deleted

[Nelfin]

I am totally aware that what I am saying in not RAI.

About this general decription.

"Check:" still defines the general rules for "when you may roll for UMD" and the general description still doesn't create a more specific situation. The PSR still rules in favor of the "Check:" line.

The basic assumption you are again making is that Check gives you the rules for "when you may roll for UMD". What I read in the description is

Check: What a character (“you” in the skill description) can do with a successful skill check and the check’s DC.

Nowhere it is said that the applicable conditions are in Check! And I am reading. You can infer that the outcomes gives you the conditions if you want, but that is not what is written. You brush this every time, but that is kind of important. I can't even understand how you can come up with the assertion that the general skill description does not change the reading. Can it be clearer than

Use this skill to activate magic devices, including scrolls and wands, that you could not otherwise activate.

And applying PSR to that level when everything in the PSR deals about book and topic precedence?

And I heartfully hope that sub rules can refine the rules: otherwise, there's no point in sub rules existing in the first place. And there is no point in the "specifc trumps general" rule either. Even in the UMD, there is such a thing: Activate blindly. Unless you are also saying that your character don't need to speak or gesture as needed, this is exactly a refinement. If you take the Handle animal skill, it is even worse

Check: The DC depends on what you are trying to do.

Nothing else except the tables. Everything are in the sub rules, even what the labels actually means. But the moment that Activate blindly is refining the rule, you must consider that the others can also do the same, otherwise it is an internally inconsistent reading. But again, you can rule that sub rules can't refine rule and that Handle Animal is dysfunctional in the same way that Knowledge skills are also dysfunctional because the general skill description is not a rule! That's always a possibility.

And I did not extrapolate anything. I just applied the "everything which is not explictly allowed is forbidden" philosophy you agreed with. Of course I can't give a rule but that's the very meaning of RAW. Even if it is an example, as long as it is the only conditions given, that's it.

PS: and sorry for the late answer. Was busy elsewhere.

Edit: I forgot. There's nothing wrong with Rule's Compendium saying that it takes precedence. This is a specific rule that overrides the general PSR rule. The only thing that it does not do well is to formally write what it is replacing. I can concede that. Here I am just assuming that the text by itself is enough to understand which is replaced by what and that's what the authour was thinking.

[Doctor Awkward]

All right, so if a rogue uses UMD to emulate the class feature of a Monk's Belt he is treated as having the unarmed damage of a 15th-level monk, which is then improved by 5 levels to 20th level.

He then cannot use this in any meaningful fashion because UMD explicitly does not grant you the ability to use the features of said class, you are just treated as having them.

So he has base unarmed damage of 2d10, makes unarmed attacks at -4 penalty and provokes an attack of opportunity from any opponent that threatens him when he does.

[Gruftzwerg]

I am totally aware that what I am saying in not RAI.

About this general decription.

The basic assumption you are again making is that Check gives you the rules for "when you may roll for UMD". What I read in the description is

Nowhere it is said that the applicable conditions are in Check! And I am reading. You can infer that the outcomes gives you the conditions if you want, but that is not what is written. You brush this every time, but that is kind of important. I can't even understand how you can come up with the assertion that the general skill description does not change the reading.

I disagree here:

Check: What a character (“you” in the skill description) can do with a successful skill check and the check’s DC.

"Check" determines which DC's are tied to a specific situation or circumstance. As such it determines under which situations/conditions the rolls can produce a beneficial outcome.

Can it be clearer than

And applying PSR to that level when everything in the PSR deals about book and topic precedence?

And I heartfully hope that sub rules can refine the rules: otherwise, there's no point in sub rules existing in the first place. And there is no point in the "specifc trumps general" rule either. Even in the UMD, there is such a thing: Activate blindly. Unless you are also saying that your character don't need to speak or gesture as needed, this is exactly a refinement. If you take the Handle animal skill, it is even worse

Nothing else except the tables. Everything are in the sub rules, even what the labels actually means. But the moment that Activate blindly is refining the rule, you must consider that the others can also do the same, otherwise it is an internally inconsistent reading. But again, you can rule that sub rules can't refine rule and that Handle Animal is dysfunctional in the same way that Knowledge skills are also dysfunctional because the general skill description is not a rule! That's always a possibility.

The PSR compares rules to each other, not examples. I don't see why an example should be treated as a subrule. To be a subrule, you would need to create more specific ("sub-") situation (Specific Trumps General in the RC or as the PSR calls it: Topic precedence).

