Post/Author/DateTime	Post
CelestialBarbarian 02-15-07, 02:16 PM	If you do a disarm or sunder on a second, third, or fourth iterative attack, when you make your opposed attack roll, do you use your full base attack bonus or the attack bonus of the iterative attack? Likewise, if you've used Power Attack or Combat Expertise on a previous iterative attack, do you suffer the Power Attack or Combat Expertise penalty on your opposed attack roll? Thanks! :)
Vegepygmy 02-15-07, 02:19 PM	You use the iterative bonus. And yes, you suffer the PA or CE penalties.
CelestialBarbarian 02-15-07, 02:41 PM	You use the iterative bonus. And yes, you suffer the PA or CE penalties. Thanks. How do we know that? It seems a bit unfair that the attacker has to use the lower attack bonus for iterative attacks on the opposed attack rolls while the defender gets to keep all the full bonus for all the opposed attack rolls.
Vegepygmy 02-15-07, 02:55 PM	Thanks. How do we know that?Sorry, but I don't have the time to sift through the rules and prove it. Maybe someone else will take up the job. (The short answer is: there's nothing in the rules to say that the normal rules don't apply, so they do.) It seems a bit unfair that the attacker has to use the lower attack bonus for iterative attacks on the opposed attack rolls while the defender gets to keep all the full bonus for all the opposed attack rolls.That's like saying it's "a bit unfair" that the defender gets to keep his full AC against regular iterative attacks. That the attacker gets to make iterative attacks at all is an advantage; penalizing the defender on top of that would be a double-whammy.
CelestialBarbarian 02-15-07, 03:10 PM	Sorry, but I don't have the time to sift through the rules and prove it. Maybe someone else will take up the job. (The short answer is: there's nothing in the rules to say that the normal rules don't apply, so they do.) Ok, so you don't actually know and are just expressing your uninformed option. Coming from you, that's actually what I expected, but I thought I'd give you the chance to prove otherwise. Both disarm and sunder are special attacks, and have special rules--including a special attack roll--so it's not unreasonable to think that the special attack roll has other special rules too. Perhaps someone will prove you right, but you certainly haven't. That's like saying it's "a bit unfair" that the defender gets to keep his full AC against regular iterative attacks. That the attacker gets to make iterative attacks at all is an advantage; penalizing the defender on top of that would be a double-whammy. They're nothing alike. Your example involves no opposed attack role. You are comparing apples and salami. :P Is there anyone who can actually make a case, citing specific rules, one way or the other?
Vegepygmy 02-15-07, 03:13 PM	Coming from you, that's actually what I expected...And we're done. :tiphat:
draconic_swine 02-15-07, 03:14 PM	Thanks. How do we know that? Well, sunder and disarm both involve an attack roll. If your base attack bonus allows it, each subsequent attack after your first is made at a lower attack bonus. It therefore makes sense that each subsequent disarm or sunder attack be at a lower attack bonus. Disarming and sundering are just like regular attacks, only you don't deal damage to your opponent - you disarm them or damage their weapon, hence their being special attacks. But they are still attacks. That's why they suffer from your Power Attack or Combat Expterise penalty - both apply penalties to all attacks until the beginning of your next turn, no matter what they are attempting. If someone attempts to disarm or sunder you after you have used Power Attack or Combat Expertise, you're gonna take the attack penalty for the roll to avoid being disarmed/sundered, too.
CelestialBarbarian 02-15-07, 03:18 PM	Well, sunder and disarm both involve an attack roll. If your base attack bonus allows it, each subsequent attack after your first is made at a lower attack bonus. It therefore makes sense that each subsequent disarm or sunder attack be at a lower attack bonus. Disarming and sundering are just like regular attacks, only you don't deal damage to your opponent - you disarm them or damage their weapon, hence their being special attacks. But they are still attacks. That's why they suffer from your Power Attack or Combat Expterise penalty - both apply penalties to all attacks until the beginning of your next turn, no matter what they are attempting. If someone attempts to disarm or sunder you after you have used Power Attack or Combat Expertise, you're gonna take the attack penalty for the roll to avoid being disarmed/sundered, too. Alright, that's fair enough as far as it goes, but remember that the defender is making attack rolls too. Why don't the defender's attack rolls degrade by 5 points for each subsequent attack too? I mean, the defender normally wouldn't even get an attack when the attacker attacks him, and the defender is already getting an enormous advantage in getting an attack when it's not his or her turn. (Did I say "attack" enough in this sentence? :D)
draconic_swine 02-15-07, 03:29 PM	Well, technically the defender isn't making an attack, but I do see where you're coming from. Chalk it up as a built-in advantage to being a defender, I guess. Another reason why the defender always gets his full attack bonus is probably to avoid a sticky situation: if the defender has his attack bonus reduced for each subsequent attack, what happens when the attack has more attacks than the defender? Does the defender suddenly go back to his full attack bonus? Does the attack succeed automatically? I think it's just easier to have the defender use his full base attack bonus every time - nce and simple, with no need for rules for special situations.
