Search results

I'm not following the reference. Is that a published story/adventure somewhere?

Hey everyone. After reading the 12 orcs vs. 17th level party thread, it got me thinking. Has anyone here run a "network" or "cellular" style threat from many small, low-level enemies against a high-level party, or is it always the singular BBEG and his minions holed up at their castle/cave...

I agree with DragonLancer. Nice idea.

That's a good argument TheEvil. I agree with your reasoning.

The line test defines the attacking state of "flanking" per the second paragraph of the flanking section. The first paragraph, or melee test, defines how to get a bonus to your attack roll. Sneak attacking only requires you to be in an attacking state of flanking, not to have a bonus to your...

Alright, let's modify the argument a bit, just for discussions sake. If I closed my eyes, the medusa has the SRD condition of total concealment. I can no longer attack without a 50% miss chance according to total concealment, can I make an opposed grapple check to damage the medusa without the...

My bigger question then is what is "immobile" which IS quoted in the SRD as a function of pinning, but not defined. Also, the PHB states the opponent is "at your mercy" in a pin. Granted this is not the same condition as helpless, but without rules clarifications, the intent would say that if...

Nice examples Hyp. I now see why it's almost moot to rule that even if the straight line criteria could interpretively be sufficient to declare flanking, it would, for simplicities sake, be smart to limit it to melee. I think the examples do show that the situation can be much more complex...

Nice post atom crash.

I think the crux of the argument is that X can sneak attack A (within 30', provided), because by the straight-line determination, Q and X flank A. Murrdox implied that because A and C place B in a state of "flanked" that Patryn claims any ally, even Q and X could get sneak attacks from B being...

I have my MM handy, and yes it is a supernatural ability, but activating it requires a standard actions, and "Use Special Ability" is not on the list of actions that are allowed when grappling. The bigger argument comes from the fact that creatures with the gaze quality require a save/round...

That's fair enough. Hadn't even noticed the snakes getting bite attacks, but yeah, I could see them wriggling free and biting me. I just think having to make constant Fort saves because somehow she's pulling an Excorcist maneuver and whirling her eyes around the back of her neck to look at me...

I'm of a camp with Patryn's mindset, but I'm not positive the RAW support it. To me, if ally 1 is threatening one side of an opponent so that even without facing rules, his defensive actions are focused in that direction, a ranged attack from an ally across the straight line from ally 1 should...

I'm understanding the two checks thing, but I don't understand how if she's: 1) Immobile by my choosing 2) Unable to use her special ability as an action because the grappling state prevents her from directing her gaze at me that I still would have to reflexively save. I'm choosing her not to...

I had a grappling-oriented fighter PC one game. He was a crazy thug that just liked brawling, wrestling, and bashing things with his 2x4 of frost. Our party ran into a medusa and her minions. Disregarding the fact it was crazy and stupid, my PC went right up, passed his Fort Save and...

I'd allow it. Reading the description of the Half-Orc Bard in the hero-builder's guidebook, you can imagine a feral bard, pounding out rhythms to drive his allies into a frenzy. I think it would be way more interesting than the typical whimsical sly-talking minstrel. If it adds depth to the...

I think glass's interpretation makes the most sense thematically. If I'm shooting at a guy who's back to me because he's focused on melee with my friend on the either side, I should get a chance to sneak attack. I shouldn't get the +2, because it's not particularly easier to make that shot...

I finally flipped through AE. There's a lot of stuff there, too much in fact. Not sure if I can afford the $50 just to sift for a few choice rules. If you find specific highlights there I can use, please let me know.

I'm just a novice player that wanted to start DMing a campaign. Given that 3.5 rules depend heavily on having miniatures to represent combatants, I was surprised how hard it is to just find some average humanoids and basic monsters, i.e. a core set to get started in DnD with, not miniatures...

So under that sect, does the barbarian aspect of the character continue to have the ability to rage? If he does, that seems chaotic enough a loss of control to lose the discipline a monk requires. They really do seem opposite sides of a coin to me. I personally wouldn't allow it unless he...