Search results

You're asking the wrong question. It should be "What's fantasy have that Sci-Fi doesn't have". And the answer to that is Magic. Unexplained, unexplainable. Sci-fi has "magic" too, but they make at least token explainations. I answered first, and read other people's responses second (which I...

Me too, me too. Of course, as I hinted earlier, I've had a number of characters get Uncanny Dodge... and they've always considered the "I can't be surprise sneak attacked" a part of the "I can't be surprised denied my dex". Generally speaking it's high dex people who I have get uncanny dodge...

No. Only most GOOD religions. Others might specifically forbid cremation, and instead require each dead be buried with an appropriately priced gem...

Hrmm... well, I agree that Doom does fit into this catagory (and is fun to say as you cast it), it's relatively ineffective.

That's what I was thinking too... but apparently that's only for flanking. For pure suprise sneak attack (flat-footed) apparently the answer is "No, you can't sneak attack." The Wizards rules-interpreters tend to think along the same lines as the Magic:TheGathering rules interpreters (same...

He's got you there. Overlapping things both exist, they just (generally) don't do you any *Good*. However there are some circumstances where they would help. This might be one... another would be if you have two +5 bonuses and a dispel was made, and one of them was dispelled or suppressed, the...

You know, I'd even let the fighter stack 'em up as high as he wanted. I rarely see any of those feats used even once, I find it difficult to imagine that it would be an actual power play to stack them, which would by necessity require that they be taken more than once. (shudder)

Making it a ranged touch attack... My arcane trickster would *love* that alteration. That would increase the power level of the spell dramatically! Ahem. Anyhow, it's a good spell, but I don't really think it needs to be nerfed. It's situational, it's handy, and more often than not it's a...

I don't see how it wouldn't apply... as Felix stated, the magic of the blade isn't suppressed or removed, it's still GOT a + X enhancement, that enhancement is just being used defensively. That being said GM Fiat rules in my games... And THAT being said, a GM who wants to sunder a weapon...

Well, the rogue is/was wrong. But you can see why he misunderstood. Ah. I knew that line was in there somewhere. And it makes some sense that I 'forgot' exactly where, so far I've never had a character get up to Improved Uncanny. I get Uncanny all the time, but Improved has so far been too...

Heheh. Well, you know, normally I'm all for a great theory. I was just dissapointed to see so few actual "I've done this and.." responses. A very good point. But it would be nice if at least some of them were, wouldn't it? Ahh (wipes away tear). Classic. In a game not too long ago the rest...

I've seen a lot of talk on this thread about the spiked chain in general, debate as to it being overpowered or not (which does hint that it is at the very least viable!) However I'm not seeing what I personally hoped to see, that being people who've actually playtested the combo at all levels...

This is actually a large part of the point of this ability. Note that if the (sneak attack attempting) rogue is four levels higher than the target rogue of barbarian with uncanny dodge, then the sneak attack does go through. (I'm almost positive that there are words to that effect anyhow. Today...

By RAW it'll work. Of course, by GM Fiat, it won't necessarily work.

Of course, at this point you have to look at the magic level of the game. I'm talking about a "normal" DMG base magic level game. If you're playing in an extremely low magic campaign this spell (and many other spells) *should* be 'nerfed', and shouldn't be allowed to stack. After alll, there...

I've seen this argued several times... With several different interpretations. The basic agreement is that it indeed does overlap, by RAW. There is some debate as to how they overlap. And, of course, at that point there is no guide and it could be any of the myriad of interpretations. Of...

Which is how it has to be. After all, Law is a function of Chaos. Law was created by Chaos, sprang from Chaos, it's part of Chaos. However any particular bit of Law's survival rely's exculisvely on it's ability to remove chaos from it's system. Or, at the very least, encapsulate and control it.

In general when I see people talking about it, this seems to be what they're actually discusing, at heart. And 3.X does place more "control" in the players hand. There's more to it than that, but that is indeed a mojor point. Mainly in that 3.X is a very Lawful/Law oriented game. Of course, in...

Ah. I see where you may be misinterpreting me. I'm not debating that the name of the skill has the word local in it. And in above popints I've addressed that... However I'm pointing out that the word is not in the description. And I stated that the name does seem to be disingenuous. Here I...

No, local is a definition that we're in debate about. So adding it back in and pointing at it is misdirection. A good spell, and secretly a good debate technique, but not actually a valid point. And, actually, the skill has "Knowledge: Local" as the NAME of the skill, followed by the...