Post Your Questions to the D&D FAQ

[User3]

If you haven't sent it in yet...

It would be nice to know if advancing a cleric's spellcasting ability advances hid "cleric" level for the purposes of domain abilities (which are part of "spellcasting").

If would also be nice to know if classes advancing "Turning" or "Turn Undead" will also advance a cleric's other Turning abilities.

And if a character who has a domain but no Cleric levels can still use a domain ability depentant in "cleric level."

I hope you get a reply soon!

[Zherog]

1113292670[/unixtime]]It would be nice to know if advancing a cleric's spellcasting ability advances hid "cleric" level for the purposes of domain abilities (which are part of "spellcasting" ).

Wasn't this one answered somewhere? I vaguely recall Skip (I think) declaring that domains were not part of spell casting - at least as far as domain powers are concerned. Therefore, they are only affected by actual cleric levels.

Ah, here we go - page 5 of the FAQ:

The granted powers for some of the cleric domains (such as Travel and Magic) specifically say effectiveness is linked to your cleric level. Other granted powers (such as Protection and Strength) do not; they just say “your level.” In the case of a multiclass cleric, would domain granted powers that don’t specify “cleric” level be based on character level instead?

A cleric’s domain abilities are class abilities and as such are based on cleric level only.

So, I guess it doesn't specifically address prestige classes that grant +1 spellcasting - but given the wording, I don't think it needs to. They're class abilities not tied directly to spellcasting, at least according to this.

[User3]

1113315322[/unixtime]]

1113292670[/unixtime]]It would be nice to know if advancing a cleric's spellcasting ability advances hid "cleric" level for the purposes of domain abilities (which are part of "spellcasting" ).

Wasn't this one answered somewhere? I vaguely recall Skip (I think) declaring that domains were not part of spell casting - at least as far as domain powers are concerned. Therefore, they are only affected by actual cleric levels.

Ah, here we go - page 5 of the FAQ:

The granted powers for some of the cleric domains (such as Travel and Magic) specifically say effectiveness is linked to your cleric level. Other granted powers (such as Protection and Strength) do not; they just say “your level.” In the case of a multiclass cleric, would domain granted powers that don’t specify “cleric” level be based on character level instead?

A cleric’s domain abilities are class abilities and as such are based on cleric level only.

So, I guess it doesn't specifically address prestige classes that grant +1 spellcasting - but given the wording, I don't think it needs to. They're class abilities not tied directly to spellcasting, at least according to this.

I'd still like to see whether any of the domain-granting classes or prestige classes do anything for characters who haven't multiclassed into cleric.

[Username17]

Indeed. There are a number of abilities that may or may not increase with specific PrCs. The most obvious ones are Domains and Familiars.

It comes down to this: your "level" of uncanny dodge is occassionally important, and that level is the combined levels of all classes that ever grant uncanny dodge, including the levels that don't explicitly grant any uncanny dodge upgrades.

Now, there are classes that provide Domains or explicit Familiar bonuses. Do those stack for determining the level of those abilities? What about if you don't actually have an original ability?

What is the "level" of a Cleric/Alienist's familiar? What is the "level" of the strength domain possessed by a Druid/Contemplative?

-Username17

[Lago_AM3P]

Just so you know, I sent the e-mail off.

It should be back any day now. Annnnny day now.

[Zherog]

Here's a question of sorts for round 2 - feel free to word this however you like.

The "Complete" books contain new base classes. In almost every case, however, these books do not mention starting gold for characters beginning at 1st level with these classes. Will this be addressed at any point in errata?

[Lago_AM3P]

JESUS why are they not responding to my e-mail?

Are they just waiting for the next update or they just don't want to answer?

By the way, the e-mail is at sageadvice@paizo.com.

[MrWaeseL]

I think that, in this case, flooding the sage with additional copies of the same email will not get it answered faster.

[Zherog]

While my experience is limited, I have never received a reply from the Sage when asking a question.

[User3]

I've gotten a few answers. It took them like 2-3 weeks,

[User3]

As far as I know (and that isn't very far) "The Sage" only answers questions in hid mothly Dragon column. And I doubt he'd use anything this long or...incisive.

custserv@?wizards.com? is still open, although they seem more likely to respond to the little feeback form on the WotC website that to an email.

[Lago_AM3P]

I've gotten a few answers. It took them like 2-3 weeks,

What were the circumstances? Do you have an example letter? And most importantly, did it appear in the FAQ?

The whole point of this exercise is to get some questions into the FAQ so I can start stapling it to people's balls.

[Thoth_Amon]

They do not get to the FAQ.

This I can confirm.

TA

[Dragon_Child]

Skip does monthly chats on the WOTC chat. I asked him some questions, today (the last is not from me).

From Complete Divine, which divine feats can you use with turning that doesn't apply to undead? The 3.5E rules for Complete Divine completely overturned the standing rule in 3.0E for divine feats, as there are divine feats that don't utilize undead turning. Further, most feats in Complete Divine don't specify any type of turning that will power the feat.

skip_williams says, "My snap answer to that, DC, is go ahead and use any of your turning uses for the day. After all, when your turning something that isn't undead, you're still channeling some kind of power. I suppose things could get out of hand, but since turning is a standard action I don't forsee any real problems. /ga"



Several of the weapon properties in the magic item section in the Dungeon Master's Guide are ambiguous as to what weapon they can apply to, especially when compared against the table. For example, ghost touch, spell storing, and keen are not on the table for randomly rolling ranged items, even though the description does not contradict having either of these weapons. Can you, for example, make keen arrows?

skip_williams says, "I can't imagine while you couldn't make Keen arrows. The keen property, btw, can apply to any piercing or slashing weapon. . ."

skip_williams says, "In general, I don't recommend using the randon generation tables to dtermine where a property can apply. Refer to the property descriptions instead. . .

skip_williams says, "If you find a bit of text inconclusive, it probably means the property can apply anywhere. Rules of the Game: All About Magic Items offers some advice on interpreting item descriptions. /ga"



Does casting spells with the [Evil] descriptor make you evil? If so, are there exceptions? Does a wizard casts a magic circle against good to summon a celestial become evil? In the example, when Mialee was casting a symbol that had the [Evil] descriptor, would she become evil? The PHB just says that spells with descriptors may interact with alignment, but doesn't provide details.

skip_williams says, "No, casting a spell with an alignment descriptor doesnÕt make you that alignment. Note that clerics cannot cast spells with an alignment descriptor opposed to his/her own. ThatÕs a class restriction

skip_williams says, "For an arcane spellcaster, you have to evaluate the casterÕs motives and the results of the casting. I suppose that a wizard who regularly goes around harassing celestials probably isnÕt a good guy, but that has more to do with how the character acts overall than with the spell selection.

skip_williams says, "If the character is question had a class alignement restriction (must be good) would you let the character get away with anything if the character were casting spells with the [good] descriptor? I think not. /gs



If one is adding magical abilities to a specific magic weapon or suit of armor (Rhino hide, 9 lives stealer), are the special weapon or armor properties considered a flat numerical cost? Or do I have to figure out the cost according to the enhancement equivalent scale, find what the cost of the enhanced weapon or armor would be, and subtract the two to find the cost increase? Or do I have to do some combination of the two?

skip_williams says, "I didn't cover this in the column about pricing magic items, so I'll improvise. . ."

skip_williams says, "I recommend assining the special weapon a "bonus" that matches the basic market price. . ."

skip_williams says, "A 9 lives stealer, for example, costs arounf, what, 25,000 gp? That about what +3 bonus costs. Price new powers accordingly. /ga"

skip_williams says, "Note that I;m rounding down to the nearest bonus cost here. .ga"


neolink2010 says, "i have a question: ride-by attack states that when you make a charge, you can move before and after the attack. since you can only go straight at the person you are charging at, wouldent the charge stop at the enemy?"
neolink2010 says, "go ahead"

skip_williams says, "Rules of the Game: All About Mounts deals with this one. In short, you can make one turn on a ride-by-charge so that you don't have to ride over your foe (and break the charge). At the time I wrote the column, I was told the change would go into the errata. /ga

[fbmf]

Why does he end his answers with "/ga"?

Game On,
fbmf

[Dragon_Child]

In the chat, every question and answer is supposed to end with /ga, for "go ahead". You'll notice that the only question quoted directly has the same thing. It basically means that the question/answer is finished, and it's time for another.

[fbmf]

I see.

Game On,
fbmf

[User3]

Good to know Dragonchild. I'll pop that into the textfile I've been putting my CustServ responses in.

I especially like the vindication of the Spell Storing arrow.

[MrWaeseL]

So ride-by-attack was stealth-allowed? Okay.

[Username17]

Not exactly. It was stealth allowed tha you could make one turn during the attack. But your charge move still has to go directly towards the center of their square to begin with.

That means that you can't draw a line past your opponent to ride through and "ride by" them, the best you can do is ride directly towards them and then angle past them.

So imagine that your opponent is standing in the middle of a 25 foot street, which is normally considered to be as close to an open space as makes no odds. You start out moving directly down the center of the street and then get to angle past him once you've made the attack. But the smallest angle that will get you past is a 30 degree angle, which means that you can get a grand total of 10 feet before you hit the wall.

This means that your opponent can still hit you without even moving!

So no, it wasn't stealth allowed, it was stealth pretend-allowed. Skip Williams waved his arms and claimed to have fixed everything while noone was looking, but it still doesn't actually work. The amount of space you need on each side of your opponent to actually ride past is astronomical. If you are charging any Gargantuan or larger creature you actually need to make a 90 degree turn, which means that if there's anything at all on either side of the creature in front of it you can't escape.

In general, Skip's stealth-almost-errataed version of Ride-by Attack generally allows you to go about 5-10 feet after making the attack, which is in turn sometimes sufficient to force your opponent to take a 5' step before they can full attack you.

-Username17

[User3]

Jaysus, and it would be so simple to fix!

That said, isn't a lance a reach weapon? So can't you charge directly at your foe, make an attack from 5' away, and angle by a bit more shallowly?

I still prefer my Cavalry charger/Knockback solution, but that only works with exceptional mounts.

[User3]

That said, isn't a lance a reach weapon? So can't you charge directly at your foe, make an attack from 5' away, and angle by a bit more shallowly?

No. You can't have any of your squares enter any of the squares of the target, so if you make your melee attack when your mount is only 5' away from your target, you have to angle off at a minimum of 45 degrees, and then you can't get away at all - you aren't even all the way past the opponent before you hit the wall.

The only answer is to remove 3.5's bizzare restrictions on charge movement and allow people to overrun opponents during charges and declare charges to points where they can legally make a melee attack - rather than only the center of the enemy's square.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

you can make one turn on a ride-by-charge

Whats the definition of turn here? Can you turn 180 and go back the way you came?

Not to say this turning in a charge move thing fixes anything, but wouldn't a 180 turn make this stealth almost fix almost work (in a strange and pointless way)

[User3]

What's preventing you from making a Ride By Attack in a straight line anyway?

[Dragon_Child]

That you need to charge directly toward the enemy. Then, how are you going to get past? You can't overrun on a charge in 3.5... that leaves very few options, which doesn't seem to be design intent.