Please don't debate the issues in this thread. If you wish to debate the issues, post an off topic thread link and debate the issue in that thread. If you come to a good pro/con position agreement in that thread, IM me the link and I will update it here.
If you feel that Wizards of the Coast should address an issue before 4E, post in this thread. I will take each post as a list of issues you want address prior to 4E release.
If you would like to add new topics that are also often or heavily debated, post them as well. Half this list is new material.
4E update, no promises, but I was told there may be a chance that some of these issues get updated officially before 4E. So if you are interested in this, make it known which issues you wish to be updated.
The List:
1 Extra Spell, Complete Divine
Topic Count
#1 4
#2 8
#3 1
#4 2
#5
#6 2
#7
#8 3
#9 1
#10 1
#11
#12 1
#13 1
#14 1
#15 2
#16 1
#17 3
#18 3
#19 7
#20 3
#21 3
#22 3
#23 2
#24 3
#25 4
#26 2
#27 2
#28 3
#29 1
#30 2
#31 1
#32 2
#33 3
#34 4
#35 1
Top Ten list:
#2 8 Rainbow Servant/Sacred Fist, Complete Divine
#19 7 Nightstick, Libris Mortis and Orange Prism Ioun Stone, Dungeon Master Guide
#1 4 Extra Spell, Complete Arcane
#25 4 Pierce Magical Protection, Complete Arcane
#34 4 Wild Mage / Practiced Spellcaster
#17 3 Unarmed Strike, Players Handbook
#18 3 Monk's Belt, Dungeon Master Guide
#20 3 Mindspy, Complete Warrior
#21 3 Shape Soulmeld: Strongheart Vest, Magic of Incarnum
#22 2 Warmage, Complete Arcane/Beguiler, Players Handbook II
#24 3 Archivist, Heroes of Horror
#8 3 Class Level Retraining, Players Handbook II
#28 3 Unarmed strikes, Players Handbook
#33 3 Ultimate Magus / Practiced Spellcaster
Shivering Touch from Frostburn is a 3d6 DEX ability damaging spell that has "Target: Creature Touched" and a duration of round/level. The duration doesn't do anything unless the 3d6 DEX was intended to be a DEX penalty.
Nightstick is another issue that could be discussed here. Whether or not they stack remains questionable, at least to me.
At the moment I am facing a dilemma. Mindspy requires Detect thought as a spell-like ability or a spell. However, Doppelgangers are mentioned to be very popular members of that PrC, but their Detect thoughts is supernatural. Well, I houseruled that Cabinet trickster gets in with his (Su) Detect thoughts...
This thread is a great idea by the way. A good place for a DM to drop by in order to check some houserulable combos. Tell me to erase the message, if it does not suit the thread...
Likewise, number 17 was covered in an FAQ, which stated explicitly that a first level monk with two weapon fighting could make three attacks with his unarmed strike, at -4/-4/-4.
JaronK
The only monster that deals only STR damage can take feats such as Power Attack to increase the amount of STR damage dealt. This is allowed because ability damage is damage and Power Attack increases the amount of "damage" done.
There is a difference between "damage" and "ability damage" when used in spells and abilities. While it is true that ability damage is a type of damage, any spell or ability that lists simply "damage" will take the form of damage (such as a Fighter's Longsword is slashing damage) or if no damage type is provided the damage will be positive or negative whichever makes the most sense. This is covered in a rules of the game article about Sneak Attack and how Sneak Attack will always be hit point damage despite the fact it simply says "damage" in the Sneak Attack ability as written in the Players Handbook. There is also an implied meaning of "0 damage and 1d6 STR damage" in the Shadow's attack forms."
Well I don't see how this is an argument. Power attack has a pre-req of Str-13+ and Shadows as Incorporeal creatures have no Str. score. They don't even (and can never) qualify for the feat so the point is Moot.
For #2, I read somewhere that the newest foreign language edition (brazilian portuguese) had 10/10 casting in text and table.
If anyone has links they feel best show the debate for each question, I can add those links.
For #2, I read somewhere that the newest foreign language edition (brazilian portuguese) had 10/10 casting in text and table.
Can anyone confirm this allegation? Does anyone have access to the Brazillian edition?
Also, you are not precise when referencing the actual RAW, which causes many of these rules discussion in the first place. There's no need to confuse people any further on these issues.
For example:
13) Powerful Build, Expanded Psionics Handbook; Monkey Grip, Complete Warrior; Strongarm Bracer, Magic Item Compendium
These abilities stack because Powerful Build increases you size for a number of effects including weapons use and it specifically states that it stacks with all other spells and effects."
No, it does not state that. It specifically says that it stacks with "the effects of powers, abilities and spells that change the subjects size category". This is fundamentally different from what you claim it says, as it does not imply it stacks with Monkey Grip (which is not an effect that changes the target's size category).
Both stack with Strongarm Bracers.
This is simply wrong.
Strongarm Bracers explicitly state that they do not stack with Powerful Build.
Edit: I also don't think this qualifies as a "heavily debated topic". It's generally understood that Powerful Build and Monkey Grip do not stack. Post about this do pop up every now and then, but there's rarely an debate, just a clarification/explanation of the RAW. I guess it falls more into the category of "on first glance frequently misunderstood rules issues".
Take no.18 for example. The FAQ has clarified that a monk's belt lets you add your wis mod to AC, assuming that you are unarmoured and unencumbered. As such, this should be seen as the canon interpretation. That the RPGA rules differently is a separate issue which should have no impact whatsoever, since they are not wotc, nor do they possess wotc's authority in adjudicating such issues (though it is worth pointing out). They did so probably to maintain game balance (or at least, what passes for balance in their books).
Likewise, for no.19, I don't think there was ever any doubt as to whether multiple nightsticks stacked. Risner's take is not an unpopular houserule for DMs wishing to limit its potential for abuse, but it ultimately remains just that - a houserule.
Same goes for no.17. To me at least, the purpose of TWFing is simply to nab you an extra attack subject to the following penalties (to-hit penalty, str penalty on off-hand). I see no need to make the distinction of how many different unarmed strikes you have, in that it will not cause any sort of game imbalance.
1) Can you use the feat Shape Soulmeld: Strongheart Vest to avoid paying the 1 Con damage of Hellfire Warlock?
Pro: The Vest reduces all ability damage by one point, thus reducing the damage taken to 0. You aren't immune to Con damage, you effectively have DR 1 for Con damage. Fluff: You're stealing a bit of energy from all souls to give to your infernal masters instead of paying for it yourself.
Con: Since you will never take Con damage from the hellfire, you are effectively immune to the Con damaging effect. Thus you are "somehow" (quote from the ability) immune to Con damage, and therefore you can't use the ability.
[Note: I think CustServ has said this doesn't work, but that didn't provide a reason, and no one pays any attention to CustServ anyway. It hasn't been errata'ed. This is definitely a "check with your DM" issue. IMHO, warlocks could use the power boost this trick allows without unbalancing things.]
2) Should a warlock focusing on eldritch blasting take Point Blank Shot/Precise Shot?
Yes: You'll often be firing into melee, and you wouldn't want to miss/hit the wrong person. Also, blast range is 60', so it's likely you'll be close enough to use the +1 to hit.
No: Eldritch blast is a touch attack. Touch AC's are so much lower than normal AC that you can eat the -4 to hit and still blast things. Plus, if you're a blaster you'll probably have good Dex. Many blasters also take eldritch spear, which makes getting the PBS bonus rather moot. Finally, wouldn't you like to get two more invocations instead?
EDIT: [Clarification] This post concerns the one directly above it.
How about what ability score Aritificers need to activate the scrolls they make? Technically, there doesn't seem to be one (as has been revealed by MiscDebris in a separate thread), so Artificers by RAW cannot use thier own scrolls, not even with UMD checks (no ability score to use/emulate). Actually, pretty much anything having to do with Artificers and making scrolls with them; the errata already out seems to need some re-errata'ing.
Also, what the heck is an Archivist's spell list for the purpose of using/creating ST and SC items? I've heard 1) They don't have one at all, 2) It's only the Cleric spell list, 3) It's the Cleric spell list and what's in their prayerbook, 4) All divine spells, and 5) All divine spells except for Domain spells.
(It's also pretty funny that Artificer SC and ST items, which are supposed to dominate Eberron's market, can't be used by any other classes without access to UMD, but that's just flavor and outside of scope).
A move in the right direction, but why I do have the feeling that Risner is interpreting the rules according to the way he feels they should have been implemented, rather than the way they would be as per a literal reading of the rules?
Because rinser is the kind of person that does that.
1) Extra Spell and all similar abilities are "the rules don't say I can't." As such, they fall under the purview of the DM. Errata is welcome, but not important.
2) This has been a confusing subject, and is easily the most worthy of being on this list.
3) Precocious Apprentice is another one that probably goes up here, but it's definitely low on the food chain because it becomes a dead feat around level 5 or 6.
4) This is settled. Errata has been made and the FAQ is probably still up.
5) Versatile Spellcaster is a bad feat. Used as written, it's situational at best. Exploited to it's fullest cheese, it's absurdly broken. If you don't like it then just take some white-out to that page of Races of the Dragon. Nobody will ever really care, because it never really should have happened in the first place.
6) ...as if anyone would advocate this for a real game. Theres absolutely nothing to support the "Con" position of this argument anyway.
7) Read Versatile Spellcaster.
8) Probably an oversight, and an ideal candidate for Errata or FAQ. (The former if it's meant to be changed, or the latter if it isn't.)
9) The only thing that Gauntlets do is allow the attacker to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike. The attack is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. By it's own description, a gauntlet does not follow the normal rules for weapons.
10) I've only seen one person ever advocate this, and he was soundly shut down by everyone on the CO Boards, including the regulars.
11) Again, very few people ever advocated this and they were all shut down by CO Board regulars.
12) This is much more an issue of excluding people from gameplay than actual balance. A spellcaster without spells is not a fun character to play.
13) See 10 and 11.
14) This is a good candidate for Errata.
15) This is moot. It's not usable by characters because they're ECL "--". This isn't usable by Summoned Shadows, either, because theres no way at present to grant them the 4 levels of Fighter required to get Weapon Specialization.
16) I have never seen anyone argue the "Con" half of this argument, because it's just plain not true. AFAIK no such item ever references the Monk's "base Monk level."
17) This is among the biggest loads I've ever seen on the boards. A fist is a weapon. You have two fists. If you fight with two fists, you are two-weapon fighting.
18) "If the character is not a monk, she gains the AC and unarmed damage of a 5th-level monk." As stated countless times before, both the Monk's Wisdom bonus to AC and passive AC bonus are a single ability given by this belt. That said, the only character that this is truly beneficial for is a Psychic Warrior.
19) This also applies to an Orange Prism Ioun Stone, and both depend on your interpretation of the stacking rules. You can either see each individual item as an individual source, in which case they add typeless bonuses they all stack, or you can see the type of item itself as an individual source, in which case they don't.
20) This is akin to the Abjurant Champion's Abjurant Armor ability, and well deserving of errata or FAQ to clarify.
So thats about 7 arguments that should actually be made. The rest are either settled or obvious (or, in one case, a Campaign Smasher that will always be rule-0'd anyway, making errata redundant).
The first notice I know of the Portugese correction to #2 is in post #3 in this thread.
I'd also like some clarification on how the capstone ability (adds all cleric spells) interacts with a) Spellbook casters b) spontaneous casters and c) casters who know their entire spell list. C) is probably the only one which is debated, but listing all would clarify it.
Also, I don't know if it is hotly contested or not, but it crops up occasionally:
If you qualify for Ultimate Magus as a single-class caster (the class appears to be written so as to deliberatly open for this possibility) do you get 7/10 advancement or 10/10? (Do you have a lower-level casting class?)
If you qualify for Ultimate Magus as a single-class caster (the class appears to be written so as to deliberatly open for this possibility) do you get 7/10 advancement or 10/10. (Do you have a lower-level casting class?)
I disagree that that is the way it was intended to work, and considering the fact that every last ability save Arcane Spellpower and the two bonus Metamagic feats would be wasted if you did that, it's not a good idea even if it did.
I think there should be a category for this. Rules Loopholes Broken in the Other Direction. RLBitOD for short.
I disagree that that is the way it was intended to work, and considering the fact that every last ability save Arcane Spellpower and the two bonus Metamagic feats would be wasted if you did that, it's not a good idea even if it did.
I think there should be a category for this. Rules Loopholes Broken in the Other Direction. RLBitOD for short.
I do agree that it is not a good idea. But one of the most frequent things I see here is someone coming in thinking they can get 20/10 advancement from single-class qualifications, though.
I'd suggest simplifying the term to just Broken in the Other Direction, for a better acronym. As in "Thats a...BitOD"
On written to allow it, the class itself is the first place I know where they differentiated spontaneous and prepared spell lists. However, in the qualifying parts, they did not do refer to the lists, but only required 1st and 2nd level spells. So it can be seen as written to allow broad access.
No, it does not state that. It specifically says that it stacks with "the effects of powers, abilities and spells that change the subjects size category". This is fundamentally different from what you claim it says, as it does not imply it stacks with Monkey Grip (which is not an effect that changes the target's size category).
This is simply wrong.
Strongarm Bracers explicitly state that they do not stack with Powerful Build.
Can you reword your position in a short form (or as short as you can to get all points) so I can update it in the topic?
Remember, less than or equal to half of these questions I fall on one side or the other but I have performed a stream of consciousness brain dump for both the pro and con debated points. In other words, I may not have either sides as well written as they should be.
why I do have the feeling that Risner is interpreting the rules according to the way he feels they should have been implemented, rather than the way they would be as per a literal reading of the rules?
I need to point out that I share your position on number 18 and 19, and I agree that the con positions are not backed up by the RAW. There is debate because our opinions and that of the FAQ doesn't stop someone from claiming the RAW says otherwise. Only Errata will silence them. Not to mention the fact that #18 and #19 was not on the list until Tshern made post #5 and I added/edited 18 and 19 into the list.
4) This is settled. Errata has been made and the FAQ is probably still up.
# 4 is still being debated post errata.
How about what ability score Aritificers need to activate the scrolls they make?
Also, what the heck is an Archivist's spell list for the purpose of using/creating ST and SC items?
If you want to write me up the pro/con for these, I can add them.
If you qualify for Ultimate Magus as a single-class caster (the class appears to be written so as to deliberatly open for this possibility) do you get 7/10 advancement or 10/10? (Do you have a lower-level casting class?)
I have never seen this argued, but if you write up a good pro/con for this I can add it.
I think there should be a category for this. Rules Loopholes Broken in the Other Direction. RLBitOD for short.
This could be a humourous contest... twisting the rules in order to make a character worse.
Artificers and Activation of Artificer Scrolls:
Artificer scrolls simply do not have a prerequisite ability score. An artificer activating an artificer scroll does not need to have a score in any particular ability to be able to pass that step of scroll activation successfully when it comes to Artificer scrolls. Artificers are automatically considered the correct class type for any Artificer scroll they try to activate, even though Artificer scrolls are neither arcane nor divine.
Since Artificer scrolls do not have a specific correct 'class type' or a prerequisite ability score, not only are Artificers not automatically proficient in their use, UMD cannot be applied to activate them because of lack of anything to emulate, and thus Artificer scrolls are unusable by any class, Artificer included.
Archivist Spell List for the Purpose of SC/ST Item Activation:
The Archivist's class spell list is all divine spells. If the item is created as a divine magic item, the Archivist can use it without having to make a UMD check.
The Archivist does not have a class spell list. Since it can only draw from the lists of other classes, it cannot make or activate SC/ST Items on its own, and needs to use UMD to activate any SC/ST item, divine or otherwise.
I must admit, I do like the idea of attempting to gather debate/rule issues into a single thread.
1) Extra Spell, Complete Divine:
It allows any spell from any list because there is no restriction and feats are allowed to break the rules.
Unless the magic words "from any spell list" is used (like Wyrm Wizard and Recaster PrC), then this is limited to class list as the FAQ asserts.
Con: Even if you can select spells not on your list, this would be useless. All spellcasting classes specifically say that they "cast spells from the spell list"; knowing them is only one requirement.
Note that this is explicitly different from psionics.
10) Wizards and arcane scrolls, Players Handbook
A Wizard can copy any arcane scroll into his spell book because the rules on copying arcane scrolls into a spellbook does not make any restrictions on what can be copied. As a result, a Wizard can copy a Bard cure light wounds scroll into his book and prepare and cast the spell.
This action is prohibited in the FAQ and the Wizard class description specifies the Wizard can prepare and cast any spell on his class spell list. Cure Light Wounds is not on the Wizard class spell list, so he can not copy it into his spellbook (which according to the PHB glossary is a Wizard's spells known.)
Con: see above. Having the spell in one's spellbook is only one requirement.
20) Mindspy, Complete Warrior and Doppelganger, Monster Manual
Complete Arcane page 72 says that a specific spell requirement can be met by anyone with access to the necessary effect. The Doppelganger's supernatural ability produces the effect "as the spell", and as such qualifies for the requirement despite being a Supernatural Ability.
A Supernatural Ability is not a Spell Like Ability, and as such does not qualify for specific spell requirements.
Pro: The class was obviously designed with the doppelganger in mind, judging by the artwork on that page. This is clearly just an omission.
