Ask a Simple Question: Losing the Game Edition

[bearofsmiting]

Q 85 Can anyone quote directly from source material the DC for a dispel check (1d20 + your caster level, maximum +10) when dispel magic is used as a counterspell? In the section of of the Dispel Magic spell description entitled Targeted Dispel (not the Counterspell section) we find the sentence, "The DC for this dispel check is 11 + the spell's caster level." But it says "The DC for this dispel check," as in other dispel checks have other DCs. So what is the DC of a counterspell dispel check? Is it the same as a targeted dispel dispel check? Then why didn't the sentence simply say "The DC for a dispel check is..." I love d&d, but sometimes the editors just do a crappy job, especially in spell descriptions. Thanks for the help everybody.

[Maat_Mons]

But MM2 3.5 update isn't 3.0 though. What's bugging me is that there are so many different kinds. One says +1, one says +2, one says +3, one has -2 INT, two do not, etc. Did WotC just not want to make up their minds? Is the Expands Psionics that absolute late possible version of the creature, and most up-to-date to the point it's the one you're absolutely supposed to use?

The 3.0 sources give you 2 choices, a +1 LA version with no psionics, and a +3 LA version with strong psionics.  The 3.5 sources split the difference and have only a +2 LA version with moderate psionics. 

Despite the fact that Monster Manual II was updated with the intention of making all the monsters 3.5 compatible, the +3 LA version of thri-kreen is not 3.5 compatible.  The update was made before the 3.5 psionics system was created, so the +3 LA thri-kreen still uses 3.0 psionics.  This is not a minor issue for comparability.  Psionics underwent extensive changes from 3.0 to 3.5. 

I know of no current version of thri-kreen with a racial -2 to int.  Monster Manual II used to, but that was changed in the 3.5 update. 

I consider the Expanded Psionics Handbook thri-kreen to be the definitive version, since it was designed for use with 3.5 instead of being haphazardly converted.  The +3 LA version was so haphazardly converted that it isn't usable in a fully 3.5 game.  The +1 LA version might be an option, but many DMs use the rule that, once something gets reprinted in a 3.5 book, you are no longer allowed to use conversions of it from 3.0 books. 

[snakeman830]

I know of no current version of thri-kreen with a racial -2 to int.  Monster Manual II used to, but that was changed in the 3.5 update.

Funny, because that's the most common (including the only 3.5 printing). 

EPH Thri-kreen racial ability adjustments: +2 Str, +4 Dex, -2 Int, +2 Wis, -4 Cha

MM2 ability adjustments: +2 Str, +4 Dex, -2 Int, +2 Wis, -4 Cha

SS Thri-kreen is the only one that doesn't.

That said, only the 3.5 thri-kreen and the non-psionic thri-kreen are compatible with 3.5.

[PhaedrusXY]

Q 85 Can anyone quote directly from source material the DC for a dispel check (1d20 + your caster level, maximum +10) when dispel magic is used as a counterspell? In the section of of the Dispel Magic spell description entitled Targeted Dispel (not the Counterspell section) we find the sentence, "The DC for this dispel check is 11 + the spell's caster level." But it says "The DC for this dispel check," as in other dispel checks have other DCs. So what is the DC of a counterspell dispel check? Is it the same as a targeted dispel dispel check? Then why didn't the sentence simply say "The DC for a dispel check is..." I love d&d, but sometimes the editors just do a crappy job, especially in spell descriptions. Thanks for the help everybody.

The DC for a Dispel is always 11+CL. You quoted the rule yourself. It just isn't as clear as you'd like, but there's not much we can do about that...

[E-mail]

Q86:

I am building an elven wizard for a DragonLance game, and I have discovered a combination that may or may not be legal. Is it, in your oppinion, legal to create a wizard with Elven Wizard substitution levels from RotW, and later on specializing in a school of magic when the wizard picks up the Wizard of High Sorcery PrC from Towers of High Sorcery (It is diffrent from the one printed in the DLCS), and thus get bonus spells from being an elven generalist and a specialist wizard at the same time?

