Arena Tournament, Round 38: Mike C Hammer vs. Chile V

[ArenaManager]

Arena Tournament, Round 38: Mike C Hammer vs. Chile V

Map:
http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee221/Kyace/glasshouse.png


XP Award: 300 XP
GP Award: 300 GP

Mavian - Mike C Hammer (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheets/view.php?id=47316)
Chilepepper - Chile V (http://www.thetangledweb.net/addon.php?addon=Profiler&page=view_char&cid=10610)

All Combatants, please roll initiative.

[chilepepper]

Chile V (http://www.thetangledweb.net/ttw/addon.php?addon=Profiler&page=view_char&cid=10607)

[roll0]....

[Mavian]

Initiative: [roll0]

I have a rules question before we begin this match.

Are metabreath feats useable with his Dragonfire Adept breath weapon? Every source I've looked at says no. Including the Simple Questions by RaW thread when Talic asked that exact same question.

[chilepepper]

I already asked that question when I was designing the character and the answer is yes.

edit: The delay increase will still apply to the DFA breath. I won't be able to use it the round(s) after I apply the metabreath.

[Mavian]

I would like to see the post where your question was answered.

[Talic]

High Ref Talic

While their is some wiggle room for arguing the specific semantics (by the most technical RAW, it would work, as the feats don't specify that they must be used with the breath weapon that qualifies them), I can't think of a single creature in all of D&D (any edition) that has more than one breath weapon, and whose breath weapons have different delay times. This makes Chile's creation something of a unique exception to the norm. (Go figure, heh)

It seems the intent of the feat (as was pointed out to me, when I asked), was that the feats be usable with any breath weapon that qualifies for them... Namely ones with a delay time expressed in rounds.

Thus, I'd be inclined to say that no, metabreath feats would not work with the dragonfire adept's breath weapon.

However, as that isn't clearly defined in the feat description, and since Chile appears to have a contradictory ruling, I'd like to get some further High Reffage in here to corroborate before making that official.

[chilepepper]

Well, ****. It was Talic that told me the it would work, but it was in a PM I don't have anymore. I guess that answer came before you were told whatever you were told that contradicts it. Either way, I don't still have the PM, so it's a moot point.

I pulled the idea right from the Wizards board.


By taking the Dragonborn template, a DFA can grab him or herself a breath weapon with a recharge period that’s expressed in rounds. This, of course, qualifies such DFAs for metabreath feats. Since, the argument goes, there is no clause about metabreath feats which explicitly prevents them from being applied to a breath weapon which does not have a recharge rate expressed in rounds, the Dragonborn DFA can then take metabreath feats and apply those to his or her breath weapon. The obvious counter-argument, of course, is that this is clearly a case of using the letter of the law to circumvent its intention – the classic “RAI” vs. “RAW” debate.

Now, since the Arena is RAW and not RAI, there is no debate.

[chilepepper]

Furthermore, here's the text in question.


To take a metabreath
feat, a creature must have a breath weapon whose
time between breaths is expressed in rounds. Therefore, a
hell hound (which can breathe once every 2d4 rounds) can
take metabreath feats, whereas a behir (breath weapon
usable 1/minute) cannot.

That says "TO TAKE" not "TO USE". It's a prereq for the feats.

You don't have to be unarmed to use improved grapple. You don't have to be within 30' to use far shot. You don't have to power attack to use improved bull rush. You simply have to meet the qualifications. No where in the feat does it say it has to be applied to the prereq breath.

[Talic]

High Ref Talic

Just to clarify, I said it looks like it should work when I was trying to design a character around a similar concept. It created a bit of bias (which is why I got an outside opinion from the Q&A by RAW thread)... When it seemed a bit hard to justify, I scrapped the idea.

That said, the closest thing I can think of that would compare would be a Theurge trying to apply DMM to arcane spells. The power attack analogy doesn't address both breath weapons, the duality.

Again, it could be that it'll be ruled that it's allowed. It could be ruled that it's not. However, the issue is one that's fairly accepted to be a no in conventional play. So the question has merit to ask, at least. If it's ruled in your favor, no harm. If it's ruled against you, it's better to get everything out of the way early.

(For the record, I still like the idea. I just feel a bit biased in the area, so am reluctant to give it the go-ahead.)

[Kyeudo]

GM Kyeudo

It would apear that Chilepepper has the correct RAW interpretation. Just make sure that you do apply the proper wait time.

[Mavian]

Well, what about the Sage, who says that recharge rates are in fact a pre-req for using a metabreath feat, which makes the above point not RaW.

Link (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ask/20080422a)

[chilepepper]

That actually supports my point.


