"Wait again, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection [Archive]

nedz

2013-01-15, 07:56 PM

Isn't it customary to provide a link to the previous topic (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214988)?
I figured you could get there from the top of the thread easily enough.

Nedz, you willing to edit in entries from the previous thread that we collect and summarize? (Not asking you to do the sifting yourself, obviously. :smallwink:)
Why not ?

I had a look at doing the sifting.
Using Thread Tools->Show Printable Version you can set Show 40 posts.
That reduces the pages from 50 to 36.
It's still a big task though.

How would we format the entries ?

Sith_Happens

2013-01-15, 08:04 PM

How about putting it in a Google doc instead of clogging up each thread with an increasing number of entries from previous threads?

nedz

2013-01-15, 08:13 PM

How about putting it in a Google doc instead of clogging up each thread with an increasing number of entries from previous threads?

Go ahead and I'll edit in a link. :smalltongue:

Is there an automatic way to pull in the whole thread ?

nedz

2013-01-15, 08:20 PM

Maybe we should use a different thread for the consolidation ?
The entries could be sorted into the relevant area of the rules.
Something like

Base Classes
PrCs
Skills
Feats
Equipment
Combat
Spells
Misc

This could be the Complete Dysfunctional Handbook ?

TuggyNE

2013-01-15, 10:11 PM

nedz

2013-01-16, 12:05 AM

I'm on it !

Hmm, sounds like a plan.

And entries should be as concise as possible, obviously.

Yes, with links to the original discussion.

nedz

2013-01-16, 12:29 AM

Here we go (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267985), lets see if this can work ?

mattie_p

2013-01-17, 04:31 PM

New rule for the collection. Not dysfunctional per se (it works) but the implications are literally staggering.

To craft a wand for a level 1 spell, it basically takes 1 day (base cost 750 gp). If the spell has any costly material components, 50 copies must be provided, which are consumed in the making of the wand. I want to make a wand of identify.

Arcane Material Component
A pearl of at least 100 gp value, crushed and stirred into wine with an owl feather; the infusion must be drunk prior to spellcasting.

The wandmaker has to drink 50 glasses of wine. At the end of the day of wandmaking, if the wizard is still alive after alcohol poisoning (hope your fort save is good, or you are a necropolitan) they are extremely, blindingly, staggeringly drunk.

noparlpf

2013-01-17, 04:34 PM

New rule for the collection. Not dysfunctional per se (it works) but the implications are literally staggering.

To craft a wand for a level 1 spell, it basically takes 1 day (base cost 750 gp). If the spell has any costly material components, 50 copies must be provided, which are consumed in the making of the wand. I want to make a wand of identify.

The wandmaker has to drink 50 glasses of wine. At the end of the day of wandmaking, if the wizard is still alive after alcohol poisoning (hope your fort save is good, or you are a necropolitan) they are extremely, blindingly, staggeringly drunk.

Try grape juice. Maybe magic doesn't know the difference?
Seems kind of odd to me that you have to be at least a little drunk to do something as complicated as identifying a magical item. That's just silly.

PairO'Dice Lost

2013-01-17, 04:38 PM

New rule for the collection. Not dysfunctional per se (it works) but the implications are literally staggering.

To craft a wand for a level 1 spell, it basically takes 1 day (base cost 750 gp). If the spell has any costly material components, 50 copies must be provided, which are consumed in the making of the wand. I want to make a wand of identify.

The wandmaker has to drink 50 glasses of wine. At the end of the day of wandmaking, if the wizard is still alive after alcohol poisoning (hope your fort save is good, or you are a necropolitan) they are extremely, blindingly, staggeringly drunk.

Technically, the component is just the 100gp pearl, which happens to be consumed via wine; it doesn't say that it has to be a full glass of wine per pearl. The wandmaker could crush 50 pearls, stir them into a bottle of wine, and drink the resulting infusion, which would only be 6 glasses or so and would be much easier to handle.

TuggyNE

2013-01-17, 08:36 PM

Technically, the component is just the 100gp pearl, which happens to be consumed via wine; it doesn't say that it has to be a full glass of wine per pearl. The wandmaker could crush 50 pearls, stir them into a bottle of wine, and drink the resulting infusion, which would only be 6 glasses or so and would be much easier to handle.

Also, while during crafting the spell slots are expended as though cast, it doesn't say you have to actually cast them in the usual way. So maybe you just have to magically bind the pearl-wine into the finished wand, rather than drinking it.

... Still weird. :smalltongue:

nedz

2013-01-17, 08:41 PM

Well it doesn't say how big the glasses have to be.

Also: How do you get 50 spell slots in one day to create a wand at the level you can first do this ?

mattie_p

2013-01-17, 09:15 PM

You don't need 50 spell slots.

The creator must have prepared the spell to be stored (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any focuses the spell requires. Fifty of each needed material component are required, one for each charge. If casting the spell would reduce the caster’s XP total, she pays the cost (multiplied by 50) upon beginning the wand in addition to the XP cost for making the wand itself. Likewise, material components are consumed when she begins working, but focuses are not. (A focus used in creating a wand can be reused.) The act of working on the wand triggers the prepared spell, making it unavailable for casting during each day devoted to the wand’s creation. (That is, that spell slot is expended from her currently prepared spells, just as if it had been cast.)

nedz

2013-01-17, 09:28 PM

You don't need 50 spell slots.

That's good, ... But Wands are spell storage items ? :smallconfused:

Since I can craft a level 1 wand in 1 day I can store my one slot in a wand and get 50 back ?

OK,

Suppose a wizard needed to cast the same spell 50 times in one day?

The wizard spends eight hours and one slot in making the wand; and then off he can go, missing only one spell slot, and cast it 50 times?

Qwertystop

2013-01-17, 09:35 PM

That's good, ... But Wands are spell storage items ? :smallconfused:

Since I can craft a level 1 wand in 1 day I can store my one slot in a wand and get 50 back ?

OK,

Suppose a wizard needed to cast the same spell 50 times in one day?

The wizard spends eight hours and one slot in making the wand; and then off he can go, missing only one spell slot, and cast it 50 times?

Yes, but in exchange for that, he spends a lot of gold, some XP, and most of the day, as well as having to have taken the relevant feat. That's the point: Crafting wands is spending other resources to turn one casting into fifty that aren't day-limited.

mattie_p

2013-01-17, 09:37 PM

Crafting wands is spending other resources to turn one casting into fifty ...

By drinking a barrel of wine!

Ksheep

2013-01-17, 09:44 PM

By drinking a barrel of wine!

And now we know that all Wands of Identify were crafted by Dwarves.

mattie_p

2013-01-17, 10:15 PM

All right folks, got another one for the group.

Magelord PrC from Lost Empires of Faerun. Horrible PrC to get into, with 4 feats required, two of them terrible (Spell Mastery and Signature Spell [From PGtF]).

I don't even know if it is possible to qualify for the class before ECL 11. Anyway, Signature Spell enables you to spontaneously cast one mastered spell (the class gives you more signature spells).

The 10th level feature Magelord Mastery allows you to apply one or more known metamagic feats to one of your spontaneously cast signature spells. The dysfunction? You can already do so! (Well, you could, if you actually knew any metamagic feats - but you don't because of the terribad feat tax which consists of 0 metamagic feats.)

You may now convert prepared arcane spells of that spell’s level or higher into your signature spell, just as a good cleric can spontaneously cast prepared spells as cure spells.

Spontaneous Casting and Metamagic Feats
A cleric spontaneously casting a cure or inflict spell can cast a metamagic version of it instead. Extra time is also required in this case. Casting a 1-action metamagic spell spontaneously is a full-round action, and a spell with a longer casting time takes an extra full-round action to cast.

nedz

2013-01-17, 10:22 PM

Yes, but in exchange for that, he spends a lot of gold, some XP, and most of the day, as well as having to have taken the relevant feat. That's the point: Crafting wands is spending other resources to turn one casting into fifty that aren't day-limited.

Well not a whole lot of gold, xp is a river, and he has 14 hours and 45 minute free time available every day anyway. Basically Wizards get to break the law of thermodynamics at level 5, and even get a free feat slot to power it.

noparlpf

2013-01-17, 10:22 PM

Do you get to add the metamagic without increasing casting time to a full round, though?

mattie_p

2013-01-17, 10:27 PM

Do you get to add the metamagic without increasing casting time to a full round, though?

Nope. I quoted the pertinent part. It says nothing about keeping the same casting time, the class feature and the feat both say "as a cleric."

noparlpf

2013-01-17, 10:31 PM

Nope. I quoted the pertinent part. It says nothing about keeping the same casting time, the class feature and the feat both say "as a cleric."

Well then yeah, that's dumb. Sounds like an awful PrC anyway.

Deophaun

2013-01-17, 11:01 PM

mattie_p

2013-01-17, 11:21 PM

The Viscount

2013-01-17, 11:54 PM

The same reason sundark lenses, highly useful for denizens of the Underdark, are found in Races of the Dragon.

The Random NPC

2013-01-18, 12:36 AM

Well not a whole lot of gold, xp is a river, and he has 14 hours and 45 minute free time available every day anyway. Basically Wizards get to break the law of thermodynamics at level 5, and even get a free feat slot to power it.

How do you arrive at a crafting time of 1 hour 15 min? (You need 8 hours of sleep to refresh spells.)

TuggyNE

2013-01-18, 02:08 AM

BTW, if you count 3.0 as a rules source, all the claims about not being able to see the Sun, moon, stars, etc., as well as the problem of not being able to see a torch, are, in fact, not true. As Kelb Panthera (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14531598&postcount=24) pointed out in a recent thread, Underdark p. 106 has rules for just such occasions.

That fixes the sun, rather hackishly. It doesn't do so well on the moon, unless you fudge some weird radius for a reflective* object. It does nothing at all for the stars, because there is absolutely no possible way the radius of any given star's "bright light" extends even 1/600th of the way to Oerth or Toril or whatever**, never mind 1/6th.

And, of course, it doesn't help much if you want to spot something far away that doesn't shine especially well.

*The actual albedo of our own moon is stunningly low; it's darker than nearly any asphalt. It is, therefore, a "reflective object" only by courtesy.
**Of course, if you give up the claim various books have made that D&D worlds work much like our own, complete with solar systems and galaxies and gravitational orbits, then it isn't a problem.

absolmorph

2013-01-18, 02:30 AM

How do you arrive at a crafting time of 1 hour 15 min? (You need 8 hours of sleep to refresh spells.)
Actually, they just need to rest for 8 hours; only part of it has to be sleep.

nedz

2013-01-18, 05:37 AM

How do you arrive at a crafting time of 1 hour 15 min? (You need 8 hours of sleep to refresh spells.)

8 Hours sleep
1 Hour Preparing spells
15 Minutes Adventuring
14 Hours and 45 Minute free time available for Crafting/whatever.

Ed:

Given that you can craft a wand for Xgp, and sell it for 2Xgp funding this is not an issue — provided that you have a market for your wands.

This means that, in only a few weeks, a 5th level Wizard can have a Wand of every spell he knows — and an arbitrary amount of gold.

I know that Wizards are capable of breaking the game, but at level 5 ?

Is this not Dysfunctional ?

Actually I suppose you can do this at level 1 with Scribe Scroll — it's just not as convenient.

Deophaun

2013-01-18, 07:07 AM

That fixes the sun, rather hackishly. It doesn't do so well on the moon, unless you fudge some weird radius for a reflective* object. It does nothing at all for the stars, because there is absolutely no possible way the radius of any given star's "bright light" extends even 1/600th of the way to Oerth or Toril or whatever**, never mind 1/6th.
The problem here is that you are assuming that the level of illumination of the stars and moon in the game reflect reality, while your ability to see them does not. Looking at the examples given in the SRD, the area of shadowy illumination is twice the distance as the area of bright light. Since a full moon easily grants shadowy illumination, then it is within the 20X range to see it. The stars are more problematic, and I don't have the core 3.0 books on hand to check what, if anything, is regarded as starlight.

Killer Angel

2013-01-18, 10:09 AM

Let's discuss for a moment this (from Nedz's Handbook):

The Collection

Skills

Spot|It's impossible to see the Sun, moon, stars, etc|1|2-5

(range penalties, yadda yadda)

Leaving aside the distinction between moon and sun as source light

That fixes the sun, rather hackishly. It doesn't do so well on the moon, unless you fudge some weird radius for a reflective* object. It does nothing at all for the stars, because there is absolutely no possible way the radius of any given star's "bright light" extends even 1/600th of the way to Oerth or Toril or whatever**, never mind 1/6th.

I don't buy the "we don't see the moon".

On this matter, we have 2 main sources, right?

The first one.

Check
The Spot skill is used primarily to detect characters or creatures who are hiding. Typically, your Spot check is opposed by the Hide check of the creature trying not to be seen. Sometimes a creature isn’t intentionally hiding but is still difficult to see, so a successful Spot check is necessary to notice it.

The moon isn't intentionally hiding, but is it difficult to see? that's the requirement for the "need to roll".
Anyway, while "difficult to see" is a DM's call, it remains the fact that the moon is not a creature.
By RAW, you don't need to roll a spot check.

But you'll say: take a look at the 2nd source.

the SRD gives skill examples, and the example for a DC 0 is

Very easy (0) Notice something large in plain sight (Spot)

...yeah, "something" can be referred to objects, but that table is listed in the general use of the skills, and the DC listed are settled "using the skill rules as a guideline".
It's a generic guideline, so specific trumps general, and in the description of the spot skill (specific), it talks about creatures. So, no moon.

The Random NPC

2013-01-18, 10:36 AM

Actually, they just need to rest for 8 hours; only part of it has to be sleep.

Yes, you only need to rest, but you can't move, cast spells, use skills, speak, or anything else the GM determines is a demanding physical or mental task. With that example list, I couldn't see you doing much of anything useful during your rest.

Ksheep

2013-01-18, 11:06 AM

Yes, you only need to rest, but you can't move, cast spells, use skills, speak, or anything else the GM determines is a demanding physical or mental task. With that example list, I couldn't see you doing much of anything useful during your rest.

Just hope the DM doesn't judge dreaming to be a demanding mental task

noparlpf

2013-01-18, 11:21 AM

I don't know about you all but I find sleeping exhausting.

TuggyNE

2013-01-18, 07:17 PM

Anyway, while "difficult to see" is a DM's call, it remains the fact that the moon is not a creature.
By RAW, you don't need to roll a spot check.

But you'll say: take a look at the 2nd source.

the SRD gives skill examples, and the example for a DC 0 is

...yeah, "something" can be referred to objects, but that table is listed in the general use of the skills, and the DC listed are settled "using the skill rules as a guideline".
It's a generic guideline, so specific trumps general, and in the description of the spot skill (specific), it talks about creatures. So, no moon.

OK. How, then, do you determine whether you can see landmarks from a distance? What are the rules for determining how far away a flag on a keep can be seen? Can you see the details of an altar on the other side of a room?

If you abandon the use of Spot for some objects, you abandon it for all, and none of these have rules. There's a dysfunction somewhere in here (several, I suspect), and there's no way to eliminate it, not even by shifting it around from place to place.

As the 5e threads have rather thoroughly established, a rule that says "hey DM, make up some formula on the spot!" is a bad and useless rule.

nedz

2013-01-18, 07:32 PM

As the 5e threads have rather thoroughly established, a rule that says "hey DM, make up some formula on the spot!" is a bad and useless rule.

It worked for 0e — well actually there wasn't a rule that said the DM had to do it, but none the less the DM had to do it.

But we seem to have digressed into a bizarre edition war. :smallfrown:

Amidus Drexel

2013-01-18, 07:50 PM

It worked for 0e — well actually there wasn't a rule that said the DM had to do it, but none the less the DM had to do it.

But we seem to have digressed into a bizarre edition war. :smallfrown:

I think 5e v. 0e would be the most bizarre edition war I've ever seen. :smallamused:

CIDE

2013-01-18, 08:27 PM

Alright, under the titan bloodline (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/races/bloodlines.htm) it lists under the 12th level ability for the major bloodline
Use oversized weapon (Ex)2. Then below that in the notes it says
As the titan special ability..

Now we jump over to the Titan (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/titan.htm) where it says
Oversized Weapon (Ex)
A titan wields a great, two-handed warhammer (big enough for Gargantuan creatures) without penalty..

Now, I doubt it's what was intended but wouldn't RAW be that even a Pixie with the Titan Bloodline could wield a gargantuan (4d6) Warhammer without penalty at level 12?

Quoted from my own thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14553759#post14553759)

nedz

2013-01-18, 08:27 PM

I think 5e v. 0e would be the most bizarre edition war I've ever seen. :smallamused:

Hmm, I'm tempted :smallbiggrin:

Qwertystop

2013-01-18, 08:30 PM

What was 0e? Non-Advanced D&D?

nedz

2013-01-18, 08:37 PM

OD&D — so yes.

The Viscount

2013-01-18, 09:38 PM

On a different note, if you read strictly enough, rouse (PHB2) doesn't do anything. The italicized flavor text preceding the description states that it awakes sleeping creatures, but the actual spell description simply says it does not affect characters rendered unconscious due to <1 hp or nonlethal damage.

absolmorph

2013-01-18, 10:13 PM

Quoted from my own thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14553759#post14553759)
The post you quoted is accurate, any creature with the Titan bloodline who reaches the appropriate ability can use the noted weapon without penalty, regardless of their own size.

