Search results

Considering that WotC found it necessary to errata "hit" to "damage" in the description of Master's Wand of Magic Missile, they don't seem to think that it is absurd either. And it is not absurd. The thing about exception based design is that those exceptions trigger of specific keywords. "Hit"...

In my house-ruled 4E, the slowed condition also disallows shift, charge and run. Works extremely well and makes it very useful.

Strictly speaking, the new MM doesn't "Hit" anything, it just damages it. So by RAW Master's Wand of Magic Missile doesn't work any more. Additional errata?

Real grognards liked it the way it was - which was similar to the MM in OD&D. :p

Absolutely not! This is one of the most stupid moves WotC has made in 4e. And "the classical form" of MM? That would be "a conjured missile equivalent to a magic arrow", i.e. +1 to hit and 1d6+1 damage. None of that newfangled AD&D stuff. Auto-hit? Bah!

I think the level 17 Minion High is missing something...

This is a really bad reason to change the MM since it wasn't auto-hit from the start. AD&D had it as auto-hit but not OD&D or BECMI. 3.x being more of AD&D than BECMI went for auto-hit, but I was glad they went back to the original MM in 4e. But most of all, you don't change a spell that's been...

If those are the exact rule quotes, then obviously they don't stack. Not if is gives a bonus based on something's enhancement bonus. But if it allows you to apply said enhancement bonus in a non-standard way, that enhancement bonus is still an enhancement bonus. To me it's quite rediculous to...

That is debatable. Wielding a double weapon is like wielding two weapons. Nowhere does it say that a double weapon is two weapons, nor that a double weapon is two implements. One staff is still just one implement. The staff is a bit weird, since it's a one-handed implement but a two-handed...

Not quite. It is like you are wielding the staff in each hand. You are not actually doing that. No. The rules don't say that. You are wielding a double weapon, which is like wielding a weapon in each hand. It doesn't say that you are actually wielding the weapon in each hand. Nor does it say...

This is where you are wrong. Enhancement bonus can mean the general type of bonus or a specific enhancement bonus value. In both cases the type is "enhancement". It doesn't lose its type just because it has a value. Nothing in the rules tells us that bonus values have no type. After all, it's...

No, the context is not YOUR curse, it's actually any Warlock's curse. That has been supported both by the FAQ and by CustServ answer.

Another funny detail is that it doesn't matter if you or another warlock cursed the victim. If the victim is cursed you can apply curse damage. So it's extra sweet for parties with multiple warlocks.

I really need to get some of what you are smoking... I showed you an example of how one english phrase can mean both quantity and type. Then you write nonsense about adding my weight to damage rolls???!! Have you totally lost it? Why am I even debating anything logical with you? You are wrong...

My weight is not just 82, but 82 kilogram. It would be rather useless to you if I told you just the quantity and not the unit of measure (type). The expression "the off-hand implement's enhancement bonus" parses to both quantity and type. That should be obvious.

And in doing that you have changed its meaning. You are taking out the very phrase that clearly states that it is an enhancement bonus and replacing it with a single untyped numeral. Entirely different. Those two are so not the same thing. One is a generic formula, the other is an application...

So let's all change the wording of rules so that they better fit our opinions... :erm: DracoSuave quoted the rules verbatim. I have no idea what you are quoting. Clearly the wording of DIS lets you add two enhancement bonuses in direct contradiction to the general rule of bonus stacking. The...

Why do you think that? On each attack roll you add the intrinsic bonus. On each damage roll you add the intrinsic bonus. Why would he not get that with his off-hand attack?

But it does. We recently switched over to intrinsic bonuses in my campaign and the party warlock noticed this as he was scouring rule books for a new feat for level 10. Since your implements no longer have an enhancement bonus, that feat is basically useless.

I must be going blind. Where did you find "levels 1-5" in the quoted blurb?