CelestialBarbarian 02-15-07, 03:43 PM	Well, technically the defender isn't making an attack, but I do see where you're coming from. Chalk it up as a built-in advantage to being a defender, I guess. Thanks. :) Ok, I'm looking at Step 2 for both disarm and sunder, and the text specifically says that the attacker and defender make opposed attack rolls. So either they're both, as the text says, making actual attacks rolls, or neither one is. Another reason why the defender always gets his full attack bonus is probably to avoid a sticky situation: if the defender has his attack bonus reduced for each subsequent attack, what happens when the attack has more attacks than the defender? Does the defender suddenly go back to his full attack bonus? Does the attack succeed automatically? I think it's just easier to have the defender use his full base attack bonus every time - nce and simple, with no need for rules for special situations. Yes, I'd thought of that. It seems unfair to degrade the defender's opposed attack rolls infinitely by 5 for every attack from any attacker. It does seem to make more sense to to back to the higest BAB for each subsequent attacker. But we could make it even simpler and just have both attacker and defender make each disarm opposed attack roll at the highest BAB. This would be in keeping with the fact that these are special attack rolls and do not follow the general rule for attack penalties for subsequent iterative attack rolls. Indeed until now I've always thought that's exactly the way they'd intended the opposed attack roll mechanic to work. :)
DogBackward 02-15-07, 04:00 PM	The defender is not making an attack, actually. The attacker is making an attack roll as normal, trying to hit the opponent's weapon. The defender, however, doesn't have to actually do anything, just defend. The reason they use an attack roll is because it's the best way to represent your skill at defending against such things. AC wouldn't work, because your weapon isn't wearing armor or anything of the sort. When you attack, you take penalties for your iterative attacks because the more actions you use, the less accurate you get. When you defend, however, you don't have to move as much, just stand tough against the attack, and so you don't lose BAB for it. If you really want to get down to the rules, you only take penalties to your attack rolls by making a Full Attack. When you defend, you're not making a Full Attack, therefore you take no penalties. It's the same reason why you don't take penalties on Attacks of Opportunity. You're not using a Full Attack.
CelestialBarbarian 02-15-07, 04:38 PM	The defender is not making an attack, actually. The attacker is making an attack roll as normal, trying to hit the opponent's weapon. The defender, however, doesn't have to actually do anything, just defend. The reason they use an attack roll is because it's the best way to represent your skill at defending against such things. AC wouldn't work, because your weapon isn't wearing armor or anything of the sort. When you attack, you take penalties for your iterative attacks because the more actions you use, the less accurate you get. When you defend, however, you don't have to move as much, just stand tough against the attack, and so you don't lose BAB for it. If you really want to get down to the rules, you only take penalties to your attack rolls by making a Full Attack. When you defend, you're not making a Full Attack, therefore you take no penalties. It's the same reason why you don't take penalties on Attacks of Opportunity. You're not using a Full Attack. I'm sorry, but as I indicated above, the text specifically says that the attacker and defender are making attack rolls. There is no question about it--the defender is making an attack roll. Also, the defender is taking neither a full attack action nor a singel attack action, but is getting a free attack, so any discussion of full attack versus single attack is irrelevant at best and misleading at worst. This is a special attack on the part of the defender. It hardly seems right that an attacker is forced to lower the attack bonus on a finite (and very small) number of special attacks but the defender is allowed the full attack bonus against an infinite number of special opposed attacks.
CelestialBarbarian 02-15-07, 04:55 PM	Ok, you'll be happy to know that I sent an email to Customer Service asking their opinion. I know that some board frequenters have little respect for Customer Service, but I have to admit that they've improved from what I agree was a rather poor performance a couple of years back and earlier. For what it's worth, I have a sneaking feeling that they will agree with you all and disagree with me. :)
HairyApe 02-15-07, 05:01 PM	It says 'attack roll' to show the skill of the defender in not getting his weapon in the way of a destructive (more-so) attack. Now, what game mechanic would one use to measure one skill in using weapons?? -- BAB Now, if we wanted to adjust that skill to show their natural inclination to combat..what game mechanic would we use? -- Str Mod (Dex mod if Weapon Finesse + Finessable = True). Next, what game mechanic would be used to measure any extraordinary training one would have to enhance their skill in said weapon?? -- Feats (weapon focus)!! Finally, what game mechanic would we use to show the increase in skill the defender gains in use of the weapon due to superior craftsmanship or magical abilities?? -- Enhancement bonuses. Add is magical effects and environmental hazards (smoke, cover, high ground), and you have a good idea on how skilled someone is at not breaking their weapon. Oddly enough, that looks like an attack roll to me. Instead of reinventing the wheel, it looks as if they just used a known value to keep things simple. KISS method!! Learn it.
