Simple RAW Thread for 3.5 #36: The Triple Dozen

[Elves]

A 635

A

a truename component (T) mean[s] that the caster must succeed on a Truespeak check to have the spell func-tion as desired.

based on this wording, true prayer of the faithful can affect any number of people within range and beckon person can have an infinite duration when cast as SLA or Su. That's some bad writing. Good catch.

B
The dragonmark component is ignored only insofar as it's a component, so the dweomerkeeper could cast the spell but not ignore any dragonmark requirements that are part of its effect.

[Troacctid]

Q 635

A Dweomerkeeper using the Supernatural Spell class feature ignores all components of the spell concerned. It's generally accepted this includes unusual components such as a Truename check or a Dragonmark. However...

A) If the spell requires a Truename check, and its specific effects depends on how high was the result of the check, what happens when cast instead through Supernatural Spell? Is the minimum check result needed for the spell to work automatically assumed?

C) Similarly, if a spell requires a Dragonmark to be cast, and its effects depends on the power level of said mark (least, lesser, greater, or Syberys), what happen when cast instead through Supernatural Spell? Is a least Dragonmark assumed, or can the Dweomerkeeper pretty much emulate any level of Dragonmark?

A. Any "if you succeeded on the truespeak check" types of effects will not happen, since you did not succeed on the check. This usually means the spell does nothing.
B. Similarly, any effects that require you to have exceeded the DC by a certain amount will not happen. You did not exceed the DC.
C. You have no dragonmark of any kind. Any part of the spell that keys off your dragonmark will not function. This will typically mean that the spell does nothing.

[Elves]

A. Any "if you succeeded on the truespeak check" types of effects will not happen, since you did not succeed on the check. This usually means the spell does nothing.
B. Similarly, any effects that require you to have exceeded the DC by a certain amount will not happen. You did not exceed the DC.

take a look at the language:

a truename component (T) mean[s] that the caster must succeed on a Truespeak check to have the spell func-tion as desired.

Say you desire to have beckon person last infinite rounds. "A truename component (T) mean[s] that you must succeed on a [DC infinity] Truespeak check to have the spell func-tion as desired (ie, lasting infinite rounds)". Ignoring the component thus means that you don't need to succeed on that check to have the spell function as desired (lasting infinite rounds). So in this case the RAW allows the exploit.


Edit: Troacctid pointed out you could argue neither spell has any effect, since the text for both references "succeeding on the Truespeak check", which you didn't. But because you don't need to succeed on the check to have the spell "function as desired", that may not matter. From an RAI standpoint it's probably better to avoid the infinite duration gimmick.

[Troacctid]

take a look at the language:



Say you desire to have beckon person last infinite rounds. "A truename component (T) mean[s] that you must succeed on a [DC infinity] Truespeak check to have the spell func-tion as desired (ie, lasting infinite rounds)". Ignoring the component thus means that you don't need to succeed on that check to have the spell function as desired (lasting infinite rounds). So in this case the RAW allows the exploit.

That's not what the text of the spell says.

If you succeed on the Truespeak check and the creature fails its saving throw, it must move at least 10 feet closer to you each round if able.
[...]
The Truespeak DC to cast this spell is 15; you add 2 rounds to the duration for every 5 points by which you exceed the DC.

You didn't succeed on the Truespeak check, so that part of the spell simply does not happen. Similarly, you didn't exceed the DC by 5 or more, so that part of the spell doesn't happen either.

Now, you could have a spell like augment truefriend or unname that doesn't use this sort of language in its text, and you'd be fine. But for beckon person and true prayer of the faithful, RAW is no.

[Thurbane]

Q 636

need a price check using custom item creation guidelines please (I am the DM, but I get confused by multiple powers on one item).

Slotted item (Torc, throat slot), which does the following:

Tongues (continuous)
Speak with Plants (1/day)
Speak with Dead (1/day)
Speak With Animals (continuous)

CL 5

[Troacctid]

Q 636

need a price check using custom item creation guidelines please (I am the DM, but I get confused by multiple powers on one item).

Slotted item (Torc, throat slot), which does the following:

Tongues (continuous)
Speak with Plants (1/day)
Speak with Dead (1/day)
Speak With Animals (continuous)

CL 5

Since this isn't a RAW item, it doesn't have a RAW price, only a subjective price assigned by the individual DM based on comparisons to existing items. So this isn't really a RAW question. That said, I'd personally eyeball it around the 30k gp mark.

