deleted

[Rleonardh]

Than the belt either does 5 flat?

[redking]

If you allow UMD to take CL and DC's off the chart, then a +30 magic item of UMD goes from "reliably activate magic items" to an overbearing "+30 CL & +15 DC to all spells cast through the staff". The value of that would be overwhelmingly higher than the actual price, yet WotC did not assign that skill any extra market value.

Ditto the Monk's Belt. Its enchanted to give +5 of specified monk abilities whether you have levels or not. A non monk is 0+5=5. A monk is monk level +5. If UMD in conjunction with Monk's Belt is giving 15+5=20, then one has to ask where the power for this is coming from. UMD doesn't grant powers. The Monk's Belt is enchanted to provide +5, not +20. It doesn't pass the smell test.

[KoDT69]

Than the belt either does 5 flat?

That's how I always assumed it. Actual Monk level +5. 0+5=5 if not a Monk.

It would really help tho if they had been more intentional with the wording of Emulate a Class Feature because the description looks more like Emulate a Class Level. It only makes sense if you are trying to emulate a class feature let's say available at level 13, so your class level result needs to be 13+ to be able to emulate that ability.

Does it expressly state anywhere that a class level is a class feature? It doesn't seem like level should be a feature...

[redking]

Does it expressly state anywhere that a class level is a class feature? It doesn't seem like level should be a feature...

I believe not. I think the way some people try to hack it is to say "ok, I emulate Quivering Palm, the 15th level monk ability", and then claim now they are equivalent to a 15th level monk in relation to the item. Others simply extrapolate the DCs, and say that they can emulate a class level.

[Darg]

That's how I always assumed it. Actual Monk level +5. 0+5=5 if not a Monk.

It would really help tho if they had been more intentional with the wording of Emulate a Class Feature because the description looks more like Emulate a Class Level. It only makes sense if you are trying to emulate a class feature let's say available at level 13, so your class level result needs to be 13+ to be able to emulate that ability.

Does it expressly state anywhere that a class level is a class feature? It doesn't seem like level should be a feature...

Class levels are not class features because features depend on levels to define them:

class feature: Any special characteristic derived from a character class.

class level: A character’s level in a single class. Class features generally depend on class level rather than character level

UMD is actually pretty specific in that you only emulate a class when you need to emulate a class feature to use an item:

Sometimes you need to use a class feature to activate a magic item. In this case, your effective level in the emulated class equals your Use Magic Device check result minus 20. This skill does not let you actually use the class feature of another class. It just lets you activate items as if you had that class feature.

The words "in this case" specifically reference the preceding sentence. This means you cannot emulate a class without needing a feature to activate the item. Monk's belt has no mention of getting greater benefit if you already have the features mentioned, only class levels. As mentioned above, class levels are not a feature as they are not a special characteristic of a class. This isn't to mention the blatant brush off of the line "does not let you actually use the class feature of another class" a lot of people do. So even if you define class level as a feature, UMD only lets you emulate being a monk of X level to activate the item. It does not let you use the feature of x level monk to benefit from the item because the skill explicitly forbids you from actually using x levels of monk.

It's probably the same confusion with heighten spell. Heighten spell doesn't actually increase the level of the spell just it's effective level. Arcane missiles heightened to 9th level is still a first level spell. Metamagic spells are only prepared and cast as higher level spells with heighten making the effect treated as a higher level spell. Nothing says that metamagic spells are ever actually higher level.

[Nelfin]

I believe not. I think the way some people try to hack it is to say "ok, I emulate Quivering Palm, the 15th level monk ability", and then claim now they are equivalent to a 15th level monk in relation to the item. Others simply extrapolate the DCs, and say that they can emulate a class level.

As I understand them, the interpretations that allow to obtain the AC and unarmed damage of a level 20 monk is as follows. Just emulate whatever class feature of a monk using [Emulate a class feature] because you are allowed to use UMD in whatever way you want. You don't care if you haven't rolled enough to succesfully emulate the class feature, if you are trying to emulate Quivering Palm for example. You still have an emulated monk class level. This emulated monk class level is then applied to the item's effect. How this application is performed depends on the interpretation: 1) there is no distinct parts between "using an item" and "activating an item" so that the emulated monk class level also applies to the Monk's belt effect (that's typically RandomPeasant point of view); 2) the item's activation "provides stats to the item" to produce its effects (that's typically Gruftzwerg current point of view). But, as you said, both of these interpretations do not pass the smell test, also from a mechanical point of view.

Edit: actually 20 in cunjunction with Quivering Palm wasn't a good example. Let's say 10 instead of 20 and that you have rolled to have 5 emulated monk's level.

[Gruftzwerg]

And can I have a reason for

Use this skill to activate magic

being overwritten by

Use Magic Device lets you use a magic item as if you had the spell ability or class features of another class, as if you were a different race, or as if you were of a different alignment.

Because the general skill description is defined as:

The skill name line is followed by a general description of what using the skill represents. After the description are a few other types of information:

The general description excludes itself to provide rules for the "other types of information", which includes the "Check:"-line.
The definition excludes the permission to provide rules for those topics.

but

Use Magic Device lets you use a magic item as if you had the spell ability or class features of another class, as if you were a different race, or as if you were of a different alignment.

being not overwritten by

It just lets you activate items as if you had that class feature.

(edit: for [Emulate a class feature])? Specific trumps general right?

Because the 2nd quote here is from an "example".
I repeat... the rules are in "Check:" and its "table" and not in the "example".

This...

Emulate a Class Feature
... This skill does not let you actually use the class feature of another class. It just lets you activate items as if you had that class feature. ...

... doesn't create any new rule. It sole explains the general rules in "Check". That you may fake stuff to activate items (which imho includes the effect of the item as explained in my previous posts) but not roll UMD to use the feature. It tries to explain that you may solve fake the "use" for the activation process (which included providing the stats for the effect imho..), but you may not "use" class features to target and alter a magic items effect. Like an Artificer does or a Hellfire Warlock with his Hellfire Infusion ability would do. Those abilities target the item's effect and thus are a seperate source (class abilities) of alteration, while "requirements" are part of the "activation" and thus legal for emulation.

Illegal: "You may not use abilities that target and alter a magic items effect."
Legal: "You may emulate the use of an ability to get different results from a magic item."

This is what that line is trying to tell us imho. It doesn't add any rules, it sole explains what the rules in "Check:" already told us: "Use Magic Device lets you use a magic item as if you had ..." and what this means for this "example".



By common logic "an example" doesn't provide additional rules. If that would be the case, the rules would be lacking (thus the intention is not represented by RAW, but sole by RAI)!
As such "sole rule-text can create rules" (who would have thought that ;)


Specific circumstances of an example may not be representative for all possible examples unless the rules explicitly tells you (which they don't in case of UMD).

Edit: and again, you don't understand anything to what I said between activation and usage...

Edit2: and again, where does it say that a magic item needs to be provided with stats as you say?

@ EDIT 1:
Imho I get your intention here, but you fail to see how your interpretation creates either

a) a totally dysfunctional situation for item requirements, since they are never checked by the rules

or

b) adds a hidden step into the rules (which is not "specific trumps general" because the rules never tell you to insert this step anywhere) to check for requirements and stats.

My interpretation doesn't create any dysfunctions nor adds any hidden steps/mechanics to the rules. It gives you a "scaling skill". And that is normal, that a skill scales with your ranks and that your become especially good at certain aspects of that skill if you optimize for it.
When you invest more ranks into jump, you expect to jump further then before.
When you invest into swim, you expect swim better.
...
When you invest into UMD, you should also expect to be better at using magic devices..
..

