PDA

View Full Version : WOTC not following their own rules (3.5)



Illven
2010-05-30, 11:54 PM
What are some examples of WOTC not following their own rules such as the malcovker with 14 wisdom casting 5th level cleric spells

Godskook
2010-05-30, 11:59 PM
What are some examples of WOTC not following their own rules such as the malcovker with 14 wisdom casting 5th level cleric spells

I'm confused. If Malconvoker qualifies for explicitly granting access to new spells, then pretty much every class does, from Shadow Dancer(Hide in plain sight) to Archmage(Mastery of Elements).

Illven
2010-05-31, 12:04 AM
No the sample Malcovker casts 5th level cleric spells but has a 14 wisdom, you need a wisdom of 10+spell level to prepare or cast a cleric spell, i.e 15 for a 5th level spell

lsfreak
2010-05-31, 12:07 AM
Most books have at least one statblock that's off. They're notoriously bad. The one off the top of my head is Master of the Nine, which lacks the feats to take the PrC.

Godskook
2010-05-31, 12:09 AM
No the sample Malcovker casts 5th level cleric spells but has a 14 wisdom, you need a wisdom of 10+spell level to cast a cleric spell, i.e 15 for a 5th level spell

If we're going to list bad statblocks, we'll be here all night.

drengnikrafe
2010-05-31, 12:09 AM
No the sample Malcovker casts 5th level cleric spells but has a 14 wisdom, you need a wisdom of 10+spell level to prepare or cast a cleric spell, i.e 15 for a 5th level spell

Quick nitpick. Also, that Malconvoker also prepared 6th level spells.

Illven
2010-05-31, 12:10 AM
I'm looking at it and it has all the required feats that I can see, can you tell me which one or ones it is missing

Yeah the sixith level spells are espically bad

lsfreak
2010-05-31, 12:17 AM
I'm looking at it and it has all the required feats that I can see, can you tell me which one or ones it is missing

I misworded that. He's got all the feats, but didn't get them all until 9th level. After he'd take 2 levels of the class.

Illven
2010-05-31, 12:18 AM
Ah okay makes more sense

Temotei
2010-05-31, 12:29 AM
I misworded that. He's got all the feats, but didn't get them all until 9th level. After he'd take 2 levels of the class.

I thought you could take prestige classes if you intend to meet the prerequisites later.

:smallsigh: Not really.

sofawall
2010-05-31, 12:33 AM
The prefix pre does mean before. Example: A prefix comes before a word.

AslanCross
2010-05-31, 12:33 AM
Most books have at least one statblock that's off. They're notoriously bad. The one off the top of my head is Master of the Nine, which lacks the feats to take the PrC.

The Ruby Knight Vindicator worships St. Cuthbert and not Wee Jas.

drengnikrafe
2010-05-31, 12:34 AM
I thought you could take prestige classes if you intend to meet the prerequisites later.

:smallsigh: Not really.

"What's in that corner of the fighter college?"
"An area restricted only to the greatest of our warriors, strikers of the many in little time! I suppose you grow close to such things. Can you cleave and great cleave things?"
"I can... pretend I can do that? I'll learn it later, I promise."

Temotei
2010-05-31, 12:34 AM
The prefix pre does mean before. Example: A prefix comes before a word.

:smallamused:


"What's in that corner of the fighter college?"
"An area restricted only to the greatest of our warriors, strikers of the many in little time! I suppose you grow close to such things. Can you cleave and great cleave things?"
"I can... pretend I can do that? I'll learn it later, I promise."

:smallbiggrin: Funny man is funny.

Illven
2010-05-31, 12:59 AM
So what we have learned so far is that while ToB is good at balancing melee classes, it sucks at following it's own rules. Anything else?

KillianHawkeye
2010-05-31, 01:21 AM
If we're going to list bad statblocks, we'll be here all night.

No joke! You should see the ones in the Star Wars Saga books. :smallfrown::smallsigh:

AslanCross
2010-05-31, 01:35 AM
So what we have learned so far is that while ToB is good at balancing melee classes, it sucks at following it's own rules. Anything else?

