PDA

View Full Version : FAQ Update!



Fax Celestis
2007-03-22, 10:53 AM
Woo-hoo. Whatcha think?

Deus Mortus
2007-03-22, 10:55 AM
What FAQ? (short messages are fun!)

Fax Celestis
2007-03-22, 11:08 AM
This FAQ (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20070322a&dcmp=ILC-RSSDND). You know, the official one.

Ramza00
2007-03-22, 11:34 AM
I don't feel like reading it right now, mind giving me a teaser of what rules Wizard finally clarified/explained?

Deus Mortus
2007-03-22, 11:42 AM
Ah I thought it was about a FAQ you made ;)

Rigeld2
2007-03-22, 12:24 PM
Mostly just clarification of some common sense stuff (imo) and more questions that I figured would be there on racial interbreeding.

Gamebird
2007-03-22, 12:26 PM
Okay, it's about sex. You know I've got to look now.

Piccamo
2007-03-22, 12:32 PM
Its not really helpful to me, but some of it could be pertinent to others.

adanedhel9
2007-03-22, 12:59 PM
I think the only question of mine that that update answered is the order of effects for the assassin's poisoned death attack. The rest of it seemed either obvious or points that individual DM's should have implicit control over (like the questions about mating).

Gamebird
2007-03-22, 01:02 PM
Alright, now I've read it (at least the new parts). Not nearly as interesting as I'd hoped.

Krellen
2007-03-22, 01:15 PM
I've already made a half-dragon dragon, too, run in a campaign about three yeras ago. Neener to the Sage.

Ethdred
2007-03-22, 01:21 PM
95 PAGES????? That's just awful - I am not reading that.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-03-22, 01:37 PM
Mostly just clarification of some common sense stuff (imo) and more questions that I figured would be there on racial interbreeding.
If you didn't expect it, then I take it you haven't been reading Sage Advice Online (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/asksage). :smallwink:

Really, the FAQ comes from Sage Advice in Dragon, and now also gets supplemented from Sage Advice Online. I find it handy to know where these things are coming from.

Piccamo
2007-03-22, 01:42 PM
95 PAGES????? That's just awful - I am not reading that.

95 pages is everything up until this point. The areas in the red are the most recent update. You may want to read it if you need clarification on some rules.

squishycube
2007-03-22, 02:15 PM
I don't find the update helpful, every crunchy question is not a new answer; for example the Assassins death attack + poison, I already knew the user of the effects chooses the order.

brian c
2007-03-22, 02:46 PM
So... for anyone who's looked at the FAQ, I noticed that on page 17 there are two consecutive questions about monks wearing gauntlets and if that counts as an unarmed strike. Unfortunately for the sage (and for anyone reading) the same question is answered as No, and then right after Yes, and I can't tell why the two questions are different. Can anyone explain?

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-03-22, 03:02 PM
I don't find the update helpful...

FAQs are not for everyone. Personally I try to stay away from them in any shape or form....



So... for anyone who's looked at the FAQ, I noticed that on page 17 there are two consecutive questions about monks wearing gauntlets and if that counts as an unarmed strike. Unfortunately for the sage (and for anyone reading) the same question is answered as No, and then right after Yes, and I can't tell why the two questions are different. Can anyone explain?

:smallsigh:

Sad, is it not?

The first question blatantly disregards the description of Unarmed Strikes and only takes the table into consideration.

The second answer is correct, since text overrides table.


Gauntlet: This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-03-22, 03:07 PM
Can anyone explain?
Now and then, the Sage (as mentioned before, all questions come from Sage Advice columns) screws up. There's a similar contradiction on pages two and three regarding ECL and epic levels.

And then, there's the most recent, and most embarassing slip-up. It's not self-contained in the FAQ, but it could be if the people in editing aren't paying attention. There's a question on page 95 of the new updated FAQ asking whether or not one can use a maneuver from Tome of Battle after trading out prerequisite maneuvers. To this question, the Sage answers with a yes.

Now, take a look at "Sage Advice" in Dragon #354 (currently only available to subscribers. sorry.). The exact same question appears in that article. Word-for-word identical. As if the Sage were going through archives and forgot he already answered that question. This time, however, the Sage said you must know the prerequisite to use the maneuver as well as to learn it.

