The challenge... Core Wizard vs. Fighter

[Sir Giacomo]

At long last...and just what I expected.
Somehow I feel this is not going to be accepted with cheers...:smallwink:


Simulacrum, from scroll.

Be my guest. Cast from scroll for a bargain of just 36k+ gp
Naw, better cast it from your own spells/day and lose a level :smallbiggrin: EDIT oopsey, even worse: you cannot cast it if it drops you below your current level. So simulacrum is out completely. EDIT END.
The best part: since we all wish to avoid metagaming and picking the bestest and nicest creature from the MM I that we know by heart, we leave it to the DM to choose what creatures you know with what abilities, depending on your knowledge skills. Which makes this spell entirely DM-dependent (apart from the DM decision whether you happen to have a part of it or not) and thus not very representative for a duel.
No, there is even a better part: the creature you get is completely crappy (13 HD max version of the original, with hardly any of its abilities) and hardly any DM will allow it into combat for a duel (or say hello to the feat-heavy fighter's choice of leadership...).
I think, let's just forget about simulacrum, OK?


Summon Creatures with Blindsight/Tremorsense to fight in Fog - Also creates multiple targets to listen to.

Not a bad idea...but again if only your character KNEW what kind of creatures he summons have this kind of ability. Entirely DM-dependent. Next.


Greater Invisibility + a move silent check that doesn't suck (+2 Dex, +8 ranks + 4 race +2 MW item) - In fairness, any wizard that intends to utilize invisibility should have a Move silent check.

Now, you're talking! And I am not referring to the greater invisbility spell (which does not help you at all against my fighter's see invisbility wand, worse, it lulls your wizard into a feeling of false safety!).
No - it is your mentioning of doing something else with your character than just choosing spells - choosing also the right skills to survive, even if they are cross-class! (oh my, how much flak I received for suggesting cross-class skills for a monk...)
But this I full-heartedly agree to. Halfling makes one of the best core wizard races. Also, while you are at it, raise tumble cross-class to have a better chance of survival vs AoO fighters.
And: better rely on hide skill, rather than trying invisbility. It lasts longer, can't be countered with see invisbility and saves you spell slots.


Fog Effects - Including Solid Fog, which DOES stop ranged attacks from a blinking foe (unless the wizard is blinking too; either they're ethereal and don't hit the mage, or they're material and are stopped by the Solid Fog. If the wizard is blinking too, and concealment exists, there's a 20% miss chance from ethereal, and a 50% miss chance from total concealment-Negate these with seeking, and it FORCES the arrow to the material plane. An ethereal creature can’t affect the Material Plane, not even magically. Source: SRD, Ethereal (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#etherealness))
On the material plane, the arrow cannot penetrate Solid fog. On the ethereal, you cannot affect the wizard, even magically. Take your pick.

I do not need to. Luckily, fighters do not just have ranged weaponry, but also melee weaponry and the opportunity to grapple (even without improved grapple it is enough vs wizards who usually do not carry a weapon to prevent it). These work just fine in a solid fog. And with the extra cash of not being allowed a rod of cancellation and a permancency scroll at the usual prices, it means my archer fighter can afford a nice melee weapon - maybe a greatsword +1, vicious enhancement and spell storing?.


Summon creatures with extrasensory abilities.

They queue up behind the creatures your DM decides you could pick from what your knowledge skill allows you. Too unreliable for a duel.


Haste + Fly = 90 feet move speed. Combine with half movement for high speed hide/Move silent.

Moving silently in the air when being targeted by an archer with see invisbility does not exactly help your wizard.


Dispel: If done while invisible, this requires a full round of standing still to recover from. (1 move to draw wand, 1 standard to use it) Even with quick draw, it prevents attacks for a round. Plus, if the archer wants to keep up attacks, he'll have to drop the wand, which makes for more time to recover from future dispels.

The archer does not need to do anything, since the buff he did in a buff round is mirror image. Good-bye to targeted dispel. And there are not that many buffs on the fighter - and do not forget that likely the lingering 1-round-haste effect from his boots will be the only spell taken out from an area dispel.


Physical Barriers: Either by arena features or walls of X
Illusions of Physical Barriers: Same as above.

Blink, duck underneath them, as done in the duel.


Wand of Silence+Silent spell: After all, if a fighter can use wands, why not a wizard?

Yes, why not? Except that a wizard will not usually go of his/her own accord within the silence area of a fighter to stop his command words.
But it is worth a try for the wizard to gimp himself and only learn spells with one level lower spell slots.


There are any number of options that a fighter simply cannot counter. There are too many ways to execute information denial.

So far you have shown none.
Your move.

- Giacomo

Edit @radar: even with arcane sight, you cannot see a hiding or invisible creature since you do not have line of sight.

[Beorn080]

Re: Arcane Sight. Interestingly, according to Fog Cloud, which Solid Fog is based on.

The fog obscures all sight, including darkvision, beyond 5 feet.

Arcane sight appears to be a form of sight. Thus, blocked.


Re: Wind Wall. Interestingly, Air happens to be a form of matter, and thus would be ignored by brilliant energy. Likewise, an incorporeal arrow would ignore it as well.

Re: Magic ray or the like. Oddly, "or the like" isn't defined. An arrow made out of energy would seem to be like a magic ray to me, but perhaps I'm wrong.

Re: Blink. If blink beats solid fog, so does incorporeal arrows. At worst, the arrows would have to be enchanted with incorporeal. If blink does not beat solid fog, any mage in it is reduced to a 5 foot MOVE ACTION. Period.

[jindra34]

Giacomo what is your Archer's defense against Disjunction?

[Sir Giacomo]

Good points, Beorn080, but etheralness is not equal to incorporality.
PhoenixRivers is right that a blinking fighter cannot shoot a non-blinking wizard within a solid fog.

- Giacomo

[TheYoungKing]

- not seeing any inconsistency or absurdity in their argument which when applied would in a one-shot scenario lead to a 55,000gp item, much more expensive than a 9th level one-shot item that could at least do as much or much, much more) and twice as expensive as a permanent item which does near everything the rod does and more,


In your signature thread, you state that a rod of cancellation is 11000.

Quit throwing around made-up numbers, especially when you contradict yourself.

The rod is 11000, not 55000 and is a one use item.

[Beorn080]

I was referring to an incorporeal bow. It counts as incorporeal or not depending on what is best. If the mage is in the fog, it can only move 5' a round, and burns a move action to do so. If it isn't, and you have seeking and know the square, you hit him. I'll grant that incorporeal doesn't beat solid fog however.

[jindra34]

I was referring to an incorporeal bow. It counts as incorporeal or not depending on what is best. If the mage is in the fog, it can only move 5' a round, and burns a move action to do so. If it isn't, and you have seeking and know the square, you hit him. I'll grant that incorporeal doesn't beat solid fog however.

Thats why you drop the fog on the target not yourself.

[Beorn080]

Thats why you drop the fog on the target not yourself.

And if target is blinking, he sinks into the ground and goes around.

Edit: Which would also block Disjunction.

[Sir Giacomo]

Giacomo what is your Archer's defense against Disjunction?

Ahhh. Finally a Nuke.

1. Range
2. Will Save vs DC 23 (40% chance of survival for each item)
3. Concealment.
4. 20% caster miscast
5. close to 20k for caster.
6. Fighter not dead after casting, just disabled partly.

But apart from that - quite agood thing! Similar to the idea of a fighter using AMF in the duel - also quite expensive, but way more devastating (for the wizard).

- Giacomo

[jseah]

^Gia, about SM:

From Summon Monster 1:

The spell conjures one of the creatures from the 1st-level list on the accompanying Summon Monster table. You choose which kind of creature to summon, and you can change that choice each time you cast the spell.
No need to know the creature.

If you know what the spell does (since the list is part of it) then you know which creatures get summoned and you can choose them. Spellcraft / Knowledge Arcana checks to know what spells do is trivial for a wizard.

It is trivial to have (in backstory) casted the SMs once for each monster and have the summons do an ability display.
The wizard knows virtually the exact stats for every monster he can summon simply by experimentally summoning them and trying to hit them, seeing how well they hit. Or simply running duels between SMs.
Given that casting SM costs basically nothing but time (and not much of it, ~1 day per monster), there is no reason not to have done it already.

