D&D 3E/3.5 PHB3.5 UMD example question

[glass]

What makes you think you are fooling it?

Nothing in the rules suggest you "pretend" anything.

You're not actually fooling the item, it has no mind to fool, which is why I put 'pretend' in inverted commas.

I agree that if you have a different idea of how UMD should work, then just add salt, and change it.

I have a different idea about how the rules do work. One that follows the rules about primary sources.

But the rules seem very clear Lidda did get the TU ability, and could only use it to make holy water.

I suggest the "Can't use" means that unless the item can use (or requires) the emulation to access its powers, you "Can't use" it.

Whereas I'd suggest 'can't use' means 'can't use'. The paragraph in the PHB has no qualifiers. Adding some yourself is a houserule.


glass.

 

[glass]

I'e been trying to think of an analogy.
2 situations...
1. a government law that allows you to get good tax rates if you own a waterfall.
2. a hydro-electric plant that makes lots of cheap energy from a waterfall.

If you can forge a good document that says you own a waterfall, then you can get the good tax rate, but you're still never going to get the cheap power unless there's some actual water falling somewhere.

Excellent analogy.


glass.

 

[Sil]

Whereas I'd suggest 'can't use' means 'can't use'. The paragraph in the PHB has no qualifiers. Adding some yourself is a houserule.

I think you missed the very next sentance. It lets you use the class feature to meet item requirements. A specific exception.

So, while Mr mystical judge thinks you should be able to use the chalice, you never actually pump any positive energy into it, because you don't have any handy - but if you did, you'd be able to fake using it correctly.

What makes you think the energy is not supplied?

 

[glass]

I think you missed the very next sentance. It lets you use the class feature to meet item requirements. A specific exception.

I am away from my PHB at the moment so I can't check (again), but I am pretty sure that it doesn't say that. The SRD certainly doesn't say that, it says:

This skill does not let you actually use the class feature of another class. It just lets you activate items as if you had that class feature.

What makes you think the energy is not supplied?

The fact that the character cannot actually chanel any energy!


glass.

 

[TheGogmagog]

This is a rare case when the flavor text is just flat out wrong. It's not in the SRD, and the SRD wording may (or not) be different from the printed book.

I have an example of another magic item the UMD character cannot activate. Spell storing weapon and Ioun stone or ring of spell storing. The UMD character cannot cast Divine power into the ring of spell storing, cast it, then cast tensors trasformation into the ring and cast that. They can emulate the ability to cast these spells to activate a wand, but they cannot actually cast these spells to activate an item. The same as you can emulate having the power to turn undead, but if it requires you to actually turn undead... no dice.

 

[apesamongus]

What makes you think the energy is not supplied?

Because the character cannot channel energy? That's part of the class ability too. It's not just "turn undead", it's "turn undead by channeling positive energy". It's not like Joe Schmoe on the street can channel positive energy, but only clerics learn how to use it to turn undead. Part of the class ability IS the ability to channel that energy, and UMD doesn't let you use the class ability. The texy of the example directly contradicts the other text.

 

[Sil]

Since when does clarifying examples become flavor text? Does no one else see a contradiction here?

It is not unreasonable, in the face of the example in PHB, to suggest that "It just lets you activate items as if you had that class feature." would let you activate the chalice described (PHB 86), which means you can focus energy into the chalice.

Of course the example just gives the idea support. The SRD is not exactly clear on this.

The UMD character cannot cast Divine power into the ring of spell storing, cast it, then cast tensors transformation into the ring and cast that.

That is a great point. Of course the UMDer could release a stored spell (activate), but not put a spell in (charge?).
Perhaps if we can draw a distinction between charging and activation then it makes the SRD clear. It also seems clear the clarifying example (PHB 86) needs clarified. Is the chalice charged? Or is it just activated?

I am getting the impression that most feel that UMD should/need/was intended to be passive, for items looking for a requirement, and UMD lets you become that passive requirement for all intents and purposes, from the items point of view. The example really throws this idea for a curve, suggesting one can supply powers to an item if the item requires it. So should we say the example is just wrong?



[font=&quot]If not, let us look at a very similar example to the chalice. An item that required a 1st level spell cast on it, and then it would fire magic missiles (both first level abilities like the chalice). Could someone UMD this item? Remember; "It just lets you activate items as if you had that class feature." and certainly casting spells is a class feature.

Not intending to harp on this, but with artificers NEEDing to UMD everything, I think I need to understand UMD much better than I have.[/font]

 

[glass]

It is not unreasonable, in the face of the example in PHB, to suggest that "It just lets you activate items as if you had that class feature." would let you activate the chalice described (PHB 86), which means you can focus energy into the chalice.

A cleric has the same class feature. Could he still acutvate the chalice if he had no turning attempts left (ie the same number as the UMD user)?

I am getting the impression that most feel that UMD should/need/was intended to be passive, for items looking for a requirement, and UMD lets you become that passive requirement for all intents and purposes, from the items point of view. The example really throws this idea for a curve, suggesting one can supply powers to an item if the item requires it. So should we say the example is just wrong?

We don't need to say that the example is wrong. The rules for primary sources say the example is wrong.


glass.

 

[TheGogmagog]

Since when does clarifying examples become flavor text? Does no one else see a contradiction here?

Since they posted the SRD removing supererogatory text. You will find contradictory rulings from customer service, sage advice, and even FAQ. If these responders don't bother to get the eratta updated to agree with them, they are wrong or posting opinions. It has even been proven to happen in the published book without the nessasary eratta, hence the need for the declaration that definitions trump charts when they don't agree.

Yes it's a contradiction, but it's not the only one.

 

[Sil]

Thanks TheGogmagog. I was thinking I missed something huge.

A cleric has the same class feature. Could he still activate the chalice if he had no turning attempts left (ie the same number as the UMD user)?

You assume the UMDer has 0, a notion not supported by the SRD, or the PHB example. Of course the UMDer could have the basic 3+cha, and emulate ability score to bump up the CHA stat.

The rules for primary sources say the example is wrong.

Clearly the SRD line "It just lets you activate items as if you had that class feature." allows you to activate items that require a class feature even if, as the example in the PHB states, you have to focus positive energy into it.