Magic of Eberron. The Psiforged statblocks do not make sense. They treat psiforged as if it were a separate race, and not just a result of taking the Psiforged Body feat as per what the book actually says.

Runestar
2010-05-31, 02:37 AM
The 3.5 FAQ lists 2 completely contradictory stances on epic progression rules for creatures with LA.


Use the character’s ECL to determine starting equipment and how the character earns and benefits from experience (including when he gains an epic attack and save bonus; DMG p. 209), as noted on page 5 of Savage Species. Use the actual character level for everything else.

and


When is a monster character considered epic level? Do you “go epic” when your total class levels equal 20 or when your total Hit Dice equal 20? Is a monster character eligible for epic-level feats (such as Epic Toughness) when its character level is 21+ or when its ECL is 21+?

A monster becomes an epic-level character when its character level hits 21, just like any other character. A monster’s character level equals its racial Hit Dice + class levels. (See the second sidebar on page 25 of the Epic Level Handbook.)

A creature’s ECL has no effect on when it becomes an epic character, although once it becomes an epic character, its ECL continues to affect how much experience it earns and when it can add a new level.

It is also worth noting that in just about every stat block involving monsters with class lvs whose sum exceeds 20, they simply add the bab and saves from the class lvs directly to that of the base monster, completely ignoring epic progression rules. :smallamused:

Curmudgeon
2010-05-31, 02:45 AM
Here's a more fundamental rules violation.
The book you hold in your hands is the definitive guide for how to play the 3.5 revision of the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS Roleplaying Game. Years in the making, it gathers resources from a wide variety of supplements, rules errata, and rules clarifications to provide an authoritative guide for playing the D&D game.... When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence. Meanwhile, the Errata files (for virtually every other D&D 3.5 book in existence) all say this:

Errata Rule: Primary Sources

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities. So we've got Rules Compendium declaring itself the ultimate authority, vs. every other WotC official statement saying that cannot be the case.

Drakevarg
2010-05-31, 02:57 AM
So we've got Rules Compendium declaring itself the ultimate authority, vs. every other WotC official statement saying that cannot be the case.

It must be the ultimate authority! It said so itself.

And if you think this makes sense, I'm the President of the United States. I said so myself.

KillianHawkeye
2010-05-31, 03:22 AM
So we've got Rules Compendium declaring itself the ultimate authority, vs. every other WotC official statement saying that cannot be the case.

Isn't that just like how the Spell Compendium says that previous versions of the spells inside it are out of date, and the same thing with the Magic Item Compendium and magic items? It's not so much a rule violation as an exception.

Curmudgeon
2010-05-31, 03:36 AM
Isn't that just like how the Spell Compendium says that previous versions of the spells inside it are out of date, and the same thing with the Magic Item Compendium and magic items?
No, it's actually different. WotC has an update rule for supplements, wherein the newest version of a thing (spell, prestige class, feat, magic item, or whatever) replaces previous versions. But Rules Compendium distinguishes itself by not being a rule supplement (instead supposedly being an authority that can't be supplanted), thus also taking itself outside of the scope of the update rule.

Rules Compendium's only authority is itself.

Heliomance
2010-05-31, 03:46 AM
Surely that falls under the "specific versus general" clause, and thus Rules Compendium does indeed take precedence. In general, the primary source takes precedence. In the specific case, the RC does.

Fortuna
2010-05-31, 03:46 AM
Perhaps it is the primary source to end all primary sources?

Dracons
2010-05-31, 03:46 AM
Well, I think the exception is fine, seeing as Rules Compendium was one of the very last books released.

casper
2010-05-31, 04:01 AM
Sacred Fist's bonus to speed. By RAW it doesn't stack with Monks. But it seems to stack for Sample Sacred Fist.

Kobold-Bard
2010-05-31, 04:28 AM
Isn't there something about the Master of Nine being impossible to qualify for because of IL issues? Or am I misremembering.

nedz
2010-05-31, 05:42 AM
The example Abjurant Champion[CM] who gets +9 bonus from his Mage Armour:smallbiggrin:

Tokiko Mima
2010-05-31, 05:46 AM
Of course there's examples right in the PHB.

