Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXII

[Nettlekid]

Q664
When Resurrection says that you come back at full hit points and with no loss of prepared spells, does that mean that you regain spent spells from that day, or you just have all the ones you had yet to spend?

[Semada]

Q665
How do the turning feats, such as Empower Turning and Exalted Turning, interact with the variant turning rules from the Complete Divine "Destruction of the Undead"? Does an ECL 14 cleric using Empower Turning actually do 21d6 damage when he uses this variant? Or do these feats not apply to the variant turning rules?

[Curmudgeon]

A 664

"No loss of prepared spells" means you don't lose anything you had prepared but not yet cast. It doesn't give you spells you've already cast. Note that losing a character level will alter the number of spells available to cast at higher spell levels, and you may need to adjust your prepared spells accordingly.

[Sith_Happens]

Q 664

If I use an AoO to perform a combat maneuver for which I don't have the "Improved X" feat, do I provoke an AoO from my target?

[Pickford]

A 664

In brief, Yes. But...it does require them to threaten you (if you attack with a reach weapon, beyond their threat range, no). Also if they've used up their AoO for the round, it doesn't matter.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041102a

When an Attack of Opportunity Provokes an Attack of Opportunity

In some cases, you can make an attack of opportunity that provokes an attack of opportunity against you. For example, a foe runs past you, leaving a square you threaten and provoking an attack of opportunity from you. If you choose to disarm your foe, you'll provoke an opportunity from that foe (unless you're out of the foe's reach).

Attack of Opportunity Chains: If both you and your foe have multiple attacks of opportunity, the two of you could set up a whole chain of attacks of opportunity. For example, you try to disarm, provoking an attack of opportunity. Your foe responds by attempting to disarm you, and you respond with another disarm attempt.

When this situation occurs, simply allow both foes to keep going with attacks of opportunity until one of them either runs out of attacks of opportunity or chooses not to make any more. Keep track of all the attacks of opportunity each combatant provokes and makes. Resolve the final attack of opportunity in the chain first, and then work forward along the chain until you've resolved all of them or until one opponent's attack of opportunity foils the other's action.

[Pickford]

Re: A 655 [correction]
The rules say otherwise. Unarmed strikes are always natural weapons. For Monks they're also treated as if they were manufactured weapons.

Re: A 655 [correction]

Originally Posted by Pickford

None. The unarmed strike of a non-monk is not a natural weapon. As such, the Necklace of Natural Attacks provides no benefit.

Unarmed strikes do not qualify as natural weapons (there is an exception for the monk unarmed strike).

The rules say otherwise. Unarmed strikes are always natural weapons. For Monks they're also treated as if they were manufactured weapons.

Originally Posted by Align Weapon

You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike.

Originally Posted by Magic Weapon

You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang).

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.)

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) feat.

The RAW citations are clear: unarmed strikes are natural weapons. They have special rules, but really, it's obvious: what blacksmith or factory produces your unarmed strikes? They're not manufactured.

Ah, I see where the citations you give could lead someone to believe that unarmed strikes and natural weapons are the same thing.

However this is akin to the "All men are mortal; Socrates is mortal; All men are socrates" misconception.

All unarmed strikes are unarmed attacks, and all natural weapons are unarmed attacks, but not all unarmed weapons are natural weapons.

The reason this is true is because Natural weapons and Unarmed Strikes operate under two distinct and mutually exclusive sets of rules:

A) Natural Weapons:
1) Always considered to be weapons (entity is "armed" and thus threatens) and so does not provoke an attack of opportunity.
2) Natural weapons cannot be used as an iterative attack.
3) Deals lethal damage.
4) When a creature has multiple natural weapons one is it's designated primary and uses the full strength bonus (if only one use 1-1/2) while the others are secondary and use 1/2 and each secondary attack has a -5 penalty no matter how many there are.
5) Defined Types which deal different types of damage (similar to melee weapons): Bite, Claw or Talon, Gore, Slap or Slam, Sting, Tentacle. (defined in PHB 310: "Natural weapons include teeth, claws, horns, tails, and other apendages.")
6) Are considered "Armed" unarmed attacks.

