This is the Courtroom of Gladius. If you seek advice or the answer to a question about the City of Gladius and its physical and metaphysical laws, you have come to the right place. State your question here and one of the judges, also known as the Elders, will address your issue. Whatever the Elders say will be or become law in Gladius unless overruled by the Supreme Court.
It sometimes happens that the Elders are not of the same opinion. In that case, they will consult and agree by vote on a final decision. If a final decision among the Elders cannot be reached, it is possible to call upon the Supreme Court, referred to as Game Master.
In the next rooms, you will find a list of rulings given to previously asked questions. You should first see if your petition has been addressed in the past. Below, you will find the rules and guidelines on how to ask and receive answers here. Please follow these guidelines.
Rules and Guidelines
For the most part, this is going to be a rather free-form thread. There are a few simple things that are asked to ensure that this runs as smoothly and efficiently as possible.
- If the question is currently being discussed, please name the thread that the debate/discussion is taking place.
- When referencing a currently ongoing debate, please link to the original location of the debate.
- Please list the names of the parties involved and a summary of sides taken, using quotes as appropriate.
- If another Elder has weighed in on the topic, please let everyone know.
- Always try to be polite and courteous!!
- Occasionally edit your initial post, to add new info and cover all the bases.
- Please do not hold an active debate in this thread.
OOC
This is the successor of the [thread=787624]Courtroom of Gladius[/thread], [thread=569305]Ask an Elder[/thread] and [thread=741523]Oracle of Gladius[/thread] threads. You can ask any question about the D&D and/or Core Coliseum rules. One or more of the Elders will step forward and answer your question. Their decision will become law unless overruled by the Game Master. If you need a decision right away (i.e. to resolve a fight for that week), and either the Elders are still debating it, or no one has given an answer, then the pitlord makes the decision. A subsequent ruling against the pitlord's decision does not warrant a change to the fight if the week is over.
I think that covers the question of full-attack and hiding. Unless you somehow get an additional move action per round, its impossible to do a full round action and then a move action to hide.
So if we take Valen, who has hustle (5pp for an extra move action), and makes a full attack, manifests hustle and moves, would he be be considered hiding for all his attacks of the full attack and then hidden afterwards? How many rolls would you require for this and at what penalties?
But then I'm confused on another point.
Does any non-movement full, standard, move equivalent or free action prevent one from hiding? If the answer is yes, then I can understand why you can't hide during a Full-round attack with HIPS. Or if you need to take a move action each round to remain hiding, I'll also understand why.
But mostly I'm confused because we have direct contradictions to making hide only when moving. (Unless the term "normally" means there are exceptions, which are poorly defined to say the least).
Take the spring attack example. There are 2 rolls made, one at the moment of the attack and a second during the move away. Each applies only to their moment. If you succeed on the first, but not the second, you strike as if invisible, but are seen as you move away. If you fail on the first, but not the second, you are seen for the duration of the attack, but then disappear again as you move away.
Or imagine a character during a surprise round or under the effects of a slow spell. They succeeded earlier in hiding in some bushes. They take a standard action to attack their target (either ranged or melee), but apparently need to roll hide -20 to be considered hidden during the attack. They've just rolled a hide check without being able to move that turn.
They're not considered hiding after the attack though, but the only rule that I can find that says why, is the "you cannot hide while being observed".
And for my last example, if you need to move to hide, why do immobile invisible creatures gain a +40 bonus to their hide check.
Edit: I apologize for the long laundry list of questions, but I hope with direct answers to these, it should clear up my understanding of the hide rules.
the rolls would be:
all attack rolls, then move, then hide at movement-penalty (either -4 or no penalty)
about only when moving: this means you need some time to hide. once you are hidden, you are hidden. BUT, if you do something that breaks hide, you need to rehide, and this uses up a move action, but can be performed while moving.
also note, that there are NOT 2 rolls for hiding when sniping. you only make a rehide-check afterwards. if you can't take the move action, you can't snipe.
@immobile+invis: they are hidden via invisibility already. you don't need to take another action to remain hidden once hidden.
Valen would have to make a Hide check at -20 for each attack. If he fails at any time, any subsequent attacks will not be against the target's flat-footed AC. He can use Hustle to hide again if he didn't fail any of the previous checks (or got HiPS). (Note: some places say that sniping is a full-round action, others that it's a standard action and a move action. I'm inclined to believe the latter, because the former precludes sniping with a spell, Manyshot, etc.)
I think that no actions "prevent" you from hiding, but attacking, running, or charging incur a -20 penalty. It's never totally impossible unless you're being observed.
I don't know why you need a move action to re-hide (or stay hidden) after an attack; normally, no, you don't need to move to make a Hide check. But that's the way the FAQ describes it.
I don't know why you need a move action to re-hide (or stay hidden) after an attack; normally, no, you don't need to move to make a Hide check. But that's the way the FAQ describes it.
i'd have to oppose this with the description of the hide-skill:
"Normally, you make a Hide check as part of movement, so it doesn’t take a separate action. "
all this means is that if you move, you can hide for free. else you need to take an action. (which would be - a move action)
if you are hidden, you need nothing to maintain being hidden.
I'm guessing that you need to make a hide check in the spring attack case after the attack because its a different type of action from the attack. Any time you move, you need to make a hide check which spring attack definitely does. The thing is there are two different modifiers being applied (say one for moving at half (+0) or full speed (-5) and one at -20 for the attack. So rather than stacking them, since they're easily identified parts of the action, they make it two separate rolls.
no. he would be considered hiding for the first attack.
the rolls would be:
all attack rolls, then move, then hide at movement-penalty (either -4 or no penalty)
I'm confused as to why he is not hiding for the second attack roll if he successfully hid for the first one. The spring attack example in the FAQ shows a perfect transition (i.e. the attacker is never visible) since the defender is left wondering what even hit him. So why can't a perfect transition occur in the full attack case? You're basically saying he becomes auto-spotted immediately after the attack when the FAQ expressly indicates otherwise.
about only when moving: this means you need some time to hide. once you are hidden, you are hidden. BUT, if you do something that breaks hide, you need to rehide, and this uses up a move action, but can be performed while moving.
Can you define the actions which break hiding? I'd love to see that list and the reasoning (and the references to rules in the SRD, FAQ or other source). This might actually answer my first point (why are you auto-spotted after attacking). It might help me see what I'm missing in your argument.
also note, that there are NOT 2 rolls for hiding when sniping. you only make a rehide-check afterwards. if you can't take the move action, you can't snipe.
But there are two rolls in the spring attack example. And you're correct, you can't snipe if you can't take the move action. But sniping is a special action of the hide skill, not the general application. Since there is no specific rule under the Hide skill for spring attacks and the attack action (other than the -20 modifier while attacking) I can only presume the spring attack example encompasses the more general application.
In my previous examples, I wasn't asking to use the snipe action, I've been trying to apply the general hide rules to Hide in Plain sight and full attacks.
@immobile+invis: they are hidden via invisibility already. you don't need to take another action to remain hidden once hidden.
This then goes back to the question of what action break hiding then. Since if once hidden, you don't need to continue to take move actions to remain hiding.
i'd have to oppose this with the description of the hide-skill:
"Normally, you make a Hide check as part of movement, so it doesn’t take a separate action. "
all this means is that if you move, you can hide for free. else you need to take an action. (which would be - a move action)
if you are hidden, you need nothing to maintain being hidden.
