AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

Unless you consider it the Uhmderport.

Glim wrote:

Can Shurikens be made IG through the job system? I couldn't find them anywhere but I know most other ammo/weapon types can be made...

Actually, Bini is incorrect. Weaponsmith makes shurikens and other throwing weapons, not including ammunition.

That Bini... What a noob.

They aren't listed on the sidebar in the job matrix, though...

If an Outsider race has the ability to turn outsiders, will they turn themselves?

Yes, they will.

For having seen an undead turn themselves...

mirvala- wrote:

Yes, they will.

For having seen an undead turn themselves...

If you're talking about Lilia, she's not undead. I'll properly test the outsider thing here shortly and give a definite answer.

Yea, thanks for spoiling Dick, I mean Derk.

Bini wrote:

The poor Underport has nobody.

Dust or I would be able to hook anyone up on that.

O'Raghailligh wrote:

Yea, thanks for spoiling Dick, I mean Derk.

That's me. I'm a dick. Now, let's get back to asking/answering questions.

Will the nwn spell charm person affect a merchant's appraise check when opening a store, or does Amia's custom appraise system negate all that?

Edit: Hmm, further more, wouldn't casting the spell be a hostile action and only work if they fail the save? >.> Or does it work fine if they're already friendly

Blue Moon wrote:

Will the nwn spell charm person affect a merchant's appraise check when opening a store, or does Amia's custom appraise system negate all that?

Edit: Hmm, further more, wouldn't casting the spell be a hostile action and only work if they fail the save? >.> Or does it work fine if they're already friendly

Has no effect on most NPC's, and can't be done without DM oversight in general. But it works on other PC's, if they RP along with it! (Within reason!)

Gobbledygook wrote:

Blue Moon wrote:

Will the nwn spell charm person affect a merchant's appraise check when opening a store, or does Amia's custom appraise system negate all that?

Edit: Hmm, further more, wouldn't casting the spell be a hostile action and only work if they fail the save? >.> Or does it work fine if they're already friendly

Has no effect on most NPC's, and can't be done without DM oversight in general. But it works on other PC's, if they RP along with it! (Within reason!)

Yeah so I know you don't have to roleplay from another pc's persuade/bluff rolls unless a DM is present, but what if a character literally charms you with a spell, do you still have to not roleplay it and sit there until it wears off? And what happens afterwards... Do you remember what you were mad about, do you remember them charming you or not? Are enchantment spells considered evil in Amia? What if you use them for good, like to calm someone down or just to send monsters away non-violently?

Quote:

Charm Person
Enchantment (Charm) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Brd 1, Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One humanoid creature
Duration: 1 hour/level
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes

This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target’s attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.

The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn’t ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person’s language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.

If I have Automatic Still Spell, and I cast a Silent spell... does that mean magic just appears of I think of it?

Yes. You just will it into happening provided there is no material component or focus.

Essentially a poor-man's psion! :lol:

Okay, I have to ask: it is possible for a non-wizard/sorcerer to attain a Familiar instead of a Bottled Companion, for the purpose of being able to possess and more easily emote through it?

For example, having a level 1 Familiar that's reskinned to a hunting dog (OR A RIDING DOG!?) or a falcon, which could then accompany characters other than the owning PC, or get more involved in related RP (like snobbish, noblemen safaris).

Not possible, no.

Alright, thanks!

What's the stance on PCs who are interlopers (from another campaign setting, such as Greyhawk) who have arrived by, say, the Astral or other such wibbly-wobbly?

After all, Faerûn knows about and benefits from the spells of famous mages from other worlds (Bigby and Mordenkainen, to name just a couple) so there is at least a precedent for travel between Crystal Spheres already.

AFAIK, it's allowed. We've got people from Sigil (Planescape) all over the place as it is.

I will punch you if you say you're from Ravenloft though (as that should be impossible, but I don't believe there is any official stance against it by DMs - although there could be).

Hugs from Mystara though.

serbiris wrote:

I will punch you if you say you're from Ravenloft though (as that should be impossible, but I don't believe there is any official stance against it by DMs - although there could be).

Hugs from Mystara though.

