D&D 3e/3.5e/d20The forum for conversations specifically related to the rules and procedures of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition, 3.5 Edition, or any fantasy game using the d20 system or a variant thereof (commercially published or not).
A772
Equipment sized for Small characters does indeed have half the weight; it does not, however, cost half as much. This is important to recognize (and annoying), given that equipment sized for Large characters does cost more as well as weighing more.
I have a character with unbalanced levels (who's been eating the EXP penalty for quite some time now). He's finally hitting his prestige. I know that the Prestige won't WORSEN his EXP penalty, but am I correct in assuming that the penalty from his previous unbalanced levels still carries on?
Faith points are a rules variant, and work when there's a clear statement of player expectations and DM expectations associated with using that variant. So the answer is: ask your individual DM.
Can you gain total cover from a tower shield not in your hands, such as one that's on your back? The reason i ask is because the shield is still big enough to provide cover regardless of whether it's in your hand or not.
Can you gain total cover from a tower shield not in your hands, such as one that's on your back? The reason i ask is because the shield is still big enough to provide cover regardless of whether it's in your hand or not.
No. To gain total cover, you must take a total defense action while holding (not wearing) a tower shield.
Can you gain total cover from a tower shield not in your hands, such as one that's on your back? The reason i ask is because the shield is still big enough to provide cover regardless of whether it's in your hand or not.
A 775 The entry on tower shields states that "...you can instead use it as total cover, though you must give up your attacks to do so." By a strict reading, all you need to do to get cover from it is "give up your attacks." However, it also says this is regards to the statement "In most situations, it provides the indicated shield bonus to your AC," and since you must be wielding the shield to gain the bonus to AC, it follows that you must also be wielding it to use it for cover.
Q 776
How does Infuse Arrow (Arcane Archer Class Feature) interact with the splitting enhancement or the Arrowsplit spell? I think it'd be rather silly to get more than one cast that way.
Q 777
I've read that Infuse Arrow can be used to decrease long casting time to one standard action. Would this allow spontaneous casters to infuse Metamagic-altered spells their arrow and fire said arrow as a standard action? (If I'm not confused, spontaneous casters normally must take a full action to add metamagic to their spells).
__________________
Currently LF3.5G in Queens/Brooklyn/Manhattan, NYC.
Assuming you actually mean Imbue Arrow and both arrows after splitting hit the target, you'll get the listed area spell applied twice. In many cases the stacking limits will make that the same as applying it once.
A 777
Again assuming you actually mean Imbue Arrow, there are two ways to read the ability:
Any area spell used with Imbue Arrow is cast and fired as a standard action; or
The only area spells which can be fired on an arrow using Imbue Arrow are those which can be cast as a standard action.
You'll have to ask your individual DM which interpretation they use in their game.
Last edited by Curmudgeon : 08-28-2012 at 07:33 PM.
Q778
Can a monk weild a weapon in his main hand and unarmed strikes for his off-hand to Two-weapon fight?
Q7778b
Can a monk flurry his unarmed strikes when fighting as above?
__________________ My extended signature.
Thanks to the wonderful Ceika for my signature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chained Birds
Just one of those guys vs girls things. Guys like giant, fighting robots that shoot lazerz out their eyes while girls like pretty jewelry that sparkle in the moonlight after having a romantic interlude with a charming gentleman.
A778
Yes, one weapon plus an unarmed strike is allowed. Note however that two unarmed strikes does not work; in essence the monk's entire body is considered one (light) weapon, so you may attack once with it and once with a normal weapon. Where it gets confusing is that the normal weapon may be allowed to be two-handed, at least if it's a quarterstaff. I'm not 100% sure that TWF is allowed in that scenario, but they do talk about monks making US's with their feet, knees, elbows, etc., so it may be reasonable to think they can do this.
A778b partial
I'm more than a little unclear on the details of this part, but they state that a monk may intersperse unarmed strikes and monk-weapon strikes while Flurrying. This implies that TWF probably either doesn't work with Flurry at all, or only works with a monk weapon. (Given the monk's general patheticness, you can probably talk your DM into a generous ruling on this topic.)
According to the description of the Mage's Disjunction spell:
"All magical effects and magic items within the radius of the spell, except for those that you carry or touch, are disjoined. That is, spells and spell-like effects are separated into their individual components (ending the effect as a dispel magic spell does), and each permanent magic item must make a successful Will save or be turned into a normal item."
Most players are concerned about the primary, nuclear-option effect of Mage's Disjunction, which is to threaten to make all magic items non-magical, including those of one's own allies. My concern is different:
What, exactly is the SECONDARY effect of Mage's Disjunction, its effect on active spells?
Specifically, what does it mean to end the effects of active spells "as a dispel magic spell does"? Does that mean that the caster of Mage's Disjunction still must make a caster-level check for each spell effect? Should it be possible to add up to +20 to this spell effect, as with the Greater Dispel Magic spell, or should there be a more generous limit? Finally, can this effect be focused, as a "targeted" dispel, or must it always take the form of a burst, as an "area" dispel?
