My little Beholder, or: new cheese

[Infiniti2000]

I don't think there are any rules on cover within the same square. Can the wizard have cover from a creature located in his square (such as the toad familiar)? This creates an issue with tower shields and, say, stirges. Technically, someone with a tower shield could become immune to stirges if the shield provides them with total cover.

 

[Pielorinho]

I don't think there are any rules on cover within the same square. Can the wizard have cover from a creature located in his square (such as the toad familiar)?

My proposal is that hte familiar be in the square above the wizard, not in the same square.

At any rate, the most important bit of cheese is, I think, having some ability to focus an Antimagic Field. The field's main drawback is that it covers a spellcaster under most circumstances, or at least that it requires a Ring of Spell Storing and a negation of another character's other magic items. If it can be directed so that it affects an enemy but not an ally, then it becomes much more powerful.

But since you can't cast it on a familiar (except through a ring of spell storing), it's not nearly so munchkinny a trick as I feared.

Daniel

 

[Infiniti2000]

There's no way that the wizard's hat, no matter how intricate, would not be considered in the same square as the wizard. It also is totally irrelevant whether you assume the wizard takes up one vertical voxel or two, the wizard is located in one or both, respectively. The conclusion to this, however, is that the toad and wizard must occupy at least the same square.

So, let's use the stipulation of a ring of spell storing and specially crafted 'hard hat' made of adamantine. There's still the issue of whether cover can be achieved from the same square, and I don't think it can.

 

[Pielorinho]

There's no way that the wizard's hat, no matter how intricate, would not be considered in the same square as the wizard.

Why not? Imagine a hat consisting of a toboggan with a 10' long tail on it, and the toad sits in the end of the tail. Does the toad occupy the same square as the wizard? If so, does this mean that the wizard threatens a square 10' behind him?

Now consider that the wizard uses hair spray on his toboggan's tail until it statnds straight up. How does this alter the circumstances?

Now consider that the tail is gradually shortened. How does this alter the circumstances?

It seems perfectly reasonable to me to say that parts of the silly hat may occupy a different square from the wizard.

Daniel

 

[Infiniti2000]

Does the toad occupy the same square as the wizard?

Yes. Any equipment the wizard possesses occupies the same square (Space) as the wizard. Unless you can point out in the rules where an exception is made, I'm sure that this is the case. Otherwise, you get some really strange and undefined situations. To be fair, however, I can't find a direct quote that proves my stance.

 

[Pielorinho]

Yes. Any equipment the wizard possesses occupies the same square (Space) as the wizard.

Okay. The wizard has a 10' long tail on his hat. The frog sits on the end of the tail, thereby occupying the same space as the wizard.

The party's fighter gets a bright idea: she kicks the frog off the end of the tail, and stands on the end of the tail herself. Now she occupies the same space as the wizard, right? And so she threatens all squares around the wizard.

It's the perfect defense for a spellcaster!

Next up: a wizard who carries a ball of yarn with him and trails it through a dungeon, giving him line of effect and line of sight to every square in the dungeon over which he's passed.

I might not be able to cite a specific rule, but I can cite common sense .

Daniel

 

[Thanee]

Well, there is always the Antimagic Aura, which has target: one creature.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Deset Gled]

I might not be able to cite a specific rule, but I can cite common sense .

Daniel

I think the rules you need to be considering here are the ones regarding attended objects (not necessarily possession of objects). You could have something trailing behind you attached by a cloth very easily, but I don't think that could be considered attended. I think that if you had the familiar far enough away from you that he was in a different square, he (or the hat he was in) could not be considered attended. This would change what values are used for things like AC and saving throws.

 

[Pielorinho]

I think the rules you need to be considering here are the ones regarding attended objects (not necessarily possession of objects). You could have something trailing behind you attached by a cloth very easily, but I don't think that could be considered attended. I think that if you had the familiar far enough away from you that he was in a different square, he (or the hat he was in) could not be considered attended. This would change what values are used for things like AC and saving throws.

I agree with you on this.

Daniel

 

[Infiniti2000]

I might not be able to cite a specific rule, but I can cite common sense .

You specifically asked for rules. I'm merely pointing out that part of the basis of your scenario is either not supported by the rules or at least not defined by the rules. If you create a houserule that allows you to create a hat with Reach, go for it, but at least let us know at the beginning. Of course, anything you do after that houserule is suspect. If you don't think it's a houserule, then prove your position in the rules. If you don't think it's a houserule and can't prove it (or don't care to), then the whole scenario is suspect as well and at the very least it's worth pointing out. However, feel free to make jokes at my expense because, you know, that always helps to insult people who offer opinions.