Patryn of Elvenshae
First Post
Also a good question.
Runestaff via UMD?
- Thread starter Andras
- Start date
Also a good question.
Sekhmet
First Post
The item as written in the PHB does not say that you must expend a daily use of Turn Undead to use the item, just that you must have the Turn Undead class feature.
That you argue, even for a moment, about the validity of using UMD for this purpose after having read this thread and the skill as written in the PHB speaks volumes for you.
kitcik
Adventurer
Thanks, I agree. Comparatively speaking, I am fairly logical and am good at understanding straightforward statements such as:
"...a magic chalice that turns regular water
into holy water when a cleric or an experienced paladin channels
positive energy into it as if turning undead..."
1) In order for the chalice to work, a cleric or paladin must channel positive energy into it as if turning undead.
2) In order for a cleric or paladin to channel positive energy in such a way, they must make use of an ability that allows them to do so.
3) Using a Turn Undead use is one such ability.
4) I am wide open to the possibility of there being other such abilities, but you have failed to mention any of them.
If you cannot follow this logic, I am afraid I cannot help you as teaching logical thinking is not my strongpoint, just exercising it.
Patryn of Elvenshae
First Post
Yeah, actually, it does. You must channel positive energy "as if turning undead."
How does one channel positive energy as if turning undead? By expending daily uses of turn undead, except instead of turning undead, it powers the chalice.
Sekhmet
First Post
No, sirs. The line two words "as if" are indicative of the fact that you are not expending uses. If the item itself wanted a usage spent, it would say "by expending" instead.
If we examine the full entry for "Emulate a Class Feature" in the PHB (pg.86), it states:
The two articles in bold are the key points of my argument.
Point the first, The item itself as written , does not require a Turn Undead use per day to be spent.
Point the second, Lidda is emulating the Turn Undead class feature to activate an item as if she had that class feature (since no actual uses are expended).
The terms and phrases used have immutable definitions, and unless you claim the author had a poor grasp of English and the rules of the game, there is no argument.
If we examine the full entry for "Emulate a Class Feature" in the PHB (pg.86), it states:
Winner's Handbook said:
The two articles in bold are the key points of my argument.
Point the first, The item itself as written , does not require a Turn Undead use per day to be spent.
Point the second, Lidda is emulating the Turn Undead class feature to activate an item as if she had that class feature (since no actual uses are expended).
The terms and phrases used have immutable definitions, and unless you claim the author had a poor grasp of English and the rules of the game, there is no argument.
kitcik
Adventurer
LMAOCOTF
What is the "immutable meaning" of "channels
positive energy"??
It's not "as if she channels positive energy" it's "channels positive energy." What part of this are you failing to understand? What ability are you using to channel positive energy?
Well?
Hello?
McFly?
<Note that the example in question was removed in the Rules Compendium and in the System Reference Document.>
What is the "immutable meaning" of "channels
positive energy"??
It's not "as if she channels positive energy" it's "channels positive energy." What part of this are you failing to understand? What ability are you using to channel positive energy?
Well?
Hello?
McFly?
<Note that the example in question was removed in the Rules Compendium and in the System Reference Document.>
Last edited:
Sekhmet
First Post
The "AS IF" portion of the statement clearly says that no use per day is expended.
The item works if you drink it and have a class feature, just the same as a plethora of other such minor magical items.
What aren't you understanding about that? If you have problems with reading comprehension, I can direct you to a few good resources to improve.
Also, if you were being quite serious about your request for a definition, "to direct a power derived from a godlike source towards an object."
Just because such things don't happen to exist in the real world does not mean that the words used to describe them are any less immutably defined.
The item works if you drink it and have a class feature, just the same as a plethora of other such minor magical items.
What aren't you understanding about that? If you have problems with reading comprehension, I can direct you to a few good resources to improve.
Also, if you were being quite serious about your request for a definition, "to direct a power derived from a godlike source towards an object."
Just because such things don't happen to exist in the real world does not mean that the words used to describe them are any less immutably defined.
Last edited:
kitcik
Adventurer
No. it doesn't.
"I'm a troll-man. Do-do-do. Do-do-do. A trolllll-man."
OK, so how is the rogue directing a power derived from a godlike source towards the object? I understand they can fake the item into thinking they can do it, but in this particular case, the item doesn't require just the ability to do it, it requires that you actually do it.
