Tome of Fiends

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Manxome
Knight-Baron
Posts: 977
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Manxome »

SphereOfFeetMan wrote:Then at the tail end of 2007, WotC released the Rules Compendium. This new rulebook has the newest "official errata." I haven't read it, but they seemingly 'pulled a 3.5' again in one book. In other words, they subtly changed many rules without concern for balance, for no reason. As far as I can tell, almost nobody uses the changes in the Rules Compendium. The SRD then incorporated these changes.
*sigh*

That sounds plausible, though dandwiki usually puts a hilite behind errata, and that's missing from this page. Interestingly, the discussion page claims that the phrase in question was added from the Magic Overview, but I can't find anything remotely like that in the Magic Overview. In fact, the only references to spell-likes in the Magic Overview at all are that (1) sharing spells with familiars doesn't work with spell-likes, and (2) summoned monsters won't cast spell-likes that would cost XP if they were spells.
Bigode wrote:And, do you know if d20srd.org did as well?
d20srd.org gives the following text:
d20srd.org on spell-like abilities wrote:A spell-like ability takes the same amount of time to complete as the spell that it mimics (usually 1 standard action) unless otherwise stated.
Which of course means that it technically gives no default casting time for SLAs that do not mimic spells, which I'm sure was entirely intentional and will cause no problems whatsoever...
User avatar
Bigode
Duke
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Bigode »

Manxome wrote:Which of course means that it technically gives no default casting time for SLAs that do not mimic spells, which I'm sure was entirely intentional and will cause no problems whatsoever...
There are so few non-spell-mimicking SLAs that I prefer to fault the retarded fvcker who wasted the chance to make them as Su, since the SLA rules pretty much really are written from the standpoint of "SLAs are spells for creatures that don't use a spellcaster chassis".
Hans Freyer, s.b.u.h. wrote:A manly, a bold tone prevails in history. He who has the grip has the booty.
Huston Smith wrote:Life gives us no view of the whole. We see only snatches here and there, (...)
brotherfrancis75 wrote:Perhaps you imagine that Ayn Rand is our friend? And the Mont Pelerin Society? No, those are but the more subtle versions of the Bolshevik Communist Revolution you imagine you reject. (...) FOX NEWS IS ALSO COMMUNIST!
LDSChristian wrote:True. I do wonder which is worse: killing so many people like Hitler did or denying Christ 3 times like Peter did.
Manxome
Knight-Baron
Posts: 977
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Manxome »

Bigode wrote:since the SLA rules pretty much really are written from the standpoint of "SLAs are spells for creatures that don't use a spellcaster chassis".
Yes, but that doesn't mean that creatures can't have abilities that are effectively spells but don't happen to be on any class's spell list. Concentration checks, AoOs, spell resistance, and dispelling all seem to be fairly important mechanics, and saying you should always bypass them if there doesn't happen to be an existing spell that does exactly what you want seems a little over-the-top.
Bigode wrote:There are so few non-spell-mimicking SLAs that I prefer to fault the retarded fvcker who wasted the chance to make them as Su
That include that guy who wrote the Fire Mage and the Marshall?
Koumei
Serious Badass
Posts: 13871
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: South Ausfailia

Post by Koumei »

Manxome wrote:
Bigode wrote:There are so few non-spell-mimicking SLAs that I prefer to fault the retarded fvcker who wasted the chance to make them as Su
That include that guy who wrote the Fire Mage and the Marshall?
Yeah, what a hack!
User avatar
Judging__Eagle
Prince
Posts: 4671
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Lake Ontario is in my backyard; Canada

Post by Judging__Eagle »

Bigode wrote:
Judging__Eagle wrote:That works?

I thought that the Barb Rage Dice only worked with BaB derived attacks only, making that not really possible.
It "works" in the same way you use TWF on barbarians, which means "you get another crapload of damage, but they're counter-synergistic" - and yeah, TWF's counter-synergistic with rage dice due to TWF penalties applying to all attacks (though likely to much smaller extent than rage dice + a BAB that'll ... eventually grow into average).
No.

I use TWF to leverage the most out of Blitz, not Rage Dice.

The reasoning for me goes, that since if I'm provoking an AoO once from a target, I might as well provoke a second one, that they can't take.

