Couple of simple rules questions

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

A couple of things cropped up last night. What do people think.

The partial charge was removed from 3.5, but the rules say that you can
still charge is you are restricted to a standard action, but you only
move your normal speed.

Fair enough, so you can 'half-charge' in a surprise round or if you are
a zombie.

My players wanted to ready a partial charge, which we did in 3.0, but I
dont think you can in 3.5. Not sure why not, or if it would break
anything to allow it.


The other thing was disabling device. From reading it, we could see no
reason why you cant take 10 on the skill. The rogue has a disable
device of +12 and rolled a '6'. Since the DC was 20, he missed by 4
and so could retry. Because he missed by 4 and rolled a 6, he could
just take 10 and succeed.

We all carefully read the take 10 rules and couldnt see any reason why
this shouldnt be allowed. No distractions, no combat going on, etc.
It just didnt feel right :)

Thanks all,

Paul
43 answers Last reply
More about couple simple rules questions
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    paul@runestonegames.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
    > A couple of things cropped up last night. What do people think.
    >
    > The partial charge was removed from 3.5, but the rules say that you can
    > still charge is you are restricted to a standard action, but you only
    > move your normal speed.
    >
    > Fair enough, so you can 'half-charge' in a surprise round or if you are
    > a zombie.
    >
    > My players wanted to ready a partial charge, which we did in 3.0, but I
    > dont think you can in 3.5. Not sure why not, or if it would break
    > anything to allow it.

    By the RAW you can't.

    The main problem with allowing it is that it's strictly better than
    charging normally e.g. You could move and then ready a charge which
    you'll be taking in another direction, thereby effectively getting in
    changes of direction during your charge which you're not normally
    allowed to do. You could come up with further rules to stop this of
    course but it all seems a bit clunky. But if you don't mind doing that
    then it's fine.

    > The other thing was disabling device. From reading it, we could see no
    > reason why you cant take 10 on the skill. The rogue has a disable
    > device of +12 and rolled a '6'. Since the DC was 20, he missed by 4
    > and so could retry. Because he missed by 4 and rolled a 6, he could
    > just take 10 and succeed.
    >
    > We all carefully read the take 10 rules and couldnt see any reason why
    > this shouldnt be allowed. No distractions, no combat going on, etc.
    > It just didnt feel right :)

    It's fine. No different than taking a 10 on a climb check (to try to
    make sure you don't fall) or on a craft check (to make sure you don't
    ruin half the raw materials).

    I guess it seems a bit odd when you don't know the DC and you have to
    make a decision on whether you want to take 10 or roll. I think I'd
    almost always take 10 first and then roll if that didn't work, as a
    failure by 5 or more when you take 10 means that you'd have to have
    rolled 15 or more, so chances are you'd have failed and eventually set
    the trap off anyway (assuming it's a trap you're talking about).
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    IHateLashknife@hotmail.com wrote:
    > paul@runestonegames.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
    > > A couple of things cropped up last night. What do people think.
    > >
    > > The partial charge was removed from 3.5, but the rules say that you can
    > > still charge is you are restricted to a standard action, but you only
    > > move your normal speed.
    > >
    > > Fair enough, so you can 'half-charge' in a surprise round or if you are
    > > a zombie.
    > >
    > > My players wanted to ready a partial charge, which we did in 3.0, but I
    > > dont think you can in 3.5. Not sure why not, or if it would break
    > > anything to allow it.
    >
    > By the RAW you can't.
    >
    > The main problem with allowing it is that it's strictly better than
    > charging normally e.g. You could move and then ready a charge which
    > you'll be taking in another direction, thereby effectively getting in
    > changes of direction during your charge which you're not normally
    > allowed to do. You could come up with further rules to stop this of
    > course but it all seems a bit clunky. But if you don't mind doing that
    > then it's fine.

    Hmm... But that interpretation means that if you have "Slow" cast on
    you, or you're "Disabled" (both conditions that restrict you to one
    action a round) you *can* do something that you can't do normally.

    Which seems counterintuitive to me.

    My take would be to allow you to ready a partial charge as long as that
    was the *only* thing you were doing in that round (ie no sneaky moves
    first to get around the direction change restrictions in the
    "Full-charge")

    In other words, I'd allow a character to *voluntarily* restrict himself
    to one action in a round, and thus be allowed to ready a "half-charge".

    At least that avoids the nonsense that a disabling effect enables you
    to do something you cannot otherwise do.

    But, as always, YMMV

    > > The other thing was disabling device. From reading it, we could see no
    > > reason why you cant take 10 on the skill. The rogue has a disable
    > > device of +12 and rolled a '6'. Since the DC was 20, he missed by 4
    > > and so could retry. Because he missed by 4 and rolled a 6, he could
    > > just take 10 and succeed.
    > >
    > > We all carefully read the take 10 rules and couldnt see any reason why
    > > this shouldnt be allowed. No distractions, no combat going on, etc.
    > > It just didnt feel right :)
    >
    > It's fine. No different than taking a 10 on a climb check (to try to
    > make sure you don't fall) or on a craft check (to make sure you don't
    > ruin half the raw materials).
    >
    > I guess it seems a bit odd when you don't know the DC and you have to
    > make a decision on whether you want to take 10 or roll. I think I'd
    > almost always take 10 first and then roll if that didn't work, as a
    > failure by 5 or more when you take 10 means that you'd have to have
    > rolled 15 or more, so chances are you'd have failed and eventually set
    > the trap off anyway (assuming it's a trap you're talking about).

    I second the positive noises about taking 10 on Disable device.

    Of course the OP already knows all this 'cos he's my DM.

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

    aramil_silvermane@hotmail.com wrote:
    > > By the RAW you can't.
    > >
    > > The main problem with allowing it is that it's strictly better than
    > > charging normally e.g. You could move and then ready a charge which
    > > you'll be taking in another direction, thereby effectively getting in
    > > changes of direction during your charge which you're not normally
    > > allowed to do. You could come up with further rules to stop this of
    > > course but it all seems a bit clunky. But if you don't mind doing that
    > > then it's fine.
    >
    > Hmm... But that interpretation means that if you have "Slow" cast on
    > you, or you're "Disabled" (both conditions that restrict you to one
    > action a round) you *can* do something that you can't do normally.

