DukeGurren's page

When a class ability mentions 'level' it usually means 'class level', unless it directly says 'character level'.

Thank you :)

Disclaimer:
Since I can't seem to find anyone talking about my specific question, I'm posting it here in the hopes that someone can help by either clarifying or linking to a post that talks about it.

With that out of the way, I'm thinking about dipping into Vampire Hunter class (approved by GM, let's not get into it further) from fighter and one of the first level abilities say that it works for a number of minutes equal to half my level. the thing is it does not say class level and due to this specific notation, I wanted to know if it is in fact half my character level (7 after I finish the level up) or if it really is specific for class level (the one I'm pretty sure is in affect here).

Again, I haven't seen anything that clarifies this either in the books or on the forums. Have a nice day and thank you.

doctor_wu wrote:

Why is this entire thread assuming crystiline only means glass. Most rocks are made out of crystals. wikipedia page on rock

It doesn't only mean glass, but it doesn't mean rock because you're not supposed to have to know real-world science or consult an encyclopedia in order to interpret the rules correctly. If your interpretation relies on such knowledge/consultation, you're doing it wrong.

Another thing is that the rules for shatter states the circumstances of how much weight it can shatter per level for an object (10). Now, a rock would qualify as an object that is shatterable as long as it is within the wight limit specified.

Now, the difference between an object and a construct (magical or not [in the case of robots]) is that when a sunder attempt is made with the spell, the spell is targeting the entire creature (if it's not holding a separate weapon). With magical constructs, unless they are specifically vulnerable, they can't be effected 1 because it's a hardwired rule of the spell and 2 because quite a few constructs (if not most to all) have immunity to magic and physics goes right out the window anyway despite the spells effects.

If we're talking about non magical constructs (such as robots) then again, we are dealing with targeting the creature as a whole unless the caster is targeting a weapon that is separate from the creature. However, on a Tiny category or smaller (or small if higher than 5th level) non-magical construct, I would say that yes, it should be vulnerable due to it not being magical and that is probably weighs less than X_pounds/level as stated by the spells limitations (and by vulnerable I mean it is affected by the spell of course).

The main issue that seems to be going on with this is that rather being clever about something within the rules as written, someone is attempting to either lie, manipulate or doesn't know the rules in ways that ARE clearly defined, rather than explaining it in a different way.

P.S. Yes, some rules are not very well defined, but shatter is not that vague and it really does suck that there are not that many creatures vulnerable to it.

One of the things that got confused in the session was that (for constructs) we confused up their immunity towards effects that require fort saves for being auto-failures for FORT saves instead (not sure how that happened, really should have double checked that).

Anyway, in the rules for Shatter, the very first line defines the basis of the spells nature: "Breaks brittle, non-magical OBJECTS; sunders a single, solid, non-magical OBJECT; or damages a crystalline creature"

after that it continues to describe everything it does as only applying to non-magical object, save for what it does to crystalline creatures.

As for crystalline bonds, I agree with Fuzzy in that it you shouldn't be reaching with science in order to find more applications for certain things (some spells you can do it with, but this is not one of those spells since it is so specifically defined.)

I'm not sure if this is already somewhere on the site, but I think this should be clarified. What DOES qualify as cover or gives some kind of extra component to hiting the oponent?

This is something after my group rotated gms to a new campaign with the new gm having never gmed before. The only component that I feel was completely misunderstood was how concealment/ cover works.

Here is the Scenario: group of 5 going into emerald spire with fighter and rogue front, mages in the back. First encounter is a 10ft wide hallway and a goblin with two goblin dogs. wizard rolls high init, and then fires a crossbow bolt at the goblin whom is not in melee range for other players. The goblin got a +4 AC due to cover, which was the mages allies directly in front of him (He made his shot anyway but not the point). Later, more goblins arrived (still 10ft hallway) and the mage was in a line of shot and they aimed for him. One goblin got a shot off that didn't encure the wizard to have a +4 but the other did due to line of sight through the spaces.

Now, this made me think, what qualifies as cover? because even though a 5 foot square is what an average character occupies (medium or small usually) however there are 2 issues: #1 is that the Core book only refers to cover as walls and never mentions creatures unless they are large or bigger. #2 is that while (for example) a medium creature takes a 5 foot square, any creature (with physical fitness of decent proportions) only occupies the space of about 2-3 feet at most unless VERY stretched out (think jumping jacks).

So, DO creatures qualify as cover when attacking (and they are not in a "shooting into combat" situation) when shooting past them, such as past allies or enemies for that matter? are there any other situations or things that qualify as cover? Please clarify this, and bring up anything concerning cover.

I hope that this also helps anyone who reads the answers in order to understand.