Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Greenfield" data-source="post: 6324522" data-attributes="member: 6669384">Which is kind of off target, since UMD isn't applicable.  Why not?  Because the Paladin and Ranger don't need UMD to activate a wand for a spell that's on their class list.Look at the section on Magic Items I quoted from the SRD.  It says exactly that, in black and white.See again the section on Spell Trigger items.  It's 100% explicit.  For Spell trigger items you don't even need to have the minimum caster stat for the spell, it's all in the item.And according to that (and meaning no offense), you apparently have been playing the game wrong for years now.  (C'mon, you kinda asked for that one <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> )And, as with the Spell Trigger items, UMD isn't the place to look in this case.  It's a caster level check.  In this case, since the PC actually is participating in the spell casting, they do need the minimum caster stat.  If they lack it, *THEN* UMD may com into play.Guilty as charged on the typo.  As for the rest, the rules on magic items don't require that the character have a spell list, only that their class has one (with the appropriate spell on it).I ask questions like this specifically because the rules aren't always clear.  If they were, I wouldn't have to ask, would I?The simple fact is that, while I've come to know the rules fairly well, I know that there are people here who know them better than I do.  So call me lazy, but it's frequently easier to ask a bunch of experts than to go digging through the five-foot tall pile of books I have.  (And I don't own all the books.)  So while I can look and see that the rules seem unclear on a point, someone else may know the book rule or reference that makes them clear.Sometimes, though, I ask things just to stimulate some discussion.  You never know what you'll learn from a group like this when you shake the tree a bit.Now, do I have my own interpretation?  I have one I'd like to be right but, as you said, it isn't clear one way or the other.  The "Must be a spell caster" requirement on Alchemy is a tiny foot note that some people at my table missed.  Me, being a rules guy, knew it and pointed it out to one player who got very annoyed that his 1st level Rogue couldn't brew up Alchemical items.This time though, the character who wants to use it is mine, a 1st level Ranger in a new campaign.  I'm a rules guy whether it's in my favor or not, and while I could just push through that a Ranger is a spell caster, since he has a spell list, I don't want to abuse the rules.  I want to know them.(By the way, when I same I'm a "rules guy" I'm not claiming any great expertise in them.  I'm just a guy who's learned that people will argue "physics" or "common sense" when those favor them, then turn right around and argue the rules (no matter how absurd) if those are what favor them.  So my standard iplaying by the rules, as written.  They may not always make sense, may not always be "right", but if I can point to the place in the book that covers the situation then I get a lot less argument at the table, as both a DM and as a player.)  So I'm not looking for a loophole or an "Aha!" moment, I'm just hoping for a more definitive answer to the question.</blockquote>

Verification