Search results

I bet it might be a mistake when the original poster said "in battle". For example, I had a rogue player who wanted to 5-ft-step and Take 10 Search in every square throughout a dungeon as standard procedure. (Had a whole other thread on this topic.) I bet this paladin player has come up with the...

I suggest that it's been priced as a weapon (Bonus+1) + 26,772 gp.

Here's the computerized list of official feats on the WOTC web site. It lists 2240: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/lists/feats

Thanks to 3.5 for inserting "Guard Dog" with no description. :) MM descriptions of the dogs say this: Based on that, I think the 2HD Riding Dog statistics should be used. Definitely more a "working breed (collie)" than a "wild canine (coyote)". EDIT: One other piece of evidence, in 1st/2nd...

No. There's nothing to "see or detect" about the effect of buff spells. No, D&D is not Everquest. You get the effects stated in the spell description and nothing more.

My understanding is that one of the D&D designers said that the 3.0 FAQ still applies for all topics not changed by the 3.5 rules. I don't personally have a citation for that. Two notes: - The 3.0 FAQ is still provided on the same WOTC web page as the 3.5 FAQ. - The 3.5 FAQ doesn't actually...

By the rules: what the attacker is truly attacking. And yet the SRD says this:

Actually, at least in 1st Ed. M&M (the one I've played), Sorcery required you to pick a specific number of powers you could emulate -- like 6 (one from each category). Now, in the old Marvel Super Heroes game (Basic Set), Sorcery worked exactly like you describe here.

Sure, against undead it's an attack spell.

Super, thank you!

What's the basic gist behind the Complete Arcane spellduel rules? (Does it change the functioning of magic in any way, or just suggest in-game rules for how wizards would agree to compete with each other?)

The quote is under the heading of "Touch Attacks". There is an implied touch attack spell there, by virtue of being in that paragraph (that you've snipped the heading out of for your quote). Cure light wounds is not an attack spell. It is not a touch attack spell. The rules in the "touch...

Sometimes you guys really crack me up. How one can decide that casting cure light wounds counts as an attack spell with no AOO is beyond me. At least 3 separate pieces of evidence in RAW say otherwise: (1) By the glossary definition, cure light wounds is not an "attack" --> so it's not a "touch...

But it's not an attack. From Glossary:

I play 3.0, where out-of-turn free actions (for talking) aren't allowed. In the second example, the un-paralyzed character begins casting after being resuscitated, and "actually" finishes a turn after that point.

i.e., 10 + spell level x 1.5.

Craft has "basketweaving" listed under it in the PHB. Profession has "scribe" in its description.

From the PHB glossary: In the case of cure light wounds on an ally, is it an attack? No. Does the attacker need to connect with an opponent? No. Is it delivered to an unwilling target? No. So it is not a touch attack (on three counts).

I'll quote the DMG again: Do both standard actions resolve within the same round? According to the preceding: "Representatively", yes. "Actually", no. Did the character really observe the effect of the missile before acting? Perhaps in reality he was pulling out the alternative wand anyway...

Most folks agree (when time-representation is discussed) that a standard action is more than half the round. That's what Lord Pendragon's post #39 was about.