Search results

First off, the decision that may be inspired by some outside source is still arbitrary if it lacks self supporting reasons for being. Naming your kid after your favorite baseball player is arbitrary unless you family/culture has a tradition for naming kids after baseball players. Second...

So for the first 6-8 months, Evasion on DDO used to work with Heavy armor. This gave rise to the "Batman" build whereby Paladin's would take a dip into Rogue and get Evasion in Full Plate. Not sure I'd trust DDO's implementation as a definitive source for the rules. Regarding Mithril armor...

Except that that the DMG on page 293 says you can't evade when bound or squeezing through or a crack. So I guess the books aren't perfect at canvassing every contingency in every case are they?

Except you're overlooking one crucial fact: many of the decisions about how things should work in 3.5 are based on feedback from previous versions, to say nothing of play testing the rules specific to 3.5. Someone's arbitrary rules changes will not have been play-tested and more to the point...

Because the restriction on Evasion and medium or heavy armor is there because of exactly what Grogg suspects: the ability to dodge out of the way. I would also include the restriction if the Ranger/Rogue, etc were carrying a "heavy" load and could not drop it. The restriction on...

So let's talk biology for second. Evolution isn't improvement, at it's best, it's adaptation and in most cases it's merely natural selection.

Segueing from Green's response, I would say that if it was a light wooden shield, no issue either way. If it's a heavy steel shield or tower shield and they are just holding it i.e. no AC improvement, then he/she gets evasion so long as the drop the shield in the process. If they have "donned"...

The "Fourth" point may have been inartfuly worded, but it states that illusions are still effective as is. This is separate from the notion that changing the game is an improvement. So no, #1 and #4 are not the same argument, but the first sentence of #4 starts out that way. "D&D reality"...

Your response is disingenuous. Nobody is suggesting you are a tyrant and trying to mock my response as such is asinine and underscores you're not interested in an actual discussion when you've explicitly asked for downsides Another example: Right, because I've clearly alleged you can't be...

First off, neither you nor Jimlock presented any a compelling argument that protecting illusions from DM improves the game. What you've done is argue that the world should work the way you think it should. That' doesn't make the game fundamentally better. That just changes it. Second...

I would never go this route. I don't subscribe to the opinion that illusions should be any more than they are. If DM allows a 1st level caster to see through an illusion, so be it. Changing DM to protect one school of magic is wholly arbitrary. Why not create special rules for Monks or make...

The funny think about this comment is that, imo, it underscores the problem with the tier system and how it is based on assumptions that are not necessarily true. The reality is that since Detect Magic can be made permanent, there would be a whole truck load of individuals who deal with...

Let me offer a different perspective, Jimlock. You claim that the entire Illusion tree of magic is rendered useless by Detect Magic. What if it is? My response is to challenge your fundamental assertion that this is a bad thing or somehow wrong. I see nothing wrong with the proposition that...

In the absence of RAW which covers this type of thing specifically I can only have an opinion. In any event, it's all good. Let us know how the session turns out.

If everyone is having fun, that's all that matters.

I think this is crucial to checking the abuse of this spell. I would submit that Dominate is meant to be overt mind-control. Detectable and easily discernible to others by virtue of the DC 15 Sense Motive check which is not restricted as to who can detect it. Hell, our party has a 1st level...

If the cloud cover thing is understood by all, then obviously disregard, I'm just going on what you've described. I still call fie on the "butler" thing. This guy has the force of personality to lead an army and the grace to lead a nation and he's masquerading as a house servant? Like...

First off, what makes the game more real or less real in D&D is entirely subjective, so we don't need to debate it. Second, I would never play in a campaign where the DM felt they could change the rules willy-nilly in the manner you describe. It wouldn't be D&D, it would be someone's...

Sounds like a very interesting campaign, but I see a couple of problems. There's no reason to think this unless there is some overlord controlling all the undead. If this non-daylight state is something recent, like in the last 30 years, the undead are going to go hog wild. None of them...

This reminds me of a saying: The road to ruin is paved with good intentions. The fact is, and it is a fact, the authors of 3.5 have spent way more time playtesting the game than the average DM. I don't mean playing the game, I mean specifically looking at what is commonly referred to as "game...