Q: Can dragonfire adepts (Dragon Magic p24) use the Breath Channeling feats (Races of the Dragon p101) or the Metabreath feats (Dragonomicon p66)?

A: A dragonfire adept isn’t able to use a Metabreath feat with his breath weapon because it does not have a recharge time. Having a recharge time is one of the prerequisites for Metabreath feats.

They can use the Breath Channeling feats as long as they meet all other prerequisites for the feat.

It says right there I can use it if I meet the prereqs. I've got the breath that meets the prereq, so I can use it. The sage isn't saying I can't use it, he's saying the DFA doesn't meet the prereq to take it.


Any purchases?

[Mavian]

Where exactly is he saying you can use it?

He's saying that the recharge time is a prerequisite for using the feat on a breath weapon, which the DFA doesn't meet. Hence you can't metabreath your DFA breath weapon

[chilepepper]

They can use the Breath Channeling feats as long as they meet all other prerequisites for the feat.

Right there.

[Mavian]

They can use the Breath Channeling feats as long as they meet all other prerequisites for the feat.

I don't see Metabreath feats mentioned anywhere in this quote

[chilepepper]

Oh, I'm retarded.

Anyway, the sage is saying DFAs can't take metabreath because they don't meet the prereq, that doesn't apply to Chile, because he does meet the prereq.

[Mavian]

I'm not arguing that you can't take it. I'm arguing that you can't apply it to your DFA breath weapon, which is what the Sage said.

You can't apply a metabreath feat to a breath weapon that does not have a recharge time. DFA's breath weapon does not have a recharge time, thus you can't apply a metabreath feat to it.

[chilepepper]

Having a recharge time is one of the prerequisites for Metabreath feats.

I meet that prereq, so what the sage is saying doesn't apply. Having improved unarmed strike is a prereq for improved grapple. Once you have improved unarmed strike, you can take improved grapple. That in no way implies that you have to use improved unarmed strike to use improved grapple. I don't have to use my 1d4 breath weapon to use the metabreath feat, I just have to have a 1d4 breath to qualify for a metabreath feat. I don't know why that isn't clearer. It doesn't say anywhere in the feat or any of the text that a metabreath can only be used on a 1d4 breath. The sage is clearly talking about prereqs, which means he's talking about qualifying to take the feat. Unless we're going to change all the feats' text to say you have to be using all prereqs to use a feat...

[Mavian]

Because Metabreath feats specifically state that they increase the recharge time of the breath weapon that they are used on.


When you use this feat, add +1 to the number of rounds you must wait before using your breath weapon again.

The DFA's breath weapon does not have a wait time, therefore you can't apply a feat that requires a wait time to it, which is exactly what the Sage is saying.

[chilepepper]

A DFA's breath is effectively usable every round, so it has a 0 round wait time. You add +1 to 0, you get 1 round. I have to wait 1 round before I can use it again. Which Kyeudo already ruled on. If you have nothing new to add, please take your first turn.

[Kyeudo]

GM Kyeudo

While the Sage raises a relevant point given a standard Dragonfire Adept, his point about the prerequisites does not seem to be based on any hard rules. The Sage points out that Dragonfire Adepts can't meet the prerequisites and so could not normaly use them. However, a blanket ruling on all Dragonfire Adepts can not be made based on the RAW.

The Sage, while being one of the best sources of common sense rulings for ongoing campaigns, is not RAW. It is not Errata. The Arena is not an ongoing campaign; We are a hack and slash tournament. If the Sage raises relevant points, we listen, but in this case I think the Sage missed other possible situations in his ruling. Ignore him.

[Mavian]

A standard action is not a wait time. A wait time is a time expressed in rounds that is required to pass before an ability can be used.

1 round is a wait time, 1 minute is a wait time, 1 standard action is not a wait time.

From a discussion of this very issue in the Simple Q/A thread.





Only issue I see with that, is that in most areas of D&D, when you attempt to add a feature to something that doesn't have it, you start with the assumption that it has that feature at 0 (such as Natural Armor).

That certainly is not the general rule. For instance, in the case of natural armor it is explicitly mentioned that natural armor increases you AC and stacks withh all other bonuses to armor.

The monk has an enhancement bonus to speed, by such an interpretation that would suddenly make the monk able to fly, burrow, swim etc. without having any of those speeds.



The last line could be interpreted in this instance to add 1 round to whatever delay there was (such as a dragonfire adept's delay of nothing, or 0 rounds, being increased to 1 or 2 rounds). It's not definitive, but there are precedents in other areas which could be used to support such an interpretation, I think.