On a different note, if you read strictly enough, rouse (PHB2) doesn't do anything. The italicized flavor text preceding the description states that it awakes sleeping creatures, but the actual spell description simply says it does not affect characters rendered unconscious due to <1 hp or nonlethal damage.
That's not really reading "strictly enough", that's ignoring the spell fluff.
... That's sad, WotC.

Killer Angel

2013-01-19, 04:14 AM

OK. How, then, do you determine whether you can see landmarks from a distance? What are the rules for determining how far away a flag on a keep can be seen? Can you see the details of an altar on the other side of a room?

If you abandon the use of Spot for some objects, you abandon it for all, and none of these have rules. There's a dysfunction somewhere in here (several, I suspect), and there's no way to eliminate it, not even by shifting it around from place to place.

I would say that, in absence of a clear rule (as, imo, in this case) we should use something equivalent.
What's the approssimative size of the moon, when we see it? a quarter dollar?
Well, for all purposes, what we see is a fine object (-16) in plain sight and not hiding (DC 0).
So, to see the moon, you need to beat a DC 16.
The details of the altar are probably not in plain sight, and so you have to go nearest, and so on.

Edit: basically, spot rules are dysfunctional 'cause they don't cover objects, so there's no difference between the moon, a castle, and a flag on the castle.

TypoNinja

2013-01-19, 05:40 AM

I would say that, in absence of a clear rule (as, imo, in this case) we should use something equivalent.
What's the approssimative size of the moon, when we see it? a quarter dollar?
Well, for all purposes, what we see is a fine object (-16) in plain sight and not hiding (DC 0).
So, to see the moon, you need to beat a DC 16.
The details of the altar are probably not in plain sight, and so you have to go nearest, and so on.

Edit: basically, spot rules are dysfunctional 'cause they don't cover objects, so there's no difference between the moon, a castle, and a flag on the castle.

Even if you want to grant celestial objects status as a light source (as per a campaign specific spalt book? How's that for dysfunctional, updates to spot rules like that really should be in core. Also if its a Setting specific book, doesn't that technically mean it only works like that in that setting?) that still leaves out large but distant terrain objects. Mount Everest at more than around 500ft distant is all but impossible to see.

My favorite is that there's no actual penalty for simply never going to sleep. Even spellcasters only need 'rest' which in D&D terms is not necessarily sleep.

Even the Creature Types specify you need sleep, but never actually get around to saying what happens if you don't get it.

Similarly, since "Unconscious" is a defined condition in D&D, when you do go to sleep you are at -1 to -9 HP. Oops.

TuggyNE

2013-01-19, 09:57 PM

Similarly, since "Unconscious" is a defined condition in D&D, when you do go to sleep you are at -1 to -9 HP. Oops.

Well, you can be asleep without being artificially unconscious anyway, and non-lethal damage is another way of becoming unconscious. So that's not necessarily quite as bad.

noparlpf

2013-01-19, 10:08 PM

Similarly, since "Unconscious" is a defined condition in D&D, when you do go to sleep you are at -1 to -9 HP. Oops.

But, the game does not define sleep as unconsciousness (or at least I don't think so anyway), and in real life sleep and unconsciousness are different things.

Edit:
From the handbook thread:

Monster|Hydra|10-headed has lower Will than 9- or 11-headed|26|3.5

This was probably discussed back in the first thread, but now it's being brought into the handbook I want to bring it up again. It does make some sense thematically, as a ten-headed hydra does not have a tie-breaking head.

The Viscount

2013-01-20, 01:50 AM

What, half the heads are fatalists and want to fail saves? Likely a simple error.

noparlpf

2013-01-20, 01:52 AM

What, half the heads are fatalists and want to fail saves? Likely a simple error.

I don't know. Maybe they start arguing over whether or not they've disbelieved in something yet. Should we go along with this caster's Charm, or not? And while they're arguing, they fumble the roll.
Yeah, probably a typo or something. But it's more fun to imagine the heads arguing.

thethird

2013-01-20, 07:39 AM

are you aware of the dead levels articles?

here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20070227x)

A Favored Soul gains knowledge (arcana), but not knowledge (religion) as a class skill, additionally at first level it gains the following class feature.

Knowledge Specialty (Ex): At 1st level, a favored soul can choose whether to make Knowledge (arcana) or Knowledge (religion) a class skill. Once this choice is made, it cannot be reversed.

Note that by my reading you can choose to make either knowledge (arcana) (which already is a class skill) or knowledge (religion) a class skill. At no point it does say that you loose the other as a class skill. So you could have 2 knowledge (arcana) as class skills (don't even know how that would work) or knowledge (arcana) and knowledge (religion) as class skills.

TuggyNE

2013-01-20, 07:50 AM

noparlpf

2013-01-20, 10:31 AM

are you aware of the dead levels articles?

here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20070227x)

These...what...what. "The barbarian and monk are clearly the best classes."

Talderas

2013-01-21, 08:47 AM

The same reason sundark lenses, highly useful for denizens of the Underdark, are found in Races of the Dragon.

Sounds more like the logic that placed mining rules in Races of the Dragon rather than Races of Stone.

Kazyan

2013-01-21, 11:08 AM

These...what...what. "The barbarian and monk are clearly the best classes."

Well, Barbarian does exactly what it says on the tin, and T4 just means that it fills the specific party role. It's not ToB, but it's not bad design.

Monk has no excuses for its praise, though.

The Viscount

2013-01-21, 06:46 PM

I have two here, though something makes me feel that one or both have already been mentioned. If so, I apologize.

Firstly, the dumber, less important one. Horses have a negligible weight. Clearly, horses actually have a weight, though MM doesn't list a weight for them in their description (not that it lists a weight for most monsters). The source for this horse weightlessness is the PHB. On page 129, the large chart for a variety of goods and services lists their weight, with a dash indicating no weight or weight worth noting. All horses, and all ships for that matter, have no listed weight. This was likely listed as such because PCs were to consider such items too heavy to lift, or simply not for carrying. However, RAW, if your horse breaks his leg, simply carry it to the nearest town for healing. Don't pay docking fees, simply lug your boat around!

Secondly, the more interesting one. Disguise self is a very useful spell, with many applications. Assume a lvl 1 wizard has chosen a toad as his familiar. The toad, as a diminutive creature, is less than 1 foot tall. Share spell allows the wizard to use disguise self on the toad as well as personally. Thus the toad can appear 1 foot shorter, i.e. invisible. Best part is that methods of beating invisibility don't work, as the toad technically isn't invisible.

Qwertystop

2013-01-21, 06:54 PM

Secondly, the more interesting one. Disguise self is a very useful spell, with many applications. Assume a lvl 1 wizard has chosen a toad as his familiar. The toad, as a diminutive creature, is less than 1 foot tall. Share spell allows the wizard to use disguise self on the toad as well as personally. Thus the toad can appear 1 foot shorter, i.e. invisible. Best part is that methods of beating invisibility don't work, as the toad technically isn't invisible.

Technically, it'd only be invisible from the side. It would have a height of 0' 0", but that changes nothing about width or depth. So you'd have a two-dimensional toad. The spell does not specify how much thinner or fatter a creature can become, but presumably a "thin" toad is not the same as a line parallel to the toad's spine, so you wouldn't quite be able to make a 0-dimensional toad.

Also, since it's an illusion, True Seeing would still work. It does block See Invisibility, though.

Venger

2013-01-21, 07:04 PM

Technically, it'd only be invisible from the side. It would have a height of 0' 0", but that changes nothing about width or depth. So you'd have a two-dimensional toad. The spell does not specify how much thinner or fatter a creature can become, but presumably a "thin" toad is not the same as a line parallel to the toad's spine, so you wouldn't quite be able to make a 0-dimensional toad.

Also, since it's an illusion, True Seeing would still work. It does block See Invisibility, though.

since he's 0'0", unless you're looking at him from head on or bird's eye (is 2-d toad just flat toad on the ground like a shadow? that'd be pretty hard to see) he'd still be difficult to see.

while true seeing does beat it, it rebuffs some alternatives that are higher than disguise self, so it's still pretty funny.

nedz

2013-01-21, 07:14 PM

since he's 0'0", unless you're looking at him from head on or bird's eye (is 2-d toad just flat toad on the ground like a shadow? that'd be pretty hard to see) he'd still be difficult to see.

while true seeing does beat it, it rebuffs some alternatives that are higher than disguise self, so it's still pretty funny.

Well since you are 5'-6' tall (probably) you will have almost a bird's eye view.

However since share spells has a range of 5' the caster would be better off carrying the toad on his head under his hat — but then he could likely do that anyway :smallbiggrin:

Qwertystop

2013-01-21, 08:19 PM

since he's 0'0", unless you're looking at him from head on or bird's eye (is 2-d toad just flat toad on the ground like a shadow? that'd be pretty hard to see) he'd still be difficult to see.

while true seeing does beat it, it rebuffs some alternatives that are higher than disguise self, so it's still pretty funny.

Yes, he'd be pretty much equivalent to a shadow as far as what angles you could see him from.

That is, any angle steeper than [directly horizontal with your eye level at the surface on which the toad stands].

Which includes the near-vertical from which things larger than a large spider (not a Large spider, just a big one the size of your fist) will be seeing a toad.

Tr011

2013-01-21, 08:25 PM

Ksheep

2013-01-21, 09:20 PM

since he's 0'0", unless you're looking at him from head on or bird's eye (is 2-d toad just flat toad on the ground like a shadow? that'd be pretty hard to see) he'd still be difficult to see.

while true seeing does beat it, it rebuffs some alternatives that are higher than disguise self, so it's still pretty funny.

However, even if he is 0'0" (or less… somehow), this does not make him any harder to hit or see, as there are no rules stating that being 2-dimensional gives you any bonus to AC or hide checks.

Qwertystop

2013-01-21, 10:00 PM

However, even if he is 0'0" (or less… somehow), this does not make him any harder to hit or see, as there are no rules stating that being 2-dimensional gives you any bonus to AC or hide checks.

Well, yeah. The only time when you wouldn't be able to see him is when you're smaller than he is, and by that point you're walking on him.

Amidus Drexel

2013-01-21, 10:03 PM

However, even if he is 0'0" (or less… somehow), this does not make him any harder to hit or see, as there are no rules stating that being 2-dimensional gives you any bonus to AC or hide checks.

It should make it much easier for him to find cover, though.

The Viscount

2013-01-21, 10:05 PM

Not sure if it was already mentioned but it's not listed in the handbook...

A Thief-Acrobat retains dodge-bonuses and dex to AC while climbing and balancing. This means, he gets uncanny dodge, but only while he is standing on a ladder or got grease under his boots or something...
So if you ever play a Thief-Acrobat, remember to fight on a ladder so you don't get sneak attacked.

They really should have seen that one, especially considering the type of character this class is for.

On the topic of toads. Two-dimensional toad holding still does blend in rather well. One could also pretend to be a higher level wu jen through the use of a two-dimensional toad, as kiss of the toad requires toad tattoo as focus. One could pretend to have a very realistic one. Also, a toad is realistically less that one foot tall. Can it appear -6 inches tall? What would that mean?

Also, nobody objects to weightless boats?

Amidus Drexel

2013-01-21, 10:08 PM

Also, a toad is realistically less that one foot tall. Can it appear -6 inches tall? What would that mean?

I would assume that means it is a walking toad-shaped hole in the ground. :smallamused:

nedz

2013-01-21, 10:39 PM

...So if you ever play a Thief-Acrobat, remember to fight on a ladder so you don't get sneak attacked.
That explains the Jackie Chan scene with the saw horse.

Also, nobody objects to weightless boats?
Catalogued already :smallsmile:

On the topic of toads. Two-dimensional toad holding still does blend in rather well. One could also pretend to be a higher level wu jen through the use of a two-dimensional toad, as kiss of the toad requires toad tattoo as focus. One could pretend to have a very realistic one. Also, a toad is realistically less that one foot tall. Can it appear -6 inches tall? What would that mean?I would assume that means it is a walking toad-shaped hole in the ground. :smallamused:
Which would ruin his disguise — He'd just look like one of those optical illusions where an inside out frog looks like a real one.

absolmorph

2013-01-21, 10:53 PM

Also, nobody objects to weightless boats?
Well, it's pretty clear-cut that your right, so all we can't really argue about it, and that's really the only discussion that happens in these thread.

Amidus Drexel

2013-01-21, 11:05 PM

Well, it's pretty clear-cut that your right, so all we can't really argue about it, and that's really the only discussion that happens in these thread.

Arguing is the best part. :smallbiggrin:

The Viscount

2013-01-21, 11:08 PM

Sometimes it seems like arguing is the only discussion that goes on in any thread.

My apologies for repeating, nedz.

TypoNinja

2013-01-22, 12:27 AM

These...what...what. "The barbarian and monk are clearly the best classes."

They value giving you a shiny new ability every level higher than an actual well build class. Character design by ADD.

Ksheep

2013-01-22, 12:33 AM

It should make it much easier for him to find cover, though.

But would he be able to find cover easier? He still fills the same area. Then again, given his size to begin with, this wouldn't be much of a problem. Now, if you got a Small or larger sized creature and reduced it to 0' tall… he'd still fill a 5' square (or larger), and wouldn't be able to occupy the same square as an opponent or certain objects, correct? Might be able to hid behind a box a bit easier, but couldn't technically climb under the box to get total cover. But what if he picked the box up and held it over his head? Would the box appear to be hovering a fraction of an inch off the ground, give you total cover, and be the perfect disguise (in certain areas, at least)?

The Random NPC

2013-01-22, 12:36 AM

They value giving you a shiny new ability every level higher than an actual well build class. Character design by ADD.

Even still, they failed because they only gave one new ability to the sorcerer and wizard.

nedz

2013-01-22, 10:01 AM

shadow_archmagi

2013-01-22, 01:24 PM

I'm not sure how access to the Death and Destruction domains is a dysfunction for LG clerics. They mostly just let you kill people, and killing people all day long is the business of all adventurers, good or evil.

Admittedly, some of the spells on the lists (Contagion, create greater undead) could be argued as being cruel and unusual, but whether they're inherently evil depends greatly on the morality within your setting.

Namfuak

2013-01-22, 01:46 PM

Order of the Bow Initiate Prestige Class.
This has a number of Dysfunctions, well maybe there just bad design decisions.

1) Pre-Req feat of Rapid Shot
Rapid Shot is completely incompatible with OBI's main class feature Ranged Precision — which requires a Std action to use.

My guess would be that they would have preferred something like Far Shot, but getting that requires Point Blank Shot, which is practically a dysfunction in and of itself. So, Rapid Shot makes some sense, since most archers (in their mind likely only fighters and rangers can be archers) would have that already, and not having a feat cost would open the class up to builds that weren't focused on archery. Which of course would be a travesty.

Just reread the class prereqs. I agree, I have no idea what the hell they were thinking.

2) Poor skills
The standard entry classes of Ranger and Scout have lots of skills. OBI grants 2+Int skill points per level, and it's class skills don't cover skills which you might expect a sniper to have — No Hide, or Listen for instance.

Perhaps he's not supposed to be a sniper so much as a target shooter? The precision shot doesn't work at further than 30 feet, and doesn't require the enemy to be flat footed or flanked. Also, remember that scout didn't come out until 2 years after CW, so they didn't have that to compare to. Likely they expected a lot of fighters to enter into it.

3) Useless class feature
Ranger 5/OBI 6 gets Sharp Shooting, but Ranger 11 with the archery combat style would get Improved Precise Shot. Improved Precise Shot is similar to Sharp Shooting, only better.

See #2 - It's from complete warrior, so my guess was that they were thinking of fighters, who would start missing all their bonus feats around that point.

rweird

2013-01-22, 04:11 PM

I'll add a few things.

1) The spell Invoke Magic (allows you to cast a spell of 4th level or lower in an Anti-Magic Field or a Dead Magic plane) can't be cast inside Anti-Magic Fields or Dead Magic planes without further magic or whatnot.

2) From Dragon Compendium (or Dragon #310), the feat Mercurial Strike doesn't work. It activates when your unarmed and an opponent provokes an attack of opportunity from you, if your unarmed you don't threaten anything so your opponent can't provoke an attack of opportunity from you in the first place making the feat useless.

jindra34

2013-01-22, 04:13 PM

2) From Dragon Compendium (or Dragon #310), the feat Mercurial Strike doesn't work. It activates when your unarmed and an opponent provokes an attack of opportunity from you, if your unarmed you don't threaten anything so your opponent can't provoke an attack of opportunity from you in the first place making the feat useless.

Improved Unarmed Strike feat allows you to threaten when unarmed. And I'd bloody presume that Mercurial strike requires it, so yes the feat does work.

Namfuak

2013-01-22, 04:32 PM

Improved Unarmed Strike feat allows you to threaten when unarmed. And I'd bloody presume that Mercurial strike requires it, so yes the feat does work.

The feat requires Quick Draw, which does not require UAS. It does not itself require UAS. I'd say it qualifies, although I think that some actions do provoke attacks of opportunity from you even if you are unarmed and do not have UAS (trying to grapple/trip/etc without the appropriate improved feat, for example).

rweird

2013-01-22, 04:44 PM

Improved Unarmed Strike feat allows you to threaten when unarmed. And I'd bloody presume that Mercurial strike requires it, so yes the feat does work.

It says "You are considered to be armed even when unarmed," so then you would be considered armed and couldn't draw a weapon.