B) Unarmed Strikes (without feats/special exceptions from class features)
1) Always considered unarmed (does not threaten) and provokes an attack of opportunity from a target.
2) Can be used in an iterative attack.
3) Deals nonlethal damage.
4) Considered a light weapon for purposes of two-weapon penalties and so on.
5) Defined (PHB 314: a character attacking without weapons)
6) Are considered unarmed attacks.

The sole 'shared trait' is that both are considered unarmed attacks (which is logical), however Natural weapons are ....naturally...treated as if they are really weapons.

Wotc does not treat them as the same, nor do they substitute for each other.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070403a

Unarmed Strikes and Natural Weaponry

Before we move on, it's worth pointing out that a character making an unarmed attack, even with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, does not have natural weapons. Nor is a natural weapon a substitute for the Improved Unarmed Strike feat.

3.5 FAQ on Natural Weapons

The text for level adjustments on page 11 of SS says that
if the monster gains multiple attacks in a single round
before a fighter of equal level, or if the attacks deal more
damage than a one-handed martial weapon, then this is a
level adjustment of at least +1. By “multiple attacks,” do
you mean two claws, or two claws and a bite, such as the
Multiattack feat requires? Say a monster has two claws,
each dealing 1d4 points of damage. Would that still be a +0
level adjustment, since the two claws do not exceed the
damage a longsword can deal?
Having more than one natural attack gets you a +1 level
adjustment (no matter how much damage those natural
weapons can deal) if a fighter of equivalent level does not have
as many attacks. If you have one natural weapon that deals
more damage than you could deal with a one-handed simple or
martial weapon (more than 1d8 for a Medium creature), you
also have a level adjustment of at least +1.

Is a warforged considered to be wearing gauntlets, and
therefore always armed?
A warforged always threatens squares within its reach, but
not because it’s considered to be wearing gauntlets. A
warforged has a natural slam attack, and thus always threatens
squares within its reach (just like any other creature with a
natural attack). These are slam attacks, however, not gauntlet
attacks.

Does a warforged monk deal extra damage with his
unarmed strikes?
No. Even though a warforged has a slam attack, that’s a
particular kind of natural weapon, not simply a replacement for
your unarmed strike damage. A warforged monk deals the
same damage with his unarmed strikes as any other monk of his
level.

If a druid takes the shapeshift alternative class feature
in PHB II, does he get additional attacks as his BAB goes
up?
No. A high base attack bonus doesn’t grant extra natural
weapon attacks, so an 8th-level druid shapeshifted into a wolf
would still only get one bite attack.

Exactly how often can a monk attack with a single
manufactured weapon when using the flurry of blows
ability? For example, if I have a +1 alchemical silver dagger,
and I’m allowed three attacks in a flurry, how many of
those attacks can be dagger attacks? What if I have two
daggers? How about with natural weaponry, such as a claw
or bite? For example, if I have a vampire monk, can I
flurry with a slam attack and drain energy multiple times
from one living foe? If natural weaponry doesn’t work with
a flurry, why not?
You can’t use a dagger with a flurry of blows at all. When
you use the flurry ability, you must attack with either unarmed
strikes or with special monk weapons. Only six of the latter are
included in the PH (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken,
and siangham). A natural weapon (any natural weapon) is
neither an unarmed strike nor a special monk weapon, so you
can’t use it along with a flurry.
If you have one (or two) special monk weapons, you can
freely substitute attacks with those weapons with unarmed
attacks in the flurry (see the flurry of blows description on page
46 of the PH). If you’re allowed three attacks in a flurry, and
you have a +1 alchemical silver sai (or other special monk
weapon), you could use the sai up to three times in the flurry.
The examples given in the flurry of blows entry don’t make
that completely clear because they don’t cover all the
combinations of weapon attacks and unarmed strikes that are
possible.
If you have two special monk weapons to use, you can use
either or both of them in the flurry. For example, if you’re
entitled to three attacks using flurry of blows, and you’re armed
with a +1 alchemical silver sai and a cold iron sai, you can
make three attacks with one sai and no attacks with the other,
two attacks with one sai and one attack with the other, one
attack with each sai and one unarmed attack, or any other
combination of three attacks. Note that having a sai in each
hand won’t prevent a monk from making unarmed attacks. A
monk with her hands full can still make her full complement of
unarmed strikes (see the unarmed strike entry on page 41 of the
PH).
It might seem a tad strange that you cannot use a natural
weapon, such as a slam or a claw when you can use a monk
weapon such as a sai or a kama. However, natural weaponry
isn’t as handy as manufactured weaponry. You never get extra
attacks from a high base attack bonus with natural weaponry,
and the monk’s flurry ability is another way to get extra attacks
from your base attack bonus. Please note that a vampire monk
using its unarmed strike ability is not using its slam attack and
cannot drain energy.

