Search results

You'll have to forgive me because I don't own a copy of DMG2. Why should a game option invalidate a feat? This seems like a nerf to certain classes based on preferred style. My understanding was that "Intrinsic" was supposed to get rid of the need for magic items (if that's what you wanted)...

Interesting...this almost makes sense (from the stand point of a CS ruling). This does make it substantially more powerful as the player can basically negate melee attacks from one creature per round without reach. Of course the creature could still charge a different enemy or attack something...

So is that too much free time because I submitted a bug to CS or is it too much free time because I found the bug in the first place helping a friend make their character for my game where I use the "Intrinsic" option?

Plenty of DMs here willing to help.

Settings: Caster of some kind (Sorcerer, Wizard) "Intrinsic" option set on Dual Implement Spellcaster (feat) 2 non-magic daggers equipped Level 4 to be sure you have the +1 "Intrinsic" weapon enhancement bonus Pick an at-will power then look at it's damage breakdown At this point you notice...

So are you saying that "creativity" is defined as figuring how to take advantage of a game systems mechanical defects (bag of rats comes to mind)? Funny, I always thought that's what a DM was for and judicious use of the word "No". And don't get me wrong...I'm in favor of the "say yes"...

More sex.....is that like infinite oregano?

This ties in to my comments about backwards engineering damage. In order for disarm to work it would have to be a condition that the monster or PC can get rid of without outside interference. If you can disarm an opponent, then just pick up said weapon you have just created a save or die...

As a player would you want a monster to do this to you? As to the die type of damage. This falls apart as soon as you leave heroic tier and perhaps even sooner. Monster damage is not and has never been based on the weapons they use. Trying to "reverse engineer" monster damage from using a...

About the PDF printer option. I think the OP missed the fact that once you "print" the character from CB into the PDF you can now edit the PDF to be formatted as you like with all the text already there for cut/paste. You just need a PDF editor.

mneme: The item's power is at-will (immediate ?) for clarification so it can be used every round for the cost of your immediate action. Some people have other uses for their per round immediate action. My player in question didn't have any of that other stuff so the item itself was as I...

This (seconded) with a caveat. I agree with the poster above that said any class that is main stat Dex/Int can build a 20 safely. Examples: Rogue, Archer Ranger, Wizard, Swordmage, etc. Dex/Int builds get +1 to: Hit, Damage, AC, Reflex, (Initiative-Dex only).

I have/had a player with this armor in my game and I found it to be less than useless. The armor's power is Immediate (reaction/interrupt?) so is limited to once per round. The creature need only expend one extra square of movement to get adjacent to you. Unless you're using it on a charge...

Just a quick comment about power attack (feat). It is unlikely that 1-handed weapons ever benefit from power attack and depending on the DPR gain/loss other feats may be better to take (such as weapon focus or 2-weapon fighting). Make sure you check your character before taking this feat as...

On a total side note I have to say the thing that pisses me off most about this is that they have taken a PHB rule and re-written it. This doesn't bother me so much as I'm happy with most of the errata so far, but the presentation of said changes in a brand new book (PHB3) instead of actual...

Minor quibble: Class Feature.

@DS: To be fair this whole discussion was mainly about the damage. With the caveat that we are only discussing damage, then the interpretation that Immunity == Infinite Resistance is a valid statement. It is also consistent with the 2 rulings from CS. If this is the path that is being taken...

Here here! If immunity was originally defined in the MM then IMO they messed up. The PHB should have been the complete rules text the way they set it up and the MM should only have been stats/fluff/ecology stuff. I'm sure an extra 20 pages wouldn't have hurt them and the rules text use they...

As promised for what it's worth.

Since you are citing rules text other than the PHB (which frankly ought to be the place for all rules..not hidden somewhere in a DMG or MM) could you kindly post what/where?