@ EDIT 2: I'll answer that question after you have explained how a NON-UMD-USER suscessfully qualifies and activates the item, and when and how the item checks if the user qualifies for it.
But heck, I do you a favor and start with my answer and hope that you will return the favor by giving me an answer to my question that I have been asking over several post...

1. "Requirements" are specific and thus are not presented by the "general" rules, because not every item has requirements.

2. Only those items with requirements trump the general rules and "insert" a check into the rules to represent the requirements.

3. "Activation" is the sole point in the rules (using magic items + UMD) where things are checked. If you disagree, show me where else in the rules this would make sense. It can't be later, because the activation leads automatically to the effect, since both are part of the same step "using items". And it can't be before because there you hadn't had the intent to "use the item" at all. So by pure logic, I don't see any possibility for any other point in the rules to "insert" the requirement checks.

It clearly says a magic item "must be activated to use it". I imagine in simple terms it's a 2 part action to accomplish.
Part 1 - Turn on the power switch using UMD to say you're allowed to use the item.
Part 2 - Press the action button. In the case of a staff "using your CL" then checks to find you really don't have a real CL so default to the staff's own CL.
I see it as checking only the parameters it expressly states to activate then checking the "use your ability scores and CL to set DC" at the time of use.

If you allow UMD to take CL and DC's off the chart, then a +30 magic item of UMD goes from "reliably activate magic items" to an overbearing "+30 CL & +15 DC to all spells cast through the staff". The value of that would be overwhelmingly higher than the actual price, yet WotC did not assign that skill any extra market value.

Why should a skill increase the market value at all? Excuse me, but where does that make sense?
Should boots of Jumping +5 cost more when you have more ranks in Jump???

And how does the value of the item increase here? If anything the value of UMD increases by your investment into ranks and other boosts to it. Which is normal for a skill!

Does the item become more valuable when a "real 30CL +15 ability modifier character" wields it?
It becomes more potent, yeah. But not more valuable. Or would you pay more for a staff because the "30cl +15 ability modifier"-guy wielded it before? (maybe if you are fanboy of him/her^^)
I guess normally not.
As such, where do you see the problem that UMD is a scaling skill?? I really don't get why some people think that UMD shouldn't scale at all. It's a SCALING SKILL as normal in 3.5

[Nelfin]

Ahahah, sorry I didn't laugh at all... Ahahahah. Such a long post to try to save the face and to conclude that [Emulate a class feature] is indeed for item activation.

@ others

I have a difficulty in interpreting how UMD works with scroll, especially if there is only one check allowed per activation. There are 3 requirements to activate a scroll:

1. having the spell of the scroll in your class spell list;
2. having a high enough ability score in your casting ability;
3. the spell in the scroll being of your casting type (arcane or divine).

Assuming that the scroll was already deciphered (using Decipher a written scroll of UMD for instance), Use a scroll lets you only qualify for only two of these requirements:

1. having the spell in your class spell list;
2. having the required ability score with an additional UMD check.

Since casting type needs for you to be a spellcaster in the first place and being a spellcaster is having spellcasting ability (having a spell in your class spell list is not enough), I can't see how a non caster can activate a scroll if only one check per activation is allowed. Here I am reading one check per activation as one UMD task per activation since the common sense reading is that you perform only one task per check.

Of course, if several UMD checks are allowed, there is no problem since you can both do Use a scroll and Emulate a class feature (to have the spellcasting ability).

There is also a caster level check involved if you don't have enough caster level for the spell in the scroll, but this is another point which is indeed solved if you have emulated a spellcasting ability. You then have an emulated caster level that you can use (only for activation of course) to make the caster level check.

[Gruftzwerg]

Ahahah, sorry I didn't laugh at all... Ahahahah. Such a long post to try to save the face and to conclude that [Emulate a class feature] is indeed for item activation.

Saving face? No that is not my intention. Because I don't feel any reason why I should?

But since you keep dodging my requests and need to make jokes about not LOL, I think you maneuvered yourself into the position where you need to safe your face.

Where is your explanation how a non-UMD-user "uses items" with requirements successfully? I'm still waiting for it since several pages while ALWAYS responding to the problems that you see in my interpretation.

So the one always responding nice to the other is "losing his face", while the one ranting and who is dodging arguments is the winner? Is that how it works for you?

Sorry for my lil rant now, but I feel kinda provoked when you keep dodging my request while still having the guts to make jokes (or should I better say: making fun of me..). Did I offend you in any way to deserve this? Imho, I tried to be nice with my responses and didn't try to provoked anyone intentionally here.

[Rleonardh]

So basically we got 2 school of thought here.
Umd emulate class and scale
Or it doesn't?

If it doesn't, than it's considered homebrew if you allow it.
If it does, than it's considered homebrew if it don't.
😕

[Gruftzwerg]

So basically we got 2 school of thought here.
Umd emulate class and scale
Or it doesn't?

If it doesn't, than it's considered homebrew if you allow it.
If it does, than it's considered homebrew if it don't.
😕

That is basically how any hot debate starts here..^^

[Nelfin]

You are applying PSR in a wrong way to say "Eh this is a rule, this is not a rule".

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.

The conditions for PSR to be applicable are

1. you already know what you are dealing with are rules;

and

1. those rules contradict each other.

If these 2 conditions are both true, then you can determine which rule you take. On the question of whether something is a rule or not, PSR is silent because it is only applicable to something you already know is a rule. And you know what, something in a rulebook is a rule by default (who would think such a thing!).

You also said that the Order of rules application in RC is an emanation of PSR.

The D&D game assumes a specific order of rules application: General to specific to exception. A general rule is a basic guideline, but a more specifi c rule takes precedence when applied to the same activity. For instance, a monster description is more specifi c than any general rule about monsters, so the description takes precedence. An exception is a particular kind of specifi c rule that contradicts or breaks another rule (general or specifi c). The Improved Disarm feat, for instance, provides an exception to the rule that an attacker provokes an attack of opportunity from the defender he’s trying to disarm (see Disarm, page 45).

That's not logically possible, especially in the way you apply PSR. You never get to apply the exception part. Indeed, if there is an exception rule, that necessarily means that the exception rule is about the same topic than a general or specific rule. Otherwise, there cannot be an exception if the rules do not deal about the same topic! With how you use PSR, any exception does not create a new topic, and is thus not a rule. Since it is not a rule, it cannot be an exception rule to a rule since the exception is not a rule! That's some internal inconsistency here.

Even without the above contentions, there are still plenty of inconsistencies.

About magic items: your inability to think that it can work differently to what you think shifts from a "It may work as I think" to "It must work as I think". I warned you about that: just forget what you think you know to read something which is not consistent with your point of view. A proof of the assertion: why do you think that a magic item needs to be provided with stats by the activation? You keep dodging this: where are the quote(s)? I assert that it is not the case. You did say that a negative assertion cannot be proved with quotes, right? So I am in no obligation to prove my assertion by your own logic. It is however your obligation to quote something to prove a positive assertion.

But, didn't it occur to you that the stats are already there? They are written in the item's effect! Because magic items are already enchanted maybe? Is it too simple and not enough convoluted? When it is written in the Monk's belt effect

This simple rope belt, when wrapped around a character’s waist, confers great ability in unarmed combat. The wearer’s AC and unarmed damage is treated as a monk of five levels higher. If donned by a character with the Stunning Fist feat, the belt lets her make one additional stunning attack per day. If the character is not a monk, she gains the AC and unarmed damage of a 5th-level monk. This AC bonus functions just like the monk’s AC bonus.

didn't it occur to you to just go check what your monk level is and to add 5 to it? You know, it is exactly what you do for the attack and damage rolls: it says to add your strength modififer? Just go check what this modifier is to add it to the result? Too simple and not enough convoluted?

