Persistent Spell Errata and FAQ

[gabrion]

The FAQ wasn't acting as errata in this case, though. It was answering the question "What does 'fixed range' mean?"

Fixed range is any spell with a constant numeric figure.

"Range: Touch" is not fixed range - the range could be 0 ft, or 5 ft, or 10 ft, depending on the reach of the caster.

"Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft/2 levels)" is not fixed range. It could be 25 ft, or 50 ft, or 75 ft, depending on the level of the caster.

"Range: 0ft." or "Range: 30 ft." are fixed ranges. It doesn't matter who casts the spell, the range is invariant.

In 3E, the feat stated "Any spell with a personal or fixed range." The 3E FAQ answered the question "What's fixed range?"

In 3.5, feat states "Any spell with a personal or fixed range." The answer to the question "What's fixed range?" hasn't changed... and 'touch' still doesn't qualify.

-Hyp.

Trust me when I say I'm not totally convinced of either side of this, and I'm not so much trying to argue as get a rules clarification. For all of you who already get it, sorry I'm so slow.

My problem laid out im my earlier post is still bugging me. If the FAQ wasn't serving as an Errata, but a rules clarification, then why would WotC reprint the same unclear feat in 3.5 and not clarify in the FAQ whether or not a touch spell has a fixed range? The simple answer is that they are lazy or whatever, but I'm not willing to buy that.

My case is that authors can change rules through the addition or subtraction of text. If a rule in 3.0 had something added to it in 3.0 and the authors of 3.5 are fully aware of it and reprint the rule in 3.5 but without the addition, then I don't think the 3.0 material would apply any more. As long as this has to do with the 3.0 FAQ, let's look at an example.

AMF in 3.0 was kinda unclear. The 3.0 FAQ is the only place where WotC explained that AMF blocks line of effect. In 3.5 the spell is reprinted and still doesn't make it exactly clear whether or not it blocks line of effect, but this time the FAQ says nothing about it. Does this mean that AMF blocks line of effect? I'm not arguing one side or the other, but I know that if you contact WotC they will tell you that the clarification was left out on purpose this time, because AMF is not meant to block line of effect. What is your opinion on this?

Lastly, isn't the rule of thumb that anything from 3.0 is only in effect if there has not been a 3.5 update for it? Why wouldn't this apply to FAQs? As I said, the authors had full knowledge of the issues raise in the 3.0 FAQ, so they had to take an active effort in leaving such things out in 3.5. Thanks for the help.

 

[dagger]

What do you think are some good 3.5 spells to use this on?

 

[sukael]

If you have the epic feats to get the appropriate slots, then, of course, shapechange. If not--arcane sight, blink, expeditious retreat, comprehend languages, shield, and read magic are all handy.

 

[dagger]

Antimagic and Transformation are personal...though they would not work to well for a wizard.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Lastly, isn't the rule of thumb that anything from 3.0 is only in effect if there has not been a 3.5 update for it? Why wouldn't this apply to FAQs?

My understanding was that an FAQ answer in the 3E FAQ is applicable, as long as the relevant rule is substantially unchanged in 3.5.

For example, a question in the 3E FAQ about stacking of bonuses is still relevant, since the way bonuses stack is pretty much the same in 3.5. But a question about the monk's unarmed attack progression doesn't apply in 3.5, since that mechanic is competely different now.

-Hyp.

 

[gabrion]

My understanding was that an FAQ answer in the 3E FAQ is applicable, as long as the relevant rule is substantially unchanged in 3.5.

For example, a question in the 3E FAQ about stacking of bonuses is still relevant, since the way bonuses stack is pretty much the same in 3.5. But a question about the monk's unarmed attack progression doesn't apply in 3.5, since that mechanic is competely different now.

-Hyp.

I agree with the last part of that sentiment, if a mechanic is changed then we can no longer trust an old FAQ, but it brings up three concerns for me.

1) The new FAQ is meant to clarify all of the rules for the new version, not just ones that were missed in the old FAQ. Knowing this, if something is left out of the new FAQ but was in the old one, then why should we take this as a change in the understanding of the rules.
2) More importantly, I think there is an argument to be made that the mechanics for persistent spell were changed in 3.5. The feat bumps a spell up by 6 levels instead of 4 now, which is a huge change, and it can be used with divine metamagic on spells that it would normally put over ninth level. The same FAQ in 3.0 says that persistent spell can't be used on a spell if it would make the spell higher than the level of spells you can cast (even if that isn't ninth level).
3) Another way to look at the last point is that the 3.0 FAQ has actually been corrected in regards to persistent spell. If we used the stuff from the 3.0 FAQ about that feat, we would not be able to use divine metamagic to persist spells that would normally end up being a level higher than we can cast. If the FAQ isn't reliable in regards to the feat, I don't know why we should trust it to guide us in using the feat.

