Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Fun With Psionic Defences

Tags:
  • Video Games
Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 5:27:15 PM

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

Hafiz al-Tahir, Human psychic warrior 5/war mind 10 (both from the Expanded
Psionics Handbook)

Feats: Cleave, Deflective Armour (RoS), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard
sword), Greater Heavy Armour Optimisation (RoS), Heavy Armour Optimisation
(RoS), Invest Armour (RoS), Power Attack, Psionic Meditation, Psionic Weapon,
Weapon Focus (bastard sword).

RoS = Races of Stone.

Powers: Burst, Defensive Precognition, Expansion, Metaphysical Weapon, Prevenom
Weapon (1st), Dimension Swap, Hustle, Strength Of My Enemy (2nd), Mental Barrier
(3rd), Energy Adaptation (4th), Catapsi (5th).

As you can tell, most of them are defensive or tactical in nature. This is the
aim:

He's wearing full plate and carrying a shield for 20 AC. Heavy Armour
Optimisation and Greater Heavy Armour Optimisation increase the armour bonus of
full plate to +10 (and, incidentally, reducing the armour check penalty to -3)
for 22 AC. Invest Armour allows Hafiz to expend his psionic focus (which, thanks
to Psionic Meditation, he can regain as a move action) for an additional +3 to
the armour bonus, for 25 AC. As an 8th-level war mind, Hafiz can activate his
Chain of Defensive Posture ability as a free action to gain a +4 insight bonus
to AC, for a total of 29. If need be, as an immediate action, Hafiz can boost
that AC to 33 (or higher, if augmented) by manifesting his Mental Barrier power
for a +4 (or higher) deflection bonus.

The two Heavy Armour Optimisations and Invest Armour *stack*, I think, because
neither is described as a bonus - all three use the phrase "increase your armour
bonus" rather than talking about being an enhancement bonus to Armour Class or
whatever. That 25 AC can be enhanced by magic to 30 (38 with all the tricks in
play).

Then, the topper. Deflective Armour causes your armour bonus and enhancement
bonuses to armour to apply *against touch attack* whenever you are psionically
focused. So this prevents the use of Invest Armour, but that's still a 27 touch
AC with +5 fullplate - and Mental Barrier combined with the Chain of Defensive
Posture can cause that to hit 35 or more.

Fun, anyway.

--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
understand?
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigec...
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatel...

Perge, scelus, mihi diem perficias.

Asatoma sat gamaya, tamasoma jyotir gamaya, mrityorma anritam gamaya.

More about : fun psionic defences

Anonymous
April 29, 2005 1:02:11 AM

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

mhacdebhandia@yahoo.invalid wrote:

> Hafiz al-Tahir, Human psychic warrior 5/war mind 10 (both from the Expanded
> Psionics Handbook)
>
> Feats: Cleave, Deflective Armour (RoS), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard
> sword), Greater Heavy Armour Optimisation (RoS), Heavy Armour Optimisation
> (RoS), Invest Armour (RoS), Power Attack, Psionic Meditation, Psionic Weapon,
> Weapon Focus (bastard sword).
>
> RoS = Races of Stone.
>
> Powers: Burst, Defensive Precognition, Expansion, Metaphysical Weapon, Prevenom
> Weapon (1st), Dimension Swap, Hustle, Strength Of My Enemy (2nd), Mental Barrier
> (3rd), Energy Adaptation (4th), Catapsi (5th).
>
> As you can tell, most of them are defensive or tactical in nature. This is the
> aim:
>
> He's wearing full plate and carrying a shield for 20 AC. Heavy Armour
> Optimisation and Greater Heavy Armour Optimisation increase the armour bonus of
> full plate to +10 (and, incidentally, reducing the armour check penalty to -3)
> for 22 AC. Invest Armour allows Hafiz to expend his psionic focus (which, thanks
> to Psionic Meditation, he can regain as a move action) for an additional +3 to
> the armour bonus, for 25 AC. As an 8th-level war mind, Hafiz can activate his
> Chain of Defensive Posture ability as a free action to gain a +4 insight bonus
> to AC, for a total of 29. If need be, as an immediate action, Hafiz can boost
> that AC to 33 (or higher, if augmented) by manifesting his Mental Barrier power
> for a +4 (or higher) deflection bonus.
>
> The two Heavy Armour Optimisations and Invest Armour *stack*, I think, because
> neither is described as a bonus - all three use the phrase "increase your armour
> bonus" rather than talking about being an enhancement bonus to Armour Class or
> whatever. That 25 AC can be enhanced by magic to 30 (38 with all the tricks in
> play).
>
> Then, the topper. Deflective Armour causes your armour bonus and enhancement
> bonuses to armour to apply *against touch attack* whenever you are psionically
> focused. So this prevents the use of Invest Armour, but that's still a 27 touch
> AC with +5 fullplate - and Mental Barrier combined with the Chain of Defensive
> Posture can cause that to hit 35 or more.
>
> Fun, anyway.

Weren't you more of a True Roleplayer type of guy before you started
playing with Hong...? :) 

But yes, fun.

Some random thoughts:

How come Hafiz has Psionic Weapon? Between needing to stay focused for
Deflective Armour, and expending your focus for Invest Armour, I don't
think he'll get much chance to use it. Or is it in preparation for Deep
Impact?