Technically it is possible to escape Ravenloft. You'd probably be a crazy mess though from your experiences. The only official mention was Lird Soth back to Krynn I believe. Which is REALLY extreme since he was a Darklord. My belief would be any character claiming to have escaped would spend a lifetime in therapy and scream like a frightened schoolgirl any time natural fog or a fog spell was cast.

Lord Soth's presence in Ravenloft isn't canon according to Dragonlance authors. There is one, and *only* one official way to leave Ravenloft in the books, although they leave room for DMs to open other ways. It's still a bit marysue to go those routes if you ask me though. Hence the facepunches.

Gers wrote:

AFAIK, it's allowed. We've got people from Sigil (Planescape) all over the place as it is.

What about the Infinite Staircase? Or is that considered not accessible by mortals

serbiris wrote:

Lord Soth's presence in Ravenloft isn't canon according to Dragonlance authors. There is one, and *only* one official way to leave Ravenloft in the books, although they leave room for DMs to open other ways. It's still a bit marysue to go those routes if you ask me though. Hence the facepunches.

There are actually several ways to get out of the Demiplane of Dread, just that most of them are either very rare opportunities, very dangerous, or (probably for the majority of them) both. On Amia, though, I've been told there is no rule against characters who've been there. Not too long after I started playing here, there was a few people who had ported their characters from a particular server I had played on for quite some time. It was quite weird hearing people referring to and talking about my most infamous character from that server here on Amia. Especially since I hadn't been actively playing for almost a year and only popped in from time to time then realized how out of touch I was with everything and logged off. Fortunately, none of those characters were around for very long and thus the oddity was momentary.

Soth is kind of funny though. In the Ravenloft products, the explanation for him being gone is basically that he stopped feeling the effects of his curse so the DP got bored of him and threw him out. I thought it was rather lame at first, but now I kinda find it amusing. Still kind of lame though. :roll:

Domain question here

Rune: Damage Reduction, 10/+5 + 10 for every five cleric levels

What is the damage reduction for a level 25 cleric?

I could have explained that better. It gives you 10/+5 DR, and the total amount resisted before the shield fades increases by 10 every five cleric levels. So a level 5 cleric resists 10/+5 damage, to the maximum of 20 damage resisted.

PaladinOfSune wrote:

I could have explained that better. It gives you 10/+5 DR, and the total amount resisted before the shield fades increases by 10 every five cleric levels. So a level 5 cleric resists 10/+5 damage, to the maximum of 20 damage resisted.

Thank you very much!

Right so here goes another one.

Items with spells/day use on them. Do they draw upon the characters nature of spellcasting?

E.g a loremaster plate with "legend lore on it" how does the spell work for the user?

Nope. It's from the item. Because people that can't use spells can still use items with spells on them.

Have there been discussions previously on what information a Bard could have, given Bardic Knowledge, if someone asked about a topic?

For example, someone asked Nhalis to look into info about Nymphs. While he might not have the straight up facts about the topic that a Wizard or someone scholarly may have written about, would Bards have similar round about knowledge applied through stories they may have heard? (I.E. - Nhalis ponders a moment, "I recall a story from man who said he laid eyes upon one of those fey creatures....")

It could be amusing to mix some facts with with nonsense or conjecture when people are looking for information.

I think the players are given a free hand to interpret the feat however they like. I'd say it depends much on the bard. If your bard is a bookworm, the bardic knowledge may well have been gleaned from scholarly sources or even the experiments of one's own. A more traditional bard might use anecdotes and life experience as the source of one's knowledge. I think the feat fundamentally is meant to be played as the product of the bard's intrinsic curiosity in life's mysteries, some integral quality of the class you can't quite put your finger on. A passion for knowledge, a fascination with the world. But as for the nature of the knowledge, it seems fair to say that it is totally for the decision of the player as to how to play it.

I think your way to treat it is spot on.

I would say that, on average, bards are more scholarly than wizards. The latter are technocrats with a very narrow interest in their magical practice. They get no knowledge bonus. Bards, on the other hand, do. I would say the archetypical bard is a rennaissance man and a humanist with a wide education in a variety of subjects, but not the kind of specific expertise wizards tend to obsess about. You're likely to get more hard facts out of a bard than a wizard, unless the question is of specific interest to the wizard. But yes, I also think much of bardic lore would be in the form of stories, like you suggested. Up to you, really.