An example is still sole an example and not defining a more specific situation. Those 2 things logically exclude each other. An example is "tied to a specific situation" and "doesn't create a more specific situation".

Assume "we agree on a discussion" (the rule) about the topic "cars".
If I start with "oldtimers" as example, does this automatically imply that you are now forced to sole talk about oldtimers?
While you are free to also use "oldtimer" examples, you ain't limited to em. Because "oldtimer" was sole an example and not an agreed subtopic (a subrule).
And in the moment "when we agree on a new subtopic" (sub-rule), we aren't providing examples of "cars". We are creating more specific (sub) rules/topics.

And I did not extrapolate anything. I just applied the "everything which is not explictly allowed is forbidden" philosophy you agreed with. Of course I can't give a rule but that's the very meaning of RAW. Even if it is an example, as long as it is the only conditions given, that's it.

See above. If I where to agree that the example is a subrule, you would be right. But that is not the case here. As said, I totally disagree that "an example" can "create new rules". That is imho logically not possible.

PS: and sorry for the late answer. Was busy elsewhere.

Edit: I forgot. There's nothing wrong with Rule's Compendium saying that it takes precedence. This is a specific rule that overrides the general PSR rule. The only thing that it does not do well is to formally write what it is replacing. I can concede that. Here I am just assuming that the text by itself is enough to understand which is replaced by what and that's what the authour was thinking.

Same here, time management could be improved, but the nice weather lures me always outside^^

Regarding RC:
1. It's still optional, since it ain't defined as one of the CORE rule books you need to play.
2. The RC creates the topic Updated Rules and calls out supremacy over it. Thus following 100% the rules of the PSR

It updates and elucidates the rules, as well as expanding on them in ways that make it more fun and
easier to play. When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence.

_____________________________________

All right, so if a rogue uses UMD to emulate the class feature of a Monk's Belt he is treated as having the unarmed damage of a 15th-level monk, which is then improved by 5 levels to 20th level.

He then cannot use this in any meaningful fashion because UMD explicitly does not grant you the ability to use the features of said class, you are just treated as having them.

So he has base unarmed damage of 2d10, makes unarmed attacks at -4 penalty and provokes an attack of opportunity from any opponent that threatens him when he does.

Never implied otherwise. =)
You still need to have/invest in other things to make it useful. Take a dip into unarmed swordsage as example. Or take Improved Unarmed Strike regularly. Or abuse it for Eldritch Claws (clawlock). Or maybe you are a grappler?
There are enough niche situations to make use of it. I personally favor the Monk's Tattoo over the belt (for forum showcases, since I barely got to play at high optimization tables..^^), since the Tattoo offers the movement speed bonus (while only giving +4 on lvls).

[Nelfin]

What? So now even what is in the check section is not a rule when it even does not say "for example" as in the Lidda example? I am done trying to understand "RAW".

Emulate a Class Feature: 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.
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. 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.

So the chalice example is an example of an example?........

[redking]

If only the PHB example of Lidda had been written like this instead.

For example, Lidda finds a magic chalice that turns regular water into holy water in the hands of a cleric or an experienced paladin with the ability to turn undead. She attempts to activate the item by emulating the cleric’s turn undead class feature. 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.

[RandomPeasant]

If only the PHB example of Lidda had been written like this instead.

Yes, if the rules said a different thing, they would be different. The notion that this has even the most marginal impact upon what the rules actually say is somewhat absurd.

[Darg]

Yes, if the rules said a different thing, they would be different. The notion that this has even the most marginal impact upon what the rules actually say is somewhat absurd.

Or it's simply not different. Saying something in a different way doesn't necessitate completely different meaning.

[RandomPeasant]

Or it's simply not different. Saying something in a different way doesn't necessitate completely different meaning.

Well, in this case the suggestion is that it should say something that doesn't let you emulate expending abilities instead of something that does, so I would suggest that the meaning is in fact being changed.

[Darg]

Well, in this case the suggestion is that it should say something that doesn't let you emulate expending abilities instead of something that does, so I would suggest that the meaning is in fact being changed.

