Dvati confusion

[Falcos]

Say I have a Dvati Unarmed Swordsage(s?), one of the pair having at their belt the fully-unlocked Legacy Weapon Umbral Awn (ToB). The other member of the pair has an opponent provoke an Attack of Opportunity... Am I reading RAW correctly when I assume that I can use Umbral Awn's Shadowhand to pull Umbral Awn from the first Dvati twin's belt to the second Dvati twin's hand for the AoO?

Copy/pasted from the RAW thread, as I suspect it's too complex an answer for the simple and short nature of the thread.

[Troacctid]

The ability allows you to draw the weapon and attack with it as an immediate action. You still need to draw the weapon normally, which you can't do if it's not in your possession. It doesn't magically appear in your hand.

It is probably worth noting that by strict RAW, the Umbral Awn ability in question is somewhat dysfunctional, as it triggers whenever an opponent provokes an attack of opportunity while you are unarmed--even if they provoked it against someone completely different, while you were on the other side of the battlefield. (Of course, you probably won't be able to follow through with an actual attack if they're outside your reach, but it is still a little odd.)

[Falcos]

But my question is, does the whole Dvati "one being" shenanigans make it count as being in "my possession"?

Dvati, while my favourite race, give me a migraine.

[Troacctid]

You draw the weapon normally; the magic only changes the timing. You couldn't draw Umbral Awn here for the same reason you couldn't draw any random weapon from the other twin's belt.

I mean, maybe if you're standing next to them, I guess. *shrug*

[Falcos]

Fair enough. Thanks for the help clearing it up. :)

[OldTrees1]

But my question is, does the whole Dvati "one being" shenanigans make it count as being in "my possession"?

Dvati, while my favourite race, give me a migraine.

No. Dvati have 2 bodies and are geared separately.

[atemu1234]

No. Dvati have 2 bodies and are geared separately.

Basically this. Though whether this is RAW or RALI (Rules As Logically Interpreted) is beyond me.

[Psyren]

No. Dvati have 2 bodies and are geared separately.

Wow, that's rough; I actually never noticed this before. Since they don't get increased WBL, that means you have to somehow gear both bodies from the same pool of wealth. On top of that, each twin gets half-HD hit points, yet they take damage separately from area effects. I'm not sure the increased actions are worth it, especially on a martial character.

[Falcos]

I'm well aware they're geared separately, I was more wondering about the specific interaction with Shadowhand.

As for Dvati martial character, I'm open for ideas in my other thread as to how to make one work, if anybody's got any to spare. :) *shameless plug* (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?407038-Shadow-Sun-Ninja!)

[atemu1234]

I'm well aware they're geared separately, I was more wondering about the specific interaction with Shadowhand.

As for Dvati martial character, I'm open for ideas in my other thread as to how to make one work, if anybody's got any to spare. :) *shameless plug* (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?407038-Shadow-Sun-Ninja!)

Flank-based optimised rogue?

[OldTrees1]

Wow, that's rough; I actually never noticed this before. Since they don't get increased WBL, that means you have to somehow gear both bodies from the same pool of wealth. On top of that, each twin gets half-HD hit points, yet they take damage separately from area effects. I'm not sure the increased actions are worth it, especially on a martial character.

Depends on the optimization level of the character and the optimization level of the group. I was able to use it on a Healbot Cleric/Crusader/Prestige Paladin/RKV by giving the bodies an uneven split of gear(60:40) so that one acted like a Crusader and the other like a Healer. The party was at a similar optimization level.

[Psyren]

Depends on the optimization level of the character and the optimization level of the group. I was able to use it on a Healbot Cleric/Crusader/Prestige Paladin/RKV by giving the bodies an uneven split of gear(60:40) so that one acted like a Crusader and the other like a Healer. The party was at a similar optimization level.

Given that a T1 build like that can function practically naked or in mundane gear, I wouldn't expect it to impact them much at all. But a Dvati Pair of fighters, monks or rogues? They would be at a much greater disadvantage relative to other races using those classes.

