A grab of of Questions...

[Infiniti2000]

Interesting. So, according to this ruling, would a Dispel Magic targeted at a specific spell --rather than one targeted at a creature -- count as an attack ? It is not resisted with a saving throw, does no damage, an no real harm: losing the effect of bull strength hardly counts as being harmed, or does it ?

If that spell is a buff spell, then surely you'd consider that hampering them? I mean, consider targeted a fly spell on a wizard in the air. Isn't that hampering the wizard if he can no longer fly?

To aid another on skill check would count as a skill check and would be governed by those rules (Combining Skill Attempts: Aid Another).

And yet it's listed in the Special Attacks section. Isn't that what you are saying those DMs use as an argument, the mere fact of the action being listed in the combat section as a special attack? How about throwing a water balloon at a wall (not a creature and no other creature within 50 miles)?

 

[Psimancer]

And yet it's listed in the Special Attacks section. Isn't that what you are saying those DMs use as an argument, the mere fact of the action being listed in the combat section as a special attack? How about throwing a water balloon at a wall (not a creature and no other creature within 50 miles)?

I'm not too sure where you are going here Sounds like argument for argument sake...

I actually have no interest in exploring what 'Some DMs' may do in their games; I've played, and quit, quite enough of those...

 

[pallandrome]

Out of curiosity, how is a character supposed to aid another in combat without attacking anyways? It's not like he can see you faking a lunge at him or anything.

I consider it a poorly worded effect, and treat it as such. In my games, any attempt to affect an unwilling creature directly (whether by spells or physical interaction) pops the invisibility. I consider this a fair and reasonable interpritation of the intent of the rules, which is something that is my job as a DM to determine.

 

[phoenixgod2000]

I find Invisibility hard to adjudicate sometimes. I mean, the book gives the example of cutting a rope that someone is climbing up NOT breaking Invis. How is Suggesting that your party members are untrustworthy and stealing from you equally not as violent? In my game I ruled that it has to be damaging or an attack action to break invis so compulsion effects don't count. My group protested which is why I come to you

The Question I also really need answered is the Shade Question. I'm running them through the Demonweb Pits next and I want to know if I am justified in stripping his shade powers from one of the characters.

 

[Psimancer]

...since they are no longer on a plane that is connected to the plane of shadows?...

What make you say this? According the the Manual of the Planes, "...the plane of shadows is coterminous to other planes..." (MoP, pg 59) and specifically "...the plane of shadows is coexistent with the astral plane..." (Mop, pg 61).

I would say, IMHO, that the Shade is fully functional in the Outer Planes...

 

[Infiniti2000]

I actually have no interest in exploring what 'Some DMs' may do in their games; I've played, and quit, quite enough of those...

Then don't bring it up in the first place! Really! And if you do, don't continue the discussion or don't get upset when someone calls you on it. :\

 

[Psimancer]

Then don't bring it up in the first place! Really! And if you do, don't continue the discussion or don't get upset when someone calls you on it. :\

a) It was a side-note to indicate contrast, and what NOT to do – I have played under several DMs who would have ruled that way…

b) My second response was because I though you were taking an actual stance on the subject rather than just trolling…

c) Not upset, just perplexed as to where you were going with it – and actually still am… your purpose was? To wiggle a finger at me? Scowl? Growl, “Don’t do that here!”? Can’t have people who can acknowledge that there are two sides to an argument! Shock! Well, color me reprimanded!!!

Can we move on now and actually stick to the topic at hand, or do you have some more berating to do?

 

[Infiniti2000]

My purpose was pure. You said that some people would do something (bad), which I argued against. You should have agreed with me instead of defending them since you seem to share my opinion.

That's what we do here in the Rules Forum. If someone (DM or player) does something that is against the rules or doesn't make sense within the context of the rules, we call them on it. I merely performed my duty.

 

[Psimancer]

Dude, you still aren't making any sense, can we take this off-board? Email me.

 

[phoenixgod2000]

What make you say this? According the the Manual of the Planes, "...the plane of shadows is coterminous to other planes..." (MoP, pg 59) and specifically "...the plane of shadows is coexistent with the astral plane..." (Mop, pg 61).

I would say, IMHO, that the Shade is fully functional in the Outer Planes...

I don't have either the 3.0 or 3.5 manul of the planes. I was just going by what I remembered from my first and second ed days and from what I recalled, the demiplane of shadows was in the ethereal plane and had not connection to the outer planes. I wasn't sure.

Which is why I was asking.