Post/Author/DateTime	Post
GnomeBoy 07-03-07, 02:03 PM	Having read the recent 'Forgotten Magic' article in Tactics and Tips (here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/tt/20070703a)) reminded me of a fun use of Daern's Instant Fortress a few years back. My Dwarf Fighter, Bronx, got chomped by a massive red dragon, as the beast swooped down, grabbed the Dwarf, and soared back up into the air. The DM described Bronx as being inside the dragon's mouth on the round of the attack (taking bite damage) and clearly being about to be swallowed or ground up on the dragon's next round. :bigeyes: So, when my action came around, I pulled out the Fortress and activated it in the dragon's mouth. Now, I had hoped that it would split the dragon's jaw off of his skull -- and I'd figure out how to deal with the whole falling situation thereafter (or maybe get help from my party). The DM ruled that the Fortress expanded out of the dragon's mouth, basically launching out rapidly. It did damage on the way out, but not quite what I had hoped... :yuck: But, it was a lot of fun. Postscript: The thread went off on a wild ride of rules debating - not what I'd originally hoped for. If possible let's leave that aside. If you have any interesting stories about the Fortress, please post. Thanks. :D
tarkin 07-03-07, 02:34 PM	Your DM was generous, allowing it to do any damage. Have you ever handled paper? It is possible to cut your fingers on it. This is called a paper cut. But when I look at paper in the core books, I see no damage listed for this. Two ways for the DM to handle this. 1. Be intelligent and say "It does no damage (or so little as to be none)." 2. Be silly and say "They forgot it, so I will just write in oh say 15d6." If something does not list damage, that means that the force behind it is so weak that it does not do any damage. I.E. Enlargement effects are like someone blowing up a balloon. Even if you stick the balloon in someones mouth and blow really hard, it will NOT crack their head in half. Instead the balloon will either a. get pushed out by their tounge or b. stop expanding because the head is way too strong for the puny air from your lungs to expand. Similarly, the enlargement effect on Daern's Instant Fortress (and all other items unless otherwise stated) is of the puny kind, not strong enough to break my skin, let alone a dragon's mouth. It is not the Hulk, it is a puny set of lungs.
lukelightning 07-03-07, 02:36 PM	From the SRD: The fortress springs up in just 1 round, with the door facing the device’s owner. The door opens and closes instantly at his command. People and creatures nearby (except the owner) must be careful not to be caught by the fortress’s sudden growth. Anyone so caught takes 10d10 points of damage (Reflex DC 19 half).
Kelwyn 07-03-07, 02:37 PM	I dont know if it was in Return to Temple of Elemental or in Temple of Elemental Evil + City of Spiderqueen, but in one of those we got Daerns Instant Fortress too and we could use it to deal damage, I think it was something like 10d6 Edit: See the post above ;)
Loki5654 07-03-07, 03:27 PM	Instant Fortress Strong conjuration; CL 13th; Craft Wondrous Item, mage’s magnificent mansion; Price 55,000 gp. Mage’s Magnificent Mansion Conjuration (Creation) Level: Sor/Wiz 7 Components: V, S, F Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) Effect: Extradimensional mansion, up to three 10-ft. cubes/level (S) Duration: 2 hours/level (D) Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: No Conjuration Each conjuration spell belongs to one of five subschools. Conjurations bring manifestations of objects, creatures, or some form of energy to you (the summoning subschool), actually transport creatures from another plane of existence to your plane (calling), heal (healing), transport creatures or objects over great distances (teleportation), or create objects or effects on the spot (creation). Creatures you conjure usually, but not always, obey your commands. A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it. The creature or object must appear within the spell’s range, but it does not have to remain within the range. Your DM should have said "The instant fortress fails to activate."
GnomeBoy 07-03-07, 06:02 PM	It is not the Hulk, it is a puny set of lungs. ...and that creates such a wonderfully exciting and dramatic scene that I just have to sa--:zzz: Your DM should have said "The instant fortress fails to activate." But it's not that spell -- the spell is just required to create the Fortress. The listing for the Fortress includes damage, for when it seems appropriate. (See above posts). Fun trumps rules when the spirit at the table favors same. It's in my sig.
Jeriaus 07-03-07, 06:03 PM	Except it an item that grows in size. Its not summoned.
Loki5654 07-03-07, 06:41 PM	But it's not that spell -- the spell is just required to create the Fortress. The listing for the Fortress includes damage, for when it seems appropriate. (See above posts). Sometimes you have to refer to the spell used to create the item in order to determine the items effect. In the case of the instant fortress, it would not function in the example given because A: It cannot be created inside a creature, and B: It cannot be created in mid-air. If, as you suggest, we should ignore the spells used to create an item, then Amulets of Natural Armor become useless because they no longer include barkskin's "A creature without natural armor has an effective natural armor bonus of +0" clause. Fun trumps rules when the spirit at the table favors same. It's in my sig. Good for you. We're not at your table, though. Here on the boards, the only common frame of reference we have is the rules. I don't object to house-ruling (I do it quite a bit myself) but you can't deny that the RAW says what you suggest isn't possible.
Loki5654 07-03-07, 06:45 PM	Except it an item that grows in size. Its not summoned. No one is saying it is summoned. It is, however, created. As in "it uses a Conjuration (Creation) effect". The damage suggested in the item description is from creatures being violently pushed out of the way, which I am OK with. But Conjuration effects cannot be done inside another creature or where they cannot be supported (i.e. mid-air). Thus the OP's "in the dragon's mouth" idea flies in the face of the rules, cool-factor or not.
GnomeBoy 07-03-07, 08:04 PM	... what you suggest isn't possible. Yes, but what did you think of it...? For what it's worth, I don't think the spell bears much resemblance to the item. BTW, isn't d20srd.org cool?
Loki5654 07-03-07, 08:14 PM	Yes, but what did you think of it...? I think it was a poor call made by a DM who didn't understand the rules. If he allows "fortress in the mouth" to do damage, why not shove it in the dragon's ear next time? For what it's worth, I don't think the spell bears much resemblance to the item. The important thing is that they are both Conjuration (Creation) effects and should be treated as such. BTW, isn't d20srd.org cool? You've got that right! I couldn't post from work without it.
mvincent 07-03-07, 08:24 PM	Your DM should have said "The instant fortress fails to activate."If that were true, the Fortress could never do it's listed damage (as doing so requires someone/something be in the way). i.e. your interpretation actually contradicts RAW: "People and creatures nearby (except the owner) must be careful not to be caught by the fortress’s sudden growth. Anyone so caught takes 10d10 points of damage"
mvincent 07-03-07, 08:26 PM	I think it was a poor call made by a DM who didn't understand the rules. I think the DM perfectly understood the rules in this case. The fortress should do 10d10 damage.