Your objection to not knowing the abilities of summons is not viable.

[jindra34]

Ahhh. Finally a Nuke.

1. Range
2. Will Save vs DC 23 (40% chance of survival for each item)
3. Concealment.
4. 20% caster miscast
5. close to 20k for caster.
6. Fighter not dead after casting, just disabled partly.
But apart from that - quite agood thing! Similar to the idea of a fighter using AMF in the duel - also quite expensive, but way more devastating (for the wizard).

- Giacomo

Concealment gained how? And it also obliterates all the spells currently up in the area so then your archer is stuck either rebuilding the buffs (and getting smacked while doing so) or going with out the buffs that you admitted pretty much saved you. And losing 60% of your magic items.

[Sir Giacomo]

In your signature thread, you state that a rod of cancellation is 11000.

Quit throwing around made-up numbers, especially when you contradict yourself.

The rod is 11000, not 55000 and is a one use item.

You appear to have missed the discussion above. We should no longer discuss this - let us just leave out the rod of cancellation for now, OK?

(also, the 55k price would apply - if at all - only for one-shot adventures, which are not the norm).


I was referring to an incorporeal bow. It counts as incorporeal or not depending on what is best. If the mage is in the fog, it can only move 5' a round, and burns a move action to do so. If it isn't, and you have seeking and know the square, you hit him. I'll grant that incorporeal doesn't beat solid fog however.

Ah, I see - so the bow would need to be a seeking, brilliant energy weapon (+6 equivalent). A bit expensive, but maybe possible. Will think on it.

@jseah: the summon monster spell tells you that you can choose freely a creature, but the infomation that you base this decision on is entirely in your DM's hand - you do not know the MM by heart as a CHARACTER.

- Giacomo

[Tura]

I was referring to an incorporeal bow. It counts as incorporeal or not depending on what is best. If the mage is in the fog, it can only move 5' a round, and burns a move action to do so. If it isn't, and you have seeking and know the square, you hit him. I'll grant that incorporeal doesn't beat solid fog however.
There is no incorporeal bow. The Ghost Touch special ability can only be added to melee weapons, not ranged.

[jindra34]

There is no incorporeal bow. The Ghost Touch special ability can only be added to melee weapons, not ranged.

Actually you can apply ghost touch to ranged weapons but doing so does not make the munitions incorporeal.

[jseah]

@jseah: the summon monster spell tells you that you can choose freely a creature, but the infomation that you base this decision on is entirely in your DM's hand - you do not know the MM by heart as a CHARACTER.
I countered that by doing in-character experimentation, a wizard with 0 ranks can justifiably know (with some basic math) in-character all practical stats of monsters that can be summoned.

Unless you're saying that because I have 0 ranks, I cannot learn. Even if I have no ranks in knowledge (planes) does not mean that if I see Lantern Archons shoot light rays I instantly forget that they can shoot light rays.

It's that simple. Summon something, tell it to do a trick. Go again until it runs out of tricks. Run some duels and combat dummies. It's simple as pie.

[Tura]

Actually you can apply ghost touch to ranged weapons but doing so does not make the munitions incorporeal.
Where does it say that? :smallconfused:

Here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm) are the tables for magic properties that apply to Melee and Ranged weapons. Ghost Touch can be found only on the first table, while, for example, Bane can be found on both.

[rypt]

@jseah: the summon monster spell tells you that you can choose freely a creature, but the infomation that you base this decision on is entirely in your DM's hand - you do not know the MM by heart as a CHARACTER.

You appear not to have read his post. It is assumed that the wizard has summoned every possible monster from each summon monster spell at some point in the past and has already evaluated the abilities of each of those monsters as a matter of basic experimentation. Memorizing the abilities of each of those creatures is trivial for a wizard with 20+ intelligence.

[Tinydwarfman]

@jseah: the summon monster spell tells you that you can choose freely a creature, but the infomation that you base this decision on is entirely in your DM's hand - you do not know the MM by heart as a CHARACTER.

- Giacomo

No, but any semi-competent summoner would know the creatures he could summon. Any at this level, the knowledge checks are laughable.

[PhoenixRivers]

Be my guest. Cast from scroll for a bargain of just 36k+ gp
Naw, better cast it from your own spells/day and lose a level :smallbiggrin: EDIT oopsey, even worse: you cannot cast it if it drops you below your current level. So simulacrum is out completely. EDIT END.
The best part: since we all wish to avoid metagaming and picking the bestest and nicest creature from the MM I that we know by heart, we leave it to the DM to choose what creatures you know with what abilities, depending on your knowledge skills. Which makes this spell entirely DM-dependent (apart from the DM decision whether you happen to have a part of it or not) and thus not very representative for a duel.A level 13 wizard can easily have a knowledge check of +30, which is enough to gain useful information about most 20 HD creatures. Easy enough.


No, there is even a better part: the creature you get is completely crappy (13 HD max version of the original, with hardly any of its abilities) and hardly any DM will allow it into combat for a duel (or say hello to the feat-heavy fighter's choice of leadership...).
I think, let's just forget about simulacrum, OK?Even better, how about we consider is by "the core rules which you claim are sacrosanct and balanced, rather than the houserules you feel DM's will impose, which will undoubtedly distort that perfect balance that you feel they have"?


Not a bad idea...but again if only your character KNEW what kind of creatures he summons have this kind of ability. Entirely DM-dependent. Next.Knowledge of spells is part of spells. Easy enough to get low-mid HD creatures with such abilities. Arguing that a wizard doesn't know his own spells? That's a new low, even for you.

Large Monstrous Scorpion (Fiendish) - 5 HD. A check result of 30 (on a 26 bonus).


In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. So, check of 30= 4 pieces of useful information. When the check is for "creatures that possess tremorsense or blindsight", such a check would reveal it.


Now, you're talking! And I am not referring to the greater invisbility spell (which does not help you at all against my fighter's see invisbility wand, worse, it lulls your wizard into a feeling of false safety!).Incorrect. Order of application is "Fog", then "Invisibility". You never have a sense of "safety" in a duel. Such things get you killed. If you want to do that sort of thing, be my guest.

No - it is your mentioning of doing something else with your character than just choosing spells - choosing also the right skills to survive, even if they are cross-class! (oh my, how much flak I received for suggesting cross-class skills for a monk...)
No, how much flak you've received for using a cross class skill widely regarded as cheesy in a non-synergistic fashion. Negating ears and eyes is a synergistic use of a skill.

But this I full-heartedly agree to. Halfling makes one of the best core wizard races. Also, while you are at it, raise tumble cross-class to have a better chance of survival vs AoO fighters.
AoO? Fighters in core cannot AoO what they cannot see. Fog mitigates beyond 5 feet, and withdraw protects at 5 feet. Tumble is a useless investment. Thank you, come again.


And: better rely on hide skill, rather than trying invisbility. It lasts longer, can't be countered with see invisbility and saves you spell slots.Better yet, don't rely on any one thing, as that gets you killed.


I do not need to. Luckily, fighters do not just have ranged weaponry, but also melee weaponry and the opportunity to grapple (even without improved grapple it is enough vs wizards who usually do not carry a weapon to prevent it). These work just fine in a solid fog. And with the extra cash of not being allowed a rod of cancellation and a permancency scroll at the usual prices, it means my archer fighter can afford a nice melee weapon - maybe a greatsword +1, vicious enhancement and spell storing?.Go for it. Consider an open invitation to such a match.


They queue up behind the creatures your DM decides you could pick from what your knowledge skill allows you. Too unreliable for a duel.Depends. If you use the RAW established methods for determining the special abilities of creatures, not at all. If you try to houserule different, welcome to the "I need to houserule to balance against big bad wizards" club.


Moving silently in the air when being targeted by an archer with see invisbility does not exactly help your wizard.And moving silently in fog? Or around natural obstructions? Or around magically created obstructions? Methinks you know precious little on the subject, if you dismiss it so easily.


The archer does not need to do anything, since the buff he did in a buff round is mirror image. Good-bye to targeted dispel. And there are not that many buffs on the fighter - and do not forget that likely the lingering 1-round-haste effect from his boots will be the only spell taken out from an area dispel.Again, if you'd like to test that one, by all means.


