Hilarious things you've found in RAW?

[loky1109]

"Treated as" is not the same as "is."

Well, let say us what does "treated as" mean? In what cases we should "treat as" and why these cases, but not in some others? Why "having HD" is beyond the acceptable? Where we should draw the line?

Honestly, I'd rather have a flying large greatsword +5 flaming, shock, collision, etc than a small animated object.

Why do you choose when you can have both?

[ShurikVch]

Question: wasn't Flying weapon from Magic of Faerûn (August 2001) superseded by Flying weapon from Oriental Adventures (October 2001)?

[Promethean]

Question: wasn't Flying weapon from Magic of Faerûn (August 2001) superseded by Flying weapon from Oriental Adventures (October 2001)?

I'm honestly not sure on that. They are clearly not the same enhancement.

One allows the user to fly, while the other animates the weapon.

Still, that means one could have a Flying sword of flying...

[Darg]

Well, let say us what does "treated as" mean? In what cases we should "treat as" and why these cases, but not in some others? Why "having HD" is beyond the acceptable? Where we should draw the line?

There isn't much of a line other than the fact that you can't benefit from both sides. It is either treated as a animated object in all regards or treated as an animated object only when relevant

Why do you choose when you can have both?

Because if you treat it as an animated object in all regards, you have to treat it as a creature in all cases. A creature is not a weapon mechanically. Honestly, losing the high saves of being a magic item isn't worth the designation of being a creature.

But, as I mentioned RAI can be that it's meant have qualities of both. The real question is what kind of maneuverability does the fly speed have?

[Promethean]

There isn't much of a line other than the fact that you can't benefit from both sides. It is either treated as a animated object in all regards or treated as an animated object only when relevant



Because if you treat it as an animated object in all regards, you have to treat it as a creature in all cases. A creature is not a weapon mechanically. Honestly, losing the high saves of being a magic item isn't worth the designation of being a creature.

But, as I mentioned RAI can be that it's meant have qualities of both. The real question is what kind of maneuverability does the fly speed have?

That isn't true at all.

May I direct you to the intelligent item rules, where magic items are counted as both intelligent creatures of the construct type and magic items that can gaing further enhancements at the same time.

Creature/magic item isn't a binary designator RAWalready has examples that count as both.

[Darg]

That isn't true at all.

May I direct you to the intelligent item rules, where magic items are counted as both intelligent creatures of the construct type and magic items that can gaing further enhancements at the same time.

Creature/magic item isn't a binary designator RAWalready has examples that count as both.

In both cases they "are treated as," not "are," constructs. Intelligent weapons don't have HD and neither do flying weapons. Item/creature is exclusive with the other mechanically.

[ShurikVch]

In both cases they "are treated as," not "are," constructs. Intelligent weapons don't have HD and neither do flying weapons. Item/creature is exclusive with the other mechanically.

Ahem!..

The characteristics of a golem that come from its nature as a magic item (caster level, prerequisite feats and spells, market price, cost to create) are given in summary form at the end of each golem’s description.

Also, in the "Tears for Twilight Hollow" adventure (Dungeon #90), Digging Machine and Beholder Machine are both Constructs with no HD

[Promethean]

In both cases they "are treated as," not "are," constructs. Intelligent weapons don't have HD and neither do flying weapons. Item/creature is exclusive with the other mechanically.

There's literally an entire creature species called a "Symbiont" that disagrees with this. They're able to provide enhancement bonuses and spell charges just as any magic item as well. Example:

Damage Reduction (Ex): A living breastplate has
damage reduction 10/byeshk and imparts this benefi t
upon its host.
Enhance Constitution (Su): A living breastplate
provides its owner with a +4 enhancement bonus to Constitution for as long as it is worn.
Light Fortifi cation (Ex): A living breastplate has
light fortifi cation (25% chance to negate any critical hit
or sneak attack) and imparts this ability to its host.
Stabilize Host (Su): A living breastplate can stabilize
a host that has dropped to negative hit points. This is a free
action that deals 1 point of Strength damage to the host.
The armor can do this without prompting from the host,
and will generally do so whenever the situation arises.

