Archers vs outsiders split from unfairly powerful monsters

[ColorBlindNinja]

Do you have a citation? As far as I know, everything in the SRD appears somewhere in core.

Yeah, as it turns out, the text I had in mind is in the MM:

Using a spell-like ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise,

[Beheld]

The SRD is probably incorrectly misquoting from the PHB, and it comes down to the Primary Source Rule for the Pit Fiend in the MM, and then just PCs with SLAs get suckered/ can cast swift action spells as SLAs.

PHB pg 180 says "A spelllike ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spelllike ability functions just like a spell."

[ColorBlindNinja]

The SRD is probably incorrectly misquoting from the PHB, and it comes down to the Primary Source Rule for the Pit Fiend in the MM, and then just PCs with SLAs get suckered/ can cast swift action spells as SLAs.

PHB pg 180 says "A spelllike ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spelllike ability functions just like a spell."

Good to know, the DMG didn't seem to say what the casting time was.

[Anthrowhale]

Yeah, as it turns out, the text I had in mind is in the MM:

Thanks.

Ok, let's discuss Wall of Ice then. What's the plan exactly? Since you start in the corner the "move to a corner" operation is a noop. The Ice Wall goes where exactly? It's a 4x4 grid of squares with the Pit Fiend taking a 2x2, and each Bone Devil taking a 2x2 so only a 2x2 is free. This means you can use a 5' hemisphere over any one devil (or the empty space) or use a wall of ice to partition the square into 2 2x4 rectangles, one containing a Bone Devil and a Pit Fiend while the other contains a Bone Devil. What's the plan?

With regards to nonmelee weapons, Beheld is right in that I missed a -4 penalty, but wrong to claim that the bow is suddenly not a weapon. Nothing quoted supports that and in fact disarm cannot be used against non-weapons.

With regards to metagaming, that is the nature when there is no DM and no fog of war. The Pit Fiend is metagaming as well in many ways.

[Beheld]

Ok, let's discuss Wall of Ice then. What's the plan exactly? Since you start in the corner the "move to a corner" operation is a noop. The Ice Wall goes where exactly? It's a 4x4 grid of squares with the Pit Fiend taking a 2x2, and each Bone Devil taking a 2x2 so only a 2x2 is free. This means you can use a 5' hemisphere over any one devil (or the empty space) or use a wall of ice to partition the square into 2 2x4 rectangles, one containing a Bone Devil and a Pit Fiend while the other contains a Bone Devil. What's the plan?

Pit Fiends can fly It also doesn't matter, and in fact, is probably a good thing, if one of the Bone Devils in the other side of the Wall of Ice. But I suppose given the size of the room, it only takes one move action for the Pit Fiend to accurately determine the halflings location, so at least that solves the problem of targeting the Wall of Ice.

With regards to nonmelee weapons, Beheld is right in that I missed a -4 penalty, but wrong to claim that the bow is suddenly not a weapon. Nothing quoted supports that and in fact disarm cannot be used against non-weapons.

No, because Disarm can be used against non weapons, but if it is used against a non-melee weapon, as the disarm entry states, then you can't use your non melee weapon to make an opposed attack roll, you have to make an opposed attack roll without the weapon.

With regards to metagaming, that is the nature when there is no DM and no fog of war. The Pit Fiend is metagaming as well in many ways.

No, the Pit Fiend has always been responding to a random halfling with a bow the same way as he would respond to any halfling with bow. Before he sees a halfling with a bow, he responds the same way he responds to any situation, by building his Persistent Image defenses into a location that he intends to use as a defensive base.

Whereas the Halfling is responding based on encyclopedic knowledge of a Pit Fiends entire ability list and even actual numbers.

How on earth does the zero ranks in Knowledge Planes make the decision of when to use potions to increase AC when he has no possible way of knowing whether he's fighting a Pit Fiend or a Glabrezu or a Solar. How does he choose to use Anarchic Silver Arrows when he literally can't tell the difference between a Pit Fiend and a Balor?

[Anthrowhale]

Pit Fiends can fly It also doesn't matter, and in fact, is probably a good thing, if one of the Bone Devils in the other side of the Wall of Ice. But I suppose given the size of the room, it only takes one move action for the Pit Fiend to accurately determine the halflings location, so at least that solves the problem of targeting the Wall of Ice.

So what is the Pit Fiend's move action?

[Beheld]

So what is the Pit Fiend's move action?

So how on Earth does the halfling who thinks he might be facing a Solar, an Eladrin, a Balor, or a Pit Fiend decide to shoot an anarcic arrow?

I just don't like how you breeze past all the problems with your arguments to skip to..... trying to do an arbitrary fight with your still rule breaking still greater than WBL, still quantum fighter (who doesn't even have a non magic bow, and if he did, would probably be in medium load, but will quantumly pull it out when that comes up.)

Personally, my favorite version of this fight is where the Pit Fiend takes the magic bow away, breaks it in half, and then, after the halfling pulls out his quantum second bow, and then uses it to shoot for 1d3+2d6+7, average 16 damage that doesn't bypass DR, so does 1 non lethal damage per shot, and then somehow knocks out the Pit Fiend, but then discovers that with no way to do lethal damage, he can't coup de grace, or ever kill the Pit Fiend, and then he spends a week or two wishing he wasn't so tiny, as he chips a hole in the ground, big enough for the Pit Fiends head to be submerged, and then starts peeing into it, in the hopes of getting to drown the Pit Fiend, but then he dies of thirst.

Not of course, that once the bow was broken, that the average 1 nonlethal damage per anarchic arrow is going to actually knock him out when you have 12 of those. No, you are pretty ****ed. If your magical bow is ever broken or taken away, you've already lost.

But to answer the question, unfortunately it looks like the halfling is so tiny that the Pit Fiend can in fact move through his square, so I guess back to a 75% chance of one thing and 25% chance of the other.

[Anthrowhale]

But to answer the question, unfortunately it looks like the halfling is so tiny that the Pit Fiend can in fact move through his square, so I guess back to a 75% chance of one thing and 25% chance of the other.

In fact, the halfling is so tiny that there is a 25% chance that he's already in the Pit Fiend's square before the Pit Fiend moves.

Anyways, after rewinding you spend your 40' move action moving to one corner and then the diagonal corner. At this point there is a 25% chance the halfling is in the Pit Fiend's square and a 75% chance in some other square. The you spend a standard action summoning Ice Devils and then a free action telling them where to place the Wall of Ice. Where do you place the Wall of Ice? I see 4 viable choices:
(1) a 5' radius hemisphere around the Pit Fiend.
(2) a 5' radius hemisphere around the Ice Devil.
(3) a 5' radius hemisphere around the empty corner.
(4) a wall partitioning the grid into 2 10'x20' cages.

Which will it be?

[Eldariel]

In fact, the halfling is so tiny that there is a 25% chance that he's already in the Pit Fiend's square before the Pit Fiend moves.

Anyways, after rewinding you spend your 40' move action moving to one corner and then the diagonal corner. At this point there is a 25% chance the halfling is in the Pit Fiend's square and a 75% chance in some other square. The you spend a standard action summoning Ice Devils and then a free action telling them where to place the Wall of Ice. Where do you place the Wall of Ice? I see 4 viable choices:
(1) a 5' radius hemisphere around the Pit Fiend.
(2) a 5' radius hemisphere around the Ice Devil.
(3) a 5' radius hemisphere around the empty corner.
(4) a wall partitioning the grid into 2 10'x20' cages.

Which will it be?

Wouldn't the logical choice be to have them (or one) ready an action to use the Wall of Ice to block the next attack?

[Beheld]

In fact, the halfling is so tiny that there is a 25% chance that he's already in the Pit Fiend's square before the Pit Fiend moves.

Anyways, after rewinding you spend your 40' move action moving to one corner and then the diagonal corner. At this point there is a 25% chance the halfling is in the Pit Fiend's square and a 75% chance in some other square. The you spend a standard action summoning Ice Devils and then a free action telling them where to place the Wall of Ice. Where do you place the Wall of Ice? I see 4 viable choices:
(1) a 5' radius hemisphere around the Pit Fiend.
(2) a 5' radius hemisphere around the Ice Devil.
(3) a 5' radius hemisphere around the empty corner.
(4) a wall partitioning the grid into 2 10'x20' cages.

Which will it be?