CelestialBarbarian 02-15-07, 05:07 PM	It says 'attack roll' to show the skill of the defender in not getting his weapon in the way of a destructive (more-so) attack. Now, what game mechanic would one use to measure one skill in using weapons?? -- BAB Now, if we wanted to adjust that skill to show their natural inclination to combat..what game mechanic would we use? -- Str Mod (Dex mod if Weapon Finesse + Finessable = True). Next, what game mechanic would be used to measure any extraordinary training one would have to enhance their skill in said weapon?? -- Feats (weapon focus)!! Finally, what game mechanic would we use to show the increase in skill the defender gains in use of the weapon due to superior craftsmanship or magical abilities?? -- Enhancement bonuses. Add is magical effects and environmental hazards (smoke, cover, high ground), and you have a good idea on how skilled someone is at not breaking their weapon. Oddly enough, that looks like an attack roll to me. Instead of reinventing the wheel, it looks as if they just used a known value to keep things simple. KISS method!! Learn it. Right! So it's a normal attack by the attacker against a normal attack by the defender, with none of this iterative attack penalty complexity! :)
mvincent 02-15-07, 05:20 PM	From the 3.5 FAQ: "When using Combat Expertise or Power Attack, does the penalty you take also apply to opposed attack rolls (such as when you are involved in a disarm or sunder attempt)? What about on grapple checks? Yes and no. Anything described as an attack roll (even an opposed attack roll) can be affected by Combat Expertise or Power Attack. A grapple check isn’t an attack roll, so you can’t use Combat Expertise or Power Attack in conjunction with it." and "A monster with natural weaponry doesn’t need to use its primary natural weapon to make sunder or trip attacks. If it uses a secondary weapon, however, the penalty for a secondary weapon applies to the attack (–5 or –2 with the Multiattack feat). In the case of sunder, the secondary weapon penalty applies to the opposed attack roll the creature makes to accomplish the sunder attack."
HairyApe 02-15-07, 05:40 PM	NO! I am not agreeing with you. Instead of giving you a formula to calculate what has already been calculated, they told you to use that number. It is NOT an attack action, it is a defensive roll. An Anti-Sunder/Disarm Roll. Modified by any modifiers that would affect your ability to strike accurately. The trigger for this roll is someone trying to sunder/disarm. As it triggers, you roll the defensive roll. Nothing else. What you are suggesting is a logistical nightmare. Warrior types vs. Rogues?? What happens? What if you move and attack, then someone with a lower initiative tries to sunder your axe 3 times? Do you start on your highest or second? And what if you only have one attack? Do you even oppose them? This is a game. Mechanics have to draw the line somewhere or we will all be carrying around 45 pages of modifiers and situational bonuses just in case something happens. If it were an honest attack roll, it would take up at least an attack action. Since this is not possible after you have taken your turn, but it is only fair that you have the option to defend your items, you are given a free opposed roll.
CelestialBarbarian 02-15-07, 05:44 PM	NO! I am not agreeing with you. Instead of giving you a formula to calculate what has already been calculated, they told you to use that number. It is NOT an attack action, it is a defensive roll. An Anti-Sunder/Disarm Roll. Modified by any modifiers that would affect your ability to strike accurately. The trigger for this roll is someone trying to sunder/disarm. As it triggers, you roll the defensive roll. Nothing else. What you are suggesting is a logistical nightmare. Warrior types vs. Rogues?? What happens? What if you move and attack, then someone with a lower initiative tries to sunder your axe 3 times? Do you start on your highest or second? And what if you only have one attack? Do you even oppose them? This is a game. Mechanics have to draw the line somewhere or we will all be carrying around 45 pages of modifiers and situational bonuses just in case something happens. If it were an honest attack roll, it would take up at least an attack action. Since this is not possible after you have taken your turn, but it is only fair that you have the option to defend your items, you are given a free opposed roll. I knew you weren't actually agreeing with me, but since your argument supports my position and not yours, I acted tongue-in-cheek like you were agreeing with me. :P When they say it's an attack, I take them at their word. If they'd mean that it was like an attack, they'd have said so--as they did in the wording for an opposed grapple attack.
CelestialBarbarian 02-15-07, 05:47 PM	From the 3.5 FAQ: "When using Combat Expertise or Power Attack, does the penalty you take also apply to opposed attack rolls (such as when you are involved in a disarm or sunder attempt)? What about on grapple checks? Yes and no. Anything described as an attack roll (even an opposed attack roll) can be affected by Combat Expertise or Power Attack. A grapple check isn’t an attack roll, so you can’t use Combat Expertise or Power Attack in conjunction with it." and "A monster with natural weaponry doesn’t need to use its primary natural weapon to make sunder or trip attacks. If it uses a secondary weapon, however, the penalty for a secondary weapon applies to the attack (–5 or –2 with the Multiattack feat). In the case of sunder, the secondary weapon penalty applies to the opposed attack roll the creature makes to accomplish the sunder attack." Thanks, mvincent. This is probably the best evidence so far that they do intend to penalize the attacker while allowing the defender unlimited unpenalized attack rolls on a disarm or sunder. Of course the FAQ has, from time to time, been wrong and corrected later, but as with the anticipated Customer Service response, I suspect that won't be the case with this piece of FAQ either. Thanks! :) Edit: Just to be thorough, one could argue that the penalty on secondary natural attacks mirrors not the penalty for iterative attacks with manufactured weapons, but rather the penalty for offhand attacks made with manufactured weapons. You can take a feat to reduce the offhand manufactured weapon penalties, just as you can take a feat to reduce the secondary natural weapon penalties, but you cannot reduce (so far as I'm aware) the penalties for iterative attacks. Since the iterative attack penalties differ from the secondary weapon penalties, one could argue that being forced to include the latter doesn't confirm that one would have to include the former. I have to say though that while it's a logically consistent argument, I still have that sneaking suspicion that they did mean to include the iterative attack penalty. :)
mvincent 02-15-07, 06:05 PM	Of course the FAQ has, from time to time, been wrong and corrected laterYup: a process which increases its reliability. Answers that have been around for awhile (like these have been) have already been subject to considerable scrutiny. By RAW this is pretty solidified. The term "opposed attack rolls" has a definite meaning in D&D.
