Dysfunctional Rules IV- It's like a sandwich made of RAW failure!

[Darrin]

The rules were updated in 3.5. The 3.0 rules were discarded in 3.5 thus any rules in 3.0 based on the weapon weights are not valid for 3.5.

DMG page 4, 9th paragraph, last sentence:

"This revision is compatible with existing products, and these products can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments."

[NeoPhoenix0]

Text trumps table only applies to classes.

No the errata rule goes like 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...

Any instance of a disagreement between text and table goes to the text no matter what kind of table it is.

[Talderas]

DMG page 4, 9th paragraph, last sentence:

"This revision is compatible with existing products, and these products can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments."

That is only pertinent to non-core material. No rules for PHB 3.0, DMG 3.0 or MM 3.0 are able to be used for 3.5 as those books were reprinted in their entirety. Any of the rules present in the 3.0 versions but not the 3.5 version are not valid rules for 3.5. While the 3.0 rules for gold and other weights were not in the PHB/DMG/MM the rules which they are dependent upon in order to function were located in those books. Since those rules were removed the content from other books that is dependent on those rules is no longer valid.

[hamishspence]

Any instance of a disagreement between text and table goes to the text no matter what kind of table it is.

Quite a lot of dysfunctions are cases of this- where the table made more sense than the text did.

Ones that stand out most in the mind- the Rainbow Servant (Complete Divine) and the Flay Foe/Skewer Foe/Pulverise Foe feats in Champions of Ruin (Flay Foe is vastly weaker than the other two in text, yet they have similar prerequisites, and are identical in effect in table)

[NeoPhoenix0]

Quite a lot of dysfunctions are cases of this- where the table made more sense than the text did.

Ones that stand out most in the mind- the Rainbow Servant (Complete Divine) and the Flay Foe/Skewer Foe/Pulverise Foe feats in Champions of Ruin (Flay Foe is vastly weaker than the other two in text, yet they have similar prerequisites, and are identical in effect in table)

Rainbow servant huh? There's a reason very few people play RAW. The main thing is that beguilers and warmages are more powerful than god mode wizards, what with spontaneously casting: their list, the cleric's list, a few domains, and their entire wizard spellbook (and that's just with rainbow servant, wizard 1, and versatile spellcaster). More can be put on the list but you start to lose more casting levels and you want 9 level slots.

[bekeleven]

Rainbow servant huh? There's a reason very few people play RAW. The main thing is that beguilers and warmages are more powerful than god mode wizards, what with spontaneously casting: their list, the cleric's list, a few domains, and their entire wizard spellbook (and that's just with rainbow servant, wizard 1, and versatile spellcaster). More can be put on the list but you start to lose more casting levels and you want 9 level slots.

(As an aside, 10 level in rainbow servant already denies 4 caster levels, enough that nobody's getting level 9 slots)

[hamishspence]

Only if you're following Table rather than Text.

[nedz]

(As an aside, 10 level in rainbow servant already denies 4 caster levels, enough that nobody's getting level 9 slots)

RS is 10/10 casting by RAW.

[bekeleven]

Wow. I was reading this discussion, went to the book, then my brain self-corrected for the class being balanced somehow. Sorry about that.

[JaronK]

Only if you're following Table rather than Text.

As a note, in other language publishings, sometimes the text says it's 6/10, and sometimes the table is 10/10. So we can't even use that to figure out which one's right.

So yeah, RAW, 10/10. But RAI... well, I'd hope 6/10.

JaronK

[NeoPhoenix0]

Oh and versatile spellcaster isn't on the handbook list. I'm too busy to look up if it was talked about in the stuff that hasn't been covered yet, but I think it should be on the list. It's perfectly functional under RAW, but can be stupidly broken. I don't think it was intended to be used by sorcerers (or other spontaneous caster) to spontaneously cast spells from their wizard spellbook (obtained with wizard dip) using sorcerer spell slots.

[nedz]

As a note, in other language publishings, sometimes the text says it's 6/10, and sometimes the table is 10/10. So we can't even use that to figure out which one's right.

So yeah, RAW, 10/10. But RAI... well, I'd hope 6/10.

JaronK

Since it wasn't erratad this sounds like a translators fix-up.

Oh and versatile spellcaster isn't on the handbook list. I'm too busy to look up if it was talked about in the stuff that hasn't been covered yet, but I think it should be on the list. It's perfectly functional under RAW, but can be stupidly broken. I don't think it was intended to be used by sorcerers (or other spontaneous caster) to spontaneously cast spells from their wizard spellbook (obtained with wizard dip) using sorcerer spell slots.

We are not looking for stupidly broken stuff, there are/have been other threads for that. What we are looking for is RAW that doesn't make sense and requires a compulsory house-rule.

[Story]

Rainbow servant huh? There's a reason very few people play RAW. The main thing is that beguilers and warmages are more powerful than god mode wizards, what with spontaneously casting: their list, the cleric's list, a few domains, and their entire wizard spellbook (and that's just with rainbow servant, wizard 1, and versatile spellcaster). More can be put on the list but you start to lose more casting levels and you want 9 level slots.

