There is one thing about the Scout that annoys me

[Sanackranib]

. . .As for Rogues evasion, I use common sense. If theres nothing to get behind or tumble to for some kind of cover, or getting around a corner, etc. the Rogue is screwed. . .

you say that you blatently remove core class abilities, and remove a class that not a lot of people play anyway? because of an ability that comes at a level most games never reach? why even play the game at all? most of the abilities granted by the monk make no sence, do you disreguard the monk as well? what about fighters, basically they have no class skills, is THAT beliveable? to play this game there is a lot to take with a grain of salt. thats a fact. but worring about abilities that the players will likely never reach, when a level 3 or 4 spell or a couple of feats can do the same thing . . .seems to me like you are missing the point.

 

[Slife]

I don't think we are reading the same spell. Being asleep is not magic that impedes movement. And even if he could move, he can't take an action of any kind, so no sleep walking scouts.

But it says:

This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell

and then goes on to say that it even works in situations where magic would normally prevent you from doing so.

What the spell does not say is:

This spell enables you or a creature you touch to ignore any magical effects which would prevent you from moving and attacking normally for the duration of the spell

If you interpret the spell literally enough to consider a petrified creature under its influence to be unable to be grappled, you should also interpret the spell literally enough to allow a petrified creature under its influence to be able to move around and attack. It's RAW vs RAI.


Of course, by RAW the petrified creature would be STUPID to fight in that condition, as since they're helpless they'd still be subject to Coup de Graces.


Yes, I am aware this is a highly ridiculous claim I'm making about the spell's use. The spell could be worded much more clearly.

 

[pawsplay]

This is not RAW vs. RAI, which is a ridiculous distinction. Rules require interpretation. This is RAW versus "I don't think FoM should work that way for petrification." Removing one line of a spell from context does not prove anything.

Did you know Shield Other causes you to take damage when your allies attack goblins? Says right here:

Additionally, the subject takes only half damage from all wounds and attacks (including that dealt by special abilities) that deal hit point damage.

Fortunately, they take only half. Is that the RAW? No, that's the RAWM (Rules as willfully misinterpreted).

As nearly as I can tell, FoM does not protect you from transformations, nor does it have any effect on unconscious characters. This applies equally to the spell and the Scout ability. The spell protects against impediments.

If you interpret the spell literally enough to consider a petrified creature under its influence to be unable to be grappled, you should also interpret the spell literally enough to allow a petrified creature under its influence to be able to move around and attack.

Why? There is no logical correction whatsoever. If you agree Chewbacca is a wookiee, you must release my client.

As nearly as I can tell, FoM does prevent peterified characters from being grappled.

 

[Felon]

If you interpret the spell literally enough to consider a petrified creature under its influence to be unable to be grappled, you should also interpret the spell literally enough to allow a petrified creature under its influence to be able to move around and attack.

Why? There is no logical correction whatsoever. If you agree Chewbacca is a wookiee, you must release my client.

As nearly as I can tell, FoM does prevent peterified characters from being grappled.

If your point is that this is asanine discussion, I wholeheartedly agree.

I mean, anybody can go through the PHB and find things that aren't explicitly stated because it's assumed to be implicit--people need legs to walk, people need mouths to eat, statues can't wrestle, and so forth--and then offer the logic that anything that isn't expressly forbidden is allowed, and anything that isn't expressly required is optional. Forget grappling petrified characters, let's talk about grappling without arms and legs for a while, and how the rules fail to differentiate between a human being and a boa constrictor. That'd be a totally valid conversation, right?

 

[Marchen]

Scouts constantly lube themselves up with grease so they can slip free if they're ever grappled. It's in the rulebook. I think.

 

[Sunderstone]

you say that you blatently remove core class abilities,

umm... no. In a room larger than 20' (or a room with objects in it) the rogue can be evasion happy as he sees fit. There will be an area he is presumed to jump clear of the 20' radius fireball.
If hes trapped in a 20' square featureless room, he cant dodge the damage completely is what Im saying. Evasion skipping damage will not come into play simply because he assumes the fetal position. He is not immune to fire and Fireball is 20' radius spell iirc. He can still save normally for 1/2 dmg etc.

As for monks making no sense, they seem fine to me, and Fighters have a decent amount of class skills albeit better suited to their nature (mostly physical skills). Taking a grain of salt from time to time is fine. But I draw the line in places that I feel need a chalkline. Im not missing the point, you just arent seeing mine.
Additionally "why play at all?" isnt a valid point. I dont allow Scouts, and I dont agree with you in particular that Monks are unbalanced or Fighters have very little class skills so I guess I should quit playing D&D according to you. Umm... ok. Ill mail you my books as I dont need them anymore, thanks for setting me straight.

