wielding double weapon and mage bane questions

[the_tick_rules]

1. I'm pretty sure but I wanted to ask to make sure. the books say if you are wielding say a quarterstaff you can only use one end of it in a round. You still count as wielding both sides for weapon properties? If you had one end with say defending property you could still siphon it while using the other end to hit stuff with right?

2. Does the magebane property still count against spell-like effects if you using the magic item compendium as the source? It specifically says it does in complete arcane but not quite in MIC.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

1. Even though you're only using one end of it as your primary weapon on your attack or full attack action, you're still wielding the whole thing. If you're holding it and can make attacks of opportunity with it, or if you're holding it and could have used the other end to make your attacks without changing how you're holding it, you're considered to be wielding that part of it. You can even make it an elvencraft longbow which counts as a quarterstaff as well, and put defending on all three portions and Greater Magic Weapon +5 all of them, and put two of the +5's toward AC when you attack with the third portion. Defending says it stacks with all other bonuses, which would include other Defending bonuses.

2. I hadn't even realized MIC updated Magebane. The CA version says it works on anything that uses spell-like abilities that emulate arcane spells (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#spellLikeAbilities): "Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes. A monster’s spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions. If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order." However, the MIC version says, "...any creature that can cast arcane spells or use invocations..." The updated version no longer includes users of spell-like abilities, instead it only includes Warlocks and Dragonfire Adepts (and any other invocation-using class) along with arcane spellcasters. Given the popularity of Magebane prior to and despite MIC's nerf, I'm sure there are plenty of groups that aren't even aware that it no longer applies to creatures that have spell-like abilities.

[Darg]

You wield the weapon as a whole, unless you hold the weapon one handed. In that case you only wield one side. For enhancements, each side is considered a separate weapon as a special case. If you so desire you can freely alternate sides as you wield the weapon 2 handed. Obviously you must choose the side for each attack.

[Darrin]

1. I'm pretty sure but I wanted to ask to make sure. the books say if you are wielding say a quarterstaff you can only use one end of it in a round. You still count as wielding both sides for weapon properties? If you had one end with say defending property you could still siphon it while using the other end to hit stuff with right?


There are two different ways to wield a quarterstaff: two-handed grip, or as a double weapon. While the rules don't say this explicitly, it's assumed from one of Skip's Rules of the Game articles (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041102a) that you can change the grip on your weapon as a free action, so how exactly you are wielding a quarterstaff can change pretty much whenever you need to attack with it.

Double weapons are treated as two different weapons for the purposes of enchantment, so you can enchant each end separately. For the purposes of whether or not you are "wielding" both ends of a double-weapon, you can choose to attack with either end of the weapon at any time, so you can assume you are always "wielding" both ends of a double weapon. If one of those weapon properties was largely a "defensive" property, such as "Defending", "Eager", or "Warning", you can still use that property even if you're not actively attacking with that end of the weapon. (Hey, you paid extra for that double weapon, you might as well enjoy one of the few benefits they can provide.)



2. Does the magebane property still count against spell-like effects if you using the magic item compendium as the source? It specifically says it does in complete arcane but not quite in MIC.

The Magebane property was deliberately nerfed in the MIC. It no longer works against creatures with SLAs, because (as you may have noticed) that once you get above a certain CR, almost all creatures have SLAs of some sort.

There's an argument that SLAs might still count as "arcane spells", but the arguments for/against kinda quickly spiral down into meaningless pedantry. Very briefly: The Monster Manual's Glossary says that "Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells (though they are not spells and so have no verbal, somatic, material, focus, or XP components)." However, the MM entry also says: "Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes - for example, true seeing. A monster's spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions. If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order." So, one argument says that a creature using an SLA is not actually casting a spell, you just treat it as if it were a spell for the purposes of how the target/range/duration/etc. works. The other argument says if the SLA is using a spell effect off of the wizard spell list, then it's treated as a wizard's spell for all intents and purposes, including whether it's considered an arcane spell or not.

Since the RAW on this is not clear, then this is an issue that is probably best decided by talking it over with the DM and deciding what works best for your group.

[Darg]

Magebane in the CArc says Arcane spell-like abilities. Spell-like abilities don't have an arcane or divine component unless stated. Considering that, 99.9% of the time it's meaning warlock. The other .1% is a dragonfire adept. This means that it wasnt actually nerfed and instead was clarified.

