The Bag of Rats LIVES!!!

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Or, at least, one little mousie.

If you have Combat Expertise, who not always carry around a little
mousie so you can "attack" it and get +5 to your AC?

Better yet, why not make it a familiar and then just punch, pummel, or
kick it for temporary damage whenever you need to do this trick? It
won't die so you can do it again and again...

- Ron ^*^
40 answers Last reply
More about rats lives
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Werebat wrote:

    > Or, at least, one little mousie.
    >
    > If you have Combat Expertise, who not always carry around a little
    > mousie so you can "attack" it and get +5 to your AC?
    >
    > Better yet, why not make it a familiar and then just punch, pummel, or
    > kick it for temporary damage whenever you need to do this trick? It
    > won't die so you can do it again and again...
    >
    > - Ron ^*^
    >

    Some days, I wish I was a DM in the days of corporal punishment. Any DM
    that buys this argument deserves what he gets.

    CH
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Werebat wrote:
    >
    > If you have Combat Expertise, who not always carry
    > around a little mousie so you can "attack" it and
    > get +5 to your AC?

    You don't need the mouse. You can make an attack standard action, but
    choose not to actually attack anything.

    This has been explicitly stated, but I've forgotten where, and don't
    see it in the FAQ.

    --
    Nik
    - remove vermin from email address to reply.
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Any player in my campaign trying that will get a real bag of rats,
    dumped into the cage they are wearing on their head, ala '1984'.

    That post has "featcrime" written all over it.
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Mark Blunden wrote:
    >
    > Or you can just attack the darkness.

    Where are the cheetos?
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    > Why? You don't need to make an actual attack to get the benefit of
    > Combat Expertise; merely spending an attack action is sufficient.
    Adding
    > a mouse to the attack doesn't make it unreasonable. RTFAQ.

    Let's say you are a rogue that has just encountered 5 monks with
    repeating crossbows at a range of 85 feet. On your initiative, you
    start slapping your mouse around. I would not allow the combat
    expertise bonus because you are not in melee.

    According to 3.5 PHB, you need to use the full attack or attack action
    "in melee" to use combat expertise. You aren't in melee unless you are
    in a square threatened by an opponent. I would never rule that a mouse
    in your hand threatens you.

    If you were really threatened, and you spank the mousie, I would rule
    that all your opponents get an attack of opportunity since you have
    made a Handle Animal skill check while in melee. :-)

    Now that I have eliminated all the silly cases, on what basis can you
    claim to be taking an attack action if you do not make a single attack
    (whether a melee or ranged attack, or a special attack)?
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    > decalod85 wrote:
    > > Let's say you are a rogue that has just encountered 5 monks with
    > > repeating crossbows at a range of 85 feet. On your initiative, you
    > > start slapping your mouse around. I would not allow the combat
    > > expertise bonus because you are not in melee.
    >
    > The mouse is unnecessary.

    Who cares about the mouse? I was using that to illustrate how
    ludicrous the assertion was. If you are 85 feet from your opponents,
    you are not "in melee".

    3.5 PHB, Page 95, Combat Expertise: "When you use the attack action or
    the full attack action in melee,"

    3.0 PHB, Page 82, Expertise: "When you use the attack action or full
    attack action in melee,"

    > > According to 3.5 PHB, you need to use the full attack or attack
    action
    > > "in melee" to use combat expertise. You aren't in melee unless you
    > > are in a square threatened by an opponent ....
    >
    > The D&D FAQ disagrees with you.

    Disagrees with me about what? That you have to be in melee?

    I read both the 3.0 and 3.5 PHB's. Both state that you need to make an
    attack action in melee. You can't even dispute this. The FAQ's say
    nothing about being in melee with regards to Combat Expertise.

    The 3.0 faq says that you can take an attack action without taking all
    (or any) of your attacks, in reference to Expertise. The 3.5 FAQ does
    not mention it at all.

    If you are just talking about whether or not there needs to be an
    attack, fine, I concede that the D&D FAQ backs you up. If you are
    trying to assert that you don't need to be in melee, you are quite
    wrong.
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    drow wrote:
    > Alien mind control rays made decalod85 <decalod85@comcast.net> write:
    > > Let's say you are a rogue that has just encountered 5 monks with
    > > repeating crossbows at a range of 85 feet. On your initiative, you
    > > start slapping your mouse around. I would not allow the combat
    > > expertise bonus because you are not in melee.
    >
    > 'slapping your mouse'. is that what you kids are calling it these
    > days? okay, if that's how you want to go...

