PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Favourite obscure rule



Pages : [1] 2

Wonton
2010-08-14, 08:25 PM
I'm sure everyone, while looking through a rulebook, has at some point stumbled upon a rule they'd never heard of before, simply because it's not something that ever comes up.

My personal favourite:
If one abjuration spell is active within 10 feet of another for 24 hours or more, the magical fields interfere with each other and create barely visible energy fluctuations. The DC to find such spells with the Search skill drops by 4.

What's yours?

PId6
2010-08-14, 08:41 PM
Grapple rules. :smallyuk:

Orzel
2010-08-14, 08:44 PM
A figment’s AC is equal to 10 + its size modifier.

You missed my illusion of a big tree. lol

Snake-Aes
2010-08-14, 08:50 PM
Do obscure "unrules" count? One can attack with two weapons without penalties if one is only using one array of attacks. Nothing lovelier than poking people with a falchion and throwing a poisoned dagger in the same round.

Reinboom
2010-08-14, 08:57 PM
Grapple rules. :smallyuk:

I thought this was supposed to be favorite?
And obscure?
:smallconfused:




Now some obscure and fun rules? Since you didn't define the system... code violet rules. :smallamused:

Terazul
2010-08-14, 08:59 PM
Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is not an automatic failure.

Because nobody ever remembers.:smallannoyed:

Kylarra
2010-08-14, 09:02 PM
Glowing magical weapons

Wonton
2010-08-14, 09:04 PM
Now some obscure and fun rules? Since you didn't define the system... code violet rules. :smallamused:

Damn, you got me there. :smalltongue:
But, since I only know 3.5, I changed the title. :smallwink:


Because nobody ever remembers.:smallannoyed:

Every time I play with people for the first time, I tell them that and they don't believe me... so I have to dig up that page in the PHB again.


Do obscure "unrules" count? One can attack with two weapons without penalties if one is only using one array of attacks. Nothing lovelier than poking people with a falchion and throwing a poisoned dagger in the same round.

Wait, what? I don't think that's how it works. :smallconfused:

PId6
2010-08-14, 09:06 PM
I thought this was supposed to be favorite?
And obscure?
:smallconfused:
Favorite one to hate? :smalltongue:

As for obscure, when's the last time you knew someone who could do grappling perfectly without looking it up? :smallbiggrin:

Starbuck_II
2010-08-14, 09:12 PM
Wait, what? I don't think that's how it works. :smallconfused:

It does if you have more than 5 BAB.
Yep, if you have +6 bab, you get 2 attacks. You get to choose which attack it will be.
Until you use TWFing rules for an extra attack: no penalties.

Wonton
2010-08-14, 09:31 PM
It does if you have more than 5 BAB.
Yep, if you have +6 bab, you get 2 attacks. You get to choose which attack it will be.
Until you use TWFing rules for an extra attack: no penalties.

Ohhhhh, he meant iterative attacks... Okay, that makes sense now. I wasn't sure what "one array" meant.

TooManyBadgers
2010-08-14, 09:38 PM
Favorite:
I really didn't think it was obscure, but internet boards make me start to suspect that page 110 of the PHB are kind of obscure. It's the part that basically says "Take printed materials with a grain of salt; feel free to change anything you like, so long as you're not breaking the game in half."

I know -- "common ground for discussion" and all that noise -- but when there are hundreds of threads asking "is there a way for me to modify a class skill list?" or "is there a way for me to cast nature-based spells as a Sorcerer?", I really have to wonder.


Least favorite:
Improved Grab: "Unless otherwise noted, improved grab works only against opponents at least one size category smaller than the creature."
I don't think WotC remembered this one. It makes a bunch of options, like Spirit Bear Totem Barbarians, much less interesting than they would otherwise be.

Milskidasith
2010-08-14, 09:43 PM
Favorite:
I really didn't think it was obscure, but internet boards make me start to suspect that page 110 of the PHB are kind of obscure. It's the part that basically says "Take printed materials with a grain of salt; feel free to change anything you like, so long as you're not breaking the game in half."

I know -- "common ground for discussion" and all that noise -- but when there are hundreds of threads asking "is there a way for me to modify a class skill list?" or "is there a way for me to cast nature-based spells as a Sorcerer?", I really have to wonder.


Least favorite:
Improved Grab: "Unless otherwise noted, improved grab works only against opponents at least one size category smaller than the creature."
I don't think WotC remembered this one. It makes a bunch of options, like Spirit Bear Totem Barbarians, much less interesting than they would otherwise be.

The point is that yes, houseruling the game works... but there's no reason to discuss RAI in a setting.

When we want to discuss how the rules themselves work, you assume RAW because houserules (RAI) are different for every person, so you couldn't have an adequate discussion; RAI discussions tend to go something like "Wizard is overpowered!" "No he isn't!" "Yes he is!" "I houserule that he fails most of the time and takes forever to cast and essentially stealth ban him!" "I don't do that!" "Well I do so wizards aren't powerful!"

Replace wizards with any class (and over/underpowered depending on the class), and you get what RAI discussions boil down to; lots of arguing over which houserules are better. It just doesn't help anybody to discuss things when everybody is biased; it's like a clever analogy where two people discuss the same thing but rates it differently because they did not make it the exact same way.

EDIT: As for ways to houserule things... yeah, not everybody is the DM, and, when many of the skill list questions are based on getting into a PrC more easily, not all DMs would be willing to just give you a class skill so you could pick up a PrC.

TooManyBadgers
2010-08-14, 10:01 PM
The point is that yes, houseruling the game works... but there's no reason to discuss RAI in a setting.Yes, I've read the canned response before. That's not what I'm talking about.

It's not RAW discussions where it's striking, it's "how can I make a character that does ___?" threads where it seems to be overlooked.

I remember seeing this come up in few recent threads: "how can I get my warforged to use fullplate?" "how can I make an elf without my con being unusable?" "how can I get sensible skills for my melee character?" ... pretty much any time that Able Learner, Skilled City Dweller or Apprentice feats are mentioned, actually.

EDIT:

DIT: As for ways to houserule things... yeah, not everybody is the DM, and, when many of the skill list questions are based on getting into a PrC more easily, not all DMs would be willing to just give you a class skill so you could pick up a PrC.
You people and your recreational character-building. :smalltongue:

Milskidasith
2010-08-14, 10:03 PM
Yes, I've read the canned response before. That's not what I'm talking about.

It's not RAW discussions where it's striking, it's "how can I make a character that does ___?" threads where it seems to be overlooked.

I remember seeing this come up in few recent threads: "how can I get my warforged to use fullplate?" "how can I make an elf without my con being unusable?" "how can I get sensible skills for my melee character?" ... pretty much any time that Able Learner, Skilled City Dweller or Apprentice feats are mentioned, actually.

As I said, all of those questions are perfectly legitimate if you aren't the DM, especially considering all the questions you listed are generally asking for obscure methods to get certain stats in order to get into a certain PrC/play a certain race.

EDIT: Also, I'm pretty sure the questions are not about recreational character building; generally, they are about real characters. Not only that, saying "you people" is offensive; it makes it sound like somehow I'm in some kind of group that's shunned for doing silly things. Even with the :p thing, it seems more like patronization than a joke.

TooManyBadgers
2010-08-14, 10:18 PM
Also, I'm pretty sure the questions are not about recreational character building; generally, they are about real characters.I think there might be a bit of a difference in mentality between people who look at character-building as a puzzle - who enjoy digging through big stacks of books to make a character work - and those who view it as a chore - a dry homework assignment of navigating a web of obnoxious restrictions just to build the character they already have conceived.

If a person thinks character building is an enjoyable puzzle, the PHB's bit about freely modifying classes/races/whatever probably isn't really relevant. If a person sees it as work and has to struggle to make a concept happen, the quick-fix is the best fix.

I don't think it's a balance thing, either. If a PrC or feat or something is going to break a game in half without its prerequisites, it's probably going to break the game in half regardless. Especially with something like D&D, with as many loopholes and design flaws and something-for-nothing tradeoffs buried in the system over the years.

Tinydwarfman
2010-08-14, 10:28 PM
Personally the only time when I say "why don't you just make it up" is when DMs come on the boards looking for a build that can do a few specific things against the PCs. I mean, you're the freaking DM! And it's not even for balance issues or anything, because D&D is already so messed up that most homebrew is more balanced than printed stuff.

Labelos
2010-08-14, 10:33 PM
Death and Prepared Spell retention: If a spellcaster dies, all prepared spells stored in his or her mind are wiped away. Potent magic (such as raise dead, resurrection, or true resurrection) can recover the lost energy when it recovers the character.

So, let me get this straight. If you die, you loose all your spells stored in your mind. If they're stored elsewhere, your fine. If you're a wizard and you die, don't bother playing the other side. You start there with no spells and no spellbook. I get that it's probably to make sure nobody resurrects themself, but this rule seems really superfluous, so much so that they didn't bother making one for sorcerers and bards. Yes, if you're a sorcerer and you die, you can keep casting. If you're a wizard... Well, let's just say you're in deep trouble.

(Does that mean a dead favored soul can self-revive?)

dextercorvia
2010-08-14, 10:35 PM
So, let me get this straight. If you die, you loose all your spells stored in your mind. If they're stored elsewhere, your fine. If you're a wizard and you die, don't bother playing the other side. You start there with no spells and no spellbook. I get that it's probably to make sure nobody resurrects themself, but this rule seems really superfluous, so much so that they didn't bother making one for sorcerers and bards. Yes, if you're a sorcerer and you die, you can keep casting. If you're a wizard... Well, let's just say you're in deep trouble.

(Does that mean a dead favored soul can self-revive?)

I happen to like the second part of that rule more than the first. If you come back, you get your spells back.

devinkowalczyk
2010-08-14, 10:42 PM
That some diseases and poisons deal permanent damage

drengnikrafe
2010-08-14, 11:09 PM
That truenamers have three kinds of utterances. Seriously, despite the fact that truenamers are brought up all over the place for no reason, I didn't know they had 3 kinds until I purchased and read the Tome of Magic.

Wonton
2010-08-14, 11:31 PM
Glowing magical weapons

In a similar vein:


Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to a weapon’s or shield’s hardness and +10 to its hit points.

So good luck sundering the enemy's +1 weapon... it's likely got more hit points than the party wizard.

Hirax
2010-08-14, 11:36 PM
You can't sunder (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#sunder) armor.


Sundering a Carried or Worn Object

You don’t use an opposed attack roll to damage a carried or worn object. Instead, just make an attack roll against the object’s AC. A carried or worn object’s AC is equal to 10 + its size modifier + the Dexterity modifier of the carrying or wearing character. Attacking a carried or worn object provokes an attack of opportunity just as attacking a held object does. To attempt to snatch away an item worn by a defender rather than damage it, see Disarm. You can’t sunder armor worn by another character.

I pointed this out to someone that paid for aurorium armor and they were dumbstruck.

Flickerdart
2010-08-14, 11:42 PM
You can't sunder (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#sunder) armor.



I pointed this out to someone that paid for aurorium armor and they were dumbstruck.
You can't sunder armour worn by characters. Armour not worn by characters, or armour worn by non-characters is fair game. :smalltongue:

Hirax
2010-08-14, 11:42 PM
Oops. But you see what I mean. :smallbiggrin:

druid91
2010-08-14, 11:49 PM
That sorcerers can learn any spell they have "acquired a special understanding of," Ha... you don't see wizards casting miracle do you?

Claudius Maximus
2010-08-14, 11:52 PM
If you successfully save vs. a spell or effect, you get a tingling sensation that tells you you've just been targeted.

Even better, if it was a spell, you can make a DC (25 + spell level) Spellcraft check to determine the exact spell.

PId6
2010-08-14, 11:54 PM
Ha... you don't see wizards casting miracle do you?
Obviously, you haven't seen Shadowcraft Mages in action. :smalltongue:

What I find most amusing is that "a sorcerer casts arcane spells which are drawn primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list." Apparently, sorcerers can draw spells from other spell lists, just not as much as the sor/wiz one. :smallbiggrin:

Lhurgyof
2010-08-15, 12:04 AM
Hmm... Obscure rule that I like?

Nonabilities. :)

Peregrine
2010-08-15, 12:13 AM
EDIT: As for ways to houserule things... yeah, not everybody is the DM, and, when many of the skill list questions are based on getting into a PrC more easily, not all DMs would be willing to just give you a class skill so you could pick up a PrC.