NamfuakL True, though because of you having quick draw, pretty much the only time you'd be unarmed is if your an archer, or you haven't acted in combat yet, in which case you couldn't take attacks of opportunity unless you have combat reflexes.

Venger

2013-01-22, 04:49 PM

I'll add a few things.

1) The spell Invoke Magic (allows you to cast a spell of 4th level or lower in an Anti-Magic Field or a Dead Magic plane) can't be cast inside Anti-Magic Fields or Dead Magic planes without further magic or whatnot.

it specifically says you can cast it in an AMF, dead magic sone, or null-magic plane. what implies otherwise?

killem2

2013-01-22, 05:29 PM

Sorry didn't realize I need to post here.
I've never submitted anything, but I'd like to put up:

Human Level 1 Wizard average starting age is 17-27

Human Level 1 Rogue / Level 1 Wizard average starting age is 16-21.

So, when you multiclass, you pick up on being a cleric/wizard/druid easier than someone who has DEDICATED themselves to it?

Dysfunctional :)

rweird

2013-01-22, 05:54 PM

it specifically says you can cast it in an AMF, dead magic sone, or null-magic plane. what implies otherwise?

It says: "You cause a flicker of magic to momentarily exist in a place where magic cannot normally function, such as within the area of an antimagic field, a dead magic area, or a null-magic plane."

Mainly fluff.

The actual effect: "This allows you the ability to cast a single spell of 4th level or lower, which then ends the spell's effect.
Casting invoke magic is a swift action, like casting a quickened spell."

It doesn't specify you can cast Invoke Magic itself in an AMF, just a spell of 4th level or lower.

Venger

2013-01-22, 06:22 PM

killem2

2013-01-22, 07:03 PM

yep. when elan thinks it's a good idea (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html) that's usually a pretty good indicator it doesn't make any sense.

hhahahhahaha

that's awesome. :D

Salbazier

2013-01-22, 11:47 PM

This thread made give a stomachache from laughing too long. :smallbiggrin: Seriously.

TypoNinja

2013-01-23, 01:11 AM

It says: "You cause a flicker of magic to momentarily exist in a place where magic cannot normally function, such as within the area of an antimagic field, a dead magic area, or a null-magic plane."

Mainly fluff.

The actual effect: "This allows you the ability to cast a single spell of 4th level or lower, which then ends the spell's effect.
Casting invoke magic is a swift action, like casting a quickened spell."

It doesn't specify you can cast Invoke Magic itself in an AMF, just a spell of 4th level or lower.

I wouldn't call that a dysfunction, more like sloppy language skills on the part of the writers. While it doesn't actually come out and say so, its pretty clear they intended you to be able to cast this spell inside an anti-magic field. Sure it fails the RAW test, but even the tiniest bit of common sense applied and it works just fine.

For a truly dysfunctional example I'd look at something like, spot rules, or sleeping, or your carrying capacity giving no thought to how you actually hold the 23,000lbs you can lift overhead. There are actual rule breakdowns there.

Felandria

2013-01-23, 02:04 AM

Am I the only one who finds it ludicrous that Enlarge Person makes it easier to hurt someone?

Righteous Might gets it right, it balances the Dex loss with a bonus to Natural Armor, because that spell understands that if someone were to double in size, their skin would be twice as thick.

EP not only lowers your AC but makes you easier to damage, which makes no sense to me.

I say either EP should either add the Nat Armor Bonus or a smaller Con bonus.

TuggyNE

2013-01-23, 02:45 AM

I'd say dysfunctions here come in one of roughly three categories:

Minor RAW problem, a touch of common sense fixes it (example: dead)
Significant RAW problem, requires a good bit of common sense to fix it (example: Ruby Knight Vindicator swift-action gain)
Major RAW problem, there's no obvious common sense fix at all, and it may require research, or an arbitrary decision, or a fair bit of careful homebrewing, to get it right (example: spot rules for objects)

Regarding enlarge person... it's a first-level spell, of course it's lousy!

Talderas

2013-01-23, 08:56 AM

your carrying capacity giving no thought to how you actually hold the 23,000lbs you can lift overhead.

Super dense objects. On the other hand, knowing your carrying capacity does let you know how much strength you need to benchpress an earth elemental.

jindra34

2013-01-23, 09:13 AM

Super dense objects. On the other hand, knowing your carrying capacity does let you know how much strength you need to benchpress an earth elemental.

But Carrying Capacity doesn't carry what your carrying. 23,000 pounds could be a solid lead statue, or a bag full of feathers for all it cares, and it would encumber you all the same.

Salbazier

2013-01-23, 10:33 AM

Eh, Carrying capacity are abstraction. Sometimes that must be accepted. Accounting all the factors that affect carrying capacity in the IRL would be a pain.

Taelas

2013-01-23, 10:41 AM

*The actual albedo of our own moon is stunningly low; it's darker than nearly any asphalt. It is, therefore, a "reflective object" only by courtesy.

Uh, no; this is not exactly correct. Jeff Medkeff (http://web.archive.org/web/20080913091655/http://jeff.medkeff.com/astro/lunar/obs_tech/albedo.htm) explains how Lunar albedo works in this archived article.

The average brightness is about the same as a grassy yard at noon.

Zombimode

2013-01-23, 10:52 AM

Not sure if it was already mentioned but it's not listed in the handbook...

A Thief-Acrobat retains dodge-bonuses and dex to AC while climbing and balancing. This means, he gets uncanny dodge, but only while he is standing on a ladder or got grease under his boots or something...
So if you ever play a Thief-Acrobat, remember to fight on a ladder so you don't get sneak attacked.

Yeah, no. The Steady Stance class feature is not dysfunctional. Not even close.
What you do here is wishful thinking and munchkinery at its finest.
First, there is no mention of "uncanny dodge" in the description. Where do you get this from?
Second, it is actually very clear on what is does: "She is not
considered flat-footed while balancing or climbing[...]". She is still considered flat-footed for not having acted yet in a combat, being successfully attacked by a Saphir-Nightmare-Blade maneuver and so on, and is still denied her dex to AC against an attacker she cannot see, being stunned etc.
It just eliminates one possible reason for flat-footednes.
To work like you would like it to work it would need to read like this "She can not be flat-footed while balancing or climbing".

killem2

2013-01-23, 11:33 AM

Qwertystop

2013-01-23, 11:39 AM

DM: "You come to a 5ft by 5ft door way into a 50 ft long 5ft tall hall way. Do you go in?"

Halfling: I go in.

Dwarf: So do I!

Gnome: Sure thing!

Human: Yeah *crouching slightly*, I'm in.

7' 6" Goliath and 7' 7" Half-Giant: Uh....

:smallbiggrin:
Actually, they can. The rules for fitting into a too-small space basically come down to "you're squished a bit, you take AC and to-hit penalties."

killem2

2013-01-23, 12:04 PM

Actually, they can. The rules for fitting into a too-small space basically come down to "you're squished a bit, you take AC and to-hit penalties."

I know about the rules, my bad attempt at humor was the RAW, indicates that it is strictly on a grid by grid basis. Large 4 square into one medium sized square, and so forth, but all of the above are small to medium, but the super tall super big giant like races are also medium.

TuggyNE

2013-01-23, 08:37 PM

Uh, no; this is not exactly correct. Jeff Medkeff (http://web.archive.org/web/20080913091655/http://jeff.medkeff.com/astro/lunar/obs_tech/albedo.htm) explains how Lunar albedo works in this archived article.

The average brightness is about the same as a grassy yard at noon.

Interesting, and good to know.

willpell

2013-01-23, 11:18 PM

7' 6" Goliath and 7' 7" Half-Giant: Uh....

:smallbiggrin:

They can crawl through on their hands and knees or something.

The Viscount

2013-01-24, 06:36 PM

Apocalypse from the sky has a curious added effect in that preparing it deals 1d3 points of wisdom damage, and the caster takes 1d3 wisdom damage every day it remains among prepared spells. Dread Necromancer, due to a clause in its entry, is able to cast corrupt spells spontaneously, which causes a problem. One of two things happens. Either DN skirts the preparation cost entirely, or having the spell ready to cast is the same as having it prepared and all DNs must find a fast way of getting restoration. That or be undead, depending on whether your DM follows rules in FAQs. I have another minor quibble about it in that I cannot see average 30, max 60 damage being something that "levels forests" or "sends mountains tumbling."

On other spells in BoVD, and a few in HoH, there is another problem, this one not exactly rules-based, but still confounding. A few corrupt spells exist in HoH and have intentionally grisly foci, such as "the tongue of an executed murderer" or "the umbilical cord of a stillborn fetus." These items have no cost, so one can only assume they are easily obtained for no real cost to a character. Spells in BoVD have similar components, usually as material costs, such as "a small bone from a child that still lives" or "corpse of a
freshly dead or preserved (still bloody) living creature", but the best is "a severed hand from a good-aligned humanoid cleric." These are all components which can be purchased in unlimited amounts in the light of day. There is no scarcity of bones of living children or murderer tongues. The corpses can technically be from mice, but how exactly does one obtain so many severed hands from good-aligned humanoid clerics, let alone fit them in one's pouch?

Kazyan

2013-01-24, 06:57 PM

Can we just put the "No listed price for spell components = it's automatically in a component pouch" thing to bed, if it's not already in Complete Dysfunction?

mattie_p

2013-01-24, 07:06 PM

Can we just put the "No listed price for spell components = it's automatically in a component pouch" thing to bed, if it's not already in Complete Dysfunction?

Amazingly that is not in the handbook yet. So yes. Complete Dysfunction is achieved. (Among others, Ice Assassin, I'm looking at you, particularly in connection with gods).

willpell

2013-01-24, 09:58 PM

Did anyone ever point out that an illiterate barbarian can make Forgery checks or have cross-class ranks in Decipher Script?

jindra34

2013-01-24, 10:00 PM

Did anyone ever point out that an illiterate barbarian can make Forgery checks or have cross-class ranks in Decipher Script?

Or even worse use a scroll through UMD.

The Random NPC

2013-01-24, 10:07 PM

Did anyone ever point out that an illiterate barbarian can make Forgery checks or have cross-class ranks in Decipher Script?

Obviously he copies the squiggly pictures really well. And what else could those squiggly pictures mean other than what they mean?

noparlpf

2013-01-24, 10:13 PM

Obviously he copies the squiggly pictures really well. And what else could those squiggly pictures mean other than what they mean?

But you can forge things that didn't exist...so maybe he copies those squiggly pictures from a picture dictionary, and accidentally learns how to read through Forgery instead of burning the skill point normally? New hack.

TypoNinja

2013-01-24, 10:14 PM

Did anyone ever point out that an illiterate barbarian can make Forgery checks or have cross-class ranks in Decipher Script?

I actually just facepalmed. Nice catch there.

I'm doing this to my DM next game just because I think facepalms should be shared.

nedz

2013-01-24, 10:15 PM

At what point though does he cease to be immune to Explosive Runes ?

Karnith

2013-01-24, 10:17 PM

Can we just put the "No listed price for spell components = it's automatically in a component pouch" thing to bed, if it's not already in Complete Dysfunction?
Something else weird about spell component pouches (which kind of goes along with them having everything you want in them):
According to the d20 SRD,
A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except for those components that have a specific cost, divine focuses, and focuses that wouldn’t fit in a pouch.
For some reason, the spell component pouch doesn't contain focuses larger than the pouch itself, but there is no similar language for material components. I assume that spells are intended to have tiny material components, but since Apocalypse from the Sky means that (by RAW) you can have any artifact inside, spell component pouches can hold suits of armor (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/magicItems/artifacts.htm#golemArmor) larger than the pouch's owner, let alone the pouch.

Tr011

2013-01-24, 10:36 PM

Second, it is actually very clear on what is does: "She is not
considered flat-footed while balancing or climbing[...]"...
To work like you would like it to work it would need to read like this "She can not be flat-footed while balancing or climbing".

She is not and she can not is the same in this context. She is not considered flat-footed means she isn't flat-footed. Otherwise, it should have meant "she is not considered flat-footed due to having not enough ranks in..." or something like that.
Obviously, you are right in that the writer didn't mean what I mean. So RAI you're right, but not RAW.

TypoNinja

2013-01-24, 10:52 PM

She is not and she can not is the same in this context. She is not considered flat-footed means she isn't flat-footed. Otherwise, it should have meant "she is not considered flat-footed due to having not enough ranks in..." or something like that.
Obviously, you are right in that the writer didn't mean what I mean. So RAI you're right, but not RAW.

A common mistake, taking a rule as a stand alone when it relies on additional information.

The rules for Balancing and Climbing;

Being Attacked while Balancing

You are considered flat-footed while balancing, since you can’t move to avoid a blow, and thus you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). If you have 5 or more ranks in Balance, you aren’t considered flat-footed while balancing. If you take damage while balancing, you must make another Balance check against the same DC to remain standing.

You need both hands free to climb, but you may cling to a wall with one hand while you cast a spell or take some other action that requires only one hand. While climbing, you can’t move to avoid a blow, so you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). You also can’t use a shield while climbing.

The default state in climbing/balancing is flat footed, no dodging, you are too busy making sure you don't fall.

Is not and Can not are important in this context,"'is" simply overrides the default rules, specific vs general. "Can not" would forbid the state altogether. Either way, this is not the same as uncanny dodge.

So yea, not a dysfunction.

Pickford

2013-01-25, 01:31 AM

This is a continuation of Firechanter's "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection Thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214988).

There is now a Handbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267985), well it's more of an index really.

Incidentally, there's no such thing as 'Unarmed Strike Proficiency'. There's only: Simple Weapons, Martial Weapons, Exotic Weapons, and Improved Unarmed Strike which fulfills the same role (read the part in the PHB on pg. 139 about "Armed" Unarmed Attacks and 'Dealing Lethal Damage'.) by eliminating any penalty for using unarmed attacks. (Both for lethal and non-lethal damage)

TypoNinja

2013-01-25, 01:41 AM

Incidentally, there's no such thing as 'Unarmed Strike Proficiency'. There's only: Simple Weapons, Martial Weapons, Exotic Weapons, and Improved Unarmed Strike which fulfills the same role (read the part in the PHB on pg. 139 about "Armed" Unarmed Attacks and 'Dealing Lethal Damage'.) by eliminating any penalty for using unarmed attacks. (Both for lethal and non-lethal damage)

Isn't that like saying there's no "Feeding Yourself" proficiency though?

A creature knows how to use its body by virtue of being born and growing up in it. Creatures are always proficient with their own natural weapons, would not humanoids be as well?

Pickford

2013-01-25, 01:42 AM

Did anyone ever point out that an illiterate barbarian can make Forgery checks or have cross-class ranks in Decipher Script?

Er...no?

PHB pg. 74, under the Forgery (INT) entry:

"Restriction: Forgery is language-dependent; thus to forge documents and detect forgeries, you must be able to read and write the language in question. A barbarian can't learn the Forgery skill unless he has learned to read and write."

Decipher script makes sense because you obviously don't read whatever is written.

Pickford

2013-01-25, 01:44 AM

Isn't that like saying there's no "Feeding Yourself" proficiency though?

A creature knows how to use its body by virtue of being born and growing up in it. Creatures are always proficient with their own natural weapons, would not humanoids be as well?

Well that's just it, imagine the difference between being trained (Improved Unarmed Strike) and untrained (Not having that).

Turns out the difference is untrained you provoke aoo on whoever you're trying to hit (cause you don't know how to fight without getting hurt) and your default damage is non-lethal, if you want to make it hurt without the feat, you take a -4 penalty.

Just like all the other arms feats where you take -4 if you try to damage someone with it and aren't trained.

Edit: I think I just realized my post wasn't clear earlier....I was quoting the first post in the thread this is a followup to where the OP indicated it was weird that Monk's don't have an unarmed proficiency. It's just a poor reading of the PHB that leads to that misunderstanding.

willpell

2013-01-25, 01:47 AM

I actually just facepalmed. Nice catch there.

I'm doing this to my DM next game just because I think facepalms should be shared.

Don't forget to multiclass to Totemist so that you can be even more illiterate. :smallwink:

Incidentally, there's no such thing as 'Unarmed Strike Proficiency'. There's only: Simple Weapons, Martial Weapons, Exotic Weapons, and Improved Unarmed Strike which fulfills the same role (read the part in the PHB on pg. 139 about "Armed" Unarmed Attacks and 'Dealing Lethal Damage'.) by eliminating any penalty for using unarmed attacks. (Both for lethal and non-lethal damage)

Unarmed Strike is a simple weapon. The Monk does not have proficiency with all ismple weapons, only with specific weapons, among which US isn't mentioned. So, by a strict reading, they are not proficient. The -4 penalty from nonproficiency is separate from the -4 penalty to deal lethal damage with a non-Improved US. There are no penalties described in the "armed unarmed" section, it simply details whether or not you provoke AoOs.

(It is amusing how they redundantly say "a monk or a character with IUS", when all monks get IUS. You could potentially use this to justify Dark Chaos Shuffling the IUS away and still gaining most of its benefits, if you can convince the DM to consider that text binding.)

"Restriction: Forgery is language-dependent; thus to forge documents and detect forgeries, you must be able to read and write the language in question. A barbarian can't learn the Forgery skill unless he has learned to read and write."

A barbarian doesn't need to learn the Forgery skill; it's usable untrained as a straight Intelligence check. But okay, the first sentence does cover it.

