3.5 coup de grace

[Xan]

Random question, is there a way to get the coup de grace down to a move action?

[Boci]

Black Blooded Cultist PrC, although only with the natural attack granted by it. Probably the only reason to take it.

[Thurbane]

Death Blow feat (CAd) - CDG as a standard action.

[Person_Man]

Death Blow feat (Complete Adventurer) lets you Coup de Grace as a Standard Action. Celerity Spell (PHBII) gives you a Standard Action as an Immediate Action. Thus you can Coup de Grace as an Immediate Action. Alternatively you can play a Factotum, which can spend Inspiration Points to get an extra Standard Action, or have the Threefold Mask of the Chimera soulmeld bound to your Soul Chakra, which gives you an extra Standard Action.

[Jack Zander]

What is the reason you want to be able to coup de grace as a move action?

[Vangor]

While not a move action, you can coup de grace as a standard action by being one of a couple alignments and wearing Executioner's Hood (MIC). If doing this often, the relic power is pretty nice for a melee character with a reliable way to coup de grace.

My assumption is you want to move action cdg in order to incapacitate in one round via probably shivering touch followed by killing someone?

[ericgrau]

Belt of battle brokenness

Shivering touch, move, activate belt of battle, coup de grace, long explanation to DM about how shivering touch and belt of battle aren't broken b/c the BBEG should have prepared scintillating scales and melee need the help, dodge DMG.

[Boci]

Belt of battle brokenness

Shivering touch, move, activate belt of battle, coup de grace, long explanation to DM about how shivering touch and belt of battle aren't broken b/c the BBEG should have prepared scintillating scales and melee need the help, dodge DMG.

No argument on shivering touch, but belt of battle isn't that broken for melee as long as you don't use more than 1 per day.

[Crow]

Hold person and hold monster are useful for this too.

[Xan]

The reason I ask is that I saw a feat in Pathfinder's new Advanced Player's Guide called Dastardly Finish, which lets you coup de grace a stunned opponent if you have at least 5d6 worth of sneak attack dice. My immediate thought was if you could coup de grace as a move action, then you could have a monk/ninja do a stunning fist followed by a coup de grace.

[Hawriel]

Stunning fist does stun, and if that is the requarment for that feat to work then it would apply. Now does the feat say you can do it in the same round that you stun them, or next round?

edit. erased do to rethinking that statment.

[Jack Zander]

The reason I ask is that I saw a feat in Pathfinder's new Advanced Player's Guide called Dastardly Finish, which lets you coup de grace a stunned opponent if you have at least 5d6 worth of sneak attack dice. My immediate thought was if you could coup de grace as a move action, then you could have a monk/ninja do a stunning fist followed by a coup de grace.

You're probably better off trying to find ways to stun as a swift action, such as a quickened spell.

If you can stunning fist as part of an AoO then they will remain stunned through your next turn, allowing you to coup de grace in that case.

[Xan]

Ooh, that's a good idea with the AoO. Are there any feats that lets one do that?

[Gan The Grey]

I believe there may be a feat out there that allows an AoO after being the victim of an attack. Riposte or something, Dragon Compendium maybe. AFB right now, so I'll leave it to the better prepared Playgrounders to finish my thought.

[Math_Mage]

I believe there may be a feat out there that allows an AoO after being the victim of an attack. Riposte or something, Dragon Compendium maybe. AFB right now, so I'll leave it to the better prepared Playgrounders to finish my thought.

Robilar's Gambit, Agile Riposte, Karmic Strike are possible feats for this. It's too bad there aren't any ambush feats that stun.

[Kaww]

You're probably better off trying to find ways to stun as a swift action, such as a quickened spell.

If you can stunning fist as part of an AoO then they will remain stunned through your next turn, allowing you to coup de grace in that case.

I thought that you can't use SF as AoO. Anyway we have it as a houserule. It makes no sense since, as with SA, it is up to a carefully landed blow, which is difficult to achieve when someone runs past you...

[Jack Zander]

I thought that you can't use SF as AoO. Anyway we have it as a houserule. It makes no sense since, as with SA, it is up to a carefully landed blow, which is difficult to achieve when someone runs past you...

I honestly have no idea what the rules are with regards to AoO and special attacks. I was just saying if he could find a way somehow.

[Math_Mage]

I thought that you can't use SF as AoO. Anyway we have it as a houserule. It makes no sense since, as with SA, it is up to a carefully landed blow, which is difficult to achieve when someone runs past you...

This is incorrect. You declare that you are using Stunning Fist before making an attack roll, and there are no other given restrictions on when you can use it. Thus, you can make a Stunning Fist attack on any attack roll, including an attack of opportunity.

There may be better ways for him to inflict the Stunned condition, of course, but I don't know them.

EDIT: The Falling Sun Attack feat from Tome of Battle might be useful here. Swordsage dips on a Rogue aren't uncommon.

