What makes a Beholder a Beholder?

[Bauglir]

Eh? You don't fail to meet prereqs for the template (you can make half-dragon dragons), the template makes you ineligible for the class (which requires you to be a Non-Dragon)

Yes, but it doesn't cause the a paradoxical possessing and not possesssing of the template.

The argument is that since the template is a class feature, you lose it because you don't qualify for the class, so you qualify for the class, so you gain the template, so you don't qualify for the class, so you lose the template.

[SorO_Lost]

You know, WOTC once offered a published FAQ and weekly updated Ask Wizards blog-like post to clear things up like this. Not that it matters, 90% of you guys bitch about it anyway.

[McPoyo]

Primarily because they were handled by multiple people who frequently contradicted each other, or directly contradicted the rules text, and never put the modifications into the consolidated errata.

[Bauglir]

And I never forgave them for "psionics week", which consisted entirely of questions nobody was asking and addressed no questions that they were.

[SorO_Lost]

1. Primarily because they were handled by multiple people who frequently contradicted each other,
2. or directly contradicted the rules text, and never put the modifications into the consolidated errata.

1. Expected, WOTC's expansion books are written by several different authors. The lack of consistency within those would of course carry over to the temporary position of the sage that was also held by several of the authors.

2. You guys are the ones that created the misconception that they cannot change the rules. The so called point that the Sage cannot do it is based off the English differentiation of erratum. Which technically is defined more as printing errors (dot your i's, yes vampires die in the sun and Obama isn't a muslin) rather contradiction of rules that may show up while using them.

3. You guys do use them when it is convenient.

Take the Precocious Apprentice feat. A lot of forum-only readers took it for granted that it gave 2nd level spell access despite it saying otherwise. I'd like to think I single handed busted that myth with my relentless comments on it but I do live in my own world here. After people got sick of listening to me or just plain paid attention to the quotes things moved to a new style. Now Versatile Spellcaster is used with it. Interesting tidbit, Versatile Spellcaster's ruling that you can cast spells above what you have access to is Sage based ruling and when the trick was started the article was quoted several times to back the position of it being legal.

How can the Sage's use of Versatile Spellcaster + Heighten Spell to pump (I think) a 2nd level spell to 3rd level while a level 4 Sorcerer be quoted as fact, but when the Sage says "He adds his Constitution bonus to AC instead of his Dexterity" means your con bonus to AC obeys the standard dex to AC rules (being capped by max dex bonus) the moderates here complain about it. Both work exactly in the rules printed so it throws the stupid comment it's a contradiction out the window.

The true validity of the Sage has nothing to do with the multiple people posting for it, the rules it states, overrules, or contradicts. No, the Sage's accuracy's depends on just how much you want to agree with him. That. Is. All.

[McPoyo]

I ignore everything printed involving rules changes coming from Ask or Sage. Clarifications, sure. Especially because at the time of the shift to 3.5, one of the questions involved whetheror not Ask or Sage constituted rules changes or errata, and it was saidit should be treated as suggestions until put into the official errata.

[Bozwevial]

I recall once asking CustServ if Arcane Disciple would permit me to qualify for a PrC that required divine spells. They said yes.

[Benly]

3. You guys do use them when it is convenient.

Let's be fair, that's less an issue regarding Sage Advice and more a habit of taking whatever's most favorable to the builds one likes as the "obviously" correct ruling. And it's not unique to this forum or any particular people on it.

[McPoyo]

3. You guys do use them when it is convenient.

Let's be fair, that's less an issue regarding Sage Advice and more a habit of taking whatever's most favorable to the builds one likes as the "obviously" correct ruling. And it's not unique to this forum or any particular people on it.

Typically it's less the ruling, than supporting someone's already existing interpretation of the rules. I've yet to see a build predicated on a Sage article, though I've seen quite a few based on twisting slightly a published book rule.

[X-Codes]

Take the Precocious Apprentice feat. A lot of forum-only readers took it for granted that it gave 2nd level spell access despite it saying otherwise. I'd like to think I single handed busted that myth with my relentless comments on it but I do live in my own world here. After people got sick of listening to me or just plain paid attention to the quotes things moved to a new style.

It doesn't explicitly say otherwise, hence why some people think it did and some people think it didn't.  This also brings us to the next problem with the Sage column, in that since it was just a suggestion and not rules, and therefore really doesn't do anything when ambiguous rules come out.  It's an opinion on how the rules should be read, just like your position on Precocious Apprentice was likewise merely an opinion.

Now Versatile Spellcaster is used with it. Interesting tidbit, Versatile Spellcaster's ruling that you can cast spells above what you have access to is Sage based ruling and when the trick was started the article was quoted several times to back the position of it being legal.

Absolutely and completely false.  The Versatile Spellcaster feat was on 339's radar LONG before the Sage wrote an article about it.  As an example, I was the one of first people (if not the first) to come up with the idea to use Versatile Spellcaster to cast spells spontaneously from a Wizard's spellbook.  I dipped Sorcerer to qualify, and later someone else said to use Magical Training instead.

