What are the biggest rules debates?

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

How do you square that with the fact that you yourself believe the ranged flanking thing to be an error introduced during the revision? If an error can be introduced, certainly another one can be inadvertently left in.

An error inadvertantly left in? Certainly.

An error of this magnitude and this simple to fix? I doubt it.

Moreover, my belief as regards ranged flanking is that they wanted to alter the flanking rules in such a way as to allow unarmed bar-brawlers to flank, even if they wouldn't get the bonus on their attack rolls (due to their ally not actually threatening). Thus, ranged flanking is more of an unintended consequence than a true error.

 

[Hypersmurf]

No, the rules say you have to move "directly toward" not "slightly to the side of". In other words, you must move in a path that would end with you running into the opponent. That's what "directly toward" means in plain English.

Twenty feet straight ahead and one square diagonal is a path that would end with you running into the opponent... and it's a path exactly as long as ten feet ahead, one square diagonal, ten feet ahead... or one square diagonal, twenty feet ahead.

-Hyp.

 

[Vigwyn the Unruly]

Twenty feet straight ahead and one square diagonal is a path that would end with you running into the opponent... and it's a path exactly as long as ten feet ahead, one square diagonal, ten feet ahead... or one square diagonal, twenty feet ahead.

-Hyp.

OK, I can't argue with that. I hereby change my mind.

Edit: On the other hand, maybe I can argue with it. Both may end with you running into the target, but the second one is clearly superior in emulating what an actual straight line between attacker and defender would look like. In fact, if you drew a straight line on graph paper between the center of the attacker's initial square, and the center of the defender's square, it would cross over to the other row or column about half way between the two. In my mind, "directly toward" looks much more like that.

In any event, I still have issues when two people want to charge at the same time like this:

X..............X
Y..............YO

X and Y cannot both be moving "directly toward" the opponent without getting in each other's way.

 

[Hypersmurf]

However, I still have issues when two people want to charge at the same time like this:

Very little in D&D combat happens 'at the same time'

-Hyp.

 

[Vigwyn the Unruly]

Very little in D&D combat happens 'at the same time'

-Hyp.

Another excellent point, oh Wise One.

However, if Y went first, the most direct path from X to O is blocked.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Edit: On the other hand, maybe I can argue with it. Both may end with you running into the target, but the second one is clearly superior in emulating what an actual straight line between attacker and defender would look like. In fact, if you drew a straight line on graph paper between the center of the attacker's initial square, and the center of the defender's square, it would cross over to the other row or column about half way between the two. In my mind, "directly toward" looks much more like that.

So if A is charging X, you'd suggest he'd have to travel the red path?

AOOOOOOZ
OOOOOOXO

Let's say that when he hits the green square, he triggers a readied action from a zombie, Z, who charges him.

AOOOOOOZ
OOOOOOXO

Does the zombie draw a line from the centre of his square, to the centre of the green square? Or is A not in the centre of the green square, but rather somewhere very near the bottom of the green square... almost halfway between it and the square beneath it, in fact?

In other words, does X block the line of Z's readied charge against A, or is A considered to be in the centre of the green square?

-Hyp.

 

[Vigwyn the Unruly]

So if A is charging X, you'd suggest he'd have to travel the red path?

AOOOOOOZ
OOOOOOXO

Let's say that when he hits the green square, he triggers a readied action from a zombie, Z, who charges him.

AOOOOOOZ
OOOOOOXO

Does the zombie draw a line from the centre of his square, to the centre of the green square? Or is A not in the centre of the green square, but rather somewhere very near the bottom of the green square... almost halfway between it and the square beneath it, in fact?

In other words, does X block the line of Z's readied charge against A, or is A considered to be in the centre of the green square?

-Hyp.

X does NOT block the line of Z's readied charge. Although A may physically be closer to the bottom of the square, I would determine the direct path by drawing a line between the centers of the squares occupied by A and Z.

If the zombie's charge was triggered when A made it to the green square here:

AOOOOOOZ
OOOOOOXO

then yes, it would be blocked by X.

 

[Firael]

Here are some monk-related Q's that seem to come up from time to time...

1) What AC bonus does a non-monk with high Wisdom gain from a monk's belt?

I'm not familiar with the item, where is it from? But I'd still say it will be the same kind as the monk's. Whatever the one monk has falls under.

2) Can you use flurry of blows while two-weapon fighting, and if so, how does it work?