Psicrystal Containment (and Psicrystal Affinity, a prerequisite) might
be worth considering, even though it's two feats. It gives you another
focus to play with.

Defensive Strike and/or Karmic Strike fit the concept very well, but the
prerequisites might be a bit harsh.

How long does the Invest Armour benefit lasts? 1 round? 1 attack?


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 2:00:23 AM

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

Jasin Zujovic wrote:
>
> Weren't you more of a True Roleplayer type of guy before you started
> playing with Hong...? :) 

I don't know about that. I've always liked the mechanical side of the game just
as much as the story side. Hong's game *has* sharpened my abilities to the point
of usefulness, though. ;) 

> But yes, fun.
>
> Some random thoughts:
>
> How come Hafiz has Psionic Weapon? Between needing to stay focused for
> Deflective Armour, and expending your focus for Invest Armour, I don't
> think he'll get much chance to use it. Or is it in preparation for Deep
> Impact?

Well, as cool as having a massive AC is, it's not always necessary. Sometimes
you fight things where you'd rather kill them quickly, you know? It also helps
make up, I think, for the possibility that maximising the enhancement bonus on
his armour will leave less to spend on his weapon (one thing Hong's game has
taught me is that you really do need all the extra abilities like flight, save
boosts, speed boosts, et cetera).

Deep Impact is a possibility, but I figure he probably has other priorities.

> Psicrystal Containment (and Psicrystal Affinity, a prerequisite) might
> be worth considering, even though it's two feats. It gives you another
> focus to play with.
>
> Defensive Strike and/or Karmic Strike fit the concept very well, but the
> prerequisites might be a bit harsh.

Both of these are good ideas for the FUTAR, if I was actually playing Hafiz.

> How long does the Invest Armour benefit lasts? 1 round? 1 attack?

It does not actually say. However, its being an immediate action suggests that
it's a 1-round benefit - tactically I would view it as an option you'd take if
you were getting pounded on. In fights against other warrior-types, for
instance, you might as well forget about Deflective Armour, so either Psionic
Weapon or Invest Armour become useful depending on whether killing or not being
killed is more necessary.

I made this character with the war mind prestige class because I like it, but
the iron mind prestige class from Races of Stone would also be a viable option.

--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
understand?
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigec...
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatel...

Perge, scelus, mihi diem perficias.

Asatoma sat gamaya, tamasoma jyotir gamaya, mrityorma anritam gamaya.
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 3:26:46 AM

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

Christopher Adams <mhacdebhandia@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>Hafiz al-Tahir, Human psychic warrior 5/war mind 10 (both from the Expanded
>Psionics Handbook)
>
>Feats: Cleave, Deflective Armour (RoS), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard
>sword), Greater Heavy Armour Optimisation (RoS), Heavy Armour Optimisation
>(RoS), Invest Armour (RoS), Power Attack, Psionic Meditation, Psionic Weapon,
>Weapon Focus (bastard sword).
>
>RoS = Races of Stone.

Isn't there an "anti-Psionic" feat (Psionic Hole, is it?) that causes anyone
who strikes the character to lose their 'Focus? That could be a little
bit of bad news for this character.

You should get Great Cleave instead, and use the War Mind / Bag O' Rats
trick.

Donald
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 4:05:33 AM

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

Christopher Adams wrote:
> Hafiz al-Tahir, Human psychic warrior 5/war mind 10 (both from the
Expanded
> Psionics Handbook)
>
> Feats: Cleave, Deflective Armour (RoS), Exotic Weapon Proficiency
(bastard
> sword), Greater Heavy Armour Optimisation (RoS), Heavy Armour
Optimisation
> (RoS), Invest Armour (RoS), Power Attack, Psionic Meditation, Psionic
Weapon,
> Weapon Focus (bastard sword).
>
> RoS = Races of Stone.
>
> Powers: Burst, Defensive Precognition, Expansion, Metaphysical
Weapon, Prevenom
> Weapon (1st), Dimension Swap, Hustle, Strength Of My Enemy (2nd),
Mental Barrier
> (3rd), Energy Adaptation (4th), Catapsi (5th).
>
> As you can tell, most of them are defensive or tactical in nature.
This is the
> aim:
>
> He's wearing full plate and carrying a shield for 20 AC. Heavy Armour

> Optimisation and Greater Heavy Armour Optimisation increase the
armour bonus of
> full plate to +10 (and, incidentally, reducing the armour check
penalty to -3)
> for 22 AC. Invest Armour allows Hafiz to expend his psionic focus
(which, thanks
> to Psionic Meditation, he can regain as a move action) for an
additional +3 to
> the armour bonus, for 25 AC. As an 8th-level war mind, Hafiz can
activate his
> Chain of Defensive Posture ability as a free action to gain a +4
insight bonus
> to AC, for a total of 29. If need be, as an immediate action, Hafiz
can boost
> that AC to 33 (or higher, if augmented) by manifesting his Mental
Barrier power
> for a +4 (or higher) deflection bonus.
>
> The two Heavy Armour Optimisations and Invest Armour *stack*, I
think, because
> neither is described as a bonus - all three use the phrase "increase
your armour
> bonus" rather than talking about being an enhancement bonus to Armour
Class or
> whatever. That 25 AC can be enhanced by magic to 30 (38 with all the
tricks in
> play).
>
> Then, the topper. Deflective Armour causes your armour bonus and
enhancement
> bonuses to armour to apply *against touch attack* whenever you are
psionically
> focused. So this prevents the use of Invest Armour, but that's still
a 27 touch
> AC with +5 fullplate - and Mental Barrier combined with the Chain of
Defensive
> Posture can cause that to hit 35 or more.
>
> Fun, anyway.