I guess you are confused, we aren't doing a fight, because you still refuse to have me as dm, and no neutral dm has yet been proffered, nor have we rolled treasure for the pit fiend as is required for a stock pit fiend.

I am still just pointing out the many flaws with your build and tactics, like your inability to know you should use anarchic arrows, your complete lack of knowledge of the what spells even are, much less what ones the pit fiend has, your inability to resist a disarm effectively even after retroactively going back and buying lock gauntlets, and your complete inability to do lethal damage, and even meaningful nonlethal damage since you can do about 12 total and he heals five a round, with your bow dispelled or with an extra bow after your bow is taken away or sundered.

Also just for the record, most fighter sunder and disarm aren't great threats since they usually have melee weapons and STR scores, and can just prevent that from happening. It's a particular flaw of your build as you made the decision to play a tiny archer. Tiny arching is more effective for rogues precisely because they can do their damage in chunks that overcome DR and without having to have a very particular magic bow. But those flaws are what make big strong fighters who can do their damage without a particular weapon more common than tiny archer fighters.

[Anthrowhale]

Wouldn't the logical choice be to have them (or one) ready an action to use the Wall of Ice to block the next attack?

This is a good idea but it won't work. The present plan is to spend a round adding the +5 magic oil to the bow and move into one of the random 4 squares in the central 2x2. Then spend another round adding the potion of good hope, then take a 5' step into the Pit Fiend's square and light up the Pit Fiend with a full attack that kills with high probability.

I guess you are confused, we aren't doing a fight,

I didn't expect you to finish the execution.

...like your inability to know you should use anarchic arrows,

This seems irrelevant to the original question---a wizard can surely spare a free action to inform the party's fighter. Furthermore, the Pit Fiend

your inability to resist a disarm effectively even after retroactively

If Disarm was your supersecretsauce tactic, why didn't the Pit Fiend use it? Instead, Bone Devils were summoned... But, you are also misreading the rules here. The relevant quotes are:

...If the item you are attempting to disarm isn’t a melee weapon the defender may still oppose you with an attack roll, but takes a penalty and can’t attempt to disarm you in return if your attempt fails... If the combatants are of different sizes, the larger combatant gets a bonus on the attack roll of +4 per difference in size category. If the targeted item isn’t a melee weapon, the defender takes a -4 penalty on the roll.

This is the same language as for melee weapons:

You and the defender make opposed attack rolls with your respective weapons.

except that we eat a +4 penalty and can't disarm in return. The idea that an 'attack roll' with a melee weapon should be treated very differently from an 'attack roll' with a nonmelee weapon is absurd.

[Beheld]

The idea that an 'attack roll' with a melee weapon should be treated very differently from an 'attack roll' with a nonmelee weapon is absurd.

It's literally in the rules, either you make an attack roll with a melee weapon, or you make an attack roll with a "not melee weapon" your claim that you can use your dex bonus and attack with your bow to prevent a disarm is basically as much sense as Cleric saying they can use their dex bonus to prevent a disarm of a holy symbol in their opposing attack roll. It's not a melee weapon, so you don't get to make an attack roll with your weapon.

[Anthrowhale]

...It's not a melee weapon, so you don't get to make an attack roll with your weapon.

Your conclusion contradicts the rule:

If the item you are attempting to disarm isn’t a melee weapon the defender may still oppose you with an attack roll...

...and from a fluff perspective, dexterity being useful in opposing a disarm attack makes about as much sense as water flowing down hill.

[Beheld]

Your conclusion contradicts the rule:
...and from a fluff perspective, dexterity being useful in opposing a disarm attack makes about as much sense as water flowing down hill.

Except you know, that's exactly what I said. They can oppose with an attack roll if they don't have a melee weapon, like if they are holding a holy symbol. Because when you are unarmed, such as by holding a bow, you can still defend as if unarmed attack. Just like with holy symbol.

That's the point. If you have weapon finesse, then maybe you can use dexterity to prevent someone from disarming you with an opposed unarmed defense, but since you aren't holding a melee weapon, you can't use your weapon to make the attack roll, you oppose with an unarmed attack roll, just like the guy with a holy symbol.

[Anthrowhale]

Because when you are unarmed, such as by holding a bow, ...

There are several reasons why this interpretation is wrong. The first is that a bow is a weapon and hence the sniper is not unarmed. I don't think unarmed is formally defined so the plain english definition applies, with a bow definitely causing someone to be armed.

