[3.5] Favorite Obscure Prc, Feat, Spell etc.

[Thurbane]

The main hurdle to Shamans having access to any and all domains, is that the vast majority of domains outside of OA are very clearly labelled as "Cleric Domains" (and/or Mystic Domains, in the case of the DCS).

IMHO a Shaman selecting something labelled as a Cleric Domain would be akin to a Hexblade selecting a spell known that was only on the Bard list; although I acknowledge that RAW is a lot clearer in this example than it is with the Shaman.

[Zombulian]

And in the preceding part of the same section, it references Domains in the same general sense as any other. Again, nowhere does it actually say that the Shaman is specifically limited to those specific domains given in Chapter 7, unless there's some source I don't know of saying otherwise (and I checked the Errata just to make sure).

And just to be sure, I also double-checked the Oriental Adventures update to 3.5 in Dragon Magazine #318, and nothing there was off either, not in the Shaman section nor in the Domains section.

Until you can bring something more substantive than, “Well it doesn’t explicitly say they *don’t* get Cleric domains so clearly they get them, even though the book provides them with a list of domains with the name of their own class attached and doesn’t reference the PHB domains or Cleric domains at all.” I’m gonna go ahead and remain unconvinced.

[Grim Reader]

Kin Mastery, a feat from Dragon Companion, gives turn/rebuke.

Only once per day and you need an arcane spellcasting class and a prerequisite feat for it, but it should open up Nightsticks and extra turning.

[thorr-kan]

Kin Mastery, a feat from Dragon Companion, gives turn/rebuke.

Only once per day and you need an arcane spellcasting class and a prerequisite feat for it, but it should open up Nightsticks and extra turning.

The whole sorcerer bloodlines feat tree is interesting, Kin Mastery especially.

[Luckmann]

I’m gonna go ahead and remain unconvinced.

Ok.

I think you attribute me a much greater desire to correct you than I have. I think the text is pretty clear, but if quoting directly from it can't convince you, I'm not sure what you'd expect me to say.

[Zombulian]

Ok.

I think you attribute me a much greater desire to correct you than I have. I think the text is pretty clear, but if quoting directly from it can't convince you, I'm not sure what you'd expect me to say.

What... exactly did you quote that provides any strong basis for your position? Because from my perspective your whole stance is that there is an absence of forbiddance, which in 3.5 doesn’t carry much weight. As Thurbane pointed out, classes aren’t expressly forbidden from picking spells not on their class list, but considering classes usually say “X class casts spells from the X class list”, it would be odd to assume that you can just pick spells from a list not aligned with the class. To make that argument, the burden of evidence to the contrary is on you, not me.

[Luckmann]

What... exactly did you quote ...

I didn't. I said that if. I didn't see any value in actually quoting the section, since you obviously had access to it and cherry-picked parts of it, conveniently ignoring the preceding section I referenced:

And in the preceding part of the same section, it references Domains in the same general sense as any other. [...]

[...]

If you want me to, I could cut it out of the book and highlight the section, but I don't think it'd help, and I'm not sure if it'd violate some rule or policy, it is my experience that people are generally wary around here, avoiding potentially breaching licensing restrictions.

... it would be odd to assume that you can just pick spells from a list not aligned with the class. To make that argument, the burden of evidence to the contrary is on you, not me.

Obviously, but nobody has made that argument, let alone me. Also, false equivilancy, but you do you. In the absence of evidence to the contrary or restrictive rules wording, the general use of domains references.. well, domains. Shamans aren't the only ones referencing domains in this general sense, it's very common, but I can see how some can be confused by it, seeing as how Clerics were initially the only ones to gain domains, the section in PHB1 being called "Cleric Domains", dichotomous to "Shaman Domains" in OA. But rules-wise, there's no distinction ever made, I just don't see a point going around making a point out of it, nor does the houserules of other groups concern me.

[Zombulian]

I know the section you’re referencing, but I don’t really think it applies. Specific trumping general and all that.
Just because Domains as a general concept are used by a class doesn’t automatically mean that that class has access to all domains, especially when the same section refers you to a specific place, and doesn’t reference a previously printed section (ie: the Cleric Domains in the PHB). In the beginning of the Spells section of OA, it references the fact that some Shaman Domain spells aren’t on the Shaman list, additionally, many spells on the Shaman list are found in the PHB. OA was not designed in a vacuum, the writers expect you to reference the PHB when you are picking your spells. That being the case, why wouldn’t they also refer you to the Cleric domains in the PHB?

