Search results

You may have noticed I was specifically sticking with core rules PCs to keep it simple. I was not dealing with any optional rules, nor with using monsters as PCs. Yes, it is true that a PC can get some intial benefit from racial hit dice when using monsters as PCs, but they do not "improve"...

I have never, ever stated that PCs are not creatures. I stated that monsters are not PCs. Attempting to dismiss my arguments by vague "hand-waving" and "grand-standing," which is essentially what you are doing here, is not very... convincing. I just have given you three specific rules that...

Good one. It appears, in that context at least, the companion gets full benefit of those Bonus Hit Dice (though some argue about Skill Points and Ability Score boosts, as they are not mentioned). Not enough to counter my three-point post above, but at least it is directly from the rules.

huh? Please address the following, specifically, with a specific counter rules quote/rule-based argument: 1. The "Creature Improvement by Type" table does not apply to PCs because it is dealing with improving mosters, and not just creatures in general. (The Improving Monsters section is for...

Arrrgh... another double post.

Interesting. A different case, but it has some similarity. In this case the extra variable (above the d10) is based upon caster level, so that cannot change after the spell is cast. Those are not "Bonus Hit Die." Those are simply two additional, permanent Hit Dice that rather obviously...

Nifft and Mistwell: I see both your points. WotC created this confusion by allowing for "Bonus Hit Die" that grant "Temporary Hit Points" (and also count for spell effects). Nowhere else in the rules are there any "Temporary Hit Points” that are not a fixed value. Nowhere else in the rules...

What re-phrasing? What meaning did I change? Please point it out. The Monster Manual rules say that 1 HD humanoids (which is all normal PCs) do not get humanoid hit die features. I only added clarifying text in brackets because I ripped those sentences out of context, but that did not change...

All good advice, but the simplest "show me" sort of thing would be to walk next to this 8-year old while he is tumbling. Go, say, 30 feet. Who gets there first? Unless you intentially walk slow, you (or anyone else) willl be first. For a very short move, sure, the tumble might really be...

Okay, on to the "Types and Subtypes" section, then: PCs are "Humanoids with [a Monster Manual entry of] 1 Hit Die" and thus "exchange the features of their humanoid Hit Die for the class features of a PC or NPC class." "Humanoids [who have Monster manual entry] with more than 1 Hit Die are...

Ah, but a "monster" is not a "character." The link you provided is for Improving Monsters. There is no reason to assume that anything in this section would apply to characters, as characters <> monsters. Thus, in the core rules, there is no guidance for what happens when a PC gains "Bonus Hit...

On Spell-Like Abilities and Familiars: "A spell-like ability takes the same amount of time to complete as the spell that it mimics (usually 1 standard action) unless otherwise stated. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled. In all other ways, a...

No proof? No evidence? ROFL. Re-read the PHB. PC's don't gain Hit Die like monsters do, they gain levels, which, in turn, grant Hit Die. Monsters advance by gaining hit die (with appropriate benefits) or levels (with appropriate benefits, including hit die) or applying templates. It's...

No, it's pretty clear they must, given the lack of a rule that they do not need to meet them.

Well, if you what to be hyper-technical and ignore context, go right ahead. I remain unconvinced. Not all monster rules apply to characters, though they are generally the same. Some things are for monsters only, such as bonus feats not needing to meet prerequisites. It would be different if...

I agree, and also think that (1) The MM info applies to monsters, and not to PCs and (2) It only says "often" in any case. Thus, the real controlling rule is that prerequisites must be met. Since there is no rule to the contrary, then that's it - the prerequisites must be met. To back up...

Oh, man, Slaved, I have to give up trying to convince you. I have refuted every point you brought up, yet you do not see it. Under such circumstances further argument is pointless. So, I will bow out. If you bring in anything new, or choose summarize/restate your position in a single post...

Not so easily, not to accomplish the same ends. I think that any other attempt to get the same results would have liklely been more confusing. Had I written the description, The only thing I would have changed is to remove the word "temporary" in the description.

No, I did not ignore it, I corrected your misperception. And no, contrary to your position, following what I said is absolutley, positively clear every time and even follows the rules. :) Anyway, sad to say, there appears to be no convincing argument that I am wrong. Too bad, for that means...