[Kaww]

I said it is logic and a houserule, not that it is from any of the books. If it didn't require any concentration, effort or focus you wouldn't have a limited use per day... That's just my two bits...

P.S. I follow the said houserule as a DM and player both.

[Math_Mage]

I said it is logic and a houserule, not that it is from any of the books. If it didn't require any concentration, effort or focus you wouldn't have a limited use per day... That's just my two bits...

P.S. I follow the said houserule as a DM and player both.

You said "I thought you can't use SF as an AoO." Irrespective of your subsequent note that it is also a houserule in your campaign, you were either saying that you had previously thought it to be a rule before reading this thread, or that you did think it to be a rule, contrary to what was stated in the thread. I chose the latter interpretation, as there is no reason for you to comment about a houserule with no application to Xan's campaign; my apologies if that was incorrect.

In any event, since there is nothing about an attack of opportunity that makes it less conducive to concentration than any other attack (indeed, an AoO is what happens when you take advantage of your opponent losing focus on combat), I do not understand the logic behind your houserule. Having limited uses per day is a matter of OOC balance more than IC logic, especially since there's nothing about concentration, effort, or focus (your explanations) that can only be done a limited number of times per day. A better way to unify OOC and IC reasoning would be to make it a per-encounter ability, something you surprise your opponent with.

[Kaww]

The logic is clear. You are given an attack (standard action) when you are not entitled to one. Which means it has to be a rushed action. Try imagining someone whacking the other guy over the head 5 times (8 or 9 with GTF, 7 with flurry and with enough dex and combat reflex...) and it all happens in 6 seconds. Since couple of my players and I do martial arts it is an insane picture, at least in our heads. If you have to aim for every single one of them, and for that kind of damage you have to aim. It is just silly. We actually try to find some real life foundations for everything except magic.

P.S. And if you are trying to say that you can stun an opponent by hitting whatever part is near it doesn't work that way. There are several pressure points in human body which can cause similar effect, but it takes years of practice, and it usually just KOs the person. Also you can just hit the head full force and hope he drops (like a fighter uses it...)

P.P.S. Yes I did think it was a rule, I admit that. Not everything translates well (the "anyway" meant "I might be wrong and it really doesn't matter")... :smallredface:

[Snake-Aes]

The logic is clear.
{{scrubbed}}

[Thurbane]

<snip>Since couple of my players and I do martial arts<snip>
:smallamused:

It's not particularly productive to try and rationalize in game actions with real world analogues. D&D is not a simulationist game, and generally does not pretend to be. The characters in a D&D game are capable of physical feats no one in the real world can approach, even discounting the use of magic.

Heck, if you roll a high enough Balance check, you can stand on a cloud.

[Tyndmyr]

Since couple of my players and I do martial arts it is an insane picture, at least in our heads. If you have to aim for every single one of them, and for that kind of damage you have to aim. It is just silly. We actually try to find some real life foundations for everything except magic.

Ah, so magic users can break the boundaries of reality, but the idea that someone can punch harder and faster than you is just silly.

Best stop those melee people before they get nice things.

[Person_Man]

The reason I ask is that I saw a feat in Pathfinder's new Advanced Player's Guide called Dastardly Finish, which lets you coup de grace a stunned opponent if you have at least 5d6 worth of sneak attack dice. My immediate thought was if you could coup de grace as a move action, then you could have a monk/ninja do a stunning fist followed by a coup de grace.

Sounds like a a horrible idea. There's already a wide number of ways to Paralyze your enemy or otherwise render them Helpless via other means. Freezing the Lifeblood feat, Ghoul Gauntlets, Mohrg’s Tongue graft, Paralyzing weapon enhancement, Acererak vestige, Justicar's Hogtie, anything that deals massive ability damage, dozens of spells and a few psionic powers, and so on. And you can do so without playing such a cruddy build.

[Hawriel]

Sounds like a a horrible idea. There's already a wide number of ways to Paralyze your enemy or otherwise render them Helpless via other means. Freezing the Lifeblood feat, Ghoul Gauntlets, Mohrg’s Tongue graft, Paralyzing weapon enhancement, Acererak vestige, Justicar's Hogtie, anything that deals massive ability damage, dozens of spells and a few psionic powers, and so on. And you can do so without playing such a cruddy build.

These are not in pathfinder so they dont count

[Snake-Aes]

These are not in pathfinder so they dont count

The OP didn't say it's core-only, and PF requires little conversion.

[Person_Man]

These are not in pathfinder so they dont count

Pathfinder is theoretically backwards compatible with everything. So unless she's playing in a Pathfinder only world, then unless it's been updated, it can be used.

[Fax Celestis]

You are given an attack (standard action) when you are not entitled to one.

An attack is not a standard action. You may spend a standard action to make a single attack, but you also may make an attack whenever someone casts snake's swiftness on you, when you are under haste, when you use Whirling Frenzy, when you take an attack of opportunity, or when you use Flurry of Blows or Two-Weapon Fighting.