    You can't ready a 'mini-charge' whether you're limited to a standard
    action or not under the RAW (unless you interpret the rules in
    extremely liberal ways). You're allowed to do a 'mini-charge' on your
    turn if you're limited to a standard action but it doesn't follow that
    you're also therefore allowed to ready one on your turn. It's just
    special dispensation to allow you to charge still. Otherwise, yes, it
    would be nonsense.

    > My take would be to allow you to ready a partial charge as long as that
    > was the *only* thing you were doing in that round (ie no sneaky moves
    > first to get around the direction change restrictions in the
    > "Full-charge")

    A reasonable fix (assuming you mean the *only* thing except for free
    actions... and immediate actions... and similar).
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    fred wrote:
    > Charge is a special Full round action, that can also be performed in the
    > supprise round, when usually only partial actions are allowed.

    And, more generally, whenever you're limited to just a standard action.

    > To charge you must move more than 10 feet, and up to double your normal
    > movement rate, in a straight line..

    At least 10 feet, not more than.

    > ergo, you cant "do something else" then charge, in the same round

    Except free actions, etc.

    > (the only
    > exception to this being "draw a weapon as part of a move action, with a bab
    > of +1 or higher).

    I don't believe this is right either - "If you have a base attack bonus
    of +1 or higher, you can combine one of these actions with a regular
    move". Nothing about a charge as far as I know.

    > as for delaing a charge, it's something that our party does all the time...
    > we wait till just after the attackers phase, then as one, charge in. (after
    > a softening up salvo of fireballs, lightening, or dispell magic)

    Except that he said Ready not Delay.
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    IHateLashknife@hotmail.com wrote:
    > aramil_silvermane@hotmail.com wrote:
    > > > By the RAW you can't.
    > > >
    > > > The main problem with allowing it is that it's strictly better than
    > > > charging normally e.g. You could move and then ready a charge which
    > > > you'll be taking in another direction, thereby effectively getting in
    > > > changes of direction during your charge which you're not normally
    > > > allowed to do. You could come up with further rules to stop this of
    > > > course but it all seems a bit clunky. But if you don't mind doing that
    > > > then it's fine.
    > >
    > > Hmm... But that interpretation means that if you have "Slow" cast on
    > > you, or you're "Disabled" (both conditions that restrict you to one
    > > action a round) you *can* do something that you can't do normally.
    >
    > You can't ready a 'mini-charge' whether you're limited to a standard
    > action or not under the RAW (unless you interpret the rules in
    > extremely liberal ways). You're allowed to do a 'mini-charge' on your
    > turn if you're limited to a standard action but it doesn't follow that
    > you're also therefore allowed to ready one on your turn. It's just
    > special dispensation to allow you to charge still. Otherwise, yes, it
    > would be nonsense.

    Speaking personally, pretty much either way works for me either -

    *Everything* can ready a part-charge as it is a *standard action* you
    can only do if you aren't taking (or cannot take) a move action in the
    round.

    OR

    *Nothing* can ready a part-charge as it is a *full-round action* that
    you happen to still be able to do even if you are restricted to single
    actions during your turn, and you cannot ready a full-round action.

    > > My take would be to allow you to ready a partial charge as long as that
    > > was the *only* thing you were doing in that round (ie no sneaky moves
    > > first to get around the direction change restrictions in the
    > > "Full-charge")
    >
    > A reasonable fix (assuming you mean the *only* thing except for free
    > actions... and immediate actions... and similar).
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    > IHateLashknife@hotmail.com wrote:
    > > You can't ready a 'mini-charge' whether you're limited to a standard
    > > action or not under the RAW (unless you interpret the rules in
    > > extremely liberal ways). You're allowed to do a 'mini-charge' on your
    > > turn if you're limited to a standard action but it doesn't follow that
    > > you're also therefore allowed to ready one on your turn.
    >
    > Why doesn't that follow? When you're limited to standard actions, you
    > can charge as a standard action; therefore, you can ready it.

    The wording is:

    "If you are able to take only a standard action or a move action on
    your turn, you can still charge ... You can't use this option unless
    you are restricted to taking only a standard action or move action on
    your turn."

    So you're allowed to charge on your turn even if you're restricted -
    nothing about readying a charge for later though. Notice also that they
    don't say that it becomes a standard action.

    However, I had forgotten about the bit in one of the tables where it
    says:

    "May be taken as a standard action if you are limited to taking only a
    single action in a round."

    I get the feeling they didn't really think about Readying when they
    wrote that bit. Similarly for when they explain the Withdraw action as
    well.

    > As Rupert notes, the rules already restrict charges to characters who
    > move in a straight line.

    It restricts their movement they make with the charge action. It
    doesn't restrict any other movement they might make.

    > Therefore, it's no problem to let anybody ready
    > a mini-charge. So long as they follow the normal rule -- everything's in
    > a straight line with no obstructions -- there's no loophole and no need
    > to restrict them further.

    The problem with that interpretation is that you can only ready a
    charge if you're restricted, which is silly. A character who is slowed
    can ready a charge for when a creature comes within 30 feet of them
    (say, when the creature walks out from behind some cover they were
    hiding behind), but a character who is hasted can't (and they can't
    even charge them at all if the creature also ends their movement behind
    cover).

    Of course, you can change the rules to allow anyone to ready a charge
    but it's not what was meant by the RAW IMO. Or if it was, they
    obviously didn't think it through. Which actually, now that I think
    about, may be just as likely :)
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    > IHateLashknife@hotmail.com wrote:
    > > The problem with that interpretation is that you can only ready a
    > > charge if you're restricted, which is silly ....
    >
    > Since you're restricted to standard actions when you take a readied
    > action, everyone can do it.

    "if you are limited to taking only a single action _in_a_round_"
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    > Bradd wrote:
    > >> Therefore, it's no problem to let anybody ready a mini-charge. So
    > >> long as they follow the normal rule -- everything's in a straight
    > >> line with no obstructions -- there's no loophole and no need to
    > >> restrict them further.
    >
    > IHateLashknife@hotmail.com wrote:
    > > The problem with that interpretation is that you can only ready a
    > > charge if you're restricted, which is silly ....
    >
    > Since you're restricted to standard actions when you take a readied
    > action, everyone can do it.
    > --

    Leather PHB says: "You can't use this option unless you are restricted
    to taking only a standard action or a move action on your turn". And
    its made of leather so it must be true. Note the last three words:
    having taken a move action and only having a standard and some frees
    left does not leave you with this restriction. Neither does readying an
    action.
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    <paul@runestonegames.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:<1127474877.974711.75930@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...