IronAngel wrote:

I would say that, on average, bards are more scholarly than wizards. The latter are technocrats with a very narrow interest in their magical practice. They get no knowledge bonus. Bards, on the other hand, do. I would say the archetypical bard is a rennaissance man and a humanist with a wide education in a variety of subjects, but not the kind of specific expertise wizards tend to obsess about. You're likely to get more hard facts out of a bard than a wizard, unless the question is of specific interest to the wizard. But yes, I also think much of bardic lore would be in the form of stories, like you suggested. Up to you, really.

Eh, I have to disagree with this entirely.

Wizards have Bards beat in scholarly pursuits. They get every knowledge that Bards get, and they're focused on intelligence rather than charisma. Bards are focused on the storytelling - they're like News Reporters. Wizards are like scientists. They both like facts, but the Bard isn't nearly as well-focused as the Wizard. They may both get Legend Lore, but the Bard gets it from Charisma while the Wizard is using Intelligence. That alone says something.

I was going to type an opinion here, but then CoA typed it for me. A wizard and a bard are both likely to be interested in knowledge for its own sake, but memory and the capacity to discern patterns and connections among varying studies are functions of Intelligence, not character class. I'm willing to bet that the number of bards on the server who start with maxed INT and follow it up with ongoing bumps every four levels is pretty close to zero.

Scholarlyness = lore on this server, me thinks. It depends entirely on the character. If a bard has maxed lore and a wizard has naught (which is far more common than Lizzie's example.) Then I'm afraid the bard has the wizard beat on the scholarly front, regardless of intelligence score. It would just mean the bard, with the lower intelligence, has a wider range of knowledge to draw upon whereas the intelligent mage has a greater capacity to dissect and understand what little knowledge he has.

Intelligence doesn't really matter in how educated you are. (Edit: or what Silent said!) Wizards are magicians, nothing about them suggests they are scholars. They use their great mental capacity to master a single trade, of spellcasting technique and magical theory. I really don't see the average wizard wasting time reading up on different cultures, history, arts, language and literature, or anything that we would label "scholarly." As you said, wizards are like scientists; the archetypical physicist is not a cultured magister, he's an expert of his specific field with its own jargon and paradigm. (Apologies to any natural scientists here, but you can't deny it!) Yes, he may be "smarter" and technically more proficient in the tools of his trade than a folklorist with loose theories, but "scholarly" is not the word. You wouldn't call a mathematician scholarly, either. Bards, on the other hand, are seekers and learners at their core. The first line about their adventures in PHB says "bards see adventures as opportunities to learn."

Wizards get no knowledge bonuses apart from Intelligence. And in a normal PnP setting, the difference between a bard's and a wizard's Intelligence modifier wouldn't be more than 4 at best, probably less. In NWN, bards get Lore every level. In PnP, they get a new skill check called Bardic Knowledge which is free and scales with level. So yes, they have more knowledge built into the class without investment. There's no reason to assume the average bard wouldn't also put ranks into other Knowledge skills. (The Bardic Knowledge check concerns, for example, places, magic items and notable people - I would add monsters, literature, general history, etiquette, foreign lands and cultures, and art.)

The original example was about Nymphs. Only if a wizard was interested in harvesting them for spell components or had to deal with one for another reason would I assume he has more knowledge than a bard. A bard, on the other hand, would know several songs, stories and bestiary entries by virtue of his Bardic Knowledge and curiosity.

This is of course a pretty baseless debate, since every character is different and there's no reason you couldn't play it either way. But I do think it's a misrepresentation of the "average" wizard and bard to claim the former is more "scholarly" than the latter. Bards are the foremost scholars of the game. They get free Knowledge ranks. In NWN, it's impossible to surpass a Bard in lore if they invest a little into it. The Lore check of a level 30 Bard with 33 ranks in the skill will be higher than anything else in the game. That's an unbuffed, unmodified skill check of 63 without feat investment. A wizard with equal effort in his studies literally knows half as much.

