Originally posted by Harmony's Sorrow
Why do none of the knowledges cover were-creatures, is this intentional? If not which does it fall int? Or is it just supposed to be revealable by Bardic Knowledge only? And if so... just how rare is this info supposed to be?
Originally posted by kjenks
Bump.
btw. give it at least 2 days before you do this. this is considered a CoC violation. i should know i was the cause of it being added.:D
"...Skip "The Sage" Williams is considered THE D&D expert. While he has changed his mind on rulings from time to time (especially after spending some time researching instead of answering off the top of his head), his responses are considered "official.""
By leaving out the parenthetical statement you change the implication of what was said. With it in there it implies that the sage is official, but that he does make mistakes, especially when he hasn;t done his homework.
With it left out it implies that he never makes mistakes, he just changes his mind.
You really should put that part back in. Especially since an edited quote isn't really a quote. unless you put in notations that it was edited.
I really think you should put the parenthetical statement back in. To misquote someone likle that can be misleading and insensitive to the original poster who may not have wanted his words taken out of context like that.
As you can see, your response has made it into my signature.
Wow, thanks! I'm glad to hear I got into your signature! :D
See what I mean ;)
By leaving it out you omit the fact that your very same source says that the sage makes mistakes and doesn;t always study for his answers.
If it makes no difference then why not leave it in?
By Omitting it intentionally you *are* saying that if makes a difference.
The patenthetical is important because it says that the sage does not always research his answers, which means that his official rulings *can* be wrong.
You're misrepresenting the quote and changing the meaning.
If the parenthetical makes no difference then put it back in.
Even the sage has erratta.
Are you planning a more substantive reply?
Your last reply wasn't substantive because you told me nothing. For all I know you could be scrupulous and honest enough to put the quote back the way it was meant to be.
Sorry for giving you the benefit of the doubt. It won't happen again.
Wh are you so afraid to admit the possibility that the Sage is human and therefore can be wrong? Is it the cornerstone of your religion or something? :P
Klyre
I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about.
All I'm saying is that the sage *CAN* be wrong. (Which is a possibility Seeker seems to be terrified to admit)
If an official ruling is wrong then it can be ignored because, well, it's wrong! It may be official, but it's also wrong.
By letting it be publically known that the sage CAN be wrong, it allows people to take his rulings with a grain of salt. If you blindly accept anything that the sage tells you "Because its official" then you could end up accepting rulings that were just plain wrong.
And because an "Official" source said he can be wrong, it lets the people who get hung up on things being official get away with ignoring a sage rule because, officially, he can be wrong.
Now if you see a sage ruling that doesn't make sense or doesn't agree with you you can say "Well, he could be wrong. I think I'll go with my way for now."
The Sage is not a god.
He can be wrong. It's been officially stated that he makes mistakes and often doesn't even research his answers.
Take what he says with a grain fo salt.
I'm not saying I don't agree with sage rulings orthat people should systematically ignore him. I'm just saying you shouldn't feel guilty for ignoring one of his rulings because, officially, it could be wrong.
The *REAL* quote implies that the sage can be wrong because he doesn't always do his homework. (In fact it downright explicitly states that he often makes up rulings off the top of his head without research)
Your version leaves that implication out. And since the rest of the tone of the message is so authortative, the implication switches to the idea that he is not wrong.
If you so steadfastly believe that the parenthetical makes no difference then quit being such a flailing hypocrite and put it back in.
Either that or admit that you changed it because it made a difference.
Of course, I suppose just saying "I reported you, so there." would come out a bit childish. I can see how saying that you edited your message instead would sound better.
Of course...it still won't win the arguement for you.
Edited for spelling...no, really.
Originally posted by Seeker95
But as with any official referee
Skip is not a referee.
the official is always right, even when he's wrong.
No. The official can still make the wrong decision. You may have to abide by said *WRONG* decision, but he is still not right.
Can *any* of the answers contained herein be considered "official" or are they considered the opinion of a long-time player of D&D?
