Book 2 – Page 46

[Lamech]

I wonder havent you guys noticed these new cool looking units behind Tram and Slately in panel 1? Flyers definately, maybe angels? Haha, so much for "good" and "evil"!

Unipegaturs. They will simply feed if they get sent up. And give GK units to take more arrows.

[Geordy]

Hey good catch thank you. They are in book 1, page 40, in one panel in the background.

If all they do is giving flight to a unit... where is the significance of this jetpack? Hm. Ok, you cant exactly slay a jetpack.. but destroy it nonetheless.

[Oberon]

I think your kid brother example obscures that particular point. I am not a regular D&D player, but the wording of that particular rule reads to me that an incidental contact (touch as a noun, in your words) would break the spell all the same. In my interpretation, the ward is a stealth attempt. The animal hit you, however lightly. Whether it was intentional or not doesn't matter, because it now knows you--or something--is there. Stealth broken. Even the famous SEP field is not immune from deliberate scrutiny.

But that said, I couldn't really tell whether you were arguing for or against the druids anyway. Just playing devil's advocate?

I wasn't really involved in the discussion. I just threw in my "noun vs.verb" viewpoint. But regarding your "the animal knows you are there, so stealth is broken" point, the spell is quite clear when it says:

Animals simply act as though the warded creatures are not there.

There is no text indicating that if the animal can see you or "detect" you via some other sense that is not covered by those called out in the spell description (including blundering into you) that the animal gets a pass. The animal simply act as though you are not there.

I think the thread died a natural death shortly thereafter, but I'm not at all sure it had anything to do with my post. But I was on the side of those who said that the animal companion can't act against the person warded via Hide from Animals in any way, including ending the spell by blundering against them. If we take the example of Invisibility, it is spelled out quite clearly that only attack actions void the spell. The intent for Hide from Animals seems to be there also, just not worded as concisely. How hard would it have been to clear up any ambiguity? Very easy. But if the author of the spell and all reviewers assume the action verb when reading, then they all miss the non-action noun implications. The warded creature's ribs are touching the animal's finger, spell broken. "MMMMMOOOOOOOMMMMMMM!!!!!!"

Additionally, there do not seem the be any firm rules for "blundering into." You can not actively attempt to touch an opponent without making an attack roll, which the Hide from Animals spell clearly prohibits. And there are no rules for incidental contact. There are specific prohibitions for moving through a square occupied by an opponent, however.

You can’t move through a square occupied by an opponent, unless the opponent is helpless.
[...]
You can’t end your movement in the same square as another creature unless it is helpless.
[...]
Overrun
During your movement you can attempt to move through a square occupied by an opponent.

It could be argued that if you don't know an opponent is there that you're not trying to move through a square occupied by an opponent, but the rule itself doesn't have any qualifiers, so making that argument has no real support other than common sense, and the rules of a game do not have to adhere to those of common sense. The Overrun maneuver is an attack maneuver, and so would be prohibited by the spell.

This is just one of those cases where the GM needs to make a call. The rules for combat and movement, the intent of the spell (arguable, but there are precedents), and the reading of the spell as "verb vs. noun" support not being able to order the animal companion into the square occupied by an opponent. "Common sense" (whatever that means in a game where 40' long lizards can fly and breath fire) and the reading of the spell as "noun vs. verb" support being able to do so. I believe that the weight of support lies with the former. Others may disagree.

[gatherer818]

In Pathfinder at least (I didn't run a Druid in 3e/3.5), the argument quickly becomes moot as any decent Druid puts his AC's first free stat point (at 4 HD) into INT, raising it to 3, changing the creature's type to magical beast (Share Spells class feature still permits him to treat it as an animal OR a humanoid for the purposes of targeting it with buffs, though), and allowing it to learn a language. And then immediately teaches it Common by raising Speak Language that level. ^_^ And now it's a magical beast for any spells not cast by the Druid (for the Druid, still animal, humanoid, or magical beast - whatever is most beneficial for that spell).

(Note: Share Spells may not specifically say animal type, so it may be only magical beast and humanoid. I can't really recall and it's 6am, I'm not looking it up.)

[JustDoug]

Hey good catch thank you. They are in book 1, page 40, in one panel in the background.

If all they do is giving flight to a unit... where is the significance of this jetpack? Hm. Ok, you cant exactly slay a jetpack.. but destroy it nonetheless.

Significance? It's a Jetpack! I mean, it goes without saying...