SALDAR 07-03-07, 08:43 PM	From the SRD in the Spell School section under Spell Descriptions: A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it. When did Daern's Instant Fortress become a conjuration spell?
Thiez 07-03-07, 08:53 PM	If, as you suggest, we should ignore the spells used to create an item, then Amulets of Natural Armor become useless because they no longer include barkskin's "A creature without natural armor has an effective natural armor bonus of +0" clause. I assume that's a general rule, making it a bad example. If that weren't a rule that applies in situations that do not involve the Barksin spell, things like the dragon disciple are hurt quite a bit :) Natural Armor Increase (Ex) At 1st, 4th, and 7th level, a dragon disciple gains an increase to the character’s existing natural armor (if any), as indicated on Table: The Dragon Disciple (the numbers represent the total increase gained to that point). As his skin thickens, a dragon disciple takes on more and more of his progenitor’s physical aspect. since most PC races don't have an existing natural armor bonus, the Natural Armor Increase would not apply.
GnomeBoy 07-03-07, 09:15 PM	If he allows "fortress in the mouth" to do damage, why not shove it in the dragon's ear next time? If I, in DM-mode, had players wanting to get close enough to a dragon to shove something like the Fortress in the dragon's ear, I think I'd have an entire evening's adventure lined up! Whether I'd let it split the dragon's skull or not, would be decided by many factors, including what seemed the most interesting plot implications thereof. And I think you missed the jist of my previous query, to wit: rules aside, what do you think of it? Forget the SRD and RAW and let me know what you think of a Dwarf, about to made into pate' by a enormous Dragon's mandibles, who whips out a pop-up tent to prevent the Dragon from chomping down...
Psikerlord 07-03-07, 11:25 PM	Great idea, great story, and a fair result from the DM, I reckon
Loki5654 07-03-07, 11:50 PM	If that were true, the Fortress could never do it's listed damage (as doing so requires someone/something be in the way). i.e. your interpretation actually contradicts RAW: "People and creatures nearby (except the owner) must be careful not to be caught by the fortress’s sudden growth. Anyone so caught takes 10d10 points of damage" The RAW assumes that all conditions for activation are met. That means the fortress has to be outside of a creature and on the ground. I have no problem whatsoever with the fortress dealing 10d10 damage to creatures who are in its way. I just have an issue (and so do the rules) with the fortress being activated inside a creature in mid-air. Two conditions which would prevent it from activating according to the rules on Conjuration spells that the item uses. I think the DM perfectly understood the rules in this case. The fortress should do 10d10 damage. No it shouldn't. It would do 10d10 damage if the fortress were activated near the dragon, but not inside the dragon. And not in mid-air. Again, my issue is not with how much damage it should do, but whether it could be activated at all. When did Daern's Instant Fortress become a conjuration spell? Sigh. It uses mage's magnificent mansion as its prerequisite spell. Thus it uses the limitations of that spell when it comes to activation. Its the same as with feather token trees. I assume that's a general rule, making it a bad example. If that weren't a rule that applies in situations that do not involve the Barksin spell, things like the dragon disciple are hurt quite a bit :) Natural Armor Increase (Ex) At 1st, 4th, and 7th level, a dragon disciple gains an increase to the character’s existing natural armor (if any), as indicated on Table: The Dragon Disciple (the numbers represent the total increase gained to that point). As his skin thickens, a dragon disciple takes on more and more of his progenitor’s physical aspect. since most PC races don't have an existing natural armor bonus, the Natural Armor Increase would not apply. Yup. That's why the description says "if any". If your character doesn't have a NA bonus, it doesn't increase. There is a difference between a value of "0" and a value of "-". That's why barkskin has the special clause written in, so if you ignore the rules of spells items are based on (like you suggest with the fortress) then say bye-bye to the NA bonus, because you can't enhance a non-existent bonus. If I, in DM-mode, had players wanting to get close enough to a dragon to shove something like the Fortress in the dragon's ear, I think I'd have an entire evening's adventure lined up! Whether I'd let it split the dragon's skull or not, would be decided by many factors, including what seemed the most interesting plot implications thereof. And I think you missed the jist of my previous query, to wit: rules aside, what do you think of it? Forget the SRD and RAW and let me know what you think of a Dwarf, about to made into pate' by a enormous Dragon's mandibles, who whips out a pop-up tent to prevent the Dragon from chomping down... Meh. I think its an ok story. But if you're going to ignore the rules, why play the game? Why not just sit around and make it all up?
mvincent 07-04-07, 12:48 AM	I have no problem whatsoever with the fortress dealing 10d10 damage to creatures who are in its way.But your quote of "It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it" means that the area cannot already be occupied (this is established RAW). Evidently you don't agree with this, but that is what the quote you used represents. I just have an issue (and so do the rules) with the fortress being activated inside a creatureMaybe we're just looking at it differently. I view the "shoving it in his mouth" as equivalent to activating the fortress next to the dragon (and thus doing 10d10). This is a fair ruling (i.e. the character could've just done this anyways), and provides the player with some results without quibbling. Why would you begrudge the player this damage (which again: he could've just gotten anyways) for describing his actions in a flavorful way? Now, would I allow someone to say, activate a shrunk item inside that another creature had swallowed? No, but that is not what I'm discussing.
TheCobra 07-04-07, 12:59 AM	Thus it uses the limitations of that spell when it comes to activation. Where can I find this rule? Prerequisite spells are sometimes only distantly connected to their items. It seems dubious to me.
stargate525 07-04-07, 01:03 AM	Excuse me, the item's description says nothing about it not being able to activate inside a creature or in the air. You're pulling straws here, and referencing the base spell is not always a surefire thing. Now whether the item would survive the fall... and don't forget he's going to also take 10d10 damage.