Bards and wizards both have different approaches to learning and application of knowledge. Bards are more apt to be eclectic gatherers of varied lore. They would be ideal contestants on Jeopardy, really. Wizards, on the other hand, are more prone to focus and obsession by virtue of the nature of wizardry. As has been said before. And while there is nothing that suggests that wizards are scholars, there is nothing to suggest they are not scholars either. In PnP, both have access to all knowledge skills. Again it comes down to skill point distribution. A max'd lore wizard on Amia? With the proper Jobs system points? A scholar they may be indeed. But not by default, no.

But wizards are prone to specialization, obsession and intent focus. An enchanter may be akin to a modern day psychologist. A transmuter a physicist. And so forth. But to generalize a max'd lore bard vs wizard? Its a matter of breadth vs. depth of knowledge. Bards read the specialized books wizards write in the due course of their eclectic knowledge gathering. Many books. On varied topics.

Last edited by IronAngel on Tue, Dec 04 2012, 0:12 AM, edited 1 time in total.

I mostly agree, Nivo. But I wouldn't say it's about depth vs breadth as much as it is about subject matter. A wizard spends most of his waking hours studying and practicing magic. He probably has neither the time nor the interest to study something different - maybe not even broadly, but especially not deeply. The same could be said about the bard and his adventuring skills, but I still find it more likely that a bard would write a specialized, in-depth treatise on the political history of the Dales.

The wizard's "thing" is his magic. That's what the class is about. He can have in-depth knowledge and do a lot of research of magical subjects, but the class itself doesn't really support any other interests. The bard's "thing", however, is related to knowledge and experience more generally. A wizard advances in his class by studying and practicing magic. A bard advances by learning all sorts of things. And that doesn't have to mean bits and pieces; it could mean very specialized expertise in one area. It's just that the class encourages more options.

Ultimately, the best scholars probably don't have adventurer levels at all. You don't become the best paleonthologist or expert of Chondathan dialects by running around killing monsters and looting caves, after all. But with that in mind, simply being an adventurer and having some class levels on the side doesn't mean you couldn't devote most of your time to civilian life and serious scholarship. The island's best geologist could be a plain old Fighter.

So to modify your conclusion: "Bards read the specialized books NPC scholars write in the due course of their eclectic knowledge gathering. Many books. On varied topics. Wizards write specialized books on obscure magical subjects, but nobody reads those. They're boring!"

Nivo wrote:

And while there is nothing that suggests that wizards are scholars, there is nothing to suggest they are not scholars either.

Likewise, there's nothing to suggest that a bard *is* a scholar. A bard is a performer, first and foremost, a "people person" who's just as likely to use story and lore and history as tools for entertainment purposes as to find them worthy in and of themselves. Nothing inherent to the class is suggestive of an active life of the mind.

Granted, in the FR specifically, the foremost god of bard (among humans) is also a god of knowledge, and given IronAngel's character roster, I'm suspecting that he's allowing Oghmanyte doctrine to shape his opinion of the bard character class as a whole. But that's not how bards need to be.

And I agree, Silent, that Lore *can be* a measure of scholarliness, but it doesn't have to be. A High-Lore, low-INT character would certainly not be a scholar, she'd be a repository of trivia and random snippets of history that she found interesting or relevant to her own life or her own craft. Someone who watches the History Channel a lot, but never had any formal education.

I mostly agree, Iron, especially about NPC scholars. But, to respond to this

IronAngel wrote:

He can have in-depth knowledge and do a lot of research of magical subjects, but the class itself doesn't really support any other interests

I would simply point to the class-skills. 'All knowledge skills' are available to the wizard. Clearly, there is 'some' support for it, at the least.

Saying "Most people on this server" and "most examples I've seen" doesn't refute the fact that the intelligence based class with all knowledge skills but barely anything else outside of concentration and spellcraft is more scholarly than the charisma based class with all knowledge skills, bluff, diplomacy, sense motive, disguise, PERFORM (taken in individual skills, not clumped together into one skill), and use magic device to split their skill points between (and that's only the things that I consider to be the Bardic "forte"). I realize that Amia clumps Lore and Perform together, but that's not the argument here, since we're talking about a well-rounded scope of knowledge versus a specific focus in only magic.