    I prefer "polishing the greatsword", if you don't mind...
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    decalod85 wrote:
    > drow wrote:
    >
    >>Alien mind control rays made decalod85 <decalod85@comcast.net> write:
    >>
    >>>Let's say you are a rogue that has just encountered 5 monks with
    >>>repeating crossbows at a range of 85 feet. On your initiative, you
    >>>start slapping your mouse around. I would not allow the combat
    >>>expertise bonus because you are not in melee.
    >>
    >>'slapping your mouse'. is that what you kids are calling it these
    >>days? okay, if that's how you want to go...
    >
    >
    > I prefer "polishing the greatsword", if you don't mind...
    >

    Or, perhaps, "cauterizing the hydra's stump."
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Some Guy wrote:
    > decalod85 wrote:
    > > drow wrote:
    > >
    > >>Alien mind control rays made decalod85 <decalod85@comcast.net>
    write:
    > >>
    > >>>Let's say you are a rogue that has just encountered 5 monks with
    > >>>repeating crossbows at a range of 85 feet. On your initiative,
    you
    > >>>start slapping your mouse around. I would not allow the combat
    > >>>expertise bonus because you are not in melee.
    > >>
    > >>'slapping your mouse'. is that what you kids are calling it these
    > >>days? okay, if that's how you want to go...
    > >
    > >
    > > I prefer "polishing the greatsword", if you don't mind...
    >
    > Or, perhaps, "cauterizing the hydra's stump."

    I just "expend another charge from my staff".

    Laszlo
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Nikolas Landauer wrote:
    > Werebat wrote:
    >>
    >> If you have Combat Expertise, who not always carry
    >> around a little mousie so you can "attack" it and
    >> get +5 to your AC?
    >
    > You don't need the mouse. You can make an attack standard action, but
    > choose not to actually attack anything.

    Or you can just attack the darkness.

    --
    Mark.
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Mark Blunden" <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> wrote in
    news:3co41cF6n4ccsU1@individual.net:

    > Or you can just attack the darkness.

    I am going to put a magic missile enchantment on all my arrow traps.

    -phy
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    [Please quote or summarize the article you're responding to.]

    Regarding the use of Combat Expertise without actually making an attack,
    decalod85 wrote:
    > Any player in my campaign trying that will get a real bag of rats,
    > dumped into the cage they are wearing on their head, ala '1984'.
    >
    > That post has "featcrime" written all over it.

    Why? You don't need to make an actual attack to get the benefit of
    Combat Expertise; merely spending an attack action is sufficient. Adding
    a mouse to the attack doesn't make it unreasonable. RTFAQ.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    >> Why? You don't need to make an actual attack to get the benefit of
    >> Combat Expertise; merely spending an attack action is sufficient.
    >> Adding a mouse to the attack doesn't make it unreasonable. RTFAQ.

    decalod85 wrote:
    > Let's say you are a rogue that has just encountered 5 monks with
    > repeating crossbows at a range of 85 feet. On your initiative, you
    > start slapping your mouse around. I would not allow the combat
    > expertise bonus because you are not in melee.

    The mouse is unnecessary.

    > According to 3.5 PHB, you need to use the full attack or attack action
    > "in melee" to use combat expertise. You aren't in melee unless you
    > are in a square threatened by an opponent ....

    The D&D FAQ disagrees with you.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Alien mind control rays made decalod85 <decalod85@comcast.net> write:
    > Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    >> Why? You don't need to make an actual attack to get the benefit of
    >> Combat Expertise; merely spending an attack action is sufficient.
    >> Adding a mouse to the attack doesn't make it unreasonable. RTFAQ.
    >
    > Let's say you are a rogue that has just encountered 5 monks with
    > repeating crossbows at a range of 85 feet. On your initiative, you
    > start slapping your mouse around. I would not allow the combat
    > expertise bonus because you are not in melee.

    'slapping your mouse'. is that what you kids are calling it these
    days? okay, if that's how you want to go...

    > According to 3.5 PHB, you need to use the full attack or attack action
    > "in melee" to use combat expertise. You aren't in melee unless you are
    > in a square threatened by an opponent. I would never rule that a mouse
    > in your hand threatens you.

    sure, that's because you're a guy.

    > Now that I have eliminated all the silly cases, on what basis can you
    > claim to be taking an attack action if you do not make a single attack
    > (whether a melee or ranged attack, or a special attack)?

    pretend you're facing an invisible melee combatant. because, you know,
    Just In Case.

    --
    \^\ // drow@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
    \ // - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    // \ X-Windows: It could be worse... but it'll take time.
    // \_\ -- Dude from DPAK
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Lorenz Lang wrote:
    > I try an explanation:
    > CE needs someone to work with. You use your melee opponent as a human
    > shield positioning yourself between you and the ranged attacker.

    Credit for a nice try :-) , but then what's the rationale fore CE
    working when you are just fighting one opponent? It also messes with
    the cover rules.

    > If you're alone, you can't do the trick...

    <pubescent giggling> usually, "wielding my two-hander" is a solo act
    :-)

    > On second thought (and leaving the territory of the RAW)
    > I lean towards not granting CE boni to AC vs. ranged attacks at all.