GnomeBoy 07-04-07, 01:11 AM	Maybe we're just looking at it differently. I view the "shoving it in his mouth" as equivalent to activating the fortress next to the dragon (and thus doing 10d10). To be fair, my character was inside the dragon's mouth, about to be thoroughly chewed up, so not quite what you're describing here (just to be clear). It was my only hope, as the rest of my party was over 100 ft below the dragon and I had bupkis in other resources that had any real hope of my character surviving. But if you're going to ignore the rules, why play the game? Why not just sit around and make it all up? Actually, sometimes, we do! To paraphrase my own sig, the story comes first, the rules help out when you find things getting unwieldy. I've played sessions where every action was rules-based and sessions where we largely just described what we do and say. Most sessions bounce around somewhere inbetween. The two polarities create different moods and pacing, and variety is the spice of life (or in this case, fantasy). I don't think I'd still be playing after 30 years, without the variety. And the trust. You have to trust each other's instincts to play without rules. I wouldn't do it all the time, because the rules are well written. But I think the image of the Fortress not going off as I hoped, instead launching itself out of the dragon's mouth, buying myself and my party time to devise another solution was far more palatable than the DM saying, "Sorry, but that *meh* attempt at heroics does nothing. You die. And now round four, everybody..." I respect your opinion, and your preference of play style. But surely you can't disparage a group of folks for enjoying the game...? ;)
TheCobra 07-04-07, 01:19 AM	Actually, sometimes, we do! So it's just a bunch of guys sitting in a room and telling stories, huh? :P (I approve completely.)
Loki5654 07-04-07, 02:55 AM	But your quote of "It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it" means that the area cannot already be occupied (this is established RAW). Evidently you don't agree with this, but that is what the quote you used represents. I think you're making a bit of a leap from "open location capable of supporting it" to "area completely unoccupied". The 10d10 line does allow for the fortress to push creatures out of its way, but that's a bit different from being inside a creature. Maybe we're just looking at it differently. I view the "shoving it in his mouth" as equivalent to activating the fortress next to the dragon (and thus doing 10d10). This is a fair ruling (i.e. the character could've just done this anyways), and provides the player with some results without quibbling. We are looking at it differently. Inside a creature and next to a creature are two entirely different things. The first involves being inside a creature's space, the second does not. You also seem to be deliberately ignoring the fact that activating it inside the dragon's mouth is also the equivalent of activating it in mid-air. Why would you begrudge the player this damage (which again: he could've just gotten anyways) for describing his actions in a flavorful way? Why would you allow a player to circumvent the rules by describing his actions in a "flavorful way"? A creative player can flavorfully describe any number of actions, and while I applaud creativity, there are times when it must be tempered by the rules. Now, would I allow someone to say, activate a shrunk item inside that another creature had swallowed? No, but that is not what I'm discussing. Apparently, you draw the line at the creature's throat. I draw it just outside its mouth. Inside the mouth equals inside the creature. That's an awfully fine hair you have chosen to split.
TheCobra 07-04-07, 03:02 AM	You also seem to be deliberately ignoring the fact that activating it inside the dragon's mouth is also the equivalent of activating it in mid-air. And you're ignoring the fact that you haven't yet provided any basis for the idea that crafting prerequisites limit the item.
Loki5654 07-04-07, 03:07 AM	Where can I find this rule? I will grant you that it is never explicitly stated in the rules. It is, however, strongly implied. Prerequisite spells are sometimes only distantly connected to their items. It seems dubious to me. Then by all means, feel free to ignore them. I haven't found any that I'd consider "distantly connected", I find most of them to be completely appropriate. But, I ask you, why would the rules require a spell as a prerequisite if there weren't a connection? After all, there are a few examples of where the item description does not cover every aspect of the item's abilities, but which can be assumed to act in the same manner as the item's prerequisite spells.
Loki5654 07-04-07, 03:12 AM	And you're ignoring the fact that you haven't yet provided any basis for the idea that crafting prerequisites limit the item. And you're ignoring the direct connection between an item's abilities and its prerequisite spells. Otherwise, say good-bye to Amulets of Natural Armor for most of your characters and say hello to your players shoving feather tokens down monster's throats and activating them, either choking them or exploding them, depending on your interpretation of the force involved. I've provided at least two examples of instances where the prerequisite spell's limitations should be used (feather tokens and AoNA), can you porvide examples of where you think they should be ignored?
TheCobra 07-04-07, 03:24 AM	And you're ignoring the direct connection between an item's abilities and its prerequisite spells. In some cases, as I said, there's not much connection at all. The elixir of vision gives a +10 competence bonus of search checks. True seeing is the prerequisite spell. The bottle of air requires water breathing. The belt of dwarvenkind requires tongues. And so on. Mage's magnificent mansion isn't much at all like the instant fortress. Otherwise, say good-bye to Amulets of Natural Armor for most of your characters Why? and say hello to your players shoving feather tokens down monster's throats and activating them, either choking them or exploding them, depending on your interpretation of the force involved. That would at least require a grapple check. Even then, there's nothing in the item entry about dealing damage. So the player would only get a tree for his trouble.
Derren S. 07-04-07, 03:27 AM	While it is correct that this wouldn't have worked (The fortress is a conjuration item with the same limitation of conjuration spells) I hope the DM also ruled that you were also damaged by the fortress (By the same amount than the dragon was). And when I picture the situation correctly, you now have the problem that you are falling down with the tower closly following you and when you don't get out of the way you will get squished by it. Besides while it is also no spelled out rule, magical size increases in D&D can never burst any stronger confinings. So the tower would have grown till it filled out the dragons mouth (damaging you in the process) and then stopped. Edit: The Amulatt of Nat Armor would not work because without the connection to the Barskin spell and its special ruling the amulet could only increase existing natural armor.
Loki5654 07-04-07, 03:33 AM	To be fair, my character was inside the dragon's mouth, about to be thoroughly chewed up, so not quite what you're describing here (just to be clear). It was my only hope, as the rest of my party was over 100 ft below the dragon and I had bupkis in other resources that had any real hope of my character surviving. Yet more reason to not allow the fortress to activate. According to its description its "metal walls extend 10 feet into the ground, rooting it to the spot and preventing it from being tipped over" and "the fortress springs up in just 1 round, with the door facing the device’s owner". How is it supposed to do that inside a dragon and/or in mid-air? Creative description or not, it strains credulity. It is more likely your DM thought "I'd better let them have this one. Otherwise the game is over." I respect your opinion, and your preference of play style. But surely you can't disparage a group of folks for enjoying the game...? ;) I don't. You are free to play your game however you wish. But what you've done here is present your creative interpretation as a viable strategy under the rules. It may seem like a creative choice to you, but to me it seems like a last ditch attempt by a desperate player to save their character. Luckily for you, the DM was lenient/ignorant/house-ruling.