Or the text never said or even implied that there was emulation of the expenditure of abilities. As I've mentioned before, "as if turning undead" is a descriptive phrase and not a declaration. Removing it from the sentence does not change the meaning of the sentence at all. If they wanted it as an indication to how something is done, "as turning undead" would be the actual correct phrase to use. We can argue that the existence of "if" in the phrase was a mistake, but I doubt it because the skill directly states that it doesn't let you actually use the ability. It'd be like saying Skirmisher's Boots when UMD'd allows you to skirmish.

[RandomPeasant]

When you find a way to turn undead without expending turn attempts, you let me know. Until then, it is demonstrably the case that something that works when someone "channels positive energy into it as if turning undead" involves expending something.

[Gruftzwerg]

What? So now even what is in the check section is not a rule when it even does not say "for example" as in the Lidda example? I am done trying to understand "RAW".

So the chalice example is an example of an example?........

Kinda.. sounds a bit irritating but let me try to put it into a better phrase..

"Emulate a Class Feature" starts to give a broad example of the most common type/situation for this roll and then gives a specific example fitting for that (broad example).

_____

I've the impression that some still struggle with the difference between the legal and illegal "use" of "Emulating a Class Feature":

(1) "pretending that you use an ability to active the magic item"

and

(2) "using an ability to alter a magic item's effect"

The 2 different meanings of "use" here are tied to the "source" of the benefit.

The chalice example fits into (1), because Turning Undead is a required (or at least optionally possible) part of "activating" the magic item. The magic item is the one giving the desired effect (source) based on the pretended input. Thus this is a legal example of "Emulating a Class Feature".
Same goes for Monk's Belt. The belt is still the source of the desired effect and acts "normal" for the "pretended input".

But when you have abilities that alter the effects of an magic item (2), the desired effect's source is the "ability" and not the magic item.
You may not use things like a warlock's "Hellfire Infusion", or an artificer's "Metamagic Spell Trigger/Completion" abilities. Here the abilities are the source of the altering effect to use the item.

You can only get the things that an "item's rule text can give you" (source) and "not what the abilities rule text could give you"(source).


______________

Back to UMD staffs:

Imho you have to fake Casterlevels and the casting ability score to fully use a staff as UMD user.

While this may look broken, it's imho the intended power lvl of UMD.
Keep in mind that UMD is a skill. As all skills you get better at what you do, if you have more points.
Further note that skills in 3.5 can easily go beyond what normal real life humans can do and produce even "epic results", if you have a very high (specialized) modifier in that skill.
As such, it's imho only natural (doesn't have to mean balanced!) that UMD scales in some situations (the niche of magic item that scale).

Try to see it this way:
We know the wizards in general have the most power when it comes to class Tiers. But we also know that Sorcerers can specialize in a niche where they can easily overshadow the wizard in that niche.

UMD is a tool to specialize in magic item use. As such, it is to be expected to become very strong in the 3.5 multiverse. The "balance problem" here is not UMD, its magic overall.

Every table should decide how much UMD cheese is good for their table. But if you allow specialized full caster builds, a UMD focused build is the lesser problem in most cases. Just my humble opinion.

[redking]

Imho you have to fake Casterlevels and the casting ability score to fully use a staff as UMD user.

UMD doesn't say that you can set the caster levels or DCs of staffs at all. People make the inference, but its not explicitly or even implicitly stated.

[RandomPeasant]

It also doesn't explicitly say you can activate eternal wands, or that you can emulate the class features of a Dragon Shaman. But you can do those things, because they fall within the general purview of things it allows you to do, and the skill is not obligated to explicitly allow every possible use. So it is with boosting up staves, which you can do because having a particular caster level is a class feature which is eligible for emulation. If you don't like that, you can just houserule it. This thing where we tie ourselves in knots to try and assert some part of the system isn't broken just makes the exercise of understanding the rules harder for everyone else.

[Nelfin]

Kinda.. sounds a bit irritating but let me try to put it into a better phrase..

Yeah I was really pissed off.

"Check" determines which DC's are tied to a specific situation or circumstance. As such it determines under which situations/conditions the rolls can produce a beneficial outcome.

Is the bold part written somewhere or is it common sense?

"Emulate a Class Feature" starts to give a broad example of the most common type/situation for this roll and then gives a specific example fitting for that (broad example).

