Results 1,291 to 1,320 of 1578
Thread: Simple Q&A (By RAW) III
-
2007-08-17, 12:12 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2007
- Gender
Re: Simple Q&A (By RAW) III
Q485
Wealth by level for level 20?"Tell my tale to those who ask. Tell it truly; the ill deeds along with the good, and let me be judged accordingly. The rest... is silence."
-Dinobot, quoting Hamlet.
Avatar thanks to Kiren
Current Characters:
-
2007-08-17, 12:20 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Location
- IPR Violation
- Gender
Re: Simple Q&A (By RAW) III
A. 485
DMG, page 135.
-
2007-08-17, 12:55 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Oregon, USA
Re: Simple Q&A (By RAW) III
Q486
How does Withdraw work with a creature that takes up more then one five-foot square? Is the creature's first 5 feet of movement exempt from attacks of opportunity, or are all the occupied squares exempted for the entirety of the action?Last edited by Jasdoif; 2007-08-17 at 12:55 PM. Reason: Minding my As and Qs <<;
FeytouchedBanana eldritch disciple avatar by...me!
The Index of the Giant's Comments VI―Making Dogma from Zapped Bananas
-
2007-08-17, 01:11 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Location
- IPR Violation
- Gender
Re: Simple Q&A (By RAW) III
A. 486
The creature start out in all squares, so all squares are exempt.
That entry is really poorly worded.
-
2007-08-17, 01:29 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Gender
Re: Simple Q&A (By RAW) III
Q487
Assuming a horse (space 10'/reach 5') is attacking at man with a reach weapon. As the horse moves in, some of its space squares enter the man's threatened squares (10'). As the horse moves to become adjacent (5') it still occupied the threatened square. Does this move generate an attack of opportunity?
Q488
Which squares does a man that is mounted on a horse threaten?
-
2007-08-17, 01:34 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Location
- IPR Violation
- Gender
Re: Simple Q&A (By RAW) III
A. 487
Yes. If any part of the creature leaves a threatened square it provokes an AoO.
A. 488
It depends on the reach of his weapon.
You share the space of the mount, so you treat him as if he occupied all the squares of said mount.
Say he has 5 foot reach; the rider would threaten all 12 squares around the horse.
-
2007-08-17, 01:44 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Gender
-
2007-08-17, 02:08 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Oregon, USA
Re: Simple Q&A (By RAW) III
Alright.
Originally Posted by SRDOriginally Posted by SRD
Alternatively, it may be worth noting that the size of the threatened square isn't defined. As appears to be the case with my question on Withdraw above, for a larger creature its square means the larger square occupied by the creature. A Large foe moves out of a ten-foot square, for instance; thus anyone threatening that ten-foot square gets an AoO if one is provoked.FeytouchedBanana eldritch disciple avatar by...me!
The Index of the Giant's Comments VI―Making Dogma from Zapped Bananas
-
2007-08-17, 02:13 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Gender
Re: Simple Q&A (By RAW) III
But you DIDN'T move out of the square, you're still in it, just a different part of you. I'm looking for a reference that parts of your body count as separate entities.
-
2007-08-17, 02:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- Sunnydale
Re: Simple Q&A (By RAW) III
Re: Q 480
You threaten squares, not opponents. Normally you don't get an AoO when someone enters a square you threaten, but feats and so on are ways to buy exceptions to the rules; that's how. An example:Hold The Line (General)
Benefit: You may make an attack of opportunity against a charging opponent who enters an area you threaten. Your attack of opportunity happens immediately before the charge attack is resolved.
Normal: You only get an attack of opportunity against a character that exits a square you threaten.
-
2007-08-17, 02:19 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Oregon, USA
Re: Simple Q&A (By RAW) III
FeytouchedBanana eldritch disciple avatar by...me!
The Index of the Giant's Comments VI―Making Dogma from Zapped Bananas
-
2007-08-17, 02:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Gender
Re: Simple Q&A (By RAW) III
OK, let me draw this out a bit
= guy with reach weapon (10' reach)
= horse
STARTING POSITION:
{table=heading].. | AA | BB | CC | DD | EE | FF
01 | | | | | |
02 | | | | | |
[/table]
FIRST STEP: enters threatened square of
{table=heading].. | AA | BB | CC | DD | EE | FF
01 | | | | | |
02 | | | | | |
[/table]
SECOND STEP: moves adjacent to , note that is still occupying the threatened square.
{table=heading].. | AA | BB | CC | DD | EE | FF
01 | | | | | |
02 | | | | | |
[/table]
Assuming no special feats did provoke an AoO from in step 2? If so please cite the rule, given that has not left a threatened square.
