Search Posts
So it is written, and so it shall be. Regarding distribution of wealth gained by the party: communist, capitalist, or opportunist?
I have no disagreement that gaining levels can cause one to gain additional Hit Dice. But, that is all that the bolded statement says. My argument is that gaining Hit Dice does not mean one has gained levels. Racial Hit Dice is one example of how to gain HD without gaining levels. Familiars also gain HD without gaining levels, as do Animal Companions. There is no way for an animal to gain a level in Animal Companion. The only way to increase an Animal Companion's level is to increase the effective Druid level granting the companion, which is a very different thing. As far as Character levels referring to class levels, definition (emphasis mine): A character’s level represents his overall ability and power. There are three types of levels. Class level is the number of levels of a specific class possessed by a character. Character level is the sum of all of the levels possessed by a character in all of his classes. In addition, spells have a level associated with them numbered from 0 to 9. This level indicates the general power of the spell. As a spellcaster gains levels, he learns to cast spells of a higher level. There's also a certain amount of debate over determining character level of Monstrous PCs which is only partially relevant, look up-thread for that. So far, though, none of it directly contradicts the bolded statement without being contradicted elsewhere, thus calling into question the viability of the statements.
Except animal companions have no character levels. They have HD which they have no control over, and which are not explicitly tied to them, the same way Familiars have HD that are based on something external. If they lose them when released from service, then the only thing that is granting them the HD is the fact that they are bonded to a PC, and the extra HD are based on effective Druid level. Animal Companions don't have character levels because they don't have a level in anything. There is no way to gain levels in Animal Companion because it isn't a class or prestige class and it isn't a race. The only way for an Animal Companions abilities to go up is based on if the PC levels up. Your passage doesn't say that hit dice gained from advancement must be from leveling up. All it says is that as a creature gains levels, it gains hit dice. Just because some A (hit dice) come from B (gaining levels), it doesn't follow that all A are gained from B. You gain a level when you gain a level, and only when you gain a level. As far as the Animal Companion selecting feats/skills, etc., the only reason why it is listed as selecting its own skills and feats is to distinguish them from having the same skills and feats as the master. They can only draw from a limited list (or an open list limited by physical capability), which is then listed later. Compare it to Familiars, who are treated as having all Skill Ranks possessed by the master. Read further into that section to where it says that the Player is making all advancement choices, with GM-veto possible. As far as GM controlling them, you posting that is literally the first time I've ever heard that. Traditionally (at least as far as I've seen), an animal companion is going to be controlled by the Player, and all decisions for it are made by the Player since it is a Class Feature of the Player's Character. That said, I think it's interesting that Ultimate Campaign is recommending that Animal Companions be GM-controlled, and I may use that in future. Making Animal Companions GM-controlled, though, doesn't make them have levels any more than having HD means they have levels. They don't, the same way Familiars don't, the same way a Black Blade possessed by a Bladebound Magus doesn't have levels.
The rules on using monsters as PCs are blatantly contradictory, with the Core Rulebook using one standard and the Bestiary using a different standard.
Monstrous Characters: As a general guideline, you should advise your players to choose races of roughly equal power, using a creature’s racial HD (not its CR) as a general guideline. Characters who wish instead to play standard races should be allowed to start at higher level, so that their total HD match the highest HD held by a non-standard race in the party. The two quotes (emphasis mine) say very different things. -Using the Bestiary rules, a Minotaur character (6 racial HD) should have two class levels (Ex: Barbarian 2) in a level 6 party, giving him a total of 8 HD.
As far as Racial HD counting toward character level, it's never stated that "racial HD count as part of character level," while it is stated "Character level is the sum of all of the levels possessed by a character in all of his classes." "Treat the monster's CR as its total class levels" is, I suspect, more relevant for a GM attempting to determine difficulties and level-equivalence in mixed parties than it is a statement that Racial HD = Class levels.
