|
I think I will make posts similar this one each week after our weekend game to offer up some issues that arose ingame, how I adjudicated the situation, and to learn what you would or would not have done differently.
This week:
Sneak Attack: Neither I nor my players are able to find a reference that limits a sneak attack to the first attack in a full attack. For a while I was allowing sneak attack damage on every attack but as soon as S'Sharra sneak attacked one of my players with a full attack and it looked like I would be rolling 45d6 sneak attack damage, I changed the ruling to only the first attack in a full attack. Or else dear Falcar would have died right there in an explosion of red gore. (And don't take this to mean that I don't kill characters, it happens, but it is not something I go out of my way to do, Savage Tide is already to deadly.)
Sneak Attack #2: One high level rogue sneak attacking another. Alright, uncanny dodge says that rogue in question still retains their Dex bonus even when flat footed. Does this eliminate one of the two conditions under which sneak attacks can happen? The other being while flanking your opponent. In the game the party's rogue was sneaked attacked by another rogue from hiding. The party's rogue has uncanny dodge. I was tempted to call it that he still gets his dex bonus to AC, and is still flat-footed, and that the sneak attack damage still applied. But the player interpreted it differently. What do you think?
Picking up a Weapon: It is a move action to pick up a weapon. But if for some reason both of the weapons of a two-weapon fighter were knocked out of there hands, could they pick up both weapons as a single move action. I am inclined to say yes, that they can. For the game we went with the RAW, where picking up on item takes one move action.
Typed Damage: My players have recently purchased crystals from the Magic Item Compendium that they can attach to their weapons to give them a number of magical effects. We are uncertain though whether if, say, the crystal made the weapon good aligned, would frost damage from the weapon also be good aligned? I have temporarily ruled that it does not and that only the damage of the base weapon is considered good aligned.
Ring of Force Shield:
An iron band, this simple ring generates a shield-sized (and shield-shaped) wall of force that stays with the ring and can be wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield (+2 AC). This special creation has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance since it is weightless and encumbrance-free. It can be activated and deactivated at will as a free action.
By the description, specifically "weightless and encumbrance-free" I am inclined to think that the force shield created by the ring would not hamper the use of a weapon with that arm, or two handed weilding.
A couple disclaimers before I hit submit. I understand that I am the final arbiter in my games. But I understand even more that I am not all knowing and there is a wealth of experience on these boards that can belp me notice something I may have overlooked or teach me something that I have yet to learn.
I welcome any an all constructive feedback.
Thanks
Tam
Sneak Attack:
By RAW, I believe every attack gets the sneak attack damage. By DM-balancing, I would say only the first attack against a single target counts.
Sneak Attack #2:
Sneak attack actually says nothing about flat-footedness. It says (roughly) "anytime a target is denied its dexterity bonus to AC, or flanked..." This means that Uncanny Dodge would protect against sneak attacks due to flat-footedness conditions. Flanking, however, is still a viable option for sneak attacking another rogue.
Picking up a Weapon:
RAW, it takes 2 move actions. My DM way is that if they have TWF, than they can pick up both in a single move action as long as they are 5' together or closer.
Typed Damage:
I'd say that anything coming out of the weapon would pick up the weapon's alignment... not sure about RAW.
Ring of ....
Due to having no armor-check or encumbrance, I'd say that you could fight perfectly normal with it.
Sneak Attack #1 You do indeed apply sneak attack to ALL attacks in the round that qualify for it, not just the first of a full attack. Most Sneak Attackers are so squishy, that if they don't drop their opponent with their full (sneak) attack, then they are just about Guaranteed to be toast the next round. Not sure what level you are playing, but is part of what makes fortification armor so desirable.
Sneak Attack #2 Uncanny dodge does negate one of the conditions for Sneak Attack (denied Dex to AC), as the "Uncanny Dodger" is not denied their Dex. They can still be flanked however, unless they also have Improved Uncanny dodge, which explicitly states the rogue cannot be flanked, so no sneak attack. So if the rogue (with uncanny dodge) is attacked from hiding, no sneak attack, as they retain their dex bonus to AC, and so don't meet the pre-reqs of Sneak Attack, and so don't take sneak attack.
If a rogue already has uncanny dodge from a different class she automatically gains improved uncanny dodge (see below) instead.
Improved Uncanny Dodge (Ex): A rogue of 8th level or higher can no longer be flanked. This defense denies another rogue the ability to sneak attack the character by flanking her, unless the attacker has at least four more rogue levels than the target does.
If a character already has uncanny dodge (see above) from a second class, the character automatically gains improved uncanny dodge instead, and the levels from the classes that grant uncanny dodge stack to determine the minimum rogue level required to flank the character.
Typed Damage I would rule whatever you would rule with the "Holy" property. If you rule that the Holy property makes "All" the damage good, the crystal does the same. The way I read Holy, it makes the weapon good, and therefore ALL the damage good, so the crystal does the same thing.
Ring of Force Field I was tempted to rule that the key phrase is "can be wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield (+2 AC)" and such that you can't wield it with a 2 hander. However, the ring is 8.5k for a +2 to AC, which is on a par with Natural Armor and Deflection Bonuses, which to me indicates you can basically ignore it for the effect it has on the wearer. Compare it with a +1 Animated Heavy Steel shield, which, although it does have ACP and ASF, provide a +3 (can be enchanted for more) AC bonus for 9k, while leaving both hands free to wield a weapon.
Typed Damage: My players have recently purchased crystals from the Magic Item Compendium that they can attach to their weapons to give them a number of magical effects. We are uncertain though whether if, say, the crystal made the weapon good aligned, would frost damage from the weapon also be good aligned?
It doesn't matter. Whether damage is good-aligned or not matters only for purposes of overcoming damage reduction...and energy damage isn't subject to DR anyway.
