-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXII
A 1378
If you're knocked down by the wind, that''s the direction you'll go. But first you might have a chance to grab onto a nearby wall or slope within reach (adjusting for the direction of the wind; ask your DM about the particular situation), using a Climb check.
Quote:
Catching Yourself When Falling
It’s practically impossible to catch yourself on a wall while falling. Make a Climb check (DC = wall’s DC + 20) to do so. It’s much easier to catch yourself on a slope (DC = slope’s DC + 10).
Failing that, you fall normally and take the appropriate damage.
A 1381 Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Multiweapon Fighting
Normal: A creature without this feat takes a -6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a -10 penalty on attacks made with its off hands. (
It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See
Two-Weapon Fighting.
Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.
The line in bold specifies how Multiweapon Fighting enters into TWF combat rules. Just as "off hand" TWF attacks are not required to actually be executed using your hand but are limited by the number of off hands you have (one), MWF attacks are not required to actually be executed using your hands but are also limited by the number of off hands you have. The "trick" doesn't work.
A 1383 Ask your DM.
The spell provides conflicting information in that regard. The result is a statue (which would normally be an object), but the creature is not dead (normally a requirement for a creature to be treated as an object) except it appears to be for purposes of fooling spells. Perhaps the best compromise would be to treat the statue as an object for all purposes except spells — but that's just a suggestion to DMs, not the RAW.
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXII
Q1384
If you see an opponent spellcaster beginning to cast a spell, could you cast Celerity and then use the standard action you're given to ready action to counterspell, then immediately activate that readied action?
Or does the description of Celerity make that irrelevant, since it says you can act as you you'd readied an action, in which case could you just use that standard action to counterspell?
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXII
Q1385
If a spell-like ability is a free action...is there any prescribed limit on it's use per round?
What I have in mind is the Drunken Master's (CW) Breath of Flame (Sp) ability.
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXII
A 1384
Quote:
After performing this action, you are dazed until the end of your next turn.
If you use Celerity to Ready an action, you will be unable to execute it until after the end of your next turn. Counterspelling normally requires use of a readied action. The Duelward spell provides for an exception to that rule, but Celerity does not; it lets you act as if you had triggered a readied action, but counterspelling requires that you actually use Ready, then wait until they start casting, then make the required Spellcraft check. I don't see any way that you can counterspell using Celerity alone.
A 1385 No.
The specific limit for Breath of Flame is the number of drinks' worth of alcohol in the Drunken Master's body.
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXII
Q 1386
Let's say I have arcane thesis on scorching ray. If I cast an invisible sanctum cold substitution electricity admixture, what level would it be? Does arcane thesis work with +0 metamagic feats?
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXII
A 1386
Calculate normally, and deduct 1 for every metamagic applied, including +0 MMs.
Using +0 MMs to reduce the overall level of the spell is the base of nearly all MM shenanigans.
Note: By reading this note (willingly or not), the individual (hereafter declared as the "player") employing these rules (willingly or not) in the presence (including but not limited to virtual presence) of other individuals, precludes RAW from all recourse pertaining injuries (including but not limited to cranial injuries originating from aerial assault by books copyrighted by Wizards of the Coast, Inc.) or other inconveniences to the player originating from the employment of said rules.
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXII
Q1387
Does using the spell shadow walk PHB p277 (Or the Warlock ability that does this) have the risk of random encounters with the creatures living on the plane of shadows?
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXII
Q 1388
What strength of aura will be detected by the use of detect magic on a major artifact (say, the moaning diamond)?
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXII
A 1388
all major artifacts have overwhelming magical auras as per the detect magic table since the text doesn't say anything.
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXII
Q1389
Does a Deadly Hunter Druid (from UA, gains Wis to AC and bonus) have its abilities stack with a single level of Monk?
I.e Monk 1/Druid 1 gain 2*(Wis to AC)?
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXII
A 1387 Yes.