Okay. So just a summation of the things that are being kept, sold, or traded: Trade Items:
Items To Be Sold:
Items Being Kept:
Crafted Items:
Purchase in Progress:
There is also the question of wealth distribution within the party. Currently looks like Gauron and Judas are benefiting the most from items found.
Too low-level to have those spells, actually. That was my impression of the power-level of Mending. I did end up telling them that even if they disassembled the ship, repaired individual pieces, and rebuilt the ship, the sheer monotony would require them to make sanity checks after a time. They've finally figured out how to get off the island, so it's all good. Thanks to everybody who responded.
the argument is how do you make an attack or attack roll without a weapon? Seriously, though, I don't know that that's the argument. It's more a question of what the underlying reason is for why AoMF doesn't apply to grapples when weapon enhancers apply to things like Trip. It's never stated that a weapon is needed to make an attack roll, that's an assumption on your part. And with regards to my ignoring the next part of the Combat Maneuver section, I didn't. I've read it several times. But my point was that although it uses an attack roll, it's never stated that a combat maneuver is an attack. I did freely admit that it was an interpretation, and I've stated the logic behind that interpretation.
A miss chance is a type of bonus on defense. Note that it isn't saying that bonuses of similar type from different sources stack, just that if they're the same type, they don't stack. Coming from multiple spells is irrelevant, because they are performing the same function. They provide a miss chance, and miss chances do not stack by RAW. Your math would be accurate if applicable, but it isn't applicable by RAW. So ignore the part where I said call it an effect instead of a bonus. It comes out to the same thing. Similar effects in differing strengths only grant the stronger effect. Effects can render each other irrelevant. Did you read the entirety of the rules-section I quoted? Out of curiosity, where are the types of bonuses listed? I've never seen a comprehensive list, and I can almost guarantee you never have either because there isn't one. And out of curiosity, are you implying that miss chances do stack?
Dodge bonuses and untyped bonuses are explicitly called out in the rules as breaking the normal rule of same-type doesn't stack. Everything that isn't explicitly called out as breaking the general rule is subject to the general rule. Specific rule trumps general rule, but general rule applies in all instances not governed by a specific rule. Where there is a specific rule, it only trumps the general rule as far as the specific rule spells out, and doesn't extend beyond its specific modification. Some quotes of interest by JJ in one thread on our topic: here and here. He appears to think it's all already written down, if perhaps not the clearest rule. Edit: Another example might be to look at armor bonuses. You can get a +4 armor bonus to AC from a chain shirt, mage armor, and bracers of armor +4, all from different sources, but they aren't stacking with each other. You only get the +4 bonus to AC from armor. Miss chance is like armor bonus in that sense. You get the best one, but the rest are redundant unless something has the ability to penetrate one but not the other. A creature with a Displacement spell can be struck by Sneak Attack, but not if he has a Blur spell on underneath it. He only gets to roll the miss chance once, but one is effective where the other had a hole in it.
A miss chance is a type of bonus on defense. Note that it isn't saying that bonuses of similar type from different sources stack, just that if they're the same type, they don't stack. Coming from multiple spells is irrelevant, because they are performing the same function. They provide a miss chance, and miss chances do not stack by RAW. Your math would be accurate if applicable, but it isn't applicable by RAW. Miss chance is a type. Same-type doesn't stack. Alternately, call it an effect. Continuation of the above quote:
It is, in effect, a bonus. It isn't untyped, it's a miss chance. A miss chance is a miss chance. You want to get to the nitty gritty, I should have quoted the "Same Effect More than Once in Differing Strengths" section above instead, but it comes to the same thing. Spell A provides a Miss Chance (effect). Spell B provides a Miss Chance (effect). Only the stronger one works, RAW.
