Search results

There is a school of thought that with any diagonal move, you need to be able to (hypothetically) move through one or the other of the adjacent spaces for it to be allowed. I don't think that's in the core rules. I can't remember if that ever appeared in out-of-rule designer comments. If not, I...

Yeah, I guess there's more than just one or two. Searching the core rules I find: mage hand, polymorph any object, rusting grasp, shillelagh, snare. Let me ask this: If the word "nonmagical" were deleted from shillelagh's Target line, what would be your primary argument against the...

Hmmm. How about "in the Target specifier"?

PCs can just pay for hirelings (such as mercenaries; see DMG Ch. 5). PCs can make short-term associations with particular NPCs (see lots of published adventures). The Leadership feat is specific for permanent, totally devoted henchman run by the same player. NPC (monster) groups might include a...

...Or possibly a good candidate for errata. (Is there any other effect in the game which only works on a "nonmagical" target?)

You're assuming that the chance is rising cumulatively, which I don't think the original poster intended. If the chance-per-hour is 1%, 1%, 1%... then the original poster is nearly correct with a chance-per-day of 1-(.99)^24 = 21%. If the chance-per-hour is 1%, 2%, 3%... then you are correct...

I don't use those rules (or have them in front of me). However, I would recommend that you keep effective increased level and market price (plus xp, time to create, etc.) the same as in the core rules. The effects are clearly more powerful, and therefore need to be priced higher -- and that's...

Can anyone post the price from that arrow of curing in Defenders of the Faith? Can anyone confirm if it did/didn't get reprinted in Complete Divine?

Well, to play devil's advocate, I must admit that my most straightforward reading of the 3.5 rules is in fact to limit just a single character charging the opponent in a situation like this. (And that's how my new DM ruled it tonight, so I can't say I disagree with him.) When D&D says "straight...

If the original poster is still reading, my ruling would be "No, the master thrower ability still needs to deal with damage resistance." My reading is that that clause in the rules is meant to prevent argumentation along the lines of "your touch attack does no damage, so with my DR your...

Of course, this is a bit of a 3.5 revision issue. In 3.0 the rules were comparatively lightweight, saying the charge itself just had to be a straight line. The 3.5 revision added the "closest space to opponent" clause which arguably creates this new restriction.

It's IQ 70. Here's a website on the subject: http://superdan.net.home.comcast.net/dndmisc/int_iq.html

Allowing "new item" invention is actually a Variant in the DMG. Items which are not listed in the core rulebooks count effectively as House Rules. Therefore your question #2 requires permission from the DM, and also his or her specific creation of a rule to handle the what-happens-first issue...

I suppose a narrower way to fix it is to invoke the "Ineffective Weapons" clause, and/or start destroying things like swords & axes used against stone repeatedly. Reduce the mining pick "damage", but give it the special property of holding up under long-term mining operations.

Well, 1st Ed. actually dealt with mining rates directly and deliberately. With 3rd Ed. the best you can do is extrapolate from combat rules, which weren't at any point considered for digging simulations.

1st Ed. DMG (p. 106) answer: 50 cubic feet per 8 hours (Assumes human, "soft" rock. Faster or slower for different races or rock types.) Therefore: 5x5x5 feet = 125 / 50 = 2.5 time periods, or 2.5 x 8 = 20 hours.

From SRD "Magic Overview: Casting Spells: Special Spell Effects: Bringing Back the Dead": You can't have your XP be one thing and your actual level be another thing. That would be simply contradictory.

Like Hyp, if they're jumping intentionally on their turn, then everything's cool. Both can ready an action to turn on their devices whenever they like. If they get knocked off by something else, they're in tough shape. Falling speed is 500 feet first round, 1000 feet each round thereafter...

That is absolutely correct, under core 3.5 rules. Your penalty may be -4 (just in melee) or -8 (effectively, if directly in the way and providing cover).

No! - There is absolutely no chance of hitting an ally from the "shooting into melee" penalty (in any version of 3.x). - There is also no chance of hitting an ally "providing cover" (in 3.5; but there is in 3.0 and variant 3.,5).