Dysfunctional Rules III: 100% Rules-Legal, 110% Silly

[TuggyNE]

This is the third Dysfunctional Rules Collection. Previous editions include Firechanter's and Nedz's.

There is also a Handbook, or index as the case may be.

Gentlemen, dys your functions! :smalltongue:

[The Viscount]

Let's start it off then. Razorclaw trait gives 2 claw attacks to Shifters. It allows you to make a single claw attack if your other hand is grasping a weapon, but all attacks made in that round take a -2 penalty. This bizarre flurry-like ability doesn't really make sense. In addition, the penalty is only tripped if the shifter is wielding a weapon in his primary hand, if you want to read it that closely.

[noparlpf]

Let's start it off then. Razorclaw trait gives 2 claw attacks to Shifters. It allows you to make a single claw attack if your other hand is grasping a weapon, but all attacks made in that round take a -2 penalty. This bizarre flurry-like ability doesn't really make sense. In addition, the penalty is only tripped if the shifter is wielding a weapon in his primary hand, if you want to read it that closely.

Seems like they should just run it by TWF rules instead. Also, is there even a definition of which hand is primary when you're using a weapon and a natural weapon simultaneously?

[Sith_Happens]

Hey tuggyne, how come your hyperlinks don't open in a new tab like everyone else's?:smallconfused:

[noparlpf]

Hey tuggyne, how come your hyperlinks don't open in a new tab like everyone else's?:smallconfused:

That's a browser thing, not an attribute of the link itself.

Edit: ...isn't it? :smallconfused:

Edit: Weird. Some links on here open new tabs and some don't. I'm super-confused.

[Zombulian]

Hey tuggyne, how come your hyperlinks don't open in a new tab like everyone else's?:smallconfused:

*checks* that is weird. Huh.

[TuggyNE]

Hey tuggyne, how come your hyperlinks don't open in a new tab like everyone else's?:smallconfused:

Because I'm awesome. :smallcool:


1
Also, because I used the and tags, rather than tags. If you're curious, GitP's vBCode parser sticks an extra target="_blank" attribute on the generated HTML of the latter, but not either of the former. Presumably because off-site URLs are supposed to be separated?

[The Viscount]

Seems like they should just run it by TWF rules instead. Also, is there even a definition of which hand is primary when you're using a weapon and a natural weapon simultaneously?

When using a weapon and a natural attack, the weapon is always primary.

[noparlpf]

When using a weapon and a natural attack, the weapon is always primary.

Thought so. Human-centric idea that weapons dominate.

[TuggyNE]

Thought so. Human-centric idea that weapons dominate.

It's weaponism, is what it is. There oughta be a law!

[mattie_p]

Cross post from previous thread:



Where do you get that? Everyone next to the DN becomes shaken. There is no mention when this condition is removed or that it only applies as long as the opponents remain there. So it lasts forever by RAW.
Your question calls to mind the movie "A Few Good Men". Paraphrased:

In it, the prosecution makes the claim that 'code reds' simply don't exist because they aren't in the manual of regulations.

The defense immediately gets up and asks the witness to show them where in the manual the mess hall is. The corporal balks, confused by the question as the location of the mess hall would never be in the manual of regulations.

The defense asks: Do you mean to tell me, you've never had a meal on base?

The witness replies: No sir, three square meals a day.

The defense asks: So how do you know where to eat, if it isn't in this manual?

The witness replies: I guess I just follow the crowd at lunch time.


Now, this is all a round about way of saying: The aura can't continue to effect the target if the target isn't in the aura unless the aura 'says' that. It doesn't say it lasts while the target isn't in the aura, so it doesn't.

Pickford, if a mage casts a debuff spell (ray of enfeeblement (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/rayOfEnfeeblement.htm), for example), and then planeshifts, does the spell still affect the target? Remember the wizard no longer has line of effect to the target.

Of course the spell lasts! The initiation of the effect lasts per the description of the effect, it doesn't matter that the character who created the effect is no longer around. The spell lasts per the duration in the spell description.

We rely upon the text of the rules in order for us to play the game. If there is not a rule that adequately describes the effect, there is a dysfunction. What if Ray of Enfeeblement had no duration listed? That would be a dysfunction. You may assume that the spell lasts as long as the target is within range, but there is no way to ensure that is valid. Other DMs might assume other rules.

The rules provide a common baseline for us to play the game. Whenever there is room for interpretation, or there is a contradiction within the rules, a dysfunction exists. "Common sense" does not come in to play (what is common for you might be uncommon for me, and vice versa), especially in a game where magic is prevalent. Magical effects break all common sense in the rational world we live in.

The game designers surely had a duration in mind for this effect, it just never got into the rulebook.

[TuggyNE]

Pickford, if a mage casts a debuff spell (ray of enfeeblement (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/rayOfEnfeeblement.htm), for example), and then planeshifts, does the spell still affect the target? Remember the wizard no longer has line of effect to the target.

I'd also like to note that, unlike most aura effects, this requires an action (a free action) to activate. It's not necessarily on all the time, and if the DN is prevented from acting on their turn, they can't trigger it.

So it's possible to have a creature that was affected by the Fear Aura on one round and remains adjacent to the DN, and another creature that was not within range at the time, but is now adjacent, and a paralyzed DN. What happens, and why?

[Nettlekid]

This has probably been mentioned many times before but I find it hilarious. Technically, I guess as a result of omission, trees are immune to Disintegrate. It can target creatures and nonliving matter. Trees are neither of those things.

[Zombulian]

This has probably been mentioned many times before but I find it hilarious. Technically, I guess as a result of omission, trees are immune to Disintegrate. It can target creatures and nonliving matter. Trees are neither of those things.

Wha... How... *slow clap*

[Lady Serpentine]

The rules provide a common baseline for us to play the game. Whenever there is room for interpretation, or there is a contradiction within the rules, a dysfunction exists.

To be fair, sometimes that can be intentional. For instance, almost all conditional modifiers require this to some extent; what constitutes a swamp, for instance, and what sort of terrain modifiers are appropriate?

PF dysfunction: The Bag of Holding states that if a living creature is placed inside it, then it suffocates in ten minutes. Besides the fact that not only does this ignore the fact that the interior of various grades of bag differ in size quite drastically, it also makes no allowance for creature size, or the number of creatures inside.

It also contradicts the Bottle of Air, as no mention is made of exceptions if one has such an item.

[Jeff the Green]

PF dysfunction: The Bag of Holding states that if a living creature is placed inside it, then it suffocates in ten minutes. Besides the fact that not only does this ignore the fact that the interior of various grades of bag differ in size quite drastically, it also makes no allowance for creature size, or the number of creatures inside.

It also contradicts the Bottle of Air, as no mention is made of exceptions if one has such an item.

Also dysfunctional is that you can put a fish in and it doesn't start to suffocate for 10 minutes, while if you fill it with water and then stick the fish in, it still suffocates in 10 minutes.

[Flickerdart]

This has probably been mentioned many times before but I find it hilarious. Technically, I guess as a result of omission, trees are immune to Disintegrate. It can target creatures and nonliving matter. Trees are neither of those things.
I think it's been mentioned, but it hasn't stopped being funny yet.

[TypoNinja]

I think it's been mentioned, but it hasn't stopped being funny yet.

Technically not a dysfunction, just because D&D has its own dictionary.

The definitions are such that everything in D&D is either a Creature or an Object, there is no "other".

A tree as a "living being" qualifies as a Creature under D&D terms.

[Mystify]

Technically not a dysfunction, just because D&D has its own dictionary.

The definitions are such that everything in D&D is either a Creature or an Object, there is no "other".

A tree as a "living being" qualifies as a Creature under D&D terms.


When used against an object, the ray simply disintegrates as much as one 10-foot cube of nonliving matter.
the tree may be an object, but since it is not non-living matter, there is nothing for it to disintegrate

edit: nevermind this, I misread what your objection was.

[TuggyNE]

Technically not a dysfunction, just because D&D has its own dictionary.

The definitions are such that everything in D&D is either a Creature or an Object, there is no "other".

A tree as a "living being" qualifies as a Creature under D&D terms.

No it very definitely doesn't. Trees have no Cha or Wis scores, which is explicitly defined as the differentiation; not all creatures are living, and not all living things are creatures. However, the writer of disintegrate was apparently not fully aware of this, and assumed that there weren't any living objects for some reason.

[Gnome Alone]

Hey tuggyne, how come your hyperlinks don't open in a new tab like everyone else's?:smallconfused:

He's a witch!

[TuggyNE]

He's a witch!

Even if I turned you into a newt, which I do not at all confess to, surely you got better?

:smallamused:

[TypoNinja]

No it very definitely doesn't. Trees have no Cha or Wis scores, which is explicitly defined as the differentiation; not all creatures are living, and not all living things are creatures. However, the writer of disintegrate was apparently not fully aware of this, and assumed that there weren't any living objects for some reason.

Not to not nitpick, but where is that defined?

The only definition I know of is in the back of the PHB, and it says a creature is


A living or otherwise active being, not an object.

If its alive, its a "Creature". Sentience isn't the benchmark, or we leave out the Plant and Animal Types, and of course 'otherwise active' covers the constructs and undead.

[TuggyNE]

Not to not nitpick, but where is that defined?

In the description of nonabilities (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#nonabilities).

[TypoNinja]

In the description of nonabilities (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#nonabilities).

Cool, but I don't see where we establish that a Mundane tree lacks a Wis or Cha score. I don't know of a way to settle it by RAW, since I don't know of anywhere a Tree gets statted out, however, it is known that plants have the traits associated with a Wis and Cha score.

Plants have awareness of their surroundings, some even have drastic reactions to changes, like rolling up disturbed leaves, releasing a chemical to paralyze insects eating it, ect. Just about all of them will simply grow towards the light.

They can also tell the difference between themselves and other things, as they possess a functioning immune system.

Clearly these stats won't be high (I'm thinking 1's maybe 2's or 3's for the carnivorous plants), but I don't think they are non-abilities.

[Sgt. Cookie]

According to the Plant type:

"Note that regular plants, such as one finds growing in gardens and fields, lack Wisdom and Charisma scores (see Nonabilities) and are not creatures, but objects, even though they are alive."


So, yeah. Trees are objects, but alive.

[Necroticplague]

Cool, but I don't see where we establish that a Mundane tree lacks a Wis or Cha score. I don't know of a way to settle it by RAW, since I don't know of anywhere a Tree gets statted out, however, it is known that plants have the traits associated with a Wis and Cha score.

Plants have awareness of their surroundings, some even have drastic reactions to changes, like rolling up disturbed leaves, releasing a chemical to paralyze insects eating it, ect. Just about all of them will simply grow towards the light.

They can also tell the difference between themselves and other things, as they possess a functioning immune system.

Clearly these stats won't be high (I'm thinking 1's maybe 2's or 3's for the carnivorous plants), but I don't think they are non-abilities.

They don't have a wisdom score because while they may have crude senses, they don't have perceptions. They don't process information given to them, they merely react due to complicated chemical reactions that take place as a result of stimulus. You can tell this because they react the exact same way, even if it is disadvantageous to them, because its just a reflex, no actual thinking involve. In addition, their immune system is simply"release toxins" as a reaction to getting hurt,no need for actually knowing a disease is their required.

In addition, there is a precedence for treating trees as object, due to several places where wood is mentioned have is have a hardness score and break according to the rules for breaking objects. So logically, if wood has a hardness, then so to must trees (given how they're made out of wood). Since creatures don't have hardness scores (that's what DR's for), then trees must be objects, since they have a hardness.

[Lady Serpentine]

Doesn't bone also have a Hardness, though?

(Of course, that might be another dysfunction on its own, given that argument...)

[TuggyNE]

Thanks, Sgt. Cookie, I'd forgotten about the Plant type entry, though I know it shaped my ideas on this.


In addition, there is a precedence for treating trees as object, due to several places where wood is mentioned have is have a hardness score and break according to the rules for breaking objects. So logically, if wood has a hardness, then so to must trees (given how they're made out of wood). Since creatures don't have hardness scores (that's what DR's for), then trees must be objects, since they have a hardness.

Well, most creatures don't have hardness. Psicrystals do, though, as well as animated objects, and maybe a few other constructs. They're special cases, of course, since they're even closer to being objects than is usual.


Doesn't bone also have a Hardness, though?

(Of course, that might be another dysfunction on its own, given that argument...)

