"Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection

[Firechanter]

Inspired by the "easy exploits", I'd like to collect things in this thread where the rules simply fail to achieve what was (most likely) intended, and thus requires houseruling to make it work.

Examples:

- Monks are not proficient with Unarmed Strikes.

- Ruby Knight Vindicators have to expend a Standard Action to gain an additional Swift Action. (Reason: since the Divine Impetus description says nothing about what kind of Action is required, it defaults to Standard Action, as for any Su Ability that doesn't specify otherwise)

Bring it on. =)

[Zaq]

Shadow Sun Ninja (ToB) has an ability (Flame of the Shadow Sun) that lets you absorb a cold attack as an immediate action. Doing so grants you the ability to launch a bolt of fire as a swift action on your next turn. Damn shame about how using an immediate action means you don't get a swift action next turn, huh?

There is no RAW provision for making oils (defined as "potion-like things that work on objects"), despite many examples of such existing in the "Potions and Oils" section of the DMG, since Brew Potion specifies that the spell must target a creature. You might find an Oil of Magic Weapon, but you'll never be able to make one. At least, not in the way you think you are.

[AugustNights]

Using a ranged weapon to make an attack as a standard action provokes an attack of opportunity.
Using a ranged weapon to make a full attack action does not.

[Psyren]

*Points at the entire Truenamer thread*

Also, Ur-Priests don't actually work.

[AugustNights]

Also, Ur-Priests don't actually work.

*Re-reads ur-priest class.*
How is this?

[Amphetryon]

Hide behind your tower shield, to gain total cover for you and your equipment. Your tower shield now has total cover.

[Zaq]

Also, "dysfunctional" has a y in it.

[ranagrande]

Also, "dysfunctional" has a y in it.
Yes, but "disfunctional" does not. You'll find that listed as an acceptable variant spelling in many sources.

[maximus25]

Using a ranged weapon to make an attack as a standard action provokes an attack of opportunity.
Using a ranged weapon to make a full attack action does not.

I used this in a game once. Good thing it was online or I would have gotten dice or even books thrown at me.

[Zombimode]

Using a ranged weapon to make an attack as a standard action provokes an attack of opportunity.
Using a ranged weapon to make a full attack action does not.

How so?
The SRD actions in combat chart (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm) does not differentiate between action types. It just lists "ranged attack" as a means of provoking an AoO. When taking a standart action to attack with a ranged weapon, you are making a ranged attack and thus provoke. When taking an full round action to full attack with a ranged weaopon, you are makin ranged attacks and thus provoking AoOs.

[Greenish]

How so?
The SRD actions in combat chart (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm) does not differentiate between action types.Really? The link you gave has separate tables for standard actions, move actions, full round actions and so forth.

Under "Standard Actions", it says ranged attacks provoke. Under "Full round Actions", it doesn't say that, and the table clearly says that full attack doesn't provoke.

[Firechanter]

Yes, but "disfunctional" does not. You'll find that listed as an acceptable variant spelling in many sources.

Nono, Zaq is totally right. Dysfunctional is the better spelling. I'll fix it. ^^

(I had written "dys-" at first, then thought it looked funny, and changed it.)

[Zombimode]

*fails reading comprehension check*

Damn, you guys are right :smallredface:
Yeah, this is stupid.

[Xefas]

Taking the "Self-Sufficient" feat is the absolute worst thing you can do if you want your character to be self-sufficient.

In fact, if your character concept is "A swordsman that is tough and self-sufficient, with godlike endurance", for the love of god, don't play a fighter with toughness, self-sufficient, and endurance.

[Greenish]

Yeah, this is stupid.No argument there. That's how it found it's way to this thread. :smalltongue:

[NNescio]

*Re-reads ur-priest class.*
How is this?


Special: The character must have no ability to cast divine spells.

Ur-priests cast divine spells.

Obviously, this is meant only for preexisting abilities, but strict reading of RAW* gives no such exception.

It's sort of like the Schrödinger's Dragon Disciple case.

(*Provided one accepts Complete Warrior and Complete Arcane's "if you no longer meet the requirements of a PrC you lose access to its class abilities" rule extends to other Prestige Classes.)

[Claudius Maximus]

(*Provided one accepts Complete Warrior and Complete Arcane's "if you no longer meet the requirements of a PrC you lose access to its class abilities" rule extends to other Prestige Classes.)

But it's generally accepted that those only apply to the books in question.

There's the old "Heal by Drowning" trick, that needs no further explanation.

Empty flasks weigh more than full flasks of Alchemists's Fire, Holy Water, etc.

The good-only Healer class has an [evil] spell (Deathwatch) on their list. I can't check right now, but I think they can't even cast it.

Undead are completely fine on the Positive Energy Plane, since they are technically immune to the negative effects of the plane. They're probably better off than living things even.

[Psyren]

But it's generally accepted that those only apply to the books in question.

Actually, that rule is generally disregarded entirely. If you were to apply it, there is no basis to apply it selectively, because it doesn't specify "the prestige classes in this book."

And CArc has other rules that are applied to general D&D, such as sneak attack/crits on weapon-like spells. Following that logic would mean that you could only do that with the spells in CArc.

Anyway, I think the rule is silly (just like I think Ur-Priest self-disqualifying is silly) - I merely mentioned it because this is a thread for silly rules.


EDIT: Might as well throw in Dragon Disciple while we're on the subject, for the same reason.

[Firechanter]

Ur-priests cast divine spells.
It's sort of like the Schrödinger's Dragon Disciple case.

First I was like this: oÔ
And then I LOLed! ^_^

Thanks for that, I'm still laughing. =)


The good-only Healer class has an [evil] spell (Deathwatch) on their list. I can't check right now, but I think they can't even cast it.

Yeah. I just noticed the other day that Deathwatch is described as "Evil", though I cannot imagine why.

[ranagrande]

Yeah, I'd say the real problem is that Deathwatch is an Evil spell; it's only evil because of the fluff. There's nothing to prevent Healers from using it though.

[etrpgb]

(*Provided one accepts Complete Warrior and Complete Arcane's "if you no longer meet the requirements of a PrC you lose access to its class abilities" rule extends to other Prestige Classes.)

The complete warrior rule is dysfunctional, every GM have to make something new. I personally say that the character must satisfy naked and without spells active to take the first level. Once you got your first level it is ok. If you satisfy only in certain situations like Two-weapon fighting and the Ranger you qualify.

Similarly the PrC Survivor (Savage Species) has this prerequisite:
You highest Base Saving Throw must be lower than your level.
Too bad once you take your first level you probably fail that requisite losing the first level power....

E.g.
1 level Commoner saving throws 0 0 0
2 level Survivor saving throws 2 2 2
OPS!

[Psyren]

The good-only Healer class has an [evil] spell (Deathwatch) on their list. I can't check right now, but I think they can't even cast it.

It's on Slayer of Domiel's list too IIRC - an Exalted PrC from BoED, i.e. "gooder than good."

[tyckspoon]

Actually, that rule is generally disregarded entirely. If you were to apply it, there is no basis to apply it selectively, because it doesn't specify "the prestige classes in this book."


Actually, Primary Source applies here. The DMG is primary source for how prestige classes work. Unless another book specifically over-rules that, like how Spell Compendium and Magic Item Compendium specifically are the definitive new rules for the stuff in there, then any new rules about Prestige Classes can only apply to the book those rules came from- everything else refers either to itself or to the DMG if no specific rules are given.

Edit: As distinct from the Weapon-like spells rules, which are generally applied because the core books don't tell you how to deal with those.

[Boci]

Actually, Primary Source applies here. The DMG is primary source for how prestige classes work. Unless another book specifically over-rules that, like how Spell Compendium and Magic Item Compendium specifically are the definitive new rules for the stuff in there, then any new rules about Prestige Classes can only apply to the book those rules came from- everything else refers either to itself or to the DMG if no specific rules are given.

Edit: As distinct from the Weapon-like spells rules, which are generally applied because the core books don't tell you how to deal with those.

The core book also doesn't mention what happens when you lose the requirements for a PrC, so it could be argued that there is nothing in core for CA and CW to overrule.

[Psyren]

Actually, Primary Source applies here. The DMG is primary source for how prestige classes work. Unless another book specifically over-rules that, like how Spell Compendium and Magic Item Compendium are the definitive rules for the stuff in there, then any new rules about Prestige Classes can only apply to the book those rules came from- everything else refers either to itself or to the DMG if no specific rules are given.

1) Primary Source only applies if that source actually has a rule that covers this situation. The DMG says nothing about what happens if you fail to meet the prereqs for a PrC after entering it, therefore defaulting to it does nothing.
(Ninja'd by Boci.)

2) The Primary Source rule comes second to Specific trumps General in the rules hierarchy. For instance, both the DMG and PHB both say there are only 11 base classes in D&D, yet it's obvious that this is wrong due to splat books adding more; yet putting Primary Source in first place would eliminate every other base class in 3.5.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Swordsage's AC bonus.

Unarmed Swordsages.

[etrpgb]

The fact people start arguing this way is proof of dysfunction.

Also the big one.... Tiers! How is possible that after few years of 3.0 they could not make a collection of Tiers 3 base classes?!?

[Greenish]

Taking the "Self-Sufficient" feat is the absolute worst thing you can do if you want your character to be self-sufficient.

In fact, if your character concept is "A swordsman that is tough and self-sufficient, with godlike endurance", for the love of god, don't play a fighter with toughness, self-sufficient, and endurance.If we're going about misleading names, how about Amulet of Mighty Fists and Necklace of Natural Attacks? Guess which one is better for someone punching people in the face, and which one benefits the million-tentacled elder horror more?

[etrpgb]

It can be extended to most feats.
Feats are really badly written, it seems authors are scared to write decent feats and yet have no problems writing broken spells. Most core feats are almost useless (Tier 6 if you prefer).

Weapon Specialization +2 damage VS Fireball 1d6 damage per level....ok, there is a cap. But the point should be clear.

Endurance ... you get 3 HP. WHAT? My character will have 7 feats in all his career and I should use one for 3 HP?!? No, seriously... do they play tested anything?
If it were something like 1 HP per level (min 3) my Wizard might think about it...

Of course this is the real problem of the Fighter class. Bad feats, bad class that lives of feats.

[Talonblaze]

You cannot be a Dragon Disciple if you are a dragon.

Gain dragon as a type through Dragon Disciple.

You no longer qualify as a Dragon Disciple.

[Amphetryon]

It can be extended to most feats.
Feats are really badly written, it seems authors are scared to write decent feats and yet have no problems writing broken spells. Most core feats are almost useless (Tier 6 if you prefer).

Weapon Specialization +2 damage VS Fireball 1d6 damage per level....ok, there is a cap. But the point should be clear.

Endurance ... you get 3 HP. WHAT? My character will have 7 feats in all his career and I should use one for 3 HP?!? No, seriously... do they play tested anything?
If it were something like 1 HP per level (min 3) my Wizard might think about it...

Of course this is the real problem of the Fighter class. Bad feats, bad class that lives of feats.
1. Endurance doesn't give any HP.
2. I'd like to see a breakdown of how "most" core feats - where we get metamagic, item creation, power attack, and natural spell, among others - are "almost useless".

[etrpgb]

Toughness, yeah... language barrier.

Here is the list (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/feats.htm), check by yourself.

[Amphetryon]

Toughness, yeah... language barrier.

Here is the list (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/feats.htm), check by yourself.

I'm aware of the list. I'm saying "most" of those aren't "almost useless". I'm asking what percentage of them you were considering when you made the assertion.

[Lord.Sorasen]

My favorite here is still "gaining cover with a tower shield grants the tower shield itself cover."

- Smaller creatures gain bonuses to hide because they are smaller. Makes sense. But it begins to get silly when you realize that two diminutive creatures will never find each other ever.

[TwylyghT]

Hide behind your tower shield, to gain total cover for you and your equipment. Your tower shield now has total cover.

Follow up by using the total cover from the shield to make a hide check. You, and thus your tower shield, are now hidden.

Mounted combat almost as a whole, with special mention of ride by attack.

[NNescio]

My favorite here is still "gaining cover with a tower shield grants the tower shield itself cover."

- Smaller creatures gain bonuses to hide because they are smaller. Makes sense. But it begins to get silly when you realize that two diminutive creatures will never find each other ever.

And while we are at it, the Spot rules and their interaction with various celestial objects...

[etrpgb]

As DMG a Tiny creature cannot attack a Small creature as it cannot enter in its square.

@Amphetryon
I made a quick count, there are about 110 feats and I counted 47 that I do not think anyone would ever want. I might not be `most', but it is surely `many'.

[PirateMonk]

My favorite here is still "gaining cover with a tower shield grants the tower shield itself cover."

- Smaller creatures gain bonuses to hide because they are smaller. Makes sense. But it begins to get silly when you realize that two diminutive creatures will never find each other ever.

How is that silly? Being needle-sized doesn't make it much easier to find a needle in a haystack.


And while we are at it, the Spot rules and their interaction with various celestial objects...

I don't think you need to make a Spot check unless the object is hidden or otherwise difficult to see.

[Firechanter]

Swordsage's AC bonus.

