Gez
First Post
One can see it here.
Boys will be boys, the sage will stay the sage, whomever he is.
Q: Gaining a familiar grants the Alertness feat when the familiar is within 5 feet of its master. Does this count as actually gaining the Alertness feat for prerequisite purposes? For example, the Vigilante prestige class requires the Alertness feat, and I would like to know whether owning a familiar satisfies that prerequisite.
A: In this case, no. There is something called a "virtual feat;" for example, monks and rangers have those for their fighting abilities. Alertness from a familiar is a bit too conditional to meet a prerequisite. It's really just written that way to save space. (Actually, what's really going on is that your familiar automatically aids you with Spot and Listen checks.)
I actually like it. It means a wizard with the Alertness feat and a familiar nearby will get a total +4 bonus, right ? Feat bonuses do stack with the "aid another" action. Still, it contradict the core rule. Unless it's a preview of 3.5.
Q: This question pertains to the specific enchantments, the burst spells. If you have a shocking burst arrow, it has that effect all by itself, and if you have a shocking burst bow, then it imbues any regular arrow with that effect. Can you have, say, a shocking burst bow and a flame burst arrow and have the effects stack to do a ridiculous amount of electricity AND fire damage?
A: I can’t think of any enchantment spell that is a burst. You’re actually speaking of a weapon property. There has been considerable talk about projectile weapons imparting their special properties to weapons, but that's not what happens. Check out ranged weapons and ammunition on Page 183 of the DMG. The bonuses of, say, a magical bow and a magical arrow stack, but only the arrow's magic applies when the arrow actually hits.
An angry nitpick because English lacks a term describing the "magicization" of an item or person other than "enchanting". Is the sage Sean K. Reynolds now ? Great. The words "enchantment" and "enchanted" are used throughout the whole chapter to describe magical properties of item.
And then, something wich is again clearly against the core rules:
From the DMG, page 186 and next:
Flaming burst: "Bows, crossbows, and slings so enchanted bestow the fire energy upon their ammunition."
Same wording, to the exception of "fire" replaced by the proper energy form, for shocking burst and icy burst.
If this is a preview of 3.5, then flaming bows and similar stuff are going to suck severely. You'll have to hit with the bow as a melee weapon ?
Q: I know that +1 melee weapons can harm incorporeal creatures. However, what about +1 bows? Do the arrows being shot from the bow have to be +1 arrows in order to harm incorporeal creatures, or is only the +1 bow sufficient?
A: As discussed earlier, it's only the projectile magic that counts when it hits. If you fire a normal arrow from a +1 bow, you get the +1 to your attack roll, but the arrow goes splat against most DR and goes swish through incorporeal targets.
That one I could accept.
Q: Can the spell alter self be used to change a character's size to one degree? For instance, can a Medium-sized character use the spell to become Small (and therefore use all applicable size modifiers) or Large?
A: Looking ahead to the revision, yes. Think of alter self as a sort of a mini polymorph self. A change of one size category up or down is allowed with the new spell.
That's interesting. I wonder if enlarge and reduce will be similarly streamlined.
Q: With the adept NPC class out of the DMG it refers to the divine spellcasting section of the PH (p.156 PH), which then refers to a lower paragraph for further explanation of spontaneous casting. Do adepts get spontaneous casting like a cleric because they are the only spellcasting NPC class for all magics?
A: It's been awhile since I’ve read the adept closely, but I'd be very surprised if they could do any spontaneous casting. Check out the description again; if you don't find a specific mention -- one just like the cleric has -- it doesn't spontaneously cast.
Here we have the explanation why sages are sages: they don't read the books to reply to question, even when they are not sure of what they say. As for the whole mess about that question, I think the asker just confused spontaneous casting (of sorcerer) and spontaneous spell conversion (into cure or inflict spells).
