I don't think that he meant to imply they get the benefit for free. I believe that he meant the same thing I keep asking about. The rider of an intelligent mount in that example goblin cavalry riding intelligent worgs take mounted combat. Tell me why they would do that if the worg cannot benefit from it. You may just now be seeing just how deadly a rider-cohort can be on an intelligent primary character mount, but that does not change that the core rules give examples of the intelligent mount getting the benefits. That it is a PC should not matter one whit. One character has the 36pt buy. One character has the 25pt buy. I want it in writing by council decision that my cohort who has mounted combat as a feat can apply that feat to me along with any of its subsequent feats.
SauroGrenom 07-28-07, 10:13 PM	I'm in the camp of people who thinks that combat feats shouldn't apply to primary characters. The reasoning is this... The feats aren't balanced for it. As a consequence of that there are lots of rules "problems" that are generated if we allow it. For example... Assume we have Taurus the Druid Centaur, and Billy his cohort fighter. Now lets say Billy has mounted combat, and is mounted on Taurus. Imagine that if Taurus were in the middle of casting a Summon Nature's Ally spell (full round action), and he is attacked by a mage with a disintegrate spell. In this situation Billy can use a mounted combat feat to protect Taurus. What just happened is that Taurus was engrossed in casting a spell, so much focusing his attention that a wound or even a vigorous motion could force a concentration check or disrupt his casting. But since Billy jabbed Taurus in the ribs with spurs and yanked on a bit in his mouth and forced Taurus to rear and jump to the side, his attention wasn't interrupted!!! Poppy snock. It doesn't matter if Billy uses a more subtle mechanism to communicate with Tuarus (like a shout in the ear). The point is that Taurus is concentrating, and he's an intelligent independent creature. An action by Billy that forces Taurus to respond rapidly with a dodge of some kind will be breaking his concentration. Besides the feats are not balanced to provide a touch AC to characters that equal to your rider's ride check. A cohort can easily be optimized with ride items to provide an astronomical AC. Let's see... ECL10 with ECL8 cohort... Ride 11 ranks, +10 custom ride item, Skill Focus +3, Handle Animal Synergy+2, Animal Affinity feat +2, Dex bonus +6 (or more depending on race and equipment)... Then add in the average 10 from the skill check d20. Total AC is 44. Not bad for a touch AC at ECL10. All that costs to the primary character is a custom ride item and one feat... Leadership. Already the most powerful feat, and it just gets better... An average touch AC of 44 costs you one feat, a MQ for a cohort, and a custom ride item... Looks so good it cannot be reasonably ignored. That's so good that the balance issue is crazy obvious. We cannot reasonably allow it. That doesn't even mention the whole Spur Mount thing that grants an automatic +10 movement speed that stacks with everything. The benefits of these feats and skills are just not intended to be extended to primary characters. Rather they are intended to be used to make fragile mounts more lasting at levels where they often are easily destroyed. An ECL10 fighter cannot buy a warhorse with 80hp or an AC of 44. So he gets a feat that makes his warhorse with AC 14 and 30hp last a bit longer in combat. It's totally different to say that a character gets a cohort so her own AC can be boosted into the 40's.
Vathelokai 07-28-07, 10:49 PM	I agree with all your points, but there is an inverse: this super specialized rider can be killed pretty darn easy. If we look at it through the lens of the 3FC, what opponent in their right mind wouldn't blow the rider up first thing, first fight. I'm not sure it balances completely, but it's not an automatic 40+ ac (or at least not permanent).
Zevox 07-28-07, 11:01 PM	I don't think that he meant to imply they get the benefit for free. I believe that he meant the same thing I keep asking about. The rider of an intelligent mount in that example goblin cavalry riding intelligent worgs take mounted combat. Tell me why they would do that if the worg cannot benefit from it. You may just now be seeing just how deadly a rider-cohort can be on an intelligent primary character mount, but that does not change that the core rules give examples of the intelligent mount getting the benefits. That it is a PC should not matter one whit. One character has the 36pt buy. One character has the 25pt buy. I want it in writing by council decision that my cohort who has mounted combat as a feat can apply that feat to me along with any of its subsequent feats. Note that the Worg also is not intended to be a PC - its LA is specifically mentioned to be for a cohort (in fact, the only mount-like PC race I can find that isn't designed to be cohort-only is the Centaur, and for some reason I suspect they're not really intended to be used as mounts themselves). We simply allow those normally cohort-only races to be PCs here since theres not much point to disallowing it. The issue isn't intelligent mounts getting the benefit - we all know thats allowed, and its been used that way with countless Pegasi, Griffons, and the like throughout the CoCo's history - its with PCs getting it, which it clearly wasn't designed to do. Sauro's example is a bit extreme (Sauro, you really need to stop assuming custom items in calculations like that), but accurate. Its not hard for a terribly abusive combo to be created with a mount PC and a rider with maxed out ride (make the rider in Sauro's example a Goblin and take away the custom item and you still get an average AC of 38, which is insane at that level), and if said rider is also optimized with high AC and saves (not hard to do) it can be incredibly hard to kill in time to also kill the PC after doing so. The simple fact is that those feats were not designed for use with PC mounts, and open the possibility of pretty bad abuse if allowed with them, which is very good reason to be wary of allowing it. I'm not necessarily saying we definitely shouldn't, mind you, but I'm certainly leaning that way. Zevox
Vathelokai 07-29-07, 12:56 AM	Okay, so for allowing PCs to be the reciepient of mounted combat... Sauro - against Zevox - leaning against Vathelokai - leaning to allow TelinArtho - ??? NiQil - ??? MindWandererB - ??? (sorry if I missed a response from earlier; skimmed the thread but didn't see them)
NiQil 07-29-07, 01:06 AM	My opinions on the issue have already been expressed by others, so I'll simply cast my vote as no.
MitzaVolchenko 07-29-07, 01:17 AM	@ Sauro I just want to be clear here...you are fine with creating abusive cohort mounts but not with cohort's assisting a mount PC...you would be better served and better in keeping with the rules to just disallow the cohort races as PC's. Willow cost me a lot of credits plus a quest for cohort and if I wanted to use custom skill items to boost the ride skill of her rider she would cost me more yet. I don't see allowing it work one way and not the other as a viable solution. You wanna make it a concentration check for spell interruption if the mount is casting, fine. That is a rule that you can apply across the board. You want to let people abuse their PC's having an intelligent mount but not allow a mount PC to get the same edge, not fine. What if I get someone to make a duet with Willow? Are they allowed to use their feats since it is then two PC's? No? Poppy snock. Absolutely I can see the potential for "abuse." I rather think of it as optimization.
SauroGrenom 07-29-07, 02:00 AM	(Sauro, you really need to stop assuming custom items in calculations like that)If you are willing and able to fork over credits to quest for a cohort, and credits for a non-standard race, then 5 extra credits for a custom item that grants +10 stackable bonus to all AC is nothing. Besides, what I listed above isn't the most extreme optimization possible, and we all know that people will optimize as best they can when given sufficient time and resources. @ Sauro I just want to be clear here...you are fine with creating abusive cohort mounts but not with cohort's assisting a mount PC...I haven't really said this. And right now that's not on the table. But if pressed I'd probably say that cohort mounts should only get the benefits of mounted combat while they are doing mount things (basically limited to moving and attacking with natural attacks). So if a mount cohort was using a SLA and being attacked by a readied action, then mounted combat couldn't come to their aid. But that's not being discussed right now, so we shouldn't get bogged down in that.
Zevox 07-29-07, 02:10 AM	If you are willing and able to fork over credits to quest for a cohort, and credits for a non-standard race, then 5 extra credits for a custom item that grants +10 stackable bonus to all AC is nothing. Cohorts can be gotten from a miniquest - no credit cost. But in any event, the simple fact is that items like that are not often purchased around here, especially since Cat's departure (he was the chief user of them). We mainly see a few +1-3 items gotten with Gather Information, and thats it. A lot more people pay to play unusual characters than for such items - starting characters of unusual races or higher levels is what most credits get used for, according to what MWB said earlier. Zevox
SauroGrenom 07-29-07, 02:15 AM	Personally, I'm totally planning on a custom item for Raskos. A bracelet that casts Phantom steed at CL14, and grants a huge ride bonus will be a great item for a flying steed with 280' speed and lots of cover bonuses to AC. Anyways, just because it isn't common right now doesn't even suggest that we shouldn't consider how attractive it could be when people realize the value of it.
MindWandererB 07-29-07, 02:20 AM	I'm in favor of allowing it. There's no RAW reason to prohibit it; the only reason would be game balance. With Sauro's example, it seems like the main imbalancing factor would be the custom +Ride item, which I'd sooner ban than the normal use of feats and skills. Is a PC rider and a cohort mount really that much weaker than a PC mount and a cohort rider? I can certainly see the advantage in having a high-Dex rider with +5 Ride from feats as well as Mounted Combat, but that's a pretty sorry use of a cohort, IMO. Three feats to make your AC equal to about 1d20+10+1/ECL for one attack per round? Mount-capable PCs are already sub-optimal choices; I don't see this as tipping the balance the other way.
hogarth 07-29-07, 06:54 AM	I'm in favor of allowing it. There's no RAW reason to prohibit it; the only reason would be game balance. Remember -- we are proposing to write brand new rules (since there are no prices or DCs for training various intelligent creatures); does "RAW" stand for "Rules As Written (by us)" in this case? ;)
Hirumajoe 07-29-07, 08:02 AM	Besides the feats are not balanced to provide a touch AC to characters that equal to your rider's ride check. A cohort can easily be optimized with ride items to provide an astronomical AC. Let's see... ECL10 with ECL8 cohort... Ride 11 ranks, +10 custom ride item, Skill Focus +3, Handle Animal Synergy+2, Animal Affinity feat +2, Dex bonus +6 (or more depending on race and equipment)... Then add in the average 10 from the skill check d20. Total AC is 44. Not bad for a touch AC at ECL10. All that costs to the primary character is a custom ride item and one feat... Leadership. Already the most powerful feat, and it just gets better... And costs them being a Quadruped that can't use two handed weapons, can't use silver/cold-iron weapons period, has to get barding cost armor, and other technical difficulties. And one fifth of their starting gold. And that its easy (and actually likely if their opponent is even half way competent) to eliminate those bonuses for two out of three fights? Effectively wasting 2 of their feats and 10,000gp 2/3s of the time. Their rider is going to be easier to kill than a corresponding PC, which makes it likely they will go down on the first fight, especially if their opponent has no chance against the mount while the mounted combat feat is working (as you seem to indicate). Edit: I'm realizing that the Centaur is the clear exception to the above arguments. However, I still feel that the loss of a Cohort during the fight, who is simply going to be easier to defeat (even with that +4 AC ride for cover bonus) than an equivalent PC, is going to be achilles heel of any such build. I'd personally like to see a mock up of an ECL 10 build and see how tough both the rider and mount PC are, especially taking into account gold expenditures for both. And also to check their offensive capabilities, especially when 3 or more feats are dedicated from the rider to the mounted combat combo. Out of curiosity, what type of CoCo character at ECL 10 could not deal with an AC of 44 against a single attack each round? Its not going to cause problems for Wizards, because they have non-AC based attacks. Clerics by that level get two attacks a round and could make multiple touch attacks if necessary (Inflict wounds) or simply buff up and hit with their second attack each round (or third). Sniper type rogues are simply going to not be detected before the attack, preventing the use of the feat in the first place. Fighter types are going to have 3 or 4 attacks by that level (or more). It might be more of an issue at lower levels where attacks are fewer, but then again, most of those mount type characters can't get cohorts until ECL 8 or later (6 HD + at least 2 LA). In a table top game, there would be *absolutely* no difference between having a PC mount versus the PC rider, except for the stat distribution. And frankly, the stat distribution is much more useful on the character with hands who could be a full caster (Centaurs again, being the exception.) Its only because of the "artifical" rules of the CoCo that allies disappear once the character is defeated that makes this any issue at all. If you had to defeat all intelligent PCs and allies on the opposing side for each fight, we wouldn't be having this discussion. (I am in no way advocating that allies should stick around after the character is defeated, but just pointing out the fundamental issue). Because then PC mount and Leadership rider would in fact be identical to Leadership mount and PC rider. An average touch AC of 44 costs you one feat, a MQ for a cohort, and a custom ride item... Looks so good it cannot be reasonably ignored. That's so good that the balance issue is crazy obvious. We cannot reasonably allow it. Umm... How is vs one attack a round equate to an average touch AC of 44. Sure, against wizards casting single attack spells, but not against fighters, clerics, rogues, or whatever at the ECLs were talking about. Is it strong? Yes. Does it make up for all the other problems associated with having a mount PC? Don't know. Is it any worse than trying to kill a leadership mount and PC designed for mounted combat? No. That doesn't even mention the whole Spur Mount thing that grants an automatic +10 movement speed that stacks with everything. The benefits of these feats and skills are just not intended to be extended to primary characters. Doesn't a PC rider benefit from his mount's speed? Doesn't that mean all those PC riders are getting an automatic +10 movement speed that stacks with everything (not to mention they're getting a higher base movement speed to begin with)? Should we just disallow spur mount in general because clearly riders shouldn't be able to get a free +10 stacking speed bonus? Rather they are intended to be used to make fragile mounts more lasting at levels where they often are easily destroyed. An ECL10 fighter cannot buy a warhorse with 80hp or an AC of 44. So he gets a feat that makes his warhorse with AC 14 and 30hp last a bit longer in combat. It's totally different to say that a character gets a cohort so her own AC can be boosted into the 40's. Against one attack is the thing. The fact of the matter is that mounted combat gets weaker and weaker as you go higher in levels, because a single attack out of X attacks is less and less relevant. I do not doubt that it is strong, but given the types of builds its restricted to and the counters that are available, or heck even just gunning for the rider first, I don't think its out of CoCo balance.
McJarvis 07-29-07, 10:08 PM	Thoughts in general[alot was covered while I was gone :-O ] : I'm not worried about PC-mounts[worg, centaur, etc]. Racial HD and LA will never make these as good as full-casting classes, no matter which way you slice the cheese. What I'd be worried about is druid PC's[wildshape into a mount] & polymorphing wizards. A druid poly'd into a dire bat with a Fighter 1/Full casting class X riding him[so the rider could cast appropriate defensive spells, 2 cross-class ranks into ride every level is nothing] could be quite the dangerous thing. That's more or less the only ideas I have optimization-wise. Worst case scenerio is NOT a straight fighter build[as some have suggested] for the cohort. As far as decision making is concerned: I'd urge the elders to keep the ruling as simple & elegant as possible. Making things illegal for certain races//PC-"types" is messy & opens you up for optimizers[me?] to develop a work-around. Decide what you think is broken about intelligent mounts, and make a ruling to fix that-> not individual circumstances. [eg-> mount is spell casting, mount is being touch-attacked, mount is...etc, etc].
TelinArtho 07-30-07, 05:40 PM	Okay, so for allowing PCs to be the reciepient of mounted combat... Sauro - against Zevox - leaning against Vathelokai - leaning to allow TelinArtho - ??? NiQil - ??? MindWandererB - ??? (sorry if I missed a response from earlier; skimmed the thread but didn't see them) I have no problem with allowing it at all - not even the slightest reservation. As to the matter of creatures that could be ridden that don't have a cost of training - I would probably say that if it isn't mentioned that it doesn't need to cost anything. My reasoning is this - the creatures that need specific training for war are usually either creatures that are not inherently hostile (say horses and such) or are incredibly so (say griffons and such). Most of the rest are intelligent enough to be able to be conscious of their rider's abilities and limitations - so they wouldn't necessarily need special training. I would be fine with a custom table with costs for things that don't have that training - but I don't think it would be reasonable to disallow it altogether.
Erithmu 07-31-07, 02:07 PM	A question for discussion post PC mount thing ... How does/could the Autohypnosis skill "resist fear" usage work in regards to the Intimidate Free activity House rule? I know this is probably developing another house rule but as the Intimidate usage is implied as a 'fear' usage is there some allowable bonus for those situations?
SauroGrenom 07-31-07, 02:13 PM	Well that's 3 and 3 for the mount thing. So unless someone wants to switch a vote, MWB gets to vote twice and the mount PC's are in. Balance be damn. On another issue the generally permissive Tellin is telling me (without actually coming out to say it directly) that a "grapple" is not an allowed feat choice for Weapon Focus granted by the War domain. He's gone and reported one my my characters in the prison for a "violation" which is infact simply an issue of a difference of opinion on what counts as a "weapon" that needs to be discussed in the court. His point is that since Grapple is a mode of attack, and not a weapon, it cannot be a deity's favored weapon. However grapple (and ray for that matter) are weapon enough for the weapon focus feat. This all becomes a problem specifically with the war domain cleric because of the spiritual weapon spell. This spell uses your favored weapon, but as a grapple it doesn't make much sense. Since a spiritual weapon grapple is hard to conceive (what's the crit threat, and damage?). Also when deities have multiple favored weapons, it isn't discussed how to deal with that. So I suppose the elders need to decide if 1) we should invent a new definition of "weapon" to specifically apply to just the war domain cleric's favored weapon list, 2) or if we should use the definition of "weapon" provided by the weapon focus feat to limit the war domain's options for a favored weapon. A vote for option 1 invents new house rules where core rules could suffice. A vote for option 2 requires us to deal with the spiritual weapon issue. Personally I vote for 2 with the following solution for the spiritual weapon problem. Deities that have "grapple" as a favored weapon are simply required to have a second favored weapon that is used for the spiritual weapon spell.
Zevox 07-31-07, 02:26 PM	Telin is right, but not for the reason you're implying. Regardless of your argument about whether a grapple is a "weapon" or not, the War domain specifically works with martial weapons only, which it surely is not, and its therefor invalid. In any event, I'll not support a house rule that allows characters to consider their Deity to have two or more favored weapons - the whole point of those is that its a single weapon the Deity him/herself is known to use, and thus his/her servants often learn to use to emulate their God. Theres simply no such thing as a Deity with more than one favored weapon, period. Note also that a spiritual weapon is only dependent on the Deity's favored weapon for its crit range and multiplier. Attack, damage, and all other stats for it are always the same (attack = bab+wis, damage = 1d8 + 1/3levels, range medium, etc). Zevox
MindWandererB 07-31-07, 02:33 PM	I'm thinking we should probably allow the PC mount thing, but ban +ride custom items. That stays as close to RAW as possible without making the combo terribly abusable. I only foresee the wild shape mount thing being potentially bad anyway. I think that anything you can take Weapon Focus in should be a legal choice for the War domain. Unfortunately, that would make Spiritual Weapon nonfunctional. If the player wants to make that sacrifice, that's okay with me. Option #2 would be to allow the favored weapon to be anything that Spiritual Weapon would work with (basically, anything but grapple).
Hirumajoe 07-31-07, 02:35 PM	His point is that since Grapple is a mode of attack, and not a weapon, it cannot be a deity's favored weapon. However grapple (and ray for that matter) are weapon enough for the weapon focus feat. This all becomes a problem specifically with the war domain cleric because of the spiritual weapon spell. This spell uses your favored weapon, but as a grapple it doesn't make much sense. Since a spiritual weapon grapple is hard to conceive (what's the crit threat, and damage?). Also when deities have multiple favored weapons, it isn't discussed how to deal with that. So I suppose the elders need to decide if 1) we should invent a new definition of "weapon" to specifically apply to just the war domain cleric's favored weapon list, 2) or if we should use the definition of "weapon" provided by the weapon focus feat to limit the war domain's options for a favored weapon. A vote for option 1 invents new house rules where core rules could suffice. A vote for option 2 requires us to deal with the spiritual weapon issue. Personally I vote for 2 with the following solution for the spiritual weapon problem. Deities that have "grapple" as a favored weapon are simply required to have a second favored weapon that is used for the spiritual weapon spell. I realize I'm a non-elder, but I'd tend to go with option 2. Also, since grapples are defined to deal damage as an unarmed strike, why don't you just use the stats of an unarmed strike for the creature in question: 20/x2? Since a grapple can deal critical damage on the initial grab with a natural 20. I admit its a pretty bad spiritual weapon, but that seems like the cleanest method of dealing with it. Just imagine it as a glowing disembodied hand going for your opponent's throat. :)
Erithmu 07-31-07, 02:40 PM	Something else to consider ... I don't think of grapple as a weapon. Grappling is a combat function that is an opposed check that is not based upon an attack roll but rather in place of an attack roll. The WF feat states that it grants +1 to attack rolls not opposed checks. If anything I think you would want WF(touch) to start but I would not allow WF to affect an opposed grapple check. My issue is that I don't think of 'Grapple check' as being the same thing as an 'attack roll'
TelinArtho 07-31-07, 02:41 PM	Just to correct Sauro in his statement above - my issue was not with the "grapple" as the chosen weapon focus, but rather in the interchanging of "favored weapons" of a diety. My only complaint on the matter is that the spiritual weapon and the WF feat for the War domain must match. I don't happen to agree that grapple is a valid choice for a favored weapon either (it certainly is questionable), but if it is a valid choice - the character must use that as his spiritual weapon as well.
SauroGrenom 07-31-07, 02:49 PM	Theres simply no such thing as a Deity with more than one favored weapon, period.This is not true. There are examples in Core rules sources of multiple favored weapons. For example leading god of the elven pantheon has both longsword and longbow as favored weapons.
Zevox 07-31-07, 02:51 PM	This is not true. There are examples in Core rules sources of multiple favored weapons. For example leading god of the elven pantheon has both longsword and longbow as favored weapons. Where are you getting that from? Corellon Larethian has the longsword as his favored weapon (both in the PHB and every FR source I've ever seen), and thats it. You sure you're not mixing him and another Elven Deity together? Zevox
SauroGrenom 07-31-07, 03:03 PM	Just to correct Sauro in his statement above - my issue was not with the "grapple" as the chosen weapon focus, but rather in the interchanging of "favored weapons" of a diety. My only complaint on the matter is that the spiritual weapon and the WF feat for the War domain must match. I don't happen to agree that grapple is a valid choice for a favored weapon either (it certainly is questionable), but if it is a valid choice - the character must use that as his spiritual weapon as well.There's nothing in core rules that says this. All the mentions of spiritual weapon and favored weapons could be read this way, but they don't specify. Granted Power: Free Martial Weapon Proficiency with deity’s favored weapon (if necessary) and Weapon Focus with the deity’s favored weapon.Note that this could be very specific and say the deity has one and only one favored weapon, but there is nothing to actually say that. The weapon takes the shape of a weapon favored by your deity or a weapon with some spiritual significance or symbolism to you (see below) and has the same threat range and critical multipliers as a real weapon of its form.The bolded words say that the form of the weapon could be any of the weapons favored by the deity. That suggests there could be multiple weapons favored by the deity... perhaps 10. And there is no further limitation on which weapon is chosen as the form of this spell. There is nothing in the rules to support Telin's claim that a war domain cleric must use the weapon focus bonus feat to choose a form in the spiritual weapon. This is obviously not required by the description of the spiritual weapon spell.
SauroGrenom 07-31-07, 03:17 PM	Where are you getting that from? Corellon Larethian has the longsword as his favored weapon (both in the PHB and every FR source I've ever seen), and thats it. You sure you're not mixing him and another Elven Deity together? ZevoxI know I read some examples somewhere. I'm wracking my brain to recall them. Perhaps Trithereon. Or Hextor? He had 6 armes all wielding different weapons. Meh. It would really help if I could find an example, but logically it's not required. The point is that I've searched everywhere, and there's nothing saying that all deities must have one and only one favored weapon. In fact the wording of the Spiritual Weapon spell takes into account that there could be multiple favored weapons. Furthermore there is nothing that says what Telin is claiming... ie that the war domain bonus feat must also be the same as the spiritual weapon. That's just not in the rules, and I've looked several times to find it.
TelinArtho 07-31-07, 03:25 PM	Well - then I guess we might as well just house rule that the spiritual weapon spell automatically has a critical threat of either 20/x4 or 18-20/x2 then, because there's "no reason" to restrict any diety to their favored weapons anymore. "Denth? Oh - his essense uses a scythe - even though his teachings indicate a flail at all times..." There is a reason for the spiritual weapon being consistent. It is a thematic one - not one for balance necessarily. Religions in D&D align across multiple axes - even war gods are seen with a primary weapon (even in the case of Hextor - he has a primary weapon). That said - I do have a problem sacrificing flavor for outright munchkinism. If everyone can benefit bar none with the best critical range - why even specify a favored weapon?
MindWandererB 07-31-07, 03:27 PM	Telin is right, but not for the reason you're implying. Regardless of your argument about whether a grapple is a "weapon" or not, the War domain specifically works with martial weapons only, which it surely is not, and its therefor invalid.Not true. Gruumsh uses a spear, for instance, and he has the War domain. You get free proficiency with a martial weapon, but you get the Focus with any weapon.
SauroGrenom 07-31-07, 03:40 PM	That said - I do have a problem sacrificing flavor for outright munchkinism. If everyone can benefit bar none with the best critical range - why even specify a favored weapon?Ahh yes, and there's no sacrifice to have mount characters bounding around with leadership cohorts and touch AC's in the +40 range. Nothing "munchkin" about that. :rolleyes: If you want to sit on a pedestal, call everyone else a munchkin and enjoy some flavor, then do so. But don't claim that everyone else has to do the same thing.
TelinArtho 07-31-07, 03:44 PM	I don't appreciate muddying the waters with a completely separate discussion Sauro. Fine - like I said - put a house rule in that everyone gets their choice of a x4 or 18-20/x2 multiplier on their spiritual weapon for free and I'll go on my merry way. Until that house rule is up - I still feel your character is in violation. The route to getting out of prison then is to get the Prisonlords to overrule me or get a favorable decision from the rest of the elders.
SauroGrenom 07-31-07, 03:52 PM	I don't appreciate muddying the waters with a completely separate discussion Sauro. Fine - like I said - put a house rule in that everyone gets their choice of a x4 or 18-20/x2 multiplier on their spiritual weapon for free and I'll go on my merry way. Until that house rule is up - I still feel your character is in violation. The route to getting out of prison then is to get the Prisonlords to overrule me or get a favorable decision from the rest of the elders.What!! So I suppose I should invent some rules of my own and find your characters in violation of them. Let's see... You haven't marked on your sheet the last time any of your characters ate, so they must be all fatigued by now and taking non-lethat damage. Off to the prison for you! At least I have a SRD quote that I could reference to say you need to eat. You've invented a rule that says:All I'm arguing is that you must keep the spiritual weapon and the target of the weapon focus feat the same.This isn't in the rules. It's in Telin's head, but not in the SRD. You have no grounds to claim my character is in violation.
MindWandererB 07-31-07, 03:54 PM	I happen to agree with Telin. Each deity gets one favored weapon. Every single reference to favored weapons refers to them in the singular, and there's no indication anywhere to suggest otherwise.
SauroGrenom 07-31-07, 04:00 PM	I happen to agree with Telin. Each deity gets one favored weapon. Every single reference to favored weapons refers to them in the singular, and there's no indication anywhere to suggest otherwise.I quoted the spiritual weapon spell description above. It says the spell takes the form of "a weapon favored"... Note that it doesn't say "the weapon favored". This suggests you are choosing one form from among many, and thus plural favored weapons This strongly suggests plural favored weapons for a deity as much as any other source suggests singular favored weapons.
MindWandererB 07-31-07, 04:15 PM	I quoted the spiritual weapon spell description above. It says the spell takes the form of "a weapon favored"... Note that it doesn't say "the weapon favored". This suggests you are choosing one form from among many, and thus plural favored weapons This strongly suggests plural favored weapons for a deity as much as any other source suggests singular favored weapons. It doesn't say "the weapon favored" because the rest of the spell makes references to the specific, unique weapon wielded by the deity. It doesn't create Sahandrian or the Mace of Cuthbert, it just creates a longsword or a mace. If you can find one example of a deity having multiple favored weapons, in any WotC sourcebook, I'll go along with you. But I'm positive you can't.
Hirumajoe 07-31-07, 04:25 PM	While I can't find it the SRD, I can find it on the Wizards web page on the definition of the war domain. It seems to indicate that Gruumsh and Hextor have multiple (albeit similar) favored weapons. Since the glossary definition is supposedly taken from the PHB, I would presume the interpretation is meant to be core. However, it does seem that weapons at least share basic form, even if multiple weapons are allowed. So perhaps grapple and unarmed strike might make sense. War domain Deities: Corellon Larethian, Erythnul, Gruumsh, Heironeous, Hextor. Granted Powers: Free Martial Weapon Proficiency with deity’s favored weapon (if necessary) and Weapon Focus with the deity’s favored weapon. The favored weapons of the war deities are as follows: Corellon, longsword; Erythnul, morningstar; Gruumsh, spear (or longspear); Heironeous, longsword; Hextor, flail (light or heavy). The above can be found at http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary under War Domain. My actual PHB is unfortunately packed up in a truck somewhere halfway to California at the moment, making it hard to check whether its worded exactly the same way in the book.
MindWandererB 07-31-07, 04:33 PM	While I can't find it the SRD, I can find it on the Wizards web page on the definition of the war domain. It seems to indicate that Gruumsh and Hextor have multiple (albeit similar) favored weapons. Since the glossary definition is supposedly taken from the PHB, I would presume the interpretation is meant to be core. However, it does seem that weapons at least share basic form, even if multiple weapons are allowed. So perhaps grapple and unarmed strike might make sense. The above can be found at http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary under War Domain. My actual PHB is unfortunately packed up in a truck somewhere halfway to California at the moment, making it hard to check whether its worded exactly the same way in the book.Interesting: that definition wasn't updated to 3.5. Those are the favored weapons as presented in 3.0. In 3.5, Gruumsh does not get the longspear, and Hextor does not get the heavy flail (in fact, there is no light flail anymore, just a plain "flail").
Zevox 07-31-07, 04:33 PM	Sauro, its clear as day that the spiritual weapon is referring to your Deity's favored weapon. Seriously, what is "a weapon favored by your Deity" if not "your Deity's favored weapon"? Besides, if you take a look at the PHB entry for that spell, it specifically lists the spiritual weapons used by each PHB Deity, all of which correspond exactly to their favored weapon. How much more evidence do you really need than that and a little common sense? Zevox
templer10 07-31-07, 04:39 PM	It doesn't say "the weapon favored" because the rest of the spell makes references to the specific, unique weapon wielded by the deity. It doesn't create Sahandrian or the Mace of Cuthbert, it just creates a longsword or a mace. If you can find one example of a deity having multiple favored weapons, in any WotC sourcebook, I'll go along with you. But I'm positive you can't. ANY wotc sourcebook? - behemut and tiamet (complete divine) - has bite and heavy pick as favored weapons. there's couple more gods there with some kind of natural weapon + regual weapon or unarmed strike in there. there's couple of instances in the forgotten realms campaing setting (lethander, talos (with 3 favored weapons), couple more. what you can say that in every instance when there is more then one weapon they are all either similar weapons (light/heavy mace etc) ot 1 regual weapon adn 1 natural weapon.
SauroGrenom 07-31-07, 04:54 PM	It doesn't say "the weapon favored" because the rest of the spell makes references to the specific, unique weapon wielded by the deity. It doesn't create Sahandrian or the Mace of Cuthbert, it just creates a longsword or a mace. If you can find one example of a deity having multiple favored weapons, in any WotC sourcebook, I'll go along with you. But I'm positive you can't. I went looking. Since I don't have any WoTC source books I'm at a serious disadvantage on this one, but I was able to find the Living Greyhawk (http://www.wizards.com/rpga/downloads/LG_Deities.zip) source with several deities that have multiple favored weapons. Sauro, its clear as day that the spiritual weapon is referring to your Deity's favored weapon. Seriously, what is "a weapon favored by your Deity" if not "your Deity's favored weapon"? Besides, if you take a look at the PHB entry for that spell, it specifically lists the spiritual weapons used by each PHB Deity, all of which correspond exactly to their favored weapon. How much more evidence do you really need than that and a little common sense? Zevox The important difference is between "a weapon favored" and "the weapon favored". If the spell description said "the weapon favored" then there is one and only one favored weapon to choose. But the spell says "a weapon favored" means you pick from among the options of favored weapons. Your post above assumes there is only one favored weapon as you read the spell description. That isn't explicitly stated anywhere. I've found an official WoTC online source that has multiple gods with multiple favored weapons. Hirumajoe and templer10 have both identified other sources where multiple official WoTC gods have multiple favored weapons. I also found a personal website of one of the authors of the dieties and demigods book. I don't have the book to reference, but there are multiple examples of monster deities with more than one favored weapon. The whole assumption that all deities have one and only one favored weapon is not true. This assumption isn't stated anywhere in the rules, and there are official WoTC sources that contradict the assumption.
MindWandererB 07-31-07, 05:14 PM	ANY wotc sourcebook? - behemut and tiamet (complete divine) - has bite and heavy pick as favored weapons. there's couple more gods there with some kind of natural weapon + regual weapon or unarmed strike in there. there's couple of instances in the forgotten realms campaing setting (lethander, talos (with 3 favored weapons), couple more. what you can say that in every instance when there is more then one weapon they are all either similar weapons (light/heavy mace etc) ot 1 regual weapon adn 1 natural weapon. Hmm... that's a good catch. It's true for all the draconic deities--they have both bite or claw and a manufactured weapon. I find the Living Greyhawk publication suspicions, as it lists Heironeous with two favored weapons, which is clearly not the case. The problem is that if we allow multiple favored weapons, there's nothing stopping a player from just choosing every weapon in the book. Perfectly appropriate for a god with the War domain, right? :rolleyes: Clearly we need some sort of ruling to prevent that. In light of the dragon examples, I'd be slightly inclined to allow a PC with Grapple or a natural weapon as a favored weapon to have a different, martial weapon for the purposes of Spiritual Weapon.
Rauul 07-31-07, 05:19 PM	ANY wotc sourcebook? - behemut and tiamet (complete divine) - has bite and heavy pick as favored weapons. there's couple more gods there with some kind of natural weapon + regual weapon or unarmed strike in there. there's couple of instances in the forgotten realms campaing setting (lethander, talos (with 3 favored weapons), couple more. what you can say that in every instance when there is more then one weapon they are all either similar weapons (light/heavy mace etc) ot 1 regual weapon adn 1 natural weapon. WOTC source books are NOT used here... yes several name their custom Gods after those in source books like Forgotten realms... BUT they all Follow Core rules as written, Errated in the FAQ, or Posted in the SRD's As none of the Core Gods have Grapple, it isn't in the FAQ nor is it listed in the SRD.. then it can't be here... without a house rule.. There are a Couple of gods with NONE listed as their Favorite weapon... Llsensine Goddess of Mindflayers does have Favored Weapon of tentical or unarmed Strike (thats None core but is in the Psionic Handbook) Annam God of all Giants in general has Favored weapon of Unarmed strike (Core MM3.5)
SauroGrenom 07-31-07, 05:29 PM	The other option is to build a CoCo pantheon. It's been discussed several times. As a general rule of thumb, I think there should be some kind of reasonable limit on the number of favored weapons. What that limit is, can be open for discussion as a separate issue from the whole spiritual weapon must be chosen favored weapon claim. There are lots of various options for reasonable limits on favored weapons. One is the natural/unarmed/grapple + manufactured weapon option MWB mentioned. Also there is the group of similar weapons option (flail/heavy flail/dire flail or shortsword/longsword/greatsword). I've seen both of those used in various places at various times.
TelinArtho 07-31-07, 05:33 PM	Or just limit each god to a single favored weapon.
MindWandererB 07-31-07, 06:21 PM	The other option is to build a CoCo pantheon. It's been discussed several times.And rejected each time. Don't get me wrong--I really like the idea. It would really add flavor to our world. But there are several drawbacks--newbies won't know about them (I've never seen a newbie ask what gods are available), the vast majority of PCs with gods use Greyhawk/FR deities, it would be quite limiting to our objective of being able to experiment and optimize different kinds of character designs, and most likely people still wouldn't choose those deities because they'd have to have the exact combination of domains desired. We'd have to combine the Magic, War, and probably Travel domains with just about everything to cover all the most popular combinations. And I can't find a rule about what happens when a deity-less cleric takes the War domain.
SauroGrenom 07-31-07, 06:45 PM	Clerics can worship a pantheon. Or other things that are not deities, and I'm not sure how to handle that either. We've already kicked around a few ideas. You suggested one (natural+manufactured). I suggested an additional idea (groups of similar weapons). Telin suggested a third (one and only one). All of these have their particular merits. But it's starting to be clear to me we've gone beyond a discussion of rules clarification to a discussion of a new house rule to limit favored weapons on our open pantheon of deities. In any case, it's reasonably clear that my character isn't in violation of any actual rules written anywhere... Retikos is only in violation of the rules Telin thinks there should be. We have official WoTC sources where multiple gods have multiple favored weapons. If you don't have the preconceived notion that all gods have one favored weapon (refuted by examples), then there is nothing in the rules to support Telin's claim that you must have the same favored weapon from the bonus feat as for the spiritual weapon spell. That's totally an invention of Telin's powerful imagination. Right now our favored weapons are not officially regulated in any way. It's not a bad idea to make some kind of regulation, and if we do that then I'll edit my character to be in accordance with the new rules.
TelinArtho 07-31-07, 08:17 PM	I'll remove the violation for now - but I don't consider the issue resolved by any means.
MindWandererB 07-31-07, 08:36 PM	Then let's put it to a vote to resolve it. 1) One and only one favored weapon per character. 2) A "backup" favored weapon can be used for Spiritual Weapon if the "primary" favored weapon would make no sense (grapple, natural weapon, unarmed strike). 3) Favored weapons can be chosen in small, logical "suites" (e.g. all spears, grapple+unarmed strike+gauntlet, etc.) I favor option 2. 3 requires too much judgment, and 1 is, IMHO, unnecessarily limiting.
Erithmu 07-31-07, 08:50 PM	Suggested addendum to #2: 2ndary weapons are chosen from the alignment weapons listed in the spell description ...
MindWandererB 07-31-07, 08:56 PM	Suggested addendum to #2: 2ndary weapons are chosen from the alignment weapons listed in the spell description ... Unfortunately, the examples (e.g. the dragon deities) don't follow that guideline.
SauroGrenom 07-31-07, 09:04 PM	I like your option #2. That gets my vote.
NiQil 07-31-07, 09:04 PM	Since this started in my domain, let me weigh in here.... Granted Power: Free Martial Weapon Proficiency with deity’s favored weapon (if necessary) and Weapon Focus with the deity’s favored weapon The weapon takes the shape of a weapon favored by your deity or a weapon with some spiritual significance or symbolism to you (see below) and has the same threat range and critical multipliers as a real weapon of its form. The weapon that you get is often a force replica of your deity’s own personal weapon. A cleric without a deity gets a weapon based on his alignment. Here are the relevant quotes for the issue. What this says to me is that the weapon that you receive the Weapon Focus feat for must be your deities' favored weapon. And it must be a weapon, as specifically mentioned by the War domain description. Grapples, disarms, bullrushes, etc are not weapons. Weapons are listed on the weapons table in the equipment section of the SRD, unless contradicted elsewhere in text. Since grapple is not there, it is not a valid target for the War domain bonus feat. Now, having said that...the weapon that appears when spiritual weapon is cast has a little bit more openness to it. Both quotes from the spiritual weapon spell use wording that suggests that while the spiritual weapon is normally the same as the weapon you have the Focus feat for, it is not always the case. It does not define what the alternative is....rather it only provides further info for those clerics without deities. Therefore, for the sake of simplicity and balance, I would vote to make the spiritual weapon the same as the weapon that you have the Focus feat for.
hogarth 08-01-07, 03:30 PM	A bunch of quick questions: 1) Is there a limit to the number of times an arcane spellcaster can cast Explosive Runes outside of a 3 fight cycle? 2) If a ghost character crafts an item, is that item ethereal or does it require an additional action to bring it to the ethereal plane? What about items found with Gather Information? 3) Can psicrystals read? 4) Can an elemental hold items in its "hands"? (Caterane used to think so since he equipped an air elemental with a sling.) 5) Why does prebuffing the casting a spell into a Ring of Counterspells count towards a gladiators spells used for his cycle, but prebuffing the casting of a spell to use with Imbue With Spell Ability doesn't? 6) Can a rogue sneak attack with a weapon that does nonlethal damage other than a sap or an unarmed strike (e.g. merciful weapon, bolas, whip)? I'd appreciate it if at least one Elder commented on each of these...
TelinArtho 08-01-07, 03:41 PM	1. A caster could cast it outside of the 3FC, but if he wants to bring something into the arena that has Explosive Runes on it - he'll have to prebuff it - meaning he could only cast it as many times as memorized (or spell slots, scrolls, etc). 2. I believe a ghost crafts ethereal items, but the materials needed for the crafting must first be brought over to the ethereal plane. I thought that this was addressed either under ghosts or in the house rules section of the Rules of Gladius. I could be wrong though. 3. I would say probably not. 4. Elementals don't have hands per se - nor do they have a continuous form. As for Cat equipping them with slings - that was something I disagreed with but never got the opportunity to sling him into prison for. Having an elemental carry an item is one thing - use a weapon is entirely different. On the same note - I would not object to an elemental making use of items like thunderstones, alchemist's fire, etc - though if that muddies things up too much - I would be fine with restricting it altogether. 5. I missed the argument indicating why IwSA doesn't - can't comment on this because I think it might be wrong. Need more information first. 6. I would think so as long as the rogue was proficient in said weapon.
lonewolf 08-01-07, 03:45 PM	Im not an elder but I post my opinions: 1- to prevent abuse, I strongly suggest that casting explosive runes counts for a gladiators available spells for each cycle, and that explosive runes automatically discharges at the end of a 3FC. Otherwise nothing would prevent someone having an item with a dozend explosive runes on it, place it directly beside an opponent and do a targeted dispel at the item, automatically dispelling the explosive runes which trigger for more than enough damage. 2- I would say an item crafted by a ghost should be ethereal. Gather information is trickier... 3- I dont think so. 4- Sure. 5- To be conform with all other rules, Imbue with spell-like ability should also count towards your 3FC, IMHO. 6- I would say yes.
TheMagister 08-01-07, 03:46 PM	Number 6 is addressed in one of the FAQs somewhere. A caster could craft scrolls of explosive runes, and then use the scrolls to cast the spells as prebuffs, and get around the rule in that fashion. The caster'll have to swallow the crafting cost, tho (and rightly so!).
hogarth 08-01-07, 04:00 PM	1. A caster could cast it outside of the 3FC, but if he wants to bring something into the arena that has Explosive Runes on it - he'll have to prebuff it - meaning he could only cast it as many times as memorized (or spell slots, scrolls, etc). Just to clarify -- are you saying that all spells with duration "Permanent" (like Magic Mouth, Permanency, etc.) need to be prebuffed if they're going to be brought into the arena? What about spells with a duration of "Instantaneous" (like Animate Dead) -- does that need to be prebuffed as part of a cycle before it can be used?
TelinArtho 08-01-07, 04:10 PM	Apparently I needed a refresher on the rules: At Will and Permanency: "At will" abilities or renewable effects (like a Ring of Invisibility) can be pre-buffed with. Effects with a duration of "permanent" must be listed under the Pre-buff section and also be listed as part of your equipment. They do not count against your available spell levels per fight nor against your prebuffs. An exception is the Polymorph Any Object spell. So apparently I am incorrect about both Imbue with Spell-like Ability and with Explosive Runes. That said - I don't necessarily agree with it - but if we start seeing psicrystal bombs or familiars going about reading the runes or something similar - I'm probably not far off in saying it would probably get nerfed...
lonewolf 08-01-07, 04:13 PM	It seems that this rule directly contradicts that you have to refresh Dispel Magic in a ring of counterspell each cycle, correct?
MindWandererB 08-01-07, 04:15 PM	As currently written, Telin is was wrong. Spells that are "permanent" or "permanent until discharged" do not count against your 3FC preparations. See Battles of Gladius II=>Pre-Fight Actions->Important Note. Edit: too slow.
lonewolf 08-06-07, 11:29 AM	In the mission Shadow War, something happened where our rules are not entirely clear what happens: Marcus, Ephraims Leadership ally became petrified in the second fight of the mission. There is a rule that says during missions, characters are healed in between fights for free. I see three possible outcomes: - The free healing also removes the petrification. - Marcus is petrified until the end of the 3FC and mission. - Marcus is assumed to have died during a quest and is thus permanently dead. The third one is very harsh and personally, I would go with option 2, but I think I need an Elder input on this.
hogarth 08-06-07, 12:33 PM	I think #2 is correct; I don't believe there is any permanent death/loss of equipment on quests or campaigns now -- once something is brought back to the Nimbus, it can be restored.
MindWandererB 08-06-07, 03:06 PM	I think #2 is correct; I don't believe there is any permanent death/loss of equipment on quests or campaigns now -- once something is brought back to the Nimbus, it can be restored. hogarth is correct. Permanent death was removed from our rules a while back, but killed allies stay that way for their cycle.
lonewolf 08-06-07, 05:17 PM	hogarth is correct. Permanent death was removed from our rules a while back, but killed allies stay that way for their cycle. then I guess the question is if turned to stone = killed or not.
Vathelokai 08-06-07, 11:20 PM	Then let's put it to a vote to resolve it. 1) One and only one favored weapon per character. 2) A "backup" favored weapon can be used for Spiritual Weapon if the "primary" favored weapon would make no sense (grapple, natural weapon, unarmed strike). 3) Favored weapons can be chosen in small, logical "suites" (e.g. all spears, grapple+unarmed strike+gauntlet, etc.) I favor option 2. 3 requires too much judgment, and 1 is, IMHO, unnecessarily limiting. I'm also good with #2. However... Suggested addendum to #2: 2ndary weapons are chosen from the alignment weapons listed in the spell description ...I think this is a good idea. It Seems the most logical way to keep every gods 'secondary' weapon from being a scythe or rapier. A bunch of quick questions: 1) Is there a limit to the number of times an arcane spellcaster can cast Explosive Runes outside of a 3 fight cycle? 2) If a ghost character crafts an item, is that item ethereal or does it require an additional action to bring it to the ethereal plane? What about items found with Gather Information? 3) Can psicrystals read? 4) Can an elemental hold items in its "hands"? (Caterane used to think so since he equipped an air elemental with a sling.) 5) Why does prebuffing the casting a spell into a Ring of Counterspells count towards a gladiators spells used for his cycle, but prebuffing the casting of a spell to use with Imbue With Spell Ability doesn't? 6) Can a rogue sneak attack with a weapon that does nonlethal damage other than a sap or an unarmed strike (e.g. merciful weapon, bolas, whip)? 1) I agree that it should come out of the prebuffs (as much fun as that would be...) 2) The item would be etheral; how exactly would a ghost craft a material item anyway? Telekenisis? 3) Nope. 4) I agree with Telin. If an air elemental can pick up and carry someone in a tornado form, they can carry items around, though I don't think they have the skill or anatomy to work a 'weapon' correctly. 5) Spell like ability should be counting in the prebuffs. 6) Yes. then I guess the question is if turned to stone = killed or not. I would say counts as dead. But note, the higher level leagues are open, so there is the possibility of resurrecting or 'break enchantment'-ing someone mid cycle, and the negative lvs and such of that... should those go away at the end of the cycle or the fight? Sorry to tangent.
