Class and Level Geekery XVII - When you Wish upon a Stat...

[Gurgeh]

Abilities being tied to item locations is not a hard-and-fast thing even by RAW; per the rules in the Magic Item Compendium, you can put pretty much any ability on pretty much any kind of item; straying away from common associations (intelligence boosts on headbands, say) will at worst increase the cost of the item.

[danielxcutter]

Abilities being tied to item locations is not a hard-and-fast thing even by RAW; per the rules in the Magic Item Compendium, you can put pretty much any ability on pretty much any kind of item; straying away from common associations (intelligence boosts on headbands, say) will at worst increase the cost of the item.

Yeah, but you can't put armor enhancements on other items like that. The closest thing would be using the Arms and Equipment Guide rules to put them on Bracers of Armor, and that's a 3.0e book.

...Hmm, maybe we should look for what the dagger is in 3.0e sourcebooks? SoD explicitly is in that edition...

[Jezequel]

Really minor thing. In Oona's stat block, there's this:

"(required for ythrak companion)"

Correct spelling is 'Yrthak'

Can't post a link to the d20srd as I'm below 10 posts.

[hamishspence]

Yeah, but you can't put armor enhancements on other items like that. The closest thing would be using the Arms and Equipment Guide rules to put them on Bracers of Armor, and that's a 3.0e book.

It would be a Custom Item.

A +3 Heavy Fortification armour (as a Major property, armour needed is minimum +3) would cost 64,000 more than masterwork nonmagical armour would. A plain +3 suit, 9000 gp more. 64000 - 9000 = 55,000 - that's a ballpark value for the price of the Heavy Fortification property on its own.

It would be up to the DM how much of a premium to charge for putting the property into a different item than armour, if they allowed it. Generally it's not more than 2x, and that's usually for slotless items like ioun stones. 1.5x might be more usual.

I'd favour not much of a premium. After all, the Ring of Protection provides a deflection bonus to armour, so a case could be made that protection is the sort of thing that's associated with the ring slot.

If anything, Ring protective properties tend to be cheaper than armour ones. A ring that grants acid resistance, is cheaper than armour that grants the same level of acid resistance, for example.

[danielxcutter]

It would be a Custom Item.

A +3 Heavy Fortification armour (as a Major property, armour needed is minimum +3) would cost 64,000 more than masterwork nonmagical armour would. A plain +3 suit, 9000 gp more. 64000 - 9000 = 55,000 - that's a ballpark value for the price of the Heavy Fortification property on its own.

It would be up to the DM how much of a premium to charge for putting the property into a different item than armour, if they allowed it. Generally it's not more than 2x, and that's usually for slotless items like ioun stones. 1.5x might be more usual.

I'd favour not much of a premium. After all, the Ring of Protection provides a deflection bonus to armour, so a case could be made that protection is the sort of thing that's associated with the ring slot.

If anything, Ring protective properties tend to be cheaper than armour ones. A ring that grants acid resistance, is cheaper than armour that grants the same level of acid resistance, for example.

First of all, where the heck did you get the “major property needs +3 armor” thing? I’ve never heard that before and it’s not on the SRD either.

Second, are we going to go straight to “custom item”? I can get “unspecified ring that protects against Right-Eye’s dagger”, but beyond that...

[hamishspence]

First of all, where the heck did you get the “major property needs +3 armor” thing? I’ve never heard that before and it’s not on the SRD either.

It's from the way the table's written. Major items start at +3. It's true that it is conjecture though.

You can't get to Heavy Fortification unless you're rolling in the Major Armour table - the Minor and Medium armour tables just don't let you.

So, the only way to get Heavy Fortification armour, generated randomly, is first to be rolling in Major, get the "Special ability and roll again" result, and, for the second roll, the lowest bonus armour can have, rolling on the Major table, is +3.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicArmor.htm

In short "randomly generated Heavy Fortification Armour/shield will never have less than a +3 bonus".