I do believe that you are making double standards. What I don't know is whether you do it on purpose or involuntarily. You nit pick plenty of wordings, but PSR? Nope! Though it is the single most important element of your reasoning that holds everything you say. Maybe nit pick PSR before nit picking other stuff? The same for the monk's level and strength modifier. If you do something for the attack and damage rolls, also do it for the Monk's belt! Need to add something which is written on your character sheet? Just do it for all rules that say add something which is written on your character sheet. Full stop! Because you are not consistent across all the rules, you are now inventing stuff to fill the gaps you think exist.

Seriously, you do think that "This skill does not let you actually use the class feature of another class. It just lets you activate items as if you had that class feature." not being a rule and still concluding that Emulate a class feature is for activation only is a consistent reading? If you were to be consistent, just discard it for a rule reading as you do for "Sometimes you need to use a class feature to activate a magic item.". Now tell me how you conclude that Emulate a class feature is for activation only when discarding the supposed non rule text? That's what you are saying, right?

It tries to explain that you may solve fake the "use" for the activation process

(I assume that the "solve" is a "sole").

You extrapolate way too much for something you pretend is RAW.

Honestly, if you have quoted something about "the magic items needing to be provided with stats", the tone of my message would have been different. At some point, I was wondering if I should not apoligize for the tone of some of my previous messages because it may seem that you were arguying in good faith. But, actually no. So now, keep house ruling UMD to buff it.

[redking]

My interpretation doesn't create any dysfunctions nor adds any hidden steps/mechanics to the rules. It gives you a "scaling skill". And that is normal, that a skill scales with your ranks and that your become especially good at certain aspects of that skill if you optimize for it.

Where does it say that you get a scaling skill? Certain DC checks for UMD scale, depending on the difficulty of the task. But you don't get any additional benefits for exceeding the required DC in your UMD check. Kindly provide a quote that says that it does.

And please not "magic item basics" - I have read this and does not say anything of the sort.

[KoDT69]

Let me clarify. I'm asking why the UMD skill isn't valued higher as a magic item boost property. +5 Jump gives you an extra 1ft of jump distance or whatever and increases linear. +5 UMD can give +5 CL which is undoubtedly not linear. It's a massive power boost where it can be applied. The Spell Power class feature gives only a +1 to DC, and this 2500gp item can do +5. It just doesn't make sense for it to be so lopsided.

Even though the staff use is a Standard Action, the first part is activating, then use. Emulated crap just let's you move to the use part, but a staff USES your CL and casting ability modifier. UMD doesn't let you use the emulated things just get it activated for use. Once you use the item it tries to use your scores which may be too low defaulting to using the staff's scores instead.

I don't recall anywhere that WotC expressly states that the item only checks your details on activation. Please show me a printed example of you think I'm wrong. Using actual normal language it says:

Item must be activated to use. - 2 different things that happen over the course of a Standard Action
UMD doesn't let you actually USE the emulated features.

[Nelfin]

Back to something more interesting: UMD and scrolls. Does a character

• with 18 in Wisdom;
• but with only 2 levels in Paladin;

qualifies to activate a scroll with the first level divine spell Bless? If he qualifies, I assume he still needs to make the caster level check. What is his caster level then? 0?

Edit: just quoting myself so that you don't need to go back to search for my previous message.

I have a difficulty in interpreting how UMD works with scroll, especially if there is only one check allowed per activation. There are 3 requirements to activate a scroll:

1. having the spell of the scroll in your class spell list;
2. having a high enough ability score in your casting ability;
3. the spell in the scroll being of your casting type (arcane or divine).

Assuming that the scroll was already deciphered (using Decipher a written scroll of UMD for instance), Use a scroll lets you only qualify for only two of these requirements:

1. having the spell in your class spell list;
2. having the required ability score with an additional UMD check.

Since casting type needs for you to be a spellcaster in the first place and being a spellcaster is having spellcasting ability (having a spell in your class spell list is not enough), I can't see how a non caster can activate a scroll if only one check per activation is allowed. Here I am reading one check per activation as one UMD task per activation since the common sense reading is that you perform only one task per check.

Of course, if several UMD checks are allowed, there is no problem since you can both do Use a scroll and Emulate a class feature (to have the spellcasting ability).

There is also a caster level check involved if you don't have enough caster level for the spell in the scroll, but this is another point which is indeed solved if you have emulated a spellcasting ability. You then have an emulated caster level that you can use (only for activation of course) to make
the caster level check.

Edit 2: in the quote above, I should explain why I think that you are allowed to only one task per activation (that is my reading about this one/several checks in UMD at the moment):

1. in a common sense reading, you perform one task per check and not several;
2. if multiple checks are allowed, there would be no need to specifically say in Use a scroll that you can make another check to Emulate an ability score;
3. if one check can be used for several task, it is the same. No need to specifically call out for Emulate an ablity score.

Moreover, RC rules are supposed to have been more throughfully tested and should be working as intended (you should be able to activate a scroll with UMD). Since RC did not change Use a scroll, I guess that the developpers did think that it was enough. So all in all, I am trying to see if there is a consistent reading that allow to activate a scroll with only Use a scroll. But again, that is only my current reading on the matter at the moment.

[Rleonardh]

If you got 18 wisdom on a paladin and use the bless scroll you don't need to use umd
Caster level will be 1.

If you say rogue with 10 Wisdom.
Need 2 checks to activate it and than emulate 11 wisdom. Caster level will be 1.

[redking]

Back to something more interesting: UMD and scrolls. Does a character

• with 18 in Wisdom;
• but with only 2 levels in Paladin;

qualifies to activate a scroll with the first level divine spell Bless? If he qualifies, I assume he still needs to make the caster level check. What is his caster level then? 0?

Here are the steps for a Paladin with 0 caster levels to activate a scroll of bless.

1. Meet the requisite ability score. For bless, it is 11. You have 18 Wisdom. STEP COMPLETE.

2. Scroll is arcane or divine. This scroll is a divine scroll of bless, therefore compatible with Paladin. STEP COMPLETE.

3. Spell must be on class list. Bless is on the Paladin class list, and you are a Paladin. STEP COMPLETE.

4. Have a caster level at least equal to the scroll. This Paladin's caster level is 0, and the scroll of bless is caster level 1. STEP NOT COMPLETE. PROCEED TO ALTERNATE STEP 4B.

4B. Make a caster level check in order to activate the scroll. The DC is set at the caster level of the scroll (1 DC) +1 DC = 2 DC. You roll a D20 and if you meet or exceed the DC for the caster level check, you successfully activate the scroll. Otherwise, you may suffer a mishap (irrelevant for this discussion).

If you got 18 wisdom on a paladin and use the bless scroll you don't need to use umd
Caster level will be 1.

See the above.

1. in a common sense reading, you perform one task per check and not several;
2. if multiple checks are allowed, there would be no need to specifically say in Use a scroll that you can make another check to Emulate an ability score;
3. if one check can be used for several task, it is the same. No need to specifically call out for Emulate an ablity score.

I think its one roll which applies to any relevant task for UMD. The roll produces the result for your Difficulty Class for UMD, which is applied to all the tasks at hand on a pass/fail basis individually.

[Rleonardh]

Decipher roll if needed
Dc 20+cl of spell if not on spell list
Separate umd check for ability score, if not equal or higher than needed.
3 rolls possibly

Use a Scroll
If you are casting a spell from a scroll, you have to decipher it first. Normally, to cast a spell from a scroll, you must have the scroll’s spell on your class spell list. Use Magic Device allows you to use a scroll as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list. The DC is equal to 20 + the caster level of the spell you are trying to cast from the scroll. In addition, casting a spell from a scroll requires a minimum score (10 + spell level) in the appropriate ability. If you don’t have a sufficient score in that ability, you must emulate the ability score with a separate Use Magic Device check (see above).