MindWandererB 08-07-07, 01:03 AM	A bunch of quick questions: 1) Is there a limit to the number of times an arcane spellcaster can cast Explosive Runes outside of a 3 fight cycle? 2) If a ghost character crafts an item, is that item ethereal or does it require an additional action to bring it to the ethereal plane? What about items found with Gather Information? 3) Can psicrystals read? 4) Can an elemental hold items in its "hands"? (Caterane used to think so since he equipped an air elemental with a sling.) 5) Why does prebuffing the casting a spell into a Ring of Counterspells count towards a gladiators spells used for his cycle, but prebuffing the casting of a spell to use with Imbue With Spell Ability doesn't? 6) Can a rogue sneak attack with a weapon that does nonlethal damage other than a sap or an unarmed strike (e.g. merciful weapon, bolas, whip)? I'd appreciate it if at least one Elder commented on each of these...I disagree with some of the earlier comments here. 1 and 4) I don't know the reason, but the ring counts while the spell doesn't, as currently written. Changing that woudl require a rule change. 3) Psicrystals have the same skill ranks as their masters. Language, both reading and writing, is a skill. So psicrystals can read.
Vathelokai 08-07-07, 01:14 AM	I disagree with some of the earlier comments here. 1 and 4) I don't know the reason, but the ring counts while the spell doesn't, as currently written. Changing that woudl require a rule change. 3) Psicrystals have the same skill ranks as their masters. Language, both reading and writing, is a skill. So psicrystals can read. I was assuming the psicrystals reading was more a function of what perceptual organs they have. But it turns out your right; that'll teach me to answer before looking things up A psicrystal can speak one language of its owner’s choice (so long as it is a language the owner knows). A psicrystal can understand all other languages known by its owner, but cannot speak them. This is a supernatural ability. 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.
Eamane 08-08-07, 03:29 AM	Normally I would ask in the Tavern first, but given the theoretical and (AFAIK) unexplored nature of this issue, I felt taking it straight to the courtroom would be the wisest path. How is damage to the borders of the Arena handled? I know that in the morphing basic arena, it can be burrowed through as though it were any particular material; but if a being inside the arena attacks its structure with the intent to destroy, what statistics does it have? Does it morph to be 'weak' and better serve the attackers intent of destroying it? Do parts of the arena (say, five-foot squares) take damage separately from other parts of the arena? How thick would they be/how many hitpoints do they have? If I deal enough damage to a square to more than completely destroy it, would adjacent squares or squares underneath it be damaged? Do destroyed squares present obstacles for tactical movement, like 'rough terrain'? If multiple squares are destroyed, digging down into the same location, would its status change into say; a pit or other feature? Is the arena ground considered an 'attended object'? What happens if a monster/pc is on a square when the ground underneath them is destroyed, would they have to make balance checks?
MindWandererB 08-08-07, 03:50 AM	Normally I would ask in the Tavern first, but given the theoretical and (AFAIK) unexplored nature of this issue, I felt taking it straight to the courtroom would be the wisest path. How is damage to the borders of the Arena handled? I know that in the morphing basic arena, it can be burrowed through as though it were any particular material; but if a being inside the arena attacks its structure with the intent to destroy, what statistics does it have? Does it morph to be 'weak' and better serve the attackers intent of destroying it? Do parts of the arena (say, five-foot squares) take damage separately from other parts of the arena? How thick would they be/how many hitpoints do they have? If I deal enough damage to a square to more than completely destroy it, would adjacent squares or squares underneath it be damaged? Do destroyed squares present obstacles for tactical movement, like 'rough terrain'? If multiple squares are destroyed, digging down into the same location, would its status change into say; a pit or other feature? Is the arena ground considered an 'attended object'? What happens if a monster/pc is on a square when the ground underneath them is destroyed, would they have to make balance checks? You mean the Arena map in particular? As with all cases where superstructure is attacked, each 5' square has its own HP. The walls and floor can safely be assumed to be earth--but I don't know the HP and hardness of that. Using the PHB material examples, I would guess at hardness 0 and 2 hp/inch of thickness, perhaps 5 hp/inch for densely packed earth (as the walls and ceiling might have to be). That makes 120 to 300 HP per 5-foot square. For simplicity's sake, I wouldn't have any other part of the structure collapse if a few squares were destroyed. Turning the spaces into "dense rubble" seems reasonable to me. You could theoretically dig a pit, if you really wanted. The arena ground is not "attended." If a creature was standing on a square when it was destroyed, I'd treat it as a pitfall trap (DC 20 Reflex to avoid falling and move to an unaffected square).
hogarth 08-15-07, 09:56 AM	A druid wearing metal armor cannot cast spells. Could she use a wand?
TelinArtho 08-15-07, 10:03 AM	@hogarth - I'd say no. The druid's spellcasting ability is negated while wearing metal armor. Doesn't reduce the CL, but removes the ability entirely.
hogarth 08-15-07, 10:09 AM	@hogarth - I'd say no. The druid's spellcasting ability is negated while wearing metal armor. Doesn't reduce the CL, but removes the ability entirely. I don't think it actually removes the class ability -- the druid is just "unable" to use it (or any of her other supernatural/spell-like abilities). Note that a ranger with 8 Wisdom is unable to use his spellcasting ability too, but can still activate a wand. (On the other hand, if I thought my argument was foolproof I wouldn't be asking the question, would I?)
Eamane 08-19-07, 04:38 PM	Looking for some clarification on the Skills (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=6466576&postcount=9) portion of the Rules of Gladius. Namely, that relating to Renaissance Weapons. Craft: Firearms (With Knowledge Architecture & Engineering at at least 5 ranks) is used to make Pistols, Muskets, Bombs, Smoke Bombs and Gunpowder; which otherwise cannot be purchased correct? Can it be used to Earn Money? If not, I'd request that it be added to the list of craft skills specifically restricted from that free action.
Zevox 08-19-07, 04:48 PM	Looking for some clarification on the Skills (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=6466576&postcount=9) portion of the Rules of Gladius. Namely, that relating to Renaissance Weapons. Craft: Firearms (With Knowledge Architecture & Engineering at at least 5 ranks) is used to make Pistols, Muskets, Bombs, Smoke Bombs and Gunpowder; which otherwise cannot be purchased correct? Can it be used to Earn Money? If not, I'd request that it be added to the list of craft skills specifically restricted from that free action. 1) Correct. Though note both need to have a +10 total as well, not merely 5 ranks. 2) No - no craft skill used to make items can be used to earn money. Zevox
deathwishjoe 08-23-07, 06:38 PM	Hello, I was looking at starting my first character in the COre Coliseum and was informed that the tactic I wanted to use was not allowed. If this is the wrong place to verify this I will be more then happy to be directed to the correct place. The tactic involved using minor creation to create black lotus extract and then finding ways of administering it to my opponents. according the rules I've seen this is allowed. Black lotus extract is all plant matter and therefore allowed within the rules of the minor creation psychic power. My plan was to use the power during the prefight buff time period and extend it so it would last long enough till the fight. It is a very powerful tactic and I was informed by another poster that they had run this past an elder and was informed it wouldn't be allowed. this might be something you want to add to the house rules section if this is true. I appreciate your time and consideration on the matter.
hogarth 08-23-07, 06:50 PM	The tactic involved using minor creation to create black lotus extract and then finding ways of administering it to my opponents. according the rules I've seen this is allowed. Black lotus extract is all plant matter and therefore allowed within the rules of the minor creation psychic power. One thing to note: according to Core Coliseum house rules, Black Lotus Extract requires a +20 Craft modifier to make (I think a DC 30 Craft check certainly qualifies as a "complex item" as per the power's description), so it would be difficult to pull off at low levels.
templer10 08-23-07, 06:56 PM	The tactic involved using minor creation to create black lotus extract and then finding ways of administering it to my opponents. according the rules I've seen this is allowed. Black lotus extract is all plant matter and therefore allowed within the rules of the minor creation psychic power. My plan was to use the power during the prefight buff time period and extend it so it would last long enough till the fight. It is a very powerful tactic and I was informed by another poster that they had run this past an elder and was informed it wouldn't be allowed. this might be something you want to add to the house rules section if this is true. I appreciate your time and consideration on the matter. Another issue that in order to create it you need to make the Skill check - so even if you can take 10 as with normal craft (which iam doubtfull since it's NOT a normal craft) you need to swing +20 to the check somehow. p.s. Cute idea.
deathwishjoe 08-23-07, 08:09 PM	I can work with a DC 30 skill check if I need to. I was not aware of that before but I can work with it. However knowing wether I can take a 10 on the skill roll would be good. Taking 10 When your character is not being threatened or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure —you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn’t help. It looks like I can unless there is another house rule
hogarth 08-23-07, 08:52 PM	I can work with a DC 30 skill check if I need to. I was not aware of that before but I can work with it. However knowing wether I can take a 10 on the skill roll would be good. The Rules of Gladius thread says (under Poisonmaking) that you need a skill modifier equal to the save DC of the poison. So that means that you need a +20 modifier; whether you're taking 10, 20 or whatever is not important.
SauroGrenom 08-23-07, 08:55 PM	The point is that lotus extract is a very very expensive item. We cannot allow people to use short term spells to create the equivalent of 4500gp worth of expendables to use in a fight at no cost. The previous discussion was that who really knows what's in black lotus extract. Perhaps the extract is made by boiling the black lotus in fat from an ice devil's brain. Who knows? Perhaps black lotus isn't even really a plant. There could be some kind of weird monstrous humanoid that's called "black lotus". The black lotus isn't in the MM, or any other source, so we don't know what it is. And we cannot confirm that it's all plant. Something like this is a huge wealth balance exploit. So we cannot allow it.
hogarth 08-23-07, 09:32 PM	The point is that lotus extract is a very very expensive item. We cannot allow people to use short term spells to create the equivalent of 4500gp worth of expendables to use in a fight at no cost. The previous discussion was that who really knows what's in black lotus extract. Perhaps the extract is made by boiling the black lotus in fat from an ice devil's brain. Who knows? Perhaps black lotus isn't even really a plant. There could be some kind of weird monstrous humanoid that's called "black lotus". The black lotus isn't in the MM, or any other source, so we don't know what it is. And we cannot confirm that it's all plant. Something like this is a huge wealth balance exploit. So we cannot allow it. If I thought that Black Lotus Extract was so all-fired powerful, I'd be more worried about it. It might cause gladiators to grab a potion of Delay Poison or some antitoxins, I guess. Are we going to ban the spell Disguise Self because it's like getting 1200 gp worth of Dust of Illusion for free? I agree that saying "black lotus extract is all plant matter" is pure speculation on deathwishjoe's part, though.
SauroGrenom 08-23-07, 10:37 PM	If I thought that Black Lotus Extract was so all-fired powerful, I'd be more worried about it. It might cause gladiators to grab a potion of Delay Poison or some antitoxins, I guess. Are we going to ban the spell Disguise Self because it's like getting 1200 gp worth of Dust of Illusion for free? I'm not suggesting we ban the spell. I'm simply saying that it's not able to make the black lotus extract. Poisons are more akin to expendable magic items like potions than to any thing else. And I don't think any poisons can be made by the spell in question, or any Create ____ spell. Kind of like how you cannot use Minor Creation to make a souverin glue or any potion. The ability to cast a spell and get a magic item (or a technically "non-magic" item of incredible potency beyond many magic items) is not balanced. So we shouldn't allow it for obvious balance reasons.
TelinArtho 08-24-07, 10:23 AM	For the record - I am in agreement with Sauro on this one. Being able to use a 1st level power to create free, very expensive poisons is unbalancing.
Macbrea 08-24-07, 10:27 AM	Hmm, I am curious as to how this one will turn out. :P It could effect Yorick's Training path! And Black lotus is a plant. http://www.davingreenwell.com/archive/thelotus.jpg
hogarth 08-24-07, 11:03 AM	Hmm, I am curious as to how this one will turn out. :P It could effect Yorick's Training path! And Black lotus is a plant. I think we're agreed that Black Lotus is a plant. But maybe the poison extraction process involves non-plant materials. For instance, grapes are plants, but the process of making wine from grapes may involve non-plant materials (like isinglass) which remain in the finished product.
deathwishjoe 08-24-07, 12:02 PM	Who knows? Perhaps black lotus isn't even really a plant. aside from characters like black lotus from comand and conquor generals the term was initially created in the conan cronicals for a mythical plant with special properties Perhaps the extract is made by boiling the black lotus in fat from an ice devil's brain. I am actually personally familiar with the process of making plant extracts as I have done the process before. the process involves ether using alcohol to break down the plants cells to release the essential oils and other parts of the plant or using an oil and much more time to do the same. alcohol being a byproduct of the decomposition of plants and oil being derived from plants directly ether one works. The process is rather mundane and essentially means for black lotus extract we are removing structural parts of the plant to purify the toxins it has. For the record - I am in agreement with Sauro on this one. Being able to use a 1st level power to create free, very expensive poisons is unbalancing. I can be convinced of this but if this is the case it should be made into a new house rule. Poisons are more akin to expendable magic items like potions than to any thing else. And I don't think any poisons can be made by the spell in question, or any Create ____ spell. Poisons are not akin to magical items as they are not destroyed when someone cast mages disjunction on them. alchemical items oddly enough work just fine in a nonmagical world as well but may require mineral additaives which is why I can't make alchemist fire. The Rules of Gladius thread says (under Poisonmaking) that you need a skill modifier equal to the save DC of the poison. So that means that you need a +20 modifier; whether you're taking 10, 20 or whatever is not important. right now at level 3 I am looking at 6 ranks + 4 int bonus + 3 from skill focus + 3 from my psicrystals personality +2 from a master crafted tool and +2 from aid another from the psicrystal. which is exactly +20. Now having an essentially save or die with a Dc 20 at level 3 is a bit unbalancing with core rules is a bit unbalancing. the highest I can get is a save DC of 18 with a spell or power for a save or die however these also allow SR or PR and the best way I have found to administer the poison involves hitting the person as well. it really starts to become unbalanced when we add multiple doses but I havnt found a way of efficiently throwing a barrel of the stuff till about level 9 anyways. So its an expensive item which I can't sell but the effect in combat is slightly stronger then what i can get otherwise. unbalancing yes. broken probably not and if it cant be use as a tactic a rule should probably be made to ban it from use. thats all Im saying.
hogarth 08-24-07, 12:21 PM	right now at level 3 I am looking at 9 ranks + 4 int bonus + 3 from skill focus + 3 from my psicrystals personality and +2 from aid another from the psicrystal. which is exactly +20. I'm not sure how you're getting 9 skill ranks at level 3. Also, one of the CoCo house rules is that allies cannot craft or assist in crafting. I agree that it's possible to get a skill check that high, though (if you took a cleric level with the Artifice domain, for instance).
deathwishjoe 08-24-07, 12:30 PM	sorry I had like 4 hours of sleep last night and honestly my brain isnt working correctly. I fixed the text and it should be good now. I wasn't sure I would get away with the aid other bonus as from the rules its subject to DM adjudication quite a bit as to wether or not you can use aid other. I can still pull it off at level 5 then quite easily.
SauroGrenom 08-24-07, 09:31 PM	deathwishjoe, You're making lots of assumptions that Telin and I don't agree with. Black Lotus in the real world may be a flower. And in the real world people cannot say arcane words and use spell components to fly through the air. In the real world you cannot spend gold pieces to buy magic gloves that improve your strength. Nor can you in the real world get boots that have wings that will allow you to fly 3/day. All of those are magical things, so perhaps you are thinking that "magical" things shouldnt' be compared while Black Lotus and Poisons are not magical. There are lots of "real world" things that are vastly different in DnD than in the "real world". For example a character which never goes to sleep never suffers a penalty beyond being fatigued. D&D is a rules system, not a world, and in order for the game to be fun to play the rules need to be balanced. So real world Black Lotus Extract doesn't necessarily have anything to do with D&D Black Lotus Extract. We have no good reason to assume that D&D Black Lotus is all plant as you claim. There's no house rule or banning of spells involved in not sharing your assumption about the "all plant" nature of Black Lotus Extract. In any case, you are technically correct in that poisons are not like magic items in several ways. Your series of statements is a bit pedantic, since we all know that poisons aren't actually potions, and I didn't claim that they were the same. My point is that potions are expendables, and they are far more powerful and expensive than any alchemical expendable. In fact Black Lotus Extract is certainly more expensive and probably more powerful than any potion. The game designers certainly thought that this poison was worth more money than any potion and a great many magical items, and I surmise that it's in-game potency is greater as well. The game designers have said that 4th level spells cannot simply create temporary magical items. So this is the basis for the argument that gaining 4500gp worth of free expendables in exchange for a 1st level spell is indeed imbalanced. If a 4th level spell cannot create a 50gp potion of CLW, then it would be imbalanced to allow a 1st level spell to create a 4500gp dose of Black Lotus Extract. Although you've clearly thought about this a lot, I simply don't share your assumption about the "all plant" nature of Black Lotus Extract. And it's not necessary to make a house rules stating that fact. Furthermore the idea of allowing a 1st level spell to make this stuff for free sets off alarm bells in my head saying that it's a balance problem. I commend you for the original thought. Well it was suggested once before. But it seams you came up with it independently. I appreciate the spirit and originality, but just not the conclusion.
Eamane 08-24-07, 10:20 PM	*snip*The game designers have said that 4th level spells cannot simply create temporary magical items. So this is the basis for the argument that gaining 4500gp worth of free expendables in exchange for a 1st level spell is indeed imbalanced. If a 4th level spell cannot create a 50gp potion of CLW, then it would be imbalanced to allow a 1st level spell to create a 4500gp dose of Black Lotus Extract.*snip* While I'm not entirely at odds with your decision Sauro, I feel you are reaching it under several false pretenses. 1. Plant vs Nonplant In the absence of concrete definitions in the Core books, it's a flavor issue and flavor issues are always determined by the player. Hence why I can play an incarnation of Death that got lost chasing down a super-hero from an entirely different multiverse. Or I can say my clothes are made out of adamantine; or plastic. By itself, these things don't change anything, but they do in conjunction with other things in the game (Heat/Chill metal, Repel Wood, Repel Metal, etc). If his Black Lotus extract is plant, than it's a plant. I don't think its the elder's place to say that it isn't in this situation. 2. Temporary Magical Items Uhm. Magic Weapon anyone? A lvl 1 spell that creates a temporary magic item worth 2,000 gp; minimum. And it scales. But it's not permanent you say! True enough. Still, magic allows use to create things of great intrinsic value. Thats rather the point. How much does a 1/day non-slotted item of Magic Missile cost? Because that's what having the Magic Missile spell memorized duplicates! Creation-x are intended to create nonmagical items. Thats the whole point. They have a great deal of flexibility so that somewhere, somehow, someone will get good use out of them. Creating poisons (that you then have to apply, risking a 5% chance of nuking yourself and THEN hit someone with them) is a pretty good use of them, definitely within the spirit of the powers/spells. But we have house rules that require craft checks to create complex things; even with magic! Right. So you cant just pick up the power and spew poison everywhere, you have to invest skillpoints and feats into doing it. Which brings us to the final point; 3. Balance The vast majority of this build is aimed at one thing; making Poisons cheaply. Thats an incredibly narrow focus. There are plenty of gladiators (undead mostly) who are immune to poison. Period, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars. Just like a fighter build aimed at tripping people; if you're vulnerable to tripping, you are in for a hurting. But if your not, you just sidestepped most of his build and have a pretty good chance of winning now, don't you? Before you hit this with the nerf bat, I suggest we wait to see it in action. Even Energy Missile saw a week of un-nerfed potency; same with telekinesis (grab every expendable he has and toss it at the ceiling, wee). If his ability to generate poisons is unbalanced, sure, nerf him then; I would suggest that you do so by establishing GP caps based on the power/spell level of item creation spells. Perhaps spell level squared x 100. Really, is the ability at lvl 5 or so to generate powerful poisons more unbalancing than Dissolving Weapon? It doesn't seem like it to me. Of course, my opinions are just that, nothing more, but nothing irks me more than a right decision tainted by wrong reasons.
NiQil 08-24-07, 11:36 PM	Let me go ahead and chime in here also that I am in agreement with TA and Sauro. When you go looking for a 4th or 5th level spell/power that will do what you would like this 1st level spell to do, then maybe we can talk about it.
Vathelokai 08-24-07, 11:49 PM	Well, for the record, I'm more in line with deathwishjoe and Eamane. I see the money balance issue, clearly, and am fine with the decision to prohibit it on those grounds. The rest of the argument seems like a mess of hypotheticals. Anyway; NiQil, could you add this to the 'rules clarifications at the beginning of the thread. Seems like we have a majority already.
Vathelokai 08-25-07, 03:35 PM	Queston: Can you even use the spell Suggestion in the arena? See the blue text below...You influence the actions of the target creature by suggesting a course of activity (limited to a sentence or two). The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the activity sound reasonable. Asking the creature to do some obviously harmful act automatically negates the effect of the spell.Since this is an arena, everything you do is in some way or another harmful to the opponent. Followups: what if you charm them. They become friendly; can you do something like that to trick them into performing an action? What if you charm then Enthral them. They are helpful; would they trust most things you say?
hogarth 08-25-07, 06:13 PM	Queston: Can you even use the spell Suggestion in the arena? See the blue text below...Since this is an arena, everything you do is in some way or another harmful to the opponent. My take on it: you can't say something obviously harmful like "Hit yourself in the face" or "Stand perfectly still while I kill you", but you could say something like "Put down your sword and let's settle this with our bare hands" or "Maybe you should send your beloved pegasus away before it gets hurt".
Vathelokai 08-25-07, 06:15 PM	What about "Hey, drink this. It's Borgos!"
Eamane 08-25-07, 07:13 PM	To steal an idea from the person that originally posted it; How about we settle this with a game of -insert game-? Having a few ranks in profession: chess player could be an interesting way to win a fight. But basically, yeah, we need a concrete definition of 'obviously harmful'. Alternative methods to finish a combat (bare-handed, chess) don't sound like obviously harmful to me. Actions that would disqualify the person doing them (leaving the arena) should, for balance sake, be considered obviously harmful. Imho, I'd have the person drink the -foo- unless they had knowledges that could (quickly) identify the -foo- as obviously harmful. Someone with Craft: Poisons isn't likely to imbibe Black Lotus Extract, (or someone with Detect Poison running, for that matter).
deathwishjoe 08-25-07, 09:39 PM	So a quick question since the black lotus extract question seems to be answered. can familiars, specifically the raven, use the skill UMD to activate scrolls and wands?
hogarth 08-25-07, 10:00 PM	So a quick question since the black lotus extract question seems to be answered. can familiars, specifically the raven, use the skill UMD to activate scrolls and wands? We had a discussion about this (I have a hawk familiar with UPD in a similar situation). It's clear that a raven can speak a command word, but we disagreed over whether a bird has sufficient manual dexterity to point a wand (I think yes, MWB and others think no). EDIT: Here's a post where I clearly showed a picture of a hawk pointing a stick (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=11550560). Photographic evidence isn't good enough for some people, however... (;) just kidding, folks!)
Zevox 08-25-07, 10:19 PM	So a quick question since the black lotus extract question seems to be answered. can familiars, specifically the raven, use the skill UMD to activate scrolls and wands? Ravens cannot, no (see hogarth's comments). You could do that with some Improved Familiars, though - Imps, Quasits, and Mephits all work quite well off the top of my head, and I'm sure there are other options that would work. Zevox
MindWandererB 08-25-07, 10:51 PM	I would think that UPD, requiring mostly thoughts, could work....
Rauul 08-25-07, 10:58 PM	Ravens cannot, no (see hogarth's comments). You could do that with some Improved Familiars, though - Imps, Quasits, and Mephits all work quite well off the top of my head, and I'm sure there are other options that would work. Zevox yea Corrupter is thinking of retraining Gravedigger the Mephit to have ranks in UMD for wands of Magic missile and Fireball!
deathwishjoe 08-28-07, 01:05 PM	So heres another question. if I use charm person and hypnosis on the same target I should now be able to make a single request of the person of which the will respond to me as if they were fanatical towards me. I could technically ask them to commit suicide. is this particularly unbalanced? not really its a level 1 save or die and you can use sleep to the same save or die effect. using it to make a perminant thrall as this trick was initially suggested is a bit broken and would require very careful wording of the request. the question is can you use the diplomacy table on PCs with regard to these spells?
hogarth 08-28-07, 01:22 PM	So heres another question. if I use charm person and hypnosis on the same target I should now be able to make a single request of the person of which the will respond to me as if they were fanatical towards me. I could technically ask them to commit suicide. is this particularly unbalanced? not really its a level 1 save or die and you can use sleep to the same save or die effect. using it to make a perminant thrall as this trick was initially suggested is a bit broken and would require very careful wording of the request. the question is can you use the diplomacy table on PCs with regard to these spells? There are two criteria for your charm + hypnosis trick to work: 1) You must make a "brief and reasonable" request (as per hypnosis). 2) You can only make suggestions that are "not suicidal or obviously harmful" (as per charm person). So even if a fanatic considered suicide "reasonable", it would fail due to the Charm Person clause. I am not an Elder; all of this is just my opinion.
deathwishjoe 08-28-07, 01:28 PM	There are two criteria for your charm + hypnosis trick to work: 1) You must make a "brief and reasonable" request (as per hypnosis). 2) You can only make suggestions that are "not suicidal or obviously harmful" (as per charm person). So even if a fanatic considered suicide "reasonable", it would fail due to the Charm Person clause. I am not an Elder; all of this is just my opinion. interesting. so would this seem more plausable if the request were to initially seem to be non suicidal and was reasonable but ended up being suicidal/ something like "DON'T MOVE NO MATTER WHAT" and the CDG the enemy while they are paralized.
TelinArtho 08-28-07, 01:37 PM	"Don't move" would not qualify as "helpless" for CDG purposes. At worst it would be the same as dazed (unable to take actions, but doesn't give opponents any advantage) and would end the instant the charmer tries to kill them.
deathwishjoe 08-28-07, 02:06 PM	how does someone who is fanatically trying not to move not count as helpless? he cant move. at the very least he has no DEX to ac as that would require movement.
TelinArtho 08-28-07, 02:20 PM	Because you are making the implication that "Do not move no matter what" is a reasonable suggestion. The problem with your assertions is that you are trying to use spells designed for outside-of-combat use in combat. In the arena - not moving is a very unreasonable suggestion. Not moving no matter what is akin to suicide.
hogarth 08-28-07, 02:31 PM	interesting. so would this seem more plausable if the request were to initially seem to be non suicidal and was reasonable but ended up being suicidal/ something like "DON'T MOVE NO MATTER WHAT" and the CDG the enemy while they are paralized. Whether that particular command would work or not, I don't know. But I'm sure you could come up with something suitably dire like "lend me your best piece of equipment" or "open your mouth and close your eyes and I'll give you a big surprise!". It would take two failed saves and a successful Charisma check, though.
Eamane 08-28-07, 03:04 PM	Because you are making the implication that "Do not move no matter what" is a reasonable suggestion. The problem with your assertions is that you are trying to use spells designed for outside-of-combat use in combat. In the arena - not moving is a very unreasonable suggestion. Not moving no matter what is akin to suicide. The problem is, nearly anything can in the arena, be considered 'akin to suicide'. Thus the request from multiple people to get a definite definition! Would such a request break charm + hypnosis, imho? No. Would it let you CDG? Also no, because charm would wear off as soon as they are aware that you are actively trying to kill them, which would be sooner enough for them to try and resist. You need to be a /bit/ more sneaky than that, in my opinion. The question is, /how/ much more sneaky. Because I wont ever use such a tactic in a battle if I don't know how much more sneaky will 'work' before-hand, which at the moment, I don't, because everyone has their own idea of what would and wouldn't work.
deathwishjoe 08-28-07, 03:39 PM	would the command of go to sleep be a sneakier way of doing this. obviously sleeping in the middle of combat in an arena of death can be suicide. however its reasonable to fall asleep around someone who your fanatically loyal to or even someone you consider a friend. you are helpless when sleeping and as they are asleep they wont know what hit them when you CDG them. Sure your abusing the trust of someone who feels comfortable enough to sleep around you but they dont know you plan to do that.
TelinArtho 08-28-07, 03:40 PM	Just because they are friendly/fanatic towards you doesn't remove the fact that the situation is a combat. Going to sleep in the middle of a combat is suicide. Even among friends.
deathwishjoe 08-28-07, 04:31 PM	well with out an immediate threat I dont see how it could be directly considered suicide. the only other person around is you and you're there freind. besides if anything were to come around that could hurt them while they slept you as there freind would protect them or at least wake them up so they can run away. as far as the situation being combat who are they fighting? you're there friend, not an enemy, and there shouldn't be anything that will change that untill after they wake up with a gaping chest wound. its not like your taking any hostile actions towards them while they are awake.
Callix 08-28-07, 04:51 PM	A few suggestions: "Eat this." Lace the food or drink with poison, acid, etc. "Let me borrow that wand." Negate their advantage, gain yours. "Head into my rope trick" This is iffy: this is an automatic loss, but not suicidal. It's effectively suggesting "forfeit". Which would also be a nice trick with Command. Thank the gods all my characters have good will saves.
Eamane 08-28-07, 05:18 PM	A few suggestions: "Eat this." Lace the food or drink with poison, acid, etc. "Let me borrow that wand." Negate their advantage, gain yours. "Head into my rope trick" This is iffy: this is an automatic loss, but not suicidal. It's effectively suggesting "forfeit". Which would also be a nice trick with Command. Thank the gods all my characters have good will saves. Command used to be one of my favorite spells. Alas, they 'nerfed' it to four specific options; which are still worth using sometime mind, but not nearly as useful as it used to be. As far as rope trick goes, I agree that for balance concerns, anything that would cause the person to knowingly forfeit the match should be considered 'suicidal'. Thus, you could trick someone into not trying to save vs. a teleport spell, but you couldn't have them teleport themselves out of the arena. That kind of thing is where I would personally draw the line. What I want and what no elder seems willing to give however, is where else the line is. For instance, is anything that is 'possibly harmful' considered equivalent to 'suicidal'? If so, Charm Person simply cant do anything in the Arenas as any given action is possibly harmful in a battle zone (everything from moving to a specific square, which might have a trap in it, to standing still, which could be an ambush). And if there is a gradient between 'possibly harmful' and 'suicidal'; What in the ever-loving tanj-name of the creator is it? Shall I draw up a list of suggestions for voting? Normally that's something an elder does, so I've been reluctant to proffer such a suggestion.
TelinArtho 08-28-07, 05:29 PM	The biggest issue with "drawing a line" is that it becomes a somewhat fuzzy issue unless every possible situation is drawn up ahead of time. If something comes up as a result of tactics - we now have a situation where the pitlord needs to make a judgement call - which leads to on-the-spot rulings. If the player using charm person gets overruled by the pitlord and then doesn't have a backup tactic - the player using charm person is suddenly feeling slighted because of a "rules change" that he wasn't aware of. Using charm person in a one on one fight, in my opinion, is out of the question. Allowing it results in difficult situations which will more often cause arguments than agreements. Charm Person just isn't easy to use in the arena. I have seen it used successfully in a multiplayer fight (where one person was able to charm another into fighting the "other" guy first) - but using it as a "save or die" effect is pretty much out of the question because it becomes an "obviously harmful" effect to the character affected. (I was the pitlord in that fight as well - and there was still a fair amount of discussion about the fight that week). Luckily for me - all players involved saw that charm person could be used in that circumstance. Giving an opponent a wand certainly qualifies as harmful for offensive spells; defensive and utility spells are less easy to adjudicate. Other items would have to be classified as well. What about using the memorized spells on the new friend? Etc, etc, etc.
hogarth 08-28-07, 08:03 PM	Can a cleric use her command/rebuke undead (or plant, or fire creatures, or snakes, etc.) power to obtain an ally? I can see three possible answers (although maybe there are more): 1) No. 2) Yes. It requires a miniquest, and at the end the cleric makes her turning check (maybe taking 10?). If that check fails, she'll have to try again with another miniquest. 3) Yes. It requires a miniquest, but the turning check at the end automatically succeeds.
Eamane 08-28-07, 08:05 PM	Can a cleric use her command/rebuke undead (or plant, or fire creatures, or snakes, etc.) power to obtain an ally? I can see three possible answers (although maybe there are more): 1) No. 2) Yes. It requires a miniquest, and at the end the cleric makes her turning check (maybe taking 10?). If that check fails, she'll have to try again with another miniquest. 3) Yes. It requires a miniquest, but the turning check at the end automatically succeeds. #2 No you cant take 10. Yes you can try multiple times (up to your 3FC limit for that particular fight) This is covered in the rules already, iirc. Or at the very least, I've seen many priests with rebuked servants. EDIT: Spells, Powers, and Abilities: Certain spells and powers (Planar Ally, Animate Dead, Dominate, Animate Object, etc.), items (Figurine of Wondrous Power, Golem Manual, etc.), abilities (rebuke undead, etc.), or even feats (Craft Construct) allow a character to summon, create allies, or control allies. Any such ally that is brought into a fight in advance (i.e. prebuffed) costs a share of your XP and gold, in addition to the regular xp and/or gold price for acquiring them in the first place, if any. Such allies must also meet all other ally requirements (Minimal ECL, maximum CR, etc.). Allies that are created after a fight begins (e.g. Summon Monster, or activating a Figurine of Wondrous Power), and ones without a CR or ECL, do not result in a penalty. In case of the Animate Dead spell you need to acquire a corpse first (which is normally be tied to a Quest or Miniquest unless you can get the body in another way, eg. buy a horse and kill it). All these allies use the abilities presented in their entry, modified by whatever the spell does (eg. +2 dex for skeletons). The Create Spawn ability of some undead creates minions who will use the unmodified MM entry and its CR to determine the CA. Theoretically, if you were lucky enough to get an arena fight with a monster you could Control, you could get one that way. That doesn't really happen though, so miniquesting/questing to gain the specific ally is your best bet.
hogarth 08-28-07, 08:43 PM	#2 No you cant take 10. Yes you can try multiple times (up to your 3FC limit for that particular fight) This is covered in the rules already, iirc. Or at the very least, I've seen many priests with rebuked servants. Are you sure? I think most of our current priests with undead servants created them via Animate Dead. I haven't seen any shadow or ghoul allies (for instance) recently.
NiQil 08-28-07, 09:16 PM	well with out an immediate threat I dont see how it could be directly considered suicide. the only other person around is you and you're there freind. besides if anything were to come around that could hurt them while they slept you as there freind would protect them or at least wake them up so they can run away. as far as the situation being combat who are they fighting? you're there friend, not an enemy, and there shouldn't be anything that will change that untill after they wake up with a gaping chest wound. its not like your taking any hostile actions towards them while they are awake. Keep in mind also that, as per our rules thread, combat begins as soon as initiative is rolled. So you are always "in combat" in the arena, and therefore always in an immediately threatening situation.
Salrantol 08-28-07, 11:36 PM	Can a cleric use her command/rebuke undead (or plant, or fire creatures, or snakes, etc.) power to obtain an ally? [snip] 3) Yes. It requires a miniquest, but the turning check at the end automatically succeeds.For most situations, this will be the result, simply due to the rules for turning. Since you can only command undead with half the HD that you have cleric levels, unless you're level 4 or below or have a Charisma penalty, you'll automatically succeed with any undead you control. Even with a Charisma penalty, you automatically succeed with any undead you control at level 8. Even at level 3 or 4, you automatically succeed if you have +3 Charisma.
hogarth 08-29-07, 06:43 AM	For most situations, this will be the result, simply due to the rules for turning. Since you can only command undead with half the HD that you have cleric levels, unless you're level 4 or below or have a Charisma penalty, you'll automatically succeed with any undead you control. Even with a Charisma penalty, you automatically succeed with any undead you control at level 8. Even at level 3 or 4, you automatically succeed if you have +3 Charisma. All of those calculations assume that one is miniquesting for a single ally, but one could be miniquesting for two shadows (say). It sounds like folks are saying that the turning roll is mandatory (and is possible to fail), but I'd like to hear an Elder chime in.
TelinArtho 08-29-07, 09:55 AM	My two elemental priests are already planning on getting [Fire] [Air] and [Earth] typed creatures. As for whether it is rolled during the miniquest - the rules are actually silent on it. The few that I've seen in the past (one of Xanadu's characters - three years ago...), did roll it - but that's not to say it couldn't change - especially with the change on how miniquests for allies are run now (where you don't actually fight what you want to gain...) and with the ability to negate the miniquest with a credit expense.
TelinArtho 08-29-07, 01:12 PM	Since Hogarth feels the need to argue this point, I will bring it up here. This spell turns the bones or bodies of dead creatures into undead skeletons or zombies that follow your spoken commands. The undead can follow you, or they can remain in an area and attack any creature (or just a specific kind of creature) entering the place. They remain animated until they are destroyed. (A destroyed skeleton or zombie can’t be animated again.) Regardless of the type of undead you create with this spell, you can’t create more HD of undead than twice your caster level with a single casting of animate dead. (The desecrate spell doubles this limit) The undead you create remain under your control indefinitely. No matter how many times you use this spell, however, you can control only 4 HD worth of undead creatures per caster level. If you exceed this number, all the newly created creatures fall under your control, and any excess undead from previous castings become uncontrolled. (You choose which creatures are released.) If you are a cleric, any undead you might command by virtue of your power to command or rebuke undead do not count toward the limit. His suggestion is that the Caster Level referred to in the second paragraph is dictated by the spell itself, not the user of the spell. So - his level 1 Cleric, level 11 Psion can create a 20HD undead with a CL10 scroll and control it without issue. However, my suggestion is that the Caster Level in the second paragraph is actually the caster level of the character using the spell. So the question is - can a CL1 Cleric control 20HD of undead created from a CL10 scroll or potion?
hogarth 08-29-07, 01:17 PM	His suggestion is that the Caster Level referred to in the second paragraph is dictated by the spell itself, not the user of the spell. So - his level 1 Cleric, level 11 Psion can create a 20HD undead with a CL10 scroll and control it without issue. However, my suggestion is that the Caster Level in the second paragraph is actually the caster level of the character using the spell. So the question is - can a CL1 Cleric control 20HD of undead created from a CL10 scroll or potion? My opinion is straightforward -- whether we like it or not, "caster level" always means the same thing in spell descriptions, and the caster level of a potion (or scroll, etc.) is determined by the potion (or scroll).
NiQil 08-29-07, 09:49 PM	A flaw I see in your logic, hogarth.... First and foremost, are we talking about a scroll or an oil of animate dead? If it is a CL 10 scroll, then you cannot own this item, as the max CL on a scroll is your CL + 2, meaning that for clerical items, your max CL is 3. So a clerical scroll of CL 10 anything is out the window. If it is a CL 10 oil, then we can at least examine the issue. When a potion or oil is created, the effects of the item are related to the person who made it. So duration, power, etc, is set by the CL 10. The Animate Dead description makes all its references as if the person using the spell will be the person casting the spell. So in order to apply this spell into an oil, we have to infer a bit. We cannot read it literally. Reading it literally would mean that you cannot create anything higher than a 2 HD creature, because it refers to your caster level. Since we know this is not true by the rule that the power of a potion is set by the person who created it, then the rest of the spell must be inferred as well. The only reading that makes sense, both from a RAW and a RAI perspective, is that while the CL of the oil may control how many HD of undead you can create, it does not give you any additional ability to control a greater amount of HD. In short, if you want a CL 10 oil of Animate Dead, feel free, but I would not allow you to control more than 4 x your CL in HD.
hogarth 08-29-07, 10:21 PM	When a potion or oil is created, the effects of the item are related to the person who made it. So duration, power, etc, is set by the CL 10. The Animate Dead description makes all its references as if the person using the spell will be the person casting the spell. Telin was the one who brought up the idea of using a scroll, but Kilpquabjeg is actually using an oil. Here are the rules on oils: The person applying an oil is the effective caster, but the object is the target. So it's clear that Kilpquabjeg is treated as the caster. But what caster level does she use for the spell effect? The caster level of the oil, of course, which is 10. Just like a non-caster drinking a CL 5 potion of Fly gets a CL 5 effect, not a CL 0 effect. I don't really understand why people are doing backflips trying to come up with a dual interpretation of what "caster level" might mean in a spell description. If you think having non-casters control undead is overpowered, then make a house rule forbidding it. If you don't think it's overpowered, then what's the problem? At any rate, I think there have probably been enough arguments on both sides of the issue in the Tavern so we can probably go straight for a vote. If I understand correctly, Telin and NiQil agree that a CL 10 oil of Animate Dead can create up to 20 HD worth of undead, but control of the creature created depends on the user's innate caster level, not the oil's caster level. If one more Elder agrees, then the issue will be closed. (Note that Kilp will probably still keep the skeleton regardless of the verdict, controlling it with scrolls of Command Undead if necessary.)
MindWandererB 08-30-07, 03:23 AM	Well, the problem is that unlike every other spell in the book, Animate Dead seems to "check" what your level is not only when you cast it, but on an ongoing basis. The undead you create remain under your control indefinitely. No matter how many times you use this spell, however, you can control only 4 HD worth of undead creatures per caster level. If you exceed this number, all the newly created creatures fall under your control, and any excess undead from previous castings become uncontrolled. (You choose which creatures are released.) If you are a cleric, any undead you might command by virtue of your power to command or rebuke undead do not count toward the limit.I can certainly see the validity of hogarth's reading, but it looks like if at any time, not just at the instant of casting the spell, the total cnotrolled HD exceed 4x your caster level, the remainer are freed. If you lost a level to level drain, for instance, you'd have to free some undead. This would certainly be debatable, but I think balance is the tiebreaker. 1750 gp would buy you a 20-HD, CR 8 skeleton, regardless of your class. That wouldn't be unreasonable in TT, but here, with our automatically resurrected allies, that's extreme cheese. This would suddenly become the easiest and cheapest way of getting an ally from ECLs 5 through 12.
Vathelokai 08-30-07, 07:44 AM	After reviewing the courtroom and tavern on the subject, I must agree with hogarth. As cheese as it is, I think his rules interpretation is correct. The wording of the spell obviously doesn't take magic items into account (seems as though it was never intended to be a magic item... strange as that is). As for the balance issue, they may be cheap, but I don't feel threatened by them. I'm much rather tangle with a squeezing snake skeleton than a lv 10 kineticist. However, I know myself to be a bad judge of such things. I can defer to MWB's wisdom on the subject. Summary: voting for hogarth, but won't be offended by a house rule in the name of balance.
Salrantol 08-30-07, 07:48 AM	If animate dead only checks your caster level when you cast the spell, then if you're a level 5 cleric who animates 20 HD worth of undead, then levels and animates a 4 HD undead, you would lose 4 HD of undead from your CL 5 casting, since you can't control more than 20 HD of undead, as per that spell. Ergo, the "caster level" in the latter paragraph must be your current caster level at any given time.
hogarth 08-30-07, 08:41 AM	If animate dead only checks your caster level when you cast the spell, then if you're a level 5 cleric who animates 20 HD worth of undead, then levels and animates a 4 HD undead, you would lose 4 HD of undead from your CL 5 casting, since you can't control more than 20 HD of undead, as per that spell. Ergo, the "caster level" in the latter paragraph must be your current caster level at any given time. Well, my interpretation is that the ability to control is a part of the spell that hangs around as long as the skeleton still exists. So your example would fall under "two effects with different strengths" -- they would overlap, with the strongest effect prevailing. We just need one more vote to close the issue. I suspect Kilpquabjeg will have to start stocking up on scrolls of Command Undead... ;)
hogarth 09-04-07, 06:59 AM	New topic -- In the "Favorable and Unfavorable Conditions" table (see here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#favorableandUnfavora bleConditions)), it says: Defender is… Melee Ranged Pinned -44 +04 4. Treat the defender’s Dexterity as 0 (-5 modifier). Rogues can sneak attack helpless or pinned defenders. However, in the section on Grappling, it clarifies that the -4 AC vs. melee does not apply to the character who is maintaining the pin. So does the effective Dexterity of 0 apply to the character maintaining the pin or not?
whitebaron 09-04-07, 07:25 AM	New topic -- In the "Favorable and Unfavorable Conditions" table (see here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#favorableandUnfavora bleConditions)), it says: Defender is… Melee Ranged Pinned -44 +04 4. Treat the defender’s Dexterity as 0 (-5 modifier). Rogues can sneak attack helpless or pinned defenders. However, in the section on Grappling, it clarifies that the -4 AC vs. melee does not apply to the character who is maintaining the pin. So does the effective Dexterity of 0 apply to the character maintaining the pin or not? all modifiers for grapple/pin only applay to people outside of the grapple. in the grapple, you fight as normal, with the difference on how many grapple attempts you can make being based on your BAB, not your actual attacks. (There are of course exceptions, like rake, or flurry of blows) so the pinner gets no bonus for pinning. only the outside -of-grapple combattants do.
