This is the Courtroom of Sagaris. If you seek advice or the answer to a question about the City of Sagaris 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 Sagaris 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.
AC from plate and shield at 16 is 10+8(lv)+11(armor)+3(enh)+2(shield) = 34.
Corrected, since level 16 and higher plate is warplate.
1. Target has resist all 10.
2. Target has resist all ranged attacks 10.
3. Target has resist all 10 and resist fire 20.
4. Target has resist all ranged attacks 10 and resist fire 20.
Basically, the question boils down to whether having "resist X to all damage" is the same as having "resist X damage type 1", "resist X damage type 2", etc etc for all types of damage. If it is, then Irresistible Flame should cut through resist all. If it's not, then it could count as a separate type of resistance, which could interact oddly with the new rules on resistance:
“Also, resistance doesn’t reduce damage unless the target has resistance to each type of damage from the attack, and then only the weakest of the resistances applies.”
So, if "all damage" is a type of damage and "fire" is also a type of damage, would having a lower fire resist than your resist all actually be worse than having no fire resist?
I don't think so. Irresistable flame refers specifically to "resist fire," not "resistance to your fire attacks." If it doesn't have specifically "resist fire," then Irresistable Flame has no effect.
So what happens in scenario 3? Irresistible Flame lowers the fire resist down to 0, and the attack deals full damage since resist all is different from resist fire? What if it's 21 fire resistance instead of 20?
resist all ranged, though i do not know how you get that, would always help against a fire power+irresistible flame.
so damage:
1 = 30
2 = 20
3 = 20 (you reduce 20 fire, leaves 10 all)
4 = 20
so damage:
1 = 30
2 = 20
3 = 20 (you reduce 20 fire, leaves 10 all)
4 = 20
I'm really curious how 1 and 3 yield different results in your world, since in #3, Irresistible Flame reduces the 20 fire, leaving resist 10 all as the highest applicable resistance, and resist 10 all is the resistance in #1.
breathe...
easy...
ok, i think i can answer now without swearing to badly.
in my initial reasoning, resist fire 20 and the inherent resist fire 10 (within resist all 10) are two different effects, and i believe you could only reduce one effect with that feat since you'd need 30 points to remove both entirely.
since the rules don't state what happens if you have more than one resistance applicable, there are two basic possibilities:
- higher replaces lower, like with ongoing damage.
- both are still present and you need to work around both. (my assumption)
ps: does it, IN YOUR WORLD, feel good to take cheap shots from the side?
ps: does it, IN YOUR WORLD, feel good to take cheap shots from the side?
Er...he wasn't taking cheap shots. In English "in your world" can mean the same thing as "under your interpretation". There's not necessarily any negative connotation. Maybe it's different in German.
in my initial reasoning, resist fire 20 and the inherent resist fire 10 (within resist all 10) are two different effects, and i believe you could only reduce one effect with that feat since you'd need 30 points to remove both entirely.
Oh, I see, you're saying that an ability to reduce resist fire by 20 affects resist all 10 when applied to fire effects. That's what I didn't get.
Now I have to ask why number 2 and number 1 are different, or, more specifically, why you think Irresistible Flame treats "resist all" and "resist all ranged" differently.
it should be resist 10 ranged, no? otherwise, i don't see how this could work - why ranged and not melee? makes no sense.
resist (all) ranged 10 does not specifically oppose fire. and actually i believe there is no resistance that states you get resist "all" 10 against ranged attacks.
Turn to page 245
. I'm seriously considering switching to a different team because of that one item. The whole reason I'm talking about this in the first place is to see whether I can get around that item by using Flaming weapons, or whether my team's damage output will get cut in half at higher levels.By the way, if we consider "Resist all" to be something like "Resist Fire, Resist Cold, Resist Lightning, etc. etc. etc.", then I think stacking Resist All and Resist Fire would have the same effect against Irresistible Flame as stacking two sources of Resist Fire. If you have two sources of Resist Fire 20, let's say, would they protect you from Irresistible Flame?
By the way, IMO Resist All Ranged is exactly like Resist All, except it only applies to ranged attacks.
The direct link to the compendium is:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/insider/compendium
Just type in stealth into the search and pick skills.