    > A couple of things cropped up last night. What do people think.

    >

    > The partial charge was removed from 3.5, but the rules say that you can

    > still charge is you are restricted to a standard action, but you only

    > move your normal speed.

    >

    > Fair enough, so you can 'half-charge' in a surprise round or if you are

    > a zombie.

    >

    > My players wanted to ready a partial charge, which we did in 3.0, but I

    > dont think you can in 3.5. Not sure why not, or if it would break

    > anything to allow it.

    >

    >


    Charge is a special Full round action, that can also be performed in the
    supprise round, when usually only partial actions are allowed.

    To charge you must move more than 10 feet, and up to double your normal
    movement rate, in a straight line..

    ergo, you cant "do something else" then charge, in the same round (the only
    exception to this being "draw a weapon as part of a move action, with a bab
    of +1 or higher).

    as for delaing a charge, it's something that our party does all the time...
    we wait till just after the attackers phase, then as one, charge in. (after
    a softening up salvo of fireballs, lightening, or dispell magic)


    >

    > The other thing was disabling device. From reading it, we could see no

    > reason why you cant take 10 on the skill. The rogue has a disable

    > device of +12 and rolled a '6'. Since the DC was 20, he missed by 4

    > and so could retry. Because he missed by 4 and rolled a 6, he could

    > just take 10 and succeed.

    >

    > We all carefully read the take 10 rules and couldnt see any reason why

    > this shouldnt be allowed. No distractions, no combat going on, etc.

    > It just didnt feel right :)

    >

    > Thanks all,

    >

    > Paul

    >

    It depends on the item being disabled. If there are no distractions, you
    have plenty of time, and there's no drawbacks from failing the oll by more
    than 5 (Ie, you're not disabling a trap, or some other object that will
    either be destroyed, or kill you if you fail), then there's no reason you
    cant take a 10. However bearing in mind that most uses of the "disable
    device" skill are to disable a trap, get arround a problem, or otherwise do
    something where you definately dont want to fail... i can see the point. the
    other reason i wouldnt allow 10's on a disable device roll is that most of
    the time, you dont actually know if you've sucseeded or not...

    --

    No virus found in this outgoing message.

    Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.

    Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.3/107 - Release Date: 20/09/2005
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "fred" <ftheobold_21@hotmail.com> wrote in
    news:fCTYe.956$Am6.378@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk:


    >
    > It depends on the item being disabled. If there are no distractions,
    > you have plenty of time, and there's no drawbacks from failing the oll
    > by more than 5 (Ie, you're not disabling a trap, or some other object
    > that will either be destroyed, or kill you if you fail), then there's
    > no reason you cant take a 10. However bearing in mind that most uses
    > of the "disable device" skill are to disable a trap, get arround a
    > problem, or otherwise do something where you definately dont want to
    > fail... i can see the point. the other reason i wouldnt allow 10's on
    > a disable device roll is that most of the time, you dont actually know
    > if you've sucseeded or not...
    >

    This is wrong. Take 10 is absolutely allowed, even if the penalty for
    failure is permanent death. It represents ONE attempt with an average
    result, sticking with your tried-and-true routine. Some people are simply
    good enough that disabling a standard trap is a matter of routine,
    nothing special. They're only going to be fouled up by an unexpectedly
    difficult trap, not by any whim of chance.
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    > aramil_silvermane@hotmail.com wrote:
    >> Hmm... But that interpretation means that if you have "Slow" cast on
    >> you, or you're "Disabled" (both conditions that restrict you to one
    >> action a round) you *can* do something that you can't do normally.

    IHateLashknife@hotmail.com wrote:
    > You can't ready a 'mini-charge' whether you're limited to a standard
    > action or not under the RAW (unless you interpret the rules in
    > extremely liberal ways). You're allowed to do a 'mini-charge' on your
    > turn if you're limited to a standard action but it doesn't follow that
    > you're also therefore allowed to ready one on your turn.

    Why doesn't that follow? When you're limited to standard actions, you
    can charge as a standard action; therefore, you can ready it.

    As Rupert notes, the rules already restrict charges to characters who
    move in a straight line. Therefore, it's no problem to let anybody ready
    a mini-charge. So long as they follow the normal rule -- everything's in
    a straight line with no obstructions -- there's no loophole and no need
    to restrict them further.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd wrote:
    >> Therefore, it's no problem to let anybody ready a mini-charge. So
    >> long as they follow the normal rule -- everything's in a straight
    >> line with no obstructions -- there's no loophole and no need to
    >> restrict them further.

    IHateLashknife@hotmail.com wrote:
    > The problem with that interpretation is that you can only ready a
    > charge if you're restricted, which is silly ....

    Since you're restricted to standard actions when you take a readied
    action, everyone can do it.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    IHateLashknife@hotmail.com wrote:
    >>> The problem with that interpretation is that you can only ready a
    >>> charge if you're restricted, which is silly ....

    Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    >> Since you're restricted to standard actions when you take a readied
    >> action, everyone can do it.

    > "if you are limited to taking only a single action _in_a_round_"

    If the triggering condition doesn't happen until the following round
    (but still before your turn), then you /are/ limited to taking a single
    action in that round. Since it /could/ be a standard action, it's
    possible to ready it.

    Now, suppose that the triggering condition occurs in the same round.
    According to your interpretation, it's not a standard action. However,
    that doesn't matter, because the charging rule merely requires that
    you're limited to a single action "on your turn," as you previously
    quoted. Therefore, you can mini-charge anyway.

    Short version: Even with your bizarrely nitpicky interpretation, it's
    still legal by-the-book.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    paul@runestonegames.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
    > A couple of things cropped up last night. What do people think.
    >
    > The partial charge was removed from 3.5, but the rules say that you
    > can still charge is you are restricted to a standard action, but you
    > only move your normal speed.
    >
    > Fair enough, so you can 'half-charge' in a surprise round or if you
    > are a zombie.

    Yes.

    > My players wanted to ready a partial charge, which we did in 3.0, but
    > I dont think you can in 3.5. Not sure why not, or if it would break
    > anything to allow it.

