Search results

That's my guess, too.

Theo R Cwithin explained it pretty fully, and Eldritch_Lord summed it up nicely.

By Jove, you're right! I completely missed that he used the term "off-hand" in his original post. Hopefully, we've now clarified that if you're wielding two weapons (say, rapier and sickle), and using TWF to gain an extra off-hand attack with the sickle, you're stuck using the sickle if you...

If you use the full attack option, you get one attack for every 5 or fraction of 5 BAB. These attacks can be made with any weapon (including unarmed strike) you have "in hand." So if you are holding a longsword in one hand and a dagger in the other, and you full attack at +11/+6/+1 BAB, you can...

No, because the only reason they got that second (off-hand) attack is because they opted to use Two-Weapon Fighting (the style, not necessarily the feat), which requires that you actually use a second weapon. In such a situation, Improved Trip allows you to make an immediate melee attack as if...

Well, unfortunately it doesn't look like you're going to find any consensus here. But ignore those other posters; I know what I'm talking about. ;) Dross is wrong and Visigani is right. You get a free melee attack as if you hadn't used that part of your attack sequence to trip; in other words...

I disagree. If you make a DC 20 Sense Motive check, the DM tells you: "Something about this social situation seems wrong to you. You can't put your finger on exactly what it is, but something's not right here." That's a long way from "catching" anyone doing anything. An impostor is using the...

Then your target has reach, but doesn't get to make an AOO on you. :p

My answer: maybe. It depends on the maneuver. As Patryn says, not in 3E it doesn't. I'd treat it as an unarmed Trip attack. Sure, just like sweeping him with your own leg would. If you look at the "trip weapons," you'll see that none of them are just long, straight poles (despite the fact that...

Please clarify. Is it "downplaying Tolkien's influence" to opine that other authors were more influential on early D&D than Tolkien was? Or is it only "downplaying Tolkien's influence" if I deny that he had any influence on the game?

But did you read the article? Are you open to being convinced?

I'm well aware of that, actually. I'm too lazy to argue the issue myself, but James Maliszewski has done a lot of really excellent historical research that I'll just slothfully point you in the direction of, beginning with this extremely on-point post: GROGNARDIA: Gygax on Tolkien (Again) But...

Tolkien is only one of many sources of inspiration listed in Appendix N, and Gygax himself made it abundantly clear over the years that he was by far a lesser one. Even the quote you cite implies that the Tolkien-esque material was included only grudgingly. So I have to disagree with you...

I don't have a problem with appropriate-sounding modern names like Megan or Erik. It would probably break my SoD to hear names like Bob or Buddy (but even those might be okay under the right circumstances). I agree that using familiar names would make it easier for players to remember NPCs. I...

This, exactly. This is why attempts to earn money as a "professional spellcaster" should be resolved using the Profession (spellcaster) skill. Allowing PCs to use their Spellcraft skill like the Profession skill would be a kind, generous ruling by the DM. I wouldn't do it, but diff'rent...

Correction: You may be within the radius (90 feet). The range increment is 30 feet, so you could be throwing the hammer up to 150 feet (5 range increments). I don't think this really qualifies as a "rules oddity." There's nothing odd about being caught within your own area effect; that's been...

There is no conflict in the two statements. One is simply less complete than the other. "A line-shaped spell affects all creatures in squares that the line passes through." This is a true statement. It also affects all creatures in squares that the line merely touches, but that does not make...

See, this confuses me, because I've pointed out that in fact, the text and the example do jive with each other. I mean, I can understand that someone might overlook the text in the illustration and thus be perplexed by the text that reads "A line-shaped spell affects all creatures in squares...

(1) What Nebten said. (2) The "Region: Taer" line indicates that you must meet the requirements for choosing feats from that region. It does not mean the feat is only available to taers (members of the nonhuman race).

Where does it say it is a "path"? EDIT: Never mind, I see it. Still not sure how that is any better or less confusing than the 3.5 version, though. I don't see what's confusing about a line or a cone. I do see a lot of potential confusion with a 5-ft. wide ______ or a 10-ft. wide ______. Maybe...