Blink, duck underneath them, as done in the duel.
Duck underneath what? A wall of stone that connects to the ground? What's the tumble DC on that one, champ?

Yes, why not? Except that a wizard will not usually go of his/her own accord within the silence area of a fighter to stop his command words.
Who needs to stop command words? What's the DC to hear a silenced Wizard in Fog?


But it is worth a try for the wizard to gimp himself and only learn spells with one level lower spell slots.Gimp? It's only a gimp if it weakens.

[jindra34]

Where does it say that? :smallconfused:

Here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm) are the tables for magic properties that apply to Melee and Ranged weapons. Ghost Touch can be found only on the first table, while, for example, Bane can be found on both.

Quoting from same page description of ability:

Ghost Touch

A ghost touch weapon deals damage normally against incorporeal creatures, regardless of its bonus. (An incorporeal creature’s 50% chance to avoid damage does not apply to attacks with ghost touch weapons.) The weapon can be picked up and moved by an incorporeal creature at any time. A manifesting ghost can wield the weapon against corporeal foes. Essentially, a ghost touch weapon counts as either corporeal or incorporeal at any given time, whichever is more beneficial to the wielder.

Moderate conjuration; CL 9th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, plane shift; Price +1 bonus.

[Tura]

Quoting from same page description of ability:
Sorry, I didn't understand that.

The text you quoted describes what a Ghost Touch weapon does. It doesn't mention bows, arrows, or anything of the sort. It doesn't say, for example, "Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow this ability upon their ammunition.", like Flaming does. And the Table: Ranged Weapon Special Abilities doesn't include Ghost Touch.

So how can you "apply ghost touch to ranged weapons but doing so does not make the munitions incorporeal" ???

[rypt]

Quoting from same page description of ability:

???

Your quote is utterly silent to the Ghost Touch ability being applicable to ranged weapons.

[PhoenixRivers]

Quoting from same page description of ability:

The last line only applies to wielded weapons. Arrows that are fired are no longer wielded. Therefore, the last line does not apply to weapons that leave the possession of the wielder.

EDIT: He's pointing out that the text of the ability does not restrict the enhancement to melee weapons.

[Beorn080]

Other enchantments SPECIFICALLY point out if they can't be applied to a type of weapon. Ghost Touch doesn't. Likewise, at worst, you would enchant the ammo with Ghost Touch, making it shoot through anything.

Hmm. Seeking bow + Ghost Touch arrows = beat solid fog. Seek fire arrows through the ground, since they aren't in fog, they aren't stopped.

[PhoenixRivers]

Other enchantments SPECIFICALLY point out if they can't be applied to a type of weapon. Ghost Touch doesn't. Likewise, at worst, you would enchant the ammo with Ghost Touch, making it shoot through anything.

Hmm. Seeking bow + Ghost Touch arrows = beat solid fog. Seek fire arrows through the ground, since they aren't in fog, they aren't stopped.

Unless you and the wizard are both not in the fog, won't work. Because it has to enter the destination square, and leave the firing square.

Also, you still need to aim and fire at the correct square. Seeking does not mean "fire straight up, and have the arrow go "Macross (http://www.astrobunny.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/missiles.JPG)". If you don't aim at the correct square (firing into the ground likely won't), then seeking provides no benefit.

In addition, the text that allows a ghost touch weapon to be incorporeal or corporeal only applies to what is best for the Wielder. Once you fire it, and no longer wield it, it no longer applies. Welcome to shooting your arrows into dirt.

[Tinydwarfman]

Other enchantments SPECIFICALLY point out if they can't be applied to a type of weapon. Ghost Touch doesn't. Likewise, at worst, you would enchant the ammo with Ghost Touch, making it shoot through anything.

Hmm. Seeking bow + Ghost Touch arrows = beat solid fog. Seek fire arrows through the ground, since they aren't in fog, they aren't stopped.

Since when can ghost touch shoot through anything? Once it leaves your grasp, it becomes corporeal. It would also need to come back up through the fog, and how are you targeting the wizard when you can't see him???

[rypt]

EDIT: He's pointing out that the text of the ability does not restrict the enhancement to melee weapons.

Nor does it in any way invalidate the adjacent tables that only list the Ghost Touch enhancement under "Melee Weapon Special Abilities."

[Beorn080]

So you aim, the arrow goes down through the ground, and tags the caster out of the fog. Interestingly, a 100% miss chance, such as fog, would be negated by seeking, assuming the target isn't in a zone where arrows don't work, and a path(Through the ground for Ghost Touch arrows) that doesn't go through the cloud. It makes no mention of how convoluted the path may be.

Edit for Tiny: Ghost Touch enchanted ARROWS. They would be incorporeal or not as benefits the wielder.

[Yukitsu]

I'm not sure where you're getting that incorporeal can pass through a solid fog. The rules state that incorporeal objects and creatures are explicitly effected by spells, the only exception being that damage and damage only work 50% of the time. Non-damaging spells are guaranteed to work as normal.

[jindra34]

Nor does it in any way invalidate the adjacent tables that only list the Ghost Touch enhancement under "Melee Weapon Special Abilities."

Because unlike Vicious (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#vicious) it lacks a little line saying "Only melee weapons can be vicious." thus though it may not appear on the tables (which dictate random objects only) it still can be put on a ranged weapon.

[PhoenixRivers]

Nor does it in any way invalidate the adjacent tables that only list the Ghost Touch enhancement under "Melee Weapon Special Abilities."

The text does not BAR the enhancement from ranged tables. It doesn't list "this only goes here".

"Absence of text including" does not equal "Text excluding the ability".

[Beorn080]

I'm not sure where you're getting that incorporeal can pass through a solid fog. The rules state that incorporeal objects and creatures are explicitly effected by spells, the only exception being that damage and damage only work 50% of the time. Non-damaging spells are guaranteed to work as normal.

I'm not shooting it through the fog. There are three ways solid fog works.

Its on the caster of fog, IE the wizard. If it is, he is stuck. 5' move actions and impossible to see with anything. Blindsenses work, but not any of the vision increasing spells or abilities.

The fog is between the caster and the fighter. If so, seeking negates it, assuming it is fired at the correct square. Neither side can see the other. Both sides move normally.

The fog is on the, typically, ground bound fighter. Fighter aims his seeking bow at the target. The arrow goes down through the ground, since it is ghost touched, and tags the caster, who has total concealment due to the fog. The seeking enchantment does not provide limitations to how crazy the path may be.

[PhoenixRivers]

Edit for Tiny: Ghost Touch enchanted ARROWS. They would be incorporeal or not as benefits the wielder.

Look up your definitions of "wield". As soon as the bow twangs, you no longer wield it. You wield something only as long as it's in your hot little hands. Soon as you release it (for example, to SHOOT it), you no longer wield it.

I'm not shooting it through the fog. There are three ways solid fog works.

Its on the caster of fog, IE the wizard. If it is, he is stuck. 5' move actions and impossible to see with anything. Blindsenses work, but not any of the vision increasing spells or abilities.Correct, though there are mitigators.


The fog is between the caster and the fighter. If so, seeking negates it, assuming it is fired at the correct square. Neither side can see the other. Both sides move normally.wrong. It must be aimed at the correct square. AIMED. This isn't macross. Aiming an arrow at the correct square means you need to point the arrow at that square. Firing into the ground does not.


The fog is on the, typically, ground bound fighter. Fighter aims his seeking bow at the target. The arrow goes down through the ground, since it is ghost touched, and tags the caster, who has total concealment due to the fog. The seeking enchantment does not provide limitations to how crazy the path may be.YES, it DOES. You have to aim. Also, in this example, the arrow starts in the square the fighter's in. No dice.

[Yukitsu]

Aiming it at the ground doesn't negate that it is in the fog.

Also, your use violates the "An incorporeal creature can enter or pass through solid objects, but must remain adjacent to the object’s exterior, and so cannot pass entirely through an object whose space is larger than its own." clause of the rule, as the ground is very much larger than it is.

Nor does seeking let you fire away from the target to avoid intervening cover. The only attack described is a linear path between archer and target. Any other variation simply misses.

