Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Gadren 03-21-07, 03:49 PM	New Topic: What do you guys feel about using UMD to cast a spell from a runestaff that isn't on your spell list (But you have an arcane spell of the appropriate level to swap out)? How about using UMD to swap out a divine spell instead? Could the Use Magic Device skill be used to cast spells from a Rune Staff? I was debating this with my fellow nerds today and we basicallly have three strong arguments for different positions: AGAINST: Runestaffs simply convert one spell into another, and since use magic device "fakes it" and provides no magic to convert, it doesn't work that way. Sorry. FOR: The example for "Emulating a Class Feature" under the Use Magic Device description in the PHB seems to show that you can: FROM PHB: Emulate a Class Feature: Sometimes you need to use a class feature to activate a magic item. In this case, your effective level in the emulated class equals your Use magic Device check result minus 20. For example, Lidda finds a magic chalice that turns regular water into holy water when a cleric or an experienced paladin channnels positive energy into it as if turning undead. She attempts to activate the item by emulating the cleric's undead turning ability. Her effective cleic level is her check result minus 20. Since a cleric can turn undead at 1st level, she needs a Use Magic Device check result of 21 or higher to succeed.If Lidda can ceate holy water with positive energy she doesn't have, then why couldn't she use Rune Staffs the same way? COMPROMISE: If you have a spell of the appropriate level to sacrifice, but want to use a spell from a staff that isn't on your class list, a UMD check can let you exchange the spell. What do you guys think? Please actually read the above arguments before posting. *Runs for asbestos suit.*
Witch 03-21-07, 04:07 PM	I'd go with the compromise or no. Definitely not yes.
ArcTan 03-21-07, 04:13 PM	Look at the reductio ad absurdum Yes gives you -- this means that a rogue who gets her hands on a metamagic rod of maximize can now cast Maximized fireball by successfully "emulating" the "class feature" of the fireball spell and thus activating the Maximize rod. I think the turn undead example is a really bad example and they shouldn't have used it, and they only did because when they wrote it turning was a pretty weak mechanic that it wasn't a big deal to emulate. But in no way do I think casting a spell or having a spell slot is a mere class feature that can be emulated as a class feature in this way. This mechanic was written for a time when trading a spell in as part of activating an item wasn't a rule in the game -- now that it is, we need to clarify that you can't do that. I'd possibly allow Compromise, but I wouldn't allow anything that lets you get things for free that you wouldn't get for free if you were actually in the class.
maskimus 03-21-07, 04:35 PM	I'd possibly allow Compromise, but I wouldn't allow anything that lets you get things for free that you wouldn't get for free if you were actually in the class. Beautifully stated ArcTan!:clap: I couldn't have said it better. I think this is in the spirit, if not the letter of the RAW.;)
Narthon 03-21-07, 05:31 PM	I'd allow it, you are emulating the class feature of a spell slot. I see no valid argument not to allow it. Wands are probably still a better option, it is hardly game breaking.
Gadren 03-21-07, 05:51 PM	Look at the reductio ad absurdum Yes gives you -- this means that a rogue who gets her hands on a metamagic rod of maximize can now cast Maximized fireball by successfully "emulating" the "class feature" of the fireball spell and thus activating the Maximize rod. Well, not really. Metamagic rods say that they allow you to apply the metamagic feat without adjusting the level of the spell. Its actual ability is to modify a spell that you cast, and if there is no spell there, you are modifying nothing. By the logic that UMD would allows a rogue with a metamagic rod to cast a maximized fireball, then in the above example Lidda would not only be able to bless the water in the cup but create the water as well. I.E. if it was a cup that drinking from applied the "empower turning" feat to the drinkers next turn attempt, UMD would not allow Lidda to make an empowered turning attempt because there was no turning to empower. However, each runestaff description says "A runestaff of (x) allows you to cast any of the following spells (each (x) times per day) by expending a prepared arcane spell or arcane spell slot of the same level or higher." It is saying it allows you to cast a spell, but you need to meet the requirement of sacrificing another spell to do so, and this is in line with the PHB example. I think the turn undead example is a really bad example and they shouldn't have used it, and they only did because when they wrote it turning was a pretty weak mechanic that it wasn't a big deal to emulate. But in no way do I think casting a spell or having a spell slot is a mere class feature that can be emulated as a class feature in this way. This mechanic was written for a time when trading a spell in as part of activating an item wasn't a rule in the game -- now that it is, we need to clarify that you can't do that. Maybe it was a bad example, but casting a spell is a class feature, and therefore can be emulated for activating an item like any other feature. I'd possibly allow Compromise, but I wouldn't allow anything that lets you get things for free that you wouldn't get for free if you were actually in the class. I agree, and honestly would house rule the same way in my games because the intent seems different than the letter here. But I'm talking about the matter of how it works when following the rules.
xrp3_robot 03-21-07, 06:57 PM	What if the rouge was using a wand to help power the runestaff? While we are on runestaffs, I'm making a focus staff that gives the user the power to cast a type of spell. In this case the staff itself gives the power to cast the spell, but the user must have casted the spell once before in order to know how to use the staff. How would UMD work with this?
