"Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD) [Archive]

View Full Version : "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

Pages : [1] 2 3

Andorax

2012-04-18, 01:01 PM

This forum caters to people with a wide variety of opinions and styles of play. I've seen some remarkable "game tricks" here, things I never even considered before. I've also seen a lot of debate, using the terms RAW (Rules As Written) and RAI (Rules As Intended...a highly debated term). And I've seen the phrase "common sense" batted about, and hotly argued, on a number of occasions.

In an attempt to bring some clarity and focus to the debate, and to try and balance out some of the more egregious "game tricks" I've seen, I'd like to put a new term out there and see what comes of it. This thread is about RACSD (Rules As Common Sense Dictates).

This is not an attempt to override rules with what physics demands. It is not an attempt to guess at every possible RAI. What it is is an attempt to get a consensus opinion of the very knowledgable playerbase here as to which rules interpretations are reasonable, and which are attempts to circumvent reason, intent, game balance, and so forth.

I welcome all players' input on the specific issues raised, but would ask that those who disagree with the very concept of the thread mind their own business. If you decry the very concept, decry it somewhere else.

I will attempt to use the next post to index the RACSD rulings, and will do my best to keep up on this thread and maintain it. Anyone is welcome to post their own common interpretations that they think are unsure or debatable...please number (and refer to the number of) them according to a similar convention to what has been done in the FAQ thread. Please post the (numbered) rule title in bold, your commentary in regular text, and the actual proposed rules change in italics, as seen below.

For the purpose of this thread, an 80% agreement with a proposed rule change will be considered sufficient consensus to be called "common sense". Note that this means rules will, over time, float in and out of being considered valid.

Rules that receive 80% disagreement will be considered too poorly supported to maintain, and will be noted as "removed by general agreement".

Finally, a rule that has full 100% agreement through 20 votes is considered sufficiently unanimous that the voting will be removed for it as well, and a notation of "approved by unanimous consensus" will be added...no further voting or debate will be needed on these issues.

Please post not only your 'vote' on the rules, but your reasoning for it. Please do NOT vote against a proposed rules change just because you enjoy that particular exploit...admit it's an exploit and don't play by RACSD in your own games. The goal here is to get at at what is genuinely believed to be the actual, reasonable intent.

DISCLAIMER: I make no special appeal of the validity of this thread as a source of ultimate authority. It does not have the blessing of major deities, the force of law, or even the approval of WoTC. It is nothing more than the collective opinions of those who have chosen to participate. It is common sense only so far as it is the opinions of all of us in common (nobody set forward as a specific expert or authority) that make sense (seem to be the right and rational way of handling the rules).

The percentages, numbers and named votes are listed so that anyone viewing this thread knows *exactly* how much credence, authority, and validity it holds, and each such individual may judge the value of this list accordingly. 80% was chosen for no specific statistical or politial value, it just seemed to be an appropriate figure at the time the thread was created. Other, lower-percentage rulings that are technically disapproved may themselves still be considered to have value.

Andorax

2012-04-18, 01:02 PM

Updated 6/25/2012

Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes (approved by unanimous consensus)
Replaces DMG p304, second paragraph of Drowning: "When the character finally fails her Constitution check, she begins to drown. In the first round, she falls unconscious; and is reduced to 0 hp (unless already below that point). In the following round, she drops to -1 hit points (unless already below that point) and is dying. In the third round, she drowns (and is dead). A character immediately ceases drowning as soon as she is no longer subjected to the environment/condition/spell effect that caused the drowning condition."

Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier(currently disapproved 72% of 36)
Override for all forms of Metamagic cost reduction: "The application of any individual metamagic feat cannot reduce the spell level of the overall spell. The minimum reduction applied by each individual metamagic feat is +0, regardless of the method utilized to achieve said reduction." Specific exception to this rule is granted to the Sanctum Spell metamagic feat, which allows for such reduction in and of itself (rather than in combination with any other effect, and with considerable restriction).
For: 26(Andorax, Doug Lampert, Ashtagon, Talya, docnessuno, Lapak, Lonely Tylenol, zagan, erikun, pigkappa, lesser minion, nyjastul69, Morph Bark, Lactantius, Gwendol , Zeful, Sutremaine, Carr0t, Msebazco, DeAnno, Istari, EchoKnight, Essence of War, Evil the Cat, Asheram, Yorae)
Against: 10(GoodbyeSoberDay, JoeYounger, Dandria, Namfuak, Jeff the Green, Godskook, Cor1, tuggyne, Tyndmyr, Mnemnosyne)

Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels (currently disapproved 67% of 33)
Limit to Class Features: "No class (base or prestige) can have its class features progressed beyond the maximum printed level of the class itself, with the exception of the rules for epic progression that provides design rules for progressing base and prestige classes beyond their respecitve 20 and 10 level limits into character levels beyond 20th."
For: 22(Andorax, Doug Lampert, JoeYounger, Ashtagon, docnessuno, Dandria, Namfuak, SheepInDisguise, zagan, Lonely Tylenol, lesser minion, Godskook, nyjastul69, Lactantius, Gwendol, Zeful, Carr0t, DeAnno, Istari, EchoKnight, Essence of War, Asheram)
Against: 11(GoodbyeSoberDay, JadePhoenix, Siosilvar, erikun, pigkappa, Jeff the Green, moritheil, Msebazco, Tyndmyr, Mnemnosyne, Yorae)

Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike(currently approved 97% of 32)
Add the following notation to Superior Unarmed Strike (Tome of Battle p. 33): Your unarmed damage is calculated based on the higher damage of your monk class levels plus four, or the damage listed on the table below based on your total character levels. If you do not have any monk class levels, use the table below.
For: 31(Andorax, Sgt. Cookie, GoodbyeSoberDay, tuggyne, Doug Lampert, JoeYounger, Ashtagon, Talya, Lapak, Dandria, Siosilvar, zagan, Lonely Tylenol, Jeff the Green, lesser minion, Godskook, Szar Lakol, nyjastul69, Lactantius, Gwendol, Sutremaine, Carr0t, Msebazco, DeAnno, Istari, EchoKnight, Essence of War, Evil the Cat, Mnemnosyne, Asheram, Yorae)
Against: 1(docnessuno )

Rule 005: Dead is Dead (approved by unanimous consensus)
A dead character is rendered unplayable until the "dead" condition is removed (through being returned to life, turned into an undead creature, retired from the game, etc.). Such a character can take no actions (including free actions and reflexive non-actions such as spot and listen checks).

Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally(currently approved 89% of 37)
All creatures are proficient with unarmed strikes, and all creatures naturally in possession of any form of natural attack are proficient with said natural attack.
For: 33(tuggyne, KillianHawkeye, Andorax, Doug Lampert, JoeYounger, Ashtagon, Talya, docnessuno, Lonely Tylenol, Dandria, Namfuak, Siosilvar, zagan, erikun, pigkappa, Jeff the Green, lesser minion, Godskook, Szar Lakol, Lactantius, Gwendol, Zeful, Sutremaine, Carr0t, MSebazco, DeAnno, Istari, Essence of War, Evil the Cat, Mnemnosyne, ideasmith, Asheram, Yorae)
Against: 4(nyjastul69, Onikani, EchoKnight, Tyndmyr)

Rule 007: Lions with Hooves(currently approved 85% of 34)
Revised wording for the Trample feat (PHB p. 102). When you attempt to overrun an opponent while mounted, your target may not choose to avoid you. Your mount may make one attack with an appropriate natural weapon (hoof, claw, or other leg-based attack) against any target you knock down, gaining the standard +4 bonus on attack rolls against prone targets.
For: 29(Menteith, Andorax, Doug Lampert, JoeYounger, Talya, docnessuno, Dandria, Namfuak, Siosilvar, zagan, erikun, lesser minion, tuggyne, Morph Bark, Gwendol, Zeful, Sutremaine, Carr0t, Msebazco, DeAnno, Istari, EchoKnight, Essence of War, Tyndmyr, Evil the Cat, Mnemnosyne, ideasmith, Asheram, Yorae)
Against: 5(Ashtagon, Lonely Tylenol, Jeff the Green, Godskook, nyjastul69)

Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage(currently disapproved 50% of 22)
Currently, the Dragontouched feat (Dragon Magic p. 18) grants the dragonblooded subtype, and makes the person with the feat able to take Draconic feats as if they were a Sorceror of their HD. Clarification: creatures who already have the dragonblooded subtype are ALSO able to take draconic feats as a sorceror of a level equal to their HD.
For: 11(Sgt. Cookie, Talya, docnessuno, SheepInDisguise, zagan, Andorax, Morph Bark, Carr0t, Essence of War, Mnemnosyne, Asheram)
Against: 11(JadePhoenix, Ashtagon, Dandria, Siosilvar, pigkappa, Jeff the Green, Godskook, DeAnno, Tyndmyr, Evil the Cat, Yorae)

Rule 009: It's not armour, it's thick clothing Removed…see Rule 34.

Rule 010: Who's Charging, Anyways?(currently disapproved 74% of 23)
While mounted, a rider cannot charge. If the rider directs his mount to charge (either as a move action or as a free action), then the rider gains the same attack bonus and AC penalty for charging as the mount. When using Spirited Charge, the mount uses a full-round action to charge, and the rider deals double damage with a melee weapon (triple wth a lance). Directing the mount is either a move action ("Control Mount in Battle", DC 20), or a free action on mounts that are trained for battle ("Fight with a Warhorse", DC 10). If your mount moves more than 5', you may make only a single melee attack as a standard action, even if you still have a full-round action available.
For: 17(Darrin, Andorax, Namfuak, Ashtagon, zagan, pigkappa, lesser minion, nyjastul69, Gwendol, Zeful, Sutremaine, Carr0t, Msebazco, DeAnno, EchoKnight, Essence of War, Asheram)
Against: 6(Siosilvar, Jeff the Green, tuggyne, Morph Bark, Tyndmyr, Mnemnosyne)

Rule 011: Who's Riding By, Anyways?(currently approved 83% of 24)
The mount must use a full-round action to charge, not the rider. The rider directs the mount to the closest square where the rider can attack and the mount can still continue forward in a straight line. The rider may make a single melee attack from this square as per the charge rules. If there is no such square, or if the mount's path is blocked by an obstacle that it can't jump over, then it is not possible to charge. At the end of the mount's movement, if any opponents are still within melee range, the mount may make a single melee attack as per the charge rules.
For: 20(Darrin, Andorax , Ashtagon, zagan, erikun, pigkappa, lesser minion, nyjastul69, Lactantius, Gwendol, Zeful, Sutremaine, Carr0t, Msebazco, DeAnno, EchoKnight, Essence of War, Evil the Cat, Asheram, Yorae)
Against: 4(Jeff the Green, tuggyne, Morph Bark, Tyndmyr)

Rule 012: Anything can be Armor Removed..see Rule 034.

Rule 013: Clarifying the Dragon Disciple Paradox (approved by unanimous consensus)
A power or ability granted by a Prestige Class will never cause a character to become ineligible for that Prestige Class (such as the Dragon Disciple's capstone ability making the character ineligible to be a Dragon Disciple) or take away the class' own features (such as the Ur-Priest's divine spellcasting making the Ur-Priest unable to continue as an Ur-Priest).

Rule 014: I'm Not Left Handed(currently approved 90% of 29)
Clarification: No character has an offhand unless they are using two (or more) weapon fighting. If and only if a character is utilizing the Two Weapon Fighting rules found in the Combat chapter of the PHB, does that character have an offhand. Otherwise, whichever hand they are using to make attacks, or even a non-handed attack, is always main hand.
For: 26( Keld Denar, Talya, Namfuak, Ashtagon, zagan, erikun, Jeff the Green, lesser minion, tuggyne, Gwendol, nyjastul69, Lactantius, Lapak, siosilvar, Zeful, Carr0t, Msebazco, DeAnno, Istari, EchoKnight, Essence of War, Evil the Cat, Mnemnosyne, ideasmith, Asheram, Yorae)
Against: 3(Szar Lakol, Andorax, Gwendol )

Rule 015: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped(currently disapproved 78% of 27)
Clarification: An unconscious creature is not hindered from making a Will save. In the case of harmless effects, or in the case of spells that affect willing targets only, the creature is considered willing
For: 21(Malachei, Namfuak, siosilvar, lesser minion, erikun, Morph Bark, Lactantius, Gwendol, tuggyne, Zeful, Sutremaine, hamishspence, Carr0t, Msebazco, DeAnno, Istari, Psydon, Essence of War, Mnemnosyne, ideasmith, Jeff the Green, Asheram)
Against: 6(Emperor Tippy, Ashtagon, Szar Lakol, Tyndmyr, Midnight, Yorae)

Rule 016: Tower Shields; How the #&%@ Do They Work?(currently disapproved 52% of 21)
"At the start of their turn, a creature using a Tower Shield decides whether to use the Total Cover version of their shield, or whether to use it for a shield bonus. This is a free action. Tower Shields being used to provide Total Cover provide cover in all directions. You cannot make any Attacks*, as defined by the Glossery, while using a Tower Shield to gain cover. Actions which do not provide an attack roll are not attacks, and may be used while a tower shield is providing cover.

"
For: 11(Menteith, tuggyne, Szar Lakol, Morph Bark, Ashtagon, Gwendol, siosilvar, Zeful, Msebazco, ideasmith, Asheram)
Against: 10(lesser minion, Godskook, nyjastul69, Lapak, DeAnno, Essence of War, Tyndmyr, Mnemnosyne, Jeff the Green, Yorae)

Rule 017: Non-Floating Armour (approved by unanimous consensus)
Armor check penalties, when applied to swim checks, are doubled (this is a potentially redundant rule, but is included because it appears to be ambiguous in the 3.0 to 3.5 transition).

Rule 018: Claw, Stab Claw…and now with my other arm! (approved by unanimous consensus)
If a natural weapon is occupied, such as a creature with a claw attack wielding a manufactured weapon in that claw, then it can't make an attack as a natural weapon.

Rule 019: All Slams Are Not Created Equally (Removed by general agreement)

Rule 020: My Weapon Is My Shield!(currently approved 92% of 26)
Page 125 in the Player's Handbook: You can bash an opponent with a light shield or heavy shield, using it as a standard weapon or an off-hand weapon with two-weapon fighting.
For: 24(erikun, Jeff the Green, Amphetryon, lesser minion, Szar Lakol, tuggyne, nyjastul69, Ashtagon, Lactantius, Lapak, siosilvar, Zeful, Sutremaine, Carr0t, Msebazco, DeAnno, Istari, EchoKnight, Essence of War, Tyndmyr, Evil the Cat, Mnemnosyne, Asheram, Yorae)
Against: 2(Godskook, Gwendol )

Rule 021: Enchanting Enhanced Projectiles(currently approved 81% of 27)
Magical enhancements that produce benefits unrelating to attacking with the weapon (such as defending, manifesting, spell-storing) may NOT be placed on weapons that are considered "ammunition" and are eligible for the 50-for-1 (or similar) bulk discount on enchanting.
For: 22(Andorax, Ashtagon, lesser minion, Szar Lakol, erikun, tuggyne, Godskook, Lactantius, Lapak, Gwendol, siosilvar, Zeful, Sutremaine, Carr0t, Msebazco, DeAnno, Istari, EchoKnight, Essence of War, Evil the Cat, Asheram, Yorae)
Against: 5(nyjastul69, Tyndmyr, Mnemnosyne, ideasmith, Jeff the Green)

Rule 022: Swordsaging in Leather or No (approved by unanimous consensus)
"Page 16 in Tome of Battle: Starting at 2nd level, you can add your Wisdom modifier as a bonus to Armor Class, so long as you wear light armor or no armor, are unencumbered, and do not use a shield. This ability does not stack with the monk's AC bonus ability, or similar abilities.
"

Rule 023: Positive Drawbacks to Undead(currently approved 92% of 26)
Fast healing granted by a Positive-Dominant plane deals positive energy damage rather than increasing HP for undead. The loss of HP may be mitigated by positive-energy protection.
For: 24(erikun, Andorax, Ashtagon, lesser minion, tuggyne, Szar Lakol, Morph Bark, Lapak, Gwendol , siosilvar, Zeful, Sutremaine, Carr0t, Msebazco, DeAnno, Istari, EchoKnight, Essence of War, Tyndmyr, Evil the Cat, Mnemnosyne, ideasmith, Asheram, Yorae)
Against: 2(Jeff the Green, nyjastul69)

Rule 024: Chakra Binds Are Not Free Removed by general agreement

Rule 025: Lava Is Easily Resisted (approved by unanimous consensus)
Revision: Resistance to fire provides an equal amount of resistance to the fire damage caused by lava (in place of the lava 'immunity' currently written in the rules).

Rule 026: Extraordinary Feats (currently disapproved 71% of 17)
Unless otherwise specified (such as Divine feats), a feat is considered an [Ex]traordinary ability.
For: 12(Szar Lakol, Ashtagon, Zeful, Carr0t, Msebazco, DeAnno, EchoKnight, Essence of War, Evil the Cat, Jeff the Green, Asheram, Yorae)
Against: 5(nyjastul69, Tyndmyr, Togo, tuggyne, ideasmith)

Rule 027: Don't Penalize the Prestigeous (approved by unanimous consensus)
Experience penalties for multiclassing do not apply to prestige classes (rule from 3.0 that was dropped, presumably due to an editing error).

Rule 028: Qualified and Disqualified(currently disapproved 56% of 25)
If you have the ability to meet a prerequisite or requirement through temporary means, you may take a feat or class or use an ability with such a requirement. When you do not meet the requirements, you may not use the ability and are not treated as possessing the feat or class abilities of the class.
For: 14(siosilvar, lesser minion, tuggyne, Szar Lakol, nyjastul69, Ashtagon, Lactantius, Zeful, moritheil, Carr0t, DeAnno, Istari, Essence of War, Yorae)
Against: 11(erikun, Godskook, Gwendol, Sutremaine, Msebazco, EchoKnight, Tyndmyr, Evil the Cat, Mnemnosyne, Jeff the Green, Asheram)

Rule 029: Whiplash(currently disapproved 56% of 9)
The Exotic Weapon Master (CWar)'s Exotic Reach ability, if taken for a whip, allows you to make attacks of opportunity with it. You threaten an area out to the range you could make an attack with the whip (normally 15 feet).
For: 5(siosilvar, Zeful, Sutremaine, Carr0t, Asheram)
Against: 4(Ashtagon, moritheil, DeAnno, Essence of War)

Rule 030: Strict Aptitude(currently approved 100% of 16)
The Aptitude ability (ToB) allows the user to use the enhanced weapon with any feat that applies to only a single chosen type of weapon, like Weapon Focus or Improved Critical. (This one closes some ridiculous exploits, but RAW-wise it relies on inferring a distinction not made by the text of the ability.)
For: 16(Andorax, lesser minion, tuggyne, Godskook, Zeful, Sutremaine, Carr0t, Msebazco, DeAnno, Istari, EchoKnight, Essence of War, Tyndmyr, JadePhoenix, Evil the Cat, Jeff the Green, Asheram)
Against: 0(Yorae)

Rule 031: Nobody Notices the Guy with the Tower Shield(currently approved 96% of 26)
"To be added to the description of the hide skill: A character may not attempt a hide check against an observer against whom she lacks effective cover or concealment. When determining whether or not a character may attempt a hide check against a particular observer, do not consider any cover that does not impede the observer's vision or that would be hidden as a result of a successful check.
"
For: 25(lesser minion, Andorax, Szar Lakol, erikun, Godskook, nyjastul69, Ashtagon, Lapak, Gwendol, siosilvar, Zeful, Sutremaine, Carr0t, Msebazco, DeAnno, Istari, EchoKnight, Essence of War, Evil the Cat, Mnemnosyne, ideasmith, Jeff the Green, tuggyne, Asheram, Yorae)
Against: 1(Tyndmyr)

Rule 032: Full Attack and Multiple Attacks of Opportunity(currently approved 100% of 9)
If you make ranged or unarmed attacks as part of a full attack, you provoke an attack of opportunity as explained under the rules for the Attack standard action for each attack that is part of the full attack action…thus, making multiple ranged or unarmed attacks would provoke multiple opportunities.
For: 9(Tyndmyr, tuggyne, Evil the Cat, Ashtagon, Mnemnosyne, ideasmith, Andorax, Asheram, Yorae)
Against: 0()

Rule 033: No Double Dipping(currently disapproved 40% of 25)
Multiple ability-based bonuses that are of the same type (or are typeless) cannot stack unless specifically permitted in the description of the ability. There are ways, for example, to get your Charisma bonus to AC, your Wisdom bonus to AC, etc...but you cannot get your Wisdom bonus x2 to AC through two different classes.
For: 10(Andorax, Amphetryon, lesser minion, Gwendol, Zeful, Sutremaine, Carr0t, Msebazco, DeAnno, Asheram)
Against: 15(Szar Lakol, erikun, tuggyne, Godskook, nyjastul69, Cor1, moritheil, Istari, Essence of War, Tyndmyr, Evil the Cat, Mnemnosyne, ideasmith, Jeff the Green, Yorae)

Rule 034: Armored Outfits(currently approved 94% of 17)
Clarification/Combination: An entire SET of clothing (such as an Explorer's outfit) can be enhanced as a protective item. Such a set of clothing is considered to occupy the Body slot (as would armor or robes), and can be given an armor bonus in the same manner as Bracers of Armor (with the same limitations and benefits), with a maximum (pre-epic) bonus of +8. Either Bracers of Armor OR "Armored Clothing" can also be given up to 5 "plus equivalent" armor enhancements, as well as +GP enhancements, subject to the standard Epic cap. Note that clothing enhanced in such a manner is not "armor", does not count against class features that forbid the wearing of armor, and the bonus granted is itself an Armor bonus, not an Encancement bonus TO armor (again, as per the rules for Bracers of Armor). Please reference A&E 130 AND MIC 233. See also Rule 053.
For: 16(Andorax, Gwendol, siosilvar, Zeful, Sutremaine, tuggyne, Ashtagon, Carr0t, DeAnno, Istari, EchoKnight, Essence of War, Tyndmyr, Evil the Cat, Asheram, Jeff the Green)
Against: 1(erikol)

Rule 035: Dodging While Asleep Removed by general agreement

Rule 036: Lesser Metamagic Reduction Rule (see Rule 002)(currently approved 85% of 13)
No form of metamagic reduction may reduce the spell's level below its original, or in the case of a heightened spell, below its heightened level. This rule has no effect on metamagic feats that, in and of themselves, reduce a spell's level (such as Sanctum Spell).
For: 11(tuggyne, Andorax, DeAnno, Istari, EchoKnight, Essence of War, Evil the Cat, Siosilvar, Jeff the Green, Asheram, Yorae)
Against: 2(Tyndmyr, Mnemnosyne)

Rule 037: Minus Infinity(currently disapproved 53% of 15)
Infinite loops are right out: Anything that would cause an infinite or recursive gain is automatically disallowed.
For: 8(moritheil, EchoKnight, Ashtagon, erikun, Essence of War, Evil the Cat, Siosilvar, Asheram)
Against: 7(DeAnno, Istari, Tyndmyr, Mnemnosyne, ideasmith, Jeff the Green, Yorae)

Rule 038A: On the Delusions of an Illusionist(currently disapproved 53% of 19)
A character does not believe in her own illusions, even if she wants to.
For: 10(Malachei, Szar Lakol, Istari, DeAnno, Zeful, EchoKnight, Ashtagon, Essence of War, Siosilvar, Asheram)
Against: 9(Tyndmyr, Mnemnosyne, Siosilvar, ideasmith, Jeff the Green, Acanous, erikun, tuggyne, Yorae)

Rule 038B: Illusionists Retain Some Delusions(currently approved 80% of 5)
A Caster may not believe in their own Illusion (Figment) or Illusion (Glamer) spells, even if they want to.
For: 4(Acanous, Andorax, Asheram, erikun)
Against: 1(lesser minion)

Rule 038C: Illusionists Can't Visually Trick Themselves(currently approved 100% of 4)
A Caster may not believe in their own non-mind-affecting illusions, even if they want to.
For: 4(lesser minion, Andorax, erikun, tuggyne)
Against: 0()

Rule 039: Koboldian Delusions of Grandeur(currently approved 82% of 11)
"Dragonwrought Kobolds are not quite true dragons. They cannot use their age category to qualify for Epic Feats, and cannot apply a True-Dragons-Only option which requires them to reduce the size of racial HD they do not possess (such as Loredrake). Despite referring to themselves as having age categories, and (through the Dragonwrought feat) access to the Dragon type, they still are not considered ""True Dragons"".
"
For: 9(DeAnno, Andorax, Zeful, Ashtagon, erikun, Essence of War, Evil the Cat, Siosilvar, Asheram)
Against: 2(Tyndmyr, Jeff the Green)

Rule 040: When All Else Changes, Cooldowns Remain(currently disapproved 64% of 11)
If you are subject to a "cooldown" or "recharge" delay on an ability, that cooldown requirement remains, even if it no longer applies to you due to a change of form (for example, using a breath weapon while under the effects of Shapechange causes a rounds-long delay before you can use a breath weapon again. Changing forms out of a breath-weapon-allowed form, or even into another, does not eliminate this delay).
For: 7(tuggyne, Andorax, erikun, Essence of War, Evil the Cat, ideasmith, Asheram)
Against: 4(Mnemnosyne, Siosilvar, Jeff the Green, Yorae)

Rule 041: I Can't See a Thing! No Worries, I'll Cast Darkness(currently approved 94% of 16)
A darkness effect causes the level of illumination to drop to shadowy illumination or the current prevailing condition, whichever is lower. Darkvision is ineffective in magical darkness, and confers no advantage over normal vision.
For: 15(tuggyne, Gwendol, erikun, Szar_Lakol, Andorax, Menteith, Evil the Cat, Essence of War, Ashtagon, Mnemnosyne, Siosilvar, ideasmith, Jeff the Green, Asheram, Yorae)
Against: 1(Tyndmyr)

Rule 042: Gauntlets and Unarmed Damage(currently disapproved 64% of 11)
If you posses an unarmed damage progression, or the superior unarmed strike feat, your damage with gauntlets also increases. A gauntlet is considered a simple weapon.
For: 7(Sgt. Cookie, Andorax, erikun, Mnemnosyne, tuggyne, ideasmith, Asheram)
Against: 4(Tyndmyr, Ashtagon, Jeff the Green, Yorae)

Rule 043: Enchanted Gauntlets(currently disapproved 36% of 11)
Only gauntlets that are independent of armour may be enchanted as weapons. However, gauntlets that come with armour may be given any non-magical weapon enhancements, such as masterwork or a special material. A pair of gauntlets is considered a single weapon for enchanting and material purposes.
For: 4(Sgt. Cookie, Essence of War, Andorax, Yorae)
Against: 7(erikun, Ashtagon, Mnemnosyne, Siosilvar, ideasmith, Jeff the Green, Asheram)

Rule 044: Open Chakras Clarified(currently approved 100% of 4)
Revise all of the Open ___ Chakra feats to include the following sentance: You can now bind a soulmeld or a magic item to that chakra, and you gain one bind that can be used for that chakra only.
For: 4(Essence of War, Mnemnosyne, Jeff the Green, Yorae)
Against: 0()

Rule 045: Just What Are You Slamming Me With?(currently disapproved 70% of 10)
Creatures with a "slam" attack listed in their entry are not considered to be specifically bound to use a particular limb or body part for that slam attack. Rendering a particular limb unavailable does not deny them their slam attack.
For: 7(Darrin, Gwendol, Mnemnosyne, Essence of War, Jeff the Green, Asheram, Yorae)
Against: 3(Siosilvar, Tyndmyr, ideasmith)

Rule 046: Dragonscale Husk and Armor(currently approved 100% of 7)
The alternate class feature Dragonscale Husk (See Dragon Magic p. 12) gives an armor bonus, instead of an untyped bonus to your armor class. This armor bonus does not stack with any other armor bonus, but does stack with other appropriate bonuses (this replaces the section stating that this bonus doesn't stack with any feat, racial trait, or other special ability that would grant you a bonus to Armor Class). The husk carries no Arcane Spell Failure and is weightless.
For: 7(Menteith, Andorax, Siosilvar, Essence of War, Jeff the Green, Asheram, Yorae)
Against: 0()

Rule 047: Fantasy is Not Realer than Reality(currently disapproved 67% of 6)
Illusions that produce a percentage of their effect when a target makes their save, such as Shadow Conjuration or Shadow Evocation, cannot have greater than a 100% effect on a target after a successful save. No effect produced by an illusion can produce a greater effect after a successful save than it could produce with a failed save.
For: 4(erikun, Andorax, Asheram, Yorae)
Against: 2(Tyndmyr, Jeff the Green)

Rule 048: Vow of Non…Human Hurting? Removed by general agreement

Rule 049: Trees are Immune to Disintegration(currently approved 100% of 7)
Replaces PHB p222, first sentence of second paragraph of Disintegrate: "When used against an object, the ray simply disintegrates as much as one 10-foot cube of living or nonliving matter."
For: 7(ideasmith, Andorax, tuggyne, erikun, Jeff the Green, Mnemnosyne, Ashtagon)
Against: 0()

Rule 050: Die Hard, Sleep Easy(currently approved 100% of 8)
Add the following to the description of Diehard, PHB p92 "Also, the amount of nonlethal damage needed to knock you staggered or unconscious is increased by 10." Similarly, add to the dext of the Frenzied Berserker (CW 35) Deathless Frenzy ability, "The Frenzied Berserker cannot be knocked unconscious by non-lethal damage while in a Deathless Frenzy."
For: 8(ideasmith, Andorax, Tyndmyr, tuggyne, erikun, Jeff the Green, Asheram, Mnemnosyne)
Against: 0()

Rule 051: Titan Dagger Reach: 15 Feet. Titan Whip Reach: also 15 Feet.(currently approved 100% of 9)
Replaces PHB 121, third sentence of first paragraph of Whip: "The whip is treated as a melee weapon with a reach of triple the wielder’s normal reach, though you don’t threaten the area into which you can make an attack." Similarly, the Awl Pike (from Dragon 331 p. 23 is considered to have an equivalent 'double reach'.
For: 9(ideasmith, Andorax, erikun, Jeff the Green, Asheram, tuggyne, Yorae, Mnemnosyne, Ashtagon)
Against: 0()

Rule 052: 1HD Race Characters(currently approved 88% of 8)
Appended to the section on Humanoids and Class Levels: Additionally, any creature with 1 Hit Die that has an Intelligence score of at least 3 may exchange the features of their racial Hit Die for the class features of a PC or NPC class in a manner identical to humanoids; racial traits are unaffected by this.
For: 7(tuggyne, Andorax, Jeff the Green, Asheram, Yorae, Mnemnosyne)
Against: 1(Ashtagon)

Rule 053: Piecemeal Magic Items(currently approved 100% of 8)
Any magic item (armor, outfits, etc.) that includes multiple pieces only requires the pieces that occupy the item's declared item slot to function...such as the body slot for a suit of armor, or both feet for a pair of boots. Additional pieces, such as the helm of a set of plate mail, or a belt from a cleric's vestments, can be replaced by other magic (or non-magic) items in their respective item slots without interfering with the divided item's function.
For: 8(Jeff the Green, Andorax, tuggyne, Jeff the Green, erikun, Yorae, Mnemnosyne, Ashtagon)
Against: 0()

Rule 054A: You can't trick yourself into disbelieving your own illusions(currently disapproved 20% of 5)
A spellcaster faced with proof that an effect is illusionary automatically disbelieves the illusion. If you create an illusion that allows a save for disbelief, you automatically disbelieve it (and therefore cannot voluntarily fail a save). Because phantasms create effects that are personalized mental impressions, a spellcaster does not automatically disbelieve his own phantasm (for instance, if it is turned back on him via Spell Turning or a Helm of Telepathy). See also Rule 038.
For: 1(Malachei)
Against: 4(Jeff the Green, erikun, Yorae, Mnemnosyne)

Rule 054B: You can't trick yourself to believe in illusionary Contingency(currently disapproved 40% of 5)
In case of Greater Shadow Evocation or similar spells being used to duplicate Contingency, the spellcaster automatically recognizes the spell as an illusion, automatically disbelieves (and therefore cannot voluntarily fail the save). Thus, the shadow evoked Contingency does not work. See also Rule 038.
For: 2(Malachei, erikun)
Against: 3(Jeff the Green, Yorae, Mnemnosyne)

Rule 055: Listening Is A Free Check(currently disapproved 50% of 4)
The DC to hear people talking is reduced to -5 base.
For: 2(tuggyne, Mnemnosyne)
Against: 2(kazyan, Yorae)

Rule 056: Identifying Yourself Is A Take 10(currently disapproved 33% of 3)
Identification DCs are adjusted to 9 + monster HD, in general.
For: 1(tuggyne)
Against: 2(kazyan, Yorae)

Rule 057: On Poison Delays and Neutralization Withdrawn as unnecessary

Rule 058: Various Adjustments to Equipment Costs(currently disapproved 67% of 3)
Ladders cost 5sp; Spellbooks cost 25gp; Pages of paper cost 2sp each; Chain costs 2gp per foot; No weapon or item of equipment costs less than one copper piece; Flasks come in two sizes: small (1 pint, ½ lb, 2cp) and large (2 quarts, 1½ lb, 3cp).
For: 2(tuggyne, Yorae)
Against: 1(kazyan)

Rule 059: Improved Precise Shot Is Not Omnipotent(currently disapproved 75% of 4)
Adjust the first sentence of Improved Precise Shot's Benefit (PHB): "Your ranged attacks ignore the AC bonus from cover granted targets by anything less than total cover, and the miss chance from cover granted targets by anything less than total concealment."
For: 3(tuggyne, Andorax, Mnemnosyne)
Against: 1(kazyan)

Rule 060: Dread Necromancers and Scarlet Corsairs Are The Scariest Creatures Around(currently approved 100% of 4)
A Dread Necromancer (Heroes of Horror) fear aura and a Scarlet Corsair (Stormwrack) Frightning Lunge has a duration of 1 round per level.
For: 4(tuggyne, Andorax, kazyan, Mnemnosyne)
Against: 0()

Rule 061: How to Make Magic Oils(currently approved 100% of 6)
The first sentence of Brew Potion's Benefit changes as follows: "You can create a potion of any 3rd-level or lower spell that you know and that targets one or more creatures; alternatively, you can create an oil of any 3rd-level or lower spell that you know and that targets one or more objects."
For: 6(tuggyne, Andorax, kazyan, Yorae, Mnemnosyne, Ashtagon)
Against: 0()

Rule 062: Because infinite chickens are only funny once(currently approved 100% of 6)
As long as you are not grappled, you may retrieve and prepare any components required for a spell as part of the same action used to cast it.
For: 6(lesser_minion, Andorax, Yorae, tuggyne, Tyndmyr, Mnemnosyne)
Against: 0()

Rule 063: Alternative Dragons can still be True(currently approved 100% of 1)
Obsidian Dragons (WotC Web) and Incarnum Dragons (Magic of Incarum) are considered True Dragons.
For: 1(kazyan)
Against: 0()

Rule 064A: Giving Quick Draw a point(currently approved 100% of 1)
Since you do not need a sleight of hand check in order to draw a concealed weapon, you may not take a penalty to your sleight of hand check in order to do so more quickly.
For: 1(lesser minion)
Against: 0()

Rule 064B: Giving the Gnomish Quickrazor a point(currently approved 100% of 1)
You may not attempt to conceal a weapon more quickly by taking a penalty to your sleight of hand check.
For: 1(lesser minion)
Against: 0()

Rule 065: I Met Your Little Brother Once(currently approved 100% of 1)
If you can make a successful knowledge check (PHB 78) to identify a fundamentally similar creature's traits, you can successfully identify all of the common traits between that creature and the one you are observing. The exact defition of fundamentally similar may vary by DM, but at its most basic level, it includes all versions of a creature that advances by ages or age categories (for example, the True Dragons MM68-88, Neogi Spawn -> Adult Neogi MM2 159), all creatures who are called the same thing with only a size category distinction (for example, the Elementals MM 95-101), and any creature that is described as being a "Lesser" or "Greater" version of another (Stone Golem -> Greater Stone Golem, Fihyr -> Great Fihyr (MM2 100)).
For: 1(Andorax)
Against: 0()

Andorax

2012-04-18, 01:03 PM

Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes.