And no, arrows don't arc in D&D.

[Tura]

Other enchantments SPECIFICALLY point out if they can't be applied to a type of weapon. Ghost Touch doesn't.
So? Ghost Touch isn't on the list of Ranged Weapon Special Abilities. Therefore, it doesn't apply to ranged weapons. Period. The text doesn't have to specify anything.

Look, incorporeality in D&D is a big bloody mess. Incorporeal creatures can't use ranged weapons themselves - if they throw anything, it immediately becomes corporeal once it leaves their grasp. (Apparently, someone in the designer team thought that projectiles and incorporeality just don't mix.)

[Beorn080]

@PR: Its still under the effect of the seeking enchantment, and thus effectively wielded until it hits the target.

@Yuki: It skins just under the surface of the ground. Fairly sure thats within 5 feet of the air. Its not passing through the ground to the other side of the world, merely to the edge of the spell. Likewise, I am AIMING straight at the target. The seeking effect is insuring I hit. It lists no limits on how wildly it veers, and so it can be assumed it can take odd paths.

[PhoenixRivers]

So? Ghost Touch isn't on the list of Ranged Weapon Special Abilities. Therefore, it doesn't apply to ranged weapons. Period. The text doesn't have to specify anything.By RAW? Yes, unfortunately, it does. Doesn't change a darn thing, really, but it does.


Look, incorporeality in D&D is a big bloody mess. Incorporeal creatures can't use ranged weapons themselves - if they throw anything, it immediately becomes corporeal once it leaves their grasp. (Apparently, someone in the designer team thought that projectiles and incorporeality just don't mix.)
Correct.

[jindra34]

So? Ghost Touch isn't on the list of Ranged Weapon Special Abilities. Therefore, it doesn't apply to ranged weapons. Period. The text doesn't have to specify anything.

Look, incorporeality in D&D is a big bloody mess. Incorporeal creatures can't use ranged weapons themselves - if they throw anything, it immediately becomes corporeal once it leaves their grasp. (Apparently, someone in the designer team thought that projectiles and incorporeality just don't mix.)

Ok so what happens if I take a ghost touch short sword and enchant it with throwing, as I now have a ghost touch ranged weapon?

[Yukitsu]

@Yuki: It skins just under the surface of the ground. Fairly sure thats within 5 feet of the air. Its not passing through the ground to the other side of the world, merely to the edge of the spell.

Actually, it's within 5 feet of a solid fog. And if you aimed straight down, no, it's not skimming under the dirt. And you still had to shoot through a solid fog for it to get there. And you're still aiming away from the target.

[Tinydwarfman]

The fog is on the, typically, ground bound fighter. Fighter aims his seeking bow at the target. The arrow goes down through the ground, since it is ghost touched, and tags the caster, who has total concealment due to the fog. The seeking enchantment does not provide limitations to how crazy the path may be.

Two problems, if you are inside the fog, the arrow has to pass through at least some of it to hit the ground. Also, Seeking:


Only ranged weapons can have the seeking ability. The weapon veers toward its target, negating any miss chances that would otherwise apply, such as from concealment. (The wielder still has to aim the weapon at the right square. Arrows mistakenly shot into an empty space, for example, do not veer and hit invisible enemies, even if they are nearby.)

I don't think pointing your bow towards the grounds is aiming the right square. Also, if you cannot see something it is not "100% miss chance", you have no target, and no LoS. You simply cannot shoot.

[rypt]

Because unlike Vicious (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#vicious) it lacks a little line saying "Only melee weapons can be vicious." thus though it may not appear on the tables (which dictate random objects only) it still can be put on a ranged weapon.

So your argument is that since all other weapon abilities that appear only in the melee weapon table have a note in their description saying they can only be applied to melee weapons, the Ghost Touch ability was acccidentally omitted from the ranged weapons table? I would argue the opposite -- that the note in the Ghost Touch description was accidentally omitted. Every weapon ability that appears on the ranged weapon table except for speed has, somewhere in its description, a reference to its applicability to ranged weapons and/or ammunition.

EDIT: The table is RAW and this isn't a matter of table vs. text as there is no contradiction between the two. An omittion is not a contradiction.

[PhoenixRivers]

@PR: Its still under the effect of the seeking enchantment, and thus effectively wielded until it hits the target.


WRONG. Wielding involves guiding or directing. YOU are no longer doing that once you fire. An enchantment may be. But YOU are not. And if YOU are not wielding it, then YOU don't get any say in the path it takes, the effect that happens, or ANYTHING ELSE. Once YOU let that arrow go, YOUR control over the arrow is DONE. GONE. FINITE. NO MAS.

There's no other way to say it. Once you let go, your ability to exercise any control over the object is gone. It is no longer wielded by you.

And, as for "aim":

to point or direct a gun, punch, etc., toward: He aimed at the target but missed it.
When you point a bow at the ground, you are NOT aiming it at the correct square. End of discussion. Your attempt to abuse the english language fails.

[Beorn080]

Ok so what happens if I take a ghost touch short sword and enchant it with throwing, as I now have a ghost touch ranged weapon?

Add returning. Does its return not work because it can't touch it.

@ EVERYONE ELSE: I AM AIMING MY BOW AT THE PERSON. Against the ground. Kneeling, holding it along the ground, aiming at the proper square. When fired, it will take the Ghost touched arrow, skim the surface of the ground, pop out when it reaches the end, and tag the mage.

Also, for incorporeality.

but must remain adjacent to the object’s exterior.

That means that skimming the surface of the ground under a solid fog is legal.

[Tinydwarfman]

So your argument is that since all other weapon abilities that appear only in the melee weapon table have a note in their description saying they can only be applied to melee weapons, the Ghost Touch were acccidentally omitted from the ranged weapons table? I would argue the opposite -- that the note in the Ghost Touch description was accidentally omitted. Every weapon ability that appears on the ranged weapon table except for speed has, somewhere in its description, a reference to its applicability to ranged weapons and/or ammunition.

Text over Table unfortunately. But I agree with you, it's strange.

[Tura]

By RAW? Yes, unfortunately, it does. Doesn't change a darn thing, really, but it does.
Sorry to insist, but I honestly don't get it. In the SRD and DMG, isn't the "Ranged Weapon Special Abilities" Table RAW? Do yo suppose the table's there only to randomly generate objects, but for some obscure reason it doesn't include all legal options? (It isn't named "Random generation of Magical Ranged Weapons" Table. :smalltongue:)

[jindra34]

So your argument is that since all other weapon abilities that appear only in the melee weapon table have a note in their description saying they can only be applied to melee weapons, the Ghost Touch were acccidentally omitted from the ranged weapons table? I would argue the opposite -- that the note in the Ghost Touch description was accidentally omitted. Every weapon ability that appears on the ranged weapon table except for speed has, somewhere in its description, a reference to its applicability to ranged weapons and/or ammunition.

Never said accidentally. As has been pointed out there are many ways it can be construed as not being worth a darn on a ranged weapon, thus making it silly and causing the designers not to put it on there. As most throwing weapons can be used as mellee they could be put on those without issue either way. As it does not auto-apply itself to munitions it would be stupid to put on a bow or crossbow. Now with only two of more than four options being munitions it seems silly to put something on a table when its going to be a waste a majority of the time. And as I stated before the tables are supposed to be for solely rolling random weapons.

[Tinydwarfman]

@ EVERYONE ELSE: I AM AIMING MY BOW AT THE PERSON. Against the ground.

YOUR STATEMENTS CONTRADICT EACH OTHER.

Also, why is it still wielded after it leaves you hand? You seem to suggest that seeking is the cause somehow.

[rypt]

Text over Table unfortunately. But I agree with you, it's strange.

See my edit above. I'm well aware of the text vs. table rule, but that applies where text and table contradict one another. There is no contradiction here. The text says nothing about the ability's use in ranged or melee weapons and all guidance on the issue comes from the table.

[PhoenixRivers]

Add returning. Does its return not work because it can't touch it.

@ EVERYONE ELSE: I AM AIMING MY BOW AT THE PERSON. Against the ground. Kneeling, holding it along the ground, aiming at the proper square. When fired, it will take the Ghost touched arrow, skim the surface of the ground, pop out when it reaches the end, and tag the mage.

