The Gaming Den

deaddmwalking wrote:

NineInchNall wrote:Right, it resolves before the act of casting the spell.

Difference. Casting the spell goes on the stack before the attack of opportunity.

So to speak.

Am I misunderstaning your argument?

You're saying that if a player announces that he is casting a spell, an opponent hits the player's character, killing him, that the player cast the spell?

Clearly they did not cast a spell. They clearly ATTEMPTED to cast a spell.

No, they start casting a spell then an AoO happens, and then they might have to make a concentration check to finish the spell.
The AoO doesn't happen before casting the spell, it happens during. Otherwise there would be no need for a concentration check.

So when the player says he is casting a spell, and gets interupted with an AoO, he was in fact casting a spell.

So, while the player announced he was completing an action that he, in fact, did not complete (my point by the way), it is correct to say the act of casting the spell triggered the AoO, thus technically they were happening at the same time. I'll grant that.

Still, an announced action does not necessarily take place. A player that has a 'readied' action can choose to act BEFORE the act (because he was readied) and it can be resolved fully before the act that triggered the readied action. As a result, his initiative is moved before the person that triggered the readied action in subsequent rounds.

So Lago's point - that I agree with - is that players announce an INTENT. The DM resolves whether their intended action was successful or not. The declaration itself does not make it so. Saying 'I climb a cliff' and actually climbing it are two different things. Saying 'I hit the giant with my sword' and actually hitting him are two different things. Saying 'I keep my eyes on the door and never get distracted for any reason - no blinking, no turning my head, no dozing off - nothing but starting at the door' and actually doing it are also two different things.

The problem is that it usually sounds 'reasonable' to allow someone to keep an eye on the door, so players and DMs both tend to allow an action that quickly can be taken to ridiculous levels. Players usually are okay with it when it benefits them, but object to it when it benefits Team Monster. Since the absurdity of what at first appeared a reasonable action should quickly become apparent when taken to its logical conclusion, the declaration of the action and the actual resolution of the action should be kept separate.

It's not even difficult to justify... If you successfully use hide/move silently against a guard that was nominally watching, the guard failed to notice you. They were apparently distracted, or perhaps had nodded off, or closed their eyes while they sneezed - whatever...

Edit -

SRD wrote: Ready
...The action occurs just before the action that triggers it.

deaddmwalking wrote:So, while the player announced he was completing an action that he, in fact, did not complete (my point by the way), it is correct to say the act of casting the spell triggered the AoO, thus technically they were happening at the same time. I'll grant that.

No fuck no. They don't happen at the same time. The caster starts casting a spell and that results in triggering an AoO.

Still, an announced action does not necessarily take place. A player that has a 'readied' action can choose to act BEFORE the act (because he was readied) and it can be resolved fully before the act that triggered the readied action. As a result, his initiative is moved before the person that triggered the readied action in subsequent rounds.

That is not how readying can work.
If an orc is banished for 3 rounds and everybody readies an attack to attack it, the attacks don't happen when the orc is still in another plane. When someone readies to attack a spellcaster as she starts casting, they don't attack before she starts casting. If someone readies an attack to attack the first person to come through the door, they don't attack before someone comes through the door.

Though granted the description of a readied action is indeed stupid.

So Lago's point - that I agree with - is that players announce an INTENT. The DM resolves whether their intended action was successful or not. The declaration itself does not make it so. Saying 'I climb a cliff' and actually climbing it are two different things. Saying 'I hit the giant with my sword' and actually hitting him are two different things.

Fuck you, nobody says I hit x, they say I attack x.

Saying 'I keep my eyes on the door and never get distracted for any reason - no blinking, no turning my head, no dozing off - nothing but starting at the door' and actually doing it are also two different things.

The problem is that it usually sounds 'reasonable' to allow someone to keep an eye on the door, so players and DMs both tend to allow an action that quickly can be taken to ridiculous levels. Players usually are okay with it when it benefits them, but object to it when it benefits Team Monster. Since the absurdity of what at first appeared a reasonable action should quickly become apparent when taken to its logical conclusion, the declaration of the action and the actual resolution of the action should be kept separate.

It's not even difficult to justify... If you successfully use hide/move silently against a guard that was nominally watching, the guard failed to notice you. They were apparently distracted, or perhaps had nodded off, or closed their eyes while they sneezed - whatever...

So saying that you do something specific means you aren't doing that. So you'd say if someone says I'm searching a statue they are instead searching the entire room?
Fucking people over because you like stealth is still fucking people over. If a guard guards a single corridor shut by 1 by 2 door, she'll have a far easier time than if she was guarding an open area.

ishy wrote: That is not how readying can work.
If an orc is banished for 3 rounds and everybody readies an attack to attack it, the attacks don't happen when the orc is still in another plane. When someone readies to attack a spellcaster as she starts casting, they don't attack before she starts casting. If someone readies an attack to attack the first person to come through the door, they don't attack before someone comes through the door.

Though granted the description of a readied action is indeed stupid.

The only problem is they used the words triggering action instead of just trigger. I think we'd all agree that it's legal to ready against "the first orc that comes through the door", but coming through the door isn't an action, it's part of an action. The trigger is the target ending a 5' move on your side of the door; you attack after the target enters the new space but before the move "ends."

deaddmwalking wrote:

NineInchNall wrote:Right, it resolves before the act of casting the spell.

Difference. Casting the spell goes on the stack before the attack of opportunity.

So to speak.

Am I misunderstaning your argument?

You're saying that if a player announces that he is casting a spell, an opponent hits the player's character, killing him, that the player cast the spell?

Clearly they did not cast a spell. They clearly ATTEMPTED to cast a spell.