22) Warmage, Complete Arcane and Beguiler, Players Handbook II
Both these classes know every spell on their spell list. If you have effects which add spells to their spell list (like Rainbow Servant), they automatically know all the spells added to their spell list.
Both these classes know every spell on their class spell list, but if an effect adds a spell to their spell list they do not automatically know the spell. These spells would now be available for Advanced Learning despite the fact they would normally be unavailable via Advanced Learning.
Con: This would be true, except that the Rainbow Servant doesn't actually add the cleric spells to your class list. It just lets you cast them; a subtle, but important, distinction.
# 4 is still being debated post errata.
The debate is about what the errata means. The fact is, the FAQ puts even stricter limitations on the feat than the errata, making the debate over the errata mostly academic.
Here's my post responding to Crimson Death: http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14258006&postcount=33
That actually doesn't bother me as much as his questionable interpretation of the rules, like the time he used class rebuilding to replace levels he used to qualify for a prestiege class with levels of the prestiege class.
CD , your interpretation of PHB2 class rebuilding, is accurate as far as the 3rd paragraph goes, of the class rebuilding article. Lucky for me, the 4th paragraph includes some more information. At the last sentence, actually the last third of the last sentence, the text clearly indicates, a rebuilding can render a PrC temporarily unqualified for. The text says you can then or later requalify for the "useless" PrC levels, with whatever class it is that you take.
An example would be: Wizard 8 / PrC 2
then a rebuild into ..... Wizard 6 / X 2 / PrC "2" with the PrC non-functional
then gaining 1 level ... Wizard 6 / X 3 / PrC 2 with the PrC functional now
Hey, the text says what it says, I'm only using it to help the pathetic Metamind.
Further afield, is the simple question of the PrC "2" when it is non-functional.
Wizard 6 / X 2 / PrC "2" , is a 10 HD creature.
Just because 2 of it's levels don't work, doesn't mean it suddenly doesn't have those 2 HD.
This is a grey zone of the rules.
I'd give a Human, 2 HD of humanoid levels; effectively 2 levels of Commoner.
Some of the feats would still work.
Less of the skills would still work.
Fewer hit points. Etc ...
Just until the PrC gets requalified for.
To Clarify: I wasn't trying to utilize a PrC to qualify for more levels of a PrC, via class rebuilding,
but when the Base Class isn't "there", but you still have the HD, I think it's clear (very clear !!!)
Fighter 10 --> Fighter 9 / 1 HD --> Fighter 9 / PrC 1
They improve AC. That makes them targetable.
Unless improving AC is directly a function of the spell (dex bonus !+ AC bonus), the spell is not targetable
They improve AC. That makes them targetable.
Unless improving AC is directly a function of the spell (dex bonus != AC bonus), the spell is not targetable
This post has a response from Dave Noonan (indirectly).
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13106022&postcount=185
Pro: You are targeting a single creature with your ranged touch attack, so Chain Spell metamagic can be applied.
Con: Chain Spell specifically states that it works only with a targeted spell. Ranged touch spells do not have a "Target:" entry, but rather an "Effect:" entry, therefore they are effect spells, and not targeted spells. Thus, ranged touch spells cannot be chained.
Thanks for the help all. Again, if a question is important to you and you have not voiced that opinion in this thread, please do so. A simple post listing the numbers important is sufficient. I am keeping a running total of the topics mentioned by posters in hopes that the hot button issues will get resolved in future errata.
Reading over the new list, I think that any topic that is covered in the FAQ or errata should have the contrary position taken out. Otherwise you sort of have to dig to see that, and I think that for most people that would be a clear indication of what is the correct position to take.
The point is that an entry in the FAQ is often ignored (so the debate rages regardless) and the ones that are covered under Errata that continue revolve around the meaning of the errata. It would defeat the purpose of this thread to remove the contrary opinion, since it is to cover both the pro and the con position (in the hopes of new Errata that settles the question.)
The original post should contain links to threads discussing each of these issues for those who want to do some extra reading. One link per issue.
I agree, but I don't have the links. If you have links to threads that have the best examples of a topic, I will add it to any above.
I'll bite on #8.
I couldn't see how to use your post as a Pro or Con position. Could you format it as a pro/con argument I can use? Preferably shorter and more succinct?
8) Class Level Retraining, Players Handbook II
This is allows you to retrain a Cleric 3/Wizard 3/Mystic Theurge 1 into a Cleric 1/Wizard 1/Mystic Theurge 5 using 3 steps. At all times the requirements of the PrC are maintained. There is only the requirement that you meet your pre-reqs with the remaining classes, which you do with the existing Mystic Theurge advancements.
Add: "Dead" PrC levels still function as HD, and give all things any HD would normally provide. "Dead" levels can be revived.
Elsewhere in the book you see the feat reassigning requires you qualify for the feat at the level it is taken when changing the feat (so to retain a 1st level feat in a 20th level character, you need to qualify for the feat using only your first level class.) The class level retaining should likewise be restricted to replacing the classes with classes that you could also qualify for at the level they are replaced. Since replacing one of the 3 levels of either the Cleric or the Wizard would remove the pre-req for Mystic Theurge at that lower level, it can not be done. If this is allowed, it comes into conflict with the feat retaining rules.
Delete all of it.
Add: Read paragraph 3. Don't read paragraph 4, especially the last sentence, super-especially the last third of that sentence.
Sorry, I was violating the spirit of non-debate.
Do you want me to post something about Pazuzu ???
21) Shape Soulmeld: Strongheart Vest, Magic of Incarnum
The Vest reduces all ability damage by one point, thus reducing the damage taken to 0. This allows you to avoid paying the 1 Con damage of Hellfire Warlock. You aren't immune to Con damage, you effectively have DR 1 for Con damage. Fluff: You're stealing a bit of energy from all souls to give to your infernal masters instead of paying for it yourself.
Since you will never take Con damage from the hellfire, you are effectively immune to the Con damaging effect. Thus you are "somehow" (quote from the ability) immune to Con damage, and therefore you can't use the ability.
This is only debated because the Sage is an idiot. Campaigns are just as likely to allow Tome of Magic as they are Magic of Incarnum anyway.
22) Warmage, Complete Arcane and Beguiler, Players Handbook II
Both these classes know every spell on their spell list. If you have effects which add spells to their spell list (like Rainbow Servant), they automatically know all the spells added to their spell list.
Both these classes know every spell on their class spell list, but if an effect adds a spell to their spell list they do not automatically know the spell. These spells would now be available for Advanced Learning despite the fact they would normally be unavailable via Advanced Learning. For example, Rainbow Servant doesn't actually add the cleric spells to your class list. It just lets you cast them; a subtle, but important, distinction.
This one is a good debate.
23) Artificers, Eberron Campaign Setting
Artificer scrolls simply do not have a prerequisite ability score. An artificer activating an artificer scroll does not need to have a score in any particular ability to be able to pass that step of scroll activation successfully when it comes to Artificer scrolls. Artificers are automatically considered the correct class type for any Artificer scroll they try to activate, even though Artificer scrolls are neither arcane nor divine.
Since Artificer scrolls do not have a specific correct 'class type' or a prerequisite ability score, not only are Artificers not automatically proficient in their use, UMD cannot be applied to activate them because of lack of anything to emulate, and thus Artificer scrolls are unusable by any class, Artificer included.
This argument is retarded. Why not just take away the Scribe Scroll feat from Artificiers? Better yet, ban Artificiers from your game if you don't like how they work.
24) Archivist, Heroes of Horror
Spell List for the Purpose of SC/ST Item Activation:
The Archivist's class spell list is all divine spells. If the item is created as a divine magic item, the Archivist can use it without having to make a UMD check.
The Archivist does not have a class spell list. Since it can only draw from the lists of other classes, it cannot make or activate SC/ST Items on its own, and needs to use UMD to activate any SC/ST item, divine or otherwise.
Again, stupid argument.
25) Pierce Magical Protection, Complete Arcane
Any spell that directly or indirectly improve AC are valid targets for this feat.
Unless improving AC is directly a function of the spell, the spell can not be targeted. For example Cat's Grace and Polymorph can provide AC, but neither do it directly. As a result neither can be a target of the Pierce Magical Protection feat.
I've never seen anyone argue this. Con has always been the way it was applied, and still nobody ever uses it because of the 8 CL hit you take for picking it up.
26) Deepwarden, Races of Stone
A maximum Dexterity bonus is a limit on the Dexterity that can be applied to AC when wearing encumbering armour. If you have Stone Warden which allows you to use your Constitution for AC instead, you no longer have Dexterity to AC and are no longer limited by the Maximum Dexterity bonus to AC.
Stone Warden allows you to use your Constitution bonus as your Dexterity bonus, so you are still limited by Maximum Dexterity bonus because your Constitution bonus is your Dexterity bonus for the purpose of AC. Here is a response from the developer: http://forums.gleemax.com/leaving.php?destination=http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php%3Fp%3D13106022%26postcount%3D185
By the argument's own text, this debate is settled in spades. Frankly, I always thought it could go either way, myself. I'm not surprised at the ruling.
27) Chain Spell, Complete Arcane
You are targeting a single creature with your ranged touch attack, so Chain Spell metamagic can be applied.
Chain Spell specifically states that it works only with a targeted spell. Ranged touch spells do not have a "Target:" entry, but rather an "Effect:" entry, therefore they are effect spells, and not targeted spells. Thus, ranged touch spells cannot be chained.
This is a good argument.
I've never seen anyone argue this. Con has always been the way it was applied, and still nobody ever uses it because of the 8 CL hit you take for picking it up.
aelryinth has argued this for pages in his lockdown thread.
aelryinth has argued this for pages in his lockdown thread.
Ah, ok. He's wrong, but ok.
Ah, ok. He's wrong, but ok.
If it weren't for him I wouldn't have bothered posting it here.
THE STUPID ARGUMENTS THEADR!http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=684444
What's so stupid about them? I'd like to know the answer at least :/. I haven't gotten a definitive answer for either of them. Like I said, he wanted them in pro/con format, and I had a bit of trouble fitting them into that particular mold.
Whats stupid is that you are essentially negating class abilities. What good is making an unusable scroll? If you can cast Cure Light Wounds yourself, why can't you use a wand?
Besides, for the Archivist argument, the Archivist spell list is the Cleric spell list at the very least. If you argue that the Archivist doesn't have a spell list, then you must also argue that Favored Souls, Mystics, Spirit Shamans, and Pious Templars also have no spell list. That is due to the fact that they all have mostly the same wording as to what their spell list is, the only significant difference is the word "primarily" in the Archivist text, which in it's context actually means "the Cleric spell list and other spells."
24) Archivist, Heroes of Horror
Spell List for the Purpose of SC/ST Item Activation:
The Archivist's class spell list is all divine spells. If the item is created as a divine magic item, the Archivist can use it without having to make a UMD check.
The Archivist does not have a class spell list. Since it can only draw from the lists of other classes, it cannot make or activate SC/ST Items on its own, and needs to use UMD to activate any SC/ST item, divine or otherwise.
I think there needs to be a third, middle-of-the-road option for "cleric list + any others learned" for this argument. Various rules located in various books (mostly dealing with wizards & learned spells outside their class lists) support this theory, and as such it should be listed here as well.
Also, you should possibly try to include a link on these to whatever thread covers the most ground on each of these arguments -- especially if you don't want this thread to get bogged down in arguments for/against one side or another (which is a real risk in a thread like this).
I have heard that the rules compendium supposedly clarifies that a hydra gets to use all its heads to attack in an AoO. Can someone with said book confirm or deny this? It would put an end to another hotly debated issue.
Crap. I'd never even thought of that. More fun for AoO builds I guess.
Natural weapons are defined as "weapons that are physically a part of a creature," so unarmed strikes qualify. Also, the text of the magic fang and magic weapons spells explicitly say they are.
Unarmed strikes are listed in the weapons table of the PHB with other manufactured weapons and they follow the manufactured weapons rules. Also, a monk is granted the special ability to treat them as natural weapons, which she wouldn't need if they alread are.
Also, a monk is granted the special ability to treat them as natural weapons, which she wouldn't need if they alread are.
Well, you could also say that a monk is granted the special ability to treat them as manufactured weapons, which she wouldn't need if they already are.
The logic is a bit flawed.
Well, you could also say that a monk is granted the special ability to treat them as manufactured weapons, which she wouldn't need if they already are.
The logic is a bit flawed.
The argument here would be that unarmed strikes are neither manufactured nor natural weapons, I guess, a position that also has reasonable support.
1) Extra Spell, Complete Divine:
It allows any spell from any list because there is no restriction and feats are allowed to break the rules.
Unless the magic words "from any spell list" is used (like Wyrm Wizard and Recaster PrC), then this is limited to class list as the FAQ asserts. Even if you can select spells not on your list, this would be useless. All spellcasting classes specifically say that they "cast spells from the spell list"; knowing them is only one requirement. Note that this is explicitly different from psionics.
Extra spell is from CA pg 79
It should be mentioned under Pro that
The feat states: "Benefit: ....used to learn a specific spell that the caster lacks access to and would be unable to research" (CA pg 80)(emphasis mine)
Ah, ok. He's wrong, but ok.
The polymorph chain feats give higher AC bonuses to a character then ANY other spell out there. Barkskin? +5. Alter Self to a Troglodyte does better then that, at level 3! You can get +15 from Poly Self, and +35 and higher from Shapechange.
ANd let's not discount the fact that a form granting you, oh, a 30 Dex IS granting you a +10 AC bonus...and is one of the ways to get a high AC.
So, the Sage might say I'm wrong, but there's no way I'd let a mage exploit this rules loophole without addressing it directly to a spell designed to destroy spells that grant AC boosts.
So, eh to the Sage on this one. It simply makes no sense to allow the spells to 'neener neener' a feat that is tremendously costly to take, and certainly not imbalanced. The feat says 'grants an AC bonus', it does not say 'spells that specifically only grant AC bonuses.' That's rather an important distinction.
===Aelryinth
The polymorph chain feats give higher AC bonuses to a character then ANY other spell out there. Barkskin? +5. Alter Self to a Troglodyte does better then that, at level 3! You can get +15 from Poly Self, and +35 and higher from Shapechange.
ANd let's not discount the fact that a form granting you, oh, a 30 Dex IS granting you a +10 AC bonus...and is one of the ways to get a high AC.
So, the Sage might say I'm wrong, but there's no way I'd let a mage exploit this rules loophole without addressing it directly to a spell designed to destroy spells that grant AC boosts.
So, eh to the Sage on this one. It simply makes no sense to allow the spells to 'neener neener' a feat that is tremendously costly to take, and certainly not imbalanced. The feat says 'grants an AC bonus', it does not say 'spells that specifically only grant AC bonuses.' That's rather an important distinction.
===Aelryinth
It's a wording thing. Polymorph at no point gives you an AC bonus. Polymorph replaces your AC with something that may or may not be higher. Let's try to keep debate out of this thread though. This is solely to show both sides. If you have a better way to word your position (in a relatively concise manner), I'm sure the OP will get edited shortly.
Add: "Dead" PrC levels still function as HD, and give all things any HD would normally provide. "Dead" levels can be revived.
Add: Read paragraph 3. Don't read paragraph 4, especially the last sentence, super-especially the last third of that sentence.
I am afraid I don't quite understand the changes, can you reword them slightly some someone without the text at hand could understand the points more clearly?
-----------
As for aDMg's change, I think he means that the Class Retraining argument is BS.
I'd personally prefer they all be clarified before 4 rolls around, but my suggestion for this thread is that you change them all to format.
Number: Topic
There are numerous rods listed in the DMG with 1/day uses, or 3/day uses. Nightsticks provide 4 uses of Turn Undead, with the requirement that the user can Turn Undead in the first place. They do not confer any unspecified enhancement to Turning Undead, that would be lost when the rod is dropped, sold, destroyed, whatever. Furthermore, you are well within the rules to own multiple Rods of Splendor and use a different rod to reclothe yourself after one set disappeared. Also, one could own 2 Lesser Metamagic Rods of Extend and Extend 6 spells/day up to 3rd level.
I don't like Divine Metamagic so I have to make up reasons why Nightsticks are different from every other rod presented.
#19
[...]
I don't like Divine Metamagic so I have to make up reasons why Nightsticks are different from every other rod presented.
Maybe you should read the first post where the OP says this thread shouldn't devolve into arguments over the merits of the positions.
I.e. does Thicket of Blades trump Tumble, Spring Attack, and Pouncing Charge, etc, or not?
I'm of the personal belief it stops Tumble, because Tumble is normal movement, but probably doesn't stop Spring Attack or manuvers. Of course, if you use the 'cancellation effect', the SA and manuvers cancel out the stance, reinstituting 'normal' effects, and you can AoO them for movement.
It's one of those 'DM calls' issues.
===Aelryinth
It's a wording thing. Polymorph at no point gives you an AC bonus. Polymorph replaces your AC with something that may or may not be higher. Let's try to keep debate out of this thread though. This is solely to show both sides. If you have a better way to word your position (in a relatively concise manner), I'm sure the OP will get edited shortly.
This is a semantics issue, and incorrect. Polymorph can, on successful completion and change to a form, grant you an AC bonus, potentially from several different means. That's a very long way from 'at no point'. Does it EXPRESSLY do so? No, but that's not a requirement of the PMP wording...it's that it does, not that it 'always and only does'.
