Search results

I guess what I was saying was that a purple worm, while susceptible to a sneak attack, might only have a vulnerable spot in it's head. Thus, I could see where they say that you can't reach the purple worm's vital areas. I don't know what a purple worm's anatomy is like (I know that I can cut...

Crap!

I hope you're right :) IceBear

And if that's the case, EVERYONE should be able to do extra damage to escape. Despite your excellent example of the rogue in the pit of acid, I wouldn't allow the rogue to use sneak attack to escape just because it doesn't feel like that was what was intended. Actually, it's a freaking worm, I...

Yet another reason to avoid fights with big creatures outside :) IceBear

I know what Hypersmurf is saying is technically true, but I guess I just have it ingrained in me that magic missles destroy mirror images, so I allow targetted spells that cause damage to destroy mirror images. IceBear

A full-round action has the spell go off on your initiative count, but it takes all your actions that round (except for a 5ft step). It's exactly like a fighter taking a full round attack action. A full-round cast is like casting summon monster. You start casting on your initiative count in...

Lots of high level spellslots used up for that trick :) IceBear

D'oh...I missed that they increased the damage for delayed blast. Nevermind :) IceBear

I guess because if it was only +1 or +2 then delayed blast fireball would suck even more for a 7th level spell :D IceBear

That's the million dollar question :) Is it JUST Skip William's preference, or was it simply forgotten when the PHB (and the PHB errata) was released (seems, odd, but I could still see it)? The thing is, just about every d20 WotC product since then uses 1/20 on Saves as auto fail/success. In...

Then remove it...TADA!!! :) Seriously, if it bothers you so much that there are two threads on it then use the variant in the DMG or ELH - that's why WotC put them in there. Don't preach to others that they shouldn't use it if they want to. It won't be removed in 3.5, but I'm sure they'll...

Sorry guys, didn't mean to imply ALL DR was going to be special material only, but it is my understanding that MOST will be. As long as most of the magical DR monsters are DR 5/+1 or so, it shouldn't be too bad. As Petrosian said, skeletons becoming vulnerable to rapiers in AM fields doesn't...

Ummmm, guys, aren't you forgetting that monsterous thread on this? Since DR will be keyed to special materials, not the number of pluses, in 3.5 it won't matter if the weapon is magical or not. IceBear

You aren't wrong, except "as written in the books" only attack rolls have the auto success/fail. The FAQ states that saving throws also should work that way (there is nothing in the core books stating that), but that's being discussed in another thread :) IceBear

I believe that if it was intentionally left out they would have specifically stated that in the PHB. Most of us came from 2nd Edition (and older) and thus would naturally think that a 1 was a fail and a 20 a success. Thus, in the PHB they SPECIFICALLY stated that natural 1/20 does not apply to...

I don't have my PHB handy, but it's in there. INT doesn't apply retroactively to skill points (that's explicitly mentioned) but it would for bonus spells. IceBear

Named bonuses (normally) don't stack. So, if you get cover bonuses to AC from two different sources, only the highest of the two would apply. IceBear

I don't have a problem coming up with a reasonable (if contrived) explanation for when someone rolls a natural 1 on an attack roll when they normally can't miss. With Epic Level rules it can be easy to still hit something with a -10 penalty (which is why they suggested open ended rolls...

I know what you're saying, and I do plan on using open ended rolls myself, but I can see the other side of the argument. If said fighter was fighting the dragon, the law of averages would still dictate that the gardener (who might get in a lucky hit) would die and the fighter (who might miss...