Interesting RAW oversights you've found [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Amnestic

2011-07-30, 06:09 PM

Rules Compendium, pg. 78: "All characters can speak Common."

Welp, no need to take Speak Language ever again! Everything can speak Common! Fire elemental? Common! Roper? Common! Shambling mound? Common! Gelatinous cube? Common! Mindless zombie? Common! My pet kitty, Snuggles? Common! Pandorym? Common! The World Serpent? Common! That ant on the sidewalk? Common!

WotC really needs to learn to be very, very, very careful with the word "all."

I've bolded the operative word which you overlooked. All characters, not all creatures. It does mean that characters which have no reason to know common still know it regardless, but sadly Snuggles does not know common just yet :(

OracleofWuffing

2011-07-30, 06:16 PM

From Complete Arcane:

Imbue Item (Su): A warlock of 12th level or higher can use his supernatural power to create magic items, even if he does not know the spells required to make an item (although he must know the appropriate item creation feat). He can substitute a Use Magic Device check (...) in place of a required spell he doesn’t know or can’t cast.
If the check succeeds, the warlock can create the item as if he had cast the required spell.
Sound pretty interesting? Well...

Creating Magic Armor
If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the armor, the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard), must provide any material components or focuses the spells require, and must pay any XP costs required for the spells.

Creating Magic Weapons
If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the weapon, the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) but need not provide any material components or focuses the spells require, nor are any XP costs inherent in a prerequisite spell incurred in the creation of the item.

Creating Potions
The creator must have prepared the spell to be placed in the potion (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any material component or focus the spell requires.

Creating Rods
If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the rod, the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) but need not provide any material components or focuses the spells require, nor are any XP costs inherent in a prerequisite spell incurred in the creation of the item.

Creating Scrolls
The creator must have prepared the spell to be scribed (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any material component or focus the spell requires. If casting the spell would reduce the caster’s XP total, she pays the cost upon beginning the scroll in addition to the XP cost for making the scroll itself.

Creating Staffs
The creator must have prepared the spells to be stored (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any focus the spells require as well as material and XP component costs sufficient to activate the spell a maximum number of times (50 divided by the number of charges one use of the spell expends).

Creating Wands
The creator must have prepared the spell to be stored (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any focuses the spell requires.

Creating Wondrous Items
If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the item, the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) but need not provide any material components or focuses the spells require, nor are any XP costs inherent in a prerequisite spell incurred in the creation of the item.
Because magic item creation does not actually require the person to cast required spells, a Warlock can only use Imbue Item to create Rings or Intelligent items. :smalltongue: It should be worded to say "the warlock can create the item as if he had prepared the required spell."

Zaq

2011-07-30, 06:17 PM

I've bolded the operative word which you overlooked. All characters, not all creatures. It does mean that characters which have no reason to know common still know it regardless, but sadly Snuggles does not know common just yet :(

Hmm. I could have sworn that there was a rule that said that "creature" and "character" were used interchangeably in the D&D ruleset. PHB pg. 181 has a line to that effect, but it kind of limits itself to spell descriptions.

Is there anywhere that "creature" and "character" are defined as being separate from each other?

NNescio

2011-07-30, 06:26 PM

Trees are immune to Disintegrate.

(Because they are considered to be objects and are made out of living matter.)

Lord Bingo

2011-07-30, 06:31 PM

Is there anywhere that "creature" and "character" are defined as being separate from each other?

Come on now, it is not like the words creature and character are synonymous with each other. The rules describe characters as a class of creatures that are separated from the mass of creatures, generally by virtue of having a class.

Zaq

2011-07-30, 06:36 PM

Come on now, it is not like the words creature and character are synonymous with each other. The rules describe characters as a class of creatures that are separated from the mass of creatures, generally by virtue of having a class.

Where?

No, really. I looked for a rule explicitly stating that, but I couldn't find one. Where does it say that? I'd actually like to know. I'm not challenging you; I'm seeking information.

Amnestic

2011-07-30, 06:55 PM

Where?

No, really. I looked for a rule explicitly stating that, but I couldn't find one. Where does it say that? I'd actually like to know. I'm not challenging you; I'm seeking information.

All of the entries for monsters being "So-and-so As Characters" definitely implies a separation between creatures and characters.

excruciarch

2011-07-30, 07:15 PM

Uncanny Dodge:
PHB: No notes about whether it can be used with medium armour or not. (And since barbarians really love to wear Hide Armour which is medium it kind of lets you think that medium armour is ok). And there are barbarian ex. builds in DMG2(p171 for instance) wearing Hide and having no problems utilizing uncanny dodge.
ToB: Armoured Uncanny Dodge feat.

There are a lot of such disparities in different sourcebooks.

Quietus

2011-07-30, 07:22 PM

The ruby knight vindicator's ability to gain extra swift actions. It's nice and all, but it's a (su) ability, and doesn't have a listed activation time, so it defaults to a standard action. Trading you standard action for a swift, at the cost of a turn undead attempt... not that appealing.

Zaq

2011-07-30, 07:29 PM

All of the entries for monsters being "So-and-so As Characters" definitely implies a separation between creatures and characters.

Implies, yes. States, no. Pretty much all of the Abilities chapter of the PHB talks about how ability scores affect characters. Does that mean that creatures without class levels (or whatever distinction you make about creatures who aren't characters) don't use the same rules for what STR and CON do? When you have a game as vast and as (relatively) sloppily written as 3.5, "implication" arguments cut both ways.

This creature/character distinction or lack thereof may simply be another oversight that WotC never bothered to address. Unless we can find a rules reference that states that creatures and characters have some kind of distinction, either Snuggles can speak Common, the "all characters" clause means nothing because no creatures are defined as characters, nobody who's not a PC follows the same rules for ability scores, and/or some other bizarro result I haven't even thought of.

Which is, of course, why we're discussing it in this thread. Fitting, no?

Ksheep

2011-07-30, 07:41 PM

OracleofWuffing

2011-07-30, 08:16 PM

All of the entries for monsters being "So-and-so As Characters" definitely implies a separation between creatures and characters.
Continuing this line of reasoning (down to the "Implies but does not state" part)
is this bit from the Miniatures Handbook:

This chapter also includes a conversion guide to help you
convert characters or creatures to the miniatures rules.

However... It later goes on to say:

The miniatures rules always refer to a creature or character as a “creature.”

Siosilvar

2011-07-30, 08:25 PM

Regarding the "All characters know common":

In the racial traits for Centaurs, in Races of the Wild…
Automatic Languages: Sylvan, Elven.
Bonus Languages: Common, Gnome, Halfling.

That seems to be stating rather explicitly that centaurs do NOT automatically know common, yet Rules Compendium states that if they were a player, they do. What if your character has no INT bonus and few skills to burn? Do they just magically learn it, or are they forced to waste some of their skills to learn it?

Specific beats general and Centaurs don't know Common unless they waste some of their skills to learn it.[hr]As for oversights... common knowledge extends to DC 10 and lower. Monster knowledge checks are DC 10 + HD. Dogs have 1 HD.

Unless you are trained in Knowledge (Nature), you don't know what a dog is. Donkeys and horses are even farther out of your reach.