'Side-stepping' the AC issue by saying that you are going to transform into a Dragon, and 'just incidentally' pick up a +35 Nat AC bonus is just that...semantics. You are clearly trying to get around the wording of the feat, and it's equally clear that without the spell, you don't have the bonus.
But, the Sage did rule the other way, so take it as you like. There's just no way I can personally wrap my head around his answer's logic, however.
The OP's original post is pretty good. The feat itself places NO limits on restricting the spell to only those spells which 'only and directly' provide AC bonuses. It says any spell that provides an AC bonus. And if you shapechange into something that grants you an AC bonus, that Bonus is directly attributable to the spell it comes from. If it isn't, then where in heck DOES the bonus come from? I'd probably stick the underlined portion of the above in the original defense, but it's really not neccessary.
===Aelryinth
Does an Anti-Magic Shell/Field stop line of effect for spell targetting?
-Yes, you cannot cast spells through an AMF anymore then you can cast spells through a glass wall. Being able to see to the other side of it does not grant line of effect. magic cannot pass an AMF, which means you cannot fireball someone on the other side of it, or summon a monster over there any more then you could do so on the other side of a closed door.
-No, because An AMF is not a solid barrier, and only solid barriers will stop line of effect, irrespective of the fact that it blocks all magic.
===Aelryinth
Oh, here's another one.
Does an Anti-Magic Shell/Field stop line of effect for spell targetting?
Not a dispute. IIRC, it's in the Rules Compendium.
Not a dispute. IIRC, it's in the Rules Compendium.
Yup, I think its even in the free excerpt online.
Yup, I think its even in the free excerpt online.
Actually, I dont believe it gets answered, or at least it is in dispute enough that people think you can summon stuff through it and toss fireballs on the other side of it...but then, I might be remembering it wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Here's another controversy:
Do the various Bloodline and Legacy classes allow you to progress limited level PrC abilities higher then they were originally designed to go in the base class? (Example: War Weaver, Hellfire Warlock)
Yes, there is nothing in the ability specifically limiting the increase in levels to 'only' the limit of the PrC.
No, by default those abilities top out at the maximum level set by the PrC, unless stated otherwise.
And as for debate topics, how come katanas being the most ubar of all swords didn't make the list? :P
================
Worse, I don't think the whole UMD/Staff level thing is mentioned as a debate topic, but I might have missed that, too.
==+Aelryinth
This is a semantics issue
I agree. I'm not going to derail this thread with a debate though. If you'd like, we could have a flamewar on the skills & feats forum. Not that it'll change either reading.
Actually, I dont believe it gets answered, or at least it is in dispute enough that people think you can summon stuff through it and toss fireballs on the other side of it...but then, I might be remembering it wrong.
You are. In more ways than one.
Spells don’t function in an antimagic area, but an antimagic area doesn’t block line of effect.
It's in the excerpt, too.
#19
There are numerous rods listed in the DMG with 1/day uses, or 3/day uses. Nightsticks provide 4 uses of Turn Undead, with the requirement that the user can Turn Undead in the first place. They do not confer any unspecified enhancement to Turning Undead, that would be lost when the rod is dropped, sold, destroyed, whatever. Furthermore, you are well within the rules to own multiple Rods of Splendor and use a different rod to reclothe yourself after one set disappeared. Also, one could own 2 Lesser Metamagic Rods of Extend and Extend 6 spells/day up to 3rd level.
I don't like Divine Metamagic so I have to make up reasons why Nightsticks are different from every other rod presented.
If someone has a better con argument, they are free to supply it. I was just supplying a new pro position. I'm used to the limit of 1 Nightstick, but there doesn't seem to be much rules basis for it. Unless Rods from MIC or other books behave differently from the ones I checked through in the DMG.
Divine Feats are too powerful if given access to cheap extra turning. Magic items that grant feats do not follow a strict pricing guideline, but rather vary according to the power of the feat. Nightsticks are underpriced. They also don't stack due to the well known rule of Stacking > ??? > Profit.
Curmudgeon
I compiled a list of feats that can be granted by magic items, and reverse-engineered the price of the feat alone for those I could.
Alertness 10,000 g.p. cost
Ioun Stone - Dark Blue Rhomboid: grants Alertness, as the feat (DMG)
Aquatic Shot 3,000 g.p. cost
Pearl Trident: +3 returning pearlsteel trident, wielder gains Aquatic Shot feat with the trident (or increases the effect if already has Aquatic Shot or Far Shot) 36,815 (Stormwrack)
Improved Bull Rush +2 bonus cost to weapon
Battleaxe of the Bull: +2 battleaxe, grants Improved Bull Rush feat, knock back foes when wielded 2H 32,310 (Arms and Equipment Guide)
Combat Reflexes 10,500 g.p. cost
Serpent Armor: +3 leather, +2 Ref saves, wearer gains Combat Reflexes feat 21,660 (Savage Species)
Deflect Arrows (2 options) +2 bonus cost to armor/shield/?? cost
Arrow Deflection: This shield protects the wielder as if he had the Deflect Arrows feat. Shield Special Abilities table (DMG)
Arrowdeath Flail: +2/+1 dire flail, wielder gains Deflect Arrow feat, additional +2 to AC when full defense vs ranged weapons 33,690 (Arms and Equipment Guide)
Empower Turning 5,040 g.p. cost
Holy Symbol, Greater: Gain Empower Turning feat 5,040 (Defenders of the Faith)
Extra Turning 1,500 g.p. cost
Sword of the Glorious Pearl +3 aquatic holy pearlsteel bastard sword, Extra Turning feat 75,335 (Stormwrack)
Great Fortitude 6,000 g.p. cost
Belt of Endurance: +2 Con and Great Fortitude feat 10,000 (Arms and Equipment Guide)
Improved Combat Reflexes 10,000 g.p. cost
Everwhirling Chain (Epic): +4 defending everdancing spiked chain of speed, gain Improved Combat Reflexes feat 5,220,325 (Epic Level Handbook)
Improved Disarm 10,000 g.p. cost
Disarming Flail: +2 heavy flail, +2 to disarm attempts and gain Improved Disarm feat 18,395 (Arms and Equipment Guide)
Improved Sunder +1 bonus cost to weapon
Sundering (Psionic) special weapon ability: Wielder gains Improved Sunder feat (Expanded Psionics Handbook)
Improved Trip 10,000 g.p. cost
Staff of Mighty Sweeping: +2 sweeping quarterstaff, wielder gains Improved Trip feat 28,600 (Magic of Faerun)
[This one is odd on a couple of levels. Firstly, while in real life a quarterstaff is an excellent tripping weapon, D&D 3.5 doesn't recognize that. (The official PH list of tripping weapons is confined to: bolas, spiked chain, flail, dire flail, heavy flail, guisarme, halberd, gnome hooked hammer, kama, scythe, sickle, and whip.) Secondly, when I computed the cost of this item I realized they only priced the MW quarterstaff as a double weapon. The rest of the enhancement (+3 bonus total) is applied only to one end.]
Improved Unarmed Strike (2 options) 1,000 g.p. cost
Bracers of Striking: Wearer armed even when unarmed, may be modified with special weapon abilities 1,310 (Magic of Faerun)
Ring of Might: Wearer treated as armed, unarmed attack does 1D8 damage 4,000 (Magic of Faerun)
Incite Rage (epic feat) 10,500 g.p. cost
Chaosbringer (Epic) +6 greataxe of chaotic power, rage 1/day, grants Incite Rage epic feat if wielder has greater rage 4,025,350 (Epic Level Handbook)
Mobility +2 bonus cost to armor/shield
Armor of Mobility: +2 leather, grants Mobility feat 16,160 (Draconomicon)
Mounted Combat OR Ride-By Attack 7,000 g.p. cost
Battle Bridle: +10 to Ride checks, gain Mounted Combat feat or Ride-By Attack 9,000 (Magic of Faerun)
Positive Energy Aura (epic feat) 20,000 g.p. cost
Finaldeath (Epic): +5 undead dread ghost touch morningstar, immune to energy drain, gain Positive Energy Aura feat if capable of turning undead 3,580,308 (Epic Level Handbook)
Powerful Charge 5,000 g.p. cost
Boots of Charging: Gain Powerful Charge feat 5,000 (Miniatures Handbook)
Precise Shot +1 bonus cost to weapon
Precise weapon special ability: Grants wielder Precise Shot feat (Arms and Equipment Guide)
Sandskimmer 5,000 g.p. cost
Ring of Sandstriding: Wearer gains Sandskimmer feat (Sandstorm)
Scorpion's Resolve AND Scorpion's Sense +32,000 g.p. cost
Scorpion Carapace Armor grants Scorpion's Resolve and Scorpion's Sense feats (Sandstorm)
Spirited Charge +2 bonus cost to weapon
Lance of Therra: +2 holy lance, wielder gains Spirited Charg feat, bane against evil outsiders when wielded by worshiper of Meredros 98,310 (Magic of Faerun)
Track 20,000 g.p. cost
Spear of the Hunt: +1 animal bane shortspear, gain Track feat 28,302 (Arms and Equipment Guide)
Two-Weapon Fighting OR Improved Two-Weapon Fighting 18,000 g.p. cost
Gloves of the Balanced Hands: Gain Two-Weapon Fighting feat (or Improved Two-Weapon Fighting feat if already have) 18,000 (Magic of Faerun)
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Limited Use feat-duplicating items:
Metamagic Feats (Items are limited to 3 uses/day; various costs)
Metamagic -- Chaining Spell; Rod (Complete Arcane)
Metamagic -- Cooperation Spell; Rod (Complete Arcane)
Metamagic -- Empower Spell; Rod (DMG)
Metamagic -- Enlarge Spell; Rod (DMG)
Metamagic -- Extend Spell; Rod (DMG)
Metamagic -- Maximize Spell; Rod (DMG)
Metamagic -- Quicken Spell; Rod (DMG)
Metamagic -- Sculpting Spell; Rod (Complete Arcane)
Metamagic -- Silent Spell; Rod (DMG)
Metamagic -- Still Spell; Baneblades of Demron - Faervian +4 holy spell storing outsider (evil) bane undead bane longsword, Still Spell feat 3/day 134,970 (Player's Guide to Faerun)
Metamagic -- Substitution Spell; Rod (Complete Arcane)
Snatch Arrows; Gloves of Arrow Snatching: Snatch Arrows feat 2/day 4,000 (DMG)
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
?? cost items:
Blind-Fight
Singing Sword: +2 dancing longsword, intelligent, +6 to Perform (singing), detect law, grants Blind-Fight feat, haste 1/day 127,855 (Song and Silence)
Cleave (2 options)
Rankbreaker Glaive: +2 glaive, +1D6 damage on charge, gain Cleave feat 32,308 (Arms and Equipment Guide)
Sylvan Scimitar: +3 scimitar, +1D6 damage and Cleave feat outdoors in temperate environment 23,657 (DMG)
Deflect Arrows AND Infinite Deflection
Quarterstaff of Alacrity (Epic): +5 quarterstaff of speed on both ends, +5 to Ref saves, gain Deflect Arrows and Infinite Deflection feats 462,600 (Epic Level Handbook)
Improved Counterspell
Rod of Reversal: Spell turning, grants wielder Improved Counterspell feat 132,000 (Complete Divine)
Improved Initiative (2 options)
Bracers of the Blinding Strike: Bracers of armor +6, gain Improved Initiative feat, extra attack as if using a speed weapon 102,000 (Magic of Faerun)
Dragonfly Medallion: Grants Improved Initiative feat (or +1 to Initiative), transforms into monstrous dragonfly 1/day 29,760 (Arms and Equipment Guide)
Improved Sunder OR Great Sunder
Necklace of the Marauding Beast - Rampaging Boar: Gain Improved Sunder feat (or Great Sunder), +1 Con, +1 round of rage 12,440 (Arms and Equipment Guide)
Maximize Turning
Mark of Apostasy: Gain Maximize Turning feat to rebuke undead, fear 3/day 38,880 (Defenders of the Faith)
Metamagic -- Piercing Cold
Rod of Piercing Cold: +2 frost dagger, cast spells 3 times per day with Piercing Cold metamagic feat (Frostburn)
Sand Camouflage
Cape of the Wastes: Endure elements effect, wearer gains Sand Camouflage feat 30,000 (Sandstorm)
Trample, Ride-By Attack, AND Spirited Charge
Horseshoes of the Peerless Steed (Epic): Rider gains +10 to Ride checks, grants rider and mount Trample, Ride-By Attack, and Spirited Charge feats, double mount's speed, mount gains SR 32 vs. enchantments 217,000 (Epic Level Handbook)
Most of the deconstruction of item costs to extract the price for feats is straightforward by following the cost tables. By looking at several items I determined (with reasonable confidence, I think) that WotC figures the cost for a single save bonus (such as Reflex) is 1/3 the cost of a resistance bonus to all three saves. (When added to an item with other features, such as a granted feat, remember the 1.5x cost multiplier for an additional property.)
Alertness 10,000 g.p. cost
Ioun Stone - Dark Blue Rhomboid: grants Alertness, as the feat (DMG)
Aquatic Shot 3,000 g.p. cost
Pearl Trident: +3 returning pearlsteel trident, wielder gains Aquatic Shot feat with the trident (or increases the effect if already has Aquatic Shot or Far Shot) 36,815 (Stormwrack)
Improved Bull Rush +2 bonus cost to weapon
Battleaxe of the Bull: +2 battleaxe, grants Improved Bull Rush feat, knock back foes when wielded 2H 32,310 (Arms and Equipment Guide)
Combat Reflexes 10,500 g.p. cost
Serpent Armor: +3 leather, +2 Ref saves, wearer gains Combat Reflexes feat 21,660 (Savage Species)
Deflect Arrows (2 options) +2 bonus cost to armor/shield/?? cost
Arrow Deflection: This shield protects the wielder as if he had the Deflect Arrows feat. Shield Special Abilities table (DMG)
Arrowdeath Flail: +2/+1 dire flail, wielder gains Deflect Arrow feat, additional +2 to AC when full defense vs ranged weapons 33,690 (Arms and Equipment Guide)
Empower Turning 5,040 g.p. cost
Holy Symbol, Greater: Gain Empower Turning feat 5,040 (Defenders of the Faith)
Extra Turning 1,500 g.p. cost
Sword of the Glorious Pearl +3 aquatic holy pearlsteel bastard sword, Extra Turning feat 75,335 (Stormwrack)
Great Fortitude 6,000 g.p. cost
Belt of Endurance: +2 Con and Great Fortitude feat 10,000 (Arms and Equipment Guide)
Improved Combat Reflexes 10,000 g.p. cost
Everwhirling Chain (Epic): +4 defending everdancing spiked chain of speed, gain Improved Combat Reflexes feat 5,220,325 (Epic Level Handbook)
Improved Disarm 10,000 g.p. cost
Disarming Flail: +2 heavy flail, +2 to disarm attempts and gain Improved Disarm feat 18,395 (Arms and Equipment Guide)
Improved Sunder +1 bonus cost to weapon
Sundering (Psionic) special weapon ability: Wielder gains Improved Sunder feat (Expanded Psionics Handbook)
Improved Trip 10,000 g.p. cost
Staff of Mighty Sweeping: +2 sweeping quarterstaff, wielder gains Improved Trip feat 28,600 (Magic of Faerun)
[This one is odd on a couple of levels. Firstly, while in real life a quarterstaff is an excellent tripping weapon, D&D 3.5 doesn't recognize that. (The official PH list of tripping weapons is confined to: bolas, spiked chain, flail, dire flail, heavy flail, guisarme, halberd, gnome hooked hammer, kama, scythe, sickle, and whip.) Secondly, when I computed the cost of this item I realized they only priced the MW quarterstaff as a double weapon. The rest of the enhancement (+3 bonus total) is applied only to one end.]