    You can't ready a full-round action, and since there's no more partial
    charge...
    The only way to bypass the rules would be claiming that when performing a
    ready action you voluntarly restrict yourself to only standard action per
    turn, but I wouldn't allow it. To move and perform a standard action before
    a target completes her action (like peeking from around the corner, saying a
    word, or drawing a sword) or is able to react after being charged just
    because reaching 10ft close to you just wouldn't work...

    > The other thing was disabling device. From reading it, we could see
    > no reason why you cant take 10 on the skill. The rogue has a disable
    > device of +12 and rolled a '6'. Since the DC was 20, he missed by 4
    > and so could retry. Because he missed by 4 and rolled a 6, he could
    > just take 10 and succeed.
    >
    > We all carefully read the take 10 rules and couldnt see any reason why
    > this shouldnt be allowed. No distractions, no combat going on, etc.
    > It just didnt feel right :)

    No distractions but you are still threatened - not from an opponent
    directly, but from a trap. Notice that "...being thrreatened..." in text
    doesn't necessarily stand for simply being in threatened area (
    "Distractions or threats (such as combat)... " indicates that combat is only
    one possible threat, I'd say).
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Miracle" <.@.> wrote in news:dh1gkf$7jg$1@bagan.srce.hr:

    >> We all carefully read the take 10 rules and couldnt see any reason
    >> why this shouldnt be allowed. No distractions, no combat going on,
    >> etc. It just didnt feel right :)
    >
    > No distractions but you are still threatened - not from an opponent
    > directly, but from a trap. Notice that "...being thrreatened..." in
    > text doesn't necessarily stand for simply being in threatened area (
    > "Distractions or threats (such as combat)... " indicates that combat
    > is only one possible threat, I'd say).

    No. The distraction has to come from something OTHER than the device.
    Unless, of course, you're trying to disable a machine that's already
    shooting an arrow at you every round. But simple fear of failure is not
    enough to keep you from taking 10.
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Miracle wrote:
    >
    > No distractions but you are still threatened - not from an opponent
    > directly, but from a trap.

    That's a REALLY stupid interpretation.

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

    ringofw@hotmail.com wrote:
    > Leather PHB says: "You can't use this option [charge] unless you are
    > restricted to taking only a standard action or a move action on your
    > turn". And its made of leather so it must be true. Note the last three
    > words: having taken a move action and only having a standard and some
    > frees left does not leave you with this restriction. Neither does
    > readying an action.

    The rules unambiguously permit you to ready a charge while you're
    slowed: According to the actions table, charging is a standard action
    when you're limited to single actions.

    Don't you think it's ridiculous that you can ready a charge while you're
    slowed but not when you can act normally?

    Furthermore, your last sentence is incorrect; when you take a readied
    action, you certainly are restricted to a single action on your turn.
    Luckily, that means that charging is OK, and you don't end up with the
    ridiculous conclusion above.

    That leaves the problem that you could potentially perform a crooked
    charge by moving and then readying a charge, and the authors clearly
    didn't intend that (as evidenced by the existence of feats that permit
    it). Luckily, there's an easy "fix" for that problem too: Apply the
    straight-line requirement to all of the character's movement, before and
    after the triggering condition. That's exactly what Skip Williams
    recommended when the same issue came up in D&D 3.0.

    The rules on charging and readying definitely aren't as clear as they
    could be. However, the best way to handle it isn't that tough to figure
    out, and almost all of the necessary rules /are/ in the rulebook, so why
    do you (and others like you) insist on an absurd interpretation instead?
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    > The rules unambiguously permit you to ready a charge while you're
    > slowed: According to the actions table, charging is a standard action
    > when you're limited to single actions.


    uhmm... the rules permit to _perform_ a half-charge, not to _ready _it.

    > That leaves the problem that you could potentially perform a crooked
    > charge by moving and then readying a charge,

    Absolutely not! You can't move twice _and_ perform a standard actino in the
    same round! Heck, you can only make a 5-ft step as part of readied action if
    you hadn't moved before on your turn. What makes you think you could move
    twice?
    I wouldn't allow readied partial charge even without pre-move.
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Miracle wrote:
    >
    > Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    > > The rules unambiguously permit you to ready a charge while you're
    > > slowed: According to the actions table, charging is a standard action
    > > when you're limited to single actions.
    >
    > uhmm... the rules permit to _perform_ a half-charge, not to _ready _it.

    They permit both, actually. Readying is a standard
    action that allows you to perform (another) standard
    action--in this case, a "half-charge."

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

    On 23 Sep 2005 05:33:19 -0700, IHateLashknife@hotmail.com carved upon
    a tablet of ether:

    > > My players wanted to ready a partial charge, which we did in 3.0, but I
    > > dont think you can in 3.5. Not sure why not, or if it would break
    > > anything to allow it.
    >
    > By the RAW you can't.
    >
    > The main problem with allowing it is that it's strictly better than
    > charging normally e.g. You could move and then ready a charge which
    > you'll be taking in another direction, thereby effectively getting in
    > changes of direction during your charge which you're not normally
    > allowed to do. You could come up with further rules to stop this of
    > course but it all seems a bit clunky. But if you don't mind doing that
    > then it's fine.

    There's a very simple way to fix it: rule that all movement in the
    round must be in a single line, and charge legal. Thus, if they move,
    and then ready a partial charge, any charge they make must be down
    exactly the same line as the prior movement (which also must've been
    unobstructed, etc.) That plugs the loophole, right there, and it's a
    simple and logical extension of the RAW.

    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    > ringofw@hotmail.com wrote:
    > > Leather PHB says: "You can't use this option [charge] unless you are
    > > restricted to taking only a standard action or a move action on your
    > > turn". And its made of leather so it must be true. Note the last three
    > > words: having taken a move action and only having a standard and some
    > > frees left does not leave you with this restriction. Neither does
    > > readying an action.
    >
    > The rules unambiguously permit you to ready a charge while you're
    > slowed: According to the actions table, charging is a standard action
    > when you're limited to single actions.

    We've already parted company by the time you say "unambiguously".

