1-20 Critical range

[Beni-Kujaku]

Is bronze a type of copper? Is pewter a type of tin? I would argue that if alloys have different physical properties than the base metals, we should expect them to have different psionic properties too. I mean, if you were a Mistborn, this combination would definitely never fly. You'd need purer steel for that.

I knew you were gonna reference Mistborn the instant I saw you talk about pewter. I don't think I've ever seen this metal come up in a casual conversation.

[Darg]

The power critical feat gives +4 to confirmations, can be taken multiple times, and stacks with itself. Take it 2-3 times and you .basically confirm anything you can hit anyways.

Dolorous Blow spell keens your weapon and auto confirms threats. I am pretty sure everyone is familiar with Bless Weapon.

[ShurikVch]

Favored Critical feat (Masters of the Wild):

Prerequisite
Base attack bonus +5, at least one favored enemy,

Benefit
Select one of your favored enemies that is normally subject to critical hits. Whenever you attack this type of creature, the threat range of whatever weapon you are using is doubled. For example, a longsword usually threatens a critical hit on a die roll of 19 or 20 (two numbers). In the hands of a character with Favored Critical using it against a favored enemy, its threat range becomes 17 through 20 (four numbers). If it is also a keen longsword, its threat range becomes 15 through 20 (six numbers: 2 for being a longsword, 2 for being doubled as a keen weapon, and 2 for being doubled again by Favored Critical).

Special
You can take this feat multiple times. Each lime you do, it applies to a new favored enemy. The effects ot this feat do not stack with those of Improved Critical.

[Darg]

As much as I like the idea of the feat, it is extremely costly and minimal for such a niche effect. It's worth taking if your campaign is going to feature your favored enemy often enough. As a DM I would have the effect apply to all of a rangers favored enemies similar to how favored power attack works from complete warrior (dragon compendium has a nerfed version, but I think favored power attack was published before complete warrior so it could just be a difference in timing rather than a nerfing).

[Rebel7284]

As much as I like the idea of the feat, it is extremely costly and minimal for such a niche effect. It's worth taking if your campaign is going to feature your favored enemy often enough. As a DM I would have the effect apply to all of a rangers favored enemies similar to how favored power attack works from complete warrior (dragon compendium has a nerfed version, but I think favored power attack was published before complete warrior so it could just be a difference in timing rather than a nerfing).

I mean, if you have favored enemy [Arcanists] or favored enemy [evil], or both, this may apply to enough enemies.

[Harrow]

I don't know how to resolve the build issues you have, but if you want "critical hit every time" there's a spell for that. Hunter's Mercy, a 1st level ranger spell. "Your first hit with a bow (not including crossbows) in the next round is automatically a critical hit." It's a standard action to cast, and that "in the next round" clause means you don't get any benefit out of extending or persisting it, making it hard to make a build around. But, it's there.

[Dragonsworn]

Few things:

First issue where you'll get parsimonious readings is where you put the last +2. Where we would want to put it is in the weapon's original, base threat range before it's multiplied by Improved Critical and the like. WOTC has never set out an ironclad order of where those threat range increases are put. Making our case stronger is that some PrCs - in particular the Weapon Master (Kensei), off which Psychic Weapon Master is copied - specify that their increases to threat range are added last, after all other threat range increasers are put in. If the +2 is added last, you have a decent threat range:

Base weapon range: 18-20
After Improved Critical: 15-20
After Iron Power 1: 12-20
After Iron Power 2: 9-20.
Last +2 from Weapon Master 7: 7-20.

This calculation assumes that D&D's rule on multipliers also applies to how threat range is calculated. That is: a double of a double is just a triple, not quadruple. In our case, with each multiplier that increases our threat range, we're just adding another 3 spots on a d20 that can trigger a critical threat.

Now, as said the important reading you're hoping for is that the last +2 goes into the weapon's threat range, not the wielder's threat range, (contra. what Improved Critical does). Helping our case here is that Psychic Weapon Master, unlike Kensei, doesn't have the all-important text confining the increase of +2 to the end of the multiplication sequence. If we take the opportunity to add the 2 to the weapon's base range, that's where your 1-20 range comes from:

Base weapon range: 16-20 <---- assuming it went on an 18-20 weapon.
After Improved Critical: 11-20
After Iron Power 1: 6-20
After Iron Power 2: 1-20.

But to get that, your DM has to agree the +2 goes in the base weapon range, and isn't added to the end of the increases.