I think you are over interpreting because of the "Sometimes". Now, my interpretation. As far as activating an item with a class feature is concerned, there are only two mutually exclusive possibilities: 1) yes, the item needs a class feature to be activated; 2) no, it doesn't. But some items are in the first categories and some are in the second. "Sometimes you need to use a class feature to activate a magic item" refers to the first category and is a generic rule that covers all the possibilities. Put together with the sentence "In this case, your effective level in the emulated class equals your Use Magic Device check result minus 20.", it is the same meaning as "When an item needs to be activated with a class feature, your effective level in the emulated class equals your Use Magic Device check result minus 20.".

If the second category was indeed meant to be not emulable, it makes sense to just not talk about it. Another way to view this second category is: even if you were able to emulate a class feature for these items, I can't see how the emulated (or not by the way) class feature would impact the item. It just doesn't need the class feature and wouldn't care about it. As you say, it is not an input: "no effect". Or equivalently, just don't allow a check for this second category.

As a comparison, let's say you want to open a door but you don't have the key. Surely lock picking it would do something to it because it needs the key you are pretending to have by lock picking. Now you can (pretend to or actually) dance in front of it if you want, the door just doesn't care: "no effect".

This interpretation does not create weird stuff like "not a rule" in the Check section and "example of an example".

I've the impression that some still struggle with the difference between the legal and illegal "use" of "Emulating a Class Feature":

(1) "pretending that you use an ability to active the magic item"

and

(2) "using an ability to alter a magic item's effect"

The 2 different meanings of "use" here are tied to the "source" of the benefit.

The chalice example fits into (1), because Turning Undead is a required (or at least optionally possible) part of "activating" the magic item. The magic item is the one giving the desired effect (source) based on the pretended input. Thus this is a legal example of "Emulating a Class Feature".
Same goes for Monk's Belt. The belt is still the source of the desired effect and acts "normal" for the "pretended input".

But when you have abilities that alter the effects of an magic item (2), the desired effect's source is the "ability" and not the magic item.
You may not use things like a warlock's "Hellfire Infusion", or an artificer's "Metamagic Spell Trigger/Completion" abilities. Here the abilities are the source of the altering effect to use the item.

You can only get the things that an "item's rule text can give you" (source) and "not what the abilities rule text could give you"(source).

This seems to be related to my question about "does the emulation carries from the activation to the effect of the item?". There are two contradicting view point here to me:

1. the emulation (well except the race and alignment emulation which can be used outside of activation) is about activation. Activation and effect are not the same line of the description so are different;
2. it is one single action so there is no reason to separate activation and effect. But there is also an example of such a case: attack roll and damage roll;
3. it is unclear if "activating an item" is actually the same as "using an item".

I am under the impression that RAW reading is a tag science (i.e. "use", "activation" and "effect" are 3 different things) so I am enclined to say "no, it does not carry over to the effect". But you seem to say the inverse. Why?

[Darg]

When you find a way to turn undead without expending turn attempts, you let me know. Until then, it is demonstrably the case that something that works when someone "channels positive energy into it as if turning undead" involves expending something.

When you can demonstrate that the sentence says that Lidda was actually turning undead, you let me know. I can reiterate the difference between "as if" and "as" if you'd like.

It also doesn't explicitly say you can activate eternal wands, or that you can emulate the class features of a Dragon Shaman. But you can do those things, because they fall within the general purview of things it allows you to do, and the skill is not obligated to explicitly allow every possible use. So it is with boosting up staves, which you can do because having a particular caster level is a class feature which is eligible for emulation. If you don't like that, you can just houserule it. This thing where we tie ourselves in knots to try and assert some part of the system isn't broken just makes the exercise of understanding the rules harder for everyone else.

Use a Wand

Normally, to use a wand, you must have the wand’s spell on your class spell list. This use of the skill allows you to use a wand as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list. This use of the skill also applies to other spell trigger magic items, such as staffs.

Seems really explicit that it does apply to other sources of spell trigger items. Of course, emulating the spells feature of a wizard doesn't actually give you a spell list because it doesn't actually allow you to use the ability. Therefore, emulating the spells feature of any class doesn't allow you to use spell trigger items because you need the spell on your class spell list. You have to use the "Use a Wand" use of the skill which does not allow you to emulate a class. Though, you are quite right that it doesn't specifically say you can emulate the class features of a dragon shaman. It also doesn't specifically call out anything other than the turn undead feature either. There is no tying knots at all. Trying to make UMD do something it doesn't makes knots.

[RandomPeasant]

When you can demonstrate that the sentence says that Lidda was actually turning undead, you let me know. I can reiterate the difference between "as if" and "as" if you'd like.