[Disclaimer: An answer from a WotC employee duly authorized to give such answers is preferred, as it is the only one that would count.]
I did not misquote Dabus. Nor is Dabus unaware of the exact wording of my signature. Dabus put it in parentheses. The parenthetical is, by definition, independent of the sentence being quoted. I eliminated the parenthetical because it does not change the meaning of the quote. Whether two years old or two days old, changed from an earlier ruling or brand new, the Sage's answers are official.
Here is the quote I am using in my signature:
Skip "The Sage" Williams is considered the D&D expert. While he has changed his mind on rulings from time to time, his responses are considered "official." --WizO_Dabus
I do not at any time state that he is always right. I explicitly include the mention of the Sage changing his mind. Even in the parenthetical passage you seem so eager to see included, there is nomention of the words "right" and "wrong".
I have no problem with the Sage being wrong. But as with any official referee (like in a sport, or the DM in a game of D&D), the official is always right, even when he's wrong.
So get over it.
G_K, There is no argument to win. You asked me to change my signature. I said no.
WizO_Dabus, for the record, if you find any objection to my signature, please let me know. You can reach me via PM.
Any WotC_Personnel, regarding the Sage's answers in this thread: What is the time frame and policy by which Sage answers (through the chat, Sage Advice, or direct communication) become FAQ? And what is the process by which anything becomes errata?
Come on people, like was said, official does not mean it is correct. Official just means someone with the power to represent WotC has said it. Its still just one man's opinion, even if he is supposed to be the best. This game isn't exactly something that can be arbitrated by a single person, no matter how good he/she is at it.
You want correct answers, you need playtesters and playtime for those testers to test in. Thats slow, thats expensive. Like anything else, you get fast and cheap, or you get slow and expensive, and you get what you pay for.
Originally posted by Galahad_Knight
How do you manage to edit your posts without leaving the telltale "Last edited" tag?
There is a window of time when you have just posted you message and edit it immediately and save it fast, you will not get the edited message label at the bottom of the post.
That said, from the objective point of view, what people put in their sigs is their business, else i should start railing against the idiotic sigs that do appear every so often.
editied to show example
Question: Camouflage. A Ranger of 13th level can use the Hide skill in any sort of natural terrain even if the terrain does not grant cover or concealment. How do you define natural terrain? Would a ranger who lives in a city be considered to be in natural terrain?
Answer: Essentially, "natural terrain" means outdoor wilderness. It's easier to say what natural terrain is not. It’s not a building or a street, nor is it a dungeon. If it doesn’t have anything made by a sentient hand, it's "natural." You can, as a DM, be a little generous here. A roadside or field with crops or pasture can count. A city, however, does not.
Question: I'm sad and sorry to ask but still hopeful of a better attempt at this but, do you have any inside information about the D&D movie sequel?
Answer: The last time I talked with anyone even remotely involved with the movie deal was at Gen Con, and the only news that person had was that Sweetpea was interested in doing one -- sometime. To my knowledge there's no sequel in the works, but my information is secondhand and somewhat old.
Question: Do all of the enhanced abilities of a druid or ranger's animal companion (Hit Dice, ability scores, etc.) return to normal when they are “released,” or does the animal get to keep any of them? (For example, could a ranger use this ability to, say, "breed" special warhorses for a knight or other ally?)
Answer: Hmmm... First, animal companions remain animals (as noted in the Dungeon Master’s Guide); they do not become magical beasts as the Player’s Handbook says. I'm inclined to think that it is the link between companion and druid that accounts for the companion's special abilities, and I recommend that they end when the druid breaks the link. (For story purposes you might want them to fade slowly over time, however.)
Question: Is there or will there be a core mechanic to handle recharging charge-based items (wands, staves, etc)?
Answer: No there isn't, and there won't be so long as I have any input on the matter. Recharging just doesn’t make sense given the item creations rules. Note, however, that some items are rechargeable by their very natures (rings of spell storing and rings of counterspells come to mind). Other wondrous items or rods might also be rechargeable if constructed along the same lines as those items.
