Page 8 of 91 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314151617183358 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 240 of 2721
  1. - Top - End - #211
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Sunnydale

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXI

    A 127 No.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enlarge Person
    Multiple magical effects that increase size do not stack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Expansion
    Multiple effects that increase size do not stack, which means (among other things) that you can’t use a second manifestation of this power to further expand yourself.
    Combining Psionic And Magical Effects

    The default rule for the interaction of psionics and magic is simple: Powers interact with spells and spells interact with powers in the same way a spell or normal spell-like ability interacts with another spell or spell-like ability. This is known as psionics-magic transparency.
    You've got an explicit disclaimer of stacking in both Enlarge Person and Expansion, and a general principle which says that all sorts of effects (spells and powers) abide by the same rules to prevent size increase stacking. I think the RAW is very clear.

    A 128

    Dragon # 296 is from 2002 June, which is in the era of D&D 3.0. As a prestige class which expands on Monk capabilities, Acolyte of the Fist necessarily references the 3.0 Monk rules wherein Monks had a unique BAB progression for their unarmed attacks: one extra attack every 3 points of BAB, not the standard one extra attack every 5 points of BAB. In a 3.5 game the Monk no longer has a second BAB progression, and a 3.0 prestige class which references that nonexistent class feature cannot be used without adjustment by your individual DM.

    From page 4 of the 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide:
    This is an upgrade of the d20 System, not a new edition of the game. This revision is compatible with all existing products, and those products can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments.
    Last edited by Curmudgeon; 2012-06-02 at 12:16 AM.

  2. - Top - End - #212
    Banned
     
    willpell's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXI

    Q129
    Are Oozes considered "living creatures"?

  3. - Top - End - #213
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    ElfRangerGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2012

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXI

    A129
    Most of them are indeed living (they have a con score).

    Q130
    What kind of weapon are unarmed strikes? Are they natural weapons?
    Currently playing:
    Aer the Raven in the refounding of the temple of nine swords.
    Estef in From Splendor to Shadow
    DMing Here be Dragons IC & OOC

  4. - Top - End - #214
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2012

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXI

    A 130

    No, they are unarmed strikes. A Monk's unarmed strike though "is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons." (SRD)

  5. - Top - End - #215
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    ElfRangerGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2012

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXI

    Q130
    I was asking because I saw that. Then they are manufactured weapons? (doesn't make sense to me)
    Currently playing:
    Aer the Raven in the refounding of the temple of nine swords.
    Estef in From Splendor to Shadow
    DMing Here be Dragons IC & OOC

  6. - Top - End - #216
    Banned
     
    willpell's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXI

    Quote Originally Posted by Aeryr View Post
    Q130
    I was asking because I saw that. Then they are manufactured weapons? (doesn't make sense to me)
    A manufactured weapon is an object which you intentionally use to do more damage than is normally possible for your body, while a natural weapon is part of your body. A monk uses training and mystical secrets to refine his body into a more deadly implement than is natural, so he's sort of conceptually in a gray area; his fist has been tempered to strike harder than fists normally do, the way one tempers a sword with a forge to make it sharper. If your body naturally had a length of metal on the end of your arm, whanging someone with that length of metal would be a natural attack, but sticking your arm into a forge and then hammering it on an anvil until it was a sword would (conceptually at least; I don't know how the rules would handle this for a Warforged or something) transform it into a manufactured weapon.

    In game terms, the fact that a monk's unarmed strike is treated as both natural and manufactured has several possible effects, but one of the most obvious is that either of the spells Magic Weapon or Magic Fang can benefit it. (They don't stack with each other, but it doesn't matter which one you get.) A sword can't be improved with Magic Fang because it's not a natural weapon, and a normal person's fists or a half-dragon's claws can't be improved with Magic Weapon because they aren't manufactured weapons. But a monk's Unarmed Strike can receive either buff.