Which nicely segues into my favourite overlooked rule. DMG, p.176:
Prestige classes are purely optional and always under the purview of the DM. We encourage you, as the DM, to tightly limit the prestige classes available in your campaign. Only the first sentence is really a "rule" -- the second is more like a guideline than an actual rule -- but both are really quite relevant. Basically, all prestige classes are house rules. :smalltongue:

(And I'm still looking for a rebuttal to Snake-Aes's "mix any weapon into a full attack" thing... I'm sure it must be here...)

Lysander
2010-08-15, 12:15 AM
Plane Shift's focus is a metal rod. Which plane you arrive at is determined by what kind of metal you use.

Suggestion spells must be phrased in a reasonable manner. You can't make them blindly obey you or follow ridiculous orders, that's what Dominate Person is for. "Obey everything I say" is a ridiculous order. Actually reasonable suggestions give targets a penalty on their saving throw.

You can see invisible creatures with a DC 20 spot check.

Incorporeal creatures hiding in solid objects get a +2 bonus on listen checks because solid objects carry sound well.

You can buy a trained Pegasus for 4,000gp (3,000 for the animal, 1,000 to hire a trainer.)

Minotaurs, just minotaurs, are specifically immune to the Maze spell.

Once per day the Legendary Dreadnought epic class can punch through a wall of force.

Hirax
2010-08-15, 12:21 AM
Minotaurs, just minotaurs, are specifically immune to the Maze spell.


I've always thought this was hilarious, because one of the reasons the Minotaur is in the labyrinth in mythology is because it's too stupid to escape.

Eurus
2010-08-15, 12:27 AM
I've always thought this was hilarious, because one of the reasons the Minotaur is in the labyrinth in mythology is because it's too stupid to escape.

Presumably it got out eventually, and the D&D minotaurs are its descendants. :smallbiggrin:

Halae
2010-08-15, 12:31 AM
Presumably it got out eventually, and the D&D minotaurs are its descendants. :smallbiggrin:

and after that long, arduous time, evolution went "F** THAT SH**" and made it so that it would never have to deal with anything like that again

Greenish
2010-08-15, 12:34 AM
I've always thought this was hilarious, because one of the reasons the Minotaur is in the labyrinth in mythology is because it's too stupid to escape.I always thought it stuck around 'cause it liked the interior design. If it couldn't have left the labyrinth, feeding virgins to it seems rather superfluous, no?

tyckspoon
2010-08-15, 12:40 AM
You can see invisible creatures with a DC 20 spot check.


Misrepresented; you can detect a creature's presence (but not actual location) with a DC 20 check, and there's a further +20 DC to actually pinpoint with Spot (so, assuming the invisible creatures is making no active attempts to hide, DC 40 to locate with Spot), but you still can't actually see the creature; they still have total concealment, so you can't make AoO against them or target them directly with abilities.

FMArthur
2010-08-15, 12:44 AM
Only a few books declare that their prestige classes lose their class features when you no longer qualify: Complete Warrior, Complete Arcane, and probably one or two others. The vast majority - and most importantly, the core ruleset, include nothing of the sort.

Wonton
2010-08-15, 12:46 AM
Once per day the Legendary Dreadnought epic class can punch through a wall of force.

I was all ready to quote this and say that that part had made my day, when I stumbled upon this...


and after that long, arduous time, evolution went "F** THAT SH**" and made it so that it would never have to deal with anything like that again

You, sir, just made my day. That was hilarious! :smallbiggrin:

P.S.

Only a few books declare that their prestige classes lose their class features when you no longer qualify: Complete Warrior, Complete Arcane, and probably one or two others. The vast majority - and most importantly, the core ruleset, include nothing of the sort.

Meaning you could use, say, a floating feat, or the temporary feat granted by Heroics to qualify? Nice. :smallamused:

Jack_Simth
2010-08-15, 12:55 AM
Only a few books declare that their prestige classes lose their class features when you no longer qualify: Complete Warrior, Complete Arcane, and probably one or two others. The vast majority - and most importantly, the core ruleset, include nothing of the sort.
Yes, it was a change in the 3.0 -> 3.5 transition. In 3.0, it was in the DMG that if you stopped qualifying, you stopped getting the benefits of the PrC. In 3.5, that was no longer in the DMG. However, a couple of the early 3.5 books included it. You know, books that also occasionally slipped up and listed Scrying as a skill.

W3bDragon
2010-08-15, 12:58 AM
Probably not obscure, just mistaken often.

Many people think that as long as you take the armor check penalty, you can use tumble while wearing the heavier armors. Some think that you cannot tumble while wearing anything heavier than light armor. The actual rule is:


You can’t use this skill if your speed has been reduced by armor, excess equipment, or loot.

Wonton
2010-08-15, 01:13 AM
So a Dwarf, or a 9th-level Knight can Tumble in heavy armor... I like it.

W3bDragon
2010-08-15, 01:53 AM
Well if you like the tumble one, here's another one for climb.


A creature with a climb speed has a +8 racial bonus on all Climb checks. The creature must make a Climb check to climb any wall or slope with a DC higher than 0, but it always can choose to take 10, even if rushed or threatened while climbing. If a creature with a climb speed chooses an accelerated climb (see above), it moves at double its climb speed (or at its land speed, whichever is slower) and makes a single Climb check at a -5 penalty.

Note: The Spiderclimb spell gives you a climb speed of 20.

Halae
2010-08-15, 02:25 AM
Well if you like the tumble one, here's another one for climb.



Note: The Spiderclimb spell gives you a climb speed of 20.

Gravity? What's that?

Zeta Kai
2010-08-15, 02:46 AM
Well, it's not really a favorite of mine per se, but it is damn obscure: determining a city's total assets (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144545). I once looked for such a rule in the DMG for over half an hour, reading & re-reading the section for generating settlements, & I missed it every time.

For the record, it's in the DMG, on page 137, Community Wealth & Population, in the second paragraph. The rule is not present as a formula, as expected, but written out in plain English (you know, in the worst way to present math). Also, it's an inelegant formula at that; the DMG states it to be Assets = (GP Limit/2) × (Population/10), but it would be best rendered as Assets = (GP Limit/20) × Population. Seriously, was it that hard, folks?

Greenish
2010-08-15, 02:51 AM
The rule is not present as a formula, as expected, but written out in plain English (you know, in the worst way to present math).I don't know. They could've presented it as a haiku. Or in Ancient Norse.

I think we got off pretty light with plain English.

MickJay
2010-08-15, 04:04 AM
Only yesterday I stumbled on another comment here about how something was unusable, because "sorry, it's 3.0 and it was not updated to 3.5, you can't use it anymore" (yes you can, everything that was NOT updated is still valid in its 3.0 form).

DemLep
2010-08-15, 04:14 AM
Ex-Class rules for anything, but a Paladin... I like those too, they're just not obscure. Nothing better than taking away the players power right before a huge battle.

Least favorite would be the special restrictions on monk multi-classing.

Edit: I update stuff left out of AD&D to 3.5 if I want to use it. Why let the edition limit you.

Roga
2010-08-15, 04:17 AM
Aye Mickjay, for my beloved Oozemaster remains intact, unlike the now butchered Animal Lord and Shifter (Became Master of Many Forms, but it's so similar there's no denying it's the update).

Speaking of which, my favorite obscure rule was actually how the Animal Lord and the Shifter worked together in 3.0. Shifter got Greater Wild shape, with the line "Stacks with any other form of wild shape for the maximum advantage" pretty nice given it's selection of races. While Animal Lord got lesser wild shape, and while it was only a single animal type it could be used endlessly and eventually give the form to 1 party member per level.

This lead to things like:
"We need to climb this cliff" *Shazam* We're all Eagles.
"We need to squeeze out of this chamber before we're crushed!" *Shazam* We're all oozes.
"Those goblins are sacking that orphange!" *Shazam* We're all Stone giants.

Fun times. :smallbiggrin:

Kobold-Bard
2010-08-15, 04:22 AM
The glowing magic weapons is my favourite, try telling your Tiefling Assassin that her Wounding Shortsword is giving off torchlight and that's why she failed the hide check. I'd warned her previously too, it wasn't like I sprang it on her or anything.

DR/Magic doesn't stop falling damage because that's not an attack is a rule I believe people rarely remember.

Edit: Clerics not needing to sleep before recouping spells is also nice and forgotten, as is the fact that they have to pray at the same time each day, so no single encounter workdy for them.

Mystic Muse
2010-08-15, 04:38 AM
Ex-Class rules for anything, but a Paladin... I like those too, they're just not obscure. Nothing better than taking away the players power right before a huge battle.

:smallconfused: exploiting rules to gimp your player when they've already chosen a weak and extremely restricted class is a good thing now?

Sliver
2010-08-15, 04:48 AM
as is the fact that they have to pray at the same time each day, so no single encounter workdy for them.

Well... Umm.. You know...


Like other spellcasters, a wizard can cast only a certain number of
spells of each spell level per day. Her base daily spell allotment is given on Table 3–18: The Wizard. In addition, she receives bonus spells per day if she has a high Intelligence score (see Table 1–1: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells, page 8).


Rest: To prepare her daily spells, a wizard must have a clear mind.


Spell Slots: The various character class tables in Chapter 3: Classes show how many spells of each level a character can cast per day.

Morph Bark
2010-08-15, 04:52 AM
Meaning you could use, say, a floating feat, or the temporary feat granted by Heroics to qualify? Nice. :smallamused:

Two levels of Chameleon means "y hay thar tons of PrCs I freelee kwalifai 4".

Sliver
2010-08-15, 05:01 AM
There are armor enhancements that give you a feat equivalent... One day you will encounter people that will lend you the armor for a levelup...

DemLep
2010-08-15, 05:27 AM
:smallconfused: exploiting rules to gimp your player when they've already chosen a weak and extremely restricted class is a good thing now?

I tend to DM 90% of the games I play, because no one else will. As I rule most of the people I play with have been playing longer than I have and have greater knowledge of the game, as well as more books. Add to this that most of these players a munchkins and role play for the same reasons Belkar acts good, and are about as good at it as he is. Yes some times it is good to strip everything away from a player and beat him to a bloody pulp. More fun than that is putting then in a non-combat situation that makes use of all there weaknesses and seeing how long it takes them to just kill everyone in the room. As that is the save all Plan B.

Lysander
2010-08-15, 07:38 PM
Fun facts about shapeshifters:

Doppelgangers are "usually neutral." Which is pretty much never the case in actual gameplay, where doppelgangers are usually devious villains who live to kill/kidnap and replace people.

Phasms are chaotic neutral.

Mimics are neutral, and will stop fighting the party if bribed with food or treasure.

Boci
2010-08-15, 07:51 PM
Which nicely segues into my favourite overlooked rule. DMG, p.176: Only the first sentence is really a "rule" -- the second is more like a guideline than an actual rule -- but both are really quite relevant. Basically, all prestige classes are house rules. :smalltongue:

That was most likely a copy paste error. It was unreasonable for WotC to say that after they had made new PrC a good portion of most published books. It was understandable in 3.0, but should have been removed in the revision. Hard to imagine artifacts remaining rare if they introduced another 5-10 in each splat book.

Tinydwarfman
2010-08-15, 08:14 PM
Fun facts about shapeshifters:

Doppelgangers are "usually neutral." Which is pretty much never the case in actual gameplay, where doppelgangers are usually devious villains who live to kill/kidnap and replace people.


I usually flavor it that only evil Doppelgangers actually do things conspicuous enough to ever be noticed. Lots of neutral Doppelgangers exist, they're just like ninja's; you never see them.

Androgeus
2010-08-15, 08:28 PM
I usually flavor it that only evil Doppelgangers actually do things conspicuous enough to ever be noticed. Lots of neutral Doppelgangers exist, they're just like ninja's; you never see them.

I'm sure you do see neutral Doppelgangers, it's just you don't know that they are infact Doppelgangers :smalltongue:

Paul H
2010-08-15, 09:23 PM
Hi

Leomund's Tiny Hut.

Beautiful battle spell. Those within are totally unseen by those without. It's a Force Effect, not Illusion, so True Seeing won't work. All those tactical bonuses - again, you can see out, they can't see in.

Of course, it is a Fireball/Breath Weapon/Big Nasty Area Effect Spell magnet.

And Warmages can take it with Advanced learning! :)

Cheers
Paul H

Shadowleaf
2010-08-15, 09:39 PM
I don't remember its name, but there is a monster which disguises itself as terrain (read: Not trees, but hills/patches of grass).

