RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
One of my wife's friends from New York came out to visit for the week and he played in our weekly IK game. Having been a DM for 10 years now (a lot of time spent in 3.0/3.5), I have become fairly set in my ways and a lot of things that we had been doing in our games have simply become routine and no one ever thinks about it anymore.
My wife's friend pointed out to me after the game several things that I had been doing 'wrong.' He was very friendly about it and I'm actually thankful for his input and the tasteful way in which he relayed it to me.
So, here it is, the list of things I've been doing incorrectly and was unaware of:
1) Elven spellcasters and rest: Under the description for elves in the PHB it states that they only require 4 hours of trance instead of 8 hours of sleep. The wordage in the PHB is 'an elf gains the same benefit from 4 hours of trance as other races do from 8 hours of sleep.' I have always interpreted this to mean that elven arcanists only need 4 hours of rest before memorizing spells. The player pointed out to me in the 'Magic' section of the PHB under the 'Rest' heading that 'all arcane casters require 8 hours of rest before memorizing spells' and therefore 'an elf wizard would need 4 hours of trance and 4 hours of rest before memorizing.' I have decided to house rule on this one in favor of the way I've always done it because I kind of liked the fact that elves required less rest since they are more 'in-tune' with magic than most races, but the information was certainly eye-opening. And, in the same vein:
2) Sleeping clerics: Unlike arcane casters, divine casters do not require any rest whatsoever in order to refresh their spells. They simply perform their prayers at the same time each day and the spells are refreshed. I was unaware of this fact and thought that they required sleep like other casters did and that their prayers were the rough equivalent to the wizard's hour of memorizing. This makes a ring of sustainence much more valuable to such characters.
3) Movement in combat: The rules for charging state that a character may move up to double their speed in a straight line and make an attack which does not provoke an attack of opportunity from the person being charged. We interpreted this one to mean that a character can move up to double their speed in a round and still attack, charging or otherwise. The 'advantage' to charging was that it did not provoke an AoO and awarded a +2 on attack rolls (with a -2 AC). Therefore, by our previous ruling, an archer could make a 'double-move' and still get a single shot with his bow off. This is incorrect, evidently. The character should only be able to move his speed in the same round that he attacks (unless he is charging). I believe we are going to be instituting the 'correct' rules soon.
They may be a few others that I'll throw up here as I recall them, but those were the major ones. Has this happened to anyone else? You think you read something and you run with it for a long time until finally an outsider shows up and shows you that you were wrong all along? I'm curious to see others' experiences in this area.
So, does moving into someones threat range provoke attacks of oppurtunity? Or just out of?
So, does moving into someones threat range provoke attacks of oppurtunity? Or just out of?
Out of, or through. But not into.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
So, does moving into someones threat range provoke attacks of oppurtunity? Or just out of?
This was something I was never 100% clear on but I believe it is only when someone leaves a threatened square that they provoke the AoO.
I guess I was wrong about the fact that not provoking an AoO was a special benefit of charging. You don't provoke on the approach anyway. There is a feat called Hold the Line, however, that allows you to make AoOs against charging opponents. I think it is in the Complete Warrior.
mmm, just checked the srd and you are right.
Clerics don't need to rest, just pray at the designated time. Wow, seriously overlooked that one.
What about charging an opponent with reach? I've always thought that incurred an AoO.
As for leaving a threatened space, I think you can do that freely.
Ditto for me on the cleric's resting, I never thought of that.
What about charging an opponent with reach? I've always thought that incurred an AoO.
As for leaving a threatened space, I think you can do that freely.
Ditto for me on the cleric's resting, I never thought of that.
Unless flat-footed charging an opponent with reach will result in an AoO. You will move through a square your opponent threatens. Leaving a threatened space is only free for the first 5 feet, after those first 5 feet if you are still threatened you incur an AoO.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
What about charging an opponent with reach? I've always thought that incurred an AoO.
As for leaving a threatened space, I think you can do that freely.
Ditto for me on the cleric's resting, I never thought of that.
Charging an opponent with reach will provoke an AoO because you have to enter and then LEAVE one of his threatened squares in order to close to melee distance. Leaving the threatened square provokes an AoO.
Now, if you have a reach weapon yourself... I'm not sure if you can charge a foe and attack with a reach weapon while staying two squares away. It makes LOGICAL sense that you could, but logic does not always rule the day in D&D.