Also, for incorporeality.

but must remain adjacent to the object’s exterior.

That means that skimming the surface of the ground under a solid fog is legal.
If it's in the ground, it was not aimed at the square. It was aimed at the square beneath. No matter how slight the angle, it must do so. To do otherwise defies simple geometry. This doesn't even get into "what if the wizard isn't touching the ground".

In other words, if you think the above works, you're not abusing the english language. You're abusing geometry.

[PhoenixRivers]

See my edit above. I'm well aware of the text vs. table rule, but that applies where text and table contradict one another. There is no contradiction here. The text says nothing about the ability's use in ranged or melee weapons.

And the table makes no claim that items not on its list are banned. You would be right if the table explicitly banned it. It does not.


Sorry to insist, but I honestly don't get it. In the SRD and DMG, isn't the "Ranged Weapon Special Abilities" Table RAW? Do yo suppose the table's there only to randomly generate objects, but for some obscure reason it doesn't include all legal options? (It isn't named "Random generation of Magical Ranged Weapons" Table. :smalltongue:)
Yes, the table is RAW.

However, it is not Exhaustive. The treasure tables were designed to assist DM's in the placement of treasure (per RAW). That does not mean that they are there to list every possible option.

[Beorn080]

WRONG. Wielding involves guiding or directing. YOU are no longer doing that once you fire. An enchantment may be. But YOU are not. And if YOU are not wielding it, then YOU don't get any say in the path it takes, the effect that happens, or ANYTHING ELSE. Once YOU let that arrow go, YOUR control over the arrow is DONE. GONE. FINITE. NO MAS.

There's no other way to say it. Once you let go, your ability to exercise any control over the object is gone. It is no longer wielded by you.



Then the ENCHANTMENT is wielding it, and it is most benificial to the ENCHANTMENT for it to go through the ground incorporeally.

Also, I'm holding the bow, flat against the ground, not pointing at it, but parallel, and aiming at the correct square.

Edit: Abusing Geometry. In a game with magic fog that stops arrows for no reason. Yep, your right, you win.

[jindra34]

If it's in the ground, it was not aimed at the square. It was aimed at the square beneath. No matter how slight the angle, it must do so. To do otherwise defies simple geometry. This doesn't even get into "what if the wizard isn't touching the ground".

In other words, if you think the above works, you're not abusing the english language. You're abusing geometry.

Seeking enchantment tells geometry to go get lost. If it didn't then half the things its supposed to do it wouldn't. Beorn is mutilating the language though.

Then the ENCHANTMENT is wielding it, and it is most benificial to the ENCHANTMENT for it to go through the ground incorporeally.

Also, I'm holding the bow, flat against the ground, not pointing at it, but parallel, and aiming at the correct square.

At which point the path no longer has any reason to go into the ground. And also the ENCHANTMENT is now smart?

[Tinydwarfman]

Then the ENCHANTMENT is wielding it, and it is most benificial to the ENCHANTMENT for it to go through the ground incorporeally.

Also, I'm holding the bow, flat against the ground, not pointing at it, but parallel, and aiming at the correct square.

Then your arrow still has to go through some of the fog, and really, the enchantment is 'wielding' the arrow? :smallannoyed: Come on. Enchantments cannot hold things.EDIT: Also, seeking arrows go towards their targets. Why would it enter the ground?

[rypt]

And the table makes no claim that items not on its list are banned. You would be right if the table explicitly banned it. It does not.

This is an amusing standard, given the nature of tables.

[jindra34]

This is an amusing standard, given the nature of tables.

To list information in relation to other information?

[PhoenixRivers]

Then the ENCHANTMENT is wielding it, and it is most benificial to the ENCHANTMENT for it to go through the ground incorporeally.

Also, I'm holding the bow, flat against the ground, not pointing at it, but parallel, and aiming at the correct square.

Edit: Abusing Geometry. In a game with magic fog that stops arrows for no reason. Yep, your right, you win.

That doesn't change the fact that you must POINT the freakin bow at the CORRECT freakin square.

Example of Why and How you are terribly, terribly wrong:
http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w85/maharai23/Basedisproval.png
Light color is fog. Blue line is aim path. Red is "Fighter McDeadGuy".
Yellow is "Wizard McKillsHim".

If the path in the top example were high enough to travel into the wizard's square, then it is high enough to travel through all intervening squares. Including the ones with fog.

In other words: You fail.

Bottom example factors in a flying wizard. Let's try reasoning aiming that one at the ground.

[jindra34]

Also Beorn it would be easier to just grab a siege weapon because IIRC solid fog doesn't stop siege munitions.

[Beorn080]

Interestingly, it says square, not cube. I merely aim at the correct square. I can hit the square underneath the flying wizard, if not on the ground, then under it with ghost touch arrows. Therefore, I can hit the wizard that is in the right square.

[Tinydwarfman]

That doesn't change the fact that you must POINT the freakin bow at the CORRECT freakin square.

Example of Why and How you are terribly, terribly wrong:
http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w85/maharai23/Basedisproval.png
Light color is fog. Blue line is aim path. Red is "Fighter McDeadGuy".
Yellow is "Wizard McKillsHim".

If the path in the top example were high enough to travel into the wizard's square, then it is high enough to travel through all intervening squares. Including the ones with fog.

In other words: You fail.

Bottom example factors in a flying wizard. Let's try reasoning aiming that one at the ground.

Aw man, you beat me to my MS paint diagram. The line on top is hard to see though.

[PhoenixRivers]

Also Beorn it would be easier to just grab a siege weapon because IIRC solid fog doesn't stop siege munitions.

It's still a ranged attack. It's not a magical ray or the like. It can't be effectively employed.

[jindra34]

Interestingly, it says square, not cube. I merely aim at the correct square. I can hit the square underneath the flying wizard, if not on the ground, then under it with ghost touch arrows. Therefore, I can hit the wizard that is in the right square.

Then it may as well say line as if you fire it along the ground it would pop up and attack the first creature it would fly under, over, or near.

[Tinydwarfman]

Interestingly, it says square, not cube. I merely aim at the correct square. I can hit the square underneath the flying wizard, if not on the ground, then under it with ghost touch arrows. Therefore, I can hit the wizard that is in the right square.

Squares in D&D are actually 3 dimensional. When they say large creatures occupy a 10 ft. square, they don't mean that they are actually 2 dimensional.

[jindra34]

It's still a ranged attack. It's not a magical ray or the like. It can't be effectively employed.

Wow so it can potentially stop catapults firing boulders larger than its area. Cool. Need to put it all around my castle walls.

[rypt]

To list information in relation to other information?

It is amusing that given two tables, each containing a sub-category where the combination of the two sub-categories is exhaustive of the category, there is a possibility that the information contained in either one when taken individually would not be exhaustive to that table's sub-category. It would be like having a table of all odd integers greater than zero and a table of all even integers greater than zero and saying that the table of odd integers does not exclude the possible presence of an odd integer on the even integer table even though combined, the two tables represent every integer greater than zero.

[Tinydwarfman]

Wow so it can potentially stop catapults firing boulders larger than its area. Cool.

Another neat trick is casting it while falling if you don't have featherfall prepared. You move 5 feet per round, not stopping you, but slowing down so that you don't take damage.

[PhoenixRivers]

Interestingly, it says square, not cube. I merely aim at the correct square. I can hit the square underneath the flying wizard, if not on the ground, then under it with ghost touch arrows. Therefore, I can hit the wizard that is in the right square.

...

I'm done with you.

Exactly how do people claim that wizard supporters are bending the rules over until they cry out for death, yet find that sweet release unavailable, being forced to live in a twisted mockery of their former selves... when this is what the opposition claims?

Just... wow.

By that logic, I can surround you with summoned birds, 2000 feet up, and you can't move, because you can't enter another creature's square. Don't play that game. The wizard wins semantic abuse as well.

[jindra34]

...

I'm done with you.

Exactly how do people claim that wizard supporters are bending the rules over until they cry out for death, yet find that sweet release unavailable, being forced to live in a twisted mockery of their former selves... when this is what the opposition claims?

Just... wow.

