Tumble too powerful?

[N'raac]

Clearly, this isn't a question of rules mastery since it's not at all the intent of the writers and designers. It's a question of munchkinism, which depends on twisting the interpretation of the rules to achieve corrupted results. Rules mastery leads to shutting this kind of garbage down for what it is, the munchkin trying to take advantage of someone who reads the text but doesn't understand.

He says it better than I ever could, so...

Because it's an RPG character, not a tax return.

 

[N'raac]

But you still need a clear line of effect "to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect".

I really should not have to repeat that to someone who challenges others' reading comprehension, but que sera.

Anyone else there want to tell me that I'm missing the boat, here's a page reference, of course you can cast spells around corners, we've always played with a wizard and a spotter? I do have to agree that a vote of 1 to 1 isn't overly persuasive as to a norm in most games.

I'll take a page and a half of comment from various posters as a "no" to anyone else ignoring the "line of effect" rule, subject to someone with a page cite setting me straight.

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

I'll take a page and a half of comment from various posters as a "no" to anyone else ignoring the "line of effect" rule, subject to someone with a page cite setting me straight.

Oh, man, poorly-constructed personal attacks and inability to read rules? How could I ever question such brilliance?

 

[Morrus]

OK folks: ad hominem attacks are not appropriate. Disagree with someone's opinion all you like, but not by attacking the person - that means no dispersions to each others' mental competency, reading comprehension, little passive-aggressive jabs, or other insults. Next person to do something like that will be asked to leave the thread. It's an interesting debate; let's not ruin it with namecalling.

 

[tomBitonti]

While I see the merit to that position, does it not suggest Concentration to cast a spell defensively ought also to be an opposed roll? Is the roll to determine whether you are able to avoid the target's attack (such that a more skilled opponent is more likely to get that attack in), or to avoid presenting a special opportunity for him to take that attack (flat DC)? Maybe there ought to be an opposed roll before it is assumed my action dropped my defenses to even allow my attacker a free shot.

Yes, it does, and I've tried to make a formula that works for Casting Defensively, but haven't yet found one that works and that is easy to use. Plus, that both Casting Defensively and Casting Offensively start to overlap in a very messy way.

Note that Concentrating while maintaining a spell does have a variable DC, based on the level of the spell being cast, and, depending on the circumstances, including an amount of damage haven taken.

And, House Rule and all ... while I prefer a variable DC, still have to convince other folks to use the modified rule. The table had no resistance to the Tumbling rule, but has had resistance to modifying Casting Defensively.

Thx!

TomB

 

[delericho]

Conjurer with Uncanny Forethought, Celerity tree, and that immediate teleport from DotU. You're welcome, and the conjurer is completely unecessary. I, personally, prefer elven generalists, but the immediate teleports are really cool.

The Celerity spells are Immediate Actions, and so cannot be used when flat-footed. They can't be used to help you win initiative.

Dexterity let's say 14 if you're an elf, so +2+4(Improved Initiative)+4(Hummingbird familiar)+5(Nerveskitter),

Funnily enough, the Nerveskitter spell is also an Immediate Action, and so cannot be used while flat-footed. As written, that spell is actually utterly useless - it is impossible to cast it at any time it would be of any use.

And even if you determine that the designers obviously didn't mean to write a literally useless spell, it's worth noting that a wand of nerveskitter won't work -the activation time on a wand is a Standard Action, unless the spell being used has a longer casting time.

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

The Celerity spells are Immediate Actions, and so cannot be used when flat-footed. They can't be used to help you win initiative.

I hear Contingency is a cool spell you know. As I said, casters always win initiative.

Funnily enough, the Nerveskitter spell is also an Immediate Action, and so cannot be used while flat-footed. As written, that spell is actually utterly useless - it is impossible to cast it at any time it would be of any use.

Yes, but that's absurd enough I refuse to take that into consideration, just as I view talking as a way to break Flat-Footed, or the concentrated mass of idiocy and poor design that is the Psionic Artificer.

And even if you determine that the designers obviously didn't mean to write a literally useless spell, it's worth noting that a wand of nerveskitter won't work -the activation time on a wand is a Standard Action, unless the spell being used has a longer casting time.

Actually, that's wrong. Rules Compendium is cool like that.

 

[delericho]

I hear Contingency is a cool spell you know. As I said, casters always win initiative.

It's also a 6th level spell. Frankly, the casters should have the game well broken by that point. Plus, you'd better have that contingency worded just right, because otherwise it won't kick in before you roll initiative. (And no, you can't say, "when I roll initiative", because that's strictly metagame.)

Yes, but that's absurd enough I refuse to take that into consideration

Nonetheless, that is the RAW.

Actually, that's wrong. Rules Compendium is cool like that.

Fair enough - I'd checked the DMG for the rule, but not the RC. So, I stand corrected.

Nonetheless, a wand of nerveskitter remains of limited utility for a party - whoever holds the wand still only gets one Immediate Action, so he can cast it on himself or one ally, but not all. Though yes, that would mean the Wizard (almost) always wins initiative, provided he always has that wand in-hand.

(On the other hand, I consider that immediate-action wand of nerveskitter every bit as absurd as you do the fact that RAW makes the spell unusable. So I guess it's fair enough for me to void that, no?)

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

It's also a 6th level spell. Frankly, the casters should have the game well broken by that point.

Sure, but now they're completely invincible.

Plus, you'd better have that contingency worded just right, because otherwise it won't kick in before you roll initiative. (And no, you can't say, "when I roll initiative", because that's strictly metagame.)

And the specific effects of the spell are metagame, too. I hardly see a problem.

Nonetheless, that is the RAW.

Actually, it isn't. The errata explicitly states you can cast it while flat-footed.

Nonetheless, a wand of nerveskitter remains of limited utility for a party - whoever holds the wand still only gets one Immediate Action, so he can cast it on himself or one ally, but not all. Though yes, that would mean the Wizard (almost) always wins initiative, provided he always has that wand in-hand.

It breaks flat-footed.

(On the other hand, I consider that immediate-action wand of nerveskitter every bit as absurd as you do the fact that RAW makes the spell unusable. So I guess it's fair enough for me to void that, no?)

Nope. Because my finding it absurd is RAW, and your objection isn't. It is funny how that works, huh?

But, really, even if the errata didn't exist, it still wouldn't because my objection to the spell would be a simple matter of poor wording with obvious intent, whereas your would be simply "I don't like it."

 

[delericho]

- Deleted. There comes a point where the debate becomes too stupid even for me. -

You win.