D&D 3e/3.5e/d20The forum for conversations specifically related to the rules and procedures of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition, 3.5 Edition, or any fantasy game using the d20 system or a variant thereof (commercially published or not).
q978 If I have the Maiming strike feat from EoE, allowing me to convert 2d6 SA into 1 point of cha damage, does an attack that would deal double damage (such as spirited charge) multiply the cha damage?
All non-dice damage bonuses are multiplied on critical hits, so Maiming Strike damage would always be multiplied on a confirmed critical. Spirited Charge is unclear, though.
Quote:
When mounted and using the charge action, you deal double damage with a melee weapon (or triple damage with a lance).
Sneak attack and Maiming Strike are extra damage beyond what your weapon deals. Spirited Charge is specific to "damage with a melee weapon", so it's up to each individual DM whether that's inclusive or exclusive of extra damage ─ independent of the chosen melee weapon ─ associated with the attack.
Inquisition Domain text: "Gain a +4 bonus on dispel checks."
Dispelling Chord text: "...you gain a +2 competence bonus on any dispel checks you make until the end of your turn."
Do these bonuses apply to dispel checks you make when using a Dispelling weapon (are those considered your dispel checks)?
Sorry, to clarify my question...
So, given that evidence, can you say you can use Magic Missile per RAW using the spell description, or can you only use it RAI? Because it says Targets in the quick description, does that mean RAW means no and RAI means yes?
As others have said, you can use magic missile. This is supported by a careful grammatical reading of the passage.
What I mean is as follows. The words "single" and "targeted" are both adjectives. If two adjectives directly precede a noun, as these two do to "spell", they necessarily modify the noun.
Now, this can be changed, but only by punctuation. The sentence that would rain on your parade would have the hyphenated phrase "single-targeted spell" in it--but the phrase is, instead, "single targeted spell". And so, even by a strict grammatical reading, "single" applies to "spell" and not to "targeted".
A dispelling weapon has its own caster level, and the wielder uses the weapon's targeted Dispel Magic effect. This is unaffected by adjustments to the dispel checks of the character wielding the weapon. The weapon's dispel checks remain at 1d20+5 for dispelling, or d20+11 for greater dispelling.
A dispelling weapon has its own caster level, and the wielder uses the weapon's targeted Dispel Magic effect. This is unaffected by adjustments to the dispel checks of the character wielding the weapon. The weapon's dispel checks remain at 1d20+5 for dispelling, or d20+11 for greater dispelling.
Q980 additional
Would that change if the creator of the weapon had the Inquisition domain?
The item creation formulas don't change based on the actual characteristics of the creators; items are created at the specified minimum characteristics.
Quote:
Magic items produce spells or spell-like effects. For a saving throw against a spell or spell-like effect from a magic item, the DC is 10 + the level of the spell or effect + the ability modifier of the minimum ability score needed to cast that level of spell.
The CL of 5 specified for a dispelling weapon is the minimum caster level needed to cast Dispel Magic (a 3rd-level spell). Similarly, the CL of 11 specified for a greater dispelling weapon is the minimum caster level needed to cast Greater Dispel Magic (a 6th-level spell).
Better-quality gear requires a PC with the appropriate item creation feat to craft a custom item, with commensurate cost increases.
Q 981
What happens if a cleric that somehow lost its domain granted power, via ACF, wants to substitute said domain with the spell substitute domain (CC. 128)?
Q 981b
What happens if a cleric that can cast spells from a domain spontaneously, (acf phb 2. 37) decides to substitute said domain with the spell substitute domain (CC. 128)? Would he be able to cast its new spells spontaneously?
Q 981c
Similarly what happens if a cleric uses substitute domain (CC. 128) to substitute away a domain which qualified it for a PrC or which granted power was a feat that qualified him for another feat or a PrC? Does he lose the prestige class / feats?
If a creature has no gained hit dice or extra feats, is it still a forced +2 on character adjustment by RAW? *Stated Example* werecats from monsters of faerun *p.96*
Q983 Can you use the tactical maneuver "Momentum Swing" from the feat Combat Brute, and the tactical maneuver "Heedless Charge" in shock trooper on the same attack?
Substitute Domain only applies to the Cleric's current domains.
Quote:
Each domain gives the cleric access to a domain spell at each spell level he can cast, from 1st on up, as well as a granted power.
A partial domain (missing either its spells or its granted power) does not meet this definition from the Cleric class description (Player's Handbook, page 33). There is no option in the spell description to select a part of a domain for substitution, so the spell will do nothing.
A 981b No.
Spontaneous Domain Casting requires the Cleric to pick a single domain at the time the ACF is chosen (Cleric level 1). This is a one-time choice, and does not change.
A 981c
Quote:
A character can’t use a feat if he or she has lost a prerequisite.
For prestige classes, only those in Complete Warrior and Complete Arcane require the character to continuously meet entry requirements; see the (different) rules in those books on pages 16 and 17, respectively. For other classes you only need to satisfy entry requirements each time you add a class level. (See LEVEL ADVANCEMENT sequence in Player's Handbook, pages 58-59. Step 1. Choose Class activates the entry requirements on every class entry, not just at class level 1.) With most classes loss of entry requirements would not affect current capabilities, but only preclude further advancement in the class.