The entire "Magic Fang" line of spells also disagree with this, as the entire point of that is allowing creatures to count as both the user and the item for the purposes of enhancement bonuses and other effects. They can be made permanent as well.

Is Dark Sun 1st party? If so, They have an entire line of living artifacts, many with their own HD, in the life shapers handbook and strewn throughout other supplemental material.

There is no mechanic or rule that prevents a living creature from functioning as a magic item. In fact, there's much evidence to the opposite.

[Darg]

Ahem!..


Also, in the "Tears for Twilight Hollow" adventure (Dungeon #90), Digging Machine and Beholder Machine are both Constructs with no HD

But are golems actually a magic item? Would you say that they could be dispelled to disable them temporarily like a magic item? What stats do they have when they lose their magic? I think it's a hard sell to say that a golem continues being a magic item after creation rather than to take the rule into context as it talks about the characteristics for magic item creation.

There's literally an entire creature species called a "Symbiont" that disagrees with this. They're able to provide enhancement bonuses and spell charges just as any magic item as well. Example:

There can be exceptions to anything if they state they are.

The entire "Magic Fang" line of spells also disagree with this, as the entire point of that is allowing creatures to count as both the user and the item for the purposes of enhancement bonuses and other effects. They can be made permanent as well.

Is Dark Sun 1st party? If so, They have an entire line of living artifacts, many with their own HD, in the life shapers handbook and strewn throughout other supplemental material.

There is no mechanic or rule that prevents a living creature from functioning as a magic item. In fact, there's much evidence to the opposite.

The rules are full of exceptions, but they state what they are. Symbionts are called a magic item by the chapter header and are a creature.

As for magic fang, enhancement bonuses apply to weapons, armor, creatures, or ability scores. Nothing is saying that a natural weapon is an item.

[Beni-Kujaku]

There can be exceptions to anything if they state they are.

Doesn't that just prove that something that states "treated as a Construct" (note, not in any situation, in all situations) while still mentioning that it is a weapon in its description is such an exception? The flying weapon can clearly attack on its own ("A flying weapon follows orders subject to the limits of its ability (it has no Intelligence) but can be ordered to guard a location just as an animated skeleton can." "The undead can follow you, or they can remain in an area and attack any creature (or just a specific kind of creature) entering the place."), which means it has a BAB and a Dex score. Animated Objects have stats only depending on their size.
Why is it a problem that something "treated as an animated object except it has HP and Hardness as a regular weapon" would have HD as an animated object while treated as such? Why is it a problem to be considered as two things when we have such exceptions all over the books?

[Tzardok]

Is Dark Sun 1st party? If so, They have an entire line of living artifacts, many with their own HD, in the life shapers handbook and strewn throughout other supplemental material.

No, it's 3rd party. 3rd party that is officially endorsed as the continuation of Dark Sun into 3.x, but still 3rd party.

[Promethean]

But are golems actually a magic item? Would you say that they could be dispelled to disable them temporarily like a magic item? What stats do they have when they lose their magic? I think it's a hard sell to say that a golem continues being a magic item after creation rather than to take the rule into context as it talks about the characteristics for magic item creation.

Yes, their description says so.

Sure they could be dispelled, The rules for what dispell does to magic items are clearly laid out. They wouldn't be the first monster weak to dispell, so are living spells. Golems just have protection thanks to their infinite spell resistance.

Hit points of their Hit points and no hardness unless they state a given hardness.

There can be exceptions to anything if they state they are.



The rules are full of exceptions, but they state what they are. Symbionts are called a magic item by the chapter header and are a creature.

As for magic fang, enhancement bonuses apply to weapons, armor, creatures, or ability scores. Nothing is saying that a natural weapon is an item.

