Search results

Thanks, that's what I thought. One of these days I'm going to remember it and forget the old rule. Quite frankly, I have trouble wrapping my head around the idea of someone using a two-handed sword or great axe to do a sneak attack.

Tordek falls to the orc's savage attack. Ignoring the combat raging around him, the orc swings his mighty axe, cleaving Tordek's skull like a ripe melon. Back in 2e, my PCs would occupy the spot of a fallen foe. Then, they argued, the simple act of continuing to fight combat from that spot...

OK, this is going to be a stupid question but, unfortunately, I always have trouble remembering if a rule I use/used was 1e, 2e, a house rule, or is the current 3.5 rule. At one point in time (2e and after), we used a rule that a sneak attack could only be performed with a light weapon...

Ah, I see where I erred in my thinking. I was thinking "subject to the effects" meant they were killed, not simply the case that they lose their heads even though they aren't killed. I certainly hope you are not referring to me here because that's certainly not what I did.

Aboyd, quite frankly I've always thought it a bit hinky. I'll have to look into it thanks! Especially since I do the same as you for all the others: holy water, etc. Essentially, anything that you have to prepare. Of course, I often don't allow alchemists' fire so I'm a little behind on it.

My problem with the FAQ's answer is (from Dandu's post): which means it IS a critical hit. Question: irdeggman posted from the FAQ: What am I missing? Where in the listing does it do that? Vampires, yes, but where else? Sounds like a DM's call to me (and since I don't like vorpal anyway, I'll...

Unfortunately, your DM is both wrong and right. As Dandu has pointed out, if you have two different types of weapons and Quck Draw, you may indeed throw both types of weapons. (or even if you had two weapon fighting and drew them as a move action) However, it is a full round action (p. 141...

No, it simply changes the initiative which is why it's a special initiative action. If you allow a reasonable readied action outside of combat it simply means you treat the readied PC as having the highest initiative. If the readied action is used in a surprise round then regular initiative is...

oops, forgot about this thread. On the contrary, it can add to the fun. The OP asked what do we do? So, even though veg had already posted the RAW, I am, obviously, expressing my opinion. IMO, this is one of those situations where the DMG should be treated as a guide if the DM can handle it...

Quite frankly, I thought I defined it adequately with: Scout -> I consider the Scout to be what the Ranger should've been all along which is why I've included it. I like the flavor of the Beguiler as a Mage/Fhief variant without the required multi-classing. Also it's a better Illusionist, IMO...

Soon I hope to be running a (3.5) world that I've run several times in the past (hearkening back to 2e). I lived through the whole TSR "let's create anything and everything but don't bother balancing it" period. As such, I've always been leery of races/classes/prestige classes that moved away...

While I agree with Veg on much of what he wrote, here I have to disagree. Or rather I sort of have to disagree. Whether we realize it or not, DMs allow actions outside of initiative all the time, so why not a readied action? I treat all situations as effectively combat rounds. As such any...

Yes, if I understand your question. You add the UM level(s) to the CL as if you gained a level in the original class. The question I have for you is if you have any feats, such as Practiced Spellcaster which increase your Sorc or Wiz levels. Otherwise, your UM levels would not be Wiz 12 and Sorc...

Sometimes I hate the written word. Where's the inflection!

??? Which was why I was agreeing with Dross. Init wouldn't change once combat has begun (except for the obvious delays).

Unfortunately, my rules are my own and I am in the process of re-codifying them for some new players. I should be done soon and will post them in the house rules. To start you off I had posted in the house rules section about how to do simultaneous movement in the rare cases one has to have...

Makes sense to me and how I (would) do it.

I absolutely hate the standard initiative system. I've been using simultaneous for over 20 years now and, to me, it is the only way to go. It might take some getting used to initially but, in the end, I've found players, especially newbies, understand it better since, well, it makes a lot more...

Yes, the five foot step is unrealistic (ignore Dandu). D&D is not designed to be realistic but is designed along game mechanics for playability. The five foot step is simply a gaming maneuver and as such is not supposed to be realistic. For example, standard initiative is incredibly...

I don't like it either, but nothing in RAW says otherwise. Realistically, it's no different than people receiving the benefit of a Haste spell by their initiative or anything else similar. (Yet another reason to despise standard initiative.)