Or are you now telling me that a hasted monk can't use Stunning Fist?


Ah, so magic users can break the boundaries of reality, but the idea that someone can punch harder and faster than you is just silly.

Best stop those melee people before they get nice things.

Quoted for truthiness.

[Kaww]

@Fax Celestis
As said by Snake-Aes I'm dropping the discussion. If you want to continue it PM me. Spells do what spells do. As for Haste I think the name says it all...

[Gan The Grey]

As Stunning Fist doesn't specify exactly WHAT it does to the body, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to say that you are basically punching someone in the nose or kicking them in the jimmies. Those two targets are generally talked about in day one of hand-to-hand training, as they are particularly vulnerable areas that tend to 'stun' an opponent for a brief amount of time. No one says that Stunning Fist has to target pressure points, just that it strikes in such a way as to jar your target.

[Jayabalard]

Ah, so magic users can break the boundaries of reality, but the idea that someone can punch harder and faster than you is just silly.Correct. People who use magic get to use magic. That's why we call them "magic users" ... they're the people that get to innately do magical things.

People who don't use magic don't get to use magic; they are therefore limited to doing things that are non-magical without outside assistance (ie, they're limited to the mundane).

[Tyndmyr]

That's like criticizing a batman/superman teamup for being unrealistic...due to batman's batarang. Not the flying alien god who can freeze things by blowing hard.

[Snake-Aes]

Correct. People who use magic get to use magic. That's why we call them "magic users" ... they're the people that get to innately do magical things.

People who don't use magic don't get to use magic; they are therefore limited to doing things that are non-magical without outside assistance (ie, they're limited to the mundane). Then I call to your attention that a level 5 fighter is already way past humanity. As in, you can chuck a spear through his neck and he will survive, and even keep on fighting.
And in core 3.5 no one ever dies of hunger and thirst.
Yeah. Letting heroic noncaster characters be heroic is definitely forbidden because they don't have 'magic' written on a piece of paper.

[Crasical]

As awesome as it would be to see a monk stunning-fist someone and then grab and snap his neck, the DC for stunning fist seems kind of lame, and there's some uncertainty if you can even do as an AoO. Looking it on the PF SRD, Dastardly Finish works on Cowering as well as Stunned enemies, so it might be easier to get some Imperious Command brand cheese to get enemies into the position to finish them off. Intimidate is even a class-skill for Rogues.

[Jayabalard]

That's like criticizing a batman/superman teamup for being unrealistic...due to batman's batarang. Not the flying alien god who can freeze things by blowing hard.I'm not sure I follow. Batman can't fly. He can't set fire to things by looking at them. He can't see through solid objects. He can't punch through a tank, or throw a car at someone. He can't freeze things by blowing hard. He can't run around the world in less than second. He can't breath in space. He can't stop bullets with his face. He can't hear a specific person's voice or heartbeat when on the other side of the city from him. He can't focus his vision down to the molecular level, or see into the far ends of the EM spectrum. He's mundane, not magical.

Certainly, he uses technology (ie magic) to overcome some of these limitations, just like a D&D fighter uses magic items to compensate for their lack of abilities compared to a wizard.


Then I call to your attention that a level 5 fighter is already way past humanity. As in, you can chuck a spear through his neck and he will survive, and even keep on fighting.Out of curiosity, how do you chuck a spear through his neck? As far as I'm aware, there's nothing in the rules that even explicitly says that an "attack" that deals "damage" actually injures the person who is "hit" in any way, let alone something that specific... in fact, quite the contrary: the books quite clearly present HP as a very abstract game mechanic.


And in core 3.5 no one ever dies of hunger and thirst.Yes, and you can heal your self from near deal by sticking your head in a bucket of water. The rules are often very abstract, and in many cases don't model reality very well.


Yeah. Letting heroic noncaster characters be heroic is definitely forbidden because they don't have 'magic' written on a piece of paper.You don't have to be able to do magic to be heroic.

[Snake-Aes]

You don't have to be able to do magic to be heroic.

Yet people aren't letting noncasters do completely nonmagical but absurd in real life deeds because they're not casters so they don't get to bend reality.

[Jayabalard]

Yet people aren't letting noncasters do completely nonmagical but absurd in real life deeds because they're not casters so they don't get to bend reality.Well, "nonmagical but absurd in real life deeds" looks like a bit of an oxymoron to me; you might as well be saying "nonmagical magic".

[Zeful]

Correct. People who use magic get to use magic. That's why we call them "magic users" ... they're the people that get to innately do magical things.

People who don't use magic don't get to use magic; they are therefore limited to doing things that are non-magical without outside assistance (ie, they're limited to the mundane).

So you'd be fine with a class feature that stopped time if it were (Ex)? Or would you make a Rogue take damage from a fireball despite making his save and having Evasion?

The game has a definition of things that are fantastic, physics-breaking, and totally non-magical. They are Extraordinary abilities. Mundane characters are not restricted to our physics just because they can't use magic, or if they are it's simple bad design on who ever's part (game designer, homebrewer, whatever).

