Search results

Yep. Famous last words... "I guess we will see if he has combat reflexes..." only followed by the slightly less famous "Let me try again, no way his dex can be that high..."

Cool, though my group and I have found much humor at asking "the sage" the same question and getting different answers... :confused: I do happen to agree with this ruling however. Stone skin (in all the games I'm in at least) gives you that first 10 points on damage (no qualifiers aside from...

Quicken spell or DM's fiat and give the baddy some kind of supernatural type ability (probably not for all spells, but a few). I'm also fond, personally, of slapping vile damage to attacks from undead, etc. just 'cause I like the "icky evil" aspect of it (and the "no healing the damage till...

+2 I have never seen anyone do that.

Not only that, it's silly. I'm going to go out on a limb and say not only does he not think a spell called stoneskin gives you a stone skin, he probably thinks it, oh I don't know, does what the spell description says (which doesn't include making one's skin stone, or any such thing). ;)

+1 :)

That sounds like a much better way to handle it.

To answer how I read it, with the removal of the "as a special property" language as well as the removal of "flesh to stone" from the SRD description, I interpret that to mean they realized their mistake and fixed it between the printing and the SRD. I can totally see how others wouldn't view it...

Yes, you clearly do. No, I don't. As I said, I have no problem reconciling the two. If someone tries to tie a readied action to the end of a time stop, it fails. If someone tries to shoot an orc before he comes through the door, they shoot the wall. If they ready an action for after the time...

No, you misunderstand me. You can absolutely ready an action to take when a situation occurs. My point however is that the readied action occurs FIRST. Per the SRD: So if you were to say "I want to ready an action for when the spell ends" the problem with that is that the readied action occurs...

Per the rules for spot checks, yes. That said, I don't think there's any problem with spotting someone or something, without need of a spot check at all. IOW, I don't think there is anything wrong with saying "100 feet (or 1000 feet), open field, no spot check is necessary to see them"...

I think it can spread up to a distance of 300' (so 300' radius in the context of your question). I based that on the following: Spell Descriptions If you apply the logic of a spread spell, it would seem that it should be able to go in any direction up to 300 feet away. I could of course be...

If you insert language from 3.0 and ignore the SRD, yes you are correct. Congrats. If you don't and use the SRD, I stand by my original statement, as I did the last post. I'll edit my original post to include the SRD qualifier and to soften the harshness of the "you're a dumbass" tone that...

If that is what the results are, then that's what the results are, but I'm not saying that. I explained how the spell works per the SRD citing the examples from the appropriate parts of the SRD. The SRD makes no reference to flesh to stone. The PHB may (and does) but the SRD does not: Flesh...

Yes and no. As I mentioned, that doesn't include any other conditional modifiers that the DM might apply, such as totally flat, no obstructions, walking in the same direction, etc. etc. etc. Even then though, the DC is going to still be relatively high I would think. IMO the -1 for every...

Yes, and yes. Also, don't forget that in the case of the savage progression, etc. those are instead of class levels. The way I think of it is while everyone else gains class levels, they gain template levels.

It's kind of fun being off for the month, gives me time to research things I otherwise wouldn't have time for. :) No question, dispel magic works against the blindness/deafness spell: Duration Definition: As you already mentioned, blindness/deafness is a duration permanent(d) spell. Dispel...

Per the SRD I believe this is absolutely and unequivocally incorrect. NOTE: Please see the rest of this discussion. Leaving the above sentence in for the sake of historical note, but it's not an absolute or unequivocal thing as subsequent discussion illustrates. Per Dispel Magic: Per...

I don't believe that is correct. The 20 is the base DC, before modifiers are applied. It doesn't factor distance at all (IOW, the base DC to spot at max distance (1440 feet) and 100 feet is the same, 20). So to spot something at max distance, assuming no size, contrast or other factors (IOW...

If I understand it correctly, and forgive me but I've been awake for 40 hours or so right now, I think (s)he has a flawed premise as well. I think liberty has been taken with the "it is also possible to set a readied action to trigger 'as soon as a certain condition exists" statement. I don't...