# Little Known Rules of D&D



## Aleolus (Aug 31, 2007)

OK, this post is to see how many of us know about rules that are in existence and in the official books, but that almost no one knows of or uses.  I have 2, included below.

1: If you score a critical hit twice in sequence on any one given opponent, you automatically kill them.

2: Only non-evil alignments are supposed to be available for PCs.


----------



## Oryan77 (Aug 31, 2007)

Cool thread. Can you post page numbers for the rules that you find like that?


----------



## Gnome (Aug 31, 2007)

I'd like to know, too.  I couldn't find anything about the critical hit rule in the SRD.


----------



## Vorput (Aug 31, 2007)

Gnome said:
			
		

> I'd like to know, too.  I couldn't find anything about the critical hit rule in the SRD.




I'm pretty sure that's cause its not an official rule.


----------



## Aleolus (Aug 31, 2007)

Well, my source for the crit rule is Rusty, who's another poster on these forums, so if he can post a book and page, great.  As for the other one I posted, 



			
				gnfnrf said:
			
		

> From the 3.5 PHB, p. 105
> 
> 
> 
> ...




This was put in response to a question about an alignment ruling that I use for my games.


----------



## the_myth (Aug 31, 2007)

ah...claims without evidence.

It's like teaching undergraduate college writing all over again.


----------



## Aleolus (Aug 31, 2007)

Sorry, I found what he was refering to, he was right.  Edited my above post to be accurate.


----------



## Wolfspider (Aug 31, 2007)

the_myth said:
			
		

> ah...claims without evidence.
> 
> It's like teaching undergraduate college writing all over again.




Indeed.


----------



## Christian (Aug 31, 2007)

Gnome said:
			
		

> I'd like to know, too.  I couldn't find anything about the critical hit rule in the SRD.




It's a variant rule, but it is in a core book ... DMG pg. 28.


----------



## Goblyn (Aug 31, 2007)

Displacer beasts speak common: MM66


----------



## gnfnrf (Aug 31, 2007)

Abjurations in close proximity for a day or more glow, becoming easier to find.

PHB p. 81 (in the Search skill description)



> Active abjuration spells within 10 feet of each other for 24 hours
> or more create barely visible energy fluctuations. These fluctuations
> give you a +4 bonus on Search checks to locate such abjuration
> spells.




--
gnfnrf


----------



## Tonguez (Aug 31, 2007)

Spells are _Feats_


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Aug 31, 2007)

Part (a). If you tie in a grapple check or trip, the higher modifier wins or you reroll if they are the same.

Part (b). You cannot tie in a disarm or sunder.  You either beat the defender (i.e. higher) or you don't.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Aug 31, 2007)

There's a few weird things with Space (same stuff in 3.0).  An example would be splash weapons.  If you hit a medium victim with a splash weapon, you would splash an additional 8 squares (those adjacent).  If you took the same weapon and targeted a large victim, however, then you would splash an additional 12 squares.

Another one is that a large creature has Reach to two diagonal squares, not one or one and a half.  It seems like 15ft, but it's better (apparently) to overcompensate than to shorten the Reach to 5ft (or 7½).


----------



## Delta (Aug 31, 2007)

Aleolus said:
			
		

> 1: If you score a critical hit twice in sequence on any one given opponent, you automatically kill them.




It's "Variant: Instant Kill", and as I see it in 3.0 DMG p. 64, you really need to roll natural 20 --> natural 20 --> confrm a hit. "The instant kill only applies to natural 20s", not just a series of criticals.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Aug 31, 2007)

If the 20-sided die lands cocked, you can nudge it toward the more favorable number _if you are quick enough._


----------



## Goldmoon (Aug 31, 2007)

All summoned creatures from the summon monster spells speak at least one language, usually common.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 31, 2007)

Goldmoon said:
			
		

> All summoned creatures from the summon monster spells speak at least one language, usually common.




That's _understand_, not speak... and you're overgeneralising.

The Lemure, for example, is mindless and cannot communicate.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Aug 31, 2007)

Goblyn said:
			
		

> Displacer beasts speak common: MM66




As do Otyughs!

I based an entire non-combat encounter around that piece of trivia 

-Hyp.


----------



## frankthedm (Aug 31, 2007)

Here is one...







			
				Jump skill said:
			
		

> If your speed is less than 30 feet, you take a -6 penalty for every 10 feet of speed less than 30 feet. If your speed is greater than 30 feet, you gain a +4 bonus for every 10 feet beyond 30 feet.


----------



## Goldmoon (Aug 31, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> That's _understand_, not speak... and you're overgeneralising.
> 
> The Lemure, for example, is mindless and cannot communicate.
> 
> -Hyp.




You are correct of course. I meant to say understand.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 31, 2007)

Here's a little known rule:

Dwarves have darkvision.
















What?


----------



## Chu Li (Aug 31, 2007)

Ride skill, spurring: THE way to monster annihilation!

odd...

ChuLi


----------



## Dice4Hire (Aug 31, 2007)

the_myth said:
			
		

> ah...claims without evidence.
> 
> It's like teaching undergraduate college writing all over again.




Don't remind me, I get to do this with kids who are not even native English speakers. Let me tell you that adds a whole new level

A whole new level.......


----------



## Whimsical (Aug 31, 2007)

When directing your mount to jump, your Ride check _and_ the mount's Jump check must make the Jump DC. _(SRD citation)_

To get an animal to do one of its tricks it knows, you must make a DC 10 Handle Animal check. Normally not an issue, except in combat when players forget about this.
Although Handle Animal is a Trained Only skill, you can use it untrained for handling or pushing (DC 25) an animal. _(SRD citation)_

Are you mounted? Would you like +4 to your AC for doing nothing? Sure, we all do. Make a DC 15 check and you can use your mount as cover. _No Action Required!_. You can have it any time you are not attacking. Like, _right after_ you attack. _(SRD citation)_

If you are running or charging across uneven flagstone, hewn stone floor, a sloped or angled floor, or a narrow surface (12" or less), you must make a Balance check of DC 10. _(SRD citation)_

Mr. Tank: "But my Balance score is -8"
Mr. DM: "Sucks to be you. Roll it!"

Since we are on the subject, when is the last time that you have seen uneven flagstone, hewn stone floor, a sloped or angled floor, or a narrow surface in a game that you have played or DM'd? C'mon. Throw some in the next game you run. Especially in front of the big nasty monster that is 40"+ away from the players.


----------



## Goblyn (Aug 31, 2007)

gnfnrf said:
			
		

> Abjurations in close proximity for a day or more glow, becoming easier to find.
> 
> PHB p. 81 (in the Search skill description)
> 
> ...




Now _that_ I didn't know about at all.


----------



## mvincent (Aug 31, 2007)

1) Detect evil can detect non-evil undead (like lawful good ghosts).
2) The terms Extradimensional and nondimensional space mean the same thing in D&D (both are used to describe a portable hole).
3) Bulette's refuse to eat elves


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Sep 1, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> As do Otyughs!
> 
> I based an entire non-combat encounter around that piece of trivia
> 
> -Hyp.




Yes, but they only know one word: poop.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 1, 2007)

mvincent said:
			
		

> 3) Bulette's refuse to eat elves




But the 1E version loved burrowing for halflings 

-Hyp.


----------



## rgard (Sep 1, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> But the 1E version loved burrowing for halflings
> 
> -Hyp.




Bulettes are obviously very eco-friendly.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 1, 2007)

Whimsical said:
			
		

> Since we are on the subject, when is the last time that you have seen uneven flagstone, hewn stone floor, a sloped or angled floor, or a narrow surface in a game that you have played or DM'd? C'mon. Throw some in the next game you run. Especially in front of the big nasty monster that is 40"+ away from the players.




I mostly run purchased modules due to lack of time to be creative, but I sometimes throw in difficult terrain even if the module doesn't call for it. However, it never occurred to me to throw in sloped floors.

Way cool!  

Sucks to be my players from now on.


----------



## Tonguez (Sep 1, 2007)

gnfnrf said:
			
		

> Abjurations in close proximity for a day or more glow, becoming easier to find.
> PHB p. 81 (in the Search skill description)




This is something I didn't know (and suspect lots of people didn't know it either)



			
				mvincent said:
			
		

> 1) Detect evil can detect non-evil undead (like lawful good ghosts).




Detect Evil also detects the non-evil clerics of evil gods (so maybe the cleric is neutral ok)



			
				Whimsical said:
			
		

> Since we are on the subject, when is the last time that you have seen uneven flagstone, hewn stone floor, a sloped or angled floor, or a narrow surface in a game that you have played or DM'd? C'mon. Throw some in the next game you run. Especially in front of the big nasty monster that is 40"+ away from the players.




Since my current campaign has used a philosophy of 'natural dungeons only' I tend to always throw in some uneven ground, narrow ledges and funny angles to challenge the PCs.


----------



## RefinedBean (Sep 1, 2007)

All gnomes giggle when you kiss them.  Even if they're undead, charmed, dominated, dazed, stunned, nauseated, shaken, completely paralyzed, or were reincarnated from a different race originally.  The giggle will be sincere and melodic.

This comes in handy with doppleganger issues.  Go nuts.


----------



## UltimaGabe (Sep 1, 2007)

Whimsical said:
			
		

> If you are running or charging across uneven flagstone, hewn stone floor, a sloped or angled floor, or a narrow surface (12" or less), you must make a Balance check of DC 10. _(SRD citation)_
> 
> Mr. Tank: "But my Balance score is -8"
> Mr. DM: "Sucks to be you. Roll it!"




Additionally, any time you're forced to make a balance check (such as from uneven flagstone, a narrow surface, a slippery surface, so on), you automatically lose your Dexterity bonus to AC unless you've got 5 ranks in Balance.

Who actually puts ranks in Balance these days? Come on. Too easy.

So be sure to put in lots of uneven flagstone, sloped floors, ice, whatever, and make sure there's plenty of well-balanced rogues to spread around.


----------



## Belbarid (Sep 1, 2007)

mvincent said:
			
		

> 3) Bulette's refuse to eat elves




Which is why I will only play elves.  Can't be too careful, you know...


----------



## Drowbane (Sep 1, 2007)

Belbarid said:
			
		

> Which is why I will only play elves.  Can't be too careful, you know...




Thri-kreen, on the other hand, consider elves a delicacy!


----------



## cheshire_grin (Sep 1, 2007)

UltimaGabe said:
			
		

> Additionally, any time you're forced to make a balance check (such as from uneven flagstone, a narrow surface, a slippery surface, so on), you automatically lose your Dexterity bonus to AC unless you've got 5 ranks in Balance.
> 
> Who actually puts ranks in Balance these days? Come on. Too easy.



Warblades? Rogues who might spend a fair amount of time on rooftops?


----------



## Thikket (Sep 1, 2007)

Chu Li said:
			
		

> Ride skill, spurring: THE way to monster annihilation!
> odd...




I have to give props to Chu Li, because I don't think anyone else on this thread has yet! The concept of breaking the Ride skill to cheat out a kill on a monster is hilarious, but almost in keeping with what we might expect in a fantasy game... Imagine someone (an elf!) "riding down" a bulette.



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Spur Mount  (DC 15)
> 
> You can spur your mount to greater speed with a move action. A successful Ride check increases the mount’s speed by 10 feet for 1 round but deals 1 point of damage to the creature. You can use this ability every round, but each consecutive round of additional speed deals twice as much damage to the mount as the previous round (2 points, 4 points, 8 points, and so on).




Is there a way you could attempt to ride a (mindless?) monster and designate it as your mount, then deal stupid metagame damage to it using this easy ability? All that I see on this topic is a quote from the same page: "If you attempt to ride a creature that is ill-suited as a mount, you take a -5 penalty on your Ride checks."

Has anyone ever tried this before?


----------



## Vegepygmy (Sep 1, 2007)

Wizards don't need a spellbook to prepare _read magic_.  PHB, page 178.


----------



## Tonguez (Sep 1, 2007)

Talking about Detect Evil
- The Detect Evil spell makes absolutely no mention of evil alignmnet, the only reference to alignment is to 'creatures of good alignment' (_okay maybe not a rule per se_)



			
				Thikket said:
			
		

> Is there a way you could attempt to ride a (mindless?) monster and designate it as your mount, then deal stupid metagame damage to it using this easy ability? All that I see on this topic is a quote from the same page: "If you attempt to ride a creature that is ill-suited as a mount, you take a -5 penalty on your Ride checks."
> 
> Has anyone ever tried this before?




I've tried to ride a monster before (I jumped onto a shark) but unfortunately we were'nt aware of this rule and so never tried to kill it (damn!)
Also doesn't a creature have to be trained before it can be considered a mount?


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Sep 2, 2007)

One little known rule I've used to hose many a fellow PC in a spar or duel is: If you haven't moved at all and you ready an action, you can take a 5 ft step as part of the readied action.  Best general usage being if the foe has a reach weapon and you do not.

It's a common known rule to me, but earlier in the year, it came up that Mage Armor is "Target: Creature touched" and not personal.  No one else at the gaming table believed me.  We ended up arguing about it for about ten minutes, which included me showing them the spell description and even digging out an old 3.0 copy when they claimed, "Oh, that must've been one of those small changes from 3.0 to 3.5," and then another five minutes of them exclaiming their shock, posting in threads to see who else knew of this, and other idiocy. *sigh*


----------



## HellHound (Sep 2, 2007)

Tonguez said:
			
		

> I've tried to ride a monster before (I jumped onto a shark) but unfortunately we were'nt aware of this rule and so never tried to kill it (damn!)




It's now official.

Tonguez jumped the shark.


----------



## AnonymousOne (Sep 2, 2007)

Tonguez said:
			
		

> Also doesn't a creature have to be trained before it can be considered a mount?



You can mount damn near anything, the trick is staying on.


----------



## cheshire_grin (Sep 2, 2007)

StreamOfTheSky said:
			
		

> It's a common known rule to me, but earlier in the year, it came up that Mage Armor is "Target: Creature touched" and not personal.  No one else at the gaming table believed me.  We ended up arguing about it for about ten minutes, which included me showing them the spell description and even digging out an old 3.0 copy when they claimed, "Oh, that must've been one of those small changes from 3.0 to 3.5," and then another five minutes of them exclaiming their shock, posting in threads to see who else knew of this, and other idiocy. *sigh*



It didn't occur to you to just pull up the 3.5 SRD entry?


----------



## Modoc (Sep 2, 2007)

I know it was mentioned at the beginning of this thread, but you could guys/gals cite your sources so everyone can find them as well.


----------



## Aleolus (Sep 2, 2007)

RefinedBean said:
			
		

> All gnomes giggle when you kiss them.  Even if they're undead, charmed, dominated, dazed, stunned, nauseated, shaken, completely paralyzed, or were reincarnated from a different race originally.  The giggle will be sincere and melodic.
> 
> This comes in handy with doppleganger issues.  Go nuts.




...And where did you find this out at?  I have Races of Stone, so I should probably looks Gnomes up and read through their full entry to find that.


----------



## Oryan77 (Sep 2, 2007)

Thikket said:
			
		

> Is there a way you could attempt to ride a (mindless?) monster and designate it as your mount,



I think Gelatinous Cubes are mindless aren't they? And they can be used as mounts according to the Arms & Equipment Guide (I think that's where I've seen this), they can be used as mounts    It has a special harness just for the Gel Cube.

I guess this can also be considered my little unknown rule...I never hear people talk about this or mention getting a Gel Cube as a mount


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 2, 2007)

Oryan77 said:
			
		

> I think Gelatinous Cubes are mindless aren't they? And they can be used as mounts according to the Arms & Equipment Guide (I think that's where I've seen this), they can be used as mounts    It has a special harness just for the Gel Cube.
> 
> I guess this can also be considered my little unknown rule...I never hear people talk about this or mention getting a Gel Cube as a mount



Ah, that reminds me, I always wanted to play an Oozemaster (okay, not really, I preferred the Shifter...).


----------



## skelso (Sep 3, 2007)

Clerics, Druids, Rangers and Paladins can research and create brand new spells in the same way that Wizards can.  (PHB p. 180)

I thought this was general knowledge, but I saw a thread somewhere of people discussing the idea as an optional rule, rather than an actual PHB listed ability.


----------



## Thurbane (Sep 3, 2007)

Combat Casting adds +4 to your Concentration check only when casting defensively. Skill Focus (Concentration) adds +3 to your Concentration checks all the time. 

...so when's the last time you saw anyone with Skill Focus:Concentration?


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 3, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> Combat Casting adds +4 to your Concentration check only when casting defensively.



 In actuality, "You get a +4 bonus on Concentration checks made to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability while on the defensive or while you are grappling or pinned."  Once you can successfully cast a spell defensively (i.e. once your bonus is high enough), you should always do it because then you get the +4 bonus vs. any other Concentration checks while casting (such as if someone readied to interrupt you with an arrow or it's a full round spell, etc.).  Skill Focus (Concentration) is a terrible choice unless required for an unbalanced PrC.


----------



## Thurbane (Sep 3, 2007)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> In actuality, "You get a +4 bonus on Concentration checks made to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability while on the defensive or while you are grappling or pinned."  Once you can successfully cast a spell defensively (i.e. once your bonus is high enough), you should always do it because then you get the +4 bonus vs. any other Concentration checks while casting (such as if someone readied to interrupt you with an arrow or it's a full round spell, etc.).  Skill Focus (Concentration) is a terrible choice unless required for an unbalanced PrC.



Really? I could have sworn that was not how Combat Casting works...


----------



## Vegepygmy (Sep 3, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> Really? I could have sworn that was not how Combat Casting works...



No, not really.  I2K's interpretation relies on a pretty loose definition of "while."


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 3, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> Combat Casting adds +4 to your Concentration check only when casting defensively. Skill Focus (Concentration) adds +3 to your Concentration checks all the time.
> 
> ...so when's the last time you saw anyone with Skill Focus:Concentration?



It's standard for most spellcasters in my group, but then, we know the rules pretty well. 

(The only rule so far I didn't really know of was the rule on Abjurations in close proximity.)


----------



## Victim (Sep 3, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> Combat Casting adds +4 to your Concentration check only when casting defensively. Skill Focus (Concentration) adds +3 to your Concentration checks all the time.
> 
> ...so when's the last time you saw anyone with Skill Focus:Concentration?




I've only seen people take Combat Casting to get into PrCs.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Sep 3, 2007)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Skill Focus (Concentration) is a terrible choice unless required for an unbalanced PrC.



Or if you want to cast while on a moving mount, or on a rocking boat, or in harsh weather, or while _concentrating_ on an active spell, or while entangled, or if you get hit while casting (even if not casting defensively), or if you need to recover some kind of focus, or ... 

Generally speaking, Skill Focus (Concentration), while still fairly suck-tastic, beats Combat Casting all to hell.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 3, 2007)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> Generally speaking, Skill Focus (Concentration), while still fairly suck-tastic, beats Combat Casting all to hell.




Yup.

Which is why taking a Single Minded Psicrystal gains the abilities of two feats: Skill Focus Concentration and Alertness.

It doesn't give the first feat for purposes of PrCs, but it gives the +3.

Combat Casting and Combat Manifesting are "terrible choices unless required for an unbalanced PrC" (like Enlightened Fist).

+3 all of the time is generally better than +4 some of the time. And in our games, NPCs are sometimes smart enough to try to disrupt spell casting with readied missile fire or spells.


Note: This assumes that I2K's interpretation is incorrect which I think it is. If that were the intention of Combat Casting (to always give a +4 bonus), it would be spelled out more clearly than that. If this were designer intent, it would say "caster gets a +4 bonus to all Concentration checks". This concept of only doing it when needed at low level and always doing it at high level is a play on words and not designer intent.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 3, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Note: This assumes that I2K's interpretation is incorrect which I think it is. If that were the intention of Combat Casting (to always give a +4 bonus), it would be spelled out more clearly than that. If this were designer intent, it would say "caster gets a +4 bonus to all Concentration checks". This concept of only doing it when needed at low level and always doing it at high level is a play on words and not designer intent.



 Do you think it's incorrect per the rules or as per designer intent?  There's a significant difference.  I think it's correct as per the rules.  As per designer intent, my support lies in the fact that the DC for casting defensively is ludicrously low, as you seemingly agree.  So, the designer intent must otherwise be that combat casting is useless at higher levels?


----------



## akbearfoot (Sep 3, 2007)

The casting time on the spell Lesser Restoration is 3 rounds...Most games Ive seen treat it as a standard action.

The casting time on Sleep is 1 full round.  pretty useless when a spellcraft check and a move action can make you immune to it, or the guards can all sound the alarm and charge you once you stand up from the bushes and start waving your hands around for 6 seconds.

The casting time on Enlarge person is 1 round.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 3, 2007)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Do you think it's incorrect per the rules or as per designer intent?  There's a significant difference.  I think it's correct as per the rules.
> I think it is not the intent of either.




Both.

I think it is clear that the +4 is for the act of Casting Defensively or Casting while Grappling or Pinned.

An additional Concentration roll is needed for taking damage. The fact that the caster happens to be casting defensively at the time does not mean that the second Concentration check gets the +4. It means that the feat was poorly worded.



			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> As per designer intent, my support lies in the fact that the DC for casting defensively is ludicrously low, as you seemingly agree.  So, the designer intent must otherwise be that combat casting is useless at higher levels?




Useless? This is your rationale for interpreting what is written in a way in which it was not intended?

I think that forcing a Sorcerer who typically only has two skill points per level to take Concentration every level when there are skills like Spellcraft and Knowledge Arcana and other skills makes Combat Casting hardly useless at high level. It allows the Sorcerer to concentrate on other skills and not focus on Concentration every level. So, your rationale here is suspect.