Q: Does faerie fire counter concealment from obscuring mist? The spell description says, "Outlined creatures do not benefit from the concealment normally caused by darkness, blur, displacement, invisibility, or similar effects." The description neither confirms nor denies whether faerie fire counters obscuring mist.
A: The revision handles this one pretty well. Until then assume that faerie fire does negate concealment due to bad visibility when line of sight to the recipient is not blocked. Anything that provides total concealment blocks line of sight. So for example, deeper darkness overcomes faerie fire. The various cloud effects will or won’t depending on how thick they are. Obscuring mist, for example, only provides partial concealment at short ranges, and faerie fire would negate that. Any fog thick enough to prevent all vision blocks line of sight. Blur, displacement, and invisibility are all visually based and faerie fire defeats them. Something like blink doesn’t depend on sight, and faerie fire is ineffective.
Interesting, and I agree with the reasoning.
Q: The salamander is a Medium-size creature that gains a reach of 10 feet because it wields a longspear. Does a noble salamander, which is a Large creature with a normal reach of 10 feet, gain a reach of 15 feet because it wields a Huge longspear?
A: A creature with natural reach doubles its natural reach when using any reach weapon. A noble salamander has a reach of 20 feet with a longspear and can attack foes 10 to 20 feet away. Check out big and little creatures in combat in Chapter 8 of the PH.
What ? Double ?
Q: For the purposes of attack and defense modes does a mind flayer who has no levels in a psionic class count as a nonpsionic creature? Also, does the same apply for the githyanki and githzerai and other psionic creatures that don't have levels in the psionic class?
A: I'm not sure I understand the question. However, psionic abilities are just spell-like abilities, and a creature with no attack or defense modes and no psionic class levels conducts psionic combat as a nonpsionic creature (though a mind flayer can do a fairly good imitation of a psionic creature).
I always thought we were supposed to apply the "psionic template" to creatures from the MM with psionic powers (aboleth, mind-flayers, yuan-ti, plus the yochlol from MC: Monsters of Faerûn) if we use the rules from the psionics handbook.
I've snipped the Q/A for which I had no remarks.
Boys will be boys, the sage will stay the sage, whomever he is.
Q: Gaining a familiar grants the Alertness feat when the familiar is within 5 feet of its master. Does this count as actually gaining the Alertness feat for prerequisite purposes? For example, the Vigilante prestige class requires the Alertness feat, and I would like to know whether owning a familiar satisfies that prerequisite.
A: In this case, no. There is something called a "virtual feat;" for example, monks and rangers have those for their fighting abilities. Alertness from a familiar is a bit too conditional to meet a prerequisite. It's really just written that way to save space. (Actually, what's really going on is that your familiar automatically aids you with Spot and Listen checks.)
I actually like it. It means a wizard with the Alertness feat and a familiar nearby will get a total +4 bonus, right ? Feat bonuses do stack with the "aid another" action. Still, it contradict the core rule. Unless it's a preview of 3.5.
Q: This question pertains to the specific enchantments, the burst spells. If you have a shocking burst arrow, it has that effect all by itself, and if you have a shocking burst bow, then it imbues any regular arrow with that effect. Can you have, say, a shocking burst bow and a flame burst arrow and have the effects stack to do a ridiculous amount of electricity AND fire damage?
A: I can’t think of any enchantment spell that is a burst. You’re actually speaking of a weapon property. There has been considerable talk about projectile weapons imparting their special properties to weapons, but that's not what happens. Check out ranged weapons and ammunition on Page 183 of the DMG. The bonuses of, say, a magical bow and a magical arrow stack, but only the arrow's magic applies when the arrow actually hits.
An angry nitpick because English lacks a term describing the "magicization" of an item or person other than "enchanting". Is the sage Sean K. Reynolds now ? Great. The words "enchantment" and "enchanted" are used throughout the whole chapter to describe magical properties of item.
And then, something wich is again clearly against the core rules:
From the DMG, page 186 and next:
Flaming burst: "Bows, crossbows, and slings so enchanted bestow the fire energy upon their ammunition."