Unarmed Swordsages.

Please elaborate.

--

Also, regarding Spot checks, I'm not quite sure if I'm just not reading the rules correctly... or if an average person cannot see another average person beyond 200ft (60 metres) even if the latter isn't even trying to hide (Spot check +0, Hide Check 0, Distance penalty -21).

[PirateMonk]

As DMG a Tiny creature cannot attack a Small creature as it cannot enter in its square.


Very Small Creature

A Fine, Diminutive, or Tiny creature can move into or through an occupied square. The creature provokes attacks of opportunity when doing so.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/movementPositionAndDistance.htm#movingthroughaSqua re

[Jack_Simth]

The core book also doesn't mention what happens when you lose the requirements for a PrC, so it could be argued that there is nothing in core for CA and CW to overrule.
Fun stuff: History of the game.

In D&D 3.0, the DMG does not include the Dragon Disciple PrC - that was found in a different book. Additionally, the 3.0 DMG PrC header had the same clause that shows up in the 3.5 Complete Arcane and the 3.5 Complete Warrior books.

In D&D 3.5, the DMG inludes the Dragon Disciple PrC... and the DMG PrC header does not include the troublesome clause that shows up in Complete Arcane and Complete Warrior.

The clause was specifically removed from the DMG in the 3.0 -> 3.5 transition. Complete Arcane and Complete Warrior? They were very early books in 3.5, that mostly functioned as compilations of various items from 3.0 sources with minor edits.

As nearly as I can tell, the presence of that troublesome clause is an editing error.

[Psyren]

Please elaborate.

By RAW, Swordsages only get Wis to AC in light armor. (i.e. any other level of armor - including no armor at all - loses the bonus.)

Not sure what the issue is with Unarmed Swordsages, they seem playable. (though they would be hit even harder by the rule above.)



As nearly as I can tell, the presence of that troublesome clause is an editing error.

I don't think it belongs in 3.5 either - but again, this is the "silly rules" thread.

[Boci]

I don't think you need to make a Spot check unless the object is hidden or otherwise difficult to see.

Nope, an example of a DC: 10 skill check is spotiing a large object in plain sight.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Please elaborate.
Only works in light armor.

Have to take Improved Unarmed Strike, don't get it as a bonus feat.

--

Also, regarding Spot checks, I'm not quite sure if I'm just not reading the rules correctly... or if an average person cannot see another average person beyond 200ft (60 metres) even if the latter isn't even trying to hide (Spot check +0, Hide Check 0, Distance penalty -21).

Even with the massive size penalty, the Sun is too far away to see.

[NNescio]

Please elaborate.
The Swordsage's AC Bonus technically only applies when they are in light armour (and unencumbered while not using a shield). Strict reading of RAW does not grant them this bonus when they are actually unarmoured. Amusingly.

This is exacerbated with Unarmed Swordsages, who lose proficiency with light armour.

Edit: Swordsage'd. Fitting.

[Greenish]

It can be extended to most feats.
Feats are really badly written, it seems authors are scared to write decent feats and yet have no problems writing broken spells. Most core feats are almost useless (Tier 6 if you prefer).I blame Fighter. The very existence of the class devalues the worth of melee feats.

Looking over SRD for general feats:

Utterly useless (30):
Acrobatic
Agile
Alertness
Animal Affinity
Athletic
Combat Casting
Deceitful
Deft Hands
Diligent
Dodge
Endurance
Improved Counterspell
Investigator
Magical Aptitude
Martial Weapon Proficiency
Trample
Negotiator
Nimble Fingers
Persuasive
Shot On The Run
Great Cleave
Improved Overrun
Run
Self-Sufficient
Simple Weapon Proficiency
Skill Focus
Stealthy
Toughness
Track
Two-Weapon Defense
Mostly useless (29):
Armor Proficiency (Light)
Armor Proficiency (Medium)
Armor Proficiency (Heavy)
Blind-Fight
Improved Disarm
Improved Feint
Whirlwind Attack
Mobility
Spring Attack
Diehard
Eschew Materials
Extra Turning
Great Fortitude
Improved Turning
Snatch Arrows
Stunning Fist
Iron Will
Lightning Reflexes
Point Blank Shot
Far Shot
Cleave
Improved Bull Rush
Improved Sunder
Quick Draw
Rapid Reload
Shield Proficiency
Improved Shield Bash
Tower Shield Proficiency,
Greater Two-Weapon Fighting

That's 59 out of PHB's 92 general feats. Then there are 17 metamagic or item creation feats.

[tyckspoon]

There's 110 feats in the PHB. 16 of those are the +2/+2 skill feats and Skill Focus. So a bit over a tenth are almost completely pointless. Then there's the class that is merely 'really bad', often because you can get the same effect with something less valuable than a feat- the save boosters, Armor/shield proficiencies, and weapon proficiencies. 3 saves, 3 kinds of armor, 3 kinds of weapon (I *might* exempt Exotic Weapon Prof from this, but just because the Spiked Chain is pretty good. Everything else is a terrible return on a feat), 2 different shield proficiency feats. 11 more feats, and we're up to just shy of one quarter of the feats are what I'd call truly almost useless, in that you could pretty easily forget you ever took the feat, and probably strike the bonus it gave you off your sheet without noticing too much (actually, Toughness probably belongs here too. So 28 feats.)

And there's the stuff that *would* be useful, if the core mechanics worked differently/better- Great Cleave. Extra Turning/Improved Turning without really relevant things that work off Turning. Stunning Fist for everybody who isn't a Monk taking it as a bonus feat. Improved Overrun. Improved Counterspell. Eschew Materials. Spring Attack and Shot On The Run. Trample. Ride-By Attack. Combat Casting. Dodge and Mobility. The mechanics associated with all of these are either weak, dysfunctional, or generally irrelevant enough that it would take either dramatically more powerful feats or a system rewrite to make the associated feats useful. And now we're up to 42 feats that I would not consider worth using outside of builds carefully designed to abuse a certain ability (or that were forced into it by prestige classes, I'm lookin' at you Combat Casting and Skill Focus.)

And let's get into stuff that is actually kinda useful, but just completely fails to be worth a rare feat slot! How 'bout Endurance and Diehard? Whirlwind Attack? Run? Track (as somebody's sig says re: Rangers-"we were given a railroading tool and tricked into believing it was a class feature") Improved Feint? Widen Spell (even metamagic has a turkey in it!) Two-Weapon Defense? Point-blank Shot? Far Shot? 52 feats so far, not terribly far from a majority!

Thankfully, we're now into the realms of merely questionable feats, the stuff you take because it does something decent and you're stuck in Core so you don't have a better way to get these effects, it's required to make a poorly-supported concept work, or you just ran out of really good feats. (Note: This bit is strongly personal opinion.) This is the realm of your Weapon Focus and Specialization line. Spell X (Mastery/Focus/Penetration), Two-Weapon Fighting, and Rapid Reload also occupy this level. So that's.. 2 each for the Weapon stuff, 2 more for Spell Focus and Penetration, 3 TWF feats, and then Rapid Reload and Spell Mastery.. 13 more feats on the pile. 65 total. Well more than half the feats in the PHB are somewhere in between "Oh my gods why would you take that" and "well, I guess that's not completely terrible."

Edit: 109 feats. Forgot that Leadership is actually in a DMG sidebar. And I suppose I shouldn't be all that surprised that I'm not the only person who took the time to sort all those feats out.

[Jack_Simth]

I don't think it belongs in 3.5 either - but again, this is the "silly rules" thread.True enough. Of course, with the availability of the Chaos Shuffle, the PHB II retraining rules, and the Psychic Reformation power, the clause also serves a purpose: If the feat cost is a balancing mechanism for stonger PrC's, then the ability to effectively remove the feat cost is a bad thing.

[Douglas]

Have to take Improved Unarmed Strike, don't get it as a bonus feat.
That one's at least arguable. Unarmed Swordsage says you get "the monk's unarmed strike progression". If you interpret this as gaining the "Unarmed Strike" class feature of the monk, there's no problem because the very first sentence of that gives you Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat.

[Firechanter]

"Progression" typically means just the numbers, i.e. in this case, attack bonuses and iteratives.

[etrpgb]

I blame Fighter. The very existence of the class devalues the worth of melee feats.[...]
That's 59 out of PHB's 92 general feats. Then there are 17 metamagic or item creation feats.

You has been more restrictive than me (for example I set Cleave as useful), but I assume we agree on the main point.

I miss the point of the Fighter... isn't the opposite? Bad feats meant bad Fighter?

After all, with lots of Feats of the power of Shock Trooper (that become stronger with the BAB) or lots of Feats that give new ways to attack like the ``Zhentarim Soldier'' levels the Fighter might be interesting.

[Hiro Protagonest]

"Progression" typically means just the numbers, i.e. in this case, attack bonuses and iteratives.

That's 3.0 monk, this one just increases damage.

[etrpgb]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/movementPositionAndDistance.htm#movingthroughaSqua re
I said ``as DMG'' with a reason. SRD fixed the problem.

[n00bsticker]

Knowledge Devotion is poorly designed. It is possible to fail to identify a monster but still gain bonuses to-hit and damage against it even though you haven't got a clue what you are fighting.

[etrpgb]

Knowledge Devotion is the way of the Wizard of the Coast wanted to say:
- Weapon Focus is wrong, yes... Use this one.

What about Travel Devotion? You can move all your movement in a Immediate Action. It means you can avoid a fall jumping midair! Or do a double jump!

[Jeraa]

Edit: Nevermind, misread what someone said.

[Psyren]

I said ``as DMG'' with a reason. SRD fixed the problem.

I don't think it's fair to highlight the rules they actually fixed with errata in this thread though. Give the devil it's due, and all that.

(Besides, there's more than enough that they didn't get around to :smalltongue:)

[n00bsticker]

Knowledge Devotion is the way of the Wizard of the Coast wanted to say:
- Weapon Focus is wrong, yes... Use this one.

I can't disagree, but just the way it works is poorly designed. My group uses this house rule:
If you identify the monster (DC = 10 + HD) then you gain +1 to-hit and damage
For every extra bit of information (for every 5 you exceed the identification DC) you gain another +1 to hit and damage.

To go with it, Ancestral Knowledge is house ruled not to be racially constrained.

As for Weapon Focus, it scales by level. At level 4, weapon focus automatically grants weapon specialization. At level 8, it automatically grants Greater Weapon Focus. At level 11, it automatically grants Greater Weapon Specialization. Then it stops.

[Hiro Protagonest]

As for Weapon Focus, it scales by level. At level 4, weapon focus automatically grants weapon specialization. At level 8, it automatically grants Greater Weapon Focus. At level 11, it automatically grants Greater Weapon Specialization. Then it stops.

I'm guessing houserule. That doesn't fix the RAW.

[Firechanter]

What about Travel Devotion? You can move all your movement in a Immediate Action. It means you can avoid a fall jumping midair! Or do a double jump!

Well. I think that's okay. It is a kind of mini-teleport. There are lots of ways to do this.
What bugs me about most Devotion feats is that Clerics get so much more out of them. Right, because this class really needed more of a boost than any Mundane. oÔ
But well, it's bad game balance, not dysfunctional as such.

[n00bsticker]

I'm guessing houserule. That doesn't fix the RAW.

Yes, houserule of course. Not arguing that it fixes RAW by any means.

[NoldorForce]

Using a ranged weapon to make an attack as a standard action provokes an attack of opportunity.
Using a ranged weapon to make a full attack action does not.Rules Compendium "patched" this, actually - see page 16.

[Greenish]

You has been more restrictive than me (for example I set Cleave as useful), but I assume we agree on the main point.Yeah, Cleave may be in wrong category, but eh.


I miss the point of the Fighter... isn't the opposite? Bad feats meant bad Fighter?The feats suck because fighter gets so many of them. Think Spring Attack chain, Weapon Focus/Specialization chain, and so forth and so forth. They can't have been designed on the assumption that you get 7 of them over your entire career. No, the designers thought "hey, fighters get a huge bunch of these", and went from there.

[Amphetryon]

By designating them as Tier 6, they've got to be a level of uselessness that I just don't agree with, unless you're completely redoing pre-reqs for other feats and PrCs. At that point, we're not poking fun at weirdness of a given rule's interaction with the rest of the game, but clamoring for a wholecloth rewrite. That's been done several times, and so far as I can tell, is not the point of the thread.

[Coidzor]

The feats suck because fighter gets so many of them. Think Spring Attack chain, Weapon Focus/Specialization chain, and so forth and so forth. They can't have been designed on the assumption that you get 7 of them over your entire career. No, the designers thought "hey, fighters get a huge bunch of these", and went from there.

In short, the Fighter is the albatross around the feat system's neck.

[Flickerdart]

Knowledge Devotion is poorly designed. It is possible to fail to identify a monster but still gain bonuses to-hit and damage against it even though you haven't got a clue what you are fighting.
Why is this a problem? I don't need to know the particular sub-species of this dire wererhino to know that creatures that are covered in armoured plates can be stabbed in the eyes, or that you can use the weight of such a creature against them to wedge your blade in further...
The same thing exists with the Ranger's Favored Enemy. You might not know one dragon from another, but you know where to stab the lot of them so that they bleed the most.