That said, a player can create (or arrange for the creation of) +1 heavy Fortification armour, just as they can create a +2 vorpal longsword:

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItem...ngNewAbilities

Adding New Abilities
A creator can add new magical abilities to a magic item with no restrictions. The cost to do this is the same as if the item was not magical. Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal sword minus the cost of a +1 sword.

it's just that it is not possible for one to be generated randomly as treasure.

Second, are we going to go straight to “custom item”? I can get “unspecified ring that protects against Right-Eye’s dagger”, but beyond that...

True. Right-Eye's dagger would be "unspecified dagger with properties that ensure that it can be used to sneak attack the undead" in this method.

[danielxcutter]

It's from the way the table's written. Major items start at +3. It's true that it is conjecture though.

You can't get to Heavy Fortification unless you're rolling in the Major Armour table - the Minor and Medium armour tables just don't let you.

So, the only way to get Heavy Fortification armour, generated randomly, is first to be rolling in Major, get the "Special ability and roll again" result, and, for the second roll, the lowest bonus armour can have, rolling on the Major table, is +3.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicArmor.htm

In short "randomly generated Heavy Fortification Armour/shield will never have less than a +3 bonus".

That said, a player can create (or arrange for the creation of) +1 heavy Fortification armour, just as they can create a +2 vorpal longsword:

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItem...ngNewAbilities

it's just that it is not possible for one to be generated randomly as treasure.

The Magic Item Compendium supplies tables that do allow that, though. Page 283, “+6 bonus” table, result 96-100. “+1 enhancement, +5 property” would allow a +1 full plate of heavy fortification, for example. And isn’t the MIC part of the sourcebooks used?

That being said Rich probably doesn’t even know about either of these tables, and it’s not like we treat anyone’s gear as randomly generated anyways. Isn’t that mostly for the sake of being convenient for the DM?

True. Right-Eye's dagger would be "unspecified dagger with properties that ensure that it can be used to sneak attack the undead" in this method.

I want to say that the ring debunks the dagger having a Greater Truedeath weapon crystal or having the Ghost Strike property, but then again we don’t know how they interact. I think the way you put it is fair enough.

And honestly, while irrelevant for the purposes of this thread I’m not even sure if Xykon was telling the truth. Xykon has an astronomical Charisma score and Bluff is a class skill for him, so he might have lied to make sure Redcloak’s spirit was crushed... I didn’t think of that before realizing that there doesn’t appear to be a ring that does what he said, and there’s no proof either way, but just saying.

Oh, and I’m sure that the Truedeath Crystal isn’t an option because otherwise it wouldn’t be a property of the dagger. And also that means Right-Eye doesn’t have the Death’s Ruin ACF, and is unlikely to have the Penetrating Strike ACF either. Or items like Deathstrike Bracers. Is any of that worth mentioning?

[hamishspence]

I’m sure that the Truedeath Crystal isn’t an option because otherwise it wouldn’t be a property of the dagger. And also that means Right-Eye doesn’t have the Death’s Ruin ACF, and is unlikely to have the Penetrating Strike ACF either. Or items like Deathstrike Bracers. Is any of that worth mentioning?

"Dagger with Greater Truedeath crystal in it" fulfils the "dagger that can be used to sneak attack the undead" criteria. Right Eye could have put the word out, a merchant sold him the dagger with it already attached, and he never bothered to check if the crystal was a separate item.

The other simple option is "Ghost Touch, Ghost Strike (Ghost Strike is a synergy property that can only be added to Ghost Touch weapons) dagger"

Again, something that can be used to sneak attack the undead. With very similar properties to "Dagger with Greater Truedeath crystal attached".

Since Right Eye puts the emphasis on it being the dagger that, he thinks, will do the job, I'd agree that ACFs, and non-weapons that grant that kind of thing, are much less likely.