If you guys built a Bard and a Wizard with the same stats (let's say an 18 in Int for the Wizard and an 18 in Int for the Bard), the Wizard would have maxed out Arcana, Dungeoneering, The Planes, Religion, Spellcraft and concentration, while the Bard could have maxed out Arcana, Dungeoneering, The Planes, Religion, Nature, Geography, Architecture&Engineering, Nobility&Royalty, History and Local, if the Bard wanted to be terrible at music, spellcasting and people skills like Diplomacy, Sense Motive and Bluff (hey, you had to pay for the 18 somehow). This would leave most adventuring parties wondering why you played a bard at all, to which you could say "Well, now I'm better at most of these knowledge skills than any wizard!" And then you'd be eaten, because instead of a Wizard, your party has a guy who can't concentrate on a spell, fascinate a monster or hit a spell DC higher than that of a scroll in his plethora of enchantment-based magic. So, sure, you can make a bard the party smart guy, but that's about it.

From the fluff perspective: Wizards are scientists. They don't just study "magic." They study how that magic is applied to the real world, which means they have to learn how the real world works, first of all. What good is a teleportation effect if you don't know about where you're going? What good is a conjuration if you don't know about what you're summoning? What good is an abjuration if you don't know what to defend yourself against? All of these spells were developed in response to situations that required said magic. It's not like "In the beginning, there was Stone Shape, and wizards still don't know how to use that shit to reinforce a building, but they can definitely melt a wall. Far out." They developed them and practiced them, and I don't know about you guys but I think it takes a considerable amount of thought to apply them in a way that is actually useful.

Bards don't have to know the specifics, they just need to know generally how something works, which is why Bardic Knowledge is trivia compared to the encyclopedic knowledge of a Wizard. A Bard can devote as much time and energy into learning how the world works as a Wizard, but that involves going out of your way to avoid what the class is actually for, which is people skills and inspiration, grabbing plot hooks and knowing the occasional piece of esoteric knowledge that helps the Wizard out from time to time.

Regarding Amia: If the vast majority of Wizards are these Lore-less practically-sorcerers here (I WAS looking at you here, Lucius Blackwater, until very recently), then that says more about how people have to build a character to be competitive in PVP/PVM than how a Wizard should actually have come across their powers. Wizards should be picking up lore as a matter of fact, and focusing in it way more than Bards, and Wizards that don't... I don't even know how they justify it, man.

You guys arguments make sense if you replace the word "Wizard" with "Sorcerer." Then I back you 100%. This is crazy.

o_o

A wizard doesn't necessarily understand magic anymore than a sorcerer. At the basest level using the weave is just a matter of a combination of gestures, words, and other pieces of rituals that make spells happen. A wizard memorizes these rituals from what they are taught, whereas a sorcerer intuits them; it doesn't necessarily mean the wizard understands the relationships between these components, they just have to regurgitate what they've memorized to make flashy stuff happen. Because of this, saying a wizard must have lore to be a legitimate wizard is misleading and altogether wrong, as if it were true, it could be said that a weaponmaster must have lore to be a legitimate weaponmaster, as they've memorized combat-routines.

Bini wrote:

A wizard doesn't necessarily understand magic anymore than a sorcerer. At the basest level using the weave is just a matter of a combination of gestures, words, and other pieces of rituals that make spells happen. A wizard memorizes these rituals from what they are taught, whereas a sorcerer intuits them; it doesn't necessarily mean the wizard understands the relationships between these components, they just have to regurgitate what they've memorized to make flashy stuff happen.

My point wasn't that Wizards' spellcasting is more complicated. My point is that Wizards are smarter and have a higher understanding of what their spells can be put forth to do. They have a keener understanding of what they can accomplish (and a greater variety of things they can accomplish, as well). Regardless, arguing with me by saying that I implied Sorcerers are better/worse at magic than Wizards is a strawman, and I'm not going to bother defending something I didn't say.

Bini wrote:

Because of this, saying a wizard must have lore to be a legitimate wizard is misleading and altogether wrong, as if it were true, it could be said that a weaponmaster must have lore to be a legitimate weaponmaster, as they've memorized combat-routines.

That would be true if the scope of what a weaponmaster can affect with a sword was equal to what a wizard can affect with a spell.

Quote:

My point is that Wizards are smarter

I agree

Quote:

and have a higher understanding of what their spells can be put forth to do.

I disgree

This argument seems to centre around the role of the int mental stat.

