Trying to build an archive of responses from The Sage

CRGreathouse

Community Supporter
I don't have and don't want an accouint at wizards' message boards, but I'll post here. If you care, you can copy them over.

> 1. If a wizard casts a quickened spell, does it provoke an attack of
> opportunity?

Yes (but even a quckened spell lcan be cast defensively).

>
> 2. If a sorcerer was to cast a spell with the Quicken Spell feat
(which
> is useless), would it provoke an attack of opportunity?

Yup.

Note that FAQ originally supported this, and was later changed.

I have a question about damage reduction. If a 20th-level monk attacks
a creature with DR 10/+1 with his unarmed strike, he ignores it, both
because of his own DR and his ki strike. What if a high-level barbarian
hits a creature with his unarmed strike? Does that ignore all DR, none,
or some? Note that it does not occur on Table 3-13.

DMG pg 74
"A creature's natural weapons count as wepons of the type that can
ignore it's own DR."

since there aren't any weapons that can pass a barbarians DR, they
don't bypass any DR.

but

If he can ignore his own, he should be able to ignore other barbarians.

******

Barbarians cannot bypass DR, either their own or any other creature's. For a creatures to ignore DR, the has to be a number or entry other than a — after the slash in the DR entry.



Skip Williams
RPG R&D
 

log in or register to remove this ad

kreynolds

First Post
CRGreathouse said:
I don't have and don't want an accouint at wizards' message boards, but I'll post here. If you care, you can copy them over.

Thanks man. I posted them over on the Wizo boards.

Anybody else have any replies from the sage?
*bump*
 

Faragdar

First Post
*bump*

Wow, I had to dig all the way back to page 25, but I found it. If you haven't ever been there, or if it's just been a while, check it out. Maybe one of your burning questions has already been answered. Granted, a few of the answers are out-and-out wrong, but most of it is pretty good advice, IMHO.
 

kreynolds

First Post
Re: *bump*

Faragdar said:
Granted, a few of the answers are out-and-out wrong, but most of it is pretty good advice, IMHO.

The Sage's responses are no different than anyone else's. They're generally, and rarely, only wrong if you disagree. ;)
 
Last edited:

Faragdar

First Post
Re: Re: *bump*

*bump*
More new stuff in the archive.

kreynolds said:
The Sage's responses are no different than anyone else's. They're generally, and rarely, only wrong if you disagree. ;)
Of course, but sometimes his answers are contradictory to the core rules. In such instances, The Sage is wrong until and unless he convinces the rest of the design team to publish errata to support his answer. I differentiate those from the answers for which I simply have a different opinion or interperetation.
 

Gromm

First Post
I've got a few of these floating around, I'll be glad to forward them to someone, but I'm not up to making an account and copying and pasting to another board. Let me know if you want them.
 

kreynolds

First Post
Gromm said:
I've got a few of these floating around, I'll be glad to forward them to someone, but I'm not up to making an account and copying and pasting to another board. Let me know if you want them.

Sure. Just post them up here and I'll take them over.
 

Gromm

First Post
Seems I accidently deleted most of them... oh well, still got 2 left:

1)
Can see invisibility be cast on other people?

No.

The description lists no targets, but with a range it would seem to indicate it could be. On the other hand its description seems to lean towards just the caster (ie "you can see...", etc), with the range being the range at which it operates.

Correct.



So I guess the question is, is the range the effect range of "invisible seeing sight"

Yes.

or the range for a target of the spell with the effect range being as far as you can see?

No (the spell does not have a target).

If it can be cast on others, how about Detect Evil and the like? I'm more inclined towards no for these since the area is listed as coming from you.

The same principles apply.


Skip Williams


2)
This has become a big discussion with no obvious answers (at least none that make sense).

If someone is wearing a ring can you attack the ring and destroy it?

Sure.


If so what is the rings AC? Does it get cover or concealment(from the other fingers of the hand, gloves, etc)?
We have calculated it based on the PHBs rules for attacking attended objects, but it 1)Doesn't feel right since you'd technically destroy the ring with no damage to the wearer and 2) Seems too easy to pull off at the higher levels.