While strict RAW indicates that you can raise someone from negative hit points to 0 hps in the first round of that individual having failed to hold their breath underwater, this ruling clearly makes no sense. The intent (a DROP to 0 hps) would seem to be clear and much more logical. As such, the following rule is now in effect:

Replaces DMG p304, second paragraph of Drowning: "When the character finally fails her Constitution check, she begins to drown. In the first round, she falls unconscious; and is reduced to 0 hp (unless already below that point). In the following round, she drops to -1 hit points (unless already below that point) and is dying. In the third round, she drowns (and is dead)."

Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier.

As has frequently been pointed out in a number of builds, Arcane Thesis is a cornerstone of metamagic-reducing builds. By applying metamagic to a spell, you can get the enhanced, modified spell to use up a spell slot one level lower than normal. The text of this feat, however, seems to ignore that there are a selection of feats (yes, even ones published earlier than the PHBII) that already add 0 levels to the slot. Thus, by applying a 0-level metamagic, you can actually DECREASE the level of the spell.

Another common cornerstone for reducing the cost of Metamagic is the Incantatrix prestige class from the 3.5 Player's Guide to Faerun. At 10th level, the incantatrix gains a similar ability that reduces the required increase in spell level, though with a minimum of +1 spell level. This, to my mind, sets something of a precident. Combined with the idea that it shouldn't be EASIER to cast a spell just by adding metamagic components to it, regardless of the number and manner of reducing abilities you utilize (there are others...thus, the rule will be a blanket one), I would propose:

Override for all forms of Metamagic cost reduction: "The application of any individual metamagic feat cannot reduce the spell level of the overall spell. The minimum reduction applied by each individual metamagic feat is +0, regardless of the method utilized to achieve said reduction."

Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels.

The Legacy Champion (Weapons of Legend) is a very unique prestige class, in that it tries to cover every possible contingency of "more of what you would get if you were still in your regular class" while giving its legacy-related benefits. The intention here seems plain...if you're a Barbarian 10/Legacy Champion 10, you 'count' as being a Barbarian 18 in nearly all respects. If you're a Rogue 10/LC 10, you're basically a Rogue 18, and so forth. This seemed to be a much more efficient approach than to try and create a dozen different Legacy Champion classes...the Legacy Champion Warior, the Legacy Champion Wizard, etc.

Once again, however, some creative individuals have been able to utilize this in a manner that, as far as I can tell, goes well beyond the intent of the class...the ability to continue getting levels in a class, typically a prestige class...that otherwise wouldn't HAVE any more such levels.

The most popular use I've seen for this particular bit of slight of hand is the Hellfire Warlock (Fiendish Codex II, p. 89+). It's an unusual class, in that it only has 3 levels to it...and unlike the regular Warlock (who's eldrich blast only improves by +1d6 per two levels), the Hellfire Warlock improves at the rate of +2d6 EACH LEVEL. I, personally, am assuming that this advanced rate of progression is mitigated by the fact that there are only 3 levels to the class.

Others would disagree, and by combining the Hellfire Warlock with the Legacy Champion, manage to get 11 levels' worth of +2d6s to the Eldrich Blast ability. Whether or not this is reasonable, necessary to 'fix' the Warlock, and so forth is entirely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned...my issue with it is that the Legacy Champion would appear to be intended to keep your regular progresison going, not to stretch a class beyond its limits.

Since I am not sure if there are other sources besides the Legacy Champion that introduce similar "+1 level of your class features", I therefore propose:

Limit to Class Features: "No class (base or prestige) can have its class features progressed beyond the maximum printed level of the class itself, save for the specific exceptions spelled out in the rules for epic progression."

Sgt. Cookie

2012-04-18, 01:20 PM

Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike:

As per RAW of this feat, a Monk dip locks your unarmed damage to a fixed amount.

Add the following line:

If your total character level is higher than your enhanced Monk level, you continue to gain unarmed damage as if you were not a Monk.

Andorax

2012-04-18, 03:43 PM

Rule 004:

I can definately get behind that...makes perfect sense. Agree.

Djinn_in_Tonic

2012-04-18, 03:51 PM

Drowning for Health Purposes should include a rule to allow you to STOP drowning...no such rule currently exists.

Rule 5: Dead is Dead

Currently, a dead character is, by the rules, merely unconscious and paralyzed, which allows them to take purely mental actions: you can play a dead Psion, if you so desire. Add the following.

[i]A dead character is rendered unplayable until returned to life or retired from the game. Such a character can take no actions (including free actions) whatsoever, save a mandatory full-round action each round used solely to gently decompose over the course of several weeks. :smallbiggrin:

GoodbyeSoberDay

2012-04-18, 04:54 PM

I'm not sure this is going to be definitive, but it may certainly be informative.

001: Yes, with the same suggested change as Djinn_In_Tonic proposed.
002: No, I don't think something as abstract as metamagic cost reduction applies to this thread, unless by RACSD you just mean "Common Houserules."
003: No, see 002, and this one isn't even overpowered in most cases. This one I could see how it might not have been intended, but we're in the land of new acronyms.
004: Yeah, sure.
005: Yes, though this is one of those rules that everyone uses anyway.

TuggyNE

2012-04-18, 05:23 PM

001: Agree, but again suggest the addition of rules for stopping drowning.
002: Hmm, a bit dubious. I think nearly everyone would agree that adding Invisible Spell to an Arcane Thesis'd Fireball should not give you a level 2 Fireball. However, not everyone would agree that Empower Spell + Invisible Spell should equal Empower Spell. I suggest splitting this into 002a and 002b to determine a more precise consensus, and would register my agreement to 002a ("A spell's level cannot be reduced below its original by any means of metamagic reduction." or similar), but abstain from 002b for now.
003: This seems reasonable enough, although I'd prefer limiting it to the problem class in question if possible.
004: Yeah, this should be fine.
005: Definitely, although a bit of rephrasing wouldn't hurt. :smalltongue:

Rule 006: I Really Do Know Kung Fu!
Monks, as written, do not have proficiency with unarmed strikes. The first line of the monk's Weapon and Armor Proficiency feature should read as follows:
"Monks are proficient with club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, handaxe, javelin, kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, siangham, sling, and unarmed strike."

KillianHawkeye

2012-04-18, 05:44 PM

Rule 006: I Really Do Know Kung Fu!
Monks, as written, do not have proficiency with unarmed strikes. The first line of the monk's Weapon and Armor Proficiency feature should read as follows:
"Monks are proficient with club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, handaxe, javelin, kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, siangham, sling, and unarmed strike."

You might as well go all the way and just say that all creatures are proficient with their natural weapons (unarmed strike is a natural weapon, it just doesn't operate like one). As written, only Aberrations, Animals, Constructs, Dragons, Elementals, Giants, Magical Beasts, Oozes, Plants, Undead, and Vermin have proficiency with their natural weapons. This is despite the fact that many other types of creatures possess natural attacks, such as Lizardfolk (Humanoid), Minotaurs (Monstrous Humanoid), most demons and devils (Outsider), and IIRC the Jaebrin from MM3 (Fey).

Menteith

2012-04-18, 05:44 PM

Rule 007: Wolves with Hooves

The Trample Feat currently gives any mount that successfully Overruns a target a Hoof attack. This occurs regardless of what the mount is. Instead, the line should read;

When you attempt to overrun an opponent while mounted, your target may not choose to avoid you. Your mount may make one attack with an appropriate natural weapon against any target you knock down, gaining the standard +4 bonus on attack rolls against prone targets.

Mounted Combat in general is sort of borked, but Trample stands out to me as a fairly easy fix to a glaring RAW issue.

Sgt. Cookie

2012-04-19, 03:01 PM

008: Dragonblood and heritage:

Unless I am missing something, you have to take several feats or be a sorcerer to benefit from Dragon Heritage feats.

Characters with the Dragonblood subtype count as a Sorcerer of their character level in regards to Dragon Heritage feats.

009: It's not armour, it's thick clothing

Padded armour; what is there to say about it? ... It's cheap, I suppose. But really, it's padded clothing. A little bulky, perhaps, but nowhere near being labled "armour". It even says in the description that it's only "quilted layers of cloth and batting."

Padded armour is not considered armour for any reason, except for enchanting purposes ONLY, but retains its AC bonus and maximum dexterity bonus. Padded armour must still be made masterwork before it can be enchanted. It only costs 100 additional gold to create masterwork padded armour.

Andorax

2012-04-20, 11:17 AM

Regarding Rule 002: The intent here isn't "common houserules"...it's to say that nowhere along the line was there an intent that you can make a spell LOWER level by ADDING metamagic to it. I know this particular rules loophole is popular...and sadly, that popularity means it's likely to not pass a general consensus muster, but I stand by both the rule and the reasoning behind it.

Regarding Rule 003: It's not a question of whether or not it "isn't even overpowered". In fact, some of these (see #4) are intended to correct unnecessary weakening of abilities through obscure corner-cases. I just genuinely believe that a class's features aren't intended to be exptended beyond the actual levels of the class...and the cited example is a pretty gross example of that.

I didn't narrow it down to just the specific class (both abusing and abused) because my resources to research the issue are limited...I don't know how many other short clases have desirable extensible features, and how many other "+class features" classes exist. The principle itself is sound and logical, I can't think of a good reason to have exceptions.

Regardinr Rule 005: Minor reword...sorry to de-humor it, but I can just see someone working in some bizarre ability that lets you do something whenever you're also taking a full round action.

Regarding Rule 006: Hopefully, you guys are ok with my rewording. It's pretty general, but I can't think of a reason why it shouldn't be. The concept is universal (and obvioiusly, I'm for it).

Regarding Rule 007: I'm also for this...added a bit for clarification. I'm presuming your intent wasn't to allow bite, gore, or wing slap attacks during a trample.

Regarding Rule 008: My take on this is that this is specifically aimed at Sorcerers. The subsequent feats also have Sorcerer level requirements, the feats nearly all relate to arcane casting...I read it as something intended specifically for the sorceror class, the class that "gains its powers from a hint of draconic ancestry".

I know it's hard to explain the distinction, as I'd probably allow this to stand as a house rule if one of my players asked it...but I can't honestly say that intent and common sense dictates this rule.

Regarding Rule 009: Regular clothing is considered +0/No max dex/no penalty/no ACF armor for the purpose of adding things to it (such as the Magic Vestment spell). In light of this, I don't see why padded armor needs to be made "not armor". Something has to be the lightest form of armor, it's described and established as such in that role, and yes...bulky quilted layers of cloth are (ever so slightly) harder to move around in than a regular t-shirt. I think it's clear that Padded armor was intended to be armor, even if just barely.

JadePhoenix

2012-04-20, 11:53 AM

I disaprove of 3, 8 and 9.

Doug Lampert

2012-04-20, 12:04 PM

Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes

Yes, this rule is just stupid.

Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier

Yes, I don't care if it's a corner case, "invisible spell" or "energy substitution" makes a spell EASIER to cast than it would be were it closer to the base spell is simply stupid. It fails common sense which is what was asked for.

Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels

The progression simply does not exist past the maximum level unless there's an epic progression. You can't apply a progression that doesn't exist.

Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike

Yes, monk training does not make you less capable at hand to hand.

Rule 005: Dead is Dead

Yes, it's an oversight that the condition is defined, but not defined properly.

Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally

Yes. I can see declaring that commoners aren't proficient with natural attacks, but I can't see this as worth putting in the rules. Everything should be proficient with natural attacks.

Rule 007: Wolves with Hooves

Yes, just a modification for the fact that the writer didn't take into account that not all mounts are horses.

Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage

No opinion.

Rule 009: It's not armour, it's thick clothing

Not correct by common sense or history or usage of the language (the first definition I get on dictionary.com is "any covering worn as a defense against weapons"). At what point in "you can enchant it for defense" is this NOT a covering worn as a defense against weapons? Seriously. Heavy cloth was FREQUENTLY used as armor and was considered armor by the makers and the wearers. I simply see no justification for the proposed rule.

Darrin

2012-04-20, 12:18 PM

Rule 008: What is the point of the Dragontouched feat, then? I have no idea if I have a vote, but I'm "Against" it. I'm a little puzzled why you'd want to clarify the sorcerer thing, when I would think the biggest head-scratcher for Dragonborn is "Can I apply this to non-humanoids?"

Rule 009: I prefer treating padded armor as armor +1, and clothing as armor +0. Simpler that way. Against.

You might want to address the Mounted Combat/Ride-By Attack mess:

Rule 0??: While mounted, a rider cannot charge. If the rider directs his mount to charge (either as a move action or as a free action), then the rider gains the same attack bonus and AC penalty for charging as the mount. When using Spirited Charge, the mount uses a full-round action to charge, and the rider deals double damage with a melee weapon (triple wth a lance). Directing the mount is either a move action ("Control Mount in Battle", DC 20), or a free action on mounts that are trained for battle ("Fight with a Warhorse", DC 10). If your mount moves more than 5', you may make only a single melee attack as a standard action, even if you still have a full-round action available.

Rule 0??: Ride-By Attack. The mount must use a full-round action to charge, not the rider. The rider directs the mount to the closest square where the rider can attack and the mount can still continue forward in a straight line. The rider may make a single melee attack from this square as per the charge rules. If there is no such square, or if the mount's path is blocked by an obstacle that it can't jump over, then it is not possible to charge. At the end of the mount's movement, if any opponents are still within melee range, the mount may make a single melee attack as per the charge rules.

JoeYounger

2012-04-20, 12:35 PM

Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes

Yes, this rule is just stupid.

Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier

Yes, I don't care if it's a corner case, "invisible spell" or "energy substitution" makes a spell EASIER to cast than it would be were it closer to the base spell is simply stupid. It fails common sense which is what was asked for.

Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels

The progression simply does not exist past the maximum level unless there's an epic progression. You can't apply a progression that doesn't exist.

Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike

Yes, monk training does not make you less capable at hand to hand.

Rule 005: Dead is Dead

Yes, it's an oversight that the condition is defined, but not defined properly.

Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally

Yes. I can see declaring that commoners aren't proficient with natural attacks, but I can't see this as worth putting in the rules. Everything should be proficient with natural attacks.

Rule 007: Wolves with Hooves

Yes, just a modification for the fact that the writer didn't take into account that not all mounts are horses.

Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage

No opinion.

Rule 009: It's not armour, it's thick clothing

I don't see the point in this, anyone care to enlighten me as to why this clarification should exist?

Ashtagon

2012-04-20, 01:07 PM

1 - Agree

2 - Agree

3 - Agree

4 - Other.

Should be re-written to: Your unarmed damage is calculated based on the higher damage of your monk class levels plus four, or the damage listed on the table below based on your total character levels.

This allows for the possibility that either of these two calculations could be the one that results in the higher damage.

5 - Agree

6 - Agree.

As an extension of this, all characters should be assumed to be proficient with their natural weapons, unless specifically called out in their racial description. The SRD says all humanoid types are "Proficient with all simple weapons, or by character class." Who chooses which one applies?

7 - Disagree.

A creature that has a hoof attack can make a hoof attack as part of its trample feat usage. if it doesn't normally have a hoof attack, it doesn't get to make one.

8 - Disagree.

These feats were written to let sorcerers have nice things.

9 - Disagree.

Although I don't see how this actually changes anything. However...

10. Anything Can Be Armour: Since padded armour is essentially just a very thick quilted jacket, it follows that an normal light suit of clothing could likewise be considered "armour". Such armour provides no special armour protection, skill check penalty, or Dexterity bonus limit. However, it can be enchanted as if it were armour, provided it is made as masterwork.

This is just a logical extension of what padded armour is. There's no logical reason for heavy clothing to be allowed enchantments, but light clothing not.

Edit: Game-balance-wise, the classes that would benefit most are monks (who need something nice anyway) and sorcerers/wizards (who don't really gain all that much considering they probably have their mage armour up first thing in the morning anyway). This also allows for more protection in "diplomacy" or "court" situations, provided players are willing to spend some of their WBL on secondary armour.

Talya

2012-04-20, 01:25 PM

Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes - Agreed.
Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier - Agreed.
Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels - indifferent.
Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike - Agreed.
Rule 005: Dead is Dead - Duh.
Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally - Obvious.
Rule 007: Wolves with Hooves - Yeah.
Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage - BIG Agreed.
Rule 009: It's not armour, it's thick clothing - No. Padded armor is considered armor because it adds a nonmagical armor bonus and can be enchanted as armor. It also has a max dex bonus. I think padded armor was already "working as intended."

NNescio

2012-04-20, 01:34 PM

I strongly disapprove of Rule 9 because it is factually incorrect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambeson) and doesn't appear to serve any purpose.

docnessuno

2012-04-20, 01:57 PM

Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes - Agree.
Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier - Agree.
Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels - Agree.
Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike - Disagree. - Change to: Your unarmed strikes deal damage as if you were a size larger.
Rule 005: Dead is Dead - Agree.
Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally - Agree.
Rule 007: Wolves with Hooves - Agree.
Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage - BIG Agreed.
Rule 009: It's not armour, it's thick clothing - Disagree.

Talya

2012-04-20, 02:00 PM

Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike - Disagree. - Change to: Your unarmed strikes deal damage as if you were a size larger.

That can already be done with another feat.

Telonius

2012-04-20, 02:03 PM

Rule 011 - Clarifying the Dragon Disciple Paradox. A power or ability granted by a Prestige Class will never cause a character to become ineligible for that Prestige Class.

docnessuno

2012-04-20, 02:05 PM

That can already be done with another feat.

Only by monks (the only ones able to treat unarmed strikes as natural attacks), and i don't consider a feat giving one of the most class-defining abilities by himself (even if slightly nerfed) good design. Also the feat doesn't account for size, so a "fine" creature would still hit for 2d6 (ouch).

Lapak

2012-04-20, 02:17 PM

Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes: Agree.

Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier: Agree. Not only does it not make sense on the face of it (adding complications should not make something easier) this makes metamagic track with every other penalty-reduction. You can't have armor with a negative Arcane Failure Chance or Armor Check penalty, having more Energy Resistance than damage done to you doesn't transform that damage into healing, and reducing the level-adjustment of metamagic shouldn't drop it below zero.

Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels: No opinion.

Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike: Agree.

Rule 005: Dead is Dead: Agree.

Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally: Undecided. On the one hand, there are obviously people who don't know how to throw a punch; on the other, there are obvious holes in existing classes if you don't cover them with a house rule.

Rule 007: Wolves with Hooves: No opinion.

Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage: Not familiar enough with this to say.

Rule 009: It's not armour, it's thick clothing: Disagree. Padded armor is very definitely armor.

Rule 010: Agree.

Lonely Tylenol

2012-04-20, 02:22 PM

I agree with:
Rule 1: Drowning is drowning. The fact that it reduces your health to 0, by RAW, was clearly not intended to increase your health.
Rule 2: Again, technically RAW-legal (and I have done this to create a fiery empowered Orb of Cold as a level 4 spell; I quit before going higher levels), but it should never have been.
Rule 5: Dead is dead.
Rule 6: Monks aren't proficient with unarmed strikes because they... Aren't proficient with simple weapons? Yeah, sure, OK, roll to punch things with your fists at -4. Makes perfect sense.

I disagree with:
Rule 3: Forgive me if I'm reading this wrong (it's early and I'm weary), but doesn't this explicitly state that no class can have its features advanced beyond 20 unless specific mention was made of them? That seems very awkward, as it's going to boil down to what book the class was printed in, as opposed to the actual merits of the class features being advanced. (There are epic progressions for Barbarian through Rogue; are there any for Knight, Factotum, Scout, or Dragon Shaman? Common sense dictates that the Fighting Challenge/Shield Block features of the Knight, Inspiration progression of the Factotum, Skirmish, bonus feat and perhaps battle fortitude progressions of the Scout, and breath, aura and natural armor progressions of the Dragon Shaman, respectively, should naturally progress to epic levels, but (and unless I'm missing something; I'm not too familiar with the epic rules) they won't because specific mention was not made of them, which seems contrary.
Rule 7:
Trampling with paws doesn't make sense. Nor, for that matter, does trampling with unarmed strike (which is what a human with trample, which can happen with the right feats/maneuvers/spells, though I can't recall how, would do). A monk steps on you harder? This feat should instead have "prerequisite: hooves (4)".
Rule 9:
Padded armor is, in fact, distinct from heavy clothing. A fitting modern-day comparison might be the difference between the armor padding that fencers and other swordsman (such as those practicing kendo) have to use, vs.... Heavy clothing.

Further, I maintain that it makes no sense for clothing to ever have an armor bonus. +5 loincloth makes a lot less sense than counting padded armor (which is historically a thing that exists) as armor.

I don't understand the implications of:
Rule 4: What's the difference between this and what we have now? Somebody has to spell this out for me.
Rule 8: Isn't there already a feat that does this? Or am I misremembering?

Lapak

2012-04-20, 02:38 PM

I don't understand the implications of:
Rule 4: What's the difference between this and what we have now? Somebody has to spell this out for me.Right now, SUS improves your damage in one of two ways: if you have no Monk levels, it has its own table; if you have at least one level in Monk, it buffs your effective Monk level.

What this means is that a Monk 1 / Non-Monk X will eventually do LESS damage than a straight Non-Monk X+1, because their damage from SUS is pinned at Monk 5.

Keld Denar

2012-04-20, 02:52 PM

I'm not left handed

No character has an offhand unless they are TWFing. If and only if a character is utilizing the Two Weapon Fighting rules found in the Combat chapter of the PHB, does that character have an offhand. Otherwise, whichever hand they are using to make attacks, or even a non-handed attack, is always main hand. This goes normal for any character, mmonk or otherwise.

The reason for this is that there seems to be a lot of confusion with regards to the phrase in the monk class "There is no such thing as an offhand attack for a monk striking unarmed." This phrase is redundant, since without TWF, which isn't mentioned in that text, there is no such thing as an offhand attack for ANY character, unarmed or otherwise. The default state of being for any character is sans-offhand, and only when a character TWFs does that character gain an offhand attack with all of the mechanical benefits and penalties that apply. I believe that the text there was simply to clarify that even though a monk may strike with multiple surfaces of their body in any combination, they aren't TWFing, and thus aren't affected by the TWFing rules. It's a backwards way of saying it, but its a valid interpretation that leads to the most internal consistancy across the rules. Monks play by the exact same TWFing rules as everyone else, why should they be different?

prufock

2012-04-20, 03:21 PM

10. Anything Can Be Armour: Since padded armour is essentially just a very thick quilted jacket, it follows that an normal light suit of clothing could likewise be considered "armour". Such armour provides no special armour protection, skill check penalty, or Dexterity bonus limit. However, it can be enchanted as if it were armour, provided it is made as masterwork.

I believe this is already the case as per the Magic Item Compendium. Costs the same as bracers of armor, if I remember correctly.

The reason for this is that there seems to be a lot of confusion with regards to the phrase in the monk class "There is no such thing as an offhand attack for a monk striking unarmed."
It IS redundant, but I think it's there to point out the difference between Flurry of Blows and two-weapon-fighting. Unarmed strike is technically one weapon, not two, despite that you can interchange body parts.

Also keep in mind that a monk can use flurry AND 2-weapon fighting, so it clarifies that your unarmed attacks always deal Str bonus damage, not 1/2 str bonus.

Talya

2012-04-20, 03:33 PM

Ashtagon

2012-04-20, 03:41 PM

I believe this is already the case as per the Magic Item Compendium. Costs the same as bracers of armor, if I remember correctly.

Technically, not quite the same. Bracers don't occupy the "body" slot, so cost twice as much for their armour enhancement bonus. A linen shirt +2 would occupy the body slot for magical equipment purposes, and so the magical enhancement costs the same as if it were a chain shirt +2.

Dandria

2012-04-20, 03:58 PM

Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes - Agreed.
Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier - No. It makes sense, but I don't see it as something obvious.
Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels - Agreed.
Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike - Agreed.
Rule 005: Dead is Dead - Agreed.
Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally - Agreed.
Rule 007: Wolves with Hooves - Agreed.
Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage - Eh, not really.
Rule 009: It's not armour, it's thick clothing - No.
Rule 010: Anything Can Be Armour - No. Again, it makes perfect sense, but it's more of a trivial house rule than an interpretation.
Rule 011: Clarifying the Dragon Disciple Paradox - Agreed.

Doug Lampert

2012-04-20, 03:59 PM

Technically, not quite the same. Bracers don't occupy the "body" slot, so cost twice as much for their armour enhancement bonus. A linen shirt +2 would occupy the body slot for magical equipment purposes, and so the magical enhancement costs the same as if it were a chain shirt +2.

Bracers of armor +2 cost 4,000 gp (per the SRD)
Chain shirt +2 costs 4,250 gp (likewise)

Bracers are not double cost since they occupy a slot usable for defense.

Andorax

2012-04-20, 04:06 PM

Just to keep things tidied up, and because I think it's a reasonable measure, here's a minor amendment to the rules.

Should a proposed rule reach the anti-thesis of approved (Only 20% for), it will be purged.

JadePhoenix, I'd appreciate your reasoning behind those opinions.

Darrin, both of your proposed clarifications to charging while mounted and ride-bys make sense to me. I've added, commented, and named them (hope you're ok with the rule names I used).

Ashtagon, I'm not sure but what the current wording accomplishes the same thing on Rule 4...but your wording is clearer. As the result is the same, I'll keep the previous votes as-is, and adopt/adapt the wording you provided.

I'd ask that the issue of simple weapons be taken up as a separate issue...feel free to propose it.

Telonius, I completely agree...but please note that the number has shifted to #013.

Lonely Tylenol...regarding Rule 3...

It makes specific mention that the Epic rules still apply as normal..and there are blanket rules for how to epicly progress classes and 10-level prestige classes. Would that change your stance? Would a rewording be required?

Keld Denar...in as rule #014

prufock, can you give me a page # on that? If so, I'll remove it for already being an established rule.

Please recheck numbers, since we've gotten some drift.

Starbuck_II

2012-04-20, 04:07 PM

Technically, not quite the same. Bracers don't occupy the "body" slot, so cost twice as much for their armour enhancement bonus. A linen shirt +2 would occupy the body slot for magical equipment purposes, and so the magical enhancement costs the same as if it were a chain shirt +2.

Depends if Armor bonus counts as Combat affinity.
Otherwise you are correct.

Namfuak

2012-04-20, 04:11 PM

Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes - Yes
Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier - After all metamagic is applied, the spell level should not be less than the original level of the spell. I do not agree with outright restricting it to certain metamagic.
Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels - Yes
Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike - Abstain
Rule 005: Dead is Dead - Yes
Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally - Yes
Rule 007: Wolves with Hooves - Yes
Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage - Abstain
Rule 009: It's not armour, it's thick clothing - No
Rule 010: Anything Can Be Armour - Yes, although it must take up a slot that is not otherwise filled by something else (IE, you can't have a robe over armor and benefit from both, at least stat-wise)
Rule 011: Clarifying the Dragon Disciple Paradox - I would adjust this to say that a prestige class's prerequisites and class features can never prevent you from taking advantage of any other feature of the class, nor prevent you from advancing in it (I'm specifically thinking of Ur-Priest, who has to not be able to cast divine spells in order to advance in the class, but by RAW this means he cannot cast his own spells).

EDIT: Also, I agree with the "I'm not left-handed" one.

Ashtagon

2012-04-20, 04:15 PM

4 - additional rewrite:

Add the following notation to Superior Unarmed Strike (Tome of Battle p. 33): Your unarmed damage is calculated based on the higher damage of your monk class levels plus four, or the damage listed on the table below based on your total character levels. If you do not have any monk class levels, use the table below.

10 - Agree

11 - Agree

12 - Agree

13 - Agree

14 - Agree

Malachei

2012-04-20, 04:23 PM

Rule 15: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped

It has been argued whether unconscious creatures get a Will save. To me, it is clear that the following paragraph is to be read in context:

Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you’re flat-footed or it isn’t your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.

Which implies that it applies to spells that affect willing targets (unless one purposefully ignores the first part of the paragraph).

The rules on the condition unconscious in no way indicate an unconscious target would not get a save, or not a Will save: see the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#unconscious).

Denying an unconscious creature a Will save opens the gates to all kind of abuse, including mindrape.

Thus, I propose rule 15:

Clarification: An unconscious creature is not hindered from making a Will save. In the case of harmless effects, or in the case of spells that affect willing targets only, the creature is considered willing.

Namfuak

2012-04-20, 04:28 PM

Howler Dagger

2012-04-20, 04:33 PM

I support rules 3 and 8 and a -4 penalty in rule 15.

Malachei

2012-04-20, 04:36 PM

Thank you for your comment. Because it is about a clarification of RAW from a "common sense" perspective, I'd rather keep it completely RAW. Introducing a penalty would be a houserule -- I guess a good one, but still. I think this point is really clear by RAW, it just has been poorly defended.

EDIT:

A commentary on clarification vs. changes:

This question also goes to the OP: Do we focus on clarifications or on actual rules changes?

My personal opinion is that we should try to focus more on clarifications. If we introduce actual changes, we'd no longer be clarifying 3.5, but we'd be starting to define a set of houserules in the spirit of a "Pathfinder II".

Also, shouldn't we say "Yes" / "No" / "No Idea". Because a conditional yes is hard to follow up, if several answers include different suggestions.

Siosilvar

2012-04-20, 05:01 PM

Approve001 (Drowning)
004 (SUS & Monks)
005 (Dead)
006 (Unarmed Strikes), so long as herbivorous animals keep their "all natural weapons counted as secondary", which admittedly has nothing to do with proficiency.
007 (Trample) Note, however, that wolves don't have an appropriate attack, which makes the name as given in the post a bit of a misnomer.
013 (Dragon Disciple) Want to make a call on what happens when you lose prerequisites as well?

Conditional
012 (Clothing as armor) MIC page 234 allows deflection, armor, and natural armor bonuses in the body slot at normal price anyway. I say no unless you're going to allow anything with an armor bonus to get special abilities like Soulfire or whatever; I don't see a reason for clothing to be singled out from Bracers of Armor in this respect.
014 (TWF), if it's added that you don't take the TWF penalties unless you're actually using the TWF action.

Disapprove003 (Legacy & Bloodline Levels) Eh, as it stands, it's a bit far-reaching. I might support No prestige class with fewer than 10 levels may have its class features advanced beyond its maximum level, however, since that fits in nicely with the epic rules and doesn't cause problems with 10-level classes that don't have RAW epic advancement.
008 (Draconic Sorcerers), unless you can find one of these feats that requires sorcerer levels and doesn't require burning an arcane spell. Not inclined to give wizards access to those even if they are dragontouched.
010 (Mounted Charges) As currently written, it completely excludes Pounce, Headlong Rush, Furious Charge, and similar abilities from applying with a mounted charge, since the rider isn't treated as charging, only gaining the same bonus & penalties as the mount. I think you'd also have to rewrite Spirited Charge to fit, since the rider isn't taking a full-round action to charge any more. I do like the idea behind the change, though.

Neutral002 (Thesis) I'm inclined to believe behavior on the reducers is as intended. If this is an exploit, I've never seen it used in a game. I'm not going to pass a judgment on it quite yet, though. EDIT > I would absolutely support errata that made it so that no spell could be reduced below its original level, or even that allowed only one metamagic to apply a net -1. <
011 (More Charges) This clarifies Ride-by Attack, yes? I think it still has the issue of not actually working, since you can't move through an opponent and almost every legal charge would have you continuing through them.

Ideas for ConsiderationI'm not going to give these "official" numbers, because I'm not sure what ones you even want to consider.

S1 Unless otherwise specified (like for Divine feats), a feat is an [Ex]traordinary ability. (I haven't looked at the ruleset in-depth to figure out exactly what this interacts with yet.)
S2 Experience penalties for multiclassing do not apply to prestige classes (IIRC, this rule was accidentally dropped in the transition from 3.0 to 3.5).
S3 If you have the ability to meet a prerequisite or requirement through temporary means, you may take a feat or class or use an ability with such a requirement. When you do not meet the requirements, you may not use the ability and are not treated as possessing the feat or class abilities of the class.
S4 The Exotic Weapon Master (CWar)'s Exotic Reach ability, if taken for a whip, allows you to make attacks of opportunity with it. You threaten an area out to the range you could make an attack with the whip (normally 15 feet).

And, of course, the ever-dividing Aptitude:
S5a The Aptitude ability (ToB) allows the user to use the enhanced weapon with any feat that applies to only a single type of weapon, chosen or preset, like Weapon Focus or Lightning Maces. (This one is supported by the actual text of Aptitude, but leads to some system abuse, especially with the aforementioned Lightning Maces.)
S5b The Aptitude ability (ToB) allows the user to use the enhanced weapon with any feat that applies to only a single chosen type of weapon, like Weapon Focus or Improved Critical. (This one closes some ridiculous exploits, but RAW-wise it relies on inferring a distinction not made by the text of the ability.)

zagan

2012-04-20, 05:03 PM

Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes - Agreed.
Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier - Agreed. It make sense that you could reduce the level of a spell by apllying a metamagic feat to it.
Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels - Agreed.
Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike - Agreed.
Rule 005: Dead is Dead - Agreed.
Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally - Agreed.
Rule 007: Wolves with Hooves - Agreed.
Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage - I would tend to agree but I'm not sure it belong in this thread.
Rule 009: It's not armour, it's thick clothing - It was apparently removed.
Rule 010: Who's Charging, Anyways? - Agreed
Rule 011: Who's Riding By, Anyways? - Agreed
Rule 012: Anything Can Be Armour - Agreed
Rule 013: Clarifying the Dragon Disciple Paradox - Agreed.
Rule 014: I'm Not Left Handed - Agreed

Menteith

2012-04-20, 05:42 PM

Rule 16 Tower Shields: How the #&%@ do they work?

Suggested Fix
At the start of their turn, a creature using a Tower Shield decides whether to use the Total Cover version of their shield, or whether to use it for a shield bonus. This is a free action. Tower Shields being used to provide Total Cover provide cover in all directions. You cannot make any Attacks*, as defined by the Glossery, while using a Tower Shield to gain cover. Actions which do not provide an attack roll are not attacks, and may be used while a tower shield is providing cover.

*Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent. The outcome of an attack is determined by an attack roll.

Ashtagon

2012-04-20, 05:43 PM

Non-Floating Armour: Armour check penalties should apply to Swim checks.

Siosilvar

2012-04-20, 05:45 PM

Non-Floating Armour: Armour check penalties should apply to Swim checks.

They do. Double, in fact.

Sgt. Cookie

2012-04-20, 05:47 PM

I do need to point out something. There already is a feat that does what rule 8 proposes. Dragontouched, page 18 of dragon magic. Go read it up. What rule 8 does is it means that if you already HAVE the dragonblood subtype, then you don't need to burn a feat for something you already have.

The Winter King

2012-04-20, 06:07 PM

They do. Double, in fact.

You'd think so but no they do not. The relevant text is in the armor proficiency feats.

from the SRD

Armor Proficiency (Light) [General] Benefit: When you wear a type of armor with which you are proficient, the armor check penalty for that armor applies only to Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Hide, Jump, Move Silently, Sleight of Hand, and Tumble checks. Normal: A character who is wearing armor with which she is not proficient applies its armor check penalty to attack rolls and to all skill checks that involve moving, including Ride.Special: All characters except wizards, sorcerers, and monks automatically have Armor Proficiency (light) as a bonus feat. They need not select it.
Medium and Heavy armor proficiency feats sre the same but apply to different classes.
Whats more specific, a feat, the armor rules, or type descriptions because this also means all creatures are proficient with light armor because all creatures are characters even if only NPCs. This also goes for simple weapon proficiency.

Ashtagon

2012-04-20, 06:08 PM

They do. Double, in fact.

That got lost in proof-reading between 3.0 and 3.5.

Keld Denar

2012-04-20, 06:39 PM

Also keep in mind that a monk can use flurry AND 2-weapon fighting, so it clarifies that your unarmed attacks always deal Str bonus damage, not 1/2 str bonus.

No, see, this is the part I don't get. The TWFing rules supercede the Monk rules, IMO. The rules in the Monk class description only deal with your normal attack routines and you don't have an offhand no matter which hand you use. The TWFing rules then give you an offhand UAS, which is subject to all of the benefits and penalties of TWF, including the 1/2 +Str bonus.