Improved Unarmed Strike (2 options) 1,000 g.p. cost
Bracers of Striking: Wearer armed even when unarmed, may be modified with special weapon abilities 1,310 (Magic of Faerun)
Ring of Might: Wearer treated as armed, unarmed attack does 1D8 damage 4,000 (Magic of Faerun)
Incite Rage (epic feat) 10,500 g.p. cost
Chaosbringer (Epic) +6 greataxe of chaotic power, rage 1/day, grants Incite Rage epic feat if wielder has greater rage 4,025,350 (Epic Level Handbook)
Mobility +2 bonus cost to armor/shield
Armor of Mobility: +2 leather, grants Mobility feat 16,160 (Draconomicon)
Mounted Combat OR Ride-By Attack 7,000 g.p. cost
Battle Bridle: +10 to Ride checks, gain Mounted Combat feat or Ride-By Attack 9,000 (Magic of Faerun)
Positive Energy Aura (epic feat) 20,000 g.p. cost
Finaldeath (Epic): +5 undead dread ghost touch morningstar, immune to energy drain, gain Positive Energy Aura feat if capable of turning undead 3,580,308 (Epic Level Handbook)
Powerful Charge 5,000 g.p. cost
Boots of Charging: Gain Powerful Charge feat 5,000 (Miniatures Handbook)
Precise Shot +1 bonus cost to weapon
Precise weapon special ability: Grants wielder Precise Shot feat (Arms and Equipment Guide)
Sandskimmer 5,000 g.p. cost
Ring of Sandstriding: Wearer gains Sandskimmer feat (Sandstorm)
Scorpion's Resolve AND Scorpion's Sense +32,000 g.p. cost
Scorpion Carapace Armor grants Scorpion's Resolve and Scorpion's Sense feats (Sandstorm)
Spirited Charge +2 bonus cost to weapon
Lance of Therra: +2 holy lance, wielder gains Spirited Charg feat, bane against evil outsiders when wielded by worshiper of Meredros 98,310 (Magic of Faerun)
Track 20,000 g.p. cost
Spear of the Hunt: +1 animal bane shortspear, gain Track feat 28,302 (Arms and Equipment Guide)
Two-Weapon Fighting OR Improved Two-Weapon Fighting 18,000 g.p. cost
Gloves of the Balanced Hands: Gain Two-Weapon Fighting feat (or Improved Two-Weapon Fighting feat if already have) 18,000 (Magic of Faerun)
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Limited Use feat-duplicating items:
Metamagic Feats (Items are limited to 3 uses/day; various costs)
Metamagic -- Chaining Spell; Rod (Complete Arcane)
Metamagic -- Cooperation Spell; Rod (Complete Arcane)
Metamagic -- Empower Spell; Rod (DMG)
Metamagic -- Enlarge Spell; Rod (DMG)
Metamagic -- Extend Spell; Rod (DMG)
Metamagic -- Maximize Spell; Rod (DMG)
Metamagic -- Quicken Spell; Rod (DMG)
Metamagic -- Sculpting Spell; Rod (Complete Arcane)
Metamagic -- Silent Spell; Rod (DMG)
Metamagic -- Still Spell; Baneblades of Demron - Faervian +4 holy spell storing outsider (evil) bane undead bane longsword, Still Spell feat 3/day 134,970 (Player's Guide to Faerun)
Metamagic -- Substitution Spell; Rod (Complete Arcane)
Snatch Arrows; Gloves of Arrow Snatching: Snatch Arrows feat 2/day 4,000 (DMG)
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
?? cost items:
Blind-Fight
Singing Sword: +2 dancing longsword, intelligent, +6 to Perform (singing), detect law, grants Blind-Fight feat, haste 1/day 127,855 (Song and Silence)
Cleave (2 options)
Rankbreaker Glaive: +2 glaive, +1D6 damage on charge, gain Cleave feat 32,308 (Arms and Equipment Guide)
Sylvan Scimitar: +3 scimitar, +1D6 damage and Cleave feat outdoors in temperate environment 23,657 (DMG)
Deflect Arrows AND Infinite Deflection
Quarterstaff of Alacrity (Epic): +5 quarterstaff of speed on both ends, +5 to Ref saves, gain Deflect Arrows and Infinite Deflection feats 462,600 (Epic Level Handbook)
Improved Counterspell
Rod of Reversal: Spell turning, grants wielder Improved Counterspell feat 132,000 (Complete Divine)
Improved Initiative (2 options)
Bracers of the Blinding Strike: Bracers of armor +6, gain Improved Initiative feat, extra attack as if using a speed weapon 102,000 (Magic of Faerun)
Dragonfly Medallion: Grants Improved Initiative feat (or +1 to Initiative), transforms into monstrous dragonfly 1/day 29,760 (Arms and Equipment Guide)
Improved Sunder OR Great Sunder
Necklace of the Marauding Beast - Rampaging Boar: Gain Improved Sunder feat (or Great Sunder), +1 Con, +1 round of rage 12,440 (Arms and Equipment Guide)
Maximize Turning
Mark of Apostasy: Gain Maximize Turning feat to rebuke undead, fear 3/day 38,880 (Defenders of the Faith)
Metamagic -- Piercing Cold
Rod of Piercing Cold: +2 frost dagger, cast spells 3 times per day with Piercing Cold metamagic feat (Frostburn)
Sand Camouflage
Cape of the Wastes: Endure elements effect, wearer gains Sand Camouflage feat 30,000 (Sandstorm)
Trample, Ride-By Attack, AND Spirited Charge
Horseshoes of the Peerless Steed (Epic): Rider gains +10 to Ride checks, grants rider and mount Trample, Ride-By Attack, and Spirited Charge feats, double mount's speed, mount gains SR 32 vs. enchantments 217,000 (Epic Level Handbook)
Most of the deconstruction of item costs to extract the price for feats is straightforward by following the cost tables. By looking at several items I determined (with reasonable confidence, I think) that WotC figures the cost for a single save bonus (such as Reflex) is 1/3 the cost of a resistance bonus to all three saves. (When added to an item with other features, such as a granted feat, remember the 1.5x cost multiplier for an additional property.)
A nightstick operates by increasing YOUR number of turn attempts per day, ie. it resets the top number. Even as an unnamed bonus, it comes from the same set of items, i.e. Nightsticks. In the same way multiple Ioun Stone level raises won't stack, neither will Nightsticks.
As for why you can't put down an old one, pick up a new one, and have 4 'fresh' Turn attempts, that's because of how all temporary power-ups work in the game.
If you have a base 4 turn attempts, equip Nightsticks, you now have a Maximum of 8 turn attempts. If you burn 6 turn attempts, you are down to 2.
If you then set down the Nightsticks, you are not still at 2. This is not a temporary hp bonus. You are at the condition of having USED 6 turn attempts. Since you only have 4 maximum, you are at -2, effectively 0. Picking up a 'new' Nightstick just 'resets' your maximum back to 8, and lifts you back up to 2.
The closest analogy is Hit Points gained from using Rage. When you blow a Rage and get +3 hp/level, and then 'lose' those hit points, those HP are taken off your maximum, so that when your Rage expires, you are at the condition of still being down a lot of hp (which is why you can die when a rage expires). The Nightstick boost works the same way, except you don't get dead...you just can't channel Turns anymore.
There's nothing in the Nightstick description that says they are an exemption from 'same source' stacking. Just like Raging multiple times doesn't stack bonuses, using multiple Nightsticks at once doesn't stack them. Unnamed bonuses, right?
That's the Con argument against them stacking. Not the whiny rule 0 sentence you supplied.
The Pro argument comes down to two things: I just have to carry the rods, and/or I can hold as many in my hands as I like; and they are an exception to same source stacking and so stack freely.
Yes, the Con argument tends to be longer, because you actually have to show people the math, and make them understand the difference between temporary and expendable buffs. It doesn't say Nightsticks power 4 turn attempts/day...it says it increases the amounts of turns YOU can use by 4. That's a subtle and very real difference. If the Nightsticks individually powered 4 turn attempts and you had nothing to do with it, well, it would work as the Munchkins desire, no questions.
===Aelryinth
There are two ways the nightsticks can work:
1) by increasing your maximum # of turn attempts per day (this is the more likely one, considering how the item's effect is worded)
2) as a charged item
If (1), then it is exactly as aelryinth says: Multiple bonuses from the same source (or multiple identical sources) do not stack. This is spelled out explicitly in the effect stacking rules.
If (2), then you cannot use the nightsticks to power any divine feats - they would be more like a staff in this case, and you cannot use charges from a staff (or any other charged item) to power feats/abilities (unless a feat/ability explicitly allows you to).
If you then set down the Nightsticks, you are not still at 2. This is not a temporary hp bonus. You are at the condition of having USED 6 turn attempts. Since you only have 4 maximum, you are at -2, effectively 0. Picking up a 'new' Nightstick just 'resets' your maximum back to 8, and lifts you back up to 2.
===Aelryinth
Could you point out some other examples of this? How/when are turn attempts defined as using this mechanic? Furthermore, why can't they work as a use/day item to power feats/abilities?*
*I'm not trying to sound antagonistic, I just don't know where to look to read these rules for myself.
I'm sorry that I can't find the source, but I distinctly remember it.
I have a suggestion...
You are not going to stop people from discussing these arguments here. I suggest you insist people create a Post OFF THREAD and link it here IF they wish to debate some point.
Thank you.
Another point of contention issue is the Stance Thicket of Blades versus feats, skills and manuvers that allow you to move thru spaces without suffering AoO's.
Care to do a stab at the Pro/Con of this issue?
And as for debate topics, how come katanas being the most ubar of all swords didn't make the list?
I assume you are not serious, but if you are then this is why:
This is not a rules based debate, but rather a religious debate.
Care to do a stab at the Pro/Con of this issue?
Thicket of blades makes all movement provoke AoOs.
Tumble does not provoke AoOs.
Spring Attack does not provoke AoOs.
Which absolute is correct?
I assume you are not serious, but if you are then this is why:
This is not a rules based debate, but rather a religious debate.
Oh, Lord, that has to be one of the funniest yet truest replies I've seen posted on these boards.
===Aelryinth
Could you point out some other examples of this? How/when are turn attempts defined as using this mechanic? Furthermore, why can't they work as a use/day item to power feats/abilities?*
*I'm not trying to sound antagonistic, I just don't know where to look to read these rules for myself.
The closest relevant ability is Rage. when rage is 'in hand', you gain x bonuses. When rage 'goes away', you lose the bonuses, but you keep up anything that was 'used up' from the bonuses...in other words, you've taken 100 dmg, you've still got 100 dmg, not 100 dmg-Rage Hp.
Nightsticks says nothing about paying for the extra turn attempts. It gives you extras exactly as if your Cha was higher, or something. If you use up those turn attempts, they count against your total used, regardless of your maximum at the time. Just like hit points...if you've got 100 dmg, it counts against your HP, regardless of rage granting you an extra +60 or not.
Nightsticks do not use the 'temporary' language that signifies keeping the turnings they grant seperate from your own. Ergo, the 'moving ceiling' rule applies, not the 'use 4 per stick' rule.
================================
As for Thicket of Blades, Archerpwr hit it pretty well.
In Thicket of Blade stance, all movement provokes AoO's.
Tumble checks, Spring attacks and certain manuvers do not provoke AoO's from movement.
Which absolute do you consider working?
===Aelryinth
"15) Shadow, Monster Manual
The only monster that deals only STR damage can take feats such as Power Attack to increase the amount of STR damage dealt. This is allowed because ability damage is damage and Power Attack increases the amount of "damage" done.
There is a difference between "damage" and "ability damage" when used in spells and abilities. While it is true that ability damage is a type of damage, any spell or ability that lists simply "damage" will take the form of damage (such as a Fighter's Longsword is slashing damage) or if no damage type is provided the damage will be positive or negative whichever makes the most sense. This is covered in a rules of the game article about Sneak Attack and how Sneak Attack will always be hit point damage despite the fact it simply says "damage" in the Sneak Attack ability as written in the Players Handbook. There is also an implied meaning of "0 damage and 1d6 STR damage" in the Shadow's attack forms."
Well I don't see how this is an argument. Power attack has a pre-req of Str-13+ and Shadows as Incorporeal creatures have no Str. score. They don't even (and can never) qualify for the feat so the point is Moot.
variant monk from UA nets you power attack without need to meet the requirements...
voi lá!
Pro: Abilities like sneak attack damage dice or fighter feats are are calculated by level through equations like [(level/2)+1]. Proof of this is when you increase rogue or warlock level through PrCs that increase previous class levels, said primary class abilities increase also, therefore is implied.
Con: Abilities like sneak attack damage dice do not have a written equation, therefore cannot be applied. Only abilities that explicitly specify the levels that character has in that class as a variable apply, eg aberrant paragon and caster levels.
WizO_Unicorn
Please respect the OP's request that issues not be debated in this thread.
WizO_Unicorn
With all due respect:
1) risner is the OP
2) This thread is for debatable issues, as in issues that can be debated both ways. SA and bloodlines are not one of those things. Bloodlines are quite explicit on how they work. Just take our word for it if you haven't analyzed the text yourself.
Sorry that I haven't thoroughly checked if anyone has mentioned it, but I would say that Bloodline's "calculations of level based abilities" versus vague class abilities is fairly debated.
Pro: Abilities like sneak attack damage dice or fighter feats are are calculated by level through equations like [(level/2)+1]. Proof of this is when you increase rogue or warlock level through PrCs that increase previous class levels, said primary class abilities increase also, therefore is implied.
Con: Abilities like sneak attack damage dice do not have a written equation, therefore cannot be applied. Only abilities that explicitly specify the levels that character has in that class as a variable apply, eg aberrant paragon and caster levels.
The general 3.5 errata clears this up completely. It does not work for sneak attacks, and this is no longer up for debate.
JaronK
A nightstick operates by increasing YOUR number of turn attempts per day, ie. it resets the top number. Even as an unnamed bonus, it comes from the same set of items, i.e. Nightsticks. In the same way multiple Ioun Stone level raises won't stack, neither will Nightsticks.
This is incorrect, explicitly so.
Nightsticks say they work exactly like Extra Turning. Extra Turning says it stacks with itself. Ergo, Nightsticks stack with themselves.
If that were not the case, it would be debatable, but as it stands, it's really not. Nightsticks stack with themselves because they say they do. Ioun Stones do not say something like that.
JaronK
As for Thicket of Blades, Archerpwr hit it pretty well.
In Thicket of Blade stance, all movement provokes AoO's.
Tumble checks, Spring attacks and certain manuvers do not provoke AoO's from movement.
Which absolute do you consider working?
===Aelryinth
Just as an update, the Rules Compendium, page 5 (I think, I am on easter vacation and away from books) covers this. The more specific instance overrules the more general one.
Hence, all movement does provoke AoOs in Thicket of Blades.
Or in other words:
Pro: Being an aasimar, tiefling or having the Otherwordly feat gives a character all the martial weapon proficiencies.
Con: No, only if they have outisder HD would they have all the martial weapon proficiencies.
It is something that has bugged me for a while and I can't find a straight answer as of when some abilities vary with monster HD and when with class HD.
Is there a solid ruling anywhere about if a creature type grants weapon/armor feats all the time or only when it comes with monster HD?
Or in other words:
Pro: Being an aasimar, tiefling or having the Otherwordly feat gives a character all the martial weapon proficiencies.
Con: No, only if they have outisder HD would they have all the martial weapon proficiencies.
It is something that has bugged me for a while and I can't find a straight answer as of when some abilities vary with monster HD and when with class HD.
It's just this simple:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#outsiderType
It'd debatable whether Aasimar get Medium Armor Proficiency for free, but not whether or not they get Martial Weapon Proficiency for free.
28 Unarmed strikes, Players Handbook
Just as an update, the Rules Compendium, page 5 (I think, I am on easter vacation and away from books) covers this. The more specific instance overrules the more general one.
Hence, all movement does provoke AoOs in Thicket of Blades.
Ooh. Kewl.
Send the book to CustServ
I have sent it to them and to the errata writer.
You have got to be kidding me.
Common sense. Please.
If you have suggestions on how to better write the Con, post it here. What you wrote can't be used. If you would like to debate the merit of it being a question at all, take that to another thread and I am sure the people who wanted that in the list will be happy to join you.
Ultimate Magus / Practiced Spellcaster
Pro
Because the text in Ultimate Magus refers to advancing the class with the lowest caster level, Practiced Spellcaster can be used to switch which class gets its casting advanced at levels 1, 4, and 7.
I think we can take the Rainbow Servant off the list. The Portuguese version of Complete Divine apparently has it listed as 10/10 casting both in the text and the table. That should be the end of the controversy.
Nah. We've already had threads on 'Does stuff written in foreign count as RAW' on this very issue.
If you have suggestions on how to better write the Con, post it here. What you wrote can't be used. If you would like to debate the merit of it being a question at all, take that to another thread and I am sure the people who wanted that in the list will be happy to join you.
Yeah, sorry. It was just a knee-jerk reaction to this being a heavily debated topic at all. The entire premise of the debate just seems completely nonsensical to me. Anyway, carry on.
Nah. We've already had threads on 'Does stuff written in foreign count as RAW' on this very issue.
If that is the case, according to the FAQ, then 10/10 is the Rainbow Servant's casting progression. The text clearly states "at each level", not "at each level indicated on the table", which other PrCs do have. In fact, it is the nay-sayers that point to a foreign edition (French, I think) as proof that the RS was meant to be 6/10, and it is their trump card over the FAQ as that is the "most recent" edition. This is where the controversy stemmed from, as far as I know. This is no longer the case...
Ultimate magus is worthless as a caster without practiced spellcaster, but that may have been the misguided RAI when they designed the class.
Not really, in the case of table trumps text here you simply cheese Ultimate Magus with Precocious Apprentice instead: Wizard 1/(Spontaneous) 2/Master Specialist 2. Since Wizard is the lower class level, it gets the three bumps.
WotC should have just printed the class with 2 single-progression levels instead of 3, then there wouldn't be any fuss over it whatsoever, and it still would have been a perfectly acceptable class.
Not really, in the case of table trumps text here you simply cheese Ultimate Magus with Precocious Apprentice instead: Wizard 1/(Spontaneous) 2/Master Specialist 2. Since Wizard is the lower class level, it gets the three bumps.
WotC should have just printed the class with 2 single-progression levels instead of 3, then there wouldn't be any fuss over it whatsoever, and it still would have been a perfectly acceptable class.
Then we get into the PA debate.
Then we get into the PA debate.
Yeah, and thats also a different argument, and even has another contingency (Sublime Chord). In a vacuum, the Practiced Spellcaster -> Ultimate Magus combo argument is totally unnecessary. It can be "cheesed" to usefulness regardless of how you try to beat it down.
Thats one of so many issues I take with this thread.
1) Many arguments are totally unnecessary, the desired effects can so often be obtained via alternative paths.
2) Many arguments are simply not argued, either because one side is so ludicrously not RAW (no evidence cited, no logical thinking used) or because a CustServ ruling (minimum) or Errata (maximum) has resolved the issue.