Maybe this is just too obvious, but... instead of the UTTERLY HORRIBLE
Invest Armor feat, why didn't he just get Combat Expertise?

Laszlo
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 3:28:31 PM

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

mhacdebhandia@yahoo.invalid wrote:

> > But yes, fun.
> >
> > Some random thoughts:
> >
> > How come Hafiz has Psionic Weapon? Between needing to stay focused for
> > Deflective Armour, and expending your focus for Invest Armour, I don't
> > think he'll get much chance to use it. Or is it in preparation for Deep
> > Impact?
>
> Well, as cool as having a massive AC is, it's not always necessary. Sometimes
> you fight things where you'd rather kill them quickly, you know? It also helps
> make up, I think, for the possibility that maximising the enhancement bonus on
> his armour will leave less to spend on his weapon (one thing Hong's game has
> taught me is that you really do need all the extra abilities like flight, save
> boosts, speed boosts, et cetera).
>
> Deep Impact is a possibility, but I figure he probably has other priorities.

If I had both Psionic Weapon and Power Attack, I can't imagine many
things that'd be higher on my list than Deep Impact, even with a one-
handed weapon...

> > Psicrystal Containment (and Psicrystal Affinity, a prerequisite) might
> > be worth considering, even though it's two feats. It gives you another
> > focus to play with.
> >
> > Defensive Strike and/or Karmic Strike fit the concept very well, but the
> > prerequisites might be a bit harsh.
>
> Both of these are good ideas for the FUTAR, if I was actually playing Hafiz.

FUTAR?

> I made this character with the war mind prestige class because I like it,

War mind is cool class, and quite strong, I think, but I don't quite get
what the idea behind it supposed to be. It's a warrior who is psionic.
How is it different, conceptually, than psychic warrior?

Not that there's anything that wrong or surprising about a bit of
redundancy (just look at all the other PrCs) but it makes me wonder how
the designers even started thinking about it as a different class from
the Psw.

It has some specific sounding bits of flavour text (the Talariic Codex,
the ornate names of abilities); is it perhaps rooted in a setting I'm
not familiar with (such as Greyhawk)?

BTW, I just noticed that sweeping strike goes out of it's way to mention
it applies on all attacks (even though it's kind of silly to apply it to
AoOs...). Ph33r the surrounded war mind with Whirlwind Attack.

> but
> the iron mind prestige class from Races of Stone would also be a viable option.

I just checked iron mind, and it's pretty nice, and seems like a good
fit for the concept.

The picture is horrible, though. Besides being just ugly, it shows a
monk-like scantily clad dwarf chyk for a PrC that's all about being a
heavily armoured dwarf. Bleh.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 3:57:24 AM

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

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
>
> Maybe this is just too obvious, but... instead of the UTTERLY HORRIBLE
> Invest Armor feat, why didn't he just get Combat Expertise?

He's too dumb. I wouldn't ever give a warrior Intelligence enough to take Combat
Expertise unless I was intending to follow the feat tree which leads off it.

Invest Armour - I can see why you call it horrible, but as an immediate action
it seems pretty good. I've been in situations with other characters where I
would love to have been able to throw up +3 AC on my opponents' turn.

--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
understand?
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigec...
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatel...

Perge, scelus, mihi diem perficias.

Asatoma sat gamaya, tamasoma jyotir gamaya, mrityorma anritam gamaya.
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 8:50:05 AM

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

Christopher Adams wrote:
> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> >
> > Maybe this is just too obvious, but... instead of the UTTERLY
HORRIBLE
> > Invest Armor feat, why didn't he just get Combat Expertise?
>
> He's too dumb. I wouldn't ever give a warrior Intelligence enough to
take Combat
> Expertise unless I was intending to follow the feat tree which leads
off it.

Fair enough, but if you're going for a defensive build, that's a big
mistake. Combat Expertise (and Improved Combat Expertise) is _easily_
the best defensive feat for a warrior (assuming your DM lets you use it
when you don't actually have anyone to hit; some DMs can be weird about
this).

> Invest Armour - I can see why you call it horrible, but as an
immediate action
> it seems pretty good. I've been in situations with other characters
where I
> would love to have been able to throw up +3 AC on my opponents' turn.

But you lose psifocus! A PsyWar needs his psifocus for better stuff
than that. And even if you have Meditation, you just don't have move
actions to burn in combat.

When a high-level PsyWar blows his psifocus, it better be for something
_impressive_. +3 AC for what I assume is a single round (strangely
enough, the feat doesn't say) does not qualify.

Laszlo
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 3:28:09 AM

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

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> Christopher Adams wrote:
>> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
>>>
>>> Maybe this is just too obvious, but... instead of the UTTERLY HORRIBLE
>>> Invest Armor feat, why didn't he just get Combat Expertise?
>>
>> He's too dumb. I wouldn't ever give a warrior Intelligence enough to
>> take Combat Expertise unless I was intending to follow the feat tree
>> which leads off it.
>
> Fair enough, but if you're going for a defensive build, that's a big
> mistake. Combat Expertise (and Improved Combat Expertise) is _easily_
> the best defensive feat for a warrior (assuming your DM lets you use it
> when you don't actually have anyone to hit; some DMs can be weird about
> this).