Emperor Tippy

2012-04-20, 06:51 PM

Rule 15: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped

It has been argued whether unconscious creatures get a Will save. To me, it is clear that the following paragraph is to be read in context:

Which implies that it applies to spells that affect willing targets (unless one purposefully ignores the first part of the paragraph).

The rules on the condition unconscious in no way indicate an unconscious target would not get a save, or not a Will save: see the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#unconscious).

Denying an unconscious creature a Will save opens the gates to all kind of abuse, including mindrape.

Thus, I propose rule 15:

Clarification: An unconscious creature is not hindered from making a Will save. In the case of harmless effects, or in the case of spells that affect willing targets only, the creature is considered willing.

You would be wrong by RAW and what you propose is the opposite of common sense. Why do you think that a character you has been knocked out is in any position to resist someone tinkering around in his head?

Some spells restrict you to willing targets only.
This is clear, willing target is a special subset of targets and some spells restrict you to only this subset (like others restrict you to, say, constructs).
Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you’re flat-footed or it isn’t your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.
If you are unconscious then you are willing.

Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw

A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.
If you are willing (which being unconscious makes you) then you give up your saving throw.

Note that a creature who is asleep is not suffering from Unconsciousness (they are merely helpless) and thus still get's a saving throw.

Siosilvar

2012-04-20, 07:26 PM

That got lost in proof-reading between 3.0 and 3.5.

I just checked my copy of the PHB. Swim skill, proficiency feats, armor section in equipment; it's there in all three places. d20SRD appears to be missing that text in the proficiency feats, which is strange. It's there in the other two, and I'm inclined to value the description of armor check penalties and the skill telling you what modifiers apply over the lack of text in the feats (being that lack of text does not preclude additions by other rules).

If you are willing (which being unconscious makes you) then you give up your saving throw.

Note that a creature who is asleep is not suffering from Unconsciousness (they are merely helpless) and thus still get's a saving throw.

I was with you up until here. Just because they're willing doesn't mean they're going to forgo their saving throw. Admittedly, they're likely to, but it's not part of the rules definition of "willing", the use of "willingly" notwithstanding. "Willing" only means that you can cast spells restricted to willing targets only on them (or so the argument goes).

Lonely Tylenol

2012-04-20, 07:36 PM

Right now, SUS improves your damage in one of two ways: if you have no Monk levels, it has its own table; if you have at least one level in Monk, it buffs your effective Monk level.

What this means is that a Monk 1 / Non-Monk X will eventually do LESS damage than a straight Non-Monk X+1, because their damage from SUS is pinned at Monk 5.

Ah, I see. Wouldn't the feat just make more sense if the feat (and the Monk's unarmed strike damage) both calculated the number of steps that they increased damage by, which is actually what they do, instead of the "effective levels" of the class that progresses it? Monk's unarmed strike damage progresses by 2 + x/4 rounded down, where x is your level, and Superior Unarmed Strike progresses by 1+ x/4 rounded down. Worded that way, there should be an obvious way to state that your unarmed damage with the Monk increases by an additional step, such as "Monk levels stack with Superior Unarmed Strike for determining bonus damage steps at level 1, but overlap for the purposes of determining damage progression on subsequent levels". Or some other wording that is much, much less stupid. The result is that your Unarmed Strike progression if you have any levels in Monk becomes 3 + x/4 rounded down (which was the purpose of this feat as it was intended). None of this "effective Monk level" nonsense.

In any case, my vote is now yes for 4.

Lonely Tylenol...regarding Rule 3...

It makes specific mention that the Epic rules still apply as normal..and there are blanket rules for how to epicly progress classes and 10-level prestige classes. Would that change your stance? Would a rewording be required?

I think a rewording might be required, but I get what I did wrong - I read the ruling as "unless the feature's progression is explicitly made mention of, it doesn't advance", as in "unless a table spells out its epic level progression, it doesn't have one", which means that by default no class features advance unless there's an Epic Progression table, which only exists for SRD classes and prestige classes (meaning that, by default, anything not printed in an SRD-ready book doesn't have an epic level progression). Per my reading, the only base classes that would have an epic level progression at all would be the Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Monk, Rogue, Soulknife, and Wilder (since they have tables outlining their epic level progression that include class features), and the rest of the SRD (for epic or psionic feats only).

Assuming that your rule simply refers to the scaling of class abilities that run on a fixed level progression (such as the Marshal's major aura bonus) and so on, as opposed to a blanket ban on everything not spelled out on a table, my vote for 3 becomes yes.

Let it be known, however, that my vote for 12 follows my vote for 9 logically as a no. There is a difference between codpiece of armor +2 and a +2 codpiece, that being that the former actually does use the MIC enhancement guidelines for applying armor, natural armor and deflection bonii to unusual items (which doesn't change per this ruling either way), and the latter applies a new rule which allows you to treat a striped sweater as masterwork, and then enchant it as you would a chain shirt (which is changing), which means that you could have a +5 slick striped sweater of invulnerability, shadow, silent moves, acid resistance and arrow catching (using SRD enhancements only) because your striped sweater is technically now "armor". Congratulations: your striped sweater magically makes you Waldo (and also grants damage reduction and stuff).

It gets even more absurd if you can wear clothing with your armor (and why wouldn't you wear at least undergarments to keep your armor from smelling bad?), because you now have a +5 armor of various enhancements for your actual Armor Class value, and a +1 speedo of various other enhancements for the things you couldn't tack onto your first armor without turning it epic.

I'll vote on the others later.

Emperor Tippy

2012-04-20, 07:45 PM

I was with you up until here. Just because they're willing doesn't mean they're going to forgo their saving throw. Admittedly, they're likely to, but it's not part of the rules definition of "willing", the use of "willingly" notwithstanding. "Willing" only means that you can cast spells restricted to willing targets only on them (or so the argument goes).

Being a willing target is a subset of the targets. You can enter that set in two ways 1) be voluntarily entering it or 2) by being unconscious. If you are part of that set then you don't get a save against any spell.

If you are conscious then you get to make your choice whether to be part of the willing targets set whenever you want (and people can be assumed to default to being unwilling), if you are unconscious then you automatically become a willing target.

Willing is not something that only exists for specific spells, specific spells just restrict you to only willing targets.

Siosilvar

2012-04-20, 07:56 PM

Being a willing target is a subset of the targets. You can enter that set in two ways 1) be voluntarily entering it or 2) by being unconscious. If you are part of that set then you don't get a save against any spell.

If you are conscious then you get to make your choice whether to be part of the willing targets set whenever you want (and people can be assumed to default to being unwilling), if you are unconscious then you automatically become a willing target.

Willing is not something that only exists for specific spells, specific spells just restrict you to only willing targets.

The two sections don't reference each other. Willing might be something that only exists for specific spells if you look at the RAW. For other spells, it's "voluntarily forgo[ing] a saving throw". Does common sense tell us it's the same? Maybe, maybe not.

I'm going to go ahead and support 015: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped until further notice.

Darrin

2012-04-20, 08:03 PM

014 (TWF), if it's added that you don't take the TWF penalties unless you're actually using the TWF action.

I'm all for this, so long as we make it explicit in the combat rules that you can change between primary weapons on all your iterative attacks. Right now under Full Attack it says "you can strike with either weapon first", but doesn't specify that you can still switch on subsequent attacks.

010 (Mounted Charges) As currently written, it completely excludes Pounce, Headlong Rush, Furious Charge, and similar abilities from applying with a mounted charge, since the rider isn't treated as charging, only gaining the same bonus & penalties as the mount. I think you'd also have to rewrite Spirited Charge to fit, since the rider isn't taking a full-round action to charge any more. I do like the idea behind the change, though.

Actually, I would like to include Pounce/Headlong Rush/Furious Charge into mounted charges (I like letting melee have nice things), and in fact I'd like to get rid of the "single melee attack" on mounted charges altogether (can't the rider just delay his action until after his mount moves?) but I felt that wasn't the original intent behind the mounted combat rules. But we do need to specify what happens when the rider has Pounce and his mount is charging.

011 (More Charges) This clarifies Ride-by Attack, yes? I think it still has the issue of not actually working, since you can't move through an opponent and almost every legal charge would have you continuing through them.

You need to be able to charge past your target, yes... but oddly enough, while this requires the mount to charge, it can't actually get an attack if it continues to move away from the target.

Technically, the Rules Compendium allows you to jump over "obstacles", so you could try Jumping over your target to continue moving in a straight line, but that would look silly. Also, the Rules Compendium never defined what an "obstacle" was, so there's no indication if allies or opponents count as an "obstacle".

Emperor Tippy

2012-04-20, 08:16 PM

The two sections don't reference each other. Willing might be something that only exists for specific spells if you look at the RAW. For other spells, it's "voluntarily forgo[ing] a saving throw". Does common sense tell us it's the same? Maybe, maybe not.

I'm going to go ahead and support 015: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped until further notice.
No, Willing explicitly doesn't exist only for spells that say (willing only).

When you cast a spell it checks target and then decides what happens. Willing is the most restrictive of the various subsets in targets (everything but objects falls into the creature subset, for example; or everything that is undead falls into the undead subset, which is a part of the creatures subset. So a lich would fall into the Creature (Undead (Intelligent Undead)) set.

The bottom of the set is willing; you become part of that set in only 2 situations, if you choose it or if you are unconscious. Everything that is part of the willing subset gets no save.

Siosilvar

2012-04-20, 08:38 PM

No, Willing explicitly doesn't exist only for spells that say (willing only).

When you cast a spell it checks target and then decides what happens. Willing is the most restrictive of the various subsets in targets (everything but objects falls into the creature subset, for example; or everything that is undead falls into the undead subset, which is a part of the creatures subset. So a lich would fall into the Creature (Undead (Intelligent Undead)) set.

The bottom of the set is willing; you become part of that set in only 2 situations, if you choose it or if you are unconscious. Everything that is part of the willing subset gets no save.

"Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you’re flat-footed or it isn’t your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing."

Nothing in that states that a willing creature doesn't get a save. Forgoing your save is a different section of the text:

"A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality."

I'm not going to argue RAW any further, and "common sense" could swing either way, so how about we let this thread do what it was designed to do and crowdsource it?

georgie_leech

2012-04-20, 09:20 PM

Seems like the confusion is people looking at "willing" in different way. Strictly looking at syntax, why are "forego a saving throw and willingly (adverb) accept a spell results" and "a willing (adjective) creature" being treated as the same thing? The former implies an action, something a creature has to make a choice to do; how would an unconcious creature make this choice?

Emperor Tippy

2012-04-20, 09:43 PM

Because you (and most people) misunderstand how targeting works in D&D.

When you cast a spell it asks "Is this target X?" where X is whatever the spell is able to effect, say intelligent undead.

With willing only spells it asks "Is this target willing (unconscious or choosing to forgo their save)?" and if the answer is yes then the spell works

Will all other spells it asks, for example, "Is this target a creature?" If it get's a yes it then asks "Is this target immune to this spell, say [mind affecting]?" if it receives a no then it asks "Is this target willing?" if the answer is no then it gets a save.

A creature must be unwilling for a save to be rolled.

Namfuak

2012-04-20, 09:48 PM

The main problem with the unconscious willing target argument is that there is no real way to apply common sense to it, since we don't actually know how mind-affecting spells work (do they change something about the conscious brain, or the unconscious one? If the former, it wouldn't work on unconscious targets since their conscious brain is turned off; if the latter, it would still work since their brain is still functioning, albeit at a lower level). So, it may be better to just drop it for the purposes of this thread.

Also Tippy, by RAW (I agree with your reading, just not that it is RAI) it would effectively make coup-de-graces on unconscious targets succeed automatically as well, since they would be "willing" to forgo the fortitude save, which my common sense says is ridiculous.

Emperor Tippy

2012-04-20, 10:02 PM

Also Tippy, by RAW (I agree with your reading, just not that it is RAI) it would effectively make coup-de-graces on unconscious targets succeed automatically as well, since they would be "willing" to forgo the fortitude save, which my common sense says is ridiculous.
Nope, you can technically only forgo saves against spells and magical effects.

KillianHawkeye

2012-04-20, 10:07 PM

Considering that a helpless or paralyzed creature doesn't automatically fail a Reflex save, I don't think an unconscious person should automatically fail Will saves (or any other saving throw). From a game design perspective, it's not very fair to the player. Even magic items get to make saving throws.

Personally, I don't see strength of will being in any way related to being conscious or unconscious. I think saving throws are designed to not require conscious effort. You don't consciously dodge a fireball or resist a poison, you do those things automatically without having to think about them, so I don't see why you'd need to consciously resist an enchantment.

my 2cp

Darrin

2012-04-20, 10:55 PM

This has to be addressed, because it's never mentioned in any of the rules, FAQs, AskSage, Custservs, absolutely nowhere in print:

Rule 0??: If a natural weapon is occupied, such as wielding a manufactured weapon, holding an object, etc., then it can't make an attack as a natural weapon.

(As of now, the rules for natural weapons say they do not interfere with your iterative attacks in any way... which implies if your claw is holding a sword, you can attack with the sword and still get your claw attack.)

Rule 0??: There are two types of "slam" attacks. For creatures that have a humanoid shape or similar well-defined form, a "slam" attack is made with the arms or the nearest approximate appendages. Humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, and other humanoid-shaped creatures that are larger than medium-size may have two slam attacks, one for each arm. If one or both arms is occupied (wielding an weapon, holding an object, etc.), then the creature loses the appropriate slam attack. Humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, and other humanoid-shaped creatures that are medium-sized or smaller may have a single slam attack, but must have at least one unoccupied arm free to attack in order to use it. For creatures with no discernible anatomy or an amorphous form (oozes, some aberrations), they may have a single "body slam" attack which can be used without regard to any particular appendage, occupied or otherwise.

(This would prevent a Warforged from using its slam if both arms were occupied... does that make sense? Or should Warforged two-handers still get an "elbow/kick" attack?)

Keld Denar

2012-04-20, 11:54 PM

I think that your second reading was right. If a creature has arms, it makes slams with those arms. If you look at the stat blocks for any of the giants above hill, they all have slam attacks, but their full attack routines don't include their slams (unlike a marilith with her tail). A creature with pseudopods can't wield weapons, so they can't interfere with its slams. I think its established in the rules exactly as you described, just not explicitly stated.

erikun

2012-04-21, 12:18 AM

I find it rather amusing that you mention how hotly debated common sense is on the forums, then name the thread after common sense. :smalltongue: That said, it's a good thread, and seeing how many people vote for which is a good indication of how well everyone sees the rules.

Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes
Approved, it is a common-sense fix.

Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier
Approved, as metamagic reduction clearly seems to be intended to lower the costs of metamagic, not hand out "freebie" metamagic to spells.

Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels
[Edit] Neutral for the time being.

Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike
Neutral, as I am not familiar with the feat.

Rule 005: Dead is Dead
Approved, more common sense.

Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally
Approved, because it takes care of several problems, and the few exceptions aren't really affected much. If the wizard wants to punch the ogre in the nose, proficiency or non is one of the least influencial factors.

Rule 007: Wolves with Hooves
Approved, as not all mounts have hooves. "Appropriate natural weapon" works but is still up to interpretation, though.

Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage
Neutral, as I am not familiar enough with the feat to judge.

Rule 009: It's not armour, it's thick clothing Removed.
Padded armor isn't just jeans and a t-shirt; it is approximately as thick as a winter jacket. I can see what you were thinking, but a monk in padded armor would be restricted just like in leather armor.

I would, however, approve of this rule with Gnome Twist-Cloth and Gnome Battle Cloak (both Races of Stone). Both of these items are specifically stated to be as flexible as standard clothing, and so work for your intended purposes. I would even go so far as to say that the monk/ninja/related classes would gain proficiency in both exotic armors, as they are thematically appropriate for the Tibetan Monk-astetic promoted by the class.

Rule 010: Who's Charging, Anyways?
Neutral; I will have to think about this before deciding that mounted charging is limited to only a standard attack. Also, bizarre rules interpretations with pounce (either on mount or rider).

Rule 011: Who's Riding By, Anyways?
Approved. The wording seems awkward still, but the point gets across.

Rule 012: Anything can be Armor
Approved, as the Magical Vestments spell applying to clothing makes it clear that this isn't a problem.

Rule 013: Clarifying the Dragon Disciple Paradox
Approved for sanity's sake.

Rule 014: I'm Not Left Handed
Approved, this is technically the rules anyways. (You cannot attack off-hand when not TWF.)

--
And now, for the new recommendations:

Rule 0xx: My Weapon is My Shield!
Page 125 in the Player's Handbook: You can bash an opponent with a light shield or heavy shield, using it as a standard weapon or an off-hand weapon with two-weapon fighting.

Logic: To eliminate the question of why you cannot simply pick up a shield and hit someone in the face with it.

Rule 0xx: Animate Alignment Debate
Page 198 in the Player's Handbook (and elsewhere): Animate Dead and related spells do not automatically have the [Evil] descriptor. They are only [Evil] spells when creating evil undead.

Summon Undead and related spell do not automatically have the [Evil] descriptor. They are only [Evil] spells when summoning evil undead.

Logic: It kills most of the undead/alignment debates, and allows the spell to be more setting-specific. Please note that most undead created or summoned by the spells are evil by default, meaning the spells will end up being [Evil] by standard rules regardless.

Rule 0xx: Death Watches no Evil
Page 217 in the Player's Handbook: The Deathwatch spell does not have the [Evil] descriptor.

Logic: There is nothing evil about the spell, and it appears on at least one only-good spell list.

Rule 0xx: Positive Drawbacks to Undead
From here: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/planes.htm#positiveDominant) Fast healing granted by a Positive-Dominant plane lowers HP rather than increasing it for undead. The loss of HP may not be prevented or mitigated by any means.

Logic: Undead being the best capable of surviving in positive energy is just silly. Awkward wording, I know, but "taking damage" is so easy to prevent or become immune to.

Rule 0xx: Enchanting Enhanced Projectiles
For magical enhancements that produce benefits unrelated to attacking with the weapon, the bulk of the ammunition must be present to give the benefit.

Logic: This is to prevent characters from buying +5 defending shuriken for 1440g, or ten manifester arrows for an additional 50 PP.

Rule 0xx: Swordsaging in Leather or No
Page 16 in Tome of Battle: Starting at 2nd level, you can add your Wisdom modifier as a bonus to Armor Class, so long as you wear light armor or no armor, are unencumbered, and do not use a shield. This ability does not stack with the monk's AC bonus ability, or similar abilities.

Logic: There is no reason that the Swordsage would be unable to dodge just as well without light armor as with. The ability should not stack with a monk's ability, as well.

Malachei

2012-04-21, 01:52 AM

I think Tippy is purposefully taking a part out of the paragraph. The first sentence clearly says what the rule applies to: Spells that require willing targets.

I think it is so obvious that I am surprised.

Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you’re flat-footed or it isn’t your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.

This has nothing to do with forgoing a saving throw. This applies to the situation in which an unconscious creature is the target of a spell which requires a willing target.

A creature must be unwilling for a save to be rolled.

The rules do not say "unwilling", they say "willing". A creature is by default considered unwilling, not by default considered willing.

It is RAW.

I think it is only debated because then mindrape can easier be used for all kinds of fu.

Emperor Tippy

2012-04-21, 02:01 AM

I think Tippy is purposefully taking a part out of the paragraph. The first sentence clearly says what the rule applies to: Spells that require willing targets.

I think it is so obvious that I am surprised.

This has nothing to do with forgoing a saving throw. This applies to the situation in which an unconscious creature is the target of a spell which requires a willing target.
No, that paragraph says that if you are unconscious then you are automatically willing.
"Willing" is not a condition that applies only to spells that only work on willing targets. It's a condition that has nothing at all to do with the spell cast and everything to do with the creature; Does the creature want the spell to affect them? Then they are willing and the spell affects them without any save being needed, regardless of what the spell is. Is the creature unconscious? If so then they are automatically willing and the spell affects them without any save being needed.

The rules do not say "unwilling", they say "willing". A creature is by default considered unwilling, not by default considered willing.
Exactly the point. The condition "Unconscious" changes you to "willing".

It is RAW.
No, RAW is that any unconscious creature gets no save to resist any spell. It doesn't apply to anything else, only spells and magical effects.

I think it is only debated because then mindrape can easier be used for all kinds of fu.
Lot's of things can be used for all kinds of fun.

Don't get knocked unconscious and then abandoned, you could wake up a different person.

Thomasinx

2012-04-21, 02:19 AM

The rules do not say "unwilling", they say "willing". A creature is by default considered unwilling, not by default considered willing.

In this case, the next time you have a teammate who is unconscious, you cant dimension door away with them.

The next time you capture someone, you can't just capture them, you have to kill them before you can attempt to teleport away.

The next time you want to heal someone who is unconscious, they have to make a will save, because 'by default', they are unwilling.

Keep in mind that 'willing' and 'unwilling' apply to all spells, not just negative ones.

White_Drake

2012-04-21, 02:26 AM

Sorry if somebody has already said this (I've just started reading this thread and was too lazy to finish before posting this), but you may want to include a proviso for polymorph and such, because I think that while it's perfectly reasonable to allow anybody to throw a punch, it may not be reasonable for a polymorphed commoner to be able to use a dragon's bite just a well as a bona fide dragon could.

Malachei

2012-04-21, 02:42 AM

In this case, the next time you have a teammate who is unconscious, you cant dimension door away with them.

The next time you capture someone, you can't just capture them, you have to kill them before you can attempt to teleport away.

The next time you want to heal someone who is unconscious, they have to make a will save, because 'by default', they are unwilling.

Keep in mind that 'willing' and 'unwilling' apply to all spells, not just negative ones.

Not true, because dimension door and teleport affect willing creatures, and hence, the rule on willing targets applies. The save entry is for objects.

Also, harmless spells are an exception to the default saving throw rule, according to RAW:

(harmless)
The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.

So this is what the RAW say:

A creature is unwiling by default, because the rules say you can, as a free action out of turn, become willing
There are spells that affect willing creatures only, and in this case, an unconscious creature is considered willing
There are spells that are harmless, in which case the default is willing, but you can still shift to unwilling if you want

hamishspence

2012-04-21, 03:06 AM

How about the issue that any resistance to fire provides complete immunity to lava?

Maybe it would make more sense for that to be removed- if lava does ordinary fire damage, resistance should work as per ordinary fire.

Thomasinx

2012-04-21, 03:44 AM

Not true, because dimension door and teleport affect willing creatures, and hence, the rule on willing targets applies. The save entry is for objects.

Also, harmless spells are an exception to the default saving throw rule, according to RAW:

So this is what the RAW say:

A creature is unwiling by default, because the rules say you can, as a free action out of turn, become willing
There are spells that affect willing creatures only, and in this case, an unconscious creature is considered willing
There are spells that are harmless, in which case the default is willing, but you can still shift to unwilling if you want

You are arbitrarily complicating things.
You say that because you can, as a free action, become willing, that unwilling is default.
However, you can also, as a free action, become unwilling. (for beneficial spells). Shouldn't that mean that willing is default by your same logic?

It never, ever says that either willing or unwilling is 'default'. Ever. It merely says that its possible to choose unconventional choices for saving throws (ie intentional fail a throw for something negative, and intentionally roll a throw on something positive).

Your solution of some things starting off willing and others starting off unwilling just complicates things to no end. This becomes even more complicated when you start entering the realm of spells that aren't harmless in some situations, but are in others.

Such as teleport. (You can only teleport with willing players, but not an 'unwilling' object. Does this mean that you can teleport with an unconscious player, but not his equipment, since they get the save?)

What about slide? (Spell compendium) It has will save "Will negates", but no harmless or other. Does this mean you can't use slide to pull allies away from enemies when they're knocked unconscious? or can you not use it to separate unconscious enemies from their comrades?

Too many 'beneficial' spells are not listed as 'harmless' to assume that unwilling is the default. Good luck telling some players next time they want to save their unconscious ally that they need to beat his will save.

Ashtagon

2012-04-21, 04:18 AM

QUOTE=erikun

And now, for the new recommendations:

Rule 0xx: My Weapon is My Shield!
Page 125 in the Player's Handbook: You can bash an opponent with a light shield or heavy shield, using it as a standard weapon or an off-hand weapon with two-weapon fighting.

Logic: To eliminate the question of why you cannot simply pick up a shield and hit someone in the face with it.

:smallconfused: I'm not sure what you are saying here.

Rule 0xx: Animate Alignment Debate
Page 198 in the Player's Handbook (and elsewhere): Animate Dead and related spells do not automatically have the [Evil] descriptor. They are only [Evil] spells when creating evil undead.

Summon Undead and related spell do not automatically have the [Evil] descriptor. They are only [Evil] spells when summoning evil undead.

Logic: It kills most of the undead/alignment debates, and allows the spell to be more setting-specific. Please note that most undead created or summoned by the spells are evil by default, meaning the spells will end up being [Evil] by standard rules regardless.

:smallmad: Disagree. While this is probably a sensible move, it seems to me to be a house rule rather than a clarification.

Rule 0xx: Death Watches no Evil
Page 217 in the Player's Handbook: The Deathwatch spell does not have the [Evil] descriptor.

Logic: There is nothing evil about the spell, and it appears on at least one only-good spell list.

:smallsmile: Agree

Rule 0xx: Positive Drawbacks to Undead
From here: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/planes.htm#positiveDominant) Fast healing granted by a Positive-Dominant plane lowers HP rather than increasing it for undead. The loss of HP may not be prevented or mitigated by any means.

Logic: Undead being the best capable of surviving in positive energy is just silly. Awkward wording, I know, but "taking damage" is so easy to prevent or become immune to.

:smallsmile: Agree

Rule 0xx: Enchanting Enhanced Projectiles
For magical enhancements that produce benefits unrelated to attacking with the weapon, the bulk of the ammunition must be present to give the benefit.

Logic: This is to prevent characters from buying +5 defending shuriken for 1440g, or ten manifester arrows for an additional 50 PP.

:smallconfused: It would actually make more sense to ban such enhancements from ammunition, otherwise, you open yourself to cheesy players having a dozen quivers in their packs full of half-used batches of magical arrows.

Rule 0xx: Swordsaging in Leather or No
Page 16 in Tome of Battle: Starting at 2nd level, you can add your Wisdom modifier as a bonus to Armor Class, so long as you wear light armor or no armor, are unencumbered, and do not use a shield. This ability does not stack with the monk's AC bonus ability, or similar abilities.

Logic: There is no reason that the Swordsage would be unable to dodge just as well without light armor as with. The ability should not stack with a monk's ability, as well.

:smallsmile: Agree

Ashtagon

2012-04-21, 04:30 AM

TypoNinja

2012-04-21, 06:43 AM

You are arbitrarily complicating things.
You say that because you can, as a free action, become willing, that unwilling is default.
However, you can also, as a free action, become unwilling. (for beneficial spells). Shouldn't that mean that willing is default by your same logic?

It never, ever says that either willing or unwilling is 'default'. Ever. It merely says that its possible to choose unconventional choices for saving throws (ie intentional fail a throw for something negative, and intentionally roll a throw on something positive).

Your solution of some things starting off willing and others starting off unwilling just complicates things to no end. This becomes even more complicated when you start entering the realm of spells that aren't harmless in some situations, but are in others.

No, you approach a rule system with a standard. Look at the way M:TG rules are built. Lots of default states, and then certain conditions apply exceptions.

You automatically resist hostile influences on your mind, because why the hell wouldn't you? It's my brain I'll decide how it works. Just like your heart beat keeping the status quo (No outside tampering) is a reflexive action that requires no effort on your part. Unless the rules for a specific exception change that.

On the other hand, harmless spells are pretty much all spells you want to work when cast on you, and to avoid a will save every time the cleric heals you they don't get a save. Unless you want to resist. New default state, so the exception to the rule is what is spelled out and what is different.

Its not needlessly complicated its pretty straight forward.
Default for bad spells = resist.
Default for good spells = allow.

Rules list exceptions as applied to each class of spell.

Such as teleport. (You can only teleport with willing players, but not an 'unwilling' object. Does this mean that you can teleport with an unconscious player, but not his equipment, since they get the save?)

There is no issue with teleport. Carried gear goes with the player, unattended objects get no save, attended objects get a save as per the person holding them as usual if they wish to resist.

What about slide? (Spell compendium) It has will save "Will negates", but no harmless or other. Does this mean you can't use slide to pull allies away from enemies when they're knocked unconscious? or can you not use it to separate unconscious enemies from their comrades?

Too many 'beneficial' spells are not listed as 'harmless' to assume that unwilling is the default. Good luck telling some players next time they want to save their unconscious ally that they need to beat his will save.

And this is completely not a problem because you can voluntarily give up your saving throw. You are inventing a rules problem where none exists.

Ashtagon

2012-04-21, 06:52 AM

And this is completely not a problem because you can voluntarily give up your saving throw. You are inventing a rules problem where none exists.

We are trying to establish common sense interpretations and corrections (without houseruling). Saying you can voluntarily do anything while unconscious - even choosing whether to roll or to automatically fail a saving throw - defies common sense.

Its not needlessly complicated its pretty straight forward.
Default for bad spells = resist.
Default for good spells = allow.

In the case of the dimension door airlift, who decides if it is a good or a bad spell? If a PC caster casts it, it's good, and bad if an NPC caster does it? How does the unconscious character know? Suppose the dimension dooring PC caster unwittingly rescued him from the frying pan into the fire -- can the unconscious PC ask to have his save back? What if the PC caster is charmed and taking him into greater danger? What if an NPC caster is charmed to rescue the unconscious PC?

There's simply too many variables that an unconscious PC could not logically be aware of. Any ruling on whether a save is allowed has to be something very objectively quantifiable.

TypoNinja

2012-04-21, 06:53 AM

We are trying to establish common sense interpretations and corrections (without houseruling). Saying you can voluntarily do anything while unconscious - even choosing whether to roll or to automatically fail a saving throw - defies common sense.

Your brain doesn't turn off when you get a little percussive maintenance enforced nap time imposed upon you, yea you aren't awake anymore but you aren't brain dead either.

Just like we have various states of physical vulnerability (flat footed, bound, paralyzed, helpless, ect) I think we should have various states of mental vulnerability as well. Plenty of people sleep walk after all, which requires a decent amount of coordination.

If we can pull that off while out cold we should be able to resist an outside compulsion. Or recognize an ally helping us and not resist.

Ashtagon

2012-04-21, 06:58 AM

Your brain doesn't turn off when you get a little percussive maintenance enforced nap time imposed upon you, yea you aren't awake anymore but you aren't brain dead either.

Just like we have various states of physical vulnerability (flat footed, bound, paralyzed, helpless, ect) I think we should have various states of mental vulnerability as well. Plenty of people sleep walk after all, which requires a decent amount of coordination.

If we can pull that off while out cold we should be able to resist an outside compulsion. Or recognize an ally helping us and not resist.

A key point of the definition of "unconscious" is "not aware of your surroundings". For the lesser states to mention, there's is "dazed" or "stunned", both defined in game terms.

TypoNinja

2012-04-21, 07:05 AM

A key point of the definition of "unconscious" is "not aware of your surroundings". For the lesser states to mention, there's is "dazed" or "stunned", both defined in game terms.

Expect you are aware of your surroundings while unconscious. Outside stimulus affects dreams all the time. Even Coma patients notice.

On the subject of dreams, lucid dreaming is possible. Conscious direction of your unconscious mind.

Emperor Tippy

2012-04-21, 07:07 AM

Unconscious is a defined condition, it is specifically different from sleeping, helpless, paralyzed, etc. and it says right there in the rules that an unconscious creature is always willing.

They can't choose to be unwilling.

Ashtagon

2012-04-21, 07:11 AM

Expect you are away of your surroundings while unconscious. Outside stimulus affects dreams all the time. Even Coma patients notice.

On the subject of dreams, lucid dreaming is possible. Conscious direction of your unconscious mind.

I still want to know, how does your unconscious PC tell the difference between these situations? In brackets I have written what I believe your rule would require.

* PC caster casts dimension door rescue (no save)
* NPC caster casts dimension door to capture (save)
* PC caster casts dimension door, inadvertently taking 'rescued' PC into more danger (no save)
* NPC caster casts dimension door to 'capture', not knowing his HQ has already been overrun by PC-friendly forces (save)
* Charmed PC caster casts dimension door to take unconscious PC to monster lair (no save).
* Charmed NPC caster casts dimension door to take unconscious PC to the party's HQ (save).

My personal approach (no save if unconscious, except for mind-affecting spells) would allow no save in each of these cases.

Pigkappa

2012-04-21, 07:26 AM

My vote:

Rule 001: yes
Rule 002: yes
Rule 003: no. In most cases limiting the progression would make sense, buy there may be exception. It's best to handle this on a case-by-case basis.
Rule 004: I can't vote because I don't know the wording of the rule written in ToB.
Rule 005: yes.
Rule 006: yes.
Rule 007: I can't vote because I'm not comfortable enough with Trample rules to understand what this would mean balance-wise.
Rule 008: no.
Rule 010: yes.
Rule 011: yes.
Rule 012: no. "Ordinary clothing" isn't enough, since "ordinary armor" isn't enough either (needs to be Masterwork). There could be ways to make high valued clothings which are enchantable, though.
Rule 013: yes. I don't know what the problem is but the rule sounds reasonable...
Rule 014: I can't vote since I don't know what the problem with the offhand is. However, guys, I am right handed in real life and i grant you that I can't punch you effectively with my left hand even if the right one is empty...

New rule:
Rule ??: when Swimming in an armor, you suffer twice the armor's penalty even if you are proficient with the armor.

Jeff the Green

2012-04-21, 07:26 AM

Huh. I only just saw this. Here's my votes

Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes Yay.
Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier Nay.
Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels Nay.
Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike Yay.
Rule 005: Dead is Dead Nay.

A dead character is rendered unplayable until returned to life or retired from the game. Such a character can take no actions (including free actions).
Emphasis added. As written, it would preclude liches, ghosts, necropolitans, Risen Martyrs, etc. It would be better if it were just the second sentence. It might also be wise to add something like "A dead creature is completely unaware of its surroundings," since reactive Spot and Listen checks aren't actions.
Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally Yay.
Rule 007: Wolves with Hooves Nay.
Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage Nay.
Rule 010: Who's Charging, Anyways? Nay.
As pointed out, this wreaks havoc with pounce.
Rule 011: Who's Riding By, Anyways? Nay.
Rule 012: Anything can be Armor Yay.
Rule 013: Clarifying the Dragon Disciple Paradox Yay.
Rule 014: I'm Not Left Handed Yay.
Rule 0xx: My Weapon is My Shield! Yay.
Rule 0xx: Animate Alignment Debate Nay.
While I think this is a reasonable house rule, it's still a house rule.
Rule 0xx: Death Watches no Evil Yay.
Rule 0xx: Positive Drawbacks to Undead Nay.
A perfectly reasonable house rule, but still a house rule.
Rule 0xx: Enchanting Enhanced Projectiles Nay.
Rule 0xx: Swordsaging in Leather or No Yay.

Ashtagon

2012-04-21, 07:34 AM

My vote:
New rule:
Rule ??: when Swimming in an armor, you suffer twice the armor's penalty even if you are proficient with the armor.

:smallsmile: Agree

The SRD for Swim skill says double normal armour check penalties apply, making this RAW for that paragraph.

The d20SRD for armour says:

Armor Check Penalty
Any armor heavier than leather hurts a character’s ability to use some skills. An armor check penalty number is the penalty that applies to Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Hide, Jump, Move Silently, Sleight of Hand, and Tumble checks by a character wearing a certain kind of armor. Double the normal armor check penalty is applied to Swim checks. A character’s encumbrance (the amount of gear carried, including armor) may also apply an armor check penalty.

(emphasis mine). Again, this is RAW.

The d20 SRD for Armour Proficiency says:

Benefit
When you wear a type of armor with which you are proficient, the armor check penalty for that armor applies only to Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Hide, Jump, Move Silently, Sleight of Hand, and Tumble checks.

Swim is notably absent from this list in the feat description, which would imply that Swim is not subject to any skill check penalty if you are proficient with the armour (and applies the base skill check penalty for that armour type if not proficient in the armour).

Darrin

2012-04-21, 08:49 AM

Rule 010: Who's Charging, Anyways? Nay.