Question: When a character receives a penalty of a type for which he also has a bonus, do both affect the ability jointly or does the larger number take hold, as the same type of modifier can't affect an ability twice?
Answer: First, in 3.5 penalties no longer have names -- they're just penalties, and they all stack. In 3.0 penalties had names, but they stacked with bonuses of the same name (in spite of what you might have read in earlier printings of the Player’s Handbook).
Question: Why are there no female mind flayers. Don't you think they need loving and sexual fulfillment, etc?
Answer: I don't recall reading anything that says there aren't female mind flayers. I'm trying to recall Bruce Cordell's AD&D book on all things mind flayer. I seem to remember that their reproduction was parasitic in nature, and therefore asexual (which might explain why mind flayers are so grumpy).
Comment: Illithid reproduction was already explained in the Fiend Folio.
Comment: In the "Riot in Underdark" adventure in Dragon magazine, I believe, there is an illustration of the head prison warden. It obviously depicts that mind flayer as a woman. So...I suppose they exist.
Question: This is kind of a silly question, most likely solved with a dose of 3.5e. What kind of bonus is the monk's AC bonus? Insight?
Answer: Neither the Wisdom bonus to AC nor the level-based bonus has a name. That means they stack with any other AC bonuses and they apply to touch attacks.
Question: Are there any plans to release stats for regular animals, not just ones a character could conceivably fight?
Answer: I imagine not. You can pretty much infer stats for most animals from the assortment in the Monster Manual. If any more animals get published, you’re most likely to see them in one of the magazines or here on the web site.
Question: A lance is a two-handed weapon with the special exception of being useable one-handed while the wielder is mounted. Does this change the weapon's type to one-handed for purposes of things like Power Attack, or does it retain the qualities of a two-handed weapon? (Saw a discussion about this awhile ago. Figured I'd throw it out there.)
Answer: I'm just researching that column now. A two-handed weapon is one that you wield in two hands. You Power Attack with the lance as though it was a one-handed weapon if you’re wielding it in one hand. I suppose you could hold it in two hands. If you do that and I'm running the game, no triple damage on a charge for you.
Question: Now I'm a bit fuzzy and this question may have expired with 3.5. Does a successful roll for preventing a critical hit granted by fortification negate the effects from vorpality? Does it also negate the effects from burst weapons? The reason for asking this is in the definition for fortification; it makes it sound as if it only prevents the normal rolling of a critical hit.
Answer: The latest word from Wizards of the Coast on this one is that any special ability triggered by a confirmed critical still works even if your target isn’t subject to the critical hit. Fortification makes you not subject to critical hits some of the time (it doesn’t really negate critical hits). The current FAQ should have something on this topic.
Question: Does a druid adjust their hit points to match their new Constitution when wild shaping?
Answer: In 3.0 there was a rule that said your hit points didn't change when your Constitution changed because of assuming a new form. That rule is absent from the current polymorph text (which is the basis for wild shape), so the letter of the rule implies that your hit points do indeed change with Constitution (so be careful if you take a lot of damage while polymorphed or wild shaped).
Question: This may be a bit obvious, but I'm not sure. I know casting a spell can provoke an attack of opportunity, but it doesn’t if cast defensively. Would a touch attack from a spell cause an attack of opportunity as well?
Answer: Casting a spell triggers an attack of opportunity, but delivering a touch spell does not (you're "armed" with the spell).
Question: With the weapon master prestige class's Ki Whirlwind ability, would you be able to use Spring Attack to run in, whirlwind and run out?
Answer: Technically, no. You can Ki Whirlwind as a standard action. That class, however, was written before the current emphasis on exactly how feats and actions combine. It's altogether reasonable to assume, however, that you can Ki Whirlwind as an attack action, and that would make the Whirlwind/Spring Attack action work.