TheCobra 07-04-07, 03:37 AM	While it is correct that this wouldn't have worked (The fortress is a conjuration item with the same limitation of conjuration spells) Where do the rules say this? Edit: The Amulatt of Nat Armor would not work because without the connection to the Barskin spell and its special ruling the amulet could only increase existing natural armor. So righteous might doesn't boost a cleric's AC, huh? Sorry, but that's a general rule, not a specific exception.
Loki5654 07-04-07, 03:49 AM	Thank you, Derren. In some cases, as I said, there's not much connection at all. It seems to me that you aren't being creative enough. Aren't you on the side of those who favor creativity over the rules? The elixir of vision gives a +10 competence bonus of search checks. True seeing is the prerequisite spell. A spell that increases visual acuity has no connection to an elixir that increases visual acuity? Granted it isn't a direct correlation, but the connection is there. The bottle of air requires water breathing. An item that provides breathable air and a spell that allows people to breathe? No connection? I think you are being deliberately obtuse here. The belt of dwarvenkind requires tongues. And so on. "The wearer can understand, speak, and read Dwarven." Sounds like the tongues spell to me! The rest of the items abilities are explained by the "creator must be a dwarf" prerequisite. Mage's magnificent mansion isn't much at all like the instant fortress. A spell that creates a mansion and an item that creates a tower. You're right, nothing at all alike :rolleyes: . Why? Without barkskin's "A creature without natural armor has an effective natural armor bonus of +0" clause, the amulets only enhance the wearer's existing NA. You cannot enhance something that doesn't exist (like an undead's CON or construct's INT). That would at least require a grapple check. Even then, there's nothing in the item entry about dealing damage. So the player would only get a tree for his trouble. There's nothing in the description about it not dealing damage either. Why is one interpretation correct and the other isn't? Too bad there aren't relevant rules on a related spell to refer to...:rolleyes:
Loki5654 07-04-07, 03:55 AM	Where do the rules say this?So everything must be explicitly spelled out in the rules, huh? Then show me where it says a dead character can't stand up and cast wish at will as a free action. So righteous might doesn't boost a cleric's AC, huh? It does. The difference is: grants a +2 enhancement bonus to the creature’s existing natural armor bonus gain a +2 enhancement bonus to your natural armor That word "existing" is very important.
TheCobra 07-04-07, 03:57 AM	A spell that increases visual acuity has no connection to an elixir that increases visual acuity? Granted it isn't a direct correlation, but the connection is there. Would you refer to true seeing to answer questions about the elixir? I wouldn't. An item that provides breathable air and a spell that allows people to breathe? No connection? I think you are being deliberately obtuse here. See above. A spell that creates a mansion and an item that creates a tower. You're right, nothing at all alike The spell creates an extradimensional mansion. It doesn't work anything like that item. You cannot enhance something that doesn't exist (like an undead's CON or construct's INT). No, creatures without an natural armor bonus have a natural armor bonus of +0. That ruling isn't specific to the druid spell. There's nothing in the description about it not dealing damage either. Uh, yeah. Whatever you say. Look, the fortress says it can deal damage when activated. That's clear. Because of this, I think it's reasonable for it to deal damage. How that leads to killing people with trees, well, I'm not sure. As for the barkskin question, the amulet of natural armor has a different wording: This amulet, usually crafted from bone or beast scales, toughens the wearer’s body and flesh, giving him an enhancement bonus to his natural armor bonus of from +1 to +5, depending on the kind of amulet. No "existing" there.
stargate525 07-04-07, 04:08 AM	Guys, just shut it already. He came here to share a cool story about how his character tried to kill a dragon, and you give him a page of arguing over whether it worked? of COURSE it worked, he's here telling us about it! So unless you guys put up some stories of your own, take it to another thread or shut it. I was going to tell you about the time I froze a dragon to death, but I don't want that one picked to death over the meaning of 'and,' so I guess it'll have to wait. :rolleyes:
Loki5654 07-04-07, 04:09 AM	Would you refer to true seeing to answer questions about the elixir? I wouldn't. Good thing everything you need to know about the elixir is spelled out in the item description. In this case, the spell prerequisite is mostly for flavor. See above. Ditto. The spell creates an extradimensional mansion. It doesn't work anything like that item. Just because something is extradimensional, doesn't mean it isn't solid in that dimension. The spell creates walls, floors, a door, etc. just as the item does with the tower. No, creatures without an natural armor bonus have a natural armor bonus of +0. That ruling isn't specific to the druid spell. No, the defauly for something that doesn't exist is "-", not zero. A fighter doesn't have a CL of "0", they have a CL of "-". Undead do not have a Constitution of "0", they have a CON of "-" (and thus gain no benefit from a bear's endurance spell, or an Amulet of Health which uses that spell as its prerequisite). A normal human (in the game) does not have a NA bonus of +0, they have a NA of "-" and thus it cannot be enhanced except when a spell or effect explicitly states that it can. Uh, yeah. Whatever you say. Look, the fortress says it can deal damage with activated. That's clear. Because of this, I think it's reasonable for it to deal damage.When the proper conditions for activation are met, yes. These include being on the ground (so its walls can extend into the ground) and not being inside a creature. How that leads to killing people with trees, well, I'm not sure. Hey, if you can ignore the rules for one Conjuration item, why not all of them? You can't have your fortress and eat it, too.
Loki5654 07-04-07, 04:13 AM	As for the barkskin question, the amulet of natural armor has a different wording: No "existing" there. "an enhancement bonus to his natural armor bonus" And if there is no natural armor bonus to give an enhancement bonus to? The same as if a vampire wore an Amulet of Health. No CON score to enhance, no bonus. But if we refer to the barkskin spell...
Loki5654 07-04-07, 04:15 AM	Guys, just shut it already. He came here to share a cool story about how his character tried to kill a dragon, and you give him a page of arguing over whether it worked? of COURSE it worked, he's here telling us about it! So unless you guys put up some stories of your own, take it to another thread or shut it. I was going to tell you about the time I froze a dragon to death, but I don't want that one picked to death over the meaning of 'and,' so I guess it'll have to wait. :rolleyes: Thank you for your appeal. Now did you have something to contribute to the conversation? No? Then why post? Nice try with the semantics there, but we're not arguing over whether it worked or not. We're arguing over whether it should have been allowed to work or not. There is a difference, please try and be aware of it in the future.
stargate525 07-04-07, 04:18 AM	A normal human (in the game) does not have a NA bonus of +0, they have a NA of "-" and thus it cannot be enhanced except when a spell or effect explicitly states that it can. Sorry, flat out WRONG. The default position for something that 'doesn't exist' is zero, not -. rogues at first level have a non-existent base attack bonus. Good thing I'm not playing in your game, otherwise I'd never be able to attack, since I can't raise it. when I'm not wearing armor, my armor bonus is -? Hmm, can't ever wear armor once I take it off then; glad there's some would-be fighters that must be born in the stuff then... edit: yeah, I did have something to contribute, TO THE ORIGINAL TOPIC. You hijacking the thread and making it your debate corner doens't make you supreme lord of the universe. Also, please don't talk down to me, I don't appreciate it. I'm asking nice, I won't do so again.
