FAQ Update

[dcollins]

Main FAQ additions, version 05082003 (now 66 pages):

(1) Metamagiced spells in a spell storage items (wand) require the higher spell level.
(2) Heightened spells can be used to bypass a minor globe of invulnerability.
(3) Heightened spells can be used effectively with Improved Counterspell (and counterspelling ignores the counterspell's casting time).
(4) All crossbows require both hands to reload, or alternatively can be loaded single-handed with an additional full-round action.
(5) A table suggesting how many additional (likely throwing) weapons can be held ready in an off-hand (can't be used to attack with that way).
(6) Per #5, picking up multiple weapons at once would be a full-round action.
(7) A "sun blade" does not allow critical hits or sneak attacks against undead.
(8) Armor/load "maximum Dexterity bonus" only applies to AC, not anything else (initiative, Reflex save, etc.) It does apply to touch attacks as normal.
(9) "Bracers of armor" provide an armor bonus, a force effect useful against incorporeal touch attacks.
(10) Incorporeal touch attacks are touch attacks that ignore (non-force) armor, natural armor, and most cover bonuses.
(11) You cannot activate a "necklace of prayer beads" with an item in the same slot (like a "periapt of wisdom").
(12) Touch attacks ignore armor and natural armor bonuses (including enhancement which increases same), but everything else applies.
(13) Sneak attacks while charging are allowed. Charging with a lance does not double sneak attack damage dice.
(14) You can get and provide flanking with a reach weapon but not a ranged weapon.
(15) Only allies your enemy can see provide you with a flanking bonus. (Hence, the blind cannot be flanked.)
(16) Any concealment miss chance spoils sneak attacks. "True strike" overcomes this. Other miss chances do not spoil sneak attacks.
(17) Melee attacks against grapplers don't have a chance to hit the wrong target. Many DMs do this as a house rule.
(18) In a grapple, a failed attacker grapple check does not end the grapple (does not release hold on defender).
(19) Concentration on a spell cannot be regained after it's lost. A "haste" action can be used for concentration and another standard action taken as well.
(20) A spell defender with all 3 protections applies in the following order: spell resistance, then decision of "rod of absorption" and "spell turning".


Sword & Fist FAQ additions, version 05082003:

(21) Order of the Bow Initiate "close combat" ability not applicable for AOOs or flanking.


Opinion/Editiorial
Many of these items are common knowledge already, or explicit in the rulebooks, to the point where I felt a bit foolish writing all of them up (especially #1-2 and 8-12), but that's what's in there.

Items where the Sage seems to be suggesting or introducing new rules include: #4, #5, #6 and maybe #17.

#15 has proven to be at least partly controversial, per this thread: http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52192 There's certainly no basis in the rulebooks for that ruling, but the alternative is not great either -- it seems like the options are either (a) invisible PCs never flank or (b) you've got to keep track of who actually attacked a target for flanking purposes.

 

[Hypersmurf]

#15 has proven to be at least partly controversial, per this thread...

Also, note that the FAQ entry is different to what the Sage said in the online chat.

It's still a bad, bad, stupid rule, it's just a slightly modified bad, bad, stupid rule

-Hyp.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Hyp,

I like your take on AoO's vs. invisible opponents whom you have reason to believe are there. But how would you justify an invisible person flanking? If the target cannot see the invisible person, then there's nothing to divide their attention.

Contrarily, if the person does divide their attention because an invisible foe might be there, then an invisible foe should be able to flank with any other attacker, regardless of whether they are on opposite sides or not, since the target cannot know they aren't....

Just curious why you think it's a bad, bad, stupid rule...

 

[Hypersmurf]

Just curious why you think it's a bad, bad, stupid rule...

Firstly, the mechanics of flanking in the Core Rules make no mention of perception. There's no flavour text at all, in fact.

The closest we have is reasons why things can't be flanked.

Elementals can't be flanked because they have no clear front or back.

Beholders can't be flanked because they can see in all directions.

It's not a simple matter of knowing that there are opponents on either side.

In the absence of flavour text, you can make up whatever you want to fit the rules. But you shouldn't then make up new rules to fit the flavour text.

If you are struck by an invisible attacker with 5' reach, you know where the attack originates. But even though you know the invisible attacker is directly opposite his ally, that ally doesn't gain a flanking bonus, because the ruling relies on sight, not simple knowledge or perception.

If you are directing all of your attacks against the square you know the invisible attacker to be in, then still, the invisible attacker gains a flanking bonus, but his ally (who you're essentially ignoring) does not.

If a second-level barbarian is surrounded by eight invisible rogues, they cannot sneak attack. They can't flank because they're invisible, and he isn't denied his Dex bonus because of Uncanny Dodge.

If that second-level barbarian is flanked by two visible rogues, all he needs to do to prevent sneak attacks is to close his eyes at the end of his action.

And according to the rules for gaze attacks, a person flanked by a rogue and (say) a monk can negate the sneak attacks by turning his back on the monk, treating him as invisible, and thus denying the rogue the flanking condition.

Whereas the only weirdness, as far as I'm concerned, in the rules as written in the PHB is that someone invisible can sneak up into a flanking position and take the Total Defence action (or whatever) and provide an ally with flanking bonuses. I can live with that. The FAQ ruling makes far less sense to me.

-Hyp.

 

[Yeoman]

Can someone email me the current main faq? I can't reach the wizards site from work.

Thanks!