You are right, I did base all my calculations on that presumption and your math is precisely how I got there! While it indeed highly takes advantage of the stacking rules, I see no valid RAW and perhaps no RAI (apart from obvious end result absurdity) argument against it [except maybe the fact it uses 3e PrC and stacking logic, but that logic was specifically meant to allow such stacking and those types of results, and even 3.5e has some similar examples (albeit not as extreme ones)]

And secondly, as you've already indicated: DoD requires that you use iron or steel weapons, and crystal is not steel.

On this one, if you wanted to get into the RAW mud, you could argue that all DoD requires is that you use an iron or steel weapon, not that you wield it or make it part of a weapon pass. Thus, hold an iron weapon in the off hand without utilising Two-Weapon Fighting, and the conditions for Iron Power are satisfied: you are using an iron weapon, nothing in the class feature says you must strike with it, and your primary hand can hold the one-handed crystal weapon to which your threat range increases are applied, since Iron Power increases the Disciple's threat range, not that of the weapon. I have had people say that this is absolutely stretching the RAW to its limit. I say this reading is fine because weapons can have different critical threat ranges while wielded simultaneously, and the DoD's feature is meant to enhance each of them ... so long as you're using at least one iron or steel weapon. My favourite options for roflmao on this: Braid Blade and the Ward Cestus from A&EG. Or the Close-Fighting Blade. When you look them up you'll see why.

Wow .......That is some beneficial reading. Although I see where you are coming from, and the argument that "Iron Power increases the Disciple's threat range, not that of the weapon" is spot on, it doesn't seem to me the class was intended to be used that way - I feel you are supposed to smack your target with said steel weapon - though as I read your post, I immediately thought of a punching dagger (don't those allow you to use the hand to wield a weapon? Even with a penalty?) or a spiked buckler (wait, buckers can't be spiked.....a spiked sizing shield ). And I see the hilariousness of the methods you mention

The kaorti resin gambit, though, is going to get DMGs thrown at you if it gets allowed at all. Kaorti resin is a natural substance, basically solidified kaorti sweat. Weapons are made entirely out of it, it is not - on the web article that produced it - the sort of stuff you can just dip an iron or steel weapon in.

Yeah, didn't think that was going to fly either.......

The other thing is, thanks to the really stupid wording of the opening paragraph of Psychic Weapon Master, you might not even need to use a crystal weapon in combat at all.



Read it carefully. Despite what is surely a very strong RAI argument, there is nothing in there that says you can only use a crystal longsword to activate PWM's abilities. It only says:
(a) You choose a weapon of choice
(b) You have to have a crystal version of that weapon
(c) If you use any weapon other than your weapon of choice, the PrC's special abilities don't work.
(d) To gain the PWM's special abilities, you must use your weapon of choice.

Just because something is a "material requirement for the class" doesn't mean it has to be used. That is never said in the class. They never took that last step to say "your weapon of choice must be a crystal version of some ordinary weapon and no other." On this reading, you could happily pack a crystal longsword in the backpack and wail away with a steel longsword all day long. (Alternatively, your trick of finding a "crystal version" of your weapon might work too.) In its way, this is the shadow of the "I'm using but not wielding an iron/steel weapon in DoD" argument. And the reason it's open is because the writer of the article didn't understand how WOTC uses the word "type" in reference to weapons, and particularly didn't understand how it's used for feats like Weapon Focus. If he did, this might have been worded differently. As it is, it's a set of daft sentences that some people will say "Oh of course it means the person can't use a normal steel weapon of choice", but which doesn't quite say that. Indeed I'd argue quite the opposite: the paragraph appears to say quite blandly that the PWM can use the ordinary weapon by which he entered the class, because that was his weapon of choice. He can use crystal versions of that weapon to pick up the same effects, but is not locked out of weapons of the same type as his weapon of choice.

Note also that the enhancements to critical threat range and multiplier apply to the Psychic Weapon Master's "weapon of choice." Again, this is not the same thing as the bonded weapon feature. While the bonded weapon has to be a crystal weapon, it just has to be of the same type as the PWM's 'weapon of choice'. The weapon of choice is chosen at the start of PWM. Weapon 'type' is conferred by name, not substance. A greatsword and a crystal greatsword are the same type of weapon. And, on the RAW, Psychic Weapon Master's features that apply to his weapon of choice freely apply to the metal greatsword, you don't have to be wielding the crystal greatsword on the RAW in my view.

Not sure if this is rules-valid, but even if it is, I feel it is on the same venue (though way further down the line) as the iron/steel one

The PrC link you were looking for.