Loki5654 07-04-07, 04:26 AM	Sorry, flat out WRONG. The default position for something that 'doesn't exist' is zero, not -. rogues at first level have a non-existent base attack bonus. Good thing I'm not playing in your game, otherwise I'd never be able to attack, since I can't raise it. Hmmm. Might want to look at those tables again. The SRD (and my PHB) explicitly states 1st level Rogues as having a BAB of +0. when I'm not wearing armor, my armor bonus is -? Correct! Hmm, can't ever wear armor once I take it off then; glad there's some would-be fighters that must be born in the stuff then... You are confusing "provides an armor bonus" with "provides an enhancement bonus to x". If you aren't wearing anything that provides an armor bonus, and someone tries to enhance that armor bonus, nothing happens! You can't enhance something that doesn't exist! edit: yeah, I did have something to contribute, TO THE ORIGINAL TOPIC. You hijacking the thread and making it your debate corner doens't make you supreme lord of the universe. Also, please don't talk down to me, I don't appreciate it. I'm asking nice, I won't do so again. Nice try. I've been on topic the whole time. The OP presented his creative interpretation as fact and I have been disputing it. I'll make you a deal, I'll try not to talk down to you and you won't falsely accuse me of anything, m'kay? If not, feel free to report me and let a WizO sort it out.
GnomeBoy 07-04-07, 04:29 AM	You also seem to be deliberately ignoring the fact that activating it inside the dragon's mouth is also the equivalent of activating it in mid-air. While the description of the Fortress says it 'springs up' in one round, it is mute on whether you actually have to place it on the ground to work. Perhaps, you could just hold the mini in front of you, and it springs up (it is tall) and there you are holding the door knob. But I'm gonna guess you wouldn't run it that way. But, I ask you, why would the rules require a spell as a prerequisite if there weren't a connection? Nescessary abstraction of a game simulating a fantasy world. It isn't Hero System, afterall. (Which I love and miss). But what you've done here is present your creative interpretation as a viable strategy under the rules. I did? I thought I was sharing an amusing little bon mot about a D&D scene involving a piece of equipment in a combat situation in the 'Equipment and Combat' section of the Wizards' D&D Boards. It turned into an interesting discussion, but I don't think I was trying to change anyone else's game, but was talking about my own. Loki, be honest with me, is this corner of the boards not as friendly as others? It may seem like a creative choice to you, but to me it seems like a last ditch attempt by a desperate player to save their character. I have no malice in this discussion, but you seem to be saying I don't know what I'm doing. So I will briefly play the age card to discover it gets me nowhere... If your profile is correct, I was playing D&D when you were in diapers, literally. Do you really think I'm playing wrong? Think awhile on that before you answer... I'm curious as to what your response might be...
stargate525 07-04-07, 04:32 AM	Hmmm. Might want to look at those tables again. The SRD (and my PHB) explicitly states 1st level Rogues as having a BAB of +0.Yeah, didn't think I'd get away with that one. You are confusing "provides an armor bonus" with "provides an enhancement bonus to x". If you aren't wearing anything that provides an armor bonus, and someone tries to enhance that armor bonus, nothing happens! You can't enhance something that doesn't exist! here's the thing though, I defy you to find a SINGLE instance of a natural armor bonus not working when your bonus is zero. I make exception to monstrous feat from the MM. Nice try. I've been on topic the whole time. The OP presented his creative interpretation as fact and I have been disputing it. no, the OP presented a good story, nowhere does it say anything about how the item should or should not activate. Also, you've been arguing more than disputing. I'll make you a deal, I'll try not to talk down to you and you won't falsely accuse me of anything, m'kay? If not, feel free to report me and let a WizO sort it out. I'll keep that in mind, your highness.
GnomeBoy 07-04-07, 04:36 AM	And when I picture the situation correctly, you now have the problem that you are falling down with the tower closly following you and when you don't get out of the way you will get squished by it. IIRC, the Fortress launched itself out, did a beautiful arc through the air and proceeded to careen down the walls of the canyon we were in.... While the Dragons' jaw was momentarily open, I climbed out and onto the Dragon's neck, at the base of its skull. It was briefly like that guy in Dr. Strangelove, only with a dragon, a dwarf and a metal helmet instead of a cowboy hat. I don't remember how I survived from there, because that was the high point, really. Anything against the rules in there...? :hides:
Derren S. 07-04-07, 04:41 AM	Anything against the rules in there...? :hides: Without a successfull grapple check you could not have escaped. Climbing on its head also counts as grapple and you would not have been save from teh dragons attacks up there.
Loki5654 07-04-07, 04:42 AM	While the description of the Fortress says it 'springs up' in one round, it is mute on whether you actually have to place it on the ground to work. Perhaps, you could just hold the mini in front of you, and it springs up (it is tall) and there you are holding the door knob. But I'm gonna guess you wouldn't run it that way.Nope. Because it also says the walls extend into the ground, so at some point in that one round it has to contact the ground. It can't do that inside a creature or in the air. Nescessary abstraction of a game simulating a fantasy world. It isn't Hero System, afterall. (Which I love and miss). This isn't the Hero System boards and I've never played it, so I'm letting this part go as it has no bearing on the conversation whatsoever. I did? I thought I was sharing an amusing little bon mot about a D&D scene involving a piece of equipment in a combat situation in the 'Equipment and Combat' section of the Wizards' D&D Boards. It turned into an interesting discussion, but I don't think I was trying to change anyone else's game, but was talking about my own. And I'm not trying to change your personal game. I'm talking about the rules. You are free to ignore as many of them as you like. Loki, be honest with me, is this corner of the boards not as friendly as others? Gnome, be honest with me, did you really think this veiled insult would yeild any results? I have no malice in this discussion, but you seem to be saying I don't know what I'm doing. So I will briefly play the age card to discover it gets me nowhere... If your profile is correct, I was playing D&D when you were in diapers, literally. Do you really think I'm playing wrong? Think awhile on that before you answer... I'm curious as to what your response might be... All that time playing and you still haven't gotten that Wisdom and Intelligence are two different things? Just because you are older (and you presume, wiser) than me doesn't mean you are smarter than me. I have never once said "These are the rules in stone, everyone must play this way or else!" I say "I don't think what you did is technically correct under the rules", you say "Who cares? Its fun!". And I ask "If you honestly don't care, why do you keep trying to convince me you are right?"