    I was working from the assmuption (and admit its an assumption,
    particularly because Ready says the readied action takes place "after
    your turn") that the restraints imposed by Slow or the surprise round
    extended to any actions you take out of turn i.e. there's no point in
    restricted character taking a Ready action, as by the time it triggers
    they've blown their limit and will never get to take the extra action.
    In other words, in a round:

    1. A character can take a move-equivalent, a standard (or a second
    move-equivalent), some frees plus if the standard was "Ready", an extra
    standard or move-equivalent out of turn.

    OR, if restricted to one action

    2. A standard or move-equivalent and some frees.

    Add 5' steps to taste.

    With the Ready rules tucked away at the end of the chapter, the fact
    that "turn" is never properly defined means that how a restriction of
    "one action in your turn" affects out of turn actions is not addressed.

    So there's never any readied charging zombies (because there's no
    readied anything zombies), so there's no need to fool with the usual
    rules to compete with readied charging zombies.

    With my reading of rules, if you were not in the "one action a turn"
    state before you Ready, you are not (barring Slow being cast on you) in
    the restricted state later in the turn, because it is not a new turn.

    (What is debatable is whether or not it is part of the old turn, but if
    it wasn't you would get the readied charging zombie paradox.)

    If you do get Slow cast on you before your readied action triggers, you
    would lose it as you have already taken your new limit for the turn (by
    using the Standard action "Ready".
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    > Bradd wrote:
    > >> The rules unambiguously permit you to ready a charge while you're
    > >> slowed: According to the actions table, charging is a standard action
    > >> when you're limited to single actions.
    >
    > ringofw@hotmail.com wrote:
    > > We've already parted company by the time you say "unambiguously".
    > >
    > > I was working from the assmuption (and admit its an assumption,
    > > particularly because Ready says the readied action takes place "after
    > > your turn") that the restraints imposed by Slow or the surprise round
    > > extended to any actions you take out of turn i.e. there's no point in
    > > restricted character taking a Ready action, as by the time it triggers
    > > they've blown their limit and will never get to take the extra action.
    >
    > No, that's incorrect. Note that normal characters also get only one
    > standard action per round.

    Both the rules and the glossary on satndard action say "usually".
    "Ready" gives you an extra one (or an extra ME).

    The obvious place to pick holes in my argument is my suggestion that
    restrictions that (specifically) drop you down to one action a turn
    also apply to additional actions you take outside of your the turn. Its
    a nasty little ruling because if the rules on counting different types
    of actions in a turn generally applied to readied actions you would
    have a point when you say...

    > If your assumption were correct, then they'd
    > have exactly the same problem: Their one standard action would already
    > be "used up" when the triggering condition happens.
    >

    > Readying is a standard action, but you get the action back when the
    > triggering action happens.

    That is how I used to think of it but appears nowhere in the rules.
    Standard Actions don't just vanish. Nor do they mutate into ME action,
    which can also be Readied. The hand, having written, moves on. "Ready"
    is a standard action. The readied action an extra standard/ME action
    that happens outside of your turn. IMHO It would be easier to believe
    if they restricted you to certain actions per turn rather than per
    round, then the extra ones would not break the per-turn rules.

    > In other words, you're just postponing the
    > action for a while.

    No, its not Delay ("not an action"): you are actively preparing
    something. One deficiency in the rules is describing how hard it is to
    work out what is being prepared, but that is a digression.

    >It works the same whether you get a full turn or a
    > single action.

    You mean "a single action in your turn"? This is where we are
    disagreeing: I posit that this restriction should apply over and above
    the "Ready" exception that gives you an extra action after the end of
    the turn i.e it should be treated as being "a single action a round".
    The reason I make this arbitrary choice is that everything else falls
    naturally into place. Your defense of a normal character being able to
    ready a charge is that it would be silly if a zombie could and they
    could not. I'm attacking the other end of the problem, so there is no
    need to massage the rules into allowing an unrestricted character to
    charge as there is no readying-zombie to compete with.

    Now, without appealing to zombies, please defend an unrestricted
    character readying Charge or Withdraw when they do NOT appear on your
    character's CURRENT list of Standard/ME options. Then explain how,
    using the same logic, the same character cannot announce that they have
    a time machine, even though if they did, they could come back in time
    and give it to their younger self.

    > > If you do get Slow cast on you before your readied action triggers,
    > > you would lose it as you have already taken your new limit for the
    > > turn (by using the Standard action "Ready".
    >
    > This is also incorrect.
    > --
    There is no point picking holes with the consequences of something you
    also disagree with. What I've said follows from my assumptions, which
    are intended to conflict with the rules as little as possible while
    making them sensible, with zombies being too slow to usefully ready
    polearms against your (FULL ROUND!) charge.
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    > IHateLashknife@hotmail.com wrote:
    > >>> The problem with that interpretation is that you can only ready a
    > >>> charge if you're restricted, which is silly ....
    >
    > Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    > >> Since you're restricted to standard actions when you take a readied
    > >> action, everyone can do it.
    >
    > > "if you are limited to taking only a single action _in_a_round_"
    >
    > If the triggering condition doesn't happen until the following round
    > (but still before your turn), then you /are/ limited to taking a single
    > action in that round. Since it /could/ be a standard action, it's
    > possible to ready it.

    I think it's quite obvious that that isn't what it means, but I guess
    you think otherwise.

    > Now, suppose that the triggering condition occurs in the same round.
    > According to your interpretation, it's not a standard action. However,
    > that doesn't matter, because the charging rule merely requires that
    > you're limited to a single action "on your turn," as you previously
    > quoted. Therefore, you can mini-charge anyway.

    You weren't limited to a single action on your turn though.

    > Short version: Even with your bizarrely nitpicky interpretation, it's
    > still legal by-the-book.

    As I said at the start of the thread, you can't ready a 'mini-charge'
    whether you're limited to a standard action or not under the RAW
    (unless you interpret the rules in extremely liberal ways).

    I think that's what you're now doing (interpreting the rules in
    extremely liberal ways), but that's just IMO. I think it's fairly
    obvious that that's not how they meant the rules to work, but again,
    IMO.
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 23:40:27 +0200, "Miracle" <.@.> carved upon a
    tablet of ether:

    > I wouldn't allow readied partial charge even without pre-move.

