Strangest Black Tentacles I ever did see.

[oslecamo]

And again it's not wild flailing. It's godlike precision of sublime kung-fu that never misses.

Stand outside in a thunderstorm, get wet no matter how hard you dodge, and observe the raindrops exhibiting "godlike precision of sublime kung-fu that never misses."

Only because I don't have super martial skills. Dodging raindrops is high kung fu level, but doable by fantasy characters.

Or even easier, get an umbrella+raincoat. Aka cover. Tentacles don't care about it.

[Kajhera]

And again it's not wild flailing. It's godlike precision of sublime kung-fu that never misses.

Stand outside in a thunderstorm, get wet no matter how hard you dodge, and observe the raindrops exhibiting "godlike precision of sublime kung-fu that never misses."

Only because I don't have super martial skills. Dodging raindrops is high kung fu level, but doable by fantasy characters.

Or even easier, get an umbrella+raincoat. Aka cover. Tentacles don't care about it.

I think the rules failed to account for someone riding their tower shield like a snowboard from above.

(In my games that would totally work just because our only snowboarding character is the coolest arctic orc you'll ever meet, and he deserves it.)

As for the tentacle thing not repeating if you get free... yea, I think I noticed that at one point, wondered what the big deal was about the spell, and henceforth sort of ran with whatever interpretation I was thinking about at the moment (if I were DM, there are plenty of situations I forget to roll things, or roll things that don't actually exist), or how the DM thought it worked (if I were a bug-mutant goblin conjurer).

[Empirate]

[wotmaniac]

What's the weirdest interpretation of rules language you ever saw?

Had a guy who thought that Imp/Gr 2WF gave you additional attack in addition to iterative attacks.
i.e., thought that simply taking 2WF gave you all of your iterative attacks on your off-hand as well as your main-hand; and that Imp2WF gave 2 off-hand attacks per iterative attack, and Gr2WF gave 3 off-hand attacks per iterative attack (that's up to 4 main-hand attacks and 12 off-hand attacks).

[genuine]

What's the weirdest interpretation of rules language you ever saw?

Had a guy who thought that Imp/Gr 2WF gave you additional attack in addition to iterative attacks.
i.e., thought that simply taking 2WF gave you all of your iterative attacks on your off-hand as well as your main-hand; and that Imp2WF gave 2 off-hand attacks per iterative attack, and Gr2WF gave 3 off-hand attacks per iterative attack (that's up to 4 main-hand attacks and 12 off-hand attacks).

That would make the twf feat tree a bit more optimal though.

[veekie]

Though TWF isn't completely terrible if you can work out a way for a sneak attacker to get surprise full attacks off(throwing while invisible on a mount maybe?) I guess.

[Kajhera]

[quote author=veekie link=topic=11567.msg397052#msg397052 date=13025414
Though TWF isn't completely terrible if you can work out a way for a sneak attacker to get surprise full attacks off(throwing while invisible on a mount maybe?) I guess.
[/quote]

...I generally just flank.

[veekie]

Problems with flanking.

Opponent moves, your TWF becomes inapplicable.

[Sunic_Flames]

[quote author=veekie link=topic=11567.msg397052#msg397052 date=13025414
Though TWF isn't completely terrible if you can work out a way for a sneak attacker to get surprise full attacks off(throwing while invisible on a mount maybe?) I guess.

...I generally just flank.
[/quote]

You move, swing once for piddly shit, then get full attacked on your worst defenses in the game and die before getting another turn.

[Kajhera]

[quote author=veekie link=topic=11567.msg397052#msg397052 date=13025414
Though TWF isn't completely terrible if you can work out a way for a sneak attacker to get surprise full attacks off(throwing while invisible on a mount maybe?) I guess.

...I generally just flank.

You move, swing once for piddly shit, then get full attacked on your worst defenses in the game and die before getting another turn.
[/quote]

Actually, truthfully, I tended to quickdraw my blades on some poor unsuspecting sucker and stab the daylights out of him, (plus a bite if it hit,) win initiative, do it again, and they'd generally be down by then.

In other sorts of combat, I did indeed get eaten by a bear once, but once I dipped Warblade Sudden Leap tended to help out with the movement aspects. I definitely learned the dangers and benefits of full attack range on that character, and how to force my opponent to close with me, pouncinglike take them out before they could get many hits in, or be sure I was able to endure an attack. She was a highly-multiclassed Whisper Gnome with a Living Breastplate so her hitpoints and defenses honestly weren't too bad, for the experience I had then. Had a level or two in Barbarian and acted like it.

So actually, yea, it was a combination of flanking and surprise full attacks, in the end. I acknowledge the value of surprise full attacks. It's completely possible to pounce into a flanking position too, though.  

...hm, these quotes are messed up. Not quite sure how to fix them, though.

[Sunic_Flames]

Except for the part where full attacks are not a standard action without houserules.

And good luck Pouncing into a flank. That means your ally is on the other side of them, which means they fucked up their own full attack, and set themselves up for a one round auto attacking.

How to auto attack as a Rogue: Blink, flask bomb the fuck out of it.

[Kajhera]

Except for the part where full attacks are not a standard action without houserules.

And good luck Pouncing into a flank. That means your ally is on the other side of them, which means they fucked up their own full attack, and set themselves up for a one round auto attacking.

How to auto attack as a Rogue: Blink, flask bomb the fuck out of it.

I didn't actually have Pounce, but movement as a swift action. Wasn't a problem.

[Sunic_Flames]

Except for the part where full attacks are not a standard action without houserules.

And good luck Pouncing into a flank. That means your ally is on the other side of them, which means they fucked up their own full attack, and set themselves up for a one round auto attacking.

How to auto attack as a Rogue: Blink, flask bomb the fuck out of it.

I didn't actually have Pounce, but movement as a swift action. Wasn't a problem.

So an ability that for most practical purposes is Pounce, but Barb dips are a bit more common than Cleric dips.

[veekie]

Well, hes using ToB for it, but same deal. Its either Swift Move, Pounce or (god forbid) Dervish to get movement and full attacks.

[Kajhera]

Well, hes using ToB for it, but same deal. Its either Swift Move, Pounce or (god forbid) Dervish to get movement and full attacks.

In the vein of ToB, it's entirely possible to move, get a flanking position, attack once, then turn invisible. Helps a tad on the defensive side if you can't take them out quickly. If you're lucky, you'll have a tank who'll trip them if they try and move out of a flanking position.

[veekie]

Rather go invisible first. Cloak of Deception mimics Greater Invis, and negates any AoOs you might be taking going in.

[Empirate]

The number one magic item for sneak attackers should be a Ring of (Greater) Blinking, so you get sneak attacks against everything that can't see invisible. Now you don't need a flank, and knowledge devotion or pounce are much more helpful in bringing you where the action is (don't need to be opposite your ally). Best part: that ring helps out a ton with the defense, too!