You can call Thurbane’s reference a false-equivalency, but I think it’s more that it’s just not a perfect analogy, but I can’t imagine what would work better. Maybe we can talk about how Druids are referenced as casting Divine spells, and so are Clerics, and so are Shaman. So since they all cast Divine spells, even though their sections tell you where to find their spell lists, can they freely pick those spells from each others’ lists? I would think certainly not.

[Luckmann]

I know the section you’re referencing, but I don’t really think it applies. Specific trumping general and all that.

There is no specific here.

... why wouldn’t they also refer you to the Cleric domains in the PHB?

Like you say, the book wasn't created in a vacuum. It does reference the domains by virtue of, well, referencing the domains. It never references the specific section in the PHB because it doesn't have to. Most rules are referenced in a similar sense.

So since they all cast Divine spells, even though their sections tell you where to find their spell lists, can they freely pick those spells from each others’ lists?

It's not just "not a perfect analogy", it's a completely different situation. There are clear, different spell lists that are consistently referenced as those specific lists by the relevant classes concerned. The same is not true for domains, which are frequently referred to as just domains, and never expressly restricted as a whole (although restriction to specific singular domains frequently occurs) or as categories in a restrictive sense (the sole exception that I know of being Planar Domains, which are expressly limited in a specific way). For example, a druid expressly casts spells from the druid spell list. Cleric expressly casts spells from the cleric spell list. They expressly cannot cast spells that are not on their lists, unless there's a specific exception made (such as by domains).

By comparison, the domains of the Shaman is *not* expressly or specifically restricted in any way, and "domains" are referenced in a general sense, just like Divine Disciple (restricted by deity, but no specific "list"), Sovereign Speaker (restricted by deities), or Contemplative (restricted only by "any domain made available by her deity or alignment") and many others (often more specifically restricted, often to a single domain). Domains are practically *never* referenced as some kind of sub-listed system similar to spells, spell type(s), or spell lists. Domains are just domains, and nothing in OA says that Shamans are restricted to the ones given only in OA, just like nothing says that Contemplatives are restricted to only the ones in CD, etc.

[Thurbane]

I think a closer equivalent than my example of Hexblade picking up Bard spells might be the (in)famous debate about what spells Sorcerers can grab as spells known.

A sorcerer casts arcane spells which are drawn primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list.

These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of by study.

This is an often debated topic. Were those references there to allow for spell research, or Sor/Wiz spells from obscure splat books, or does it indicate that a Sorcerer can learn any arcane spell, even from other lists?

Shamans aren't the only ones referencing domains in this general sense, it's very common, but I can see how some can be confused by it, seeing as how Clerics were initially the only ones to gain domains, the section in PHB1 being called "Cleric Domains", dichotomous to "Shaman Domains" in OA.

Just curious: do you have any other example of classes that reference domains in the general sense? I'd be very interested to look at these.

[animewatcha]

It might have been a 3.0 book but i think there was a reference to "Prestige Domains" and then there is the aligned domain ( give up both domain choices for one that related to the planes ) from Spell compendium.

[Zombulian]

There is no specific here.

...Except for the clause (that I quoted) that refers you to look at “Shaman Domains.” I feel like you’re gaslighting me or something.
I’m not disagreeing that the class refers to domains as a general concept. It does, and it describes the fluff for how they work with the class, but then it specifically routes you to the part of the book where they placed the domains for that class. Again, it’s like thinking you can just take any Divine spell on your Druid, even though later in the section and book there is a list of Druid spells.
I would be more willing to accept your reading if at the end of the domain section it simply referred to “Domains (see chapter 7” and then in chapter 7 the domains are just presented as “New domains presented in this book.” Additionally, if it was written that way, then I would also agree that a Cleric of an ideal would be able to grab the domains in OA for their own use. But it’s not written that way. It specifically (whether you think that is significant or not) refers to Shaman Domains, and then the domains are titled as Shaman Domains. Yeah sure, Contemplative doesn’t limit you to the domains in CD, but it also doesn’t specifically refer you to a section in CD with “Contemplative Domains.”