    Why not? It's clearly legal for a slowed character or a zombie, so why
    should someone not so restricted be unable to make a partial charge?
    If you're worried about people using this to make crooked charges,
    just rules as I do (all movement in the round must meet the charge
    requirements or it's not a charge), or simply say "no movement other
    than that which the charge gives". How hard is that? It may not be
    exactly what the rules say, but it doesn't break the spirit of them,
    and it doesn't make readied charges game-breaking or anything.

    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 23 Sep 2005 07:21:30 -0700, IHateLashknife@hotmail.com carved upon
    a tablet of ether:

    > > (the only
    > > exception to this being "draw a weapon as part of a move action, with a bab
    > > of +1 or higher).
    >
    > I don't believe this is right either - "If you have a base attack bonus
    > of +1 or higher, you can combine one of these actions with a regular
    > move". Nothing about a charge as far as I know.

    So, do you think that you shouldn't be able to? The rules probably say
    you can't, but the text in the Quick Draw feat isn't so clear (though
    it does reference the combat rules). IME charges are limited enough
    that being a bastard about this sort of thing just makes them next to
    useless.

    > > as for delaing a charge, it's something that our party does all the time...
    > > we wait till just after the attackers phase, then as one, charge in. (after
    > > a softening up salvo of fireballs, lightening, or dispell magic)
    >
    > Except that he said Ready not Delay.

    And delaying a charge is, IME, of limited use - while it's great for
    getting in there after the bang and buff spells have gone off, it
    won't let you catch bastards using shot-on-the-run and the like. For
    that you need a readied charge.

    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    IHateLashknife@hotmail.com wrote:
    >> I don't believe this is right either - "If you have a base attack bonus
    >> of +1 or higher, you can combine one of these actions with a regular
    >> move". Nothing about a charge as far as I know.

    Rupert Boleyn wrote:
    > So, do you think that you shouldn't be able to? The rules probably say
    > you can't, but the text in the Quick Draw feat isn't so clear (though
    > it does reference the combat rules).

    Based on the text in the combat rules, I think you only get the free
    draw during a normal move action, but I could be wrong on that.
    Sometimes it's hard to tell whether the authors meant specifically to
    limit you or whether they just didn't cover every possible case. There's
    something similar in the rules for divine casters and aligned spells:
    They don't say whether the limits only apply to that class or to all of
    your spells -- can a good mystic theurge cast an evil wizard spell?

    > IME charges are limited enough that being a bastard about this sort of
    > thing just makes them next to useless.

    Often, it doesn't matter, because you already have a weapon out.
    However, it's a problem when you get a surprise round and your weapon's
    in its sheath. You could argue that this makes Quick Draw more useful, I
    suppose.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd wrote:
    >> The rules unambiguously permit you to ready a charge while you're
    >> slowed: According to the actions table, charging is a standard action
    >> when you're limited to single actions.

    ringofw@hotmail.com wrote:
    > We've already parted company by the time you say "unambiguously".
    >
    > I was working from the assmuption (and admit its an assumption,
    > particularly because Ready says the readied action takes place "after
    > your turn") that the restraints imposed by Slow or the surprise round
    > extended to any actions you take out of turn i.e. there's no point in
    > restricted character taking a Ready action, as by the time it triggers
    > they've blown their limit and will never get to take the extra action.

    No, that's incorrect. Note that normal characters also get only one
    standard action per round. If your assumption were correct, then they'd
    have exactly the same problem: Their one standard action would already
    be "used up" when the triggering condition happens.

    Readying is a standard action, but you get the action back when the
    triggering action happens. In other words, you're just postponing the
    action for a while. It works the same whether you get a full turn or a
    single action.

    > If you do get Slow cast on you before your readied action triggers,
    > you would lose it as you have already taken your new limit for the
    > turn (by using the Standard action "Ready".

    This is also incorrect.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    ringofw@hotmail.com wrote:
    >
    > Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    >
    > > Readying is a standard action, but you get the action back when the
    > > triggering action happens.
    >
    > That is how I used to think of it but appears nowhere in the rules.

    "I used to understand the rules, but now I don't."

    Weird.

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

    Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    > ringofw@hotmail.com wrote:
    > > The obvious place to pick holes in my argument is my suggestion that
    > > restrictions that (specifically) drop you down to one action a turn
    > > also apply to additional actions you take outside of your the turn
    > > ....
    >
    > No, the obvious place to pick a hole is the part where you're being a
    > kook about this.
    > --
    > Bradd W. Szonye
    > http://www.szonye.com/bradd

    Pick the kookiest statement. Anyone can play.

    1. Slowed, staggered and zombie characters can ready a charge or
    withdraw, but other characters cannot. (The Rules? [see below])
    2. You can, or at least should be allowed to, ready a full round action
    if, when triggered, there's a "restricted to one action a turn"
    standard action version it could be squeezed into (Explicitly
    prohibited by the rules)
    3. Characters restricted to one action in a turn should not be allowed
    more than one action in a round. (Plugs a hole in the rules).

    In my opinion: 1 is kookiest, 2 is better, 3 is best. If anyone is
    prepared to stick up for Bradd's idea now he's lost interest, I hope
    someone else will stick up for mine as I'm off on holiday now.

    I leave the assembled throng with one additional point of evidence in
    my favour: footnote 5 of the actions table says blah blah blah one
    action per ROUND (ditto the test of Restricted Withdraw) whereas Slow
    says one action per TURN (ditto the text of Charge), which implies that
    the ill-defined "turn" is pretty much the same as a round, and
    therefore point 3 above IS the rule, point 1 never happens because a
    Ready and taking it makes two actions (at least in my mind). But, even
    if my mind is wrong, and you play it like point 2, and believe
    yourself to be in a one action-per-turn state when your
    bizararrely-readied action is triggered, what happens if you took a
    move-equivalent action earlier in the turn? Even if you believe your
    readied action is a magical transforming action that replaces the
    Ready, making your total actions for the turn two rather than three, it
    is still one more action than Bradd insists you are allowed this
    "turn"!
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Senator Blutarsky wrote:
    > ringofw@hotmail.com wrote:
    > >
    > > Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    > >
    > > > Readying is a standard action, but you get the action back when the
    > > > triggering action happens.
    > >
    > > That is how I used to think of it but appears nowhere in the rules.
    >
    > "I used to understand the rules, but now I don't."
    >
    > Weird.
    >
    No, I used to use the naive interpretation of the rules, but actually
    read the rulebook when the naive interpretation broke down. Check out
    the rules on temporary hit points and see how far the naive
    interpretation of them being some sort of "one-shot resistance" most
    people play will get you: it breaks down the minute you try and heal
    over your maximum hit point total.
  31. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    paul@runestonegames.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
    > A couple of things cropped up last night. What do people think.
    >
    > The partial charge was removed from 3.5, but the rules say that you can
    > still charge is you are restricted to a standard action, but you only
    > move your normal speed.
    >
    > Fair enough, so you can 'half-charge' in a surprise round or if you are
    > a zombie.
    >
    > My players wanted to ready a partial charge, which we did in 3.0, but I
    > dont think you can in 3.5. Not sure why not, or if it would break
    > anything to allow it.