[Debatra]

No, we definitely have a RAW method to determine the price of a custom magic item.

A 636

Ignoring for a moment that you would need at least three different Classes working together to get this item at this caster level (barring some Domains that might give a Cleric these spells at the appropriate levels anyway). Also assuming Command Word activation for the 1/day effects since you didn't specify.

Then there's the ever-debated "minimum caster level" rule. Also, this little gem from the item creation section:

Since different classes get access to certain spells at different levels, the prices for two characters to make the same item might actually be different. An item is only worth two times what the caster of lowest possible level can make it for. Calculate the market price based on the lowest possible level caster, no matter who makes the item.

Mind you that's market price, not cost to create. Cost to create still uses the creators' spell levels. I'm not about to go book diving to find classes with weird spell levels though. Sticking to core here.

Command Word spells go for Spell Level X Caster Level X 1,800gp, with 1/day abilities dividing that cost by 5. So effectively just Spell Level X 1,800. Nice and simple.

Speak With Dead - Clr 3, so 5,400gp.
Speak With Plants - Bard 4, Drd 3, Rgr 2, so 3,600gp.

Constant Effect items are Spell Level X Caster Level X 2,000gp, with a further modifier based on the spell's normal duration.

Tongues, 10 minutes/level, Bard 2 Clr 4 Sor/Wiz 3. So 2 x 5 x 2,000 x 1.5 = 30,000gp.
Speak With Animals, 1 minute/level, Bard 3, Drd 1, Rgr 1. So 1 x 5 x 2,000 x 2 = 20,000gp.

For whatever reason, the "multiple similar abilities" section for creating magic items is specifically for slotless items. No idea why, but I'm not applying that discount here. Similarly, the multiplier for multiple different abilities probably shouldn't apply because a bunch of different "You Can Talk to X" abilities are certainly similar.

So 30,000 + 20,000 + 5,400 + 5,400 = 60,800gp for our final market price. If you were actually looking for the cost to create such an item; then as mentioned, we would need to know who's doing the creating.

[Beni-Kujaku]

Q 637
Can multiple people provide spells for the creation of a magic item?

[Troacctid]

No, we definitely have a RAW method to determine the price of a custom magic item.

From the SRD:

Many factors must be considered when determining the price of new magic items. The easiest way to come up with a price is to match the new item to an item that is already priced that price as a guide. Otherwise, use the guidelines summarized on Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Price Values.
[...]
Not all items adhere to these formulas directly. The reasons for this are several. First and foremost, these few formulas aren’t enough to truly gauge the exact differences between items. The price of a magic item may be modified based on its actual worth. The formulas only provide a starting point. The pricing of scrolls assumes that, whenever possible, a wizard or cleric created it. Potions and wands follow the formulas exactly. Staffs follow the formulas closely, and other items require at least some judgment calls.

The RAW says to compare it to existing items and use the table as a ballpark estimate, with the final price ultimately being a judgment call from the DM. It's explicitly not a hard number (except for items such as staffs that use a strict formula).

Q 637
Can multiple people provide spells for the creation of a magic item?

Yes.

[InvisibleBison]

Q 638: I seem to recall there being a rule that winged flight is by default a natural ability and wingless flight is by default a supernatural ability, but I can't find it anywhere. Is there such a rule, or is my memory playing tricks on me?

[Thurbane]

Spoiler

Show

No, we definitely have a RAW method to determine the price of a custom magic item.

A 636

Ignoring for a moment that you would need at least three different Classes working together to get this item at this caster level (barring some Domains that might give a Cleric these spells at the appropriate levels anyway). Also assuming Command Word activation for the 1/day effects since you didn't specify.

Then there's the ever-debated "minimum caster level" rule. Also, this little gem from the item creation section:


Mind you that's market price, not cost to create. Cost to create still uses the creators' spell levels. I'm not about to go book diving to find classes with weird spell levels though. Sticking to core here.

Command Word spells go for Spell Level X Caster Level X 1,800gp, with 1/day abilities dividing that cost by 5. So effectively just Spell Level X 1,800. Nice and simple.

