Arena Tournament, Round 49: Chile IV and Glunk vs Greenscales and Dusker

[Maurkov]

High Ref Maurkov

I think you missed anyway, cover is good for -4.

I believe Dusker now completes his action.

[Talic]

Assuming Dusker's actions stand, I'll make a movement in the morning. I hope they do, though I'm not entirely sure, with what I can only assume was a readied action.

[Talic]

Greenscales actions: (Round 2)

(These will stand as my actions regardless of whether Dusker changes his.)
My actions, Dusker can read:

Spoiler

Show

Just kidding Dusker, but I don't want them to know I'm invisible.

Spoiler

Show

Well, I know something's down there. I just saw the pebble fly. So, without further delay...


Move: S15 to O19. From there I should have clear LOS to Chile in F23 (as was originally 'mistakenly' given to me). That's 30 feet of my 50 movement.

(Free action: At this point, I will drop vial in square P18, in mid movement.)

Continue move to M21 (10 feet for diagonally across and diagonally down.

Apply Move silently and hide to that move:
Hide: (1d20+16)[24]
Move Silent: (1d20-4)[6]

Move: From M21 to F24, Following M21 > J24 > F24.
If Chile has some way to see invisible creatures, he may take an AoO when I leave G24. Otherwise, with my total concealment, he may not.

Apply move silently and hide to that move, also:
Hide: (1d20+16)[21]
Move Silently: (1d20-4)[6]

All rolls above were made factoring the following:
Hide +20 (invisible) -5 (move above 1/2)
Move Silent -5 (move above 1/2)

Free: Shift weapon grip to two handed. That way, if he provokes from 5 feet away, I can unarmed strike (kick) him, if he 5 foot step and provokes, I can whack him there too.

Free: Activate Rage.

Done, pending ref LOS and dusker's updates, if any.

My Stats:

Spoiler

Show

Location: F24 invis. DC 21 to notice presence of invis (+1 per 10 feet), DC 41 to pinpoint square) DC 6 to hear me (+1 per 10 feet distance), DC 46 to pinpoint square through listen.

In hand: gauntlet (equipped), guisarme (2 handed grip)

HP: 28/28

AC: 13 (+3 armor, +2 Dex, -2 Rage)

Saves: +7/+2/+0

Abilities: Rage (used)

Effects on self: Invisibility 2/30, Rage 1/9

[theterran]

I'll keep my actions the same.

[chilepepper]

So we're waiting on LoS to end Greenscales' turn, then Glunk is up (my initiative dropped to between Glunk and Dusker).

[Maurkov]

High Ref Maurkov

LoS. I'm also posting your positions inside your spoiler block. If I get something wrong, correct me. It's been a while since I followed this game.

@Greenscales

Spoiler

Show

You are invisible.
You began your move in S15 and are now in Q17.

Dusker continued his move to P16. When you reach R16 you first spot Chile in F23. Continuing to Q17, you see Glunk in I22. You have used 15' of move.

@Glunk

Spoiler

Show

You are in I22. You see Chile in F23. He threw something NE up onto the ziggurat.

@Chile

Spoiler

Show

You are in F23. Dusker continued his move to P16. Glunk is in I22.

@Dusker

Spoiler

Show

You finished your move in P16. You can see Chile in F23.

It is still Greenscales's turn.

[Talic]

@Maurkov/Refs:

Spoiler

Show

The remainder of my move will stand as posted (post 63), leaving me in final position F24. If I can get LOS from that position, I'd appreciate it.

Done, pending LOS for updated turn info.

[Maurkov]

High Ref Maurkov

LoS update

@refs

Spoiler

Show

Doing passive sense checks to see who notices Greenscales.
Glunk Passive Listen - (1d20-6)[13]Glunk Passive Spot - (1d20-6)[10]
Chili Passive Listen - (1d20+4)[15]Chili Passive Spot - (1d20+5)[12]

@Greenscales

Spoiler

Show

You are invisible.
You are in F24.

You still see Dusker at P16, Chile at F23, and Glunk in I22. I realized It's not clear whether your bottle drop is from attempting to be stealthy or attempting to misdirect. I assumed the former (you released it below the LoS of your opponents).

@Glunk

Spoiler

Show

You are in I22. You see Chile in F23.

You hear someone descend the steps to the east, and move southeast to south to southwest of you.

@Chile

Spoiler

Show

You are in F23.
You see Dusker at P16 and Glunk is in I22.

You hear someone descent the steps to the east, and move southeast and then south of you.

@Dusker

Spoiler

Show

You are in P16.
You see Chile in F23.