All the humanoids in the PHB are statted out with 1 HD in the Monster Manual (humans excepted). Your dwarf fighter can't identify another dwarf. Ever.

Tebryn

2011-07-30, 08:28 PM

Continuing this line of reasoning (down to the "Implies but does not state" part)
is this bit from the Miniatures Handbook:

However... It later goes on to say:

The Miniature Rules and the 3.5 rules are not the same.

Divide by Zero

2011-07-30, 09:05 PM

Come on now, it is not like the words creature and character are synonymous with each other. The rules describe characters as a class of creatures that are separated from the mass of creatures, generally by virtue of having a class.

So if I play an ogre at 6th level, with no class levels, is that not a character?

Quietus

2011-07-30, 09:05 PM

Continuing this line of reasoning (down to the "Implies but does not state" part)
is this bit from the Miniatures Handbook:

However... It later goes on to say:

All characters are creatures. All creatures are not necessarily characters?

Zaq

2011-07-30, 09:08 PM

All characters are creatures. All creatures are not necessarily characters?

Maybe, but nobody's been able to produce text explicitly saying which creatures are characters and which creatures are not. No matter what interpretation you take, something ends up working strangely.

OracleofWuffing

2011-07-30, 09:29 PM

Xtomjames

2011-07-30, 09:43 PM

From Complete Arcane:

Sound pretty interesting? Well...

Because magic item creation does not actually require the person to cast required spells, a Warlock can only use Imbue Item to create Rings or Intelligent items. :smalltongue: It should be worded to say "the warlock can create the item as if he had prepared the required spell."

Except that the Warlock's imbue ability negates the prerequisites for the item creation feats when it comes to spells, xp cost, and gold cost. Basically what it's saying is that, if a warlock can create a magic item normally, via a use magic device check to substitute prepared spells and character class, then they can imbue an item. You should really read the actual item creation rules, as the prerequisites as stated in the feat sections (as you've quoted) are limited in scope and do not detail in whole the process.

Xtomjames

2011-07-30, 09:46 PM

Xtomjames

2011-07-30, 09:49 PM

So if I play an ogre at 6th level, with no class levels, is that not a character?

Ostensibly, Characters in D&D 3.5 are classed as PCs or Player Characters. All player characters can speak common or one of it's variants. This does not apply to NPCs or DM controlled mobs, monsters, or animals, unless the DM chooses otherwise.

Edit: It is also important to remember not to take rules OUT of CONTEXT.

"In the diverse world of D&D, many languages are spoken, and
it’s easy for people to learn multiple tongues. All characters
can speak Common. Nonhumans also speak a racial language,
and some classes give access to languages. The following
table shows common languages and their alphabets. Other
languages exist, spoken by particular kinds of creatures that
have their own tongue.
Literate characters can read and write all the languages
they speak. The learned can decipher lost tongues and create
codes. The unscrupulous can use written language to take
advantage of others" (RC 78)

"THE D&D GAME
The D&D game is a fantasy game of your imagination. It’s part
acting, part storytelling, part social interaction, part war game, and
part dice rolling. You and your friends create characters that develop
and grow with each adventure they complete. One player is the
Dungeon Master (DM). The DM controls the monsters and enemies,
narrates the action, referees the game, and sets up the adventures.
Together, the Dungeon Master and the players make the game
come alive.
This Player’s Handbook has all the rules players need to create
characters, select equipment, and engage in combat with a variety of
supernatural and mythical foes.
The Dungeon Master’s Guide, available separately, provides the DM
with advice, guidelines, and everything he or she needs to create
challenges, adventures, and full-fledged D&D campaigns, including
sections on prestige classes, magic items, and character rewards.
The Monster Manual, available separately, contains material that
players and DMs alike will find useful. With hundreds of monsters
to populate all levels of dungeons, this tome also includes monster
creation rules, information on playing monsters as characters,
details on monster tactics, and powered-up versions of standard
creatures.
Together, these three volumes comprise the core rules for the
Dungeons & Dragons game." (PHB page 6)

The books are very clear on the separation of Characters or PCs from Monsters and GM controlled NPCs.

If a person picks a monster race that doesn't usually have Common as a language, it is presumed that as a PC the character would have Common from their travels in the world. It is a rare case that a PC doesn't speak Common, maybe such as if you were playing a Centaur that was just exiled from his clan.

OracleofWuffing

2011-07-30, 09:55 PM

Except that the Warlock's imbue ability negates the prerequisites for the item creation feats when it comes to spells, xp cost, and gold cost.
No it doesn't. It says that a Warlock can make a UMD check in place of a required spell he doesn't know or can't cast. Then, it says that if he succeeds, he can create the item as if he had cast the spell. Which is a problem, because most of the item creation rules require you to prepare or know the spell, which Imbue Item doesn't do. Casting a spell is not the same as knowing or preparing it.

(The use of a semicolon may also imply that a Warlock still needs to pay xp and gp for successful item crafting, but that's not a point I want to talk about.)

You should really read the actual item creation rules, as the prerequisites as stated in the feat sections (as you've quoted) are limited in scope and do not detail in whole the process.
My quotes did not come from the feat sections. They came from The Actual Magic Item Creation rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm). The fact that you think I quoted something without reading it worries me.

Xtomjames

2011-07-30, 10:07 PM

No it doesn't. It says that a Warlock can make a UMD check in place of a required spell he doesn't know or can't cast. Then, it says that if he succeeds, he can create the item as if he had cast the spell. Which is a problem, because most of the item creation rules require you to prepare or know the spell, which Imbue Item doesn't do. Casting a spell is not the same as knowing or preparing it.

(The use of a semicolon may also imply that a Warlock still needs to pay xp and gp for successful item crafting, but that's not a point I want to talk about.)

My quotes did not come from the feat sections. They came from The Actual Magic Item Creation rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm). The fact that you think I quoted something without reading it worries me.

Yet you're still misreading what you've quoted, and you still have only quoted small sections of the whole of the rules for creating items. What more relying on the d20srd.org webiste which has numerous errors in it, rather than going to the books specifically isn't a viable stance to take.

Let's look at what it says, shall we? "Imbue Item (Su): A warlock of 12th level or higher can use his supernatural power to create magic items, even if he does not know the spells required to make an item (although he must know the appropriate item creation feat). He can substitute a Use Magic Device check (...) in place of a required spell he doesn’t know or can’t cast.
If the check succeeds, the warlock can create the item as if he had cast the required spell." (As you quoted it)

As quoted from Complete Arcane Page 8.

"Imbue Item (SU): A warlock of 12th level or higher can use his supernatural power to create magic items, even if he does not know the spells required to make an item (although he must know the appropriate item creation feat). he can substitute a Use magic Device check (DC 15+spell level for arcane spells or 25 + spell level for divine spells) in place of required spell he doesn't know or can't cast.
If the check succeeds, the warlock can create the item as if he had cast the required spell. If it fails, he cannot complete the item. He does not expend the XP or gp costs for making the item, his progress is simply arrested. He cannot retry this Use Magic Device check for the spell until he gains a new level."

In other words, it supersedes the prerequisites for the item creation feat, and depending on your interpretation at least, he doesn't have to expend XP or gold to make items.

