New FAQ over at Wizards.com

[youspoonybard]

Glancing over it, there are some things I like having in there, such as "Animal Companions don't gain size increases" and "Prestige classes don't count towards XP penalties"...though they still haven't "fixed" the 2 prestige class problems in 1 place : P

 

[shilsen]

I especially liked having the first one in there. At least now one can just provide the FAQ as a reference instead of going "no, they don't increase in size because they aren't mentioned as doing so". I think I've posted that half a dozen times

 

[Caliban]

Unfortunately they printed they Sages response indicating that Acid, Sonic, and Force effects ignore hardness, which I can't find any support for in the rules.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Unfortunately they printed they Sages response indicating that Acid, Sonic, and Force effects ignore hardness, which I can't find any support for in the rules.

I don't know about Force, but Acid and Sonic are covered.

Energy Attacks: Acid and sonic attacks deal damage to most objects just as they do to creatures; roll damage and apply it normally after a successful hit. Electricity and fire attacks deal half damage to most objects; divide the damage dealt by 2 before applying the hardness. Cold attacks deal one-quarter damage to most objects; divide the damage dealt by 4 before applying the hardness.

-----

Firstly, the sentence about Acid and Sonic does not mention "applying hardness" like Fire, Electricity, and Cold.

Secondly, it says "deal damage just as they do to creatures" - you don't apply hardness when damaging a creature.

-Hyp.

 

[youspoonybard]

So, Hyp, any controversial FAQ rulings that conflict with the rules?

 

[Hypersmurf]

So, Hyp, any controversial FAQ rulings that conflict with the rules?

Just glancing through the red ones... apart from what Caliban's already picked up, all looks fine.

And at long bloody last we've got something we can point people to about Manyshot and Shot on the Run that isn't subject to "Yeah, but how do I know the Sage really wrote that in an email?" or "I bet that wasn't really Andy Collins on that message board".

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

I don't know about Force, but Acid and Sonic are covered.

Energy Attacks: Acid and sonic attacks deal damage to most objects just as they do to creatures; roll damage and apply it normally after a successful hit. Electricity and fire attacks deal half damage to most objects; divide the damage dealt by 2 before applying the hardness. Cold attacks deal one-quarter damage to most objects; divide the damage dealt by 4 before applying the hardness.

-----

Firstly, the sentence about Acid and Sonic does not mention "applying hardness" like Fire, Electricity, and Cold.

Secondly, it says "deal damage just as they do to creatures" - you don't apply hardness when damaging a creature.

-Hyp.

You see, I've never read it that way, and I've never seen it played that way.

To me, the reason it doesn't meantion "applying hardness" like Fire, Electricity, and Cold is that the damage isn't halved. Since it is halved for (fire, cold, electricity), you need to know if you halve it before or after reducing it for hardness.

Since Hardness says it reducess all damage, you don't need to mention that again in Sonic or Acid, since they aren't being halved. I really thought that it would have been mentioned in the Hardness entry if it there were damage types that flat ignored it.

Not halving the damage seems like more than enough of a damage boost for sonic and acid spells. As it stands with the FAQ, a 2nd level Melf's acid arrow can eat through a block of adamantine if it lasts long enough. Acid and Sonic spells are even more powerful now than they were before, and Energy Sub Acid and Sonic are absolutely brutal against equipment, buildings, or constructs.

I just disagree with this ruling completely.

 

[Hypersmurf]

You see, I've never read it that way, and I've never seen it played that way.

I agree, but I don't think the wording in the book contradicts what the Sage said.

If the question hadn't come up, I would have assumed "apply hardness".

But I can find support for the Sage's position in the RAW.

Balance considerations aside, I think it's a valid interpretation.

-Hyp.

 

[youspoonybard]

Hyp, could you explain the last entry to me?

"The text on page 289 in the DUNGEON MASTER’s Guide
says a supernatural ability cannot be dispelled. Table 8-1 on
the next page, however, says it can. Which one is right? If
supernatural abilities cannot be dispelled, can they be
removed or countered in other ways? What would happen,
for example, if a medusa turns my character to stone? Can
anything restore my character?
The table is wrong. While you cannot dispel a supernatural
ability with the dispel magic spell, you can remove or reverse
its effects on an area, object (but not one in the supernatural
ability user’s possession), or creature (but not the ability user
itself) in other ways. For instance, the petrified victim in your
example can be restored through a break enchantment spell or a
stone to flesh spell. Supernatural effects are not subject to
counterspelling, but some of them can be countered in other
ways if they have the right descriptor (or if they duplicate spells
with the right descriptor). For example, the darkmantle’s
supernatural darkness ability duplicates the 2nd-level darkness
spell, which has the darkness descriptor. This ability counters
and dispels any light effect of its level or lower, and the 3rdlevel
daylight spell (which counters and dispels all darkness
effects of its level or lower) negates the darkness created by a
darkmantle’s darkness ability.
Likewise, spells such as dispel evil can remove
supernatural enchantment effects if they duplicate spells that
can otherwise be dispelled. For example a dispel evil spell will
remove a vampire’s dominate person effect from a victim.
Similarly spells that block mental control, such as protection
from evil or magic circle against evil, suppress the effects of a
vampire’s dominate person ability, as noted in their spell
descriptions."

- 3.5 Main FAQ.

I've had party members dominated by SU abilities and the like, before. It was bad. I don't think I understand this passage very well. When, exactly, can you use spells to remove the effects of SU abilities?

 

[Hypersmurf]

I've had party members dominated by SU abilities and the like, before. It was bad. I don't think I understand this passage very well. When, exactly, can you use spells to remove the effects of SU abilities?

If a creature uses a [Su] ability to turn invisible, that can't be dispelled. If it uses a [Su] ability to turn you invisible, the invisibility on you can be dispelled.

If a creature uses a [Su] invisibility to fly, that can't be dispelled. But if it uses a [Su] ability to cast Hold Person on you, Dispel Magic will set you free.

One thing I disagree with is his use of the word "counters". If someone uses a Su ability to Slow you, then casting Haste will negate it. But he can't use the Counterspell action to counter your casting of Haste with a [Su] Slow; he can only use Slow to negate the Haste after you've cast it.

-Hyp.