-
2007-08-17, 02:40 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
Re: Simple Q&A (By RAW) III
Originally Posted by SRDLast edited by Bitzeralisis; 2007-08-17 at 02:42 PM.
·Bitzeralisis·
Avatar: Rogue
-
2007-08-17, 02:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Oregon, USA
Re: Simple Q&A (By RAW) III
Ahh, I see now....You know, this would all be a lot easier if the combat rules didn't assume Small or Medium, single-five-foot-square-occupying combatants. A number of pieces in the combat section could do with some clarification, actually....
Well then...looks like a different approach is the answer. Normal movement is an activity that provokes attacks of opportunity while threatened. So, moving from C1:D2 to B1:C2 provokes an attack of opportunity, and since bitter-reach-weapon-face threatens C1 and C2, he can make an attack of opportunity.FeytouchedBanana eldritch disciple avatar by...me!
The Index of the Giant's Comments VI―Making Dogma from Zapped Bananas
-
2007-08-17, 02:46 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Gender
Re: Simple Q&A (By RAW) III
I'm not denying that the horse isn't threatened, I'm saying that at no point has it LEFT a threatened square. Thus no provocation via leaving threatened square. What I'm looking for is a RAW citation that states that if a portion of a multisquare creature leaves a threatened square that it provokes an AoO.
-
2007-08-17, 03:46 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Location
- IPR Violation
- Gender
Re: Simple Q&A (By RAW) III
I don't think you will find anything that directly deals with "multisquare" creatures, although you might find an example in some book or the FAQ even.
But whether part of your body is still in the square is irrelevant, you were still moving out of a threatened square.
(Not being in the square with any part of your body is not a requirement for provoking an AoO.)
-
2007-08-17, 04:18 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- Sunnydale
Re: Simple Q&A (By RAW) III
I can't agree with this. The horse was in the CC & DD columns, of which the CC column squares were threatened by the guy with the reach weapon. Then it was in the BB & CC columns, of which the CC column squares were threatened by the guy with the reach weapon. It never left the CC columns.
D&D doesn't have "facing", so no particular part of the horse is actually considered to be distinctly in the CC columns as opposed to those columns to the left or right (and the horse could have theoretically done a somersault to keep the same parts of its anatomy in the CC column squares). By the RAW no AoO was provoked.
-
2007-08-17, 04:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
-
2007-08-17, 04:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Location
- IPR Violation
- Gender
Re: Simple Q&A (By RAW) III
It is still not about leaving, it is about moving out of. As soon as any part of the creatures moves out of the square it provokes an AoO.
AoOs interrupt the normal flow, so you have not even left the square when the AoO is made and you may never have to.
If I were to ignore all context and intend I could potentially arrive at the other interpretation.
-
2007-08-17, 06:17 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- Sunnydale
Re: Simple Q&A (By RAW) III
OK, but what part of the creature moved out of the square? Without facing, we are, by the rules, not capable of determining any individual location or movement by any particular part of the creature. If some parts of the creature were in those two squares before the movement, and some parts of the creature were in those same squares after the movement, it hasn't moved out of those threatened squares.
This is the essential nature of D&D's simplified grid occupation system. Following the rules requires us to ignore the real-world mechanics of how creatures actually move, just as we ignore the real-world impossibility of a human being able to reach all points around a 10' square simultaneously by virtue of being on a horse. The rules don't let us assign a riding human to a particular one of the horse's 4 squares. Thus they can't let us assign the horse's "forequarters" or "hindquarters" to any of those squares either. Consequently no individually discernible part of the horse left the threatened squares; the whole horse just moved. And if it kept moving, then it would provoke by moving out of the threatened squares.
-
2007-08-17, 07:23 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
- Outside of a dog
- Gender
Re: Simple Q&A (By RAW) III
Q. 489
Can a ToB class use its maneuvers/stances while under the effect of rage?
Q. 490
Can "standard action strike" maneuvers be used in grapple? What about other forms of maneuvers and stances?Last edited by Alveanerle; 2007-08-17 at 07:23 PM.
-
2007-08-17, 08:16 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Gender
Re: Simple Q&A (By RAW) III
A 487 Epilogue
I am willing to concede that this is ill defined or undefined in RAW and thus does not fall into the SIMPLE requirement for this thread. As a parting editorial, I will mention that I believe the AoO rules were developed as a means to get that parting shot on creatures that turn an run from a fight (which I know was at least a house rule back in my second edition days). As such, they work well when people try to flee. It is only when we have people trying to get AoO's against incoming/attacking people that the confusion erupts.