As pointed out, this wreaks havoc with pounce.

How exactly are the current mounted combat rules + pounce not screwed up to begin with?

I'm not sure that a barbarian that can pounce on foot should also be able to do so from horseback. How exactly do most of you handle a Spirit Lion Totem barbarian who wants to pounce while mounted?

(Under the existing rules, I can't figure out if it's allowed or not... mostly because the rules aren't entirely clear who is actually spending the full-round action to charge.)

mattie_p

2012-04-21, 09:03 AM

This seems like a likely question to ask here, as there is a debate on the particulars of the exact RAW, both in the thread and the Incarnum Handbook:

Do the "Open [X] Chakra" feats from Magic of Incarnum give you an additional Chakra Bind in addition to opening up that Chakra slot?

Example: Say I'm a Big Stupid Fighter with no Meldshaper levels and I take Shape Soulmeld (Necrocarnum Blade) then Open Least Chakra (Hands).

Can this character Bind his Necrocarnum Blade to his now opened Hands Chakra even though he technically has no Chakra Binds available?

I answered in the negative:

I have scoured MoI to attempt to answer this question for you. There are numerous interactions that take place here. For Example:

The feat Shape Soulmeld states "... If you have the ability to bind a soulmeld to a chakra, you can bind this soulmeld to any chakra available to you."

The feat Open Least Chakra states "When this feat is selected, choose one of the following chakras... You can now bind a soulmeld or a magic item to that chakra."

So you can bind a soulmeld to that chakra, but this counts against your number of available chakra binds. I cannot find any feat, spell, power, or other means to get even one available chakra bind other than as a class feature.

The specific chakras and the number of chakra binds available to the meldshaper depends on his level.

Beginning at x level, you can bind your soulmelds to your chakras... The number of chakra binds you can have active at any one time depends on your level (see table for class).

While this fighter has the ability to shape a soulmeld, and the ability to bind that soulmeld to his hands chakra, the maximum number of chakra binds he can have active at any one time is still 0, therefore the ability cannot be used. He could, if he has any available essentia, still invest essentia into this soulmeld and have it occupy his hands, but he could not bind it to his hands chakra.

There was a dissenting opinion, which I can understand:

The line "You can now bind a soulmeld..." in Open Least Chakra certainly looks to me like it's saying that you gain the ability to bind a soulmeld. And then we get the Shape Soulmeld line "if you have the ability to bind a soulmeld to a chakra...", which should now apply. So by the reading of the feats, it certainly looks like a character with those two feats but no incarnum class can bind their soulmeld to their chakra.

What is the opinion of the thread? I will vote on the other topics later, probably tomorrow, after reviewing the opinions, but I wanted to get this in now.

For what its worth, my vote on this question is that the "Open X Chakra" feat does not grant an additional chakra bind at that location, you can only utilize this feat if you can already form chakra binds.

Proposed rule: "Open X Chakra. (Feat/Spell/Power) When this feat is selected choose an appropriate chakra based on X. You can now bind a soulmeld or magic item to that chakra if you already have the ability to bind soulmelds to your chakras as a class feature.

TypoNinja

2012-04-21, 10:15 AM

I still want to know, how does your unconscious PC tell the difference between these situations? In brackets I have written what I believe your rule would require.

* PC caster casts dimension door rescue (no save)
* NPC caster casts dimension door to capture (save)
* PC caster casts dimension door, inadvertently taking 'rescued' PC into more danger (no save)
* NPC caster casts dimension door to 'capture', not knowing his HQ has already been overrun by PC-friendly forces (save)
* Charmed PC caster casts dimension door to take unconscious PC to monster lair (no save).
* Charmed NPC caster casts dimension door to take unconscious PC to the party's HQ (save).

My personal approach (no save if unconscious, except for mind-affecting spells) would allow no save in each of these cases.

Flavour it out however you like, the downed PC is familiar with how his allies magic feels. Magic cast with hostile intent always feels different than magic cast with good intentions. One of the things the PC's practice in all that down time we gloss over when they never use the bathroom includes attuning everybody to their allies powers so that they reflexively accept allied magic and reflexive reject hostile magic, seems like something an adventurer would invest time in.

How is not the point, its a rules system not a physics class. You are falling into the same trap a lot of people do looking for reasons beyond "This is how the game functions". Realism is usually the first casualty upon the almighty alter of fun and its little brother useability.

At the basis of this rule is something I consider to be the cardinal sin of gaming. Taking control of of the PC away from the Player. This should never be done lightly. You aren't talking about a penalty to a save, or un favorable conditions, you are straight up saying no save. You as the DM tells the player something happens that they have no say or reaction to. A will save still keeps them involved, taking it away turns them into a spectator.

Worse, the circumstances this can come up in are far more likely to be the PC's on the receiving end. Its like level loss, the PC's typically don't care if they inflict it, what they fight lives less than 30 seconds on average anyway. but to a PC level loss is a serious threat.

This to me says "bad rule".

lesser_minion

2012-04-21, 10:19 AM

Well, let's see:

1 -- Drowning for Health Purposes. Agreed.

2 -- My Thesis: More Complex is Easier. Agreed.

This game is only getting any support if we support it -- I have no complaints against making what may be viewed as outright changes if we can agree that there's a clear need for them.

3 -- Bonus Legacy Class Levels. Agreed. See (2)

4 -- Superior Unarmed Strike. Agreed.

5 -- Dead is Dead. I'd suggest different wording:

While dead, a character is not normally playable. If a corpse remains, it is considered a separate entity to the character herself, except for the purposes of spells and effects that explicitly operate on dead creatures.

The character's soul -- and the character herself -- are elsewhere. Where the character is, how much of her own identity she retains, and what capabilities she has are all setting-dependent, and as such, are determined by the DM.

Since D&D assumes that characters have souls, it actually does make more sense for them to be considered "not present", rather than completely denied all actions.

6 -- Using What Comes Naturally. Agreed.

7 -- Wolves with Hooves. Agreed.

8 -- Dragonblood and Heritage. Abstained.

10 -- Who's Charging, Anyways?. Agreed. We can consider the full-attack issue separately. In particular, the 5ft restriction isn't new and has always been in the rules.

11 -- Who's Riding By, Anyways?. Agreed.

12 -- Anything Can Be Armour. Agreed. See (2)

13 -- Clarifying the Dragon Disciple Paradox. Agreed in principle, but should also explain how you can be disqualified from a prestige class, including a provision that you can re-qualify as soon as you meet the prerequisites again.

14 -- I'm Not Left Handed. Agreed.

15 -- Unconscious does not Mean Mindraped. Agreed.

The phrasing "considered willing" implies right off the bat that they aren't willing -- they are merely "considered willing [for a particular purpose]". Going from there to "considered willing for the purposes of these spells" strikes me as being entirely reasonable.

Amphetryon

2012-04-21, 10:39 AM

Rule 0xx: My Weapon is My Shield!
Page 125 in the Player's Handbook: You can bash an opponent with a light shield or heavy shield, using it as a standard weapon or an off-hand weapon with two-weapon fighting.

Logic: To eliminate the question of why you cannot simply pick up a shield and hit someone in the face with it.

I'm not sure what you are saying here.By RAW default, a shield bash is ALWAYS an off-hand attack; it's never stated as anything BUT an off-hand attack in the rules. RAW makes Captain America builds extremely awkward.

I approve the change, by the way.

Talakeal

2012-04-21, 10:42 AM

Flavour it out however you like, the downed PC is familiar with how his allies magic feels. Magic cast with hostile intent always feels different than magic cast with good intentions. One of the things the PC's practice in all that down time we gloss over when they never use the bathroom includes attuning everybody to their allies powers so that they reflexively accept allied magic and reflexive reject hostile magic, seems like something an adventurer would invest time in.

How is not the point, its a rules system not a physics class. You are falling into the same trap a lot of people do looking for reasons beyond "This is how the game functions". Realism is usually the first casualty upon the almighty alter of fun and its little brother useability.

At the basis of this rule is something I consider to be the cardinal sin of gaming. Taking control of of the PC away from the Player. This should never be done lightly. You aren't talking about a penalty to a save, or un favorable conditions, you are straight up saying no save. You as the DM tells the player something happens that they have no say or reaction to. A will save still keeps them involved, taking it away turns them into a spectator.

Worse, the circumstances this can come up in are far more likely to be the PC's on the receiving end. Its like level loss, the PC's typically don't care if they inflict it, what they fight lives less than 30 seconds on average anyway. but to a PC level loss is a serious threat.

This to me says "bad rule".

In my game I solve this problem as follows:

Attempting to resist magic is the norm, and characters will do so even if unconscious or unaware of the spell being cast.
Characters may consciously lower their resistance against a spell they are aware of and want to allow.
Players can perform a ritual of trust which allows the participants to cast spells upon them without resistance, which lasts forever unless the bond is broken. If the character is aware of the spell and consciously resisting it they may save as normal.

Implementing something similar in D&D would, I think, fall under house rules and outside the bounds of this thread. But still, having someone fail every will save under the sun because they fall unconscious for a second is a bit dumb, as has been states even sleeping characters, objects, and mindless creatures get a save.

lesser_minion

2012-04-21, 11:22 AM

I've numbered Siosilvar's proposals, but not the thing on chakra binds or the query about natural weapons.

16 -- On Tower Shields. Disagree, although they do need work. The intent, as far as I'm aware, is that the total cover is mutual: you "give up your attacks" because you're denied LoE.

17 -- Non-Floating Armour. Agree.

In answer to Siosilvar's proposals:

18 (S1) -- On Feats. Agree.

19 (S2) -- On Multiclassing. Agreed. As far as I'm aware, this was a genuine screw-up.

20 (S3) -- Temporary Qualifications. Agreed. This seems acceptable to me.

21 (S4) Abstained.

22 (S5b) -- On Aptitude. The second version seems reasonable.

In answer to hamishspence:

23 -- On Lava and Immunities. Agree. I imagine the wording should be:

A resistance or immunity to fire is also effective against damage dealt by lava or magma.

In answer to Erikun's proposals:

24 -- My Weapon Is My Shield: Agreed.

25 -- Animate Alignment Debate: Agreed. An outright house rule, but again, I'm still willing to rubber-stamp it.

26 -- Death Watches No Evil: Agreed.

27 -- Positive Drawbacks to Undead: Agreed.

28 -- Enchanting Enhanced Projectiles: Disagreed. I agree with the need for a fix, but I prefer Ashtagon's solution of simply banning ammunition from having those enhancements.

29 -- Swordsaging in Leather or No: Agreed.

erikun

2012-04-21, 12:23 PM

lesser_minion

2012-04-21, 01:30 PM

I've taken the thread to not only makes rules clarifications, but also clean up some rules awkwardness. Hence, the Animate Alignment Debate proposal - there's technically nothing in core that causes a problem, but if you change something with homebrew, you end up in the strange situation where it is evil to create a good-aligned creature with no drawback. That's pretty much the definition of awkward mechanics interaction.

As far as I can tell, this is mainly about resolving obvious rules bugs and providing fair judgements for ambiguous rules, but I don't think it's reasonable to down vote something on the basis that it seems like a house rule, as long as it isn't high-impact.

More issues for consideration:

30 -- Nobody Notices the Guy with the Tower Shield

To be added to the description of the hide skill:

For the purposes of the Hide skill, a character may not claim cover from an object she wishes to hide, nor may she claim cover from an object that is invisible or transparent to those from whom she wishes to hide.

This patches a rules oversight: the hide skill requires cover or concealment before it can be used, but accepts cover that it really shouldn't. If you have a tower shield, you can use it to grant cover and then use that cover to hide -- which also hides the shield. RAW also allows you to hide behind things that don't impede vision, such as invisible creatures and force constructs.

31 -- Full Attack and Attacks of Opportunity:

To be added to the description of the full attack action:

If you make ranged or unarmed attacks as part of a full attack, you provoke an attack of opportunity as explained under the rules for the Attack standard action. However, a full attack never provokes more than one attack of opportunity from a given opponent, no matter how many ranged or unarmed attacks you make.

This comes up every time we get a thread about bizarro RAW: the argument is that full attacks with ranged weapons or unarmed strikes never provoke attacks of opportunity by RAW.

One RAW reading that I find reasonable (in "makes sense" terms) is that only the first attack counts -- the full attack action itself doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, but you don't determine that you're making a full attack as opposed to a standard action attack until after the first attack is resolved. I changed this to never provoking more than once per full attack, since it's less prone to quirks if the character mixes ranged and melee attacks.

Godskook

2012-04-21, 04:16 PM

I may be missing your intent on what this is, but I've posted my reactiosn below, and I think I found 1 rule that I'd put in RACSD instead of RAI, RAW, or houserules.

Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes (currently approved at 11/0; 100%: Andorax, Djinn in Tonic, GoodbyeSoberDay, Doug Lampert, JoeYounger, Ashtagon, Talya, docnessuno, Lapak, Lonely Tylenol, Dandria for)

This is RAI, not RACSD, imho. If you're dead-set on the overlap, I agree, this needs to be a clarification to the original RAW.

Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier (currently disapprovedat 7/3; 70%: Andorax, Doug Lampert, Ashtagon, Talya, docnessuno, Lapak, Lonely Tylenol for, GoodbyeSoberDay, JoeYounger, Dandria against)

This is not RACSD, cause it isn't 'common sense' at all. This is straight houserule/homebrew, and a version contrary to how I'd personally handle it.

The rule itself works(and I'd play in a game using it just fine), but its not RACSD.

Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels (currently disapproved at 7/3; 70%: Andorax, tuggyne, Doug Lampert, JoeYounger, Ashtagon, docnessuno, Dandria for, GoodbyeSoberDay, JadePhoenix, Lonely Tylenol against)

Again, RAI, imho.

Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike (currently approved at 10/1;91%: Andorax, Sgt. Cookie, GoodbyeSoberDay, tuggyne, Doug Lampert, JoeYounger, Ashtagon, Talya, Lapak, Dandria for, docnessuno against)

Agree, definitely a RACSD ruling.

Rule 005: Dead is Dead (currently approved at 12/0; 100%: Djinn in Tonic, Andorax, GoodbyeSoberDay, tuggyne, Doug Lampert, JoeYounger, Ashtagon, Talya, docnessuno, Lapak, Lonely Tylenol, Dandria for)

This one's RAI again.

Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally (currently approved at 10/0; 100%: tuggyne, KillianHawkeye, Andorax, Doug Lampert, JoeYounger, Ashtagon, Talya, docnessuno, Lonely Tylenol, Dandria for)

1.This one unintentionally gives some monsters(like elementals who had natural weapons, but not unarmed strike) extra attacks they didn't have before. That needs to be fixed.

2.Again, I'd argue this isn't RACSD but rather RAI already.

Rule 007: Wolves with Hooves (currently disapproved at 7/2; 77%: Menteith, Andorax, Doug Lampert, JoeYounger, Talya, docnessuno, Dandria for, Ashtagon, Lonely Tylenol against)

This has nothing to do with rules and everything to do with fluff.

Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage (currently disapproved at 3/4; 43%: Sgt. Cookie, Talya, docnessuno for, Andorax, JadePhoenix, Ashtagon, Dandria against)

Pretty sure this one is just houserule.

Rule 010: Who's Charging, Anyways? (currently approved at 2/0; 100%: Darrin, Andorax for)

Rule 011: Who's Riding By, Anyways? (currently approved at 2/0; 100%: Darrin, Andorax for)

I think this is houserule/homebrew, not RACSD.

Rule 012: Anything can be Armor (currently disapproved at 2/1; 67%: Ashtagon, Lapak for, Dandria against)

RAW

Rule 013: Clarifying the Dragon Disciple Paradox (currently approved at 3/0; 100%: Telonius, Andorax, Dandria for)

There's debate about this one, but I argue that this is RAW(via primary source rules) for pretty much every class out there(that rule only applies to the books its written in). Its also RAI.

Rule 014: I'm Not Left Handed (currently approved at 2/0; 100%: Keld Denar, Talya for)

Unnecessary. Anytime this might come up with a particular game, the DM is going to rule against this RACSD(if he was going to rule for it, it wouldn't have come up).

TuggyNE

2012-04-21, 07:18 PM

002: Hmm, a bit dubious. I think nearly everyone would agree that adding Invisible Spell to an Arcane Thesis'd Fireball should not give you a level 2 Fireball. However, not everyone would agree that Empower Spell + Invisible Spell should equal Empower Spell.

... I must have been tired when I wrote this. What I meant to say was more like, "not everyone would agree that an Empowered Invisible Fireball with Arcane Thesis should have the same level as an Empowered Fireball with Arcane Thesis."

Others' comments about this being more of a houserule than a dictate of common sense also seem accurate. So, in its current form, I disagree.

Updated 4/20/12

Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes

Note that I approve of this change.

Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels

I think I'll have to change to abstaining from this for now; I'm not confident that the proposal handles all cases appropriately, and I think it needs a bit more work before it's ready.

Rule 007: Wolves with Hooves

Revised wording for the Trample feat (PHB p. 102). When you attempt to overrun an opponent while mounted, your target may not choose to avoid you. Your mount may make one attack with an appropriate natural weapon (hoof, claw, or other leg-based attack) against any target you knock down, gaining the standard +4 bonus on attack rolls against prone targets.

This seems reasonable, although correcting the title to leave out wolves might be good. :smallwink: Agreed, for now.

Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage

Since I don't have access to the original source, I'll have to abstain.

Rule 010: Who's Charging, Anyways?

This needs more work to properly handle various corner cases; as such, I'll have to disagree for now, although the general idea seems desirable.

Rule 011: Who's Riding By, Anyways?

This seems similarly problematic at the moment, so disagree until further corrections are made.

Rule 012: Anything can be Armor

I actually don't see this as common sense, or desirable, although I was reminded that there seems to be a rule somewhere (MIC?) that means this is actually RAW already. Either way I would disagree, although that obviously means little against RAW :smalltongue: (aside from simply houseruling it away).

Rule 013: Clarifying the Dragon Disciple Paradox

Entirely desirable and well-worded; agreed.

Rule 014: I'm Not Left Handed

This is arguably* RAW as is, but the clarification is desirable. Agreed.

*By which I mean, I have seen multiple-page threads arguing this question without coming to unanimity. The consensus was still fairly clear, though.

Rule 15: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped

...

Clarification: An unconscious creature is not hindered from making a Will save. In the case of harmless effects, or in the case of spells that affect willing targets only, the creature is considered willing.

Agreed; this is the most consistent, player-friendly, and logical means of handling the various situations, as far as I can tell.

S1 Unless otherwise specified (like for Divine feats), a feat is an [Ex]traordinary ability. (I haven't looked at the ruleset in-depth to figure out exactly what this interacts with yet.)

I'm pretty sure this really needs an in-depth study before inclusion, so abstain for now. (I'm not sure I have enough sources available to do that myself, sadly.)

S2 Experience penalties for multiclassing do not apply to prestige classes (IIRC, this rule was accidentally dropped in the transition from 3.0 to 3.5).

That's what I've heard as well, and agreed. (Removing or entirely reworking multiclassing XP penalties would be highly desirable, but is outside the scope of the thread.)[/quote]

S3 If you have the ability to meet a prerequisite or requirement through temporary means, you may take a feat or class or use an ability with such a requirement. When you do not meet the requirements, you may not use the ability and are not treated as possessing the feat or class abilities of the class.

As far as I know, this is already essentially RAW, but clarifying it isn't a bad idea. Agreed.

S4 The Exotic Weapon Master (CWar)'s Exotic Reach ability, if taken for a whip, allows you to make attacks of opportunity with it. You threaten an area out to the range you could make an attack with the whip (normally 15 feet).

Uncertain due to unfamiliarity with source, although this seems reasonable enough; abstain for now, though.

S5a The Aptitude ability (ToB) allows the user to use the enhanced weapon with any feat that applies to only a single type of weapon, chosen or preset, like Weapon Focus or Lightning Maces. (This one is supported by the actual text of Aptitude, but leads to some system abuse, especially with the aforementioned Lightning Maces.)
S5b The Aptitude ability (ToB) allows the user to use the enhanced weapon with any feat that applies to only a single chosen type of weapon, like Weapon Focus or Improved Critical. (This one closes some ridiculous exploits, but RAW-wise it relies on inferring a distinction not made by the text of the ability.)

I suspect the second alternative is the better one for this thread, but I can't be sure; abstain with tendencies toward agreement with S5b.

Rule 16 Tower Shields: How the #&%@ do they work?

Suggested Fix
At the start of their turn, a creature using a Tower Shield decides whether to use the Total Cover version of their shield, or whether to use it for a shield bonus. This is a free action. Tower Shields being used to provide Total Cover provide cover in all directions. You cannot make any Attacks*, as defined by the Glossery, while using a Tower Shield to gain cover. Actions which do not provide an attack roll are not attacks, and may be used while a tower shield is providing cover.

*Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent. The outcome of an attack is determined by an attack roll.

It might be desirable to include a reference to the facing variant rules in UA, since a lot of DMs and players unconsciously try to bring them in when tower shields are used. Other than that, agreed.

Non-Floating Armour: Armour check penalties should apply to Swim checks.

This is essentially an editing fix (or perhaps a problem with the SRD?), so agreed.

Rule 0??: If a natural weapon is occupied, such as wielding a manufactured weapon, holding an object, etc., then it can't make an attack as a natural weapon.

(As of now, the rules for natural weapons say they do not interfere with your iterative attacks in any way... which implies if your claw is holding a sword, you can attack with the sword and still get your claw attack.)

Rule 0??: There are two types of "slam" attacks. For creatures that have a humanoid shape or similar well-defined form, a "slam" attack is made with the arms or the nearest approximate appendages. Humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, and other humanoid-shaped creatures that are larger than medium-size may have two slam attacks, one for each arm. If one or both arms is occupied (wielding an weapon, holding an object, etc.), then the creature loses the appropriate slam attack. Humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, and other humanoid-shaped creatures that are medium-sized or smaller may have a single slam attack, but must have at least one unoccupied arm free to attack in order to use it. For creatures with no discernible anatomy or an amorphous form (oozes, some aberrations), they may have a single "body slam" attack which can be used without regard to any particular appendage, occupied or otherwise.

(This would prevent a Warforged from using its slam if both arms were occupied... does that make sense? Or should Warforged two-handers still get an "elbow/kick" attack?)

I think this may be veering off into houserules territory; in any case, I'm not totally confident this handles all cases well enough just yet. Disagreed, for now, pending some further discussion.

Rule 0xx: My Weapon is My Shield!
Page 125 in the Player's Handbook: You can bash an opponent with a light shield or heavy shield, using it as a standard weapon or an off-hand weapon with two-weapon fighting.

This might be more sensibly put under Improved Shield Bash or similar, no? Abstain for now, I think.

Rule 0xx: Animate Alignment Debate
Page 198 in the Player's Handbook (and elsewhere): Animate Dead and related spells do not automatically have the [Evil] descriptor. They are only [Evil] spells when creating evil undead.

Summon Undead and related spell do not automatically have the [Evil] descriptor. They are only [Evil] spells when summoning evil undead.

This actually depends, at least in principle, on one's view of animation necromancy/negative energy as being inherently evil or merely dangerous. I am a little ambivalent over this, but it is at least an improvement over the PHB's viewpoint; agreed at present, I think.

Rule 0xx: Death Watches no Evil
Page 217 in the Player's Handbook: The Deathwatch spell does not have the [Evil] descriptor.

Entirely agreed.

Rule 0xx: Positive Drawbacks to Undead
From here: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/planes.htm#positiveDominant) Fast healing granted by a Positive-Dominant plane lowers HP rather than increasing it for undead. The loss of HP may not be prevented or mitigated by any means.

Making it impossible to prevent or mitigate this seems a little overmuch. Simply converting it into an equivalent amount of positive energy damage should be enough, in my opinion. (I believe this interacts properly with spells like life ward, for a certain amount of symmetry with death ward and the Negative-Dominant planes.) Disagree with stated rule, agree after proposed modifications.

Rule 0xx: Enchanting Enhanced Projectiles
For magical enhancements that produce benefits unrelated to attacking with the weapon, the bulk of the ammunition must be present to give the benefit.

Initially I misunderstood this as saying merely that the bulk of the ammunition must be present at time of creation to gain the benefits, which is not only not helpful, but weaker than RAW. Perhaps a clarification would be useful somehow. Agreed, especially after clarifying.

Rule 0xx: Swordsaging in Leather or No
Page 16 in Tome of Battle: Starting at 2nd level, you can add your Wisdom modifier as a bonus to Armor Class, so long as you wear light armor or no armor, are unencumbered, and do not use a shield. This ability does not stack with the monk's AC bonus ability, or similar abilities.

Indeed, this seems logical, so I agree.

As far as I can tell, this is mainly about resolving obvious rules bugs and providing fair judgements for ambiguous rules, but I don't think it's reasonable to down vote something on the basis that it seems like a house rule, as long as it isn't high-impact.

As I see it, the thread intends to occupy the middle of the spectrum between what might be termed unambiguous RAW, ambiguous RAW, probable RAI, commonly-accepted RAI, sensible houserule, common houserule, and occasional houserules. Sensible houserules that nearly anyone would be willing to play with fit in at the edge, but are a bit outside the sweet spot. Does that make sense?

30 -- Nobody Notices the Guy with the Tower Shield

To be added to the description of the hide skill:

For the purposes of the Hide skill, a character may not claim cover from an object she wishes to hide, nor may she claim cover from an object that is invisible or transparent to those from whom she wishes to hide.

Indeed, this is a useful patch, so agreed.

31 -- Full Attack and Attacks of Opportunity:

To be added to the description of the full attack action:

If you make ranged or unarmed attacks as part of a full attack, you provoke an attack of opportunity as explained under the rules for the Attack standard action. However, a full attack never provokes more than one attack of opportunity from a given opponent, no matter how many ranged or unarmed attacks you make.

Surprisingly, I'd never actually noticed this corner case before, and had assumed that a full attack gave as many AoOs as individual attack actions. This proposed adjustment removes the exploit but reduces the impact of AoOs on ranged characters from certain naive readings, so I tend to agree.

I may be missing your intent on what this is, but I've posted my reactiosn below, and I think I found 1 rule that I'd put in RACSD instead of RAI, RAW, or houserules.

See my response to lesser_minion above for my take on this thread's sweet spot; what is commonly considered RAI should probably be subsumed entirely by proper RACSD rulings.

[Re: 002]

This is not RACSD, cause it isn't 'common sense' at all. This is straight houserule/homebrew, and a version contrary to how I'd personally handle it.

The rule itself works(and I'd play in a game using it just fine), but its not RACSD.

I'm inclined to agree; while strict common sense may suggest this, it doesn't necessarily dictate it, especially in the presence of "magic being magic". The lesser form ("metamagic reduction cannot reduce a spell below its original level") is less difficult, however.

[Re: 006]

1.This one unintentionally gives some monsters(like elementals who had natural weapons, but not unarmed strike) extra attacks they didn't have before. That needs to be fixed.

Fair enough.

Unnecessary. Anytime this might come up with a particular game, the DM is going to rule against this RACSD(if he was going to rule for it, it wouldn't have come up).

I don't fully understand your reasoning here. Could you elaborate?

1

Finally, I suggest a modification to the way new rule changes are proposed: all proposed rule changes should be numbered consecutively; a change that is rejected for some reason is simply marked "rejected", "no consensus", "removed", or the like, as 009 currently is, rather than being silently deleted. This should remove some ambiguity and make discussion a bit easier and more compact. It also reduces workload on the OP.

Andorax

2012-04-23, 03:31 PM

Wow...take a weekend off, and watch the project go nuts. I've altered the format slightly to make it easier for me to manage (including putting the 'votes' in the spoiler area so as to declutter) and I *think* I have everything caught up.

PLEASE NOTE: A number of issues have had multiple numbers/references floating about. Please refer back to the second post of this thread for the official number designations of various issues, as they will vary from others utilized to date.

Page 2:

Namfuak, I've adjusted Rule 013 according to your suggestion. Prestige classes shouldn't be self-negating (taking away your qualifcation for, or access to features of, or ability to advance in, the class itself).

Ashtagon, your suggested mofication to Rule 004 makes sense..it's been noted.

Malachei, to answer your question this isn't intended to be a clearinghouse of house rules (hence, things like the "-4 to saves for unconscious" not being included). There may well be a few cases where an actual stated rule change is necessary to clarify something that's outright ambiguous, but adding new rules because they make sense or sound good is NOT the intent of this project.

Technically, Rule 005 is an added "house rule", for example...but it's there for clarification, not modification.

Siosilvar, good catch that Wolves have only a bite attack, and are thus a bad example for taking advantage of Rule 007. Revised to "Lions with Hooves".

I'd be open to another, separate rule for what happens if you lose pre-requisites for a PrC SEPARATE from the PrC's own features, but I think Rule 013 needs to stand as-writ.

I'm working on wording and including your additional rules...sorry it's taken so long since posting them.

Menteith, Tower Shields in at rule 16.

Sgt. Cookie: Thanks for that clarification. Seeing the Dragontouched feat now, I'm going ahead and changing out my opinion on the feat (have shifted from against to for) and reworded the new rule accordingly to reference the feat...better explanation.

Emperor Tippy...I'm going to assume that's an "against" for rule 015?

Page 3:

Darrin, natual weapon clarifications in at #018 and #019. Hope the name choices work for you. Sadly, I do have to disagree with you on Rule #019, since it's getting too far into the realm of house rules. I agree there is precident for large+ = 2 slams, and med- = 1 slam, but I'm concerned that it's too far-reaching in its terms, and that there may be unintended consequences of giving EVERYTHING a slam attack. It wouldn't be a class feature for Warforged if regular humans, elves, halflings, etc. all have slams too.

erikun, could I ask you to look over Rule 3 again? The intent is NOT to prevent, or even MODIFY, the rules for epic class progressions. In fact, those are explicitly called out (and now with a reword more clearly so) as an exception to the rule. The intent is to prevent people from using "+class features" clases, such as the Legacy Champion, to level certain other classes (such as the Hellfire Warlock) beyond their exisiting 3 levels. I've recorded you as against for the time being, but I think you may be reading something into it that isn't there.

Some of your added rules are in. Your Animate and Deathwatch rules appear to be a bit too far into the realm of "sensible houserule"...it's clearly spelled out that they have the [Evil] descriptor at present. Personally, I'd agree with both, but I don't think they're quite what we're looking for in this thread.

I've also taken a completely different tack on Enchanting Projectiles (rule #022)...the problem I saw with your original wording was that it leaves "the bulk of" up for debate...is 40 enough? 30? Why does firing that 21st arrow negate it, when it applied while you still had 30? A ban is a far more logical (makes no sense to put it on ammo in the first place) approach. I have NOT recorded your vote either way, since it's such a drastic change. Ironically, I made this change prior to seeing two other people pre-emtively cast votes for the same change.

Finally, I made a tweak to your positive drawbacks rule (#023)...there is a such a thing as positive energy protection, and it ought to work for undead.

Jeff the Green...a very interesting technical point on dead is dead (Rule 005). I've tweaked the wording to "until the dead condition is removed".

Page 4:

lesser minion, I tweaked your "full attack/attack of opportunity" wording ever so slightly to take away the "never" phrase, as for some reason I vaguely recall a feat that lets you make multiple attacks with a single opportunity. Other than that, I'm all for it.

Godskook, a fair amount of RACSD is going to be called RAI. The problem with calling it RAI is that you open up the debate about what the designer's intent is. RACSD avoids said debate by replacing "what I know the designer meant, because I had coffee wit him and asked him" with "what we think makes the most sense, and is probably RAI, but we can't confirm it for certain sure".

I was able to get "some" of your opinions for or against out of what you posted...please feel free to clarify, correct, and expand.

tuggyne, your suggestion that all rules changes going forward be added to the list and marked out if not used (such as "this is a houserule, rejected") is a good one. I'll try to apply that more consistently going forward, and will also try to keep up with the thread.

One of the proposals suggests another rule I'd like to toss out for discussion:

Rule 033: No Double Dipping

Multiple ability-based bonuses cannot stack unless specifically permitted in the description of the ability. There are ways, for example, to get your Charisma bonus to AC, your Wisdom bonus to AC, etc...but you cannot get your Wisdom bonus x2 to AC through two different classes.

Commentary: Wording explicitly disallowing this sort of stacking is inconsistently present throughout the game (see, for example, the Wis-To-AC ability of Ninjas that is specifically described as not stacking with a Monk's Wis-to-AC bonus). I would argue that its absence is a lack of consistent wording and editing, not an intent to allow it to sometimes count and sometimes not.

There's been a lot of debate about Rule #012...including some people who have claimed that it's already in there. Can someone give me a better bit of source, beyond "I think it's in the MiC Somewhere", for where this supposed in-print rule is?

Finally...to everyone involved. THANK YOU! The response has been considerable, and good discussion has come of it. Please, keep it coming!

Amphetryon

2012-04-23, 03:42 PM

Rule #33 is already in my set of houserules, and as such I'm all for its formalization here.

Taelas

2012-04-23, 03:50 PM

Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes For.
Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier No opinion.
Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels No opinion.
Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike For.
Rule 005: Dead is Dead For... I guess. Silly, though.
Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally For.
Rule 007: Lions with Hooves No opinion.
Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage No opinion.
Rule 009: It's not armour, it's thick clothing Removed
Rule 010: Who's Charging, Anyways? No opinion.
Rule 011: Who's Riding By, Anyways? No opinion.
Rule 012: Anything can be Armor Against.
Rule 013: Clarifying the Dragon Disciple Paradox For.
Rule 014: I'm Not Left Handed For.
Rule 015: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped Against.
Rule 016: Tower Shields; How the #&%@ Do They Work? For.
Rule 017: Non-Floating Armour For.
Rule 018: Claw, Stab Claw…and now with my other arm! For... I suppose. If I understand it right.
Rule 019: All Slams Are Not Created Equally Against.
Rule 020: My Weapon Is My Shield! For.
Rule 021: Enchanting Enhanced Projectiles For.
Rule 022: Swordsaging in Leather or No For.
Rule 023: Positive Drawbacks to Undead For.
Rule 024: Chakra Binds Are Not Free No opinion.
Rule 025: Lava Is Easily Resisted For.
Rule 026: Extraordinary Feats For.
Rule 027: Don't Penalize the Prestigeous For.
Rule 028: Qualified and Disqualified For.
Rule 029: Whiplash No opinion.
Rule 030A: Loose Aptitude No opinion.
Rule 030B: Strict Aptitude No opinion.
Rule 31: Nobody Notices the Guy with the Tower Shield For.
Rule 032: Full Attack and Attacks of Opportunity For.
Rule 033: No Double Dipping Against.

Darrin

2012-04-23, 03:50 PM

Darrin, natual weapon clarifications in at #018 and #019. Hope the name choices work for you. Sadly, I do have to disagree with you on Rule #019, since it's getting too far into the realm of house rules. I agree there is precident for large+ = 2 slams, and med- = 1 slam, but I'm concerned that it's too far-reaching in its terms, and that there may be unintended consequences of giving EVERYTHING a slam attack. It wouldn't be a class feature for Warforged if regular humans, elves, halflings, etc. all have slams too.

You may be reading too much into my fixes, then. I thought I was very careful to describe what we see consistently in the MM stat blocks (hopefully Keld can back me up on this, as I believe he did a lot of research on slams). I say creatures "may" have a slam attack, not that all humanoids must be given one. (If we went that route, I'd be more in favor of just giving everyone an "unarmed strike" rather than a slam attack.) I'm only describing existing slam attacks, and trying to settle the issue of "do I still get a slam attack if I'm wielding a greatsword?"

If it's confusing people, though, then maybe I should reword it:

There are two types of "slam" attacks: 1) For creatures with a slam attack that have a humanoid shape or similar well-defined form, a "slam" attack is made with the arms or the nearest approximate appendages. Humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, and other humanoid-shaped creatures that have slam attacks and are larger than medium size generally have two slam attacks, one for each arm. If one or both arms are occupied, then one or both slam attacks are lost. If the creature with a slam attack is medium-sized or smaller, then it generally has only a single slam attack, but it must have at least one unoccupied arm to attack with it. 2) For creatures with a slam attack that have no discernible anatomy or an amorphous form (oozes, some aberrations), this is a "body slam" which can be used without regard to any particular appendage, occupied or otherwise.