Scholarship demands one add to the existing body of knowledge. The process therefore demands creativity, and having an intuitive understanding is a serious competitive edge.

Sorcerors and bards have a gut level intuitave grasp of what they are doing. If they can intellectualise their gut level awareness, and articulate themselves formally, then they can use strengths which the int-heavy wizards are unlikely to have.

Spellcraft = understanding of magic and what spells can and cannot do surely?

Wizards are smarter but if they don't touch the books (and invest in lore) scholars they do not make.

Bards don't get all their bardic knowledge from charisma, they get it from a feat called "Bardic Knowledge". Unfortunately we don't have the knowledge skills so we defer to Lore, if a mage lacks lore he lacks knowledge, the same applies to a bard.

Lemme put it simple:

Bard has 14 int but 50 lore.

Wizard has 22 int but 20 lore.

The bard is the better scholar because they -trained- to be, and intellect isn't just raw intellectual ability.

There was no suggestion that you implied a difference in magical aptitude, only the assertion that calling a wizard illegitimate because they have no ranks in lore is misleading. This is because the Art in wizard's case is the trained skill in touching the Weave, not necessarily a conscious understanding of the arcane mysteries. This is stated in Magic of Faerûn as well as illustrated in PnP in that knowledge (arcana) is a separate skill from spellcraft. In fact, the only correlation (besides a cutesy synergistic bonus between spellcraft and knowledge (arcana) there is between the knowledge skill and spellcasting in PnP is the number of epic spells allowed per day and this is because it provides a convenient balance after the typical progression of the spells per day table stops, as well as the nature of epic spells as something that must be developed by the user in PnP to be cast.

Is the 'Charm Person' ability provided by the Feytouched subrace technically a spell for the purposes of subtlety (or lack thereof)? For example, if a feytouched uses it on you, does anything visible happen, or do you just suddenly like them more?

More to the point, if you succeed the will save, do you even notice anything?

Also, relating to detect alignment and various paragons of said alignments, are there any special rules regarding how they are percieved? For example, if you tried to detect evil on a Planetar, would they just disappear? And if so, is it even remotely possible for a mortal to achieve the same level of goodliness?

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/charmPerson.htm

No mention of a visual effect. Even if there is one, you probably shouldn't react to it. If it was a legitimate cause for concern, it would be mentioned in the spell description.

As for Detect Alignment, here's the table for calculating aura power:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectEvil.htm

And finally, to answer why I think Bards are clearly learners and knowers, as much as or moreso than people persons or entertainers: they get a free Knowledge skill/lore. Nobody else gets this. They get more skillpoints per level, even accounting for Intelligence (6+2, as opposed to 2+4, which are both reasonable modifiers). Fluffwise, like Lizzie said, the highest god of bards is Oghma. This may color my perspective, but so it should. The lesser god Milil is also one of the gods of knowledge, and a patron of the fine arts; he encourages studying music, not just playing it. As for organizations known for their sense of lore and history, both Harpers and High Heralds have a distinctly bardic profile. The leader of Herald's Holdfast, the leading lorekeeper of the North, is a bard. Traditionally, bards went through rigorous formal training at the old colleges. Nowadays New Olamn (in Waterdeep) is noted as an "excellent storehouse of knowledge in just a few short years." An unverified online source also specifically states a thorough knowledge of history, politics and lore is required of all graduates. And most importantly, the setting is one where printed material doesn't exist, apart from a few exceptional cases. Manuscripts are rare and expensive, and most knowledge is passed on in oral tradition. You simply can't read up on some things, because they haven't been written down (let alone copied and distributed across all libraries of the realms). As masters of songs, stories and poems, bards have access to the greatest source of knowledge in the culture.

Granted, the head of Candlekeep at the moment is a wizard. Clearly wizards can make very learned people. The pissing match between the two classes is beside the point, as civilian Experts seem to be the ultimate sages anyway. (Almost every local loremaster in Waterdeep seems to be an Expert.) I'm now just interested to demonstrate that bards in the Forgotten Realms are intimately connected to lore, scholarship and tradition. They're not just the traveling sloths they're often portrayed as, out for coin and cleavage.

Is it possible to get an invisible sling that can't shoot so I can stand still and not attack without being flatfooted?

General Questions

Who is online