Ah, thanks a lot

Serious question here, is 'crystal' ever defined inside of 3.5 and is said material directly referenced inside the PRC? If 'crystal' inside Psychic Weapon Master is left as any crystal/crystalline material qualifies for this PRC we are left with the normal definition of crystal in which case steel qualifies as steel is a crystalline material...

Again, thans for going the extra mile, but I doubt such a workaround is in the spirit of the PrCs, plus RL science might not go well with gaming in a fantasy setting (for instance, many players and DMs alike might not know that steel is a crystalline material)

How about to use the "original" Weapon Master PrC (Sword and Fist)? This way you wouldn't depend on Crystal Weapon...

By RAW that one was subsumed into Exotic Weapon Master in the update to 3.5.

That was the Weapon Master in Sword and Fist. The Weapon Master (Kensei) in Oriental Adventures was not subsumed or updated.

http://archive.wizards.com/default.a.../dnd/20050110x

By which RAW?
AFAIK, neither Complete Warrior, nor Errata says anything about such replacement...

They're talking about this article which has no mention of the weapon master from OA. I do agree that saying it is RAW is really stretching it, but it is from an official source.

It's weird: when I tried this very address earlier today, it redirected me to https://dnd.wizards.com/go/dnd/20050110x
Anyway, regardless:
1) This thing looks like one more case of "DaWizard" (if you understand what I mean )
2) Still neither the Complete Warrior, nor Errata - thus, its "RAWness" may be even lower than for Dragon magazines (which, at the very least, were printed on actual paper, and occasionally - even errated)

The 3.5 update for OA calls out that it was already updated in CW.

But in a larger sense, any unupdated 3.0 material is likely to need some revision, even if it's by the DM, and this is an example of a rules philosophy that changed during the revision. In 3.0, all buffs to critical threat range stacked. If you had Improved Critical with a keen weapon and cast a keen edge spell on it, you summed the multipliers together and quadrupled your threat range. That's just how everything worked back then. The 3.5 update nerfed this interaction and made it so that effects that improve threat range don't stack. I can only speak for myself, but if I were the DM, I would be updating Disciple of Dispater accordingly.

This, basically
All of this
Part of the reason behind using PWM was to make sure everything was eligible edition-update-wise (though Troacctid makes a very good point regarding the logic behind the mechanics). If it is eligible, then Sword and Fist's Weapon Master would be a life saver since there would be no hard rule argument about bonus stacking order and this build would be more or less legal (again, apart from using 3e material)

Mentioning more random critifsher stuff, Dragon #275 had the Crescent Knife and the Scourge, which got two and three attacks per attack, respectively. In other words, if you attacked once with a Scourge, you would make three attack rolls, and roll for damage three times, and each of those three could be a crit. Sadly, they both only crit on a 20. Also, Dungeon #120 has the Braid Blaid, which you can attack with once as part of a full attack. Basically just a free attack, crit 18-20/x2. Plus, there's always the trick with Aptitude weapons and Lightning Mace for infinite attacks.

I am trying to avoid Dragon Magazine stuff. Plus, those do not help with lowering threat range, which is what I am trying to do here

For the weapon material question, what about using Riedran Crysteel from the Eberron Campaign Setting?

It's an Iron/crystal alloy, that has the strength of steel and the psionic resonance of crystal (likely what each requirement was trying to achieve)

Since we drifted into crossbow territory, I was going to mention the Quick Loading enchantment, but after looking at the Great Crossbow details it would only bring reload down to a move action.

For this exercise are we giving up on the earlier build that required steel and crystal weapons? I'm curious if the Riedran Crysteel would fit both requirements. If a GM is permissive enough to let you run with this stunt, surely they'll let you refluff the material if the only issue is that it's campaign setting specific. People have been making all sorts of alloys, this wouldn't be too far off other materials usually allowed.

Not very familiar with that material, but sadly unless it specifically says it counts as both iron and crystal then it is as valid and possible as the Nephelium I mentioned in the OP, plus it's setting-specific (though probably more prevalent in-setting)

Targeteer Fighter from Dragon Magazine #310 can sacrifice attacks to increase threat range by +1 for each attack sacrificed. Doesn't have to be ranged attacks technically so combine with Totemist or a permissive reading of Warshaper to get an easy 2-20 threat range. (1-20 is useless clearly since you fail on 1 anyway)

Even if your DM isn't okay with giving up a claw attack to boost your bow's accuracy, there are a ton of flurry-like effects in the game including rapid shot, two weapon fighting, raging mongoose maneuver, and possibly symmetrical archery from polymorphing into an arrow demon (although not 100% sure if that last one doubles potential shots you didn't take).