Only the bolded sentence really goes beyond the existing (and/or unwritten) rules, and it may be a nerf to Warforged if you believe they can still slam even while wielding a greatsword. But I'm trying to match what we see in the MM for larger-sized humanoids losing their slam attacks when wielding manufactured weapons... if we say giants lose their slams for wielding a two-handed weapon, why wouldn't the Warforged? And this is an issue that needs to be settled, because the rules say absolutely nothing about how to resolve this.

I haven't actually played much with Warforged, so... how exactly do the rest of you handle their slam attack?

Gwendol

2012-04-23, 04:11 PM

On rule 14:
Yay, as written, but as I've pointed out many times; the rules for TWF apply whenever both hands are used for striking an opponent, not just when getting an extra attack.

See for example this quote on double weapons for clarification:

Double Weapons
Dire flails, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, orc double axes, quarterstaffs, and two-bladed swords are double weapons. A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he or she incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.

The character can also choose to use a double weapon two handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.

I'll vote/comment on the others when I've had a chance to parse through properly.

erikun

2012-04-23, 04:33 PM

erikun, could I ask you to look over Rule 3 again? The intent is NOT to prevent, or even MODIFY, the rules for epic class progressions. In fact, those are explicitly called out (and now with a reword more clearly so) as an exception to the rule. The intent is to prevent people from using "+class features" clases, such as the Legacy Champion, to level certain other classes (such as the Hellfire Warlock) beyond their exisiting 3 levels. I've recorded you as against for the time being, but I think you may be reading something into it that isn't there.
Perhaps. I'm not familiar with the particular exploit, so perhaps I'm missing what it is trying to fix. I'll change my stance from disapproved to Neutral for the time being.

Some of your added rules are in. Your Animate and Deathwatch rules appear to be a bit too far into the realm of "sensible houserule"...it's clearly spelled out that they have the [Evil] descriptor at present. Personally, I'd agree with both, but I don't think they're quite what we're looking for in this thread.
That's fair.

I've also taken a completely different tack on Enchanting Projectiles (rule #022)...the problem I saw with your original wording was that it leaves "the bulk of" up for debate...is 40 enough? 30? Why does firing that 21st arrow negate it, when it applied while you still had 30? A ban is a far more logical (makes no sense to put it on ammo in the first place) approach. I have NOT recorded your vote either way, since it's such a drastic change. Ironically, I made this change prior to seeing two other people pre-emtively cast votes for the same change.

Finally, I made a tweak to your positive drawbacks rule (#023)...there is a such a thing as positive energy protection, and it ought to work for undead.
Both work just fine. I'll be mentioning them again, below, along with everything else new to the first post.

There's been a lot of debate about Rule #012...including some people who have claimed that it's already in there. Can someone give me a better bit of source, beyond "I think it's in the MiC Somewhere", for where this supposed in-print rule is?
I think it's a combination of Magic Vestment working on ordinary clothing and AC-providing magical clothing such as Robe of the Archmagi. I am fairly certain there is no rule related to putting armor enhancements on standard clothing.

I'll just skip the rules I'm neutral on.

Rule 017: Non-Floating Armour
Approved, and it was probably forgotten with the system change.

Rule 018: Claw, Stab Claw…and now with my other arm!
Approved, as long as we aren't considering slams (below). Attempting to claw or bite while holding something in that appendage doesn't make sense, unless they drop said item as a free action to make the attack.

Rule 019: All Slams Are Not Created Equally
Disapproved. A slam is much like an unarmed strike; something competent enough to have one in their stat block would be able to use them with their hands full. I could see not allowing a slam attack from an arm strapped into a tower shield, for example, but it should not be difficult to smack someone in the head with your arm even if it is holding a longsword.

Rule 021: Enchanting Enhanced Projectiles
Approved.

Rule 025: Lava Is Easily Resisted
Approved, and a much more sensible interaction.

Rule 027: Don't Penalize the Prestigeous
Approved, as this is another rule that seems to have mistakenly vanished on the edition change.

Rule 028: Qualified and Disqualified
Disapproved. This is kind of unusual rule in general, but the specific wording (the ability to meet a prerequisite or requirement through temporary means) means that, for example, any character could take anything with Evasion as a prerequisite because they have the ability to acquire it through a Ring of Evasion, even if they don't have the ring.

There is also the problem of any spell which grants capabilities, even for one round, grants entry into a prestige class. A human could enter Beholder Mage at first level, because they have the ability to be affected by Polymorph and change into a beholder for a few rounds.

There is also the big question of what class abilities (speaking of prestige classes) are "dependent" on the specific feat.

Rule 31: Nobody Notices the Guy with the Tower Shield
Approved.

Rule 032: Full Attack and Attacks of Opportunity
Approved. I'm not so sure it is a clarification as much as a house rule, but I doubt anyone intented the archer receiving 4x power attacks just for attacking.

Rule 033: No Double Dipping

Multiple ability-based bonuses cannot stack unless specifically permitted in the description of the ability. There are ways, for example, to get your Charisma bonus to AC, your Wisdom bonus to AC, etc...but you cannot get your Wisdom bonus x2 to AC through two different classes.

Commentary: Wording explicitly disallowing this sort of stacking is inconsistently present throughout the game (see, for example, the Wis-To-AC ability of Ninjas that is specifically described as not stacking with a Monk's Wis-to-AC bonus). I would argue that its absence is a lack of consistent wording and editing, not an intent to allow it to sometimes count and sometimes not.
I'm a bit on the fence about this. On the one hand, some situations (Paladin + Crusader, Monk + Ninja) were clearly not intended to stack.

On the other hand, we have situations like Fist of the Forest + Deepwarden. This combination is clearly supposed to stack, as FotF grants the CON bonus as natural armor, while Deepwarden replaces DEX with CON for AC purposes.

Saying that it doesn't stack unless specifically permitted by the ability is unusual, as I know of no situation where this is specifically called out.

Menteith

2012-04-23, 04:45 PM

Rule 033: No Double Dipping

Multiple ability-based bonuses cannot stack unless specifically permitted in the description of the ability. There are ways, for example, to get your Charisma bonus to AC, your Wisdom bonus to AC, etc...but you cannot get your Wisdom bonus x2 to AC through two different classes.

Commentary: Wording explicitly disallowing this sort of stacking is inconsistently present throughout the game (see, for example, the Wis-To-AC ability of Ninjas that is specifically described as not stacking with a Monk's Wis-to-AC bonus). I would argue that its absence is a lack of consistent wording and editing, not an intent to allow it to sometimes count and sometimes not.

Against. Some specific instances of this stack are called out as specifically not stacking. To me, this means that other instances are assumed to stack unless noted.

Keld Denar

2012-04-23, 06:16 PM

On rule 14:
Yay, as written, but as I've pointed out many times; the rules for TWF apply whenever both hands are used for striking an opponent, not just when getting an extra attack.

See for example this quote on double weapons for clarification:

I don't see anything in there that discounts what I said. If you have a BAB of +6 and you attack with two different weapons, you probably aren't TWFing. You MIGHT be TWFing, assuming you take the penalties and use the combat option, but you can also not be if you are only making your normal iterative attacks. Nothing about a double weapon stops you from swinging one side as a 2 handed weapon, then switching grips and swinging the other side as a 2 handed weapon as your secondary iterative attack. Changing weapons, changing hands, all that, doesn't matter in the slightest since there is no handedness in 3.5 anymore. You could slash someone with a longsword in your right hand, switch it to your left hand, and slash them again with no penalties, as long as you have 2 attacks per round normally. Heck, you don't even need to use your hands. You could slash someone 10' away from you with a glaive, drop them, and continue full attacking against an adjacent for with your iterative attacks using your armor spikes. No handedness means no handedness, no matter how many hands you use, assuming you even use hands.

And I fully support Darrin's proposal. IF a creature has slam attacks, and IF that creature is humanoid, those slams are made with their arms, which means that those arms can't be used to make other attacks like claws or manufactured weapon attacks. No creature in the MM has a full attack stat block that includes its slams in conjunction with weapon attacks made with a weapon held in those hands. Slams for a humanoid creature are basically a bludgeoning claw attack, in this regard. Non-humanoids with slam attacks, like oozes, don't need this rule since they don't normally wield weapons, unlike warforged or giants. There should have been a seperate attack type for humanoids than slam so that it wouldn't be confusing.

Lonely Tylenol

2012-04-23, 07:04 PM

There's been a lot of debate about Rule #012...including some people who have claimed that it's already in there. Can someone give me a better bit of source, beyond "I think it's in the MiC Somewhere", for where this supposed in-print rule is?

It is, in fact, not "in the MiC somewhere". The rules that they are (erroneously) referring to are the "Adding Common Item Effects to Existing Items" rules, found on the MiC p. 233, with a table on p. 234. The rules detailed there, as written, allow you to make a tube top of armor +1. They do not allow you to make a +1 tube top. The distinction is fine--both give a +1 armor bonus to Armor Class, which at face value looks the same--but the former is an item effect, while the latter is an armor enhancement. Further, the former is treated as a wondrous item, and the latter as a piece of armor. The practical implications of this difference are that you can have a worn piece of clothing (like a brassiere) that has an item effect that adds an enhancement value to your armor class, is regarded as a wondrous item, and cannot be enchanted as if it were armor (which is RAW, RAI, and common sense), but you cannot have a worn piece of clothing (like a brassiere) that has an armor enhancement increasing the value of its armor class, is regarded as armor, and can be enchanted normally as if it were armor with things like radiant, spearblock, blurring, and others (which is neither RAW, RAI, nor common sense).

If allowing a wizard to treat their robes as armor (which would allow them to attach the radiant, bluring, and other properties, as well as build up to +5 normally) is somehow OK for people from a balance perspective, then they can houserule that in to their own games, but it remains just that - a houserule. There is no text that supports the +1 robe, and while nipple pasties of charisma +6 are both RAW legal and thematically appropriate, +1 nipple pasties of freedom remain illegal (although still thematically appropriate).

TuggyNE

2012-04-23, 07:37 PM

Rule 018: Claw, Stab Claw…and now with my other arm!

Hmm, erikun has gotten me to rethink this a bit, and actually this does seem more reasonable. Agreed after all.

Rule 020: My Weapon Is My Shield!

I believe I'm confident enough in this to now register agreement.

Rule 021: Enchanting Enhanced Projectiles

Much preferred to the original version; agreed.

Rule 025: Lava Is Easily Resisted
Revision: Resistance to fire provides an equal amount of resistance to the fire damage caused by lava (in place of the lava 'immunity' currently written in the rules).

Somehow I seem to have missed this on my previous run-through, but it is quite clearly a good change, so agreed.

Rule 030A: Loose Aptitude
The Aptitude ability (ToB) allows the user to use the enhanced weapon with any feat that applies to only a single type of weapon, chosen or preset, like Weapon Focus or Lightning Maces. (This one is supported by the actual text of Aptitude, but leads to some system abuse, especially with the aforementioned Lightning Maces.)

Rule 030B: Strict Aptitude
The Aptitude ability (ToB) allows the user to use the enhanced weapon with any feat that applies to only a single chosen type of weapon, like Weapon Focus or Improved Critical. (This one closes some ridiculous exploits, but RAW-wise it relies on inferring a distinction not made by the text of the ability.)

I do not presently know of any legitimate (non-abusive) use for 030A's reading, so I'm changing my previous abstention to disagree with that and agree with 030B.

Rule 033: No Double Dipping
Multiple ability-based bonuses cannot stack unless specifically permitted in the description of the ability. There are ways, for example, to get your Charisma bonus to AC, your Wisdom bonus to AC, etc...but you cannot get your Wisdom bonus x2 to AC through two different classes.

This seems ... hmm. Maybe a bit unnecessary? Generally the ways of gaining double Cha to saves, for example, require a lot of hoop-jumping, and while they are indeed more powerful, I don't necessarily see them as brokenly so. I could certainly see the point of houseruling it one way or another, but I'm not really sure there's any clear dictate from common sense to decide it.

As mentioned previously, there are cases where the bonuses implicitly stack by their nature (Con to natural armor, Con to armor), cases where they explicitly do not stack (Monk/Ninja AC bonus), but no cases I'm aware of where they explicitly stack. However, the default would seem to be to treat them as an untyped bonus, which would stack.

Anyway, upshot is that this seems a little dubious to me right now, both in scope and in conclusion, so I think I have to disagree pending further discussion.

1

Also a largely unrelated linguistic nitpick: the "yay" sound you make when formally agreeing with something is actually written out as "yea". No more typos please. :smallyuk:

Emperor Tippy

2012-04-23, 07:55 PM

It is, in fact, not "in the MiC somewhere". The rules that they are (erroneously) referring to are the "Adding Common Item Effects to Existing Items" rules, found on the MiC p. 233, with a table on p. 234. The rules detailed there, as written, allow you to make a tube top of armor +1. They do not allow you to make a +1 tube top. The distinction is fine--both give a +1 armor bonus to Armor Class, which at face value looks the same--but the former is an item effect, while the latter is an armor enhancement. Further, the former is treated as a wondrous item, and the latter as a piece of armor. The practical implications of this difference are that you can have a worn piece of clothing (like a brassiere) that has an item effect that adds an enhancement value to your armor class, is regarded as a wondrous item, and cannot be enchanted as if it were armor (which is RAW, RAI, and common sense), but you cannot have a worn piece of clothing (like a brassiere) that has an armor enhancement increasing the value of its armor class, is regarded as armor, and can be enchanted normally as if it were armor with things like radiant, spearblock, blurring, and others (which is neither RAW, RAI, nor common sense).

If allowing a wizard to treat their robes as armor (which would allow them to attach the radiant, bluring, and other properties, as well as build up to +5 normally) is somehow OK for people from a balance perspective, then they can houserule that in to their own games, but it remains just that - a houserule. There is no text that supports the +1 robe, and while nipple pasties of charisma +6 are both RAW legal and thematically appropriate, +1 nipple pasties of freedom remain illegal (although still thematically appropriate).

Arms and Equipment Guide page 130. You can put armor special abilities on Bracers of Armors in a straight trade (For the same price as Bracers of armor +6 you could get +1 Bracers of Heavy Fortification) with a maximum enhancement value of +13 (so +1 and 12 points of armor special abilities).

Technically it's perfectly legal as nothing newer overrides it.

Lonely Tylenol

2012-04-23, 08:10 PM

Arms and Equipment Guide page 130. You can put armor special abilities on Bracers of Armors in a straight trade (For the same price as Bracers of armor +6 you could get +1 Bracers of Heavy Fortification) with a maximum enhancement value of +13 (so +1 and 12 points of armor special abilities).

Technically it's perfectly legal as nothing newer overrides it.

Verified RAW legal and conceded as such.

Damn you, 3.0 splatbooks!

I still don't think it makes sense. :smallannoyed:

On the other hand, I guess this means I can wear nipple pasties of armor and freedom. :smallamused:

TypoNinja

2012-04-23, 10:17 PM

Verified RAW legal and conceded as such.

Damn you, 3.0 splatbooks!

I still don't think it makes sense. :smallannoyed:

On the other hand, I guess this means I can wear nipple pasties of armor and freedom. :smallamused:

This is actually an explicit example in one of the adult themed books (BoVD I think?) Alternate item slots to fit a darker theme, though I believe they used piercings rather than pasties.

nyjastul69

2012-04-23, 10:38 PM

A key point of the definition of "unconscious" is "not aware of your surroundings". For the lesser states to mention, there's is "dazed" or "stunned", both defined in game terms.

Sorry if this is too nitpicky, but I can't find where the "unconscious" condition states "not aware of your surroundings". I think it's both RAMs and RAI, but it's not defined as such by RAW. I don't think a general dictionary definition necessarily applies as many defined game terms are quite different from a standard dictionary definition. I state this just point out the weirdness of RAW at times.

Edit: I haven't made decisions on most of the points yet so I'm refraining from the agree/disagree element. I'm still trying to digest the comments about the rules I thought I was familiar with. The willing/unwilling debate has me seriously thinking and furiously referencing the PHB/SRD.

TypoNinja

2012-04-23, 11:03 PM

Alas, the SRD entry on Unconscious is remarkably brief and uninformative.

Unconscious

Knocked out and helpless. Unconsciousness can result from having current hit points between -1 and -9, or from nonlethal damage in excess of current hit points.

Odd though that it calls out HP related unconsciousness but makes no mention of sleep, magical or otherwise, counting as unconscious.

nyjastul69

2012-04-23, 11:46 PM

Alas, the SRD entry on Unconscious is remarkably brief and uninformative.

Odd though that it calls out HP related unconsciousness but makes no mention of sleep, magical or otherwise, counting as unconscious.

Unfortunately knocked out isn't a defined term. The nonlethal damage section of the PHB references unconscious and mentions 'knock out' and 'faint' but I can't find where the latter is defined. Comatose is a defined condition but doesn't really help. It's actually only defined in the PHB, I don't see it in the SRD. I can't quote it, but the best help there is the helpless condition. :amused: Kinda how I feel now. :smallconfused:

Edit:The sleep spell causes magical slumber, but I can't find in the SRD or PHB, what nonmagical slumber is. The DMG may contain rules on slumbering. I'm gonna check that next.

Godskook

2012-04-23, 11:52 PM

Godskook, a fair amount of RACSD is going to be called RAI. The problem with calling it RAI is that you open up the debate about what the designer's intent is. RACSD avoids said debate by replacing "what I know the designer meant, because I had coffee wit him and asked him" with "what we think makes the most sense, and is probably RAI, but we can't confirm it for certain sure".

So RACSD is RAI, except by community consensus. Then my first suggestion is that we change it to RCBC(Rules clarification by consent). It'll give the list a more "these are what the rules originally meant" feel rather the "we're blatantly houseruling 3.5" feeling that RACSD gives.

I was able to get "some" of your opinions for or against out of what you posted...please feel free to clarify, correct, and expand.

Having gotten a better understanding of what you're going for, here's a new list:

Rule 1: Agree
Rule 2: Disagree cause it isn't common sense or clarification but rather blatantly changing the rules.
Rule 3: Agree. If D&D were a computer game, this would've caused it to crash.
Rule 4: Agree
Rule 5: Agree
Rule 6: Mixed. I refuse to agree until the wording is fixed to prevent giving additional attacks to monsters who already have natural weapons. Suggested new wording: "All creatures are proficient with the natural weapons they have available. All creatures with class levels are proficient with unarmed strike."
Rule 7: Disapprove.
Rule 8: Disagree
Rule 9:
Rule 10:
Rule 11:
Rule 12: Agree
Rule 13: Agree
Rule 14: I don't want to Disagree, but I don't think this offers anything useful and thus, shouldn't be included.
Rule 15: @TIppy, when does this rule matter?
Rule 16: Disagree
Rule 17: Agree
Rule 18: Agree
Rule 19: Disagree, this is blatantly against RAW and RAI
Rule 20: Disagree. This is an intentional point of balance in 3.5, imho. Changing it might be a good houserule, but I don't think that's the point of this thread, even still.
Rule 21: Agree
Rule 22: Agree
Rule 23:
Rule 24: *DISAGREE*, that is not only blatantly against the rules, but blatantly against the spirit of the rules. In its place, put "Open X Chakra Bind not only opens the chakra, but also grants an addtional chakra bind for that chakra." This is how the feat works for non-Meldshapers, and should be clarified to work that way for them too. Also, not a balance issue, since meldshapers usually have too many feats to buy anyway.
Rule 25:
Rule 26:
Rule 27: Agree.
Rule 28: Disagree. The wording is grossly poor, and allows access to things beyond what TO would normally allow.
Rule 29: Abstain, but this seems more like houserule than what I get the impression this thread should be covering.
Rule 30: Agree with 30B
Rule 31: Agree
Rule 32: Should be split into two portions. Agree that full-attacking should provoke attacks like standard actions. Disagree that only 1 AoO should be generated, since the "provoking action" is not the full attack, but rather the attack action.
Rule 33: Disagree until someone can point to a single case where this is a problem.

Also, I'm seeing a lot of rules that are 'decided', but only have 1-4 votes on them. Instead of just taking everything, I suggest requiring a couple of restrictions before adding rules to this:

1.A proposed rule must have at least X(let's say 5) community members' approval before being added to the list.

2.A proposed rule must have the support of at least 1 'resident expert' of our community.*

*Personally, I'd nominate Djinn, Curmudgeon, and Tippy, to name a few. *ESPECIALLY* Curmudgeon.

Ashtagon

2012-04-24, 12:54 AM

Also, I'm seeing a lot of rules that are 'decided', but only have 1-4 votes on them. Instead of just taking everything, I suggest requiring a couple of restrictions before adding rules to this:

1.A proposed rule must have at least X(let's say 5) community members' approval before being added to the list.

Every proposal has had only 1-4 votes at some point. This would become "must receive 5 votes before the thread maintainer next logs on" if actually implemented. Which is rather unfair on the thread (and us all) if he logs on rarely, and rather unfair on him (and the nominated issue) if he logs on frequently.

2.A proposed rule must have the support of at least 1 'resident expert' of our community.*

*Personally, I'd nominate Djinn, Curmudgeon, and Tippy, to name a few. *ESPECIALLY* Curmudgeon.

If that is implemented, I will drop from this thread.

huttj509

2012-04-24, 01:21 AM

If that is implemented, I will drop from this thread.

Yeah, trying to bring in an explicit appeal to authority rubs me the wrong way too.

Mob rule all the wa- I mean, well discussed opinions of both sides of an interpretation decided by community consesus FTW.

I also like seeing the splits on some rules. At a glance seeing things like "nobody really disputed that" or "a couple of people disagree" provides a nice contrast with "wow, that's a 50/50 split."

Someone might see their interpretation is hotly contested and realize it's not as clear as they thought.

nyjastul69

2012-04-24, 01:43 AM

Rule 001: For
Rule 002: For
Rule 003: For
Rule 004: For
Rule 005: For
Rule 006: Against
Rule 007: Against
Rule 008: No opinion
Rule 009: Removed
Rule 010: For
Rule 011: For
Rule 012: Against
Rule 013: For
Rule 014: For
Rule 015: No opinion
Rule 016: Against
Rule 017: For
Rule 018: For
Rule 019: Against
Rule 020: For
Rule 021: Against
Rule 022: For
Rule 023: Against
Rule 024: No opinion
Rule 025: For
Rule 026: Against
Rule 027: For
Rule 028: For
Rule 029: No opinion
Rule 030 a&b: No opinion
Rule 031: For
Rule 032: Against
Rule 033: Against

Edited to avoid consecutive posts:

2.A proposed rule must have the support of at least 1 'resident expert' of our community.

We would need a separate thread/poll to determine 'resident experts'. I would not necessarily agree with all of your suggestions and I would add a few that you missed. I wholeheartedly disagree with this suggestion. I think this thread has value because it's a crowdsourcing free for all.

Godskook

2012-04-24, 04:18 AM

Every proposal has had only 1-4 votes at some point. This would become "must receive 5 votes before the thread maintainer next logs on" if actually implemented. Which is rather unfair on the thread (and us all) if he logs on rarely, and rather unfair on him (and the nominated issue) if he logs on frequently.

See, there's got to be at least some method of quality control other than "well, someone suggested it", that prevents situations that have already started happening. I prefer this one to the second suggestion I posited, primarily cause there's no risk of accidentally offending anyone.

If that is implemented, I will drop from this thread.

It'd be more helpful if you stated why it bothered you, rather than just threatening to leave if it were implemented.

We would need a separate thread/poll to determine 'resident experts'. I would not necessarily agree with all of your suggestions and I would add a few that you missed. I wholeheartedly disagree with this suggestion. I think this thread has value because it's a crowdsourcing free for all.

1.My list of 'experts' wasn't meant to be complete, but rather a good but short sampling of community members who actually know 3.5's ruleset incredibly well. I had every expectation that others would add to such a list.

2.Wasn't trying to stop the crowdsourcing, just stop the 1-vote wonders which can destroy the value of a project like this. Lack of peer-review is why so many here shy away from homebrew on DandDwiki. I'm not dead-set on either suggestion I put forth, but I do think something should be implemented to determine what qualifies as "worthy of making the list".

TuggyNE

2012-04-24, 04:48 AM

So RACSD is RAI, except by community consensus. Then my first suggestion is that we change it to RCBC(Rules clarification by consent). It'll give the list a more "these are what the rules originally meant" feel rather the "we're blatantly houseruling 3.5" feeling that RACSD gives.

I am not really opposed to this idea, but don't entirely see the need either.

(assorted votes)

I'd appreciate seeing some more of your reasoning for the various rules changes you disagreed with (as well as perhaps those you agreed with :smallwink:); I think it would tend to help discussion a good bit.

Also, I'm seeing a lot of rules that are 'decided', but only have 1-4 votes on them. Instead of just taking everything, I suggest requiring a couple of restrictions before adding rules to this:

1.A proposed rule must have at least X(let's say 5) community members' approval before being added to the list.

This might not be a horrible change, but honestly I think simply including the numbers for and against in the list headers, or just the total votes counted, would be better. I do not think it makes sense to keep new suggestions out of the indexing post until they're fully accepted, because then there's a good chance people will miss them.

It's obviously important to avoid giving a false impression of unanimity, but it's also important to make it easy for a good suggestion to be accepted -- or at least noticed.

2.A proposed rule must have the support of at least 1 'resident expert' of our community.*

*Personally, I'd nominate Djinn, Curmudgeon, and Tippy, to name a few. *ESPECIALLY* Curmudgeon.

If that is implemented, I will drop from this thread.

I don't plan to drop from the thread, but here again I think this is a bit too draconian, as it were; I respect Tippy, Curmudgeon, Djinn, Shneekey, and others, but I do not think it is necessary to filter everything through them. If you want to continue with this idea, I'd suggest making a companion thread as a sort of "authenticated" version, although honestly that sounds like too much work for relatively little gain. :smalltongue:

Sgt. Cookie

2012-04-24, 05:18 AM

How about this idea, instead:

Once a rule reaches a large number of votes (30-40 votes or so) and is approved, it enters a "playground errata", where it the rule becomes an offical Rule As Common Sense Dictates.

Morph Bark

2012-04-24, 05:31 AM

I am for Rules 001, 002, 007, 008, 012, 015 (but I think sleeping targets should get a Will penalty), 016, 018, 022, 023.

I am against Rules 010, 011.

Malachei

2012-04-24, 05:42 AM

If that is implemented, I will drop from this thread.

So would I, and thank you, Ashtagon, for addressing this, because without your outspoken response, I might have missed it.

The reasons being:

I thought this was a democratic process and a joint project. I like this approach, and I think it usually delivers the best results.

Also, the "experts'" reading of RAW is one of the reasons this thread exists.

If I'd agree with Tippy on RAI, I'd have no reason to be here, because I already would have won the game.

And because I think I would not enjoy winning the same game over and over again (especially not with the same or similar means: Ice Assassin Mindrape, I am looking at you), I would have moved on to other games.

Ashtagon

2012-04-24, 05:54 AM

General Comment:

The headline should be rephrased as:

Rule 123: Fighters Can Jump (currently approved 85% - 17/20)

Indicating the number of votes as well as the percentage should give a better idea of the level of consensus involved.

There's no need to have a "playground errata". People can decide for their own group which rules be used, based on whatever criteria they choose.

The reason we should not have specific named individuals to "approve" of an idea is because it goes against the democratic ideal of this thread, and there is almost certainly no consensus on what the final list of "authorities" should be. I am fairly certain that my vote should be considered an authority, a feeling I am certain that is shared by very few here. I am confident that many others here have similar feelings about their own opinion.

On with the voting...

#12 - A lot of people who voted against seem to be of the impression that you can take a random scrap of clothing and enchant it, essentially for free. The intention I had was that it would still be subject to the usual rules for enchanting armour - it would still have to be a masterwork piece of clothing, and something that at least nominally covers the same areas that a regular piece of standard armour would cover 9upper body, essentially).

#16 :smallsmile: Agree

#18 :smallsmile: Agree

#19 :smallmad: Disagree. This is pretty much RAW. A creature with a slam attack that could use a weapon loses his slam attack anyway. The issue never comes up with slam-attacking creatures that can't use weapons. This is just words for the sake of words, and assimilating it will just cause confusion.

#20 :smallsmile: Agree, but with a caveat that only one of the two held implements can be considered your primary attack, and all others are off-hand attacks.

#24 :smallconfused: We need page references.

#25 :smallsmile: Agree

#26 :smallsmile: Agree

#27 :smallsmile: Agree

#28 :smallsmile: Agree

#29 :smallmad: Disagree. It may be a good idea, but there's no sign this was an intended feature of the class. We could probably find dozens of small exceptions like this if we searched, but none of the others were written in either.

#30a and #30b :smallconfused: I'm either looking on the wrong page of ToB, or the Aptitude ability I'm reading has no relation to the text of these two proposals.

#31 :smallsmile:Agree

#32 :smallmad: Disagree. If you spend a full round shooting off arrows while a sword guy is in your face, you deserve everything you get. You're demonstrably not taking advantage of your weapon's best feature. Note that most people only get to make one aoo per round anyway (unless they have that feat), regardless of how many opportunities present themselves in that round.

Darrin

2012-04-24, 06:23 AM

Rule 19: Disagree, this is blatantly against RAW and RAI

Can you please please please explain to me how RAW would handle this, because I'm trying to follow RAW (or rather RA(not)W) as I see it implemented in the Monster Manual:

1) Giants, large elementals, and humanoid constructs get two slam attacks. This is straight-up RAW from the SRD: "Large creatures with arms or arm-like limbs can make a slam attack with each arm."
2) They lose these attacks in their stat blocks when wielding manufactured weapons.
3) A medium-sized humanoid with a slam (Warforged, Doppelganger) is wielding a two-handed weapon. By RAW, what happens to his slam attack?

If you want straight-up RAW, by the stat block, a Warforged loses his slam attack (and does not get it as a secondary attack) if he's wielding a spear (two-handed weapon).

The best example I can find of a medium-sized humanoid that keeps its slam attack is the Sample Woodling in MM3, which keeps its slam as a secondary attack when wielding a scimitar (one-handed weapon).

So... I fail to see how what I've written is "blatantly against RAW and RAI". As far as I can tell, my text matches pretty much every stat block I can find in the MM1-5.

#19 :smallmad: Disagree. This is pretty much RAW. A creature with a slam attack that could use a weapon loses his slam attack anyway.

Please show me the RAW where it says this.

Yes, it's confusing, but we have no rules that say anything about when you "lose" the ability to attack with a natural weapon. Ok, fine, slams + melee weapons are kind of a corner case that doesn't come up often, but it could definitely use some clarification.

We have RAW that says large-sized humanoids with slam attacks use their arms. Rule 018 covers those, arms occupied = no slam attacks. How do we address the slam attacks for medium-sized and smaller?

Ashtagon

2012-04-24, 06:38 AM

Can you please please please explain to me how RAW would handle this, because I'm trying to follow RAW (or rather RA(not)W) as I see it implemented in the Monster Manual:

1) Giants, large elementals, and humanoid constructs get two slam attacks. This is straight-up RAW from the SRD: "Large creatures with arms or arm-like limbs can make a slam attack with each arm."
2) They lose these attacks in their stat blocks when wielding manufactured weapons.
3) A medium-sized humanoid with a slam (Warforged, Doppelganger) is wielding a two-handed weapon. By RAW, what happens to his slam attack?

If you want straight-up RAW, by the stat block, a Warforged loses his slam attack (and does not get it as a secondary attack) if he's wielding a spear (two-handed weapon).

The best example I can find of a medium-sized humanoid that keeps its slam attack is the Sample Woodling in MM3, which keeps its slam as a secondary attack when wielding a scimitar (one-handed weapon).

So... I fail to see how what I've written is "blatantly against RAW and RAI".

By RAW, giants lose both slam attacks if they use a manufactured weapon, even if that is a one-handed weapon (and by logical extension, especially if it is a two-handed weapon).

Warforged get a slam or a manufactured weapon attack by the MM3 entry. There's no reason they should retain any kind of slam attack when not even giants with their two slam attacks (when unarmed) get a slam attack (when armed).

You're creating extra words where none are necessary, and potentially creating a loophole that could be exploited somewhere.

The sample woodling looks to be a proof reading error. The "creatinga woodling" sections says:

Attack: ... ... A woodling armed with a weapon uses its slam or a weapon, as it desires.

Note "slam or a weapon", not "slam and a weapon".

Taelas

2012-04-24, 06:42 AM

By RAW, giants lose both slam attacks if they use a manufactured weapon, even if that is a one-handed weapon (and by logical extension, especially if it is a two-handed weapon).

Cite, please.

Ashtagon

2012-04-24, 06:59 AM

Cite, please.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#naturalWeapons

Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature. A creature making a melee attack with a natural weapon is considered armed and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Likewise, it threatens any space it can reach. Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons. The number of attacks a creature can make with its natural weapons depends on the type of the attack—generally, a creature can make one bite attack, one attack per claw or tentacle, one gore attack, one sting attack, or one slam attack (although Large creatures with arms or arm-like limbs can make a slam attack with each arm). Refer to the individual monster descriptions.

I withdraw my previous statements.

lesser_minion

2012-04-24, 08:22 AM

You can always see how many people voted for a particular idea, so if only one person has noted, you can tell that it doesn't really have much support. You should usually be able to see the rationale behind proposing a rule.

In any event, more votes:

#24 -- Chakra Binds Are Not Free: Extremely downvoted. The entire point of the feat is to make chakra binds available to characters who don't get them from their character class -- MoI even suggests permitting the feats without using the character classes if you're introducing the book into an ongoing game.

#33 -- No Double Dipping: Upvoted.

Gwendol

2012-04-24, 08:43 AM

I don't see anything in there that discounts what I said. If you have a BAB of +6 and you attack with two different weapons, you probably aren't TWFing. You MIGHT be TWFing, assuming you take the penalties and use the combat option, but you can also not be if you are only making your normal iterative attacks. Nothing about a double weapon stops you from swinging one side as a 2 handed weapon, then switching grips and swinging the other side as a 2 handed weapon as your secondary iterative attack. Changing weapons, changing hands, all that, doesn't matter in the slightest since there is no handedness in 3.5 anymore. You could slash someone with a longsword in your right hand, switch it to your left hand, and slash them again with no penalties, as long as you have 2 attacks per round normally. Heck, you don't even need to use your hands. You could slash someone 10' away from you with a glaive, drop them, and continue full attacking against an adjacent for with your iterative attacks using your armor spikes. No handedness means no handedness, no matter how many hands you use, assuming you even use hands.

You can't assign handedness in the middle of a round. This is an unsupported statement so please supply a source for that interpretation.
The logical consequence of that assumption is that you can then get the extra attack from TWF without ever using the second weapon, or using the other end of a double weapon. This is clearly not RAI nor RAW.

I'm not able to post more fully at this time.

Lactantius

2012-04-24, 09:04 AM

Only answering those questions I am familiar with:

1) yes,
2) yes,
3) yes,
4) yes,
5) yes,
6) yes,

11) yes,
12) yes,
13) yes,
14) yes,
15) yes,

17) yes,
18) yes,

20) yes,
21) yes,

28) yes.

Darrin

2012-04-24, 09:11 AM

You can't assign handedness in the middle of a round. This is an unsupported statement so please supply a source for that interpretation.

If you have a weapon in either hand, per the SRD: "you can strike with either weapon first". There is nothing in the rules that says you can't switch weapons on your subsequent attacks.

Technically, Keld has no RAW support for this interpretation on switching primaries, but you are equally unsupported when you insist that you can't switch in the middle of the round. Most of the game designers (including Skip Williams) and nearly everyone else on the planet assumes that you can switch primaries between iterative attacks.

The logical consequence of that assumption is that you can then get the extra attack from TWF without ever using the second weapon, or using the other end of a double weapon. This is clearly not RAI nor RAW.

I'm confused. So now you're saying if you never switch your primary weapon, you can get an extra attack from TWF? Huh?

Cor1

2012-04-24, 09:38 AM

Rulle 002 : Nope. Arcane Thesis means your character has just so much experience with the spell, that adding the very easy metamagics actually makes it easier to cast. To me, it's logical.

I understand very well the opposite opinion, and yes, it's abusing the rules. But by RAW, it works, and it CAN be justified in fluff.