In other words, if you have a +1 frost longsword, and you hit a creature with DR 10/evil, the 1d8+1 damage dealt by the longsword will be completely negated (assuming you have no Str bonus or other increases to the weapon's damage), but the 1d6 cold damage will still harm the creature (unless it has cold resistance).
Now, slap one of these holy crystals onto the longsword and the 1d8+1 will now penetrate the creature's DR, as will the 1d6 cold damage. But the cold damage didn't need to be "good-aligned" to do so.
I found this on the Wizards Sage Advice column regarding the number of sneak attacks in a round:
Number of Sneak Attacks
Provided it is possible for you to make a sneak attack at all, you can make multiple sneak attacks when you use the full attack action. For example, if you have a higher initiative result at the beginning of an encounter, your foe is flat-footed and every attack you make is a sneak attack. The same is true if you flank your foe.
Anything that allows you to make extra attacks during the full attack action gets you extra sneak attacks as well: fighting with two weapons, the haste spell, and the monk's flurry of blows are the most common ways of getting extra attacks.
Remember the earlier note about invisibility effects, however. If you're relying on invisibility to set up a sneak attack, you'll only have the effect for the first attack you make during your turn. You'll still get all your extra attacks, but only the first will be a sneak attack. You don't have this problem if you're using a greaterinvisibility effect.
Hope that helps.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Ring of Force Shield:
SRD.org wrote:
An iron band, this simple ring generates a shield-sized (and shield-shaped) wall of force that stays with the ring and can be wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield (+2 AC). This special creation has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance since it is weightless and encumbrance-free. It can be activated and deactivated at will as a free action.By the description, specifically "weightless and encumbrance-free" I am inclined to think that the force shield created by the ring would not hamper the use of a weapon with that arm, or two handed weilding.
I'll have to disagree with everyone here, unfortunately. The description says "a wall of force that stays with the ring". That means (to me, at least) that you have to be actively weilding it as though it were a shield. It's, essentially, a caster's shield.
That also means that it's useless when weilding two weapons or a double weapon, since it would just be flying all over the place and block pretty much nothing.
|
Sneak Attack: As others have said, any attack that qualifies for sneak attack damage gets it. Note that there is an exception for sneak attacks when attacking while invisible. If the only reason that you get the sneak attack is that you are invisibile, and if you go visible after the first attack (as with the Invisibility spell), only the first attack gets the extra damage.
Sneak Attack #2: One cause went away.
Picking up a Weapon: It takes two disarm actions to disarm both the weapons of a TWFer. It takes two move actions to pick up both weapons.
Typed Damage: We had a relatively long discussion about this in another thread some months ago. (Sorry, I don't have the time to do a search.) The end of that was that it's unclear whether the sword damage should be typed. (This is important for damaging regenerating creatures, for instance.) My tentative current position is that any damage that isn't explicitly typed counts if any of the damage from the weapon counts. E.g., if you have a medium +1 Fire, Frost Longsword, you would do 1d6 fire damage, 1d6 cold damage, and 1d8+1+n fire and frost damage. I suspect that this might not follow the rules precisely, but it makes sense to me.
Ring of Force Shield:
An iron band, this simple ring generates a shield-sized (and shield-shaped) wall of force that stays with the ring and can be wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield (+2 AC). This special creation has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance since it is weightless and encumbrance-free. It can be activated and deactivated at will as a free action.
Since it says that it "can be wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield....", I would say that you would have to have a hand available to so wield it. That's what a heavy shield requires, and there is no explicit change. I might house rule a change to that, but I'd need to think about it some.
HTH
I'll have to disagree with everyone here, unfortunately. The description says "a wall of force that stays with the ring". That means (to me, at least) that you have to be actively weilding it as though it were a shield. It's, essentially, a caster's shield. That also means that it's useless when weilding two weapons or a double weapon, since it would just be flying all over the place and block pretty much nothing.
By this interpretation, a ring of force shield is a heavy shield with no enhancement bonus at all, but it has the ghost touch property. A +1 ghost touch heavy shield goes for 16,000 gp. A +3 shield is 9,000 gp, right in the ballbark of 8,500 gp for the ring... but the ring's force shield isn't actually as good as the ghost touch property, so some diminution in price is reasonable. Therefore, in terms of cost, I could maybe see that view... except this:
You're using up a ring slot, and you still can't use a shield or weapon with that hand, so in essence it costs 2 magic item slots with this ruling. And a ring of deflection +2 is superior in all respects and costs only 8,000 gp! So, if you hand out deflection bonuses left and right in your campaign, and if stacking a shield bonus against incorporeal attacks is a major issue in every battle in the entire campaign, then I'd go with Sect's/Doug's interpretation. Otherwise--in 99% of campaigns--I'd be with Tambryn's original assumption all the way on this one.
Typed Damage: My players have recently purchased crystals from the Magic Item Compendium that they can attach to their weapons to give them a number of magical effects. We are uncertain though whether if, say, the crystal made the weapon good aligned, would frost damage from the weapon also be good aligned?It doesn't matter. Whether damage is good-aligned or not matters only for purposes of overcoming damage reduction...and energy damage isn't subject to DR anyway.
In other words, if you have a +1 frost longsword, and you hit a creature with DR 10/evil, the 1d8+1 damage dealt by the longsword will be completely negated (assuming you have no Str bonus or other increases to the weapon's damage), but the 1d6 cold damage will still harm the creature (unless it has cold resistance).
Now, slap one of these holy crystals onto the longsword and the 1d8+1 will now penetrate the creature's DR, as will the 1d6 cold damage. But the cold damage didn't need to be "good-aligned" to do so.