It has a +8 Racial modifier to Jump. For absolutely no reason.

grarrrg
2010-08-15, 10:01 PM
It has a +8 Racial modifier to Jump. For absolutely no reason.

Oh, there is a reason...
No one knows what it is, but there is a reason...

DaedalusMkV
2010-08-15, 10:10 PM
I don't remember its name, but there is a monster which disguises itself as terrain (read: Not trees, but hills/patches of grass).

It has a +8 Racial modifier to Jump. For absolutely no reason.

That would be the Genius Loci. It has ranks in Jump, too. Of course, if it ever needed to simulate an earthquake, that would be pretty useful. If it wasn't an Ooze that's incapable of jumping. It must be a joke, because it doesn't make much sense, otherwise.

Shadowleaf
2010-08-15, 10:13 PM
That would be the Genius Loci. It has ranks in Jump, too. Of course, if it ever needed to simulate an earthquake, that would be pretty useful. If it wasn't an Ooze that's incapable of jumping. It must be a joke, because it doesn't make much sense, otherwise.
Skill ranks, not racial bonus, right.

Why wouldn't it be able to jump? It's not like you need legs to jump in D&D.

golentan
2010-08-15, 11:15 PM
50 coins weigh a pound.

People have noted that they carry thousands of GP on their person in character sheets before, and it's usually fun to open the game "As character A collapses under the weight of his gear..."

I wouldn't actually penalize them, but I do point out that they don't have an MMO style hyperspace arsenal and that wealth isn't always convenient.

Terazul
2010-08-15, 11:18 PM
50 coins weigh a pound.

People have noted that they carry thousands of GP on their person in character sheets before, and it's usually fun to open the game "As character A collapses under the weight of his gear..."

I wouldn't actually penalize them, but I do point out that they don't have an MMO style hyperspace arsenal and that wealth isn't always convenient.
This is why you carry your wealth in the form of Art. Though that just brings up other possibilities...

Lhurgyof
2010-08-15, 11:22 PM
You're not supposed to be able to sell mundane equipment.
Everyone seems to forget that, and the DM's end up tolling up 50% of the cost of moldy leather armor worn by the goblin warriors. xD

Ormur
2010-08-15, 11:28 PM
Balancing without five ranks in balance makes you flat-footed.

It may not be so obscure considering how many people recommend marbles but it makes narrow ledges a very good obstacle if there's a sniping rogue nearby.

Starscream
2010-08-15, 11:52 PM
It has a +8 Racial modifier to Jump. For absolutely no reason.

Which reminds me, Skill Synergies. They may not qualify as obscure, but I personally always forget about them. I remember a while back I glanced at the MM entry for Nymph and noticed that she had Use Rope +3 (+5 with bindings). I just assumed the extra +2 was a racial bonus, and the writer was being kinky.:smallwink:

Another fun one; the size of the damage dice for Call Lightning and Call Lightning Storm is increased from d6 to d10 if you are in stormy weather. And having a large or larger Air Elemental do its whirlwind move explicitly counts as stormy weather. Druids get both those spells, and can spontaneously summon elementals.

Blasting may not be optimal, but you can't tell me it's not fun to summon an elemental, have them pick up and spin your enemies in a living cyclone, and pelt them with powerful lightning bolts every time they come round.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-15, 11:59 PM
You're not supposed to be able to sell mundane equipment.
Everyone seems to forget that, and the DM's end up tolling up 50% of the cost of moldy leather armor worn by the goblin warriors. xD

What, why?

There's a rule somewhere that mundane equipment can't be sold? Where?

Lhurgyof
2010-08-16, 12:05 AM
I'm pretty sure that as a general rule, it's a no, but there are rules if you do want to let your players sell it off, it's in the PHB.

Lysander
2010-08-16, 12:05 AM
Magic clothing and jewelry resizes itself to the wearer, letting anyone use them. Magic weapons & armor however do not change size.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-16, 12:10 AM
I'm pretty sure that as a general rule, it's a no, but there are rules if you do want to let your players sell it off, it's in the PHB.

SRD:
Selling Loot
In general, a character can sell something for half its listed price.

Trade goods are the exception to the half-price rule. A trade good, in this sense, is a valuable good that can be easily exchanged almost as if it were cash itself.

I see no exception for mundane goods. In fact, since trade goods are mundane, and can be sold off even more easily than magic items, It seems clear that this isn't a rule.

Lhurgyof
2010-08-16, 12:14 AM
SRD:
Selling Loot
In general, a character can sell something for half its listed price.

Trade goods are the exception to the half-price rule. A trade good, in this sense, is a valuable good that can be easily exchanged almost as if it were cash itself.

I see no exception for mundane goods. In fact, since trade goods are mundane, and can be sold off even more easily than magic items, It seems clear that this isn't a rule.

Ah, I coulda sworn it was somewhere...
Still doesn't make sense to sell bloody and worn weapons and armor... at all.

"Here, take these worn, bloody weapons and armor. We scavenged them from some kobolds"
"Ummm... no."

That's all I can imagine when you loot used equipment. =\

Tyndmyr
2010-08-16, 12:18 AM
I presume they get washed off, just like magic items, before you try to pawn them off. Of course, the 50% discount for most items is likely also a factor of the sort of condition most items are in after spending some time in a dungeon.

Lhurgyof
2010-08-16, 12:22 AM
I presume they get washed off, just like magic items, before you try to pawn them off. Of course, the 50% discount for most items is likely also a factor of the sort of condition most items are in after spending some time in a dungeon.

Ah, perhaps it was a 4.0 rule, then.

So, another weird rule? Psionic combat (3.0)

FMArthur
2010-08-16, 12:36 AM
Ah, I coulda sworn it was somewhere...
Still doesn't make sense to sell bloody and worn weapons and armor... at all.

"Here, take these worn, bloody weapons and armor. We scavenged them from some kobolds"
"Ummm... no."

That's all I can imagine when you loot used equipment. =\

Somehow I doubt the peasant folk you just protected from kobolds and are about to abandon to go adventuring would be all that reticent about accepting leftover combat gear. :smallconfused:

balistafreak
2010-08-16, 01:03 AM
So, another weird rule? Psionic combat (3.0)

That's no rule...

... that's a space-station sized monstrosity of an idea that is even worse than grappling. And that's saying a LOT.

Whyareall
2010-08-16, 01:30 AM
This is for 4e, but oh well.

The Swordmage class has a feature that boosts your AC by +1 when wielding a light or heavy blade, and a further +2 if you have a free hand.

The Artificer class has a feature, under the 'implements' section, that automatically returns any thrown weapon to your hand after the attack.

Multiclassing in 4e gives you the ability to use the implements of the class you MC into.

Dropping a held item is a free action.

To put it all together: using a Swordmage multiclassed into (or hybrid with) and Artificer, wield a 1 handed sword in your main hand, and a dagger or other thrown weapon with the offhand property in your offhand. Use the thrown weapon for ranged artificer weapon attacks, and drop it if an enemy is about to attack you, freeing up one hand, boosting your AC by two.

Useless? Almost entirely (although Int and Con are primary and secondary abilities, respectively, of both classes, so it could be good. Idk, I haven't actually used it). Obscure and (my) favourite? Heck yes.

DemLep
2010-08-16, 04:36 AM
50 coins weigh a pound.

People have noted that they carry thousands of GP on their person in character sheets before, and it's usually fun to open the game "As character A collapses under the weight of his gear..."

I wouldn't actually penalize them, but I do point out that they don't have an MMO style hyperspace arsenal and that wealth isn't always convenient.

In one campaign I was in the DM made one of the guys bury all his gold when he found out how much he was dragging behind him. Who ever digs it up could buy themselves a castle.

As for selling used armor or anything for that matter. They reuse all sorts of stuff nowadays why wouldn't they do it back then? If the item in question is to worn or broken they just break it down or melt it and reuse the core materials to make something new. Sure they may need to add some new/fresh stuff to it, but it reduce the cost for making a new item that will be sold at full price. Now you should ask yourself how much of that "new" armor is really new.

endoperez
2010-08-16, 05:28 AM
As for selling used armor or anything for that matter. They reuse all sorts of stuff nowadays why wouldn't they do it back then? If the item in question is to worn or broken they just break it down or melt it and reuse the core materials to make something new.

This. Don't all smiths have a bunch of scrap metal in their backyard?

Escheton
2010-08-16, 06:55 AM
This is for 4e, but oh well.

The Swordmage class has a feature that boosts your AC by +1 when wielding a light or heavy blade, and a further +2 if you have a free hand.

The Artificer class has a feature, under the 'implements' section, that automatically returns any thrown weapon to your hand after the attack.

Multiclassing in 4e gives you the ability to use the implements of the class you MC into.

Dropping a held item is a free action.

To put it all together: using a Swordmage multiclassed into (or hybrid with) and Artificer, wield a 1 handed sword in your main hand, and a dagger or other thrown weapon with the offhand property in your offhand. Use the thrown weapon for ranged artificer weapon attacks, and drop it if an enemy is about to attack you, freeing up one hand, boosting your AC by two.

Useless? Almost entirely (although Int and Con are primary and secondary abilities, respectively, of both classes, so it could be good. Idk, I haven't actually used it). Obscure and (my) favourite? Heck yes.

And I thought the lvl 1 infusion from 3.5 that allowed you to return a weapon with move action was good with harpoons.
This is awesome.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-16, 06:59 AM
And I thought the lvl 1 infusion from 3.5 that allowed you to return a weapon with move action was good with harpoons.
This is awesome.

Are free actions in 4e usable when it is not your turn? In 3.5 they aren't.

Escheton
2010-08-16, 07:19 AM
Are free actions in 4e usable when it is not your turn? In 3.5 they aren't.

ow, yeah. I just disregarded that bit. No idea.

SwordChucks
2010-08-16, 02:34 PM
Kneeling in combat for more AC vs ranged attacks. How often does that come up? I also can't find any rules in the SRD on what kind of action kneeling is. It seems like a free action (because it's similar to going prone in combat).

Snake-Aes
2010-08-16, 02:43 PM
Kneeling in combat for more AC vs ranged attacks. How often does that come up? I also can't find any rules in the SRD on what kind of action kneeling is. It seems like a free action (because it's similar to going prone in combat).

Prone Attack + ranged enemies on top of melee = battle starting with "I drop to the ground".

Halae
2010-08-16, 02:46 PM
Are free actions in 4e usable when it is not your turn? In 3.5 they aren't.

What are you talking about? It's swift actions that you can only use on your turn. Immediate and free actions occur any time you want

PId6
2010-08-16, 02:49 PM
What are you talking about? It's swift actions that you can only use on your turn. Immediate and free actions occur any time you want
Not in 3.5. You can't do free actions outside your turn unless it specifically says you can (such as speaking).

Snake-Aes
2010-08-16, 02:50 PM
What are you talking about? It's swift actions that you can only use on your turn. Immediate and free actions occur any time you want

No. Only immediate actions have such usability.
Free actions can only be done together with other actions. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsincombat.htm) You could scream orders while activating feather fall, but you couldn't drop your weapon when someone swung a club at your face.

Jarrick
2010-08-16, 05:40 PM
Corpse creatures and bone creatures from the book of vile darkness can be created with the Create Undead spell. Much cheaper than Rez, less taxing, and potentially more useful if there's a dread necromancer in the party.

With a little time and patience, you can summon Legion Devils with lesser planar binding, kill them, and reanimate them as corpse/bone creatures, rebuke, repeat until you're full, which at that level means (Without looking it up and taking items into account) you can have about 8 of the things following you around. As long as they're within 60 ft of each other, they all get +32 to attacks, share hit points, and are very difficult to effect with things that allow saves, since if any one save succeeds, they all make it. My DM said I could do it, since I thought of it and it came from his favorite books, but I refused to do it because it was just too cheesy.

KillianHawkeye
2010-08-16, 06:08 PM
That would be the Genius Loci. It has ranks in Jump, too. Of course, if it ever needed to simulate an earthquake, that would be pretty useful. If it wasn't an Ooze that's incapable of jumping. It must be a joke, because it doesn't make much sense, otherwise.

Genius Loci doesn't get skill ranks because it has an Int of 0.

Genius Loci's +5 Jump modifier is calculated as follows:
0 (ranks) + 20 (strength bonus) - 15 (speed penalty)


Which brings me to one of my favorite obscure rules: the bonus/penalty to Jump checks for having a speed higher or lower than 30 feet.

Escheton
2010-08-16, 06:35 PM
which at low lvls will makes the expeditious retreat spell better then the jump spell at augmenting your jump. Though they stack of course.