You can repeat the distinction without a difference all you want. It doesn't mean anything, because it's a distinction without a difference. Show me the way to turn without expending resources. Without that, resources are in fact being expended, and since the example says you can emulate that, you can jolly well emulate expending resources. Honestly, it'd be a better argument to claim the only thing you can emulate is expending turn attempts.

If it offends you, just houserule it. "You can't emulate a class feature at a higher level than your own" and "you can't emulate expending class features" solve 100% of the problems here, and I promise you they do not take 200 posts to explain. Unlike "the real and important difference between 'as if' and 'as' means you can expend turn attempts without expending turn attempts". I am begging people to please just accept that the rules mean what they say and be willing to change ones that say things they don't like.

Seems really explicit that it does apply to other sources of spell trigger items.

I mean, yes, that was my point? When I say "things do not need to be explicitly enumerated, they can be listed by categories", saying "well it lists that category" does not constitute a meaningful response.

[redking]

It also doesn't explicitly say you can activate eternal wands, or that you can emulate the class features of a Dragon Shaman. But you can do those things, because they fall within the general purview of things it allows you to do, and the skill is not obligated to explicitly allow every possible use. So it is with boosting up staves, which you can do because having a particular caster level is a class feature which is eligible for emulation. If you don't like that, you can just houserule it. This thing where we tie ourselves in knots to try and assert some part of the system isn't broken just makes the exercise of understanding the rules harder for everyone else.

There is literally no hint that you can actually use an ability score via UMD to set DCs. You can emulate an ability score in order to use the item, if the item requires a given ability score to use. That's the context. You make inferences that the ability score can be used in place of your own AFTER the item is activated. That's not written in the rules at all.

[RandomPeasant]

Yes there is. You can emulate an ability score, and when activating a staff your ability score sets the DC. There's no "after the item is activated", no one thinks you can make a UMD check after you've popped a fireball out of a staff to retroactively change whether people made their saves.

[redking]

Yes there is. You can emulate an ability score, and when activating a staff your ability score sets the DC. There's no "after the item is activated", no one thinks you can make a UMD check after you've popped a fireball out of a staff to retroactively change whether people made their saves.

The part bolded. It doesn't say that AT ALL. You emulate the ability score to be able to use the item, if required. Where does it say that your emulated ability score to activate the item sets the DC? Waiting for a quote here.

[RandomPeasant]

So is your contention that you can only ever emulate an ability score in the context of casting a spell from a scroll? That UMD is powerless to help you if there is a magic sword that unlocks special bonuses if you have a high enough CHA or a rod that grants benefits to someone with sufficient STR? Or perhaps your notion that there is some manner of separate step arises from the fact that the entry for staves only explicitly says that the caster level is used "when activating", so clearly the other stuff is picked up at some other time when the ability to emulate things during activation would not apply.

[Nelfin]

Why not? Why would the rules care about the expectations of someone about a skill?

Edit : and that’s coming from someone who may or might agree on the CHA-based sword stuff.

[redking]

So is your contention that you can only ever emulate an ability score in the context of casting a spell from a scroll? That UMD is powerless to help you if there is a magic sword that unlocks special bonuses if you have a high enough CHA or a rod that grants benefits to someone with sufficient STR? .

You emulate the ability score to make use of the item. That is, if the item has a virtual gatekeeper for activation of certain abilities through a specific ability score, you can emulate that ability score BUT NOT USE the ability score.

I'm glad you mentioned STR because it's apposite to what I am talking about. Let's say there is an item called Flachion of the Storm Ogre that grants a +2 electricity damage when used by a character with 20 STR. If you do not have 20 STR, then you can emulate it. You can now activate the gatekept +2 electricity damage provided by the item. However, you do NOT get 20 strength when making attacks. You use your own strength score for that.

Ditto abilities scores for staffs. If there is gatekept feature connected to an ability score, you get access to the higher order feature if you can emulate the score. You don't get to use the roll for emulated INT for DCs however. Ditto caster level. You emulate the CL to get access. You can't use the emulated caster level via UMD.

If you stop making inferences, you'll stop thinking that people are talking house rules. It's you doing that.

[RandomPeasant]

If there is gatekept feature connected to an ability score, you get access to the higher order feature if you can emulate the score. You don't get to use the roll for emulated INT for DCs however. Ditto caster level. You emulate the CL to get access. You can't use the emulated caster level via UMD.

