-
Re: Simple RAW Thread for 3.5 #34: Mere mortal, not immortal, not starcrossed, anymor
A 36
Animals need to breathe so he will suffocate in 10minutes.
-
Re: Simple RAW Thread for 3.5 #34: Mere mortal, not immortal, not starcrossed, anymor
Quote:
Originally Posted by
someonenoone11
A 36
Animals need to breathe so he will suffocate in 10minutes.
Quote:
Q 36If you put a creature that doesn't need to breath into a bag of holding or something similar, and then you wild shape, what happens to the creature?
He specified the creature does not need to breathe.
-
Re: Simple RAW Thread for 3.5 #34: Mere mortal, not immortal, not starcrossed, anymor
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Venger
He specified the creature does not need to breathe.
My bad. I thought wild shape would make you dependent on air but because it doesn't change your type I guess it doesn't.
-
Re: Simple RAW Thread for 3.5 #34: Mere mortal, not immortal, not starcrossed, anymor
Quote:
Originally Posted by
someonenoone11
My bad. I thought wild shape would make you dependent on air but because it doesn't change your type I guess it doesn't.
No, so in this scenario, the pc is a druid. He puts a zombie into the bag of holding, where it just chills. Then the pc uses wild shape. It has no effect on the zombie.
Also, wild shape does not change your type. It's based on alternate form in 3.5, not polymorph self, like was in 3.0.
-
Re: Simple RAW Thread for 3.5 #34: Mere mortal, not immortal, not starcrossed, anymor
Q 37
Can a Kaorti use liquid pain to pay for the XP cost of crafting things with resin?
-
Re: Simple RAW Thread for 3.5 #34: Mere mortal, not immortal, not starcrossed, anymor
A 37 Only if the item it's being made into is magical.
-
Re: Simple RAW Thread for 3.5 #34: Mere mortal, not immortal, not starcrossed, anymor
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Venger
A 35 There are certain exceptions, such as modifying a spell through song of the dead, but a generalized method to zap a nonhumanoid with charm person (for example) does not exist. What, specifically are you trying to do?
I was mostly interested in ways to expand Enlarge Person / Reduce Person to other creature type. Size-changing magic is surprisingly rare -- you have to move straight to shapechanging to get something equivalent.
I was hoping for something like a metamagic feat. I guess the only known way is for spellcasters to research new spells with a broader effect.
-
Re: Simple RAW Thread for 3.5 #34: Mere mortal, not immortal, not starcrossed, anymor
Quote:
Originally Posted by
St Fan
I was mostly interested in ways to expand Enlarge Person / Reduce Person to other creature type. Size-changing magic is surprisingly rare -- you have to move straight to shapechanging to get something equivalent.
I was hoping for something like a metamagic feat. I guess the only known way is for spellcasters to research new spells with a broader effect.
The psionic equivalents are not limited by creature type. They can be placed in tattoos to affect other people.
-
Re: Simple RAW Thread for 3.5 #34: Mere mortal, not immortal, not starcrossed, anymor
Q 38
Does bonus damage dealt via Sneak Attack/Maneuvers/Skirmish, etc become nonlethal if a merciful weapon did it?
-
Re: Simple RAW Thread for 3.5 #34: Mere mortal, not immortal, not starcrossed, anymor
-
Re: Simple RAW Thread for 3.5 #34: Mere mortal, not immortal, not starcrossed, anymor
Q 39
When multiplying, do we consider the distributive property? For example, say a character with Battle Jump and Leap Attack (two handed), both triggering, makes a charge, and power attacks for one. this would be 2x(damage+4x(1)), but do we then add the total, for 2x(damage+4) or do we deal 2xDamage+5x1?
-
Re: Simple RAW Thread for 3.5 #34: Mere mortal, not immortal, not starcrossed, anymor
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMS
Q 39
When multiplying, do we consider the distributive property? For example, say a character with Battle Jump and Leap Attack (two handed), both triggering, makes a charge, and power attacks for one. this would be 2x(damage+4x(1)), but do we then add the total, for 2x(damage+4) or do we deal 2xDamage+5x1?