I don't know that I agree it is not RAW to process only one miss chance. For example: Stacking refers to the act of adding together bonuses or penalties that apply to one particular check or statistic. Generally speaking, most bonuses of the same type do not stack. Instead, only the highest bonus applies. Most penalties do stack, meaning that their values are added together. Penalties and bonuses generally stack with one another, meaning that the penalties might negate or exceed part or all of the bonuses, and vice versa. Usually, a bonus has a type that indicates how the spell grants the bonus. The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don’t generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works (see Combining Magical Effects). The same principle applies to penalties—a character taking two or more penalties of the same type applies only the worst one, although most penalties have no type and thus always stack. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source. Stacking Effects: Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves. More generally, two bonuses of the same type don’t stack even if they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types, above). A miss chance is a type of bonus on defense. Note that it isn't saying that bonuses of similar type from different sources stack, just that if they're the same type, they don't stack. Coming from multiple spells is irrelevant, because they are performing the same function. They provide a miss chance, and miss chances do not stack by RAW. Your math would be accurate if applicable, but it isn't applicable by RAW. Miss chances don't stack even from different sources the same way enhancement bonuses from Masterwork, Magical Enhancement, and Magic Weapon spells don't stack. All enhancement bonuses, but coming from three different sources (one mundane, one magical craftsmanship, and one from a spell). Miss chances from a natural source (smoke), a spell that obscures the target (Blur), and a spell that creates an environmental obstruction (Wind Wall) aren't going to stack because they're all performing the same function (miss chance).
Just taking this example out for a spin: Yes, the Archer in question would be facing a 20% miss chance because Entropic Shield and Blur up, and only one of those is defeated by True Seeing. But, if that same Archer did not have the True Seeing spell, he'd still only face a 20% miss chance, not a 40% miss chance. The two don't stack. The thing is, the Displacement spell specifically calls out that it's functioning as Total Concealment, with only the listed exception to that condition. Entropic Shield has similar, although slightly different wording: "20 % miss chance (similar to the effects of concealment)."
I'll find others, if you want. There are also two different instances of James Jacobs indicating that multiple miss chances do not stack: Here, and here. You have a partial point, but I can actually negate my own argument, and thus invalidate yours, without much effort. *insert standard JJ disclaimer* "He's not a rules guy." Note that he doesn't say that Displacement isn't granting a miss chance. It does, and if he said it didn't, he'd be wrong. But he does clarify, as I did earlier, that the only difference between Displacement and any other effect that granted Total Concealment is the fact that the creature can be targeted normally, unlike with the Blur spell. This doesn't say that it's not a concealment effect. Even if it were, Miss Chances do not stack. You only get the best one at the time. Displacement + Blur does not give you a 70% miss chance, or a 50% and a 20%, it only gives you a single 50% miss chance. This is in keeping with the standard practice of saying "X is like Y, except for Z" meaning that for all intents and purposes except those explicitly stated (Z), Y = X. They do this all over the place.
Mydrrin, answering your points in order: IUS doesn't mean that you aren't still unarmed. You are still unarmed, but you are considered armed for purposes of provoking AoOs and dealing lethal vs. nonlethal damage. It doesn't say that you aren't still unarmed, and you are still required to be by the feat. It's Improved Unarmed Strike, not Improved Armed Strike. You'd still take the Disarm penalty. Not every attack is going to require an attack roll, and not everything that requires an attack roll is defined as an attack. Contrast Combat Maneuvers, which are never defined as an attack, with Touch Spells and Ranged Touch Spells which are explicitly stated to be attacks. Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Note the difference in wording. Touch attacks are spells that are specifically called out as attacks. Combat Maneuvers have no such wording, and say that they specifically replace an attack, not that they are one. Later on, it says that weapons or attacks can be used to perform the maneuver, but that's still not the same as saying the maneuver is an attack. @Mojorat: I'm the one who said it isn't, and the above is why. :) You believe that Grapple is an attack, and that it should benefit from AoMF as such. That's your interpretation. I personally don't see it that way, and that is my interpretation. I freely admit that it's my interpretation, not necessarily RAW. I have cited my reasons for believing so, however. I believe that not all attack rolls are automatically attacks, the same way not all attacks require attack rolls. The Devs did have a reason for making the ruling the way they did, and it ties back to their blog post from some time back which has governed their related rulings ever since, this most recent one being one of them. My interpretation, to me, seems to be in keeping with their blog post and ruling, but perhaps not for the reasons that they use.