Rage Dice only applies to my Barbarian character's main-weapon attack damage.

Which is why, while one that I play Barbarian has TWF and Blitz, the other barbarians that are played in my gaming group would get Combat School and Hordebreaker [and wield 2-handers]; then try to kill something every round.

If I could use Rage Dice on both attacks, then I'd seriously consider that character to be broken. As it stood, without Adamantine Armour he was always on the knife-edge of Victory/Defeat in most fights. He'd deal som uch damage so quickly, but would also suffer boatloads as well. With Adamantine Armour he'd be a lot safer in combat.

If he also could just double his Rage Dice, I dunno. I'd have to test that interpretation of the "Main Attacks" rule. It wouldn't be pretty imo.
Last edited by Judging__Eagle on Sat Nov 08, 2008 3:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Gaming Den; where Mathematics are rigorously applied to Mythology.

While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
SunTzuWarmaster
Knight-Baron
Posts: 948
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by SunTzuWarmaster »

Just for the record, they can totally take more AoOs if:
They have a BAB of 6 or higher (F&K rules give more AoOs for high BAB)
They have TWF or Multiattack
They have Combat Reflexes (or Hordebreaker)
SphereOfFeetMan
Knight-Baron
Posts: 562
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by SphereOfFeetMan »

Bigode wrote:But, no offense intended, do have a source?
No offense taken. This is what I found with a quick search:

http://www.penpaperpixel.org/forums/vie ... f=7&t=1067
Boredflak (Site Admin) wrote:My hope is that some currently closed 3.5 rules will be released in the future, but I'm not holding my breath. I do plan on incorporating any errata that appear in the Rules Compendium.


So, there you go.

Also, for good measure:

http://www.d20srd.org/changes.htm
Changes from the Official d20 SRD wrote:I have made many corrections and v3.0 to v3.5 rules updates that do not appear in any official publication.
There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity.
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
User avatar
Bigode
Duke
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Bigode »

First off, I want to tell you all to fvck yourselves for making me do this. OK, I'm kidding, first because nobody "made" me do anything, second because I'll survive the trauma. :D Well, the actually serious part's that that's why I don't get in the kind of discussion so quoted in "Revenge of Threads ...": it involves lots of quoting text we know to be stupid already, just for making a point about specific details on D&D crap instead of working on making it better - which'd start by just cutting the retarded crap off the game. There's also the fact that, aside from any rules issues, reading official D&D involves trudging through horrendous writing ...

Warmaster, thanks; JE, you're right ...

---

Original issue raised by Manxome:
The MM sure says what Talisman said (yes, I checked). Meanwhile:
RC wrote:Using a spell-like ability usually takes 1 standard action and provokes attacks of opportunity unless otherwise noted. If the spell-like ability duplicates a spell that has a casting time of less than 1 standard action, the spell-like ability has that casting time.
Seems to imply that times longer than 1 standard action are specifically reduced, right? Even if it doesn't for you, it at least happens to not be what Manxome's reading in the SRD, at all. So ... find some culprit other than RC text as-is (but note that, while it didn't produce the exact divergence Manxome mentions, it does "pull a 3.5"). I just checked, it doesn't have errata (I do remember seeing people requesting it ...). Back to the SRDs, the lack of highlighting (Or is "-lite" just as correct, or should I just consider it slang?) mentioned by Manxome seems to agree with me - someone changed it with basis on their own opinion? LOL, nothing against opinions (or even RAI arguments, in many instances), but passing one's own as rules ...
Warmaster, let me just check whaddya mean with "the community at large": actually everyone, or the community that discusses D&D (the one subset for whom I think that issue would matter as opposed to "whatever houserule we use for it, or not")? Because I'm not even near sure the second has such a non-SRD-using majority.

EDIT (yeah, you may notice I wrote this before posting - sue me): I re-read the thread while writing; when I arrived at the reference to Magic Overwiew ... lo and behold - it is there (I'm sure you all know how to use Ctrl+F), in both SRD and book! In any case, as far as Ex/Sp/Su abilities go, MM trumps anything else in case of contradiction - but I happen to think one could made a pretty good case that there's no contradiction, just a spelling-out of what "otherwise" should mean.