Quite frankly this discussion is why 4e is supperior to 3.5 because characters aren't limited in their interaction of the world based on some arbitrary and poorly thought out deliniation between "mundane" and "magical".

[Kaww]

Lvl 5 fighter...

{{scrubbed}}
==== happens in real life too... People just don't try to do it every day like in DnD or other games. Here fail is more than DM giving you a new sheet...

@ Snake-Aes
Then I call to your attention that a level 5 fighter is already way past humanity. As in, you can chuck a spear through his neck and he will survive, and even keep on fighting. Photo was just too cool to pass... And it was done by a 22 year old commoner, not a lvl 5 fighter... (Newspaper article I read said she actually chased the robber away! LOL)

@ Jayabalard I agree with you and I think you're right. But maybe you should let it go, as have I...

[Jayabalard]

So you'd be fine with a class feature that stopped time if it were (Ex)?No
Or would you make a Rogue take damage from a fireball despite making his save and having Evasion?Depends on the exact situation; sometimes yes and sometimes no.


Quite frankly this discussion is why Zeful likes 4e is supperior to better than 3.5 because characters aren't limited in their interaction of the world based on some arbitrary and poorly thought out deliniation between "mundane" and "magical".You realize that for at least a portion of the people who prefer earlier editions of D&D, that's precisely why they dislike 4e, yes? They think that the superiority of those earlier editions is in part due to that particular delineation.

[Fax Celestis]

Reference.com:

ex·traor·di·nar·y
 
 /ɪkˈstrɔrdnˌɛri, ˌɛkstrəˈɔr-/ –adjective
1. beyond what is usual, ordinary, regular, or established: extraordinary costs.
2. exceptional in character, amount, extent, degree, etc.; noteworthy; remarkable: extraordinary speed; an extraordinary man.
3. (of an official, employee, etc.) outside of or additional to the ordinary staff; having a special, often temporary task or responsibility: minister extraordinary and plenipotentiary.

Merriam-Webster:

a : going beyond what is usual, regular, or customary <extraordinary powers>
b : exceptional to a very marked extent <extraordinary beauty>
c of a financial transaction : nonrecurring

d20srd.org:

Extraordinary Abilities (Ex)
Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training.

These abilities cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, and they generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Effects or areas that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities. They are not subject to dispelling, and they function normally in an antimagic field.

Using an extraordinary ability is usually not an action because most extraordinary abilities automatically happen in a reactive fashion. Those extraordinary abilities that are actions are standard actions unless otherwise noted.

I can keep going.

http://i570.photobucket.com/albums/ss146/MetroidBob/TEAL_DEER.jpg
While extraordinary does not mean "magical", it does mean "outside the normal bounds of reality".

[Snake-Aes]

Lvl 5 fighter...

Blood & gore warning:

{{Scrubbed}}

==== happens in real life too... People just don't try to do it every day like in DnD or other games. Here fail is more than DM giving you a new sheet...

@ Snake-Aes Photo was just too cool to pass... And it was done by a 22 year old commoner, not a lvl 5 fighter... (Newspaper article I read said she actually chased the robber away! LOL)


Oh, I'm not denying it happens. But reliably? Can you go around and stab someone and know they not only won't die, but will also be perfectly fine to keep on fighting? Character survivability is not magical, and it is easily superhuman.
As the other guy said...the game is about heroics. If your nonmagical character just can't do anything above the "normal", then the game fails to achieve its goal with any nonmagical sort.

[Crasical]

Guys? The topic is about Coup De Grace, not about fighters vs. casters... I don't mean to nudge, but none of this really helps towards getting a build that can Stun or Dermoralize as a move action with 5d6 sneak attack damage.

Rogue 9 has the required sneak attack damage, but needs the ability to stun or demoralize as a move action. The only place I know that can do the latter is Samurai 14, which is getting into epic territory.

[Jayabalard]

@fax, I'm not really sure who you're responding to, or what point you're trying to make. You're just defining extraordinary.


Can you go around and stab someone and know they not only won't die, but will also be perfectly fine to keep on fighting? I can go around, rolling a 20 sided die and telling people that they took 50 points of damage and know that they won't die and that they'll be perfectly fine to keep on fighting.

You seem awfully fixated on a set of rule that are designed to be very abstract, trying to imply that they relate directly to something that we can see in real life when that isn't the case.

Note: You never did say how you were chucking spears through people's necks.

[Snake-Aes]

You seem awfully fixated on a set of rule that are designed to be very abstract, trying to imply that they relate directly to something that we can see in real life when that isn't the case.

And you seem awfully fixated on denying noncasters the ability of doing anything superhuman because they are not casters. Even when the system itself screws with any hope of physics you could have, being (as you said) an abstraction.

Well, this isn't going anywhere.