You see a empty potion flask appear in P18.

Glunk's turn.

[Talic]

@Refs/Maurkov:

Spoiler

Show

Stealthy. It's meant to be a signal to Dusker, as my allies can't see me either.

EDIT: Not a holdup in any way, merely a verification of a minor point. Still on Glunk.

[SoD]

Glunk, round..II? III? III, I think.

Spoiler

Show

Move to I18.

Not done, LoS please.

[Talic]

(Yes, it is the top of round 3).

@Refs:

Spoiler

Show

Please note, I am invisible. What with my abysmal move silent rolls, it's pretty much a sure thing that chile heard me.... If Glunk was made invisible by chile, and is nearby, he may have too.

[chilepepper]

last stat block reposted for LoS, refs only

Spoiler

Show

Spot+5 / Listen+4
HP 6/6
AC: 21 T15 F16 (Armor 2, Dex 5, Shield 4)
Spells: W5/S5 // W4/S4 // Ice Knife
Effects: Shield 2/10
...Law Devotion: 1/10 (attack)
In Hand: Scroll (TS, Sh, Inv, ER) and wand // nothing
Location: F23

[Mephit]

LoS:

Boy, this took me a long time. Sorry if I messed up, it's a bit of a chaos, so I just made up LoS out of the info on this page. (And the map, of course)

Greenscales

Spoiler

Show

As Maurkov said, you see Glunk in I22, so he's not invisible right now. However, he does move out of your LoS as he walks into I21

Chile

Spoiler

Show

Glunk moves out of your LoS as he walks into I21

Glunk

Spoiler

Show

You spot Dusker in P16 when you walk into I20. You may redo your actions from there.

Dusker

Spoiler

Show

You see Glunk entering I20. He will continue his actions from there.

It's still Glunk's turn.

[SoD]

Glunk

"Grah! I will Water Orc Orc you to de-thuh!"

For those with LoS:

Spoiler

Show

Move to M19.
Standard Action: Drink Potion.
Free Action: Rage.

Battle Stats:

Spoiler

Show

HP 27/27
AC: 15 (Touch 12, FF 13)
In Hand: Nothing
Location: M19
Buffs: Bull's Strength 0/30
Rage: 0/9
STR: 30 (+4 potions, +4 rage).
CON: 20.
Will: +0

Done.

[Mephit]

LoS:

Dusker

Spoiler

Show

Glunk refers to his parentage and then moves to M19. He seems to be prepared to attack anyone who nears him.

[chilepepper]

Chile - round 3 - 2nd to act

To help alleviate some of the ref burden, I will openly declare you hear me casting a spell during my turn. (calculating listen modifiers can be a pain)

refs only

Spoiler

Show

I'm adding notes since there's a good chance our new ref may be adjudicating. Please take no offense.

Swift action, reallocate Law Devotion to AC

5' step to F24 if possible
(If Greenscales is in that square, you tell me my move is illegal. I just need to know what square I am in, f23 or f24. Either way I'll still use the scroll.)

Read from my scroll (they have to beat the Listen DC by 20 to get a spellcraft check. If I were reffing, I'd roll the checks to see if anyone is close enough before I figure out the penalties for range, it may be easier for you)
Invisibility
CL DC4 (1d20+1)[2]
Wis (1d20)[8] (if necessary)
edit: Spell not cast, no mishap
edit: If no one does anything (like Greenscales taking an AoO) then I am done. The ref that tells me what square I'm in and resolves LoS checks can pass the turn.

I'm going to stop there because I may or may not have triggered reactive checks or attacks of opportunity.

Not done. Getting ref.
stats block, refs only

Spoiler

Show

Spot+5 / Listen+4
HP 6/6
AC: 24 T18 F19 (Armor 2, Dex 5, Shield 4, Sacred 3)
Spells: W5/S5 // W4/S4 // Ice Knife
Effects: Shield 4/10
...Law Devotion: 2/10 (ac)
In Hand: Scroll (TS, Inv, ER) and wand // nothing
Location: F23 -> F24 maybe

[Mephit]

LoS:

Everyone hears (and for those with LoS to him, sees) Chile casting a spell.

Refs

Spoiler

Show

Listen Checks:
Dusker: (1d20-6)[-3]
Greenscales: (1d20)[16]]
Glunk: (1d20)[10]
Coyotecode isn't working at this time, I'll add modifiers later. But I doubt it'll matter much.
Edit: The only coming even close is Greenscales. I'll check his modifiers later, but it won't be relevant to the match.

Chile

Spoiler

Show

I'm adding notes since there's a good chance our new ref may be adjudicating. Please take no offense.

