Tag Info

No, you cannot augment the bonus human at-will power at all. From the glossary definition of Augmentable: When a racial trait lets an adventurer choose an extra at-will attack power and the adventurer chooses an augmentable at-will attack power, the power loses both the augmentable keyword and its augmentations. I wouldn't recommend making a house ...

First, we need to look at the rules for cover: Cover (-2 Penalty to Attack Rolls): The target is around a corner or protected by terrain. For example, the target might be in the same square as a small tree, obscured by a small pillar or a large piece of furniture, or behind a low wall. And creatures and cover: Creatures and Cover: When you make a ...

Absolutely Not This is one of the biggest and most common sources of problems in 3.5. There are a huge number of feats, most of them very weak, whose existence implies that the only way to have that background is to take the feat. Nonsense! and there’s no such rule, either. You take the feat if you want the mechanical benefit, end of story.

Okay, so this question seems like it has two closely-related parts: do the rules require the feat in question to benefit from the background trait, and should they? Is it Required? No. This one's simple. At no point do the rules state or imply a requirement. The feat option is different from the background option, and the conceptual redundancy between the ...

There seems to be a conflict here. The WOTC online compendium Psion entry gives a different ruling: When a racial trait grants you an at-will attack power of your choice and you choose an augmentable at-will attack power, the power loses its augmentations. However, the power does not lose the augmentable keyword. This means the power is ...

RAW, it means that you add Bluff or Diplomacy -your choice- to your class skills (check the corresponding box), and gain a +2 (to write in the Misc. Mod column of your sheet) to the skill. If both are already class skills, well, that's something the trait won't bring you. You still get the +2 though. Since it is considered a class skill, you also get the ...

I would say yes. According to the compendium rules for determining cover DDI, an enemy can provide cover for another enemy against you. If one or two of those lines are blocked by an obstacle or an enemy, the target has cover. Ergo, your allies can provide you cover against your enemies.

The Spellscale’s racial abilities are another consideration for your choice of feats, but they do not, themselves, make other metamagic feats pointless. Metamagic is kind of awkward in 3.5. Most metamagic feats, including all of those that the Spellscale can get, cost more than they’re usually worth: they might occasionally be worthwhile ...

Let me share my thoughts on this quandry regarding allies and cover. The DM is ultimately the deciding factor regardless of your rules interpretation, but: *Regarding the original question going from general to specific: Cover in general can apply to any kind of attack, but cover from creatures applies only in the instance of ranged attacks, and to no ...

After just seeing a reference to Cunning Sneak in the Rogue class description [ddi], I think they can ... Cunning Sneak You don’t take a penalty to Stealth checks for moving more than 2 squares, and you take a –5 penalty instead of a -10 penalty to Stealth checks for running. If you end your movement at least 3 squares away from your starting ...

I believe the default assumption in DnD is that allies never grant cover for the purposes of stealth, even when the wording is "any" cover. I base my RAI interpretation on the Assassin class, which has a class feature that's worded something like, from memory, "Allies grant cover to you for the purposes of stealth." It feels like it would step on the class ...