One can charge with a reach weapon.
No rule that I know says otherwise......
One can charge with a reach weapon.
No rule that I know says otherwise......
For example: a mounted knight's heavy lance (a reach weapon), you never see any text stating that the knight cannot charge with his lance, now do we?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Now, if you have a reach weapon yourself... I'm not sure if you can charge a foe and attack with a reach weapon while staying two squares away. It makes LOGICAL sense that you could, but logic does not always rule the day in D&D.
You must attack the foe from the reach, you cannot close and then attack (which is mostly just applicable to the spiked chain, being the only reach weapon that can attack at 5 and at 10). From the SRD:
You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). Here’s what it means to have a clear path. First, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. (If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can’t charge.) Second, if any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can’t charge. (Helpless creatures don’t stop a charge.)
We (our gaming group) got into a big argument about the Charge rule and AoO. There is a chart that says Charges do not provoke AoOs. There is no text that elaborates on this chart, so when a PC charged the monster with reach, I naturally suggested (see my avatar name) that our DM was srewing it up by not allowing the monster to take its AoO. Anyways, the FAQs do not so much as clarify the ruling specificly, but it does play this scenario out and the monster with reach does in fact get its AoO.
As for clerics, I played a cleric that once he was able to cast Restoration, never slept again. Just one casting day keeps Mr. Sandman away! :)
A recent moment of DM enlightnment came with new players (as was the orginal poster's situation). A new player had a rogue that "auto-tumbled" around the enemy. No one said anything at the table, but in private, the original players had wondered how the new player had been doing this. Finally I called the player out on it (I'm running the game). He referred us to the PHB where it clearly states that if your minimum skill total meats the necessary DC, then you automaticly succeed (thus "auto-tumble"). This enlightenment blew us away! We thought you always had to roll the die and a natural 1 always failed. I personally was on the short end of this stick when it came to concentration checks. Note also that you will automaticly fail skill DCs that exceed your maximum.
We (our gaming group) got into a big argument about the Charge rule and AoO. There is a chart that says Charges do not provoke AoOs. There is no text that elaborates on this chart...
Yes, there is. Footnote 1: "Regardless of the action, if you move out of a threatened square, you usually provoke an attack of opportunity. This column indicates whether the action itself, not moving, provokes an attack of opportunity."
|
When moving away from an opponent, however, you're fine as long as you take a 5-ft step or you withdraw (check out the withdrawal rules in the PH); just moving away provokes an AoO.
One important thing to note is that unless you are withdrawing (taking the "Withdraw" action) or making a five-foot step, the "first five feet of movement" are not free from AoOs. Withdrawing requires that you do nothing but movement, since it is a full-round action, and it only protects you in your first square. Any AoO occasioned by movement out of any other threatened square is not prevented by the withdrawal. (But you can actually approach your enemy with a "withdrawal" action.)
Also, a five-foot step is not possible if your movement is slowed, as we found out (painfully) while fighting a hydra in a swamp.
We (our gaming group) got into a big argument about the Charge rule and AoO. There is a chart that says Charges do not provoke AoOs. There is no text that elaborates on this chart...Yes, there is. Footnote 1: "Regardless of the action, if you move out of a threatened square, you usually provoke an attack of opportunity. This column indicates whether the action itself, not moving, provokes an attack of opportunity."
Especially the 'usually' part makes this a really useful addition. But indeed; charging something with reach generally provokes an AoO. Which is why it never hurts to carry a Longspear, nor to take Combat Reflexes for the better Flat-Footed AoO work. Surprises to no end, to be skewered onto a spear by a guy who hadn't even noticed you.
I tend to have a lot of DM problems with allowed actions in a move; especially related to spellcasting. What kind of action is needed to read a scroll for instance; assuming you don't already have it in your hand?
Fortunatly my players don't try a lot of weird actions so I can usually keep it in check; but I think I'm sometimes giving them an easy 3 or 4 move actions per turn...
We (our gaming group) got into a big argument about the Charge rule and AoO. There is a chart that says Charges do not provoke AoOs. There is no text that elaborates on this chart...Yes, there is. Footnote 1: "Regardless of the action, if you move out of a threatened square, you usually provoke an attack of opportunity. This column indicates whether the action itself, not moving, provokes an attack of opportunity."