Obligatory Burning Hate (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19558798/Pelor,_the_Burning_Hate) reference; Jozan, a cleric of Pelor (a NG God) is shown casting Symbol of Pain a spell with an evil descriptor clerics of good aligned gods specifically cannot cast.

Tokiko Mima
2010-05-31, 05:53 AM
The example Abjurant Champion[CM] who gets +9 bonus from his Mage Armour:smallbiggrin:

Well, because of the Abjurant Armor class feature he got at level 1 for being an Abjurant Champion Caspian LaMont is allowed to add his class level to any abjurantion spell that gives a bonus to AC. This is what is giving him a +9. The confusing part is that Mage Armor is constantly referenced in the class description as being an Abjuration spell, when it is in fact a Conjuration school spell. :smallsmile:

KillianHawkeye
2010-05-31, 06:11 AM
Perhaps it is the primary source to end all primary sources?

One source to rule them all?


Of course there's examples right in the PHB.

Obligatory Burning Hate (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19558798/Pelor,_the_Burning_Hate) reference; Jozan, a cleric of Pelor (a NG God) is shown casting Symbol of Pain a spell with an evil descriptor clerics of good aligned gods specifically cannot cast.

This one makes a lot more sense in context, the context being that the picture and caption in question was copied verbatim from the 3E Player's Handbook, in which the symbol of pain spell was not Evil.

huttj509
2010-05-31, 06:22 AM
I thought part of the point of the rules compendium was to be a compilation o the rules and errata, thus making it an "official errata file" and removing any issue there...

Claudius Maximus
2010-05-31, 06:24 AM
BoVD details corrupt spells, which cause ability damage to the caster. The overview claims that there are no corrupt spells with material components or with a permanent duration,. The book goes on to list several corrupt spells with one or the other.

From the PHB and the SRD:

Dodge Bonus

A dodge bonus improves Armor Class (and sometimes Reflex saves) resulting from physical skill at avoiding blows and other ill effects. Dodge bonuses are never granted by spells or magic items. Any situation or effect (except wearing armor) that negates a character's Dexterity bonus also negates any dodge bonuses the character may have. Dodge bonuses stack with all other bonuses to AC, even other dodge bonuses. Dodge bonuses apply against touch attacks.

They seem to have forgotten that bold section.

Also, there are several epic spells here and there that do not follow the epic spell rules at all. Examples include continuous epic spells that deal backlash damage only once.

SpikeFightwicky
2010-05-31, 09:40 AM
No joke! You should see the ones in the Star Wars Saga books. :smallfrown::smallsigh:

Heh, I remember using the Saga Edition NPC stat blocks to make sure I was doing my math correctly and adding the right bonuses for my own NPCs, only to realize that most of the stat blocks themselves don't have proper math involved. It also didn't help when a player started asking why Luke's bonuses were so high and the only response I could muster was: either the game devs didn't do the math, or they fudged the numbers so the stormtroopers keep missing them.

AstralFire
2010-05-31, 09:43 AM
It is also worth noting that in just about every stat block involving monsters with class lvs whose sum exceeds 20, they simply add the bab and saves from the class lvs directly to that of the base monster, completely ignoring epic progression rules. :smallamused:

A number of those were released before the ELH.

Also, I think the Psiforged was originally supposed to be a variant race rather than a really lame feat.

Hand_of_Vecna
2010-05-31, 10:39 AM
Exemplars of evil has several horrible ones theres a "gish" Emmara Ishandrenn with levels of fighter 4/ transmuter 7/ Blackguard 4. First of Seriously, that's your build? Why can't she have Eldritch Knight levels. Anyway, she has nothing that negates Arcane Spell Failure, is wearing Full Plate and there is no mention of ACF.

There's another case in the same book where a character is a specialist wizard with evocation banned who has several evocations including Fireball. I'm willing to forgive that one though because it's an alternate stat block for a psion for campaigns that don't use psionics.

