Results 1 to 30 of 174
-
2010-08-26, 03:30 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- Sunnydale
[3.5]Melee attacks into Antimagic Field
This quotes all the preceding discussion from the Simple Q&A thread.
-
2010-08-26, 03:35 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- Sunnydale
Re: [3.5]Melee attacks into Antimagic Field
attack of opportunity
A single extra melee attack per round that a combatant can make when an opponent within reach takes an action that provokes attacks of opportunity. Cover prevents attacks of opportunity.
-
2010-08-26, 04:34 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
- Gender
Re: [3.5]Melee attacks into Antimagic Field
Ah, I guess I missed the point about the nonexistent AoO. I think this is forgivable.
-
2010-08-26, 09:22 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
- Gender
Re: [3.5]Melee attacks into Antimagic Field
You didn't really refute his point at all. All you did was quote the exact wording of Attacks of Opportunity, which in the situation given, means that the Fighter threatens the arms of the Large creature attempting to grapple since the Large creature itself doesn't actually enter the same square as the Fighter until after it is successful on the grapple check.
Last edited by Tanuki Tales; 2010-08-26 at 09:23 AM.
-
2010-08-26, 09:36 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Location
Re: [3.5]Melee attacks into Antimagic Field
frosty is right. the creature literally loses his hand when it goes into the range of the amf. cant grapple without no hands. and hands need to be closer than 10ft to touch the person in question.
all other issues on the point is moot. amf works that way against summoned creatures (phb 200) now if a summoned mosnter uses a nonsummoned military fork with enough reach that is a different story
-
2010-08-26, 09:40 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
- Location
- Finland
Re: [3.5]Melee attacks into Antimagic Field
Quotes:Praise for avatar may be directed to Derjuin.Spoiler
-
2010-08-26, 09:46 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
- Gender
Re: [3.5]Melee attacks into Antimagic Field
That only holds true if by RAW a Large or larger creature never incurs AoO when trying to grapple a smaller creature that it isn't adjacent to or with in its reach, while it clearly says that attempting to grapple without the necessary feats does incur an AoO against the subject being grappled. Thus, since the grappler does not move until the grapple is established the only valid target for the AoO is the limbs being used to attempt the grapple.
-
2010-08-26, 09:49 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
- Location
- Finland
Re: [3.5]Melee attacks into Antimagic Field
Quotes:Praise for avatar may be directed to Derjuin.Spoiler
-
2010-08-26, 09:52 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
- Gender
Re: [3.5]Melee attacks into Antimagic Field
Not really, seeing as one of Frosty's points was exactly what I said.
Edit: And grappling rules never say you have to threaten the grappler to take the AoO that they incur by attempting to grapple, so again, the only logical target by RAW is the limbs being used to establish the grapple.Last edited by Tanuki Tales; 2010-08-26 at 09:54 AM.
-
2010-08-26, 09:57 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
- Location
- Erutnevda
Re: [3.5]Melee attacks into Antimagic Field
Grappling rules don't have to specify, the AoO rules specify that you have to threaten the grappler. RAW the AoO rules specifically state the target must be within reach, RAW does not take into account things like reaching your arms into an opponent's square. Actually at that point you should be taking into account that a character wielding a large greatsword ought to have reach because the weapon is more than a square long (which would make powerful build noticeably better). RAW doesn't take these things into account.
Peanut Half-Dragon Necromancer by Kurien.
Current Projects:
Group: The Harrowing Halloween Harvest of Horror Part 2
Personal Silliness: Vote what Soulknife "Fix"/Inspired Class Should I make??? Past Work Expansion Caricatures.
Old: My homebrew (updated 9/9)
-
2010-08-26, 09:59 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
- Location
- Indianapolis
- Gender
-
2010-08-26, 09:59 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
- Gender
Re: [3.5]Melee attacks into Antimagic Field
Last edited by Tanuki Tales; 2010-08-26 at 10:00 AM.
-
2010-08-26, 10:01 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
- Location
- Finland
Re: [3.5]Melee attacks into Antimagic Field
Yeah, and it wasn't relevant then either.
Grapple rules (bless them) make an exception where you specifically don't have to threaten the attacker for it to provoke AoO. They don't make an exception for the rules where you have to be able to reach the target to attack it.