 

[Nifft]

umm... no. In a room larger than 20' (or a room with objects in it) the rogue can be evasion happy as he sees fit. There will be an area he is presumed to jump clear of the 20' radius fireball.
If hes trapped in a 20' square featureless room, he cant dodge the damage completely is what Im saying. Evasion skipping damage will not come into play simply because he assumes the fetal position. He is not immune to fire and Fireball is 20' radius spell iirc. He can still save normally for 1/2 dmg etc.

Is your imagination limited to seeing a fireball spell as a "solid mass of flame" [sic]?

Perhaps a fireball is actually a burst of laser-like rays (out to 20 ft. range) originating from the little red seed. The Rogue can arch her back and avoid them just fine.

There's no reason to limit your imagination to one dimension. The flames might be the image of the effect, not the underlying mechanism of the effect.

Evasion should work just like it says it works.

Cheers, -- N

 

[pawsplay]

If your point is that this is asanine discussion, I wholeheartedly agree.

I mean, anybody can go through the PHB and find things that aren't explicitly stated because it's assumed to be implicit--people need legs to walk, people need mouths to eat, statues can't wrestle, and so forth--and then offer the logic that anything that isn't expressly forbidden is allowed, and anything that isn't expressly required is optional. Forget grappling petrified characters, let's talk about grappling without arms and legs for a while, and how the rules fail to differentiate between a human being and a boa constrictor. That'd be a totally valid conversation, right?

Do the rules need to differentiate grappling a boa constrictor versus a human? I don't think I'm grasping the arena of your argument.

I don't claim to know what Freedom of Movement is supposed to do, I can only try to guess from what's written there. And whatever's written there, that's the ability the Scout was given, for intentions that again, I cannot know, I can only guess at. Perhaps the Scout author didn't inspect FoM carefully and never noticed some of the curious questions it raises; I don't know. I do know that nothing in the rules tells me petrification nullifies FoM in any respect, that helpless characters automatically fail grapple checks, or that FoM is not intended to work exactly as it seems to by my reading.

If Freedom of Movement allows you to jog in water and use a rapier, it presumably has some amazing effect, and why shouldn't it continue to operate even when the subject is stopped cold through some other method? For all I know, it gives you some weird friction field.

 

[AesophDarkfable]

umm... no. In a room larger than 20' (or a room with objects in it) the rogue can be evasion happy as he sees fit. There will be an area he is presumed to jump clear of the 20' radius fireball.
If hes trapped in a 20' square featureless room, he cant dodge the damage completely is what Im saying. Evasion skipping damage will not come into play simply because he assumes the fetal position. He is not immune to fire and Fireball is 20' radius spell iirc. He can still save normally for 1/2 dmg etc.

As for monks making no sense, they seem fine to me, and Fighters have a decent amount of class skills albeit better suited to their nature (mostly physical skills). Taking a grain of salt from time to time is fine. But I draw the line in places that I feel need a chalkline. Im not missing the point, you just arent seeing mine.
Additionally "why play at all?" isnt a valid point. I dont allow Scouts, and I dont agree with you in particular that Monks are unbalanced or Fighters have very little class skills so I guess I should quit playing D&D according to you. Umm... ok. Ill mail you my books as I dont need them anymore, thanks for setting me straight.

Im still flabergasted you can imagine a fireball and all the other crazy spells but cant imagine dodging one. Your playing a game with fireballs and dragons afterall...

 

[Kem]

umm... no. In a room larger than 20' (or a room with objects in it) the rogue can be evasion happy as he sees fit. There will be an area he is presumed to jump clear of the 20' radius fireball.
If hes trapped in a 20' square featureless room, he cant dodge the damage completely is what Im saying. Evasion skipping damage will not come into play simply because he assumes the fetal position. He is not immune to fire and Fireball is 20' radius spell iirc. He can still save normally for 1/2 dmg etc.

As for monks making no sense, they seem fine to me, and Fighters have a decent amount of class skills albeit better suited to their nature (mostly physical skills). Taking a grain of salt from time to time is fine. But I draw the line in places that I feel need a chalkline. Im not missing the point, you just arent seeing mine.
Additionally "why play at all?" isnt a valid point. I dont allow Scouts, and I dont agree with you in particular that Monks are unbalanced or Fighters have very little class skills so I guess I should quit playing D&D according to you. Umm... ok. Ill mail you my books as I dont need them anymore, thanks for setting me straight.

DM: "I'm sorry there are no features in this room for you to hide behind"
Player: "I hide behind the fighter"