However (as Doug has already touched on), it becomes more of an issue when fighting a creature with regeneration, and a vulnerability to good-aligned weapons (i.e., high CR devils). My initial inclination would be to say that the base damage would become holy, but the cold/fire/electricity damage wouldn't (Just seems wierd- good-aligned cold damage?). But, that's simply my initial inclination. It may, in fact, be better for balance to let all the damage the character can generate with his weapon count as breaking through the regeneration. Certainly the players would tend to appreciate this more.
|
|
It may, in fact, be better for balance to let all the damage the character can generate with his weapon count as breaking through the regeneration. Certainly the players would tend to appreciate this more.
That's the simple answer, but I just can't get past the idea of cold damage becoming fire damage as well (and similar effects). I don't think it would be unbalancing, but it's distasteful enough to me that I wouldn't do it.
YMMV.
Typed Damage: We had a relatively long discussion about this in another thread some months ago. (Sorry, I don't have the time to do a search.) The end of that was that it's unclear whether the sword damage should be typed. (This is important for damaging regenerating creatures, for instance.) My tentative current position is that any damage that isn't explicitly typed counts if any of the damage from the weapon counts. E.g., if you have a medium +1 Fire, Frost Longsword, you would do 1d6 fire damage, 1d6 cold damage, and 1d8+1+n fire and frost damage. I suspect that this might not follow the rules precisely, but it makes sense to me.
I either missed that thread or forgot about it. I just ran a search on 'typed damage' but none of the results are obviously about this topic.
I don't understand why the weapon would inherit the energy type? Especially considering that energy resistance and DR are two different mechanics. Also all weapons (pretty much) are typed. Their either slashing, bludgeoning or piercing - they may have other types on top of that like Good or Cold Iron.
I'd say the weapon deals the damage separately - so a longsword might do 1d8+1 slashing and magic damage as well as 1d6 fire damage. The might be resistant or immune to one of these types of these types of damage and not the other, both types or neither type.
I think the moster lay outs support this - for example an Arcane Ooze does 2d6 bludgeoning and 2d6 acid damage with its slam attack. A Barbarian under the effects of a resist acid spell would have some of the bludgeoning damaged reduced by the Barbarians DR and some or all of the acid damage reduced by the resist acid spell.
|
|
I am also starting to think that though made of force, the shield is still a physical thing, else it would not be able to block your enemy's attacks. Bumping into your thigh or head as you swing a weapon about with that hand. So maybe an easy solution would be a compromise that imposes half the penalties associated with weilding a weapon with your shield arm.
Tam
I am also starting to think that though made of force, the shield is still a physical thing, else it would not be able to block your enemy's attacks. Bumping into your thigh or head as you swing a weapon about with that hand. So maybe an easy solution would be a compromise that imposes half the penalties associated with weilding a weapon with your shield arm.
A shield spell gives no penalty, does it? So why should a ring that essentially creates a wimpy, nerfed version of the shield spell have to be actively wielded? If that were the case, then the producers of the rings would be out of business-- except in the sole event of a massive invasion of incorporeal undead. At all other times, a normal heavy shield is cheaper and better, insofar as it doesn't also chew up a ring slot. And a ring of protection +2 is better all around and is also cheaper! If, in fact, a ring of force shield is nothing more than a heavy ghost touch shield that also takes up a ring slot, then why not just remove it from the DMG and be done with it?
|
|
I either missed that thread or forgot about it. I just ran a search on 'typed damage' but none of the results are obviously about this topic.
Yeah, I can't find it in the amount of time I'm willing to spend either.
I don't understand why the weapon would inherit the energy type? Especially considering that energy resistance and DR are two different mechanics. Also all weapons (pretty much) are typed. Their either slashing, bludgeoning or piercing - they may have other types on top of that like Good or Cold Iron.
ISTM that a minor fire attack (the sort that a wizard can get at first level an infinite number of times with a reserve feat) should do less damage to a creature whose regeneration is negated by fire than the same amount of fire damage wrapped around three feet of hot steel.
I'd say the weapon deals the damage separately - so a longsword might do 1d8+1 slashing and magic damage as well as 1d6 fire damage. The might be resistant or immune to one of these types of these types of damage and not the other, both types or neither type.
What is the damage type of strength damage added to a flaming weapon attack? What damage type is sneak attack damage? I think that if you hit a troll with a flaming sword and have a strength bonus and sneak attack damage you should hurt the troll more than if you hit him without those benefits.
I can't find any place that specifies what damage type applies in those situations. Given that, and given the opinions noted above, I've decided to use the rule I noted in an earlier.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
A shield spell gives no penalty, does it? So why should a ring that essentially creates a wimpy, nerfed version of the shield spell have to be actively wielded? If that were the case, then the producers of the rings would be out of business-- except in the sole event of a massive invasion of incorporeal undead. At all other times, a normal heavy shield is cheaper and better, insofar as it doesn't also chew up a ring slot. And a ring of protection +2 is better all around and is also cheaper! If, in fact, a ring of force shield is nothing more than a heavy ghost touch shield that also takes up a ring slot, then why not just remove it from the DMG and be done with it?
INDEED. It's agreed that the ring just plain sucks, no?
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
It may, in fact, be better for balance to let all the damage the character can generate with his weapon count as breaking through the regeneration. Certainly the players would tend to appreciate this more.That's the simple answer, but I just can't get past the idea of cold damage becoming fire damage as well (and similar effects). I don't think it would be unbalancing, but it's distasteful enough to me that I wouldn't do it.
YMMV.
Hot Ice. ^_^
What is the damage type of strength damage added to a flaming weapon attack? What damage type is sneak attack damage? I think that if you hit a troll with a flaming sword and have a strength bonus and sneak attack damage you should hurt the troll more than if you hit him without those benefits.I can't find any place that specifies what damage type applies in those situations. Given that, and given the opinions noted above, I've decided to use the rule I noted in an earlier.
