Surprising Rule Synergy

[AdmundfortGeographer]

So, what surprising synergies have other people found in actual game-play?

I don't know if this is terribly broken or not, but I found it unexpected.

I have a character who is working up his way through the Holy Liberator class. I long ago picked the Leadership feat. As a 15th level character, and now a 6th level HL he acquires a celestial companion. After a nice special mission he has picked up a Bralani cohort/celestial companion (11th level equivalent, +2 more ECL to make it 13th level equivalent, following the DMG's guidelines for paladin special mounts and special cohorts).

Anyway the nice synergy is that a HL treats his celestial compantion as a special mount for the purposes of spells that specifically affect a paladin's special mount. When my HL casts heal mount... he's effectively casting heal on a Bralani.

Kind of found that a nifty thing.

 

[mvincent]

There are two circumstances in the Power Attack feat text where 2-for-1 damage is granted; when wielding a one-handed weapon in two hands (which he is not), and when wielding a two-handed weapon (which he is).

This is contrary to the 3.5 FAQ, which says:

"You can get a host of benefits from wielding a twohanded
weapon, such as 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus on
damage (and twice your damage bonus from the Power
Attack feat) and a +4 bonus on your opposed attack roll if
someone tries to disarm you. So when is a weapon “twohanded?”
For example, a lance is a two-handed weapon,
right? But you can wield it in one hand when you’re
mounted. Since the weapons table shows that a lance is a
two-handed weapon, I get all the two-handed benefits no
matter how I wield the lance, right?
Wrong. Table 7–5 in the Player’s Handbook lists weapons
as light, one-handed, or two-handed strictly as a matter of
convenience. These size categories are always relative to the
wielder’s size, as explained in some detail in the section on
weapon size on page 113 in the Player’s Handbook (also see
next question).
When the combat rules speak of “two-handed” weapons,
they’re referring to how the weapon is being used. A Medium
character using a Medium longsword in two hands is using a
“two-handed” weapon. The same character using a Medium
lance in one hand while mounted is using a one-handed
weapon. Light weapons are an exception. If you wield a light
weapon in two hands you get no advantage on damage (see
page 113 in the Player’s Handbook). Likewise, you always
take a –4 penalty on your opposed roll when you’re wielding a
light weapon in a disarm attempt (when someone tries to
disarm you or you try to disarm someone) regardless of
whether you wield it one- or two-handed."

There is nothing wrong with Hypersmurf's interpretation*, but knowledge of what the FAQ says can be important (especially for those attending games where the FAQ might be enforced, like in RPGA games).

* i.e. I personally have no desire to discuss or debate the issue. Rule as you wish.

 

[shilsen]

I don't know if this is terribly broken or not, but I found it unexpected.

I have a character who is working up his way through the Holy Liberator class. I long ago picked the Leadership feat. As a 15th level character, and now a 6th level HL he acquires a celestial companion. After a nice special mission he has picked up a Bralani cohort/celestial companion (11th level equivalent, +2 more ECL to make it 13th level equivalent, following the DMG's guidelines for paladin special mounts and special cohorts).

Anyway the nice synergy is that a HL treats his celestial compantion as a special mount for the purposes of spells that specifically affect a paladin's special mount. When my HL casts heal mount... he's effectively casting heal on a Bralani.

Kind of found that a nifty thing.

You're using some variant rules and major DM interpolation, so it's not surprising that there's unexpected synergy.

 

[Hypersmurf]

There is nothing wrong with Hypersmurf's interpretation*, but knowledge of what the FAQ says can be important (especially for those attending games where the FAQ might be enforced, like in RPGA games).

I've often found that knowledge that the FAQ says "the tables are only a matter of convenience" and "a longsword is a two-handed weapon" to be useful at times.

But probably not in the way they intended.

Interestingly, for what it's worth, I recently queried that FAQ answer with CustServ. Their response:

Thank you for contacting us.

Actually we have been waiting for that FAQ entry to either be changed or taken out for a while now. No, your one-handed weapon is not a two-handed weapon for figuring hardness, nor does your one-handed weapon cease to be such when wielding it in two hands. We are still in the process of trying to get this entry either removed or edited.

Take Care!

Zephreum.
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast

That cheered me immensely

-Hyp.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

You're using some variant rules and major DM interpolation, so it's not surprising that there's unexpected synergy.

