Search results

for the love of god... everyone arguing for true strike hitting invisible creatures keeps using, and ignoring, the word """"target"""". "waahh... it negates concealment for your target, so it works against invisibility. waahh..." :rolleyes: there are certain things you need to accomplish...

i can't agree with the vitals part, but i do agree with your first statement. nowhere in the description of true strike does it suggest you can hit a target you don't even know is there. if you don't have something to shoot at, then, well... you don't have a target, and can't make use of true...

ahh... i'm glad to see that you agree with us, if only subconsciously. :)

i am impressed that you have the rocks to tell most of the 3e gaming community that they are wrong, but being a minority doesn't automatically make your views correct... ...and where does it state that 3e combat was build upon order of the first logic? another assumption on your part; that...

i agree wholeheartedly... ABCDEFG

somehow i don't think not knowing where the target even is, is a "piddling detail" ..and for god's sake. it's a 1st level spell, even if it is only one shot per casting. at the very least, i'd think you would have to know the general area the invisible target is in. not just randomly fire an...

man, i'm glad someone said it...

yup. check out the dmg, page 243, column 1:

i'm pretty sure everyone/everything is considered to be proficient with their "natural attack form". unarmed strikes would be the natural attack form of most humanoids. so, yes to the first, and no to the second. :)

this makes sense. i mean, the 'masterwork' status is attached to the final product, not the materials used to make it.

well, by your math, all you did was up the power level of low- to mid-level battles, not make them "smarter".

for god's sake, magus_jerel... even you have to see the total stupidity in allowing two partial actions in a round! any character who has up to two attacks due to bab benefits more by taking two partial actions! and your logic is flawed in that you assume that just because you can do "sequence...

the only major flaw in the "it's always been that way" argument is... well... wasn't part of the 3e design to help bring new people to d&d? how's the n00b supposed to know "it's always been that way"?? :p

i'm a bit late in the thread, but... in regards to the definition of a double move, magus_jerel... what's your logic in equating "special standard action" with "[general] standard action"? you do good with the mathematical logic, but what happened here? i'll now direct you to the definition of...

i'm just reposting the relevant part of the above faq quote...

ot: on the sage. 3) the sage himself may have misread the question. poorly worded or overly verbose questions will usually contribute to this greatly. i dunno about him, but if someone writes me an email detailing an entire combat just to ask, "can i use my off-hand weapon in a *normal*...

totally off-topic: about special relativity someone made the statement that mass decreases with velocity. this is in fact, the opposite. an object approaching the speed of light "gains" mass. at the speed of light, this object (any object in fact, from a feather to a brick) has infinite mass...

dude, i'd contact a wizo about that if i were you. there's something very wrong about deleting a post without even giving the originator a notice about the event. or you could just start the thread again, stating: "my first attempt at this thread seems to have disappeared. since i received no...

Re: Well, technically dunno. you'd have to answer another question before you can answer this one. does the extra-dimensional space associated with the bag of holding disappear if the bag is destroyed? or are they two separate entities, with the bag being just a portal to that...

once you figure out how to get the sphere into the bag, come back and ask again. a bag of holding is 2' wide. so is the sphere of annihilation. not much room fo error i'd say. :)