In regards to the Troll - we have already established that a burning stick is more dangerous to the troll then being fed through a wood chipper. The damage is purely a function of the energy - the sword clearly has little to do with it.
Ability modifiers add to the damage done by a melee or thrown weapon. Same damage as whatever the weapon is doing. Flaming et al. specifies that it does an 'extra X amount of energy damage'. Its clearly in addition to whatever the weapon is doing.
I could almost agree with your system for the sake of simplicity but I don't see how it really saves much - I mean if I have resist fire up am I immune to a flaming sword? Does DR count? If I have both DR and Fire Resistance do they stack? Do I just get the best? If I wrap my flaming sword in a wet towel does that allow my to bypass the creatures fire resitance?
I think your interpretation does not really make life simpler - your mixing the mechanics regarding energy and physical damage together and these are mechanics that are designed to be interpreted as distinct from each other.
|
|
In regards to the Troll - we have already established that a burning stick is more dangerous to the troll then being fed through a wood chipper. The damage is purely a function of the energy - the sword clearly has little to do with it.
Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. The technical term is "begging the question". From your statement, I feel safe in saying that you believe that "the sword has little to do with it". I disagree.
Ability modifiers add to the damage done by a melee or thrown weapon. Same damage as whatever the weapon is doing. Flaming et al. specifies that it does an 'extra X amount of energy damage'. Its clearly in addition to whatever the weapon is doing.
That is not my assumption. It's also not obvious from the rules. I think it's entirely reasonable that shoving a flaming piece of steel deeper into a body would do more damage to a creature only damaged by fire. Similarly, I think that a more precise application of fire to vulnerable places (see Sneak Attack or Skirmish, for instance) would do more damage to a target. I note, for instance, that there seems to be no prohibition on using sneak attack with a ray.
I could almost agree with your system for the sake of simplicity but I don't see how it really saves much - I mean if I have resist fire up am I immune to a flaming sword? Does DR count? If I have both DR and Fire Resistance do they stack? Do I just get the best? If I wrap my flaming sword in a wet towel does that allow my to bypass the creatures fire resitance?
I don't think there is any simple answer. How does your scheme deal with holy damage, for instance? It isn't energy, and I don't think it's physical either. I see ER and DR as overlapping, and I think that's the natural way to read the rules, too. But I can see your point as well.
I think your interpretation does not really make life simpler - your mixing the mechanics regarding energy and physical damage together and these are mechanics that are designed to be interpreted as distinct from each other.
As noted above, I disagree.
Wait, why would the fire on a flaming sword make it stop dealing slashing damage? Does the fire cushion the blow? So if I hit a guy with resistance to fire 10 using a +1 flaming longsword and deal 6 points (from the +1 sword part) and 3 fire (from the fire), the critter takes NO damage? That makes little sense to me. If I use a +1 flaming vorpal sword, is the vorpal quality thereby disabled, because the sword is now doing fire damage instead of slashing damage? What happens to DR 10/bludgeoning? I've gotta say, I'm with Jeremy 100% on this one. The alternate interpretation being put forth creates myriad situations of heightened ambiguity or even outright contradiction. Also, to answer another question, holy damage is holy damage: "Half the damage is fire damage, but the other half results directly from divine power and is therefore not subject to being reduced by resistance to fire-based attacks." (From the flame strike spell description on the SRD.) Notice that the divine power damage does not automatically become fire damage simply by being associated with the fire part of the flame strike spell.
A shield spell gives no penalty, does it? So why should a ring that essentially creates a wimpy, nerfed version of the shield spell have to be actively wielded? If that were the case, then the producers of the rings would be out of business-- except in the sole event of a massive invasion of incorporeal undead. At all other times, a normal heavy shield is cheaper and better, insofar as it doesn't also chew up a ring slot. And a ring of protection +2 is better all around and is also cheaper! If, in fact, a ring of force shield is nothing more than a heavy ghost touch shield that also takes up a ring slot, then why not just remove it from the DMG and be done with it?INDEED. It's agreed that the ring just plain sucks, no?
Usually.
However, it is useful in some circumstances. A ring of force shield provides a shield bonus (stacking with armor, cover, deflection, etc.), weighs nothing, and does not give a chance of arcane spellcasting failure. Doubling the market price (17,000gp) to make it a non-slot item is still pretty cheap.
A cleric/wizard/mystic theurge would find it useful, as would a warmage (their ability to cast in armor without a chance of failure does not include shields!).
A ring of force shield provides a shield bonus (stacking with armor, cover, deflection, etc.), weighs nothing, and does not give a chance of arcane spellcasting failure. Doubling the market price (17,000gp) to make it a non-slot item is still pretty cheap.
But it's not a non-slot item; it's in essence a 2-slot item the way it's being interpreted here. (To make it non-slot, would you need to triple the price, then?) I don't know offhand of any other items that take up 2 magic item slots, and can't help but feel that the description would make a big deal out of this if that were intended. Per the description above, a mithral +1 buckler is better, and still cheaper. And the item was introduced before the warmage, I think, so it's not like it was intended just for him... unless they were planning ahead?
A ring of force shield provides a shield bonus (stacking with armor, cover, deflection, etc.), weighs nothing, and does not give a chance of arcane spellcasting failure. Doubling the market price (17,000gp) to make it a non-slot item is still pretty cheap.But it's not a non-slot item; it's in essence a 2-slot item the way it's being interpreted here. (To make it non-slot, would you need to triple the price, then?) I don't know offhand of any other items that take up 2 magic item slots, and can't help but feel that the description would make a big deal out of this if that were intended. Per the description above, a mithral +1 buckler is better, and still cheaper.