Curmudgeon
2010-08-16, 07:07 PM
There's a nice little wrinkle in the rules that helps Cloistered Clerics (proficient only with light armor).

1) Start with the right clothing.
Scholar’s Outfit

Perfect for a scholar, this outfit includes a robe, a belt, a cap, soft shoes, and possibly a cloak.2) Next, enhance the robe with an armor bonus (up to +8), as per Magic Item Compendium page 234. This works exactly the same as Bracers of Armor; the "Adding/Improving Common Item Effects" table allows armor bonuses in both Arms (bracers) and Body (robe) slots.

3) Next, you can add an armor enhancement bonus on top of the armor bonus if you cast Magic Vestment:
You imbue a suit of armor or a shield with an enhancement bonus of +1 per four caster levels (maximum +5 at 20th level).

An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell.4) Finally, realize that your armor boost (up to +13 already) isn't from actual armor at all, and thus you can still wear a Monk's Belt to get (1 + WIS bonus) more AC!

Wonton
2010-08-16, 08:21 PM
There's a nice little wrinkle in the rules that helps Cloistered Clerics (proficient only with light armor)...

Whoa. I was trying to think of a way for my Wizard to wear "armor" without having to wear armor, and this is like that... only it's not like that at all. :smallconfused:

Curmudgeon
2010-08-16, 08:45 PM
Whoa. I was trying to think of a way for my Wizard to wear "armor" without having to wear armor, and this is like that... only it's not like that at all. :smallconfused:
Wizards actually started this with the Robe of the Archmagi (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#robeoftheArchmagi); Magic Item Compendium just formalized the robes-with-armor-bonus as a rule to allow broader use. It's just that Clerics do this better, is all.

PId6
2010-08-16, 08:54 PM
2) Next, enhance the robe with an armor bonus (up to +8), as per Magic Item Compendium page 234. This works exactly the same as Bracers of Armor; the "Adding/Improving Common Item Effects" table allows armor bonuses in both Arms (bracers) and Body (robe) slots.
You can also cast Greater Luminous Armor (BoED) for +8 armor AC and -4 attack to melee enemies. It does cost some Str afterward, but that can be made up with Lesser Restorations. It's much cheaper than Bracers/Robes of Armor, though it does require you to be Good.

Urpriest
2010-08-16, 09:16 PM
Are free actions in 4e usable when it is not your turn? In 3.5 they aren't.

In 4e free actions are by default usable whenever. This is reinforced by several free-action powers that only make sense if usable on others' turns but don't explicitly call it out, and several free action powers that explicitly state they can only be used on your turn.

DemLep
2010-08-16, 09:27 PM
Readying your weapon and the quick draw feat.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-16, 09:30 PM
Readying your weapon and the quick draw feat.

Please enlighten us.

Mystic Muse
2010-08-16, 09:54 PM
I may be wrong about this (Haven't read races of the dragon lately) But, if Bahamut doesn't approve of what you do as a Dragonborn he can take the template away.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-16, 10:00 PM
I may be wrong about this (Haven't read races of the dragon lately) But, if Bahamut doesn't approve of what you do as a Dragonborn he can take the template away.

Yup, and it's painful. And you get manhandled by aspects of bahamut every now and then before that.

Lhurgyof
2010-08-16, 10:12 PM
Genius Loci doesn't get skill ranks because it has an Int of 0.

Genius Loci's +5 Jump modifier is calculated as follows:
0 (ranks) + 20 (strength bonus) - 15 (speed penalty)


Which brings me to one of my favorite obscure rules: the bonus/penalty to Jump checks for having a speed higher or lower than 30 feet.

I love that rule... I remember the first time I got a 100 jump check. xD

Jivundus
2010-08-16, 11:09 PM
Putting a portable hole inside a bag of holding, opening a gate to the Astral Plane and sucking in everything within 10 feet.

That and some of the surges you can generate with wild magic (Such as every living thing on the same plane except the caster dies, the nearest star goes supernova etc.)

SwordChucks
2010-08-16, 11:22 PM
Putting a portable hole inside a bag of holding, opening a gate to the Astral Plane and sucking in everything within 10 feet.

This is my default method for dealing with the tarrasque.

Halae
2010-08-16, 11:31 PM
This is my default method for dealing with the tarrasque.

you clever, clever man

EDIT: or... woman, If I got it wrong

Jarrick
2010-08-16, 11:36 PM
This is my default method for dealing with the tarrasque.

And now some very ticked off githyanki would like to have a word with you... :smallamused:

Volos
2010-08-17, 12:23 AM
Goblin Rogues are deadly at low levels. According to the monster manual they have a +4 racial bonus to hide and move silently, but according to size rules they should also get the same bonus to hide for thier small size. That combinded with thier higher dex and rogue skill points would make them little ninjas if played correctly. The monster manual even shows in the "Goblins as Characters" entry that the size gives the bonus along with the racial bonus. And I wonder why my rogue player always asks for goblin, even in campaigns where monsters are killed on sight.

Sinfonian
2010-08-17, 12:47 AM
This one isn't as obscure as most of the ones in this thread, but a lot of people overlook it and thus misunderstand a whole system.


A power that can be augmented for additional effect is also limited by your manifester level (you can’t spend more power points on a power than your manifester level).

The Rabbler
2010-08-17, 12:49 AM
rule.


ah yes, the one reason that I don't use psionics.

Knaight
2010-08-17, 01:11 AM
Goblin Rogues are deadly at low levels. According to the monster manual they have a +4 racial bonus to hide and move silently, but according to size rules they should also get the same bonus to hide for thier small size. That combinded with thier higher dex and rogue skill points would make them little ninjas if played correctly. The monster manual even shows in the "Goblins as Characters" entry that the size gives the bonus along with the racial bonus. And I wonder why my rogue player always asks for goblin, even in campaigns where monsters are killed on sight.

They also have 30 foot movement speed, not 20 foot movement speed. Dangerous little things.

DemLep
2010-08-17, 02:43 AM
Please enlighten us.

Let's see if I can find the rule... I've never used them.

EDIT: Here it is.


Quick Draw [General]:
You can draw a weapon with starling speed.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1
Benefit: You can draw a weapon as a free action instead of as a move action. You can draw a hidden weapon (see Sleight of Hand skill, page 81) as a move action.
A character who has selected this feat may throw weapons at his full normal rate of attacks (much like a character with a bow).
Normal: Without this feat, you may draw a weapon as a move action, or (if your base attack bonus is +1 or higher) as a free action as part of movement (see page 142). Without this feat, you can draw a hidden weapon as a standard action.
Special: A fighter may select Quick Draw as one of his fighter bonus feats (see page 38).



Draw or Sheate a Weapon:
Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action. This action also applies to weaponlike objects carried in easy reach, such as wands. if your weapon or weaponlike object is stored in a pack or otherwise out of easy reach, treat this action as retrieving a stored item.

If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move. If you have Two-Weapon Fighting feat (page 102), you can draw two light or one-handed weapons in the time it would normally take you to draw one.

Drawing ammunition for use with a ranged weapon (such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, or shuriken) is a free action.

Ready or Loose a Shield:
Strapping a shield to your arm to gain its shield bonus to your AC, or unstrapping and dropping a shield so you can use your shield hand for another purpose, requires a move action. If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you can ready or loose a shield as a free action combined with a regular move. Dropping a carried (but not worn) shield is a free action.

Sense Drawing a hidden weapon with Sleight of Hand was brought up I give you this as well.


Sleight of Hand (Dex; Trained only; Armor Check Penalty):
...(Skipping the bulk and just quoting what is relevant.)
Drawing a hidden weapon is a standard action and doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity.
...
Action: Any Sleight of Hand check normally is a standard action. However, you may preform a Sleight of Hand check as a free action by taking a -20 penalty on the check.
...
Untrained: An untrained Sleight of Hand check is simply a Dexterity check. Without actual training, you can't succeed on any Sleight of Hand check with a DC higher than 10, except for hiding an object on your body.

I find that 90% of the time (in campaigns I play in) Quick Draw is a waste of a feat.

The Sleight of Hand rules make me wonder. No DC is give for Drawing a hidden weapon. I would take this to mean that the DC is 0. So if you wanted to Draw a hidden weapon as a free action you would just have to make a Sleight of Hand DC20. Not sure if that actually works like that, but if it does all the better.

Milskidasith
2010-08-17, 03:16 AM
ah yes, the one reason that I don't use psionics.

I am confused. Ignoring that rule is generally why people don't use psionics.

The Rabbler
2010-08-17, 04:13 AM
I am confused. Ignoring that rule is generally why people don't use psionics.

I just don't like that rule. I stopped using anything more psionic than a psywar when I discovered that rule.

hamishspence
2010-08-17, 04:20 AM
Goblin Rogues are deadly at low levels. According to the monster manual they have a +4 racial bonus to hide and move silently, but according to size rules they should also get the same bonus to hide for thier small size. That combinded with thier higher dex and rogue skill points would make them little ninjas if played correctly. The monster manual even shows in the "Goblins as Characters" entry that the size gives the bonus along with the racial bonus. And I wonder why my rogue player always asks for goblin, even in campaigns where monsters are killed on sight.

Gobins and Ninjas do seem to go together in OOTS:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0003.html

dsmiles
2010-08-17, 06:57 AM
That some diseases and poisons deal permanent damage

However, they seriously nerfed diseases and poisons from 1st/2nd to 3.0/3.5, which sucked. They're taking all of the lethality out of DnD, and it's even worse in 4th. But that's ok...house rules are IN!

@hamishspence: See this pic (http://www.reapermini.com/graphics/gallery/4/03210_G.jpg) for goblin ninja-y goodness!

@TheRabbler: That rule is what keeps psionics from being broken. If you can spend more power points than your level on a power, you can create a more powerful effect than a wizard of the same level, and we already know wizards are overpowered.

Kylarra
2010-08-17, 08:20 AM
Sense Drawing a hidden weapon with Sleight of Hand was brought up I give you this as well.

The Sleight of Hand rules make me wonder. No DC is give for Drawing a hidden weapon. I would take this to mean that the DC is 0. So if you wanted to Draw a hidden weapon as a free action you would just have to make a Sleight of Hand DC20. Not sure if that actually works like that, but if it does all the better.You don't draw a hidden weapon with SoH, you hide a weapon with SoH (opposed by spot or search) which then becomes hidden. Then you can take a standard action to draw it.

DemLep
2010-08-17, 08:27 AM
You don't draw a hidden weapon with SoH, you hide a weapon with SoH (opposed by spot or search) which then becomes hidden. Then you can take a standard action to draw it.

It sound more to me as it was part of SoH since that is where the rule falls and is not just a mention, but always refers back to the SoH for it.

Kylarra
2010-08-17, 08:36 AM
It sound more to me as it was part of SoH since that is where the rule falls and is not just a mention, but always refers back to the SoH for it.SoH is how you make a weapon hidden, which then incurs penalties on drawing it. I'm not sure how you're reading that there is a way to draw a [hidden] weapon as a free action through SoH when it explicitly says it takes a standard action and, as you said, lists no DC for attempting to draw a weapon otherwise.

DemLep
2010-08-17, 08:39 AM
SoH is how you make a weapon hidden, which then incurs penalties on drawing it. I'm not sure how you're reading that there is a way to draw a [hidden] weapon as a free action through SoH when it explicitly says it takes a standard action and, as you said, lists no DC for attempting to draw a weapon otherwise.

Munchkin logic that has been bestowed upon me by many a great evil forces (my players).

OMG PONIES
2010-08-17, 09:00 AM
The staggered condition. While spellcasters may not care, it can be deadly against the "I full attack again" variety of melee classes.

Greenish
2010-08-17, 09:04 AM
Genius Loci has Int -. Doesn't sound so smart to me.

Goblin Rogues are deadly at low levels. According to the monster manual they have a +4 racial bonus to hide and move silently, but according to size rules they should also get the same bonus to hide for thier small size. That combinded with thier higher dex and rogue skill points would make them little ninjas if played correctly. The monster manual even shows in the "Goblins as Characters" entry that the size gives the bonus along with the racial bonus. And I wonder why my rogue player always asks for goblin, even in campaigns where monsters are killed on sight.Well, both whisper gnomes and kobolds make equal sneaks, the former with better stat modifiers and decent SLAs, the latter with NA, Natural Weapons (how's a pair of claws and secondary bite sound when other level 1 rogues get just one measly attack per turn?) and, well, being kobolds.

If only they had graced goblinoids with a Races book...