Same wording, to the exception of "fire" replaced by the proper energy form, for shocking burst and icy burst.
If this is a preview of 3.5, then flaming bows and similar stuff are going to suck severely. You'll have to hit with the bow as a melee weapon ?
Q: I know that +1 melee weapons can harm incorporeal creatures. However, what about +1 bows? Do the arrows being shot from the bow have to be +1 arrows in order to harm incorporeal creatures, or is only the +1 bow sufficient?
A: As discussed earlier, it's only the projectile magic that counts when it hits. If you fire a normal arrow from a +1 bow, you get the +1 to your attack roll, but the arrow goes splat against most DR and goes swish through incorporeal targets.
That one I could accept.
Q: Can the spell alter self be used to change a character's size to one degree? For instance, can a Medium-sized character use the spell to become Small (and therefore use all applicable size modifiers) or Large?
A: Looking ahead to the revision, yes. Think of alter self as a sort of a mini polymorph self. A change of one size category up or down is allowed with the new spell.
That's interesting. I wonder if enlarge and reduce will be similarly streamlined.
Q: With the adept NPC class out of the DMG it refers to the divine spellcasting section of the PH (p.156 PH), which then refers to a lower paragraph for further explanation of spontaneous casting. Do adepts get spontaneous casting like a cleric because they are the only spellcasting NPC class for all magics?
A: It's been awhile since I’ve read the adept closely, but I'd be very surprised if they could do any spontaneous casting. Check out the description again; if you don't find a specific mention -- one just like the cleric has -- it doesn't spontaneously cast.
Here we have the explanation why sages are sages: they don't read the books to reply to question, even when they are not sure of what they say. As for the whole mess about that question, I think the asker just confused spontaneous casting (of sorcerer) and spontaneous spell conversion (into cure or inflict spells).
Q: Does faerie fire counter concealment from obscuring mist? The spell description says, "Outlined creatures do not benefit from the concealment normally caused by darkness, blur, displacement, invisibility, or similar effects." The description neither confirms nor denies whether faerie fire counters obscuring mist.
A: The revision handles this one pretty well. Until then assume that faerie fire does negate concealment due to bad visibility when line of sight to the recipient is not blocked. Anything that provides total concealment blocks line of sight. So for example, deeper darkness overcomes faerie fire. The various cloud effects will or won’t depending on how thick they are. Obscuring mist, for example, only provides partial concealment at short ranges, and faerie fire would negate that. Any fog thick enough to prevent all vision blocks line of sight. Blur, displacement, and invisibility are all visually based and faerie fire defeats them. Something like blink doesn’t depend on sight, and faerie fire is ineffective.
Interesting, and I agree with the reasoning.
Q: The salamander is a Medium-size creature that gains a reach of 10 feet because it wields a longspear. Does a noble salamander, which is a Large creature with a normal reach of 10 feet, gain a reach of 15 feet because it wields a Huge longspear?
A: A creature with natural reach doubles its natural reach when using any reach weapon. A noble salamander has a reach of 20 feet with a longspear and can attack foes 10 to 20 feet away. Check out big and little creatures in combat in Chapter 8 of the PH.
What ? Double ?
Q: For the purposes of attack and defense modes does a mind flayer who has no levels in a psionic class count as a nonpsionic creature? Also, does the same apply for the githyanki and githzerai and other psionic creatures that don't have levels in the psionic class?
A: I'm not sure I understand the question. However, psionic abilities are just spell-like abilities, and a creature with no attack or defense modes and no psionic class levels conducts psionic combat as a nonpsionic creature (though a mind flayer can do a fairly good imitation of a psionic creature).
I always thought we were supposed to apply the "psionic template" to creatures from the MM with psionic powers (aboleth, mind-flayers, yuan-ti, plus the yochlol from MC: Monsters of Faerûn) if we use the rules from the psionics handbook.
I've snipped the Q/A for which I had no remarks.