As for Abjurant champion, I'm gratful for the mistake as it's evidence the class was intended to work on mage armor.

nedz
2010-05-31, 11:07 AM
As for Abjurant champion, I'm gratful for the mistake as it's evidence the class was intended to work on mage armor.

Yes, Obviously, But:

the Errata fixes this by stating that Abjurant armour ability does not effect Mage Armour.
:smallsmile:

NEO|Phyte
2010-05-31, 11:12 AM
A number of those were released before the ELH.

The BAB/Save rules are in the DMG too, you know. Even has a nice little sidebar explaining why they did it.
:edit: page 206. Sidebar is on 207.

Greenish
2010-05-31, 01:25 PM
The prefix pre does mean before. Example: A prefix comes before a word.But there's no prefix on taking prestige classes. Prestige classes have "Requirements", not "Prerequisites".

Starbuck_II
2010-05-31, 01:59 PM
But there's no prefix on taking prestige classes. Prestige classes have "Requirements", not "Prerequisites".

Wow, I've never noticed that.

Flickerdart
2010-05-31, 02:06 PM
Yes. Requirements that must be met in order to take levels in the class.

Bharg
2010-05-31, 02:11 PM
No joke! You should see the ones in the Star Wars Saga books. :smallfrown::smallsigh:

I think the mistakes in some of the Saga books are even worse...

AstralFire
2010-05-31, 02:52 PM
Wild theory: The better the book content, the more horrendous the errors in statblocks.

Illven
2010-05-31, 06:41 PM
We must test this threoy, quick what is the worst book content we must look it over for errors if they exist

Il_Vec
2010-05-31, 06:44 PM
Is there a sample Truenamer anywhere?

Gelscressor
2010-05-31, 07:05 PM
Fiend Folio's Haraknin. The sample Harakin is a 2nd-level barbarian and barbarian is also mentioned to be one if it's favoured classes; despite Harakin's being Lawful Evil. On a similar note, but this only thematically bizarre and not actually ''against the rules''; how about the Rage like abilities of the Lawful Evil Barbazu and Sahuagin?

Greenish
2010-05-31, 07:14 PM
Yes. Requirements that must be met in order to take levels in the class.Obviously. The implications, if there are any, would be on whether a class can be used to qualify itself. (For example, Anima Mage without real binder levels retraining the binding feats.)

JaronK
2010-05-31, 07:19 PM
Sample Characters have always been notoriously wrong.

But one obvious one that's not example characters is class based bonus feats. The first page on feats in the PHB clearly says that class granted bonus feats must follow prerequisites, but a number of classes give specific feats without a specific bypass of that rule, such as War domain Clerics. Thus, a War Domain Cleric 1 does not get to use Weapon Focus (though he does get it, he just can't use it until level 2).

JaronK

RandomLunatic
2010-05-31, 08:26 PM
The PHB II really screws the pooch on some of the suggested starting packages. The only one I can remember off-hand (I do not actually have a copy) is one of the Monk builds has Improved Natural Attack, which a straight Monk will not qualify for before level 6.

Optimystik
2010-05-31, 08:43 PM
Also, I think the Psiforged was originally supposed to be a variant race rather than a really lame feat.

Ah, what might have been... :smallfrown:

Not that I don't like being a walking cognizance crystal, but when I can't even combine my bonus PP with my regular reserve in one power, it's very annoying.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-05-31, 09:12 PM
Ah, what might have been... :smallfrown:

Not that I don't like being a walking cognizance crystal, but when I can't even combine my bonus PP with my regular reserve in one power, it's very annoying.

There's always homebrew!:smalltongue:


On a related topic, this thread shows us some of the errors in epic. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=154421)

Runestar
2010-06-01, 05:40 AM
how about the Rage like abilities of the Lawful Evil Barbazu and Sahuagin?

To be fair, those were stated as not being a barb's rage, they merely simulated their effects.


A number of those were released before the ELH.

There are plenty of epic stat blocks which do not use the epic progression rules at all in 3.5, starting with the frost giant jarl in the MM. There is also the eldritch confessor in MM3, the various classed dragons in dragons of faerun, amongst others.

