Rules You Never Noticed

[Pex]

Please tell me you didn't stack the ammo bonus with the bow's bonus. Cause you're not supposed to.

Methinks he did

Were you there? No, you were not.

The magic melee weapons the party had were good enough on their own the spell wouldn't have added much. Casting Bless, a 1st level spell, was just as effective if not statistically equal. Magical arrows, on the other hand, were hard to come by, inherently no where near the numbers the ranger would fire his bow. With one spell he was +3 to hit and damage for the entire day, well worth the 4th level slot. Remember, I did say that at the time Greater Magic Weapon was +1 per three levels. Even after the nerf it would still be worth it because you can't get infinite magic arrows. At 8th level when it becomes +2, melee warriors already have at least a +1 weapon, if not +1 plus rider. A 4th level slot for just +1 to hit and damage more is inefficient to me. A 4th level slot for +2 to hit and damage for every arrow of the ranger, worth it. 12th level is a no-brainer for +3/+3 with plenty of 4th level slots to spare. That was the eureka. Not the plus number itself but being able to buff the party's archer so much.

[KillianHawkeye]

You could have just said it was back in 3.0 when all that stuff still worked like that. Most people here assume 3.5 talk unless otherwise specified. No need to get riled up....

[Kelb_Panthera]

I was unclear, the DM's ruling was that without a full attack, you can't initiate the maneuvers at all.

That reads right to me. There's nothing in the phrasing of the maneuver to make an exception to the standard rule that you can only initiate multiple attacks you're entitled to when you take a full attack action.

Compare them to the wording of the snap kick feat's benefit, where it's made explicitly clear that you can activate the feat whenever you make -any- attack.

Though technically, you could activate the maneuvers at the beginning of your turn and not take the full attack. They'd just be wasted for the encounter.

[etrpgb]

There is actually a weapon like this:

Greathammer: Damage 1d12, Critical 19–20/×4, (Bludgeoning)

Pretty much the ultimate melee weapon. From Monster Manual IV, p.101

[JoshuaZ]

There is actually a weapon like this:

Greathammer: Damage 1d12, Critical 19–20/×4, (Bludgeoning)

Pretty much the ultimate melee weapon. From Monster Manual IV, p.101

Well, the fact that it is an exotic weapon is a slight balancing factor. But that's still a very good find. And it gets a +2 bonus on sunder attempts on weapons or shields which is just gravy. Looking at the entry, it doesn't say that it is a two-handed weapon anywhere that I see, does it? That makes it sort of insane. I assume it is meant to be two-handed, and even with that it is very nice.

[Jormengand]

Looking at the entry, it doesn't say that it is a two-handed weapon anywhere that I see, does it?

It's a 3.0 weapon, isn't it? That would mean that the "Medium" weapon is the medium two-handed version (just like in 3.5, in 3.0 a creature can wield a weapon of its own size in two hands).

EDIT: In fact, either way, in absence of other information, the fact that it's medium means that it's a two-handed weapon for a medium creature.

[Segev]

That reads right to me. There's nothing in the phrasing of the maneuver to make an exception to the standard rule that you can only initiate multiple attacks you're entitled to when you take a full attack action.

Compare them to the wording of the snap kick feat's benefit, where it's made explicitly clear that you can activate the feat whenever you make -any- attack.

Though technically, you could activate the maneuvers at the beginning of your turn and not take the full attack. They'd just be wasted for the encounter.

The maneuvers have specific activation times, and specific effects when used. If they say "you make an additional attack" when you use the Boost, you make an additional attack when you use it (as a swift action). If they say "you make an attack with each weapon you're wielding, up to a maximum of two," and they take a standard action to activate, then you do precisely that in a standard action.

The exception/specific rule is right there.

[Crake]

It's a 3.0 weapon, isn't it? That would mean that the "Medium" weapon is the medium two-handed version (just like in 3.5, in 3.0 a creature can wield a weapon of its own size in two hands).