No offense taken. But suddenly, you hear rocks falling...


[/banter]
It is an illegal move to move into F24. Conclude whatever you want from that.

Greenscales

Spoiler

Show

You see Chile (in F23) read something of a scroll (this is the spell everyone hears), lowering his guard.
You're entitled to an attack of opportunity.
Post wether you want to take it or not and if you do, attack roll and such.

Glunk

Spoiler

Show

Nothing else happens.

Dusker

Spoiler

Show

Nothing else happens.

Match is on hold until the participant I specifically adressed in his spoiler replies.

[Talic]

Reply@Me, Refs, Chile, and anyone with LOS to Chile

Spoiler

Show

Wolf Fang Strike!

Just kidding, I'm not an initiator. I do have an AoO to take, though. And I think I'll go with a melee touch attack to grapple (provided it's legal, of course). I will be using unarmed strike, but will not be using gauntlets, as both hands are full. As unarmed strikes aren't limited to hands and arms, and the only requirement is that the grappling character be able to grab, I submit that there are many grappling and wrestling maneuvers which are entirely leg based.

Melee touch attack vs flat footed touch ac: (1d20+12)[23] (+8 base, +2 rage, +2 invisible)
If hit, opposed grapple check: (1d20+14)[31] (+12 base, +2 rage)
If grapple succeeds, I move into Chile's square and deal:
(1d3+8)[11]
I opt to make this damage lethal (Improved Unarmed strike), if damage goes through.

EDIT: I do believe that a 23 will hit flat footed touch AC, and I don't think that you can top the grapple check. Pending any inquiries/disputes, that should put Chile out.

[Mephit]

Refs, Talic, Chile

Spoiler

Show

[quote$I do have an AoO to take, though. And I think I'll go with a melee touch attack to grapple (provided it's legal, of course).[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure about this. An AoO is a single melee attack, and the srd lists a grapple check as a 'Special Attack'. You do need to make a melee touch attack to start a grapple, but initiating a grapple is IMHO not a 'single melee touch attack.

If this is a legal move, however, then Chile is out. He has a mere 6 HP, and there is no way he can beat that grapple check.

This is just my opinion, and I could be forgetting another paragraph in the rules or a line in the FAQ. Feel free to discuss or get another ref involved.

[Talic]

Refs, Talic, Chile

Spoiler

Show

I'm not sure about this. An AoO is a single melee attack, and the srd lists a grapple check as a 'Special Attack'. You do need to make a melee touch attack to start a grapple, but initiating a grapple is IMHO not a 'single melee touch attack.

If this is a legal move, however, then Chile is out. He has a mere 6 HP, and there is no way he can beat that grapple check.

This is just my opinion, and I could be forgetting another paragraph in the rules or a line in the FAQ. Feel free to discuss or get another ref involved.

@Refs, Chile:

Spoiler

Show

Anything that can be used in the place of a melee attack can be done with an AoO. That includes grapple attempts, trip attempts, and the like. Bull Rush is, I think, the only special attack that you can't use in place of an attack, as it's always a standard action (have to move).

My only issue is the grapple with legs, as I am holding a guisarme 2 handed. Hence why I have the question.

[chilepepper]

@refs, Talic

Spoiler

Show

While unarmed strikes are described as being punches and kicks (paraphrased); you still have to BE unarmed to make an unarmed strike. I feel pretty confident in assuming your hands are full with your reach weapon, therefore you are not in fact threatening me. Is this a correct assessment?

[Talic]

@Refs, Chile:

Spoiler

Show

Incorrect. Unarmed strikes need not be made with hands. I know of no rule stating your hands have to be empty to use an unarmed strike.

You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity.

Improved unarmed strike makes me considered armed when making unarmed strikes, so I threaten.

Unarmed Strike

A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike. A Small character deals 1d2 points of nonlethal damage. A monk or any character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat can deal lethal or nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes, at her option. The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.

An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike.

I see no rule showing that I must have no weapons in hand to make an unarmed strike.

Can you cite the source showing that I must have my hands free to make an unarmed strike, when I am declaring that I'm not using my hands to make the attack (and denying myself the masterwork bonus for my gauntlet)?

As I see it, I'm threatening 5 feet away with unarmed attacks, and 10 feet away with the guisarme.

More Unarmed strike information:

Unarmed Attacks

Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:

Attacks of Opportunity

Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.

An unarmed character can’t take attacks of opportunity (but see "Armed" Unarmed Attacks, below).

"Armed" Unarmed Attacks

Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed.

Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity)

Unarmed Strike Damage

An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). A Small character’s unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of damage, while a Large character’s unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).

Dealing Lethal Damage

You can specify that your unarmed strike will deal lethal damage before you make your attack roll, but you take a -4 penalty on your attack roll. If you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike without taking a penalty on the attack roll.

Again, I see no rule between items in hand and unarmed strikes. I'm not using my gauntlet weapon, so as best I can tell, that's legit.

[chilepepper]

@ref, talic

Spoiler

Show

Armed and unarmed are diametrically opposite. You cannot be armed and unarmed at the same time, you are either one or the other. If you are not unarmed, you cannot make an unarmed attack. Similarly, if you don't have a sword in hand, you can't make an attack with a sword. All the rules for how to handle unarmed attack, improved unarmed strike, etc. are completely moot because you are not unarmed. If you are not unarmed, you cannot make an unarmed strike.

[Talic]

@ref, talic

Spoiler

Show

Armed and unarmed are diametrically opposite. You cannot be armed and unarmed at the same time, you are either one or the other. If you are not unarmed, you cannot make an unarmed attack. Similarly, if you don't have a sword in hand, you can't make an attack with a sword. All the rules for how to handle unarmed attack, improved unarmed strike, etc. are completely moot because you are not unarmed. If you are not unarmed, you cannot make an unarmed strike.

@Chile, Refs:

Spoiler

Show

Actually, according to the text I gave above, I am making an "Armed" unarmed attack.

Now, you are trying to state that because I have a two handed weapon in my hands, that I cannot kick, or headbutt someone (both listed forms of unarmed attack). Not only does this not make any real world sense, it doesn't have any RAW support.

Unarmed Strike does not equal punch. Arms may be the common method for holding weapons, and you may be limited in the number of weapons you may hold by the number of arms you have, but there is no support, common sense or RAW, that you may only make an unarmed strike while unarmed. If that were the case, then the following would be true.

*Person holding a longsword only cannot use two weapon fighting to attack with an unarmed strike for the off hand attack (note: Off hand is misleading, as you do not need to use a hand to make an off hand attack. Notable RAW support is attacking with a 2 handed weapon and armor spikes). As you are armed with a longsword, you can't be unarmed, right?

In other words, making an unarmed strike is not certifying you are unarmed. It is a game term for a specific type of attack. One that may be delivered via an arm, a leg, a head, an elbow, a knee, or virtually any relatively solid part of your body. It is a reserved game term for a specific attack, and thus, trying to use the dictionary definition of unarmed is cluttering the issue with out of context and irrelevant information.

Yes, you are right. You may not make a longsword attack without a longsword readied. Granted, with prehensile tail or a mouthpick longsword, that longsword could be readied on a tail or mouth. Would you then not threaten with that weapon, if you had a 2 handed weapon in hand?

Similarly, you may not make an unarmed strike unless you have the weapon readied. Luckily, as the weapon is conceivably nearly any part of your body (per SRD), it's hard not to have something readied.

Now, unless you have concrete RAW stating that Unarmed Strikes (with improved unarmed strike feat) do not threaten when a character's hands are full, please concede the point. I've shown you specific RAW stating that an unarmed strike may be made with legs. My legs are free to make that attack.

Thus, I've shown RAW supporting why I can. Could you show RAW stating why I can't?

If you prefer, I'd be happy to request a high ref. Not sure how long we'd have to wait, but if you need a ruling, I'd be happy to fetch one.

In conclusion, RAW states I may make an unarmed strike with a kick. There is no RAW support that I cannot make that attack with a kick if I am holding objects in each hand.

If, by RAW, I am capable of making an attack into that square, then I threaten it.

If I threaten it, and there is no specific text forbidding it, then I may make an attack of opportunity when provoked.

All RAW support is in my previous message.

[Bayar]

@refs, Chile, Talic:

Spoiler

Show

See, the fact that you have a reach weapon in both your hands makes you not threaten adjactent squares. So tehnically, you cant.

Unless that reach weapon can also hit adjactent opponents, like a Spiked chain.

[Talic]

@Bayar, Chile, refs:

Spoiler

Show

The reach weapon doesn't threaten adjacent.

The unarmed strike does.

I'm not making an attack with the reach weapon.

As I've said, several times now... Follow with me, PLEASE.

1) Unarmed strikes can be made with kicks. Source: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsincombat.htm

Unarmed Attacks

Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:

Attacks of Opportunity

Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.

2) The weapon in my hands has no relevance on whether or not I can kick (if you'd care to disagree with this, PROVIDE RAW SUPPORT. Start with the location that says unarmed strikes must be made with hands.). This is because I am not using my arms or hands.