And intelligent items and Flying weapons wouldn't be one of the laundry list of exceptions because...?

[Vaern]

The flying weapon can clearly attack on its own ("A flying weapon follows orders subject to the limits of its ability (it has no Intelligence) but can be ordered to guard a location just as an animated skeleton can."
...
Why is it a problem that something "treated as an animated object except it has HP and Hardness as a regular weapon"

I'd just like to point out that, by treating a weapon as an animate object except for its HP, flying is an altogether terrible property to dump on an otherwise strong item.
As far as I can tell, animated objects only get a slam attack based on their size. Rug-like objects can blind and rope-like objects can constrict, but as far as I can tell there's no special attack for blunt or bladed objects allowing them to make weapon attacks.
Any reasonable DM is going to say a +1 flaming flying great sword is going to deal 2d6+1 slashing + 1d6 fire, but RAW as an animated object it'd just gets a 1d4 slam attack.

[Beni-Kujaku]

I'd just like to point out that, by treating a weapon as an animate object except for its HP, flying is an altogether terrible property to dump on an otherwise strong item.
As far as I can tell, animated objects only get a slam attack based on their size. Rug-like objects can blind and rope-like objects can constrict, but as far as I can tell there's no special attack for blunt or bladed objects allowing them to make weapon attacks.
Any reasonable DM is going to say a +1 flaming flying great sword is going to deal 2d6+1 slashing + 1d6 fire, but RAW as an animated object it'd just gets a 1d4 slam attack.

Oh, yeah, absolutely. The guarding function of flying is terrible. The main function is to have the weapon fly to your hand during a fight or to call it back if it goes overboard when you're in a flying ship. Anything more and it would be overpowered for a +1 ability.

[Promethean]

I'd just like to point out that, by treating a weapon as an animate object except for its HP, flying is an altogether terrible property to dump on an otherwise strong item.
As far as I can tell, animated objects only get a slam attack based on their size. Rug-like objects can blind and rope-like objects can constrict, but as far as I can tell there's no special attack for blunt or bladed objects allowing them to make weapon attacks.
Any reasonable DM is going to say a +1 flaming flying great sword is going to deal 2d6+1 slashing + 1d6 fire, but RAW as an animated object it'd just gets a 1d4 slam attack.

Wouldn't it's enhancements still apply to it's natural attacks similar to the magic fang series of spells?

If not, it has still has HD. Have it take weapon proficiency(its weapon type) as it's first feat upon gaining intelligence >3 and have draw + wield itself.

The latter falls under the same "technically true" RAW as removing your armor and standing inside it for full cover, but we're already in a thread for funny RAW so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Vaern]

Oh, yeah, absolutely. The guarding function of flying is terrible. The main function is to have the weapon fly to your hand during a fight or to call it back if it goes overboard when you're in a flying ship. Anything more and it would be overpowered for a +1 ability.

I have no idea why, but for some reason I had it in my head that it was meant to function as a synergy enhancement for a dancing weapon or something xD

Wouldn't it's enhancements still apply to it's natural attacks similar to the magic fang series of spells?

It's definitely well within RAW to allow it, but it may vary from one property to the next depending on how it's worded. Just about anything that deals damage will say "this weapon deals extra damage," which would technically make it a quality of the weapon itself and not just weapon attacks made by a creature using the weapon. But, some properties might say "attacks with this weapon deal extra damage" or have some effect, which one could argue does not apply to an attack the weapon is making on its own.

[Tzardok]

It's definitely well within RAW to allow it, but it may vary from one property to the next depending on how it's worded. Just about anything that deals damage will say "this weapon deals extra damage," which would technically make it a quality of the weapon itself and not just weapon attacks made by a creature using the weapon. But, some properties might say "attacks with this weapon deal extra damage" or have some effect, which one could argue does not apply to an attack the weapon is making on its own.