CelestialBarbarian 02-15-07, 06:13 PM	Yup: a process which increases its reliability. Answers that have been around for awhile (like these have been) have already been subject to considerable scrutiny. Note: I believe you are the first I've seen to question this particular ruling on these boards (and I have considerable experience here), so it seems pretty solid. The first argument carries more weight than the second. The fact that they will correct the FAQ when someone demonstrates a mistake makes it more likely, as you say, to be correct. The fact that only one person takes a position really bears relatively little relationship to the veracity of the position. At one time people though the sun revolved around the earth, that the earth was flat, etc. Early in the last century US Army IQ tests seemed to suggest that Jews were mentally inferior to other Americans; now Jews have the highest average IQ of any ethnic group in America. No doubt though when the first person questioned the earlier belief in the inferiority of Jews, someone said that since nobody else had questioned the belief, it seemed pretty solid. :P
mvincent 02-15-07, 06:16 PM	The first argument carries more weight than the second. Note that I changed the second notation within moments of posting The fact that only one person takes a position really bears relatively little relationship to the veracity of the position. It has bearing, especially if the one person is arguing based on opinion. I'm not saying this is you, but you'd be surprised how many 'odd people' we get on these boards that are convinced of their righteousness (i.e. everyone 'thinks' they are right, no matter how clueless they may be). All of them cannot (and should not) be entertained. A credible person in those circumstances acknowledges that he is in the minority (like you did) and debates the issue using solid reasoning and (mainly) information. But I agree that being a majority cannot be the basis of an argument (unless it is a purely subjective issue), that is why I changed my statement.
DogBackward 02-15-07, 07:48 PM	I'm sorry, but as I indicated above, the text specifically says that the attacker and defender are making attack rolls. There is no question about it--the defender is making an attack roll. Yes, an attack roll, not an attack. There is no effect if their attack roll succeeds, except that the opponent's does not. Also, the defender is taking neither a full attack action nor a singel attack action, but is getting a free attack, so any discussion of full attack versus single attack is irrelevant at best and misleading at worst. It wasn't about Full Attack vs Single Attack. If it's not a Full Attack, you do not take Iterative Attack Penalties. Doesn't matter if it's a Single Attack or an attack roll made in response to an attack. Neither one is a Full Attack, and so neither one suffers Iterative Attack penalties. This is a special attack on the part of the defender. It hardly seems right that an attacker is forced to lower the attack bonus on a finite (and very small) number of special attacks but the defender is allowed the full attack bonus against an infinite number of special opposed attacks. This is because the defender gains no benefit from a successful roll, while an attacker does. As was mentioned, the same thing goes for AC. Why doesn't AC lower every time you're attacked? Logic, common sense, whatever... call it what you will. But learn to admit it when you're wrong.
CelestialBarbarian 02-16-07, 02:59 AM	Yes, an attack roll, not an attack. There is no effect if their attack roll succeeds, except that the opponent's does not. It wasn't about Full Attack vs Single Attack. If it's not a Full Attack, you do not take Iterative Attack Penalties. Doesn't matter if it's a Single Attack or an attack roll made in response to an attack. Neither one is a Full Attack, and so neither one suffers Iterative Attack penalties. This is because the defender gains no benefit from a successful roll, while an attacker does. As was mentioned, the same thing goes for AC. Why doesn't AC lower every time you're attacked? Logic, common sense, whatever... call it what you will. But learn to admit it when you're wrong. It's an attack roll but not an attack? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Actually I'm pretty good about admitting when I'm wrong, if someone can make a logical, rational argument that contradicts my position. Illogic like "it's an attack roll not an attack" doesn't qualify. mvincent's quotation of the FAQ does, which is why I've already said that I suspect that I'm wrong. I guess you were too busy with the illogic to notice. :P I still think it's unfair that the defender gets a full attack bonuses on an unlimited number of attack rolls while each attacker gets a diminishing bonus on a limited and small number of attacks, but I suspect that, as I've already said, that the designers intended it that way (having not considered the unfairness of the discrepancy) and that Customer Service will probably say so.
DogBackward 02-16-07, 03:15 AM	Attack roll: Rolling a d20, adding your BAB, Str/Dex, and any other such modifiers. Attack: Attempting to hit somebody with a weapon, or use a special attack action. Making an attack involves an attack roll, but an attack roll is not necessarily an attack. Kinda like that square/rectangle thing you learn in 1st grade. How long did it take teacher to drive that into your head, hmm?