Mine is RAW. Yours may very well be RAI. When arguing rule I take everything as written and intend nothing. My point is that some of what you are saying is not RAW, it is strictly RAI by you. RAW, there is a difference between remote and direct, yet you act as if it doesn't exist. You treat a trap as an unattended object, when (RAW) the mere act of directly activating it makes it an attended object. You say that using an object that has its own attack bonuses means that any attack made is "indirect," regardless of the fact that it is an attended object and is being aimed to make the attack, which isn't RAW. Anyway, I'm done with this thread. My apologies for the partial hijack, and if you're interested in the Invisibility issue, I'm sure other threads can be created or will crop up where RAW vs. RAI can be argued in a more reasonable way.
RAW: "Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear." Anzyr RAI: "Remotely trigger a trap" reads "trigger a trap" Jlighter RAI: "Remotely trigger a trap" means you cannot directly trigger a trap and stay invisible Anzyr RAI: "Actions directed at unattended objects" includes directly triggering a trap (an attended object by definition) to attack Jlighter RAI: An object attended by the invisible character that makes an attack aimed by the invisible character constitutes an attack for purposes of breaking Invisibility Anzyr RAI: "Causing harm indirectly is not an attack" means that anything that has its own attack bonuses is an intermediary, regardless of the fact that the character is using it to attack a target, and thus constitutes "causing harm indirectly" Jlighter RAI: "Causing harm indirectly" means that the character cannot directly, by his/her own power or through an object he/she is attending, cause harm to a target; "Causing harm indirectly" means that the character's action cannot be directly harmful, and that actions can be performed which indirectly cause other actions to be performed by objects/creatures So far, that's what I'm seeing as the differences between Anzyr's RAI and my own.
You might rule it that way, but RAW the trap would use it's own attack bonus and thus it is the trap attacking not you. It would be similar to using a crossbow, but similar and the same are well... not the same.Using a Crossbow requires to use the attack action. That's an actual thing, in the rules and everything. Activating a trap does not fall under that action.And if in one of my games your PC were carrying around an arrow trap mechanism and pointing it at stuff and triggering it instead of leaving it in a wall somewhere with the trigger tied to a pressure plate, my adjudication would be to run it as a weapon, make you roll an attack roll using your own ranged attack bonus, etc, as a matter of course, basically it is a crossbow at that point and no longer a trap. And you still have not addressed the purpose of the word "remotely" with regards to triggering a trap. If you're using a trap like a crossbow, it's going to be functionally the same for the purposes of the spell. As a note, does the fact that the trap in question is now an "attended" object matter to your arguments? An item attended by a character (being grasped, touched, or worn) makes saving throws ...
Show me where Invisibility requires the user to make an attack action (You can't, because it doesn't). Show me where an Attack Action is the only action that constitutes an attack (You can't, because it's not). If casting "any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe" breaks Invisibility, why does using a mundane piece of offensive equipment in the exact same way not suffer the same rule? Casting a spell isn't an attack action, so why is it breaking Invisibility? Stating that another's argument is finished only indicates that you don't have answers to the questions being raised. Try again, please. Your statements don't answer my questions.
The trap is directly causing harm. You are not. You do not make any attack roll and cause no harm directly. You only cause harm through the activation of the trap which is not a direct action. Again, unless you can show where that is an attack action, your argument is effectively dead. The trap is directly causing harm the way the crossbow is directly causing harm. "I didn't shoot him, the crossbow did. I only let it do so." Doesn't work that way. At no point in the spell Invisibility is it stated that an attack action is required to break the spell, or that the invisible creature must make an attack roll. Any action that can be considered an offensive or hostile action is an attack for purposes of Invisibility. Relevant text: The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character’s perceptions. No action-type is ever described. Thus, any action that attacks a creature breaks the spell. If you're holding a trap in your hand and you attack with it, it doesn't matter if you roll the attack roll or not, you attacked. Spell broken. The use of the words "indirectly" and "remotely" have very clear ramifications on the Invisibility spell. The invisible creature cannot directly harm any other creature. He can cause harm to come to other creatures through intermediaries. A trap isn't an intermediary if it is used as a weapon like you describe. If used as a weapon, a trap is a weapon. When used as a weapon, a trap breaks Invisibility.