Anyway, I have this image of future-might-be; of Parson wearing his brand spanking new jetpack, hanging suspended over a city with a huge, beatific grin upon his face; "DUUUUDE! This makes all the rest of the mess worthwhile!"

[mortissimus]

Hey good catch thank you. They are in book 1, page 40, in one panel in the background.

If all they do is giving flight to a unit... where is the significance of this jetpack? Hm. Ok, you cant exactly slay a jetpack.. but destroy it nonetheless.

A jetpack is not a unit, thus not counting towards stack limit bonuses.

[build6]

I wonder what Parson would do if he got his hands on that jetpack.

[Raza]

In Pathfinder at least (I didn't run a Druid in 3e/3.5), the argument quickly becomes moot as any decent Druid puts his AC's first free stat point (at 4 HD) into INT, raising it to 3, changing the creature's type to magical beast (Share Spells class feature still permits him to treat it as an animal OR a humanoid for the purposes of targeting it with buffs, though), and allowing it to learn a language. And then immediately teaches it Common by raising Speak Language that level. ^_^ And now it's a magical beast for any spells not cast by the Druid (for the Druid, still animal, humanoid, or magical beast - whatever is most beneficial for that spell).

(Note: Share Spells may not specifically say animal type, so it may be only magical beast and humanoid. I can't really recall and it's 6am, I'm not looking it up.)

Can't do that. Becoming a magical beast disqualifies it outright as an animal companion. IIRC this is specified or errata'd or something with regards to the Awaken Animal spell.

[Trost]

I wonder what Parson would do if he got his hands on that jetpack.

probably something new.

something glorious.

[effataigus]

He'd get into an accident and hurt himself and others. Jetpacks are not a toy, young ma....

Sorry... sometimes I channel my parents on accident.

Something I forgot to say earlier because I've started to take it for granted: I loved the art in this strip. Looked great, conveyed a lot of information on size and scale, and Ace's expression in panel 3 makes the decision to include panel's 1 through 3 make sense. Without that glimpse of childlike joy I'm pretty sure the page could have started with panel 4 without losing anything too meaningful (unless it becomes relevant that the unipegs are/were inside).

EDIT: Nevermind that... panels 1-3 would be necessary if we hadn't been reading the text updates!

[Barnox]

My guess of what will happen:
Parson makes it through the MK, to end up in Spacerock.
He makes his way towards the hangar.
On the way, he witnesses Ace storming off, throwing the jetpack away. Parson grabs the jetpack.
He makes it to the hangar. His side wanted to parley, and indeed they will. Parson and Ossomer will parley.
Parson's amazing gearscore and unreadability will discourage others from attacking him. Also, Ossomer will wish to speak with him.
Stalemate: Both sides have Chief Warlord bonus now. Also, Parson can simply fly out of infantry range.

[Oberon]

My guess of what will happen:
Parson makes it through the MK, to end up in Spacerock.
He makes his way towards the hangar.
On the way, he witnesses Ace storming off, throwing the jetpack away. Parson grabs the jetpack.
He makes it to the hangar. His side wanted to parley, and indeed they will. Parson and Ossomer will parley.
Parson's amazing gearscore and unreadability will discourage others from attacking him. Also, Ossomer will wish to speak with him.
Stalemate: Both sides have Chief Warlord bonus now. Also, Parson can simply fly out of infantry range.

I'm not buying that scenario at all. The Jetstone forces were planning of wiping out Wanda's forces with archery and casters alone. Adding Parson's '2' bonus plus whatever boosts his gear gives him isn't going to change that even more than Ossomer's bonus wasn't going to change that.

It's Parson's tactics and exploits which will carry the day, if the day is carried. Not some simple "We're now evenly matched, so please don't attack because it would suck for we both" ploy. Even with a win Parson predicted heavy losses on the GK side.

In Pathfinder at least (I didn't run a Druid in 3e/3.5), [yet another caster capability explained at length]

Yes, because what either D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder needs is more caster imbalance... Pathfinder is a huge fail. They started with a good idea: "let's fix what's wrong with 3.5", and then they lost sight of it either out of the realization that the player base likes and wants the caster imbalance, or because they don't know any more about game balance than the crew at WotC. In either case it's a damn shame.

[fjolnir]

not to mention that parson will be stuck in whatever zone the portal spits him out in, since he needs move to traverse anywhere else, INCLUDING taking off to his units in the fancy jetpack...

[the_tick_rules]

One wonders if it has enough thrust to lift a heavy unit by erfworldian physics? But if he could dude that's like a total gamer's dream, well one of them.