That's what I said. But to be clearer, they actually started to cast the spell, but the action's resolution was prevented by the AoO, which started and resolved before the resolution of the casting action.

Because unlike in MtG, when a creature (in this case the PC) puts an action or effect on the stack, the creature's death effectively "counters" that action or effect.

I'm pretty dismissive of a stated action that fails to recognize a person with a -7 (or lower) versus a +26 (or higher). Clearly an 'I watch the door' statement is being resolved by MTP.

deaddmwalking wrote:I'm pretty dismissive of a stated action that fails to recognize a person with a -7 (or lower) versus a +26 (or higher). Clearly an 'I watch the door' statement is being resolved by MTP.

In 3e, yeah, so what? You got those numbers from 3e (with Unearthed Arcana flaws for some reason) and 3e doesn't have rules for focusing your attention on any particular part of your environment.* But in 3e almost everything stealth is MTP , because the 3e stealth rules aren't good and people don't use them. What does this have to do with how watching a door should work in a hypothetical better stealth system?

Tangent about watching doors with 3.5's cover rule:

It's not the same as staring intently at the door, but if the door is at least 5' wide you can position yourself in the same grid row or column to deny cover to someone trying to move past it. The stupid thing is that you can make Hide autofail through a 5' wide doorway but not through an 8' doorway. The 5' doorway is almost certainly on the edge of a single space, but the double door is going to be centered on a corner so that both spaces get just enough wall to provide cover.

Has anyone even yet pointed out that in 3e Hiding doesn't even do anything?

No. Really. I'm not lying or exaggerating.

srd wrote:Hide (Dex; Armor Check Penalty)

Check

Your Hide check is opposed by the Spot check of anyone who might see you. You can move up to one-half your normal speed and hide at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than one-half but less than your normal speed, you take a -5 penalty. It’s practically impossible (-20 penalty) to hide while attacking, running or charging.

A creature larger or smaller than Medium takes a size bonus or penalty on Hide checks depending on its size category: Fine +16, Diminutive +12, Tiny +8, Small +4, Large -4, Huge -8, Gargantuan -12, Colossal -16.

You need cover or concealment in order to attempt a Hide check. Total cover or total concealment usually (but not always; see Special, below) obviates the need for a Hide check, since nothing can see you anyway.

If people are observing you, even casually, you can’t hide. You can run around a corner or behind cover so that you’re out of sight and then hide, but the others then know at least where you went.

If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check; see below), though, you can attempt to hide. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Hide check if you can get to a hiding place of some kind. (As a general guideline, the hiding place has to be within 1 foot per rank you have in Hide.) This check, however, is made at a -10 penalty because you have to move fast.

So what mechanical effect does Hide have? Nothing is specified in the above, so what then? Conditions? Combat Modifiers?

No mention anywhere of what Hiding actually does for you. Same for Move Silently, in fact.

The mechanical effects of stealth are left completely undefined in 3e/3.5.

I actually only noticed this once someone pointed out that the Monk isn't proficient with unarmed strikes, so I went through the PHB and checked for things that aren't defined or accounted for. I encourage everyone to do the same, as it's quite entertaining (read mind boggling.)

I suspect that's more a case of common sense than a lack of rules. Just like they don't ever define the effects of being dead, because they expect you to be able to figure it out on your own, and not waste several paragraphs explaining that no, you can't do anything while you're dead.

I assume monks don't have unarmed listed for weapons because it's assumed that everyone is proficient at hitting things with their natural attacks. Otherwise any race with claws or a bite lacks proficiency and basically all monsters lack proficiency with their natural attacks.

I'm fine with common sense for "motherfuckers don't know where you are / that you're there at all," but as far as I know there's no rule that people who can't perceive you are denied Dex bonus against you. You're more likely to catch them in a surprise round which indirectly makes them flat-footed longer, but you can't do that to someone who's already "in combat."

If I'm wrong about that let me know, I've been ruling that you can for so long that I've forgotten whether it's a house rule.

Previn wrote: I assume monks don't have unarmed listed for weapons because it's assumed that everyone is proficient at hitting things with their natural attacks. Otherwise any race with claws or a bite lacks proficiency and basically all monsters lack proficiency with their natural attacks.

Unarmed Strike is a simple weapon in 3.5, wizards and monks don't get it. It's an editing oversight from the 3.0->3.5 conversion. Now, nobody in the world plays it that way and monk sample characters are always statted as if they were proficient in unarmed strike, but technically the rules say they're not.

ModelCitizen wrote:Unarmed Strike is a simple weapon in 3.5, wizards and monks don't get it. It's an editing oversight from the 3.0->3.5 conversion. Now, nobody in the world plays it that way and monk sample characters are always statted as if they were proficient in unarmed strike, but technically the rules say they're not.

"Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Monks are proficient with basic peasant weapons and special weapons whose use is part of monk training. The full list includes club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, handaxe, javelin, kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, shuriken, siangham, and sling. "

The 3.0 monk didn't have proficiency with unarmed strikes either. Unarmed Strike was also listed as a simple weapon in 3.0.

Previn wrote:I assume monks don't have unarmed listed for weapons because it's assumed that everyone is proficient at hitting things with their natural attacks. Otherwise any race with claws or a bite lacks proficiency and basically all monsters lack proficiency with their natural attacks.

Creature types list the weapons that they are all proficient with. For all types this includes at least one of natural weapons or 'any weapons mentioned in its entry'... except humanoids, which are all proficient with simple weapons unless they have a character class.

So yeah, monks are one of the few creatures in the multiverse that aren't proficient with unarmed strikes. It's one of a number of 'common sense' oversights in 3/3.5.

However, I think we've swerved onto a tangent here.