Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXI

[willpell]

Btw, I did make another thread for this, so we don't bog this one down.

You did? I went looking for it just now but didn't see it on page 1 of this board.

[ragnar]

Q1209

If during a round I use one of my hand for any action, can I still give an attack with a two-handed weapon (and thus gain the associated damage bonus) ?


Q1210

Symmetrically, while doing 2-handed attacks am I allowed to free one of my hand to perform an action ?

[Andezzar]

A 1209, 1210

As far as I can tell, there are no rules for it, so it is up to the individual DM.

[Crake]

Q1209

If during a round I use one of my hand for any action, can I still give an attack with a two-handed weapon (and thus gain the associated damage bonus) ?


Q1210

Symmetrically, while doing 2-handed attacks am I allowed to free one of my hand to perform an action ?

A1209/1210

Since actions occur in sequential order, and taking a hand off a weapon is a free action, there is nothing stopping you from wielding a two handed weapon and performing actions which require a single hand, such as opening doors or casting spells with somatic components, as it merely a free action to move your hand back to your weapon. If you had a quickened spell with a somatic component ready you could actually cast it in the middle of a full attack if you wished, as you are able to use free actions between the attacks in a full attack.

[Andezzar]

taking a hand off a weapon is a free action,

Would you prove that please. It's not in the list for free actions.

[ahenobarbi]

Q 1211
Are there any uncapped damaging spells besides Wings of Flurry?

[Curmudgeon]

Re: A 1209

... it merely a free action to move your hand back to your weapon.

That's not RAW. It's up to each individual DM to decide what action is required to re-grip a weapon. One DM might decide that it's a free action, but another require the usual move action necessary to manipulate an item.

A 1210

Would you prove that please. It's not in the list for free actions.

Dropping an item is a free action. "Item" is not a D&D term with restricted meaning like "object", so it can include body parts such as hands: hence dropping a hand from a weapon is a free action.

[Andezzar]

Removing your hand from an item is not dropping an item. If you do so, nothing is dropped. I wonder at this liberal interpretation in the RAW thread.

P.S. Of course I would handle it in the same way at my table.

[Curmudgeon]

Removing your hand from an item is not dropping an item.

Removing your hand (an item) from a weapon (another item) is dropping one of those items. As I stated, "item" is not a term with a restricted D&D definition. A body part is not a D&D object, but it is an item.

[Sith_Happens]

Re: A 1197

Note that while the table for the Rainbow Servant class indicates four lost caster levels, the class features description does not. Because text trumps table, the Rainbow Servant is by RAW a full casting class.

[RFLS]

A1197
Yes - once you have completed Rainbow Servant keep taking levels of the original class or Epic Rainbow Servant until you reach the required caster level.

Ah. See. The thing is that the PrC loses 4 caster levels, and I was looking for a way to get 9ths before Epic.

[Andezzar]

Removing your hand (an item) from a weapon (another item) is dropping one of those items. As I stated, "item" is not a term with a restricted D&D definition. A body part is not a D&D object, but it is an item.

I disagree. At least Merriam-Webster's definition does not say or IMHO imply body part or more generally part of a whole. I would not call a hand an item unless it is separated from the rest of the body.

[Razanir]

Q1212 If I draw Talons from a Deck of Many Things, do I lose the deck as well?

[Sith_Happens]

Ah. See. The thing is that the PrC loses 4 caster levels, and I was looking for a way to get 9ths before Epic.

*cough* *points up*

[Andezzar]

A 1212

An artifact is a magic item, so the deck of many things is also lost.

[Lateral]

Q 1213

Are there any ways to give an object permanent immunity to an energy type? Immunity to electricity, optimally, but any energy type would do.

Alternatively, are there any materials that are immune to electricity?

[GilesTheCleric]

Q1214

What is the RAW on the numerical effect for the "Sword of Conscience" spell (BoED 109)? I cannot seem to find out how much wis and cha damage it does. Is the effect based upon the strength of the foe's aura, HD, alignment, the deeds it has done, or something else?

A1213

All of the energy immunity/resist spells from divine casters affect creatures, not objects. If you can use a creature as a weapon (monk, hulking hurler, etc), then that would work. Otherwise, you could make a weapon/object out of stone or bone or wood (AaEG 12; DMG 144) Don't forget that objects you have on you are able to use your saves against spells in some cases. Making the weapon/object spell-reflecting/absorbing might also work. Also: antimagic field.

If you magically craft a weapon yourself, you could ask your GM if you could stick an energy immunity spell on it, but that's not RAW. A wondrous item seems very likely to be able to have this property.

Aurorum (BoED 38) reforms after it is destroyed, so it is effectively immune. There are a number of divine spells that will create simple objects out of ice or stone (Stone Shape PHB; Stone Shape, Greater SC; Ice Shape Fb), and with a craft check you can make more complex objects. Many of the "Wall of..." spells are immune to all energy types but one, and some are able to form domes or more complex structures.

What kind of application do you need this for (what kind of object), and is it immunity vs. magical electricity/energy, or natural electricity?

[Medic!]

Q1214

What is the RAW on the numerical effect for the "Sword of Conscience" spell (BoED 109)? I cannot seem to find out how much wis and cha damage it does. Is the effect based upon the strength of the foe's aura, HD, alignment, the deeds it has done, or something else?

