Search results

Fight Science (the topic of the thread) tested a number of kicks and punches. All are allowed in the major MMA orgs. Some work well. Others don't. Actually, those rules have very little impact on the basics. You do see some obvious differences. UFC fighters will behave differently on the...

Sure. Why wouldn't he?

How do you accurately test what does or doesn't work? You see what happens when it's attempted against a resisting opponent.

They were (among other things) comparing the power of various techniques by having the participants hit or kick a dummy. That's very size dependant. A 250 lb martial artist may not look as pretty doing the kung fu dancing as the little guy they had on the show, but I assure you he'll make more...

The actual science could have been a lot better. The test subjects should have been in the same weight class. They should have tried (showed?) more than one technique from each. And all the talk about that ninja guy (TM) being the "ultimate warrior" or what-not was just silly. If y'all...

As I understand it the FAQ is based on Sage advice, which is currently the responsibility of Andy Collins. Skip Williams was "the Sage" before Andy. Collins was the main guy responsible for the 3.5 revision (primarily the PHB), while Williams was one of the three main designers of 3rd edition...

I hate to break this to you, but the core rulebooks had and still have contradictions too. I guess you'll have to throw them away now.

Why the FAQ matters The FAQ serves as a (supposedly) objective source of rule calls. On a message board it lets people discuss things like character creation and balance issues without first having to determine what rules everyone else happen to be using. You may not actually be using the...

Some thoughts I wouldn't be so hung up on duplicating vampire abilities exactly. By high levels that's clearly not possible. Instead I'd make him a "vampire themed melee mage". After all, all vampires have class levels. (I see you're already doing that to some extent, but you still seem overly...

We're talking about a shield with a weapon enhancement bonus. (Bonus to attack and damage.) It is separate from and in addition to the shield enhancement bonus. You only transfer the weapon enhancement bonus with the defending property.

Faiths of Eberron has construct grafts. The prestige class you remember is probably the Renegade Mastermaker from Magic of Eberron. As for other grafts: Fiend Folio has aboleth, beholder, fiendish, ilithid, maug (constructs), undead and yuan-ti grafts. Libris Mortis has undead grafts. Lords of...

No. :) If the target has cover you don't get an AoO. ("You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you.") If you make some other attack then yes, the target gets a +4 cover bonus (soft cover). ("Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover...

IMO the defending property just isn't worth it. You lose both attack bonus and damage (compared to the more-or-less balanced AB for AC with Expertise) and you have to pay for the privilege. :\ (IIRC the FAQ ruling is that you have to "attack" with the weapon to benefit from the defending...

This is mostly (I made some changes) copied from a post I made in a "what five books should everyone read" thread lost in the ENBoards meltdown, recovered through google. Technically they all have the potential to be "mind altering", though not necessarily radically so. Atlas Shrugged (Ayn...

If the DM allowed it I'd drop the longsword altogether. Wield the shield two-handed. That way you won't have to invest feats in two different weapons. With a bashing shield, or even a bashing spiked shield according to the FAQ, you can get respectable damage. Magic of Faerun has a "heavy weapon"...

You mean the "spread the natural attacks around" issue? I've been trying to avoid it because as far as I can tell it's a non-issue. And I'm not sure if I understand it right - it seems even more surreal to me than the other arguments you've introduced. I've been waiting for some sort of...

Pointing out how an analogy isn't 100% perfect is hardly proof that it's a straw man. If it was 100% identical in all ways it would be useless, as it would be 100% as unclear (or not) and add nothing. None of the differences you listed are relevant to the use of the words "when using..." You...

The way this is usually handled is to make the action in question a separate full-round action. "Charging is a special full-round action..." "Withdrawing from melee combat is a full-round action." "You can run as a full-round action." The monk's flurry on the other hand uses almost...

Since when "is" the flurry "by definition" the full attack action? It is not. This full attack action includes a flurry of blows and secondary natural attacks. I already said that. And I have a hard time believing you when you claim to have "honestly" concluded that I think the flurry "is"...

And older thread that may be of interest: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=173196 . (Marshall PrCs)