Search results

Yeah, it's a 9th level spell, physical damage is not what characters should be fearing at 17th+ level.

If a PC wants the Leadership feat, all the DM has to do is make the NPC. From there on out it's the PC's responsibility to play two characters. I don't see why DMs hate this feat so much. I've never disallowed it in campaigns I've run, but I can't convince any of my players to take it anyway. /shrug

Consider that granite weighs about 168 pounds per cubic foot, so you're looking at 21000 lbs (just over 10 tons) of rock in a 5x5x5' space. I seriously doubt any person can obliterate 10 tons of rock in an hour, even if he is a half orc. The first edition numbers look much more realistic by far.

That's pretty much exactly what I would say, any rogue would take this feat the instant s/he qualified for it. If it's a must-have, it's probably broken.

In a party of 8 I would worry about the golem lasting more than a round, maybe two at most. That thing has chain barrier as its only really unique ability and there are plenty of spells that don't allow spell resistance. If you have someone with an adamantine weapon, this will drop in a hurry.

It also lets you threaten and take AoOs with a bow. That opens up a whole variety of feat chains that were never meant to be used with a bow. The Power Attack -> Cleave tree is a good example of one that doesn't benefit from this, but most feats were not written to specifically prevent ranged...

This debate comes up fairly regularly, and there is no clear answer. The rules are vague and there has been no errata to clarify them. People will say one way is correct or another, but really, it's up to your DM.

I certainly wouldn't allow it continuously, it takes away the one limiting factor that using a bow has. If you have Arrow Mind up all the time, why ever bother with a melee weapon again? Archery becomes the superior style in just about every aspect.

What part of the door's anatomy can you strike to deal lethal instead of nonlethal with a whip? The -4 doesn't even apply, you can't strike for points where its armor doesn't completely cover it.

Bingo.

Shadow Weave is not anti-Weave, it's an alternative Weave. There's very little chance of a spectacular explosion or anything of the sort, the closest you'd get is they'd each be less effective against each other.

In 3.0, that was true, but not in 3.5. You wield a Large weapon the same way you wield a medium weapon, but with a -2 penalty for its size.

If he didn't attack, he didn't attack--he's still invisible.

That's not a contradiction, Monte is saying that it was wrong in 3.0 and the error persists in 3.5. He does not, and has never believed, that the CL of an item listed in the DMG is a requirement.

You kick them. Necromancers must love kicking baby animals, it's required! Oh wait, no, that's just my evil SOB necromancers...

Weapon specialization is already independent of range. Limiting that would have been a house rule to begin with.

Anyone with martial weapon proficiency can use a bastard sword two-handed. They can thus use a large bastard sword two-handed at a -2. If a character happens to have EWP:Bastard Sword, he can opt to use the bastard sword one-handed at no additional penalty. Meaning it's still a -2 for the size...

Nevermind...

The accepted abbreviation for Complete Adventurer... CA was already taken by Complete Arcane.

Lucky for you only the Errata can change the rules, the FAQ is just what Skip thinks and it's by no means able to change the rules.