Things You Never Noticed V: Your Familiar

[Harrymcb]

I didn't realize the first time that on #733 Belkar couldn't hear durkon AND that the 25 synonyms matches the reply length.

[Darth Paul]

It took me all this time to realize that the design motif for the Empire of Blood is, everything looks like a drop of blood; from the red minarets on the buildings to the logos on the announcers' microphones during the parade.

[Harrymcb]

Ok. Proof of my obliviousness. I just noticed that Sabine has horns in fiend form. Yes I now know that she had them the whole time.

[Kastor]

I never noticed that Durkon's eyes stay white for the duration of True Seeing in strips #847-850.

Also, "distracted" is misspelled in panel 3 of strip 855.

[Qaanol]

I just noticed that in #807 Belkar took one of Haley’s healing potions, just like she had taken one of his way back in #8.

…and then he took another one of her potions for good measure.

[Ruck]

Two different characters snark on members of the Order of the Scribble with lines about a "petting zoo":

Girard, to Soon in #694...

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

and Xykon to Lirian, when he Soul Binds her.

[Darth Paul]

I hadn't spotted the sound effect at the bottom of the panel in 604 when Hank tumbles past Haley. (Yes, the sound effect is the word "tumble".) I initially thought it was to clear the way for Yor, but I also realized that by tumbling, he avoided Haley's opportunity attack.

[Debatra]

I hadn't spotted the sound effect at the bottom of the panel in 604 when Hank tumbles past Haley. (Yes, the sound effect is the word "tumble".) I initially thought it was to clear the way for Yor, but I also realized that by tumbling, he avoided Haley's opportunity attack.

Except you can't make an AoO with ranged weapons. Hmm...Probably just artistic choice. It looks nice if nothing else.

[Darth Paul]

Except you can't make an AoO with ranged weapons.

You can under our house rules, because it never made sense to us that you can swing a sword but not squeeze the trigger on a crossbow, etc. However, since I looked up RAW again, you're right. As written, the rules disallow that.

[Grey Watcher]

You can under our house rules, because it never made sense to us that you can swing a sword but not squeeze the trigger on a crossbow, etc. However, since I looked up RAW again, you're right. As written, the rules disallow that.

I think the rationale, thin though it may be, ua that you can hurt someone with most of the sword, such that turning and hitting go in one smooth motion, while you have to specifically line up a shot, and if the crossbow slams into the guy whilenyou're turning, that's not conducive to getting the tip of the arrow/bolt/whatever between you and the target.

[Keltest]

I think the rationale, thin though it may be, ua that you can hurt someone with most of the sword, such that turning and hitting go in one smooth motion, while you have to specifically line up a shot, and if the crossbow slams into the guy whilenyou're turning, that's not conducive to getting the tip of the arrow/bolt/whatever between you and the target.

Ive always assumed its a matter of (re)action speed. Its reasonable to think you could quickly reach around and smack a guy with your melee weapon who isn't defending against it (or try to) without necessarily opening yourself up to attack from any current opponents. But if youre in the middle of firing a crossbow bolt at someone, you cannot then reload the crossbow and take aim in the time where the guy passes next to you. You could change your target, but at that point its just an attack.

[Kish]

I think it's more a matter of "you can make attacks of opportunity because an enemy provokes them while close enough for you to attack them; if ranged weapons threaten attacks of opportunity then suddenly an enemy with a bow locks down the field and no one can move," or, if you prefer this phrasing, "being in melee range for things other than melee, whether that's using ranged weapons, drinking potions, or casting spells, is supposed to be undesirable."

(Also, using a ranged weapon in melee range is itself an action that provokes an attack of opportunity, and, "I take an attack of opportunity with my crossbow for you trying to move past me!" "I take an attack of opportunity for you taking that attack of opportunity!" sounds like something that belongs in a Monty Python sketch, where both parties have ranged weapons and Combat Reflexes, and everyone else in the fight waits in annoyance for them to stop taking attacks of opportunity at each other so they can move on to the next initiative count finally.)

