Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Caliban" data-source="post: 104184" data-attributes="member: 284">I didn't really want to get into this, but I have to disagree here.   It doesn't always clearly spell out what happens.  I demonstrate later where you think the book clearly says one thing, and I read the same text and reach a different conclusion.   (And of course I think my conclusion is the one that is clearly spelled out. )This is why I haven't really commented on this list of Artoomis's yet.   I was involved in most of the debates about these rules the first time around, and just don't have the energy to do it a 5th or 6th time.  I'll comment on your comments, because I'm lazy and you already got the relevent stuff quoted for me.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />I think it's clear that you can use a buckler with a 2-handed weapon, but you lose any AC bonus if you attack with the weapon, and I think you would get a -1 penalty on your attack roll.   I'm willing to agree that the -1 penalty is ambiguous if you go by a strict semantic reading.  (You use a two-handed weapon with your off-hand, but you are wielding an off-hand weapon?)I agree that a strict reading of the spell indicates that Mind Blank blocks any divinations about the subject, including True Strike. See Invisibility wouldn't be blocked because it's negating the invisibility spell, not divining information about the subject directly. I can see where the author's intent might have been to only block scrying and divinations about the subjects mental state or thoughts. I agree with KD.  I agree with KD. I agree with KD.I still think that a strict reading of the rules allows a second 5-foot step when hasted, but I'm admit that I might be biased on this.  (I think it helps melee fighters more than wizards, and thus gives them a needed boost when it comes to using the haste spell. )  So if it's my own house rule, so be it. I disagree here.   I think the spell grants a 45 speed underwater.   (Counted as you automatically making your swim check with a speed of 90.)    The spell lets you move in any direction without a visible means of propulsion.   I fail to see how water would interfere with this any more than it would with normal movement. I agree that it is ambiguous.  I favor the "Three connected squares along one edge of your square" placement.  It divides the battlefield in half along that line, you are just on one side or the other, it doesn't go through you. I agree that it is ambiguous, although I tend more toward the "It simply doubles your base Speed score" school of thought.  I agree, although I don't think it's Obscure.  I think the Sage is wrong on this one. I agree with KD, although I've come around to the view that while Guantlets are unarmed weapons, but they are not weapons on the Monk list.  If you choose to use them as weapons, you can't use your monk unarmed abilities with them.   This is different than the position I originally had on the issue. Guantlets and Helms are items that can be included with armor, but are not necessarily armor themselves (since they don't have any of the normal armor traits). I agree with KD.  Barbarian DR does not allow a barbarian to bypass a creatures DR. I agree that it is not ambiguous, but I think the spell states that it bypasses the DR of Evil creatures as if it had a +1 enhancement bonus, and allows you to hit Evil incorporeal creatures as if has a +1 enhancement bonus.   It's not worded as clearly as it could have been, but I think that's the only reasonable way to read the spell. This is one of those cases where two people can read the same text and reach completely different conclusions, and both think the text is clear. I agree with KD.   I also wouldn't let a player get away with this, instead following the intent of the spell. I disagree.   A melee touch spell is a melee weapon, just as an unarmed attack is a melee weapon.    You can also Coup De Grace with ranged weapons if you are in the next square (as stated in the PHB in the Coup de Grace description). I disagree.  I think it's obscure, but not ambiguous.   Here's the way I believe it works:Haste gives you an extra action before or after your normal action. Time Stop gives you 1d4+1 rounds of "apparent time" during your normal action. You get one extra partial action from haste  on the round you cast timestop, before or after the extra rounds from timestop,  but you don't get any extra partial actions during the timestop rounds.</blockquote>

Verification