This use of the skill also applies to other spell completion magic items.

[Nelfin]

So you don't need to be a spellcaster to qualify for "the spell in the scroll being of your casting type (arcane or divine)" and having a spellcasting class is enough. Does having a spell in your class spell list makes a class a spellcasting class? Is there a definition womewhere of a spellcasting class?

PS: I was indeed asking for the non UMD case.

Edit: @redking

I think its one roll which applies to any relevant task for UMD. The roll produces the result for your Difficulty Class for UMD, which is applied to all the tasks at hand on a pass/fail basis individually.

I don't think it is consistent with Use a scroll that specifically states that you must make a separate check to emulate an ability score (if you don't have a high enough ability score). A single roll applied to several tasks would mean that you could in principle Use a scroll and Emulate an ability score. You wouldn't need to make a separate check for the ability score.

[Gruftzwerg]

You are applying PSR in a wrong way to say "Eh this is a rule, this is not a rule".

The conditions for PSR to be applicable are

1. you already know what you are dealing with are rules;

and

1. those rules contradict each other.

If these 2 conditions are both true, then you can determine which rule you take. On the question of whether something is a rule or not, PSR is silent because it is only applicable to something you already know is a rule. And you know what, something in a rulebook is a rule by default (who would think such a thing!).

You also said that the Order of rules application in RC is an emanation of PSR.

That's not logically possible, especially in the way you apply PSR. You never get to apply the exception part. Indeed, if there is an exception rule, that necessarily means that the exception rule is about the same topic than a general or specific rule. Otherwise, there cannot be an exception if the rules do not deal about the same topic! With how you use PSR, any exception does not create a new topic, and is thus not a rule. Since it is not a rule, it cannot be an exception rule to a rule since the exception is not a rule! That's some internal inconsistency here.

Regarding "Topic":
1. The PSR is providing here a minimum amount of rule text here by sole mentioning that "topic precedence" exists.
2. Topic is undefined by 3.5 and thus we have to take the full extend of the common sense definition of "topic".
3. Since the PSR nowhere set any limits for what qualifies as "topic", anything that creates either a "new topic" (general rule) or a "more specific subtopic" (specific rule) is legal. This is the PSR version of the "Specific Trumps General" mentioned in the RC. (really an impressive achievement how much information just the 2 words "topic precedence" can contain.. I'm really impressed by this).

If you understand the common logic connection between a "topic" and a "subtopic", you should know how "Specific Trumps General" is correctly applied. A specific subtopic may trump its more general topic. But only for its own "subtopic" niche. It doesn't affect other "subtopics" (on the same layer) since it ain't a general rule.

And if you want to further expand this example, you could have an even "more specific subtopic" for your "subtopic".
As an example: Attack rules (general topic) + Power Attack rules (subtopic) + Shock Trooper (more specific subtopic)
Shock Trooper is even more specific than Power Attack and thus may trump the rules presented there. Since those are "more general" for Shock Trooper. These kind of "rule chains" can sometimes even extend further.

Most of the time when we have a simple to solve rule conflict, we sole look at one link-connection of that chain to determine which side is "more general" and which is "more specific" to get results.

But sometimes (like in our UMD case here) you have multiple rules interaction with another and you have to check each interaction ("link") for itself and then sum it all up. And I have to admit that it is not easy to keep an overview over all interactions in some situations like this one. But you have to look out for keywords and terms that are defined to see where the rules establish links between the rules due to the PSR.

Even without the above contentions, there are still plenty of inconsistencies.

About magic items: your inability to think that it can work differently to what you think shifts from a "It may work as I think" to "It must work as I think". I warned you about that: just forget what you think you know to read something which is not consistent with your point of view. A proof of the assertion: why do you think that a magic item needs to be provided with stats by the activation? You keep dodging this: where are the quote(s)? I assert that it is not the case. You did say that a negative assertion cannot be proved with quotes, right? So I am in no obligation to prove my assertion by your own logic. It is however your obligation to quote something to prove a positive assertion.

But, didn't it occur to you that the stats are already there? They are written in the item's effect! Because magic items are already enchanted maybe? Is it too simple and not enough convoluted? When it is written in the Monk's belt effect

didn't it occur to you to just go check what your monk level is and to add 5 to it? You know, it is exactly what you do for the attack and damage rolls: it says to add your strength modififer? Just go check what this modifier is to add it to the result? Too simple and not enough convoluted?

(I did bold the important part here in the quote)

I already did provide the answer to this..
But I'll go more into detail this time so you won't miss it hopefully.
But let me also remind you that I am still waiting for your explanation for "how a non-umd-user successfully activates an item with additional requirements. step by step pls. And pls don't ignore it again pls. I asked kindly several times and always responded to your requests too.
Anyway, lets start: (I will add an UMD approach to even show how my interpretation works with this ruling)

1. Each "mechanical step" needed to play the game is "defined" and explained (rule text). You may not assume any hidden steps not mentioned anywhere in the rules. The rules need to tell you if you have to insert a " mechanical step".
To prevent misinterpretations here: the grapple rules should give you a good idea what I mean with "mechanical steps". Each step while grappling is defined and has rules explaining how it works.

2. UMD gives permission to emulate stuff to "use magic items"

3. "Using Items" is defined in the "Magic Items Basics". As such these general rules has to be obeyed by any magic item user, thus also any UMD-user. The sole "mechanical step" to get an items effect is to "activate" it. There aren't any other steps mentioned in the general rules for using a magic item.

4. No item that I am aware of adds a "mechanical step" by telling you "to check for the requirements after/before XXX". They sole talk about what is required. Since "no additional step for checking is added" you can sole trump those "steps" already given by the general rules to fit in the requirements somewhere. The rules don't tell you into which step you should insert these requirements, I'll admit that. But since these is sole one step for using a magic item, the answer is still easy. The sole mechanical step is "activation". And somehow I would even say that "common sense" would even back me up when I would insert any requirements into the time-frame of the activation. It seems logical for me.

As said, if you argue against this, present a non dysfunctional interpretation, where you don't add hidden "steps" not presented by the rules. Show me how an item successfully checks a non UMD-user if he qualifies for it.
I don't see how this should be possible without either adding hidden steps or the rules becoming dysfunctional and never checking for requirements. Pick your poison ;)

I do believe that you are making double standards. What I don't know is whether you do it on purpose or involuntarily. You nit pick plenty of wordings, but PSR? Nope! Though it is the single most important element of your reasoning that holds everything you say. Maybe nit pick PSR before nit picking other stuff? The same for the monk's level and strength modifier. If you do something for the attack and damage rolls, also do it for the Monk's belt! Need to add something which is written on your character sheet? Just do it for all rules that say add something which is written on your character sheet. Full stop! Because you are not consistent across all the rules, you are now inventing stuff to fill the gaps you think exist.

Believe that I did nitpicked the PSR as much as possible to get from "topic precedence" to "Specific Trumps General". That did cost me a few years to come so far and caused me to grew more white hair in the meanwhile...^^
And no, I don't think that I make double standard. Imho it is just that some things are hard to grasp at first. As said, I needed multiple years to understand the PSR to its full extend by constantly reviewing it. What me helped was to not always assume that the FAQ has fked up as many always think. Yeah, there are a few wrong rulings in the FAQ. But most things where people assume that the FAQ is wrong are caused just due to a lack of understanding the PSR imho. I struggled with the FAQ for long enough to see that some ambiguous rulings in the FAQ are correct if you understand the PSR.
Just look at how many times I need to point out that "specific rules don't become general rules", because it is so easy to ignore/forget this important aspect.