In case you are interested in reality, this question has been posed on numerous forums with no satisfactory answer since the example contradicts the text. Note that text > example and that the example was dropped from the Rules Compendium and the System Ref Doc, which tends to indicate it was in error. You may draw your own conclusions based on whatever logic you have access to.
Sekhmet
First Post
Have you ever heard a paraplegic say "treat me as if I still had use of my legs" because he was "handicapable"?
Has a doctor ever told you "we're going to treat this as if a preexisting condition were present because of your family history"?
What about a favourite sport's coach that tells you to "envision a whole in the opposing team's defense as if no one were there and just go for it"?
"As if" indicates that the statement is contrary to reality.
The Rogue is not actually doing it, he's emulating it. The same way he emulates having the "Spellcasting" class feature of the Wizard. He doesn't have it, but he still gets to use the scrolls and wands that he'd like to. The same way he emulates being an Elf. He's a human, but who cares? The shiny shortbow thinks he's an Elf, so why the hell not?
In the case of the chalice, the Rogue is saying, "Hey. Check out this divine energy, bro," and then drinking.
The Cleric says, "Dude, I can totally do that," when the chalice checks to see if he has access to Turn Undead.
The description (under no possible meaning of those words) simply does not say that a use is expended when a person drinks from it. It checks for the class feature and then works. The Rogue is emulating the class feature for the purposes of that check.
That is the entire point of UMD. The example is not contradictory in any sense of the word. I believe quite firmly that those forums and threads were not only incapable of understanding simple English, but most likely also inflicting some romantic idea of "the spirit" of the rules.
Let me make it perfectly clear that when a rule says "X", it does not mean "Y" or "Z", it means "X". This is a perfect example of that. All other items that expend uses (such as the Runestaff) very precisely state it as such. There is no such distinction in the description of the chalice.
As an aside, the descriptive text was most likely removed because no such item exists in the DMG, not because of an apparent majority of people's inability to understand English.
Has a doctor ever told you "we're going to treat this as if a preexisting condition were present because of your family history"?
What about a favourite sport's coach that tells you to "envision a whole in the opposing team's defense as if no one were there and just go for it"?
"As if" indicates that the statement is contrary to reality.
The Rogue is not actually doing it, he's emulating it. The same way he emulates having the "Spellcasting" class feature of the Wizard. He doesn't have it, but he still gets to use the scrolls and wands that he'd like to. The same way he emulates being an Elf. He's a human, but who cares? The shiny shortbow thinks he's an Elf, so why the hell not?
In the case of the chalice, the Rogue is saying, "Hey. Check out this divine energy, bro," and then drinking.
The Cleric says, "Dude, I can totally do that," when the chalice checks to see if he has access to Turn Undead.
The description (under no possible meaning of those words) simply does not say that a use is expended when a person drinks from it. It checks for the class feature and then works. The Rogue is emulating the class feature for the purposes of that check.
That is the entire point of UMD. The example is not contradictory in any sense of the word. I believe quite firmly that those forums and threads were not only incapable of understanding simple English, but most likely also inflicting some romantic idea of "the spirit" of the rules.
Let me make it perfectly clear that when a rule says "X", it does not mean "Y" or "Z", it means "X". This is a perfect example of that. All other items that expend uses (such as the Runestaff) very precisely state it as such. There is no such distinction in the description of the chalice.
As an aside, the descriptive text was most likely removed because no such item exists in the DMG, not because of an apparent majority of people's inability to understand English.
Greenfield
Adventurer
No one is arguing that the Rogue is actually channeling positive energy.
The whole thing seems to balance on one key point.
If you accept that UMD lets the Rogue fool the item into reacting as if he actually has channeled the power, then this works. If you don't think that's what it does, then it doesn't work.
Same for e the Runestaff: If UMD lets the PC fool the staff into reacting as if a spell had actually been sacrificed, then this works. If it doesn't, then it doesn't.
This is a fuzzy area, in that we're trying to fool an unintelligent, unthinking object into thinking that the wielder can/has/will do things that he can't.
The whole thing seems to balance on one key point.
If you accept that UMD lets the Rogue fool the item into reacting as if he actually has channeled the power, then this works. If you don't think that's what it does, then it doesn't work.
Same for e the Runestaff: If UMD lets the PC fool the staff into reacting as if a spell had actually been sacrificed, then this works. If it doesn't, then it doesn't.
This is a fuzzy area, in that we're trying to fool an unintelligent, unthinking object into thinking that the wielder can/has/will do things that he can't.