Your interpretation here is a semantical loophole. A trick of the words when viewed in one specific way.

You know it. I know it. If they had meant +4 to all Concentration checks, they would have stated +4 to all Concentration checks. They were quite explicit in what the bonus is for. It is mere happenstance that the phrase "while on the defensive" allows for your interpretation.


Let's turn your question around. Do you really think that the designers intended for Combat Casting to rarely (almost never) be helpful at low level against Readied Missile attacks and for it to always be helpful against that at high level? Do you really think that Combat Casting was designed to be more frequently useful at high level than at low level?


Finally, look at balance. If Combat Casting is +4 for all concentration rolls while casting, why is it in the game at all when Skill Focus Concentration exists? Sure, there are better feats than core feats in the splat books, but there are not any feats in the core books TMK that are virtually the exact same feat with one being better.

Skill Focus Concentration is +3 to all Concentration.
Combat Casting is +4 for Combat Casting and casting while grappled or pinned Concentration rolls.

One is broader, but a lower bonus. One is narrower, but a higher bonus.

Pros and Cons.

Hence, your interpretation and your rationale for it is suspect. IMO.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 4, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> This is your rationale for interpreting what is written in a way in which it was not intended?



 Intended?  You write this like it's true.  Try not to use opinions as if they are fact unless we agree upon them.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> You know it. I know it.



 Well, then, since we both 'know it', you must now agree with me.  The rest of your commentary just became moot.


----------



## jeffh (Sep 4, 2007)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Intended?  You write this like it's true.  Try not to use opinions as if they are fact unless we agree upon them.



You mean it's not obvious to you that it _is _true?



> Well, then, since we both 'know it', you must now agree with me.  The rest of your commentary just became moot.



This is the _exact_ same sort of tortured interpretation and twisting of others' words that you're committing with your first post, and you know it.


----------



## Three_Haligonians (Sep 4, 2007)

Back on track....

How about the "Getting Lost" rules on p. 86-87 of the DMG?


J from Three Haligonians


----------



## KingCrab (Sep 4, 2007)

akbearfoot said:
			
		

> The casting time on Sleep is 1 full round.  pretty useless when a spellcraft check and a move action can make you immune to it, or the guards can all sound the alarm and charge you once you stand up from the bushes and start waving your hands around for 6 seconds.




Don't you get to specify the location at the end of the casting time?  Or do you have to specify the area at the beginning of the casting?  I guess you could move completely out of sight so you couldn't be targeted, if there was a door or corner or something.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 4, 2007)

Gentlemen, let's dial back a bit on the snark, please.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 4, 2007)

KingCrab said:
			
		

> Don't you get to specify the location at the end of the casting time?  Or do you have to specify the area at the beginning of the casting?  I guess you could move completely out of sight so you couldn't be targeted, if there was a door or corner or something.




The rule in 3E: _The character must make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, version, etc.) when the character begins casting._

The rule in 3.5: _You make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, version, and so forth) when the spell comes into effect._

But yes, if you can break line of effect while he's casting, you'll theoretically be safe from the spell even in 3.5.

-Hyp.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 4, 2007)

Hypersmurf has just jumped the snark.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 4, 2007)

jeffh said:
			
		

> You mean it's not obvious to you that it _is _true?



 No, definitely not.  IMO, Combat Casting (CC) is a feat intended to be useful during combat throughout the character's life.  My interpretation does that.  Yours (and others) allow for it to be useful only during some parts of combat and then only for low levels, never higher levels.  Perhaps that is partly an artifact of outside circumstances (like limited skill points, poor choice of DCs, etc.), but those are confounding variables and not really relevant.  In other words, I don't agree that this argument is valid: "The intent on X is clear because we have Y."  Substitute your interpretation of CC for X and 2 skill points/level for a sorcerer for Y.  That argument is specious.

So, I say again that what you think is the intent is anything but fact.  As KD said, "You know it. I know it."


----------



## Cheiromancer (Sep 4, 2007)

I wonder if it might not be better to fork a thread about Combat Casting.  Then this thread could return to the task of collecting Little Known Rules.


----------



## Aleolus (Sep 5, 2007)

Sounds like a plan.  Anyone else want to get the Combat Casting thread started, or should I do it?


----------



## Aleolus (Sep 5, 2007)

RefinedBean said:
			
		

> All gnomes giggle when you kiss them.  Even if they're undead, charmed, dominated, dazed, stunned, nauseated, shaken, completely paralyzed, or were reincarnated from a different race originally.  The giggle will be sincere and melodic.
> 
> This comes in handy with doppleganger issues.  Go nuts.




And I'm still looking for a source for this.


----------



## cheshire_grin (Sep 5, 2007)

Aleolus said:
			
		

> And I'm still looking for a source for this.



Pretty sure he was being humorous, I have a hard time believing this is at all supported in the text.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 5, 2007)

Some time ago, I wanted to have an NPC druid cast _awaken_ on a party animal. But I discovered an inconvenient fact about that spell:

_Awaken
Transmutation
Level: Drd 5 
Components: V, S, DF, XP 
*Casting Time: 24 hours *  
Range: Touch 
Target: Animal or tree touched 
Duration: Instantaneous 
Saving Throw: Will negates 
Spell Resistance: Yes _ 

So I invented a wondrous item I call _food for thought_ imbued with the spell to get around this problem.

I really wonder how you persuade a bear to let you hug it for 24 hours, to say nothing of staying awake during that time and making all Concentration checks.


----------



## RefinedBean (Sep 5, 2007)

My source is the Book of Erotic Fantasy.  Just kidding...although I hear it's quite the, ah, interesting read.

Maybe I should take my attempts at brevity and humor and ride off into the sunset, eh?

Although I'd love to see any serious book use the term "The giggle will be sincere and melodic."  Tee hee.


----------



## Angerland (Sep 5, 2007)

One that I found surprising when playing a druid character:

The knowledge check to make in order to keep from getting lost in an outdoor setting is Knowledge:Geography, not as I thought, Survival.

Guess which one of those is NOT on the Druids class skill list.


----------



## Tetsubo (Sep 5, 2007)

Angerland said:
			
		

> One that I found surprising when playing a druid character:
> 
> The knowledge check to make in order to keep from getting lost in an outdoor setting is Knowledge:Geography, not as I thought, Survival.
> 
> Guess which one of those is NOT on the Druids class skill list.




But it makes perfect sense to use Survival for an "intuit direction" check. I would use Survival to know which direction is North for example. Just knowing that saves a lot of getting lost...


----------



## Thurbane (Sep 5, 2007)

*Correction*

Under Survival, it lists:

DC15 - Keep from *getting lost* or avoid natural hazards, such as quicksand.

http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/skillsAll.html#survival

http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/wildernessAndEnvironment.html#getting-lost


----------



## cheshire_grin (Sep 5, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I really wonder how you persuade a bear to let you hug it for 24 hours, to say nothing of staying awake during that time and making all Concentration checks.



You've never stayed awake for 24 hours straight? It's entirely possible, although you definitely want some sleep afterwards.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 5, 2007)

Whimsical said:
			
		

> When directing your mount to jump, your Ride check _and_ the mount's Jump check must make the Jump DC. _(SRD citation)_




Not correct.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/ride.htm



> You can get your mount to leap obstacles as part of its movement. Use your Ride modifier *or* the mount’s Jump modifier, whichever is lower, to see how far the creature can jump.




You just use the lower of the two.


----------



## RangerWickett (Sep 5, 2007)

Likewise, it takes 24 hours to scribe a spell into your spellbook. This fact made our wizard quite irritated when we played Red Hand of Doom, which has a strict deadline.


----------



## Tonguez (Sep 5, 2007)

cheshire_grin said:
			
		

> You've never stayed awake for 24 hours straight? It's entirely possible, although you definitely want some sleep afterwards.




It also helps that in DnD you actually don't need to sleep at all. There are no rules for fatigue or ill-effects from sleep deprivation (unless you are a wizard wanting spells)



			
				cheshire_grin said:
			
		

> Pretty sure he was being humorous, I have a hard time believing this is at all supported in the text.




Yeah I think so was Aleolus


----------



## cheshire_grin (Sep 5, 2007)

Tonguez said:
			
		

> It also helps that in DnD you actually don't need to sleep at all. There are no rules for fatigue or ill-effects from sleep deprivation (unless you are a wizard wanting spells)



Not entirely true. There are rules for what happens when you are fatigued/exhausted (see here); you may be right that there's no rules for how one gets that way short of specific situations/abilities/spells (such as sleeping in medium or heavy armor, for example).

As a DM I would probably rule that if you go more than 16 hours straight without sleep, you have to make a CON check (or a Fort save, perhaps), with a circumstance penalty of -1 for each hour thereafter, or become fatigued. I'm kind of surprised this isn't in the rules already, honestly.


----------



## Angerland (Sep 5, 2007)

I think 16 hours is a little early for a fatigue check.


----------



## Dread Polack (Sep 5, 2007)

Jump skill said:
			
		

> If your speed is less than 30 feet, you take a -6 penalty for every 10 feet of speed less than 30 feet. If your speed is greater than 30 feet, you gain a +4 bonus for every 10 feet beyond 30 feet.




This is why my Monk never took ranks in Jump past 1st level. By 18th level, I had +28 to jump,  maxed out my vertical jump on an average roll, and could jump 38 feet reliably out of combat.

Don't forget that Barbarians get +4 for their increased speed too.

Dread Polack


----------



## Dread Polack (Sep 5, 2007)

StreamOfTheSky said:
			
		

> One little known rule I've used to hose many a fellow PC in a spar or duel is: If you haven't moved at all and you ready an action, you can take a 5 ft step as part of the readied action.  Best general usage being if the foe has a reach weapon and you do not.




Related to this, I think a lot of people forget:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack
> 
> After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out. If you’ve already taken a 5-foot step, you can’t use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.




About halfway through my last campaign, I learned about and took full advantage of this option:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Aid Another
> 
> In melee combat, you can help a friend attack or defend by distracting or interfering with an opponent. If you’re in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat, you can attempt to aid your friend as a standard action. You make an attack roll against AC 10. If you succeed, your friend gains either a +2 bonus on his next attack roll against that opponent or a +2 bonus to AC against that opponent’s next attack (your choice), as long as that attack comes before the beginning of your next turn. Multiple characters can aid the same friend, and similar bonuses stack.
> 
> You can also use this standard action to help a friend in other ways, such as when he is affected by a spell, or to assist another character’s skill check.




I used it most often when my monk couldn't break through a target's DR or hit his AC. Lending a little survivability to the fighter, or an effective +4 damage to his 3+ attacks often helped a lot.

A good way to munchkin it was to Aid Another _defensively_ because even with a -4 to hit, it was only AC 10, and I got a nice +3 to my own AC (5+ ranks in Tumble).

This was the next best option to flanking and double-teaming a monster, but it was better than sitting around and watching.


----------



## Dread Polack (Sep 5, 2007)

Oh, and it might be a little-know rule, but perhaps an often-missed rule:

Don't forget your synergy bonuses!

Dread Polack


----------



## Voadam (Sep 5, 2007)

RefinedBean said:
			
		

> My source is the Book of Erotic Fantasy.  Just kidding...although I hear it's quite the, ah, interesting read.
> 
> Maybe I should take my attempts at brevity and humor and ride off into the sunset, eh?
> 
> Although I'd love to see any serious book use the term "The giggle will be sincere and melodic."  Tee hee.




Humor in these threads is fine. Just use a    when doing humor and nobody should misstake it for nonhumor.


----------



## RefinedBean (Sep 5, 2007)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Humor in these threads is fine. Just use a    when doing humor and nobody should misstake it for nonhumor.




Too late, I've already been frightened off for good.

Oh, and:    

There, covered my bases!


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 5, 2007)

Dread Polack said:
			
		

> A good way to munchkin it was to Aid Another _defensively_ because even with a -4 to hit, it was only AC 10, and I got a nice +3 to my own AC (5+ ranks in Tumble).




While this is arguably fine (though there are also arguments against it - while you are making an attack roll, you aren't actually attacking), note that you can't use Combat Expertise while Aiding Another.

-Hyp.


----------



## TYPO5478 (Sep 5, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Not correct.
> 
> http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/ride.htm
> 
> You just use the lower of the two.



Right, so *both* of the checks have to beat the DC to make the jump.  Whimsical's correct.  Maybe he phrased it strangely, but he's not wrong.


----------



## Legildur (Sep 6, 2007)

TYPO5478 said:
			
		

> Right, so *both* of the checks have to beat the DC to make the jump.  Whimsical's correct.  Maybe he phrased it strangely, but he's not wrong.



No, you use only one CHECK, but using the lower modifier.


----------



## mvincent (Sep 6, 2007)

Dread Polack said:
			
		

> Don't forget your synergy bonuses!



Well... technically "synergy bonuses" no longer exist in 3.5. They are now just "bonuses"... from synergy...

From the 3.5 FAQ:
_"The bonuses listed in the synergy section of a skill
description are unnamed and so they stack. (There’s no such
thing as a synergy bonus in the current edition of the D&D
game.)"_


----------



## danzig138 (Sep 6, 2007)

mvincent said:
			
		

> Well... technically "synergy bonuses" no longer exist in 3.5. They are now just "bonuses"... from synergy...



Damn, good catch.


----------



## cheshire_grin (Sep 6, 2007)

Angerland said:
			
		

> I think 16 hours is a little early for a fatigue check.



I'm assuming normal "adventuring" activity, i.e. marching/riding, some combat, exploring dungeons, etc.

College students don't have to check for at least 36 hours.


----------



## Thurbane (Sep 6, 2007)

Characters other than (some) spell casters don't need to sleep at all, since there are technically no rules to cover effects from lack of sleep, or how much sleep a character needs.


----------



## cheshire_grin (Sep 6, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> Characters other than (some) spell casters don't need to sleep at all, since there are technically no rules to cover effects from lack of sleep, or how much sleep a character needs.



Yes, which is why I said


			
				cheshire_grin said:
			
		

> *As a DM I would probably rule* that if you go more than 16 hours straight without sleep, you have to make a CON check (or a Fort save, perhaps), with a circumstance penalty of -1 for each hour thereafter, or become fatigued. I'm kind of surprised this isn't in the rules already, honestly.



In case it's not clear, I am referring to houseruling, not claiming that this is RAW.


----------



## Dread Polack (Sep 6, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> While this is arguably fine (though there are also arguments against it - while you are making an attack roll, you aren't actually attacking), note that you can't use Combat Expertise while Aiding Another.
> 
> -Hyp.




This is exactly the sort of thing, if my GM were to cry foul on, I wouldn't argue. You are correct, and the rules are pretty clear on the second part- Combat Expertise is only for the attack and full-round attack actions, not the "Aid Another" action.

Synergy Bonuses: There's one thing I missed in 3.5

Riding & Jumping: Looks to me like you make a single *ride* check with either bonus, but it's still a ride check, and you're making it, not your mount.

Dread Polack


----------



## Slaved (Sep 6, 2007)

One that I was bit by recently, when you take a readied action your initiative changes to the initiative point where you took the readied action. To me that means that the ready action could eat up two of your turns at once, which I do not care for.

Dread Polack, why did you not get rank 5 in jump? That would give you a +2 bonus to your tumble checks! That has to be worth the extra skill point!   

Recently a character in one of the games I am in used the ride skills quick mount and quick dismount in the same round. He quick dismounted, picked up a weapon, quick mounted, and then made his attack. It was very impressive.


----------



## mvincent (Sep 6, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> Characters other than (some) spell casters don't need to sleep at all, since there are technically no rules to cover effects from lack of sleep, or how much sleep a character needs.



From the WotC Help database (if desired):
_"*Sleeping in Dungeons and Dragons 
Message 
If my character doesn't sleep, does he/she receive any penalties?*

Answer 
The rules are silent on not sleeping at all, but based on the penalties you receive from a night of uncomfortable rest (page 122 of the 3.5 Player's Handbook, under Sleeping with Armor Worn) a Dungeon Master could assume that not sleeping at all could have some pretty hefty penalties. One house rule could be that the person becomes exhausted after not sleeping an entire night. But of course, since there are no rules covering this situation, it is ultimately up to the Dungeon Master of your campaign to determine how he/she wants to handle a character who hasn't slept."_


----------



## Slaved (Sep 6, 2007)

mvincent said:
			
		

> From the WotC Help database (if desired):
> _"*Sleeping in Dungeons and Dragons
> Message
> If my character doesn't sleep, does he/she receive any penalties?*
> ...




Having gone days without sleep before I would say that this is a bit harsh. Also, the rules for marching and travel are a bit weird.

I would say that for each day of non-rest the character suffers a -1 penalty on all checks involving a d20. This penalty doubles for each additional day of non-rest and 8 hours of rest negates one day of non-rest. Days where the character was very active for more than 12 hours count as two days.

It does not simulate life to a very high degree but at least it has a somewhat correct feel to it.

As an example, our intrepid heroes are fighting for their lives and marching through the underdark for 2 days. They cannot rest for long without fear of their persuers from the last encounter and so at the end of the second day they each have a -8 to all of their d20 rolls. They must rest soon or else even a weak denizen of the dark will be able to end their heroic journey.

It also makes the conditions different between sleeping in armor and not sleeping. Fatigue has a variety of ways to be ignored or recovered from, this penalty does not.


----------



## Dread Polack (Sep 6, 2007)

Slaved said:
			
		

> Dread Polack, why did you not get rank 5 in jump? That would give you a +2 bonus to your tumble checks! That has to be worth the extra skill point!




As a matter of fact, I apparently did. I took another look at my sheet. I think I put ranks into it until I realized my movement gave me bonuses, which was around level 5 or so 

Dread Poalck


----------



## kreynolds (Sep 6, 2007)

Angerland said:
			
		

> I think 16 hours is a little early for a fatigue check.




I start making my fatigue checks about 5 minutes after dinner.


----------



## eamon (Sep 6, 2007)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> I start making my fatigue checks about 5 minutes after dinner.



Same here ;-).

Anyways, fatigue isn't anything major...  if you're out doing heavy labor (like travelling all day on horseback in armor), you'll be tired even before the day is out!  I think fatigued after only 16 hours is being nice... I'd make it more like 8 ;-).  Sure, you can continue... it's just a -2 after all... but it's tiring!


----------



## Dire Lemming (Sep 7, 2007)

Goldmoon said:
			
		

> All summoned creatures from the summon monster spells speak at least one language, usually common.





Can you cite your source for this?  I skipped out on Summon Monster 1 for my bard because he only knew common, sylvan, and goblin.


----------



## Goldmoon (Sep 7, 2007)

Dire Lemming said:
			
		

> Can you cite your source for this?  I skipped out on Summon Monster 1 for my bard because he only knew common, sylvan, and goblin.




It should have been changed to Understand at least one language, usually common.


----------



## Dire Lemming (Sep 7, 2007)

Goldmoon said:
			
		

> It should have been changed to Understand at least one language, usually common.





Yes I know, but can you cite your source for that cause I didn't see it in the spell description.


----------



## Goldmoon (Sep 7, 2007)

Dire Lemming said:
			
		

> Yes I know, but can you cite your source for that cause I didn't see it in the spell description.




Most summoned monsters have either the Celestial or Dire Template, this bumps their intelligence up to at least 3. According to the 3.5 Monster Manual, in the beginning under the intelligence ability score description, all creatures with an intelligence of 3 or greater understand at least 1 language (Common, unless otherwise noted)


----------



## Dire Lemming (Sep 7, 2007)

Oh, cool, thanks.  I wonder if I could get my DM to allow me to change back.  I haven't actually used any spells yet.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 7, 2007)

Goldmoon said:
			
		

> all creatures with an intelligence of 3 or greater understand at least 1 language (Common, unless otherwise noted)




And the important point is that neither the Celestial nor the Fiendish template "otherwise note."  

Many DMs rule (badly, IMO) that Celestial creatures all speak Celestial and than Fiendish creatures all speak ...


----------



## Thurbane (Sep 7, 2007)

cheshire_grin said:
			
		

> Yes, which is why I said
> 
> In case it's not clear, I am referring to houseruling, not claiming that this is RAW.



Sorry, my reply wasn't directly aimed at you, it was a general observation of the lack of rules about sleep in 3.5 D&D.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 7, 2007)

Goldmoon said:
			
		

> Most summoned monsters have either the Celestial or Fiendish Template...




... and that's why it should be _most_ summoned monsters understand at least one language, not _all_ 

-Hyp.


----------



## Goldmoon (Sep 7, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> ... and that's why it should be _most_ summoned monsters understand at least one language, not _all_
> 
> -Hyp.




You are of course correct Hyp.


----------



## Jack Simth (Sep 7, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I really wonder how you persuade a bear to let you hug it for 24 hours, to say nothing of staying awake during that time and making all Concentration checks.



Fortunately...



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Touch Spells and Holding the Charge: In most cases, if you don’t discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge (postpone the discharge of the spell) indefinitely. You can make touch attacks round after round. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates.
> 
> Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell. You can’t hold the charge of such a spell; you must touch all targets of the spell in the same round that you finish casting the spell.



(emphasis added)

You cast it in peace and quiet, find a grizzly, and touch it; in an instant, it gains human-like intellect.


----------



## Goldmoon (Sep 7, 2007)

Jack Simth said:
			
		

> Fortunately...
> 
> (emphasis added)
> 
> You cast it in peace and quiet, find a grizzly, and touch it; in an instant, it gains human-like intellect.




If only it were that easy with men......


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 7, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Many DMs rule (badly, IMO) that Celestial creatures all speak Celestial and than Fiendish creatures all speak ...



 Not badly!  Goodly!