I want to say that the ring debunks the dagger having a Greater Truedeath weapon crystal or having the Ghost Strike property, but then again we don’t know how they interact. I think the way you put it is fair enough.

The one thing that makes me think it might be more than just one of those two, is that Right Eye also says that it is infused with positive energy.

Ghost Touch + Ghost Strike doesn't actually grant any extra damage (positive energy or otherwise), and Greater Truedeath Crystal only grants 1d6 extra damage (of the same type as the weapon), in addition to basically doing exactly the same thing as Ghost Touch + Ghost Strike.


Ghost Strike in Libris Mortis only granted the ability to sneak attack incorporeal undead. It was not till MIC that it was updated to work on all undead.

So, maybe in addition to being one of those two, it's a Sacred or a Sacred Burst Weapon? Those grant some bonus positive energy damage.


That, or Right Eye was oversimplifying when he said "You can sneak attack the undead with one of these" - with it being more like some kind of Disruption weapon or something - forcing any undead hit by it, to make a save or die from having "connection to negative energy plane disrupted" - and him not actually planning on making use of his Sneak Attack ability at all.

[danielxcutter]

"Dagger with Greater Truedeath crystal in it" fulfils the "dagger that can be used to sneak attack the undead" criteria. Right Eye could have put the word out, a merchant sold him the dagger with it already attached, and he never bothered to check if the crystal was a separate item.

The other simple option is "Ghost Touch, Ghost Strike (Ghost Strike is a synergy property that can only be added to Ghost Touch weapons) dagger"

Again, something that can be used to sneak attack the undead. With very similar properties to "Dagger with Greater Truedeath crystal attached".

Since Right Eye puts the emphasis on it being the dagger that, he thinks, will do the job, I'd agree that ACFs, and non-weapons that grant that kind of thing, are much less likely.

Yeah but why not tell him that it's because of the crystal or something? I think Ghost Strike, or another item that can sneak attack undead, is most likely.

The one thing that makes me think it might be more than just one of those two, is that Right Eye also says that it is infused with positive energy.

Ghost Touch + Ghost Strike doesn't actually grant any extra damage (positive energy or otherwise), and Greater Truedeath Crystal only grants 1d6 extra damage (of the same type as the weapon), in addition to basically doing exactly the same thing as Ghost Touch + Ghost Strike.


Ghost Strike in Libris Mortis only granted the ability to sneak attack incorporeal undead. It was not till MIC that it was updated to work on all undead.

So, maybe in addition to being one of those two, it's a Sacred or a Sacred Burst Weapon? Those grant some bonus positive energy damage.


That, or Right Eye was oversimplifying when he said "You can sneak attack the undead with one of these" - with it being more like some kind of Disruption weapon or something - forcing any undead hit by it, to make a save or die from having "connection to negative energy plane disrupted" - and him not actually planning on making use of his Sneak Attack ability at all.

Hmm, well if you're using a dagger on undead, there's a good chance you want a lot of damage to make up for that piddly 1d4. The dagger having the Ghost Strike property isn't mutually exclusive with also having the Sacred(Burst) property.

Perhaps "unspecified dagger that allows sneak attacks on the undead and is infused with positive energy" or something like that?

Hmm, incidentally, how likely is a weapon with the Disruption property likely to work? Even if Xykon doesn't have any save boosters, doesn't he still have like a +11 or higher Fort save?

[hamishspence]

Hmm, well if you're using a dagger on undead, there's a good chance you want a lot of damage to make up for that piddly 1d4. The dagger having the Ghost Strike property isn't mutually exclusive with also having the Sacred(Burst) property.

And for damage reduction Magic And Bludgeoning. Though I suppose that, since the edition is theoretically 3.0 rather than 3.5, it could have been 15/+1 instead.

Perhaps "unspecified dagger that allows sneak attacks on the undead and is infused with positive energy" or something like that?

I'd go with that, unless more evidence comes up.

