Should Defensive Blast be altered in Conan 2nd?

[Trodax]

I say you guys dice for it. High roll wins.

Strom, I think it's very juvenile of you to think that internet discussions are about "winning" or "loosing"...

Internet discussions are about crushing your enemies, driving them before you on the field of battle, and hearing the lamentation of their women!!! :twisted: :wink:

Seriously, this thread has become pretty sour. And it's a thread that I started. That makes me a sad puppy.

 

[slaughterj]

Someone said Original intent did not matter?

How can someone be so ludicrous as to say that?
Whenever you have a problem with the law, you look at the legislative intent of the lawmakers, the committee notes, and stump speeches on how the law was being touted (Notice I live and work in the capital of Florida and see this type of analysis daily). WE don't have the luxury of a lot of material such as campaign staffers, or committee notes, but we do have the context in which it was written.

The law provides you all that context, but game rules do not. Further, if the law is clear as written, the original intent does not matter and courts must enforce it as written, though of course they may comment that they feel it should have been written otherwise. That's why I said the original intent does not matter here.

 

[Sutek]

Read what you said, you said that casting spells are in the combat section so that means they are attacks. Lighting a torch is in the combat section but is not an attack.

No, lighting a torch is not in the combat section, it's in the table for actions during combat. That's different, and not what I waid anyway. I said that Sorcery has it's own section in the combat chapter to describe how it works in combat, and later in the Sorcerery chapter magic attacks are explained.

Thank you for the Magic Attack Roll mention. Please go read that. A Defensive Blast requires a Magic Attack roll to set the save DC. Please see pg 282 of the Pocket Guide. As such Defensive Blast conforms to the requirments of a magical attack as you see it.

I steer away from the pocket guide because it's not reliable for rule discussions for this very reason. I stick to the main rule book.

 

[Foxworthy]

Read what you said, you said that casting spells are in the combat section so that means they are attacks. Lighting a torch is in the combat section but is not an attack.

No, lighting a torch is not in the combat section, it's in the table for actions during combat. That's different, and not what I waid anyway. I said that Sorcery has it's own section in the combat chapter to describe how it works in combat, and later in the Sorcerery chapter magic attacks are explained.[/quote]

Fine. Then Total Defense is an attack by standards. My point is just because it's in the combat section or combat chart doesn't mean it's an attack. Just as not being on the chart doens't mean it's not an attack.

Thank you for the Magic Attack Roll mention. Please go read that. A Defensive Blast requires a Magic Attack roll to set the save DC. Please see pg 282 of the Pocket Guide. As such Defensive Blast conforms to the requirments of a magical attack as you see it.

I steer away from the pocket guide because it's not reliable for rule discussions for this very reason. I stick to the main rule book.

The Pocket Guide is reliable. While it lacks some sections of the AE the rules in it are RAW. Though I can see how you'd like to avoid the rules that prove you wrong though.

 

[Sutek]

First off, thanks, Talahassee, for the support, but you may have gotten in over your head here. (lol).

But its not and ad hominem attack. I disagree with Sutek's reading of the sentence in question. By which I mean that I think his reading of the sentence (his reading comprehension skill) is wrong.

Here's the sentances, quoted directly from the book, that I base my interpretation on, that is being argued against as rediculous ramblings, and for which I'm now continually getting flamed and insulted:

Handle Animal
Untrained: If you have no ranks in Handle Animal, you can use a Charisma check to handle and push domestic animals but you cannot teach, rear, or train animals.

Opportunistic Sacrifice
Benefits: You gain the benefits of the Ritual Sacrifice feat any time you slay an enemy, whether by magic, melee or ranged attacks.

• Everyone has claimed that I am "inserting words"or meaning be suggesting that "magic" in that series means "magic attack".
• Melee is obviously referring to "melee attack", but it listed in the series in exactly the same way that "magic" is.
• It would be absurd to believe that only ranged attacks could be used in conjuction with OS, and therefore that "magic" and "melee" are refering to types of attacks.
• This logic is supported by the first quote, in which case it would be absurd to make the interpretation that a character could not teach anything at all to anyone or anything period, but instead that the series indicates that a character cannot teach animals, even though the word "animals" only appears at the end of the sentance.

Ignoring these facts can only mean that you aren't discussing this, but rrather just trying to prolong the debate artificially.