Edit:
Build:
Diopsid
Warblade 3/Targeteer 2/Warblade +15

1. Point Blank Shot
3. Rapid Shot
T1: Sniper
T2: Arrow Storm
6. Two Weapon Fighting
9. Improved Two Weapon Fighting
12. Greater Two Weapon Fighting

Attacks:
4 from BAB
3 from TWF Chain
1 from Rapid Shot
4 from Raging Mongoose
2 from Arrow Storm
2 from an ally casting Sakkratars Triple Strike (I guess you can cast if yourself if you're a Jade Phoenix Mage, but that's much more fiddly)

16 attacks total. Sacrifice 15 of them for +15 threat range.
Keen Bow = 19-20x3 -> 4-20x3

Not sure how to best squeeze two more attacks in there. Can't seem to find a bow with a good threat range.

Edit 2:
Going with Ruby Knight Vindicator for two swift actions, you can use Raging Mongoose + Dancing Mongoose during the same turn.
Cloistered Cleric 1/Warblade 1/Targeteer 2/Crusader 1/RKV 10/Warblade +4/Crusader +1
Your initiator level for Warblade hits 15 at Warblade 3 which is 17 HD which is the earliest you can pick up Raging Mongoose while also getting your 4th attack from BAB and thus get to 2-20x3

Should have mentioned to avoid Dragon Magazine in the OP
Apart from that, this seems about as an unintended use as the previous tricks of just holding one wapon to qualify for the feature and using another for its effect

Yet another option for increasing a weapon's crit range is the Arcane Duelist's "False Keenness", which explicitly stacks with both a keen weapon and with the Improved Critical feat. They also break other rules, like letting you give your weapon an epic enhancement bonus. I think that it's 3.0, though, given that it references Sword and Fist.

True, but that would leave you with a 18-20 weapon at best since you could not expand the base range, which means that even with all of "False Keenness"'s stacking potential the best you could do is 6-20 if my math is right, which means you would need two more sources of stackable critical range to bring this down to the goal range

Do critical threats auto-hit?

If not, then a 1-20 range is unneeded, since a 1 would always miss. Even a 2-20 isn't really needed, unless you're able to reliably hit on a 2+.

No, they don't
I just want to see if I can, I am aware of natural 1s from the OP
Threatening the critical is one thing. To actually hit and/or confirm would need to be dealt with through other feats/items/buffs etc, since if this build can happen all levels are pretty much locked-in

Yeah, I have to agree there. Crystal just isn't that well defined in the game, or at least not outside psionics.


... which is still an issue with a PWM/DOD build, I can't see a way to get a PWM without 5 levels in a psionic base class, which means the build can't be done in 20 levels or less.

Thank you, I thought this issue would never be addressed and frankly it's the one I am most stuck with!

I don't know how to resolve the build issues you have, but if you want "critical hit every time" there's a spell for that. Hunter's Mercy, a 1st level ranger spell. "Your first hit with a bow (not including crossbows) in the next round is automatically a critical hit." It's a standard action to cast, and that "in the next round" clause means you don't get any benefit out of extending or persisting it, making it hard to make a build around. But, it's there.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I was actually trying to have a 1-20 critical threat range (as in, the end effect is not the actual goal, the number is). Plus, as you said, it's hard to build around that and I want the end result to be always-on

So, does anyone have any ways to satisfy the psionic requirement? Also, any consensus on the validity of using Weapon Master?

In addition, now that i've looked it up, if DoD was paired with Dolorous Blow on a 18-20 weapon and the stacking order was as desired, wouldn't that also lead to a 1-20 critical threat range for the duration of the spell?

[Saintheart]

In addition, now that i've looked it up, if DoD was paired with Dolorous Blow on a 18-20 weapon and the stacking order was as desired, wouldn't that also lead to a 1-20 critical threat range for the duration of the spell?

In short? No. Dolorous Blow says this:

Multiple effects that increase a weapon's threat range (such as this spell and the Improved Critical feat) don't stack.

'Effects' is likely wide enough to include class features like DoD's Iron Power. And whether it's keen or Improved Critical, you need these plus Iron Power to get down to a 1-20 range. Only way around that is if your DM takes the view I mentioned on the previous page - i.e. 3.0 material overrides 3.5 material where inconsistent on the basis of it being the primary source.

[Elves]

I've never seen anyone question DoD stacking. The class feature is clear how it works and specific>general. Yes it's 3.0 content but never got an update so it's valid.