I agree that is it a DM's own read of the rules, but I don't see where it is a "major DM interpolation". The paladin's getting special mount is already "at the DM's option." Seems rather pedestrian to me especially applying the DMG guideline of at least an additional +2 level adjustment to the ECL. The holy liberator entry mentions high-level HLs having powerful celestial allies from animals to ghaele eladrins. Major interpolation? *shrug*

I'm actually finding it to be a subpar choice in the end for a cohort/companion. All of the choices for holy liberator celestial companions, except the heavy war horse maybe (and my character is not built for mounted combat), are remarkably weak for the level they would minimally be acquired at. Except for the horses, they are about as fragile as a sorcerer's familiar and about as useful. Luckily as celestial companions are "called" magical beasts, like the paladin special mount, I don't have to have it around when I get into trouble. So I'm probably going to ask DM's permission to return to the plain old celestial house pet that I can instead not call and a bring back a wizard cohort. He had a nice combination of quickened enlarge person on my character followed by polymorph on my character into a troll or annis hag.

 

[Legildur]

As far as I can tell, he doesn't get it. The Charge action doesn't impose the -2 penalty to AC; the single attack you make after moving, as part of the Charge action, imposes the penalty. While you are still moving and before you make the attack, the penalty is yet to be imposed.

Hyp, I'm not seeing it that way, so I'd appreciate it some illumination as to the logic behind that.

The way I see it is that "ince a charge is a bit reckless, you also take a -2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn" [PHB p155] means that when you take the Charge action (a full round action in most circumstances) that you would suffer the penalty to AC for 1 round.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The way I see it is that "ince a charge is a bit reckless, you also take a -2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn" [PHB p155] means that when you take the Charge action (a full round action in most circumstances) that you would suffer the penalty to AC for 1 round.

Note that the Charge rules are split into a section on 'Movement during a Charge', and one on 'Attacking on a Charge'. The sentence you quote is in a paragraph in the 'Attacking on a Charge' section, that begins with 'After moving'.

You take the -2 to your AC until the start of your next turn. When? When attacking on a charge, after moving.

-Hyp.

 

[Legildur]

I see why you are referencing it like that, but does anyone actually play it that way? </rhetorical> This might be a good poll question

I guess I see the part where it says "a bit reckless" to meaning the movement across the battlefield.

For example, if you take at the situation where you are moving up to double your movement rate to engage an opponent, you are not able to make an attack at the end of your movement as you have used a Standard and Move action to do so.

The Charge (as a full round) action, on the other hand, allows you to cover the same distance and attack with a +2 bonus to the attack roll. This strongly implies that the movement is a "bit reckless", and hence the -2 penalty to AC, as it allows you achieve something not otherwise doable.

 

[Sammael]

As seen in my last night's session, Warforged Barbarian 4/Fighter 2/Warforged Juggernaut 5 with Combat Brute [Tactical] feat can be a terrifying thing indeed. The Warforged Juggernaut's bull rush bonuses + Greater Powerful Charge benefits + Combat Brute options synergize incredibly well. Maybe even a bit too well.

 

[KarinsDad]

I see why you are referencing it like that, but does anyone actually play it that way? </rhetorical> This might be a good poll question

I guess I see the part where it says "a bit reckless" to meaning the movement across the battlefield.

For example, if you take at the situation where you are moving up to double your movement rate to engage an opponent, you are not able to make an attack at the end of your movement as you have used a Standard and Move action to do so.

The Charge (as a full round) action, on the other hand, allows you to cover the same distance and attack with a +2 bonus to the attack roll. This strongly implies that the movement is a "bit reckless", and hence the -2 penalty to AC, as it allows you achieve something not otherwise doable.

I concur. I think the question just never came up with the designers.

It is not that you get a -2 AC penalty "after moving", it is that you get a single melee attack after moving. You get the -2 AC penalty since a charge is a bit reckless. If you declare the Charge full round action, then you are charging, regardless of whether you attack.

Since charging is a bit reckless, you also take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn.

This does not state:

Since charging and attacking is a bit reckless, you also take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn.

The problem with ruling that a charge is merely a double move until the creature actually makes an attack is that this can be abused. As long as the movement conditions are met, it is in everyone's advantage to do a charge instead of a double move and if nothing along the route causes a problem, then do the attack. There is no significant downside for not making the attack but declaring a Charge action anyway with that ruling.

Disallowing the -2 AC penalty for all charges, regardless of an attack, also means that the charging mount which does not attack does not get the penalty, even though the rider of the mount did attack.


I think the reason the movement section and the attack section are so deliniated is not because the bonus/penalty mechanics only apply to attacks, it is because there are several movement rules that have to be followed and the designers wanted to list them all in one location.