----------



## Meeki (Sep 7, 2007)

Well this is already mentioned but not spelled out:
1. If you have 5 or more ranks in tumble you gain an additional AC when fighting defensively and I believe an additional 2 ac when taking full defensive

2. Dwarves can tumble in full plate AND heavy load, since their movement is not reduced .  Yet another reason to hate dwarves. 

3. Again mentioned but not fully spelled out.  Reach weapons can't attack 2 diagonals but creatures with reach can.  Thus 10 ft reach you can attack 2 angles away.

4. Snirveblin have the highest AC (21 IIRC) of any CR 1 creature :O in the MM at least.  On top of that they get blindness/deafness 1 day and I think darkness :O.  CR 1 my arse.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 7, 2007)

Whimsical said:
			
		

> Since we are on the subject, when is the last time that you have seen uneven flagstone, hewn stone floor, a sloped or angled floor, or a narrow surface in a game that you have played or DM'd? C'mon. Throw some in the next game you run. Especially in front of the big nasty monster that is 40"+ away from the players.





I use that sort of thing all the time.  I'm surprised to hear that it is rare.

RC


----------



## mvincent (Sep 7, 2007)

Goldmoon said:
			
		

> It should have been changed to Understand at least one language, usually common.



A fairly recent Sage advice answer in Dragon magazine discusses this a bit. Unfortunately, the Sage advice answers from the last several editions of Dragon magazine did not make it into the FAQ as normal.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 7, 2007)

cheshire_grin said:
			
		

> Not entirely true. There are rules for what happens when you are fatigued/exhausted (see here); you may be right that there's no rules for how one gets that way short of specific situations/abilities/spells (such as sleeping in medium or heavy armor, for example).





Per RAW, if you sleep 8 hours in heavy armor, you are more tired than if you walk 48 hours in heavy armor........


----------



## Slaved (Sep 7, 2007)

Meeki said:
			
		

> 4. Snirveblin have the highest AC (21 IIRC) of any CR 1 creature :O in the MM at least.  On top of that they get blindness/deafness 1 day and I think darkness :O.  CR 1 my arse.




Svirfneblin have an armor class of 23 in their basic statistics block. They have some very good resistances to everything except actual damage and they do very little damage offensively. The only bit I would be worried about is the permanent duration of blindness/deafness but other than that they look like moveable walls, tough to hurt but they do not do much back.

Any creatures with greater than 120' darkvision are just crazy though! They are able to see creatures with 60' darkvision from so far away that listen checks to even know that they have been spotted are very difficult or impossible.


----------



## Slaved (Sep 7, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Per RAW, if you sleep 8 hours in heavy armor, you are more tired than if you walk 48 hours in heavy armor........




I am not sure if you are joking or not, so I will apologize in advance.



			
				Online System Resource Document said:
			
		

> Forced March
> In a day of normal walking, a character walks for 8 hours. The rest of the daylight time is spent making and breaking camp, resting, and eating.
> 
> A character can walk for more than 8 hours in a day by making a forced march. For each hour of marching beyond 8 hours, a Constitution check (DC 10, +2 per extra hour) is required. If the check fails, the character takes 1d6 points of nonlethal damage. A character who takes any nonlethal damage from a forced march becomes fatigued. Eliminating the nonlethal damage also eliminates the fatigue. It’s possible for a character to march into unconsciousness by pushing himself too hard.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 7, 2007)

Fun facts about the shortsword:
- Cannot be used to slash, unlike a dagger or longsword
- Cannot be used to Power Attack, as it is light
- Shares a proficiency with the wakizashi (DMG), which is a slashing only weapon

Aasimar can qualify for Eldritch Knight with just 5 levels of wizard and nothing else; their Outsider _traits_ give them proficiency with all martial weapons. 

Gnomes can take Craft (alchemy) even if of a nonspellcasting class; the only requirement is being a spellcaster, not the ability to cast spells of a certain level. Gnomes have spell-like abilities, giving them a caster level.

Similarly, a 20th level paladin can craft a scroll with a caster level of 20th, even though his caster level is ordinarily 10th; he has several spell-like abilities, and as no other caster level is specified, their caster level is his HD. 

Walking along a 12" wide plank causes you to lose your Dex bonus unless you have 5 or more ranks of Balance. Walking along a 13" plank does not, and apparently requires no balance roll ordinarily. Someone with 5 ranks of Balance retains their Dex bonus on a 2" wide surface, even if they fail to move every turn because they can't beat the Balance DC.

Several epic creatures have divine rank 0 abilities and are specified as being equivalent to a divine rank 0 creature; but creatures with divine ranks, even divine rank 0, are not given  a CR modifier in Deities & Demigods along the lines of a true template. 

Potions cannot exceed 3rd level; there is no potion of restoration, for instance.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 7, 2007)

mvincent said:
			
		

> A fairly recent Sage advice answer in Dragon magazine discusses this a bit.




And did he agree with the rules, or get it wrong?  

-Hyp.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 7, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> And did he agree with the rules, or get it wrong?
> 
> -Hyp.




Sometimes the Sage isn't even wrong.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 7, 2007)

So did he agree with the rules, in this case?


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 8, 2007)

I meant in the sense of "this isn't right.... this isn't even wrong," in case that was unclear.


----------



## mvincent (Sep 8, 2007)

mvincent said:
			
		

> A fairly recent Sage advice answer in Dragon magazine discusses this a bit. Unfortunately, the Sage advice answers from the last several editions of Dragon magazine did not make it into the FAQ as normal.



(from a previous thread) From Dragon 352, Pages 86-87
_"*Does a celestial or fiendish animal, which has a 3 Intelligence, understand a language?*
The celestial and fiendish templates don't indicate that the creature gains the ability to understand any particular language..."

He goes on to say it is a DM call and indicates that least a rudimentary ability to understand a single language would be most reasonable._

I'd have to reread it to get his full thoughts on it.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 8, 2007)

mvincent said:
			
		

> "The celestial and fiendish templates don't indicate that the creature gains the ability to understand any particular language..."




I agree with him completely.

Which means the "unless otherwise noted" clause kicks in, and the language they understand is Common.

-Hyp.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 8, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I agree with him completely.
> 
> Which means the "unless otherwise noted" clause kicks in, and the language they understand is Common.
> 
> -Hyp.




_A fiendish creature uses all the base creature’s statistics and abilities except as noted here._


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 8, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> _A fiendish creature uses all the base creature’s statistics and abilities except as noted here._




Right.

And one of the abilities that changes is Intelligence.  Would you say that if a Fiendish Triceratops has an Int of 3 instead of 1, its Search modifier remains unchanged?  Or should it increase by 1, since the Int modifier has increased by 1?

-Hyp.


----------



## Legildur (Sep 8, 2007)

Meeki said:
			
		

> 3. Again mentioned but not fully spelled out.  Reach weapons can't attack 2 diagonals but creatures with reach can.  Thus 10 ft reach you can attack 2 angles away.



Source??


----------



## mvincent (Sep 8, 2007)

mvincent said:
			
		

> I'd have to reread it to get his full thoughts on it.



Ok, I went to my archives. Here's the full answer from Dragon 352, Pages 86-87:
_"*Does a celestial or fiendish animal, which has a 3 Intelligence, understand a language?*
The celestial and fiendish templates don't indicate that the creature gains the ability to understand any particular language, but it's reasonable to grant sych a creature the rudimentary ability to understand a single spoken language. Celestial (for that template) or Abyssal or Infernal (for the fiendish template) seem like reasonable options, but a DM can alter this as desired"_


----------



## Goldmoon (Sep 8, 2007)

mvincent said:
			
		

> Ok, I went to my archives. Here's the full answer from Dragon 352, Pages 86-87:
> _"*Does a celestial or fiendish animal, which has a 3 Intelligence, understand a language?*
> The celestial and fiendish templates don't indicate that the creature gains the ability to understand any particular language, but it's reasonable to grant sych a creature the rudimentary ability to understand a single spoken language. Celestial (for that template) or Abyssal or Infernal (for the fiendish template) seem like reasonable options, but a DM can alter this as desired"_





See, that answer makes no sense to me. Its not the template that gives them the ability to understand the langusge its the intelligence boost.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 8, 2007)

Goldmoon said:
			
		

> See, that answer makes no sense to me. Its not the template that gives them the ability to understand the langusge its the intelligence boost.




I can see the _sense_ in the answer, I just feel it's ignoring the rule that tells us which language it is.

In most cases, there's a difference between a Triceratops with a Headband of Intellect +2, and a Fiendish Triceratops.  One is a normal animal that has had its Intelligence increased from 1 to 3.  The other is a creature that has an Intelligence of 3... in most cases, the Fiendish template won't be added later to an existing dinosaur... rather, it's a dinosaur which was born with a greater-than-animal brain.

So the question, I think, isn't really "What language does an animal understand if you add the fiendish template to it?", like you might ask "What language does an animal understand if you put a Headband of Intellect on it?"  Rather, it's "What language does a fiendish animal understand?"

It just happens that, since the template mentions no language, the answer is still "Common".  The answer "Infernal or Abyssal" is intuitive, and makes sense, but it isn't the rule.

-Hyp.


----------



## Asmor (Sep 8, 2007)

Something I learned the hard way at an RPGA game: Warforged can't use potions of Enlarge Person (or have the spell cast on them). Enlarge Person specifically targets a humanoid, which of course a Warforged is not. Similarly, I suppose, aasimar and tieflings don't get to enlarge themselves.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 8, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Right.
> 
> And one of the abilities that changes is Intelligence.  Would you say that if a Fiendish Triceratops has an Int of 3 instead of 1, its Search modifier remains unchanged?  Or should it increase by 1, since the Int modifier has increased by 1?
> 
> -Hyp.




No, and I don't see how saying "no" weakens my point in the slightest. A language may be common to Int 3 creatures, but it has to be assigned. No such assignation occurs in this case. And the template does not assign one. It's not as if casting a spell that removes the need to breathe makes you not a living creature.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 8, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> A language may be common to Int 3 creatures, but it has to be assigned. No such assignation occurs in this case. And the template does not assign one.




Having an Int of 3 means you understand at least one language... _Common, unless otherwise noted_.

It doesn't need to be assigned, because there is a default case for when no such assignation is made... as in the case of the Fiendish template.

If the Fiendish template assigned a language, that would override the default case, because it would be 'otherwise noted'.

-Hyp.


----------



## eamon (Sep 8, 2007)

Asmor said:
			
		

> Something I learned the hard way at an RPGA game: Warforged can't use potions of Enlarge Person (or have the spell cast on them). Enlarge Person specifically targets a humanoid, which of course a Warforged is not. Similarly, I suppose, aasimar and tieflings don't get to enlarge themselves.




Wow, that's obvious, but I'd missed that one entirely!  Thanks!  That also means stuff like Hold Person etc. don't work on Warforged... how do I explain this to a player of mine playing a warforged...   he's not going to like it!


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 8, 2007)

Asmor said:
			
		

> Something I learned the hard way at an RPGA game: Warforged can't use potions of Enlarge Person (or have the spell cast on them). Enlarge Person specifically targets a humanoid, which of course a Warforged is not. Similarly, I suppose, aasimar and tieflings don't get to enlarge themselves.




We had this happen a few weeks ago in our game. The PCs attacked a much larger group in the middle of the night and part of the plan was to Enlarge the Warforged. They got to that part of the fight and the Artificer suddenly realized that he couldn't do that.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 8, 2007)

UltimaGabe said:
			
		

> Additionally, any time you're forced to make a balance check (such as from uneven flagstone, a narrow surface, a slippery surface, so on), you automatically lose your Dexterity bonus to AC unless you've got 5 ranks in Balance.




Actually, you are considered flat-footed.  Which is a 'condition' that normally only occurs at the beginning of combat.  This is important to note, because certain things affect people when they are flat-footed (see OA Iajitsu Focus) vs. just simply losing your Dex bonus to AC.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 8, 2007)

Little known rules...  Let's see...

Well, these aren't so much rules as they are lack of rules...

(just noticed someone else mentioned this)
If you go without sleep, you eventually become fatigued and exhausted, but at no point is there a rule which makes you go unconcious for lack of sleep.  This means, you could technically stay awake for weeks, months, years, etc. and you'll only ever be exhausted.

Also, you can never die of starvation/thirst.  You will eventually fall unconcious, and you will take subdual damage, but since subdual damage can't kill you, you will just remain unconcious (and not die) until someone heals/feeds you.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 8, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> (just noticed someone else mentioned this)
> If you go without sleep, you eventually become fatigued and exhausted, but at no point is there a rule which makes you go unconcious for lack of sleep.  This means, you could technically stay awake for weeks, months, years, etc. and you'll only ever be exhausted.



 As long as you don't walk anywhere.


----------



## SlagMortar (Sep 8, 2007)

Meeki said:
			
		

> 3. Again mentioned but not fully spelled out.  Reach weapons can't attack 2 diagonals but creatures with reach can.  Thus 10 ft reach you can attack 2 angles away.



This is incorrect.


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Reach Weapons
> 
> Most creatures of Medium or smaller size have a reach of only 5 feet. This means that they can make melee attacks only against creatures up to 5 feet (1 square) away. However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten more squares than a typical creature. In addition, most creatures larger than Medium have a natural reach of 10 feet or more.
> 
> Note: *When determining reach, each square of diagonal distance is measured as 5 feet.* This is an exception to the rule that 2 squares of diagonal distance is measured as 15 feet.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 8, 2007)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> This is incorrect.




So is your SRD quote, as it happens.

The SRD on the Wizards site doesn't include the 'Note:' portion.  It looks like someone at d20srd.org attempted to summarise the text from the PHB that's left out in the SRD... and got it wrong.

According to the d20srd.org note, someone with 15 feet of reach threatens three diagonal squares, 20 feet 4, and so on, right?  Which isn't what the original PHB text states at all.



			
				PHB p137 said:
			
		

> Reach Weapons
> 
> Most creatures of Medium or smaller size have a reach of only 5 feet. This means that they can make melee attacks only against creatures up to 5 feet (1 square) away. However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons (such as a longspear) threaten more squares than a typical creature.  For instance, a longspear-wielding human threatens all squares 10 feet (2 squares) away, even diagonally.  (This is an exception to the rule that 2 squares of diagonal distance is measured as 15 feet.)  In addition, most creatures larger than Medium have a natural reach of 10 feet or more; see Big and Little Creatures in Combat, p149.




The exception provided in the PHB is that 10 feet of reach = 2 diagonal squares... not that every 5 feet of reach = 1 diagonal square.

Which makes sense - if you don't make this exception, there's a 'hole' in the longspear's coverage, where someone can walk up to you without ever entering a threatened square.  This is an artefact of the grid system; obviously, at some point, that person is 10 feet away, but on the grid they go directly from 15 feet to 5 feet without being threatened.

This doesn't happen with, say, a Large creature with a reach weapon; even without fudging the diagonals, nobody can walk right up to them without passing through a threatened square.  So the fudge is unnecessary for reach longer than 10 feet.

End result?  For the human with the longspear, it's true that he threatens two squares diagonal (and Meeki, as you note, is incorrect).  But the Note from your quote is inaccurate in its details.  (Now it could, perhaps, be argued that the _opposite_ of Meeki's assertion is true - that the exception applies only to reach weapons, and not to natural 10' reach...)

My feeling is that if d20srd.org are going to host an SRD, they should include the text _of the SRD_, and not try to add extra bits...

-Hyp.


----------



## Asmor (Sep 8, 2007)

eamon said:
			
		

> Wow, that's obvious, but I'd missed that one entirely!  Thanks!  That also means stuff like Hold Person etc. don't work on Warforged... how do I explain this to a player of mine playing a warforged...   he's not going to like it!




Just remind him that stuff like Hold Person doesn't work either. 

Anyways, I disagree that it's obvious... I mean, aside from the fact that the spell's called Enlarge Person (after all, there's no Enlarge Monster, but there are Charm, Hold and Dominate Monsters).


----------



## AnonymousOne (Sep 9, 2007)

> Originally Posted by SRD
> In addition, most creatures larger than Medium have a natural reach of 10 feet or more; see Big and Little Creatures in Combat, p149.




How does this affect a Goliath with the "Powerful Build" Racial trait?  He's counted as a Large Creature whenever it would benefit him.  So does that mean that the Goliath with a Greatsword threatens a 10ft ring and a 5ft ring?


----------



## Zurai (Sep 9, 2007)

AnonymousOne said:
			
		

> How does this affect a Goliath with the "Powerful Build" Racial trait?  He's counted as a Large Creature whenever it would benefit him.  So does that mean that the Goliath with a Greatsword threatens a 10ft ring and a 5ft ring?




No. 10' reach is not a guaranteed trait of Large sized creatures. There are quite a few that are Large sized that do not have 10' reach.

On top of that, I'm pretty sure (but not positive) that Powerful Build explicitly states what it affects.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 9, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Having an Int of 3 means you understand at least one language... _Common, unless otherwise noted_.
> 
> It doesn't need to be assigned, because there is a default case for when no such assignation is made... as in the case of the Fiendish template.
> 
> ...




I don't see that as a rule that Int 3 creatures must speak Common, if nothing else, rather that all the Int 3 creatures simply _do_ speak common unless noted otherwise. Wolves, however, do not speak Common. Creatures of wolf intelligence do not have a language, and the templates specify their abilities are unchanged, so they do not gain one.

Thus, the specific note in the template appears to trump any generalization.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 9, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I don't see that as a rule that Int 3 creatures must speak Common, if nothing else, rather that all the Int 3 creatures simply _do_ speak common unless noted otherwise.




Understand, but otherwise right.



> Wolves, however, do not speak Common. Creatures of wolf intelligence do not have a language, and the templates specify their abilities are unchanged, so they do not gain one.




A fiendish wolf is not a creature of wolf intelligence.  A fiendish wolf is a creature with 3 Intelligence, and all creatures with an Intelligence of 3 or greater understand at least one language (Common, unless otherwise noted).



> Thus, the specific note in the template appears to trump any generalization.




The template changes his Intelligence.  Understanding Common is a result of the change the template explicitly imposes.

-Hyp.


----------



## Asmor (Sep 9, 2007)

If a template gives +2 con, but doesn't say that it gives a commensurate increase in hit points, does that mean you wouldn't give the critter the extra HP?

Same deal with increase in intelligence.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 9, 2007)

Asmor said:
			
		

> If a template gives +2 con, but doesn't say that it gives a commensurate increase in hit points, does that mean you wouldn't give the critter the extra HP?
> 
> Same deal with increase in intelligence.




It's not the same deal. Look at the Int chart; is there anywhere on there it says, "Speaks Common?" In my view, it's more akin to the animal --> familiar transformation.


----------



## Sithobi1 (Sep 9, 2007)

Familiars also understand common...


----------



## Elephant (Sep 9, 2007)

I'm not sure where to find the reference, but someone told this yesterday:

If a wizard attempts to copy a spell out of another wizard's spellbook and fails, there is a chance that the spell is burned out of the spellbook.

I know it's not in the PHB in the section dealing with adding new spells to a wizard's spellbook - I looked in that section.  My friend couldn't remember where the burnout clause was, but he insisted that the text he had seen was perfectly clear.  He guessed that it was in the DMG somewhere.

Does this ring a bell for anyone?  While this friend runs a heavily house-ruled game, he usually knows what he's talking about when he cites D&D rules.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 9, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> It's not the same deal. Look at the Int chart; is there anywhere on there it says, "Speaks Common?"




It's under the definition of Intelligence in the Monster Manual.

_*Intelligence:* A creature can speak all the languages mentioned in its description, plus one additional language per point of Intelligence bonus. Any creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher understands at least one language (Common, unless noted otherwise)._

-Hyp.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 9, 2007)

Elephant said:
			
		

> Does this ring a bell for anyone?  While this friend runs a heavily house-ruled game, he usually knows what he's talking about when he cites D&D rules.



 Maybe a previous edition.  In 3.X, a spellbook is not magical and so there's no chance the spellbook will be ruined.  Was he thinking of a scroll perhaps and got confused on the wording?  The appropriate rules:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> The process leaves a spellbook that was copied from unharmed, but a spell successfully copied from a magic scroll disappears from the parchment.
> 
> If the check fails, the wizard cannot understand or copy the spell. She cannot attempt to learn or copy that spell again until she gains another rank in Spellcraft. A spell that was being copied from a scroll does not vanish from the scroll.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 10, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> It's under the definition of Intelligence in the Monster Manual.
> 
> _*Intelligence:* A creature can speak all the languages mentioned in its description, plus one additional language per point of Intelligence bonus. Any creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher understands at least one language (Common, unless noted otherwise)._
> 
> -Hyp.




We've already covered "unless noted otherwise," so I believe this debate is at an empasse.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 10, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> We've already covered "unless noted otherwise," so I believe this debate is at an empasse.




"Unless noted otherwise" refers to whether or not the one language the creature understands is Common, or a language other than common.  It doesn't refer to whether or not the language is understood at all... that would require the clause to be outside the parentheses.

-Hyp.


----------



## shdwrnr (Sep 10, 2007)

A sai, that pointy thing Raphael from the ninja turtles uses, deals bludgeoning damage.

A wizard replaces one of its bonus languages with draconic instead of just adding it to his list. A halfling wizard with an Intelligence modifier of +5 couldn't learn elven (for example) if he wanted to learn draconic at 1st level.

When preparing spells for the day, a wizard can leave slots open to be filled later on in the day by spending 15 minutes preparing her mind and then preparing spells as normal.

Spellcaster that prepare their spells (wizards, paladins, rangers, druids, clerics) can always use a higher level spell slot to prepare a lower level spell, even without the Heighten Spell metamagic feat. The spell acts as normal for its level though (i.e. a magic missile prepared in a third level slot without the Heighten Spell feat still counts as a 1st level spell). A spellcaster can do this even if he wouldn't normally be able to cast spells of that level because of a low ability score (i.e. a 10th level Paladin with a Wisdom score of 11 could prepare a 1st level spell in his 2nd level spell slot). Spontaneous casters (sorcerers and bards) do not get this luxury without the Heighten Spell feat.