Lets take a look at the full quote:
Action
Usually none. Normally, you make a Hide check as part of movement, so it doesn’t take a separate action. However, hiding immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action.
It says "Usually none". Then it goes on to say as an exception (the "However" indicates this) Sniping takes a move action. I'd personally interpret movement as any type of bodily motion. Say taking a potion from a pack or waving your arms or even swinging a sword.
Thus, in answer to my own question, I'd say you roll a hide check for any action which involves some form of motion, even if the character doesn't move from his square (like drinking a potion). Thus no action inherently breaks hiding, but they may require you to roll a hide check at the penalties listed in the hide skill. Presumably none for most actions, -5 for move actions at full speed, and -20 for run, attack and charge actions.
Basically, its effect did change, too. you remove the +2 enhancement, and add the +4 enhancement. this is NOT different to the pearl of power. note that you CAN recall a lvl 1 spell with a PoP 2. so its effect is still there.
Edit: As MWB stated below, (and after rereading RAW), each PoP is specific to a given level spell and thus I would return to my previous statement,
I think this would encompass the part of RAW quoted earlier by Salrantol [post=14640644]here[/post], where RAW describes adding new abilities to an item. It also gives us guidelines in the CoCo for which items can be upgraded.
I have to admit that I had forgotten that a PoP could be used to recall a lower level spell. This naturally changes my opinion on it as it obviously (IMHO) fufills the requirements for upgrading items. Thus,
- Pearl of power (1st) -> Pearl of power (2nd)
This isnota valid upgrade since the function of the first item isnotincluded in the second item.
Um, no, you can't. The recalled spell must be of the particular level.
I have a wizard which just greased the saddle of the Paladin.
What would happen now?
1) The Paladin falls from his horse.
2) The saddle is covered with a coat of grease, but he's entitled a second Reflex save to avoid falling.
3) The saddle is covered with a coat of grease, but he's entitled a Balance check followed by a second Reflex save to avoid falling.
I believe greasing a saddle isn't exactly the same as greasing a sword.
The first difference is related on who should make the reflex save. The Paladin or the horse? In this particular fight it wouldn't matter, but I tend to say the horse (even though the saddle is being used by the Paladin, the horse is the one who wears it).
Then, it's the horse which should drop the saddle, and the rider with it. It's really driving me crazy :P
To add insult to injury, grease happened as a result of a readied action in the middle of a charge
He believes that psionic prestige classes (such as slayer) should stack with the base psionic classes to determine psicrystal abilities. He points out the wording of the psicrystal affinity feat stating that its abilities are determined by levels in psionic classes.
I believe prestige classes do not increase the psicrysal abilities, because of the wording associated with prestige classes in their powers known section, where it states all other abilities, such as psicrystal abilities) do not increase.
I need an official ruling one way or the other so I can resolve the prison violation correctly. Thanks.
Premise 1: The situation is ambiguous.
Premise 2: We have a house rule that says "In case of ambiguity in the rules surrounding psicrystals, we treat a psicrystal like a familiar."
Premise 3: Familiars are only advanced by levels in wizard or sorcerer, not prestige classes.
Conclusion: Psicrystals are only advanced by levels in wilder or psion, not prestige classes.
ok, back to the topic.
@telin: you are actually quoting things unrelated to my original question. i did never ask about that part of the rules.
rule 1: what do you have to do to ride a light horse, heavy horse, pony or any other animal in the coco at all - easily answered by the rules.
Control Mount in Battle: As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for warhorses or warponies.
this is already answered in the srd, and was clarified via courtroom.
rule 2: what does an animal need to do to attack in battle? probably the full combat riding package, but this is nowhere to be found in the core rules.
if you state that a light horse cannot attack in battle, you'd also have to quote the following from the srd:
A horse not trained for war does not normally use its hooves to attack.
You may also “upgrade” an animal trained for riding to one trained for combat riding by spending three weeks and making a successful DC 20 Handle Animal check.
So, if you rule that combat riding is enough to enable any animal to attack, it should be the same for ordinary light horses, as it only states "not normally" - a dire bat does not normally carry a rider. a dire wolf is not normally carrying a rider either.
rule 3: what does it take for an animal to enable a rider to co-attack in battle? again, the srd says only "war-trained mount"
but, if war trained mount = animal with combat riding, then also simple horses should be able to attack, once they are retrained with combat riding.
about dire bats: haven't seen anyone in ages have his dire bat attack AND sit on it AND attack as well. so the impact on coco you are seeing is not so big after all. Note that fight with warhorse only applies to attacking, not to spellcasting or the like.
So, if you rule that combat riding is enough to enable any animal to attack, it should be the same for ordinary light horses, as it only states "not normally" - a dire bat does not normally carry a rider. a dire wolf is not normally carrying a rider either.
You should probably read the section telin quoted instead of the section you cherry-picked.
As far as my examples go- I fail to see how they are not what you really mean. Using horses as examples pulls us off course, since a "war trained light horse" is not the same as a "light warhorse"- as Telin and I have stated multiple times- the rules specifically prohibit a light horse from attacking while it is mounted, regardless of how much training it has. A light warhorse is a different matter.
Using common druid animal companions, on the other hand(riding dog, dire bat, dinosaurs, etc) are much better examples since they do not have this language.
If he got the clarification of your question wrong, please be courteous in saying so - after all, he was just trying to help.
Onto the actual problem, I am not sure what your specific issue is.
1. The CoCo defines "war-trained" as the combat riding package.
2. Any creature trained in the combat riding package can be used as a war-trained mount.
Now, normally, any animal used as a mount can attack while being used as a mount. There are a few specific exceptions - see the quotes I provided for the light horse and the heavy horse. There might be more (I didn't go through all of the animals...).
If that does not answer your question, please restate it specifically because I am clearly missing it.
no, not even with area dispel. that's exactly the point i wanted to make. if it is only one spell, even with area dispel, it cannot be tried twice as it is one spell and you get in an area dispell 1 attempt per spell.
I would disagree.
Area Dispel: When dispel magic is used in this way, the spell affects everything within a 20-foot radius.
For each creature within the area that is the subject of one or more spells, you make a dispel check against the spell with the highest caster level. If that check fails, you make dispel checks against progressively weaker spells until you dispel one spell (which discharges the dispel magic spell so far as that target is concerned) or until you fail all your checks. The creature’s magic items are not affected.
Thus if a mage and his familiar have a shared invisibility, but no other spell buffs up, then and area dispel would give 1 dispel check for the mage, and 1 dispel check for the familiar. If the mage (and his familiar) have several buffs up then the situation becomes more unlikely as an area dispel, dispel's a maximum of 1 spell per creature.
Personally- I see share pain+shared vigor as far more dangerous/abusable than invisibility or true strike not wearing off for the familiar. [especially considering 1 level higher- invis sphere- does the same thing, but the target doesn't have to be a familiar or animal companion]
Essentially- we could side-step all of these complex rules regarding dispels & just stick with not only what is simple, but what is supported by the most recent RotG article.
Q: Does Protection from work against the spell Hold Person?
A: No. The Protection from spells state that they block Enchantment (Compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject. Hold Person is an Enchantment (Compulsion) effect, but does not grant ongoing control over the subject.
link
Ask Wizards, 9/17/2007
Q: Dear Sage
What exactly does the second effect of protection from evil do, anyway?