The second is that disarm attempts against a non-weapon held in the hand always results in no consequences. The consequences of disarm are:

If you do so with a weapon, you knock the opponent’s weapon out of his hands and to the ground. If you attempt the disarm while unarmed, you end up with the weapon in your hand.

(i.e. nothing for a non-weapon). If you try to declare the bow 'not a weapon for the purpose of disarm', then the consequence of disarm does not apply since there is no 'weapon for the purpose of disarm' that can end up in your hand.

[Beheld]

There are several reasons why this interpretation is wrong. The first is that a bow is a weapon and hence the sniper is not unarmed. I don't think unarmed is formally defined so the plain english definition applies, with a bow definitely causing someone to be armed.

Except that disarm defines in advance what counts as a weapon you can use to oppose the disarm, it defines it as a melee weapon. You can't "default to a plain english definition" when the disarm rules themselves define what constitutes a weapon that can be used to oppose a disarm.

The second is that disarm attempts against a non-weapon held in the hand always results in no consequences. The consequences of disarm are:

(i.e. nothing for a non-weapon). If you try to declare the bow 'not a weapon for the purpose of disarm', then the consequence of disarm does not apply since there is no 'weapon for the purpose of disarm' that can end up in your hand.

Your claim that it is impossible to disarm someone of a key, or a staff, or a wand, or a bow is insanely stupid. The rules explicitly say that you can disarm those things. Sorry.

"If the item you are attempting to disarm isn’t a melee weapon (for instance, a bow or a wand)"

"If the targeted item isn’t a melee weapon"

Bow = Wand, you oppose disarm with a bow the same way you would with a wand, which is with an attack roll without a weapon which is therefore, without your dex. You don't get to shoot people's hands off your bow just like you don't get to spellcast their hands off your wand.

[Anthrowhale]

Except that disarm defines in advance what counts as a weapon

Let's check. The complete opening text of Disarm is:

As a melee attack, you may attempt to disarm your opponent. If you do so with a weapon, you knock the opponent’s weapon out of his hands and to the ground. If you attempt the disarm while unarmed, you end up with the weapon in your hand.

I don't see anything here about melee weapons being the only weapons that count in the opposed roll so there is nothing "in advance" which disqualifies a bow as a weapon when the consequences of disarm are defined.

Your claim that it is impossible to disarm someone of a key, or a staff, or a wand, or a bow is insanely stupid. The rules explicitly say that you can disarm those things. Sorry.

That was not my claim. My claim was that you can't disarm a nonweapon held in the hand by RAW. A staff, a bow, and a wand are all plausibly weapons so no contradiction occurs. A key is not.
Where does it explicitly say that you can disarm a key?

[Menzath]

DISARM
As a melee attack, you may attempt to disarm your opponent. If you
do so with a weapon, you knock the opponent’s weapon out of his
hands and to the ground. If you attempt the disarm while unarmed,
you end up with the weapon in your hand.
If you’re attempting to disarm a melee weapon, follow the steps
outlined here. If the item you are attempting to disarm isn’t a melee
weapon (for instance, a bow or a wand), the defender may still oppose you with an attack roll, but takes a penalty and can’t attempt
to disarm you in return if your attempt fails.
Step 1: Attack of Opportunity. You provoke an attack of
opportunity from the target you are trying to disarm. (If you have
the Improved Disarm feat, you don’t incur an attack of opportunity
for making a disarm attempt.) If the defender’s attack of opportunity
deals any damage, your disarm attempt fails.
Step 2: Opposed Rolls. You and the defender make opposed at-
tack rolls with your respective weapons. The wielder of a two-
handed weapon on a disarm attempt gets a +4 bonus on this roll, and
the wielder of a light weapon takes a –4 penalty. (An unarmed strike
is considered a light weapon, so you always take a penalty when trying to disarm an opponent by using an unarmed strike.) If the combatants are of different sizes, the larger combatant gets a bonus on
the attack roll of +4 per difference in size category. If the targeted
item isn’t a melee weapon, the defender takes a –4 penalty on the
roll.
Step Three: Consequences. If you beat the defender, the de-
fender is disarmed. If you attempted the disarm action unarmed,
you now have the weapon. If you were armed, the defender’s
weapon is on the ground in the defender’s square.
If you fail on the disarm attempt, the defender may immediately
react and attempt to disarm you with the same sort of opposed melee
attack roll. His attempt does not provoke an attack of opportunity
from you. If he fails his disarm attempt, you do not subsequently get
a free disarm attempt against him.
Note: A defender wearing spiked gauntlets (page 118) can’t be disarmed. A defender using a weapon attached to a locked gauntlet (page 124) gets a +10 bonus to resist being disarmed.