I'll have to look at this again. 7 of us poured over the PHB for an hour (and then some) and none of us saw this footnote. Major bummer....
Director of Narrative
|
Excellent thread Fatespinner! We didn't find it too fortunate at first to have nearly constant rotating chairs at one of my games until we realized (or were told) things that we were doing wrong all along. I also get to play in a few different games, so certainly the change of scenery is "enlightening".
I think your beliefs on spellcaster rest are latent holdovers from previous editions. We played that way for almost a year when we first picked up 3e a few years ago.
Also, a five-foot step is not possible if your movement is slowed, as we found out (painfully) while fighting a hydra in a swamp.
I'm a terrain junkie and love to throw these kinds of things at my players. One of the things I noticed recently was that stairs count as steep slopes thus nulify five-foot steps. Just last week I noticed that darkness and fog (visibility issues) trigger double movement. Just think of all the AoOs that I've missed over the years!
Unless it has been cleared up already, you provoke an AoO when you move out of a threatened square. (PHB137)
Which is why you would provoke an AoO while charging from an enemy with reach, but only if you were weilding a non-reach weapon. You also would provoke AoO from passing through any threatened square on your way to the target of your charge. If you were using a reach weapon you would attack from the point of your reach.
|
|
I'm a terrain junkie and love to throw these kinds of things at my players. One of the things I noticed recently was that stairs count as steep slopes thus nulify five-foot steps. Just last week I noticed that darkness and fog (visibility issues) trigger double movement. Just think of all the AoOs that I've missed over the years!
For future nastiness, you might think about whether dead creatures provide enough of an obstruction to slow movement. I usually don't do this for Medium creatures*, but for Large creatures (and of course those bigger still), this seems a reasonable call.
* Even for Medium creatures, "wading in gore", "bodies stacked like cordwood", and more graphic phrases come to mind. But it's kind of a pain to keep track of.
|
Director of Narrative
|
I'm a terrain junkie and love to throw these kinds of things at my players. One of the things I noticed recently was that stairs count as steep slopes thus nulify five-foot steps. Just last week I noticed that darkness and fog (visibility issues) trigger double movement. Just think of all the AoOs that I've missed over the years!For future nastiness, you might think about whether dead creatures provide enough of an obstruction to slow movement. I usually don't do this for Medium creatures*, but for Large creatures (and of course those bigger still), this seems a reasonable call.
* Even for Medium creatures, "wading in gore", "bodies stacked like cordwood", and more graphic phrases come to mind. But it's kind of a pain to keep track of.
I was steering clear of that one until a player wanted to use a fallen large critter as cover. Then it was ON!
I tend to have a lot of DM problems with allowed actions in a move; especially related to spellcasting. What kind of action is needed to read a scroll for instance; assuming you don't already have it in your hand?
Fortunatly my players don't try a lot of weird actions so I can usually keep it in check; but I think I'm sometimes giving them an easy 3 or 4 move actions per turn...
This is all covered, actually, on DMG p. 213: "Activating a spell completion item [like a scroll] is a standard action and provokes attacks of opportunity exactly as casting a spell does." This means that spells with long casting times (e.g., raise dead) only take one standard action to use when cast from a scroll, which can be handy. And just to clarify, a character is allowed one standard action and one move action (or two move actions) each round.
o
|
Director of Narrative
|
I tend to have a lot of DM problems with allowed actions in a move; especially related to spellcasting. What kind of action is needed to read a scroll for instance; assuming you don't already have it in your hand?
Fortunatly my players don't try a lot of weird actions so I can usually keep it in check; but I think I'm sometimes giving them an easy 3 or 4 move actions per turn...
This is all covered, actually, on DMG p. 213: "Activating a spell completion item [like a scroll] is a standard action and provokes attacks of opportunity exactly as casting a spell does." This means that spells with long casting times (e.g., raise dead) only take one standard action to use when cast from a scroll, which can be handy. And just to clarify, a character is allowed one standard action and one move action (or two move actions) each round.
o
In addition, retrieving a stored item is a move action which provokes an AoO.
So, if the character decided to, while threatened, pull a scroll out (move action), and use the item (standard action) the only actions available would be free, swift or immediate actions, and the character would provoke two AoOs.
|
|
In addition, retrieving a stored item is a move action which provokes an AoO.
So, if the character decided to, while threatened, pull a scroll out (move action), and use the item (standard action) the only actions available would be free, swift or immediate actions, and the character would provoke two AoOs.