Pickford

2013-01-25, 02:41 AM

Don't forget to multiclass to Totemist so that you can be even more illiterate. :smallwink:

Hah

Unarmed Strike is a simple weapon. The Monk does not have proficiency with all ismple weapons, only with specific weapons, among which US isn't mentioned. So, by a strict reading, they are not proficient. The -4 penalty from nonproficiency is separate from the -4 penalty to deal lethal damage with a non-Improved US. There are no penalties described in the "armed unarmed" section, it simply details whether or not you provoke AoOs.

Reading the Monk class entry there is no penalty to their unarmed attack rolls. (Specifically, all the examples indicate the Monk would receive their full attack bonus for the unarmed strikes both regularly and in flurry)

That would seem to trump the unarmed strike rules which, presumably, apply to everyone else. i.e. Wizards and Druids. (Not that druids care, they would just use natural attacks).

I suppose the real question is: Would a Wizard who tries to deal lethal damage with an unarmed attack take a -8 to hit?

willpell

2013-01-25, 02:46 AM

Reading the Monk class entry there is no penalty to their unarmed attack rolls.

It isn't mentioned in their class entry; it's baked into the general rules on combat and weapon proficiency. You always take a penalty to attacks with a weapon you're not granted proficiency in, and the designers forgot to grant monks proficiency in unarmed strike, almost certainly because they assumed it was completely obvious that they should have such proficiency.

(Specifically, all the examples indicate the Monk would receive their full attack bonus for the unarmed strikes both regularly and in flurry)

Examples do not constitute RAW, though they often give a guideline to RAI. I'm pretty sure that there are several examples on the record which contradict the actual rules.

I suppose the real question is: Would a Wizard who tries to deal lethal damage with an unarmed attack take a -8 to hit?

Assuming he didn't have simple weapon proficiency from a feat, multiclassing, or his creature type, then yes he would.

Pickford

2013-01-25, 03:00 AM

It isn't mentioned in their class entry; it's baked into the general rules on combat and weapon proficiency. You always take a penalty to attacks with a weapon you're not granted proficiency in, and the designers forgot to grant monks proficiency in unarmed strike, almost certainly because they assumed it was completely obvious that they should have such proficiency.

Examples do not constitute RAW, though they often give a guideline to RAI. I'm pretty sure that there are several examples on the record which contradict the actual rules.

Unarmed attacks are only listed as simple weapons in that table (I don't see 'anywhere' else.) Tables are trumped by text as a primary source according to the PHB errata. Furthermore from pg.41

"Monks are highly trained in fighting unarmed, giving them considerable advantages when doing so."..."Usually a monk's unarmed strikes deal lethal damage, but she can choose to deal nonlethal damage instead with no penalty on her attack roll."

This differs from other characters who regularly would deal nonlethal damage and have to take a -4 penalty to deal lethal damage with unarmed strikes.

If that was not enough the flurry entry: "For example, at 6th level, the monk Ember could make one attack with her unarmed strike at an attack bonus of +3 and one attack with a special monk weapon at an attack bonus of +3."

Hey, guess what? Special monk weapons are simple weapons which they are listed as being proficient with. Therefore IF you were correct that monks "trained in fighting unarmed" are somehow not proficient with unarmed strikes, the bonus for the special monk weapon would be different than the unarmed strike (as a 6th level monk has a flurry attack bonus of +3/+3)

Not one paragraph later the text says an 8th level monk using unarmed strikes and a quarterstaff would have a +5/+5/+0 to hit on flurry regardless of which attacks were unarmed and which were using the staff. Not coincidentally, an 8th level monk has the flurry of +5/+5/+0.

Can we please just put this canard about monks not being proficient in unarmed strikes to bed? It's clear as day in the RAW that they are.

absolmorph

2013-01-25, 05:51 AM

"Monks are highly trained in fighting unarmed, giving them considerable advantages when doing so."..."Usually a monk's unarmed strikes deal lethal damage, but she can choose to deal nonlethal damage instead with no penalty on her attack roll."
The first may be true, but they're still bad at it. This doesn't mean they're proficient.
That's just the effect of Improved Unarmed Strike. And this still doesn't mention proficiency.

If that was not enough the flurry entry: "For example, at 6th level, the monk Ember could make one attack with her unarmed strike at an attack bonus of +3 and one attack with a special monk weapon at an attack bonus of +3."
Yeah, WotC messes this sort of thing up. A lot. Does someone want to provide some example characters that don't qualify for the prestige classes they're supposed to have levels in?

Hey, guess what? Special monk weapons are simple weapons which they are listed as being proficient with. Therefore IF you were correct that monks "trained in fighting unarmed" are somehow not proficient with unarmed strikes, the bonus for the special monk weapon would be different than the unarmed strike (as a 6th level monk has a flurry attack bonus of +3/+3)
Fluff != crunch
The sentences saying monks are trained in unarmed combat are fluff. They're supposed to be useful when fighting with their fists.
They're not.

Not one paragraph later the text says an 8th level monk using unarmed strikes and a quarterstaff would have a +5/+5/+0 to hit on flurry regardless of which attacks were unarmed and which were using the staff. Not coincidentally, an 8th level monk has the flurry of +5/+5/+0.
So, does this mean their to-hit bonus when flurrying at level 8 would be +5/+5/+0 regardless of their ability scores?

Can we please just put this canard about monks not being proficient in unarmed strikes to bed? It's clear as day in the RAW that they are.
No, it isn't.
I've yet to hear anything to suggest it's not RAI, but not RAW.

Karnith

2013-01-25, 08:41 AM

Can we please just put this canard about monks not being proficient in unarmed strikes to bed? It's clear as day in the RAW that they are.
Actually, it's pretty clear that they aren't, because according to the SRD

Monks are proficient with club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, handaxe, javelin, kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, siangham, and sling.
And the SRD has the following to say about humanoids:

Proficient with all simple weapons, or by character class.
Since unarmed strike isn't listed in their class proficiencies (and unarmed strikes are simple weapons), monks are not proficient with unarmed strikes by RAW. Fluff indicating otherwise is just another example of Wizards not understanding their own system.

Obviously, any sane DM would rule otherwise, but that's not the point of this thread.

noparlpf

2013-01-25, 02:06 PM

The only part of a class that actually grants proficiencies is the "Weapon and Armor Proficiencies" section. Any fluff that suggests proficiencies but is not backed up in that section is moot.

Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Monks are proficient with certain basic peasant weapons and some special weapons that are part of monk training. The weapons with which a monk is proficient are club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, handaxe, javelin, kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, siangham, and sling. (See Chapter 7: Equipment for descriptions of these weapons.) Monks are not proficient with any armor or shields—in fact, many of the monk’s special powers require unfettered movement. When wearing armor, using a shield, or carrying a medium or heavy load, a monk loses her AC bonus, as well as her fast movement and flurry of blows abilities.
And as Karnith points out, any racial proficiencies are overridden by class proficiencies.

The Viscount

2013-01-25, 02:38 PM

On a different note, the Positive Energy Plane is even more deadly than it seems. Firstly, its natives, such as the Ravid, Glimmerskin, and Xag-ya have no protection from the explosive healing of the plane, though Vivacious creatures are. In addition, the Positive Energy Plane is airless, and outsiders still breathe. I might be forgetting a sentence somewhere that states that incorporeal creatures do not need to breathe, but I haven't seen it, probably due to almost all of them being undead, at least in early times when the rules were written. Small wonder we encounter them outside their native plane so frequently.

Small second dysfunction: A Marut is an inevitable tasked with tracking down those who try to cheat death. Liches are an example mentioned in the text of such a target. For a being designed to hunt liches, the Marut is not well built for the task. Its fists of thunder and lightning are a neat concept, but unfortunately liches are immune to electricity, as well as blinding and deafening. Similarly, its fists are not magic weapons and so deal 2d6-3 damage each. Rather embarrassing.

noparlpf

2013-01-25, 02:42 PM

On a different note, the Positive Energy Plane is even more deadly than it seems. Firstly, its natives, such as the Ravid, Glimmerskin, and Xag-ya have no protection from the explosive healing of the plane, though Vivacious creatures are. In addition, the Positive Energy Plane is airless, and outsiders still breathe. I might be forgetting a sentence somewhere that states that incorporeal creatures do not need to breathe, but I haven't seen it, probably due to almost all of them being undead, at least in early times when the rules were written. Small wonder we encounter them outside their native plane so frequently.

Yeah...the MMI entry on Incorporeal creatures does not in fact state that they do not breathe. Welp.

Edit: In the Manual of the Planes, it says that outsiders native to the plane (such as ravids) are immune to the detrimental effects of the plane, but it also says they still benefit from the regenerative nature of the domain. So...they get fast healing, and constantly gain temporary hit points, but don't risk exploding from temporary hit points? I'm not sure. I think they might just have nigh-infinite temporary hit points after spending a while there.

Anyway, all a character really needs to survive there is an Iridescent Ioun Stone for 18k gp so they don't need air, and to just cut themself every round they're there so they don't start exploding. Still a bit awkward that the natives tend to suffocate constantly.

Pickford

2013-01-25, 04:25 PM

The first may be true, but they're still bad at it. This doesn't mean they're proficient.
That's just the effect of Improved Unarmed Strike. And this still doesn't mention proficiency.

No, that means they're proficient, that's what proficiency 'is', it's being highly skilled (highly trained) those things are synonymous so by RAW it's there. Choosing to be willfully ignorant about the text doesn't change the rules.

Yeah, WotC messes this sort of thing up. A lot. Does someone want to provide some example characters that don't qualify for the prestige classes they're supposed to have levels in?

Twice in one paragraph suggests this is no typo. Occam's Razor indicates that it is not an error, and is further strengthened by the lack of inclusion in 3.5 errata by WotC (They made the effort to indicate a Rogue is proficient in 'sap', not bothering to do that for unarmed strikes is a strong indication it needs not be said as it is covered already). Regardless, the very existence of errors in some parts of a text don't determine if there are or aren't errors in another part. So this is irrelevent.

Fluff != crunch
The sentences saying monks are trained in unarmed combat are fluff. They're supposed to be useful when fighting with their fists.
They're not.

This isn't fluff it's a plain language description of the feat. They 'are' trained and that indicates proficiency.

Oh, point of order: From the glossary, "unarmed attack: A melee attack made with no weapon in hand." That would indicate there's no proficiency necessary because there's no weapon. It's like saying Oh, a ray should take a -4 because casters don't list ray weapon proficiency, even though you can take weapon focus for rays.

Read the weapon focus feat, it indicates it can be taken for a weapon, unarmed strike, grapple or even rays. The requirement lists "proficiency with selected weapon, base attack bonus +1."

Logically as there are no grapple proficiencies and no ray proficiencies this should be impossible...except the whole point is that those are '3' classes of attack for which proficiency does not exist except perhaps through Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Grapple and...well I don't see anything for Rays. But you hopefully get the idea.

"So, does this mean their to-hit bonus when flurrying at level 8 would be +5/+5/+0 regardless of their ability scores?"

No.

Pickford

2013-01-25, 04:28 PM

Actually, it's pretty clear that they aren't, because according to the SRD

And the SRD has the following to say about humanoids:

Since unarmed strike isn't listed in their class proficiencies (and unarmed strikes are simple weapons), monks are not proficient with unarmed strikes by RAW. Fluff indicating otherwise is just another example of Wizards not understanding their own system.

Obviously, any sane DM would rule otherwise, but that's not the point of this thread.

And it's also clear in RAW that unarmed strikes aren't weapons, but improved unarmed strike let's the monk treat the non-weapon attacks as if they were armed. In otherwords: No proficiency exists, nor is one required, and if you don't have IUS you take a -4 to deal lethal damage.

Also (see posting above) there are at least two other types of attacks which can be taken with weapon focus for which there is no weapon proficiency (rays/grapples/unarmed strikes)

The only part of a class that actually grants proficiencies is the "Weapon and Armor Proficiencies" section. Any fluff that suggests proficiencies but is not backed up in that section is moot.

And as Karnith points out, any racial proficiencies are overridden by class proficiencies.

Again. Not a weapon.

Amidus Drexel

2013-01-25, 04:43 PM

And it's also clear in RAW that unarmed strikes aren't weapons, but improved unarmed strike let's the monk treat the non-weapon attacks as if they were armed. In otherwords: No proficiency exists, nor is one required, and if you don't have IUS you take a -4 to deal lethal damage.

Also (see posting above) there are at least two other types of attacks which can be taken with weapon focus for which there is no weapon proficiency (rays/grapples/unarmed strikes)

Again. Not a weapon.

First, I'd argue that unarmed strikes are weapons, as they are listed on the weapons tables in the PHB.

Second, if unarmed strikes aren't weapons, then you have to treat them as improvised weapons, and then they take a -4 for non-proficiency anyway.

Edit: Quoted for relevance:

PHB, page 139
"Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character’s or creature’s
unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with
the Improved Unarmed Strike feat (page 96), a spellcaster delivering
a touch attack spell, and a creature with claws, fangs, and similar
natural physical weapons all count as being armed.

Ksheep

2013-01-25, 05:01 PM

SRD claims that Unarmed Strike is a weapon. Ergo, it is a weapon. It is clearly listed on the page of weapons, the stats for it is on the page for weapons, and it even says that an Unarmed Strike is always considered a light weapon.

As for all of your using examples and fluff to explain away this, NONE of those examples are in the SRD. The SRD contains just the rules, and should therefore be considered more RAW than any explanation you get from reading poorly-cited examples from the PHB (and as others have noted, MANY examples throughout WotC books are impossible due to not meeting certain requirements, and therefore should be completely ignored).

EDIT: Relevant SRD pages for Monk (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/monk.htm) and Weapons (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm)

Pickford

2013-01-25, 05:14 PM

First, I'd argue that unarmed strikes are weapons, as they are listed on the weapons tables in the PHB.

Second, if unarmed strikes aren't weapons, then you have to treat them as improvised weapons, and then they take a -4 for non-proficiency anyway.

Edit: Quoted for relevance:

Right, counting as being armed doesn't mean you're using a weapon, it just means you don't provoke AoO.

The penalties for not using a weapon are that you provoke AoO and don't deal lethal damage by default. (Which the entry on the PHB describes)

The benefits of Imp. Unarmed Strike are that your unarmed strikes are treated as armed (to wit: removing the penalties of being unarmed).

Also, it wouldn't be an improvised weapon because 1) It's not an "objects not crafted to be weapons". They list a few, broken bottles, chair legs, thrown mugs...but that's not a comprehensive list because people are expected to use common sense to figure out what would be an improvised weapon.

Another distinction on the improvised weapons is that you can throw them. Let me know when you can throw your fist 100 feet because that's a neat trick.

Ksheep

2013-01-25, 05:20 PM

Another distinction on the improvised weapons is that you can throw them. Let me know when you can throw your fist 100 feet because that's a neat trick.

Simple. Get a Necklace of Natural Weapons, enchant it with the Throwing enchantment, and you can now throw your fists, elbows, forehead, feet, or any other body part that the Monk's unarmed strike allows you to hit with :smalltongue:

mattie_p

2013-01-25, 05:23 PM

Simple. Get a Necklace of Natural Weapons, enchant it with the Throwing enchantment, and you can now throw your fists, elbows, forehead, feet, or any other body part that the Monk's unarmed strike allows you to hit with :smalltongue:

Which is also dysfunctional. Add Returning so the body parts return next turn. Be careful not to throw all your hands though...

If the character can’t catch it, or if the character has moved since throwing it, the weapon drops to the ground in the square from which it was thrown.

noparlpf

2013-01-25, 05:33 PM

Once built a Warforged with rocket fists using that. I doubt I'm the only one.

Pickford

2013-01-25, 05:33 PM

SRD claims that Unarmed Strike is a weapon. Ergo, it is a weapon. It is clearly listed on the page of weapons, the stats for it is on the page for weapons, and it even says that an Unarmed Strike is always considered a light weapon.

The glossary says it's not a weapon, ergo it's not, primary source trumps.
Being considered a light weapon is the same as being considered an armed attack. It just means it's NOT a light weapon but is being treated like one. Similarly, the Shield, Light is listed as a Light Melee Weapon and a Martial Weapon...but it's not a martial weapon and you don't get a shield, light martial weapon proficiency, you get a shield proficiency.

More to the point, unarmed strikes aren't in and of themselves weapons, they just get treated like weapons (for purposes of avoiding AoO provocation and dealing lethal damage) if you have the appropriate feat.

As for all of your using examples and fluff to explain away this, NONE of those examples are in the SRD.

They're rules in the book, wotc errata indicates primary sources (the PHB being one) trump.

The SRD contains just the rules, and should therefore be considered more RAW than any explanation you get from reading poorly-cited examples from the PHB

Exact quotation is perfect citation. Using anecdotes, feelings, and citing the gist of what you 'think' are not.

(and as others have noted, MANY examples throughout WotC books are impossible due to not meeting certain requirements, and therefore should be completely ignored).

There have been no examples provided of this, nor even if there were, would that have relevance to if this is a sound argument. You are suggesting that if I am correct about the temperature, than I am probably correct about the color of the sun. There is no relation.

EDIT: Relevant SRD pages for Monk (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/monk.htm) and Weapons (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm)

Cute, but the srd20 is incomplete as it appears to lack the glossary, which provides clarifying information:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_unarmedattack&alpha=

An unarmed attack is one made without a melee weapon in hand. This means an unarmed strike is 'not' a weapon.

