Rules You Never Noticed

[neriractor]

You could have just said it was back in 3.0 when all that stuff still worked like that. Most people here assume 3.5 talk unless otherwise specified. No need to get riled up....

he did kind of imply it:

Playing a cleric many years ago I wasn't a fan of Greater Magic Weapon spell, even though at the time it was +1 per three levels... snip

[Pex]

You could have just said it was back in 3.0 when all that stuff still worked like that. Most people here assume 3.5 talk unless otherwise specified. No need to get riled up....

It was actually a Strawman Fallacy. All I said was I took notice that Greater Magic Weapon affected 50 arrows allowing me to buff the ranger with an efficient use of a 4th level spell. It was other people who said the ranger stacked the bow's magic with the enhanced arrows' magic then got on my case on the matter. I never said anything about the bow being magical. I was happy enough I was able to provide "infinite" magic arrows for the party's ranger. How am I the bad guy here?

[John Longarrow]

Your not the bad guy. Too many people on here like reading things in that posters don't post.

[ZamielVanWeber]

I was curious as to why he enchanted the ammo and not the bow but was not too worried about it.

Things I never noticed: Conjure Ice Beast is not wizard/sorcerer. I owe a party a TPK back.

[Flickerdart]

Things I never noticed: Conjure Ice Beast is not wizard/sorcerer. I owe a party a TPK back.

There's always exotic schools of learning that the NPC spellcaster just happened to study.

[RedMage125]

How many weapon finesse characters really use a shield though? Its clearly a specific rule that only applies to weapons when using weapon finesse not when using them normally.

Mithril buckler in off-hand means no ACP.

[Particle_Man]

Mithril buckler in off-hand means no ACP.

Or for the less expensive option, a Masterwork buckler in the off-hand also means no ACP. ;)

[RedMage125]

One thing I never noticed was that making armor out of mithril does not ACTUALLY make it one category lighter.

I used to allow Barbarians to wear mithril full-plate.

Mithril makes it counted as one category lighter "for purposes of movement and other limitations". So mithril medium armor does not impose speed penalties. BUT...it is STILL Medium armor for purposes of proficiency.

Since classes that can cast arcane spells with no failure in light armor are not specifically mentioned, I made my ruling that it counted as one category lighter for purposes of casting as well. This because ASF is explicitly caused by movement restriction.

But they'd still have the non-proficiency penalty if they are not PROFICIENT in the armor (which is taking the Armor Check penalty to attack rolls). Of course, this is easily solved by reducing the ACP to 0.

[Ruslan]

I've seen a lot of people trying to use Iron Heart Surge to end a paralysis effect (such as Hold Person), but they forget about the rule that

To initiate a maneuver, you must be able to move

[Particle_Man]

Speaking of Tome of Battle, if you are not one of the manifester classes, you can't just take Martial Study at 1st level, as non-manifester levels are treated as 1/2 your level rounded down. At best you could take Martial Study at 3rd level.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Small nitpick: initiator, not manifester. Martial Adept initiate, psionic manifest.

[Telok]

Speaking of Tome of Battle, if you are not one of the manifester classes, you can't just take Martial Study at 1st level, as non-manifester levels are treated as 1/2 your level rounded down. At best you could take Martial Study at 3rd level.

Well, second level if you have an appropriate bonus feat from a class at that level.

[Particle_Man]

Here is a weird one. Dwarves in 3.5 can tumble in full plate! Not well, but still!

Also, IIRC ranks in tumble don't seem to be related to ability to actually tumble in the martial stance from ToB that gives you resistance (and then immunity) to fire. So would a non-dwarf in heavy armour with ranks in tumble and the appropriate martial stance (flame's blessing, was it?) would still get the benefits of that stance. I could be wrong on that one, though.

[Vaern]

I don't know if it's actually written anywhere in the books, but I remember seeing this somewhere... One of my friends may have directly sent the question to Wizards, or I may have seen this on a forum post at some point, but I have heard that multiple instances of the same elemental enchantment overlap each other in an odd way.