[Troacctid]

Given that a T1 build like that can function practically naked or in mundane gear, I wouldn't expect it to impact them much at all. But a Dvati Pair of fighters, monks or rogues? They would be at a much greater disadvantage relative to other races using those classes.

I don't know about that. How much gp would you spend on an item that literally doubles your actions in every round? That's pretty valuable.

It's like Leadership, except instead of them being two levels below you, they're the same level and they share all your abilities.

[OldTrees1]

Given that a T1 build like that can function practically naked or in mundane gear, I wouldn't expect it to impact them much at all. But a Dvati Pair of fighters, monks or rogues? They would be at a much greater disadvantage relative to other races using those classes.

Um. Why did you call it a tier 1 build? I described it as acting like a Healer + Crusader. I thought Healbots were less versatile than Fighters. Not all clerics are Tier 1 or even Tier 3.

To be more clear: Swift Cures, Touch of Healing, Strike Maneuvers, and occasional Restorations/Death Wards (since we were up against Vampires).

[Psyren]

I don't know about that. How much gp would you spend on an item that literally doubles your actions in every round? That's pretty valuable.

But if the second me has lower stats, lower saves, lower AC, lower attack bonus, lower damage etc - how useful will those second set of actions ultimately be? Especially when it doesn't double spellcasting.

Or, I can divide the wealth between us, and now we'll both have mediocre gear. Neither approach is very appealing.


Not all clerics are Tier 1 or even Tier 3.

If you wanted it to be T1 though, it would be as simple as changing your spell selection for that day. It's not like you'd have to rebuild your entire character to pick up things like Divine Power, Planar Ally, or Holy Word.

[OldTrees1]

But if the second me has lower stats, lower saves, lower AC, lower attack bonus, lower damage etc - how useful will those second set of actions ultimately be? Especially when it doesn't double spellcasting.

Or, I can divide the wealth between us, and now we'll both have mediocre gear. Neither approach is very appealing.

I will repeat that a 60:40 split works pretty well for a in melee/not in melee split.


If you wanted it to be T1 though, it would be as simple as changing your spell selection for that day. It's not like you'd have to rebuild your entire character to pick up things like Divine Power, Planar Ally, or Holy Word.

And what relevance does that have on my anecdote? It did not need any of those. You wondered if a martial character could handle it and I gave an example on how a weaker character did handle it.

[Psyren]

I will repeat that a 60:40 split works pretty well for a in melee/not in melee split.



And what relevance does that have on my anecdote? It did not need any of those. You wondered if a martial character could handle it and I gave an example on how a weaker character did handle it.

I still don't consider a Cleric/Crusader/PP/RKV to be "weaker." Whatever deficiency exists in your gear can easily be made up for using long-duration buffs. I get the feeling you're taking my opinion a bit personally though, and that isn't my intent.

[Troacctid]

But if the second me has lower stats, lower saves, lower AC, lower attack bonus, lower damage etc - how useful will those second set of actions ultimately be? Especially when it doesn't double spellcasting.

Or, I can divide the wealth between us, and now we'll both have mediocre gear. Neither approach is very appealing.

That's presumably the sort of thing the designers would have been thinking when they wrote up the race and put it at only a +1 LA.

I've never actually played a game with Dvati, but I strongly suspect the action economy advantage would easily outweigh the loss in gear, as long as you played it smart. It's not difficult to create an equipment setup that allows the twins to complement one another instead of competing for the same resources.

In general, you should never underrate an ability that lets you break the action economy. Even something as simple as a familiar can be a powerhouse in the hands of a creative player, and a Dvati twin is much stronger than a familiar.

[OldTrees1]

I still don't consider a Cleric/Crusader/PP/RKV to be "weaker." Whatever deficiency exists in your gear can easily be made up for using long-duration buffs. I get the feeling you're taking my opinion a bit personally though, and that isn't my intent.

It is not your opinion I am taking personally. It is my frustration over your misreading you are sensing.

I will point you once again to the word "Healbot" and how it had a defining role in my anecdote. In my example the character having to gear 2 bodies was played weaker than a martial character (although moderately optimized for the healbot role) and did fine. A Martial character under the same conditions would have had an even better performance.