This is also in a post in the Rules forum [post=16467232]here[/post].
New requirement to have total concealment or superior cover to become hidden. Creatures cannot provide cover to remain hidden. You also explicitly are invisible to your opponent that failed to spot you. A lot of clean up actually and I recommend the full read.
For those concerned about stealth rules, there's apparently been an update on the DD compendium.
The direct link to the compendium is:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/insider/compendium
Just type in stealth into the search and pick skills.
This is also in a post in the Rules forum [post=16467232]here[/post].
New requirement to have total concealment or superior cover to become hidden. Creatures cannot provide cover to remain hidden. You also explicitly are invisible to your opponent that failed to spot you. A lot of clean up actually and I recommend the full read.
As a stealthy player... i do like this aspect..
An enemy can try to find you on its turn. If an enemy makes an active Perception check and beats your Stealth check result (don’t make a new check), you don’t remain hidden from that enemy. Also, if an enemy tries to enter your space, you don’t remain hidden from that enemy.
Just means everyone who can take Perception skill will tho..
Also, if an enemy tries to enter your space, you don’t remain hidden from that enemy.
this is somewhat of a problem. a stealth-search pattern dismisses invisibility?
it should be clarified for coco, that this does not mean that you can see him if he's still invisible, he still has total concealment but you know where he is. the rules suggest something much more silly - you see him.
it should be clarified for coco, that this does not mean that you can see him if he's still invisible, he still has total concealment but you know where he is. the rules suggest something much more silly - you see him.
I guess it's written with the idea one is simply hiding somewhere. If someone is invisible it's plain silly that you can see him just by entering his square
I guess it's written with the idea one is simply hiding somewhere. If someone is invisible it's plain silly that you can see him just by entering his square
silly - maybe. but we had much more silly discussions here over the course of the last months (staying hidden with hips while fullattacking in melee?)
and because of that, and the wording which would allow to SEE the invisible creature if you take it to literally, a clarification should be issued upfront.
silly - maybe. but we had much more silly discussions here over the course of the last months (staying hidden with hips while fullattacking in melee?)
and because of that, and the wording which would allow to SEE the invisible creature if you take it to literally, a clarification should be issued upfront.
No problems with that, but I'd prefer to keep a short amount of clarifications to avoid giving too much to read to newcomers (when and if they'll come).
this is somewhat of a problem. a stealth-search pattern dismisses invisibility?
it should be clarified for coco, that this does not mean that you can see him if he's still invisible, he still has total concealment but you know where he is. the rules suggest something much more silly - you see him.
This is in the rules for stealth, not invisibility. The FAQ for invis explicitly states that invis only ends when the power granting it says it ends.
Think of "stealthed" as a condition. I came to this realization while explaining to my wife what the rule change meant to her warlock. She can't just hide by using Shadow Walk anymore. But if she uses Eyebite and then takes any other action (except an attack), she can use the total concealment granted by invisibility to hide (from that opponent). Then when her next turn comes up, the invis ends, but she's still stealthed if she has concealment (probably from Shadow Walk). If she doesn't attack but does move, she can then use Shadow Walk to stay hidden. So the oddity here is that you have to use Stealth while you're invisible to be able to stay stealthed when the invis ends.
Regarding Legality of: Characters of Sagaris - lonewolf - Brag
1. Rogue Features - sneak attack dmg listed as 2d6+4 though the PHB text doesn't mention adding bonuses to Sneak Attack damage. +4 from STR and DEX and Brute already added into other powers could confuse DM into adding it twice on a sneak attack.
2. Encounter Power - Predatory Eye was tough to find. Maybe include a "show your work" in the template with the source and page for things? like MM135 for Predatory Eye. And MM276 after the Bugbear racial tag
I'm just reading character stats and metioning potential mistakes as I go. I may be wrong.
Regarding Legality of: Characters of Sagaris - lonewolf - Brag
Thanks for the input and Im glad to explain:
1. Rogue Features - sneak attack dmg listed as 2d6+4 though the PHB text doesn't mention adding bonuses to Sneak Attack damage. +4 from STR and DEX and Brute already added into other powers could confuse DM into adding it twice on a sneak attack.