My guess is they simply calculated the bab/saves separately and added them together for convenience sake. The difference likely adds up to a discrepancy of plus/minus 1 or 2 bab/saves at most, so it probably won't affect their cr too much.


Exemplars of evil has several horrible ones theres a "gish" Emmara Ishandrenn with levels of fighter 4/ transmuter 7/ Blackguard 4. First of Seriously, that's your build? Why can't she have Eldritch Knight levels. Anyway, she has nothing that negates Arcane Spell Failure, is wearing Full Plate and there is no mention of ACF.

She is explicitly stated as using stilled spells to ignore the ASF, though this is still subpar if you ask me. Though I don't recall finding anything wrong with her stats (even as I cringe at her clearly suboptimal build). Wizard has proven they are not optimizers. What else is new? :smallamused:

What is more intriguing is a blog on the net actually blasting wotc for being "powergamers" simply because an npc from exemplars of evil had multiple classes (IIRC, the one with the cancer mage prc). The one which was obviously multiclassed to uselessness! :smalleek:

gbprime
2010-06-01, 12:48 PM
Yes, Obviously, But:

the Errata fixes this by stating that Abjurant armour ability does not effect Mage Armour.
:smallsmile:

Right. I love that one. The ability gives them a bonus on "any Abjuration spell that adds an Armor or Shield bonus to AC". After an exhaustive search of rulebooks i found there to be... um... Shield. That's it.

So basically any other spell that could take advantage of this ability is not capable of benefiting from it. Your caster literally has to research new versions of all these spells that are Abjuration instead of conjuration or evocation. Assuming the DM allows it.

gbprime
2010-06-01, 01:11 PM
I began to wonder, years ago, whether WotC actually reads (or proofreads) it's own material. I was tempted to start a blog.

The thing that pushed me over the edge was the article on the WotC site by Skip Williams about how great the sorcerer is. He actually claimed that the sorcerer makes a great "face" for the party (both in the article and in the PHB). Really. 2 skill points per level, INT not a primary stat, all social skills except Bluff are cross class. I guess they think that having a +3 or +4 bonus on charisma automatically gives you "an edge".

And from the Player's Handbook... "sorcerers gain their powers without undergoing the years of rigorous study that wizards go through." This does little to explain why their skill list contains only the sorts of skills that wizards rigorously study, plus bluff, which basically means lying to people. Probably about their professional qualifications. :smallamused:

Greenish
2010-06-01, 01:16 PM
To be fair, those were stated as not being a barb's rage, they merely simulated their effects.To be unfair, barbarians who become lawful lose the ability to rage because raging is somehow opposed to Law, but the creatures with Lawful subtype get an ability that does the same thing.

What is more intriguing is a blog on the net actually blasting wotc for being "powergamers" simply because an npc from exemplars of evil had multiple classes (IIRC, the one with the cancer mage prc). The one which was obviously multiclassed to uselessness! :smalleek:Link? :smallcool:

Runestar
2010-06-01, 05:26 PM
To be unfair, barbarians who become lawful lose the ability to rage because raging is somehow opposed to Law, but the creatures with Lawful subtype get an ability that does the same thing.
Link? :smallcool:

Can't seem to locate the blog entry at the moment. :smallsigh:

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-06-01, 06:21 PM
Right. I love that one. The ability gives them a bonus on "any Abjuration spell that adds an Armor or Shield bonus to AC". After an exhaustive search of rulebooks i found there to be... um... Shield. That's it.

So basically any other spell that could take advantage of this ability is not capable of benefiting from it. Your caster literally has to research new versions of all these spells that are Abjuration instead of conjuration or evocation. Assuming the DM allows it.

Actually, at least two spells of the abjuration school do give an armor bonus to AC which are sort-of on the wizard/sorcerer list. Check out the Book of Exalted Deeds for (Greater) Luminous Armor. There's also a domain spell (Darkness domain, I think, but the spell itself escapes me) which gives an armor bonus to AC that's abjuration, so you could use that with a feat.