Hmm, incidentally, how likely is a weapon with the Disruption property likely to work? Even if Xykon doesn't have any save boosters, doesn't he still have like a +11 or higher Fort save?

Yup. It would probably have to be something beefier. Even Mighty Disruption, an epic property, he'd have a good chance of passing the save (DC 21) . Plus Disruption and Mighty Disruption are Bludgeoning Only, so it would need that bit houseruled away.

However, because liches don't recalculate saves

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lich.htm

and Xykon was Venerable when he died, theoretically his Fort save would be lower than a lich with almost exactly the same stats, but who'd been turned in the prime of life rather than at venerable age, would be: - 6 Con for age, means a save 3 points lower than it would otherwise be.

However, given the whole "Suck it hard, arthritis!" boast Xykon made immediately after being transformed, maybe The Giant didn't take that approach, instead removing all Xykon's ageing penalties to stats.

[danielxcutter]

I figured that "don't recalculate stats" was more on the lines of "don't use the save progression of undead HD just because the lich is undead now".

[hamishspence]

I figured that "don't recalculate stats" was more on the lines of "don't use the save progression of undead HD just because the lich is undead now".

True.

Right Eye doesn't suggest he's about to one-hit-kill Xykon, but that Xykon is so closely matched with his opponents that "a single Sneak Attack could turn the tide"


which does lean away from the "Home-brewed Disruption Weapon" option somewhat.

[danielxcutter]

True.

Right Eye doesn't suggest he's about to one-hit-kill Xykon, but that Xykon is so closely matched with his opponents that "a single Sneak Attack could turn the tide"


which does lean away from the "Home-brewed Disruption Weapon" option somewhat.

Then Right-Eye is drastically underestimating Xykon, though if he's anywhere near Redcloak's level then a successful sneak attack or three would tear chunks out of Xykon's hit points.

[hamishspence]

To be fair, one of those opponents was another epic spellcaster.

[danielxcutter]

To be fair, one of those opponents was another epic spellcaster.

Oh yeah, getting an attack in while he was fighting Dorukan could have helped I suppose.

[iyaerP]

So does today's strip show Minrah as having Combat Reflexes?

That certainly looked like two attacks of opportunity to me as the Wolf ran through her threatened squares/hexes.

[InvisibleBison]

So does today's strip show Minrah as having Combat Reflexes?

That certainly looked like two attacks of opportunity to me as the Wolf ran through her threatened squares/hexes.

Combat Reflexes explicitly doesn't let you make multiple attacks of opportunity against an opponent who exited a square you threaten multiple times in a single move.

[iyaerP]

Combat Reflexes explicitly doesn't let you make multiple attacks of opportunity against an opponent who exited a square you threaten multiple times in a single move.

Except we already have precedent that OOTS Combat Reflexes does seem to allow it.

[hamishspence]

The Giant did say that he'd messed up, with the Half-Ogre:

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...tember-I/page3

EDIT: See, that's what I get for not having internet access; I screw up the AOO rules in a comic. Sigh.

The solution proposed at the time was the Hold The Line feat from Complete Warrior. It grants the ability to make an AOO against someone who enters a square you threaten. And it doesn't remove the ability to make an AOO against someone who leaves a square you threaten.

Arguably, entering a square and leaving a square, even if done in the same round with the same move action, are separate opportunities, which allows it to work.

[MultitudeMan]

The solution proposed at the time was the Hold The Line feat from Complete Warrior. It grants the ability to make an AOO against someone who enters a square you threaten. And it doesn't remove the ability to make an AOO against someone who leaves a square you threaten.

Arguably, entering a square and leaving a square, even if done in the same round with the same move action, are separate opportunities, which allows it to work.

Doesn't Hold The Line only work against a charging opponent? It doesn't look like Greyview charged Minrah, just moved past her.

[hamishspence]

True. It covers the half-ogre situation better than this one.

