Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 105093" data-attributes="member: 2011">Well Caliban, I’m glad that we agree for the most part. Almost sounds anti-climatic, eh? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />As for the ones we disagree on, I’ll post my reasons and maybe you could let me know why we disagree.I think that this is a case of “should be”. I agree with you that this is what should happen. However, I disagree that the rules allow for it. Remember, I prefaced my statements that I was going to take a literal interpretation of the rules.The Buckler description does not mention two handed weapons. It does, however, list what weapons it can be used with. Hence, like other shields, it cannot be used with one. How could one assume that it could?Again, a literal interpretation of several rules does prevent this. Thank Artoomis for being kind enough to explain so that a dense person like myself would understand. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />The bottom line is that 5-foot steps do not provoke AoOs (see glossary). The AoO rules only allow one 5-foot step per round. So, if you made two 5-foot steps per round and were in a threatened area each time, you would break the AoO rules (effectively).Again, this is a “how it should work” interpretation. Nothing in the spell indicates that it does this. Nothing in the movement rules indicate that Swimming is based off of Flight speed.The book is fairly clear on the differences between Flying, Swimming, and even Burrowing (i.e. you cannot use the Fly spell to move through the ground either).I concur.Hmmm.This again seems to be a “should of” case or possibly a “personal bias” case.The sentence states two things:1) “The weapon negates the damage reduction of evil creatures and”2) “is capable of striking evil incorporeal creatures as if it had a +1 enchantment”The first half is fairly succinct and has nothing to do with the second half. Negates means negates.The second half does not give a +1 enchantment against all evil creatures, only incorporeal ones. Incorporeal creatures as per the DMG need +1 enchantment weapons (as one means) to harm them. So without this portion of the sentence, an incorporeal creature which lost its damage reduction would not be harmed by the weapon. Hence, the need for this portion of the sentence.I cannot even understand the opposing interpretation. Sorry. What am I missing?A melee touch spell is an armed attack (PHB 125). It is not a melee weapon. An unarmed attack is mostly indentical to a melee weapon (PHB 140), but it does subdual damage, so it could not coup de grace either.Where does it state that a melee touch spell is a melee weapon?There is a difference between a melee attack and a melee weapon, or a ranged attack and a ranged weapon.According to Time Stop, “you are free to act for 1D4+1 rounds of apparent time”.If it stated 1D4+1 actions, I would agree with you.Haste states “On his turn, the subject may take an extra partial action, either before or after his regular action.” The definition of turn is “The portion of each combat round in which a particular character acts.”So, since you get 1D4+1 rounds, you get 1D4+1 turns: one per “round”. It just so happens that nobody else gets a turn between your turns within those “rounds”.Again, this sounds like a “should of” rule interpretation, but literally, why would you lose ANY benefits of your 1D4+1 rounds? You do not lose movement actions. You do not lose standard actions. You do not lose free actions. Why would you lose the extra partial action for being Hasted?Do you lose your extra jumping distance when Time Stopped and Hasted? If so, then you can only jump 1.5x as far on 1 of the D4+1 rounds, not all of them.Here, I can understand your interpretation. I just think that literally, a turn is a portion of a round, you get 1D4+1 rounds, hence, you get 1D4+1 turns as well.</blockquote>

Verification