[Fax Celestis]

@fax, I'm not really sure who you're responding to, or what point you're trying to make. You're just defining extraordinary.

How about this?


Evasion (Ex)

At 2nd level and higher, a rogue can avoid even magical and unusual attacks with great agility. If she makes a successful Reflex saving throw against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save, she instead takes no damage. Evasion can be used only if the rogue is wearing light armor or no armor. A helpless rogue does not gain the benefit of evasion.


Or would you make a Rogue take damage from a fireball despite making his save and having Evasion?


Depends on the exact situation; sometimes yes and sometimes no.

Feats, too, are extraordinary features. Saying you have to stay within the bounds of realism because you can't parse the idea of someone being good enough to kick someone in the dangly bits as a reactionary attack is patently ridiculous, especially when it's for a class that gains the ability to teleport.

Realism is for mundane people. Anyone who has more than two levels in a PC class is no longer 'mundane': they are heroes, at the least, and have at least one extraordinary, supernatural, spell-like, or casting ability, none of which fit within the bounds of our own reality. Proscribing "realism" to parts of the game but not to everything within it is an exercise in futility.

[Crasical]

Rogue 9 has the required sneak attack damage, but needs the ability to stun or demoralize as a move action. The only place I know that can do the latter is Samurai 14, which is getting into epic territory.

'Fearsome' Armor from Drow of the Underdark allows move-equivalent demoralizations. While this works very well for a rogue, it still might require getting creative elsewhere, since monks can't wear armor.

[Kaww]

Since I think this got a long way away from the original topic maybe we could/should continue it here?

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9283087#post9283087

[Jayabalard]

How about this?/shrug ... like I said, it depends on the exact situation. I've been in a group where use of evasion depended wholly on the rogue's player coming up with something that the group buys explaining how they are taking no damage... and if they couldn't come up with something convincing enough, they didn't get it to use evasion. With such a house rule in place, there are indeed occasions when the rogue will take damage on a save.

Note: evasion wasn't the only ability singled out like this.


Feats, too, are extraordinary features. Saying you have to stay within the bounds of realism because you can't parse the idea of someone being good enough to kick someone in the dangly bits as a reactionary attack is patently ridiculous, especially when it's for a class that gains the ability to teleport.And on creatures without dangly bits, ex: sexless, or protected like some reptiles? Or when their dangly bits aren't in reach, ex: you're on the wrong side of a large or larger quadruped?

I'm not saying I agree with how they're ruling this situation, but if their group as a whole thinks a certain way, then I think that's plenty sufficient to rule the way that they're ruling; if they think it's too magical for them for someone that they think should be a mundane, then they're well within their rights to make it not work.


Realism isnot a word that I used.

[Math_Mage]

/shrug ... like I said, it depends on the exact situation. I've been in a group where use of evasion depended wholly on the rogue's player coming up with something that the group buys explaining how they are taking no damage... and if they couldn't come up with something convincing enough, they didn't get it to use evasion. With such a house rule in place, there are indeed occasions when the rogue will take damage on a save.

Note: evasion wasn't the only ability singled out like this.

Nonetheless, that is something your group did for your campaign, not something that is generally applicable to D&D campaigns at large.


And on creatures without dangly bits, ex: sexless, or protected like some reptiles? Or when their dangly bits aren't in reach, ex: you're on the wrong side of a large or larger quadruped?

Then you're facing a high Fort save, and unless you've optimized your Stunning Fist DC (read: figured out how to stun such creatures), or even if you have, you'll have a hard time getting it to work. There's no need to arbitrarily decree that the monk can't use his Stunning Fist attack in such a situation.


I'm not saying I agree with how they're ruling this situation, but if their group as a whole thinks a certain way, then I think that's plenty sufficient to rule the way that they're ruling; if they think it's too magical for them for someone that they think should be a mundane, then they're well within their rights to make it not work.

This certainly isn't where you started the discussion.


not a word that I used.

Limiting mundane heroes to what you consider mundane applications of extraordinary abilities merely because they aren't supernatural, then. You'll note the bulk of the discussion in Snake-Aes' paragraph discussed mundanity and merely used the term 'realism' as a catch-all, so don't focus on it exclusively. That's a red herring.

[Tyndmyr]

/shrug ... like I said, it depends on the exact situation. I've been in a group where use of evasion depended wholly on the rogue's player coming up with something that the group buys explaining how they are taking no damage... and if they couldn't come up with something convincing enough, they didn't get it to use evasion. With such a house rule in place, there are indeed occasions when the rogue will take damage on a save.

Right, melee can't have nice things. Very important. We can't let the rogue be good at dodging things, now can we?

Silly rogue, that's what you deserve for not rolling wizard.

[Jayabalard]

Nonetheless, that is something your group did for your campaign, not something that is generally applicable to D&D campaigns at large.I'm not sure what your point is with this? I'm answering a question directed me: "would you make a Rogue take damage from a fireball despite making his save and having Evasion? " so it's not really important whether it's generally applicable to D&D campaigns at large, since I'm only answering for me.