OracleofWuffing

2011-07-30, 10:31 PM

you still have only quoted small sections of the whole of the rules for creating items.
...Because they're the only relevant parts? Some people don't want to know how a Warlock needs a heat source to create magic armor.

What more relying on the d20srd.org webiste which has numerous errors in it, rather than going to the books specifically isn't a viable stance to take.
It is a very viable stance to take, considering it's the exact same text from the Dungeon Master's Guide.

Imbue Item (SU): A warlock of 12th level or higher can use his supernatural power to create magic items, even if he does not know the spells required to make an item (although he must know the appropriate item creation feat). he can substitute a Use magic Device check (DC 15+spell level for arcane spells or 25 + spell level for divine spells) in place of required spell he doesn't know or can't cast.
If the check succeeds, the warlock can create the item as if he had cast the required spell. If it fails, he cannot complete the item. He does not expend the XP or gp costs for making the item, his progress is simply arrested. He cannot retry this Use Magic Device check for the spell until he gains a new level."
Please note what I've excised in my quotation: I removed the actual formula for the UMD check (personally because I'd rather err on the side of caution when it comes to reprinting mechanics), which doesn't affect anything in my argument either way, and all of the statements regarding failing to create the items, which, again, does not affect anything. Is it really a crime that I've removed those parts? The only thing you're using the rest of the description for is to cover for the GP and XP part, which was not what I was saying.

In other words, it supersedes the prerequisites for the item creation feat, and depending on your interpretation at least, he doesn't have to expend XP or gold to make items.
There is no mechanics saying that it supersedes needing to know or prepare the required spell. Unless you are willing to cut out the entire part of "What happens if a Warlock succeeds on his UMD check" from your own quotation.

TwylyghT

2011-07-30, 10:33 PM

one of my favorites is the old oversight and debate that Monks are not actually proficient with unarmed strikes.

HunterOfJello

2011-07-30, 11:02 PM

Swordsages can only gain their wisdom based AC Bonus while wearing light armor (not light armor or less). So, if you're a swordsage, then make sure you sleep in some padded armor at the very least.

The Bloodstorm Blade prestige class is based on using thrown weapon attacks and mixes in maneuvers previously gained from the Warblade class. Bloodstorm Blades also possess the ability to take a Swift Action to treat all of their ranged attacks as melee attacks. However, Warblades can only regain their maneuvers by taking a swift action followed by a melee attack or a standard action of doing nothing. I think this was an oversight and the PrC should have been given an ability that lets them recover warblade maneuvers by making a melee or thrown weapon attack.

The writing for the Aptitude Weapon enhancement is terrible and should have been constructed to be more specific so that people didn't get the wrong idea about it.

one of my favorites is the old oversight and debate that Monks are not actually proficient with unarmed strikes.

I've always loved that one.

I also love the Diamond Soul class feature that the monk gets at level 13. The monk gains spell resistance, but lack the ability to lower it. This makes it hard for allies to cast beneficial spells on their monk friend since they have to beat the SR every time.

Dimers

2011-07-30, 11:18 PM

PHB glossary says under "character" that "creature" is often used synonymously. Under "creature", it says "character" is sometimes used interchangeably. There's nothing in the SRD other than a few lines which implicitly separate characters. This surprises me -- I thought it was a more interchangeable term myself.

MeeposFire

2011-07-30, 11:40 PM

one of my favorites is the old oversight and debate that Monks are not actually proficient with unarmed strikes.

Do note this is true with most classes and prestige classes made after the core 3 books.

For instance did you know the totemist is not proficient with its own natural attacks?

I think the idea of being proficient with natural attacks is a holdover from 3.0 that was never adequately changed or implemented in 3.5.

noparlpf

2011-07-31, 12:07 AM

Tenno Seremel

2011-07-31, 12:15 AM

So where do babies come from?
2 characters concentrate for 1 hour, then mother makes a save vs possession…

Ksheep

2011-07-31, 12:16 AM

Have you ever read the Jump and Climb DCs? Or the carrying capacity rules?
Yeah.

I've also never seen any rules for sex. So where do babies come from? Do babies even exist? I haven't seen any rules for babies.

Nothing for children either. So… does that mean that humans appear fully formed at the age of 15? Dwarves at 40? Elves at 110? Just imagine, the first 110 years of your life not existing. How could you live like that?

In other news, I'm surprised no one has mentioned Iron Heart Surge.

NNescio

2011-07-31, 12:17 AM

Well there's the BoEF... which is technically third-party, but barring any alternative rulings it's the only semi-official go-to if you want pregnancy rules.

mootoall

2011-07-31, 12:26 AM

One I just saw a thread about earlier today (technically yesterday): By RAW, there is no way to create oils. Therefore, oils do not exist.

ffone

2011-07-31, 12:29 AM

Hmm. The last few posts make me wonder: where in the RAW does it say that X does not exist unless there's RAW to state the existence of, and define the creation and mechanics of, X?

Laura Eternata

2011-07-31, 12:44 AM

The Necropolitan template says that you lose a level+1000 XP "upon opening (your) undead eyes." So if you blinded yourself/sewed your eyes shut, you'd never suffer the penalty (of course, one might argue that being blind isn't worth a single level...)

GoatBoy

2011-07-31, 12:49 AM

I can't find any rules regarding the use of spell-like abilities, supernatural abilities, or any other special abilities during grapples.

A purple worm is 5 feet in diameter, but is a gargantuan creature with a space of 20x20 feet. So, a huge creature can fight just fine in a 15x15 corridor, but the 5-foot-wide worm takes squeezing penalties.

An adamantine shuriken is considered ammunition, and destroyed when it does damage to anything. The hardest metal in the multiverse is no match for the flesh of a kobold!

tyckspoon

2011-07-31, 01:37 AM

Hmm. The last few posts make me wonder: where in the RAW does it say that X does not exist unless there's RAW to state the existence of, and define the creation and mechanics of, X?

It doesn't. There is in fact something along the lines of 'if we didn't make a rule specifically addressing it, assume it works the same way it does in reality.' 'course, some of those things they really ought to have taken a minute to write some rules for.. I think what happens if your character decides to try and go without sleep is the biggest one, since it's at least as likely to happen as starvation and dehydration.

One I just saw a thread about earlier today (technically yesterday): By RAW, there is no way to create oils. Therefore, oils do not exist.

If you want to insist they must be somehow made differently from potions, then they clearly exist- they're on the magic item charts. They just aren't PC craftable, much the same way artifacts exist but can't be made on demand by players.

Zaq

2011-07-31, 01:40 AM

If you want to insist they must be somehow made differently from potions, then they clearly exist- they're on the magic item charts. They just aren't PC craftable, much the same way artifacts exist but can't be made on demand by players.

Technically, if you want to get down to it, you can Wish for them, since making magic items is one of the defined uses of Wish. Oils exist on the magic item charts and have specific costs, so they're clearly viable options to Wish for.

Puts that Oil of Magic Weapon +1 in another light, huh?

Quietus

2011-07-31, 08:03 AM

Actually it's an immediate action. Check your errata.

I see nothing in the errata about this. Besides, even if you get an immediate action, you're still trading your standard for it. Alternatively, if it uses an immediate action to trigger, you're trading an immediate action for a swift, which do the same thing and can only be used during your own turn.