Most objects have hardness, yes. There's no particular dysfunction involved with that that I can see.

[Lady Serpentine]

Most objects have hardness, yes. There's no particular dysfunction involved with that that I can see.

Eh, it was mostly just extending the 'trees should be objects because they have hardness; they have hardness because wood does' argument to Skeletons. I don't think it's an actual dysfunction, but it could have been, in that very specific case.

[noparlpf]

Cool, but I don't see where we establish that a Mundane tree lacks a Wis or Cha score. I don't know of a way to settle it by RAW, since I don't know of anywhere a Tree gets statted out, however, it is known that plants have the traits associated with a Wis and Cha score.

Plants have awareness of their surroundings, some even have drastic reactions to changes, like rolling up disturbed leaves, releasing a chemical to paralyze insects eating it, etc. Just about all of them will simply grow towards the light.

They can also tell the difference between themselves and other things, as they possess a functioning immune system.

Clearly these stats won't be high (I'm thinking 1's maybe 2's or 3's for the carnivorous plants), but I don't think they are non-abilities.

Plants do not have awareness of their surroundings. Awareness requires a nervous system. Plants simply have a set of coded responses based in biochemistry. You could program a machine to respond to changes in ambient light. Does that make the machine aware? No.

Edit: Oh right, and immunity. Yeah, that has nothing to do with how you "know" the difference between self and not-self. Worms have no idea that microbes are not-worm. Worms don't know what "worm" is in the first place. The immune system differentiate self from not-self by a set of chemical tags on your cells and on foreign cells. There's no knowing about it.
And carnivorous plants are no more intelligent than any other plants just because they have moving parts. Again, robot. No brain. No awareness.

[Socratov]

I don't think this has been adressed before, but if I were an undead, took levels of bard, and used perform(wind sintrument), there is nothing keeping me. Even if an Undead can't breathe (exception for an underwater lacedon, who can). This seems dysfunctional to me...

[Mystify]

I don't think this has been adressed before, but if I were an undead, took levels of bard, and used perform(wind sintrument), there is nothing keeping me. Even if an Undead can't breathe (exception for an underwater lacedon, who can). This seems dysfunctional to me...

well, they can also speak, so....

[Amnestic]

well, they can also speak, so....

The negative energy supporting their body also allows them to manipulate air to a small degree to imitate breathing and allow them to speak.

It also allows them to make their cloaks blow in the wind, even when it's not windy.

[Socratov]

well, they can also speak, so....
which is weird as well (especially as a skeleton without vocal chords)

The negative energy supporting their body also allows them to manipulate air to a small degree to imitate breathing and allow them to speak.

It also allows them to make their cloaks blow in the wind, even when it's not windy.

so, being undead automatically makes you an airbender (http://acaciathorn.deviantart.com/art/Avatar-Monsters-Zombie-Aang-127866400)? :smallconfused:

[Chronos]

So, everyone already knows about the swordsage's x6 skill points at first level. But that's not even the only error on that table. They also have a unique BAB progression. A 13th level swordsage has a BAB of +10/+5, but 13*3/4 = 9.75, which rounds down to 9, like clerics, rogues, and every other medium BAB class gets. The problem shows up again at 17th level, when they get +13/+8 instead of the correct +12/+7.

And while we're at it with ToB class tables, here's one that applies to all of them: The ToB base classes all get a lot more maneuvers than most folks realize, in fact more maneuvers than actually exist. Look at the "maneuvers known" column of the table for any base class, and now look at the same column for any ToB prestige class. Take the Master of Nine, for instance: Their "maneuvers known" column has 2, then 1, then 2, then 1, then 2. Does this mean that when you take your second level of Mo9, you lose a maneuver? Of course not: The text of the Mo9 class helpfully clarifies that this is the number that you gain at each level, not the cumulative total.

But now look back to any of the base class tables: The table looks just the same as it does for any of the prestige classes, and now the text doesn't tell us anything useful: "You learn additional maneuvers at higher levels, as shown on Table 1-2." So a first-level swordsage knows 6 maneuvers, and then on reaching 2nd level, you learn 7 more for a total of 13, and then at 3rd you learn another 8, total of 21, and so on. Add up all the numbers, and by level 20, a swordsage has learned a total of 310 maneuvers.

[Amnestic]

so, being undead automatically makes you an airbender (http://acaciathorn.deviantart.com/art/Avatar-Monsters-Zombie-Aang-127866400)? :smallconfused:

Well not to any mechanical benefit. You're not creating blasts of wind or anything. Just enough to speak and use wind instruments.

But yeah, basically.

[Gnome Alone]

Even if I turned you into a newt, which I do not at all confess to, surely you got better?

:smallamused:

Yeah, but that's just the problem, I liked being a newt. Less stressful.

[TypoNinja]

According to the Plant type:

"Note that regular plants, such as one finds growing in gardens and fields, lack Wisdom and Charisma scores (see Nonabilities) and are not creatures, but objects, even though they are alive."


So, yeah. Trees are objects, but alive.

Well, you've solved the dysfunction just going the opposite way I was, D&D says a Tree is an object :P

[noparlpf]

Well, you've solved the dysfunction just going the opposite way I was, D&D says a Tree is an object :P

No, that is the dysfunction: Trees are objects, but they are not nonliving.

[Zombimode]

which is weird as well (especially as a skeleton without vocal chords)

Yeah, as weird as those various dragon breaths, wizards flinging fireballs, the whole concept if "incorporeal", and other fantasy stuff. That those stuff is assumed to work in a fantasy roleplaying game is surely dysfunctional.
:smallmad:

[Kazyan]

When you apply a template to a monster, the rules for identifying monsters will stop working immediately.

1) There's either no way to identify a template on a creature, or you can identify any combination of templates on a creature (except lycanthropy or stuff that adds RHD) with the same skill check, depending on how you interpret the rules. Templates are either unknowable or common knowledge.
2) If a template changes the monster's type to e.g. Outsider, you end up having to use a different knowledge check to gain the exact same information about what they are.

[Zombulian]

Yeah, as weird as those various dragon breaths, wizards flinging fireballs, the whole concept if "incorporeal", and other fantasy stuff. That those stuff is assumed to work in a fantasy roleplaying game is surely dysfunctional.
:smallmad:

Thanks for saying that. I was getting the urge to bring up that people were arguing anatomy... On creatures that were *magically* put back into animation and thought... With *magic*.

[Necroticplague]

Yeah, as weird as those various dragon breaths, wizards flinging fireballs, the whole concept if "incorporeal", and other fantasy stuff. That those stuff is assumed to work in a fantasy roleplaying game is surely dysfunctional.
:smallmad:

The concept of being incorporeal isn't that weird. Heck, any object with a mass of zero would actually have most, if not all the properties listed of incorporeal creatures.
-unfazed by gravity (thanks to having weight of zero(massxgravity force))
-can't interact with things(no momentum to exert itself using(massxvelocity))
-Invisible and inaudible, don't displace liquids(since photons don't interact with them as an extension of above, and they can't disturb things as an extension of that)

Heck, their explicitly called out as having no weight, so given the formula for weight, they either magically negate gravity's effect on them, or have a mass of zero.

[TypoNinja]

No, that is the dysfunction: Trees are objects, but they are not nonliving.

I thought the original point was you couldn't disintegrate them because they are neither object nor creature. Plant type says they are object, dysfunction solved.

If you are going for the fact that it's silly that D&D pegs them as objects I think that's just a side effect of a system that's largely combat oriented. As something that's effectively unable to influence the world around it a tree is of the same relative importance of any other random terrain feature.

[Lady Serpentine]

I thought the original point was you couldn't disintegrate them because they are neither object nor creature.

Nope. Disintegrate, for some reason, specifies 'objects made of non-living matter'. Trees are made of living matter, and thus unaffected.

[Jeff the Green]

I liked being a newt. Less stressful.

This needs to be sigged; do you mind?


I thought the original point was you couldn't disintegrate them because they are neither object nor creature. Plant type says they are object, dysfunction solved.

If you are going for the fact that it's silly that D&D pegs them as objects I think that's just a side effect of a system that's largely combat oriented. As something that's effectively unable to influence the world around it a tree is of the same relative importance of any other random terrain feature.

No, it's that disintegrate affects creatures and non-living objects. Trees are neither creatures nor non-living.

[noparlpf]

I thought the original point was you couldn't disintegrate them because they are neither object nor creature. Plant type says they are object, dysfunction solved.

If you are going for the fact that it's silly that D&D pegs them as objects I think that's just a side effect of a system that's largely combat oriented. As something that's effectively unable to influence the world around it a tree is of the same relative importance of any other random terrain feature.

Here's the text, which was quoted before:

(link (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/disintegrate.htm))
When used against an object, the ray simply disintegrates as much as one 10-foot cube of nonliving matter.

We just determined that trees are objects, and therefore this section applies, but also that trees are living, and therefore this section says nothing happens to them.

[Jeff the Green]

Here's the text, which was quoted before:


We just determined that trees are objects, and therefore this section applies, but also that trees are living, and therefore this section says nothing happens to them.

Actually, though, one could argue that it destroys their bark and wood, but not the cambium or leaves.

[noparlpf]

Actually, though, one could argue that it destroys their bark and wood, but not the cambium or leaves.

The game does not make that distinction, it just says that trees are living.

[mattie_p]

Team Dysfunction, Disintegration was mentioned way back in thread 1 on page 4, about a year and a half ago.


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

[TypoNinja]

Here's the text, which was quoted before:


We just determined that trees are objects, and therefore this section applies, but also that trees are living, and therefore this section says nothing happens to them.

I feel a new trap coming on, an ancient magi fortress, a big tree growing up through a hallway, happens to be blocking the line of effect from a self resetting disintegrate trap, party removes tree via whatever means. eats disintegrate.

[Gan The Grey]

Actually, though, one could argue that it destroys their bark and wood, but not the cambium or leaves.

THINK OF THE CAT GIRLS!!!!

[Qwertystop]

Also works on deadwood. And since it can hit an object, and just only disintegrates the nonliving bits, and doesn't specify that the disintegrated area is centered around the point you hit, you can zap a tree and turn 1000 square feet of deadwood on it to dust. Instapruning!

[Jeff the Green]

The game does not make that distinction, it just says that trees are living.

Yes, but it says that it disintegrates up to a 10-foot cube of nonliving matter. Bark and wood are nonliving matter.


THINK OF THE CAT GIRLS!!!!

I am! Those poor mutated catgirls, suffering from horrible birth defects; shouldn't we put them out of their misery? :smallamused:

[TuggyNE]

I feel a new trap coming on, an ancient magi fortress, a big tree growing up through a hallway, happens to be blocking the line of effect from a self resetting disintegrate trap, party removes tree via whatever means. eats disintegrate.

Awesome. In a sort of Tomb of Horrors way, at least. :smallamused:

[Svata]

so, being undead automatically makes you an airbender (http://acaciathorn.deviantart.com/art/Avatar-Monsters-Zombie-Aang-127866400)? :smallconfused:


A very weak one, but apparently!

[nedz]

Team Dysfunction, Disintegration was mentioned way back in thread 1 on page 4, about a year and a half ago.

We had this with the Tracking issue towards the end of the last thread.
DC 60 to identify creatures by tracks
Thread 1 Page 18
Thread 2 Pages 45-46

[3WhiteFox3]

I'd like to submit the rules on advancing monsters by class.

Now, at first glance, the rules seem pretty straightforward. You add Class levels to any monster that has more that 1 HD and you increase the CR by a specified amount. 'Associated' classes increase the CR by +1 for each level; while 'Non-Associated' classes increase CR by +1 for every two levels (up to their hit dice, anything beyond that is +1 CR for each class level). The problem is that Associated and Non-Associated classes were at best glossed over. We are told that associated classes add directly to the power of the monster and that non-associated classes don't add direct power to the monster. The problem with this is that often times what adds direct power isn't so obvious; spell-casters are a obvious glaring omission here. According to the rules, spell-casting classes are only associated if the monster has innate casting that stacks with the class.

Furthermore, it's far better for many monsters to take non-associated classes because of how adding class levels works. Let's take a Cloud Giant (let's call him Puffy), now Puffy is obviously a big old brute, so to make him a supposed threat to a 20th level party, I'll give him 9 levels in Fighter.