As I now read the rules, if the scroll spell requires a somatic component, you need to have a hand free to cast the spell*. If you are holding the scroll in one hand, that would mean that you could be holding nothing else at the same time. (Always assuming that the character has only two hands, of course.)
If someone else is holding the scroll, if the scroll is laid out on a table or attached to the back of a shield in such a way as to be readable, or if the spell has no somatic component, you would only need one free hand.
* PHB: "Activating a spell completion item such as a scroll, is the equivalent of casting a spell."
DMG: "Using a scroll is basically like casting a spell.... Activating a scroll spell requires no material components or focus. (The creator of the scroll provided these when scribing the scroll.)** ... Using a scroll is like casting a spell for purposes of arcane spell failure chance."
** Note that while M and F/DF are noted as not necessary, nothing is mentioned about S.
|
Director of Narrative
|
... Using a scroll is like casting a spell for purposes of arcane spell failure chance."
** Note that while M and F/DF are noted as not necessary, nothing is mentioned about S.
That just made me dislike the rogue with maxed-out Use Magic Device build I have right now. To be honoarble I have to, now, bring that up next session tomorrow night.
Man, those Combat, Adventuring and Magic chapters in the PHB are damned handy!
Things I have learned recently:
Saving Throws, Natural 1s, and Damage to Objects: If a character rolls a natural 1 on a saving throw against a damaging effect, a second saving throw is made. If that save fails, consult the table in the PH (it's under the Magic section, I think), pick the top 4, and roll a d4 to find out what's affected.
Fire and electricity deal 1/2 damage to most objects and cold deals 1/4 to most objects. This is *before* hardness is applied.
Unless flat-footed charging an opponent with reach will result in an AoO. You will move through a square your opponent threatens. Leaving a threatened space is only free for the first 5 feet, after those first 5 feet if you are still threatened you incur an AoO.
Its not free for the first 5 feet. You can avoid an AoO by only taking a 5 foot step or you can use a full round withdrawal action to allow you to leave the actual square you start in without provoking a AoO but both these actions are very limited in utility. In all other cases you provoke an AoO when you go that first 5 feet.
Its not free for the first 5 feet. You can avoid an AoO by only taking a 5 foot step or you can use a full round withdrawal action to allow you to leave the actual square you start in without provoking a AoO but both these actions are very limited in utility. In all other cases you provoke an AoO when you go that first 5 feet.
Unless flat-footed charging an opponent with reach will result in an AoO. You will move through a square your opponent threatens. Leaving a threatened space is only free for the first 5 feet, after those first 5 feet if you are still threatened you incur an AoO.
True, but in my games they appear to be the only two actions that come up frequently. It's either the 5ft step to maintain the flanking position or the withdraw action to remove yourself from a flanking position.
Something recently pointed out by one of my players that we had been playing very wrong:
Moving out of a square threatened by an enemy provokes an AoO as we all know.
However, did you know that the enemy only gets ONE AoO on you no matter how many of their threatened squares you move out of in the same move action? For years we played it so that for each threatened square you moved out of, the bad guy got another shot on you if he could take it.
For my group, Combat Reflexs got alot less scary after we came to that realization.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Adamantine bypasses hardness less than 20
Oh yeah! Known about this one for a loooooong time. I used to run a lot of games in Forgotten Realms' Underdark and the drow use adamantine in like.... EVERYTHING. I made sure to do my research. Most of the time the PCs weapons had bigger '+s' on their weapons so it wasn't a big issue, but the BBEG was a falchion-wielding sunder-monkey with greater magic weapon. He was responsible for destroying almost 100,000gp worth of weapons in that fight. It was bad. REAL bad.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
... Using a scroll is like casting a spell for purposes of arcane spell failure chance."
** Note that while M and F/DF are noted as not necessary, nothing is mentioned about S.
That just made me dislike the rogue with maxed-out Use Magic Device build I have right now. To be honoarble I have to, now, bring that up next session tomorrow night.
Man, those Combat, Adventuring and Magic chapters in the PHB are damned handy!
