-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXIII
Q509
I read somewhere that the Craft Contingent Spell feat (CA 77,139) doesn't take Metamagic increases into account for pricing, is this true?
Q510
Would Metamagic increases, say from Twin Spell and Extend Spell make a spell ineligible for Chain Contingency (TaB86)?
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXIII
Q511
If I cast produce flame can I start attacking people with it on the turn I cast or must I wait till next turn when I can use my standard action again.
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXIII
A 511
Unless you have a way of gaining an attack after using up your standard action for the round, you must wait until after the round you cast Produce Flame to attack. Only touch attack spells (those with a Target: line specifying a creature touched) have a special proviso allowing you to attack in the same round you cast the spell. Produce Flame is a spell with an Effect: specification instead; this effect allows both a touch attack and a ranged touch attack. As a spell with more capabilities than simple touch attack spells, Produce Flame does not get the special bonus attack benefit given to spells which offer only touch attacks.
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXIII
Q 512
Dragonfire adept with entangling exhalation feat. Can the feat be applied every round ( bypassing the 'same breath effect' clause in dragonfire adept class ability text ) or does it follow the 'every other round' restriction? If usable every round, why so it can be cited to a DM.
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXIII
A 512
It can be used every round. A breath effect is a specific thing- those class abilities that you get at 2nd, 5th, 10th, and 15th level. Entangling Exhalation is a feat, not a breath effect, and so does not suffer such a restriction.
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXIII
A 512 cont.
Can you cite a precidence for this besides 'breath channeling'? Cause they might see it as breath effect ( and hit by restriction ), despite class ability and feat difference?
Q 513
Sniping while prone with crossbow. DM keeps mentioning some kind of +4 to ranged attack rolls ( not the +4 to ac versus, an actual +4 to ranged attack rolls ) when shooting crossbow while prone in the sniper fashion. Is this mentioned in a rule somewhere?
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXIII
A 513 No.
That would appear to be a house rule.
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXIII
Q 514
A spell descriptions says:
Quote:
Area: 10-ft. cube/level
Let's say my caster level is 12.
Q 514a
Is this one consecutive area with a maximum volume of 12*10-ft. cubes, or up to 12 disconnected 10-ft. cubes?
Q 514b
Does this usually mean "up to 12" or "exactly 12"?
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXIII
A 514 a
In a case like this you need to read the full text of the spell description to see if it states whether the cubes have to be connected or not. Remember that no part of the spell effect can exceed the spell range (so fireballs at max. range are not spherical).
Looking at the PHB (page 176 left column) we find:
Quote:
Other: A spell can have a unique area, as defined in its description.
(S) Shapeable:If an Area or Effect entry ends with "(S)," you can shape the spell. A shaped effect or area can have no dimension smaller than 10 feet. Many effects or areas are given as cubes to make it easy to model irregular shapes. Three-dimensional volumes are most often needed to define aerial or underwater effects and areas.
Now there is no text explicitly stating that the 10' cubes have to be contiguous, so by RAW you can have disconnected cubes, but the English implies contiguity to a native English speaker so expect DM's to rule that you cannot.
Q 514a
Since you can always stack the cubes inside each other (and being covered by the area more than once has no extra game effect) the area can always be reduced to one 10' cube for this type of spell.
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXIII
Q 515
I cast slow at four enemies. My caster level is 12. Can I force all four to make three Will saving throws each?
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXIII
A 515
No - although you can target a creature more than once they can only be subject to the spell once so that means 1 saving throw. It also means that if they have spell-turning or are counter-spelling it is still one spell so they only have to turn it or counter-spell it once.
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXIII
Q 516
Can creatures created/summoned via summon nature's ally (Core), conjure ice beast (Frostburn), or summon desert ally (Sandstorm) understand verbal commands?
SNA is a little different from summon monster because it generally doesn't slap a Celestial/Fiendish template on animals, which defaults Int = 3. By RAW, Int 3 = understands Common, unless there's something in the stat block that says otherwise.
I think the designers may have intended druids/rangers to use Animal Empathy or handle animal checks to direct SNAs to do what they want, but in practice I don't think anyone bothers with this level of tedium, and everyone just assumes "summoned = can understand verbal commands". The only text I can see that might address this is one sentence, PHB p. 172, under "Spell Descriptions - Conjuration":
Quote:
Originally Posted by PHB p. 172
Creatures you conjure usually, but not always, obey your commands.
If this was intended to make all conjurations understand verbal commands, then "usually" here is probably for bizarre circumstances (creature cannot hear/see/interract with caster due to environmental effects), or possibly for the DM to step in and determine that a command is ambiguous/gibberish/blatantly stupid.