I would like to share my own proposed answers to these questions, but I'd like your input. Here goes:
Disjunction (I propose) is so powerful that no caster-level check is required to dispel any magic that is not contained in a magic item, but it also works like an area dispel, so that it does not necessarily affect every active spell in its area of effect. Instead, for each creature within the area that is the subject of one or more active spells, the spell with the highest caster level is always the one that the Mage’s Disjunction spell causes to expire. In case two spells have the same caster level, the Mage’s Disjunction spell dispels the most recently cast spell.
Spell casters who have this arcane knowledge about the Mage’s Disjunction spell and who are aware that it may soon be used against them defend their most costly spells (for example, those that they have made permanent with the Permanency spell) by casting one more spell upon themselves (even only a cantrip), knowing that the Mage’s Disjunction spell will cause only this spell to expire, but not the others.
That's it. This proposal may not be in accord with every DM's notion of how Mage's Disjunction works. (For example, the Guards and Wards spell description implies that this spell may fail to dispel active magic, which doesn't fit my proposal.) What do you think?
Last edited by Duke of Urrel : 08-29-2012 at 02:10 PM.
Mage's Disjunction ends every spell inside its area with no check. There could be 30 clerics all in a group, each with 40 different buff spells on him, and Disjunction would end all 1200 spells simultaneously with no need for rolling even a single die. The only aspect of this affected by the reference to Dispel Magic is that each spell ends as if its duration had expired, meaning that (for instance) someone using Fly floats gently downward rather than plummeting immediately.
If a ranged attack misses a mounted foe, is there a chance that the mount is hit? Does it make any difference if the attacker has the Precise Shot feat?
Missing your target creature does not impose a chance of accidentally hitting someone else, ever. In the case of an intended target who is grappling, the shooter randomly determines which grappling creature is actually targeted unless they have the Improved Precise Shot feat.
Last edited by Curmudgeon : 08-30-2012 at 01:40 AM.
Q781: Is it possible by default (i.e. barring a very specialized crafter) to create wands of metamagic-improved spells? Like creating a wand of empowered fireball?
Yes, but the adjusted spell level must not be beyond the limit for the type of item you are creating. Wands are limited to 4th-level or lower spells. Empowered fireball is equivalent to a 5th-level spell, so it cannot be put into a wand. You could, however, make a wand of empowered acid arrow, since that is equal to a 4th-level spell.
__________________
"Nothing you can't spell will ever work." - Will Rogers
"What you must learn is that these rules are no different than the rules of a computer system. Some of them can be bent. Others can be broken." - Morpheus, The Matrix
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krellen
Remember, Evil isn't "selfish". It's Evil. "Look out for number one" is a Neutral attitude. Evil looks out for number one while crushing number two.
If I shoot at a target with AC 20 which has cover (AC 24) from a target with AC 30 and I hit AC 22, does my attack then hit the and do damage to the target with AC 30?
Q 783
Where can I find a feat to extend the distance which an animal companion is allowed to go from a druid and still share his spells?
__________________
Fanclubs:
Spoiler
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crow
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laurellien
Here's a good one
"We are not working on 4th edition and we have no plans for it."
-Every single person at WotC when asked
You sir, win.
Robin of Whitehills, NG Human Druid IV, by me.
Carradoc of the Hall of Grond, CG Dwarf Berserker (complex build), by the illustrious Ceika.
Missing your target creature does not impose a chance of (accidentally) hitting someone else, ever.
Paranthesis by me. So no.
Fluffwise, the result would depend on the nature of AC 30 IMO. If it is armor or natural armor, the arrow (or whatever) does not penetrate, if it's deflection it is deflected (well, duh).
A 783 PHB or SRD
The distance is 5' i.e. the druid and animal companion must remain in adjacent squares or share squares.
There is a feat that ups the distance to 30'.
A.
1 Bard/9 Wizard/1 Sublime Chord/9 Ultimate Magus
Sublime chord states that the CR of both the prestige and the entry arcane class is the sum of their individual CR.Since they have the same CR all the time,an UM can simply choose in which class to apply the "+1 level of lower-level existing arcane casting class". Let's say you raise only the wizard.
The wizard class will have 9+9=18 "class" levels,and the total CR will be 18+3 ( from the UM arcane spell power class feature). Accordingly the SC will have 1+6=7 class level,and 10 CR.In total the CR for both class will reach a staggering 31 at 20 level.
Are the calculations correct?
B.
SC select spells from the sorcerer/wizard or the bard list.Does this mean that he can't select sorcerer only spells?
Standard high school algebra says to multiply first; i.e., mathematical expressions bind multiplication more strongly than addition. The rules of English also require punctuation or repetition to extend the scope of an adverb ("twice") across a preposition ("+" or "plus"). You can read that as "(twice your factotum level) + your Int modifier".
RSS Feeds: 
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXI
