Post/Author/DateTime	Post
GoofsterStud 10-27-06, 01:40 PM	Starmantle Cloak: Cloak sheds light as a torch Renders the wearer impervious to nonmagical weapon attacks, and transforms any nonmagical weapon or missle that strikes the wearer into harmless light, destroying it. Contact with the starmantle does not destroy magic weapons or missles, but the starmantles wearer is intitled to a DC 15 Reflex save each time hi is struck by such a weapon; success indicates that the wearer takes only half damage from the attack. Ring of evasion: At 2nd level and higher, a rogue can avoid even magical and unusual attacks with great agility. If she makes a successful Reflex saving throw against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save, she instead takes no damage. Evasion can be used only if the rogue is wearing light armor or no armor. A helpless rogue does not gain the benefit of evasion. So a palading with a high charisma ring of evation and starmantle cloak are immune to attacks basically? Is their anyway around this?
Clawhound 10-27-06, 01:54 PM	Melee attacks don't normally do 1/2 damage if you save. It's the attack that matters, not your defense.
Kyuketsukiouji 10-27-06, 01:59 PM	Evasion doesn't do anything with a Starmantle, because, as Clawhound pointed out, attacks don't normally grant 1/2 damage on a save. Now, Armor of Dispelling, on the other hand, that works just fine.
GoofsterStud 10-27-06, 01:59 PM	Well you immune to all non magical weapons. woohoo! Thanks for the clarification, I thought that was a bit broken
Azdraugnor 10-27-06, 02:02 PM	The Starmantle Cloak is just a terribly broken item, even without evasion.
Vegepygmy 10-27-06, 02:31 PM	Melee attacks don't normally do 1/2 damage if you save.They do when you're wearing a starmantle cloak, apparently. It appears to me that yes, evasion would work just fine with the cloak. And yes, it's horribly broken. In what supplement does this ridiculous item appear?
Steevo 10-27-06, 02:42 PM	They do when you're wearing a starmantle cloak, apparently. It appears to me that yes, evasion would work just fine with the cloak. And yes, it's horribly broken. In what supplement does this ridiculous item appear? I believe the point Clawhound was trying to make is that Evasion only works if the attack (all by itself) deals half damage on a successful Ref Save. It doesn't matter what other defensive items you have, it's what the incoming attack alone permits. YMMV, as they say. Personally I think the Starmantle Cloak is stupidly borken with or without the effects of Evasion being allowed to stack. I would never allow this item in my campaign, so the point is moot, for me.
Seerow 10-27-06, 02:43 PM	It appears in BoED, and has been debated to death, it -doesn't- apply. But if you want to have fun, in addition to using this, look into the Retributive Amulet from the same book. You take 1/4 damage from all attacks, your opponent takes the same 1/4 damage. Add in some DR and/or Fast Healing, and you have someone nearly immune to mundane stuff in general. (Example: For the epic duels thing, I had a character with both items, DR15, fast healing 10. You get hit for 60 damage, that gets halved to 30, DR applies down to 15, retributive applies to you take 8, opponent takes 7. From a 60 damage hit)
Vegepygmy 10-27-06, 04:12 PM	I believe the point Clawhound was trying to make is that Evasion only works if the attack (all by itself) deals half damage on a successful Ref Save. It doesn't matter what other defensive items you have, it's what the incoming attack alone permits.I understood him, but I don't agree. It makes no sense to me to focus on the attack alone (except as a trick of rules interpretation to justify nerfing the cloak's brokenly-effective synergy with evasion). If you have a weapon that, in its own description, "deals 2d6 damage to the target, though targets wearing a starmantle cloak get a DC 15 Reflex save for half damage," there can be no doubt that it normally deals half damage to targets wearing a starmantle cloak who successfully save. So why should the ruling be any different just because the effect of wearing a starmantle cloak is described in a different place (the cloak's description)? But hey, if there's been official clarification someplace about how the cloak is intended to work...that's great. It should be followed (if you're going to allow the item into your campaign at all, which I probably wouldn't). :)
tarkin 10-27-06, 04:21 PM	The difference is the word NORMALLY. If the word normally was not there, you would be right. But the word normally is there. There are three possible points of view: 1) The word Normally is semantically null and does not change the meaning of the sentence. This appears to be what you are saying, but you have zero evidence of this. Normally has a clear meaning, it is not a garbage word such as the word "like". You are going to need a LOT of arguement to convince us the word normally is meaningless. 2) The word normally refers to what the effect has without any other effects. This is our point of view. Normally means it does not matter that the Starmantle does, it only matters what the weapon does WITHOUT anything else going on. 3) The third point of view would be that word "Normally" prevents some other unspecified things, but does not prevent the starmantle exploit. If you want to make this argument, you might convince me. In that case, please tell us what cases the word "normally" would prevent the ring of evasion from working on. I can't think of any example, can you?