Activating a trap directly to cause harm is not, as you put it, indirectly causing harm. You pull (or otherwise activate) the trigger. The trap fires. By activating the trigger, you directly fired (attacked with) the trap (a weapon). The same way using a torch to fire a cannon is still firing a weapon (attacking). The same way pulling the trigger on a crossbow is firing a weapon (attacking). If you're directly using a trap as a weapon, it's a weapon, and you're making an attack. If triggering a trap falls under "actions directed at unattended objects," why is "remotely trigger a trap" specifically called out as opposed to "trigger a trap? If the word remotely has meaning, what does it mean in relation to triggering a trap? How does "remotely" triggering a trap differ from "directly" triggering a trap? Where is it stated that an "attack action" is necessary to break Invisibility? Prove your own point and answer points made in opposition. You still have not addressed any iteration of the word "remotely" being used with a logical argument. TL;DR: Directly activating a trap doesn't have to be an attack action. It's directly causing harm, not indirectly.
I'd be OK with not applying the AoMF damage bonus in a grapple if and only if stabbing someone with my magic shortsword in a grapple does a flat d6 points of damage. UAS, natural, and manufactured weapons are presented side-by-side as damage options in the grapple rules and should be treated equivalently. +1 for pointing out the counterargument to the lack of convincing arguments. :)
For what it's worth, I'm personally flexible on if the AoMF would apply to damage dealt during a grapple. At the moment, I'm on the side of it would, but I'd switch my views if I saw an argument that convinced me. I do, however, believe that the call about it not applying to the Combat Maneuver roll in the first place is the correct one.
Just because remotely triggering traps will *also* not break invisibility, does not make your statement any more valid. Please do go on though. If you believe that the idea of remotely triggering a trap is in addition to directly triggering a trap, then why doesn't it just say "triggering a trap?" It says, "Thus, an invisible being can ... remotely trigger traps, ..." I'm not seeing any indication that directly triggering a trap is permitted as a non-break condition. Please, show me where you're seeing otherwise. If you can find it, I'll concede. If you can't, then perhaps you should reconsider your views. What, in this case, makes a crossbow trap different from a crossbow? If you pull the trigger on one, it shoots. If you pull the trigger on the other, it shoots. Functionally, no difference, n'est-ce pas? But, is there a difference between pulling the trigger and sending some intermediary item to pull the trigger for you? If you pull a string, you're still pulling the trigger. If you step on a pressure plate, you're still pulling the trigger. But if you throw a rock at the pressure plate, that's different. If you drop the crossbow and it triggers by hitting the ground, you didn't fire it. You just dropped it. Show me how pulling a trigger is "remotely triggering," or where Invisibility says that the two are functionally the same, and I'll believe you. Quote me a rule, because the burden of proof is on you, this time. Emphasis mine, I've shown you this card: Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, REMOTELY trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear.
Whether you activate the trap directly or indirectly. Regardless, the attack that the trap makes against the target is an indirect action and thus will not break invisibility. Only your direct actions break invisibility. According to the spell, the bolded statement is actually wrong. One is not the other. Care to try again? Re: in-use = attended: I did say it was only one definition. Not even one I like or am particularly attached to.
