Gestalt Arena practice - Moby Vs Stella

[KevLar]

Correction.

An ethereal creature can see and hear into the Material Plane in a 60-foot radius, though material objects still block sight

So the +2 would apply.
(Utterly unimportant, I'm just nitpicking here.)

Should work fine for rocks, as well as difficult terrain. (yes, difficult terrain can be rubble. It can also be shrubberies. I think the latter provides a more interesting arena).

Rocks work 10 feet up, Difficult terrain 5?

Absolutely fine.

[Talic]

Then my Round 6 is: End the telekinesis.
move into the ceiling. (all further movement irrelevant, A40, in ceiling)
Standard: Throw the shield 50 feet straight up, where it can remain, as far as I'm concerned.
Free: Wish I had my hp back.
Move: Draw my sword

Continue from there.


Oh, I'm working on a different sort of incorporeal. It'll be interesting. I expect High AC shenanigans, and designing something that will have enough time to whittle my opponents away, or kill them with kindness, or something.

[KevLar]

Awesome.
Just give me 10 minutes to make coffee.

EDIT
One last clarification: What about solid objects bigger than us? (Inside the arena )
Can we move in a straight line from Q-21 to U-21, passing through 3 squares of rock because we're ethereal?
Or we can't because, in relation to them, we're incorporeal?

(RAW doesn't help at all with that, just pick one option and I'll agree.)

[KevLar]

And here's a last, very very cute, question.
Do you need a free hand to use Telekinesis????

[Talic]

Ethereal does not equal incorporeal.

For example: Shadows, Wraiths, etc are not ethereal. They never manifest. They are permanently incorporeal, only half there. Ghosts are pretty unique in that they can be ethereal or incorporeal. Moving through large rocks is fine when you're ethereal.

As for telekinesis? Supernatural abilities have no Somatic component, so, unless you feel like pantomiming a jedi force choke, you're pretty well good, with or without hands.

Speaking of that: (1d4)[3] delay before I can telekinesis again (last round was round 1).

[Adumbration]

For future referance, I don't think you can disarm a shield:

Grabbing Items

You can use a disarm action to snatch an item worn by the target. 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 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 unless you have pinned the wearer (see Grapple). Even then, the defender gains a +4 bonus on his roll to resist the attempt.

I believe a shield counts as well secured - it is strapped on, after all. You're not just holding it, it is physically attached to your arm with usually leather straps. In the low-level arena, I once tried to disarm someone with a shield due to his high AC, and was met with this very same argument.

[KevLar]

OK. :)

Round 12 (6+6)

Spoiler

Show

Hope I'm getting this right.
When I shadow jaunted, I had 5 rounds of Law Devotion left. Six rounds later, Talic acts first and dismisses Telekinesis. At the beginning of my turn, I am in E-20, ground level, I have no Law Devotion, and I have 15 rebuke left.

Swift action: Law Devotion to AC (until further notice)
Full round Action: Adaptive Style
Warblade: STEELY STRIKE, IRON HEART SURGE, INSIGHTFUL STRIKE
Swordsage: RUBY NIGHTMARE BLADE, SHADOW JAUNT, OBSCURING SHADOW VEIL, BOUNDING ASSAULT
Crusader: ENTANGLING BLADE, DIVINE SURGE, BONECRUSHER , BATTLE LEADER’S CHARGE, LAW BEARER
Granted: (1d5)[3], (1d5)[3]

AC: 10 + 10 Armor + 4 Dex + 2 natural + 5 Swordsage + 2 insight (stance of clarity) +1 Dodge + 7 Law Devotion = 41
Touch AC: 10 + 4 Dex + 5 Swordsage + 2 insight (stance of clarity) +1 Dodge + 7 Law Devotion = 29
Flat Footed AC: 10 + 10 Armor + 2 natural + 5 Swordsage + 2 insight (stance of clarity) + 7 Law Devotion = 36

Rebuke left: 12
Smite left: 7
HP: 103
Law devotion rounds left: 10

OK, I'm in E-20 (cover!), ground level. Can I hide during a 5-ft step? If so, I'm now in F-20, hiding.
Hide: (1d20+43)[61]
Move silently (1d20+31)[47]

If not, I'm still in E-20, visible.

Either way, I'm looking, but sadly not finding.

reactive listen to your last movements (2 rounds, I think)
(1d20+33)[43]
(1d20+33)[39] (without the penalties)
I saw you lastly on the ceiling above (where the shield was, L-26), and from there you moved inside the ceiling to your current position, correct?

[KevLar]

@Adumbration: You have a very valid point. I'll remember that for my next game. For this one, however, we have taken several not-so-legal actions, so I'm without a shield. :)

[KevLar]

Talic, 3 points

1) Crystal of Screening. I asked, but that was way back. It shouldn't work Vs a fellow ethereal creature like Stella. Correct?