....
The first part of this phrase describes the basic criteria by which the DM should judge protection from evil’s effect: If the incoming effect attempts to exercise mental control over the creature, protection from evil likely suppresses that effect.
The parenthetical portion of the phrase provides two specific examples (pointed, obviously, at rules elements of the Player’s Handbook) to help judge what exactly is meant by that:
Enchantment (charm) effects. Simple enough--protection from evil automatically suppresses any enchantment (charm) effect, such as charm person or enthrall.
Enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject. This is where adjudication gets trickier, because you have to decided what “ongoing control” means. The Sage recommends a broad definition, which includes any non-instantaneous effect that prevents the target from exercising full control over its own actions.
Examples would include the obvious (such as command or dominate person), but also the less obvious, such as daze, sleep, and Tasha’s hideous laughter. Such effects would be suppressed for as long as protection from evil lasts on the target.
There are still plenty of enchantment (compulsion) effects that don’t grant the caster ongoing control over the subject. Heroism, crushing despair, mind fog, power word blind, rage, and touch of idiocy are examples. Protection from evil has no effect on such spells.
Q: Dear Sage
What exactly does the second effect of protection from evil do, anyway?
....
The first part of this phrase describes the basic criteria by which the DM should judge protection from evil’s effect: If the incoming effect attempts to exercise mental control over the creature, protection from evil likely suppresses that effect.
The parenthetical portion of the phrase provides two specific examples (pointed, obviously, at rules elements of the Player’s Handbook) to help judge what exactly is meant by that:
Enchantment (charm) effects. Simple enough--protection from evil automatically suppresses any enchantment (charm) effect, such as charm person or enthrall.
Enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject. This is where adjudication gets trickier, because you have to decided what “ongoing control” means. The Sage recommends a broad definition, which includes any non-instantaneous effect that prevents the target from exercising full control over its own actions.
Examples would include the obvious (such as command or dominate person), but also the less obvious, such as daze, sleep, and Tasha’s hideous laughter. Such effects would be suppressed for as long as protection from evil lasts on the target.
There are still plenty of enchantment (compulsion) effects that don’t grant the caster ongoing control over the subject. Heroism, crushing despair, mind fog, power word blind, rage, and touch of idiocy are examples. Protection from evil has no effect on such spells.
Item 1: Bag of Tricks
Sub Item 1a: What kind of an action is it to "force the animal back into the bag"? Telin and MWB responded that it is a standard action no matter the current location or state of the animal. Hirumajoe, Zevox and CrazyArtificer all agree as well - so this is settled.
Sub Item 1b: Are animals brought from a bag of tricks hedged by Prot. from Evil? I answered yes, MWB answered no. Hirumajoe and CrazyArtificer answered yes; Zevox voted no. While we don't have a unanimous decision - we have enough to settle this as well.
Item 2: Synesthete for Psicrystals
Can psicrystals be affected by Synesthete and if yes - how? My answer is no on that one (they have no physical sensory organs with which to enhance). Zevox responded that it should work despite the "fluff" description and would go for "works normally" or just the bonuses to skill checks provided (which is pretty much "works normally" since a psicrystal cannot be blinded or deafened). Hirumajoe and CrazyArtificer both agree with the no answer here for the same reason I provided.
Item 3: Touchsight vs Cerebral Blind
Can touchsight breach Cerebral Blind? MWB and Zevox responded no (referring to a previous discussion). I agree with them on the matter. If needed, I can look up the original discussion for further review - but otherwise - this looks like it is resolved.
Alright... you win. Fraid I'll have to retire Kracknol. There's just no way he can compete anymore. No matter what I do, he's always 2 ego whips away from a loss, and the only way to protect against that makes it impossible for him to close to melee... so it's an intractable problem.
You can pick up Personal Mind Blank as a 6th-level Psychic Warrior power. That would shut that power out entirely. Only problem is it'd take a few more levels to get it.
Zevox
Alright... you win. Fraid I'll have to retire Kracknol. There's just no way he can compete anymore. No matter what I do, he's always 2 ego whips away from a loss, and the only way to protect against that makes it impossible for him to close to melee... so it's an intractable problem.
You could also try a potion of blink as a temporary solution. 150 gp per round for 50/50 protection is alot, but it's better than biting it every time- and it might burn through pp.
edit- Did I say potion? I meant wondrous-item token custom item. Blink can't be put in a potion.
There's this RoTG article that suggests it's not necessary. On the other side, is that many mounts are listed in the MM with details on how to train them regardless of their intelligence.
So what should I do to give the option for Raskos to ride his cohort Yaurl into combat?
You can pick up Personal Mind Blank as a 6th-level Psychic Warrior power. That would shut that power out entirely. Only problem is it'd take a few more levels to get it.
Or Metamorphosis into a creature of the Plant type (like a Shambling Mound).
I can't seem to find it covered in the rules. It is *implied* that magical beasts are animals with 3 or greater int, but nothing actually says that "if an animal aquires an int higher than 2, it becomes a magical beast". Really all I want out of this is to be able to teach it more tricks, though.
What happens if I give a 2-intelligence animal companion +1 int when it reaches 4hd? Or if I equip it with a headband of intellect?
I can't seem to find it covered in the rules. It is *implied* that magical beasts are animals with 3 or greater int, but nothing actually says that "if an animal aquires an int higher than 2, it becomes a magical beast". Really all I want out of this is to be able to teach it more tricks, though.
I was told that an animal's Int is capped at 2, regardless of any bonuses.
I was told that an animal's Int is capped at 2, regardless of any bonuses.
Looks like that according to animal type in the srd.
Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal).
Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal).
Magical beasts are similar to animals but can have Intelligence scores higher than 2.
But I wasn't sure. My specific applications I have in mind are either extra int on thorell's camel or on his newly aquired light warhorse. Thought maybe it would work on the warhorse, transforming it into a magical beast. I guess the cost is about the same to have a druid NPC spellcaster cast "awaken" on it, though. [4k/2(crafting) = 2k for headband of int, vs 250*5 + 10x5x9 = 1,700gp]
How much does it cost (gold and time), or is it even necessary to have an intelligent cohort carry a rider in combat as a warhorse?
There's this RoTG article that suggests it's not necessary. On the other side, is that many mounts are listed in the MM with details on how to train them regardless of their intelligence.
So what should I do to give the option for Raskos to ride his cohort Yaurl into combat?
Hippogriff - 1000gp, Magical Beast
Giant Owl - 1000gp, Magical Beast
Giant Eagle - 1000gp, Magical Beast
Pegasus - 1000gp, Magical Beast
Griffon - 1500gp, Magical Beast
Spider Eater - 3000gp, Magical Beast
But not all "mount-like" creatures have a designation. Centaurs (monstrous humanoid), Nightmares (Outsiders), and Unicorns are all notable ones (and not the only ones). I don't know of a single creature that is not a magical beast (or animal) that has an entry for required training to ride in combat.
I'd be inclined to say that creatures that are not listed with specific training and have an Int above 2 do not need specific training. If that option is not desired, I'd think a price around 1000gp-1500gp would be reasonable.