A wizard can only prepare spells that she has writen down in her own spellbook, even when using someone else's spellbook. She couldn't, for example, use someone else's spellbook to prepare a fireball spell unless her own spellbook has the fireball spell recorded in it. Also, any time she uses someone else's spellbook to prepare a spell, she must make a DC 15 + spell's level Spellcraft check. Failure indicates she can't prepare the spell from that source until the next day.

That's all I can think of right now. Source for all of this is the Player's Handbook and the DMG.


----------



## cmrscorpio (Sep 10, 2007)

shdwrnr said:
			
		

> A wizard replaces one of its bonus languages with draconic instead of just adding it to his list. A halfling wizard with an Intelligence modifier of +5 couldn't learn elven (for example) if he wanted to learn draconic at 1st level.




Your example is of a situation that cannot exist in the core RAW.  In order for said halfling to have a +5 modifier, she would have to have a 20-21 Intelligence, which is impossible because no core race has a +2 modifier to Intelligence.  

Not only that, there is a flaw in your logic.  A halfling has 5 bonus languages, so there is no "couldn't learn" language in your scenarion.


----------



## shdwrnr (Sep 10, 2007)

cmrscorpio said:
			
		

> Your example is of a situation that cannot exist in the core RAW.  In order for said halfling to have a +5 modifier, she would have to have a 20-21 Intelligence, which is impossible because no core race has a +2 modifier to Intelligence.
> 
> Not only that, there is a flaw in your logic.  A halfling has 5 bonus languages, so there is no "couldn't learn" language in your scenarion.




I don't have any splat books handy. Point is, if you had a race with, say, 5 bonus languages and a racial +2 to Int, it's possible. Bad example, sorry ;-p


----------



## enlightened (Sep 10, 2007)

shdwrnr said:
			
		

> A sai, that pointy thing Raphael from the ninja turtles uses, deals bludgeoning damage.




They are bludgeoning weapons.



			
				Wiki said:
			
		

> Sai is the Ryukyu name for a traditional Okinawan weapon also used in India, China, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. *Its basic form is that of an unsharpened dagger, with two long, unsharpened projections (tsuba) attached to the handle.* The very end of the handle is called the knuckle.
> 
> In Hollywood, however, sai are portrayed as a much more offensive weapon. They are used like a combination of a sword, dagger and a throwing dart often on the big screen. Little play is given to striking with the knuckle. *Thus, the normally unsharpened weapon is portrayed as a sharpened one.*




Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sai_(weapon)


----------



## shdwrnr (Sep 10, 2007)

A letter opener is an unsharpened dagger too. While I could very well punch you in the face with the hand that's holding it, I don't think it's stretching the imagination by saying I could use it to stab you in the eye. But then again a short sword can't be used to cut anything, so I guess this is the way things work in DnD.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 10, 2007)

shdwrnr said:
			
		

> A letter opener is an unsharpened dagger too. While I could very well punch you in the face with the hand that's holding it, I don't think it's stretching the imagination by saying I could use it to stab you in the eye. But then again a short sword can't be used to cut anything, so I guess this is the way things work in DnD.




If you try to stick a sai into a table, it's not going to work... compared to a knife, or a shortsword, or a javelin, where if you stab the wood hard enough, it'll stand up.  The sai has a rounded end.  It's not a blade that hasn't been sharpened, like a letter opener... it's more of a cylinder.  A bit like trying to stab someone with the thin end of a baseball bat.

-Hyp.


----------



## UltimaGabe (Sep 10, 2007)

AnonymousOne said:
			
		

> How does this affect a Goliath with the "Powerful Build" Racial trait?  He's counted as a Large Creature whenever it would benefit him.  So does that mean that the Goliath with a Greatsword threatens a 10ft ring and a 5ft ring?




No, Powerful Build specifically does not grant the Goliath extra reach.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 10, 2007)

Slaved said:
			
		

> I am not sure if you are joking or not, so I will apologize in advance.





Well, I was joking, but obviously I wasn't thinking, so I certainly accept the correction!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 10, 2007)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Maybe a previous edition.  In 3.X, a spellbook is not magical and so there's no chance the spellbook will be ruined.  Was he thinking of a scroll perhaps and got confused on the wording?  The appropriate rules:




1st Edition Unearthed Arcana, I think.

RC


----------



## Asmor (Sep 10, 2007)

Well, I was going to point out that a sai is, in fact, a bludgeoning weapon, but I've already been beat to that, twice.

A sai is basically just a club with hand guards. Nothing is remotely sharp.

Fun fact which may or may not be historically accurate (who knows?): sais were typically used as a set of three; one was kept in the belt, so that you could throw one of your sais and still have two available.


----------



## boolean (Sep 11, 2007)

The full Duskblade spell list is on page 24 of PHB2.


----------



## Aleolus (Sep 11, 2007)

boolean said:
			
		

> The full Duskblade spell list is on page 24 of PHB2.




I know, and it saddens me how small the list is.


----------



## TYPO5478 (Sep 11, 2007)

Don't know if anyone's mentioned this yet, but I just learned an interesting fact about counterspelling.  For a counterspell to work, the target must be in range of the original spell, implying that to counter a Range: Touch spell you have to be touching the caster and that Range: Personal spells can't be counterspelled at all.


----------



## reanjr (Sep 12, 2007)

Aleolus said:
			
		

> 1: 2 crits=death
> 2: non-evil PCs.




I know of, and use, both of those rules...


----------



## reanjr (Sep 12, 2007)

Delta said:
			
		

> It's "Variant: Instant Kill", and as I see it in 3.0 DMG p. 64, you really need to roll natural 20 --> natural 20 --> confrm a hit. "The instant kill only applies to natural 20s", not just a series of criticals.




You sure?  I thought it was Crit Threat -> 20 -> confirm.  I might have house ruled that though.


----------



## cheshire_grin (Sep 12, 2007)

TYPO5478 said:
			
		

> Don't know if anyone's mentioned this yet, but I just learned an interesting fact about counterspelling.  For a counterspell to work, the target must be in range of the original spell, implying that to counter a Range: Touch spell you have to be touching the caster and that Range: Personal spells can't be counterspelled at all.



Not entirely true:


> You also need line of effect to the other spellcaster and the other spellcaster must be within range for the spell you're using as a counterspell. If your line of effect is blocked or you're out of range, your counterspell's magical energy cannot reach the other spellcaster and negate that character's spell. This means you cannot use a spell with a personal range as a counterspell (because the spell's range is limited to your person) under most circumstances. *You still can counter another character's personal range spell, however, by using a dispel magic or greater dispel magic spell as a counterspell, or by taking advantage of the Improved Counterspell feat and using a spell with sufficient range to reach your opponent*.



From here.


----------



## eamon (Sep 12, 2007)

boolean said:
			
		

> The full Duskblade spell list is on page 24 of PHB2.



  It _is_ surprising how many people think the few spells in the PHB2 itself are the sum total of all duskblade spells (and similarly, for the beguiler...)


----------



## heirodule (Sep 12, 2007)

You can totally avoid hunger and thirst fatigue by eating and drinking water every OTHER day.


----------



## heirodule (Sep 12, 2007)

Sithobi1 said:
			
		

> Familiars also understand common...



but you can't give ANY orders to a familiar when its using empathic communication


----------



## eamon (Sep 12, 2007)

heirodule said:
			
		

> You can totally avoid hunger and thirst fatigue by eating and drinking water every OTHER day.



Source?


----------



## SlagMortar (Sep 12, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So is your SRD quote, as it happens.
> ...
> My feeling is that if d20srd.org are going to host an SRD, they should include the text _of the SRD_, and not try to add extra bits...



Wow, thanks for pointing that out!  That's the first time I've come across d20srd being different from the real SRD.  Good to know.


----------



## spunky_mutters (Sep 12, 2007)

It's a good thing you can go without sleep pretty much indefinitely, because it could take you up to 12 weeks to cast Legend Lore.

Legend Lore
Divination
Level: Brd 4, Knowledge 7, Sor/Wiz 6
Components: V, S, M, F
Casting Time: *See text*
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: See text

<snip> *If you know only rumors, the casting time is 2d6 weeks,*


----------



## Lorion (Sep 12, 2007)

spunky_mutters said:
			
		

> It's a good thing you can go without sleep pretty much indefinitely, because it could take you up to 12 weeks to cast Legend Lore.
> 
> Legend Lore
> Divination
> ...



 According to the srd, you may sleep while casting Legend Lore. 

From the "Legend Lore" spell description:
"*During the casting, you cannot engage in other than routine activities: eating, sleeping, and so forth.*"


----------



## spunky_mutters (Sep 12, 2007)

Lorion said:
			
		

> According to the srd, you may sleep while casting Legend Lore.
> 
> From the "Legend Lore" spell description:
> "*During the casting, you cannot engage in other than routine activities: eating, sleeping, and so forth.*"





Yeah, I was kidding. It's an example of special-casing the casting rules rather than just writing the spell in a sane fashion.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 12, 2007)

Asmor said:
			
		

> Fun fact which may or may not be historically accurate (who knows?): sais were typically used as a set of three; one was kept in the belt, so that you could throw one of your sais and still have two available.




Who throws a sai?  Honestly...


----------



## Tonguez (Sep 12, 2007)

heirodule said:
			
		

> You can totally avoid hunger and thirst fatigue by eating and drinking water every OTHER day.




um this is true in real life too. Humans are quite capable of spending a day without food and drink (thirst fatigue wont really set in until day 2)


----------



## Legildur (Sep 13, 2007)

Tonguez said:
			
		

> ...(thirst fatigue wont really set in until day 2)



Depending on environmental factors, condition, and workload......


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 13, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Who throws a sai?  Honestly...




"That *really* hurt!"


----------



## Thurbane (Sep 13, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Who throws a sai?  Honestly...


----------



## Markn (Sep 13, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> No. 10' reach is not a guaranteed trait of Large sized creatures. There are quite a few that are Large sized that do not have 10' reach.
> 
> On top of that, I'm pretty sure (but not positive) that Powerful Build explicitly states what it affects.




That's because there is large tall and large long.  Anything that is large long does not have as much reach.  Generally animals are not tall and therefore do not get the reach.  There are maps at the end of the DMG that specifically show what diagonals are used with and without reach.


----------



## mvincent (Sep 14, 2007)

Markn said:
			
		

> That's because there is large tall and large long.



Table here


----------



## Sabathius42 (Sep 14, 2007)

It's only a DC28 to track a fly over a tile floor.  You can take a 20 on track rolls.

DS


----------



## Legildur (Sep 14, 2007)

Sabathius42 said:
			
		

> It's only a DC28 to track a fly over a tile floor.  You can take a 20 on track rolls.



While moving very, very slowly...


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 14, 2007)

Tonguez said:
			
		

> Humans are quite capable of spending a day without food and drink (thirst fatigue wont really set in until day 2)



 Reference, please?  I'd especially like to see that reference with respect to someone wearing 50 pounds or so of gear and taking part in a series of combats or other strenuous activity.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Sep 14, 2007)

Sabathius42 said:
			
		

> It's only a DC28 to track a fly over a tile floor.  You can take a 20 on track rolls.



Why is the fly even leaving tracks?

Finding tracks (Survival) is one of those skill uses for which the time involved is left to the DM.  Personally, if you're trying to track an insect, I'd find 10 minutes per check to be very reasonable.  So, yeah, you could track an insect across a stone floor by Taking 20 ... if you have three-and-a-half hours to kill.


----------



## Asmor (Sep 14, 2007)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> Why is the fly even leaving tracks?
> 
> Finding tracks (Survival) is one of those skill uses for which the time involved is left to the DM.  Personally, if you're trying to track an insect, I'd find 10 minutes per check to be very reasonable.  So, yeah, you could track an insect across a stone floor by Taking 20 ... if you have three-and-a-half hours to kill.




per 5-foot square


----------



## Tonguez (Sep 14, 2007)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Reference, please?  I'd especially like to see that reference with respect to someone wearing 50 pounds or so of gear and taking part in a series of combats or other strenuous activity.




I haven't got references at hand but studies have been done to show that 24 hours without water will lead to short term memory loss and reduction in basic mathematics skills, some dizziness is also likely (is this enough to count as fatigue?). But these can be 'cured' with a single glass of water. It is after 24 hours that things like slurred speech and reduced motor function set in eventualling escalating to system breakdown

As *Legildur * stated the actual time it takes does depend on a lot of different factors including intial hydration, ambient temperature and humidity, fitness and sweat levels. 

I agree that for most people wearing heavy armour and fighting dragons 24 hours is too long to go without water, but then the rule posted didn't specify those conditions and besides PCs are heroes and shouldn't suffer something as minor as a day without water!


----------



## Aleolus (Sep 14, 2007)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Reference, please?  I'd especially like to see that reference with respect to someone wearing 50 pounds or so of gear and taking part in a series of combats or other strenuous activity.




Actually, going by the rules in the DMG, you can go without water for 24 hours, plus a number of hours equal to your Con modifier.  After that, you need to make Fort saves every hour or take damage.


----------



## Felnar (Sep 14, 2007)

Asmor said:
			
		

> per 5-foot square



or per mile


			
				Hypertext SRD - Track Feat said:
			
		

> To find tracks or to follow them for 1 mile requires a successful Survival check. You must make another Survival check every time the tracks become difficult to follow.



still takes forever tho


			
				Hypertext SRD - Survival Skill said:
			
		

> For finding tracks, you can retry a failed check after 1 hour (outdoors) or 10 minutes(indoors) of searching.



taking 20 to track indoors uses 20 fullround actions and 19 failed checks, for a total of 192 minutes


----------



## Thurbane (Sep 15, 2007)

Humans can indeed go for extended periods without sleep, but they won't be performing at peak mental and physical performance.


----------



## Teemu (Sep 15, 2007)

shdwrnr said:
			
		

> Spellcaster that prepare their spells (wizards, paladins, rangers, druids, clerics) can always use a higher level spell slot to prepare a lower level spell, even without the Heighten Spell metamagic feat. The spell acts as normal for its level though (i.e. a magic missile prepared in a third level slot without the Heighten Spell feat still counts as a 1st level spell). A spellcaster can do this even if he wouldn't normally be able to cast spells of that level because of a low ability score (i.e. a 10th level Paladin with a Wisdom score of 11 could prepare a 1st level spell in his 2nd level spell slot). *Spontaneous casters (sorcerers and bards) do not get this luxury without the Heighten Spell feat.*



The entries actually speak of "spellcasters". Only the examples use specific classes.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 15, 2007)

Teemu said:
			
		

> The entries actually speak of "spellcasters". Only the examples use specific classes.




I think his point is that the text regarding spell slots is found under the subheading of 'Preparing Wizard Spells'.  There is a separate section under the Arcane Spells heading, with the subheading 'Sorcerers and Bards', which makes no mention of using higher-level spell slots.

One might argue that since Sorcerers have spell slots, the text outlining how characters can fill higher-level spell slots is globally applicable despite being in the Wizard section... but the appearance of similar text under Divine Spells - which would be redundant if the earlier text were globally applicable - argues otherwise.

-Hyp.


----------



## Teemu (Sep 15, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I think his point is that the text regarding spell slots is found under the subheading of 'Preparing Wizard Spells'.  There is a separate section under the Arcane Spells heading, with the subheading 'Sorcerers and Bards', which makes no mention of using higher-level spell slots.
> 
> One might argue that since Sorcerers have spell slots, the text outlining how characters can fill higher-level spell slots is globally applicable despite being in the Wizard section... but the appearance of similar text under Divine Spells - which would be redundant if the earlier text were globally applicable - argues otherwise.
> 
> -Hyp.



Also, by that logic, only wizards lose their prepared spells when they die. Divine spellcasters don't and neither do sorcerers or bards.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 15, 2007)

Teemu said:
			
		

> Also, by that logic, only wizards lose their prepared spells when they die. Divine spellcasters don't and neither do sorcerers or bards.




Yes and no... if the character is brought back via Raise Dead, the text in the Raise Dead spell will come into effect, and there's a 50% chance of losing each prepared spell or unused spell slot.  If Resurrection, no prepared spells are lost regardless.

But I agree that it follows that if someone is Reincarnated - a spell which makes no mention of spells or spell slots - the rules from the Magic Overview come into play, meaning wizards lose their spells and nobody else does.

... assuming we consider sections under 'Preparing Wizard Spells' to be wizard-specific.

-Hyp.


----------



## HellHound (Sep 16, 2007)

eamon said:
			
		

> It _is_ surprising how many people think the few spells in the PHB2 itself are the sum total of all duskblade spells (and similarly, for the beguiler...)




Considering that the Duskblade class description explicitly states: 



			
				PHB2 said:
			
		

> *Spells:* You can cast arcane spells, which are drawn from the duskblade spell list on page 98. You can cast any spell you know without preparing it ahead of time.




That the actual spell list is on page 24, AFTER the "sample encounter", is not referenced anywhere else in the class description.


----------



## Asmor (Sep 16, 2007)

HellHound said:
			
		

> That the actual spell list is on page 24, AFTER the "sample encounter", is not referenced anywhere else in the class description.




It's obviously a typo. There's lots of them in every single Wizards of the Coast book on your shelf. Sometimes, it's more important to figure out what was intended than what is actually written in the book... especially when the book in question hasn't received any errata yet.


----------



## AffableVagrant (Sep 16, 2007)

*As another title...*

We could give this thread the second title: "Things that probably shouldn't be in 4e"


----------



## HellHound (Sep 16, 2007)

Asmor said:
			
		

> It's obviously a typo. There's lots of them in every single Wizards of the Coast book on your shelf. Sometimes, it's more important to figure out what was intended than what is actually written in the book... especially when the book in question hasn't received any errata yet.




Originally we thought the level 0 spells they got on their spells per day list were a type, since the spell list on page 98 doesn't have any level 0 spells. "Hooray, I can cast 4 level 0 spells per day, too bad I don't know any".

It was only when the Duskblade hit level 3 that I really dug through the book and the web looking for errata and came across a thread that pointed me to page 24.


----------



## Kwitchit (Sep 16, 2007)

You can't Sunder on an Attack of Opportunity


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 17, 2007)

Kwitchit said:
			
		

> You can't Sunder on an Attack of Opportunity



 Heh - that hardly qualifies for "Little Known" status!


----------



## Maleketh (Sep 18, 2007)

According to the official rules:

_It takes a full-round action to search a 5-foot-by-5-foot area or a volume of goods 5 feet on a side._

That means that taking 20 on a search of a measly 10' by 10' room takes a good 8 minutes.  Thoroughly combing over something really big - say, a ship - is going to take many hours.


----------



## HellHound (Sep 18, 2007)

Maleketh said:
			
		

> According to the official rules:
> 
> _It takes a full-round action to search a 5-foot-by-5-foot area or a volume of goods 5 feet on a side._
> 
> That means that taking 20 on a search of a measly 10' by 10' room takes a good 8 minutes.  Thoroughly combing over something really big - say, a ship - is going to take many hours.




IMO, that's not a little known rule. It's basically a rule of thumb in most D&D / D20 games I've seen that it takes 1 minute per 5' section for comprehensive (take 20) searches.


----------



## Maleketh (Sep 18, 2007)

Meh, I do a lot of online gaming, and very few people seem to be aware of how long a search takes.


----------



## gnfnrf (Sep 19, 2007)

Comprehend Languages only lets you understand a creature if you touch them first.

Whoda thunk it?  (Other than people who actually read the spell, of course.)

--
gnfnrf


----------



## Whimsical (Sep 19, 2007)

gnfnrf said:
			
		

> Comprehend Languages only lets you understand a creature if you touch them first.



This would be a good use of sleight of hand. To touch someone without them knowing it.


----------



## shilsen (Sep 19, 2007)

HellHound said:
			
		

> IMO, that's not a little known rule. It's basically a rule of thumb in most D&D / D20 games I've seen that it takes 1 minute per 5' section for comprehensive (take 20) searches.



 Not 2 minutes (20 rounds)?


----------



## Asmor (Sep 19, 2007)

I don't think it's terribly obscure, but something a lot of people overlook which is really, REALLY important, is that spot and listen (?) checks get a -2 penalty for every 10 feet between you and the stimulus you're attempting to observe.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 19, 2007)

Asmor said:
			
		

> I don't think it's terribly obscure, but something a lot of people overlook which is really, REALLY important, is that spot and listen (?) checks get a -2 penalty for every 10 feet between you and the stimulus you're attempting to observe.




Strictly, it's a -1 penalty per 10 feet of distance on Spot checks, and a +1 DC modifier per 10 feet of distance on Listen checks.

-Hyp.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Sep 19, 2007)

Asmor said:
			
		

> Fun fact which may or may not be historically accurate (who knows?): sais were typically used as a set of three; one was kept in the belt, so that you could throw one of your sais and still have two available.




Yet another potentially true sai fact: they were originally rice planting devices.  The handguard was more of a depth gauge, with the blunt rod used to poke a hole a certain depth in the marshy soil.  

Remember, 90% of the asian martial arts weapons were originally peasant tools.  Kama = sickle, nunchuks = thresher/flail, sai = planter.   

Oh and the siangham are chinese judge's pens.  
http://www.warrior-supplies.com/details.asp?language=en&productID=3351


----------



## Maleketh (Sep 20, 2007)

Okay, here's an obscure one for ya: a character in an antimagic field can duck behind a tower shield to "hide" from it.  (All highlights are added by me.)



