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

[Andezzar]

A 361

You can find all the relevant rules here. I never saw 15SR anywhere. Usually the description would say SR 15 or spell resistance 15. In that case the 15 is the DC of the required caster level check.

[SirNibbles]

Cloud Anchorite (Frostburn, page 52) gains Immortality of the Mountain at 10th level. It's a supernatural ability which has multiple effects, one of which is immortality. To be on the safe side, I won't post the exact wording of the text, but it refers specifically to no longer having a maximum age and never dying of old age. If you were to enter an antimagic field, would you suddenly die if you were very old or is the immortality effect instantaneous?

[No brains]

Cloud Anchorite (Frostburn, page 52) gains Immortality of the Mountain at 10th level. It's a supernatural ability which has multiple effects, one of which is immortality. To be on the safe side, I won't post the exact wording of the text, but it refers specifically to no longer having a maximum age and never dying of old age. If you were to enter an antimagic field, would you suddenly die if you were very old or is the immortality effect instantaneous?

A 362
According to the rules on aging, if a 10th level Cloud Anchorite were to enter an antimagic field during they year the DM scretly rolled for their maximum age, they do run the risk of suddenly dying. If someone with Immortality of the Mountain avoids an antimagic field for the entire year of their maximum age (whenever that is), they would have avoided the possibility of dying an age-related death.

I can't tell you if entering an antimagic field suddenly imposes or if leaving the field suddenly removes age-related penalties though.

Please remember to number your questions for the rest of your immortality.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Q363

In this answer to a thread someone said that Implosion bypasses death ward.

How can this spell bypass the death ward, why it can do it and where can I read about it more (books and pages)?

[Andezzar]

A 363

The subject is immune to all death spells, magical death effects, energy drain, and any negative energy effects (such as from inflict spells or chill touch). This spell doesn’t remove negative levels that the subject has already gained, nor does it affect the saving throw necessary 24 hours after gaining a negative level. Death ward does not protect against other sorts of attacks, such as hit point loss, poison, or petrification, even if those attacks might be lethal.

So now you have to check if implosion is one of those underlined. It is not.

Implosion
Evocation
Level: Clr 9, Destruction 9
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Targets: One corporeal creature/round
Duration: Concentration (up to 4
rounds)
Saving Throw: Fortitude negates
Spell Resistance: Yes
You create a destructive resonance in a corporeal creature’s body. For each round you concentrate, you cause one creature to collapse in on itself, killing it. (This effect, being instantaneous, cannot be dispelled.)
You can target a particular creature only once with each casting of the spell. Implosion has no effect on creatures in gaseous form or on incorporeal creatures.

Implosion is not a death spell (i.e. a spell with the [death] descriptor). The destruction is not a death effect, because it is not classified as such, nor does it deal negative levels.

Why those spells are the way they are is beyond the scope of this thread and possibly even beyond the ken of all forum goers, we cannot peer into the minds of the developers.

[Sian]

Q:364 Reading Complete Arcane p71, under the Sudden Metamagic header suggests that Metamagic abilities that doesn't change your spelllevel can be used on Invocations ... can anyone show me an explicit statement supporting this?

[Troacctid]

Q:364 Reading Complete Arcane p71, under the Sudden Metamagic header suggests that Metamagic abilities that doesn't change your spelllevel can be used on Invocations ... can anyone show me an explicit statement supporting this?

It sounds like you already found it.

[Coidzor]

Q365: Are there any stats for a Gondsman that isn't a class feature, such as with the Techsmith PrC?

[Sian]

It sounds like you already found it.

I was thinking a more general statement that says that all metamagic abilities that doesn't change the level, is usable on spell-likes, and not just the 'Sudden XXX' metamagics

[Coidzor]

Q366 Where does the Bone Golem appear in 3.5? I'm aware of a variant in Tomb of Horrors, but no vanilla ones.

[Khedrac]

Q367 Where in the books (i.e. book and page number) is the rule giving the value of spellbooks when sold? (Ones with spells in, not blank.)
I'm having a brain failure and just cannot find it.

[Andezzar]

A 367

Captured spellbooks can be sold for a gp amount equal to one-half the cost of purchasing and inscribing the spells within (that is, onehalf of 100 gp per page of spells). A spellbook entirely filled with spells (that is, with one hundred pages of spells inscribed in it) is worth 5,000 gp.

Ten characters

[Sian]

Q366 Where does the Bone Golem appear in 3.5? I'm aware of a variant in Tomb of Horrors, but no vanilla ones.

A366:

Looking through the official index there aren't published in any sourcebooks

[KrimsonNekros]

Q368

Does Eschew Materials negate a Tainted Sorcerers need to pay blood for their spells if the component cost for the spell is less than 1 gp?

[Andezzar]

A 368

Yes.

Q 369

Can a tainted sorcerer ignore more costly material components, since they are replaced by blood, which does not cost more than 1gp?

[SirNibbles]

A 369:

"Substituting blood for a costly material component requires drawing a greater amount of blood. A tainted sorcerer deals more damage to herself when drawing a large amount of blood, as shown on the table below. Also, when using blood to replace a costly component in this way, the tainted sorcerer must make a Concentration check (DC 10 + damage taken + spelllevel) to successfully cast the spell."

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/UA:Tainted_Sorcerer

[Andezzar]

Sorry I posed my question incompletely.

Q 369 revised

Can a tainted sorcerer with Eschew Materials ignore more costly material components, since they are replaced by blood, which does not cost more than 1gp?

