The Bag of Rats LIVES!!!

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Or, at least, one little mousie.

If you have Combat Expertise, who not always carry around a little
mousie so you can "attack" it and get +5 to your AC?

Better yet, why not make it a familiar and then just punch, pummel, or
kick it for temporary damage whenever you need to do this trick? It
won't die so you can do it again and again...

- Ron ^*^

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat wrote:

> Or, at least, one little mousie.
>
> If you have Combat Expertise, who not always carry around a little
> mousie so you can "attack" it and get +5 to your AC?
>
> Better yet, why not make it a familiar and then just punch, pummel, or
> kick it for temporary damage whenever you need to do this trick? It
> won't die so you can do it again and again...
>
> - Ron ^*^
>

Some days, I wish I was a DM in the days of corporal punishment. Any DM
that buys this argument deserves what he gets.

CH

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Werebat wrote:
>
> If you have Combat Expertise, who not always carry
> around a little mousie so you can "attack" it and
> get +5 to your AC?

You don't need the mouse. You can make an attack standard action, but
choose not to actually attack anything.

This has been explicitly stated, but I've forgotten where, and don't
see it in the FAQ.

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Any player in my campaign trying that will get a real bag of rats,
dumped into the cage they are wearing on their head, ala '1984'.

That post has "featcrime" written all over it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mark Blunden wrote:
>
> Or you can just attack the darkness.

Where are the cheetos?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> Why? You don't need to make an actual attack to get the benefit of
> Combat Expertise; merely spending an attack action is sufficient.
Adding
> a mouse to the attack doesn't make it unreasonable. RTFAQ.

Let's say you are a rogue that has just encountered 5 monks with
repeating crossbows at a range of 85 feet. On your initiative, you
start slapping your mouse around. I would not allow the combat
expertise bonus because you are not in melee.

According to 3.5 PHB, you need to use the full attack or attack action
"in melee" to use combat expertise. You aren't in melee unless you are
in a square threatened by an opponent. I would never rule that a mouse
in your hand threatens you.

If you were really threatened, and you spank the mousie, I would rule
that all your opponents get an attack of opportunity since you have
made a Handle Animal skill check while in melee.

Now that I have eliminated all the silly cases, on what basis can you
claim to be taking an attack action if you do not make a single attack
(whether a melee or ranged attack, or a special attack)?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> decalod85 wrote:
> > Let's say you are a rogue that has just encountered 5 monks with
> > repeating crossbows at a range of 85 feet. On your initiative, you
> > start slapping your mouse around. I would not allow the combat
> > expertise bonus because you are not in melee.
>
> The mouse is unnecessary.

Who cares about the mouse? I was using that to illustrate how
ludicrous the assertion was. If you are 85 feet from your opponents,
you are not "in melee".

3.5 PHB, Page 95, Combat Expertise: "When you use the attack action or
the full attack action in melee,"

3.0 PHB, Page 82, Expertise: "When you use the attack action or full
attack action in melee,"

> > According to 3.5 PHB, you need to use the full attack or attack
action
> > "in melee" to use combat expertise. You aren't in melee unless you
> > are in a square threatened by an opponent ....
>
> The D&D FAQ disagrees with you.

Disagrees with me about what? That you have to be in melee?

I read both the 3.0 and 3.5 PHB's. Both state that you need to make an
attack action in melee. You can't even dispute this. The FAQ's say
nothing about being in melee with regards to Combat Expertise.

The 3.0 faq says that you can take an attack action without taking all
(or any) of your attacks, in reference to Expertise. The 3.5 FAQ does
not mention it at all.

If you are just talking about whether or not there needs to be an
attack, fine, I concede that the D&D FAQ backs you up. If you are
trying to assert that you don't need to be in melee, you are quite
wrong.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

drow wrote:
> Alien mind control rays made decalod85 <decalod85@comcast.net> write:
> > Let's say you are a rogue that has just encountered 5 monks with
> > repeating crossbows at a range of 85 feet. On your initiative, you
> > start slapping your mouse around. I would not allow the combat
> > expertise bonus because you are not in melee.
>
> 'slapping your mouse'. is that what you kids are calling it these
> days? okay, if that's how you want to go...

