Search results

Agreed. Indeed, the Eladrin are simply a more intelligent version of elves in 4.0. Another option is to use gray elves from the MM (which have a bonus to int)

Rod of Alertness or Good-aligned Intelligent Item with a Greater Power of detect (opposing alignment) at will (Also, a Phylactery of Faithfulness might sometimes help if used cleverly)

Jeez, Hyp. You're *so* darn good at the rules normally, then you occasionally come out with things like this. The Drawing a weapon action encompasses drawing a wand. Does anyone here believe that this is different for quick-draw? From the 3.5 FAQ (if desired): "If I have Quick Draw, can I draw...

Quick Draw alters the "draw a weapon" action for possessors of the feat (making it a free action). The "draw a weapon" action "also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands."

I thought they were removing that plane in 4.0.

While I am normally a proponent of the FAQ, that seems like an overly literal reading. The writer's intent, the description and logic suggest that the tentacles would continue to attack creatures in the area. Have we had a poll on this one yet? I'd be curious about the results.

Hmm.... font size 1 seems perfectly readable to me (only slightly smaller than normal on my screen), but evidently it can be different for others. I'll quit doing that, but I'm curious how many see it as tiny, and how many see it as readable.

From the rules: "Draw or Sheathe a Weapon Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action. This action also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands."

For reference purposes (if desired): "When you use a spell that allows you to select multiple creatures as targets, such as magic missile, you can choose multiple images as targets." Also, here is poll & discussion on the topic of magic missile vs. mirror image (for any that desire).

From the 3.5 FAQ (if desired): "Although the spell description says the images from a mirror image spell always stay within 5 feet of either the user or another image, it’s easiest to assume that all the images occupy the same space the spell user occupies. Any attack that can reach the user’s...

While I agree, that is subject to some interpretation (i.e. some DM's might view it as such, and I would not fault them for it).

I don't have a vested interest in how anyone plays this (and if the other person in original post is the DM, then it's rule zero and shouldn't really be debated for that game), but: The desciption for the concentration skills says: "You can use Concentration to cast a spell, use a spell-like...

WotC custserv has answered this one already (see the conclusion at the end of the first thread I gave), so how is he certain of the designer's intent being opposite that?

The matter was fairly conclusively discussed in the threads I referenced. But ultimately: if the writer's had intended for a ranged spell to provoke twice, they almost certainly would've made that clear by now.

You are correct. The ranged attack is part of the spellcasting. The action listed on the Standard Actions Table labeled "Attack (ranged)" does provoke, but that is a separate action than "Cast a spell" listed below it. "Attack (ranged)" is also listed as being with a weapon in its text...

By the wording, it appears that nymph is looking at the target rather than vise-verse: "a wrathful nymph can stun a creature within 30 feet with a look." Conversely, her "Blinding Beauty" affects people that can see her. It is not listed specifically as a 'gaze' attack (so the nymph could not...

<Jaw-drop> ... <Slow-clap> Edit: single entendre - both

I'm fairly certain that this not the writer's intent (nor would it likely benefit the game).

That section of the DMG has been errata'd out of existence. It should now read: "Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to a weapon’s or shield’s hardness and +10 to its hit points." This makes it consistent with how shield HP is described on pg 217.

The implication of using specific terminology is that the term "gaze" must be present somewhere for it to be a gaze attack (if not in the title, then in the description). It's a basic concept of rules-lawyering. The fact that stunning glance requires a standard action to use reaffirms that it...