IIRC, the force shield can be activated or dismissed as a free action. A +1 ghost touch mithral buckler (don't forget the force effect means it's applied against incorporeal attacks) would be the closest equivalent, which is pretty much in line with non-slot version of the ring.
The question I have is this:
Since the Ring of Force Shield can be turned on/off at will as per the description of the magic item, then could I turn it off at the beginning of my attack, attack, then turn it back on at the end and gain benefits from it? My mind turns to the buckler which allows you to use the small shield and wield a weapon at the same time with that hand. When you use that hand with the buckler you lose the defense bonus to it. HOWEVER, the buckler is different in the fact that it's constantly there as opposed to the Ring. I can see how the mechanics of actually having to manuever the Ring into position would be the only way to gain the benefit and I made sure to point this out to Tambryn when I asked (he is my DM in this campaign and it was my question that prompted this), but if a wizard can turn the ring off, cast fireball, then turn the ring back on, then why couldn't I remove one hand from holding my sword and defend with the buckler? There is no rule that says you can't HOLD a two handed weapon with one hand, I just couldn't make any attacks of opportunity with it for instance. And if while I'm attacking I were to provoke an attack of opportunity, I wouldn't gain the benefit from the ring.
My take on the damage is that Elemental damage (fire, ice, etc...) would not be affected by a Holy enhancement, but the damage because of strength and sneak attacks would since they are directly attributed to the weapon and not typed as separate damage.
I have to agree that a high level rogue cannot be sneak attacked by another rogue of equal or lower level as long as they have Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge.
As for the number of sneak attacks I would think that as per the description in the PHB that it would only be the first (and maybe the only attack?) that deals the sneak attack damage:
Sneak Attack
If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her ATTACK, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.
The rogue’s ATTACK deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied.
Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.
With a sap (blackjack) or an unarmed strike, a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual -4 penalty.
A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernible anatomies—undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures lack vital areas to attack. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to sneak attacks. The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.
I may be taking the book too literal here in saying that since it says the rogue's ATTACK and not the rogue's ATTACKS deal the extra damage then it is only the first one. Again it could even be read that you only get to make one attack if you are sneak attacking.
I'd have to agree with Doug on the picking up two weapons: Two attacks to disarm, two move actions to pick up. Same thing for Quick Draw. Says you can draw a weapon as a free action, granted you can just draw the other as part of a move action, but the feat itself would not allow you to draw more than one weapon per round as a free action. So why would you be able to pick up more than one weapon as part of the same move action.
I'm trying to be objective here and think as a DM and not as a player in Tambryn's game. And if Doskias, the Rogue in our party, were to be doubly disarmed I'd be the first to point out that it takes two move actions to pick his weapons up and that he is now limited to only one sneak attack. There are many times during the game that I'm like "I hate to do this since it's in the DM's favor, but...".
A +1 ghost touch mithral buckler (don't forget the force effect means it's applied against incorporeal attacks) would be the closest equivalent, which is pretty much in line with non-slot version of the ring.
I can see where you're coming from on this. Maybe it's the ghost touch that is overpriced, then, rather than just the ring? (Honestly, it still bothers me that a ring of protection +2 is so much better than both of them, and still cheaper).
|
|
Wait, why would the fire on a flaming sword make it stop dealing slashing damage?
I haven't said that it would. I've said that a sword with both fire and frost enchantments would do both. I've not said that it would stop doing slashing (and presumably magic) damage as well. That's the way overlap works.
Does the fire cushion the blow? So if I hit a guy with resistance to fire 10 using a +1 flaming longsword and deal 6 points (from the +1 sword part) and 3 fire (from the fire), the critter takes NO damage? That makes little sense to me.
It's a good thing I didn't say that, then.
If I use a +1 flaming vorpal sword, is the vorpal quality thereby disabled, because the sword is now doing fire damage instead of slashing damage? What happens to DR 10/bludgeoning? I've gotta say, I'm with Jeremy 100% on this one. The alternate interpretation being put forth creates myriad situations of heightened ambiguity or even outright contradiction.
Both interpretations do. You like your set of ambiguities; I like mine.
Also, to answer another question, holy damage is holy damage: "Half the damage is fire damage, but the other half results directly from divine power and is therefore not subject to being reduced by resistance to fire-based attacks." (From the flame strike spell description on the SRD.) Notice that the divine power damage does not automatically become fire damage simply by being associated with the fire part of the flame strike spell.
Is it energy or physical damage? You'll note that it's not in the list of energy types; a cite would be helpful to support your position. If you do strength or precision damage with a holy sword, does that extra damage become holy? If you have a creature whose regeneration is stopped only by holy damage, would strength or precision damage added be non-lethal?
As far as I can find, there aren't any dispositive rules for this situation. I note you've not found any either. With that, it's a matter of taste. Clearly our tastes differ.
|
|
I can see where you're coming from on this. Maybe it's the ghost touch that is overpriced, then, rather than just the ring? (Honestly, it still bothers me that a ring of protection +2 is so much better than both of them, and still cheaper).
That's different from an argument about what the description says it does. (It's also a fair argument not to give that item out as a GM.) The item description seems pretty clear to me, which was the original question.
Tam,
detailed answers to your two questions; one about sneak attack and the one about the ring have been delth with in the Official Answers To Your Questions; ie Sage Advice in Dragon Magazine; see page 80 Dragon 341 for the first one; and, page 84 Dragon 349 for the second one if I understand that one correctly. Imposing a penalty on the sheild from a shield spell on a person using a melee weapon is just lame.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Tam,
detailed answers to your two questions; one about sneak attack and the one about the ring have been delth with in the Official Answers To Your Questions; ie Sage Advice in Dragon Magazine; see page 80 Dragon 341 for the first one; and, page 84 Dragon 349 for the second one if I understand that one correctly. Imposing a penalty on the sheild from a shield spell on a person using a melee weapon is just lame.