3) Many arguments have heavily opinionated pro/con lines, making one of the sides appear as above.
4) Rinser is doing a terrible job moderating the thread, simply slapping up whatever arguments get posted no matter how inane.
There are just a few weeks remaining until the launch of 4th Edition, at which point Sage Advice will convert to 4th Edition topics. Until then, we wanted to cover several of the lingering questions you’ve put forward—such as those listed in the Book of Heavily Debated Topics. We’re pleased to offer the following answers and advice to help clear up these questions!
(And he says nightsticks and orange ioun stones don't stack, and recommends that only one nightstick can be used per day.)
Yeeeeeah. Nice try, guys.
Sage Advice today sounds like they may be planning on tackling these questions in the run up to the 4e release. That would be rather cool.
Ok, that is seriously good news!
"The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result."
That's the sticking point in the Antimagic Field. Once the effect enters the field is the conjuration itself in effect, or is it just the result?
[thread=1013901]Crystal Shard vs Antimagic Field?[/thread]
Check out this week’s Sage Advice, I think you might find them of interest. ;)
Thanks so much for gathering these up.
(I have similar gripes against dispels as well).
You're essentially saying that, in the RbS example, the rules are with the power side but that DMs should houserule it. This gives both sides a pretty good claim to legitimacy.
Also, the "adds cleric spells to your list" is probably a part of the issue. If that adds all the spells to the Beguiler and Warmges spells knows, 6/10 is perfectly balanced.
If you only get to pick from them when you can learn a new spell, 6/10 is pointless.
Still, it's a pretty sad ruling, IMHO.
Sage's translation:
"The RULES say you follow the text, but the Sage thinks that this is bunk. Ignore the rules and follow the table."
So, what do you call DnD again? Oh, that's right, a system of rules. So, we should just ignore DnD, huh? Way to go, Sage![/rant]
Sorry. Had to get that off my chest.
If it is 10/10 progression, learn the spells as your class normally learns spells when leveling:
It is broken strong for a Wizard, who will just buy scrolls and add all the choice cleric spells.
It is busted weak for a Sorcerer, who probably won't pick any of the domain spells, and any Cleric spells he picks or shifts out in the last 4 levels must be percieved to be stronger than the top arcane spells of that level.
A long dip is ok for the warmage and beguiler, who can always use free domains, but can't use the capstone ability.
If it is 10/10, add the spells to your class list, it'll be pretty much the same as above for wizards and sorcerers, but a no-brainer for Warmages and Beguilers. Even more broken for them than for wizards.
6/10, learn spells as your class normally learns spells, it is quite weak for Wizards. A choice of cleric spells level 1-8 is not really worth trading away arcane spells level 9 for, if you're a wizard. Npc fodder.
For sorcerers, it is utterly useless. Plain Sorcerer 20 beats it by degrees of magnitude.
For Warmages and Beguilers it is not even a dip any more. The domains are not worth the spell retardation, and the capstone is pointless.
6/10 add the spells to your class list is the same as above for Sorcerers and Wizards. For Beguilers and Warmages, it becomes worth it, but not a no-brainer.
So from the ruling I'd say the last interpretation (6/10 adds spells to the class list) is the only one where the class "maintains a good game balance for these classes within the larger game."
Otherwise any spellcaster that takes it ends up far weaker than he would have been if he hadn't.
Wizards and Sorcerers get them on their spell list, but they have to learn them normally. This is also very explicitly stated.
I just don't see the controversy about the RS' capstone ability. The 6/10 or 10/10 issue, however, was contentious, but even that has been cleared up by both the Sage (whose rambling suggestion totally **BEGGARS** belief) AND the latest foreign reprint of CDiv.
I'd say 10/10 without adding spells to class list, just enabling them for learning is ok. Class-list caster just don't need to take the class.
There is still one hitch, though: It says somewhere "the spells are cast as divine spells". Now a strict DM could argue here, that they use Wisdom as the DC-stat, since all divine spells use wisdom.
All things considered, someone should just rewrite the whole class.
There is still one hitch, though: It says somewhere "the spells are cast as divine spells". Now a strict DM could argue here, that they use Wisdom as the DC-stat, since all divine spells use wisdom.
Shunenja. Favoured Soul. Archivist.
Capstone adds all domains spells and cleric spells to your Warmage, Dread Necro, Beguiler, and any of the "you get all spells on list known" casters. That is very explicit, and nothing that has been said anywhere contradicts this.
Wizards and Sorcerers get them on their spell list, but they have to learn them normally. This is also very explicitly stated.
I just don't see the controversy about the RS' capstone ability. The 6/10 or 10/10 issue, however, was contentious, but even that has been cleared up by both the Sage (whose rambling suggestion totally **BEGGARS** belief) AND the latest foreign reprint of CDiv.
The actual text says: "...can learn and cast spells from the Cleric list, even if they don't appear on the lists of any spellcasting class he has. Such spells are cast as divine spells if they don't appear on the sorcerer/wizard or Bard spell lists."
Not exactly explicit. The controversy is that the Warmage and Beguiler have no method for learning spells, they just gain access to all the spells on their list.
Also doesn't mention domain spells.
I'd say 10/10 without adding spells to class list, just enabling them for learning is ok. Class-list caster just don't need to take the class.
I feel it would be over the curve for wizards, who on attaining the final level would go scribe all the good cleric spells into his spellbook. No real downside. Your mileage may vary.
All things considered, someone should just rewrite the whole class.
Agreed. It really needs errata, rather than a sage ruling.
To me the ruling says: "The rules say its 10/10. We recommend houseruling it, due to it being overpowered then." Which supports the "adds all spels to the Warmage and Beguiler lists" interpretation, as that is the only one that would make it seriously unbalanced. Even the wizard in the 10/10 example is still looking at Iot7V, Shadowcraft Mage and Incantatrix for competition.
Agreed. It really needs errata, rather than a sage ruling.
/Agree
I'd prefer Errata than Sage rulings, but since it's 3.5 content I guess we are lucky to get anything.
[rant]WTH????
Sage's translation:
"The RULES say you follow the text, but the Sage thinks that this is bunk. Ignore the rules and follow the table."
So, what do you call DnD again? Oh, that's right, a system of rules. So, we should just ignore DnD, huh? Way to go, Sage![/rant]
Sorry. Had to get that off my chest.
Typos happen. In that case, I think common sense should be the rule.
I don't see the Monk / Ninja / Swordsage stacking debate on the list.
I'll update it to this post tonight and add it to the list.
The actual text says: "...can learn and cast spells from the Cleric list, even if they don't appear on the lists of any spellcasting class he has. Such spells are cast as divine spells if they don't appear on the sorcerer/wizard or Bard spell lists."
Not exactly explicit. The controversy is that the Warmage and Beguiler have no method for learning spells, they just gain access to all the spells on their list.
Also doesn't mention domain spells.
Precisely. The spells get added to their spell lists, which the Beguiler and others get access to automatically. And the gaining of extra domains says they get the spells to their spell lists also, albeit cast as arcane spells. The only restriction as written in the gaining extra domains section was to Sorcerer and similar casters (e.g., Shunenja and Favoured Soul), which the Beguiler, etc., are not.
I agree that the sages pronouncement seem to point that way, though, as it otherwise becomes a fairly useless class. Although the debate is probably better in another thread, it is not what this thread is for.
Um, no...It actually specifies that they are not on the lists in the quoted text.
*shrugs* "Creative" interpretation is why we have this book to begin with.
Shunenja. Favoured Soul. Archivist.
Unless I've missed an errata again a Favoured Soul uses Wis as the stat for DC and Cha for bonus spells. Ask yourself why Favoured Souls suck.
Unless I've missed an errata again a Favoured Soul uses Wis as the stat for DC and Cha for bonus spells. Ask yourself why Favoured Souls suck.
I thought it was Wis for bonus spells and ability to cast high level spells, and Cha for DC? For the favored Soul I think. Archivist I seem to remember gets bonus spells of Wis but otherwise uses Int?
Unless I've missed an errata again a Favoured Soul uses Wis as the stat for DC and Cha for bonus spells. Ask yourself why Favoured Souls suck.
No. You said all Divine spells are based on Wis. I just showed you that you are wrong. There are Cha based casters in the Divine field.
You also used that as a basis for your rather... imaginative... interpretation of what constitutes a Divine spell. That has also been proven wrong. Anything else.
Ask yourself why Favoured Souls suck.
Because they don't get turning.
Because they don't get turning.
Or domains.
Here's one. If an instantaneous creation spell/power is an attack. Can you use that spell/power to damage something in an Antimagic Field.
"The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result."
That's the sticking point in the Antimagic Field. Once the effect enters the field is the conjuration itself in effect, or is it just the result?
[thread=1013901]Crystal Shard vs Antimagic Field?[/thread]
I'm afraid my knowledge on Psionics is limited, can you write up the Pro/Con for this in a succinct manner that I can add to the list?
Now a strict DM could argue here, that they use Wisdom as the DC-stat, since all divine spells use wisdom.
My favorite spell casting class of all time (Divine Crusader) is a divine caster with only Cha for DC and bonus spells.
My favorite spell casting class of all time (Divine Crusader) is a divine caster with only Cha for DC and bonus spells.
Yea, ok. I stand corrected.
I'm afraid my knowledge on Psionics is limited, can you write up the Pro/Con for this in a succinct manner that I can add to the list?
Antimagic Field VS. Instantaneous conjuration spells/metacreative powers that make attacks.
"The effects of instantaneous conjurations are not affected by an antimagic field because the conjuration itself is no longer in effect, only its result."
Pro: By the rule above if the effect of a instantaneous conjuration is created outside the field and then enters it, it is then unaffected.
Con: The effect happens during the duration of the spell duration so the spell is active, thus the effect is negated by the field.
It should also apply to Orb spells (Spell Compendium) and Wall of Iron falling into the field when created outside of it, not just psionics.
Certainly not a heavy debate ... one thread.
EDIT: Ok one really active and emotional thread.
Is this debate limited just to crystal shard? I don't think you can say that since crystal shard itself works differently than a wall of iron that if crystal shard fails, wall of iron fails.
The bulk of that debate is around metacreativity and that specific power.
I just don't want to see the debate erroneously expanded to include wall of iron, etc. that are clear.
Pro: The rules texts, even when saying that the spells draw material from the Plane of Shadow, don't say they have to be cast on a coexistant or coterminus plane.
Con: There is no Plane of Shadow in the Abyss, so there's nowhere to draw the shadow stuff from.
Here's one that recently came up in a discussion I had: Casting Shadow descriptor spells on the Outer Planes.
Pro: The rules texts, even when saying that the spells draw material from the Plane of Shadow, don't say they have to be cast on a coexistant or coterminus plane.
Con: There is no Plane of Shadow in the Abyss, so there's nowhere to draw the shadow stuff from.
A fluff argument? There's really no rules basis for this to be a debate.
Here's one that recently came up in a discussion I had: Casting Shadow descriptor spells on the Outer Planes.
Pro: The rules texts, even when saying that the spells draw material from the Plane of Shadow, don't say they have to be cast on a coexistant or coterminus plane.
Con: There is no Plane of Shadow in the Abyss, so there's nowhere to draw the shadow stuff from.
I may be wrong but doesn't the shadow plane connect to every plane even other material planes. I thought it had vails or portals to the other planes like the Ethereal and Astral planes do. I know its probably spelled out in the Planescape book but I don't have a copy of it myself at the moment. I will check when I get home though.
Is this debate limited just to crystal shard? I don't think you can say that since crystal shard itself works differently than a wall of iron that if crystal shard fails, wall of iron fails.
The bulk of that debate is around metacreativity and that specific power.
I just don't want to see the debate erroneously expanded to include wall of iron, etc. that are clear.
Well, this has come up before on the psionics board.
Also being that metacreativity powers under magic psionics transparency count as conjuration (creation) spells, the same standard that applies to Crystal Shard applies to all such spells/powers.
One standard for this and another for that doesn't fly if they fall under the same rules set. I brought up both Orb spells and Wall of Iron several times and they got the same answer.
Anyway I'm going to restate the pro in a stronger forum.
[edit]
I wouldn't mind the thing being framed in Crystals Shard VS. Antimagic Field with a mention that it could impact on other instantaneous conjuration spells and metacreative powers.
Elven Spell Lore allows you to specialise in a specific spell. The feat notes that: When preparing that spell you can alter the type of damage it deals to a single type of your choice.
Note the use of the word damage. Not energy, energy damage, or any other variant thereof. The simple word is damage.
Later in the feat it notes that: You can prepare the spell multiple times, selecting the same or a different energy type for it with each preparation [Emphasis Mine].
Player's Handbook (Glossary), Pg 307, states that damage is "a decrease in hit points, an ability score, or other aspects of a character caused by an injury, illness or magical effect. The three main categories of damage are lethal damage, non lethal damage, and ability damage."
Thus, Elven Spell Lore enable you to do any type of damage you want: Fire damage, negative energy, city damage, dehydration damage, constitution damage. Anything you like.
Pro Argument:
The rules in the PHB / SRD specifically list the types of damage. Elven Spell Lore notes you can change the damage type. There are no caveats or limitations noted.
Con Argument:
The second paragraph counters the first, specifically stating that you can select the same or a different energy type. This strongly suggests that the first paragraph should have referred to changing the energy type, rather than the damage type. Besides, doing a Scorching Ray that inflicts constitution damage imbalances the game to a phenomenal extent, which was not the designer's intent.
Yes, I know, an obvious question. Consider it a loophole I would like closed.
C.
Just another debatable topic, albeit one with an answer that can massively change game balance, and is thus an obvious RAI question:
Elven Spell Lore allows you to specialise in a specific spell. The feat notes that: When preparing that spell you can alter the type of damage it deals to a single type of your choice.
Note the use of the word damage. Not energy, energy damage, or any other variant thereof. The simple word is damage.
Later in the feat it notes that: You can prepare the spell multiple times, selecting the same or a different energy type for it with each preparation [Emphasis Mine].
Player's Handbook (Glossary), Pg 307, states that damage is "a decrease in hit points, an ability score, or other aspects of a character caused by an injury, illness or magical effect. The three main categories of damage are lethal damage, non lethal damage, and ability damage."
Thus, Elven Spell Lore enable you to do any type of damage you want: Fire damage, negative energy, city damage, dehydration damage, constitution damage. Anything you like.
Pro Argument:
The rules in the PHB / SRD specifically list the types of damage. Elven Spell Lore notes you can change the damage type. There are no caveats or limitations noted.
Con Argument:
The second paragraph counters the first, specifically stating that you can select the same or a different energy type. This strongly suggests that the first paragraph should have referred to changing the energy type, rather than the damage type. Besides, doing a Scorching Ray that inflicts constitution damage imbalances the game to a phenomenal extent, which was not the designer's intent.
Yes, I know, an obvious question. Consider it a loophole I would like closed.
C.
Check the errata. Already closed.
Characters can with sufficient UMD checks can emulate caster levels in excess of their character level to generate extreme effects with staffs.
Someone else would needs to do the pros/cons, but it's something that I've never seen resolved satisfactorily.
Why did the Sage wait so long to answer these questions? I mean, some of them have been knocking around for quite a long while.
- Ron ^*^
The Pro position is correct. The feat in no way changes the level adjustment of the feat; it lowers the actual spell level. There is no such thing as a -1 metamagic feat, because Arcane Thesis doesn't create one: the spell's level is increased by 0 for the feat, and then the spell's level is decreased by one for Arcane Thesis.
RAW ... Swordsage doesn't apply in no-armor; they shouldn't "stack" as they apply in different situations (unless a situation occurs which allows the monk or ninja bonus to be kept in light armor) ... and no FAQ or Errata has been released that changes this.
Also the Con from the original Ask was based on them being the same name and same effect (which they clearly are not ... the Swordsage bonus is not Monk's AC bonus) ... this is supported by the Ask topic on the Monk's Belt (specifically calling it the Monk's AC bonus). It also only specified monk stacking, and that has opened the question of Ninja stacking.
Do we have a different Sage now?
My opinion is that the strictest, literal interpretation is that ...
- Swordsage's AC bonus =/= Monk's AC bonus =/= Ninja's AC bonus
- Swordsage's only applies in light armor
- Monk's only applies in no armor
- Ninja's only applies in no armor
- Monk and Ninja are called out to not stack specifically
- Swordsage would only stack with either if there was some condition that allowed the Swordsage's to work in no armor or the Monk/Ninja's to work in light armor
I only know of one thing that makes this stacking question an actual question (Argent Fist's Holy Armor ability to keep your Monk's AC bonus in armor).
PostRisner, you've got only one debate on the WIS to AC stacking question and really not the one I think that is the most valid by RAW. I don't even see this as a pro or con.
RAW ... Swordsage doesn't apply in no-armor; they shouldn't "stack" as they apply in different situations (unless a situation occurs which allows the monk or ninja bonus to be kept in light armor) ... and no FAQ or Errata has been released that changes this.
Also the Con from the original Ask was based on them being the same name and same effect (which they clearly are not ... the Swordsage bonus is not Monk's AC bonus) ... this is supported by the Ask topic on the Monk's Belt (specifically calling it the Monk's AC bonus). It also only specified monk stacking, and that has opened the question of Ninja stacking.
Do we have a different Sage now?
My opinion is that the strictest, literal interpretation is that ...