Q984: Are spells that affect multiple targets, such as mass owl's wisdom, or spells shared via the share spells class ability that almost anyone with a familiar/mount/companion gets treated as one spell affecting multiple targets, or multiple copies of one spell? For instance, if someone successfully cast dispel magic on one person being affected by one of those things, would it dispel it for everyone? Would an incantatrix retroactively adding a metamagic feat to such a spell affect everyone with one use of the ability?
A single casting produces a single spell (even with multiple affected targets), and a targeted Dispel Magic would be able to end that spell (completely) if in range of and targeted at any part of the spell, as usual (i.e., a targeted dispel does not need to be in range of all parts of the spell targeted to end that spell).
The Incantatrix's Metamagic Effect ability has a requirement:
Quote:
To use this ability, the incantatrix must be adjacent to or within the spell effect and make a successful Spellcraft check (DC 18 + [3 × modified spell level]).
If the Incantatrix is not adjacent to or within the spell effect, Metamagic Effect does nothing; only spell effects within range can be affected. The ability applies to spell effects, not (necessarily) entire spells.
I asked a similar question a few months ago, but got kind of sparse answers, and now the answer I gleaned from the response is being disputed. Just for redundancy's sake, let me run these specific scenarios by you guys.
Q986-1
Character A is affected by a constant Nondetection spell. Character B happens to be standing right next to character A, 10 feet away or less, but has no active effects that would hinder scrying. Character C casts greater scrying, targeting character B. Character B fails his will save against Greater Scrying, character C fails her caster level check against Nondetection (though it's disputable whether she had to make one in the first place). Can character C see character A? If not, is he simply invisible to the spell, while everything else is not? Does he cast a shadow? Can she hear him talk?
Q986-2
Similar to the above scenario, character C casts Greater Scrying on character B, but this time character A is not nearby. Character B again fails his will save. Immediately thereafter, while the Greater Scrying spell is still active, characters A and B meet up at the same location. Character C again fails her caster level check against Nondetection, though again I'm not sure whether she actually needs to make the check or not. Can character C see character A with the spell?
Q986-3
Character A, still affected by Nondetection, breaks through the wall and jumps out of character C's a flying castle, tears a hole the roof of the building he lands on, and then stays in that building for an extended period of time. Character C casts Arcane Eye. She flies the magical sensor out the hole in the side of her castle, looks down, sees the hole in the roof of the other building, and flies the sensor down through it, at which point the sensor is within line of sight of character A. If a caster level check is required at any point during this, she fails it again. Can she see character A?
Yes, I believe you can prepare spells in an Anti-Magic Field. Of course, you still can't cast any spell prepared inside an Anti-Magic Field until you leave it or the Field is deactivated (either dismissed from the inside or dispelled – more accurately disjoined – from the outside). Until you cast them, prepared spells are only potential magic, not actual magic, so I don't know how an Anti-Magic Field could affect them one way or another.
I also know of no rule that prohibits preparing spells in an Anti-Magic Field. I would be surprised if someone found one that does. (But I have been surprised before – that's why I read this thread!)
If Character A is affected by Nondetection, they cannot be detected by a divination spell like Greater Scrying. The provision in Nondetection which requires a caster level check when "a divination is attempted against the warded creature" does not require the creature to be specifically targeted. Attempting to detect the creature adjacent to another target still requires a caster level check. Failing that caster level check means the spellcaster cannot see the warded creature or their shadow, hear their voice, or directly detect any other indication of their presence. Hearing the other character speak to the warded creature may give an indirect indication that they are nearby, but not necessarily within 10'.
A 986-2
The answer is the same as above. Nondetection functions as stated.
A 986-3 No.
The answer is still the same as above: Nondetection functions as stated.
Is a Duelist's Precise Strike class feature an automatic bonus added to all their attacks with the appropriate weapons, or is it a special single attack that needs to be activated with a Standard Action?
__________________
"Nothing you can't spell will ever work." - Will Rogers
"What you must learn is that these rules are no different than the rules of a computer system. Some of them can be bent. Others can be broken." - Morpheus, The Matrix
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krellen
Remember, Evil isn't "selfish". It's Evil. "Look out for number one" is a Neutral attitude. Evil looks out for number one while crushing number two.
A 987
Yes, I believe you can prepare spells in an Anti-Magic Field. Of course, you still can't cast any spell prepared inside an Anti-Magic Field until you leave it or the Field is deactivated (either dismissed from the inside or dispelled – more accurately disjoined – from the outside). Until you cast them, prepared spells are only potential magic, not actual magic, so I don't know how an Anti-Magic Field could affect them one way or another.
This might be permitted by RAW, but I'm pretty sure the fluff on spellcasting has always been that preparing a spell means casting it most of the way, leaving it to "float" until completed. So any DM who is coming from that basis might well veto the idea. I'd say the answer is more "ask your DM" than "yes" or even "probably".
This might be permitted by RAW, but I'm pretty sure the fluff on spellcasting has always been that preparing a spell means casting it most of the way, leaving it to "float" until completed. So any DM who is coming from that basis might well veto the idea. I'd say the answer is more "ask your DM" than "yes" or even "probably".
Fluff is not RAW, though.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilingsworth
Wow! Not only was that awesome, I think I actually kinda understand Archeron now. If all the "intermediate" outer planes got that kind of treatment, I doubt there would be anywhere near as many critics of their utility.
Never said it was, just that it suggested this might not be a simple question.
RAW is pretty clear though. The description of the spell Antimagic sphere tells us what you can't do within the spell's area. Preparing spells is not one of those things.
RSS Feeds: 
Re: Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 (by RAW) XXI