> Antimagic Field
> Abjuration
> Level: 	Clr 8, Magic 6, Protection 6, Sor/Wiz 6
> Components: 	V, S, M/DF
> ...





> *An emanation spell functions like a burst spell*, except that the effect continues to radiate from the point of origin for the duration of the spell.





> A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, even including creatures that you can’t see. *It can’t affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don’t extend around corners).*





> Shield, Tower
> 
> This massive wooden shield is nearly as tall as you are. In most situations, it provides the indicated shield bonus to your AC. However, *you can instead use it as total cover*, though you must give up your attacks to do so.


----------



## Asmor (Sep 20, 2007)

Uhh... A tower shield doesn't really give you total cover from _yourself_...

Granted, that's my interpretation, but I'd say that this is a sort of tenuous loop hole, if it exists at all.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 20, 2007)

Asmor said:
			
		

> Uhh... A tower shield doesn't really give you total cover from _yourself_...
> 
> Granted, that's my interpretation, but I'd say that this is a sort of tenuous loop hole, if it exists at all.




I suspect he means an AMF centred on someone else, that you happen to be inside.

-Hyp.


----------



## Maleketh (Sep 20, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I suspect he means an AMF centred on someone else, that you happen to be inside.
> 
> -Hyp.




He's right.  So far as I know, you can't get total cover from yourself.


----------



## Asmor (Sep 20, 2007)

Ah, I misinterpreted what you wrote. Apologies.


----------



## werk (Sep 20, 2007)

Maleketh said:
			
		

> He's right.  So far as I know, you can't get total cover from yourself.




Largely due to the way that cover is determined and the inability to connect corners of your own square(s) with barriers in between.  If you could somehow occupy two non-adjacent squares...


I don't know what a pirate would call that, but I'm sure it involves the word 'twain'.


----------



## Matthias_Gloom (Sep 20, 2007)

Maleketh said:
			
		

> Okay, here's an obscure one for ya: a character in an antimagic field can duck behind a tower shield to "hide" from it.




I believe that only applies to physical bursts such as a fireball. An antimagic field would not have a physical presence, and as such, would it not simply pass through the shield? 

I'm sure a magical shield would stop it, but wait...

I certainly wouldn't allow it.


----------



## mvincent (Sep 20, 2007)

Matthias_Gloom said:
			
		

> I believe that only applies to physical bursts such as a fireball



Actually, a fireball is a spread effect. Full cover from a tower shield is unlikely to stop it because:
_"A spread spell spreads out like a burst but can turn corners. You select the point of origin, and the spell spreads out a given distance in all directions. Figure the area the spell effect fills by taking into account any turns the spell effect takes."_

conversely:
_"A burst spell ... can’t affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin"_
and
_"An emanation spell functions like a burst spell"_
(ATM is an emanation)


----------



## Matthias_Gloom (Sep 20, 2007)

Well that certainly took the wind out of my sales. 
However, I believe my point is still valid. An AMF should pass through physical objects, tower shields included.


----------



## eamon (Sep 20, 2007)

Matthias_Gloom said:
			
		

> I believe that only applies to physical bursts such as a fireball. An antimagic field would not have a physical presence, and as such, would it not simply pass through the shield?
> 
> I'm sure a magical shield would stop it, but wait...
> 
> I certainly wouldn't allow it.



I can't find a flaw with his reasoning though - as described, a emanation shouldn't work through a tower shield used as total cover - but if you pick it up and wiggle it a little, it doesn't help at all!  Interpreting AMF as a literal emanation is going to open a can of worms however, as to which part of a creature is and which part is not in the field (should you be behind a tree or some other somewhat thin barrier, say).

Good find though ;-).  AMF is a nasty one for rules adjudication.  Here's to hoping it's clarified in 4.0!


----------



## AnonymousOne (Sep 21, 2007)

PHB pg 141

A 1st level Rogue cannot draw a one handed weapon or ready/loose a shield as part of a move action.

(Now doesn't that seem odd... )


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 21, 2007)

AnonymousOne said:
			
		

> PHB pg 141
> 
> A 1st level Rogue cannot draw a one handed weapon or ready/loose a shield as part of a move action.
> 
> (Now doesn't that seem odd... )




With careful multiclassing, you might _never_ be able to.

-Hyp.


----------



## AnonymousOne (Sep 21, 2007)

Yeah ... I'm so glad we ignore some rules... seriously, as if the first level rogue doesn't get the shaft enough...


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 21, 2007)

AnonymousOne said:
			
		

> Yeah ... I'm so glad we ignore some rules... seriously, as if the first level rogue doesn't get the shaft enough...




I figured you'd be more concerned that the 1st level rogue doesn't qualify for the Weapon Finesse feat...

-Hyp.


----------



## werk (Sep 21, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I figured you'd be more concerned that the 1st level rogue doesn't qualify for the Weapon Finesse feat...
> 
> -Hyp.




Neither of those issues are problems are due to the rogue being first level.

Both of those problems are caused directly by a rogue not getting a BAB at first level.

That's the real mistake.


----------



## AnonymousOne (Sep 21, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I figured you'd be more concerned that the 1st level rogue doesn't qualify for the Weapon Finesse feat...
> 
> -Hyp.




Yeah that pisses me off, but since most of our campaigns don't start at level 1, it's less of a drag on my roguish characters... this is also why picking up 3 levels of Swashbuckler and the Daring Outlaw feat are a must for every rogue.


----------



## Asmor (Sep 21, 2007)

werk said:
			
		

> Neither of those issues are problems are due to the rogue being first level.
> 
> Both of those problems are caused directly by a rogue not getting a BAB at first level.
> 
> That's the real mistake.




I disagree. Weapon Finesse, I think, shouldn't have the BAB pre-req. I'd change it to a dexterity prereq, personally (which isn't entirely pointless... Could still cause problems for, say, a kobold who doesn't have a great dex, but wanted the feat in order to get around his terrible strength score).

I don't think there's any problem at all with 1st level rogues not being able to draw a weapon as part of a move action.

Back on topic, something I just noticed in the SRD while working on a new character:



			
				d20srd.org said:
			
		

> Light Generation
> 
> Fully 30% of magic weapons shed light equivalent to a light spell (bright light in a 20-foot radius, shadowy light in a 40-foot radius). These glowing weapons are quite obviously magical. Such a weapon can’t be concealed when drawn, nor can its light be shut off. Some of the specific weapons detailed below always or never glow, as defined in their descriptions.




source: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm

How often do your players actually make mention of whether their weapons glow? Definitely has to be less than 30% of the time...

To his credit, the player of a barbarian IMC is actually quite specific that his ancestral axe glows... it's often the party's sole light source.


----------



## Aleolus (Sep 22, 2007)

I just remembered, the Two Weapon Fighting feat doesn't say that you need to use two weapons to gain it's benefit, you just gain an off-hand attack at -2.


----------



## Asmor (Sep 22, 2007)

Two-weapon fighting applies to manufactured weapons (like unarmed attacks ). Multiattack would be the natural weapon analog, though it's not a perfect analog.


----------



## Dargon (Sep 22, 2007)

> If you have a penalty for low Strength, apply it to damage rolls when you use a longbow



Now that is something i did not know


----------



## Asmor (Sep 22, 2007)

Dargon said:
			
		

> Now that is something i did not know




Damn, good timing. I'm running a factotum 7 in an RPGA game today who's got 8 strength and uses a longbow. Thanks!


----------



## Thikket (Sep 23, 2007)

Here's something I stumbled upon randomly tonight while reading the PHB...

A not-so-little-known rule about touch spells is that you can hold the charge indefinitely, and if you touch anyone even unintentionally while holding the charge, the spell discharges. You lose the held charge if you cast another spell...

But that does not preclude using, simultaneously, touch attacks that are supernatural abilities, right? I bet most everyone knows about delivering touch attacks via an unarmed strike, but what about this usage?

For example, a cleric with the Death domain could hold a charge of Inflict Critical Wounds, and then use his or her supernatural 1/day death touch on someone, simultaneously dealing 4d8+lvl dmg and delivering the death touch effect, right?

What if you had an (Sp) touch attack? Could you hold the charge, attack with your spell-like touch attack, and do both effects?


----------



## Rechan (Sep 23, 2007)

Thikket said:
			
		

> Here's something I stumbled upon randomly tonight while reading the PHB...
> 
> A not-so-little-known rule about touch spells is that you can hold the charge indefinitely, and if you touch anyone even unintentionally while holding the charge, the spell discharges. You lose the held charge if you cast another spell...
> 
> ...



I don't know how the RAW handles this, but I would treat a SP or other ability dealing with touch as "casting another spell".


----------



## Goblyn (Sep 24, 2007)

The hands created by the Bigby's ___ Hand spells take damage as normal creatures; thus, sneak-attackable, and crittable

...

I don't know if this is little known, but I've not met anyone else who knew it yet.


----------



## Meeki (Sep 24, 2007)

Hah, I'm not quite sure Bigby's hands can be sneak attacked.  Afterall what is a normal creature?  That and it is made of force and has no discernable anatomy (a force effect shaped like a hand does not mean it has the components that make up, say, a human hand).

I was reading the magic section and noticed that if you roll a 1 to save against a spell that can effect objects, even if it normally doesn't, an object on your person will be effected.


----------



## Slaved (Sep 24, 2007)

I am not sure if it was mentioned but while using Weapon Finesse carrying a shield you apply its armor check penalty on your attack rolls.


----------



## Goblyn (Sep 25, 2007)

Meeki said:
			
		

> Hah, I'm not quite sure Bigby's hands can be sneak attacked.  Afterall what is a normal creature?  That and it is made of force and has no discernable anatomy (a force effect shaped like a hand does not mean it has the components that make up, say, a human hand).




Sounds odd, yes, but that is what the description states. The exact wording under interposing hand: "It takes damage as a normal creature, but most magical effects that don't cause damage do not effect it." I don't see 'force effect' anywhere; it is always described as a hand, not an effect shaped like one. I think the 2e B's Hand is as you describe; though I don't have a 2e PHB to check.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 25, 2007)

Well, the Bigby's line of spells are all Evocation [Force] spells, so take from that what you wish.


----------



## Legildur (Sep 25, 2007)

Goblyn said:
			
		

> I don't see 'force effect' anywhere;



That'd be the 'Evocation [force]' sub-school attached to each of the _Hand_ spells......


----------



## Goblyn (Sep 25, 2007)

Legildur said:
			
		

> That'd be the 'Evocation [force]' sub-school attached to each of the _Hand_ spells......




Looks like I was too hasty in my looking. Oops.

This is just an aside, though. The hand still takes damage as a normal creature.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 25, 2007)

Goblyn said:
			
		

> This is just an aside, though. The hand still takes damage as a normal creature.




It takes damage as a normal creature, but it is not living:
_A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernible anatomies..._

-Hyp.


----------



## Goblyn (Sep 25, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> It takes damage as a normal creature, but it is not living:
> _A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernible anatomies..._
> 
> -Hyp.




I'd seen that and thought to myself: 'It is described as a hand; is that not discernable anatomy?' But the hand would be considered just an appendage, and so not sneak-attackable. So nevermind that.

Jeez, I'm an idiot today ... it's probably a good thing tonight's game was cancelled.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 25, 2007)

Goblyn said:
			
		

> I'd seen that and thought to myself: 'It is described as a hand; is that not discernable anatomy?' But the hand would be considered just an appendage, and so not sneak-attackable. So nevermind that.




Well, I think it might be able to be described as having a discernable anatomy (though I suspect that, not having vital organs, you couldn't say those organs were within reach!); my point was that while it might be treated as a creature for damage purposes, it's not a _living_ creature.  Creatureness isn't, by itself, sufficient for sneak attack; the creature must be living.

-Hyp.


----------



## javcs (Sep 25, 2007)

Slaved said:
			
		

> I am not sure if it was mentioned but while using Weapon Finesse carrying a shield you apply its armor check penalty on your attack rolls.



Source?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 25, 2007)

javcs said:
			
		

> Source?




The text of the Weapon Finesse feat, appropriately enough.

_If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls._

-Hyp.


----------



## javcs (Sep 25, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The text of the Weapon Finesse feat, appropriately enough.
> 
> _If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls._
> 
> -Hyp.



*Facepalm* Maybe I should look at my books next time.


----------



## Meeki (Sep 25, 2007)

Kwitchit said:
			
		

> You can't Sunder on an Attack of Opportunity




You would think that but the FAQ clears that up, I thought the same thing until I read the FAQ.  Sundering is an attack action and can be used on AoO.  THe wording in the srd is terrible and it has it listed as a standard action in one place and says you may use an attack under its description.  However in the FAQ it specifically says it is an attack action just like trip, disarm, and grapple.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 25, 2007)

Meeki said:
			
		

> You would think that but the FAQ clears that up




The FAQ, in this case, is in error.

There is no possible [non-contradictory] reading of the rules which would allow Sunder to be used as an AoO, or multiple times in a full attack action, etc.

The reasoning the FAQ provides in this case is demonstrably false.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Sep 25, 2007)

Few people know whether, according to the RAW, a monk can take Improved Natural Attack.















:ducks and runs:


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 25, 2007)

Heh, heh, heh.


----------



## Meeki (Sep 25, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> The FAQ, in this case, is in error.
> 
> There is no possible [non-contradictory] reading of the rules which would allow Sunder to be used as an AoO, or multiple times in a full attack action, etc.
> 
> The reasoning the FAQ provides in this case is demonstrably false.





The FAQ states that it can be used multiple times in multiple questions.  Also in the description of sunder it says you can use a melee attack with a ..., showing that a single melee attack can be used to sunder. Just like the trip wording, you can try to trip an opponent as an unarmed melee attack, and disarm says something similar.   Now the actions in combat chart does say it is a standard action and is not noted like disarm, grapple, or trip.  however it does say Sunder a weapon (attack), perhaps indicating it is an attack action.  It's sort of contradictory so that is why the FAQ is what I had to go by.


----------



## mvincent (Sep 25, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> The FAQ, in this case, is in error.
> 
> There is no possible [non-contradictory] reading of the rules which would allow Sunder to be used as an AoO



Even without the FAQ, that would've been my interpretion (same with most people I know and play with). But I'm entirely ok with you viewing our interpretation as contradictory.

I know this topic has been dicussed to death before, but has there been a poll on it?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 25, 2007)

Hey, guys - I'll split the sunder discussion into a separate thread.  

EDIT: Done.  You can find it here.


----------



## Aleolus (Sep 26, 2007)

Not a little known rule, but a question on them.

Do multiple sources that all cause you to be treated as one size category larger or allow you to use things one size larger stack?  'Cause I know a guy who has a high-epic level Monk, and every feat he took, apparently, was designed to make his Unarmed Strike treated as one size category larger, so he does the unarmed damage of a colossal creature.


----------



## cmrscorpio (Sep 26, 2007)

Aleolus said:
			
		

> Not a little known rule, but a question on them.
> 
> Do multiple sources that all cause you to be treated as one size category larger or allow you to use things one size larger stack?  'Cause I know a guy who has a high-epic level Monk, and every feat he took, apparently, was designed to make his Unarmed Strike treated as one size category larger, so he does the unarmed damage of a colossal creature.




Well, what feats did this person use in order to do this?  

Improved Natural Attack does not state that it can be taken multiple times.  Monkey Grip specifically states that its benefits work for melee weapons only, which means that it won't work on a monk's fists.  What other feats might this monk have taken to achieve this prowess?


----------



## Aleolus (Sep 26, 2007)

The guy doesn't remember, but he's convinced that they all stack.  I'll have to ask on the Gleemax forum what the official rules are.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Sep 27, 2007)

New one I just discovered today: You can only use ONE natural weapon in a grapple!  Neither me nor any of my friends EVER played it like that.  For reference, first check out the Rake description in the back of the MM, then CAREFULLY read the wording of the grapple rules in the PHB for attacking in a grapple.  ^_^

Note, rake is an explicit exception to this.  You get any rake attacks you have in addition to the one natural weapon.

Now, this is a real kick in the shorts for creatures w/ lots of natural weapons (like one player in my group, a grapple monkey w/ like 6 natural attacks).  With a manufactured light weapon, you can at least use your iterative attack BAB for a "full-attack."  Natural weapons, however, explicitly state they never can gain iterative attacks.


----------



## eamon (Sep 27, 2007)

StreamOfTheSky said:
			
		

> New one I just discovered today: You can only use ONE natural weapon in a grapple!  Neither me nor any of my friends EVER played it like that.  For reference, first check out the Rake description in the back of the MM, then CAREFULLY read the wording of the grapple rules in the PHB for attacking in a grapple.  ^_^
> 
> Note, rake is an explicit exception to this.  You get any rake attacks you have in addition to the one natural weapon.
> 
> Now, this is a real kick in the shorts for creatures w/ lots of natural weapons (like one player in my group, a grapple monkey w/ like 6 natural attacks).  With a manufactured light weapon, you can at least use your iterative attack BAB for a "full-attack."  Natural weapons, however, explicitly state they never can gain iterative attacks.



...but grapple also explicitly states that "If you get multiple attacks, you can attempt to start a grapple multiple times (at successively lower base attack bonuses)" - without saying that those multiple attack must stem from normal iterative attacks.

There's been a bunch of revisions surrounding grapple.  I'm not even sure which one is "officially" current, but the latest "Rules of the Game" version is playable anyhow, and that version allows one grapple check per +5 of base attack bonus, irrespective of natural, manufactured or whatnot status, and only allows one natural weapon to attack (I believe).  It's a mess, that's for sure.


----------



## eamon (Sep 27, 2007)

Aleolus said:
			
		

> The guy doesn't remember, but he's convinced that they all stack.  I'll have to ask on the Gleemax forum what the official rules are.



He doesn't remember what feats he took?


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Sep 27, 2007)

"Most ranged weapons can't be used while the attacker is prone, but you can use a crossbow or *shuriken* while prone at no penalty."

I knew about the crossbow, but the shuriken was a surprise to me. Page 151 of the _Player's Handbook_, third footnote.


----------



## robberbaron (Sep 27, 2007)

eamon said:
			
		

> He doesn't remember what feats he took?



He probably just made them up 'cos I can't remember a string of feats like that.


----------



## AnonymousOne (Sep 27, 2007)

robberbaron said:
			
		

> He probably just made them up 'cos I can't remember a string of feats like that.



Munchkining FTL...    

Face it the poor Monk is just screwed.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 27, 2007)

eamon said:
			
		

> ... that version allows one grapple check per +5 of base attack bonus, irrespective of natural, manufactured or whatnot status, and only allows one natural weapon to attack (I believe).




Sure.  But if you're using the 'Attack with a light weapon' option, you can only attack with one... and if it's a natural weapon, you can only attack with it once.

Let's say you're a bear with a +11 BAB who began his turn in a grapple.  You have three iterative 'attacks' from your +11 BAB.  You could use 'damage your opponent' three times, or you could use pin once and damage twice, or some other combination.  You can use 'attack with light weapon' to bite or claw... but not both, since you may not attack with two weapons while grappling.  And you may not bite twice, since natural weapons never receive multiple attacks from a high BAB.  So you can 'attack with light weapon' once to bite, then 'damage your opponent' twice for non-lethal unarmed strike damage.

-Hyp.


----------



## Nail (Sep 27, 2007)

robberbaron said:
			
		

> He probably just made them up......



That would be my guess.  Telling tall tales is part of fantasy gaming, isn't it?


----------



## Boredflak (Sep 28, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> It looks like someone at d20srd.org attempted to summarise the text from the PHB that's left out in the SRD... and got it wrong.




It has been corrected. I paraphrased the wording directly from the PHB this time.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> My feeling is that if d20srd.org are going to host an SRD, they should include the text _of the SRD_, and not try to add extra bits...




The official SRD is badly out of date and in this case incomplete. If you notice any inaccuracy at d20srd.org, please feel free to report the error via the forums there.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 28, 2007)

Boredflak said:
			
		

> It has been corrected. I paraphrased the wording directly from the PHB this time.




Cool 



> The official SRD is badly out of date and in this case incomplete.




Well, there are a lot of places where information in the PHB is left out of the SRD, but doesn't that usually mean that the missing information is closed content?  I'm not really up on how the OGL works when the SRD text differs from the PHB.

-Hyp.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Sep 29, 2007)

I was reading somewhere that fast healing doesn't work when someone is dying... i.e. if you are below 0 hp your fast healing doesn't automatically stabilize you.

I didn't know that (and actually it seems kinda fishy) so perhaps it is a little known rule.

Unless I am unusually ignorant, that is.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 29, 2007)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I was reading somewhere that fast healing doesn't work when someone is dying... i.e. if you are below 0 hp your fast healing doesn't automatically stabilize you.




Hmm... I would have thought that fast healing would be 'any sort of healing':
_If any sort of healing cures the dying character of even 1 point of damage, he stops losing hit points and becomes stable._

-Hyp.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Sep 29, 2007)

Something to do with natural healing not working when you are dying.  And fast healing follows the rules of natural healing unless otherwise stated.  And there's some sort of official answer confirming this.  I'll see if I can track it down.

edit:  here it is!

post 53 of this thread



			
				Wizards Customer Service said:
			
		

> Subject
> Does Fast Healing (Ex) work when at 0 or -9 to -1 hit points?
> 
> Discussion Thread
> ...


----------



## Nazhkandrias (Sep 29, 2007)

Now, here's something that most people know - 

1. Mind flayers like brains.
2. Zombies like brains.

What I'm wondering is this - would a mind flayer zombie like brains even more? Does brain-liking stack, or do you only use the higher modifier? Perhaps, instead of having x2 to brain-liking (zombies or mindflayers), we use that weird multiplication rule and multiply it to x3? Just food (brains) for thought (brains).