TelinArtho 09-07-07, 03:06 PM	New topic -- In the "Favorable and Unfavorable Conditions" table (see here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#favorableandUnfavora bleConditions)), it says: Defender is… Melee Ranged Pinned -44 +04 4. Treat the defender’s Dexterity as 0 (-5 modifier). Rogues can sneak attack helpless or pinned defenders. However, in the section on Grappling, it clarifies that the -4 AC vs. melee does not apply to the character who is maintaining the pin. So does the effective Dexterity of 0 apply to the character maintaining the pin or not? Somehow I missed that this was posted... but I must have read it at one point. As to whether the Dex of 0 applies or not is not black and white since the SRD is silent on the issue. The -4 is specifically mentioned, but the Dex change is not. I'd be inclined to say it does apply. Note that an opponent in a grapple gets to use his dex modifier to his AC against attacks made in the grapple. When he is pinned, his dex is treated as 0. Note that the "pinner" has very few options for attacking the victim of the pin. He can't use his own weapon, but he could use the opponent's weapon.
TelinArtho 09-07-07, 03:22 PM	On the matter of Kilp's undead - do we have enough votes on it? Deny - Telin, (MWB), NiQil Agree - Vath Unspoken - Sauro, Zevox Looks like we still need at least one more vote to close it (possibly both if Sauro/Zevox agree with hogarth's interpretation).
hogarth 09-07-07, 03:36 PM	Note that the "pinner" has very few options for attacking the victim of the pin. He can't use his own weapon, but he could use the opponent's weapon. No attacking while pinning...nurtz. That means that Balthazar Picsou's fight last week (where his griffon pinned and then attacked with Rake attacks) was illegal. Sorry, NiQil.
whitebaron 09-07-07, 03:43 PM	If You’re Pinning an Opponent You can attempt to damage your opponent with an opposed grapple check, you can attempt to use your opponent’s weapon against him, or you can attempt to move the grapple (all described above). At your option, you can prevent a pinned opponent from speaking. so, you can do the normal opposed grapple for damage. and you can actually do the rake attacks before the pinning action, right? is there any order to be had for attacks?
Vathelokai 09-08-07, 09:29 AM	After much review on charm spells, I've come up with a few guidelines for their use. Although I would like to see them be more powerful, I reigned myself in and tried to follow the RAW as close as I could. Command [lv 1] -will save, 1 round durration -approach, drop, fall, flee, halt Charm person [lv 1] - This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target’s attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw. - The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn’t ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. Friendly: Wishes you well; Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate; 10 rounds to adjust behavior: DC 20 to improve to Helpful; must roll less than 1 to reduce to Indifferent Hypnotism [lv 1] - Your gestures and droning incantation fascinate nearby creatures, causing them to stop and stare blankly at you. In addition, you can use their rapt attention to make your suggestions and requests seem more plausible. Roll 2d4 to see how many total Hit Dice of creatures you affect. - While the subject is fascinated by this spell, it reacts as though it were two steps more friendly in attitude. This allows you to make a single request of the affected creature (provided you can communicate with it). The request must be brief and reasonable. Even after the spell ends, the creature retains its new attitude toward you, but only with respect to that particular request. Enthrall [lv 2] - To cast the spell, you must speak or sing without interruption for 1 full round. Thereafter, those affected give you their undivided attention, ignoring their surroundings. They are considered to have an attitude of friendly while under the effect of the spell - Any potentially affected creature of a race or religion unfriendly to yours gets a +4 bonus on the saving throw. Suggestion [lv 3] - The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the activity sound reasonable. Asking the creature to do some obviously harmful act automatically negates the effect of the spell. - The suggested course of activity can continue for the entire duration (1 hr/lv). - A very reasonable suggestion causes the save to be made with a penalty (such as -1 or -2). Dominate person [lv 5] - Once you have given a dominated creature a command, it continues to attempt to carry out that command to the exclusion of all other activities except those necessary for day-to-day survival (such as sleeping, eating, and so forth). - Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus. Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out. Q: Dear Sage, What exactly is the limit to what you can 'persuade' a charmed enemy to do with the charm person spell? How trusting of the caster is a charmed individual? --Dave A: The spell description for charm person indicates that the target’s attitude toward you becomes “friendly” as defined by the Diplomacy skill (PHB, pg. 72). Thus, a charmed enemy wishes you well, and will chat, advise, offer limited help, or advocate for you. The spell suggests that you might convince a charmed fighter to hold back an onrushing dragon for a few seconds, but that’s a pretty extreme example and would certainly require the opposed Charisma check described in the spell entry. A charmed enemy doesn’t automatically trust anything you say, but it “perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way” (PHB, pg. 209). Multiple Enchantments That Provide Control: Two enchantments that don't remove the recipient's ability to act usually do not interfere with each other. If a creature has received enchantments that make it obey orders from two or more creatures, it tends to obey each to the best of its ability, and to the extent of the control each enchantment allows. If the controlled creature receives conflicting orders simultaneously, the competing controllers must make opposed Charisma checks to determine which one the creature obeys. Making the opposed check isn't an action for either caster. For example, a creature receives a dominate person spell from one caster and a charm person spell from another. Both spells work, and the creature must obey both casters. If the creature simultaneously receives orders and cannot obey both casters (for example, when the casters each orders the subject to approach a different location), the casters make opposed Charisma checks and the subject obeys the caster who wins the check. ... See also, All about enchantments 2 for specific examples of Skips ability to cut and paste (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20051011a) Suppose you can't find a useful grudge or conflict to exploit, or maybe you don't have time to look. You might be able to achieve a similar result by taking matters into your own hands! Use modify memory to implant a false memory of a grudge, or of some offensive incident that would likely spark one. Alternatively, you could use an illusion spell or the psionic power false sensory input to show your subject a hateful incident and plant the seeds of conflict. Once you have a grudge established, the suggestion to attack an ally seems a bit more reasonable to your target. Save my game: adjudicating charms 1 (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050812a) Save my game: adjudicating charms 2 (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050819a) Charm effects overlap (do not stack), so the hypnotism effect cannot be cast on an already charmed foe to make them more cooperative. After initiative is rolled, both characters know they are in combat to the death. Any intelligent creature will know that an action suggested by the opponent is most likely to the opponents favor, and thus threatening. Charm Person: In one on one combat, any command is by default threatening, and will not be carried out. In 3+ person combat, a charmed charmed individual will be willing to take suggestions to fight someone else first, but they still know they must fight the charmer, so will not trade equipment or use abilities that would make their tactics against the charmer unworkable. Suggestion: Follow the rules for charm person, except that in 3+ person fights a charmed individual may trade equipment or uses tactics that could make their future plans against the charmer difficult. However, they will not use/trade equipment or abilities that would make it impossible. For example, a suggestion to give your wand of magic missile to the ally of an incorporeal wizard would end the spell because it is 'obviously harmful' in the long run. Dominate person: 'Self-destructive orders' are defined as any action that would cause hp dmg, stat dmg, a status condition, or inability to win the fight when they escape the domination. For example, a dominated person would not hand over all their ranged weapons and fly potions to a flying wizard. In a 3+ player fight, a dominated individual will fight someone other than the caster (taking damage, etc.) without problem, but will fight to the best of their ability. Dominate person: 'Actions against their nature' is defined as any action that will make the dominated person weaker in their eventual encounter against the charmer (or anyone else). For example, A wizard dominates a fighter and commands the fighter to kill a rogue. The fighter does so but is very wounded. As per their tactics, the fighter begins to drink cure potions. If the wizard were to command the dominated fighter to stop healing, it would be 'against their nature'. General orders like 'stay away from the wizard', 'avoid melee with the wizard', 'only fight me with the weapon you have to roll a 20 to hit with', etc., allow a save every round while the command is in effect. For example, a wizard commands a fighter to wield a weapon he is not proficient with and to use it for subdual dmg (perhaps using a bastard sword one handed and trying to hit with the flat of the blade). Every time the fighter takes a swing with the weapon, he would receive a new save (but only once per round, in the case of multiple attacks). If the wizard were to run and hide, the fighter would not receive extra save checks for simply carrying the weapon around. Comments? If none, then I would suggest placing this in the court decisions or rules thread as a reference.
hogarth 09-08-07, 09:55 AM	Comments? If none, then I would suggest placing this in the court decisions or rules thread as a reference. I still think you should be able to give a charmed person a command that is not "obviously harmful". Saying that everything is "obviously harmful" in an arena fight seems silly. So you can tell your opponent "hit me" and he won't obey you? I think a better heuristic is this: If you and a friend of yours (not your best friend, but a friend nonetheless) got into a serious fight with each other, what would you be willing to do for him? Some possibilities might include: "Fight fair" (no sneak attacks unless the other guy uses them first) "Don't kill me" (no lethal attacks unless the other guy uses them first) "Don't hit an unarmed man" (don't use a weapon on someone who doesn't have one)
Vathelokai 09-08-07, 12:03 PM	I still think you should be able to give a charmed person a command that is not "obviously harmful". Saying that everything is "obviously harmful" in an arena fight seems silly. So you can tell your opponent "hit me" and he won't obey you? I think a better heuristic is this: If you and a friend of yours (not your best friend, but a friend nonetheless) got into a serious fight with each other, what would you be willing to do for him? Some possibilities might include: "Fight fair" (no sneak attacks unless the other guy uses them first) "Don't kill me" (no lethal attacks unless the other guy uses them first) "Don't hit an unarmed man" (don't use a weapon on someone who doesn't have one) The two problems (sorry for rehashing)... 1) This isn't just a fight, it's a deathmatch. If you and your best friend and you were told you had to kill one another or you would both be shot how would that be resolved? Suggestions like 'don't use a weapon' are potentially a threatening trick in this context. In a one on one fight to the death, everything is a threat. I don't like it, but as far as the rules are written, that's the way it looks. Even a charm person with the suggestion to 'kill me quick with that sword' would would have the potential of being a sneaky (and thus possibly deadly) trick. 2) The suggestions depend entirely on who you are fighting. If you charmed the Chameleon and asked her to fight fair, there goes 75% of her offensive capabilities. Asking them not to use weapons when they know for a fact you have 'that electric grab thing' similarly won't work. The problem I see is that all of those suggestions would work against PCs that wouldn't use those strategies anyway. You could probably charm Saffron Brass to not use sneak attacks, which wouldn't bother her much (she only has a +1d6 after all), but as a caster, you wouldn't waste your time preventing that when she has a sleep breath weapon and a staff or spiritual weapons to worry about. Summary: I agree with you and would do those things in a home game, but in a RAW game, I cannot see the rules supporting it. Is my point clear? If not, please let me know.
Abyssal Stalker 09-08-07, 02:00 PM	So basically you are saying that Command is a stronger spell than Dominate Person. For example if the enlargened Jonathon dominates a halfling rogue, he can't tell him to stand still. Because that would be self-destructive; Jonathon comes and grapples him and that's about it. But if Lillian used command on the rogue, then it would be OK? The problem is and always will be that these spells aren't written with arena combat in mind. I think the way we are reading them is just silly. Obviously the wordings like "self-destructive orders are not carried out" mean things like "jump off that cliff" or "cut your own throat with your dagger". To me things against one's nature are like paladins killing little chidlren or the evil tyrant donating all his money to the poor. I find it odd that a simple Hold Person makes your opponent freeze and wait for a CDG, but a level 5 spell Dominate Person can't do that...
Rauul 09-08-07, 02:28 PM	So basically you are saying that Command is a stronger spell than Dominate Person. For example if the enlargened Jonathon dominates a halfling rogue, he can't tell him to stand still. Because that would be self-destructive; Jonathon comes and grapples him and that's about it. But if Lillian used command on the rogue, then it would be OK? The problem is and always will be that these spells aren't written with arena combat in mind. I think the way we are reading them is just silly. Obviously the wordings like "self-destructive orders are not carried out" mean things like "jump off that cliff" or "cut your own throat with your dagger". To me things against one's nature are like paladins killing little chidlren or the evil tyrant donating all his money to the poor. I find it odd that a simple Hold Person makes your opponent freeze and wait for a CDG, but a level 5 spell Dominate Person can't do that... Personnelly i have always felt that the arena isn't Death.. since the Nimbus makes it so death is meaningless All the spells should work as normal IMHO.. Since charming a person and telling them they are in the wrong arena isn't Deadly.. other than they loose the fight when they leave..
Vathelokai 09-08-07, 03:37 PM	So basically you are saying that Command is a stronger spell than Dominate Person. In combat, yes; since charm spells are specifically designed to be used out of combat and almost all have a statement of how badly they work in combat.
MindWandererB 09-08-07, 04:17 PM	I still think you should be able to give a charmed person a command that is not "obviously harmful". Saying that everything is "obviously harmful" in an arena fight seems silly. So you can tell your opponent "hit me" and he won't obey you? I think a better heuristic is this: If you and a friend of yours (not your best friend, but a friend nonetheless) got into a serious fight with each other, what would you be willing to do for him? Some possibilities might include: "Fight fair" (no sneak attacks unless the other guy uses them first) "Don't kill me" (no lethal attacks unless the other guy uses them first) "Don't hit an unarmed man" (don't use a weapon on someone who doesn't have one)Using the "friend" guideline, I could see the charm victim agreeing to some kind of equitable situation. For instance, if both combatants were gish, I could see agreeing to resolve the battle with weapons rather than with spells, or vice-versa. But it would have to be very reasonable--to use my own characters as an example, Maya and Gakhnalak are both gish, but it would be suicide for Maya to meet on equal footing in melee. You wouldn't be able to have anyone give up a critical advantage.In combat, yes; since charm spells are specifically designed to be used out of combat and almost all have a statement of how badly they work in combat.I agree to some extent--in some contexts, Command is certainly more powerful. Command someone to "fall" while hovering over lava, for instance--dominate can't do that.
Abyssal Stalker 09-09-07, 07:38 AM	In combat, yes; since charm spells are specifically designed to be used out of combat and almost all have a statement of how badly they work in combat. Well, not all of them. Mainly I am thinking about Dominate Person - that is clearly a spell that has a lot of combat potential as it matters not what the initial attitude of the target is. I see it as the classical "turn a character against his friends" -spell.
Vathelokai 09-09-07, 12:01 PM	Well, not all of them. Mainly I am thinking about Dominate Person - that is clearly a spell that has a lot of combat potential as it matters not what the initial attitude of the target is. I see it as the classical "turn a character against his friends" -spell. Very true, and against a character with allies it would do just that. However, it can't turn a character against themselves. You can basicly steal a cohort with it, since the rules of gladius only specifiy death of the PC; thus the cohort would know they are not in a life or death situation. I also noticed that the Assassinate skill package would be perfect for charm spells; except that it's next to impossible for a full caster to use. Might have to rebuild Zodiac....
Abyssal Stalker 09-09-07, 03:12 PM	Yes, but dominating someone to drop his weapons would neither be life or death. It would certainly be "against their nature" but I have hard times seeing it as "self-destructive", allthough it makes the character's position a lot harder. I have hard times approving the logic that everything even remotely dangerous is "self-destructive". After all, the description of Dominate Person says "you can generally force the subject to perform as you desire, within the limits of its abilities." It seems to me that your way of reading the rules renders the spell completely useless and contradicts the main effect of the spell. I am of course biased in this subject, but even if I didn't play Jonathon my opinion would probably be the same.
Vathelokai 09-09-07, 03:26 PM	To be honest, I'm pretty biased on this one myself. Zodiac would have a couple more wins under his belt with more useful charm spells. The problems are two... 1)character intellegence: even if you know that surrendering your weapons will not be physicly painful, you do know that it will make you loose the fight. Is that a 'life or death decision'? A smart character would say yes. 2) CoCo policy is that all matches are to the death. It seems to me that you are correct on the rules as intended, but the rules were not written well enough. Since a majority of the elders agrees with the CoCo policy, it would take a vote to change that. What I'm trying to do is either find a rule I missed, come up with an ultra strict guideline, or find a new guideline to present to vote on.
hogarth 09-19-07, 12:34 PM	The rules for bloodlines state (at least in UA): "If you already have a feat that a bloodline provides as a bonus feat, you may choose a different feat." Reginald Molehusband has a psicrystal, so he "gains the Alertness feat" whenever it's within arm's reach. So can he choose a different feat in lieu of Alertness for his Brass Dragon bloodline?
TelinArtho 09-20-07, 03:50 PM	The rules for bloodlines state (at least in UA): "If you already have a feat that a bloodline provides as a bonus feat, you may choose a different feat." Reginald Molehusband has a psicrystal, so he "gains the Alertness feat" whenever it's within arm's reach. So can he choose a different feat in lieu of Alertness for his Brass Dragon bloodline? Given that we don't allow that exchange to be made for other things (like Kraegin when he became a Thaumaturgist and got Augmented Summoning for free), I'd say probably not. Also - I don't know that it would qualify in this case anyway since technically Reginald only has the feat when he is within arm's reach of the psicrystal.
hogarth 09-20-07, 04:55 PM	Given that we don't allow that exchange to be made for other things (like Kraegin when he became a Thaumaturgist and got Augmented Summoning for free), I'd say probably not. The bloodline rules (unlike the Thaumaturgist rules) specifically state that you may choose a different feat if you have it already, as I said above. So the fact that a Thaumaturgist can't is neither here nor there. Also - I don't know that it would qualify in this case anyway since technically Reginald only has the feat when he is within arm's reach of the psicrystal. I agree that it's not clear. I figured it can't hurt to ask, though. :)
SauroGrenom 09-20-07, 08:23 PM	The rules for bloodlines state (at least in UA): "If you already have a feat that a bloodline provides as a bonus feat, you may choose a different feat." Reginald Molehusband has a psicrystal, so he "gains the Alertness feat" whenever it's within arm's reach. So can he choose a different feat in lieu of Alertness for his Brass Dragon bloodline?I think that technically Reginald doesn't have the alertness feat. He gains the benefit of that feat while his crystal is close, but technically it's not his feat. Although in a more general sense, the question is interesting. I agree with Telin's opinion on what to do in the situation where a bloodline grants an already taken feat. It's a bit more than we bargained for if we allow bloodline feats to become general bonus feats... I don't like it, and we aren't obligated to follow the letter of the UA rules.
Callix 09-20-07, 08:40 PM	I think that technically Reginald doesn't have the alertness feat. He gains the benefit of that feat while his crystal is close, but technically it's not his feat. Although in a more general sense, the question is interesting. I agree with Telin's opinion on what to do in the situation where a bloodline grants an already taken feat. It's a bit more than we bargained for if we allow bloodline feats to become general bonus feats... I don't like it, and we aren't obligated to follow the letter of the UA rules. On the more general issues, would it be possible to create lists of bonus feats for each feat granted by the bloodline? Dodge and Power Attack would be easy: Anything with that feat as a prerequisite. Alertness might be trickier... Skill Focus (Listen or Spot), Blind Fight, or maybe another +2/+2 feat. Similar for the other +2/+2's (Stealthy from Vampire).
hogarth 09-20-07, 08:50 PM	Although in a more general sense, the question is interesting. I agree with Telin's opinion on what to do in the situation where a bloodline grants an already taken feat. It's a bit more than we bargained for if we allow bloodline feats to become general bonus feats... I don't like it, and we aren't obligated to follow the letter of the UA rules. So let me get this straight. Taking a feat of your choice at level 1 and getting Alertness as a bonus feat at level 8 is balanced, but taking Alertness at level one and getting a feat of your choice at level 8 is so unbalanced we need to enact a special house rule against it? :rolleyes: Frankly, the bloodlines are so crappy that (as far as I know) no one has taken one except for the free ones that I've used! At any rate, it seems like we're in agreement on the major issue: having a familiar/psicrystal doesn't actually grant you the Alertness feat. That's fine by me.
Rauul 09-20-07, 08:58 PM	Ok something i have been thinking about With mercs.. now that MWB made it so 2 elders can approve one.. 1) When Hired they should be Hired for the full 3fc (so cost should be tripled) Unless your allowed to hire a different one each fight.. 2)Unlike Cohorts.. they are Hired guns that we pay.. They shouldn't take away from our Gold awards.. Exp awards i can understand.. 3) Can leadership feat (score) be used instead of Diplomacy to get them to change spells, hire cheaper.. ect..
TelinArtho 09-20-07, 09:11 PM	Rauul - that should probably go to the council rather than here. I do have some response to that - but I'll get to it over there. @Hogarth - a general feat at level 1 is a lot less powerful than a general feat at level 8... Improved Critical? Weapon Specialization? Spring Attack? Shot on the Run? Whirlwind Attack? Anything that has a prerequisite that you can't meet at level 1, but that you can meet at level 2+ would be in this list.
hogarth 09-20-07, 09:24 PM	@Hogarth - a general feat at level 1 is a lot less powerful than a general feat at level 8... Improved Critical? Weapon Specialization? Spring Attack? Shot on the Run? Whirlwind Attack? Anything that has a prerequisite that you can't meet at level 1, but that you can meet at level 2+ would be in this list. Why haven't we banned Human Paragon and Half-Elf Paragon yet, then?
Eamane 09-20-07, 09:59 PM	I'm with Hogarth on this one. It's really not that unbalanced considering the over-time LA loss. It takes quite alot of bonuses for level adjustment to be worth it, and bloodlines? They don't make the grade, imho. What they do do is make interesting characters, which is fine and dandy by me.
TheMagister 09-21-07, 01:22 PM	What's the CoCo stance on the feat "Split Psionic Ray"? As I read it, the split rays can each target seperate targets within 30' or they can target the same target (since one creature or object targeted twice meets all the conditions listed in the feat description). I just wanna make sure. TM
hogarth 09-21-07, 01:31 PM	What's the CoCo stance on the feat "Split Psionic Ray"? As I read it, the split rays can each target seperate targets within 30' or they can target the same target (since one creature or object targeted twice meets all the conditions listed in the feat description). I just wanna make sure. I disagree. The feat says "two targets" not "one target twice". Otherwise, by the same logic, you could use Energy Current with the same target as the primary and secondary target (for instance).
TheMagister 09-21-07, 01:42 PM	I disagree. The feat says "two targets" not "one target twice". Otherwise, by the same logic, you could use Energy Current with the same target as the primary and secondary target (for instance). Bad example. The language in the Energy Current description specifies that there is a primary and a secondary target, making it clear that the primary target cannot be the secondary target. The description clarifies the stat block. The Split Psionic Ray feat is beautifully written, allowing for unrestricted choice of any two targets that meet the two qualifiers presented. The split ray affects any two targets that are both within the power's range and within 30 feet of each other. Broken down: Baseline statement: The split ray affects any two targets. Qualifier 1: must be within the power's range, and; Qualifier 2: must be within 30 feet of each other. A single creature meets both of those specifications. He is within the power's range, and he is less than 30 feet from himself. Not less than 30' but more than ZERO.
TelinArtho 09-21-07, 01:50 PM	Sorry TM - but one creature cannot be two targets.
hogarth 09-21-07, 01:54 PM	Seriously, you're torturing the English language to get your conclusion. "Meet my two best friends: TheMagister! His two favorite colors are red, and he drives two cars -- a 1992 Chevy Malibu. He has two children named Tammy and two wives named Beth. They live in two houses at 142 Cherry Lane." ;)
Eamane 09-21-07, 01:56 PM	Re: Split Ray The psionic version of split ray has been consistently considered to be unable to hit the same target twice. The arcane version however, is specifically shown in an example to do so. (And, worded differently to boot) What does that mean? Raw end of the stick, psionics! But you make up for it in other ways.
TheMagister 09-21-07, 02:24 PM	Seriously, you're torturing the English language to get your conclusion. "Meet my two best friends: TheMagister! His two favorite colors are red, and he drives two cars -- a 1992 Chevy Malibu. He has two children named Tammy and two wives named Beth. They live in two houses at 142 Cherry Lane." ;) Well, seeing as I have so much instant opposition (supported by what appears to be a FAQ-backed statement of affairs from Eamane), I'll have to lay off. I still hold that the statement is ambiguous enough to warrant investigation. The word "any" as it is used in "any two targets" is thought provoking. The same guy can be the target for two seperate but simultaneous shots fired from two seperate guns held by one shooter, for example. In that case, the victim'd fit the description of "any two targets" (i.e. - the target of the first shot and the target of the second shot, even though he's the same guy). Two attacks, each requiring a target. That the shooter chose to target the same guy twice is irrelevant. The same target twice can be "ANY two targets". I'm not butchering the English language at all. THEY are. To read the clear, concise way that you guys want it to read, they'd have had to say: "The split ray affects two seperate targets that are both within the power's range and within 30 feet of each other." ... But they didn't. Like I said...it's thought provoking.
TheMagister 09-21-07, 02:37 PM	I have to admit, it sounds like a lawyer joke. The other day I was walking down the beach and found a battered old brass oil lamp. Curious, I picked it up and brushed off the sand. To my amazement, a genie swirled out of the lamp's spout and granted me three wishes. Now, I had just been through a nasty divorce. My wife cheated on me with my best friend, and her slick lawyer still managed to take me for everything. Being both a vengeful man and wishing to remove such low specimens of humanity from this over-burdened world, I chose my wishes carefully. "Genie," said I. "I wish that my ex-wife's lawyer, my ex-wife, and my lyin' best friend were here." And *poof!* there they were. "Genie, I wish I had a gun." And *poof!* there it was -- a .44 Magnum. But I had made a mistake. It wasn't loaded! Still, I had one wish left over. So much for being rich and famous. "Genie, I sure wish I had some bullets for this gun." And *poof!*, two bullets appeared in my hand. ONLY TWO! Another oversight! Two bullets are technically the plural of "bullet", but now how was I gonna do the world the most good and satisfy my taste for revenge at the same time? Shoot the unfaithful ex and the treacherous former best friend? The thieving lawyer and the ex? The ex-friend and the lawyer? A conundrum. So I shot the lawyer twice, just to make sure.
templer10 09-21-07, 02:43 PM	I have to admit, it sounds like a lawyer joke. The other day I was walking down the beach and found a battered old brass oil lamp. Curious, I picked it up and brushed off the sand. To my amazement, a genie swirled out of the lamp's spout and granted me three wishes. Now, I had just been through a nasty divorce. My wife cheated on me with my best friend, and her slick lawyer still managed to take me for everything. Being a vengeful man, I chose my wishes carefully. "Genie," said I. "I wish that my ex-wife's lawyer, my ex-wife, and my lyin' best friend were here." And *poof!* there they were. "Genie, I wish I had a gun." And *poof!* there it was. But I had made a mistake! It wasn't loaded! Still, I had one wish left over. So much for being rich and famous. "Genie, I sure wish I had some bullets for this gun." And *poof!*, two bullets appeared in my hand. ONLY TWO! Another mistake! Two bullets are certainly the plural of "bullet", but how was I gonna do the most good and satisfy my taste for vengeance? Shoot the ex and the former best friend? The lawyer and the ex? The ex-friend and the lawyer? A conundrum. So I shot the lawyer twice, just to make sure. As a lawyer Myself - i Protest - You would need a lot more then 2 bullets to finish any self respecting lawyer....
Rauul 09-21-07, 03:44 PM	As a lawyer Myself - i Protest - You would need a lot more then 2 bullets to finish any self respecting lawyer.... Wanna bet... I bet ToK and myself can prove differently :)
Eamane 09-26-07, 03:01 PM	This may eventually end up in the Council thread, but the first part of my question is clarification so it belongs here; 1. Is it possible to create level one or level two characters for the purposes of a group that fights at it's ECL +2? I.E: Two people each creating a level one character that starts battles in the ECL 3 range. Or level twos to fight in ECL 4. 2. If so, what would the starting xp/gp values for level one and level two be?
Callix 09-26-07, 10:11 PM	Again, this may need to move to the Council, but I think the Courtroom is the right place to adjudicate this. Do the Slayer's Favored Enemy bonuses stack with Ranger Favored Enemy bonuses if the types overlap? As an example, if you had Favored Enemy (Elves) +2 from Ranger and Favored Enemy (Psionic Elves) +2 from Slayer, would you get a +2 or +4 bonus on the relevant rolls? Personally, I think they'd overlap, but others disagree, so a definitive ruling would be nice
Eamane 09-27-07, 01:39 AM	Can Clarity of Madness (Flip-side of the Madness domain, lets you treat Insanity as a positive for one roll/check) be used in conjunction with/against Skill Packages? Specific example: Gradak vs Shugho-Zact. Gradak's bluff is +6. Shugho's sense motive is +5. If Shugho can use her Clarity of Madness, her Sense Motive increases to +6, which would negate Gradak's ambush package. To my gut, this feels like it should work; in a clinch, Shugho can push her madness back long enough to pay attention to her surroundings. But allowing it was pointed out to be precedence for temporary skill increasing things working in conjunction/against skill packages. Which I don't think is that big of a problem, if a sneak wants to buy three shards of +10 to bluff, it's just as east for his opponents to carry around one shard of +10 to sense motive/etc. Whoever throws more money at it has an appreciably better chance at having it work. Yet, it's opening up further reliance on expendables (kind of), which is a bad thing.
hogarth 09-27-07, 06:20 AM	Can Clarity of Madness (Flip-side of the Madness domain, lets you treat Insanity as a positive for one roll/check) be used in conjunction with/against Skill Packages? I think the precedent has been to not allow temporary skill bonuses to apply to activities outside the arena. But is a Skill Package outside the arena or not?
MindWandererB 09-27-07, 03:56 PM	From today's Sage Advice: Can you use a sneak attack while grappling? ...You also can’t deliver a sneak attack with the touch attack made to grab the target, since that attack doesn’t deal any damage....That strongly suggests that our rule about crits with grapples is incorrect. If you could crit with a grapple, you could sneak attack with one.
TelinArtho 09-27-07, 04:02 PM	I wouldn't be upset to see that ruling go, frankly - I never agreed with it to begin with...
Vathelokai 09-27-07, 11:46 PM	I'm okay with changing it as well. Rules question: Say a phrenic character wants to take the empower spell like ability feat (from the monster section of the SRD). Magic/Psionic transparency would allow it I think. However, Phrenic psi-like abilities have a manifester lv equal to the characters HD, and are always augmented as though the manifester had spent a number of pp equal to their HD. Empower spell like ability has a minimum manifester level prereq based on the psi-like abilities power level. There is a coco house rule about augmented powers having a higher effective power rating (for the purposes of crafting). Would that apply here? Rules as written, It seems to be fine, but house rules and rules-as-intended might make that invalid. Second rule question: A cleric1/wiz5 qualifies to take the craft wand feat. Can this character craft a wand of cure light wounds? RAW seems to say yes, but...
hogarth 09-28-07, 06:46 AM	Second rule question: A cleric1/wiz5 qualifies to take the craft wand feat. Can this character craft a wand of cure light wounds? RAW seems to say yes, but... Of course (as long as it's a CL 1 wand). I don't even find this one slightly controversial; there's no such thing as an "arcane wand" or "divine wand".
templer10 09-28-07, 07:22 AM	Rules question: Say a phrenic character wants to take the empower spell like ability feat (from the monster section of the SRD). Magic/Psionic transparency would allow it I think. However, Phrenic psi-like abilities have a manifester lv equal to the characters HD, and are always augmented as though the manifester had spent a number of pp equal to their HD. Empower spell like ability has a minimum manifester level prereq based on the psi-like abilities power level. There is a coco house rule about augmented powers having a higher effective power rating (for the purposes of crafting). Would that apply here? Rules as written, It seems to be fine, but house rules and rules-as-intended might make that invalid. not that i got a vote or anything But i dont see a problem with it - I would say that if you want to quicken something you simply count your HD as if 6 less (since that's the number of manifester levels normaly reduced when using quicken) empower - 2 less Etc.
SauroGrenom 09-28-07, 08:29 AM	I'm in the group of kids who agree that it's OK to change that rule. Rules question: Say a phrenic character wants to take the empower spell like ability feat (from the monster section of the SRD). Magic/Psionic transparency would allow it I think. However, Phrenic psi-like abilities have a manifester lv equal to the characters HD, and are always augmented as though the manifester had spent a number of pp equal to their HD. Empower spell like ability has a minimum manifester level prereq based on the psi-like abilities power level. There is a coco house rule about augmented powers having a higher effective power rating (for the purposes of crafting). Would that apply here? Rules as written, It seems to be fine, but house rules and rules-as-intended might make that invalid.Ok, there's a couple misconceptions in here that need to be cleared. First is that according to CoCo rules, an augmented power has a higher effective power level only for the purpose of crafting. So for example mindthrust augmented to 19pp, still is defeated by a minor globe of invulnerability. It's a 1st level power for all purposes other than pricing of magic items. Next, psi like abilities are equivalent to spell like abilities, and metapsionics/metamagic doesn't cross over to give benefits to psi-like abilities. However there are special feats that allow you to apply metamagic to spell-like abilities. By transparency, you can get psionic versions of these feats for your psi-like ability. But there's a big problem... according to the SRD, you can only apply the metapsionics feats to a psi-like ability that cannot be augmented...Psi-Like Abilities and Feats Creatures with access to psi-like abilities can use the feats Empower Spell-Like Ability and Quicken Spell-Like Ability. These feats can be used only on psi-like abilities that do not have increased effects due to augmentation. Furthermore, the creature can empower only a psi-like ability with a level less than or equal to half its manifester level (round down) minus 2, and can quicken only a psi-like ability with a level less than or equal to half its manifester level (round down) minus 4. Nuts. Only the psychic crush, and teleport come to mind as being options for metapsionics. Perhaps the schism as well. None of those are particularly attractive as offensive powers. Second rule question: A cleric1/wiz5 qualifies to take the craft wand feat. Can this character craft a wand of cure light wounds? RAW seems to say yes, but...AFAIK Yes.
Rauul 09-28-07, 05:33 PM	Again, this may need to move to the Council, but I think the Courtroom is the right place to adjudicate this. Do the Slayer's Favored Enemy bonuses stack with Ranger Favored Enemy bonuses if the types overlap? As an example, if you had Favored Enemy (Elves) +2 from Ranger and Favored Enemy (Psionic Elves) +2 from Slayer, would you get a +2 or +4 bonus on the relevant rolls? Personally, I think they'd overlap, but others disagree, so a definitive ruling would be nice Acually i need to Bump this... in 3 weeks it may become a problem.. so need some sort of answer
Vathelokai 09-28-07, 05:51 PM	... But there's a big problem... according to the SRD, you can only apply the metapsionics feats to a psi-like ability that cannot be augmented... Nuts. So for future reference, a phrenic creature can get get quickened psi-like teleport or quickened psi-like psychic crush at ECL20. Fission is to high of a level power (7). Interesting.
Vathelokai 09-28-07, 05:54 PM	Acually i need to Bump this... in 3 weeks it may become a problem.. so need some sort of answer Since the ranger and the slayer class feature is both called by the same name, and both give the same bonuses, and this... If a specific creature falls into more than one category of favored enemy, the ranger’s bonuses do not stack; he simply uses whichever bonus is higher. I would say that they do overlap (do not stack). It looks to me like they didn't cut and paste that part from the ranger to the slayer because slayer only gets one favored enemy.
hogarth 09-28-07, 08:48 PM	So for future reference, a phrenic creature can get get quickened psi-like teleport or quickened psi-like psychic crush at ECL20. Fission is to high of a level power (7). Interesting. Psychic Crush can be augmented, so that one's out, isn't it?
SauroGrenom 09-29-07, 11:36 AM	Acually i need to Bump this... in 3 weeks it may become a problem.. so need some sort of answerOK. This has been talked about in the past. If I recall correctly, the ruling was that the two bonuses are both "favored enemy" bonuses, and thus they overlap (don't stack). Psychic Crush can be augmented, so that one's out, isn't it? Ohh. Good one. That's right. I hadn't checked.
Rauul 09-29-07, 01:04 PM	So what your all saying is that once you have taken 1 ranger (to get track feat and the Knowledges needed for slayer)... there is very little need to take Slayer Presitge Class... Ok thank you for pointing it out to me..
lonewolf 09-29-07, 01:18 PM	So what your all saying is that once you have taken 1 ranger (to get track feat and the Knowledges needed for slayer)... there is very little need to take Slayer Presitge Class... Ok thank you for pointing it out to me.. You can always take a different favored enemy...
Eluria 09-29-07, 01:38 PM	So what your all saying is that once you have taken 1 ranger (to get track feat and the Knowledges needed for slayer)... there is very little need to take Slayer Presitge Class... Ok thank you for pointing it out to me.. or benefit from the insane other advantages of that very powerful prestige class...
Rauul 09-29-07, 02:00 PM	You can always take a different favored enemy... yea but the only other one i would want is Flavored Enemy (Paladin (Psionic)) not allowed.. But i think i will take 1 level of Barbarian before i start slayer class.. Mainly because 1 level of barbarian is 1/day rage, 10 extra movement and better Hp's with the Speed of thought feat = extra 20 movement 6.5 hps, (+12hps when raged) Movement of 50 before Skate is looking good..
SauroGrenom 09-29-07, 08:57 PM	You can take the two favored enemy class features in the same thing, it's just that they won't stack... So after a few levels of slayer, the slayer bonus bumps to +4 and it's still better than the ranger one. Also another way to do it is to swap things around a bit. Humans and elves are the most common CoCo characters. I'd take human as the ranger favored enemy, and psionic elf as the slayer one.
Rauul 10-01-07, 06:54 PM	Figured i would get Elders vote on this topic... Enlarge power feat.. costs no extra pps.. but it does Augment powers (doubles the range).. According the the Rules of Dorjes no power can be augmented unless it is at a higher Manifester level and made at the higher level..
MindWandererB 10-01-07, 09:14 PM	Unfortunately, the rules also say that metapsionics can be used in items. Metapsionics is not augmentation. The only debatable part, IMO, is whether the user needs to expend focus--and as much as I think it's unbalanced, it doesn't seem like they should.
Vathelokai 10-01-07, 10:52 PM	I have to agree with MWB. The rules for psionics are strange left and right, but those are the rules.
hogarth 10-01-07, 11:07 PM	What is a light load for a light horse? (A) 150 pounds, because that's what it says in the monster description, or... (B) 58 * 3 = 174 lbs, because that's what the rules say a Large quadruped with 14 Str can carry.
MindWandererB 10-02-07, 03:51 PM	What is a light load for a light horse? (A) 150 pounds, because that's what it says in the monster description, or... (B) 58 * 3 = 174 lbs, because that's what the rules say a Large quadruped with 14 Str can carry. Looks like they just read the table off by one (that's correct for 13 Str). 174 would be the correct value.
Macbrea 10-02-07, 04:31 PM	Maybe someone can answer a question as to why something is the way it was originally created? Currently for 150 you have the ability to request that a questlord design an intelligent weapon based off a theme for your character. Then you have the option to go on that quest for another 3 credits and at the end either accept the weapon if the reward for the quest would amount to the value of the intelligent item. Otherwise you may sell the intelligent item for 3/4s of it's value gaining no more then the maximum for the quest. Am I missing something here? Shouldn't these items be based off creation tables for intelligent weapons/items building the item like it says in the book and put up on the black market as 'I am purchasing x for 15 credits.'
TelinArtho 10-02-07, 04:52 PM	Well what the rules say and how Cat implemented it was quite different. His intelligent weapon was no more the creation of his questlord than any of his other creations. The 3/4 value is a holdover of the old rules though and should probably be thrown out. What should remain is that Intelligent items should be extremely rare (which they are so far...). They do still cost a quest to gain (which of course could be negated with the new workaround), and still cost 15 credits for a custom item.
SauroGrenom 10-02-07, 10:49 PM	Ok. There are two things on my mind. First is Dispel Psionics. Second is Metamorphic Transfer. First, the psionic dispel psionics power is way over powered. It's a super dispel magic. The power is poorly worded, and I think we should clarify it. This is what it says You can use dispel psionics to end ongoing powers that have been manifested on a creature or object, to temporarily suppress the psionic abilities of a psionic item, or to end ongoing powers (or at least their effects) within an area. A dispelled power ends as if its duration had expired. Some powers, as detailed in their descriptions, can’t be defeated by dispel psionics, or can be ended only if you manifest dispel psionics at a high enough manifester level. Dispel psionics can end spell-like effects just as it does powers. The effect of a power with an instantaneous duration can’t be dispelled, because the psionic effect is already over before the dispel psionics can take effect. You choose to use dispel psionics in one of two ways: a targeted dispel or an area dispel. Targeted Dispel: One object, creature, or power is the target of the dispel psionics power. You make a dispel check (1d20 + your manifester level, maximum +10) against the power or against each ongoing power currently in effect on the object or creature. The DC for this dispel check is 11 + the power’s manifester level. If you succeed on a particular check, that power is dispelled; if you fail, that power remains in effect. If you target an object or creature that is the effect of an ongoing power or is under the effect of an ongoing power, you make a dispel check to end the power or its effect. If the object that you target is a psionic item, you make a dispel check against the item’s manifester level. If you succeed, all the item’s psionic properties are suppressed for 1d4 rounds, after which the item recovers on its own. A suppressed item becomes nonpsionic for the duration of the effect. An interdimensional interface is temporarily closed. A psionic item’s physical properties are unchanged: A suppressed psionic sword is still a sword (a masterwork sword, in fact). Artifacts and deities are unaffected by mortal power such as this. You automatically succeed on your dispel check against any power that you manifested yourself. Area Dispel: When dispel psionics is used in this way, the power affects everything within a 20-foot radius. For each creature within the area that is the subject of one or more powers, you make a dispel check against the power with the highest manifester level. If that check fails, you make dispel checks against progressively weaker powers until you dispel one power (which discharges the dispel psionics power so far as that target is concerned) or until you fail all your checks. The creature’s psionic items are not affected. For each object within the area that is the target of one or more powers, you make dispel checks as with creatures. Psionic items are not affected by an area dispel. For each ongoing area or effect power whose point of origin is within the area of the dispel psionics power, you can make a dispel check to dispel the power. For each ongoing power whose area overlaps that of the dispel psionics power, you can make a dispel check to end the effect, but only within the overlapping area. If an object or creature that is the effect of an ongoing power is in the area, you can make a dispel check to end the power that created that object or construct in addition to attempting to dispel powers targeting the creature or object. You can choose to automatically succeed on dispel checks against any power that you have manifested. Augment: For every additional power point you spend, the bonus on your dispel check increases by 2 (to a maximum bonus of +20 for a 5-point expenditure). OK, most of the power description is the same as the corresponding spell, however the augment thing at the bottom is not clear. A literal read tell us that augmenting it improves the check bonus, and no mention of the ML of the manifester is present. So a ML 10 caster dispells At ML20. However if the power is analogous to the spell, the augmentation simply extends the utility of the power to higher levels beyond ML10. In other words, the augmentation should read : 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). On to the metamorphic transfer. There is some question about things that aren't clearly described in the rules... Metamorphic transfer feat describes that each supernatural ability you transfer can only be used 3 times/day. And you can only gain 3 transfers/day. The way we now interpret this allows for some odd things that are over powered. For example A character can transfer into a choker, and gain an extra standard action during the entire duration of the metamorphosis. Similarly you can transfer into a demon and gain DR for the duration of a battle. Rather I think these abilities should only be able to be "used" 3 times. That means that you get three rounds/day with quickness as a choker and 3 hits/day with DR as a ice devil. Furthermore the SRD section on actions in combat says that it takes a standard action to use a supernatural ability, so it should probably take a standard action to "activate" any of these supernatural abilities you gain by metamorphic transfer. In other words, you spend a standard action "activating" you quickness as a choker in round 2, then you get an extra standard action in round 2-4. Or you spend a standard action activating DR in round 2, and then you're protected against the next three hits. Anyway, the potency of dispel psionics and metamorphic transfer were two things that I ran up against in the campaign I conducted a few months back. I thought that now was a decent time to talk about the balance issues addressed by these things.
hogarth 10-02-07, 11:04 PM	I agree with SauroGrenom's reinterpretation of Dispel Psionics (increase the maximum bonus, not the bonus itself) and most of his interpretation of Metamorphic Transfer (that each round of a continuous power counts as one use). The only (small) thing I disagree with is that Metamorphic Transfer costs a standard action to use. The description says: Each time you change your form, such as through the metamorphosis power, you gain one of the new form’s supernatural abilities, if it has any. The wording ("Each time you do X you gain Y...") strongly suggests to me that no extra action is necessary beyond the initial shape-changing. YMMV, of course. Addendum: If we rule that all psionic feats require a standard action to use, Psionic Meditation just got a lot less useful... ;)
Vathelokai 10-02-07, 11:21 PM	Each time you change your form, such as through the metamorphosis power, you gain one of the new form’s supernatural abilities, if it has any. You gain only three uses of the metamorphic ability per day, even if the creature into which you metamorph has a higher limit on uses (you are still subject to other restrictions on the use of the ability.) The save DC to resist a supernatural ability gained through Metamorphic Transfer (if it is an attack) is 10 + your Cha modifier + ˝ your Hit Dice. No matter how many times you manifest the metamorphosis power on a given day, you can gain only a total of three supernatural ability transfers per day. You can gain this feat multiple times. Each time, you can gain one additional supernatural ability.My impression is that it is not a standard action to activate. The first sentence says that when you change your form you get the benefit. Abilities that are considered part of other actions are common enough to make that a reasonable interpretation (though it is obviously not clear wording). It seems a bit nerffy to cause a continuous SU ability to take a standard action to use. As for the definition of 'uses'... I think the way we do it now was the intent of the writers. Being that we've proven that to be a very powerful combo, I can see the need for a house rule. If it were implemented as you suggest, it would nearly remove the utility of any of the continuous use powers. Another question I've been wondering: how many metamorphic transfer abilities can you have active at once? Can you use all three from the feat on the first round of polymorphing? And how exacly should I interpret the last sentence? You gain one extra total? One extra at a time? For those of you viewing at home, here is a half completed post on the type of SU abilities you can get away with using metamorphic transfer. Some are more powerful than others...
Rauul 10-03-07, 12:32 AM	i just say Don't let Dispel Psionics Effect magic.. and Dispel Magic not Effect psionics.. problem solved.. It is 2 complete different systems (one is core one isn't) Really never understood this Magic Transparency BS anyways.. Magic is Arcane , Psionic is Psionic (mental), and Clerical is Divine (granted from the gods).. Closest thing a Psionic comes to is a Sorceror that noone plays because they have Psions that cover everything + that a Sorceror does (except get you into dragon disiple)...