2) I just noticed that you used a Lurk Augment with the Telekinesis. (It would have succeeded anyway, this is for future reference.) Please, don't tell me you can do that.

a lurk can augment her melee attack by selecting an ability from her available lurk augments

The Combat Manuever of Telekinesis is NOT your melee attack. (We had a looong debate with Heliomance about his telekinetic ghost. His build was accepted by Lyndworm, but frankly, it makes no sense at all. I won't get into it, because it was about Violent Thrust, not Combat Manuever.) This is something similar. Your Telekinesis is a supernatural ability, not your melee attack. You can't augment it. Need I argue about this, or do you agree?

3) I have no problem whatsoever continuing the match from here. However, considering that by RAW I've been moving illegally all this time, and that I should be visible at the crucial "Death from Above" moment, and that my shield should be still strapped around my arm...
If you want to start over, with full HP and our newly-agreed rules concerning the ill-defined ethereal Vs ethereal combat, I also have no problem.
Your call.

[Talic]

One thing I've learned, Adumbration, is that interjecting too much common sense into D&D invariably ends up messing stuff up.

You are citing rules for snatching Items Worn.

However, A shield is also a weapon. See below:

Shield Bash Attacks

You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. See Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a heavy shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a heavy shield as a one-handed weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next action (usually until the next round). An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.

Relevant section bolded.

As this is the case, grabbing items is ignored, in favor of Disarming Weapons, which is the primary use of Disarm, rather than an alternate use of snatching items.

In fact, both the light shield and the heavy shield are listed under martial weapons in the weapons tables of the SRD.

[KevLar]

It's amazing how everything changes by emphasizing different phrases. Here's another take:

You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. See Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a heavy shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon.

The shield is considered a weapon when you hit someone with it. Why should it be considered a weapon when you don't?

[Talic]

Talic, 3 points

1) Crystal of Screening. I asked, but that was way back. It shouldn't work Vs a fellow ethereal creature like Stella. Correct?

Correct.

2) I just noticed that you used a Lurk Augment with the Telekinesis. (It would have succeeded anyway, this is for future reference.) Please, don't tell me you can do that.

Grapple attacks are melee touch attacks. That part is fine. The only question is, are you performing the action? As your caster level and mental stat are used, I leaned towards yes. However, it is open to interpretation. I'll go ahead and leave the Augments off Telekinesis, as there is more than one way to interpret it.

Your Telekinesis is a supernatural ability, not your melee attack. You can't augment it. Need I argue about this, or do you agree?

Tome of Battle has many abilities which are both Melee attacks AND Supernatural abilities. The two are not mutually exclusive. Look in Shadow Hand, and tell me if the Ghost Blade maneuver (a supernatural ability wherein you make an attack) is your attack.

3) I have no problem whatsoever continuing the match from here. However, considering that by RAW I've been moving illegally all this time, and that I should be visible at the crucial "Death from Above" moment, and that my shield should be still strapped around my arm...
If you want to start over, with full HP and our newly-agreed rules concerning the ill-defined ethereal Vs ethereal combat, I also have no problem.
Your call.

Only issue is that the shield "rule" isn't mutually agreed upon.

It's amazing how everything changes by emphasizing different phrases. Here's another take:


The shield is considered a weapon when you hit someone with it. Why should it be considered a weapon when you don't?

Because it is listed as a martial melee weapon in the SRD, and it can be enchanted as a weapon.

Would that mean that a longsword isn't a weapon unless you are swinging it?

[Adumbration]

I believe the shield is treated as a worn item in this case - it is rated as armor for purposes of donning it, it has an AC rating, etc. etc. I think it's the same thing as with spiked gauntlets - although shields are not specifically mentioned in that section, they are, as gauntlets, armor that can be used for attacking. By no means does this make them purely weapons, like you are treating them.

[Adumbration]

Would that mean that a longsword isn't a weapon unless you are swinging it?

Are longswords donned? Do you wear them? Do they have an AC rating?

The answers to those questions are all negative, so it is considered a weapon. Always.

[KevLar]

Only issue is that the shield "rule" isn't mutually agreed upon.

True, but I had no idea you'd disagree on that when I wrote it. I sincerely thought you'd find it sensible. I certainly didn't expect you to say, more or less, "don't bring your common sense to my D&D".

I'm not happy. The word "rules-lawering" comes to mind.

I propose we continue this some other time with a judge or referee of some sort, because apparently we can't sort everything out by compromise.

[Talic]

They are purely weapons. And Purely shields. They are not, however, armor.

Gauntlets are specifically listed as stating that they cannot be disarmed. Your entire argument is based on a subjective opinion that the shield qualifies as a "well-secured item" with no RAW text to support it.

