Post/Author/DateTime	Post
stonebasher 04-30-08, 03:48 PM	I had a person I regularly game/play with mention something, and I figured I would ask the community. Can a wizard UMD a strand of prayer beads and add the caster lvl bump to himself for purposes of spellcasting? Also, while I'm asking, in the spirit of the rules, can summoned animals trip/grapple/ etc. Specifically, a person loves to summon Celestial Bison, and he speaks Celestial. Now, apparently, the bison have an intelligence of 3. He keeps suggesting grappling/tripping which is not against the RAW, but I (and many, many other people) just can't picture Bison tripping/grappling, as that is not a normal thing for them to do. However, apparently, somewhere in the books it say's anything with a grapple score can grapple. What do yuo guys think? Wes
MwaO 04-30-08, 04:03 PM	Can a wizard UMD a strand of prayer beads and add the caster lvl bump to himself for purposes of spellcasting? Also, while I'm asking, in the spirit of the rules, can summoned animals trip/grapple/ etc. Specifically, a person loves to summon Celestial Bison, and he speaks Celestial. Now, apparently, the bison have an intelligence of 3. He keeps suggesting grappling/tripping which is not against the RAW, but I (and many, many other people) just can't picture Bison tripping/grappling, Wizard: ETV(expect table variation) - in general, it ought to work. Remember, they just spent 45.8K for the ability to add +4 caster levels for 10 minutes once per day. There are definitely broken applications for this, but they're not particularly more broken on the arcane side than the cleric side. Celestial Bison: They don't have either Improved Grapple or Trip, so while sure, they can do either of them, they're going to take an AoO for trying it. In the case of Grapple, simply doing damage means they just lost their action.
Jay_Ibero_911 04-30-08, 04:07 PM	I had a person I regularly game/play with mention something, and I figured I would ask the community. Can a wizard UMD a strand of prayer beads and add the caster lvl bump to himself for purposes of spellcasting? Also, while I'm asking, in the spirit of the rules, can summoned animals trip/grapple/ etc. Specifically, a person loves to summon Celestial Bison, and he speaks Celestial. Now, apparently, the bison have an intelligence of 3. He keeps suggesting grappling/tripping which is not against the RAW, but I (and many, many other people) just can't picture Bison tripping/grappling, as that is not a normal thing for them to do. However, apparently, somewhere in the books it say's anything with a grapple score can grapple. What do yuo guys think? Wes First about giving tactical instructions to the celestial bison. It has intelligence 3 and understands language, therefore he can command it to undertake any action it is physically capable of, including trip and grapple. However since it has neither improved trip nor improved grapple it will be taking AOO's for doing either, so it probably isn't the most effective thing for it to be doing anyway (especially grappling because if the AOO is successful, no grapple). With regard to UMD and prayer beads, the item when used gives a flat +4 to caster level and does not specify only divine caster level, so if you are able to activate by ANY means, then you get +4 to your caster level for all purposes no different than an orange ioun stone.
stonebasher 04-30-08, 04:13 PM	All right, well there's two good explanations. Wes
TetsujinOni 05-01-08, 05:32 PM	With regard to UMD and prayer beads, the item when used gives a flat +4 to caster level and does not specify only divine caster level, so if you are able to activate by ANY means, then you get +4 to your caster level for all purposes no different than an orange ioun stone. I have to agree that the RAW support this position. I have to further agree with DKay807 that it's a stupidly broken violation of the intent of the item. Arcanists, do us all a favor and honorably decline to use it.
bitznarf 05-01-08, 05:39 PM	I have to agree that the RAW support this position. I have to further agree with DKay807 that it's a stupidly broken violation of the intent of the item. Why do you consider it to be a 'violation of the intent'? Isn't this *exactly* the sort of thing UMD was designed for? This and UMDing a Holy Avenger of course. "Why yes! I *am* a 20th level Paladin."
TetsujinOni 05-01-08, 05:47 PM	Why do you consider it to be a 'violation of the intent'? Isn't this *exactly* the sort of thing UMD was designed for? This and UMDing a Holy Avenger of course. "Why yes! I *am* a 20th level Paladin." Intent of the *item* seems clearly to only boost divine casting. An intent-based ruling would be to only allow it to add to a divine casting class level. (an interesting corner case would be the question of whether a cleric 6/druid 6 activating it would choose one divine casting class or boost all. RAW seems to say 'all', intent seems unclear). But yes, the intent of UMD is definitely in allowing the activation of the item. The unclear part of the intent of item is whether it adds "+4 to any caster level the game queries from the activating creature for 10 minutes" or some more restrictive benefit (which would still be worth the hefty cost of the strand). I'm sure Dave will jump in on this thread with his feelings on the issue as well.
