Simple RAW Thread for 3.5 #35: 3/2 Score And Four Threads Ago

[Doctor Despair]

Adding to this: it would be possible out of combat, since only combat movement is locked to a grid.

So it would work until you took some action that initiated combat (or were spotted), at which point you would need to decide which square you are in. Thank you for that clarification.

The DM has discretion to decide whether taking 10 is appropriate in a situation, but other than that, there's nothing that would prohibit doing this, no. Note that it may not be your decision if the Listen check is rolled secretly.

So to be safe, you'd want to have Skill Mastery or Hardened Criminal or some similar effect, as it's possible (but not dependable) for your character to be able to always take 10 on listen checks. Thank you.

[newguydude1]

q 825

Material Component

That of the companion spell, plus quicksilver and an eyelash of an ogre mage, rakshasa, or similar spell-using creature.

so if im reading this right
1. shadow evocation mimicing contingency gets to ignore the costly material component of the companion spell. so if the companion spell has a material component of 1,000gp, its ignored.
2. contingency doesnt have an xp component. so does that mean the companion spell's xp component is ignored?

[Doctor Despair]

Q826

There is an item in Secrets of Sarlona, the Headband of Pursuit, that doesn't seem to have a slot listed. As a general rule, headbands use a head slot, right?

[Venger]

A 826 That is correct.

[St Fan]

q 825


so if im reading this right
1. shadow evocation mimicing contingency gets to ignore the costly material component of the companion spell. so if the companion spell has a material component of 1,000gp, its ignored.
2. contingency doesnt have an xp component. so does that mean the companion spell's xp component is ignored?

A 825
First of all, contingency being a 6th-level spell, shadow evocation cannot duplicate it. You need greater shadow evocation.

Second of all: no, using greater shadow evocation would dispense you from the material component and focus of contingency, but not from those of the other spell, which still has to be cast on its own separately.

[Kayblis]

q 825


so if im reading this right
1. shadow evocation mimicing contingency gets to ignore the costly material component of the companion spell. so if the companion spell has a material component of 1,000gp, its ignored.
2. contingency doesnt have an xp component. so does that mean the companion spell's xp component is ignored?

A 825
1. No, you ignore the material component of a spell you mimic with Shadow Evocation - in this case, Contingency. You cast both spells in the 10 minutes you take to get Contingency up.
2. No, for the above reason. You have to spend XP for the other spell as usual.

[newguydude1]

A 825
First of all, contingency being a 6th-level spell, shadow evocation cannot duplicate it. You need greater shadow evocation.

Second of all: no, using greater shadow evocation would dispense you from the material component and focus of contingency, but not from those of the other spell, which still has to be cast on its own separately.

A 825
1. No, you ignore the material component of a spell you mimic with Shadow Evocation - in this case, Contingency. You cast both spells in the 10 minutes you take to get Contingency up.
2. No, for the above reason. You have to spend XP for the other spell as usual.

the raw i quoted says the material component for the companion spell is instead the material component for the contingency spell. so if you ignore the entire material component entry in contingency with shadow evocation, then your ignoring the material component of the companion spell.

[sreservoir]

A 825 cont'd mean rules-lawyering

You need to pay one copy of material cost once for the companion spell, and then another copy of the material cost for contingency. Greater shadow evocation obviates the need for the extra copy.

Also, since greater shadow evocation obviates the focus and "You must carry the focus for the contingency to work," the contingency doesn't work.

[Doctor Despair]

Q827

I'm a little confused about how extra dimensional space works. If your familiar or psycrystal is in a bag of holding or portable hole in your square, does it count as being within arms' reach?

Q828

If your familiar or psycrystal is in a bag of holding or portable hole in your square, can they be detected by magic or other effects?

[Venger]

A 827 No
A 828 No

[newguydude1]

q 829

does metamagic rods work with spell like abilities?

complete arcane says the reason sudden metamagic feats work on spell-like abilities is because it doesnt modify spell slots. so using that logic shouldnt spell like abilities be affected by metamagic rods?

