These boards are now READ ONLY. We've started over! So don't try posting here. Go here: www.minmaxforum.com
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: SoloOptimizing is the antithesis of roleplaying because it takes focus away from the important parts of the game.I'm inclined to disagree. People work hard on there characters, there personality, back ground, appearance, so forth. No one wants there character that they have invested time, energy, thought, and probably emotion in to be killed because they didn't take strong enough feats or skills or spells or what have you.
Optimizing is the antithesis of roleplaying because it takes focus away from the important parts of the game.
Q: Does a 15th level Warblade do double damage from Int if he hits the opponent with an AoO while flanking him?
Huge amounts of people are fuckwits. That doesn't mean that fuckwit is a valid lifestyle.
As a general rule, murdering people and taking their stuff is pretty much superior to breaking their stuff, murdering them, then not having any stuff to take.
Oh I'll make a party. I'll make a party so hard... I'll make a party that makes you feel so awkward downstairs. You'll see the party and only be able to respond, "Oh yeah baby."
Quote from: McPoyo on March 18, 2011, 05:34:28 PMQuote from: Vinom on March 18, 2011, 04:50:54 PMQuote from: ksbsnowowl on March 18, 2011, 02:21:59 PMQ 186: The mounted combat feat states:Quote from: SRDbecomes the regular AC.)Does this feat work when the mount is struck by a touch attack effect (Eldritch Blast, for example)? It notes "regular AC," though I imagine this was just short-sightedness on the part of the game writers.Bump?I'd say no, as the text clearly states the ride check is the mounts new Regular AC, touch AC doesn't change.It could also be argued that a touch attack targets the creature's normal touch AC.
Quote from: Vinom on March 18, 2011, 04:50:54 PMQuote from: ksbsnowowl on March 18, 2011, 02:21:59 PMQ 186: The mounted combat feat states:Quote from: SRDbecomes the regular AC.)Does this feat work when the mount is struck by a touch attack effect (Eldritch Blast, for example)? It notes "regular AC," though I imagine this was just short-sightedness on the part of the game writers.Bump?I'd say no, as the text clearly states the ride check is the mounts new Regular AC, touch AC doesn't change.
Quote from: ksbsnowowl on March 18, 2011, 02:21:59 PMQ 186: The mounted combat feat states:Quote from: SRDbecomes the regular AC.)Does this feat work when the mount is struck by a touch attack effect (Eldritch Blast, for example)? It notes "regular AC," though I imagine this was just short-sightedness on the part of the game writers.Bump?
Q 186: The mounted combat feat states:Quote from: SRDbecomes the regular AC.)Does this feat work when the mount is struck by a touch attack effect (Eldritch Blast, for example)? It notes "regular AC," though I imagine this was just short-sightedness on the part of the game writers.
becomes the regular AC.)
Quote from: Vinom on March 18, 2011, 06:08:18 PMQuote from: McPoyo on March 18, 2011, 05:34:28 PMQuote from: Vinom on March 18, 2011, 04:50:54 PMQuote from: ksbsnowowl on March 18, 2011, 02:21:59 PMQ 186: The mounted combat feat states:Quote from: SRDbecomes the regular AC.)Does this feat work when the mount is struck by a touch attack effect (Eldritch Blast, for example)? It notes "regular AC," though I imagine this was just short-sightedness on the part of the game writers.Bump?I'd say no, as the text clearly states the ride check is the mounts new Regular AC, touch AC doesn't change.It could also be argued that a touch attack targets the creature's normal touch AC.It's never stated that the increase to the mounts AC has any sort of type or duration, for a single attack it's AC, (Not touch or flat footed AC) is changed to the result of a ride check.