He gains:


The Elite Array (his stats start at 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 as opposed to 11, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10 before racial bonuses)
56 + [11*Con] Hit Points
+11 BaB
+7 Fort
+3 Ref
+3 Will
6 Fighter Bonus Feats
2 Ability Score increases
4 Feats
22 + [11*Int] Skill Points

This is somewhat underwhelming even when compared to other martial classes, but that's what being a fighter gets you.

Now, let's see what happens when Puffy decides to take up a religious cause and further the beliefs of a deity by taking 18 levels in Cleric bringing his CR to 20.

This time he gets:

The Elite Array
81 + [18*Con] Hit Points
+13 BAB
+11 Fort
+6 Ref
+11 Will
9th Level Spells
Turn Undead
36 + [18+Int] Skill Points
4 Ability Score Increases
7 Feats


Now, it's pretty obvious which Puffy has the better deal. Heck if you made Puffy follow a deity with the Alteration domain (Dragon Lance Campaign Setting) he can even Polymorph into a magic dragon :smallwink:.

Kidding aside, which class gave Puffy more direct power? Cleric of course, but the way the rules are, all non-associated classes are way better than their associated counterparts which is counter-intuitive.

the problem is of course made worse by the inclusion of a casting class (mainly because 9th level spells are better than anything and because the way Associated classes work, making casting classes never an associated class for most monsters). But, you could make Puffy a non-associated monk and he would, arguably, still gain more than the fighter.

In fact, because it is never stated that if you give a monster just one level in a non-associated class, that you have a minimum CR adjustment of +1, you can add those classes to monsters for free. So in the end, the non-associated class rules encourage DMs to give their monsters levels in classes that don't necessarily make much sense (Hill Giant Rogues anyone?).

Edit: tldr; the rules for non-associated classes are broken and will probably lead to at least one TPK if you use them on an unsuspecting party. I mean really, an 18th level Cloud Giant Cleric at CR 20?

Further Edit: Because this post is way longer than originally intended it to, I decided to put the post in Spoiler tags.

[Jack_Simth]

I feel a new trap coming on, an ancient magi fortress, a big tree growing up through a hallway, happens to be blocking the line of effect from a self resetting disintegrate trap, party removes tree via whatever means. eats disintegrate.I'm also fond of Transmute Mud to Rock columns and ceilings holding up actual stones. With a big, magic-looking symbol of the same material from the same casting. And some spam of Magic Aura to selectively negate them.

What's the first thing a Wizard does when he spots what looks like a likely Symbol spell 70 feet or so away?

[TheCountAlucard]

I'd like to submit the rules on advancing monsters by class.Well, to be fair, in your example, the fact that it's a giant attached to those eighteen levels of cleric is actually pretty insignificant. It could be a human those cleric levels are stapled to, and it'd still be a reasonable threat for a twentieth-level party… which is what CR 20 pretty much represents.

[3WhiteFox3]

Well, to be fair, in your example, the fact that it's a giant attached to those eighteen levels of cleric is actually pretty insignificant. It could be a human those cleric levels are stapled to, and it'd still be a reasonable threat for a twentieth-level party… which is what CR 20 pretty much represents.

Actually, I forgot to add something.



To determine the effective character level (ECL) of a monster character, add its level adjustment to its racial Hit Dice and character class levels. The monster is considered to have experience points equal to the minimum needed to be a character of its ECL.

If you choose to equip a monster with gear, use its ECL as its character level for purposes of determining how much equipment it can purchase. Generally, only monsters with an Advancement entry of "By character class" receive NPC gear; other creatures adding character levels should be treated as monsters of the appropriate CR and assigned treasure, not equipment.

So in my example the Cloud Giant would have the WBL of an ECL 35 character, I don't know what that would end up as, but it's definitely a lot.

I also disagree with the assertion that a Cloud Giant Cleric 18 is insignificantly different from a Human Cleric 18. Most clerics have to buff to get to be a combat monster, the Cloud Giant is a combat monster to start with and only loses 2 levels for it compared to a CR 20 Human cleric. He starts at Huge, has great physical stats, better Wisdom, Reach, Higher Base Speed, etc... While in a high-op game, the difference is probably insignificant, in a mid or low-op game, he would be significantly more scary to the party.

[Lady Serpentine]

There's also the psychological aspect of it - the players are going to find that scarier, and react appropriately, whether or not it's actually any tougher.


Well, to be fair, in your example, the fact that it's a giant attached to those eighteen levels of cleric is actually pretty insignificant. It could be a human those cleric levels are stapled to, and it'd still be a reasonable threat for a twentieth-level party… which is what CR 20 pretty much represents.

Arguably, Cleric is one of the worst for that, too - at 18th level, with Desecrate having been used in the preparatory stages, and then again as soon as the party enters the area and sets off whatever alarms they have set for the bonuses (which last for just over a day at that level)*, they can have up to 72 HD of undead with them, which unless I'm rather heavily mistaken, is potentially enough to cause a TPK on its own.

And that's with expending one spell slot in the entire day.

*Or, depending on the GM, they may be able to use permanency on it.

[3WhiteFox3]

I'll have to check the RAW on this. But I believe that since RHD helps you qualify for Epic feats and for max skill ranks, you could have the Cloud Giant grab Epic Spellcasting at CR 19 (He'll be a Cleric 17 at that point, able to cast 9th level spells.) and suddenly he's never going to be beaten by any appropriate level party.

[Pickford]

I'd also like to note that, unlike most aura effects, this requires an action (a free action) to activate. It's not necessarily on all the time, and if the DN is prevented from acting on their turn, they can't trigger it.

So it's possible to have a creature that was affected by the Fear Aura on one round and remains adjacent to the DN, and another creature that was not within range at the time, but is now adjacent, and a paralyzed DN. What happens, and why?

As clarified in the other thread, if there is no stated duration for a status effect it logically only remains in effect so long as the thing 'causing' the status remains in play.

For example,

Smoke obscures vision, giving concealment (20% miss chance) to characters within it.

Obviously this effect only lasts so long as the thing causing it (the smoke) is there.

Similarly, if the Dread Necromancer 'moves', they take the aura with them and those no longer adjacent are no longer shaken (if they were affected in the first place).

Edit:

Mattie_p, any spell that lacks a duration isn't a valid spell. There are required elements to any spell and that is one of them.

[The Viscount]

Pickford, does it not seem odd that Dread Necromancer's Fear Aura doesn't state that it lasts only while you are next to him? Other creatures that have fear that lasts while a creature is within a certain radius exist, but they do say so.

In other dysfunctional news, things like tripping and being prone seem to function as normal in the water.

[3WhiteFox3]

Pickford, does it not seem odd that Dread Necromancer's Fear Aura doesn't state that it lasts only while you are next to him? Other creatures that have fear that lasts while a creature is within a certain radius exist, but they do say so.

In other dysfunctional news, things like tripping and being prone seem to function as normal in the water.

How would that even work? Would they fall to the bottom of the body of water they are in? Or, would they simply fall prone in the square they are in?

[Jeff the Green]

For example,

That's covered by the concealment rules, which state that you check for each attack. Once the condition giving concealment goes away or is otherwise made irrelevant, the concealment goes away. That's not true for fear.

[Lady Serpentine]

That's covered by the concealment rules, which state that you check for each attack. Once the condition giving concealment goes away or is otherwise made irrelevant, the concealment goes away. That's not true for fear.

It also says it gives it 'to characters within it'. As such, once they are no longer within it, by RAW, even without the concealment rules, they would no longer have that modifier.

[KillingAScarab]

In other dysfunctional news, things like tripping and being prone seem to function as normal in the water.This is a highly amusing thought. Octopus tripping, here I come.

[TuggyNE]

This is a highly amusing thought. Octopus tripping, here I come.

But octopi have eight legs! You're gonna lose the opposed rolls every time, right? :smalltongue:

[KillingAScarab]

But octopi have eight legs! You're gonna lose the opposed rolls every time, right? :smalltongue:Nope. Cephalopods are all arms. They don't have a leg to stand on. *ducks*

[Jeff the Green]

Here's a minor but interesting dysfunction: it's impossible to fail to commit suicide.

You can perform a coup de grace attack on anyone that's helpless. You are helpless relative to an opponent if you are completely at their mercy. Basically by definition you're at your own mercy. Therefore you're helpless relative to you and can CDG yourself.

Regardless of the damage a CDG does, it forces a DC >10 Fortitude save, failure results in death. You can voluntarily fail a saving throw. Therefore, it's impossible to fail to commit suicide.

[Necroticplague]

Here's a minor but interesting dysfunction: it's impossible to fail to commit suicide.

You can perform a coup de grace attack on anyone that's helpless. You are helpless relative to an opponent if you are completely at their mercy. Basically by definition you're at your own mercy. Therefore you're helpless relative to you and can CDG yourself.

Regardless of the damage a CDG does, it forces a DC >10 Fortitude save, failure results in death. You can voluntarily fail a saving throw. Therefore, it's impossible to fail to commit suicide.

Unless you have Regeneration, but not a weapon that overcomes it, since you can only perform a CDG against a creature using lethal damage.

[TypoNinja]

Nope. Cephalopods are all arms. They don't have a leg to stand on. *ducks*

You sir, are a horrible person.

[Lady Serpentine]

You sir, are a horrible person.

So says the person with:


A man once asked me the difference between Ignorance and Apathy. I told him, "I don't know, and I don't care"

in his signature. :smalltongue:

[TypoNinja]

So says the person with:



in his signature. :smalltongue:

It was a compliment. :D

My signature gets worse if you think about it, aside from the word play, its actually impossible to know if the question was answered or if you just got a brush off.

But back to dysfunctional rules. I recently noticed from the tree bit that while Creature is a defined term in the glossary, object is not. Not a huge deal you say? Well the Creature entry specifies "not an object" in it. Also since the entirety of D&D existence is divided into two classes, Creature or Object you'd figure those are both terms you'd want to define.

So the rule has referenced a term that isn't defined.

[Lady Serpentine]

That's a pretty big one, yeah...

Also, another dysfunction related to that:


A creature or object that makes a successful Fortitude save is partially affected, taking only 5d6 points of damage.

This looks fine, as the minimum level required to cast it is high enough that that's less than the spell would normally do, under normal circumstances.

Doesn't that mean, however, that if something artificially reduces your caster level for purposes of damage calculation, but not where you can cast spells, it might actually do more damage than if it failed its save? :smallconfused:

[Jeff the Green]

Doesn't that mean, however, that if something artificially reduces your caster level for purposes of damage calculation, but not where you can cast spells, it might actually do more damage than if it failed its save? :smallconfused:

Yep. A Bard 1/Wizard 5/X 4/Sublime Chord 3 with Mage Slayer can cast a CL 1 disintegrate that does 2d6 on a failed save and 5d6 on a successful one. Actually, maybe CL 0 (so 0 on failed and 5d6 on successful) if Mage Slayer will drop it that low.

Edit: Scratch that, you can't cast it if your CL's that low, I think. I think there's a way to scribe a scroll of it, though. If it drops your CL to 0 it'd be free, apparently.

[Jack_Simth]

It was a compliment. :D

My signature gets worse if you think about it, aside from the word play, its actually impossible to know if the question was answered or if you just got a brush off.

But back to dysfunctional rules. I recently noticed from the tree bit that while Creature is a defined term in the glossary, object is not. Not a huge deal you say? Well the Creature entry specifies "not an object" in it. Also since the entirety of D&D existence is divided into two classes, Creature or Object you'd figure those are both terms you'd want to define.

So the rule has referenced a term that isn't defined.
It's not in the glossary, but it is defined. See Nonabilities, specifically for Charisma and Wisdom.

[Talderas]

Here's a minor but interesting dysfunction: it's impossible to fail to commit suicide.

You can perform a coup de grace attack on anyone that's helpless. You are helpless relative to an opponent if you are completely at their mercy. Basically by definition you're at your own mercy. Therefore you're helpless relative to you and can CDG yourself.

Regardless of the damage a CDG does, it forces a DC >10 Fortitude save, failure results in death. You can voluntarily fail a saving throw. Therefore, it's impossible to fail to commit suicide.

This only works if you can define yourself as an opponent to yourself.

[noparlpf]

Yes, but it says that it disintegrates up to a 10-foot cube of nonliving matter. Bark and wood are nonliving matter.

The plant as a whole is considered living in D&D. Find me a definition of bark in the rules.

[Ksheep]

With falling prone, it also works while you're in the air. Since falling prone makine you lie on the ground in the square you occupy, this either causes you to lie in midair or instantly teleport to the ground below where you were flying (or falling), theoretically negating the damage you would have taken.

