Simple RAW Thread for 3.5 #32: More Seasons than the Simpsons

[bean illus]

Q 250 Does "having" a familiar violate VoP? (Does having a familiar count as "owning" an item?

[Khedrac]

A 250 No, having a familiar does not usually violate Vow of Poverty. An Item Familiar probably does though.

However, the Sacred Vows are about the spirit of the law not the letter, hence tricks like getting your familiar to own an item violate them. Indeed, even seriously considering using a trick to get round a vow breaks the basic Sacred Vow and your character loses all exalted benefits.

So, asking the question as to whether you can have a familiar - good question, worrying about the ramifications of your vow ahead of time.
Wondering if the familiar can own an item - goodbye vow.

[Keral]

#Q251

Unnatural Aura (Su)
Animals, whether wild or domesticated, can sense the unnatural presence of a spectre at a distance of 30 feet. They do not willingly approach nearer than that and panic if forced to do so; they remain panicked as long as they are within that range.

Would this include a druid's animal companion with the double attack trick? And if so, is there a way to have the animal attack/behave normally?


#Q252

What is the caster level of a blackguard? It doesn't say, is it like a paladin: half his blackguard class level?

[Zombimode]

A252

A blackguard's base caster level equals it's class level. This is the normal case. Only deviations need to be spelled out.

[Andezzar]

A 249

That depends on the feat. As long as the feat requires the race human or the human subtype (or does not specify which) you are good because none of these are lost. Only if the feat required humanoid type and human subtype, a half-dragon would no longer qualify. I'm not aware of a feat with requirements of the latter kind.

Q 253

Where is it stated that humans are humanoids with the human subtype?

[Troacctid]

Q 250 Does "having" a familiar violate VoP? (Does having a familiar count as "owning" an item?

A familiar is a creature, not an item, although items are required to summon one.

#Q251

Would this include a druid's animal companion with the double attack trick? And if so, is there a way to have the animal attack/behave normally?

a. Yes.
b. Try making it immune to fear. This will prevent it from becoming panicked. Alternately, you could use an antimagic field.

Q 253

Where is it stated that humans are humanoids with the human subtype?

While the Monster Manual has no entry for humans, it's mentioned offhand in several places that they are humanoids and/or have the human subtype. You can also see it in the statblock of any human NPC.

[bean illus]

Clarification? And i think i will invite folks to join a thread on this in the main forum (since i have a few tangential questions also).

Q 246 Can an intelligent familiar own an item?

Yes.

Q 247 Would an intelligent familiar owning items violate VoP?

Owning any items other than the whitelisted ones violates a Vow of Poverty.

Citation for how this addresses familiars 'owning' or 'using'?

Q 250 Does "having" a familiar violate VoP? (Does having a familiar count as "owning" an item?

A familiar is a creature, not an item, although items are required to summon one.

A 250 No, having a familiar does not usually violate Vow of Poverty. An Item Familiar probably does though.

However, the Sacred Vows are about the spirit of the law not the letter, hence tricks like getting your familiar to own an item violate them. Indeed, even seriously considering using a trick to get round a vow breaks the basic Sacred Vow and your character loses all exalted benefits.

So, asking the question as to whether you can have a familiar - good question, worrying about the ramifications of your vow ahead of time.
Wondering if the familiar can own an item - goodbye vow.

But as long as i continue to philosophize that material possession are what got us into this trouble in the first place, isn't my intelligent familiar (admittedly the DM) allowed to have philosophical disagreements with me?

VoP"The majority of her share of party treasure "
Q; What is a majority? and where does the other 49% go? Could be a small number, but this loop hole might allow a DM to rationalize party members returning charitable exchange with the VoP, and other ways to increase VoPs access to the game at high levels.

I would be tempted to argue RAW may lack specific rules against VoP familiars owning items.

[Troacctid]

Citation for how this addresses familiars 'owning' or 'using'?

To fulfill your vow, you must not own any material possessions except for those that are explicitly allowed. BE 48. Familiars are not exempt from this restriction; if a familiar takes a Vow of Poverty, it must abide by the terms of the vow just like anyone else, or it will lose the benefits of the feat.

VoP"The majority of her share of party treasure "
Q; What is a majority? and where does the other 49% go? Could be a small number, but this loop hole might allow a DM to rationalize party members returning charitable exchange with the VoP, and other ways to increase VoPs access to the game at high levels.

A 254

a. A majority is a majority. More than half. It's not a rules term.
b. The rules don't say where the other half goes.