Still, the default assumption is that Mage Armor works, but alas.

JaronK
2010-06-01, 06:27 PM
Right. I love that one. The ability gives them a bonus on "any Abjuration spell that adds an Armor or Shield bonus to AC". After an exhaustive search of rulebooks i found there to be... um... Shield. That's it.

So basically any other spell that could take advantage of this ability is not capable of benefiting from it. Your caster literally has to research new versions of all these spells that are Abjuration instead of conjuration or evocation. Assuming the DM allows it.

Luminous Armor/Greater Luminous Armor do the trick as well.

JaronK

Greenish
2010-06-01, 06:29 PM
There's also a domain spell (Darkness domain, I think, but the spell itself escapes me) which gives an armor bonus to AC that's abjuration, so you could use that with a feat.Armor of Darkness (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/spells/armorOfDarkness.htm).

mostlyharmful
2010-06-01, 06:32 PM
I generally find it more amazing when one of their stat blocks is legal, it's virtually all of them that break some little rule or other if you scan hard enough. I like to think that it's at least partially intentional after the first twenty or so 3.5 books, as though it's more important to have a go at first than get everything perfectly right, as though it's a subtle push for the community to not sweat the small stuff.... ridiculous I know but I'm an eternal opptimist.

Greenish
2010-06-01, 06:34 PM
I generally find it more amazing when one of their stat blocks is legal, it's virtually all of them that break some little rule or other if you scan hard enough. I like to think that it's at least partially intentional after the first twenty or so 3.5 books, as though it's more important to have a go at first than get everything perfectly right, as though it's a subtle push for the community to not sweat the small stuff.... As though they just didn't care (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyJustDidntCare).

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-06-01, 06:34 PM
Armor of Darkness (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/spells/armorOfDarkness.htm).

Well, darn, that doesn't even work: It's a deflection bonus. Well, at least the Luminous line still exists.

Gametime
2010-06-01, 06:35 PM
Armor of Darkness (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/spells/armorOfDarkness.htm).

That's a deflection bonus, though, so it wouldn't work with Abjurant Champion.

mostlyharmful
2010-06-01, 06:38 PM
That's a deflection bonus, though, so it wouldn't work with Abjurant Champion.

i was going to point that out but it felt a bit like kicking a puppy...

Runestar
2010-06-01, 07:58 PM
I generally find it more amazing when one of their stat blocks is legal, it's virtually all of them that break some little rule or other if you scan hard enough. I like to think that it's at least partially intentional after the first twenty or so 3.5 books, as though it's more important to have a go at first than get everything perfectly right, as though it's a subtle push for the community to not sweat the small stuff.... ridiculous I know but I'm an eternal opptimist.

I think it could be because they play with so many different versions of a particular ability that they may confuse which one is the final, official version. For example, in the case of the master of nine stat block, I wouldn't be surprised if the original version didn't have as many feat prereqs. They may have added the extra feats to balance what they felt was a very strong prc, but forgot to go back and chance the sample prc.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-01, 08:01 PM
i was going to point that out but it felt a bit like kicking a puppy...

like this one? http://www.cracked.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/shepherdpuppy.jpg

Drakevarg
2010-06-01, 08:13 PM
like this one? http://www.cracked.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/shepherdpuppy.jpg

Of course not. That one would grow up, come back for revenge, and eat your soul.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-01, 08:15 PM
Of course not. That one would grow up, come back for revenge, and eat your soul.

You've read that article too eh?

Drakevarg
2010-06-01, 08:23 PM
You've read that article too eh?

I was actually about to argue that the Hellbear was worse... then I looked at the article again. No contest.

Zeful
2010-06-01, 10:03 PM
Here's a more fundamental rules violation. Meanwhile, the Errata files (for virtually every other D&D 3.5 book in existence) all say this:
So we've got Rules Compendium declaring itself the ultimate authority, vs. every other WotC official statement saying that cannot be the case.

Actually the Errata agrees with the Rules Compendium. The example they give was written years before the the rules Compendium was written. Further when considering Topic precedence, the Rules Compendium (which covers rules (tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DepartmentOfRedundancyDepartment)) supersedes all sources for rules for D&D.