The difference between having no duration and a duration of 0 rounds is quite big, especially when it comes to the meta feats, spells etc where these wordings are quite precise.

If your interpretation were to be supported you would not even need those other breath weapons to qualify, since by your reasoning the no duration cool down should be interpreted as a duration of 0 rounds, which would then meet the prerequisite for taking the metabreath feats.

[chilepepper]

I think I've been more than accomodating, but I don't see any reason to further delay this match. If you don't like Kyeudo's ruling, you're welcome to forfiet. I'm done debating this with you so you can either decide on purchases and take your first move; or you can argue with yourself for two days and earn a DQ.

[Mavian]

Actually no. You see, no where in the rules does it stat that a post has to actually contain an action for it to reset the disqualification clock.

So as long as I continue as you say, to debate with myself at least once every 48 hours, I can't be disqualified.

I can work within the grey spots of the rules too.

[chilepepper]

Don't you think that's awefully childish?

[chilepepper]

Besides, the last quote you threw up, that implies that the DFA's breath does not have a wait time and that it can not translate into a 0 round wait. That doesn't disqualify the DFA breath from using the metabreath because you don't have to use a prereq to use a feat, you just have to have the prereq to have the feat. If you really want to compare the monk's +10 speed not granting fly speed, that would mean I get to use the metabreaths on my DFA for free. Adding a +1 round wait time to nothing doesn't create a wait time.

No where does it limit what breath you can use a metabreath on. As Kyeudo pointed out, this is a RAW hack'n'slash. Posting other people's opinions on how the rules should work, is not only irrelevant because Kyeudo outranks them here, but also pointless because you are arguing RAI.

If you want to point to a rule that is WRITTEN in a legal source, that's awesome. Otherwise, what's the point?

[Mavian]

The point is... the feat specifically says that it adds to the recharge time of the breath weapon you metabreath. How exactly do you increase the recharge time of something that doesn't have a recharge time?

Ie. :smalltongue:+1 does not equal 1

[chilepepper]

I don't think I need to debate this any further. Kyeudo already ruled that it works, TWICE. If you disagree with the GM, you don't have to play. If you want to play, his word is final. If you really intend on posting once every 48 hours without ever taking your first move, just let me know.

I'm selling my studded leather for 12.5g and buying a chain shirt for 100g which I'll wear.
If you have no purchases, I'm done buying. Chile V starts in Y13 empty handed.
The ball is in your court.

[Mavian]

I'm not done.

The feats themselves state that they increase the recharge time of the breath weapon you affect. If the breath weapon doesn't have a recharge, what exactly is getting increased? If you then say that the Dragonfire Adept's breath weapon has a recharge of Zero Rounds, then you don't have to take the Dragonborn template in the first place to qualify for the feats. But since you do, it means that the Dragonfire Adepts breath weapon does not have a recharge time, and thus can not be affected by the feats.

[chilepepper]

So... no purchases?

[Kyeudo]

GM Kyeudo

Mavian raises a good point. Either we consider the DFA's breath weapon to have a recharge time or we don't. I'm going to suspend my previous ruling for the moment and get some other refs in here for a consult. I think I may be somewhat biased towards the combo.

[chilepepper]

I don't see why there's such a big deal about making me wait 1 round to use it again. It really seems like you're overcomplicating it by saying since there isn't a recharge time so you can't add a round to it. If you really want to argue that "since there is no recharge time, you can't add a round to it" that still doesn't stop me from using it on a DFA breath.


This feat only works on a breath weapon that has instantaneous
duration and that deals some kind of damage, such
as energy damage (acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic), ability
damage, or negative levels.
Check


When you use this feat, add +1 to the number of rounds
you must wait before using your breath weapon again.

It doesn't say, "to use this feat, you must add +1 to the recharge time." That would keep me from using it if the above arguement is true. Instead it says 'when you use it.' Adding a round is a result of the feat being used, not a condition that must be met to use the feat. Okay, you win the arguement, you can't add +1 to nothing, I now get to use the metabreath on my DFA breath for free, every round.

[chilepepper]

And, I'll even back that up. I'll repeat the wording for clarity.


When you use this feat, add +1 to the number of rounds
you must wait before using your breath weapon again.

Now let's look at another feat.


When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities.

Now, does it make any sense at all to say, 'since you don't have any extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities to forfeit, you can't use whirlwind attack'?

[Bayar]

Ref Bayar

Without the feat, you wait for 0 rounds to use it again. With the feat, you wait 1 round to use it again. Simple really.