Redfist 05-01-08, 05:58 PM	The problem with ruling by intent is that different people will assume different intents. It leads to arguments and inconsistent play. :(
bitznarf 05-01-08, 06:00 PM	Intent of the *item* seems clearly to only boost divine casting. I really don't see anything of the sort in the item description. At all. If that was the intent they would have said that, like they did with the Ring of Wizardry (restricting it to arcane spells). The problem with ruling by intent is that different people will assume different intents. It leads to arguments and inconsistent play. Intent *is* part of the RAW. I can find the LG and RPGA quotes that support this if you would like. (I actually used to have them in an OpenRPG node.)
Redfist 05-01-08, 06:41 PM	Adjudicating intent leads to variance. That's my point.
MwaO 05-01-08, 06:59 PM	Intent of the *item* seems clearly to only boost divine casting. The intent of the item seems clear that it is only supposed to allow divine casters to use it. That doesn't mean the intent of the item is that only divine casters can use it. It means they're the only ones supposed to use it. In the context that Lidda, the non-spellcasting, non-turning Rogue turns on an item, using only UMD, that is limited to being used by Clerics or experienced Paladins to create an item. The process of which explicitly requires a Good act. Except when Lidda does it. I'd say that's exactly the kind of item UMD is supposed to be able to affect. And yes, Bead of Karma is broken - but how is a Wizard using a Bead of Karma(or owning one) particularly more broken than a Cleric owning one. Especially as any DM ruling the Wizard can't use it probably means the Cleric of the party now has one to use...what Wizard spell is in the ballpark of Holy Word?
TetsujinOni 05-02-08, 12:52 PM	In the context that Lidda, the non-spellcasting, non-turning Rogue turns on an item, using only UMD, that is limited to being used by Clerics or experienced Paladins to create an item. The process of which explicitly requires a Good act. Except when Lidda does it. Right, we're all in agreement so far. My issue is not how it works according to the rules (which is that a DC-not-high-enough (i.e. 20) UMD check will allow +4 to all caster levels of the activating PC for 10 minutes); rather, my issue is that the item should have been more tightly written, so that this discussion wouldn't be needed. (+4 caster level for the class whose casting ability allowed the activation of the bead, or wording to that effect, better represents the intent, but only in my opinion. Sadly, I can't bring myself to enforce that at LG tables I'm judging, because I don't see any support for that restrictive interpretation in the rules. Others seem to see that restriction as reasonable and prudent, I just can't quite convince myself it's valid.). Convoluted logic enough for ya'll?
dkay807 05-02-08, 02:42 PM	Intent of the *item* seems clearly to only boost divine casting. An intent-based ruling would be to only allow it to add to a divine casting class level. (an interesting corner case would be the question of whether a cleric 6/druid 6 activating it would choose one divine casting class or boost all. RAW seems to say 'all', intent seems unclear). But yes, the intent of UMD is definitely in allowing the activation of the item. The unclear part of the intent of item is whether it adds "+4 to any caster level the game queries from the activating creature for 10 minutes" or some more restrictive benefit (which would still be worth the hefty cost of the strand). I'm sure Dave will jump in on this thread with his feelings on the issue as well. Simply put, my interpretation of this item is that it adds +4 to your divine caster level. Sure, one can activate it without being a divine caster via UMD, but that doesn't suddenly alter the item's effect to increase arcane caster level as well. I think the item is poorly worded when you bring UMD into the equation. Some may disagree with me and that's fine. If you're going to spend 45k or whatever on it, be aware that some judges will prohibit you from using it as you might intend.
magebeast 05-02-08, 02:56 PM	Simply put, my interpretation of this item is that it adds +4 to your divine caster level. Sure, one can activate it without being a divine caster via UMD, but that doesn't suddenly alter the item's effect to increase arcane caster level as well. I think the item is poorly worded when you bring UMD into the equation. Some may disagree with me and that's fine. If you're going to spend 45k or whatever on it, be aware that some judges will prohibit you from using it as you might intend. You're adding a word to the description with this intepretation, essentially.