Gadren 03-21-07, 07:15 PM	What if the rouge was using a wand to help power the runestaff? While we are on runestaffs, I'm making a focus staff that gives the user the power to cast a type of spell. In this case the staff itself gives the power to cast the spell, but the user must have casted the spell once before in order to know how to use the staff. How would UMD work with this? Wand + Runestaff also seems like an interesting compromise, though I do not think it is allowed by the wording of the rules. (I'd likely allow it in my games.) I'm not quite sure I understand you completely on the "focus staff"; you might need to be more specific with your wording, as if you were writing it for a book. For example: "The Focus Staff of Fireball allows the wielder to cast fireball three times per day, but apppears to be a normal staff to anyone who has not cast the fireball spell before." In this example case, the UMD DC would be 25 (20 + 5 (the minimum level needed to cast a third level spell)) to emulate the class ability to cast fireball. An existing item similiar to this is the strand of prayer beads.
Fireclave 03-21-07, 08:55 PM	Can you use UMD to use a runestaff? Yes. Will it be of any benefit? No. Unlike normal wands and staves, you have to power a spell stored in a runestaff yourself with an appropriate spell slot. A rogue using UMD on a runestaff, for example, can now substitute on of his own prepared spells with a spell stored in the staff, but has no spell slots to substitute. Wand + UMD + Runestaff doesn't work either. Wands don't grant you spell slots. If they did, then by that very same logic, you should be able to use wands to power your own spells per day. Instead of buying of a Wand Fireball, you would actually be buying a Wand of 3rd Level Spell. And I'm detecting strong brokenation in this square.
Gadren 03-21-07, 09:20 PM	Can you use UMD to use a runestaff? Yes. Will it be of any benefit? No. Unlike normal wands and staves, you have to power a spell stored in a runestaff yourself with an appropriate spell slot. A rogue using UMD on a runestaff, for example, can now substitute on of his own prepared spells with a spell stored in the staff, but has no spell slots to substitute. And unlike a simple wand of bless water, the magic chalice given as an example for Use Magic Device on page 86 of the PHB substitutes turn undead attempts for bless water, but Lidda is still able to use UMD to do so with a check of 21 or higher. With your logic, the example in the PHB would be wrong, because you say that Lidda's successful UMD check only allows her to substitute her own turn undead attempts for a bless water spell on the water in the chalice, but has no turn undead attempts to substitute.
Gadren 03-21-07, 09:33 PM	Wand + UMD + Runestaff doesn't work either. Wands don't grant you spell slots. If they did, then by that very same logic, you should be able to use wands to power your own spells per day. Instead of buying of a Wand Fireball, you would actually be buying a Wand of 3rd Level Spell. And I'm detecting strong brokenation in this square. While I agree that using wand instead doesn't work according to the rules, you are not correctly applying logic to Robot's suggestion (i.e. I agree with this particular conclusion but not the road you used to arrive at it.). As I said before, each runestaff description says "A runestaff of (x) allows you to cast any of the following spells (each (x) times per day) by expending a prepared arcane spell or arcane spell slot of the same level or higher." Using a wand wouldn't work because it says you have to expend a prepared arcane spell or arcane slot, and wand charges are neither. However, even if they were counted as prepared arcane spell slots, that still would not mean you could use them to power your other spells.
runestar 03-21-07, 09:54 PM	Rogues don't have spell lists, nor do I think a caster's spell list is a feature which can be emulated with UMD. :confused:
Gadren 03-21-07, 10:04 PM	Rogues don't have spell lists, nor do I think a caster's spell list is a feature which can be emulated with UMD. :confused: Why do you think its a class feature that cannot be emulated? The emulate a class feature section does not say, "emulate any class feature except the spell list." And spells ARE a class feature. You look at Wizard, go down to Class Features, and under it you'll see "Spells", right after "Weapon and Armor Proficiencies", and right before "Bonus Languages" and "Familiar".