EDIT: In fact, either way, in absence of other information, the fact that it's medium means that it's a two-handed weapon for a medium creature.

This is a 3.5 weapon from a 3.5 book. Take a look again at the equipment section in the players handbook, and you will see even in there it has a "Damage (Small)" and "Damage (Medium)" column, giving you the damage for the weapon for the two most common player sizes. It's not saying that it's a medium sized weapon, but rather saying that the weapon, when sized for a medium creature, deals 1d12 damage.

That said, looking at the weapon in the picture, as well as the statistics for the weapon in the monster's statblock, it is wielding it two handed, and it is getting 1.5x str to damage. Admittedly you can do that for a one handed weapon as well, but i think it's safe to say, with that stat line, two handed seems more reasonable.

[Inevitability]

It's a 3.0 weapon, isn't it?

MM IV is just 3.5, as far as I know.

[daremetoidareyo]

Line of effect. Never used this hidden little anti-gem until frequenting the boards here

[Segev]

Line of effect. Never used this hidden little anti-gem until frequenting the boards here

Would you please elaborate? I'm not sure what you did before you learned of it, and how you've changed play since learning of it.

[daremetoidareyo]

Would you please elaborate? I'm not sure what you did before you learned of it, and how you've changed play since learning of it.

We used line of sight. Line of effect is a significantly different concept because it makes the ring of x-ray vision or clairvoyance lose tactical potency. But introducing the idea that you can't necessarily target what you see is not very intuitive.

[Inevitability]

We used line of sight. Line of effect is a significantly different concept because it makes the ring of x-ray vision or clairvoyance lose tactical potency. But introducing the idea that you can't necessarily target what you see is not very intuitive.

*cough*windows*cough*

[Fuzzy McCoy]

There is actually a weapon like this:

Greathammer: Damage 1d12, Critical 19–20/×4, (Bludgeoning)

Pretty much the ultimate melee weapon. From Monster Manual IV, p.101

I should point out that the statistics in the minotaur's stat block put the hammer at just 20/x4, which makes sense to me, as it puts it in line with the goliath greathammer. Still a good weapon, especially if you have a a way to cast greater mighty wallop.

[Zanos]

*cough*windows*cough*

I personally do think it's kind of weird that a window is a 100% foolproof defense against almost all spells.
"I cast charm person on him when he comes to the window."
"You can't, there's a window in the way."

[Keral]

I personally do think it's kind of weird that a window is a 100% foolproof defense against almost all spells.
"I cast charm person on him when he comes to the window."
"You can't, there's a window in the way."

Also, if one were to apply line of effect, would that mean that a total body suit blocks spells?

It probably wouldn't hinder damaging spells much, but it would be way cheaper than, say, a ring of mind blank.

Add in blindsight and you'd be set.

Except that I just noticed, by reading blindsight, that you need line of effect from you to the creature. So to block blindsight you just need to throw a blanket on them? :|

[Inevitability]

Also, if one were to apply line of effect, would that mean that a total body suit blocks spells?

It probably wouldn't hinder damaging spells much, but it would be way cheaper than, say, a ring of mind blank.

Add in blindsight and you'd be set.

Except that I just noticed, by reading blindsight, that you need line of effect from you to the creature. So to block blindsight you just need to throw a blanket on them? :|

Mindsight still works, as does seeing through someone else's eyes in one of the various ways.

[daremetoidareyo]

Mindsight still works, as does seeing through someone else's eyes in one of the various ways.

Yeah, but who knew that a tower shield made of glass is more effective at getting close to a mage than an actual magic tower shield. (look at nephelium from the sunless citadel page 32) to exploit this.

[Remuko]

I got one I just found in another thread on here about something unrelated to this thread.

If a skill is a class skill for any of a multiclass character’s classes, then character level determines a skill’s maximum rank. (The maximum rank for a class skill is 3 + character level.).