My argument is based on an objective opinion that it is a weapon, a one handed or light weapon, based on its size, with a listed damage, crit chance, and even feats that support it's use as a weapon (Shield Toss, Improved Shield Bash, etc). It has entries in both the Armor and Shields section, and in the Weapons section. Thus, it is both.

That means you can pin it aside with pin shield, and you can sunder it, as a weapon, when you make a sunder attack. You can make attacks of opportunity with it. It's not "only a weapon when it's used", or when you want it to be. It is a weapon. That's RAW.

By your interpretation, I can build a character with 2 shields, use one for defense, enchant the other one to be +5, Impact, Ghost touch, Flaming, Disruption....

And not only is that not really a weapon, but there's no recourse for disarming it? That's silliness.

[Talic]

True, but I had no idea you'd disagree on that when I wrote it. I sincerely thought you'd find it sensible. I certainly didn't expect you to say, more or less, "don't bring your common sense to my D&D".

I'm not happy. The word "rules-lawering" comes to mind.

I propose we continue this some other time with a judge or referee of some sort, because apparently we can't sort everything out by compromise.

I say that because the written rules specifically go against common sense in many occasions. In D&D, a 1/2 pound brick can fall on someone from 100 feet up, and it will cause no damage.

IRL? You're looking at pavement meets brains.

The rules for D&D are not always compatible with common sense (keep in mind, before you say I'm rules lawyering, I'm vulnerable to the exact same attack). At its core, it's a game. Nothing more, nothing less. It's there to have fun with. It's not there to spend an hour trying to quibble over details.

The "well secured items worn" clause in the Disarm Section, IMO, does not refer to something held on an extremity, that can be pulled off as a move equivalent action by the wielder. This "well-secured" item can be removed and dropped in under 3 seconds, assuming that move and standard actions occupy an equal part of a 6 second round.

That does not sound "well-secured" to me, even by common sense.

[Adumbration]

If you are willing to accept a third, completely neutral opinion, keep an eye on here. I just posted the big question there, and I believe that Lord Lorac Silvanos or someone else can present the case much better than I do.

In the other hand, if nothing in the world can change your opinion on this, I doubt that even this will be able to change your mind.

And a sidenote... If RAW is the god to you, in any future match my character will carry a bucket of water to drown (read: heal) himself in.

EDIT: So I'm not alone in my interpretion of the rules. Look.

If this is not enough, we can post a thread about it for full arguments.

[KevLar]

Asked and answered. For what it's worth...
EDIT- Ninja'd!

[Talic]

RAW is not a be all and end all. But when your view is open to interpretation on a subjective term (well-secured), and RAW has something to say, I tend to lean towards it.

Again, a shield can be completely removed and dropped in under 6 seconds, in a single move action (and a free). Does that qualify as well-secured in your opinion? If it can be readied in the same amount of time (and it can), are those leather straps really tightly lashed?

Or is it a slightly loose pair of straps, that you can get an arm into and out of quickly?

In other words, do you honestly think you need to completely immobilize someone in a pin to pry a shield off of an extremity? Or Might a particularly savage twist and pull do the trick?

If the latter is the case, then it is represented by an opposed attack roll.

[KevLar]

Talic, no offense, but I really don't want to... how did you say it? Quibble about this. I really don't.

I repeat my previous statement. I'll gladly continue the match (or start over, whatever you prefer) with a referee.

Thank you.

[Adumbration]

RAW is not a be all and end all. But when your view is open to interpretation on a subjective term (well-secured), and RAW has something to say, I tend to lean towards it.

Again, a shield can be completely removed and dropped in under 6 seconds, in a single move action (and a free). Does that qualify as well-secured in your opinion? If it can be readied in the same amount of time (and it can), are those leather straps really tightly lashed?

Or is it a slightly loose pair of straps, that you can get an arm into and out of quickly?

In other words, do you honestly think you need to completely immobilize someone in a pin to pry a shield off of an extremity? Or Might a particularly savage twist and pull do the trick?

If the latter is the case, then it is represented by an opposed attack roll.

I do think you need to completely immobilize someone to remove a proper shield. The shield is attached with leather straps - write that to Google Image to see what a leather strap looks like. It takes only a few seconds to loosen the straps with a free hand, but it is extremely difficult to dislogde, say with a blow.

[Talic]

Asked and answered. For what it's worth...
EDIT- Ninja'd!

For what it's worth, Adumbration himself suggested Silvanos's answer. Duke's not a bad guy, but bear in mind, it's all opinion, and you'll get this argument from every. single. person. who wants to dispute it. I'll go with it for now, but I'd like to keep an eye on that.

[Talic]

I do think you need to completely immobilize someone to remove a proper shield. The shield is attached with leather straps - write that to Google Image to see what a leather strap looks like. It takes only a few seconds to loosen the straps with a free hand, but it is extremely difficult to dislogde, say with a blow.