For: Many other class abilities that you trade away can be brought back, so why not the ability to specialize in a school of magic? A conjurer that gives up the ability to summon a familiar for the Abrupt Jaunt ability, can buy back the ability to have a familiar with the Obtain Familiar feat for instance.

Against: The RAI behind the Elven Generalist is obivous; You take these substitution levels instead of specializing in a school of magic, so one option should exclude the other. Had the writers of either book been aware of the other, there would have been a clause added to one or both of the entries that made the combo illegal.

Please help.

[weenog]

Q86:

I am building an elven wizard for a DragonLance game, and I have discovered a combination that may or may not be legal. Is it, in your oppinion, legal to create a wizard with Elven Wizard substitution levels from RotW, and later on specializing in a school of magic when the wizard picks up the Wizard of High Sorcery PrC from Towers of High Sorcery (It is diffrent from the one printed in the DLCS), and thus get bonus spells from being an elven generalist and a specialist wizard at the same time?

For: Many other class abilities that you trade away can be brought back, so why not the ability to specialize in a school of magic? A conjurer that gives up the ability to summon a familiar for the Abrupt Jaunt ability, can buy back the ability to have a familiar with the Obtain Familiar feat for instance.

Against: The RAI behind the Elven Generalist is obivous; You take these substitution levels instead of specializing in a school of magic, so one option should exclude the other. Had the writers of either book been aware of the other, there would have been a clause added to one or both of the entries that made the combo illegal.

Please help.

If you give up a class feature for an alternate class feature, you only lose the feature for that class.  Generalist Wizardry gives up the standard wizard's ability to specialize in a school of magic.  If the Wizard of High Sorcery PrC has an ability to specialize independent of the wizard's ability and/or choice to do so, Generalist Wizardry should be compatible with it.

[Maat_Mons]

EPH Thri-kreen racial ability adjustments: +2 Str, +4 Dex, -2 Int, +2 Wis, -4 Cha

MM2 ability adjustments: +2 Str, +4 Dex, -2 Int, +2 Wis, -4 Cha

Oops, I could have sworn the XPH version didn't penalize int.  Also, as I said, the MMII version doesn't penalize int if you apply the 3.5 update. 

[kevin_video]

the MMII version doesn't penalize int if you apply the 3.5 update. 

In fact it adds 2 INT in the update, making the 8 into 10.

But that's good to know that the XPH is the one to use.

[snakeman830]

Q87: What alternative class features (not racial sub levels!) trade the Rogue's or Sellthief's trapfinding and where can I find them?  I've got a gestalt Rogue/Spellthief (don't comment on that) and only need Trapfinding once.

[kevin_video]

Q87: What alternative class features (not racial sub levels!) trade the Rogue's or Sellthief's trapfinding and where can I find them?  I've got a gestalt Rogue/Spellthief (don't comment on that) and only need Trapfinding once.

Nothing really of value, but there are a couple of things that you might like.

Antiquarian (CC, p 51): Lose trapfinding. Gain wisdom bonus on appraise checks with divine items. Can attempt to identify divine items, as per the spell.

Mimic (EoE, p 21): lose trapfinding, gain disguise self.

Other stuff you need to lose trap sense.

[dna1]

Q 85 Can anyone quote directly from source material the DC for a dispel check (1d20 + your caster level, maximum +10) when dispel magic is used as a counterspell? In the section of of the Dispel Magic spell description entitled Targeted Dispel (not the Counterspell section) we find the sentence, "The DC for this dispel check is 11 + the spell's caster level." But it says "The DC for this dispel check," as in other dispel checks have other DCs. So what is the DC of a counterspell dispel check? Is it the same as a targeted dispel dispel check? Then why didn't the sentence simply say "The DC for a dispel check is..." I love d&d, but sometimes the editors just do a crappy job, especially in spell descriptions. Thanks for the help everybody.

The DC for a Dispel is always 11+CL. You quoted the rule yourself. It just isn't as clear as you'd like, but there's not much we can do about that...