Yora

2011-07-31, 08:16 AM

I can't find any rules regarding the use of spell-like abilities, supernatural abilities, or any other special abilities during grapples.

I think it's actually adrressed, though not very explicitly:

(Extraordinary abilities)
These abilities cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, and they generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Using a spell-like ability while threatened provokes attacks of opportunity. It is possible to make a Concentration check to use a spell-like ability defensively and avoid provoking an attack of opportunity. A spell-like ability can be disrupted just as a spell can be. Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and to being dispelled by dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated.

Supernatural abilities are magical and go away in an antimagic field but are not subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or to being dispelled by dispel magic. Using a supernatural ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise. Supernatural abilities may have a use limit or be usable at will, just like spell-like abilities. However, supernatural abilities do not provoke attacks of opportunity and never require Concentration checks.
It's not listed as something you can do while grappling, but any gm with half a brain cell should allow SLAs and SUs as by the rules for casting a spell in grapple.

Saintheart

2011-07-31, 09:03 AM

Antilife Shell. Doesn't say, by RAW, whether that pet cat you're holding in your hood when you cast it is hedged out by the spell's effects.

lesser_minion

2011-07-31, 09:27 AM

Urpriest

2011-07-31, 09:58 AM

"Oils are similar to potions except that they are applied externally instead of imbibed".

In other words, an oil is a special case of a potion, and inherits the creation rules for one. There is no RAW oversight here.

The creation rules for potions require that the spells involved target creatures, as per the Craft Potion feat. So oils are craftable, sure, but they must target creatures.

OracleofWuffing

2011-07-31, 10:06 AM

Swordsages can only gain their wisdom based AC Bonus while wearing light armor (not light armor or less). So, if you're a swordsage, then make sure you sleep in some padded armor at the very least.
While we're on the topic of Swordsages, check out how many skill points they get at first level! :smalltongue:

I guess the obligatory Bucket of Healing exploit hasn't been brought up yet. You see, when you start drowning, you fall unconscious (0 HP). So, if you were in negatives, you can start drowning for more HP. ...Too bad it comes with a caveat that you will die in two rounds no matter what.

For that matter, you cannot die of starvation.

Guess how many caltrops are in this bag of caltrops. The world will never know.

Shining South has a Rockburst spell. It causes a piece of rock that is at least 8 cubic feet to explode. There is no upper limit.

Trouvere

2011-07-31, 10:07 AM

RAW even has trouble agreeing with itself:
On the next turn after a character is reduced to between -1 and -9 hit points and on all subsequent turns, roll d% to see whether the dying character becomes stable. He has a 10% chance of becoming stable. If he doesn’t, he loses 1 hit point.
At the end of each round (starting with the round in which the character dropped below 0 hit points), the character rolls d% to see whether she becomes stable. She has a 10% chance to become stable. If she does not, she loses 1 hit point.Rules Compendium goes with option 3 - roll d% on creature's initiative count, beginning immediately.

Considering how often it comes up, I'm surprised there are no explicit rules for throwing an item to another PC (or have I just missed them?). What do you do in your games? Have the thrower make a ranged attack roll against AC 5 using the splash weapon rules, and if the object would end up in the receiver's square or a square within his reach, have him make a touch attack against the object's AC? That seems convoluted, and it seems odd that Str would apply instead of Dex for PCs without Weapon Finesse.

137beth

2011-07-31, 10:13 AM

I can't believe no one has mentioned polymorph or diplomacy yet.

For traps: Apparently, no trap can contain both mechanical elements and magical ones. Also, a magical trap which contains 9 different 5th level spells working together is the same challenge rating as one which contains only a single 5th level spell.

Cog

2011-07-31, 02:30 PM

Shining South has a Rockburst spell. It causes a piece of rock that is at least 8 cubic feet to explode. There is no upper limit.
Not true:

A spell’s range indicates how far from you it can reach, as defined in the Range entry of the spell description. A spell’s range is the maximum distance from you that the spell’s effect can occur, as well as the maximum distance at which you can designate the spell’s point of origin. If any portion of the spell’s area would extend beyond this range, that area is wasted.
And, even more limiting:

A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, even including creatures that you can’t see. It can’t affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don’t extend around corners). The default shape for a burst effect is a sphere, but some burst spells are specifically described as cone-shaped. A burst’s area defines how far from the point of origin the spell’s effect extends.

GoatBoy

2011-07-31, 05:17 PM

I think it's actually adrressed, though not very explicitly:

It's not listed as something you can do while grappling, but any gm with half a brain cell should allow SLAs and SUs as by the rules for casting a spell in grapple.

Thank you, sir. I award you 100 XP.

OracleofWuffing

2011-07-31, 08:36 PM

Not true:

And, even more limiting:
Eh, due to the word "extends" in that last bit there, one can argue that the second emphasized part doesn't actually limit you more. It's still a 120+10 feet of rock you're blowing up to do damage to a 20-foot burst, I'd take that. :smalltongue:

While we're on the topic of spells, Prismatic Ray.

a creature with 6 Hit Dice or fewer is blinded for 2d4 rounds by the prismatic ray in addition to suffering a randomly determined effect:
Leeet's not use this against creatures with 7 Hit Dice or more...

MesiDoomstalker

2011-07-31, 08:45 PM

Eh, due to the word "extends" in that last bit there, one can argue that the second emphasized part doesn't actually limit you more. It's still a 120+10 feet of rock you're blowing up to do damage to a 20-foot burst, I'd take that. :smalltongue:

While we're on the topic of spells, Prismatic Ray.

Leeet's not use this against creatures with 7 Hit Dice or more...

I'm not seeing how this is an oversight. It doesn't say it affects 7+ HD creatures in any way, so nothing would happen.

Boci

2011-07-31, 08:46 PM

Actually it's an immediate action. Check your errata.

You do realize you just told someone to check the ToB errata right? Please tell me you were joking.

I'm not seeing how this is an oversight. It doesn't say it affects 7+ HD creatures in any way, so nothing would happen.

I'm pretty sure its the otherway around. Since it doesn't say creatures with more than 6 hitdie are immune to the layers, they are affected.

Urpriest

2011-07-31, 08:48 PM

I'm not seeing how this is an oversight. It doesn't say it affects 7+ HD creatures in any way, so nothing would happen.

And it's a 5th level, single target spell. Do you really think it was intended to only work on 6 HD or less creatures?

OracleofWuffing

2011-07-31, 09:22 PM

And it's a 5th level, single target spell. Do you really think it was intended to only work on 6 HD or less creatures?
That's what I was aiming for, there. Sadly, it apparently had 7 HD or more.

MesiDoomstalker

2011-07-31, 09:25 PM

That's what I was aiming for, there. Sadly, it apparently had 7 HD or more.

Ah, I see now. Sorry my bad. :smallredface:

Darrin

2011-07-31, 10:55 PM

Ballistas are actually huge-sized crossbows. This means they are simple weapons, and thus only druids and monks are not proficient with them. Oh, and since the penalty is based on size, the "Ballista Proficiency" feat in HoB has absolutely no effect on the -4 penalty for a medium-sized creature to use one.