Look at PHB page 117:
"Brutal Scoundrel: You gain a bonus to sneak attack damage equal to your Strength modifier."
2. Encounter Power - Predatory Eye was tough to find. Maybe include a "show your work" in the template with the source and page for things? like MM135 for Predatory Eye. For that matter where do you find the template for a Bugbear PC? All I found were level 5 and 6 npcs with lots of nice abilities that the PHB races don't have like Body Shield, Strangle, Skullthumper. Seems more powerful than PHB races.
Templates for many Monster Races for the usage as PCs are detailed in the MM page 276ff. Predatory Eye is the Bugbears racial power like Elven Accuracy is for the Elf.
I hope I cleared everything up.
greets
lonewolf
Look at PHB page 117:
"Brutal Scoundrel: You gain a bonus to sneak attack damage equal to your Strength modifier."
I see. It's by virtue of a separate Rogue Feature: Rogue Tactics.
Templates for many Monster Races for the usage as PCs are detailed in the MM page 276ff. Predatory Eye is the Bugbears racial power like Elven Accuracy is for the Elf.
Yep. I found it now. Thanks
I'm just reading character stats and metioning potential mistakes as I go. I may be wrong.
Regarding Legality of: Characters of Sagaris - lonewolf - Brag
1. Rogue Features - sneak attack dmg listed as 2d6+4 though the PHB text doesn't mention adding bonuses to Sneak Attack damage. +4 from STR and DEX and Brute already added into other powers could confuse DM into adding it twice on a sneak attack.
2. Encounter Power - Predatory Eye was tough to find. Maybe include a "show your work" in the template with the source and page for things? like MM135 for Predatory Eye. And MM276 after the Bugbear racial tag
And just so there's no confusion - if those were errors - they should have been posted in the Prison thread. The courtroom is for discussing rules confusion for the most part.
Example: Wintertouched/Lasting Frost cheese: If consecutive, then the second attack gains CA and Vulnerability: Cold. If concurrent, then it applies on the next attack.
Example 2: A ranger targets another ranger with Twin Strike. The attacking ranger hits on the first strike. The targeted ranger activates Yield Ground (L2 utility), allowing him to shift and increasing his defenses. Does this immediate reaction occur after the first strike or both? Does it entirely negate the second attack?
I'm sure I could think of more, but I foresee questions of this nature coming up in CoCo with greater frequency as people level and acquire more interrupt abilities. Opinions?
Hmmm... I will ask this, just so we can be sure- Are double attacks like Twin Strike resolved consecutively or concurrently?
Example: Wintertouched/Lasting Frost cheese: If consecutive, then the second attack gains CA and Vulnerability: Cold. If concurrent, then it applies on the next attack.
Example 2: A ranger targets another ranger with Twin Strike. The attacking ranger hits on the first strike. The targeted ranger activates Yield Ground (L2 utility), allowing him to shift and increasing his defenses. Does this immediate reaction occur after the first strike or both? Does it entirely negate the second attack?
I'm sure I could think of more, but I foresee questions of this nature coming up in CoCo with greater frequency as people level and acquire more interrupt abilities. Opinions?
They occur at the same time. Thus a ranger who twin strikes a target and the first arrow kills the target the second is wasted (known). All attacks from a power are resolved at the same time so answer is no to both of your questions.
This is AFAIK.
My question
A ranger with Disruptive strike can choose which attack to interrupt after the attack/damage is resolved. In CoCo for seperate thread fights can I post after the Pitlord says I take damage to use an immediate interupt? This would help prevent meta-gaming by the opposing player on with-holding his most damaging abilities until he knows I do not have my interrupt anymore.
this is stated in the description on how powers are resolved.
since you have only one target-line, they happen at the same time. i searched this for telin and twin strike already. phb p.269 if i remember correctly. you choose targets before you resolve your attack roll.
As for Disruptive Strike, I foresee it being more of a pain in fights with written tactics than in separate threads. The trigger is that the target declares an attack; in a normal game, the DM says, "The goblin attacks you, Bob," and grabs for some dice. Bob says, "Hang on there, I want to use Disruptive Strike." Here in CoCo, since declarations of attack and rolls/damage tend to occur simultaneously, I think that powers that affect or potentially stop attacks (movement, damage, etc.) should be allowed to be used after the fact. It prevents metagaming somewhat, as Cespinar mentioned, and should ease things on the PitLord.
(more than 6 damage > staff of defense
first attack from bill > scott use his xxx power
first hit - use shield)
usually when i have an interrupt, i just specify a simple condition when to use it.
(more than 6 damage > staff of defense
first attack from bill > scott use his xxx power
first hit - use shield)
I assume you mean when it applies as to not waste a power.
I agree that is how I would write my gen tactics but I am talking about when you are posting in a thread.
I disagree. There's precedent that if a creature makes multiple attacks at one time, and you use an immediate reaction after the first attack, then the others may be spoiled (if you moved away, for example). Unfortunately I don't have a source for that off the top of my head.
Unless you mean immediate interrupt you are wrong
Reactions happen AFTER the entire triggering action is resolved. Interrupts can happen mid action. It is just a matter of how you resolve it using the format CoCo uses.
I disagree. There's precedent that if a creature makes multiple attacks at one time, and you use an immediate reaction after the first attack, then the others may be spoiled (if you moved away, for example). Unfortunately I don't have a source for that off the top of my head.
well, the rules clearly state that you choose a target first and roll attacks later.
what you could be aware of is phb p.268, which states that if a interrupt voids the triggering action, the action is lost. (like shifting away while getting attacked)
but, see, this interrupt _would_ apply to both attacks.
@Cespinar: well, as a pitlord in a seperate thread fight, i'd demand conditionals as well. after the fact, i certainly would not allow it.
@Cespinar: well, as a pitlord in a seperate thread fight, i'd demand conditionals as well. after the fact, i certainly would not allow it.
If I had shield and someone hit me for my ac+5 the pitlord would not make me waste shield though. Correct? Because that goes against some of the ideas of interrupts and severely lowers their usefulness.
If I had shield and someone hit me for my ac+5 the pitlord would not make me waste shield though. Correct? Because that goes against some of the ideas of interrupts and severely lowers their usefulness.
no. this is clearly metagaming, if you know what target AC he would hit.
with shield, it is not intended that you KNOW the attack rolls result - just the damage.
Shield is hard to use the way wb envisions it, because at the table, the DM usually asks whether X hits your AC, whereupon you can throw up Shield and say "no."
Hmm... it depends on whether the triggering event is the attack ("event") or the entire action. My interpretation is that it's the attack, but I see how it's ambiguous.
Shield is hard to use the way wb envisions it, because at the table, the DM usually asks whether X hits your AC, whereupon you can throw up Shield and say "no."
1) cf. to the phb again. miss or hit is resolved first, and then damage is rolled. if you resolve the hit, and shft away, clearly no damage is ever rolled.
2) well, a dm should know the defense values of his party. that's the reason why the CB prints out a little DM-card as well. a dm should not need to ask for AC or Fort, this slows the game down. I know, most of us do not take notes like that, because its quite easy to do it the other way, but ideally, the DM just resolves it as hit, or just asks the AC/Fortitude values instead of yelling out "28 hits?"
no. this is clearly metagaming, if you know what target AC he would hit.
with shield, it is not intended that you KNOW the attack rolls result - just the damage.
To answer my own question.
It actually depends on the trigger.
Disruptive strike: the trigger is enemy attacking so you do not even know if someone was hit.
Staff of Defense: The trigger is being dealt damage
Shield: Trigger is being hit.
My research has shown it is up to the DM if you actually know the opposing attack roll or not. HOWEVER, As I read it, the DMG advises DMs to let the player know when his Shield ability will be useful.
1) cf. to the phb again. miss or hit is resolved first, and then damage is rolled. if you resolve the hit, and shft away, clearly no damage is ever rolled.
Yes, that's clearly true, but it's reactions, not interrupts, that are under discussion here.
Yes, that's clearly true, but it's reactions, not interrupts, that are under discussion here.
Reaction: An immediate reaction lets you act in
response to a trigger. The triggering action, event, or
condition occurs and is completely resolved before
you take your reaction, except that you can interrupt
a creature’s movement. If a creature triggers your
immediate reaction while moving (by coming into
range, for example), you take your action before the
creature finishes moving but after it has moved at
least 1 square
From PHB
If a target marked by this power is within 10 squares of you when it hits with an attack that does not include you as a target, you can use an immediate reaction after the target's entire attack is resolved to teleport the target to any space adjacent to you.
That language would not be necessary if immediate reactions normally happened after the entire attack was resolved. The inference is that reactions can normally occur modularly.
An immediate reaction lets you act in response to a trigger. The triggering action, event, or condition occurs and is completely resolved before you take your reaction, except...
I found another argument in my favor, from Arcane Power:
That language would not be necessary if immediate reactions normally happened after the entire attack was resolved. The inference is that reactions can normally occur modularly.
just because some powers are more verbose, does not mean that they contradict something. such verbosity could just be a result of questions posed to CS or the devs.
If you have a Dex of 15+ and a light blade, spear or flail, it grants a secondary attack - which has its own attack line.
Looks to me that it is either 2 or 3 attacks.
Edit: Ah okay - now I see it - the secondary attack is a condition of the hit line. Then yes - I think it is 4 attacks.
However, I do object to not knowing what power your opponent used after they've used it. It's one thing to know what your opponent is going to do, it's another to know what they just did.
I would disagree, not necessarily with those particular powers, but at the least for powers that trigger on being "hit", you would understand, since under the "Hit" entry of the powers introduction (p. 57), it's very clear that you understand what's being done to you, and since our characters have memorized their foes' character sheets, from the effect, they know the power. Unless someone was unfortunate enough to have an encounter power that matched their at-will exactly, the victim could tell.
the book specifies clearly, that after being hit, you know the effects. you do not know what caused it, so you can not decide upfront whether to block it or not.
as an example, you would not know if it was two fanged strike or twin strike that hit you so hard, as they have the same form of attacking (two arrows) and just deal damage. Especially if it is an interrupt on being hit, you would not already know what will hit you, as technically, you are not hit yet.
even if we allow to metagame which power is used, i doubt one should be able to say "i ready disruptive strike against any daily or encounter power used on me"
There is a discussion going on in the "What's a DM to do" forum, here, about the same thing.
The general consensus seems to be that if you move, you do retain the benefits of being hidden until after the movement is over (and after any extra effects of the movement, such as the attack from a charge or Deft Strike). This includes combat advantage and not triggering OAs. However, if you have no cover/concealment at any point during the move, you can't make another stealth check, and the characters that you weren't hiding from know that you went past and get to see you.
The updates to the PHB also seem to support this idea; see the wording for the Rogue Shadow Strike utility power:
Effect: You must be hidden to use this power. You can move your speed and must end your movement in a space where you can remain hidden. Then make a Stealth check with no penalty for moving. If the check succeeds, you remain hidden during the movement, even if you have no cover or concealment during it.
The "fluff" explanation is that the character you aren't hidden from any more saw you during the movement (or other action, for that matter), but because they weren't aware of you, they aren't prepared to do anything (hence no OAs triggering from the movement), and aren't able to defend themselves as well against attacks (hence still having CA if the movement is part of the attack's action).
There's another easy way of dealing with Consecrated Ground: readied actions. Ready your attack to go off when the cleric's turn starts (e.g. when they regain consciousness). That way they can't sustain the effect that round, and the power ends.
I think we should at least try it using a literal reading of the rules. If it proves to be a problem, we can nerf it later.
I don't think that works. Your trigger has to be an action taken by another character neither turn starting or the zone healing are actually actions. If youre keeping a literal interpretation.
You can always bull rush or use some sort of control type powers. I say wait and see how bad Conc Grounds can be.
@LinkN: The PHB revolved around bad stealth rules so do not use that rogue box as any indicator of how stealth should work. Use the PHB2 or Errata(they are the same).
Remaining Hidden: You remain hidden as long as you meet these requirements.
Keep Out of Sight: If you no longer have any cover or concealment against an enemy, you don’t remain hidden from that enemy. You don’t need superior cover, total concealment, or to stay outside line of sight, but you do need some degree of cover or concealment to remain hidden. You can’t use another creature as cover to remain hidden.
