Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sil" data-source="post: 2283296" data-attributes="member: 31819">Since when does clarifying examples become flavor text?&nbsp; Does no one else see a contradiction here? It is not unreasonable, in the face of the example in PHB, to suggest that &quot;It just lets you activate items as if you had that class feature.&quot; 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.&nbsp; The SRD is not exactly clear on this.That is a great point.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; It also seems clear the clarifying example (PHB 86) needs clarified.&nbsp; Is the chalice charged?&nbsp; Or is it just activated?&nbsp; I am getting the impression that most feel that&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; The example really throws this idea for a curve, suggesting one can supply powers to an item if the item requires it.&nbsp; So should we say the example is just wrong?&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; [font=&amp;quot]If not, let us look at a very similar example to the chalice.&nbsp; 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).&nbsp; Could someone UMD this item?&nbsp; Remember; &quot;It just lets you activate items as if you had that class feature.&quot; 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]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sil, post: 2283296, member: 31819"] 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.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] [/QUOTE]

Verification