  7. - Top - End - #217
    Banned
     
    willpell's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXI

    Q131
    I asked this question on the old thread but I can no longer find the answer (the Search Thread function denies that my post exists even though I'm certain I made it and there would have been no reason for it to be scrubbed), so even though I know generally what the answer is, I have to ask again for the specifics. Enlarge Person is on the Strength domain list; can a Strength cleric create a divine scroll of it, and can a non-Strength cleric then cast that scroll? (I think there was a third question in this vein but I don't recall what it was. It may have been "can a Strength cleric cast an arcane scroll of EP", but I currently know that's a "no" and probably did then too, so I don't know what else it might have been.)
    Last edited by willpell; 2012-06-02 at 08:08 AM.

  8. - Top - End - #218
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    ElfRangerGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2012

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXI

    A131
    A strength domain cleric, with the appropriate feat can scribe a scroll of Enlarge person (it would be divine).

    To cast said scroll a character needs the following:

    Quote Originally Posted by SRD
    • The spell must be of the correct type (arcane or divine). Arcane spellcasters (wizards, sorcerers, and bards) can only use scrolls containing arcane spells, and divine spellcasters (clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers) can only use scrolls containing divine spells. (The type of scroll a character creates is also determined by his or her class.)
    • The user must have the spell on his or her class list.
    • The user must have the requisite ability score.
    A cleric without the strength domain won't have the spell on her class list, so she would need a UMD check to cast it.
    A wizard won't be able to cast it since its a divine spell, he would need a UMD check. (the same happens if a cleric tries to use an arcane scroll of enlarge person)

    Q130 I still don't get what type of weapon the unarmed strike is. Even is the text is "clear" on magic and effects.
    Last edited by Aeryr; 2012-06-02 at 08:21 AM.
    Currently playing:
    Aer the Raven in the refounding of the temple of nine swords.
    Estef in From Splendor to Shadow
    DMing Here be Dragons IC & OOC

  9. - Top - End - #219
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2012

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXI

    A 130 again, with more detail

    It is not a weapon. It is a separate type of attack. See the SRD.

    The only time an unarmed strike is similar to a weapon is when you use spells or effects that enhance natural or manufactured weapons on a monk's unarmed strike.

    Are you trying to do something specific?
    Last edited by Andezzar; 2012-06-02 at 08:33 AM.

  10. - Top - End - #220
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    IdleMuse's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Lancaster, UK
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXI

    Q132

    I still can't figure out the interaction between prepared casters and temporary stat boosts. Say, for instance, I'm playing an 8th-level druid with 20 Wisdom. Does wearing a Periapt of Wisdom +2 let me prepare an extra 2nd-level spell? When I take it off (maybe through wild-shaping without a Wilding Clasp), I then lose that spell? Does it 're-prepare' when Wild Shape ends?

    The same 8th-level Druid is now casting Owl's Wisdom. This kicks his Wisdom up to 24, so he now has teo extra spell slots (2nd level and 3rd level), but he hasn't prepared them? Can these slots be converted into SNAs? If he casts Owl's Wisdom for the whole of the time he's preparing spells (maybe with Persistent Spell), does he then get the extra slots (as long as persistent spell is active?)

    Basically, are Periapts of Wisdom and/or Owl's Wisdom/Other temporary Wis buffs any use for getting extra spells?
    "Hex grids are the way forward! And slighty to the side..." - Studoku

  11. - Top - End - #221
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2012

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXI

    A 132

    Quote Originally Posted by IdleMuse View Post
    I still can't figure out the interaction between prepared casters and temporary stat boosts. Say, for instance, I'm playing an 8th-level druid with 20 Wisdom. Does wearing a Periapt of Wisdom +2 let me prepare an extra 2nd-level spell? When I take it off (maybe through wild-shaping without a Wilding Clasp), I then lose that spell? Does it 're-prepare' when Wild Shape ends?
    If you take it off or otherwise lose the WIS bonus the spell slots including the prepared spells are lost. You need to prepare the same or other spells in those slots the next day.