---

As for the Sp vs. Su issue, I went through the meaningful differences between the types. And I didn't mean Frank but whoever created the precedent, but there's stuff to point on at least the marshal.

Sources:
My 3.5 books and an old official (www.wizards.com/d20) SRD copy, from which I pulled just the MM text because I pasted it on WordPad; its text seemed exactly equal to the MM's. The relevant information from the DMG goes thusly:
º The MM text doesn't say but imply that Sp actually are dispellable; the DMG text does - hilarious with the MM being the primary source.
º OTOH, while the DMG just proved kinda sorta awesome (when put in contrast to a crappy MM to begin with, of course), its table right away tells us that Su are dispellable. Fortunately, as the cavalier well knows, text trumps table*, and the DMG text agrees with the MM (hell, it'd lose if it didn't anyway, but that's not really an excuse). So thumbs down.

*: if the gentle (I can only suppose that to be heavy irony in this forum) reader is of the kind that'd try to pull this in an actual game, I'd like to hear what you'd have to say on "may declare a 'deadly charge' before making his attack roll (thus, a failed attack ruins the attempt)." What's ruined other than what everyone ruins when missing (a.k.a. not hitting)? Why's it so similar to the paladin with its per-day smite evil - might it have to do with the fact it's (actually, "was obviously intended to be and perhaps only balanced if it is", since no, it isn't from a technical PoV, and yeah, I know saying "balanced" without an "un-" prefix in a sentence about WotC helps losing any argument - I don't think that was actually balanced) per day too?
Then I actually went for the ... Rules Compendium. I found the quote above, and this retardation:
Retard wrote:NAME THAT SPECIAL ABILITY TYPE
If you’re ever find yourself waiting for that last player to show up, here’s a quick game you can play. Grab a Monster Manual—it doesn’t matter which one. Open it up to a random spread, and do a quick scan of the special abilities on those two pages. Pick the monster you think has the hardest special ability type to guess, and read its name and the special ability aloud to your friends (leaving out the special ability type designator, of course). As a group, the other players must agree upon one of the special ability types for their answer. If they guess it right, everyone in the group gets the monster’s CR in points. If they don’t, you get the CR in points. Pass the book clockwise and repeat. Whoever has the most points after one circuit of the book wins.
This game is just good geeky silliness. When you start playing it, you’ll get tripped up on things that seem strange at first glance (such as the beholder’s flight—extraordinary!), by effects that are extraordinary for a monster but magical for characters, or traditional spell effects that can be supernatural (such as the pixie’s greater invisibility). Silliness aside, it also increases your familiarity with the game and its exceptions—at least when it comes to monsters and their abilities.
—Stephen Radney-MacFarland, developer
BTW, let me say that not knowing why beholder's flight's Ex shows ignorance of D&D history. :D
Aside from the quote to Manxome's starting question, no other difference from MM/DMG text.

End result:
Sp have no default caster level, unlike Su that have it equal to HD. That was for better or worse depending on how close you followed HD = CR = ECL. I dare say that, since "really damn close" is the answer that shows the best design, Su > Sp here, flat-out. In the specific case of the 2 base classes, since Sp are set customarily to either class or character level (meaning HD, WotC says "fvck you" if you have a LA, as always), the only difference's for multiclassers, and, as I pointed out, the Tome pattern of setting to character level should be followed at least in to-be Tome-compatible stuff - unless of course a given ability was Su in the first place and preempted the issue (not that it should always be done - most Sp are ... rightly Sp, duh). I grant that Sp defaulting to HD screws things on ... a lot of monsters, in which case I shall forward the blame to another retarded fvcker: the one who thought exceptions to HD = CR = ECL were a good idea (I just hope nobody manages to find a way to include Frank in that too, as in that case I'll start considering killing his family*).

Also, Sp always default to Cha while Su "often" (BTW, why include that information, since anyone making a low-Cha monster can make it different anyway, without even having to call it a proper exception, since it wasn't a rule in the first place?) does; one could say that'd make Su slightly more appropriate for classes due to allowing Cha non-relevance (though, of course: hell, Sp might just've been like Su in that, and have most monstrous stuff default to Cha - sorta hilarious in that people don't associate "monster" and "charismatic" all that often, but that's sorta how (the one true) D&D seems to roll ...), others might disagree, but it's moot with 2 Cha-centric classes.