I prefer "polishing the greatsword", if you don't mind...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

decalod85 wrote:
> drow wrote:
>
>>Alien mind control rays made decalod85 <decalod85@comcast.net> write:
>>
>>>Let's say you are a rogue that has just encountered 5 monks with
>>>repeating crossbows at a range of 85 feet. On your initiative, you
>>>start slapping your mouse around. I would not allow the combat
>>>expertise bonus because you are not in melee.
>>
>>'slapping your mouse'. is that what you kids are calling it these
>>days? okay, if that's how you want to go...
>
>
> I prefer "polishing the greatsword", if you don't mind...
>

Or, perhaps, "cauterizing the hydra's stump."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Some Guy wrote:
> decalod85 wrote:
> > drow wrote:
> >
> >>Alien mind control rays made decalod85 <decalod85@comcast.net>
write:
> >>
> >>>Let's say you are a rogue that has just encountered 5 monks with
> >>>repeating crossbows at a range of 85 feet. On your initiative,
you
> >>>start slapping your mouse around. I would not allow the combat
> >>>expertise bonus because you are not in melee.
> >>
> >>'slapping your mouse'. is that what you kids are calling it these
> >>days? okay, if that's how you want to go...
> >
> >
> > I prefer "polishing the greatsword", if you don't mind...
>
> Or, perhaps, "cauterizing the hydra's stump."

I just "expend another charge from my staff".

Laszlo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Nikolas Landauer wrote:
> Werebat wrote:
>>
>> If you have Combat Expertise, who not always carry
>> around a little mousie so you can "attack" it and
>> get +5 to your AC?
>
> You don't need the mouse. You can make an attack standard action, but
> choose not to actually attack anything.

Or you can just attack the darkness.

--
Mark.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Mark Blunden" <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> wrote in
news:3co41cF6n4ccsU1@individual.net:

> Or you can just attack the darkness.

I am going to put a magic missile enchantment on all my arrow traps.

-phy

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

[Please quote or summarize the article you're responding to.]

Regarding the use of Combat Expertise without actually making an attack,
decalod85 wrote:
> Any player in my campaign trying that will get a real bag of rats,
> dumped into the cage they are wearing on their head, ala '1984'.
>
> That post has "featcrime" written all over it.

Why? You don't need to make an actual attack to get the benefit of
Combat Expertise; merely spending an attack action is sufficient. Adding
a mouse to the attack doesn't make it unreasonable. RTFAQ.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> Why? You don't need to make an actual attack to get the benefit of
>> Combat Expertise; merely spending an attack action is sufficient.
>> Adding a mouse to the attack doesn't make it unreasonable. RTFAQ.

decalod85 wrote:
> Let's say you are a rogue that has just encountered 5 monks with
> repeating crossbows at a range of 85 feet. On your initiative, you
> start slapping your mouse around. I would not allow the combat
> expertise bonus because you are not in melee.

The mouse is unnecessary.

> According to 3.5 PHB, you need to use the full attack or attack action
> "in melee" to use combat expertise. You aren't in melee unless you
> are in a square threatened by an opponent ....

The D&D FAQ disagrees with you.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[drow]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Alien mind control rays made decalod85 <decalod85@comcast.net> write:
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> Why? You don't need to make an actual attack to get the benefit of
>> Combat Expertise; merely spending an attack action is sufficient.
>> Adding a mouse to the attack doesn't make it unreasonable. RTFAQ.
>
> Let's say you are a rogue that has just encountered 5 monks with
> repeating crossbows at a range of 85 feet. On your initiative, you
> start slapping your mouse around. I would not allow the combat
> expertise bonus because you are not in melee.

'slapping your mouse'. is that what you kids are calling it these
days? okay, if that's how you want to go...

> According to 3.5 PHB, you need to use the full attack or attack action
> "in melee" to use combat expertise. You aren't in melee unless you are
> in a square threatened by an opponent. I would never rule that a mouse
> in your hand threatens you.

sure, that's because you're a guy.

> Now that I have eliminated all the silly cases, on what basis can you
> claim to be taking an attack action if you do not make a single attack
> (whether a melee or ranged attack, or a special attack)?

pretend you're facing an invisible melee combatant. because, you know,
Just In Case.

--
\^\ // drow@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
\ // - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
// \ X-Windows: It could be worse... but it'll take time.
// \_\ -- Dude from DPAK

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Lorenz Lang wrote:
> I try an explanation:
> CE needs someone to work with. You use your melee opponent as a human
> shield positioning yourself between you and the ranged attacker.