"Specific Trumps General" is a one way road. And in almost any more complex rule discussion in the past years, I had to point this out since people keep ignoring this. Can you imagine how hard/annoying it is for me to always point this out for the people? It's a very simple but also very important aspect of this rule that may not be ignored/misunderstood/misused! Ignoring a one way road in the rules is not an option to interpret rules.
So, if in almost any major discussion someone misses this aspect, I can safely assume that there are still people around who don't get what the PSR does. This is not an offense, just a mere observation of the forum posts.
As such I feel that it is needed to nitpick people constantly with the PSR so that they can get used to it. Not because it's fun (believe me that I don't enjoy it to play a parrot here, always repeating the same rules). The sole enjoyment is if either party can convince the other side (and I have been convinced on multiple occasion. I'm not pretending to be free of mistakes). I enjoy it as much if I can convince someone, as to be convinced by someone else. It's about the results, not about how is right or wrong imho.

Seriously, you do think that "This skill does not let you actually use the class feature of another class. It just lets you activate items as if you had that class feature." not being a rule and still concluding that Emulate a class feature is for activation only is a consistent reading? If you were to be consistent, just discard it for a rule reading as you do for "Sometimes you need to use a class feature to activate a magic item.". Now tell me how you conclude that Emulate a class feature is for activation only when discarding the supposed non rule text? That's what you are saying, right?

(I assume that the "solve" is a "sole").

You extrapolate way too much for something you pretend is RAW.

Honestly, if you have quoted something about "the magic items needing to be provided with stats", the tone of my message would have been different. At some point, I was wondering if I should not apoligize for the tone of some of my previous messages because it may seem that you were arguying in good faith. But, actually no. So now, keep house ruling UMD to buff it.

* solve > sole : sorry my fault.. I seem to have the habit to write a similar words instead of the actual word I had in mind out of muscle-memory/reflex when I'm typing very fast (limited time). And sometimes I don't notice those errors...


regarding: ""This skill does not let you actually use the class feature of another class. It just lets you activate items as if you had that class feature."

As I said multiple times, it is clear to me what is standing here.

1. The quote is from an "example". As such it doesn't add a rule, but is explaining a rule that has already been mentioned. The mentioned rule where are looking for here is the "emulating stuff to use magic items"-rule as described in "Check:"

Use Magic Device lets you use a magic item as if you had the spell ability or class features of another class, as if you were a different race, or as if you were of a different alignment.

2. If we compare which "use" is legal and which "use" is illegal, we are seeing some patterns. "Emulating the use of a class feature" is more specific as the "general use of a class ability".
This explains why "the use of Turn Undead" to fuel an item is legal. Because the item is making use of it.

And to give an illegal example of "use", take Hellfire Infusion of a hellfire warlock. Here you have an ability which can be "used" on magic items. The ability targets the item to alter the effect the item could normally produce. The item it not targeting the ability in its activation process. It's not part of the items normal effect range. Thus you may not UMD to emulate the "use" of the "Hellfire Infusion" ability.

Monk's Belt:
The Monk's Belt normal effect range changes with possible monk levels. The items checks at activation if you have monk levels (for the Unarmed Strike & AC-bonus class features) or not, which can be emulated by UMD.
The belt then gives you the following two effects:

a) exchanges your "Unarmed Strike Damage" (note that the effect is not targeting the monk's ability, but the standard "Unarmed Strike Damage" stat that everybody has) to that of a monk of lvl X+5 (x= effective monk lvls).
b) gives you the same AC-bonus to your "AC" as a monk of "X+5.th lvl".

You don't "actively use" your bonuses, you "passively have" em. You use your Unarmed Strike Damage, and you use your AC. Normal non class specific stuff. The reason why Monk's Belt is so cheesy with UMD is because it asks for class features (at the point of activation to determine the strength of its effect), but it gives bonuses to regular stats that everybody has and thus can "use". As if it would have been specifically tailored with the intention for UMD abuse ;) *joke*

Where does it say that you get a scaling skill? Certain DC checks for UMD scale, depending on the difficulty of the task. But you don't get any additional benefits for exceeding the required DC in your UMD check. Kindly provide a quote that says that it does.

And please not "magic item basics" - I have read this and does not say anything of the sort.

UMD shows in its table multiple roll types that seem to have no hard cap on their DCs: "Decipher a written spell"; "Use a scroll", "Emulate a class feature" & "Emulate an ability score".
All these can go infinite theoretically (*hello pun-pun*).
As such we can safely assume that UMD scales with possible ranks. The more ranks you have, the more potent you become at certain task involving that skill. Why should UMD be the odd skill that doesn't scale?
Imho everthing indicates that it has to scale with your roll result if it is possible for it to scale.
I don't see any restrictions mentioned in the rule text that would imply that it doesn't scale.

[Rleonardh]

Problem is the belt is not a umd item.
You can't emulate levels of a class just it's freatures

Belt, Monk’s: This simple rope belt, when wrapped around a character’s waist, confers great ability in unarmed combat.
The wearer’s AC and unarmed damage is treated as a monk of five levels higher.
If donned by a character with the Stunning Fist feat, the belt lets her make one additional stunning attack per day.
If the character is not a monk, she gains the AC and unarmed damage of a 5th-level monk. This AC bonus functions just like the monk’s AC bonus.

No where in the item description says you need a freature to activate it.

Plus the turn undead in your example is a class freature not levels.
Problem is trying to say you justify the freatures as equal to actual levels in givin class.

Either you monk or not monk.

However I don't see a reason not to rule it other way as it will help other classes, plus if you can do it do can the enemies.

[Nelfin]

If you look at the examples (yes I know they are examples, but it is the only thing that may tell what a topic could mean) in PSR for topic precedence, they all deal with topic precedence between books, not within a book. PSR is divided into two paragraphs, the first one deals with primary source within a book and the second one deals with primary source between books. At least, this fits the examples. Are you even allowed to talk about topic precedence within a book in the first place?

Since "topic" is undefined by 3.5, what forbids me to say that Emulate a class feature is a sub-topic of UMD? Is there a reason to this? It is a sub-section with a title. Since it is a sub-topic of UMD, everything in Emulate a class feature should be a rule by default. Now, how do you define what is or is not a rule by using PSR when it is only applicable to rules?

You have an impressive verbiage. The sentences are not rules but they still explain how the skill works... Either, they are rules, in which case you apply them; either they are not rules, in which cases you don't apply them. There is nothing in between. What about them being rules that explain how the skill works? Since they are rules for Emulate a class feature, they only apply to Emulate a class feature! They take precedence (when you use Emulate a class feature of course). If you want a procedure of this: when you use Emulate a class feature, read the general UMD rules + the Emulate a class feature rules. Apply whichever rules take precedence. If you use Emulate an ability score, read the general UMD rules + Emulate an ability score rules and apply whichever rules take precedence. Taking precedence by using the order of rule application, i.e. the most specific rule of the tree created by section, subsection, subsubsection, paragraph and whatnot, applies when there is a contradiction.

In any case, Emulate a class feature applies only to the item's activation, right?


The Monk's belt is activated the moment it is donned. But it is a continuously functioning item. How is it possible if there is no distinction between activation and usage, or at least between activation and "applying the Monk's belt effect"? They don't even have the same timing. Armor and most clothes are like this. There are two steps which are in the sentence "To use a magic item, it must be activated". In a common sense reading, being activated is only a necessary condition, nothing else. You cannot use a magic item if it has not been activated. You can have sentence such as "To use a computer, it must be switched on": you switch on your computer and then you can come on gitp. For items such as wands or staves, the "then" can be instantaneous but it is still a different step.

What may be troubling is that, from my point of view, using an item is never defined. Contrarily to casting a spell or grapple for instance, it never tells you to "apply the item's effect" or anything similar, though we all know that it is the case.