Shadow Walk requires transit of the Plane of Shadow for 1d4 hours. Travel for that amount of time, anywhere, has a chance of random encounters. The only difference is that the Plane of Shadow uses different encounter tables than the Material Plane.
A 1389 No.
Even though the Druid variant doesn't explicitly state this, each class gains the identical ability: AC Bonus.
Quote:
Stacking
In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession). If the modifiers to a particular roll do not stack, only the best bonus and worst penalty applies.
Bonuses from the same named source (in this case, AC Bonus) overlap rather than stack.
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXII
Q1390
Is there any sort of feat, spell, item, or other kind of ability that will allow a dragon to regain its breath weapon immediately? I know there's Recover Breath and Rapid Breath, each of which reduce the recharge time by one round, but I expect that somewhere there's an ability which immediately regains a dragon's breath weapon.
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXII
A 1390 No.
I've searched fairly thoroughly, and have found nothing of this sort.
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXII
Thanks, Curmudgeon, I though that was the case, but couldn't find anything otherwise. Bit arguable either way though, but for my purposes, that was proof enough.
A few questions more though;
Q1391
The Druid ACF Urban Companion gains "the companionship of a smaller but far more intelligent creature than she otherwise would have. This is identical to the sorcerer's ability to summon a familiar (PH 52), including all benefits granted and gained by the familiar, except as noted below. Her functional level for determining the abilities of the companion is equal to her druid level..."
Does this allow it to benefit from Planar Familiar?
Q1392
Does a class which doesn't prevent casting Arcane Spells count as a "class that allows you to cast arcane spells" (such as any non-Forsaker) provided you have some form of Arcane Spellcasting class elsewhere?
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXII
A 1388 additional
Actually major artifacts detect as the DM wants - usually either nothing or overwhelming, but they can in theory detect at any level. If the item description does not say then it is DM's call/
A 1391
No - it is not a familiar so it does not count as one for anything that requires a familiar.
A 1392
No - the class has to grant Arcane Spellcasting to count as such, not even warlock counts as it does not grant spellcasting.
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXII
Q 1393: How does swift ambusher calculate with scout 1/rogue 1gestalt?
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXII
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Khedrac
A 1392
No - the class has to grant Arcane Spellcasting to count as such, not even warlock counts as it does not grant spellcasting.
A1392 Query; Why? "Allow" is not "Grant", and does not specify "Arcane Spellcasting Class". I can see a RAI, but RAW, please.
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXII
A 1393 It doesn't.
Multiclassing feats stack separate class levels. A gestalt class such as in your example does not have separate class levels. Consequently all bets are off, and any outcome is going to be dependent on your individual DM's judgment.
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXII
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Vaz
A1392 Query; Why? "Allow" is not "Grant", and does not specify "Arcane Spellcasting Class". I can see a RAI, but RAW, please.
Re 1392: Can a fighter level 1 cast 9th level spells? The rules don't say that I can't?
That kind of logic is flawed in the rules based system that D&D 3.5 uses. The normal standard is that you cannot do something unless something specifically allows you to do is (specific trumps general). In other words, while a level 1 wizard is allowed to cast arcane spells by class feature, the level 1 fighter is not allowed to cast arcane spells (barring multiclass, magical training, etc) because they lack class features that permit such casting.
In order to allow something, the rules must specify that. Any class that omits mention of arcane spellcasting cannot allow it.
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXII
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mattie_p
Re 1392: Can a fighter level 1 cast 9th level spells? The rules don't say that I can't?
That kind of logic is flawed in the rules based system that D&D 3.5 uses. The normal standard is that you cannot do something unless something specifically allows you to do is (specific trumps general). In other words, while a level 1 wizard is allowed to cast arcane spells by class feature, the level 1 fighter is not allowed to cast arcane spells (barring multiclass, magical training, etc) because they lack class features that permit such casting.
In order to allow something, the rules must specify that. Any class that omits mention of arcane spellcasting cannot allow it.