[Person_Man]

Critical Miss house rules. The most common version is that if you roll a natural 1, you lose the remaining attacks that you have for that round, or have to roll on a chart that involves many very bad options (drop your weapon, break your weapon, hurt yourself, take some sort of penalty until next turn, etc). This strongly penalizes people who add more attacks per round. For example, a Totemist who has 10 attacks (not hard to accomplish by mid levels) will generally have a critical miss every other round. Critical Hit house rules tend to be equally ridiculous for the opposite reason, making perfectly acceptable Tier 3ish classes that make one attack per round a lot weaker.

[subject42]

I don't have quotes on me right now, but one that came up in game for me was that I had a player who's character was a harpoon specialist.

Harpoons are thrown weapons.

By RAW, thrown weapons don't work on enemies that are underwater.

Ergo, you can't hunt whales with harpoons.

[Firechanter]

By designating them as Tier 6, they've got to be a level of uselessness that I just don't agree with, unless you're completely redoing pre-reqs for other feats and PrCs.

The fact that certain horrible feats are used as prerequisites for more useful feats or PrCs does not make them any better. This is called a feat tax.

[Greenish]

Amphetryon is right though, in that feats that are just poor aren't really the topic of the thread.

[Boci]

I don't have quotes on me right now, but one that came up in game for me was that I had a player who's character was a harpoon specialist.

Harpoons are thrown weapons.

By RAW, thrown weapons don't work on enemies that are underwater.

Ergo, you can't hunt whales with harpoons.

Yes you can, you just wait for them to surface, just like in real life.

[subject42]

Yes you can, you just wait for them to surface, just like in real life.

I think it's either in the DMG or Stormwrack, but the rules don't make even the slightest allowance for the depth of the water. As it's written, a millimeter of water will block a harpoon.

[n00bsticker]

Why is this a problem? I don't need to know the particular sub-species of this dire wererhino to know that creatures that are covered in armoured plates can be stabbed in the eyes, or that you can use the weight of such a creature against them to wedge your blade in further...
The same thing exists with the Ranger's Favored Enemy. You might not know one dragon from another, but you know where to stab the lot of them so that they bleed the most.

Firstly, Knowledge Devotion and Favored Enemy do not care about sub-species. They only care about creature type. It has nothing to do with stabbing armor covered creatures in the face, or using their weight against them. It has everything to do with understanding the creature itself.

Secondly, static DC's for checks of this nature giving combat bonuses are bad design. By level 10 it is trivially easy for a cleric to hit the +4 and +5 range on every single check against every single type in the game. This is boring and does not make sense in regards to the game world.

Of course, YMMV, but in my experience most DM's (including myself) find it stupid that you can gain combat bonuses through knowledge when you don't actually know what you are fighting.

[Flickerdart]

Firstly, Knowledge Devotion and Favored Enemy do not care about sub-species. They only care about creature type. It has nothing to do with stabbing armor covered creatures in the face, or using their weight against them. It has everything to do with understanding the creature itself.
This is written where? Because it's certainly not in the feat's description. What is, is entirely consistent with what I have said - as long as you know the general kind of creature, regardless of the particular species, you know the basics of how to hurt it better. If you choose to fluff it in a way that makes no sense, be my guest, but don't blame the feat for it.


By level 10 it is trivially easy for a cleric to hit the +4 and +5 range on every single check against every single type in the game. This is boring and does not make sense in regards to the game world.
So...a devotee of the concept of knowledge, who has surpassed the best and brightest of regular humans four levels ago, knowing how to hurt things is boring and does not make sense?

[olelia]

What about Travel Devotion? You can move all your movement in a Immediate Action. It means you can avoid a fall jumping midair! Or do a double jump!

If we're getting all RAWness up in here, my counter argument is yes...you just made a move mid fall...but nothing in that movement actually changed your velocity speed downward :smallamused:.

[Boci]

If we're getting all RAWness up in here, my counter argument is yes...you just made a move mid fall...but nothing in that movement actually changed your velocity speed downward :smallamused:.

Your conter argument should be "Travel devotion is a swift, not immediate, action".

[Greenish]

What about Travel Devotion? You can move all your movement in a Immediate Action. It means you can avoid a fall jumping midair! Or do a double jump!Travel Devotion is a swift action, and I don't see the rules saying anything about those. You can get two move actions a turn anyhow, so if "double jumping" was possible, everyone could do it.

[John Campbell]

I think it's either in the DMG or Stormwrack, but the rules don't make even the slightest allowance for the depth of the water. As it's written, a millimeter of water will block a harpoon.

I just came up with a new use for our decanter of endless water.


Ride-By Attack and Spirited Charge, by RAW, do nothing. They provide their benefits "when you are mounted and use the charge action". When making a mounted charge, the rider (i.e., the one who is mounted) is not using the charge action. The mount is.

Ride-By Attack is also usually defeated by basic geometry. The Ride-By must continue the line of the charge, which is almost always going to be through your target's square.

If you Trample something with a mount that hasn't got hooves, does it still get a hoof attack?

Pathfinder changed the Mounted Combat feat so that using it is a swift action. Which is used reactively like an immediate action. That would be weird enough, but then they added the Trick Riding feat, which, among other things, lets you use Mounted Combat twice in a turn. I have no idea how that's even intended to work, action-wise. I suspect that whoever wrote Trick Riding forgot or just never noticed that they'd changed Mounted Combat.

(Yeah, I'm playing a mounted archer with a sideline in mounted charger. This is all stuff that I've actually run into.)

My favorite, though, is the lighting rules that depend on the lighting conditions on the observer, not on the thing being observed. Upshot is, if you have one character holding a flaming torch in an large, empty room with no other light sources, another character standing outside the torch's illumination radius cannot see the torch or the character holding it. The character holding the torch can see the character in darkness just fine, though... it's only in the ring of shadowy illumination that you get concealment from the darkness.

For bonus points, combine with the darkness spell that sets the illumination level to "shadowy" rather than lowering it per se. The character in darkness can't see anything, no matter how well-lit, because he's blind, but if he casts darkness on himself, he's no longer in darkness, he's in shadowy illumination, and is no longer blind, and can now see the guy with the torch.

(Pathfinder did fix the darkness bit, but not the fundamental backwardsness of the darkness rules.)

[Boci]

Ride-By Attack is also usually defeated by basic geometry. The Ride-By must continue the line of the charge, which is almost always going to be through your target's square.

Not really, you can just attack from the side.

[n00bsticker]

This is written where? Because it's certainly not in the feat's description. What is, is entirely consistent with what I have said - as long as you know the general kind of creature, regardless of the particular species, you know the basics of how to hurt it better. If you choose to fluff it in a way that makes no sense, be my guest, but don't blame the feat for it.
The whole part where you only roll once per encounter per type. The feat doesn't care about individual monsters, only what type they are. This is poor design.



So...a devotee of the concept of knowledge, who has surpassed the best and brightest of regular humans four levels ago, knowing how to hurt things is boring and does not make sense?
That's not what I said, at all. If you want to argue against a straw man, feel free. Monsters get tougher, and more obscure as you level. The fact that Knowledge Devotion does not take this into account is poor design.

[Flickerdart]

The whole part where you only roll once per encounter per type. The feat doesn't care about individual monsters, only what type they are. This is poor design.
What is the difference, in terms of how to damage them, between a 2-HD and 20-HD Skeleton? A 5-HD and a 10-HD animal? A 15HD and a 50HD dragon? They all work the same. Having to make higher checks to get the same benefits, so that at 20th level you have invested one of your seven feats and something like a hundred skill points to get the same +1 to attack and damage you were getting 20 levels ago? That would be poor design.




That's not what I said, at all. If you want to argue against a straw man, feel free. Monsters get tougher, and more obscure as you level. The fact that Knowledge Devotion does not take this into account is poor design.
Monsters get tougher, yes - but more famous, too. Legends are written about many of them, including legends of Brave Sir Stabsalot, who is said to have killed many a [blank] by [blanking] them in the [blank] with a big [blank].

[Greenish]

Not really, you can just attack from the side.Especially since you're probably using a reach weapon.

[John Campbell]

Not really, you can just attack from the side.


Movement During a Charge:
You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent.

You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). Here's what it means to have a clear path. First, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. (If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge.) Second, if any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge. (Helpless creatures don't stop a charge.)

So, no, you can't attack from the side. (By which I assume you mean "charge off to the side", because "from the side" makes no sense in a system without facing and wouldn't help with the geometry problem in any case.)


In further mounted combat nonsense: The mount, again, is the one making the charge. The rider just gets the opportunity to attack at the end of the charge, and derives charge benefits from it if he takes that opportunity. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but it means that you can't do the classic lance charge against a Medium opponent while mounted on a standard warhorse. See, the charge doesn't end until the horse makes its attack (and the horse must attack - it's the one making the charge). Warhorses have 5' reach. Lances have 10' reach, and don't threaten at 5'. At the end of the charge, when the rider gets the opportunity to make his attack, he doesn't threaten the target.

[n00bsticker]

What is the difference, in terms of how to damage them, between a 2-HD and 20-HD Skeleton? A 5-HD and a 10-HD animal? A 15HD and a 50HD dragon? They all work the same. Having to make higher checks to get the same benefits, so that at 20th level you have invested one of your seven feats and something like a hundred skill points to get the same +1 to attack and damage you were getting 20 levels ago? That would be poor design.
Please, you can't be serious. The 20th level character of which you speak finds it trivial to hit +4 and +5 to-hit and damage against all enemies in the game, even with my house rule in effect. However, he can't do it at level 9, which is trivially easy if the RAW is played.


Monsters get tougher, yes - but more famous, too. Legends are written about many of them, including legends of Brave Sir Stabsalot, who is said to have killed many a [blank] by [blanking] them in the [blank] with a big [blank].
Not really a relevant point.

[Treblain]

Here's one: the Invisible Blade requires Point Blank Shot and Far Shot. The Invisible Blade is based on feinting, which can only be used in melee.

[Flickerdart]

Please, you can't be serious. The 20th level character of which you speak finds it trivial to hit +4 and +5 to-hit and damage against all enemies in the game, even with my house rule in effect. However, he can't do it at level 9, which is trivially easy if the RAW is played.
You seriously believe that +5 to hit and damage is an effect that's worth waiting 20 levels for? Dear lord, you must think Weapon Specialization is an incredible feat.


Not really a relevant point.
Relevant fluff-wise, which is half of what you're complaining about.

[Coidzor]

I think it's either in the DMG or Stormwrack, but the rules don't make even the slightest allowance for the depth of the water. As it's written, a millimeter of water will block a harpoon.

But only if they're underwater, once they've surfaced, that water no longer blocks the harpoon.

Delightfully screwy, isn't it?


You seriously believe that +5 to hit and damage is an effect that's worth waiting 20 levels for? Dear lord, you must think Weapon Specialization is an incredible feat.

That reminds me of a funny story. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214382)

[n00bsticker]

You seriously believe that +5 to hit and damage is an effect that's worth waiting 20 levels for? Dear lord, you must think Weapon Specialization is an incredible feat.
How is arguing against that Straw Man going for you? Good? I hope so.

Since you already missed where I explained that Weapon Specialization is not even a feat in my games, I'll just mention it again. Weapon Specialization is given out for free.

Intentionally ignoring what is good and what is bad game design doesn't make your arguments stronger. It in fact makes them weaker, and I can't even figure out what your argument is in the first place (if it's that Knowledge Devotion is good by RAW, then you are objectively wrong).

When you want to actually attempt to address what I am saying, I'll be all ears. Until then, au revoir.


Relevant fluff-wise, which is half of what you're complaining about.
No, it is literally zero percent of what I have said. Everything has addressed game mechanics and what is good and what is bad design. If you don't care what is good design and what is bad design don't assume everybody else is in the same boat.

[Boci]

How is arguing against that Straw Man going for you? Good? I hope so.

Since you already missed where I explained that Weapon Specialization is not even a feat in my games, I'll just mention it again. Weapon Specialization is given out for free.

Intentionally ignoring what is good and what is bad game design doesn't make your arguments stronger. It in fact makes them weaker, and I can't even figure out what your argument is in the first place (if it's that Knowledge Devotion is good by RAW, then you are objectively wrong).

When you want to actually attempt to address what I am saying, I'll be all ears. Until then, au revoir.

At what level do you think it would be fair for a character to get +5 to hit and damage from knowledge devotion?


No, it is literally zero percent of what I have said. Everything has addressed game mechanics and what is good and what is bad design. If you don't care what is good design and what is bad design don't assume everybody else is in the same boat.

He's saying that the obcurity of the more powerful monsters is countered by their more pronouced roles in myths (and presumably the character's greater knowledge skill).

[Flickerdart]

How is arguing against that Straw Man going for you? Good? I hope so.

Since you already missed where I explained that Weapon Specialization is not even a feat in my games, I'll just mention it again. Weapon Specialization is given out for free.

Intentionally ignoring what is good and what is bad game design doesn't make your arguments stronger. It in fact makes them weaker, and I can't even figure out what your argument is in the first place (if it's that Knowledge Devotion is good by RAW, then you are objectively wrong).