[KrimsonNekros]

Q255

When a psionic character takes the Expanded Knowledge feat, do they have to gain the power immediately, or can they postpone it?

[Debatra]

Indeed, even seriously considering using a trick to get round a vow breaks the basic Sacred Vow and your character loses all exalted benefits.

Citation needed.

[Troacctid]

Q255

When a psionic character takes the Expanded Knowledge feat, do they have to gain the power immediately, or can they postpone it?

The power is gained at the time the feat is taken.

[Andezzar]

To fulfill your vow, you must not own any material possessions except for those that are explicitly allowed. BE 48. Familiars are not exempt from this restriction; if a familiar takes a Vow of Poverty, it must abide by the terms of the vow just like anyone else, or it will lose the benefits of the feat.

Familiars are most likely characters, but at least creatures. Can you own a character/creature? Does the familiar class feature tell us that the wizard/sorcerer owns the created familiar?

I think not.Nevermind familiars are obtained not created, so possession isn't off the table. I still doubt that a creature can be a possession of another creature unless the rules explicitly tell us.

[Keral]

Q256

Dinosaur, Bloodstriker's spiked skin (ex): A bloodstriker's thick skin bristles with defensive spikes. Any creature attacking a bloodstriker with a melee or natural weapon takes 1d8+6 points of piercing and slashing damage from the dinosaur barbs. Weapons with exceptional reach do not endanger their users in this way.

Does this work regardless of the weapon hitting? Or only if I hit?

[asnys]

Q257

The table for the effects of the different colored walls produced by prismatic wall includes the following note:

The violet effect makes the special effects of the other six colors redundant, but these six effects are included here because certain magic items can create prismatic effects one color at a time, and spell resistance might render some colors ineffective (see above).

What magic items produce prismatic effects one color at a time?

[bean illus]

Familiars are most likely characters, but at least creatures. Can you own a character/creature? Does the familiar class feature tell us that the wizard/sorcerer owns the created familiar?

I think not.Nevermind familiars are obtained not created, so possession isn't off the table. I still doubt that a creature can be a possession of another creature unless the rules explicitly tell us.

By "possession" you mean "own" a familiar? and not 'demonic possession'?

A familiar has an Int and an alignment. I don't see how the DM can't consider that an NPC. When an Item Familiar argues with it's master, who plays the familiar? The player or the DM?

Familiars are NPCs that are traditionally, but not always, played by the caster they are bonded to.

[Andezzar]

Yeah, I meant owning not puppeteering like daemons may do. What does their NPC status have to do with anything? Slavery is a concept that does exist in D&d and as such NPCs can be owned by other (N)PCs. since the familiar rules talk about obtaining a familiar, it is not quite clear whether the familiar becomes a possession of the sorcerer/wizard.

[Keral]

Q258

An incorporeal creature has no physical body. It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities. It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms. Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it has a 50% chance to ignore any damage from a corporeal source (except for positive energy, negative energy, force effects such as magic missile, or attacks made with ghost touch weapons). Although it is not a magical attack, holy water can affect incorporeal undead, but a hit with holy water has a 50% chance of not affecting an incorporeal creature.

Breath weapons are (Su).
Now, by my reading, the text says that it can be harmed by this, that and that AND supernatural abilities.
Then it says that even when hit by spells or magic weapons it has a 50% chance to ignore damage, except as noted.
It doesn't mention supernatural abilities when listing the cases of 50% damage ignoring chance.


Am I correct in assuming that a breath weapon thus harms an incorporeal creature normally?

[Khedrac]

A258 Depends what you mean by normally - they have a 50% chance to ignore breath weapon damage (unless it is a force breath weapon).

If you meant 100% chance t do damage then you haven't read the text you quoted quite carefully enough - the sentence is "even when hit by spells or magic weapons it has a 50% chance to ignore damage, except as noted."
The word "even" means that this is not an exhaustive list of things that are 50% ignored, quite the reverse, it is a list of things that fail to avoid being 50% ignored.
Because it doesn't mention supernatural abilities when listing the cases of 50% damage ignoring chance they are subject to the 50% chance like all other corporeal sources.

[El'the Ellie]

Q259 Can a rogue choose to forego the benefits of improved uncanny dodge? (Ex: can an 18th level rogue choose to allow a 10th level rogue to get sneak attack on her?)

[bean illus]

Yeah, I meant owning not puppeteering like daemons may do. What does their NPC status have to do with anything? Slavery is a concept that does exist in D&d and as such NPCs can be owned by other (N)PCs. since the familiar rules talk about obtaining a familiar, it is not quite clear whether the familiar becomes a possession of the sorcerer/wizard.

