Amofus's page

Clockwork pickle wrote:

Even though I have read the posts on this thread, and it doesn't actually say anywhere that the posts aren't actually there, I can't actually imagine how it would actually get to be this long.

Therefore, this thread can't be this long.

amiright?

I choose to disbelieve in this thread.

Sorry, the save for this thread is will negates(harmless), not will disbelief.

mdt wrote:

The difference would be that the amulet was swinging around my neck, and not covered by the full plate.

Uh, no. You do not wear amulets outside of armor. That's asking to be jerked down by your jewelry. Same reason why you don't wear long hair outside of a helmet (watch what happens to WRs with dreadlocks in the NFL -- they get tackled by their hair).

Actually I thought it was specifically stated in D&D that magic rings are worn outside gloves and amulets are worn outside clothing unless otherwise specified, as a requirement for the magic they provide to work.

I can't find a reference for that so I assume it was actually a house rule one of my DMs used and I just didn't realize it was a house rule.

If a caster casts mislead superimposing it upon themselves (going invisible) and keeps the image in their own square, can the (greater) invisible caster be subject to sneak attacks simply because the rogue an see the image of the target?

Now you can see the image of your target to see it's vital spots, just as you can with displacement. But you don't see your target directly, again just as with displacement.

This is a fallacious comparison. Mislead is not an appropriate place from which to draw an analogy.

Mislead is (figment/glamer); displacement is only (glamer). Mislead causes the subject to disappear and an image to appear. Displacement only alters how the subject is seen; what is seen is still the real subject, or Displacement would have a figment component. Even causing the image from Mislead to appear two feet away from you and otherwise in the exact position and orientation as you cannot, by the letter of the rules, be considered an equivalent case because the effects are still not the same.

And again, I'll ask.. if the miss chance is not due to concealment (as you claim) then what is it due to? Wind wall and Entropic Shield deflect attacks, is displacement doing that?

-James

I'll bite; the miss chance is due to the effect of the spell Displacement, which grantes a 50% miss chance.

I personally still believe that Displacement should prevent sneak attack and Disguise Self should not (and I don't consider my reference to Disguise Self to be perfect by any means, but I do still think it is the most apt comparison). I also happen to believe that we are not going to come up with a definite answer without an official Word from On High, although I wouldn't mind being proven wrong.

Oh, and I think it's kind of amusing that we have (I am fairly certain) both posts saying more or less "I don't know why I'm arguing, nobody's going to change their minds over this" and posts saying "I used to think it should work one way, but this thread has convinced me otherwise" in this same discussion.

The most comparable effect for comparison by the rules as written, in my opinion, is actually Disguise Self. If Disguise Self (prior to making the will save) cannot protect from sneak attacks (which in my opinion it shouldn't) and Displacement can (which in my opinion it should), that is a judgement call by the DM regarding how far a vital spot can be from where it appears and the rogue still be able to see it well enough to pick it out.

These are what I consider to be relevant points:

Personally I'd rule Cackle would effect 1 hex, thus one Evil Eye in this case, only because when listing the curses it says "...Misfortune Hex OR Ward Hex..."

The 'or' is key here and implies exclusive to one hex. If it said 'and' or 'and/or' I would agree it could effect more than one hex.

Sometimes I forget that people who are mainly familiar with its typical use in normal conversation (but who are neither mathematicians, logicians, or programmers by training) are likely to assume that the word "or" is used in its exclusive sense...

And yes, I have confused some people in the past by trying to use "xor" in a conversation. And gotten strange looks for trying to be a little more user-friendly and saying "but not both" when most people would have assumed such even if I hadn't said it.

So if you would rule that only one duration currently active on a given creature would be extended, would you roll to choose it randomly for each cackle? In the absence of phrasing that lets the witch choose which one is extended I would think that was the only reasonable way to affect only one. Granted, I think it should affect all active qualifying hexes, but I recognize that opinion as being influenced by my background in fields where "and/or" is completely redundant.

I'm glad they included the pig...it caters to at least one literary/mythological source: Henwen the prophetic pig from the Chronicles of Prydain (loosely based on Welsh mythology)...

So power to the pigs!

I wonder how many DM's are going to smack themselves in the foreheads when they realize why the witch in their party is named Eilonwy.

Hunterofthedusk:

As to your bolded sentence:

That's standard fare for special abilities, and what makes it actually useful. You can use it for a minute here then two minutes there... flight has the same ability.

That's not exactly the issue. Where do you see "minutes" in what was quoted?

Pretty sure that's what it's SUPPOSED to be, but I'm not sure how to spend duration in Activating this ability is a free action.

Galnörag wrote:

Seems like a simple rewording of flavour could be done here, like

"the witch draws upon the forces of the beyond to thwart her foes actions."

However they do it. Don't care as long as it's clear.

I'm with you on that. It needed the rewording. Personally I take the opposite view...the fact that they were making fixes and changed nothing about Evil Eye, and specifically did not add the mind-affecting descriptor to it, convinces me that it is not a mind-affecting ability. But, of course, that's my interpretation, not the DM's.