Callix 10-03-07, 02:33 AM	i just say Don't let Dispel Psionics Effect magic.. and Dispel Magic not Effect psionics.. problem solved.. It is 2 complete different systems (one is core one isn't) Really never understood this Magic Transparency BS anyways.. Magic is Arcane , Psionic is Psionic (mental), and Clerical is Divine (granted from the gods).. Closest thing a Psionic comes to is a Sorceror that noone plays because they have Psions that cover everything + that a Sorceror does (except get you into dragon disiple)... Psionics is Different is screwed up. Anyone who gets SR/PR from anywhere will hate this. Also, any non-caster using items to fill critical gaps will have to spend twice as much, and may run into the Expendables cap. And it's one more thing to remember for every pitlord. There's the old magic + psionic weapons cheese: getting a +1 Vorpal sword, then making it into a +5 psionic weapon, is almost half the price of a +5 Vorpal sword (50k+72k vs 200k). I'm biased; all three of my characters are psionic, even if only two of them are manifesters. But transparency wasn't put in for the flavour. It was put in for game balance. I, for one, support Sauro's Dispel Psionics suggestion, and have no real idea about the Metamorphic Transfer debate.
MindWandererB 10-03-07, 02:40 AM	Re: Dispel Magic: This falls into the category of a house-rule errata. The fact that it wasn't addressed in Complete Psionic implies to me that this "mistake" is not in fact a mistake (at least, it's a mistake in judgment rather than in how they phrased it). I think they took Dispel Magic (with the standard level check), then added augmentation. While I'm not necessarily against this kind of house rule, it opens up the door to similar nerfs, such as reducing the DC on Energy Missile to +1 per 2 PP (which pretty much all sane DMs use). I'll support a decision either way, but be aware of the precedent it sets. R: Metamorphic Transfer: I'm 90% sure that the developers simply forgot about continuous-use Supernatural abilities. So I'd lean toward an even harder-line approach than Vath, and allow only abilities that require an action to activate.
lonewolf 10-03-07, 04:59 AM	I definately support Sauro on the dispel Psionics nerf, and I dont think that its a bad thing that this would open the door to other houserules, because there are things that simply need to be fixed. The things that have the highest priority for me are: - Energy Missile DC - Dispel Psionics augment - Touchsight Bringing these 3 powers down to the power of similar powers/spells will do much to improve the balance between psionics and nonpsionics.
hogarth 10-03-07, 06:48 AM	Another question I've been wondering: how many metamorphic transfer abilities can you have active at once? Can you use all three from the feat on the first round of polymorphing? The feat says that you get one (1) of the form's supernatural abilities. So (assuming you took the feat one time), you can use that one (1) ability up to three times. If it was an ability you could use as a free action, I suppose you could use it three times in the first round. And how exacly should I interpret the last sentence? You gain one extra total? One extra at a time? If you take Metamorphic Transfer feat two times, you get two (2) of the form's supernatural abilities that you can each use up to three times. So if you turned into a Ravid, you could use Animate Objects three times and Positive Energy Lash three times (say). You're still limited to transferring abilities (whether it's one, two or more abilities at a time) three times a day, though.
whitebaron 10-03-07, 07:09 AM	@metamorphic transfer: according to the original wording: first, you can only use one of the supernatural abilities each time you morph. if you get the feat an additional time, you get TWO abilites each time you morph, but can still only use the transfer 3/day. i think this is really done wrong in psibeast, as with 2 metamorphic transfer feats, you still only get each 3/day (but up to 2 su's every time you use it). second, you have to decide on morphing, what you want to have. no choice later in the fight. when i read over the psibeast/longshot/hezrou fight, i didn't know this, but with the exact wording its obvious, that mt was used incorrectly there. you can not first turn into anything, and THEN rounds later decide what you want to do. i think this in itself is a bit more balanced as it was used then. @dispel psionics: i don't think the intention was to overpower the dispel, so i think the wording is just done badly. i like the idea of only altering the max-dispel bonus you can get. @energy missile: i think this is just a leftover from development, before they decided that the dcs go to high by augmenting. i still wonder why this was never errata-ed. @touchsight: i don't think its that overpowered, you should just allow some powers or spells to overcome it. it should be handled like darkness/light-spells. if same powerlevels overlap, both are denied. or higher-level extinguishes lower-level. (as light/darkness/celestial brilliance)
hogarth 10-03-07, 07:16 AM	@energy missile: i think this is just a leftover from development, before they decided that the dcs go to high by augmenting. i still wonder why this was never errata-ed. It was errata'ed in Complete Psionic. Of course, they also errata'ed Astral Construct to make it much worse (only 1 construct at a time).
TelinArtho 10-03-07, 10:56 AM	On Dispel Psionics - I agree with Sauro's interpretation of what was probably intended with the augmentation line. I would not be heartbroken to see that power put back into line with Dispel Magic. On Metamorphic transfer - I think Sauro's interpretation takes it almost too far. For what its worth - I think it is powerful, but not overpowered. I'm holding my decision on the matter until I look at it further though.
Erithmu 10-03-07, 10:59 AM	I would lay support in for the Dispel Psionics suggestion. Metamorphic transfer is much more of a complex beast as it seems there are about three different lines that all are linked, so changing the interpretation of one of those lines changes how you interpret the others.
waywreth 10-03-07, 04:50 PM	Per dispel psionics, wouldn't the easiest fix be to simply remove the ability to augment it? It's a 3rd level power, so it should take 5 pp to manifest, and the dispel check is equal to the characters manifest level.
MindWandererB 10-03-07, 05:07 PM	Per dispel psionics, wouldn't the easiest fix be to simply remove the ability to augment it? It's a 3rd level power, so it should take 5 pp to manifest, and the dispel check is equal to the characters manifest level. Except that Dispel Psionics doubles as Greater Dispel--you should be able to (and have to) augment it to bring it up to par with the latter.
whitebaron 10-03-07, 05:37 PM	Each time you change your form, such as through the metamorphosis power, you gain one of the new form’s supernatural abilities, if it has any. easy. morph, and get one supernatural ability. rule 1: you have to define it when you metamorph. You gain only three uses of the metamorphic ability per day, even if the creature into which you metamorph has a higher limit on uses you can use the metamorphic ability 3/day. this is where the definition begins to let you interpret it. 3 uses of the feat? 3 uses of the gained power? after some thought about it i'd say 3 uses of the gained power, as the following statement concludes, that you have other restrictions that apply as well. (You are still subject to other restrictions on the use of the ability.) which means, you can't get a 1/day power 3 times. The save DC to resist a supernatural ability gained through Metamorphic Transfer (if it is an attack) is 10 + your Cha modifier + 1/2 your Hit Dice. this is the part where you can assume, that ongoing effects also count towards your 3/day limit. so if you use an ability, no matter what it might be (as most attacks are not 1/day), you lose a "charge" of metamorphic transfer. No matter how many times you manifest the metamorphosis power on a given day, you can gain only a total of three supernatural ability transfers per day. now its getting interesting - this imo directly contradicts the previous statements from block 2. i assume here that its badly worded in #2. Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Each time, you can gain one additional supernatural ability. so, a second metamorphic transfer feat only gives you another ability to chose on manifesting the power(more versatility), and absolutely NO additional use of a transfer. this is the point where psibeat might want to go to the trainings hall. conclusio: You choose which power(s) you want to be metamorphic on each manifestation of Metamorphosis. anytime while morphed, you can use the power as the original monster, which is then deducted from your daily uses. your daily uses are always 3, even if you have the ability more often. this is true for continous super-natural abilities too.
McJarvis 10-04-07, 01:45 PM	R: Metamorphic Transfer: I'm 90% sure that the developers simply forgot about continuous-use Supernatural abilities. So I'd lean toward an even harder-line approach than Vath, and allow only abilities that require an action to activate. For what it's worth- this is exactly the solution that I use at my home-tables regarding the issue. The ability was obviously not written with continuous supernatural abilities in mind, so why extend it to them? It's still powerful in it's own right, and the ruling requires no complex judgements. edit- just in case I need to highlight why it's still powerful - it effectively turns Metamorphasis into an "anyspell" of sorts. For 7pp you get the metamorphasis effect plus whatever (su) ability you choose. This can be anything from fire breath(fireball) to Petrifying Stare (flesh to stone) to Haste(Haste) to...etc, etc. And the abilities level up as the manifester does[save DC wise] unlike any other spell/power does. If you _do_ allow persistant abilities you open the door to odd effects like weapons(Vorpal weapons of some outsiders) all the way to any of the numerous monsters that have continuous true seeing/or/freedom of movement/etc. Especially in the form of (su) persistant abilities that manifest themselves in a physical form, I don't see any reason to allow them.
Macbrea 10-05-07, 11:36 AM	We should probably change the special rule for lighting for the temple to state: Note: Because of the lava in the center of the arena. The ground floor is always considered lit and the the upper deck is always considered at least dimly lit. Otherwise. Can someone show me the rule for how much light lava gives off?
TelinArtho 10-05-07, 11:52 AM	Hmm - I don't think lava on its own gives off much light really. I'd be more inclined to say it has a radius of a lantern or a torch all around the lava-filled area. That's just me though and I admit - I have never seen lava first-hand - so I really don't know how much light it emits.
MindWandererB 10-05-07, 04:53 PM	I've never seen lava firsthand, either, but on TV it usually has a crusting of hardened rock, which blots out most of the light. I'd say the light is bright enough that you can see the lava itself, but nothing around it.
Vathelokai 10-05-07, 08:30 PM	This came up (sort of) with the fire elemental fight this week for lord Lorian. I discussed it with T10, and came to the conclusion that a walking ember gives off light like a candle (5 ft dim illumination). That exists in the rules, and I think it's fairly close to reality.
SauroGrenom 10-05-07, 09:12 PM	As far as I understand it, Lava on the surface of the earth doesn't give off much visible light... Mostly it gives of InfraRed light that we cannot see. IR light is basically heat. Generally Lava wouldn't illuminate anything, rather it would simply be identifiable as hot. Perhaps other things in front of it would be "illuminated" by being silhouetted. So I don't think that Lava would ever give off enough light to read by, but it would easily give off enough light to spot someone moving in front of the light source from quite a distance.
SauroGrenom 10-05-07, 09:29 PM	OK with respect to Dispel Psionics, We have Myself, MWB, Telin and Rith all voicing the opinion that Dispel Psionics needs to come back down to earth. This means that the augmentation line is clarified to state that augmentation increases the maximum ML bonus applied to the ML check. Also the metamorphosis thing is still in the air. Right now MWB and McJarvis are suggesting that only supernatural abilities that require an action to activate can be gained by the feat. So all continuous use supernatural abilities are out... I put my vote into that group. Right now the metamorphic transfer feat elevates metamorphosis to being nearly equivalent to limited wish. In addition to all the benefits of your metamorphosis, you also get to have 3 uses of any continuous use supernatural ability you want... That's out of the territory of a 4th level power... However limiting the power to not allow continuous use supernatural abilities, well that cuts out every abuse that I know of and still allows lots of cool supernatural abilities in line with the effects of other feats. Yea, I totally buy into that idea.
Vathelokai 10-05-07, 09:44 PM	I'm on board with the alteration to the dispel psionics. As for metamorphosis... I'm going to abstain. I feel Psibeast has me too attached to the idea of getting a lot out of it. I'd like to see the other parts resolved as well (e.g., what taking the feat twice actually does).
MindWandererB 10-06-07, 12:40 AM	Agreed on the Dispel Psionics. There are other ways it could be managed, but what you proposed is probably the easiest to work with. @Telin: As Prisonlords, updating the Court Decisions falls into your domain now. The Powers that Be have revoked the mod privileges of GMs (I think they're installing volunteer mods in the near future), so I'd have to actually use the Prisonlords account to do it myself... and managing three accounts is quite enough for me.
Rauul 10-06-07, 02:20 AM	Agreed on the Dispel Psionics. There are other ways it could be managed, but what you proposed is probably the easiest to work with. @Telin: As Prisonlords, updating the Court Decisions falls into your domain now. The Powers that Be have revoked the mod privileges of GMs (I think they're installing volunteer mods in the near future), so I'd have to actually use the Prisonlords account to do it myself... and managing three accounts is quite enough for me. Can the Court please give us poor web using Pitlords a Link to the new Decision on this....
TelinArtho 10-06-07, 03:12 AM	I'll grab it tomorrow and make sure the rest is correct when I can. If I can get to it tomorrow - it might be as late as Monday or Tuesday (it is the weekend after all - and we all know I only pop in when I can on the weekends...) If there is something recent (or old for that matter) that is missing from the court decisions - PM prisonlords with a link to the question at hand.
whitebaron 10-06-07, 06:10 AM	as for metamorphosis: absolutely nothing in the metamorphic transfer states, that you can use a continous power continously. you get one use in one round, max. 3 times/day. continous is just: "free action, at will." this is changed when morphed to "free action, 3/day" (with metamorphic transfer restrictions in effect). so i don't see any need to change the feat, just make it clear to players how it's supposed to work...
hogarth 10-06-07, 09:18 AM	continous is just: "free action, at will." So when a pixie is dazed, he loses his invisibility and damage reduction 10/cold iron because he can't take any actions? Poppycock!
whitebaron 10-06-07, 12:43 PM	So when a pixie is dazed, he loses his invisibility and damage reduction 10/cold iron because he can't take any actions? Poppycock! i was just stating how continous in this context has to be seen.
MindWandererB 10-06-07, 05:46 PM	i was just stating how continous in this context has to be seen. I think "has to" is a bit of an exaggeration....
whitebaron 10-06-07, 06:20 PM	I think "has to" is a bit of an exaggeration.... ok, then make it should be... :rolleyes:
McJarvis 10-08-07, 02:36 PM	I'm on board with the alteration to the dispel psionics. As for metamorphosis... I'm going to abstain. I feel Psibeast has me too attached to the idea of getting a lot out of it. I'd like to see the other parts resolved as well (e.g., what taking the feat twice actually does). There's alot of interpretation that can happen with this feat, so I'd suggest that the entire thing be eaten at once. Changes are in bold type. METAMORPHIC TRANSFER [PSIONIC] You can gain a supernatural ability of a metamorphed form. Prerequisite: Wis 13, manifester level 5th. Benefit: Each time you change your form, such as through the metamorphosis power, you gain one of the new form’s supernatural abilities, if it has any. You must gain an ability that has uses per day or that is activated by the creature conciously You gain only three uses of (Su) abilities gained from this feat per day, even if the creature into which you metamorph has a higher limit on uses (You are still subject to other restrictions on the use of the ability.) The save DC to resist a supernatural ability gained through Metamorphic Transfer (if it is an attack) is 10 + your Cha modifier + 1/2 your Hit Dice. No matter how many times you manifest the metamorphosis power on a given day, you can gain only a total of three supernatural ability transfers per day. Normal: You cannot use the supernatural abilities of creatures whose form you assume. Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Each time, you can gain one additional supernatural ability. This counts as one activation. As far as what kind of action it is to use the feat: I think from the description it is pretty obvious that using it is a part of the action used to change form. I added that last bold part because it's the only clarification I could think of that didn't assume the writing of the feat was wrong. If you want to make each time you take the feat add +1/day use of it, I think that's fine balance wise- but it is not what is currently written.
SauroGrenom 10-08-07, 05:05 PM	The way I read the feat's "Special:" section is that if you take the feat twice, you can gain two supernatural abilities at once when you change form. So for example you can morph into a Barbed Devil. With one copy of the feat, you get Hold Person 3/day. With two copies of the feat you get Hold Person 3/day and Scorching Ray 3/day. With three copies of the feat you get the two above and greater teleport 3/day... and so on with more copies of the feat. However I also feel that this feat shouldn't allow you to ever get SR23, DR 10/Good, Barbed Defense or Telepathy. However Fear could be taken and used in conjunction with only three attacks/day. This is because SR or Barbed Defense don't take actions to use, while the Fear ability is used in conjunction with one of the character's actions.
hogarth 10-08-07, 05:37 PM	The way I read the feat's "Special:" section is that if you take the feat twice, you can gain two supernatural abilities at once when you change form. So for example you can morph into a Barbed Devil. With one copy of the feat, you get Hold Person 3/day. With two copies of the feat you get Hold Person 3/day and Scorching Ray 3/day. With three copies of the feat you get the two above and greater teleport 3/day... and so on with more copies of the feat. I agree with this interpretation...except Hold Person, Greater Teleport and Scorching Ray are spell-like abilities, not supernatural abilities. Better examples are "Barbed Defense", "DR 10/good" and "Fear" (three supernatural abilities). However I also feel that this feat shouldn't allow you to ever get SR23, DR 10/Good, Barbed Defense or Telepathy. However Fear could be taken and used in conjunction with only three attacks/day. This is because SR or Barbed Defense don't take actions to use, while the Fear ability is used in conjunction with one of the character's actions. I don't have a strong opinion about this. Note, however, that SR is an (Ex) ability, not an (Su) ability.
SauroGrenom 10-08-07, 05:54 PM	I agree with this interpretation...except Hold Person, Greater Teleport and Scorching Ray are spell-like abilities, not supernatural abilities. Better examples are "Barbed Defense", "DR 10/good" and "Fear" (three supernatural abilities). I don't have a strong opinion about this. Note, however, that SR is an (Ex) ability, not an (Su) ability.SOrry for the oversight, so a better example is the Horned Devil. With 1 copy of metamorphic transfer, you get Fear Aura 3/day. Each "use" lasts for one round. With 2 copies, you get Fear Aura 3/day and Stun 3/day. With 3 copies, you get Fear Aura 3/day, Stun 3/day and Infernal Wound 3/day. However you can never get DR 10/good, Darkvision or Telepathy, since all of those are continuously active supernatural abilities.
Vathelokai 10-08-07, 11:10 PM	Seems reasonable. Using ghaele as an example, how would alternate form and protective aura work? Would they work at all?
SauroGrenom 10-09-07, 12:53 PM	For the ghaele: Gaze is a clear option with each use of the attack counting as 1 use applied to the 3/day limit. The alternate form is also fairly clear, you get to use this ability 3 times... That is you change form 3 times while maintaining the metamorphosis power being manifest once. Neither Protective Aura or Tongues would be options, since they are both continuously active and don't require actions to use them.
TelinArtho 10-09-07, 01:28 PM	The problem here is that unless otherwise specified - gaze attacks are actually continuous. The creature involved can also take an action to force a particular opponent to make a save, but if it doesn't - the gaze is just plain active.
McJarvis 10-09-07, 01:31 PM	Oh, so the 3/day works per manifestation of metamorphasis? That makes sense- I just hadn't thought of it before. It might be neat to get an Elan Wiz3/Psion/Cerebremancer going, since alter-self could effectively net you some neat high level abilities pretty regularly. Slap on the phrenic template for the double-goodness of +int and +cha(metamorphic transfers key stat) & you're good to go!
McJarvis 10-09-07, 01:35 PM	The problem here is that unless otherwise specified - gaze attacks are actually continuous. The creature involved can also take an action to force a particular opponent to make a save, but if it doesn't - the gaze is just plain active. Under this ruling, you'd only get to facilitate the portion of the ability that is activated. Here are two examples: Gaze attacks- two functions are available. One is continuously active & the other a creature may spend a standard action to force it on someone. The standard action to force it is the only thing made available. Pixie's (su) ability: two functions available. One is continous invisibility, the other is to suppress that invisibility. Under our ruling you don't get invisibility, and the ability to supress that invisibility becomes mundane. Only abilities that specifically take an action may be used, and when you use them it eats up a daily use of it.
hogarth 10-09-07, 01:48 PM	Oh, so the 3/day works per manifestation of metamorphasis? That makes sense- I just hadn't thought of it before. It might be neat to get an Elan Wiz3/Psion/Cerebremancer going, since alter-self could effectively net you some neat high level abilities pretty regularly. Alter Self forms are quite limited for an aberration (grick, choker, carrion crawler and maybe a few others are < 5 HD). Only the choker is noteworthy, and that one's getting hit with the ban-hammer as we speak. :)
McJarvis 10-09-07, 01:54 PM	Alter Self forms are quite limited for an aberration (grick, choker, carrion crawler and maybe a few others are < 5 HD). Only the choker is noteworthy, and that one's getting hit with the ban-hammer as we speak. :) The gibbering mouther becomes an interesting choice if you can unlock his two (su) abilities. Effectively pinning an opponent without a save involved or grapple check is on my list of "things that a 2nd level spell can do that are nice" ;)
Rauul 10-09-07, 02:06 PM	Oh, so the 3/day works per manifestation of metamorphasis? That makes sense- I just hadn't thought of it before. It might be neat to get an Elan Wiz3/Psion/Cerebremancer going, since alter-self could effectively net you some neat high level abilities pretty regularly. Slap on the phrenic template for the double-goodness of +int and +cha(metamorphic transfers key stat) & you're good to go! have to take phrenic template before psion...
McJarvis 10-09-07, 02:09 PM	have to take phrenic template before psion... I don't think I implied otherwise?
hogarth 10-09-07, 02:11 PM	The gibbering mouther becomes an interesting choice if you can unlock his two (su) abilities. Effectively pinning an opponent without a save involved or grapple check is on my list of "things that a 2nd level spell can do that are nice" ;) The Ground Manipulation ability is super-slow and can be nullified with a move action. But if you could get it to work (e.g. combined with Stinking Cloud or something) it'd be pretty nifty, I guess.
McJarvis 10-09-07, 02:18 PM	The Ground Manipulation ability is super-slow and can be nullified with a move action. But if you could get it to work (e.g. combined with Stinking Cloud or something) it'd be pretty nifty, I guess. It could be- but unfortunately there's no way for someone to really write that into tactics.(the move action dealy) Suddenly with metamorphic transfer you have to write tactics for every possible (su) ability thrown your way in a fight? I'm not sure anyone is truely patient enough to go through the monster manual & write out a stipulation for each and every type of (Su) ability that could be thrown at them. I guess that's where I see the real power of the metamorphic transfer feat- you don't even have to have the forms you want to access written down on your character sheet. That leaves needles in the SRD-haystack for opponents to have to think of. At least with normal poly/meta we have some idea of what the "good" forms are. With (su) unlocked the very format of CoCo works for the polymorphers. Not to even mention potential chains- any critter with the Change Shape ability could "refresh" it's 3/day charges by turning back into itself.
TelinArtho 10-09-07, 02:33 PM	Vath started a nice trend with his forms (which I would recommend as an ammendment to the current rules) - providing a quick knowledge-based PM to the opponent(s) on the forms he would take.
hogarth 10-09-07, 03:40 PM	Not to even mention potential chains- any critter with the Change Shape ability could "refresh" it's 3/day charges by turning back into itself. Just to clarify, there are a couple of "3/day" things you could be talking about. Three times per day, you can gain some powers when shapeshifting. (viz. "No matter how many times you manifest the metamorphosis power on a given day, you can gain only a total of three supernatural ability transfers per day") Each time you gain a power while shapeshifting, you can use that power three times. (viz. "You gain only three uses of the metamorphic ability per day, even if the creature into which you metamorph has a higher limit on uses") They're separate limits. So in any given day, you could use supernatural abilities nine times in total (if you took the feat 1 time) -- three shapeshifting occurences where you used a (Su) ability three times each time. Also, I don't think there are many creatures with the ability to shapeshift into themselves! (Ogre mage, phasm, maybe some others)
McJarvis 10-09-07, 04:04 PM	Three times per day, you can gain some powers when shapeshifting. (viz. "No matter how many times you manifest the metamorphosis power on a given day, you can gain only a total of three supernatural ability transfers per day") They're separate limits. I've never read it that way, thus my surprise at the interpretation introduced. I have always read this to mean you can only use those supernatural abilities for a combined total of 3/day.
hogarth 10-11-07, 08:01 AM	I didn't get any comments in the Tavern thread, so I'll try asking here: If I want to bring an Obsidian Steed in as a pre-buffed ally, what's the CR to use? The same as a heavy warhorse (CR 2)? Are an Obsidian Steed's powers (Sp) or (Su) abilities? From the description, I presume that an Obsidian Steed is only as intelligent as a normal horse. Would it be able to perform tricks based on its magical abilities? For instance, would I be able to command it to Plane Shift an opponent to the Negative Material Plane (or wherever)? What is the policy on magic items usable X times per month -- does that equate to X times per 4 fights? It seems a bit clunky, but I can't think of a better way to handle it. (I actually think someone answered this question before, but I don't remember what the answer was.)
whitebaron 10-11-07, 11:01 AM	@1: it's an item. you don't get to prebuff it unless there's some rules flaw that can be exploited. but, if it had a challenge rating, it would be definitely higher than the warhorse, due to its special abilities. @2: the rules are not always the same for these kind of abilities. ethereal jaunt is definitely (su) as there are enough other creatures that can do this. @3: if it knows the tricks, yes. but it is unlikely that you can train it to this kind of steed. you'd need a nightmare or similar creature to train it to an ally. @4: x/month = x/3FC, just like bag of tricks, isn't it? but what item uses x/month?
hogarth 10-11-07, 11:19 AM	@1: it's an item. you don't get to prebuff it unless there's some rules flaw that can be exploited. but, if it had a challenge rating, it would be definitely higher than the warhorse, due to its special abilities. @4: x/month = x/3FC, just like bag of tricks, isn't it? but what item uses x/month? @1: It has been clarifiied that you can, in fact, bring in a magic item ally that has already been activated (like a Bronze Griffon). @4: Marble Elephant (4/month), Goat of Travail (1/month), Orb of Storms (Storm of Vengeance 1/month) all have monthly usage limits.
Guildmaster (CEF) 10-11-07, 11:27 AM	The use per month items are treated as the other type of items (as in x/day). The exception is that we don't allow custom items to have durations on usage less than 1/day (because it would reduce cost by way too much). On item 1 - I agree that the Obsidian Steed should probably be higher than a normal warhorse - but we are certainly into uncertain ground here - since it doesn't have a CR associated. The griffon doesn't either - but at least it is an exact copy of a regular griffon. The whole lot of the figurines could use a quick house rule to clarify frankly... (as well as any other item that produces allies that could be prebuffed).
Rauul 10-11-07, 06:38 PM	The use per month items are treated as the other type of items (as in x/day). The exception is that we don't allow custom items to have durations on usage less than 1/day (because it would reduce cost by way too much). On item 1 - I agree that the Obsidian Steed should probably be higher than a normal warhorse - but we are certainly into uncertain ground here - since it doesn't have a CR associated. The griffon doesn't either - but at least it is an exact copy of a regular griffon. The whole lot of the figurines could use a quick house rule to clarify frankly... (as well as any other item that produces allies that could be prebuffed). i believe an Obsidian Steed is a Nightmare (or so close to one to be a near cousin) CR 5.. (it can fly, planeshift, ethereal and is evil)
Vathelokai 10-11-07, 09:59 PM	Alter Self forms are quite limited for an aberration (grick, choker, carrion crawler and maybe a few others are < 5 HD). Only the choker is noteworthy, and that one's getting hit with the ban-hammer as we speak. :) Ethereal Filcher and Rust Monsters are the better meta-transfer forms for 5hd aberrations. Read more at The Arcane Order presents "The User's Guide to Alter Self"
Vathelokai 10-11-07, 10:26 PM	I didn't get any comments in the Tavern thread, so I'll try asking here: If I want to bring an Obsidian Steed in as a pre-buffed ally, what's the CR to use? The same as a heavy warhorse (CR 2)? Are an Obsidian Steed's powers (Sp) or (Su) abilities? From the description, I presume that an Obsidian Steed is only as intelligent as a normal horse. Would it be able to perform tricks based on its magical abilities? For instance, would I be able to command it to Plane Shift an opponent to the Negative Material Plane (or wherever)? What is the policy on magic items usable X times per month -- does that equate to X times per 4 fights? It seems a bit clunky, but I can't think of a better way to handle it. (I actually think someone answered this question before, but I don't remember what the answer was.) Obsidian Steed This figurine appears to be a small, shapeless lump of black stone. Only careful inspection reveals that it vaguely resembles some form of quadruped. On command, the near-formless piece of obsidian becomes a fantastic mount. Treat it as a heavy warhorse with the following additional powers usable once per round at will: overland flight, plane shift, and ethereal jaunt. The steed allows itself to be ridden, but if the rider is of good alignment, the steed is 10% likely per use to carry him to the lower planes and then return to its statuette form. The statuette can be used once per week for one continuous period of up to 24 hours. Note that when an obsidian steed becomes ethereal or plane shifts, its rider and his gear follow suit. Thus, the user can travel to other planes via this means. Size/Type: Large Animal Hit Dice: 4d8+12 (30 hp) Initiative: +1 Speed: 50 ft. (10 squares), fly 40 (avg) Armor Class: 14 (-1 size, +1 Dex, +4 natural), touch 10, flat-footed 13 Base Attack/Grapple: +3/+11 Attack: Hoof +6 melee (1d6+4) Full Attack: 2 hooves +6 melee (1d6+4) and bite +1 melee (1d4+2) Space/Reach: 10 ft./5 ft. Special Attacks: — Special Qualities: Low-light vision, scent Saves: Fort +7, Ref +5, Will +2 Abilities: Str 18, Dex 13, Con 17, Int 2, Wis 13, Cha 6 Skills: Listen +5, Spot +4 Feats: Endurance, Run Activation: Once per week for up to 24 hours. Spell like abilities: Each 1/round at will - overland flight, plane shift, and ethereal jaunt. Caster Level is unknown. Level: Sor/Wiz 5 Components: V, S Range: Personal Target: You Duration: 1 hour/level This spell functions like a fly spell, except you can fly at a speed of 40 feet (30 feet if wearing medium or heavy armor, or if carrying a medium or heavy load) with average maneuverability. When using this spell for long-distance movement, you can hustle without taking nonlethal damage (a forced march still requires Constitution checks). This means you can cover 64 miles in an eight-hour period of flight (or 48 miles at a speed of 30 feet). Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Target: Creature touched, or up to eight willing creatures joining hands Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: Will negates Spell Resistance: Yes You move yourself or some other creature to another plane of existence or alternate dimension. If several willing persons link hands in a circle, as many as eight can be affected by the plane shift at the same time. Precise accuracy as to a particular arrival location on the intended plane is nigh impossible. From the Material Plane, you can reach any other plane, though you appear 5 to 500 miles (5d%) from your intended destination. Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Personal Target: You Duration: 1 round/level (D) You become ethereal, along with your equipment. For the duration of the spell, you are in a place called the Ethereal Plane, which overlaps the normal, physical, Material Plane. When the spell expires, you return to material existence. Well this thing is clearly inferior to a real nightmare, but better than a regular warhorse... I'd guess 4; closer to the nightmare really. One thing that seems difficult to judge - what's the CL of them there spells. Ethereal jaunt with a caster lv of 2 isn't very useful. as to the questions... 1) I'd guess 4, but that's house rule, so we would need a vote. 2) It says that it replicates the spell, so I'm guessing spell-like. 3) The court rulings of gladius spells this out - it does whatever you ask with no need for tricks. It's a magic item, so you need no particular skill to operate it. This came up over bag of tricks, I think nearly a year ago. 4) I'd allow once per month items to work once per cycle.
McJarvis 10-12-07, 08:30 AM	Obsidian Steed This figurine appears to be a small, shapeless lump of black stone. Only careful inspection reveals that it vaguely resembles some form of quadruped. On command, the near-formless piece of obsidian becomes a fantastic mount. Treat it as a heavy warhorse with the following additional powers usable once per round at will: overland flight, plane shift, and ethereal jaunt. The steed allows itself to be ridden, but if the rider is of good alignment, the steed is 10% likely per use to carry him to the lower planes and then return to its statuette form. The statuette can be used once per week for one continuous period of up to 24 hours. Note that when an obsidian steed becomes ethereal or plane shifts, its rider and his gear follow suit. Thus, the user can travel to other planes via this means. Size/Type: Large Animal Hit Dice: 4d8+12 (30 hp) Initiative: +1 Speed: 50 ft. (10 squares), fly 40 (avg) Armor Class: 14 (-1 size, +1 Dex, +4 natural), touch 10, flat-footed 13 Base Attack/Grapple: +3/+11 Attack: Hoof +6 melee (1d6+4) Full Attack: 2 hooves +6 melee (1d6+4) and bite +1 melee (1d4+2) Space/Reach: 10 ft./5 ft. Special Attacks: — Special Qualities: Low-light vision, scent Saves: Fort +7, Ref +5, Will +2 Abilities: Str 18, Dex 13, Con 17, Int 2, Wis 13, Cha 6 Skills: Listen +5, Spot +4 Feats: Endurance, Run Activation: Once per week for up to 24 hours. Spell like abilities: Each 1/round at will - overland flight, plane shift, and ethereal jaunt. Caster Level is unknown. Level: Sor/Wiz 5 Components: V, S Range: Personal Target: You Duration: 1 hour/level This spell functions like a fly spell, except you can fly at a speed of 40 feet (30 feet if wearing medium or heavy armor, or if carrying a medium or heavy load) with average maneuverability. When using this spell for long-distance movement, you can hustle without taking nonlethal damage (a forced march still requires Constitution checks). This means you can cover 64 miles in an eight-hour period of flight (or 48 miles at a speed of 30 feet). Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Target: Creature touched, or up to eight willing creatures joining hands Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: Will negates Spell Resistance: Yes You move yourself or some other creature to another plane of existence or alternate dimension. If several willing persons link hands in a circle, as many as eight can be affected by the plane shift at the same time. Precise accuracy as to a particular arrival location on the intended plane is nigh impossible. From the Material Plane, you can reach any other plane, though you appear 5 to 500 miles (5d%) from your intended destination. Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Personal Target: You Duration: 1 round/level (D) You become ethereal, along with your equipment. For the duration of the spell, you are in a place called the Ethereal Plane, which overlaps the normal, physical, Material Plane. When the spell expires, you return to material existence. Well this thing is clearly inferior to a real nightmare, but better than a regular warhorse... I'd guess 4; closer to the nightmare really. One thing that seems difficult to judge - what's the CL of them there spells. Ethereal jaunt with a caster lv of 2 isn't very useful. as to the questions... 1) I'd guess 4, but that's house rule, so we would need a vote. 2) It says that it replicates the spell, so I'm guessing spell-like. 3) The court rulings of gladius spells this out - it does whatever you ask with no need for tricks. It's a magic item, so you need no particular skill to operate it. This came up over bag of tricks, I think nearly a year ago. 4) I'd allow once per month items to work once per cycle. Note that all those abilities are usable once per round, so a CL2 Ethereal Jaunt is actually pretty useful. Hell, CL1 would be pretty useful since you would still be able to jaunt/move, jaunt/move. By the rules, I believe the CR of any equipment is included in the monster that owns them. [the same way summoned creatures are included in the CR] If we need to house rule this- then I'd suggest we take into consideration that planeshift at will is effectively a save-or-die at will ability in the arena. [against most combatents, anyway]
whitebaron 10-12-07, 08:55 AM	3) The court rulings of gladius spells this out - it does whatever you ask with no need for tricks. It's a magic item, so you need no particular skill to operate it. This came up over bag of tricks, I think nearly a year ago. well, the bag of tricks explicitly state, that you can have the animal perform any of the tricks. the obsidian steed states nothing of the like, so it's dm (elder) choice again, whether the steed knows more tricks than the usual combat riding of a warhorse. -> which would clearly mean no tricks with touch and send only the touched creature back to other planes. RAI, i think the steed should only be allowed to have the rider be affected with its powers, and then, without save. (the steed says nothing about a save when the rider is good and taken to another plane)
hogarth 10-12-07, 09:23 AM	RAI, i think the steed should only be allowed to have the rider be affected with its powers, and then, without save. (the steed says nothing about a save when the rider is good and taken to another plane) I agree that's probably what they intended. I'm just trying to think outside of the box. :)
McJarvis 10-12-07, 10:41 AM	After reading the description again, it sounds like planeshift is a self-only ability in this case, with the extra side-effect of bringing riders along with it.
McJarvis 10-12-07, 10:47 AM	Ethereal Filcher and Rust Monsters are the better meta-transfer forms for 5hd aberrations. Read more at The Arcane Order presents "The User's Guide to Alter Self" Why would Rust Monster be a good form? Rust is (ex)
hogarth 10-12-07, 11:03 AM	After reading the description again, it sounds like planeshift is a self-only ability in this case, with the extra side-effect of bringing riders along with it. I think we're all agreed that that's probably the intent, but the text doesn't say that it's self-only. If we wanted to house rule that, I'd be O.K. with it.
McJarvis 10-12-07, 11:05 AM	I think we're all agreed that that's probably the intent, but the text doesn't say that it's self-only. If we wanted to house rule that, I'd be O.K. with it. We're either going to house-rule it that way or assign it a CR based on having a "save or die" ability usable once/round. From a usability standpoint, I am pretty sure it'll be self-only.
hogarth 10-12-07, 11:13 AM	We're either going to house-rule it that way or assign it a CR based on having a "save or die" ability usable once/round. From a usability standpoint, I am pretty sure it'll be self-only. Well even if we said an Obsidian Steed has a CR of 20, any character could still use it once per 3FC (since the CR only matters if it's going to be prebuffed).
McJarvis 10-12-07, 11:19 AM	Well even if we said an Obsidian Steed has a CR of 20, any character could still use it once per 3FC (since the CR only matters if it's going to be prebuffed). They could buy three? ;) edit- and even then, if somehow the thing survived one combat it would just be prebuffed for another. I'm assuming that it would be prebuffed any combat it came into play, though...
Vathelokai 10-14-07, 01:10 PM	Questions for a fight in progress... The assassin death attack ability says that you have to use a 'melee weapon'. Please define weapon in this context. Does any melee item that does dmg count? Only items on the 'equipment: weapons' section of the SRD? Also Please define 'awareness' in the context of studying your opponent for a death attack. The fight in question, Balthazar cast dancing lights before studying a death attack, then moved the lights while studying. Would this make the opponents aware, or is the opponent 'aware' only if they make a spot/listen check? The debate has be fairly well fleshed out here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=14074704#post14074704). Relevant data has been sniped here. Vath is the pitlord and abstains. MWB is the opponent and has conflicting interest. Whitebaron, Rauul, and Eamane have voiced opinions that nettlesong is not a weapon for death attack purposes, since it is a wonderous item. Hogarth has voiced opinion that any item that does damage and requires a melee attack roll is a weapon.
hogarth 10-14-07, 01:27 PM	They could buy three? ;) edit- and even then, if somehow the thing survived one combat it would just be prebuffed for another. I'm assuming that it would be prebuffed any combat it came into play, though... But if you prebuff it, it follows normal rules for allies (e.g. max CR <= ECL - 4) and thus we need to know what CR it is. That's what prompted this question in the first place!
whitebaron 10-14-07, 03:18 PM	to be fair towards hogarth: he got that item. it was approved (wrongly) it is used in the fight. though i have no say in this, i'd propose that a) it is allowed to be used like that in this one fight b) it is furthermore rejected for future references c) balthazar is allowed to obtain something different instead, even if it is out of the ordinary 3FC cycle (if it can be made within his ~1100 ratio he could have obtained from the blackmarket) d) set up a house rule clarifying death attacks (imo, should be weapons as in equipment, or spells that state they create weapons only)
Eamane 10-14-07, 03:27 PM	But if you prebuff it, it follows normal rules for allies (e.g. max CR <= ECL - 4) and thus we need to know what CR it is. That's what prompted this question in the first place! Why exactly does it follow the rules for allies? It's a magical item. Summoned/temporary allies never count against your ally limits, so why should this one? Because it's summoned out of battle? I don't think that distinction is sufficient. If it turned into the horse permanently I could see the need, but it doesn't.
Rauul 10-14-07, 04:21 PM	Why exactly does it follow the rules for allies? It's a magical item. Summoned/temporary allies never count against your ally limits, so why should this one? Because it's summoned out of battle? I don't think that distinction is sufficient. If it turned into the horse permanently I could see the need, but it doesn't. Well it does Acually... 1 day/week for 24 hours per week.. so once activated it can't be brought in again unless it fits under the Ally rule CR = ECL-4
Erithmu 10-14-07, 04:51 PM	My view of Death Attack and the current situation. Can you deliver a Death Attack through a spell? RAI: I would go with yes, i find enough evidence that I don't think it would be outside the realm of a DM allowance. RAW: It's more difficult to make the same leap. Touch attacks are considered 'armed' attacks, (I would by extension allow AoOs to be made if appropriate) yet they are not classified as 'melee weapons.' Lonewolf and others have brought up the fact that there are melee weapons listed under wondrous items and Rod sections of the SRD. I would like to point out that those items (Mattock, Maul, most of the Rods) require the Craft Arms and Armor feat in addition to their other respective Craft feat. I bring this up as I'm going to classify melee weapon as follows: A melee weapon is one that is created either through mundane (Craft skill) means and/or the Craft Arms and Armor feat. In this case I don't have a problem with Nettlesong, but I would not classify it as a melee weapon to allow for making Death Attacks. If Nettlesong were to be redone I would probably not allow it as a weapon that can be made as a touch attack. Touch attacks are incredibly powerful and the only closely related weapon enhancement is listed as a +4 modifier (Brilliant Energy). There are other spells that allow it outside of core (Wraithstrike), but are incredibly strong (Wraithstrike is banned at any table that I play at for balance issues). If this were at my table I would have not problem allowing spells to be used for death attacks, however I probably would have smacked the player that tried to make Nettlesong. Here in the CoCo, I don't think by RAW you can allow a spell to function as a Death Attack, there is not enough RAW evidence to reach (what I think to be) the RAI of the SRD. Awareness: The FAQ listing is what I would go by. If you make a listen/spot etc check that gives the impression that the Assassin is in the area, the Death Attack will only be a Sneak Attack. Note that by RAW this is only during the study portion of the Death attack. In the case of the fight in question: I think the dancing lights are enough to indicate that there is someone else around. If it were in daylight I would say that Balth would be allowed a Death attack as his study was done and Gak was alerted to Balth too late.
TelinArtho 10-14-07, 06:11 PM	For this situation, given that Hogarth asked the questions, but didn't get any answers, I'm inclined to allow it for this fight and allow him to refund it in the training hall for the future (since I agree that it shouldn't be allowed). Aside from that though- the dancing lights is enough, in my opinion to alert Gak of his opponent's presence and therefore negates the possibility of the death attack.
templer10 10-14-07, 06:35 PM	to be fair towards hogarth: he got that item. it was approved (wrongly) it is used in the fight. though i have no say in this, i'd propose that a) it is allowed to be used like that in this one fight b) it is furthermore rejected for future references c) balthazar is allowed to obtain something different instead, even if it is out of the ordinary 3FC cycle (if it can be made within his ~1100 ratio he could have obtained from the blackmarket) d) set up a house rule clarifying death attacks (imo, should be weapons as in equipment, or spells that state they create weapons only) I think all the above are correct.
lonewolf 10-14-07, 06:38 PM	I also agree.
hogarth 10-14-07, 07:21 PM	In the case of the fight in question: I think the dancing lights are enough to indicate that there is someone else around. If it were in daylight I would say that Balth would be allowed a Death attack as his study was done and Gak was alerted to Balth too late. This is what I don't get. The presence of Dancing Lights just means Picsou is within 100'. If that's enough to negate a Death Attack, then why doesn't the same apply to knowing Picou is within the Arena? Or knowing that Picsou is within the city of Gladius? As far as I can tell, if you can't sense an assassin with sight, hearing, smell, touch, taste, blindsense, or whatever, then you don't detect or recognize the assassin. Haven't you ever seen a movie where a guard hears a noise, goes to investigate it, and then gets his neck broken by the hero? :)
whitebaron 10-14-07, 07:29 PM	Aside from that though- the dancing lights is enough, in my opinion to alert Gak of his opponent's presence and therefore negates the possibility of the death attack. actually, death attacks would never work in the arena, unless your opponent is helpless. you are kinda always aware of the presence of the other. i don't see any difference of knowing "assassin in the vicinity" or "assassin in close vicinity" so, if you don't want to ban assassins as such from the arena, knowing he is "somewhere there" should not be enough.
Erithmu 10-14-07, 07:45 PM	Trying to expand on my Dancing lights thing: CoCo doesn't make an Assassin's life easy. I have no problem if you can't locate the assassin by visual, auditory, or other senses within the context of the arena. The Dancing lights thing is obviously a spell effect that indicates that there is someone who can cast spells nearby. I thought about bringing up knowledge checks for Gak in remembering if griffon's had any SLA, but I didn't get that far and the lights moved after the griffon was dead. Therefore Gak (through the rules of engagement of the CoCo) has a visual clue in the dancing lights that Balth must be near by. He can't see Balth, but there is another 'something' nearby. Knowning that he is in an arena he can assume that it is Balth. Now in Daylight ... Balth wouldn't give any indication that he was nearby (assuming the same checks) and only at the end does Gak hear Balth but it is in the process of delivering the Death Attack so it is too late to react.
SauroGrenom 10-14-07, 08:22 PM	to be fair towards hogarth: he got that item. it was approved (wrongly) it is used in the fight. Well... The item is a straight forward wondrous item that uses a minor spell effect modified by a metamagic feat. There's really nothing wrong with the item per se. The only thing is that Hogarth wants to use a spell effect as a weapon, and that's the gray area that needs to be resolved here. I think that in this case, the item is not a "melee weapon". The item is rather a use activated wondrous item with an unusual method of "use". Furthermore, we have argued several times in the past and generally decided that spells are not weapons. Since a spell can never be a weapon (let alone a melee weapon) the death attack can never be delivered by a spell.
Rauul 10-14-07, 08:43 PM	Furthermore, we have argued several times in the past and generally decided that spells are not weapons. Since a spell can never be a weapon (let alone a melee weapon) the death attack can never be delivered by a spell. Would have to Argue this one just a Tad with 1 spell.. Spiritual Weapon.. if a Cleric/Assassin was to cast it, then study the Target for 3 rds... why couldn't the weapon be used on the Death Attack..
Callix 10-14-07, 08:48 PM	Would have to Argue this one just a Tad with 1 spell.. Spiritual Weapon.. if a Cleric/Assassin was to cast it, then study the Target for 3 rds... why couldn't the weapon be used on the Death Attack.. Because it's the spell, not you, doing the attacking. If it was you, then you would not be making a melee attack. Side question: A dagger is listed as a melee weapon. Can you make a death attack with a thrown dagger?