A1214
From the bottom right corner of p.109:
Consequences of Sword of Conscience
—-Wisdom and Charisma Damage—-
{table]Creature/Object | 1d6 | 1d8 | 2d6 | 2d8
Evil creature[1] (HD) | 10 or lower | 11–25 | 26–50 | 51+
Evil elemental or undead (HD) | 2 or lower | 3–8 | 9–20 | 21+
Evil outsider (HD)| 1 or lower | 2–4 | 5–10 | 11+
Cleric of an evil deity[2] (Class levels) | 1 | 2–4 | 5–10 | 11+[/table]

[1] Except for evil elementals, undead, and outsiders, which have their own entries on
the table.
[2] Some characters who are not clerics may radiate an aura of equivalent power. The class description will indicate whether this applies.

[willpell]

Q1215
If a creature has a Strength penalty and Sneak Attack, when it rolls its normal damage and gets a 1, does it subtract its Strength penalty from the Sneak Attack damage, or is the damage capped at a minimum of 1 before Sneak Attack is added?

[Qc Storm]

Q1216

Is it possible to take Exotic Weapon Proficiency if you do not have proficiency with Martial Weapons? Or even Simple Weapons. This is mostly for Eidolons/Pathfinder.

Q1217

Is it possible to Mix and Match weapon and unarmed attacks during TWF? As in, using Weapon 1 as a primary weapon, and using kick as an off-hand weapon.

Q1218

Related to Q1216. Can an Eidolon use natural attacks combined with a weapon? Like a Weapon + Bite + Gore + Slam at level 1.

[Kelb_Panthera]

A: 1217

That's one of those hot-button topics. There's a lengthy discussion here.

Do be warned, I don't think they've actually come to a concensus.

[Andezzar]

A 1215

Neither. Sneak attack is part of your damage. You add up everything, positive as well as negative numbers. Only the end result will never be below 1. It's weapon damage dice + weapon enhancement bonus + STR Bonus/Penalty + Sneak Attack dice + other damage bonuses.

A 1216

In 3.5 yes, the only prerequisite for Exotic Weapon Proficiency is BAB 1 (and STR 13 for certain exotic weapons). I can't say for pathfinder though

[Khedrac]

Re: A 1197
Note that while the table for the Rainbow Servant class indicates four lost caster levels, the class features description does not. Because text trumps table, the Rainbow Servant is by RAW a full casting class.

Admittedly this is FAQ not Errata, but the Rainbow Servant is one where the FAQ is usually regarded to be correct.

Does the rainbow servant (CD 54) and sacred fist (CD
59) gain spellcasting levels for every level of the class or just
levels shown on their table?
In the Sage’s opinion, these classes gain spellcasting as
their tables indicate. Normally, if there is a difference between
what a table says and what the ability indicates in its written
explanation, we suggest you use the written rules. This
exception, however, maintains a good game balance for these
classes within the larger game.

[Andezzar]

While this may possibly be closer to the intention of the writers, FAQ cannot change rules. Why they did not bother to change it in the respective errata I don't know. As it stands the FAQ is wrong in that case because of the official text trumps table rule.

[willpell]

Why would the company even bother to issue FAQ if they were not just as binding as rule errata? It makes no sense to treat anything that comes from Wizards as NOT being part of RAW. If it's something like a former Wizards employee writing on his blog about his intended changes to the book he wrote, I can see an argument for disregarding that opinion, even though it comes straight from the author. But anything from Wotco comes straight from the entire publication department, and has presumably been approved. If you can just disregard it as "not RAW", why does it exist?

[Andezzar]

Why would the company even bother to issue FAQ if they were not just as binding as rule errata? It makes no sense to treat anything that comes from Wizards as NOT being part of RAW. If it's something like a former Wizards employee writing on his blog about his intended changes to the book he wrote, I can see an argument for disregarding that opinion, even though it comes straight from the author. But anything from Wotco comes straight from the entire publication department, and has presumably been approved. If you can just disregard it as "not RAW", why does it exist?

The purpose of FAQ is to explain RAW if it is unclear/ambiguous and not to contradict it. If the writers found out that the RAW produce results other than the intended ones, the rules need to be changed. Until this is the case, the FAQ are irrelevant if they contradict the rules.

[Lord_Gareth]

The purpose of FAQ is to explain RAW if it is unclear/ambiguous and not to contradict it. If the writers found out that the RAW produce results other than the intended ones, the rules need to be changed. Until this is the case, the FAQ are irrelevant if they contradict the rules.

To add to this, the FAQs are often answered by people who did not understand the rules whatsoever, which is why only printed errata is respected.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Why would the company even bother to issue FAQ if they were not just as binding as rule errata? It makes no sense to treat anything that comes from Wizards as NOT being part of RAW. If it's something like a former Wizards employee writing on his blog about his intended changes to the book he wrote, I can see an argument for disregarding that opinion, even though it comes straight from the author. But anything from Wotco comes straight from the entire publication department, and has presumably been approved. If you can just disregard it as "not RAW", why does it exist?

The FAQ only exists to give semi-official answers based on a reading of the rules done by a customer relations employee.

That's read; someone with no more to go on than we do, except maybe a vague memory of what was intended by one of the designers that's got his mind on the current project, if (s)he's lucky.

Then of course there's the fact that they've made suggestions that are blatantly against the rules as they were most likely intended, nevermind the actuall rules as they appear in the books.

It's a simple matter of credibility really.

[Kornaki]

A: 1217

That's one of those hot-button topics. There's a lengthy discussion here.

Do be warned, I don't think they've actually come to a concensus.

You can two weapon fight with an unarmed weapon

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/spe...WeaponFighting

If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)

I read this as unambiguously stating that an unarmed strike can be your off-hand weapon.

The debate in the linked thread seems to be about a more complicated attack than just using an unarmed strike as your offhand weapon

[Lateral]

Q 1219

How far can one fall in a single round?