    Probably for the same reason they disallowed overruning as part of a
    charge--that some munchkin found a way to abuse it--but that's just a
    guess. Technically there are no more partial actions and thus no
    partial charges.

    > The other thing was disabling device. From reading it, we could see no
    > reason why you cant take 10 on the skill. The rogue has a disable
    > device of +12 and rolled a '6'. Since the DC was 20, he missed by 4
    > and so could retry. Because he missed by 4 and rolled a 6, he could
    > just take 10 and succeed.

    How did he know he missed? The DM is supposed to make the roll secretly
    so he doesn't know if he succeeded or not.

    > We all carefully read the take 10 rules and couldnt see any reason why
    > this shouldnt be allowed. No distractions, no combat going on, etc.
    > It just didnt feel right :)
    >
    > Thanks all,
    >
    > Paul

    Sure, he can take 10 if he wants. He should only do so if he's
    confident that this will be enough. Since most traps have a DC of 20 or
    higher, I wouldn't try this unless your bonus was at least +10.

    Note that Disable Device usually takes several rounds and provokes
    attacks of opportunity, so you can try to disable on the defensive if
    you're doing it in combat.
  32. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    IHateLashknife@hotmail.com wrote:
    > paul@runestonegames.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
    >
    >>A couple of things cropped up last night. What do people think.
    >>
    >>The partial charge was removed from 3.5, but the rules say that you can
    >>still charge is you are restricted to a standard action, but you only
    >>move your normal speed.
    >>
    >>Fair enough, so you can 'half-charge' in a surprise round or if you are
    >>a zombie.
    >>
    >>My players wanted to ready a partial charge, which we did in 3.0, but I
    >>dont think you can in 3.5. Not sure why not, or if it would break
    >>anything to allow it.
    >
    >
    > By the RAW you can't.
    >
    > The main problem with allowing it is that it's strictly better than
    > charging normally e.g. You could move and then ready a charge which
    > you'll be taking in another direction, thereby effectively getting in
    > changes of direction during your charge which you're not normally
    > allowed to do. You could come up with further rules to stop this of
    > course but it all seems a bit clunky. But if you don't mind doing that
    > then it's fine.
    >
    >
    >>The other thing was disabling device. From reading it, we could see no
    >>reason why you cant take 10 on the skill. The rogue has a disable
    >>device of +12 and rolled a '6'. Since the DC was 20, he missed by 4
    >>and so could retry. Because he missed by 4 and rolled a 6, he could
    >>just take 10 and succeed.
    >>
    >>We all carefully read the take 10 rules and couldnt see any reason why
    >>this shouldnt be allowed. No distractions, no combat going on, etc.
    >>It just didnt feel right :)
    >
    >
    > It's fine. No different than taking a 10 on a climb check (to try to
    > make sure you don't fall) or on a craft check (to make sure you don't
    > ruin half the raw materials).
    >
    > I guess it seems a bit odd when you don't know the DC and you have to
    > make a decision on whether you want to take 10 or roll. I think I'd
    > almost always take 10 first and then roll if that didn't work, as a
    > failure by 5 or more when you take 10 means that you'd have to have
    > rolled 15 or more, so chances are you'd have failed and eventually set
    > the trap off anyway (assuming it's a trap you're talking about).
    >

    Normally the player should not know the DC or his check result unless
    the DM is being generous. The penalty for failure is why you can't take
    20 on a Disable Device check.
  33. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 07:01:49 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
    <bradd+news@szonye.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

    > Often, it doesn't matter, because you already have a weapon out.
    > However, it's a problem when you get a surprise round and your weapon's
    > in its sheath. You could argue that this makes Quick Draw more useful, I
    > suppose.

    I've found QD is quite useful anyway, for some builds. I don't think
    requiring it to draw before/during a charge will make it any more
    popular - the guys who charge a lot often simply don't have the feats
    to spare for it (eg barbarians).

    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  34. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    IHateLashknife@hotmail.com wrote:
    > As I said at the start of the thread, you can't ready a 'mini-charge'
    > whether you're limited to a standard action or not under the RAW
    > (unless you interpret the rules in extremely liberal ways) ....

    WTF? The rules couldn't be much clearer; a charge is a standard action
    if you're slowed, and that's all that matters for readying. What is it
    about the charge action that turns people into idiots?
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  35. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    ringofw@hotmail.com wrote:
    > The obvious place to pick holes in my argument is my suggestion that
    > restrictions that (specifically) drop you down to one action a turn
    > also apply to additional actions you take outside of your the turn
    > ....

    No, the obvious place to pick a hole is the part where you're being a
    kook about this.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  36. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Rupert Boleyn wrote:
    >> I wouldn't allow readied partial charge even without pre-move.
    >
    > Why not? It's clearly legal for a slowed character or a zombie, so why
    > should someone not so restricted be unable to make a partial charge?

    And once again - it's possible for a zombie to take half-charge, not to
    ready it.

    > If you're worried about people using this to make crooked charges,
    > just rules as I do (all movement in the round must meet the charge
    > requirements or it's not a charge), or simply say "no movement other
    > than that which the charge gives". How hard is that? It may not be
    > exactly what the rules say, but it doesn't break the spirit of them,
    > and it doesn't make readied charges game-breaking or anything.

    The rules don't say that "half-charge" IS a standard action, only that you
    can perform it if you are restricted to a single SA per round! It's still
    move + attack and you can ready only one of those!
  37. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    > WTF? The rules couldn't be much clearer; a charge is a standard action
    > if you're slowed, and that's all that matters for readying.