When you want to actually attempt to address what I am saying, I'll be all ears. Until then, au revoir.


No, it is literally zero percent of what I have said. Everything has addressed game mechanics and what is good and what is bad design. If you don't care what is good design and what is bad design don't assume everybody else is in the same boat.
Hilarious accusations, but I'm not going to rise to your bait.

Thinking that Knowledge Devotion's 1-5 bonus should be evenly spread across 20 levels, requiring the appropriate resource investment equal to the better part of anyone's skill points, is patently absurd, but it's what you seem to be advocating. If you really think this is how the feat should work, then you're vastly overvaluing the bonus, and we have no common ground to meet on. Good day.

[Greenish]

Knowledge Devotion is pretty well designed feat. It provides relevant bonus, scales but not for free and rewards having more than one person in a party who's not a total ignoramus.

[Coidzor]

No, it is literally zero percent of what I have said. Everything has addressed game mechanics and what is good and what is bad design. If you don't care what is good design and what is bad design don't assume everybody else is in the same boat.

Well, you'll have to forgive us then, since what you've said so far has amounted to demanding that Knowledge Devotion work like the Truenamer.

The class which is generally agreed to be completely broken in the unplayable sense and the only handbook for which advises people to never, ever play the class because it was so poorly designed.

So, you'll find that a good portion of the community disagrees with your assertion that such would be good design.

[NeoSeraphi]

A dread necromancer is the scariest creature alive. You fail one save against his fear aura, and even if you kill him, a whole ten years later, you're still shaken from that one look. (RAW, a dread necromancer's fear aura has no duration so it never ends)

[Greenish]

The class which is generally agreed to be completely broken in the unplayable sense and the only handbook for which advises people to never, ever play the class because it was so poorly designed.It's not actually the only (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19872422/Truenamer_Optimization_Guide) one (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=8270.0).

[Starbuck_II]

Since people mentioned Swordsage AC (even though that isn't dysfunctional):
I mentioned Armored Uncanny Dodge: What is the Eternal Blade even trying to help with?
Is there some Uncanny dodge abilities that only work in light armor? Did they assume it was for for light armor for Barbarians/Rogues?

Why give an useless ability?

Supposedly, it is Uncanny Dodge but works in any armor... but they all do....

[n00bsticker]

At what level do you think it would be fair for a character to get +5 to hit and damage from knowledge devotion?
The way it works utilizing the house rule I have already described, +5 to hit and damage comes online around level 9-10, just not for every monster that you fight. This is intentional, and by design.

Before anybody starts crying about the skill points, skills are so horrendously under powered that you could completely remove them from the game, assume that everyone has full ranks, and you'd barely even notice it. Feats, again, are under powered and spending a feat on something is as irrelevant as spending a couple skill points in the grand scheme.


He's saying that the obcurity of the more powerful monsters is countered by their more pronouced roles in myths (and presumably the character's greater knowledge skill).
Mythological stories about monsters are not equivalent to knowledge that grants combat bonuses.

[Boci]

The way it works utilizing the house rule I have already described, +5 to hit and damage comes online around level 9-10, just not for every monster that you fight. This is intentional, and by design.

Before anybody starts crying about the skill points, skills are so horrendously under powered that you could completely remove them from the game, assume that everyone has full ranks, and you'd barely even notice it. Feats, again, are under powered and spending a feat on something is as irrelevant as spending a couple skill points in the grand scheme.

At what level do you think the DC for +5 to hit and damage should be achievably?

[n00bsticker]

{{Scrubbed}}

[Greenish]

At what level do you think the DC for +5 to hit and damage should be achievably?I think he wants the feat to give weaker benefits against stronger opponents. Kinda like (Great) Cleave.

[SlashRunner]

{Scrub the post, scrub the post}

...
I think you're coming off as a bit arrogant here. Honestly, no matter the substance of your arguments, if you keep saying stuff like that you're not going to be getting much support.

[Coidzor]

Feats, again, are under powered and spending a feat on something is as irrelevant as spending a couple skill points in the grand scheme.


Then what's it matter if it's a weak, underpowered feat even when you can reliably hit +5 to hit and damage? Or are you saying that you really, really like the 7 odd feats anyone ever gets in their career to be even weaker than the designers intended with their albatross fighter? :smallconfused:


Mythological stories about monsters are not equivalent to knowledge that grants combat bonuses.

Except when they are things that directly tie into remembering that one story about how Wossname exploited the weakness that medusas have to getting their middle fingers whacked. Funny, that.


Wrong.

Then speak more clearly so you actually get your point across rather than saying things that are going to be interpreted as something other than your meaning.

[Boci]

I just told you.

Just to be clear, can you please repeat it. A single number between 0 and 21.

[n00bsticker]

{{scrubbed}}

[Boci]

{{scrubbed}}

[n00bsticker]

{{scrubbed}}

[Greenish]

I think his problem with Knowledge Devotion is that it's DC doesn't scale depending on the creature being fought, so once you can make the check for +5, it doesn't matter whether you fight a squirrel or Jabberwocky.

[Edit]: Jabberwocky would probably be magical beast or something like that. Imagine it's an animal for the above example.

[Boci]

I think his problem with Knowledge Devotion is that it's DC doesn't scale depending on the creature being fought, so once you can make the check for +5, it doesn't matter whether you fight a squirrel or Jabberwocky.

Maybe if he actually helped people understand his position, more people would understand his position.

[Jeraa]

[Edit]: Jabberwocky would probably be magical beast or something like that. Imagine it's an animal for the above example.

Off topic, but the Pathfinder Bestiary 2 lists it as a dragon.

[Hirax]

A search for disintegrate in this thread yields nothing, which means it hasn't been mentioned that said spell doesn't work on trees.

[Greenish]

A search for disintegrate in this thread yields nothing, which means it hasn't been mentioned that said spell doesn't work on trees.Good catch. I'm now off to make myself a Liveoak tower shield.

[Coidzor]

A search for disintegrate in this thread yields nothing, which means it hasn't been mentioned that said spell doesn't work on trees.

I think it also doesn't work on livewood for the same reason, so a livewood ship is impervious to it.

[NeoSeraphi]

Well, thanks to the Knowledge Devotion argument, my last comment was completely ignored and lost in all the ranting, so I'll try again...

I'm not sure this is one hundred percent accurate, but it's interesting to me, if a dragonborn gnome takes gnome paragon, they can get additional daily uses of spell-like abilities they no longer possess...(Away from Book, can't check on Gnome Paragon's exact wording)

[Fox Box Socks]

this spell would turn a stone golem into a flesh golem

A stone to flesh spell does not actually change the golem’s structure but negates its damage reduction and immunity to magic for 1 full round.
So what happens when you cast Stone to Flesh on a Stone Golem?

[Flickerdart]

So what happens when you cast Stone to Flesh on a Stone Golem?
Cast it once, it negates its magic immunity (including the special flesh to stone clause). Cast it a second time, and it becomes a Flesh Golem, as per the spell.

[Jeraa]

A search for disintegrate in this thread yields nothing, which means it hasn't been mentioned that said spell doesn't work on trees.

Yes it does - it just doesn't disintegrate them instantly like other objects.


The trunk of a typical tree has AC 4, hardness 5, and 150 hp. A DC 15 Climb check is sufficient to climb a tree.

[tyckspoon]

Yes it does - it just doesn't disintegrate them instantly like other objects.

If I remember this right, the claim goes that Disintegrate works on two things: Creatures and specifically *nonliving* objects. It does damage to creatures, and it just rips a chunk out of nonliving objects. Trees are not creatures, but they are also not nonliving. Disintegrate just doesn't address them at all.

[Hirax]

Yes it does - it just doesn't disintegrate them instantly like other objects.

Disintegrate only affects creatures and objects composed of non-living matter. Trees by rule are objects. Therefore, a living tree is not affected.

[Zaq]

Yes it does - it just doesn't disintegrate them instantly like other objects.

Not quite.


Disintegrate
Transmutation
Level: Destruction 7, Sor/Wiz 6
Components: V, S, M/DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Effect: Ray
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Fortitude partial (object)
Spell Resistance: Yes

A thin, green ray springs from your pointing finger. You must make a successful ranged touch attack to hit. Any creature struck by the ray takes 2d6 points of damage per caster level (to a maximum of 40d6). Any creature reduced to 0 or fewer hit points by this spell is entirely disintegrated, leaving behind only a trace of fine dust. A disintegrated creature’s equipment is unaffected.

When used against an object, the ray simply disintegrates as much as one 10-foot cube of nonliving matter. Thus, the spell disintegrates only part of any very large object or structure targeted. The ray affects even objects constructed entirely of force, such as forceful hand or a wall of force, but not magical effects such as a globe of invulnerability or an antimagic field.

A creature or object that makes a successful Fortitude save is partially affected, taking only 5d6 points of damage. If this damage reduces the creature or object to 0 or fewer hit points, it is entirely disintegrated.

Only the first creature or object struck can be affected; that is, the ray affects only one target per casting.
Arcane Material Component

A lodestone and a pinch of dust.

Emphasis added. Trees aren't creatures, so they don't fall under the first paragraph, and they're not nonliving matter, so they don't fall under the second paragraph. The spell has no provisions for affecting anything else, so they're immune.

Edit: Bah! Cursed Swordsages! Foiled again! At least I provided a reference, though . . .

[Coidzor]

I'm not sure this is one hundred percent accurate, but it's interesting to me, if a dragonborn gnome takes gnome paragon, they can get additional daily uses of spell-like abilities they no longer possess...(Away from Book, can't check on Gnome Paragon's exact wording)

Gnome Paragon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/races/racialParagonClasses.htm#gnomeParagon) doesn't seem to grant extra uses. There's some substitution levels that do though, I think.

And I believe a feat that gives anyone with innate SLAs more uses of them per day. Can't remember its name though. Magic in the Blood, maybe? Google seems to say it is and is from Player's Guide to Faerun.

[NeoSeraphi]

Gnome Paragon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/races/racialParagonClasses.htm#gnomeParagon) doesn't seem to grant extra uses. There's some substitution levels that do though, I think.

And I believe a feat that gives anyone with innate SLAs more uses of them per day. Can't remember its name though. Magic in the Blood, maybe? Google seems to say it is and is from Player's Guide to Faerun.

Oops. Same post, but with dragonborn drow instead.

[theMycon]

Hilarious accusations, but I'm not going to rise to your bait.

Thinking that Knowledge Devotion's 1-5 bonus should be evenly spread across 20 levels, requiring the appropriate resource investment equal to the better part of anyone's skill points, is patently absurd, but it's what you seem to be advocating. If you really think this is how the feat should work, then you're vastly overvaluing the bonus, and we have no common ground to meet on. Good day.

*slow clap*

Bravo, my good chum. This is perhaps the classiest way of dismissing a faulty line of "reasoning" I have seen.

[etrpgb]

Critical Miss house rules. [...]
And, overall, it is a simple but effective way to make casters stronger... Beside think about a battle: 1000 people vs 1000 people. I would mean what every 6 seconds 100 people drop the weapon, fall down, ... assuming only one attack.

If your DM do this, speak friendly with him. If he does not understand go Archivist or Wizard.

[Firechanter]

There are all kinds of idiotic houserules. Critical fumbles are but one type. ^^

Anyway, 'nuther well-known WotC blunder, listed for the sake of completeness:
Martial Adepts' Stance Progression.
A straight Warblade gains access to a 5th-level class feature (level 3 stance) only at level 10. A multiclassed Warblade/X gets it by level 6.

(At least this is easily fixed by delaying the 2nd stance by one level. For Crusaders it's a lot more difficult, their progression is a lot more fouled up.)

[NNescio]

There are all kinds of idiotic houserules. Critical fumbles are but one type. ^^

Anyway, 'nuther well-known WotC blunder, listed for the sake of completeness:
Martial Adepts' Stance Progression.
A straight Warblade gains access to a 5th-level class feature (level 3 stance) only at level 10. A multiclassed Warblade/X gets it by level 6.

(At least this is easily fixed by delaying the 2nd stance by one level. For Crusaders it's a lot more difficult, their progression is a lot more fouled up.)

On a related note, is there any reason to take Crusader 20? The 'capstone' is pathetic, and the whole messed up stance progression system means no access to 8th-level stances. Which is mind-numbingly stupid, to put it bluntly, since they can't take Immortal Fortitude without multiclassing, despite it being the Crusaders' signature stance.

I mean, aside from the whole "better than Fighter 20" thingy, of course.

[Firechanter]

On a related note, is there any reason to take Crusader 20? The 'capstone' is pathetic, and the whole messed up stance progression system means no access to 8th-level stances.

Well, _technically_ they could gain the stance by buying it as Feat on level 15. But of course, being forced to a) waste a Stance on level 14 for something that's long outdated and b) expend a Feat to gain access to a class feature is both, as you put it, mind-numbingly stupid.

I recommend giving both Crusader and Warblade the same Stance progression, with stances gained at levels 1, 5, 10 and 15. Simple as that.

