Search results

You're saying that a caliph can only prevent a gate from opening next to him or in his domain if it was created for some purpose unrelated to him? Rulers of planar realms can block gates from appearing next to them. Nothing in the spell text says this only applies to gates opened under a subset...

It entertains me a great deal. Though it appeared in the days of 3.0, it was updated to 3.5 soon after the 3.5 core came out (I provided a link to the update earlier in this thread). It's also referred to and indeed recommended in the 3.5 Planar Handbook and 3.5 Fiendish Codex I.

"Deities and other beings who rule a planar realm can prevent a gate from opening intheir presence or personal demesnes if they so desire. " That's from the spell description. I believe it is also 'relevant text'. Manual of the Planes describes the Elemental Plane of Air as being divided into...

The grand caliphs (who would be noble djinni) of the elemental plane of air tired of such shenanigans a long time ago. They are perfectly within their rights to prevent gates from opening anywhere in their presence or indeed domains, enabling them to go about their business on their home plane...

I apologise if my disinterest in engaging you on a bulletin board about about issues you consider - and which I might agree - problematic or vague appeared hostile. If you were gaming under me, in the first instance I would ask that you didn't; I prefer a chair. I would be happy to discuss my...

I just want to echo what several other posters here have advised you to do. I've been in a DM in a multi-DM game and never again. Apart from anything else, it just leads to things like this. Lance the boil. Have the DMs come together and explain to the player that his PC simply has to change...

I'm not familiar with Masterplan but I've tried several VTTs over the years. Most recently I've been experimenting with MapTool and Roll20. When it comes to importing scans of printed maps, I've encountered issues. In some cases, the squares in the map illustration you're trying to import...

To what end? Would you refuse to sit at a table until I had satisfied you with every possible PAO ruling? If I did, would you then cross that off your list and move to the next item, and so on, before our game could begin? No thanks.

Your meaning is always perfectly obvious, thanks. Actually, you precluded agreement with Wicht when you said that 'interpretations are different every time'. But while any number of DMs might sometimes interpret a rule differently, that doesn't disrupt play for those with a regular group or...

Oh you tease. Do you truly believe - disregarding knowledge of the 3.x MotP - that Wicht's interpretation of the rules precluded anyone else making the same ruling? Actually, it would be fascinating and saying something really cool about the universe if there were such a thing as a Pauli...

Of course I do. Do you understand that some people might consider your definition of inconsistency (no two interpretations are ever alike: hyperbole indeed) itself unlikely?

And I am happy that enough rulings are contained within the core that I can extrapolate new rulings as required. Indeed, I would rather that than the core contain every ruling required to adjudicate every other possible combination of rules in every imaginable situation (assuming such a thing...

Clearly, some people see anything less than that as a weakness.

I had missed or forgotten the context of the point to which you were responding. I've been back and found it. Gotcha. Still, if a party of first level PCs told me they wanted to go and hunt an ancient red dragon, I'd encourage them to do just that. Getting to their foe would simply take them...

Excuse me, I'm not taking sides in your ongoing discussion with Mr N, but this made me raise an eyebrow. I see nothing wrong with PCs wanting to be first level dragon hunters. Doesn't The Sunless Citadel contain within it a first level dragon hunt? Isn't it fine to reason that dragons for good...

3.5 with all sorts of idiosyncratic exceptions and inclusions from other sources (including some 3.0). However, with the greatest of respect to PF enthusiasts, I would point out that my preference stems from having had such a good time with all the 3.x stuff at my disposal before PF came out...

I'm absolutely uncertain. I only play D&D (as opposed to any other RPG) for nostalgia but I do love it. However, I have lots of D&D stuff that I've already spent a small fortune on and I'm ambivalent about the playtest versions so far. If I do buy the core game, I doubt I'd buy anything beyond...

It was you who brought up the '3.5 version' of astral projection. I merely mentioned they were the same. My main point was that you were wrong to dismiss MotP as 3.0 when it survived transition to 3.5, just as you were wrong about your Luck Blade/wish exploit. No big deal.

Silly you for for not realising or acknowledging that MotP was updated to 3.5 with a minor amendment document that had no bearing on the entry to which I referred. Oh, and Astral Projection didn't change at all.

Fair points. I entirely agree. But many system mastery/system-is-broken examples rely on splat books to argue their case. You could also argue that errata aren't good enough either, as many people who buy early printings are unaware of these. Others still don't have access to Sage Advice...