[Debatra]

Q 357

Where can I find feats - and what are they called - that reduce the spell level consumed when spells of a certain school are metamagic'd?

A 357

While there is technically no RAW answer for this, they are generally referred to as "Metamagic Reducers". This is a pretty good resource.

Q. 359 Would Conceal Spellcasting allow a bard to avoid breaking Fascination while casting spells?

A 359 Additional

Actually, the need for the Conceal Spellcasting feat is obviated by that just being a normal function of the Sleight of Hand skill. (Races of Stone, page 133)

[Morphic tide]

Q1. Do Fear effects from Intimidate stack? I.E. My CW Samurai succeeds 3 Intimidate checks. Are the enemies merely Shaken, or are they ****ting their pants in terror while running for their lives?
Q2. Does the Aptitude weapon effect apply to class features? I.E. My character has a class feature that has them choose a weapon. They got an Aptitude Kukuri but chose Full Swords. Does the class feature apply?

[Andezzar]

A 370

Q1. Do Fear effects from Intimidate stack? I.E. My CW Samurai succeeds 3 Intimidate checks. Are the enemies merely Shaken, or are they ****ting their pants in terror while running for their lives?

No, the effect of an intimidate check to demoralize an opponent is not classified as a fear effect and thus the fear stacking is not applicable. All you get is shaken.

A 371

Q2. Does the Aptitude weapon effect apply to class features? I.E. My character has a class feature that has them choose a weapon. They got an Aptitude Kukuri but chose Full Swords. Does the class feature apply?

No, not unless the class feature grants a feat. Aptitude weapons only apply to feats.

[Vaern]

The Two-Weapon Fighting feat line allows you to make extra attacks with your off hand weapon at a penalty.
The monk's Unarmed Stike ability says that "there is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."

Now let's say, hypothetically, I wanted to level as a fighter with Superior Unarmed Strike intending to be a better fistfighter than a regular monk. Naturally, the two-weapon fighting feat chain will give me extra attacks.
However, let's say that I hypothetically want to dip two levels of monk for Evasion and saving throw bonuses. I now have the monk's special Unarmed Strike qualities, meaning that there is no such thing as an off-hand attack for me any more.


Sooo... Q372
Does taking a level or two of monk mean that my unarmed attacks can no longer benefit from the effects of Two-Weapon Fighting?

[Troacctid]

Q372
Does taking a level or two of monk mean that my unarmed attacks can no longer benefit from the effects of Two-Weapon Fighting?

No, it only means you can't use it as an offhand weapon. You can still use it as your main hand.

[Vaern]

No, it only means you can't use it as an offhand weapon. You can still use it as your main hand.

I meant for the purposes of using exclusively unarmed strikes. I mean, yeah, I could be throwing a right hooks while slashing someone with a sword in my left hand, but it looks like I technically can't just use both of my fists for TWF.

[Andezzar]

I meant for the purposes of using exclusively unarmed strikes. I mean, yeah, I could be throwing a right hooks while slashing someone with a sword in my left hand, but it looks like I technically can't just use both of my fists for TWF.

Whether monk or not, an unarmed strike only ever is one weapon.

[Vaern]

Whether monk or not, an unarmed strike only ever is one weapon.

Where is this at? All I can find regarding unarmed stikes and off-hand attacks is in Two-Weapon Fighting, were it says penalties are lessened if your off-hand weapon is light and that unarmed strikes are always considered light for this purpose. I'm not seeing anything, other than the monk's class description, which says that you can't make unarmed attacks both main- and off-handed simultaneously.

[GilesTheCleric]

Q 373: Does one take fall damage when landing on water?

[Duke of Urrel]

Q 373: Does one take fall damage when landing on water?

A 373

Yes, but it's reduced. Here's the SRD:

Falling into Water

Falls into water are handled somewhat differently. If the water is at least 10 feet deep, the first 20 feet of falling do no damage. The next 20 feet do nonlethal damage (1d3 per 10-foot increment). Beyond that, falling damage is lethal damage (1d6 per additional 10-foot increment).

Characters who deliberately dive into water take no damage on a successful DC 15 Swim check or DC 15 Tumble check, so long as the water is at least 10 feet deep for every 30 feet fallen. However, the DC of the check increases by 5 for every 50 feet of the dive.

[Andezzar]

Q 374

Where is this at? All I can find regarding unarmed stikes and off-hand attacks is in Two-Weapon Fighting, were it says penalties are lessened if your off-hand weapon is light and that unarmed strikes are always considered light for this purpose. I'm not seeing anything, other than the monk's class description, which says that you can't make unarmed attacks both main- and off-handed simultaneously.

A 374

An unarmed strike is a natural weapon.

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

Nowhere does it say that anyone has more than one of those. Just as you cannot use a dagger as both the main hand weapon and the off-hand weapon, if you only have one, you cannot use the unarmed strike to use as both.

[SirNibbles]

Q 375 Where in Tome of Battle (or elsewhere) is the limit on stances explained? I can't find any part that says you can't be in multiple stances at once, even though this seems counter-intuitive.

EDIT: A 375 Page 38: "You enjoy the benefit your stance confers until you change to another stance..."

Took me a few re-reads to find it.

[SirNibbles]

Q 374



A 374

An unarmed strike is a natural weapon. Nowhere does it say that anyone has more than one of those. Just as you cannot use a dagger as both the main hand weapon and the off-hand weapon, if you only have one, you cannot use the unarmed strike to use as both.

Rules Compendium page 16 says otherwise. I suggest Vaern make a separate thread about this.