Concerning the missing "check the requirements" step, I don't see your concern or at least I don't see why there is no such concern with your interpretation. At some point, you need to know if the activation requirements are met or not. And this is true for any interpretation independently of "checking the requirements after/before xxx", of activation and usage being the same or not or whatever. So how do you verify that the requirements are met? When you go through the activation method or item's effect, each time there is a requirement, the player looks at the relevent value on its character sheet to see if it is OK or not. I mean how do you verify that your wizard character is allowed to prepare a spell. A requirement is that the spell is in the character's spellbook. How do you verify that this requirement is met? You, as a player, are looking at the character's spellbook to verify that the spell is indeed there. And there is absolutely no rule explicitly saying that. When you swing your sword to hit someone, the rule says when it hits. It is always the players who looks at the condition and determine if they are true or not. I really don't know what to tell you...

Concerning "checking the requirements after/before xxx", are you arguying that the requirements for activation are not checked during the activation? And that the requirements for the item's effect are not checked during its usage? I just hope you are not arguying that those requirements are never checked because there is no mechanical steps that says "check the requirements" so that the item is never activated because the activation requirements are never checked.

Concerning the additional requirement thing, just check if the additional requirement is also met by the non UMD user? For example, let's say that you have a variant of the Dwarven thrower:

• Activation: be a dwarf;
• Effect: +3 bonus...

The activation method of this variant is then: the wielder must be a dwarf. Just look at the wielder's race and see if he is a dwarf. You can add as many requirements as you want, just check if they are met by the non-UMD user. Each activation with different requirements defines a new activation method in the way they did in MIC for ammunition and so on. I don't see the point...


Finally, I apologize for the tone of my previous messages.


PS: not sure if I haven't missed something somehow.

PS2:

UMD shows in its table multiple roll types that seem to have no hard cap on their DCs: "Decipher a written spell"; "Use a scroll", "Emulate a class feature" & "Emulate an ability score".
All these can go infinite theoretically (*hello pun-pun*).
As such we can safely assume that UMD scales with possible ranks. The more ranks you have, the more potent you become at certain task involving that skill. Why should UMD be the odd skill that doesn't scale?

Please don't do that! It is circular argumentation. There is a reading of the rules that allows pun-pun and now you want to justify that, since pun-pun exists, the rules are to be read in the way that allows pun-pun... Please, no!

[Nelfin]

What is your formal description of Lidda's chalice, since I guess it is this one, in this interpreation? By formal, I mean what is the activation method and what is the effect?

regarding: ""This skill does not let you actually use the class feature of another class. It just lets you activate items as if you had that class feature."

As I said multiple times, it is clear to me what is standing here.

1. The quote is from an "example". As such it doesn't add a rule, but is explaining a rule that has already been mentioned. The mentioned rule where are looking for here is the "emulating stuff to use magic items"-rule as described in "Check:"


2. If we compare which "use" is legal and which "use" is illegal, we are seeing some patterns. "Emulating the use of a class feature" is more specific as the "general use of a class ability".
This explains why "the use of Turn Undead" to fuel an item is legal. Because the item is making use of it.

[Gruftzwerg]

If you look at the examples (yes I know they are examples, but it is the only thing that may tell what a topic could mean) in PSR for topic precedence, they all deal with topic precedence between books, not within a book. PSR is divided into two paragraphs, the first one deals with primary source within a book and the second one deals with primary source between books. At least, this fits the examples. Are you even allowed to talk about topic precedence within a book in the first place?

Book precedence != Topic precedence

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.

Book precedence: A book (or the ERRATA in the case of the PHB, DMG & MM) may claim supremacy over a topic which counts as "Book Precedence".

Topic precedence: The Primary Source where a topic is handled.
E.g. The spell Invisibility redefines what an "Attack" is. It's also in the PHB and would thus have book precedence (for "playing the game"..). But it lacks "topic precedence", since it ain't part of the "Combat" rules, the Primary Source for the definition of "Attack". As such, Invisibility sole creates a specific exception for itself (sub-topic: Attack definition for the Invisibility Spell) and doesn't create or change any global rule.
Thanks god that we have "topic precedence" and not sole "book precedence". Otherwise the rules would be a real mess.

Since "topic" is undefined by 3.5, what forbids me to say that Emulate a class feature is a sub-topic of UMD? Is there a reason to this? It is a sub-section with a title. Since it is a sub-topic of UMD, everything in Emulate a class feature should be a rule by default. Now, how do you define what is or is not a rule by using PSR when it is only applicable to rules?

Because all those "examples" have already been defined in "Check: and its table". They lack the right wording to count as general rules. In fact it's the opposite. We have multiple indicators (not sole in emulate class feature) that lets you identify em as examples. What else is the "chalice" if not an "example"?

You have an impressive verbiage. The sentences are not rules but they still explain how the skill works... Either, they are rules, in which case you apply them; either they are not rules, in which cases you don't apply them. There is nothing in between. What about them being rules that explain how the skill works? Since they are rules for Emulate a class feature, they only apply to Emulate a class feature! They take precedence (when you use Emulate a class feature of course). If you want a procedure of this: when you use Emulate a class feature, read the general UMD rules + the Emulate a class feature rules. Apply whichever rules take precedence. If you use Emulate an ability score, read the general UMD rules + Emulate an ability score rules and apply whichever rules take precedence. Taking precedence by using the order of rule application, i.e. the most specific rule of the tree created by section, subsection, subsubsection, paragraph and whatnot, applies when there is a contradiction.

Let me try to extrapolate our situation:
"The rules try to give rules what a fruit is."
It then proceeds to giving an example with "red apples".
You are now trying to make the color "red" a rule, because the example has "red" in it. Sorry, but examples don't work this way. An example is there to showcase what has been already set as rule(s) and not to extend the rule(s).

And I already have explained that even if I would take em as rules, nothing changes.
"use of class feature" = forbidden
"emulation of class feature to activate/use an item" = legal
Specific Trumps General. As long as the "used class feature" is part of the "activation" (or the use of the item), the use it legal.
The rules limit you to sole "use" class features that the target item mentions to interact with. E.g. "Turn Undead to fuel the Chalice"
But it excludes the "use" of class features that are not part of the items normal possible interactions. E.g. "Hellfire Infusion to alter the items effect."
This is the "forbidden use" mentioned in the UMD rules. It doesn't forbid you to "use the emulation for the items effect". Otherwise the Chalice example would be dysfunctional. Unless anyone can provide any other "functional" interpretation (for requirements like: Turn Undead, Alignments, Race...), I will favor my interpretation.
The Chalice would never work with UMD under your assumption, if the "effect" would check for itself and not via "activation".

In any case, Emulate a class feature applies only to the item's activation, right?


The Monk's belt is activated the moment it is donned. But it is a continuously functioning item. How is it possible if there is no distinction between activation and usage, or at least between activation and "applying the Monk's belt effect"? They don't even have the same timing. Armor and most clothes are like this. There are two steps which are in the sentence "To use a magic item, it must be activated". In a common sense reading, being activated is only a necessary condition, nothing else. You cannot use a magic item if it has not been activated. You can have sentence such as "To use a computer, it must be switched on": you switch on your computer and then you can come on gitp. For items such as wands or staves, the "then" can be instantaneous but it is still a different step.

1: UMD allows to emulate stuff to "use magic items" (see "Check:")
2: "Using Items" is defined in the Magic Item Basics
3: "Using Items" includes the "activation"
4: Thus, UMD allows to emulate stuff to activate and use magic items.
You are trying to limit UMD to sole the activation. But "Check:" already provided the permission to "use a magic item as if..." (which includes "Activation").


