Ghost of Vhecker's page

PC Names:
Ekard (Human Dragon Shaman 2, Duskblade 1, Paladin of Bahamut 2, Dragon Disciple 3),
Moagim (Human Diviner 7, Loremaster 1).
Adventure: The Hall of Harsh Reflections
Location of Death: Zyrzog’s Laboratory
Catalyst: Advanced Octopin Rend, further ‘advanced’ with errata.

Long Description: I found a good thread on the boards here that suggested ‘correcting’ this creature's stats because “This octopin didn't receive its' +1 ability bonuses from its 12th and 16th hit dice”. For maximum value, I decided on increasing this creature’s strength and constitution, to 28 and 20 respectively. In hindsight, it was rash of me to increase the power of this totally obscene rending damage machine any more than already listed. Two hits from this thing do 2d6+9 damage twice (and with a +20 attack bonus, you don’t miss much), then you get the Rend, doing a further 4d6+13.
The math is quite simple - 8d6+31 is a lot of damage (average of 59). Far too much for the party Wizard to withstand, even on maximum hit points, and a party tank was taken out in two rounds flat.

Exit two more characters, stage left.

PC Names:
Ekard (Human Dragon Shaman 2, Duskblade 1, Paladin of Bahamut 2),
Rosay de Cacheleu (Human Fighter 1, Paladin of Heironeous 4).
Adventure: The Three Faces of Evil
Location of Death: The Inner Sanctum
Catalyst: A progression of intense encounters topped off with lightning bolts from the Faceless One. Paladin’s with little dexterity and poor reflex saves didn’t help much either…

Long Description: Rather like the Emperor vs Luke Skywalker in Return of the Jedi, the Faceless One snarled ‘Now, you will die’ and lit up two brave but hapless paladins like some kind of armour plated Christmas trees.
Perhaps these deaths served as a timely reminder to both that discretion is sometimes the better part of valour - especially so in this campaign. It’s downright nasty.

After reading of Erik Mona’s campaign, I decided to give a little note to these two players – “Should you ever meet Mearls, kick to the nuts.”

I've been running a Greyhawk Aow campaign for the last year. 57 sessions in and we just finished the Hall of Harshness. We are having a little break so I can have a social life again. Also a nice chance for me to do some housekeeping and post these obits.

PC Name: Ekard (Dragon Shaman 2, Duskblade 1, Paladin of Bahamut 1)
Adventure: The Three Faces of Evil
Location of Death: Temple of Hextor
Catalyst: ‘Enlarge’ spell, ‘Die Hard’ feat, and a little too much bravery…

Long Description: Ekard often fights with his trusty Longspear. Having recently purchased a wand of Enlarge with some Whispering Cairn loot, he was itching to cast it on himself to enjoy its massive reach. Enlarge is a good spell – but it does lower your AC and makes you a nice big target…

So, alas, when the fell Clerics of Hextor, Theldrick and Kendra, noticed Ekard could reach and attack the guards on the upper gallery of their beloved battle temple, they decided to do something about it. Theldrick, having just finished summoning a Fiendish Ape, placed it next to the upstart with the gigantic spear. The Fiendish Ape… well, goes a little ape, and with a satisfying swipe, swipe, crunch it chews 26 damage from Ekards large - and now easily hit - hide. Ekard, despite an earlier goring from another ‘beast’, is still standing (on 1 hit-point), so Theldrick blasts him with Sound Burst and rolls 8 for damage, thinking that should finish him.

For most characters it would have, but Ekard had Endurance and Die Hard feats, so despite being at -7, he was still standing. I ruled he was immune to Sound Blast stunning effects because he was deaf from an earlier thunderstone attack (I gave the elevator guard teiflings thundersones for use as an alarm). He could have elected to drop unconscious with the blast, but didn’t want to because his Dragon Shaman healing aura would cease its valuable effects on the rest of the party (not to mention himself), and besides, the party cleric was only 15’ behind and was still yet to act this round.

So he decided to stand.

Unfortunately, Kendra acted before the party cleric in initiative, she casts Sound Burst at the only likely target within the spells range, at Ekard - the “I’m large, pick me” paladin - and does 6 points of damage.

Down he goes. Die Hard ceases to work at -13, along with everything else, like vital organs.

The rod is where the cheating comes in, of course, since the mind flayer as published had neither of the related feats, thus should not have been able to activate the rod in any case, no matter which sort it was!

