Search results

It's a full round to full-attack, meaning you are rooted in place, also meaning that if you move, you are limited to 1 single attack for crappy damage (compared to a mage firing off a 1-win spell as a standard action). I believe the dislike is more that the fighter is reliant on the full-attack...

Yeah, if the dragon stays on the ground and does stupid things like wading straight into melee. ;)

One alternative may be to run them like the kensai's signature weapon, and let the player burn xp to upgrade the weapon with magical enhancements. This should at least make them indifferent between holding on to the existing weapon and trading it in for a newer one (since they can control what...

The penalties have to go, for one, since they end up making you weaker than an equivalent PC who uses a normal magical weapon. If you want to dual-wield them, forget it, you are pretty much screwed.

Your access to higher lv powers is still delayed. You can still augment lower lv powers, but they probably won't be as strong as higher lv ones. :)

Momma! That's double its original damage output on average! :eek: I always thought the original balor seemed a tad weak, but was MM1 really that off the hook?

Consider rogue1/wiz4/unseen seer all the way. Unseen seer is a prc in complete mage. It does impose a small caster lv penalty, so you will probably want practiced spellcaster (complete arcane) to offset that.

It's irrelevant. Intimidate is a fear effect, and fear effects are always mind-affecting abilities (it is even classified under the special abilities section). Fear is fear, it doesn't matter what the source is or how it is classified. :)

Why does no one ever read the skill entries? From the description of the intimidate skill, and from the fear entry in special abilities section of MM, So yeah, all undead are immune to intimidate because they are automatically immune to mind-affecting effects, which includes fear effects...

Or the good caster can modify create greater undead with the consecrate spell feat and you now have a morally ambiguous spell with both the good and evil subtypes. :cool:

Give me ToB errata or give me ..... :p

Notice that the -2 attack penalty could just as readily have translated into a +4 damage boost with power attack, which is slightly better than 1d6 (3.5 average damage). Another disadvantage is that the attack penalty cannot be readily toggled off (unlike power attack) if you are fighting...

Rogue/swashbuckler is a fairly decent combination these days because of the daring outlaw from complete scoundrel. There should be a few pirate-themed prcs in stormwrack (A book I don't own), but one of them is the scarlet corsair. Summertime Travel -- Previews for August and Beyond So maybe...

You mean like what they did with 3.5e? ;)

The fact that the first few line of the ToB errata does in fact consist of well, ToB errata suggests that it is more or less done. It should take no more than a few minutes to locate and upload the correct version onto the wotc website. This is of course, me assuming they really put in effort...

Nothing. They need to continue being arrogant and continue with things as they currently are. Sooner or later, you will realise that things aren't going to change and have little choice but to jump on the bandwagon as well.;)

None that I am aware of. :eek:

Well, I do feel that fireball is currently a fair weak spell, so I see little harm in making it auto-hit as well.

I dunno - the new magic missile seems designed to fill in a specific niche, if you are a player who doesn't mind trading damage for accuracy. I wonder if this may be a sign of things to come. Wotc contemplating auto-hit powers, and magic missile is simply them testing the waters?

Int seems a little out of place for a dwarf. I chose str as it fit with their stereotype of being strong, tough and hardy. Or how's this to break the mold - the ability to apply +2 to the same stat twice, for a total of +4 to said stat? Say, orc - +2str, +2str or +2con. :p