Uh, me included. The text of the feat is explicit: "When you use the attack
action or the full attack action in melee". You can't use either of those
actions if there's nothing to attack, and I'm hard-pressed to see how anyone can
argue otherwise.

> When a high-level PsyWar blows his psifocus, it better be for something
> _impressive_. +3 AC for what I assume is a single round (strangely
> enough, the feat doesn't say) does not qualify.

It's interesting that it fails to say, isn't it? Wizards of the Coast haven't
released errata for Races of Stone yet.

Suffice to say that I don't think *this* character has that much else to use his
psionic focus on - the only advantage he gains from it is armour and enhancement
bonuses to touch AC. If he's not throwing it around for Psionic Weapon, and he's
not fighting opponents with touch attacks, I think it's a pretty reasonable feat
to be activating. But as I say, I've played in a lot of games where +3 AC is
nothing to sneeze at in the right fight.

--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
understand?
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigec...
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatel...

Perge, scelus, mihi diem perficias.

Asatoma sat gamaya, tamasoma jyotir gamaya, mrityorma anritam gamaya.
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 5:45:04 AM

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

Jasin Zujovic wrote:
> mhacdebhandia@yahoo.invalid wrote:
>
> > >>> Maybe this is just too obvious, but... instead of the UTTERLY
HORRIBLE
> > >>> Invest Armor feat, why didn't he just get Combat Expertise?
> > >>
> > >> He's too dumb. I wouldn't ever give a warrior Intelligence
enough to
> > >> take Combat Expertise unless I was intending to follow the feat
tree
> > >> which leads off it.
> > >
> > > Fair enough, but if you're going for a defensive build, that's a
big
> > > mistake. Combat Expertise (and Improved Combat Expertise) is
_easily_
> > > the best defensive feat for a warrior (assuming your DM lets you
use it
> > > when you don't actually have anyone to hit; some DMs can be weird
about
> > > this).
> >
> > Uh, me included. The text of the feat is explicit: "When you use
the attack
> > action or the full attack action in melee". You can't use either of
those
> > actions if there's nothing to attack, and I'm hard-pressed to see
how anyone can
> > argue otherwise.
>
> Oh, come on!
>
> Arguing from the letter, what about when you know there's an
invisible
> opponent nearby and you attack a random square? Can you use Combat
> Expertise then? What about when there might be an invisible opponent
> nearby? What about when you're almost certain there isn't anyone
there,
> but... y'know, it could happen?

Also, what about Sundering an item? What about Sundering an unattended
item? What about Sundering the ground, or your pet rock?

Not allowing Combat Expertise outside of "melee" simply makes for
stupid situations.

"Hey, dude, these archers are sniping at us. Quick, let's punch each
other in the face to improve our AC!"

Another classic one is the horseman stabbing his own horse
(nonlethally) to get the bonus. I've actually done this, just to
convince a DM that he was being a dimwit.

> Arguing from the spirit, I'd say the intent is that you gain +X to AC

> for -X to any and all attacks you might take that round, and no
cheating
> with spell touch attacks or ranged attacks either.

Well, stricter than that; I'd say using Combat Expertise uses up a
standard action... but gives a free standard action, that can only be
used for attacking.

Laszlo
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 1:59:41 PM

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

mhacdebhandia@yahoo.invalid wrote:

> >>> Maybe this is just too obvious, but... instead of the UTTERLY HORRIBLE
> >>> Invest Armor feat, why didn't he just get Combat Expertise?
> >>
> >> He's too dumb. I wouldn't ever give a warrior Intelligence enough to
> >> take Combat Expertise unless I was intending to follow the feat tree
> >> which leads off it.
> >
> > Fair enough, but if you're going for a defensive build, that's a big
> > mistake. Combat Expertise (and Improved Combat Expertise) is _easily_
> > the best defensive feat for a warrior (assuming your DM lets you use it
> > when you don't actually have anyone to hit; some DMs can be weird about
> > this).
>
> Uh, me included. The text of the feat is explicit: "When you use the attack
> action or the full attack action in melee". You can't use either of those
> actions if there's nothing to attack, and I'm hard-pressed to see how anyone can
> argue otherwise.

Oh, come on!

Arguing from the letter, what about when you know there's an invisible
opponent nearby and you attack a random square? Can you use Combat
Expertise then? What about when there might be an invisible opponent
nearby? What about when you're almost certain there isn't anyone there,
but... y'know, it could happen?

Arguing from the spirit, I'd say the intent is that you gain +X to AC
for -X to any and all attacks you might take that round, and no cheating
with spell touch attacks or ranged attacks either. So allowing it
without anybody there to actually attack still seems fine to me.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 1:59:42 PM

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

Jasin Zujovic wrote:
> mhacdebhandia@yahoo.invalid wrote:
>
>>
>> Uh, me included. The text of the feat is explicit: "When you use the
>> attack action or the full attack action in melee". You can't use either
>> of those actions if there's nothing to attack, and I'm hard-pressed to
>> see how anyone can argue otherwise.
>
> Oh, come on!
>
> Arguing from the letter, what about when you know there's an invisible
> opponent nearby and you attack a random square? Can you use Combat
> Expertise then? What about when there might be an invisible opponent
> nearby? What about when you're almost certain there isn't anyone there,
> but... y'know, it could happen?
>
> Arguing from the spirit, I'd say the intent is that you gain +X to AC
> for -X to any and all attacks you might take that round, and no cheating
> with spell touch attacks or ranged attacks either. So allowing it
> without anybody there to actually attack still seems fine to me.