Ride-By Attack allows you to charge an opponent, and then continue to move... except the charging rules force you to charge the nearest square in a straight line, which means you can't continue through your opponent's square. And since your path is blocked by another creature, you can't actually declare the charge in the first place.

Absolutely everything related to Overrun. OMG, did they ever playtest those rules?

TwylyghT

2011-07-31, 11:13 PM

While we're on the topic of Swordsages, check out how many skill points they get at first level! :smalltongue:

the best part is it survived the official errata so as it stands, I guess its correct! lol

MeeposFire

2011-07-31, 11:22 PM

Unless I am missing something full blooded dragons can't change the elemental type of their dragonfire inspirations yet a half dragon of the same type can without feats.

opticalshadow

2011-08-01, 12:35 AM

I've also never seen any rules for sex. So where do babies come from? Do babies even exist? I haven't seen any rules for babies.

http://www.amazon.com/Book-Erotic-Fantasy-Gwendolyn-Kestrel/dp/1588463990

its in there

noparlpf

2011-08-01, 12:37 AM

http://www.amazon.com/Book-Erotic-Fantasy-Gwendolyn-Kestrel/dp/1588463990

its in there

Yeah, I skimmed a copy of this once. But it's third party.

opticalshadow

2011-08-01, 12:40 AM

Yeah, I skimmed a copy of this once. But it's third party.

which makes it somewhat more reliable then WotC materiel :P

NNescio

2011-08-01, 12:42 AM

which makes it somewhat more reliable then WotC materiel :P

Since when did WoTC work for the military? :P

opticalshadow

2011-08-01, 12:43 AM

Since when did WoTC work for the military? :P

since i spelled that word wrong and spell check has failed me. but to be fair WotC is kind of the controller of source armies int eh dnd world and thus would be part of that military.

noparlpf

2011-08-01, 01:06 AM

Which makes it somewhat more reliable then WotC material :P

That may be so, but it's not really proper RAW if it's from a third party.

Divide by Zero

2011-08-01, 01:15 AM

That may be so, but it's not really proper RAW if it's from a third party.

True, but it's better than nothing when the first-party sources have almost no information at all. Certainly better than trying to do it all yourself.

noparlpf

2011-08-01, 01:17 AM

True, but it's better than nothing when the first-party sources have almost no information at all. Certainly better than trying to do it all yourself.

Nah.

Grapple check to see who's on top. Dex check for physical technique. Con check for stamina. Cha check for emotional fulfillment or whatever.

Then the pregnancy and childbirth bit is easy. That happens in real life all the time and is easy enough to extrapolate.

opticalshadow

2011-08-01, 01:18 AM

True, but it's better than nothing when the first-party sources have almost no information at all. Certainly better than trying to do it all yourself.

exactly, anything you do to add it into your campaign is going to be homebrew, this atleast gives you a source book done for you that may have all the things you need to implement with no mess. and given that its more of a fluff subject anyways so as far as non WotC goes, im not sure it matters far to much. which is why we likly had no source books on it, because it wouldnt effect gameplay much at all. beyond distracting the table so one player can annoy the rest.

Groverfield

2011-08-01, 05:55 AM

Sorry to necro an old discussion, but the item creation feats in the PHB also say to look in the DMG for more information, hence PHB has the general outline and DMG (pg.282) has the actual rules, which state:

"Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed.)"
This states that warlocks can craft items before they even get imbue item, if they're keen enough to pick up a few scrolls to go with it, but lets not get off topic...

"If spells are involved in the prerequisite for making the [item], the creator must have the prepared spells to be cast (or must know the spells in the case of [spontaneous casters]. ... [cost rules]. The act of working on the [item] triggers the prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each day of the [item]'s creation."
In other words, you cast the spell required to craft an item, so for all scrolls your wizard makes, he loses a prepared spell to scribes it because he's already cast it onto the scroll. Same with a warlock scribing, he has to pass a UMD check if he wants to cast the spell onto the scroll.

maximus25

2011-08-01, 07:58 AM

While we're on the topic of Swordsages, check out how many skill points they get at first level! :smalltongue:

That's a minimum of 42, at first level. Jesus christo. That's amazing.

Philistine

2011-08-01, 08:44 AM

While we're on the topic of spells, Prismatic Ray.

Leeet's not use this against creatures with 7 Hit Dice or more...
Key words: "in addition to." Creatures with 7+ HD suffer the normal effect of the spell, creatures with 6- HD take that plus the Blind effect.

***

Duskblades begin play knowing 2 level 1 spells and 2+Int modifier level 0 spells. The Duskblade spell list includes only 4 level 0 spells. So what happens if a Duskblade starts with 16+ Int?

faceroll

2011-08-01, 09:27 AM

Hm... For what it's worth, Dwarf/Orc/Drow/Ogre Warriors and Fighters are called out as creatures on the table at page 38 of the DMG, so until we find text that trumps that table, taking class levels is not the difference between a creature and a character. :smallconfused: Wait, I think I need to sit down now.

In older editions, monsters and characters were explicitly different things. I think it's a hold over that is never fully explained.

Fax Celestis

2011-08-01, 09:44 AM

Actually it's an immediate action. Check your errata.

There is no TOB Errata.

Fax Celestis

2011-08-01, 09:51 AM

Devmaar

2011-08-01, 09:54 AM

That's a minimum of 42, at first level. Jesus christo. That's amazing.

A 3-Int Swordsage actually only gets 18

OracleofWuffing

2011-08-01, 11:53 AM

Key words: "in addition to." Creatures with 7+ HD suffer the normal effect of the spell, creatures with 6- HD take that plus the Blind effect.
But the "Normal effect of the spell" is limited to creatures with 6- HD to begin with.

Duskblades begin play knowing 2 level 1 spells and 2+Int modifier level 0 spells. The Duskblade spell list includes only 4 level 0 spells. So what happens if a Duskblade starts with 16+ Int?
You have more spells known than there are in existence, nice.:smallbiggrin:

HalfDragonCube

2011-08-01, 12:16 PM

Many templates can be applied to oozes by RAW.

Half-Dragon Gelatinous Cube, anyone?

Philistine

2011-08-01, 12:17 PM

But the "Normal effect of the spell" is limited to creatures with 6- HD to begin with.

The wording is imprecise; it's just as possible to read the text as "if you hit, your target suffers one of the following effects, determined randomly; and if the target was a meaningless mook anyway, this spell piles on the pain with an extra blinding effect." So yeah, sloppy writing; but one reading makes sense in context, and the other not so much.

noparlpf

2011-08-01, 12:19 PM

Many templates can be applied to oozes by RAW.

Half-Dragon Gelatinous Cube, anyone?

Of course you would bring this up.

Obviously the dragon had some kind of acid resistance.
Also, may I point you to (I believe) page 111 of Savage Species, where they have diagrams of a half-gold dragon dog?
If it has Str and Con, a dragon will screw it. And gelatinous cubes have plenty of Con.

Necroticplague

2011-08-01, 12:24 PM

Many templates can be applied to oozes by RAW.