Deep Blue 9000 10-27-06, 04:32 PM	1) The word Normally is semantically null and does not change the meaning of the sentence. This appears to be what you are saying, but you have zero evidence of this. Normally has a clear meaning, it is not a garbage word such as the word "like". You are going to need a LOT of arguement to convince us the word normally is meaningless. I believe normally indicates that evasion is of no benefit against damaging spells that do not allow a save. You'd be suprised how often new players think it helps. Normally adds emphasis.
Vegepygmy 10-27-06, 05:54 PM	3) The third point of view would be that word "Normally" prevents some other unspecified things, but does not prevent the starmantle exploit. If you want to make this argument, you might convince me. In that case, please tell us what cases the word "normally" would prevent the ring of evasion from working on.In this context, I believe the word "normally" simply means "otherwise would." So, if you have an attack that would--if not for evasion--deal half damage on a successful save, it deals no damage when a character with evasion saves against it. I have no support for this interpretation of "normally" over any other, except that interpreting it as Clawhound suggests leads to the (IMO) bizarre result that evasion's effectiveness hinges upon whether the saving throw is provided for in the description of the attack or the description of the defense. IMO, the rules should be considered as a whole, with no one section being given priority over any other (excluding considerations such as the primary source rule, of course). But as I said, if it's been officially clarified somewhere, I won't dispute it.
yrogerg 10-27-06, 08:48 PM	In this context, I believe the word "normally" simply means "otherwise would." So, if you have an attack that would--if not for evasion--deal half damage on a successful save, it deals no damage when a character with evasion saves against it. I have no support for this interpretation of "normally" over any other, except that interpreting it as Clawhound suggests leads to the (IMO) bizarre result that evasion's effectiveness hinges upon whether the saving throw is provided for in the description of the attack or the description of the defense. IMO, the rules should be considered as a whole, with no one section being given priority over any other (excluding considerations such as the primary source rule, of course). But as I said, if it's been officially clarified somewhere, I won't dispute it. This is the reading I've always taken away from Evasion, as well. It does leave the item quite broken, mind you.
Jay_Ibero_911 10-27-06, 09:09 PM	Defensive Roll (Ex): The rogue can roll with a potentially lethal blow to take less damage from it than she otherwise would. Once per day, when she would be reduced to 0 or fewer hit points by damage in combat (from a weapon or other blow, not a spell or special ability), the rogue can attempt to roll with the damage. To use this ability, the rogue must attempt a Reflex saving throw (DC = damage dealt). If the save succeeds, she takes only half damage from the blow; if it fails, she takes full damage. She must be aware of the attack and able to react to it in order to execute her defensive roll—if she is denied her Dexterity bonus to AC, she can’t use this ability. Since this effect would not normally allow a character to make a Reflex save for half damage, the rogue’s evasion ability does not apply to the defensive roll. Whether or not evasion would work with a starmantle cloak depends on whether or not you think evasion would work with defensive roll if the bolded text were not included. Personally, I think defensive roll sets a perfect example of what doesn't work with evasion. If the Mettle ability applied to all saves and not just those vs. spells, do you think it would legally work with the Street Fighter ability Stand Tough? Now I wish it did, cause I think it would be pretty darn cool to make a character who several times per day can make a saving throw to ignore damage from a physical source. Imagine getting crit with a ride by attack, using the ability, and rolling a natural 20 on the save? "Hey, didn't I just drive my lance straight through your chest?" "Didn't hurt."
