Search results

"... not even in the face of Armageddon."

I value being able to believe someone is acting out of goodwill.

I can't give you XP, but let me link some unflattering commentary on S&W I demur to retype myself: The Elements of Style - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It wasn't a sentence. A preposition modifies a phrase, and there is no phrase for it to modify. EDIT: Wikipedia explaining why I am right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whom#Rules_for_determining_who_vs._whom_in_traditional_usage

By whom? Not by me. :) I first read it cover to cover about 19 years ago, and I had to memorize it for AP English Comp. But it's a short book with a very clear focus. That is a real rule. But it can protentially conflict with another rule. The book is by who wrote it. You wouldn't say "by...

Technically correct according to whom? "I am he" is technically correct.

Not only is it possible... but a simulation is by definition abtract! Otherwise it would be reality.

Those aren't different definitions. As he clearly spells out in the article, he considers Trick Strike to be dissociated, and re-associating it means house-ruling the ability every time it is used. He does not claim it is now and forever dissociated. Not by my reading of the article, or even...

Well, since you asked, no. Not in the slightest. Hit points can represent a lot of things, but in all cases, "I am low on hit points," is equivalent to, "I can't take much more of being attacked or I will die." In all cases, having lost hit points is equivalent to having been somewhat injured...

Strunk & White is good for most formal writing, but is somewhat dated, and is not comprehensive. In this case, the implied phrases could be, among others (assuming singular masculine): - The hypocrisy is by him. - The hypocrisy is of his doing. - The hypocrisy is his. - He has committed...

If you don't like comic relief, you might want to stick with LOTOR. The Hobbit is a little... comic relief-y.

That's not really a satisfying explanation from an in-game perspective. Joe the Hero: Wow, Ziggy, that was amazing! Can you do it again? Ziggy the Rogue: Uh, no. Joe the Hero: Why not? Ziggy the Rogue: I've, uh... exhausted my physical and mental resources. Joe the Hero: You mean you're tired...

Maureen Birnbaum, crossed with Princess Vespa and Cohen the Barbarian. I like it.

I was initially inclined to disagree with the position, as summarized in the OP, but after reading the article in its entirety, I think I agree more than I disagree. Clearly, 4e abstractly the entirety of combat to a greater degree than 3e abstracts even some individual attacks; even "shifted"...

I tend to be of a generous mind when it comes to IP, but if there's doubt in my mind about whether I should allow something, I would probably send a C&D. It doesn't actually cost me anything but a stamp or a quick email, nor does it injure the person receiving it. And if I actually had to take...

"By who" is correct. In this case, who is standing in for the subject of the sentence. "By whom" would be correct if I was saying Hypocrisy was standing uncomfortably close to someone. Umbran: Duly noted. I missed the warning upthread.

LOL I, of course, respectuflly disagree. And not every class gets Improved Uncanny Dodge, at least by default. I think the real question is: why doesn't the core monk get it? Monks are supposed to be ready for action, and if anyone should be able to avoid a flanking penalty, I think it would...

That's a good idea. :) If you want a full-on base class that focuses on this concept, I fully endorse SteelDraco's version. I approached the idea several times, but every time I got down to the nitty gritty, I became dissatisfied. Either the class was fairly martial, in which I would imagine you...

Archetypes are really just Alternate Class Features from Unearthed Arcana (3e). In fact, many of the classes in FoD are based around a similar concept, but in creating a new base class, I am free to do things like breaking up existing progressions or changing the skill list. The Corsair and its...

Hypocrisy by who, precisely?