And if you want to say "Hey, there is no wait time for the DFA breath weapon" then you probably cant use the feat in the first place :tongue:

[Talic]

High Ref Talic

It seems against the wording of the metabreath feats to allow you to change the wording of the delay. Relevant wording:


To take a metabreath feat, a creature must have a breath weapon whose time between breaths is expressed in rounds. Therefore, a hell hound (which can breathe once every 2d4 rounds) can take metabreath feats, whereas a behir (breath weapon usable 1/minute) cannot.

Now, it's possible to rephrase the behir's delay (much as Chile and Bayar are suggesting with replacing "no delay" with "0 round delay") from "1/minute" to "once every 10 rounds". However, the feat says that behir is not allowed. This shows that converting breath weapon to rounds from non-round delay timings is not allowed, per the feats.

The feat's description states,
When you use this feat, add +1 to the number of rounds you must wait before using your breath weapon again.

There's some wiggle room here. Either the wait time doesn't apply at all (which is the technical interpretation, as there is no wait time, and I've shown that the feat set is designed with the concept of being unable to convert "no wait time" to "a wait time of 0 rounds"), or the feat is unusable, since you cannot add to the time you must wait. This is based on whether or not we rule that increasing the wait time is a requirement of the feat, or an effect.

Implications of the first ruling: Players could apply any metabreath feat as often as they liked, without penalty, and without delays in the usability of the breath weapon. In effect, circumventing the wait time restriction.

Implications of the second ruling: Not technically RAW, by the strictest interpretation, breath weapon unusable if it doesn't have a wait time.

The first ruling is obviously unbalancing. There's no problem with going with it, but, if we do, an additional errata for the purposes of arena combat will likely be required, to mitigate this. Either we establish the wait time, in contradiction with the general metabreath guidelines, or we limit the player to not stacking metabreath, in contradiction of the specific feat.

If we rule the 2nd, it's also not RAW, but there is no balanced RAW answer.

If we were playing this ability strict RAW, no modifications, in all likelihood, it would need to be on the proposed ban list, for evaluation.

[chilepepper]

Well, I think the first part isn't in debate anymore.


To take a metabreath feat, a creature must have a breath weapon whose time between breaths is expressed in rounds. Therefore, a hell hound (which can breathe once every 2d4 rounds) can take metabreath feats, whereas a behir (breath weapon usable 1/minute) cannot.

That's a prereq which I meet. Prereqs don't have anything to do with the usage of a feat, only the qualification to take the feat. I've taken the feat using a 1d4 round wait breath. There's no debate there. Taking the feat is legal.

If you want to rule that the DFA breath has no recharge as opposed to 0 recharge, I'm am now in agreement with my opponent. I'm fine with the monk's movement bonus analogy. Monk gets +10' movement. He doesn't have a fly speed. Not having a fly speed does not equal 0' fly speed. The +10' can't be applied to fly speed because of that. DFA breath = no recharge time. DFA breath does not equal 0 round recharge. Done.

If you want to say, whether there's a wait time or not, you now have to wait 1 round. I'm cool with that. My opponent seems content to argue that into the ground though, so if that's the ruling, please set some limit on how long he can prattle on about that before he earns a DQ.

If my opponent truly will not concede to just letting me wait a round to use it, and you want to rule that way, then my last argument still stands. There's nothing that prevents me from using metabreath feats on a non-recharge breath.

You want super strict RAW, I get to use it every round no matter how METAed up a make it. Round one, I move and engulf nearly the entire arena in fire. Round two, I move again and cover the entire arena in fire that last a billion rounds. Every round after that, I'll start stacking it up so high, no potion of resist energy will help. But congratulations, you won the debate.

You want balanced, house rule it to add a round whether there's a recharge or not. Simple.

[Talic]

The point is, in order to balance it, we need to depart from RAW. If we need to depart from RAW, then:

Not allowing it to apply to breath weapons that don't have a delay expressed in rounds is a valid house ruling.

So is adding rounds, regardless of recharge.

So is preventing metabreath feats from stacking on breath weapons without a delay expressed in rounds.

All three would solve the problem. All three would establish balance. The question is, which one DO we go with?

[FlyMolo]

My two cents.

The first option seems fairly arbitrary, but reinforces with the 'no metabreath for a behir' clause under metabreath feats.

Adding rounds regardless of recharge is the option I personally support. It balances the feat, while allowing players more options. Also, it's just less annoying than the others. There's no IC reason that behirs can't take metabreath feats, other than that they're intended for dragons and their ilk.

Option three is also good, but more limiting than the second.

[Kyeudo]

GM Kyeudo



Not allowing it to apply to breath weapons that don't have a delay expressed in rounds is a valid house ruling.