    Not an unreasonable house rule, and (without having the benefit of the
    FAQ) perhaps this was the intended effect of the feat. This makes it
    somewhat similar to Power Attack but with a fixed, rather than
    selected, benefit.
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jasin Zujovic wrote:
    > decalod85@comcast.net wrote:
    > > 3.5 PHB, Page 95, Combat Expertise: "When you use the attack
    action or
    > > the full attack action in melee,"
    > >
    > > 3.0 PHB, Page 82, Expertise: "When you use the attack action or
    full
    > > attack action in melee,"
    >
    > I think the point of that sentence isn't that you have to be
    > threatened/threaten someone, just that you need to take a melee
    > attack/full attack action, and not a ranged attack/full attack
    action.

    The feat description does not say "melee attacks", it says "attacks in
    melee". You can make a ranged attack while in melee, even if you pay
    for it with an AOO, but according to the text of the feat, you should
    get your Combat Expertise bonus/penalty.

    > Just standing there (taking a melee attack action and not actually
    > attacking anything) for +5 AC is fine.

    Not if you read the feat description as it is written. The key words
    here are "in melee". I have seen nothing in the PHB, DMG, Sage Advice,
    or the D&D FAQ to refute this specifically.

    > Seriously, think about it. You're saying that it's easier to hit
    someone
    > with a bow if he's just standing there trying to dodge you, than if
    he's
    > also fighting your ally in melee (since then, he can use Expertise).
    A
    > bit silly, innit?

    Not really. The point of Combat Expertise is the grant you a bonus
    when you are in melee with a threatening opponent. You can't get the
    reward without taking the risk (How can you have any pudding if you
    don't eat your meat?). If you toss yourself into the fray, and pull
    your punches a little in a specific way that you were trained to do,
    you are safer than if you are standing alone, off to the side.
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Fine. I attack the darkness!

    - Justisaur
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    <laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote in message
    news:1114054259.084650.243600@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >
    > Some Guy wrote:
    > > decalod85 wrote:
    > > > drow wrote:
    > > >
    > > >>Alien mind control rays made decalod85 <decalod85@comcast.net>
    > write:
    > > >>
    > > >>>Let's say you are a rogue that has just encountered 5 monks with
    > > >>>repeating crossbows at a range of 85 feet. On your initiative,
    > you
    > > >>>start slapping your mouse around. I would not allow the combat
    > > >>>expertise bonus because you are not in melee.
    > > >>
    > > >>'slapping your mouse'. is that what you kids are calling it these
    > > >>days? okay, if that's how you want to go...
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > I prefer "polishing the greatsword", if you don't mind...
    > >
    > > Or, perhaps, "cauterizing the hydra's stump."
    >
    > I just "expend another charge from my staff".

    Uncork the decanter of endless semen!
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    > Some Guy wrote:
    >> decalod85 wrote:
    >>> drow wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Alien mind control rays made decalod85 <decalod85@comcast.net>
    >>>> write:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Let's say you are a rogue that has just encountered 5 monks with
    >>>>> repeating crossbows at a range of 85 feet. On your initiative,
    >>>>> you start slapping your mouse around. I would not allow the
    >>>>> combat expertise bonus because you are not in melee.
    >>>>
    >>>> 'slapping your mouse'. is that what you kids are calling it these
    >>>> days? okay, if that's how you want to go...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I prefer "polishing the greatsword", if you don't mind...
    >>
    >> Or, perhaps, "cauterizing the hydra's stump."
    >
    > I just "expend another charge from my staff".

    Or "extending my Rod of Lordly Might".

    --
    Mark.
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    decalod85@comcast.net wrote:

    > > > Let's say you are a rogue that has just encountered 5 monks with
    > > > repeating crossbows at a range of 85 feet. On your initiative, you
    > > > start slapping your mouse around. I would not allow the combat
    > > > expertise bonus because you are not in melee.
    > >
    > > The mouse is unnecessary.
    >
    > Who cares about the mouse? I was using that to illustrate how
    > ludicrous the assertion was. If you are 85 feet from your opponents,
    > you are not "in melee".
    >
    > 3.5 PHB, Page 95, Combat Expertise: "When you use the attack action or
    > the full attack action in melee,"
    >
    > 3.0 PHB, Page 82, Expertise: "When you use the attack action or full
    > attack action in melee,"

    I think the point of that sentence isn't that you have to be
    threatened/threaten someone, just that you need to take a melee
    attack/full attack action, and not a ranged attack/full attack action.

    IOW, no longbow full attacks a -5 for +5 AC.

    Just standing there (taking a melee attack action and not actually
    attacking anything) for +5 AC is fine.

    Seriously, think about it. You're saying that it's easier to hit someone
    with a bow if he's just standing there trying to dodge you, than if he's
    also fighting your ally in melee (since then, he can use Expertise). A
    bit silly, innit?