I can't agree. If you have no target, you can't take the attack or full attack
actions. That's just common sense.

Now, in the case of an invisible opponent you know is there, you are *trying* to
hit them. You swing your weapon at the square you think they're in with enough
force that, if you're right, it would be a real attack. You can argue that you
can behave in exactly the same fashion when you're only pretending there's
someone there, and you're probably right.

I would rule that if you cannot see your opponent and respond to their
movements, you can't use Combat Expertise. It represents a cautious engagement
of the enemy which relies upon the ability to react to their attacks - as does
fighting defensively - and I would rule, as a DM, that you can use neither
Combat Expertise nor fighting defensively in that situation. Even if you know
the invisible opponent is there. Your two options are "attack" or "total
defense". Or, you know, "stand there and die".

But that's me. I don't agree with your interpretation of the spirit of the feat.

--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
understand?
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigec...
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatel...

Perge, scelus, mihi diem perficias.

Asatoma sat gamaya, tamasoma jyotir gamaya, mrityorma anritam gamaya.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 3:54:09 AM

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

mhacdebhandia@yahoo.invalid wrote:

> >> Uh, me included. The text of the feat is explicit: "When you use the
> >> attack action or the full attack action in melee". You can't use either
> >> of those actions if there's nothing to attack, and I'm hard-pressed to
> >> see how anyone can argue otherwise.
> >
> > Oh, come on!
> >
> > Arguing from the letter, what about when you know there's an invisible
> > opponent nearby and you attack a random square? Can you use Combat
> > Expertise then? What about when there might be an invisible opponent
> > nearby? What about when you're almost certain there isn't anyone there,
> > but... y'know, it could happen?
> >
> > Arguing from the spirit, I'd say the intent is that you gain +X to AC
> > for -X to any and all attacks you might take that round, and no cheating
> > with spell touch attacks or ranged attacks either. So allowing it
> > without anybody there to actually attack still seems fine to me.
>
> I can't agree. If you have no target, you can't take the attack or full attack
> actions. That's just common sense.
>
> Now, in the case of an invisible opponent you know is there, you are *trying* to
> hit them. You swing your weapon at the square you think they're in with enough
> force that, if you're right, it would be a real attack. You can argue that you
> can behave in exactly the same fashion when you're only pretending there's
> someone there, and you're probably right.

OK...

> I would rule that if you cannot see your opponent and respond to their
> movements, you can't use Combat Expertise. It represents a cautious engagement
> of the enemy which relies upon the ability to react to their attacks - as does
> fighting defensively - and I would rule, as a DM, that you can use neither
> Combat Expertise nor fighting defensively in that situation. Even if you know
> the invisible opponent is there. Your two options are "attack" or "total
> defense". Or, you know, "stand there and die".

In fact, you're right: generally, Combat Expertise doesn't help against
invisible enemies, since it grants a dodge bonus, and dodge bonuses
don't apply if you're denied your Dex to AC.

But I'd still allow the use of Combat Expertise against invisible
opponents, or nothing at all, since in my mind it's not so much about
defending from that one opponent. After all, it grants the bonus against
everyone, right? Even archers shooting at you from 100 ft. away. Even
the opponent's ally who's on your other side, flanking you. Isn't it a
bit strange for a character with Combat Expertise to better be able to
defend from opponent B while attacking opponent A, than when he's just
trying to defend from opponent B?

IMO, Combat Expertise is just paying more attention to defense than
offense, so I think disallowing it when you don't need to pay attention
to offense at all (such as when there is nothing to attack) is really
really weird.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 4:57:55 AM

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

Jasin Zujovic wrote:
>
> IMO, Combat Expertise is just paying more attention to defense than
> offense, so I think disallowing it when you don't need to pay attention
> to offense at all (such as when there is nothing to attack) is really
> really weird.

Weird or not, it's how it's written. Changing it is fine, but it would be
anyway. ;) 

--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
understand?
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigec...
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatel...

Perge, scelus, mihi diem perficias.

Asatoma sat gamaya, tamasoma jyotir gamaya, mrityorma anritam gamaya.
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 11:13:50 PM

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

Jasin Zujovic wrote:
>> Arguing from the spirit, I'd say the intent is that you gain +X to AC
>> for -X to any and all attacks you might take that round, and no
>> cheating with spell touch attacks or ranged attacks either. So
>> allowing it without anybody there to actually attack still seems fine
>> to me.

Christopher Adams wrote:
> I can't agree. If you have no target, you can't take the attack or
> full attack actions. That's just common sense.

But the D&D FAQ states that you /don't/ actually need to attack somebody
to take the attack action. You can take the action and then waste the
actual attack.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 2:02:21 AM

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

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>
> But the D&D FAQ states that you /don't/ actually need to attack somebody
> to take the attack action. You can take the action and then waste the
> actual attack.

