Search results

Let me see if this clarifies my stance: The rule says: "An assassin casts spells just as a bard does." It doesn't say: "An assassin is considered to be a bard for purposes of using metamagic feats."

The problem with that is--as this thread has clearly demonstrated--people use totally different "scales" to "weigh" those actions. I believe that I have an extremely good handle on the official alignment rules, and yet anytime an issue like this one comes up, there are dozens of people (if not...

He protects the toddler and punishes the 6 year-old. Wow! That was easy! :D

Hey, guess what? Your "fighter" is a thief. Because that's the definition of the word? :D

Just point me to the phrase "so proficient" in the bard's description and I'll concede the argument.

No, because this is a limitation of the feat, not the ability to cast spells. I'm not explaining this well, am I? :heh:

It depends. If the theft is only possible because of metagame reasons (the thief's player keeps the treasure list, for example), then such theft is just cheating, and the player should be dealt with appropriately (in most cases, that means kicked out of the group). If the theft is impossible...

No, proficiency is irrelevant. The rule addresses casting spells in armor.

What I'm saying is that the rule is a limitation on the use of Silent Spell, not bardic spellcasting in general. Just like the special rule for Empowered and Maximized spells is a limitation on those two feats, not on stacking metamagic feats in general. In other words, this rule pertains to...

Yep. Just like the whole party gets XP for killing monsters, even if the party's tank deals all of the damage to it.

But the above have nothing to do with casting bard spells. The first is simply a general rule about the components of bard spells, not the manner in which they are cast. Since there are published assassin spells that do not have verbal components, we know this general rule concerning spell...

Excellent point, painandgreed. I think that taking this approach would prevent 99% of the problems that result from paladins violating their codes.

When I am the DM, I make sure to provide plenty of downtime. Not only is it essential for certain character types (wizards, anyone with item creation feats, etc.), but it promotes a certain realism, IMO. I detest the "seven levels in seven days" effect that seems to be endemic in 3e campaigns...

Um...actually, they do. Nevertheless, I agree with your main point. As I interpret the situation, the paladin was operating under considerable time pressure. Some kind of an attempt to do evil to his wife had been made, the number and identity of the evil-doers was unknown, and it was...

1. Yes. 2. No.

The quote was offered in response to this claim... ...to illustrate the fact that while Lawful does not equal "law-abiding," neither does it embrace a "laws be damned" attitude.

Thank you for saying it so well that I don't have to. :D

Um...why?

Untrue. True.

I guess that depends upon how much weight you ascribe to: "Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good." Fighting evil without mercy is pretty close to "righteous vengeance" in my book. Are you sure about that? We don't know...