ShinAkuma2 10-27-06, 09:38 PM	"Hey, didn't I just drive my lance straight through your chest?" "Didn't hurt." "Cuz I'm the JUGGERNAUT, *****!"
GoofsterStud 10-28-06, 01:49 AM	Jay_Ibero in reply to your previous entry. My viewpoint on this. Defensive Roll (Ex): Once per day Starmantle Cloak: All the time. Argument: 1. Once per day is not normally. Starmantle Cloak is all the time and thereforth while wearing it you would normally roll a reflex save for half. 2. The rules state that the Defensive Roll does not allow evasion. Starmantle Cloak does not make such a statement. Meaning that if it wasn't qualified, it is stated in the ability. Since it is stated in Defensive Roll it should also be stated in Starmantle Cloak if it was an exception. Definition: Normally - Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical: Defensive Roll. Technically, a random use of an ability that can be done at your choice, does not follow a standard or patter. BTW: I personally agree it shouldn't work.
ShinAkuma2 10-28-06, 09:37 AM	My viewpoint on this. Defensive Roll (Ex): Once per day Starmantle Cloak: All the time. All the time, until you take it off, or it gets destroyed, or it gets Anti-Magic applied to it... The Cloak does not change the normal rules. It isn't altering the text of the PHB. It's simply providing an ability. If the writers chose not to specifically mention Evasion, it's probably because a) they didn't think anyone would be silly enough to think they'd work together, or b) it's not their job to write every exception and interaction between every ability they print. You're supposed to figure some of it out yourself.
risner 10-28-06, 01:15 PM	2) The word normally refers to what the effect has without any other effects. This is our point of view. Normally means it does not matter that the Starmantle does, it only matters what the weapon does WITHOUT anything else going on. I go with this interpretation. Defensive Roll is an excellent test case of the interaction.
Talonos 10-28-06, 04:41 PM	Ask your DM. If your DM says no, that's the answer. If you're not happy with it, find another DM. Ask your DM first, so you aren't dissapointed later. Instead of agruing over rules, I think we should be arguing over balance and fun. If we think this is balanced and fun, than it should be allowed. If it's not balanced and fun, it shouldn't, regardless of how many definitions or rules there are supporting it. The rules are here to support fun. This isn't a game of Magic Cards where if you can prove the rules support you, then you win. This is a game we should all play together, and all win together. That makes rules bickering like this kind of pointless. Then again, I'm new to the boards. I probably don't understand how this all works.:rolleyes:
sparkster4242 10-29-06, 05:12 PM	ah, 'normally' rears its ugly head again. alas, nothing seems to define what 'normally' means... i have decided that the easiest to use meaning is 'whatever would happen without this particular ability'. so: when a Starmantle Cloak says 'normally', it means 'without a Starmantle Cloak'. in this case, yes, evasion, a decent reflex save, and a Starmantle Cloak render you immune to damage from every manufactured weapon. Add in Dispelling armor or shield, and even magical manufactured weapons tend to go *poof* after the second attack. the only problem here is that the Cloak is not as effective against natural weapons. The Retributive amulet is _another_ absurdly powerful (broken!) item from the BoED. I have played a low-epic character with the cloak, amulet, dispelling shield, and a base reflex save of 32. he was the party's most effective combatant against that pesky many-sword-wielding tanar'ri... while stunned and weaponless.
Vanigo 10-29-06, 07:39 PM	2. The rules state that the Defensive Roll does not allow evasion. Starmantle Cloak does not make such a statement. Meaning that if it wasn't qualified, it is stated in the ability. Since it is stated in Defensive Roll it should also be stated in Starmantle Cloak if it was an exception.Not at all. The bit under Defensive Roll is merely clarification. It's not a specific rule that Evasion doesn't work with Defensive Roll, it's saying "There doesn't need to be a specific rule that Evasion doesn't work with Defensive Roll, and this is why." ah, 'normally' rears its ugly head again. alas, nothing seems to define what 'normally' means... i have decided that the easiest to use meaning is 'whatever would happen without this particular ability'. so: when a Starmantle Cloak says 'normally', it means 'without a Starmantle Cloak'. in this case, yes, evasion, a decent reflex save, and a Starmantle Cloak render you immune to damage from every manufactured weapon. Add in Dispelling armor or shield, and even magical manufactured weapons tend to go *poof* after the second attack. the only problem here is that the Cloak is not as effective against natural weapons.I don't follow your logic here. First of all, the starmantle cloak doesn't say normally. I'm going to assume you meant Evasion, there. Secondly, if when Evasion says normally, it means 'without a starmantle cloak,' wouldn't that indicate that weapons do not normally allow a reflex save for half damage, and therefore Evasion wouldn't work against them even when you have one? Besides, Defensive Roll is a crystal-clear precedent, anyway. It's about as close to a direct parallel as you can hope to get.