Also, with the Disintigration and non-living objects, would that make living coral armor immune as well? Is there a living wood armor that would also be immune? If you made full plate with one of those, wouldn't that make you immune, as the caster wouldn't have LoS to you, just to your armor?

[Jeff the Green]

The plant as a whole is considered living in D&D. Find me a definition of bark in the rules.

I can't find a definition of living in the rules. "Living creature," sure. Objects don't seem to get the living/nonliving distinction, and can have parts that are living and parts that aren't.

[noparlpf]

I can't find a definition of living in the rules. "Living creature," sure. Objects don't seem to get the living/nonliving distinction, and can have parts that are living and parts that aren't.

Somebody just posted the relevant line for plants a bit back.

Plant Type: This type comprises vegetable creatures. Note that regular plants, such as one finds growing in gardens and fields, lack Wisdom and Charisma scores (see Nonabilities, above) and are not creatures, but objects, even though they are alive.

Plants that are not creatures are considered alive, with no distinction for different parts of the plant.

[cerin616]

So, everyone already knows about the swordsage's x6 skill points at first level. But that's not even the only error on that table. They also have a unique BAB progression. A 13th level swordsage has a BAB of +10/+5, but 13*3/4 = 9.75, which rounds down to 9, like clerics, rogues, and every other medium BAB class gets. The problem shows up again at 17th level, when they get +13/+8 instead of the correct +12/+7.

And while we're at it with ToB class tables, here's one that applies to all of them: The ToB base classes all get a lot more maneuvers than most folks realize, in fact more maneuvers than actually exist. Look at the "maneuvers known" column of the table for any base class, and now look at the same column for any ToB prestige class. Take the Master of Nine, for instance: Their "maneuvers known" column has 2, then 1, then 2, then 1, then 2.

Maneuvers Known: When you gain additional maneuvers known, these simply add to the maneuvers known of one martial adept standard class you already possess.

From ToB prestige section. It only stacks additionally because it states so explicitly. Otherwise it does not add since it is from the same source. you can, however, take one level of SS, one level of WB, and one level of Crusader, have a 1.5 initiator level, and 14 maneuvers. at level 3, with 12 being readied.

[noparlpf]

In the main section, I'm pretty sure it's just "Maneuvers Known: X". You just look down the list. The PrC section works weirdly, but they specifically say that they do, and only say that for individual PrCs.

[Almagesto]

This has probably been mentioned many times before but I find it hilarious. Technically, I guess as a result of omission, trees are immune to Disintegrate. It can target creatures and nonliving matter. Trees are neither of those things.

WOW,,, I didn't realize that until just now. Maybe my next elven prison will be inside a tree. YES; my previous elven prisons were underground - the logic being that elves love nature and being underground was an utter torture for them.

[Lady Serpentine]

WOW,,, I didn't realize that until just now. Maybe my next elven prison will be inside a tree. YES; my previous elven prisons were underground - the logic being that elves love nature and being underground was an utter torture for them.

...So caves are unnatural now? :smallconfused:

[Zombulian]

...So caves are unnatural now? :smallconfused:

Shhhh! Caves are for smelly dwarves and drow!

[Allanimal]

regarding the objects vs. creatures thing...

Once my character was climbing a ladder, and 40' below some big monster appears and swallows a fellow PC. On my turn, I decided the best course of action was to swallow a potion if enlarge person and let go, falling on the big ugly monster. With my 8x weight and the height, I would do a fistfull of d6 damage. The DM tells me to roll my falling damage to myself but the monster would take nothing. What? I show him page 52 in the Rules Compendium and the calculations.

His response: "That is for falling objects. You're a creature. There are no rules stating that falling creatures do damage, just objects."

[Lady Serpentine]

Shhhh! Caves are for smelly dwarves and drow!

Dwarf: Oy! Watch who you're calling smelly, elf!

Drow: Truce until we put this insolent human in their place?

[noparlpf]

regarding the objects vs. creatures thing...

Once my character was climbing a ladder, and 40' below some big monster appears and swallows a fellow PC. On my turn, I decided the best course of action was to swallow a potion if enlarge person and let go, falling on the big ugly monster. With my 8x weight and the height, I would do a fistfull of d6 damage. The DM tells me to roll my falling damage to myself but the monster would take nothing. What? I show him page 52 in the Rules Compendium and the calculations.

His response: "That is for falling objects. You're a creature. There are no rules stating that falling creatures do damage, just objects."

100% legal, 110% silly.

[Lady Serpentine]

regarding the objects vs. creatures thing...

Once my character was climbing a ladder, and 40' below some big monster appears and swallows a fellow PC. On my turn, I decided the best course of action was to swallow a potion if enlarge person and let go, falling on the big ugly monster. With my 8x weight and the height, I would do a fistfull of d6 damage. The DM tells me to roll my falling damage to myself but the monster would take nothing. What? I show him page 52 in the Rules Compendium and the calculations.

His response: "That is for falling objects. You're a creature. There are no rules stating that falling creatures do damage, just objects."

"Fine, don't include my weight. All my armor and weapons are still enlarged objects, now roll the damn dice."

[noparlpf]

You need 31 pounds to do even 1d6 at that height, though.
Oh, this line has always bugged me: "Objects weighing less than 1 pound don’t deal damage to those they land upon, no matter how far they have fallen." Let me just drop this book on your head, tell me it doesn't hurt.

[Zombulian]

You need 31 pounds to do even 1d6 at that height, though.
Oh, this line has always bugged me: "Objects weighing less than 1 pound don’t deal damage to those they land upon, no matter how far they have fallen." Let me just drop this book on your head, tell me it doesn't hurt.

Pennies off a skyscraper?

[Talderas]

Pennies off a skyscraper?

Might cause you to need stitches.

It's a matter of mass vs surface area. That's why I can toss a mouse and a horse of a building and the mouse will survive far higher falls than what the horse course survive.

[Zombulian]

Might cause you to need stitches.

It's a matter of mass vs surface area. That's why I can toss a mouse and a horse of a building and the mouse will survive far higher falls than what the horse course survive.

Yes I understand that. I was in 8th grade science class as well. But yea, it was more the point that a penny is well under a pound, but could easily cause a need for stitches at that height.

[Bakkan]

Yes, but you could argue that a few stitches isn't even worth 1 hit point of damage, as even typical commoners can survive several stitch-worth injures in a row without falling unconscious.

[ericp65]

Yes I understand that. I was in 8th grade science class as well. But yea, it was more the point that a penny is well under a pound, but could easily cause a need for stitches at that height.

If not an undertaker ;)

[Sgt. Cookie]

Can I just say "The Symbiote Template" and leave it at that?

[Jeff the Green]

Yes I understand that. I was in 8th grade science class as well. But yea, it was more the point that a penny is well under a pound, but could easily cause a need for stitches at that height.

I think the Mythbusters did this and figured that it would only cause a bruise. Pennies have a slow terminal velocity.

[Almagesto]

I think the Mythbusters did this and figured that it would only cause a bruise. Pennies have a slow terminal velocity.
Yeah, I believe they also did one such program for a bullet being shot straight up. When it came back the terminal velocity was so low that it could only cause bruises.



...So caves are unnatural now? :smallconfused:
Well, hahaha I guess I went with the basic tree-hugging elves :smallsmile:



Shhhh! Caves are for smelly dwarves and drow!
:smallbiggrin:



Dwarf: Oy! Watch who you're calling smelly, elf!

Drow: Truce until we put this insolent human in their place?

This is SO true, they would totally say that.

[RogueDM]

I don't know if this is properly "dysfunctional" or just poorly worded. In the 3.5 PHB the Scrying spell reads in its rules block, "You can see and hear some creature, which may be at any distance. If the subject succeeds on a Will save, the scrying attempt simply fails..." Farther down in that same text block. "If the save fails, you can see (but not hear) the subject and the subject's immediate surroundings"

So the spell allows you to hear, but not if the subject succeeds the save, or if they fail the save. I've read this over a few times and done some quick searching on the internet and have not found a proper clarification for this.

[noparlpf]

I don't know if this is properly "dysfunctional" or just poorly worded. In the 3.5 PHB the Scrying spell reads in its rules block, "You can see and hear some creature, which may be at any distance. If the subject succeeds on a Will save, the scrying attempt simply fails..." Farther down in that same text block. "If the save fails, you can see (but not hear) the subject and the subject's immediate surroundings"

So the spell allows you to hear, but not if the subject succeeds the save, or if they fail the save. I've read this over a few times and done some quick searching on the internet and have not found a proper clarification for this.

The SRD version (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/scrying.htm) says "If the save fails, you can see and hear the subject and the subject’s immediate surroundings..." Just checked my copy and you're right, but then I checked errata and they fixed it there.

[RogueDM]

The SRD version (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/scrying.htm) says "If the save fails, you can see and hear the subject and the subject’s immediate surroundings..." Just checked my copy and you're right, but then I checked errata and they fixed it there.

Huh, I'd looked through the Errata and didn't see the change, even searched "Scrying" and "hear", but looking up the SRD I do see the above quoted text. I'm just happy this wasn't a case of me misinterpreting something.

[noparlpf]

Huh, I'd looked through the Errata and didn't see the change, even searched "Scrying" and "hear", but looking up the SRD I do see the above quoted text. I'm just happy this wasn't a case of me misinterpreting something.

It's on the bottom-left of the third page of the errata, above "Shapechange".

Scrying
Player's Handbook, page 274
Descriptive text contradicts itself on whether the spell
allows hearing as well as vision.
Change “If the save fails, you can see (but not hear)”
to
“If the save fails, you can see and hear”

[Zombulian]

I think the Mythbusters did this and figured that it would only cause a bruise. Pennies have a slow terminal velocity.

Goshdurnit. I was trying to make a point by exaggerating, but yea I've seen that Mythbusters too. I submit.

[TypoNinja]

Goshdurnit. I was trying to make a point by exaggerating, but yea I've seen that Mythbusters too. I submit.

Pennies don't half enough mass to matter, and their weight vs surface area means the air does a pretty good job slowing it down. Sure it'll still hurt, but lethal damage it is not.

Bullets are sort of 50/50. If you shoot a bullet straight up when it comes back down its much like a penny small, light, and wasting energy tumbling. Again, painful, but not life threatening. If you shoot a bullet up, but not straight up, so that it can arc, it will keep a ballistic trajectory, and can still seriously injure people when it comes back down.

So objects weighting less than one pound doing no damage seems about right, its not harmless, but in terms of should it deal lethal damage or not, its definitely a 'not'.

[Immabozo]

I just found one that was obviously intended to stop templating animals in lycanthropes. "You cannot use the alternate Form ability to assume the shape of a templated animal.

1. Any lycanthrope is a templated animal
2. Hybrid form is not an animal!!!!!!

Now I just need to figure out a little more shenanigans and I will make a great lycanthrope!

[mattie_p]

Unfortunately, incorrect.


"Lycanthrope" is a template that can be added to any humanoid or giant (referred to hereafter as the base creature). The lycanthrope template can be inherited (for natural lycanthropes) or acquired (for afflicted lycanthropes). Becoming a lycanthrope is very much like multiclassing as an animal and gaining the appropriate Hit Dice.

A lycanthrope is a templated humanoid or giant.

[Immabozo]

Unfortunately, incorrect.

A lycanthrope is a templated humanoid or giant.

Fair enough, but my second point still stands. Hybrid form is decidedly not an animal

[mattie_p]

Fair enough, but my second point still stands. Hybrid form is decidedly not an animal

Neither is the animal form. They are all humanoid or giant, despite the overt appearance of being an animal.

[TuggyNE]

Fair enough, but my second point still stands. Hybrid form is decidedly not an animal

But is it a templated animal? No. Therefore, no problems! :smallbiggrin:

[Immabozo]

Neither is the animal form. They are all humanoid or giant, despite the overt appearance of being an animal.

But you are still taking the FORM of an animal, in animal form. But templates could be thrown on the animal until the cows come home and in hybrid form... dun, dun, DUUUUUN, they all work! Cause its not an animal form!

[Telok]

Pennies don't half enough mass to matter, and their weight vs surface area means the air does a pretty good job slowing it down. Sure it'll still hurt, but lethal damage it is not.

So objects weighting less than one pound doing no damage seems about right, its not harmless, but in terms of should it deal lethal damage or not, its definitely a 'not'.