I see someone already mentioned crysteel. That seems like a perfect way to count as crystal and iron at once.

[Dragonsworn]

In short? No. Dolorous Blow says this:



'Effects' is likely wide enough to include class features like DoD's Iron Power. And whether it's keen or Improved Critical, you need these plus Iron Power to get down to a 1-20 range. Only way around that is if your DM takes the view I mentioned on the previous page - i.e. 3.0 material overrides 3.5 material where inconsistent on the basis of it being the primary source.

Yeah, I kinda hoped that "effects" would not include class features, so the spell would apply as the +2 from PWM and then be expanded on by DoD [the other way around (DoD first and then the whole being expanded by the spell) is also plausible with a generous reading and could even allow smaller original threat ranges to work, like 19-20 (not going to do the math for that one), but this seems a tad too abusive]. Which, although your reading seems more reasonable, is not entirely impossible given how you (or the DM) will read it

I've never seen anyone question DoD stacking. The class feature is clear how it works and specific>general. Yes it's 3.0 content but never got an update so it's valid.

I see someone already mentioned crysteel. That seems like a perfect way to count as crystal and iron at once.

It's not really DoD's stacking that is the problem, but whether you can stack anything else with it and in what order (assuming I understood what you meant with your post)

Crysteel and OP's Nephelium might allow stacking, though they do not explicitly state they do, so it's up to DM I guess

[Dragonsworn]

So I take it by the lack of replies that there is no way to meet the psionic requirement and thus the build is impossible pre-epic, right?

So if PWM is not an option, where do we stand on 3e Weapon Master? The OA one has a clause preventing beneficial stacking. The Sword and Fist one would be ideal but I understand it was updated and subsumed in 3.5e to Exotic Weapon Master by RAW, but the classes are viewed as so dissimilar (indeed they are) that some folks do not accept it and/or believe it would be valid to include the 3e version either as separate PrCs or alternatives to one another. I believe the RAW leaves no room for interpretation, but any arguments in the spirit of things here? Also, what happens in the case of people (such as myself) who did not know of this conversion and thus might have found such a build valid?

[Darg]

So I take it by the lack of replies that there is no way to meet the psionic requirement and thus the build is impossible pre-epic, right?

So if PWM is not an option, where do we stand on 3e Weapon Master? The OA one has a clause preventing beneficial stacking. The Sword and Fist one would be ideal but I understand it was updated and subsumed in 3.5e to Exotic Weapon Master by RAW, but the classes are viewed as so dissimilar (indeed they are) that some folks do not accept it and/or believe it would be valid to include the 3e version either as separate PrCs or alternatives to one another. I believe the RAW leaves no room for interpretation, but any arguments in the spirit of things here? Also, what happens in the case of people (suh as myself) who did not know of this conversion and thus might have found such a build valid?

It isn't actually RAW because it isn't included in official books or errata. As such it's perfectly valid to include such classes into your games with a few possible updates to fit in with the 3.5 rules.

[Saintheart]

So I take it by the lack of replies that there is no way to meet the psionic requirement and thus the build is impossible pre-epic, right?

It might be better asking a separate question or separate thread on whether there is a way to reduce the minimum psionic class level required to be able to manifest 3rd level powers. It's possible those experienced with psionics haven't dug deep into the thread. I don't know much about psionics but it just looks to me on my rough understanding of the rules that while you can raise your Manifester Level, that only affects variables within the power, it doesn't affect the minimum class level for a given power to be activated. And there isn't anywhere near as much splat support for psionics as for magic, so being a pessimist my guess is that something doing that wasn't ever published.

Another avenue to look into - maybe in the same query - is if there is a playable monster or race that can manifest a 3rd level power, since that would qualify: all PWM takes is that you can manifest a 3rd level power. This is a long shot since odds are on such a monster probably has a serious level adjustment or racial hit dice that raise it to ECL 5 anyway, but as said it's worth a try.

The last resort is to pick up a magic item that allows you to manifest 3rd level powers. In the SRD we've got the Third Eye Repudiate:

Repudiate
While worn, this powerful item allows the wearer to manifest dispel psionics once per day with a +20 modifier on the dispel check (the wearer uses the +20 modifier in place of his manifester level).
Strong psychokinesis; ML 20th; Craft Universal Item, dispel psionics; Price 43,200 gp.

Dispel Psionics is a 3rd level power. Requires no levels in a psionic class. Pricey, but if you're wearing this you are necessarily able to manifest a 3rd level power. PWM doesn't require you know the power, only that you have the ability to manifest it. Qualifying by possession of items might be looked down on by some, but it is legal.

