Search results

Yup

Doh! I too didn't pick up that this is what you meant by "By fiat, I am assuming the Travel power to be exactly equivalent to the spell". :o

Yes, I find that they have merit (as illustrated by point #3, and by previous discussions on this). Mind you, point #1 wasn't presented as an argument (i.e. evidence) but rather a premise. An unsupported premise might well be right, but I couldn't call it 'valid' (i.e. with merit) without some...

Thanks for the information! I stand corrected. Good to know. (now if I could just get that phone number from you ;)...)

I don't think we can assume it is errata unless it specifically says so. Saying it "incorporates official errata" appears to be semantically different (but maybe WotC does mean this). Still, if the whole book is to be considered errata, it should probably say so somewhere in it. Personally: I...

You wouldn't "win" any with just that, but you could use it as a possible premise (because it does happen in the rules), and if many other people had that same conclusion (which has happened with this topic) and/or you could find other supporting information, it could be a valid RAI. (yes, I...

Fair enough. But do you believe that it should sometimes be read that way? How would you tell the difference? The primary source rule doesn't seem to be an absolute. Sometimes WotC breaks that rule (sometimes they even tell you that they are doing so). Conversely, the statement "updated to...

You genuinely don't know? Well, there have been long threads discussing it (I can provide links to them if you wish to know more, rather than hijacking this thread). But (assuming you wish to know)... essentially: 1) The writer simply may not have intended to preclude non-magical effects (and...

Most people seemed to view that issue as subject to interpretation to begin with.

That statement was also used to describe the deluxe edition PHB... but no stealth errata was intended there. Semantically, it simply means that the errata is included. Other changes made by the book should stand separate from that statement.

You seem to be rude (for no reason), and denied intuitive insight into possible alternate RAI.

Agreed. The grappling section appears to merely be a re-print of the SRD. It even still contains the (unclarified): "Pin Your Opponent: You can hold your opponent stationary for 1 round" and "When an opponent has pinned you, you are held stationary (but not helpless) for 1 round" and "while...

It's considered errata? AFAIK, it's just a supplement (and supplement contain mistakes all the time). It's only when a supplement actually says it's updating a rule that I consider it to have primacy over a previous, contradictory rule. Now, the description of the Rules Compendium does say "the...

I agree, but it's subject to some interpretation though.

I considered that (and that is how I plan to read it), but I don't think that was the case. The line of effect issue has been discussed often, while LOS is fairly obvious and has never been an issue. This simply seems like an ill-considered and poorly researched call rather than a typo. Odd...

Indeed. The Rules Compendium says: "Spells don’t function in an antimagic area, but an antimagic area doesn’t block line of effect." That implies that say, an archmage with master of shaping could freely cast spells outside of his AMF (while still nerfing anyone trying to get near him...

From the 3.5 FAQ: "Can a spectral hand spell deliver a touch spell from a staff or wand? What about from a scroll? No. The spell delivered by spectral hand must be one that you cast. Activating a magic item is not the same as casting a spell, even if the effect is virtually identical."

Yup. It's an error (which of course still makes it good for "little know rules" fodder, so thank you for presenting it here :)).

NPC wealth should be based on their character level (not ECL, as that could result in say, a giant with a single barbarian level becoming extremely wealthy*). From the DMG (page 51), Monsters With Classes: "...first give them equipment. Use Table 4-23: NPC Gear Value (page 127) and use just...

Technically, readying a charge shouldn't be allowed. This has actually been discussed at length: Here Here Here Here Here and Here There is a glitch in the rules (and not the writer's intent) that could lead one to interpret that readying a charge is possible if you are slowed, staggered...