Look further they define melee weapons.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_meleeweapon&alpha=M

And, not shockingly, simple, martial, and exotic weapon proficiencies teach you to use, what else, weapons. No weapon, no proficiency.

Pickford

2013-01-25, 05:44 PM

Simple. Get a Necklace of Natural Weapons, enchant it with the Throwing enchantment, and you can now throw your fists, elbows, forehead, feet, or any other body part that the Monk's unarmed strike allows you to hit with :smalltongue:

Facepalm, I should have known better than to ask something like that. Since I don't have the DMG in front of me:

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Returning

"This special ability can only be placed on a weapon that can be thrown."

Ok, so far so good if throwing works to make fists thrown weapons.

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Throwing

"This ability can only be placed on a melee weapon."

Now if only your fists were actually weapons...

searlefm

2013-01-25, 05:53 PM

savage species feat detach also lets you throw your limbs but not in such a silly way

Ksheep

2013-01-25, 05:54 PM

Necklace of Natural Weapons: The enchantment bonuses on this necklace are applied to attack and damage rolls involving one or more of the wearer's natural weapons. In addition, any weapon special quality may be applied to this necklace, and the quality then applies to those natural weapons as well. For instance, a +1 throwing returning necklace of natural weapons would apply its enchantment bonus and the throwing and returning special abilities to one or more of the wearer's natural weapons.

And unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon. Ergo, you can enchant said necklace and use it for any of your unarmed strikes, and can thus have a throwing returning fist.

EDIT: Just to make sure you understand, you aren't enchanting your fists, you're enchanting the necklace, and the necklace is conferring the benefits to your fists.

searlefm

2013-01-25, 06:00 PM

wile trying to visualize the results I'm drawn to looking at one piece's main character who's made of rubber.
then if you use a throwing masters palm throw as well do you throw 2 fists at the person.
or you you just grow another arm

Ksheep

2013-01-25, 06:02 PM

Wait… I think we've FINALLY found a use for the Regenerate spell: Regrowing body parts that the Monk throws away in the middle of combat!

The Viscount

2013-01-25, 06:05 PM

Yeah...the MMI entry on Incorporeal creatures does not in fact state that they do not breathe. Welp.

Edit: In the Manual of the Planes, it says that outsiders native to the plane (such as ravids) are immune to the detrimental effects of the plane, but it also says they still benefit from the regenerative nature of the domain. So...they get fast healing, and constantly gain temporary hit points, but don't risk exploding from temporary hit points? I'm not sure. I think they might just have nigh-infinite temporary hit points after spending a while there.

That's what I get for not reading. My mistake. The not breathing thing is pretty hilarious, though. If any other plane doesn't have breathable air, the outsiders native to that plane can't breathe, either. I seem to recall some areas of the Abyss not having breathable air, but I may be remembering wrong.

A check of fully updated entry on Incorporeal in MMV shows that they still need to breathe, as it does not say otherwise. Now that I'm thinking about it, one might read their inability to act on corporeal objects as preventing them from breathing, though the whole "equipment is incorporeal while they hold it" clause may counter that.

Pickford, the entry for monk states "a monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons." It's right in the srd. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/monk.htm

searlefm

2013-01-25, 06:08 PM

monk training: 10 years or celibacy and poverty
+1 throwing returning necklace of natural weapons: alot of gold
reorganization spell: a cleric as a good friend
pulling of a body part: excruciating
the look on the enemy's face when there friends is killed by a hand thrown that impales them: priceless

for everything else there miss worded or just plain broken rules.

Pickford

2013-01-25, 06:11 PM

Pickford, the entry for monk states "a monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons." It's right in the srd. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/monk.htm

Touche...ok that's just weird.

Edit:
Wouldn't it still disqualify the use if only because fists don't detach? i.e. "yes you attempt to throw your unarmed strike...it fails to remove from your arm."

thethird

2013-01-25, 06:15 PM

"Unarmed strike" doesn't mean "fist" you can throw "pubic hair" for all that matters. You save on wax and depilation and also creep the target.

Ksheep

2013-01-25, 06:27 PM

Edit:
Wouldn't it still disqualify the use if only because fists don't detach? i.e. "yes you attempt to throw your unarmed strike...it fails to remove from your arm."

You are once again bringing RAI into a RAW discussion. However, I did notice another issue with this strategy:

A melee weapon crafted with this ability gains a range increment of 10 feet and can be thrown by a wielder proficient in its normal use.

Guess that means monks can't use it :smalltongue:

thethird

2013-01-25, 06:28 PM

Well played Ksheep

The Viscount

2013-01-25, 06:38 PM

Now that's fighting dysfunction with dysfunction.

Venger

2013-01-25, 07:41 PM

*links to dandwiki*
I think I may have an idea of the problem here:

the viscount and others have been providing links to the srd, this site (http://www.d20srd.org/) whereas you seem to be getting your rules information from dandwiki. Is that where you looked up rules about monk and its unarmed strike? that would explain why you don't remember the section about them being treated as manufactured and natural weapons.

while some content on that site is pasta from the srd, much of it is OC or worse, mostly real rules with a few small inaccuracies, making it a poor tool for learning about rules.

happened to all of us at one time or another

Taelas

2013-01-25, 08:14 PM

It doesn't matter whether or not monks are proficient with unarmed strikes, as there is no penalty for not being proficient with them. The Simple Weapon Proficiency (which does include Unarmed Strike, as per Table 7-5 on page 116 in the PHB) states:

Normal: When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a -4 penalty on attack rolls.

Unarmed strikes are not weapons, therefore the Normal clause does not apply. Technically Simple Weapon Proficiency makes you "proficient" with unarmed strikes, it just doesn't mean a damn thing.

In the absence of rules to the contrary, the monk section on "Unarmed Attack" takes precedence, which states as the very first sentence:

Monks are highly trained in fighting unarmed...

Now can we please put this silly idea to rest? :smalltongue:

Qwertystop

2013-01-25, 08:46 PM

Unarmed strikes are not weapons, therefore the Normal clause does not apply. Technically Simple Weapon Proficiency makes you "proficient" with unarmed strikes, it just doesn't mean a damn thing.

I still don't see where you're getting this. Look at the table of weapons. It's called "Table 7-5: Weapons". Second line on the list (other than the two header lines): Unarmed Strike. Right there, under Simple Weapons -> Unarmed Attacks. It is qualified as a weapon in the only place that actually lists off weapons.

mattie_p

2013-01-25, 09:27 PM

Now can we please put this silly idea to rest? :smalltongue:

No! Someone on the internet doesn't agree with me, therefore I must keep the silly idea going!

On the bright side, it clearly must be dysfunctional because everyone is up in arms in two different camps on the subject. This, of course, was already addressed in the first thread.

The Viscount

2013-01-25, 09:51 PM

I shall try again to introduce a new topic for discussion, as suffocating Ravids and useless Maruts don't seem to be too interesting to the playground.

Many, many demons have darkness as a spell-like ability, some at will. While they may all have darkvision, none of them has the devils' see in darkness ability. A babau may hide himself with it, but he can't see either, so he can't use that sneak attack, as mentioned in the previous thread.

noparlpf

2013-01-25, 09:55 PM

Many, many demons have darkness as a spell-like ability, some at will. While they may all have darkvision, none of them has the devils' see in darkness ability. A babau may hide himself with it, but he can't see either, so he can't use that sneak attack, as mentioned in the previous thread.

Well that seems kind of silly.

TuggyNE

2013-01-25, 10:13 PM

The demon dysfunction is amusingly terrible, but does seem to be correct.

Regarding the whole "but monks totally should be proficient in unarmed strikes!" thing... why is it so hard to accept that sometimes strict RAW is stupid and useless? Just jot it down as "oops, the rules were poorly written, again" and move on to correcting them to be less ambiguous. If it's not obvious to anyone who looks at it that monks are, strictly speaking, proficient with unarmed strikes, then clearly something is wrong, and there's no further sense arguing about it. No one would say that monks take non-proficiency penalties in any practical game, of course, so the only question is how best to modify the rules accordingly. :smallamused:

Or, in short, don't try to wish RAW malfunctions away: fix them.

animewatcha

2013-01-26, 01:15 AM

Since Way of the Shackled Beast is up there, I'm assuming drag mag is a yes. If you are a shifter monk doing Way of the Shackled Beast and find a way to pounce ( be it feat or barb class ), by the wording of the 6th level ability, you can flurry of blows twice per charge ( all penalties stack ). Combine it with mantis leap and/or battle jump of you flurry 4 times per turn ( 2 move action jump checks into charges ).

Pickford

2013-01-26, 01:52 AM

I think I may have an idea of the problem here:
the viscount and others have been providing links to the srd, this site (http://www.d20srd.org/) whereas you seem to be getting your rules information from dandwiki. Is that where you looked up rules about monk and its unarmed strike? that would explain why you don't remember the section about them being treated as manufactured and natural weapons.

No I'm referring to the re-release of the PHB which incorporates the 3.5 errata from wotc. I just googled to provide a link because everyone was doing it. :p

while some content on that site is pasta from the srd, much of it is OC or worse, mostly real rules with a few small inaccuracies, making it a poor tool for learning about rules.

happened to all of us at one time or another

But case in point, the srd doesn't have the glossary of the PHB as far as I could find. Glossary says unarmed are attacks without a weapon. How can an unarmed strike be a weapon, but unarmed attacks don't use weapons?

Logical conclusion: Unarmed strikes aren't weapons, which would obviate all this proficiency confusion.

Flickerdart

2013-01-26, 01:55 AM

Logical conclusion: Unarmed strikes aren't weapons, which would obviate all this proficiency confusion.
Except they're listed as weapons in the weapons section, which is the authoritative section on whether or not something is a weapon.

Pickford

2013-01-26, 01:57 AM

I still don't see where you're getting this. Look at the table of weapons. It's called "Table 7-5: Weapons". Second line on the list (other than the two header lines): Unarmed Strike. Right there, under Simple Weapons -> Unarmed Attacks. It is qualified as a weapon in the only place that actually lists off weapons.

That does list an unarmed strike...however that one does 1d2, 1d3 damage.

Please note further down under Martial weapons: Shield, Light and Shield, Heavy.

Yet one doesn't need martial weapon proficiency to use them, rather just shield proficiency! If there's at least two items in a location where they don't actually require a proficiency, then it makes sense that the unarmed one would be too.

Flickerdart

2013-01-26, 01:59 AM

Yet one doesn't need martial weapon proficiency to use them, rather just shield proficiency! If there's at least two items in a location where they don't actually require a proficiency, then it makes sense that the unarmed one would be too.
Wrong. Read the rules for shield bashing:

Shield Bash Attacks

You can bash an opponent with a light shield or heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. See Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a heavy shield as a one-handed weapon and a light shield as a light weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next action (usually until the next round). An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.

noparlpf

2013-01-26, 02:00 AM

That does list an unarmed strike...however that one does 1d2, 1d3 damage.

Please note further down under Martial weapons: Shield, Light and Shield, Heavy.

Yet one doesn't need martial weapon proficiency to use them, rather just shield proficiency! If there's at least two items in a location where they don't actually require a proficiency, then it makes sense that the unarmed one would be too.

Aren't you the one who said earlier that you can't look at one example of things not making sense to show that something else doesn't make sense? :smalltongue:

Pickford

2013-01-26, 02:06 AM

Except they're listed as weapons in the weapons section, which is the authoritative section on whether or not something is a weapon.

Big negative, primary sourcing always goes to the text per wotc errata.

And the text of the glossary states that unarmed strikes aren't weapons. (Which agrees with the monk class text where all the monk examples take no negatives for attacking with unarmed strikes vs. weapons they are declared as proficient in.

Found on their web page (page is official D&D updates): http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a

"Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules
sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the
primary source is correct. One example of a
primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over
a table entry."

Aren't you the one who said earlier that you can't look at one example of things not making sense to show that something else doesn't make sense? :smalltongue:

Ack, my words have come back to haunt me! :smalleek:

Wrong. Read the rules for shield bashing:

Doh! Be that as it may, unarmed attacks don't use weapons.

Flickerdart

2013-01-26, 02:07 AM

Big negative, primary sourcing always goes to the text per wotc errata.

The glossary is not the primary source about weapons. The section on weapons is the primary source about weapons.

Pickford

2013-01-26, 02:20 AM

The glossary is not the primary source about weapons. The section on weapons is the primary source about weapons.

Ok, and the "Strike, Unarmed" entry says:

"The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you bonuses on weapon damage rolls."

Implication is that the unarmed strike is not a weapon, otherwise this would go without saying.

And before you go saying something about the next paragraph:
"An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat (page 102) to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with unarmed strike."

They are using the term of art light weapon for purposes of the text as opposed to 2h weapon, ranged weapon or one-handed weapon. That doesn't actually make it a weapon.

Lord_Gareth

2013-01-26, 02:22 AM

"An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat (page 102) to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with unarmed strike."

They are using the term of art light weapon for purposes of the text as opposed to 2h weapon, ranged weapon or one-handed weapon. That doesn't actually make it a weapon.

No, seems pretty clear to me. RAW does not deal in implications, inference, or "sense". RAW deals in RAW, in all of its madness and glory. You are wrong. You have been proven objectively wrong, repeatedly, and in this case BY YOUR OWN TEXT. Would you kindly drop it and move to something actually worth noting?

Sith_Happens

2013-01-26, 02:27 AM

Conclusion: RAW contradicts itself in about a half-dozen different ways as to whether unarmed strikes are weapons. This is something that most people would consider dysfunctional.

MOVING ON...

noparlpf

2013-01-26, 02:31 AM

If I superglue a bear's paw to my arm do I get a natural weapon? The only thing the Natural Weapon entry in the MMI says defines a natural weapon is that it is physically a part of the creature.

Lord_Gareth

2013-01-26, 02:32 AM

If I superglue a bear's paw to my arm do I get a natural weapon? The only thing the Natural Weapon entry in the MMI says defines a natural weapon is that it is physically a part of the creature.

I'd allow it, just for the laugh.

Flickerdart

2013-01-26, 02:35 AM

Pickford

2013-01-26, 02:39 AM

No, seems pretty clear to me. RAW does not deal in implications, inference, or "sense". RAW deals in RAW, in all of its madness and glory. You are wrong. You have been proven objectively wrong, repeatedly, and in this case BY YOUR OWN TEXT. Would you kindly drop it and move to something actually worth noting?

No that actually proves it's not a weapon. To consider something what it already is would be idiotic. That phrase only has meaning when talking about something that is NOT already the thing you want it to be considered as.

And if an unarmed strike was not considered a light weapon, how would one deal with it for the two-weapon fighting rules, or the huge number of combat rules which discuss penalties for people using a light weapon in various opposed checks? Because it would involve a ridiculous number of rewrites. It's much simpler to say "If you see something talking about a light weapon...it affects unarmed strikes too."

See? Much briefer. But that doesn't make it a weapon.

Supergluing something to yourself doesn't make it physically a part of you. You'd need to graft it on.

Agreed. Plus it would have to be attached to your musculature or you couldn't move it.

Flickerdart

2013-01-26, 02:42 AM

No that actually proves it's not a weapon. To consider something what it already is would be idiotic. That phrase only has meaning when talking about something that is NOT already the thing you want it to be considered as.

And if an unarmed strike was not considered a light weapon, how would one deal with it for the two-weapon fighting rules, or the huge number of combat rules which discuss penalties for people using a light weapon in various opposed checks? Because it would involve a ridiculous number of rewrites. It's much simpler to say "If you see something talking about a light weapon...it affects unarmed strikes too."

See? Much briefer. But that doesn't make it a weapon.
Except it's not "treated as a light weapon". It is a light weapon. The difference is not arguable.

Pickford

2013-01-26, 03:04 AM

Except it's not "treated as a light weapon". It is a light weapon. The difference is not arguable.

If that were true the text would say "An unarmed strike is a light weapon" as opposed to "An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon."

See the difference?:smallbiggrin:

Ksheep

2013-01-26, 03:14 AM

If that were true the text would say "An unarmed strike is a light weapon" as opposed to "An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon."

See the difference?:smallbiggrin:

Lets say you had a dagger. It's a light weapon, right? But what if it was made for a large-sized-category creature? Now it's considered a one-handed weapon for a medium creature, and a two-handed weapon for a small creature.

Unarmed strikes don't have this issue. Even if you somehow enlarged your hand to be gargantuan, you could still wield it as though it were a light weapon (i.e. you wouldn't get massive penalties for using an oversized weapon). It is a light weapon, and it is always considered to be a light weapon, regardless of what size category it is relative to you.

And I really agree with Sith… we should just move on to another topic. If this really bothers you this much, start a separate thread dedicated to it.

Pickford

2013-01-26, 04:38 AM

Lets say you had a dagger. It's a light weapon, right? But what if it was made for a large-sized-category creature? Now it's considered a one-handed weapon for a medium creature, and a two-handed weapon for a small creature.

Unarmed strikes don't have this issue. Even if you somehow enlarged your hand to be gargantuan, you could still wield it as though it were a light weapon (i.e. you wouldn't get massive penalties for using an oversized weapon). It is a light weapon, and it is always considered to be a light weapon, regardless of what size category it is relative to you.

And I really agree with Sith… we should just move on to another topic. If this really bothers you this much, start a separate thread dedicated to it.