Would you mind quoting the articles? I don't have copies handy, so I'd like to see what they say.
I am not sure that is legal or I would have; it is published so I dont wanna step on any toes. I have the issues right here with me, but such things are touchy without permission.
That's different from an argument about what the description says it does. The item description seems pretty clear to me, which was the original question.
Yes; I understand that. I'm interested in how game balance works and in the thought behind the design, not necesasarily in the most literal possible reading of each description. That difference in focus may be the reason we seldom agree-- we're looking at the same things from two different vantage points.
|
|
Had the question been of the form, "Do you think it would be a good idea to use this house rule?", I might have said yes. The ring is kind of lame for the price. (See more generally the pricing discussion in the MIC. 8-)
The OP seemed to be looking for rules interpretation advice rather than rules modification advice. For the latter, the only concern I have with the more liberal shield ring design is that it allows the stacking of another AC bonus type (shield) without the character taking the other penalties of a shield. Now, maybe the right place to look for comparative pricing is Bracers of Armor. (Different slot, precludes the use of more common protections, useful to mages but probably not to fighters.) If I were pricing from scratch, I'd probably start from 4000 GP, then give a bit of a bonus since it works against non-corporeal attackers: somewhere between 4500 and 5000.
Had the question been of the form, "Do you think it would be a good idea to use this house rule?", I might have said yes. The ring is kind of lame for the price.
Agreed on the price, given your standpoint. I've long since conceded, by the way, that you and Sebastian have the right to assume that everything anyone does is a "house rule." That's fine by me; like I said, I won't argue that I'm more interested in reasonable interpretations and decent game balance ("house rules" as you put it) than in being "official."
I just can't always remember to rephrase all of my posts accordingly; sorry. Before everything other people in general, and in particular Jeremy and I say, just imagine the words "house rule" and we'll all be OK.
To the OP: I had an idea from your post that you might be interested in other interpretations than the one that Doug says is now official. If that thought was mistaken, just ignore my posts; I apologize for wasting space on it.
Tam,
detailed answers to your two questions; one about sneak attack and the one about the ring have been delth with in the Official Answers To Your Questions; ie Sage Advice in Dragon Magazine; see page 80 Dragon 341 for the first one; and, page 84 Dragon 349 for the second one if I understand that one correctly. Imposing a penalty on the sheild from a shield spell on a person using a melee weapon is just lame.
No need to quote the second article, but I'm curious if the official view as posted here has been upheld, or if the Dragon article house-ruled as I had tentatively proposed?
The question I have is this: Since the Ring of Force Shield can be turned on/off at will as per the description of the magic item, then could I turn it off at the beginning of my attack, attack, then turn it back on at the end and gain benefits from it? There is no rule that says you can't HOLD a two handed weapon with one hand, I just couldn't make any attacks of opportunity with it for instance. And if while I'm attacking I were to provoke an attack of opportunity, I wouldn't gain the benefit from the ring.
Just looked it up, using the reference Valegrim provided (thanks!). Andy Collins agrees with you 100%, Dragonlvr, putting his answer descriptively the same as Doug's, but functionally more similar to mine. Your campaign can, I suppose, fit anywhere along that spectrum.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Regarding sneak attacking:
Multiple, powerful sneak attacks in one round can be brutal (It's not hard at all to imagine a hasted fighter 3/rogue 7 getting in four sneak attacks for an extra 4d6 each, on top of the weapon damage).
There was an optional mechanic in ... some book or another* ... that allowed a character who was flanked to deliberately "ignore" one attacker (considering himself flat-footed against her) and devote more attention to the other attacker, removing the "flanking" condition.
If I were playing a character flanked by (a) a rogue who had just delivered some pretty serious sneak attack damage and (b) anybody else, I'd elect to pay attention to the rogue and give the other opponent an easier chance to hit me.
* Yes, that was very helpful of me. If I had to guess, I'd try "Unearthed Arcana" first.
|
|
Tam,
detailed answers to your two questions; one about sneak attack and the one about the ring have been delth with in the Official Answers To Your Questions; ie Sage Advice in Dragon Magazine; see page 80 Dragon 341 for the first one; and, page 84 Dragon 349 for the second one if I understand that one correctly. Imposing a penalty on the sheild from a shield spell on a person using a melee weapon is just lame.
Thanks Valegrim, that made things easier. All the attacks in a full attack can be sneak attacks assuming the PC continues to meet all the requirements.
The ring of force shield can be activated at the end of the PC's turn giving him the higher AC against all attacks other than AOOs. It can then be deactivated at the beginning of his turn to allow the two hand wield. The penalties are that he does not get the higher AC during his turn against AOOs and does not get to two hand wield for his own AOOs when the shield is "up".
And for the record, I welcome any and all constructive criticism, interpretations, corrections and personal experiences that will help me ensure that my judgements are as fair as possible.
There will be another "Help Tam" thread after our weekend games this saturday and sunday.
Thanks to everyone who responded.
Tam
|
|
Oh, and no way does picking up two items in your square require two move actions. Disarm attempts are standard actions and can not be compared. Damn the rules.
If you advocated the action taking two move actions don't take offense, I was just feeling rebelious. I deffinately respect and appreciate your opinion.
Tam
Ability modifiers add to the damage done by a melee or thrown weapon. Same damage as whatever the weapon is doing. Flaming et al. specifies that it does an 'extra X amount of energy damage'. Its clearly in addition to whatever the weapon is doing.That is not my assumption. It's also not obvious from the rules.
I have a hard time understanding whats unclear in the rules about something that does an extra 1d6 Cold Damage or Fire Damage or any other kind of energy damage. It seems extremely straight forward to me or at least the theory here seems straight forward. Possibly in actual practice its not so clear but the basic concept is.