xrp3_robot 03-21-07, 10:33 PM	I'm not quite sure I understand you completely on the "focus staff"; you might need to be more specific with your wording, as if you were writing it for a book. For example: "The Focus Staff of Fireball allows the wielder to cast fireball three times per day, but apppears to be a normal staff to anyone who has not cast the fireball spell before." In this example case, the UMD DC would be 25 (20 + 5 (the minimum level needed to cast a third level spell)) to emulate the class ability to cast fireball. An existing item similiar to this is the strand of prayer beads. Sorry, I'll try to be clearer. Think of the focus staff as a pearl of power, but the power it holds can only be used to cast a limited number of spells. Think of it as a reverse rune staff. I was thinking about ways that I could make the spells casted though the staff stronger.
xrp3_robot 03-21-07, 10:33 PM	Dang it, double post. We lets make it useful. How much does it cost to have an item give free use of a feat?
runestar 03-21-07, 10:34 PM	I retract my earlier statement, since I misread how runestaff works. So you could use UMD on it to emulate having a spell on your class list, but you do not actually have any spell slots to sac to it, so the ability is useless anyways. And IIRC, wands do not count as prepared arcane spell slots or spontaneous slots.:P
Gadren 03-21-07, 11:02 PM	Wow, I barely even have to write new responses for you... I retract my earlier statement, since I misread how runestaff works. So you could use UMD on it to emulate having a spell on your class list, but you do not actually have any spell slots to sac to it, so the ability is useless anyways. Now, read what Fireclave already said (which is pretty much the exact same thing you just said)... Unlike normal wands and staves, you have to power a spell stored in a runestaff yourself with an appropriate spell slot. A rogue using UMD on a runestaff, for example, can now substitute on of his own prepared spells with a spell stored in the staff, but has no spell slots to substitute. And read my response (since I've already written it once)... And unlike a simple wand of bless water, the magic chalice given as an example for Use Magic Device on page 86 of the PHB substitutes turn undead attempts for bless water, but Lidda is still able to use UMD to do so with a check of 21 or higher. With your logic, the example in the PHB would be wrong, because you say that Lidda's successful UMD check only allows her to substitute her own turn undead attempts for a bless water spell on the water in the chalice, but has no turn undead attempts to substitute. Now, for you next query... And IIRC, wands do not count as prepared arcane spell slots or spontaneous slots.:P Hey, look, I already said that. Kind of makes that :P ineffective... Using a wand wouldn't work because it says you have to expend a prepared arcane spell or arcane slot, and wand charges are neither.
Fireclave 03-21-07, 11:34 PM	And unlike a simple wand of bless water, the magic chalice given as an example for Use Magic Device on page 86 of the PHB substitutes turn undead attempts for bless water, but Lidda is still able to use UMD to do so with a check of 21 or higher. With your logic, the example in the PHB would be wrong, because you say that Lidda's successful UMD check only allows her to substitute her own turn undead attempts for a bless water spell on the water in the chalice, but has no turn undead attempts to substitute. I think I'm going to have to ponder over that example. It's vague. If the chalice merely requires the user to have the Turn Undead feature, then I completely agree with the example. However, if the chalice requires you to spend a turn undead attempt, then it would seem that this use of UMD is giving you a virtual turn undead attempt for free. And if that's the case, the example is immediately contradicted by the next paragraph: "This skill does not let you actually use he class feature of another class. It just lets you activate items as if you had that class feature." While I agree that using wand instead doesn't work according to the rules, you are not correctly applying logic to Robot's suggestion (i.e. I agree with this particular conclusion but not the road you used to arrive at it.). I wasn't trying to apply any logic to Robot's focus staff suggestion. I was only addressing the question "What if the rouge was using a wand to help power the runestaff?" While we are on runestaffs, I'm making a focus staff that gives the user the power to cast a type of spell. In this case the staff itself gives the power to cast the spell, but the user must have casted the spell once before in order to know how to use the staff. How would UMD work with this? I would say that the UMD task to get around the "user must have casted the spell once before in order to know how to use the staff" clause would be "activate blindly," simply because such experience doesn't seem to fit the other tasks. IOW, it would be a DC 25 to attempt to even use the spell, the stand DC 20 for activating a spell trigger item. Though, I haven't fully grasped what exactly the focus staff is supposed to do. Not getting the reverse runestaff and pearls of power analogies. I was thinking about ways that I could make the spells casted though the staff stronger. I've been pondering a similar concept. How about something like this: Focus Staff When casting a spell that is attuned to the staff, a caster can use the staff as an additional focus component to increased the potency of those spells. Focus Staff of Evocation As long as this staff is in your hands, you cast evocation spells at +1 caster and the DC for your evocation spells increases by 1. Strong Evocation; CL 13; Craft Staff, Crafter must be a Evoker; Price ??? Focus Staff of Dismissal As long as this staff is in your hands, you can cast the following spells at +2 caster levels and the DC for those spells increases by 2: * Dismissal * Banishment Strong Abjuration; CL 13; Craft Staff, dismissal, banishment; Price ???