Anyone else notice that? Didn't stop me from letting him use the thing.

From memory, the description entry for Meta-magic Rod says' otherwise. A sorcerer (or other spontaneous caster) can use one, but it requires a full-round action to activate and cast the empowered spell. No feats are required. I beleive that's the whole idea of a meta-magic rod in the first place.

However, I do think many people forget to apply the full-round action, as I did myself (until my players reminded me).

Ghost

At my table +2 or -2 just doesn't get argued. Only if I go beyond the quick-and-easy modifiers do I hear *any* abjections. within +/-2, if you don't agree just assume there were other factors in the big, wide world we're pretending is real that I forgot to mention. Sometimes, people don't know every single thing that can affect their chance of success.

Another one I use is a +4 spot modifier to the target if they have already been sneak attacked by this player from the same location in a previous round (as happens when he sometimes moves down a side corridor and back in the same round, and attacks a target over and over this way).

These all seem reasonable to me, but to him, it's like it's ruined his character concept.

The first issue can be resolved using surprise rounds.

He frequently moves out of sight around a corner, or ducks under a table or such-like, then moves quietly back while trying to hide (all this in combat, and sometimes all achieved in one round, so kudos to him for managing that) then he tries to execute a sneak attack with a spell to a target within 30'.

Me, all I want to do is work out the mods and roll a spot check and get on with the combat. However, I think some of the things he is trying to do are harder to achieve than HE thinks they are, hence all the discussion and arguments over how I’ve modified the opposed hide/spot check roll. I guess that's why I’ve resorted to posting here.

Target gets a listen check with all necessary modifiers (-5 if distracted, -1 for every ten feet, etc.) against your move silently check. This would test your ability to perform the spell at a whisper, or adpat the cadence so that it is masked by the other sounds in the area.
If you co-ordinated with your party to mask your noise (they all agreed to scream, shout and sing until you struck) then they could give your foe a -20 to his listen check.

In the magic section of PHB it says casting a spell with a verbal component requires that "you must be able to speak in a strong voice". So I set the DC for 'hearing a spell being cast' the same as the 'People talking' entry under the Listen skill (DC 0).

The party screaming and hollering idea is a kind of clever tactic, but I wonder if this is somewhat covered in the 'distractions' modifier anyway, as battle noises might be almost as loud. Thanks for all these ideas though!

I would rule that this is more a hide check than a listen check unless the spellcaster was invisible. If the spotter is distracted (such as being involved in combat) he gets -5 on his spot check (and -1 for every 10 feet of distance).

Hiding is arguably a form of non-magical invisibility, so I'd let the caster make an opposed hide check. If the check succeeds he can cast without being perceived (so his opponent is flatfooted, etc.) but just like an invisible character who attacks the hide/invisibility ends after the attack.

Happily, you seem to have got the intent of my question despite my poor wording. (o:

We had already been playing an opposed spot/hide check for his attempted sneak attacks when hidden. The -5 for distraction during a battle is a good point, and I will probably apply this to a targets spot check in most battles from now on. Do you think, however, that a spell casting attack would somewhat draw attention to themselves, and modify the same opposed check in some manner?

Hmmm, here's a thought, it might just now negate the targets 'distraction' modifier.

Cheers
Ghost

Oh dear, I now realise I definitely wasn’t specific enough with my original post.

What I meant to ask was, that if character was trying to attack from a hidden position in order to sneak attack with a weapon-like spell, would the opposed spot/hide checks - to determine if the target was flat footed - be modified adversely for a verbalising spell caster.

I wasn’t at all talking about remaining hidden AFTER casting the spell.

I most sincerely apologise to everyone who kindly posted for causing this confusion. I should have been more expansive with my initial question.

And if I may again politely inquire, how would you play THIS situation at your game table?

By the way, I don't have a copy of the "Rules Compendium" yet. Does it talk about opposed hide/spot checks in combat at all?

I made recent ruling in my campaign for when trying to cast a spell from a hidden position in combat. I decided that if a spell has a verbal component, the caster gets a –2 circumstance modifier to their hide check because of the additional auditory cues they provide potential targets. (Note – I do not want to bog down combat with additional listen checks, hence just a modifier on the single spot roll)

Do you think this sounds reasonable?