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 29, 2007)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Something to do with natural healing not working when you are dying.  And fast healing follows the rules of natural healing unless otherwise stated.  And there's some sort of official answer confirming this.  I'll see if I can track it down.




Well, firstly, Fast Healing works like natural healing _except where noted here_, and one of the notes is that the creature heals X hit points at the beginning of each turn.  So it could certainly be argued that if a creature does not naturally heal X hit points at the beginning of each turn, Fast Healing contains an exception to that rule.

Apart from that, the dying condition does not prevent a non-stabilised creature from healing naturally; rather, it prevents a creature who has stabilised by making the 10% roll while dying from healing naturally.  Thus, the unstable creature with fast healing is not prevented from fast healing; and once he has done so, he is stable, but not by making the 10% roll while dying; his situation fits better 'Recovering with help' than 'Recovering without help', and he can thus heal naturally now that he is stable.

-Hyp.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 29, 2007)

Nazhkandrias said:
			
		

> Now, here's something that most people know -
> 
> 1. Mind flayers like brains.
> 2. Zombies like brains.
> ...



Good question.


----------



## Maleketh (Sep 29, 2007)

*Dwarven Tumblers*

Here's another one for ya: a dwarf can use Tumble while wearing full plate (and with a rhino strapped to his back).  Tumble says it can't be used if your speed is reduced by armor or carried items, but dwarves suffer no speed reductions for such things.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Sep 29, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Well, firstly, Fast Healing works like natural healing _except where noted here_, and one of the notes is that the creature heals X hit points at the beginning of each turn.  So it could certainly be argued that if a creature does not naturally heal X hit points at the beginning of each turn, Fast Healing contains an exception to that rule.
> 
> Apart from that, the dying condition does not prevent a non-stabilised creature from healing naturally; rather, it prevents a creature who has stabilised by making the 10% roll while dying from healing naturally.  Thus, the unstable creature with fast healing is not prevented from fast healing; and once he has done so, he is stable, but not by making the 10% roll while dying; his situation fits better 'Recovering with help' than 'Recovering without help', and he can thus heal naturally now that he is stable.
> 
> -Hyp.




But, but, but...

*Customer Service* says otherwise!


----------



## eamon (Oct 2, 2007)

The PHB covers the normal case of natural healing.  A normal dying character can't survive for a day without stabilizing, which is why the section on dying mentions natural healing in the most appropriate section - recovery - which can take a day or more.  It does strongly suggest that you do not heal naturally while recovering without help, but doesn't mention the case in which you could naturally heal while not yet stabilized (since this is impossible normally).  It does say that a stabilized creature has a 10% chance per day to start healing naturally once more, which almost, but not quite, spells out that you don't heal naturally when unstabilized.  It's not hard to extrapolate that an unstabilized creature is worse off than a stabilized creature, so allowing an unstabilized creature to naturally heal "fast" makes no sense unless you also allow a stabilized creature to heal if it has fast healing.  

"A creature with the fast healing special quality regains hitpoints at an exceptionally fast rate, usually 1 or more hit points per round, [...]".  The exceptional healing ability is exceptional in the rate of healing.  The ability does not mention dying in any way, nor recovery therefrom, but does say that it works like natural healing otherwise.  Natural healing does not work while recovering unaided, and neither does Fast Healing therefore.  The fact that it would exceptionally heal several hitpoints per round doesn't help since the ability isn't functioning at all, since it's no different from natural healing in that respect.

*Cheiromancer is correct in saying that Fast Healing doesn't work when dying - i.e. when below 0 hit points.*

*Unless...* you think that a dying creature _does_ heals naturally but _stops_ once he's stabilized.  In that case I wish you much luck with a creature that has fast healing 1, and drops to -9.  (Do you first roll to stabilize at the beginning of your turn, or first heal fast, at the beginning of your turn?) Once the creature is stable, it stops Fast Healing.  Then it has a 10% chance per day to start healing again, but otherwise loses 1 hitpoint per day, (which isn't unstabilizing) which might still kill the creature.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 2, 2007)

eamon said:
			
		

> *Unless...* you think that a dying creature _does_ heals naturally but _stops_ once he's stabilized.




That's what it says.

Creatures heal naturally.

What is the exception to this?

_A character who becomes stable on his own (by making the 10% roll while dying) and who has no one to tend to him still loses hit points, just at a slower rate. He has a 10% chance each hour of becoming conscious. Each time he misses his hourly roll to become conscious, he loses 1 hit point. He also does not recover hit points through natural healing._

The exception - creature who do not recover hit points through natural healing - are those who become stable on their own by making the 10% roll while dying.

A creature who has not become stable on his own by making the 10% roll while dying is not a member of this set.  So the dying creature with Fast Healing who has not stabilised is not prohibited from healing naturally; he thus gains his hit points back, and in so doing becomes stable.  But since he has not become stable on his own by making the 10% roll while dying (he became stable because he was healed of at least one point of damage), he is still not prohibited from healing naturally.

-Hyp.


----------



## eamon (Oct 2, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> That's what it says.
> 
> Creatures heal naturally.



You mean, that's your interpretation.  That's certainly _not_ mine - the rules on stabilization cover those cases there where they're necessary, and that means, they don't describe what happens after hours if such a stage can only take a minute.  The entire segment paints a cohesive, consistent picture of a creature that loses hitpoints slightly more slowly once stabilized.  The section on "not healing naturally" can certainly be read as considering those two states to be mutually exclusive, which makes much more sense.  

Given the context, it's logical to mention the rule about natural healing in the rules about stabilization.  This isn't an exercise in computer programming, but in reading comprehension.

If somebody tells you not to cross the road when a car's approaching, do you cross when a truck's coming?

So, ignoring the fact that D&D's rules about death and dying are supposed to mimic mortally wounded creatures, and placing them in a semantic vacuum, you _would_ consider "natural healing" to halt when stabilizes and presumably not when unstabilized.  Of course, in a semantic vacuum, you probably couldn't make sense of any of this, so it's something of a moot point?  Fortunately, it's written in english, and that means these texts have meaning.  Considering that the PHB is written for players and covers player characters, and considering that these only need to deal with natural healing once stabilized, and considering what stabilizing represents and how the rules present it, it makes perfect sense to place a note concerning natural healing in the most relevant section - namely that about stable but still dying characters - and makes no sense to allow healing to "stop" once stabilized, ergo the statement should apply to all dying creatures.


----------



## mvincent (Oct 2, 2007)

You can increase your hp if you start drowning while below 0 hp:
_"When the character finally fails her Constitution check, she begins to drown. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hp)."_


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 2, 2007)

mvincent said:
			
		

> You can increase your hp if you start drowning while below 0 hp:
> _"When the character finally fails her Constitution check, she begins to drown. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hp)."_



I hope you're being facetious?


----------



## erf_beto (Oct 2, 2007)

mvincent said:
			
		

> You can increase your hp if you start drowning while below 0 hp:
> _"When the character finally fails her Constitution check, she begins to drown. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hp)."_



 Oh, that's why people say thermal springs have curative properties   
I just never tried drowning in them... 
lol


----------



## mvincent (Oct 2, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> I hope you're being facetious?



Of course. This thread seemed a good enough place for RAW vs. RAI oddities. Here's my complete list (I've provided it on these forums before, but I recently added some new ones):
1) _“A defender wearing spiked gauntlets can't be disarmed.”_ Taking the Rules As Written literally here would imply that spiked gauntlets prevents someone from disarming _any_ of your weapons.
_2) “A creature can’t hide within 60 feet of a character with darkvision unless it is invisible or has cover.”_ RAW implies that a dwarf cannot hide within 60’ of himself
_3) “Evasion can be used only if the rogue is wearing light armor or no armor.” _ RAW implies that a rogue cannot use a ring of evasion while in armor, even though other PC’s can.
_4) "Speed while wearing elven chain is 30 feet for Medium creatures, or 20 feet for Small."_ RAW implies that elven chain would make Dwarves go faster, but Barbarians, Monks, Flyers, etc. would go slower.
_5) "When the character finally fails her Constitution check, she begins to drown. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hp). " _ Taken literally, this could allow someone below 0 hp to have their hp increased when drowning.
_6) "Suffocation: A character who has no air to breathe can hold her breath for 2 rounds per point of Constitution. "_ Strictly as written, the suffocation rules would technically apply to non-breathing creatures.
_7) "a hasted creature may make one extra attack with any weapon he is holding_". As written; natural attacks, unarmed strikes, armor spikes and animated shield bashes cannot benefit from haste’s extra attack.
_8) "If people are observing you, even casually, you can’t hide. _". So a rogue could not hide from the enemies while being observed by his allies.
9) Strictly by RAW, a monk is not given proficiency with unarmed strikes (i.e. a monk does not have proficiency with simple weapons, which unarmed strike is).
10) The jump skill description says _"Long Jump: A long jump is a horizontal jump, made across a gap like a chasm or stream. _", so one could not long jump over something that is not a gap. 
11) Although ranged attacks are listed as provoking AoO’s in the Standard Actions table, full attacks (included ranged full attacks) do not provoke according to the Full-round actions table.
12) No rule says you’re prone when you lose consciousness.


----------



## werk (Oct 2, 2007)

mvincent said:
			
		

> 12) No rule says you’re prone when you lose consciousness. [/SIZE]




re:#12  
"Unconscious
Knocked out and helpless."

"Melee attacks against a helpless target get a +4 bonus (equivalent to attacking a prone target)."

So they re not prone, but they are treated as such...they get none of the benefits of being prone and all of the penalties except having to stand once the condition has changed.

One could make an argument that it is a typo and should say 'knocked down' which is an actual condition rather than fluff text...but it'd be a pretty hard argument to win.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 2, 2007)

eamon said:
			
		

> You mean, that's your interpretation.  That's certainly _not_ mine...




It's not your interpretation that creatures heal naturally?



> the rules on stabilization cover those cases there where they're necessary, and that means, they don't describe what happens after hours if such a stage can only take a minute.




Fast Healing doesn't happen after hours.  It happens after seconds.



> The section on "not healing naturally" can certainly be read as considering those two states to be mutually exclusive, which makes much more sense.




The section on 'not healing naturally' is attached to the paragraph describing the creature who has stabilised on his own by making the 10% stabilisation roll, not any dying creature.



> Considering that the PHB is written for players and covers player characters, and considering that these only need to deal with natural healing once stabilized...




... unless they've acquired Fast Healing.

-----

Even if you elect to ignore the rules text regarding dying characters, there's still the issue that Fast Healing is like natural healing _except where noted here_, and one of the notes is that the character heals X hit points each round.

A dying character who has stabilised on his own by making the 10% stabilisation check does not heal at all, X hit points per round or otherwise; A dying character _with Fast Healing_ who has stabilised on his own by making the 10% stabilisation check, _as noted here_, heals X hit points per round, since this is a way in which Fast HEaling differs from natural healing.

-Hyp.


----------



## ivocaliban (Oct 3, 2007)

Has anyone considered compiling these little known rules in a file format? They'd be somewhat handy to print out and stick in the back of the core books.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Oct 3, 2007)

Is this a little known rule?  _Reincarnate_ doesn't apply standard racial modifiers to ability scores.  For example, if you're an elf that comes back as an orc, you lose 2 Dexterity and gain 2 Constitution (as your elfness is stripped away), and then the orc stat mods _listed in the spell_ apply: +4 to Strength, and that's it.

I imagine most people strip-then-apply normal racial stat mods.  (Note, that might well be the intent, but the rules explicitly say to do things otherwise.)


----------



## Zurai (Oct 3, 2007)

Given the number of rules questions based on it in this forum, here's a little known rule (and I've run afoul of it as well):

Physics does not exist in D&D in even the slightest degree. You're better off pretending there is no such thing than trying to base rulings off it.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 3, 2007)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> Is this a little known rule?  _Reincarnate_ doesn't apply standard racial modifiers to ability scores.  For example, if you're an elf that comes back as an orc, you lose 2 Dexterity and gain 2 Constitution (as your elfness is stripped away), and then the orc stat mods _listed in the spell_ apply: +4 to Strength, and that's it.




Those _are_ the standard orc racial modifiers - to Str, Dex, and Con.

If you were a dwarf that comes back as an elf, you'd lose 2 Con (as your dwarfness is stripped away), and then the elf stat mods apply: lose 2 more Con, gain 2 Dex.

The former dwarf retains his -2 to Charisma despite no longer being a dwarf; the new orc doesn't take the penalties to Cha, Wis, and Int despite now being an orc.  Reincarnate only affects the physical abilities, Str, Dex, and Con.

-Hyp.


----------



## eamon (Oct 3, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> A dying character who has stabilised on his own by making the 10% stabilisation check does not heal at all, X hit points per round or otherwise; A dying character _with Fast Healing_ who has stabilised on his own by making the 10% stabilisation check, _as noted here_, heals X hit points per round, since this is a way in which Fast HEaling differs from natural healing.



That certainly makes more sense than a creature stopping its healing processes once stabilized.  It's not how I read fast healing however - fast healing says that a creature with fast healing heals (implicitly naturally) at an exceptionally fast rate.


			
				srd said:
			
		

> A creature with fast healing has the extraordinary ability to regain hit points at an exceptional rate. Except for what is noted here, fast healing is like natural healing.



The (short) fast healing blurb goes on to define that exceptional rate, but the fact that it's several hit points per round doesn't change the fact that it's nothing more than an exceptional rate, and when natural healing doesn't work (such as when stabilized), fast healing won't work either - in my view.

I think it makes more sense to view hitpoints/round as a variation on hitpoints/day, not an addition, but you can choose otherwise, in which case indeed a dying creature with fast healing would gain hitpoints from fast healing.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Oct 3, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The former dwarf retains his -2 to Charisma despite no longer being a dwarf



That's not what the spell says.  The spell explicitly says, "First, eliminate the subject's racial adjustments."

I'm sure you'll argue that that sentence applies only to Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution, but I'll say it again: that is not what the spell says.  (It might very well be the intent, but it's not what's written.)


----------



## Mystern (Oct 3, 2007)

here's an interesting rule. according to the wotc website anyone after your init in the first round of combat is considered flat footed. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040302a


----------



## mvincent (Oct 3, 2007)

Mystern said:
			
		

> here's an interesting rule. according to the wotc website anyone after your init in the first round of combat is considered flat footed. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040302a



Can you quote a passage (and restate what you believe it says)?

_Edit: I was reading the post to possibly mean one of several different things, hence the desired clarification._


----------



## Mystern (Oct 3, 2007)

mvincent said:
			
		

> Can you quote a passage (and restate what you believe it says)?






> Being Caught Flat Footed
> 
> This happens to almost everybody sooner or later. Anyone who is surprised is flat-footed during the ensuing surprise round. Surprised or not, anyone also is flat-footed during the first round of any combat from the time the combat begins until the creature takes its first turn in the initiative cycle.
> 
> Flat-footed creatures have two big disadvantages: They can't make attacks of opportunity and they can't use their Dexterity bonus (if any) to Armor Class. This makes them vulnerable to melee sneak attacks and to ranged sneak attacks (but see the section on uncanny dodge).




the source for this is http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040217a
and i believe it to mean exactly what it says, a rogue can make as many sneak attacks as they have attacks in the first round of combat. i also believe it to mean that anyone after my init roll is considered flat footed and has no dex bonus to their ac. as a side note, this also means that anyone after my init in the round after a surprise round is also considered flat footed since the surprise round is not considered the first round of combat.


----------



## AnonymousOne (Oct 3, 2007)

mvincent said:
			
		

> Can you quote a passage (and restate what you believe it says)?






			
				Rules of the Game said:
			
		

> 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.




In other words if you have an Init of 18, your party Wiz has an Init of 20 and the Goblin has 7 and the wiz teleports with you next to the Goblin, and you attack on your turn as a full attack action, all of your iterative attacks qualify for SA.  I suppose this also works if you have a higher Init. and you have a Swift action Teleport item (See MIC).  

That's how I understand it anyway.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 3, 2007)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> I'm sure you'll argue that that sentence applies only to Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution...




Damned right.

"Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution scores depend partly on the new body. First eliminate the subject’s racial adjustments (since it is no longer of his previous race) and then apply the adjustments found below to its remaining ability scores."

Str, Dex, and Con depend on the new body.  How do they depend on the new body?  First eliminate racial adjustments, then apply the new ones.

Int, Wis, and Cha don't depend on the new body.

-Hyp.


----------



## Mystern (Oct 3, 2007)

AnonymousOne said:
			
		

> In other words if you have an Init of 18, your party Wiz has an Init of 20 and the Goblin has 7 and the wiz teleports with you next to the Goblin, and you attack on your turn as a full attack action, all of your iterative attacks qualify for SA.  I suppose this also works if you have a higher Init. and you have a Swift action Teleport item (See MIC).




can you give me a link that "rules of the game"?


----------



## AnonymousOne (Oct 3, 2007)

Mystern said:
			
		

> can you give me a link that "rules of the game"?



http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040217a



> *Being Caught Flat Footed*
> 
> This happens to almost everybody sooner or later. Anyone who is surprised is flat-footed during the ensuing surprise round. Surprised or not, anyone also is flat-footed during the first round of any combat from the time the combat begins until the creature takes its first turn in the initiative cycle.


----------



## AnonymousOne (Oct 3, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Int, Wis, and Cha don't depend on the new body.
> 
> -Hyp.




I'm gonna disagree with you here Hyp.

Cha takes into account the comeliness of an individual.

Int takes into account the development of higher brain function.  Explain to me how a Dragon has a High INT without having a higher anatomical brain fucntion than that of your average commoner. 

Not sure about Wis though, we could perhaps chalk that up to social etiquette and experience.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 3, 2007)

AnonymousOne said:
			
		

> I'm gonna disagree with you here Hyp.




I'm talking about what the spell says - it says Str, Dex, and Con depend on the new body.  It doesn't say that Int, Wis, and Cha do.

Also compare the Polymorph spell: "The subject gains the Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution scores of the new form but retains its own Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores."

The Magic Jar spell: "You keep your Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma, level, class, base attack bonus, base save bonuses, alignment, and mental abilities. The body retains its Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, hit points, natural abilities, and automatic abilities."

You can Polymorph into an Ooze, and your Charisma stays the same.  Your Intelligence stays the same, even though there isn't a brain any more.

You can Magic Jar into someone really ugly, and your Charisma stays up at your own 17.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 3, 2007)

A reminder about courtesy - insulting other posters is Not Okay.  And try to avoid the excessive snark and condescension in your replies.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)


----------



## mkill (Oct 3, 2007)

The following are probably not so little known, but they are definitely cases to go "huh" because they go against common sense:

Profession (soldier) is not a class skill for Fighters.

Knowledge (dungeoneering) is not a class skill for Rogues.

Sense Motive is not a class skill for Clerics. "Have you sinned, my son?" - "Me? Erm, no, not lately, why?" - "Good, I shall believe you"...


----------



## AnonymousOne (Oct 4, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> A reminder about courtesy - insulting other posters is Not Okay.  And try to avoid the excessive snark and condescension in your replies.
> 
> -Hyp.
> (Moderator)



Sorry, didn't mean to be...  :\


----------



## AnonymousOne (Oct 4, 2007)

mkill said:
			
		

> Knowledge (dungeoneering) is not a class skill for Rogues.




yeah ... that always kinda bothered me.


----------



## Tonguez (Oct 4, 2007)

mkill said:
			
		

> The following are probably not so little known, but they are definitely cases to go "huh" because they go against common sense:





*Profession (soldier) is not a class skill for Fighters*. - um not all fighters are soldiers?

*Knowledge (dungeoneering) is not a class skill for Rogues* - um not all Rogues hang around in dungeons?.

*Sense Motive is not a class skill for Clerics*. - um not all militant clergy are good judges of moral character?


----------



## mvincent (Oct 4, 2007)

Tonguez said:
			
		

> um not all fighters are soldiers?



But it seems like they should be _able_ to be, if desired (i.e. without it being a cross-class skill).

I mean: commoners, wizards, sorcerers etc. all get it as a class skill .

(warriors don't though).


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 4, 2007)

AnonymousOne said:
			
		

> Sorry, didn't mean to be...  :\




Don't worry - your post isn't what prompted it.

-Hyp.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 4, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I'm talking about what the spell says - it says Str, Dex, and Con depend on the new body.  It doesn't say that Int, Wis, and Cha do.
> 
> Also compare the Polymorph spell: "The subject gains the Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution scores of the new form but retains its own Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores."
> 
> ...



Note that these spells explicitly state what happens to your Int, Wis and Cha. _Reincarnate _does not state this. It mentions class abilities, feats, skill ranks, class, BAB, base saves, and hit points. It then states to eliminate the racial adjustments, then apply the adjustments (to Str, Dex and Con) to the "remaining" ability scores. This confuses things even more, since the word remaining seems to imply that only Int, Wis, and Cha adjustments are eliminated.

Unfortunate choice of wording, since the intent seems fairly clear based on the context, but reading the RAW, all racial adjustments are eliminated. That's what the words say.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Oct 4, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> "Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution scores depend partly on the new body."



And they do.  The next eplicit instructions don't change that in any way.



> "First eliminate the subject’s racial adjustments (since it is no longer of his previous race)"



This simply couldn't be more clear.  "Eliminate the subject's racial modifiers."  It would have been trivial to say, as they did in some many other places, "except for mental stats," but they didn't write that.  So, by the rules, you eliminate racial modifiers.  Period.  Full stop.



> "and then apply the adjustments found below to its remaining ability scores."



Again, very straightforward.  As promised in the preceding sentence, Stength, Dexterity, and Constitution scores are being modified by the new body.



> Int, Wis, and Cha don't depend on the new body.



Except, of course, to the extent that they're racial modifiers that are to be stripped away when instructed to do so by the rules as written.