As for your question, if for some unfathomable reason ;) you think that +1 to attack and damage for one round is not worth 4-5 levels, and considering you only have access to three 9th level maneuvers, no, there's not really any good reason to go Crs 20. Ah yes, you also get an extra maneuver granted, but well... all of that isn't exactly a great Capstone. (Although better than what a Rogue gets, haha)

[NNescio]

(Although better than what a Rogue gets, haha)

Rogue's Capstone: [ERROR] class_feature not found. return value; +1 BAB, +1 Ref

[TwylyghT]

Rogue's Capstone: [ERROR] class_feature not found. return value; +1 BAB, +1 Ref

It's still a bit of a lame duck for a capstone, but our group out of pity granted them another pick from their special ability list. lol.

[Greenish]

(Although better than what a Rogue gets, haha)Rogue at least has an excuse. "Capstones" seem not to have even occurred to people making core.

By the time they churned out ToB, there's no excuse. Warblades have beautiful, brilliant capstone. Swordsages have an okay one. Crusaders… apparently don't need one.

[grarrrg]

Rogue at least has an excuse. "Capstones" seem not to have even occurred to people making core.

By the time they churned out ToB, there's no excuse. Warblades have beautiful, brilliant capstone. Swordsages have an okay one. Crusaders… apparently don't need one.

Actually SorcerersCrusaders getting the short end of the stick is standard procedure.
Charisma based castersmartial classes are always that one step below their Intelligence based counterparts.

[Amphetryon]

Rogue at least has an excuse. "Capstones" seem not to have even occurred to people making core.

By the time they churned out ToB, there's no excuse. Warblades have beautiful, brilliant capstone. Swordsages have an okay one. Crusaders… apparently don't need one.
It's called RKV 7. :smalltongue:

[Essence_of_War]

The only good thing about not having a real capstone, as a Crusader, is that if your DM doesn't allow you a sensible stance progression, you have a strong motivation to take 6 levels of melee dips to get Thicket of Blades around your 5th IL.

Either that, or just play the damn RKV :smallbiggrin:

[Midnight_v]

as an aside I just give them Immortal fortitude as a capstone feat that can be entered "in addition to any other stance they might have running".

[noparlpf]

Have you ever seen RotW's Halfling Rogue? At 1st level, your ranged sneak attack is +1d6 and your melee sneak attack is +0. At 20th level, your ranged sneak attack is +10d6 and your melee sneak attack is +9d6. I'm pretty sure they meant for ranged to be +2d6 and melee to be +0, and then at 20th level for ranged to be +11d6 and melee to be +9d6.

Oh, and the entire mechanics for Jump and Carrying Capacities bother me.
According to the Carrying Capacities chart my Strength is between 16 and 20.
I have made DC 32 jumps and can reproduce the feat.

[subject42]

Oh, and the entire mechanics for Jump and Carrying Capacities bother me. According to the Carrying Capacities chart my Strength is between 16 and 20.

As an avid power lifter I can relate to this one. It's almost like the game designers didn't have a lot of experience with picking up heavy things and putting them back down again.


As far as other rules that don't really work go, a Monk 1/Anything 19 with the Superior Unarmed Strike feat does damage as a 5th level monk, rather than using the SUS table.

[noparlpf]

As an avid power lifter I can relate to this one. It's almost like the game designers didn't have a lot of experience with picking up heavy things and putting them back down again.

I'm quite convinced by now that the WotC staff is consisted mainly of blind quadriplegics and bedside transcribers. How else could they mess up rules for things as simple as basic motor functions?

[sonofzeal]

I'm quite convinced by now that the WotC staff is consisted mainly of blind quadriplegics and bedside transcribers. How else could they mess up rules for things as simple as basic motor functions?
Er... because basic motor functions don't translate that well to other contexts. Here's proof. (http://www.foddy.net/Athletics.html)

[noparlpf]

Er... because basic motor functions don't translate that well to other contexts. Here's proof. (http://www.foddy.net/Athletics.html)

I moved 2.5 meters!

Edit: 3.5 meters! Woo!

[Blackfang108]

I moved 2.5 meters!

Edit: 3.5 meters! Woo!

And I thought my 2 meters was good.

[sonofzeal]

I moved 2.5 meters!

Edit: 3.5 meters! Woo!
Showing real courage! Everyone is a winner!


...but obviously that would make you a "blind quadriplegic" then, since you can't do a simple thing like coordinate leg muscles the way most of us do automatically every day... right? :smallamused:

D&D is not that much of a real-world simulation. There's simulationist elements, but really it's a game, and the carrying rules straddle that line between the two. Even as they stand, they're complicated enough that most people don't even both with them except in emergencies. And if you made them more realistic, they'd almost certainly get more complicated, not less. I'm willing to accept a moderate loss in realism in order to expedite gameplay.

[subject42]

How else could they mess up rules for things as simple as basic motor functions?

Oddly enough, they're actually not too bad at calculating the load you could hold over your head.

The world record standing military press weight is 535 pounds. The world record clean and jerk weight is 580 pounds. Per D&D rules, you can lift up to your maximum load over your head. For both of those weights, you end up with a Strength of 23 (using the PF chart (http://www.pathfindersrd.com/alignment-description/carrying-capacity)).

If you start with 20 STR (18 + racial modifier), a 1st level barbarian could hit that number while raging.

The same calculations would put me at a strength of around 14, if you go by the largest number for "hold over head" weight and equate that to max standing military press.

[Doug Lampert]

Well, you'll have to forgive us then, since what you've said so far has amounted to demanding that Knowledge Devotion work like the Truenamer.

The class which is generally agreed to be completely broken in the unplayable sense and the only handbook for which advises people to never, ever play the class because it was so poorly designed.

So, you'll find that a good portion of the community disagrees with your assertion that such would be good design.

The problem is the rule that knowing about a monster or being able to identify it has a DC based on the monster HD. THAT was stupid, people may never have seen a red dragon, but the average commoner 1 in D&D land probably knows that red dragons are evil and breath fire, and he can identify the great wyrm red as bad news without ever spending 20+ skill ranks on knowledge arcana.

Similarly, the odds are he can identify a HUMAN without needing to train a specific skill, but RAW this is a DC 11 knowledge check and hence can't be done untrained.

Knowledge devotion may well be fine, I have no opinion, but it is in fact stupid that your knowledge can give you a bonus against things you can't identify, but then identifing well known stuff (like cows and people) should be trivial and most people should be able to figure out that the big red flying reptile may be a red dragon and maybe breaths fire without needing to make a DC 42 or whatever knowledge check.

Gods help you if you need to identify a god. What's the knowledge DC to figure out that the guy who looks JUST LIKE the statue in your temple and is glowing like the sun may be Pelor or someone pretending to be Pelor.

One skill rank is enough to learn a profession well enough to earn a good living at it, one skill rank grants fluency with a language, two skill ranks is enough to be the difference between pretender no real chance and a likely olympic champion at something like the high jump.

One skill rank should be enough to bloody well MEMORIZE information equivalent to every monster manual ever printed for any edition of this game, because that's far less information than one language or profession. Sorting out the truth from myth may need more ranks, but the monster knowledge DCs are absurd.

DougL

[The Cat Goddess]

The problem is the rule that knowing about a monster or being able to identify it has a DC based on the monster HD. THAT was stupid, people may never have seen a red dragon, but the average commoner 1 in D&D land probably knows that red dragons are evil and breath fire, and he can identify the great wyrm red as bad news without ever spending 20+ skill ranks on knowledge arcana.

It's harder to identify a Warhorse than a Blink Dog.

A Huge Air Elemental is harder to identify than a Small Air Elemental.

An Elephant is harder to identify (and know details about) than a Pixie.

Of course, when I'm playing or running a game, we have situational modifiers... Very rare creatures, or creatures with multiple templates, apply a penalty to the Knowledge Devotion roll.

[navar100]

I don't have quotes on me right now, but one that came up in game for me was that I had a player who's character was a harpoon specialist.

Harpoons are thrown weapons.

By RAW, thrown weapons don't work on enemies that are underwater.

Ergo, you can't hunt whales with harpoons.

You hunt whales when they come out of the water to breathe.

[noparlpf]

What about spear-fishing?

[navar100]

I prefer Crusader 11/Swordsage 2 or Warblade 2/Master of Nine 5 increasing Crusader progression. You can time it right to get a Devoted Spirit 6th level stance at 2nd level Master of Nine. I'm partial to Aura of Perfect Order.

Anyway, Celestial Mystics have as a prerequisite Vow Of Abstinance, meaning they can't drink alcoholic beverages. Identify has a material component of an owl feather in wine that must be drunk. Celestial Mystics are forbidden to cast Identify.

If you roll 26 on the random traits table for NPCs, you're screwed. (On purpose though, see #100.)

[Qwertystop]

If you roll 26 on the random traits table for NPCs, you're screwed. (On purpose though, see #100.)

where is this table?

[Boci]

What about spear-fishing?

Do you throw the spear? I thought you jabbed with it.

[Jeraa]

where is this table?

3.5 Dungeon Masters Guide, page 128.

[subject42]

Do you throw the spear? I thought you jabbed with it.

I can't speak for traditional spear fishing, but a modern spear gun is kind of like an industrial murder slingshot.

My man concern about the harpoons is that a full sized harpoon is heavy. They're also aerodynamic (hydrodynamic) enough that you would think that they could do damage at the first range increment, at least.

[Qwertystop]

3.5 Dungeon Masters Guide, page 128.

Oh wow... that's great.

Almost as good as pages 91 and 92 of the Expanded Psionics Handbook.

[tyckspoon]

I can't speak for traditional spear fishing, but a modern spear gun is kind of like an industrial murder slingshot.


Well that wouldn't be a thrown weapon anymore, would it? You'd go to the rules on normal ranged weapons there, which do work underwater.. they just have hilariously high penalties to hit anything farther away than about 10 feet.

[Dragonsoul]

5% of all rogues would survive a Nuclear Bomb drop...Well it is an Explosion, so it allows a reflex save right? (This came up in last Sundays game, where my party blew up a wizards tower and surrounding orphange and countryside) The mental image of them Backflipping ten Miles is Amusing though...

[Jack_Simth]

5% of all rogues would survive a Nuclear Bomb drop...Well it is an Explosion, so it allows a reflex save right? (This came up in last Sundays game, where my party blew up a wizards tower and surrounding orphange and countryside) The mental image of them Backflipping ten Miles is Amusing though...Nah, he just steps into Roguespace for a few instants. Possibly a few minutes, considering how long the blast takes. Probably wouldn't help with the fallout, though....

[Jeraa]

Well, since making a reflex save doesn't actually move you at all, the rogue doesn't backflip 10 miles. He just stands at ground zero, unharmed, cape and hair blowing in the breeze. Just as bad though.

[Tvtyrant]

Nah, he just steps into Roguespace for a few instants. Possibly a few minutes, considering how long the blast takes. Probably wouldn't help with the fallout, though....

A monk on the other hand would make his save versus radiation poisoning as well, and would skip merrily into the sunset. His one real power!

[Dragonsoul]

Well, since making a reflex save doesn't actually move you at all, the rogue doesn't backflip 10 miles. He just stands at ground zero, unharmed, cape and hair blowing in the breeze. Just as bad though.

Please don't ruin my mental image, although yours gets amusing when the rogue realises that the a)The Floor does not have evasion b) He's at the top of the tower.

[Amphetryon]

Nah, he just steps into Roguespace for a few instants. Possibly a few minutes, considering how long the blast takes. Probably wouldn't help with the fallout, though....

To be fair, earlier iterations of D&D did make Evasion into the Incredible Bouncing Thief (Rogue). Allied Magic-Users would target the Thief in order to get him closer to or further from the enemy, as needed.

[Douglas]

Please don't ruin my mental image, although yours gets amusing when the rogue realises that the a)The Floor does not have evasion b) He's at the top of the tower.
Another advantage for the monk: Slow Fall! Assuming a wall survived, anyway.

[Dragonsoul]

Unless hes slow falling off the falling masonry(Remember you have to be touching a wall)....actually I'd allow that.

Actually, by RAW could a Monk have a piece of Masonry to allow him to slow fall anywhere? It just says a wall, not a stationery wall.....

[Qwertystop]

Another advantage for the monk: Slow Fall! Assuming a wall survived, anyway.

Wow, we found something the Monk is good at! Surviving tower-destroying explosions while at the top of a tower!

Bit of a niche, but still...

[noparlpf]

I usually cheat a little and take the Stormwrack ACF Water Step when I use the Monk. Walking on water comes up more frequently than falling while within five feet of a wall.

[Dragonsoul]

Wow, we found something the Monk is good at! Surviving tower-destroying explosions while at the top of a tower!

Bit of a niche, but still...

I think we'll take even the smallest victories:smallamused:

[Blackfang108]

Oh wow... that's great.

Almost as good as pages 91 and 92 of the Expanded Psionics Handbook.

Is that the Deja Vu power?

[theMycon]

I have made DC 32 jumps and can reproduce the feat.
32 feet long, or 8 feet high?
I'm a so-so jumper, and can occasionally get a 3' vertical jump, but.... Either of those sounds like something that should be in the "superhuman only" range.


