Search results

Nope, you make elixirs and ungents and oils. Of course, these things do pretty much exactly what potions do, with more options.

Although really what you want to do is make it a continuous item, so in line one instead of multiplying 1,800gp multiply it by 2000 gp. Of course, continuous items are also capable of being made so they can be activated and deactivated by a command word. An option you'll want to take with this...

Isn't multiple spells on a scroll already a base rule? I know you can make a scroll with multiple spells on it, and I know that a scroll counts as a magic item, and it takes 1 day per 1000 GP of magic item made... The only real difference I see between that and this potential potion rule is the...

Use "Imbue Familiar" to grant your familiar limited spellcasting, and have the familiar cast the spell itself.

Ah. And there you've pinpointed the prerequisite nerf... Do not allow it to go higher in (edit: air) the than a few feet. Which is something else I've never done. Still, the way the current version of the spell is written (cause that's what I can read), I don't see anything stopping it from...

I think I'd personally keep the range increment of 10', to match with other thrown things (like stones). Sure, a body is a LOT more akward than most stones, but still.

Note that there's a feat that overcomes this problem.

My answer is: You can if you believe you can. But then I'm a signer (Planescape reference) This question comes up for debate now and then. I don't see anything broken about allowing it, and I can come up with justification to allow it... and I can see some people's justification for not...

Sure, it's true that if you were actually enlarged, you would be able to use a larger longsword. Too bad they aren't giving you one in the Battlefist, huh? Oh, I anticipate it being combined in a rediculous fashion. And it will be, believe me. And I agree, in a non-monk it's not going to...

I always house rule quick draw to include a quick stow. Because really, that just makes sense. Of course, the feat is mainly there to penalize throwing weapons. (Making you take a feat to have the style be viable).

That would be more applicable. With the exception that it's ... wielding a dagger (d4) and then enlarged (d6) and then given a longsword (d8)

Of course, if I fully agreed with this interpretation of INA, I'd probably agree with you... however: The feat does, as read, actually increase your base damage. By one step, as if you'd increased in size. In that it takes you out of the normal size based damage. So say you were at medium...

If you don't think that my statement that both cause you do damage as if you were one size catagory larger, while neither make you any larger, then I cannot help you. To me it does seem logical. You are size X. Improved natural attack makes you deal damage as if you were X+1. Battlefist makes...

Yea, I was just talking about the natural attack increase. That part doesn't stack with Improved Natural Attack. Of course, neither does the making the slam attacks deal d8... in that both the battlefist and INA would increase the slam to d6 from d4, and then the battlefist would make it deal...

I'd allow multiple draughts with a GP limit, 1000 GP per day. That's pretty consistent with scibe scroll and other item creation abilities.

Seconded. These two don't stack. Battlefist causes you to deal damage as if you are a size larger than you actually are. IMA causes you to deal damage as if you are a size larger than you actually are. Since neither increase your size, they'll both increase your damage to the same amount...

It's true. And I understand the arguement. Still, comparing my friend J and myself, he's bought two lottery tickets a week for the past 5 years. (sometimes more) I have never bought one. He's occasionally won small amounts. Probably as much as 150 all together. In that time I've "won" 520. So...

Actually, I was talking about the 20-12-10-8 version, when I said you'd be just as likely to get way fewer charges... the 20-12-10-8-6 you should be statistically more likely to get more than 50 charges than less than 50. Which is something I'd want in this for two reasons 1) Few people in my...

Very bad and very good will be, of course, equally unlikely. However excatly 50% of in infinite amount of them will be below 50, some way below. That was my point, actually. The original method... well, it's better odds than going to Vegas, certainly. The odds are stacked in favor of the house...

Well, if you do it *right* you'll be duplicating the level adjustment effect exactly. If you do it wrong you're either being too harsh or too easy. And note that doing it *right* depends on you being prescient enough to absolutely know how many character levels that character will be played.