TetsujinOni 05-02-08, 03:49 PM	You're adding a word to the description with this intepretation, essentially. yep, thus my discomfort with ruling it that way, despite my root agreement with Dave
dkay807 05-02-08, 05:35 PM	You're adding a word to the description with this intepretation, essentially. I re-read the item now that I'm home with access to a DMG and I admit that the way it's written is fairly explicit. UMD works just fine. However, that doesn't change the fact that I have a rather large problem with it. Try it at my table and beware. That's all I'm saying.
dkay807 05-02-08, 05:37 PM	Adjudicating intent leads to variance. That's my point. This is one of the reasons 4e is almost out the door. I say we just suck it up and try not to get bogged down with rules discussions like this while we enjoy what's left of LG.
magebeast 05-02-08, 06:05 PM	I re-read the item now that I'm home with access to a DMG and I admit that the way it's written is fairly explicit. UMD works just fine. However, that doesn't change the fact that I have a rather large problem with it. Try it at my table and beware. That's all I'm saying. Although I do see your reply below this, I hope you don't mind some civil discourse about it :) I find your position puzzling, I'll be honest. The number of egregious uses that a wizard or sorcerer could put it to seem minimal. At most they're pumping four more hours into some all day buffs, and maybe getting an additional +1 on GMW. It's not really a simple thing to pull off. This is actually one of the few tricks that a sorcerer would probably have easier than a wizard. Neither class gets it as a class skill. There's only one class that gives UMD in the complete arcane and that's wild mage. Some regions have access, some don't, but it's not that common. Neither is the Dracolexi, the only other class I can think of. Can we agree that wild mage and dracolexi are probably the exception rather than the rule? Hell, even your friendly neighborhood Ruathar doesn't give you UMD. Given that, a wizard who invests skill points every level will arrive at 14 with 7 ranks and never get any better. They probably have a -1 cha, putting them at a +6. If they cast eagle's splendor, that bumps them to a +8. If they pick up the magical aptitude feat, that's another +2 for a grand total of +10. They have to make a 10 or better every time they want to use it, which is not great odds for something they've invested 45k and a feat into. Yes, you could maybe spin it up if you're a fatespinner but you've burned up some really nice 1/day resources. You could bump it to +11 if you spend 32k or 16k if you craft a +6 cloak. Sorcerers have it considerably easier I grant you, under the same set of circumstances a sorcerer who starts with a 17 cha and also invests the feat will have a +17, much better odds. The sorcerer probably did not craft the cloak, though, so they're spent a good 77k in order to do this trick. They've also burned skill points, something sorcerers tend to have 3-5 less of per level compared to a wizard. This is not a small investment. Nor are they likely to have the same breadth of spells to really milk the buffing power that +4 CL gives you. I guess I have trouble seeing it as horrible abusive. Just it just rub you the wrong way in a general sense? I guess I can understand that.
copperwyrmling 05-02-08, 06:19 PM	Although I do see your reply below this, I hope you don't mind some civil discourse about it :) I find your position puzzling, I'll be honest. The number of egregious uses that a wizard or sorcerer could put it to seem minimal. At most they're pumping four more hours into some all day buffs, and maybe getting an additional +1 on GMW. Greater Dispel, getting the Chained GMW to +5, and making your buffs extremely difficult to dispel are probably the most common uses I've seen for it. I've played at a table where several wizards with beads of karma got told by the GM that they couldn't use them. They argued about it for a bit (some more than others), but eventually gave in and handed all the beads to my cleric. There were many CL22 holy words that game :P It's not really a simple thing to pull off. This is actually one of the few tricks that a sorcerer would probably have easier than a wizard. Neither class gets it as a class skill. There's only one class that gives UMD in the complete arcane and that's wild mage. Some regions have access, some don't, but it's not that common. Neither is the Dracolexi, the only other class I can think of. Can we agree that wild mage and dracolexi are probably the exception rather than the rule? Hell, even your friendly neighborhood Ruathar doesn't give you UMD. Loremaster does, however. That's where most grey elf wizards I know get it from. At the levels where people are doing this, Heroism also tends to be up all day. It's not that hard (especially as you're usually activating it out of combat). Sorcerers have it considerably easier I grant you, under the same set of circumstances a sorcerer who starts with a 17 cha and also invests the feat will have a +17, much better odds. The sorcerer probably did not craft the cloak, though, so they're spent a good 77k in order to do this trick. It's not like they weren't going to buy the cloak anyway, though, since Cha is their primary stat. Getting UMD bonuses is a cute edge benefit, but you pay the 36k for the extra spells/day and that nice +3 to all your save DCs. (FWIW, my L15 sorcerer has +24 UMD, +26 or +28 if her cohort is on the table, and she could easily get another +2 if she chose to buy an ~10k item. That's with 11 ranks - she is a Wild Mage but she stopped investing points into UMD once she reached the "activate blindly on a 1" level, she needed her skills for other things.) At L15, your limit on cc ranks is 9 I believe. A sorc starting with 17 Cha ends up with Cha 26. A circlet of persuasion is +3 for 4500gp. That's +20 right there.
