Search results

Which means that this is the first time I've ever heard someone claim that Half Fiends were powerful. When they get their 4th HD they are 8th level characters. They are expected to face actual demons as enemies and they still have few enough hit points that an Orcish Warrior could take them out...

Until we can get consistent answers on what the hell it is supposed to actually do - there is no "definitive" version. In 3rd edition, it specifically gave you all the "Natural" abilities and "Natural" abilities were not actually listed in the monster description seperately from Extraordinary...

No. I'd follow the damn rules and allow the character to get the +2 bonus on every attack made during that action. When you get the Cleave Attack, it's the same action, and you get every bonus you would get from that action. Similarly, on a pounce attack you would get an attack bonus on every...

I've seen several different reasonings, but one way or another the "official" types have come out and said that Polymorph can change Hit Points by virtue of a new Con Score. -Frank

Well, the Gelatinous Cube is from a Conan story, and the Displacer Beast is from a short story from the forties. Neither one is really an original D&D monster. I love the Umber Hulk though - how anyone was supposed to mistake that thing for a pile of baskets was beyond mortal understanding. I...

Actually, it is. "Normal" fighters get multiple attacks every round, the mounted character only gets a single basic attack every round. If he is to be of equal weight to a barbarian with a greatsword he needs his damage multiples and his bonus attacks. He needs both, otherwise the mounted...

This isn't a math error - it's a comparison error. You just compared a character using both arms an a full attack action to a character using only one arm and a standard attack action. These are not remotely the same. If the single Longsworder was half-way intelligent, he'd be striking two...

That completely nerfs the feat though - and it makes cool Batman-style moves where you eliminate the guy behind you with the bad guy in front of you impossible. Less cool stuff happening = terrible house rule. The only thing that needs to be done is: "You must cleave into a creature you...

I wouldn't say that MotW got it right - the ability to get the Spell-like abilities of creatures of the elemental type was never a good idea once the concept of the Elemental versions of other creatures was introduced. Of course, 3.5 didn't actually fix that loop-hole, so I'd be inclined to say...

The constructs are, unfortunately, not purchased or created on any kind of point system - they just have arbitrary costs for no good reason at all. Sorry. And yes, this does mean that some of the stranger Constructs like the Runic Guardian are really good deals and some of the others like Dread...

Precisely. Moreover, it is a cooperative storytelling game. Emphasis on "cooperative". If the DM is pulling adversarial crap like shutting down Spirited Charge/Cleave combos, there's no cooperation. There is, in short, no reason for the players to continue playing. The DM doesn't have some kind...

Even for Rangers, if they are attacking their favored enemy they get +2 damage on each weapon. So they get 2 short sword attacks at +2 damage each. One gets full strength, the other gets half strength. So if both hit you are looking at 2d6 + 1.5 strength +4 damage. But they don't automatically...

That's only the beginning of the problems with Blasphemy. Imagine that the 20th level Cleric had used a Karma Bead and then cast Blasphemy. Or what if he'd had the Evil Domain and used a Karma bead and cast Death Knell. At that point he doesn't even need a Balor around to kill the entire party...

This is a seriously crappy tactic. Against any opponent that this has even a 50% chance of working against, you could just send a death spell after them and have about a 50% chance of killing them outright. Dispel Magic is not more likely to work than is a Save or Die spell - and when it works...

It's more of a process of grinding your nose in it. If you are a Two Weapon Fighting Ranger, then every time your "Combat Style" feat comes up you "don't fall farther behind". If you are a Bow Ranger, then every time your "Combat Style" feat comes up you get better at Archery. The 3.5 Ranger...

It's from Magic of Faerun - which I'll remind you is banned in many circles for providing too many infinite power combos. So it's not a balanced book, not by any means. As to being better than Otto's Irresistable Dance - I would say that it is. Because it doesn't require an attack roll. In...

http://www.victoly.com/~infernarl/tehwin.html -Frank

Yes, but Savage Species is using the 3rd edition weapon size rules. If you are using the 3.5 weapon size rules, resizing weapons does not affect range increment. There are giants with shortbows who can reach the end of the range increments of their weapons. I hate the 3.5 weapon size rules...

Note that in 3.5, ITWF has a requirement of BAB +6. Not that it matters, each iterative attack is worth less than the one before it. In order to be a "Two Weapon Fighter" in D&D you'll pretty much have to take all the successive feats - and as previously noted it's a state of diminishing...

Well, no. First of all, that's page sixty three, and it says that they effectively have it (which means that they don't provoke attacks of opportunity), it doesn't say that they have it for purposes of it being a virtual feat. It's sloppy wording in a sloppily worded book. Remember that this is...