[John Longarrow]

If you just noticed that I'm guessing you don't play a lot of multi-class characters.

[GilesTheCleric]

If you just noticed that I'm guessing you don't play a lot of multi-class characters.

To be fair, I play lots of multiclass characters, and never knew that there was a general rule for cleric+paladin turn stacking, simply because I haven't read the multiclassing section in the PHB for at least 8+ years.

[Inevitability]

To be fair, I play lots of multiclass characters, and never knew that there was a general rule for cleric+paladin turn stacking, simply because I haven't read the multiclassing section in the PHB for at least 8+ years.

To be fair, paladin 4/cleric X isn't the most common of multiclasses either.

[Flickerdart]

It took me years to find out the game actually had rules for falling speed of non-flying creatures: the second DMG lists it as 670 feet in the first round and 1150 thereafter.

Unless you jump, then it's limited by your movement speed!

[Remuko]

If you just noticed that I'm guessing you don't play a lot of multi-class characters.

I do but thought I was house-ruling it because almost every site I see (and dnd games i recall playing) all say that your max ranks for a class skill is only relevant if its a skill that's a class skill for the class you're leveling up in that level.

[zergling.exe]

I do but thought I was house-ruling it because almost every site I see (and dnd games i recall playing) all say that your max ranks for a class skill is only relevant if its a skill that's a class skill for the class you're leveling up in that level.

The true for how many skill points you have to invest for one rank, but not for skill caps. Why would people spread misinformation as fact?

[Mato]

Greathammer: Damage 1d12, Critical 19–20/×4, (Bludgeoning)
Pretty much the ultimate melee weapon. From Monster Manual IV, p.101

Just because the rules don't say it's one/two handed doesn't mean it's one handed through.

Also 1d12's average is 6.5 but 2d6 is 7 so a mercurial greatsword has better stats than it and a kaorti jovar surpasses both of them with 2d6//18/x4 which I still think deals less damage than what you can do with Sword & Fist's fullblades but I'd have to look. Plus you haven't even considered templates, materials, and enchantments yet. And some people like utility like a harpoon's control and damage, or a sharktooth's grapple, or the AoOs of a barbed chain, or the iaijutsu prowess of a quickrazor, or a warforged monk's interest in a 16d8 battle fist.

Point is, no it's not really. Like a morphing manyfanged dagger in the shape of a crescent knife doubles the number of attacks you have and each successful hit deals quadruple damage.

[ZamielVanWeber]

The true for how many skill points you have to invest for one rank, but not for skill caps. Why would people spread misinformation as fact?

Because in 3.0 that was not the case and they may have gotten confused/been really old threads. (That rule was insanely obnoxious in 3.0 by the way).

[Kelb_Panthera]

The maneuvers have specific activation times, and specific effects when used. If they say "you make an additional attack" when you use the Boost, you make an additional attack when you use it (as a swift action). If they say "you make an attack with each weapon you're wielding, up to a maximum of two," and they take a standard action to activate, then you do precisely that in a standard action.

The exception/specific rule is right there.

It doesn't say you make additional attacks, it says you -can- make additional attacks. It's granting a temporary ability not making additional attacks in and of itself.

[Segev]

It doesn't say you make additional attacks, it says you -can- make additional attacks. It's granting a temporary ability not making additional attacks in and of itself.

I'll have to read the rules, then, later this evening if I remember. I'm AFB at the moment.

[Mato]

I'll have to read the rules, then, later this evening if I remember. I'm AFB at the moment.

He's right it says can.

Remember, the maneuver it's self is not an instantaneous effect that gives you two attacks (see duration "end of turn") but the boost is a buff-styled effect that allows you, on your choice, to make extra attacks in conjunction with the ones you're allowed. What's being debated is what you'd normally be allowed which is '1' or 'all', and your rebuttal that the maneuver grants X is wrong and inapplicable to the situation.