Spell Storing Weapon: Best choices?

[Jondor_Battlehammer]

No problem, stike for subdual damage, and forgo your modifiers. You might miss, but if you hit, you heal an equal amount of subdual HPs as real ones, so your good.

 

[Gaiden]

I would always go for spell storing so long as there was a magic user in the group. In terms of which spell - that depends on what type of combatant you are. If you hit hard and hit often, a utiltiy effect might be wasted because more than likely you will just kill whomever you hit. Thus the added extra damage from any of the targeted attack spells would be great. If however you are more of a tactical fighter-type, blindness, bestow curse, slow, or poison would all be devastating.

 

[Infiniti2000]

No problem, stike for subdual damage, and forgo your modifiers. You might miss, but if you hit, you heal an equal amount of subdual HPs as real ones, so your good.

And what about #3? You ignored that.

 

[Rel]

And what about #3? You ignored that.

I'd take the position that you are allowed to designate who is and is not an enemy to your character at any time you wish. If the party Fighter got Dominated and moved to attack the party Wizard would you argue that you couldn't make a Trip attack on him as he moved past on the basis that you hadn't considered him an enemy before?

 

[Infiniti2000]

I'd take the position that you are allowed to designate who is and is not an enemy to your character at any time you wish. If the party Fighter got Dominated and moved to attack the party Wizard would you argue that you couldn't make a Trip attack on him as he moved past on the basis that you hadn't considered him an enemy before?

Sure, he could. I didn't say the designation of enemy or ally couldn't change. But, I'm pretty sure that NimrodvanHall intended the 'party member' to be an ally. Also, note that 'enemy' has the defintion "A creature unfriendly to you." The dominated fighter is clearly an enemy. 'Ally' also has a definition, "A creature friendly to you. In most cases, references to "allies" include yourself."

So, what happens when someone moves past you and you don't know if that someone is friendly or not? To each his own, but the rules aren't clear on that point. I'd go with your position though and let the character decide. Or, perhaps some method of bluff and sense motive, or perhaps through diplomacy (if there was time). Etc.

 

[Rel]

Sure, he could. I didn't say the designation of enemy or ally couldn't change. But, I'm pretty sure that NimrodvanHall intended the 'party member' to be an ally. Also, note that 'enemy' has the defintion "A creature unfriendly to you." The dominated fighter is clearly an enemy. 'Ally' also has a definition, "A creature friendly to you. In most cases, references to "allies" include yourself."

So, what happens when someone moves past you and you don't know if that someone is friendly or not? To each his own, but the rules aren't clear on that point. I'd go with your position though and let the character decide. Or, perhaps some method of bluff and sense motive, or perhaps through diplomacy (if there was time). Etc.

I know we're in the Rules forum but I think you're being too "rulesy".

Attacks of Opportunity are gained when someone "lets their guard down" within your threatened area. I'd say that almost by definition allies are going to have their guard down with regards to your PC. Thus they would meet the general criteria for provoking Attacks of Opportunity from their allies all the time. But since it is almost never in anybody's interest to attack an ally, this is glossed over in the interest of time.

I would allow a PC to take an Attack of Opportunity on any ally at any time they chose, provided that one was provoked and provided that they are willing to live with the inter-party consequences.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I know we're in the Rules forum but I think you're being too "rulesy".

Thanks. I'll take that as a compliment.

I would allow a PC to take an Attack of Opportunity on any ally at any time they chose, provided that one was provoked and provided that they are willing to live with the inter-party consequences.

That's fine for a houserule, but consider the impact it will have on your game, most notably slowing things down tremendously as (1) people consider if they plan on taking AoO against their allies and possibly re-designating others as allies or not, (2) the intraparty conflict could escalate tremendously and although YMMV most people consider PvP 'bad' in tabletop RPGs, and (3) the players figure out ways to abuse this, wasting even more time.

 

[Rel]

That's fine for a houserule, but consider the impact it will have on your game, most notably slowing things down tremendously as (1) people consider if they plan on taking AoO against their allies and possibly re-designating others as allies or not, (2) the intraparty conflict could escalate tremendously and although YMMV most people consider PvP 'bad' in tabletop RPGs, and (3) the players figure out ways to abuse this, wasting even more time.

1) 99.9% of the time they won't plan on taking any AoO's on allies or "re-designating others as allies". The extra time this would cost me is the 1 in 1,000 time when they say, "Can I Trip the Wizard as he walks by so he has a bonus to AC vs. all those archers that just appeared?" and I say, "Sure."

2) The "intraparty conflict" probably wouldn't escalate past the Wizard saying, "Next time just tell me to duck!"

3) My players can barely understand the existing AoO rules, much less ways to exploit taking AoO's on each other to their advantage.

 

[Kilroy]

Depends on what books you can use. If you're using BoVD, Lahm's finger darts is great. If you're using BoED, Lastai's Caress is also great.

 

[Jondor_Battlehammer]

I didn't ignore it, it's just a matter of not having the perfect spell stored. Ain't no such thing.

As far as AoO on allies, an AoO is on ANYONE that provokes one. Its just assumed you won't take them on anyone who is stratigically advantageous to your cause.