enygmatic_me 03-21-07, 11:43 PM	I would have to argue that spells are not class features. Spell slots are class features. I know it seems like splitting hairs, but gaining specific spells are not a feature of a class. What you gain is the ability to use spells that you some how have gained access to. With this logic a rogue could not use a rune staff as they cannot emulate a specific spell. If it only required the sacrifice of a spell slot of a particular level then I would say yes. EDIT:::After looking closer at the SRD on Use Magic Device in regard to wands I am less sure of this opinion. Use a Wand Normally, to use a wand, you must have the wand’s spell on your class spell list. This use of the skill allows you to use a wand as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list. This use of the skill also applies to other spell trigger magic items, such as staffs. I would at least require two checks. One to emulate the original spell and one to use the Runestaff.
Oliver D'Argent 03-22-07, 04:08 PM	Please note that, in the description under the Emulate a Class Feature heading in the UMD skill it says: "This skill does not let you actually use the class feature of another class. It just lets you activate items as if you had that class feature."
Flan 03-22-07, 06:44 PM	"A runestaff of (x) allows you to cast any of the following spells (each (x) times per day) by expending a prepared arcane spell or arcane spell slot of the same level or higher." Expending a prepared spell isn't a class feature, so it can't be emulated.
xrp3_robot 03-22-07, 08:54 PM	I would say that the UMD task to get around the "user must have casted the spell once before in order to know how to use the staff" clause would be "activate blindly," simply because such experience doesn't seem to fit the other tasks. IOW, it would be a DC 25 to attempt to even use the spell, the stand DC 20 for activating a spell trigger item. Though, I haven't fully grasped what exactly the focus staff is supposed to do. Not getting the reverse runestaff and pearls of power analogies. If I could explain it in person, it would easier to get. I talk better then I can type due to my limited spelling. I guess the best way to explain it as a wand that has afew charges that renew every day. I've been pondering a similar concept. How about something like this: Focus Staff When casting a spell that is attuned to the staff, a caster can use the staff as an additional focus component to increased the potency of those spells. Focus Staff of Evocation As long as this staff is in your hands, you cast evocation spells at +1 caster and the DC for your evocation spells increases by 1. Strong Evocation; CL 13; Craft Staff, Crafter must be a Evoker; Price ??? Focus Staff of Dismissal As long as this staff is in your hands, you can cast the following spells at +2 caster levels and the DC for those spells increases by 2: * Dismissal * Banishment Strong Abjuration; CL 13; Craft Staff, dismissal, banishment; Price ??? These examples sound good. If we can get prices, I would add them to my staff.
Nom 03-22-07, 09:45 PM	In other words: "Look, I can turn undead, honest!" works. Right up until the device requires you to actually expend a turn undead usage to activate the power, at which point it realises that you are actually "broke". Same with the runestaff. You can use UMD to convince the staff that you're able to expend the spell, but the fact is that you actually don't have a spell to sacrifice and thus can't power the staff. Basically, UMD is a bluff check against a magic item. You can make the magic item treat you as if you're rich, but if it actually requires payment then you're out of luck. Magic items don't accept credit. FWIW: I use the same argument with standard staves. You can make the staff think that you have a really high CL, but when you try to cast a spell from it it will figure out that you don't actually have CL to power it at anything above 8 (or whatever minimum applies).
Gadren 03-23-07, 02:35 PM	In other words: FWIW: I use the same argument with standard staves. You can make the staff think that you have a really high CL, but when you try to cast a spell from it it will figure out that you don't actually have CL to power it at anything above 8 (or whatever minimum applies). Uhm... no. Pg. 86 of the DMG, under the use magic device section: Use a Wand: Normally, to use a wand, you must have the wand's spell on your class spelll list. This use of the skill allows you to use a wand as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list. This use of the skill also applies to other spell trigger magic items, such as staffs. The Dungeon Master's Guide has more information on such items.
stsword 03-23-07, 08:47 PM	[QUOTE=Fireclave;11850171]I think I'm going to have to ponder over that example. It's vague. If the chalice merely requires the user to have the Turn Undead feature, then I completely agree with the example. However, if the chalice requires you to spend a turn undead attempt, then it would seem that this use of UMD is giving you a virtual turn undead attempt for free. And if that's the case, the example is immediately contradicted by the next paragraph: "This skill does not let you actually use he class feature of another class. It just lets you activate items as if you had that class feature."[QUOTE] But nowhere in the rules does it say that you can't use UMD as if you were using a class feature, and that's the point of contention here. And I cannot see the chalice example working any other way then by spending a virtual turn undead attempt. It says it "channels positive energy as if turning undead." So just how does a cleric channel positive energy in the rules without using undead turning or certain spells?