For "twice Wis to AC", I'd let it. Multiclass Paladins can get to add their Cha to saves twice. (Can't remember how, but possible.) So I'd let Monk/Swordsages have it. They need all the help they can get!

Godskook

2012-04-24, 10:22 AM

Taelas

2012-04-24, 10:33 AM

Handedness still exists in 3.5. The off-hand is defined on page 311 of the PHB as the "weaker or less dexterous hand (usually the left)"; any attacks made with the off-hand takes a -4 penalty to attacks and only adds ½ your Str modifier. (Two-Weapon Fighting only removes the attack penalty while TWFing, not in any other circumstances.) It normally only comes up in conjunction with TWF, but it most certainly still exists.

Lapak

2012-04-24, 10:38 AM

Adding the rules that came after I last chimed in:

Rule 013: Clarifying the Dragon Disciple Paradox: Agree.

Rule 014: I'm Not Left Handed: Agree.

Rule 015: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped: Undecided at the moment. I can see arguments in both directions. Making a save against a mind-effecting spell already seems like an unconscious rather than a conscious action - you don't even have to be aware of being a target to make a saving throw, after all. It's something that I don't think there's a clear common-sense line for, so I'll leave this one Undecided and note that I think it's a case where I'd expect most DMs to have their own rulings on how it works because using the RAW isn't necessarily satisfactory.

Rule 016: Tower Shields; How the #&%@ Do They Work?: Disagree. While Tower Shields need clarification/alteration, I don't think this is the clarification they need. RACSD might say, for example, that any opponent who would have a flanking bonus against a Tower Shield user bypasses Total Cover in the process. (Not formally suggesting that, just saying that this proposal doesn't cover a common-sense interpretation to me.)

Rule 017: Non-Floating Armour: Approve.

Rule 018: Claw, Stab Claw…and now with my other arm!: Approve.

Rule 019: All Slams Are Not Created Equally: Approve. This one makes sense to me.

Rule 020: My Weapon Is My Shield!: Approve. I don't see a problem with it.

Rule 021: Enchanting Enhanced Projectiles: Approve for lack of a better option. This is something that I'd rather see handled as a full-on house rule for consistency - either disallow permanently enchanting ammunition and let spells like Magic Weapon affect bundles of ammo, or make magic ammunition always survive an attack but cost normal price, or something - but failing that disallowing discounts on non-attack-enchantments makes sense.

Rule 022: Swordsaging in Leather or No: Approve.

Rule 023: Positive Drawbacks to Undead: Approve.

Rule 024: Chakra Binds Are Not Free: Disagree. The feat itself says that you can now bind a soulmeld; the intent seems clear that the goal is to allow an ability that did not previously exist. And common sense seems to indicate that a feat which only works if you had a specific class ability already would just have that ability as a prerequisite.

Rule 025: Lava Is Easily Resisted:Approve.

Rule 026: Extraordinary Feats : No opinion.

Rule 027: Don't Penalize the Prestigeous: Approve.

Rule 028: Qualified and Disqualified: No opinion.

Rule 029: WhiplashNo opinion.

Rule 030A: Loose Aptitude: Not sure I understand this one.

Rule 030B: Strict Aptitude: Again, not sure I understand this one.

Rule 31: Nobody Notices the Guy with the Tower Shield: Approve.

Rule 032: Full Attack and Attacks of Opportunity: No opinion.

Rule 033: No Double Dipping: No opinion.

Phaederkiel

2012-04-24, 10:42 AM

tippy: You would be wrong by RAW and what you propose is the opposite of common sense. Why do you think that a character you has been knocked out is in any position to resist someone tinkering around in his head?

Easy. You can dream.And fighting something in your dreams is an absolutely time-honoured trope of fantasy.:smallsmile:

And, having been choked out more than once: yes you dream while you are unconcious.

As a house rule, I would say being unconscious means you are automatically willing for all spells except mind-influencing spells.

This is a house rule which is a LOT better than what the official reading seems to imply. I only fear we have to exclude fortitude too. You are not unable to overcome poison only because you are knocked out. In fact, because the brain is not as active, you are probably more able.

this is quite a difficult question. I think I agree that raw it means: willing if unconscious. But I also agree that this is not a good thing.

Ashtagon

2012-04-24, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by Ashtagon View Post
As a house rule, I would say being unconscious means you are automatically willing for all spells except mind-influencing spells.

This is a house rule which is a LOT better than what the official reading seems to imply. I only fear we have to exclude fortitude too. You are not unable to overcome poison only because you are knocked out. In fact, because the brain is not as active, you are probably more able.

this is quite a difficult question. I think I agree that raw it means: willing if unconscious. But I also agree that this is not a good thing.

Note that I said willing for all spells except mind-influencing spells. Poison is not a spell, so you get your normal saving throws against it.

Malachei

2012-04-24, 11:27 AM

Rule 015: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped: Undecided at the moment. I can see arguments in both directions. Making a save against a mind-effecting spell already seems like an unconscious rather than a conscious action - you don't even have to be aware of being a target to make a saving throw, after all. It's something that I don't think there's a clear common-sense line for, so I'll leave this one Undecided and note that I think it's a case where I'd expect most DMs to have their own rulings on how it works because using the RAW isn't necessarily satisfactory.

I think it is RAW, but ambiguous. But my main point is that allowing saves while unconscious has few negative impacts on a game, while disallowing them opens the door wide for abuse.

Example: Powerful PC (or NPC) with a lot of excellent defenses and a very high will save, possibly with regeneration. Apply a lot of nonlethal damage. PC falls unconscious. Apply mindrape (or charm, dominate, etc.)... Game over.

This is a house rule which is a LOT better than what the official reading seems to imply. I only fear we have to exclude fortitude too. You are not unable to overcome poison only because you are knocked out. In fact, because the brain is not as active, you are probably more able.

this is quite a difficult question. I think I agree that raw it means: willing if unconscious. But I also agree that this is not a good thing.

I think the easiest way is to give them a save all the time.

RAW defines the unconscious condition as helpless (the SRD even hyperlinks it). The helpless condition entry also includes unconscious in its text and back-references to it. So, mechanically, by RAW, unconscious = helpless.

Also, the paragraph that is often used to justify unconscious targets would be willing, specifically states it refers to spells that only work on willing targets, right in its introduction.

I think this is plain RAW.

I completely agree that you should be allowed saves against poison. You can even do Reflex saves when you are helpless (albeit at Dex 0).

In avoiding to create a huge list of exceptions (and trying to apply more real-world logic), I think the easiest solution is to just allow the save.

Taelas

2012-04-24, 11:55 AM

I think it is RAW, but ambiguous. But my main point is that allowing saves while unconscious has few negative impacts on a game, while disallowing them opens the door wide for abuse.

Example: Powerful PC (or NPC) with a lot of excellent defenses and a very high will save, possibly with regeneration. Apply a lot of nonlethal damage. PC falls unconscious. Apply mindrape (or charm, dominate, etc.)... Game over.

This is not abuse, but exactly how the game functions.

Also note that the vast majority of charm spells have redundancy saves, for when you are asked to do something "against your nature".

Darrin

2012-04-24, 11:56 AM

@Darrin, no time for a full post, but "this is what the stat-blocks say" is not a legit argument. I mean, just look at the number of errors in stat-blocks of the "example character" sections in the books for prestige classes.

Fine. Granted.

But I have yet to see someone explain to me how my fix is "blatantly against RAW and RAI".

Has no one played any warforged? When did you or when did you not get your slam attack?

We're supposed to be patching holes in the rules with common sense. By RAW and/or Common Sense, we know:

1) Large humanoid-shaped creatures with slam attacks use their arms. They generally get two slam attacks, one for each arm, unless they are wielding a two-handed weapon. As far as I know, no one disputes this. We don't know exactly what happens by RAW when only one arm is occupied, but common sense would suggest they could wield a one-handed weapon and still get a slam with the other arm.

2) Slam attacks where a creature of any size has no appendages generally appear on oozes and some other oddball creatures, and they typically use a "pseudopod" or some portion of their amorphous body to attack with. They generally don't have any way to wield a manufactured weapon, but in any case no one is arguing about these guys.

Between those two, there's a small gap with a handful of medium-sized and smaller humanoid-shaped creatures that have a single slam attack, but we have no indication by RAW when they "lose" that attack. I see two distinct alternatives: they lose it if their arms are occupied (which fits more closely to the "slam = arm" thing from the MM), or they always have it as a knee/elbow/headbutt/etc. (the "unarmed strike" approach).

I concede that what I wrote was too convoluted and wordy, but what's the best "common sense" way to fill that gap?

Taelas

2012-04-24, 12:02 PM

Slam attacks are made with an appendage if any are available. It depends on precisely how the slam attack you receive is worded.

For the vast majority of situations, it's likely to be an attack with an arm. If it is with an arm, they lose it when that arm is occupied, just as any other natural weapon.

Phaederkiel

2012-04-24, 12:04 PM

Note that I said willing for all spells except mind-influencing spells. Poison is not a spell, so you get your normal saving throws against it.

okay, bad example. But anything that you are able to repell by physis alone should definetively get the save.

In avoiding to create a huge list of exceptions (and trying to apply more real-world logic), I think the easiest solution is to just allow the save.

Am I seeing it right: there are two points to the debate:

a) Is the helpless creature hindered in making the save?

and

b) can a unconscious creature still chose not to save against things she wants to be affected by?

with b2) where is the border? When an disguised badguy tries to dimension door unconscious you 400ft upwards, do you know the teleportation target and can choose to resist or do you not? This will probably reveal a lot of spells as sloppy written. I mean, this is not even an issue of being unconscious or not.

I think it is needed to talk about the two points seperately. Even if you do not agree with malacheis opinion on a), perhaps you could opine on b)?

and b2) probably is a problem all on its own: when am I willing? and how much do I know about a spell i do not cast?

Emperor Tippy

2012-04-24, 12:18 PM

hamishspence

2012-04-24, 12:20 PM

Lapak

2012-04-24, 12:24 PM

This is not abuse, but exactly how the game functions.Part of the reason that I like this thread is that I've never found RAW compelling as an argument. In a computer RPG, if I discover that running away from an enemy causes him to get stuck on part of the scenery and unable to fight back? It is certainly 'exactly how the game functions,' but it's called a bug, or an exploit, or abuse. Similarly, if three different writers working on two different books - one writing a specific spell, another writing about special cases of how spells function in general, and another writing a general game rule about conditions that aren't specific to spells - happen to create a rules-state that doesn't make sense and/or is destructive to the gameplay or setting, I'm perfectly willing to call that a mistake even absent an explicit statement of intent by the authors. In the context of forum discussion, it often makes sense to use RAW for a common context, but in a common sense debate I don't know that it's relevant.

JonRG

2012-04-24, 12:27 PM

I really want to vote Yes on #15, but that's for a more selfish reason than out of consideration of the rules. (Some schmuck wanted to teleport sleeping targets out of their tents in the night with no save. I tried to explain to him 1. why this was really bending the rules and 2. why it'd be bad news when the evil wizards learned his new trick, but to no avail. :smallmad:)

@Ham: I could swear that the unconscious = willing only applied to Will saves, and Poison is a Fort save. Am I mistaken on that one?

Somehow, I feel like it would help a lot if there were a distinction between "willing" and "unable to resist." Could prevent a lot of the abuse of spells that require willing targets, while still allowing Harmful spells to go through sans save. I have no clue what to do about delivering heals, buffs, debuff removal to unconscious allies.

Emperor Tippy

2012-04-24, 12:28 PM

It does say that helpless conscious creatures are not automatically willing.

If someone casts the Poison spell on an unconscious guy- do they automatically fail the save? -

because it's a spell, not "real" poison by the "Unconscious characters automatically fail all saves vs spells because they are "willing" logic?
No. All the spell does is infect the creature with a poison. They make their save against poison as they would against any other poison.

hamishspence

2012-04-24, 12:32 PM

While it comes right after "some spells restrict you to willing targets only" Tippy's argument seems to be that it's a universal rule- which would mean it applies to each and every spell.

Knock someone unconscious and they'd be a prime target for Disintegrate or Slay Living, even if they have a massive Fort save.

No. All the spell does is infect the creature with a poison. They make their save against poison as they would against any other poison.

It's a spell. And not an instantaneous Conjuration Creation spell (which creates nonmagical matter, that won't disappear in an anti magic field) but a necromancy spell. Why would it be the sole exception to all those Fort Save spells that, by your interpretation, the character would get no save against?

Emperor Tippy

2012-04-24, 12:41 PM

In game it really doesn't change much. If you are unconscious then you are already screwed. For the spells that are a real threat (Mindrape comes to mind), they only become available at high levels and then you should already have defenses and contingencies in place. Mind Blank is still up.

If you are unconscious you have already lost, because you can be kept unconscious indefinitely without any problem.

Andorax

2012-04-24, 12:42 PM

Ok, first the "Clothes as Armor" issue. I've done some serious research into the two cited locations, and I think I have a new RACSD to cover it. As it covers much the same ground as Rule 012, I'm going to go ahead and close it out in favor of this revised rule.

Rule 034: Armored Outfits

Clarification/Combination: An entire SET of clothing (such as an Explorer's outfit) can be enhanced as a protective item. Such a set of clothing is considered to occupy the Body slot (as would armor or robes), and can be given an armor bonus in the same manner as Bracers of Armor (with the same limitations and benefits), with a maximum (pre-epic) bonus of +8. Either Bracers of Armor OR "Armored Clothing" can also be given up to 5 "plus equivalent" armor enhancements, as well as +GP enhancements, subject to the standard Epic cap. Note that clothing enhanced in such a manner is not "armor", does not count against class features that forbid the wearing of armor, and the bonus granted is itself an Armor bonus, not an Encancement bonus TO armor (again, as per the rules for Bracers of Armor). Please reference A&E 130 AND MIC 233.

The Arms & Equipment Guide component:

The sidebar on page 130 lays out the rules for putting armor enhancements (Both the +GP amount kind and the +# kind). It's clearly permissible as per those rules, though it's also odd in that it's limited to a maximum of 5 "plusses" worth...you can have Bracers of Armor +8 of Heavy Fortification (a +5 bonus), but you cannot have Bracers of Armor +4 of Invulnerability and Heavy Fortification, even though it's still under the total "+13" limit. The +8 armor limit and the +5 "other plusses" bonuses limits are separate.

The Magic Item Compendium component:

The section on "adding common item effects to existing items" and subsequent table on page 234 lists adding an Armor Bonus (Note: Not an Enhancement bonus TO Armor) to a body slot occupying item. Thus, much like the Arms slot (also shown in the table) can allow for adding a +Armor item (bracers of armor), a Body slot item (such as Robes) can do likewise...and there is precident as well in the form of Robes of the Archmagi and the like.

The "Interpretation" component:

In order to prevent things from waxing absurd with bras and loincloths of +8 Armor (though by the rules, only one such item could be worn, as it would thus occupy the "body" slot, and prevent others from being used just like any other conflict of slot), I've added one bit that is my interpretation of the rules...what constitutes clothing.

The Player's Handbook doesn't define individual articles of clothing. Instead, "clothing" belongs to entire full outfits (see PHB 129, clothing chart). So if one wanted to grant an armor bonus, or subsequently add extra armor enhancements onto an armor-bonus-granting clothing item occupying the body slot, it would thus apply to a full outfit, not a single shirt, pants, tunic, bra, skirt, or other altogether too modest (or immodest) individual scrap of cloth.

Thus, +4 Radiant Cleric's Vestments are a legal, legit choice that grants a +4 armor bonus, as would be a +5 Improved Shadow Woodwalk Traveler's Outfit.

If individual DM's needs somehow require a +5 Loincloth of Moderate Fortification, then presumably individual DMs could just as easily define a "Gladiator's Outfit" as needed.

-----------------------------

I've revised Rule 033 slightly to clarify that it only applies if the bonuses granted are of the same type or are typeless, but even as such, I don't know if it'll get much traction. It seems this is entirely normal and acceptable at a lot of tables.

My take here is that the various means (take for example Wis to AC from Monk and Wis to AC from Ninja..yes I know they're explicitly called out as non-combining). The concept, to me, is that each gives the ability to add Wisdom to AC. Being given that ability twice over doesn't mean that you get 2x your wisdom...you get granted the same 1x ability from both sources.

Darrin, I see where you're going with it and have reworded #19 accordingly, and withdrawn my opposition.

Godskook, no rule here (save for those removed) is "decided". The status of a given rule changes back and forth as the participants in this thread weigh in. Until it is "closed" at some theoretical future date, the fact that a given thread has only 2-4 "votes" is irrelevant. What's more, since it's tracked in the open, it's easy enough for anyone else to tell that a given item has received little discussion and consensus...or considerable.

And while Rule 002 is definately a change, not an intepretation, I disagree that it isn't common sense...I wouldn't have put it FORWARD if I didn't feel it was common sense that you can't make a spell easier to cast by putting MORE metamagic on it.

As nobody has come forward in favor of "Loose Aptitude" (formerly Rule 030A), it has been removed, and rule 030B (Strict Aptitude) is now simply Rule 030.

I appreciate the suggestions for revising the rules of the thread, and the format it is presented in. I am considering ways to make this more intuitive and helpful, while at the same time making it managable on my end. Minor shift of format added to give it as:
(currently approved 100% of 22)

Szar Lakol...I take your comment on handedness as an "against" for Rule 014 (and a persuasive argument for why I should do the same). Please let me know if I've misinterpreted.

General request...while I appreciate those who are taking the time to weigh in with your take on various items...I'd also greatly appreciate adding a bit more of your reasoning behind them, particularly if you're taking a contrary point of view. If at all possible, please tell us why you've decided how you have.

JonRG

2012-04-24, 12:43 PM

The rules also state that a willing creature gets no save against spells.

Do you have the text for that? I can only search the SRD with any kind of speed, so all I found was this.

A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result.

Which seems to require the creature to actively reject the opportunity to save.

hamishspence

2012-04-24, 12:44 PM

If you are unconscious you have already lost, because you can be kept unconscious indefinitely without any problem.

I'm thinking more in terms of bad guys taking out (or taking over) PCs who have been knocked unconscious, while the rest of the party is still up.

Do you have the text for that?

Page 175 PHB, under Aiming a Spell, subsection "Target or Targets"

"Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target can be done any time (even if you're flat-footed or it isn't your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralysed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing."

Here, in the SRD:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#targetorTargets

Emperor Tippy

2012-04-24, 12:44 PM

It's a spell. And not an instantaneous Conjuration Creation spell (which creates nonmagical matter, that won't disappear in an anti magic field) but a necromancy spell. Why would it be the sole exception to all those Fort Save spells that, by your interpretation, the character would get no save against?
Because it's instantaneous and specifically only infects you with a poison. It then follows the rules for a poison; an immediate save against the initial damage and then a later secondary save.

The see text bit after the duration and save lines is relevant.

Emperor Tippy

2012-04-24, 12:48 PM

Do you have the text for that? I can only search the SRD with any kind of speed, so all I found was this.

Which seems to require the creature to actively reject the opportunity to save.

Target or Targets

Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.

If the target of a spell is yourself (the spell description has a line that reads Target: You), you do not receive a saving throw, and spell resistance does not apply. The Saving Throw and Spell Resistance lines are omitted from such spells.

Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you’re flat-footed or it isn’t your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.
Malachei's argument is that that applies only to spells that are "willing only", mine is that being willing isn't something that applies to just spells that only effect willing targets (see voluntarily giving up a saving throw)

hamishspence

2012-04-24, 12:53 PM

"Unconscious creatures automatically get no save against any spell that allows a save"

If it's RAW- who thinks it needs changing?

Taelas

2012-04-24, 01:06 PM

Szar Lakol...I take your comment on handedness as an "against" for Rule 014 (and a persuasive argument for why I should do the same). Please let me know if I've misinterpreted.

Yes, after researching the matter, I've changed my mind. You have me listed twice at the moment; I initially voted For, but that is more of a house rule than anything.

Malachei

2012-04-24, 01:08 PM

Helpless is not unconscious. The rules specifically call out that an unconscious (and not a sleeping, helpless, or otherwise disabled character) character is always willing. The rules also state that a willing creature gets no save against spells.

RAW, if you are unconscious (between -1 and -9 HP or have more nonlethal damage than HP) you don't get a save against magic.

If you are unconscious you also become helpless, but you can be helpless without being unconscious.

This claim is not correct. In fact, the RAW explicitly explain unconscious by linking to helpless and the always willing clause applies only to spells that only affect willing targets. Repeating the opposite over and over again does not make it right.

Also, this is about RAI and there's a solution (rule 15). You're free to vote against it if you wish to keep ignoring the evidence.

IMO, you're only fighting this because your tricks rely on reading it differently (ignoring the paragraph's first sentence). Rule 15 will reduce mindrape abuse.

Tippy's "trick" in this case is focusing your attention to the bolded part of the text he cited above. The full text is one paragraph and reads:

Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you’re flat-footed or it isn’t your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.

Reading the whole text it becomes obvious, as it is given as one paragraph. There's another before, and another after it -> it is a paragraph and its statements are in context of the first sentence.

It is obvious that the first part is the introduction to the rest of the paragraph/section. Only by ignoring the first sentence and arbitrarily taking out a sentence from the paragraph can the meaning be applied to all spells. Unfortunately, game designers also have to use puncutuation marks. To protect against Tippy, they'd need to make endless sentences, or he just takes out whichever part he likes to use and neglects the rest of a section.

Talakeal

2012-04-24, 01:18 PM

Magic vestment, a core spell in the PHB, states that it can give normal clothing can be given an enhancement bonus to armor.

It seems really weird to me that such a basic spell can perform this effect, but no magic item ever printed can replicate it.

It seems to me like you should be able to, but barring that, couldn't you just find some way to make magic vestment permanent or give it an obscenely long duration? DMM persist for example?

Emperor Tippy

2012-04-24, 01:21 PM

A willing creature is anyone that has 1) chosen to give up their save or 2) is unconcious.

A spell that restricts you to willing only creatures only works if the creature is willing (thus has either chosen to give up their save or is unconscious).

Willing is basically a flag on the creature targeted, if it's set to 'yes' then the creature get's no save. If it's set to 'no' then the creature gets a save (or the spell automatically doesn't work).

That flag only gets set to yes if the creature chooses to make it so or is unconscious.

This is RAW.

Ashtagon

2012-04-24, 01:24 PM

"Unconscious creatures automatically get no save against any spell that allows a save"

If it's RAW- who thinks it needs changing?

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#aimingASpell

Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you’re flat-footed or it isn’t your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.

The above is RAW.

It says nothing about saving throws, only about whether you can be a target at all. If you are conscious, you are a living (or undead, or constructed, or...) creature, and can choose whether or not you are willing for any given spell. If you are unconscious, you are automatically considered a willing target where it matters.

The saving throw section does not indicate anything to the effect that a willing target has to forego their saving throw. You can be a "willing target" and still roll your saving throw.

So let's look at some of the example spells in the light of RAW...

dimension door: Only affects willing (including unconscious) targets. Only magical objects and attended objects can receive a saving throw. Unconscious characters by RAW don't have that option. There is a corner case here of an unconscious character who has some magical equipment.

charm person: Affects one creature, willing or not, and a save applies. Being unconscious affects this spell in no way at all.

dominate person/monster: Same as charm person.

poison, destruction, disintegrate: Also unaffected by being unconscious as per RAW.

water breathing: Presumably cast by tritons to kidnap an unconscious PC from the beach party fight. It affects a living creature, whether willing or not, but he gets a save, which he can choose to either roll or automatically fail, independently of whether or not he is a "willing target".

I'm not sure what the solution here is anymore. Being a willing target isn't the deal breaker some made it out to be. Otoh, it allows some weird tactics while denying some obvious ones.

However, I did notice something weird... If you are unconscious or otherwise helpless, you can still attempt a Reflex saving throw, albeit with the -5 penalty for having zero dexterity.

Rule xxx: Dodging While Asleep
If you are helpless, you automatically fail any Reflex saving throw.

Talakeal

2012-04-24, 01:25 PM

Page 177 of the PHB says a willing creature can also lower any "special resistances" they have to a spell.

If you rule that any unconscious creature also forgoes their save, wouldn't they also count as lowering their resistances? Thus, wouldn't mind blank or any other form of spell resistance or immunity from a spell, item, class, or race not function while a character is unconscious?

I wonder how far that extends, RAW or RAI. Could you, for example, burn an unwilling or unconscious fire elemental to death with fire ball?

Emperor Tippy

2012-04-24, 01:28 PM

JonRG

2012-04-24, 01:29 PM

Page 175 PHB, under Aiming a Spell, subsection "Target or Targets"

"Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target can be done any time (even if you're flat-footed or it isn't your turn).

I did read that, but I didn't see anything that explicitly states "no saves for you, ever."

Aaaaaand... ninjaed by Ashtagon. :smallbiggrin:

Talakeal

2012-04-24, 01:30 PM

That applies only to spell resistance. Nothing else.

@Ashtagon
Go look at voluntarily giving up a saving throw, if you are willing you don't get one.

No it isn't, the example it gives is an elf's racial resistance to sleep spells, which is a flat out immunity, not spell resistance.

Ashtagon

2012-04-24, 01:35 PM

That applies only to spell resistance. Nothing else.

@Ashtagon
Go look at voluntarily giving up a saving throw, if you are willing you don't get one.

Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw

A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.

Nope. RAW disagrees. A willing creature can choose to give up their saving throw, but they certainly aren't required to do so.

Malachei

2012-04-24, 01:36 PM

And rule 15 saves lives. :smallbiggrin:

Allowing unconscious creatures saves will lead to less PC deaths, which is a good thing (and a smaller number of mindrapes, as well, which is a good thing).

Emperor Tippy

2012-04-24, 01:37 PM

No it isn't, the example it gives is an elf's racial resistance to sleep spells, which is a flat out immunity, not spell resistance.

Oh, that. I would rule it differently from unconscious being willing (you have to choose to suppress the ability and nothing calls out that you automatically do so, unlike being unconscious in regards to saving throws).

Ashtagon

2012-04-24, 01:46 PM

In light of the above RAW, I'd now like to state a houserule I'm considering...

An unconscious character is by default considered an unwilling target for any and all spells. Exception: you are always considered a willing target for cure/inflict/repair spells when used to restore hit points.

Any character can choose a number of spells or spell groups equal to his Intelligence bonus (if any, minimum one). These groups can be as tight as a single spell ("dimension door"), or as loose as a single school ("abjurations", subschool ("teleportation spells"), descriptor type ("mind-influencing"), caster type ("clerics"), or spell level ("level one"). You cannot choose "all spells cast by Fred", since you have no way of knowing it was Fred who cast the spell while you are unconscious.

You can change these chosen spell groups first thing in the morning after you wake up. Mostly, players will pick them once and leave them alone.

For those spells or spell groups you have picked, you are considered a willing target while unconscious, regardless of who the caster was. In effect, while conscious you get to choose normally whether you are willing or not. When you are unconscious, you follow your pre-selected decisions.

Onikani

2012-04-24, 01:50 PM

Rule 006: I Really Do Know Kung Fu!

Unarmed Strike is a special case.
See, anything attacking with a natural weapon (claw, teeth, tentacles, whatever) is attacking with a weapon. All creatures are proficient with their natural weapons.

Humanoids making an unarmed attack provoke an AoO (mainly cause you have to get closer to a dude to punch him then you do to stab him), and if you really wanna be a stickler about it, take another -4 penalty to the attack roll. Technically, this is for using a weapon you aren't proficient in, but you could also think of it as "it's hard to punch a guy through Full plate".

Monks get improved unarmed strike at first level, listing unarmed strike as a weapon proficiency is confusing and redundant.

I do understand the intent of the RACSD, but in this case, i actually think it's redundant and makes the rules even more confusing. Please, count my vote for Against rule 6.

Phaederkiel

2012-04-24, 01:53 PM

sorry for quoting myself (but i feel it somewhat drowned in the repitition of arguments later on)

Am I seeing it right: there are two points to the debate:

a) Is the helpless creature hindered in making the save?

and

b) can a unconscious creature still chose not to save against things she wants to be affected by?

with b2) where is the border? When an disguised badguy tries to dimension door unconscious you 400ft upwards, do you know the teleportation target and can choose to resist or do you not? This will probably reveal a lot of spells as sloppy written. I mean, this is not even an issue of being unconscious or not.

I think it is needed to talk about the two points seperately. Even if you do not agree with malacheis opinion on a), perhaps you could opine on b)?

and b2) probably is a problem all on its own: when am I willing? and how much do I know about a spell i do not cast?

Tippy, what would, if a) was contrary to your position be "no"
your position on b) ?

Toliudar

2012-04-24, 01:54 PM

Phaederkiel

2012-04-24, 01:58 PM

"it's hard to punch a guy through Full plate".

to be a stickler with real-life-examples again: it is much easier to hurt someone in a gothic full plate with a strike of a gauntlet that with a strike of a sword.

you have a better lever and thus more kynetic power. It is quite easy to give someone a concussion even through a helmet.

There is a reason for the predominance of wrestling techniques in historic fencing books for the fully armored fight.

Punch him, throw him, lock his arm, open his visor, stabbytimes.

Malachei

2012-04-24, 02:06 PM

sorry for quoting myself (but i feel it somewhat drowned in the repitition of arguments later on)

Note that cures are not an issue, because they have the harmless entry.

SRD: (harmless)
The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.

Emperor Tippy

2012-04-24, 02:08 PM

sorry for quoting myself (but i feel it somewhat drowned in the repitition of arguments later on)

Tippy, what would, if a) was contrary to your position be "no"
your position on b) ?
Helpless creatures aren't hindered in making a save, unconscious creatures aren't either. If you are unconscious you forgo your save. Assuming that what you meant was that unconscious creatures don't forgo their saves, then I would make willing only spells fail and force saves on even helpful spells.

You either save vs. everything (regardless of whether it's helpful or not), or save vs. nothing (regardless of whether it's harmful or not). Why in the world should you get a save against the BBEG's teleport but not have to save against your allies teleport?

Onikani

2012-04-24, 02:13 PM

Clarification/Combination: An entire SET of clothing (such as an Explorer's outfit) can be enhanced as a protective item. Such a set of clothing is considered to occupy the Body slot (as would armor or robes), and can be given an armor bonus in the same manner as Bracers of Armor (with the same limitations and benefits), with a maximum (pre-epic) bonus of +8. Either Bracers of Armor OR "Armored Clothing" can also be given up to 5 "plus equivalent" armor enhancements, as well as +GP enhancements, subject to the standard Epic cap. Note that clothing enhanced in such a manner is not "armor", does not count against class features that forbid the wearing of armor, and the bonus granted is itself an Armor bonus, not an Encancement bonus TO armor (again, as per the rules for Bracers of Armor). Please reference A&E 130 AND MIC 233

The rules in the Magic Item Compendium clearly define the body slot item, and give a list of enchantments appropriate for such a slot.
According the the MIC page 218 the example for body slot consists of armor or robes (clothes make sense here too).
Also, You may only have 1 active magic item in each body slot, so you cannot receive a bonus for both magic armor and robes.

The Rules in MIC (page 218) also detail the slot for Torso, and defines it as shirt, tunic, vests, or vestments. Enchanting an "entire set of clothing" would effectively mean that the PC loses the Torso Slot, since the shirt part of the outfit counts as covers the torso.

Some would argue that a PC could wear 2 shirts, but then you are getting into a situation where 2 items occupy the same slot...

I agree that common sense should dictate that if you can enchant robes, you should be able to enchant any outfit, but this causes a conflict with other clear RAW.
I do not wish to vote for this in it's current form. But will vote for it, if we can fix/clarify some of the wording above.

Malachei

2012-04-24, 02:22 PM

unconscious creatures don't forgo their saves, then I would make willing only spells fail and force saves on even helpful spells.

You either save vs. everything (regardless of whether it's helpful or not), or save vs. nothing (regardless of whether it's harmful or not). Why in the world should you get a save against the BBEG's teleport but not have to save against your allies teleport?

Tippy. Now you of all people arguing with common sense? OMG, the paradigm shift... are people going to jump from buildings?

I think the issue is not big:

Because you are not automatically considered willing (because this only refers to spells that affect willing targets only), this is not a problem for most spells.

Exception: Spells that affect willing targets only. Here, you are automatically considered willing, and can be teleported, whether by your ally or the BBEG.

So yes, he has an easier time teleporting you than he has killing (or mindraping) you ;)

Onikani

2012-04-24, 02:29 PM

to be a stickler with real-life-examples again: it is much easier to hurt someone in a gothic full plate with a strike of a gauntlet that with a strike of a sword.

you have a better lever and thus more kynetic power. It is quite easy to give someone a concussion even through a helmet.

There is a reason for the predominance of wrestling techniques in historic fencing books for the fully armored fight.

Punch him, throw him, lock his arm, open his visor, stabbytimes.

I'm not arguing historical accuracy, I'm arguing RAW, and where and how it needs to be clarified/clarified for common sense.

Let's examine your sequence:
Punch him = Attack action with Unarmed Strike
Throw him = Attack Action with Trip or Bullrush
Open his Visor = Outside of the RAW for 3.5 DND, but could probably be represented by a Grapple check, again, an attack action.
Stabbytimes = Attack action (possibly with Called Shot optional rules).

That is a minimum of 4 attack actions, which either means 4 rounds, or 1 round for a PC with a +16 BAB. This means a PC at the very minimum of level 16 (and some good rolls!).
Someone could probably make a tactical feat to simulate this, but afaik, no such thing currently exists.

The rules system allow for combat without trying to be 100% historically accurate. Historically, no one could fly, fight dragons, or cast magic missile either. Also, successful Stabbytimes, (as you put it) would ALWAYS result in a death, in D&D, it means a dice roll for damage.
;)

Emperor Tippy

2012-04-24, 02:34 PM

Tippy. Now you of all people arguing with common sense? OMG, the paradigm shift... are people going to jump from buildings?
I use common sense and houserules all the time, I just don't use them in RAW arguments because they have no place.

I think the issue is not big:

Because you are not automatically considered willing (because this only refers to spells that affect willing targets only), this is not a problem for most spells.

Exception: Spells that affect willing targets only. Here, you are automatically considered willing, and can be teleported, whether by your ally or the BBEG.

So yes, he has an easier time teleporting you than he has killing (or mindraping) you ;)

See, you are making an assumption that is not supported. Willing Only spells are not the only time the condition "willing" is checked. It's checked every single time you get hit with a spell in the entire game. If a spell is restricted to "willing only" targets then it fails before any question of saves arise because it's an invalid target (just like using a creatures only spell on an object). If a spell is not so restricted it still checks whether you are willing or not, and if you are willing then you don't get a save.

You agree on the above, correct?

My position, which the rules support, is that if you are suffering from the "unconscious" condition then you are automatically willing. In which case you can still be affected by spells with the willing only target descriptor and you automatically forgo your saving throws against any spell cast upon you.

That does not mean that you loose SR or any other immunities, as those take a separate specific action to lower, or that you loose your saves against anything but magic.

Malachei

2012-04-24, 02:58 PM

Common sense? Fine, I love common sense.

A scroll, let's say a scroll of ice assassin, gets saving throws. Actually, it gets Fort, Reflex and will saving throws. It is not automatically considered to forego its save.

An object gets to roll a saving throw but an unconscious PC canot roll a saving throw?

I find that unreasonable and unnecessary. It also causes a higher number of PC deaths.

huttj509

2012-04-24, 03:01 PM

I think I see a root of some of the dissent.

Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw

A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.

Now, is the bolded willingly a game mechanic term, or descriptive language?

If someone is a willing target in terms of a spell that specifies something for a willing target, do they automatically willingly accept a spell's result and forego a saving throw? Do they automatically willingly accept a spell's result and forego a saving throw if the spell does not have a specification for a willing or unwilling target?

Taelas

2012-04-24, 03:53 PM

A willing target is someone who voluntarily foregoes his saving throw, and it is also someone who accepts a willing targets-only spell. It is the same thing.

The only reason there is a category for willing targets regarding spells is because these spells cannot work on hostile creatures. You'll notice that any spells which does work on hostile creatures, but which has harmless effects generally, have a "(harmless)" clause after their saving throw. (Willing targets-only spells do not have saving throws. They don't need them!)

