Post Your Questions to the D&D FAQ

[User3]

You can attempt an overrun as a standard action taken during your move, or as part of a charge.

[PhoneLobster]

if any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can’t charge.

Sure, you can make an overrun attempt (just the one) while charging, BUT you cannot charge unless you have a clear line to your charge target therefore if you are charging there are no valid targets for your overrun attempt...

By a literal reading of more of what qualifies as a clear path

First, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent.

Even the target of your charge is not a valid target for your poor orphan of an overrun attempt, since you actually need to move INTO his square to use it.

So oddly the only critters that can overrun on a charge can only overrun the target of their charge and can only do it if the "closest space from which they can attack" is IN the targets square. So for instance a tiny critter like a common house cat can use its free overrun with a charge attack but a small or larger critter like a war horse cannot.

Thus further enabling the mighty peasant slaughtering powerhouse that is the stray tabby.

I thought Frank had covered this fairly well in the past right?

Again and shortly just in case, You DO get to make an overrun on a charge, but you cannot even begin a charge if there are any actual valid overrun targets on the charges path.

[Username17]

Actually, the PHB errata settles this: you can't overrun as part of a charge. Not stealth errata in the FAQ somewhere, actual errata.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dn ... 25a[br][br]

Overrun
Player's Handbook, page 148
It’s not possible to overrun as part of a charge.
Delete “or as part of a charge” from this paragraph.

Design intent is apparently that all charges must consist of running right up to some guy's belly button, taking a swing, and then stopping to widdle on yourself while they counterattack. You aren't allowed to charge through people, you aren't even allowed to charge to an empty space that you could attack your opponent from if the central square is occupied. Remember folks, there's only room for one man to charge the elephant, because once the first guy charges in, the charge path is obscured for everyone else.

-Username17

[MrWaeseL]

Why did they change the rules from 3.0 anyway? They worked fine then.

[Zherog]

Because Andy thought his way was better, I guess.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

They figured that charge cheese was so great that they nerfed it into oblivion.

Never mind the druid cheese available now. It's like I've been known to say criticising people on wizards.com, "Spellcasters can break the laws of time and space with little effort, but lord help us if a half-ogre even touches a spiked chain."

[Lago_AM3P]

Re: That extremely tepid update


WHY ARE THEY GIVING OUT ANSWERS TO SHITTY DRUID COMPANIONS?!

DOES ANYONE GIVE A RAT'S ASS ABOUT THOSE?! NO, THEY DON'T, YOU SPINELESS JERKS. WE GAVE THEM TO YOU ON A SILVER PLATTER THEM BEING SOME NEW QUESTIONS! NOW ANSWER SOME REAL ONES!


Lago is about to have a skull-bursting stroke here, people.

[Username17]

Words are coming off your keyboard, and I honestly have no clue what they mean. Did Andy publish another Sage Advice? Did an errata update happen? Please, clue us in.

-Username17

[Lago_AM3P]

Sorry, Frank.

The thing I was referring to was the FAQ. I just noticed that a new one came out.

And it bites.

[Username17]

Boy, you aint kidding:

Can a druid cast awaken on an already awakened tree?
Yes, although the effect of a second awaken spell doesn’t stack. The tree would use the better result of the Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores rolled by the two awaken spells. Note that the caster can’t know the result of these rolls until after the Will save required by the effect has been determined (which means that the spell might unintentionally reduce the tree’s mental faculties).

So which is it? Does it use the better value, or the latest value? If it uses the better value (as it explicitly says it does), it can't uninetentionally reduce the mental faculties of the tree.

Also, why can you multiply awaken a tree at all, when it already said in the same article:

The spell clearly states that it affects only the “animal or tree touched,” and plant creatures by definition are not trees.

Arrgh! It's only stupid questions, and it manages to give stupid answers anyway.

More gems:

First of all, there aren’t any simple methods of changing a magical beast’s type to animal.

Ironically, thanks to the augmented subtype, an awakened animal is still an animal. Furthermore, polymorph effects change type just fine, so he seems to just be on crack.

We did get one in though:

For creatures that have damage reduction bypassed by epic weapons, does the weapon have to be a +6 or greater weapon, or can it just have enhancements that push it into the epic category (like a +5 keen shocking burst vorpal longsword)?
To be considered an “epic” magic weapon, the weapon’s actual enhancement bonus must be +6 or greater. Special properties such as keen are treated as equivalent to
enhancement bonuses only for the purpose of pricing and for
the maximum power of a weapon (for non-epic gaming). A +5 keen shocking burst vorpal longsword is still only a +5 weapon for the purpose of bypassing damage reduction, and thus wouldn’t overcome DR 10/epic.

The answer is flat wrong, but it was one of the questions on the list. But more hilariously incorrect answers remain:

If a creature with “DR 10/adamantine or good” enters
an antimagic field, what happens to its damage reduction?
Does it become DR 10/adamantine, and if so, doesn’t that
make the creature more powerful than it was before?
You’ve correctly determined the effect of the antimagic
field on the creature’s damage reduction. As defined by the
official errata for the Monster Manual, damage reduction can
be either extraordinary or supernatural. In the case of creatures
with damage reduction formed of multiple components, DRmight even be both simultaneously!
In the case of this hypothetical creature, the damage
reduction has both extraordinary and supernatural components.
DR #/adamantine is an extraordinary special quality, and thus
is not negated by an antimagic field, while DR #/good (as a
supernatural quality) is negated. Thus, a creature with DR
10/adamantine or good within an antimagic field effectively
has DR 10/adamantine. Of course, for the vast majority of
characters the antimagic field also negates the “good”
component of their weapon’s attack, so this only affects such
creatures whose attacks are naturally aligned (such as archons).
Note that examples of the odd situation you describe
(where a monster’s damage reduction becomes more potent
within an antimagic field) are extremely rare. Such a situation
only comes about when
1) a monster’s DR combines an extraordinary DR
component (such as slashing) with a supernatural DR
component whose method of bypass isn’t also negated by the
antimagic field (such as silver), and
2) the two components are linked by “or” rather than “and.”
In most cases, DR components noted as supernatural
require bypass methods that are also negated within an
antimagic field (magic weapons, obviously, fall into this
category, as do alignment components in the majority of
situations). For those creatures whose damage reduction
combines extraordinary and supernatural components with
“and,” dropping the supernatural portion actually makes the
creature’s DR weaker. A lich in an antimagic field has DR
15/bludgeoning rather than DR 15/bludgeoning and magic,
which makes it easier to damage, not harder.

Actually, such a creature would lose all of its DR in an Antimagic Field, since it's penetrated if either is overcome. he only time it could possibly keep the DR/Adamantine is if it was DR 10/Admantine and Good. But then, Andy was never very good at logic gates, so are we surprised?

-Username17

[User3]

1114932041[/unixtime]]
Actually, such a creature would lose all of its DR in an Antimagic Field, since it's penetrated if either is overcome. he only time it could possibly keep the DR/Adamantine is if it was DR 10/Admantine and Good. But then, Andy was never very good at logic gates, so are we surprised?

-Username17

I've got to disagree with this one, on the grounds that it could logically go either way, and that this is the guy who pretty much makes up all the rules.

If you view it as an exceptional ('physical') toughness which can be overcome by supernatural means, if you take away the ability to use supernatural means the creature gets that much tougher.

On the other hand, if you view it as a supernatural toughness which can be overcome by something sufficiently pointless...Ehm, I mean POINTY[/i], then your interpretation is spot-on.

I just have no clue why it is too difficult to put four fscking characters after a creature's DR description. A little [Ex] or [Su] could clear things up pretty fast.

[Username17]

The point is, you don't have the ability to have your DR penetrated. You have the ability to reduce damage, except in certain instances.

Andy was treating the penetration of your DR as an ability, it's not. It's an exception to when you have your ability. That's a whole diffferent thing.

If negating your DR v. Good didn't negate your DR v. Adamantite, it would by definition be an And DR, not an Or DR. DR X/ Adamantite OR Good is negated if either is negated, that's why it's an OR.

So if the AMF negates the DR v. Good, it negates the whole fvcking thing if it's an Or DR.

-Username17

[MrWaeseL]

Here's another question for the FAQ:

Since vampires have DR that is negated only by silver weapons, but can only be killed by a wooden stake, how are vampires supposed to be finished off, since something cannot be both silver and wooden at the same time?

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Silvered wood. Next question.

[Username17]

While entertainingly flippant, that answer is wrong. Alchemical Silver can only be bonded to a weapon made out of steel, as per DMG pages 284-285.

The alchemical silvering process can't be applied to non-metal items

MrWaesel is quite correct, you can't have a weapon be both silver and wood at the same time. It's just part of the vampire quandary that makes them actually unstakable.

To whit:

[*] Vampires never sleep, or even lose conciousness, even when at negative hit point scores. So they are never "asleep in their coffins" to stake.

[*] Even if they were sleeping, they are still immune to critical hits, so you aren't allowed to take the coup de grace action against them. All you could do is attack them with a large to-hit bonus.

[*] When you make the only attacks you are alowed to make against a vampire, you never get them in the heart. Attacks never "penetrate the heart" except as a special effect for why they kill you, and there is no amount of damage that will kill a vampire.

[*] Even if you did enough damage to them that they were no longer allowed to fight back, they turn gasseous, which means that they no longer have a heart to stake. Of course, this requires that you house ruled that they had a heart to stake in their normal form, which as per the rules they apparently don't (being immune to criticals and all).

[*] Even if the DM has house ruled all that away somehow and you are in a position to stab a helpless vampire in the heart (which requires the DM tro make up a lot of stuff), you still can't do anything, because a wooden stake is incapable of penetrating the DR of a vampire unless you are running around jacking up on polymorph effects to get your strength up.

-Username17

[Josh_Kablack]

See DMG 266.

Silversheen can be applied to weapons without restriction and gives all the properties of alchemical silver.

[User3]

1115091329[/unixtime]]See DMG 266.

Silversheen can be applied to weapons without restriction and gives all the properties of alchemical silver.

It would loose it's 'woodenness.'

[Thoth_Amon]

Your staff is so shiny and polished! Can you polish my club too?

Sorry.

TA

[Josh_Kablack]

1115092472[/unixtime]]

1115091329[/unixtime]]See DMG 266.

Silversheen can be applied to weapons without restriction and gives all the properties of alchemical silver.

It would loose it's 'woodenness.'

Actually, that depends just how "special" your wood is.

..replacing the properties of any other special material it might have...

DMG 283-285, Special Materials lists the following:

Adamantine
Darkwood
Dragonhide
Iron, Cold
Mithral
Silver, Alchemical

If we assume that is an exhaustive list of core special materials, and that other materials are not "special", it works like this:

Wooden weapons made with Darkwood would lose their ability to stake vampires when waxed with silversheen whereas wooden weapons worked made of woods which are not Darkwood would work as weapons of both silver and wood when waxed with silversheen.

[User3]

Nice, Josh. This makes Druids (and clerics) with the Spikes Spell even more potent. That is, if they avoid Darkwood clubs and keep to normal oak clubs.

Note: Some of the other sourcebooks have "clone" special substances to Darkwood (I think in the A&EG and/or Eberron books). And may via your DMG 283-285 rule, have an escape clause from this limitation and somehow allow your druid to have a Darkwood-like Club in addition to silversheen while still allowing Spikes-and-Shillelagh spells to work just fine.

i'll have to look into this later...

[Username17]

In additiion to magic items created with spells, some substances have innate special properties. While only a few such materials are presented here, other special materials may exist...

The list of special materials isn't intended to be exhaustive, even in the Core rules. Remember, Ironwood is a special material that's available in the PHB and is again not on that list. So the argument that wood isn't on the list in the DMG is not only silly, it's also factually incorrect.

Interestingly, you can specifically have a double weapon with a silver head and a wooden one, but each head penetrates DR and has special on strike effects separately, so this is of no help whatsoever.

Which brings up another question: Why did Andy Collins fvck up Silver and Cold Iron weapons so hard? Who pissed in his Cheerios?

-Username17

[Wrenfield]

Two of the more notable ways of getting flexibility in defeating certain DR's are the following:

1. Getting the Metalline weapon special ability (Underdark book). Even if you are not facing creatures with DR, you can morph the Metalline weapon into a metal that gives stuff like elemental damage bonuses.

2. Reverse-engineering the Weapon of Transmutation (Miniature's Handbook) to make it into a weapon special quality or special ability. Be forewarned, its damn expensive.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

1115050658[/unixtime]]While entertainingly flippant, that answer is wrong. Alchemical Silver can only be bonded to a weapon made out of steel, as per DMG pages 284-285.

I would like to say a few words in my defense, if I may.

I knew beforehand that it was wrong, and made the answer to be "entertainingly flippant", as Frank here put it.

However, as my mom always liked to say "If you have to explain a joke, it wasn't funny in the first place". I'll try to keep my flippant comments more entertaining and less subtle in the future.

[User3]

1114089999[/unixtime]]By the way, the e-mail is at sageadvice@paizo.com.

Frankly, I don't understand why asking all those questions to the Sage.

I only read Sage's answers in Dragon Magazine being about easy and not debatable problems, and ignoring REAL controversial circumstances where the RAW are so ambiguous that is badly needed some GD to come off the fence and release an official ruling once and for all.
"Oh M-Mighty Sage,...I finally s-start playing with my..F-Fighter...may I equip him with a...[gulps]....T-tower s-shield?"
"OF COURSE, YOUNG PADAWAN: YOU CAN, BUT ONLY IF YOU HAVE ENOUGH GP TO PURCHASE IT (OR ENOUGH GUTS FOR STEALING IT)"
(Proper answer is: "go reading the Player Handbook, you moron!!!!!!!!!")
Skip never answered to embarassing questions such as:
"Hey Sage, can the fvcking Monk take the fvcking Improved Natural Attack feat?"
Hope this time he will change his mind...

As for Customer Service (http://wizards.custhelp.com), I really appreciate their efforts in answering to all of the people contacting them, but the problem is that, being several ones assigned to the Service, you will always gain diverging answers and opinions upon ambiguous matters. It's inevitable.

[SuicideChump]

Bah, it was me in the previous message, I forgot to log in....grrrrrrrrrr...