SauroGrenom 10-14-07, 08:50 PM	Would have to Argue this one just a Tad with 1 spell.. Spiritual Weapon.. if a Cleric/Assassin was to cast it, then study the Target for 3 rds... why couldn't the weapon be used on the Death Attack.. Because spiritual weapon is a spell... not a weapon... It's only a weapon in the sense that scorching ray is a weapon. It causes damage, it uses an attack roll, but it's not a weapon. You cannot manifest dissolving weapon on a spiritual weapon. It's not a viable target of that power, since it's not a weapon.
SauroGrenom 10-14-07, 08:52 PM	Side question: A dagger is listed as a melee weapon. Can you make a death attack with a thrown dagger?No. When a weapon is thrown, it is effectively transformed into a ranged weapon in that moment. Ranged attack feats like point blank shot or psionic shot apply to the thrown dagger, but not to the dagger in hand. Similarly a death attack can only be dealt by a dagger in hand, not a thrown dagger.
SauroGrenom 10-14-07, 09:20 PM	-is nettlesong a weapon or an item that replicates a spell based touch attack? And in general, can you do a death attack with a touch spell (like shocking grasp)?Nettlesong is a use activated wondrous item with an unusual method of "use". In general spells are not weapons, so they cannot be used to deliver a death attack. -is a custom magic item that does dmg as a touch attack a melee weapon (since melee attacks are required to do a death attack)?Not as far as I can tell. There is no "weapon" on the weapon tables that does damage as a touch attack... There are probably some natural attacks that do damage as touch attacks... I cannot think of any off the top of my head, but those would be melee weapons. Oh, an incorporeal creature has a "touch attack" that would qualify as a melee weapon, any similar natural attack that is also a touch attack would be a touch attack melee weapon that could be used to deliver a death attack. -if the assassin is detected, then hides, can he study?Sure why not... The real question is if the study allows you another death attack? From the FAQ, I get the impression that a death attack requires the target to have no idea from what direction, or at what moment in time an attack is coming. So in the context of the arena, you know that you're in a place with an assassin nearby... So if you hear something invisible approaching, then it's the assassin and the death attack is spoiled. If you hear a hidden guy moving around the corner, then it's the assassin. If the assassin reveals his location during the study or along his approach to deliver the melee attack-death attack then the death attack is foiled. However in such a case, the assassin can hide for another 3 rounds and study again and hope to get a better chance to deliver his death attack... at least till the delay penalty kicks in. -does the assassin have to remain undetected only while studying, or from when studying begins until the attack is made?Judging from the comments of the FAQ, the assassin needs to remain undetected (hidden and silent) through the study period and the approach till the blade is placed in the opponent's body. Any flaw along that time, and the death attack is foiled...
hogarth 10-14-07, 10:38 PM	Scenario #2: Suppose Balthazar had a cohort who cast Dancing Lights instead of him. Would that make death attacks impossible (even though it says nothing about where Balthazar is)? Scenario #3: Suppose there were no Dancing Lights spell, but the fight was taking place in a 100' radius circle (the same radius as Dancing Lights). Would that make death attacks impossible (since it's the same level of locational uncertainty as Dancing Lights)? I guess I'm the only one who thinks that not detecting the assassin with any senses is good enough. It still seems odd to me that a king can be sitting in his throne room, reasoning as follows: If there were any invisible assassins trying to kill me, they'd have to be in this throne room. Since I know that any invisible assassin must be in this throne room, they can't assassinate me because I know they're there! ;) EDIT: At any rate, the elders seem to agree that you can't do a death attack with any weapon that's not (a) a natural weapon, or (b) listed in the list of melee weapons in the PHB + DMG. So we can mark the fight a loss of B. Picsou. Trying to expand on my Dancing lights thing: CoCo doesn't make an Assassin's life easy. I have no problem if you can't locate the assassin by visual, auditory, or other senses within the context of the arena. The Dancing lights thing is obviously a spell effect that indicates that there is someone who can cast spells nearby. I thought about bringing up knowledge checks for Gak in remembering if griffon's had any SLA, but I didn't get that far and the lights moved after the griffon was dead. Therefore Gak (through the rules of engagement of the CoCo) has a visual clue in the dancing lights that Balth must be near by. He can't see Balth, but there is another 'something' nearby. Knowning that he is in an arena he can assume that it is Balth. Now in Daylight ... Balth wouldn't give any indication that he was nearby (assuming the same checks) and only at the end does Gak hear Balth but it is in the process of delivering the Death Attack so it is too late to react.
Vathelokai 10-16-07, 12:47 AM	I still havn't drawn a firm conclusion on it yet, though I'm leaning toward hogarth's interpretation. I mentioned my opinion earlier: it seems that death attack was intended to be used to 'betray your friends' or was intended to be used before initiative is rolled. By that reasoning, no matter how we allow it in the arena it's a house rule.
Macbrea 10-16-07, 08:35 AM	First, I have avoided commenting on this topic because I have one of the assassin's in the roster. Death Attack If an assassin studies his victim for 3 rounds and then makes a sneak attack with a melee weapon that successfully deals damage, the sneak attack has the additional effect of possibly either paralyzing or killing the target (assassin’s choice). While studying the victim, the assassin can undertake other actions so long as his attention stays focused on the target and the target does not detect the assassin or recognize the assassin as an enemy. So, we are looking at: Target does not detect the assassin or recognize the assassin as an enemy. Not detecting the assassin is an easy one by definition of the arena. Failure to sense the opponent results in a sneak attack being able to be made. The second half of that sentence makes, in my opinion, death attack impossible in the arena settings. Each opponent is told before they enter the arena who their opponent is going to be. It is very much impossible not to recognize the assassin as an enemy. For the same reason that charm isn't effective in the arena, death attack also runs into the problem of you are already in combat and your enemy knows your out there somewhere.
hogarth 10-16-07, 08:41 AM	So, we are looking at: Target does not detect the assassin or recognize the assassin as an enemy. Not detecting the assassin is an easy one by definition of the arena. Failure to sense the opponent results in a sneak attack being able to be made. The second half of that sentence makes, in my opinion, death attack impossible in the arena settings. Each opponent is told before they enter the arena who their opponent is going to be. It is very much impossible not to recognize the assassin as an enemy. For the same reason that charm isn't effective in the arena, death attack also runs into the problem of you are already in combat and your enemy knows your out there somewhere. I don't get it. I just don't get it. How do you recognize someone that you can't detect in any way, shape, or form??? That's bizarre, and it doesn't match any definition of "recognize" that I've ever heard of. I feel like someone ripped a page out of my dictionary and nobody told me. :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: (Frankly, I think they meant "either you don't detect the assassin (because he's hiding or invisible), or you don't recognize the assassin as an enemy (because he's disguised or polymorphed)". But even given the more strict interpretation of "Not A And Not B" instead of "Not A Or Not B" (by DeMorgan's Law), I still don't get how you can recognize invisible, inaudible characters as enemies!!)
Macbrea 10-16-07, 08:47 AM	I am pretty sure the sentence is just badly structured to mean: -------------------------------------------------------------- While studying the victim, the assassin can undertake other actions so long as his attention stays focused on the target and the target does not detect the assassin. or While studying the victim, the assassin can undertake other actions so long as his attention stays focused on the target and recognize the assassin as an enemy. --------------------------------------------------------------- Which means the second sentence would become impossible in the arena. For the same reason Charm is useless in the arena. You are given a full write-up on your opponent before you enter the arena. And therefore, recognize it is an enemy. You get to write tactics designed to defeat your opponent.
hogarth 10-16-07, 08:52 AM	Which means the second sentence would become impossible in the arena. For the same reason Charm is useless in the arena. You are given a full write-up on your opponent before you enter the arena. And therefore, recognize it is an enemy. You get to write tactics designed to defeat your opponent. You would recognize your opponent if you detected him. But without detecting someone, how can you recognize them??
Macbrea 10-16-07, 08:53 AM	You recognize your enemy when you are given the pairings. You understand at that point what the opponent is and the fact that you will be the only person in the arena with that person. Note: Now, my reading of the rules may be too strict on how they are suppose to work. It is one of the reasons my assassin's have never actually gotten off many death attacks, in my RL game.
McJarvis 10-16-07, 08:55 AM	I don't get it. I just don't get it. How do you recognize someone that you can't detect in any way, shape, or form??? That's bizarre, and it doesn't match any definition of "recognize" that I've ever heard of. Really? "I recognize that Hogarth is a member of CoCo." Yet I can detect you in no way currently! :P
hogarth 10-16-07, 09:00 AM	Really? "I recognize that Hogarth is a member of CoCo." Yet I can detect you in no way currently! :P Then how did you reply to my post? Blind luck, or was the sense of vision involved? :P :P
McJarvis 10-16-07, 09:07 AM	Then how did you reply to my post? Blind luck, or was the sense of vision involved? :P :P The same way gladiators know who their enemy is. I read information provided to me. Furthmore- my post was a statement of recognition, but the recognition was there regardless of your individual post's prompting of that response from me.
hogarth 10-16-07, 09:08 AM	You recognize your enemy when you are given the pairings. You understand at that point what the opponent is and the fact that you will be the only person in the arena with that person. Again, it strikes me as weird that (using your strange interpretation) if I know a particular assassin is trying to kill me, there's no way that he can ever use his death attack on me, even if he sneaks up on me, or he's invisible and inaudible, or he's perfectly disguised as my best friend.
Macbrea 10-16-07, 09:35 AM	You are unable to charm your opponent because you are considered in combat when the match starts. When pairings are done you know who your opponent is going to be and therefore auto-recognize your opponent.
hogarth 10-16-07, 09:39 AM	When pairings are done you know who your opponent is going to be and therefore auto-recognize your opponent. But am I interpreting you correctly in my post above? Is it true that (in your opinion) as long as you know a particular assassin is trying to kill you, he can never, ever do a death attack upon you, even if you can't detect him at all (e.g. you're blind and deaf)? I want to be sure I'm not misstating your position.
McJarvis 10-16-07, 09:42 AM	I could easily see why a death attack might not be used against a gladiator in combat. We don't know the exact mechanics behind it, but perhaps it requires the target to be completely at ease, muscles relaxed[or some other type of explination] All critisisms aside, though- I see no balace reason why "can not pinpoint or better" can't be the rule of thumb with death attack. This allows sight, blindsense, blindsight, touch sight, and listen checks be used to ward off a death attack. The death attack is surely no worse than a save or die spell/effect, and it is easy to avoid since it requires melee combat. [we're not talking about deadly snipers...this is a range touch save or die spell.]
Macbrea 10-16-07, 09:56 AM	@Hogarth: 3.5ed includes a sneak attack rule that states a rogue cannot make a sneak attack in a dark alley. So, yes, I am saying if your opponent knows you are an assassin and are out to kill them. You cannot use death attack on them. @McJarvis: I agree that is a reasonable house rule.
hogarth 10-16-07, 09:58 AM	All critisisms aside, though- I see no balace reason why "can not pinpoint or better" can't be the rule of thumb with death attack. I would go even farther and say "successful Spot/Listen check or better" can ruin the studying for a death attack (since the FAQ implies that hearing the assassin at all is enough to ruin the study period). (Note that I think this is not a house rule, but instead the correct interpretation of the rules. AFAIK, nowhere does it state that an assassin's target must be flat-footed or that death attacks do not work in combat.)
whitebaron 10-16-07, 10:00 AM	i would not go for the pinpoint. if you are detected, it is over. so - hear him, it's over. spot even his toe - it's over. but obviously, saying he's in the arena IS NOT enough for detection. the king in the throne room is a nice example. he knows the assassin is coming. he maybe even knows who it will be. he has guards all around. still, by some magical means, many tricks and lots of patience, the assassin manages to fly into his throne room, study the king, and assassinate him. Why is that? because he was unaware to the exact point in time when the assassin will strike. if the assassin somehow stumbled, he might still have gotten his sneak attacks, surprises etc. but he could not possibly make a death attack. i think this is the reasonable way to go in coco. if you beat one spot or move silently by the assassin, the attempt is wasted. unless he can move and rehide in another place, he will not get another attempt. as for the dancing lights in the fight: as the spell is ranged, i'd say that if he cast detect magic, it's spoiled. else, it's an indication that there is someone (hoho - as if you wouldnt know that beforehand) but not, where he is, or what he is about to do. this is similar to the throne-room-scenario: you know he will come, but not when, from where, or how.
McJarvis 10-16-07, 10:05 AM	The problem with allowing "if you even hear him" kind of rulings is that the subject doesn't know where the attack is coming from still. This opens the door to interpretations that this shouldn't be limited to sound alone- and doesn't extend to other types of senses. When if you even smell him? I'd say that's as limiting as listening, but death attack makes no specific mention of this. Following RAW will invalidate death attack in the arena because by the nature of conflict you know of your opponents presence. Using a "Pinpoint or better" rule neatly arbitrates for all situations that might arise, and does so in one sentance. Elegance+Functionality= Yes! [[though it is not written- I think all who know me know that I value the elegance+functionality rule above all else when it comes to CoCo rulings & houserules]] edit- It's sad that I have to make a disclaimer for "those who do not know me". I was only gone a month or two and we've already had significant membership roll-over? ;) RE: Dark Ally- I do hope that in 4E they give the "rogue-y" races darkvision standard. Or fix that in some other way...
whitebaron 10-16-07, 10:26 AM	once again: the rules never said, that it is enough to know who's your enemy. so as long as you don't know he's nearby, you will end up on the wrong side of a death attack. The "OR" in question is a typical statement made with another sentence in mind, which got cut down due to the extensiveness of this paragraph. The paragraph should have been something like this: --- An Assassin can study his victim if he either is not detected by his victim, or his victim is not aware of the assassin meaning any harm to him. If the assassins guise is broken, or he is detected, the death attack is spoiled. --- As so many words would have made it near science to read it, they decided to go for the (unprecise) shortcut: --- and the target does not detect the assassin or recognize the assassin as an enemy. --- @you don't hear him. yes, but you could just run away. btw: another rules question about: "staying focused". nobody mentioned it yet, but don't you think it should be like the concentration of a wizard? you can "study" your opponent as a free action? seems useless stuff. i'd require from players a move or std action to study, or a concentration check to do it as free action.
McJarvis 10-16-07, 10:41 AM	you can "study" your opponent as a free action? i'd require from players a move or std action to study, or a concentration check to do it as free action. The rules for death attacks specifically state you can take other actions while studying an opponent.
McJarvis 10-16-07, 10:46 AM	once again: the rules never said, that it is enough to know who's your enemy. so as long as you don't know he's nearby, you will end up on the wrong side of a death attack. That's the point, though. You know he's nearby by the nature of the arena. Simple logic test any gladiator can employ while in the arena: Q: Has fight ended & the victor been delcared? A: Yes-> Good! No assassin is nearby. [Death attack would be viable] No-> Ut oh! That Assassin is around here somewhere. I *know* it because I am in the arena and the fight isn't over. [Death attack not viable: gladiator is alerted to the presence of the Assassin] Detection by logic is still detection! It's just a different means. Normally we ask "Do I see any evidence of light bouncing off my enemy?" in order to spot someone. This is just a different sort of method. [Albeit- a much less useful one normally. However, every gladiator uses it when they start a buff sequence the moment the fight starts. The logic that an opponent is in the arena is all most need to start buffing themselves for immediate combat]
whitebaron 10-16-07, 10:57 AM	The rules for death attacks specifically state you can take other actions while studying an opponent. yes, but is it a free action? any action at all? could you be blinded and still study? it doesn't even say you have to see your target! That's the point, though. You know he's nearby by the nature of the arena. i won't comment on the logic test part. but: you don't know he's close. he might be 500 ft. away. a death attack is nothing else than a sneak attack, performed as special surprise and taking 4-6 rounds. the studying is used to get a general idea of how the character WILL ACT, so you can time and place your hit PERFECTLY. being defensive because another one might be close by, is no measure that helps. having done martial arts for some time, i can tell you this: it is irrelevant what kind of stance/mood your opponent is in. if you know what he'll do (this is what studying means, predicting his next move), you can hit him badly if he doesnt see you. you might still hurt him more when he sees you, but its unlikely to get him totally surprised. thus, i don't like the idea of being allowed to be detected after the studying. but simply knowing someone is in the arena, is like saying: a guard dog always finds the rogue.
McJarvis 10-16-07, 10:59 AM	You seem to be wandering into the subject of the definition of "close", which is another matter altogether. Personally I'd say any of our arenas fit the bill. As far as studying goes-> apparently your history in martial arts is irrelevent in this conversation, since merely hearing the assassin nearby is enough to ruin the attempt. [stance matters]. Even if the assassin studies the target while the target can hear the assassin, the assassin can't do it. This implies the target must be oblivious to the very existance of the assassin. As far as the guard dog example- now it's just a matter of intelligence. If a guard knows specifically that a specific intruder is coming that very night, it is different than a guard who is guarding a building that may or may not be broken into. Alertness matters in the RP of things-> which is why several members have brought up that Death Attack is unsuitable for the arena, just like a hoarde of other abilities. My "pinpoint or better" rule is merely suggested because it would provide a medium through which this ability could operate. In the past few years that I've been "around", all queries regarding the assassin on my part have been returned by a strong "death attacks don't work in the arena" answer.
whitebaron 10-16-07, 11:18 AM	[1]your history in martial arts is irrelevent in this conversation, since merely hearing the assassin nearby is enough to ruin the attempt. [stance matters]. Even if the assassin studies the target while the target can hear the assassin, the assassin can't do it. [2]As far as the guard dog example- now it's just a matter of intelligence. If a guard knows specifically that a specific intruder is coming that very night, it is different than a guard who is guarding a building that may or may not be broken into. Alertness matters in the RP of things-> which is why several members have brought up that Death Attack is unsuitable for the arena, just like a hoarde of other abilities. @1: hearing the as means that you know he's close, that he'll strike soon, and this changes your behaviour. which foils his study. you won't be able to avoid his sneak - but you won't be completely oblivious. if you want it any other way, just clearly state "no assassins in coco", because that's what you are proposing. @2: yes, it's different, but on the other hand, it's not. even if he knows that it will be this night he won't know that its this minute. as his general awareness-factor might be higher, he won't do more like the king knowing there will be an assassin. once all defenses you can get are in place, it comes down to the simple "spot vs hide, listen vs move silently" formula. nothing else matters, since an intelligent thief will always find a way to surround (especiall in medieval settings with magic at hand) security measures. if he can do so undetected, is just a matter of skills and stealthyness. being aware of the as in the arena simply means, you'll get active instead of reactive spot checks, if you want them. as for the guard: if he spends all night looking for the thief, he will get tired. and thus, the thief will likely just have to wait until he flexes his legs, takes a short nap, or does any other action which helps him to relax. nothing else is the end of studying+the 3 rounds after. you wait for the opportune moment to strike. this is completely unrelated to awareness. @pinpoint: an assassin would need like 5-8 total in move silently to never get pinpointed except by a listen specialist. this seems a far to easy way. if you can pinpoint him by other ways then spot or listen, it's detection as well, without the need for such a check. on a personal note, it seems to me like you're mainly arguing against the case because your plot for an assassin got denied once. i'm trying to argue here how it should work, and why, to come to a conclusion within coco that doesn't exclude a core class or its key ability from the arena.
McJarvis 10-16-07, 11:28 AM	on a personal note, it seems to me like you're mainly arguing against the case because your plot for an assassin got denied once. The death attack portion wasn't really why I changed my mind on the idea- it was the nerfing of stealth characters in general. [I believe Mort Noir is still referenced as a CoCo archtype somewhere...] THAT is a longer story though, and not really important to this conversation. My motivations are to bring forth the objections of elders-now-passed & suggest solutions the the problems that have been found before. to a conclusion within coco that doesn't exclude a core class or its key ability from the arena. It's an accepted fact that some class abilities are not suitable for the arena. The assassin, even without a death attack, is still a suitable choice for a rogue due to it's low entry limitations. It gives a nice utility spell list, accelerated sneak attack damage[by 1 level half the time], decent skills, and a few other key class abilities. [poison use anyone?] I suspect the real reason no one has tried to flesh out death attack before is the combination of a lack of high-level rogue types & the fact that, while a key ability, it is not a deal-breaking ability for the class.
Macbrea 10-16-07, 01:23 PM	I would say the real reason is there have been very few rogues in general of 6+ levels.
hogarth 10-16-07, 04:08 PM	On a less contentious subject (I hope!)... How does the Blackguard's ability to trade in ex-paladin levels work? E.g. Can I go straight from: ---> Cleric 1/Paladin 11 (taking Cleave as my level 12 feat) -- to -- Cleric 1/Ex-paladin 1/Blackguard 10? Or do I have to go: ---> Cleric 1/Paladin 11 (taking Power Attack, Cleave and Improved Sunder all before level 12) -- to -- Cleric 1/Ex-paladin 1/Blackguard 10? Or, even worse, do I have to go: ---> Cleric 1/Ex-paladin 11/Blackguard 1 (taking Power Attack, Cleave and Improved Sunder all before level 13) -- to -- Cleric 1/Ex-paladin 2/Blackguard 10? NOTE: IF I DON'T GET AN ELDER'S OPINION ON THIS, THERE'S NO WAY I'M TOUCHING THIS PRESTIGE CLASS WITH A 10-FOOT POLE.
Macbrea 10-16-07, 04:13 PM	Or do I have to go: ---> Cleric 1/Paladin 11 (taking Power Attack, Cleave and Improved Sunder all before level 12) -- to -- Cleric 1/Ex-paladin 1/Blackguard 10? Is correct. As the requirements to take a prestige class is you must have all the feats required before you can take level 1 in it. And at that point you may exchange the levels.
McJarvis 10-16-07, 04:14 PM	Or, even worse, do I have to go: ---> Cleric 1/Ex-paladin 11/Blackguard 1 (taking Power Attack, Cleave and Improved Sunder all before level 13) -- to -- Cleric 1/Ex-paladin 2/Blackguard 10? bingo. You need all the prereqs before taking a level in the class, and once you start to take a level in the class you can trade in paladin levels. Edit-> Macbrea is incorrect, though he may have misunderstood what you meant. You can't go from being a Cleric 1/Ex-P 11 [ECL12] to being a Cleric 1/Ex-P 1/ Blackguard 10 [ECL12]. You have to gain a level.
TelinArtho 10-16-07, 04:20 PM	It is the third option hogarth presented - sorry Macbrea. You have to actually take that level of Blackguard before trading levels in. And to be further correct - all of the requirements need to be met by level 12 if you intend on taking Blackguard at level 13 (not that it would make a difference here - but if you took Blackguard earlier it would).
Macbrea 10-16-07, 04:27 PM	Lets see... 'A fallen paladin of this stature immediately gains a blackguard level for each level of paladin he trades in.' If you take a level of Black guard as a 11+ level of paladin. You immediately can trade in for 1 blackguard level per level of paladin. (To Blackguard 10 if before 20th). So, 1 cleric/paladin 11 + (leveling) -> 1 cleric/ex-paladin 11/Blackguard 1 -> 1 cleric/blackguard 10/ex-paladin 2 hmm, I guess your right. and the SRD quote for the other part is: Prestige classes offer a new form of multiclassing. Unlike the basic classes, characters must meet Requirements before they can take their first level of a prestige class. The rules for level advancement apply to this system, meaning the first step of advancement is always choosing a class. If a character does not meet the Requirements for a prestige class before that first step, that character cannot take the first level of that prestige class. Taking a prestige class does not incur the experience point penalties normally associated with multiclassing. Strangely, I think at level 21, you get to change all the ex-paladin levels to Epic Blackguard levels.
Rauul 10-16-07, 04:40 PM	So next Question... So, 1 cleric/paladin of Slaughter 11 + (leveling) -> 1 cleric/ex-paladin of Slaughter 11/Blackguard 1 -> 1 cleric/blackguard 10/ex-paladin 1??
McJarvis 10-16-07, 04:43 PM	So next Question... So, 1 cleric/paladin of Slaughter 11 + (leveling) -> 1 cleric/ex-paladin of Slaughter 11/Blackguard 1 -> 1 cleric/blackguard 10/ex-paladin 1?? By strict RAW, the Paladin of Freedom/Tyranny/Slaughter never become ex-paladins, they just lose their class abilities. I think it'd be fair to make an exception for the Paladin of Freedom, though. edit-> actually, by strict RAW the other three paladins start off as ex-paladins, because they have "ceased to be lawful good" [never updated in UA] Funny that they just say the paladins have to be of the differing alignments, then never changed the wording to say that if they ceased to be that alignment that they'd become an ex-pally ;) Houserule will be needed due to poor wording.
lonewolf 10-16-07, 04:44 PM	There was a discussion that only paladins of Freedom and normal paladins should be able to trade in their levels when becoming blackguards, and I completely agree with that.
hogarth 10-19-07, 09:56 PM	A question from the Tavern, but I figured I'd get an Elder's opinion on it: Can a druid select the feat "Simple Weapon Proficiency" for his ape animal companion or is that too far out? The idea of an ape wielding a club doesn't seem too far-fetched, but an ape with a crossbow is a little weird.
Vathelokai 10-19-07, 10:35 PM	http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/Vathelokai/chimpanzee-glock.gif
McJarvis 10-19-07, 10:37 PM	I think it knowing how to reload the crossbow is the weird part. If that monkey ejected the clip & grabbed another from his belt I'd think it was CG ;)
Vathelokai 10-19-07, 10:43 PM	Unfortunately I don't have a video of that... yet :)
Rauul 10-19-07, 11:33 PM	I think it knowing how to reload the crossbow is the weird part. If that monkey ejected the clip & grabbed another from his belt I'd think it was CG ;) i'm a thinking... if MJ can do it... a monkey can do it J/K
McJarvis 10-20-07, 12:02 AM	i'm a thinking... if MJ can do it... a monkey can do it J/K Jokes on you- I have no clue how to reload a gun or crossbow. ;)
MindWandererB 10-20-07, 02:15 AM	I'd personally require both the feat and a trick--maybe two--for the purpose, but otherwise I'd have no problem with it. I've always wanted an army of monkeys with crossbows... but it used to be too credit-heavy, and now it's not allowed at all.
SauroGrenom 10-20-07, 09:28 AM	I'd personally require both the feat and a trick--maybe two--for the purpose, but otherwise I'd have no problem with it. I've always wanted an army of monkeys with crossbows... but it used to be too credit-heavy, and now it's not allowed at all. I agree with that. Also, have we officially decided on the energy missile thing? The suggestion was to edit the scaling of save DC so that it is similar to all the other powers, ie that +1pp grants +1d6 damage and every 2pp used for this purpose also grants +1 save DC. This idea was generally popular, but I don't believe that it was officially decided upon.
Macbrea 10-20-07, 09:35 AM	That is what it was errataed in complete psionics. It makes sense, but taking a erata from that book without taking all eratas from that book is in my opinion cherry picking. We should take them all or take none.
lonewolf 10-20-07, 09:39 AM	whats bad with cherry picking? Energy missile errata is good. Astral Construct errata isnt.
SauroGrenom 10-20-07, 09:41 AM	That is what it was errataed in complete psionics. It makes sense, but taking a erata from that book without taking all eratas from that book is in my opinion cherry picking. We should take them all or take none. What are the others?
Erithmu 10-20-07, 09:58 AM	I think there was a list somewhere that someone made. I would agree w/ LW that the Astral Construct nerf is weak. Gimme a sec
hogarth 10-20-07, 10:03 AM	What are the others? Astral construct -- only one construct at a time Energy stun -- +1 DC per 2d6, same as energy missile Hostile empathic transfer -- I don't remember the details Probably a few others.
hogarth 10-20-07, 10:06 AM	I'd personally require both the feat and a trick--maybe two--for the purpose, but otherwise I'd have no problem with it. I've always wanted an army of monkeys with crossbows... but it used to be too credit-heavy, and now it's not allowed at all. I was thinking one trick for "Use Melee Weapon" and one trick for "Use Thrown Weapon" should be enough. Agree or disagree?
Vathelokai 10-20-07, 10:28 AM	Astral construct -- only one construct at a time Energy stun -- +1 DC per 2d6, same as energy missile Hostile empathic transfer -- I don't remember the details Probably a few others. Also manifesting powers from a powerstone with your own pp... SRD you keep the powerstone, and in the Psi-Book you expend the powerstone.
Macbrea 10-20-07, 04:07 PM	Hostile, empathic transfer changed to: 5pp for 25hps Augment:For every additional power point you spend, you transfer 5 points of damage. Augment:For every 2 additional pp you spend you can affect one additional target within 20ft of you.
whitebaron 10-21-07, 01:27 PM	we need a clear ruling concerning ability burn damage (due to body fuel). does it go away between the fights of a 3FC - partially or complete? many said no in the tavern, but there still is no ruling. i need this for this week's fight. Lord Matsuni is in his second fight, replenished his PP in his previous fight. so he should still have some burn damage?
SauroGrenom 10-21-07, 01:56 PM	we need a clear ruling concerning ability burn damage (due to body fuel). does it go away between the fights of a 3FC - partially or complete? many said no in the tavern, but there still is no ruling. i need this for this week's fight. Lord Matsuni is in his second fight, replenished his PP in his previous fight. so he should still have some burn damage?This is a special case where ability damage is used to gain an advantage to the character. Since the character carries the advantage to the next battle in the 3FC, the disadvantage should also go along with it. I know that this devalues the body fuel feat. However that feat was created and balanced in an environment where the "damage" was not automatically healed between battles. The nature of our CoCo environment imbalances this feat, and we need to adjust the way it interacts with our setting to help compensate for that, and hopefully result in a feat equivalent to the one in the core rules setting.
whitebaron 10-21-07, 02:04 PM	i'd have a general idea for the feat - heal 1 ability burn damage, as per normal regeneration between each fight. thus we would also allow "mind over body" to regain some of its usefulness. though maybe there should be a rules clarification on that one as well - is it your normal constitution bonus, or you present constitution bonus? in the case of body fuel, this is very important. also, i don't know when you can do body fuel. it doesn't state which kind of action it is, macbrea interprets it as free action. can it be even used as immediate action (e.g. to power elan resistance)? or should it be a standard action? questions over questions...
Vathelokai 10-21-07, 02:10 PM	I agree that body fuel dmg should stay between fight. As for the other stuff; I will look into that once I finish my fights.
SauroGrenom 10-21-07, 02:17 PM	also, i don't know when you can do body fuel. it doesn't state which kind of action it is, macbrea interprets it as free action. can it be even used as immediate action (e.g. to power elan resistance)? or should it be a standard action? questions over questions...Ugh. The feat description is rather crappy. What I fall back on is the general statements at the top of the page in the SRD: Because psionic feats are supernatural abilities - a departure from the general rule that feats do not grant supernatural abilities - they cannot be disrupted in combat (as powers can be) and generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity (except as noted in their descriptions). Since the feat in question is a psionic feat, and these are supernatural abilities this implies that using the feat is a standard action that does not provoke an AoO. Standard Action Attack of Opportunity1 Attack (melee) No Attack (ranged) Yes Attack (unarmed) Yes Activate a magic item other than a potion or oil No Aid another Maybe2 Bull rush No Cast a spell (1 standard action casting time) Yes Concentrate to maintain an active spell No Dismiss a spell No Draw a hidden weapon (see Sleight of Hand skill) No Drink a potion or apply an oil Yes Escape a grapple No Feint No Light a torch with a tindertwig Yes Lower spell resistance No Make a dying friend stable (see Heal skill) Yes Overrun No Read a scroll Yes Ready (triggers a standard action) No Sunder a weapon (attack) Yes Sunder an object (attack) Maybe3 Total defense No Turn or rebuke undead No Use extraordinary ability No Use skill that takes 1 action Usually Use spell-like ability Yes Use supernatural ability No
Macbrea 10-21-07, 02:22 PM	I have a silly question. Where does it say the stat damage cannot be healed? Body Fuel [Psionic] You can expand your power point total at the expense of your health. Benefit You can recover 2 power points by taking 1 point of ability burn damage to each of your three ability scores: Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution. You can recover additional power points for a proportional cost to Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution. These recovered points are added to your power point reserve as if you had gained them by resting overnight. Special Only living creatures can use this feat. You can take advantage of this feat only while in your own body.
hogarth 10-21-07, 02:28 PM	I have a silly question. Where does it say the stat damage cannot be healed? Under the description of "Ability Burn": http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicPowersOverview.htm#abilityBurn "Ability Burn This is a special form of ability damage that cannot be magically or psionically healed. It is caused by the use of certain psionic feats and powers. It returns only through natural healing. "
Vathelokai 10-21-07, 02:28 PM	I have a silly question. Where does it say the stat damage cannot be healed? over here... Ability Burn This is a special form of ability damage that cannot be magically or psionically healed. It is caused by the use of certain psionic feats and powers. It returns only through natural healing. EDIT: Damn you, Ninja!
hogarth 10-21-07, 02:29 PM	I was thinking one trick for "Use Melee Weapon" and one trick for "Use Thrown Weapon" should be enough. Agree or disagree? Can I get an Elder's opinion on this before I proceed any further? I've been burned a couple of times before. :)
Vathelokai 10-21-07, 02:41 PM	Can I get an Elder's opinion on this before I proceed any further? I've been burned a couple of times before. :) I said Damn you, Ninja! Errr... oh, a question. I think with the feat and those two tricks, its fine. But slings and crossbows should be out. We might want to consider if they can get martial weapon prof: greatsword as well.
SauroGrenom 10-21-07, 02:57 PM	Can I get an Elder's opinion on this before I proceed any further? I've been burned a couple of times before. :)Ummm... No on those tricks. Feats require a separate feat for each martial or exotic weapon, and a trick should be no greater than a feat at the very maximum. You will need a trick for each weapon you wish to train the creature to use. A single trick should be sufficient to teach the creature to wield the weapon in hand, and another would be needed to teach it to throw. So you can train the creature to "fight with dagger in melee". That one trick will allow the creature to stab. Keep in mind that an animal is going to need lots of instruction if they are throwing weapons in a manner coordinated with your own attacks. You'll probably need another trick to tell the creature to draw a fresh dagger, else it will just switch over to using its natural attacks. Or you may need a special trick to instruct the creature to throw the dagger in a situation where it would be able to move to use a natural weapon in melee (kind of like Heel).
hogarth 10-21-07, 03:07 PM	Ummm... No on those tricks. Feats require a separate feat for each martial or exotic weapon, and a trick should be no greater than a feat at the very maximum. You will need a trick for each weapon you wish to train the creature to use. So (as a concrete example), if I have a 6HD ape animal companion, and I give it the feat "Simple Weapon Proficiency" (as its 6HD feat), it would require 18 tricks in total for it to use all simple weapons (excluding the crossbow and sling)? I don't have any problem with that actually (since Treetall Oakleg can "push" his animal companion fairly easily, and his "speak with forest animals" ability should remove some of the ambiguity). But I'd like it to be clear beforehand.
SauroGrenom 10-21-07, 03:43 PM	OK, that changes things a bit. For some reason I was thinking you were trying to use tricks to replace the weapon proficiency feats with tricks. I'm OK with using 2 tricks for the whole class of weapons that are covered by the feat. But if you want to use an exotic weapon or martial weapon, you'll need another trick to cover each method of attack for those. So the idea is that you'll need a feat and a trick to cover each attack mode of the weapons covered under the feat. For example martial weapon proficiency in heavy flail will require a trick for melee fighting with the flail, a trick for disarming with it and a trick for tripping with it.
whitebaron 10-21-07, 04:48 PM	ok, so i'll run the matsuni - vaernya fight with the assumption that you cannot heal ability burn damage between the fights. since its a standard action, macbrea should be able to prebuff ability burn. i'm hoping for a clear specification in the case of ability-burn, as i was playing with the idea of something similar. also. i'd hope for the natural healing rate between fights to be introduced.
Macbrea 10-21-07, 08:56 PM	The ability burn is fine. Though, I am curious what happens if you accidently reach 0 str with ability burn on cycle 1 of a fight. Are you considered automaticly paralyzed for each fight from there? If you reach 0 con are you considered unable to be true rezzed?
MindWandererB 10-21-07, 10:11 PM	The ability burn is fine. Though, I am curious what happens if you accidently reach 0 str with ability burn on cycle 1 of a fight. Are you considered automaticly paralyzed for each fight from there? If you reach 0 con are you considered unable to be true rezzed? Pretty much, yeah. If you burn yourself down to a 0 Str or Dex, you better have mental-only abilities, and if you hit 0 Con (why?) you would effectively forfeit the rest of your fights for the cycle (assuming it's all burn and no damage).
hogarth 10-22-07, 08:57 PM	If a PC wants to train an adult pegasus (or similar intelligent mount) himself, does he need to make some sort of Diplomacy roll first, or can we assume that the pegasus is already Friendly? Training A Pegasus Although intelligent, a pegasus requires training before it can bear a rider in combat. To be trained, a pegasus must have a friendly attitude toward the trainer (this can be achieved through a successful Diplomacy check). Training a friendly pegasus requires six weeks of work and a DC 25 Handle Animal check. Riding a pegasus requires an exotic saddle. A pegasus can fight while carrying a rider, but the rider cannot also attack unless he or she succeeds on a Ride check.
Macbrea 10-23-07, 11:32 AM	I think we are going to have to assume that the pegasus is already friendly. As we currently don't have rules for determining if a creature is that state to start with.
waywreth 10-23-07, 03:17 PM	Sorry wrong board, meant for the Tavern.
SauroGrenom 10-23-07, 11:47 PM	Ok, I need to have something clarified. For a long time I've asked to clarify the extent of psionics/magic transparency with respect to items and feats that modify the save DC's on spell or power. So far I've never received an official ruling on this. Now I'd like one. The question is this: Does a feat or magic item that modifies a spell save DC also have the ability to modify the save DC of powers that are equivalent according to psionics-magic transparency. Let me quote the relevant SRD:Psionics-Magic Transparency: Though not explicitly called out in the spell descriptions or magic item descriptions, spells, spell-like abilities, and magic items that could potentially affect psionics do affect psionics. AlsoFor the purpose of psionics- magic transparency, psychometabolism powers are equivalent to powers of the transmutation school (thus, creatures immune to transmutation spells are also immune to psychometabolism powers). I have a few specific examples to help make this clear. Does the feat spell focus (enchantment) provide a bonus to telepathy power DC? Does the Telepathy psionitrix provide a bonus to enchantment spell DC? OK at first glance, the temptation is to read RAW as saying that Spell Focus only effect spells, and not powers. Similarly everything except items, spell-like abilities and spells effect only what they describe and nothing else. However if that's the case several other things are implied. For example take the elven racial +2 bonus vs enchantment spells. This is commonly applied to saves vs things like mind thrust or other telepathy powers. By transparency telepathy is equivalent to enchantment, so there are lots of bonus vs enchantments (elven racial bonus and monk's still mind) which cross over to improve saves. Racial and class feature bonuses are not items, spells or SLA's. If save bonuses cross over, then why not bonuses to save DC's? Also there are feats that provide bonuses to only saves vs powers, and in every case they specifically mention that it's an exception to the psionics-magic transparency. This strongly suggests that feats providing bonuses to saves against psionics or magic would cross-over if there wasn't such a statement. Why then shouldn't feats that modify save DC also cross over in the absence of an exception to the magic-psionics transparency rules. So the point is that it appears we have basically two options in order to have consitently applied rules: 1) Feats, racial features, items or other bonuses that modify save DC's or provide bonuses to saves vs particular schools of magic or disciplines of powers should crossover with transparency to equivalent spells or powers, unless specifically mentioned otherwise. 2) Bonuses to saving throws vs a particular school of magic or discipline of powers does not crossover to provide a bonus on saves in the equivalent group of spells or powers, with the exception of bonuses provided provided by items, spells, SLA's, powers or PLA's. Those who favor 1 agree with me that the disciplines of powers and schools of magic are equivalent in all respects unless stated otherwise specifically. We have several good examples where the rules specifically treat magic and psionics separately, ie metamagic and metapsionics don't cross over. Also there are several feats that effect resistance to psionic effects and not magical ones. Also the psicraft and knowledge psionics skills are not equivalent to spellcraft and knowledge arcane. Those who favor 2 are saying that bonuses vs enchantment school don't apply to telepathy (and all similar pairs of school/discipline crossover doesn't apply). IE the monk or elf isn't protected against telepathy powers. I'd like an official elder vote on this, and the result to be tabulated in the courtroom.
MindWandererB 10-24-07, 12:38 AM	My opinion: I would apply Spell Focus and the Psionatrix to spells and powers equally. There seems to be no reason to limit this aspect of transparency. The feats that apply to psionics only would tend to be more powerful than normal feats if they applied to magic as well. If we ignore that second quote in any context, then we'd ignore it in all contexts, which is clearly wrong. I realise that a psionatrix + greater spell focus could contribute to some really nasty save DCs, but I don't see a reasonable way out of it.
SauroGrenom 10-24-07, 12:46 AM	My opinion: I would apply Spell Focus and the Psionatrix to spells and powers equally. There seems to be no reason to limit this aspect of transparency. The feats that apply to psionics only would tend to be more powerful than normal feats if they applied to magic as well. If we ignore that second quote in any context, then we'd ignore it in all contexts, which is clearly wrong. I realise that a psionatrix + greater spell focus could contribute to some really nasty save DCs, but I don't see a reasonable way out of it. Just to clarify, I want to know how much you believe should apply to power and spells equally. So how about the other similar feats spell penetration, psionic endowment or power penetration?
MindWandererB 10-24-07, 01:42 AM	Hm. Those are a bit uglier. Psionic Endowment: logically, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to use psionic focus to boost an arcane/divine spell. But the language on it is no different from similar items, and there's no comparable magic feat. I'd be in favor of it, although with less than 100% confidence. Penetration: On one hand, there are magic and psionic versions of the feats. On the other, they work differently--and unlike metamagic/metapsionics, there's no mechanical reason why they can't possibly work. Again, I think I'd allow the transparency, but I don't feel strongly about it at all.
lonewolf 10-24-07, 04:52 AM	The problems dont stop there. If this becomes the ruling, I really can see darian, my Kineticist take spell Focus(evocation) on top of Greater endowment and a psionatrix. Personally I think that the transparency shouldnt count for special schools of magic, if only because you cannot assign each school of magic clearly to a psionic discipline. Some are easy: enchantment ~ Telepathy evocation ~ Psychokinesis divination ~ Clairsentience transmutation ~ Psychometabolism conjuration ~Metacreativity But the rest isnt as clear. Psychoportation is a mix of transmutation and conjuration. Illusion doesnt have an equivalent as well as necromancy and abjuration.
templer10 10-24-07, 07:23 AM	IMO - I think sauro's option 1 is correct - everything unless spesified otherwise should cross over, and about using Endowment and power penetration on spells - it should cross over 2 - After all you still need a psionic Focus to use them, so you need A psioninc race and or levels in a psioninc class and/or psioninc feats to make use of them so it's not as if you are getting them "for free".
hogarth 10-24-07, 07:31 AM	Those who favor 2 are saying that bonuses vs enchantment school don't apply to telepathy (and all similar pairs of school/discipline crossover doesn't apply). IE the monk or elf isn't protected against telepathy powers. Baloney. Read this rule: "For the purpose of psionics-magic transparency, telepathy powers are equivalent to powers of the enchantment school (thus, creatures resistant to enchantment spells are equally resistant to telepathy powers)." No matter what you think, monks and elves are resistant to telepathy powers because it explicitly says so. Nowhere does it say in the magic-psionic transparency section that "You can replace the word 'spell' with 'power' and 'cast' with 'manifest' in every single place in the rules (and vice versa)." (More comments later.) Part II: What is indisputable about magic-psionics transparency? Psionic powers can be detected with detect magic. Spell resistance functions against psionic powers and power resistance functions against spells. Antimagic areas are antipsionic areas and vice versa. Dispel magic works vs psionic powers and dispel psionics works vs spells. All of this is explicitly laid out in the SRD. In addition: For the purpose of psionics-magic transparency, clairsentience powers are equivalent to powers of the divination school (thus, creatures immune to divination spells are also immune to clairsentience powers). For the purpose of psionics-magic transparency, metacreativity powers are equivalent to powers of the conjuration school (thus, creatures immune to conjuration spells are also immune to metacreativity powers). For the purpose of psionics-magic transparency, psychokinesis powers are equivalent to powers of the evocation school (thus, creatures immune to evocation spells are also immune to psychokinesis powers). For the purpose of psionics-magic transparency, psychometabolism powers are equivalent to powers of the transmutation school (thus, creatures immune to transmutation spells are also immune to psychometabolism powers). For the purpose of psionics-magic transparency, psychoportation powers do not have an equivalent school. For the purpose of psionics-magic transparency, telepathy powers are equivalent to powers of the enchantment school (thus, creatures resistant to enchantment spells are equally resistant to telepathy powers). That's what we know for sure. Now the ambiguous part are these sentences: Powers interact with spells and spells interact with powers in the same way a spell or normal spell-like ability interacts with another spell or spell-like ability. Though not explicitly called out in the spell descriptions or magic item descriptions, spells, spell-like abilities, and magic items that could potentially affect psionics do affect psionics. Note what it does not say. It does not say that "feats interact with powers in the same way that feats interact with spells" (so there's nothing suggesting that Psionic Endowment works on spells). It does not say that "skills interact with powers in the same way that skills interact with spells" (so there's nothing suggesting that Use Magic Device works on psionic items). So here's the question: Does Spell Focus work on powers? Let's read the feat description. Spell Focus [General] Choose a school of magic. Benefit: Add +1 to the Difficulty Class for all saving throws against spells from the school of magic you select. O.K. So does Spell Focus (enchantment) help with powers of the Telepathy discipline? It says: "For the purpose of psionics-magic transparency, telepathy powers are equivalent to powers of the enchantment school", not "equivalent to spells of the enchantment school". Does Spell Focus (enchantment) say anything about "powers of the school of magic you select"? No, so it doesn't help. Now let's look at the Psionatrix of Telepathy: "Unless noted otherwise, a psionatrix adds a +1 enhancement bonus to the save DC when the wearer uses powers of the discipline [e.g. telepathy] to which the psionatrix is keyed." Is there any place where it says that "spells of the enchantment school are equivalent to powers of the telepathy discipline"? No, so a psionatrix doesn't help. Finally, let's look at the monk's Still Mind ability. Still Mind (Ex) A monk of 3rd level or higher gains a +2 bonus on saving throws against spells and effects from the school of enchantment. Is a telepathy power an "[effect] from the school of enchantment"? Yes, telepathy powers are equivalent to powers from the school of enchantment, so Still Mind is effective against telepathy powers. I know I have absolutely no chance of changing SauroGrenom's mind on this issue, but I encourage all the Elders to give this careful thought.