You’re free to houserule any way you like, and given the Spell Compendium as a precedent, I’m sure you could have a DM rule in your favor.

Edit: Hold up. Spell Compendium actually elucidates this argument even more in my favor.

Also, consider using the cleric domains presented in this book as shaman domains.

For one thing, if Shamans already had free access to all domains, this quote wouldn’t be necessary in the first place. But additionally, the book refers to Cleric Domains and Shaman Domains as being distinct entities.

[Luckmann]

Except for the clause (that I quoted) that refers you to look at “Shaman Domains.”

Yes, it refers you to the domains section of the book, which makes absolute sense, given that they are both in that book together, just as FC1 contains domains of less savory nature. Such references are fairly common, since many books are based around a shared theme. But it never restricts you to those specific domains in any way.

Again, it’s like thinking you can just take any Divine spell on your Druid, even though later in the section and book there is a list of Druid spells.

Not at all. As I've already explained, the Druid is explicitly restricted to the Druid spell list.

Edit: Hold up. Spell Compendium actually elucidates this argument even more in my favor.

Not at all. The introductory section is not rules text, and concerns the usage of non-core classes in relation to the spell compendium. If anything, the recommendation to use the domains freely suggests that they are considered equivalent and interchangeable. Lastly, it is important to note that nobody(?) that worked on Oriental Adventures worked on the Spell Compendium. Inferring OA RAI based on an off-hand comment on how to use SpC RAW with non-core sources is a bad idea (but also irrelevant in regards to OA RAW).

[Zombulian]

I mean, again, houserule however you’d like. If I were your DM I’d even be willing to allow any domain on a Shaman on a case-by-case basis. But I think your textual evidence is lacking.

[Sutr]

I found my old favorite race http://web.archive.org/web/200412070...041114b&page=2

Illumian 1.0, it's worth the level adjustment. It was so disappointing getting races of destiny:( The fact that I needed to play with search terms to find a link makes web content obscure right?

[Zombulian]

I found my old favorite race http://web.archive.org/web/200412070...041114b&page=2

Illumian 1.0, it's worth the level adjustment. It was so disappointing getting races of destiny:( The fact that I needed to play with search terms to find a link makes web content obscure right?

Huh! Never knew there was another version of them.

[Luckmann]

I think your textual evidence is lacking.

Ok. Again, feel free to houserule otherwise, but until there's actually something saying otherwise, RAW is very clear here.

I found my old favorite race http://web.archive.org/web/200412070...041114b&page=2

Illumian 1.0, it's worth the level adjustment. It was so disappointing getting races of destiny:( The fact that I needed to play with search terms to find a link makes web content obscure right?

Given that it's superceded by the later illumians, it'd probably be a real hard sell to most DMs. It's a nice find, though, I'm going to have to make a side-by-side on this.

Edit: Jeez, they're really different. The preview Illumians are way more interesting and comes with things that can really help define something unique. It would've been nice if some sigils were of slightly more generic use, but what the hell happened?

[Zombulian]

RAW is very clear here.

If it were I don’t think we’d be arguing :p

[Sutr]

Right, I was so very happy when I read them went out and bought races of destiny and came home to build my character. I was so disappointed.

Its probably a fair +1 maybe even a +2 without buyoff.

[Grim Reader]

I was just re-reading the Apprentice feat from the DMG II and noticed some things:

It specifically gives a Bard a 1st level spell known at level 1.
The ability so swap out spells for a spontaneous caster reads like it'll be in addition to the swapping the characters class offers. (So a Sorcerer/Sand Shaper should be able to swap out quite a few of the poorer spells for good ones).
Any character can get Use Magic Device as a class skill for all present and future classes by taking a spellcaster mentor.

All in all, much more flexible than I had thought.

[thorr-kan]

I was just re-reading the Apprentice feat from the DMG II and noticed some things:

It specifically gives a Bard a 1st level spell known at level 1.
The ability so swap out spells for a spontaneous caster reads like it'll be in addition to the swapping the characters class offers. (So a Sorcerer/Sand Shaper should be able to swap out quite a few of the poorer spells for good ones).
Any character can get Use Magic Device as a class skill for all present and future classes by taking a spellcaster mentor.

All in all, much more flexible than I had thought.