A grapple check is not made with the intent to deal damage. You're making a grapple check to keep the opponent grappled (or pinned), or to grapple/pin the opponent in the first place. Doing damage in the process is incidental and has nothing to do with the grapple. If grapple was an action that strictly damage, I might agree with you that it's an attack. Attacks that hit result in damage, that's part of the definition in the book. But grapple doesn't necessarily result in damage just because it connects. Grapple is a maneuver (as quoted in the rules), not an attack, that inflicts a condition on the opponent, much as Dirty Trick can inflict the blinded condition or the Trip maneuver can inflict the Prone condition. The fact that it later allows you to potentially deal damage in addition to the condition is irrelevant because any weapon in your hand doesn't help the attempt and can actually hinder it. For example, if you're using your arms/hands to pin somebody's arms and effectively immobilize them, what does that have to do with the knee you just slammed into his kidney? The former makes the latter possible, but the latter is otherwise irrelevant and has nothing to do with your ability to accomplish the former. Mydrrin, care to reply to my other arguments to your point?
Except based on precedent within the book, anytime it says "A functions as if B," it means treat A as if it were B with only the exception that follows listed differently. In this case, the exception is that the creature can still be targeted normally. That's the only difference from normal Total Concealment. Blur wouldn't stack because Blur offers a lesser miss chance.Can you please list these "precedents" that you're referring to so we can make sure we're not comparing apples to oranges. I believe his argument is that Blur and Displacement would stack, since Displacement gives a 50% miss chance that is functionally total concealment except that the creature can be targeted normally, thus negating that clause. My point is that that clause-negation is the only functional difference Displacement has from total concealment, and so the two spells would not stack since Displacement is effectively a concealment effect. As for a list of precedent rulings and rules: -Flurry of Blows - functionally equals the Two-Weapon Fighting feat chain without requiring the feats; uses "as if" wording
I'll find others, if you want. There are also two different instances of James Jacobs indicating that multiple miss chances do not stack: Here, and here.
That's right, it's not actually Total Concealment because you can still target subject of Displacement. Total Concealment is a specific condition, Displacement is similar but different so it stacks with Blur which actually provides Concealment.Incorrect. It says you get a 50% miss chance "as if it had total concealment." Meaning it functions as total concealment with the exception that it does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. If actual total concealment were in effect as well, that would override the displacement effect because it's the more advantageous effect.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. Unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. True seeing reveals its true location and negates the miss chance.You get a 50% miss chance because you appear to be about 2 feet away from where you actually are. The spell even says it's not actually total concealment. Blur specifically calls out that it grants the target... Except based on precedent within the book, anytime it says "A functions as if B," it means treat A as if it were B with only the exception that follows listed differently. In this case, the exception is that the creature can still be targeted normally. That's the only difference from normal Total Concealment. Blur wouldn't stack because Blur offers a lesser miss chance.
Makes perfect sense here.
So in your good clean English, you again managed to miss my point. I'm not saying that causing a trap to cause damage isn't indirectly causing damage. I agree. But that's not where indirectly is placed in the phrase. Indirectly triggering a trap is not the same as directly triggering a trap. One is permitted by the spell, the other is not. Using your own 3 definition: Not Direct in Action or Procedure. Invisibility says that it doesn't break if you INDIRECTLY trigger the trap. Indirectly means, in essence, not directly. Applying direct force to trigger a trap is not indirectly triggering it by definition. An example: Directly triggering a trap would be pulling a tripwire to get the trap to shoot arrows. Indirectly would be rolling a ball down a hallway to hit the tripwire. See the difference? You also ignored the definition that I had already given, thank you. I'll repeat it for your consideration: Indirectly
Regarding unattended, here's one possible definition from the Teleport spell: Only objects held or in use (attended) by another person receive saving throws and spell resistance. A structure is in use if people are inside it, the same as a ship is in use if crew are aboard it.
Here's the other main issue, and I think it's one of inaccurate word choice in the rules. Although it uses an attack roll, a combat maneuver is generally not an attack. Attack is defined as an attempt to strike your opponent, and is clarified to deal damage if it hits. If the mentions of attack rolls were replaced with Combat Maneuver Checks, then this issue of understanding wouldn't come up. I respectfully posit that such might be an advantageous errata to the wording of the Combat Maneuvers section of the rules.