[dancrilis]

Haley Starshine
Str 13-19 (high enough to drag the cart, forum, but
Items: 8 Bags of Holding, +5 Icy Burst Longbow, magic leather armor.

It seems that the a bag of holding might be able to hold other bags of holding but that still have a weight of a minimum of 15lbs, combined with leather armour at 15lbs and also adding a longbow for 3lbs for a total of 33lbs.
Discounting everything else she carries (as they could be in the bags) that brings the weight she is carrying to 33lbs - however Belker weighs 30lbs and Haley seems capable of carrying him without penalty for movement, for a total weight of 63lbs on light load.

That would seem to put her strength at minimum 15.

[Reboot]

leather armour at 15lbs....

That's MALE leather armour.

[Gurgeh]

I don't see any reason to assume Minrah's got combat reflexes when a standard-action attack plus an AoO can account for what happens. Or heck, even a full attack action.

[Quartz]

It seems that the a bag of holding might be able to hold other bags of holding

Yup. The interdiction is only on mixing Bags of Holding and Portable Holes.

If a bag of holding is placed within a portable hole a rift to the Astral Plane is torn in the space: Bag and hole alike are sucked into the void and forever lost. If a portable hole is placed within a bag of holding, it opens a gate to the Astral Plane: The hole, the bag, and any creatures within a 10-foot radius are drawn there, destroying the portable hole and bag of holding in the process.

[danielxcutter]

...Huh, could have sworn there were rules against that, and I'd imagine you'd get the entire edition chucked at your head by the DM if you tried to pull that.

[Emanick]

...Huh, could have sworn there were rules against that, and I'd imagine you'd get the entire edition chucked at your head by the DM if you tried to pull that.

Depends how much the DM cares about encumbrance. At the point where you have multiple bags of holding, many DMs (even the ones who care enough about realism to make characters track the weight of every item) will be happy to let you trade wealth for ease of bookkeeping.

Personally, I’ve never DMed a campaign where we had multiple bags of holding, but I’d probably allow you to store one inside the other as long as I couldn’t find an official ruling banning it. I would, however, require characters to spend extra actions retrieving items from the Bag-Within-A-Bag.

[Wildstag]

I don't see any reason to assume Minrah's got combat reflexes when a standard-action attack plus an AoO can account for what happens. Or heck, even a full attack action.

A full-attack action during someone else's turn? The Wolf is moving, which means it is almost certainly still on its initiative. Thus, any attacks Minrah makes are out-of-turn, and thus means no full-round or standard actions.

It seems that the a bag of holding might be able to hold other bags of holding but that still have a weight of a minimum of 15lbs, combined with leather armour at 15lbs and also adding a longbow for 3lbs for a total of 33lbs... however Belker weighs 30lbs and Haley seems capable of carrying him without penalty for movement, for a total weight of 63lbs on light load.

Also Dancrilis, a counter-argument would be that all of that weight totaled her medium encumbrance. Since the Hobgoblins are in metallic-looking armor, they are almost certainly at that encumbrance level too. Thus, she doesn't lose her headstart, and she is still able to move at a decent speed. That would also put her at a minimum weight of 10, with the cart-pulling example making the 13+ more likely.

[dancrilis]

Also Dancrilis, a counter-argument would be that all of that weight totaled her medium encumbrance. Since the Hobgoblins are in metallic-looking armor, they are almost certainly at that encumbrance level too. Thus, she doesn't lose her headstart, and she is still able to move at a decent speed. That would also put her at a minimum weight of 10, with the cart-pulling example making the 13+ more likely.

Hobgoblins default to studded leather armour and a move of 30 - unless we have some reason to think those hobgoblins are non-standard I think we should keep to that assumption.

[Peelee]

I would, however, require characters to spend extra actions retrieving items from the Bag-Within-A-Bag.

Imean, that's my default anyway. It's a Bag of Holding, not a Handy Haversack.