[Psyren]

That's presumably the sort of thing the designers would have been thinking when they wrote up the race and put it at only a +1 LA.

Dvati made it clear the designers didn't do much thinking at all. For example, they account for spellcasting, but what about psionics, incarnum, initiating, vestiges, etc.? Can each twin activate those? And they don't mention magic items at all.

I love the race too (its concept anyway), but I'm not pretending for a minute that they are designed properly.



I've never actually played a game with Dvati, but I strongly suspect the action economy advantage would easily outweigh the loss in gear, as long as you played it smart. It's not difficult to create an equipment setup that allows the twins to complement one another instead of competing for the same resources.

Unless you are able to keep one twin out of harm's way at all times, the gear deficiency will always be a factor. And given that the dvati entry seems to want both twins to be flanking with one another, keeping one out of harm's way does not seem to be what they intended. Each one needs its own armor, its own weapon, its own cloak of resistance, its own natural armor or Con amulet, its own ioun stones etc.



In general, you should never underrate an ability that lets you break the action economy. Even something as simple as a familiar can be a powerhouse in the hands of a creative player, and a Dvati twin is much stronger than a familiar.

Familiars don't need the same gear as their masters. They can be left out of combat entirely much more easily, or are less likely to be targeted because the master is the more obvious threat. Familiars generally come attached to a full caster (who by the way does not need the familiar to give up all their actions every time the master casts a spell); my objection in #12 was specifically aimed at lower-tier classes that cannot compensate for gear deficiencies with buffs.


It is not your opinion I am taking personally. It is my frustration over your misreading you are sensing.

I will point you once again to the word "Healbot" and how it had a defining role in my anecdote. In my example the character having to gear 2 bodies was played weaker than a martial character (although moderately optimized for the healbot role) and did fine. A Martial character under the same conditions would have had an even better performance.

A fighter or monk would have "better performance" than a Cleric/Crusader/RKV? What metric are you using for this?

[OldTrees1]

A fighter or monk would have "better performance" than a Cleric/Crusader/RKV? What metric are you using for this?

Please demonstrate your reading comprehension by using an accurate representation of my claim.

I said a RKV that was limiting itself to being a Healbot (further clarified as acting like a Healer + a Crusader (even further clarified as "Swift Cures, Touch of Healing, Strike Maneuvers, and occasional Restorations/Death Wards")) was able to hold its own while dealing with a 60:40 gear split plan between the 2 Dvati bodies.

Then I said that since such a Healbot (please read the description again) was able to hold its own, then a Martial character (yes even a Fighter) could also hold their own with a 60:40 gear split plan.

[Psyren]

Please demonstrate your reading comprehension by using an accurate representation of my claim.

I said a RKV that was limiting itself to being a Healbot (further clarified as acting like a Healer + a Crusader (even further clarified as "Swift Cures, Touch of Healing, Strike Maneuvers, and occasional Restorations/Death Wards")) was able to hold its own while dealing with a 60:40 gear split plan between the 2 Dvati bodies.

Then I said that since such a Healbot (please read the description again) was able to hold its own, then a Martial character (yes even a Fighter) could also hold their own with a 60:40 gear split plan.

Given that a fighter does not have swift cures, strike maneuvers (outside of a bunch of feats spent on Martial Study/Adaptive Style), restoration or death ward, I still think you're comparing apples to oranges here. But maybe that's just my "reading comprehension" acting up. :smallsigh:

[OldTrees1]

Given that a fighter does not have swift cures, strike maneuvers (outside of a bunch of feats spent on Martial Study/Adaptive Style), restoration or death ward, I still think you're comparing apples to oranges here. But maybe that's just my "reading comprehension" acting up. :smallsigh:

Thank you for acknowledging what was actually being compared (instead of your tier 1 strawman earlier that was causing my frustration). I don't have the energy to get into a description of a Fighter's options at the comparable optimization level. So I will mention 2 and leave it at that (Save or Lose and Zone of Control).