So by your logic, if you're unconscious and don't forego your saving throw, you now have to roll saves against heal, since you can't make the decision to voluntarily give it up.

It works the way Tippy describes, and it is not an abuse... this is how the rules are intended to work. Yes, being unconscious sucks.

Godskook

2012-04-24, 04:32 PM

I concede that what I wrote was too convoluted and wordy, but what's the best "common sense" way to fill that gap?

The best "common sense" way to fill the 'gap' is to apply the rules uniformly across all hand-based weapons. You can make a slam attack with a claw attack, so what makes a dagger attack different than a claw attack?

And as an example of RAW, read the vampire template's entry in the monster manual. Explicitly calls out that the slam attack may be used as a secondary natural attack with a manufactured weapon(which includes 2-handed weapons)(And humorously, doesn't add it to any of the sample stat-blocks as a secondary attack during a full-attack, even when the primary-manufactured weapon was 1-handed).

Gwendol

2012-04-24, 04:51 PM

If you have a weapon in either hand, per the SRD: "you can strike with either weapon first". There is nothing in the rules that says you can't switch weapons on your subsequent attacks.

Technically, Keld has no RAW support for this interpretation on switching primaries, but you are equally unsupported when you insist that you can't switch in the middle of the round. Most of the game designers (including Skip Williams) and nearly everyone else on the planet assumes that you can switch primaries between iterative attacks.

Strangely enough, Skip Williams doesn't mention that in his treatise on two weapon fighting (From Rules of the Game: Two handed fighting part 1)

Off Hand, Off-Hand Weapon: When attacking with two weapons, the character must designate one of his hands as his off hand; the weapon held in that hand is treated as his off-hand weapon. The game rules don’t really care about whether you’re right-handed or left-handed, and it’s even OK to change your off hand designation from one round to the next.

I've bolded the relevant part. He doesn't say "between iterative attacks".

Furthermore, he clarifies how to go about two weapon fighting with a little more clarity than in the SRD:

When fighting with two weapons, you gain one extra attack with your off-hand weapon when you use the full attack action. If you have a high base attack bonus, you gain iterative attacks only with your primary weapon.
So no, you can't switch between a glaive and armor spikes at will without incuring two-weapon fighting penalties as long as you don't take the extra attack, because they have to all be made with the primary hand weapon. Only extra attacks are made with the off-hand. You do still threaten adjacent squares though and can make AoO's into those (without TWF penalties, if made with the off-hand weapon however you still take the -4 to attack and deal half your strength bonus damage.).

On the other rules:
(1): Yes
(2): Yes
(3): Yes
(4): Yes
(5): Yes
(6): Yes
(7): Conditional yes. According to Rules of the Game: All about mounts, any front leg natural weapon attack will do:

Trample: This feat keeps your opponent from simply stepping aside to avoid you and your mount when you make a mounted overrun (see the notes on mounted overruns in Part Three). In addition, if your foe is knocked down in the overrun, your mount can make a free hoof attack. According to the D&D FAQ, a mount that lacks hooves can instead make an attack with any natural weapon it has on its front feet.
(8): Abstain
(10): Yes, and this also means a barbarian cannot pounce while mounted.
(11): Yes, under the current dysfunctional rules, this is a sensible approach.
(13): Yes
(14): No, there is always a primary hand and an off-hand (though hand in this context is a label as it includes armor spikes, and natural attacks for example). One is however free to designates which is the primary hand, and may switch from one round to the next (see above).
(15): Yes, there is nothing to suggest otherwise
(16): Yes
(17): Yes
(18): Yes
(19): Pending. I don't understand the issue
(20): No, this is actually spelled out clearly: the shield can be used to make off-hand attacks. If used simply as a blunt object, take the penalty for improvised weapon and move on.
(21): Yes
(22): Abstain
(23): Yes
(24): Abstain
(25): Yes
(26): Abstain
(27): Yes
(28): No, it may allow goliath barbarians to become hulking hurlers on mountain rage alone.
(29): Abstain
(30): Abstain
(31): Yes
(32): Yes, any specific action can only trigger AoO once in a round (from each threatening enemy)
(33): Yes, WIS to AC cannot be doubled, unless specified that way.
(34): Yes

Taelas

2012-04-24, 05:00 PM

Strangely enough, Skip Williams doesn't mention that in his treatise on two weapon fighting (From Rules of the Game: Two handed fighting part 1)

I've bolded the relevant part. He doesn't say "between iterative attacks".

Furthermore, he clarifies how to go about two weapon fighting with a little more clarity than in the SRD:

So no, you can't switch between a glaive and armor spikes at will without incuring two-weapon fighting penalties as long as you don't take the extra attack, because they have to all be made with the primary hand weapon. Only extra attacks are made with the off-hand. You do still threaten adjacent squares though and can make AoO's into those (without TWF penalties, if made with the off-hand weapon however you still take the -4 to attack and deal half your strength bonus damage.).

Skip is talking of using the TWF rules, which is something you do to get extra attacks. You do not use the TWF rules otherwise. If you have a glaive, and you have two attacks, nothing in the rules prevent you from using your first attack to attack an opponent within reach with the glaive, then use your iterative attack to an adjacent foe with an unarmed strike, or an armor spike, or even the glaive shaft as an improvised club.

If you want to get an extra attack to do it, you use the TWF rules. Otherwise, you do not.

Darrin

2012-04-24, 05:04 PM

The best "common sense" way to fill the 'gap' is to apply the rules uniformly across all hand-based weapons. You can make a slam attack with a claw attack, so what makes a dagger attack different than a claw attack?

The issue isn't dagger/claw, it's greatsword/claw. In general, creatures with claws don't get slam attacks because they already have claws at the end of their arms.

And as an example of RAW, read the vampire template's entry in the monster manual. Explicitly calls out that the slam attack may be used as a secondary natural attack with a manufactured weapon(which includes 2-handed weapons)(And humorously, doesn't add it to any of the sample stat-blocks as a secondary attack during a full-attack, even when the primary-manufactured weapon was 1-handed).

Actually, the vampire description doesn't include two-handed weapons, it just says "weapon". The template says:

"If armed with a weapon, it usually uses the weapon as its primary attack along with a slam or other natural weapon as a natural secondary attack."

Woodling has the same wording. I can only assume the designers were thinking that a one-handed weapon would be the default if not specified otherwise. The actual stat block mentions a spiked chain, which is a two-handed weapon, and this supports my proposed wording.

Vampire is a bit of an oddity, however, in that it can be applied to a creature with claws, and it also gets a slam attack. Generally, creatures with claws can't have slam attacks because they already have claws at the end of their arms. However, the vampire's slam is the primary way it delivers it's energy drain attack, and the template can't tell beforehand what kind of natural attacks the base creature has before the template was applied, so it has to keep that slam attack no matter what for energy drain to work like it's supposed to. But there's another quirk in that size only determines the damage of the slam... if applied to a large-sized creature, shouldn't it by RAW get two slam attacks, one for each arm?

But I'm being way too pedantic when I'd much rather agree with you: your argument that a medium-or-smaller creature with a slam attack should retain it regardless of whether one or both arms is occupied is a perfectly acceptable way to close the gap. It doesn't quite make sense from the standpoint of larger humanoids having to make their slam attacks with their arms, but it's less complicated than what I proposed, which may be a good thing. I'd be more than willing to support that position if the majority felt that was the best solution.

Gwendol

2012-04-24, 05:08 PM

No he doesn't, he talks about fighting with a weapon in each hand (which also covers part of double weapon fighting, shield bashing, etc):

Using a weapon in each hand.

This option requires you to use two weapons, both of which you can wield in one hand (but read on). It's usually best to use a light weapon in your off hand, but not necessary. You can use an unarmed strike as either your primary or secondary weapon.

When fighting with two weapons, you gain one extra attack with your off-hand weapon when you use the full attack action. If you have a high base attack bonus, you gain iterative attacks only with your primary weapon.

When using a weapon in each hand, you usually can't use a shield, which hurts your Armor Class. In addition, you take an attack penalty on attacks you make with your primary hand and (generally) a bigger attack penalty for your off hand. The exact penalties depend on what feats you have and which two weapons you're using; see page 160 in the Player's Handbook. Parts Two and Three also examine two-weapon fighting in detail.

This is from the first part in the series. I recommend reading through all three to understand where I am coming from on this topic.

Taelas

2012-04-24, 05:13 PM

Darrin: you can't really use the stat block. They are too often filled with errors to justify basing a ruling on them without being backed up by additional evidence.

For instance, the "elite vampire" is using a +2 keen kama--a one-handed weapon--yet still does not use a slam attack as a secondary natural attack, despite this being permitted (even considering it is using flurry of blows). It's just poorly written.

The Full Attack entry says "weapon", not "one-handed weapon". While it could be in error, the statement is perfectly clear. A two-handed weapon is a weapon every bit as much as a one-handed weapon is.

No he doesn't, he talks about fighting with a weapon in each hand (which also covers part of double weapon fighting, shield bashing, etc):

This is from the first part in the series. I recommend reading through all three to understand where I am coming from on this topic.

...

He uses the Two-Weapon Fighting rules. That is what that entire series is about. There is not a single time where he describes a situation in which he does not utilize the extra attack granted by using the TWF rules, because that is what he is talking about.

You are not, not, not required to use the TWF rules to get an extra attack simply because you have a weapon in each hand.

Characters are allowed to switch between weapons while making a full attack. Period. If they can draw weapons as a free action, as per Quick Draw, they can attack, drop a weapon, draw another, attack, and repeat until they run out of attacks and/or weapons. If they are wielding two weapons, but do not use the TWF rules to get an extra attack, nothing prevents them from attacking with one weapon then the other. The rules do not address it outside of a monk's flurry of blows (where it is described that a monk can use any special monk weapons they wield interchangeably, as they desire).

And if they are not using their off-hand to wield the second weapon (such as an unarmed strike, the hilt or shaft of a two-handed weapon as an improvised club, a double weapon, or an armor spike), then they do not take off-hand penalties.

Godskook

2012-04-24, 05:35 PM

The issue isn't dagger/claw, it's greatsword/claw. In general, creatures with claws don't get slam attacks because they already have claws at the end of their arms.

A warforged Totemist can use 2 claws and 2 slams without any hindrance. A vampiric lizardfolk can use 2 claws and a slam too. I'm sure I can come up with other examples of claw + slam.

And as related to slam attacks, I fail to see a functional difference between claw/claw and greatsword.

Actually, the vampire description doesn't include two-handed weapons, it just says "weapon". The template says:

Please tell that you think "two-handed weapons" are included in the term "weapon", cause if you don't, I'm not having that conversation.

Vampire is a bit of an oddity, however, in that it can be applied to a creature with claws, and it also gets a slam attack. Generally, creatures with claws can't have slam attacks because they already have claws at the end of their arms. However, the vampire's slam is the primary way it delivers it's energy drain attack, and the template can't tell beforehand what kind of natural attacks the base creature has before the template was applied, so it has to keep that slam attack no matter what for energy drain to work like it's supposed to. But there's another quirk in that size only determines the damage of the slam... if applied to a large-sized creature, shouldn't it by RAW get two slam attacks, one for each arm?

1.The statement "Generally, creatures with claws don't have slam attacks because...." is fine, but using 'can't' there is inaccurate.

2.I know of nothing in RAW that says a creature with slam attack(s) must have exactly(or minimally) 2 if large-sized. Source?
(The section (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#naturalWeapons) I found is a typical maximum(the word 'generally' is used), and is easily proven to be contrary to how monsters are actually written by examining that section's statement concerning the number of allowed bite attacks and then looking at the Chimera's entry)

Gwendol

2012-04-24, 05:36 PM

Taelas

2012-04-24, 05:55 PM

Yes, absolutely yes. But not if you use both hands to attack. Then you need to consider the TWF rules, because you are making attacks with both primary and off hand. Not once in this series, nor in the rules is it mentioned that you may attack with primary and off-hand without any penalties.

Yes, it is.

If you attack with a weapon in your off hand, you take a -4 penalty to your attack and you only deal ½ Str damage. Page 311, Player's Handbook, under the definition of "off hand".

No where in the books is it said that you must use the TWF rules because you are wielding a weapon in each hand. That is absurd. It describes the method clearly: While wielding a weapon in each hand, you may make an extra attack as an off hand attack. Doing so is very difficult, and you take the TWF penalties it describes.

There is absolutely no difference between using Quick Draw to draw a dagger, throw it, then draw a second dagger, then throw it, than there is between using a sword in your right hand then a sword in your left hand (or a glaive then a second legally wielded weapon). You are wielding both weapons, and as long as you keep in mind the off hand penalty (which is not removed by having the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, as the penalty it removes is only removed while using TWF), attacking with either one is perfectly legal.

Gwendol

2012-04-24, 06:12 PM

Again, I would like to direct you to Skip's article, part one:

Off Hand, Off-Hand Weapon: When attacking with two weapons, the character must designate one of his hands as his off hand; the weapon held in that hand is treated as his off-hand weapon. The game rules don’t really care about whether you’re right-handed or left-handed, and it’s even OK to change your off hand designation from one round to the next.

Attacks with the off hand take a -4 penalty on the attack roll (see page 311 in the Player's Handbook) and only half the character’s Strength bonus (rounded down) applies to damage from the attack. Fighting with a weapon in each hand brings even bigger penalties.
When a character fights with a weapon in each hand, the weapon held in the off hand is called the off-hand weapon.

The first paragraph we both agree on, as on the first sentence of the second paragraph. My contention comes from the second sentence (bolded). There is no mention of getting extra attacks here, just fighting with a weapon in each hand.

Taelas

2012-04-24, 06:22 PM

Again, I would like to direct you to Skip's article, part one:

The first paragraph we both agree on, as on the first sentence of the second paragraph. My contention comes from the second sentence (bolded). There is no mention of getting extra attacks here, just fighting with a weapon in each hand.

Because he didn't consider a situation in which you would fight with two weapons without getting the extra attack (such as the very sensible secondary weapon combined with a reach weapon).

Skip isn't a source on rules, which he would have to be for the quote to mean what you are saying it does, as those rules do not exist anywhere. What he describes is using two weapons to get an extra attack. He is attempting to clarify how the Two-Weapon Fighting rules work, nothing more.

Gwendol

2012-04-24, 06:26 PM

That's ok, I understand your point.

TypoNinja

2012-04-24, 06:44 PM

I'm thinking more in terms of bad guys taking out (or taking over) PCs who have been knocked unconscious, while the rest of the party is still up.

Page 175 PHB, under Aiming a Spell, subsection "Target or Targets"

"Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target can be done any time (even if you're flat-footed or it isn't your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralysed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing."

Here, in the SRD:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#targetorTargets

Well that's in the targeting section. The dividing line here seems obvious. Considered willing for the purposes of targeting only. The character is a valid target, but that's all it says. SR and saves apply normally since nothing about the unconscious conditions mentions losing saves. Remember "considered willing" and "willing" are different states. The rule sets are littered with examples of 'As X but not actually X'

Even the context of the entry seems to indicate its talking about targeting a spell only and not any other aspect.

Taelas

2012-04-24, 06:51 PM

Well that's in the targeting section. The dividing line here seems obvious. Considered willing for the purposes of targeting only. The character is a valid target, but that's all it says. SR and saves apply normally since nothing about the unconscious conditions mentions losing saves. Remember "considered willing" and "willing" are different states. The rule sets are littered with examples of 'As X but not actually X'

Even the context of the entry seems to indicate its talking about targeting a spell only and not any other aspect.

As I pointed out earlier, this is not the correct interpretation. You are now forced to make a save every time someone uses a beneficial spell which has a (harmless) save--like the entire cure line of spells. An unconscious character cannot take actions, so if he is not considered willing, he cannot forego a save.

If you cannot see how ridiculous requiring characters to make saves for receiving healing is, then you must have a very odd view of the game.

Lapak

2012-04-24, 07:08 PM

Taelas

2012-04-24, 07:24 PM

Problematic, absolutely; ridiculous, no. It's entirely reasonable that a body or mind accustomed to throwing off magical effects would continue to do so while unconscious, even to its own detriment.

I'm pretty sure I've seen things along that lines in fiction, actually, where someone's innate defenses prevented them from being helped.

Yes, ridiculous. It is ridiculous to expect the players to have to make a saving throw against a beneficial effect that can save their lives simply because they are unconscious, especially when that is not spelled out clearly in the rules. The situation occurs far too often in regular play to not be made clear.

Unconscious characters are considered willing.

Siosilvar

2012-04-24, 08:30 PM

Figure I should come back to the thread and voice my opinion on the 20 or so rules that got added. If it's not in the list, I've already said something about it.

CommentsPlease remove me from the approval list for 26; it'll require an exhaustive search of the books for me to make an informed opinion.
21 has some strange things going on with wording. They can't be applied but they are eligible for the discount? What?

Approve14
16
17: This appears to have been an oversight in the SRD.
18 is part of how I run natural weapons in my own games.
20
21; although I allow spell-storing ammunition (at full price, not discounted) in my own games, it's easier to wrap one's head around the rules if it's not allowed.
22
23
25
31
34 satisfies my requirements quite nicely.

Disapprove24 eventually leads to a wasted feat for meldshapers, and cuts some neat options out of the game for non-meldshapers.
32; I'm okay with each attack in a full attack provoking, which is how I read the rules as they stand.

Neutral/Abstain/No Further Comment2
11
19 is also part of how I run natural weapons in my games like 18 is, but I think it stretches into houserule territory a little too far.
26
30; I'm not quite sure whether or not the Lightning Maces trick is a nice thing or an overpowered thing, so I reserve the right to make up my mind later.
33; On the one hand it closes system abuse, but double-dipping a modifier is fairly reasonable for lower modifiers and create a vulnerability to stat drain, so I'm not sure.1Now, as for the ongoing discussion about 15 (if anyone's forgotten, I'm in favor of keeping "willing" and "forgo saving throw" seperate):
(harmless)
The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.I read that quote to mean that not making a saving throw is the default for a (harmless) spell. For other spells, you have to specifically choose to give up your save, but for (harmless) spells, you have to specifically choose to make a save if you want to.

TypoNinja

2012-04-24, 11:11 PM

As I pointed out earlier, this is not the correct interpretation. You are now forced to make a save every time someone uses a beneficial spell which has a (harmless) save--like the entire cure line of spells. An unconscious character cannot take actions, so if he is not considered willing, he cannot forego a save.

If you cannot see how ridiculous requiring characters to make saves for receiving healing is, then you must have a very odd view of the game.

Nothing you've stated here is correct.

In no way does saying unconscious means "Willing for the purposes of targeting only" require saves for anything else. In fact it's specifically not dealing with saves at all. Only target. The whole point is that this narrows down the problem to only targeting, there by not having to worry about if it breaks other portions of the mechanics.

Deciding to resist or not is not an action, and can be done even when its not your turn, remember 'act' and 'action' in D&D have specific connotations. Deciding to allow a spell or not is not even an immediate action, in fact I'd go so far as to say its practically an OOC decision, since you simply declare your self willing or not as part of adjudicating the spell effects.

I agree requiring will saves (that fail no less) to get healing is silly, but no where did I imply such should be done. I said that an unconscious character is considered willing, for the purposes of target selection only, and after being determined a valid target the character may decide to resist or not as normal. So a downed PC would be healed with no will save required, and still be entitled to a will save if somebody tried to dominate them or some such shenanigans.

Malachei

2012-04-25, 04:25 AM

So by your logic, if you're unconscious and don't forego your saving throw, you now have to roll saves against heal, since you can't make the decision to voluntarily give it up.

This is wrong. See below.

As I pointed out earlier, this is not the correct interpretation. You are now forced to make a save every time someone uses a beneficial spell which has a (harmless) save--like the entire cure line of spells. An unconscious character cannot take actions, so if he is not considered willing, he cannot forego a save.

If you cannot see how ridiculous requiring characters to make saves for receiving healing is, then you must have a very odd view of the game.

This is wrong. See below.

Yes, ridiculous. It is ridiculous to expect the players to have to make a saving throw against a beneficial effect that can save their lives simply because they are unconscious, especially when that is not spelled out clearly in the rules. The situation occurs far too often in regular play to not be made clear.

Unconscious characters are considered willing.

You are wrong, and I've posted this before (see post #171 in this thread):

SRD:

(harmless)

The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.

=> For harmless spells, you are always considered to forgo a save unless you specifically state otherwise.

=> You can cure unconscious creatures just fine.

IMO outrageously posting, stating others' view is "ridiculous" or "odd" while ignoring contrary evidence that has been posted before it is a bad habit.

hamishspence

2012-04-25, 06:29 AM

Yes, ridiculous. It is ridiculous to expect the players to have to make a saving throw against a beneficial effect that can save their lives simply because they are unconscious, especially when that is not spelled out clearly in the rules. The situation occurs far too often in regular play to not be made clear.

Unconscious characters are considered willing.

given that "asleep" is not explicitly defined as including the "unconscious" trait- why (in-universe reason) would it possible to use all those spells on unconscious creatures and they don't get a save, when sleeping creatures would?

Why does an unconscious monster instantly get taken out when hit by various Save or Lose spells when a sleeping monster doesn't?

Are you going with "Knocking someone unconscious shatters their mental and physical defenses vs spells"?

Thomasinx

2012-04-25, 06:44 AM

given that "asleep" is not explicitly defined as including the "unconscious" trait- why (in-universe reason) would it possible to use all those spells on unconscious creatures and they don't get a save, when sleeping creatures would?

Why does an unconscious monster instantly get taken out when hit by various Save or Lose spells when a sleeping monster doesn't?

Are you going with "Knocking someone unconscious shatters their mental and physical defenses vs spells"?

In this case it would be more reasonable to consider 'sleeping' as including the 'unconscious' trait. Since you're almost certainly unconscious when sleeping... Although, this wouldn't come up very often, since the listen check to wake up due to someone spellcasting isn't especially difficult.

And basically yes. If you are knocked unconscious, you no longer have any mental defenses vs spells. You become 'willing' according to RAW. You are no longer able to mentally fight off any spell that might effect you. Overall, this is beneficial, as it means that it is unnecessary to make saves against spells that will help you.

Malachei

2012-04-25, 07:00 AM

In this case it would be more reasonable to consider 'sleeping' as including the 'unconscious' trait. Since you're almost certainly unconscious when sleeping... Although, this wouldn't come up very often, since the listen check to wake up due to someone spellcasting isn't especially difficult.

Sleeping is part of the helpless condition, as is unconscious.

[quote]And basically yes. If you are knocked unconscious, you no longer have any mental defenses vs spells. You become 'willing' according to RAW. You are no longer able to mentally fight off any spell that might effect you. Overall, this is beneficial, as it means that it is unnecessary to make saves against spells that will help you.

Wrong, see the above, extensive discussion, which quotes RAW. And healing and other harmless spells which help you pose no problem.

Thomasinx

2012-04-25, 07:14 AM

Sleeping is part of the helpless condition, as is unconscious.

Wrong, see the above, extensive discussion, which quotes RAW. And healing and other harmless spells which help you pose no problem.

I was part of the above discussion (I left because I was getting tired of repeating myself). I was the one quoting RAW. Do I need to go get the pieces from the SRD again?

I honestly don't know why you're working so hard to come up with a ridiculously complicated system of when people are willing and unwilling, and how unconscious players are automatically aware of whether or not the caster has their best interests at heart. The SRD states quite clearly "Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing".

If you're unconscious, you are helpless, and completely at the caster's mercy. Any caster worth his salt can simply inflict a bit of wisdom damage to screw up your will save, so there's no possible exploit even if you didnt automatically fail.

Malachei

2012-04-25, 07:29 AM

I was part of the above discussion (I left because I was getting tired of repeating myself). I was the one quoting RAW. Do I need to go get the pieces from the SRD again?

I honestly don't know why you're working so hard to come up with a ridiculously complicated system of when people are willing and unwilling, and how unconscious players are automatically aware of whether or not the caster has their best interests at heart. The SRD states quite clearly "Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing".

If you're unconscious, you are helpless, and completely at the caster's mercy. Any caster worth his salt can simply inflict a bit of wisdom damage to screw up your will save, so there's no possible exploit even if you didnt automatically fail.

Because it can help reduce PC deaths. And it has almost no disadvantages, except making mindrape cheese harder to carry out.

And please cite rules text correctly and in context. You are referring to a paragraph, and you are taking a sentence out of context:

The exact quote is:

Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you’re flat-footed or it isn’t your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.

This is given in one paragraph. Game designers do use punctuation. Should they never stop a sentence to protect from others using their sentences out of context?

Let me give you an example:

Some effects, notably clouds and fogs, spread out from a point of origin, which must be a grid intersection. The effect can extend around corners and into areas that you can’t see. Figure distance by actual distance traveled, taking into account turns the spell effect takes. When determining distance for spread effects, count around walls, not through them. As with movement, do not trace diagonals across corners. You must designate the point of origin for such an effect, but you need not have line of effect (see below) to all portions of the effect.

Now do you think all spells that have an effect "extend around corners and into areas you can't see?" Or does this apply to "some effects, notably (...)" as given in the paragraph's introduction?

Because that is what happens when you take a sentence from a paragraph and use it out of context.

Oh, and this thread is actually for RAI rules suggestions. I think, if you wish to continue, we should take this discussion out of here. Perhaps you'd like to open a new topic.

Thomasinx

2012-04-25, 07:36 AM

Because it can help reduce PC deaths. And it has almost no disadvantages, except making mindrape cheese harder to carry out.

And please cite rules text correctly and in context. You are referring to a paragraph, and you are taking a sentence out of context:

Wow, next time address what I actually say, instead of what I quote.

Since you want to resort to ad-hominems and just to attack my method of quoting SRD, lets look at more of the thing i was quoting from.

Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you’re flat-footed or it isn’t your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.

Now, please tell me why, for purely targeting purposes there is a difference between paralyzed and unconscious. Both are helpless, and are unable to avoid dodging. The only difference is that in one situation the target is conscious and able to mentally fight off whatever is being done to him, and in the other situation unconscious and unable to mentally defend himself.

There is no 'cheese' here. Any cheese is fully doable whether the fail is automatic or not. If you want to homebrew something, do it. But don't try to claim that unconscious doesn't mean willing, when the rules clearly state otherwise.

Malachei

2012-04-25, 07:41 AM

Please tell my why, purely for targeting purposes (...)

No problem:

Because it is mentioned in the section for targeting spells.
Because it is mentioned in a paragraph that states a special case ("Some spells...")
Because it is not mentioned in the unconscious condition entry
Because the unconscious condition entry works like helpless (it is even linked in the SRD)

Oh, and this thread is actually for RAI rules suggestions and voting on them. Let us not destroy the OP's intent by moving this into another direction. I think, if you wish to continue, we should take this discussion out of here. Perhaps you'd like to open a new topic. I'll gladly repeat my points there.

Taelas

2012-04-25, 08:56 AM

Saving throws are always voluntary. The (harmless) descriptor is only there to save time, so you don't have to ask the warrior if he voluntarily drops his saving throw to accept the healer's cure spell.

If the warrior is ever subject to a spell from a party he distrusts, he needs to make the choice whether to resist the spell or not; the choice isn't made for him simply because the spell is beneficial. He has to make a conscious choice between choosing whether to let the spell effect him or not, precisely the same as with every other spell. The descriptor is simply assuming you make the choice to let it affect you, while still reminding you that you can attempt one if you want.

When you are unconscious, you cannot make the choice. Either the spell affects you as if you are willing, or it forces a saving throw as if you are unwilling. You can't have it both ways.

Objects only get saving throws when they are attended, or if they are magical. For the vast majority of situations, objects do not get saving throws.

Malachei

2012-04-25, 09:32 AM

Saving throws are always voluntary. The (harmless) descriptor is only there to save time, so you don't have to ask the warrior if he voluntarily drops his saving throw to accept the healer's cure spell.

This is not correct. That is your personal point of view. Otherwise, please point me to the rules section that says "the (harmless) descriptor is only there to save time".

The rules state that...

... the default rule for a (harmless) spell is that you are not taking a save. You explicitly state if you want to.

.... the default rule for other spells is that you are taking a save. You explicitly state if you want not to.

And again, to you, as well: If you feel you want to discuss this more elaborately, please open a new thread. I feel this discussion is bringing this topic away from its purpose and from the OP's intent, i.e. voting on RAI rules suggestions.

Amphetryon

2012-04-25, 09:40 AM

... the default rule for a (harmless) spell is that you are not taking a save. You explicitly state if you want to.

.... the default rule for other spells is that you are taking a save. You explicitly state if you want not to.This would seem to indicate pretty clearly that you can voluntarily not take a save, since you're explicitly given the option to state whether you are, or aren't, depending on the expected effect of the spell.

Taelas

2012-04-25, 10:27 AM

This is not correct. That is your personal point of view. Otherwise, please point me to the rules section that says "the (harmless) descriptor is only there to save time".

The rules state that...

... the default rule for a (harmless) spell is that you are not taking a save. You explicitly state if you want to.

.... the default rule for other spells is that you are taking a save. You explicitly state if you want not to.

And again, to you, as well: If you feel you want to discuss this more elaborately, please open a new thread. I feel this discussion is bringing this topic away from its purpose and from the OP's intent, i.e. voting on RAI rules suggestions.

...

It is the same thing. There is zero actual difference between the two situations. You choose whether you make a saving throw or not. That's it. That's the end of the rule. It is precisely the same whether the spell is (harmless) or not. It doesn't matter whether you choose to make a save or you choose not to make a save. In both cases, you are making a choice, you are just looking at it from two different perspectives. You are claiming there's a difference between whether a glass is half full or half empty. You are just describing the exact same thing twice.

One assumes you choose to make a save. One assumes you choose not to. That is the only difference. In both cases, you. have. the. choice. When you can't make the choice, you either always have the save, or you never have the save. You cannot have it both ways.

Also, replying to an argument then saying, "Stop arguing this here!" is utterly hypocritical.

Talakeal

2012-04-25, 12:01 PM

This is not correct. That is your personal point of view. Otherwise, please point me to the rules section that says "the (harmless) descriptor is only there to save time".

The rules state that...

... the default rule for a (harmless) spell is that you are not taking a save. You explicitly state if you want to.

.... the default rule for other spells is that you are taking a save. You explicitly state if you want not to.

And again, to you, as well: If you feel you want to discuss this more elaborately, please open a new thread. I feel this discussion is bringing this topic away from its purpose and from the OP's intent, i.e. voting on RAI rules suggestions.

I just read the relevant sections in the PHB, and as far as I can tell this is absolutely correct.

Some spells can only target willing creatures. An unconscious creature is automatically willing.

A character targeted by a spell, by default, gets a saving throw. This applies to objects and immobilized or sleeping characters. A character can consciously not take a save, just like they can consciously lower spell resistance or immunity.

Harmless spells by default do not allow a save. A character who is actively resisting a harmless spell for whatever reason can consciously decide to make a saving throw.

This works fine according to game rules and game fluff. It is not unbalanced. It is also the most direct reading of the rules imo.

There is no need to clarify these rules, they are already plenty clear, again imo. It looks like the people who are saying "unconscious = mind raped" are really stretching the rules, taking what is written in some sections and applying it out of context to completely different sections of the book, and going out of their way to get an advantage or to defend an opinion they heard someone else state as fact.

Again, I don't mean to sound arrogant or authoritative, this is just my direct reading based on what I could find about unconsciousness, saves, spells, and targets in the PHB and DMG. If I am missing some source please give me the page number and I will look at it and revise my statement.

Emperor Tippy

2012-04-25, 12:13 PM

Andorax

2012-04-25, 12:43 PM

Ashtagon, I've added Dodging While Asleep as rule 035, but I'm also listed as against it.

Even objects receive reflex saving throws...so sleeping individuals shouldn't be denied what even objects receive. I'm not sure if I want to propose it as RASCD, but I personally DM sleeping individuals as "Dex 0" with regards to reflex saves (-5 to the check).

Onikani, I read over your comments on Rule 34, but I'm not sure what exactly you're looking to have clarified. The net rules effect is identical either way (whether it's a shirt or a 'full outfit'), because either way the "Body" spot is being occupied, and taking up the space that armor, robes, or another shirt/outfit would occupy.

I'm not sure what "clear RAW" this is in conflict with. A body slot clothing item can hold +Armor enhancements. Clothing in the PHB is defined in terms of outfits.

If you're looking at the Torso issue...then that issue already exists and isn't a problem. You can legally wear a vest (of Escape for example) and a suit of armor...one occupying the Torso, the other the Body.

-------------

Regarding rule #030. I opted for the Strict Aptitude approach because of examples such as Lightning Maces. The problem with applying Aptitude to feats like this is that there are a number of cases (this being one of them) where the nature of the weapon matters as much as the nature of the wielder.

TOB 148: "A wielder who has feats that affect the use of a particular type of weapon, such as Weapon Focus...or the like, can apply the benefits of those feats to any weapon that has the aptitude quality."

By RAW (and fixed by Rule #030), you can Flay (PHBII) someone with a club, or (with a particularly tortured reading) strike someone with an Aptitude Greatsword and have the blow carry through for a 60' line (Penetrating Shot, PHBII).

-------------

As to the issues raised by Rule 015...maybe it's not such a bad idea after all to give that discussion its own thread. Not that I mind having a constant bump-engine keeping this discussion going, but it would seem to be dominating the discussion lately.

If'n someone does part this out, then I'd ask that you refer, and encourage, people to come here and weigh in on Rule #015 after hearing the issue out.

Talakeal

2012-04-25, 01:10 PM

You are making the assumption that you can be both willing and unwilling at the same time.

"Target" has nothing to do with the spell, it is a check made based on what you are attempting to affect with the spell. If you are "willing" then you are a valid target for spells that are "willing only".

If you are willing, then per Voluntarily Failing a Saving Throw; you get no save.

A creature is either willing or unwilling, not willing for purposes of targeting and unwilling for purposes of saves.

Where are you getting that from? Not saying you are wrong, but everything I see about lowering a save or saving versus a harmless spell says you may "willingly choose to", rather than just "willing".

One implies a conscious action, the other a state of being.

hamishspence

2012-04-25, 01:24 PM

Possibilities:

A creature (when unconscious) is willing for the purposes of all "willing-only" spells- and unwilling for the purpose of all other spells.

Alternatively:

A creature (when unconscious) is willing for the purposes of all spells cast by allies, and unwilling for the purposes of all spells cast by non-allies.

Any other suggestions for making it reasonable?

One of the most traditional D&D tropes is finding a sleeping chromatic dragon and trying to do as much damage as you can before it wakes up (dragons spend a lot of time asleep)

If sleeping = unconscious, and unconscious = willing for the purposes of all spells cast, you'd think most dragons would have been found by spell casters and slain in their sleep long ago.

Taelas

2012-04-25, 01:31 PM

"Sleeping" is not equal to "unconscious" under any circumstances.

Malachei

2012-04-25, 01:33 PM

"Sleeping" is not equal to "unconscious" under any circumstances.

Can we please respect the OP's wish?

As to the issues raised by Rule 015...maybe it's not such a bad idea after all to give that discussion its own thread. Not that I mind having a constant bump-engine keeping this discussion going, but it would seem to be dominating the discussion lately.

If'n someone does part this out, then I'd ask that you refer, and encourage, people to come here and weigh in on Rule #015 after hearing the issue out.

And discuss this somewhere else?

TypoNinja

2012-04-25, 03:45 PM

A creature is either willing or unwilling, not willing for purposes of targeting and unwilling for purposes of saves.

Why not? Why must the two states be linked?

hamishspence

2012-04-25, 03:52 PM

Can we please respect the OP's wish?

And discuss this somewhere else?

New Thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=241024)

Zeful

2012-04-25, 06:59 PM

Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes For.
Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier For.
Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels For, this is RAW.
Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike Abstain.
Rule 005: Dead is DeadFor.
Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally For
Rule 007: Lions with Hooves For.
Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage Abstain.
Rule 010: Who's Charging, Anyways? For.
Rule 011: Who's Riding By, Anyways? For.
Rule 013: Clarifying the Dragon Disciple Paradox For.
Rule 014: I'm Not Left Handed For.
Rule 015: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped For, this is RAW.
Rule 016: Tower Shields; How the #&%@ Do They Work? For.
Rule 017: Non-Floating Armour For.
Rule 018: Claw, Stab Claw…and now with my other arm! For.
Rule 019: All Slams Are Not Created Equally Against.
Rule 020: My Weapon Is My Shield! For.
Rule 021: Enchanting Enhanced Projectiles For.
Rule 022: Swordsaging in Leather or No For.
Rule 023: Positive Drawbacks to Undead For.
Rule 025: Lava Is Easily Resisted For.
Rule 026: Extraordinary Feats For.
Rule 027: Don't Penalize the Prestigeous For.
Rule 028: Qualified and Disqualified For.
Rule 029: Whiplash For.
Rule 030: Strict Aptitude For.
Rule 31: Nobody Notices the Guy with the Tower Shield For.
Rule 032: Full Attack and Attacks of Opportunity For.
Rule 033: No Double Dipping For.
Rule 034: Armored Outfits For.
Rule 035: Dodging While Asleep Against.

Sutremaine

2012-04-25, 09:00 PM

Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes: Yes. Bucket healing is very silly.
Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier: Yes.
Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels: Maybe. If you're playing a little-supported class and have nothing better to do with your levels than rack up more numbers, then I don't see a problem with advancing your pseudo-CL at the cost of gaining nothing but BAB, saves, and skill points. But otherwise, yes. Perhaps a note that advancing beyond the table for your chosen class is purely at the DM's discretion.
Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike: Yes. It seems pretty clear that your Monk levels (or any other comparable ones) should only benefit you.
Rule 005: Dead is Dead: Yes.
Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally: Yes.
Rule 007: Lions with Hooves: Yes. If only D&D had [STANCE], [GRASP], and [FLIER] tokens...
Rule 010: Who's Charging, Anyways?: Yes. Probably a good example of how plain English results in in-universe nonsense.
Rule 011: Who's Riding By, Anyways?: Yes.
Rule 013: Clarifying the Dragon Disciple Paradox: Yes.
Rule 014: I'm Not Left Handed: Clarify that the off-hand exists only during any round in which the character is making an attack roll with more than one object. You as a character are using the TWF rules since you've chosen to carry two weapons instead of one weapon and one shield... just not necessarily right now.
Rule 015: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped: Yes.
Rule 017: Non-Floating Armour: Yes. I thought this was in the game already?
Rule 018: Claw, Stab Claw…and now with my other arm!: Yes. Although a creature could still drop its weapon as a free action and make that last claw attack, if it was feeling lucky.
Rule 019: All Slams Are Not Created Equally: No. Just thump 'em with something that deals bludgeoning damage and call it a slam.
Rule 020: My Weapon Is My Shield!: Yes.
Rule 021: Enchanting Enhanced Projectiles: Yes.
Rule 023: Positive Drawbacks to Undead: Yes. Given how positive energy affects undead on the Material Plane, it seems a bit of an oversight that a whole plane full of the stuff is actually quite nice for them.
Rule 025: Lava Is Easily Resisted: Yes.
Rule 026: Extraordinary Feats: Maybe. May need more text about whether or not having an extraordinary ability allows you to use it even if the results of said ability would be suppressed in an AMF field.
Rule 027: Don't Penalize the Prestigeous: Yes.
Rule 028: Qualified and Disqualified: No.
Rule 029: Whiplash: Yes. Sure, why not?
Rule 030: Strict Aptitude: Yes. The property shouldn't exist anyway; characters should be able to swap focus for a feat without waiting for a level-up.
Rule 31: Nobody Notices the Guy with the Tower Shield: Yes.
Rule 032: Full Attack and Attacks of Opportunity: Unarmed yes, ranged no.
Rule 033: No Double Dipping: Yes. Even being able to get the whole of your stat bonus to AC twice without investing a whole bunch of levels is a problem, but this will have to do as a quick fix.
Rule 034: Armored Outfits: Yes. I thought these existed anyway, what with the Robe of the Archmagi being a robe with an Armour Bonus. Or is it like the rules about potions never allowing a PC to make oils?
Rule 035: Dodging While Asleep: Unsure. If you can get a Reflex save in other situations where you can't avoid or turn the spell (you're going to be standing on that Grease-covered square whether you make the save or not), why not while you're asleep? Maybe you twitched just at the right time or something, lol.

TuggyNE

2012-04-25, 09:46 PM

So, time for some updated opinions here :smallamused:

Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier: I'm not sure I've actually come right out and said it, but I disagree with this as stated, and consider it excessive.

I will, however, propose an alternative, and smaller, correction:
Rule 036
No form of metamagic reduction may reduce the spell's level below its original, or in the case of a heightened spell, below its heightened level.

Rule 015: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped: If I'm reading this correctly, I believe this is the right way to look at it, and therefore agree for reasons stated in the other thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13131716&postcount=24) and similar.

Rule 032: Full Attack and Attacks of Opportunity: OK, at first I thought this would work, but now I have to admit it's going a bit far for mere "common sense"; it's a great houserule, I'd put it in, but it's probably more correct for the basic rules to force AoO provocation on each such attack. So I'm reluctantly changing my vote to disagree.

Rule 034: Armored Outfits: I think this is suitable in its new form, so I agree.

Rule 035: Dodging While Asleep: I do not consider this a suitable change, either as a houserule, as common sense, or anything else; disagree.

1

Rule 010: Who's Charging, Anyways?: Yes. Probably a good example of how plain English results in in-universe nonsense.
Rule 011: Who's Riding By, Anyways?: Yes.

While I agree that the charging rules as they currently stand are unacceptably bizarre, I'm not convinced that this is an adequate replacement. (I should probably take some time to work up an alternate suggestion.)

Rule 014: I'm Not Left Handed: Clarify that the off-hand exists only during any round in which the character is making an attack roll with more than one object. You as a character are using the TWF rules since you've chosen to carry two weapons instead of one weapon and one shield... just not necessarily right now.

Actually, if I understand the reasoning behind this, that is exactly what is not being clarified here -- I, and various others, would disagree that TWF penalties are in force if no TWF extra attacks are being taken.

Either way, clarification seems desired.

Rule 017: Non-Floating Armour: Yes. I thought this was in the game already?

It is, or should be, but an editing error in the 3.5 update caused some potential confusion.

Rule 034: Armored Outfits: Yes. I thought these existed anyway, what with the Robe of the Archmagi being a robe with an Armour Bonus. Or is it like the rules about potions never allowing a PC to make oils?

MIC I believe makes rules for this sort of thing work, but not everyone is aware of their ramifications.

Rule 035: Dodging While Asleep: Unsure. If you can get a Reflex save in other situations where you can't avoid or turn the spell (you're going to be standing on that Grease-covered square whether you make the save or not), why not while you're asleep? Maybe you twitched just at the right time or something, lol.

That's probably a reasonable way to look at it; also, IMO, reflex saves are sufficiently odd already that trying to straighten them out by saying "you don't get reflex saves when asleep" is probably counter-productive and harmful to balance. Reworking the system might work, but is probably far out of scope for the thread.

Keld Denar

2012-04-25, 10:19 PM

Actually, if I understand the reasoning behind this, that is exactly what is not being clarified here -- I, and various others, would disagree that TWF penalties are in force if no TWF extra attacks are being taken.

Either way, clarification seems desired.

As the person who wrote it, this is what I ment. It doesn't matter HOW many weapons you are wielding, and you could wield quite a few (1 in each hand + armor spikes + weighted cloak + 2x boot blades + 2x elbow blades + 2x knee blades + mouthpick weapon = 11 without REALLY trying). It doesn't matter HOW MANY of them you attack with in a round, either, or what order or what combination. None of them are offhands UNLESS you are making a TWFing full attack. You have to state you are using TWFing before you make your first attack (because the penalties apply to ALL attacks with manufactured weapons, not just offhands). You can't change your mind and decide to TWF half way through the round. Since you know before you make your first attack that you will be TWFing, you know that one of your weapons will be designated as "offhand", and that weapon can only be used to make offhand attacks gained via the TWFing combat option.

I'd even go so far as to say that Skip never anticipated a person wielding more than 2 weapons, or using weapons that aren't wielded by your hands even though armor spikes are a core example of doing just that. Since Skip doesn't even discuss those parts of the rules, I'd be a fool to believe he thought everything through when he wrote that article.

The reason I proposed this rule was in light of a rather lengthy dissertation I wrote over on En-World WRT 3.0 vs 3.5 and the changes to TWFing and "offhands" and monks. Spoilered for length:

3.5 got rid of handedness. In 3.0, if you were right handed, and you did anything with your left hand, you got penalized -4 on it unless you had the Ambidextarity feat. Monks had an explicit work around for this, stating that a monk can strike unarmed with either limb, or any part of their body without suffering offhand penalties. Basically, monks were given a half version of Ambidextarity that only applies to striking unarmed.

Fast forward a half an edition. 3.5 eliminated handedness. Everyone is able to attack with whatever hand they want, or indeed attack without hands at all. If you have, for example, a BAB of +6, and are currently wielding a longsword in your right, a shortsword in your left, and you have armor spikes, you can strike longsword/shortsword, shortsword/longsword, longsword/longsword, shortsword/shortsword, longsword/spikes, shortsword/spikes, or spikes/spikes. Order doesn't matter, as long as the highest bonus attack is first. All attacks are mainhand, since the character is only making their normal iterative attacks. Heck, he could even attack once with his longsword, drop it and the shortsword, Quickdraw a shortbow and fire that. No handedness means that all iterative attacks are mainhand, no matter which hand, if any, is used to make it. This is supported by RAW and the FAQ.

So when does a person use TWFing? TWFing is a special combat maneuver. It requires a full attack, which generally means a full round action. TWFing grants an extra attack, with some very special stipulations. First, the extra attack can't be made with any weapon used in the primary array of attacks. In the above example, if the character attacks with longsword/shortsword as primary attacks, his armor spikes would be his offhand. If he attacked longsword/longsword as his primary attacks, he could use either the shortsword or the spikes as his offhand attack. Secondly, the mechanical modifiers. Depending on your feats and the size of your offhand, this could be as much as -10 or as little as -2. Also, any attack designated as offhand receives only half +Str to damage, regardless of how it is wielded. If i TWF with a greatsword and armor spikes, my greatsword gets +1.5x Str if I use it as my primary (which means my spikes get +0.5 Str). If I make my spikes my primary, they would get normal +1x Str, while my greatsword would only get +0.5 Str, despite that it is 2handed. I'd also take major penalties since my offhand is not light.

So, how does this interact with Monks? Well, FoB is very similar to TWFing, but also different. FoB does give an extra attack, but it doesn't make that extra attack an offhand. In that way, FoB is more like Rapid Shot than TWFing. Rapid Shot gives an extra attack per round, but does not make the attacks offhanded. So, when the rules state "there is no such thing as an offhand attack for a monk fighting unarmed" that conforms with the normal rules for everyone else. The monk using just FoBs doesn't have an offhand. NOBODY in that situation has an offhand, because nobody making their normal iterative attacks has an offhand, because handedness was removed in 3.5. The only people who DO have an offhand are the people who take a full attack action which includes the TWFing combat action.

FoB, TWFing, and Rapid Shot can actually all be combined. If a Monk had the relevant feats and say, a BAB of +6, he could throw 2 shurikens with his iteratives, 1 with his FoB, 1 with his Rapid Shot, and up to 2 as offhand attacks. All penalties would be cumulative. All throws would get full +Str to damage except for the 2 made as offhand attacks, which would only get half.

The only place where there is any ambiguity is is how to treat UASs. Is it one weapon that is comprised of every striking surface of your body, as is alluded to in the combat chapter? Can a character wield more than one UAS, so to speak, as indicated by the Kensai PrC? That is grey, and relatively unclear. If it is one weapon, then it can't be combined with itself at all in TWFing, since your offhand has to be different from all of the weapons you make your primaries with. If you can wield multiple, so to speak, then you most definitely can TWF with your UAS, and you could indeed attack with FoB and TWFing in the same full attack with just your UAS. You simply separate the attacks out. Mainhand and flurry attacks deal full +Str damage. TWFing UAS attacks only get 1/2 +Str.

I hope this helps clear things up. I've done a lot of research and thinking about this topic, and I'm pretty sure I got everything right.

Sutremaine

2012-04-25, 10:28 PM

Actually, if I understand the reasoning behind this, that is exactly what is not being clarified here -- I, and various others, would disagree that TWF penalties are in force if no TWF extra attacks are being taken.
I thought the phrasing was clear enough? If you could be making TWF extra attacks in a round but aren't doing so, then the TWF penalties aren't in force because you're not doing anything that interacts with the TWF rules. If you get TWF penalties for holding two weapons even if you aren't attacking with both of them in that round, then you'd need a second clarification to define 'weapon' in such a way that gauntlets, shields, and improvised weapons are excluded from that definition.

It was more a note on the slight vagueness of the word 'using'. If a rule comes into effect when you use Power Attack, then that's pretty simple to figure out because a Power Attack has to be declared. You could argue that Power Attack, once taken, defaults to being used every round at -0/+0 and therefore the hypothetical rule is always in effect, but you probably wouldn't get very far.

With TWF you're always using two weapons in the casual dictionary sense of the word, but not necessarily using them in the D&D-mechanical sense of the word.

Taelas

2012-04-25, 10:30 PM

Sutremaine

2012-04-25, 10:40 PM

eliminating off hand penalties in all other situations than TWF (as a house rule)
Where other than TWFing would you be applying offhand penalties if not for your houserule? I was under the impression that in 3.5, the offhand only existed when two (or more) weapons were being used for attacks.

Taelas

2012-04-25, 10:47 PM

Where other than TWFing would you be applying offhand penalties if not for your houserule? I was under the impression that in 3.5, the offhand only existed when two (or more) weapons were being used for attacks.

The off hand is defined on page 311 of the Player's Handbook as "a character's weaker or less dexterous hand (usually the left)"; an attack with the off hand takes a -4 penalty to attack and only deals ½ Str damage.

tyckspoon

2012-04-25, 10:49 PM

Keld Denar, while I don't have any problem with eliminating off hand penalties in all other situations than TWF (as a house rule), claiming handedness doesn't exist in 3.5 is just plain wrong. Off hand is defined as just that.

There is no actual definition of 'off-hand' in the 3.5 SRD, except in relation to two-weapon fighting. When deciding what your character looks like and his other statistics, you are not told to choose or roll for handedness (considering you do get random height, weight, and age charts, this seems like something they would have put in that chapter if it was to have a real game effect.) The only place where it actually tells you that you might have a pre-defined 'primary' and 'off' hand is in the Glossary.. which is conspicuously not in the SRD. So.. why does anything in the Player's Handbook not get in the SRD?

Either it's Product Identity, excluded from the Open Game License, and therefore not freely distributed in the SRD.. or it's not considered to be rules-relevant text. And the glossary isn't Product Identity.

Godskook

2012-04-25, 11:06 PM

TuggyNE

2012-04-25, 11:17 PM

With TWF you're always using two weapons in the casual dictionary sense of the word, but not necessarily using them in the D&D-mechanical sense of the word.

An apt summary. :smallcool:

2.Can we *PLEASE* get some kind of nomination procedure, cause this is, imho, another example of a 1-vote wonder that shouldn't have even received an official rule number.

While I kind of doubt 035 will receive any further support from anyone, I would like to note that the only real disadvantages of assigning official numbers to rules that will probably eventually be removed are (1) cluttering the original post; (2) creating additional work for the maintainer. (The additional discussion induced by the suggestion would have to happen anyway.) As such, it's really mostly up to the maintainer to determine.

On the other hand, the primary advantage is basically that it makes it easier to discuss consistently.

That's how I see it anyway.

Zeful

2012-04-25, 11:32 PM

2.Can we *PLEASE* get some kind of nomination procedure, cause this is, imho, another example of a 1-vote wonder that shouldn't have even received an official rule number.

The best we can get is that something must be seconded before it can be voted on, and it has 24 hours from the vote starting (either the OP announcing that voting has started, or the seconding itself) to accumulate 10 votes or get pulled for non-interest.

hamishspence

2012-04-26, 12:48 AM

Opinions:

15: Unconscious creatures should still get saves vs spells: Yes: unconscious creatures still get saves.

35: Asleep creatures should auto fail all Ref saves: No- the rules for "helpless" (and asleep includes "helpless") say you are "treated as Dex 0"- which does not include this- unlike Dex -, which creatures like shrieker mushrooms have.

Ashtagon

2012-04-26, 01:56 AM

34 :smallsmile: Agree

35 :smallmad: I'd like to withdraw this proposal. It seemed like common sense at the time and an interesting quirk, but even when I wrote it I wasn't sure it was strong enough to be worth 'correcting'. Having seen the way everyone else sees it now and their justifications, I'd like to withdraw my vote.

moritheil

2012-04-26, 02:32 AM

Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels.

The Legacy Champion (Weapons of Legend) is a very unique prestige class, in that it tries to cover every possible contingency of "more of what you would get if you were still in your regular class" while giving its legacy-related benefits. The intention here seems plain...if you're a Barbarian 10/Legacy Champion 10, you 'count' as being a Barbarian 18 in nearly all respects. If you're a Rogue 10/LC 10, you're basically a Rogue 18, and so forth. This seemed to be a much more efficient approach than to try and create a dozen different Legacy Champion classes...the Legacy Champion Warior, the Legacy Champion Wizard, etc.

Once again, however, some creative individuals have been able to utilize this in a manner that, as far as I can tell, goes well beyond the intent of the class...the ability to continue getting levels in a class, typically a prestige class...that otherwise wouldn't HAVE any more such levels.

Disagree strongly. That's the entire point of Legacy - the reason to take the class, and the reason for the class to exist.

Agree on 005 though. I've heard some pretty wacky debates. Did you know that depending on what spell you use to return someone to life, strictly RAW, the "dead" condition has not been removed? It requires an interpretation of "you return someone to life" as meaning that the "dead" condition no longer applies.

27 yes, 29 no, 28 is already covered in C. War as it implies a cascade failure if you fail to meet class requirements of a class you belong to. (Things dependent on that thing fail.)

I would like to propose a "common sense" rule of "Infinite loops are right out: Anything that would cause an infinite or recursive gain is automatically disallowed."

I believe that double dipping abilities IS acceptable if they are different (for example the hexblade boost to saves is not the same as the blackguard's; one applies Cha to all saves and the other only to spells and spell-like abilities.) They are different abilities from different sources; why shouldn't they stack? Similarly the Mysticism domain grants a temporary boost to saves equal to Cha, but the Paladin Divine Grace is a permanent improvement to saves based on Cha. These are clearly different things.

13 was clarified somewhere for one apotheosis class. It just wasn't written out to apply to all apotheosis classes.

Keld Denar

2012-04-26, 02:50 AM

The off hand is defined on page 311 of the Player's Handbook as "a character's weaker or less dexterous hand (usually the left)"; an attack with the off hand takes a -4 penalty to attack and only deals ½ Str damage.

If thats the "official definition" of offhand, then which attack is your offhand if you attack with armor spikes and a mouthpick weapon? I mean, by that definition, it has to be a hand, so in theory, if you don't use a hand, you don't have an offhand, right?

No. Its simpler than that. There is no offhand without TWFing. 3.0 had handedness. 3.5 eliminated it. Its errata by ommision, if anything.

Gwendol

2012-04-26, 04:41 AM

There is always an off-hand. It's clearly described in the rules.
A shield-bash for example is an off-hand attack. The rules furthermore indicate the off-hand to be a label more than a designation (of an actual hand) through the definition of armor spikes:

You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can’t also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.)

To further illustrate this we can use Skip Williams' example: A fighter with a longsword in one hand and a lit torch in the other. Furthermore, the fighter uses spiked armor.

The fighter now designates any of the weapons, and the torch, as his primary weapon, which by consequence makes the others off-hand.

Taking your example of a character armed with armor spikes and a mouthpick. The character designates which is the primary weapon, which then makes the other the off-hand weapon. It would have been clearer to name them primary and secondary weapon (s), but they didn't.
Regarding monks, their FoB attacks could be considered primary, and any additional (non-special monk) weapon attacks are then "off-hand" for determining penalties when full-attacking (or the other way around).
Regarding STR damage bonuses when wielding an off-hand weapon two-handed (yes, it gets confusing): I think there is enough rules support to give that attack +STR damage (instead of 1/2 STR) due to the fact that adding a hand to a weapon swing adds another 1/2 STR damage bonus (see for example savage species). Note that this can't be done with light weapons, only 1- and 2-handed weapons.

Carr0t

2012-04-26, 07:34 AM

Rule 001: Agree.
Rule 002: Agree.
Rule 004: Agree.
Rule 005: Agree.
Rule 006: Agree.
Rule 007: Agree.
Rule 014: Agree.
Rule 015: Agree.
Rule 016: Disagree, sort of.
Rule 017: Agree.
Rule 018: Agree.
Rule 019: Disagree.
Rule 020: Agree.
Rule 021: Agree.
Rule 022: Agree.
Rule 023: Agree.
Rule 025: Agree.
Rule 026: Agree.
Rule 027: Agree.
Rule 028: Agree.
Rule 029: Agree.
Rule 030: Agree.
Rule 031: Agree.
Rule 032: Disagree.
Rule 033: Agree.
Rule 034: Agree.
Rule 035: Disagree.

Darrin

2012-04-26, 08:06 AM

Rule 018: Claw, Stab Claw…and now with my other arm! For.

Ok, you voted for something that says when a natural weapon is occupied, it is not available to attack.

Rule 019: All Slams Are Not Created Equally Against.

Please explain when a Warforged loses his slam attack.

Rule 018: Claw, Stab Claw…and now with my other arm!: Yes. Although a creature could still drop its weapon as a free action and make that last claw attack, if it was feeling lucky.

Do mean a creature holding a sword in a claw could attack with the sword, drop the sword, then attack with that claw? I don't think that passes the smell test.

Or do you mean drop first (no sword attack), then claw? That's RAW, no problem there.

Rule 019: All Slams Are Not Created Equally: No. Just thump 'em with something that deals bludgeoning damage and call it a slam.

You too. If a giant loses his slam attacks by wielding weapons, when does a Warforged lose his slam?

Rule 018: Agree.
Rule 019: Disagree.

Could you elaborate?

The majority appears to be against me, but I still have no idea what exactly you would prefer. It seems to me you're all arguing for the following:

Large humanoids with two slam attacks lose them if they do something else with their arms. All other creatures with slam attacks keep them regardless of what they're doing with their arms.

I'm perfectly happy with accepting that as a viable common-sense solution, but I'm not getting the sense that's what you all would prefer.

Gwendol

2012-04-26, 08:22 AM

Darrin, I'm still not quite understanding the issue here, but have withdrawn my previous vote.

My understanding was that all creatures would lose their slam attack if their arms were occupied, no? In particular medium sized creatures with only one attack (I figure they need both arms to deliver the attack).

Taelas

2012-04-26, 11:00 AM

If thats the "official definition" of offhand, then which attack is your offhand if you attack with armor spikes and a mouthpick weapon? I mean, by that definition, it has to be a hand, so in theory, if you don't use a hand, you don't have an offhand, right?

No. Its simpler than that. There is no offhand without TWFing. 3.0 had handedness. 3.5 eliminated it. Its errata by ommision, if anything.

An off-hand attack (as per TWFing) is not the same as an attack with the off hand. The off hand is the non-dominant hand. It's confusing terminology, and most likely, the glossary entry is a remnant from 3.0, but since it's there, we can't just ignore it while discussing RAW; chirality is still a thing. Off hand is defined in the rules (unless you want to claim the glossary isn't part of the rules).

Attacking with armor spikes (or any other weapon that isn't wielded in the hand) has nothing to do with handedness.

Dayzgone

2012-04-26, 11:06 AM

Rule 001: Agree
Rule 002: Agree
Rule 003: Disagree
Rule 004: Agree
Rule 005: Agree
Rule 006: Agree
Rule 007: Agree
Rule 008: No comment
Rule 010: Agree
Rule 011: Agree
Rule 013: Agree
Rule 014: Agree
Rule 015: Agree
Rule 016: Agree
Rule 017: Agree
Rule 018: Agree
Rule 019: Agree
Rule 020: Agree
Rule 021: Agree
Rule 022: Agree
Rule 023: Agree
Rule 025: Agree
Rule 026: Agree
Rule 027: Agree
Rule 028: Disagree- u should not be able to get feats that have pre-reqs if u only have a temp
Rule 029: No comment
Rule 030: Agree
Rule 031: Agree
Rule 032: No comment
Rule 033: Agree (But I still do it :P)
Rule 034: No comment

For number 35

I would say that sleeping character can’t make a reflex save, because how can they react to something if they can’t even move.

But I see the problem with this since objects and creatures that don’t move still get a saving throw.

Why not give helpless/ sleeping creatures a luck throw instead. Where they don’t get there base or dex to the save, but are still allowed to roll a d20. The idea being that maybe they were just in the right place at the right time. Maybe the explosion didn’t mushroom out in that general direction, or maybe a rock/ tree took most of the blast for them. Even in real life things like this happen, a grenade falls into a hole with 3 guys standing in it. 2 notice and dive for cover, 1 gets out fine, the other loses his legs, but then the 3rd guy who wasn’t paying attention only gets a few scrapes just because he was lucky enough that the shrapnel didn’t fly in his direction.

This means that low DC checks (like say a artillery round) has a chance of “just missing”, while a high DC check (a guided missile) will always hit unless one can move out of the way.

Andorax

2012-04-26, 12:42 PM

tuggyne, Rule 036 is added, and references rule 002. Personally, I still can't see why Rule 002 is at all controversial, but apparently that's just my take on it. Needless to say, since I'm for a stricter standard still (002), I'm also for 036.

As you all consider rule 036, please also reconsider, logically, rule 002 in the same light.

A Fireball is a L3 spell.
Invisible Spell is a +0 Metamagic reducer.
Maximize is a +3 Metamagic reducer.

Arcane Thesis (Fireball) lets you lower the "level cost" of each metamagic you apply to a fireball by 1.

Arcane Thesis Fireball is still L3

Arcane Thesis Maximized Fireball is L5

Arcane Thesis Invisible Fireball is...
L2 by some tortured readings of RAW
L3 by Rule 002 and by Rule 036.

Arcane Thesis Invisible Maximized Fireball is...
L4 by RAW (3 + -1 + 2)
L5 by Rule 002 (3 + min0 + 2)
L4 by Rule 036 (3 + -1 + 2 is >= 3)

If you agree with the logic that ADDING metamagic to a Fireball (L3) to make it Invisible should not reduce it below L3 (and thus agree with Rule 036)...

Then can you explain the logic that ADDING metamagic to a Maximized Fireball (L5) to make it Invisible should reduce it below L5 (and thus explain why you disagree with Rule 002)?

Godskook, I *will not* be requiring any sort of authorizing, nominating, or pre-qualifying procedure. It's enought to manage it as-is without keeping track of which rules are still in limbo and which actually have a number and a place.

As you've seen (and, ironically, as your take on rule 35 has just enforced), any rule that drops to only 20% agreement is removed from consideration due to overwhelming disagreement, relegated to a single-line footnote. That, to me, is sufficient.

Zeful, I don't expect this thread to always be extremely active, and some questions receive limited activity due to being particularly unusual or specialized areas of interest. I'd far rather people make informed, insightful statements and votes than to just vote one way or the other to "keep an issue alive". The suggestion is appreciated, but we'll keep it as-writ.

moritheil, I'd really like to hear more about your reasoning...you feel that the purpose of the Legacy Champion is to exceed the class's intended design spec and limits? You say it's "the entire point of Legacy".

The Legacy Champion exists to allow you to continue progressing within the class while getting Legacy-related abilities along the way. I sincerely doubt it was ever intended to extend classes beyond their written design, and proposed this rule for that very reason.

In point of fact, there's even evidence that WotC thinks "short" classes, in particular, should have limits as part of the inherent balance of those classes. Again, going back to the Epic Progression rules, you can't advance a prestige class with less than 10 levels with an Epic progression...only 10-level PrCs are allowed to be extended.

Look at the few examples we have of 3-level PrCs, and you'll find that they tend to offer considerable greater benefits than typical 5-level or 10-level PrCs. They're focused...and within that focus, they're generally quite powerful.

So no, I don't for a moment think that the "point" of the Legacy Champion was to let someone have 11 levels in a 3-level prestige class. I think it's blatantly absurd, and what's more...I think that the length of a prestige class is, inherently, part of its balance...if it were intended to be possible to get to that 5th, 7th, 9th level in the class, the class would have been written to be that long.

Carr0t...could you clarify on Rule 016? I can't really put you down as disagreeing with a "sort of" qualifier to your stance.

Thanks everyone for migrating the great debate over Rule 015 (which, by the way, has now crept into the "approve" category) to another thread. As I mentioned before, while I appreciate the traffic, I'd prefer to have room to debate everything that's brought up here and not have it overwhelmed (or worse, shut down if the discussion gets heated) by a single issue.

Zonasiy

2012-04-26, 01:04 PM

An off-hand attack (as per TWFing) is not the same as an attack with the off hand. The off hand is the non-dominant hand. It's confusing terminology, and most likely, the glossary entry is a remnant from 3.0, but since it's there, we can't just ignore it while discussing RAW; chirality is still a thing. Off hand is defined in the rules (unless you want to claim the glossary isn't part of the rules).

Attacking with armor spikes (or any other weapon that isn't wielded in the hand) has nothing to do with handedness.

It also mentions it on page 134 under Damage(under Strength Bonus). It says your off-hand weapon gets 1/2 strength bonus to damage. On the same page under Attack Bonus it makes no mention of a penalty for your off-hand. It does the same thing on the next page for Combat Basics. Again on page 113 under the light and one-handed melee weapon sections it mentions a weapon in the off-hand gains 1/2 strength to damage.

The only mention I can find of actually determining your off-hand that I can find is on page 160 under Two-Weapon Fighting (and especially for having a penalty to attack). It uses the phrasing "If you wield a second weapon in your off-hand..." To me that implies you always have an off-hand, however I can find no other reference to determining your off-hand.

Overall, unless there's some mention of how you GET an off-hand, I don't think the RAW supports having an off-hand at any time other than using the two-weapon fighting attack action.

Gwendol

2012-04-26, 01:17 PM

Look in the PHB p 311.
I also recommend the rules of the game article concerning two-handed fighting styles.

DeAnno

2012-04-26, 01:25 PM

I might come up with some stuff later, but for now:

Rule 001: Yes, reasons are clear
Rule 002: Yes, the intent of the feat is clearly not to use subzero, and the feat is strong enough to be top tier without it
Rule 003: Yes, a different class shouldn't be better at progressing features the actual class has.
Rule 004: Yes, Monks shouldn't actually be penalized for having monk levels (beyond opportunity cost)
Rule 005: Yes, lol.
Rule 006: Yes, clear RAI
Rule 007: Yes, PHB 1 wasn't written with this situation in mind
Rule 008: No, this is an additional benefit of Dragontouched, which is pretty awful as is and needs the help
Rule 010: Yes, charge rules need clarification with mounts and this is probably the right direction to go.
Rule 011: Yes, though I'm not sure if I like the mount's attack at the end there.
Rule 013: Yes, clear
Rule 014: Yes, RAW is already leaning this way and needs clarification
Rule 015: Yes, saves are important for the system to function
Rule 016: No, not sure how you can target a spell through a tower shield.
Rule 017: Yes, clear
Rule 018: Yes, clear
Rule 019: No, this isn't really the only good interpretation.
Rule 020: Yes, implications of RAW and 014.
Rule 021: Yes, clear
Rule 022: Yes, otherwise silly
Rule 023: Yes, clearly physical to the system
Rule 025: Yes, makes sense
Rule 026: Yes, I actually thought this was already a rule
Rule 027: Yes, ditto.
Rule 028: Yes, other interpretations are not sensical (though benefits from the feature you get can allow you to retroactively qualify for it even if you lose what did it originally)
Rule 029: No, whips don't make AoOs, this thing clearly doesn't want them to.
Rule 030: Yes, makes sense
Rule 031: Yes, makes sense
Rule 032: No, each attack roll is a seperate provoking entity
Rule 033: Yes, I am in favor, since they should all be named the same thing and its just sloppyness that allows doubling.
Rule 034: Yes, good things
Rule 036: As I'm in favor of 002 I'm in favor of this
Rule 037: No, this is worded far far too vaguely. Most of these cases are silly but we should deal with them in detail.

Sutremaine

2012-04-26, 01:28 PM

Do mean a creature holding a sword in a claw could attack with the sword, drop the sword, then attack with that claw? I don't think that passes the smell test.
By the wording of the suggested rule a creature could make a sword attack with a clawed hand and then drop the sword as a free action to render the clawed hand unoccupied. Without anything else in play this might just about be acceptable, as you get one round of attacks before having to pick up your weapon, taking a move action and provoking an AoO to do so. But with the Quickdraw feat or Returning weapons, it could get very cheesy very quickly.

Since the intent of the thread (I think) is to rewrite rules so that their mechanical reading matches their common-sense reading, you'd need something to stop body parts from becoming unoccupied mid-round.

TuggyNE

2012-04-26, 02:17 PM

If you agree with the logic that ADDING metamagic to a Fireball (L3) to make it Invisible should not reduce it below L3 (and thus agree with Rule 036)...

Then can you explain the logic that ADDING metamagic to a Maximized Fireball (L5) to make it Invisible should reduce it below L5 (and thus explain why you disagree with Rule 002)?

The way I see it, Arcane Thesis is primarily about studying a particular spell in order to make combining metamagic on top of it more efficient, by making use of hidden patterns in the energies or the like.

Rule 002: Yes, the intent of the feat is clearly not to use subzero, and the feat is strong enough to be top tier without it

Oy. I'm arguing against the creator of the mailman on this one? I think I'll take some more time to think about this, heh.

Rule 037: No, this is worded far far too vaguely. Most of these cases are silly but we should deal with them in detail.

Probably true; as a guideline, it's a good one, but when creating new RAW a higher standard is needed. The idea is to codify common sense so that even those without can benefit. :smallwink:

lesser_minion

2012-04-26, 03:22 PM

38: On the Delusions of an Illusionist

A character does not believe in her own illusions, even if she wants to.

This is based on the fact that a character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real simply disbelieves it without rolling a save. Being the caster sounds like it would be a convincing proof, and situations where it isn't seem like they'd almost certainly be rare -- and unusual -- enough not to be worth making a rule for.

I bring this up because I've seen people dispute it and I've seen handbooks that suggest doing things that this makes impossible -- for example, Greater Shadow Evocation :: Contingency shouldn't work.

Malachei

2012-04-26, 03:51 PM

38: On the Delusions of an Illusionist

A character does not believe in her own illusions, even if she wants to.

This is a rules clarification: a character faced with proof that an illusion isn't real simply disbelieves it without rolling a save. Being the caster sounds like it would be a convincing proof, and situations where it isn't seem like they'd almost certainly be rare -- and unusual -- enough not to be worth making a rule for.

I bring this up because I've seen people dispute it and I've seen handbooks that suggest doing things that this makes impossible -- for example, Greater Shadow Evocation :: Contingency shouldn't work.

Absolutely. I have argued this several times. Not only is it common sense, it also stops all kinds of Evocation-cloning, and Evocation, a much undervalued school, deserves more love... A single spell should not make a whole school obsolete. Shadow Evocation is still strong, because it is so versatile.

38: Yes, yes and yes

Taelas

2012-04-26, 04:37 PM

I'm for #38, definitely.

Istari

2012-04-26, 05:16 PM

Rule 001: Agree.
Rule 002: Agree.
Rule 003: Agree.
Rule 004: Agree.
Rule 005: Agree.
Rule 006: Agree.
Rule 007: Agree.
Rule 013: Agree.
Rule 014: Agree.
Rule 015: Agree.
Rule 017: Agree.
Rule 018: Agree.
Rule 020: Agree.
Rule 021: Agree.
Rule 022: Agree.
Rule 023: Agree.
Rule 025: Agree.
Rule 027: Agree.
Rule 028: Agree.
Rule 030: Agree.
Rule 031: Agree.
Rule 033: Disagree.
Rule 034: Agree.
Rule 035: Disagree.
Rule 036: Agree.
Rule 037: Disagree by virtue of being a general rule rather than a specific ban on an infinite loop.
Rule 038: Agree