Up to here, I can safely claim there's no reason for any non-spell-mimicking SLA in either class not to be Su without even needing to read their text.

*: if someone (including himself, but I doubt it) would think Frank's family's too sensitive a issue right now to be joked with, I say - who knows Caedrus' wasn't too, in which case Frank did the same? And in the end, I don't think anyone should care: I know for a fact that my family's a sensitive issue now, and I won't buy even a ... centimeter into someone saying they'll kill any relative of mine, and if I don't find it funny, it's due to something happening on my side - not because it isn't!

---

That leaves us with the mentioned: SR, dispelling, disrupting, AoOs, to use as criteria on what happens if specific Sp abilities of the classes turn Su.
Fire mage
Fire burst: instantaneous duration -> no dispelling.

Fire bolts, ray of light: instantaneous duration -> no dispelling, ranged attack -> AoOs anyway even with Su.

Ignite: looks like its duration's actually instantaneous (reinforced by it having a crappy seemingly "natural" Reflex DC instead of a real one), which'd mean no dispelling. Someone might also argue that "always hits" means "impossible to disrupt", but I wouldn't do that.

Smokeless flames, beacon: SR? LOL! As for disrupting and AoOs, one could argue they aren't meant for use in pitched battle, but I find that argument crappy myself, as I sure can see uses. The part where things turn worse for me's that beacon seems specifically meant to be dispellable.

Fireballs, mindfire, visions of flames, sending: while all have meaningful differences from spells, all are based on them.

Soul of cinders: am I allowed to just say "typo" here?

Sculpt flames, fire clouds: sculpt flames in part does emulate a spell, but yeah, it's here that my argument goes pretty sour, since the only unused thing's SR - all others make pretty much sense ...

Conflagration: I can't tell for sure if that was supposed to be instantaneous or have unbounded duration. If the former, no dispelling; if the latter, no SR (as it'd be a personal effect). Also, if the duration's unbounded (which I'd think was Frank's idea), AoOs and disrupting turn way less of a concern, since they'd be used likely way before combat in a lot of circumstances (and not at all in others, such as being indoors - actual doors, not a "dungeon"). Also, part of it does emulate a spell.

Firewalk: "walk" - hey, are you telling me that a) you have to walk in and then spend a standard action, b) you have to spend a standard action to move in (hey, that's technically not even possible, and the ability doesn't introduce a specific exception), or c) you just walk in, and the fvcking activation be damned? I think the latter, and in that case disrupting and AoOs (other than by movement, which wouldn't be provoked in the destination flaming square anyway, thus having nothing at all to do with the ability) make precisely no sense. Dispelling? LOL! SR? With it affecting person + willing + objects, who the fvck cares?

Bonds of fire: worse, all 4 make sense (though the unmentioned range might make one assume that RAI was line of sight, which ties in with the abilities below).

Searing light: SR doesn't fit but dispelling might. As for disrupting and AoOs, I feel compelled to say "it targets line of sight, you shouldn't be subject to them anyway", but I have some pretty good reasons for others to disagree, so ...

Rain of fire: SR can well fit and it's instantaneous. As for range, see above.
That was bad, actually.

Marshal
Heal injuries, revive the dead: AoOs? LOL! Dispelling? LOL! SR: depends - would you say it can bring back people against their will (sure, it doesn't say anywhere that it doesn't, but that's not how resurrection works - not that it can't be interesting)? Disrupting: since we're talking 10-100 full-round actions here, "disrupting" them's as simple as denying the marshal a move/standard action, or forcing them to use it to defend themselves. If somehow there's someone interested in disrupting them that's too weak to do either, the chances of them dealing damage at all aren't good and the chances of that causing disruption get even slimmer if the marshal has Concentration (does have it in-class). If the marshal has no Concentration indeed and is attacked continuously: a) if you'd be OK with a marshal with Concentration calmly continuing the ritual while under constant attack, does it change a lot without it? B) with Concentration or not, I think a lot of ... GMs (you're free to declare "GM fiat = suck", especially since I do so all the time, but I find it kind of hard to argue with in that case) are going to allow disruption just by something like "messing with components" if the marshal takes no action to prevent it - if they do ...

