Search results

Let's see if I can help... I submit that this is the source of your problem. The rules of D&D contradict themselves and exhibit gross incongruities at many junctures. It is an unavoidable consequence that games which introduce elements that have no basis in reality e.g. "magic"....will not...

This thread is comedy.

No, it's not the exception. Religious institutions have historically been about control/power. The entire colonization...(snip) Text removed by admin. We don't allow religious or political discussion here. Please avoid it in the future. Thanks -- Piratecat

Historically, the Catholic church ...and many others, have subscribed to the "ends justify the means." They have wantonly endorsed if not commanded their operatives to commit horrible crimes in the name of their god. Inquisition anyone?

Merric, Definitely appreciate all the comments offered. Ultimately I'm trying to understand the logic and/or rationale behind what they did in 3e. Why they changed it in 4e does offer some insight. However you point to a number of valid considerations that make it hard to interpret the...

As you point out, the Dex requirement is due to the coordination requirements and has nothing to do with moving faster. There are several classes, Samurai, Swashbuckler, and Ranger come to mind, that get TWF regardless of Dex. A Ranger with a 3 Dex and Perfect TWF gets the same number of...

Thanks Merric and Tequila. Any chance you've seen a discussion or article on why they changed the mechanic in 4e? Any comments on how this affected what people call "balance?"

Okay, so I was reading it correct at first. You said no loss due to "surprise." What about other situations...like climbing a rope, being encumbered, etc. Do these situations in 4e wipe out a dex bonus but keep a penalty? And FYI, if the underlying mechanic of how stat/abilities (specifically...

"Exccccccccccccepppppt..." TWF gives you extra attacks because you are using another weapon...Hello??!?! It has absolutely nothing to do with being quicker. You said having a lower dex makes you move slower. WF doesn't change the fact that a 3 Dex fighter using Sword & Board gets just as...

Your argument just ran into the wall and broke its neck. If what you were saying were true in D&D, then a person with a 3 Dex would take a huge negative modifier when swinging a sword. Do they? No. If Dex affected the speed with which you acted, then a person with a 3 Dex would always get...

No. It's not. People who are less coordinated don't drink a cup of coffee slower than people who are more coordinated. Don't spout nonsense. You can't walk around a crowded city and have any clue who is more or less coordinated until you play darts or basketball with them. What is true is...

I person who has a below 10 dex isn't necessarily "slow" they are less coordinated. They might not be able to run faster, but it's not like they move around in a bottle of molasses. So really it make 100% more sense that an uncoordinated person might be harder to hit if they weren't trying to...

Several have you have responded that 1e imposed the "no dex bonus" rule. That is technically false. The DMG on page 28 said that BOTH positive and negative modifiers were ignored in certain situations e.g. unseen attack, dodging a boulder, spells. However, those Dex modifiers (both positive...

So I'm confused. It sounds like you're saying that 4e is exactly the same as 3.x in that you have situations where you lose any and all "bonux" but the negative modifier still applies? I thought the previous poster was saying they no longer got rid of the bonus to AC...but it sounds like you...

So 4e did away with all the situations in which a person loses their Dex bonus and went to a flat modifier?

Awhile back there was a thread on being flat-footed. During that discussion I questioned the origins of the "no dex bonus" penalty. I am curious if anyone knows: 1) The history of how "no dex bonus" became a rule? Was it in 2e? 3.0? Is it in 4e? 2) Is there another penalty or status...

Apologies for belaboring the point, but I think it's important to play the devil's advocate here once again. To cast AMF, you need to be at least an 11th level Wizard. It's probably a safe bet that a Wizard at that level is going to be decked out with magic items, not to mention routinely...

I am not versed on DMZ's.... Regarding an AMF, based on your description of IoM, the attempt you make with the feat is for the spell to function "normally" i.e. to not be affected by the AMF. If you fail the check, the spell functions as if you didn't have the feat: it is cast, and it is...

First, Rule 0 always applies, so you can do what you want. But this is incorrect: No...the caster in not "nigh invulnderable." In fact, a caster in an AMF is extremely vulnerable...just not to other casters. An AMF field is dandgerous place to stand if any significant portion of your...

There is a huge functional difference depending on the spell. Look at Mage Armor. I can cast it within an AMF...and as soon as I walk out...it's active at full strength. This is quite different than saying I couldn't cast the spell to begin with. Same with any stat boosts, etc. Now here's...