Now, on to the DB text versus Magickal Attacks. This is after some extensive reading and cross-referenceing, so I've got a new revelation to make you all ticked off, but oh well...I just look at the printed text. This isn't interpretive, but rather just following th epath of references throughout the book:

• Spells are the arcane means by which a Sorcerer can deal damage. If he chooses to do so, it is a standard action and sometimes requires a Magick Attack roll to accomplish/to hit/to set a DC for.
• Casting spells in combat is described, including all requirements for spells in general during combat, in the Combat section.
• Casting is a subsection of the section on standard actions, and is preceeded by the sub entry entiutled "Attack". This tells us that an attack is "a standard action".
• DB is descried as a Free Action that can take place in any round, regardless if it is the Sorcerer's turn or not.
• It is described as unleashing 1d6 fire damage per PP in a 10-foot radius, expending all current PP and allowing all creatures within that radius a Save for half damage determined by a magick attack roll.
• A magic attack roll is used to engage The Rule of the Sorcerer's Soul to reveal the sorcerer's type and sub-type. This is not an attack, but merely a way to discern how powerful a sorcerer is just by staring into his eyes. This uses a magic attack roll, but is not an attack.
• The WILL save to resist a Master drawing PP from a thrall is a DC set by the Sorcerer's Magic Attack Roll. This is not an attack, but merely a means to determine what to resist again should the thral intend to do so.
• Spells are not attacks. Neither are the effects generated by the Rules of Sorcery. They are a classification of action that can be taken during combat situations and provoke AOOs, but because they can have many varying effects, cannot be considered attacks as a whole.
• It is indicated in the Sorcery chapter that a Magic Attack Roll is 1d20+MAB+CHAmod, and it "is made whenever you attempt to injure another with your magic and in most cases when you attempt to compel another." But this entry is is a subentry to the Spell Descriptions portion of the chapter and indicates extrapolation of what each element of the subsequent spell descriptions will mean. It does not state that casting spells or, indeed, that the Magic Attack Roll indicates an attack.
• This reinforces that making a Magic Attack Roll does not mean that there is an attack, and it supports the idea that Spells are not Attacks (becuse the are described as such in the combat section) and the DB and the other Rules that require Magick Attack Rolls to be made are not attacks either.

 

[Foxworthy]

This reinforces that making a Magic Attack Roll does not mean that there is an attack, and it supports the idea that Spells are not Attacks (becuse the are described as such in the combat section) and the DB and the other Rules that require Magick Attack Rolls to be made are not attacks either.

Which means that there is no such thing as a magic attack. So in the feat Opp Sac when is says "magic, melee or ranged attacks" it means magic in general. It also shows that the text in Opp Sac is correct when it says "slay an opponent by sorcery or combat".

 

[Sutek]

It also shows that the text in Opp Sac is correct when it says "slay an opponent by sorcery or combat".

Yes, but the rules clarify that to mean "magic, melee or ranged attacks", as is the case with every feat (the descriptive text says one thing and then the text beneath it tells you what all that above it really means.)

Logical assumption lends me to place spells into the family of "attacks", but it isn't written anywhere, presumably so that things that modify attacks (like Power Attack) can't be confused with what spells are and do. I know ther are many feats an things that grant extra actions but not attacks, however I can't recall anything of fthe top of my head that (A) modifies any and all attack types ar once or (B) is inclusive and generic enough that spell casting could be included as being modified in the same way as melee or ranged attacks.

But anything else I can say about why a DB isn't an attack are based on personal suppositions, so I've avoided including them. The fact that a DB is defensive means that it isn't an attack, although it deals damage, and the fact that it deals damage and requires a Magic Attack roll doesn't mean its an attack either. There are several acts that require a Magic Attack roll, but they arent' attacks nor do they deal damage.

Personally, I thin Sorcery is meant to refer to Spells, and that the Rules of Sorcerery are inherent Special Abilities because sorcery is consistantly described as goin ghand in hand with PP expendature. Nut that's only opinion.

 

[Netherek]

Sutek, you've just proven that DB is a Magic Attack.

Spells are the arcane means by which a Sorcerer can deal damage. If he chooses to do so, it is a standard action and sometimes requires a Magick Attack roll to accomplish/to hit/to set a DC for.

Casting spells in combat is described, including all requirements for spells in general during combat, in the Combat section.

Well, Db fits the criteria here, DC sets the save DC as it does for every spell that allows a save. In addition, the Magic Attack roll is never used to hit...

Casting is a subsection of the section on standard actions, and is preceeded by the sub entry entiutled "Attack". This tells us that an attack is "a standard action".

DB is descried as a Free Action that can take place in any round, regardless if it is the Sorcerer's turn or not.

This reinforces that making a Magic Attack Roll does not mean that there is an attack, and it supports the idea that Spells are not Attacks (becuse the are described as such in the combat section) and the DB and the other Rules that require Magick Attack Rolls to be made are not attacks either.


