Search results

I suggest you re-read the errata. I never suggested the lasher could not sneak attack. I did suggest that the lasher would not receive the +2 flanking bonus to hit. The errata does not say anything to the contrary. To repeat: The lasher MAY FLANK, meaning to be in the flanking position. As...

Flanking is not one of those instances. As well as the whip, as per the item description. This instance is an exception and is noted as such. Or when an opponent is denied his DEX bonus. Taken literally, this is not the case. Refer to the PHB passage. The lasher may threaten with his...

The Lasher PrC is necessary to make the whip a truly viable option. The whip becomes somewhat less useless when enchanted with the "Merciful" property from S&F or MoF. Emphasis on "somewhat".

Indeed. The primary point remains that a lasher can flank without receiving the bonus.

Starting gold for a 9th lvl PC = 36,000

From the PHB: "If you are making a melee attack against a creature, and an ally directly opposite you is threatening the creature, you and your ally flank the creature. You gain a +2 flanking bonus on your attack roll. A rogue in this position can also sneak attack the target." The lasher, it...

PHB p. 77: "A character can gain a feat at the same level at which he or she gains the prerequisite."

The spell disintegrates the target. If the armor is the target, it is disintegrated. If the dummy is the target, it is disintegrated. If the creature is the target, it is disintegrated, dead or alive. The problem, therefore, is how the ray can pass through the armor, should it cover the...

It has been my experience that people seldom intend things to be faulty. Stating that some benefit may be derived from attacking an ethereal creature with a weapon that can hit incorporeal creatures is faulty. This does not change the text. This does not change the rule. The weapon provides...

Hyp is correct in his literal reading of the spell. Caliban is correct in that the spell's description is a result of faulty design or editing concerning using "incorporeal" and "ethereal" interchangably. One way is as written. One way is as intended. Choose as you desire.

Indeed. We must use implication alone. To do otherwise is to eliminate the "Close Combat" ability of the class.

You are mistaken. If you randomly determine something, each element has an equal chance of being selected. To change the likelihood is to eliminate the randomness.

From the PHB: "If you are making a melee attack against a creature, and an ally directly opposite you is threatening the creature, you and your ally flank the creature. You gain a +2 flanking bonus on your attack roll." Lashers may threaten with their weapon. The lasher may allow someone else...

See this thread for a similar discussion of incorporeal and ethereal confusion.

The two are not mutually exclusive. The rules work as stated. This, I do not contest. The rationale is nonetheless contradictory. A ray moves through an object to target that which is inside, but not behind. Magic, yes. Game mechanic, yes. Simplified for playability. Contradictory, yes...

When one opens the PHB, it becomes clear that weapons with a 10' reach are often 10' long. p. 100-103: Weapons superimposed over 1' squares.

You select a card from the deck. There is no roll. Thus, there can be no reroll.

Interesting. And a bit contradictory. One can target an individual while only seeing his armor. Then disintegrate him, and not his armor. We must dismiss logic for rules, it seems. Were he to stand behind the armor, the armor is cover, the cover is struck, the cover is disintegrated...

Logic is correct. Not immune, protected until the armor is disintegrated. Then, quite vulnerable. One way uses the rules as written. One does not.

A creature is not its equipment. A sundered sword is not a sundered character. A disintegrated sword is not a disintegrated character. The sword disintegrates, the character remains. The character disintegrates, the sword remains. One creature OR one object.