Epic Cinematic (Recruiting)

[Arabesu]

The bear is only 10 feat away? I missed that. I had mentally built up the bar as:

Tatterdemillion                                      samurai



      --                  CP:H Capn'Ps table
      --
      --
  Bar --              
 keep -- 
      --    Yens                             bear:Bodin
      --                     
      --                     
      --
      --
--------            Patrons fleeing out the door
                          \/ \/
                          \/ \/
                          Door

[sblock=Jemal]
Was this intended as friendly sarcasm or as a barbed jab? If the latter, then this saddens me, because it means that no matter how I play this game you will always be against me. And that’s a bummer. I guess I will just have to give it more time.

If I missed a smiley somewhere and this was meant as a joke rather than an attack, they I do apologize for wasting your time.

Perhaps I am just being overly sensitive.
[/sblock]

 

[Jemal]

Actually, I have no idea how far apart we were, I think that much was left to us, the 'ten feet to your left' was more meant to mean "Nearby", but I suppose with the kinda freeform system we're using, he might as well be.

[sblock=Arabesu]
I'm afraid I don't understand what you're taking as a jab, none were intended. My last post was merely commenting on the fact that, from appearances, it seems like the captain (A large man) is picking on the halfling, and I personally would either side with the halfling or (more likely) attempt to stop the fight if I didn't know them. I was just wondering if you had some sort of backstory between Yens and Prontius, or if you were just helping him out b/c he's a PC.[/sblock]

 

[Vertexx69]

Prontius has uncanny dodge so he can't be caught flat-footed (even with a feint) and therefore not be sneak attacked as he isn't flanked.

The rogue is falling toward the ground, as Prontius did vanish out from under her. Sure it's less than ten feet, but might be slightly disconcerting.

The glove of storing shrinks the item into the palm of the hand so it is still considered wielded no matter it's size (a tactic that I've used and seen used in many games). The item description specifically states that spell durations continue, i.e. continuous spell effects would stay active as well. If you won't allow that then I'll need to change the storing glove to a caster's glove (DMGII p.266) that specifically states this tactic can be done with a rod.

 

[Jemal]

I'd think the fact that the casters glove costs more and specifically states it can do that should tip you off that the regular glove of storing Doesn't.
I'd also point out that while it does say that it's shrunk down, it ALSO states that it's 'held in stasis', not something that lends itself well to considering yourself still wielding the item.

As to the feinting vs uncanny dodge.. they're seperate things.

Uncanny dodge lets you retain your dex bonus to ac while flat footed. Feinting doesn't make you flat footed, it 'denies the target it's dex modifier vs the next attack.' While they are similar, they are not the same, and Feinting is a standard Rogue's response to someone with uncanny dodge. (or for some, their primary method of achieving sneak attack in any scenario)

 

[Albedo]

Vertexx: You've got the usage on the casting glove wrong. Once per round, while an itme is in your casting glove, you can call upon 1 feature of the item as if you were holding it. Since this isn't an immediate action, you can't call upon the usage of the rod of invulnerability. More importantly, the description indicates that this can only be done with usable powers, not innate ones, since it doesn't say the effect has a duration, it merely calls on the duration of the effect involved. Either way, I'll let you have the rod give you immunity to crits, but this function works like dodge, you need to declare it. And you need to pay the extra gold to update your glove. And if you do use it as such, you won't be getting the other features of the rod.

 

[Vertexx69]

Uncanny Dodge states that you retain your dex mod to AC EVEN IF you are caught flat footed or hit by an invisible attacker, not ONLY IF. Therefore feint would be useless against someone with uncanny dodge, as it couldn't immobilize them (the ONLY way to deny a character with UD its dex bonus to AC).

This is pissing me off more than any game should, these endless "house rule" interpretations are ALL things that should have been brought up during the character creations phase. As I obviously have zero understanding of the rules (as all I can do is read them and try to come to some kind of LOGICAL decision about how they come together) I'm outa here...PEACE!!!!

 

[Jemal]

Um, Vertexx, I just want to say that you're the first person I've encountered who tried to convince the DM of EITHER of these things(Uncanny dodge beating Feint or the Storing Glove thing).. I sincerely hope you don't try that in any of my games, b/c I wouldn't allow such a thing either.

I fail to see what 'house rules' Albedo's using on either of these, EVERYBODY I've ever gamed with (And a dozen or so people who I've asked specifically about this since you posted it) agrees that the rules are rather obvious unless you're reading them sideways.

As far as Uncanny Dodge vs Feint goes, I can even offer OFFICIAL proof: I know that wizards has posted a response on this EXACT question in reference to Star Wars D20.. Granted it's a different genre, but it's STILL d20, and its STILL wizards, and the ability's both work the same as they do in D&D.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/sw20060323jc85

As to the glove, I notice you haven't attempted to dispute what I said in my last post.
All you've done is get pissed off that people aren't interpreting the rules in the same way as you. If DM's had to specify EVERY single rules interpretation (Especially for stuff like this that seems rather straightforward), creation posts would be longer than the freakin phb.

 

[Albedo]

Vertexx: If you don't want to play anymore, thats fine, I can't make you. But I do need to point out some flaws in your logic.


Step one, None of my house rules have been the cause of any of our rule problems. your problem is my interpretation of normal rules in the book, and I'm not house ruling any of it. Its all perfectly valid.

Step two, how am I supposed to pick out these problems by looking at your character sheet? I can't tell that you are going to try and cheat with a glove of storing even though you KNOW that an item exist that does similar to what you wanted it to do.

How should I have come to the conclusion you think activation time on magic items is a free action, even though the DMG specifically states its a standard action.

I didn't know that because you BELIEVE a ring of sequestering isn't worth its gp value, you automatically assume it does what you want it to do with no actual rules basis or DM permission.

I can definatly see how these come up by looking at your character sheet. This is completely my fault. I'm sorry.

Step three, check out this link from ask wizards. I'm not the only person who believes feint works this way.

Step four, honestly, how come every time somebody disagrees with what you post, you respond with "you're wrong because I read the rules differently"?


I think I've given you alot of patience based off of the fact that we don't see eye to eye on alot of this stuff. and its not like your character creation went smoothly either. In your attempt to make the most broken and ridiculous character you could, you messed up or ignored like a dozen rules. And I didn't even really care, cause you could play the character you wanted. Without you playing, at least I can save myself from that headache. Good Luck in your travels Vertexx.

 

[Jemal]

So... *cricket chirp*