    Quote Originally Posted by IdleMuse View Post
    The same 8th-level Druid is now casting Owl's Wisdom. This kicks his Wisdom up to 24, so he now has teo extra spell slots (2nd level and 3rd level), but he hasn't prepared them? Can these slots be converted into SNAs? If he casts Owl's Wisdom for the whole of the time he's preparing spells (maybe with Persistent Spell), does he then get the extra slots (as long as persistent spell is active?)
    He has no spell prepared so he cannot do that retroactively. He does not have a spell prepared in that slot so he cannot convert that prepared spell into SNA.
    Persistent Spell should allow you to fill those slots, but you do not regain the prepared persisted Owl's Wisdom as it counts towards your daily allotment o spells. Sacrificing an 8th level slot for a 2nd and 3rd level slot does not sound like a good deal to me.

  12. - Top - End - #222
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    ElfRangerGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2012

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXI

    Q130

    It's also in the weapon section of the SRD. The section of natural weapons here isn't really helpful either, the description is different from the vanilla unarmed strike (and really similar to the improved unarmed strike) but it summarizes common natural weapon, with a non exclusive list.

    I do think it's a weapon, because I believe that you can take weapon focus (unarmed strike) (can't you?) And I do think that unarmed strikes are made with parts of the creature making them.

    My biggest concern is to know that if unarmed strikes are natural weapons or manufactured weapons, not for magical effects but for qualifying for PrCs and feats. For example, can a monk (as its been recommended many times) take the improved natural attack feat (that requires having a natural weapon).
    Last edited by Aeryr; 2012-06-02 at 08:52 AM.
    Currently playing:
    Aer the Raven in the refounding of the temple of nine swords.
    Estef in From Splendor to Shadow
    DMing Here be Dragons IC & OOC

  13. - Top - End - #223
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Sunnydale

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXI

    A 130 Yes.

    While unarmed strikes have their own special rules, including using the iterative attacks common to manufactured weapons, the RAW citations are entirely consistent: they are natural weapons.
    Quote Originally Posted by Align Weapon
    You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike.
    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Weapon
    You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang).
    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Fang
    Magic fang gives one natural weapon of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon. (The spell does not change an unarmed strike’s damage from nonlethal damage to lethal damage.)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dragon Magic, page 101
    A fanged ring grants its wearer the Improved Unarmed Strike feat and the Improved Natural Attack (unarmed strike) teat.
    Monks have a class feature which allows them to also qualify as manufactured weapons (even though they plainly aren't) for spells and other effects.

  14. - Top - End - #224
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    RoyVG's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXI

    A130

    i'm probably gonna repeat what already has been said but here goes.

    Copy-pasted from SRD:
    A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike. A Small character deals 1d2 points of nonlethal damage. A monk or any character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat can deal lethal or nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes, at her option. The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.

    An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike.


    This is under Non-Monk conditions. It is not really stated whether it is a manufactured or natural attack anywhere in the SRD under these conditions.

    So we take a different approach (though not 100% SRD), from the Rules of the Game: DnD Archive: Unarmed Strike part 1
    'Unarmed strike [...] describe an attack with an appendage that is not a natural weapon, such as a human's fist.

    Followed by If you attack without a weapon, a spell such as magic weapon won't help you, but a spell such as magic fang will. Unarmed strikes (even improved unarmed strikes) and natural weapons aren't equivalent, however, as we shall see in Part Two

    Part 2 mostly talks about a monk or repeats stuff from part 1.

    So first of all, an unarmed strike is NOT a natural attack and vice versa (for the purpose of feats, etc.) However, they can be considered Natural weapons for the purpose of spells that target natural weapons and not manufactured weapons (Magic fang, etc). I couldn't find anything about manufactured weapons but it makes sense to consider them not manufactured (opinion!), unless you are a Monk or have a similar class feature.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aeryr View Post
    I do think it's a weapon, because I believe that you can take weapon focus (unarmed strike) (can't you?)
    You can take Weapons focus (Ray), it applies to Scorching Ray, Searing Ray, etc and those are spells

    TL;DR Not a Natural or Manufactured weapons but something seperate, unless otherwise noted (monk) or for spells (usually as a Natural weapon only)

    I hope that helped

    Q133
    Can an Artificer take Arcane Thesis (he doesn't cast arcane spells but maaaaany blastificer builds use it anyway )?