- Swordsage's AC bonus =/= Monk's AC bonus =/= Ninja's AC bonus
- Swordsage's only applies in light armor
- Monk's only applies in no armor
- Ninja's only applies in no armor
- Monk and Ninja are called out to not stack specifically
- Swordsage would only stack with either if there was some condition that allowed the Swordsage's to work in no armor or the Monk/Ninja's to work in light armor
I only know of one thing that makes this stacking question an actual question (Argent Fist's Holy Armor ability to keep your Monk's AC bonus in armor).
Risner, you've got only one debate on the WIS to AC stacking question and really not the one I think that is the most valid by RAW. I don't even see this as a pro or con.
RAW ... Swordsage doesn't apply in no-armor; they shouldn't "stack" as they apply in different situations (unless a situation occurs which allows the monk or ninja bonus to be kept in light armor) ... and no FAQ or Errata has been released that changes this.
Also the Con from the original Ask was based on them being the same name and same effect (which they clearly are not ... the Swordsage bonus is not Monk's AC bonus) ... this is supported by the Ask topic on the Monk's Belt (specifically calling it the Monk's AC bonus). It also only specified monk stacking, and that has opened the question of Ninja stacking.
Do we have a different Sage now?
My opinion is that the strictest, literal interpretation is that ...
- Swordsage's AC bonus =/= Monk's AC bonus =/= Ninja's AC bonus
- Swordsage's only applies in light armor
- Monk's only applies in no armor
- Ninja's only applies in no armor
- Monk and Ninja are called out to not stack specifically
- Swordsage would only stack with either if there was some condition that allowed the Swordsage's to work in no armor or the Monk/Ninja's to work in light armor
I only know of one thing that makes this stacking question an actual question (Argent Fist's Holy Armor ability to keep your Monk's AC bonus in armor).
Actually, there is a Ask Wizards article that states that the Swordsage's AC bonus was meant to work in no armour as well. It was just sloppy editing, as usual.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20060904a
Looking for Swordsage in no-armor
Monk / Swordsage answer
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20060904a
Looking for Swordsage in no-armor
I disagree with that particular answer as it defies the accepted definition of the word "same". One works in light armour as well as no armour (or the intention was that), and the other works only in no armour. They are NOT the same...!
I disagree with that particular answer as it defies the accepted definition of the word "same". One works in light armour as well as no armour (or the intention was that), and the other works only in no armour. They are NOT the same...!
I had always thought of them as the "same" in that they have the same name and same bonus with slightly different limitations.
Class abilities on different classes with the same name are either the same source or they are not ... they can't be the same source when it is convienent for one ruling and not for others.
If that is the literal standard we should use, then it should apply in all cases where any class or prestige class has an ability with the same name as another unless absolutely called out as stacking or interacting.
The Swordsage AC in no-armor apparrently came from CustServ ...
Q Alright, so the Swordsage's AC Bonus ability states "Starting at 2nd level, you can add you Wisdom modifer as a bonus to Armor Class, so long as you wear light armor, are encumbered, and do not use a shield."
Does this mean that you can't use this ability when you are unarmored, ONLY in light armor? By RAW it does but... is it a mistake for errata, should I inform my DM that it works with no armor as well?
A The intent is that you get this benefit whether you are wearing light armor or are unarmored. I will pass this issue along to the appropriate departments for potential errata treatment. Of course your DM is allowed to rule however he/she wishes. Thank you for bringing this to our attention!
It has yet to be errated (and really, it may never be given the focus on 4e).
I can't find it in a CustServ search either, just going on the ToB FAQ.
I had always thought of them as the "same" in that they have the same name and same bonus with slightly different limitations.
Doesn't even follow that, as noted a lil higher. "Monk's AC Bonus" ≠ "Swordsage AC Bonus."
Doesn't even follow that, as noted a lil higher. "Monk's AC Bonus" ≠ "Swordsage AC Bonus."
In the class descriptions, they are both listed as "AC Bonus". "Monk's AC Bonus" is an easy shorthand for "the Monk class ability AC Bonus".
As ChristopherGroves pointed out, this would need to be the same accross all cases. I'd need to see if it's possible to make this a consistent ruling. The big one that pops out in my mind is Sneak Attack, which IIRC has a specific line saying you add all Sneak Attack pools together.
As far as CustServ is concerned, I pretty much ignore them. They've answered most questions they have been given both ways at one time or another. If it hasn't been published in some form (in a book, in a Wizards FAQ, in Errata, in Sage Advice, or in Ask Wizards), I completely pass it by. Too many direct contradictions if you try to go by CustServ rulings.
I had always thought of them as the "same" in that they have the same name and same bonus with slightly different limitations.
I know it's annoying (and I sure annoyed AndyJames a while back on this same topic)
If there is a reason provided, that reason should be consistent in it's technical background with other rulings ... and if a technical reason (same name, source, etc.) is given it should apply in all other situations.
If "AC Bonus" doesn't stack from different classes (as it has the same name and is from a class) ... then no other thing from different classes with the same name should stack.
I had always thought of them as the "same" in that they have the same name and same bonus with slightly different limitations.
You are thinking about "similar", which is different from "same".
I know it's annoying (and I sure annoyed AndyJames a while back on this same topic)
If there is a reason provided, that reason should be consistent in it's technical background with other rulings ... and if a technical reason (same name, source, etc.) is given it should apply in all other situations.
If "AC Bonus" doesn't stack from different classes (as it has the same name and is from a class) ... then no other thing from different classes with the same name should stack.
So you admit you were just trolling? For shame. I expected better of you. You are not Risner's alt, are you?
I don't know if that Strong heart vest thing was heavily debated, but if it was, what a waste of time. If you own Magic of Incarnum, and can read.
Maybe if i read it a little bit more into Tome of Magici could find the vestige they speak of. OK i found it Naberius pg 41. It does not mention being attaked but one of the granted abilities is faster ability score dmg healing , to the tune of one point a round. Someone on the CO board pointed this out to me if i recall, i think it should work. I wonder what the sage would say about that? And it boggles the mind why they would want to nerf one of the coolest PrC around in the first place.
So you admit you were just trolling? For shame. I expected better of you. You are not Risner's alt, are you?
Certainly not. I'm admitting that the topic is annoying but the fundamental key details are very important.
Whether or not it works is one thing ... the reasons behind it are critical.
Such debates are annoying, and I recognize that you were annoyed with my position.
(if your above post was meant as sarcasm, I can't tell)
You are thinking about "similar", which is different from "same".
No, I'm thinking of it as the same effect, as in it is the "AC Bonus" class ability. I'm still trying to find any other classes which provides an ability that grants an Untyped bonus. So far, "AC Bonus" seems to be the only ability in the game that multiple classes have access to which provides an Untyped Bonus.
OK i found it Naberius pg 41. It does not mention being attaked but one of the granted abilities is faster ability score dmg healing , to the tune of one point a round. Someone on the CO board pointed this out to me if i recall, i think it should work. I wonder what the sage would say about that? And it boggles the mind why they would want to nerf one of the coolest PrC around in the first place.
Naberius heals one Ability Damage for each Ability every round. Hellfire Blast causes you to take Ability Damage to Constitution. I don't think anyone has ever questioned these two working together. The only 'nerf' here is to the Hellfire Glaivelocks, and only if the question was answered as to wether they take 1 damage from using the invocation or if they take 1 damage for each hit. Even Quickened blasts won't suffer much. IMO, a single class level which grants other fun abilities (Disguise Self at will, a crap DC Command 1 per 5 rounds (peasants are great for that), Take 10 on Bluff and Diplomacy, and a utility bonus to skills just from Naberius) is a lot cheaper than a feat.
I do agree, however, that after reading the actual ability (I just got access to Magic of Incarnum recently), the ruling makes perfect sense.
Certainly not. I'm admitting that the topic is annoying but the fundamental key details are very important.
Whether or not it works is one thing ... the reasons behind it are critical.
Such debates are annoying, and I recognize that you were annoyed with my position.
(if your above post was meant as sarcasm, I can't tell)
It was sarcasm
No, I'm thinking of it as the same effect, as in it is the "AC Bonus" class ability. I'm still trying to find any other classes which provides an ability that grants an Untyped bonus. So far, "AC Bonus" seems to be the only ability in the game that multiple classes have access to which provides an Untyped Bonus.
It is not the same effect. It cannot be. That is like saying 2 is the same as 3.
One works in light armour or no armour.
The other works in only no armour, and get additional numerical bonuses.
They CANNOT be the same. The parameters are different. You cannot look at just one small part of a whole (it adds to AC) and declare them the same. Otherwise, all the various shield, armour, natural armour, etc., bonuses would be the "same" and thus do not stack.
It was sarcasm
I was typing the reply and before I submitted I thought I might should check the internet's awesome sacrasm meter and ask. Hate internets.
It is not the same effect. It cannot be. That is like saying 2 is the same as 3.
One works in light armour or no armour.
The other works in only no armour, and get additional numerical bonuses.
They CANNOT be the same. The parameters are different. You cannot look at just one small part of a whole (it adds to AC) and declare them the same. Otherwise, all the various shield, armour, natural armour, etc., bonuses would be the "same" and thus do not stack.
All of the others you mentioned are not Untyped effects and have different stacking rules.
It's a question of how you define an effect. Is it defined by the name or the parameters? How deeply do you look? What parameters are important enough to consider? You and I obviously disagree in how you define one ability as 'different' from another. I do not feel the differances between the two are great enough to consider them two entirely seperate effects, you do.
If I could find one single other case that is in any way similar, we'd have something to go on here. So far, it seems to be an entirely unique situation. Being an entirely unique situation, an individual answer would need to be given as there is no other combination of abilites that has the same issue to base the logic on.
All of the others you mentioned are not Untyped effects and have different stacking rules.
It's a question of how you define an effect. Is it defined by the name or the parameters? How deeply do you look? What parameters are important enough to consider? You and I obviously disagree in how you define one ability as 'different' from another. I do not feel the differances between the two are great enough to consider them two entirely seperate effects, you do.
If I could find one single other case that is in any way similar, we'd have something to go on here. So far, it seems to be an entirely unique situation. Being an entirely unique situation, an individual answer would need to be given as there is no other combination of abilites that has the same issue to base the logic on.
Try Deepwarden and Fist of the Forest.
Try Deepwarden and Fist of the Forest.
Thanks, I'm trying for an untyped bonus that is not named "AC Bonus." Continuing to argue the same ability has no merit here. I'm looking for something, anything, to use as a basis for handling the "AC Bonus" debate. Suppose I should have been a little more clear.
Deepwarden doesn't really apply for this debate. It's a different ability with a different effect. He's not straight up adding an untyped bonus to his AC, he's replacing his Dexterity bonus to AC. It's an ability with a different name and different effect. It's not even "similar" as you called it.
I'd assume there was a debate over Fist of the Forest and Monk AC Bonii stacking. Was an official ruling or concensus ever reached? I'm going to research it myself, but asking you is probably faster
Thanks, I'm trying for an untyped bonus that is not named "AC Bonus." Continuing to argue the same ability has no merit here. I'm looking for something, anything, to use as a basis for handling the "AC Bonus" debate. Suppose I should have been a little more clear.
Dude, let's try this:
Monk has an ability that is called "AC Bonus". It works in no armour.
Fist of the Forest has an ability that is called "AC Bonus". It works in no armour.
Should they stack?
Dude, what you are saying is that Monk AC bonus should NOT stack with Fist of the Forest AC Bonus because they are the same (i.e., they have the same name). That is as stupid as... words fail me...
I'm implying that they should not stack as they are Untyped bonuses to Armor Class from the same effect. What makes this statement untrue?
And I would kindly ask to keep comments on my lack of intelligence out of it. I just want to discuss a point of semantics and rules interpretation. Because I disagree does not give you leave to make personal attacks.
Sacred Fist's is called "AC bonus" and provides a static amount that increases, not based on an attribute.
That's actually one of the better ones to look it. Both it and Fist of the Forest were clearly INTENDED to work with monks. By the same name / same source logic (as provided in the ask answer) Sacred Fist "AC bonus" shouldn't stack with a Monk's "AC bonus".
I'm implying that they should not stack as they are Untyped bonuses to Armor Class from the same effect.
I see. Even though one is from Con and the other is from Wis, they should not stack. I think that says it all. Good-bye.
Deepwarden's is not called "AC bonus" and adds CON.
Sacred Fist's is called "AC bonus" and provides a static amount that increases, not based on an attribute.
That's actually one of the better ones to look it. Both it and Fist of the Forest were clearly INTENDED to work with monks. By the same name / same source logic (as provided in the ask answer) Sacred Fist "AC bonus" shouldn't stack with a Monk's "AC bonus".
That provides the perfect answer then. AC Bonus is NOT adding an untyped bonus to AC. In the case of the Monk, it's adding a Wisdom bonus to AC, modified by class levels. In the case of the Fist of the Forest, it's providing a Constitution bonus to AC. In the case of Swordsage and Ninja, it provides a Wisdom bonus to AC, which would not stack with any other Wisdom bonus to AC.
Either they are all untyped bonuses from the same source (the AC Bonus class feature) or they each have their own type that stacks with the others. Having multiple effects that operate the same, are named the same, but are 'different' effects makes little sense.
I'm implying that they should not stack as they are Untyped bonuses to Armor Class from the same effect. What makes this statement untrue?
And I would kindly ask to keep comments on my lack of intelligence out of it. I just want to discuss a point of semantics and rules interpretation. Because I disagree does not give you leave to make personal attacks.
Just out of curiosity, what passage in the rules leads you to believe there are stacking limitations for anything other than spell and magic items?
That provides the perfect answer then. AC Bonus is NOT adding an untyped bonus to AC. In the case of the Monk, it's adding a Wisdom bonus to AC, modified by class levels. In the case of the Fist of the Forest, it's providing a Constitution bonus to AC. In the case of Swordsage and Ninja, it provides a Wisdom bonus to AC, which would not stack with any other Wisdom bonus to AC.
Either they are all untyped bonuses from the same source (the AC Bonus class feature) or they each have their own type that stacks with the others. Having multiple effects that operate the same, are named the same, but are 'different' effects makes little sense.
If this is the case, then the "same effects" rule on stacking does not apply. So you are now saying they stack?
Deepwarden's is not called "AC bonus" and adds CON.
Sacred Fist's is called "AC bonus" and provides a static amount that increases, not based on an attribute.
That's actually one of the better ones to look it. Both it and Fist of the Forest were clearly INTENDED to work with monks. By the same name / same source logic (as provided in the ask answer) Sacred Fist "AC bonus" shouldn't stack with a Monk's "AC bonus".
That provides the perfect answer then. AC Bonus is NOT adding an untyped bonus to AC. In the case of the Monk, it's adding a Wisdom bonus to AC, modified by class levels. In the case of the Fist of the Forest, it's providing a Constitution bonus to AC. In the case of Swordsage and Ninja, it provides a Wisdom bonus to AC, which would not stack with any other Wisdom bonus to AC.
I see. Even though one is from Con and the other is from Wis, they should not stack. I think that says it all. Good-bye.
They can either by Untyped bonuses, or they can be Con and Wis bonuses. The first stops all AC Bonus abilities form stacking. The other stops Swordsage, Ninja, and Monk from stacking. The latter jibes with what Wizards has put forth as the RAI and works perfectly from RAW. The first takes creative thinking to make the various AC Bonus abilites be seperate effects even though they all operate in the same fashion. Use whichever you like.
Either they are all untyped bonuses from the same source (the AC Bonus class feature) or they each have their own type that stacks with the others. Having multiple effects that operate the same, are named the same, but are 'different' effects makes little sense.
If this is the case, then the "same effects" rule on stacking does not apply. So you are now saying they stack?
Precisely. It works with RAI, it works with RAW, and it stops Swordsage / Monks from adding Wisdom to AC twice. It's either Untyped with one set of stacking rules, or they are all their own type with a different set of stacking rules, and I can't find an official word one way or the other.
Just out of curiosity, what passage in the rules leads you to believe there are stacking limitations for anything other than spell and magic items?
Rules Compendium, page 21: "Untyped bonuses stack unless the bonuses come from the same effect."
That provides the perfect answer then. AC Bonus is NOT adding an untyped bonus to AC. In the case of the Monk, it's adding a Wisdom bonus to AC, modified by class levels. In the case of the Fist of the Forest, it's providing a Constitution bonus to AC. In the case of Swordsage and Ninja, it provides a Wisdom bonus to AC, which would not stack with any other Wisdom bonus to AC.
They can either by Untyped bonuses, or they can be Con and Wis bonuses. The first stops all AC Bonus abilities form stacking. The other stops Swordsage, Ninja, and Monk from stacking. The latter jibes with what Wizards has put forth as the RAI and works perfectly from RAW. The first takes creative thinking to make the various AC Bonus abilites be seperate effects even though they all operate in the same fashion. Use whichever you like.
Either they are all untyped bonuses from the same source (the AC Bonus class feature) or they each have their own type that stacks with the others. Having multiple effects that operate the same, are named the same, but are 'different' effects makes little sense.
There is no such thing as a Wisdom bonus. Bonuses are things like enchantment, sacred, divine, alchemical, etc. They are specifically called out (Rules Compendium p21).
It is an untyped bonus equal to your Wisdom bonus.
If they are considered to be the same effect (given they have the same name) and don't stack because of that, then the Fist of the Forest's CON won't stack with the Monk's WIS+class ... and the Sacred Fist's set amount won't stack with the Monk's WIS+class.
