Search results

One thing to keep in mind is that we're looking at this in a vacuum. It's possible, for example, that they've changed how bows and arrow enchantments stack in 3.5 or they've added new abilities to melee fighters, etc. They've already hinted that "we" (the collective we of D&D forums) have...

No, what he's saying is if you cast Cat's Grace on your sword the spell would go off, but have no effect and thus not be there for purposes of being dispelled. It's almost identical to it just "fizzling". The same thing with the Domination spell. When the spell is cast, it's cast, but because...

Which is why I only allow one cleave against any one opponent per round - to prevent such cheese :) IceBear

Yeah, but Caliban pointed out something to me last night that I didn't realize. A spellcaster always knows whether or not you make your save against a spell. Thus, if he casts a charm person on an illusion and it has no effect, he knows that it wasn't because it made its saving throw and makes...

I've never seen it, but if it applies to figments from Mirror Image I can see how others extrapolated it to your question, especially with the cleave ruling as well. IceBear

I agree, but then there are many things in the FAQ that aren't supported by the Core Rules (natural 1/20 on Saves for example). Hence, 3.5. I've never disputed you to be wrong by the core rules. I just like it the way the Sage ruled in the FAQ. To each his own. IceBear

I think it's this one from the FAQ (that I just posted in the other thread): This states that targetted spells can destroy mirror images. How can that happen unless you target the mirror image with the spell? IceBear

This is the quote from the FAQ that implies that you can target a mirror image with a spell. This states that targetted spells destroy mirror images. The only way that could happen is if you could target the images with said spells. What I think needs to be added to this is the spells must...

I think this is an extrapolation of the Mirror Image quote in the FAQ. It implies that you could target a mirror image with a spell and if you hit it then it vanishes. It's how they answer how to determine if the spell (like fireball) would disrupt the image or not. IceBear

Sorry, I quickly read your post and was having a bad day so I misread you. I apologize. We will agree to disagree here then as I do have a problem with allowing sneak attack. IceBear

Wow! What a stupid rule. I can understand the person being affected by the spell realizing he threw off the effects of a spell but I don't know how a spellcaster would know it made the save or not. You can see that I need to re-read the spellcasting section, huh? :D There goes a staple of...

Reread the sneak attack description. There is room for the DM to adjudicate whether or not the thief can reach a vulnerable organ. Sure he knows where it is, but he wouldn't be able to reach it. As a DM, I adjudicate that the stomach of these creatures aren't "vulnerable" with respect to...

Well, what happens when you hit someone with one of those spells anyway? Oh, he stopped moving. Now did I really hold him or is he pretending to be held? Oh he's still moving, did he make his save, is he immune to hold spells, spell resistance, or is he an illusion? I don't see an issue...

True, but that statement was in reference for spells like Message. Anyway, I've known what your position has been on this for awhile and I'm not trying to convince you otherwise - just stating how I like to use it and feel comfortable with. IceBear

Agreed, but given that most of these creatures are unthinking beasts that just swallow everything in their path, it seems reasonable that evolution has designed these creatures so their gullet it less vulnerable than others. I don't see a T-Rex, choosing to swallow the guy with the sharp sword...

Yeah, that's how I interpret things too I guess. Just saying "The spell fizzles" is boring and kind of gives away some information that divination spells are for :) Yes, I know I have no rules to back up that interpretation :D IceBear

This seems a little weak to me. I understand what you're saying, but it just feels weak. IceBear

There can be more than one target to a Message spell. IceBear

Yeah, this feat needs to be reworked. Isn't there an offical thread somewhere on Savage Species where they want to collect questions and comments? Someone should mention this feat there. IceBear

I know that the rules don't back me up on this, but I just look at it as being an illusion being disbelieved. You hit it with a magic missle (or your spell fails to go off because you were targetting a figment) so poof, the figment is lost. Hit it with an area effect spell and you can't tell...