Then you're facing a high Fort save,Not necessarily.


This certainly isn't where you started the discussion.If you're under the impression that I've changed positions somewhere, you're mistaken; perhaps I've been unclear somewhere along the way. I started this conversation by agreeing with a sarcastic remark by making a rather general statement: "Correct. People who use magic get to use magic. That's why we call them "magic users" ..." etc. I never said that I agreed with Kaww's particular ruling or would use it myself, but (like I said here in this quoted text ) I can see how they'd arrive at it.



Right, melee can't have nice things. Very important. We can't let the rogue be good at dodging things, now can we? Silly rogue, that's what you deserve for not rolling wizard. There's nothing in that that prevents melee from having nice things. Rogues in that campaign were good at dodging things: high reflex save, and evasion if they can justify it.

Unless by "have nice things" you mean "cast spells" ... in that case, yes: if you want to cast spells, then you're silly for rolling a rogue instead of a wizard.

[Fax Celestis]

evasion if they can justify it.

Evasion. Justifies. Itself.

[Math_Mage]

I'm not sure what your point is with this? I'm answering a question directed me: "would you make a Rogue take damage from a fireball despite making his save and having Evasion? " so it's not really important whether it's generally applicable to D&D campaigns at large, since I'm only answering for me.

[QUOTE=Jayabalard;9284398]Not necessarily.

Sufficient to cover the general case.


There's nothing in that that prevents melee from having nice things. Rogues in that campaign were good at dodging things: high reflex save, and evasion if they can justify it.

Unless by "have nice things" you mean "cast spells" ... in that case, yes: if you want to cast spells, then you're silly for rolling a rogue instead of a wizard.

A wizard does not have to justify his spells. Why does a rogue have to justify his class feature? If it's NOT to satisfy an arbitrary adherence to 'realism', then what's the reason? This has nothing to do with making the rogue cast spells, and everything to do with allowing the rogue to use his class features as defined, the same way the wizard gets to use his class features as defined. If this is 'magic' instead of 'mundane', then what's wrong with that?

'Having nice things' means having class features that work. Why even bother with the red herring about casting spells?

[Jayabalard]

Evasion. Justifies. Itself.Not. Really.
{{Scrubbed}}

Evasion is just a word, and it's silly to ignore all of the problems that people have with using evasions when there's no cover (at all) and no where to evade to. So, no, evasion does not justify itself; if it did, then noone would have a problem with it, eh?


Why even bother with the red herring about casting spells?What red herring?


A wizard does not have to justify his spells.Why are you making that assumption?

[Snake-Aes]

Not. Really.

{{scrubbed}}

Evasion is just a word, and it's silly to ignore all of the problems that people have with using evasions when there's no cover (at all) and no where to evade to. So, no, evasion does not justify itself; if it did, then noone would have a problem with it, eh?
Evasion justifies itself because the only condition the evader has to meet to avoid damage is making the reflex save. There's no such a thing as "the character must be able to find cover" in the feat description.

[Zeful]

There's nothing in that that prevents melee from having nice things. Rogues in that campaign were good at dodging things: high reflex save, and evasion if they can justify it.

Then logically you must not let wizards cast spells if they can't justify it. Paladin's can't use Smite or Lay on hands without justifying it.
{{scrubbed}}

[Fax Celestis]

{{scrubbed}}

I think that requiring a player to go above and beyond what the rules say just to do something under any other DM he would be able to do without question is pretty silly, but whatev.

[Jayabalard]

Evasion justifies itself because the only condition the evader has to meet to avoid damage is making the reflex save. There's no such a thing as "the character must be able to find cover" in the feat description.Agian, why does it matter if it isn't in the special ability description? I'm not talking about the rules (as written, intended or otherwise).

The question put to me was: "would you make a Rogue take damage from a fireball despite making his save and having Evasion? " ... My response: "Depends on the exact situation; sometimes yes and sometimes no." and I went on to give a brief example of a game that had house rules that required a rogue to justify the use of evasion, with a note that evasion wasn't the only ability that had such requirements.

I don't really understand why people keep trying to generalize what I'm saying.


Then logically you must not let wizards cast spells if they can't justify it. Paladin's can't use Smite or Lay on hands without justifying it.I don't remember what limitations were on the wizards (other than some fairly brutal ones involving spell failure). I was playing a fighter at the time.


If we were playing and you pulled this on me I would demand that you apply your houserule fairly and consistently across all player abilities, including spellcasting and feats. Also my justification: I was trained to do this.Well, I can tell you that at least 2 people in the group would have given you the thumbs down if that was all you bothered to give as a justification (they were kind of hard to please about it), so you probably would have failed most every time.


I think that requiring a player to go above and beyond what the rules say just to do something under any other DM he would be able to do without question is pretty silly, but whatev.Well, "any other DM" isn't true, since more than one of those people DM'd, and all of them used that house rule.

And really, house rules commonly require players to do more than what the printed rules require. For example, lots of people have house rules that require players to go above and beyond what the printed rules on diplomacy require.

[Esser-Z]

Evasion is always justifiable. The rogue twists and turns quickly, so that all exposed flesh is protected by his armor, or an object, or similar. This works in every possible situation.

[Spiryt]

Evasion is always justifiable. The rogue twists and turns quickly, so that all exposed flesh is protected by his armor, or an object, or similar. This works in every possible situation.

And when rogue is naked, without any water, in dry place, without possibility to cover up his vitals, hold his breath, or do some other, more super natural things, he just go and asks the DM why the hell he comes up with such ridiculous situations. :smallwink:

[Esser-Z]

Precisely!

[Zeful]

Well, I can tell you that at least 2 people in the group would have given you the thumbs down if that was all you bothered to give as a justification (they were kind of hard to please about it), so you probably would have failed most every time.
{{scrubbed}}

[Fax Celestis]

house rules

{{scrubbed}}

[Snake-Aes]

And when rogue is naked, without any water, in dry place, without possibility to cover up his vitals, hold his breath, or do some other, more super natural things, he just go and asks the DM why the hell he comes up with such ridiculous situations. :smallwink:

Pretty much. There's the odd faq answered by either blizz or kq that talks about that in evasion too. "The game handwaves it. You just squeeze somewhere or close your eyes and wish really hard or whatever".

"would you make a Rogue take damage from a fireball despite making his save and having Evasion? " The answer here is "no" because, by the definition of what the Evasion ability is, making the save lets him leave unscathed. It's the actual rule, it's in the question you keep reposting. We are not generalizing anything there.
It also doesn't have to "make sense in context" because extraordinary abilities are defined as "things that can break reality without being magic".

[Esser-Z]

Ooh, in the naked situation, he moves in such a way that his speed leaves him in a momentary vacuum, stopping the flames or whatever!

[Jayabalard]

Your house rules are infuriatingI can't recall a situation where anyone who played by them thought so. Even when Bob got his fingers burned.


"would you make a Rogue take damage from a fireball despite making his save and having Evasion? " The answer here is yes because, by the definition of what the Evasion ability is, making the save lets him leave unscathed. It's the actual rule, it's in the question you keep reposting. We are not generalizing anything there.
It also doesn't have to "make sense in context" because extraordinary abilities are defined as "things that can break reality without being magic".you're being inconsistent. I think you may have a typo.

or do you really mean that the rogue would take damage despite making his save and having evasion because that's what the definition of the evasion ability is?


So rather than respond to the criticism of how inherently biased and unfair your system is, you instead deflect the point and respond that this jury system would veto my justification as being insufficient? Really, I never would have guessed.I'm not clear on how you're saying it's biased.


Evasion is always justifiable. The rogue twists and turns quickly, so that all exposed flesh is protected by his armor, or an object, or similar. This works in every possible situation.What about in situations where you lack the "armor, or an object or similar" say, solid stone hallway with tightly fitting stones and no niches, rogue wearing linen rather than armor (on the way back from wooing a lady), no objects in the hallway to duck behind.

I do vaguely remember one occasion where it was ruled that Bob the rogue (not his actual name) still took 1 point of damage after ducking into a bag of holding while holding onto the edge, since he explicitly wasn't wearing any gloves/gauntlets at the time and there was no way for him to avoid burning his fingers.

[Snake-Aes]

you're being inconsistent.


Fix your quote. I fixed the typo way before you posted this.



What about in situations where you lack the "armor, or an object or similar" say, solid stone hallway with tightly fitting stones and no niches, rogue wearing linen rather than armor (on the way back from wooing a lady), no objects in the hallway to duck behind.


Doesn't matter if you can't find cover or protection in any form. Evasion requires the following: No load heavier than "Light", no armor heavier than "light", not being helpless, and making the save. It is an extraordinary ability, which is defined as "a non-magical ability that doesn't obey physics".

[Esser-Z]

What about in situations where you lack the "armor, or an object or similar" say, solid stone hallway with tightly fitting stones and no niches, rogue wearing linen rather than armor (on the way back from wooing a lady), no objects in the hallway to duck behind.

He billows the cloth away from him as he presses himself against the wall. The speed with which he does so creates a small barrier, formed by the cloth and moving air, which protects him.

Alternatively, he moves through the attack with great speed, such that he is not within it long enough to hurt him--like how you can pass a marshmallow through a flame without burning it. He may be uncomfortable, but he is unharmed.

[Fax Celestis]

What about in situations where you lack the "armor, or an object or similar" say, solid stone hallway with tightly fitting stones and no niches, rogue wearing linen rather than armor (on the way back from wooing a lady), no objects in the hallway to duck behind.

Evasion explicitly says it breaks the laws of physics non-magically, which means there is absolutely no reason for him to take any damage if he makes the saving throw. How does he dodge? Maybe he opens a pocket dimension for a split second. Maybe he deflects the fireball bead into the ground. Maybe he's just lucky and the fire makes a pocket around him. It doesn't matter how other than how you want to describe it, because the ability breaks the rules of our universe but fits the rules of the game's.

[Jayabalard]

Fix your quote. I fixed the typo way before you posted this.ok, in the campaign I gave as an example, so the definiton of evasion was something like:
Evasion (Ex)

At 2nd level and higher, a rogue can avoid even magical and unusual attacks with great agility. If she makes a successful Reflex saving throw against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save, and can describe how she is evading the attack in such a way that the rest of the players agree, she instead takes no damage. Evasion can be used only if the rogue is wearing light armor or no armor. A helpless rogue does not gain the benefit of evasion. So I'm not sure why your keep citing the RAW.


He billows the cloth away from him as he presses himself against the wall. The speed with which he does so creates a small barrier, formed by the cloth and moving air, which protects him.

Alternatively, he moves through the attack with great speed, such that he is not within it long enough to hurt him--like how you can pass a marshmallow through a flame without burning it. He may be uncomfortable, but he is unharmed.I don't think either of these would have been convincing enough, likely getting "fire does not work that way" from someone, and a "good try though" from someone else.

[Esser-Z]

He dodges slightly into the future, right after the harmful thingamabob is gone!

[Gan The Grey]

Where's a mod when you need 'em? Whatever happened to answering the OP?

[Zeful]

I'm not clear on how you're saying it's biased.

Because no one else has to justfy their actions, only characters with evasion (or whatever the exhaustive list is). Which pretty much says "We've nerfed all of these characters because we hate them rather than have a legitimate reason like them being overpowered or some-such, further if you can't cast spells expect to be mediocre/useless because the successful use of your abilities are determined by concessous rather than a defined and fair metric like a die roll, like the rules say they are." Which is roughly on par with: "You take one point of Consitution damage for every action you take. If you complain about this you take two and accept to being hit in the face with a bat."

[Snake-Aes]

ok, in the campaign I gave as an example, so the definiton of evasion was something like:

Then you are operating under different, arbitrary rules no one here was expecting. Everyone assumed you were pulling that out of nowhere. You already made the separate rule.
A discussion where everyone is talking about the canonical rule when you aren't is pointless.

Oh, and if you want to compare your evasion with the canonical evasion, my answer to it is "It's an unnecessary nerf that doesn't add anything to the game. If you want a realistic game, try gurps"

[Boci]

Whatever happened to answering the OP?

The OP has been told how to coup de grace as a move action, been given some guides on how to get extra action and some tips/help/critisism for his intended build. Until they posts again there not much extra we can do for them.

[Jayabalard]

Because no one else has to justfy their actions,Like I asked earlier, why are you making that assumption? Everyone had things that they had to justify; everyone had things that could backfire (though, noone had the same magnitude of backfire possibilities as a wizard)

[Gan The Grey]

The OP has been told how to coup de grace as a move action, been given some guides on how to get extra action and some tips/help/critisism for his intended build. Until they posts again there not much extra we can do for them.

I wasn't aware that we've figured out how to do CDG as a move action.

[Jayabalard]

Then you are operating under different, arbitrary rules no one here was expecting. Everyone assumed you were pulling that out of nowhere. You already made the separate rule.
A discussion where everyone is talking about the canonical rule when you aren't is pointless.I'm pretty sure I said when I made my example that it was a house rule; assuming that it's the canonical rule is kind of pointless.


If you want a realistic game, try gurps"I like gurps; that doesn't really apply here though, since justifications didn't have to be realistic, just convincing.

[Fax Celestis]

I wasn't aware that we've figured out how to do CDG as a move action.

You can't. The best you can get is standard.

[Spiryt]

I don't think either of these would have been convincing enough, likely getting "fire does not work that way" from someone, and a "good try though" from someone else.

From your players, from what I managed to understand.

It doesn't have to apply anywhere else at all.

[Boci]

I wasn't aware that we've figured out how to do CDG as a move action.

{{scrubbed}}

[Gan The Grey]

Strangely enough, I tend to ignore the first response in every thread, as it generally ends up being completely useless. *shrugs*

[Zeful]

Everyone had things that they had to justify;
Are these determined by concensious as well rather than a new instituted gameplay mechanic?

[Esser-Z]

Like I asked earlier, why are you making that assumption? Everyone had things that they had to justify; everyone had things that could backfire (though, noone had the same magnitude of backfire possibilities as a wizard)

Wizards have things that can backfire? Like... uh... Hitting the party with an AoE?

[Fax Celestis]

Wizards have things that can backfire? Like... uh... Hitting the party with an AoE?

...which the party rogue can't evade because his evasion ability doesn't work because the wizard's player is being vindictive because his spell failed because the rogue didn't like his justification!

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Wonder: Closed for rampant flaming. The OP may reopen the topic if he needs further clarification.