[Doctor Despair]

Q830

Can an incorporeal creature occupy the same space as another willing corporeal creature? Certainly a small incorporeal creature could occupy the same square as a huge creature (as a non-incorporeal could do the same), but what about overlapping in the same space?

Covered in Rules Compendium; yes, not limited by size, but the creature and incorporeal creatures gain concealment or cover respectively depending on the size difference

Q831

If an incorporeal creature were to stay within a larger creature's space (consider, hypothetically, in the center of a huge creature's area), would that incorporeal creature have line of effect to other creatures?

Edit: Rules Compendium seems unclear here with regard to an incorporeal creature on the outer edge of a creature's occupied squares (if the corporeal creature is two size categories larger than the incorporeal creature).

An incorporeal creature inside an object has total cover, but when it attacks a creature outside the object, it has only cover.

The incorporeal creature can make melee attacks against those who are adjacent to them; that much is clear. The rules for total cover state...

Spoiler: Total Cover

Show

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.

So that suggests that either the incorporeal creature in the object has line of effect to creatures, as they can reach past the wall (or creature) as if it weren't there, or that incorporeal creatures are unique in that they can make melee attacks without line of effect.

The rules for line of effect seem to suggest that other creatures do not have line of effect towards the incorporeal creature; they would also suggest that the incorporeal creature does not have line of effect to creatures past the wall. Does this mean that Incorporeal creatures have a one-sided line of effect to creatures outside the object (when taking actions)?

Of course, when making use of it, the rules would seem to suggest that the incorporeal creature could be attacked -- but only while attacking, so not after the attack is completed. As they still have cover, it can't be an attack of opportunity, but a prepared action should work, right? This has kind of exploded into two different questions, I feel...

Q831B

When an incorporeal creature attacks out of an object, they lose total cover, but retain cover. Does that leave them vulnerable to anything other than prepared actions, environmental hazards, and persistent magical effects (e.g. ongoing emanations, ongoing AOE effects, etc)?

Q832

A creature always has line of effect to itself, as I recall, but if an incorporeal creature were to overlap with another creature, would the incorporeal creature have line of effect to the corporeal creature? Would the corporeal creature have line of effect to the incorporeal creature?

[Venger]

A 831 No
A 831a (When you ask a sub question like this, it is Number, Number(a), Number(b),etc) You would also be vulnerable to aoos should enemies be able to attack you, things that can be done as immediate actions, etc
(partial A) 832 Do you have a citation for the rule saying a creature always has loe to itself? Logically, I suppose it makes sense, but i've never heard of it before. I don't know if the incorporeal creature would have loe to the corporeal one, but the corporeal one definitely does not have loe to the incorporeal one. It may not even be aware of the incorporeal creature's presence given the circumstances.

[Doctor Despair]

A 831 No

I think I have to agree with you here. By the strictest RAW reading, a creature inside an object like that would have no LOE to anything else in general. Specifically, Incorporal creatures can make melee attacks against those adjacent to them (somehow) without line of effect, while every other creature in the game has to have line of effect. This does not bestow upon the Incorporal creature any special benefit to otherwise ignore the rules regarding Line of Effect by RAW.

A 831a (When you ask a sub question like this, it is Number, Number(a), Number(b),etc) You would also be vulnerable to aoos should enemies be able to attack you, things that can be done as immediate actions, etc

My apologies for the format. I'm not certain about the AoOs, as the cover rules state that creatures cannot execute attacks of opportunity against creatures with cover relative to them. However, immediate actions are definitely a cause for concern.

(partial A) 832 Do you have a citation for the rule saying a creature always has loe to itself? Logically, I suppose it makes sense, but i've never heard of it before. I don't know if the incorporeal creature would have loe to the corporeal one, but the corporeal one definitely does not have loe to the incorporeal one. It may not even be aware of the incorporeal creature's presence given the circumstances.

I'm looking around, and I'm having a hard time finding a citation. The closest thing I can find is the definition for line of effect:

A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier. It’s like line of sight for ranged weapons, except that it’s not blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight.