Yeah, I didn't know that scrolls were affected by Arcane Spell Failure either. I had a player who was running a paladin/wizard that kept a lot of scrolls on hand because we thought that they WEREN'T affected. He had mithril full plate with the twilight special ability on it, so his arcane spell failure chance was only like 10 or 15% but he would have scrolls on hand (mostly made himself) for when he just HAD to make the spell work.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Does the Quick Draw feat specify that it only applies to weapons or could it apply to drawing potions out of a pouch or grabbing a scroll from a scroll case? I've always wondered that but forgotten I cared before I found myself near a PHB.
Obviously it would only apply to items that are readily available (i.e. not in your backpack or in a sealed pouch). I think there is a storage item (in the FRCS, maybe?) that allows you to draw potions from it without provoking an AoO. I could be wrong.
Quick Draw only applies to weapons, as it's written. Most DMs feel its reasonable to also apply it to wands and rods, as they are weaponlike in shape and use. Some apply it to alchemical items as well, because they can be used as weapons, but then logically it would also apply to potions, because there is little difference between drawing a flask and a vial. Well, there is a huge difference in weight, but you get the idea.
Also, the "a weapon can not be damaged by a weapon with a plus lower than its own" was a 3.0 rule that has been sumarrily dispensed with; it doesn't exist in 3.5. So sunder away, anyone you like, you just have to deal with the extra 5 hardness on that +5 weapon your hacking at.
Mainly done because the designers realized that unless a crushing room trap was a +6 room, a +5 quarterstaff could reasonably be used to jam it, and great wyrm red dragons couldn't snap a +1 longsword if their life depended on it, because they only struck as magic, not an actual +1 or such.
|
I think there is a storage item (in the FRCS, maybe?) that allows you to draw potions from it without provoking an AoO. I could be wrong.
There is a Potion Belt (8 potions) and a Masterworked Potion Belt (10 potions) in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. Pulling a potion is a free action, but drinking a potion still provokes attacks of opportunities.
There is a Potion Bracer (3 potions) in Sharn -- City of Towers. With this item, drinking a potion in the bracer is a standard action that does NOT provoke an attack of opportunity and the wearer doesn't have to free their hands to drink the potion.
Hope that this helps.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Also, the "a weapon can not be damaged by a weapon with a plus lower than its own" was a 3.0 rule that has been sumarrily dispensed with; it doesn't exist in 3.5. So sunder away, anyone you like, you just have to deal with the extra 5 hardness on that +5 weapon your hacking at.
Huh.... I was not aware that they did away with this rule. I guess that makes sense, though. Sundering is pretty nasty, especially since it hurts the PCs way more than it helps them. When a PC sunders an orc chieftan's magical axe, the chieftan isn't likely to see another day. When the chieftan sunders the PC's magical axe, after the battle is over, there is going to be one deeply upset character.
Most of my players have established an unspoken treaty with me. If they won't make sunder-monkeys and use them to disarm every foe they come across, I won't give adamantine weapons out like candy to the NPCs and do the same to them.
|
In addition, retrieving a stored item is a move action which provokes an AoO.
So, if the character decided to, while threatened, pull a scroll out (move action), and use the item (standard action) the only actions available would be free, swift or immediate actions, and the character would provoke two AoOs.
As I now read the rules, if the scroll spell requires a somatic component, you need to have a hand free to cast the spell*. If you are holding the scroll in one hand, that would mean that you could be holding nothing else at the same time. (Always assuming that the character has only two hands, of course.)
If someone else is holding the scroll, if the scroll is laid out on a table or attached to the back of a shield in such a way as to be readable, or if the spell has no somatic component, you would only need one free hand.
* PHB: "Activating a spell completion item such as a scroll, is the equivalent of casting a spell."
DMG: "Using a scroll is basically like casting a spell.... Activating a scroll spell requires no material components or focus. (The creator of the scroll provided these when scribing the scroll.)** ... Using a scroll is like casting a spell for purposes of arcane spell failure chance."
** Note that while M and F/DF are noted as not necessary, nothing is mentioned about S.
Hmm. Is there any rule against holding the scroll in the same hand that is holding a shield or weapon? I mean, you just need to be able to read it right? Then you would just need one free hand.
The move action to get the scroll and the standard action to use it are tough enough without additional action to sheath your weapon.
|
|
** Note that while M and F/DF are noted as not necessary, nothing is mentioned about S.
Nothing is mentioned about verbal either -- so what if the scroll in question doesn't have a verbal component?