Three inch nails stuck through the bottom of a styrofoam cup. I've heard that it's been done. Aimed at the roofs of cars and left nice little holes.

A quarter pound lead weight from 500 feet up will knock you off too.

[Mystify]

Three inch nails stuck through the bottom of a styrofoam cup.

I've heard that it's been done. Aimed at the roofs of cars and left nice little holes.

at that point I'd say its a weapon, not a falling object.

[Flickerdart]

But you are still taking the FORM of an animal, in animal form. But templates could be thrown on the animal until the cows come home and in hybrid form... dun, dun, DUUUUUN, they all work! Cause its not an animal form!
I'm not sure you understand.

It doesn't matter whether the form is an animal or not. You cannot take the form of a creature with a template. So bear is fine, but paragon bear is not an option you have, and being an animal has nothing to do with it.

[noparlpf]

Pennies don't half enough mass to matter, and their weight vs surface area means the air does a pretty good job slowing it down. Sure it'll still hurt, but lethal damage it is not.

Bullets are sort of 50/50. If you shoot a bullet straight up when it comes back down its much like a penny small, light, and wasting energy tumbling. Again, painful, but not life threatening. If you shoot a bullet up, but not straight up, so that it can arc, it will keep a ballistic trajectory, and can still seriously injure people when it comes back down.

So objects weighting less than one pound doing no damage seems about right, its not harmless, but in terms of should it deal lethal damage or not, its definitely a 'not'.

Yeah, there are cases of people being killed by bullets from a mile or two away where somebody shot a bullet into the air at an angle.

I don't really see how proving that a flat, non-aerodynamic object weighing less than a tenth of an ounce wouldn't hurt anybody by falling proves that a dense, aerodynamic object weighing over half a pound wouldn't hurt anybody by falling.

[TypoNinja]

Yeah, there are cases of people being killed by bullets from a mile or two away where somebody shot a bullet into the air at an angle.

I don't really see how proving that a flat, non-aerodynamic object weighing less than a tenth of an ounce wouldn't hurt anybody by falling proves that a dense, aerodynamic object weighing over half a pound wouldn't hurt anybody by falling.

D&D rules are overly simplistic, for ease of use. They had to draw a line on what "too light to matter" was. They picked one pound.

Does the rule not necessarily reflect physics? Sometimes, but its consistent, so not actually dysfunctional. Realism is the often the first thing to go when you design a game system and start making concessions to playability.

[Immabozo]

I'm not sure you understand.

It doesn't matter whether the form is an animal or not. You cannot take the form of a creature with a template. So bear is fine, but paragon bear is not an option you have, and being an animal has nothing to do with it.

ah, that difference in terms makes a world of difference

[mattie_p]

All the lycanthrope discussion actually brings us to the true dysfunction here. A creature with alternate form cannot take the form of a creature with a template.

A lycanthrope, in any of its forms, is a creature with a template.

Therefore, it cannot assume any of its forms at all.

[Lady Serpentine]

You need 31 pounds to do even 1d6 at that height, though.
Oh, this line has always bugged me: "Objects weighing less than 1 pound don’t deal damage to those they land upon, no matter how far they have fallen."

Enlarge Person doubles size, and makes you weight eight times as much. It says that equipment is 'similarly increased in size', but does not specify how the weight changes, so for now, let's assume doubling, even thought strict RAW would probably indicate that it's also eight times heavier.

A bardiche weights 14 pounds, normally. That makes 28. Then with a Heavy Repeating Crossbow, which is never a bad investment, the total weight goes up to 52; 60 bolts for it means that they're carrying 76. Full plate means that goes up to 176 pounds, even with no other gear.



This is SO true, they would totally say that.

Thank you! I do try.

[noparlpf]

Enlarge Person doubles size, and makes you weight eight times as much. It says that equipment is 'similarly increased in size', but does not specify how the weight changes, so for now, let's assume doubling, even thought strict RAW would probably indicate that it's also eight times heavier.

A bardiche weights 14 pounds, normally. That makes 28. Then with a Heavy Repeating Crossbow, which is never a bad investment, the total weight goes up to 52; 60 bolts for it means that they're carrying 76. Full plate means that goes up to 176 pounds, even with no other gear.

Do they sum, or count individually? That DM sounds like they might count each item individually.

[Lady Serpentine]

Do they sum, or count individually? That DM sounds like they might count each item individually.

That, I don't know. Depends on the DM. I don't think the designers anticipated 'throw yourself off the cliff and crush it' coming up as a tactic. However, if they're likely to say that they each hit individually, you then go strict RAW on them and say that, as it states they experience a 'similar increase in size', they also have their weight multiplied by eight. In that case, the bardiche alone is 112 pounds, the armor weighs 400, the HRC 98, and so on.

[Amidus Drexel]

Do they sum, or count individually? That DM sounds like they might count each item individually.

If they count individually, there's a good chance the damage would be higher... each item would individually add the d6s for falling to the ones from their weight.

[Mystify]

if its individual, make bags of rocks, each of which is the minimum size to do damage, and it will deal a tone more damage than a single rock of the same size.

[Kazyan]

Speaking of Enlarge Person, its size and strength multiplies your carrying capacity by x2-2/3, but your equipment increases weight by x8. You could immobilize yourself with a spell designed to increase strength. The square cube law doesn't like magic very much.

[Ninja PieKing]

Not sure if its just my copy but according to stronghold builder's guide Windstorm’s Eye and Tornado’s Eye are functionally the same except Windstorm is a cheaper version that is two feet smaller.

[TypoNinja]

Not sure if its just my copy but according to stronghold builder's guide Windstorm’s Eye and Tornado’s Eye are functionally the same except Windstorm is a cheaper version that is two feet smaller.

Not totally useless, one has a higher caster level so would be harder to dispel.

My guess would be that one was supposed to be hurricane force winds while the other was tornado force though.

[TuggyNE]

Not totally useless, one has a higher caster level so would be harder to dispel.

My guess would be that one was supposed to be hurricane force winds while the other was tornado force though.

Wait, why would the more expensive/more powerful one be larger, then?

[TypoNinja]

Wait, why would the more expensive/more powerful one be larger, then?

What you mean physically? It cost more, it must be bigger!

Actually I just compared the items to the item creation rules thinking that perhaps the price difference was explained by one item being portable while the other is not. Nope.

This does bring up not really a dysfunction just a poor design choice. Those orbs are priced as portable magic items. They could be 25% cheaper if you were willing to stipulate they couldn't leave the room you set them up in.

[TuggyNE]

What you mean physically? It cost more, it must be bigger!

I meant larger in area; tornadoes are more intense, but also smaller, so the more powerful/expensive variant should plausibly cover a small area with very strong winds, while the other should cover perhaps a rather larger area with merely strong winds. (For certain definitions of "very strong" and "strong", of course.)

[Sith_Happens]

Can I just say "The Symbiote Template" and leave it at that?

Yes. Yes you can.

[mattie_p]

Spell Deafening Blast (Bard 3, CM):


Area: 20-ft.-radius spread

All creatures in the area are permanently deafened. A successful Fortitude save reduces the duration of the deafness to 1 round.

There is no exception for the caster. Congratulations on deafening yourself, Mr. Bard.

[FleshrakerAbuse]

Spell Deafening Blast (Bard 3, CM):



There is no exception for the caster. Congratulations on deafening yourself, Mr. Bard.

Well... I guess he should start investing in snowflake wardance and perform (dance), now... WHEE melee bard!

[VoidSwimmer]

Following someones advice I am mentioning here that as corporeal creatues you can legally target all corporeal undead with Implosion.

Since Implosion uses a Fort. save and doesnt effect objects the undead are immune to being killed by the spell. The spell also does no HP damage.

"You summon forth the raw power of your diety to crush the commoner zombie into a tiny ball with waves of destrutive energy. It continues to advance as a wad of pulp."



Also, has anyone mentioned yet that Darkrunners are a size smaller for determining what they can fit in? A Halfling Rogue/Darkrunner is a Tiny creature in terms of what she can climb into or through. Shrink her one size with magic and she can fit anywhere a normal person could concievably fit their hand.

[noparlpf]

Following someones advice I am mentioning here that as corporeal creatues you can legally target all corporeal undead with Implosion.

Since Implosion uses a Fort. save and doesnt effect objects the undead are immune to being killed by the spell. The spell also does no HP damage.

"You summon forth the raw power of your diety to crush the commoner zombie into a tiny ball with waves of destrutive energy. It continues to advance as a wad of pulp."


Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects or is harmless).

You create a destructive resonance in a corporeal creature’s body. For each round you concentrate, you cause one creature to collapse in on itself, killing it. (This effect, being instantaneous, cannot be dispelled.)

I'm pretty sure the crushing is part of the effect, therefore it doesn't affect them.


Also, has anyone mentioned yet that Darkrunners are a size smaller for determining what they can fit in? A Halfling Rogue/Darkrunner is a Tiny creature in terms of what she can climb into or through. Shrink her one size with magic and she can fit anywhere a normal person could concievably fit their hand.

Is there something wrong with that? A (smallish) cat can fit through spaces a human can only fit their hand through. So what?

[VoidSwimmer]

I'm pretty sure the crushing is part of the effect, therefore it doesn't affect them.



Is there something wrong with that? A (smallish) cat can fit through spaces a human can only fit their hand through. So what?


Crushing is either part of the effect or just flavor I suppose. Either way, they are immune to something that should pulp them instantly simply via being dead as the spell otherwise isnt described as involving life force.


As for the cat thing...if a Gnome Darkrunner can fit anywhere a cat can (as a tiny creature) then we have a 3 1/2 foot tall person with an essentially human sized head that can squeeze through 5-inch gaps...somehow.

Now hit him with Reduce Person.

He is just under 2 feet tall and about half as wide...but can climb inside a jelly jar (anything a toad or bat would fit in) so now he is in something with less internal space than he has volume.

Also, I, personally, cant help but imagine what it would be like to have half-a-dozen reduced gnomish assassins all turn out to be hiding in a characters backpack with maybe another in their slightshot pouch. Or put a reduced darkrunner halfling INSIDE the mouth of another character (you could fit a bat in your mouth, albiet uncomfortably) despite his actual size being bigger than the head of the human who's mouth he is in.

EDIT: This would be fun to abuse in a stealthy sort of campaign.

[Mystify]

Crushing is either part of the effect or just flavor I suppose. Either way, they are immune to something that should pulp them instantly simply via being dead as the spell otherwise isnt described as involving life force.


if it doesn't involve lifeforce, then why doesn't it work on objects?

[VoidSwimmer]

if it doesn't involve lifeforce, then why doesn't it work on objects?

Dysfunctional rules, thats why. It isnt necromancy, doesnt have the Death tag, kills by mechanical means (crush), requires a fort save, and can target any corporeal creature. But that wording means no objects can be Imploded (must be a creature) and the Fort. save required in turn means no skellies can be Imploded, even if they can be targeted.

Adding "or object" to the wording of the spell would make it make a LOT more sense and also resolve the undead issue I believe. Heck, maybe in some erratta or question to WotC they do let you target objects (although WotC has been known to contradict even themselves).

Although as it currently functions, it is a good way to kill someone and preserve all their gear perfectly intact. It could instantly kill a Giant in glass armor without cracking the glass.

[Qwertystop]

Although as it currently functions, it is a good way to kill someone and preserve all their gear perfectly intact. It could instantly kill a Giant in glass armor without cracking the glass.

Any chance that's why?

[TuggyNE]

Any chance that's why?

Strictly speaking, just because a spell can target objects doesn't mean it'll destroy gear automatically; just look at disintegrate.

[The Random NPC]

Also, has anyone mentioned yet that Darkrunners are a size smaller for determining what they can fit in? A Halfling Rogue/Darkrunner is a Tiny creature in terms of what she can climb into or through. Shrink her one size with magic and she can fit anywhere a normal person could concievably fit their hand.

I kind of want to make a Darkrunner Kobold with Slight Build now... where can I find it?

[Jeff the Green]

Speaking of Enlarge Person, its size and strength multiplies your carrying capacity by x2-2/3, but your equipment increases weight by x8. You could immobilize yourself with a spell designed to increase strength. The square cube law doesn't like magic very much.

Actually, this is more Fridge Logic than dysfunction. Significantly enlarging something without drastically altering its proportions will make it collapse under its own weight; the giant ants etc. in monster movies wouldn't be able to move.