Yes You can. Basicly It works like this: Flurry of blows gives you an extra attack at your highest attack bonus, but reduces all attacks made at that turn by -2. Example: Monk 1 with STR 14. Normal Flurry is At +0/+0. Flurry with Two-Weapon Fighting would be: -2/-2/-4
Because the off-hand weapon is light.
Example #2: Monk 5 with STR 14: Normal Flurry would be +4/+4. With two Weapon fighting it would be: +2/+2/+0. Simple no?

3) Does a monk fighting with a longspear threaten with his unarmed strike, and if so, how does it work?

Again, yes he does. It's stated that Monk can make unarmed attacks even with his hands full. He's simply using he's leg, knee, elbow, head, whatever. Example. He threatens 10ft. with his Longspear and 5ft with his Unarmed Strikes.

4) Can a monk take the Improved Natural Attack feat?

Hmm tricky. That would depend if a feat is considered an: "Effect that enchances or improves either manufactured weapons or natural weapons". If yes then Improved Natural Attack is a go. If no then no you cannot.

Cheers,
Vurt

Well I hope that cleared them up.

Back on topic (just 10 for now):

1. Should a character get bonuses or penalties on his social interaction skills (Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Sense Motive) based on how well the player roleplays?

All upto the GM. I'd say yes as it would discourage "roll-playing".

2. Can a character find a trap whose mechanism is entirely hidden behind a door? This is closely linked to the question of whether a character searching for or disabling a trap should suffer some penalty or even automatically fail to find or disable it if the player doesn't say that he does the "right thing" (whatever the DM defines the "right thing" to be, e.g. half opening the door and using a mirror to look at the mechanism behind it)?

Depends on how the character approaches the problem. Again it's a roleplaying vs. "roll-playing".

3. Is it valid to charge an opponent along a path that is actually slightly to the side of the opponent (e.g. if your opponent is 5 feet to your left and 20 feet in front of you, can you charge straight ahead and attack him diagonally)?

Ofcourse, Diagonal is still a direct line...

4. The Cleave off AOO issue has been debated again recently.

Cleave allows you to attack another enemy if you kill one enemy. Therefor there is nothing that says you may not take a Cleave off AOO.

5. If you no longer meet a feat's prerequisite, does this mean that you also lose the benefits of other feats and abilities from prestige classes that have that feat as a prerequisite?

I'd say no. You won't realy be able to do much power attacking when your str is 5 anyway. Prestige Class abilites no.

6. Should scouts have Disable Device as a class skill (errata has clarified that they do, but that's not the issue)?

Errata. :wink:

7. How does Natural Bond (feat from Complete Adventurer) interact with the alternative animal companions he can select at higher levels? Can a druid select an alternative animal companion (reducing his effective druid level) and then use Natural Bond to offset that?

Yes. But this would mean that at 6th level he could get a leopard that would be equal to level 7... Nasty, but so is life.

8. Does true seeing foil a shadowdancer's Hide in Plain Sight?

Will true seeing allow you to spot hidden creatures? Hide in Plain Sight allows you to roll your Hide even when there is no cover to hide behind... This however means that when that balor rolls his spot... He still goes after the Ogre Mage... (Last part happened in a recent campaign.)

9. How does vulnerability to [energy] interact with resistance to [energy]? Apply vulnerability and subtract resistance, or subtract resistance and apply vulnerability?

Math? A+B=C. Example: Resistance 15/cold from Template A. Vulnerability 10/cold from Base creature. Formulae is: +15a-10a=5a

10. When riding a war-trained mount, do you need to use Handle Animal to direct the mount to attack?

[/QUOTE]
Ride Skill @ Page 80 from PHB...

I guess that's it on my part.

 

[FireLance]

In any event, I still have issues when two people want to charge at the same time like this:

X..............X
Y..............YO

X and Y cannot both be moving "directly toward" the opponent without getting in each other's way.

D&D combat is more abstract than a precise simulation. Creatures are assumed to be moving around in their "space" instead of being fixed in the centre of it. Have a look at the attached diagram. It seems to me that the blue dot and the yellow dot can both charge the green dot without getting into each other's way, and if the green dot moves to the left (which can be described as shifting to one side to avoid the attacks or reeling from the blows, depending on whether they hit or miss) he opens himself up to a potential charge from someone on the left of the yellow dot too. My advice is: as long as you're having fun, just let the charges happen and don't think too much about it.

 

[Fieari]

The 3.5 weapon sizing rules come up a lot, specifically when it comes to Lances, on horseback. This is partially the fault of the FAQ, which is flat out wrong. People seem to want it to be the case that when weilding a given weapon in one hand, it's a one handed weapon, when the rules don't support this in every case (the FAQ does, but that's why the FAQ is wrong).