Suppose you somehow end up with Flaming applied to a weapon twice. For example, using a +1 flaming bow with a +1 flaming arrow. Most people would probably say, "They have the same effect, so I just roll an extra 1d6 fire damage." But that may not be quite right. Doubling the flaming effect might enhance it in a weird way.

Minding, of course, that I don't remember whether this was from an official source or a just a player's suggestion: You have the same bonus (+1d6 fire damage) coming from two sources. As with any other type of bonus, the higher of the two overrides the lower bonus. What you would end up doing is rolling 2d6, and then adding the higher of the two results to the final damage of your attack.

[Hurnn]

alignment sub-type [Evil] or any other makes you count as that alignment regardless of your actual alignment for spells and abilities. "Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is." from the srd.

[Vaern]

alignment sub-type [Evil] or any other makes you count as that alignment regardless of your actual alignment for spells and abilities. "Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is." from the srd.

And likewise, it is possible, though rare, for an outsider with an alignment subtype to have an alignment that does not match the subtype - else that rule would be unnecessary to specify. So yes, somewhere in the infinite, uncountable hordes of demons, you might be able to find a lawful good one.

[Venger]

I don't know if it's actually written anywhere in the books, but I remember seeing this somewhere... One of my friends may have directly sent the question to Wizards, or I may have seen this on a forum post at some point, but I have heard that multiple instances of the same elemental enchantment overlap each other in an odd way.

Suppose you somehow end up with Flaming applied to a weapon twice. For example, using a +1 flaming bow with a +1 flaming arrow. Most people would probably say, "They have the same effect, so I just roll an extra 1d6 fire damage." But that may not be quite right. Doubling the flaming effect might enhance it in a weird way.

Minding, of course, that I don't remember whether this was from an official source or a just a player's suggestion: You have the same bonus (+1d6 fire damage) coming from two sources. As with any other type of bonus, the higher of the two overrides the lower bonus. What you would end up doing is rolling 2d6, and then adding the higher of the two results to the final damage of your attack.

You can't apply the same weapon property to the same weapon more than once.

[Draconium]

And likewise, it is possible, though rare, for an outsider with an alignment subtype to have an alignment that does not match the subtype - else that rule would be unnecessary to specify. So yes, somewhere in the infinite, uncountable hordes of demons, you might be able to find a lawful good one.

Found her.

[zergling.exe]

You can't apply the same weapon property to the same weapon more than once.

If you notice they were using a bow to apply it twice. That's about the only time it would even be relevant.

[Lyndworm]

You can't apply the same weapon property to the same weapon more than once.

Not typically, but there are spells and class abilities that add elemental damage (sometimes expressed in dice, or even explicitly called out as acting like one of the weapon enhancements). There's also the weapon and ammunition possibility that Zergling.exe pointed out. In any of these cases, both numbers apply (and should be rolled for, if necessary) but overlap as described.

[Crake]

If you notice they were using a bow to apply it twice. That's about the only time it would even be relevant.

Except a bow applies it's abilities to it's ammunition. If the ammunition also has the flaming ability, the bow is going to try and apply the same ability on it, thus trying to apply the same ability twice.

[Particle_Man]

From an older edition (1st in fact) but I just *today* realized, after decades of owning the books, that bards gain all the non-spell powers of druids, not just some druid spells.

Mind. Blown.

[Vaern]

There's an interesting way to read into the spellcasting section of the Sublime Chord class description. They gain bard and sorc/wiz spells from 4th level to 9th level.
This grants them access to a non-existent range of 7th, 8th, and 9th level bard spells.

By standard game rules, there are no bard spell options available in this range. The levels may become available to an epic-level bard, though at that point they generally serve no purpose other than allowing the use of metamagic feats on lower spell levels.

However, as spell slots of this class and level range are unexplored territory and technically not epic-level, they grant a unique window of opportunity for creative players to work with their DM to gain access to things like higher level cure spells and/or Heal, as well as more powerful custom spell effects that fit the theme of the bard's base spell list.