So is adding rounds, regardless of recharge.


I believe these are the best two options. Mavian wants the first, Chile wants the second. Which would be best for future rounds? I don't have Dragon Magic, so I can't see how these could possibly interact in the future. Any suggestions?

[SamTheCleric]

Nevermind, Mavian already pointed to the sage advice.

[chilepepper]

I don't like the 'it doesn't work on non-recharge breaths.' The feat has a section limiting is usage (must be instantaneous and deal damage). Prereqs and aftereffects don't affect is usage, other feats support that directly. To house rule that way goes against the flow.

Now, going by the assumption that it creates a wait time no matter what is better, IMO. The assuption that you can't make me wait a round because I don't have a wait time to begin with is arrived at from a derivation of the monks bonus speed. It's nowhere near as much of a stretch to say these feats and that classial ability don't relate.

As far as balance and interaction in the future... since we're debating the interaction of separate components and not the components themselves, and we're talking about houseruleing and not banning outright, I'll assume the individual components are okay. Breath weapons with recharge times, all by themselves, are balanced. The effect of the metabreath is balanced by the addition of the +1 round. The DFA breath, by itself, is balanced. If both breaths are balanced, and the positive of the meta balances with the negative of +1 round, then they should mesh just fine.

As far as interactions with other rules from Dragon Magic and Draconomicon and every other book out there...

1 blueberry + 1 blueberry = 2 berries
1 blueberry + 1 raspberry = 2 berries

If somewhere down the line someone throws in a hollyberry, we can deal with the fact hollyberries are poisonous at that time. There's no reason to harsh on the raspberry because hollyberries might be out there somewhere.

[KCiemir]

High Ref KC

My two cents:

I don't have the books involved, but it seems the relevant text has been posted numerous times. My opinion is that metabreath should NOT be allowed to be used on a breath weapon with no delay expressly stated in rounds. My reasoning is as follows:

First, it seems to me that the intention is fairly clear. I know we DO work based off RAW, but when RAW is unclear, and creates this debate, it seems logical to move on to RAI. RAI clearly supports Mavian's points.

Further, the fact is that the adding of one round to a delay time is part of the 'activation cost', if you will, of the feat. In order to use the feat, you must pay this cost. It is similar with metamagic feats: if you can't prepare the spell at a certain level higher, then you can't use the feat. With Metabreath, if you can't add a round to the delay time (which it seems pretty clear you cannot do, see the quote Mav. posted from the 'simple Q&A' a few posts back) than you cannot use the feat.

Moreover, this seems to be the most balanced way to rule. It stops things from getting out of hand with little or no delay between metabreath enhanced breath weapons, and I think THAT is one of the most important points. The key to the success of the tourney is that we use BALANCED RULES. When one build gets too powerful, everyone either plays it or loses to it, and then the people who lose to it because they don't have the books leave, and the tourney fails.

In conclusion, I would rule in favor of no metabreath feats on DFA breath weapon.

EDIT: and, chile, while you are correct we are debating the interaction of two components that are themselves balanced, the question is in what way should the combination be interpreted. In relation to your berry example, I think the best analogy is: It may be two berries, but the question is not what if a poisonous berry was added in the future, but rather is it fair to say that 1 blueberry +1 Blueberry = 1 blueberry + 1 strawberry.

[Talic]

My point, Chile, is that when I'm trying to form an opinion, based on the power level of the ruling, is that I have to see how this can be currently used. In essence, I have to look for the holly berry, and see how this rule affects it.

As is, I've already stated that I feel both the main options Kyeudo believed best are balanced. I think both will create minimal impact on the balance level of the game, especially considering the resources that must be invested in getting this (class that can't start with its primary goal of winning, using a specific template to get the prereq's for the feats, attaining its first win with one of two feat selections (either 15 dex feats, such as Two weapon fighting, or 13 dex feats, like Dodge, Mobility, and Evasive Reflexes) to gain the ability to switch them all out with the conversion, and then focusing those three feats into the character...

Well, the benefit of three feats, usable with 1 class only? The power level for three feats with good synergy is usually pretty high. Other examples used in this arena are Fell Drain Sonic Snap, Spiked chain with 20 feet of reach, and the like. The ability does allow reflex saves still, and thus isn't along the lines of some of the more unbalanced spells.

Based on that, I see no reason why not to allow the breath weapon to be usable, with round wait addition. Bear in mind, if the wait is one round, it does mean that on your next turn, you may not use the breath, if this is the ruling.

That would be my opinion, after analyzing it as objectively as I possibly can.