Restoration, heal, mass heal: those do emulate spells.
Phew, so much easier. :D

The last thing I can, more "ask" than "say", is: would it make a lot of difference if the fire mage abilities were (perhaps mostly instead of entirely) Su? What about making some of them be based on spells? Finally, you'll notice that those abilities don't have an activation time, which might tie into Manxome's complaint (but I'm actually fairly sure than Frank considers Magic Overview to contradict the MM and thus cease to matter, having SLAs indeed default to standard); also, if they are supposed to require concentration, they've no effective spell level listed (one might argue RAI and Tome convention as being "half character level rounded up", but that's not stated anywhere, and, as I said, Tome convention has been explicitly ignored in at least the marshal's case); I dare say that's extra support for just making them Su.
Hans Freyer, s.b.u.h. wrote:A manly, a bold tone prevails in history. He who has the grip has the booty.
Huston Smith wrote:Life gives us no view of the whole. We see only snatches here and there, (...)
brotherfrancis75 wrote:Perhaps you imagine that Ayn Rand is our friend? And the Mont Pelerin Society? No, those are but the more subtle versions of the Bolshevik Communist Revolution you imagine you reject. (...) FOX NEWS IS ALSO COMMUNIST!
LDSChristian wrote:True. I do wonder which is worse: killing so many people like Hitler did or denying Christ 3 times like Peter did.
User avatar
Judging__Eagle
Prince
Posts: 4671
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Lake Ontario is in my backyard; Canada

Post by Judging__Eagle »

JE, you're right ...
Good, wouldn't want you to think that I was cheating, or anything like that.

Although, adamantine armour + blitz + barbarian rage + twf is damned near close to it. So much damage with such little cost.
The Gaming Den; where Mathematics are rigorously applied to Mythology.

While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
SunTzuWarmaster
Knight-Baron
Posts: 948
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by SunTzuWarmaster »

Judging Eagle, the cheating part is PBS+Blitz+TWF+Rage+darts.

The short version is that you can totally throw darts, from 20' away that do:
d4+str+BAB+BAB+RAGE damage each.
No AoO messiness, no penalty to attack. This is at BAB+everything+3.

Um, where did I say "community at large"...
Last edited by SunTzuWarmaster on Mon Nov 10, 2008 11:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Bigode
Duke
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Bigode »

Judging__Eagle wrote:Good, wouldn't want you to think that I was cheating, or anything like that.
FTW? Did I say that? I forgot Blitz and assumed you deal was just "Hey, I can deal rage dice only on main attacks, but why not have some extra attacks anyway?" ... But anyway, isn't your ragearian damage output close to double original?
SunTzuWarmaster wrote:Judging Eagle, the cheating part is PBS+Blitz+TWF+Rage+darts.

The short version is that you can totally throw darts, from 20' away that do:
d4+str+BAB+BAB+RAGE damage each.
No AoO messiness, no penalty to attack. This is at BAB+everything+3.
Ranged attacks + rage dice? What?
SunTzuWarmaster wrote:Um, where did I say "community at large"...
Something like "the community at large uses books as opposed to SRD", to Manxome.
Hans Freyer, s.b.u.h. wrote:A manly, a bold tone prevails in history. He who has the grip has the booty.
Huston Smith wrote:Life gives us no view of the whole. We see only snatches here and there, (...)
brotherfrancis75 wrote:Perhaps you imagine that Ayn Rand is our friend? And the Mont Pelerin Society? No, those are but the more subtle versions of the Bolshevik Communist Revolution you imagine you reject. (...) FOX NEWS IS ALSO COMMUNIST!
LDSChristian wrote:True. I do wonder which is worse: killing so many people like Hitler did or denying Christ 3 times like Peter did.
Manxome
Knight-Baron
Posts: 977
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Manxome »

Bigode, that was...somewhat difficult to follow. I'm not entirely sure what the key points were.

Also:
ranged attack -> AoOs anyway even with Su.
Really? I don't think I would have figured that out, after reading that Su abilities specifically do not provoke.

