Search results

a force field maintained by a non-visible tower shield (and a normal magicked tower shield does not create a force field that provides cover for some odd reason...just its wild melded counterpart) that makes one paw of the wildshaped dire bear useless cause he gotta be holding it up (he can't...

but can you take cover behind a supposedly melded tower shield?!

ooh~ Another thing i didn't notice about the explicit note tagged on tower shield that says "hand not free to cast spells." What does this say about a druid that was holding a weapon in one hand and strapped a tower shield in the other before wild shaping? hhmmm... Scion: I agree that the...

Well, I guess I can be a rule stickler use Majere's advice and say shield bonuses to AC and shield properties do not apply...i just don't see dire bears with tower shields or bucklers enhanced with heavy fortification running around. Maybe it's just me. Heh.

Diirk: I was aware of the non-stackable nature of tortoise shell spell with barkskin but since it is an improvement on barkskin (wasn't aware of the speed reduction however)...it does not help the others catch up the druid in the AC race...heh Jdvn1: wild property is a +3 armor/shield property...

Do i have this right: one of my party is a 12th level druid (+1 level of warshaper from the Complete Warrior) that has 'wild' wood armor (crafted to be like a plate mail) and 'wild' tower shield (has the feat). He has enhanced both armor and shield with +2/+5 enhancement bonus respectively...

We have been using this rule for about a year and it's working out to be quite fine...I originally implemented this rule after seeing that a buckler could provide the heaviest fortification...which at the time sounded to me rather dull and uninspired. It does take something away from light...

Sorry to detract, but...love your sig man!

So you are saying strength modifiers are not influenced by item/equipment/weapon choice? If you wield a two-handed weapon you gain 1.5 times your Strength bonus to damage. A one-handed or light weapon you only gain damage bonus equal to Strength bonus. To me the wording is a little vague, but...

I don't know...being considered wielded by the creature seems to imply all relevant mods such as from feats and what not should apply to the dancing weapon. I always considered a dancing weapon as summoning an invulnerable insta warrior that fights like you using the dancing weapon, but can not...

I go that route as well... ...and no matter how lucky that halfling is with his poisoned dagger against the red wyrm, his luck is next to nothing when compared to a tiny quickling puncturing another great wyrm with his tiny magical envenomed dagger (again with Fort DC 13). I mean c'mon...can...

That is precisely my point...whether it goes both ways or not, sometimes having an auto-fail at "1" (or auto-success at "20) just might be too weird or unsettling. Oops my bad about carrion crawler brain juice...but yea the drow poison works.

Now I want to make this comment: In the first round of combat, a colossal red wyrm is hit with a poisononed dagger wielded by a halfling with...mmmm...let's say Fort DC 13 saving throw...then the DM rolls a "1". Well...Dang. How do you suppose that minuscule portion of poison manage to spread...

This question came up today as we were fighting a 9 headed hydra in a gladiatorial death match. It was concerning the fact of whether or not you can still make attacks of opportunity after having run that round (and we all "know" that an attack of opportunity from a hydra can be quite deadly)...

ah...so when the description say that spells that dispel magic cannot dispel they really mean ongoing spells and not spells with instantaneous effects. Well it makes sense. Thanks for clearifying that up. :cool: The stone to flesh spell still sucks as a 6th level spell (what with stone...

We have no solid proof that break enchantment, excluding flesh to stone, does not work against all forms of petrification. I like to think that it works on all forms of petrification except for those petrified via flesh to stone spell. Anyways, if stone to flesh, a 6th level spell, has only...

I've always taken the term "non-dispellable" meaning not dispellable after the effect has taken place (such as instantaneous effects and certain ongoing effects) and never equated to "not-counterspellable". Which I still think it's a different beast and the spell description does not clearly...

Thanks for the info...I wasn't sure about that one. And Tarchon, I still think we were talking about two different animals since beginning of this interesting discussion. Oh well. ;)

ah...by "countering" you mean counterspelling. My bad... :D Still, counterspelling seems a little misplaced since our discussion (so I thought) was about reversing, thus effectively countering, instantaneous effects such as petrification.

It would, since baleful polymorph is a transmutation effect that is lower than 6th level, which fit right in with the description of what break enchantment can get rid of.