Again, the house rule you use might very well be the intent behind the rule.  I personally think it's a close call.  But your house rule isn't what the rules actually _say_ to do.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 4, 2007)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> And they do.  The next eplicit instructions don't change that in any way.
> 
> This simply couldn't be more clear.  "Eliminate the subject's racial modifiers."  It would have been trivial to say, as they did in some many other places, "except for mental stats," but they didn't write that.  So, by the rules, you eliminate racial modifiers.  Period.  Full stop.




The sentence describes how Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution scores depend partly on the new body - you eliminate racial modifiers.

It doesn't describe how Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores depend on the new body.

The sentence is part of a paragraph.



			
				Fifth Element said:
			
		

> This confuses things even more, since the word remaining seems to imply that only Int, Wis, and Cha adjustments are eliminated.




If I have a Str score of 16, including my +2 racial modifier, and I eliminate that racial modifier, my remaining score is 14.

-Hyp.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 4, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The sentence describes how Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution scores depend partly on the new body - you eliminate racial modifiers.



No, those are two separate sentences; you can't simply conflate them. Nothing is explicitly stated about Int, Wis and Cha.

It's unclear at best.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 4, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If I have a Str score of 16, including my +2 racial modifier, and I eliminate that racial modifier, my remaining score is 14.



That clears up that confusion. That returns us to the strict reading of the RAW, which does not address Int, Wis and Cha explicitly. It does explicitly state that racial adjustments are eliminated, without explicitly restricting which ones.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 4, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> No, those are two separate sentences; you can't simply conflate them.




So let's take, say, the Fly spell as an example.

"Should the spell duration expire while the subject is still aloft, the magic fails slowly. The subject floats downward 60 feet per round for 1d6 rounds."

These are two separate sentences; you can't simply conflate them.  The subject of a fly spell floats downward 60 feet per round for 1d6 rounds.  In addition, should the spell duration expire while the subject is still aloft, the magic fails slowly.

Does it not make sense to assume that the downward-floating element of the spell occurs at such time as the spell duration expires while the subject is still aloft?  I hesitate to conflate separate sentences in such a fashion, but I must confess it's how I've always read that paragraph in the past...

-Hyp.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 4, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So let's take, say, the Fly spell as an example.
> 
> "Should the spell duration expire while the subject is still aloft, the magic fails slowly. The subject floats downward 60 feet per round for 1d6 rounds."



I didn't mean you can't conflate sentences. I meant you can't necessarily conflate the two specific sentences in question. The second sentence can stand on its own. It does not require the first sentence to make sense, as in your _fly_ example.

In the end, I agree with your interpretation, but strict RAW does not necessarily support it.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 4, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> I didn't mean you can't conflate sentences. I meant you can't necessarily conflate the two specific sentences in question. The second sentence can stand on its own. It does not require the first sentence to make sense, as in your _fly_ example.




The second sentence in the Fly example doesn't require the first sentence to make sense.  You cast Fly, and the subject floats downward for 1d6 rounds.

You _need not_ conflate the sentences in order to get a result that is not entirely nonsensical, but doing so provides a more sensible result, and is not forbidden by the workings of the English language.

Likewise in Reincarnate; you can choose to read the two sentences in isolation, but it is not necessary to do so... and by reading them together instead, you achieve a more sensible result.

Indeed, in order to read them in isolation, they should really appear in separate paragraphs.

-Hyp.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 4, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Indeed, in order to read them in isolation, they should really appear in separate paragraphs.



Yes they should. Doesn't mean they will, necessarily, given that the rules are written and typeset by people, who often make mistakes.

Again, we agree in the interpretation, but we must realize it is an interpretation, since the RAW are unclear.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 4, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The second sentence in the Fly example doesn't require the first sentence to make sense.  You cast Fly, and the subject floats downward for 1d6 rounds.



The second sentence makes no sense if you're on the ground when you cast the spell. It doesn't stand on its own in a meaningful way. It requires context.

"First eliminate the subject's racial adjustments..." has meaning by itself. It can be read by itself, and understood. Not that you should necessarily do that.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 4, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Again, we agree in the interpretation, but we must realize it is an interpretation, since the RAW are unclear.





			
				Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> This simply couldn't be more clear.




It seems even that is in dispute 

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 4, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> The second sentence makes no sense if you're on the ground when you cast the spell.




It makes as much sense as "First eliminate the subject's racial adjustments" in a case where the subject doesn't have any.

-Hyp.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 4, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> It makes as much sense as "First eliminate the subject's racial adjustments" in a case where the subject doesn't have any.



The target is "Dead creature touched".

Unless there are creatures that don't have ability scores, your example is precluded by the details of the spell.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 4, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> It seems even that is in dispute



Indeed, I disagree with both of you in that you both state that there is one correct way to read the rules in this case. In actuality, there is ample ambiguity.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 4, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> The target is "Dead creature touched".
> 
> Unless there are creatures that don't have ability scores, your example is precluded by the details of the spell.




There are creatures with ability scores, but no racial adjustments.  Humans, to choose an obvious example.

-Hyp.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 4, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> There are creatures with ability scores, but no racial adjustments.  Humans, to choose an obvious example.



True. It should state that the racial adjustments, if any, should be eliminated, to be more clear. It doesn't say that. But how would that change the reading?

Eliminate the ability adjustments? Well, this subject doesn't have any, so that step clearly doesn't apply. What's the trouble?


----------



## Al'Kelhar (Oct 4, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> No, those are two separate sentences; you can't simply conflate them...
> 
> It's unclear at best.




That's an unusual interpretation of written English.  Sentences in the same paragraph deal with the same subject matter, and are intended by their author to be read together in connection with that subject.  If the author did not want two sentences to be read as connected elements of a whole, he or she would have written them not merely as separate sentences, but as separate paragraphs.

Ask yourself - what is the _natural, ordinary meaning_ of the text, not some artificially contrived interpretation intended to prove a point.  Consider the following statement:

"I saw a bus yesterday.  It was yellow."

What colour was the bus I saw yesterday?  By the interpretation advanced above, who knows?  The two sentences are unrelated, and the subject of the second sentence is "it", not "the bus I saw yesterday".

This kind of interpretation of the RAW irks me greatly, because it attempts to divorce the text of the rules from their context.  It is a 19th-Century style of legislative interpretation which is viewed with disfavour and contempt by modern jurists.  I never interpret the rules simply by reference to the text in a vacuum.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 4, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Eliminate the ability adjustments? Well, this subject doesn't have any, so that step clearly doesn't apply. What's the trouble?




Exactly.  If the subject is on the ground when the spell is cast, the 'float downwards' step clearly doesn't apply.  What's the trouble? ... and the sentence makes sense in isolation.  But that still doesn't make it the right way to read it.

-Hyp.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 4, 2007)

Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> "I saw a bus yesterday.  It was yellow."
> 
> What colour was the bus I saw yesterday?  By the interpretation advanced above, who knows?  The two sentences are unrelated, and the subject of the second sentence is "it", not "the bus I saw yesterday".



"It" is a pronoun. "It is yellow" makes no sense in isolation. "Eliminate the subject's racial adjustments" makes sense in isolation. The sentences have two different subjects. In your example, they do not.



			
				Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> This kind of interpretation of the RAW irks me greatly, because it attempts to divorce the text of the rules from their context.



I completely agree with you. All rules require interpretation. RAW as a concept is really a myth. However, many posters have an idea that there is one right way to interpret all rules (which is, of course, their way), which is not true in most cases.

In this case, I agree that Hyp's interpretation makes the most sense. But it is an interpretation, since rules text cannot stand on its own.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Oct 4, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Indeed, I disagree with both of you in that you both state that there is one correct way to read the rules in this case. In actuality, there is ample ambiguity.



Not at all.  As I've stated several times, it's entirely possible that the designers intended the rule as Hypersmurf would have it.  When I say "it's perfectly clear," I'm simply talking about the sentence which unambiguously, without restriction, says to strip racial modifiers.  Not certain racial modifiers.  All of them.

What, then, of the preceding sentence that says that Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution might be affected by the new body?  Again, simple and straightforward, and in the very next sentence it tells you how ... by adding the modifiers from the chart.  Not only does that instruction come in the same paragraph, as it should, it comes in the _next sentence_, albeit in the second part of a compound instruction.

Can the rule be interpreted two ways?  Clearly.  Only one of them, however, conforms with the literal text.  The other one, as Hypersmurf enjoys pointing out to folks, is a house rule, however much sense it makes.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 4, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Exactly.  If the subject is on the ground when the spell is cast, the 'float downwards' step clearly doesn't apply.  What's the trouble? ... and the sentence makes sense in isolation.  But that still doesn't make it the right way to read it.



I'm sorry, but that floating down bit does not stand on its own. It could be read to mean the subject floats down, through the earth, for 1d6 rounds. The subsequent sentence precludes that, but the second sentence is needed to clarify.

But this isn't really the point. We're arguing semantics. It's really about interpretation, and the fact that rules require interpretation. In most cases, there is one interpretation that is clearly most sensible. This is not always the case.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 4, 2007)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> Not at all.  As I've stated several times, it's entirely possible that the designers intended the rule as Hypersmurf would have it.  When I say "it's perfectly clear," I'm simply talking about the sentence which unambiguously, without restriction, says to strip racial modifiers.  Not certain racial modifiers.  All of them.



Okay, I was relying on Hyp's snipping of your post, which I should not have. I agree that the literal words are clear.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 4, 2007)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> Not at all.  As I've stated several times, it's entirely possible that the designers intended the rule as Hypersmurf would have it.  When I say "it's perfectly clear," I'm simply talking about the sentence which unambiguously, without restriction, says to strip racial modifiers.  Not certain racial modifiers.  All of them.




And the isolated sentence in Fly unambiguously, without qualification, states that the subject floats downwards for 1d6 rounds.

Not all of the required information is found within the sentence, however, just as not all of the required information in the Reincarnate spell regarding racial adjustments is found within that one isolated sentence.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 4, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but that floating down bit does not stand on its own.




Neither does the Reincarnate text, by the same logic.

"You float downward" has meaning.  It's just that unless you read the whole paragraph, you get the wrong meaning.

"Eliminate racial adjustments" has meaning.  It's just that unless you read the whole paragraph, you get the wrong meaning.

-Hyp.


----------



## AnonymousOne (Oct 4, 2007)

We have but one way to settle this dispute .... gentlemen ... Rock, Paper, Scissors.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Oct 4, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> "Eliminate racial adjustments" has meaning.  It's just that unless you read the whole paragraph, you get the wrong meaning.



This is blatant circular reasoning.  You need to show that we're getting the wrong meaning, instead of making the claim for use in the very argument that we're getting the wrong meaning.

The spell functions perfectly well the way Fifth Element and I are reading it.  (Which, not coincidentally, is also the way it's literally written.)  The spell also functions perfectly well the way you're interpreting it.  The only problem is, you're adding restrictions to the text that simply are not there.  It's that simple.

Is your interpretation correct?  Again (and again), it wouldn't surprise me; the designers have proven over and over that they're not particularly good constructionists.  But it's _not what the words say_.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Oct 4, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> And the isolated sentence in Fly unambiguously, without qualification, states that the subject floats downwards for 1d6 rounds.
> 
> Not all of the required information is found within the sentence



Correct.  And how do we know this?  Because the spell makes no sense unless we look for more meaning in the preceeding sentence.



> however, just as not all of the required information in the Reincarnate spell regarding racial adjustments is found within that one isolated sentence.



You can keep asserting this all you like.  It remains false.  The sentence has clear, unambiguous meaning, and unlike the _fly_ example you're attached to, _reincarnate_ works fine and makes sense if you read the clear, umambiguous sentence and do what it says to do.


----------



## Rvdvelden (Oct 4, 2007)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> Correct.  And how do we know this?  Because the spell makes no sense unless we look for more meaning in the preceeding sentence.




I agree (for once) with Hyp that this should also apply to the reincarnate spell. If you choose to disassociate the "eliminate racial adjustments" sentence from the rest of the text, you're just not following the rules of the (English) language. Not only does the previous sentence refer to which abilities are affected, even the rest of the text of the spell refers to changing the physical effects and leaving the mental effects untouched.

The rules can be ambiguous enough as it is and disregarding rudimentary rules of language is only adding to that problem.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 4, 2007)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> The only problem is, you're adding restrictions to the text that simply are not there.




They're _right there_!  In the preceding sentence.



> Correct. And how do we know this? Because the spell makes no sense unless we look for more meaning in the preceeding sentence.




The sentence is completely sensible in isolation.  There's nothing wrong with a spell that has the effect "The subject floats downwards for 1d6 rounds".  We look to the preceding sentence because _that's how paragraphs work_, not because we end up with nonsense otherwise.  We end up with something that doesn't feel like a Fly spell, of course.

Just like in Reincarnate, we have a sentence which makes sense by itself, but which appears in a paragraph with a qualifying sentence... and if we ignore that qualifier, we end up with a spell that replaces your body, yet for some reason affects your mind.  Fortunately, since the qualifying sentence is there, that oddity is avoided.

-Hyp.


----------



## eamon (Oct 4, 2007)

Reading reincarnate sounds to me like it's removing racial adjustments to Strength, Dexterity and Constitution.  That's what the context suggests.  Now, if you'd have suggested that a reincarnated creature doesn't lose his old racial (Ex, Su) abilities but still gains those of the new form, I would still think that's probably not how the spell is best read, but that's less obvious from the immediate context, since the spell only speaks of gaining the new form's abilities and (unless I'm missing something?) never says a word about the old forms racial abilities.  
Does an Ex-Drow retain his Spell Resistance when reincarnated?
The spell opens other questions too - since you retain your class levels or HD (losing "just" one), when you turn into a form with racial HD, do you gain those?  Do you instead lose more class levels to compensate? Do you simply become that race without racial HD?  What's the CR (and LA) of such a form?  Even two races with LA 0 and no racial HD can be problematic if combined - say a Grey elf reincarnated as an Orc or Dwarf.

This is relevant to the question at hand, since it means that reincarnate requires DM-adjudication anyhow, which means that further details like whether you need to remove mental ability modifiers don't really make that problem much bigger - though I still think that as written you really should retain (and thus not remove) the original race's adjustments to the mental ability scores.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Oct 4, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> They're _right there_!  In the preceding sentence.



No, they're not.  The previous sentence simply makes an observation.  One which the next sentence follows through on, by the instruction to apply the modifiers in the table to Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution.



> The sentence is completely sensible in isolation.



See, that's a nice trick.  I didn't say the "sentence" doesn't make sense.  I said the _spell_ (_fly_) doesn't make sense if you don't read the sentences as completely interdependent.  And then I contrasted that with _reincarnate_, in which the spell makes _perfect_ sense if you simply follow the instructions within, among those being to strip away racial adjustments.  All of them.

It also makes perfect sense if you only strip away Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution racial modifiers.  But that's not what the spell says to do.


----------



## eamon (Oct 4, 2007)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> No, they're not.  The previous sentence simply makes an observation.  One which the next sentence follows through on, by the instruction to apply the modifiers in the table to Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution.



Why would you assume that the observation and the instructions _aren't_ related?  The instructions to apply only the physical ability modifiers of the new race just reinforce the message: they're talking about physical ability modifiers - just like they do just before and after the sentence.


----------



## HellHound (Oct 4, 2007)

Mystern said:
			
		

> here's an interesting rule. according to the wotc website anyone after your init in the first round of combat is considered flat footed. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040302a




This is a little-known rule?

In my experience, this is how almost all fights begin - whoever goes first has the advantage of the enemies being flat-footed for the first round. That's *why *rogues take improved initiative.

Could I request that we split out all the rules DEBATES from this thread into new threads?


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Oct 4, 2007)

eamon said:
			
		

> Why would you assume that the observation and the instructions _aren't_ related?



I don't make that assumption; they might be intended that way.  I've simply said that it's not what the text says, and it's not necessary to read them as interdependent for the spell to make sense and to work perfectly well.  Accordingly, the literal RAW are to strip away all racial modifiers.


----------



## Elethiomel (Oct 4, 2007)

I made a thread for the discussion on Reincarnate, so you can move there if you want to:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=3811061


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 4, 2007)

HellHound said:
			
		

> This is a little-known rule?
> 
> In my experience, this is how almost all fights begin - whoever goes first has the advantage of the enemies being flat-footed for the first round. That's *why *rogues take improved initiative.




Yup.


----------



## glass (Oct 4, 2007)

HellHound said:
			
		

> This is a little-known rule?
> 
> In my experience, this is how almost all fights begin - whoever goes first has the advantage of the enemies being flat-footed for the first round. That's *why *rogues take improved initiative.



I think the little known bit is that you are still flat-footed in the first proper round even if you acted in the surprise round. However, I don't think this is 'little known' so much as 'wrong'. 


glass.


----------



## robberbaron (Oct 4, 2007)

mkill said:
			
		

> Knowledge (dungeoneering) is not a class skill for Rogues
> .



Why would a rogue want to know what's in dungeons? If he's smart he'll know not to go anywhere near one.


----------



## irdeggman (Oct 6, 2007)

AnonymousOne said:
			
		

> PHB pg 141
> 
> A 1st level Rogue cannot draw a one handed weapon or ready/loose a shield as part of a move action.
> 
> (Now doesn't that seem odd... )





Technically it is a part of a "regular move" and not a "move action" - many people seem to likewise confuse that rule.



> If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action *combined with a regular move*. If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can draw two light or one-handed weapons in the time it would normally take you to draw one.


----------



## irdeggman (Oct 6, 2007)

A dwarf wearing heavy armor and carrying a heavy load still suffers all of the other penalties, although his speed is unaffected.




> • Dwarf base land speed is 20 feet. However, dwarves *can move at this speed* even when wearing medium or heavy armor or when carrying a medium or heavy load (unlike other creatures, whose speed is reduced in such situations).




PHB pg 161

Heavy load - +1 Dex bonus to AC, -6 armor check penalty


----------



## Thurbane (Oct 6, 2007)

Creatures summoned by the Summoning ability of other creatures (i.e. Demons, Devils etc.) cannot use their own summoning ability for 1 hour, and they also disappear in 1 hour, meaning a single Demon cannot spawn a small army...

MMV - p.219


----------



## Asmor (Oct 6, 2007)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> Creatures summoned by the Summoning ability of other creatures (i.e. Demons, Devils etc.) cannot use their own summoning ability for 1 hour, and they also disappear in 1 hour, meaning a single Demon cannot spawn a small army...
> 
> MMV - p.219




Actually knew about the fact that they couldn't chain summon. Missed the part about the 1 hour duration, though.

A more interesting thing to note, however, is that demons and devils (devils in particular) should really be very hesitant to use this ability... They're not just creating a friend out of thin air, when they summon someone, they're asking that other fiend for a big favor, and so they're then beholden to that fiend.


----------



## Zurai (Oct 6, 2007)

Asmor said:
			
		

> Actually knew about the fact that they couldn't chain summon. Missed the part about the 1 hour duration, though.
> 
> A more interesting thing to note, however, is that demons and devils (devils in particular) should really be very hesitant to use this ability... They're not just creating a friend out of thin air, when they summon someone, they're asking that other fiend for a big favor, and so they're then beholden to that fiend.




Not so much for summoned creatures - there's no risk for a summoned creature, after all, and summoned creatures cannot decline the summon. _Gated_ creatures, on the other hand, are risking true death, and can decline to be _Gated_ in.

I'm not sure whether there's actually any demons/devils that summon rather than _Gate_, though.


----------



## Slaved (Oct 6, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Not so much for summoned creatures - there's no risk for a summoned creature, after all, and summoned creatures cannot decline the summon. _Gated_ creatures, on the other hand, are risking true death, and can decline to be _Gated_ in.
> 
> I'm not sure whether there's actually any demons/devils that summon rather than _Gate_, though.




It is a very strange rule but http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#summon


----------



## Zurai (Oct 6, 2007)

Slaved said:
			
		

> It is a very strange rule but http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#summon




That's... odd. I wonder why they change the mechanics for Summoned creatures for the demon/devil random summonings?

Going by the default rules for Summoned creatures, the creatures are at no risk to their own safety, are under the command of the summoner, and cannot use dimensional travel abilities of their own. Why the need to explicitly state that they cannot summon, and why the need to say that they are beholden to the summonee if they summon?

Oh well: definitely chalk that up as a "little known rule" as far as I'm concerned, then!


----------



## Beginning of the End (Oct 8, 2007)

Mystern said:
			
		

> the source for this is http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040217a
> and i believe it to mean exactly what it says, a rogue can make as many sneak attacks as they have attacks in the first round of combat. i also believe it to mean that anyone after my init roll is considered flat footed and has no dex bonus to their ac. as a side note, this also means that anyone after my init in the round after a surprise round is also considered flat footed since the surprise round is not considered the first round of combat.




Which is also what the SRD says.

Well, that's retarded. Does anyone actually play that way? And, if you do, could you explain to me your rationale for ambushers being caught off-guard by the people they're ambushing _after_ they've successfully ambushed them?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 8, 2007)

Beginning of the End said:
			
		

> Well, that's retarded. Does anyone actually play that way? And, if you do, could you explain to me your rationale for ambushers being caught off-guard by the people they're ambushing _after_ they've successfully ambushed them?




Well, the 'Initiative' section, under the subheading 'Flat-Footed', states that you are flat-footed before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order).

The following section, Surprise, is a separate section, describing a situation that only arises some of the time; under the subheading 'Unaware Combatants', it notes that unaware combatants are flat-footed because they have not yet acted.

The implication is that in the special situation of surprise, a character who has acted (due to being aware, rather than unaware) is not flat-footed... despite not having taken a turn in a regular round, he has taken a turn in the initiative order and is not a character who has not yet acted.

