Search results

Again we get back to what I initially stated was the flaw in your reasoning. The action "Attack (melee)" and the concept "melee attack" are separate. They are not the same thing. They are different. "Attack (melee)" grants a "melee attack". So do many other actions. That does not mean other...

The spiked chain does everything that any weapon can do: - It is a two-handed weapon and gains benefits from that. - It's a finesseable weapon. - It's a reach weapon, and the only one of its kind in core that threatens both adjacent and non-adjacent squares. - It allows Trip attacks. - It...

Please note that the AC bonus from the two shields would not stack, as shields give a "shield" bonus to AC, and named bonuses not called "dodge" or explicitly called out as stacking do not stack with bonuses of the same name.

No. Given the intent you specify, it would not be a use of the action "Attack (melee)", it would be the use of a melee attack, and the actions that give melee attacks vary. Hence it should be under "Action type: Varies" if they intended it to be so used.

Yes, but rangers get TWF as bonus feats without having to meet the prerequisites, so for rangers TWF is not MAD.

Okay, I'll assume that for the purposes of this post. Then they made a mistake in including it under "Standard Action" instead of under "Action Type: Varies". This has been my stance on the issue from the start. If Sunder is not its own standard action, it shouldn't be under the "Standard...

I think I didn't make myself clear. I don't recognise that there is more than one way to correctly interpret the rules on sunder. I can see how someone could interpret it differently than I do, but I think they are wrong. What I do recognise is that I am not omniscient or perfect - I could be...

I cannot in good conscience state my opinion as objective truth because I don't know the objective truth. I am a human being, flawed and fallible. All I can know is my opinion. How's this: I am as sure as I can possibly be that the rules currently say that Sunder is its own standard action and...

The number of threads on a subject indicates ambiguity, yes, but I still think that the point of view I argue is what the rules actually say. If I hadn't believed that I was right, I wouldn't have argued the position (well, I might have argued it anyway, but I would have stated my insecurity...

That it is listed on table 8-2 is not in question either way. Disarm, trip, and grapple are also listed on 8-2, but in a different section, under "Action type: Varies." I didn't say that Sunder had its own entry in the table - that is not in question. I said that it was listed under "Standard...

I'm not using that text as a basis for saying whether it can be used whenever you could use a standard melee attack, I'm using table 8-2 as a basis for saying that it is its own standard action. The FAQ doesn't change table 8-2, because the FAQ is not errata. To be consistent with the FAQ's...

Wow. Just wow. That is awesome. Thanks! Yeah, I know. It's just nice to know exactly what is already available out there, so I don't duplicate effort. But thanks for your input!

Thanks. I'm sure that'll help me a lot... but there are a lot of alternate class features from other published sources. What I was looking for was something more like the feat index and the prestige class index available at Wizards' site, but for alternate class features, however.

Your flaw is in conflating the concept "a melee attack" and the action "Attack (melee)". The distinction between them is not hair splitting, but it has been the subject of much confusion in several previous threads.

And with Keen and Improved Critical no longer stacking in 3.5, that's an actual choice!

I'm going to be helping a few players create characters for a campaign soon. They are good roleplayers but unfamiliar with DnD - I'm quite familiar with DnD. They tend to come up with character concepts that are interesting but don't really fit into the DnD "class" framework directly, so I'll...

No, but neither is it necessary to read them as independent. Thus both interpretations are equally valid (in a "strict RAW" sense) in my eyes, and none of them "change the RAW".

I disagree because reading the second sentence as dependent on the first is in keeping with the rules for the English language. It is therefore a valid way to read the paragraph without changing anything at all.

Yes, it is. Which means that things like an obstruction 10' away are pretty irrelevant to the discussion. That obstruction will be there no matter if it's dark, sunlight, or if the character uses a spyglass. The situation has no bearing on maximum ranges of vision (other than blindsight through...

That's not what's being discussed. This will hold true for any sort of vision (except things like blindsight through tremorsense), and is what I already pointed out - circumstance modifiers to vision range doesn't affect maximum Darkvision range. You can spot something in the dark at the shorter...