The Cat Goddess
2010-06-01, 10:30 PM
Right. I love that one. The ability gives them a bonus on "any Abjuration spell that adds an Armor or Shield bonus to AC". After an exhaustive search of rulebooks i found there to be... um... Shield. That's it.

So basically any other spell that could take advantage of this ability is not capable of benefiting from it. Your caster literally has to research new versions of all these spells that are Abjuration instead of conjuration or evocation. Assuming the DM allows it.

Repelling Shield (Complete Mage, 3rd level). Sure, it's just an advanced version of Shield...

Now if Abjurant Champion also affected Deflection Bonuses, there's be a decent bunch of spells... including Protection from (alignment).

Mystic Muse
2010-06-01, 10:36 PM
I was actually about to argue that the Hellbear was worse... then I looked at the article again. No contest.

Yeah. It's pretty unfortunate. What they say about it is true. That’s just not even fair. That puppy is an emoticon:

That dog is so cute it makes you inexplicably mad. You just want to yell at it; tell it to tone it down already. I fell in love with you instantly, OK Captain Buggles? Now you’re just rubbing it in.

Wonton
2010-06-02, 01:10 AM
You've read that article too eh?

Link? No, this message is NOT too short!

Drakevarg
2010-06-02, 01:14 AM
Link? No, this message is NOT too short!

5 Loveable Animals You Didn't Know Are Secretly Terrifying (http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-lovable-animals-you-didnt-know-are-secretly-terrifying)

gbprime
2010-06-02, 08:36 AM
Actually, at least two spells of the abjuration school do give an armor bonus to AC which are sort-of on the wizard/sorcerer list. Check out the Book of Exalted Deeds for (Greater) Luminous Armor. There's also a domain spell (Darkness domain, I think, but the spell itself escapes me) which gives an armor bonus to AC that's abjuration, so you could use that with a feat.

Still, the default assumption is that Mage Armor works, but alas.

Luminous armor is an option for good aligned mages who maintain ethical enough behavior for exalted feats, yes. And Armor of darkness is a once-a-day option for a mage that spends a feat and has a 14 wisdom. But short of that, yeah.

InkEyes
2010-06-02, 09:21 AM
5 Loveable Animals You Didn't Know Are Secretly Terrifying (http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-lovable-animals-you-didnt-know-are-secretly-terrifying)

To be fair to the Caucasian Shepherd, any dog's going to look scary when they're doing protection trials. The whole point is testing the drive of protection breeds and they're ability to respond to their trainer's commands. For example: look at the big fluffy dog protecting his owner. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfBMbIrqXDo) :3 They're a rare breed too, so it' not like one is going to run down the street any time soon and rip your throat out.



Luminous armor is an option for good aligned mages who maintain ethical enough behavior for exalted feats, yes. And Armor of darkness is a once-a-day option for a mage that spends a feat and has a 14 wisdom. But short of that, yeah.

Armor of Darkness is deflection bonus though, right? It's funny that the prestige class still manages to be a staple of every Gish build with cruddy class features like that. I guess it really speaks to the value of having full BAB and spell progression every level. And maybe arcane boost I guess.

gbprime
2010-06-02, 10:45 AM
Armor of Darkness is deflection bonus though, right? It's funny that the prestige class still manages to be a staple of every Gish build with cruddy class features like that. I guess it really speaks to the value of having full BAB and spell progression every level. And maybe arcane boost I guess.

Mmm. So it is. Must be why it didn't make my list. :smallwink:

We usually alter the class so the ability works on any spell that gives armor bonus or shield bonus to AC, regardless of school. But yeah, the big bonus isn't the extra AC, it's the HP, BAB, casting, free extend spell on abjuration, and the 4th level ability to suddenly dump a spell for energy resistance.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-06-02, 01:01 PM
Luminous armor is an option for good aligned mages who maintain ethical enough behavior for exalted feats, yes. And Armor of darkness is a once-a-day option for a mage that spends a feat and has a 14 wisdom. But short of that, yeah.