Speak With Dead - Clr 3, so 5,400gp.
Speak With Plants - Bard 4, Drd 3, Rgr 2, so 3,600gp.

Constant Effect items are Spell Level X Caster Level X 2,000gp, with a further modifier based on the spell's normal duration.

Tongues, 10 minutes/level, Bard 2 Clr 4 Sor/Wiz 3. So 2 x 5 x 2,000 x 1.5 = 30,000gp.
Speak With Animals, 1 minute/level, Bard 3, Drd 1, Rgr 1. So 1 x 5 x 2,000 x 2 = 20,000gp.

For whatever reason, the "multiple similar abilities" section for creating magic items is specifically for slotless items. No idea why, but I'm not applying that discount here. Similarly, the multiplier for multiple different abilities probably shouldn't apply because a bunch of different "You Can Talk to X" abilities are certainly similar.

So 30,000 + 20,000 + 5,400 + 5,400 = 60,800gp for our final market price. If you were actually looking for the cost to create such an item; then as mentioned, we would need to know who's doing the creating.

Thank you - that answer is helpful, detailed and above all useful.

[St Fan]

Q 638: I seem to recall there being a rule that winged flight is by default a natural ability and wingless flight is by default a supernatural ability, but I can't find it anywhere. Is there such a rule, or is my memory playing tricks on me?

A 638
Only mention that can be found quickly is from the Monster Manual: "Unless noted otherwise, modes of movement are natural (not magical)." No mention of wings, though.

Q 639
A character that can't make attack of opportunities can't threaten an opponent.
A character who doesn't threaten an opponent cannot make attack of opportunities.

A) With this bit of circular reasoning out of the way, what happen when two allies try to flank an opponent with total concealment? (i.e. invisible, and they don't have see invisibility.) Even if they are pretty sure of its position, they can't make attack of opportunities against the invisible one, thus they don't threaten. Do they get flanking bonuses?

B) What if one of the two characters can see the invisible?

[Debatra]

A 639

Actually, your ability to make attacks of opportunity is irrelevant to whether or not you threaten squares. "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack".

As for flanking while any given person involved in the flank is unaware of or unable to detect anyone else involved, the RAW is simple, if counter-intuitively so:

When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner.

When in doubt about whether two friendly characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two friendly characters’ centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.

Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.

Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.

Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can’t flank an opponent.

This may not always line up with logic, but that's RAW for you. (And it's also why we have regular humans as DMs to make reasonable rulings on things.)

[St Fan]

A 639
Actually, your ability to make attacks of opportunity is irrelevant to whether or not you threaten squares. "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack".

That is far from being always true.

The whip is treated as a melee weapon with 15-foot reach, though you don’t threaten the area into which you can make an attack.

Also, doesn't characters fighting unarmed (and without Improved Unarmed Strike) threaten no squares?

Plus, this contradict a previous response I got in this RAW thread.

[Doctor Despair]

Q 650a

If a druid gains a domain via Contemplative, do they gain a domain slot at each level, or can they prepare their domain spells in their regular slots?

Q 650b

If a druid gains a domain via a base class like a cleric dip, can they use their druid slots to prepare their domain spells? I.e., could a druid 19/cloistered cleric 1 multiclass prepare and cast Discern Location?

[Beni-Kujaku]

That is far from being always true.
Also, doesn't characters fighting unarmed (and without Improved Unarmed Strike) threaten no squares?

Plus, this contradict a previous response I got in this RAW thread.

In the case of a whip and of unarmed strike, it is pointed out specifically as exceptions, which don't affect the validity of the general rule "You only threaten squares you can make a melee attack on". Every rule in d&d has an implied "In general" in the beginning.

I don't see how this contradict the previous answer. H_H_F_F and Debatra both said that you don't threaten a square if you can't attack on it. H_H_F_F's example was pointing out that the benefit of Active Shield Defense included threatening squares while in total defense as if you didn't use total defense ("as normal"), which implies that you don't threaten squares anymore while in total defense, since you can't attack these squares.

The sequence is as follows:
Can I attack the square with something that threatens (a non-whip, non-unarmed melee weapon)->Yes-> I threaten the square-> Does the opponent have something that prevents AoO (concealment, Tumble check, me not having any AoO left for the round.....)-> No-> I can AoO them.