This decision impacts on a player’s Arcane Trickster character, and he has expressed his dissatisfaction with the ruling. He points out that this isn’t mentioned in the rules anywhere, and seems to him to be an arbitrary decision aimed at curtailing his core class tactics.

I, however, think it’s a reasonable interpretation of circumstances that only minimally curtails his chance of sneak attack in most situations. To me, it highlights how someone with a Silent Metamagic feat could and should have some advantage in this regard.

I’m keen for people’s thoughts.

Thanks in advance.

Ghost

Correct me if I am wrong, but as a wand, it is only spell completion. So the character that triggers the completion of the spell would also determine the deity connected to it...

One slight advantage is that the whirling blade of death is all untyped damage, and there's no spell resistance.

Now if he had a keen falchion, he could hit new highs in damage cheese on a crit.
2d4+12 doubled is evil enough (average of 34 points on a crit) let alone 1d6+1 plus 3d4 damage with only 1d6+1 of that being typed, resistable damage

Why not just do 8d6 (8-48) with a lightning bolt, use second level for scorching ray 8d6 (8-48) and use first for magic missiles 5d4+5 (10-25). I don't remember how Warmage Edge works, but presumably it'll slap a boost on those numbers too.

Although I appreciate that the axe hurling is pretty cinematic and cool.

Kind of off topic, but if you are about to play a warmage you might find this interesting.

I have a player running one in my AoW campaign (well, actually he’s a Fighter 1/Warmage 6/Eldrich Knight 1). One spell combination he uses is fist of stone cast before combat, then casting a swift blades of fire and then launching his +1 greataxe with a power attack in the whirling blade spell. Working from a base of 16 strength and 12 intelligence for warmage edge, he gets a +10 attack (if using a two point power attack) and does 1d12+10 plus 1d6+1 fire damage (or 13-29) to every enemy target in a 60’ line. Kind of impressive, especially when you can throw it through your front line of fighters without any issues of hitting them.

Next level (9th) he plans to take Arcane Strike. If spending a third level spell slot, he gets a +14 attack bonus, and 1d12+10 plus 1d6+1 plus 3d4 damage (or 16-41) to every enemy target in a 60’ line.

I guess he’s spending a few resources to do this (one 1st, two 2nd and one 3rd level spell), but still - as the DM - I’m seriously starting to shake in my boots…

I’ve two quick questions about this item found in the Area D7:

I found one:

Glyph of Warding, (M6)

- The spell should have a maximum damage of 5d8 acid.

Of course, if you want to give it back some kick, you could have the (12th level) caster empower the spell, for 5d8 +50% damage. If so, remember to raise the CR.

Hi Paul,

Looks like you solved your own dilemma. Good DM's have a knack for doing that, so I reckon that's a good omen for you.

My group is playing in the same area, as they just defeated Telarkin last week. The low party resources made for a very memorable and long fight. That's probably just what you want really.

However, with my entire group now on low'ish hit points and very low on spells, this has created a minor dilemma of my own. Are Zyrzog and the drow thralls (the last encounter in Sodden Hold) going to take them out? Even with Zyrzog only blasting and running off, it could be the straw that breaks the camels back.

But, really it's no dilemma, as I just love it when it goes down to the wire. It's why I DM, to push players to the limit, and sometimes, just sometimes, a little bit over.

Cheers

GoV

Maybe you guys all spend too much time roleplaying or something. :)

Maybe my players are repressed actors, or repressed lawyers, or repressed alcoholics, or all of those things at once.
They're lucky I let them come over really...
:o)

Well don't I feel like an idiot now. Sorry for the bad advice.

If he overcomes the 50% miss chance of the spell, then he hits normally. It's all or nothing, and 50% seems pretty big to stack an additional penalty.

My poor wizard/rogue player has to deal with a 50% miss AND no sneak attack. Is this too good for a 3rd level arcane spell? I was speculating much the same way myself.

As it happens, perhaps partly because the spell only lasts 1 round per caster level, I think it's acceptable. But it was a good point to raise nonetheless.

Which just goes to show what the FAQ knows. The spell description itself says: "If the attack is capable of striking ethereal creatures, the miss chance is 20% (for concealment)."