People say that a lot, but I'm not really convinced. First off, that trick doesn't come online until level 16, which doesn't come up much in real play. Second, you have to compare it with stuff like Incantrix and Dweomerkeeper. Lastly, their spelllist still has some gaps. Miracle is nice, but they don't get Shapechange for instance.

[NeoPhoenix0]

People say that a lot, but I'm not really convinced. First off, that trick doesn't come online until level 16, which doesn't come up much in real play. Second, you have to compare it with stuff like Incantrix and Dweomerkeeper. Lastly, their spelllist still has some gaps. Miracle is nice, but they don't get Shapechange for instance.

The cleric casting doesn't come until 16 level 15 but they can start casting wizard spells spontaneously starting at level 2. Also they can buy more spells for their spellbook. So at level 2 they can spontaneously cast 2nd level spells. They can also buy shapechange to add to their spellbook and cast it at level 17 spontaneously. The cleric list is just a nice big juicy bonus.

Edit: it's level 15 actually, because they are casting 3rd level spells from their wizard spellbook by giving up two level 2 spell slots at level 5, so they qualify then.

[Story]

That seems to be more about abusing Versatile Spellcaster than anything to do with Rainbow Servant.

Using the same trick, Wizards can spontaneously cast their entire spellbook and get 9th level spells at level 15. If you're willing to pull stuff like that, I think you could get spontaneous casting of mutiple spelllists on a Wizard chasis too.

It's like saying Monks are overpowered because a Wizard 19/Monk 1 is god.

[NeoPhoenix0]

It's about spontaneous access to two of the big three spell lists. Also the whole wizards using it thing is debatable. To qualify they need spontaneous spellcasting and to use it at the very least they need to leave slots unprepared.

[Story]

No need to leave slots unprepared - Spontaneous Divination lets you cast from prepared slots.

Anyway, at the point where you're talking about stuff like spontaneous Incantrixes with access to spells two levels early, it's hard to make meaningful power comparisons since everyone is god already. By my standards, it's pretty far into TO anyway.

[NeoPhoenix0]

No need to leave slots unprepared - Spontaneous Divination lets you cast from prepared slots.

Anyway, at the point where you're talking about stuff like spontaneous Incantrixes with access to spells two levels early, it's hard to make meaningful power comparisons since everyone is god already. By my standards, it's pretty far into TO anyway.

They can't cast using versatile spellcaster if the spell slots are prepared. That would be using two prepared spells to cast a spell of higher level not two spell slots. There is a difference. I know it's semantics but it makes a difference.

Edit: personally, I like the wizard 1/sorcerer 4/incantatrix 10/x 5 build. You get more spells that way. Sorcerer knows spells you know you are going to use all the time, and you fill the spell book with higher level spells and utilities. You can get a lot of mileage out of your spells per day then.

[Andezzar]

They can't cast using versatile spellcaster if the spell slots are prepared. That would be using two prepared spells to cast a spell of higher level not two spell slots. There is a difference. I know it's semantics but it makes a difference.

Huh? Don't you prepare spells in spell slots? I know of no rule that says you lose a slot if you fill it with a spell.

[NeoPhoenix0]

Huh? Don't you prepare spells in spell slots? I know of no rule that says you lose a slot if you fill it with a spell.

The feat versatile spellcaster does not give you the ability to lose prepared spells. You cannot use spell slots that are already filled to cast a different spell.

What you are suggesting is that you can take spell slots with prepared spell and use the to cast another spell. This doesn't work because you need slots to keep the prepared spells that were in the slot before.

In the case of spontaneous divination, the wizard can lose prepared spell slots for that ability, but that is a different ability from versatile spellcaster.

[Story]

Wall of Sand says that you can attack targets through it, but they have total cover, meaning they can't be attacked. Anyone know if this has come up before?

[Curmudgeon]

Wall of Sand says that you can attack targets through it, but they have total cover, meaning they can't be attacked.

Your assumption is incorrect. The spell doesn't give total cover; it only gives total concealment. Total concealment doesn't keep anyone from being attacked; it only keeps them from being targeted. You attack the square, sight unseen, and have a 50% miss chance on each shot. Wall of Sand has special rules for its sand cover (a reduction in damage for attacks passing through the sand), but it's not total cover.

[Andezzar]

You cannot use spell slots that are already filled to cast a different spell.

Where do the rules say that?

What you are suggesting is that you can take spell slots with prepared spell and use the to cast another spell. This doesn't work because you need slots to keep the prepared spells that were in the slot before.

That is much more than I thought and more than versatile spellcaster does. You are suggesting that you could cast three spells with two slots. two of the level which are prepared and one spontaneously one level higher.

In the case of spontaneous divination, the wizard can lose prepared spell slots for that ability, but that is a different ability from versatile spellcaster.

Yes the wording is different, but for wizards the benefit would be marginal if the ACF would require an empty spell slot.