Light isn't a size category, it's a type (Light, One-handed, Two-handed, Ranged). Size categories are Small, Medium, Large etc... If you managed to change the size if 'only' a creatures fists to one size category larger the creature would suffer a -2 penalty for using something unwieldy (one size category different). But is there a spell/ability that turns ones hands freakish sizes? Because if not, this is a moot point.

willpell

2013-01-26, 04:53 AM

To consider something what it already is would be idiotic.

Leaving aside that RAW is often idiotic, that simply isn't true. "Pickford is currently considered an active poster" does not mean "Pickford is not a poster but we're pretending he is one". The text is merely clarifying that your unarmed strike's weapon category is Light; this doesn't prove that it isn't a weapon.

Pickford

2013-01-26, 06:03 AM

No, but "Pickford is always considered an active poster" implies there is a reason I shouldn't be. :smallamused:

A better example might be:

Worms are considered a food.

The obvious implication: You would not default to that assumption.

willpell

2013-01-26, 08:01 AM

A veritable storm of rules dysfunction just cropped up on Simple RAW question.

A593

Sadly no.

Bucklers apparently never do anything that a light shield can't do. The point of a bucker is that you can wear it with a bow, but a bow is a two-handed weapon, so by a strict reading you lose the buckler's bonus the moment you pluck your bowstring.

By RAW, Immunity to polymorph grants you infinite SR against polymorph. The spells polymorph and shapechange are SR: No, so they are unaffected by this immunity.

This one speaks for itself.

A 605 Yes.
Yes, you automatically get the various Multiweapon Fighting feats if you suddenly gain more than two arms. However, there's a serious problem if that change is only temporary. The various Two-Weapon Fighting feats do not automatically replace the Multiweapon Fighting feats if you change (back) to have fewer than three hands, and you would be left with feats you do not qualify for. The only RAW ways to regain the Two-Weapon Fighting feats would be via the feat retraining option in Player's Handbook II, and expensive spell-based swaps. (Psychic Reformation isn't applicable because it only applies to previous choices which you want to alter. Because the feats you have are not the ones you selected, there are no choices which this power can reform.)

Edit: Also note that the prerequisites in the two trees are different. You may automatically get Greater Multiweapon Fighting in place of Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, for instance, but be unable to use the replacement feat because it has a higher BAB requirement.

Likewise.

Ksheep

2013-01-26, 11:33 AM

Light isn't a size category, it's a type (Light, One-handed, Two-handed, Ranged). Size categories are Small, Medium, Large etc... If you managed to change the size if 'only' a creatures fists to one size category larger the creature would suffer a -2 penalty for using something unwieldy (one size category different). But is there a spell/ability that turns ones hands freakish sizes? Because if not, this is a moot point.

[A] weapon’s size category is keyed to the size of the intended wielder. In general, a light weapon is an object two size categories smaller than the wielder, a one-handed weapon is an object one size category smaller than the wielder, and a two-handed weapon is an object of the same size category as the wielder.

The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder’s size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. If a weapon’s designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can’t wield the weapon at all.

Ergo, a one-handed weapon for a Medium-sized creature has a Small size category, while a two-handed weapon is Medium. Similarly, a one-handed weapon for a Large creature has a size of Medium, and is therefore equivalent to a two-handed weapon for a Medium-sized creature. Said Medium-sized creature needs two hands to wield it (unless they have a feat that says otherwise), but they ALSO incur a -2 penalty because the weapon wasn't designed to be wielded like that (think trying to use a hand-and-a-half sword as a claymore).

As for resizing of unarmed strike, just put the Sizing enchantment on a Necklace of Natural Weapons (provided you aren't a Monk :smalltongue:)

Pickford

2013-01-26, 12:25 PM

Hrm, so a -2 penalty to go from 1d6 at first to 1d8? Without actually doing any math, that doesn't seem worth it...maybe at 20th to go to 4d8?

Ksheep

2013-01-26, 12:40 PM

Hrm, so a -2 penalty to go from 1d6 at first to 1d8? Without actually doing any math, that doesn't seem worth it...maybe at 20th to go to 4d8?

But when you have a 1d8 that becomes 2d6…

Taelas

2013-01-26, 01:57 PM

I still don't see where you're getting this. Look at the table of weapons. It's called "Table 7-5: Weapons". Second line on the list (other than the two header lines): Unarmed Strike. Right there, under Simple Weapons -> Unarmed Attacks. It is qualified as a weapon in the only place that actually lists off weapons.

The glossary is primary source for the terms it defines. It defines "unarmed strike" as an attack without weapons.

The entry for "Strike, Unarmed" in the Equipment chapter does not actually define it, but it does give us this:
"The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls."
If an unarmed strike were a weapon, it would not need to clarify this.

Karnith

2013-01-26, 02:47 PM

The glossary is primary source for the terms it defines.
The glossary is, in fact, not a primary source for weapon proficiency rules (else "simple weapon" and "martial weapon" would remain undefined). That would fall to the Feats section of the Player's Handbook (and, by extension, the Weapons section of chapter 7). In this case, we should look at the Simple Weapon Proficiency feat. It quite clearly grants proficiency with all simple weapons, and it, the Martial Weapon Proficiency feat, and the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat direct readers to look at Table 7-5 for the list of simple, martial, and exotic weapons. This is the only place in the book that gives a list of simple weapons. As unarmed attacks (unarmed strikes and gauntlets) are listed under simple weapons, unarmed strikes are simple weapons. Since monks do not have proficiency with all simple weapons, monks are not proficient with unarmed attacks (nor are wizards or druids, for that matter). The Weapon Proficiency feats clearly state that characters using weapons with which they are not proficient take a -4 penalty on attack rolls.

Additionally, even were you correct, a humanoid monk would not be proficient with its unarmed strike anyway, because neither the humanoid type nor the monk class grants proficiency with natural attacks (and if it's not a natural attack or a weapon, then it's an improvised weapon, and you still take a -4 penalty on attacks with it).

Is this stupid? Yes. Is this an obvious oversight by Wizards of the Coast? Yes. Should DMs rule that monks are proficient with unarmed strikes? Yes. That does not mean that it is not RAW.

EDIT: Also, the fact that we're having this argument is pretty compelling evidence that it's a rules dysfunction, regardless.

Taelas

2013-01-26, 03:25 PM

You're not addressing anything I have actually said.

The glossary defines "unarmed strike", thus, it is the primary source for the term "unarmed strike", and it defines it as as an attack without weapons.

There is no proficiency for unarmed strike. Even if Simple Weapon Proficiency technically makes you "proficient" with them, it doesn't mean anything, as it is not a weapon, and there is no defined penalty for not being proficient with unarmed strikes.

It is also not a natural attack--they are weapons (and they are defined in the Monster Manual's glossary).

The unarmed strike is similar in many ways to touch attacks. It is an attack, with clearly defined parameters, but it is not a weapon, and only partially observes the same rules.

Here's another case of the book not treating unarmed strike as a weapon:

WEAPON FOCUS [GENERAL]
Choose one type of weapon, such as greataxe. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for the purposes of this feat.

Yes, there are plenty of mistakes in the books, but this is not really one of them, but simply a case of people not fully understanding the situation.

Ksheep

2013-01-26, 03:41 PM

It is also not a natural attack--they are weapons (and they are defined in the Monster Manual's glossary).

If natural attacks are weapons, does that mean I can cut off the mouth of the Dire Tiger I just killed and use it as a weapon for the same amount of damage (albeit with a -4 penalty for not being proficient with natural attacks)?

EDIT: In all seriousness, I think the main problem is that parts of the books state (or imply) unarmed strike IS a weapon, parts state (or imply) that is only acts LIKE a weapon, and parts state (or imply) that it is NOT a weapon. To further complicate this, all of these are stated in the same book with the same level of priority for precedence, so it's difficult to say which parts get ignored and which are followed by RAW. By RAI, it's fairly obvious, and can easily be seen as a mistake, but as I stated before, we are focusing on RAW only here…

TypoNinja

2013-01-26, 05:12 PM

Bucklers apparently never do anything that a light shield can't do. The point of a bucker is that you can wear it with a bow, but a bow is a two-handed weapon, so by a strict reading you lose the buckler's bonus the moment you pluck your bowstring.
.

How is that dysfunctional? Its got a niche use sure , but its not dysfunctional. The buckler rules work.

If you ever have to drop the bow (Stuck in melee) and switch to a sword, you already have a shield handy, Saves you a move action.

Actually, the most common use of a buckler in games I've played is by spellcasters. Mithril buckler has no ASF.

Pickford

2013-01-26, 06:14 PM

A veritable storm of rules dysfunction just cropped up on Simple RAW question.

Bucklers apparently never do anything that a light shield can't do. The point of a bucker is that you can wear it with a bow, but a bow is a two-handed weapon, so by a strict reading you lose the buckler's bonus the moment you pluck your bowstring.

This one speaks for itself.

Likewise.

Is Immunity to Polymorph something from an item or a spell? I didn't spot it flipping through source books...DMG? MM? MIC?

RAW suggest it would be wise to go 'last' in the round if you want the AC bonus from the buckler:

"In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you don't get the buckler's AC bonus for the rest of the round."

So, as long as you go dead last (assuming 2h actually 'counts' as wielding a weapon in the off hand rather than just dual wielding) you would lose the AC bonus just long enough for the round to end...resetting it. Joy!

EDIT: In all seriousness, I think the main problem is that parts of the books state (or imply) unarmed strike IS a weapon, parts state (or imply) that is only acts LIKE a weapon, and parts state (or imply) that it is NOT a weapon. To further complicate this, all of these are stated in the same book with the same level of priority for precedence, so it's difficult to say which parts get ignored and which are followed by RAW. By RAI, it's fairly obvious, and can easily be seen as a mistake, but as I stated before, we are focusing on RAW only here…

Nothing in the book 'states' that an unarmed strike is a weapon. There is one table where they list out the statistics of a non-monk unarmed strike. But no where does it say it's a weapon. Indeed the entry for Strike, Unarmed (which overrides the table) states "The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls." and "An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon." (going on to discuss this allowing weapon finesse). And light weapons being a 'type' used in various melee attacks. (i.e. -4 for disarming when using a light weapon, for example)

Taelas

2013-01-26, 06:26 PM

No, you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn--it wouldn't reset before then.

That is how a duration works; there is no clear break between rounds that is independent of the people there.

For instance, if you cast a spell which lasts 1 round, it lasts until it is your turn again, not until the end of the initiative order.

TuggyNE

2013-01-26, 06:37 PM

Bucklers apparently never do anything that a light shield can't do. The point of a bucker is that you can wear it with a bow, but a bow is a two-handed weapon, so by a strict reading you lose the buckler's bonus the moment you pluck your bowstring.

Actually, a bow is not a two-handed weapon, it's a ranged weapon (which happens to require two hands to use). I'm not certain, but that may be enough to get around the "wielding in off-hand" problem.

This one speaks for itself.

Given that polymorph can't be cast on a target that's not willing, no it doesn't... there's no possible offensive use, and what's wrong with e.g. a lich deciding to give up its immunity to polymorphing briefly for its own purposes? (This is specifically called out in some cases, such as the lich.)

Salbazier

2013-01-26, 07:09 PM

I think Immunity and Spell Immunity are two different things. Immunity from fear and immunity from poison, for example. It would not make sense if it was based on SR. So, Immunity from polymorph is different from 'spell immunity against polymorph' and there is no rule dysfunction.

willpell

2013-01-26, 11:05 PM

Is Immunity to Polymorph something from an item or a spell? I didn't spot it flipping through source books...DMG? MM? MIC?

I believe it was in reference to various monsters who have it as a special quality. Formians are an example, I believe...immunity to polymorph, petrification and cold, IIRC. Or maybe it was poison, I dunno. Flip through the MM a bunch, you'll find polymorph immunity in there somewhere.

noparlpf

2013-01-26, 11:17 PM

Given that polymorph can't be cast on a target that's not willing, no it doesn't... there's no possible offensive use, and what's wrong with e.g. a lich deciding to give up its immunity to polymorphing briefly for its own purposes? (This is specifically called out in some cases, such as the lich.)

Immunity to being polymorphed probably includes Baleful Polymorph or whatever it was called.

Karnith

2013-01-26, 11:17 PM

I didn't see it on the list in the handbook, but a recent discussion of monks in another thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=268389&page=3) led to an interesting grapple rules quirk (which may or may not be correct, but seems valid; grappling rules are stupid). Even if you have multiple sources of attacks (from haste, flurry of blows, etc.), you can't attempt to start more than one grapple per round until you have a base attack bonus of +6 or higher.
Relevant rules:

If you can make multiple attacks due to a high base attack bonus, you can attempt to start a grapple multiple times by making a full attack. If you succeed in starting the grapple and have remaining attacks, you can use those attacks to perform other maneuvers allowed in a grapple.

There was also some debate about whether or not you could even use extra attacks not derived from BAB to initiate grapples; a strict reading doesn't seem to allow it, but I think that it's much funnier in the way presented above.

EDIT: Actually, something else caught my eye while looking at the grapple rules in the Rules Compendium.
Regardless of who started the grapple, while you’re grappling, you can perform only the following maneuvers.The maneuvers listed are "activate a magic item," "attack your opponent," "cast a spell," "damage your opponent," "draw a light weapon," "escape from grapple," "move," "retrieve a spell component," "pin your opponent," "break another's pin," and "use opponent's weapon." I find it amusing that you are able to cast a spell while grappling, but you cannot speak (or do anything else not on the list).

TuggyNE

2013-01-27, 12:16 AM

Immunity to being polymorphed probably includes Baleful Polymorph or whatever it was called.

Yeah, I forgot to mention that that's the intended defensive purpose; immunity to baleful polymorph or force shapechange is useful, certainly, and can plausibly operate on an infinite-SR model. (It probably shouldn't, in order to protect against Dweomerkeeper shenanigans, but that's usually pretty rare.)

TypoNinja

2013-01-27, 04:16 AM

EDIT: Actually, something else caught my eye while looking at the grapple rules in the Rules Compendium.The maneuvers listed are "activate a magic item," "attack your opponent," "cast a spell," "damage your opponent," "draw a light weapon," "escape from grapple," "move," "retrieve a spell component," "pin your opponent," "break another's pin," and "use opponent's weapon." I find it amusing that you are able to cast a spell while grappling, but you cannot speak (or do anything else not on the list).

That's because "speech" is not a 'maneuver', neither is breathing, and you aren't automatically holding your breath in a grapple.

Honestly, reaching for overly silly extrapolations of text (or its absence) like this doesn't count as a dysfunction, there's no actual rule breakdown here, like say compared to the crafting rules.

Crafting rules specify that you Pay one-third of the item’s price for the cost of raw materials.

This amount of money is not enough to purchase the requisite amount of material required for the final crafted piece in some cases.

Flickerdart

2013-01-27, 11:49 AM

Pickford

2013-01-27, 12:51 PM

Here's one - downward velocity depends on how you started out.

If you simply trip and fall off a cliff, the fall is instantaneous (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/environment.htm) (no duration is listed).

On the other hand, if you fly (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/movement.htm), when you stall, you only fall 150 feet on the first round and 300 feet every round thereafter.

However, if you jump (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/jump.htm), you can only fall as far in a round as you could normally move.

All of these rules are in different section, and none seem to be aware that the others exist.

You still can't use supernatural abilities in a grapple, cause they're not on the list.

Climb doesn't list the fall duration, that doesn't make it instantaneous, just undefined in that section. Though it does refer to the DMG for information on falling damage.

I'm not seeing a fall duration in the jump entry...are you also assuming this is instant then?

Fly indicates the subject "floats" at 60' a round (10' a second). Floats is not falls (which it does if the 1d6 float rounds expire before reaching the bottom) and so that doesn't cover falling duration.

However, there 'is' another spell that may shed light (although since it's a spell we can't be certain that it's not magic making it happen at that speed, so this may be totally pointless to mention).

Reverse Gravity

This spell reverses gravity in an area, causing all unattached objects and creatures within that area to fall upward and reach the top of the area in 1 round. If some solid object (such as a ceiling) is encountered in this fall, falling objects and creatures strike it in the same manner as they would during a normal downward fall. If an object or creature reaches the top of the area without striking anything, it remains there, oscillating slightly, until the spell ends. At the end of the spell duration, affected objects and creatures fall downward.

I would still say go to the DMG and see if that says anything. Otherwise it seems to be left up to the DMs discretion as to how long a fall takes in combat.

Pickford

2013-01-27, 12:56 PM

I didn't see it on the list in the handbook, but a recent discussion of monks in another thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=268389&page=3) led to an interesting grapple rules quirk (which may or may not be correct, but seems valid; grappling rules are stupid). Even if you have multiple sources of attacks (from haste, flurry of blows, etc.), you can't attempt to start more than one grapple per round until you have a base attack bonus of +6 or higher.
Relevant rules:

There was also some debate about whether or not you could even use extra attacks not derived from BAB to initiate grapples; a strict reading doesn't seem to allow it, but I think that it's much funnier in the way presented above.

EDIT: Actually, something else caught my eye while looking at the grapple rules in the Rules Compendium.The maneuvers listed are "activate a magic item," "attack your opponent," "cast a spell," "damage your opponent," "draw a light weapon," "escape from grapple," "move," "retrieve a spell component," "pin your opponent," "break another's pin," and "use opponent's weapon." I find it amusing that you are able to cast a spell while grappling, but you cannot speak (or do anything else not on the list).