    Q133-2
    If above is yes, can you apply it to Metamagic Feats during the creation of wands of the Arcane Thesised spells (ex. Artificer Arcane Thesis (Scorching Ray), apply Searing Spell for free, Split Ray and Empower to make it a lvl 4 Spell, put that in a wand)
    Last edited by RoyVG; 2012-06-02 at 09:11 AM.
    Homebrew:
    The inFAMOUS Conduit base class. Wow I actually finished it...
    The Darksiders base class, based on the videogame with the same name.

    Avatar by Dirtytabs, thanks a bunch

  15. - Top - End - #225
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Sunnydale

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXI

    A 133 No.
    Benefit: Choose one arcane spell that you can cast to be your thesis spell.
    Their magic is neither arcane nor divine, so an Artificer will receive no benefit from Arcane Thesis.

  16. - Top - End - #226
    Banned
     
    willpell's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXI

    Q134
    Given that they cost the same amount and give the same bonus to AC, but one counts as armor and thus doesn't help versus touch attacks, and that one also occupies a more useful magic item slot (in general, there may be exceptions but just the Periapt of Wisdom alone suggests you're more likely at low levels to have the throat slot tied up) which you only have one of, is there ever any reason to buy an Amulet of Natural Armor if you instead have the option of buying a Ring of Protection?

    Sacrificing an 8th level slot for a 2nd and 3rd level slot does not sound like a good deal to me.
    In theory quantity might matter over quality. In practice probably not so much, but hey, if you really want to be able to cast large numbers of Barkskins and Longstriders and such, or you just want 1d4+1 x64 minor minions to carpet the battlefield like so many tribbles, it's possible.
    Last edited by willpell; 2012-06-02 at 09:58 AM.

  17. - Top - End - #227
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Sunnydale

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXI

    A 134

    This isn't exactly a simple RAW question. However, any character lacking fingers can benefit from a Throat slot item but not a Ring.

  18. - Top - End - #228
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2012

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXI

    Also there is the rule in MIC for adding generic Enhancements (such as Stat Bonuses) to magic items, so that you do not pay the 50% surcharge.

  19. - Top - End - #229
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    rweird's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Where i'm not, not.

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXI

    Q 135

    Can you sneak attack with the splash damage of a splash weapon? If so, does the target hit by the splash need to be denied Dex bonus to be sneak attacked? One of my players claims that if you throw alchemists fire, and you hit a square, everyone hit by the splash is denied there Dex because they don't get there Dex bonus to resist the attack, though it wasn't targeting them.
    Last edited by rweird; 2012-06-02 at 12:31 PM.
    Thank you to SubLimePie for my wonderful kobold cleric/wizard avatar!

  20. - Top - End - #230
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    ElfRangerGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Imagination Land
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXI

    A 135 No.

    Nothing in the description of alchemist's fire or other splash weapons says anything about people in the splash radius being denied their Dexterity bonus to AC. In fact, AC is completely irrelevant to the splash damage.

    Additionally, nothing in the description of Sneak Attack enables its use with area effects. According to the rules, Sneak Attack only ever applies when the Rogue attacks (specifically, qualifying melee attacks and ranged attacks within 30 feet). Only the initial throw of the alchemist's fire uses an attack roll; the splash damage is automatic against anything standing in the area.

    Bottom line: If you target a square instead of a person, then all you will get is the automatic splash damage since you are not directly attacking anybody.

    Finally, I'll back myself up with a little common sense. Sneak Attack is a form of precision damage. It's pretty hard to imagine splashing a flammable substance across a 5-foot radius with any sort of precision.
    Last edited by KillianHawkeye; 2012-06-02 at 01:16 PM.
    "Nothing you can't spell will ever work." - Will Rogers

    "What you must learn is that these rules are no different than the rules of a computer system. Some of them can be bent. Others can be broken." - Morpheus, The Matrix

    Quote Originally Posted by Krellen View Post
    Remember, Evil isn't "selfish". It's Evil. "Look out for number one" is a Neutral attitude. Evil looks out for number one while crushing number two.