Both valid points.
Here's what the D&D FAQ has to say on a similar topic:

On a normal disarm attempt, you and the target make
opposed checks using a melee attack. But what if you're
trying to knock a wand out of a wizard's hand? Would
the wizard make a roll using only his Dexterity
modifier?
Use opposed attack rolls for any disarm attempts (the
better you are at combat, the harder it is to take things
away from you).
If the target of the disarm is not a weapon, and the
target is something that the defender has in hand or
carries on a belt or other fairly accessible place, the
attacker makes an attack roll against the item first. (A
normal disarm attempt against a weapon doesn't require
an initial attack roll, but that is because the weapon is
assumed to be in use and pretty easy to strike.) Use the
rules for attacking inanimate objects on page 135 of the
Player's Handbook. The item's Armor Class depends on its
size, as shown on Table 8ñ11; remember that a held,
worn, or carried object uses the wielder's Dexterity
modifier to Armor Class (instead of its own ñ5 penalty)
and gains the benefit of any deflection bonus to Armor
Class that the wielder has.
If the initial attack strikes the object, make an opposed
attack roll to see if the defender drops the item.
If the item being worn is particularly well secured to
the defender's body (such as a ring), an attacker probably
cannot knock it loose with a melee attack. In this case, you
have to attempt a grapple and take the item. Use the
normal grappling procedure. If you start a round and
have your opponent pinned (see page 137 in the Player's
Handbook) you can then attempt a grapple check to take
any item the opponent wears or carries. The item's size
modifier to Armor Class (from table 8ñ11 in the Player's
Handbook) applies as a modifier to your opponent's
opposed roll. If you win the opposed roll, you take the
item from the opponent. You cannot take away an item this
way unless the opponent wears or carries it someplace
where you can reach it. For example, you cannot dig an
item out of the bottom of a foe's pack. You can, however,
yank off the opponent's pack and then search it.

So, a ring's AC is:

Base 10
Size +8
Wearer's Dex mod (variable).

You sure could add a cover bonus, say half (+4) or three-quarters (+7). Note that a cover bonus allows you to have the occasional miss strike the wearer (see striking the Cover Instead of a Missed target, page 133 of the PH).

Note also that attacks on a creature's equipment provoke attacks of opportunity.




Skip Williams

RPG R&D
 

IceBear

Explorer
I wonder if they feel that this work is duplicating their DNDFAQ and that's why they pulled it?

Anway, here's a couple I got:

Q1) Does the fly spell work underwater?
A1) Sure.

Q2) If a wizard casts Monster Summoning I with a duration
of one round, what's the correct sequence.

Case 1
Round 1 - Wizard casts spell
Round 2 - Monster appears and attacks and disappears

or

Case 2
Round 1 - Wizard casts spell
Round 2 - Monster appears and attacks
Round 3 - Monster disappears

or

Case 3
Round 1 - Wizard casts spell
Round 2 - Monster appears and attacks
Round 3 - Monster attacks and disappears.

The reason for the confusion is the line about the
monster getting to act normally in the last round of
the spell seems redundant if you use Case 2, and Case
1 seems to break the rules for spell duration. Case 3
seems to make the spell, effectively, a 2 round spell.

A2) Case 2

Q3a) When a spellcaster casts a touch spell, does he have to hold the charge or can he choose to let the charge go whenever he wants. The PHB states that he CAN hold a charge (implying choice). However, many of us feel that the caster must touch something or cast another spell to discharge the spell.

A3a)Just because you *can* hold the charge does not mean you *have* to hold it. You can get rid of a held spell anytime as a free action.

Q3b) In relation to #1, if a spellcaster with shocking grasp cast hits a mirror image, is the charge lost.

A3b) Yes.

Q3c) Many feel that since nothing was actually touched the charge remains.

A3c) You did touch something--the image.

Q3d) Others feel that if the caster believes he touched something then the charge is wasted, a la #1.

A3d) Belief has nothing to to do with it. If you're tricked into touching the wrong thing, the spell is gone.

IceBear
 

IceBear

Explorer
How are you planning on distributing this list? Posting on a website? (If so what's the URL). If not, could you email me a copy of the list at paul1shep@rogers.com? I'd really like to have this for my notes.

And, yes, I'm aware that I don't need them to run my own game. I often rule opposite to the Sage, but I like seeing his thoughts on stuff for my own edification :)

IceBear
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top