Half-Dragon Gelatinous Cube, anyone?

pff, amateur. Chameleon Amphibious Psuedonatural Gheden Katane Draconic Dark God-blooded Divine minion (set) Mineral warrior Gelatinous Human is only a +11 LA (though not available as a pc due to int-).

noparlpf

2011-08-01, 12:28 PM

pff, amateur. Chameleon Amphibious Psuedonatural Gheden Katane Draconic Dark God-blooded Divine minion (set) Mineral warrior Gelatinous Human is only a +11 LA (though not available as a pc due to int-).

Add Fiendish or Celestial and you can get it as a PC due to Int 3.
Also, Awaken Ooze. From one of the Dragon Magazines.

HalfDragonCube

2011-08-01, 12:41 PM

Of course you would bring this up.

Obviously the dragon had some kind of acid resistance.
Also, may I point you to (I believe) page 111 of Savage Species, where they have diagrams of a half-gold dragon dog?
If it has Str and Con an available orifice, a dragon will screw it. And gelatinous cubes have plenty of Con.

Fixed that for you.

Add Fiendish or Celestial and you can get it as a PC due to Int 3.
Also, Awaken Ooze. From one of the Dragon Magazines.

And Sentry Ooze, from Dungeonscape, that also works.

noparlpf

2011-08-01, 12:42 PM

Fixed that for you.

Wait, gelatinous cubes don't have orifices...

Zale

2011-08-01, 01:00 PM

Wait, gelatinous cubes don't have orifices...

That's exactly what they want you to think.

The Glyphstone

2011-08-01, 01:05 PM

Wait, gelatinous cubes don't have orifices...

That's exactly what they want you to think.

http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2000-06-13

noparlpf

2011-08-01, 01:14 PM

That's exactly what they want you to think.

Oh yeah, I remember now. We were talking about how an awakened gelatinous cube could talk (because they can speak at least one language automatically). One guy suggested they might vibrate to produce sounds. My idea was that if it opened up a cavity inside itself, then opened a passage from that empty cavity to the atmosphere, air would have to rush in to fill the vacuum. So now we have a way to move air. Next, it can make a series of passages of varying size and shape to make different sounds as air rushes through them. The gelatinous cube becomes something like a walking (or whatever it is they do) pipe organ.

HalfDragonCube

2011-08-01, 02:00 PM

Wait, gelatinous cubes don't have orifices...

How do you know?

http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2000-06-13

:smalleek:

Oh yeah, I remember now. We were talking about how an awakened gelatinous cube could talk (because they can speak at least one language automatically). One guy suggested they might vibrate to produce sounds. My idea was that if it opened up a cavity inside itself, then opened a passage from that empty cavity to the atmosphere, air would have to rush in to fill the vacuum. So now we have a way to move air. Next, it can make a series of passages of varying size and shape to make different sounds as air rushes through them. The gelatinous cube becomes something like a walking (or whatever it is they do) pipe organ.

It's kinda hard to open up an airless cavity inside yourself, gelatine structure regardless. Believe me, I've tried.

Fouredged Sword

2011-08-01, 02:04 PM

Keneth

2011-08-01, 02:08 PM

In other words, it supersedes the prerequisites for the item creation feat, and depending on your interpretation at least, he doesn't have to expend XP or gold to make items. By what manner of logic does he not have to expend xp and gold? The line which says that is clearly related to the failure (by the second part of the sentence) and can not be interpreted in any other way.

The rest of that argument is silly. Imbue Item says that a warlock can craft an item even if he doesn't know the required spells and also allows him to "cast" that spell, which is sort of an implied action by the fact that a spell slot is used up as mentioned above and the requirements say "must have prepared the spells to be cast", obviously meant during creation not later in the day into a random goblin's face. Whereas item creation rules also say that a character must either have a spell prepared or know the spell if he doesn't prepare spells (I know it says "in the case of a sorcerer or bard" but it's meant to reference core rules, by that logic no other spellcaster that doesn't prepare spells can craft items either).

noparlpf

2011-08-01, 02:22 PM

It could bring in bubbles from the outside and pressureise and release them through opened orifaces to create sounds. It could even sing or imitate any woodwind instrument. It could do this in rotation for continuous sound.

I totaly have to have a half-dragon gelatinus cube that sings like a flute in my next game.

Excellent. :smallbiggrin:

How do you know?

It's kinda hard to open up an airless cavity inside yourself, gelatine structure regardless. Believe me, I've tried.

I was a gelatinous cube in a past life, that's how I know.
And with a bit of practice, it's not too hard.

OracleofWuffing

2011-08-01, 03:02 PM

The rest of that argument is silly.
This is a topic of RAW oversights. Of course it's going to be silly.

Imbue Item says that a warlock can craft an item even if he doesn't know the required spells and also allows him to "cast" that spell, which is sort of an implied action by the fact that a spell slot is used up as mentioned above and the requirements say "must have prepared the spells to be cast", obviously meant during creation not later in the day into a random goblin's face.
You have not prepared the spell (or emulated preparing the spell) nor have you the spell on your spells known (or emulated having the spell on your spells known). You've just emulated casting the spell, but the process requires more than casting it. Otherwise, another class, say, Monk, could make magic items provided the player has the feat and has a wand of the spell needed. And now it gets really silly, because if you ignore the prepare/known clause in the item creation rules, then the Warlock didn't need Imbue Item to start with.

Keneth

2011-08-01, 04:40 PM

You have not prepared the spell (or emulated preparing the spell) nor have you the spell on your spells known (or emulated having the spell on your spells known). You've just emulated casting the spell, but the process requires more than casting it. Otherwise, another class, say, Monk, could make magic items provided the player has the feat and has a wand of the spell needed. And now it gets really silly, because if you ignore the prepare/known clause in the item creation rules, then the Warlock didn't need Imbue Item to start with. The crafting rules say you "must have the spells prepared for casting or know the spells". Imbue Item says that a warlock "can use his supernatural power to create magic items, even if he does not know the spells required" and "He can substitute a Use Magic Device check in place of a required spell he doesn't know or can't cast". Where is the dilemma? He bypasses the need for knowing the spell and he can emulate the casting with UMD, both bases covered (since he's using the rules for spontaneous spellcasters). The original argument was that you need to have the spell prepared to craft, which is only true for spellcasters that prepare spells, and that Imbue Item only allows the warlock to emulate the casting of the spell, which is also not true since it clearly also states that the warlock can craft the item even though he doesn't know the spell. Nothing is being ignored except for the "in the case of a sorcerer or bard" which should really read "in the case of spontaneous spellcasters".

BUT so we can stop this pointless argument, here is the only relevant line in the item crafting rules which proves you wrong and also makes the prepare/know shenanigans irrelevant.

Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item’s creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed).
Therefore all the arguments are moot. Since you can have the required spells on a wand or a scroll and that also satisfies the requirement even though you don't know the spell but can cast it. So yes, if a monk can somehow acquire an effective caster level high enough to take the crafting feat and meet the CL prerequisite of the item and can use a wand with the required spell on it, then he can create the item. And this also absolves the warlock of the silly restrictions you want to impose on him due to sloppy reading.