Wow, we found something the Monk is good at! Surviving tower-destroying explosions while at the top of a tower!

Bit of a niche, but still...
This has actually come up the one time I played a monk. It was in a pathfinder adventure module, and I refused to get out while the little zerg-things were trying to get out. (So did the wizard, but he had spider-climb)
I successfully ran on the rolling tower side, stunning fisted whatever came close, and leapt out to dramatically slow-fall down the cliff as it fell. Whatever it's lack of offensive use, monk is dramatic and cannot be killed.

[holywhippet]

Wow, we found something the Monk is good at! Surviving tower-destroying explosions while at the top of a tower!

Bit of a niche, but still...

That pretty much sums up most of the monk special abilities - niche. Most of them are pretty good, but they are very situational and can often be copied using a spell or item. For example, their poison and disease immunity (except to supernatural diseases IIRC) seems great on paper, but how often does the average PC actually encounter poison or disease? Unless the DM decides to run the players through a gauntlet of snakes, spiders and scorpions you generally won't get much use out of poision immunity.

[Jack_Simth]

Have you ever seen RotW's Halfling Rogue? At 1st level, your ranged sneak attack is +1d6 and your melee sneak attack is +0. At 20th level, your ranged sneak attack is +10d6 and your melee sneak attack is +9d6. I'm pretty sure they meant for ranged to be +2d6 and melee to be +0, and then at 20th level for ranged to be +11d6 and melee to be +9d6.

Oh, and the entire mechanics for Jump and Carrying Capacities bother me.
According to the Carrying Capacities chart my Strength is between 16 and 20.
I have made DC 32 jumps and can reproduce the feat.

Let's see... Barbarian-3 with skill focus(Jump), max ranks (6) in jump, and a base Strength score of 16... rages to Str-20, has a +4 bonus from his speed, and thus has a Jump modifier of +18; makes DC 32 on a roll of 14. Somewhat focused character, there, but it's doable (also: Losing rage makes the need a 16; losing Fast Movement makes it need a 20).

[Zaq]

This has actually come up the one time I played a monk. It was in a pathfinder adventure module, and I refused to get out while the little zerg-things were trying to get out. (So did the wizard, but he had spider-climb)
I successfully ran on the rolling tower side, stunning fisted whatever came close, and leapt out to dramatically slow-fall down the cliff as it fell. Whatever it's lack of offensive use, monk is dramatic and cannot be killed.

You know, unless they attack you with, like, a sword or something. How's your AC?

[holywhippet]

You know, unless they attack you with, like, a sword or something. How's your AC?

Well, that comes down to whether you let your opponent attack you. A monk has a lot of speed - if your opponent has only a melee weapon the monk can happily stay out of hitting range and lob weapons at them. Doesn't work real well indoors, unless you have plenty of ranks in tumble.

[navar100]

where is this table?

DMG page 128

[Zaq]

Well, that comes down to whether you let your opponent attack you. A monk has a lot of speed - if your opponent has only a melee weapon the monk can happily stay out of hitting range and lob weapons at them. Doesn't work real well indoors, unless you have plenty of ranks in tumble.

Or unless, you know, you want to hit them with your much-vaunted fists. Or use Flurry of Blows. Or be anything resembling relevant.

I suppose that "not being enough of a threat to kill" is a valid way of staying alive, for a very loose definition of "valid."

I can see where Monks are supposed to be very hard to kill, but like everything else about the Monk, that's pretty much a failure.

[Hirax]

How powerful monk abilities were thought of by the designers is nicely demonstrated by the fact that they're the only class that gets an epic feat every 5 levels, all other classes get them at least every 4 levels. Totally brainless. Especially because clerics and wizards, among others, get them every 3 levels.

[NNescio]

Monk Capstone: "Congratulations, you get to be the Wizard's slave!"

[Ryu_Bonkosi]

'Buying' a strand of prayer beads with no beads on it...

[Drelua]

'Buying' a strand of prayer beads with no beads on it...

So if it just has a bead of karma, it's free? Cool, CL +4 for free.

[LordBlades]

It's harder to identify a Warhorse than a Blink Dog.

A Huge Air Elemental is harder to identify than a Small Air Elemental.

An Elephant is harder to identify (and know details about) than a Pixie.

Of course, when I'm playing or running a game, we have situational modifiers... Very rare creatures, or creatures with multiple templates, apply a penalty to the Knowledge Devotion roll.

What's more hilarious is that an average farmer (commoner 1; int 10, if he puts 2 cross-class ranks in knowledge(nature) he has a +2 modifier) has a roughly 40% chance (if he rolls 8 or lower) to not have a clue what a given 1HD farm animal (DC 11)is.

[MeeposFire]

As a corollary to the monk the totemist (and most if not all post 3.5 core classes and prcs) are not proficient with their granted natural attacks (assuming you are humanoid).

I think this is due to core using a lot of copy paste and that by 3.5 proficiency with natural weapons was either forgotten about or they chose to ignore the rule. Suffice to say it is a common omission.

So fear not monk you are in good company.

[Runestar]

Just a few observations:

When conceptualising undead, did the designers realise that the removal of a con score would make undead npcs very fragile? For example, a dracolich great wyrm dragon would have its hp literally slashed to 1/3 of its original hp, and at cr+3. This often ends up making them very fragile for their cr.

[etrpgb]

Another advantage for the monk: Slow Fall! Assuming a wall survived, anyway.
Yeah, monk is a great class. At level 20 you get the power of a level 1 spell! Oh, no... You need the wall. ALMOST as a level 1 spell.

[noparlpf]

32 feet long, or 8 feet high?
I'm a so-so jumper, and can occasionally get a 3' vertical jump, but.... Either of those sounds like something that should be in the "superhuman only" range.

Actually, neither. A combination of long- and high-jump. They say that on a long jump you should reach a height of roughly one-quarter the distance you jumped. But I jumped over a picnic table the short way, going only about three feet "long" but about four feet "high".
So we take 1/4 of 3' away from 4' because I would have gone that high just for jumping 3' forwards. Now it's DC=(3x1)+(3.25x4)=16x2*=32.
*Because I didn't take a running start and doubt I have the Goliath trait Mountain Movement or the feat Leap of the Heavens.

(This is how I spent my summer when I couldn't find a job.)

I've also jumped up 4' walls without a running start before. I've jumped up a roughly 5.5' wall with a 10' running start.
Surprisingly I've never tried long-jumps. I should get on that.

[etrpgb]

Just a few observations:

When conceptualising undead, did the designers realise that the removal of a con score would make undead npcs very fragile? For example, a dracolich great wyrm dragon would have its hp literally slashed to 1/3 of its original hp, and at cr+3. This often ends up making them very fragile for their cr.

They come up with the ridiculous ``unholy toughness'' to compensate. The real problem is that undeads get d12 what ever base dice they had. So a wizard probably enjoys a fighter, a barbarian or a dragon... not much.

Maybe it is better just to increase the HP dice? For example... d4 becomes d8, d6 becomes d12, d8 becomes 2d8, d10 becomes... d20, d12 become 2d12.

[noparlpf]

They come up with the ridiculous "unholy toughness'' to compensate. The real problem is that undead get d12 what ever base dice they had. So a wizard probably enjoys it; a fighter, a barbarian or a dragon...not much.

Maybe it is better just to increase the HP dice? For example... d4 becomes d8, d6 becomes d12, d8 becomes 2d8, d10 becomes... d20, d12 become 2d12.

Average rolls for 2d10 and 1d20 are very different. 11 vs 10.5. So if you're going to double it, it would work better to be consistent and make it 2d4, 2d6, 2d8, 2d10, 2d12. On the other hand, lots of things are dependent on Hit Dice, so doubling their HD would break things. And I doubt many people have d16s lying around, so doubling the number doesn't work too well either.
I think that making their HD become d12s and giving them Unholy Toughness is fair.

[Runestar]

Yeah, but unholy toughness is limited to only a select few undead, so it is far from a game changer. As a result, to make undead tougher, designers usually pile on the undead HD (also to improve their bab), which has the unintended side-effect of turn undead not working as intended.

Raw-wise, it seems easier to turn a vampire than a zombie!:smallannoyed:

[noparlpf]

True, I've only seen Unholy Toughness on one thing before. Though I don't look through the undead too often. I don't like undead.

Turn Undead doesn't seem to me to work very well. It's very limiting. If the BBEG is undead, you're not likely to be able to turn it because it's probably more than 4 HD higher than the party cleric, or whatever that silly limit is. At level 16 and with only moderate optimization for turning, I was rolling in the 30s regularly and by RAW only able to turn undead of up to 20 HD.

[Firechanter]

Nobody uses their Turn Undead attempts to actually attempt turning undead. Why would anybody try such a silly thing? Those turn attempts are there to fuel your Devotion feats and DMM.

Seriously, using Turn Undead to turn undead! The idea!

:smallwink:

[stainboy]

Even if you fix the HP thing vampires still can't run. Or be staked.

Also, related to earlier stuff, even if you fix Knowledge Devotion rangers still have favored enemies they can't identify and most creatures can't even identify their own race.

It's easier to assume any rule that references creature type is borked.

[noparlpf]

Nobody uses their Turn Undead attempts to actually attempt turning undead. Why would anybody try such a silly thing? Those turn attempts are there to fuel your Devotion feats and DMM.

Seriously, using Turn Undead to turn undead! The idea!

:smallwink:

I one-shotted a final boss's zombie white dragon minion using Turn Undead...somehow. I'm pretty sure the DM didn't use the silly Cleric level +4 cap on highest HD undead affected.
But yeah, I also had two DMM feats for that build.

[Ursus the Grim]

Actually, neither. A combination of long- and high-jump. They say that on a long jump you should reach a height of roughly one-quarter the distance you jumped. But I jumped over a picnic table the short way, going only about three feet "long" but about four feet "high".
So we take 1/4 of 3' away from 4' because I would have gone that high just for jumping 3' forwards. Now it's DC=(3x1)+(3.25x4)=16x2*=32.
*Because I didn't take a running start and doubt I have the Goliath trait Mountain Movement or the feat Leap of the Heavens.

(This is how I spent my summer when I couldn't find a job.)

I've also jumped up 4' walls without a running start before. I've jumped up a roughly 5.5' wall with a 10' running start.
Surprisingly I've never tried long-jumps. I should get on that.

That calculation looks a bit wonky. I don't think DCs are additive for jump checks. That would be like adding in the depth of the pit you're trying to clear.

Were this a game I were running, I would just use the higher DC.

Wait. This picnic table was higher than it was wide? :smallconfused:

Regardless, a 4 foot standing jump is not something the average commoner can do. I believe the highest standing vertical jump in the NBA is something like 45 inches. Less than four feet. I think Jordan's 48 inches was on a running jump, but that's a best case-scenario from an NBA star.

Thus, you probably have a Str of 18, Skill Focus (Jump), Athletic, and 4 ranks. Easy +14 so far. Get in a fight with a cat and see how many hp you have so we can guess at your HD.

I think average jump height is 22.1 inches, which is 1.8 feet. Same DC as a running 3.6 foot high jump. Jump DC of about 14. Pretty reasonable number. I believe jumping a mere 28 inches puts you in the 95th percentile for male standing jumps.

You've got some legs, friend.

[John Campbell]

There's a significant difference between how much you can raise your center of gravity with a jump, and how much you can raise your feet.

[noparlpf]

There's a significant difference between how much you can raise your center of gravity with a jump, and how much you can raise your feet.

There is indeed. When attempting to jump over or up to something, it's how high your feet get that's important. It depends on how you measure the height of a jump.

I think average jump height is 22.1 inches, which is 1.8 feet. Same DC as a running 3.6 foot high jump. Jump DC of about 14. Pretty reasonable number. I believe jumping a mere 28 inches puts you in the 95th percentile for male standing jumps.
Do you know how those averages were measured? Was it how high they could get their feet?

Oh, and I can hold my own against a large dog or a drunk teenaged girl. In hand-to-hand combat I favor grappling, and nobody else understands the rules for that so I win by default. I probably don't have more than 2 HD though. I'm only seventeen.

[Greenish]

Well that wouldn't be a thrown weapon anymore, would it? You'd go to the rules on normal ranged weapons there, which do work underwater.. they just have hilariously high penalties to hit anything farther away than about 10 feet.Harpoon gun would probably have an exception for that, like the underwater crossbow. The two would probably be the same, actually.

The problem is that submerged targets have total cover against attacks from above water. No, wait, actually, all the cover that water grants is only against attacks from land. If you're on a ship, you're not on land, and thus water offers no cover, so you can harpoon whales!

[JaronK]

Just a few observations:

When conceptualising undead, did the designers realise that the removal of a con score would make undead npcs very fragile? For example, a dracolich great wyrm dragon would have its hp literally slashed to 1/3 of its original hp, and at cr+3. This often ends up making them very fragile for their cr.

I think this is why the later Corpse Crafter and Undead Mastery and such ideas came from. It's now quite easy to give them 1d12+6 HP/HD, as long as the right Necromancer made them, and I think these were put in so DMs could easily boost these monsters up to appropriate HP.

