Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 4708938" data-attributes="member: 2011">Yeah, the FAQ is pretty funny. We don't use it because it sometimes takes left hand turns on the rules (e.g. two weapon feats when used with a staff add to the damage of Wizard spells). The errata does not seem to do that. One can mostly see exactly why they added certain rules to the errata. The errata seems to be used to clarify rules, the FAQ seems to sometimes be used to create new rules.And I can see why a DM would allow the first question. Wand of Accuracy is really inferior without it.As to the second question, I'm a bit on the fence. I really don't think that players should know the (near) exact defenses of opponents without failed and successful attacks. They should learn about their foes as they fight them.In this case, the answer to the second question could be No instead of Yes and even though the player did not use Wand of Accuracy, the player knows more information about the defense of the foe. I'm ok with using the ability and finding out more info, but not using it and finding out more info?But after checking out the math for Shield, I'm leaning towards cutting the players a break in these areas. I still don't think the rules support it. WotC now supports it, but that's not quite the same as the rules (which would allow moving before and after a standard action if that were the case).</blockquote>