By that logic, I can surround you with summoned birds, 2000 feet up, and you can't move, because you can't enter another creature's square. Don't play that game. The wizard wins semantic abuse as well.

By that logic the birds would also manage to catch the arrows even if they were not aimed at. Thus nulling the seeking archery property. And as arrows can't go that high...

[PhoenixRivers]

By that logic the birds would also manage to catch the arrows even if they were not aimed at. Thus nulling the seeking archery property. And as arrows can't go that high...

Well, technically, that's true. After all, you did point at their square.

[jindra34]

Well, technically, that's true. After all, you did point at their square.

I think whats worse is that melee attacks would also be possible. Thus completely nuking archery, and the only quick response would involve dropping the bow which the mage would likely obliterate in a round as it would then be un-attended. Oopsie.

[PhoenixRivers]

I think whats worse is that melee attacks would also be possible. Thus completely nuking archery, and the only quick response would involve dropping the bow which the mage would likely obliterate in a round as it would then be un-attended. Oopsie.

Telekinesis. Why obliterate what you can gank and sell?

[jindra34]

Telekinesis. Why obliterate what you can gank and sell?

Point. But either way the archer loses the bow. At which point mage wins.

[TheMadLinguist]

So your argument is that since all other weapon abilities that appear only in the melee weapon table have a note in their description saying they can only be applied to melee weapons, the Ghost Touch ability was acccidentally omitted from the ranged weapons table? I would argue the opposite -- that the note in the Ghost Touch description was accidentally omitted. Every weapon ability that appears on the ranged weapon table except for speed has, somewhere in its description, a reference to its applicability to ranged weapons and/or ammunition.

EDIT: The table is RAW and this isn't a matter of table vs. text as there is no contradiction between the two. An omittion is not a contradiction.

It's like a random encounter table. Just because there's no pseudonatural housecat on the random encounter table doesn't mean you can't have a pseudonatural housecat.

[PhoenixRivers]

Another neat trick is casting it while falling if you don't have featherfall prepared. You move 5 feet per round, not stopping you, but slowing down so that you don't take damage.

Actually, solid fog explicitly references falling creatures. Lowers the damage by 1d6 for every 10 feet you fall through. Thus, at best, it will negate 4d6 of falling damage.


Point. But either way the archer loses the bow. At which point mage wins.

Well, in fairness, under this ridiculous interpretation, the fighter could melee the wizard, if he got under him. Then, swarms of summons could stagger that movement.

[Tinydwarfman]

Actually, solid fog explicitly references falling creatures. Lowers the damage by 1d6 for every 10 feet you fall through. Thus, at best, it will negate 4d6 of falling damage.

:smallfrown: I can't believe I missed that... I guess it's one of those simple spells you think you known so well you don't bother to look it up.

[jindra34]

Well, in fairness, under this ridiculous interpretation, the fighter could melee the wizard, if he got under him. Then, swarms of summons could stagger that movement.

Yeah it is a ridiculous interpretation, yet despite being intended for the fighter's aide it ends up hurting him. And yeah long odds on the fighter (top consistent speed 40) ever standing under or 'next to' a flying wizard (minimum speed 40)

[TheMadLinguist]

You see, this is exactly why I use hexes for my mats.

[bachigai]

I'm curious. If a brilliant energy arrow can pass through a solid fog by virtue of ignoring nonliving matter, how do you actually fire it? Would it not just pass through your bowstring? Since you can't make brilliant energy bows...

[Gametime]

...

The best part: since we all wish to avoid metagaming and picking the bestest and nicest creature from the MM I that we know by heart, we leave it to the DM to choose what creatures you know with what abilities, depending on your knowledge skills. Which makes this spell entirely DM-dependent (apart from the DM decision whether you happen to have a part of it or not) and thus not very representative for a duel.

...

Not a bad idea...but again if only your character KNEW what kind of creatures he summons have this kind of ability. Entirely DM-dependent. Next.



Giacomo, you aren't honestly trying to arbitrarily and suddenly inflict houseruling onto this duel, are you?

Because there's nothing in the text to suggest that knowledge of monsters is required to summon them. Like, at all.

But I have a compromise I think everyone can live with. We accept your "DM fiat on what can and cannot arbitrarily nerf the Wizard be summoned" rule, and in the spirit of avoiding metagaming, offer the following rule as well:

"The Fighter must make a successful Spellcraft check to determine what spells he knows exists. Failure to do so indicates that the character has never experienced the effects of that spell well enough to be aware that Wizards are capable of employing it. The purchase of magical items designed to counteract spells of which the Fighter is not aware will be viewed as metagaming and disallowed."

Sound fair?

[Gametime]

You see, this is exactly why I use hexes for my mats.

If anything, I find hexes more painful to translate into 3D. D&D combat in three dimensions is just a headache to begin with, though, and I do enjoy hexes for flat battles.


I'm curious. If a brilliant energy arrow can pass through a solid fog by virtue of ignoring nonliving matter, how do you actually fire it? Would it not just pass through your bowstring? Since you can't make brilliant energy bows...

Energy bow, you say? (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20061227a)

[PhoenixRivers]

Giacomo, you aren't honestly trying to arbitrarily and suddenly inflict houseruling onto this duel, are you?

Because there's nothing in the text to suggest that knowledge of monsters is required to summon them. Like, at all.

But I have a compromise I think everyone can live with. We accept your "DM fiat on what can and cannot arbitrarily nerf the Wizard be summoned" rule, and in the spirit of avoiding metagaming, offer the following rule as well:

"The Fighter must make a successful Spellcraft check to determine what spells he knows exists. Failure to do so indicates that the character has never experienced the effects of that spell well enough to be aware that Wizards are capable of employing it. The purchase of magical items designed to counteract spells of which the Fighter is not aware will be viewed as metagaming and disallowed."

Sound fair?
Don't assume I accept that one. It's relatively easy to buff a cross class skill to +19. Heck, he did it for UMD.

It's also something of a specialty of his to say "no, that wand of see invisibility wasn't for the Invisibility spell... it was for finding his keys, which have permanent invisibility on them". He'll weasel anything he wants, if you let him, whilst simultaneously decrying the use of your abilities as listed, claiming that the rules are balanced, but only when you interpret them to be something other than what they actually say.

The plot to nerf the wizard's class skills is patently ridiculous, and I won't stand for it.

[bachigai]

Energy bow, you say? (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20061227a)

...That just raises further questions!

[Hunter548]

Gia, you seem to think that your interpretation of the rules makes the classes more balanced.So, how about this: Two duels, best of three for each. Core only. The first duel uses your interpretation of the rules that supposedly makes the classes so much more balanced.. Second set uses my and the rest of this thread's interpretation. By your position, you should win or be able to come close to winning in at least one of the matches.

Does this work for you?

Giacomo, you appear to have missed this. If the classes are as balanced as you seem to think will you duel me?

[Togo]

It's also totally unecessary.

Summoned monsters can't handle solid fog any better than a fighter can. Remember you can't summon them into the fog unless you can see the target square. They move into the fog, the fighter moves out (in whatever manner) and there is no reason to suppose they ever catch him. If you summon multiple monsters, the fighter can just ignore them anyway if he has a decent AC, and they end up standing around looking decorative.

As for monsters with additional sensory abilities, blindsense allows you to identify where people are, but not what they look like. If you're both in the fog, the monster is as likely to follow the wizard around as the fighter, because he can't tell them apart.

Solid fog and summoned monsters can both be useful, but combining them is highly situational.

[Gametime]

Don't assume I accept that one. It's relatively easy to buff a cross class skill to +19. Heck, he did it for UMD.

It's also something of a specialty of his to say "no, that wand of see invisibility wasn't for the Invisibility spell... it was for finding his keys, which have permanent invisibility on them". He'll weasel anything he wants, if you let him, whilst simultaneously decrying the use of your abilities as listed, claiming that the rules are balanced, but only when you interpret them to be something other than what they actually say.

The plot to nerf the wizard's class skills is patently ridiculous, and I won't stand for it.

True - but I doubt he'll accept the conditions, either. I was mostly just trying to make a point about how stupid it is to impose arbitrary, subjective rules about "metagaming" onto a duel intended to test class strength, when the whole point is a metagame analysis of class strength.