Huh.

Combining this with Precocious Apprentice for bard allows for a 2nd-level spell known at level 1. That...could be interesting for someone.

[Kaleph]

Any character can get Use Magic Device as a class skill for all present and future classes by taking a spellcaster mentor.

Not really, unfortunately - part of the benefits regarding associated skills are lost after you graduate: they still cost 2 skill points afterwards when you take levels in classes that haven't them.

[Thurbane]

Not really, unfortunately - part of the benefits regarding associated skills are lost after you graduate: they still cost 2 skill points afterwards when you take levels in classes that haven't them.

Unless you combine it with Able Learner.

[Troacctid]

Okay, here's a feat that I just found: Silver Tongue, from Dragon #318, page 38. It gives you four new uses for Diplomacy, and they're SPICY.

1. You can influence NPC attitudes towards anyone, not just yourself.
2. When you improve an NPC's attitude towards you, if you turn them helpful, you can also cause them to become romantically attracted to you, making them more eager to gain your approval.
3. You can cast good hope and crushing despair at will (but with only one target per casting) by succeeding on a DC 25 Diplomacy check. (This one is my favorite. Good hope is no joke.)
4. As a full-round action, you can make a Diplomacy check opposed by a target's Sense Motive check, and if you beat their result by 10 or more, they become confused for a round.

Like...damn. Master Manipulator, eat your heart out.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Okay, here's a feat that I just found: Silver Tongue, from Dragon #318, page 38. It gives you four new uses for Diplomacy, and they're SPICY.

1. You can influence NPC attitudes towards anyone, not just yourself.
2. When you improve an NPC's attitude towards you, if you turn them helpful, you can also cause them to become romantically attracted to you, making them more eager to gain your approval.
3. You can cast good hope and crushing despair at will (but with only one target per casting) by succeeding on a DC 25 Diplomacy check. (This one is my favorite. Good hope is no joke.)
4. As a full-round action, you can make a Diplomacy check opposed by a target's Sense Motive check, and if you beat their result by 10 or more, they become confused for a round.

Like...damn. Master Manipulator, eat your heart out.

That one’s actually in Oriental Adventures as well, IIRC.

[Kaleph]

That one’s actually in Oriental Adventures as well, IIRC.

Yep, but the version in OA in kinda lame. The one in D318 is the 3.5 conversion done by OA's original authors, and is very cool, actually.

@ Troacctid: I know the feat and I like it for sha'irs, due to diplomacy/charisma synergy; anyhow I find its wording a bit...unclear.
How does it take to activate good hope or confusion? 1 minute as a diplomacy check, or 1 standard action as the spell (it's also the default for using a feat)?
Does it work as a spell-like ability, or what? Is it still mind-affecting?

Any idea about the RAI for the feat?

[animewatcha]

Fill with hope or despair as if affected by good hope or crushing despair spells. With a will save for despair.. So descriptors apply. Even duration. Given enough prep time ( and wording has it be the default standard action and it does not mention action economy ) you can buff your party with morale bonuses or hit your enemy with enchantment, compulsion, mind affecting, penalty.

[Psyren]

I wouldn't call it "obscure" but I'm a big fan of Exalted Arcanist from BoED, and getting to pile a bunch of Exalted Spells into your spells known. I had a concept for a lower-tier Warmage/EA build that basically functioned as living artillery for celestial forces, able to rain down destruction without harming his allies.

[Troacctid]

How does it take to activate good hope or confusion? 1 minute as a diplomacy check, or 1 standard action as the spell (it's also the default for using a feat)?
Does it work as a spell-like ability, or what? Is it still mind-affecting?

Any idea about the RAI for the feat?

Feats default to (Ex) unless otherwise stated. Confusion is a full-round action, hope and despair are unclear—presumably either a standard action, as the spell, or 1 minute with the option to downgrade to a full-round action, as the skill. Expect table variation.

[Mr Adventurer]

I wouldn't call it "obscure" but I'm a big fan of Exalted Arcanist from BoED, and getting to pile a bunch of Exalted Spells into your spells known. I had a concept for a lower-tier Warmage/EA build that basically functioned as living artillery for celestial forces, able to rain down destruction without harming his allies.

That sounds great! How does the EA additional spells feature work with fixed-list casters? I can't work it out...