Simple RAW Thread for 3.5 #37: 3d12+1

[MornShine]

Q81
The Shielding property from MiC allows one to transform a weapon into an excellent heavy steel shield. RAW, is there any way to transform it back?

[H_H_F_F]

Q 82

How does the savvy rogue feat from CS interact with special abilities not gained from rogue levels?

For example, Nightsong Enforcer grants opportunist and references rogue, while skill mastery, improved evasion and defensive roll are pretty common.

[Pezzo]

A 81
maybe getting inside an antimagic field can temporarily turn it back into the weapon it once was, not sure if it works.

Q 83

How would the feat "Double Hit" work if you could wield one handed a spiked chain or the kusarigama from the dmg oriental style weapons, and a whip in the other hand, in regards to AoOs taken at 10'?

When making an attack of opportunity, you may make an attack with your off hand against the same target at the same time. You must decide before your first attack roll whether you want to also use your off hand. If you do, both attacks take the standard penalties for fighting with two weapons.

Would you get a extra attack with your whip, even though you don't threaten the enemy with it?

[Duke of Urrel]

Q81
The Shielding property from MiC allows one to transform a weapon into an excellent heavy steel shield. RAW, is there any way to transform it back?

A 81

Ask your dungeon master.

I cannot find any rule in the Magic Item Compendium that explicitly states that the Shielding property can be deactivated as well as activated.

I think it is reasonable to assume that, if you can transform a magic Shielding weapon into a magic heavy steel shield as a swift action, then you can also, if you wish, as soon as your next turn begins, transform the item back to its natural form, taking another swift action to do so. However, this is only an assumption that is nowhere explicitly stated.

There are other unanswered questions about the Shielding property. For example, when a magic Shielding weapon has been transformed into a magic heavy steel shield, does it gain the weight, the hardness, and the Hit-Points of a magic heavy steel shield, or does it still keep the weight, hardness, and Hit-Points of the weapon in its natural form? The rules don't say.

Your dungeon master needs to decide how to answer these questions.

A 81
maybe getting inside an antimagic field can temporarily turn it back into the weapon it once was, not sure if it works.

A 81 More Commentary

Pezzo is right; an antimagic field should surely turn a Shielding weapon back into its original form. (It also robs the item temporarily of all its other magical properties.) However, this doesn't answer the question of whether you can turn a Shielding weapon back by taking another swift action to command it.

[Venger]

A 82 There is no requirement your special abilities come from rogue. That said, you do still need a rogue level of at least 10 to take savvy rogue, so keep that in mind.

[H_H_F_F]

Q 84

Assuming the rest of the qualifications are met, does an ex-paladin qualify for sword of the arcane order, or similar feats requiring paladin level x?

[Venger]

A 84 Yes. ten characters

[Sir_Chivalry]

Q 85 Does Implosion prevent raise dead, resurrection, reincarnate (revenance, revivify, etc) from working as the spell collapses the person?

[Duke of Urrel]

Q 85 Does Implosion prevent raise dead, resurrection, reincarnate (revenance, revivify, etc) from working as the spell collapses the person?

A 85

No.

Unless the corpse of a dead creature is whole, the Raise Dead spell can revive the creature only with missing parts – or it may fail altogether, for example if the corpse's head is missing or if the entire corpse has been reduced to dust.

The description of the Implosion spell does not say that the creature it kills is broken up or loses any body parts. Therefore, the corpse of a creature killed by the Implosion spell is presumably whole, despite being shrunken or misshapen. Therefore, the Raise Dead spell presumably works normally on the corpse of a creature that has been killed by the Implosion spell.

The Revenance spell, the Revive Outsider spell, and the Revivify spell all follow the rules of the Raise Dead spell, so they, too, will not fail to revive the corpse of a creature that was killed by the Implosion spell. The Reincarnate spell works "so long as some small portion of the creature’s body still exists," and the Resurrection spell works even on the remains of a creature that has been killed by the Disintegrate spell, so these two spells are also sure to work.

[Venger]

A 85 It destroys the remains, so will block reincarnate, raise dead, revivify, and revenant. Resurrection and true resurrection, which do not require remains, work normally.
EDIT: was thinking of the wrong spell

[Sir_Chivalry]

Alright . . . that's two contradictory answers there. Not sure which way to go . . .