Obviously, you shouldn't be required to accept any conditions that I make up for the purpose of making a point. Though, admittedly, you hardly need summoning spells to win.

[Gametime]

It's also totally unecessary.

Summoned monsters can't handle solid fog any better than a fighter can. Remember you can't summon them into the fog unless you can see the target square. They move into the fog, the fighter moves out (in whatever manner) and there is no reason to suppose they ever catch him. If you summon multiple monsters, the fighter can just ignore them anyway if he has a decent AC, and they end up standing around looking decorative.

As for monsters with additional sensory abilities, blindsense allows you to identify where people are, but not what they look like. If you're both in the fog, the monster is as likely to follow the wizard around as the fighter, because he can't tell them apart.

Solid fog and summoned monsters can both be useful, but combining them is highly situational.

Why would you both be in the fog? Drop it on the fighter's head and laugh away. If he's closed the distance to you before you can, and somehow gotten past your Contingency, you'll still be able to teleport out before he can bumble out.

[rypt]

It's like a random encounter table. Just because there's no pseudonatural housecat on the random encounter table doesn't mean you can't have a pseudonatural housecat.

Is the melee weapon properties table beginning on page 239 of the MiC also used only for the purposes of random item generation?

[Doc Roc]

Just to back things up a bit, squares are 3d objects in D&D. This is exactly as annoying as it sounds, particularly because they're rectangles.

[Togo]

Why would you both be in the fog? Drop it on the fighter's head and laugh away..

No idea. That was the tactic described though. I played a summoner who specilaised in fog spells for 3 years. I learned to keep the two separate.

[jindra34]

No idea. That was the tactic described though. I played a summoner who specilaised in fog spells for 3 years. I learned to keep the two separate.

I've seen drop a cloud on me and an opponent used before. It was by a rogue, and a prior step was add silence. The next step was blast the zone with AOE spells.

[PhoenixRivers]

I've seen drop a cloud on me and an opponent used before. It was by a rogue, and a prior step was add silence. The next step was blast the zone with AOE spells.

AoE vs Rogue is rarely optimal. There are exceptions, of course, but they're generally higher level. Black Tentacles can make a rogue have a hard time.

[jindra34]

AoE vs Rogue is rarely optimal. There are exceptions, of course, but they're generally higher level. Black Tentacles can make a rogue have a hard time.

Rogue and the people dropping AoE's were in the same party. So thats kinda the point.

[Togo]

AoE spells are more usual. You have to be careful that you can target them somewhere that you can see (generally the edge of the cloud) while still covering the full area that the cloud covers, and not covering yourself and the rest of the party. I find cloudkill works well, while things like fireball are almost useless.

[PhoenixRivers]

AoE spells are more usual. You have to be careful that you can target them somewhere that you can see (generally the edge of the cloud) while still covering the full area that the cloud covers, and not covering yourself and the rest of the party. I find cloudkill works well, while things like fireball are almost useless.

You don't need LoS to center an Area spell. They're not targeted.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#area

Targeted spells are the only ones you need LOS for (alternately, being able to touch the target suffices).

[TheMadLinguist]

Is the melee weapon properties table beginning on page 239 of the MiC also used only for the purposes of random item generation?

They're different kinds of tables. The table you're talking about is located on page 282.

[rypt]

They're different kinds of tables. The table you're talking about is located on page 282.

No. My point is that even the tables that serve as comprehensive lists of the possible weapon enhancement abilities (those founds on pages 239 and 241 for melee and ranged weapons respectively) and not as 'random generation guideline tables,' as you seem to suggest of those in the DMG, only list ghost touch as a melee weapon ability.

[TheMadLinguist]

They aren't comprehensive, though.

If they were intended to, we wouldn't have things like


Only melee weapons can have the ki focus ability.
or

Throwing

This ability can only be placed on a melee weapon

or


Only melee weapons can be vicious.

Because that would have been covered by inclusion, or lack thereof, on the table.

We also have this quote from the MIC weapon section

Unless noted otherwise in the Prop*erty entry, each special property in this chapter can be added to any weapon. Some properties can be applied only to a particular category of weapons, and are so noted. A few properties can be added only to a smaller subset of a category (such as projectile weapons); this fact is stated in the item's Property entry.
In other words, the case used in the MIC is that the weapon itself has the descriptor of what is and is not melee or ranged only; the table you cited isn't intended to be a comprehensive list of every possible weapon. It's just a general shopping list for ease of use.

[Math_Mage]

In other words, the case used in the MIC is that the weapon itself has the descriptor of what is and is not melee or ranged only; the table you cited isn't intended to be a comprehensive list of every possible weapon. It's just a general shopping list for ease of use.

Amusingly enough, the MIC itself only lists ghost touch weapons on the melee table, in keeping with the earlier tables. I doubt that changes the ruling on this, but it's funny.

[Gametime]

Because that would have been covered by inclusion, or lack thereof, on the table.



I don't think there's an argument to be made that the possibility of repetition means the tables aren't comprehensive. That, to me, seems just as weak as the argument that the weapons can't be Ghost Touch because it isn't on the tables.

Lack of inclusion isn't the same as exclusion. Double inclusion isn't a logical impossibility, either.

I think the intent was that only melee weapons can be Ghost Touch, but based on the rules as written, there's nothing precluding them from being Ghost Touch. But that isn't because other weapons say they can't be melee; reminders show up all over the place without invalidating the actual rules.

[PhoenixRivers]

I don't think there's an argument to be made that the possibility of repetition means the tables aren't comprehensive. That, to me, seems just as weak as the argument that the weapons can't be Ghost Touch because it isn't on the tables.

Lack of inclusion isn't the same as exclusion. Double inclusion isn't a logical impossibility, either.

I think the intent was that only melee weapons can be Ghost Touch, but based on the rules as written, there's nothing precluding them from being Ghost Touch. But that isn't because other weapons say they can't be melee; reminders show up all over the place without invalidating the actual rules.

I agree, especially since the same entries exist in MIC with a specific rule that "if it's not specified, it applies to all weapons".

[AmberVael]

Wanna know the funny part that makes it worthless for a bow or crossbow? There's another clause which isn't assumed unless it is in the weapon description:


Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the [Insert Enchantment here] quality upon their ammunition.

So yeah, you can have a ghost touch bow, but to hit anything incorporeal, or to have ghost touch arrows, you'll need to buy ghost touch arrows too- because the above clause isn't in Ghost Touch.

[Eldariel]

Wanna know the funny part that makes it worthless for a bow or crossbow? There's another clause which isn't assumed unless it is in the weapon description:

So yeah, you can have a ghost touch bow, but to hit anything incorporeal, or to have ghost touch arrows, you'll need to buy ghost touch arrows too- because the above clause isn't in Ghost Touch.

But you can totally buy a Serrenwood Bow and get that ability without paying for the magic enhancement :smallbiggrin:

[AmberVael]

But you can totally buy a Serrenwood Bow and get that ability without paying for the magic enhancement :smallbiggrin:

That's great, but a Serrenwood Bow is still utterly useless unless you're a ghost wanting to pick it up. Because it doesn't shoot ghost touch arrows (which was the point I was making).

Buying ghost touch or Serrenwood arrows would do the trick though.

[olentu]

But you can totally buy a Serrenwood Bow and get that ability without paying for the magic enhancement :smallbiggrin:

Well if I recall correctly the material just gives the bow or ammunition the ghost touch special property and taking what has been said as true the bow would not bestow said property on its ammunition and so one would still need to buy the arrows rather then the bow. I guess it could be useful if one has one of those bows that are also melee weapons.

[Flickerdart]

Wanna know the funny part that makes it worthless for a bow or crossbow? There's another clause which isn't assumed unless it is in the weapon description:



So yeah, you can have a ghost touch bow, but to hit anything incorporeal, or to have ghost touch arrows, you'll need to buy ghost touch arrows too- because the above clause isn't in Ghost Touch.
You could throw the bow at ghosts, though. Like a boomerang.

[The Glyphstone]

Bribe/Cajole your DM into allowing you to find or purchase an Energy Bow (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20061227a). Problem solved?

[Gametime]

I don't think the Energy Bow allows for questionable ground-skimming shots to avoid solid fog, which was the intention in using a Ghost Touch bow.