[Dragonsworn]

Sorry for absence, RL had to be attended

It isn't actually RAW because it isn't included in official books or errata. As such it's perfectly valid to include such classes into your games with a few possible updates to fit in with the 3.5 rules.

Wait, wait......
I thought updated stuff were supposed to be used in their newest version!
I realise that if everyone is willing and DM permits you can do whatever you want, but if you wanted to not violate the rules, is there any legal way you could use 3e stuff that has already been updated?

It might be better asking a separate question or separate thread on whether there is a way to reduce the minimum psionic class level required to be able to manifest 3rd level powers. It's possible those experienced with psionics haven't dug deep into the thread. I don't know much about psionics but it just looks to me on my rough understanding of the rules that while you can raise your Manifester Level, that only affects variables within the power, it doesn't affect the minimum class level for a given power to be activated. And there isn't anywhere near as much splat support for psionics as for magic, so being a pessimist my guess is that something doing that wasn't ever published.

Another avenue to look into - maybe in the same query - is if there is a playable monster or race that can manifest a 3rd level power, since that would qualify: all PWM takes is that you can manifest a 3rd level power. This is a long shot since odds are on such a monster probably has a serious level adjustment or racial hit dice that raise it to ECL 5 anyway, but as said it's worth a try.

The last resort is to pick up a magic item that allows you to manifest 3rd level powers. In the SRD we've got the Third Eye Repudiate:



Dispel Psionics is a 3rd level power. Requires no levels in a psionic class. Pricey, but if you're wearing this you are necessarily able to manifest a 3rd level power. PWM doesn't require you know the power, only that you have the ability to manifest it. Qualifying by possession of items might be looked down on by some, but it is legal.

I was thinking of starting a thread on that, but I am still undecided. If nothing comes up and if 3e Weapon Master ends up being unusable I will think it again

I thought of the race thing, but I highly doubt such a race will not have LA or RHD (since it will probably not be a "normal playable race"). Still, one more question for the thread, I suppose

I am of the inclination not to qualify for PrCs via items, doesn't seem like something that is supposed to happen (as in players were not expected to qualify as such, whether it is considered legal or not is another topic)

[ShurikVch]

Wait, wait......
I thought updated stuff were supposed to be used in their newest version!
I realise that if everyone is willing and DM permits you can do whatever you want, but if you wanted to not violate the rules, is there any legal way you could use 3e stuff that has already been updated?

WotC have rules for changing rules This article don't fit into them
Thus, even if it says "It was updated in ...", we're answer it: "No, it wasn't!.."

[Dragonsworn]

WotC have rules for changing rules This article don't fit into them
Thus, even if it says "It was updated in ...", we're answer it: "No, it wasn't!.."

I don't understand what you mean!

Do you mean that we can ignore the updates? Sure we can, but then we can also ignore any perceived restriction we don't like!

Do you mean that the update is invalid/not official/not ironclad somehow? If that is so, in what way?

[Powerdork]

To understand why sources like the FAQ hold no weight, you first need to understand the errata, official documents published to bring existing books up to speed in an evolving game.

Let's look at the Player's Handbook errata, Feb. 17th 2006 revision.

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.
Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

In short, if a book asserts itself as the authority to tell you something, it's true, unless another book is more of an authority on the topic.

For instance, to know the rules for playing a shaper (a kind of psion), the first place you turn is to the Expanded Psionics Handbook, since it provides the shaper rules. If another source disagrees, the shaper is still from the Expanded Psionics Handbook, so that book still informs you what to do as a shaper.

(Someone else please pick up from here.)

[Dragonsworn]

To understand why sources like the FAQ hold no weight, you first need to understand the errata, official documents published to bring existing books up to speed in an evolving game.

Let's look at the Player's Handbook errata, Feb. 17th 2006 revision.



In short, if a book asserts itself as the authority to tell you something, it's true, unless another book is more of an authority on the topic.

For instance, to know the rules for playing a shaper (a kind of psion), the first place you turn is to the Expanded Psionics Handbook, since it provides the shaper rules. If another source disagrees, the shaper is still from the Expanded Psionics Handbook, so that book still informs you what to do as a shaper.

(Someone else please pick up from here.)

I am aware of those issues, but I do not see their relevance here

Unless the article linked above was from a FAQ....in which case the subsuming of Weapon Master into Exotic Weapon Master was done later than the actual 3e to 3.5 updating and the folks at WotC later realised the omission and tried to patch it up, rendering the validity of this particular update dubious

Is that the case?