EDIT:
@McJ - awakening a creature has some issues that I noted in the tavern. I'm not sure that it is a viable solution for you.
well...
i hate to be like that, but:
either the bag of tricks animals are summons (with all ups and downs) or they are not. every thing else would be a very inconsistent ruling.
Well if you consider the entire AD&D rules they are really just a few very basic rules and then a whole heap of exceptions to the basic rules (for example: a character does a certain amount of damage with a greatsword, but if they wield it with two hands then they do more damage, and if they have the psionic weapon feat then they do more damage again, and if it is a magic weapon then they do even more damage and ...)
Thus I would simply see the specific text of the bag of tricks as yet another exception ...
just my 2c worth
well...
i hate to be like that, but:
either the bag of tricks animals are summons (with all ups and downs) or they are not. every thing else would be a very inconsistent ruling.
I would say that Slain = 0 hps (just like the Summoned Creatures are)
I would say that Slain = 0 hps (just like the Summoned Creatures are)
I agree
If the item has that wording RAW should override any other consideration.. or not?
the problem with raw in that case is that it nowhere defines when a summoned creature is in fact, "slain". And if you look it up on summoning, summons return to their native plane once they hit 0 hit points or are otherwise killed.
the wording there is suboptimal, too. i'd believe they did it like this so you cannot abuse it with flesh to stone, slay living or similar killing spells.
I would say that Slain = 0 hps (just like the Summoned Creatures are)
I'd make an exception for a boar or another creature with a Ferocity/Diehard ability (but that's just me).
I'd make an exception for a boar or another creature with a Ferocity/Diehard ability (but that's just me).
That was mentioned in the FAQ: a summoned boar that reaches 0 HP goes away, even though it doesn't go down.
How much does it cost (gold and time), or is it even necessary to have an intelligent cohort carry a rider in combat as a warhorse?
There's this RoTG article that suggests it's not necessary. On the other side, is that many mounts are listed in the MM with details on how to train them regardless of their intelligence.
So what should I do to give the option for Raskos to ride his cohort Yaurl into combat?
Hippogriff - 1000gp, Magical Beast
Giant Owl - 1000gp, Magical Beast
Giant Eagle - 1000gp, Magical Beast
Pegasus - 1000gp, Magical Beast
Griffon - 1500gp, Magical Beast
Spider Eater - 3000gp, Magical Beast
But not all "mount-like" creatures have a designation. Centaurs (monstrous humanoid), Nightmares (Outsiders), and Unicorns are all notable ones (and not the only ones). I don't know of a single creature that is not a magical beast (or animal) that has an entry for required training to ride in combat.
I'd be inclined to say that creatures that are not listed with specific training and have an Int above 2 do not need specific training. If that option is not desired, I'd think a price around 1000gp-1500gp would be reasonable.
EDIT:
@McJ - awakening a creature has some issues that I noted in the tavern. I'm not sure that it is a viable solution for you.
I responded to the question already - but it would be good to see some further response to it.
I disagree with your assessment that a shadowdancer needs concealment nearby. If that were true, HIPS would be useless against enemies with Darkvision(except in magical darkness or out of range of darkvision of course). And while I agree that the Devils "See in Darkness" ability is so rare that its interaction with HiPS isnt especially noted, I hope we all can agree that if the intend of HipS is that it doesnt work against creatures with Darkvision, they would have noted that in the HipS description, right?
I cannot agree with you on that.
I would totally argue that HiPS won't work in normal darkness against opponents with darkvision, for precisely the same reasons as I've outlined above.
And the lack of a specific reference to that fact in the rules does nothing to convince me of the converse. There are so many seemingly obvious omissions, perhaps the rules writers thought it so obvious that there was no need to clarify it.
The crux of my point is that I consider "shadow" for the purpose of HiPS or hiding to require concealment.
Regarding HiPS, I'll admit I didn't read everything that was written. But I don't think the "shadow" you have to be within 10ft of has to grant concealment. For instance: your own shadow never grants concealment to anything(to my knowledge, by the rules), but this is the exception the writers chose to the rule. I think the requirement for a shadow to be nearby is a red-herring in all of this. The shadow either exists or it doesn't, and if it does- you can use HiPS _normally_. The real question is whether the vague statement of "you don't need to hide behind something" negates the need for cover/concealment. [since the two requirements you need to fulfill to _start_ hiding[with whatever action] are not being observed and having cover/concealment]
Hide in Plain Sight (Ex): While in any sort of natural terrain, a ranger of 17th level or higher can use the Hide skill even while being observed.
Hide in Plain Sight (Su): At 8th level, an assassin can use the Hide skill even while being observed. As long as he is within 10 feet of some sort of shadow, an assassin can hide himself from view in the open without having anything to actually hide behind.
He cannot, however, hide in his own shadow.
Hide in Plain Sight (Su): A shadowdancer can use the Hide skill even while being observed. As long as she is within 10 feet of some sort of shadow, a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind. She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow.
Hide in Plain Sight (Ex)
An urban ranger can use this ability in any area, whether natural terrain or not.
At 15th level, the illusionist can hide in plain sight (as the ranger ability, except that the illusionist need not be in natural terrain).
I just highlighted what I thought were significant differences from the ranger version.
Take the example of a cave with no light sources.
For a human the entire cave is filled with one huge shadow.
For a dwarf, there's no shadows in the range of his darkvision within that cave.
For a Devil there are no shadows even in a cave filled with magical darkness from a darkness spell.
A dwarf with truesight is equivalent to a devil for the first 60' in a cave filled with magical darkness...
The Shadowdancer ability only applies if you have "shadow" nearby and it's not clear to me what counts as shadow.
edit-
You're saying the shadow required in the shadow dancer's ability needs to be seen by the person observing. I'm saying it's not, by the rules.
Take this image for example. the blue guy is a human, the red guy is a shadow dancer, and the green stuff is a shadow. The shadow is within 10' of the shadowdancer, the shadow dancer has cover relative to the human. I would say the shadowdancer can definitely HiPS, even though the human can't "see" the shadow(it is around a corner). This is a supernatural ability to use shadows(ie- stuff from the shadow plane itself) to HiPS, and is not observer dependent.
So that's why I said the shadow mentioned in the entry is a "red herring". I think the shadow just has to exist to normal eyesight, and nothing more. From there it's just a matter of whether the shadow dancer HiPS requires that you gain concealment/cover before hiding.
I'll concede that you don't need the human in the above situation to see the shadow. But if the human could see the shadow it would provide concealment. The idea of "wrapping shadow around yourself" holds, because the shadow you're working with as a substrate offers concealment to hide behind. It's kind of like wrapping a wall of fire around yourself for protection, only it's no protection against a fire elemental...
If that was a devil or dwarf, who could see through the molded shadow, then does the shadow offer concealment and can it be used to hide?
I don't know, and my inkling is to say no, but aside from the above arguments about concealment and what counts as shadow (ie source of concealment), I have only opinion.
My intuition is to infer that HiPS allows you to derive concealment for the purpose of hiding from any shadow within range. You can use the ability whenever you want, but it only allows you to receive concealment for the purpose of hiding if the shadow you use grants concealment against the foe. In other words the ability allows you to use any shadow within a 10' range for hiding. As long as the shadow you're using grants concealment against the foe, then you can hide.
First let's look at the rules:
Hide in Plain Sight (Su): A shadowdancer can use the Hide skill even while being observed. As long as she is within 10 feet of some sort of shadow, a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind. She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow.