You can't AoO if you don't threaten, but you can threaten even if you can't AoO.

Also, the wording "threaten a square" more than "threaten an opponent" used in many rules also means that you don't really care about the state the opponent is in, they are still threatened and have more difficulty dodging attacks coming from 2 directions than one.


A650a Sadly no. As Contemplative underlines, you "can select the spells in that domain as [your] daily domain spells.". This is one of the reasons why the Epic Feat "Extra Domain" is really not that good.

A650b Absolutely not. Spell lists are separated, and even if they weren't, druids still don't have domain slots.

[St Fan]

The sequence is as follows:
Can I attack the square with something that threatens (a non-whip, non-unarmed melee weapon)->Yes-> I threaten the square-> Does the opponent have something that prevents AoO (concealment, Tumble check, me not having any AoO left for the round.....)-> No-> I can AoO them.

You can't AoO if you don't threaten, but you can threaten even if you can't AoO.

Also, the wording "threaten a square" more than "threaten an opponent" used in many rules also means that you don't really care about the state the opponent is in, they are still threatened and have more difficulty dodging attacks coming from 2 directions than one.

Yes, I see I had some misconceptions about the threatening rules. Thanks for the explanations.

[Arparrabiosa]

Q 651

A cleric casts Imbue with Spell Ability: Shield of Faith and Close Wounds. Does she lose the prepared spells? If so, when? When the Imbue with Spell Ability is cast or when the recipient cast the spell? If its the second, can she cast it before the recipient does?

[St Fan]

A 651

It's a good question, because the spell was different in previous editions, hence why the 3.5 version must be carefully read.

You transfer some of your currently prepared spells, and the ability to cast them, to another creature.

Once you cast imbue with spell ability, you cannot prepare a new 4th-level spell to replace it until the recipient uses the imbued spells or is slain, or until you dismiss the imbue with spell ability spell.

The cleric lose the prepared spells that are to be transferred at the time of casting imbue with spell ability, as if they were cast normally. However, that mean the spell slots are not locked; they can be recovered the next time the cleric pray for spells (and used to prepare different spells).

Only the 4th-level spell slot that was used for imbue with spell ability itself is locked until the quoted conditions are met. After all the imbued spells are used, the subject is slain or the spell is dismissed (or dispelled), this 4th-level spell slot can be used to prepare a new spell (again, the next time the cleric pray for spells).

The cleric cannot use the spells that were imbued, they're entirely under the control of the target creature, although the whole thing can be dismissed by the Cleric.

[Elves]

Q 652

Turning has a range of 60 feet, but it affects the closest turn-able creature fi rst. You don’t need line of sight to a target, but you do need line of effect.

A) Is this only to establish the turning, or does it mean that the turning ends if a creature is more than 60 ft away or you lose LOE to them?

In the latter case, because "Turned creatures flee from you by the best and fastest means available to them", most turns would be self-breaking.

OTOH, if it's NOT the case, there's no easy way to free a commanded undead ("The controller can voluntarily relinquish power over any commanded creatures to command new ones. Otherwise, the commanded state is permanent.")

B) Is there a way to free a commanded undead other than killing the creature commanding them?

[Doctor Despair]

Q 653a

Wall of stone states that it's effect is up to one 5-ft square/level (S). However, the wall is only 1 inch thick per four caster levels. Does that mean four walls surrounding a 5-ft area? If so, since it's shapeable, does that mean a wall of stone can cover either all four size of a 5-ft square OR a 20-foot area flat surface?

Q 653b

Wall of Stone states that you can double the wall's area by halving its thickness. Can you do this more than once, or does the spell's language suggest you can only halve it once?

Q 653c

Is there a minimum thickness for wall of stone? E.g., if you hypothetically got access to wall of stone at caster level 7, could you half its thickness (reducing it to less than 1 inch)?

[Beni-Kujaku]

A 652
A) Only to establish the turning

B) Pretty hard. The easiest way is to command the undead yourself then relinquish your command.