Credit for a nice try , but then what's the rationale fore CE
working when you are just fighting one opponent? It also messes with
the cover rules.

> If you're alone, you can't do the trick...

<pubescent giggling> usually, "wielding my two-hander" is a solo act


> On second thought (and leaving the territory of the RAW)
> I lean towards not granting CE boni to AC vs. ranged attacks at all.

Not an unreasonable house rule, and (without having the benefit of the
FAQ) perhaps this was the intended effect of the feat. This makes it
somewhat similar to Power Attack but with a fixed, rather than
selected, benefit.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jasin Zujovic wrote:
> decalod85@comcast.net wrote:
> > 3.5 PHB, Page 95, Combat Expertise: "When you use the attack
action or
> > the full attack action in melee,"
> >
> > 3.0 PHB, Page 82, Expertise: "When you use the attack action or
full
> > attack action in melee,"
>
> I think the point of that sentence isn't that you have to be
> threatened/threaten someone, just that you need to take a melee
> attack/full attack action, and not a ranged attack/full attack
action.

The feat description does not say "melee attacks", it says "attacks in
melee". You can make a ranged attack while in melee, even if you pay
for it with an AOO, but according to the text of the feat, you should
get your Combat Expertise bonus/penalty.

> Just standing there (taking a melee attack action and not actually
> attacking anything) for +5 AC is fine.

Not if you read the feat description as it is written. The key words
here are "in melee". I have seen nothing in the PHB, DMG, Sage Advice,
or the D&D FAQ to refute this specifically.

> Seriously, think about it. You're saying that it's easier to hit
someone
> with a bow if he's just standing there trying to dodge you, than if
he's
> also fighting your ally in melee (since then, he can use Expertise).
A
> bit silly, innit?

Not really. The point of Combat Expertise is the grant you a bonus
when you are in melee with a threatening opponent. You can't get the
reward without taking the risk (How can you have any pudding if you
don't eat your meat?). If you toss yourself into the fray, and pull
your punches a little in a specific way that you were trained to do,
you are safer than if you are standing alone, off to the side.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Fine. I attack the darkness!

- Justisaur

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote in message
news:1114054259.084650.243600@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Some Guy wrote:
> > decalod85 wrote:
> > > drow wrote:
> > >
> > >>Alien mind control rays made decalod85 <decalod85@comcast.net>
> write:
> > >>
> > >>>Let's say you are a rogue that has just encountered 5 monks with
> > >>>repeating crossbows at a range of 85 feet. On your initiative,
> you
> > >>>start slapping your mouse around. I would not allow the combat
> > >>>expertise bonus because you are not in melee.
> > >>
> > >>'slapping your mouse'. is that what you kids are calling it these
> > >>days? okay, if that's how you want to go...
> > >
> > >
> > > I prefer "polishing the greatsword", if you don't mind...
> >
> > Or, perhaps, "cauterizing the hydra's stump."
>
> I just "expend another charge from my staff".

Uncork the decanter of endless semen!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> Some Guy wrote:
>> decalod85 wrote:
>>> drow wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alien mind control rays made decalod85 <decalod85@comcast.net>
>>>> write:
>>>>
>>>>> Let's say you are a rogue that has just encountered 5 monks with
>>>>> repeating crossbows at a range of 85 feet. On your initiative,
>>>>> you start slapping your mouse around. I would not allow the
>>>>> combat expertise bonus because you are not in melee.
>>>>
>>>> 'slapping your mouse'. is that what you kids are calling it these
>>>> days? okay, if that's how you want to go...
>>>
>>>
>>> I prefer "polishing the greatsword", if you don't mind...
>>
>> Or, perhaps, "cauterizing the hydra's stump."
>
> I just "expend another charge from my staff".

Or "extending my Rod of Lordly Might".

--
Mark.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

decalod85@comcast.net wrote:

> > > Let's say you are a rogue that has just encountered 5 monks with
> > > repeating crossbows at a range of 85 feet. On your initiative, you
> > > start slapping your mouse around. I would not allow the combat
> > > expertise bonus because you are not in melee.
> >
> > The mouse is unnecessary.
>
> Who cares about the mouse? I was using that to illustrate how
> ludicrous the assertion was. If you are 85 feet from your opponents,
> you are not "in melee".
>
> 3.5 PHB, Page 95, Combat Expertise: "When you use the attack action or
> the full attack action in melee,"
>
> 3.0 PHB, Page 82, Expertise: "When you use the attack action or full
> attack action in melee,"

I think the point of that sentence isn't that you have to be
threatened/threaten someone, just that you need to take a melee
attack/full attack action, and not a ranged attack/full attack action.