OracleofWuffing

2011-08-01, 05:04 PM

Imbue Item says that a warlock "can use his supernatural power to create magic items, even if he does not know the spells required" and "He can substitute a Use Magic Device check in place of a required spell he doesn't know or can't cast".
In that case, I submit the following as RAW oversights:

All non-barbarian characters know how to read and write. (Don't know about creatures, though!) :smalltongue:
A bard does not need to roll anything to Fascinate.
A rogue can react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so.
A paladin's Share Spell ability can share the effects of spells with its mount, even if they are on other sides of the planet.
A ranger improves the attitude of an animal just by being there.
There is no 1/week limit on the Monk's Quivering Palm.
A warlock does not need to make a UMD check to use its Imbue Item class feature, in fact, because he could actually fail this check, he benefits not doing so and instead just making the item without using the check.

Since it is evidently okay to just take the very first sentence of a class feature on its own and ignore specific parts of the same feature overriding that general overview, it is clear that there are now hundreds of oversights to speak of.

And this also absolves the warlock of the silly restrictions you want to impose on him due to sloppy reading.
I beg you not to place words in my mouth, at no point did I say I want to impose these restrictions, I am merely saying that's the oversight in the rules.

Keneth

2011-08-02, 02:18 AM

A warlock does not need to make a UMD check to use its Imbue Item class feature, in fact, because he could actually fail this check, he benefits not doing so and instead just making the item without using the check.

Since it is evidently okay to just take the very first sentence of a class feature on its own and ignore specific parts of the same feature overriding that general overview, it is clear that there are now hundreds of oversights to speak of.

I am merely saying that's the oversight in the rules. I'm not sure if you're merely playing ignorant now or if you actually have trouble with functional reading. The first and second part of the warlock's imbue item ability are obviously related but the second part in no way overrides the first part since it merely expands the first part by describing the mechanic by which a warlock can substitute those spells with a UMD check and both parts conform to item crafting crafting rules as was established. The only oversight is on your part as far as I can see. :smallconfused:

Urpriest

2011-08-02, 08:45 AM

Permanency requires that you cast the spell to be made permanent, and is a Wizard spell. Greater Magic Fang is one of the acceptable targets for Permanency, but is not a Wizard spell.

Trouvere

2011-08-02, 09:25 AM

Along those lines, the Rune domain grants a cleric instant summons, but does not provide the arcane mark required to use it.

Siosilvar

2011-08-02, 03:56 PM

Here's another:

There are a few ways to allow yourself to live below -10 hit points. Rageclaws is the one I remember off the top of my head.

In case it matters, a dead character, no matter how she died, has -10 hit points.

The interaction is obvious (your hitpoints don't magically go up to -10 when you die, allowing you to live again), but... well, I explained it already.

Ksheep

2011-08-02, 04:07 PM

It is common knowledge that the rules have no mechanism for you to STOP drowning. However, it also doesn't state what "Drowns" means ("In the third round, she drowns"). Since it has no in-game definition, it has no effect. However, you still have to worry about the "at -1 and dying" part from the second round of drowning. Just hope you stabilize before you actually die.

OracleofWuffing

2011-08-02, 05:30 PM

The first and second part of the warlock's imbue item ability are obviously related but the second part in no way overrides the first part since it merely expands the first part by describing the mechanic by which a warlock can substitute those spells with a UMD check and both parts conform to item crafting crafting rules as was established.
But apparently the whole bit about what happens if you succeed on that check does not exist, so you can just go straight to the creating magic item rules with only half of Imbue Item executed.

The Random NPC

2011-08-02, 05:46 PM

sreservoir

2011-08-02, 06:08 PM

Neither does death...

death puts you at -10 and prevents you from healing magically, which means you're unconscious until fixed.

The Random NPC

2011-08-02, 06:56 PM

Ksheep

2011-08-02, 07:01 PM

But if you were immune to being unconscious, you could walk around with no drawbacks. And I'm really reaching here, I thought for sure death was more ambigious that that.
Also, upon rereading my previous post, it sounds ruder then I ment it to. I apologize for any rudeness I may have inadvertenly commited.

All you'd need to do is have -11 non-lethal damage, and you'll still be conscious. Problem being how to get negative non-lethal damage.

Arros Winhadren

2011-08-02, 08:03 PM

Here's one that's probably non-functional but still funny:

The rules state that two or more characters can cooperate when creating magic items, and that they decide amongst themselves who fulfills what role. This means that a Cleric and a Wizard can get together and make a Scroll of Cure Light Wounds. Since you can make the Wizard the official creator of the scroll, and since scrolls made by Wizards are always considered arcane, you now have an arcane scroll of Cure Light Wounds. The Wizard technically can't use the scroll since the spell isn't on his class list, but my understanding of the rules is that he CAN put the spell into his spellbook and then cast it, since a Wizard can prepare any spell in his spellbook. Of course, the wizard could also just take one level of Archivist, gaining all divine spells for his class spell list, and then proceed to convert every divine spell into an arcane one.

Edit: The Wizard can make the arcane scrolls but actually I guess he can't put them into his spellbook. However, the Archivist can make divine scrolls of arcane spells and put those into his prayerbook, so the whole "have every spell ever with just one class" thing still works.

maximus25

2011-08-02, 10:14 PM

Neither does death...

I tried using this oversight ruling on my DM when my character died. He said that he knew what dead meant so he didn't need a rule.

Wait, since drowning brings you back to 0, does drowning a dead person bring them back to life?

The Glyphstone

2011-08-02, 10:17 PM

Unless I've missed something, a Whip in the hands of a Pixie, a Human, and an Ogre still has a 15-ft reach.

Ksheep

2011-08-03, 06:29 PM

The spell Water Walk states the following:

If the spell is cast underwater (or while the subjects are partially or wholly submerged in whatever liquid they are in), the subjects are borne toward the surface at 60 feet per round until they can stand on it.

A couple holes in this:
What if the subject can't stand?
What if there is no surface (i.e. cast on the Elemental Plane of Water)?
What if the liquid they are originally in gets mixed with another liquid (ie. they are originally standing in a bucket of water, then the water is poured into a pool of oil)?

(I originally misread the spell as "borne up at 60 ft", not "toward the surface", which led me to think that anything that couldn't stand would continue flying upwards until the spell ran out. I guess not.)

Amnestic

2011-08-03, 06:52 PM

What if there is no surface (i.e. cast on the Elemental Plane of Water)?

Make a fort save or your body is pulled in every direction, gibbing you. :smalltongue:

ideasmith

2011-08-03, 07:10 PM

Make a fort save or your body is pulled in every direction, gibbing you. :smalltongue:

Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless)

And counts as harmless even if cast on an aquatic creature that will die from lack of water ... going by Rules As Written.

Zaq

2011-08-04, 08:21 PM

Here's one I just noticed. The feat Serpent's Venom can give a Druid (or anyone else who can wild shape) a permanent toxic bite attack. It says that you can spend one use of wild shape to gain a secondary bite attack with poison . . . but it doesn't list a duration. You just gain it. There's nothing in the errata, either.

Now, if this were for pretty much any class other than Druids, I'd say it's perfectly fine that way, actually . . . a feat's a big cost. It's not like Druids need the help, though.

