[OOC] Return to the Rusty Rat

[Torin]

EDIT
"10-ft.-radius emanation from touched creature"

What if the touched creature size is large, huge, gargantuan  or colossal?  IMHO the 10ft radius is calculated from the creature's edge "skin".

[Toot]

1. The spell uses the term "communicate" which may involve body language and motions in case of an intelligent monster. and honestly I haven't thought about it. I considered that Torin cannot speak with animals. A celestial bison has Int 3. Does it qualify for nonverbal communication?
Maybe a similar question; if a tamed or domestic animal hasn't been taught to follow orders by hand sign (like, a "trick" it could learn one sign to "attack" etc) then would it understand why its master raised its hand with all but one finger closed?
AFAIK most if not all animals if you point at something they think you want to draw their attention straight to your fingertip. Just like infants.

2. Sorry didn't miss the question but did miss the answer. I believe that the first time it came up we agreed that Toot cannot be sure how good an idea that would be but if he ordered the creatures to do so later then they would've been damaged by the process before even scratching the surface. What would a summoned creature do in that case? Continue the attempt at carrying out the order given or stop right there and then and look at the master quizzically in expectance of confirmation?

3. That's an interesting point you brought up considering the order of events, yes. What's more, I was pondering about whether standing up from prone would be part of movement or not since the warrior in question has Mobility (+4 dodge AC) but since none of the attacks would end differently with or without the +4 dodge AC it became irrelevant. From feasibility point of view; the dire wolves couldn't trip a prone opponent trying to stand up but they could try to grapple it or similar. Alternatively, intelligent creatures hunting as a pack could share parts of their tactics like three tearing at the opponent while prone (and AOO as standing up) while three others just guarding, readying an attack in case the creature wanted to leave that square. If the creature crawls; well that's AOO plus the readied attacks. If the creature stands then steps away then there go three readied attacks with the potential to trip. Just a few ideas.

This whole restricting mobility thing brought up my memory about freedom of movement which, in my interpretation, is quite powerful (maybe even broken?) for fourth level since its recipient can move in water unhindered and can't be paralyzed, slowed, held, or otherwise kept in place, including being grappled, let alone pinned.

OoC1: Actually I forgot the Bison were Celestial.  This came up in our IRL game and we decided that since it has a greater than animal intelligence that the creature should be able to understand (not speak) Celestial or whatever language of its plane of origin.

OoC2: Summoned creatures do what they are told including self-destructive orders.  If that means running them off a precipice into a Volcano, they do it.  If you wish to have summoning act differently in your world then that's your prerogative.  

It has always been my understanding that when Summoned creatures die or the spell ends, they just return from whence they came from as if nothing happened.  I personally doubt they even have any knowledge of what just happened to them (or in some cases, hellish nightmare they just endured).  Though I did get a chuckle thinking about that Unicorn Toot summoned returning to its native forest covered in Jermlaine droppings!    Because if they did remember or were damaged, I'm surprised there hasn't been a great uprising in the inner/outer planes, demanding wizards stop what they're doing!  Or at least a booming psychiatric business for summoned (abducted) creatures. 

OoC3:  I think you wouldn't get the benefits of Mobility when standing because it's not a true move action to stand from a prone position.  Though I might agree with Lugar in house ruling it does because those trip rules are nasty!  

In game, Dire Wolves only have animal intelligence so it's doubtful they could develop tactics like the one you described.  Unless you offer animals who attack in packs a +1 morale bonus to Intelligence when there is more than one creature.  Which isn't so far fetched.  A female wolf will stand (head under chin) so she is covering the throat of her mate if he is being challenged by a rival.  Which is pretty clever.  But this could be just an example of it's fairly high wisdom (12).

I wasn't sure if you could perform a grapple as part of an AoO but apparently you can.  If the Wolf can grapple as an AoO then that's what he should have done to the Skeleton because the point of Toot summoning the Dire Wolf was to trip the skeletons to give his smaller creatures, with crappy base attack bonuses, the +4 bonus for attacking a prone creature.

[Toot]

I have another question.  Since Thoqqua's can burrow through the ground they can move under the Skeleton and use their 5' reach to attack into the Skeleton's square.  Could they also do the same from adjacent squares beneath the ground by attacking on an upward diagonal angle?  Does that makes sense?

[DM Surranó]

Re suicidal orders; yes they are something like astral projections; the true body is not really there. but we still haven't clarified if Toot took the risk of digging as I originally (mis?)understood if there was a risk Toot wouldn't do it.

Re attack from burrowing; no I don't think any weapon, even any natural weapons of the earth elementals, would be effective through solid substance but if it was then theoretically a diagonal attack would be possible (in aerial or deepwater combat you have 26 adjacent cubes). It's worth mentioning though that most medium creatures' space is 2 cubes high so the abstraction gets even more abstract in 3D.

Re touches emanating from skin; you have a point there, not sure why you stroke through the whole thing. The three issues to clarify are:
1. when exactly does that count. I mean a frightening presence of a bigger creature is rightfully larger. A deflection-like stuff (and PfE/MCaE give deflection bonus) is rightfully calculated from surface. But would, for example, a turning attempt affect a larger area, and potentially more undead, just because that priest is an enlarged ogre, as compared to a tiny jermlaine?
2. how do you define "surface". I mean is it the same as space? or proportional to space, maybe depending on the proportions of the subject, like dwarves being wider but humans being taller? Using natural reach similar to how it is described in high jump?
3. how to make a uniform ruling for all. I mean if an enlarged ogre shaman has a 20ft diameter space then the medium dwarf should have 5ft (as opposed to RAW 0) and the wizard's diminutive cat should have 1ft. (25 cats fit in a single square)

[Toot]

OoC1: but we still haven't clarified if Toot took the risk of digging as I originally (mis?)understood if there was a risk Toot wouldn't do it.