Question: I once bought a 3rd party adventure where the plot hinged on finding a way to talk to a griffon. Now, speak with animals only works on animals, and tongues only lets you understand a real language. You can speak with plants and corpses, but is there any way to speak to an Intelligence 3+ monster that does not normally talk? Can a combination of spells be used to coerce a monster to talk when it normally doesn't?
Answer: Some kinds of telepathy work, but even that usually requires that the subject have a language. Perhaps the authors were thinking of the old speak with monsters spell, which literally let you talk to anything. Otherwise, griffons understand Common, but they don't speak themselves. If you were to reinvent speak with monsters, it should be a higher level than tongues and allow you to speak with anything that actually has an Intelligence score.
Question: Does Wizards of the Coast have any upcoming campaign releases such as the Sunless Citadel to Bastion of Broken Souls -- one of those extended campaigns?
Answer: You should be aware that I'm not a Wizards of the Coast employee. When it comes to upcoming plans, I know what I've been contracted to do as a freelancer (and I’m legally bound to shut up about those until Wizards of the Coast announces them) and what every other fan knows. If I was an employee I'd know more, but I still couldn’t talk about anything that wasn’t already in the product catalog. All that said, yes, Wizards of the Coast has a new world coming out. It's based on the big contest they ran some time ago. Art for the world was previewed in a recent Dragon magazine and there's probably a web page or preview somewhere here on the site.
Question: Are characters with the Leadership feat no longer restricted to warriors, experts and commoners when recruiting followers?
Answer: Followers are 1st level (sometimes 2nd level or higher depending on your level). I don’t think (and I sure can’t find) anything that suggests followers have to be from NPC classes. Here's a case, however, where you have to use the NPC's ECL (actual level plus level adjustment).
Originally posted by Galahad_Knight
It's not the outright statement, it's the implication.
The *REAL* quote implies that the sage can be wrong because he doesn't always do his homework. (In fact it downright explicitly states that he often makes up rulings off the top of his head without research)
Alright, I have to chime in here, because this is a misinterpretation of my statement. I did not say he often makes up rulings off the top of his head. The majority of the time he does not. However, he does not have the luxury of hours or days of research when he graciously attends our Sage Advice chats -- we have only one hour with him, and he attempts to answer questions as quickly as possible. The Sage can and does change his mind on answers he has given from time to time...he said as much in last month's Sage Advice. Dungeon and Dragons rules are not fundamental laws of the universe that can be deemed unalterable -- their interpretation is left up to the individual DM, which is why Rule #1 is paramount in any such discussion.
Mr. Williams is kind enough to try and provide a base from which DMs can begin when making their own rules interpretations. His answers often include "why" he answers as he does, which aids in seeing how he came to give his answer. Individuals can certainly disagree with any and all rules statements -- DMs are not bound to use all the rules of the game. But when a particular question surfaces over and over, it's clear that that particular rule wasn't clear and needs clarification. The Sage provides that clarity.
Please let's not argue about this anymore. I provided the questions and answers from Sage Advice as a service for those unable to attend the event, not to incite a shoving match.
Wrong != unofficial.
Whether the Sage's rulings are "right" or "wrong", they are still from an "official" source and are therefore "official" by definition. "Right" or "Wrong" doesn't enter into it.
Originally posted by Count Arioch the 28th
The Sage may be official, but he is wrong on occasion, which makes him fallable.
fallable? i think the wily fox has made himself indispensible to the entire industry.. his answers most of which seem to include the phrase "despite what the players handbook/DMG says.." are considered official so it seems you can't actually play CORE D&D without consulting him first since the books might be wrong :D
Answer: In 3.0 there was a rule that said your hit points didn't change when your Constitution changed because of assuming a new form. That rule is absent from the current polymorph text (which is the basis for wild shape), so the letter of the rule implies that your hit points do indeed change with Constitution (so be careful if you take a lot of damage while polymorphed or wild shaped).
While this is true (the rule is absent from the current polymorph text), it is included in alter self, which polymorph refers to, and therefore inherited by polymorph.
So, the above "clarification" is wrong, or not?
Bye
Thanee