The real problem seems to be in defining what spells have a fixed range, which is what the FAQ was doing in the part you referenced. I'm not aware of anything in the 3.5 rules or errata that ever defined this concept. This is why I brought up the example of AMF. I don't want to make that the subject of the thread, but I would like to know what you think about that. The only place in 3.0 that says AMF blocks line of effect is the FAQ. Should we use that as our ruling now?

You may think it's obvious that a touch spell does not have a fixed range, but I think a good case could be made that the range of a touch spell is effectively 0 ft. At any given time, a character's reach is a fixed number, so that could be another reason to think of touch spells as having a fixed range.

I'm interested in whether or not touch spells should be considered fixed range without the 3.0 FAQ, and if so, then why should we still use that FAQ?

@dagger-The list of spells that can be persistent is very long. Vigorous Circle is a personal favorite of mine. Fast healing 3 for all the party members? Sign me up!

 

[Hypersmurf]

The real problem seems to be in defining what spells have a fixed range, which is what the FAQ was doing in the part you referenced. I'm not aware of anything in the 3.5 rules or errata that ever defined this concept.

Right. They haven't, so nothing contradicts the clarification in the old FAQ.

You may think it's obvious that a touch spell does not have a fixed range, but I think a good case could be made that the range of a touch spell is effectively 0 ft.

If I'm an ogre, I can deliver a touch spell at 10 ft. If I'm an elf, I can deliver a touch spell at 5 ft. If I'm a druid wildshaped into a cat, I can deliver a touch spell at 0ft.

At any given time, a character's reach is a fixed number, so that could be another reason to think of touch spells as having a fixed range.

Which is why a clarification is useful. The FAQ shouldn't change rules. That's not its function. It's function is to clarify ambiguity. Which it does - "What is fixed range? Anything with a constant numeric value in feet." Once it's clarified what that means, it's clear it doesn't apply to "Range: Touch".

I'm interested in whether or not touch spells should be considered fixed range without the 3.0 FAQ, and if so, then why should we still use that FAQ?

As far as I'm concerned, Touch isn't a fixed value (see ogre vs cat), so the FAQ isn't necessary. But it's helpful.

The new FAQ is meant to clarify all of the rules for the new version, not just ones that were missed in the old FAQ.

In general, though, it hasn't. They haven't reprinted every question from the old FAQ with 3.5 updates in the new FAQ. Even though a lot of the questions in the old FAQ will still be asked by people completely new to the game. They don't really need to - those answers still appear in the old FAQ. You just need to compare the old rule to the new rule and say "Is this answer still valid?"

-Hyp.

 

[gabrion]

Hyp, thanks for helping and being understanding. If all goes well, this should be my last question to clrify things.

I understand your view to be roughly "the 3.0 FAQ clarified vague rules, so if those rules didn't change in 3.5, it's still good." Just corect me if I misiterpreted, but I think you make it pretty simple.

So the question I'm left with is one I've brought up several times. What if the FAQ clarifies a rule, but gets it wrong? The best example of this is in a question I asked before.

The real problem seems to be in defining what spells have a fixed range, which is what the FAQ was doing in the part you referenced. I'm not aware of anything in the 3.5 rules or errata that ever defined this concept. This is why I brought up the example of AMF. I don't want to make that the subject of the thread, but I would like to know what you think about that. The only place in 3.0 that says AMF blocks line of effect is the FAQ. Should we use that as our ruling now?

Most people I know have forsaken the idea that AMF blocks line of effect (cringes and prepares for Hyp to undo his existence), so how do we justify the fact that the 3.0 FAQ was responsible for "clarifying" this vague rule, and nothing since then has changed it? I guess I'm just wondering why we should assume the 3.0 FAQ got things right. After all, the whole reason for 3.5 at all was because 3.0 was messed up in too many ways (and WotC wante money). Thanks for the help.

 

[Len]

There are a lot of problems with the FAQ, and so it's up to the DM to decide which rules he's going to take from it.

It's gotten to where I don't even bother to download the FAQ any more, and I suspect a lot of people feel that way now because I haven't seen the usual "Look how messed up the new FAQ is!" thread since it was last updated.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

If I'm an ogre, I can deliver a touch spell at 10 ft. If I'm an elf, I can deliver a touch spell at 5 ft. If I'm a druid wildshaped into a cat, I can deliver a touch spell at 0ft.

Not to mention, if I cast a touch spell, I can deliver it to the character next to me (5 ft) or to myself (0 ft). Clearly, the range is selectable and therefore not fixed.