The point about NPC is:
An NPC is not always under complete control of the player. Though cohorts and familiars (from 'fam' like family) are traditionally controlled by the player, the DM has always had final say in the NPCs actions. From followers to cohorts to animal companions to familiars, the DM has the final say on what they will do.
This can be proven/implied in that; even if your familiar speaks it still be distracted by mice, that it has an alignment possibly different from yours, that followers can quit following you, and the list goes on. If a familiar were a slave, you could pay the sheriff to go get it when it left you. Fam.

I have a post about this on the 3.5 board. . . .

[Andezzar]

The point about NPC is:
An NPC is not always under complete control of the player. Though cohorts and familiars (from 'fam' like family) are traditionally controlled by the player, the DM has always had final say in the NPCs actions. From followers to cohorts to animal companions to familiars, the DM has the final say on what they will do.
This can be proven/implied in that; even if your familiar speaks it still be distracted by mice, that it has an alignment possibly different from yours, that followers can quit following you, and the list goes on. If a familiar were a slave, you could pay the sheriff to go get it when it left you. Fam.

I have a post about this on the 3.5 board. . . .

My point was unless the rules explicitly tell us that an NPC becomes a possession, he does not. this in turn means that a familiar is not a possession of the character with VoP.

[Keral]

Q260

If I apply a template to a creature, and that causes the creature's type to change, do I get the new traits?

Specific example, a wizard with the necropolitan template from liber mortis (p114). The text says the creature gains a few things, mentioning HD, bonuses to turn attemps and such. But it doesn't mention the typical undead immunities to criticals, poison, mind affecting etc.
Is it because it is obvious that by gaining the undead type he gets those traits, or is it because it just doesn't get them?

[Andezzar]

A 260

Yes the necropolitan and any other undead (e.g. skeleton) gets them.

[Jthw]

Q 261
Does the stance Claw at the Moon [Tomb of Battle pg.86] provoke an attack of opportunity if you are within a foe's threatening reach?
The maneuver itself states that you make a jump check as part of the maneuver and the jump skills says that it itself doesn't provoke but the movement of it might and as that would be moving in an opponent's threatening range it would provoke. On the other hand the maneuver says nothing about provoking.

[Red Bear]

Q262 Is there an item that acts as a single use pearl of power? (something that lets you recast a spell you casted today but only once)
Q263 Is there an item that acts as an infinite uses scroll? (an item that lets you cast a specific spell on your spell list infinite times or once(or multiple times) per day)

[Andezzar]

A 261

No AoO is provoked. First of all Claw at the Moon is a strike, not a stance. It does not grant any lateral movement, so you cannot move out of a threatened square and so do not provoke an AoO.

A 262

Not to my knowledge.

A 263

No, but there are several less restrictive items. An Eternal Wand for example.

[Troacctid]

Q263 Is there an item that acts as an infinite uses scroll? (an item that lets you cast a specific spell on your spell list infinite times or once(or multiple times) per day)

A schema is like a scroll that can be used once per day. MoE 122.

[Debatra]

A 263

A Runestaff (MIC 233) lets you cast several spells on your spell list a few times per day per spell, and even uses your caster level and lets you apply metamagic to them. However, you need to use your own spell slots to do so.

[unseenmage]

A263
MIC has the Glyph Seal as well. It effectively holds a spell until one needs it much like the Schema and Runestaff. Though I consider it more versatile.

[Muggins]

Q264
According to the d20srd, the Improved Grab ability contains the following text.

Unless otherwise noted, improved grab works only against opponents at least one size category smaller than the creature. The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply use the part of its body it used in the improved grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a -20 penalty on grapple checks, but is not considered grappled itself; the creature does not lose its Dexterity bonus to AC, still threatens an area, and can use its remaining attacks against other opponents.

Are all creatures who possess the Improved Grab ability capable of this, or it restricted to only those creatures whose Improved Grab ability explicitly mentions the ability to take the -20 penalty? It seems that every creature with the Improved Grab ability has it worded slightly differently from any other; is this just a case of sloppy wording, or is it a matter of specific trumps general?

For example, a Giant Squid has Improved Grab, but it doesn't mention the ability to take the -20 penalty and act as though it isn't grappled. Meanwhile, a Boggle also has Improved Grab, but mentions that it can take the -20 penalty to hold it in one claw while performing other actions. What gives?

Q264 b
Does it have anything to do with the number of limbs/appendages/maws/skaboodles the creature has?