That's just a non-restrictive example, there are other ways to get extra attacks. It doesn't say "If and only if". Which it would have to.

The restrictions from what you can and can't do just prevents you from using ranged weapons, grabbing stuff (a potion or scroll for example) from your pack, etc...

Ksheep

2013-01-27, 01:25 PM

Climb doesn't list the fall duration, that doesn't make it instantaneous, just undefined in that section. Though it does refer to the DMG for information on falling damage.

I'm not seeing a fall duration in the jump entry...are you also assuming this is instant then?

Fly indicates the subject "floats" at 60' a round (10' a second). Floats is not falls (which it does if the 1d6 float rounds expire before reaching the bottom) and so that doesn't cover falling duration.

For jump:

A Jump check is included in your movement, so it is part of a move action. If you run out of movement mid-jump, your next action (either on this turn or, if necessary, on your next turn) must be a move action to complete the jump.
Ergo, if you jump down, and the distance you jump is greater than your max movement allowed that round, you continue the jump the following round.

For flying:

Minimum Forward Speed
If a flying creature fails to maintain its minimum forward speed, it must land at the end of its movement. If it is too high above the ground to land, it falls straight down, descending 150 feet in the first round of falling. If this distance brings it to the ground, it takes falling damage. If the fall doesn’t bring the creature to the ground, it must spend its next turn recovering from the stall. It must succeed on a DC 20 Reflex save to recover. Otherwise it falls another 300 feet. If it hits the ground, it takes falling damage. Otherwise, it has another chance to recover on its next turn.

And, as an added bonus, if you deliberately decide to drop prone while in midair, you immediately appear on the ground prone, and you supposedly don't take fall damage:

Dropping to a prone position in your space is a free action.

Prone: The character is on the ground. An attacker who is prone has a -4 penalty on melee attack rolls and cannot use a ranged weapon (except for a crossbow). A defender who is prone gains a +4 bonus to Armor Class against ranged attacks, but takes a -4 penalty to AC against melee attacks.

Flickerdart

2013-01-27, 01:32 PM

I would still say go to the DMG and see if that says anything. Otherwise it seems to be left up to the DMs discretion as to how long a fall takes in combat.
Click on those links and read a bit, because those are DMG rules for falling, and no duration is provided.

Karnith

2013-01-27, 01:34 PM

That's just a non-restrictive example, there are other ways to get extra attacks. It doesn't say "If and only if". Which it would have to.
It doesn't need to say "if and only if," first because I'm fairly certain that the phrase rarely, if ever, appears elsewhere in the system (I certainly can't recall seeing it), and second because without using that particular bit of rules text there is no way to initiate multiple grapple attempts in a round. Under the most generous reading of RAW, you still need a BAB of +6 or higher to initiate more than one grapple attempt in a round. Rules Compendium is quite clear that you must have multiple attacks from having a high BAB to attempt more than one grapple attempt in a round.
If you can make multiple attacks due to a high base attack bonus, you can attempt to start a grapple multiple times by making a full attack. If you succeed in starting the grapple and have remaining attacks, you can use those attacks to perform other maneuvers allowed in a grapple.
The language is quite clear: you can't use a full attack to initiate multiple grapple attempts unless you have multiple attacks from having a high base attack bonus. There is no other language that I can find that indicates that you would get to make extra grapple attempts without a BAB of +6 or higher; Haste mentions no such thing, nor does the monks' Flurry of Blows ability. They grant extra attacks, meaning (I am now fairly sure, where before I was doubtful) that once you have a BAB of +6 or higher, you can use those extra attacks to initiate grapple attempts during the full attack, but the only rules governing multiple grapple attempts that I could find are those already cited.

If you can cite specific rules that contradict this interpretation, I would be happy to reconsider, but these are the rules for grappling from the Rules Compendium. You'd need something pretty specific to override what it says on this topic.

Pickford

2013-01-27, 02:15 PM

For jump:

Ergo, if you jump down, and the distance you jump is greater than your max movement allowed that round, you continue the jump the following round.

Except that only applies for jumping lengthwise. There's no falling involved. Jumping up to waist height (which is apparently the max) takes 10 feet of movement. But that doesn't mean anything because jumping isn't falling.

For flying:

And, as an added bonus, if you deliberately decide to drop prone while in midair, you immediately appear on the ground prone, and you supposedly don't take fall damage:

"If it hits the ground, it takes falling damage."

Prone puts you on the ground. The only way to avoid the falling damage is to never touch the ground.

The flying entry indicates 150' in the first round (25' per second) and 300' each round there after (50' per second).

Karnith

2013-01-27, 02:32 PM

Except that only applies for jumping lengthwise. There's no falling involved. Jumping up to waist height (which is apparently the max) takes 10 feet of movement. But that doesn't mean anything because jumping isn't falling.
Actually, no. If you look at the rules (www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/jump.htm) for jumping, you will clearly notice that not only is jumping horizontally ("long jump") governed by the Jump skill, but also jumping vertically ("high jump"), hopping up, and jumping down. Under the Action section of Jump checks, the SRD states that
None. A Jump check is included in your movement, so it is part of a move action. If you run out of movement mid-jump, your next action (either on this turn or, if necessary, on your next turn) must be a move action to complete the jump.This means that if you make a jump check to jump down (or any jump check, actually), you can only move as far as you normally could during a round. If you didn't make a jump check to jump down, falling takes some unspecified amount of time (see falling on this page (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/environment.htm)).

Pickford

2013-01-27, 02:34 PM

It doesn't need to say "if and only if," first because I'm fairly certain that the phrase rarely, if ever, appears elsewhere in the system (I certainly can't recall seeing it), and second because without using that particular bit of rules text there is no way to initiate multiple grapple attempts in a round. Under the most generous reading of RAW, you still need a BAB of +6 or higher to initiate more than one grapple attempt in a round. Rules Compendium is quite clear that you must have multiple attacks from having a high BAB to attempt more than one grapple attempt in a round.

The language is quite clear: you can't use a full attack to initiate multiple grapple attempts unless you have multiple attacks from having a high base attack bonus. There is no other language that I can find that indicates that you would get to make extra grapple attempts without a BAB of +6 or higher; Haste mentions no such thing, nor does the monks' Flurry of Blows ability. They grant extra attacks, meaning (I am now fairly sure, where before I was doubtful) that once you have a BAB of +6 or higher, you can use those extra attacks to initiate grapple attempts during the full attack, but the only rules governing multiple grapple attempts that I could find are those already cited.

If you can cite specific rules that contradict this interpretation, I would be happy to reconsider, but these are the rules for grappling from the Rules Compendium. You'd need something pretty specific to override what it says on this topic.

No it doesn't say can't, it says 'can'. That's not restrictive, you're just reading more into it than it actually says. And the over-riding rule about multiple attacks is that you 'must' use the full attack to use them Multiple grapples is multiple attacks is a full attack.

Remind yourself never to use planar binding to try and get 3 wishes. Anyone who thinks "happy to glad" is a thing is just looking to get bamboozled in a demonic contract.

Ksheep

2013-01-27, 02:37 PM

Except that only applies for jumping lengthwise. There's no falling involved. Jumping up to waist height (which is apparently the max) takes 10 feet of movement. But that doesn't mean anything because jumping isn't falling.

Nowhere does it say this only applies to jumping lengthwise, and the Jump skill does say it can be used for jumping down to reduce the amount of damage taken.

"If it hits the ground, it takes falling damage."

Prone puts you on the ground. The only way to avoid the falling damage is to never touch the ground.

The flying entry indicates 150' in the first round (25' per second) and 300' each round there after (50' per second).
The Drop Prone entry does not say that you hit the ground, simply that you can become prone as a free action, and prone states that you are lying on the ground. Therefore, by a strict reading of the rules, you can be 50 miles up and say "I drop prone", and you are instantly lying on the ground in the square you were above. Yes, this makes no sense, but this is the Dysfunctional Rules discussion we're in here.

And yes, that is what the flying entry says, which is not what you had said before (you were referencing the Glide entry, I believe).

Pickford

2013-01-27, 02:41 PM

Actually, no. If you look at the rules (www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/jump.htm) for jumping, you will clearly notice that not only is jumping horizontally ("long jump") governed by the Jump skill, but also jumping vertically ("high jump"), hopping up, and jumping down. Under the Action section of Jump checks, the SRD states thatThis means that if you make a jump check to jump down (or any jump check, actually), you can only move as far as you normally could during a round. If you didn't make a jump check to jump down, falling takes some unspecified amount of time (see falling on this page (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/environment.htm)).

And the maximum height on that table is 8 feet. so if you did the 20-foot running start it's 28 movement. I don't see a scenario in which you could move more than 20 feet in a move but less than 30. So how would you section it to cause 2 move actions in the jump itself?

And, not that it needs be said, but falling isn't jumping. And falling takes 150' in the first round, 300' in the second according to the flying entry.

Edit: For directly above post, the jump check is included in the move action. So the falling isn't actually part of the move.

And unless you hover while prone, you touched the ground which means you hit it.

Ksheep

2013-01-27, 02:50 PM

And the maximum height on that table is 8 feet. so if you did the 20-foot running start it's 28 movement. I don't see a scenario in which you could move more than 20 feet in a move but less than 30. So how would you section it to cause 2 move actions in the jump itself?

And, not that it needs be said, but falling isn't jumping. And falling takes 150' in the first round, 300' in the second according to the flying entry.

Edit: For directly above post, the jump check is included in the move action. So the falling isn't actually part of the move.

And unless you hover while prone, you touched the ground which means you hit it.

From the rules text:

The DC is equal to 4 times the distance to be cleared.

Text overrules tables.

EDIT: And for jumping down:

If you intentionally jump from a height, you take less damage than you would if you just fell. The DC to jump down from a height is 15.

Also, the 150' first round, 300' subsequent is for flying creatures that stall. The wings of such creatures would slow them, although the fact that deliberately jumping slows you even more than if you had wings is fairly dysfunctional.

Karnith

2013-01-27, 02:52 PM

No it doesn't say can't, it says 'can'. That's not restrictive, you're just reading more into it than it actually says. And the over-riding rule about multiple attacks is that you 'must' use the full attack to use them Multiple grapples is multiple attacks is a full attack.
You have not addressed my point. Grappling is a special attack, with special rules applying to how it may be used. Those rules are clearly specified in the Rules Compendium, on pages 60-61. The phrase "If you can make multiple attacks due to a high base attack bonus, you can attempt to start a grapple multiple times by making a full attack" is the only place in the rules that allows you to make a full attack to initiate grapple attempts. There is no other rules text that says you can make a full attack to initiate grapple attempts (as far as I know), and hence to initiate grapple attempts with a full attack, you must make use of this particular rule.

You should also consider why the Rules Compendium specifies that you can use a full attack with grappling if you have extra attacks due to a high base attack bonus. Were your interpretation valid, there would be no purpose to the "base attack bonus" phrase; the rules would merely need to read "If you can make multiple attacks, you can attempt to start a grapple multiple times by making a full attack." But that is not what they rules say, and hence the phrase "due to a high base attack bonus" is relevant.

D&D (in RAW, at least) is not a game that has rules by omission. You are not allowed to do something just because the rules don't say you can't; you need to be able to show in the rules that you are allowed to do something.

Again, if you can show me a section of rules text that contradicts this, we can have a discussion about the validity of this rules statement. But the grappling section of the Rules Compendium is the primary source text for rules concerning grappling, and so I doubt that you will find anything.

And I would appreciate it if you would keep your snide comments on my ability to understand the rules to yourself.

EDIT:
And, not that it needs be said, but falling isn't jumping.
It is when you make a jump check to jump down, as we have been telling you. Anything involving a jump check is included in your movement. Per the SRD,
Action
None. A Jump check is included in your movement, so it is part of a move action. If you run out of movement mid-jump, your next action (either on this turn or, if necessary, on your next turn) must be a move action to complete the jump.
It does not specify a long jump, or a high jump, but simply jump checks. Since jumping down involves a jump check, your fall through the air is included in your movement.

Again, your case will be stronger if you can provide rules text supports your claim.

jindra34

2013-01-27, 03:03 PM

Chauncymancer

2013-01-27, 03:14 PM

Nothing in the book 'states' that an unarmed strike is a weapon... no where does it say it's a weapon. Indeed the entry for Strike, Unarmed (which overrides the table) states ..."An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon."

Uhm... try reading that again.

nedz

2013-01-27, 07:45 PM

Actually, the most common use of a buckler in games I've played is by spellcasters. Mithril buckler has no ASF.
Also TWF with the Improved Buckler Defence feat (or the similar Shielded Axe feat).

EDIT: Actually, something else caught my eye while looking at the grapple rules in the Rules Compendium.The manoeuvres listed are "activate a magic item," "attack your opponent," "cast a spell," "damage your opponent," "draw a light weapon," "escape from grapple," "move," "retrieve a spell component," "pin your opponent," "break another's pin," and "use opponent's weapon." I find it amusing that you are able to cast a spell while grappling, but you cannot speak (or do anything else not on the list).
Does this mean that you can cast 4 spells a round when grappling, assuming that your BAB is 16+ ?
Or perhaps have 3 attacks and also cast a spell ?

Oh, and another Monk related one:

Sai

With a sai, you get a +4 bonus on opposed attack rolls made to disarm an enemy (including the roll to avoid being disarmed if such an attempt fails).

The sai is a special monk weapon. This designation gives a monk wielding a sai special options.

Disarm
...
Opposed Rolls. You and the defender make opposed attack rolls with your respective weapons. The wielder of a two-handed weapon on a disarm attempt gets a +4 bonus on this roll, and the wielder of a light weapon takes a -4 penalty. (An unarmed strike is considered a light weapon, so you always take a penalty when trying to disarm an opponent by using an unarmed strike.) If the combatants are of different sizes, the larger combatant gets a bonus on the attack roll of +4 per difference in size category. If the targeted item isn’t a melee weapon, the defender takes a -4 penalty on the roll.
...
Since Sai are light weapons the +4 and -4 cancel out.

Flickerdart

2013-01-27, 07:49 PM

Does this mean that you can cast 4 spells a round when grappling, assuming that your BAB is 16+ ?
Or perhaps have 3 attacks and also cast a spell ?
No; Grapple only states that certain actions take an attack action. Spells do not have this language, and so take the regular time to cast. Only the Attack Your Opponent, Damage Your Opponent, Escape From a Grapple, Pin Your Opponent, Break Another's Pin, and Use Opponent's Weapon.

Pickford

2013-01-27, 11:53 PM

Saying that the rules failing to specify that you can't do something you can is very poor logic. After all consider all the possible actions by characters that the rules don't exclude.

The rules just say grappling restricts you in a few ways:

1) No Threatened Squares (no AoO)
2) No Dex Bonus
3) No Movement (without a grappling check)

Standard Actions you can still do:
1) Activate a Magic Item (without any spell completion trigger)
2) Attack your opponent (unarmed strike, natural weapon, or a single light weapon)
3) Cast a spell (no longer than 1 standard action, no somatic component, have materials in hand; no spells that require precision) with a successful concentration check.
4) Damage opponent with grapple check in place of an attack. (This differs from just attacking an opponent in that you don't roll an attack roll, but use grapple)
5) Draw a light weapon as a move action with a grapple check.
6) Escape the grapple as an attack. Or Escape Artist as a standard action.
7) Move as a standard action.
8) Retrieve a spell component as a full-round action.
9) Pin (grapple check in place of an attack).
10) Break a pin (grapple check in place of an attack).
11) Use opponents weapon (grapple check in place of an attack + attack roll if grapple check succeeds).

All grappling does is restrict your choice of weaponry (and standard actions), restrict your movement, and require you to make grapple checks to achieve things you might otherwise just choose to attempt.

No restrictions on full-round actions so you can full attack. (Indeed the allowance to make multiple attack/grapples requires a full attack action to 'do'.

If you can think of an action that your character could do normally in combat, it would be covered by that list.

Pickford

2013-01-27, 11:55 PM

Uhm... try reading that again.

Read the definition of light weapon. It doesn't actually make it a weapon, just means it is 2 size categories smaller than the user. That way a Titan's fist is a light weapon in comparison to itself in the same way a mouses paw is a light weapon in relation to itself.

Still doesn't make it a weapon.

Pickford

2013-01-27, 11:58 PM

Also TWF with the Improved Buckler Defence feat (or the similar Shielded Axe feat).

Does this mean that you can cast 4 spells a round when grappling, assuming that your BAB is 16+ ?
Or perhaps have 3 attacks and also cast a spell ?

Oh, and another Monk related one:

Since Sai are light weapons the +4 and -4 cancel out.

No to the spells, you can only cast 1 spell (excluding swift/immediate) per round. Also the types of spells are extremely limited.

Actually the Sai one makes sense. A monk would, lacking any Sai, grapple at -4 as their unarmed attacks act as light weapons. Also, you can dual-wield Sai's which would give you a cumulative +4 (after the first -4)

The Viscount

2013-01-28, 12:19 AM

Ksheep

2013-01-28, 12:56 AM

The talk of falling damage reminded me of Elocator (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/prestigeClasses/elocater.htm). Since Scorn Earth allows you float 1 foot above the ground, this seems to mean that any fall ends with you hovering, and thus taking no damage, because you never hit the ground.

I'm seeing another oddity of the Scorn Earth ability. It says that at distances higher than 1 foot above any surface, her speed diminishes to 10 feet per round. This doesn't specify what sort of movement speed, so it could easily apply to all movement speeds. I guess Raptorans and other flying creatures shouldn't take this, as they effectively loose the ability to fly.