I think that's crazy. Actually, to put it more finely:

I think if you have someone to attack, you can take the attack action whether or
not you intend to actually strike them. But if there's no-one there, you can't.
Especially in the case of fighting defensively and Combat Expertise, I would
argue that there has to be someone there from whom you are intelligently
defending yourself.

But that's my ruling, because I'm more sensible than the guy who wrote the FAQ.
;) 

--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
understand?
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigec...
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatel...

Perge, scelus, mihi diem perficias.

Asatoma sat gamaya, tamasoma jyotir gamaya, mrityorma anritam gamaya.
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 2:31:49 AM

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

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> But the D&D FAQ states that you /don't/ actually need to attack
>> somebody to take the attack action. You can take the action and then
>> waste the actual attack.

Christopher Adams wrote:
> I think that's crazy.

But it's exactly what happens when you attack an empty square because
you mistakenly think there's somebody in it.

> Actually, to put it more finely:
>
> I think if you have someone to attack, you can take the attack action
> whether or not you intend to actually strike them. But if there's
> no-one there, you can't.

What if you think there's somebody there, but you're incorrect?

> Especially in the case of fighting defensively and Combat Expertise, I
> would argue that there has to be someone there from whom you are
> intelligently defending yourself.

If there's somebody there, you get an AC bonus versus ranged attackers,
even if you're bracketed by the two foes (and therefore not using the
other guy as cover).

If you get in a fistfight with your friend, you get an AC bonus versus
ranged attackers, even though you're not seriously in danger.

If I understand you correctly, you'd even get an AC bonus if you
incorrectly believed that there's an invisible foe nearby.

How do you justify the loss of the AC bonus in the one situation where
you're not distracted by real or imagined foes?

I think /that's/ crazy.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 5:58:09 AM

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

Christopher Adams wrote:
> You can't use Combat Expertise against an invisible opponent, period -
> it's a dodge bonus to AC, which you don't get when fighting an
> invisible someone.

The dodge bonus won't apply to the invisible foe, but that doesn't mean
that you can't use the feat or that you don't get the dodge bonus. For
example, suppose that you're attacked by two foes: one visible, and one
invisible. If you attack the invisible foe with Combat Expertise, you
should still get your AC bonus against the other guy.

> I don't think it's sensible to make Combat Expertise available only
> while in melee but allow its AC bonus to apply to ranged attacks - I
> would either rule that it can be used, period, when you're being
> attacked at any range ....

And that's exactly how I interpret it: You must spend an attack action
(regardless of whether you actually use it), and then you get the dodge
bonus.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 3:33:55 PM

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

On Tue, 03 May 2005 22:31:49 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
<bradd+news@szonye.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> How do you justify the loss of the AC bonus in the one situation where
> you're not distracted by real or imagined foes?
>
> I think /that's/ crazy.

It's also easily worked around - "I attack the darkness!" More
seriously, just attack the floor you're standing on.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 4:42:03 PM

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

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>
> The dodge bonus won't apply to the invisible foe, but that doesn't mean
> that you can't use the feat or that you don't get the dodge bonus. For
> example, suppose that you're attacked by two foes: one visible, and one
> invisible. If you attack the invisible foe with Combat Expertise, you
> should still get your AC bonus against the other guy.

I don't think an invisible opponent can be a valid target for Combat Expertise -
don't pretend that the attack penalty and the dodge bonus to AC are unrelated
effects. You can't dodge an invisible opponent, so you can't attack him using
Combat Expertise.

>> I don't think it's sensible to make Combat Expertise available only
>> while in melee but allow its AC bonus to apply to ranged attacks - I
>> would either rule that it can be used, period, when you're being
>> attacked at any range ....
>
> And that's exactly how I interpret it: You must spend an attack action
> (regardless of whether you actually use it), and then you get the dodge
> bonus.

I don't think you can ever "spend" an attack action in the way you suggest. I
think the very idea is ridiculous - and you can't get the dodge bonus if you
can't detect your opponent.

--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
understand?
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigec...
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatel...

Perge, scelus, mihi diem perficias.

Asatoma sat gamaya, tamasoma jyotir gamaya, mrityorma anritam gamaya.
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 1:34:25 AM

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

Symbol wrote:
>
> Except that with the blind fighting feat you *can* use Dex bonuses
> against invisible foes. Doesn't make you any better at detecting them
> though, that's a function of spot and listen (and guesswork). You
> certainly don't need to have them pinpointed to use the feat.

Well, a character with Blind-Fighting could use Combat Expertise against an
invisible opponent, then.

> Besides you are only ever denied dex against the invisible opponent (who
> may or may not be there). Not anybody else and therefore CE would still
> apply.

Okay, let me be very clear.

If you have an invisible opponent and a visible opponent threatening you, and
you don't attempt to attack the invisible opponent, Combat Expertise your heart
out.

If you split your attacks between the invisible and the visible opponent, Combat
Expertise your heart out. The dodge bonus to AC won't apply against the
invisible opponent, though the penalty to attack rolls will be assessed against
them.

If you attack only the invisible opponent, I don't think you should be able to
use Combat Expertise. I think it relies upon an engagement of enemies whose
attacks you can predict - if you don't engage the visible opponent, you can't
specifically react to their movements.

(This last point is something I'm willing to be flexible on, but I'm leaning
towards rewriting Combat Expertise anyway.)

All this nonsense about spending attack actions but not making an attack is just
that.

