CollectiveS's page

Would that mean a medium creature with a reach weapon would need 15ft? Or an aberrant sorcerer with their extendable arms?

Right so a question came up in our game that managed to raise a few other questions around charging and I'm wondering what peoples thoughts on the matter are.

1. Can a creature with a long natural reach charge someone inside their reach if the target is move than 10ft away?.

The rules for charging state you must move 10ft and be unobstructed and also that you must stop in the nearest square you can attack from, so does the forced minimum 10ft movement take precedence and than you attack or does the first available space prevent you from charging at all.

2. If a creature has multiple attacks with different reaches can it choose which one to use for the attack, or does a medium creature with a lance and a 15ft reach tentacle (for reasons) always have to perform the charge attack with his noodly appendage?

Questions? Comments? Arbitrary decisions?

(consensus for our table was the creature with reach could not charge a creature within it, no decision made for the second)

I've been looking at these abilities with a mind to make an melee character who wields a longspear one-handed.

However I'd like to know if these abilities work together, Jotungrip allows you to wield a two-handed weapon one-handed and specifically says it is treated as one-handed for the purposes of power attack, strength to damage "and the like".

A duelists precise strike ability grants you a damage bonus on one-handed (or light) piercing weapons.

So the question is, who thinks that precise strike lands under the "and the like" description of Jotungrip?

Might be a silly question, but why doesn't the Aghasura get iterative attacks on it's main hand?

I assume from how the Hp works the temporary hitpoints from the eidolon include a con bonus? Which you ALSO get to your normal hp? doubling up your con effectively.

When reading the class i was uncertain whether to add the con bonus or not to the temp hp...everyone assuming it does? or been mentioned somewhere?

I'd have to agree with the posts about the Eidolon returning petrified if it was sent away as such.

However i'd disagree that shattering a petrified creature kills it, as it says in the flesh to stone spell Quote:

Petrified: A petrified character has been turned to stone and is considered unconscious. If a petrified character cracks or breaks, but the broken pieces are joined with the body as he returns to flesh, he is unharmed. If the character's petrified body is incomplete when it returns to flesh, the body is likewise incomplete and there is some amount of permanent hit point loss and/or debilitation.

The second scentence indicates that no permenant harm is done to the victim if the statue is in one piece. It seems to send the target into a state of suspended animation as a statue, mind body and soul all happily frozen in time until the petrification is removed.

They get a save, and they should be damn grateful for that :p

Although you can twink it up a bit, the assassin still has to be within 30ft don't forget.

Also there are other ways of performing a sneak attack through the use of Feint for example. The tricky part there would be feinting someone without being recongnised as an enemy.

Unless you allow an assassin to observe for 3 rounds unseen then step out, improved feint and stab their target for full effect.

What bothers me most about assassins is that you have to perform the death attack with a melee weapon, so no snipers allowed.

As far as i can tell the only ways of blocking teleportation into and area is to use Forbiddance (cleric 6/ permanent/ large area/ expensive component) or Dimensional Lock (cleric, sorc/wiz 8/ 1 day/lvl).

Sadly adding Dimensional anchor to a hallow wont stop travel in, as the anchor affect will only trigger once the creatures actually enter the hallowed area. They would be blocked from leaving however.

Also teleporting places you don't know can go wrong, if scying or similar is being used to mark areas for teleportation to you can use spells such as Mages Private Sanctum (sorc,wiz 5/ 24 hours) which blocks all perception into an area, but not actual travel.

Finally i guess you could just use the Mages Magnificent Mansion spell as that falls under the "other plane" clause and so can't be reached.

Perhaps one of those affects can help :o

rats, ninj'd :<

Matthew Morris wrote:

Interesting, so (as I understand it, I'll admit I'm weak on summoners) the Eildon could be dropped to negative 1, where it's unconscious, but the summoner can't pump hit points into it until it hits (to use the example above) -13?

Worse than that, he can only pump in HP to keep it at -13. Basically, to keep it from unsommoning. Quite a useless feature honestly.

Personally i read the ability as allowing you to prevent all the damage from the atatck that would cause it to unsummon.

So if the eidolon was on 7 hp and took 24 damage you could prevent up to 24 damage with the ability as that attack would drop it below -13.