Now, (by my reasoning) we would have the following:
- "A shadowdancer can use the Hide skill even while being observed"
This indicates that a shadowdancer does not require concealment in order to hide. - "As long as she is within 10 feet of some sort of shadow, a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind"
This indicates that a shadowdancer does not require cover in order to hide, but that they do require a shadow within 10ft in order to do so. - "She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow"
And finally, this indicates that the shadow required to hide can not be their own.
From this I would then make the following observations and inferences: - The Shadowdancer's ability to Hide in Plain Sight is a supernatural ability
- The HiPS ability does not directly specify specifically how it works, it simply specifies the mechanics of it.
- Thus whether the shadowdancer actually hides in the shadow that it requires to hide, or whether the shadowdancer uses the stuff of shadow to cloak it from nearby eyes or whether it does something totally different that I haven't thought of, it is not clearly specified.
- Thus, ignoring the fluff and just going by the mechanics of the ability, it does not state outright that the shadowdancer is hiding in the shadow, simply that the shadowdancer requires the presence of a shadow in order to hide. Note that as it stands this is independant of whatever abilities an observer might have.
The primary point that I believe is the crux of the matter is the following: - "She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow"
The word "in" in this last sentence implies that the shadowdancer is actually hiding within the shadow it requires to hide, however I would point out that the shadow that is required to hide using the ability can be anywhere within 10ft, which could then negate this implication since the shadowdancer would not necessarily be within that shadow and therefore would not be hiding "in" a shadow at all.
Furthermore this last sentence is an exception to the rest of the ability. Not a clarification of how the ability works in general.
Note that the arguments that both Sauro and lonewolf present are based on assumptions: - Sauro assumes that the HiPS ability means that the shadowdancer is actually hiding within the shadow.
- lonewolf assumes that the HiPS ability means that the shadowdancer only requires a shadow within 10ft.
Well that was my 2 cents worth.
i believe that simply ignoring shadows can not be enough to negate the hips ability.(every darkvision would foil it, thus disabling many uses for the shadowdancing, but this is just an opinion)
but my facts:
the way hips is worded, it has nothing to do with the perception of your enemies. it simply has to do with shadows being next to you, and as SU ability, it needs no direct explanation - you just can do it - every shadowdancer could do it on its own way.
the way you're looking at it, it's like telling magical flight does not function in a vacuum, since winged flight would not work either...
IT would be very different, if the ability was EX. shadowdancing does not work in an antimagic field, there's got to be some explanation for that (its magic) - and the last time i checked, antimagic field did not cancel natural shadows or concealment.
---
re invisibility searching:
the quote mcj brought up from the srd seems quite viable for the resolution of this, combined with another quote from the srd:
Accidentally Ending Movement in an Illegal Space: Sometimes a character ends its movement while moving through a space where it’s not allowed to stop. When that happens, put your miniature in the last legal position you occupied, or the closest legal position, if there’s a legal position that’s closer.
You can always move through a square occupied by someone who lets you by
Implication 1: If you don't end movement, the square is not illegal since you are moving on. another creature can let you through, though it would not normally do so.
Implication 2: If you explicitly end your movement(so, you don't want to continue in any direction) in an occupied square, you are hedged out via the rules. makes 10' search speed for a single creature in any given round(large creatures could search double the squares since they are broader). but this could still be a viable search pattern vs. hips with summons.
=> this is something i could live with. taking full speed search, though, is ridiculous - no need for even using search checks or spot checks.
2) Can a character run around, hoping to find an invisible or hiding enemy by bumping into him?
If you cannot enter a square occupied by an opponent (except with overrun, grapple, etc.), how do rats or tiny and smaller familiars attack? Seems to me they have to be able to enter the opponent's square.
If you cannot enter a square occupied by an opponent (except with overrun, grapple, etc.), how do rats or tiny and smaller familiars attack? Seems to me they have to be able to enter the opponent's square.
This is a designated exception.
Very Small Creature: A Fine, Diminutive, or Tiny creature can move into or through an occupied square. The creature provokes attacks of opportunity when doing so.
I dont think that there is any chance that Sauro and I are giong to agree on either of those 2 issues. Any chance that we could get some more Elder input in here?
I assume Oldtimer will do just as well, so I'll jump in and add that I'm in complete agreement with lonewolf. Sauro simply seems to be reading things into the HiPS ability that outright are not there. It says:
Hide in Plain Sight (Su): A shadowdancer can use the Hide skill even while being observed. As long as she is within 10 feet of some sort of shadow, a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind. She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow.
The second sentence is obviously the important one here. The only requirement it gives for the Shadowdancer to use the ability that she be within 10' of some sort of shadow - thats it. Nothing about concealment, or about the shadow being the sort that provides that; it just needs to be a shadow other than that of the Shadowdancer herself. It could be the shadow of a leaf floating in the breeze and it would qualify. It outright says she needs nothing to actually hide behind, and can hide while being observed, so theres no need for cover, concealment, or to be out of sight of her opponent. If there is a shadow nearby, she can hide, no matter the other circumstances; if there is not, she cannot. Simple as that.
Zevox
My own votes:
- Finding invisible creatures by movement: I think not. Looking at the movement rules, the implication seems clear to me that opponents are assumed to never voluntarily let you go by. You can move through an ally's square; you can move through a helpless opponent's square; overrun is described as the only way to move through a non-helpless opponent's square. My reading is that the RAI is that an invisible opponent could let you go through. Exception: if you end your movement in a square containing an invisible opponent (or ally), the rules for accidentally ending in an illegal space apply.
- HiPS: Given that rangers and whatnot can use HiPS to hide in an area where there's no concealment at all, and that the opponent doesn't necessarily have to see the area of shadow for it to apply, I'm inclined to follow the interpretation that it doesn't matter whether shadows cause concealment for the opponent or not.
On HiPS, I have not seen much to convince me that a devil's see in darkness ability would be thwarted by HiPS. I am similarly fine with darkvision thwarting it. That said - I'm not overly convinced of the converse either - so I think for now I will have to abstain.
On the other side of this, we do have precedent to say that whenever a vote is called for that it does not affect the fight involved - ie - the pitlord is allowed to make a pitlord call and proceed with the fight. As such, Sauro should be given leave to make the call here and move on.
How much sense does it make that you'd have to keep re-issuing the same command? If you tell a dog to "sic 'em," is it going to take one nip at the target, then come back to you, panting and wagging its tail? If you tell a dog to "heel," do you have to give that command again every few feet? (assuming it's well-trained). Or using one of the more exotic tricks, if you command it to "steal," will it travel its move speed, then give up because it couldn't reach the target in one round? No--the animal obeys the command on its next action, and continues to obey until the task is complete or is no longer applicable.
how much sense would it make if you told a dog to "roll over" and it just continually started rolling over until you told it to stop? I don't think common sense plays a part here.
how much sense would it make if you told a dog to "roll over" and it just continually started rolling over until you told it to stop? I don't think common sense plays a part here.
No--the animal obeys the command on its next action, and continues to obey until the task is complete or is no longer applicable.
I stand by this.
Down (DC 15): The animal breaks off from combat or otherwise backs down. An animal that doesn’t know this trick continues to fight until it must flee (due to injury, a fear effect, or the like) or its opponent is defeated.