OoC2: Re attack from burrowing; no I don't think any weapon, even any natural weapons of the earth elementals, would be effective through solid substance but if it was then theoretically a diagonal attack would be possible (in aerial or deepwater combat you have 26 adjacent cubes). It's worth mentioning though that most medium creatures' space is 2 cubes high so the abstraction gets even more abstract in 3D.

OoC1: Well, for now lets assume wisdom wins over curiosity.  Toot won't have the Thoqqua damage the circle... yet.

OoC2:  I was thinking since a creature can move anywhere in their square, especially creatures like Thoqqua who can move in 3-dimensions through their element, they could just poke a hole (or many holes) on the top edge of it's square.  Then from beneath the skeleton's feet they could just launch a slam attack through one of the holes.  Sort of like a deadly game of whack-a-mole. 

[Torin]

http://www.superdan.net/gaming/dnd3/spel...d10_as.gif

RAW, "The point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection"
i.e. zero dimensions, zero area.
but it's lame that you are not exactly the center of the spell, and it's also interesting if you are smaller than small, occupying less than one square. Maybe you are in the middle of a square; which grid intersection is it, then?
So I understand the idea of using a 25 square feet (to be more exact, 125 cubic feet) "spot" as point of origin but I fail to muster the willingness to find out how "official" this source is.
I use the center of the token instead which is quite intuitive IMO. With the token having a "radius" of 2.5 feet, you simply subtract 2.5 from the intended radius and there you go.

I read a lot about this topic and found these:

1. IMHO the linked images is not following the official rules.
   
2. You must select a grid intersection of the creature's space. (4 possible corner for medium or smaller creatures, 9 possible grid intersection for a large creatures, ...)
   

   A turn/rebuke attempt is similar to, but not exactly like, a 60-foot-radius spherical burst. Like a burst, the effect expands from the point of origin (which must be a grid intersection of the turning character’s space) out to a maximum distance from the point of origin.

3. We have two choices to model this grid intersection in roll20:
   
   1. use a technical token: we put the this token to a grid intersection, ...
      
   2. put our tokens to a grid intersection and mark the real space which they occupied
      

Not aware of 3.5 (or 3.0 for that matter) defining any optional rules for "yourself" as POO having more than 5 ft space but PF does define it as extending outward from the boundaries of the creature's space which sounds intuitive but brings up the issue of large creatures affecting a waaaay larger area. (note that the original definition is equally bogus for creatures being larger than the entire area of effect). Honestly I don't have a solid concept on that aspect yet but I'm fine with anything having no more than 5ft space to have the POO for any emanation centered on them from the middle of their space.

One more thing. Bisons have space 10' means 2x2 squares not 2x1 what I used in the ongoing battle... so they are quite squeezed together there but let's gracefully ignore that for this battle... will handle it properly next time.

Yes I know, but we talked it already (when Torin and Portho was fight with the spiders) and you decided that we use the old rules from dnd 3.0.

[DM Surranó]

I recall having talked about POO but I haven't found it in this forum so I assumed it was in a different game. But I trust your memory being correct.
I checked my 3.0 PHB and DMG and the only rule I found referred to "intersections of lines" and the area templates also originated in grid intersections. So what is different in 3.0? Can you please post a reference to the original discussion for me to review?

[Torin]

I mainly played dnd 3.5, but sometimes my friends talked about the older versions (3.0, 2, ...). You very well know some of them .

I referred just to the bison's sizes. Sorry for the not so specific quoting.

I think the rules are straight about the spell spacing. YOU MUST ALWAYS PLAY IT TO A GRID INTERSECTION. Of course you can house rule it. See the main FAQ about the POO of turning undead: "Like a burst, the effect expands from the point of origin (which must be a grid intersection of the turning character’s space) out to a maximum distance from the point of origin."

[DM Surranó]

Oh.... I thought you were referring to the POO issue. Maybe it was me alone after all when I considered placing the antimagic field on the guardian instead of the doorway.

The good old 3.0 face issue... Well it sounds more realistic, like, the bison can be surrounded with its head turned south and there's no way it could turn around because there simply wouldn't be enough space. Without being able to review what exactly we agreed back then and there I think what makes sense is that you can put them like that out of battle and even in battle if you accept the penalties for fighting in narrow space (half movement, -2 attack with light (and natural) weapons and -4 attack with one-handed ones)

Back in 2.0 we didn't have space; we didn't have face; we had facing means whoever comes from behind gets the bonus (+2 to attack and backstab, the equivalent of sneak attack but waaay more powerful on higher levels). Flank had a different meaning; those coming from the left rear or right rear were called "flank" and received +1. Some video games implemented these in fun ways; like, you always turn to face the first attack; then came the thief from the opposite direction. It was much more difficult in Pool of Radiance where you turned to face the first three attacks so it needed quite some logistics and concentrated melee power to have the thief attack fourth (or later) and from the direction opposite of the third party member...

O nostalgic youth where art thou...

[Toot]

Ok, what does POO mean?

As for facing, in the book, Unearthed Arcana, they discuss optional rules for facing.  I've never bothered to read it because it just seems to complicate combat even more.