[kagato23]

It might run into the same problem as the dragon, making parson able to act as a light unit (maybe with a move bonus) and an ability to ride inflammable mounts.

Actually though, capturing Ace (and maybe needing cubbins as well) might allow the creation of a new, glorius acessory/mount combo that could solve Parson, and any other Heavy's problem, while being totally awesome (it's an interesting question though, can a mount be given an acessory? Considering how valuable they are, probably not too often. It's not clear if stantley's plated actually grows that way because it's the highest type of dragon or a natural result of leveling).

Imagine if you will, the rocket dwagon.

[DevilDan]

I wonder what Parson would do if he got his hands on that jetpack.

probably something new.

something glorious.

Turn them into ICBM, create surveillance satellites, create airships... there seem few limits to his imagination or ingenuity.

[omgitsgene]

Has anyone considered the possibility that Ace gets mad and takes the jetpack for himself? Sure, Ace may be the place to get hardware, but an Ace is also an expert pilot. He's also a magician! If Sizemore has to dig Parson to the portal is there a chance that Parson will have to deal with An Ace In the Hole?

[ftl]

Has anyone considered the possibility that Ace gets mad and takes the jetpack for himself? Sure, Ace may be the place to get hardware, but an Ace is also an expert pilot. He's also a magician! If Sizemore has to dig Parson to the portal is there a chance that Parson will have to deal with An Ace In the Hole?

aaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Too many Aces. (Four, in fact. Four Aces. Quite a handful.)

[John Campbell]

In Pathfinder at least (I didn't run a Druid in 3e/3.5), the argument quickly becomes moot as any decent Druid puts his AC's first free stat point (at 4 HD) into INT, raising it to 3, changing the creature's type to magical beast (Share Spells class feature still permits him to treat it as an animal OR a humanoid for the purposes of targeting it with buffs, though), and allowing it to learn a language. And then immediately teaches it Common by raising Speak Language that level. ^_^ And now it's a magical beast for any spells not cast by the Druid (for the Druid, still animal, humanoid, or magical beast - whatever is most beneficial for that spell).

(Note: Share Spells may not specifically say animal type, so it may be only magical beast and humanoid. I can't really recall and it's 6am, I'm not looking it up.)

Can't do that. Becoming a magical beast disqualifies it outright as an animal companion. IIRC this is specified or errata'd or something with regards to the Awaken Animal spell.

Pathfinder doesn't actually specify that animal companions have to be of the Animal type. Instead, it provides lists of stats for specific animal companion creatures (many of which do not match the stats of the actual Bestiary critter of the same name). And the animal companion rules mention animal companions with Int 3 or higher in several places... dumb animal companions in Pathfinder are restricted in which feats and skills they can take, while smart ones can take any one they're physically capable of using. (My ranger bumped his companion's Int up ASAP so it could take feats that didn't suck.)

The awaken description does say that an awakened animal can't serve as an animal companion, but doesn't say anything about Magical Beasts in general, or Animals that became Magical Beasts by raising their Int in some manner other than having awaken cast on them. It also says that awakened animals can't serve as familiars, and those are Magical Beasts to begin with.

However, gatherer818 is wrong anyway. Pathfinder's animal companion rules specifically say that the animal companion counts as an Animal for the purposes of which spells affect it. It does not grant any exception to that for spells cast by casters other than the companion's owner, nor does it provide for picking and choosing the most beneficial type... except that Share Spells lets the druid can cast personal spells (and personal spells only, not any spell he can target on his creature type) on the companion, even if they won't ordinarily target the Animal type. Pathfinder nerfed Share Spells hard, too... that's all it does now. No more buffing yourself and getting your companion/familiar on the same casting as a free side-effect.

[Goshen]

A long time back, there was a LOT of speculation that the creation of Parson's summoning scroll was part of a plot by Magic Kingdom, or at least by Janus. See http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F141.jpg where Janus says that if Parson breaks enough things there will be peace on Erf. Later on, she expressed Dismay that Parson was taken off the front lines, demoted to the tower. She must be glad that he's going into the fray again, and I don't think he's doing it to surrender. He's in this to win.

IMHO, Janus wants GK to conquer all of Erf, so there will be peace. Or is it more sinister? Janus is the two-faced god of Greek legend. Maybe she's actually evil, and Parson is simply her tool for world conquest. Or maybe world conquest is something her good and evil sides can agree on! (Head swims!)

The kicker: MK could have built in all sorts of secret conditions to that summoning scroll, like "Obey Janus, above all."