A 039
D&D multiplying uses its own rules: Multiplying Damage
Quote:
Originally Posted by PHB, p134
Multiplying Damage: Sometimes you multiply damage by some
factor, such as on a critical hit. Roll the damage (with all modifiers)
multiple times and total the results.
Note: When you multiply
damage more than once, each multiplier works off the original,
unmultiplied damage (see Multiplying, page 304).
Exception: Extra damage dice over and above a weapon’s normal
damage, such as that dealt by a sneak attack or the special ability of a
flaming sword, are never multiplied.
For example, Krusk the half-orc barbarian has a Strength bonus of
+3. That means he gets a +3 bonus on damage rolls when using a
longsword, a +4 bonus on damage when using a greataxe (two-
handed), and a +1 bonus to damage when using a weapon in his off
hand. His critical multiplier with a greataxe is ×3, so if he scores a
critical hit with that weapon, he would roll 1d12+4 points of damage
three times (the same as rolling 3d12+12).
-
Re: Simple RAW Thread for 3.5 #34: Mere mortal, not immortal, not starcrossed, anymor
Q40. Does a rogue with the alternate class feature that trades sneak attack for bonus feats (as a fighter) qualify for fighter only feats such as weapon specialization?
-
Re: Simple RAW Thread for 3.5 #34: Mere mortal, not immortal, not starcrossed, anymor
A 40
No. They still aren't a Fighter.
-
Re: Simple RAW Thread for 3.5 #34: Mere mortal, not immortal, not starcrossed, anymor
A 040 additional info
Warblade, Bloodstorm Blade and Justice of Weald and Woe all gain "virtual fighter levels" to qualify for these type of feats.
In addition, some classes get Weapon Specialization as a bonus feat without needing to meet the prereqs, such as Favored Soul 12.
...not exactly what was asked, but handy to know, nonetheless.
-
Re: Simple RAW Thread for 3.5 #34: Mere mortal, not immortal, not starcrossed, anymor
Q41 Can you counterspell using a wand? Would things change if an eternal wand was used instead? For the purpose of this question, consider the character attempting to counterspell is holding a wand (or eternal wand) of Dispel Magic.
-
Re: Simple RAW Thread for 3.5 #34: Mere mortal, not immortal, not starcrossed, anymor
Q42
Is a Gargoyle immune to Stinking Cloud?
A gargoyle doesnt need to breathe, but it's still living?
-
Re: Simple RAW Thread for 3.5 #34: Mere mortal, not immortal, not starcrossed, anymor
Q43 when scribing a scroll, can you have another caster supply the spell? Can you supply the spell from a wand?
-
Re: Simple RAW Thread for 3.5 #34: Mere mortal, not immortal, not starcrossed, anymor
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wacky89
Q42
Is a Gargoyle immune to Stinking Cloud?
A gargoyle doesnt need to breathe, but it's still living?
A42 Gargoyles are not immune to stinking cloud. As monstrous humanoids, gargoyles are living creatures (albeit ones that do not need to eat, drink or breathe). As living creatures they're subjected to the nauseating effect of a stinking cloud. If you need an in-universe reason for this to happen other than RAW, you can describe the cloud as being irritating regardless of whether you breathe, touch, or otherwise come in contact with it.
-
Re: Simple RAW Thread for 3.5 #34: Mere mortal, not immortal, not starcrossed, anymor
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Skevvix
Q43 when scribing a scroll, can you have another caster supply the spell? Can you supply the spell from a wand?
A43: It doesn't cost a spell, so no one has to supply a spell. It just has to be a spell that the scriber knows.
Here's the link explaining it better.
If the spell is in your spell knowledge bank, you can scribe it.
Q44: Does alcohol count as Poison? Especially in regards to races with immunity or resistance to poison?
-
Re: Simple RAW Thread for 3.5 #34: Mere mortal, not immortal, not starcrossed, anymor
-
Re: Simple RAW Thread for 3.5 #34: Mere mortal, not immortal, not starcrossed, anymor
Quote:
Originally Posted by
inexorabletruth
Here's a better link, general, but is the magic item creation rules which are referenced by scribe scroll.