Certainly a good indication that MWB is correct if you ask me.
Zevox
I'm uncomfortable with picking over handle animal with "common sense" like this. The rules are pretty darn clear on what happens- the animal performs the trick in the next action. It does not "start" the trick, it does not "perform the trick until a task is done", etc, etc.
There are a few tricks that do not work with "handling" the animal. [Like defend, the combat riding package, etc]. These "steady-state" tricks might be what you want if you want your animal attacking enemies constantly.
currently it features the following traits:
- greater invis against anyone not having touchsight
- utter darkness that works even against darkvision (and works in 3.0 style, not 3.5-concealments)
- a spell that is only dismissible by 2 other spells - dispel and daylight.
all those in one single level 3 (!) spell.
since blacklight is from 3.0, and was never converted to 3.5 rules, i believe it should be worded for 3.5 as follows:
The caster creates an area oftotal darkness. The darkness is impenetrable to normal vision and darkvision, but the caster can see normally within the blacklit area.shadowy illumination out to a 20-foot radius, but the caster can see normally within the blacklit area. All creatures in the area gain concealment (20% miss chance). Even creatures that can normally see in such conditions (such as with darkvision or low-light vision) have the miss chance in an area shrouded in magical darkness.Creatures outside the spell’s area, even the caster, cannot see through it.
The spell can be cast on a point in space, but the effect is stationary cast on a mobile object. A character can cast the spell on a creature, and the effect then radiates from the creature and moves as it moves. Unattended objects and points in space do not get saving throws or benefit from spell resistance.
Blacklight counters or dispels any light spell of equal or lower level. The 3rd-level cleric spell daylight counters or dispels blacklight.
Looking for such, we do have something on it in the Court Decisions:
Q: Does the spell Blacklight grant concealment?
A: Yes, it grants total concealment.
Zevox
as it stands, blacklight is really tough to anyone not able to cast daylight. everyone else would have a chance to dispel it, but then again ... the chances are still 50-50.
seems like i'd have to pickup blacklight with verren, and use it every fight, so it gets banned or changed from coco...
seems like i'd have to pickup blacklight with verren, and use it every fight, so it gets banned or changed from coco...
Trust me, that won't do it. We've had plenty of wizards and clerics abuse that spell extensively, from Sindorin's Va'ria Theladrais to Cat's legendary menace The Harvester. If they haven't gotten it banned or altered extensively, I doubt it ever will be.
Zevox
i wonder why coco is such a split environment in decisions... some things are banned and changed without so much as a minor discussion, others are never touched due to historical or nostalgical reasons...
well, if harvey used it, it must be ok, right?
well, if harvey used it, it must be ok, right?
Hardly. If memory serves, Harvey's antimagic staff managed to get some restrictions on custom staves put in place, at the very least.
The thing is, near as I can tell, the only possible ways to deal with the spell are to house-rule it to a weaker state, which will generally leave it as near-useless (your alterations, for instance, presuming we remove the "creatures outside the area cannot see through it", given thats the main offending line to begin with, would render it as a 1 round/level version of the 2nd-level spell Darkness) or ban it outright, which for some reason we've never been able to get enough of a consensus to do in spite of how badly its been abused.
Plus, there is at least one other spell that will negate it: the Cleric version of Continual Flame (any light spell level 3+ can counter Blacklight, not just Daylight, after all). For those without darkvision, thats a nice spell to have cast on some piece of equipment to begin with due to the possibility of dark lighting, so its not like its a spell that would be completely without benefits to purchase as a spellcasting service either.
Zevox
if continual flame dispels blacklight...
does an everburning torch do so, too? after all it uses continual flame as the spell cast on it.
i don't think that anyone will prepare continual flame as a spell, though. as for spellcasting services: since continual flame is permanent, would you have to pay for it once to have it on an item until dispelled?
so...
if continual flame dispels blacklight...
does an everburning torch do so, too? after all it uses continual flame as the spell cast on it.
Not sure. There you have the complication that the torch could be created either using the Cleric version of the spell (level 3, affects Blacklight) or the Wizard version (level 2, does not affect Blacklight). We may need a ruling on that if it becomes an issue.
i don't think that anyone will prepare continual flame as a spell, though. as for spellcasting services: since continual flame is permanent, would you have to pay for it once to have it on an item until dispelled?
Not quite sure what you're asking here. I can tell you that, to my understanding, part of how light/darkness spells interact is that when their radii overlap, two of equal level will negate each other in the area that overlaps (leaving it at normal lighting), while if one is higher level than the other it will smother the other, taking precedence. This is what I was speaking of with Continual Flame. It was how I planned to deal with Blacklight on a number of my characters, like Ceilia Durrol and Arden Tarmik. Not so hot of an option for archers or long-range spellcasters though, I admit.
Zevox
As a sidenote- lonewolf mentioned that being in complete darkness does not confer the "blinded" condition on an opponent. Why not? I always just assumed that if your sight is taken away, you are blinded.
As a sidenote- lonewolf mentioned that being in complete darkness does not confer the "blinded" condition on an opponent. Why not? I always just assumed that if your sight is taken away, you are blinded.
well, i do not share his opinion on this, but you were wrong in your tactics, too.
blinded and invisibility is exactly the same thing. so it's not like you get +2 to hit, and verren gets -2 to ac. it's either-or, but not both. in this case, it would be the blinded condition, but since verren is already blind in the darkness, you'd get no bonus whatsoever for being invisible.
well, i do not share his opinion on this, but you were wrong in your tactics, too.
blinded and invisibility is exactly the same thing. so it's not like you get +2 to hit, and verren gets -2 to ac. it's either-or, but not both. in this case, it would be the blinded condition, but since verren is already blind in the darkness, you'd get no bonus whatsoever for being invisible.
Why either-or but not both? They are different effects. It's not even two boni- it's a bonus and a penalty.
edit- Does invisibility specifically not have an effect unless the creature perceiving you is sighted, similar to MI? I suppose that makes sense.
Erm.. ;)
Not quite sure what you're asking here. I can tell you that, to my understanding, part of how light/darkness spells interact is that when their radii overlap, two of equal level will negate each other in the area that overlaps (leaving it at normal lighting), while if one is higher level than the other it will smother the other, taking precedence. This is what I was speaking of with Continual Flame.
The overlapping effect is only true for spells which specifically state so (like Daylight).
In general, the "counters and dispels" wording in Continual Flame means that (a) you can use Continual Flame to counterspell a spell with the [Darkness] descriptor (not very useful) and (b) if you cast Continual Flame on a target that has a [Darkness] spell on it of equal or less power, the [Darkness] spell is dispelled (like casting Haste on a target that's Slowed dispels the Slow effect).
As far as the divine section of the SRD goes- I am not a fan. I think that subdual substitution is overpowered as well, and it is only overpowered due to being a 3.0 feat. [I'm pretty sure the 3.5 version keeps the energy type]
Not quite -- it's still untyped nonlethal damage, but it's a +1 metamagic and it only works on one type of energy (e.g. Nonlethal Substitution [electric]).
Q: What happens if a rider is stunned or paralyzed and the mount withdraws? Is the rider taking an AoO because he cannot perform the withdraw action?
A: A mount and rider's movement is shared. If one withdraws, the other does too. Because you and your mount move as one, you reasonably can assume that you involuntarily withdraw as well and that you also get the benefit of the withdraw action.