So in the end we have 9 pages proving that DB is completely Broken...

 

[argo]

But its not and ad hominem attack. I disagree with Sutek's reading of the sentence in question. By which I mean that I think his reading of the sentence (his reading comprehension skill) is wrong.

Here's the sentances, quoted directly from the book, that I base my interpretation on, that is being argued against as rediculous ramblings, and for which I'm now continually getting flamed and insulted:

Handle Animal
Untrained: If you have no ranks in Handle Animal, you can use a Charisma check to handle and push domestic animals but you cannot teach, rear, or train animals.

Opportunistic Sacrifice
Benefits: You gain the benefits of the Ritual Sacrifice feat any time you slay an enemy, whether by magic, melee or ranged attacks.

• Everyone has claimed that I am "inserting words"or meaning be suggesting that "magic" in that series means "magic attack".
• Melee is obviously referring to "melee attack", but it listed in the series in exactly the same way that "magic" is.
• It would be absurd to believe that only ranged attacks could be used in conjuction with OS, and therefore that "magic" and "melee" are refering to types of attacks.
• This logic is supported by the first quote, in which case it would be absurd to make the interpretation that a character could not teach anything at all to anyone or anything period, but instead that the series indicates that a character cannot teach animals, even though the word "animals" only appears at the end of the sentance.

Sigh... first of all I don't know why you keep bringing up the handle animal passage. It has a completly different sentence structure than the passage from Opp. Sacrifice. It doesn't help your argument at all. Thanks for muddying the waters.

You keep ignoring the first part of the passage.

]Opportunistic Sacrifice
Benefits: You gain the benefits of the Ritual Sacrifice feat any time you slay an enemy, whether by magic, melee or ranged attacks.

Right there, plain as day, you gain the benefit "any time you slay an enemy". Now, that part of the passage is followed by a comma and then the phrase "whether by". This sentence structure indicates a list of alternative possibilites but it does not indicate an exhaustive list. If an exhaustive list was the intent the setence structure would look more like "any time you slay an enemy by one of the following means..." or some other equivalent statement.

The basic rule is you gain the benefit when you slay an enemy. That the feat lists several ways that you could accomplish this does not rule out other possibilities and the rules text itself does not state in any certian terms that it is providing an exhaustive list.

Moreover, we must also look at the passage in contex. Both the descriptive text above the passage (the part about "sorcery or combat") and the "Normal" section below the passage suggest strongly that a loose intrepretation of the passage is called for. Yes, it is true that the descriptive text is not rules text, however it is incorrect to ignore it. The descriptive text is there for a reason and that reason is to clarify and illuminate the rules text by providing contex.

That you dismiss so easily the descriptive text which is, in fact, part of the feat as written and which was provided by the designers to clarify the use of the feat and that you instead appeal to a completly unrelated passage in the the Handle Animal skill with a completly different sentence structure seems to me to be intelectually dishonest.

The feat is clearly written. I again appeal to the masses and point out that most people, after reading the feat, take away a different meaning that you do. This argues that my reading is the more simple and intuitive one and I see no compelling argument to accept the less intuitive reading (yours).

Opp Sacrifice works when you slay an enemy. And without that foundation all the rest of your complex argument is moot.

Later.

 

[Sutek]

<sigh>

Okay...I rolled a 1.

Everyone else roll...

...I give up. :roll:

 

[Strom]

I say you guys dice for it. High roll wins.

Strom, I think it's very juvenile of you to think that internet discussions are about "winning" or "loosing"...

Internet discussions are about crushing your enemies, driving them before you on the field of battle, and hearing the lamentation of their women!!! :twisted: :wink:

Sorry Trodax - I just can't hear you over the raging argument. :lol:

Seriously, this thread has become pretty sour. And it's a thread that I started. That makes me a sad puppy.

You've definitely elicited discussion - which is what a thread should do. I wouldn't worry - their working it out with minimal attacks.

It's getting good.

Edited - It's a roll off!

 

[Foxworthy]

Here's the sentances, quoted directly from the book, that I base my interpretation on, that is being argued against as rediculous ramblings, and for which I'm now continually getting flamed and insulted:

Handle Animal
Untrained: If you have no ranks in Handle Animal, you can use a Charisma check to handle and push domestic animals but you cannot teach, rear, or train animals.

Opportunistic Sacrifice
Benefits: You gain the benefits of the Ritual Sacrifice feat any time you slay an enemy, whether by magic, melee or ranged attacks.

