Search results

Because I had to re-read that sentence more than once before I was clear on its meaning. (And, last time I was tested, I have a reading ability well above college level.) Furthermore, the ranger-player evidently read the 3.5 rules for Combat Reflexes, too; and he, too, thought he was eligable...

The damage is negligable, for sure. But just having a 15' reach and the ability to disarm with a +2 bonus is pretty useful, wouldn't you say?

True. But then the ranger-player would probably take Quick Draw and carry a few extra whips.

The 3.5 SRD says for Combat Reflexes, "This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity)...

Not long ago, I was talking to a friend about the uber cominations of feats, skills, weapons, and/or special attacks that can power-played in 3.0/3.5 D&D. That friend pointed out how powerful a whip can be, used in just such a combination. Now I'm seeing first-hand just how powerful that can be...

Yes, well, the same could be said about THAC0, but they got rid of that with 3E, didn't they? What gripes me is how the other 1st level "damage" spells -- Burning Hands, Shocking Grasp, etc. -- are neglected, due to the long range and "cannot miss" accuracy of Magic Missile's damage. Magic...

Deleted; double-post. :rolleyes:

I'm interested in this expansion, but mostly (if not entirely) from a DM's and designer's perspective. I am heavily into designing modules for Neverwinter Nights, and then DM'ing them through weekly multi-player sessions. I have an on-line campaign that's been going on for about a year now...

Hmm... I happened upon an episode of the original Battlestar Galactica, on the Sci-Fi Channel, the other day ago. You know, the original Battlestar Galactica was not all that great to begin with. So, really, this new series doesn't have all that far to fall from. When I was a teenager, I...

Well, for one, the last of the samurai in real life did not go out in a blaze of glory like they did in the movie. For another, samurai in real life were not such "purists" that they were above employing muskets and cannons in battle. (Watch Kurosawa's movie masterpiece, Ran, to see what I...

The sword fights: B+. The full-scale battle scenes: A. The panoramic scenery: B+. (In my opinion, only the LotR films deserve an A in this category. And, yes, I realize Last Samurai was shot in New Zealand.) The costumes: B+. The acting, overall: B. (Cruz does not deserve an Oscar for this...

BTW: Here are my variant combat rules that incoporate amor DR into 3E D&D. These rules are comprehensive and balanced, and they have been thoroughly playtested. (Note: There are variant combat rules here than just those that incorporate armor DR.) These rules include varaint weapons and armor...

That's easy to answer. The fighter uses Power Attack, thus taking an attack (i.e. "to hit") penalty in order to deal out more damage and get past his opponent's armor DR.

Yes, I've noticed this trend too. When DM'ing a campaign where the PCs start at around 3rd-5th level, and when those PCs are given starting wealth to buy equipment comensurate with their level, I see the ubiquitous mithral breastplates and chain shirts. So, my solution is to make mithral cost...

With the arrival of D&D 3.0, breastplate and chain shirt quickly became the ubiquitous armors among PCs, given the AC bonus for those two armors, along with their Max Dex Bonus and Skill Check Penalty, when compared to other armors. I mean, why choose chainmail over chain shirt, when the former...

Thanks for you input, guys. So, does anyone know why the "half-celestial" template for player characters is more powerful than the "celestial" one? :confused:

As a player character, how does a half-celestial differ in the 3.5 rules from the one given in 3.0? (BTW: All I have now is the 3.0 Player's Handbook.) Formerly, I would not allow a half-celestial player character, as given in 3.0, because I thought it was too powerful and unbalancing, even for...

Yes, yes, I realize that now. Actually, I had started my reply, but then got called away. Later, I returned and finished it (all the while, still being distracted). So, enough with the "Shame, shame! You didn't read the whole thread!" remarks. And anyway, my original reply still stands if you...

Congradulations! So, you're not drunk, but are you hungover? BTW: Is your new bride a gamer too? Because if she isn't, you might not be going on that "massive gaming shopping spree", after all. And if that's the case... welcome to the married life! ;)

Okay, here is a revision of rules variant #4, "Fumbles"... Whenever you roll a natural 1 on an attack roll, you not only automatically miss your target, but there is a chance you will fumble. You must roll a check to avoid a fumble. A fumble check is a d20 roll plus the same attack bonus you...