Yeah, there are screw ups.

But just so you know:

Monks and Gauntlets: Though, there is occasional dissension, most people on these boards appear to believe that the gauntlets can indeed be used in a flurry. This belief stems from the reasoning given in the second FAQ entry.
ECL and Epic: The rules on epic levels quite explicitly state that you are epic when your character level reaches 21. ECL has nothing to do with it.
Maneuver Prerequisites: The affirmative answer currently in the FAQ appears to be most in line with the way the rules are actually written in Tome of Battle.

Krellen
2007-03-22, 04:17 PM
The Sage does mess up. A couple Dragons ago he said aasimars (and tieflings) were proficient with all martial weapons, since they were outsiders, completing forgetting the fact that, as 1-HD outsiders, they take the features of their class instead of their type. They're only proficient with all martial weapons if their class is, or if they take a "level" of outsider first.

Gauntlets counting as weapons is a good work-around for how ridiculously overpriced amulets of natural attacks are. Enchanted gauntlets are the monk's solution!

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-03-22, 04:20 PM
Gauntlets counting as weapons is a good work-around for how ridiculously overpriced amulets of natural attacks are. Enchanted gauntlets are the monk's solution!

Yes, if only he was proficient with them .:smallamused:

Deus Mortus
2007-03-22, 04:21 PM
and that's why there is rule 0 ;)

Bears With Lasers
2007-03-22, 04:25 PM
Monks aren't proficient with gauntlets, though, and have to blow a feat on the proficiency.

Krellen
2007-03-22, 04:33 PM
If a strike with a gauntlet is considered an unarmed strike, other than doing lethal damage, how, precisely, are monks not proficient?

Bears With Lasers
2007-03-22, 04:36 PM
A strike with a gauntlet is considered an unarmed strike... but it's also a strike with a gauntlet. The monk is wielding a gauntlet. He's not proficient with it. -4 penalty.

Krellen
2007-03-22, 04:37 PM
That makes no sense. Either it's a gauntlet or it's an unarmed strike. It can't be both.

Fax Celestis
2007-03-22, 04:46 PM
That makes no sense. Either it's a gauntlet or it's an unarmed strike. It can't be both.

Um, same motion as an unarmed strike. Don't see the problem.

Bears With Lasers
2007-03-22, 04:46 PM
Um, sure it does. You're wielding a gauntlet, attacking with which counts as an unarmed strike. Pretty simple.

Krellen
2007-03-22, 04:53 PM
Gauntlet: This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack.
The last sentence being the kicker. Other than doing lethal damage, a gauntlet strike is an unarmed attack - which monks are proficient with. Now, you can argue that this basically means a gauntlet isn't a weapon, thus cannot be enchanted, but you can't really claim it's something else altogether.

It is, in fact, in the exact same section on the table as an "unarmed strike"; does that make the unarmed strike a seperate weapon that requires proficiency now?

Bears With Lasers
2007-03-22, 04:57 PM
The last sentence being the kicker. Other than doing lethal damage, a gauntlet strike is an unarmed attack - which monks are proficient with. Now, you can argue that this basically means a gauntlet isn't a weapon, thus cannot be enchanted, but you can't really claim it's something else altogether.
Fair enough, then: if I'm right, the monk isn't proficient. If you're right, the gauntlet isn't a weapon (it's considered an unarmed attack) and can't be enchanted. I know which I'd go with.
(Actually, I'd just let monks enchant gloves.)


It is, in fact, in the exact same section on the table as an "unarmed strike"; does that make the unarmed strike a seperate weapon that requires proficiency now?
Unarmed Strikes are a special case because you're automatically proficient with them.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-03-22, 05:47 PM
Unarmed Strikes are a special case because you're automatically proficient with them.
Where's it say that?

Krellen
2007-03-22, 05:48 PM
Unarmed Strikes are a special case because you're automatically proficient with them.
What differentiates an 'unarmed strike' from an 'unarmed attack'? This is important because the latter includes gauntlets.


(Actually, I'd just let monks enchant gloves.)
From one perspective, I can see the justification for the amulet of natural attacks costing more than an equivilent weapon; after all, a lot of creatures with natural attacks have three or more (and there has to be some balance for a creature like a dragon) so it's really like enchanting three weapons, rather than one. The monk, even, has multiple natural attacks (as his unarmed strikes can come from any body part, not just his hands.)