DarkRhystar 10-29-06, 07:59 PM	Occam's Razor (D&D Remix): When confronted with two possible interpretations to a query, one of which is obviously broken and one of which is not, do not pick the broken one.
risner 10-29-06, 09:23 PM	Occam's Razor (D&D Remix): When confronted with two possible interpretations to a query, one of which is obviously broken and one of which is not, do not pick the broken one. Now I just laughed out loud. Unfortunately there are going to be a number of people that prefer the broken ruling because this prefer brokeness to elegant.
GoofsterStud 10-30-06, 12:20 AM	LOL. I'm the DM, I just wanted clarification before ruling. Thanks you guys for good reasons!
Deep Blue 9000 10-30-06, 01:22 AM	The OP may have left and so there's nothing at stake for continuing this discussion but I want to continue. Ithink yall are being far too conservative with what represents "normally". Ring of evasion: At 2nd level and higher, a rogue can avoid even magical and unusual attacks with great agility. If she makes a successful Reflex saving throw against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save, she instead takes no damage. Evasion can be used only if the rogue is wearing light armor or no armor. A helpless rogue does not gain the benefit of evasion. Silly Argument: Most spells don't allow reflex saves for half damage. That is the norm. So even if you face a particular spell like which fireball does allow a save for half damage, evasion is of no use against it since spells normally don't. Its only in the situation when you are hit by a spell and that spell is fireball that you get a reflex save for half. I feel yall are making the same argument with starmantle cloak. The normally on evasion is just to indicate that evasion does not allow a save for half damage if there was no save initially. In a case where there is a save (such as when you get hit while wearing this cloak), you can use evasion. I feel like yall are bending over backwards to make this combo a violation of RAW just because its broken. There are plenty of retarded, broken combos in RAW; bu that doesn't mean you have to like them or to allow them in your game.
unusualsuspect 10-30-06, 02:02 AM	It isn't really the same argument, since pretty much no matter WHAT gear you happen to be carrying (barring items that grant you evasion, the ability in question here), a fireball attack will deal 1/2 damage on a successful save. Since the question seems to revolve around the semantics of what "normal" means in this context, I don't see a clear cut answer coming to light... While Defensive Roll sets an interesting precident, it isn't exactly the same in a few fairly important aspects, and thus isn't exactly parallel, and thus doesn't give a definitive answer. That it is restricted from use with the evasion special ability, however, indicates to ME that the intent of the Starmantle Cloak probably either didn't account for its use with Evasion or thought the "normally" would clear the case up in a way it clearly hasn't.
Vanigo 10-30-06, 06:17 PM	Silly Argument: Most spells don't allow reflex saves for half damage. That is the norm. So even if you face a particular spell like which fireball does allow a save for half damage, evasion is of no use against it since spells normally don't. Its only in the situation when you are hit by a spell and that spell is fireball that you get a reflex save for half.Uh, no. In the one case, you're changing the attack into one that allows a reflex save for half damage. In the other case, you're changing the defense into one that allows a reflex save for half damage. Please take note that these are two different concepts. Notice also how Evasion very specifically states that it works on attacks that allow a save for half. I feel yall are making the same argument with starmantle cloak. The normally on evasion is just to indicate that evasion does not allow a save for half damage if there was no save initially. In a case where there is a save (such as when you get hit while wearing this cloak), you can use evasion. That's ridiculous. Why the heck would anyone think that evasion would grant you a save where there was none before? Even without the "normally," let's take a look at how that train of thought might go: 1: "If she makes a successful Reflex saving throw against an attack that [REDACTED] deals half damage on a successful save (such as a red dragon's fiery breath or a fireball), she instead takes no damage." 2: ??? 3: Oh, that means I get a reflex save against everything in the universe! 4: Profit! How is that even remotely sensible?
