Search results

Hong: As always, I find your opinions entertaining. That won't change the way the rules are written, but it does make you look a bit spiteful. :D

Just an FYI. : There's an Improved Flyby feat in Sav. Spec. that lets you use avoid the AoO from Flyby if you use your extra partial action as an attack. So it functions as an aerial Spring Attack of sorts, but is more versatile with the possibility of using your partial for something different...

I agreewith the first part of your statement. Uncanny Dodge does help you against invisible attackers, no matter what the nature of their invisibility. The fact that it functions versus invisibility is clearly stated in the feat. The fact that it works against an ability SIMILAR to invisibility...

Hong: You asked "Since when have the 3.0 rules implied that neither blindfight nor uncanny dodge help?" I thought I indicated this clearly before, but I'll give it another shot. Uncanny dodge states you retain your AC bonus vs. an INVISIBLE attacker, not a blinking one. As has been shown in a...

Actually, it's weapon SIZE that makes a weapon "light" for a character. I don't think the off hand has anything to do with it, other than that's where a "light" weapon works better than one that isn't. Last time I checked, a large shield is bigger than a lot of the "medium" weapons, let alone...

Well, that certainly does complicate things. :p By the letter of the spell text, Hypersmurf is correct. Makes you wonder how many of the designers used "ethereal" and "incorporeal" interchangably while writing this spell or if this wording was intentional. [edit: Why would having a weapon...

I think you're using more interchangably with different in respect to resources. A character who can cast more low level spells does not have more resources than a character who can cast higher level spells, just different resources. One character who can do two lesser things can't be counted...

Yes, a 10-15 lb. "light" weapon that can cover about half your body does seem a bit odd. I haven't heard any errata or clarifications to the contrary, however. Sometimes common sense and the rules just can't "play nice" together.;)

PHB p. 77 says that you can acquire a feat at the same level you gain the prereq. So if you wanted the feat Dodge, for example, you could take it the same level as you receive your new ability point from leveling. (edited for grammar)

Cheiromancer: I hadn't heard that, but it seems that it's would be difficult to believe. I think the rogue is on the high end of the class power scale and that's without constant sneak attack. I'd be curious to hear one way or the other, though. Destil: I remembered something similar, but I...

I assumed Yellow Sign knew how subdual and regen. works, so yes, fire and/or acid are necessary. BUT, if you actually DO get a troll into negative HP's, yes, it works. How's that dead horse feeling NOW, HUH? Let's give it another kick :D

Don't think of the feat as something you "use," rather think of it as a part of the level progression. If you had a fighter character, you wouldn't say "Do I have to take my BAB increase right now, or can I do it later?" The only reason it seems different with feats is because you can derive...

Yup. The troll's regeneration only works on damage and does not prevent spells that outright kill a creature.

That spell failure percentage applies to arcane spells only. As a cleric, you cast divine spells. No worries.:)

Yup, the "handiness" factor of that ability just went up a few notches. :D

The PHB says you get a feat at X character level. It doesn't say you get the feat at a later level when you can do something more interesting with it. :p Basically, you get the feat at X character level, meaning as soon as you are a level X character. To do otherwise would be to ignore the level...

Don't forget Hold Monster. Other than that, I can only come up with creature abilities, like that of a ghoul. It's a handy, but not super powerful ability.

That's probably the way it SHOULD work, and any DM who's reasonable will probably house rule it that way, but it's not the way the rules are written. Where's 3.5 when you need it?

I'm reasonably sure the spell blocks all entry AND exit via magical interplanar transportation, but if it only prevents entering, the spell is not as powerful as I thought. As an argument for how I originally read the spell and how I think it is intended, it says "interplanar intrusion," not...

The rules for the spell actually do mention this in a way (as someone who can see invisible creatures and strike at them can attack the blinking character normally) in terms of offense, but not defense. Using this combination to allow a defense against blinking is in no way official, but it...