Since neither of you were quoting the entire description.

So according to the 5th sentence you may disarm a non-melee item.
The defender still gets an attack roll to resist.
Also I think you can try to use a bow to disarm, but in that case I think you use the rules were it is treated as an improvised melee weapon(no arrows srry they made a feat for that).

As to wether you can use Dex, would a dm rule that swinging a weapon meant to shoot projectiles is shaped properly to be easily wielded with agile movements?(again no, they actually made a specific bow for that as well).

Also of note is the following section

Grabbing Items
You can use a disarm action to snatch an item worn by the target (such as a necklace or a pair of goggles). If you want to have the item in your hand, the disarm must be made as an unarmed attack. If the item is poorly secured or otherwise easy to snatch or cut away (such as a loose cloak or a brooch pinned to the front of a tunic), the attacker gets a +4 bonus. Unlike on a normal disarm attempt, failing the attempt doesn’t allow the defender to attempt to disarm you.
This otherwise functions identically to a disarm attempt, as noted
above.
You can’t snatch an item that is well secured, such as a ring or bracelet, unless you have pinned the wearer (see Grapple). Even then, the defender gains a +4 bonus on his roll to resist the attempt.

So yeah, even keys in your pocket.

Edit-so the examples for disarming a non-melee weapon seem to be items that someone would normally be holding in combat, not to say that it doesn't apply to any held item since everything can be used as an improvised weapon, even a sheet of paper.

[Beheld]

That was not my claim. My claim was that you can't disarm a nonweapon held in the hand by RAW. A staff, a bow, and a wand are all plausibly weapons so no contradiction occurs. A key is not.
Where does it explicitly say that you can disarm a key?

A wand isn't a weapon. And your contention that holding a key or hold symbol in your hand makes it immune to disarm is both weird, and contradicted by the rules, which explicitly state that you can disarm things like wands that aren't weapons, and any other object held in the hand.

[Anthrowhale]

So according to the 5th sentence you may disarm a non-melee item.

If you change to "disarm" to "attempt to disarm", I agree (and this is what the sentence says).

The defender still gets an attack roll to resist.
Also I think you can try to use a bow to disarm, but in that case I think you use the rules were it is treated as an improvised melee weapon(no arrows srry they made a feat for that).

Agreed with this. Note that when I said "you can't disarm a nonweapon held in the hand by RAW", I was referring to the consequences: there are no stated consequences to disarming for nonweapons.

As to wether you can use Dex, would a dm rule that swinging a weapon meant to shoot projectiles is shaped properly to be easily wielded with agile movements?(again no, they actually made a specific bow for that as well).

The way a DM would rule in an actual game seems hard to guess because there is a balance between RAW, versimilitude, and what is cool. You are citing versimilitude here. I disagree with that on versimilitude grounds as a Dexterity of 34 should matter in whether or not a disarm happens.

The RAW however seems reasonably clear---you have a weapon in hand and the rules call for an attack roll relevant to that weapon with a -4 penalty, so you make a normal attack roll for that weapon with a -4 penalty.

So yeah, even keys in your pocket.

That section is not under dispute and not applicable to the situation.

A wand isn't a weapon.

Citation needed. A wand of lightning bolt sure seems like a weapon.

And your contention that holding a key or hold symbol in your hand makes it immune to disarm is both weird, and contradicted by the rules, which explicitly state that you can disarm things like wands that aren't weapons, and any other object held in the hand.

What is supposed to happen when you "disarm" a key? You provide no citation. The reason why you provide no citation is because there is no citation to make.

[Menzath]

If you change to "disarm" to "attempt to disarm", I agree (and this is what the sentence says).

Agreed with this. Note that when I said "you can't disarm a nonweapon held in the hand by RAW", I was referring to the consequences: there are no stated consequences to disarming for nonweapons.