As an ad-hock house rule - I think I would play the spell this way in relation to Sneak Attacks;
1 - Normal attacker vs. Blinking target = no Sneak Attack and 50% miss.
2 - Attacker that can see but not affect ethereal (such as having a see invisibility spell up) vs. Blinking target = Sneak Attack possible, but with 20% miss.
3 - Attacker that can not see ethereal, but can affect ethereal (such as with some kind of force attack or ghost touch weapon?) vs. Blinking target = no Sneak Attack and 20% miss.

Having said that, any DM is quite within their rights to stick to the FAQ, or make their own house rule, especially when faced with such contradiction.

Anyway, back to displacement spell. Thanks heaps for everyone’s input, both for and against. The un-biased and intelligent input one can get here makes my final decision so much easier, precisely because a fair and un-biased ruling is exactly what I’m after.

Cheers from the Ghost

With a few exceptions, they have gone at a rate of one adventure per session!!

Me, I'll be DM'ing my 49th session this Wednesday (we started December 2006), and we are now half way through The Hall of Harsh Reflections. We have 4 hour sessions, and some of this time is inevitably taken up with happy distractions like drinking, eating, telling stories and more drinking, but we probably get 3 to 3.5 hours solid gaming most nights.

So, let's see, that means our group has been playing Age of Worms for at least 147 solid hours. Mind you, my group keep telling me how much they are enjoying it, so I guess this pace works for us. That's all that really matters in the end.

We still have 300+ hours of gaming to go, and that is a very happy thought. Like having just started reading a HUGE book, and after a few chapters, you know you've struck gold and you're having the best read of your life.

I hope you enjoy yours just as much.

Hi all, these last few months I’ve been DM’ing my friends through Age of Worms and the HoHR. Having a hoot of a time with it, but I recently encountered another rule conundrum. I’m very interested what other DM’s in the Paizo community think, as your feedback has proved most enlightening before.

The question is, does the third level arcane spell displacement prevent sneak attacks? This came up when my players battled a wizard. The party rogue/wizard argued the miss chance was specified (in the spell description) as not being actual concealment and therefore didn’t prevent a sneak attack. I was inclined to think the spell would negate precision based special attacks because you’re essentially guessing where your target is within a square.

Quote from the SRD, displacement spell description;
“The subject of this spell appears to be about 2 feet away from its true location. The creature benefits from a 50% miss chance as if it had total concealment. However, unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. True seeing reveals its true location.”

Quote from the SRD, under Sneak Attack;
“A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernible anatomies—undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures lack vital areas to attack. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to sneak attacks. The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.”

After doing some research, I found a ‘Rules of the Game’ article on the wotc site ‘All About Sneak Attacks, Part 2’ which mentioned Blink negating sneak attacks, another spell with a non-concealment miss chance mechanic. To quote, “A blink spell provides the user with some degree of concealment -- and foils sneak attacks -- when the attacker cannot see ethereal opponents. (Both the see invisibility and true seeing spells reveal ethereal opponents).”

But…, then I found this in the latest D&D 3.5 FAQ!
“Would a sneak attack work on a creature affected by the blink spell?
Yes. Blink doesn’t provide concealment, so sneak attack functions normally against a target affected by that spell (though such attacks would have a 50% miss chance, as normal for the spell).”

That gave me a laugh. Even the game designers seem unsure on this one. Back to square one I guess. Funny, but finding that contradiction kind of gives me the confidence to stick to my hunch ruling.

My initial ruling was displacement does prevent sneak attacks, because “The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot”.
Who out there would rule the same way? And if you have the time, please tell me why/why not.

Thanks in advance.

After playing through The Whispering Cairn (and with me providing some encouragement in the form of a small experience point bonus) my group came up with;

The Rough Diamond Company

Nothing remarkable, but it fits quite well. They DO play kinda rough, but that's probably because they need to just to survive...

Gotta love 1st ed. flavour , with all it’s juicy, scary, crunchy bits!

Arrgh! Crap!

Just spent about two hours writing an in depth response to Jeremy's and Eltanin's great posts, but I must have taken too long, because when I hit the preview button something EVIL and NASTY decided to eat it!

Anyway, I hope to redo it tomorrow - but in the meantime - thanks heaps for everyone's helpful advice. The people in the Paizo community never cease to dazzle me with their intelligence and kindness. Your time and effort in posting has really helped me prepare for the next game session. I may even play this encounter now with an almost sage like confidence.

I'll post and tell you how it goes.