The Monk's Belt checks for you effective monk levels in the monk's "Unarmed Strike" & "Bonus AC" class features. when you activate/donne it. At that moment UMD allows you to "emulate a class feature" and emulate fake stats for "using the item". When I later want the benefit of the Monk's Belt's effect, I'm "using" the "Unarmed Strike Damage" & "Armor Class" stats in combination with the Monk's Belt. And everyone has those 2 stats and can legally use em. I don't need to be a monk to use my "Unarmed Strike Damage" & "Armor Class". While the M.Belt scales with monk levels, it improves stats that everybody has access to. This feels like the belt is tailored for UMD abuse as said. ;)

What may be troubling is that, from my point of view, using an item is never defined. Contrarily to casting a spell or grapple for instance, it never tells you to "apply the item's effect" or anything similar, though we all know that it is the case.

Magic Item Basics > Using Items
If we want functional rules, you have to assume by common sense logic that "using a magic item" includes the "effect". If there ain't any effect, I'm not using it. Imho there is no other logical option here (if I did miss any option, pls tell me which option?).

Concerning the missing "check the requirements" step, I don't see your concern or at least I don't see why there is no such concern with your interpretation. At some point, you need to know if the activation requirements are met or not. And this is true for any interpretation independently of "checking the requirements after/before xxx", of activation and usage being the same or not or whatever. So how do you verify that the requirements are met? When you go through the activation method or item's effect, each time there is a requirement, the player looks at the relevent value on its character sheet to see if it is OK or not. I mean how do you verify that your wizard character is allowed to prepare a spell. A requirement is that the spell is in the character's spellbook. How do you verify that this requirement is met? You, as a player, are looking at the character's spellbook to verify that the spell is indeed there. And there is absolutely no rule explicitly saying that. When you swing your sword to hit someone, the rule says when it hits. It is always the players who looks at the condition and determine if they are true or not. I really don't know what to tell you...

If I would follow your interpretation then... Alignment or Race restricted items would never work with UMD...

"You may emulate stuff to activate an item, but not for its effect."
That is your assumption if I'm not mistaken?

Emulating a race or an alignment sole works if the emulation also counts for the items effect. There is no other option here for a functional interpretation I am aware of so far. Same goes for the Chalice example.

Concerning "checking the requirements after/before xxx", are you arguying that the requirements for activation are not checked during the activation? And that the requirements for the item's effect are not checked during its usage? I just hope you are not arguying that those requirements are never checked because there is no mechanical steps that says "check the requirements" so that the item is never activated because the activation requirements are never checked.

I'm arguing that "Activation" is the sole point where "Using Items" and "UMD" indicate that "requirements are checked". You are implying that there would be some other point in the rules where "requirements" are checked, but can't pinpoint it and want me to believe in an "hidden step not mentioned in the rules". Do you get where I see the problem here?

Concerning the additional requirement thing, just check if the additional requirement is also met by the non UMD user? For example, let's say that you have a variant of the Dwarven thrower:

• Activation: be a dwarf;
• Effect: +3 bonus...

The activation method of this variant is then: the wielder must be a dwarf. Just look at the wielder's race and see if he is a dwarf. You can add as many requirements as you want, just check if they are met by the non-UMD user. Each activation with different requirements defines a new activation method in the way they did in MIC for ammunition and so on. I don't see the point...

Thx for providing your example for my request. I was almost losing my faith in our discussion. But lets forget that and dive into my response to your example. I'll showcase how imho a UMD user will interact with said "dwarven thrower variant":

1. Roll UMD to emulate Race to Activate the item when Donned.
2. When I use the item, the effect act accordingly to the emulation and provides a +3 bonus

How else is UMD alignment & race gonna work, if the emulation doesn't carry over to the effect?
Imho "Using Items" provides enough evidence that the "effect" is included into the "use" of an item. I mean, how else you are going to get the "effect" if not by "using" the item?? I don't see any other logical options. If I'm missing anything here, pls point it out for me.

Finally, I apologize for the tone of my previous messages.


PS: not sure if I haven't missed something somehow.

We are all humans with better and worse days. Lets hope for better days ;)
Nobody is perfect and I have my share of mistakes too..^^

PS2:

Please don't do that! It is circular argumentation. There is a reading of the rules that allows pun-pun and now you want to justify that, since pun-pun exists, the rules are to be read in the way that allows pun-pun... Please, no!

Pun-Pun was meant as a joke/reference here and thus I colored it blue. But I see that it has failed its intention here.
But the argument holds its water without pun-pun too.

1. Ability scores have no hard cap
The table goes infinite with "etc. . ."

2. Some classes have no hard cap on their possible epic levels

3. (Epic) Spell levels have no hard cap

As such, we can safely assume infinite scaling here. As said, no need for pun-pun to hold the argument. I was merely greeting pun-pun there, nothing else.

What is your formal description of Lidda's chalice, since I guess it is this one, in this interpreation? By formal, I mean what is the activation method and what is the effect?

Lets have a closer look at the example and dissect it:

Lidda finds a magic chalice that turns regular water into holy water when a cleric or an experienced paladin channels positive energy into it as if turning undead. She attempts to activate the item by emulating the cleric’s undead turning ability. Her effective cleric level is her check result minus 20. Since a cleric can turn undead at 1st level, she needs a Use Magic Device check result of 21 or higher to succeed.
This skill does not let you actually use the class feature of another class. It just lets you activate items as if you had that class feature.

1. It shows that the chalice it "activated" by using Turn Undead on it (a specific exception to normal "activation" methods).

2. UMD emulates Turn Undead for the "activation"

3. You may not use the class feature
(a general rule compared to...)

4. You may activate items as if you had that class feature
A specific exception that gives permission to emulate stuff for activation and use of an item's effect != class feature's effect.

See the difference between "emulating a class ability to use an item" and "using ability". The first makes use of the "emulation to fuel an items inherit possible effect range", whereas the other makes "use of an class ability to externally alter the effect range.".

[Nelfin]

You missed several points:

The sentences are not rules but they still explain how the skill works... Either, they are rules, in which case you apply them; either they are not rules, in which cases you don't apply them. There is nothing in between.

What are sentences which are not rules but still explain how a skill works?

If you look at the examples (yes I know they are examples, but it is the only thing that may tell what a topic could mean) in PSR for topic precedence, they all deal with topic precedence between books, not within a book. PSR is divided into two paragraphs, the first one deals with primary source within a book and the second one deals with primary source between books. At least, this fits the examples. Are you even allowed to talk about topic precedence within a book in the first place?

The examples deal with topic precedence.

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 PC
races, and the 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.

All the examples are examples of topic precedence between books. So I am kindly asking again:

how do you determine what is a rule and what is not a rule using PSR when PSR is applicable only when you already know you are dealing with rules? And yes, it has some kind of importance.

Since this holds together all your intepretation, can I have an answer to that question?

In any case, Emulate a class feature applies only to the item's activation, right?

The answer to that question is quite simple: yes or no.

What is your formal description of Lidda's chalice, since I guess it is this one, in this interpreation? By formal, I mean what is the activation method and what is the effect?

What is it?

Is there two steps in your intepretation? Again, the question is simple: yes or no. It can discuss afterwards, but first, what is your clear answer?




I any case, I guess that most of MIC is dysfunctional by your logic:

An entry of — indicates the item operates continuously, without any need for activation.

So here, we have items that don't need activation at all. And yes, I am totally aware that "don't need" is different from "can't". But it still means that these items works without activation. So these items works without being "conferred with stats by activation". Can you explain?

[redking]

Edit: @redking

I don't think it is consistent with Use a scroll that specifically states that you must make a separate check to emulate an ability score (if you don't have a high enough ability score). A single roll applied to several tasks would mean that you could in principle Use a scroll and Emulate an ability score. You wouldn't need to make a separate check for the ability score.