    Oh realy? And where is that? The rules say "If you are able to take only a
    standard action, or a move action on your turn, you can still charge, but
    you are only allowed to move up to your speed..." I don't see it says a
    charge (or a half-charge or however you wish to call it) _is_ a SA. Yes, it
    can be interpreted that way, but things are not that clear as you claim.
  38. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 24 Sep 2005 09:34:17 -0700, ringofw@hotmail.com carved upon a
    tablet of ether:

    > That is how I used to think of it but appears nowhere in the rules.
    > Standard Actions don't just vanish. Nor do they mutate into ME action,
    > which can also be Readied. The hand, having written, moves on. "Ready"
    > is a standard action. The readied action an extra standard/ME action
    > that happens outside of your turn. IMHO It would be easier to believe
    > if they restricted you to certain actions per turn rather than per
    > round, then the extra ones would not break the per-turn rules.

    This distinction between turn and round you're making - it doesn't
    really exist, and all you're doing is complicating matters.

    > No, its not Delay ("not an action"): you are actively preparing
    > something. One deficiency in the rules is describing how hard it is to
    > work out what is being prepared, but that is a digression.

    I fail to see your point. Nothing's being prepared - you ready a
    standard or ME action, and get to use it when the specified trigger
    event occurs (and get to resolve your action before the trigger is
    resolved). Nobody's claiming this is a delay.

    > You mean "a single action in your turn"? This is where we are
    > disagreeing: I posit that this restriction should apply over and above
    > the "Ready" exception that gives you an extra action after the end of
    > the turn i.e it should be treated as being "a single action a round".

    Your turn doesn't really end until right before your next one starts.

    > The reason I make this arbitrary choice is that everything else falls
    > naturally into place. Your defense of a normal character being able to
    > ready a charge is that it would be silly if a zombie could and they
    > could not. I'm attacking the other end of the problem, so there is no
    > need to massage the rules into allowing an unrestricted character to
    > charge as there is no readying-zombie to compete with.

    This is a house-rule, and it's no more consistent than my ruling. In
    fact, it's worse - yours requires the assumption that somehow readying
    gives you a haste effect (by giving you an 'extra' action). It also
    requires changing the way the written rules work, whereas mine merely
    extends them into an area not covered.

    > Now, without appealing to zombies, please defend an unrestricted
    > character readying Charge or Withdraw when they do NOT appear on your
    > character's CURRENT list of Standard/ME options.

    Easy - the list is not, and cannot be, exhaustive.

    > There is no point picking holes with the consequences of something you
    > also disagree with. What I've said follows from my assumptions, which
    > are intended to conflict with the rules as little as possible while
    > making them sensible, with zombies being too slow to usefully ready
    > polearms against your (FULL ROUND!) charge.

    So, you're saying that zombies cannot set spears vs a charge? At all?
    Ever?

    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  39. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 24 Sep 2005 14:52:39 -0700, ringofw@hotmail.com carved upon a
    tablet of ether:

    > 2. You can, or at least should be allowed to, ready a full round action
    > if, when triggered, there's a "restricted to one action a turn"
    > standard action version it could be squeezed into (Explicitly
    > prohibited by the rules)

    Arguably not.

    > 3. Characters restricted to one action in a turn should not be allowed
    > more than one action in a round. (Plugs a hole in the rules).

    Except it doesn't, because that's not what's happening.

    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  40. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 24 Sep 2005 15:08:51 -0700, ringofw@hotmail.com carved upon a
    tablet of ether:

    > No, I used to use the naive interpretation of the rules, but actually
    > read the rulebook when the naive interpretation broke down. Check out
    > the rules on temporary hit points and see how far the naive
    > interpretation of them being some sort of "one-shot resistance" most
    > people play will get you: it breaks down the minute you try and heal
    > over your maximum hit point total.

    In what way? You can't heal over your total anyway.

    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  41. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Mere moments before death, ringofw@hotmail.com hastily scrawled:
    >
    >Rupert Boleyn wrote:
    >> On 24 Sep 2005 15:08:51 -0700, ringofw@hotmail.com carved upon a
    >> tablet of ether:
    >>
    >> > No, I used to use the naive interpretation of the rules, but actually
    >> > read the rulebook when the naive interpretation broke down. Check out
    >> > the rules on temporary hit points and see how far the naive
    >> > interpretation of them being some sort of "one-shot resistance" most
    >> > people play will get you: it breaks down the minute you try and heal
    >> > over your maximum hit point total.
    >>
    >> In what way? You can't heal over your total anyway.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    >> "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    >> should be free."
    >
    >Quick reply as on borowed time in a public library:
    >
    >some people think temporary hit points are a separate total that hover
    >around wating to be depletedby wounds or just expire. This isn't the
    >case. If you have max HP 20 and ten points of wounds, then receive 5
    >temporary hit points and are then healed for 6, you only heal 5 hit
    >points back as your current hit point total is within five of your
    >maximum. This surprises some people.

    It probably surprises them because it's wrong.


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

    ringofw@hotmail.com wrote:
    > Fine, that was the conclusion I was hoping for. But if a character is
    > limited to one (Standard or ME) action a turn, that means they are
    > restricted to one a round, and yes, slowed characters and zombies
    > cannot then ready actions and have them go off, as that makes two
    > actions.

    That's a perverse reading of the rules. You could easily use the same
    reasoning to argue that /nobody/ can ready actions, because characters
    can only make one standard action per turn, and readying "makes two
    actions."

    > What is crazy about Bradd's house rule is that it assumes that a
    > single action can be both standard and move-equivalent, that it can be
    > spread over two turns , and both those turns occur in a single round.

    WTF?
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  43. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    ringofw@hotmail.com wrote:
    >> some people think temporary hit points are a separate total that
    >> hover around wating to be depletedby wounds or just expire. This
    >> isn't the case. If you have max HP 20 and ten points of wounds, then
    >> receive 5 temporary hit points and are then healed for 6, you only
    >> heal 5 hit points back as your current hit point total is within five
    >> of your maximum. This surprises some people.

    Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
    > It probably surprises them because it's wrong.

    It's a reasonable reading of the rules as written, especially if you're
    not familiar with the way earlier versions of the game handled them. I
    personally think that temporary hit points are supposed to work like a
    separate pool, and that the rules are poorly written, but ringofw's
    reading is not perverse given the actual text.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Ask a new question

Read More

Video Games