[Venger]

Go with Duke of Urrel because what he's saying is actually true. Implosion makes no mention of interfering with rez spells or destroying remains. I was thinking of the spell "destruction" and swapped its effect with implosion because it is on the destruction domain.

[loky1109]

A85
RAW - doesn't prevent.
RAI - of course it does!

[NCat]

Q86 How do domain features which mention cleric level interact with being granted by non-cleric classes. For instance, a Sorcerer with Domain sorcerer takes the Death domain, which grants the following power:

Granted Power: You may use a death touch once per day. Your death touch is a supernatural ability that produces a death effect. You must succeed on a melee touch attack against a living creature (using the rules for touch spells). When you touch, roll 1d6 per cleric level you possess. If the total at least equals the creature’s current hit points, it dies (no save).

Now, rules as written, you could interpret this as being that, since the sorcerer never gains any cleric levels, they will never get any number of d6's to use.

Alternatively, one could read that the feature was designed with the cleric in mind, since it wasn't expected for non-clerics to get it, so the way they wrote it doesnt properly reflect the intended design of the Domain Access sorcerer, which would be that they would use their sorcerer level instead? Maybe?



Complete divine does have a small segment on this topic, but it doesnt provide any clarification, quote:

If a noncleric enters a prestige class that allows access to a domain, the character still gains access to the domain. She can use the granted power bestowed by the domain normally.

[Troacctid]

Q86 How do domain features which mention cleric level interact with being granted by non-cleric classes. For instance, a Sorcerer with Domain sorcerer takes the Death domain, which grants the following power:

Granted Power: You may use a death touch once per day. Your death touch is a supernatural ability that produces a death effect. You must succeed on a melee touch attack against a living creature (using the rules for touch spells). When you touch, roll 1d6 per cleric level you possess. If the total at least equals the creature’s current hit points, it dies (no save).

Now, rules as written, you could interpret this as being that, since the sorcerer never gains any cleric levels, they will never get any number of d6's to use.

Alternatively, one could read that the feature was designed with the cleric in mind, since it wasn't expected for non-clerics to get it, so the way they wrote it doesnt properly reflect the intended design of the Domain Access sorcerer, which would be that they would use their sorcerer level instead? Maybe?



Complete divine does have a small segment on this topic, but it doesnt provide any clarification, quote:

If a noncleric enters a prestige class that allows access to a domain, the character still gains access to the domain. She can use the granted power bestowed by the domain normally.

If you have no cleric levels, your effective cleric level is 0.

[Beni-Kujaku]

A 86 Troacctid indeed has the RAW answer, that your cleric level is zero. Even levels in prestige classes giving access to a specific domain do not count in that regard.

[NCat]

Thanks for the clarification. So yeah, no missing rule text in a book somewhere, getting domains off cleric RAW is pretty sucky for some domains, but that's how it is sometimes.

[St Fan]

Thanks for the clarification. So yeah, no missing rule text in a book somewhere, getting domains off cleric RAW is pretty sucky for some domains, but that's how it is sometimes.

Indeed, it's a big oversight which, if applied, forces one to select carefully select domains that are not level-dependent when picking a domain from a prestige class. Though many a GM will probably homebrew something instead.

The only ACF, as far as I know, that happens to cover it properly is the "Domain Granted Power" for Wizards from the Complete Champion:

So great are the extent of your study and the depth of your faith that you can call upon the power of one of your deity's domains.

Level: 5th, 10th, 15th, or 20th.

Replaces: This benefit replaces the bonus feat gained by a wizard at 5th, 10th, 15th, or 20th level.

Benefit: Choose one cleric domain. If you worship a specific deity, the domain you choose must be one to which your deity grants access. You now can use that domain's granted power as a cleric does, but you do not gain access to its spells or extra spell slots. If the granted power is based upon cleric level, it becomes instead based upon your wizard level.

Special: If you take levels in a class that grants you a domain choice (such as cleric), you gain the full benefits of the domain in addition to the other domains available to you from that class.

[ShurikVch]

Q 87

Every bard spell has a verbal component (singing, reciting, or music).