-
2007-08-18, 02:01 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Location
- IPR Violation
- Gender
Re: Simple Q&A (By RAW) III
Even if the same parts of the creature ended up in those squares, because the horse were doing somersaults, the parts that do move forward still has to pass through the threatened squares and thus would provoke an AoO.
This is the essential nature of D&D's simplified grid occupation system. Following the rules requires us to ignore the real-world mechanics of how creatures actually move, just as we ignore the real-world impossibility of a human being able to reach all points around a 10' square simultaneously by virtue of being on a horse. The rules don't let us assign a riding human to a particular one of the horse's 4 squares. Thus they can't let us assign the horse's "forequarters" or "hindquarters" to any of those squares either. Consequently no individually discernible part of the horse left the threatened squares; the whole horse just moved. And if it kept moving, then it would provoke by moving out of the threatened squares.
If you move a large miniature forward the front part tries to move out out of the front squares and thus provokes an AoO.
For you to show that a particular part of a creature does not move out of a square, to circumvent the AoO rules (that were written for small/medium creatures), your argument requires that you do assign specific parts of the creature to the squares and that the creature then moves in a highly unreasonable fashion.
The other interpretation requires that all parts of the creature occupy all squares at once (no facing) and that all squares are treated individually (squares are threatened, not creatures), so movement out of a square will provoke whether there is movement into the square at the same time.
-
2007-08-18, 02:10 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Location
- IPR Violation
- Gender
Re: Simple Q&A (By RAW) III
A. 489
Yes, unless the maneuver require the use of one of the exceptions listed in the description of Rage.
Originally Posted by SRD
The list of actions under grapple is not exhaustive so some maneuvers might require DM adjudication.
However, since you are allowed to attack in a grapple you can of course also use a "standard action strike" as long as you use a light weapon and observe the -4 penalty to attack.
-
2007-08-18, 02:23 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
Re: Simple Q&A (By RAW) III
Q. 491a
Does a creature with the insectile (Savage Species 122) template qualify to take Multiweapon Fighting?
Q. 491b If so, how many attacks does it get? Disreguard if the answer to 491a is "no".
My reason for asking this question is that many people say that because the "attacks" section of the template reads "Dispite having six arms, an insectile creature gains no additional attacks", this means that they can only hold weapons with two hands, while others say that because they have six arms and thus, barring injury, six hands, they are allowed to take and use the multiweapon fighting feat to make six attacks.
-
2007-08-18, 02:31 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Location
- IPR Violation
- Gender
Re: Simple Q&A (By RAW) III
A. 491 a
Strictly speaking the creature does qualify since it has more than 2 hands.
A. 491 b
There is no benefit over TWF feats of taking the Multiweapon feats.
Multiweapon Fighting does not grant any attacks, it just reduces the penalties with hands you can already make attacks with, so you can still only make use 2 hands/arms to make attacks.
-
2007-08-18, 03:09 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Lost in L-Space
Re: Simple Q&A (By RAW) III
Q 492
When a Lyric Thaumaturge (CM) uses his Sonic Might ability on a spell with a duration of more than one round (i.e. Song of Discord) does it do the extra sonic damage on every round or only on the first ?The Countess of Mispelling hath returned !__________________________________________________ _________Behold my magnetoresistance !
Outer Sphere__________________________________________________ _______________Inkatar !__________________________________________________ _______________Starship
Spoiler
-
2007-08-18, 03:46 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Location
- By a Park
- Gender
Re: Simple Q&A (By RAW) III
492
Most abilities that add extra damage to spells that deal damage over a number of rounds only add the extra damage on the first round. I would assume the same applies to Sonic Might.The Future just ain’t what it used to be.
-
2007-08-18, 03:53 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Lost in L-Space
Re: Simple Q&A (By RAW) III
Q 492 addendum
Aha, but Song of Discord doesn't even deal damage to its targets (they do it to each other, ). However, since it has the [Sonic] descriptor, the spell is an eligible carrier for the Sonic Might ability.The Countess of Mispelling hath returned !__________________________________________________ _________Behold my magnetoresistance !
Outer Sphere__________________________________________________ _______________Inkatar !__________________________________________________ _______________Starship
Spoiler
-
2007-08-18, 04:28 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Location
- By a Park
- Gender
Re: Simple Q&A (By RAW) III
Re: A 492 addendum
Hm...
Sonic might can "add damage" rather than "add extra damage." So it appears Sonic Might can be added to that spell. But I would assume the same principles that make additional damage last only one round in such instances would apply, whether or not the spell normally does damage.The Future just ain’t what it used to be.