Most archers do seem to end up relying on Force bows for their ghost-shootin' needs, though.

[rypt]

They aren't comprehensive, though.

If they were intended to, we wouldn't have things like


or


or



Because that would have been covered by inclusion, or lack thereof, on the table.

We also have this quote from the MIC weapon section

In other words, the case used in the MIC is that the weapon itself has the descriptor of what is and is not melee or ranged only; the table you cited isn't intended to be a comprehensive list of every possible weapon. It's just a general shopping list for ease of use.

All of that is covered by inclusion, or lack thereof, on the table. All the abilities that you quoted for being melee only are found only on the melee weapon table starting on page 239. Those tables are absolutely comprehensive.

That last quote can only be applied to the new abilities which have entries in the MiC since the abilities in the DMG do not have a "Property entry." If, however, you look at the synergy abilities for ghost touch, they all specify melee weapons only in their entries.

[Eldariel]

That's great, but a Serrenwood Bow is still utterly useless unless you're a ghost wanting to pick it up. Because it doesn't shoot ghost touch arrows (which was the point I was making).

Oh, good catch. See, I recalled it was worded a bit differently than it actually was. More precisely, I had it ingrained in my memory that it specifically spelled out "Any arrow shot from a Serrenwood bow is considered Ghost Touch" but...memory can be deceiving.

[Math_Mage]

I agree, especially since the same entries exist in MIC with a specific rule that "if it's not specified, it applies to all weapons".

Ambiguous. If Ghost Touch were listed in the MIC, would it have such an entry? We don't know. Additionally, the MIC's own tables only list Ghost Touch for melee weapons. Either we have a second typo, or the MIC is trying to indicate that Ghost Touch really is melee weapons only. This is one of those cases where RAW opposes RAI.

[Doc Roc]

Ambiguous. If Ghost Touch were listed in the MIC, would it have such an entry? We don't know. Additionally, the MIC's own tables only list Ghost Touch for melee weapons. Either we have a second typo, or the MIC is trying to indicate that Ghost Touch really is melee weapons only. This is one of those cases where RAW opposes RAI.

It really doesn't matter that much. We can comfortably allow it, because honestly, whatever. Of note: Ghost touch doesn't negate your mischance while you are blinking, if I remember correctly.

[Gametime]

It really doesn't matter that much. We can comfortably allow it, because honestly, whatever. Of note: Ghost touch doesn't negate your mischance while you are blinking, if I remember correctly.

The fact that Ghost Touch ranged weapons still wouldn't bestow the property upon their ammunition does seem to make this something of a non-issue, even aside from the fact that it would be perfectly balanced anyway.

[Doc Roc]

Oh riverine, where are you when you could be so useful? ;)

[Eldariel]

It really doesn't matter that much. We can comfortably allow it, because honestly, whatever. Of note: Ghost touch doesn't negate your mischance while you are blinking, if I remember correctly.

This is true; ghost touch equipment on the ethereal plane does not extend to the material plane as such (and Ghost Touch doesn't actually allow affecting non-manifesting ethereal denizens either, which makes the whole name of the ability something of a misnomer and is yet another reason Riverine is so good). In fact, it does a whole heapin' lot of nothing. Now manifesting Ethereal creatures or Ethereals wielding Ghost Touch weapon that exists on the Material Plane, that's a different question. In fact, even Force doesn't extend from the Ethereal to Material; it's a one-way ticket.

Overall, affecting Material from Ethereal without Manifestation is a true pain indeed; if they have See Invisibility, I suppose you're entitled to Gaze Attacks, but as that's so easy to avert it's not even funny, that's...disappointing.

[The Glyphstone]

I don't think the Energy Bow allows for questionable ground-skimming shots to avoid solid fog, which was the intention in using a Ghost Touch bow.

Most archers do seem to end up relying on Force bows for their ghost-shootin' needs, though.

Oh. I thought we were using Ghost-Touch to hit targets under Ethereal Jaunt. Never mind then.

[Claudius Maximus]

Ghost Touch does not in any way help you hit ethereal creatures, not does it help ethereal creatures affect the material plane. The only exceptions are for ghosts and other manifesting creatures, but only because manifesting creates an incorporeal body on the material plane. You're not crossing planar boundaries in any case.

[Doc Roc]

Ghost Touch does not in any way help you hit ethereal creatures, not does it help ethereal creatures affect the material plane. The only exceptions are for ghosts and other manifesting creatures, but only because manifesting creates an incorporeal body on the material plane. You;re not crossing planar boundaries in any case.

Translation: It's bloody useless with blink.

[PhoenixRivers]

It really doesn't matter that much. We can comfortably allow it, because honestly, whatever. Of note: Ghost touch doesn't negate your mischance while you are blinking, if I remember correctly.

No, but seeking does.

[Doc Roc]

No, but seeking does.

I kinda wonder about that... Because while you're blinking, you don't have LoE at least for most effects, technically, neh?

[PhoenixRivers]

I kinda wonder about that... Because while you're blinking, you don't have LoE at least for most effects, technically, neh?

It translates as a miss chance. Seeking negates all miss chances, and explicitly lists concealment as only one of the miss chances negated. I interpret that to mean that it causes you to let the arrow fly when you're on the material.

[Doc Roc]

Seems reasonable.

Is there any reason to NOT get seeking on a bow?

[Tinydwarfman]

Seems reasonable.

Is there any reason to NOT get seeking on a bow?

You really want to get splitting but can't afford both?

[PhoenixRivers]

You really want to get splitting but can't afford both?

Not a big issue in core. Seeking is hands down the best bow enhancement in core.

[Zen Master]

2) This makes Eschew Materials very useful because of the "break the circle" clause meant to simulate the traditional image of demon binding.


If all the wizard fanboys in the known universe formed a screaming, foaming, incoherent horde of righteous anger, they still could not convince me as a DM that a feat allows you to have a circle without actually having the circle.

I'll grant you can create balls of fire without bat guano. But to draw a circle without drawing it isn't happening.

[PhoenixRivers]

If all the wizard fanboys in the known universe formed a screaming, foaming, incoherent horde of righteous anger, they still could not convince me as a DM that a feat allows you to have a circle without actually having the circle.

I'll grant you can create balls of fire without bat guano. But to draw a circle without drawing it isn't happening.

Just like I don't allow Power Word and the Holy Word spells to be silenced, lol.

[Togo]

If all the wizard fanboys in the known universe formed a screaming, foaming, incoherent horde of righteous anger, they still could not convince me as a DM that a feat allows you to have a circle without actually having the circle.

I'll grant you can create balls of fire without bat guano. But to draw a circle without drawing it isn't happening.

The effect imbues a circle with certain properties. Eschew materials allows you to scratch a circle in the dirt with a stick, or use chalk, but without a circle, I can't see that the spell effect would do anything useful. Similarly, glyph of warding without the glyph, symbol without the symbol, shrink item without the item, and so on.

I'd allow a silenced holy word under some conditions. A race that communicated entirely with sign languge and didn't have speech, for example, but it would certainly be rare.

[PhoenixRivers]

The effect imbues a circle with certain properties. Eschew materials allows you to scratch a circle in the dirt with a stick, or use chalk, but without a circle, I can't see that the spell effect would do anything useful. Similarly, glyph of warding without the glyph, symbol without the symbol, shrink item without the item, and so on.

I'd allow a silenced holy word under some conditions. A race that communicated entirely with sign languge and didn't have speech, for example, but it would certainly be rare.

So... a certain finger, then? :smallbiggrin:

In that case, you're using a somatic component, and blind opponents would be unaffected.

[Lycanthromancer]

So... a certain finger, then? :smallbiggrin:

In that case, you're using a somatic component, and blind opponents would be unaffected.http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i76/Carminate/AX2006/objection.jpg

[The Glyphstone]

Made of Win

Although, the way his jaw is drooping and the red-eye makes him a bit demonic...

[Lycanthromancer]

Although, the way his jaw is drooping and the red-eye makes him a bit demonic...That's his Power Word: Point presentation.

[Gametime]

That's his Power Word: Point presentation.

Must... resist... pun... can't... too... amusing...

*snicker*