The way a DM would rule in an actual game seems hard to guess because there is a balance between RAW, versimilitude, and what is cool. You are citing versimilitude here. I disagree with that on versimilitude grounds as a Dexterity of 34 should matter in whether or not a disarm happens.

The RAW however seems reasonably clear---you have a weapon in hand and the rules call for an attack roll relevant to that weapon with a -4 penalty, so you make a normal attack roll for that weapon with a -4 penalty.

That section is not under dispute and not applicable to the situation.

Citation needed. A wand of lightning bolt sure seems like a weapon.

What is supposed to happen when you "disarm" a key? You provide no citation. The reason why you provide no citation is because there is no citation to make.

There is no specific citation on keys except under grabbing an item, but of not they did give only two alternate non-melee item examples. One of which was a wand.
My contention on this point would be that a wand is not always a weapon. Fact in point it can even be considered key+ at times. But just because the listed examples are limited, does that allow me to say, I can't be disarmed of any item in my hand whatsoever that isn't a weapon? No, that's just silly.

The rules are there and state what should happen, you are just finagling the examples to fit your statement, the examples aren't all inclusive, which means we default to the rest of the statement.

[Allanimal]

The way a DM would rule in an actual game seems hard to guess because there is a balance between RAW, versimilitude, and what is cool. You are citing versimilitude here. I disagree with that on versimilitude grounds as a Dexterity of 34 should matter in whether or not a disarm happens.

The RAW however seems reasonably clear---you have a weapon in hand and the rules call for an attack roll relevant to that weapon with a -4 penalty, so you make a normal attack roll for that weapon with a -4 penalty.

For the record, the rules compendium clarifies this and states that you make opposed melee attack rolls, which is almost always using STR not DEX. Using a bow as an improvised melee weapon is not finesseable, unless the DM ruled it was equivalent to a light weapon. Unfortunately in the text about improvised weapons, we are left with a DM ruling here.

[Anthrowhale]

For the record, the rules compendium clarifies this and states that you make opposed melee attack rolls, which is almost always using STR not DEX. Using a bow as an improvised melee weapon is not finesseable, unless the DM ruled it was equivalent to a light weapon. Unfortunately in the text about improvised weapons, we are left with a DM ruling here.

That's relevant.

We've generally been using non-core rules where they revise/alter core rules, so we should go with these rules. The DM judgment on the nature of an improvised weapon can't be done here but it does at least seem plausible the bow is not a light improvised melee weapon. It's somewhat shaky whether we should regard this as a 2-handed improvised weapon and whether the -4 penalty for a non-melee weapon/item should be regarded as in addition to nonproficiency or a restatement of nonproficiency. There is also ambiguity about whether bane & the magical enhancement should apply. (On an elvencraft bow certainly not, but here? Unclear.) Overall, it seems plausible that a disarm could be made.

But now how do you disarm an invisible opponent in one of 16 random squares?

[Beheld]

But now how do you disarm an invisible opponent in one of 16 random squares?

No one said you do? We were discussing tactics that render your Commoner impotent in general, not in the specific situation in which you decided to blow 17k gold on a consumable that gives you an indeterminate time to spend another 6k on consumables and then maybe attack from invis, although then again, maybe not.

I mean, as far as it goes, so far I see no reason the Pit Fiend can't just use "METAGAME POWERS ACTIVATE" the same as you, and then just know what square you are in even though he doesn't have that ability, or is it only okay when the Commoner pretends he knows things he doesn't know?

But off the top of my head, Teleporting to anywhere else in the universe or using the Bone Devil Wall of Ice maneuver to buy time because he thinks you are an actual dangerous class like a Rogue and returning buffed up and/or waiting until your single invisible consumable that he watched you throw in the air, emulating True Seeing with Wish, and/or the results of his treasure, and/or probably a bunch of other nonsense he could emulate with Wish.

Really need to actually put a hypothetical height on this hypothetical box, and apparently while we are at it figure out how three dimensions work for people standing on top of each other, the rules literally don't have an explanation for heights and how they interact with a three dimensional grid.

[Anthrowhale]

... your Commoner ...

Heheheh. Next thing you know, you'll start calling him a muggle

...Teleporting to anywhere else in the universe...