-Hyp.


----------



## aland (Oct 8, 2007)

A vampire kobold with 4 level of any npc classes has a CR of 3 (4-3+2), yet it's got an ECL of 12(4+8), and since it advances by "character class", it could get gears worth of 27000gp(proper for an NPC of ECL 12)... which is really, really weird...........


----------



## mvincent (Oct 8, 2007)

aland said:
			
		

> it's got an ECL of 12(4+8), and since it advances by "character class", it could get gears worth of 27000gp(proper for an NPC of ECL 12)



NPC wealth should be based on their character level (not ECL, as that could result in say, a giant with a single barbarian level becoming extremely wealthy*).

From the DMG (page 51),  *Monsters With Classes*:
_"...first give them equipment. Use Table 4-23: NPC Gear Value (page 127) and use just their class levels to determine the value of their equipment. Then generate their treasure according to their monster entry..."_

While this does conflict with a MM entry, the DMG entry should be given precedence here. Discussions on the topic can be seen here, here, and here.

Now: _*PC's*_ should have wealth based off of ECL, but not NPCs.

* Example: giving a fire giant a level of barbarian isn't unusual, but then giving him the starting wealth of a 20th level NPC (because of that level)... well, that's a problem for a CR11 encounter (both for the party, and for the DM if the party acquires all that wealth)


----------



## aland (Oct 9, 2007)

"If you choose to equip a monster with gear, use its ECL as its character level for purposes of determining how much equipment it can purchase."

So this statement quoted from SRD is completely wrong? 

Maybe this would be better, there should be some kind of errata, though.

A lv 4 adept kobold still has a CR of 1, anyway.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 9, 2007)

aland said:
			
		

> "If you choose to equip a monster with gear, use its ECL as its character level for purposes of determining how much equipment it can purchase."
> 
> So this statement quoted from SRD is completely wrong?




Note that mvincent allows there is a contradiction between the DMG and MM, and refers you to discussion on the matter...

-Hyp.


----------



## Asmor (Oct 9, 2007)

See, I would just equip it by its CR, with the understanding that all its loot belongs to the PCs when it's beaten, and that's their reward for beating a CR X encounter.


----------



## Aleolus (Oct 9, 2007)

But what if some of their gear breaks or gets destroyed during the encounter?  That would drop the amount of treasure they get!


----------



## mvincent (Oct 9, 2007)

aland said:
			
		

> So this statement quoted from SRD is completely wrong?



Yup. It's an error (which of course still makes it good for "little know rules" fodder, so thank you for presenting it here ).


----------



## aland (Oct 10, 2007)

However, a lv4 adept kobold(CR 1) would still get the gear proper for a character level 4 Npc,right?


----------



## UltimaGabe (Oct 10, 2007)

Aleolus said:
			
		

> But what if some of their gear breaks or gets destroyed during the encounter?  That would drop the amount of treasure they get!




Is that any different from D&D normally?


----------



## mvincent (Oct 10, 2007)

aland said:
			
		

> However, a lv4 adept kobold(CR 1) would still get the gear proper for a character level 4 Npc,right?



Yup


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 10, 2007)

Aleolus said:
			
		

> But what if some of their gear breaks or gets destroyed during the encounter?  That would drop the amount of treasure they get!




Grr.  We fought some duergar the other day.  One of them chucked a bead from a Necklace of Fireballs at us, and our first thought was "Stop using our loot!"

Later, another one chucked a crystal from an Icy Strand of the North - to our credit, our first thought wasn't about the loot, but the fact that it took two of our PCs to -10...

-Hyp.


----------



## aland (Oct 11, 2007)

Speaking of Necklace of Fireball, I remember, till now, vividly, that in one campaign, we put THREE Necklaces of Fireball(all of which were loots from previous encounters, rolled by the DM) on the PAL, just to save the money of a Bag of Holding. Later in one encounter, one enemy shot a fireball, and she failed all three saves...Since that time Bag of Holding had became increasingly popular among the PCs...


----------



## Maleketh (Oct 11, 2007)

_Raise dead_ doesn't work on creatures killed by death effects.  I just had someone point this out to me recently.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Oct 12, 2007)

On the subject of equipment, I've found that many players don't know that their first set of clothes is both free and weightless (PHB 131).


----------



## Rvdvelden (Oct 12, 2007)

Explorer’s Outfit: This is a full set of clothes for someone who never knows what to expect. It includes sturdy boots, leather breeches or a skirt, a belt, a shirt (perhaps with a vest or jacket), *gloves*, and a cloak. Rather than a leather skirt, a leather overtunic may be worn over a cloth skirt. The clothes have plenty of pockets (especially the cloak). The outfit also includes any extra items you might need, such as a scarf or a wide-brimmed hat.

Can't tell you how many times that saved my butt.
Me: My character tries to push the door
DM: Your character is now stuck to the door
Me: I take my hand out of my glove that is stuck to the door
DM:


----------



## eamon (Oct 21, 2007)

A character wielding a spiked chain can attack underwater without penalty, unlike a character wielding a slashing/bludgeoning weapon.  Those poor sods take a -2 penalty on attack rolls, and deal only half damage.  That makes sense... no?

Source SRD - Combat Adjustments Underwater

Other great tidbits:  a creature _with_ a swim speed can specifically make _tail_ attacks without penalty, but takes the normal -2 attack bonus / half damage penalty on other slashing/bludgeoning melee attacks.

However, a creature _without_ a swim speed takes a -2 attack roll / half damage penalty with all slashing/bludgeoning attacks - except while grappling, when the -2 attack roll penalty _does_ apply, but the half damage penalty does _not_.

As an aside, the superscript ¹ must apply generally and not just to creature without a swim speed that succeed on a swim check and are attacking with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon which is not a tail... that's just got to be an unfortunate layout, right?


----------



## s-dub (Oct 22, 2007)

eamon said:
			
		

> A character wielding a spiked chain can attack underwater without penalty, unlike a character wielding a slashing/bludgeoning weapon.  Those poor sods take a -2 penalty on attack rolls, and deal only half damage.  That makes sense... no?
> 
> Source SRD - Combat Adjustments Underwater
> 
> ...




According to that table, there's not penatly for using ranged/thrown weapons either?

That's how I read it.


----------



## mvincent (Oct 22, 2007)

s-dub said:
			
		

> According to that table, there's not penatly for using ranged/thrown weapons either?



From the rules:
_"*Ranged Attacks Underwater*
Thrown weapons are ineffective underwater, even when launched from land. Attacks with other ranged weapons take a -2 penalty on attack rolls for every 5 feet of water they pass through, in addition to the normal penalties for range. "_


----------



## s-dub (Oct 22, 2007)

mvincent said:
			
		

> From the rules:
> _"*Ranged Attacks Underwater*
> Thrown weapons are ineffective underwater, even when launched from land. Attacks with other ranged weapons take a -2 penalty on attack rolls for every 5 feet of water they pass through, in addition to the normal penalties for range. "_




I knew that couldn't be right, thanks


----------



## grimaldi (Oct 26, 2007)

The first rule seems odd to me.  The second rule??!??  Really??  Is this a Hasbro 'we want to be good christians' rule?  I started with basic and stopped playing a year after 2E came out and am just getting back into the game.  I Dm for a group of young people but hope to get into an adult game soon enough(hopefully as a character!)

Does anyone enforce this non-evil rule?  Like at Cons?


----------



## Thurbane (Oct 26, 2007)

grimaldi said:
			
		

> Does anyone enforce this non-evil rule?  Like at Cons?



I don't enforce it as a rule, but it's pretty common for the groups I've played with to have a "no evil PCs, and no psychotic CN PCs either" houserule in effect.


----------



## Greg K (Oct 26, 2007)

Would tweaking classes via customizing a character (3.0 phb/p.94 and 3.5 phb/p.110) count as little known rules?


----------



## Tetsubo (Oct 26, 2007)

Rvdvelden said:
			
		

> Explorer’s Outfit: This is a full set of clothes for someone who never knows what to expect. It includes sturdy boots, leather breeches or a skirt, a belt, a shirt (perhaps with a vest or jacket), *gloves*, and a cloak. Rather than a leather skirt, a leather overtunic may be worn over a cloth skirt. The clothes have plenty of pockets (especially the cloak). The outfit also includes any extra items you might need, such as a scarf or a wide-brimmed hat.
> 
> Can't tell you how many times that saved my butt.
> Me: My character tries to push the door
> ...




I used that trick back in 1979...


----------



## LonePaladin (Oct 27, 2007)

If you're playing a divine spellcaster, check with your DM on this before picking an odd time to prepare your spells (like noon or sundown).

According to this:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> A divine spellcaster chooses and prepares spells ahead of time, just as a wizard does. However, a divine spellcaster does not require a period of rest to prepare spells. Instead, the character chooses a particular part of the day to pray and receive spells. The time is usually associated with some daily event. If some event prevents a character from praying at the proper time, he must do so as soon as possible. If the character does not stop to pray for spells at the first opportunity, he must wait until the next day to prepare spells.





			
				SRD said:
			
		

> A divine spellcaster does not have to prepare all his spells at once. However, the character’s mind is considered fresh only during his or her first daily spell preparation, so a divine spellcaster cannot fill a slot that is empty because he or she has cast a spell or abandoned a previously prepared spell.





			
				SRD said:
			
		

> As with arcane spells, at the time of preparation any spells cast within the previous 8 hours count against the number of spells that can be prepared.



To sum up:
Let's say you've got twelve spell slots (the levels aren't important for this). You prepare your spells at noon. The party wakes up in the morning, and heads out to the dungeon. You've got your full selection of spells, not having needed to use any the day before.

At 10 am, the group enters the dungeon and has a couple encounters. In defeating the enemy and mending the group afterward, you use up six of your spells. You have no other significant encounters in the next two hours.

When noon arrives, you demand that the party stops so that you can pray. When you do so, however, you can't prepare spells in any of the slots you used two hours ago; all you can do is abandon the spells you still have to replace them with other spells.

At 4 pm, you have another set of encounters, requiring you to use up all the spells you have remaining.

At 6 pm, the spell slots you used earlier in the day become available again. _*Here is the tricky part you'll want to talk to your DM about.*_ According to the description of a cleric's spells (in the class entry), the number of spells listed is a daily limit. Most DMs consider one 'day' to be from sunrise to sunrise. The second quote above states that spells previously cast can't be used in a second 'prayer session'.

By this interpretation, you have no spells at all until NOON the next day.

In my games, I allow divine spellcasters to make use of the rule that allows you to do a partial spell preparation, intentionally avoiding those spell slots that were used in the 8 hours prior; this way, when the 8-hour 'statute of limitations' ends, they can do another preparation session to refill those slots. Essentially, I count the 'day' part of 'spells per day' as beginning at the time the cleric normally does his prayers and spell-preparation.

Ignoring my ruling, let's make the above example worse; let's say you have nothing happen at 4 pm, and instead have more encounters the next morning at 10 am again. When noon rolls around, you can only prepare the spell slots that were unavailable the previous day, because the other six slots were recently used.

This means that any divine spellcasters, if you take an overly-strict interpretation of the rules, will almost always be at less-than-full ability on spells unless his preparation time is first thing in the morning, alongside the arcanists. One or two sessions of bad timing, and his spell selection is totally screwed until the group can take about two days off with no spellcasting on his part.


----------



## Jhulae (Oct 27, 2007)

LonePaladin said:
			
		

> Very interesting and informative dissertation on divine casters having any time other than morning.




Yes, what you mostly say is true, but let's say the divine caster has five 3rd level spell slots.

One prays in the morning and has all five available.  At 10 o'clock, the divine caster uses two of those slots up in a combat.  She has three left at noon, and at 5 o'clock, she uses two more and nothing happens until morning.  A total of four 3rd level spells used, with one hanging around until morning.

The caster who prays at noon has three slots with spells in the morning.  At 10 o'clock, she casts two spells.  At noon, she prays and gets back the two empty slots and still has the one spell she didn't cast.  At 5 o'clock, she uses two more spells.  A total of four spells used, same as the first caster.  The one point she'll be in a bind is between 8 am and noon, when the morning pray-er has all spells back, and the noon pray-er only has one.

There is a difference, but it's not quite as bad as it seems. 

However, the *real* issue comes in when both casters need to cast an 'hour per level' spell, like Longstrider.  At that point, the noon caster has to prep an additional one for the next day, so, in essence, uses up two slots for the hour per level spell, while the morning caster just memorizes the one needed for the current day.


----------



## LonePaladin (Oct 28, 2007)

Jhulae said:
			
		

> The caster who prays at noon has three slots with spells in the morning.  At 10 o'clock, she casts two spells.  At noon, she prays and gets back the two empty slots and still has the one spell she didn't cast.  At 5 o'clock, she uses two more spells.  A total of four spells used, same as the first caster.  The one point she'll be in a bind is between 8 am and noon, when the morning pray-er has all spells back, and the noon pray-er only has one.
> 
> There is a difference, but it's not quite as bad as it seems.




Actually, it is. The rule that applies to all spellcasters who use spell slots is this: when you prepare your spells or otherwise renew your spell slots, any that you have used within the past eight hours are unavailable.

This is meant to prevent spellcasters from waking up in the morning, dumping all of their spells (say, the cleric converting all his spells into healing), then simply re-preparing all those spells again. The problem lies in the timing issue. If you prep your spells in the morning, it's straightforward: anything you used during the night still counts as being used.

What they should've done was included a statement that these slots can be filled again once that 8-hour time passes. A little interpretation of the rules allows this — when you do your preparations, simply elect to ignore those slots at the time, and take a second preparation later in the day to fill them.

But, since it wasn't clearly spelled out to work this way, I've seen DMs who refuse this. (I don't tend to play spellcasters with these types.)



			
				Jhulae said:
			
		

> However, the *real* issue comes in when both casters need to cast an 'hour per level' spell, like Longstrider.  At that point, the noon caster has to prep an additional one for the next day, so, in essence, uses up two slots for the hour per level spell, while the morning caster just memorizes the one needed for the current day.



That doesn't quite make sense. Are you looking for an all-day effect? If you are, and are high enough to make the spell last all day, it doesn't matter when you cast it. Preparing spells doesn't remove ones that are in effect at the time.

F'rinstance, your noontime druid casts _longstrider_ in the morning, expecting to get about eight or nine hours out of it. (The exact time doesn't matter.) When noon comes around, he does his usual spell preparation; the slot that _longstrider_ occupied is unavailable at that time, but the spell is still running.


----------



## gnfnrf (Oct 28, 2007)

LonePaladin said:
			
		

> If you're playing a divine spellcaster, check with your DM on this before picking an odd time to prepare your spells (like noon or sundown).





> In my games, I allow divine spellcasters to make use of the rule that allows you to do a partial spell preparation, intentionally avoiding those spell slots that were used in the 8 hours prior; this way, when the 8-hour 'statute of limitations' ends, they can do another preparation session to refill those slots. Essentially, I count the 'day' part of 'spells per day' as beginning at the time the cleric normally does his prayers and spell-preparation.




That is a very clever way to make use of what is otherwise a terrible rule (for PCs).  But doesn't it inherently increase PC power on 'big days' in ways you might not want?

Consider a normal dawn preparing cleric.  It's the last day of travel before the dungeon crawl.  He's been having a wilderness encounter every few days, so is spell selection is full up.  (he is also considerably above 8th level, to make the point the strongest).

Just before dawn, he casts several magic vestments and greater magic weapons, or other hour/level buffs.  He then prays, leaving those slots alone.  8 hours after daybreak, he refills those slots, casts the spells again on different PCs, and the party descends into the dungeon, double-buffed.  He can essentially get two days of hour/level buffing into one.

Now, theoretically, you can do this by casting before bed as well.  But that requires you to be right next to your point of interest; this way gives you much more flexibility.



> This means that any divine spellcasters, if you take an overly-strict interpretation of the rules, will almost always be at less-than-full ability on spells unless his preparation time is first thing in the morning, alongside the arcanists. One or two sessions of bad timing, and his spell selection is totally screwed until the group can take about two days off with no spellcasting on his part.




You say overly strict, I say exactly correct (as written).  Correct, sadly, doesn't mean playable.  In the last game where this came up (evening prep), for the first few sessions, the PC was completely ignoring the recent casting limit.  When the DM noticed, the best we could think of was to say 'Pray in the evening for color, refresh spells in the morning like everyone else'.

--
gnfnrf


----------



## Jhulae (Oct 29, 2007)

LonePaladin said:
			
		

> That doesn't quite make sense. Are you looking for an all-day effect? If you are, and are high enough to make the spell last all day, it doesn't matter when you cast it. Preparing spells doesn't remove ones that are in effect at the time.
> 
> F'rinstance, your noontime druid casts _longstrider_ in the morning, expecting to get about eight or nine hours out of it. (The exact time doesn't matter.) When noon comes around, he does his usual spell preparation; the slot that _longstrider_ occupied is unavailable at that time, but the spell is still running.




Right.  And you completely missed my point.

Which is: you've used 1 slot (prayed for from yesterday) in the morning on Longstrider.  You now have to prepare Longstrider (in a second slot) at noon for the next day.  That's two spell slots dedicated to Longstrider, where as the morning caster just has to use one (prayed for and then cast in the morning).


----------



## Dargon (Oct 29, 2007)

the club is also a Throwing Weapon


----------



## Thurbane (Oct 29, 2007)

Dargon said:
			
		

> the club is also a Throwing Weapon



Funny you should say that...our 1st level party got a lot of mileage out of the fact that clubs are both free, and throwing weapons. Even my wizard started hurling hunks of wood once his spells ran out.


----------



## Onderzeeboot (Oct 30, 2007)

Aleolus said:
			
		

> Not a little known rule, but a question on them.
> 
> Do multiple sources that all cause you to be treated as one size category larger or allow you to use things one size larger stack?  'Cause I know a guy who has a high-epic level Monk, and every feat he took, apparently, was designed to make his Unarmed Strike treated as one size category larger, so he does the unarmed damage of a colossal creature.



Not all effects stack. For example, you can't take Improved Natural Attack more than once, and Enlarge Person specifically states that "multiple magical effects that increase size do not stack". That being said, if your friend is playing in an Eberron campaign, a world of options opens up. At 6th lvl (Brb 2/Ftr 2/Rgr 1/Weretouched Master 1), a character with the Longtooth heritage can take Shifter Savagery (Races of Eberron p115) to increase the base damage of his bite attack by two size categories (this feat does not stack with other feats that improve the base damage of your bite attack), increase the base damage a further size category for his Weretouched I ability (Weretouched Master, Eberron Campaign Setting p86), and be enlarged for another size category, resulting in a grand total of four size categories extra worth of base damage, which improves his bite attack from a mere 1d6 to a whopping *4d6 damage at 6th level* (+1/four levels, +1.5*Str modifier, since it's your only natural weapon... or, shudder, +0.5*Str modifier if you use your bite attack as a secondary attack next to your, say, greatsword). Nice.

Also, hi, I'm not a min-maxer. Honestly!

Also also, if your party caster doesn't know tongues, it's a good idea to hire a translator. If you hire one for the long run, this will only cost you 5 gp and 6sp per week (assuming the clerk demands hazard pay of "as much as double normal pay", DMG p105), which is a lot cheaper than buying scrolls


----------



## sfedi (Oct 30, 2007)

Goldmoon said:
			
		

> All summoned creatures from the summon monster spells speak at least one language, usually common.



Where does it says so?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 30, 2007)

sfedi said:
			
		

> Where does it says so?




If you read further into the thread, you'll see more discussion on this one.

The correct phrasing is "Most summoned creatures from the summon monster spells understand at least one language, usually common."

Most of the summoned creatures have the fiendish or celestial templates, which give an Int of 3; the description of Intelligence states that any creature with an Int of 3 or higher understands at least one language - Common, unless noted otherwise.

-Hyp.


----------



## Rue Saberhagin (Oct 31, 2007)

You need a resurrection spell to bring back some one who was undead. 

Makes bringing back characters or important NPC's really expensive.. 

"Look, for a small handful of onyx I can raise him as a skeleton, send him on guard duty, then the heroes come in, kill him, again, then demand him from me. I tell them, they try to raise him, costs them 5 grand in diamonds for the attempt alone, & then they have to do it all over again with yet more diamonds. 
Win all round I say."


----------



## Kat' (Nov 6, 2007)

FRCS p. 253: Paladins of Torm do not face multiclassing restriction when multiclassing to clerics.


----------



## Dross (Nov 7, 2007)

Kat' said:
			
		

> FRCS p. 253: Paladins of Torm do not face multiclassing restriction when multiclassing to clerics.




Somewhere early in the FRCS (a sidebar in the section that talks about paladins) there is a list of orders/deities/etc that allow paladins to multiclass without the ability to advance paly levels.


----------



## DevoutlyApathetic (Nov 7, 2007)

Rue Saberhagin said:
			
		

> You need a resurrection spell to bring back some one who was undead.
> 
> Makes bringing back characters or important NPC's really expensive..
> 
> ...



 Raise Dead only works on a mostly intact body so some quick work with an axe can put it out of it's reach.  Lacks the "Whoops, it didn't work!" factor.

Now neither Resurrection or True Resurrection works on somebody who is currently undead.  Want to stop somebody from coming back?  Turn them into a skeleton and tell them to go climb down a deep well.  Planar travel can make this much better.


----------



## Thurbane (Nov 7, 2007)

DevoutlyApathetic said:
			
		

> Raise Dead only works on a mostly intact body so some quick work with an axe can put it out of it's reach.  Lacks the "Whoops, it didn't work!" factor.



Yep, that little gem ended up in us doing a lot of "head taking" back in the day. We simply ran out of pikes to mount them on!


----------