You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect. You must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin of any spell you cast.

As there are no barriers between you and yourself, you should have line of effect to yourself. I think I must have been remembering reading someone else's interpretation in a comment years ago, although it holds up to my initial scrutiny.

I suppose by that logic the incorporeal creature would have line of effect to the corporeal creature, although funnily enough the condition "total cover" necessarily means that, as you said, the corporeal creature would not have LoE to the creature inside it.

Spoiler: Total Cover

Show

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.

I suppose the answer to "does the incorporeal creature have LoE to itself" and "does the incorporeal creature have LoE to a corporeal creature it is camping in" would be the same, barring some other rule citation I'm not aware of... But then again, that is why I reached out for this one in the first place.

[AvatarVecna]

Q833

If you find yourself in a situation where you are dealing a negative amount of damage, what is the RAW effect of that? Does nothing happen, is the target "healed" instead of hurt, something weirder?

[Venger]

A 833 He takes 1 point of damage.

Minimum Damage: If penalties reduce the damage result to less
than 1, a hit still deals 1 point of damage.

[newguydude1]

q 834

if a creature with a slam attack has bite of the werebear cast, does it gain an additional 2 claw attacks in addition to its slam? and it attacks at full base attack bonus?

and how does it interact with girallons blessing? do the additional 2 claw attacks stack with the 4 additional claw attacks?

[Venger]

A 834 Yes. Yes. It stacks.

[newguydude1]

q 835
bite of werebear. it says your mouth becomes that of a bear and gain a bite attack. but if you already had a bite attack, does it get replaced, do you not get the new bite attack, or for some unfathomable reason you get both bite attacks?

same thing with claw attack. if you had claws, when your hand becomes claws, replaced, ignored, or both?

q 836

when a contingency spell comes into effect, do you get to choose the effect? or do you need to choose the effect at the time of setting the contingency? so like do you choose a teleport destination at the time of trigger, or at the time of casting?

q 837

can a symbiont merge with undead and constructs? i dont see anything that forbids this.

[Venger]

A 835 Same as anything else in this game, it does not replace your old claw/bite damage unless it says it does. Many templates, for example, will say "gain x claw damage or use your old one if it's better." Bite of the werex lacks such language, so the natural weapons you gain from it stack with any others you may have, same as the answer to 834.

A 836 You choose the effect when it goes off.

A 837 There is no specific mechanical rule preventing this. They are unlikely to benefit much from gutworms, and soul ticks are unlikely to be interested in them as hosts due to lack of con.

[St Fan]

Q 838

A little clarification about the grease spell...

A) Creatures that keep upright in the area of a grease spell are considered balancing. According to the Balance rules, that means they are flat-footed against attacks, unless they have at least 5 ranks in Balance, right?

B) However, if they fall because of the grease, they get the prone condition, but my guess would be they are no longer balancing. Would that mean they are no longer flat-footed against attacks? (The penalties from being prone not including loss of Dexterity bonus...)

[Venger]

A 838a Yes
A 838b Your understanding is correct.

[newguydude1]

q 839

if you persist a duration concentration spell like animate weapon, is the duration 24 hours no concentration, or do i still need concentration?

[Venger]

A 839 Only persistent "detect" spells are called out as not requiring continued concentration. Other spells with a duration of concentration require you to concentrate normally.

[Doctor Despair]

Q840

If an incorporeal creature can make a melee attack against adjacent creatures without having line of effect to them, can that attack discharge touch-range spells? Or would not having line of effect preclude that? Normally, of course, this is a non-issue, as corporeal creatures cannot attack creatures they do not have line of effect to

[St Fan]

A 839

Okay, first of all, animate weapon is a touch spell, you cannot persist it. Persistent Spell only works on personal spells.

However, the description of the Persistent Spell do specify what happen with spells requiring concentration, such as detect magic or detect thought, and this can be extrapolated for other concentration spells. Essentially, the spell is maintained but has no (or only passive) effect unless the caster concentrate.

[Doctor Despair]

Q841a

Back again with another weird question about incorporeal creatures and line of effect.