I just wonder how this works with Minimum Forward Speed, since I'm fairly certain most flying creatures have a MFS of more than 10'/round, so unless they "run" (4x move speed) whenever they're flying and don't do anything else, they'd fall… or would they?

Pickford

2013-01-28, 01:00 AM

I'm seeing another oddity of the Scorn Earth ability. It says that at distances higher than 1 foot above any surface, her speed diminishes to 10 feet per round. This doesn't specify what sort of movement speed, so it could easily apply to all movement speeds. I guess Raptorans and other flying creatures shouldn't take this, as they effectively loose the ability to fly.

I just wonder how this works with Minimum Forward Speed, since I'm fairly certain most flying creatures have a MFS of more than 10'/round, so unless they "run" (4x move speed) whenever they're flying and don't do anything else, they'd fall… or would they?

I also wonder if the speed of falling wouldn't act to slam the psion into the ground and then lift them back up to 1 foot, assuming they lived. (Or are we also thinking it makes it impossible for another character to throw them to the ground?)

TuggyNE

2013-01-28, 01:03 AM

Actually the Sai one makes sense. [...] Also, you can dual-wield Sai's which would give you a cumulative +4 (after the first -4)

Where did you get this idea? You can only disarm with a single weapon at once (barring some obscure feat somewhere), so you take -4 for having a light weapon and +4 for having a sai. Even if you could use both wielded sais at once, you'd take penalties for both of them just the same.

The dysfunction is that a sai is not only just as good at disarming as a longsword, it's (supposed to be) better, but the penalty offset fails in that regard.

Pickford

2013-01-28, 01:16 AM

Where did you get this idea? You can only disarm with a single weapon at once (barring some obscure feat somewhere), so you take -4 for having a light weapon and +4 for having a sai. Even if you could use both wielded sais at once, you'd take penalties for both of them just the same.

The dysfunction is that a sai is not only just as good at disarming as a longsword, it's (supposed to be) better, but the penalty offset fails in that regard.

It says with a Sai you get the +4. It doesn't say you actually have to use them both :p So you use one, taking a -4 penalty from that, but you're wielding two, giving a +8 to disarm checks.

The Viscount

2013-01-28, 01:38 AM

Net +4. The fact that you need to dual wield to make the rules works clearly demonstrates how dysfunctional it is. Some part of me wants to say the "same effect bonus" doesn't stack, but I'm not sure.

The playground always seems to like the dysfunction I find the least interesting. How odd.

P.S. Has anyone seen another spell with range of touch to be used offensively with no mention of touch attacks? Am I missing a rule here, or is it as dysfunctional as it seems?

Gnomish Wanderer

2013-01-28, 01:41 AM

Simple. Get a Necklace of Natural Weapons, enchant it with the Throwing enchantment, and you can now throw your fists, elbows, forehead, feet, or any other body part that the Monk's unarmed strike allows you to hit with :smalltongue:
Wait… I think we've FINALLY found a use for the Regenerate spell: Regrowing body parts that the Monk throws away in the middle of combat!

Once built a Warforged with rocket fists using that. I doubt I'm the only one.

This idea is genius and had me laughing so much.

Pickford

2013-01-28, 01:45 AM

TuggyNE

2013-01-28, 02:04 AM

It says with a Sai you get the +4. It doesn't say you actually have to use them both :p So you use one, taking a -4 penalty from that, but you're wielding two, giving a +8 to disarm checks.

Yeah, I'm not buying that; it makes no logical sense (a weapon you aren't actively using giving a bonus to disarms?), doesn't really fix the problem (a single sai should be useful for disarming on its own or as a secondary defensive weapon), and doesn't actually follow the rules (stacking, specifically same-source, messes it up pretty nicely).

It's at least the same level of cheese as greater magic weapon'd +1 defending braid-blades/armor spikes/bootblades/etc, and for a much tinier bonus on something that should just work.

Pickford

2013-01-28, 02:24 AM

It's an untyped bonus, those stack don't they?

Also, check out the Nunchaku entry, it's a +2 bonus on opposed attack rolls to disarm/avoid being disarmed.

And a quarterstaff is a 2h weapon, so it would give the monk a +4 unmitigated...which leads me to wonder why one would want two sai's even if that does work.

So...

Flickerdart

2013-01-28, 02:26 AM

It's an untyped bonus, those stack don't they?
Bonuses from the same source don't stack.

TuggyNE

2013-01-28, 02:45 AM

Also, check out the Nunchaku entry, it's a +2 bonus on opposed attack rolls to disarm/avoid being disarmed.

And a quarterstaff is a 2h weapon, so it would give the monk a +4 unmitigated...which leads me to wonder why one would want two sai's even if that does work.

So...

Congratulations, you've discovered why sais are dysfunctional! :smallwink:

Pickford

2013-01-28, 02:54 AM

I suppose it could be that the text in disarm applies only to the target.

i.e. If the target is using a 2h, they get a +4, if they're using a light -4.

That would explain the disfunction, those bonuses aren't applying to the disarmer.

Edit: Nevermind, it's clarified in the FAQ.

Also if you have two that's not the same source.

TuggyNE

2013-01-28, 03:24 AM

Also if you have two that's not the same source.

And I suppose if you have two dozen orange ioun stones circling your head, you get a +24 bonus to caster level? :smallsigh:

The source is "sai", not "sai I'm holding in my left hand" or "sai in a special sheath".

Although, I would like to see the FAQ's attempt at clarifying this, if you wouldn't mind quoting it for convenience.

Pickford

2013-01-28, 03:29 AM

And I suppose if you have two dozen orange ioun stones circling your head, you get a +24 bonus to caster level? :smallsigh:

The source is "sai", not "sai I'm holding in my left hand" or "sai in a special sheath".

Although, I would like to see the FAQ's attempt at clarifying this, if you wouldn't mind quoting it for convenience.

Np: Also from the Glossary regarding bonuses (pg. 305)

"bonus: a positive modifier to a die roll. In most cases, multiple bonuses from the same source or of the same type in effect on the same character or object do not stack; only the highest bonus of that type applies. Bonuses that don't have a specific type always stack with all bonuses."

So the Sai's, because they are untyped, stack according to that last sentence.

For the clarification from the FAQ (It's in the form of a question and answer):

You can get a host of benefits from wielding a twohanded
weapon, such as 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus
on damage (and twice your damage bonus from the Power
Attack feat) and a +4 bonus on your opposed attack roll if
someone tries to disarm you. So when is a weapon “twohanded?”
For example, a lance is a two-handed weapon,
right? But you can wield it in one hand when you’re
mounted. Since the weapons table shows that a lance is a
two-handed weapon, I get all the two-handed benefits no
matter how I wield the lance, right?
Wrong. Table 7–5 in the PH lists weapons as light, onehanded,
or two-handed strictly as a matter of convenience.
These size categories are always relative to the wielder’s size,
as explained in some detail in the section on weapon size on
page 113 in the PH (also see next question).
When the combat rules speak of “two-handed” weapons,
they’re referring to how the weapon is being used. A Medium
character using a Medium longsword in two hands is using a
“two-handed” weapon. The same character using a Medium
lance in one hand while mounted is using a one-handed
weapon. Light weapons are an exception. If you wield a light
weapon in two hands you get no advantage on damage (see
page 113 in the PH). Likewise, you always take a –4 penalty on
your opposed roll when you’re wielding a light weapon in a
disarm attempt (when someone tries to disarm you or you try to
disarm someone) regardless of whether you wield it one- or
two-handed.

TypoNinja

2013-01-28, 03:31 AM

Here's three odd ones.

Revive undead has a target of "destroyed undead creature touched" and says the body must be intact, or it will be missing parts upon being revived. Depending on your interpretation of the word "destroyed," which I have never seen properly defined, this may be no problem at all or a very large problem. WoTC really has to stop reusing text so carelessly.

From the Undead Type

Not at risk of death from massive damage, but when reduced to 0 hit points or less, it is immediately destroyed.

Destroyed is a specific game term when referencing undead, its means at 0 or less HP.

Inflict light wounds and all related spells, save the mass versions, don't say that you have to make a successful touch attack to use the spell, because they are based off of cure light wounds which also doesn't say you need a successful touch attack due to its use as a healing spell, though hilariously it also doesn't say you need to make a touch attack to use it against undead. While both spells still have range touch, RAW they either automatically succeed or have no means of being delivered offensively. I haven't seen any other offensive touch spells do this. WotC really has to stop reusing text so carelessly.

*sigh*

Cure Light Wounds
Conjuration (Healing)
Level: Brd 1, Clr 1, Drd 1, Healing 1, Pal 1, Rgr 2
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Will half (harmless); see text
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless); see text

Like any other Range: Touch spell, it would require a touch attack. Like say Shocking Grasp which has a range touch.

Touch Spell and Touch Attack defined on page 314 (PI!) on your PHB (and the SRD, under spell descriptions) are more than clear about needing a touch attack. (Harmless) spells of course don't need an attack roll because the target typically wants you to affect them with it.

Pickford

2013-01-28, 03:33 AM

Oh, and an extra-special FAQ for Curmudgeon on Full Attack and Ranged attacks provoking:

Suppose a fighter and an archer go at the same
initiative. The archer is not in an adjacent square but only
one square over. The fighter is not using a reach weapon.
Assuming the archer plans to use a full attack action (and
doesn’t use a 5-foot step), and since they have the same
initiative, could the fighter move his 5-foot step (toward the
archer) as the archer is firing and get an attack of
opportunity?
The question is moot, because two characters never have
the same initiative. If two characters tie with their initiative
rolls, you must break the tie before starting the combat (see
Initiative in Chapter 8 of the PH).
The fighter could use the ready or delay special initiative
actions to act at about the same time as the archer. In the case
of the ready action, the fighter could ready an attack against the
archer when the archer shoots. When the archer shoots, the
readied action is triggered. The fighter acts before the archer
shoots (readied actions are resolved prior to the actions that
trigger them, see the ready description in Chapter 8 of the PH).
Assuming that the fighter has not previously moved this round,
he could make a 5-foot step and then attack the archer. Since
the fighter now threatens the archer, the fighter can make an
attack of opportunity against the archer when the archer fires,
provided the archer does not use a 5-foot step to get out of
reach first.
If the fighter was delaying, the action would be resolved in
the same way, provided the fighter chose to act before the
archer. If the delaying fighter acts after the archer, the fighter
won’t get any attack of opportunity against the archer (this turn,
at least).

JaronK

2013-01-28, 04:59 AM

I do wonder if the Sai was supposed to be used with another weapon for disarming... a one handed weapon. Except I don't think there are any decent core one handed Monk weapons, so even that doesn't work.

JaronK

nedz

2013-01-28, 08:24 AM

Actually the Sai one makes sense. A monk would, lacking any Sai, grapple at -4 as their unarmed attacks act as light weapons. Also, you can dual-wield Sai's which would give you a cumulative +4 (after the first -4)

If you were double wielding sais you would get +4 and then -4 for disarm attempts with each sai. By your argument I could double wield a vorpal dagger and a long sword and get the vorpal effect with both weapons.

Qwertystop

2013-01-28, 09:40 AM

Pickford

2013-01-28, 11:13 AM

If you were double wielding sais you would get +4 and then -4 for disarm attempts with each sai. By your argument I could double wield a vorpal dagger and a long sword and get the vorpal effect with both weapons.

No that's an apples to oranges comparison. You would be correct if you said "If you were wielding two vorpal weapons it would apply to both" which it does.

You only get one -4 for disarming with light, you get two untyped +4 bonuses (a typed bonus would be a bonus with a name: i.e. Armor bonus, natural armor bonus, enhancement bonus, competence bonus and so on.)

Because untyped bonuses stack, the two sai's give +8 and only suffer a single -4 when disarming.

How is that dysfunctional? If the fighter tries to interrupt the archer, he can. If the fighter doesn't (delaying till after) or can't (loses tiebreaker) try to interrupt, he can't.

Curmudgeon was trying to claim that because a Full Attack does not, itself, provoke an Attack of Opportunity, nothing you do during one does either. (i.e. Suddenly Ranged Attacks are Immune). The FAQ clearly refutes that.

thethird

2013-01-28, 11:18 AM

Please note that the FAQ is not at all a primary source, so the FAQ is not RAW. FAQ's are over glorified house rules.

So yes, full attacking with a ranged weapon doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity by RAW (even if the FAQ claims otherwise). Of course in this case the FAQ's houserule is probably a good/valid one for your table.

If this wasn't in need of a houserule it wouldn't be a dysfunction of the system in the first place.

Pickford

2013-01-28, 11:37 AM

thethird

2013-01-28, 11:44 AM

If you have a question about the D&D game rules, you might find them within this FAQ. Any new additions or major corrections in a version are
provided in red text for your convenience. Red text changes to black text in the next version.
This version of the D&D FAQ uses the 3.5 revision of the core rules and also contains questions covering material from a variety of books (such
as SS and EL). If you haven’t yet adopted the revision, don’t worry—in the rare instance that the answer is different between 3rd edition and the 3.5
revision, we’ll bring it to your attention with a call out that says “Revision Alert.” If you have a question that isn’t answered here, please contact us
via the following URL and ask away: <http://wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg/php/enduser/std_alp.php>. Or you can send an email to
[email protected] instead!
We will be updating this FAQ over time, and each version will have a date stamp on it so that you know which version you have.

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.
One obvious minor adjustment for incorporating an existing pre-3.5 product into a 3.5 game is to omit those older rules which don't have any 3.5 core support. And certainly when the 3.5 core books came out after Savage Species with no type hierarchy, that type pyramid creates a disagreement with those non-hierarchical types in the primary source books. The above rule stipulates how to resolve such disagreements. In the end, as the DMG directs, it's up to each individual DM to specifiy the minor adjustments required to use existing products which lack official 3.5 updates.

FAQ aren't errata.

FAQ are secondary sources.

Secondary sources aren't primary sources.

Primary sources are RAW.

-----

FAQ aren't RAW.

absolmorph

2013-01-28, 12:24 PM

No that's an apples to oranges comparison. You would be correct if you said "If you were wielding two vorpal weapons it would apply to both" which it does.

You only get one -4 for disarming with light, you get two untyped +4 bonuses (a typed bonus would be a bonus with a name: i.e. Armor bonus, natural armor bonus, enhancement bonus, competence bonus and so on.)

Because untyped bonuses stack, the two sai's give +8 and only suffer a single -4 when disarming.
Untyped penalties stack, too.

sreservoir

2013-01-28, 01:04 PM

FAQ are secondary sources.

Secondary sources aren't primary sources.

Primary sources are RAW.

-----

FAQ aren't RAW.

that doesn't follow, actually.

nevertheless, there is no indication that FAQ is RAW.

PairO'Dice Lost

2013-01-28, 01:07 PM

Because untyped bonuses stack, the two sai's give +8 and only suffer a single -4 when disarming.

In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession).

Untyped bonuses from the same source do not stack, and two items of the same type--such as, for instance, "sai"--are the same source, just as multiples of the same feat, spell, or other effect come from the same source.

nedz

2013-01-28, 01:14 PM

JaronK

2013-01-28, 03:47 PM

FAQ aren't errata.

FAQ are secondary sources.

Secondary sources aren't primary sources.

Primary sources are RAW.

-----

FAQ aren't RAW.

You forget: Specific overrides general. This even trumps the "primary source vs secondary source" thing. This is why even though the PHB says there's 11 base classes, as does the DMG, there are actually more than that... new books added new ones specifically.

So yes, the FAQ is RAW. It's labeled as "Official D&D Game Rule FAQ". So it's written, and it's rules, and thus it's rules as written, and like all written rules it trumps when it's more specific (which it always is).

JaronK

sreservoir

2013-01-28, 03:53 PM

You forget: Specific overrides general. This even trumps the "primary source vs secondary source" thing. This is why even though the PHB says there's 11 base classes, as does the DMG, there are actually more than that... new books added new ones specifically.

So yes, the FAQ is RAW. It's labeled as "Official D&D Game Rule FAQ". So it's written, and it's rules, and thus it's rules as written, and like all written rules it trumps when it's more specific (which it always is).

JaronK

the questions are RAW. the answers aren't ;)

The Viscount

2013-01-28, 06:26 PM

From the Undead Type
Destroyed is a specific game term when referencing undead, its means at 0 or less HP.

I don't see that text. Where is it? This is why there is confusion. If this text exists, then it solves the problem. If it does not, we do not know if "destroyed" is a special condition for undead instead of "double dead" or what have you or if it is simply a word used to mean that the undead is broken and scattered by the damage it received.

Going by the definition you posted, there is a different problem that arises from revive undead. It requires you touch the body of the destroyed undead. I have seen no text stating what happens to incorporeal undead when destroyed, other than they are destroyed. If we assume it still exists, then the caster will have to turn incorporeal or use some means of making its hands ghost touch to make contact. Also, this means that the bodies of incorporeal creatures not destroyed by turning are littered throughout the land, bobbing in the air.

My mistake on the cure/inflict bit. Good catch.

Edit: Forgot to add two other minor dysfunctions. LM introduces variant liches, the good lich and the lichfiend. The good lich entry forgets to add "alignment doesn't change to evil," though it seems understood. Lichfiend is a variant lich that uses an evil outsider as the base creature, but says nothing about the fact that outsiders do not have discrete souls.