[chilepepper]

High Ref KC

Further, the fact is that the adding of one round to a delay time is part of the 'activation cost', if you will, of the feat.

Actually, I don't see how you could arrive at that conclusion. (I realize you don't have the book, so you might not have seen the actual wording.) Adding a round is specifically a result of using the feat. Once you have used the feat, you add a round to the wait time. Adding a round happens after you've actually use the feat. If you can't add a round, you've already used the feat.


Based on that, I see no reason why not to allow the breath weapon to be usable, with round wait addition. Bear in mind, if the wait is one round, it does mean that on your next turn, you may not use the breath, if this is the ruling.

Yeah, that would be my assumption. The flavor text of the feat says using a metabreath is more draining and it takes longer to recover. Translated to DFA breath, I have to wait 1 round before I can use it again. I don't know if you thought something was getting through the debate under the table that I could use a regular breath on the off round? I'm assuming 'wait one round' means the ability is unavailable during that time.



I guess the point I'm trying to make is, if we're departing from RAW (which we'd have to because by the the literal wording, it's usable without cost to a DFA and that's hella broken) and we're forced into the realm of RAI then this is how I see it.

RAI: The metabreath causes whatever breath is used to be unusable for 1 round as a result of it's use. If a breath already has a wait, then add 1 round to it.

IMO, anything more than that is tweaking how feats work in general. Prereqs are just that, something you have to have to take a feat, not something you have to use everytime you use a feat.

[chilepepper]

I just noticed something, and I'm going to throw it out in case it's relevant. Clinging breath was reprinted in MM4. It's no longer a [ Metabreath ] feat, so nothing in that section applies (the behir can't use, etc.). In place of that, they've added to the prereq entry in the feat. It says, "Prereq: Con13, breath weapon with recharge time expressed in rounds."

IMO, I think that supports my side of the debate as far as the DFA breath not be excluded because like other feats, you just have to meet the prereq to take the feat, not use it to use the feat. (sorry if that sounds like a broken record)

[Kyeudo]

GM Kyeudo

Alright, it seems we've covered every possible issue so far, and I think I'll reinstate my origional ruling. Chile's prerequisite wrangling allows him to qualify for the feat, so he can apply it to his DFA breath weapon, so long as he abides by the delay increases.

Unless someone has more to add, let's get this show on the road.

[Mavian]

That doesn't make a lick of sense...

The Sage agrees with me, and explictily states that you can't apply Metabreath feats to the DFA's breath weapon because they have a prerequisite the breath doesn't meet. The fact that he has a breath weapon from another source is immaterial to the arguement.

@edit
Acttually, with the reprint in MM4, Chile's argument becomes even more impotent, because we can no see that the increased recharge time in the feat is explicitly linked to to a breath weapon with a recharge time.

[chilepepper]

A: I don't see how the reprint changes anything. There isn't anything different other than how the text is formatted and it's no longer a [ Metabreath ] feat.

B: Kyeudo already pointed out that the Sage gives advice based on RAI for long term campaigns. This is hack and slash RAW. While the Sage can be helpful in some instances, this is not one of them.

C: Kyeudo has now ruled three times that this works. Please respect he authority in this situation and take your first turn or forfeit. This is getting ridiculous.

[Mavian]

Let it be know that this match will be done under protest. And that they way the ruling has been worded, that something that doesn't have a listed value now has a value of 0, My monk can now fly, burrow and swim, and I will debate as such in the next match he's entered in, and expect the same ruling to stand.

For this match, no purchases.

Mike - Round 1.

Starting in B13, with 3 Javelins in hand
Standard Action: Throw Javelin at partition
Attack: [roll0]
Damage: [roll1]

For Refs:

Originally, I had planned to full attack, but as the rules stat, I don't actually have to decide that until after my first attack roll, so these rolls are no longer valid.
2nd:
Attack: [roll2]
Damage: [roll3]
3rd:
Attack: [roll4]
Damage: [roll5]

Move Action: B13 to B21

End of Turn

[chilepepper]

I don't think the ruling was "anything that "is not" is actually a 0". I think the ruling was, metabreaths cause nonrecharge breaths to delay. I'm sure if Kyeudo ruled the other way, that the breath isn't usable because it doesn't meet the prereq, that wouldn't apply to all feats, because that would screw the entire game up, just as what you're proposing will. I just hope I'm not in the match that you delay for a week arguing that point futilely.

Round 1
Move to V18, ready to use DB breath on LoE. (I'm assuming I have to choose which breath since they're different abilities, DB for dragonborn, DFA for the other.) I'll throw some stats up later.

Done.

