Search results

That is not what the article says. You are free to disregard Skip's understanding of the rules, of course.

Good point! In fact, that sounds like a fairly reasonable "opportunity cost" to pay for the added security granted by the house rule.

Why would it be a full-round action? It's normally a move action to handle an animal; it's only a full-round action to push it (i.e., get it to do a trick it isn't already trained to do). Essentially, I agree with you. There's nothing in the rules (and no good reason I can think of) to say...

That's correct. The Rules of the Game article "All About Movement (Part Four)" by Skip Williams points out that hovering is either a free action or move action. If you are rendered unconscious, you cannot take the action to hover, so you fall. Kind-hearted DMs may house-rule that the spell's...

No, it doesn't. To contradict the primary entry, the glossary entry would have to explicitly allow ranged flanking...which it does not. You're assuming your conclusion, here. Remember your own argument. You acknowledged that the rules clearly limit the flanking bonus to attackers making...

Well, the PHB glossary doesn't think so: "flank: To be directly on the other side of a character who is being threatened by another character. A flanking attacker gains a +2 flanking bonus on attack rolls against the defender. A rogue can sneak attack a defender that she is flanking." You can...

Sleep is a mind-affecting spell. The swarms are comprised of vermin, which are mindless (and therefore immune).

The black flame zealot's ability specifically mentions that it stacks with an assassin's ability; dark hunter's doesn't, but I can't see any reason why it wouldn't.

Hold it right there. Where is it "stated" that a human's unarmed strike is a natural weapon? The rules for natural weapons are set forth in the Monster Manual, and a human's unarmed strike does not follow them, so unless you have some authority for your starting premise, I'd say your...

Natural weapons can be used to make secondary attacks and do not permit additional attacks due to high base attack bonuses. A monk's fists do permit additional attacks due to high base attack bonuses and cannot be used to make secondary attacks. A monk's fists are not natural weapons...

38,000 + (18,000 x 1.5 = 27,000) = 65,000 The equation is not as simple as it appears, however, because the scarab of protection itself already provides multiple different abilities--so you'd have to break down the cost of the scarab before applying the formula. The final cost should be...

That's correct. Note that creatures with SR can voluntarily lower their resistance as a standard action (see PHB, p.177).

Incorrect. If that were so, a monk would not receive additional unarmed attacks from having a high base attack bonus (see MM, p.312). EDIT: Also, your interpretation would reduce the "monk's unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon" language to mere...

By the book, no, you cannot. There are at least two ways of approaching this that are consistent with the general rules, however. (It's up to your DM whether either will be allowed, of course.) 1) Allow the death ward special ability to be added to the amulet as if the amulet were magic...

I've been playing D&D "seriously" for about a quarter-century now, and this "tradition" has never been a part of my experience. I've met a few people who do buy into it, but they're not the type of people I choose to play with. Not to put too fine a point on it, but they're generally the kind...

Ha! Beat you! :D

Check the errata. Soft cover works against ranged attacks, not melee attacks.

http://www.iconusa.com/online/D&D_index.htm http://www.chumbatoys.com/dudr.html

According to the FAQ, it takes as long to activate a scroll as it would to cast the spell.

Not at all. There are times when you don't want to wait to naturally heal your ability damage, and there's still the question of restoration's effect on warforged who have been ability drained. For what it's worth, I'm on Patryn's and Someone's side of the argument, but I would agree that the...