-
Re: Simple RAW Thread for 3.5 #34: Mere mortal, not immortal, not starcrossed, anymor
Q 45
A: What happen when a spell that is normally dismissible by the caster is coupled with permanency?
I would guess it's no longer dismissible, but is it stated somewhere?
B: What happen when the beneficiary of a spell coupled with permanency is hit by a spell with opposite effects, where's it's usually described that it "counters and dispels" the other spell? (For examples, enlarge person vs. reduce person or vice-versa.)
Is the permanency-fied spell countered for the duration of the other spell? or fully dispelled?
-
Re: Simple RAW Thread for 3.5 #34: Mere mortal, not immortal, not starcrossed, anymor
Quote:
Originally Posted by
St Fan
Q 45
A: What happen when a spell that is normally dismissible by the caster is coupled with permanency?
I would guess it's no longer dismissible, but is it stated somewhere?
It's not stated anywhere. Expect table variation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
St Fan
B: What happen when the beneficiary of a spell coupled with permanency is hit by a spell with opposite effects, where's it's usually described that it "counters and dispels" the other spell? (For examples, enlarge person vs. reduce person or vice-versa.)
Is the permanency-fied spell countered for the duration of the other spell? or fully dispelled?
Permanent spells have no special exemption from being dispelled outside of the one provided in the text of the spell. If you cast the Permanency on yourself, it can only be dispelled by a caster who is higher level than you were when you cast Permanency. Otherwise, it can be dispelled as normal.
-
Re: Simple RAW Thread for 3.5 #34: Mere mortal, not immortal, not starcrossed, anymor
Q46
Would Cure Disease or Regeneration eliminate excess growths? Regenerate clearly regrows missing bits but would it cure the pot belly of an ex-obese person or scars?
-
Re: Simple RAW Thread for 3.5 #34: Mere mortal, not immortal, not starcrossed, anymor
Quote:
Originally Posted by
unseenmage
Q46
Would Cure Disease or Regeneration eliminate excess growths? Regenerate clearly regrows missing bits but would it cure the pot belly of an ex-obese person or scars?
A 46
Regenerate, no.
Remove Disease, maybe. "Obesity" isn't an in-game disease, as such, it's up to DMs to include it in the roster of things curable by Remove Disease, and how exactly the spell works with this new disease.
Q 47
Is there any Illithid/Mind-flayer race other than the one described in the Monster Manual? Specifically, a race related to Psionics?
A 47
Answering my own question, the XPH has a Psionic variant for the Mind Flayer, which manifests as a 9th level Psion.
-
Re: Simple RAW Thread for 3.5 #34: Mere mortal, not immortal, not starcrossed, anymor
Q 48
Persistent Spell [Metamagic] feat says "The persistent spell must have a personal range or a fixed range."
Does 'Range: Touch' count as 'a fixed range'?
-
Re: Simple RAW Thread for 3.5 #34: Mere mortal, not immortal, not starcrossed, anymor
-
Re: Simple RAW Thread for 3.5 #34: Mere mortal, not immortal, not starcrossed, anymor
A 48 - Contention
This has been discussed ad nauseam. Some people argue "touch" isn't a fixed range because a creature's reach is variable. Others argue this has no effect. There have been 1000 posts about this, and the only consensus is to ask your DM. The RAW Q&A thread, however, is not the place for this discussion if you want to have it for the 1001st time.
-
Re: Simple RAW Thread for 3.5 #34: Mere mortal, not immortal, not starcrossed, anymor
Quote:
Originally Posted by
heavyfuel
A 48 - Contention
This has been discussed ad nauseam. Some people argue "touch" isn't a fixed range because a creature's reach is variable. Others argue this has no effect. There have been 1000 posts about this, and the only consensus is to ask your DM. The RAW Q&A thread, however, is not the place for this discussion if you want to have it for the 1001st time.
A 48 I agree this is beyond the scope of the simple raw thread if you're going to bring that into it. You or Arkhios are welcome to make your own separate thread to argue about it.