Fun disfunctional rule: they never gave the Dread Necromancer's Fear Aura a duration. You simply become shaken, that's it. It never ends. I'd guess that since it's based on the Lich ability it should be 1 round/level, but that's never stated.

JaronK

[NeoSeraphi]

Fun disfunctional rule: they never gave the Dread Necromancer's Fear Aura a duration. You simply become shaken, that's it. It never ends. I'd guess that since it's based on the Lich ability it should be 1 round/level, but that's never stated.

JaronK

Ouch. That smarts, Jaron. I posted that like three or four pages back....I guess it really did get swallowed up in all that Knowledge Devotion argument...

[John Campbell]

Oh, the jumping discussion's reminded me of one of the most fundamental dysfunctions in the d20 rules: How much that d20 matters in things like skill checks.

Your average human commoner, average Str, no ranks in Jump, will, 1 time in 20, fail to clear a two-foot gap with a running jump. From a standing start, he will equally often be unable to jump a gap only a foot wide. On the other hand, the same 1 time in 20, the same commoner will be able to clear a twenty-foot chasm with that running jump, or make a ten-foot standing broad jump.

[The Cat Goddess]

There is indeed. When attempting to jump over or up to something, it's how high your feet get that's important. It depends on how you measure the height of a jump.

Do you know how those averages were measured? Was it how high they could get their feet?

Oh, and I can hold my own against a large dog or a drunk teenaged girl. In hand-to-hand combat I favor grappling, and nobody else understands the rules for that so I win by default. I probably don't have more than 2 HD though. I'm only seventeen.

High-jump height is based on reach. Stand with your hand in the air and mark that point... then jump straight up with your hand in the air and mark that point. Typically, they use a pole with markers on it... the highest marker you touch is your high-jump point.

Thus... high-jumping is based on how high you can reach, not how high your feet come off the ground.

[Greenish]

High-jump height is based on reach.How high you can reach is determined by your high jump result plus your vertical reach, the latter given in it's own table (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/jump.htm).

[The Cat Goddess]

How high you can reach is determined by your high jump result plus your vertical reach, the latter given in it's own table (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/jump.htm).

I think you failed to read my total description.

High Jump is based on (Max reach while jumping) - (Max reach while standing).

Technically, it could be measured from the top of a person's head... the result would effectively be the same.

[Greenish]

I think you failed to read my total description.

High Jump is based on (Max reach while jumping) - (Max reach while standing).

Technically, it could be measured from the top of a person's head... the result would effectively be the same.I find your interpretation hard to accept. By it, a medium creature would need DC 32 to jump at all, so it obviously doesn't work in play, and I don't see any reason to consider it RAW either.

[Douglas]

I find your interpretation hard to accept. By it, a medium creature would need DC 32 to jump at all, so it obviously doesn't work in play, and I don't see any reason to consider it RAW either.
I think she's talking about real world definitions of how to measure a high jump, and how that might affect translating real world jumps into D&D mechanics.

Stand up and reach as high as you can on a wall, and mark that spot. Jump as high as you can and touch the wall as far up as you can at the top of the jump, and mark that spot. The vertical distance between the two marks is how high you jumped.

Now, taking this system as the standard by which jumps should be measured, lifting your feet closer to your torso in the middle of the jump clearly does not increase the height of your jump even though it does increase how tall a barrier your feet can clear. Thus, clearing a 4-foot table in a standing jump as noparlpf did is not a true 4-foot jump unless you do it while remaining at full vertical extension, which I rather doubt he did.

[Thespianus]

I one-shotted a final boss's zombie white dragon minion using Turn Undead...somehow. I'm pretty sure the DM didn't use the silly Cleric level +4 cap on highest HD undead affected.
Well, there's plenty of ways to boost your effective cleric level when turning, so the +4 rule can be overcome....

[Essence_of_War]

The reaping mauler, at 3rd level gets an ability to force a save-or-sleep if he holds a pin for 1 full round. Fort save, utterly trivial DC.

However, at 5th level he then gets the ability to force a fort-save-or-die against the same abysmal DC, if he holds a pin for 3 full rounds.

Unfortunately, no one remembered the CDG rules when they were making this class. If the fort save DC is actually a threat to someone, you can put them to sleep and CDG them without having to use the "capstone" ability. What a useful capstone. :smallfrown:

[subject42]

The reaping mauler, at 3rd level gets an ability to force a save-or-sleep if he holds a pin for 1 full round. Fort save, utterly trivial DC.

However, at 5th level he then gets the ability to force a fort-save-or-die against the same abysmal DC, if he holds a pin for 3 full rounds.

Unfortunately, no one remembered the CDG rules when they were making this class. If the fort save DC is actually a threat to someone, you can put them to sleep and CDG them without having to use the "capstone" ability. What a useful capstone. :smallfrown:

There is one corner case where this is beneficial.

Elves. Freaking elves, man.

[Douglas]

There is one corner case where this is beneficial.

Elves. Freaking elves, man.
No, they're only immune to magic sleep effects. A grappling sleeper hold is quite nonmagical.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

There is one corner case where this is beneficial.

Elves. Freaking elves, man.
Is the Reaping Maulers ability a magical sleep effect? *checks* Nope. It's Ex and not even a sleep effect. So... yeah, elves aren't immune to it.

[subject42]

Is the Reaping Maulers ability a magical sleep effect? *checks* Nope. It's Ex and not even a sleep effect. So... yeah, elves aren't immune to it.

Jokes. Freaking jokes, man.

Alternately:

Oozes. Freaking oozes, man.

(Disclaimer: This is intended to be humorous. Subject42 does not recommend that you attempt to grapple an ooze without sufficient acid resistance and a bottle of air strapped to your face. Subject42 cannot be held liable for any harm associated with grappling oozes.)

[NNescio]

Jokes. Freaking jokes, man.

Alternately:

Oozes. Freaking oozes, man.

(Disclaimer: This is intended to be humorous. Subject42 does not recommend that you attempt to grapple an ooze without sufficient acid resistance and a bottle of air strapped to your face. Subject42 cannot be held liable for any harm associated with grappling oozes.)

Here's an extreme corner case for elves:

Bulettes. Freaking bulettes, man.

(Disclaimer: Inedibility does not imply an immunity from being mauled, bitten, ripped apart, or otherwise being harmed.)

[Anarchy_Kanya]

Oozes are immune to this ability.

[subject42]

Oozes are immune to this ability.

Now that I'm looking over the type list, I think the Plant type covers this, though.

They have an anatomy.

They are immune to all sleep effects.

[CTrees]

How high you can reach is determined by your high jump result plus your vertical reach, the latter given in it's own table (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/jump.htm).

See, I come from a track and field background, so when I think high jump, I think of measuring over what height you can get your body. See, for example, this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4i6j3Kl_XMI)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dust of Sneezing and Choking. 5d4 round stun, no save. That *really* can't be functioning as intended.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EDIT: Though actually, you know, reading the link you provided would show me that no, D&D's high jumps are treated differently. Not my fault I figured barbarian would be more useful for it's extra move speed in track... silly tradeoff of being unable to read gets me far too often...

Still, dunking a basketball is like a DC 8-9 jump check for an average human? Wow.

[Doug Lampert]

What's more hilarious is that an average farmer (commoner 1; int 10, if he puts 2 cross-class ranks in knowledge(nature) he has a +2 modifier) has a roughly 40% chance (if he rolls 8 or lower) to not have a clue what a given 1HD farm animal (DC 11)is.

Did he remember to put cross class ranks into knowldege (local)? If not he doesn't know what race HE IS, or anything about this mysterious thing he himself is. If he DID max out his cross class ranks then we're back to a 40% chance that he STILL doesn't know anything whatsoever about his own race, including even the name.

And remember, there are no retries till you level. There's a fair chance that despite having wasted 4 of his skill points on knowldege local and 4 more on knowledge nature will NEVER figure out what race he is or that farm animal.

The rules being based on HD and 1 HD putting it out of common knowledge is utterly and totally stupid. Basically, the people writing these rules didn't read these rules, no PC race, without a skill which is cross class for most classes, can identify other members of their own race.

Maybe this helps explain all the crossbreeds that are wandering arround?

[BlueInc]

[N]o PC race, without a skill which is cross class for most classes, can identify other members of their own race.

Maybe this helps explain all the crossbreeds that are wandering arround?

WHAT AM I WHAT ARE YOU

[noparlpf]

High-jump height is based on reach. Stand with your hand in the air and mark that point... then jump straight up with your hand in the air and mark that point. Typically, they use a pole with markers on it... the highest marker you touch is your high-jump point.

Thus... high-jumping is based on how high you can reach, not how high your feet come off the ground.

Based on this definition, my best standing high jump is only around 26 inches*; on the other hand, I bet I could hit at least 30 inches if I weren't still sore from working out too hard Sunday afternoon and if I weren't sick with whatever I'm sick with. I also feel as though I was holding back a little bit for fear of smacking into the rough concrete wall.
*This is a rough measurement based on jumping next to a wall and marking it with chalk. That's only about DC 16, then.


See, I come from a track and field background, so when I think high jump, I think of measuring over what height you can get your body. See, for example, this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4i6j3Kl_XMI)

EDIT: Though actually, you know, reading the link you provided would show me that no, D&D's high jumps are treated differently. Not my fault I figured barbarian would be more useful for it's extra move speed in track... silly tradeoff of being unable to read gets me far too often...

Still, dunking a basketball is like a DC 8-9 jump check for an average human? Wow.

See, I was thinking more like this initially. While I was outside measuring my reach, I also measured my highest standing jump up onto something and I can't jump onto something higher than 4 feet (give or take a few inches) without a running start. What would you guys estimate the DC for that to be? I'm 5'9, if that helps anything.
And wow, dunking a basketball, assuming a running start, should only be about DC 12. Wikipedia says a standard basketball hoop is 10' high, and I just measured my reach (I'm in the 50th percentile for adult American male height) to be ~7'6, or ~7' to my wrist. (I'm assuming you need at least a few inches of your hand to clear the hoop in order to dunk the ball into the hoop.)

[BlueInc]

And wow, dunking a basketball, assuming a running start, should only be about DC 12. Wikipedia says a standard basketball hoop is 10' high, and I just measured my reach (I'm in the 50th percentile for adult American male height) to be ~7'6, or ~7' to my wrist. (I'm assuming you need at least a few inches of your hand to clear the hoop in order to dunk the ball into the hoop.)

Average height of an NBA player is about 6'7" according to Wikipedia a respected research journal I found, so hitting a ten-foot hoop on a DC 12-16 reliably is not as unbelievable as it seems.

[Ursus the Grim]

There is indeed. When attempting to jump over or up to something, it's how high your feet get that's important. It depends on how you measure the height of a jump.

Do you know how those averages were measured? Was it how high they could get their feet?

Oh, and I can hold my own against a large dog or a drunk teenaged girl. In hand-to-hand combat I favor grappling, and nobody else understands the rules for that so I win by default. I probably don't have more than 2 HD though. I'm only seventeen.

I believe this is based off of how high they can get their feet, similar to how D&D records high jumps.

Admittedly, not 100% on how NBA measured Jordan's high jump.


High-jump height is based on reach. Stand with your hand in the air and mark that point... then jump straight up with your hand in the air and mark that point. Typically, they use a pole with markers on it... the highest marker you touch is your high-jump point.

Thus... high-jumping is based on how high you can reach, not how high your feet come off the ground.

In the real world track and field, yes. In D&D where monsters have a variety of limb lengths and such (many good jumpers don't even have hands), it doesn't work.

[Dragonsoul]

Oh wow... that's great.

Almost as good as pages 91 and 92 of the Expanded Psionics Handbook.

That's Deja vu right?

[Firechanter]

I think we can just sum this up as "In D&D, even a trained athlete is as likely to break the world record as to embarass himself horribly".
And move on.

[Ursus the Grim]

Assuming height of 6'7" for average NBA player, the Virtruvian Man by Da Vinci suggests a single arm length of 3'3.5".

Amusingly enough, that's just over ten feet.

Also according to the general proportions, the length of a man's leg between his foot and his knee should be roughly 1/4 his height, or 1'7.75" for Joe the NBA star.

Compare that mental image with this one.
After a Dunk. (http://www.google.com/imgres?q=NBA+dunk&um=1&hl=en&safe=off&sa=N&biw=1920&bih=955&tbm=isch&tbnid=w03Cyv1Yj85yEM:&imgrefurl=http://connect.in.com/nba-dunks/photos-1-1-1-80b51ae87aa7bf10d2f5715555c27e0b.html&docid=eoAUUFHxKx8VPM&w=666&h=800&ei=JMRvTpaEJMjKgQfT_5mNBQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=168&vpy=353&dur=11531&hovh=246&hovw=205&tx=113&ty=114&page=1&tbnh=121&tbnw=100&start=0&ndsp=75&ved=1t:429,r:25,s:0)

Note that his feet hang to about knee level for the other players, suggesting the minimum height his feet would need to clear to achieve a dunk.

That being said, 2 feet high for a dunk on a running jump is indeed a DC 8. This is why we rarely see professional players failing to dunk when unhindered.