If a creature with multiple natural attacks (such as the
standard two claws and a bite array) takes levels of monk,
how do flurry of blows and its natural attack progression
interact?
D&D FAQ v.3.5 21 Update Version: 6/30/08
You can’t use a natural weapon (claw, bite, or whatever) as
part of a flurry of blows—only unarmed strikes and special
monk weapons can be used in a flurry of blows.
If a creature can use one of its natural weapons as a
secondary attack in conjunction with manufactured weapon
attacks, it can do the same with that natural weapon in
conjunction with a flurry of blows. Any penalty assessed on
attacks by the flurry of blows would also apply to the natural
weapon attack.
For example, a typical lizardfolk can attack with a club and
its bite as part of a full attack. Normally, a creature would take
a –5 penalty on an attack roll made with a secondary weapon,
but since the lizardfolk has Multiattack, the penalty on the
attack roll is reduced to –2 and adds only half the lizardfolk’s
Strength bonus on the damage roll.
If it were a 1st-level monk, it could make a flurry of blows
(using unarmed strikes, not claw attacks), then add a bite attack
as a secondary attack. Each unarmed strike would have a –2
penalty (from flurry of blows), and the bite attack would have a
–4 penalty (–2 from flurry of blows and –2 from being a
secondary weapon, reduced from –5 by Multiattack).

Can a monk get her unarmed strike enhanced as a
magic weapon?
No. Even a magic gauntlet or spiked gauntlet isn’t the ideal
answer, since these aren’t listed as special monk weapons (and
therefore aren’t as versatile as unarmed strikes).
The amulet of mighty fists (DMG 246) grants the wearer an
enhancement bonus on unarmed and natural weapon attacks,
which would include the monk’s unarmed strike.

Note, this would not require differentiation if unarmed strikes 'were' natural weapons.

How would a monk’s unarmed damage be modified by
natural attacks, or vice versa?
A monk’s natural weapons (claws, bite, and so on) don’t
have any effect on the damage dealt by her unarmed strikes,
nor does a character’s unarmed strike damage have any effect
on her natural weapon attacks. A razorclaw shifter monk could
deal either claw damage with a claw attack or unarmed strike
damage with an unarmed strike, but couldn’t combine the two.

If a creature has 0 reach, it must enter an enemy’s
square to attack that enemy, correct? If the creature enters
the enemy’s square, does it now threaten the enemy? Is it
possible for the creature to flank the enemy? If so, where
would an ally need to be positioned to flank the enemy?
If you’re armed and you’re in a position to make a melee
attack against a foe, you threaten that foe (see Threatened
Squares under the Attacks of Opportunity section in Chapter 8
of the PH). To be armed you must wield a weapon or have
natural weaponry. If your reach is 0, you can threaten foes in
the same square with you only.

Any maneuver that involves an attack can be used while
grappling, as long as it’s made with an unarmed strike, natural
weapon, or light weapon against another character you are
grappling (PHB 156).

As such, unless the character is a creature with natural attacks or monk whose unarmed strikes are 'treated' (i.e. we pretend they are) as natural weapons for the purposes of spell enhancements and improvements, the necklace of natural attacks which improves a specific number of natural weapons (note the plural, you don't technically have plural unarmed strikes, it's one 'thing' even though it covers an attack made by any part of the character's body) can confer no benefit.

Alternatively, you could get one if you were someone with polymorphing ability to improve any natural attacks of the other shapes. But regular humanoid fists? Nope.

[Flame of Anor]

Q663

The Kensai class has the following feature:



My question is this, are there any reflex saves that AREN'T based on an area of effect spell? I'm having trouble finding examples...