IOW, no longbow full attacks a -5 for +5 AC.

Just standing there (taking a melee attack action and not actually
attacking anything) for +5 AC is fine.

Seriously, think about it. You're saying that it's easier to hit someone
with a bow if he's just standing there trying to dodge you, than if he's
also fighting your ally in melee (since then, he can use Expertise). A
bit silly, innit?


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

ranpoirier@cox.net wrote:

> Or, at least, one little mousie.
>
> If you have Combat Expertise, who not always carry around a little
> mousie so you can "attack" it and get +5 to your AC?
>
> Better yet, why not make it a familiar and then just punch, pummel, or
> kick it for temporary damage whenever you need to do this trick? It
> won't die so you can do it again and again...

Quite a piece of work, Ron. A reasonable idea in an utterly idiotic
format, and you've had two different people saying "what an idiotic
idea!" already...

Is there a special name for this kind of troll?


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jasin Zujovic wrote:
> ranpoirier@cox.net wrote:
>
>
>>Or, at least, one little mousie.
>>
>>If you have Combat Expertise, who not always carry around a little
>>mousie so you can "attack" it and get +5 to your AC?
>>
>>Better yet, why not make it a familiar and then just punch, pummel, or
>>kick it for temporary damage whenever you need to do this trick? It
>>won't die so you can do it again and again...
>
>
> Quite a piece of work, Ron. A reasonable idea in an utterly idiotic
> format, and you've had two different people saying "what an idiotic
> idea!" already...
>
> Is there a special name for this kind of troll?

"Genius"?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:23:42 +0200, Jasin Zujovic wrote:

> decalod85@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> > > Let's say you are a rogue that has just encountered 5 monks with
>> > > repeating crossbows at a range of 85 feet. On your initiative, you
>> > > start slapping your mouse around. I would not allow the combat
>> > > expertise bonus because you are not in melee.
>> >
>> > The mouse is unnecessary.
>>
>> Who cares about the mouse? I was using that to illustrate how
>> ludicrous the assertion was. If you are 85 feet from your opponents,
>> you are not "in melee".
>>
>> 3.5 PHB, Page 95, Combat Expertise: "When you use the attack action or
>> the full attack action in melee,"
>>
>> 3.0 PHB, Page 82, Expertise: "When you use the attack action or full
>> attack action in melee,"
>
> I think the point of that sentence isn't that you have to be
> threatened/threaten someone, just that you need to take a melee
> attack/full attack action, and not a ranged attack/full attack action.
>
> IOW, no longbow full attacks a -5 for +5 AC.
>
> Just standing there (taking a melee attack action and not actually
> attacking anything) for +5 AC is fine.
>
> Seriously, think about it. You're saying that it's easier to hit someone
> with a bow if he's just standing there trying to dodge you, than if he's
> also fighting your ally in melee (since then, he can use Expertise). A
> bit silly, innit?

I try an explanation:
CE needs someone to work with. You use your melee opponent as a human
shield positioning yourself between you and the ranged attacker.
If you're alone, you can't do the trick...

On second thought (and leaving the territory of the RAW)
I lean towards not granting CE boni to AC vs. ranged attacks at all.

LL

 

[Spinner]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

> That post has "featcrime" written all over it.
>
Yup. Despite Decalod's fairly reasonable arguments against, the FAQ's
language is intended to "clarify" what is fairly unclear language in the
SRD. The term "in melee" has no rules weight. IOW there is no definitive
states described in the game where a given character is "in melee" or "not
in melee". You can make a melee attack and you can get hit by a melee
attack and you can even threaten ... but you cannot attack "in melee". Why
did they word it that way? Who knows. They should have said:

When a character takes an attack or full attack action and makes a melee
attack ... (Note, you can certainly make melee attacks at the darkness --
in other words, attack into a square hoping to hit an invisible enemy there)

Or if they'd wanted Expertise not to apply to ranged attacks -- they
could've easily just said, "bonus to AC vs melee attacks," or some such.

Tsk tsk. Some unclear rule-writing leaked through... (it's not like they
hadn't had experience "clarifying" the rule in 3.0 either!)

Spinner