Necroticplague

2011-08-04, 09:45 PM

Due to the way its worded, having fire resistance of any amount makes you immune to lava.

sreservoir

2011-08-04, 11:17 PM

Due to the way its worded, having fire resistance of any amount makes you immune to lava.

more importantly, lava doesn't deal fire damage.

(this does prevent certain other abuses, though. unfortunately.)

RedWarrior0

2011-08-05, 01:16 AM

An interesting one is that the Positive Energy plane is not at all harmful to undead. It only grants fast healing. The save to not explode in positive energy is a fortitude save. Said fortitude save does not need to be made by objects. Suddenly, zombies are safer than humans on the +E Plane.

Groverfield

2011-08-05, 01:52 AM

Due to the way its worded, having fire resistance of any amount makes you immune to lava.

Care to elaborate? I had this problem with a druid and acid resistance, so I looked it up, and continuous damage is from one source, meaning that resistance to continuous damage negates the first (resistance number) to that damage, then they take the continuous damage after that (such as PCs have to pass through a long corridor that's superheated, and take 1d6 points of fire damage each round of exposure, after taking the 10th points of damage being resisted by a PC with fire resist 10, they take normal damage afterwards. They can leave, and come back and be safe for another 10 points of damage due to the break.)

[Edit:]

Due to the way its worded, having fire resistance of any amount makes you immune to lava.
DMG does say that on Pg. 304, however you can still drown in lava if you have to breath, and can't swim in it.

NNescio

2011-08-05, 01:56 AM

more importantly, lava doesn't deal fire damage.

(this does prevent certain other abuses, though. unfortunately.)

Care to elaborate? I had this problem with a druid and acid resistance, so I looked it up, and continuous damage is from one source, meaning that resistance to continuous damage negates the first (resistance number) to that damage, then they take the continuous damage after that (such as PCs have to pass through a long corridor that's superheated, and take 1d6 points of fire damage each round of exposure, after taking the 10th points of damage being resisted by a PC with fire resist 10, they take normal damage afterwards. They can leave, and come back and be safe for another 10 points of damage due to the break.)

It's under the "Lava Effects" rules.

Lava Effects

Lava or magma deals 2d6 points of damage per round of exposure, except in the case of total immersion (such as when a character falls into the crater of an active volcano), which deals 20d6 points of damage per round.

Damage from magma continues for 1d3 rounds after exposure ceases, but this additional damage is only half of that dealt during actual contact (that is, 1d6 or 10d6 points per round).

An immunity or resistance to fire serves as an immunity to lava or magma. However, a creature immune to fire might still drown if completely immersed in lava.

Poorly worded, yes, since any amount of Fire Resistance qualifies as resistance to fire.

Lord.Sorasen

2011-08-05, 02:03 AM

It's under the "Lava Effects" rules.

Poorly worded, yes, since any amount of Fire Resistance qualifies as resistance to fire.

I'm sorry, but what is it supposed to mean? Because I can't figure out another way to read that.

NNescio

2011-08-05, 02:18 AM

I'm sorry, but what is it supposed to mean? Because I can't figure out another way to read that.

Yes, that's the only way to read it, as written. The question whether it is poorly worded or not comes into play when one considers RAI -- Did the designers intend for Fire Resistance 1 to provide blanket immunity to lava immersion damage? I believe that this cannot be the case, as this means a creature with Fire Resistance 1 suffers more damage when set on mundane fire versus being immersed in lava itself. As such, I consider that particular rule to be poorly written.

But yeah, totally not a RAW issue.

Edit: Also,

Care to elaborate? I had this problem with a druid and acid resistance, so I looked it up, and continuous damage is from one source, meaning that resistance to continuous damage negates the first (resistance number) to that damage, then they take the continuous damage after that (such as PCs have to pass through a long corridor that's superheated, and take 1d6 points of fire damage each round of exposure, after taking the 10th points of damage being resisted by a PC with fire resist 10, they take normal damage afterwards. They can leave, and come back and be safe for another 10 points of damage due to the break.)

Resistance to Energy doesn't work that way. It does not apply per source. Under 3.0 rules (and the "Resistance to Energy" section of the SRD), it applies per round. (e.g. a creature with Resistance to Fire 10 can resist 10 points of fire damage per round.) Other sections in 3.5e, such as the spell descriptions for Resist Energy and Meteor Swarm, as well as certain pages in the DMG (pg 298) and MM that are not reproduced in the SRD, indicate that it applies per attack or each time the creature receives damage. The latter interpretation is also supported by the Rules Compendium, and is the one present on WoTC's online glossary page.

Kittenwolf

2011-08-05, 02:57 AM

Dead: The character’s hit points are reduced to -10, his Constitution drops to 0, or he is killed outright by a spell or effect. The character’s soul leaves his body. Dead characters cannot benefit from normal or magical healing, but they can be restored to life via magic. A dead body decays normally unless magically preserved, but magic that restores a dead character to life also restores the body either to full health or to its condition at the time of death (depending on the spell or device). Either way, resurrected characters need not worry about rigor mortis, decomposition, and other conditions that affect dead bodies.

Doesn't say anywhere in here that you can't still take actions...

Eldan

2011-08-05, 03:42 AM

Doesn't say anywhere in here that you can't still take actions...

It doesn't say here. However, your HP are at -10, so you are unconscious. And unconscious says you can't act.

maximus25

2011-08-05, 04:41 AM

It doesn't say here. However, your HP are at -10, so you are unconscious. And unconscious says you can't act.

Get someone to dunk your head in a bucket of water. You go to 0, now you can make actions.

Eldan

2011-08-05, 05:10 AM

Absolutely true, as it's not healing.

However, these actions then deal you one HP damage, as you are at 0. I think.

maximus25

2011-08-05, 05:19 AM

Absolutely true, as it's not healing.

However, these actions then deal you one HP damage, as you are at 0. I think.

But, being at 0, you can then be healed I think?

Eldan

2011-08-05, 05:23 AM

I'm not sure. ...

I mean, does drown healing actually end the "dead" condition? Part of that is you can't be healed. Sure, you are no longer at -10. But you could still be dead.

noparlpf

2011-08-05, 05:23 AM

Eldan

2011-08-05, 05:24 AM

You mean a wet brick of silver? :smalltongue:

maximus25

2011-08-05, 05:45 AM

It works out about like this:

*guy dies*
Cleric: "Get me a bucket of holy water."
*dunks dead guy's head in bucket*
*waits a few seconds*
*Cure Light Wounds*

It has to be holy water or else it won't seem esoteric enough.

I'd allow it in my game. Once, for the funnies.

Also, does anyone think we missed out on an interesting joke for OOTS?

Imagine it, right after they escape Azure city, on the ocean. Water trolls attack, and instead of no deaths, one nameless NPC dies, or hell even a named NPC.

:vaarsuvius: : Um, Elan what are you doing?

:elan: : (Dangling dead body over side of boat.) Don't worry, I read this on the forum! (Or some elan related smart but dumb phrase.)

:vaarsuvius: : I don't think that wor-

Namless or named PC awakens from unconsciousness and says: What happened?

Next frame he is dead again (Cause he can't stop himself drowning by RAW)

:elan: :Aw, that part is true too?

:vaarsuvius: : Right, well I think I'm done in my research today, the laws of physics can't handle anymore breaking today.