CelestialBarbarian 02-16-07, 03:18 AM	Note that I changed the second notation within moments of posting It has bearing, especially if the one person is arguing based on opinion. I'm not saying this is you, but you'd be surprised how many 'odd people' we get on these boards that are convinced of their righteousness (i.e. everyone 'thinks' they are right, no matter how clueless they may be). All of them cannot (and should not) be entertained. A credible person in those circumstances acknowledges that he is in the minority (like you did) and debates the issue using solid reasoning and (mainly) information. But I agree that being a majority cannot be the basis of an argument (unless it is a purely subjective issue), that is why I changed my statement. Ah well, as with my post above (with the "Edit" that you might have missed), the response came before the editing! No harm done. :) I'm actually have some major personal experiences with being the only one who gets something right. Back in the mid-1980s, while I was doing temporary tax accounting, I worked for a tax manager at a firm who didn't understand that under the new tax rules when you sell certain property for a gain you must recover all depreciation as ordinary income if you've taken accelerated depreciation, whereas under the old rule you had to recover only the excess over straight-line. That meant that under the old rules if you'd fully depreciated a piece of property and sell it for a gain, you wouldn't have to recover any gain as depreciation (because whether you use accelerated or straight-line you eventually depreciate only the same amount--the purchase price of the asset). So by taking acclerated depreciation she was setting up her huge trucking firm to have to recapture all depreciation as ordinary income instead of none of it. She didn't believe me at first, and had to go sit with the Internal Revenue Code and read the sections I'd told her about before she came back and agreed with me. In fairness on this one I was hardly the only one who was right--just the only one at that firm. In the late 1980s most people were doing the passive activity loss rules wrong. This was a particuarly complicated set of rules created in the Tax Reform Act of 1986. I tried to explain the correct rule to my colleagues at my accounting firm, but they wouldn't listen, sure that the way they were doing it must be right because a) nobody likes to be wrong and b) if the majority thinks something is one way it must be that way. Of course that's a logical fallacy. There might be people who come on the boards with an incorrect interpretation of the rules that everyone else rejects, but the mere fact that everyone else rejects it doesn't make it wrong. They might be wrong, and we might find them annoying but the fact that they're alone in their view doesn't have any bearing on whether they're right or not. In this case, I had to sit down and write a careful legal memo before the whole firm changed from the wrong treatment it has been using to the correct treatment, and I was again the only one who had the treatment correct. Unlike on the previous tax issue, this was one where very few people in general, not just in my firm, had it wrong. My memo was so good and persuasive that the partner actually took it into his meeting with a client--in my handwriting!--and claimed it as his own. :D In the 1990s the University of Iowa tried to cheat me out of my student loan one year when I won a fellowship for academic excellence. I went to the law library, studied the Department of Education regulations under Congress' student loan laws, and wrote a legal memo arguing that Congress had specifically not intended to deny student loans to students who won fellowships for academic excellence. My memo caused quite a stir within the administration and after the university's high-paid lawers and financial aid department experts went over it in detail and held meetings on it, they changed the entire university's policy on student loans and fellowships for academic excellence, a policy that had stood for years. Now, the fact that I've often been the only one to get something right when everyone else got something wrong doesn't mean that I'm right every time I disagree with everyone else. It just means that I have confidence that I might be right, and someone will have to make a good, logical argument based on solid facts to persuade me otherwise. :)
CelestialBarbarian 02-16-07, 03:20 AM	Attack roll: Rolling a d20, adding your BAB, Str/Dex, and any other such modifiers. Attack: Attempting to hit somebody with a weapon, or use a special attack action. Making an attack involves an attack roll, but an attack roll is not necessarily an attack. Kinda like that square/rectangle thing you learn in 1st grade. How long did it take teacher to drive that into your head, hmm? You need to take your own advice about learning when you're wrong. ;)
runestar 02-16-07, 03:26 AM	I suppose an analogy of sorts would be the same reason why the foe's AC does not decrease as you make iterative attacks against him...:P Your subsequent attacks are not supposed to be as strong as your first attack. Going by that same vein, I suppose it would not be unfair to reason that your subsequent attempts at disarming/tripping would not be as effective as your 1st.:P
CelestialBarbarian 02-16-07, 03:38 AM	I suppose an analogy of sorts would be the same reason why the foe's AC does not decrease as you make iterative attacks against him...:P Your subsequent attacks are not supposed to be as strong as your first attack. Going by that same vein, I suppose it would not be unfair to reason that your subsequent attempts at disarming/tripping would not be as effective as your 1st.:P While that's a good argument that crossed my mind as I was showering earlier (I do that from time to time whether I need it or not :P ) I think that if that's what they wanted, they should have mirrored the grapple or trip mechanic where the attacker first makes a touch attack (on which the defender gets the same AC regardless of the iterative attack bonus of the attacker), followed by an opposed roll that's not actually an attack roll. But I do suspect you're right, that as they've written the disarm and sunder mechanics, they intended to degrade the attacker's subsequent disarm attacks. :)