TelinArtho 10-24-07, 09:48 AM	Well - hogarth - you covered the exact things I was going to cover. I don't think that the Spell Focus/Spell Penetration line should cross over to Powers, nor should the equivalent Psionic feats cross over to Spells. Same thing with the psionatrix.
whitebaron 10-24-07, 10:08 AM	and even if it would cross over, the bonus on saves should be the same - enhancement or give it any other name you'd like.
McJarvis 10-24-07, 10:13 AM	I know I have absolutely no chance of changing SauroGrenom's mind on this issue, but I encourage all the Elders to give this careful thought. Note that Sauro's logic is based on his memory of the rules, not a direct copy. In his post he seemed to forget that elves and monks are resistant to Enchantment school spells and effects. That's a pretty big oversight, and he may change his mind when he sees that he made it.
MindWandererB 10-24-07, 03:57 PM	So here's the question: Does Spell Focus work on powers? Let's read the feat description. O.K. So does Spell Focus (enchantment) help with powers of the Telepathy discipline? It says: "For the purpose of psionics-magic transparency, telepathy powers are equivalent to powers of the enchantment school", not "equivalent to spells of the enchantment school". Does Spell Focus (enchantment) say anything about "powers of the school of magic you select"? No, so it doesn't help.That doesn't make any sense to me. If A=B then B=A. If telepathy is equivalent to enchantment, then enchantment is equivalent to telepathy. They didn't say "telepathy powers are considered to be enchantment spells," they said they're equivalent. Big difference. The bit about "powers of the enchantment school" is nonsense, because there are no powers of the enchantment school. Spells, abilities, not powers. Now, the questionable phrase is, "Psionics-Magic Transparency: Though not explicitly called out in the spell descriptions or magic item descriptions, spells, spell-like abilities, and magic items that could potentially affect psionics do affect psionics." Interestingly, it doesn't say feats. So I'd feel comfortable saying that feats are never subject to transparency. It would also be reasonable to say that psionic items don't apply to magic. This statement is unidirectional; it doesn't say "powers, psi-like abilities, and psionicitems that could potentially affect magic do affect magic." So making the psionatrix work only on psionics makes some sense. I can't think of any examples that we haven't discussed before, but wherever there's a spell or magic item that had an effect on spells, it works on powers, too. So globe of invulnerability, spell immunity, etc. But this isn't being argued. There aren't many magic items that this would apply to, but there are a few (e.g. a Disintegrate power would affect a cube of force just like the spell).
lonewolf 10-24-07, 04:01 PM	while were at the psionics-magic transperency topic: I asked at the tavern with no response; How does a Rod of Absorbtion interact with Psionics?
hogarth 10-24-07, 04:24 PM	. The bit about "powers of the enchantment school" is nonsense, because there are no powers of the enchantment school. Spells, abilities, not powers. To me, it seems to be saying "telepathy powers effectively have the enchantment school (for determining whether they're enchantment effects, say) but they're still powers, not spells". I don't think that's nonsense at all; for instance, a Charm Person SLA is an SLA of the enchantment school but that doesn't mean that it's a spell (e.g. you can't counterspell it, you can't use Spell Focus on it, etc.).
SauroGrenom 10-24-07, 08:18 PM	OK. I admit that i was working from memory, and there are a few details that I missed. Now that I've read over them it changes the argument somewhat, but not entirely. As it turns out, enchantment - telepathy transparency is the only one that specifically mentions resistances to cross over. All other schools and disciplines only specifically mention immunities that cross over. Also I did a diligent search, and it appears that ASIK enchantment is the only school where there are save bonuses granted against it. In most cases the bonus specifically says that it applies against enchantment spells and effects. The Barbarian's Indomitable Will class feature is the only exception, and that grants bonuses vs enchantment spells not effects. Hogarth asserts that powers and spell are only equivalent in the ways detailed by the explicit statements in the rules. I assert that there are cross-overs that are not explicitly stated and that we should clarify this transparency explicitly. If Hogarth is correct, in that spells and power are completely separate, then Mind Thrust is equivalently an Enchantment Power and not an Enchantment Spell. The only reason that monks and elves receive bonuses against Mind Thrust is because they are protected against enchantment effects (something I overlooked before). So in effect Hogarth and those who agree with him are saying that "Enchantment Powers" and "Enchantment Spells" are mechanically separate things which are not equivalent by psionics-magic transparency. Therefore if I can find an example in the SRD of a bonus of some kind that applies to either saves vs powers or saves vs spells and does not also provide a bonus to "effects" then those situations do not cross-over due to transparency. I searched the SRD for examples and I found a few. The Dwarf, Deep Dwarf, Duergar and Drow creatures receive a bonus on the saves vs spells. If Hogarth is correct then Dwarves, Deep Dwarves, Duergar and Drow characters don't apply their racial bonuses to saves against psionics. That strikes me as wrong. Totally wrong. These bonuses do crossover by transparency to protect against psionics. That a clear example of a piece of psionics-magic transparency not explicitly detailed, but which does exist. If spells are equivalent to powers with respect to racial bonuses to saves, then they could and should also be equivalent in other ways not explicitly stated. Besides the idea of an "Enchantment Power" is rubbish. It's a term that isn't in the SRD. Rather it's derived from a specific point of view as the imaginary dividing line between psionics and magic serving no other purpose than to reinforce a nonexistent distinction between otherwise functionally equivalent powers and spells.
hogarth 10-24-07, 08:41 PM	I searched the SRD for examples and I found a few. The Dwarf, Deep Dwarf, Duergar and Drow creatures receive a bonus on the saves vs spells. If Hogarth is correct then Dwarves, Deep Dwarves, Duergar and Drow characters don't apply their racial bonuses to saves against psionics. Dwarves get a bonus on saves vs. spells and spell-like effects. The manifestation of powers by a psionic character is considered a psi-like ability. A psi-like ability is a "spell-like effect". Thus dwarves get a bonus on saves vs. psionic powers and other psi-like abilities. I don't see a contradiction here. I don't doubt that there's an example out there somewhere that I'll find objectionable, but that's not one of them.
SauroGrenom 10-24-07, 09:05 PM	Dwarves get a bonus on saves vs. spells and spell-like effects. The manifestation of powers by a psionic character is considered a psi-like ability. A psi-like ability is a "spell-like effect". Thus dwarves get a bonus on saves vs. psionic powers and other psi-like abilities. I don't see a contradiction here. I don't doubt that there's an example out there somewhere that I'll find objectionable, but that's not one of them. What are you smoking? The contradiction is so obvious... Let's use an old math proof trick. Assume your claim is true, ie that manifesting a power is a psi-like ability. Psi-like abilities have no xp cost, so if you are correct then characters can manifest powers with xp cost till the cows come home and they are never required to pay an xp cost. The result is not true, and so the assumption leading to the result must not be true.
SauroGrenom 10-24-07, 09:07 PM	Dwarves get a bonus on saves vs. spells and spell-like effects. The manifestation of powers by a psionic character is considered a psi-like ability. A psi-like ability is a "spell-like effect". Thus dwarves get a bonus on saves vs. psionic powers and other psi-like abilities. I don't see a contradiction here. I don't doubt that there's an example out there somewhere that I'll find objectionable, but that's not one of them. Furthermore if what you say is true, then that's more powerful that spell-psionics transparency that I suggest. I can take empower spell-like ability or quicken spell-like ability feats and gain the ability to manifest any power as quickened and empowered 3/day w/o expending psionic focus or extra pp.
hogarth 10-24-07, 10:18 PM	Assume your claim is true, ie that manifesting a power is a psi-like ability. Sigh...you used that exact same sentence from the SRD before when you were claiming that you can overchannel psi-like abilities. How can you have forgotten already? http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicPowersOverview.htm#psiLikeAbiliti es Psi-Like Abilities (Ps) The manifestation of powers by a psionic character is considered a psi-like ability, as is the manifestation of powers by creatures without a psionic class (creatures with the psionic subtype, also simply called psionic creatures). Usually, a psionic creature’s psi-like ability works just like the power of that name. A few psi-like abilities are unique; these are explained in the text where they are described.
SauroGrenom 10-24-07, 11:28 PM	Sigh...you used that exact same sentence from the SRD before when you were claiming that you can overchannel psi-like abilities. How can you have forgotten already? http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicPowersOverview.htm#psiLikeAbiliti es When I argued with it before, the sentence and it's effect on negating all the xp costs of all psionic powers was also pointed out. For the same reasons used against me in that argument, as of right now the implications of your quoted sentence are so much in contradiction to other more specific and reasonable rules that it is assumed to be a mistake. If that sentence is correct, psionics never have xp or material cost. Also feats like empower spell like ability and quicken spell like ability could be used to gain metamagic feats applied to powers manifest by psionic characters w/o expending psionic focus or extra pp.
whitebaron 10-25-07, 02:17 AM	Psionic creatures can create psionic effects without having levels in a psionic class (although they can take a psionic class to further enhance their abilities); such creatures have the psionic subtype. @hogarth: please note that what you quoted ist the detailed description of how psi-like abilities work. this has NOTHING to do with manifesting powers normally. the way i see it, mwb has the correct approach - psionics magic transparency explicitly does NOT mention the feats, only the items. also, psionics magic transparency first states, that you can get items to work as well, and THEN says which effects are considered to be transparent. so i think the magic items which do not give resistance or immunity are not usable with psionics. Psionics-Magic Transparency: Though not explicitly called out in the spell descriptions or magic item descriptions, spells, spell-like abilities, and magic items that could potentially affect psionics do affect psionics. When the rule about psionics-magic transparency is in effect, it has the following ramifications. Spell resistance is effective against powers, using the same mechanics. Likewise, power resistance is effective against spells, using the same mechanics as spell resistance. If a creature has one kind of resistance, it is assumed to have the other. (The effects have similar ends despite having been brought about by different means.) All spells that dispel magic have equal effect against powers of the same level using the same mechanics, and vice versa. The spell detect magic detects powers, their number, and their strength and location within 3 rounds (though a Psicraft check is necessary to identify the discipline of the psionic aura). Dead magic areas are also dead psionics areas.
Luni 10-26-07, 12:03 PM	One small solution. Spell Focus and Psionic Endowment can't be stacked simply because they are the same type of bonus. Same with Spell Penetration and Power Penetration. As for casters buying psionatrix, go ahead. They should get the bonus from that, unless there save DC's are getting an enhancement bonus already.
Erithmu 10-27-07, 01:41 PM	Ok ... Transparency: First off ... I'm w/ Sauro and MWB on this one I think transparency is pretty fluid. But I'm very much w/ MWB on his hesitancy to say yes on the stacking effects Feats: DC Feats: I would be in favor of allowing them but with a 'non-stacking' clause like Luni suggested. (Ie: Spell focus doesn't stack w/ Endowment) Penetration is a uglier monster due to it's focus expenditure on the psionic side. I'm disinclined to allow cross over here on the following grounds: Overcoming SR is based upon a CL or ML check which these feats modify in different manners. Giving a bonus to ML when making a CL check does not work for me. This is all caster side based, the SR/PR that your trying to overcome has nothing to do with if it is spell or power resistance. Off the top of my head a psion1/Wiz10 who has Power pen w/ his psion feat is basically getting a free boost. I think this approaches abuse (not that Sauro is trying to use it in this manner. When dealing w/ a character with different casting/manifesting classes the ML/CL are kept separate, I think that Penetration should be as such as well. Racial abilities: Dead Horse -> crosses over with transparency Items: I'm w/ Luni's psionatrix rational. The bonuses are different. I dont have an issue with this as it is a neck slot so the caster has to choose between con bonus, or DC bonus, or NA bonus, or brooch, or ... @LW: I would probably rule Rod of absorption based upon the power level of the power not the pp used to manifest/augment the power. ex: Energy Missile will always be 2 spell levels I'm still kinda waking up but I have had caffeine but I have spend some time thinking about this while I was buried under schoolwork this week. (yes I know it is almost 11am where I am, but you forget it is Saturday) Looking over my argument for Penetration I'm not sure I shouldn't think the same way with the DC feats ...
TelinArtho 10-31-07, 05:08 PM	An item I need defined for a future time: Deflect arrows does not work against "unusually massive ranged weapons." What qualifies as "unusually massive"?
whitebaron 10-31-07, 05:13 PM	well, what explicitly don't work are thrown rocks. anything as large as that, or items fired from siege weapons.
Callix 10-31-07, 05:16 PM	well, what explicitly don't work are thrown rocks. anything as large as that, or items fired from siege weapons. Define "thrown rocks". A giant's thrown boulders I would agree with, but if just "a thrown rock" is too much, how did Gwerdan deflect Petyr's bullets two weeks ago? That's as much mass and much more momentum than a rock.
lonewolf 10-31-07, 05:19 PM	The problem is that its not that easy. A medium sized balista bolt is probably much smaller than an Collossal arrow. We need to draw a line here: I´d say siege weapons as long as they are at your size category or larger and normal ranged weapons as long as they are at least 3 size categories larger than you cannot be deflected. Does that sound alright?
TelinArtho 10-31-07, 05:22 PM	Well - I knew this was going to be a tough issue to think about. First off - "unusually massive" has no specific terms to work with, but I would assume something bigger than the person deflecting it could wield would qualify as "unusually massive" Therefore, a giant's thrown rock can be deflected by another large/huge size creature (depending on the size of the giant), but couldn't be deflected by a medium or smaller-sized creature. Now - what I am specifically looking at is when Aquin becomes large sized. He could feasibly pick up some large spears or use a large bow with a +13 strength rating. Are those enough to not be deflected by a medium opponent? Anyway - it is just food for thought at the moment - as he won't be large-sized until ECL12 anyway.
whitebaron 10-31-07, 05:33 PM	Define "thrown rocks". A giant's thrown boulders I would agree with, but if just "a thrown rock" is too much, how did Gwerdan deflect Petyr's bullets two weeks ago? That's as much mass and much more momentum than a rock. by the rules, bullets are just renamed arrows. else they should ignore most armor, and deal much more damage. so this is not a good example to go by. as for the size categories: to label a thing you couldn't throw yourself as unusually massive is a good step.
Eamane 10-31-07, 06:50 PM	Well - I knew this was going to be a tough issue to think about. First off - "unusually massive" has no specific terms to work with, but I would assume something bigger than the person deflecting it could wield would qualify as "unusually massive" Therefore, a giant's thrown rock can be deflected by another large/huge size creature (depending on the size of the giant), but couldn't be deflected by a medium or smaller-sized creature. Now - what I am specifically looking at is when Aquin becomes large sized. He could feasibly pick up some large spears or use a large bow with a +13 strength rating. Are those enough to not be deflected by a medium opponent? Anyway - it is just food for thought at the moment - as he won't be large-sized until ECL12 anyway. I would hesitate to assign unusually massive to large-size projectiles. Because you can have large-size projectiles at ECL 3; Half-Giant, you know. Three sizes larger than your current size or by siege weaponry of your size or larger sounds appropriate to me. An enlarged half-giant's arrows cant be deflected by a halfling/gnome.
Rauul 10-31-07, 09:25 PM	Well - I knew this was going to be a tough issue to think about. First off - "unusually massive" has no specific terms to work with, but I would assume something bigger than the person deflecting it could wield would qualify as "unusually massive" Therefore, a giant's thrown rock can be deflected by another large/huge size creature (depending on the size of the giant), but couldn't be deflected by a medium or smaller-sized creature. Now - what I am specifically looking at is when Aquin becomes large sized. He could feasibly pick up some large spears or use a large bow with a +13 strength rating. Are those enough to not be deflected by a medium opponent? Anyway - it is just food for thought at the moment - as he won't be large-sized until ECL12 anyway. I would say items +3 size catagory(since you can't wield that) or is more wieght to you than light encomberance would be hard to impossable to deflect...
Callix 11-01-07, 03:39 AM	by the rules, bullets are just renamed arrows. else they should ignore most armor, and deal much more damage. so this is not a good example to go by. Petyr picks up a rock. He throws it at Gwerdan. According to that ruling, Gwerdan wouldn't be able to deflect it, despite being able to do the much harder trick of blocking arrows and bullets. That's my point, that the STR 8 psion can throw rocks, and we need to point out that the STR 18 monk can still deflect it. It's a trivial point, but it needed to be made. BTW, I support that "anything you couldn't easily carry/use" interpretation. Light encumbrance and 3 size categories seem fair enough.
Macbrea 11-01-07, 09:07 AM	A medium sized ballista is a huge crossbow. Why it's important is it is possible for a half-giant to wield huge crossbow as a 1x oversized crossbow wielded in two hands at -6 to hit. Not that anyone really was thinking of doing that.
McJarvis 11-01-07, 09:14 AM	A medium sized ballista is a huge crossbow. Why it's important is it is possible for a half-giant to wield huge crossbow as a 1x oversized crossbow wielded in two hands at -6 to hit. Not that anyone really was thinking of doing that. With you talking about oversized weaponry all the time, I'm somewhat surprised I haven't tried making any for my various truestrike/charge death characters. edit-> though it should be noted that a crossbow is not listed in "light, one handed, or two handed" size categories. whatever is one beyond "ranged weapons" isn't listed- so it should be inappropriate to use, by the rules.
Macbrea 11-01-07, 09:19 AM	Well, technically.. I am not quite sure if the Arrows from Izumi's bow should be deflectable by the rules if Ballista bolts are not. She uses a Large Long Composite bow and expands frequently. As a result if a ballista bolt is deflectable, then her arrows are deflectable. In this particular case Telin is asking if her arrows are deflectable. Since, this effects both our characters neither of us can really rule on the item.
McJarvis 11-01-07, 09:22 AM	I could get behind the "if it's heavier than your light encumbrance" side of things. Makes sense that a wizard (*ahem*) couldn't deflect as much as a monk, even if they are the same size. At the same time-> if a beach-ball the size of a giant's throwing rock came at a monk, I think it should be able to reasonably deflect it.
Macbrea 11-01-07, 09:22 AM	I agree with the +3 size categories is considered sufficiently massive to be undeflectable as a house definition of what is too massive.
Macbrea 11-01-07, 09:26 AM	We have to remember this ruling will probably effect some of the smaller characters. Example: Kitty is a tiny creature. What exactly should she be able to deflect? Is a medium sized crossbow too large to deflect considering a huge sized crossbow might be too large for a human to deflect.
Macbrea 11-01-07, 09:49 AM	edit-> though it should be noted that a crossbow is not listed in "light, one handed, or two handed" size categories. whatever is one beyond "ranged weapons" isn't listed- so it should be inappropriate to use, by the rules. Actually, crossbows are special in that they are listed as: Normally, operating a light crossbow requires two hands. However, you can shoot, but not load, a light crossbow with one hand at a -2 penalty on attack rolls. You can shoot a light crossbow with each hand, but you take a penalty on attack rolls as if attacking with two light weapons. This penalty is cumulative with the penalty for one-handed firing. It treats the light crossbow as a light weapon. And therefore you should be able to increase it's size. And have it treated as a larger weapon. But that is a totally different rules debate.
McJarvis 11-01-07, 10:10 AM	It treats the light crossbow as a light weapon. And therefore you should be able to increase it's size. And have it treated as a larger weapon. But that is a totally different rules debate. hand crossbows are the same way, but you're wrong. It doesn't say it's treated as a light weapon, it says specific situations where you can take penalties as if it were a light weapon.
Macbrea 11-01-07, 10:29 AM	Anyways.. back to too massive. Is an arrow fired from a huge bow considered too massive for a medium sized individual to deflect? Ballista:A ballista is essentially a Huge heavy crossbow fixed in place. Its size makes it hard for most creatures to aim it, as de- scribed under Weapon Size on page 113 of the Player’s Handbook. Thus, a Medium creature takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls when using a ballista, and a Small creature takes a –6 penalty. It takes a creature smaller than Large two full-round actions to reload the ballista after firing. A ballista takes up a space 5 feet across. Those rules by the way would follow what would happen to a person if they could use a weapon that large. -2 per size category above your size category = -4 medium, -6 small for huge item.
TelinArtho 11-01-07, 10:37 AM	Well, technically.. I am not quite sure if the Arrows from Izumi's bow should be deflectable by the rules if Ballista bolts are not. She uses a Large Long Composite bow and expands frequently. As a result if a ballista bolt is deflectable, then her arrows are deflectable. In this particular case Telin is asking if her arrows are deflectable. Since, this effects both our characters neither of us can really rule on the item. Actually - it won't affect our fight at all since Aquin has no way to increase his size yet and is still medium size. Izumi's weapons might be another question - but since Aquin doesn't have deflect arrows - the point is moot. I'm more asking for the future, where Aquin will likely be using javelins/spears as a large size character (with a possibility of increasing size to huge). If they are still deflectable - by small size creatures - I'm going to be in a bit of a problem (because he can only throw 4-8 of them at that point...). I can certainly get behind a 3 size category difference between "unwieldable" and the size of the weapon. As for kitty - a tiny creature. He could wield a tiny size javelin in one hand; a small size javelin in two. So 3 sizes larger than small is Medium -> Large -> Huge. So a huge javelin is too big. A large spear would also be too big. A gargantuan dart would also be too big. I'm less inclined to go with one that is based on the Strength of the creature in question (which if it is based off encumbrance it surely is). This has mostly to do with the fact that deflecting something has very little to do with strength. Encumbrance would be a "bad" measure anyway - since quadrupeds get a massive increase here for something which has nothing to do with their ability to deflect.
SauroGrenom 11-03-07, 06:13 PM	Telin, Your idea is a bit complicated in that we need to keep track of the size of the "object" in addition to the size of the creature that wields the object w/o penalty. So colossal arrows are technically gargantuan sized objects. I can get behind this idea. It feels like a reasonable set of criterion for judging what's too big to deflect.
Luni 11-04-07, 01:13 AM	Quick Question: Can a lycanthrope in animal form use any of the following items? Assuming it can hold the items somehow of course. Potions Scrolls Wands Power Stones Dorje's Tattoos
SauroGrenom 11-04-07, 01:17 AM	I'm looking over the debate on the psionic/magic transparency thing. Let me summarize the positions and issues so that we can move to a conclusion. The question is if items and feats and other unspecified areas of magic/psionics transparency provide bonuses that overlap. There are a handful of specific examples that can be cited. Feats: Spell Focus/ Greater Spell Focus Spell Penetration/ Greater Spell Penetration Psionic Endowment / Greater Psionic Endowment (require psionic focus) Power Penetration / Greater Power Penetration (require psionic focus) Items: Orange Iounstone +1 CL (Also +1ML?) Robe of the ArchMagi +2 vs SR on spells (Also +2 on powers?) Psionitrix +1 DC on powers (Also on equivalent spells) Others: Dwarves, Deep Dwarves, Duergar and Drow racial bonuses vs spells and spell like effects (also vs powers % PLA's?). So far we've had two opinions on this issue being expressed. In brief, Hogarth and Telin have stated that they feel that magic and psionics are equivalent only in those ways explicitly stated in the transparency rules. MWB, Rith and I have agreed that there is transparency in ways not explicitly stated in the transparency rules. Hogarth's argument leads to the conclusion either that racial bonuses don't apply to saves vs powers. (Or he's suggesting that manifesting all psionic powers are in fact spell-like abilities (or psi-like abilities) and the implications of that are no xp cost for powers and feats like empowered spell like ability effecting powers, so I assume he's not arguing for this last point right now). I suggest that we should clarify the crossover between psionics and magic so that everything we can think of is well covered by clear rules. The discussion in favor of more crossover has basically pointed out that allowing all things to stack raises the possibility of rather large maximum bonuses to those using spells or powers. It's conceivable that allowing all these bonuses to stack allows a character to invest 4 feats, psionic focus and a neck slot to gain a +5 bonus on a single spell or power save DC. Or a similar investment of feats, focus and items granting a +14 bonus to beat the SR on a single spell or power. (I'd like to point out that in order for this worst case scenario to happen, you need to have access to the psionic subtype, spend 4 other feats and an item slot and then you can only do it once before spending a full round to recover focus. You can spend another feat to decrease the time required to regain focus, possibly do this every round, but that's investing even more into the build for this purpose... ie you're highly specialized and a character who's not a psionic race is spending 6 feats on this. My point is that this is a scary combo, but it's not w/o cost and it's not ridiculously imbalanced like spell casting services for true mind switch would be. ) So far there have been a few suggestions of how to do deal with this question. 1) Feats and all other game elements treat magic and psionics as separate unless explicitly stated otherwise. (meaning that the racial bonuses don't cross over, but the psionitrix bonus will-since it's an item) 2) Psionics and magic are mechanically equivalent except in places where they are explicitly described as different. (Meaning that metapsionics,psicraft,UPD and such are treated as different but most other things are functionally equivalent.) 3) We find some middle ground where some things are allowed to crossover, while others are not. The suggestion is that feats are classified as similar bonuses that do not stack, but other types of crossover are allowed. I'd like to hear from the elders and MWB to see where everyone is on this.
SauroGrenom 11-04-07, 01:20 AM	Quick Question: Can a lycanthrope in animal form use any of the following items? Assuming it can hold the items somehow of course. Potions Scrolls Wands Power Stones Dorje's Tattoos I believe that you can use these things. As far as I know there's nothing about being in lycanthrope form that prevents you from using these kinds of items. Well... except the wands and dorje's. Those things are generally considered "weapon like" and we don't generally allow animals like familiars or animal companions to use those kinds of things (apes are an exception).
MindWandererB 11-04-07, 01:15 AM	I believe that you can use these things. As far as I know there's nothing about being in lycanthrope form that prevents you from using these kinds of items. Well... except the wands and dorje's. Those things are generally considered "weapon like" and we don't generally allow animals like familiars or animal companions to use those kinds of things (apes are an exception). And you can't use a wand if you can't speak, which neither hybrids nor animals can. Same for scrolls if they have a verbal component (and similar restrictions for somatic and material). @Sauro: I'd go with a literal approach, because that's what we do here unless we have a compelling reason not to. So: - Feats do not benefit from transparency. Only spells, spell-like abilities, and items do. - Stuff that applies to magic applies to psionics. Stuff that applies to psionics does not apply to magic unless otherwise stated. Then I remembered things like this: CHAOTIC MIND [GENERAL] The turbulence of your thoughts prevents others from gaining insight into your actions. Prerequisite: Chaotic alignment, Cha 15. Benefit: Creatures and characters who have an insight bonus on their attack rolls, an insight bonus to their Armor Class, or an insight bonus on skill checks or ability checks do not gain those bonuses against you. The benefit of this feat applies only to insight bonuses gained from psionic powers and psi-like abilities. This is an exception to the psionics-magic transparency rule. Special: You cannot take or use this feat if you have the ability to use powers (if you have a power point reserve or psi-like abilities).Which means that if that clause wasn't there, transparency would apply. Which would suggest option 2.
SauroGrenom 11-04-07, 01:31 AM	Which means that if that clause wasn't there, transparency would apply. Which would suggest option 2.There's also the point that if you go with the literal approach (option 1), that the racial bonuses listed above don't help vs powers & PLA's. These are two of the best examples suggesting to me that option 1 is not the way to go (and favor option 2 or 3).
Salrantol 11-04-07, 08:22 AM	Quick Question: Can a lycanthrope in animal form use any of the following items? Assuming it can hold the items somehow of course. PotionsYes. And if you can't hold it, you can use a hand of the mage.ScrollsIf it has no verbal components or you have Natural Spell, yes. Although I'm not sure if animal forms can perform somatic components without Natural Spell.WandsIf you have Natural Spell, yes. Wands are spell trigger items, which are activated with words.Power StonesYes.Dorje'sYes.TattoosYes.
TelinArtho 11-04-07, 09:48 AM	@Salrantol - the ability to alter form/change shape (lycanthrope) is not the same as Wildshape. Natural spell only functions for wildshape.
whitebaron 11-04-07, 12:44 PM	As has been pointed out to me in the tavern, coco has ruled some things about AoOs in the past. as this is in no decisions threat or part of the house-rules section, i want to bring three topics up. 1: AoO and moving When discussing Gwerdans fight vs. the sphinx it was pointed out to me, that the sphinx does never incur an AoO for closing in. This was argued by the decision, that moving out(=leaving) a square means the square is later not occupied by any part of the creature.(for large and larger creatures, this is almost always true, negating any AoO) While I am ok with this general idea for the definition of leaving/moving out, i don't see how it negates the innate AoO every movement in a threatened square incurs. Move Action Attack of Opportunity1 Move Yes [...] 1 Regardless of the action, if you move out of a threatened square, you usually provoke an attack of opportunity. This column indicates whether the action itself, not moving, provokes an attack of opportunity. please note, that the same footnote is applied to ANY other actions as well. basically, this says: if you leave the square, you incur an AoO. this might be as well getting bullrushed as moving yourself. MOVE ACTIONS With the exception of specific movement-related skills, most move actions don’t require a check. Move The simplest move action is moving your speed. If you take this kind of move action during your turn, you can’t also take a 5-foot step. Many nonstandard modes of movement are covered under this category, including climbing (up to one-quarter of your speed) and swimming (up to one-quarter of your speed). Accelerated Climbing: You can climb one-half your speed as a move action by accepting a –5 penalty on your Climb check. Crawling: You can crawl 5 feet as a move action. Crawling incurs attacks of opportunity from any attackers who threaten you at any point of your crawl. This is the proof that the entry in the table is really for movement only, and not as has been discussed in the tavern, is erroneous. ?: if it is like this, then you can't even move into a square without getting AoOd? !: No, since the movement counts for the square you left. Any AoOs would have to take place before the action that triggers it, so moving into a threatened square can't count, as you already finished your move. ?: The table seems to say that any move action incurs an AoO. !: in the descriptive texts to the table, there is a clear difference to be seen between move action and move. this used to be move-equivalent action and move in 3.0, which was way better to distinguish, but way worse to spell. I'd love to see this ruled quick. 2: AoO and ranged attacks from a wand McJarvis told me in the tavern, that this was ruled to be not the case, though i cannot find it either in the house rules nor the court decisions. The common belief seems to be that you never incur an AoO when using a wand. This is true for all spells and effects that either effect you, or are area spells. With rays, i'm quite sure you ought to get one. (would be the same with casting defensively, btw.) Activation: Wands use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity.Ray: Some effects are rays. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack. So: every Ray is resolved as a ranged weapon. Standard Action Attack of Opportunity1 Attack (melee) No Attack (ranged) YesThe main question to answer here is: do rays incur AoOs? resolution is the same for wands and defensive casting. 3: Rules Decisions and Adjustments As i can see, many decisions are taking a lot of time from the elders, which they don't seem to have. you sure you don't want some kind of task-force-help? as this would be only for one topic at a time, and given a fixed timeframe, i think this could help the elders consummately. i'd propose something like: 2-4 (mostly non-elders as this would be useless else) people trying to get as much stuff, information and ideas to a certain topic, summarize this and present it here or in the council.
Vathelokai 11-04-07, 02:01 PM	1) I'll vote for rules as intended: moving out of a threatened square provokes, no matter if you still fill the square after that move. 2) The debate here was vigorous. The problem is, does one action provoke multiple attacks of opportunity? In the case of casting a ray spell, do you provoke for casting, and again for aiming, or are aiming and casting the same thing? When using a wand, then you either not-provoke for 'casting' and aiming, or you not-provoke for 'casting' then provoke for aiming. It was a very heated arguement. 3) Sure! I used to do things like this before I was an elder (occasionally skimming the thread for unresolved issues and presenting them for a vote), but time has been my enemy of late.
McJarvis 11-04-07, 03:10 PM	RE: Ranged attacks There a number of "logic models" that could be used for AoO's given the way the rules are written. While I have my own preferences, I don't claim that any of these are inherently correct. 1) Absolute true/false - Significant Action- Every action is capable of having many components, each either provoking an AoO or not provoking an AoO. However, at the same time, every action has a primary thing that is being done. When you shoot a bow- you are making a ranged attack. When you're casting a spell- you're casting a spell. When you use a wand- you're just using a wand. Whatever this primary action is is what determines whether an AoO is incurred. This is what CoCo uses currently. 2) Absolute true/false- boolean field. Every action is capable of having many components, each either provoking an AoO or not provoking an AoO. An action provokes an AoO if ANY of these categories provokes an AoO. So if you fire a scorching ray from a wand- the wand part doesn't cause the action to provoke an AoO, but the firing a ranged weapon[Ray] part does. 3) Individual components. Every action is capable of having many components, and each has the potential to provoke an AoO. So if you were to fire a scorching ray in melee non-defensively, you would provoke 2 AoO's- one for casting a spell non-defensively, and another for firing into melee with a ranged attack.
Salrantol 11-04-07, 04:18 PM	@Salrantol - the ability to alter form/change shape (lycanthrope) is not the same as Wildshape. Natural spell only functions for wildshape.You can complete the verbal and somatic components of spells while in a wild shape. You substitute various noises and gestures for the normal verbal and somatic components of a spell.You can complete the verbal and somatic components of spells while in an animal shape. You substitute various noises and gestures for the normal verbal and somatic components of a spell.I think that explains my mistake. Well, then in an animal form you shouldn't be able to activate scrolls and wands, since you can't speak.
hogarth 11-05-07, 09:48 AM	Quick Question: Can a lycanthrope in animal form use any of the following items? Assuming it can hold the items somehow of course. Potions Scrolls Wands Power Stones Dorje's Tattoos My opinion: Potions - sure (assume it's in something crunchable) Scrolls - only if you have a prehensile limb (e.g. wereape) and there's no verbal component Wands - no (maybe an exception for a wereparrot? are any talking parrots carnivorous/omnivorous?) Power stones - sure (assume you can hold it in your mouth) Dorjes - only if you have a prehensile limb (e.g. wereape) Tattoos - sure
SauroGrenom 11-06-07, 12:07 AM	Whitebaron, For 1) there are a couple instances in the rules where a general rule is in contradiction with other more specific and detailed rules that we need to decide which one is correct. This is one such case where the table entry suggests any move action taken to execute movement in a threatened square results in an AoO, while other more specific rules in the SRD and RoTG articles describe movement as only provoking an AoO when you leave a threatened square. In situations like this in the past we've always decided that the more specific and detailed rules are considered to be correct. Thus we've favored the language where movement only provokes an AoO when you leave a threatened square. For 2) this was a long and heated debate. I was on the same side as you on that one, but I lost by simple majority vote by the elders at the time. We've now changed a few of those elders, and it's possible to revisit the issue. Right now I don't have the time or fortitude to put as much into that argument as I did last time. For 3) a certain degree of expediency with respect to dealing with rules issues is necessary. However changing rules or interpretations of rules too rapidly isn't necessarily a good thing either. The whole original purpose of the elders was to debate rules and make these decisions. As time has gone on, the roll of elders have become larger, but the original purpose of debating rules issues is still the majority of what elders do (aside from being leaders in the community as normal players). Personally I need to have a slower debate. As I talk through an issue and read the arguments and formulate/modify my own arguments, that process helps me reach the correct opinion. Depending on how often people post, how much time I have to spend and how complicated the issue is, this can be a rapid or very slow process as dictated by the nature of the issue and debate. For this reason, I'm very unwilling to support a fast track on changing the way we interpret the rules. I prefer the more organic rate of change/debate that we currently use. If you want to facilitate that by summarizing the positions, then that's welcome and appreciated, but a fixed timeframe probably won't work well at all.
whitebaron 11-06-07, 02:58 AM	i just checked over all 7 articles: rules of the game reworded moving out of the square to leaving the square. still i don't think they ever gave enlarged creatures a thought. i'll try my luck with askdnd@wizards.com, now. i simply don't get it (as with many rotg articales) how they can reword it repeatedly and not expect change to the reading to occur.
Rauul 11-06-07, 03:04 AM	i just checked over all 7 articles: rules of the game reworded moving out of the square to leaving the square. still i don't think they ever gave enlarged creatures a thought. i'll try my luck with askdnd@wizards.com, now. i simply don't get it (as with many rotg articales) how they can reword it repeatedly and not expect change to the reading to occur. Having been reading Skip's work for years.. I have come to the Conclusion to not listen to him without people making me to... Seriously.. I sometimes want what he is smoking...
whitebaron 11-06-07, 07:49 AM	*g* maybe them drugs work better than what doctors are supposed to give you. it's still worth a try what they answer - if they answer - since basically, i believe them to think about rules, and how they intend to do it is clear to them - and they fail at the same things we all here fail at discussing - "100% clear to everyone" - definitions.
TelinArtho 11-06-07, 11:31 AM	It seems we have gotten a large number of topics opened up in the Courtroom and it would be good to get a few off of the table and resolved. Current open topics in the Courtroom Psionic/Magic Transparency: I think all of the elders has put in a word/position on this so far. I've reread a number of the arguments and I can't put a placement on any one elder's particular view on it. It might be best to just get the vote out and move on. Deflect Arrows: What qualifies as "massive"? Some ideas have been proposed (Anything that is larger than you can wield (Me), Items that are made for 3-sizes larger than you (lonewolf)). Lonewolf's suggestion seems to be the most favored thus far (so an expanded half-giant's fired projectiles cannot be deflected by a small character). Sauro did post a rejection of this idea, but didn't really post a response. Macbrea is in favor of it. AoO and Moving: Although whitebaron has his concerns, nothing new has been presented that wasn't covered in the original debate. Is there any need for a re-vote on this? AoO from using wands in melee with ranged touch: Again - nothing new has been presented that wasn't covered in the original debate. Is there a need for a re-vote? There was a quick question about the items a lycanthrope can use in animal/hybrid forms - but I think those were answered sufficiently (and if not - let me know).
McJarvis 11-06-07, 11:49 AM	I think AoO's should be put on the "to-do" list & the other two items be hashed out. After all- there were plenty of things on the council's to-do list before the AoO issue was brought up.
whitebaron 11-08-07, 07:57 AM	rules question: char 1 and char 2 are fighting. both can cast spells. 1 readies to do something when 2 ends his (targeted) spell. when does 2 get to choose targets? example: 1 readies shield. 2 casts MM. can 2 chose another target if he realises that this is a shield which will negate his missiles? just technically, AoO happen before the action that triggers it. so since the aiming is a part of the spell, i'd say that you should be allowed to switch targets. but i'm all but sure about this.
Macbrea 11-08-07, 08:35 AM	Odd. you sort of answered the question yourself. Look at the ready again. 1 readies to do something when 2 ends his (targeted) spell. You do not end an instant spell until it is cast. At that point the person would attempt whatever they were trying to do. If they are attempting a counter spell their wording needs to be much different. Example: 'Ready to cast shield if I notice BoB casting magic missile spell at me.' would result in the moment BoB starts to cast a spell a spellcraft check to be rolled. If the spellcraft check determines that the spell is a magic missile then shield would be cast and bob would finish his spell cast at me. If instead it was worded. "Ready to cast shield after I notice bob cast magic missile." Then the moment the spell is cast the person would cast shield on themselves. Though, they would take damage from the missiles if they were targeted on them. This isn't a preemptive ready but a reactive. That is because of how the ready action was worded. The first one requires that the person identify the incoming spell and counter it. The second just requires the person see the spell. Since, we play with certain spells have very identifiable effects most pitlords won't make you check for those. Technically by the strictest reading of the rules you should have to make a spellcraft check for even a fireball hitting you. We assume that common spells are known to all combatants by their visible effect.
McJarvis 11-08-07, 08:52 AM	We assume that common spells are known to all combatants by their visible effect. Or rather: we assume exactly what is assumed at table top. You don't need a spellcraft roll to know that a fireball does fire damage. You DO need a spellcraft roll to tell the difference between a fireball and a delayed blast fireball. [assuming you don't see a fireball just floating around] In the same way: you can "fake" casting a spell(like if Thorell wanted to trigger someone's readied action vs his truestrike, he could just yell a word out there). Unless they had spellcraft, they couldn't tell whether Thorell was casting a spell or just saying gibberish. So we assume people see what they see & can act on their knowledge of what the character is capable of-> the fact that most gladiators don't bother with "faking" to cast a spell is another issue altogether. To give it a real-world edge- I know my friend Ron owns a gun. I also know that putting a few concrete walls between you and someone with a gun is a good way to stop them from shooting you. I don't know how to operate a gun- and to be honest, I couldn't identify various ones from atom. But because of our culture, I know what a gun looks like- and if I saw Ron pulling one on me you know I'd be looking for the nearest wall to duck behind. Not that my friends want to shoot me, of course :)
lonewolf 11-08-07, 09:39 AM	I don't know how to operate a gun- and to be honest, I couldn't identify various ones from atom. I think you gotta watch more action movies! ;)
McJarvis 11-08-07, 09:44 AM	I think you gotta watch more action movies! ;) My action movies all have sword fights :) edit- I also kinda skipped the gun fascination phase in HS/college because I'm a pacifist- but that's another issue altogether. I dunno why I skipped the car fascination phase.... <_< >_>
whitebaron 11-08-07, 10:43 AM	ok, then let's word it differently. char 1 casts sleep. char 2 readies to do any fancy action when sleep hits. assuming the action of char2 makes him an impossible or useless target - can you target another square on finishing the spell? (Read: can you actually interrupt the targeting process, or does he get to chose the are he's targeting after?)
lonewolf 11-08-07, 10:50 AM	the target of a spell is chosen when the caster is finished. For example if you cast summon Monster I you dont have to decide which monster to summon, or where it should appear until the start of your next turn where you finish the casting.
McJarvis 11-08-07, 10:52 AM	I think the answer is that the moment you cast the spell the target is decided and the spell takes effect. There is no time for something to happen in between the target being decided and the spell taking effect. Shooting projectiles are the same way- WE know that an arrow travels to its path, but in D&D terms the arrow leaves the launcher and hits/misses the target in the same instant. edit- So the side effects: Lets say there are four people sitting in a D&D-physics run room. One has a bow, there are two targets, and one guy who wants to provide a soft cover bonus. He can't ready an action to "move inbetween the attacker and the defender after he picks his target", because once the guy with the bow shoots- the arrow is already at the target, ready to be deflected//AC blocked//or otherwise. In the real world this might be possible[and very dramatic], but in D&D the guy with the bow can always pick the one that isn't getting a soft cover bonus.
lonewolf 11-08-07, 11:02 AM	yes and no. Ready actions happen before the action that triggered them. So you could ready for someone to shoot his bow to jump in front of your friend to provide him soft cover, but since that happens before the arrow is fired the attacker canstill change his target and shoot you instead.
McJarvis 11-08-07, 11:09 AM	yes and no. Ready actions happen before the action that triggered them. So you could ready for someone to shoot his bow to jump in front of your friend to provide him soft cover, but since that happens before the arrow is fired the attacker canstill change his target and shoot you instead. What I meant in my example is that you could not defend both targets. No matter which one you chose- the archer could choose the other instead. It is, in effect, impossible to "jump in front of the shot" in this case.
Macbrea 11-08-07, 11:15 AM	You can jump in front of the shot. The only effect it has in the game is providing +4 cover bonus to the target. You are unable to redirect the shot to you without magical means.
McJarvis 11-08-07, 11:17 AM	You can jump in front of the shot. The only effect it has in the game is providing +4 cover bonus to the target. You are unable to redirect the shot to you without magical means. ... My point was the archer will always shoot an uncovered[easier to hit] subject. You may be able to dictate which subject is easier to hit, but in my example... you know what? it's not worth it. Ok- you can jump in front of the shot.
Macbrea 11-08-07, 11:28 AM	Sorry.. I didn't notice you were trying to defend two seperate targets. You can defend a single target by readying an action to move inbetween the shooter and the target. The shooter cannot redirect his shot to another target if the wording of the readied action is worded correctly. The action happens instantaniously. If it's worded vaguely then the shooter may choose instead to change his target at will. Depending on actions that have happened before his shot goes off. Example: Player 1 readies to move between player 2 and 3 if player 2 shoots a bow shot at player 3. Player 2 begins to shoot at player 3 Player 1 interupts player 2s turn and moves between player 2 and player 3 Player 2 finishes his shot at player 3 or now chooses to retarget his shot at player 1? I don't think you can retarget an attack once it has been started. I guess if it was a spell instead you could choose to retarget player 1. You shouldn't be allowed to rechoose your entire action though. Else counterspell would never work at all. And your are correct it is impossible to defend players 3 and players 4. Because once the shot starts and your readied action goes off you move. And therefore cannot move infront of the other when your opponent changes targets.
Hirumajoe 11-08-07, 12:58 PM	Reposted from the FotW thread: Grimlock had reduce animal cast on him during his previous fight. I want to know what effect this has on his saddle and his rider's ability to use it (and their overall weight). Basically which option is occurring in the fight: 1) Reduced Grimlock is only carrying 40/8 = 5lbs worth of exotic military saddle and the saddle is perfectly usable - so flying at medium size no problem. 2) Reduced Grimlock is only carrying 40/8 = 5lbs worth of exotic military saddle, but is not usable because of size changes (since it doesn't meet the listed weight in the SRD for being a military saddle or because its now 1/2 the size and straps don't fight the rider or ?) - so flying but at -5 Ride penalty 3) Reduced Grimlock is carrying 40 lbs worth of exotic military saddle, with its armor (10 lbs), rider (40 lbs) and gear (12.5 lbs) puts it over its 86 lb capacity (at 17 strength, medium sized). I don't care which one, just so that I know what to write tactics for. Second question: There are buildings on the map without apparent doors or windows. Can we enter them? (Magically or mundanely - say with an Adamantium door opener). Are there in fact windows and doors? Can you see in? Are there shadows in the interior of buildings? And does LOS or LOE matter to a shadow dancer's Hide in Plain Sight ability and the existance of shadows within 10'? The ability doesn't seem to indicate: 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. Given the existance of the Shadow jump ability (Dimension door like) which doesn't necessarily require LOS or LOE (just knowledge of the presence of shadows) it doesn't seem like LOS or LOE is necessarily a requirement. Thanks.
hogarth 11-08-07, 12:59 PM	Some questions related to mounts: 1) Suppose two people are mounted on the same light horse that is not trained for combat. Can the "driver" use a standard action to control the mount while the "passenger" is free to do something else, or do they both have to use an action? 2) Are we using the "Aggressive Mount" rules from the Rules of the Game articles on mounted combat?
