What are the biggest rules debates?

[Scion]

One of my players has an elk animal companion, it has a pretty mean grapple check.

It doesnt even have hands.

It still grapples pretty well though

 

[FireLance]

A recent rules debate I have seen is about whether or not a warmage can benefit from the rainbow servant prc.

Of course he benefits - he gets the increase in caster level, he gets the wings, he gets access to the granted powers of the Air, Law and Good domains.

But (and I think this is what you're asking) he doesn't get to add the domain spells to the list of his spells known. A similar case is that of the Silver Flame Pyromancer from Five Nations, who gets access to the paladin spell list. There, it is specifically stated that wizards can add the spells to their spellbook as normal, sorcerers can select them as spells known or swop them out, but spontaneous casters who know all the spells on their spell list such as the warmage gain no benefit from this.

That said, I'd allow a warmage/rainbow servant or a warmage/silver flame pyromancer to use his expanded knowledge class feature to gain an evocation spell from a domain he has access to or from the paladin spell list respectively, provided he meets all the other requirements (it is of a level he can cast, for example).

 

[dcollins]

Are there or are there not rules for attacking with a light weapon while in a grapple? If you can do that, then you don't need to be unarmed in order to grapple.

Such an attack is not a grapple attack. It is using a weapon while under the "grappled" condition.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Such an attack is not a grapple attack. It is using a weapon while under the "grappled" condition.

But can someone initiate a grapple while wielding a dagger (in order to subsequently use a weapon while under the "grappled" condition without having to draw said weapon after the grapple is initiated)?

-Hyp.

 

[dcollins]

Hyp, I'm still curious about my previous two questions.

 

[Hypersmurf]

You can make a melee attack (unarmed strike).

Can you, though? The PHB divides attacks into Attack (melee), Attack (ranged), and Attack (unarmed)...

Do you agree that the line "If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity" was added in 3.5, and does not exist in the 3.0 core rules?

Absolutely. As for whether the rule exists in absence of the line, I'm still undecided

Do you agree that unarmed attacks satisfy the 3.0 core rules definition of "threaten"?

Undecided

-Hyp.

 

[dcollins]

Do you agree that unarmed attacks satisfy the 3.0 core rules definition of "threaten"?

Undecided

Well, let's see here. From the 3.0 glossary p. 282:

threaten: To be able to make an attack of opportunity against an opponent within reach. Creatures threaten all areas into which they can make melee attacks, even when it's not their turn to take an action.

unarmed attack: A melee attack made with no weapon in hand.

So what's there to be undecided about?

 

[Staffan]

One of my players has an elk animal companion, it has a pretty mean grapple check.

It doesnt even have hands.

It still grapples pretty well though

See http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=200

 

[Scion]

See http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=200

I was just commenting on the, 'hand to hand' nature of grappling, even though it is not required

 

[irdeggman]

Anyone else see how silly this is for a thread?

What are the biggest rules debates?

Since they are biggest rules debates that means they are longest threads and then by lumping them together it will just make this the longerst thread (with no resolution - hence the debate).

Should close this thread before it swallows the world.