Is it the spell keyword that's important? For my purposes magic/psionic transparency rules are in effect, but if they weren't would this specifically NOT work on psionic area of effect powers? And are there some common mundane area of effect abilities that wouldn't be affected?

A663

There are various Reflex saves that are not related to AoE spells. Saves to dodge traps spring to mind.

Since psionic powers are not spells, the kensai power (applying specifically to spells) would have no effect. Of course, allowing it to apply to powers is a reasonable houserule.

[Curmudgeon]

Re: A 655 [correction]

All unarmed strikes are unarmed attacks, and all natural weapons are unarmed attacks, but not all unarmed weapons are natural weapons.

On the contrary, all unarmed attacks are natural weapon attacks. Natural weapons is the superset, including claws, fangs, and unarmed strikes. That's borne out by the several citations previously given (which I won't repeat). Do note, though, that the Fanged Ring grants Improved Natural Attack (unarmed strike). The requirement for this feat is a natural attack, and this is an example showing an unarmed strike used to meet that qualification.

Wotc does not treat them as the same, nor do they substitute for each other.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070403a

3.5 FAQ on Natural Weapons ...

Please also note that neither the "Rules of the Game" articles nor FAQ answers are backed up by actual rules as written; those are just the opinions of people on the Wizards of the Coast payroll. Those two citations were both written by Skip Williams. You should expect consistency from a single author — even if that's a consistent misunderstanding on Skip's part.

Adding the Improved Natural Attack link may help clarify the answer to the question. I don't have anything further to contribute here, but feel free to create a new thread if you feel you've been misunderstood somehow.

[thethird]

Q 665 What is the playable (has a LA) creature with lower ECL and regeneration?

Q 665b Is there any template that gives regeneration?

[Andezzar]

A 665b

Since neither fiend folio nor the 3.5 update give the Wendigo LA:-, but no LA entry at all, it should be usable for PCs as the template can be added to "any animal, giant, humanoid, magical beast, or monstrous humanoid (referred
to hereafter as the base creature), although the vast majority of wendigo were once animals or humanoids.
[...]
It otherwise uses all of the base creature’s statistics and special abilities except as noted below."

I'm pretty sure this is a mistake but those are the rules. Someone please find proof that I am mistaken.

Q 666

Is the picture on p. 209 of Fiend Folio one of a specific type of fiend?

[GilesTheCleric]

Q667: Are any evo/conj/necro spells allowed to be chosen for the SLAs of the Spellstitched template (MM2 215), or only spells from the wizard/sorcerer list? Must they only be arcane spells? The text doesn't seem to say one way or the other. I'm compiling a list of spells, and want to know if I can use Divine Power (among other things) on my spellstitched.

Q667.1: Assuming 667.0 is true, then if the spells are gained at different levels for different classes, can I use the lowest level available?

"All spells must be selected must be from the schools of Conjuration, Evocation, or Necromancy. These spells are used as if the spells were cast by a sorcerer of the same level as the number of Hit Dice the spellstitched creature possess." (MM2 215)

[Khedrac]

"All spells must be selected must be from the schools of Conjuration, Evocation, or Necromancy. These spells are used as if the spells were cast by a sorcerer of the same level as the number of Hit Dice the spellstitched creature possess." (MM2 215)

A667 given the text you have quoted above the spells are cast as if by a sorcerer. So if the spell is not a sorcerer spell the spell will fail; also the spell has to be at the correct level for a sorcerer to cast it or it will again fail.

[Sith_Happens]

A 664

In brief, Yes. But...it does require them to threaten you (if you attack with a reach weapon, beyond their threat range, no). Also if they've used up their AoO for the round, it doesn't matter.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041102a

Well, my next question was going to be "Does that means two characters with Combat Reflexes could 'stack' a half-dozen AoO's against each other M:TG-style?" but your quote already answers "Yes" to that. Which is hilarious and I need to make that happen some time.

[GilesTheCleric]

A667 given the text you have quoted above the spells are cast as if by a sorcerer. So if the spell is not a sorcerer spell the spell will fail; also the spell has to be at the correct level for a sorcerer to cast it or it will again fail.

A667 question:I could see the first requirement that you stated as possibly being true, but I doubt the second one: "...sometimes the given caster level is lower than the level a spellcasting character would need to cast the spell of the same name." (SRD, on SLAs). Both this and the wording in MM2 makes me question what spells I can really cast.