And almost impossible for the straps to be cut... oh wait.

See? This is where the common sense breaks down again.

In D&D, a guy can slip his arm into those straps, and tighten them down, in naught but a couple seconds.

Those thick... secure... fastened... straps.

Fastened straps whose attachment most closely resembles tying a shoe one handed.

So, either we accept that yes, is doesn't make sense that someone can do that, that quickly, or we accept that yes, is doesn't make sense that it's not well-secured, but that's true.

Either way requires suspension of sensibilities.

I mean, for example, your argument is that it makes perfect sense that you need to be able to stop someone from speaking before you can loosen those straps.

I can see both sides of the issue. I really can. But what you are saying is that it is absolutely impossible for a level 4 character to disarm a readied shield. Even if he rolls nothing but 20's, and his opponent rolls nothing but 1's. It is beyond the realm of possibility.

Because your one attack every round will be made establishing a pin, and will thus never be able to remove the shield.

So we have Joe McLevelOneHalfling, with his buckler and his 6 strength.

We have Beefy McOgre, who grabs him.

Beefy McOgre, no matter how strong he is, even with a 28 strength... will forever be foiled by two leather straps. Three if you count the halfling's arm. And this is why common sense cannot always be used in D&D. Because the rules create situations that boggle the mind.

Not because I'm a cheese-monkey that advocates heals by drowning. Next time, please understand what I'm saying before deriding it.

[Adumbration]

And almost impossible for the straps to be cut... oh wait.

See? This is where the common sense breaks down again.

In D&D, a guy can slip his arm into those straps, and tighten them down, in naught but a couple seconds.

Those thick... secure... fastened... straps.

Fastened straps whose attachment most closely resembles tying a shoe one handed.

So, either we accept that yes, is doesn't make sense that someone can do that, that quickly, or we accept that yes, is doesn't make sense that it's not well-secured, but that's true.

Either way requires suspension of sensibilities.

I mean, for example, your argument is that it makes perfect sense that you need to be able to stop someone from speaking before you can loosen those straps.

I can see both sides of the issue. I really can. But what you are saying is that it is absolutely impossible for a level 4 character to disarm a readied shield. Even if he rolls nothing but 20's, and his opponent rolls nothing but 1's. It is beyond the realm of possibility.

Because your one attack every round will be made establishing a pin, and will thus never be able to remove the shield.

So we have Joe McLevelOneHalfling, with his buckler and his 6 strength.

We have Beefy McOgre, who grabs him.

Beefy McOgre, no matter how strong he is, even with a 28 strength... will forever be foiled by two leather straps. Three if you count the halfling's arm.

It's fascinating how you've gone from endorsing RAW to opposing it.

And by the way, cutting the straps would count as Sunder, not disarm, which is relatively easy. Even Beefy McOgre could do it. (Sunder the shield, I mean.)

[Talic]

You sure about that counting as Sunder?

Because when you sunder, you're going for the wood or metal of the shield, and overcoming its hardness...

Whereas, in the very text you posted on snatching items...

If the item is poorly secured or otherwise easy to snatch or cut away the attacker gets a +4 bonus.

Yes, Disarming can involve cutting away at a weak spot.

Oh, and I'm not opposing RAW. I'm showing that Common Sense does not always apply to RAW. I am pointing out that if a shield is a well secured item, that's the common sense flaw you come up with.

A character that can bench press Hondas unable to take a shield off the arm of a 35 pound weakling. No matter what.

EDIT: From a different point of view...

Do you think that a character with a 38 strength could make the break DC of a pair of leather straps? A character with an 85% chance to break down a Well made door with a feat of strength.

Because that's what the telekinesis is representing, in the earlier example. A Character with a better than a 50% chance to bend iron bars... Jerking on that shield for all its worth. By your common sense, does it seem reasonable that the leather straps you're vaunting might not be designed to handle that level of strain?

[KevLar]

Talic, the reason I stopped arguing with you after some point is not because I can't - it's because I don't want to.

Things are rather simple.

We find a referee. You can put an add that says "Referee wanted, Qualifications: must rule that shields can be disarmed" for all I care.

If he/she says A, we go by A.
If he/she says B, we go by B.

You see (in case I didn't make it crystal clear) my problem is NOT a rule about shields. It's the "quibble over details" part.

[Adumbration]

Oh, and I posted a thread about it, just for chits and giggles. They too are quibbling.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98493

[KevLar]

Heh. You know, if we disassociate the argument from the match, I have no problem participating and, ummm, quibbling about it.

[Talic]

I'd be happy to restart the match, consider the shield well-secured, provided we're using the arena rule that while spells cannot be used in an arena match, they can be used to qualify for feats and PrC's.