However, even if we assume that all SM/SNA creatures can understand verbal commands, ice beasts and dustform creatures are mindless constructs. Was the intent here to treat them like golems, which are also mindless constructs, but can still follow verbal directions?
Both conjure ice beast and summon desert ally contain the following text:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostburn, Conjure Ice Beast I
If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions.
It's conditional, but doesn't actually say if the mindless constructs can be communicated with. Presumably, this means if you summon a demon that only understands Infernal or a water elemental that only understands Auquan, then you must speak those languages to communicate with it. If it's a celestial/fiendish creature with no language specified, then its language defaults to Common. But if all ice beasts/dustforms are automatically mindless, why include this sentence at all, since all ice beasts would be insensible to any communication?
Finally, conjure ice beast I (but not summon desert ally I) concludes with this text:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostburn, Conjure Ice Beast I
In all other ways, conjure ice beast I functions like summon monster I.
Is this a "grandfather clause" to get the same functionality as summon monster while still having the ice beasts as mindless?
Or am I way beyond overthinking this?
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXIII
A 516
It's some really unclear wording.
If "communicate" means that the summoner is capable of speaking to the creature (and isn't trapped in a silence spell or whatever), then you can command the creature as normal.
If "communicate" means that the summoned creature has to be capable of understanding your orders, then you need the ability to speak with whatever the creature is.
I believe that the first is the correct interpretation; the Ice Beast monster entry specifically discusses the orders you can give to it.
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXIII
Q 517
Are the Martial Arts Mastery styles in Oriental Adventures page 80-81 (Empty Hand, Mighty Works I + II, Foot and Fist, The Gentle Way, Meditation of War) feats, or do you gain the mastery automatically when fulfilling the prerequisites?
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXIII
A 517
You gain them automatically when you meet the prerequisites.
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXIII
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mr.Bookworm
A 516
I believe that the first is the correct interpretation; the Ice Beast monster entry specifically discusses the orders you can give to it.
Ok, then at least for ice beasts the RAW is clear:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostburn, Ice Beast
It is a mindless automaton that follows its creator’s orders. An ice beast resembles whatever creature it is modeled after in general shape and size, but it is composed entirely of pale blue ice.
An ice beast does only what it is ordered to do. It can draw no conclusions of its own and takes no initiative. Its instructions must always be simple, such as, "Attack that giant" or "Stay close and attack anyone who threatens me."
Summon Desert Ally has no such text. Instead it has:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandstorm, Dustform Creature
Dustform creatures understand whatever languages they understood in life, though they can no longer speak them.
So... it's in the same boat as Summon Nature's Ally, really. Animals with Int = 2 don't speak a language and can't understand verbal commands in Common. A druid/ranger could use speak with animals to communicate (or use the whole Handle Animal/tricks thing), but I've never seen anyone actually demand this be used with SNA. Summon Desert Ally doesn't reference the SM or SNA tables, it uses its own table, so we can't pretend the creature was celestial/fiendish before.
Huh. I'm thinking this is one of those areas where "sticking to absolute literal RAW in this situation does not add anything pleasant or meaningful to the game, and should probably be discouraged".
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXIII
Q 518
If my evil cleric has DR 15/good from his race, and then casts Righteous Might at CL 14, does his DR go up to 25/good? Or does it just overlap?
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXIII
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Seharvepernfan
Q 518
If my evil cleric has DR 15/good from his race, and then casts Righteous Might at CL 14, does his DR go up to 25/good? Or does it just overlap?
A 518
DR always overlaps unless otherwise stated.
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXIII
Q 519
Which books have martial arts style like in Oriental Adventures? I know of Dragon Magazine #315, are there any else?
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXIII
These are grappling questions. I'm sorry.
Q520a
When and how does spiked armor deal damage in a grapple? The SRD simply says "You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack." Is this clarified anywhere?
By my reading, I would argue that it applies any time you deal unarmed strike damage (because the damage is described as "extra piercind damage", it must be in addition to some other damage) which would include when you first establish a hold with an opposed grapple check and when you use the Damage Your Opponent option in subsequent rounds. I think "on a successful grapple attack" could also be read to mean "when you sucessfully hit (or possibly successfully damage) your oppoenent while grappling" which would also allow the spike damage to be added with the Attack Your Opponent (which an unarmed strike, light weapon or natural weapon) option. Is there anywhere that clearly supports or refutes any of these interpretations?
Q520b
I find the rule that "you can’t attack with two weapons while grappling, even if both are light weapons" a little problematic. I assume it's either referring to the Two-Weapon Fighting special attack rather than simply using two weapons or only forbids using two weapons as part of a single Attack Your Opponent action (as it's listed under that secction in the rules). (So that a character with high enough base attack bonus to use two attacks in a turn could attack with one weapon, see that it was ineffective and attack with another weapon, such as a natural weapon he doesn't need to use an action to draw/ready.) Is this reading reasonable?