Problem is you didn't read far enough. When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action. You can attempt to disarm your opponent in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Disarm feat, or a similar ability, attempting to disarm a foe provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. Attempting to disarm a foe while unarmed imposes a –4 penalty on the attack. So Disarm attempts are expected to be made using a weapon.
So you're trying to deal damage to an object in place of a normal attack. How do you do that? Attacks deal damage using weapons, so it's safe to assume that sunder attempts are made with some sort of weapon. Trip is the odd man out in that it doesn't have text that points to the use of weapons, but the Trip special property on many weapons indicates that weapons are commonly used to Trip. The other combat maneuvers do not contain text that indicates that they are performed with weapons, or indicate that weapons are detrimental. Bull Rush: Can replace a charge, but having a weapon in hand is generally not going to improve your chances.
As far as grappling and unarmed attacks not being incidental, when you're attempting to grapple somebody, you can't really attack them. Once you have grappled them, you can cause them damage, yes. But when you're trying to grab hold of somebody, your body (hands especially) had better be able to grip them.
Using the d% system for Concealment and many other things is actually a simplification, because it's really easy to say that it's a 50% chance and roll a d%. It also means that a lot of tables can be standardized and are easily adaptable when other factors not previously considered have to be added in. Example: Confusion table could use a d4, but the GM might rule that one effect over another is more likely depending on environmental circumstances; it's easy to change the percentage roll, not easy to change the die type entirely. Other things that use d% rolls in smaller increments: disease chances in some zones, wandering monster tables, random encounter percentages, Contact Other Plane, Plane Shift (distance 5-500 miles from target), Reincarnate, Spell Turning, Weather tables, random charges for magic items like wands, Rod of Wonder and all manner of other magic items. I ignored things previously mentioned.
Right now I'm trying to get Jiggy to define his position about unarmed strikes and when it becomes a weapon. If he agrees with it is a momentary thing than I can attack that position with always considered armed, if he agrees that it is permanent then I can say that AotMF is always active. Correct, special attacks and maneuvers are not on that list, because they have their own rules about how they interact with attacks. Currently, the rules state that there are three maneuvers that can stand-in-for or be part of an attack without the use of special abilities such as Grab. Those are disarm, sunder, trip. So, when you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, you make the attack roll and add any bonuses that are applied to the weapon that you're using to make the maneuver check. The same three maneuvers that can replace an attack have been ruled to make use of weapons, while all other combat maneuvers do not. Hence, all other combat maneuvers do not use the attack bonuses granted to any weapon because no weapon is used.
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. Unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. True seeing reveals its true location and negates the miss chance.You get a 50% miss chance because you appear to be about 2 feet away from where you actually are. The spell even says it's not actually total concealment. Blur specifically calls out that it grants the target... Except you just did it again. Your final percentage only includes the image destruction resulting from an attack that could have hit the unbuffed target. You have to add in the 25% from missing the target in the first place, in which case Concealment doesn't, by RAW, come into play. I'm not disagreeing that your math is correct for the times when the initial attack roll hits, but there is that 50% of the time when the initial attack missed outright that it auto-destroys an image before the Concealment check. According to mirror image, an attack that misses by 5 or less destroys an image from the near miss. Concealment is not checked unless the attack hits, so you don't check for Concealment on a near miss. Thus, that 25% of the time when the attack is a near-miss, as opposed to a miss, the image is destroyed, adding 25% to your image destruction numbers. Even applying the idea I proposed earlier (and the Dr Grecko also proposed) that you could roll Concealment separately for attacks that hit the figment AC, there is still a flat percentage of attacks that hit the figments that was left out of your final percentage. There is only a 25% chance in your scenario of it being a True Miss, or a 37.5% chance if you're rolling concealment for the figments. It's never a 50% chance of true miss until the images run out.