[TuggyNE]

Your assumption is incorrect. Total cover doesn't keep anyone from being attacked; it only keeps them from being targeted. You attack the square, sight unseen, and have a 50% miss chance on each shot.

I think you're mixing cover and concealment here.

Total Cover
If you don’t have line of effect to your target he is considered to have total cover from you. You can’t make an attack against a target that has total cover.
[…]
Total Concealment
If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).

Dysfunction appears to be upheld, assuming the spell does say cover instead of concealment.

[Curmudgeon]

I think you're mixing cover and concealment here.

You're quite right. (It's impressive how distracting an 8 lb. cat can be when it's hungry, and the post wasn't even close to comprehensible when I submitted it.) I've edited the message so that it makes sense.

Dysfunction appears to be upheld, assuming the spell does say cover instead of concealment.

It doesn't, though. (Sandstorm, page 127)

[Darrin]

It doesn't, though. (Sandstorm, page 127)

Spell Compendium (December 2005) was published after Sandstorm (March 2005), so the Spell Compendium version takes precedence.

That version says:

"Creatures with reach can attempt to attack through the wall, but targets have total concealment and total cover, and the attacker must have a general idea where the target is located." (emphasis added)

So targets have both, but in this case, the specific text of the spell trumps the general rules: creatures with reach can attack, but they pick a square and roll their 50% miss chance.

However, that's a dysfunction: if your target is just inside the edge of the wall and you don't have reach, you can't attack him, even if you're directly adjacent.

[NeoPhoenix0]

Where do the rules say that?

The burden of proof here is on you. Where does it say in the rules that you can use spell slots that are already in use for another purpose. The wizard ACF is an exception, it specifically gives you the ability to lose the prepared spell and cast a divination. The feat versatile spellcaster does not let you lose prepared spells from the spell slots to cast a spell. They are already in use and cannot be used. "because the rules don't say I can't" is not a valid arguement.

That is much more than I thought and more than versatile spellcaster does. You are suggesting that you could cast three spells with two slots. two of the level which are prepared and one spontaneously one level higher.

No, I'm pointing out that it is ridiculous to assume you can use a spell slot that is already prepared for another purpose unless that purpose allows you to lose the prepared spell.

Edit:"also that the feat versatile spellcaster doesn't have language for losing prepared spells to use it."

Yes the wording is different, but for wizards the benefit would be marginal if the ACF would require an empty spell slot.

I was pointing out here that the wizard ACF functions differently than the feat versatile spellcaster because it has specific rules about losing prepared spells to cast divinations. In fact that ACF can't use empty spell slots because of the specific language involved.

[Andezzar]

The burden of proof here is on you. Where does it say in the rules that you can use spell slots that are already in use for another purpose. The wizard ACF is an exception, it specifically gives you the ability to lose the prepared spell and cast a divination. The feat versatile spellcaster does not let you lose prepared spells from the spell slots to cast a spell. They are already in use and cannot be used. "because the rules don't say I can't" is not a valid arguement.

If you fill a spell slot with a spell, does the spell slot disappear? If not you still have a spell slot (a filled one) that can be exchanged for another spell per versatile spellcaster.

Prerequisite

Ability to spontaneously cast spells,
Benefit

You can use two spell slots of the same level to cast a spell you know that is one level higher. For example, a sorcerer with this feat can expend two 2nd-level spell slots to cast any 3rd-level spell he knows.

The feat does not specify that the spell slot must be empty or one of the universal ones spontaneous casting classes get. It is any kind of spell slot. A Sorc1/Wiz19 (sans spontaneous divination) could even use all his wizard slots because the feat is not restricted to only those slots that enabled taking the feat.

Spell Slots: The various character class tables in Chapter 3: Classes show how many spells of each level a character can cast per day. These openings for daily spells are called spell slots. A spellcaster always has the option to fill a higher-level spell slot with a lower-level spell. For example, a 7th-level wizard has at least one 4th-level spell slot and two 3rd-level spell slots (see Table 3–18: The Wizard, page 55). However, the character could choose to prepare three 3rd-level spells instead, filling the 4th-level slot with a 3rdlevel spell. A spellcaster who lacks a high enough ability score to cast spells that would otherwise be his or her due still gets the slots but must fill them with spells of lower level

so as long as you have not cast a spell you have spell slots. Additionally this does not say that spell slots cease to exist if they are filled with a spell. Nowhere does it say that a spell prepared in a spell slot is something else than a filled spell slot. If this did happen you could not cast a spell because of the underlined rule.

No, I'm pointing out that it is ridiculous to assume you can use a spell slot that is already prepared for another purpose unless that purpose allows you to lose the prepared spell.

You might consider it ridiculous, but that is what the rule says. A spell slot is a spell slot, whether it is filled or not.

[The Viscount]

As discussed in this thread, clerics that pray for spells at dusk must have nocturnal adventuring cycles.

[Andezzar]

As discussed in this thread, clerics that pray for spells at dusk must have nocturnal adventuring cycles.

It's not a dysfunction just an obstacle for certain clerics.