Rules Compendium, page 21: "Untyped bonuses stack unless the bonuses come from the same effect."
Bah, I must admit, I am not overly fond of that book. I'm digging through it right now. Does it have a definition for the word 'effect' in there?
Anyway, I'm going to wash my hands of the situation. It's just too unique of a rules situation to really be able to base on any other logic provided in the game.
Rules Compendium, page 21: "Untyped bonuses stack unless the bonuses come from the same effect."
Absolutley right. Untyped ... not a Constitution bonus or a Wisdom bonus.
The key is the definition of effect.
The Ask-Wizards question says they don't stack because the name of the ability is the same.
Note this is different from your suggestion that the nature of the effect should be what is considered ... adding your Wisdom or Constitution is the important part of the effect.
If we take the logic presented in the Ask-Wizards response, they wouldn't stack regardless of whether or not they are based on the same numeric value.
If we take your suggestion (which is interesting as just as valid as other folks - don't think I'm belittling it) then it doesn't stack if it uses the same underlying bits.
Interestingly, the Monk's AC bonus adds BOTH WIS and a static amount to AC. Swordsage just adds WIS ... so the mechanic behind them to generate the numeric value is different (people forget about the rest of the monk bonus).
.....
So ... and this is where I was with consistency. A ruling of yes/no is only partially helpful in that it answers just that case. It doesn't answer Ninja/Swordsage, for instance. If we try to extrapolate based on the reasoning given, now we're wondering about things like Sacred Fist and Fist of the Forest ... and any other ability which has the same name on different classes and doesn't in the class ability's description state how it interacts with other abilities since the reasoning behind the ruling is the name of the class feature.
There is no such thing as a Wisdom bonus. Bonuses are things like enchantment, sacred, divine, alchemical, etc. They are specifically called out (Rules Compendium p21).
It is an untyped bonus equal to your Wisdom bonus.
If they are considered to be the same effect (given they have the same name) and don't stack because of that, then the Fist of the Forest's CON won't stack with the Monk's WIS+class ... and the Sacred Fist's set amount won't stack with the Monk's WIS+class.
Looking through the Rules Compendium, this certainly appears to be the case, at least as far as I can tell.
So ... and this is where I was with consistency. A ruling of yes/no is only partially helpful in that it answers just that case. It doesn't answer Ninja/Swordsage, for instance. If we try to extrapolate based on the reasoning given, now we're wondering about things like Sacred Fist and Fist of the Forest ... and any other ability which has the same name on different classes and doesn't in the class ability's description state how it interacts with other abilities since the reasoning behind the ruling is the name of the class feature.
I really think this might be a situation where you have to go case-by-case and guess at RAI. As I said, I can't find any other ability available through multiple avenues that both has the same name in all instances and provides an untyped bonus.
I'm still partial to the idea of having them be Wisdom or Constitution bonuses. However, this doesn't work, as it would mean that the Deepwarden and Fist of the Forest abilities would not stack, which just doesn't make any sense at all.
Now if there was a rule that there was such a thing as a WIS bonus then it would be clearly named and not stack. Ever (bye bye Saint Monks ... you got the shaft)... and those CHA-driven builds that add CHA to saves would only ever be able to add it once on a particular roll (bye bye Hexblade / Pally Tyranny / Blackguards with huge saves).
Here's another, not based on attributes ....
Clerics generate an aura as a class feature.
Incarnates generate an aura as a class feature.
Detect Evil bases the strength of the aura on class levels.
But wait ... do they stack? Same feature, same name. RAI tells me that a Cleric / Incarnate is all kinds of oozing with auras ... but if we're not stacking because of a specific rule dealing with named things, they don't.
And as long as we're talking about having to look at things on a case by case basis then it isn't a question of rules.
Precisely. It works with RAI, it works with RAW, and it stops Swordsage / Monks from adding Wisdom to AC twice. It's either Untyped with one set of stacking rules, or they are all their own type with a different set of stacking rules, and I can't find an official word one way or the other.
Wrong. What you are saying is that the stacking rules does not apply EXCEPT for the Monk/Swordsage. Monk and Swordsage, is NOT the same effect. That has been demonstrated time and again. What you are in effect saying is that an apple is the same as an orange because they are put in the same section in the supermarket...
Right ... so we doubt the consistency of that Ask-Wizard's answer.
Now if there was a rule that there was such a thing as a WIS bonus then it would be clearly named and not stack. Ever (bye bye Saint Monks ... you got the shaft)... and those CHA-driven builds that add CHA to saves would only ever be able to add it once on a particular roll (bye bye Hexblade / Pally Tyranny / Blackguards with huge saves).
Here's another, not based on attributes ....
Clerics generate an aura as a class feature.
Incarnates generate an aura as a class feature.
Detect Evil bases the strength of the aura on class levels.
But wait ... do they stack? Same feature, same name. RAI tells me that a Cleric / Incarnate is all kinds of oozing with auras ... but if we're not stacking because of a specific rule dealing with named things, they don't.
And as long as we're talking about having to look at things on a case by case basis then it isn't a question of rules.
The aura is clearly defined in 'detect evil.' The ability on the Incarnate is "as a Cleric of the Incarnate's level." There's no stacking issue here, it's already spelled out.
And you're completely correct, having the attributes be bonus types would cause many problems for many parts of the system.
Wrong. What you are saying is that the stacking rules does not apply EXCEPT for the Monk/Swordsage. Monk and Swordsage, is NOT the same effect. That has been demonstrated time and again. What you are in effect saying is that an apple is the same as an orange because they are put in the same section in the supermarket...
I've already conceded my point that basing this ruling on the Untyped stacking rules of the Rules Compendium is flat out wrong. Being a unique situation in the rules, I believe you need to approach each on a case-by-case basis and try to guess at RAI. It's a lousy situation for a CO board, but it's the only thing that follows the published rules.
I've already conceded my point that basing this ruling on the Untyped stacking rules of the Rules Compendium is flat out wrong. Being a unique situation in the rules, I believe you need to approach each on a case-by-case basis and try to guess at RAI. It's a lousy situation for a CO board, but it's the only thing that follows the published rules.
How does interpreting on a case-by-case basis follow the published rules? And would doing so lead to different 'interpretations' for 'similiar' (I think I'll have a hard time ever using the word 'same' again) cases?
How does interpreting on a case-by-case basis follow the published rules? And would doing so lead to different 'interpretations' for 'similiar' (I think I'll have a hard time ever using the word 'same' again) cases?
That's what I'm trying to imply. With the AC Bonus class abilities available through various classes, they've created a unique situation. Nowhere else is it possible to acquire multiples of the same untyped bonus from class abilities. Being a unique situation, it's hard to find any good precedent to base it on. Calling them untyped bonuses from the same effect causes problems. Giving each bonus a type causes other stacking issues. The only thing you are left with is either the literal RAW (in which case Swordsage AC bonus does not apply when you are not wearing armor) or trying to interpret RAI (in which case it's sensible the Swordsage AC bonus would have the same limitations as the Ninja AC bonus).
Neither is a satisfactory answer, it's all a muddled mess, and happily there are no other similar cases that I've been able to find in a night of trying.
This is actually quite similar to saves where the Hexblade, Blackguard, Paladin and Crusader all have similar +CHA to saves (Crusader just to Will). Crusader is called out to not stack with Paladin ... but there is no restriction on Paladin & Blackgurad, Blackguard & Crusader, etc. They mostly have different names, but I'm sure some checking will find us all the ones called Divine Grace, etc.
Well on Saves, Attack Rolls and Damage when they start adding other attributes in the mix they generally are pretty clear when they overlap/add or replace. These AC bonuses in question all add ... and only Ninja/Monk are specified as not working together.
This is actually quite similar to saves where the Hexblade, Blackguard, Paladin and Crusader all have similar +CHA to saves (Crusader just to Will). Crusader is called out to not stack with Paladin ... but there is no restriction on Paladin & Blackgurad, Blackguard & Crusader, etc. They mostly have different names, but I'm sure some checking will find us all the ones called Divine Grace, etc.
Paladin don't stack with Blackguard because a Paladin loses all class features when their alignment dropped. The two are mutually exclusive because of their pre-requisites. When one activates, the other deactivates, and there is an area in the middle where neither works.
Is a spell cast through the Domain Spontinaity feat (CDivine) or the Spontaneous Domain ACF (PHBII) considered a "domain" spell for purposes of resolving effects such as the Radiant Servant's (CDivine) Empowered, Maximized, and Supreme Healing abilities?
Pros
The spell is from the domain, and converted to a domain spell via the spontaneous part
The spell is from the domain, and converted to a domain spell via the spontaneous part
Paladin don't stack with Blackguard because a Paladin loses all class features when their alignment dropped. The two are mutually exclusive because of their pre-requisites.
There are Paladins that are already of Evil alignment.
I was under the impression that Pally of Tyranny and Blackguards abilities were both called Dark Blessing or something like that, and since they had the same name, they didn't stack?
No, it's Divine grace with Paladin variants, Dark blessing with BG.
Monk AC bonus adds Wisdom to AC +some misc AC over the course of levels (RAW)
Ninja AC bonus adds Wisdom to AC and does not stack with Monk AC Bonus (RAW)
Swordsage AC bonus adds Wisdom to AC and does not state whether or not it stacks or doesnt stack. (RAW)
Fist of The Forest adds Consitution to AC. This is similiar to the Monk AC Bonus but since it is a different stat, it is allowed. (RAW)
Deepwarden allows you to use CON in place of DEX for your AC. (RAW)
--I see this as effectively counting your DEX equal to your CON score for the purposes of determining AC. Maximum Dexterity Bonus in armor still applies. (RAI)
My rule of thumb. You only get to use an ability score ONCE to add to your AC. Game balance is in chaos otherwise.
Monk -> OK, Does not stack with ninja or swordsage or saint template/etc
Ninja -> OK, Does not stack with monk or swordsage or saint template/etc
Swordsage -> OK, Does not stack with monk or ninja or saint template/etc
FotF -> Different ability adding to AC (CON), stacks
Deepwarden -> DEX=CON for purposes of Dex AC boost, stacks
If you don't like it, don't use it. It is a houserule after all, until Wizards change it (*hint hint*)
And, my policy on CHA to saves. Same deal as with the above. You only get it ONCE. Now, if you can add WIS or INT or any other stat, it will stack with the CHA but only ONCE.
Game Balance preserved within my realm. GAME ON
*EDIT: Also, forgot my other rule of thumb. You won't like it but... too bad. No ToB classes (EVER!!!)
That's what I'm trying to imply. With the AC Bonus class abilities available through various classes, they've created a unique situation. Nowhere else is it possible to acquire multiples of the same untyped bonus from class abilities. Being a unique situation, it's hard to find any good precedent to base it on. Calling them untyped bonuses from the same effect causes problems. Giving each bonus a type causes other stacking issues. The only thing you are left with is either the literal RAW (in which case Swordsage AC bonus does not apply when you are not wearing armor) or trying to interpret RAI (in which case it's sensible the Swordsage AC bonus would have the same limitations as the Ninja AC bonus).
Neither is a satisfactory answer, it's all a muddled mess, and happily there are no other similar cases that I've been able to find in a night of trying.
What's the problem with using the literal RAW in this case? That's the way I've always played it and there haven't been any problems.
What's the problem with using the literal RAW in this case? That's the way I've always played it and there haven't been any problems.
None, if you don't mind monk/swordsages with the right build being able to wear light armor and add Wis to AC twice. It wouldn't be an issue if there hadn't been the non-errata'd RAI advice that Swordsages should be able to gain Wis to AC while unarmored.
My rule of thumb. You only get to use an ability score ONCE to add to your AC. Game balance is in chaos otherwise.
Game Balance preserved within my realm. GAME ON
I think this is disconnect here. By and large, most of us do not even remotely see a game balance issue by either of these.
I have a Monk/Saint in my game that is adding his WIS twice to his AC ... and that includes touch attacks. It is certainly not breaking my game. I also have a guy running a build with CHA to saves ... and it isn't breaking my game. There is no game balance issue.
None, if you don't mind monk/swordsages with the right build being able to wear light armor and add Wis to AC twice. It wouldn't be an issue if there hadn't been the non-errata'd RAI advice that Swordsages should be able to gain Wis to AC while unarmored.
How do you get monk AC in light armor? Does Shou Disciple do that?
How do you get monk AC in light armor? Does Shou Disciple do that?
I don't think you can. The only way that I know of that you could qualify for both bonuses without using RAW Swordsage is with a Warforged due to their composite plating allowing you to Qualify for the SS bonus while, at the same time, not prohibiting you from getting the Monk bonus.
I don't think you can. The only way that I know of that you could qualify for both bonuses without using RAW Swordsage is with a Warforged due to their composite plating allowing you to Qualify for the SS bonus while, at the same time, not prohibiting you from getting the Monk bonus.
warforged composite plating is considered armor. No monk bonus 4 u!
===Aelryinth
warforged composite plating is considered armor. No monk bonus 4 u!
===Aelryinth
Standard Warforged Composite Plating is treated as Natural Armor not Armor. Warforged can be monks without taking the Unarmored body feat but they can't take another armored body feat and still gain the Monk bonus but since Composite plating isn't armor, its not able to get the Swordsages bonus unless they eratta the wording.
Yea: It's core. It's happens at level 1 if you know what you're doing. It's never been nerfed, except for Mindfeeder which hasn't totally been officialized, and has been slightly un-nerfed in the MiC. It's something unique to Psionics. It ain't broken til after level 10. It ain't broken if Clerics and Wizards know what they're doing. It is better than Fighters.
Nay: shh ... quiet ... psionics has a bad reputation with some people. Don't do it. Your DM will ban it right away, off-handedly, and might even say all Psionics is broken, just because of it. Hide this away even from this thread. Don't let the psi-haters see it. They'll even sfitz just because they've been referred to as psi-Haters. And they'll hate that too. Delete this post, please ...
... I'm down on my knees begging you please !!!I think this is disconnect here. By and large, most of us do not even remotely see a game balance issue by either of these.
I have a Monk/Saint in my game that is adding his WIS twice to his AC ... and that includes touch attacks. It is certainly not breaking my game. I also have a guy running a build with CHA to saves ... and it isn't breaking my game. There is no game balance issue.
Game balance is subjective. In my game realm, my players take on creatures equal to their CR and actually use 1/5 of their resources in the battle. In my realm, a 10th level Paladin will not get pwned by a 5th level barbarian with a lance and pounce. In my realm, NPCs aren't super optimized to have insane saves to expect to live, even briefly, against a wizards save or die spell.
In my realm, characters don't need to optimize their AC to avoid an insanely powerful blow by a monster that needed its strength raised to even have a chance to hit the PC.
Now, I do allow a certain level of optimization. A barbarian can take pounce but pouncing with a lance wont have the extra damage applied to all the attacks, nor will all the attacks be made at +2 for the charge, only the first.
If you taking on CR's well above your level due to over optimizing (yes, there is such a thing) then, no, multiple abilities stacking to your AC won't imbalance anything. For games that actually run smoothly with the current rules and liberal sprinkling of a DM's rule 0, balance is key.
Yes, I know I am posting on the CO boards and I may be commiting 'heresey' saying such things here, but when has your uber-powered god-slaying PC ever made it into a legitimate game? I am simply stating how it should work if any of your characters ever make it off the page and into a 'real game'.*
*Disclaimer: A 'real game' does not mean any game you or your friends run for fun. A 'real game' is one sanctioned by Wizards and a record is kept of its achievements. Hence, legitimate.
Optimization is about doing the most with the constraints you have. In some RPGA campaigns (XE for instance) you have plenty to work with ... in others, not so much.
What does the RPGA-ish-ness of it have to do with anything? You can optimize for both. I'd go so far as to say you can play optimized for XE in one game and then do something crazy in another game with the same group (like say, even as extreme as anything goes Gestalt).
Game balance has nothing to do with what is and isn't allowed. Game balance is making sure that everyone is on the same field to start, has access to the same stuff and enjoys participating in whatever ways they can.
stuff
Thanks, that made my day. I can almost feel Caturday.
There are Paladins that are already of Evil alignment.
Oh those. Sorry. I forgot about them. I always considered them Blackguards, not Pals... :D
I can see some "debated topics" which were dissolved by FAQ, but they are still here, cos FAQ sometimes doesnt match the RAW...
So, Im waiting for "Persistent Spell vs. Time Stop" discussion...
Hmmm...
I can see some "debated topics" which were dissolved by FAQ, but they are still here, cos FAQ sometimes doesnt match the RAW...
So, Im waiting for "Persistent Spell vs. Time Stop" discussion...
Hey, that one is easy. Timestop would last all day! You would get 1d4+1 rounds in which to act and everyone else has a full day to beat you down. I dare any of my players to try that.
Player: I cast persistent timestop!
DM: Are you sure?
Player: Hell yeah, these guys aren't going to know what hit them!
DM: OK *rolls dice* What do you do in time stop?
Player: I cast delayed blast fireball! And I cast Shape----
DM: Hold it. You died.
Player: How did I die in timestop!?!?!?
DM: Your 1d4+1 rounds took all day. Your brain just caught up after the first round that you were killed 6 hours ago.
Player: Mother ******
I claim credit for that idea.
Credit given were credit is due. (Just found his post that said that) Nice job.