runestar 02-16-07, 03:50 AM	Eh, logic was never one to apply to dnd rules/mechanics...:D Don't bother trying to second guess the designers...:P
CelestialBarbarian 02-16-07, 03:56 AM	Eh, logic was never one to apply to dnd rules/mechanics...:D Alas truer words were probably never spoken. :( Don't bother trying to second guess the designers...:P Well as a tax accountant with a graduate degree in tax law, I made a career out of second-guessing the intent of the rules-makers, or at least of holding them to the plain meaning of their words (which is a standard legal doctrine in Anglo-American jurisprudence.) :D
runestar 02-16-07, 07:06 AM	Well as a tax accountant with a graduate degree in tax law :eek: You are one of ..... :eek:
CelestialBarbarian 02-16-07, 07:57 AM	:eek: You are one of ..... :eek: I don't practice tax law anymore, and haven't since the 1990s. Even then I didn't do it too much as I was working on a Ph.D. in history. Now in theory I'm working on a Ph.D. in economics and I'm teaching econ. I'm thinking about redoing the horned devils by replacing Power Attack, Improved Sunder and Cleave with Combat Expertise, Improved Disarm, and Combat Reflexes. With the spiked chain the horned devils can trip without Improved Trip, and with their Dexterity bonus of +7, the Combat Reflexes, and the 20' reach they have with the spiked chain, they have a lot of extra attacks when characters try to pick up items of stand up (or perhaps cast spells or retrieve stored items). How does that sound? Thanks! :)
runestar 02-16-07, 08:21 AM	Sounds like there is room for some potential trip-locking... Disarm them, then trip them when they incur AoO trying to pick up their weapon. I think you can afford to lose weapon focus as well. I don't suppose there is room for deft opportunist or karmic strike in this build?:P
Devlonir 02-16-07, 08:26 AM	Alright.. DnD basic combat 101: There are standard actions.. one of these is the attack action, with which you can make one try to damage the opponent with your weapon. The mechanics of seeing if your try hits is to make an attack roll (BAB + related stat + other modifier) and try to beat an opponents AC. Then, a full round action is the Full Attack action. This works exactly like the attack action, but you also get Irative attacks (-5/-10/-15) if your BAB is high enough to support it. Then, there are special attack actions, the can be part of an attack (either the action action or as part of a full attack action). Like tripping and disarming. Each having their own mechanics. Seeing how this is about disarming, let's take a look at these mechanics: You make an attack roll (like described below) and tried to beat the opponents attack roll (not attack action, not full attack action but attack roll) If you use the disarm roll as part of a full attack action, which you initiated, you get a (-5/-10/-15) on each subsequent attack after the first. Why is this? Because YOU are using a full attack action. What is the defender doing? He is trying to block and weave and dodge all you throw at him (represented by AC) and when you hit at his weapon he tries as hard as he can to keep a hold of it (represented by the attack roll he gets when you disarm him) ---- The Attack Roll is a different part of the rules then the attack action, the full attack action or the disarm action. It is a formula that generates an outcome used for different things all throughout the game. So, whenever in the rules it is stated that someone used an attack roll, you are supposed to use the rules for the attack roll. Not the attack action, or the full attack action. You are obviously an accountant, so think it this way. Account Payables is to be used for your short term debts like supplier debts. So usually, Account Payables is only used to counter a decrease in one of your cash accounts. But sometimes an increase in your cash accounts also happens because of a change in Account Payables (Credit Memo) In this example, the attack roll is account payables, the attack action/full attack action is the decrease in cash account and the increase in cash accounts is the disarm action. It uses the same basic rules, but in a different way.
Devlonir 02-16-07, 08:30 AM	Well as a tax accountant with a graduate degree in tax law, I made a career out of second-guessing the intent of the rules-makers, or at least of holding them to the plain meaning of their words (which is a standard legal doctrine in Anglo-American jurisprudence.) :D Well, then you must have noticed that they use two terms all over the books: attack roll and attack action. The main reason for this is because they mean two different things, although they are closely related. Better study your books better my friend. Like you, I am also a man that reads rules literally and follows them through. But in this case, the rules clearly state the difference between the two terms.
CelestialBarbarian 02-16-07, 09:08 AM	Sounds like there is room for some potential trip-locking... Disarm them, then trip them when they incur AoO trying to pick up their weapon. I think you can afford to lose weapon focus as well. I don't suppose there is room for deft opportunist or karmic strike in this build?:P I could actually drop Weapon Focus, as you suggest, and pick up Deft Opportunist. For Karmic strike they'd need Dodge too. I theory I could dump with Iron Will and Multiattack to take Dodge and Karmic Strike, but I'm not sure I want Karmic Strike enough. I'm not sure they're going to want to make it easier for an enemy to hit them, even if it would grant them an additional attack.