So if the staff had the separate individual properties of "DC increases by 1 if you have an INT of 12" and "DC increases by 2 if you have an INT of 14" and "DC increases by 3 if you have an INT of 16" and so on, that would be eligible for emulation. But since it has the integrated single property of "DC increases based on whatever your INT happens to be", it can't be emulated? Sorry, but I don't find that convincing at all.

The CL thing is particularly bad, as it explicitly says that it picks up the CL when it is activated. The idea that you can have a CL for the purpose of doing the activation, but not have the activation notice that CL, slices the timing with the a thinness that is not reflected anywhere in the actual text.

[redking]

You are talking about two different events that are not the same. You don't have a caster level. There is nothing there for the staff to use. What you do is emulate a caster level to get access ("activate") the abilities of the staff (if mandated).

If the staff description gave a +2 DC for a specific ability score, that is, it has a gatekept feature, then you get the +2 DC. Otherwise you get nothing except your own relevant ability score.

Let me redirect you to your mentioning of STR. If a weapon is gatekept for a feature, say +2 electricity damage at 20 STR, are attacks by the character using that weapon now made at 20 STR? If not, why not? It's consistent with your interpretation.

And why even bother with an item that requires 20 STR? Just emulate ability scores willynilly.

Note that under my interpretation, it doesn't matter when you activate or for what reason.

[Darg]

Show me the way to turn without expending resources.

I mean, you have yet to show where the description says the item requires you to actually turn undead. Once you do that I'll show you how to turn without expending resources.

So is your contention that you can only ever emulate an ability score in the context of casting a spell from a scroll? That UMD is powerless to help you if there is a magic sword that unlocks special bonuses if you have a high enough CHA or a rod that grants benefits to someone with sufficient STR? Or perhaps your notion that there is some manner of separate step arises from the fact that the entry for staves only explicitly says that the caster level is used "when activating", so clearly the other stuff is picked up at some other time when the ability to emulate things during activation would not apply.

UMD is used TO activate an item. If an ability score or caster level isn't required to use the item, why would the skill allow you to emulate having it so? To use a staff, you roll to use a wand. You never roll to emulate a class feature or ability score.

You are talking about two different events that are not the same. You don't have a caster level. There is nothing there for the staff to use. What you do is emulate a caster level to get access ("activate") the abilities of the staff (if mandated).

They do have a minimum caster level for a reason.

[RandomPeasant]

You are talking about two different events that are not the same. You don't have a caster level. There is nothing there for the staff to use. What you do is emulate a caster level to get access ("activate") the abilities of the staff (if mandated).

The timing distinction you are carving out here does not exist. The activation is one step. The description of staves says that the CL used during that step replaces that of the staff if it is higher. There is simply no opportunity for a CL to apply to "can you use the staff" but not "what does the staff do".

If the staff description gave a +2 DC for a specific ability score, that is, it has a gatekept feature, then you get the +2 DC. Otherwise you get nothing except your own relevant ability score.

Again, this is just saying that you can benefit from enumerated ways to post DC from ability scores, but not general ones, without any basis for that distinction.

Let me redirect you to your mentioning of STR. If a weapon is gatekept for a feature, say +2 electricity damage at 20 STR, are attacks by the character using that weapon now made at 20 STR? If not, why not? It's consistent with your interpretation.

If a magic sword said "you can add your STR bonus to damage rolls with this weapon", you could absolutely UMD up a big bonus by emulating a high STR. But magic swords don't say that, because the ability to add your STR bonus to weapon damage is a normal rule. The ability to use your person attributes for item DCs, on the other hand, is very much a special property of staves, and therefore eligible for emulation.

I mean, you have yet to show where the description says the item requires you to actually turn undead. Once you do that I'll show you how to turn without expending resources.

"You have yet to show where the description that specifically mentions turning undead mentions turning undead."

It is, if that was unclear, the place where it explicitly mentions turning undead.

UMD is used TO activate an item. If an ability score or caster level isn't required to use the item, why would the skill allow you to emulate having it so?

And now we're back to "you can't UMD a staff of power because it can be used as a weapon without a roll". The ability to use one functionality of UMD to engage with an item does not preclude using others. The idea that it does instantly creates wide swathes of dysfunction throughout the game.

They do have a minimum caster level for a reason.