A discussion started here and I need clarifications that may be useful to every Red Wizard ;)
Enhanced specialization states that by 1st level of Red Wizard PRC the PC can't learn new spells of the newly prohibited school. He retains the ability to memorize the spells already in his book however.
The question is:
Can that wizard learn higher level spells of a school of magic before entering the Red Wizard PRC (for instance, Greater Invisibility at wizard level 5) and then select that same school (in this sample, Illusion) for his new prohibited school at level 6 and still be able to cast Greater Invisibility at level 7 since he already learnt that spell?
In the SRD (Adding Spells to a Wizard's Spellbook) there are two ways to copy a spell whose SL is higher than the highest SL the wizard can cast: from another wizard's spellbook (I don't know if there is a rule here preventing access to a higher level spell only to copy it to the spellbook) or from a scroll (higher level scrolls actually can be bought at blackmarket for credits if they exceed ECL even if the "copy from another wizard's spellbook" isn't viable for some reason that I don't know)
The wizard must then make a spellcraft check DC 15+SL in order to successfully copy the spell. In most cases, if he takes 10 he auto-succeeds (and there is nothing in the rules preventing him to take 10 to the spellcraft check, since the risk of failure and the "only 1 check" limitation aren't an issue with Taking 10)
EDIT: Erithmu is an Elder and took part in the discussion. (S)he said that taking 10 isn't possible in that spellcraft check because of risk of failure, and since failure is possible, that check can't be done and so a wizard can't learn higher level spells, but the SRD states otherwise (the single check and the risk of failure are issues on taking 20, not taking 10) and if (s)he was right, then a 3rd level wizard usually can't learn new 2nd level spells (he would need a +16 spellcraft to auto-succeed without taking 10, not usual at 3rd level).
Proposed addendum to the clarifications.
Q: What happens if a rider is stunned or paralyzed and the mount withdraws? Is the rider taking an AoO because he cannot perform the withdraw action?
A: A mount and rider's movement is shared. If one withdraws, the other does too. Because you and your mount move as one, you reasonably can assume that you involuntarily withdraw as well and that you also get the benefit of the withdraw action.
I disagree with this interpretation. The rider can't Withdraw if he's paralysed. We've always ruled that the rider must take the full round Withdraw action in order to avoid attacks of opportunity from movement.
I disagree with this interpretation. The rider can't Withdraw if he's paralysed. We've always ruled that the rider must take the full round Withdraw action in order to avoid attacks of opportunity from movement.
But we had two fights where two different pitlords (me and McJarvis) ruled it that way.
This is what we found to support our ruling.
From All About Mounts, part 2
All about mounts 2
If your check fails, the mount does what it will. Your uncontrolled mount most likely uses the withdraw action to make a double move away from danger. Doing so prevents attacks of opportunity against the mount when it leaves its first space, but not when it leaves other spaces where foes threaten it (see page 143 in the Player's Handbook). Because you and your mount move as one, you reasonably can assume that you involuntarily withdraw as well and that you also get the benefit of the withdraw action. Your frightened mount also might break into a run, which would leave it and you subject to attacks of opportunity from the first space the pair of you leave.
All about mounts 2
If your check fails, the mount does what it will. Your uncontrolled mount most likely uses the withdraw action to make a double move away from danger. Doing so prevents attacks of opportunity against the mount when it leaves its first space, but not when it leaves other spaces where foes threaten it (see page 143 in the Player's Handbook). Because you and your mount move as one, you reasonably can assume that you involuntarily withdraw as well and that you also get the benefit of the withdraw action. Your frightened mount also might break into a run, which would leave it and you subject to attacks of opportunity from the first space the pair of you leave.
@nab: it's not about pitlording or brokenness. it's just a distaste for being so selective in allowing srd only, and adding just a bit that happens to be in the main dmg. why not phb II or similar rules-only compendiums... that's where my uneasyness with that comes from.
@mcj: i meant over the normal share of rulebooks - i own 0 3.5 rulebooks, dragonmarked, and about 30 novels. (and the adnd2 phb)
i agree on a paralyzed mount being able to withdraw with a rider that is bound to it as luggage. but i don't see how he can even stay on the horse like that. the horse moves, every tried to have a statue sit on a suddenly moving horse and stay in the saddle?
Paralysis means that dexterity drops to 0 (-5)
Ride checks are keyed on dexterity.
Ride to stay in saddle (DC 5) may not be so easy anymore ;)
i agree on a paralyzed mount being able to withdraw with a rider that is bound to it as luggage. but i don't see how he can even stay on the horse like that. the horse moves, every tried to have a statue sit on a suddenly moving horse and stay in the saddle?
Well, I always thought about that event this way:
1) You are paralyzed in place
2) When the horse moves you "fall" in some direction (the d100 stay in saddle check).
3) If you are lucky you fall just on horse back and avoid falling to the ground.. maybe your belt got struck to the saddle or whatever else
Well, I always thought about that event this way:
1) You are paralyzed in place
2) When the horse moves you "fall" in some direction (the d100 stay in saddle check).
3) If you are lucky you fall just on horse back and avoid falling to the ground.. maybe your belt got struck to the saddle or whatever else
Heh. you just made that up, didn't you? ;)
edit- What Nab said right above your post resonates are more true to me. Can you even use dex-based skills while your dex is 0? If you can't- then you auto-fall out when paralyzed.
Heh. you just made that up, didn't you? ;)
edit- What Nab said right above your post resonates are more true to me. Can you even use dex-based skills while your dex is 0? If you can't- then you auto-fall out when paralyzed.
you cannot move when your dex falls to 0. all dex based skills are bound to movement, actually.
Heh. you just made that up, didn't you? ;)
edit- What Nab said right above your post resonates are more true to me. Can you even use dex-based skills while your dex is 0? If you can't- then you auto-fall out when paralyzed.
Also, an unconscious rider has 50% to stay in saddle (75% with military saddle) and it's maybe worse than being paralyzed. I think that a rider can make the ride check even if his dex is zero. It will be harder to stay in saddle with a -5 to dex.
Heh. you just made that up, didn't you? ;)
edit- What Nab said right above your post resonates are more true to me. Can you even use dex-based skills while your dex is 0? If you can't- then you auto-fall out when paralyzed.
Actually that's how I always handled it when describing the scene in my tt games as a DM
I think that Nab point doesn't apply. The confusion comes from the wording (which is the same) for two different checks, actually.
Nab is referring to this check
Stay in Saddle, Ride skill, SRD
Stay in Saddle: You can react instantly to try to avoid falling when your mount rears or bolts unexpectedly or when you take damage. This usage does not take an action.
Stay in Saddle: You can react instantly to try to avoid falling when your mount rears or bolts unexpectedly or when you take damage. This usage does not take an action.
Also, an unconscious rider has 50% to stay in saddle (75% with military saddle) and it's maybe worse than being paralyzed. I think that a rider can make the ride check even if his dex is zero. It will be harder to stay in saddle with a -5 to dex.
where did you get that 50%?
about ride check: no, you can't take any action while paralyzed, only purely mental ones - which definitely does not involve riding.
about paralysis, though:
He is rooted to the spot, frozen and helpless. Not even friends can move his limbs. He may take purely mental actions, such as casting a spell with no components.