    --
    Jasin Zujovic
    jzujovic@inet.hr
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    ranpoirier@cox.net wrote:

    > Or, at least, one little mousie.
    >
    > If you have Combat Expertise, who not always carry around a little
    > mousie so you can "attack" it and get +5 to your AC?
    >
    > Better yet, why not make it a familiar and then just punch, pummel, or
    > kick it for temporary damage whenever you need to do this trick? It
    > won't die so you can do it again and again...

    Quite a piece of work, Ron. :) A reasonable idea in an utterly idiotic
    format, and you've had two different people saying "what an idiotic
    idea!" already...

    Is there a special name for this kind of troll?


    --
    Jasin Zujovic
    jzujovic@inet.hr
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jasin Zujovic wrote:
    > ranpoirier@cox.net wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Or, at least, one little mousie.
    >>
    >>If you have Combat Expertise, who not always carry around a little
    >>mousie so you can "attack" it and get +5 to your AC?
    >>
    >>Better yet, why not make it a familiar and then just punch, pummel, or
    >>kick it for temporary damage whenever you need to do this trick? It
    >>won't die so you can do it again and again...
    >
    >
    > Quite a piece of work, Ron. :) A reasonable idea in an utterly idiotic
    > format, and you've had two different people saying "what an idiotic
    > idea!" already...
    >
    > Is there a special name for this kind of troll?

    "Genius"?
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:23:42 +0200, Jasin Zujovic wrote:

    > decalod85@comcast.net wrote:
    >
    >> > > Let's say you are a rogue that has just encountered 5 monks with
    >> > > repeating crossbows at a range of 85 feet. On your initiative, you
    >> > > start slapping your mouse around. I would not allow the combat
    >> > > expertise bonus because you are not in melee.
    >> >
    >> > The mouse is unnecessary.
    >>
    >> Who cares about the mouse? I was using that to illustrate how
    >> ludicrous the assertion was. If you are 85 feet from your opponents,
    >> you are not "in melee".
    >>
    >> 3.5 PHB, Page 95, Combat Expertise: "When you use the attack action or
    >> the full attack action in melee,"
    >>
    >> 3.0 PHB, Page 82, Expertise: "When you use the attack action or full
    >> attack action in melee,"
    >
    > I think the point of that sentence isn't that you have to be
    > threatened/threaten someone, just that you need to take a melee
    > attack/full attack action, and not a ranged attack/full attack action.
    >
    > IOW, no longbow full attacks a -5 for +5 AC.
    >
    > Just standing there (taking a melee attack action and not actually
    > attacking anything) for +5 AC is fine.
    >
    > Seriously, think about it. You're saying that it's easier to hit someone
    > with a bow if he's just standing there trying to dodge you, than if he's
    > also fighting your ally in melee (since then, he can use Expertise). A
    > bit silly, innit?

    I try an explanation:
    CE needs someone to work with. You use your melee opponent as a human
    shield positioning yourself between you and the ranged attacker.
    If you're alone, you can't do the trick...

    On second thought (and leaving the territory of the RAW)
    I lean towards not granting CE boni to AC vs. ranged attacks at all.

    LL
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    > That post has "featcrime" written all over it.
    >
    Yup. Despite Decalod's fairly reasonable arguments against, the FAQ's
    language is intended to "clarify" what is fairly unclear language in the
    SRD. The term "in melee" has no rules weight. IOW there is no definitive
    states described in the game where a given character is "in melee" or "not
    in melee". You can make a melee attack and you can get hit by a melee
    attack and you can even threaten ... but you cannot attack "in melee". Why
    did they word it that way? Who knows. They should have said:

    When a character takes an attack or full attack action and makes a melee
    attack ... (Note, you can certainly make melee attacks at the darkness --
    in other words, attack into a square hoping to hit an invisible enemy there)

    Or if they'd wanted Expertise not to apply to ranged attacks -- they
    could've easily just said, "bonus to AC vs melee attacks," or some such.

    Tsk tsk. Some unclear rule-writing leaked through... (it's not like they
    hadn't had experience "clarifying" the rule in 3.0 either!)

    Spinner
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "decalod85" <decalod85@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:1114089627.648132.109200@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >
    > Jasin Zujovic wrote:
    > > decalod85@comcast.net wrote:
    > > > 3.5 PHB, Page 95, Combat Expertise: "When you use the attack
    > action or
    > > > the full attack action in melee,"
    > > >
    > > > 3.0 PHB, Page 82, Expertise: "When you use the attack action or
    > full
    > > > attack action in melee,"
    > >
    > > I think the point of that sentence isn't that you have to be
    > > threatened/threaten someone, just that you need to take a melee
    > > attack/full attack action, and not a ranged attack/full attack
    > action.
    >
    > The feat description does not say "melee attacks", it says "attacks in
    > melee". You can make a ranged attack while in melee, even if you pay
    > for it with an AOO, but according to the text of the feat, you should
    > get your Combat Expertise bonus/penalty.

    It says nothing of the sort. "When you use the attack action or the full
    attack action in melee". The meaning is clear and your interpretation is
    nonsensical.

