Search results

*buh-diddlely-ump* Let's get some talk going on about who is *really* gonna be running what and what guidelines they want to set forth and such.

*insert constructive comment here*

D&D3e fo' me. I could be persuaded to play just about anything though really ;)

I R N FayetteNAM!!! Me want play!!! :p Seriously though, this could be kewl. Count me in :D

Yeah, but you know how it is... you have to keep repeating yourself unto infinity for those who only bother to read the first post ;)

I didnt hear anything... must have been your imagination ;) (( Besides, it's not *my* fault that the dragon was incompetent :D ))

Never said you had to. Exactly. As far as rule definitions go, there is no such thing as a "regular action". Thus you must interpret what that means within the confines of the game's rules, one way or another. Thats the problem with both of these feats... both can be quite potent, and...

It allows it if you view "regular action" as meaning an action you can normally take in a round, such as a move-equivalent or attack action. That would allow the combo he suggets in his response.

That is essentially my point, there is no rules definition of a "regular" action. Thus it is open to interpretation. Heh, well whatever the case is, I still have his in-print response in Dragon to refer to ;)

I think *WOOOSH!!!* would be more appropriate, as in "Another One Bites The Dust". :D

*sigh* Yes, thats the way, reference a dictionary when asked for a core rules definition. :rolleyes: There is no real need to continue debating this anyways. It's all been covered before, and everyone has their own opinon on these 2 feats. I happen to agree with the Sage's interpretation...

Until it comes to rolling a d20 ;)

This point is debatable whether you want it to be or not. I see all of that as describing the effect the feat has when it is triggered. Not as a limitation to how often it can be used. If you say so. But before I take your word for it, how about providing a reference to where the core rules...

Sure thing.... Yep, it describes the effect of the feat as granting an extra melee attack against one foe. Doesnt specifically say that this effect is limited to once per round. It doesnt say "standard action" it says "regular action" ;)

*looks cautiously from side to side and then yells...* I DID!!! I DID!!! :p Just thought I would chime in and point out that Expert Tactician does not say that you cannot use it multiple times against a single opponent, only using it against multiple opponents is prevented. And looking at...

.........I dont think we are playing the same game dude. Combat Reflexes is *far* from "near worthless" IMO.

See Mordenkainen's Disjunction ;) :p

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Robe of the Archmagi - Bless and Spell Resistance.........riiiiiiiiiight.... Hehehehe, ok ok ok, I will just fall on the previous truce built with the words "differing styles" and let it rest ;)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Robe of the Archmagi - Bless and Spell Resistance.........riiiiiiiiiight..... Not really a joke. Just pointing out that the robe only works for arcane spellcasters, making your response somewhat inane. ;) The definition of magi in a real-world sense has no meaning when...

Personally I think Haste is fine as is. Yes, it is one of the better spells in the game, and it has seen a good bit of use in most of the campaigns I run/play in... but use by both the heroes *and* the villians. Thats the balancing factor... As far as Armor of Speed goes.... yeah, that's...