Fox's cunning and oozes?

Legildur said:
Does that answer that?

No :)

A Shadow has a 50% chance to ignore damage from a Shocking Grasp which somehow targets it. A Shadow has no chance to ignore damage from a Cure Light Wounds which somehow targets it, because it is positive energy. But my question is whether you can target it in the first place with the spell, because the positive energy doesn't take effect until you target 'creature touched', and you can't target a creature you can't touch.

So my question is still "Can you discharge the spell?" If you can, there's no argument that the 50% chance to ignore the damage won't apply. ... if you can.

-Hyp.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I doesn't a shadow get its 50% miss chance from a Cure Light Wounds spell? It's damage from a material source, isn't it?
 

Klaus said:
I doesn't a shadow get its 50% miss chance from a Cure Light Wounds spell? It's damage from a material source, isn't it?
You missed this part: "Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it has a 50% chance to ignore any damage from a corporeal source (except for positive energy, negative energy, force effects such as magic missile, or attacks made with ghost touch weapons)."
 

No.

An ooze lacks intelligence as an ability score. Much in the same way that *most* characters lack a Divine Rank entirely, rather than a rank of 0 (which is already considered a step towards divinity).

As far as clothes and skin, they are assumed to have a bonus of 0 to both AC and Natural AC respectively. In theory one could apply negative numbers to both, via cursed items for example (jester's outfit -1, or amulet of natural softness anyone?). While no creature does currently have a negative Natural AC, it could be a horrible effect of magical tampering, or perhaps someone with extremely sensitive skin. The same could be said for even protective armor with a (again theoretical) Max Dex Bonus of -1 or lower due to hindering of evasive movement.
 

Notmousse said:
The same could be said for even protective armor with a (again theoretical) Max Dex Bonus of -1 or lower due to hindering of evasive movement.

There's no such thing as a Dex Bonus of -1; that would be a Dex Penalty.

-Hyp.
 

Sejs said:
Actually that's the issue at hand. An ooze doesn't have a 0 int, they have a non-stat (-) int. For comparison, it'd be like casting Bear's Endurance on undead.

If you awakened the ooze via Awaken Ooze, such that it then had an int score, then you could Fox's Cunning it all day long. Though to be fair, at that point the ooze should be required to wear a graduate's cap at all times. :p

Sejs, as usual, you are correct. I have always enjoyed reading your posts and this one is no different. That being said, Id allow it against RAW just because my DM fiat is governed by what I find funny. Oozes realizing they are oozes definitely falls under that category.
 

Hypersmurf said:
There's no such thing as a Dex Bonus of -1; that would be a Dex Penalty.

-Hyp.
Yes, but it's generally known as Max Dex Bonus (or just Max Dex). With that value at a -1 it may as well be totally renamed Min Dex Penalty.
 

Notmousse said:
Yes, but it's generally known as Max Dex Bonus (or just Max Dex). With that value at a -1 it may as well be totally renamed Min Dex Penalty.

It's not just 'known as' Max Dex Bonus; it is Max Dex Bonus. It's a limitation on the maximum Dexterity bonus to AC that can apply while wearing the armor.

Thus, a value of -1 is not possible; it's like discussing a maximum Strength score of -1. The concept simply doesn't exist.

-Hyp.
 

IamTheTest said:
Id allow it against RAW just because my DM fiat is governed by what I find funny. Oozes realizing they are oozes definitely falls under that category.
Ditto. I had a similar situation where the PC's were trying to get a cloud giant skeleton (typically untrainable and unimaginative) to use a hat of disguise. We decided that fox's cunning would allow the skeleton to activate the hat.

The resulting disguise was more like a poorly drawn anime mecha than the intended war-forged titan image, but it at least prevented the local townsfolk from the burning the PC's at the stake.
 

Hypersmurf said:
It's not just 'known as' Max Dex Bonus; it is Max Dex Bonus. It's a limitation on the maximum Dexterity bonus to AC that can apply while wearing the armor.

Thus, a value of -1 is not possible; it's like discussing a maximum Strength score of -1. The concept simply doesn't exist.

-Hyp.
Talking RAW you're correct a 'bonus' shouldn't include possibilities for a negative number (unless you're playing 2e where many such times did it occur). However the concept is laid out that the MDB is how much a character's dexterity is limited by the armor for AC purposes. At which point it's completely reasonable (especially in heavier armors) for this number to actually be a negative number, representing that it makes your movements less nimble than the average person's, but would likewise (to have any use to your average adventurerer, low dex or not) provide amazing protective values all it's own (DR, AC bonus higher than 14 or so, that sort of thing).
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top