Search results

now we are just making things up? ok pizza - nachos pepsi - coke This is fun! I can make things up too! ;) Fire elementals have cold vulnerability not water vulnerability. So I will ask again, what exactly is it about water that would deal a fire elemental damage? The lack of oxygen is no...

Fire elementals are opposed by cold, not water ;) Fire elementals do not need air to exist nor do they need fuel. What exactly would the water be 'harming'? It isnt like water puts out all fires, it actually feeds certain kinds.

That does seem to be how antimagic field reads, yes. It suppresses magical effects but the actual things are still there 'somewhere'. Even summoned creatures wink out but their durations continue to run out. Psionic feats are supernatural. Lets see what they have to say: While in that area...

No, it is similar in end effect. But the 'effect' wording wouldnt work for that particular example. The example I gave is of a character who has an ability that lets him qualify for getting what the other poster was talking about. It coincides directly with the monks ability allowing him to...

I disagree. The effect 'is' the feat. It is what it does and that is what it is. If you have weapon focus in a weapon then you get a +1, weapon focus 'is' the +1, that is what it does, that is what it is. I have seen no rules to support the 'seperate' condition.

My made up class feature certainly says, 'for all purposes'. Hence my example. My example was about a similar ability which would allow for things to happen that normally would not happen. Not that it had exactly the same wording. Come on dr. awkward ;)

If you were level 5 and had 8 ranks in hide but you had a class feature that said, 'treat your ranks in hide as though they were 2 higher for all purposes' then would you allow the person to enter when they hit level 6? At that point it would be exactly the same. He has a class ability which...

So you are saying that even though monks weapons count as natural weapons they do not count as natural weapons? I think I see a flaw in your logic ;) Feats are all inclusive packages, you are assuming that there are multiple completely autonomous parts floating around. I see no support for...

which is of course the old arguement, but I disagree with your conclusion entirely. The prereq only checks to see if you qualify for gaining the feat. The feat itself 'does' improve a natural weapon so, for purposes of that feat, the monk has a natural weapon. Which means that he qualifies. I...

I thought it was concise and witty myself. It made perfect sense given the context. Showing an absurdity in action.. and fairly nicely I thought given the circumstances ;)

I was thinking stew as well..mmm.. stew.. I doubt it would do much good for something blind to run (dangerous I mean), but as the paladins mount is an extension of themselves I'd think that a good enough ride check would allow for it (straight path, decent terrain, that sort of thing). With...

Most of your points have nothing at all to do with that discussion. Therein lies the confusion. In fact, even the part I just quoted in my previous post has nothing to do with the discussion. At least it isnt related to a useful discussion for this forum. Rules forum. We like to work with the...

The rules state that they are treated as both. So, they are treated as both. I dont have any idea what you are trying to argue for here. The ability states it as such. If you believe that the ability does 'not' say it then we have nothing further to discuss.

The rules are abstractions in most cases, and many simply do not make sense in the real world. Should we toss out 90% of the rules then? This is the rules forum. I dont care if casting fireball hurts someones sensibilities and they feel that someone must carry around a handful of napalm in...

I dont know, did you check a database for the answer? ;)

Completely unimportant and irrelevant. It doesnt matter what their unarmed strikes started as, once they go monk they are treated as natural and manufactured. Also, common sense has little to no bearing in the rules forum. Common sense is far from common. What you may find to be nonsensical...

but then monks unarmed strikes count as manufactured weapons as well ;)

If it isnt counting as a prereq then what exactly does the 'counting as ...' text really mean? As I understand it, some people are argueing that the text in question actually has no meaning at all, which I just cant agree with. Must I point out the feat that I posted earlier in this thread? ;)

Hence the part of my post that you didnt quote and the 'but' at the beginning of the part you did ;)

I read the rules, which is what is in the book modified by errata. The sage is wrong often enough that I dont trust him for be a useful source, even when he is correct. But, in any game that I am in the dm is the final arbiter. If I am the dm then my final interpretation stands, if someone else...