[ShurikVch]

I am aware of those issues, but I do not see their relevance here

Unless the article linked above was from a FAQ....in which case the subsuming of Weapon Master into Exotic Weapon Master was done later than the actual 3e to 3.5 updating and the folks at WotC later realised the omission and tried to patch it up, rendering the validity of this particular update dubious

Is that the case?

There are only two types of obligatory online updates: Errata, and 3.5 update booklets (for 3.0 books). This article is neither
All other kinds of online publications - FAQ, Rules of the Game, Sage Advice, etc - are not mandatory

[Darg]

Wait, wait......
I thought updated stuff were supposed to be used in their newest version!
I realise that if everyone is willing and DM permits you can do whatever you want, but if you wanted to not violate the rules, is there any legal way you could use 3e stuff that has already been updated?

Basically, the difference is being an official source vs referring to something that doesn't actually say what the referral page says it does. There is no actual rule stating that the updates in the article are binding in some capacity. RAW requires a rule in the first place. The article in question is only a reference page telling you where you can find something.

[Dragonsworn]

There are only two types of obligatory online updates: Errata, and 3.5 update booklets (for 3.0 books). This article is neither
All other kinds of online publications - FAQ, Rules of the Game, Sage Advice, etc - are not mandatory

Basically, the difference is being an official source vs referring to something that doesn't actually say what the referral page says it does. There is no actual rule stating that the updates in the article are binding in some capacity. RAW requires a rule in the first place. The article in question is only a reference page telling you where you can find something.

So basically the argument is that the utmost official source did not include these updates, so we view the linked article as an opinion that we disagree with and hence can choose whether to apply it or not

Not going to go on who writes these articles and if we should view them as authority over the rules, but doesn't that seem like cherry-picking sources aside from the officiality thing?

[Darg]

So basically the argument is that the utmost official source did not include these updates, so we view the linked article as an opinion that we disagree with and hence can choose whether to apply it or not

Not going to go on who writes these articles and if we should view them as authority over the rules, but doesn't that seem like cherry-picking sources aside from the officiality thing?

Official or not, it isn't a "rule" so RAW can't be used in this situation. At best it's extra content. ToB and psionics are official also and yet even on these boards you see so many people that don't play with them. In the end that's really all that matters. Each group plays the way they want; that includes deciding the content you want to use. That said, PRCs aren't even meant to be used as is as per the DMG. So all the debating about whether they are meant to be updated for 3.5 doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

[Gruftzwerg]

I'm not sure if I did gasp the situation of the discussion. But if I got you right, you are arguing if the 3.0>3.5 conversion rules are RAW by the 3.5 rules.

If you download the pdf at this site it has the following statement:

Several feats, prestige classes, and spells that originally appeared in the 3rd edition Dungeons & Dragons class
guidebooks (Sword and Fist, Defenders of the Faith, Tome and Blood, Song and Silence, and Masters of the Wild)
have been updated and included in the D&D v.3.5 "Complete" series of books (Complete Warrior, Complete Divine,
Complete Arcane, and Complete Adventurer), as well as other sources. The following reference guide tells you
where to find the most correct, up-to-date version of your favorite feats, prestige classes, and spells from these
books.

By this definition the pdf becomes the Primary Source for converting 3.0 stuff into 3.5
The Primary Source Rule is found in the PHB ERRATA (and was quoted above in a post already).

So by RAW, you have to follow the conversion (which includes the S&F Weapon Master > Exotic Weapon Master in the table of the pdf). A DM may houserule it away, but that is a houserule and not RAW.

[Saintheart]

By this definition the pdf becomes the Primary Source for converting 3.0 stuff into 3.5
The Primary Source Rule is found in the PHB ERRATA (and was quoted above in a post already).

So by RAW, you have to follow the conversion (which includes the S&F Weapon Master > Exotic Weapon Master in the table of the pdf). A DM may houserule it away, but that is a houserule and not RAW.

I could argue it easily the other way.

Is the pdf a D&D Rules Source, as the PHB Errata demands? It doesn't name itself as such. Does the PHB Errata define what a "D&D Rules Source" is? Nope. So far as you can glean anything from the errata on that, it looks like the PHB, DMG, and MM are the only real examples we've got.
Is the pdf an official errata, as the PHB Errata demands? It doesn't name itself as such. And it doesn't say to replace words or replace classes or anything, so it doesn't work like an errata does either.

