aiur4's page

However dragons are generally also powerful spellcasters in their own right, and with a decent defensive package of spells can wreak havok.

Except they aren't necessarily. A CR 12 mature adult black dragon casts at sorcerer level 5th. It's not exactly a "powerful spellcaster" and doesn't have access to most of the buffs you mentioned. I suppose it could start spending several rounds casting off scrolls whenever it thinks there might be adventurers coming near its lair?

I would find ways to use the dragon's tactics to avoid the gunslinger's massive advantage against it.

But what I want is a way for the dragon to survive even if it doesn't have a superior tactical position. I would rather negate the gunslinger's advantage against it, rather than find a tactical way for the dragon to overcome it. Otherwise, I can't have a dragon encounter without denying the PCs the chance to prepare for it properly.

This is why I posted in the homebrew forum rather than the advice forum. Maybe it was naive of me to let gunslingers in my game with no alterations to the firearm rules going in, but I'm generally okay with them except in the one instance of dragons, where the gulf between AC and touch AC is so monumental.

General response to the "use existing means to pump AC" posts:

You realize the dragon's touch AC is something like 20-30 points behind its regular AC? Suppose it gets a +8 deflection bonus from bullet shield, it has a monk's robe, an Ioun stone, the Dodge feat... the gunslinger is still laughing at it.

Concealment works though, although it will still be sad if someone casts faerie fire or glitterdust on it.

As an aside: IIRC, in The Hobbit they killed Smaug with one well-placed arrow. Killing a dragon with bullets isn't unthinkable.

That was a critical hit that got Smaug. Anyway, the problem is not that killing a dragon with bullets should be unthinkable, it's that it should not be inevitable.

The "stay outside touch range" idea is nice, but it means the dragon no longer has any attacks except its breath weapon. It also still takes touch attacks from the gunslinger as long she has any grit points left, after which point the gunslinger sets up her double hackbut.

So I'm aware of all the arguments about gunslingers being imbalanced, and I think I have enough things to challenge the gunslinger in my campaign with that I can deal with that. But when it comes to dragons, I have a problem. I want them to remain dangerous and memorable enemies, which simply will not happen when dragons have touch ACs 20 lower than their normal ACs.

So my question is, what defensive ability do I give the dragons to save them from being killed by gunslingers? Some ideas I've been mentally tossing around are: giving dragons DR/- vs firearms, letting dragons apply part or all of their natural armor bonuses to firearm touch attacks, or simply decreeing that firearm attacks never hit touch against dragons.

Do any of these seem reasonable? Can you think of a better solution? I'd rather not change the general gunslinger rules, since we're in the middle of a campaign.

I guess my question is, is unconsciousness really meant to be so hard to remove? I didn't know about smelling salts, but it seems that apart from that, there's no RAW way to fix unconsciousness. Maybe this is just an oversight, since unconsciousness is usually the result of damage and not a spell effect. Or am I wrong?

Agreed. And while they're still blinded and stunned, it's still easier to hit a helpless defender rather than one that is stunned. (Dex 0 and +4 to hit vs denied dex and -2 AC)

Even without coup de grace, which I think should be reserved for an out of combat mercy stroke.

I don't get what you mean. You're saying it weakens the spell to mean "smacked around" breaks unconsciousness? But isn't being stunned for 3d4+1 rounds bad enough?

If you have to attack an unconscious victim more than once you're doing it wrong.

What if you're a gnome heavens oracle (w/awesome display) and low STR?

Is there any way at all to wake up a creature who has been rendered unconscious by color spray? I can't find anything, but it seems strange that a first-level spell should be able to inflict a condition that a spell like Heal (unconsciousness is not listed) or Dispel Magic (color spray has an instantaneous duration) can't take care of.

Suppose I cast Tree Shape on myself. Now I have an effective speed and Dex of 0. I also happen to have a number of spell-like abilities at my disposal, and a pretty good melee attack. But there's an enemy adjacent to me.

• Can I use a spell-like ability while under the effect of Tree Shape?
  
• Can an enemy tell that I'm doing using a spell like ability while I'm still a tree (and the effects aren't obviously coming from me)?
  
• As a tree, do I provoke an attack of opportunity from using my ability?
  
• If I dismiss Tree Shape as a free action (allowed for Tree Shape) and then immediately swing with an attack, is my enemy flat-footed since I was a tree a second ago?
  

SLAs are silent, still actions as far as I can tell, and Tree Shape says "Even the closest inspection cannot reveal that the tree in question is actually a magically concealed creature. To all normal tests you are, in fact, a tree or shrub..." So, how could anyone tell I was using my spell-like ability when I'm a tree? But on the other hand, nowhere does it say you don't take attacks of opportunity from still, silent actions. Am I missing something? Or does that just work?

As for the last question, I know that might be a GM call, but I'm wondering what people think.

Ravingdork, I read all of those articles before posting here. They don't really give much direction one way or the other.

That's true, of course. I was just hoping there was more of a consensus than there apparently is. For my part, I think either the "illusionary touch AC" or repeated will save methods are fine; using both would nerf the spell too much, and using neither makes it too powerful.

"If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus."

Whats to stop me from repeatadly communicating the existence of an illusion until someone successfully rolls a save? If we state an arbitrary limitation on this, suddenly we HAVE set precedent for arbitrary limits on saving throws versus illusions...

This seems less arbitrary to me. The viewer must "successfully disbelieve an illusion and communicate this fact" in order to grant "a" saving throw. I'd argue that you can only disbelieve it once, and that only grants "a" single saving throw. Of course, I'd also say that anybody who makes that extra saving throw can agree, granting anyone who still failed a second attempt at the +4, etc. Or, once you disagree, you could just, you know, walk directly into the illusory dragon, so no saving throw would be required.

Basically once someone disbelieves the illusion, all their friends will disbelieve it very soon.

Do you have some reason to believe you only get a single save versus such a spell? I've not read anything at all that would imply such.

Not explicitly. It's more that other people (including some in this thread) have said there's only one save, and other spells will explicitly say when subjects get an additional save. Personally, I think there should be more than one save against these image spells, but I would have expected it to say so if that were the case.

If you fail your save, you do not notice the lack of resistance/other problems with the image. This is not automatic on a successful attack. The whole point of the saving throw is to account for exactly the situation you've described; its included in the existing point of failure, not in additon to it.

It does make sense that illusions shouldn't just have a low touch AC if they're not static. That way, the gnome illusionist with a save DC of 30 actually has a more believable figment than the rogue using a wand. But then, Krispy, what about my original question? Do they just get one save, or do they get to make one for each swing?

Because it also doesn't make sense that failing one save means you're swinging away at this illusion for as long as it exists. Even if I roll a natural 1 on my save to disbelieve the deck of illusion creature, at some point I'm going to figure out that's not a real kobold. No?

This might be a basic question, but I can't seem to find a good answer. Suppose I cast a major image of an orc warrior, and my opponent swings to attack it. At that point they've interacted with the illusion, so they get a will save to disbelieve, even though I can move the illusion so their weapon doesn't go right through it.

I'm fine up to there. But suppose my enemy fails his save, and I concentrate on maintaining the illusion. On their next turn, they attack the illusory orc again. Does my opponent get another save, because he's interacting again? Or no, because he had his saving throw against this spell already, and failed?