runestar 02-16-07, 09:21 AM	The idea is that when they try to hit you, you trip them with the AoO(karmic strike), then follow up with the extra attack from improved trip.:P Combat expertise for 4 nicely offsets the -4ac when you factor in deft opportunist... Whoa, but feats are really tight indeed... Dodge, combat expertise, deft opportunist, karmic strike, improved disarm and improved trip. Shame...I really would have liked to keep multiattack...:(
CelestialBarbarian 02-16-07, 10:04 AM	The idea is that when they try to hit you, you trip them with the AoO(karmic strike), then follow up with the extra attack from improved trip.:P Combat expertise for 4 nicely offsets the -4ac when you factor in deft opportunist... For you to get the attack of opportunity from Karmic Strike the opponent must make a successful melee attack against you. So you get hit and take damage before you get your Karmic Strike attack of opportunity. Whoa, but feats are really tight indeed... Dodge, combat expertise, deft opportunist, karmic strike, improved disarm and improved trip. Shame...I really would have liked to keep multiattack...:( Tighter even than that. The horned devil starts with Cleave, Improved Sunder, Iron Will, Multiattack, Power Attack, and Weapon Focus (spiked chain), for a total of 6 feats. Right now I have the horned devils with Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes, Improved Disarm, Iron Will, Multiattack, and Weapon Focus. I was thinking of dropping Weapon Focus to take Deft Opportunist since it seems likely that between the spiked chain and Combat Reflexes they'd typically make a lot of attacks of opportunity, and the gain of +4 on the attacks of opportunity would more than offset the loss of +1 on all attacks with the spiked chain. I could drop Iron will and Multiattack to take Dodge and Karmic Strike, but that doesn't really seem too attractive to me right now. Basically Karmic Strike works by hoping your enemy does damage to you, and losing the +3 bonus on the two natural attacks doesn't seem very attractive either. I could drop Iron Will (and keep Multiattack) and take Improved Trip. Then a horned devil could try to trip on the first iterative attack, and then once the opponent fell down use the attack of opportunity from tripping to disarm him with the extra +4 for the opponent being prone. Then the devil could follow up with its second and third iterative attacks, bite and tail at +4 with the opponent prone. If the first horned devil was successful at tripping and disarming, the second one could just wail on him with all five attacks at +4. If the first one wasn't totally successful, the second one could pick up where the first one left off.
runestar 02-16-07, 10:29 AM	Hmm...is it robilar's gambit then which lets you make the AoO when the enemy attacks you? I know there is one version which is not contingent on the enemy actually hitting you. It triggers automatically when the PC tries to hit you. Then a horned devil could try to trip on the first iterative attack, and then once the opponent fell down use the attack of opportunity from tripping to disarm him with the extra +4 for the opponent being prone. AoO from tripping?:confused: Are you talking about the bonus attack from improved trip?:P So stick with combat reflexes + expertise, improved trip + disarm, deft opportunist, multiattack. Seems well rounded enough. I think you can scrap the rest and stick with this then - sure looks promising.:)
CelestialBarbarian 02-16-07, 10:48 AM	Hmm...is it robilar's gambit then which lets you make the AoO when the enemy attacks you? I know there is one version which is not contingent on the enemy actually hitting you. It triggers automatically when the PC tries to hit you. Yes, Robilar's Gambit does allow you to take the attack of opportunity whether they hit or not, and it doesn't require Dodge either. The downside is that instead of you taking a -4 penalty to your AC it grants opponents a +4 bonus to attack and damage rolls. Unlike Karmic Strike it doesn't specify that the opponent bonuses remain active for a whole round, but I think we can assume so. Also unlike Karmic Strike it specifies that you can take an attack of opportunity each time an opponent makes an attack against you, although again I assumed that's how Karmic Strike works. Karmic Strike specifies that only an attack in melee provokes an attack against you. Robilar's Gambit doesn't specify a melee attack, but the language ("reach in to attack you" and "swing at you") seems to indicate a melee attack. AoO from tripping?:confused: Are you talking about the bonus attack from improved trip?:P Sorry, I didn't mean an attack of opportunity but just the bonus attack that you get from Improved Trip when you successfully trip someone. Somewhere I got the mistaken notion that this used an attack of opportunity, but I see that it doesn't. So stick with combat reflexes + expertise, improved trip + disarm, deft opportunist, multiattack. Seems well rounded enough. I think you can scrap the rest and stick with this then - sure looks promising.:) That's what I have right now. My only issue now is whether to stick with Multiattack or go with Robilar's Gambit. At least with Robilar's you don't have to get hit to take the attack of opportunity, but it does make a hit both more likely and if successful more damaging, and it's tough to give up the +3 attack bonus from Multiattack on bite and especially the tail, which has the neat infernal would property.