[Psyren]

And which T1 does not have those abilities, or ones that fill similar roles? :smallconfused:

The overall point, that they can compensate for one or both twins having lower defenses, still stands. If I can throw a death ward up even on just one twin, then that twin having a lower fort save is less of an issue because Slay Living et al. won't paste them. Or if I can block/clear negative levels before the next fight, it's like they never happened. Strikes generally compensate for having lower weapon bonuses or lower offensive stats. Swift cures compensate for having lower AC/reflex by letting you negate hits/blasts without slowing your own offense.

In short, I don't see how a class with all these benefits could reasonably be called "weaker" - even when you are not playing them to potential. You're still doing things with it that a fighter or monk could not, making this a non sequitur response to the objection I raised in #12.

[OldTrees1]

And which T1 does not have those abilities, or ones that fill similar roles? :smallconfused:
The one in the comparison. I listed the extent of the abilities relevant to anecdote and that is the same list that is relevant to the comparison.



The overall point, that they can compensate for one or both twins having lower defenses, still stands. If I can throw a death ward up even on just one twin, then that twin having a lower fort save is less of an issue because Slay Living et al. won't paste them. Or if I can block/clear negative levels before the next fight, it's like they never happened. Strikes generally compensate for having lower weapon bonuses or lower offensive stats. Swift cures compensate for having lower AC/reflex by letting you negate hits/blasts without slowing your own offense.

In short, I don't see how a class with all these benefits could reasonably be called "weaker" - even when you are not playing them to potential. You're still doing things with it that a fighter or monk could not, making this a non sequitur response to the objection I raised in #12.

Is a Strike/Full Attack more or less powerful than Touch of Healing?

I am not calling the class weaker. I am saying the character held its own in the circumstances and was weaker while doing so than the types of characters you were wondering about.

I will not reply to your next post if you continue the strawman.

[Troacctid]

*Shrug*

Like I said, I've never played with Dvati. (I get the feeling you don't have much practical experience with them either, Psyren.) But I have played with characters that have animal companions, familiars, and other minions, and those sidekicks did a ton of work, even though they were less powerful from a strict numerical standpoint than an appropriately-leveled Fighter (with only masterwork equipment) would have been. Dvati is that, but better. So it should, logically, be kickass.

[Psyren]

I am not calling the class weaker. I am saying the character held its own in the circumstances and was weaker while doing so than the types of characters you were wondering about.

I will not reply to your next post if you continue the strawman.

It has death ward, swift healing and strikes, but it's weaker. Gotcha.



Like I said, I've never played with Dvati. (I get the feeling you don't have much practical experience with them either, Psyren.) But I have played with characters that have animal companions, familiars, and other minions, and those sidekicks did a ton of work, even though they were less powerful from a strict numerical standpoint than an appropriately-leveled Fighter (with only masterwork equipment) would have been. Dvati is that, but better. So it should, logically, be kickass.

How often do you flank with your familiar? Without polymorphing it into something else, I mean.

[Falcos]

The biggest dilemma for me, as a Dvati, is thus:

Do I A), kit them both out in near-identical gear (AC/AC, +stats/+stats, weapon upgrade/weapon upgrade)

Or do I B), kit them in different kits so they're good at different things (Make one a "tank" or Stand Still type, make the other a real heavy hitter/sneak attacker, what have you)

Additional question: Can Dvati twins who are a Martial Maneuver class be in different stances simultaneously?

[squiggit]

Additional question: Can Dvati twins who are a Martial Maneuver class be in different stances simultaneously?

Ask your DM. I think RAW says yes because there's no restriction on interaction, but Dvati don't appear to be designed with any alternative magic subsystem in mind, so what's supposed to happen there is complete grey area.

[OldTrees1]

The biggest dilemma for me, as a Dvati, is thus:

Do I A), kit them both out in near-identical gear (AC/AC, +stats/+stats, weapon upgrade/weapon upgrade)

Or do I B), kit them in different kits so they're good at different things (Make one a "tank" or Stand Still type, make the other a real heavy hitter/sneak attacker, what have you)

Additional question: Can Dvati twins who are a Martial Maneuver class be in different stances simultaneously?