SoH is how you make a weapon hidden, which then incurs penalties on drawing it. I'm not sure how you're reading that there is a way to draw a [hidden] weapon as a free action through SoH when it explicitly says it takes a standard action and, as you said, lists no DC for attempting to draw a weapon otherwise.Well, you could "steal" the weapon from yourself as a free action with a high enough check, no?

DemLep
2010-08-17, 09:06 AM
Well, you could "steal" the weapon from yourself as a free action with a high enough check, no?

I like your thinking.

crazedloon
2010-08-17, 09:11 AM
I just don't like that rule. I stopped using anything more psionic than a psywar when I discovered that rule.

wow that seems a little silly. A rule which balances the class makes you not play it. Guess its a personal thing

I was in a game where that rule oversight ruined the fun for me as another player ended all the encounters with a single power (when you can throw 30ish dice at a power hitting multiple targets with only 10ish HD they tend to die far too quickly)

Smeggedoff
2010-08-17, 09:44 AM
Well, both whisper gnomes and kobolds make equal sneaks
Not quite I'm afraid as Goblins get a racial bonus in addition to their size modifier, but not to hide as it turns out...


Goblin Rogues are deadly at low levels. According to the monster manual they have a +4 racial bonus to hide and move silently, but according to size rules they should also get the same bonus to hide for thier small size. That combinded with thier higher dex and rogue skill points would make them little ninjas if played correctly. The monster manual even shows in the "Goblins as Characters" entry that the size gives the bonus along with the racial bonus. And I wonder why my rogue player always asks for goblin, even in campaigns where monsters are killed on sight.

Close, but No Cylindrical Smoking thing


Goblins have a +4 racial bonus on Move Silently and Ride checks.

That's right, RIDE

DemLep
2010-08-17, 09:46 AM
Maybe their mounts of racial bonuses to Move silently and Hide.

Smeggedoff
2010-08-17, 09:50 AM
Maybe their mounts of racial bonuses to Move silently and Hide.

Huh, after checking, Worgs do indeed have a +1 racial bonus to move silently and a +2 Racial bonus to hide.

*shrug*

DemLep
2010-08-17, 09:55 AM
See so it works.

On a side note I'll take Door number 3. XP and sugar? Who wouldn't go for this option!

Greenish
2010-08-17, 10:22 AM
Not quite I'm afraid as Goblins get a racial bonus in addition to their size modifier, but not to hide as it turns out...Ah right, kobolds make equal sneaks and whisper gnomes better sneaks than goblins.

Whisper Gnomes are small with 60' darkvision, low light vision, 30' speed and +4 racial bonus to Hide and Move Silently.

Kobolds (also sporting 60' darkvision and 30' move speed) get Slight Build, which allows them to count as Tiny in some cases (reverse Powerful Build), meaning they get +8 to Hide from their size.

Peregrine
2010-08-17, 10:30 AM
I'm curious... what whacked-out version of kobolds are you people looking at? :smalltongue:

Does Races of the Dragon (not in my library) have new stats for them or something? Core kobolds have neither natural weapons nor Slight Build.

Sliver
2010-08-17, 10:33 AM
Umm.. Under Sleight Of hand.... Drawing a hidden weapon is a standard action, using the SoH rules. You can take a -20 penalty to hiding the weapon in order to reduce it to a free action. That's how this logic works.

Greenish
2010-08-17, 10:33 AM
I'm curious... what whacked-out version of kobolds are you people looking at? :smalltongue:

Does Races of the Dragon (not in my library) have new stats for them or something? Core kobolds have neither natural weapons nor Slight Build.RoD + it's Web Enhancement (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060420a).

Ajadea
2010-08-17, 10:42 AM
Oh yes, and according to RoD, a kobold can eat absolutely everything (bark, bugs, leather, dirt:smalleek:...), which means you never have to carry rations again!

My favorite obscure rule is probably that a full waterskin weighs 12 pounds: the empty waterskin is 4 pounds, a gallon of water (enough for 1 day) is 8 pounds (according to the create water spell).

Also, Small waterskins carry only 1 quart, or 1/4 of a gallon. Small characters need 1/2 a gallon per day to survive, which means that they need two waterskins. Rules fail!

DemLep
2010-08-17, 10:44 AM
Sleight of Hand (Dex; Trained only; Armor Check Penalty):
...(Skipping the bulk and just quoting what is relevant.)
Drawing a hidden weapon is a standard action and doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity.
...
Action: Any Sleight of Hand check normally is a standard action. However, you may preform a Sleight of Hand check as a free action by taking a -20 penalty on the check.
...
Untrained: An untrained Sleight of Hand check is simply a Dexterity check. Without actual training, you can't succeed on any Sleight of Hand check with a DC higher than 10, except for hiding an object on your body.

The thinking is that, because Drawing a hidden weapon is part of the SoH rules and not part of the Drawing a Weapon Rules (which I posted in full). That drawing a hidden weapon is part of SoH and thus subject to SoH rules such as the action and untrained rules (why I included both). Following this logic Drawing a hidden weapon is a SoH check with a DC of 0, so at a -20 you can do it as a free action.

Yes I understand it's twisted logic that is bending if not breaking the rule, but it works.

dsmiles
2010-08-17, 10:51 AM
My favorite obscure rule is probably that a full waterskin weighs 12 pounds: the empty waterskin is 4 pounds, a gallon of water (enough for 1 day) is 8 pounds (according to the create water spell).

Also, Small waterskins carry only 1 quart, or 1/4 of a gallon. Small characters need 1/2 a gallon per day to survive, which means that they need two waterskins. Rules fail!

Huh...never noticed that one. I just ruled that waterskins for M creatures carried 1/2 gallon or 4 lbs, and a S creature's waterskin carried a quart or 2 lbs. The waterskin itself was of negligible weight.

Greenish
2010-08-17, 11:02 AM
Drawing a hidden weapon is a SoH check with a DC of 0Where do you arrive to DC 0? Even DCs for stuff that an average, non-trained Joe the Commoner can pull off are often DC 10, and I've never seen a rule saying "if no DC is listed, assume 0".

Sliver
2010-08-17, 11:14 AM
Where do you arrive to DC 0? Even DCs for stuff that an average, non-trained Joe the Commoner can pull off are often DC 10, and I've never seen a rule saying "if no DC is listed, assume 0".

No. It has no DC to draw a weapon. You hide the weapon, with the average result of -10 (non trained no dex bonus) that will be opposed by spot or search if anyone wants to find that weapon and draw it as a free action.

Stuff that a non trained commoner can pull of half the time when rushed or all the time when non rushed are DC10, but there are plenty of things that are DC0 because you don't have any chance of failing them under normal circumstances, and failing them is something really rare for a PC to ever encounter. (Climbing up a set of stairs for example. Drinking without choking...)

ericgrau
2010-08-17, 11:17 AM
Aha, that's the hole then. Drawing a hidden weapon is not a use of the sleight of hand skill because it involves no check. Therefore it can't be sped up to a free action either.

That is technically an odd way to sheathe a light weapon as a free action, though.

Zombimode
2010-08-17, 11:17 AM
Genius Loci has Int -. Doesn't sound so smart to me.

Its Genius in the sense of "ghost" or "spirit". The name refers to this ancient roman myth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genius_loci).

Greenish
2010-08-17, 11:23 AM
Its Genius in the sense of "ghost" or "spirit". The name refers to this ancient roman myth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genius_loci).That's what my dictionary tells me, yeah, but I still find it funny. :smallcool:

Curmudgeon
2010-08-17, 11:43 AM
Drawing a hidden weapon is not a use of the sleight of hand skill because it involves no check. Therefore it can't be sped up to a free action either.

That is technically an odd way to sheathe a light weapon as a free action, though.
It's balanced out by the extra time needed to put the weapon to use again, so it's fine. I guess you could work up an exploit using a whole bunch of returning daggers where you keep the last 2 each round in your hands and use Sleight of Hand to stow the others. With Quick Draw to produce new ones you'd be able to keep up full attacks, but either

your equipment budget would be really steep, or
this is an exploit for Factotums of level 8+ who can use Cunning Surge whenever they need to pull out a stored dagger

Tyndmyr
2010-08-17, 11:51 AM
but there are plenty of things that are DC0 because you don't have any chance of failing them under normal circumstances, and failing them is something really rare for a PC to ever encounter. (Climbing up a set of stairs for example. Drinking without choking...)

Which is hysterical when people miss the obscure rule stating that natural 1s do not fail on skill checks.

Sliver
2010-08-17, 11:59 AM
Which is hysterical when people miss the obscure rule stating that natural 1s do not fail on skill checks.

Yes, if your DM both uses critical success/fail for skill checks and forces (normally) auto passing skill checks and doesn't support taking 10, you will find yourself choking on your own saliva 5% of your very short "I failed the dex check to put food in mouth" life.

But it might be a str check, you know... Since putting stuff in your mouth may count as a melee attack which is based on str... Weapon finesse applies to eating!

Greenish
2010-08-17, 12:03 PM
But it might be a str check, you know... Since putting stuff in your mouth may count as a melee attack which is based on str... Weapon finesse applies to eating!Then if you have martial weapon proficiency, it's easier to eat soup with a greatsword than with a spoon (-4 for improvised weapon).

Naia
2010-08-17, 01:29 PM
I don't know. They could've presented it as a haiku. Or in Ancient Norse.

I think we got off pretty light with plain English.

Now I have GOT TO present some kind of math as a haiku to my pupils! :smallbiggrin:
Thank you kindly, Greenish...

Greenish
2010-08-17, 01:34 PM
Now I have GOT TO present some kind of math as a haiku to my pupils! :smallbiggrin:
Thank you kindly, Greenish...Don't tell 'em where you got the idea, I'm too pretty to die.

Kylarra
2010-08-17, 02:06 PM
Well, you could "steal" the weapon from yourself as a free action with a high enough check, no?I'd allow it once. :smallamused:

Greenish
2010-08-17, 02:15 PM
I'd allow it once. :smallamused:After that it wouldn't work because you've wizen up to your trick? :smallcool:

Kylarra
2010-08-17, 02:18 PM
After that it wouldn't work because you've wizen up to your trick? :smallcool:Yeah, things lose their rule of cool status when repeated. :smallamused:

The Rabbler
2010-08-17, 02:18 PM
wow that seems a little silly. A rule which balances the class makes you not play it. Guess its a personal thing

I was in a game where that rule oversight ruined the fun for me as another player ended all the encounters with a single power (when you can throw 30ish dice at a power hitting multiple targets with only 10ish HD they tend to die far too quickly)

I never played a nova psion. I always played the (blanking on the name) psions that changed their shape. I backed it up with some buffs and it always annoyed me that I couldn't use linked power and a quickened power to lay down all of the buffs that I need in one round. that, coupled with the fact that my group usually plays low-leveled games, means I could cast at most one of my good buffs in a round.

Amphetryon
2010-08-17, 02:22 PM
I never played a nova psion. I always played the (blanking on the name) psions that changed their shape. I backed it up with some buffs and it always annoyed me that I couldn't use linked power and a quickened power to lay down all of the buffs that I need in one round. that, coupled with the fact that my group usually plays low-leveled games, means I could cast at most one of my good buffs in a round.

Egoist. I'm not aware of many tricks to allow other caster types to lay down multiple good buffs a round at low levels, either, let alone 'all the buffs I need in one round.' In other words, it sounds to me like 'Psionics doesn't allow me to do more than I could do with Magic, so I don't play with Psionics anymore.' Is that what you meant to say? If so, it strikes me as a poor argument to stop using Psionics.

DragoonWraith
2010-08-17, 02:40 PM
A War Weaver could do it, well, assuming that you have no more then 4 buffs, none are personal-only, and none are higher than... 5th? level.

Thane of Fife
2010-08-17, 02:54 PM
I don't know. They could've presented it as a haiku. Or in Ancient Norse.

I think we got off pretty light with plain English.

A settlement's wealth:
GP Limit over twenty
times population

Jjeinn-tae
2010-08-17, 03:00 PM
A settlement's wealth:
GP Limit over twenty
times population

You generally need to reference a season when you write a Haiku in English, otherwise it's not "proper" for some reason. Not sure why, considering that limitation isn't in traditional Japanese Haiku.

But good job, you made it easier to understand than the original. :smallbiggrin:

pffh
2010-08-17, 04:06 PM
A settlement's wealth:
GP Limit over twenty
times population

Hámarks eignir staðar skulu reiknast sem tvær tíundir af hámarks gullpeningum fyrir hvern bónda.