I think it's entirely reasonable that shoving a flaming piece of steel deeper into a body would do more damage to a creature only damaged by fire. Similarly, I think that a more precise application of fire to vulnerable places (see Sneak Attack or Skirmish, for instance) would do more damage to a target.
Yeah - its arguable that this might be true but I don't think the mechanics support this contention.
I note, for instance, that there seems to be no prohibition on using sneak attack with a ray.
Umm...OK but I'm unclear why this is relevant. I'm not arguing that energy does no damage, I'm saying that the system specifies just how much damage an energy weapon does and the mechanics specify how to apply that.
I could almost agree with your system for the sake of simplicity but I don't see how it really saves much - I mean if I have resist fire up am I immune to a flaming sword? Does DR count? If I have both DR and Fire Resistance do they stack? Do I just get the best? If I wrap my flaming sword in a wet towel does that allow my to bypass the creatures fire resistance?
I don't think there is any simple answer. How does your scheme deal with holy damage, for instance? It isn't energy, and I don't think it's physical either. I see ER and DR as overlapping, and I think that's the natural way to read the rules, too. But I can see your point as well.
On a conceptual level Holy Damage is a conundrum if one wants to try and explain it in terms of some kind of energy - bane has the same issue.
Mechanically its simply not a factor - bane weapons and holy weapons are like magic light switches. They are either on or off. Nothing gives resistance 10 bane or resistance 10 holy so the physical and energy mechanics simply don't meet here. Either Bane and/or Holy apply or they don't. If they do apply they add to the physical damage that the weapon is doing and that helps overcome DR if DR is a factor. Its not actually a situation where one is mixing two distinct mechanics.
Also, to answer another question, holy damage is holy damage: "Half the damage is fire damage, but the other half results directly from divine power and is therefore not subject to being reduced by resistance to fire-based attacks." (From the flame strike spell description on the SRD.) Notice that the divine power damage does not automatically become fire damage simply by being associated with the fire part of the flame strike spell.Is it energy or physical damage? You'll note that it's not in the list of energy types; a cite would be helpful to support your position. If you do strength or precision damage with a holy sword, does that extra damage become holy? If you have a creature whose regeneration is stopped only by holy damage, would strength or precision damage added be non-lethal?
Good question.
My answer is "I have no idea - the rules don't say". Conveniently this will never be a problem because it will never come up. Creatures are either completely effected by holy damage or not effected at all.
Mechanically holy damage is either added to the damage that the weapon does - along with strength bonus and DR minuses or it does not apply and it does not get added.
This is not the same thing as trying to figure out what damage a flaming sword does to a Red Dragon under the influence of stone skin if one presumes that the flaming sword is simultaneously slashing and fire damage. Which is were I become confused with your method. Does my flaming longsword +1 even work on a Red Dragon? They are immune to fire and I'm doing fire damage but I'm also doing slashing damage.
Um....
I'm really baffled as to where the confusion over good aligned/energy typed weapons overcome DR/Energy Resistance/Immunity is coming from. There's no confusion at all in the RAW. Look in the glossary of your DMG, or here.
It doesn't matter if the crystal in the OP's question makes all the damage from a +1 frost-poker good aligned or not. The two things don't have anything to do with each other in regards to dealing damage.
Let us take a +2 frost longsword, made holy by the purchased crystal:
If you're fighting a creature with DR/good, but Immunity: cold, all the damage from the sword would get through, but the cold damage would be blocked completely. It doesn't matter if the cold is considered holy or not, that d6 of cold damage is not applied to DR, it is applied to the energy immunity. Since alignment is specified with DR, only damage applied to DR needs to be aligned to overcome it. All energy [type] damage is applied to immunities, vulnerabilities or resistances.
If you're fighting a creature with DR/evil but no immunities or resistances, none of the sword damage would get through, but the cold damage would sail past the DR like it wasn't even there.
If you're fighting a creature that has DR/good, Resist: Cold 10, the damage from the sword goes through completely and only the cold damage in surplus of 10 points gets through.
If you're fighting a creature that has DR/good, but no resistances or immunities, all the damage gets through.
Basically, energy damage can be holy if you want it to be, but that would be utterly irrelevant, and have no impact on the weapon's ability to penetrate DR, or the energy damage's ability to bypass immunity or resistance.
I'm with Sean, of course, on this one; that's how the game mechanics work. If you want to flavor them with various food additives, go ahead, but pancakes are still pancakes.
|
|
If you agree that you can sneak attack with a ray, then what sort of damage is the sneak attack damage? If it is the same sort as that delivered by the ray, then why can't sneak attack damage add to the extra d6 added by Frost?
Now, if you can find a place in the rules that says that various damage adders inherit the damage type of the physical weapon only and not any added damage, please let me know. Similarly, where does it say that the extra damage from a weapon's enhancement bonus adds only to the physical damage and not to the damage caused by any energy damage done by the weapon? For reference, the statement is:
Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5. They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat.
An extra d6 of Fire damage is a damage roll.
Here's the statement for high STR:
You apply your character’s Strength modifier to:
...
* Damage rolls when using a melee weapon ...
An extra d6 of Acid damage is a damage roll when using a melee weapon.
Here's the apposite part of the description for Regeneration:
Certain attack forms, typically fire and acid, deal damage to the creature normally; that sort of damage doesn’t convert to nonlethal damage and so doesn’t go away.
I can't find a specific description of "attack form"; please quote one if you find one. Absent that, I claim that an attack with a flaming sword is a "fire attack form", and that all damage from such an attack is therefore fire damage for the purposes of stopping regeneration.
Please feel free to show me anything in the rules that refutes that.
"Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5. They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat." An extra d6 of Fire damage is a damage roll. "You apply your character’s Strength modifier to Damage rolls when using a melee weapon ..." An extra d6 of Acid damage is a damage roll when using a melee weapon.
