View source for Rules Adjudications

== Question The First ==
Hypothetically, should [[Karl]] get his bonus for fighting big things, for big things other than those specifically listed in the PH, such as a [[Scaly Daemon With One Big Arm]]? The text reads:

**When gnolls, bugbears, ogres, trolls, ogre magi, giants, or titans attack gnomes, these monsters must subtract 4 from their attack rolls because of the gnomes' small size and their combat skills against these much larger creatures.

Chris: It would seem the reasoning behind this bonus would be applicable to other combatants, but I am far from impartial.

tcm: I seem to remember that dwarves, who have the exact same bonus, don't get the bonus for big things not listed in the PH. The reasoning behind this bonus is that the things that are listed in the PH specifically have trouble against small humanoids, and not because these small humanoids are awesome against big things. So, while a titan will have trouble smacking a tiny gnome, a dragon (or your large scaly daemon friend), which is also a large creature, will not. Maybe they've got better practice or something, or have better hand-eye coordination. Whatever the case may be, gnomes and dwarves only get that bonus against creatures listed in the PH. But I'm not the DM, so I will of course defer to him.

Chris: Granted, that would make perfect sense, but that is not what it says. It says, "their combat skills against these much larger creatures" not, "their lack of combat skills against these much smaller creatures." I can understand dragons and things like that not working because, at that size, the difference between humanoids is negligable. I would argue the bonus comes more from gnomes and dwarves training against man-shaped larger opponents. The same way that elves end up good with bows and longswords.

Final Ruling: There are plenty of large humanoid creatures that could have been mentioned but are not, such as minotaurs or iron golems. Clearly gnomes have developed combat skills against gnolls and ogres and such that employ their size to good advantage; minotaurs (for example) are not fooled by such antics. The book could easily have said size large humanoids, or given a more exhaustive list; that it did not do so indicates that gnomes, frankly, are not very good at fighting minotaurs, or that giant daemons can defeat them with one blow. But I think it's clear that related monsters, such as ettins or flinds would suffer the normal gnomic penalty.

== Question the Second ==
Here in Brooklyn Party, our magic user makes a normal attack roll when using the third level spell Flame Arrow.  The relevant text of the spell is as follows:

**...this spell enables the caster to hurl fiery bolts at opponents within range. Each bolt inflicts 1d6 points of piercing damage, plus 4d6 points of fire damage. Only half the fire damage is inflicted if the creature struck successfully saves vs. spell... Bolts must be used on creatures within 20 yards of each other and in front of the wizard.

Noah: After lengthy conversations with Dan of Queens Party, I am now of the opinion that no attack roll should be necessary, and the 'fiery bolt(s)' should strike automatically, provided the target creature is in range.  Not only is there no mention of an attack roll in the text, lightning bolt is another comparable third level spell which, of course, requires no attack roll to hit.

Final ruling: Yeah, were we confusing this spell with Melf's Acid Arrow or something? No attack roll needed.

== Question the Third ==
Is it possible for a character, with sufficient negative modifiers, to have a THAC0 of greater than 20?  

Noah: The specific instance in question here is what the normal THAC0 of Erin's blind 4th level thief Hush should be. 19? 20? 23? It certainly makes sense to me that if a 0th level human's THAC0 is 20, a *blind* 0th level human should have a THAC0 of 24.

Final ruling: Obviously a thaco can be worse than twenty; I don't see anything in  the rules that would forbid this. A thaco can also be better than 1. Of course, a roll of 20 always hits and a roll of 1 always misses, regardless of thaco.

== Question the Fourth ==
Let's say someone wanted to capture something in a jar, like one of those hinged mason jars. Besides needing a jar of the appropriate size and type (and I don't even know if they had those hinged mason jars in the old timey days, but theoretically something similar would happen if one want to catch something in a jar with a cork stopper), what kind of rolls would this involve?

Chris: I propose that it would go something like this: you make a to hit roll, not counting armor but including dex and magical bonuses (for instance, if I wanted to capture that crystal spider in a jar, it wouldn't matter that it was made out of some durable crystal). If I make that, I then get to make a dex check to close the lid. If I don't make it, I fumble for a moment. Should I win initiative again the next round, I get another attempt to close the lid, if not, the creature escapes. If I won initiative the round that I first caught it, it can escape and attack that round if I don't succeed in my close lid check.

Kerry: I think this should be handled akin to an attempt to grab someone. Therefore the catchee should get an attack of oppurtunity on the catcher at +4 to hit, with success indicating escape as well as damage.  

Chris: I would agree to that if I was trying to catch them in a jar just by putting my hand over the mouth, but with a lid?

Kerry: It is a combination common snese/game balance issue. For one thing, you are approaching a dangerous opponent with a jar in one hand and a lid in another, making you an unarmed combatant. That gives your  opponent the attack at +4. Also, like grabbing someone, this is an easy way to take out a tough monster, and it seems open to abuse. Thus making it harder than subduing someone via normal attack seems reasonable. Also, you'll need jar lid forcing/jar breaking rules. 

