Search results

Additionally, any time you're forced to make a balance check (such as from uneven flagstone, a narrow surface, a slippery surface, so on), you automatically lose your Dexterity bonus to AC unless you've got 5 ranks in Balance. Who actually puts ranks in Balance these days? Come on. Too easy...

Of course they can. However, in general, Rule -1 (not exactly Rule 0, but still an implied rule) is to be fair to your players. If something strikes everyone at the game table as being completely unfair to the players, then it doesn't matter what the rule is- it should be discarded. The game is...

Are you sure? I could have sworn there was some sort of a "You cannot bluff PCs." statement or something... Now I need to go fish out my 3e PHB...

It's an interesting concept, but keep in mind that voluntarily choosing to have your character ignore personal wealth will screw over the character lots and lots in the long run. At any given level, you're assumed to have a certain amount of power from magic items and such- which, if you choose...

This, right here, is probably the best statement in this entire thread. I agree 100%. Doing down-and-dirty tricks to your PCs to try and kill them without a save is not only wrong, it's unnecessary. If all you're trying to do is kill your PCs, why not just toss a 40th-level Tarrasque sorcerer...

In 3e, there was the rule that you couldn't bluff players. Therefore, if one of the PCs had read the adventure and knew the NPC was lying, there was absolutely nothing the DM could do. Stupidest rule of 3e, IMO.

.....er.... ...wait... what?

I disagree with the absolute requirement that a Fighter must have Spellcraft to identify spells he's familiar with. Yes, you need spellcraft to identify a spell. And yes, Spellcraft is a trained-only skill. However, spells have visible and audible components in most cases- yes, they're assumed...

I'd also point out that though the Abjurant Champion is supposed to be all about Mage Armor and Shield spells, rather than actual armor, the Abjurant Champion's picture is quite obviously wearing armor AND a shield.

No they don't. Anyway, I greatly, greatly, GREATLY advise AGAINST giving him magic items that boost his HP. Remember, of course, that any and all gear you give your NPCs WILL end up in the hands of the PCs. So unless you want your next BBEG to be even more of a pushover because now your PCs...

If you've got the last issue of the Age of Worms adventure path, there's stats for an Executioner's Mace- it's a two-handed exotic weapon that deals 1d12 damage, x3 crit, and you can choose to either deal Piercing damage, Slashing damage, or Bludgeoning & Piercing damage. (Picture a huge...

No, they specifically don't increase the casting time or spell level. Anyway, Sudden Metamagic feats are NOT overpowered. In fact, in my opinion, they're UNDER powered. True, you can use an empowered/maximized/whatever at an earlier level than you normally could, but it's ONCE per day, for an...

Though the DM's ruling isn't wrong (as it's his game and he can rule it however he wants), there's nothing in the Use Magic Device description or the Wand description or the Spell Trigger Item description saying that you need proper hands (i.e., human hands) to activate them. Additionally...

Because Touch AC doesn't represent how hard you are to damage your body, it represents how hard you are to be touched. If it touches your armor, it touches you. Therefore, if it touches your shield, it touches you. By your logic, why doesn't armor add to your touch AC? That being said, there...

Erm... no, it isn't. It's quite different, in fact. It's a -4 to your attack roll, not a cover bonus to AC. That's all.

I very strongly suggest making the Wings of Flurry spell deal 1d6 per TWO levels, with a 10d6 cap. Force damage is unmitigatable, unresistable, and affects incorporeal. Being able to use that at your caster level's worth of d6's is WAY too powerful, especially with no cap.

I have- I've house-ruled them to either have the stats of a human or an elf, player's choice. Much cooler IMO.

Except that a Quivering Palm must be dealt with an actual attack. And if must deal damage. So unless you're shaking that person's hand while punching them in the stomach, it's going to be obvious that you just tried to hurt him.

I'm aware of that. The original flavor is dumb, as has been pointed out, and so I flavor it differently. I also cause the -4 to apply even when two enemies are attacking each other. It gets past the silly questions like "Well, what if I don't care who I hit?"

The -4 to shooting into Melee isn't, in my opinion, because you're worried about who you're going to hit. That's just dumb, and leads to questions like the OP ("what if I want to ignore the penalty?"). Here's how I see it: When someone's not in melee, they're standing there, trying to dodge...