JamesMaissen 05-02-08, 06:23 PM	It's not really a simple thing to pull off. This is actually one of the few tricks that a sorcerer would probably have easier than a wizard. Neither class gets it as a class skill. There's only one class that gives UMD in the complete arcane and that's wild mage. Some regions have access, some don't, but it's not that common. Neither is the Dracolexi, the only other class I can think of. Can we agree that wild mage and dracolexi are probably the exception rather than the rule? Hell, even your friendly neighborhood Ruathar doesn't give you UMD. One word: loremaster. It's open and entering into it is easy for a wizard. -James
dkay807 05-02-08, 10:28 PM	Tracy's post is the tip of the iceberg. In order to avoid a drawn out discussion (or at least, draw out the discussion more), let's just say it rubs me the wrong way ;) I have strange morals when it comes to D&D, especially LG...
magebeast 05-02-08, 10:35 PM	One word: loremaster. It's open and entering into it is easy for a wizard. -James This is and Tracy's post are why I avoid making long posts in the LG boards. I so often miss things, given that I've only played, to a very limited extent, as high as APL 10.
MwaO 05-03-08, 11:08 AM	Tracy's post is the tip of the iceberg. In order to avoid a drawn out discussion (or at least, draw out the discussion more), let's just say it rubs me the wrong way ;) I have strange morals when it comes to D&D, especially LG... The thing is, the cleric is so much more unbalanced with Beads of Karma than the wizard is. Wizards don't have the same hour per level buffs spells that so upset game balance. Assuming you just have one of them in a party, I(as a player) would rather see the Cleric handing out superhigh caster level Magic Vestments and GMW than the Wizard handing out GMW. The 1st will break certain mods as the monsters won't be able to hit. GMW just ends things quicker. Cleric has more spells very dependent on caster level(aka Holy Word) The only real problem in my book is exactly what Tracy described - Wizards who think they can use them will probably get them and then hand them to the Cleric. And unless every DM feels the way you do, that's going to happen anyway. (of course, if I do get access to Beads of Karma, my Favored Beguiler will be able to craft 'em as he'll be able to directly cast all the spells involved - I'm not holding out much hope, but it could happen)
JamesMaissen 05-04-08, 02:31 PM	The thing is, the cleric is so much more unbalanced with Beads of Karma than the wizard is. Wizards don't have the same hour per level buffs spells that so upset game balance. Assuming you just have one of them in a party, I(as a player) would rather see the Cleric handing out superhigh caster level Magic Vestments and GMW than the Wizard handing out GMW. Well the GMW is 3rd for a wizard over 4th for a cleric, so it opens up lesser rods for the GMW.. mainly chaining... as a lesser rod is far more affordable than a normal one (as well as access issues). Both classes have buff spells that benefit from it. But I think the knee-jerk reaction is simply based on it feeling wrong, as can happen from DM to DM. -James
_metz_ 05-05-08, 12:05 AM	Tracy's post is the tip of the iceberg. In order to avoid a drawn out discussion (or at least, draw out the discussion more), let's just say it rubs me the wrong way ;) I have strange morals when it comes to D&D, especially LG... I agree with this ruling, as in a real campaign then you, as a home DM could have the god in question get anrgy at being tricked, not in LG... Minor issue nobody thinks about... Divine power comes from somewhere, and I insist that mine is keyed to my god (made it myself) and won't lend it to any non Moradin Clerics, UMD or not. I have issues with it but would allow it. It did cost the wizard 45.8k gold.
MwaO 05-05-08, 07:46 AM	I agree with this ruling, as in a real campaign then you, as a home DM could have the god in question get anrgy at being tricked, not in LG... Minor issue nobody thinks about... Divine power comes from somewhere, and I insist that mine is keyed to my god (made it myself) and won't lend it to any non Moradin Clerics, UMD or not. Well, if that's true, why not loan it out - it won't work right? ;) And really, are the gods so easily tricked by someone with UMD? I thought that kind of thing only happened to minor, insignificant deities ;) I have issues with it but would allow it. It did cost the wizard 45.8k gold. A home campaign is easy - the stupid things don't exist. Period.