I'm uncertain about the first requirement that you stated because any class is able to obtain and cast spells that aren't usually on their lists (eg. through the Initiate feats from Magic of Faerun), and the text doesn't say that the spells are necessarily from the sorcerer list, only that they are cast as a sorcerer would (what this actually means, I'm not certain on either - perhaps it means arcane, and without a spellbook?).

[Curmudgeon]

Re: A 665b

Since neither fiend folio nor the 3.5 update give the Wendigo LA:-, but no LA entry at all, it should be usable for PCs ...

I'm pretty sure this is a mistake but those are the rules. Someone please find proof that I am mistaken.

Proof that you are indeed mistaken, from a couple of sources. The introduction to Monster Manual (page 6):

Monsters that can be used as player characters have level adjustments and other information to expedite such play, and we’ve reworked all monsters so that they gain feats and skills the same way that player characters do.

Monster Manual III used somewhat different terminology (on page 7):

Level Adjustment
This line is included in the entries of creatures suitable for use as player characters or as cohorts (usually creatures with Intelligence scores of at least 3 and possessing opposable thumbs).

So the rule is that a Level Adjustment entry not present is the same as "Level Adjustment: —". A level adjustment entry with a number is a requirement to use that creature as a PC.

[thethird]

Q 665b (sorta)

I agree with Curmudgeon; although... in the case of the wendingo it gives an example human with 4 class levels of sorcerer and LA +4. Could it be argued that thus the LA of wendingo is +4?

[Pickford]

Well, my next question was going to be "Does that means two characters with Combat Reflexes could 'stack' a half-dozen AoO's against each other M:TG-style?" but your quote already answers "Yes" to that. Which is hilarious and I need to make that happen some time.

This is partially true. Many of the maneuvers fail if someone hits with the AoO (or cease to be valid) so in some chains only the last hit would matter.

i.e. You each have 5 and continue to chain disarm attempts. If the last person to get a disarm AoO succeeds, the person they disarm likely would no longer be threatening (unless they have either Improved Unarmed Strike 'or' Natural Weapons (which threaten, though unarmed strikes do not, hence the IUS requirement) or a second weapon if they were TWF and thus the chain would end there. As neither of you actually 'took' the other AoO you would retain them.

[Pickford]

Re: A 655 [correction]
On the contrary, all unarmed attacks are natural weapon attacks. Natural weapons is the superset, including claws, fangs, and unarmed strikes. That's borne out by the several citations previously given (which I won't repeat). Do note, though, that the Fanged Ring grants Improved Natural Attack (unarmed strike). The requirement for this feat is a natural attack, and this is an example showing an unarmed strike used to meet that qualification.

Please also note that neither the "Rules of the Game" articles nor FAQ answers are backed up by actual rules as written; those are just the opinions of people on the Wizards of the Coast payroll. Those two citations were both written by Skip Williams. You should expect consistency from a single author — even if that's a consistent misunderstanding on Skip's part.

Adding the Improved Natural Attack link may help clarify the answer to the question. I don't have anything further to contribute here, but feel free to create a new thread if you feel you've been misunderstood somehow.

None of which contradicts the inherent flaw in your premise:

Natural Weapons are not iterative and do not provoke an Attack of Opportunity. Unarmed Strikes 'do'. They are both types of unarmed attacks, but natural weapons are not, by definition, unarmed strikes. (strikes vs. attacks, subtle but important.)

Edit: Incidentally, most of the things you dismissed are directly referencing the glossary, so they are RAW.

natural weapon
Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature. A creature making a melee attack with a natural weapon is considered armed and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Likewise, it threatens any space it can reach.

unarmed strike
A successful blow, typically dealing nonlethal damage, from a character attacking without weapons. A monk can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike, but others deal nonlethal damage

Note: Unarmed strike is made without weapons and natural weapons are physical weapons. So unarmed strikes are made without natural weapons. QED.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Q 668

Can two augment crystals be mounted on a (non-spiked/razored) shield simultaneously if one is a shield (armor) crystal and the other is a weapon crystal?