I would disagree with the notion that the RAW of weapon enchantments allows this. Enchantments can be pretty finicky. A dual weapon's ends must be seperately enchanted, even with weapon properties that say "this weapon deals extra damage". Or take the fact that a shield may have weapon enchantments that improve its shield strike and amor enchantments that improve its value as a shield, and those are completely indiependent of each other. From that it seems logical that an animated sword's enchantments would only affect its use as a wielded sword, as they are "this sword's enchantments" and not "this sword's natural weapon's enchantments".

[Bohandas]

On a largely unrelated note, except that it also involves magic items, has anyone else noticed that most of the limits that the epic magic item creation feats allow you to exceed don't actually seem to exist in the rules?

I've been going through the SRD and as far as I can tell there's no limit on enhancement bonuses to ability scores, no limit to weapon mods as long as they aren't enhancement bonuses, and the intelligent item rules explicitly allow items to cost more than 200000 gp (one of the item special purpose abilities ("Item can use true resurrection on wielder, once per month") costs 200000 gp by itself and necessarily goes on an item that already has significant other abilities). The only one that seems to actually exist is the limit on weapon plusses.

So if you take an epic item creation feat (other than craft epic arms and armor) you're basically buying a 10x markup on everything you make

[Tzardok]

Maybe those are restrictions that existed in 3.0, but weren't transfered to 3.5?

[Darg]

On a largely unrelated note, except that it also involves magic items, has anyone else noticed that most of the limits that the epic magic item creation feats allow you to exceed don't actually seem to exist in the rules?

I've been going through the SRD and as far as I can tell there's no limit on enhancement bonuses to ability scores, no limit to weapon mods as long as they aren't enhancement bonuses, and the intelligent item rules explicitly allow items to cost more than 200000 gp (one of the item special purpose abilities ("Item can use true resurrection on wielder, once per month") costs 200000 gp by itself and necessarily goes on an item that already has significant other abilities). The only one that seems to actually exist is the limit on weapon plusses.

So if you take an epic item creation feat (other than craft epic arms and armor) you're basically buying a 10x markup on everything you make

In addition to an enhancement bonus, weapons may have special abilities. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses (except where specifically noted). A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +10. A weapon with a special ability must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus.

That +10 is a limit. That said, you can add qualities that don't modify the effective enhancement bonus ad infinitum.

That said, nothing says spells and abilities are limited by it.

[Bohandas]

That +10 is a limit. That said, you can add qualities that don't modify the effective enhancement bonus ad infinitum.

That said, nothing says spells and abilities are limited by it.

I stand corrected regarding the weapons.

The other supposed resteictions still don't seem to exist though. There's nothing in the core rules that prevents you from making a Headband of Intellect +8 with plain old Craft Wondrous Item, all the epic rules do is allow you to craft the same item for 10x the price

(With the exception of Epic Spellcasting,) the epic rules in general - contrary to their name - seem to significantly nerf characters who use their rules. The magic items are marked up, the DCs the epic skill usages are way higher than what a reasonable DM would set, fighters don't get their full +1 bab per level, etc.

"What precisely is epic about this?"
"The price."

[Promethean]

I stand corrected regarding the weapons.

The other supposed resteictions still don't seem to exist though. There's nothing in the core rules that prevents you from making a Headband of Intellect +8 with plain old Craft Wondrous Item, all the epic rules do is allow you to craft the same item for 10x the price

(With the exception of Epic Spellcasting,) the epic rules in general - contrary to their name - seem to significantly nerf characters who use their rules. The magic items are marked up, the DCs the epic skill usages are way higher than what a reasonable DM would set, fighters don't get their full +1 bab per level, etc.

"What precisely is epic about this?"
"The price."

I'm pretty sure the Epic rules exist solely as a "Gold Sink" mechanism for high level play.

The purpose isn't for "Beyond 20th Level" gameplay, it's to perpetuate 20th level gameplay eternally by providing the illusion of advancement through the use of incremental(read as useless) increases that get exponentially more expensive over time.