That's close enough.

Sleepingbear
2010-08-17, 04:16 PM
A settlement's wealth:
GP Limit over twenty
times population

This... is actually easier to understand than the 'plain English' text in the DMG.

Wonton
2010-08-17, 04:20 PM
Now we just need that in the form of an interpretive dance. :smallconfused:

Project_Mayhem
2010-08-17, 04:27 PM
Now we just need that in the form of an interpretive dance. :smallconfused:

Done

http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee139/billyadavies/interp.jpg

Greenish
2010-08-17, 04:29 PM
DoneAwesome moves. I just had to try 'em out right away.

Project_Mayhem
2010-08-17, 04:31 PM
Awesome moves. I just had to try 'em out right away.

I was proud with the symbolism. Some of my best work.

PlzBreakMyCmpAn
2010-08-17, 04:34 PM
This lead to things like:
"We need to climb this cliff" *Shazam* We're all Eagles.
"We need to squeeze out of this chamber before we're crushed!" *Shazam* We're all oozes.
"Those goblins are sacking that orphange!" *Shazam* We're all Stone giants.

Fun times. :smallbiggrin:Wow your use of SHAZAM! wins you the thread. Have a cookie


Free actions can only be done together with other actions. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsincombat.htm)No. It doesn't say anything like that.

At all.

Exact quote please.

Project_Mayhem
2010-08-17, 04:36 PM
Wow your use of SHAZAM! wins you the thread. Have a cookie

Noooo, look at my dance! Reassess your decision!

Jjeinn-tae
2010-08-17, 04:40 PM
Noooo, look at my dance! Reassess your decision!

More than one person can give out cookies.

http://www.smileycookie.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Plain-Sugar-Cookie.jpg

Though on topic, I'm rather fond of the fact that if you have quick draw, you can haul along 5 two handed weapons and attack with each in a full attack if you don't mind dropping them in between attacks.

Zeta Kai
2010-08-17, 04:55 PM
A settlement's wealth:
GP Limit over twenty
times population

You, sir, are truly
worthy of praise & song. An
Internet is yours.

Greenish
2010-08-17, 04:56 PM
Though on topic, I'm rather fond of the fact that if you have quick draw, you can haul along 5 two handed weapons and attack with each in a full attack if you don't mind dropping them in between attacks.Even better when you can afford the enchant each with Fleshgrinding.

SurlySeraph
2010-08-17, 04:59 PM
You can't sneak attack a target that has concealment from you. So if you don't have darkvision and you're in darkness, no sneak attack for you.

Wait, did I say that was my favorite obscure rule? I meant least favorite obscure rule.

PlzBreakMyCmpAn
2010-08-17, 05:03 PM
Noooo, look at my dance! Reassess your decision!Um. Only if you give your interpretation (and reasons) ... and I like it.:smallbiggrin:

OP: we've done this thread before. My favorite is the immunity to precision damage rules for the type and subtype everyone forgets.

dsmiles
2010-08-17, 05:04 PM
You can't sneak attack a target that has concealment from you. So if you don't have darkvision and you're in darkness, no sneak attack for you.

Wait, did I say that was my favorite obscure rule? I meant least favorite obscure rule.

I sneak attack...the darkness.

Project_Mayhem
2010-08-17, 05:06 PM
Um. Only if you give your interpretation (and reasons) ... and I like it.:smallbiggrin:

Art can't be explained. You must form your own reading. Only then will you understand

dsmiles
2010-08-17, 05:06 PM
Awesome moves. I just had to try 'em out right away.

How did this work out for you?

Greenish
2010-08-17, 05:10 PM
How did this work out for you?They flow surprisingly well, though I'm not sure about the correct tempo. Maybe that depends on the size of the settlement?

Project_Mayhem
2010-08-17, 05:11 PM
They flow surprisingly well, though I'm not sure about the correct tempo. Maybe that depends on the size of the settlement?

Of course.

PlzBreakMyCmpAn
2010-08-17, 05:15 PM
Art can't be explained. You must form your own reading. Only then will you understandI understand you completely and disagree vehemently. Anyways, I was asking if the creator had one in mind.

Project_Mayhem
2010-08-17, 05:18 PM
Death of the Author my friend - my reading should be irrelevant to you. It's a powerful piece that moves everyone uniquely

Greenish
2010-08-17, 05:22 PM
I understand you completely and disagree vehemently. Anyways, I was asking if the creator had one in mind.Silence, you knave, you boor! True Are is incomprehensible! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TrueArtIsIncomprehensible)
:smallwink:

Wonton
2010-08-17, 05:41 PM
*ahem*
Attempting to get the thread somewhat back on track. :smallwink:

Armor made for Tiny or smaller creatures only provides half of its regular armor bonus. Meaning, if I cast Reduce Person on the Gnome Cleric (who is in full-plate), he'll lose out on AC overall.

Roga
2010-08-17, 06:07 PM
Despite the pictures, which show potions as being at least the size of Soda cans or bigger, the actual description is gives for a standard potion is "No more then 1 inch wide and 2 inches high, holding 1 ounce of fluid." Instead of chugging a Redbull, we're all drinking 5 hour energy. :smalltongue:

Zeta Kai
2010-08-17, 08:13 PM
OP: we've done this thread before. My favorite is the immunity to precision damage rules for the type and subtype everyone forgets.

And which type/subtype would that be?


Armor made for Tiny or smaller creatures only provides half of its regular armor bonus. Meaning, if I cast Reduce Person on the Gnome Cleric (who is in full-plate), he'll lose out on AC overall.

Their size bonus to AC evens this out somewhat, as does their bonus to to Hide. If that rule didn't exist, then pixies would be impossible to hit.

Makiru
2010-08-17, 08:39 PM
And which type/subtype would that be?

Probably elemental. I've forgotten that one myself a few times.

Speaking of, being above an enemy gives a +1 to hit and damage (I think). My smoke elemental rogue loved to abuse that.

Also, supernatural abilities ignore spell resistance and don't provoke AoOs. A warlock with Supernatural Transformation on Eldrich Blast can be pretty difficult to block.

Jarrick
2010-08-17, 11:12 PM
Some creatures have damage reduction that is overcome by magic weapons. Such creatures’ natural weapons (but not their attacks with weapons) are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.

Seems to me like this rule got us all killed once, but I dont remember the details...

Doing the math, an everburning torch costs exactly the same as a stick (0gp) plus the cost of hiring someone to cast continual flame (Material componant included). This means that for the same price, you can get a continual flame on basically anything. I like to put it on my character's shoulder armor and drape a cloak over it when not in use. Hands-free light for cheap, no casting required on the part of the PC.

Halae
2010-08-18, 03:27 AM
Some creatures have damage reduction that is overcome by magic weapons. Such creatures’ natural weapons (but not their attacks with weapons) are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.Interestingly, it's very fun to punch an iron golem to death if you have the admantine body feat

Doing the math, an everburning torch costs exactly the same as a stick (0gp) plus the cost of hiring someone to cast continual flame (Material componant included). This means that for the same price, you can get a continual flame on basically anything. I like to put it on my character's shoulder armor and drape a cloak over it when not in use. Hands-free light for cheap, no casting required on the part of the PC.I once had a wizard character who did this to his head, and shaved his hair. The barbarian was afraid of magic, so when she came across the guy with a flaming head...

SillySymphonies
2010-08-18, 08:37 AM
With permission, sorcerers and bards can also select the spells they gain from new and unusual spells that they have gained some understanding of.
[link (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/arcaneSpells.htm#addingSpellstoaSorcerersorBardsRe pertoire)]
Though DM permission is required, this rule offers a really nice way for your sorcerer or bard to know spells not on his/her list.

Lysander
2010-08-18, 08:49 AM
When a wall of ice is destroyed is still leaves behind an icy force field that hurts anyone who passes through:


Even when the ice has been broken through, a sheet of frigid air remains. Any creature stepping through it (including the one who broke through the wall) takes 1d6 points of cold damage +1 point per caster level (no save).

Figments cannot be used to alter things that already exist. For example, you can't create a Silent Image of a door set in a real wall.

jpreem
2010-08-18, 09:16 AM
Well you could put iy ON the wall. Just a liiiiiiiiiiiitle bit away from the wall :D

Snake-Aes
2010-08-18, 09:17 AM
Well you could put iy ON the wall. Just a liiiiiiiiiiiitle bit away from the wall :D

And the dc goes down the gutter. You want glamers for that.

dsmiles
2010-08-18, 09:20 AM
Too bad this is 3.5 where you can't really kill somebody with illusions. That has got to be the best rule of all time. You used to be able to do that...but not anymore...:smallfrown:

Snake-Aes
2010-08-18, 09:24 AM
Too bad this is 3.5 where you can't really kill somebody with illusions. That has got to be the best rule of all time. You used to be able to do that...but not anymore...:smallfrown:

Lots of Shadow and Phantasm illusions kill.

dsmiles
2010-08-18, 09:26 AM
Not the same. I'm talking about I create the illusion of a bottomless pit, or a pit with big spikes at the bottom, and you "fall in" and have to make a system shock roll to see if you survive. Ahhh...those were the days...:smallsigh:

Serpentine
2010-08-18, 10:12 AM
Experienced one tonight: flanking creatures must be "friendly" with each other or "allies". So, for example, if you have two independent monsters attacking a character from either side, RAW they don't get flanking bonuses.

Sliver
2010-08-18, 10:28 AM
I would be surprised by the flanking thing if flanking wasn't so mystical. But as flanking is not something related to the creature that is flanked (it's not that it's easier to hit because he splits his attention between two or more targets. It's... Something else). Otherwise you could use illusions such as mirror image or silent image (or higher level image spells) to get flanking.

You could even use this, because if the caster spreads his images in different squares and you are in melee with him, although not sure if it's the real one or not, OOC a lot of mechanics change. If the caster will move or cast non defensively, he will trigger an AOO, and if he casts defensively, it's probably him. If an ally (of the caster) moves to your other side, he will get flanking bonus, but not if he was trying to flank with the caster's illusion...

jpreem
2010-08-18, 12:17 PM
And the dc goes down the gutter. You want glamers for that.

Why and how shold the dc change? Only thing there shold be if someone interacts with an illusion then that someone will get a save. And the save would be like a save would always be. Also an illusion of a closed door should be by no means be more difficult than a illusion of a painting hanging on the wall, or a postament nealing to the wall.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-18, 12:23 PM
Why and how shold the dc change? Only thing there shold be if someone interacts with an illusion then that someone will get a save. And the save would be like a save would always be. Also an illusion of a closed door should be by no means be more difficult than a illusion of a painting hanging on the wall, or a postament nealing to the wall.

"interacting" is a very broad statement. It's not just manipulating. Any inspection that is worth spending an action on can be considered "interacting" with it.

Since figments can't disguise a preexistent object, any attempt to do so would be blatantly obvious. It would not work at all, and the fluff could be it looks so odd (like a half-sketched pattern) that no one would second guess the illusion.

Creating the figment just before the wall? When you go and pay attention to it, you're interacting. The "seam" will be obvious to the point it would be automatically disbelieved.

Lysander
2010-08-18, 12:27 PM
Why and how shold the dc change? Only thing there shold be if someone interacts with an illusion then that someone will get a save. And the save would be like a save would always be. Also an illusion of a closed door should be by no means be more difficult than a illusion of a painting hanging on the wall, or a postament nealing to the wall.

You could put a an illusory door on top of a wall, but it would jut out strangely. It would look as if the architect decided to make the door frame wider than the wall itself.

Basically, figments are entirely additive. You can cover up reality, but you can't subtract from it. So you could put an illusory carpet over a pit, but you couldn't put an illusory pit in the ground.

Greenish
2010-08-18, 12:29 PM
Creating the figment just before the wall? When you go and pay attention to it, you're interacting. The "seam" will be obvious to the point it would be automatically disbelieved.Knowing that something is an illusion gives you +4 bonus to disbelieve it.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-18, 12:31 PM
Knowing that something is an illusion gives you +4 bonus to disbelieve it.
And figments are stated not to work around concealing, disguising or somehow altering objects. Using a figment to pretend there's a door in the wall? Failure. But you can make it look like there are weapons leaning on it, or maybe someone is poking it looking for secret doors, or maybe a half dragon lesbian dire pudding is wandering near it.

Shadowleaf
2010-08-18, 12:37 PM
And figments are stated not to work around concealing, disguising or somehow altering objects. Using a figment to pretend there's a door in the wall? Failure. But you can make it look like there are weapons leaning on it, or maybe someone is poking it looking for secret doors, or maybe a half dragon lesbian dire pudding is wandering near it.
I'm pretty sure that with proper lighting, shadows and so forth, you could create a door and doorframe which looks very, very real. Think of it as a painting - given enough time and skill, you can make an optic illusion of a door.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-18, 12:40 PM
I'm pretty sure that with proper lighting, shadows and so forth, you could create a door and doorframe which looks very, very real. Think of it as a painting - given enough time and skill, you can make an optic illusion of a door.

Not with a figment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#figment).

Figments cannot make something seem to be something else.
Obscure rule is obscure, I guess?

jpreem
2010-08-18, 12:43 PM
It doesnt make wall look different. It creates a figment of a door in front of it. Just like you can make a silent image of a pot of petunias standing on the floor.
Or classical illusionary floor over pit trap silent image. ( otherwise of course we can argue that you cannot use any image spell ever, because you made a piece of air look like something different)

Snake-Aes
2010-08-18, 12:44 PM
It doesnt make wall look different. It creates a figment of a door in front of it. Just like you can make a silent image of a pot of petunias standing on the floor.

Right. There's a door in front of the wall.

jpreem
2010-08-18, 12:47 PM
Mhm like some closed doors usually are. You got bits of wood and some metal hinges .You'd see that they are partially in the wall ( or in this case NOT) only if you'd break the wall apart. ( or door)

AYE sorry the original poster really said using an illusion that there is a door IN the wall. But for a practical reasons :D if you want a closed door, you still can use silent image to fool someone, by placing it in front of the wall.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-18, 12:52 PM
Mhm like some closed doors usually are. You got bits of wood and some metal hinges .You'd see that they are partially in the wall ( or in this case NOT) only if you'd break the wall apart. ( or door)

AYE sorry the original poster really said using an illusion that there is a door IN the wall. But for a practical reasons :D if you want a closed door, you still can use silent image to fool someone, by placing it in front of the wall.

No fluff can bend the rule. And silent image is also a figment so you can't put a door on the wall in any manner that gives the illusion its value as a deceit instrument. You could put a boulder on a hallway, though.

crazedloon
2010-08-18, 12:54 PM
except with a proper door you can add in a frame which does often jut from a wall. The illusionary frame will thus hide the fact that the illusionary door is also jutting from the wall which given proper lighting (in your illusion) should make the door seem reel enough.

The real problem with this plan is the fact that doors are interacted with nearly immediately. Even if they are cautious players (or npcs) who do not just open doors they will search for traps which will grant a save.

Greenish
2010-08-18, 01:05 PM
The real problem with this plan is the fact that doors are interacted with nearly immediately. Even if they are cautious players (or npcs) who do not just open doors they will search for traps which will grant a save.Or they might be dragging a church inquisitor with them. Automatic save against any illusion they see.

Shadowleaf
2010-08-18, 01:08 PM
Right. There's a door in front of the wall.
Why do you think I emphasized on optical illusions? You can still 'paint' the wall - you're not altering it, you're only adding.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-18, 01:10 PM
Why do you think I emphasized on optical illusions? You can still 'paint' the wall - you're not altering it, you're only adding.

That's altering it. Figments can't change the aspect of a preexistent object. You could, for example, put a tapestry on it, or lean a spear on it, or a half-dragon dire pudding on it. A door would be part of the wall. You could put a door on the hole in the wall, if the hole is reasonably shaped like a frame, but you can't put a door on a solid wall. Just like you can't change the wall's color.

Shadowleaf
2010-08-18, 01:12 PM
That's altering it. Figments can't change the aspect of a preexistent object. You could, for example, put a tapestry on it, or lean a spear on it, or a half-dragon dire pudding on it. A door would be part of the wall. You could put a door on the hole in the wall, if the hole is reasonably shaped like a frame, but you can't put a door on a solid wall. Just like you can't change the wall's color.
Are you reading what I am saying? You make an illusion of a door in front of the wall. With correct shadowing and lighting, it will look exactly like a real door, just as with an optical illusion.
http://www.yourdailydump.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/spiderman-illusion.jpg
Like that, only with a door.

Greenish
2010-08-18, 01:13 PM
That's altering it. Figments can't change the aspect of a preexistent object. You could, for example, put a tapestry on it, or lean a spear on it, or a half-dragon dire pudding on it. A door would be part of the wall. You could put a door on the hole in the wall, if the hole is reasonably shaped like a frame, but you can't put a door on a solid wall. Just like you can't change the wall's color.If you can cover a wall with a tapestry, obviously you could also create a door that appears to be sticking out of it.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-18, 01:15 PM
Are you reading what I am saying? You make an illusion of a door in front of the wall. With correct shadowing and lighting, it will look exactly like a real door, just as with an optical illusion.
http://www.yourdailydump.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/spiderman-illusion.jpg
Like that, only with a door.

Yes, I am reading, and that's using fluff to cover for a clear rule. It doesn't work. If you put a door in front of the wall, it'll be obvious to anyone interacting with it that it is a door ahead of the wall instead of placed on the wall.

Again, note that "interacting" doesn't mean only "close inspection". If your character is 60' away from an illusory wall and burns a spot check on it, he should be entitled the save.

Urpriest
2010-08-18, 01:17 PM
Are you reading what I am saying? You make an illusion of a door in front of the wall. With correct shadowing and lighting, it will look exactly like a real door, just as with an optical illusion.
http://www.yourdailydump.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/spiderman-illusion.jpg
Like that, only with a door.

Snake-Aes is arguing that the rules for figments are rules governing what you can convince people of, not what the illusion resembles. As long as you're convincing someone that an object is different, however that convincing is taking place, you can't do it with a figment.

For the philosophically inclined, the difference is that of the sense-data theory of perception versus naive or direct perception, roughly speaking.

jpreem
2010-08-18, 01:20 PM
No it should not be more obvious than those other examples. If you can put a spear leaning on it, or tapestry or a painting hanging from it, or a chandelabre, or a torch-holder protruding then you can put a door standing in front of the wall.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-18, 01:20 PM
That's a more eloquent way to put it, thanks.


No it should not be obvious, if you can put a spear leaning on it or tapestry or a painting hanging or a chandelabre, or a torch-holder protruding then you can put a door standing in front of the wall.

Yes, you can, and it won't serve the purpose of making people think that wall has a door.

Greenish
2010-08-18, 01:22 PM
Yes, I am reading, and that's using fluff to cover for a clear rule. It doesn't work. If you put a door in front of the wall, it'll be obvious to anyone interacting with it that it is a door ahead of the wall instead of placed on the wall.Looking at a door in my home, the frame juts about 1.5 cm out of the wall, and since the house is old, there's also a rather wide crack where the frame overlaps the wall, so it's not touching the wall (even though you made that up, a figment can touch the wall).

[Edit]:
Snake-Aes is arguing that the rules for figments are rules governing what you can convince people of, not what the illusion resembles. As long as you're convincing someone that an object is different, however that convincing is taking place, you can't do it with a figment.The rules state that "[f]igments cannot make something seem to be something else." Well, the wall still looks like the wall, it's just beneath the figment, just like the wall beneath the illusory tapestry.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-18, 01:24 PM
Looking at a door in my home, the frame juts about 1.5 cm out of the wall, and since the house is old, there's also a rather wide crack where the frame overlaps the wall, so it's not touching the wall (even though you made that up, a figment can touch the wall).

Right, sorry if it looked like I denied the possibility of putting the door ahead of the wall. I do believe I already said I agree that can be done.

But it can't be used to make people think that wall has a door. It doesn't matter if it's a carefully-constructed overlap, nor does it matter if walls actually have doors that look exactly like that one. Figments do not make objects seem to be something else. Putting a door there automatically fails to convince people that that wall has a door.

jpreem
2010-08-18, 01:25 PM
To UR- jep i understand it. But even in this case. Im not altering the propeties of the wall ( to make an illusion that there is a door IN the wall.) I create an illusion that IN FRONT of the wall are different parts that look like they belong to a door. So if guys decide that these parts, are parts of a door that leads into the wal - then its completley just their folly. ( Although usually when you see all the necessary components of a door sticking out of the wall then you assume that there might be something in it)


In a way im using an illusion (magic) to create an illusion ( as in stage shows)

Shadowleaf
2010-08-18, 01:25 PM
I believe Snake-Aes is wrong, and even if so, a very thin illusion of exactly the same wall, only blue, should in theory work. Small difference.

jpreem
2010-08-18, 01:32 PM
Or not thin!! You could make a section that has a thicker (illusionary) wall, from some reason, and in it is a door.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-18, 01:32 PM
To UR- jep i understand it. But even in this case. Im not altering the propeties of the wall ( to make an illusion that there is a door IN the wall.) I create an illusion that IN FRONT of the wall are different parts that look like they belong to a door. So if guys decide that these parts, are parts of a door that leads into the wal - then its completley just their folly. ( Although usually when you see all the necessary components of a door sticking out of the wall then you assume that there might be something in it)


In a way im using an illusion (magic) to create an illusion ( as in stage shows)
That's the thing...the rule forbids that. Figments cannot be used to alter the properties of an already existing object. It goes beyond the actual visual element. Remember how figments are not only visual? You can't use ghost sound and Perform(oratory) at dc 140 to do the exact countersound to make someone's speech 'disappear'.
For as long as the figment is made on the attempt to make people think an object is something else (wall-> wall with a door), it won't work. Your figment door would just be a door in front of a wall. Looking it at the right angle doesn't change that.


I believe Snake-Aes is wrong, and even if so, a very thin illusion of exactly the same wall, only blue, should in theory work. Small difference. That is different. You aren't disguising the wall, but putting another wall on top of it. They wouldn't overlap, but if you fail your save and don't physically interact with it, you wouldn't know there's another wall behind it.
The actual illusory wall spell does that...It covers empty spaces. You could use Illusory Wall in front of an actual wall, but not perfectly on top of it.

jpreem
2010-08-18, 01:34 PM
See my previous post do you agree with that?

Greenish
2010-08-18, 01:34 PM
But it can't be used to make people think that wall has a door. It doesn't matter if it's a carefully-constructed overlap, nor does it matter if walls actually have doors that look exactly like that one. Figments do not make objects seem to be something else. Putting a door there automatically fails to convince people that that wall has a door.The door illusion doesn't make the wall to seem to be anything but a wall. It just makes something which appears to be a door in front of a section of the wall.


Or, if you argue that a wall with a door is different than a wall without a door, it follows that wall with a torch holder/tapestry is different than a wall without a torch holder/tapestry.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-18, 01:35 PM
See my previous post do you agree with that?

That is rather confusing, so I dont know what to make of it. Would you reword it, please?

jpreem
2010-08-18, 01:36 PM
That You can put an illusionary wall in front of the wall and have that illusionary wall have its door. So that it will look like just a thicker wall for a section with a door

Snake-Aes
2010-08-18, 01:37 PM
The door illusion doesn't make the wall to seem to be anything but a wall. It just makes something which appears to be a door in front of a section of the wall.


Or, if you argue that a wall with a door is different than a wall without a door, it follows that wall with a torch holder/tapestry is different than a wall without a torch holder/tapestry.

That's what I'm trying to say. If you put the door there, it'll be just like the tapestry/holder. An object (leaning|placed near) it. It cannot make anyone believe there is a door there as part of the wall, it cannot induce people to try and open that door to cross the wall.


That You can put an illusionary wall in front of the wall and have that illusionary wall have its door. So that it will look like just a thicker wall for a section with a door

Oh, sure, that can definitely be done and should fool anyone. It will have to be ahead of the actual wall by an indefinite but noticeable amount (using the Illusory Wall as an example. Touching it immediately reveals the illusion so it can't be stacked on top of the actual wall).


The victims would be entitled their save by, say, touching the wall, the door, or noticing how the dust on the ground doesn't add up to the corners or whatever (which is the figment functioning as normal)

crazedloon
2010-08-18, 01:39 PM
where are you getting this rule that you can not change the appearance of something?

Urpriest
2010-08-18, 01:40 PM
Snake, the problem with direct perception here is that it lets you do other, stupider tricks. For example, suppose you're looking for a secret door. You layer the room with figments along the walls, made to look as if the wall continues. The ones that alter the wall are immediately discernible from reality, the ones that keep it the way it is are not. Thus, you immediately pinpoint the secret door.

People, even D&D people, don't have direct perception. We don't have sense-data either, but you can't get a consistent account out of a direct perception theory.