Thiez 07-04-07, 04:44 AM	Sorry, flat out WRONG. The default position for something that 'doesn't exist' is zero, not -. rogues at first level have a non-existent base attack bonus. Good thing I'm not playing in your game, otherwise I'd never be able to attack, since I can't raise it. when I'm not wearing armor, my armor bonus is -? Hmm, can't ever wear armor once I take it off then; glad there's some would-be fighters that must be born in the stuff then... edit: yeah, I did have something to contribute, TO THE ORIGINAL TOPIC. You hijacking the thread and making it your debate corner doens't make you supreme lord of the universe. Also, please don't talk down to me, I don't appreciate it. I'm asking nice, I won't do so again. I disagree with loki as much as you do, but those examples are horrible. A level 1 rogue has a listed bab of +0, a character does not have an armor bonus until they start wearing armor (remember kids, armor gives you an armor to ac, not an enhancement to your armor bonus), at which point it can be enhanced. Edit: Wow you're fast posters. I assumed no-one would be on at this time of day and I'd have half an hour to type this post.
stargate525 07-04-07, 04:45 AM	I say "I don't think what you did is technically correct under the rules", you say "Who cares? Its fun!". And I ask "If you honestly don't care, why do you keep trying to convince me you are right?" We're not. You've been trying to convince us that we're wrong.
Loki5654 07-04-07, 04:52 AM	here's the thing though, I defy you to find a SINGLE instance of a natural armor bonus not working when your bonus is zero. I make exception to monstrous feat from the MM. Well, since pretty much all others use barkskin or a reasonable facsimile and you've made an exception of the monstrous feats, there aren't any. Well done, you've successfully challenged me. Its like you challenged me to name a state bigger than Texas and said I can't mention Alaska. Way to go asking me a question with no possible answer. no, the OP presented a good story, nowhere does it say anything about how the item should or should not activate. Also, you've been arguing more than disputing. The OP told his story. I said "Your DM should have said 'The instant fortress fails to activate.'" He disputed me and I began to back up my statement. Whether you think I'm arguing or disputing is just a sematical tactic to make yourself feel better by trying to cast me as "the bad guy". I'll keep that in mind, your highness.Well struck :clap: ! You certainly put me in my place with that one! Helpful tip: You can't maintain the moral high-ground while insulting someone.
Derren S. 07-04-07, 04:53 AM	We're not. You've been trying to convince us that we're wrong. Well you are. Why don't you accept that and say "I know its wrong, but it makes for a nice story so personally I would allow that in my game"?
GnomeBoy 07-04-07, 04:54 AM	Without a successfull grapple check you could not have escaped. Climbing on its head also counts as grapple and you would not have been save from teh dragons attacks up there. Done and done. And, I wasn't. All that time playing and you still haven't gotten that Wisdom and Intelligence are two different things? Just because you are older (and you presume, wiser) than me doesn't mean you are smarter than me. I have never once said "These are the rules in stone, everyone must play this way or else!" I say "I don't think what you did is technically correct under the rules", you say "Who cares? Its fun!". And I ask "If you honestly don't care, why do you keep trying to convince me you are right?" I guess it is because I care. Saying that, most readers will assume I'm being sarcastic. I'm not. I'm not wise enough to wrap my head around the idea that I came here to post what I thought one or two readers might find a funny story (and I did find those one or two), and you're here for an argument (your own word, earlier). I thought it was a discussion, until I read that word. I'm done posting to this thread, unless there is a highly compelling change in its tone. Go in peace, everybody. G'night.
TheCobra 07-04-07, 04:54 AM	A normal human (in the game) does not have a NA bonus of +0, they have a NA of "-" and thus it cannot be enhanced except when a spell or effect explicitly states that it can. Nope. Barkskin tells us otherwise. It's not a specific ruling for the spell. It's a general rule. Hey, if you can ignore the rules for one Conjuration item, why not all of them? You can't have your fortress and eat it, too. Show me where these rules are printed and we'll talk. And if there is no natural armor bonus to give an enhancement bonus to? So you don't think righteous might increases a cleric's AC? Its wording is almost as the same as the amulet of natural armor's.
Loki5654 07-04-07, 04:55 AM	We're not. You've been trying to convince us that we're wrong. Then how come every response has been: "We don't care about the rules, we're all about the fun! ... ... ... Now here's where the rules say you're wrong." If you all wanted to say "We don't care about the rules, we're all about the fun" and leave it at that, I'd be OK with it. But saying you don't care about the rules and arguing over the rules at the same time is quite hypocritical.
Loki5654 07-04-07, 04:58 AM	Nope. Barkskin tells us otherwise. It's not a specific ruling for the spell. It's a general rule. Show me where these rules are printed and we'll talk. So you don't think righteous might increases a cleric's AC? Its wording is almost as the same as the amulet of natural armor's. OK, you've gone back to three points I've already covered. So just re-read my posts and keep spinning yourself in that loop. I'm done here.
stargate525 07-04-07, 05:03 AM	Well, since pretty much all others use barkskin or a reasonable facsimile and you've made an exception of the monstrous feats, there aren't any. Well done, you've successfully challenged me. Its like you challenged me to name a state bigger than Texas and said I can't mention Alaska. Way to go asking me a question with no possible answer. Thanks, I try. ;) And the reason I excluded the monstrous feats is because those are the only ones I'm not on rock hard knowledge of. Looking at them though, go right ahead and use them. All it says is your natural ac increases by 1. Says nothing about it requiring a bonus in the first place. You lose sir, good day to you! The OP told his story. I said "Your DM should have said 'The instant fortress fails to activate.'" He disputed me and I began to back up my statement. No, you began to argue. Whether you think I'm arguing or disputing is just a sematical tactic to make yourself feel better by trying to cast me as "the bad guy". Oh trust me, I'm not that deep. Nor would I really need that. I know exactly what you are, and that's more than enough for me. Well struck :clap: ! You certainly put me in my place with that one! Helpful tip: You can't maintain the moral high-ground while insulting someone. Hello sarcasm. And I never said I was maintaining moral highground. If I had any of that left, I would have stopped posting after my plea to keep this on topic. I'm done posting to this thread, unless there is a highly compelling change in its tone. Go in peace, everybody. G'night. Seconded. And I'm tired besides.