But Vaz is talking about a multiclass character. A first level wizard/first level fighter can indeed cast arcane spells. That character's fighter class allows (i.e. does not prohibit) that character to cast wizard spells.
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXII
Re: Q 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Flame of Anor
But Vaz is talking about a multiclass character. A first level wizard/first level fighter can indeed cast arcane spells. That character's fighter class allows (i.e. does not prohibit) that character to cast wizard spells.
That's a less-common definition ("permit by neglect") of allow. D&D generally uses the most common meaning of "give permission for", and that's borne out in Khedrac's original answer.
Anyway, this is largely groundless discussion. Absent a specific rules source including the phrase "class that allows you to cast arcane spells", this question lacks sufficient context to obtain a proper RAW answer.
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXII
I'll take this elsewhere. It's clearly a dysfunction (In D&D? NEVAR), but for RAW purposes, it is a nice little "workaround".
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXII
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Flame of Anor
But Vaz is talking about a multiclass character. A first level wizard/first level fighter can indeed cast arcane spells. That character's fighter class allows (i.e. does not prohibit) that character to cast wizard spells.
Again, a fighter 1 does not allow spellcasting. A wizard 1 can. A multiclass fighter 1/wizard 1 allows spellcasting, but solely by virtue of the level of wizard. A level of fighter never allows spellcasting, by virtue of the standard rule of multiclassing, where a multiclass character gains all the features of all its classes. Forsaker (which I am honestly unfamiliar with) would seem to trump this general rule by a specific rule of its own.
If there is general disagreement, please cite a rule of your own or start a new thread.
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXII
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mattie_p
A level of fighter never allows spellcasting, by virtue of the standard rule of multiclassing, where a multiclass character gains all the features of all its classes.
I mean it as Curmudgeon said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Curmudgeon
Re: Q 1392
That's a less-common definition ("permit by neglect") of
allow.
I certainly recognize that it's a stretch, I just think there's at least a little bit of wiggle room in the wording.
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXII
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Curmudgeon
Re: Q 1392
That's a less-common definition ("permit by neglect") of
allow. D&D generally uses the most common meaning of "give permission for", and that's borne out in Khedrac's original answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Flame of Anor
I mean it as Curmudgeon said.
I certainly recognize that it's a stretch, I just think there's at least a little bit of wiggle room in the wording.
Again, there is no wiggle room for that interpretation in D&D 3.5, unless you believe that the wiggle room allows a level 1 fighter with no other class levels to cast level 9 spells. (the ruuuules don't saaaaay I caaaan't!) RAW sometimes allows for extraordinary flexibility in what it says and omits, but it does not extend that far.
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXII
Q1934
Can you take an immediate action in the middle of your own standard action? The situation I have envisioned is: Two wizard fighting. One begins to cast a nasty spell. The other casts Celerity with the intent to cast a damaging spell to disrupt the first wizard. The first wizard also casts Celerity to react to the second wizard's actions. Is this possible? I would think not, since the second wizard cast Celerity after the first wizard started casting and before the first wizard finished casting, so could the first wizard cast a spell in the middle of his spell in retaliation?
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXII
A1934: Yes and no. You can, in fact, interrupt your own standard action with an immediate action, same as anyone else's. However, you can't cast two spells at the same time; you'll immediately lose the standard-action-cast one.
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXII
Q 1935:
is a maneuver used by a crusader in one round considered expended or withheld? in other words, do you need to use every maneuver readied before the entire rotation begins again?
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXII
A 1935: Expended. You do not, however, have to use every readied maneuver before the rotation starts again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToB, p10
If, at the end of your turn, you cannot be granted a maneuver because you have no withheld maneuvers remaining, you recover all expended maneuvers, and a new pair of readied maneuvers is granted to you.
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXII
Q 1936
Say you're hiding behind a wall. There's a 10-foot wide gap in the wall, and someone on the other side. Can you move past the gap and hide again without being noticed, so long as you end movement with cover?