However, the monk doesn't get the same benefit from his multiple natural attacks as a creature does, so the cost isn't fair for him. He only gets attacks as if he were wielding a single weapon, so charging him for a benefit he doesn't receive puts undue stress on his pocketbook.

A double-cost amulet, as opposed to triple-cost, might be a better compromise; the monk can't be disarmed of his natural attacks, but he doesn't gain as many benefits from his "multiple natural attacks" as does a creature with them. Balance-wise, it would cost him the same as it costs a two-weapon fighter to enchant his weapons, and TWF is the style that most closely resembles a monk's.

But really, enchanted gloves make more sense. NWN had it right. (NWN, in fact, makes monk a far more balanced class overall, in my estimation, just because of the items they have available.)

marjan
2007-03-22, 06:06 PM
The problem wuth monk proficiency with gauntlets can be solved by enchanting gauntlet with Skillfull(+2 bonus). It is still cheaper then Amulet of Mighty Fists.

Deus Mortus
2007-03-22, 07:35 PM
I'd allow monks to enchant gloves, but only one glove per enchantment, so if they want to go the whole way they need to enchant two of them.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-03-23, 01:34 PM
The Sage does mess up. A couple Dragons ago he said aasimars (and tieflings) were proficient with all martial weapons, since they were outsiders, completing forgetting the fact that, as 1-HD outsiders, they take the features of their class instead of their type. They're only proficient with all martial weapons if their class is, or if they take a "level" of outsider first.
Actually, I'm seeing it, not in Sage Advice, nor in Sage Advice Online, but in Ask Wizards (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20060731a). Answered by Chris Lindsay (i.e. not the Sage).

Gamebird
2007-03-27, 04:30 PM
I'd allow monks to enchant gloves, but only one glove per enchantment, so if they want to go the whole way they need to enchant two of them.

"Go the whole way"? What do you mean? A monk can choose to attack with only their pinkie finger for the the rest of their life and take no penalty other than not being able to hold something in that hand while they do it - and even that's open to debate. They could decide to strike only with their left elbow for the rest of time and do fine, able to flurry and all with no problem. As long as a monk has a wieldable monk weapon strapped to some part of their body, they can channel all their monk attacks through it.

A glove seems reasonable, but as far as a monk is concerned mechanically, it could be their right butt cheek. There's no reason why they'd need two gloves except for flavor reasons.

Zincorium
2007-03-27, 04:34 PM
"Go the whole way"? What do you mean? A monk can choose to attack with only their pinkie finger for the the rest of their life and take no penalty other than not being able to hold something in that hand while they do it - and even that's open to debate. They could decide to strike only with their left elbow for the rest of time and do fine, able to flurry and all with no problem. As long as a monk has a wieldable monk weapon strapped to some part of their body, they can channel all their monk attacks through it.

A glove seems reasonable, but as far as a monk is concerned mechanically, it could be their right butt cheek. There's no reason why they'd need two gloves except for flavor reasons.

Or for fighting with two weapons, although that could easily mean two gloves one on each butt cheek. The point of TWF is that you are attacking with two different surfaces, usually the surfaces of weapons. Flurry of blows can easily mean just one, though.

Matthew
2007-03-29, 02:49 PM
Unarmed Strikes are a special case because you're automatically proficient with them.


Where's it say that?

Nowhere I can think of. Anybody else know?

Fax Celestis
2007-03-29, 03:14 PM
Monster Manual, in the Humanoid description.

Zherog
2007-03-29, 03:35 PM
The Sage does mess up. A couple Dragons ago he said aasimars (and tieflings) were proficient with all martial weapons, since they were outsiders, completing forgetting the fact that, as 1-HD outsiders, they take the features of their class instead of their type. They're only proficient with all martial weapons if their class is, or if they take a "level" of outsider first.

I believe the sage (or Lindsey or whoever) is correct, and you are wrong. Here's some rules quotes:


Traits: An outsider possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).

...

Proficient with all simple and martial weapons and any weapons mentioned in its entry.