Gadren 03-23-07, 08:50 PM	----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QUOTE=Fireclave;11850171I think I'm going to have to ponder over that example. It's vague. If the chalice merely requires the user to have the Turn Undead feature, then I completely agree with the example. However, if the chalice requires you to spend a turn undead attempt, then it would seem that this use of UMD is giving you a virtual turn undead attempt for free. And if that's the case, the example is immediately contradicted by the next paragraph: "This skill does not let you actually use he class feature of another class. It just lets you activate items as if you had that class feature." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But nowhere in the rules does it say that you can't use UMD as if you were using a class feature, and that's the point of contention here. And I cannot see the chalice example working any other way then by spending a virtual turn undead attempt. It says it "channels positive energy as if turning undead." So just how does a cleric channel positive energy in the rules without using undead turning or certain spells? HOLY PLATYPI there are people who can actually read the WHOLE argument THEN post. Its a freakin miracle. Thankyou, stsword.
ArcTan 03-23-07, 09:13 PM	I'm being slowly converted to the idea that they really did mean you to be able to *use* class features with UMD as long as they're only used to activate the UMDed item. This makes me uncomfortable, though. I really don't think runestaffs are balanced if you can UMD them without using up a spell slot, though, to be fair, I haven't done the math out and may be overestimating how easy the check is to make.
jaelis 03-23-07, 10:00 PM	I say that the rules in the PHB are simply inconsistent. The chalice example is hard to understand in any way except that UMD lets you actually use the turn undead ability, as long as the result of the ability is activation of an item. But the next line says you can't actually use class abilities. These are contrary statements. Personally, I think the chalice example is wrong, and that the more limiting text is right. If it said "Lidda finds a magic chalice that turns regular water into holy water when a character with the ability to turn undead speaks a command word," then it would make sense. Lidda could use UMD to "convince" the item that she had the turn undead ability, but she wouldn't have to actually use it. But if you prefer to think the chalice example is correct, I won't argue with you. It's in the book just like the other part. If you do follow that line, I still think a runestaff wouldn't work. Eytan Bernstein's Product Spotlight article is pretty clear about it: "When an arcane spellcaster is attuned to a runestaff, she can substitute any of the spells stored in the runestaff for a prepared spell or spell slot of equal or greater level." That is the fundamental benefit of a runestaff: you can substitute a spell in the staff for one of your prepared or known spells. UMD might let a rogue activate the staff, but since the rogue doesn't have any spells or slots to substitute for, it won't do anything.
Gadren 03-23-07, 11:10 PM	I say that the rules in the PHB are simply inconsistent. The chalice example is hard to understand in any way except that UMD lets you actually use the turn undead ability, as long as the result of the ability is activation of an item. But the next line says you can't actually use class abilities. These are contrary statements. I don't think they are contradictory. Lidda still couldn't use UMD to actually turn undead.
jaelis 03-23-07, 11:17 PM	It says: "This skill does not let you actually use the class feature of another class. It just lets you activate items as if you had that class feature." It doesn't say "you can't use the emulated ability for anything other than item activation," it says you can't use it, period. You can activate items that require you to have the ability, but not ones that require you to use it. If you need to use your turn undead ability to activate the chalice, then you are using the ability. I don't see any way that activity involving the expenditure of a turning attempt can be considered anything other than a use of the turn undead class feature.
enygmatic_me 03-24-07, 01:23 AM	If I have learned anything from this thread is that this is another advantage that the Factotum and Savant have over the rogue.
Gadren 03-24-07, 01:35 AM	If I have learned anything from this thread is that this is another advantage that the Factotum and Savant have over the rogue. What books are those classes from?
Lotusblossom 03-24-07, 01:48 AM	This skill does not let you actually use the class feature of another class. It just lets you activate items as if you had that class feature. From the examples in the PHB, UMD was written to let Lidda activate an item without meeting the prerequisites for activating the item. However, the example is faultily worded (remember, the PHB isn't perfect). In the example, Lidda is stated to mimic the Turn Undead class feature to activate the item. This does not seem possible. (sarcasm) Does UMD allow her to channel positive energy, but only into magic items?(/sarcasm) What it seems she actually can do is activate the item without positive energy being channeled into the item. She is using UMD to short-circuit the item. I believe this means she can activate runestaves in the same manner. IMO, runestaves should have been worded similarly to metamagic rods, which allow Mialee to alter her spells as they are cast, and which Lidda gains no benefit from (as long as she doesn't cast spells).
enygmatic_me 03-24-07, 02:28 AM	What books are those classes from? Factotum is in Dungeonscape and Savant was originally printed in Dragon magazine, then reprinted in Dragon Compendium. They are two different takes on the same idea. A class that can truly do a little bit of everything and both have all skills as class skills, gain 6+Int Mod skill points. Factotum gains spell-like abilities that mimic spells from the wizard/sorcerer spell list. Savants gain a small arcane spell progression of their own. They both get divine abilities as well. If their where every a class designed for a solo adventurer it would be one of these two. The only thing is the Savant maybe a better choice for a party member.