Anzyr, I get what you're saying, except for the part where you keep on ignoring the word "indirectly." It's in there, it has a definition. Directly activating a trap and indirectly activating it are two different things. Why do you think the word "remotely" is in there, if it doesn't, apparently from your position, have any meaning? I do agree that opening a box, by itself, isn't going to trigger invisibility to break, even if said box contains lava. The same logic here applies as cutting the ropes on the bridge. Gravity causes the harm. That said, if you're trying to hit an attended structure/object, then invisibility will break. Attacking structures/objects is only permitted if said things are unattended.
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. Unlike actual total concealment, displacement does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. True seeing reveals its true location and negates the miss chance.You get a 50% miss chance because you appear to be about 2 feet away from where you actually are. The spell even says it's not actually total concealment. Blur specifically calls out that it grants the target... Incorrect. It says you get a 50% miss chance "as if it had total concealment." Meaning it functions as total concealment with the exception that it does not prevent enemies from targeting the creature normally. If actual total concealment were in effect as well, that would override the displacement effect because it's the more advantageous effect. @Remy: Your math is good, but in the combo section, it only accounts for attacks that hit initially. The thing that Darksol was talking about, though, that makes it disadvantageous to stack concealment effects with Mirror Image, is that when the initial attack misses, it has a chance to auto-destroy an image without triggering the concealment chance. Looking at your stacked math: 5 images + Displacement: 25% chance of missing entirely, 25% chance of hitting an image, 50% chance of hitting the target based on roll alone. If it hits the target, 50% chance that it doesn't hit the target because of concealment. If it hits the target, 86.7% chance to destroy an image. 4.2% chance of taking damage, 66.7% chance of losing an image. 3 images + Displacement: 25% chance of missing entirely, 25% chance of hitting an image, 50% chance of hitting the target based on roll alone. If it hits the target, 50% chance that it doesn't hit the target because of concealment. If it hits the target, 75% chance to destroy an image. 6.25% chance of taking damage, 43.75% chance of losing an image. 1 image + Displacement: 25% chance of missing entirely, 25% chance of hitting an image, 50% chance of hitting the target based on roll alone. If it hits the target, 50% chance that it doesn't hit the target because of concealment. If it hits the target, 50% chance of destroying an image. 12.5% chance of taking damage, 37.5% chance of destroying an image. He was trying to make the point that the odds are significantly in favor of images being destroyed with a concealment effect in play. The percentages go up if concealment counts as "missing by 5 or less" for purposes of the Mirror Image spell.
In your 2nd Round example, it could actually be interpreted that you would roll concealment for the image itself. It missed the original target, but it "hit" the image, resulting in the image's destruction. The Blur spell would be affecting all of the images as well, and so you could roll concealment for the image as well. One possible interpretation. Honestly, though, I don't think that Blur triggers the secondary miss condition for Mirror Image. The attacker didn't miss by that margin, he hit. He missed for unrelated reasons. Intentionally whiffing is not possible, unless you're doing things to make sure your attack has penalties.
It is entirely possible to make 2+2=5 and 2+2=3 and not be incorrect. You just have to know how to make math work in silly, but accurate, ways. :) Also, I find it interesting that you can remotely trigger a trap in your hands. I always got the impression that remotely meant at a distance. It does in the dictionary. Remotely: 1) from a distance; without physical contact; 2) in the slightest degree The other argument that might actually punch a hole in Anzyr's argument is defining what constitutes indirect harm. Looking at examples from the spell invisibility: Actions directed at unattended objects: So manipulating objects, and can be interpreted to include things like sunder and other damaging actions affecting only unattended objects.
Amukta, you can't deny his post or mine. The fact that his post is under the wrong alias is irrelevant. Treat it as if it were posted under the Gauron alias. The scenario that I listed in the first post is the starting situation for the party in the PBP. I mentioned from the beginning that some rewinding was being done for RP reasons. Respectfully, your post is being redacted by me. Pick it up where I put it, not where you want it to be. |