[Mavian]

Mike - Round 2

Move Action: B21 to somewhere

Move Action: B21 to N25, switching out my two remaining Javelins for 3 hammers during my move, and hiding.
Hide: [roll0] - Only moved 70 feet, so no negatives.
also, since my opponent has also hidden, a reactive spot check to notice him, if its needed.
Reactive Spot: [roll1]


End of Turn

[chilepepper]

Move to V19, hide [roll0]. Ready to breath DB breath on LoE.

[chilepepper]

stats for refs
HP: 15
AC: 18 T14 F14
Breath Delays- DB: 0 DFA: 0
Position: V19, hiding, readied action

Done

[Talic]

LOS:

@Administrative Ref only spoiler for players that may or may not have forgotten their reactive sense rolls in their post. Refs only:Chile: Spot:[roll0]
Listen(DC 10 + Distance (16)): [roll1]
Hammer:
Listen(DC 10 + Distance (16)):[roll2]

@Mavian:First, for hide checks:
Your Hide check is opposed by the Spot check of anyone who might see you. You can move up to one-half your normal speed and hide at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than one-half but less than your normal speed, you take a -5 penalty. It’s practically impossible (-20 penalty) to hide while attacking, running or charging.
A double move of 70 feet qualifies in the bolded area.

No LOS. You hear nothing.


@Chile:No LOS. You hear nothing.

[Mavian]

Mike - Round 3


Move Action: N25 to Q25, switching from hammers back to javelins
Hide Check: [roll0]
Standard Action:Ready an Action Ready an action to move if I spot Chile and he breathes

Reactive Spot Check:
[roll1]


End of Turn: May require LoS Checks.

[FlyMolo]

Initiate Ref FlyMolo

Chile! no los.

Mavian! No LoS!


Good karma generated.

[chilepepper]

Bottom of the 3rd, two men on base
Hrmm. Time to spark up a doobie. Breath of the Night focused at W23/X24. I'll move to Z23 and hide [roll0].

FYI - A creature within 5 feet has concealment (attacks have a
20% miss chance).
Creatures farther away have total concealment (50% miss
chance, and the attacker can’t use sight to locate the target).


stats for refs
HP: 15
AC: 18 T14 F14
Breath Delays- DB: 0 DFA: 0
Position: Z23, hiding
Fog areas (start round):
U21 to Z26 and W/X20 and T23/24 (3)

Done, calling for a ref to give you info based on where you're at.

[SamTheCleric]

Initiate Ref Sam

@Chilepepper:
How big of an area does your Breath of the Night cover? I assume its a visual effect and I want to describe it without giving away your position

EDIT: Nevermind, it's in your stats block

Need a clarification on something real quick before the LoS is complete. I'm really terrible at using my Line of Sight wand.

Ignore me or the bad man will get you.

[SamTheCleric]

Initiate Ref Sam

@Mavian:

No line of sight

@Chilepepper

No line of sight. Breath of Night is a 20ft radius spread? I'd like to update your map with all the darkness, but I'm not sure where it goes :smalltongue:

[chilepepper]

@sam, refsI know I don't have LoS because I can't see anything more than 5' away and Mike wasn't where I am now. I mainly needed a ref to tell him he sees the smoke because I'm pretty sure he's on the south side of the map. You can copy/paste the area of the smoke from my stat block. I just can't be sure Mike is on the south side, if he isn't, he wouldn't see it.

[Mavian]

Just wondering if you guys are finished

[chilepepper]

I'm not holding anything up. I called for a ref to give you LoS and describe what you saw based on where you are. I can't look in your LoS spoiler, so I don't know what the ref posted. All the info the ref needed from me was in my move/stat spoiler.

[Talic]

High Ref Talic

@Chile and Refs:Will go over this more thoroughly when I get back to books in the morning, but I believe the description for breath of the night specifically states that it does not block LOS. Thus, at distances greater than 5 feet, LOS would not be blocked, as is standard for Obscuring Mist/Fog Cloud. Again, when I return to books, I'll work out the ramifications of all this with the moves, and get this back on track.

[SamTheCleric]

Initiate Ref Sam

@Chile, Refs
Breath of the Night specifically states that it does not block line of sight. The benefit is that anyone standing in it gains concealment.

[chilepepper]

@refs
Oh, guess I should've read it more closely. That's okay, as long as I've got concealment, I can still hide, right?

So, refs looking over stuff, LoS will be coming for you shortly, I assume.

[Talic]

@Chile:Provided that there was no LOS when the hide was initiated, or you are in possession of an ability that allows you to hide while observed, yes.