Nothing in UMD says that you have to make a separate roll for every UMD check that is occurring at the same moment. Just that every task needs a separate UMD check.

One task = one roll of the dice is a reasonable interpretation. Multiple UMD tasks (at different DCs) with one roll is also reasonable.

Given that a roll of 1 means that you can't use the item at all, an item with say 4 different tasks under UMD would require 4 rolls, greatly increasing that chance of a roll of 1. In addition, even though the UMD rolls are happening all at the same moment, the results are all over the place.

As a DM, I'd consider this inconsistent and illogical, and just have a single roll applied to multiple UMD tasks. If the task was DC 25, DC 30, and DC 35, and the roll yielded a total DC of 30, then the tasks of DC 25 and DC 30 were successfully complete, and the task of DC 35 was failed, and the item activated accordingly.

[Darg]

Nothing in UMD says that you have to make a separate roll for every UMD check that is occurring at the same moment. Just that every task needs a separate UMD check.

One task = one roll of the dice is a reasonable interpretation. Multiple UMD tasks (at different DCs) with one roll is also reasonable.

Given that a roll of 1 means that you can't use the item at all, an item with say 4 different tasks under UMD would require 4 rolls, greatly increasing that chance of a roll of 1. In addition, even though the UMD rolls are happening all at the same moment, the results are all over the place.

As a DM, I'd consider this inconsistent and illogical, and just have a single roll applied to multiple UMD tasks. If the task was DC 25, DC 30, and DC 35, and the roll yielded a total DC of 30, then the tasks of DC 25 and DC 30 were successfully complete, and the task of DC 35 was failed, and the item activated accordingly.

We'd been rolling separately, but after you brought up only needing one roll I like the idea.

[Gruftzwerg]

You missed several points:

What are sentences which are not rules but still explain how a skill works?


The examples deal with topic precedence.

All the examples are examples of topic precedence between books. So I am kindly asking again:

The PSR sole presents examples for Book Precedence. So what? (kindly asking)
Does the absence of examples change any rules? Or do they delete em or make em in any other way obsolete? I would say no.

This doesn't stop that the rules still mention "topic precedence".
And as said, I'm amazed by how much mechanical rules you can squeeze into these 2 words.
Without any limitation what a topic can be, any new topic (global rule) or more specific topic (specific rule trumps general rule) becomes a topic. Which at the same time establish the "Specific Trumps General" rule and also forbids Specific rules to become General rules.

how do you determine what is a rule and what is not a rule using PSR when PSR is applicable only when you already know you are dealing with rules? And yes, it has some kind of importance.

Since this holds together all your intepretation, can I have an answer to that question?

1. Remember that all undefined words fall back to general English definition
2. Remember all defined keywords
3. Look of for any words that "indicate an example" or "indicate an explanation of what was said before".

You have to mechanically dissect the rule text for this.

In any case, Emulate a class feature applies only to the item's activation, right?

The answer to that question is quite simple: yes or no.

"NOOOOOOOOO"
No matter how many times you ask, my answer will remain "NO" until you can present anything that would limit the permission already given by the general rules in "Check:"
"Use Magic Device lets you use a magic item as if you had ...."
Using the magic item includes the "Activation" as presented in the rules for "Using Items".
It doesn't say "you may sole emulate a class feature to activate but not use it". The usage is not denied by this statement at all. As such, the permission to "use" is still there.

What is it?

Is there two steps in your intepretation? Again, the question is simple: yes or no. It can discuss afterwards, but first, what is your clear answer?

Normally it would have fallen under the "wield/donne/possess" rule, but the specific rules given trump these here.

As already said, the item creates a specific exception for its "activation":

For example, Lidda finds a magic chalice that turns regular water
into holy water when a cleric or an experienced paladin channels
positive energy into it as if turning undead. She attempts to activate
the item by emulating the cleric’s undead turning ability.

The chalice requires the user to "channel positive energy into it as if turning undead" to activate it. This also sets the required action due to the "turning undead" use (a standard action).

I any case, I guess that most of MIC is dysfunctional by your logic:

So here, we have items that don't need activation at all. And yes, I am totally aware that "don't need" is different from "can't". But it still means that these items works without activation. So these items works without being "conferred with stats by activation". Can you explain?

First let me expand your quote to get all relevant information:

Activation: The type of action required to activate the item’s
effect, along with what the user must do to activate the item (see
Activating Magic Items, page 219). An entry of — indicates the
item operates continuously, without any need for activation.

ACTIVATING MAGIC ITEMS
To use a magic item, it must be activated, although sometimes activation simply means putting a ring on your finger. Some items, once donned, function constantly. In many cases, using an item requires an action of some kind.

...

—: A dash on the activation line indicates that the item is
always active so long as you wear, wield, or possess it in the proper
manner. Simply wearing a cloak of resistance provides you with its
bonus; you do not need to activate it. Similarly, a +2 flaming bat-
tleaxe grants the benefit of its magic on attacks you make with it
without any special action on your part.
Using an item of this type does not provoke attacks of
opportunity.

With the entire thing, I don't see any problems or dysfunctions. Do you?
The rules confirm that these items activate "when donning em" and become usable without any other requirements to activate em.

[Rleonardh]

Roll separate for each thing it needs
Umd don't work with belt.

[Nelfin]

The PSR sole presents examples for Book Precedence. So what? (kindly asking)
Does the absence of examples change any rules? Or do they delete em or make em in any other way obsolete? I would say no.

This doesn't stop that the rules still mention "topic precedence".
And as said, I'm amazed by how much mechanical rules you can squeeze into these 2 words.
Without any limitation what a topic can be, any new topic (global rule) or more specific topic (specific rule trumps general rule) becomes a topic. Which at the same time establish the "Specific Trumps General" rule and also forbids Specific rules to become General rules.

The examples are examples of topic precedence, but whatever.

1. Remember that all undefined words fall back to general English definition
2. Remember all defined keywords
3. Look of for any words that "indicate an example" or "indicate an explanation of what was said before".

So this not about PSR but about the wording of the sentences to see if they are examples or not?

You have to mechanically dissect the rule text for this.

"NOOOOOOOOO"
No matter how many times you ask, my answer will remain "NO" until you can present anything that would limit the permission already given by the general rules in "Check:"
"Use Magic Device lets you use a magic item as if you had ...."
Using the magic item includes the "Activation" as presented in the rules for "Using Items".
It doesn't say "you may sole emulate a class feature to activate but not use it". The usage is not denied by this statement at all. As such, the permission to "use" is still there.

I guess your reason is that if reference a sentence which is supposed to be an example, though it is not in the same paragraph. Am I correct?
If yes, which rule are you applying to get emulated class level for the Monk's belt for example which does not require a class feature to be activated? The only sentence that ever talk about class level is also referencing the same "example" sentence and it is even in between.

Normally it would have fallen under the "wield/donne/possess" rule, but the specific rules given trump these here.

Can I have a clear answer to the question: is there only one step? The answer is yes or no!

As already said, the item creates a specific exception for its "activation":

The chalice requires the user to "channel positive energy into it as if turning undead" to activate it. This also sets the required action due to the "turning undead" use (a standard action).

So I guess it is the description I previously gave:

• Activation: channel positive energy into the chalice;
• Effect: produce holy water

First let me expand your quote to get all relevant information:

With the entire thing, I don't see any problems or dysfunctions. Do you?
The rules confirm that these items activate "when donning em" and become usable without any other requirements to activate em.

I see a huge problem. The chalice is an item that creates an exception to the rule. But those items are not? I am saying that the rule explicitly says that these items don't need activation.


I already gave my interpretation some pages ago. It still fit all the points given without creating weird interpretation of "conferring the item with stats" when it is written nowhere.