Just because something provokes AoO doesn't mean you can automatically take it. The grapple rules don't say that you can make an AoO, they say that the opponent provokes. If, say, you've already used your AoO for the turn, or been hit with Douse the Flames maneuver, or can't actually reach the target, well, tough luck.
[Edit]:They say starting a grapple provokes an AoO, but make no exceptions for being able to take it.Last edited by Greenish; 2010-08-26 at 10:03 AM.
Quotes:Praise for avatar may be directed to Derjuin.Spoiler
-
2010-08-26, 10:06 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
- Gender
Re: [3.5]Melee attacks into Antimagic Field
That holds true in situations except for grappling. Yes, if you used your AoO for the turn and don't have combat reflexes you can't do diddly about something trying to grapple you. That's the action economy at work and Grappling only states that you always incur an AoO not that you always get one against the grappler.
The Grappling rules, as we've both agreed knowing, doesn't require you to threaten the target to incur the AoO, thus they don't have to be in your reach to take the AoO if you have one to take.
Again, by RAW, the limbs being used to grapple are the target of the incurred AoO.
-
2010-08-26, 10:09 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
- Location
- Finland
Re: [3.5]Melee attacks into Antimagic Field
Last edited by Greenish; 2010-08-26 at 10:09 AM.
Quotes:Praise for avatar may be directed to Derjuin.Spoiler
-
2010-08-26, 10:10 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
- Gender
Re: [3.5]Melee attacks into Antimagic Field
Yes, they do. Otherwise they wouldn't plainly state that a grappler always incurs an AoO.
Edit: And this grapple situation that Frosty propositioned does pertain to the original question since the original question concerned a summoned monster with Reach attacking a target in an AMF. So a grapple is the same kind of situation save that its a Touch Attack instead of a normal melee attack.Last edited by Tanuki Tales; 2010-08-26 at 10:12 AM.
-
2010-08-26, 10:14 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2007
-
2010-08-26, 10:15 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
- Location
- Finland
Re: [3.5]Melee attacks into Antimagic Field
Quotes:Praise for avatar may be directed to Derjuin.Spoiler
-
2010-08-26, 10:16 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
- Gender
Re: [3.5]Melee attacks into Antimagic Field
Nowhere. In the rules for AoO you need to threaten the target to incur the AoO.
But we're speaking of Grapple rules, which not only state you don't need to threaten the target attempting to grapple you but also that their action (without the necessary feats) always incurs an AoO from the attempted grappled party.
Thus, by RAW, the limbs being used to grapple is the target of the AoO.
Edit:
@Greenish: I'm using incur as a synonym for Provoke.Last edited by Tanuki Tales; 2010-08-26 at 10:17 AM.
-
2010-08-26, 10:23 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
- Location
- Old Jersiaise
- Gender
-
2010-08-26, 10:25 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
- Gender
Re: [3.5]Melee attacks into Antimagic Field
Last edited by Tanuki Tales; 2010-08-26 at 10:25 AM.
-
2010-08-26, 10:31 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
Re: [3.5]Melee attacks into Antimagic Field
Except you don't ever, by RAW, enter another's square to attack.
EX: A giant attacks a longsword wielding medium sized human 10 feet away. Said human can not, by RAW, ready to attack with a non-reach weapon, when it's hand comes into your square to hit you. If you could, it would render reach far less useful. Perhaps justifiably so.
RAW, you don't enter the square, so your summoned creatures can and do attack just fine. Doesn't make logical sense, but welcome to D&D.
EDIT: And I believe (though correct me if I am wrong) what Reynard was noting was that the grapple rules don't say you get to take an AoO, they say the grappler "provokes" an AoO. Lots of times a target will provoke an AoO and, for one reason or another, the other person doesn't get to take said AoO. If the target of the grapple had already taken their one AoO that round (and didn't have Combat Reflexes) they wouldn't get to take the AoO. Provoking and Making are two seperate parts of the AoO rules.
EDIT 2: I mistakenly used Hydra for the example of a reach critter using its own body to attack and not incurring AoOs, forgetting of course that the Hydra is the exception to the rule - specific trumping general again! :)Last edited by Tyger; 2010-08-26 at 10:38 AM.
-
2010-08-26, 10:35 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
- Gender
Re: [3.5]Melee attacks into Antimagic Field
But the AMF states that Summoned creatures and incorporeal creatures who enter an AMF blink out of existence.
