Search results

Actually, gaze attacks are specifically defined in D&D. If an effect does not use the term 'gaze', using the gaze rules would not be warranted. Also, gazes can be used passively (i.e. do not require an action), whereas the nymph's stunning glance ability does require an action on her part.

Well, casters are almost certainly going to use this on targets that have a grapple bonus 10 points lower than the tentacles more often than on targets with a grapple bonus 10 points higher, making your method more of a certainty in the favor of caster overall. But if we also look at say a...

Yes No. It's sub-optimal. Bouncing around the battlefield can be fun (if you like to do stunts and such), but that can be done with a much lower investment. About the only big benefit is improved reaction (because at higher levels, whoever goes first often wins).

Note that ghouls don't have DR. In fact, undead in general are not more susceptible to bludgeoning... it's just skeletons (and liches). Regardless, I also believe blunt crossbow bolts (prods) might be available in a supplement. Also, Zombies are vulnerable to slashing weapons, and I believe...

Yup, but that can make the spell more powerful. By reducing the standard deviation, someone that has a significantly lower grapple bonus than the spell (which should be the majority of opponents the spell is used on), will have a harder time escaping over the course of several rounds (or it...

It at least mollifies (a bit) the complaint that the tentacles offer no cover.

Well... the target is almost certainly considered to be grappling, so (per this table) I believe you would still have to "Roll randomly to see which grappling combatant you strike"... even if one of them can't be harmed.

Well, it's definitely possible for a monk to be on par with a fighter (assuming the monk is optimized*), but I was actually meaning that Flurry+TWF'ing (if allowed) can bring a monk's damage in line with a fighter's. In any case, some monk's can be on par with some fighters, and the reason for...

Agreed. Postulating just how many the rules mechanically allow doesn't seem like a worthwhile activity (since the rules are simplified and don't really take many limiting factors into account).

Agreed.

And a high reflex save (good synergy with evasion). And monk's skills are predominately dex based (i.e. pulling dex-based stunts is a reason to play a monk rather than a fighter). If your DM allows twf'ing with flurry, that can have good synergy (especially if he views that a permanent Greater...

Here

Heroes' Feast is good in regard to poisons.

For discussion purposes: Lets say (worst case scenario) that a guy in 1' thick armor is standing perfectly in the middle of a 5' wide hallway, arms spread wide. Now, could I get past him if I were an Olympic level gymnast that was practiced at getting by combatants (i.e. DC25)? As for the...

I agree.

To clarify: you cannot ready a charge. Yes, there is a glitch in the rules that could lead one to interpret the rules as allowing one to ready a charge if one were slowed, in the surprise round, a zombie etc., but that is just a glitch (and not the intent).

Protection from evil says: "the spell prevents bodily contact by summoned creatures" and "The protection against contact by summoned creatures ends if the warded creature makes an attack against or tries to force the barrier against the blocked creature" Tumbling past a summoned creature...

It seems like standard flanking is easier and more reliable.

Talk with your DM. What sort of rule would you suggest?

I'm guessing that the real answer here is that the writer simply made mistake (and like many people, possibly didn't even realize that there is a difference between ethereal and incorporeal).