I think that it makes sense that you would most likely need two hands to cast a spell from a scroll -- try rolling up a piece of paper and stuff it in your pocket then try and take it out, unroll it and read it in 6 seconds with only one hand. I feel that there shouldn't be true "somantic" components with scrolls and that the creator of the scroll provided the "somantic" component when they scribed the scroll as well.
I understand that it ends up being semantics, but I just wanted to put my take on it.
|
|
Hmm. Is there any rule against holding the scroll in the same hand that is holding a shield or weapon? I mean, you just need to be able to read it right? Then you would just need one free hand.
I think it might be reasonable to hold an unrolled scroll in a shield hand (less so in a hand also holding a weapon). The problem, as I see it, is digging the scroll out of its case and/or your backpack or bag and then unrolling it. Still, as I've usually seen the rules read, holding more than one thing in the same hand (while in a combat environment) is at least frowned on.
The move action to get the scroll and the standard action to use it are tough enough without additional action to sheath your weapon.
I don't disagree from a game-balance point of view, and I must say I was surprised to notice this while looking at the rules yesterday. As I read the RAW, though, I think this is as clear as most issues without text explictly on point. (BTW, one of the characters I regularly run is a Warlock, so this will negatively affect me in play.) I haven't yet decided whether to houserule this for the campaigns I run.
|
|
Nothing is mentioned about verbal either -- so what if the scroll in question doesn't have a verbal component?
Ack, just lost a reply. Again(ish):
The on-point sections I could find:
"All that’s left to do is perform the finishing parts of the spellcasting (the final gestures, words, and so on)."
"Activating a scroll requires reading the spell from the scroll. The character must be able to see and read the writing on the scroll."
I don't think either requires reading aloud if the spell doesn't otherwise have a Verbal component. (I wouldn't be heartbroken if a DM were to require it.)
Perhaps the most important evidence in favor of requiring Somatic gestures is that casting from a scroll is subject to arcane spell failure:
"If a spell doesn’t have a somatic component, an arcane spellcaster can cast it with no problem while wearing armor."
(Not dispositive, but strongly indicative to my mind.)
I think that it makes sense that you would most likely need two hands to cast a spell from a scroll -- try rolling up a piece of paper and stuff it in your pocket then try and take it out, unroll it and read it in 6 seconds with only one hand.
The problem isn't limited to scrolls. (Have you ever tried to find anything small in a backpack in less than a minute?) Suffice to say that I agree completely. And I really hope it isn't a windy day, because then you might need two hands to hold the scroll and one to do the gestures. (Hmm, a new complication for my poor players.)
I feel that there shouldn't be true "somantic" components with scrolls and that the creator of the scroll provided the "somantic" component when they scribed the scroll as well.
I understand that it ends up being semantics, but I just wanted to put my take on it.
A reasonable house rule; one that I might use myself. If I do though, I will probably want to also remove the arcane spell failure chance from scrolls for consistency, and I have some balance concerns with that.
|
|
The on-point sections I could find:
"All that’s left to do is perform the finishing parts of the spellcasting (the final gestures, words, and so on)."
"Activating a scroll requires reading the spell from the scroll. The character must be able to see and read the writing on the scroll."
Perhaps the most important evidence in favor of requiring Somatic gestures is that casting from a scroll is subject to arcane spell failure:
"If a spell doesn’t have a somatic component, an arcane spellcaster can cast it with no problem while wearing armor."
Interesting points. Not sure how I feel. Is the "arcane spellcaster" quote from reading scrolls or from casting spells. I ask because I wonder about other classes that have the Use Magic Device skill. Are they subject to the same restrictions of casting an arcane spell from a scroll?
|
|
Interesting points. Not sure how I feel. Is the "arcane spellcaster" quote from reading scrolls or from casting spells. I ask because I wonder about other classes that have the Use Magic Device skill. Are they subject to the same restrictions of casting an arcane spell from a scroll?The on-point sections I could find:
"All that’s left to do is perform the finishing parts of the spellcasting (the final gestures, words, and so on)."
"Activating a scroll requires reading the spell from the scroll. The character must be able to see and read the writing on the scroll."
Perhaps the most important evidence in favor of requiring Somatic gestures is that casting from a scroll is subject to arcane spell failure:
"If a spell doesn’t have a somatic component, an arcane spellcaster can cast it with no problem while wearing armor."