I'm going to point out why we know the magic doesn't apply the word attack after but melee does. Notice the commas in your first example. The commas are after teach and rear. The comma seperates those three into diffrent things.

Look at the commas in Opp Sac. They are after magic. This seperates magic from melee and ranged attacks. This is why it's logical to include melee attacks and ranged attack but not the magical attacks. This is made clearer because magical attacks don't exist in the system. They don't even exist in the SRD so it's not a rules error either.

Now you tend to think sorcery refers to spells. The rest of the people arguing apply the term to the items in the chapter labeled "Sorcery" which I assume is the chapter in the AE that defensive blast is contained in. It seems weird that one of the rules of sorcery wouldn't count as sorcery for that feat.

 

[Sutek]

You've convinced me.

It is more about the number of commas than anything else.

Thanks.

Actually, they made a gramatical mistake in having too many commas in the first example. It's nit-picky, but it's true. You don't need another comman directly after the conjunction because commas generally replace conjunctions, most often the word "and".

As in "magic and melee and ranged attacks".

The comma is a convention to reduce repetition and still keep everything referring to the same subject.

I suppose there could be a convention regarding conditionals (where the word "or" and "nor" are used) such that a comma would still follow in that case, but that can also come down to American versus British English conventions and grammar rules.

Anyway, this has gotten seriously lame given that even direct quotes are being refuted. I can't keep putting exact wording up that proves that I found a simple solution to the DB/OppSac malfunction and have such furor over it. It's just silly now. Even the part where I said "this is opinion and not part of the discussion" is now being quoted and contradicted by people. Sheesh.

In regards to DB and Rule of the Master, I think the intent was to have that occur only in the case of apprentices and thralls in vicinity to the caster. Since the limitation is touch or magical link, the real issue is how far away can the linked person be. That goes for spells that require it too. Saying that it can aid in targeting "at any range" with a magical link is a totally different prospect to drawing and storing PP, but then again, that's why Sorcerers are to be feared.

 

[Trodax]

I think we can all agree that in Conan 2nd edition it should not be possible to use Opportunistic Sacrifice in conjunction with Defensive Blast, and that the rules should make it unambigously clear that this is not possible.

Lets be friends now.

 

[Netherek]

Actually, I don't agree, based off the descriptive its a free action spell, personally I think DB should just be a spell with all it's usual make up. That way it would a damage limit, can potentially be disrupted, etc. etc.

If they design it as simple spells that come with the sorcery styles, and aren't all uber ball of fiery death, I can see keeping it in. So it would be like Counterspells having Warding (basic) and some defensive spell (DB) that is just a spell that is a free action to cast and that is allow to be used on an AoO.

By the way, is there anything currently preventing using a free action spell on an AoO?

If one allows "Spells of Opportunity" then you can have minor defensive/offensive spells that comes with learning a style in addition to the basic spell, and then the Adepts could use there more dangerous spells such as "death touch" when the reach appropriate levels to use a their DB.

I could really go for this, it's stays within the level limits, more difficult to abuse (really a minor change), gives additional utility to Scholars (esp. at lower levels, works properly with existing feats without breaking the game.

So Rule of Defense would simply be that free action spells can be cast as AoO, and then utilize the The Rule of Fear which would be a variation of the Terror of the Unknown.

What do you guys think...

 

[Foxworthy]

By the way, is there anything currently preventing using a free action spell on an AoO?

Well spells aren't really attacks. I know d20 SRD has swift actions and immediate actions but niether of them represent what can be done with defensive blast. Especially since an Attack Of Oppurntinty is specificly a single melee attack.

The closest thing to a free action spell in d20 is feather fall but that can be done anytime sinc eit's an immediate action or a quicked spell which is a swift action but can be only done on your turn. Defensive Blast is a combo of that.

 

[Netherek]

Well, then I vote we change that!

 

[Sutek]

By the way, is there anything currently preventing using a free action spell on an AoO?

Yes, AoOs have to be a melee attack.

Now, there's nothing to prevent a prepared spell with range "Touch" being used in an AoO, I guess...

 

[Foxworthy]

By the way, is there anything currently preventing using a free action spell on an AoO?

Yes, AoOs have to be a melee attack.

Now, there's nothing to prevent a prepared spell with range "Touch" being used in an AoO, I guess...

As long as the person is holding the charge they could discharge it with a touch attack from an AoO. Which could get rather nasty depending on the spell.

 

[Netherek]

So having a Rule of Defense would work with little change in this manner, as it's almost at the point of being able to do it anyhow. Now one would have to write the base defensive spells that have a power level in relation to Base Spells of the Styles.

Any takers???