The only place they really messed up and provided a genuine level of power over 20th is with epic spellcasting/epic manifesting, solely because they accidentally provided a way to make it actually Useful by using DC reducers(without which the caster would be requiring a DC 80+ check and a 10th level spell slot just to cast the equivalent of Fireball. I.E. completely useless for anything but flavor).

[Bohandas]

I'm pretty sure the Epic rules exist solely as a "Gold Sink" mechanism for high level play.

The purpose isn't for "Beyond 20th Level" gameplay, it's to perpetuate 20th level gameplay eternally by providing the illusion of advancement through the use of incremental(read as useless) increases that get exponentially more expensive over time.

But even in that context it's broken because the prices of a lot of these things already increased exponentially. The cost of an bonus scales by the sqaure of the bonus' magnitude.

[Promethean]

But even in that context it's broken because the prices of a lot of these things already increased exponentially. The cost of an bonus scales by the sqaure of the bonus' magnitude.

*even more exponential, like comparing cubes to squares.

At 20th level players have no shortage of options for breaking the gold and XP economies respectively, so the prices for things Have to be ridiculous to eat some of that excess.

[Bohandas]

The only place they really messed up and provided a genuine level of power over 20th is with epic spellcasting/epic manifesting, solely because they accidentally provided a way to make it actually Useful by using DC reducers(without which the caster would be requiring a DC 80+ check and a 10th level spell slot just to cast the equivalent of Fireball. I.E. completely useless for anything but flavor).

Some of the DC reducers are actually kind of underpowered. In a lot of cases you'd be better off having secondary casters use the aid another action for a +2 bonus rather than have them contribute a 1st level spell slot for a +1 bonus and also needing to have them there every time to have any chance of casting the spell at all

[sreservoir]

Neither quadratic nor scalar multiplication is anywhere near exponential, let alone even more exponential!

[Promethean]

Neither quadratic nor scalar multiplication is anywhere near exponential, let alone even more exponential!

WDYM?

The equation for magic items squares the value. A square is a literal exponent.

[Tzardok]

WDYM?

The equation for magic items squares the value. A square is a literal exponent.

Exponential means that the variable is in the exponent. For the equation to count as exponential, it would have to be 2^x, not x².

Edit: To give an example why exponential growth is bad (at least in this context), let's look at a table:

x	x2	2x
1	1	2
2	4	4
3	9	8
4	16	16
5	25	32
6	36	64
7	49	128
8	64	256
9	81	512
10	100	1024

Sooner, rather than later, an exponential function will overtake anything else.

[Promethean]

Exponential means that the variable is in the exponent. For the equation to count as exponential, it would have to be 2^x, not x².

Alright then. I'll go with the fact that using "exponential" in the way I did is such a common colloquialism that it's misused version has been added to the dictionary as it's most common definition.

ex·po·nen·tial
/ˌekspəˈnen(t)SH(ə)l/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
1.
(of an increase) becoming more and more rapid.
"the social security budget was rising at an exponential rate"
2.
MATHEMATICS
of or expressed by a mathematical exponent.
"an exponential curve"

[PhoenixPhyre]

Exponential means that the variable is in the exponent. For the equation to count as exponential, it would have to be 2^x, not x².

Edit: To give an example why exponential growth is bad (at least in this context), let's look at a table:

x	x2	2x
1	1	2
2	4	4
3	9	8
4	16	16
5	25	32
6	36	64
7	49	128
8	64	256
9	81	512
10	100	1024

Sooner, rather than later, an exponential function will overtake anything else.

There's always the gamma function! Aka factorials extended to all positive real numbers. Scales even faster! For reference, Gamma(11) = 10! = 3628800. You can approximate the factorial function for "large" (ie > 1) n as roughly n! ~ sqrt(2*pi*n)*(n/e)^n (where e is the base of the natural logarithms). So O(n^n). Like exponential...where both base and exponent depend on n.