[Mongrel]

Asked this earlier but didn't get an answer. Reposting:

Q662: In the Monster Manual for the Barghest entry (p.22) under "Combat," the first line is "Barghests can claw and bite, no matter what their form, and usually disdain weapons." This is directly contradicted on the same page under their "Change Shape" power, which states: "A barghest can assume the shape of a goblin or a wolf as a standard action. In goblin form, a barghest cannot use its natural weapons but can wield weapons and wear armor. In wolf form, a barghest loses its claw attacks but retains its bite attack."

Which is correct? Does anyone know? I'm especially curious as to which form it gets claw attacks in if it doesn't get them in all of them, since it says that it loses its claw attacks when it transforms to wolf form, but also that it cannot use natural weapons in goblin form. Overall very confusing monster manual entry...

[Pickford]

A662
After reading the entry online:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/barghest.htm

I would conclude in it's natural form it has the Primary Bite and Secondary Claw/Claw.

Change Shape (Su) ability of the Barghest would over-ride the default text, so when the Barghest changes into a Goblin they have no bite/claw natural weapons. (Similar to if you Shapechange into a dragon you would gain the natural weapons) When the Barghest changes shape into a wolf it is, for all intents and purposes, a wolf and thus only has bite.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/goblin.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/wolf.htm

So the general text would hold...but it doesn't matter because the Change Shape (Su) overrides it.

Edit: I agree with you that the entry seems pointless as I don't see a circumstance where the Barghest retains bite and claw but isn't in it's natural shape. This appears to hold true for the greater baghest entry as well where it is explicit that the Barghest loses natural weapon attacks as a goblinlike entity and loses claw attacks as a direwolf.

[Mongrel]

Q662A: So when does it have a claw attack then, never? 0.o

Another slippery rules question I ran into:

Q669: In Races of the Dragon, for the Spell Rehearsal feat (P.105), under the Refined Targeting, it says "To use this maneuver, you must cast a specific spell two or more times in succession, and the spell must be one that requires an attack roll to affect a target." This seems to imply that this feat works only if you cast the same spell more than once at the same target (which is how its other modes work). Later, it says "If you cast any spell that does not require an attack roll or take any other standard action, the refined targeting chain breaks and you must begin anew." This suggests that you only need to cast spells that require attack rolls to keep the chain going (the other two modes of the feat specify "If you cast any other spell or take any other standard action the refined targeting chain breaks and you must begin anew"). So am I correct in assuming that for the Refined Targeting mode of the feat, you need only cast spells with attack rolls (rays) successively rather than needing to cast the same spell successively as the other two modes imply? Or, perhaps, you need to cast the same spell twice to start the chain, but thereafter can use any spell with a ray attack or other form of attack roll?

[GilesTheCleric]

A668: "Each item can hold a single augment crystal, but an attached crystal can be swapped for another one at any time. Attaching an augment crystal to (or removing it from) an item requires a move action that doesn’t provoke attacks of opportu- nity. Effectively, each eligible item has a single “slot” that can be filled by any appropriate augment crystal." (MIC 221)

"When added to your shield, these spikes turn it into a martial piercing weapon..." (PHB 125)

"You could, in fact, build a shield that also acted as a magic weapon, but the cost of the enhancement bonus on attack rolls would need to be added into the cost of the shield and its enhancement bonus to AC." (DMG 217)

So although you can enchant the shield and the spikes separately, it seems like they count as one item, not as two items, which means it is only allowed one crystal.

Edit: by this logic, you could put two into a double weapon that separates (from AaEG, IIRC).

[Drackstin]

Q670: Can you use the bounce BAB from "Skillful weapon" enchantment for "power attack"?

[Pickford]

A662A: So when does it have a claw attack then, never? 0.o

In its natural form (bite and 2 claw secondary).

Q669: In Races of the Dragon, for the Spell Rehearsal feat (P.105), under the Refined Targeting, it says "To use this maneuver, you must cast a specific spell two or more times in succession, and the spell must be one that requires an attack roll to affect a target." This seems to imply that this feat works only if you cast the same spell more than once at the same target (which is how its other modes work). Later, it says "If you cast any spell that does not require an attack roll or take any other standard action, the refined targeting chain breaks and you must begin anew." This suggests that you only need to cast spells that require attack rolls to keep the chain going (the other two modes of the feat specify "If you cast any other spell or take any other standard action the refined targeting chain breaks and you must begin anew"). So am I correct in assuming that for the Refined Targeting mode of the feat, you need only cast spells with attack rolls (rays) successively rather than needing to cast the same spell successively as the other two modes imply? Or, perhaps, you need to cast the same spell twice to start the chain, but thereafter can use any spell with a ray attack or other form of attack roll?