Gadren 03-24-07, 02:41 PM	Ok, well I think the matter of "straight" rogues UMDing runestaves has gone as far as it can go. What do you guys feel about using UMD to cast a spell from a runestaff that isn't on your spell list (But you have an arcane spell of the appropriate level to swap out)? How about using UMD to swap out a divine spell instead?
Nom 03-25-07, 07:22 AM	Uhm... no. Pg. 86 of the DMG, under the use magic device section:Which completely misses the point. Of course the rogue can use UMD to activate a staff. My discussion is about emulating the caster level. Some people have suggested that a character could use UMD to artificially boost the CL at which the staff is activated. My response is "No". They can convince the staff that their own CL is much higher than 8, but since the staff doesn't actually have magic in it to trigger the spell at a level greater than 8 then a real CL is needed to power it. I'd agree that the example on PH pg 86 is suspect. It all depends on whether the character is required to spend a turn undead attempt or not. If not, then Lidda is fine. If so, then she's out of luck. The alternative is that a character can use UMD to generate infinite uses of (say) turn undead as long as the use is brokered by an item. IMO, this falls squarely into the category of "they can't really mean that, and if they did it's pathalogically broken".
Mystyc 03-25-07, 12:26 PM	This makes me uncomfortable, though. I really don't think runestaffs are balanced if you can UMD them without using up a spell slot, though, to be fair, I haven't done the math out and may be overestimating how easy the check is to make. Well, let's take a look. The UMD check to emulate a spell slot is 20 + [level where the spell is available]. Selecting at random a runestaff of the assassin: 2 x greater invisibiliy -- UMD 27 2 x obscuring mist -- UMD 21 2 x pass without trace -- UMD 21 2 x poison -- UMD 25 A character with a +19 modifier (say, an optimized 7th level char) can auto-succeed on the lowest two spells, rolls of 1 excepted. A character with a +25 modifier can auto-suceed on all spells (an optimized 11), rolls of 1 excepted. A warlock or other character with UMD skill mastery needs only a +17 modifier to auto-succeed on all spells (6th level, perhaps). A character with Magic Item Attunement from Complete Mage can auto-suceed on all spells once they have succeeded at least once. Tapping the entire 10,000 gp staff in one day earns you eight spells which would cost ([25 x 4] + [375 x 2] + [700 x 2]) 2,250 gp in scrolls. You would break even early in day 5, and be profiting from there on. To be totally honest, I don't think that's really gamebreaking. However, this is one of the cheaper runestaves, and the numbers might not hold up further down the line. For my part, if you accept that Lidda can power that chalice without having a turn attempt, then I believe the rules do support this use of runestaves. I guess it depends on if you see the staff containing its spells and freeing them when powered by a slot, or as merely converting other spells into the given spells.
Merestil Haye 03-25-07, 09:45 PM	Well, let's take a look. The UMD check to emulate a spell slot is 20 + [level where the spell is available]. Selecting at random a runestaff of the assassin: 2 x greater invisibiliy -- UMD 27 2 x obscuring mist -- UMD 21 2 x pass without trace -- UMD 21 2 x poison -- UMD 25 A character with a +19 modifier (say, an optimized 7th level char) can auto-succeed on the lowest two spells, rolls of 1 excepted. A character with a +25 modifier can auto-suceed on all spells (an optimized 11), rolls of 1 excepted.You do know that a roll of 1 is not an automatic failure for skill checks? Even Use Magic Device checks. The skill does not say that a roll of 1 is an automatic failure. It says that a roll of 1 that is also a failure has consequences - not the same thing. For my part, if you accept that Lidda can power that chalice without having a turn attempt, then I believe the rules do support this use of runestaves. I guess it depends on if you see the staff containing its spells and freeing them when powered by a slot, or as merely converting other spells into the given spells.My opinion is that UMD cannot allow you to use a class ability you do not have. The Runestaves "call the bluff" of the character - they have no spell slots to expend, so nothing happens when they try and cast the spell. If the character does have spell slots (say from another class) then they can use UMD to emulate having the relevant spell on their class list and expend a spell of the relevant level to get the effect.