[SamTheCleric]

High Ref Sam

@Mavian:

More smoke appears in the east/north east. You still cannot see him

@Chile

I have informed him what he needs to know, play can resume. No Line of Sight

[Mavian]

@Refs:

More smoke? There was smoke somewhere? Also what squares do I see it covering?

[SamTheCleric]

@Mavian
By smoke I mean his Breath of Night ability, similar to a fog cloud spell.

It covers...

U21 to Z26 and W/X20 and T23/24 (3)

according to Chile. I'm not exactly sure on the area... I know it's a 20' radius spread, so I assume that entire area is covered.

[Mavian]

Mike - Round 4?

Double move back to E21
Hide [roll0] Includes negatives for moving.


End of Turn

Stats go Here

Position: E21

[chilepepper]

Yes this is the 4th round, My turn

Breath of Night, Q/R 23/24 (see stat block for current fog)
Move to U26 and hide [roll0]
Reactive Spot and Listen, respectively, for his turn
[roll1][roll2]

stats
HP: 15
AC: 18 T14 F14
Breath Delays- DB: 0 DFA: 0
Position: U26, hiding
Fog areas (start round):
U21 to Z26 and W/X20 and T23/24 (3)
O21 to T26 and N23/34 and U23/24 (4)

Done. Again, you'll need reffage to relate what you see, unless you want to tell me where you are, then I can tell you.

[Mavian]

Mike - Round 5

Double move back to L6
Hide [roll0] Includes negatives for moving.


End of Turn

Stats go Here

Position: L6

[chilepepper]

Assuming no LoS
Round 5
If there's no LoS and I didn't hear anything on his move, then:
Move to O26. Breath of Night D/E 23/24.
Hide [roll0]
Reactive Spot and Listen, respectively, for his turn
[roll1][roll2]

If I did see/hear something, I'll change this move. Otherwise, I'm done and the LoS ref can let Mavian know.


stats for refs
HP: 15
AC: 18 T14 F14
Breath Delays- DB: 0 DFA: 0
Position: O26, hiding
Fog areas (start round):
U21 to Z26 and W/X20 and T23/24 (3)
O21 to T26 and N23/34 and U23/24 (4)
B21 to G26 and A23/24, D/E20, H23/24 (5)

Waiting for reffage.

[SamTheCleric]

High Ref Sam

@Chile
You spot him in L6

@Mavian
Line of sight to be determined by chile's move...

@refs
Reactive spot for mavian: [roll0]

[chilepepper]

@Chile
You spot him in L6


So that's not possible because looking through 2 or more panes grants total concealment. I'm 'somewhere' in the fogginess which also grants total concealment.

Mavian, how do you want to handle this leak of info?

[Mavian]

I'm not that worried about, just pretend you never saw it :smalltongue:

[chilepepper]

Alright, I'm done then, your turn.

[SamTheCleric]

High Ref Sam

@Everyone, just dont want to interrupt the match
Breath of the Night specifically says it does not block line of sight. You beat his hide check with your spot check. I was going by the text of the ability being used... seeing as Specific trumps General.

Also, could you point me to the location of the rule of two forms of concealment = total cover? I can't find it, but I've heard it somewhere before (maybe the minis game).

[chilepepper]

Total Concealment

If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight he is considered to have total concealment from you.


Total Cover

If you don’t have line of effect to your target he is considered to have total cover from you. You can’t make an attack against a target that has total cover.

The Breath of Night doesn't block LoS, but through more than 5', it grants what's inside of it Total Concealment. You can still look through the fog though. That definitely doesn't make sense to me, but that's what I think it's saying.

As for the glass, looking through two panes grants Total Concealment, therefore it blocks LoS. It's a solid wall so it also blocks LoE. He has both Total Cover and Total Concealment. Having one doesn't necessarily grant the other though. He's concealed because I can't see through the (tinted / distorted) glass, he has cover because there's a wall between us.


edit: and no, two forms of concealment does not grant cover. There could be two different fog clouds between two people, but one can still shoot an arrow at the other.

[SamTheCleric]

Let's just rewind to before Mavian's move that was revealed... It will make things easier then sitting here debating this.

[chilepepper]

I didn't know we were debating anything. Two panes of glass = no LoS. Look up the past matches in this Arena. Mavian already said he didn't care. It's his turn, there's no need to rewind. You asked about Cover vs. Concealment. I answered your question. You said you didn't want to interrupt the match, now you want to rewind it because I answered your question. Why?


Mavian, it's your turn. You said you were okay with the accidental reveal. I didn't change my turn.

[SamTheCleric]

High Ref Sam

Chile V is the winner by way of TKO.