Chris: But honestly, how much parrying is going to be done against a jar sized opponent? Surely coming at it with a jar in hand shouldn't offer it the same bonuses as if it was stabbing me in the back (with no knowledge of my anatomy). Perhaps a smaller bonus, due to the awkwardness of trying to catch something in a jar, but +4 I think is a bit much. As far as opening the jar from the inside, I'd say a contested strength check, unless it's one of those hinged mason jars with the clasp (I'm not sure if those existed then) in which case I'd say it would be a bend bars roll. Breaking the jar, I'm guessing it would have to make saves against whatever kind of attack could be mustered against it. You know, those crazy saves for items in the DMG, whatever those are. 

Noah: I have to agree with a +4 attack versus... I mean, the guy is coming at you with a jar. I do think that's basically the same as a grab attack.  It's different than a backstab, though, because the backstab eliminates the dex (and shield) bonus, whereas this would not.  

The way I see it as would be only a slight modification to a grab attack:

1. Attack by the catcher, not counting armor hardness.

2. Retaliatory attack by the catchee at +4, with success indicating escape and damage.

3. If the catcher's attack was successful (and the catchee's was not), roll a sub initiative (a la slamming a door in the face of a monster).  If the catcher wins, he can try to close the lid.  If he loses the monster escapes.

4. To close the lid requires a dex check.  If the dex check is successful, you've caught a monster! If it isn't, make a second check! If that one is failed you've dropped the jar! The jar saves versus fall and the monster gets away. If you make it, the jar is fine, but the monster gets away anyhow.

5. Escaping is an opposed strength check each round until the lid is somehow secured.  After that, the monster can make a bend bars check to try and burst out, or, if it has the means, can keep making attacks against the jar and force it to save versus crushing blow each round.

Except in special circumstances, it probably isn't very effective to trap a monster in a jar.

Final ruling:?

== Question The Fifth ==
Does fighting defensively convey a bonus to your saving throws?

Chris: I think it should, anyway.

Kerry: No way, no how. It doesn't make sense, and it is terribly unbalancing. Why should fighters get a better bonus against dragon breath? Are you saying that you can parry Hold Person? This is crazy talk.

Noah: Yeah... Parrying doesn't give you a bonus against missile fire, much less saving throws. There might be very particular situations in which it might give you a minor bonus somehow, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.  You aren't going to deflect a disintegration ray by parrying, if you know what I mean.  You're welcome to try it, but I don't think it will help...

Chris: Well, isn't part of fighting defensively deftly dodging? I mean, if you're spending all your energy in a round on defending yourself, shouldn't that apply some kind of bonus to leaping out of the way of fireballs? You know, a +1, something?

Noah: Nah, that's a Dex bonus, as appropriate, I think.  Parrying is swinging your weapon to bat away enemy blows rather than striking.

Hal: Fighting defensively is different from dodging: you can't fight defensively with no weapon, for example.

We have traditionally permitted people doing nothing else in a round (and who have been perspicacious enough to anticipate attack) to "take cover" with a corresponding bonus, which kind of amounts to the same thing.

Chris: Aha. That makes sense.

Final Ruling: No.

== Question The Sixth ==
Alright, Xenon has a shield that drains pluses from magical weapons that hit it. How would fighting defensively effect the chances of the shield getting hit?

Chris: Anything? Anything?

Noah: Well, you can figure out whether the shield is hit based on the AC struck by the attacker.  If he were to defend, I think you could increase the AC range to include his defensive bonus of 1/2 level + 1, since he is, essentially, leading with his shield.

Hal: Yes, I suppose this might be important soon. So ordinarily the shield is hit on a strike one less than needed to hit, or, since this is a magical shield two or three less (or whatever the plus is). I have no problem with Noah's defensive rules. Obvioulsy a simulationist would point out that in fact almost all missing blows are taken on the shield, but clearly these are mainly glancing blows that don't "count." But If someone wanted to fight "shield forward" so to speak, taking a -1 or -2 to hit but increasing the chance of hitting the shield by one or two (without affecting AC) this sounds fair to me.

== Question The Seventh ==
How would hiding in shadows and moving silently work underwater? Also, what are the rules for getting the bends? Saving throw versus poison (nitrogen poisoning)? Or can we just not worry about the bends?

Noah: I think the underwater breathing spell would mitigate the effects of the bends, and I'm not entirely certain how the bends is adjudicated in real life... but in the game I guess it *might* apply in certain specific situations.

I'm not sure that hide in shadows would work any less well underwater, unless dealing with undersea creatures who use different modes of sight.  

Sound travels better underwater, I believe, so move silently would be at, say, a -40% modifier.  Conversely though, hear noise might be +40%. For those creatures with ears, at least. I confess though, the physics of sound is not one of my strongest points.

Hal: Noah's points are good ones, but I think a +/- 40% change is too great, I'd lean towards +/- 20% for hear nose/move silently, taking into account that it's easier to be quiet when you're not stepping on the ground, as is often the case underwater, and although sound carries well underwater, it also comes through distorted, so the hearer may take significant sounds to be mere background noise.

Hiding is shadows is unaffected, except to the extent that it's often dark underwater.

Of course, many underwater creatures (as N points out) have excellent senses of smell, or even the ability to detect electric muscle impulses. And giant squid have ''superior vision''.

Unless some tinker gnomes invent a crude SCUBA apparatus, I think we can ignore the bends.

Noah: I think only Abner needs to worry about a hear nose/move silently roll.