runestar 02-16-07, 11:13 AM	Well, in theory, the +4 damage is not that big a deal if you plan on tripping them with the AoO they incur against you. But that +4 to hit sure sucks.:( You know, all this discussion about tripping makes me wanna roll up a chain devil fighter tripping build as an NPC...:P
CelestialBarbarian 02-16-07, 11:21 AM	Well, in theory, the +4 damage is not that big a deal if you plan on tripping them with the AoO they incur against you. But that +4 to hit sure sucks.:( With Robilar's (and Karmic Strike) you take the attack of opportunity after the original attacker resolves its attack, so if the +4 bonus to attack makes the attack hit, it will do the extra +4 to damage. The +4 attack bonus won't help them resist you trip, but it will help them resist your disarm. You know, all this discussion about tripping makes me wanna roll up a chain devil fighter tripping build as an NPC...:P Heh. I played in a group with someone who used the spiked chain to fight. Actually two groups. And from the perspective of another player (as opposed to my perspective as the DM) it was actually rather annoying. :P I've been thinking that the horned devils could also try to disarm or trip with their natural weapons if need be. Do natural weapons count as unarmed strikes for the disarm rule that imposes a -4 penalty on disarm attacks made with unarmed strikes? An interesting situation will arise because the horned devils have unholy aura (cast by the pit fiend who summoned them) and the half-celestial has holy aura. It looks like, despite their reach, the devils will have to save against the blindness effect of the holy aura each time they attack the half-celestial, including with the opposed attack roll of the disarm, and he in turn will have to save against the strength-damaging effect of the unholy aura when he attacks them, including his opposed attack roll on their attempts to disarm him. Do you concur that that's how it should work? Thanks! :)
runestar 02-16-07, 11:39 AM	Unholy Aura Abjuration [Evil] Level: Clr 8, Evil 8 Components: V, S, F Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: 20 ft. Targets: One creature/level in a 20-ft.-radius burst centered on you Duration: 1 round/level (D) Saving Throw: See text Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless) A malevolent darkness surrounds the subjects, protecting them from attacks, granting them resistance to spells cast by good creatures, and weakening good creatures when they strike the subjects. This abjuration has four effects. First, each warded creature gains a +4 deflection bonus to AC and a +4 resistance bonus on saves. Unlike the effect of protection from good, this benefit applies against all attacks, not just against attacks by good creatures. Second, a warded creature gains spell resistance 25 against good spells and spells cast by good creatures. Third, the abjuration blocks possession and mental influence, just as protection from good does. Finally, if a good creature succeeds on a melee attack against a warded creature, the offending attacker takes 1d6 points of temporary Strength damage (Fortitude negates). Focus: A tiny reliquary containing some sacred relic, such as a piece of parchment from an unholy text. The reliquary costs at least 500 gp. Well, it seems that the amount of reach one might enjoy will not avail here. Trip and disarm are considered melee attacks, so yes to that as well... However, considering that the cornugans have fort saves of 20(with unholy aura), the chances of them being blinded seems very slight. Same for your celestial barb suffering from the str drain as well(he should have no problems making a dc26 fort save). Seems like the only effect is to bog down the game with more die rolls...with both sides hoping for that elusive natural 1...:P However, is the opposed attack roll considered a melee attack against the horned devils? That is the ambiguous part...:confused:
Vegepygmy 02-16-07, 11:48 AM	I suppose an analogy of sorts would be the same reason why the foe's AC does not decrease as you make iterative attacks against him...While that's a good argument that crossed my mind as I was showering earlier...You are so full of :censored:! I pointed that out to you within an hour of your first post in this thread, and your response was that I was comparing "apples and salami." :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
CelestialBarbarian 02-16-07, 12:09 PM	Well, it seems that the amount of reach one might enjoy will not avail here. Trip and disarm are considered melee attacks, so yes to that as well... However, considering that the cornugans have fort saves of 20(with unholy aura), the chances of them being blinded seems very slight. Same for your celestial barb suffering from the str drain as well(he should have no problems making a dc26 fort save). Seems like the only effect is to bog down the game with more die rolls...with both sides hoping for that elusive natural 1...:P However, is the opposed attack roll considered a melee attack against the horned devils? That is the ambiguous part...:confused: Yes, indeed! Now they could have made it an opposed roll that included BAB like an attack roll, as they did with grapple, but they chose to make it an actual attack roll instead. Now maybe they were just sloppy and inconsistent, but without some proof that they were just sloppy and inconsistent, it makes sense to accept the plain meaning of the words: the opposed attack roll is an attack roll and therefore the unholy aura saving throw applies. I think you're right though that both the horned devils and the half-celestial will need to roll a natural 1 to fail an aura saving throw here.
CelestialBarbarian 02-17-07, 07:39 AM	Ok, I got a reply from Customer Service, and as I suspected, it agrees with applying the diminishing BAB for an attacker's iterative disarm and sunder attacks. Response (Trevor K.)02/16/2007 10:21 AM If you use a disarm or sunder attempts on your second, third, or fourth attack, then you would use the modifier for that attack, not your full/highest base attack bonus. If you've used power attack or combat expertise, that would also reduce your attack roll for your sunder or disarm attempts. Have fun and good gaming! So there you go. :)
Devlonir 02-19-07, 03:35 AM	The only thing this answer says is that the attacker suffers these problems (as does the defender IF he used power attack or combat expertise during his last round gets the same penalties as i read the rules). It doesn't say what you first implied, that the defender gets iterative penalties for defending against multiple disarm/sunder attempts. Their 'AC' for those special attacks is their BAB+str/dex+other enhancements. It's that simple.
CelestialBarbarian 02-19-07, 12:39 PM	The only thing this answer says is that the attacker suffers these problems (as does the defender IF he used power attack or combat expertise during his last round gets the same penalties as i read the rules). It doesn't say what you first implied, that the defender gets iterative penalties for defending against multiple disarm/sunder attempts. Their 'AC' for those special attacks is their BAB+str/dex+other enhancements. It's that simple. Nobody claimed that the defender had to suffer diminishing BAB on his or her disarm opposed attack rolls.
Devlonir 02-19-07, 02:44 PM	I am sorry than, I misunderstood your previous posts. Excuse me for that. If I knew this is what you wanted to know, I wouldn't have replied the way i did before but just stated the rules as they stand.
CelestialBarbarian 02-19-07, 03:06 PM	I am sorry than, I misunderstood your previous posts. Excuse me for that. If I knew this is what you wanted to know, I wouldn't have replied the way i did before but just stated the rules as they stand. No problem. :)