The discussion isn't whether the monster enters the PC's square but whether the Monster with Reach can attack the PC who's inside the AMF while the monster is outside of it.
Edit: But that's concerning the Action Economy, which we aren't discussing here.Last edited by Tanuki Tales; 2010-08-26 at 10:36 AM.
-
2010-08-26, 10:40 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
Re: [3.5]Melee attacks into Antimagic Field
And again, this question is answered via RAW. RAW you do not enter any other squares when you are attacking. So the summoned creature never enters the squares enclosed by the AMF. Illogical as hell to think that a critter reaches across 10 feet of space to smack the mage at the center of the AMF without ever crossing that space, but there you have it. That's RAW for you. And there are no rules to support the alternate point. There's logic, reason, common sense, but no rules.
-
2010-08-26, 10:44 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- Mt. Doom
- Gender
Re: [3.5]Melee attacks into Antimagic Field
Getting back onto the subject (At least I think)
In previous posts summoned elemental effects are supposed to be allowed to happen inside this Anti-Magic Field. IE you stand on the side of the bubble and hurl summoned fire spells. This is supposed to work (Not by me but other posters). Wile I strongly disagree, thus has been so.
So why would a summoned monsters arms vanish when he put them into the field? If they do, would they not wink right back the second he pulled them out?
This would indicated that any magic, summoned or not, can not exist inside this Anti-Magic Field.
Let us be consistent then. Either A....summoned/conjured effects work if you create them outside the field and send them in. Or B...No magic can function, summoned/conjured period.
Me personally I favor the "Anti-Magic Field suppresses all magic period" way of thinking.Remember no matter where you go. There you are.
-
2010-08-26, 10:49 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Location
Re: [3.5]Melee attacks into Antimagic Field
raw doesnt say in the squares, it says in the area, and it specifically says parts in the area. if he takes a swing the parts that get within the radius of the mage cease to exist untill they leave the area. and you can't hit someone with something that ceases to exist, let allon use nonexistant things to institute a grapple.
again military forks or boulder tossing help here as such things may not have been summoned. given such they may continue to exist within the area of the amf.
-
2010-08-26, 10:49 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
- Location
- Erutnevda
Re: [3.5]Melee attacks into Antimagic Field
Summons are a type of conjuration effect, but not the only type of conjuration effect.
The Orb spells work because they are 1) instantaneous, and 2) creation. You are creating something, not summoning it.
Disclaimer: I think that the orbs being shot into AMFs is stupid and a bad design choice, but that's the rules behind it.
Summons specifically do disappear if they enter an AMF, unlike Called creatures (also summoned by a Conjuration effect).
Edit:
Originally Posted by PHBLast edited by Zaydos; 2010-08-26 at 10:51 AM.
Peanut Half-Dragon Necromancer by Kurien.
Current Projects:
Group: The Harrowing Halloween Harvest of Horror Part 2
Personal Silliness: Vote what Soulknife "Fix"/Inspired Class Should I make??? Past Work Expansion Caricatures.
Old: My homebrew (updated 9/9)
-
2010-08-26, 10:51 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
- Location
- Finland
Re: [3.5]Melee attacks into Antimagic Field
We're not trying to reach a reasonable houserule here, but figure out the Rules as Written.But that's false dichotomy. Instantaneous conjurations work just fine within AMF, while summoned creatures do not.
And then the question is whether the summoned creature with reach enters AMF or not when attacking from outside it, and as far as I can tell, the RAW answer is "no".
Grapple rules don't help here, because, as I pointed out: "Someone provoking an AoO doesn't mean you're automatically allowed to take one."Quotes:Praise for avatar may be directed to Derjuin.Spoiler
-
2010-08-26, 10:54 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Location
Re: [3.5]Melee attacks into Antimagic Field
if the fire created came from an instantaneous duration magic effect like create water, then yes it can be hurled in. the magic ended after its appearance and now it simply exists. if it has a duration then it is held there by magic and can be effected by amf. if it is from an evocation effect it doesnt work in the amf. this is how amf works
-
2010-08-26, 10:57 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Location
Re: [3.5]Melee attacks into Antimagic Field
last line in amf specifically stated about monsters whos parts are outside the amf have those parts outside the amf not affected. summoned mosnter parts effected are going to go away and cease to be.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicField.htm