Despite what it says, there are twenty-something of Bard spells without any verbal component (for example, Hide from Dragons)
So, what's up?
Should those spells actually be silent - despite what's class description says - or should DM add ad-hoc verbal components "just for Bard"?

[Beni-Kujaku]

A 87 You follow the class text‚ which describes how the spells are cast. Most spells that are on multiple spell list precise that they have verbal components when cast by a bard‚ but even if they don't the sentence you quoted means you have to add the verbal component.

[Zaq]

A 87 commentary

Amusingly, this also means that the assassin, which casts spells "just as a bard does," also must have a verbal component of singing, reciting, or music to cast all of their spells, despite the assassin's nominal reputation as a stealthy sort.

[Duke of Urrel]

Q 87


Despite what it says, there are twenty-something of Bard spells without any verbal component (for example, Hide from Dragons)
So, what's up?
Should those spells actually be silent - despite what's class description says - or should DM add ad-hoc verbal components "just for Bard"?

A 87

Wait a minute...

The following text appears in the SRD.

Every bard spell has a verbal component (singing, reciting, or music).

Supposedly, the SRD text is based upon the Player's Handbook v. 3.5. However, I have the 2012 edition of this rulebook, in dot-PDF form, and I have searched it and failed to find the sentence quoted above. Instead, I found the following sentence on page 28.

Most bard spells have a verbal component (singing, reciting, or music).

The emphasis is my own.

What shall we say when the SRD and the Player's Handbook say two different things? I say: Ask your dungeon master. For my part, I prefer to allow bards to have a few stealthy spells, and I think it would be totally wrong to deny them to assassins.

[Painfool]

Maybe too simple, but I'm a noob so I wanted to know -

Q 88

Can sorcerers/wizards use "Cure X Wounds" wands/scrolls? My first thought was no because they're divine spells, but what if a bard crafted/scribed the wand/scroll, as they cast them as arcane spells?

[KillianHawkeye]

A 88

No.

Use of a scroll or a wand (or a staff) normally requires the caster to have the spell on their class spell list. In the case of scrolls, it also needs to be the correct type of magic (arcane or divine).

[Vaern]

Supposedly, the SRD text is based upon the Player's Handbook v. 3.5. However, I have the 2012 edition of this rulebook, in dot-PDF form, and I have searched it and failed to find the sentence quoted above. Instead, I found the following sentence on page 28.

I'll have to check my older PHB when I have it on hand to see if it's different. Someone mentioned something recently (I think a little tidbit in a spell description) that said something slightly different in the newer printing which wasn't present in the original or on the SRD, so it may be the case that yours simply says something different from the printing that the SRD references. But, to my knowledge, there is exactly one bard spell without a verbal component, being Glibness, which on its own disproves the "every bard spell" statement and may be why the updated PHB says "most bard spells" (if it was, in fact, changed).

*Edit*
The 2003 printing says "every bard spell."

[sreservoir]

Q 89

Does a construct's low-light vision double the effective range of Lifesense (LM 28)?

[Venger]

A89 no ten characters

[ksbsnowowl]

Q90: What is the challenge rating of a Half-Troll (+2 CR) Kobold (CR 1/4) Warrior 1?

Does the +2 CR of the template set the CR to 2? Or does it just increase the CR from 1/4 —> 1/3 —> 1/2?

I think CR 1/2 is the right answer, but it’s contrary to how I’ve conceptualized it for years, so would like some confirmation.

[Beni-Kujaku]

A 90 CR 1/2 is the RAW answer. Obviously the CR system kind of breaks down in extreme cases, so it might be an acceptable CR 1 or CR 2 in practice.

[Troacctid]

Q90: What is the challenge rating of a Half-Troll (+2 CR) Kobold (CR 1/4) Warrior 1?

Does the +2 CR of the template set the CR to 2? Or does it just increase the CR from 1/4 —> 1/3 —> 1/2?

I think CR 1/2 is the right answer, but it’s contrary to how I’ve conceptualized it for years, so would like some confirmation.

As far as I'm aware, the CR rules don't include any text that would allow it to work that way, so you would just use normal math. Adding them together gives you 2¼, which then rounds down to 2.