You're a quick thinker and spiteful, I can respect that. You won't be killed, Bikke
Quote from: Vinom on March 19, 2011, 08:01:09 AMQuote from: The_Mad_Linguist on March 19, 2011, 03:47:11 AMQuote from: Vinom on March 18, 2011, 06:08:18 PMQuote from: McPoyo on March 18, 2011, 05:34:28 PMQuote from: Vinom on March 18, 2011, 04:50:54 PMQuote from: ksbsnowowl on March 18, 2011, 02:21:59 PMQuote from: ksbsnowowl on March 17, 2011, 05:31:16 PMQ 186: The mounted combat feat states:Quote from: SRDbecomes the regular AC.)Does this feat work when the mount is struck by a touch attack effect (Eldritch Blast, for example)? It notes "regular AC," though I imagine this was just short-sightedness on the part of the game writers.Bump?I'd say no, as the text clearly states the ride check is the mounts new Regular AC, touch AC doesn't change.It could also be argued that a touch attack targets the creature's normal touch AC.It's never stated that the increase to the mounts AC has any sort of type or duration, for a single attack it's AC, (Not touch or flat footed AC) is changed to the result of a ride check. It's not an actual change to the mount's AC. It's much better than that.For example, if they rolled a natural 20, you still avoid the hit provided your ride check beats their attack roll.Yes, Attack roll, not touch attack, spell resistance or reflex save, only on straight up attack rolls.Touch attacks, ranged touch attacks, and melee attacks are all covered, since they all use attack rolls.
Quote from: The_Mad_Linguist on March 19, 2011, 03:47:11 AMQuote from: Vinom on March 18, 2011, 06:08:18 PMQuote from: McPoyo on March 18, 2011, 05:34:28 PMQuote from: Vinom on March 18, 2011, 04:50:54 PMQuote from: ksbsnowowl on March 18, 2011, 02:21:59 PMQuote from: ksbsnowowl on March 17, 2011, 05:31:16 PMQ 186: The mounted combat feat states:Quote from: SRDbecomes the regular AC.)Does this feat work when the mount is struck by a touch attack effect (Eldritch Blast, for example)? It notes "regular AC," though I imagine this was just short-sightedness on the part of the game writers.Bump?I'd say no, as the text clearly states the ride check is the mounts new Regular AC, touch AC doesn't change.It could also be argued that a touch attack targets the creature's normal touch AC.It's never stated that the increase to the mounts AC has any sort of type or duration, for a single attack it's AC, (Not touch or flat footed AC) is changed to the result of a ride check. It's not an actual change to the mount's AC. It's much better than that.For example, if they rolled a natural 20, you still avoid the hit provided your ride check beats their attack roll.Yes, Attack roll, not touch attack, spell resistance or reflex save, only on straight up attack rolls.
Quote from: Vinom on March 18, 2011, 06:08:18 PMQuote from: McPoyo on March 18, 2011, 05:34:28 PMQuote from: Vinom on March 18, 2011, 04:50:54 PMQuote from: ksbsnowowl on March 18, 2011, 02:21:59 PMQuote from: ksbsnowowl on March 17, 2011, 05:31:16 PMQ 186: The mounted combat feat states:Quote from: SRDbecomes the regular AC.)Does this feat work when the mount is struck by a touch attack effect (Eldritch Blast, for example)? It notes "regular AC," though I imagine this was just short-sightedness on the part of the game writers.Bump?I'd say no, as the text clearly states the ride check is the mounts new Regular AC, touch AC doesn't change.It could also be argued that a touch attack targets the creature's normal touch AC.It's never stated that the increase to the mounts AC has any sort of type or duration, for a single attack it's AC, (Not touch or flat footed AC) is changed to the result of a ride check. It's not an actual change to the mount's AC. It's much better than that.For example, if they rolled a natural 20, you still avoid the hit provided your ride check beats their attack roll.
Quote from: McPoyo on March 18, 2011, 05:34:28 PMQuote from: Vinom on March 18, 2011, 04:50:54 PMQuote from: ksbsnowowl on March 18, 2011, 02:21:59 PMQuote from: ksbsnowowl on March 17, 2011, 05:31:16 PMQ 186: The mounted combat feat states:Quote from: SRDbecomes the regular AC.)Does this feat work when the mount is struck by a touch attack effect (Eldritch Blast, for example)? It notes "regular AC," though I imagine this was just short-sightedness on the part of the game writers.Bump?I'd say no, as the text clearly states the ride check is the mounts new Regular AC, touch AC doesn't change.It could also be argued that a touch attack targets the creature's normal touch AC.It's never stated that the increase to the mounts AC has any sort of type or duration, for a single attack it's AC, (Not touch or flat footed AC) is changed to the result of a ride check.