Though D&D does seem to be completely schizophrenic about how it uses the word "attack"...
User avatar
Bigode
Duke
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Bigode »

I wasn't at the best of conditions when I wrote that (headache only) - will try to edit tomorrow, since I know I won't have the time now. But what I gather's that making a ranged attack provokes, regardless of other factors.
Hans Freyer, s.b.u.h. wrote:A manly, a bold tone prevails in history. He who has the grip has the booty.
Huston Smith wrote:Life gives us no view of the whole. We see only snatches here and there, (...)
brotherfrancis75 wrote:Perhaps you imagine that Ayn Rand is our friend? And the Mont Pelerin Society? No, those are but the more subtle versions of the Bolshevik Communist Revolution you imagine you reject. (...) FOX NEWS IS ALSO COMMUNIST!
LDSChristian wrote:True. I do wonder which is worse: killing so many people like Hitler did or denying Christ 3 times like Peter did.
User avatar
Judging__Eagle
Prince
Posts: 4671
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Lake Ontario is in my backyard; Canada

Post by Judging__Eagle »

SunTzuWarmaster
,
You can't use Rage Dice and Darts. Mostly b/c Rage Dice only work in melee.

However, Fighters can deal damage comparable to SA-ing rogues if they use PBS and Blitz on the same attack. With TWF + Darts it's pretty freaking sick since your BaB is being applied four times per attack you get per round, and out to 60'.

Also, you can do this with stuff like Alchemist's Fire. With a Full BaB class, it's like finding out that you shit gold.

I built a Monk1/Fighter 6 character that was essentially a hulking guy in heavy armour with dual bastard swords.

He hit for some Con damage (Monk Fighting style), but his biggest damage came from ... ahem- "Blitzed/Point-Blank Shot/Sniped/Two Weaponed" Darts or Ranged Touch attack weapons.

Which was [1d4+Str+14+1 Con damage] x4 at level 7.

Bigode ,

I thought that this:
It "works" in the same way you use TWF on barbarians, which means "you get another crapload of damage, but they're counter-synergistic" - and yeah, TWF's counter-synergistic with rage dice due to TWF penalties applying to all attacks (though likely to much smaller extent than rage dice + a BAB that'll ... eventually grow into average).
Was a comment on the fact that most of my melee builds that I talk about on TGD use TWF (RoW barbarians included) and that I was using Rage Dice improperly.

My response was essentially "yes, I TWF with a Barbarian, and deal boatloads of damage; but that's b/c I'm using Blitz twice (main + off hand attacks), not b/c I'm using Rage Dice twice."

As for TWF being counter synergistic, it can be. What I did with that Barbarian build was to focus on To-Hit (and Con/HP and DR) as much as possible, since I knew that I'd have damage.

Unfortunately, picking up tons of Dex and Weapon finesse would have been smarter than Combat School. Live and learn, and rebuild.
The Gaming Den; where Mathematics are rigorously applied to Mythology.

While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
SunTzuWarmaster
Knight-Baron
Posts: 948
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by SunTzuWarmaster »

Yea, forgot about the melee-only clause...
User avatar
Bigode
Duke
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Bigode »

A summary of my own post above, please refer to it for detail.

1) Discussions about RAW details are mostly crap, because they involve looking through text known to be bad, and often produce no solutions at all.

2) "Magic Overview" here does have the text Manxome alluded to, as does the Magic chapter in the actual PHB.

3) The differences between Sp and Su are: SR, AoOs, dispelling, disrupting, default caster level, default ability for DCs.

4) The Rules Compendium did "pull a 3.5" in implying that spells quicker than 1 standard action (and only them) have that same time as Sp, but it's not clearly said.

5) "Retarded fvcker" was whoever created bad precedents (IMO) in lack of streamlining, not everyone who followed them.

6) The marshal's Sp that don't emulate spells have no reason not to be Su.

7) With the fire mage, things weren't so clear-cut (but the abilities don't have all the needed data to work 100% properly as Sp), but I still wonder whether it'd matter much if they just were Su.
Hans Freyer, s.b.u.h. wrote:A manly, a bold tone prevails in history. He who has the grip has the booty.
Huston Smith wrote:Life gives us no view of the whole. We see only snatches here and there, (...)
brotherfrancis75 wrote:Perhaps you imagine that Ayn Rand is our friend? And the Mont Pelerin Society? No, those are but the more subtle versions of the Bolshevik Communist Revolution you imagine you reject. (...) FOX NEWS IS ALSO COMMUNIST!
LDSChristian wrote:True. I do wonder which is worse: killing so many people like Hitler did or denying Christ 3 times like Peter did.
Manxome
Knight-Baron
Posts: 977
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Manxome »

Further thoughts on that hypothetical Su ranged attack provoking an attack of opportunity...

1) If you cast a spell or spell-like ability that involves a ranged attack, do you provoke two attacks of opportunity--one for casting and one for the attack?
2) If you cast it defensively, do you still provoke an AoO for the ranged attack?
3) Can you "cast defensively" when using a Su ranged attack?
User avatar
Bigode
Duke
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Bigode »

Manxome wrote:Further thoughts on that hypothetical Su ranged attack provoking an attack of opportunity...

1) If you cast a spell or spell-like ability that involves a ranged attack, do you provoke two attacks of opportunity--one for casting and one for the attack?
2) If you cast it defensively, do you still provoke an AoO for the ranged attack?
3) Can you "cast defensively" when using a Su ranged attack?
I think 3's pretty clearly "no". As for the other 2, I don't think any book ever clarifies it. So I just recalled if there was any prior case of provoking by 2 criteria with the same action - the best I could found was using a special attack action while unarmed without feats for it. At no point it's ever said (including actual examples) it'd provoke actually twice. And no, denying 1 won't deny both (at least, I don't think there's any good argument for it).

So, does anyone have anything to say on what'd changing fire mage abilities to Su mean?
Hans Freyer, s.b.u.h. wrote:A manly, a bold tone prevails in history. He who has the grip has the booty.
Huston Smith wrote:Life gives us no view of the whole. We see only snatches here and there, (...)
brotherfrancis75 wrote:Perhaps you imagine that Ayn Rand is our friend? And the Mont Pelerin Society? No, those are but the more subtle versions of the Bolshevik Communist Revolution you imagine you reject. (...) FOX NEWS IS ALSO COMMUNIST!
LDSChristian wrote:True. I do wonder which is worse: killing so many people like Hitler did or denying Christ 3 times like Peter did.
SunTzuWarmaster
Knight-Baron
Posts: 948
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by SunTzuWarmaster »

Honestly, I don't care what the 3-layers-deep of rules say on the issue, because the following is how we handled in in our campaign:

The Fire Mage has a Fire Bolt as an attack action.
Attack actions do not normally provoke AoOs, require Concentration checks, have spell failure, etc. So the ability is logically supernatural.

We have ruled that it may not, however, make AoOs.
User avatar
Maxus
Overlord
Posts: 7645
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Maxus »

On a complete unrelated note, I'm trying to put together a Death Knight for someone.

I have to say, it's a shame they don't get the Fire Sphere before they get that bonus feat. If they did, they could spend that bonus feat on Elemental Aura and get an Elemental Aura of Fire, which would be DAMN AWESOME. (Eat your heart out, Ghost Rider).

I'll fudge it, but it's a pity I have to do that...
He jumps like a damned dragoon, and charges into battle fighting rather insane monsters with little more than his bare hands and rather nasty spell effects conjured up solely through knowledge and the local plantlife. He unerringly knows where his goal lies, he breathes underwater and is untroubled by space travel, seems to have no limits to his actual endurance and favors killing his enemies by driving both boots square into their skull. His agility is unmatched, and his strength legendary, able to fling about a turtle shell big enough to contain a man with enough force to barrel down a near endless path of unfortunates.

--The horror of Mario

Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
SunTzuWarmaster
Knight-Baron
Posts: 948
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by SunTzuWarmaster »

Have you considered the following entry vectors?

Genie 4
True Fiend 4
Conduit 1 (enter at level 7)
Warlock 1 (enter at level 7)

Or, since the sphere abilities are base upon character level, just asking the DM if you can swap the two spheres (it will make your undead army suck a bit)...
IGTN
Knight-Baron
Posts: 729
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 4:13 am

Post by IGTN »

A bit of a change of topic, but since Law vs Chaos is in here, I thought I'd drop another possible interpretation in:

Law is doing things you don't want to for reasons other than personal gain.