johnkretzer 10-30-06, 06:28 PM	Ring of evasion: At 2nd level and higher, a rogue can avoid even magical and unusual attacks with great agility. If she makes a successful Reflex saving throw against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save, she instead takes no damage. Evasion can be used only if the rogue is wearing light armor or no armor. A helpless rogue does not gain the benefit of evasion. I think you people are caught up on the wrong word. It can aviod magical and unusual attacks. Do you define weapon attacks as unusual? I don't so this combo doesn't work.
Vegepygmy 10-30-06, 06:31 PM	Do you define weapon attacks as unusual?Yes, I define weapon attacks that deal half damage on a successful Reflex save as "unusual." .
Slayer_5 10-30-06, 08:13 PM	Normally I would second the "If there are two interpretations, one being broken, and one not, go with the one that isn't broken." However, this IS Exalted Deeds
Nezkrul 10-30-06, 10:53 PM	"There are 3 different definitions" "Your suppposed to come to your own conclusions..." = RAI have a nice day.
Vanigo 10-31-06, 12:33 AM	Normally I would second the "If there are two interpretations, one being broken, and one not, go with the one that isn't broken." However, this IS Exalted Deeds Well, it's still pretty broken even without evasion cheese, so...
johnkretzer 10-31-06, 01:29 AM	Yes, I define weapon attacks that deal half damage on a successful Reflex save as "unusual." . I could answear this in two ways. 1) It say from unusual attacks. weapon strike in of them selve is not unusual. The save for half doesn't come with the weapon. 2) Well it isn't unusual if you are wearing a Cloak of Twilight. The thing that I find funny of the two books. The book of Vile Darness and the book of Exalted Deeds it is the book of Exalted deeds that has the most broken of thing. The BoVd is actualy balanced mechanicaly pretty much. I would thought evil would be the cheese monkeys. Who knew.
Vegepygmy 10-31-06, 02:09 AM	I could answear this in two ways.And neither of them would persuade me. :P What does persuade me is the Defensive Roll argument. Apparently, the PHB authors did intend for "normally" to mean something more than just "otherwise would." Unfortunately, just exactly what is "normal" is often going to be a matter of opinion. Oh, well.
Thunder Dragonbane 10-31-06, 08:37 AM	Evasion should have been left at avoiding spells that allow saves, and nothing else. By calling the ability "spells" and "unusual" noone knows what they meant. As for your argument for any ability that allows a save, that is silly. It does not matter why you are getting that save, weapon damage should never be a saveable form of damage. Evasion does not work as you think. I am glad that I have not bought this book if crap like this is in it.:nonono:
tarkin 10-31-06, 08:56 AM	I would have to agree with the Occam razor's viewpoint. There has definitely been an argument here. Some people think that the word Normally means without other effects, such as the Starmantle. Others think it means something else. But there are MORE than enough people here saying Normally prevents the Starmantle from also allowing Evasion. It is a viewpoint held by a large percentage of people, not a small one. Therefore it is a point in dispute, and before you declare it 'abusive', you should consider that maybe you are wrong about how it works If you think Starmantle Plus Evasion is legal and abusive then basically you are saying that: 1) I disagree with a large percentage of the population and think this rule works this way. 2) I think that because it works this way, it is abusive. Which in my opinion, makes you arrogant and foolish. I have been told by many people that I am arrogant and foolish, so you might consider me an expert. :D If you think something is abusive and other people argue with you that you are not interpretating the rules correctly, then the wise person says "Hey, maybe I am wrong about how the rule works in the first place." P.S. If you don't think it is abusive, that means you play in a game that other people consider to be more powerfull than what they play. Do not be surprised if they call you a Power Gamer. It is not an insult, just a style of play. Call them low power gamer or a Strict Gamer, if you desire. P.P.S. I refer you to the traditional Buddhist Teaching called the Four Reliances, which I quote in my sig.
johnkretzer 10-31-06, 11:56 AM	Evasion should have been left at avoiding spells that allow saves, and nothing else. By calling the ability "spells" and "unusual" noone knows what they meant. As for your argument for any ability that allows a save, that is silly. It does not matter why you are getting that save, weapon damage should never be a saveable form of damage. Evasion does not work as you think. I am glad that I have not bought this book if crap like this is in it.:nonono: The book isn't that bad you just have to prune it a little like any other book.