I considered A and tested it for a bit, but I found B to be much better suited to the Dvati. The key is finding 2 kits that synergize without requiring an unfocused build.
Perhaps:
Knockback brusier and a Tank. Then you can be your own "Rock and a hard place"

Dvati share the same maneuvers readied but can both use a maneuver in the same round. I interpret this as 2 stances(each only affecting 1 body) rather than 1 stance(affecting 2 bodies) or 1 stance(affecting 1 body).

[Troacctid]

I think on an initiator build, you want both twins to be competent in melee, so a roughly even split makes sense. Initiators are thankfully less item-dependent than other martial classes, so they can get away with skimping a little bit on gear.

Delegating one twin to a secondary role would be valid too, though. An option to consider would be to give them a reach weapon and have them stand directly behind the primary twin.


How often do you flank with your familiar? Without polymorphing it into something else, I mean.

That is a thing familiars are good for, yes, although it's not a strategy I've personally employed. It helps that tiny creatures can flank by moving into an enemy's square. Improved Familiar for a Blink Dog can also get you a pretty great flanker. I had a player once who used a Blink Dog to support a sneak attacking strategy. (He got it with Wild Cohort/Exalted Companion, but it's the same principle.)

More often, I use familiars for things like throwing tanglefoot bags or locating invisible enemies. At high levels, they can also activate wands, and if you take the feat, there are a lot of extra options like Mustevals for at-will Magic Missiles, or wyrmling dragons for breath weapons, or whatever. Share Soulmeld is also a powerful option if you can support it.

[Psyren]

It helps that tiny creatures can flank by moving into an enemy's square.

Tiny creatures have 0 reach. "Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can’t flank an opponent."



Improved Familiar for a Blink Dog can also get you a pretty great flanker. I had a player once who used a Blink Dog to support a sneak attacking strategy. (He got it with Wild Cohort/Exalted Companion, but it's the same principle.)

More often, I use familiars for things like throwing tanglefoot bags or locating invisible enemies. At high levels, they can also activate wands, and if you take the feat, there are a lot of extra options like Mustevals for at-will Magic Missiles, or wyrmling dragons for breath weapons, or whatever. Share Soulmeld is also a powerful option if you can support it.

Even if you just use the twin to throw tanglefoot bags or use wands, a medium creature that looks identical to you is going to attract a lot more attention than, say, an imp or a bat. Not to mention that you can't share buffs like Invisibility between twins, only pass them from one to the other (spending actions to do so), and that won't help a monk or fighter much either.

How Soulmelds work with Dvati, particularly when it comes to occupying and binding chakras, is anyone's guess.

[Troacctid]

Tiny creatures have 0 reach. "Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can’t flank an opponent."

Au contraire:

Any time more than one allied creature occupies an opponent’s space (either in the same square on the grid or in separate squares), the allied creatures provide each other with the benefit of flanking. If a creature occupies part of an opponent’s space, it provides flanking to all allied creatures outside the opponent’s space.

Example: A colony of stirges (Tiny) attacks a human (Medium). Up to four Tiny creatures can occupy the same space. They are two size categories apart from a human, so up to two Tiny stirges can occupy the same space as the human, and they provide each other with flanking against the human.

[Psyren]

Au contraire:

Au contraire contraire:



Tiny, Diminutive, and Fine Creatures: Very small creatures
take up less than 1 square of space. This means that more than one
such creature can fit into a single square. For example, a Tiny creature
(such as a cat) typically occupies a space only 2-1/2 feet across,
so four can fit into a single square. Twenty-five Diminutive creatures
or 100 Fine creatures can fit into a single square.

Creatures that take up less than 1 square of space typically have a
natural reach of 0 feet, meaning they can’t reach into adjacent
squares. They must enter an opponent’s square to attack in melee.
This provokes an attack of opportunity from the opponent. You can
attack into your own square if you need to, so you can attack such
creatures normally. Since they have no natural reach, they do not
threaten the squares around them. You can move past them without
provoking attacks of opportunity. They also can’t flank an enemy.



FLANKING
...
Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can’t flank an opponent.

As the PHB has the rules for combat (including Flanking), it is the primary source.

Also, your quote implies the Stirges only flank with other creatures in the same square - they do not provide flanking for any creature (e.g. a medium creature, i.e. you) standing outside that square.