[ShurikVch]

Magebane in the CArc says Arcane spell-like abilities. Spell-like abilities don't have an arcane or divine component unless stated. Considering that, 99.9% of the time it's meaning warlock. The other .1% is a dragonfire adept. This means that it wasnt actually nerfed and instead was clarified.
Well, Phaerimm's SLA are clearly Arcane, since their racial magic stacks with levels in Sorcerer
Ethereal Defiler (Monster Manual V): Tainted Energy (Sp) stacks with Warlock's Eldritch Blast, thus - probably - Arcane too

[Darg]

Well, Phaerimm's SLA are clearly Arcane, since their racial magic stacks with levels in Sorcerer
Ethereal Defiler (Monster Manual V): Tainted Energy (Sp) stacks with Warlock's Eldritch Blast, thus - probably - Arcane too

Those are still assumptions right? The phaerimm's spells are spells that don't have verbal, somatic, or material components. The entry clearly states they are spells. Nothing in the ethereal defiler description hops out as being "arcane" either. And I mean, hellfire stacks with the warlocks EB but doesn't make hellfire arcane. The word eldritch simply means something is spooky/weird enough to inspire fear.

[ShurikVch]

The phaerimm's spells are spells that don't have verbal, somatic, or material components. The entry clearly states they are spells.
Ahem...

Phaerimm Magic (Sp): Phaerimms cast their sorcerer spells as if they were spell-like abilities, requiring neither verbal, somatic, nor material components.



Nothing in the ethereal defiler description hops out as being "arcane" either. And I mean, hellfire stacks with the warlocks EB but doesn't make hellfire arcane. The word eldritch simply means something is spooky/weird enough to inspire fear.
Warlock's abilities are Arcane - it's why this class was introduced in the book called "Complete Arcane. A Player's Guide To Arcane Magic For All Classes".
Thus, if something stacks with Arcane, it's logical to supposing it's Arcane too (unless RAW says differently)

And what's you mean - "hellfire"?
Neither Disciple of Mephistopheles PrC, nor Hellfire Wyrm monster add anything to Arcane.
If you meant Hellfire Blast CF of Hellfire Warlock PrC, then there are no clear indication of HB - indeed - stacking with EB rather than replacing it altogether.

(And "eldritch" is mangled "elvish")

[Darg]

"As if they were spell-like abilities." That doesn't say they are. They are still spells.

Considering a warlock is an arcane caster it it wouldn't make sense if their abilities weren't arcane in nature. That said, the ethereal defiler doesn't use arcane abilities. Sure they can take levels in warlock as progression, but that doesn't make their racial abilities arcane.

I mentioned the hellfire from hellfire blast specifically to counter your tainted energy stacking with EB as an argument for making it an arcane ability.

[ShurikVch]

"As if they were spell-like abilities." That doesn't say they are. They are still spells.
The special quality by itself is (Sp); which other confirmations you need?


Considering a warlock is an arcane caster it it wouldn't make sense if their abilities weren't arcane in nature. That said, the ethereal defiler doesn't use arcane abilities. Sure they can take levels in warlock as progression, but that doesn't make their racial abilities arcane.
??? :smallconfused:


I mentioned the hellfire from hellfire blast specifically to counter your tainted energy stacking with EB as an argument for making it an arcane ability.
As I already pointed, there is no clear indication HB stacks with EB and not replacing it altogether - unlike with the EB/TE example.


Also, besides the aforementioned - Factotum's Arcane Dilettante is Arcane too

[Darg]

The special quality by itself is (Sp); which other confirmations you need?

Phaerimms have been updated for 3.5 in Lost Empires of Faerun, completely lacking the (sp) tag. 2001 publication vs 2005.



As I already pointed, there is no clear indication HB stacks with EB and not replacing it altogether - unlike with the EB/TE example.


Also, besides the aforementioned - Factotum's Arcane Dilettante is Arcane too

It's in the description considering you can't use blast shapes on anything else other than eldritch blast.

Factotum is not an arcane caster and the description of the class skill does not mention it is an arcane spell-like ability. Even if the fluff is there, it does not mean that the mechanics work like that. Which is why I said it was more of a clarification. Mechanically it doesn't work without fluff rulings.

[ShurikVch]

It's in the description considering you can't use blast shapes on anything else other than eldritch blast.
Something-something trumping the general?..


Also, what's about the "racial" SLA of true Dragons?
I mean - Dragons are veritable embodiment of Arcane magic
If their spells are Arcane, then why their SLA shouldn't be?

[Darg]

Something-something trumping the general?..

A parenthetical is a reference. It isn't trumping anything.


Also, what's about the "racial" SLA of true Dragons?
I mean - Dragons are veritable embodiment of Arcane magic
If their spells are Arcane, then why their SLA shouldn't be?

Spells are classified as arcane or divine from the outset. Forgotten realms as a setting has the weave. Under that setting, beings that don't derive their power from divine beings get it from the weave (or shadow weave/psionics). In that sense it can be arcane. However, as a mechanic SLAs aren't given a type in 3.5. Warlocks are mentioned as arcane casters even though they have no spells. Dragons have spells which are separate from their SLAs. Nothing in the rules says their racial SLAs are arcane.