Cosi's proposal was that neither side can leave, so the halfling will take advantage of the Pit Fiend wasting an action trying.

using the Bone Devil Wall of Ice maneuver to buy time

I think you know this won't actually work, which is why you backed off chasing down that thread previously. The possible configurations for Wall of Ice are restricted and the Wall is often disrupted. Even when the wall happens the net effect is... giving the Halfling more time to buff and prepare. Nevertheless, you are welcome to explore that route.

...invisible consumable that he watched you throw in the air...

Dust of Disappearance works by touch, not by dispersing in the air.

...emulating True Seeing with Wish...

Ah yes, dragging out the wish. I expected that to happen at some point. However, Dust of Disappearance plausibly beats True Seeing. The relevant rule is:

Normal vision can’t see dusted creatures or objects, nor can they be detected by magical means...

True Seeing is a magical means. The tricky bit is adjudicating the contradictory text in True Seeing---the outcome seems DM dependent. And of course if you helpfully summon Bone Devils they give cover that when combined with Hide defeat True Seeing. Or the Sniper can occupy one of the Pit Fiend's squares and acquires cover from the Pit Fiend.

...choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through ... a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).

There is no single corner of the Pit Fiend's space which does not pass through the Pit Fiend at least once to reach all corners of the Halfling's square.

[Beheld]

I think you know this won't actually work, which is why you backed off chasing down that thread previously. The possible configurations for Wall of Ice are restricted and the Wall is often disrupted. Even when the wall happens the net effect is... giving the Halfling more time to buff and prepare. Nevertheless, you are welcome to explore that route.

It works just fine. But actually, I can't explore that route for the same reason I "backed off" that thread previously, because we were never on that thread, because we have DM.

You don't want us to have a DM, because if we did, we would use the city or dungeon complex model, and your fighter would lose all the bull**** he's trying to accomplish with the locked room scenario, but even though you went with "we can do the locked room, because we don't need a DM" you realized, after your initial plan that would have resulted in the fighter being disarmed and losing, that you would have to result to using invisibility and square location mystery using an expensive consumable. So we need a DM again, because of your decision to force DM adjudication.

Of course, we would still need a DM anyway, for treasure, and rules adjudications, and frankly, as I already stated, we need to know how tall the box is. The Pit fiend can fly, and your entire strategy is 100% reliant on the whole "same square as Pit Fiend" trick.

If the Pit Fiend flies up so that there are 10ft between him and the floor, an icewall can separate him from your tiny halfling with no save 100% of the time.

Waiting out your one and only use of dust of disappearance renders you right back in the realm you are desperately trying to avoid, where the Pit Fiend just takes your bow away and laughs.

Dust of Disappearance works by touch, not by dispersing in the air.

"Normal vision can’t see dusted creatures or objects, nor can they be detected by magical means, including see invisibility or invisibility purge"

Reaching your hand into a bag doesn't make you dusted. Dusting yourself makes you dusted. You have to cover yourself in the dust to activate it, which is also the way it is expended, same as Dust of Appearance.

Ah yes, dragging out the wish. I expected that to happen at some point.

Oh for god sakes, you are cheating like 6 ways from sunday, and outlawing half of a Pit Fiends abilities while blowing like 50k on consumables for the fight and as I stated, these are all things he could do, not that he would do. Since after separating you from him with wall of ice, he can summon an Ice Devil to literally fill the room with Ice Storm every round until you die while on the opposite side of wall of ice. I acknowledge it along with other things I can't specifically use because this isn't a scenario we are testing, like Pit Fiend Treasure.

However, Dust of Disappearance plausibly beats True Seeing. The relevant rule is:

Just out of curiosity, is there a person standing behind you with a gun who will shoot you if you accurately cite a rule? Because if not, your constant lying is pretty annoying.

Let's see what the rest of the sentence you choose to leave off because you think omitting it makes your case better, and see if you are correct, that including the entire sentence would undermine your position?

"nor can they be detected by magical means, including see invisibility or invisibility purge."

Hmm even See Invis? Really? Even that! That must mean that if it EVEN overcomes a 2nd level spell, it overcomes a 5/7 spell that reveals everything even a bunch of stuff that is way more powerful than invisibility.