So, unless the creature's entry specifically says otherwise, all outsiders have a racial trait that makes them proficient with simple and martial weapons. I can find no general rule that says a creature loses its racial traits if it has only 1 HD. So, we're left with looking at the planetouched entry to see if it removes the proficiency. And, nothing there says the traits listed in the monster entry replaces those of the outsider type.

Matthew
2007-03-29, 03:47 PM
Monster Manual, in the Humanoid description.

Hmmnn. Not in the SRD version. Is it in the 3.0 or 3.5 Monster Manual?

Krellen
2007-03-29, 03:48 PM
I can find no general rule that says a creature loses its racial traits if it has only 1 HD.
Humanoid specifically says this happens. The Humanoids section says specifically: "Humanoids with 1 Hit Dice exchange the features of their humanoid Hit Dice for the class features of a PC or NPC class. Humanoids of this sort are presented as 1st-level warriors[...]" I work on the assumption that Planetouched are supposed to work the same way because that's what the MM does with them. The sample Aasimar and Tiefling provided in the MM are both level 1 Warriors; if they did not also replace their traits with the features of a class, why wouldn't they be 1 Hit Die Outsiders?

Fax Celestis
2007-03-29, 03:58 PM
Humanoid specifically says this happens. The Humanoids section says specifically: "Humanoids with 1 Hit Dice exchange the features of their humanoid Hit Dice for the class features of a PC or NPC class. Humanoids of this sort are presented as 1st-level warriors[...]" I work on the assumption that Planetouched are supposed to work the same way because that's what the MM does with them. The sample Aasimar and Tiefling provided in the MM are both level 1 Warriors; if they did not also replace their traits with the features of a class, why wouldn't they be 1 Hit Die Outsiders?

Intelligent creatures of any type with 1 hd that gain class levels instead replace the 1hd with class levels.

Humanoids are the only ones that specify loss of features.

Krellen
2007-03-29, 04:22 PM
It's curious that the rule in the SRD is under the heading "Humanoids and Class Levels". Considering how few mosnters are in the MM that both have 1 HD and advance by class level but aren't Humanoids (boils down, largely, to the Planetouched), I think it was just an oversight to leave those proficiencies for the rare exceptions.

However, you're right: by the RAW, this seems to be the case - unless, of course you look at the 'Aasimar' and 'Tiefling as Characters' sections, here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/planetouched.htm). It makes no mention of Weapon or Armour Proficiencies, and specifically says they gain feats according to their class levels.

Fax Celestis
2007-03-29, 04:24 PM
It's curious that the rule in the SRD is under the heading "Humanoids and Class Levels". Considering how few mosnters are in the MM that both have 1 HD and advance by class level but aren't Humanoids (boils down, largely, to the Planetouched), I think it was just an oversight to leave those proficiencies for the rare exceptions.

However, you're right: by the RAW, this seems to be the case - unless, of course you look at the 'Aasimar' and 'Tiefling as Characters' sections, here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/planetouched.htm). It makes no mention of Weapon or Armour Proficiencies, and specifically says they gain feats according to their class levels.

Correct, but it also says that they are of the Outsider (Native) type, and would therefore gain all benefits of being an Outsider (darkvision, proficiencies, etc.)

Krellen
2007-03-29, 04:34 PM
Correct, but it also says that they are of the Outsider (Native) type, and would therefore gain all benefits of being an Outsider (darkvision, proficiencies, etc.)
If that was assumed, why is their Darkvision - the only feature that isn't really covered by taking a class - specifically mentioned?

Zherog
2007-03-29, 04:36 PM
It's curious that the rule in the SRD is under the heading "Humanoids and Class Levels". Considering how few mosnters are in the MM that both have 1 HD and advance by class level but aren't Humanoids (boils down, largely, to the Planetouched), I think it was just an oversight to leave those proficiencies for the rare exceptions.

Pixies come immediately to mind. A quick peek through some SRD stuff also finds nixies and grigs (the other sprites) also meet the criteria. Digging further into the SRD, though, I was unable to find any other 1 HD, non-humanoid creature that advances by character class.


If that was assumed, why is their Darkvision - the only feature that isn't really covered by taking a class - specifically mentioned?

The grand majority of the time, a creature's vision is repeated in the stat block, even though it could be excluded.