A winged creature flying in the air at the time that it becomes paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls. A swimmer can’t swim and may drown.
so, if he is frozen in the spot, this might mean:
a) his limbs are too tight for the horse to move properly
b) his limbs are in the right location - he sits above and stays on it
c) his limbs are opened to far and he falls.
where did you get that 50%?
Check under SRD, Mounted Combat, If you are dropped.
where did you get that 50%?
From here:
If You Are Dropped
If you are knocked unconscious, you have a 50% chance to stay in the saddle (or 75% if you’re in a military saddle). Otherwise you fall and take 1d6 points of damage.
EDIT: Ninja'ed
i believe the same check for paralysed and unconscious should be applied. there's a core rule in place, which does pretty much the same, just the game mechanic why you can't do anything is different.
please, don't reply that fast and that often - i already read that ^^ crazy's post was written while i did mine - after all, i had some text to write and it was really closely timed.
i believe the same check for paralysed and unconscious should be applied. there's a core rule in place, which does pretty much the same, just the game mechanic why you can't do anything is different.
Without any other rules to apply to the situation- I would concur.
Would he withdraw as well, even involuntarily?
A mount and rider's movement is shared. If one withdraws, the other does too. Simple
Consider the alternative:
The rider couldn't move with the horse if he were paralyzed.
Or, if you were going to say the horse is "just carrying" the rider & the rider doesn't move himself, then why do riders get a +2 bonus when they charge with a mount? they can't move themselves- and they are just along for the ride.
I don't see the contradiction that's supposed to be in that last paragraph.
- A paralysed rider is dead weight that a horse is "just carrying".
- A charging rider gets a +2 on attacks because the rider is using the "charge" action.
What I don't want to see is a mounted character who avoiding attacks of opportunity by ordering his horse to withdraw, even though he's spending actions doing other stuff (activating wands, attacking other foes, etc.).
What I don't want to see is a mounted character who avoiding attacks of opportunity by ordering his horse to withdraw, even though he's spending actions doing other stuff (activating wands, attacking other foes, etc.).
That is an option who was immediately ruled out. The only exception to the rule of spending a withdraw action to withdraw for both the rider and the mount would be when the rider is unconscious, paralyzed or stunned.
That is an option who was immediately ruled out. The only exception to the rule of spending a withdraw action to withdraw for both the rider and the mount would be when the rider is unconscious, paralyzed or stunned.
But why do we need an exception? What purpose does it serve? Why do characters suddenly get better at dodging attacks once they fall asleep?
I don't see the contradiction that's supposed to be in that last paragraph.
- A paralysed rider is dead weight that a horse is "just carrying".
- A charging rider gets a +2 on attacks because the rider is using the "charge" action.
In the example in my paragraph, the rider himself is not actually moving- the horse is doing that for him. That's why it is a contradiction- you can't charge if you don't move 10 ft in a round[the rider didn't move himself, the horse did that]- and you certainly have to attack at the end of a charge, which the horse doesn't do if it isn't a warhorse. [but the rider did]
The basic idea is that actions are shared between a horse and rider. Of course, on the other hand- I wouldn't say that a paralyzed rider would be "forced" to charge if his mount did.
You need cover or concealment in order to attempt a Hide check. Total cover or total concealment usually (but not always; see Special, below) obviates the need for a Hide check, since nothing can see you anyway.
If people are observing you, even casually, you can’t hide. You can run around a corner or behind cover so that you’re out of sight and then hide, but the others then know at least where you went.
This shows that you can't hide if you are in sight to begin with.
The lighting conditions in the Characters thread only block LOS with Pitch Black. Dark is Concealment and Dim light is nothing except for a bit of a penalty on spot.
The psionic version of Nondetection(Escape detection) also lists a number of powers that are affected by it and among them is Psionic True seeing.
EDIT: I vote for 2.
by the reading #2 would impose, it would be possible to stand next to a creature with blindsight, and be undetectable by it. not being able to uncover any concealment with other, more powerful spells, due to a lvl 2 spell hampering it, is very strange.
spells not targeting an area or targeting the specific creature should be able to penetrate nondetection without additional check. everthing else is wishful, fluffy thinking. it's not what is written in the rules.
However, I'm less sure about See Invis. My initial reaction is no, it shouldn't be protected against, since it merely enhances the caster's senses, it does not actually target the creature with Nondetection. But lonewolf pointed out that Nondetection's psionic counterpart, Escape Detection, includes True Seeing as one of the powers it protects against, and that gives me pause. The two do differ in a few ways, mainly the psionic version having a cap on the CL check's difficulty, but I find it difficult to believe they'd have made something so plainly modeled as the psionic equivalent of Nondetection cover more spells/powers than its magical counterpart, which makes me think that perhaps abilities like See Invis and True Seeing are intended to be protected against by Nondetection.
...honestly, I'm not sure where to vote on that one. Certainly, as I said in that first paragraph, I don't think True Strike should qualify, no matter what. I'm not able to decide when it comes to the vision-enhancing spells, though.
Zevox
I would say see invisibility it probably does help against.
True strike doesn't qualify, as it doesn't tell you where he is, just where to aim to hit him (so if he's tough to hit via armor, it'll still help, but it won't let you target an invisible or hidden enemy with MM. Similarly, if you have an invisible enemy and aim into the wrong square, it won't help you.)
I would say see invisibility it probably does help against.
well, see invisibility does not tell you where he is, your eyes do - contrary to detect spells, which tell you the location, or scryings, which show you the location.
another example i'd want to make is prying eyes. it's a diviniation, that just looks around. would you say a non-invisible nondetectable creature should escape it? if yes, why? if no, why should the greater prying eyes true seeing then stop to work if the creature is invisible?
about escape detection: true seeing does not target anything, as does see invis. in that light, i'd like to point out again the interpretation by Zevox: basically, both spells should just bestow SR X against all directed or searching divination attempts. once you use your own eyes, it should be non-working.
Looks like discussion has really died down on the matter. The breakdown of opinions on it wound up as 2 to leave it as it has been run (can affect light spells without hindrance) and 4 to give it the darkness descriptor when used to reduce light and 1 to allow it to only affect the natural lighting of the area. Unless there are new voices to add to the matter - it looks to me that we will treat it as a [Darkness] spell when used to reduce light.
Re: Nondetection
Looks like we're fairly evenly split down the middle on this issue - half saying that the list it gives is exhaustive and the other half saying that it should include most divination spells.
I'm going to leave this discussion open a little longer before putting in my response on the matter (yes I know I responded in the Tavern about it - but it doesn't hurt to do a little more research first).
@Sunder: Sweeping strike shouldnt work here. Sunder attacks objects and sweeping strike affects two creatures.
Timing, both are tripped at the same time. There's no way to adjudicate having one go before the other.
If one is tripped and the other isn't, then, well, one is tripped and the other isn't. The follow-up attack can still affect both due to how sweeping strike works, of course, if that's what you were looking for.
If one is tripped but the other counter-trips and forces you to drop your weapon, well, you're just SOL when it comes to the follow-up then. Unless you have quick-draw or a natural weapon with enough reach to strike the tripped foe, I suppose.
Zevox
As for sundering - I think it is simplest to just say that sweeping strike affects opponents only (since sweeping strike affects everything in the two adjacent squares - that would be exceptionally nasty for the sunder - something I don't want to support).