Tetrasodium
2010-08-18, 01:40 PM
With regards to the wall & door thing, I'd say it depends on what you are making the door for. If extra doors make attackers split up to try and bar them to prevent reinforcements, that's one or more splits/chances they pick the wrong one while your guards show up. If the point is throwing off the count of someone counting room doors, then again you've succeeded. Not every useful illusion involves interacting with it.


Interestingly, it's very fun to punch an iron golem to death if you have the admantine body feat

Adamantine body doesn't actually grant /adamantine to the warforge slam attack.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-18, 01:41 PM
where are you getting this rule that you can not change the appearance of something?
This is the obscure rules thread, isn't it?

Not with a figment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#figment).
Obscure rule is obscure, I guess?
To actually change the aspect of something you want a glamer (like the spell Invisibility, Veil or Hallucinatory terrain)

erikun
2010-08-18, 01:41 PM
Favorite obscure rule?

"The [Combat Reflexes] feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity... Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent."

It makes combat a lot more bearable for anyone who isn't an enlarged spike chain user.

Greenish
2010-08-18, 01:43 PM
That's what I'm trying to say. If you put the door there, it'll be just like the tapestry/holder. An object (leaning|placed near) it. It cannot make anyone believe there is a door there as part of the wall, it cannot induce people to try and open that door to cross the wall.A wall with a torch holder is different than a wall without torch holder, so a figment can't make anyone try to place a torch to the said holder?

And a hallway without a wall in the middle is different than a hallway with a wall in the middle, meaning that Illusory Wall is useless.

crazedloon
2010-08-18, 01:44 PM
no my point is that there is no line (that I see) that says you can not change the look of something in ether the silent image text or the figment text. From what I can see it is an obscure rule you have made up :smalltongue:

But than perhaps it is obscure and hiding thus my confusion

Ormagoden
2010-08-18, 01:44 PM
A shield takes a move action to put on and a move action to remove.

If you want to drop your shield on the ground you need to take a move action to remove it and a free action to drop it. This includes bucklers.

Greenish
2010-08-18, 01:45 PM
no my point is that there is no line (that I see) that says you can not change the look of something in ether the silent image text or the figment text. From what I can see it is an obscure rule you have made up :smalltongue:"Figments cannot make something seem to be something else." The third line in the description for figments.

If you want to drop your shield on the ground you need to take a move action to remove it and a free action to drop it. This includes bucklers.Ah yes, because D&D bucklers are strapped to your wrist for some weird reason.

crazedloon
2010-08-18, 01:48 PM
obviously my reading comprehension has failed me.

So lets simplify this question.

If there is a cube of stone in a vacuum. By your interpretation you can not surround it with a figment of a sphere of wood becuase it would alter what the cube looks like?

Snake-Aes
2010-08-18, 01:48 PM
A wall with a torch holder is different than a wall without torch holder, so a figment can't make anyone try to place a torch to the said holder?

And a hallway without a wall in the middle is different than a hallway with a wall in the middle, meaning that Illusory Wall is useless. That's not the perspective used in the descriptions.
Empty space is perfectly capable of falling to figments (which is what the illusory wall does). The torch holder on the wall doesn't make the wall seem different. The (torch holder|leaning object|tapestry) just seems to be on the wall, which doesn't alter the wall.



If there is a cube of stone in a vacuum. By your interpretation you can not surround it with a figment of a sphere of wood becuase it would alter what the cube looks like?

You can because you are not changing what the cube looks like. You're completely covering it with a new image. You couldn't, for example, make the actual cube change colors. You could put a cube on top of it, covering it completely.

Think of it this way: If you can perceive an object, that object cannot be disguised by a figment. If the figment completely blocks your senses' perception of the object, the object isn't being interacted with in the first place, so it works.

drengnikrafe
2010-08-18, 01:49 PM
I would like to add the following to the wall/door discussion: If I was walking through town and I saw a door in a wall that looked suspicious, I would pay it no mind. People do weird stuff to their doors all the time. It's similar to how I don't go up to people's front porches and mess with the junk they have placed there. However, if this house were important to me, I may investigate the door. If I had seen the wall and never seen construction and now there was a door, I may look into it. If I did, I would immediately see through the illusion.
As such, casual observers who don't care either way would be fooled. People in a hurry who take doors for granted would be fooled. People who cared enough to actually take a close look would see right through it. People who take a moderate look could probably also see through it, but it is capable of fooling people who don't care. I believe that is the point that is being driven at.

Greenish
2010-08-18, 01:52 PM
That's not the perspective used in the descriptions.Neither is there for the door. It appears to be jutting from the wall.

Empty space is perfectly capable of falling to figments (which is what the illusory wall does). The torch holder on the wall doesn't make the wall seem different.Wall with a torch holder (those things are bloody imbedded in the rock) is different from a wall without one, in the very same way as a wall with a door is different from a wall without a door.

An Illusionary Wall makes an empty place look different.

Amphetryon
2010-08-18, 01:53 PM
I would like to add the following to the wall/door discussion: If I was walking through town and I saw a door in a wall that looked suspicious, I would pay it no mind. People do weird stuff to their doors all the time. It's similar to how I don't go up to people's front porches and mess with the junk they have placed there. However, if this house were important to me, I may investigate the door. If I had seen the wall and never seen construction and now there was a door, I may look into it. If I did, I would immediately see through the illusion.
As such, casual observers who don't care either way would be fooled. People in a hurry who take doors for granted would be fooled. People who cared enough to actually take a close look would see right through it. People who take a moderate look could probably also see through it, but it is capable of fooling people who don't care. I believe that is the point that is being driven at.This implies that anyone who would 'take a close look' at any illusion should see right through it, also. Is that your intent? If so, why do you feel the rules support this stance? If not, why do you feel that doors should be a specific exception to the way that illusion spells work?

Ormagoden
2010-08-18, 01:55 PM
Ah yes, because D&D bucklers are strapped to your wrist for some weird reason.

Some bucklers are strapped to the forearm or wrist others are held like a garbage can lid.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-18, 01:56 PM
As such, casual observers who don't care either way would be fooled. People in a hurry who take doors for granted would be fooled. People who cared enough to actually take a close look would see right through it. People who take a moderate look could probably also see through it, but it is capable of fooling people who don't care. I believe that is the point that is being driven at.

Yes. Interacting is a vague statement, but it is basically an active effort. If you pay no attention to the illusion, you aren't interacting with it. If you go and pay attention to it(regardless of how it is represented in actions), you are interacting and entitled the save.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-18, 02:04 PM
Neither is there for the door. It appears to be jutting from the wall.Wall with a torch holder (those things are bloody imbedded in the rock) is different from a wall without one, in the very same way as a wall with a door is different from a wall without a door.
Actually, I see what you mean. It can be put just short of the wall, which is then not an altering on the wall's sensory output.
Then it goes back to the "object that should be in the wall but isn't" situation. The figment will totally fail to be part of the wall.

Here you enter a more complicated deal: If a figment is supposed to be part of a real object, the figment will fail to reproduce it. If the figment is not supposed to be part of the object, but is just nearby there, it will work normally.

This implies that anyone who would 'take a close look' at any illusion should see right through it, also. Is that your intent? If so, why do you feel the rules support this stance? If not, why do you feel that doors should be a specific exception to the way that illusion spells work?
Such inspection is what allows the disbelief save. Figments just happen to fail to alter an object's sensory output.

one can't just say "casting the figment to alter an object's image will fizzle", nor say WHY they fail automatically to disguise the object, because it is never explained how it happens. Fluff at your desire.

crazedloon
2010-08-18, 02:14 PM
Think of it this way: If you can perceive an object, that object cannot be disguised by a figment. If the figment completely blocks your senses' perception of the object, the object isn't being interacted with in the first place, so it works.

so your argument (based on this) is that unless you can hide the entire wall you can not change the look of the wall?

jpreem
2010-08-18, 02:15 PM
So if you agree with a cube surrounded by a illusion of a sphere then you should agree by a dwarf surrounded by an illusion of an ogre deal. ( figment)

And the whole of your obscure rule is plainly a poorly worded effort for people not to use silent image style of spells for disguise style of spells.

Greenish
2010-08-18, 02:15 PM
So, by RAW, Illusionary Wall doesn't do anything (because it makes empty space seem to be something else, ie. a wall, and figments can't do that).

Snake-Aes
2010-08-18, 02:15 PM
so your argument (based on this) is that unless you can hide the entire wall you can not change the look of the wall?

No unless. You cannot change the look of the wall with a figment :p A figment large enough to completely cover an object isn't disguising the object, but concealing it completely.

Drolyt
2010-08-18, 02:16 PM
I'm confused about the door argument. Sure you can put just a little from the wall so it isn't technically changing the wall, but to what end? As soon as somebody inspects it they will realize the door isn't attached to the wall. Even if they somehow fail their save to disbelieve that just means they still see the door, but they know it is fake regardless.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-18, 02:17 PM
So, by RAW, Illusionary Wall doesn't do anything (because it makes empty space seem to be something else, ie. a wall, and figments can't do that).
If you want to be pedant about it, sure.

And the whole of your obscure rule is plainly a poorly worded effort for people not to use silent image style of spells for disguise style of spells.

<shrug> I didn't say I like it.


I'm confused about the door argument. Sure you can put just a little from the wall so it isn't technically changing the wall, but to what end? As soon as somebody inspects it they will realize the door isn't attached to the wall. Even if they somehow fail their save to disbelieve that just means they still see the door, but they know it is fake regardless.

It's what I tried to say a few times earlier, but they keep trying workarounds.

jpreem
2010-08-18, 02:19 PM
IF it touches the wall it will still not be changing the wall. Like a spear leaning to a wall, or what not.

Greenish
2010-08-18, 02:19 PM
I'm confused about the door argument. Sure you can put just a little from the wall so it isn't technically changing the wall, but to what end? As soon as somebody inspects it they will realize the door isn't attached to the wall.You don't have to make it obvious. Indeed, you don't even have to leave a gap (even though there could realistically be one).

Still, it looks that Snake-Aes is correct by RAW. (About the doors, not about the torch holders which wouldn't work either.)

crazedloon
2010-08-18, 02:21 PM
so the only way to "add" a door to a wall (since that seems to be the example) is to be able to cover the entire wall,floor,ceiling (since they are all part of the same thing) of a room. However the second an actual door/window. Opens the illusion fails as the other room/outside is not covered?

But than wouldn't the other items in the room on the image also ruin the image. So in order to do the door you need to do the room and everything in it?

Snake-Aes
2010-08-18, 02:24 PM
so the only way to "add" a door to a wall (since that seems to be the example) is to be able to cover the entire wall,floor,ceiling (since they are all part of the same thing) of a room. However the second an actual door/window. Opens the illusion fails as the other room/outside is not covered?

But than wouldn't the other items in the room on the image also ruin the image. So in order to do the door you need to do the room and everything in it?

Something you aren't trying to tamper with the figment shouldn't be an impediment on it like that.

And that's why it really gets messed up. Just (block|make the disbelief save automatically fail on) any attempt to actually disguise the object with figments and you're good.

jpreem
2010-08-18, 02:24 PM
Well actually i can agree to snake-aes that this door in the wall scenario could be interpreted from the rule like that. :)
Thats why i described it as poorly worded though.
When I would dm then I'd probably might rule it as working. Otherwise straining it you could say that no figment ever should work unless in a hypotetical empty multiverse of vacuum (and then you would be changing the apperance of the vacuumverse oh darn). Can't let it slip too much to the other way too otherwise we will have this dwarf/ogre thing.
So its an alley that needs quite a lot of dm supervision. ( spells tend to do it anyway)

Greenish
2010-08-18, 02:25 PM
so the only way to "add" a door to a wall (since that seems to be the example) is to be able to cover the entire wall of a room. However the second an actual door/window. Opens the illusion fails as the other room/outside is not covered?Randomized punctuation makes your post. Harder to read.

Anyway, "opening" the illusory window in the illusory wall, if it even is possible, doesn't make the real wall seem any different. (Though having the illusory wall there in the first place makes the hallway seem different, so it's not possible to create with a figment.)

If you want to be pedant about it, sure.Oh, I do. Not that being pedantic about RAW is a bad thing.

Ernir
2010-08-18, 02:27 PM
Manifest an Unknown Power from Another’s Powers Known. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicPowersOverview.htm#manifestAnUnknownPowerFr omAnothersPowersKnown)

My favourite obscure rule is right there.

I also consider this a huge boon to Wilders, who can now actually pack some utility by just carrying Power Stones, which they never have to deplete.