I'm aware that a Lawful character and a Chaotic character could be in the same party, doing the exact same thing in an adventure, but it's a Lawful act for one and a Chaotic act for another, based entirely on motivation: it's a duty for the Lawful character and a ride for the Chaotic.

This combines some parts from The Law of the Land and some from Word is Bond, and also allows the "personal code" version of Law that you rejected: a Lawful character has a statement of principles somewhere (could be their own, most likely comes from someone else, but they obey it), and will act in the way that it compels them to, even if they don't want to.

Essentially Word is Bond and promises to act in a certain way.

Nothing keeps a Chaotic character from stating principles, of course, but they'll be more willing to change their principles; for example, suppose you have two characters, one Lawful, one Chaotic. Both follow the same statement of principles, which they have written down. Maybe they even have it on a sign in town square.

One day, someone presents them with a deductive argument demonstrating that, by their code, they must do something distasteful (maybe they have to slaughter half of the town's children to allow the next generation to be wealthier or something). Both decide, first, to put their intelligence scores to use and look for flaws in the argumentation, and can't find any. The Chaotic character gives up first, walks over to the sign in the town square, pulls out a pen, and starts rewriting parts of the code. The Lawful character tells him to stop, and then, grudgingly, starts slaughtering kids (unless, of course, the Lawful character is sworn to do what it says on the sign instead of obey certain principles, which happen to be written on the sign).

Lawful organizations, then, are made up of people whose code includes "do what your superiors tell you" (possibly: "Provided it doesn't conflict with items x, y, and z," but possibly not); Chaotic organizations are made up of individuals who have joined the organization because they want to or because it benefits them, which makes their organization faster to act (since individuals in it don't care about their higher-ups as much, so they're not worried about their boss complaining about how they handle things), but slower to mobilize (since individuals don't care about their higher-ups as much, so they'll get around to all going in the same direction at the same time when they feel like it)

What would the consequences of this interpretation be? Would it end up just reducing to one of the others?
User avatar
CatharzGodfoot
King
Posts: 5668
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: North Carolina

Post by CatharzGodfoot »

IGTN wrote: What would the consequences of this interpretation be? Would it end up just reducing to one of the others?
Basically, it gets into the philosophical nature of what it means to 'want to do'. It's a very similar situation to the 3e alignment system, where Lawful characters 'follow a strong personal code' and Chaotic characters 'do what they feel is right despite what others might tell them'.
User avatar
Bigode
Duke
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Bigode »

Warmaster: ranged attack options do provoke (and can't make AoOs normally, so you didn't rule anything). And Sp abilities provoke (and etc.) regardless of being coupled to attacks or not. And that's not even "3-layers-deep". But I do agree with you in caring more about what I'll do about it than how it's now.

So, the question is: does anyone think changing the fire mage's non-spell-emulating Sp abilities to Su would be problematic?
Hans Freyer, s.b.u.h. wrote:A manly, a bold tone prevails in history. He who has the grip has the booty.
Huston Smith wrote:Life gives us no view of the whole. We see only snatches here and there, (...)
brotherfrancis75 wrote:Perhaps you imagine that Ayn Rand is our friend? And the Mont Pelerin Society? No, those are but the more subtle versions of the Bolshevik Communist Revolution you imagine you reject. (...) FOX NEWS IS ALSO COMMUNIST!
LDSChristian wrote:True. I do wonder which is worse: killing so many people like Hitler did or denying Christ 3 times like Peter did.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

Bigode wrote:Warmaster: ranged attack options do provoke (and can't make AoOs normally, so you didn't rule anything). And Sp abilities provoke (and etc.) regardless of being coupled to attacks or not. And that's not even "3-layers-deep". But I do agree with you in caring more about what I'll do about it than how it's now.

So, the question is: does anyone think changing the fire mage's non-spell-emulating Sp abilities to Su would be problematic?
Well, they wouldn't allow SR any more. The real question is: why would you want to make them Su when they are already working fine as Sp?

-Username17
Post Reply