    > > Just standing there (taking a melee attack action and not actually
    > > attacking anything) for +5 AC is fine.
    >
    > Not if you read the feat description as it is written. The key words
    > here are "in melee". I have seen nothing in the PHB, DMG, Sage Advice,
    > or the D&D FAQ to refute this specifically.

    Why would any of those sources dispute something you've made up?

    > > Seriously, think about it. You're saying that it's easier to hit
    > someone
    > > with a bow if he's just standing there trying to dodge you, than if
    > he's
    > > also fighting your ally in melee (since then, he can use Expertise).
    > A
    > > bit silly, innit?
    >
    > Not really. The point of Combat Expertise is the grant you a bonus
    > when you are in melee with a threatening opponent. You can't get the
    > reward without taking the risk (How can you have any pudding if you
    > don't eat your meat?). If you toss yourself into the fray, and pull
    > your punches a little in a specific way that you were trained to do,
    > you are safer than if you are standing alone, off to the side.

    Conceptually the FAQ suggestion (although I don't remember it either)
    makes perfect sense. You aren't diverting your attention to aiming your
    ranged weapon, you are approaching cautiously in a "combat stance" (no
    other standard actions allowed, only a MEA). Your objections seem to be
    based entirely on personal prejudice rather than rule interpretation.

    Remember that the adjustments to your attack and armour class last until
    your *next turn* so even with a strict BTB interpretation it is already
    possible to attack and disengage from a foe and still recieve that bonus
    from archers shooting at you later in the round.
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 06:13:08 -0700, alordofchao wrote:

    >
    > Lorenz Lang wrote:
    >> I try an explanation:
    >> CE needs someone to work with. You use your melee opponent as a human
    >> shield positioning yourself between you and the ranged attacker.
    >
    > Credit for a nice try :-) ,

    Thanx.

    > but then what's the rationale fore CE
    > working when you are just fighting one opponent? It also messes with
    > the cover rules.

    In melee it's just fighting defensively and intelligently giving better
    boni than just 'fighting defensively'.

    >> If you're alone, you can't do the trick...
    >
    > <pubescent giggling> usually, "wielding my two-hander" is a solo act
    > :-)

    TMI *and* wrong sub-thread...
    ;-)

    >> On second thought (and leaving the territory of the RAW)
    >> I lean towards not granting CE boni to AC vs. ranged attacks at all.
    >
    > Not an unreasonable house rule, and (without having the benefit of the
    > FAQ) perhaps this was the intended effect of the feat. This makes it
    > somewhat similar to Power Attack but with a fixed, rather than
    > selected, benefit.

    I just reread the SRD. The feat description starts with:
    "When you use the attack action or the full attack action in melee,..."
    I agree, that it might be the intended effect,
    the feat only working against melee opponents...
    ....or I failed my reading comprehension check.

    LL
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    > decalod85 wrote:
    > > Who cares about the mouse? I was using that to illustrate how
    > > ludicrous the assertion was. If you are 85 feet from your
    opponents,
    > > you are not "in melee".
    >
    > The game does not, as far as I know, define "in melee." As far as I
    > care, attacking the empty square in front of you, just in case
    there's
    > an invisible foe there, is "in melee." As far as I care, merely
    wielding
    > a melee weapon is "in melee." That's as good a definition as yours.

    The 3.5 PHB has a nifty definition of "melee" as being in a threatend
    square. This thread is mixing 3.0 and 3.5, so I want to be clear.

    Also, look at the numerous references to "firing ranged weapons into
    melee". It means someone threatens your target. THEY ARE "IN MELEE".

    > > Disagrees with me about what? That you have to be in melee?
    >
    > Yes. You don't even need to actually attack anything, just take the
    > action.

    You can make a melee attack without being "in melee". A barbarian that
    hacks down a door with his axe is making "melee attacks".

    > > I read both the 3.0 and 3.5 PHB's.
    >
    > What does that have to do with what the FAQ says?

    The FAQ is supplemental. It only provides clarifications to what is
    unclear. I don't think you can find a reference in the FAQ that
    disputes the meaning of "in melee" in the feat text in the PHB.

    > > If you are just talking about whether or not there needs to be an
    > > attack, fine, I concede that the D&D FAQ backs you up. If you are
    > > trying to assert that you don't need to be in melee, you are quite
    > > wrong.
    >
    > Show me where the game defines "in melee," and you might have a leg
    to
    > stand on.

    See above, and I have two legs! :-)
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 20 Apr 2005 18:40:49 -0700, "decalod85" <decalod85@comcast.net>
    raised a finger to the sky and proclaimed:

    <snip>
    >repeating crossbows at a range of 85 feet. On your initiative, you
    >start slapping your mouse around.

    <snip>
    >in a square threatened by an opponent. I would never rule that a mouse
    >in your hand threatens you.