[John Longarrow]

Superior Unarmed Strike can be made WORSE on a high level character if said character takes a one or two level dip into MONK. Course this also goes with the FEAT Improved Unarmed Strike granting itself to Monks from the text of the feat INSTEAD of the class specifying it has the Improved Unarmed Strike feat!

[zergling.exe]

Superior Unarmed Strike can be made WORSE on a high level character if said character takes a one or two level dip into MONK. Course this also goes with the FEAT Improved Unarmed Strike granting itself to Monks from the text of the feat INSTEAD of the class specifying it has the Improved Unarmed Strike feat!

Actually:

Unarmed Strike:Monks are highly trained in fighting unarmed, giving them considerable advantages when doing so. At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat.

So Monks do get the feat at first level in their description...

[Mato]

There's an interesting way to read into the spellcasting section of the Sublime Chord class description.

You mean read it like normal?

This grants them access to a non-existent range of 7th, 8th, and 9th level bard spells.

Actually it allows them to choose spells of the bard's list. The key difference here is the rules are not saying you get 7th level bard spells but you can choose spells off another list. What your arguing is a lot like taking your first level in sorcerer and saying that because you can choose your spells you choose 'nothing', except you have to learn a spell and 'nothing' isn't a valid choice.

By standard game rules, there are no bard spell options available in this range. The levels may become available to an epic-level bard,

Epic bard does not advance or grant any spellcasting.

[Vaern]

Actually it allows them to choose spells of the bard's list. The key difference here is the rules are not saying you get 7th level bard spells but you can choose spells off another list. What your arguing is a lot like taking your first level in sorcerer and saying that because you can choose your spells you choose 'nothing', except you have to learn a spell and 'nothing' isn't a valid choice.

Except you're not forced to choose "nothing" just because there's nothing available. You begin spell creation research as per the rules and mechanics outlined for making custom spells in the DMG, you finish creating your new "Bard 7"-equivalent spell, and then you level up and add the spell, which now exists, to your spell list.

Epic bard does not advance or grant any spellcasting.

Except that they do. Not by class progression on its own, of course. No class gains spellcasting progression past level 20 if you only look at the class features and don't pay attention to anything else.
What you're failing to see is that being an epic level bard, like any other spellcaster, grants access to the Improved Spell Capacity feat, which grants spell slots up to one level higher than the maximum level spell you are able to cast. It also grants access to the Spell Knowledge, which allows you to learn new spells of up to the maximum level that you're able to cast. This grants an epic-level bard access to 7th, 8th, and 9th spell slots and access to the "spells known" to learn spells to use in them. As these aren't 10th level or higher, they don't count as "epic spell" slots, and therefore, as I said before, they are only useful for two things: Creating custom non-epic-tier spells that fit the bard's spellcasting theme, or using metamagic with lower-level spells.

[Mato]

Except you're not forced to choose "nothing" just because there's nothing available. You begin spell creation research as per the rules and mechanics outlined for making custom spells in the DMG, you finish creating your new "Bard 7"-equivalent spell, and then you level up and add the spell, which now exists, to your spell list.

Yes, the DM could invent 7th level bard spells for you, he can also invent a modified spellcasting that a bard gains 8th level spells at level one. If you're entire follow up was the DM can invent things with you then you should try aiming a little higher. It's a good bargaining technique because it makes them more open to the smaller thing that you really want.

Also I see your change there. You stopped talking about the epic bard to claim you were talking about epic feats. It'd be nice cover except improved spell capacity says you gain a new slot instead of saying that you learn a new Xth level spell that doesn't exist.

[Mr Adventurer]

Vaern: I'm with you on this. No idea what Mato's problem is.

[Jormengand]

Vaern: I'm with you on this. No idea what Mato's problem is.

I'm going to guess his problem is that Vaern is making crap up on the spot and then saying it as though it were fact, but that's just a wild stab in the dark.