Quote from: Vinom on March 18, 2011, 04:50:54 PMQuote from: ksbsnowowl on March 18, 2011, 02:21:59 PMQuote from: ksbsnowowl on March 17, 2011, 05:31:16 PMQ 186: The mounted combat feat states:Quote from: SRDbecomes the regular AC.)Does this feat work when the mount is struck by a touch attack effect (Eldritch Blast, for example)? It notes "regular AC," though I imagine this was just short-sightedness on the part of the game writers.Bump?I'd say no, as the text clearly states the ride check is the mounts new Regular AC, touch AC doesn't change.It could also be argued that a touch attack targets the creature's normal touch AC.
Quote from: ksbsnowowl on March 18, 2011, 02:21:59 PMQuote from: ksbsnowowl on March 17, 2011, 05:31:16 PMQ 186: The mounted combat feat states:Quote from: SRDbecomes the regular AC.)Does this feat work when the mount is struck by a touch attack effect (Eldritch Blast, for example)? It notes "regular AC," though I imagine this was just short-sightedness on the part of the game writers.Bump?I'd say no, as the text clearly states the ride check is the mounts new Regular AC, touch AC doesn't change.
Quote from: ksbsnowowl on March 17, 2011, 05:31:16 PMQ 186: The mounted combat feat states:Quote from: SRDbecomes the regular AC.)Does this feat work when the mount is struck by a touch attack effect (Eldritch Blast, for example)? It notes "regular AC," though I imagine this was just short-sightedness on the part of the game writers.Bump?
A gygaxian dungeon is like the world's most messed up game show. Behind door number one: INSTANT DEATH! Behind door number 2: A magic crown! Behind door number 3: 4d6 giant bees, and THREE HUNDRED POUNDS OF HONEY!
Quote from: McPoyo on March 30, 2010, 05:13:33 PMThey don't/haven't, was the point. 3.5 is as dead as people not liking nice tits.Sometimes, their tits (3.5) get enhancements (houserules), but that doesn't mean people don't like nice tits.Though sometimes, the surgeon (DM) botches them pretty bad...Best metaphor I have seen in a long time. I give you much fu.
They don't/haven't, was the point. 3.5 is as dead as people not liking nice tits.Sometimes, their tits (3.5) get enhancements (houserules), but that doesn't mean people don't like nice tits.Though sometimes, the surgeon (DM) botches them pretty bad...
Three Errata for the Mage-kings under the sky,Seven for the Barbarian-lords in their halls of stone,Nine for Mortal Monks doomed to die,One for the Wizard on his dark throneIn the Land of Charop where the Shadows lie.
Q196. If you are mounted when you cast Mirror Image, is your mount normally included in the effect, or do you just end up with 8 wizards sitting on the back of a soon-to-be-crunchy Phantom Steed?
Q197 If you are unconscious are you unable to save vs Will saves like ghost possession and stuff, if so where is the rules for it?
Q198Please correct me if I am wrong but animate dead should work on vermin? Like make skeletons from spiders and other such arachnids?
Quote from: SeekingKnight on March 20, 2011, 01:41:15 AMQ198Please correct me if I am wrong but animate dead should work on vermin? Like make skeletons from spiders and other such arachnids?Works on any living corporeal creature that has a skeletal structure. So it would depend on the vermin and your DM, does an exoskeleton count as a skeletal system?
If you stop ignoring 289 pages telling what the intent is to stretch "more power" in your own god complexion of your interpretation trumps all to cover ability adjustments from aging then I will ignore a quarter page of rules that exist within a sidebar.
I think in this case the grammar is less important than whether the Str and Dex bonus provided to your created undead scales.
Q199: Dragonkin in Draconomicon as characters lists 7 racial hit die and a level adjustment of 2. One of my players insists by RAW the racial hit die can be ignored, and thus the racial skills and feats, and the race becomes an LA+2 with no racial hit die. I've maintained that by RAW, he can't. By RAW, can you drop these racial hit dice?
Quote from: SanjiWatsuki on March 20, 2011, 04:35:35 AMQ199: Dragonkin in Draconomicon as characters lists 7 racial hit die and a level adjustment of 2. One of my players insists by RAW the racial hit die can be ignored, and thus the racial skills and feats, and the race becomes an LA+2 with no racial hit die. I've maintained that by RAW, he can't. By RAW, can you drop these racial hit dice?