Throg 10-31-06, 12:11 PM	I think you people are caught up on the wrong word. It can aviod magical and unusual attacks. Do you define weapon attacks as unusual? I don't so this combo doesn't work. Actually, I think you're reading it wrong still. The way you read it "Only magical and unusual attacks" The way I'm sure it's read "even magical and unusual attacks" Meaning, including magical and unusual attacks, as well as "normal" attacks. Anyways, I agree that this combination doesn't work, or at the very least shouldn't work. Just because you can squirm your way through rules to bring out a horribly broken combination, doesn't mean a DM won't smote your charector to dust. And that attack doesn't allow a save, and is mundane, just to add insult to injury. If the DM is foolish enough to allow this, go ahead and make a kobold.
Thunder Dragonbane 11-01-06, 08:14 AM	The book isn't that bad you just have to prune it a little like any other book. Are there any good things about this munchkin book? Good Paladin only spells? New forms of armor? Basicly everything that I have seen discused is seriously broken to even allow.
Thunder Dragonbane 11-01-06, 08:22 AM	[QUOTE=Throg]Actually, I think you're reading it wrong still. The way you read it "Only magical and unusual attacks" The way I'm sure it's read "even magical and unusual attacks" Meaning, including magical and unusual attacks, as well as "normal" attacks.[QUOTE] Yes it is read this way. But if you read the rest of the discription you are given two very straight forward examples of how the ability works. 1) Breath weapons, This must be the unusual attack. 2) Fireball, Or any spell with a REF save. Again the evasion ability never works on melee attacks. But I think I am talking to someone that stated that it should not work the way that people think.
johnkretzer 11-01-06, 03:35 PM	Are there any good things about this munchkin book? Good Paladin only spells? New forms of armor? Basicly everything that I have seen discused is seriously broken to even allow. Well that is the thing have you ever heard some bring x to the boards because it is great and balanced? Also the non-munchlin thing in this book are great role-playing things.
planetouched 11-04-06, 10:19 PM	They also have crap for AC and HP
sparkster4242 11-27-06, 08:19 PM	vanigo: defensive roll doesnt allow evasion, because without the Defensive Roll ability, the incoming attack doesnt allow a Reflex save for half damage. it was just an example - if the cloak doesnt say 'normally', it doesnt change my point... what 'normally' would mean. in the case of Defensive Roll, it is the ability itself which allows the character to make the Reflex save for half damage - the attack would not 'normally' (that is, without the Defensive Roll ability) allow that save, and so Evasion does not apply while using Defensive Roll. however, as far as the Evasion ability is concerned, a character wearing a Starmantle Cloak _does_ 'normally' get a Reflex save for half damage against attacks because he would get that saving throw even if he didnt have Evasion. as far as Evasion is concerned, a character wearing a Starmantle Cloak _does_ 'normally' get a saving throw vs. weapon attacks; as far as the Cloak is concerned, he does not - because it is the Cloak itself which allows him to make that saving throw. deep blue: thats the ticket. vanigo again: That's ridiculous. Why the heck would anyone think that evasion would grant you a save where there was none before? evasion doesnt allow the save - which is why it _does_ work with a Starmantle Cloak. 1: "If she makes a successful Reflex saving throw against an attack that [REDACTED] deals half damage on a successful save (such as a red dragon's fiery breath or a fireball), she instead takes no damage." good so far - Evasion allows this, because the incoming attack _does_ allow a Reflex save for half damage, even against characters that dont have Evasion. 3: Oh, that means I get a reflex save against everything in the universe! nope - just against attacks made with magical weapons, as allowed by the Starmantle Cloak. because it is still not the Evasion ability which allows the saving throw to be made, Evasion still works in this case. johnkretzer: the Starmantle Cloak adds 'attacks with magical weapons' to the list of 'magical and unusual' things that allow a Reflex save for half damage. thundar: by itself, you are correct - Evasion doesnt function against weapon attacks, because those attacks dont allow a Reflex save for half damage. however, a Starmantle Cloak adds magical weapon attacks to the list of things that allow Reflex saves for half damage - the same list that allows Evasion.
Roivas 11-28-06, 01:11 AM	It's a sad state of affairs when a silly arguement like this goes back and forth for so long. But here is what it can break down to without all this semantic bull*&^%. Player X: With the starmantle cloak and my reflex save of 26 I'm immune to all weapon damage. It says so right here in the rules. GM: Okay fine. You see a marlilth on your watch. Player: Sweet I'll kill it and get all the treasure/exp to myself! GM; I'd have this fight play out, but let's just say you win. No need to roll anything. Player: Great I loot the corpse! What do I get? GM: It's swords. Player: And? And? GM: And what? Player: Well at least I get xp for dedeating it single handedly. GM: Do you? I don't remember it actually threatening you. A creature must pose a challenge for you to get exp from it. Would you like to fight the Tarrasque next? And so Player X retired his invincable rouge and lived happily ever after. Then rest of you can follow suit, argue pointlessly, or realize that if it makes your character unhittable you should think again. Have fun kids.
Vanigo 11-28-06, 11:04 PM	vanigo: defensive roll doesnt allow evasion, because without the Defensive Roll ability, the incoming attack doesnt allow a Reflex save for half damage. it was just an example - if the cloak doesnt say 'normally', it doesnt change my point... what 'normally' would mean. in the case of Defensive Roll, it is the ability itself which allows the character to make the Reflex save for half damage - the attack would not 'normally' (that is, without the Defensive Roll ability) allow that save, and so Evasion does not apply while using Defensive Roll. Let's do a little find-and-replace action, shall we? Let's see here... starmantle doesnt allow evasion, because without the starmantle, the incoming attack doesnt allow a Reflex save for half damage. it was just an example - if the cloak doesnt say 'normally', it doesnt change my point... what 'normally' would mean. in the case of starmantle, it is the ability itself which allows the character to make the Reflex save for half damage - the attack would not 'normally' (that is, without the starmantle) allow that save, and so Evasion does not apply while using starmantle. however, as far as the Evasion ability is concerned, a character wearing a Starmantle Cloak _does_ 'normally' get a Reflex save for half damage against attacks because he would get that saving throw even if he didnt have Evasion.No, sorry, a proof's no good if you mix up your variables. See, in the first quote you were talking about what happens with Evasion but without Defensive Roll, and in the second, you're talking about what happens without evasion but with starmantle. See how that's a bit mixed up? Evasion is supposed to be the constant element, here, not the "grants you a saving throw where there was none before" effect. Here's how that sentence would have to go to follow from what you were saying before: however, as far as the Evasion ability is concerned, a character wearing a Starmantle Cloak _does_ 'normally' get a Reflex save for half damage against attacks because he would get that saving throw even if he didnt have starmantleThis makes sense in the context of what you were saying. Unfortunately, it's also blatantly untrue: the character wouldn't get that saving throw if he didn't have starmantle. as far as Evasion is concerned, a character wearing a Starmantle Cloak _does_ 'normally' get a saving throw vs. weapon attacks; as far as the Cloak is concerned, he does not - because it is the Cloak itself which allows him to make that saving throw.Again, a simple find-and-replace reveals the holes in your argument. (You do have to fix the grammar afterwards, though.) as far as Evasion is concerned, a character with Defensive Roll _does_ 'normally' get a saving throw vs. weapon attacks; as far as Defensive Roll is concerned, he does not - because it is the Defensive Roll itself which allows him to make that saving throw. Skimming over the part where you address me again using exactly the same flawed logic (Evasion doesn't allow the save from Defensive Roll either, you know)... johnkretzer: the Starmantle Cloak adds 'attacks with magical weapons' to the list of 'magical and unusual' things that allow a Reflex save for half damage. thundar: by itself, you are correct - Evasion doesnt function against weapon attacks, because those attacks dont allow a Reflex save for half damage. however, a Starmantle Cloak adds magical weapon attacks to the list of things that allow Reflex saves for half damage - the same list that allows Evasion. But it does not add anything to the list of things that normally allow reflex saves for half damage. That list is reserved exclusively for things that put themselves there.
