UMD and banned schools

[Cybris75]

Hi all,

AFAIK a Specialist Wizard/Sorcerer can cast his sorcerer spells even when the specific spell is in a school he banned on the wizard side.

This implies to me that he can also UMD scrolls with spells in banned schools.

Every other class can also UMD if they can meet the DCs. Does this mean that a specialist wizard could, e.g., take a 1-level dip in any class (e.g. Rogue), and automatically be able to UMD scrolls/wands with spells from his banned schools? Seems like a loophole to me.

Does this loophole work with prestige classes? If not, because they advance spellcasting, what about prestige classes with dead levels that don't advance spellcasting?

[TuggyNE]

Does this mean that a specialist wizard could, e.g., take a 1-level dip in any class (e.g. Rogue), and automatically be able to UMD scrolls/wands with spells from his banned schools? Seems like a loophole to me.

Auto-pass the UMD check? No. Get a chance to roll against the usual DC? Sure, why not?

Also, Wizards can already train UMD cross-class with no particular problems, so there's no strict need for any dipping (however handy it might be to get your modifier up with minimal skill point investment).

[tadkins]

What about Loremaster? They have UMD as a class skill.

[Cybris75]

Auto-pass the UMD check? No. Get a chance to roll against the usual DC? Sure, why not?

Well, wizards get a buttload of skill points because of their high INT, and a rogue dip would get UMD as a class skill, so maxing it would be easy. The only bummer is the auto-fail on rolling a 1.


Also, Wizards can already train UMD cross-class with no particular problems, so there's no strict need for any dipping (however handy it might be to get your modifier up with minimal skill point investment).

Maybe I misread the rules, but UMD on a pure specialist wizard wouldn't help them with spell-completion items that they are not allowed to use, would it?

[ericgrau]

It would help on spell completion just the same. Banning schools effectively removes spells from your class spell list. If you are accessing spells in a way that doesn't care about your spell list, like UMD, then it doesn't matter.

[Cybris75]

It would help on spell completion just the same. Banning schools effectively removes spells from your class spell list. If you are accessing spells in a way that doesn't care about your spell list, like UMD, then it doesn't matter.

The SRD says:

Spells of the prohibited school or schools are not available to the wizard, and she can’t even cast such spells from scrolls or fire them from wands. She may not change either her specialization or her prohibited schools later.

[Carth]

The SRD says:

Yes, that means they need to use UMD, rather than just automatically using them without needing a check.

[Cybris75]

Yes, that means they need to use UMD, rather than just automatically using them without needing a check.

Do you have a rules quote for that? The SRD explicitly says "she can’t even cast such spells from scrolls or fire them from wands". I read that as meaning the wizard can't cast them from scrolls or fire them from wands, at all.

Sorry to nag about that point, but I think the rule is very explicit.

[Malak'ai]

I'd have to agree with Cybris on this. That quote is very straight to the point and definite.

Of course, if you were one of my players and you gave a good persuasive arguement for allowing it with UMD that didn't end up going in circles I'd certainly consider allowing it.

[Carth]

Very first sentence of UMD:


Use this skill to activate magic devices, including scrolls and wands, that you could not otherwise activate.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

[ArcturusV]

Sounds like it falls under the general rule (Specialist Wizards can't cast spells or use spell completion items of banned schools) vs a specific rule (You can activate magical items that you can't normally cast).

I could see it going the other way around though. So I wouldn't say for certain that it's one way or the other. But if a Wizard wants to cross class skill for UMD, go for it.

[TuggyNE]

The only bummer is the auto-fail on rolling a 1.

UMD doesn't auto-fail on a 1; it merely has special consequences if you fail and rolled a 1.

[Carth]

I could see it going the other way around though. So I wouldn't say for certain that it's one way or the other. But if a Wizard wants to cross class skill for UMD, go for it.

The problem with that is that from a verisimilitude perspective, that makes no sense. Classes with no spellcasting ability can UMD anything, but specialist wizards, despite their obviously superior grasp of magic in general, cannot? I would err on the side of any interpretation that avoids such a strange scenario.

[Cybris75]

UMD doesn't auto-fail on a 1; it merely has special consequences if you fail and rolled a 1.

You are indeed correct, thank you.

[Cybris75]

The problem with that is that from a verisimilitude perspective, that makes no sense. Classes with no spellcasting ability can UMD anything, but specialist wizards, despite their obviously superior grasp of magic in general, cannot? I would err on the side of any interpretation that avoids such a strange scenario.

Well, it would make sense if a specialist wizard's banning of schools was a philosophical opposition to these schools (and using "opposed" magic would make you "fall"), or some sort of magical incompatibility (in which case I would allow UMD).

[ArcturusV]

Heh. Well, I came from a generation where UMD was a Thief ability at level 10 or so... and it was fluffed as basically "You can LIE to a magical item to make it work and bluff your way through..." So that concern never quite leaped into my head.

Though it does make sense. *shrug* It's a thing though that isn't likely to come up in games though. Least games I ran most players went with Diviner (Divination is powerful. And yet the book doesn't seem to realize it, so you only ban one school), ban Evocation. Give zero cares about the missing school. Least in my experience.

[Cybris75]

"You can LIE to a magical item to make it work and bluff your way through..."

That is awesome fluff, but neither my AD&D-PHB nor my AD&D2-PHB mention that. And they only talk about scrolls.



Least games I ran most players went with Diviner ([...] so you only ban one school), ban Evocation.

Well, I'm working on a focused specialist (spellslots galore), and have to ban three schools. Can't take diviner, because you don't need three divination spells of every level on most adventuring days...

[ArcturusV]

Might be my mind slipping in my old age. Seemed to recall back in oDnD it also worked for staffs, wands, and rods. But maybe I'm wrong. Been over 20 years since I've played it.

Course there was also the UMD for fighters back then. Snap a wand in half. Final Strike everyone within range.

[Carth]

That is awesome fluff, but neither my AD&D-PHB nor my AD&D2-PHB mention that. And they only talk about scrolls.




Well, I'm working on a focused specialist (spellslots galore), and have to ban three schools. Can't take diviner, because you don't need three divination spells of every level on most adventuring days...

Have you considered uncanny forethought, and using those spell slots to feed that feat?

[Cybris75]

Have you considered uncanny forethought, and using those spell slots to feed that feat?

Yes, but I don't have space for spell mastery+uncanny forethought in this build. I'm using most of my feats for metamagic and metamagic reducers (Incantatrix is banned), and the rest for PrC prerequisites. Thanks for the tip, though.

[Answerer]

Yes, you can UMD the items with spell completion or spell trigger activation from your banned schools. The specialization class feature is written from the perspective of what the wizard class allows you to do. Yes, it says "never" but we know that is not the case: a sorcerer/wizard can cast spells from his banned school as a sorcerer, and auto-use those items (Complete Arcane pg. 185). See here (http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/19727/can-a-specialist-wizard-multiclass-to-cast-spells-from-his-prohibited-schools/19729#19729) for a pretty thorough case.