Search results

I guess they feel the need to point out darkvision is a special quality so that you can't gain it by shapeshifting into the creature; if they only stated it in the racial traits, it would be a bit unclear possibly. An interesting, if somewhat flawed, argument. Where is it specified that this is...

The proficiencies are listed in the racial traits of the Outsider type. Compare it to the Astral Deva for example, which uses the heavy mace, yet there is no mention in its description anywhere of being proficient with it... thats because Outsider's by their nature are proficient with all simple...

It isn't a feat, its a racial trait. All outsiders are proficient with all martial weapons, just like all outsiders have darkvision. Its the features that are dependant on racial hit dice, not the traits. If you can find any rule that says otherwise, I'd be very interested in seeing it. If you...

You do have the requisite 19 or so dex for GTWF, right ? You have a str of 14 at that level, so I'm assuming yes, but that begs the question why not shortswords instead of scimitars, and weapon finesse...

Infact if they're small sized or larger, and assuming he's more or less directly above them, they could hit him with AoOs as he fell, because he's passing through their threatened areas during his falling movement (if you think about it 3 dimensionally).

Yes, because the rogue class grants him light armour use. Class proficincies however don't override racial descriptions as your first question there seems to suggest. They add to them. So for example an Aasimar monk gets simple and martial weapons from his outsider type, and he gets monk weapons...

As an aside, notice the difference between the humanoid type: "Proficient with all simple weapons, or by character class." and the outsider type: "Proficient with all simple and martial weapons and any weapons mentioned in its entry." ?

Ah yes, the magical (or is that mythical?) 'you only get type traits if you have racial HD' rule. I'd be interested in a page reference to this rule, because boy, does it ever screw over warforged !

Actually 'unless otherwise noted' would tend to imply that a creature only wouldn't gain those traits if it specifically said it didn't gain those traits. Perhaps you'd care to address for example, the Astral Deva? It's creature description makes absolutely no mention of either outsider traits...

Guess what, the Astral Deva doesn't either. Yet somehow the game designers made the huge mistake of not calculating the -4 nonproficiency penalty into its attack routine with its mace. Or maybe its just that as a member of the Outsider type, it gets those traits inherently without it needing to...

No, I'm disagreeing that your rewording is the same logic as my original wording. It is in fact very different. Now while you may be very correct in saying that nowhere in the rules does it explicitly say that a "LA: x (cohort)" means that the creature is much more suitable as a cohort than as a...

I disagree heavily with this, its not the same as what I posted at all. Now if the creature had LA: x (PC) then I'd agree, it couldn't be used as a cohort. However when it just has LA: x it suggests to me that that applies equally to both PCs and cohorts of that race. LA: x (yy) suggests to me...

Bard 4/Barbarian 1... -7 hp compared to a 5th level fighter, but can cast 2nd level spells with no ASF, and you get some niceties such as Hideous Laughter, Glitterdust, Invisibility, Heroism, Cure Light/Moderate Wounds, Alter Self, Blur... you also get a 40' movement (helps with the flight too)...

Actually the 'or' does support his case. You're thinking of and, like so: My "not unreasonable or contradicted by the rules" interpretation: Example 1: Tiefling. LA +1. Suitable as a PC and as a cohort. Check. Example 2: Mephit. LA +3. Suitable as a PC and as a cohort. Check. But thats not...

As a counterexample to that, take the tiger. It has claw as a primary natural weapon, so its claw/rake damage should be the same. Which they are. But the tiger also has Improved Natural Attack (claw). Or the leopard. It has bite as a primary weapon, not the claw.. yet its claw and rake damage...

I disagree, a rake is fundamentally a claw attack and thus Improved Natural Attack (claw) should cover them both. However its odd that the griffon's claw and rake damage are different... I haven't seen any other monsters where the damage isn't the same. If you read the natural weapons section...

Or Use Magic Device, which handily enough happens to be a class skill for a certain class with sneak attack...

Thats an interesting point. As a monks unarmed strike counts as both a manufactured and a natural weapon for the purposes of spells and effects, and as flurry is presumably an 'effect', does that mean that a monk can't use unarmed strikes (which count as natural weapons for this purpose...

For the record, a. druid animal companions are in fact animals, not magical beasts and b. they aren't smarter than your run of the mill animal either... their int doesn't change, they just have a special bond with their masters ;)

I'd also agree that that argument is hogwash. Take your (semi-standard) flurrying, TWFing monk using 2 kukris, or some other monk weapon. Ok, no problem there, he gets x mainhand attacks and/or unarmed strikes, he gets x offhand attacks with his offhand kukri, and he gets 1-2 flurry attacks with...