[noparlpf]

I've never understood calling it "Fridge Logic". That's the stuff I think of during the movie, and bother my friends with the whole time.

[Lady Serpentine]

Actually, this is more Fridge Logic than dysfunction.

While true that it's logical, in theory, Enlarge Person is not meant to be utterly useless, save for (maybe) dealing falling damage, and thus it's still a dysfunction.

[mattie_p]

I've never understood calling it "Fridge Logic". That's the stuff I think of during the movie, and bother my friends with the whole time.

Not everyone thinks of everything at once. I had a fridge logic moment while watching Men in Black 3 the other day. Strangely enough, the TV Tropes page doesn't list it.

Griffin has the ability to share his visions of the future with others. He uses that ability on the Nameless Colonel (later revealed to be J's father) and shows him something that changes his mind and has him help J and K. Shortly before his death, the colonel says to J, "You're important, you both are." What Griffin probably showed him was that J was his son from the future, all grown up and saving the world. That would be enough to change my mind.

It was fridge logic because they key information (colonel is J's father) wasn't revealed until about 15 minutes later.

[noparlpf]

Not everyone thinks of everything at once. I had a fridge logic moment while watching Men in Black 3 the other day. Strangely enough, the TV Tropes page doesn't list it.

Griffin has the ability to share his visions of the future with others. He uses that ability on the Nameless Colonel (later revealed to be J's father) and shows him something that changes his mind and has him help J and K. Shortly before his death, the colonel says to J, "You're important, you both are." What Griffin probably showed him was that J was his son from the future, all grown up and saving the world. That would be enough to change my mind.

It was fridge logic because they key information (colonel is J's father) wasn't revealed until about 15 minutes later.

I think if it's revealed within the movie, albeit a bit later, it doesn't count.

[mattie_p]

I think if it's revealed within the movie, albeit a bit later, it doesn't count.

The facts are revealed, but what the colonel was shown was not. I'm inferring the vision, and it makes sense, but I didn't put it together until 30 minutes later.

[RogueDM]

Actually, this is more Fridge Logic than dysfunction. Significantly enlarging something without drastically altering its proportions will make it collapse under its own weight; the giant ants etc. in monster movies wouldn't be able to move.

That was my favorite episode of Beakman's World.

But, unless I'm mistaken, Enlarge Person only increases you by one size category. Conceivably turning Danny DeVito (small to medium) into Andre the Giant (ignoring that he's dead, medium to large). Granted these gents are at the threshold for their arguable size categories, but they are both fully mobile, at least while living, so with only some minor extrapolation a single size category wouldn't require structural changes. Yes, going from diminutive to medium small probably would. Medium to Huge probably would. Heck, even going from Warwick Davis to Val Kilmer (Small to Medium) wouldn't require restructuring.

As far as Enlarge Person being useless, I think it just has niche uses. Grappling and over-reaching with a reach weapon namely.

Now that my tangent is done with.

As memory serves the Totemist in Magic of Incarnum can gain natural weapons via some of its bindings. However, the damage for these natural weapons is given as a straight number, that is 1d6 etc, meaning that it doesn't change depending on the size of the creature. So a Tiny or Huge Totemist, with correspondingly different size mouths, could gain bite attacks that deal the exact (or nearly) the same damage. I know magic doesn't tend to acknowledge the size of its caster, a giant's fireball is no larger than a halfling's, but we're talking about grafting a natural weapon to the mouth or hands of the creature... Some of them make sense but others... just seem wrong.

[Vaz]

Just reading through Draconomicon; A Disciple of Ashardalon becomes an Outsider at 12th level.

They might be a 42HD Great Wyrm Red Dragon, and then decide to become a Disciple of Ashardalon. At 54th level, after 53 levels of not being scared of Dragon's frightful presence, it is now susceptible to becoming scared of a Frightful Presence.

[Necroticplague]

That was my favorite episode of Beakman's World.

But, unless I'm mistaken, Enlarge Person only increases you by one size category. Conceivably turning Danny DeVito (small to medium) into Andre the Giant (ignoring that he's dead, medium to large). Granted these gents are at the threshold for their arguable size categories, but they are both fully mobile, at least while living, so with only some minor extrapolation a single size category wouldn't require structural changes. Yes, going from diminutive to medium small probably would. Medium to Huge probably would. Heck, even going from Warwick Davis to Val Kilmer (Small to Medium) wouldn't require restructuring.

As far as Enlarge Person being useless, I think it just has niche uses. Grappling and over-reaching with a reach weapon namely.

Now that my tangent is done with.

As memory serves the Totemist in Magic of Incarnum can gain natural weapons via some of its bindings. However, the damage for these natural weapons is given as a straight number, that is 1d6 etc, meaning that it doesn't change depending on the size of the creature. So a Tiny or Huge Totemist, with correspondingly different size mouths, could gain bite attacks that deal the exact (or nearly) the same damage. I know magic doesn't tend to acknowledge the size of its caster, a giant's fireball is no larger than a halfling's, but we're talking about grafting a natural weapon to the mouth or hands of the creature... Some of them make sense but others... just seem wrong.
A similar issue exists for pretty much all feats that give natural weapons: deformities (mouth and hands), and darkspawn both have similar issues.

[TypoNinja]

Just reading through Draconomicon; A Disciple of Ashardalon becomes an Outsider at 12th level.

They might be a 42HD Great Wyrm Red Dragon, and then decide to become a Disciple of Ashardalon. At 54th level, after 53 levels of not being scared of Dragon's frightful presence, it is now susceptible to becoming scared of a Frightful Presence.

While that's a little silly its not a dysfunction, the rules are functioning, lose Dragon Type, gain Outsider Type. This sucks, for a variety of reasons, but at no point do the rules fall over on dealing with what happens.

[tyckspoon]

As memory serves the Totemist in Magic of Incarnum can gain natural weapons via some of its bindings. However, the damage for these natural weapons is given as a straight number, that is 1d6 etc, meaning that it doesn't change depending on the size of the creature. So a Tiny or Huge Totemist, with correspondingly different size mouths, could gain bite attacks that deal the exact (or nearly) the same damage. I know magic doesn't tend to acknowledge the size of its caster, a giant's fireball is no larger than a halfling's, but we're talking about grafting a natural weapon to the mouth or hands of the creature... Some of them make sense but others... just seem wrong.

Page 53, Magic of Incarnum, Damage Values: The damages given assume a Medium meldshaper. Smaller or larger characters should adjust the dice accordingly (reference to damage-by-size charts for weapons in PHB.)

[Zombulian]

Page 53, Magic of Incarnum, Damage Values: The damages given assume a Medium meldshaper. Smaller or larger characters should adjust the dice accordingly (reference to damage-by-size charts for weapons in PHB.)

No disfunction here! Just baaaad organization.

[The Viscount]

Complete Champion has some special deity-associated holy symbols. These give nice little bonuses when used with particular kinds of spells as specified. The one of St. Cuthbert increases effective divine caster level when casting a mind-affecting spell or turning undead. The one of Nerull increases caster level for Necromancy and [Evil] Spells as well as when rebuking undead.
Turning and rebuking undead is course independent of caster level, something the symbol of Wee Jas seems to know. These symbols are usually held, though it says they can sometimes be worn and then touched. By these rules, could someone wear two of them to receive both benefits? The wearing seems to eliminate the need for a free hand.

P.S. Not really a dysfunction, but does it irk anyone else that Yondalla, the deity of halflings, is Lawful Good, when halflings tend toward chaos?

[noparlpf]

Complete Champion has some special deity-associated holy symbols. These give nice little bonuses when used with particular kinds of spells as specified. The one of St. Cuthbert increases effective divine caster level when casting a mind-affecting spell or turning undead. The one of Nerull increases caster level for Necromancy and [Evil] Spells as well as when rebuking undead.
Turning and rebuking undead is course independent of caster level, something the symbol of Wee Jas seems to know. These symbols are usually held, though it says they can sometimes be worn and then touched. By these rules, could someone wear two of them to receive both benefits? The wearing seems to eliminate the need for a free hand.

They probably meant "boosts your caster level by one to cast spells, and boosts your effective cleric level [or whatever] by one to rebuke undead". So yeah, minor dysfunction.
As for the boosts stacking...this is kind of like the Orange Ioun Stone argument, which says no.


P.S. Not really a dysfunction, but does it irk anyone else that Yondalla, the deity of halflings, is Lawful Good, when halflings tend toward chaos?

Nah. Hobbits seem pretty lawful to me. It's probably a holdover from when halflings were more obviously based on hobbits as a specific incarnation of "halfling". Unless 1e halflings were already chaotic, I'm too lazy to go all the way back across the room for the AD&D books now. Anyway, the 3.5 PHB says they're neutral, with both lawful and chaotic tendencies.

[The Viscount]

For other dysfunctions, let's look at Death Master. First off, it has the ability to not have somatic components for its spells if it uses blood of a sentient being as a component. It mentions that 8 vials of this blood can be extracted from a medium creature, double that amount for every size category above, and half that for every size below, minimum one. Diminutive and Fine creatures both yield one vial of blood. When he swats a hairy spider or skewers a toad, a Death Master harvests in excess of one pint of blood. Also, the spellcasting description neglected to mention how a death master learns spells. The errata attempts to correct this, but is only partially successful. It gives the Death Master spells known at each level, but it states that a wizard can copy spells from death masters' spell books. It is an obvious copy/paste error, but RAW is RAW.

[Pickford]

The facts are revealed, but what the colonel was shown was not. I'm inferring the vision, and it makes sense, but I didn't put it together until 30 minutes later.

Mattie, fridge logic is when you discover something that doesn't or cannot work.

A prime example is travel. (i.e. Making a 20 hour journey twice in one day)

[Jeff the Green]

Mattie, fridge logic is when you discover something that doesn't or cannot work.

A prime example is travel. (i.e. Making a 20 hour journey twice in one day)

My fault, actually. I mixed up Fridge Logic and Fridge Brilliance

[mattie_p]

Mattie, fridge logic is when you discover something that doesn't or cannot work.

A prime example is travel. (i.e. Making a 20 hour journey twice in one day)

Is that your fridge logic showing up now? :smallwink:

Fridge logic, fridge brilliance (as Jeff points out), whatever. Fridges are for beer, in my opinion.

[nedz]

P.S. Not really a dysfunction, but does it irk anyone else that Yondalla, the deity of halflings, is Lawful Good, when halflings tend toward chaos?

Yondalla is kind of like Tiamat then. Tiamat is LE and is the god of all evil dragons — so no Black, Red or White Dragon clerics then.

[Vaz]

Always doesn't mean Always, though.

[ericgrau]

A nonmagical mitrhal shirt (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicArmor.htm#mithralShirt) gives medium creatures a 30 foot speed and small creatures a 20 foot speed. Slow races / builds now have a way around their drawback, though fast characters who love mithral are going to be a bit peeved.

[noparlpf]

A nonmagical mitrhal shirt (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicArmor.htm#mithralShirt) gives medium creatures a 30 foot speed and small creatures a 20 foot speed. Slow races / builds now have a way around their drawback, though fast characters who love mithral are going to be a bit peeved.

Nice one. Hadn't noticed that even though I've used that dozens of times.

[Zombulian]

A nonmagical mitrhal shirt (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicArmor.htm#mithralShirt) gives medium creatures a 30 foot speed and small creatures a 20 foot speed. Slow races / builds now have a way around their drawback, though fast characters who love mithral are going to be a bit peeved.

Haha yea I found that a while ago. I'm surprised it's not brought up that often.

[nedz]

A nonmagical mitrhal shirt (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicArmor.htm#mithralShirt) gives medium creatures a 30 foot speed and small creatures a 20 foot speed. Slow races / builds now have a way around their drawback, though fast characters who love mithral are going to be a bit peeved.

Specific often over-rides general though.

Example:

Fast Movement (Ex)

A barbarian’s land speed is faster than the norm for his race by +10 feet. This benefit applies only when he is wearing no armor, light armor, or medium armor and not carrying a heavy load. Apply this bonus before modifying the barbarian’s speed because of any load carried or armor worn.

The question is: which specific rule takes precedence ?

Ed: actually that's a bad example because of the last sentence.

[Mystify]

Specific often over-rides general though.

Example:


The question is: which specific rule takes precedence ?

It says it quite specifically. The barbarian speed applies before armor speed, so the armor overrides it.

[Namfuak]

It says it quite specifically. The barbarian speed applies before armor speed, so the armor overrides it.