  21. - Top - End - #231
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2012

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXI

    Q 136 a

    Is the effect of the glamered property a Glamer or is it actually a form of Polymorph. The name and requirements imply the former but "Upon command, the armor changes shape and form to assume the appearance of a normal set of clothing." pretty much proves the latter

    Q 136 b

    Am I reading this right? By RAW the property can only change the color of the suit of armor if the old color would interfere with the "appearance of a normal set of clothing"?

    Q 136 c

    Can such an armor assume only one alternate appearance?

  22. - Top - End - #232
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    mattie_p's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    <<Undetected>>
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXI

    A 136 It is an illusion (glamer).

    The pre-requisite for making this enchantment is disguise self, an illusion(glamer) and the aura is of illusion. Flavor text notwithstanding, it is an illusion, particularly as it retains its weight. Polymorphed armor would not retain weight, nor even its properties, as it (Polymorph) is based on alter self, which requires the subject to gain the physical qualities of the form assumed.

    b) The property makes no reference to color, other than a mention of "appearance."

    c) I'd have to say yes, as the property states it assumes the "appearance of a normal set of clothing."
    Last edited by mattie_p; 2012-06-03 at 02:46 AM.
    Chairman of Zinc Saucier. Currently judging made from scratch Flayerspawn Psychics. It is just like Iron Chef but comes with double the prize money.
    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    So now you're claiming that spellcasting "lacks a clear, supernatural element?" Being supernatural is literally the only point of magic.
    Spoiler
    Show
    Characters:
    Grath - Southern Comfort Campaign
    Prizes:
    Eglath - 2nd Place Iron Chef XXXII


    Avatar by Derjuin, sing her praises to Elysium. Adopt an Avatar today.

  23. - Top - End - #233
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2012

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXI

    Quote Originally Posted by mattie_p View Post
    A 136 It is an illusion (glamer).

    The pre-requisite for making this enchantment is disguise self, an illusion(glamer) and the aura is of illusion. Flavor text notwithstanding, it is an illusion, particularly as it retains its weight. Polymorphed armor would not retain weight, nor even its properties, as it (Polymorph) is based on alter self, which requires the subject to gain the physical qualities of the form assumed.
    The aura of illusion probably explains it.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattie_p View Post
    c) I'd have to say yes, as the property states it assumes the "appearance of a normal set of clothing."
    "A set of clothing" does not mean "the same set of clothing every time you change".

  24. - Top - End - #234
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Sunnydale

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXI

    Quote Originally Posted by Andezzar View Post
    "A set of clothing" does not mean "the same set of clothing every time you change".
    Absent special language such as "a random set of clothing", that's exactly what the singular article means. mattie_p's answer is correct.

  25. - Top - End - #235
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Balmas's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    A secret base
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXI

    Answered wrong question. Please delete.
    Last edited by Balmas; 2012-06-03 at 04:18 AM.
    The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it. ~ Terry Pratchett

    People don't *live* on the Disc anymore than, in less hand-crafted parts of the multiverse, they live on balls. Oh, planets may be the place where their body eats its tea, but they *live* elsewhere, in worlds of their own which orbit very handily around the center of their heads. ~Terry Pratchett again

  26. - Top - End - #236
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2012

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXI

    Quote Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post
    Absent special language such as "a random set of clothing", that's exactly what the singular article means. mattie_p's answer is correct.
    No. It makes no mention of a specific set of clothing nor does it in any way imply that the set of clothing has to remain the same between changes.

    Step 1: change armor to a set of clothing.
    Step 2: change armor back
    Step 3: change armor into a different set of clothing.

    Both changes satisfy the condition of being "a set of clothing". If only one appearance could be assumed, the wording would have to be something like "Upon command, the armor changes shape and form to assume the appearance of one normal set of clothing, chosen at the time of the enchantment.