Keep Quiet: If you speak louder than a whisper or otherwise draw attention to yourself, you don’t remain hidden from any enemy that can hear you.
Keep Still: If you move more than 2 squares during an action, you must make a new Stealth check with a –5 penalty. If you run, the penalty is –10. If any enemy’s passive Perception check beats your check result, you don’t remain hidden from that enemy.
Don’t Attack: If you attack, you don’t remain hidden.
So you don't remain hidden until the end of your move if you lose cover/concealment.
@LinkN: The PHB revolved around bad stealth rules so do not use that rogue box as any indicator of how stealth should work. Use the PHB2 or Errata(they are the same).
So you don't remain hidden until the end of your move if you lose cover/concealment.
First off, the rogue power I linked earlier was the updated version of the wording that was made to work with the new stealth rules (the old wording just doesn't work at all).
As for the updated stalth rules, keep reading that page:
Not Remaining Hidden: If you take an action that causes you not to remain hidden, you retain the benefits of being hidden until you resolve that action. You can't become hidden again as part of that same action.
Reading that quote and the thread I linked earlier, I'm trying to say that, if you move out of cover/concealment, you still have the benefits of being hidden until after that action (and can't hide again as part of the same action). For example:
Red begins his turn hidden from Blue. If Red uses Deft Strike (move 2 squares and make an attack), does he keep the benefits of being hidden for the attack, even though he loses cover during the movement? I'm trying to say that yes, he does, and he gets CA for the attack.
This also means that yes, a character that moves out from hidden can't be hit by OAs during the move.
This also means that yes, a character that moves out from hidden can't be hit by OAs during the move.
raw, i'd say this is wrong. he can be hit, if his cover is gone, or he moves further than 2 squares.
as for deft strike in particular:
i'd argue that the move part of the power is an action in itself. it is not clearly defined whether the move part and the attack part are part of one "action" or two actions within one power. as usual, the phb and the rules are very silent on exact definitions what is meant as an action that causes you to "not stay hidden".
As I mentioned before, the "fluff" explanation is that, you do see the enemy as they move by, but since you didn't know they were there before they moved, you're just not able to react quick enough to attack.
raw is unclear.
rai is dependent on the viewer.
all we can do is define our RAW(for coco)/RAI(for home games).
and the way i see this, is the following: if you move, and lose cover, you are no longer hidden. period. the paragraph about taking actions that don't make you hidden is actually only there to clarify how losing cover when attacking with a power works (so you get CA on all 4 rain of blow attacks), not to work in special cases like deft strike as well.
Anyone but lonewolf and Salrantol
Short version: Should we allow characters to make stealth checks on round 0 if they start out of LoS of the other team?
Long version: In the fight, Brag is last on initiative order. His position behind the pillar kept him from being spotted at the start of the fight, however Nemeia is going to move to where she can see him with superior cover. Normally, if he was actually hidden, she wouldn't notice him unless her perception was high enough. But, since he hasn't come up yet, he wasn't able to hide. Is that how things are supposed to work, or should we allow a "round-0" stealth check?
Long version: In the fight, Brag is last on initiative order. His position behind the pillar kept him from being spotted at the start of the fight, however Nemeia is going to move to where she can see him with superior cover. Normally, if he was actually hidden, she wouldn't notice him unless her perception was high enough. But, since he hasn't come up yet, he wasn't able to hide. Is that how things are supposed to work, or should we allow a "round-0" stealth check?
Response
Unless Brag has a special ability to allow him to hide (such as the Gnome's Reactive Stealth), then he is spotted.
Well, my reasoning is that the RAW isn't comprehensive enough to list every possible trigger for a readied action. Which is why a minor houserule is needed to keep things at least somewhat realistic.
As you said, you cannot respond to the start or end of someone's turn with a readied action. The reasoning, however, is simply because a character doesn't "observe" someone's turn ending. The character is able to observe someone's spell wearing off of them, however, and it's perfectly fine to ready an action for when you can see clearly.
I agree with everything said here. Is there further discussion about the topic needed? If so - please state so.