A 653
a) It's not "around a 5ft square" (as in an in-game square with a 5ft side), it's a 5ft square, the equivalent area of a square with a 5ft side. A wall of stone can cover 5 ft-squared of area per caster level. So, for example, an 10th-level cleric casts wall of stone. He can create 1 5ft-squared sections of wall, enough to create a 5ft-high, 50ft-long wall, or a 10ft-high, 25ft-long wall. In both cases, the thickness of the wall is 2 inches (10/4 rounded down). He could also shape the wall to trap someone, and can create a 5ft-high wall that encircles a 10x15ft area (since the perimeter of a 10x15ft area is 50ft), or a 10ft-high wall to encircle one single 5ft square and still have two 5ft² of area to spare (since the perimeter of an in-game 5ft square is 20ft).

b) Supposedly yes. Even if it's not explicitly spelled out, since you can shape the wall whatever you want, you could create a wall as thin as you'd like. But anyone who can deal more than 8 points of damage would break it in one go.

[Doctor Despair]

Q654

There are several ways to gain temporary general feats. The Chameleon's free floating feat each day is a common one. I have a question regarding the permanence of effects created using these feats. For example, an item created using an item crafting feat doesn't become inactive if the Crafter loses the benefit of the feat. Does this logic apply to the benefits of Ceremony feats? For example, if you apply the ceremonies from one such feat, then lose the feat, do you retain the benefits of the ceremonies? Or are they intrinsic to the benefits of the feat?

[Elves]

A 654

Does this logic apply to the benefits of Ceremony feats?

The exact same logic doesn't apply, because items are permanent creations whereas the ceremonies are effects ("The effects of each ceremony last for 24 hours.")

The question is whether the "effects" in the quote are the effect of the feat, or a separate effect created through the feat.

FAQ tells us that feats are either extraordinary or supernatural abilities. In light of this, I think it's fair to conclude that an effect created by an extraordinary or supernatural ability is the effect of the ability itself.

For example, Air Devotion says, "Once per day as a swift action, you can shroud yourself in a mantle of air. This effect grants you [certain benefits]". Without the FAQ ruling, you could argue that it's a separate effect created by the feat, but since Air Devotion is a supernatural ability, an effect it creates is probably the effect of that supernatural ability itself.

Also note the language used for feats like Toughness: "You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects stack."

(PHB 87 says you must meet prereqs to "use" a feat, not "to gain its benefit" or similar, but logically that has to also apply to passive benefits of feats.)


But this argument isn't ironclad. For example, some feats (ex) grant you the ability to use spell-like abilities (sp), in which case the feat and its effect are distinct. There's no way to disprove that ceremony feats don't work the same way.

[Elves]

Q 655

When using improved grab,

The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally or simply use the part of its body it used in the improved grab to hold the oppo -nent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on grapple checks, but it isn’t considered grappled itself. Thus, the creature isn’t denied its Dexterity bonus to AC, still threatens an area, and can use its remaining attacks against other opponents.

A creature that you're "simply holding" is still pinned, right?

[Thurbane]

Q 656

The Elder Eidolon template (LoM p.146) states "An elder eidolon retains all the natural attacks, manufactured weapon attacks, and weapon proficiencies of the base creature." It also says "An eidolon loses all skill points and feats, except feats that improve its attacks, such as Improved Natural Attack, Multiattack, or Weapon Finesse."

Looking at the Elemental Mage (Ken-Li) (MM5 p.48), it has the following among its feats: Cleave, Great Cleave, Power Attack and Weapon Focus (greatsword).

Would any or all of these qualify as "feats that improve its attacks"?

[ChudoJogurt]

Q 657
Can Alter Self be used to turn into Lycanthrope Hybrid form?
Lycanthropes seem to have Humanoid type in all forms.
What about their Animal form?

[Metastachydium]

A 657?
"Lycanthrope" is technically a template, and "[y]ou cannot take the form of any creature with a template, even if that template doesn’t change the creature type or subtype."

[Venger]

A 655 Yes.
A 656 "Feats that improve its attacks" is definitely subjective territory, but since these things provide novel function and/or numerical bonuses to its attacks, they certainly qualify.

[Arkhios]

Q 658a: Have I understood correctly; while mounted, to move from A to B your mount does the actual Move Action, leaving you free to do your whole turn's worth of actions?

Q 658b: If above is correct, can you make a full-attack action, such as two-weapon fighting, while mounted, even splitting your attacks between several targets, if they're farther than 5 ft. from each other, since technically you are not moving an inch from your space, because the mount does the moving?