A better example would be longstrider, which doesn't have any qualification about armor. Also, for whatever reason a dwarf wearing a mithril shirt moves 10 feet faster than usual.

[TuggyNE]

A nonmagical mitrhal shirt (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicArmor.htm#mithralShirt) gives medium creatures a 30 foot speed and small creatures a 20 foot speed. Slow races / builds now have a way around their drawback, though fast characters who love mithral are going to be a bit peeved.

Hmm, at first I thought "what? that's nonsense, clearly that's just repeating the standard rules that absolutely all pieces of armor, mundane or otherwise, have." However, you're right; regular armor has "(30 feet): 30 feet"/"(30 feet): 20 feet" entries, not keyed to size.

What's more, elven chain and mithral full plate of speed also have this problem.

[Shining Wrath]

This has probably been mentioned many times before but I find it hilarious. Technically, I guess as a result of omission, trees are immune to Disintegrate. It can target creatures and nonliving matter. Trees are neither of those things.

OK, so would an awakened tree be likewise immune? Or could you have a druid awaken a tree just so it could be disintegrated?


Even if I turned you into a newt, which I do not at all confess to, surely you got better?

:smallamused:

I have it on good authority that you weigh exactly as much as a Duck with the Dire, Horrid, Warbeast, and Magebred Templates.

[Mystify]

OK, so would an awakened tree be likewise immune? Or could you have a druid awaken a tree just so it could be disintegrated?
An awakened tree would be a creature, and hence vulnerable to the damage.

[tyckspoon]

Hmm, at first I thought "what? that's nonsense, clearly that's just repeating the standard rules that absolutely all pieces of armor, mundane or otherwise, have." However, you're right; regular armor has "(30 feet): 30 feet"/"(30 feet): 20 feet" entries, not keyed to size.

What's more, elven chain and mithral full plate of speed also have this problem.

Fortunately, if you find this quirk undesirable you can simply purchase a chain shirt or suit of chainmail made of mithral instead of the specific items 'Mithral Shirt' and 'Elven Chain'. You will then reference the general rules for how mithral armor works instead of those particular item listings. (Plate of Speed is more problematic, both because you probably want it for the Speed property, and because the specific statement on what your speed is while wearing it negates some of its own benefit from Hasting yourself.)

[nedz]

It says it quite specifically. The barbarian speed applies before armor speed, so the armor overrides it.

Yes, sorry. I realised that as soon as I hit Submit and then edited it immediately.

[georgie_leech]

Inspired by the Pahfinder thread on rule changes, the text for Holding a Charge:


If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the discharge of the spell (hold the charge) indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. (If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack.) If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.


I can't actually find a definition for "touch" in this context, so a valid reading is that touching anything (like the robe you're wearing or those ever-popular shrunken lead hats) discharges the spell uselessly. Maybe a stretch, but not much more than some common exploits. RAW Sillyness goes both ways.

[TuggyNE]

I can't actually find a definition for "touch" in this context, so a valid reading is that touching anything (like the robe you're wearing or those ever-popular shrunken lead hats) discharges the spell uselessly. Maybe a stretch, but not much more than some common exploits. RAW Sillyness goes both ways.

You have to actively try to touch something, but if you touch the wrong thing by mistake, the spell still goes off. So an enemy that touches you, or a robe that's touching you, or a scroll in your off-hand, don't count. This is supported by the fact that touching someone who doesn't want to be touched requires an attack roll, and touching friends is limited by count, like a special sort of free action (which it is).

[noparlpf]

I think that's supposed to happen. Accidentally touching your clothes with Combust and ending up naked and scorched in battle, oops. Although, if you touch your enemy's chest it damages them despite you technically only touching their armor/clothing, instead of doing the damage to their armor/clothing, so maybe you'd hit yourself that way.

[Flickerdart]

More often than not, D&D treats equipment as part of a person, so touching your robes doesn't set it off, but touching someone while wearing a glove would activate it (it's either this or wearing gloves disables all touch spells, which is a bigger dysfunction than not being able to hold a charge properly).

[TuggyNE]

More often than not, D&D treats equipment as part of a person, so touching your robes doesn't set it off, but touching someone while wearing a glove would activate it (it's either this or wearing gloves disables all touch spells, which is a bigger dysfunction than not being able to hold a charge properly).

Well, note that you can, if you like, put magic vestment on your robe. Touch-range.

[Flickerdart]

Well, note that you can, if you like, put magic vestment on your robe. Touch-range.
Magic Vestment is still usable on armour and shields before they are donned.

[TypoNinja]

Magic Vestment is still usable on armour and shields before they are donned.

I was just thinking that D&D's habit of treating your gear like your person for everything means that technically magic vestment has to be cast on something you aren't yet wearing.

Then again there's a bunch of spells that target a weapon that are clearly meant to be used on the spur of the moment, so I'm thinking we have a case of Specific vs General. Says it can target the armor so it does.

[Talderas]

Hmm, at first I thought "what? that's nonsense, clearly that's just repeating the standard rules that absolutely all pieces of armor, mundane or otherwise, have." However, you're right; regular armor has "(30 feet): 30 feet"/"(30 feet): 20 feet" entries, not keyed to size.

What's more, elven chain and mithral full plate of speed also have this problem.

That leads to another armor based dysfunction. The mithril material says that for movement and other limitations, the armor is treated as one size category lighter. Now limitation means restriction so if the weight category of armor would otherwise prevent you doing something the armor is one category lighter. For all other purposes it is still it's normal weight category. This is why movement needs to be called out explicitly since armor applies a penalty to movement rather than preventing it (reduces movement speed to 3/4). Since the non-proficiency isn't a restriction or limitation but rather a penalty assessed, a ranger can wear a mithril breastplate while retaining his combat style. However that mithril breastplate is still medium armor for the purposes of if you are proficient (since proficiencies aren't limitations). So the ranger would take a -1 penalty on all attack rolls while using said mithril breastplate.

RAI is pretty clear on this though and even a table in RotW follows what is RAI though it contradicts the written rules for specific armors. Mithril should cause the armor to be treated as a size category light. The choice of words in RAW belays that.

[Chronos]

Book of Exalted Deeds, from the entry for the Apostle of Peace (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20031004b):


Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Apostles of peace gain no proficiency with any weapon or armor.

As part of their sacred vows, apostles of peace forswear the use of armor, though they may wear magic items that protect them (such as a ring of protection or bracers of armor).
Except that one of the prerequisites for the class is the Vow of Poverty feat, which prohibits the ownership of magic items.

[Talderas]

Book of Exalted Deeds, from the entry for the Apostle of Peace (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20031004b):


Except that one of the prerequisites for the class is the Vow of Poverty feat, which prohibits the ownership of magic items.

VoP only requires that you not own magical items not that you cannot use them.

[mattie_p]

VoP only requires that you not own magical items not that you cannot use them.

That is incorrect.


To fulfill your vow, you must not own or use any material possessions...

You may not use any magic items of any sort...

Your fellow adventurers can use items on you, but they have to be their items and they have to use them.

[Talderas]

That is incorrect.



Your fellow adventurers can use items on you, but they have to be their items and they have to use them.

This is arguable as the text in feat differs from the section in Ch2 discussing Vow of Poverty.


A character who swears a vow of poverty and takes the appropriate feats, Sacred Vow and Vow of Poverty, cannot own magic items, but he gains certain spiritual benefits that can help outweight the lack of those items. These benefits depend on his character level. The level at which the character swears the vow is irrelevant; if he gives up his possessions at 10th level he gains all the benefits of a 10th-level ascetic character, with the exception of bonus feats.

The wording of the feat contradictions the wording used when describing taking vow of poverty and the effects on gains. As this is an entire section dedicated specifically to vow of poverty it would take precedence.

[mattie_p]

This is arguable as the text in feat differs from the section in Ch2 discussing Vow of Poverty.

The wording of the feat contradictions the wording used when describing taking vow of poverty and the effects on gains. As this is an entire section dedicated specifically to vow of poverty it would take precedence.

I don't think it is arguable at all. Had the section on voluntary poverty said something like "You may not own magic items, but you may use them," you would have a case that there would be a contradiction. It does not say that, though. The section is silent on using items. So the feat description is still 100% valid, it just says some things in that area that aren't mentioned in chapter 2, much as chapter 2 says some things the feat doesn't mention.

[TypoNinja]

Book of Exalted Deeds, from the entry for the Apostle of Peace (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20031004b):


Except that one of the prerequisites for the class is the Vow of Poverty feat, which prohibits the ownership of magic items.

Technically violating your Vow of Poverty makes you lose the benefits of the feat, but you still actually have the feat, which would still let you qualify for a PrC with lapsed vows.

[The Viscount]

I'm with mattie p here on vow of poverty. It's likely the writers of apostle of peace simply forgot about vow of peace. This is the book with Intitiate of Pistis Sophia, the class with entry pre-reqs so difficult there are only two means of entry if you want to finish on time.

Darfellan are a race from Stormwrack that are humanoids with the aquatic subtype, or at least they are according to a beginning chapter summary. The race's summary doesn't say type or subtype, so normally we would simply refer to the summary, but Darfellan are also presented in the Monsters section as humanoids with the Darfellan subtype. The Darfellan as in the Monsters section also has a bonus to handle animal checks with whales and other cetaceans, but this is not a bonus present in the racial traits section. Your guess is as good as mine as to whether Darfellan have one, two, or no subtypes.

In other news I trolled through HoH and boy is it dysfunctional. Here's six more problems.

Dread Necromancer has a spell list which includes Fire in the Blood and Oath of Blood, but the spell descriptions do not list them as Dread Necromancer spells.

Corrupt Avenger has a fear aura that renders foes shaken with no duration. A later ability states that enemies become “unnerved” taking -4 to the same things, also with no duration. This was likely intended to be an improvement on the earlier, but it stacks.

Tainted Scholar is based on corruption, but makes no attempts to address that Evil subtype and undead creatures can acquire infinite corruption scores with no penalty, whereas other creatures will eventually be driven "irretrevably mad" which puts them under DM control. (I know this one's well known, but I put it in for the sake of completion.)

Tainted Minion has a fear aura with no duration.

The undead in Heroes of Horror state that they can be resurrected only if willing, which contradicts the resurrection rules, such as the rule requiring destruction.

Unholy Scion gains uses of spell-like abilities before it is even born, but what spell-like abilities it has is dependent on its number of HD, there is no indication of how many HD an unholy scion has as a fetus.

This last bit isn't really dysfunctional, but Dread Witch gains bane and doom as 2nd level spells, which is weird because everybody else gets them as 1st level spells.
Also, Dread Witch's Horrific Aura caps at 6 HD, which like the lich's aura is far too low, as a 5th level Dread Witch is at least of 9th level.

[Qwertystop]

Tainted Scholar is based on corruption, but makes no attempts to address that Evil subtype and undead creatures can acquire infinite corruption scores with no penalty, whereas other creatures will eventually be driven "irretrevably mad" which puts them under DM control. (I know this one's well known, but I put it in for the sake of completion.)

That one's unbalanced, but might not actually be dysfunctional. I mean, one is made of evilness, and the other is powered by negative energy, which is often misinterpreted as inherently evil.

[The Viscount]

I meant the dysfunction is that Tainted Scholar either makes your character infinitely powerful or removed from your control. Taint every time you cast a spell adds up.

[tyckspoon]

I meant the dysfunction is that Tainted Scholar either makes your character infinitely powerful or removed from your control. Taint every time you cast a spell adds up.

It'll generally just make you more powerful (infinitely powerful does require a somewhat disputed reading as to how taint works with Undead and evil-subtyped characters.) Taint is pretty easy to manage, especially when the only thing you're concerned about is not tripping over the 'you're dead/irrevocably crazy' line- the Will save against gaining some when a Tainted Scholar casts a spell is only 10 + Spell level (so max DC 19, on classes with strong Will progressions and an existing incentive in the Taint mechanics to have high Wisdom..), and Depravity can be reduced with Remove Curse spells. So you pump your Will, get a means to make 1 not a failure or invest in a few rerolls, and your Depravity gets fixed at exactly the point you want it to be. Worst-case, you take a day off and fill all your suitable spell slots with Remove Curse and reduce your Depravity score to wherever you want it to be.