A669
If you want to use the maneuver:
Cast a spell that requires an attack roll. Do that spell again. Then do the maneuver.

The clarifying text just means that 'any' spell (even if you cast a swift or immediate action spell that did not require an attack roll) or any standard (i.e. non move; free) action will break the chain.

You have to use the same spell, if you change spells or do basically anything else besides movement/free (non spell obviously) actions, you're breaking the chain.

[Khedrac]

A667 question:I could see the first requirement that you stated as possibly being true, but I doubt the second one: "...sometimes the given caster level is lower than the level a spellcasting character would need to cast the spell of the same name." (SRD, on SLAs). Both this and the wording in MM2 makes me question what spells I can really cast.

I'm uncertain about the first requirement that you stated because any class is able to obtain and cast spells that aren't usually on their lists (eg. through the Initiate feats from Magic of Faerun), and the text doesn't say that the spells are necessarily from the sorcerer list, only that they are cast as a sorcerer would (what this actually means, I'm not certain on either - perhaps it means arcane, and without a spellbook?).

That thread is not the place for a long discussion - best moved to a new thread especially as it proves that it is not "simple".

A DM can always rule otherwise, but the simplest interpretation is that it can only be "a sorcerer spell", which is not the same thing as "a non-sorcerer spell turned into a sorcerer spell by the use of a feat" - which (by this reading) means it has to be a spell on the sorcerer spell list.

As for spell level and casting level - it is quite easy for an actual sorcerer to be casting a spell at a caster level below the normal minimum to cast it (negative levels, wild mage etc).
This is very different to casting a spell at the wrong level - a sorcerer cannot cast Resist Energy (for example) as a 1st level spell just because a ranger can - it has to be a 2nd level spell for the sorcerer spell list.

[Curmudgeon]

(Drackstin's question, renumbered) A 670 No.

Benefit: On your action, before making attack rolls for a round, you may choose to subtract a number from all melee attack rolls and add the same number to all melee damage rolls.

In addition, the wielder's base attack bonus improves to a minimum of 3/4 his level (as a cleric of the same character level) when he attacks with a skillful weapon, though he gains no such bonus with any other weapon, even if a skillful weapon is wielded at the same time.

Skillful only provides the BAB boost when you attack with the weapon. Power Attack requires you to shift points from attack to damage before attacking, at which point skillful is not active.

[Kred]

Q671

If you are able to take only a standard action or a move action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed). You can’t use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action or move action on your turn.

2 foes and me. Can i hit 1 foe and charge to another (during 1 round)?

[Curmudgeon]

A 671 No.

In your scenario you aren't restricted to taking only a standard action or move action on your turn. You're confusing this with only having a standard action or move action left on your turn. Because you would have already used a standard action and still had a move action left, your turn would be of the normal, unrestricted sort.

[Pickford]

Q700: Can you use the bounce BAB from "Skillful weapon" enchantment for "power attack"?

A700
"In addition, the wielder's base attaack bonus improves to a minimum of 3/4 his level (as a cleric of the same character level) when he attacks with a skillful weapon, though he gains no such bonus with any other weapon, even if a skillful weapon is wielded at the same time."

So, only someone with solely the 'Poor' BAB progression could benefit from this part of the enchantment.

Some further restrictions:
1) Power Attack requires you to take the penalty on all attack rolls, so you could only power attack with the skillful weapon in question if it actually improved your BAB.
2) Power attack does not increase damage for light weapons (except unarmed strikes and natural weapons) but the penalty still applies. So if it's a light weapon using skillful weapon power attack is a bad idea.

Otherwise there appears to be nothing preventing you from having a Greatsword skillful weapon as a mage who power attacks as if they were a cleric's BAB.

Edit:

Skillful only provides the BAB boost when you attack with the weapon. Power Attack requires you to shift points from attack to damage before attacking, at which point skillful is not active.

Good point.