Search results

#4 I'm a bit confused on too, it obviosuly wouldn't pierce DR [+1 is required to pierce Magic DR, and as Pax said, unless you make a +1 Mug it's kinda pointless]. Mostly pointed for the destruction effect. Although sledged does bring up an interesting point that I think I overlooked. The...

Bit interested in trying to interpret some of the abilities of the Drunken Master now :). Mostly curious as to if I missed anything. 1) Ki Strike : Does Ki Strike carry over to Improvised Weapon use at all? I'm guessing not from the wording in CW. 2) Flurry of Blows : Can you flurry with...

Also, just clarity. It means Egoists most specifically are. For non-egoist psions, they need to be use Epic Expanded Knowledge to get ahold of that power. But as said, it looks/reads alot like they just didn't account for the Shapechange errata. The 200xp cost is supposed to be a mirror to...

First part. For damage, they work as a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. And follow the bonus damage that way. Primary Attack gets the Str-Mod, secondary gets +0.5 Str Mod. For Power Attack, you'd follow the same logic, and it is explicitly spelled out in the Power Attack feat as well...

Sorta odd-ball set for me. I use 'different' Necromancers, and have pretty much removed the school of necromancy from both arcane and divine magic. You can still obtain those spells through indep research, but would have heavy consequences because if you're not a necromancer, most folks don't...

Eh, it's part and parcel with parity with Brew Potion.

Yep, that's quite accurate and has been reiterated a bit on different forums. I know that it has come up as a topic item for the XPH, and for the PsiHB [contrast between Skip's rulings and BRC's psuedo-errata]. Probably a few other sources too.

At the moment, it's just Clarifications really. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=226920 And are just "proposed errata" for whatever its worth until the pdf errata file comes out.

Necropolis has some logical ties that are practically always lost on the players. I like the setting, and it has potential, but it has the distinct feel of originating from a system that just doesn't translate well to 3e adventure-wise.

Errm. Just noticed something that doesn't quite make sense to me. It seems that Touch Attacks are allowed to ignore Damage Reduction, and I'm just curious as to why. I'm just curious as to why?

Seeing as I don't actually have 3.5 books, I'm not sure if it's there, but it 'should' be. At the very least, it's in the DMG Errata, and goes through it more or less [reference to this topic, book and topic precedence], second chapter. On this topic, I don't really see a reason why an AoO...

I personally don't bother to quantify or qualify them. My world isn't too "real science" heavy, so there's no need for it in game. So I guess the answer is "maybe, maybe not", depends on if it ever becomes an important issue in the world.

On one hand, I wish it was that easy. Would make errata-type issues faster to come out. On the other, I'm glad it isn't that way, because the Sage shows repeatively a lack of understanding of the RAW... Also it prevents some of the 'Rules Creep' issues of 2.x. I don't want to have to have a...

Hyde, perhaps, drew the point best about Van Helsing being considered a murderer. A point that is convienantly lost once he gets to Translyvania. I'm a bit annoyed at some of the characterization for Van Helsing too [end plot spoiler type stuff]. Pacing needed some work, but that's mostly as...

As Thanee said, that also doesn't happen with the RAW. The effect of said spell is to create an object/item/weapon. And that item/weapon is what deals damage, not the spell. For the same reason that you wouldn't apply a Spell Resistance check against a weapon created in this manner [for...

At least by the core, you only have to deal with Poison being considered unhonorable. Given the context within the Paladin's code of conduct, it somewhat implies that poison use is in fact, not evil [the Additionally qualifier], although that's a grammatical nitpick.

That's not accurate with the RAW... In fact, there's little reason for specifying bludgeoning as a damage type, except for some special circumstances [Regeneration comes to mind, and 'damage multipliers/dividers'-ie, all bludgeoning damage is cut in half]. That said, off hand, I can't think...

Eeegh. I think this really depends on the How And Why for the given LAs... If I had to suggest something, I'd say follow the guidelines for the CR adjustment for changing the LA [as appropiate].

Well, except that Wizards don't get as much use out of skill points as psywars [or rather everyone] gets from con. Now, if Wizards had the Rogue skillset, that would be a bit better comparison/consideration. Ironically, even bards [who can be a bit of a skill-based class] don't use Int as...

Because despite Transparency, Psicraft is a different skill than Spellcraft. And of course, on page 55 in the Psionic-Magic transparency it still states that a Psicraft check is necessary to identify the discipline of the psionic aura detected by detect magic... They simply aren't...