I've previously pointed out that incorporeal creatures can explicitly make attacks against creatures they're adjacent to, but wondered why it was possible that they could do this without line of effect. I'm now looking at a line I'd overlooked in the incorporeal subtype:

An incorporeal creature can enter or pass through solid objects, but must remain adjacent to the object’s exterior, and so cannot pass entirely through an object whose space is larger than its own. It can sense the presence of creatures or objects within a square adjacent to its current location, but enemies have total concealment (50% miss chance) from an incorporeal creature that is inside an object. In order to see farther from the object it is in and attack normally, the incorporeal creature must emerge. An incorporeal creature inside an object has total cover, but when it attacks a creature outside the object it only has cover, so a creature outside with a readied action could strike at it as it attacks. An incorporeal creature cannot pass through a force effect.

I was wondering if I could get some confirmation on how I'm parsing this. It tells us that creatures adjacent to the incorporeal creature have total concealment, which reads:

If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight he is considered to have total concealment from you.

This seems to suggest that an incorporeal creature inside an object has total cover, and has line of effect to creatures outside of the object, but not line of sight. This is explicitly true for those adjacent to you, but arguably not for those further away.

Does this mean that an incorporeal creature in an object can use range: touch spells against those adjacent to them?

Q841b

Does this mean that an incorporeal creature in an object can cast spells that don't require line of sight, such as tossing a fireball into the adjacent square? The incorporeal creature explicitly seems to have line of effect to creatures adjacent to them, but I'm not sure that it extends by RAW to the square adjacent to them.

Q841c

With regard to spells requiring line of sight, there's a similar situation addressed in the psionic feat Burrowing Power, a feat designed to allow powers to bypass barriers that block line of sight and line of effect:

If a power requires line of sight (which includes most powers that affect a target or targets instead of an area), you cannot manifest it as a burrowing power unless you can somehow see the target, such as with clairvoyant sense.

Does this mean that an incorporeal creature in an object can cast targeted spells against creatures adjacent to them if they have some other means of gaining line of sight, such as with remote viewing, scrying, or clairvoyant sense?

Q841d

The rules text explicitly states that creatures adjacent to the incorporeal creature have total concealment, which should mean that we have line of effect to them. However, creatures that are further away to not have that specific rules text. Does that imply that, however illogical it might be, creatures further away do have total cover against the incorporeal creature in the object, but lose it if they come within 5 feet?

...

Actually, as I think about that, that almost seems similar to the rules for low walls weirdly enough. I wonder if that's intentional.

A low obstacle (such as a wall no higher than half your height) provides cover, but only to creatures within 30 feet (6 squares) of it. The attacker can ignore the cover if he’s closer to the obstacle than his target.

[newguydude1]

q 842
does a barbazu's infernal wounds work on zombies and constructs?

[Venger]

A 841a You can attack the square he's in at 50% miss chance as normal, yes.

A 841b Yes.

A 841c Not unless they have burrowing power, no. This is a benefit for characters with burrowing power only.

A 841d It means you are incapable of targeting or engaging with characters who are not adjacent to you at all and this protection is downgraded to mere total concealment if they stand next to the wall you're in.

A 842 Zombies, being mindless, do not naturally heal damage anyway, so the ability doesn't actually do anything to them.

Intelligent undead who are affected by the infernal wound ability would have their ability to heal naturally impeded, yes. Their type offers no protection from this attack.

(non-living) constructs cannot heal naturally, so while they would technically be affected, the ability wouldn't do anything to them either.

Living constructs would have their ability to heal naturally hampered.

[newguydude1]

A 842 Zombies, being mindless, do not naturally heal damage anyway, so the ability doesn't actually do anything to them.

Intelligent undead who are affected by the infernal wound ability would have their ability to heal naturally impeded, yes. Their type offers no protection from this attack.

(non-living) constructs cannot heal naturally, so while they would technically be affected, the ability wouldn't do anything to them either.

Living constructs would have their ability to heal naturally hampered.

so all of them would still lose 2 hp a round then until healed?