Dead_Weasel 07-04-07, 05:05 AM	Hmmm. Might want to look at those tables again. The SRD (and my PHB) explicitly states 1st level Rogues as having a BAB of +0. How interesting! Both my PHB and the SRD point out that a creature with no natural armor bonus actually has a natural armor bonus of +0. Barkskin can affect any living creature not immune to it. Daern's Instant Fortress is produced by a conjuration effect, even though it is not a spell. It should only be able to come into being in accordance with the conjuration school's limitations.A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it. I disagree that magical items' effects are limited by their prerequisite spells' effects. Were that the case, all of the Quaal's feather tokens would be worthless, excepting the tree token, because major creation merely creates objects - actually animating the objects created would require a separate effect.
Lawkeeper 07-04-07, 07:58 AM	@Loki: for my exterior eyes, you're both insulting to the other posters in the thread and wrong in your interpretations. To begin with, Daern's Instand Fortress' description is : Instant Fortress This metal cube is small, but when activated by speaking a command word it grows to form a tower 20 feet square and 30 feet high, with arrow slits on all sides and a crenellated battlement atop it. The metal walls extend 10 feet into the ground, rooting it to the spot and preventing it from being tipped over. The fortress has a small door that opens only at the command of the owner of the fortress—even knock spells can’t open the door. The adamantine walls of instant fortress have 100 hit points and hardness 20. The fortress cannot be repaired except by a wish or a miracle, which restores 50 points of damage taken. The fortress springs up in just 1 round, with the door facing the device’s owner. The door opens and closes instantly at his command. People and creatures nearby (except the owner) must be careful not to be caught by the fortress’s sudden growth. Anyone so caught takes 10d10 points of damage (Reflex DC 19 half). The fortress is deactivated by speaking a command word (different from the one used to activate it). It cannot be deactivated unless it is empty. Strong conjuration; CL 13th; Craft Wondrous Item, mage’s magnificent mansion; Price 55,000 gp. Emphasis is mine, remember it for later. Please note that nothing says the DIF has to be on the ground, nor does it say a word about grounds that are less than 10ft thick. What about interior 1ft-thick wooden floors ? What about 1/10th of an inch thick hardenned paper floor ? No rulings. Looking at the exact sentence a second time lets you notice the end : "rooting it to the spot and preventing it from being tipped over". This is an effect tied to the extension of the walls in the ground - by RAW, the only effect that can be tied to the IF not being activated on ground is that the IF could be tipped over. Then, Conjuration school's special rules say in the second paragraph : A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it. Emphasis is still mine, and I have two remarks. First, this paragraph applies only to objects or creatures brought into being or transported to your location. DIF does neither : the description of the item specifically uses the word "grows". That is where M's Magnificent Mansion and D's Instant Fortress drastically part : one is about creating an extradimensional space, the other is about enlarging a material object. Seeing any kind of connection there is akin to saying that disintegrate is a [Fire] spell because it only leaves dust, because dust is akin to ashes. Second, this paragraph also refers to conjuration spell. Not "item", not "magic", no : just "spell". It off course applies to objects that actually duplicate a spell, since in those cases you actually copy the spell ; for the other objects whose description is not the use of the spell, no such thing. Let's continue with the general rules on magic items descriptions. Selected pieces : Some individual items, notably those that simply store spells and nothing else, don’t get full-blown descriptions. Reference the spell’s description for details, modified by the form of the item (potion, scroll, wand, and so on). Assume that the spell is cast at the minimum level required to cast it This is essentially what you're doing here : referring to the magnificent mansion spell. You're wrong, because you don't respect the condition for doing this, as the DIF already has a full-blown description. So, the paragraph can't apply to DIF. Aura Most of the time, a detect magic spell will reveal the school of magic associated with a magic item and the strength of the aura an item emits. This information (when applicable) is given at the beginning of the item’s notational entry. See the detect magic spell description for details. What do "aura" mean in an item description ? Basically only what is written above : it gives the school when detect magic is used. It does not say that the school's special rules apply on the object. At the most, it can be argued that the description of the aura determines how it interacts with other spells, not only detect magic - still, it does not make it follow all the special rules of the school. Prerequisites Certain requirements must be met in order for a character to create a magic item. These include feats, spells, and miscellaneous requirements such as level, alignment, and race or kind. The prerequisites for creation of an item are given immediately following the item’s caster level. <snip> Typically, a list of prerequisites includes one feat and one or more spells (or some other requirement in addition to the feat). When two spells at the end of a list are separated by "or," one of those spells is required in addition to every other spell mentioned prior to the last two. I've cut the uninteresting part, but feel free to go read & check. The same can be said for Prerequisites as has been said for Auras : the description doesn't entail any other effect/rule than what is explicitly said it does. So, the prerequisites part is only indicating what feats, spells, races, etc, are needed to create the magic item. It does not serve the purpose of being the reference for the item. If you disagree, please answer to this question : does the see invisibility spell negate the +5 competence bonus to Hide checks of the Cloak of Elvenkind or the same +10 from an Elixif or Hiding ? It doesn't, because the invisibility spell is only a requirement to create the item, not a way to explain how it works. Or why does an Elixir of Love emit a Transmutation aura when it depents on the enchantment charm person spell ? No, seeing in the auras and prerequisites of the items anything else than what aura is emits and what spells it needs to be created is plain wrong. Now, what about the barkskin spell and the Amulet of Natural Armor ? Let's look at both's descriptions : Amulet of Natural Armor This amulet, usually crafted from bone or beast scales, toughens the wearer’s body and flesh, giving him an enhancement bonus to his natural armor bonus of from +1 to +5, depending on the kind of amulet. Faint transmutation; CL 5th; Craft Wondrous Item, barkskin, creator’s caster level must be at least three times the amulet’s bonus; Price 2,000 gp (+1), 8,000 gp (+2), 18,000 gp (+3), 32,000 gp (+4), or 50,000 gp (+5). Barkskin toughens a creature’s skin. The effect grants a +2 enhancement bonus to the creature’s existing natural armor bonus. This enhancement bonus increases by 1 for every three caster levels above 3rd, to a maximum of +5 at caster level 12th. The enhancement bonus provided by barkskin stacks with the target’s natural armor bonus, but not with other enhancement bonuses to natural armor. A creature without natural armor has an effective natural armor bonus of +0. Emphasis are mine. Do you see the difference between both, and why the Amulet doesn't need the +0 special rule ? Barkskin actually mentions an existing natural armor bonus. The Amulet does not. Now, look at the Familiar class feature. It refers to existing natural armor bonus. I refer you to the Rules of the Game : Familiars (part one) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050906a) article : The table on page 53 of the Player's Handbook shows the increase. Add the value shown on the table to the familiar's normal natural armor bonus. For example, a standard cat's natural armor bonus is +0. A cat familiar with a 1st- or 2nd-level master has a natural armor bonus of +1. By RAW, nothing said that a cat, who, like lizard, bat, rat, etc, has no existing natural armor bonus, would benefit from this natural armor bonus increase. Like it has been said above, all increases to natural armor apply whether or not there is one already. All count "non existent" natural armor as "natural armor +0", and in most case don't say so in the description (Tenser's Transformation, Righteous Might for two other examples - unless you consider they don't help your NA+0 ?;) ). This is the standard rule on that matter.