--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
understand?
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigec...
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatel...

Perge, scelus, mihi diem perficias.

Asatoma sat gamaya, tamasoma jyotir gamaya, mrityorma anritam gamaya.
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 3:18:05 AM

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

Christopher Adams <mhacdebhandia@yahoo.invalid> wrote:
> If you have an invisible opponent and a visible opponent threatening
> you, and you don't attempt to attack the invisible opponent, Combat
> Expertise your heart out.
>
> If you split your attacks between the invisible and the visible
> opponent, Combat Expertise your heart out. The dodge bonus to AC won't
> apply against the invisible opponent, though the penalty to attack
> rolls will be assessed against them.
>
> If you attack only the invisible opponent, I don't think you should be
> able to use Combat Expertise.

But that directly contradicts the feat description. You're in melee, so
you should be able to get the AC bonus.

> All this nonsense about spending attack actions but not making an
> attack is just that.

If you don't allow it, you either end up contradicting the rules (as
above) or creating silly situations. In contrast, by allowing characters
to burn an attack action, the only "silliness" is at the meta-game
level.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 3:18:06 AM

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

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> Christopher Adams wrote:
> >
> > All this nonsense about spending attack actions but not
> > making an attack is just that.
>
> If you don't allow it, you either end up contradicting
> the rules (as above) or creating silly situations. In
> contrast, by allowing characters to burn an attack
> action, the only "silliness" is at the meta-game level.

Indeed. If it would make him happier, he could always call Combat
Expertise (and Fighting Defensively, for that matter) "a full-round
action that can be combined with an attack action and a
move-equivalent or move action". :D 

Seems a lot simpler to me to say "must use an attack action", with the
attack action very obviously not inherently requiring an attack.
"May" <> "Must".

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 2:59:19 PM

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

On Wed, 04 May 2005 12:42:03 GMT, "Christopher Adams"
<mhacdebhandia@yahoo.invalid> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> >
> > The dodge bonus won't apply to the invisible foe, but that doesn't mean
> > that you can't use the feat or that you don't get the dodge bonus. For
> > example, suppose that you're attacked by two foes: one visible, and one
> > invisible. If you attack the invisible foe with Combat Expertise, you
> > should still get your AC bonus against the other guy.
>
> I don't think an invisible opponent can be a valid target for Combat Expertise -
> don't pretend that the attack penalty and the dodge bonus to AC are unrelated
> effects. You can't dodge an invisible opponent, so you can't attack him using
> Combat Expertise.

The bonus Combat Expertise gives applies vs all attacks that don't
ignore dodge bonuses to AC. That being the case I see no reason why
you can't attack an invisible foe and apply Combat Expertise. All
it'll do vs the invisible guy is lower your hit chance, but it will
help you vs his friends.

> I don't think you can ever "spend" an attack action in the way you suggest. I
> think the very idea is ridiculous - and you can't get the dodge bonus if you
> can't detect your opponent.

I think it's more that your dodge bonus doesn't apply, than you don't
get it - the bonus is still there, but it doesn't do anything for you.
This could be relevant if the invisible opponent becomes visible
part-way through their turn (by full-attacking, for example - assuming
you so interpret the rules).


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 3:00:28 PM

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

On Wed, 04 May 2005 21:34:25 GMT, "Christopher Adams"
<mhacdebhandia@yahoo.invalid> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> All this nonsense about spending attack actions but not making an attack is just
> that.

"I attack the floor"


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 3:00:29 PM

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

Rupert Boleyn wrote:
> Christopher Adams carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>> All this nonsense about spending attack actions but not making an
>> attack is just that.
>
> "I attack the floor"

If anyone has ever officially ruled that it's legal, I think they're moronic.

--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
understand?
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigec...
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatel...

Perge, scelus, mihi diem perficias.

Asatoma sat gamaya, tamasoma jyotir gamaya, mrityorma anritam gamaya.
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 3:08:43 PM

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

"Christopher Adams" <mhacdebhandia@yahoo.invalid> wrote in message
news:Bdbee.2952$31.235@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Symbol wrote:
> >
> > Except that with the blind fighting feat you *can* use Dex bonuses
> > against invisible foes. Doesn't make you any better at detecting them
> > though, that's a function of spot and listen (and guesswork). You
> > certainly don't need to have them pinpointed to use the feat.
>
> Well, a character with Blind-Fighting could use Combat Expertise against
an
> invisible opponent, then.

Despite attacking an empty square?
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 4:22:24 PM

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

To the extent that expertise in combat allows you to
predict what an invisible opponent is likely to do, it
should provide some bonus, though probably not as
much of one as for a visible opponent.

Of course it would help more if the invisible
opponent's position was given away somehow, e.g.
by noises, dust kicked up from the ground, etc.
Unless he's standing still or moving slowly, there's
likely to be some sound.
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 11:45:13 PM

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

Time to step up the meds; I could have sworn Christopher Adams just
said...
> If you attack only the invisible opponent, I don't think you should be able to
> use Combat Expertise. I think it relies upon an engagement of enemies whose
> attacks you can predict - if you don't engage the visible opponent, you can't
> specifically react to their movements.

But the bonus, as several people have noted already, applies to
everyone, not just whomever you're attacking.