Cheers
(o:

Surprise rounds should only allow the surpriser either a standard or a move action. Not both. And definitely not a full attack action.

Also, creatures in a grapple can still attack with either light or natural weapons, and a slam attack is a natural weapon attack, so it theoretically could make a second attack...

Hi Sean. Thanks for your input. (o:

Yeah, the crappy wording of the mimic's abilities is a shining example of the inconsistent writing for creature abilities. They created a style guide (the format the creature stat blocks are supposed to take), and thought it was a standard creature write-up procedure, but the two things are very different.

Ok, the Crush ability. When does this happen? After a successful grapple check. Let’s see, does an automatic grapple constitute a successful grapple check? Hmm, I guess so. So I do an extra 1d8+4 crushing damage. Least, I think so...

...No it does not. The mimic "automatically grapples" on a successful slam attack because it is sticky. To inflict its crush damage, it actually has to make the grapple roll, which would require a separate standard action on the next round.

Treat it like any other creature that does damage on a successful grapple check -- the creature has to get the victim in a grapple first, then wait a round before it can start to do damage. The mimic is no exception.

Most DM's (including me) playing monsters that 'grapple' are usually doing it because they have Improved Grab (and just hit with an attack). Improved Grab actually specifies that "A successful hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has the constrict special attack. Hence, as you say, they usually do grapple damage the next round.

But the Mimic doesn't have Improved Grab. It has a special ability all of its own, with a quality like Improved grab, only in that it grapples after an attack (albeit automatically).

Argh, bloody confusing isn’t it...

Hmm, perhaps that was a bit wordy.

Maybe next time I'll just ask; How do you guys play Mimics in a grapple?

Grapple rules. Everyone loves them right? Sure you do… well; at least we have some sort of handle on them by now. Swelled with pride at our deft gaming skills, we use them in most cases without undue hassle and rampant house-ruling. After all, most of us are well educated individuals, and many of us even enjoy puzzles!

Now, let’s just throw in a Mimic or three. Just for spice. Welcome to the Sodden Hold, room D2.

Hmm… with its Adhesive and Crush abilities, we have some new elements of grappling fun. Oh lucky me.

To Quote the Monster Manual, page 186;
Adhesive (Ex): A mimic exudes a thick slime that acts as a powerful adhesive, holding fast any creatures or items that touch it. An adhesive covered mimic automatically grapples any creature it hits with a slam attack. Opponents so grappled cannot get free while the mimic is alive without removing the adhesive first.
A weapon that strikes an adhesive-coated mimic is stuck fast unless the wielder succeeds on a DC 16 Reflex save. A successful DC 16 Strength check is needed to pry it off.
Strong alcohol dissolves the adhesive, but the mimic still can grapple normally. A mimic can dissolve its adhesive at will, and the substance breaks down 5 rounds after the creature dies.
Crush (Ex): A mimic deals 1d8+4 points of damage with a successful grapple check.

Ok, that should be easy enough to play. Shouldn’t it?

Round 1
A mimic surprises the party with its cunning Mimic Shape ability, rolls an attack, hits a flat-footed PC with its first swing doing 1d8+4 damage and automatically grapples its target. I guess its second slam attack is lost because it’s now grappling. Right oh. Hmm, mimic’s don’t seem to have Improved Grab, so I guess it moves into the targets square to continue the grapple. Ok, I move 10’ and into my targets square. Let’s hope there is enough room because I happen to be a large critter. Squeezing and grappling would not be fun. Luckily, there is room.

Ok, the Crush ability. When does this happen? After a successful grapple check. Let’s see, does an automatic grapple constitute a successful grapple check? Hmm, I guess so. So I do an extra 1d8+4 crushing damage. Least, I think so...

I guess that's the end of my surprise round.

Round 2
We all roll initiative. A few PC’s beat me, and a few don’t, as is usual. The first PC to act happens to be the grappled one. I describe the sticky substance that seems to be holding him fast to this odd anamorphic creature. He looks up grapple in the PHB to determine his options. He decides to try and break free. He gets two attempts, but fails both times automatically. I explain how the sticky adhesive just seems to be far too strong to be overcome in this fashion.