I'd like to see my request about what exactly qualifies as a domain spell, with respect to spontaneous domain features and the Radiant Servant PrC. I think I posted it in the proper syntax so it would just have to be copied and pasted into the OP.
Standard Warforged Composite Plating is treated as Natural Armor not Armor. Warforged can be monks without taking the Unarmored body feat but they can't take another armored body feat and still gain the Monk bonus but since Composite plating isn't armor, its not able to get the Swordsages bonus unless they eratta the wording.
Composite plating grants an armor bonus to AC, not a natural armor bonus. (Both the ECS and Races of Eberron make this quite clear.) But despite occupying the armor/robe slot on your body, it is indeed not considered actual armor (sort of like nonmagical Bracers of Armor). So warforged can indeed be monks without needing to take Unarmored Body.
The distinction is that while it's not actually armor for default purposes, it is treated as light armor for the purpose of things that get to ignore ACP in varying grades of armor.
It does mean giving up 9th level spells, but the tradeoff isn't horrific for what is gained.
Also good for Dread Necromancers, and a ok for Beguilers.
You can use multiple nightsticks per day, but only a single nightstick can provide turn attempts to you at once (so you can offset 4 levels of metamagic per spell with nightsticks, but no more). Orange ioun stones don't stack, they're a modifier from the same source.
I have only read until position 20 or so, but IMHO most of the "pro" interpretations are so terribly broken that a character using that ability would reduce all other chars in the party to (almost) useless bystanders... only exception is the gauntlet/monk thing, which I would allow in my campaign.
Casting a lvl 9 spell at ECL 6... oh my...
Ah I am so happy that I only allow PHB/DMG in my campaigns, and if a player wants to use anything else it will be decided on a case by case basis.
I have only read until position 20 or so, but IMHO most of the "pro" interpretations are so terribly broken that a character using that ability would reduce all other chars in the party to (almost) useless bystanders... only exception is the gauntlet/monk thing, which I would allow in my campaign.
Casting a lvl 9 spell at ECL 6... oh my...
Of course, though, what is being debated is not whether a dm would (or even should) allow whatever it is, but about what the rules actually state.
It's like if they printed a feat with the text: "Choose a weapon with which you are proficient. You deal an additional million damage on attacks made with that weapon." Would anyone ever allow that? I certainly hope not. Would anyone actually debate what it did? (Insert joke about Risner
) I hope not there, too.Insert joke about Risner
I was gonna say it, but you beat me to the punch.
And no, adaptive weapons rely on the same vague, undefined term ("and the like") that the Warblade's class feature does. And that term has been clarified as meaning only feats that let you pick a weapon (like all the examples) and not feats that designate a weapon, like Lightning Mace.
Thanks.
I really think the sage and/or his team aren't putting much effort into reading these questions or answering them.
FYI, Rainbow Servant is full casting, per another answer. All Warmages are Rainbow servants and have full cleric casting.
Warmages no longer blow goats. They do ok in early levels, maybe struggle a bit in the middle but when they hit Rainbow Servant 10, they are plenty strong.
I claim credit for that idea.
Yeah except it doesn't work that way.
Ok, I'll shut up.
Ah I am so happy that I only allow PHB/DMG in my campaigns, and if a player wants to use anything else it will be decided on a case by case basis.
I have only read until position 20 or so, but IMHO most of the "pro" interpretations are so terribly broken that a character using that ability would reduce all other chars in the party to (almost) useless bystanders... only exception is the gauntlet/monk thing, which I would allow in my campaign.
Casting a lvl 9 spell at ECL 6... oh my...
Amazing, and you actually have players that are willing to subject to your delusions of power over a game? As a DM you're just one player out of your group. You hopefully put a bit more effort into the game than your players, but I ask myself why you think you should control the game? You control the world and the NPCs, that's all.
Amazing, and you actually have players that are willing to subject to your delusions of power over a game? As a DM you're just one player out of your group. You hopefully put a bit more effort into the game than your players, but I ask myself why you think you should control the game? You control the world and the NPCs, that's all.
Now that was a little harsh and juvenile as well.
If I was the DM you just said that to, I'd be like, "HA! You have angered the Alpha and Omega of the D&D universe. Your character has just been obliterated from the game and you are no longer welcome at my gaming table."
Seriously though. The DM creates the world, runs the NPCs and decides how much and what kind of power levels to assign. If the DM feels the nightsticks make things too complicated, he is well within his right to do away with them. Why does a DM think he should control the game? Because the rules say so. Without him, there is no game.
Now, just to keep this from turning into a flame war.. If this offended you, I am sorry you cant take criticism. I couldn't care less.
If it had been simply "the Hellfire doesn't work when you play silly tricks, stupid mortal" then we'd have a clear answer on both.
Right now, binding Naberious still works if it used to work.
Warmages no longer blow goats. They do ok in early levels, maybe struggle a bit in the middle but when they hit Rainbow Servant 10, they are plenty strong.
Except that Dread Necromancer and Beguiler both work their casting in the same way, and are thus both still better choices. Unless there's something I'm missing?
Hey, that one is easy. Timestop would last all day! You would get 1d4+1 rounds in which to act and everyone else has a full day to beat you down. I dare any of my players to try that.
Player: I cast persistent timestop!
DM: Are you sure?
Player: Hell yeah, these guys aren't going to know what hit them!
DM: OK *rolls dice* What do you do in time stop?
Player: I cast delayed blast fireball! And I cast Shape----
DM: Hold it. You died.
Player: How did I die in timestop!?!?!?
DM: Your 1d4+1 rounds took all day. Your brain just caught up after the first round that you were killed 6 hours ago.
Player: Mother ******
How does this work?
Except that Dread Necromancer and Beguiler both work their casting in the same way, and are thus both still better choices. Unless there's something I'm missing?
No, I don't think you're missing anything. The statement was about the warmage, not the others with similar mechanic. It gets the biggest benefit clearly ... so much so that now you wonder why a Warmage would ever do anything else. Warmage is now a very specific number of levels before you PrC out into Rainbow Servant 99.9% of the time.
O well i like the ruling on the subject,whether it makes sense or not.
Pro: Unarmed Strikes are Natural weapons because Natural Weapons are defined as "weapons that are physically a part of a creature," so unarmed strikes qualify. Also, the text of the magic fang and magic weapons spells explicitly say they are.Unarmed strikes are listed in the weapons table of the PHB with other manufactured weapons and they follow the manufactured weapons rules. Also, a monk is granted the special ability to treat them as natural weapons, which she wouldn't need if they already are.
Unarmed Strikes are made with Natural Weapons. For example, a fist is a weapon but a punch is the actual attack made. It's damn near impossible to be Unarmed but still use a manufactured weapon. However, some Unarmed Strikes are counted as "Armed", as given under Unarmed Attacks, Chapter 8: Combat, PHB: "A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike Feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with claws, fangs, and similar natural physical weapons all count as armed." That's an "Armed" Unarmed Strike with a Natural Weapon.
For #9
The only exception is Gauntlets, which state in their description: "These metal gloves protect your hands and let you deal normal damage with unarmed strikes rather than subdual damage. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed strike." Also, I want to point out that Gauntlets are indented under Unarmed Attacks, which is its weapon type.
Ask yourself these three questions:
1. Did you read the text carefully, considering each word? Many of the questions in this post are simply misread spell or feat descriptions.
2. Is it logical? What I mean by that is, would it make your character more powerful than he should for his level. Does it throw game balance out the window?
3. Would it be alright for my DM to use that against me? As a DM myself, I have this rule, that whatever my PCs can do (feat combinations, strange and often questionable uses of spells, etc) so can my NPCs. So if you cast Time Stop, roll for a 5 round duration, and cast 5 Delayed Blast Fireballs and time them so they all blow up at the same time at the end of the time stop and one shot kill my bad guy, don't be surprise if you find yourself blown to pieces next time you meet one of my wizards.
I find that asking myself these three questions often solves most questions about the rules and mechanics of 3.5.
Hope this helps.
The answer to many of these supposed debated subjscts:
Ask yourself these three questions:
1. Did you read the text carefully, considering each word? Many of the questions in this post are simply misread spell or feat descriptions.
And people have generally analyzed the hell out of things on these boards.
2. Is it logical? What I mean by that is, would it make your character more powerful than he should for his level. Does it throw game balance out the window?
3. Would it be alright for my DM to use that against me? As a DM myself, I have this rule, that whatever my PCs can do (feat combinations, strange and often questionable uses of spells, etc) so can my NPCs. So if you cast Time Stop, roll for a 5 round duration, and cast 5 Delayed Blast Fireballs and time them so they all blow up at the same time at the end of the time stop and one shot kill my bad guy, don't be surprise if you find yourself blown to pieces next time you meet one of my wizards.
...and we're drifiting into RAI. Which generally doesn't have a place in a discussion of what the rules are. What the rules should be, however...
Essentially, your first guideline is what we've been doing all along (some more than others), while the other two are superfluous to the debate.
2. Is it logical? What I mean by that is, would it make your character more powerful than he should for his level. Does it throw game balance out the window?
3. Would it be alright for my DM to use that against me? As a DM myself, I have this rule, that whatever my PCs can do (feat combinations, strange and often questionable uses of spells, etc) so can my NPCs. So if you cast Time Stop, roll for a 5 round duration, and cast 5 Delayed Blast Fireballs and time them so they all blow up at the same time at the end of the time stop and one shot kill my bad guy, don't be surprise if you find yourself blown to pieces next time you meet one of my wizards.
Yes, these do not help when determing what the rules actually are, which is our goal here. DM's are free to house rule, of course, but we only seek to determine the actuality of the rules, not whether one equalling one is too powerful... or whatever.
30 Stance Thicket of Blades, Tome of Battle vs Tumble and Spring Attack
This was also answered by the Sage on 5/26.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ask/20080526a
The sage rules in favor of things like Tumble and Spring Attack provoking.
If so, what damage is doubled from the Battle Jump feat?
RAW:
The Battle Jump feat reads that you "deal double damage with a melee weapon" - and the damage resulting from each melee weapon attack in my example also includes damage from Dungeon Crashing. This means that ALL damage in the attack should be doubled, except the damage resulting from the last fourth bull rush (the one that is a result of charging instead of Knockback):
- START TURN
- (leap attack)
- 1 battle jump
- 2 power attack 1 (pounce) with knockback (ie bull rush moving only the target) and dungeon crashing to the floor
- 3 power attack 2, see #2
- 4 power attack 3, see #2
- Doubling of all damage inflicted up to this point (Battle Jump)
- 5 bull rush (from the charge) - without horizontal movement! - and dungeon crashing to the floor
- END TURN
RAI:
On one hand, the RAW effect would create an absolutely freakacheesious amount of damage (and a weeping DM) - a test with an ECL 15 Half-Minotaur with combat brute (an extra sunder+knockback+dungeon crash) wielding a heavy flail and no buffers/a few magic jump items net more than 700 damage per turn(!) vs AC 30 (all dices avr)! With a few normal buffers and a Str +4 item the damage rises to an average well above 1200 per turn!
The effects are unbalanced and hence this is not how the rules should be interpreted. According to their FAQ, WoTC seem to have completely ruled out that Battle Jump can be used often and repeatedly because of the required high jump DC (40 to jump a medium creature on even ground). Hence, the description of Battle Jump needs the addition: "Battle Jump can only be initiated by jumping off a ledge, cliff or similar, not by using a jump check to gain sufficient height."
But on the other hand, the double damage from Battle Jump is a reflection of the fact that the target is "bombed" from above, making every "muscle powered" damage-dealing effect in that turn hurt a lot more. So if melee weapon damage is doubled, ALL damage, including the last bull rush/crashing, should be doubled. Furthermore, being able to repeatedly beat a DC jump check of at least 40 is costly in terms of character optimization, and many other factors limits the usability of this combo (terrain etc).
Concerning disintegrating vampires (does it kill them, or merely reduce them to dust, then they turn to mist).
Pro: Dust doesn't have the SU ability to turn to mist.
Con: Anytime the vampire's hit points go to 0, it turns to mist.
Concerning the Orb Spells and AMF:
Pro: They're instantaneous Conjurations, which are exempted from AMF's ability to suppress.
Con: Their effect is damage, not creation, and thus until damage is dealt, the spell is in effect, and so AMF can negate it.
Concerning Defending Weapon ability.
Pro: They're unnamed boosts to AC, and so one could use multiple weapons so enhanced to gain a whole slew of bonuses to AC.
Con: They're the same source, as the ability is named (Defending).
Concerning Feeblemind vs. Break Enchantment:
Pro: Break Enchantment may remove any enchantment up to 5th level, even instantaneous ones.
Con: Feeblemind has a list of spells that work on it, so no other spell can possibly work.
Concerning multiple weapon enhancements of the same type (flaming x2)
Pro: Nothing says you can't, and there's no balance broken by doing MORE fire damage. You can add other types, and it amounts to the same thing.
Con: Why then, would there be Flaming Burst? It's another stacking thing.
Concerning a Pixie's Special arrows (how do they work? are they created on the spot, or are they crafted like magical weapons?)
Pro: As it's an EX ability, it should not be made the same way magical weapons are. Furthermore, no damage is dealt, and as such, requiring a +1 enhancement is a waste of money. No stats exist for creating them (except in Savage Species, which are far different from the standard).
Con: It's too powerful to be able to just attack things like that instantaneously. It's obviously a magical effect.
I'll try to think of a few other fun things.
...and we're drifiting into RAI. Which generally doesn't have a place in a discussion of what the rules are. What the rules should be, however...
If there are multiple possible constructions of the RAW, then I think RAI can legitimately be used to pick between them.
I haven't been around for a long time and maybe this is crystal clear now, but it seems like people used to argue till they were blue in the face about things like evasion coming from a ring for the FL PrC.
Actually most recently I think I saw this argument being made about the Tome of Battle Items that grant maneuvers. The argument was even stronger there because the items could be used to qualify for the PrCs that in turn granted maneuvers that could take the place of the item (getting around and problems of "losing access").
Maybe I missed it on the list, but are there still frequent discussions about items (or any temporary source really) granting access to feats/prcs/etc.?
I haven't been around for a long time and maybe this is crystal clear now, but it seems like people used to argue till they were blue in the face about things like evasion coming from a ring for the FL PrC.
Actually most recently I think I saw this argument being made about the Tome of Battle Items that grant maneuvers. The argument was even stronger there because the items could be used to qualify for the PrCs that in turn granted maneuvers that could take the place of the item (getting around and problems of "losing access").
IIRC that's been officially answered inthe FAQ and by the Sage - you can use Items to qualify for things (such as feats), but if you lose the pre-reqs by losing the item, you lose access to the feat until you get it back.
However, the ToB Items granting Manuevers was given a different answer by CustServ in the ToB Q & A Thread, but they sighted that it works "Just as normal items helping you meet pre-reqs", so their answer wasn't completely sensible.
I don't see this in the SRD, but if you look at a PHB, somewhere around page 179 - It says that a wizard needs 8 hours of rest to prepare spells. It also mentions things like that "rest" doesn't necessarily mean "sleep" but the wizard can't do anything taxing. It then goes on to say that a Wizard always needs 8 hours (minimum, it's longer if they are interrupted) even if for some reason they don't need to sleep that long (I.E. an elf wizard that only does 4 hours of "trance", or any wizard with an attuned ring of sustenance).
So with no interruptions, that's 8 hours of rest and 1 hour of preperation. Which means you could at best cast your spells twice per day. Barring interpretations of "day".
Edit: I just found it
If the character does not need to sleep for some reason, she still must have 8 hours of restful calm before preparing any spells.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/arcaneSpells.htm#rest - last sentence in the paragraph under "Rest".
The answer to many of these supposed debated subjscts:
Ask yourself these three questions:
1. Did you read the text carefully, considering each word? Many of the questions in this post are simply misread spell or feat descriptions.
We're the guys who noticed that Glyph seals sad 5th level and above instead of 5th level and below. Yeah, we read things carefully.
Maybe I missed it on the list, but are there still frequent discussions about items (or any temporary source really) granting access to feats/prcs/etc.?
I haven't been around for a long time and maybe this is crystal clear now, but it seems like people used to argue till they were blue in the face about things like evasion coming from a ring for the FL PrC.
Actually most recently I think I saw this argument being made about the Tome of Battle Items that grant maneuvers. The argument was even stronger there because the items could be used to qualify for the PrCs that in turn granted maneuvers that could take the place of the item (getting around and problems of "losing access").
We tend to pretend that possibility doesn't exist, for the most part, but when we do bring it up, it is always with a disclaimer.
Therefore, still argued about. We tend to ignore it though, as both sides have said it all and no resolution has been reached, therefore continuing would be pointless.
It would be niffy if you could put in links to some threads in which each idea is discussed, too!
Agreed.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=18621733
Bump!Regarding Wizard spells and rest, here it states that Wizard spells cast in the last 8 hours count against the daily limit. Here is where it mentions Bards and Sorcerers and references Wizards.
My conclusion from this is, barring interruptions, arcanists can cast, rest 8 hours, possibly prepare for an hour, then cast again. This seems like RAW and RAI.
To further muddle the mixture, the Cleric (and by referencing, the Druid) description states they choose an hour every day (seemingly every 24 hours) like at sunset or sunrise to meditate and prep spells. (The PHB goes into greater detail than the SRD about times and mentions sunset/sunrise, but that's it.)