I completely fail to see what you find so absurd about burning your
standard action just to use CE. I can only think that you're reading a
significant amount of specifics into the very abstract combat system
that simply aren't there - a conclusion the above quote strongly
reinforces. While the terms used to describe it at the metagame level
are a bit odd, I can see nothing particularly strange about such an
action from the game-world point of view.
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 12:31:25 PM

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

Jeff Heikkinen wrote:
>
> I completely fail to see what you find so absurd about burning your
> standard action just to use CE.

Because I think the idea of "burning" a standard action is, on the face of it,
ludicrous. You're not just "expending an attack action", you're *making an
attack*.

On the other hand, people believe crazy things about Combat Expertise. I saw
someone on the Wizards forums today seriously suggest that you can activate
Combat Expertise *and* fight defensively at the same time.

--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
understand?
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigec...
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatel...

Perge, scelus, mihi diem perficias.

Asatoma sat gamaya, tamasoma jyotir gamaya, mrityorma anritam gamaya.
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 2:41:56 PM

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

On Thu, 05 May 2005 08:26:09 GMT, "Christopher Adams"
<mhacdebhandia@yahoo.invalid> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Rupert Boleyn wrote:
> > Christopher Adams carved upon a tablet of ether:
> >
> >> All this nonsense about spending attack actions but not making an
> >> attack is just that.
> >
> > "I attack the floor"
>
> If anyone has ever officially ruled that it's legal, I think they're moronic.

You can attack the floor with thrown objects, so why not with a melee
weapon?


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 2:41:57 PM

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

Rupert Boleyn wrote:
>
> You can attack the floor with thrown objects, so why not with a melee
> weapon?

Because you're not actually attacking the floor, you're using a splash weapon.
It's different.

--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
understand?
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigec...
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatel...

Perge, scelus, mihi diem perficias.

Asatoma sat gamaya, tamasoma jyotir gamaya, mrityorma anritam gamaya.
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 2:56:45 PM

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

Christopher Adams wrote:
> On the other hand, people believe crazy things about Combat Expertise.
> I saw someone on the Wizards forums today seriously suggest that you
> can activate Combat Expertise *and* fight defensively at the same
> time.

That too is supported by the FAQ. It seems that your ideas on Combat
Expertise diverge from the official rulings on several points.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 8:36:49 PM

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

"Christopher Adams" <mhacdebhandia@yahoo.invalid> wrote in message
news:xXFee.4635$31.1510@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> On the other hand, people believe crazy things about Combat Expertise. I
saw
> someone on the Wizards forums today seriously suggest that you can
activate
> Combat Expertise *and* fight defensively at the same time.

<raises hand> You can.

Please make statements in public that reflect an understanding of the
rules.

-Michael
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 4:07:43 AM

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

On Fri, 06 May 2005 08:32:33 GMT, "Christopher Adams"
<mhacdebhandia@yahoo.invalid> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Rupert Boleyn wrote:
> >
> > You can attack the floor with thrown objects, so why not with a melee
> > weapon?
>
> Because you're not actually attacking the floor, you're using a splash weapon.
> It's different.

You attack a chunk of floor when you throw the weapon. Or how about
Fireball? You attack a small opening with that when you want to get it
past obstructions. If you're dead set on banning attacks on the floor,
there's always attacking pebbles, passing snails, and so on.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 4:10:31 AM

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

On Fri, 06 May 2005 08:31:25 GMT, "Christopher Adams"
<mhacdebhandia@yahoo.invalid> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> On the other hand, people believe crazy things about Combat Expertise. I saw
> someone on the Wizards forums today seriously suggest that you can activate
> Combat Expertise *and* fight defensively at the same time.

Of course, if you can't then taking Combat Expertise makes you worse
at defending if you BAB is under +2 - you could take the description
to mean that only people without CE can use Fighting Defensively.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 4:11:49 AM

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

On Fri, 06 May 2005 08:31:25 GMT, "Christopher Adams"
<mhacdebhandia@yahoo.invalid> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> On the other hand, people believe crazy things about Combat Expertise. I saw
> someone on the Wizards forums today seriously suggest that you can activate
> Combat Expertise *and* fight defensively at the same time.

I hope you're bineg ironic - read PH p.140.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 1:17:58 PM

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

Time to step up the meds; I could have sworn Christopher Adams just
said...
> Jeff Heikkinen wrote:

> On the other hand, people believe crazy things about Combat Expertise. I saw
> someone on the Wizards forums today seriously suggest that you can activate
> Combat Expertise *and* fight defensively at the same time.

That you find this (both book-legal and entirely reasonable) combination
"crazy" would seem to be final proof of my contention that you're
reading something very specific into one of these things, probably
Combat Expertise, that simply isn't there. All of these aspects of the
combat system are very abstract and can represent pretty much anything
you can think of that could reasonably result in an AC bonus; you seem
to have a far more specific model that you're trying to impose on the
system, though nothing you've said makes it very clear what that model
might be.
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 3:06:55 PM

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

Rupert Boleyn wrote:
>
> You attack a chunk of floor when you throw the weapon. Or how about
> Fireball? You attack a small opening with that when you want to get it
> past obstructions. If you're dead set on banning attacks on the floor,
> there's always attacking pebbles, passing snails, and so on.

All of this falls, for me, under the category of "You can't gain an advantage
from doing something nonsensical."

--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
understand?
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigec...
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatel...

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to
danger. It works the same in any country.
!