    <snip>
    >If you were really threatened, and you spank the mousie, I would rule
    >that all your opponents get an attack of opportunity since you have
    >made a Handle Animal skill check while in melee. :-)

    All your euphemisms are making me uncomfortable. Please stop.

    --
    Either way, I hate you Count Chocula, if I didn't already.
    - Drifter Bob, rec.games.frp.dnd
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Spinner wrote:
    > Yup. Despite Decalod's fairly reasonable arguments against, the
    FAQ's
    > language is intended to "clarify" what is fairly unclear language in
    the
    > SRD. The term "in melee" has no rules weight. IOW there is no
    definitive
    > states described in the game where a given character is "in melee" or
    "not
    > in melee".

    Where does it say that? I can find it in several places in 3.5 PHB and
    3.0 PHB, in reference to being adjacent and threatend by another
    individual.

    >From the 3.5 SRD:
    Precise Shot, Blind Fight, Combat expertise, Improved Trip: These
    feats all use the term "in melee" to describe the same situation.

    In Combat I, under Standard Actions, Shooting or Throwing into melee,
    "Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other
    and either threatens the other."

    In Combat II, under Tiny, Diminutive, and Fine Creatures: "They must
    enter an opponent's square to attack in melee."

    Bluff Skill: "Feinting in Combat: You can also use Bluff to mislead an
    opponent in melee combat" - here is a variation, but it means the
    same thing.

    Intimidate Skill: "You can intimidate only an opponent that you
    threaten in melee combat and that can see you."

    I would say the term has a great amount of rules weight.

    [other stuff snipped]
    >
    > Tsk tsk. Some unclear rule-writing leaked through... (it's not like
    they
    > hadn't had experience "clarifying" the rule in 3.0 either!)

    It really isn't that unclear, it's just spread out all over the place.
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Symbol wrote:
    >
    > It says nothing of the sort. "When you use the attack action or the
    full
    > attack action in melee". The meaning is clear and your interpretation
    is
    > nonsensical.

    "In melee" does not equal "making a melee attack". See other posts in
    this thread.

    > Why would any of those sources dispute something you've made up?

    That's ungenerous. I was paraphrasing, not inventing.

    > Conceptually the FAQ suggestion (although I don't remember it either)
    > makes perfect sense. You aren't diverting your attention to aiming
    your
    > ranged weapon, you are approaching cautiously in a "combat stance"
    (no
    > other standard actions allowed, only a MEA). Your objections seem to
    be
    > based entirely on personal prejudice rather than rule interpretation.

    I read the FAQ, and it states that you can declare a full attack or
    standard attack, but you don't actually have to make an attack. No one
    is disputing this. What it does not address is the term "in melee".
    In my book, that means you have to use other sources in the PHB to
    figure out what it means.

    > Remember that the adjustments to your attack and armour class last
    until
    > your *next turn* so even with a strict BTB interpretation it is
    already
    > possible to attack and disengage from a foe and still recieve that
    bonus
    > from archers shooting at you later in the round.

    Yup. The BTB interpretation leaves something to be desired.
  31. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Mere moments before death, Spinner hastily scrawled:
    >> That post has "featcrime" written all over it.
    >>
    >Yup. Despite Decalod's fairly reasonable arguments against, the FAQ's
    >language is intended to "clarify" what is fairly unclear language in the
    >SRD. The term "in melee" has no rules weight. IOW there is no definitive
    >states described in the game where a given character is "in melee" or "not
    >in melee". You can make a melee attack and you can get hit by a melee
    >attack and you can even threaten ... but you cannot attack "in melee". Why
    >did they word it that way? Who knows. They should have said:
    >
    >When a character takes an attack or full attack action and makes a melee
    >attack

    That wording would have been equally wrong, as you can certainly take
    an attack or full attack action and not actually make a melee attack.

    >... (Note, you can certainly make melee attacks at the darkness --
    >in other words, attack into a square hoping to hit an invisible enemy there)
    >
    >Or if they'd wanted Expertise not to apply to ranged attacks -- they
    >could've easily just said, "bonus to AC vs melee attacks," or some such.

    Therefore, since they didn't say that, they obviously did want CS to
    apply to ranged attacks.

    >Tsk tsk. Some unclear rule-writing leaked through... (it's not like they
    >hadn't had experience "clarifying" the rule in 3.0 either!)

    Looks plenty clear from here.


    Ed Chauvin IV

    --
    DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
    use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
    kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
    modifier G @ 11.

    "I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
    --Terry Austin
  32. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    decalod85 wrote:
    >>> Let's say you are a rogue that has just encountered 5 monks with
    >>> repeating crossbows at a range of 85 feet. On your initiative, you
    >>> start slapping your mouse around. I would not allow the combat
    >>> expertise bonus because you are not in melee.

    Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    >> The mouse is unnecessary.

    > Who cares about the mouse? I was using that to illustrate how
    > ludicrous the assertion was. If you are 85 feet from your opponents,
    > you are not "in melee".

    The game does not, as far as I know, define "in melee." As far as I
    care, attacking the empty square in front of you, just in case there's
    an invisible foe there, is "in melee." As far as I care, merely wielding
    a melee weapon is "in melee." That's as good a definition as yours.

    >>> According to 3.5 PHB, you need to use the full attack or attack
    >>> action "in melee" to use combat expertise. You aren't in melee
    >>> unless you are in a square threatened by an opponent ....

    >> The D&D FAQ disagrees with you.

    > Disagrees with me about what? That you have to be in melee?

    Yes. You don't even need to actually attack anything, just take the
    action.

    > I read both the 3.0 and 3.5 PHB's.

    What does that have to do with what the FAQ says?

    > The 3.0 faq says that you can take an attack action without taking all
    > (or any) of your attacks, in reference to Expertise.

    Exactly.

    > If you are just talking about whether or not there needs to be an
    > attack, fine, I concede that the D&D FAQ backs you up. If you are
    > trying to assert that you don't need to be in melee, you are quite
    > wrong.

    Show me where the game defines "in melee," and you might have a leg to
    stand on.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  33. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Mere moments before death, Bradd W. Szonye hastily scrawled:
    >decalod85 wrote:
    >>>> Let's say you are a rogue that has just encountered 5 monks with
    >>>> repeating crossbows at a range of 85 feet. On your initiative, you
    >>>> start slapping your mouse around. I would not allow the combat
    >>>> expertise bonus because you are not in melee.
    >
    >Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    >>> The mouse is unnecessary.
    >
    >> Who cares about the mouse? I was using that to illustrate how
    >> ludicrous the assertion was. If you are 85 feet from your opponents,
    >> you are not "in melee".
    >
    >The game does not, as far as I know, define "in melee."

    "Melee: Melee combat consists of physical blows exchanged by
    opponents close enough to threaten one another's space, as opposed to
    ranged combat." --PHB, p310

    Just throwing some wood on the fire.


    Ed Chauvin IV

    --
    DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
    use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
    kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
    modifier G @ 11.

    "I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
    --Terry Austin
  34. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Mark Blunden" <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> wrote in
    news:3cpcloF6n8rbfU1@individual.net:

    > laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    >> Some Guy wrote:
    >>> decalod85 wrote:
    >>>> drow wrote:
    >>>>> 'slapping your mouse'. is that what you kids are calling it these
    >>>>> days? okay, if that's how you want to go...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I prefer "polishing the greatsword", if you don't mind...
    >>>
    >>> Or, perhaps, "cauterizing the hydra's stump."
    >>
    >> I just "expend another charge from my staff".
    >
    > Or "extending my Rod of Lordly Might".


    Wait a minute, I know what's going on here. This is all a bunch of
    masturbation references, isn't it? You all should be ashamed....Now if
    you'll excuse me, my wand of Grease and I need some time alone.
  35. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    decalod85 wrote:
    > Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    >
    >>decalod85 wrote:
    >>
    >>>Who cares about the mouse? I was using that to illustrate how
    >>>ludicrous the assertion was. If you are 85 feet from your
    >
    > opponents,
    >
    >>>you are not "in melee".
    >>
    >>The game does not, as far as I know, define "in melee." As far as I
    >>care, attacking the empty square in front of you, just in case
    >
    > there's
    >
    >>an invisible foe there, is "in melee." As far as I care, merely
    >
    > wielding
    >
    >>a melee weapon is "in melee." That's as good a definition as yours.
    >
    >
    > The 3.5 PHB has a nifty definition of "melee" as being in a threatend
    > square. This thread is mixing 3.0 and 3.5, so I want to be clear.

    Not quite.

    PHB, page 140, "Shooting or Throwing Into Melee:"

    "Two Characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies and either
    threatens each other."

    Those qualifiers- "enemies" and "either threatens each other" are
    important. I looked this up after thinking about a couple of examples.


    --- Allies Fighting Side by Side ---

    Castor and Pollux are brothers who exemplify brotherly love. They've
    grown up together, and neither would think of betraying the other.
    However, there is a horde of zombies moving onto their position. They
    draw swords, standing side by side, and wait for the zombies to close in...

    Now , since the Castor and Pollux are standing side by side, they are
    each in each other's threatened squares. Yet they are clearly NOT in
    melee. The zombies aren't close enough for them to fight, and the
    brothers are not trying to attack each other. By common sense, the two
    are not in melee, nor should the rules allow them to be considered so.


    --- You Ain't No Threat! ---

    Thoron the Good is in a death duel with Mikael the Sadistic. Mikael
    uses his Sword of Sundering to destroy Thoron's weapon. Mikael then
    closes in on his defenseless opponent. All Thoron can do is duck and
    weave...

    In this example, Thoron no longer threatens any square. However Mikael
    is still lunging and swinging his sword at his opponent. He is both are
    clearly in melee, yet only Thoron is in a threatened square.