What it does say, though, explicitly, is that it is "a guidebook of where to find" updated 3.5 versions of specific entries in 3.0 books. It is not a source of rules in itself. Therefore, it's not a D&D Rules Source, therefore, it does not fall within the category of either being a D&D Rules Source or an Official Errata. And therefore, doesn't count as a primary source. And therefore by RAW does not update anything. It just points you at books where updated 3.5 versions of Your Favourite Prestige Classes And Other Random Manure have been printed.

[Gruftzwerg]

I could argue it easily the other way.

Is the pdf a D&D Rules Source, as the PHB Errata demands? It doesn't name itself as such. Does the PHB Errata define what a "D&D Rules Source" is? Nope. So far as you can glean anything from the errata on that, it looks like the PHB, DMG, and MM are the only real examples we've got.
Is the pdf an official errata, as the PHB Errata demands? It doesn't name itself as such. And it doesn't say to replace words or replace classes or anything, so it doesn't work like an errata does either.

What it does say, though, explicitly, is that it is "a guidebook of where to find" updated 3.5 versions of specific entries in 3.0 books. It is not a source of rules in itself. Therefore, it's not a D&D Rules Source, therefore, it does not fall within the category of either being a D&D Rules Source or an Official Errata. And therefore, doesn't count as a primary source. And therefore by RAW does not update anything. It just points you at books where updated 3.5 versions of Your Favourite Prestige Classes And Other Random Manure have been printed.

Official D&D Rule Source ain't defined. So we fall back to general English definition. The PDF is from an official source. It claims to be the reference for the 3.0 to 3.5 conversion.

The conversion is mentioned in the PHB (p4). So, basically the PHB is the primary source that enforces a conversion by RAW for using 3.0 material.

Since the PHB doesn't provide a reference for this, this "specific" niche is still free to be defined. The PDF does define itself as source for those references. Thus, it is the Primary Source for pointing you to those conversions.

As said, a DM may houserule it away, but by RAW the DM has to consult the reference list.

[Darg]

The update article does not say anything about itself being what determines if they were updated. The books referenced by the document so not do that either except in a few cases. There was however an official statement (that I still can't find) that stated things with the same name were updated along with anything else stated to be such in the update booklet or other sources. No where is there a rule that gives veracity to the update article's claim to accurately reference sources.

Unless you can find a rule other than the ambiguous claim by the article, it can not be RAW because the sources referenced don't say as such. Official sure, but not RAW.

[bekeleven]

Targeteer Fighter from Dragon Magazine #310 can sacrifice attacks to increase threat range by +1 for each attack sacrificed. Doesn't have to be ranged attacks technically so combine with Totemist or a permissive reading of Warshaper to get an easy 2-20 threat range. (1-20 is useless clearly since you fail on 1 anyway)

[...]

Not sure how to best squeeze two more attacks in there. Can't seem to find a bow with a good threat range.

1) So what happens if I give up my attacks with my armor spikes, 2 gnomish quickrazors, 2 boot blades, 2 elbow blades, 2 knee blades, 2 sleeve blades... uh... braid blade? Weighted sleeve doesn't work, am I missing anything else?

2) If you give up all but 1 attack, do you still suffer TWF penalties?

[Rebel7284]

1) So what happens if I give up my attacks with my armor spikes, 2 gnomish quickrazors, 2 boot blades, 2 elbow blades, 2 knee blades, 2 sleeve blades... uh... braid blade? Weighted sleeve doesn't work, am I missing anything else?

2) If you give up all but 1 attack, do you still suffer TWF penalties?

1. Remind me, do those weapons actually give extra attacks? If yes, then RAW you can, but as I mentioned, I expect most DMs to only allow you to sacrifice ranged attacks for some semblance of common sense.

2. Probably, since the penalties are a condition of taking those extra attacks, I expect the penalties to persist even as you sacrifice those attacks to another ability.

[loky1109]

1) So what happens if I give up my attacks with my armor spikes, 2 gnomish quickrazors, 2 boot blades, 2 elbow blades, 2 knee blades, 2 sleeve blades... uh... braid blade? Weighted sleeve doesn't work, am I missing anything else?

Doesn't matter how many weapons you have on your body, offhand attack is only one. Two-three if Improved/Greater TWF is in game.

[Dragonsworn]

So from what I can tell it all boils down to whether you accept the online article as an update or not, which in itself depends on your definition/preference on what "rule', "official" and "RAW" mean and encompass

Meaning the legality of the build remains in question

Does anyone have an answer as to the manifesting part, or should I start another thead for that?