    Another example:
    I ask you: "Hand, me a pen, please."
    You give me your favorite blue pen.
    Later I ask you again:
    "Give me a pen, please"
    Nothing in my wording implies that giving me a different pen would be somehow wrong.

    Q 137

    What is the DC to disbelieve the glamer on a suit of glamered armor?

  27. - Top - End - #237
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Sunnydale

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXI

    Quote Originally Posted by Andezzar View Post
    Step 1: change armor to a set of clothing.
    Step 2: change armor back
    Step 3: change armor into a different set of clothing.

    Both changes satisfy the condition of being "a set of clothing".
    "Different" is your own addition, something not specified in the rules. As already stated, absent such special language as "different" or "random", the singular article indicates just one set of normal clothing as per mattie_p's answer. Beyond not having any language which would allow more than a single set of clothing, the armor property of course lacks any mechanism whereby the user could make a selection if more than one set of clothing were possible. Positing a difference in clothing from one activation to another is not backed up by the rules. Magic in D&D performs as written, and never gains capabilities beyond those specified in the RAW.

    A 137 11.

    If you interact with (touch) the glamered armor, the DC is given by the standard formula: 10 + spell level + minimum required ability bonus.
    Last edited by Curmudgeon; 2012-06-03 at 05:53 AM.

  28. - Top - End - #238
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2012

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXI

    Quote Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post
    "Different" is your own addition, something not specified in the rules. As already stated, absent such special language as "different" or "random", the singular article indicates just one set of normal clothing as per mattie_p's answer.
    Being the same is not stated in the rules either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post
    Beyond not having any language which would allow more than a single set of clothing, the armor property of course lacks any mechanism whereby the user could make a selection if more than one set of clothing were possible. Positing a difference in clothing from one activation to another is not backed up by the rules. Magic in D&D performs as written, and never gains capabilities beyond those specified in the RAW.
    The magic item also lacks a mechanism to determine the look of the single set of clothing nor does it specify that this appearance is chosen at the time of enchanting the armor. So the item would either not work or would change into a "set of clothing" that has no properties such as shape, color, texture etc. Which defies the description of normal set of clothing.

  29. - Top - End - #239
    Banned
     
    willpell's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXI

    Q138
    The Tenebrous Apostate prestige class requires you to worship Tenebrous as a god, and it requires you to be able to turn/rebuke undead. As far as I'm aware, there is no way to be Neutral with respect to Good and Evil and get Turn/Rebuke Undead other than being a cleric. If you're a cleric, and you worship Tenebrous as a god, I would assume you have to be a cleric of Tenebrous. Tenebrous is Neutral Evil (despite having once been a Chaotic Evil demon), according to his description in Tome of Magic. Clerics must be within one alignment step of their god, and True Neutral is not a valid option; thusly clerics of a Neutral Evil deity are always Evil themselves. Given all this, even though the PrC's entry requirements are listed as "Any nongood", I see no way to qualify for the class without being Evil. (The question would then be "Have I missed anything?")
    Last edited by willpell; 2012-06-03 at 06:23 AM.

  30. - Top - End - #240
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    mattie_p's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    <<Undetected>>
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXI

    Regarding the preceding discussion. There are at least two items that allow you to alter your/its appearance at will that are also based on the disguise self spell. One is the hat of disguise, the other is the Robe of Blending.

    The hat of disguise explicitly grants use of the spell, and the robe of blending goes so far as to say "adopt the appearance of another creature" at will. The lack of such language indicates that my original answer was correct. That said, it is not an unreasonable house rule, but that is outside the scope of RAW and this thread.
    Chairman of Zinc Saucier. Currently judging made from scratch Flayerspawn Psychics. It is just like Iron Chef but comes with double the prize money.
    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    So now you're claiming that spellcasting "lacks a clear, supernatural element?" Being supernatural is literally the only point of magic.
    Spoiler
    Show
    Characters:
    Grath - Southern Comfort Campaign
    Prizes:
    Eglath - 2nd Place Iron Chef XXXII


    Avatar by Derjuin, sing her praises to Elysium. Adopt an Avatar today.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •