Search results

My fiance (for example) is is both quite smart, and played for over year, and is a casual gamer. I expect an apology from you.

Thanks so much for calling some of my best friends "dim-witted" and "a real dim bulb". Much appreciated.

The fact that you need to make up special explanatory cards for AOOs indicates they are an unusually complex addition to the game. Furthermore, your sentences are not self-complete. The casual gamer can now ask: (1) What is a threatened area? How do I know if I'm in one or not? (2) When am I...

Perhaps for a hard-core gamer. I had a close friend, but a casual gamer, who ran several warrior characters perfectly well, but could never-ever-ever remember the rules for AOOs. You can get pretty far in D&D knowing "in a round I can move, and attack, and roll a d20 when I do". But the AOO...

(a) It's magic. The magic forces it in a line for a certain distance before going to ground. (b) Because it was originally written for Basic D&D when no "ranged touch attacks" existed.

I disagree with that. The other thread convinced me that the 3.5 charge rule is inherently contradictory, because "directly toward X" is not the same thing as "to the closest square next to X".

- Do PCs have free reign to invent new magic items? - Do PC-invented magic items count as Core Rules, or House Rules? - Are Caster Levels on core wondrous magic items fixed, or creator-adjustable? - (Corollary) Are Caster Levels on wondrous magic items a prerequisite?

Balor: Doctor, it hurts when I do this. Doctor: Then stop doing that.

I would also say "yes, absolutely" to that.

:) Keep in mind that almost nothing is the same as the MM size increases. Spells don't replicate them. Even the monsters-of-larger size in the MM (monstrous spiders, scorpions, animals-to-dire-animals, etc.) don't follow those progressions. (Personally in my game I've rejected that table and...

Not in my (3.0) PHB. :)

Personally I would assume the answer is "yes". (The first 5 ft. of movement does not provoke AOOs.)

He may be thinking of the 3.0 wording.

Agree, of course, that the rules are clear spells emanate from a point (grid intersection according to DMG).

Actual quote from spell description:

The search for a no-regular-damage, no-subdual-damage creature type continues. :)

No. Consider the "Wizard Starting Package" on 3.0 PHB p. 54-55. Elven and human (et. al.) wizards are given a quarterstaff as standard weaponry. For gnomes and halflings it is written: And this is a two-handed weapon for those gnomes and halflings. No other penalties.

Here's a WOTC "Rules of the Game" article which asserts that you cannot move diagonally across wall corners, but (unfortunately, imo) you can move diagonally past enemies: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040713a

Whichever one he wanted.

Thanks for the citations, guys. So it looks like extrapolating from those numbers (as required by the DMG), assuming the DM allows this new item (I wouldn't), and assuming it being left out of 3.5 doesn't indicate specific rejection by current designers (I would tend to lean that way)... It...