TelinArtho 11-08-07, 01:05 PM	@hirumajoe - I would probably just say 1. Saddles don't come in different sizes based on the mount or the rider - but the text of the spell is clear - it certainly reduces the weight. It makes no mention of reducing/removing the functionality of these items - so I would say it still works fine. As to the buildings - I don't believe you are allowed to enter them.
Hirumajoe 11-08-07, 01:10 PM	@hirumajoe - I would probably just say 1. Saddles don't come in different sizes based on the mount or the rider - but the text of the spell is clear - it certainly reduces the weight. It makes no mention of reducing/removing the functionality of these items - so I would say it still works fine. As to the buildings - I don't believe you are allowed to enter them. Fair enough, I'll just chalk it up to magic. So does that mean for my next mounted character, I can buy permanently reduced exotic saddle that only weighs 5 lbs? (Expensive I know, but could be worth it for the weight reduction. :) )
Macbrea 11-08-07, 01:13 PM	I would also say 1. The items are reduced and still useable by their rider. Buildings aren't accessable on the city map. Think of them as just solid blocks. You can enter them by being incorporeal. The shadow must be present to be useful. So, no you cannot hide infront of the wall that the shadow falls on the other side of.
Macbrea 11-08-07, 01:20 PM	As a saddle is neither an animal or humanoid. You will only find 'shrink item' as the only spell that can reduce the size of a saddle. Permanently shrinking the saddle would cost 7500gp and therefore unavailable to spellcasting services. It also shouldn't be a useful object for skill use at that point.
TelinArtho 11-08-07, 01:20 PM	Fair enough, I'll just chalk it up to magic. So does that mean for my next mounted character, I can buy permanently reduced exotic saddle that only weighs 5 lbs? (Expensive I know, but could be worth it for the weight reduction. :) ) As soon as the saddle qualifies under "Reduce Person" or "Reduce Animal" sure... Shrink Item is an option - but that is a very different beast.
Hirumajoe 11-08-07, 01:46 PM	How is shrink item a very different beast or make it non-usable for skill use? It reduces it 4 size categories vs 1 size category? While making it permanent would be horribly expensive, having it NPC cast is possible without the permancy (since it lasts 1 day per level), so only 150 gp per 3FC. Quite reasonable. Or are you saying a Huge Longsword affected by Shrink item wouldn't be usable by a small halfling? Its the exact same thing, just a matter of scale. So whats the cutoff at which point it stops functioning? 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16?
Macbrea 11-08-07, 02:04 PM	I personally would apply a -2 circumstance penalty per size category differency between the user and the saddle. Using the Unfavorable conditions rules in the skill section. Sure. a Titan can ride a horse using a fleas saddle. But it isn't going to be of much use.
hogarth 11-08-07, 02:22 PM	I personally would apply a -2 circumstance penalty per size category differency between the user and the saddle. Using the Unfavorable conditions rules in the skill section. Sure. a Titan can ride a horse using a fleas saddle. But it isn't going to be of much use. But that's just the problem. As has been pointed out, saddles don't have a size listed at all. So maybe it's possible (in theory) to buy a saddle for some hypothetical creature that's like a wolf but is Colossal size (and weighs 40 lbs), shrink it four size categories (so it weighs 3ish lbs), then use it on a size Medium wolf.
Macbrea 11-08-07, 03:12 PM	Actually, unfavorable condition modifiers apply to any time the game master feels that something should effect a scene. Logic says if the saddle doesn't fit on the mount anymore then it should have an unfavorable cirmstance modifier. This of course is a very DM specific application of the rules.
McJarvis 11-08-07, 03:14 PM	Actually, unfavorable condition modifiers apply to any time the game master feels that something should effect a scene. Logic says if the saddle doesn't fit on the mount anymore then it should have an unfavorable cirmstance modifier. This of course is a very DM specific application of the rules. That's not what they're saying though. After all transformations are said and done, they're using a properly sized saddle on a properly sized mount. It should probably be noted that medium and large sized mounts have been using the same equipment for a while[I'm pretty sure]
Macbrea 11-08-07, 03:24 PM	What he was saying is he could 'shrink item' a saddle and ride on it on a normal sized mount. Because it would only 1/16th sized saddle and there are no rules for using mis-sized items.
McJarvis 11-08-07, 03:26 PM	What he was saying is he could shrink a saddle and ride on it on a normal sized mount. Because it would only weigh 1/4 of it's actually weight it wouldn't encumber the mount. That's not what he's saying at all. Look at his example. Or are you saying a Huge Longsword affected by Shrink item wouldn't be usable by a small halfling? Its the exact same thing, just a matter of scale So he's talking about a small mount- not a very small saddle on a large sized mount.
Macbrea 11-08-07, 03:28 PM	Shrink item reduces the size of an item to 1/16th the size and 1/4,000 the original mass. So, assuming you started with a military saddle. It would be sized for a fine horse and weigh .01 lb.
Macbrea 11-08-07, 03:30 PM	And no gm in their right mind would allow you to use that in their game as a real saddle.
McJarvis 11-08-07, 03:32 PM	And no gm in their right mind would allow you to use that in their game as a real saddle. Well, you'd have to be one size smaller than fine [to ride a fine-sized horse]. But you guys are the ones who brought up shrink item. Hirm was looking for a reduce person type effect on it to fit a saddle normally made for a large creature to a medium creature[or at least I think that was his intention]. Personally I say just half the weight on the normal saddle, since it was obviously meant for a horse[large sized critter]
Macbrea 11-08-07, 03:34 PM	By the way.. the reason reduce person reduces the weight of items by 1/8s is because 5 x 5 x 5 = 125 2.5 x 2.5 x 2.5 = 15.6 125/15 = 8.33333 They just assume that a small person is 2.5 x 2.5 x 2.5, I would guess.
McJarvis 11-08-07, 03:39 PM	By the way.. the reason reduce person reduces the weight of items by 1/8s is because 5 x 5 x 5 = 125 2.5 x 2.5 x 2.5 = 15.6 125/15 = 8.33333 They just assume that a small person is 2.5 x 2.5 x 2.5, I would guess. Or in a more general way: Assume it's making you twice as small. [per the spell description] 2x2x2= 8 as compared to 1x1x1=1.
Macbrea 11-08-07, 03:40 PM	Someone must have looked at those proportions and said 1/8th. But then someone else looked at equipment and says small people use equipment that weighs 1/4th the weight. Armor should weight 1/2 the weight. And last but not least another person piped up with, 'Yeah, and small guys should be able to carry 2/3rd as much as a medium person!'
mucki 11-09-07, 06:49 AM	Well, If you shrink an item by factor 2, its volume changes by factor 8. Thats a mathematical reality. However, that would mean that if you make a small armor with 1/8th the weight, it would only be half as thick as the original one. This would probably result in seriously reduced AC. So a armor made for a small person is considerably heavier than a shrunk medium armor because it is also much thicker (as think as a medium armor presumably). Same applies to items. And the carrying capacity depends on build and muscular structure, and usually small creatures are much stronger than large ones if compared relative to their body weight. So it actually makes sense, not to mention that I can see why they made it that way for reasons of playability ;-)
whitebaron 11-11-07, 05:43 PM	got two questions concerning this fight: a) When exactly does Energy Retort trigger if the opponent full attacks? if its in the middle of the action, does he get to finish his action even if he is already dying? b) t10 said that i should do a bleedout-duel. reading the rules, i found that if you are in no condition to harm your opponent, you are considered defeated and thus removed from combat. so, if it is -1 vs -2, make a stabilizing duel, or call it a draw?
Sjiggie 11-11-07, 08:13 PM	got two questions concerning this fight: a) When exactly does Energy Retort trigger if the opponent full attacks? if its in the middle of the action, does he get to finish his action even if he is already dying? Energy Retort triggers on a successful attack so if the first attack hits and Energy Retort triggers and kills the attacker he can't complete his full attack b) t10 said that i should do a bleedout-duel. reading the rules, i found that if you are in no condition to harm your opponent, you are considered defeated and thus removed from combat. so, if it is -1 vs -2, make a stabilizing duel, or call it a draw? Templer10 is correct in a one on one duel you should roll stabilization rolls to see who dies first and who stabilizes if both gladiators don't stabilize the first one to reach -10 loses. I believe. -Sjiggie
Stormwind 11-12-07, 02:49 AM	Templer10 is correct in a one on one duel you should roll stabilization rolls to see who dies first and who stabilizes if both gladiators don't stabilize the first one to reach -10 loses. I believe. I would add that if both gladiators stabilize, and remain unconsious (i.e. no allies to heal them), then the fight would result in a draw, otherwise whoever bleeds to death first looses.
whitebaron 11-12-07, 06:07 AM	sorry, but i still need an elders opinion on that... about energy retort: since when can you interrupt a fullround action with another action? as you are not required to do your rolls independtly tabletop, i don't think your interpretation is correct sjiggie. about the bleedout: it seems common knowledge here, so i'll just reinterpret the rules to fit this.
lonewolf 11-12-07, 06:19 AM	actually you can interrupt a full attack. You can interrupt a full attack with a readied action(readying on sight of an invisible attacker triggers after the first and before any other attacks). You can even interrupt your own full attack after the first attack to do a move action instead.
hogarth 11-12-07, 07:09 AM	sorry, but i still need an elders opinion on that... about energy retort: since when can you interrupt a fullround action with another action? as you are not required to do your rolls independtly tabletop, i don't think your interpretation is correct sjiggie. Suppose character A has two attacks: his first attack is a trip attempt against character B that ends up with B tripping A instead. Are you saying that character A wouldn't be prone for his second attack?
Macbrea 11-12-07, 09:38 AM	got two questions concerning this fight: a) When exactly does Energy Retort trigger if the opponent full attacks? if its in the middle of the action, does he get to finish his action even if he is already dying? Energy retort requires no effort on the players part. It would go off between the first attack and the second attack. Yes, you can interrupt an full attack action with a readied action. b) t10 said that i should do a bleedout-duel. reading the rules, i found that if you are in no condition to harm your opponent, you are considered defeated and thus removed from combat. so, if it is -1 vs -2, make a stabilizing duel, or call it a draw? If both combatants in a 1v1 battle reach a negative number they start to bleed on the ground. If both stabilize, they lay there for an hour and have to make another stabilization roll. If both continue to stabilize throughout the day and heal due to rest. The one that wakes up with probably win the fight in 1 round. This does not hold true in a hunter fight or free for all. We still haven't decided quite what would happen if both reached that point at the exact same time. The only time a draw can occur is if both characters reach -10 at exactly the same instant. This occurs when say a wizard fireballs his location as a readied action to prevent a grapple. If the damage from the spell were to kill both individuals it would be a tie. Note: The warhorse should kill Felice in the following round. Felice may not make an attack with energy retort against the warhorse because he is unaware of the horse at this moment. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character’s activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action.
whitebaron 11-12-07, 10:20 AM	Note: The warhorse should kill Felice in the following round. Felice may not make an attack with energy retort against the warhorse because he is unaware of the horse at this moment. thnx for the run, but you are wrong on this one. the warhorse got hit by 2 energy missiles - but on a side note - i entirely missed the saves for energy missile. will have to redo them. did only saves for energy retort, but i need to do saves for both the horses hits and inzins second hit.
McJarvis 11-12-07, 12:16 PM	I'd like a ruling on damage reduction. The rules say quite clearly that spells and spell-like abilities ignore it: Spells, spell-like abilities, and energy attacks (even nonmagical fire) ignore damage reduction However, there are some spells that specifically deal damage as if the creators intended for them to succumb to damage reduction. Great magical hailstones pound down for 1 full round, dealing 3d6 points of bludgeoning damage and 2d6 points of cold damage to every creature in the area So far as I know- specifying the damage type like that is unncessary unless damage reduction applies. Additionally, when you extend this to powers... The ray deals 1d6 points of piercing damage. Crystal Shard does the same thing that Ice Storm does. And to make matters worse, there is a psionic feat.... Against psionic attacks that do not employ an energy type to deal damage you gain damage reduction 3/-. ...that specifically gives DR vs non-engery powers. I suggest that it's obvious that the creators meant for certain types of spells and powers to succumb to damage reduction, as the current rules directly contradict themselves[in the matter of Mental Resistance]. ~McJ~
Macbrea 11-12-07, 01:56 PM	Assuming we are still using the FAQ. Does damage reduction help against powers that deal slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning damage, such as crystal hard (Expanded Psionics Handbook, page 89)? Spells (and powers), spell-like abilities, and energy attacks ignore damage reduction (Dungeon Master’s Guide, page 292). Thus, even if a spell or power describes its damage as bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing, it is still a spell (or power) effect, and thus damage reduction does not apply (unless the spell or power’s description specifically states otherwise).
McJarvis 11-12-07, 02:12 PM	The FAQ is unnecessary for this arguement since the SRD already specifically carries forth that. Until I saw the feat Mental Resistance I hadn't thought of it as a problem- but Mental Resistance is in effect a non-feat if you accept the RAW/FAQ, since there is no such thing as a "psionic attack" that doesn't derive in some way from a power. [Psionic Weapon wouldn't actually count, since that feat merely adds damage onto an existing attack] Having DR X/- against psionic attacks that don't deal energy damage is useless per the RAW. Since the feat is rendered useless- I'd move that we choose to ignore the FAQ in this regard, on account of the writers obviously not expecting such a literal reading of the rules in this regard. edit- Also, since we've been in a "what makes sense over RAW" mode lately, I figure this is something that could be changed.
Macbrea 11-12-07, 02:36 PM	The feat itself seems to insist that is one of the exceptions to the rules. The benefit of this feat applies only to psionic powers and psi-like abilities. This is an exception to the psionics-magic transparency rule. Or your right in that the way it's written it is a non-feat. Which would make it totally useless.
McJarvis 11-12-07, 02:38 PM	The feat itself seems to insist that is one of the exceptions to the rules. The benefit of this feat applies only to psionic powers and psi-like abilities. This is an exception to the psionics-magic transparency rule. That's my point, though. If the indicating of a specific damage type isn't enough of an implication that powers/spells don't bypass DR, then why would the feat imply such? All it explicitly says is that it is an exception to transparency. And indicating a specific damage type is totally useless except for purposes of DR- so far as I know. edit- the feat is not COMPLETELY worthless- since it will still reduce ability damage by 3. [This part of the feat isn't expressed as DR- which makes it perfect for making Thorell ego-whip resistant] But the entire bit about DR 3/- is useless. All the same, I think that if we're going to follow this "common sense over RAW" trend, we should apply it to these more far reaching circumstances. [I'm pretty sure things like crystal shard are blocked by DR in 90% of home-games] edit 2- Note that the wording I'd be seeking in a ruling would go along the lines of "if a spell/power does physical damage such as piercing, slashing, or bludgeoning damage, then it is subject to damage reduction per normal." Note that without this language & accepting that the DR mental resistance provides can work against powers- it becomes insane at stopping egowhip. Suddenly the damge caused by egowhip can be stopped by DR as well as prevented by the second part of the feat- effectively negating 6 charisma damage AFTER saving throw.
MindWandererB 11-12-07, 04:55 PM	Mental Resistance works find on powers such as Mind Thrust. McJarvis, you're both right and wrong. Complete Psionic supports your belief (RAI); the FAQ supports the opposite (RAW).
McJarvis 11-12-07, 05:50 PM	Mental Resistance works find on powers such as Mind Thrust. No- it doesn't. What it does is the same as the following: Lets say there is an abjuration spell that is level 3. This spell gives you acid resistance 50 vs effects that deal fire damage. It's the same type of thing. This gives DR 3/- vs non energy powers that deal damage. The DR 3/-, while RAI is supposed to work against things like crystal shard, RAW does nothing. There is no such thing as a power that is blocked by DR 3/- via RAW. That's my point- we should depart from RAW and adhere to RAI(as you mentioned- Complete Psionics), since we're supporting a "what makes sense" model of D&D instead of a RAW model. [I wouldn't have pursued this- but you waved your DM stick earlier towards taking RAW over common sense. I believe no incoming player would honestly believe crystal shard is not blocked by DR- so this ruling applies to that kind of logic as well.
MindWandererB 11-12-07, 06:06 PM	No- it doesn't. What it does is the same as the following: Lets say there is an abjuration spell that is level 3. This spell gives you acid resistance 50 vs effects that deal fire damage. It's the same type of thing. This gives DR 3/- vs non energy powers that deal damage. The DR 3/-, while RAI is supposed to work against things like crystal shard, RAW does nothing. There is no such thing as a power that is blocked by DR 3/- via RAW. That's my point- we should depart from RAW and adhere to RAI(as you mentioned- Complete Psionics), since we're supporting a "what makes sense" model of D&D instead of a RAW model. [I wouldn't have pursued this- but you waved your DM stick earlier towards taking RAW over common sense. I believe no incoming player would honestly believe crystal shard is not blocked by DR- so this ruling applies to that kind of logic as well. Ah, I see what you mean. Yeah, that's clearly absurd.
templer10 11-13-07, 04:39 AM	No- it doesn't. What it does is the same as the following: Lets say there is an abjuration spell that is level 3. This spell gives you acid resistance 50 vs effects that deal fire damage. It's the same type of thing. This gives DR 3/- vs non energy powers that deal damage. The DR 3/-, while RAI is supposed to work against things like crystal shard, RAW does nothing. There is no such thing as a power that is blocked by DR 3/- via RAW. That's my point- we should depart from RAW and adhere to RAI(as you mentioned- Complete Psionics), since we're supporting a "what makes sense" model of D&D instead of a RAW model. [I wouldn't have pursued this- but you waved your DM stick earlier towards taking RAW over common sense. I believe no incoming player would honestly believe crystal shard is not blocked by DR- so this ruling applies to that kind of logic as well. well - i can't agre - i think what is happening here is one poorly written feat (mental ressitence) is being used as a reason to nerf Crystal shard and ALL other power/spells that deal a spesific type of damage While the IMHO the option that makes more sense is to fix mental ressitence, not Ignore the Faq and raw. also if oyu start appling DR to magic/psioninc you have pretty far reaching results - Like - what kind of DR stops Magic/psionincs, is it only DR/- or maybe more common DR's or maybe even ANY DR, we are clearly completly rewriting the rules here and there is simply no reason 2.
Rauul 11-13-07, 06:21 AM	I really don't see what the Big deal with Mental Resistance is... if the Damage cause by Psionic is Unnamed (Non Elemental) then the person gets dr 3/ with the feat.. To me this is a Psionic DR, that can only be had by a Non psionic Character.. Does it break the Rules... yes.. Does it Equal the playing field for Non-Psionic Characters Yes... Is Psionics on the Whole Poorly written.. YES.. Seriously.. what Powers would it Effect.. just the Unnamed Psionic Damage Dealing Spells.. Like Crystal shard, Swarm of Crystals, Mind Thrust... Ect.. all of them can be Augmented to make 3 DR all but worthless.. I do like the other ability of it... the Anti-Ego whip ability..
templer10 11-13-07, 07:30 AM	Ill clerify- IMHO - mental ressistence does give DR 3/- vs psionic powers (any that cause dmg) - but just because it say so - dont take a spesific example and make something of it it isnt.
whitebaron 11-13-07, 07:50 AM	mental resistance is a feat, that overrides some of the default values for DR. its just like any other feat that changes the rules of engagement. (e.g. combat expertise) so, what does it? everything that is neither acid cold fire electricity or sonic damage, gets reduced by 3 + you get the reduction of ability damage as well. i don't get where's your problem with this. and - it only works on psi, so you don't need to change anything magic for it to work.
McJarvis 11-13-07, 08:40 AM	RAW is not a matter of "What you think obviously makes sense". The rules explicitly say what they say- and nothing else. There are no mechanics to make DR apply vs psionic powers in the way you three seem to want it to in this case. That is why I'm suggesting specific wording be created to allow it to. As it stands right now- Mental Resistance blocks ability damage, and that's it. This is a direct result of the way the rules are written and further enhanced by how the FAQ defines those rules. We can let it lie and let the rules not make sense[but be perfectly consistent]- but recent Elder-rulings have obviously indicated the intention of our current elders to make the game make sense when these issues come up. [And that's why I'm hunting for them :) ] If you "fix" mental resistance- then you might as well fix things like Crystal shard. [since both rulings would defy the current rules in the exact same way] edit- It occurs to me that several of you are new and don't remember some of the complaints I brought forth to CoCo almost a year ago. I believe, above all else, the Elders need to make decisions using the same logic model every time they approach a situation. Every new set of Elders uses a different one: and that is fine with me, since people are people. However, inside of a single body I'd expect decisions that fall on the same lines. In the past(Cat's reign) RAW was absolute above all else- houserules were only made when the RAW broke down and obvious problems were created.[such as Gate, or Energy Missile sundering worn objects] However, it became clear to me in the "humanoid armor" discussion that this council wishes to remove the situations which clearly don't make sense via RAW- regardless of whether leaving them be wouldn't cause any problems. Again- I don't have a problem with this line of reasoning, since I can clearly see the merit of not wanting to alienate newcomers with a bunch of rulings that "just don't make sense". It is on that note that I bring this to the discussion- under the "old reign" things like Mental Resistance would just be left to operate as they do. However- there is precident now. Complete Psionics suggests that powers/spells that specify physical damage type do, RAI, adhere to damage reduction rules. [and as stated- I believe the vast majority of table top games are played that way as well. I certainly did(and still do).
Durzulgor 11-13-07, 09:23 AM	Well, since I'm new here, I don't know if I'm even supposed to post in here, but since I might have brought up that discussion with my misplaced feat, I'll give my opinion anyway: MENTAL RESISTANCE [GENERAL] Your mind is armored against mental intrusion. Prerequisite: Base Will save bonus +2. Benefit: AGAINST psionic attacks that do not employ an energy type to deal damage you gain damage reduction 3/-. In addition, when you are hit with ability damage (but not ability drain or ability burn damage) from a psionic attack, you take 3 points less than you would normally take. The benefit of this feat applies only to psionic powers and psi-like abilities. This is an exception to the psionics-magic transparency rule. Special: You cannot take or use this feat if you have the ability to use powers (if you have a power point reserve or psi-like abilities). That little word I wrote in capital letters says it all, doesn't it? It's a certain kind of DR that works against powers and powers alone. It doesn't imply ANY OTHER DR should in any way work against powers, or magic, for that matter, since even this DR doesn't work there.
Macbrea 11-13-07, 09:45 AM	It would have been written better as 'Grants toughness 3 vs psionic powers and psi-like abilities'. This would have resulted in alot less clarification needed because Toughness works all the time unlike DR.
whitebaron 11-13-07, 11:07 AM	@mcj: specific rules always override generics, as text overrides tables. as it stands, DR only applies to physical attacks etc. one feat changes that, making it perfectly normal for itself to apply against powers. this does not change any implication to be made for the "usual case" it's like telling 1 AoO per round is failing because you get something like combat expertise. pls explain again, what's your problem with one feat changing the rules? as combat feats change them quite often.
McJarvis 11-13-07, 11:14 AM	it's like telling 1 AoO per round is failing because you get something like combat expertise. pls explain again, what's your problem with one feat changing the rules? as combat feats change them quite often. Because it doesn't change them. Please see my example of a spell that gives acid resistance 50 vs effects that deal fire damage. This wording would not re-write acid resistance to mean "fire resistance"- it is just nonsensical, just like this feat is.
whitebaron 11-13-07, 03:44 PM	i think you misunderstand the intention of the spells. they split it up to e.g. prevent immunity from cold to help against all effects. your acid/fire example is misleading. it has nothing to do with the actual rules you try to point out. dr does not help against spells. (end of story) but energy immunity etc. helps against some parts of spells, therefore they need to give which parts are elemental and which are not.
McJarvis 11-13-07, 03:51 PM	i think you misunderstand the intention of the spells. they split it up to e.g. prevent immunity from cold to help against all effects. your acid/fire example is misleading. it has nothing to do with the actual rules you try to point out. dr does not help against spells. (end of story) but energy immunity etc. helps against some parts of spells, therefore they need to give which parts are elemental and which are not. My example is independant of the energy side-script in the feat's description. The feat very clearly gives DR 3/- (doesn't help against powers) specifically only against powers. In the same way my example provides Acid Resistance 50 (doesn't help against anything but acid) against fire damage. This hypothetical spell would not rewrite the rules unless it specifically stated, "Acid Resistance provided by this spell applies to fire damage"
whitebaron 11-13-07, 04:03 PM	well, but it helps against powers. just because it is badly worded, you want to redo all DR? or change the effects of the feat? i still don't get what your proposed outcome of this would be.
McJarvis 11-13-07, 04:06 PM	well, but it helps against powers. just because it is badly worded, you want to redo all DR? or change the effects of the feat? i still don't get what your proposed outcome of this would be. My point is that all DR/Magic interaction rules are worded poorly(this feat just finally brings to light an extreme example). MWB knows what I'm getting at- we've had several chat conversations about this off of the boards. The rules of D&D as a whole contradict themselves- and especially since we've been reading into Complete Psionics lately to determine intent. [A book which does say that powers which deal physical damage are affected by DR] At the _very_ least- we need a ruling on this feat. As always, I bow to the will of the Elders- but I think my point is valid.
Macbrea 11-13-07, 09:10 PM	I honestly believe what they meant by the feat is that a person gains '3 Toughness' vs psionic powers and psi-like abilities. What instead got written was by a person that didn't understand that DR doesn't work against powers and psi-like abiliites. By giving it three toughness instead it always subtracts three from the damage of power when applied to a creature. But that is RAI not RAW.
hogarth 11-13-07, 09:26 PM	I honestly believe what they meant by the feat is that a person gains '3 Toughness' vs psionic powers and psi-like abilities. I'm pretty sure you mean "hardness" (or something similar), not "toughness".
Macbrea 11-13-07, 11:40 PM	Yup..
Vathelokai 11-14-07, 12:01 AM	I'm with Macbrea on this. The intent seems obvious. The wording should be something like "This feat causes the creature to ignore the first three damage from any non-elemental typed damage caused by a power." Or something like that. As for the bludgeon/slash/pierce powers... I agree that it makes sense for DR to stop them (at least for metacreation and conjuration effects), but it's not supported by the SRD or the core books.
SauroGrenom 11-14-07, 12:10 AM	Well, since I'm new here, I don't know if I'm even supposed to post in here, but since I might have brought up that discussion with my misplaced feat, I'll give my opinion anyway: That little word I wrote in capital letters says it all, doesn't it? It's a certain kind of DR that works against powers and powers alone. It doesn't imply ANY OTHER DR should in any way work against powers, or magic, for that matter, since even this DR doesn't work there.The description is a bit contradictory. If we read is as RAW, one way to look at it is that this feat provides resistance against ability damage and psionic feats or spells that modify weapon damage w/o directly targeting the opponent. For example this feat gives resistance vs psionic weapon feat, offensive precognition, painful strike, claws of the beast or bite of the wolf. But it won't give resistance vs crystal shard. That interprets the feat as granting DR3/- that applies where DR is appropriate against psionic powers that augment weapon damage. However it won't provide a "DR" that protects against direct damage psionic powers, since "DR" of this kind doesn't exist. By RAW I think that looks like the clearest way to manage the way this feat works.
Vathelokai 11-14-07, 12:43 AM	Hadn't thought of that. The only problem with that approach is the ever present 'what counts as an attack' semantic argument. I think that's a completely legal way of looking at it RAW, but I doubt that's the intent (considering what McJ says about the Complete Psionic. Havn't read the book myself). EDIT: I notice that it wouldn't stop psionic weapon feats though... The benefit of this feat applies only to psionic powers and psi-like abilities.
Durzulgor 11-14-07, 08:31 AM	I just opened my "Expanded Psionics Handbook" on page 48 and there I read: Mental Resistance [General] Your mind is armored against mental intrusion. Prerequisite: Base Will save bonus +2. Benefit: Against Psionic attacks that do not employ an energy type to deal damage, such as mind thrust, you gain damage reduction 3/-. In addition, when you are hit with ability damage (but not an ability drain or ability burn damage) from a psionic attack, you take 3 points less than you would normally take. The benefit of this feat applies only to psionic powers and psi-like abilities. This is an exeption to the psionics-magic transparency rule (see page 55). Special: You cannot take or use this feat if you have the ability to use powers (if you have a powerpoint reserve or psi-like abilities).
McJarvis 11-14-07, 08:31 AM	EDIT: I notice that it wouldn't stop psionic weapon feats though... By Sauro's interpretation, it would apply to any power that _indirectly_ increases damage. So I think the list would include things like... dissolving weapon offensive prescience expansion(?)
whitebaron 11-14-07, 09:40 AM	By Sauro's interpretation, it would apply to any power that _indirectly_ increases damage. So I think the list would include things like... dissolving weapon offensive prescience expansion(?) don't be ridiculous. expansion does not deal damage. and dissolving weapon - it's acid damage. so its elemental. about offensive prescience: it gives a bonus to another damage source. so it does not deal damage itself. if your dr applies to the damage source, offensive prescience is affected as well. about offensive prescience II: i believe it to be badly worded as well, as it seems to be a damage booster for melee or ranged attacks, but can be used by its definition for powers and spells as well. (as long as they are targeted)
McJarvis 11-14-07, 09:47 AM	don't be ridiculous. expansion does not deal damage. ~et rest~ That was his point, though. Assuming we went with Sauro's interpretation, any power that augments damage[expansion inheriently increases your damage die size] would succumb to the DR. Except dissolving weapon- since that is elemental.
whitebaron 11-14-07, 10:07 AM	That was his point, though. please don't try to interpret others points. - just make your own. this is very annoying to see you zig-zag arguing just to prove your own point - just state what you want YOURSELF. 1) - the feat says that the power has to deal damage. so it does not, by its very own definition "Against psionic attacks that do not employ an energy type to deal damage" extend to secondary effects. 2) sauros reading of the definition is plain wrong. why don't you try to argue on that, if you want to say that? discussing with you is like discussin against a wall. you hardly ever try constructive arguments, you always go with what others have said, and distort it. you might reach your own ends with this. but its not like you're even trying to discuss.
Macbrea 11-14-07, 10:24 AM	Ok. no reason to jump on people. It is clear that the intent of the feat was to provide 3 points of protection/hardness vs psionic powers and psi-like abilities that cause damage. Increases in size alone doesn't cause damage. Psionic weapon isn't a power. Dissolving weapon is elemental and therefore excluded. The feat itself was written by someone who didn't understand how damage resistance actually works. So, this leaves us with the following choice. 1) RAW.. the feat helps vs ability damage but fails to do anything vs any power even though it says it does. 2) RAI.. The feat provide 3 hardness vs psionic powers and psi-like abilities that cause non-elemental damage 3) Other
hogarth 11-14-07, 10:26 AM	I vote for "common sense" i.e. #2.
McJarvis 11-14-07, 10:31 AM	please don't try to interpret others points. - just make your own. this is very annoying to see you zig-zag arguing just to prove your own point - just state what you want YOURSELF. I think there are some cultural barriers here. I don't "want" any given decision- I want the elders to review the rules & understand all the repercussions of any given decision. This is not about "getting my way"- it is about understanding the rules in their entirety and making the best decision based off of all of that. 1) - the feat says that the power has to deal damage. so it does not, by its very own definition "Against psionic attacks that do not employ an energy type to deal damage" extend to secondary effects. On one side you're willing to rewrite the rules because that's the only way to make the feat make sense- on the other side you're not willing to re-write the feat to be consistent with the rules? Now who is being inconsistent? :P At least I'm open to both options. 2) sauros reading of the definition is plain wrong. why don't you try to argue on that, if you want to say that? Because Sauro didn't come out and say "this is what the feat really means"- he agreed with me. He said the feat contradicts itself and obviously needs additional interpretation. He then offered one way of interpreting the feat into the game that was consistent with the rest of the rules-set of D&D & wouldn't necessitate relooking at how we do DR in general. I then read what he said and tried to make clear what the effect of that kind of ruling would be. I don't always get these things right, though- and you corrected me on the dissolving weapon bit. discussing with you is like discussin against a wall. you hardly ever try constructive arguments, you always go with what others have said, and distort it. you might reach your own ends with this. but its not like you're even trying to discuss. I'm trying to make all the points out there as clear as possible. If you come into this discussion trying to prove me wrong, then you will end up feeling frustrated because I am not trying to push any agenda. (Other than my aforementioned desire for the Elders to be consistent in rulings) If you come in trying to explore all the possibilities and somehow choose one from the many, then you wouldn't feel quite so frustrated.
McJarvis 11-14-07, 10:51 AM	The feat itself was written by someone who didn't understand how damage resistance actually works. This sentiment is why I wanted the Elders to take another look at how DR interacts with other psionic powers/rules. If that's our reasoning for editing the feat, then it might as well be our reasoning for other areas of the game as well. The writer of the FAQ took the approach that the rules are immutable and completely consistent- but we've found time and time again that the psionic rules didn't have as much thought put into them. [Which I don't blame them for- since I'm sure they get much less playtesting]
Erithmu 11-14-07, 11:16 AM	Mental Resistance: I vote #2 relative to Macbrea's options @All: Please find the line between stirring people up and letting a decision settle. At some point the arguments will get to a point where people have reached their immovable points. One thing I have little tolerance for is flaming and/or baiting. Some of us are good at both sides. This doesn't create community so ... before you hit 'submit reply' ask yourself if the comment helps discussion or if it is a rehashing of stuff or if it is baiting/flaming someone. If you feel like your being baited, then call it flat out as opposed to firing back. And note that sarcasm doesn't translate well across text/languages.
TelinArtho 11-14-07, 01:03 PM	I am also in line with #2 on MacBrea's list. Although I do certainly apply DR to spells that have bludgeoning or other such damage, I recognize that this is not supported in the SRD/FAQ.
hogarth 11-14-07, 03:37 PM	Under Magic Jar it states: "If you are successful, your life force occupies the host body, and the host’s life force is imprisoned in the magic jar. You keep your Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma, level, class, base attack bonus, base save bonuses, alignment, and mental abilities." What are "mental abilities"? For instance, can a ghost use Telekinesis while possessing another body or is TK not a "mental ability"?
whitebaron 11-14-07, 03:53 PM	Under Magic Jar it states: "If you are successful, your life force occupies the host body, and the host’s life force is imprisoned in the magic jar. You keep your Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma, level, class, base attack bonus, base save bonuses, alignment, and mental abilities." What are "mental abilities"? For instance, can a ghost use Telekinesis while possessing another body or is TK not a "mental ability"? as magic jar is banned in coco, it's a moot point. - but yes, you can use powers and all purely mental actions.
SauroGrenom 11-15-07, 12:57 AM	I'd like to edit Macbrea's list as follows: 1) Rules As Written.. the feat helps vs ability damage and vs powers that directly cause "weapon damage bonus" in a non-elemental manner (claws of beast, offensive prescience, painful strike, augmented psionic lion's charge, and other similar powers) 2) Rules As Interpreted.. The feat provide 3 hardness vs psionic powers and psi-like abilities that cause non-elemental damage. In this way of wording the options, I prefer #1.
SauroGrenom 11-15-07, 01:01 AM	Under Magic Jar it states: "If you are successful, your life force occupies the host body, and the host’s life force is imprisoned in the magic jar. You keep your Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma, level, class, base attack bonus, base save bonuses, alignment, and mental abilities." What are "mental abilities"? For instance, can a ghost use Telekinesis while possessing another body or is TK not a "mental ability"? As far as I understand it, the "mental abilities" are things like SLA's, spell casting ability, feats and such. It would be a big list to write all of them down. I'm sure that if I tried to write all of them down, I'd miss a few and find a few that are iffy and gray. Bottom line is that I think the TK ability is a purely mental ability, and you could use it while held with hold undead.
Erithmu 11-15-07, 06:04 AM	I'd like to edit Macbrea's list as follows: 1) Rules As Written.. the feat helps vs ability damage and vs powers that directly cause "weapon damage bonus" in a non-elemental manner (claws of beast, offensive prescience, painful strike, augmented psionic lion's charge, and other similar powers) 2) Rules As Interpreted.. The feat provide 3 hardness vs psionic powers and psi-like abilities that cause non-elemental damage. In this way of wording the options, I prefer #1. Yeesh ... Something to consider Sauro: the feat says psionic attacks, where most of those powers that you have listed and probably most of the ones you have extend to under 'similar powers' are all modifications to a physical attack so that damage dealt is still physical in nature and not psionic. I have a very hard time following the logic of letting something that modifies a physical attack (buff) to be affected by this feat.
whitebaron 11-15-07, 07:32 AM	@erithmu: that's exactly what mcjs point was. (though he didnt state that explicitly) - you can't possible count secondary effects into this kind of "Damage Reduction", as it would have to apply to such stupid things as expansion as well. and obviously, expansion does NOT deal damage itself. --- @sauro: Let's take Offensive Prescience as an example: "Your awareness extends a fraction of a second into the future, allowing you to better aim blows against your opponent" - this in no way states that your power deals damage. so it cannot be part of the reduced factors. All in all, Sauros wording puts the feat somewhere it was never supposed to be - helping against all psionic effects somehow related to weapon damage. The feat wants to help against direct attacks, either on your hitpoints, or your abilities. that's all it does and all it ever should do.
lonewolf 11-15-07, 07:39 AM	@WB: while I am completely indifferent to the outcome of this debate, Id like to say that your argument here only says how you think this feat was intended to work(=>RAI). Sauro agrees with you there. Where you two dont agree is how this feat should work as it is written at the moment(=>RAW). As I said, I dont care either way, but I´d also like this issue to be resolved.
Stormwind 11-15-07, 08:02 AM	My 2c worth ... As things stand now, it seems that this is a decision of RAI vs RAW. It seems that 'everyone' who has weighed in with an opinion seems to have a consistent view of how this feat should work (RAI). Thus, unless someone has something new to add to the discussion, let's leave the elders to it so that they can come to a decision regarding how it will be handled in the CoCo. (Hopefully this will give a decision quicker than if the discussion continues) ;)
McJarvis 11-15-07, 08:10 AM	@erithmu: that's exactly what mcjs point was. (though he didnt state that explicitly) For what it's worth- I really wasn't trying to make a point. I think both options are reasonable ways to go. I would like it clarified whether the power needs to actually add damage, or whether increasing the damage die size is enough. (and whether things like the +str from expansion and animal affinity "count" in this regard)
Erithmu 11-15-07, 08:42 AM	Mental Resistance Elder Votes: Macbrea's #2: Rith/Telin Sauro's #1: Sauro Vath, Mac?
Macbrea 11-15-07, 02:30 PM	Oh, sorry.. #2 I am of the opinion that the feat (because the text in the expanded handbook specifically mentions Mind Thrust) it is intended to work against things like Mind thrust. Which Sauro's would not. The intent of the feat is to provide 3 hardness against psionic powers and psi-like powers.
Vathelokai 11-16-07, 12:08 AM	As I mentioned earlier, I'm with the majority.
McJarvis 11-16-07, 08:21 AM	For those of you who were interested in Complete Psionic's rules on damage reduction. Any damage-dealing metacreativity power that specifies piercing, slashing, or bludgeoning damage does not automatically overcome a creature's damage reduction. Such powers include crystal shard, hail of crystals, and swarm of crystals. You might even be able to infer this from the rules on DR, since metacreativity powers essentially create things and then the things are no longer part of a spell/power. [so long as the duration is instantaneous] Furthermore: this would make even MORE sense with mental resistance, since being mentally resistant shouldn't stop a physical crystal from entering your flesh.
hogarth 11-16-07, 02:00 PM	With regards to this rule: Borders: Characters may not move off the edges of the map by any means, nor may they be moved off of them involuntarily. This is solely to make the pitlords' job managable. Any attempt to move anyone off the map will simply be ignored by the pitlord. Which of the following are now prohibited? (Great) Dislocater weapons Plane Shift Etherealness (including Blink) Rope Trick Astral Caravan Shadow Walk Dream Travel (I assume that all of them are banned except for Etherealness/Blink/Rope Trick, but I'd like to make sure.)
McJarvis 11-16-07, 02:02 PM	Prescience, Offensive has gone too long without a house-rule, it seems. Your awareness extends a fraction of a second into the future, allowing you to better aim blows against your opponent. You gain a +2 insight bonus on your damage rolls. The bonus to the damage rolls is not specified- but the flavor text seems to imply that it either applies only to melee attack rolls or only to attack rolls in general. In the past we have allowed this damage to apply to things like magic missile and opposed grapple checks- but my use of it with Marius to augment egowhip is getting the nerf stick apparently. :-) Things to be discussed: Does it work on opposed checks? (like grappling) Does it work on spells without attack rolls? (like magic missile/ego whip/energy missile/fireball) Does it work on spells that are not "landed blows" (Like disintegrate, scorching ray, etc) Does it work multiple times for spells that create multiple effects? (like scorching ray) Does it work on ranged attacks like bows? (It says it lets you "land blows" more effectively- this might only mean melee.) If Ego Whip is the kind of thing we want to nerf- does it only apply to hp damage? [least change route] And anything else you might be able to think up. Personally I'd be all for limiting it to melee attack rolls only.
Erithmu 11-16-07, 02:06 PM	With regards to this rule: Which of the following are now prohibited? (Great) Dislocater weapons Plane Shift Etherealness (including Blink) Rope Trick Astral Caravan Shadow Walk Dream Travel (I assume that all of them are banned except for Etherealness/Blinking/Rope Trick, but I'd like to make sure.)I believe that this was intended in a physical sense, mostly on the outdoor maps (city/plains/forest) where you can't move off the side of the map via bull rush or slide off a building. I think all the listed things above are still valid tools.
whitebaron 11-16-07, 02:11 PM	the flavor text suggests an attack roll. as blow also can mean an impact, or just a hit, it's not necessarily melee - this would have to be ruled. note that disintegrate and scorching ray have different targeting methods (sr: ray, disintegrate: auto hit) in general, i'd say the flavor text is written for the power to work on any attack rolls, so any weapon attack and any ray. imo it should be done like every precision based damage - so you get it in the first shot if you do things like manyshot, but on every damage if their attack rolls are not connected. you can only use that boost once in a scorching ray, for example.
templer10 11-16-07, 02:14 PM	note that disintegrate and scorching ray have different targeting methods (sr: ray, disintegrate: auto hit) distinigrate is a ranged touch spell/power also. About prescience - i think it can/should affect any power/spell/ranged/melee/whatever thing that cause HP damage, no ability damage/drain etc.
TelinArtho 11-16-07, 02:17 PM	Prescience, Offensive has gone too long without a house-rule, it seems. The bonus to the damage rolls is not specified- but the flavor text seems to imply that it either applies only to melee attack rolls or only to attack rolls in general. In the past we have allowed this damage to apply to things like magic missile and opposed grapple checks- but my use of it with Marius to augment egowhip is getting the nerf stick apparently. :-) Things to be discussed: Does it work on opposed checks? (like grappling) Does it work on spells without attack rolls? (like magic missile/ego whip/energy missile/fireball) Does it work on spells that are not "landed blows" (Like disintegrate, scorching ray, etc) Does it work multiple times for spells that create multiple effects? (like scorching ray) Does it work on ranged attacks like bows? (It says it lets you "land blows" more effectively- this might only mean melee.) If Ego Whip is the kind of thing we want to nerf- does it only apply to hp damage? [least change route] And anything else you might be able to think up. Personally I'd be all for limiting it to melee attack rolls only. I'd like to see an example of where PBS or Offensive Prescience was added to a damage roll like Magic Missile (or some other non-attack roll effect). I've been here for a long time - and I don't remember this ever being applied. I believe this has been (correctly, in my opinion) done so far that only on affects that have an attack roll.
McJarvis 11-16-07, 02:20 PM	I'd like to see an example of where PBS or Offensive Prescience was added to a damage roll like Magic Missile (or some other non-attack roll effect). I've been here for a long time - and I don't remember this ever being applied. I believe this has been (correctly, in my opinion) done so far that only on affects that have an attack roll. The fight was a long time ago- but I distinctly remember it since I was pitlording & it was what gave me the idea for egowhip. The gladiator used prescience offensive along with a wand of magic missile- I don't remember more than that. [edit- hmm. I might have been who he was fighting against. I forget *exactly*. I should be asssociated with the fight in *some* way though, if you're going to search] I know that it has been used for grapple checks many times in the past- and that definately isn't an attack roll. [hence why you don't get a bonus to attack/damage from heroism for grappling] I'm surprised you don't remember this. edit- the PBS example is much more of a line to walk than Pres(Off) is. Classifying magic missile as a "ranged weapon" is a bigger leap than classifying magic missile as "having a damage roll"
whitebaron 11-16-07, 02:27 PM	The fight was a long time ago- but I distinctly remember it since I was pitlording & it was what gave me the idea for egowhip. The gladiator used prescience offensive along with a wand of magic missile- I don't remember more than that. I know that it has been used for grapple checks many times in the past- and that definately isn't an attack roll. [hence why you don't get a bonus to attack/damage from heroism for grappling] I'm surprised you don't remember this. i'm not around here long enough to have witnessed those examples you are giving - but clearly this is broken with magic missiles and should have been brought up by the pitlord then. making 1d4+3 per mm is better than empower or maximize spell, and uses up 1pp compared to a feat and additional spell levels. as for grapple: melee damage is not that much of an issue - most of the time, the one starting a grapple is superior anyway, and would win just a few rounds later. still, i believe this way to do it as erroneus.
hogarth 11-16-07, 02:28 PM	The fight was a long time ago- but I distinctly remember it since I was pitlording & it was what gave me the idea for egowhip. The gladiator used prescience offensive along with a wand of magic missile- I don't remember more than that. I agree with McJarvis -- I believe I remember someone trying it in a fight as well. I certainly remember someone intending to use it; it gave me the idea of a mounted ghost character using Spirited Charge, Offensive Prescience and other damage boosters on his Draining Touch attack.