So then do you add your casting stat mod? 11+cl+mod?  I thought it was 11+spell level+mod.  So is it actually 11+your caster level?
Not only is that somewhat confusing, but the thing I dont like about dispelling is: If your level 10 or higher it is pretty easy to dispell nearly everything. Not to mention if you use greater dispelling for a higher than +10 mod.

the MMII version doesn't penalize int if you apply the 3.5 update. 

In fact it adds 2 INT in the update, making the 8 into 10.

But that's good to know that the XPH is the one to use.

I would use the SS one.

[weenog]

The DC is 11 + the caster level of the guy that created the effect (which is not capped), you roll 1d20 + either 10 or your caster level, whichever is lower, to try to beat it with dispel magic (20 or your caster level, whichever is lower, for greater dispel magic).  It's not as easy as it sounds, unless you assume the enemy caster is not optimized at all and you're totally tricked out.  Even if you are, the caps on the caster level you can apply can make life difficult.

[Unbeliever]

Q88 Multiclass initiator question.  Warblades say that they recover all expended maneuvers w/ a swift action that must be followed by a melee attack.  It also says that you cannot initiate a maneuver while recovering your maneuvers. 

Is it a reasonable interpretation that this only applies to maneuvers gained from the Warblade class?  For example, could a Warblade 10/Crusader 2 recover her Warblade maneuvers when using Crusader's Strike, granted from the Crusader class? 

I've copied the text of the Warblade recover mechanic below for convenience. 

You can recover all expended maneuvers with a single swift action, which must be immediately followed in the same round with a melee attack or using a standard action to do nothing else in the round (such as executing a quick, harmless flourish with your weapon). You cannot initiate a maneuver or change your stance while you are recovering your expended maneuvers, but you can remain in a stance in which you began your turn.

[McPoyo]

Q88 Multiclass initiator question.  Warblades say that they recover all expended maneuvers w/ a swift action that must be followed by a melee attack.  It also says that you cannot initiate a maneuver while recovering your maneuvers. 

Is it a reasonable interpretation that this only applies to maneuvers gained from the Warblade class?  For example, could a Warblade 10/Crusader 2 recover her Warblade maneuvers when using Crusader's Strike, granted from the Crusader class? 

I've copied the text of the Warblade recover mechanic below for convenience. 

You can recover all expended maneuvers with a single swift action, which must be immediately followed in the same round with a melee attack or using a standard action to do nothing else in the round (such as executing a quick, harmless flourish with your weapon). You cannot initiate a maneuver or change your stance while you are recovering your expended maneuvers, but you can remain in a stance in which you began your turn.

Not really, that's a pretty strong combination if so. Especially since there are so many "make a melee attack" maneuvers. The point is that it requires a time investment (or in the case of RKVs, levels and a turn attempt) to recover abilities.

[InnaBinder]

Q89: Does anyone have a working link to or copy of Gaffer's Jasite Knight, from the Tome of Battle Compilation?

[Slaughterhouserock]

Q90:  What's a good Int-based class that's not a wizard(or caster of any sort, the party's already full of 'em)?

[Agita]

Q90:  What's a good Int-based class that's not a wizard(or caster of any sort, the party's already full of 'em)?

Factotum, unless it counts as a caster for you. Alternatively, Warblade is partly Int-based in that many of its class features offer synergy, but it's more of a tertiary stat.

[rubberduck]

Q 91:

A mother is 21 years older than her son!
in 6 years she will be 5 times as old as him!

Q91: Where is the father?
GO! yes it makes sense!

[Vistella]

Q 91:

A mother is 21 years older than her son!
in 6 years she will be 5 times as old as him!

Q91: Where is the father?
GO! yes it makes sense!

A91
ontop of her, behind her, under her

depends on the preferences

basicly inside her

[McPoyo]

Q 91:

A mother is 21 years older than her son!
in 6 years she will be 5 times as old as him!

Q91: Where is the father?
GO! yes it makes sense!

A91
ontop of her, behind her, under her

depends on the preferences

basicly inside her

All three at once. Fission/ice assassin/clone shenanigans, after all...