Search results

Not a parity at all. An archer uses his ranged attack far more often than even a specialised wizard uses his school spells. For one, he would be a fool to memorise all his spells from one school (unless he is an enchanter and knows a horde of Lernean Hydras are round the corner...not very...

Probably easier to take the Snatch special dragon feat (p. 62, MM) to avoid controversy. It effectively allows a free grapple attempt with no AoO if the dragon hits normally with a bite or claw. The -20 rule, IIRC, refers to grappling and doing other things. Obviously, he couldn't use his...

AFAIK, Vaxalon is right re: lethality of poisons. However, for a canny assassin, Con poison may weaken a target sufficiently that his sneak attack takes them out. Typically, a successful sneak attack will do an equivalent of 2.5 pts of damage per total rogue/assassin level (it's a *very* crude...

[double post]

Problem is that natural 20s are, statistically, really rather common. On average, you have a roughly 50/50 chance to roll a natural 20 every thirteen rolls (1- .95^13=0.487). If an average, vanilla combat low-level is four rounds, you roll one every three combats on average. But it gets...

The problem was one that only became apparent using twinked-out characters, prestige classes and feats (GSF). The major issue I have with it is similar to that of dcollins'- the core rules are being rebalanced (underpowered) in order to remedy supplements. The core rules were already balanced...

I like it. You could use this as an alternative to the half-elf (since the half-elf in its current incarnation is pretty blame).

I'd be inclined to disagree. Gnomes have undergone a decline in the 'seriousness' of them as a sensible race. Gnomes are beginning to decline to a sort of 'comic relief' type race, particular in the context of popular fantasy movies- even dwarves were undermined as a serious race in the LOTR...

Ah, okay. That's fine then- sorry about that.

Well, fair enough. I can just about concede this one. Good argument :) Well, to be fair hong, what you do in your house rules doesn't affect me nor the core rules. If you HR that death spells do Con damage, then more power to you. Just as an aside, I do see the problems that for a large...

Angcuru- I may be being stupid, but I don't see why the MTv is not a no-brainer to pick over the wizard. They get everything a wizard does, even the familiar and bonus feats, in addition to full spellcasting progression. In addition to that, they also get simple weapon proficiency, full undead...

There are three major problems that I see with the disintegrate nerf. 1. It is now conceptually incoherent. The spell can disintegrate a 10' cube of solid stone, but can't destroy a human being, even on a failed save? That seems slightly bizarre. Hong rebutted this when I posted it on...

Then, by and large, they were idiots. Persistent Divine Power, giving a +6 to hit and damage by top-level, was almost invariably better than Triple-Empowered Bull's Strength, at three levels lower. Nowadays, Divine Power is comparable to Bull's Strength. Bull's Strength gives a +2 to hit...

The point is that the power of the buff spells were never in the power of the spell itself, but were nearly all concentrated in the duration . Without the 1 hour/level duration, they are just not competitive with other short buff spells. 1 hour/level was probably excessive, but 10 mins/level...

rushlight- If your example proves anything, it proves that haste was broken. Few people would dispute that. On the recent poll I posted over at the General Discussion boards, the spell more people thought broken than any other was haste . Of course, there are a few loose ends, such as Harm...

Really? Oops...I assumed you could just press 'vote' without ticking anything. Could a moderator add a 'none of the above' option please?

Good choice, and the term isn't bad either. To anyone interested, I've posted a poll here: Poll on Spell Changes in 3.5e . If you would continue posting in this thread though, I'd be appreciative, rather than having numerous threads about the same topic cross-posted everywhere.

Without starting a flame war, which of the changes do you agree with. If you want to post substantive material, here http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52722&perpage=40&pagenumber=4 is probably a better place. This thread is just testing opinions.

Hmmm...the thread seems to have ballooned, but I'll post as much rebuttal as is humanly possible. Okay, quickly speaking, I think that Elder-Basilisk posted an excellent analysis of why the anibuffs are now nerfed. The whole point of the anibuffs was duration, not power. WotC kept power...

Did you find that wizards were too powerful in your game? Incidentally, if your characters aren't use Harm, Heal, Holds, Polymorphs, Disintegrate, Horrid Wilting and Spell Focus, I'm very impressed at your characters' restraint!