The next PC decides to attack the critter grappling his friend, (note – attacking into a square with two people grappling each other always seemed a dangerous option to me, even with melee weapons. Hence, I have a house rule that a grappled ally provides some cover to the target. Using proportional cover, a medium sized grappled ally provides +2 cover to the large critter. Obviously, if the PC hits the cover, he may hurt his ally) risking the 10% chance he strikes the wrong target. He easily hits the mimic but his weapon becomes stuck. Oops. He want’s to pull it free. Hmm, doesn’t say if the required Strength check is a standard action or not. Going easy on him I rule it’s a move action. He tries, but fails the check (Another odd thing here. If the PC want’s to keep a hold of his weapon so he can pull it free next round, is he drawn into the grapple? If two combatants are rolling around in a grapple and your weapon is stuck fast to one of them, I don’t see how you could avoid it. But it would be a bit harsh to rule this way I think… so I’ll just ignore the implausibility of it all for the moment).

Ok, now the mimics turn. It’s in a grapple and only has a BAB of +5, so – despite two normally available slam attacks – it just gets one grapple attempt at +13. It succeeds, doing crush damage again of 1d8+4. I guess that’s all it can do from now on, unless it elects to dissolve its own adhesive and just fight normally?

--------------

So, all in all, I think the players and I will find this a tricky little encounter to play.

My question to you is (with obvious house rule exceptions), am I basically playing this correctly? Is my use of grappling rules interacting with the mimic abilities correctly?

Hey mearrin69, I was wondering the same thing myself recently, so you might also be interested in
another thread dealing with EttRG and it's interaction/spoiler potential with AoW. Just be warned that a lovely post by Hastur (currently at bottom of said thread) is expansive in detail and may contain spoilers if you intend to be a player in EttRG yourself.

Cheers

Ok. Thanks for the warning. I do so dislike spoiling nasty surprises!

Just wanted to say (a late) thanks for everyone’s responses. Sorry for my slow reply, but life randomly got extra busy for a while there...

In the meantime - when doing some re-reading - I found a quote from Players Handbook 3.5 on page 59 that kind of clinched it for me;

(found under Multiclass Characters and Class Features)
"In the special case of turning undead, both clerics and experienced paladins have the same ability. If the character's paladin level is 4th or higher, her effective turning level is her cleric level plus her paladin level minus three. Thus, a 5th level paladin/4th level cleric turns undead as a 6th level cleric"

When the last sentence states 'as a 6th level cleric', the fact that it doesn't say 'with twice the usual turning pool' here, clearly infers to me that this isn't the case. Well, at least clear enough for me to make a ruling with some peace of mind.

Have you looked at just using the Prestige Paladin from Unearthed Arcana? I know it's not the exact answer to your question, but it might fit what you player is going for and make it easy to figure turns per day.

Cheers all. (o:

I'm moving and I can only take 10 D&D Rulesbooks...

Sorry, that's probably not very helpful, but the lists above seem to have it covered.

Good luck!

There are many references to past AoW stuff (and other Greyhawk DUNGEON material) in there if you look hard enough...

One of my players has already expressed an interest in the book, but if it's a problem for our campaign... perhaps I'll buy it for him, and store it away in a dark closet until the campaign is finished, then hand it over?

I thought this was simple, but now I'm not so sure...

I have a player in my AOW campaign wanting to play these two classes. He 's found a thread on Wotc message boards that talks about this class combination having two independent turning pools, with obvious advantages if Divine Feats are taken!

This is what he emailed me;
“There is a forum called Comprehensive Guide to Turning on the WOTC site.
There is a posting by Soltares that says paladin and cleric classes each
provide their own pool of turn attempts.
Turning thread on WOTC boards”

Me? I still think it would be the usual number of 3 + Charisma modifier, but the potency (effective turning level) would stack. So a Cleric 1/Paladin 4 would turn as a 2nd level Cleric (i.e. C1 + (P4 – 3) = 2) but would still only get the regular number of attempts.

However, all the PHB rules on the matter - ‘Turning Undead’ in the combat section (page 159), ‘Cleric’ and ‘Paladin’ abilities in the classes section (pages 33 and 44), and ‘Multiclass Characters’ at the end of classes section (page 59) - don’t seem to explicitly rule out this interpretation.

It just my imagination?

Opinions most welcome.

More brilliant foreshadowing/bloodline ideas from Chris Wissel can be found here;

forshadowingTheAgeOfWormsSpoilers

And thanks Thanis, I've found the threads listed here most helpful.