Whereas if it were 3 or more attacks doing say...5 then 7 then 12 you could only prevent the last 13 damage as that's the attack that would unsummon the eidolon. Meaning at best it'll be on -5.

Course that's just my interpretation :p

noes ninj'd by dire mongoose :<

Could also use the "bone creature" template, think it was in libris mortis. Turns you into an intelligent skeleton.

As far as i can tell, it doesn't increase you weapons reach. Just your threatened area.
So although enemies can provoke from 10-15+ feet away, unless you have a reach weapon capable of reaching the square they're in, you have to move within range.

He's not flat footed because he's already acted in combat.

And even if he doesn't hear the rogue he's not denied his DEX after he acts in combat. Blind fight doesn't require the fighter to hear the invisible attacker, there is no required perception roll involved here.

It's very simple, after combat has started and the blindfighting PC has acted they are not flatfooted and they are not denied their DEX against melee based attacks from not seeing their attacker.

-James

No-one is arguing that the fighter doesn't lose his dex because his opponent is out of sight, he loses his dex because he is surprised and unaware.

No

Good to get a little clarity, reading it i was amused by how oddly it worked together.

It seemed a little worrying to be able to do this since it's clearly against how i thought the spirit of the feat went but hey. I hope some zen archer somewhere gets some fun out of it.

Actually i think blind fight is there to protect you from suffering penalties for being blind (or against invisible opponents).

Uncanny dodge is there to protect you from being suprised.

Furthermore as to the mention of two opponents spring attacking the blind fighter. I'd say the second wraith gets the benefits of suprising the fighter IF it remained undetected on approach.

However both wraiths lose the benefits of suprising the fighter unless they go out of their way to remain undetected by him, which would require a stealth check, using the word "hide" is quite misleading as there's a lot more to being stealthy than just getting out of sight.

Of course in this example the fighter is in massive danger as incorporeal creatures can specifically not be detected by hearing if they wish to remain silent. However against any non-incorporeal opponent they would have to try and stealth to re-establish suprise.

The closing your eyes thing is an interesting point :P. I agree with what you've put here in that by closing your eyes you don't eliminate the ability of enemies to flat foot you because that's just silly.

However i'd say if you were fighting a medusa and closed your eyes to avoid it's gaze attack your blind fight feat would prevent you from losing your dexterity against it so long as you had some idea it was there and would also allow you the reroll concealment chance etc. Since i kinda imagine that's one of the feats intended uses.

+ with a potentially low caster level how would he fare against creatures with moderate-high SR's?

Casting any spell in wild shape if you have the natural spell feat is totally legal. Arguing that enemies cannot tell where spells are coming from is down to the DM.
Casting an attack spell loses you stealth meaning once the spell is cast he is no longer hidden, concealed maybe, but no-one needs a perception check to spot him anymore.
Whether spells can be traced back to their origin is down to DM decision, but rays, cones, magic missiles and so on have to originate somewhere so... I wouldn't let them get away with free stealth.
If he does have cover/concealment nothing stops him use his move action each turn to hide, but the enemies will still know he's in the tree, just not exactly where.

And if the fighter were to be blinded, thus all attackers are treated as if they were invisible.. would he be denied his DEX to melee attacks from them?

-James

Your saying that you can't be both unaware of the attacker AND blinded. Both would cause you to lose your dex but the feat would only help with one of the conditions.

My general idea of how the feat works can be explained with an example.

1) You have an opponent capable of attacking through solid walls (as wraith maybe).
2) you have a fighter with blind fight.

In combat if the fighter is totally unaware the wraith is there and it attacks him by reaching out of the wall he is denied his dex because he didn't know it was there. It also has total concealment which i'd say is what defines being invisible whether by spell, obstacle or darkness.

After that initial attack the figher retains his dex against all subsequent attacks by the wraith as he is now aware it is in the fight.

My only real problem with some of the readings of blind fight is that people wish to apply it as a blanket effect. It only states that invisible attackers get no benefit, both the loss of dex invisible attackers incur and the +2 to hit invisible attackers get. Also after the "benefits" paragraphs of the feat comes the "normal" section describing what happens without it, it once again only mentions invisible attackers.

I've never been in a game where any stealthed rogue got a +2 to hit for attacking out of stealth. Furthermore effects that specifically cancel invisibility such as invisibility purge and glitterdust do not actually stop you trying to enter stealth.

This suggests to me they are 2 different things and blind fight only affects invisibility.

Took me so long to write i missed wraiths entry :P

I don't think there's any difference between being unseen and invisible. I'm arguing you can be unaware of someone. Whether you can see them or not is irrelevant.
If the person your talking too suddenly tried to punch you in the face for no reason then they're probably going to catch you flat-footed whether you have blind-fight or not as it just doesn't apply in that situation.
If the attacker acts before their target in the first round their targets flat footed anyway. I see a rogue who no-one was aware of stepping out of cover and stabbing someone during a fight as an action the defender is similarly unaware of and requires uncanny dodge to avoid.

I don't think it's a discussion between invisible and hidden, rather invisible and unaware. Under the rules for suprise it notes that unaware combatants don't get to act in the suprise round and are flat-footed.

I'd argue that the rogue caught the fighter unaware even outside of the suprise round and therefore caught him flat footed.

As the feat only protects you from losing dex whem attack by invisible opponents i don't think it can count there. If you were to close you eyes then, yes i'd give you the benefits of the feat against all opponents your aware of. Making it useful against any enemy with a gaze attack but i'd still say you should lose dex against any opponent your unaware of.

I think it's a rather tricky subject, you lose your dexterity against opponents you are unaware of and seperately against those who are invisible. As you are always denied dex against an invisible opponenet even if you can pinpoint their square.

You say that blind-fight prevents you from losing dex to the flat-footed condition as well which just doesn't make much sense to me, firstly it's duplicating a class ability (uncanny dodge) except with added bonuses of re-rolling concealment and secondly i see no reason why it would allow you to retain your dex in the first round of combat if you havn't acted yet, thematically i just can't see the reasoning.

It seems to me(and i'm sure others disagree) that the wording only and specifically mentions invisibility and i'd interpret the spirit of the rules in this case as limiting blind fight to work against opponents who have total concealment against you (such as invisible opponents, people who you are fighting in a pitch black room or whilst blinded), not people who are simply hidden.

Of course unless someone officially says what's what it's impossible to be sure :<

That's exactly what i would have thought, but what about using your ability to move "during" your AOO to move away from the target before firing.

They are no longer in your threatened area but they triggered the AOO when they were. Could you have an AOO triggered, run 80ft away and then shoot them?

Personally i don't see any reason why you couldn't but...

I think that brings up a contention between stealth and invisibility.

I regard them as different things, an invisible attaker is not necessarilly someone your not aware of and blind fight does not prevent you from being flat footed, it only prevents you from being denied your DEX against invisible opponents.

Whether or not a stealthed creature counts as "invisible" is debatable.

Not to be misunderstood, i know how the rules actually work. I completely agree with what is said here and have used those rules for many years.

Mainly i'm just saying that the scentences use the same terminology with no distiction between the full round action that takes a "true" full round and the one that effectively takes your action.

Call me devils advocate if you will but the wording could be clearer.

Ok, here's a question for you.

How does this work with the Zen Archers 9th level ability to take AOO's with their bow?

You specifically only threaten the area you do with your unarmed strikes but you make the AOO with arrows from your bow.

Does combat patrol mean you threaten a larger area and can takes AOO's within the area without moving using your ranged attacks?

If an attack of opportunity is provoked can you move away from the opponent as far as you can and still shoot them if within bow range whether or not they are still within your threatened area?

how do these abilities mesh? eh? :p

Personally i'd like clarification on the 2 scentences

"A spell that takes 1 round to cast is a full-round action"

and

"casting a metamagic version is a full-round action for a sorcerer or bard. (This isn't the same as a 1-round casting time.)"

They seem to directly contradict one another and specifically state a difference between full round actions and spells requiring 1 round to cast.

I personally use the '2 standard actions or a full round action is fine' interpretation counting 1 round cast spells as full round actions that have the added cost of requiring a full circuit of the initiative to finish, whether or not people are acting.

However the 2 rules above do little to confirm whether i am actually doing it right, i just think i'm being sensible :P