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXIII
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DeltaEmil
Q 519
Which books have martial arts style like in Oriental Adventures? I know of Dragon Magazine #315, are there any else?
A 519
The rules for Martial Arts styles in Oriental Adventures and Dragon Magazine #315 have never been reprinted anywhere else.
However, it sounds like you may be looking for the Monk Variant: Fighting Styles printed on pages 52-53 in Unearthed Arcana (and thus appear in the related section of the SRD). All of these fighting styles appeared in Dragon Magazine #310.
There were additional fighting styles printed in subsequent issues, using the same format, but none of these were included in Unearthed Arcana:
Dragon #334:
Kyokushinkai Karate
Wing Chun Kuen
Wushu
Dragon #337:
Metered Style
Dragon Magazine #346:
Sacred Path of Heironeous
Sacred Path of Hextor
Sacred Path of Moradin
Sacred Path of St. Cuthbert
Sacred Path of Wee Jas
Sacred Path of Yondalla
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXIII
A 520b
You are prohibited by RAW from attacking with two weapons while grappling. Armor spikes are one weapon. Thus any round you use armor spikes while grappling you may not use any other weapon. (There is no "reasonable" reading here; just what the rules actually say.) You may use unarmed strikes.
Quote:
unarmed strike
A successful blow, typically dealing nonlethal damage, from a character attacking without weapons.
A 520a
Quote:
Armor Spikes
You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a -4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them.
...
An enhancement bonus to a suit of armor does not improve the spikes’ effectiveness, but the spikes can be made into magic weapons in their own right.
You do not automatically add piercing damage unless you succeed on a grapple attack, and the attack modifier for armor spikes is different from that for your unarmed strike. (The "normal" damage available to a grappler is nonlethal bludgeoning damage. The lethal piercing damage from armor spikes is, from that standpoint, "extra".) The only grapple option available which matches "grapple attack" with a weapon is Attack Your Opponent. Normally this does not allow an attack with a non-light martial weapon, but the description of armor spikes creates a specific exception for their use. Armor spikes, despite being substantially larger than normal light weapons, count as a light weapon.
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXIII
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Curmudgeon
A 520b
You are prohibited by RAW from attacking with two weapons while grappling. Armor spikes are one weapon. Thus any round you use armor spikes while grappling you may not use any other weapon. (There is no "reasonable" reading here; just what the rules actually say.) You may use unarmed strikes.
A 520a You do not automatically add piercing damage unless you succeed on a grapple attack, and the attack modifier for armor spikes is different from that for your unarmed strike. (The "normal" damage available to a grappler is nonlethal bludgeoning damage. The lethal piercing damage from armor spikes is, from that standpoint, "extra".) The only grapple option available which matches "grapple attack" with a weapon is Attack Your Opponent. Normally this does not allow an attack with a martial weapon, but the description of armor spikes creates a specific exception for their use.
Q 520c (clarification of 520a)
If the attack with armor spikes is entirely in place of (rather than in addition to) an attack of some other form, in what way are the spikes dealing "extra" damage, as the weapon description says? When the flaming weapon enhancement says "a flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit", you don't interpret the 1d6 points of fire damage as replacing the weapon's own slashing/bludgeoning/piercing damage, do you?
Where are you getting "Normally this does not allow an attack with a martial weapon"? The grapple rules only say you must use a light (or natural) weapon. There's not a single mention at all of martial weapons (or simple or exotic ones for that matter) and there are several weapons that are both light and martial (kukris and short swords, for example, not to mention armor spikes).
Q 520d (clarification of 520d)
Can you give any RAW basis for interpreting "You can’t attack with two weapons while grappling, even if both are light weapons." on a per round basis? The way it's worded, it could just as easilly be read per action (as I do) or going the opposite direction to say that you can only use one weapon in any given grapple. Heck, since there's no period of time on "You can’t attack with two weapons while grappling", why wouldn't this be interpreted as an absolute, duration-free, "only one weapon, ever" rule, strictly RAW?
The rule is vague almost to the point of being meaningless and I'm asking if anything makes it less so. Is there anything actually written in the rules to support applying this limitation round-by-round?
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXIII
A 520c (clarification of 520a)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lord Il Palazzo
If the attack with armor spikes is entirely in place of (rather than in addition to) an attack of some other form, in what way are the spikes dealing "extra" damage, as the weapon description says?
This was already answered:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Curmudgeon
The "normal" damage available to a grappler is nonlethal bludgeoning damage. The lethal piercing damage from armor spikes is, from that standpoint, "extra".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Il Palazzo
Where are you getting "Normally this does not allow an attack with a martial weapon"?
That was my error; I got distracted and posted before finishing the explanation. The original post has been edited, with clarifications added in red. I apologize for the confusion.