McJarvis 11-16-07, 02:29 PM	as for grapple: melee damage is not that much of an issue - most of the time, the one starting a grapple is superior anyway, and would win just a few rounds later. still, i believe this way to do it as erroneus. As do I. I'd rather we cover all our bases now- regardless of whether those strategies are "good" or not. edit- it gave me the idea of a mounted ghost character using Spirited Charge, Offensive Prescience and other damage boosters on his Draining Touch attack. This is a good example of needing to restrict it to hp damage ;)
TelinArtho 11-16-07, 02:32 PM	Okay then - do you know if this was an actual fight (in which case I can do some searching on it)? or if it was in an obscure FotW thread (in which case - you go have fun searching the archives...)? Any time I have seen questions about adding damage (sneak attack, PBS, etc) it has always come back as "needs an attack roll." I specifically don't remember anyone coming back with a different reply.
McJarvis 11-16-07, 02:36 PM	Okay then - do you know if this was an actual fight (in which case I can do some searching on it)? or if it was in an obscure FotW thread (in which case - you go have fun searching the archives...)? Any time I have seen questions about adding damage (sneak attack, PBS, etc) it has always come back as "needs an attack roll." I specifically don't remember anyone coming back with a different reply. I'm pretty sure it was a fight- but I don't think it's relevent to the conversation. As stated(in an edit I just added)- it's a much bigger leap to classify magic missile as a "ranged weapon" than it is to classify magic missile as "having a damage roll". That's why offensive prescience is so powerful. [It is ill-defined] Also note that grapple checks don't have attack rolls- and no one has objected to them being used with offensive prescience[which probably gave the MM user the idea] edit-> The search isn't really important, though. There is no fight that hangs in the balance waiting on this ruling(I lost regardless of offensive prescience), so we just need a ruling now. I'd rather not face off against some incorporeal psion creature that uses offensive prescience to increase ability drain. [bleh]
whitebaron 11-16-07, 02:38 PM	actually, magic missile has X damage rolls. if you define prescience to be a precision based damage, you could not use it with magic missile. if you don't you get the additional damage on each missile, and each ray, as they do seperate damage-rolls.
McJarvis 11-16-07, 02:39 PM	actually, magic missile has X damage rolls. if you define prescience to be a precision based damage, you could not use it with magic missile. if you don't you get the additional damage on each missile, and each ray, as they do seperate damage-rolls. That's if you define it as such. It isn't- it is just an insight bonus to damage. [unless that's the definition of precision damage] edit- I guess all I have to contribute here is the following- At the very least I want it to apply only to things with attack rolls, and apply only to hp damage. [and yeah wb- I'm asserting what I want in this case :P ;) ]
TelinArtho 11-16-07, 02:43 PM	Okay - then if it doesn't matter for a fight - I will certainly agree with that - only on damage rolls that had an attack roll - and only lethal/nonlethal hp damage.
hogarth 11-16-07, 02:48 PM	I believe that this was intended in a physical sense, mostly on the outdoor maps (city/plains/forest) where you can't move off the side of the map via bull rush or slide off a building. I think all the listed things above are still valid tools. In the interest of full disclosure, here's the combo I was thinking of: Use Psionic Contingency to manifest Astral Caravan as soon as the match begins. Once on the Astral Plane, buff quickly (since all spells are automatically quickened -- I assume this applies to powers, too) without worrying about alpha-strikers interrupting me. Use Psionic Plane Shift to return to the Material Plane. Use Psionic Teleport to return to the arena at the place of my choosing. Did you hear that, everybody? An Elder approved my idea, so if I use it in the future, no grumbling!! Speak now, or forever hold your peace!! (I've been burned a few times in the past.) :P
whitebaron 11-16-07, 02:54 PM	well, i hardly believe that pp expense is worth it. after all, you're mixing lots of lvl 4-6 stuff here. still, you are allowed 10 rounds outside the map - as long as things like rope trick stay valid, there should not be any arguments about this. after all, it costs you like ten times the spell levels. ;)
Eamane 11-16-07, 03:23 PM	actually, magic missile has X damage rolls. if you define prescience to be a precision based damage, you could not use it with magic missile. if you don't you get the additional damage on each missile, and each ray, as they do seperate damage-rolls. The problem with precision based damage (as this is now a defined term in the Rules Compendium) is that by default it only works within 30', cannot affect things that arn't vulnerable to critical hits, is negated by concealment, etc, etc. This would be a massive nerf that affects alot more than just ego whip. So to go through them one by one.. * Does it work on opposed checks? (like grappling) The power is intended to increase the damage of your attacks. Intention wise, there is no reason why it shouldn't work while grappling. This may be a casualty depending on how it is fixed however. * Does it work on spells without attack rolls? (like magic missile/ego whip/energy missile/fireball) Things without attacks rolls are generally fire and forget mechanisms; once you tell them what to do, they do it with no further guidance on your part. This is why you cannot sneak attack/apply precision damage with them. This should also extended to this power, so No. * Does it work on spells that are not "landed blows" (Like disintegrate, scorching ray, etc) Eh. Flavor suggests that it might not, but I don't have a problem with it doing so. Yes. * Does it work multiple times for spells that create multiple effects? (like scorching ray) As long as each effect meets the criteria of the final fix, no reason why not. * Does it work on ranged attacks like bows? (It says it lets you "land blows" more effectively- this might only mean melee.) A blow can be landed with an arrow, even if it isn't the first thing you think of. * If Ego Whip is the kind of thing we want to nerf- does it only apply to hp damage? [least change route] Ego Whip and other 'fire and forget' effects, yeah. Then again, alot of people have chimed in that the 'hp damage' is more important that 'require attack roll'. Suggestions 1. Prescience, Offensive only works with attacks that deal HP damage. 2. Prescience, Offensive only works with attacks that deal HP damage; the extra damage is insight hp damage in nature rather than the same as the attack. (This is included only to contrast to a latter option) 3. Prescience, Offensive works with anything. 4. Prescience, Offensive works with anything. The extra damage is insight hp damage in nature rather than the same as the attack. 5. Prescience, Offensive is precision based insight damage, with all the attendant side effects, interacting with spells/etc just as Sneak Attack does. (Has many side effects) 6. Prescience, Offensive only works with melee attacks. 7. Prescience, Offensive only works with melee attacks and the extra damage is insight hp damage in nature rather than the same as the attack. 8. Prescience, Offensive works with anything that requires an attack roll. 9. Prescience, Offensive works with anything that requires an attack roll and does hp damage. 10. Other or combination of above. (Like 5 & 7) Current Elder Votes TelinArtho: 9 Vathelokai: 9 SauroGenom: 9 Community Thoughts whitebaron - Make it precision based. 8 or 6 templer10 - Make it hp damage only McJarvis - Should require an attack roll, and only do hp damage. Eamane - Anything other than precision based. Conclusion: Prescience, Offensive works with anything that requires an attack roll and does hp damage.
McJarvis 11-16-07, 03:33 PM	(I've been burned a few times in the past.) :P I'm pretty sure it doesn't work like that. The moment one of your characters gets powerful, we figure out a way to nerf it. That's in the rules thread somewhere, I'm sure.
whitebaron 11-16-07, 03:46 PM	actually, i'd be for 8 first, and 6 after. as for the ego whip, i can see another RAW option, really stupid from me to have overseen that at first: you can e.g. sneak attack a ray of enfeeblement or enervation. does this additional "damage" deal additional str-penalty or level losses? answer: no. so if you want to do ego whip and prescience, its fine since it would deal 1d4 cha + 2 hp-damage.
McJarvis 11-16-07, 04:01 PM	you can e.g. sneak attack a ray of enfeeblement That's because ray of enfeeblement doesn't do damage. It hands out a penalty- big difference. I'm pretty sure you can't SA with it. Also- negative levels are aquired- not a matter of "damage".
whitebaron 11-16-07, 04:06 PM	Any spell that requires an attack roll and deals damage can be used in a sneak attack. In this case "damage" is normal damage, nonlethal damage, ability damage, or energy drain. You can sneak attack with a Melf's acid arrow spell, but not with a magic missile spell. Ranged spells are effective as sneak attacks only at ranges of 30 feet or less (just like any other ranged sneak attack). [...] For example, a 10th-level rogue who makes a successful sneak attack with an enervation spell deals 1d4 negative levels plus an extra 5d6 points of negative energy damage. you're right on this, but it is only defeated by the wording of RoE. all other effects though are specifically mentioned.
McJarvis 11-16-07, 04:08 PM	you're right on this, but it is only defeated by the wording of RoE. all other effects though are specifically mentioned. Right- but that's SA. You'd have to change the RAW to allow offensive prescience work with energy drain in the first place. (and even further to say that all extra damage effects work like SA) I'd rather just errata offensive prescience and be done with it.
hogarth 11-16-07, 04:18 PM	I'm pretty sure it doesn't work like that. The moment one of your characters gets powerful, we figure out a way to nerf it. That's in the rules thread somewhere, I'm sure. I don't have a problem with nerfing things per se, but what I don't like is when I propose an idea well in advance, don't hear any negative comments, I assume it's O.K. with everyone, and then I hear a chorus of complaints later when I try to use it
McJarvis 11-16-07, 04:21 PM	I don't have a problem with nerfing things per se, but what I don't like is when I propose an idea well in advance, don't hear any negative comments, I assume it's O.K. with everyone, and then I hear a chorus of complaints later when I try to use it That's the way it is for everyone. The off:prescense thing wasn't touched until I used it with egowhip: and then it became an issue. The whole reason I used it _now_ [when I had other strategies that would have worked just as well] was that I wanted to get it out there before I needed it in a fight. And now I'm debating on whether I really want off pres. [since marius isn't much of a ray user]
Erithmu 11-16-07, 05:35 PM	@hogarth: yea ... you can do that, but thats a pretty hefty investment of pp into a fight ... 11pp Conting 5pp Caravan 9pp Plane Shift 9pp Teleport (15 for Greater to remove 3% error) So ... what ... 33pp to buff safely. Longshot at ECL 12 has 58 per fight. so unless you want to use it later go for it. I pack dispels in larger quantities. yea ... just don't forget the 10 round limit. Rnd 10: Teleport ... 98:off target. 10 round limit ... lose
Vathelokai 11-16-07, 06:34 PM	@hogarth: I think it rocks. Harvester won lots of fights with the leave and buff strategy. Second, high lv manifesters rarely use more than 2/3 of their pp in a cycle, so why not. @prescience: I'm in the "requires an attack roll and only applies to hp dmg" camp. EDIT: I actually asked in the tavern once about applying off.presc. to turning dmg vs undead (hey, it's 'dmg', right? :) ). I was summarily shot down.
SauroGrenom 11-17-07, 08:01 PM	Eamane, I agree with Telin and Vath on that one. Hogarth, Smart. Very Smart. I see no reason that it wouldn't work... Expensive with respect to pp invested, but it's a safe way to buff.
hogarth 11-19-07, 10:12 AM	In the SRD it says (paraphrasing) that a spellcasting manifested ghost can affect targets on the Material Plane. What about non-targeted spells like Summon Monster or Fireball? EDIT: Another ghostly question -- Suppose a ghost has the Assassinate skill package and he successfully uses Malevolence on his opponent's ally. What starting box would he start in? EDIT 2: Another question -- Magic Jar says that a creature's "natural" and "automatic" abilities are kept. Do enhanced senses like a wolf's Scent or a dire bat's Blindsense count as "natural" or "automatic" abilities? EDIT 3: Three more questions -- Can a ghost prebuff Malevolence on an ally? If a ghost casts some buffs on himself (e.g. Shield, Mage Armor), do those transfer to the host body if he uses Malevolence? In the description for Telekinesis, it says "Alternatively, once per round, you can use telekinesis to perform a bull rush, disarm, grapple (including pin), or trip." I interpret that as saying that, regardless of how many grapple attempts you would normally get due to BAB, flurry of blows, haste, etc., you can only make one grapple/bull rush/disarm/trip attempt with TK each round. Is that correct?
hogarth 11-20-07, 11:01 AM	Can I get an Elder to comment on some of my ghost questions in the previous post? I'd prefer not to try something and then later find out it's illegal.
whitebaron 11-20-07, 12:19 PM	i'll give some basic answers - the specifics will have to be given by an elder. 1) yes, you can do area spells or summoning spells as a manifested ghost. after all, the "target" is an area on the material. 2) natural is everything that is not done via magic but innate - maybe scent should fall under that. this probably means that you can use the ex-attacks, but no su-s and no feats (unsure about EX-Special Qualities though), but the natural weapon proficiencies. 3) as you "merge" with the creature when you use malevolence, the buffs should stay. 4) TK: correct. only one attempt, as the spell specifically says so. you might want to ask lonewolf on that - he should have most expertise here with samuel being around longtime...
lonewolf 11-20-07, 12:26 PM	In the SRD it says (paraphrasing) that a spellcasting manifested ghost can affect targets on the Material Plane. What about non-targeted spells like Summon Monster or Fireball? yes (although for reasons past my understanding it has been ruled that an ethereal bag of tricks produces ethereal animals and is thus useless in the arena) EDIT: Another ghostly question -- Suppose a ghost has the Assassinate skill package and he successfully uses Malevolence on his opponent's ally. What starting box would he start in? No idea about that one. But for the sake of fairness I would say you start in your own box. EDIT 2: Another question -- Magic Jar says that a creature's "natural" and "automatic" abilities are kept. Do enhanced senses like a wolf's Scent or a dire bat's Blindsense count as "natural" or "automatic" abilities? I agree with WB on that one. EDIT 3: Three more questions -- Can a ghost prebuff Malevolence on an ally? I have always assumed so, but never actually tried it. If a ghost casts some buffs on himself (e.g. Shield, Mage Armor), do those transfer to the host body if he uses Malevolence? I would say yes, but this has been ruled both ways by different pitlords and I didnt care enough to argue this one out. In the description for Telekinesis, it says "Alternatively, once per round, you can use telekinesis to perform a bull rush, disarm, grapple (including pin), or trip." I interpret that as saying that, regardless of how many grapple attempts you would normally get due to BAB, flurry of blows, haste, etc., you can only make one grapple/bull rush/disarm/trip attempt with TK each round. Is that correct? yes
lonewolf 11-20-07, 02:02 PM	I need an elder decision about the issue if a person disappears with its equipment from a fight after beeing defeated. A lengthy discussion about this is in this weeks FotW thread. Elder input so far: Well, I know for certain using someone else's equipment has been done before - but in those cases it was the only wand that the person had. I believe the discussion was that you don't know exactly which wand it is without more information (watching the person using it on you for instance). I wouldn't make teammates disappear as they are killed off - but I would remove their allies (and likewise - their allies' equipment). Erithmu is the pitlord and wants additional opinions before making his decision.
templer10 11-20-07, 02:07 PM	it was ruled in a simliar fashion as telin noted once before see my post here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14382980&postcount=213) listining the previos time.
lonewolf 11-20-07, 02:15 PM	it was ruled in a simliar fashion as telin noted once before see my post here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14382980&postcount=213) listining the previos time. And as I said before this ruling concerns allies not equipment. And if you read what I quoted from Telin up there you will see that he is saying that allies should be removed while PCs (and thus their equipment) shouldnt.
SauroGrenom 11-20-07, 08:58 PM	Lonewolf, I need a bit more context. I'm kind of guessing that your situation is that it's a multiperson fight, and someone has equipment from their ally or opponents and the fight continues after the "owner" is dead. If that's the situation, then CoCo rules are wonky. Allies are definitely gone as soon as the character's dead. I'd say that everything "owned" by the dead character is also gone. Basically as soon as the character dies, all things listed on their sheet are removed from the battle.
hogarth 11-20-07, 10:54 PM	Lonewolf, I need a bit more context. I'm kind of guessing that your situation is that it's a multiperson fight, and someone has equipment from their ally or opponents and the fight continues after the "owner" is dead. If that's the situation, then CoCo rules are wonky. Allies are definitely gone as soon as the character's dead. I'd say that everything "owned" by the dead character is also gone. Basically as soon as the character dies, all things listed on their sheet are removed from the battle. Specifically, the question is about Teams (a relatively new addition to the Core Coliseum) -- if one team member is dead but the other is still alive, does the dead team member's equipment disappear? The rules are clear about allies, but not necessarily equipment. I'm agnostic on this question.
whitebaron 11-21-07, 04:21 AM	clarifications needed: - dead/removed in a team/ffa battle opposed to a normal battle. all your npcs are removed when your pc dies. this has to be true for all battles, and is already stated within the rules. 1 the rules don't state what happens to your or your dead npc allies equipment.2 - i checked, and its not ruled yet. teams are different.3 1: the rules also state that you can lend your npc ally to your team-mate. thus it should even be able to stay then. - rules gap? 2: in an RP way, it is reasonable to assume that the ally just walks off the arena safely. so he takes his stuff with him. what happens to the dead body of the pc though, is not defined. There is no clear statement that the body leaves the arena! note that e.g. Varjo from Stormwind used dead bodies to make shadowspawns. this can not be possible if it it is removed the instant it dies. 3: teams already have some different rules handling than e.g. interleague. they always start in the same square, they know beforehand that they will be paired together, and thus their interaction and synergies are set up differently than those of randomly matched teams. so it would not be very much off to assume that the equipment stays as long as one team member stays. as much as i'd dislike it as a player when my stuff is used by another, i would find it fair, and in an rp-way, logical that it should be possible. As the killed characters effects and spells stay in place when he is defeated, so should be his corpse and his equipment. the same is true for already dead allies. the way i see the arena, is that you get ressurected later, AFTER the fight is over. some imps clean up the arena for the next fight, drag the corpses out to the altar of true ress, and there you are, ready for the next fight. i got an example where removing all belongings would be quite unfair: player a has a cohort, and since he's a spellcaster, has some potent magic items. he wants his ally (with umd or similar) to use them as he has some big-bang spells left to be used before. therefore, he gives his most valuable asset to his npc. the npc is assassinated, and therefore he and all his equipment are removed, leaving the player without his backup force. is this fair? hardly so. i suggest: let all corpses and their respective equipment stay on the battle ground. declare the allies of defeated pcs as non-combattants, and treat lended allies as belonging to the player they were lent to. (so if a lends b his horse, and b is dead, that horse is gone too.)
SauroGrenom 11-21-07, 12:38 PM	Specifically, the question is about Teams (a relatively new addition to the Core Coliseum) -- if one team member is dead but the other is still alive, does the dead team member's equipment disappear? The rules are clear about allies, but not necessarily equipment. I'm agnostic on this question.It's not clearly described in the rules about teams. The stance that looks to be most appropriate with respect to teams is that the entire team is considered a single character in the battle. They occupy a single place in the roster and such for pairings. So the assets of the team should be considered as a whole, and that whole doesn't "die" till the both members of the team are down. That's what looks to be most reasonable with the amount of thought I've given it so far.
MindWandererB 11-23-07, 02:03 AM	It's not clearly described in the rules about teams. The stance that looks to be most appropriate with respect to teams is that the entire team is considered a single character in the battle. They occupy a single place in the roster and such for pairings. So the assets of the team should be considered as a whole, and that whole doesn't "die" till the both members of the team are down. That's what looks to be most reasonable with the amount of thought I've given it so far. I agree with this interpretation. In general: I don't know of any cases where a defeated character's gear was used, after we revised the definition of "defeated." I think that as it stands, a character's gear should vanish, just like their allies. Of more uncertainty: should a character's ongoing spells on the arena or an opponent end when that character is defeated? We've been playing it as "no," but there's an argument in favor of it. Re: O. Precog: while I'm fine with the "attack roll and HP damage" ruling, there's one more possibility, also based on the way sneak attack works: the attack must require an attack roll and do some kind of damage; the bonus damage is HP damage regardless of whether the base damage was. A sneak attack with a ghost's draining touch deals 1d4 ability damage +Xd6 negative energy damage, IIRC; Offensive Precog could work the same way.
Stormwind 11-23-07, 04:04 AM	<snip> Re: O. Precog: while I'm fine with the "attack roll and HP damage" ruling, there's one more possibility, also based on the way sneak attack works: the attack must require an attack roll and do some kind of damage; the bonus damage is HP damage regardless of whether the base damage was. A sneak attack with a ghost's draining touch deals 1d4 ability damage +Xd6 negative energy damage, IIRC; Offensive Precog could work the same way. This seems a good interpretation of RAW. I faced a similar question when considering various class/level progressions with Varjo and what I came up with based on my interpretation of RAW is as follows: Any 'added damage' such as sneak attack damage etc, is HP damage regardless of the base damage type. Any 'multiplied damage' (damage that is multiplied on a critical) such as +strength modifier damage, is the same type of damage as the base damage type. Your mileage of the two points above might vary, especially as it is not always clear if the damage is 'added' or 'multiplied' damage. However in such cases, I would simply suggest to consider everything as 'added damage' by default, and only 'multiplied damage' if specified or ruled otherwise.
mucki 11-23-07, 06:59 AM	I agree with this interpretation. In general: I don't know of any cases where a defeated character's gear was used, after we revised the definition of "defeated." I think that as it stands, a character's gear should vanish, just like their allies. Of more uncertainty: should a character's ongoing spells on the arena or an opponent end when that character is defeated? We've been playing it as "no," but there's an argument in favor of it. I think we all agree that once a character is defeated, he himself (the body) his gear and his allies (basically everything he brought into the arena, but not what he created inside (like spell effects)) should vanish. There might be discussion about what happens to buffs/spell effects, but i think thats not important to our discussion at hand. What is really important I think is: Are teams a single indivisible unit (ie: they can only be both defeaeted, or both not defeated, but not any mixed status) or can a single player in a team be deafeated and therefore vanish before the rest of the team does. In that point I did not understand the intention of your post (are you in favor or against this?). Perhaps you could clarify that ?
lonewolf 11-23-07, 08:59 AM	I think we all agree that once a character is defeated, he himself (the body) his gear and his allies (basically everything he brought into the arena, but not what he created inside (like spell effects)) should vanish. Actually we dont. I agree that allies should vanish, but I see no reason why defeated gladiators and their equipment should vanish. That ruling would also suggest that Varjo cannot use shadow spawns of defeated enemies in a FFA since the enemies vanish as soon as they are defeated. If someone can bring a good argument WHY defeated characters should vanish, I will think about it, but until now everyone who thought that they should vanish only said that the current rules say they do(an interpretation I do not agree with).
whitebaron 11-23-07, 09:13 AM	@mucki: both mwb and sauro think that teams can only be called defeated if the whole unit is done for. on this i have to say the following: if this is true for teams and their equipment, it is automatically true for interleague fights, and should be true for cohorts and their equip. they are removed only when their master/partner is defeated, everything else would cause to much confusion. on the buff-thing: if buffs and debuffs stay, i don't see the reasoning why the body and the equip of a defeated player should not stay. if it is removed via "the lvl 40 epic wizards standing around and watching", then the (de)buffs should be dispelled, too.
mucki 11-23-07, 09:34 AM	Actually we dont. I agree that allies should vanish, but I see no reason why defeated gladiators and their equipment should vanish. That ruling would also suggest that Varjo cannot use shadow spawns of defeated enemies in a FFA since the enemies vanish as soon as they are defeated. If someone can bring a good argument WHY defeated characters should vanish, I will think about it, but until now everyone who thought that they should vanish only said that the current rules say they do(an interpretation I do not agree with). Hmm, I see your point. But the point about being able to use a defeated players equipment could equally well be made about the equipemnt of a defeated players ally. From what I understood the allies only vanish so they cannot win the fight for you. There would be another possibility to solve this without having anyone vanish: "You cannot win a fight when you are defeated". Sounds stupid at first, but actually it would mean: in a 1on1 if the player goes down, he is defeated and the allies cannot change it, so the fight might as well be called "over" (and therefore the question of what vanishes or not is irrelevant). In fights with more than 2 sides, a defeated player cannot win anymore, but there is no need to make anything vanish. His allies would become more or less "environmental hazards". In a team if only a single player is down, nothing changes because the team would not be defeated yet.
whitebaron 11-23-07, 09:43 AM	In fights with more than 2 sides, a defeated player cannot win anymore, but there is no need to make anything vanish. His allies would become more or less "environmental hazards". his allies could die, and therefore be lost for the rest of his 3FC. this would be highly unfair. so they have to be removed.
mucki 11-23-07, 10:17 AM	his allies could die, and therefore be lost for the rest of his 3FC. this would be highly unfair. so they have to be removed. Well, you can declare them as non-combatant even before you die right now, so this should not be a problem. A player could just add a line to his tactics stating that his allies are non-combatants and flee when he is defeated if he wants this.
whitebaron 11-23-07, 10:21 AM	Well, you can declare them as non-combatant even before you die right now, so this should not be a problem. A player could just add a line to his tactics stating that his allies are non-combatants and flee when he is defeated if he wants this. to what ends? so that any ally that is not specifically noted like this, uses up expendables on a lost fight, changes outcomes for others, and might die, just because the player figured it was obvious? i'd rather have a rule disallowing allies to stay. their equip can be gone, they leave the arena unharmed. no big deal. if you want the equip of a defeated players ally, you'd have to kill that ally, first.
mucki 11-23-07, 11:02 AM	The only reason is that it gives rules with less exceptions. IME extending rules to add "convenience" is usually a bad idea in the long run. Mostly because people forget which part of the rules was the convenience and which was the balancing issue when it is time to adapt the rule to new things. Anyway, its just my opinion, and since pretty much everyone would add an appropriate line to their default tactics the issue is one of personal preference only. So I guess its moot to discuss it.
Stormwind 11-23-07, 01:22 PM	Actually we dont. I agree that allies should vanish, but I see no reason why defeated gladiators and their equipment should vanish. That ruling would also suggest that Varjo cannot use shadow spawns of defeated enemies in a FFA since the enemies vanish as soon as they are defeated. If someone can bring a good argument WHY defeated characters should vanish, I will think about it, but until now everyone who thought that they should vanish only said that the current rules say they do(an interpretation I do not agree with).Actually there is currently precedent with Varjo that humanoid enemies or player character allies that are killed by her or her spawn do become shadow spawn in multiplayer fights (see her first 2 fights). Since this would also affect vampire characters and any other characters which create spawn, I believe this would be an unnecessary nerf of such characters abilities. I could also argue further that the create spawn abilities of such creatures is a part of the reason for their CR (and +LA), and hence nerfing such an ability is an unfair penalty to those characters. In the case of characters with the create spawn ability, it should be considered that from the moment of death (of a character killed by another character with the create spawn ability), a corpse is no longer the character (and thus shouldn't vanish), but rather is a supernatural effect that after 1d4 rounds will 'summon' a spawn of the creature. Storm
whitebaron 11-23-07, 01:27 PM	@mucki: i don't see how you get less exceptions by letting the allies stand on the field, but removing the corpses of their masters? @stormwind: i'm with you that corpses should not be removed. but they should entirely not be removed. i see no real reason to do this but pitlording time. on the other hand: a ffa-pitlord has bad cards to finish within 2 hours anyway.
mucki 11-23-07, 02:25 PM	I think that is a misunderstanding. What I meant to say was that if you make the rule "A defeated player cannot win" then you do not have to remove anything at all until the fight is over.
whitebaron 11-23-07, 02:34 PM	I think that is a misunderstanding. What I meant to say was that if you make the rule "A defeated player cannot win" then you do not have to remove anything at all until the fight is over. well, make it: "A defeated player cannot win, and all his remaining allies leave the arena."
mucki 11-23-07, 03:01 PM	Well, that is truly redundant. Without allies you cannot do anything while defeated, including winning. But as I said above already, the thing about allies is merely preference so I won't pursue this any further. It was just a random idea anyway.
Eamane 11-23-07, 04:20 PM	Well, that is truly redundant. Without allies you cannot do anything while defeated, including winning. But as I said above already, the thing about allies is merely preference so I won't pursue this any further. It was just a random idea anyway. Well. There is Delayed Blast Fireball. And area affects that persist and do something every turn, like the various offensive Cloud spells. There are more than just allies that can cause victory after defeat.
lonewolf 11-23-07, 04:36 PM	@Stormwind: I think you misunderstood me: I agree that enemies should stay in the arena after beeing defeated; I just wanted those who think otherwise to see what other effects that rule would have that they may not have noticed so far.
mucki 11-26-07, 04:54 AM	Well. There is Delayed Blast Fireball. And area affects that persist and do something every turn, like the various offensive Cloud spells. There are more than just allies that can cause victory after defeat. Hmm. I hadn't thought of that. But on rereading the rules I found this: Defeat: For all battle types, a character is considered defeated when it reaches a[n irreversible] state in which the character can in no possible way harm its opponent Does a player who has poison ticking on an opponent or how has a delayed blast fireball running actually count as defeated ?
Hirumajoe 11-27-07, 02:28 PM	@Mucki: He probably doesn't count as defeated if he still has a way of damaging his opponent. He's not dead at -1 to -10 for example, just unconscious and losing hit points. If he has a poison which does enough con damage on a secondary save, then its quite possible his opponent would die before him. @All: New dumb question. Can a character with the conditions for Hide in Plain Sight satisfied (natural terrain for a ranger, shadows for a Shadow dancer, etc) make a full attack action and make a check at -20 to remain hiding through and after the attack? (or even to start hiding)? If not, does this imply improved invisible characters (such as high level wizards or pixies) are auto-pinpointed when they full attack (and also just plain old ranged attack without sniping?). Or cast a spell? Mostly, I've been noticing the similarities between the effects of Hide in Plain Sight and Invisibility. (Hide in Plain Sight effectively being invisibility while its conditions are met, just without the innate +20 bonus to hide and the fact that you still have 50% concealment even when pinpointed). Edit: While we're at it, can I get a clarification on the more basic attack standard action then take a move action while hiding with HIPS? Does the hide check occuring during the move action, after the attack action, suffer a -20 penalty? Thanks.
hogarth 11-27-07, 02:49 PM	Suppose Mr. X taps a crawling tattoo and sends it after Ms. Y, but Ms. Y destroys it before it can discharge its power. Does Mr. X get the crawling tattoo back after the battle is over?
Macbrea 11-27-07, 03:17 PM	No.. as tapping the tattoo only creates a fine construct with an attack power. What happens to the summoned creature after it has been activated has nothing to do with using the object as intended.
whitebaron 12-02-07, 05:11 PM	Question on Touch Attack spells and holding the charge, specifically Shocking Grasp: Ssassetar the lizardman casts shocking grasp on his main claw, and then full attacks. Does he get the +3 when attacking normally, and why? Holding the Charge: If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the discharge of the spell (hold the charge) indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. (If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack.) If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge. Your successful melee touch attack deals 1d6 points of electricity damage per caster level (maximum 5d6). When delivering the jolt, you gain a +3 bonus on attack rolls if the opponent is wearing metal armor (or made out of metal, carrying a lot of metal, or the like). the wording of the first paragraph leans towards: no, as it is a normal attack.
Erithmu 12-02-07, 05:27 PM	I would agree that it is a normal attack with no bonus. It says when your delivering the shocking grasp charge. Now if he is making the full attack and he wants to do the first claw as a touch attack then give him the +3, but if your making a natural attack with intent to deliver the Shocking Grasp with a hit then I would say it is a normal attack, with the Shocking Grasp just being extra damage that is added on for a successful hit. ie: I agree with wb.
hogarth 12-02-07, 06:42 PM	Question on Touch Attack spells and holding the charge, specifically Shocking Grasp: Ssassetar the lizardman casts shocking grasp on his main claw, and then full attacks. Here's my question: as far as I know, the rules don't say anything about casting a touch spell and holding it on a specific hand/foot/whatever. But it says: "If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges." To me, that means touching anyone with anything (left claw, right claw, bite, whatever).
whitebaron 12-02-07, 07:00 PM	Here's my question: as far as I know, the rules don't say anything about casting a touch spell and holding it on a specific hand/foot/whatever. But it says: "If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges." To me, that means touching anyone with anything (left claw, right claw, bite, whatever). right. this even more leans to the conclusion, that you DON'T get the bonus. but i think you're right on that it discharges with the first hit.
Abyssal Stalker 12-03-07, 01:45 PM	right. this even more leans to the conclusion, that you DON'T get the bonus. but i think you're right on that it discharges with the first hit. Unless that's a touch to initiate a grapple... :P
whitebaron 12-03-07, 02:23 PM	Unless that's a touch to initiate a grapple... :P well, definitely not. ;)
whitebaron 12-05-07, 03:30 AM	I think i just found something, that needs a ruling: if you activate a magic item like bag of tricks, bronze griffon etc, or use two standard actions on different turns to cast summon monster/natures ally, how much actions does the summoned monster get? My reasoning is: It acts on your initiative. As your initiative is already halfway done, it cannot get a full-round action. What's debatable: If it gets a Standard or a Move action. I'd say the former, as you have 2 equivalent actions each turn and the srd doesn't state one is taking longer than the other. Consequences if you do it differently: first attack on horseback, then have the horse move full-speed away. char move into flanking position, then summoned ally full attacks - this should not be possible as you act on the exact same initiative.
hogarth 12-05-07, 10:06 AM	If character A has the Leadership feat, can another member of the team bring along some of character A's followers as allies (i.e. character A brings along a cohort and character B brings some followers)? Or can character B bring some of character A's Handle Animal allies? EDIT: Never mind -- I should read the rules first. "You may lend your ally to a team-mate[.]" Duh. :)
Macbrea 12-05-07, 10:10 AM	Each character must enter the arena based on their own skills/feats. You cannot start allowing team mates to bring in the extra slack.
McJarvis 12-05-07, 10:42 AM	Each character must enter the arena based on their own skills/feats. You cannot start allowing team mates to bring in the extra slack. That's not true at all. For instance- you can be wearing armor both crafted and paid for by your teammate.
Macbrea 12-05-07, 11:04 AM	If we start allowing a team to bring in allies of their teammate they will become more broken then they already are. I guess I should have prefessed that with in my opinoin. Leadership allows you to bring an ally 2 ecl lower then you into the arena. Your limited in the amount you can bring into the arena by that fact. To allow another person to then bring an additional set of allies means that a team can bring in double the ECL worth of allies and have two 36pt buy characters in the mix. At the cost of 1 feat.
Erithmu 12-05-07, 11:05 AM	My reading is that you can 'lend' your ally. However, it is still 'your' ally.
lonewolf 12-05-07, 11:07 AM	If we start allowing a team to bring in allies of their teammate they will become more broken then they already are. I guess I should have prefessed that with in my opinoin. Leadership allows you to bring an ally 2 ecl lower then you into the arena. Your limited in the amount you can bring into the arena by that fact. To allow another person to then bring an additional set of allies means that a team can bring in double the ECL worth of allies and have two 36pt buy characters in the mix. At the cost of 1 feat. I agree 100%. This shouldnt be possible.
McJarvis 12-05-07, 11:49 AM	Wait- Mac, you're talking about something entirely different. This is a question of whether the player can bring in allies aquired by his teammate. You seem to be more bothered by the idea of both teammates bringing in a fully-powered ally at ECL-2(really ECL-4). I have no problems with restricting the team to total allies of the team's ECL-2, but that is a different issue. RE: feats: Our current rules allow teammates to use feats to enhance the other teammate- we should address the rules on the whole rather than leadership specifically. If a teammate A can not use leadership allies of teammate B as his own, I would argue that a teammate A should not be able to craft things for Teammate B with teammate B's money.
hogarth 12-05-07, 11:50 AM	My reading is that you can 'lend' your ally. However, it is still 'your' ally. If that's the interpretation, then it seems a bit odd that they need to point it out. Why wouldn't your teammate be able to ride your extra horse? What's next... -"If you drop something, your partner can pick it up." -"If your partner has a cohort, you can make suggestions to the cohort." -"You and your partner are allowed to talk to each other." ;)
whitebaron 12-05-07, 01:27 PM	being a member of a team, i would not allow to share any ressources that would normally alter your CR. on the other hand, i'd just set up a shared gold pool though. @macbrea: teams are not broken. after our few fights, i'd consider them fairly equals to normal participants. less power, double actions. else you'd have to remove any monster teams from the monster fight rosters - and looking at my statistics, multiple opponents make one's live easier, not harder. @mcj: the difference between leadership and crafting : crafting is a bit of money left in the teams ressources. leadership is a big CR push. even if you just bring in lots of sorcerer 1 with magic missiles... leadership is only limited due to the power of the character. it is commonly agreed upon here in the coco that crafting is not a problem for a single char - so it should not be a problem for a team. (as the team has even less gold as the higher level char would get...)
Hirumajoe 12-05-07, 01:37 PM	@macbrea: teams are not broken. after our few fights, i'd consider them fairly equals to normal participants. less power, double actions. (as the team has even less gold as the higher level char would get...) Just a note, I tend to think you'll start to see teams becoming dominating forces in the upper ECLs, say in the 8-14+ range. This is because there starts to be less of a power gap, and the double actions will start to make more impact. Certainly a pair of ECL 10 Wizards is going to be far more dangerous than an ECL 12 Wizard if they play their cards right. Two 10d6 fireballs vs a 12d6? Two save or dies vs One save or die which only kills half the party? Lastly, once you're past about ECL 6 or 7, the team will have more gold than the single player. Just take a look at the starting ECL Xp and Gold table.
Erithmu 12-05-07, 01:44 PM	If that's the interpretation, then it seems a bit odd that they need to point it out. Why wouldn't your teammate be able to ride your extra horse? What's next... -"If you drop something, your partner can pick it up." -"If your partner has a cohort, you can make suggestions to the cohort." -"You and your partner are allowed to talk to each other." ;) Sorry finals week here ... If teammate A brings in a horse, the ally penality is applied to teammate A. While the horse can be ridden by Teammate B, it doesn't change ownership or who the ally belongs to and who's Ally Cap it is applied to. As McJ mentioned over IM to me. 'A use for Thrallherd!' ... ie: no you can't have your 2nd thrall be applied to your teammate's ally cap. I mean this strictly in the 'paperwork' sense, not in terms of a fight. (I hope this makes sense.)
McJarvis 12-05-07, 01:46 PM	it is commonly agreed upon here in the coco that crafting is not a problem for a single char - so it should not be a problem for a team. (as the team has even less gold as the higher level char would get...) This was exactly Mac's point, though. One character should not benefit from the feats/skill points another team member uses. I have no problems with both team members taking the craft feats/skill points- but having a "crafter" member of the team could get really abusive- especially considering hirm's point of teams already having massively more wealth than single players at higher ECL's.
hogarth 12-05-07, 02:11 PM	If teammate A brings in a horse, the ally penality is applied to teammate A. While the horse can be ridden by Teammate B, it doesn't change ownership or who the ally belongs to and who's Ally Cap it is applied to. I understand your interpretation, of course. It just seems obvious to me. Does that mean that if they hadn't explicitly pointed it out, then it wouldn't be allowed? For instance, as far as I know there's no rule that explicitly says "a character can lend an ally to his cohort". Does that mean that a character can't buy a horse for his cohort to ride?
Abyssal Stalker 12-05-07, 02:14 PM	well, definitely not. ;) I'm referring to an old discussion that has turned into a kind of a joke... Start reading from post #434 on this thread and you'll see what I mean... ;)
McJarvis 12-05-07, 02:25 PM	I understand your interpretation, of course. It just seems obvious to me. Does that mean that if they hadn't explicitly pointed it out, then it wouldn't be allowed? For instance, as far as I know there's no rule that explicitly says "a character can lend an ally to his cohort". Does that mean that a character can't buy a horse for his cohort to ride? I'm pretty sure that the "your team starts somewhere in the starting box & you get to decide where they are positioned" covers that. All this discussion is about(apparently) is that there is nothing that allows you to transfer character pocessions to another character for the purposes of ally limits.
Macbrea 12-05-07, 02:53 PM	The problem will come in as follows: ECL 12 league Team mate A Wizard 10 with Feat leadership brings Wizard 8 leadership ally. Team mate B Wizard 10 without leadership brings followers of Team Mate A as his 8 ECL worth of allies into the arena, He chooses eight 1st level wizards. So, you now have a team that consists at ECL 12 league Two 36 point buy Wizard 10 (two 10d6 fireballs) One 25 point buy Wizard 8 (one 8d6 fireball) Eight 25 point buy Wizard 1 (Wands of Magic missile (level 9) 5d4 x 8) vs a Single ECL 12 36 pt buy character with possibly a 25 pt buy ECL 10 ally Anyone think a single leadership feat plus teams might not be broken?
whitebaron 12-05-07, 03:07 PM	This was exactly Mac's point, though. One character should not benefit from the feats/skill points another team member uses. I have no problems with both team members taking the craft feats/skill points- but having a "crafter" member of the team could get really abusive- especially considering hirm's point of teams already having massively more wealth than single players at higher ECL's. about the wealth: teams also use up more ressources, as you don't usually pool your money to get one big item. your argument is really against pooling money, not against crafting. the starting money curve is not well done. maybe it is intentional, but by starting at a higher ecl, you use up far more of your money than you would when you start at ecl3. this gets worse and worse, the further you get. characters risen to any given ecl have more money than characters starting there. examples: Kervan Sheharath (MWB), ECL 11: Has 88000 GP, would have if started @ecl11: 71000 Samuel Highground(lonewolf), ECL13: Has 147000 GP, would have if started @ecl 13: 134000. note that he lost GP when actually getting his template as it eliminated any excess he'd had. Lord Lorian(t10), ECL13: Has 146000 GP, would have if started @ecl 13: 117000 Kracknol(sauro), ECL12: Has 113000 GP, would have if started @ecl 12: 108000. note that he is a very expenditure heavy build. Valen (hirumajoe), ECL 12: Has 115000 GP, would have if started @ecl12: 100000 @macbrea: yes, but the ecl 12 wizard could bring in 10 ecl1 wizards with the same wands. and he could maybe annihilate the other wizard with a spell that you don't have at ECL10: disintegrate. thus all his allies would be removed, too. and after all, you're a wizard. cast shield. the problem is not abusing cohorts. the problem is abusing followers to be more than the random npc. followers were never meant to aid in battle. i myself, use them to get crew for a ship, maintain a castle or do some neat off-story stuff. using them as additional allies is not within the line of the feat anyway.
McJarvis 12-05-07, 03:12 PM	The problem will come in as follows: ECL 12 league Team mate A Wizard 10 with Feat leadership brings Wizard 8 leadership ally. Team mate B Wizard 10 without leadership brings followers of Team Mate A as his 8 ECL worth of allies into the arena, He chooses eight 1st level wizards. So, you now have a team that consists at ECL 12 league Two 36 point buy Wizard 10 (two 10d6 fireballs) One 25 point buy Wizard 8 (one 8d6 fireball) Eight 25 point buy Wizard 1 (Wands of Magic missile (level 9) 5d4 x 8) vs a Single ECL 12 36 pt buy character with possibly a 25 pt buy ECL 10 ally Anyone think a single leadership feat plus teams might not be broken? I don't really see how making each person in the team take leadership makes it significantly better.
whitebaron 12-05-07, 03:16 PM	I don't really see how making each person in the team take leadership makes it significantly better. i don't see how without teams it is significantly better. you can always abuse followers. - see my post above. i think the xp-penalty for cohorts should be more like 5% per ECL/CR you bring into the arena. would be fairer than it is now.
hogarth 12-05-07, 03:18 PM	Macbrea, I agree your example is broken. But you're mixing two things, I think. #1) Leadership allies are broken: a level 12 wizard with a level 10 cohort vs. a level 12 wizard without a cohort is not a fair fight. #2) Teams are broken: two level 10 wizards vs. a level 12 wizard without a cohort is not a fair fight. As Hirumajoe pointed out, in general more actions = more power. That's my experience, anyway.
mucki 12-05-07, 04:17 PM	If you are concerned about teams abusing the CR/ECL cap then you could just state that only the person actually 'owning' a cohort can prebuff it (which i think is what most people would assume to be the case anyway). That way you cannot bring more allies/cohorts into the arena than the owner could without a team. And you can still have them freely controllable by all team members.
hogarth 12-08-07, 03:34 PM	Are aristocrats proficient with tower shields or is this sentence just poorly phrased? The aristocrat is proficient in the use of all simple and martial weapons and with all types of armor and shields.
MindWandererB 12-08-07, 07:06 PM	Are aristocrats proficient with tower shields or is this sentence just poorly phrased? They get tower shields. That's part of "all types of shields."
CrazyArtificer 12-11-07, 11:04 AM	Hello people, I need an advice on smokesticks (don't laugh ;) ) 2) Did you consider concealment from the smokestick? Maybe I'm wrong, but I supposed that once the smokestick is lit it remains a smoke in the area like fog cloud. Given that the arena isn't subject to wind, I supposed it would grant concealment (if staying there). This is just to know if this tactic is doable in the following fights. @2: it would be usable, yes, but i figured in hindsight that as you both cannot see in or out, ill just stick with the previous tactics after the smoke dissipates naturally. the cloud would dissipate naturally in the arena as well, whatever that means in terms of round, i don't know. if you want to know for sure how long it takes for the smoke to dissipate, bring it to the courtroom... I suppose that dissipates naturally means that the smoke stay there for a few minutes at least. IIRC smoke is heavier than air.. isn't it?
TelinArtho 12-11-07, 11:19 AM	Well - the description mentions to treat it as a fog cloud except that a moderate wind would dissipate it in 1 round. As such, since Fog Cloud has a 10 min/level duration, I'd be inclined to say it effectively lasts most battles without aid of wind (ie - absolute minimum is 10 minutes).
CrazyArtificer 12-12-07, 02:10 PM	Well - the description mentions to treat it as a fog cloud except that a moderate wind would dissipate it in 1 round. As such, since Fog Cloud has a 10 min/level duration, I'd be inclined to say it effectively lasts most battles without aid of wind (ie - absolute minimum is 10 minutes). Thanks for the quick answer. Smokesticks seems more cost effective than Fog Cloud scrolls, then.
TelinArtho 12-12-07, 02:14 PM	Yes and no. The area of a smokestick is much smaller, it can't be used at a distance. In reality, the smokestick is much more like a long duration Obscuring Mist with a smaller radius. (5ft radius for a 10ft cube versus a 20ft radius) CL1 Scroll of Obscuring Mist = 25gp Smokestick =20gp. I could agree to a shorter duration than 10 minutes, but it would have to be in line with a definition of how long it takes for something like that to dissipate...
TelinArtho 12-13-07, 03:48 PM	This courtroom thread is now closed. Please move any open discussions to the new Courtroom of Gladius II thread. Thanks for your support.