I, on the other hand, at 5'7" with a reach of 2'9.5" for a maximum vertical reach of 8'4.5" inches would need 1'8". Roughly 2 feet to touch a rim. On a running jump I can rarely do this. Why? My Str is likely lower than 12. I probably don't have ranks in it.

Note, too, that my vertical reach isn't too far off from what WotC suggests, and that humans are among the taller of the medium core races.

Is it impossible? No. I think I can touch the rim about every other try. My friend Nielson could jump like a mofo. The man could also do standing backflips, so clearly his ability scores were better suited.

In other words, what Firechanter said.

[noparlpf]

I believe this is based off of how high they can get their feet, similar to how D&D records high jumps.

Admittedly, not 100% on how NBA measured Jordan's high jump.

I'm going to have to assume that the 40"+ jumps you mentioned are based on vertical reach, not on the height one's feet can reach, considering I just jumped up onto a 4' stone wall and I'm not even at my peak today.
Based on that, 26" is probably the low for me because today is not a good day to be doing physical activities. I'll try again in a few days when I'm not sore, feverish, and nauseous.

[Ursus the Grim]

I'm going to have to assume that the 40"+ jumps you mentioned are based on vertical reach, not on the height one's feet can reach, considering I just jumped up onto a 4' stone wall and I'm not even at my peak today.
Based on that, 26" is probably the low for me because today is not a good day to be doing physical activities. I'll try again in a few days when I'm not sore, feverish, and nauseous.

*shrug*

Assume what you want. This is too silly a thread for me to debate what is and isn't possible.

Though I maintain that 4 feet is pretty high for a picnic table.:smallwink:

[Dragonsoul]

Then we consider some of the fun things we can do when you have a jump check that exceeds your move speed<Insert Relevant OOTS here> you are in Midair for the end of the round, then cast a spell that drops his modifier and an Ally would be able to have ten seconds of actions while he was in midair.

[noparlpf]

Assuming height of 6'7" for average NBA player, the Virtruvian Man by Da Vinci suggests a single arm length of 3'3.5".

Amusingly enough, that's just over ten feet.

Remember that the arms do not begin at the top of the head. Assume ~9' reach if we're calling the head and neck about a foot.
If I stand on my toes, my reach is between 7'9 and 7'10. If I stand with my heels on the ground, my reach is about 7'6. (It's a little bit hard to measure myself with a measuring tape. I got these numbers by standing against a wall, securing a measuring tape at the floor, and pushing the other end up as high as I could reach.)
I'm the height of an average adult American male; women tend to be 4-5" shorter. So the average vertical reach of an adult American is probably about 7'8, which is close to the (likely rounded off) 8' given in the PHB.

[Ursus the Grim]

Remember that the arms do not begin at the top of the head. Assume ~9' reach if we're calling the head and neck about a foot.
If I stand on my toes, my reach is between 7'9 and 7'10. If I stand with my heels on the ground, my reach is about 7'6. (It's a little bit hard to measure myself with a measuring tape. I got these numbers by standing against a wall, securing a measuring tape at the floor, and pushing the other end up as high as I could reach.)
I'm the height of an average adult American male; women tend to be 4-5" shorter. So the average vertical reach of an adult American is probably about 7'8, which is close to the (likely rounded off) 8' given in the PHB.


Ach, you've caught me with that first part. I actually failed to remember that.

[Jjeinn-tae]

Oh, the jumping discussion's reminded me of one of the most fundamental dysfunctions in the d20 rules: How much that d20 matters in things like skill checks.

Your average human commoner, average Str, no ranks in Jump, will, 1 time in 20, fail to clear a two-foot gap with a running jump. From a standing start, he will equally often be unable to jump a gap only a foot wide. On the other hand, the same 1 time in 20, the same commoner will be able to clear a twenty-foot chasm with that running jump, or make a ten-foot standing broad jump.

Nope, they actually foresaw that. The Natural 1 Autofail/Natural 20 autowin only apply for the purpose of attacks and saves.


And my contribution; Pun-Pun. His very existence is a very severe dysfunction of the rules.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

Nope, they actually foresaw that. The Natural 1 Autofail/Natural 20 autowin only apply for the purpose of attacks and saves.
Note that John wasn't talking about auto-success or auto-failure...

[Jjeinn-tae]

Note that John wasn't talking about auto-success or auto-failure...

...What the hell, you're right. :smallconfused: What is with those DC's?

[noparlpf]

Ach, you've caught me with that first part. I actually failed to remember that.

I don't remember, but did you post a link for where you got the numbers 40" and 48" or whatever those were? If you could find a link for that (I haven't been able to) that would be awesome.

[Qwertystop]

Is that the Deja Vu power?


That's Deja vu right?

Yep. And...
IRONIC

[Ursus the Grim]

I don't remember, but did you post a link for where you got the numbers 40" and 48" or whatever those were? If you could find a link for that (I haven't been able to) that would be awesome.

Main source 1. (http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0025-8105/2010/0025-81051006371O.pdf)

I don't know if you can read Serbian, but the tables are pretty clear.

And for Jordan, the number is bandied about a lot. Here's an analysis of a dunk he made way back when, but it does put some decent measurements together. Highly scientific? Nah. But here (http://videosportsanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/08/measuring-michael-jordans-1987-slam.html) it is anyway.

Most 'records' seem to match up with this one. (http://www.topendsports.com/testing/records/vertical-jump.htm)

Published athletic testing from NBA draft prospects can be found here (http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/?page=&year=2011&source=2011+NBA+Draft+Combine&sort2=DESC&draft=0&pos=0&sort=) and here. (http://thehoopsreport.com/chicago-combine-measurements.aspx)

Again, hardly hard numbers, but they're there.

[noparlpf]

Main source 1. (http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0025-8105/2010/0025-81051006371O.pdf)

I don't know if you can read Serbian, but the tables are pretty clear.

And for Jordan, the number is bandied about a lot. Here's an analysis of a dunk he made way back when, but it does put some decent measurements together. Highly scientific? Nah. But here (http://videosportsanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/08/measuring-michael-jordans-1987-slam.html) it is anyway.

Most 'records' seem to match up with this one. (http://www.topendsports.com/testing/records/vertical-jump.htm)

Published athletic testing from NBA draft prospects can be found here (http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/?page=&year=2011&source=2011+NBA+Draft+Combine&sort2=DESC&draft=0&pos=0&sort=) and here. (http://thehoopsreport.com/chicago-combine-measurements.aspx)

Again, hardly hard numbers, but they're there.

I do not in fact speak or read Serbian. I'm limited to English and un pedacito de español. I think a friend speaks Serbian; if not, Google Translate and I will be making friends tomorrow.

Edit: Thanks for the links.
Well, looks like with a little bit of work and a day when I don't feel sick I could probably get up there with some basketball players. One of those lists 60", though. That's crazy. 40" is my new goal.

[Ursus the Grim]

One of those lists 60", though. That's crazy. 40" is my new goal.

Pretty sure that's this guy. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GszNJ1NCWo)

[noparlpf]

Pretty sure that's this guy. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GszNJ1NCWo)

I remember it saying he was 5'10, so yeah, I think so.
I saw a video of a dude jumping over a moving car once. Sure, it was a low car, but it was still impressive. And yet none of my friends with cars would let me try it.

[CTrees]

I remember it saying he was 5'10, so yeah, I think so.
I saw a video of a dude jumping over a moving car once. Sure, it was a low car, but it was still impressive. And yet none of my friends with cars would let me try it.

I believe Lebron James did that for a commercial a few years back... and it turned out to be faked. Do I think it's possible? Of course! But also highly dangerous, and I wouldn't suggest trying it :smallbiggrin:

[noparlpf]

I believe Lebron James did that for a commercial a few years back... and it turned out to be faked. Do I think it's possible? Of course! But also highly dangerous, and I wouldn't suggest trying it :smallbiggrin:

Darn it. Well, some low cars are only about 4' high. If it went underneath me fast enough I'd be fine; if we timed it wrong I'd be a mess. That might be why none of my friends would drive their cars at me.

[Amphetryon]

I believe Lebron James did that for a commercial a few years back... and it turned out to be faked. Do I think it's possible? Of course! But also highly dangerous, and I wouldn't suggest trying it :smallbiggrin:
I'm old enough to remember the stunt being performed on a TV show called That's Incredible. The guy cleared one car, and came back the next season (I think) to try to do two. He botched his takeoff and needed some surgery on the foot that whacked the windshield, among other things.

[Jjeinn-tae]

I'm old enough to remember the stunt being performed on a TV show called That's Incredible. The guy cleared one car, and came back the next season (I think) to try to do two. He botched his takeoff and needed some surgery on the foot that whacked the windshield, among other things.

My father had a karate instructor who would jump sedans occasionally (...I have never understood the purpose of it...). He probably never seriously messed up since he's in professional golf now.

No, there's not much reason for me mentioning it, but I had a car jumping person story and it seemed appropriate to join in. :smalltongue:

[Jack_Simth]

My father had a karate instructor who would jump sedans occasionally (...I have never understood the purpose of it...). He probably never seriously messed up since he's in professional golf now.

No, there's not much reason for me mentioning it, but I had a car jumping person story and it seemed appropriate to join in. :smalltongue:
Ah, are you sure you should jump into a conversation like that?

[Ursus the Grim]

Ah, are you sure you should jump into a conversation like that?

I suppose next time she should look before she leaps?

[Jack_Simth]

I suppose next time she should look before she leaps?
Well, at least nobody got hopping mad over it.

[Zaq]

Really, that comment was out of bounds.

[maximus25]

Haha, jumping puns.

[Jjeinn-tae]

A soaring example that any amount of wit shown on these boards will cause an avalanche of puns. At least the next page will have large amounts of punny responses. :smalltongue:

[Flickerdart]

A soaring example that any amount of wit shown on these boards will cause an avalanche of puns. At least the next page will have large amounts of punny responses. :smalltongue:
Don't jump to conclusions - it could very well be that the puns will skip a page or two.

[Ursus the Grim]

Don't jump to conclusions - it could very well be that the puns will skip a page or two.

I think we may have already jumped the shark.

[Qwertystop]

OK, those aren't even puns anymore.

Back on-topic, please?

[Zaq]

OK, those aren't even puns anymore.

Back on-topic, please?

You heard the man. Hop to it!

[Ksheep]

OK, those aren't even puns anymore.

Back on-topic, please?

Sorry, this thread has already jumped the tracks and derailed. One of the risks you take when you let just anyone leap into the conversation.

[Ryu_Bonkosi]

I love the word-play here in the playground. Reading it always puts a spring in my step.

[Ursus the Grim]

OK, those aren't even puns anymore.

Back on-topic, please?

Right. Serious time.

I've noticed that D&D tends to assume an earth-like planet, especially when it comes to time. What bothers me is when an effect lasts for one year. As we all know, one year is not an exact time.

What happens to these effects during a leap year?

[Zaq]

Right. Serious time.

I've noticed that D&D tends to assume an earth-like planet, especially when it comes to time. What bothers me is when an effect lasts for one year. As we all know, one year is not an exact time.

What happens to these effects during a leap year?

A year is a year, no matter whether or not there are humans (or humanoids) to measure it or what calendars they're using. A leap year is just a nice recordkeeping convention that doesn't bother or concern the Earth's orbit one little bit. The Earth's orbit, in fact, couldn't care less. A year is a year.

[Ksheep]

Right. Serious time.

I've noticed that D&D tends to assume an earth-like planet, especially when it comes to time. What bothers me is when an effect lasts for one year. As we all know, one year is not an exact time.

What happens to these effects during a leap year?

What if the year cycle was based on some totally arbitrary thing? What if a new year started every time a particular long-lived/mystical flower bloomed? If this was so, some years could last thousands upon thousands of days… while other years could be less than a week long. I bet that would really screw up some majicks with duration of [x] year(s).

EDIT:


A year is a year, no matter whether or not there are humans (or humanoids) to measure it or what calendars they're using. A leap year is just a nice recordkeeping convention that doesn't bother or concern the Earth's orbit one little bit. The Earth's orbit, in fact, couldn't care less. A year is a year.

This is of course assuming that the planet circled a sun. What if it was instead caught in a Lagrangian point between two stars, not orbiting either, simply rotating in place (for sake of argument, lets say one star is a brown dwarf or equally dim star, so there is still a "night").

[Zaq]

This is of course assuming that the planet circled a sun. What if it was instead caught in a Lagrangian point between two stars, not orbiting either, simply rotating in place (for sake of argument, lets say one star is a brown dwarf or equally dim star, so there is still a "night").

That won't make your calendar suddenly affect the way the planet's cycle, whatever that is, ends up acting. (In fact, if that were the case, then you wouldn't have leap years at all, since leap years account for the fact that Earth's revolution around the sun isn't neatly divided into exactly 365 days . . . but that wouldn't happen if there's no revolution at all.)

If, as you say, the gods/forces of magic/whatever consider a year to be something other than what we think it is, well, that'd clearly affect spells, but then you're just at the mercy of whatever these forces of definition are, which isn't exactly the fault of the rules.

Really, while I agree that there's plenty of places to pick apart the rules, I don't see this as being one of them.