Difference between revisions of "Talk:Halfling Hurler (3.5e Optimized Character Build)"

From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Blur/Blink)
Line 25: Line 25:
 
: Unfortunately, you need total concealment (or a spell that says that enemies are denied dex to AC) to proc SA. So blur and concealment don't work--blur because it only gives 20% concealment, and displacement because it gives 50% miss chance, but no actual concealment. --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 11:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 
: Unfortunately, you need total concealment (or a spell that says that enemies are denied dex to AC) to proc SA. So blur and concealment don't work--blur because it only gives 20% concealment, and displacement because it gives 50% miss chance, but no actual concealment. --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 11:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 
: I actually explained it very recently [http://www.dndonlinegames.com/showthread.php?p=4408469#post4408469 here] how Blink works and why it's argued that you wouldn't have the 20% chance to miss with thrown weapons when using Blink. --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 12:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 
: I actually explained it very recently [http://www.dndonlinegames.com/showthread.php?p=4408469#post4408469 here] how Blink works and why it's argued that you wouldn't have the 20% chance to miss with thrown weapons when using Blink. --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 12:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 +
: Ah, dammit. I forgot the "Must be total concealment" deal. it's what I get for puttering around at night before going to bed. In that case, I have to apologize. But, hey, now I know. --Genowhirl 15:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:19, 16 March 2011

Bonus Feats

- 5/19/10 Even if this ruling is correct, which I can't tell since I can't even find which page he's referring to in the MM to begin with, the ability to ignore prerequisites does not allow a character to ignore rules about feat "types". Certain Feat-types impose special rules which are not prerequisites, simpley rules to govern the type of feat it is. Example: Even if prerequisites are ignored a character could not pick a Feat(Monstrous) because that Feat-type requires that the character be a non-humanoid or monstrous character. Likewise you cannot pick a "Feat Bite of Death(Warforged)" to gain a bite attack. You may be able to ignore the prerequisites of being a Warforge, but you cannot ignore the "Warforge Feat-type" which rules "You must be a Warforge to take this feat". Redundant, perhaps but correct none the less. This halfing can ignore the insane prerequisites for Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting, but cannot ignore the rules for Feat-type (Epic) which states you must be lv. 21 or higher to take this feat. Feat-types are not decorations for feats. Each one imposes their own set of rules on the feat. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.207.94 (talkcontribs) at DM JM 14:38, May 19, 2010

Page 7 of the Monster Manual (3.5e), in case you were wondering.--Tavis McCricket 17:29, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
More discussion on bonus feats. And at worst, a general ban on epic feats before level 21 (which I can't actually find) means that you just take Greater TWF instead, but that covers all of your iterative attacks anyway and doesn't actually change anything for this build. - TarkisFlux 18:24, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
Also more discussion here. --Ghostwheel 22:05, May 19, 2010 (UTC)


Moving an IP's point/argument

They put this on the normal page, but I'm moving it here because that's where it should've gone in the first place. --Azya 20:42, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

* Bonus feats, unless otherwise qualified, can ignore prerequisites (source: Monster Manual). The rogue's bonus feat from Special Ability is not otherwise qualified, and can ignore prerequisites. We use it to pick up Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting. If you don't want to be like that, you can use your free feats to pick it up whenever you feel like it.

THE ABOVE IS A MISREPRESENTATION THE 3.5 MONSTER MANUAL SPECIFICALLY STATES ON PAGE 7 "SOMETIMES A CREATURE HAS ONE OR MORE BONUS FEATS MARKED WITH A SUPERSCRIPT B. CREATURES OFTEN DO NOT HAVE THE PREREQUISITES FOR A BONUS FEAT. IF THIS IS SO THE CREATURE CAN STILL USE THE FEAT. IF YOU WISH TO CUSTOMIZE THE CREATURE WITH NEW FEATS YOU MAY REASSIGN ITS OTHER FEATS, BUT NOT ITS BONUS FEATS. A CREATURE CANNOT HAVE A FEAT THAT IS NOT A BONUS FEAT UNLESS IT HAS THE FEATS PREREQUSITES.

—IP
Quick response: The feat gained by the Rogue special ability is a bonus feat per RAW: "Feat: A rogue may gain a bonus feat in place of a special ability" [emphasis mine]. That means that you just wrote in support of the interpretation you're railing against. If you feel that rules isn't being used as intended that's fine, I feel the same way, but this is not a misrepresentation of the actual text of the rules. - TarkisFlux 21:06, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Blur/Blink

Part of the problem has been folks taking issue with Blink. I've seen one person try to argue that that the thrown weapons should be subject to the 20% chance melee attacks is. I just checked the Blur spell, however, and it doesn't have miss chance. It also provides substantially less benefits compared to Blink (well, it is a lower-level spell), but at least it provides basic concealment and doesn't bring up the miss chance for your own attacks. I figure the article should be altered to include this option. Does anyone have any thoughts? See anything I missed? --Genowhirl 05:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you need total concealment (or a spell that says that enemies are denied dex to AC) to proc SA. So blur and concealment don't work--blur because it only gives 20% concealment, and displacement because it gives 50% miss chance, but no actual concealment. --Ghostwheel 11:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I actually explained it very recently here how Blink works and why it's argued that you wouldn't have the 20% chance to miss with thrown weapons when using Blink. --Ghostwheel 12:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, dammit. I forgot the "Must be total concealment" deal. it's what I get for puttering around at night before going to bed. In that case, I have to apologize. But, hey, now I know. --Genowhirl 15:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)