[Bauglir]

Take the Precocious Apprentice feat. A lot of forum-only readers took it for granted that it gave 2nd level spell access despite it saying otherwise. I'd like to think I single handed busted that myth with my relentless comments on it but I do live in my own world here. After people got sick of listening to me or just plain paid attention to the quotes things moved to a new style.

It doesn't explicitly say otherwise, hence why some people think it did and some people think it didn't.  This also brings us to the next problem with the Sage column, in that since it was just a suggestion and not rules, and therefore really doesn't do anything when ambiguous rules come out.  It's an opinion on how the rules should be read, just like your position on Precocious Apprentice was likewise merely an opinion.

No, the feat explicitly says, "which cannot be used for any other purpose."

[X-Codes]

No, the feat explicitly says, "which cannot be used for any other purpose."

That's a paraphrase or errata.  My book is saying:
"You gain a 2nd-level spell slot that must be used initially to cast only the chosen spell."

The sentence is obviously saying that the only spell you can cast using the slot is the chosen spell, but it's unclear (at best) what you can do with it in terms of Reserve feats, PrC requirements, etc.  Besides, since when are we re-arguing the validity of using Precocious Apprentice to enter Mystic Theurge?  That horse died, was re-animated as a zombie, destroyed, and then reincarnated before being beaten to death once again with this argument years ago.

[Bauglir]

Oh, nevermind. I was checking the web preview because I was lazy. My bad, it's legit.

[awaken DM golem]

I vaguely recall a Druid Reincarnate trick, from like 2004-ish time frame.

Venerable + dead + reincarnate = +3 to mental stats , and whatever decent reincarnate form you get, like Badger.
Has a hint of 3.0 in it.

The retaining stats thingy screws up the future character, but what is it ... 

[OblivionSmurf83]

Ok, so, my DM and I have been looking over this, and reading the FAQ. We noticed that this question had been addressed in there, and the Sage had actually backed up his answer:

'If a character no longer meets the requirements for a prestige class, he or she loses the benefit of any class features or other special abilities granted by the class.' - Complete Warrior, 16.

Credit goes to the Sage for pointing us to this section.

From this, it's apparent that our Beholder Mage can't actually polymorph out of his form if he wants to stay a Beholder Mage.

Obviously, this places a limitation on a number of classes in game. Standard Shadowcraft Mages are now forbidden from Polymorphing if they want to keep using their abilities (including the spellcasting they gained). Similarly, Arcane Archers have to stay elves, and Chameleons have to stay human.


SorO_Lost, I personally view the Sage and CustServ as upper and low court judges, respectively. The D&D rules themselves are the first port of call, then the Sage's interpretation of the rules - assuming this interpretation is backed up by evidence. If the Sage's interpretation is not backed up by any evidence, then it can't be said to be a proper opinion. Similarly, if in the course of answering one question, the Sage makes an offhand comment on another area of the rules, the same weight shouldn't be given to the offhand comment as to the primary answer to the question. CustServ decisions, similarly, are also persuasive, though not nearly to the same extent as the Sage. Additionally, they can be overturned by the Sage, and both CustServ and the Sage can be overturned if they get the rules blatantly wrong. That is to say, they can advice on 'grey areas', but can't blatantly contradict the text of the books.

Hope that helps!

[Benly]

Obviously, this places a limitation on a number of classes in game. Standard Shadowcraft Mages are now forbidden from Polymorphing if they want to keep using their abilities (including the spellcasting they gained). Similarly, Arcane Archers have to stay elves, and Chameleons have to stay human.

So where does this leave Dragon Disciples? Do they get stuck in an infinite-yet-instantaneous loop of the template disqualifying them from the PrC, losing its class abilities including the template, re-qualifying as a result of that loss, reacquiring the template, and so on, forever doomed to be simultaneously half-dragon and not half-dragon as some kind of half-quantum-dragon?

Because that would actually be kind of neat.

[OblivionSmurf83]

Obviously, this places a limitation on a number of classes in game. Standard Shadowcraft Mages are now forbidden from Polymorphing if they want to keep using their abilities (including the spellcasting they gained). Similarly, Arcane Archers have to stay elves, and Chameleons have to stay human.

So where does this leave Dragon Disciples? Do they get stuck in an infinite-yet-instantaneous loop of the template disqualifying them from the PrC, losing its class abilities including the template, re-qualifying as a result of that loss, reacquiring the template, and so on, forever doomed to be simultaneously half-dragon and not half-dragon as some kind of half-quantum-dragon?

Because that would actually be kind of neat.

I'm pretty sure Dragon Disciple requires that they cannot already be a Half-Dragon. Therefore, they're fine if they become one through the class.

However, there must be another class out there that has X race as a requirement, but turns you into Y upon completion of the class.

[OblivionSmurf83]

Found one, Wildrunner in Races of the Wild. Have to be an elf or half-elf to start the class, you turn into a Fey (Augmented Human) by the end of it.

So, how do we reconcile this with the prerequisites talk in CW?

[McPoyo]

Easy: When the class changes your type it doesn't disqualify you from itself.

[OblivionSmurf83]

Yeah, I suppose that's the obvious answer, it just unfortunately means we're stuck with a situation where we have to imply something into the rules (or at the very least house rule it).