    So, it's important that the definition of "in melee" includes designated
    opponents and the possibility of only one being threatened by the other.

    Just thought I'd throw that out there. :-)

    -Tialan

    P.S. As I signed this letter, it occurred to me that the definition
    still doesn't cover a fist-fight between two characters without Improved
    Unarmed Strike. Wonder if that can be improved upon...
  36. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "decalod85" <decalod85@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:1114130981.717641.175050@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
    >
    > Symbol wrote:
    > >
    > > It says nothing of the sort. "When you use the attack action or the
    > full
    > > attack action in melee". The meaning is clear and your interpretation
    > is
    > > nonsensical.
    >
    > "In melee" does not equal "making a melee attack". See other posts in
    > this thread.

    Taking a melee attack action in melee is not the same as saying attacking
    in melee though. With a really generous reading you could come to the
    conclusion that the last bit is merely excluding attack actions with
    ranged weapons.

    > > Why would any of those sources dispute something you've made up?
    >
    > That's ungenerous. I was paraphrasing, not inventing.

    But your paraphrase was leading IMO.

    > > Conceptually the FAQ suggestion (although I don't remember it either)
    > > makes perfect sense. You aren't diverting your attention to aiming
    > your
    > > ranged weapon, you are approaching cautiously in a "combat stance"
    > (no
    > > other standard actions allowed, only a MEA). Your objections seem to
    > be
    > > based entirely on personal prejudice rather than rule interpretation.
    >
    > I read the FAQ,

    Yeah I've gone back and found it since the last post.

    > and it states that you can declare a full attack or
    > standard attack, but you don't actually have to make an attack. No one
    > is disputing this. What it does not address is the term "in melee".
    > In my book, that means you have to use other sources in the PHB to
    > figure out what it means.

    True. Personally (given that you can still benefit after disengaging from
    your opponents BTB) I'm going to define it as any time you declare an
    attack action without using a ranged weapon and not worry about it. I
    should have read the FAQ entry before though. I thought you were disputing
    something it had already explained. My apologies.
  37. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Porcus the Wombat wrote:
    > "Mark Blunden" <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> wrote in
    > news:3cpcloF6n8rbfU1@individual.net:
    >
    >
    >>laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    >>
    >>>Some Guy wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>decalod85 wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>drow wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>'slapping your mouse'. is that what you kids are calling it these
    >>>>>>days? okay, if that's how you want to go...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>I prefer "polishing the greatsword", if you don't mind...
    >>>>
    >>>>Or, perhaps, "cauterizing the hydra's stump."
    >>>
    >>>I just "expend another charge from my staff".
    >>
    >>Or "extending my Rod of Lordly Might".
    >
    >
    >
    > Wait a minute, I know what's going on here. This is all a bunch of
    > masturbation references, isn't it? You all should be ashamed....Now if
    > you'll excuse me, my wand of Grease and I need some time alone.
    >

    Did you "cast your Web spell"?
  38. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jasin Zujovic wrote:

    > ranpoirier@cox.net wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Or, at least, one little mousie.
    >>
    >>If you have Combat Expertise, who not always carry around a little
    >>mousie so you can "attack" it and get +5 to your AC?
    >>
    >>Better yet, why not make it a familiar and then just punch, pummel, or
    >>kick it for temporary damage whenever you need to do this trick? It
    >>won't die so you can do it again and again...
    >
    >
    > Quite a piece of work, Ron. :) A reasonable idea in an utterly idiotic
    > format, and you've had two different people saying "what an idiotic
    > idea!" already...
    >
    > Is there a special name for this kind of troll?

    How about Carl?

    - Ron ^*^
  39. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Spinner wrote:

    >>That post has "featcrime" written all over it.
    >>
    >
    > Yup. Despite Decalod's fairly reasonable arguments against, the FAQ's
    > language is intended to "clarify" what is fairly unclear language in the
    > SRD. The term "in melee" has no rules weight. IOW there is no definitive
    > states described in the game where a given character is "in melee" or "not
    > in melee". You can make a melee attack and you can get hit by a melee
    > attack and you can even threaten ... but you cannot attack "in melee". Why
    > did they word it that way? Who knows. They should have said:
    >
    > When a character takes an attack or full attack action and makes a melee
    > attack ... (Note, you can certainly make melee attacks at the darkness --
    > in other words, attack into a square hoping to hit an invisible enemy there)

    Oh-HO! Now THERE'S a clever little trick that will be showing up in our
    games pretty soon!

    I wonder how it'll get ruled?

    - Ron ^*^
  40. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    decalod85 wrote:
    > Let's say you are a rogue that has just encountered 5 monks with
    > repeating crossbows at a range of 85 feet. On your initiative, you
    > start slapping your mouse around.

    IYKWIM, AITD.

    --
    Justin Bacon
    triad3204@aol.com
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games