FAQ Update v03062003

[dcollins]

A summary of additions to the Main FAQ v03062003:

(1) Barabarians cannot use wands while raging (per the "no spellcasting" clause).
(2) A Bard counts as his own ally for most bard music abilities.
(3) Epic-level automatic metamagic feats are applied optionally as the spell is cast.
(4) "Bless weapon" acts as a +1 weapon for purposes of defeating evil creatures' DR.
(5) Petrified characters should be treated as immobile construct creatures.
(6) "Wind wall" does affect sling missiles with its 30% miss chance.

A summary of additions to the Monster FAQ v03062003:

(7) Creatures with no Con fail all Con checks, but are immune to Fort checks unless objects are effected, or otherwise noted.
(8) The Darkmantle should be given an exception to Improved Grab to work against creatures up to +2 sizes larger.
(9) Evasion functions against a shadow dragon's breath weapon.
(10) A shambling mound's Con increase from electricity stacks from one application to the next. However, recommends a limit of +2 per HD.

 

[Tom Cashel]

Regarding #4

The description of the bless weapon spell reads, in part: “The weapon negates the damage reduction of evil creatures and is capable of striking evil incorporeal creatures as if it had a +1 enhancement bonus.”
Does that mean: (The weapon negates damage reduction) and (strikes evil incorporeal creatures as if +1)? Or does it mean: (The weapon negates damage reduction and strikes evil incorporeal creatures) as if +1? That is, does the “as if it had a +1 enhancement bonus” phrase apply to the entire sentence or only to the second clause? Does a weapon that receives this spell actually gain a +1 enhancement bonus?

The phrase in question applies to the entire sentence. (To be grammatically precise, it applies to the sentence’s entire compound predicate.) The weapon gains no enhancement bonus; it just functions as though it had one when used against an evil creature with damage reduction or an incorporeal evil creature.

Perhaps the sentence would be clearer to you if it read as follows: The weapon functions as though it had a +1 enchantment bonus when it strikes an evil creature with damage reduction or when it strikes an evil, incorporeal creature.

Perhaps the meaning of the sentence would change completely as well.

The spell says it negates damage reduction. The FAQ claims that it does not say this at all. What a load of malarkey.

 

[Luis Figoo]

The FAQ says it counts as a +1 weapon for bypassing DR.

This is correct else you get people using a level 1 spell to bypass DR 50/+6 or 50/+12 as long as the target is evil

 

[Lord Pendragon]

The FAQ says it counts as a +1 weapon for bypassing DR.

This is correct else you get people using a level 1 spell to bypass DR 50/+6 or 50/+12 as long as the target is evil

Some DMs don't see a problem with this, since Sure Striking is only a +1 enhancement anyway, and only one class--a class specifically designed to be focused against evil creatures--gets access to this spell.

 

[Destil]

Re: Regarding #4

Perhaps the meaning of the sentence would change completely as well.

The spell says it negates damage reduction. The FAQ claims that it does not say this at all. What a load of malarkey.

Uhm... not unles the first read "The weapon negates the damage reduction of all evil creatures and ..." As written the two are logicaly equivelent.

 

[Pielorinho]

Re: Regarding #4

Perhaps the meaning of the sentence would change completely as well.

The spell says it negates damage reduction. The FAQ claims that it does not say this at all. What a load of malarkey.

As a grammar geek, I can back them up. The original rule contains a misplaced modifier, an ambiguous modifier, a close relative of the squinting modifier. They've got a compound predicate, as they rightly state; the "as if..." clause is an adverbial clause modifying the sentence's predicate. However, it can either modify the entire predicate ("negates...and is capable...") or it can modify only the part of the predicate directly adjacent to the clause ("is capable..."). There is no indication in the original sentence which of these interpretations is correct.

Tom, you clearly prefer the second interpretation, leaving the first part of the predicate unrestricted by the adverbial clause (i.e., allowing blessed weapons to negate damage reduction period, not negate damage reduction as if they're +1 weapons). This makes the spell much more powerful than the alternate reading, the one recommended by the FAQ, in which the entire predicate, not just the second part of the predicate, is modified by the adverbial clause.

The FAQ's restatement of the sentence does not change its meaning: it clarifies its meaning.

Daniel

 

[Tom Cashel]

Yes.

Bad idea to use the word "negate" in the original sentence if you don't really mean negate.

 

[drnuncheon]

Re: Re: Regarding #4

Tom, you clearly prefer the second interpretation, leaving the first part of the predicate unrestricted by the adverbial clause (i.e., allowing blessed weapons to negate damage reduction period, not negate damage reduction as if they're +1 weapons).

The crux of the argument that blessed weapons go through all DR is the word 'negate' - people claim that ordinarily, magic weapons do not 'negate' DR, and so this must mean something else.

However, they are wrong, as the SRD says "Any weapon more powerful than the type given after the slash also negates the ability".

J

 

[Pielorinho]

Yes.

Bad idea to use the word "negate" in the original sentence if you don't really mean negate.

The original sentence, if you remove the second part of the compound predicate, would read, "The weapon negates the damage reduction of evil creatures as if it had a +1 enhancement bonus." I fail to see how that could mean anything other than that such a blessed weapon does full damage to any creature with DR x/+1 or less. Did you think that a creature struck by a blessed weapon had its DR negated for ever and ever?

Daniel