Mystyc 03-25-07, 10:23 PM	You do know that a roll of 1 is not an automatic failure for skill checks? Even Use Magic Device checks. The skill does not say that a roll of 1 is an automatic failure. It says that a roll of 1 that is also a failure has consequences - not the same thing. Quite right. I knew 1s did something for UMD, just had it a little twisted. My opinion is that UMD cannot allow you to use a class ability you do not have. The Runestaves "call the bluff" of the character - they have no spell slots to expend, so nothing happens when they try and cast the spell. And Lidda had no actual turning attempts when she attempted to activate that chalice, but activate it she did. That's why I included the qualifier of if one accepts that example as correct. Of course, this ground has already been covered. As a bit of a follow-up on the pricing comparison, the runestaff of the assassin is cheaper than buying eternal wands of the spells (MIC 159), which would run 12,540 gp + X, where X is the cost of a nonexistant eternal wand of a 4th-level spell. Someone "playing fair" mitigates this discount by actually powering the runestaff with spell slots. Someone with UMD might mitigate this by having to hit higher skill DCs for the runestaff (21-27) than for the wands (20), if you choose to play that way.
stsword 03-27-07, 12:26 AM	It says: "This skill does not let you actually use the class feature of another class. It just lets you activate items as if you had that class feature." It doesn't say "you can't use the emulated ability for anything other than item activation," it says you can't use it, period. You can activate items that require you to have the ability, but not ones that require you to use it. If you need to use your turn undead ability to activate the chalice, then you are using the ability. I don't see any way that activity involving the expenditure of a turning attempt can be considered anything other than a use of the turn undead class feature. Okay then, on something of a tangent, how does an artificer use UMD to create magic items under that assumption? Item creation requires casting the spells into a magic item, artificers use UMD to fake casting spells into magic items. And, if you can't see a character spending turn attempts without the turn dead class feature, how do you explain the ability of chameleons to spend turn attempts without having the turn undead class feature or casting spells without actually having the spellcasting class feature? Since they cannot use their emulations to qualify for prestige classes or feats they cannot be considered to have those things as class features, but they can actively fake it. So it would seem that WOTC has no problem with a turning attempt being "considered anything other than a use of the turn undead class feature." So there is a raw example of umd being used to actively emulate class features, there is a raw example of a character being able to spend turn undead uses without the turn undead class feature. Now I cannot dispute anyone who'd like to counter that those are class features and not skill uses, it's not like I can deny it, but we have a skill use example that heavily implies that umd can fake active use of a class feature, indeed we have a core class whose whole schicht is actively faking class features with umd.
Oliver D'Argent 03-27-07, 09:27 PM	Okay then, on something of a tangent, how does an artificer use UMD to create magic items under that assumption? Item creation requires casting the spells into a magic item, artificers use UMD to fake casting spells into magic items. And, if you can't see a character spending turn attempts without the turn dead class feature, how do you explain the ability of chameleons to spend turn attempts without having the turn undead class feature or casting spells without actually having the spellcasting class feature? Since they cannot use their emulations to qualify for prestige classes or feats they cannot be considered to have those things as class features, but they can actively fake it. So it would seem that WOTC has no problem with a turning attempt being "considered anything other than a use of the turn undead class feature." So there is a raw example of umd being used to actively emulate class features, there is a raw example of a character being able to spend turn undead uses without the turn undead class feature. Now I cannot dispute anyone who'd like to counter that those are class features and not skill uses, it's not like I can deny it, but we have a skill use example that heavily implies that umd can fake active use of a class feature, indeed we have a core class whose whole schicht is actively faking class features with umd. I'm not sure about the Artificer, but the Warlock has a specific Class feature that allows him use UMD to fake a required spell in order to make a magic item. It isn't a standard part of the UMD skill, but rather a special Class ability that lets him do something with the skill that he would not otherwise be able to do. Such Class abilities should not be used to interpret the normal uses of the skill.
NeoDX90 03-28-07, 03:39 AM	The artificer works in the same way as the warlock does in this matter. Item Creation (Ex) is the class feature for feature that allows him to use UMD to fake required spells to make magic items. Since this use of UMD is exclusive to Warlock and Artificer (and whatever I may be missing) it clearly isn't the normal use of the skill. Rogues would be able to fake required spells as well as caster levels to make pretty much anything.
stsword 03-29-07, 04:33 AM	I'm not sure about the Artificer, but the Warlock has a specific Class feature that allows him use UMD to fake a required spell in order to make a magic item. It isn't a standard part of the UMD skill, but rather a special Class ability that lets him do something with the skill that he would not otherwise be able to do. Such Class abilities should not be used to interpret the normal uses of the skill. If UMD isn't the appropriate skill then the class feature wouldn't use it. That truenamer monk prestige class in tome of magic uses the truename skill to replace certain skill uses, the basis being that they are using truename magic to manipulate the circumstances and or their own bodies. That is under the perview of the truename skill even though that prestige class is the only ones who can do that. Complete Scoundrel has 42 skill applications that most people with that skill don't know how to do, but they're still applications of skills. If sleight of hand wasn't the appropriate skill to hide one's spellcasting then conceal spellcasting wouldn't require a sleight of hand check. To argue otherwise would be the equivalent of saying that just because not everyone knows how to apply chemistry to create explosives that creating explosives isn't an application of chemistry. The fact that artificers know how to apply umd to create magic items by replicating spells casting must be an application of umd or else it woulldn't apply umd in the first place. They could have made it a caster lvl check, they could have required ps: artificing, they could have done anything. Otherwise you might as well have warlocks and artificers crafting wands with underwater basketweaving since some are arguing umd doesn't actually have anything to do with it.
Oliver D'Argent 03-29-07, 07:33 AM	If UMD isn't the appropriate skill then the class feature wouldn't use it. That truenamer monk prestige class in tome of magic uses the truename skill to replace certain skill uses, the basis being that they are using truename magic to manipulate the circumstances and or their own bodies. That is under the perview of the truename skill even though that prestige class is the only ones who can do that. Complete Scoundrel has 42 skill applications that most people with that skill don't know how to do, but they're still applications of skills. If sleight of hand wasn't the appropriate skill to hide one's spellcasting then conceal spellcasting wouldn't require a sleight of hand check. To argue otherwise would be the equivalent of saying that just because not everyone knows how to apply chemistry to create explosives that creating explosives isn't an application of chemistry. The fact that artificers know how to apply umd to create magic items by replicating spells casting must be an application of umd or else it woulldn't apply umd in the first place. They could have made it a caster lvl check, they could have required ps: artificing, they could have done anything. Otherwise you might as well have warlocks and artificers crafting wands with underwater basketweaving since some are arguing umd doesn't actually have anything to do with it. I never said that UMD was not the appropriate skill - just that the existance of a Class feature that allows an unusual use for a skill should not be used as an excuse to expand the general uses of that skill.
jaelis 03-29-07, 09:16 AM	stsword, are you arguing that any character can use UMD for item creation, not just an artificer or warlock? Because if you want to make a case that an artificer or warlock can use a runestaff, that's one thing. Letting a rogue do it on the basis of the item creation ability is something else.
Gadren 04-02-07, 02:35 AM	(I think everyone missed this the first time I said it.) Ok, well I think the matter of "straight" rogues UMDing runestaves has gone as far as it can go. What do you guys feel about using UMD to cast a spell from a runestaff that isn't on your spell list (But you have an arcane spell of the appropriate level to swap out)? How about using UMD to swap out a divine spell instead?
Gadren 04-03-07, 03:04 PM	(I think everyone missed this the first time I said it.) Ok, well I think the matter of "straight" rogues UMDing runestaves has gone as far as it can go. What do you guys feel about using UMD to cast a spell from a runestaff that isn't on your spell list (But you have an arcane spell of the appropriate level to swap out)? How about using UMD to swap out a divine spell instead? Well, since no one is offering their opinion, I think this use of UMD works.
Merestil Haye 04-03-07, 05:03 PM	(I think everyone missed this the first time I said it.) Ok, well I think the matter of "straight" rogues UMDing runestaves has gone as far as it can go. What do you guys feel about using UMD to cast a spell from a runestaff that isn't on your spell list (But you have an arcane spell of the appropriate level to swap out)? I agree that this will work; it's absolutely the sort of thing UMD was designed for. How about using UMD to swap out a divine spell instead?My gut reaction is no, because of the arcane/divine spell divide. But I'm open to being convinced because wands and staves cross that divide anyway. I'd really need to read the rules on runestaffs again (and I'm neck-deep in character reviews right now.)
Gadren 04-05-07, 02:50 PM	My gut reaction is no, because of the arcane/divine spell divide. But I'm open to being convinced because wands and staves cross that divide anyway. I'd really need to read the rules on runestaffs again (and I'm neck-deep in character reviews right now.) Did you read the runestaff rules yet?
DarknessEternal 04-05-07, 03:10 PM	Didn't the Stafficier debate end with an official ruling that Spells weren't an emulatable class ability?
Gadren 04-05-07, 05:22 PM	Didn't the Stafficier debate end with an official ruling that Spells weren't an emulatable class ability? When / where was this? I don't see anything about this in the FAQ, and the PHB specifically says you can UMD staves, so...