[Jasdoif]

I think it's more a matter of "you can make attacks of opportunity because an enemy provokes them while close enough for you to attack them; if ranged weapons threaten attacks of opportunity then suddenly an enemy with a bow locks down the field and no one can move,"

This, mostly. I'm under the general impression that threatening an opponent means you're actually making low-effort attacks against that opponent outside the abstraction of the combat round, which your opponent avoids/blocks easily unless they're distracted; extending that to ranged weapons would require going through a lot of ammo every round...and no one wanted that much bookkeeping.

[Peelee]

(Also, using a ranged weapon in melee range is itself an action that provokes an attack of opportunity, and, "I take an attack of opportunity with my crossbow for you trying to move past me!" "I take an attack of opportunity for you taking that attack of opportunity!" sounds like something that belongs in a Monty Python sketch, where both parties have ranged weapons and Combat Reflexes, and everyone else in the fight waits in annoyance for them to stop taking attacks of opportunity at each other so they can move on to the next initiative count finally.)

To be fair, that's a sketch I'd like to see.

[Debatra]

Actually, that's a thing that can happen by RAW.

[Keltest]

Actually, that's a thing that can happen by RAW.

I'm... going to have to hear some elaboration, given that ranged weapons generally cant be used in attacks of opportunity.

[Debatra]

I don't fully understand it myself, but it was brought up in one of the Dysfunction threads. Doesn't seem to be in the handbook yet.

[Kish]

Yeah, I'm going to need details too. Sometimes people point out "dysfunctions" in those threads when it's actually a PEBCAB problem.

(Problem Exists Between Chair And Book.)

[Debatra]

Don't I know it, but this one seemed legitimate.

Found it. Conversation starts here.

[Kish]

Ah, I see. I haven't done an exhaustive study of all 3.5 books, but some googling suggests that's not actually legitimate for 3.5 RAW, since it relies on one of the ill-conceived abilities of a 3.0 prestige class which was never updated to 3.5 (the Peerless Archer prestige class grants the ability to threaten attacks of opportunity with a bow).

[Debatra]

As off-topic as we seem to be getting, I was under the impression that any 3.0 without an official update was still legal?

[Darth Paul]

Oh, no.

No, no, no.

No.

3.5 was the official update for 3.0, it "officially" revised pretty much everything and said, "We take all of that back, you were doing it wrong then, this is the way you should do it now." So there was everything from weapon shrinkage to spells that had been deemed too powerful (like Fly) being weakened, while others were buffed. And if it wasn't addressed in 3.5 core or a splatbook, it officially never existed in the first place, according to the spooky wizards.

[Jasdoif]

And if it wasn't addressed in 3.5 core or a splatbook, it officially never existed in the first place, according to the spooky wizards.

On the contrary: the 3.5 DMG says outright that 3.5 is compatible with the "existing products", and that "these products can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments".

Of course, what constitutes "minor adjustments" can vary quite wildly.

[Kish]

I'll just say that I think "rules dysfunctions from treating never-updated 3.0 material as if it were automatically official for 3.5 with no changes" would be a big enough category to support threads of its own independent of all entirely 3.5 rules dysfunctions.

[Kastor]

I never noticed that O-chul broke the shark's teeth when he punched it

[Ruck]

I never noticed that #780, panel 1 could be construed as confirming the speculation in #571, panel 5.

[Peelee]

I never noticed that #780, panel 1 could be construed as confirming the speculation in #571, panel 5.

Eh, it's most likely just as it appears on the surface; an insult towards the EoB. There's a difference between a dull blade and a rusty blade, after all.

[Ruck]

I still prefer to think it means Belkar prefers his daggers rusty and/or dull.

[Peelee]

I still prefer to think it means Belkar prefers his daggers rusty and/or dull.

But that's not his dagger. He's being handed a random one. Which he then insults as being rusty.

[littlebum2002]

I still prefer to think it means Belkar prefers his daggers rusty and/or dull.

He says "Just one? Are you going through some sort of crippling rusty blade shortage around here?"

not

"It's sharp? Are you going through some sort of crippling rusty blade shortage around here?"

Therefore, he's clearly complaining about the fact that there is only one, not the fact that it is sharp/