So, by this logic, does a 12-Str character with a +1 flaming longsword deals 1d8+2+1d6+2 damage? (adding strength to each damage roll made?). I know you didn't say that, but taken a step further, your post seems to imply it.
Hopefully, though, you'll concede that's against the spirit of the rules, if not the letter; common usage is that you add your Str damage only once per blow, for example. Reading the rules as literally is possible is obviously your forte, but in some rare cases it leads to rulings that are against the way everyone else plays the game. Now, if you wanted to make a call for 1d8+1d6+4 (above) in your game, I'd happily allow you to claim that you were being "official," and I'd happily claim my 1d8+1d6+2 as a "house rule"-- but I'd be playing the way pretty much the rest of the game-playing community was, and, in that case, you wouldn't.
Now, the way most people play, the 1d8 (and associated Str, etc.) from a steel +1 flaming longsword does not penetrate DR 10/silver, even if the target lacks resistance to fire. (And no, I have not taken a survey of 10,000 gamers minimum and performed a statistical analysis on it, so feel free to disbelieve me if you like; my feelings won't be hurt.)
The 1d6 fire damage is of course still effective, unless the target is also resistant to fire. Likewise with a regenerating creature. In this case, the protocol seems to be that, unless the rules explicitly state that the flamingproperty causes a sword to change its damage type from "slashing" to "slashing AND fire," then it does not.
Please feel free to show me anything in the rules that refutes that.
Nowhere do the rules explicitly state that casting bull's strength on someone else doesn't automatically turn you into a bunny rabbit for 1 round. No one can show you that rule. But common usage is that it does not. In this case, the burden is on you to show a rule that says the flaming property causes a sword to change its damage type from "slashing" to "slashing AND fire," not for Sean, Jeremy, et al. to show that it doesn't.
Again, no one will stop you from playing your way. And I won't even claim your way isn't "official." But in this one particular case, you may have to accept that most of the rest game-playing community is "houseruling" otherwise, nor will they change to your way without a stronger argument.
Game mechanics incompatibilities aside, Doug, it should probably be stated that I generally respect your posts a great deal, even when I might take a different view, and that I'd probably like you very much in person. It's rare to find someone of your obvious intelligence to "chop logic" with. The fact that I might disagree with some of your rulings should in no way be construed as anything other than that.
Whew - at the last second I choose to copy this to the clipboard - good thing too or I would have lost this post.
If you agree that you can sneak attack with a ray, then what sort of damage is the sneak attack damage? If it is the same sort as that delivered by the ray, then why can't sneak attack damage add to the extra d6 added by Frost?
I have to wonder if we are not beginning to talk past each other. My issue with your system is that you've mixed two different systems together, specifically the physical damage mechanics and the energy energy damage mechanics and this leads to contradictions and confusion when trying to apply these mechanics.
In the case of doing sneak damage with a ray - well I suppose one could probably design a character that could do that. Bit of a corner case but not impossible. In this case I would think that the sneak attack damage would be the same as the ray damage - probably an energy of some sort. we would not encounter a contradiction here because all of the damage would come from the energy type. DR would not apply but energy resistance might.
Now, if you can find a place in the rules that says that various damage adders inherit the damage type of the physical weapon only and not any added damage, please let me know......Similarly, where does it say that the extra damage from a weapon's enhancement bonus adds only to the physical damage and not to the damage caused by any energy damage done by the weapon?
The rules do not work like this. The rules tell us how to do something - how to apply a mechanic essentially. They don't include comprehensive lists of when not to apply a mechanic.
Nothing in the description of the dwarf description explains how regeneration or two weapon fighting works - its simply not relevant. Instead our hypothetical dwarf will apply regeneration mechanics if he somehow acquires that property from a spell or magic weapon. Furthermore if the Dwarf decides to use two weapons then the mechanics for fighting with two weapons would be referenced and these would then be applied to the dwarf.
Its the same thing with adding properties to a weapon. The rules tell us how to do something and you follow that mechanic to its conclusion. The rules are modular and one adds mechanics on top of old mechanics. Each 'module' tells you how it works - if it changes how a more basic 'module' or mechanic functions then that is specified in the new 'module'. If its not specified then the original mechanic continues to function as they did prior to the inclusion of this new 'module'.
Generally speaking the rules don't presume that the mechanic needs to reference the other mechanics simply to preclude their inclusion.
Specifically:
We know how a mundane long sword works. The rules explain this. Strength benefits or penalties would be added to attacks with said sword as per the rules under strength.
We could go out and get a long sword with the masterwork property. If we did that then the mechanics under masterwork weapons would now apply to the sword but it would otherwise function like a normal sword.
We could then decide to enchant the sword and make it a long sword +1. If we did this then the mechanics for magical +1 weapons would now apply on top of the old mechanics for mundane swords.
Finally we can go off and get our long sword +1 further enchanted and add the flaming property to the sword. If we do that our sword functions just like it did when it was a long sword +1 except for these very specific additions listed under the flaming property
FlamingUpon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given. A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit.
This is a very specific mechanic - the flaming property never references strength because its not actually relevant to the flaming property in any way. If it was relevant to the flaming property then the mechanics under flaming would note that and explain, mechanically, how this was supposed to work. Nor does anything under the flaming property specify that the damage type of the weapon has changed in any way. Instead its given a specific addition to the weapon on top of whatever it did before the flaming property was added. Specifically the weapon now does an extra 1d6 fire damage - thats it. It does not make the rest of the weapons damage fire damage because the mechanic under flaming never specifies that it does that. Any Strength damage done by this weapon does not become fire damage because the mechanic under flaming does not say that it does - like wise a strength penalty does not apply to this damage because nowhere in this mechanic does it say that this would be the case.