Or the Sniper can occupy one of the Pit Fiend's squares and acquires cover from the Pit Fiend. There is no single corner of the Pit Fiend's space which does not pass through the Pit Fiend at least once to reach all corners of the Halfling's square.

Hmm, I wonder if just like every other time this has happened the the rules on hiding with cover that you read but deliberately omitted will prove you wrong.

"Soft Cover
Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Hide check."

Oops, happened again.

[Lans]

I find it weird that being locked in a small room with a dangerous creature is the best way for a fighter to win.

This thread has made me come up with an idea for a dungeon where after a room with pixies the doors and walls have been made invisible.

I'm standing by the best way for a fighter to win is for him to kill the pit fiend in 1 round, before the pit fiend even realizes he is a threat.

[Anthrowhale]

It works just fine. But actually, I can't explore that route for the same reason I "backed off" that thread previously, because we were never on that thread, because we have DM.

I think it's fair to view that we have discovered the need for a DM even in the seemingly simplmest cases.

You don't want us to have a DM, because if we did, we would use the city or dungeon complex model, and your fighter would lose all the bull**** he's trying to accomplish with the locked room scenario,

No, a ranged stealthy fighter gains the most advantage in a situation where there is range and the fighter can be stealthed in first contact. Again surprise + winning initiative = dead Pit Fiend. Locking such a fighter in melee is quite suboptimal.

as I already stated, we need to know how tall the box is.

20' tall seems to fit the spirit of the challenge.

The Pit fiend can fly, and your entire strategy is 100% reliant on the whole "same square as Pit Fiend" trick.

No idea what you are trying to say here. There are many ways to kill the Pit Fiend.

If the Pit Fiend flies up so that there are 10ft between him and the floor, an icewall can separate him from your tiny halfling with no save 100% of the time.

Yes, so? The Halfling can then knock off the Bone Devils while the Pit Fiend is stuck on the wrong side of the wall.

Waiting out your one and only use of dust of disappearance renders you right back in the realm you are desperately trying to avoid, where the Pit Fiend just takes your bow away and laughs.

No, the ring of invisibility would be used when the Dust of Disappearance wears off rendering the halfling invisible again.

Oh for god sakes, you are cheating like 6 ways from sunday, and outlawing half of a Pit Fiends abilities while blowing like 50k on consumables for the fight and as I stated, these are all things he could do, not that he would do. Since after separating you from him with wall of ice, he can summon an Ice Devil to literally fill the room with Ice Storm every round until you die while on the opposite side of wall of ice. I acknowledge it along with other things I can't specifically use because this isn't a scenario we are testing, like Pit Fiend Treasure.

So much wrong here. First, Dust of Disappearance costs 3.5K, not 50K. You should regard no other actions as committed to, because you have not committed to your action. Yes, you like to multiply by 5 for the one shot rules. Regardless, the expected use of consumables at this level is ~16K as we discussed (or 80K if you like to multiply by 5). Hence, the existing use is extremely reasonable.

Second, Summon requires line of effect and the Ice Devil requires line of effect with Ice Storm to the point of origin of the Ice Storm. Hence, the Ice Devil dies rapidly, and the Pit Fiend is vulnerable without further application of Ice Wall.

Third, I asked you twice for where the Ice Wall goes and you refused to make a commitment. That is the only obstacle to using Ice Wall. The idea of an Ice Wall in the abstract is nice, but what it implies when you get concrete is not so good.

... your constant lying...

Your evidence for a lie seems to be pointing out some additional examples in the rule that agree with claims made. It renders my claims ... right. Thank you At this point, I think everyone substitutes "disagreeing" for "lying" whenever it is said by Beheld.

"Soft Cover
Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Hide check."

This one I missed. Thank you.

[Lans]

Pit fiend uses wish to replicate wind wall seems like a winning stratagy

Edit- or other wind spell with longer duration

[Anthrowhale]

Pit fiend uses wish to replicate wind wall seems like a winning stratagy

Edit- or other wind spell with longer duration

Wind Wall blocks arrows but not movement so the Pit Fiend can't stand in the wind wall (it's a wall, not a square) and there is a position from which the Pit Fiend is vulnerable.

Control Winds seems like a plausible winner because it affects an area, lasts a long time, and makes ranged attack impossible. In an open environment, the Sniper could just get away from it, but in the cage I don't see a good counter yet.