3) Characters with Improved Unarmed Strike may make attacks of opportunity with unarmed strikes. Source: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsincombat.htm

A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed.

Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity)

4) I threaten any square I can make an attack into. Source: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/att...pportunity.htm

Threatened Squares

You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action.

5) I can make a melee attack with my guisarme at enemies 10 feet away, therefore, I threaten 10 feet away. The guisarme does not allow me to attack adjacent foes. Source: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm

Glaives, guisarmes, lances, longspears, ranseurs, spiked chains, and whips are reach weapons. A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren’t adjacent to him or her. Most reach weapons double the wielder’s natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square.

6) I can also choose to make a melee attack with unarmed strike, via a kick or headbutt, even if my hands are full. If you wish to dispute this, and state that an attack that doesn't use my hands cannot be made when my hands have something in them, PLEASE CITE SOURCE. Unarmed strike has a reach of 5 feet. Thus, I can attack adjacent foes.

7) My guisarme can attack 10 feet away, and my unarmed strike can attack 5 feet away. Thus, I threaten all squares that are 5 or 10 feet away, albeit with different attacks.

8) Chile provoked an attack of opportunity from 5 feet away. My unarmed strike threatens that area.

9) A character I threaten provoked an attack of opportunity. Thus, I AM ENTITLED TO TAKE AN AOO.

[chilepepper]

@refs, talic

Spoiler

Show

Perhaps you should follow along. You want RAW, here it is.

Originally Posted by SRD, Actions in combat
Unarmed Attacks

You aren't unarmed. Done. Stop reading. Nothing below that applies because YOU AREN'T UNARMED.

[Talic]

@refs, talic

Spoiler

Show

Perhaps you should follow along. You want RAW, here it is.



You aren't unarmed. Done. Stop reading. Nothing below that applies because YOU AREN'T UNARMED.

@Chile, refs:

Spoiler

Show

I have already told you. Unarmed strike cannot be taken from the dictionary, any more than any other RESERVED GAME TERM can be. Unarmed strikes follow specific rules in D&D. Nowhere in the rules ANYWHERE does it state that opponents that are armed may not make unarmed attacks.

Now, would you care to point out text stating that armed opponents are not allowed to make unarmed strikes?

Because I'd be happy to point out an official Wizards published article on unarmed attacks.

Here.

Note about halfway down, where it goes into this:

The unarmed attack entry in Chapter 8 of the Player's Handbook contains most of the rules for fighting without weaponry. Here's an overview, along with a few additions and comments:

* You usually make an unarmed attack with a free hand.

As far as the rules are concerned, you can use just about any part of your body in an unarmed attack: a head butt, kick, elbow, knee, or forearm. This means you don't need a free hand to make an unarmed attack.

If you're making any unarmed attacks in addition to an attack with your primary hand (for instance, a sword slash and a kick or head butt), consider the unarmed attacks as off-hand attacks even if you aren't making them with a hand. See Part Two for notes about using unarmed strikes as primary and secondary weapons.

First bold states you don't need a free hand. Second bold section specifically references making unarmed strikes while armed.

And in case you want to question the credentials, the author of that Wizard's article was a co-designer of D&D, and the chief designer of the Monster Manual. I'd say that puts it about as close to 'design intent' as you can get. And, since it doesn't contradict anything in the SRD, that sounds pretty much cut. and. dry.

Now that that's settled, are there any other concerns you have?

[Bayar]

@refs, Chile, Talic:

Spoiler

Show

While I agree with you that you can make unarmed attack rolls with your legs feet, head, ****, ass and any other body part, the Grapple rules specifically says you have to GRAB someone. That's what grapple means. Hand-to-hand combat. How do you grab someone with your legs when you are standing up ? Do you jump at him with your legs ?

Anyway, I am waiting for Kyeudo to make a definitive ruling. Personally I say that it doesnt work.

[Talic]

@Bayar, Refs, Chile:

Spoiler

Show

RAW doesn't outline specifically how to qualify what is enough "grabbing ability" to grapple. Only that you have to be able to grapple. Now, we've all seen the grapple mod listed for horses, which have no hands, have only ungainly legs, and are perfectly fine grappling. So there's at least SOME raw support for it, though, admittedly, by RAW alone, it can go both ways.

Further, IRL, there are many grabs and holds that rely on legs only, including the figure 4, and a variety of others. Legs are capable of manipulation, and are capable of wrapping around someone firmly. If that's the standard that's used for whether or not grappling is allowed with an extremity, then it should be kosher.