No one is claiming that you can't activate a staff without emulating a caster level. I don't understand why you keep pointing to stuff that is completely explicable like it is some giant hole in the rules, particularly when you also bash open giant holes in the rules like "it is impossible to UMD a staff of power".

[redking]

If a magic sword said "you can add your STR bonus to damage rolls with this weapon", you could absolutely UMD up a big bonus by emulating a high STR. But magic swords don't say that, because the ability to add your STR bonus to weapon damage is a normal rule. The ability to use your person attributes for item DCs, on the other hand, is very much a special property of staves, and therefore eligible for emulation.

These are just ad hoc house rulings. Use the same ruling for every instance, and you will arrive at a consistent use of UMD.

Look at the context of what UMD is used for. It tells you.

*To cast a spell from a scroll, you need a high score in the appropriate ability.
*Some magic items have positive or negative effects based on the user’s alignment.
*Sometimes you need to use a class feature to activate a magic item.
*Some magic items work only for members of certain races, or work better for members of those races.
*Normally, to use a wand, you must have the wand’s spell on your class spell list.

What it doesn't say is that you get secondary benefits. UMD gives you what is explicitly granted, not anything else. Under your interpretation, someone with a Domain Staff is firing it off for free. Under mine, everything works perfectly consistently in every scenario. Which is more likely?

[RandomPeasant]

These are just ad hoc house rulings.

What? Here is the SRD section on damage. Here is the SRD section on magic weapons. You'll note that it is the former which describes adding your STR bonus to damage, not the latter. So, no, I am not house ruling things when I say that magic weapons do not cause you to add your STR bonus to damage.

What it doesn't say is that you get secondary benefits.

You have no coherent definition of "secondary benefits". Apparently, "increase the DCs to reflect an INT of 16 if your INT is at least 16" is a "secondary benefit" that is eligible for emulation, but "increase DCs to reflect an INT of whatever INT you happen to have" is not. What is the distinction there, other than "redking is okay with A but not B"?

Under your interpretation, someone with a Domain Staff is firing it off for free. Under mine, everything works perfectly consistently in every scenario. Which is more likely?

Let's consider another example: wish. Here are two possible interpretations:

1. wish allows you to create a magic item of any cost.
2. wish allows you to create only magic items that cost less than 50 GP.

Under the first interpretation, an XP-free wish has game-destroying power, as it can be used to create magic items of nearly arbitrary capabilities. Under the second interpretation, such a wish is almost perfectly harmless. Yet it is demonstrably true that the former interpretation is the one that is consistent with the text of the rules. I agree that the precedent that you can emulate expending abilities is bad, particularly since many magic items are unnecessarily written with expending abilities as a part of their activation. But it is demonstrably a part of the rules, and ignoring it because we don't like it is abandoning the entire edifice that the rules can be understood from the text.

[redking]

A wish could create any magical item, but the wish spell assigns an additional cost for magical item creation outside of the normal 5000 XP that must be paid somehow. It's also clear that wishing for an item of a caster level higher than the wish itself is a "greater effect" and subject to the potential downsides. Scroll of 100 CL simulacrum, for example.

The wish spell defines itself, and you "must pay" for magical item creation. I'm guessing this all hinges on a called Solar or something of that nature. The Solar would have to pay the item creation costs.

Anyway, I'm not ignoring anything, just following UMD as it is written and not making inferences.

Edit: there are also people that say you can produce any psionic item for costing under 50,000 gp using wish because it's "not a magical item". Context, plus common sense resolves all these problems.

[RandomPeasant]

A wish could create any magical item, but the wish spell assigns an additional cost for magical item creation outside of the normal 5000 XP that must be paid somehow.

No it mustn't. Both the regular XP and the additional XP for more expensive items are described as part of the "XP Cost". Any effect that negates the 5000 XP therefore also negates any additional XP.

It's also clear that wishing for an item of a caster level higher than the wish itself is a "greater effect" and subject to the potential downsides. Scroll of 100 CL simulacrum, for example.

What line of text do you think makes that clear? Because I don't see anything in "Create a magic item, or add to the powers of an existing magic item." that says word one about caster levels, nor anything in the greater effects clause that would cause it to trigger in such a case.

Anyway, I'm not ignoring anything, just following UMD as it is written and not making inferences.

Except, you know, for the example that says that you can emulate expending uses of class features. You're ignoring that one pretty hard. You are also inferring that ability scores can be emulated in contexts other than scrolls, just not in ways you don't like.