The_sleeper1 07-04-07, 08:49 AM	And you're ignoring the direct connection between an item's abilities and its prerequisite spells. Clearly an item that gives a +6 to int and uses a base spell that only gives a +2 to int is clearly wrong by your above sentance. Items made from magic spells can have the same propertys of the spell they are made from or totaly differant better or unique abilitys. The MIC is full of such examples where your logic break down. PS I looked in the SDR and I could not find this "implied" rule your talking is that something you made up? Also I dont see the rule on "direct connections" can you post both of those please.
Derren S. 07-04-07, 09:09 AM	Emphasis is still mine, and I have two remarks. First, this paragraph applies only to objects or creatures brought into being or transported to your location. And the Fortress is brought into being. You do not have miniature version of the tower but a simple metal cube wwhich changes into a growing tower. But without solid ground the tower can't be "brought into being" and thus the item does not work.
The Livewire 07-04-07, 09:55 AM	First, to the original poster; That was a clever usage. I think the DM ruled correctly. I've loved the McD's Port-a-fort. To this (pointless) arguement. It appears to internal consistancy, if you resort to the spell used in creation then. 1) nothing will give a human a natural armor bonus, except Barkskin, including the Dragon Disciple (since it states clearly 'if any' as a qualifier) 2) see invisibility negates a cloak of elven kind, since it counters the base spell. 3) A psionic flaming sword can also do frost, electric, and sonic, since the power used (energy ball) can switch energy types, since the base power can. I think we can all agree that these are incorrect rulings. As to the 'it's a cube, not a fortress' line. My jetfire transformer is on my bookshelf in Robot form. If I change it to jet mode it's a non-magical object that is no longer what it was. So if my non-magical toy can change then why can't the magical d6. Derren, you're clinging. In the same paragraph you say it changes (transmutation) into a growing tower. Then you're saying 'it's brought into being'. Do you contradict yourself? You contradict yourself. Are you Large? Do you contain multitudes?
mvincent 07-04-07, 12:35 PM	To be fair, my character was inside the dragon's mouth, about to be thoroughly chewed up, so not quite what you're describing here (just to be clear).Right, but a good DM will frequently use the 'standard' rules to quickly and easily adjudicate unusual circumstances. i.e. if a player described some fantastic way of attacking a creature, I would use the standard rules where possible (and consider the rest fluff text). In this case the item's description says 10d10 damage, so however you use it that damage is at least in scope. Your DM seemed to have used that method in your original story, and it seemed to have worked out for you and your group (despite what some posts here claim).
mvincent 07-04-07, 12:50 PM	We are looking at it differently. Inside a creature and next to a creature are two entirely different things. The first involves being inside a creature's space, the second does not.To clarify: an instant fortress that is activated next to a creature will go into the creature's space (pushing that creature out). This is how it does damage. Or are we using "being inside a creature's space" differently? Inside the mouth equals inside the creature.If that were true, then the player in question (and indeed any player in a creature's mouth) would be considered "swallowed whole" rather than merely "grappled".
Lawkeeper 07-04-07, 01:54 PM	And the Fortress is brought into being. You do not have miniature version of the tower but a simple metal cube wwhich changes into a growing tower. But without solid ground the tower can't be "brought into being" and thus the item does not work. Bring into being = creating. The cube grows into a fortress. It doesn't create it : it change into it. A better school descriptor would have been transmutation, indeed, but the text specifically sais "grow". If it meant "create", it would have said so. First, to the original poster; That was a clever usage. I think the DM ruled correctly. I've loved the McD's Port-a-fort. Clever usage indeed, I failed to congrat him. To this (pointless) arguement. It appears to internal consistancy, if you resort to the spell used in creation then. 1) nothing will give a human a natural armor bonus, except Barkskin, including the Dragon Disciple (since it states clearly 'if any' as a qualifier) Plain wrong. Dragon disciple will give a human (or any other natural armor +0 creature) an "increase" to his NA. Want a proof ? Look at the Prestige Class : Dragon Disciple (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20061201a) article's example character. 2) see invisibility negates a cloak of elven kind, since it counters the base spell. Please provide a source for that free claim. The invisibility spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/seeInvisibility.htm) only allows you to see invisible creatures and objects. The spell does not reveal the method used to obtain invisibility. It does not reveal illusions or enable you to see through opaque objects. It does not reveal creatures who are simply hiding, concealed, or otherwise hard to see. The Cloak of Elvenkind (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#cloakofElvenkind) only gives a bonus on Hide checks. This cloak of neutral gray cloth is indistinguishable from an ordinary cloak of the same color. However, when worn with the hood drawn up around the head, it gives the wearer a +5 competence bonus on Hide checks. 3) A psionic flaming sword can also do frost, electric, and sonic, since the power used (energy ball) can switch energy types, since the base power can. Please provide a source for your "psionic flaming sword". The XPH has none. The CP has none. The MIC has none. Nowhere has WotC ruled what the prerequisites for those qualities are - BTW, to my knowledge nowhere has WotC stated that such a thing can exist, although I have no problem admitting it, at least under a magic/psionic transparency system as stated in the p. 232 of the MIC (regarding psionic/magic creation). I think we can all agree that these are incorrect rulings. Okay, I just now understand that you weren't advancing those points, only contradicting them. My first, second and third readings (last two in full disbelief) of your post were wrong. Well, at least it helped further refine your points.;)