sparkster4242 12-18-06, 05:43 PM	vanigo: you missed my point - granted, i should have chosen some ability that was _not_ already involved in the discussion. the point i was trying to make in that first portion is what 'normally' would mean from the perspective of two different abilities, and i stand by that. however, upon reading Defensive Roll again, i have come to the conclusion that either a) 'normally' in this case means 'for all attacks', rather than 'without Defensive Roll', or b) 'this effect' means the attack, and not the Defensive Roll ability, or c) both. if a) is the case, then the last sentence is rather misleading - Evasion would not be applicable to most incoming attacks, but _would_ apply when Defensive Roll is being used, because it meets the requirements listed in the description of Evasion. if b) is the case, then the last sentence is just incorrect; the second part doesnt follow from the first (because Evasion doesnt say anything about caring _why_ an attack allows a Reflex save for half damage, only that it _does_). my conclusion: its pretty clear what the author _wanted_ to say, that Defensive Roll and Evasion shouldnt synergize. had he said simply that Evasion would not apply to Defensive Roll, that would be that... but as it is, the reasoning he gave is incorrect. now, on to the Starmantle Cloak in your fourth quote, repeated here however, as far as the Evasion ability is concerned, a character wearing a Starmantle Cloak _does_ 'normally' get a Reflex save for half damage against attacks because he would get that saving throw even if he didnt have starmantle the original paragraph necessarily refers to the perspective of an ability (Evasion) which is not Starmantle - substituting any other ability would have been appropriate, but your choice of starmantle fails to follow the original structure of my statement. according to your modification, the starmantle both does, and does not, grant a saving throw - a clear absurdity, but not one found in the original (which said that starmantle does, but evasion does not). But it does not add anything to the list of things that normally allow reflex saves for half damage. That list is reserved exclusively for things that put themselves there. why do you say that? and what flavor of 'normally' are you using, and why? i have said what 'normally' means when i read it, and why therefore i say that Evasion works in this case...
Manyfist 12-18-06, 09:36 PM	Take your BOED and BURN IT. :D Nothing good ever comes from that book.:cool:
DarkRhystar 12-19-06, 01:44 AM	Take your BOED and BURN IT. :D Nothing good ever comes from that book.:cool: The irony in this comment is killing me.
Vanigo 12-19-06, 09:57 PM	This has to be the slowest argument ever. Anyway... vanigo: you missed my point - granted, i should have chosen some ability that was _not_ already involved in the discussion. the point i was trying to make in that first portion is what 'normally' would mean from the perspective of two different abilities, and i stand by that. [snip] why do you say that? and what flavor of 'normally' are you using, and why? i have said what 'normally' means when i read it, and why therefore i say that Evasion works in this case...Oh, that's what you're talking about. It had been so long since this little argument started I forgot all about your peculiar definition of "normally". See, the way I see it, "normally" in this context means "by itself, with no other effects affecting it." I would submit that this is clearly the definition the author intended, because this definition makes the wording of Defensive Roll make sense. Plus, it's closer to the dictionary definition of the word: nor·mal·ly /ˈnɔrməli/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[nawr-muh-lee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adverb 1. in a normal or regular way: The wound is healing normally. 2. according to rule, general custom, etc.; as a rule; ordinarily; usually.
sparkster4242 12-24-06, 12:49 PM	umm, eek. if 'normally' meant 'without any modifications', then almost nothing would synergize with anything else - which strikes me as rather ... silly.
Fallenangel359 12-24-06, 01:55 PM	regardless of the rules... just say no to something so rediculous... an artificer with 2 feats can craft this cloak for 3/8ths as much cost, in 56% of the normal time.
under lord 12-25-06, 01:43 AM	I think if you look at the cloak as allowing damage to be halved. Evasion only works when damage can be halved. I beleive that it would work only when you look at it that way.