Actually, it requires no exalted feats to use Luminous Armor. Also, even neutral mages can cast sanctified spells, only evil characters are exempt.

Wonton
2010-06-03, 02:14 AM
I can't provide a specific example, but they seem to confuse "full-round" (such as a Sorcerer's Metamagic-ed spell, or one of those "Channeled" spells) and "1 round" (Summon, Enlarge Person) casting times a lot, often using the terms interchangeably. Which bugs me. :smallannoyed:

Prime32
2010-06-03, 05:00 AM
Actually, it requires no exalted feats to use Luminous Armor. Also, even neutral mages can cast sanctified spells, only evil characters are exempt.Consider a level of binder though, so you can bind Naberius and heal away the ability damage.

Irreverent Fool
2010-06-03, 05:36 AM
I can't provide a specific example, but they seem to confuse "full-round" (such as a Sorcerer's Metamagic-ed spell, or one of those "Channeled" spells) and "1 round" (Summon, Enlarge Person) casting times a lot, often using the terms interchangeably. Which bugs me. :smallannoyed:

I imagine the 1-round things are just copied directly from 3E material. Is there a difference, though?

Aharon
2010-06-03, 05:47 AM
full-round comes into effect at the end of your turn, so they can't be interrupted except by readied actions and similar stuff.
1 round comes into effect at the start of your next turn, so in the time between, things can happen to break your concentration - a melee character charges and deals enough damage, for example.

hamishspence
2010-06-03, 05:59 AM
I've seen a few claims that this line from the PHB and SRD:



Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good-evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.

means that RAW, all characters are infallibly aware of their own alignment, and therefore any splatbook that states otherwise (BoVD, Champions of Ruin), or splatbook that stats out a character not being aware of their own evil alignment (Tome of Magic, Waterdeep City of Splendours) is a case of WoTC not following their own rules.

However, I am sceptical of these claims.

Irreverent Fool
2010-06-03, 06:18 AM
I've seen a few claims that this line from the PHB and SRD...means that RAW, all characters are infallibly aware of their own alignment

Those claims that you've seen are apparently made by people lacking in the reading comprehension department. "Can be... For most..." Neither of these phrases mean "all characters". It's just one of those things that should be mentioned at the beginning of the game.

I have my players define their character alignments at the beginning of the campaign with justifications (either internal or external). This is what they record on their character sheet. Then, as a DM, I make note of their actions and may alter their alignment to suit their deeds. This usually has no effect, though there was a CN character who moved to NE. They were unaware of the change until caught in a detect evil spell. When they discovered the alignment switch, I pointed out their habitual actions and they agreed with the shift.

At this point the character became aware and spent some time considering whether to make amends for their actions or embrace their 'true nature'. It worked out to be a good RP experience and had some plot significance as well.

hamishspence
2010-06-03, 08:46 AM
department. "Can be... For most..." Neither of these phrases mean "all characters".

Their argument was that the two phrases put together, are by default all inclusive, unless proven otherwise-

with "most" in the second line, meaning "everyone who doesn't fall into the first category."

Not very convincing.

Given the amount of splatbook evidence that suggests otherwise, I prefer the theory that characters don't have an internal moral gauge that will automatically tell them what their alignment is.

BSPiotr
2010-06-03, 02:27 PM
For the Master of Nine: PHB II-style class retraining? :P

Mystic Muse
2010-06-06, 06:30 PM
In the DMG it specifically says mounts for Paladins should not be more than 3 CR under the Paladin's ECL or 4 if they can fly. Go ahead and look at the CR of the dragons considered "Suitable as mounts" in the Draconomicon.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-06-06, 07:20 PM
Consider a level of binder though, so you can bind Naberius and heal away the ability damage.

The trick there is to go to +yes caster levels and just keep the spell up at all times, as you only take the strength damage when the spell ends. You may wish to have some sort of contingency'd teleport though, if things go bad.

This isn't quite an example, but it irks me that Shadowcaster's follow their normal save DC progression for mysteries when they become (Su).