Sorry, should have left links. The first is from http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#spellCompletion
The second is from http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/scrolls.htm
I don't have my books here, but I believe the first was originally printed in the PHB and the second in the DMG. Neither is class-specific. The last quote is from the bottom of http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm
I believe that to be a section from the PHB on arcane casting generally. Here's a bit from the FAQ (the question is about using UMD with a wand while wearing armor) that seems on point about UMD and scrolls (page 33 of the one I just downloaded):
There is an arcane spell failure chance for activating a scroll (a spell completion item), provided the spell stored on the scroll has a somatic component.
...where did you find THIS out?Fire and electricity deal 1/2 damage to most objects and cold deals 1/4 to most objects. This is *before* hardness is applied.
PHB, page 165.
So this past friday my party comes up against a Beholder. Bad news for them, its one of the biggest monsters they have tangled with so far. The Warmage came out of left feild on me witha rule I was totally unaware of to help beat the Beholder. The Rule:
An Attacker that has total concealment from a defender denies the defender any Dex bonus to their AC.
He pulled this little stunt by casting Leomunds Tiny Hut, a spell that gives those inside it total concealment from anyone outside, yet those inside can see perfectly well. Wow!
I went back after the game to double check the entire set of rules regarding both the spell and the loss of Dex bonus for the defender and found it all in black and white on page 151 of the PHB. This tactic totally screws magic users who will be going up against my players, but it's right there in the book.
I have to shake my head in admiration when something like this, that has been right under my nose for years crops up.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
He pulled this little stunt by casting Leomunds Tiny Hut, a spell that gives those inside it total concealment from anyone outside, yet those inside can see perfectly well. Wow!I went back after the game to double check the entire set of rules regarding both the spell and the loss of Dex bonus for the defender and found it all in black and white on page 151 of the PHB. This tactic totally screws magic users who will be going up against my players, but it's right there in the book.
Invisibility Sphere does basically the same thing. Keep in mind though that an enemy can always choose to enter the Hut and the Hut is immobile and does nothing to stop attacks from coming inside. I started a thread about the spell at one point when my player's tried pulling some ridiculous crap with it (arguing that they could make it dark inside and yet still see, claiming that they could keep out opponents due to the limitation on the number of people able to enter, etc.)
Basically, it's a 3rd level spell, and while it does have some creative uses in combat, it should not be better than combat oriented spells of similar effect (e.g., invisibility sphere).
Edit: Here's the thread:
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/community/gaming/dnd/archives/leomunds ImpenetrableBattleDome
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
So this past friday my party comes up against a Beholder. Bad news for them, its one of the biggest monsters they have tangled with so far. The Warmage came out of left feild on me witha rule I was totally unaware of to help beat the Beholder. The Rule:
An Attacker that has total concealment from a defender denies the defender any Dex bonus to their AC.
He pulled this little stunt by casting Leomunds Tiny Hut, a spell that gives those inside it total concealment from anyone outside, yet those inside can see perfectly well. Wow!
You said it was a beholder... the antimagic cone seems like a very effective way of eliminating this strategy, especially since the spell is immobile.
What I never understood is if you have a spear(threats 10ft) and an opponent comes next to you, he causes an attack of opportunity, but how can you attack him if you can't use spears against someone who is next to you(5ft)?
Just last week I noticed that darkness and fog (visibility issues) trigger double movement.
...what??? Really?
*looks around puzzled*
DAMN!
|
|
What I never understood is if you have a spear(threats 10ft) and an opponent comes next to you, he causes an attack of opportunity, but how can you attack him if you can't use spears against someone who is next to you(5ft)?
By game mechanics, it's an instant or interrupt* and happens before your enemy actually leaves the square 10 feet away. By flavor, said enemy is trying to charge past your spear point and you try to make that painful.
Don't try to look too closely at the exact timing and sequence of actions in d20; it does not withstand attempts to closely correlate particular mechanical subsystems with individual real-world actions or sub-actions**. Sometimes you just have to see whether the results of the system seem reasonable.
In the case of charging someone who is holding a spear, it is at least possible that the spearman will be able to make a significant attempt on the charger's life before the maniac with the sword can try to sever the spearman's spine. d20 allows this to happen. (Even if the sequence does include, "Wait; let's go back in time. He left a threatened square, so I get to have attacked him before he could close and attack me.")
* To use a M:tG terminology.
** He says to himself as much as to everyone else.