A 520d (clarification of 520d)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Il Palazzo
Can you give any RAW basis for interpreting "You can’t attack with two weapons while grappling, even if both are light weapons." on a per round basis? The way it's worded, it could just as easilly be read per action (as I do) ...
These are the same, excepting some special abilities which alter the normal actions available in a round. You can either use a standard action for a single grapple check in place of an attack, or a full-round action for as many grapple checks as you are allowed attacks in a full attack. In either case, you are allowed only one action in the round which permits you to make grapple attacks. The limitation of attacking with only one weapon while grappling then becomes a limitation for the round.
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXIII
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Curmudgeon
A 520c (clarification of 520a)
This was already answered:
That was my error; I got distracted and posted before finishing the explanation. The original post has been edited, with clarifications added in red. I apologize for the confusion.
A 520d (clarification of 520d)
These are the same, excepting some special abilities which alter the normal actions available in a round. You can either use a standard action for a single grapple check in place of an attack, or a full-round action for as many grapple checks as you are allowed attacks in a full attack. In either case, you are allowed only one action in the round which permits you to make grapple attacks. The limitation of attacking with only one weapon while grappling then becomes a limitation for the round.
Okay. I'm going to try this one more time. You're quoting around and ignoring the central points of my questions. I am underlining the parts I want answered. Please quote and respond to them. I am asking for citations. Book names and page numbers, SRD links, anything that shows that what you're saying is actually from the rules rather than just being your interpretation. If you can't give any citation for what you're saying, just say so and I'll appreciate your honesty but please don't just tell me "this is how it works" and try to leave it at that; it's not what I'm looking for and it's not a helpful answer.
Q 520e (final clarification to Q 520a)
When the rules refer to "extra" damage, they refer to damage in addition to other damage not in place of it. The "extra damage" from a sneak attack sneak attack doesn't replace the base damage. (A derro's racial sneak attack for example deals "+1d6" damage, not just "1d6".) Neither does the "extra 1d6 of fire damage" from a flaming weapon. (Note that the Balor's +1 Faming whip does both the 1d4 whip damage and the 1d6 fire damage.) When an attack's damage die is replaced entirely (such as by the monk class's unarmed strike damage progression) the word "extra" is nowhere to be seen.
Is there any RAW basis for treating the "extra piercing damage" when grappling from spiked armor as a replacement to normal grappling damage rather than an addition, even though every other instance of "extra damage" is an addition?
Q 520f (final clarification to Q 520b)
Your previous answer ignores the fact that it is possible to make multiple things in one round while grappling, which aren't necessarily the same but are each referred to as an "action". Quoting the rules, from here:
Quote:
If your base attack bonus allows you multiple attacks, you can attempt one of these actions in place of each of your attacks, but at successively lower base attack bonuses.
So I will ask again:
Is there anything actually written in the rules to support applying the "can't attack with two weapons while grappling" limitation round-by-round, even though it's written as a limitation of a particular action ("Attack Your Opponent") rather than a limitation of grappling as a whole?
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXIII
A 520e (final clarification to Q 520a)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lord Il Palazzo
Is there any RAW basis for treating the "extra piercing damage" when grappling from spiked armor as a replacement to normal grappling damage rather than an addition, even though every other instance of "extra damage" is an addition?
Yes. The armor spikes weapon has its own attack bonus, its own weapon enhancements, and its own penalties for nonproficiency "when you try to use them". You would be ignoring all of those RAW elements if the damage is automatically "extra" when using some other attack in a grapple. You must "try to use them" and succeed, as specified in the item description, to add that extra piercing damage.
A 520f (final clarification to Q 520b)
Already answered.
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXIII
Q521
So I'm a little fuzzy on the 3.0 to 3.5 precedence rules.
Its my understanding that 3.0 stuff should work just fine with only minor adjustments to change the way some things function (like say DR), and if a book was never reprinted as 3.5 the 3.0 stuff should be just fine.
What about if two sources disagree? How do I determine what is the Primary Source?
In 3.0 only it would have been simple, newer more specific material can overrule the older general rules. But with 3.5 reprints the core book is now the newer printing than the old splatbook with the different rule.
How do I place old 3.0 splatbooks that haven't been reprinted in rules precedence?
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXIII
A521
Where a 3.5 book disagrees with a 3.0 book, the 3.5 book takes precedence.
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXIII
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ashtagon
A521
Where a 3.5 book disagrees with a 3.0 book, the 3.5 book takes precedence.
Why? That declaration doesn't seem to address Specific vs General at all. Or explain how I determine primary source.
-
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXIII
If a 3.5 book disagrees with the 3.0 material, then bringing the 3.0 material in line with that would be one of the "minor adjustments" needed.