Corruption is harder to gain and harder to get rid of (treated with Remove Disease, so you need a divine casting partner), but still not a big problem.. because a mere Wisdom and Con of 14 gives you a maximum taint capacity of 55. You can let your scores ride at 40 (so you get bonus spells like you had a 50 and have save DCs of a measly 30 + spell level) and still have a very comfortable padding before you're anywhere near risk of death/NPCdom.

[Telok]

...Depravity can be reduced with Remove Curse spells. So you...

Corruption is harder to gain and harder to get rid of (treated with Remove Disease, so you...

Remove Curse and Remove Disease are both available as 750gp potions. It's like buying indulgences for poisoning wells and burning down orphanages.

In theory a 1/day command word wondrous item is only 5400 for a third level spell.

[The Viscount]

Interesting. I didn't know depravity was so easily cleansed. My mistake then. Tainted Scholar is just cheesy then, not dysfunctional. The other things from HoH check out though? I'm assuming silence means acceptance.

Two more about dragons.
The Wyvern from MM has a full attack of sting, bite, 2 wings, and 2 talons. Its description states that "A wyvern can slash with its talons only when making a flyby attack." These two are irreconcilable. On a different note, it seems rather bizarre that the wyvern can attack with both talons in a full attack. I guess it jumps really high for a moment, or stands one one leg while attacking with the other.

The Velroc from Dragon Magic has an attack routine of 4 talons (not sure where those are coming from, as the thing only has 2 legs) at 4 different attack bonuses. Improved Rapidstrike would allow this, but the Velroc doesn't have that feat.

[Necroticplague]

The Velroc from Dragon Magic has an attack routine of 4 talons (not sure where those are coming from, as the thing only has 2 legs) at 4 different attack bonuses. Improved Rapidstrike would allow this, but the Velroc doesn't have that feat.

Those two are probably related by the same problem: Dude forgot how exactly natural attacks interacted with BaB. So he gave them some form of iterative, including extra attacks. Or he read the normal rules wrong, and he thought the penalty was cumulative. AFB, so I can't check to see which was the case.

[Chronos]

Not sure if this one has been found yet...

The Master Transmogrifist prestige class, from Complete Arcane. They get a handful of favored shapes, and gain some benefits whenever they use a spell to assume one of those shapes. The abilities state multiple times that Alter Self is one of the spells that can benefit from this ability. But you can't choose a form of your own type for a favored shape, and Alter Self only allows forms of your own type.

[3WhiteFox3]

Interesting. I didn't know depravity was so easily cleansed. My mistake then. Tainted Scholar is just cheesy then, not dysfunctional. The other things from HoH check out though? I'm assuming silence means acceptance.
I would say that the problem is taint in general, taint and undead (as well as the evil subtype) has been a pretty common source of argument of how it works. Not to mention that taint is very poorly explained and really suffered from a need for a good editor.

[Jeff the Green]

I would say that the problem is taint in general, taint and undead (as well as the evil subtype) has been a pretty common source of argument of how it works. Not to mention that taint is very poorly explained and really suffered from a need for a good editor.

It could have been fixed with a single sentence. "In a campaign using the taint rules, Undead and Outsiders with the Evil subtype are inappropriate for player characters."

What do you think is poorly explained? I've been using the rules (with the sentence above added) with no apparent problems in my current PbP campaign. If there are issues, I'd like to know before I run into them.

[Chronos]

Oh, and about those wyverns:


The Wyvern from MM has a full attack of sting, bite, 2 wings, and 2 talons. Its description states that "A wyvern can slash with its talons only when making a flyby attack." These two are irreconcilable. On a different note, it seems rather bizarre that the wyvern can attack with both talons in a full attack. I guess it jumps really high for a moment, or stands one one leg while attacking with the other.
That's not "on a different note": Your first point explains the second. It can't attack with both (or either, even) talon when it's just standing there, only when it's flying, because when it's just standing there it's using its talons to stand on.

[Flickerdart]

Oh, and about those wyverns:


That's not "on a different note": Your first point explains the second. It can't attack with both (or either, even) talon when it's just standing there, only when it's flying, because when it's just standing there it's using its talons to stand on.
But if it's flying, it can't also use its wings to attack.

[Qwertystop]

But if it's flying, it can't also use its wings to attack.

Depends. Assuming it's fairly stable it should be able to whack someone with the corner as it passes. Both is a bit odd, though... does Flyby Attack take up movement? If so you could say it does a tight spiral as it attacks.

[Flickerdart]

Depends. Assuming it's fairly stable it should be able to whack someone with the corner as it passes. Both is a bit odd, though... does Flyby Attack take up movement? If so you could say it does a tight spiral as it attacks.
That's not really an attack, and definitely wouldn't let it use both wings, or for that matter any other natural weapon, at the same time.

[The Viscount]

Not to mention that taint is very poorly explained and really suffered from a need for a good editor.
That sentence applies to quite a lot in HoH, to be honest.

Oh, and about those wyverns:

That's not "on a different note": Your first point explains the second. It can't attack with both (or either, even) talon when it's just standing there, only when it's flying, because when it's just standing there it's using its talons to stand on.

A wyvern cannot make a full attack when flying. It does not have hover or a perfect maneuverability, and flyby attack doesn't allow full attacks.

[TypoNinja]

That sentence applies to quite a lot in HoH, to be honest.


A wyvern cannot make a full attack when flying. It does not have hover or a perfect maneuverability, and flyby attack doesn't allow full attacks.

You can make a full attack while flying, it just takes some planning, and nerves of steel.

If you end your previous movement in melee range, and get your turn before your target goes (or for whatever reason your target doesn't move), you can then full attack at the start of the turn after you moved.

You then fall outta the sky since you didn't move forward far enough. If you had enough height to not pancake you get a DC20 reflex save to recover and resume flying at your new much lower altitude.

This of course leaves aside obvious cheese like belt of battle for extra actions so you actually can full attack and move. Or pounce.

[Sgt. Cookie]

So, according to the BoED, killing a Fiend is always a good act. No ifs, no buts, no exceptions.

Blood War veterans would have killed uncountable numbers of fiends.

[Flickerdart]

So, according to the BoED, killing a Fiend is always a good act. No ifs, no buts, no exceptions.

Blood War veterans would have killed uncountable numbers of fiends.
Why do you think fiends commit such atrocities in their spare time? It's so they don't have to surrender their villain card.

[The Viscount]

Scarlet Corsair's Frightful Lunge allows one to sacrifice 2d6 of sneak attack to render a target shaken. The sacrifice is definitely worth it, as the target is shaken for an indefinite (and thus infinite) amount of time.

[noparlpf]

Seems like an awful lots of abilities forget to give a duration on the shaken condition.

[RogueDM]

When flying, the creature can take a move action (including a dive) and another standard action at any point during the move. The creature cannot take a second move action during a round when it makes a flyby attack. -d20SRD.org

No Full attacks during a Fly-by. Although, yes, I suppose you could perform one whilst flying if you voluntarily "stall".

I will agree, that RAW the wyvern still wouldn't get its talons even in a death defying mid-air stalling full attack. Since it can only use its talons during a Fly-By attack... Assuming that specific excerpt takes precedent over the table which lists the talons under the Full-Attack. It would have been more correct, or perhaps more useful, to state that a wyvern can only use its talons whilst in flight.

Regarding the wing attack idea... while I certainly wouldn't fancy that strategy as a creature relying on my wings for continued flight, I could see it as a valid attack to make as part of a Fly-by. Sort of an airborne shoulder check.

[Zombulian]

You can make a full attack while flying, it just takes some planning, and nerves of steel.

This first sentence got me so excited it didn't matter what came next.

[TypoNinja]

So, according to the BoED, killing a Fiend is always a good act. No ifs, no buts, no exceptions.

Blood War veterans would have killed uncountable numbers of fiends.

Intent matters, or Demon Lords foiling each others plans would have all gone Good anyway :P


So Just noticed because of a separate thread, but in the transition from 3.0 to 3.5 they accidentally left off the limit on the cost of a magic item one may wish for in the Wish spell description. Oops.

You are still stuck eating quite the XP cost, but there are ways around that, and it could be worth it. Actually I'm thinking of doing it in a current game.

[noparlpf]

So Just noticed because of a separate thread, but in the transition from 3.0 to 3.5 they accidentally left off the limit on the cost of a magic item one may wish for in the Wish spell description. Oops.

You are still stuck eating quite the XP cost, but there are ways around that, and it could be worth it. Actually I'm thinking of doing it in a current game.

My copy of the 3.5 PHB limits it to 25k gp.

[TypoNinja]

My copy of the 3.5 PHB limits it to 25k gp.

Mundane items yea, but magic has no limit it just makes you pay the XP cost twice over +5k. Painful, but there are ways to mitigate it, or in some cases straight up worth it. I'll be using this trick next shortly with my Fang Dragon since I happen to have a disgusting amount of Ambrosia laying around.

Our friend the SRD.

Create a nonmagical item of up to 25,000 gp in value.
Create a magic item, or add to the powers of an existing magic item.

[noparlpf]

Mundane items yea, but magic has no limit it just makes you pay the XP cost twice over +5k. Painful, but there are ways to mitigate it, or in some cases straight up worth it. I'll be using this trick next shortly with my Fang Dragon since I happen to have a disgusting amount of Ambrosia laying around.

Our friend the SRD.

Oh, wups, so it does. Wow.

[Lady Serpentine]

Slow either makes you move at half whatever your speed would be with no encumbrances, if you assume 'normal' is base, or it means that, if you assume 'normal' is whatever speed you would move at the time the spell was cast, you can shed all your gear and armor, and still be moving at half what your speed wearing it was.

[TypoNinja]

Slow either makes you move at half whatever your speed would be with no encumbrances, if you assume 'normal' is base, or it means that, if you assume 'normal' is whatever speed you would move at the time the spell was cast, you can shed all your gear and armor, and still be moving at half what your speed wearing it was.

False choice.

Option Three. You could assume that "normal" means "Normal for current conditions" And it works just fine. Have fullplate on, your normal speed is 20, now you move 10. Take it off, your normal speed is 30 now you move 15.

[The Viscount]

Fire Coral from Stormwrack is a poison that makes the victim nauseated, but gives no duration for this, so we have infinite duration nauseated to go with our infinite duration fear.

[TuggyNE]

Fire Coral from Stormwrack is a poison that makes the victim nauseated, but gives no duration for this, so we have infinite duration nauseated to go with our infinite duration fear.

Sliiiick. (No, you don't understand! That's what all real coral does; doctors have to literally get scrolls of panacea to cure people who get stung off Australia or wherever.)

[Flickerdart]

Here's a fun one.

When you cast a web, people in the area need to make a save or be entangled, right? Great. Can you tell me what happens when someone walks into a web after it was cast? :smallconfused:

[TypoNinja]

Here's a fun one.

When you cast a web, people in the area need to make a save or be entangled, right? Great. Can you tell me what happens when someone walks into a web after it was cast? :smallconfused:

The same thing that happens if you make the save, you may move slowly through the area making the appropriate checks, but are not entangled. The spell creates a terrain hazard essentially.

[TuggyNE]

Here's a fun one.

When you cast a web, people in the area need to make a save or be entangled, right? Great. Can you tell me what happens when someone walks into a web after it was cast? :smallconfused:

Hmm. Not sure; they are perhaps caught in the web, which is not defined and presumably refers to being in the area, but aren't necessarily entangled by it. There is no explicit support for "caught" meaning "make a Reflex save to avoid being entangled", although that would be logical enough to assume.

Strictly speaking, also, the spell does not guarantee that newcomers will have trouble moving through it either; it only indicates what happens if you were entangled, or if you avoided/got out of entanglement.

Overall grade: D+.

[Flickerdart]

The same thing that happens if you make the save, you may move slowly through the area making the appropriate checks, but are not entangled. The spell creates a terrain hazard essentially.
The relevant text is "Anyone in the effect’s area when the spell is cast must make a Reflex save. If this save succeeds,.. If the save fails.. Once loose (either by making the initial Reflex save or a later Strength check or Escape Artist check), a creature remains entangled, but may move through the web very slowly. "

The only provisions are for what happens to creatures that were caught in the initial casting. After that, there's nothing to suggest that other creatures are restricted in any way.

[TypoNinja]

The relevant text is "Anyone in the effect’s area when the spell is cast must make a Reflex save. If this save succeeds,.. If the save fails.. Once loose (either by making the initial Reflex save or a later Strength check or Escape Artist check), a creature remains entangled, but may move through the web very slowly. "

The only provisions are for what happens to creatures that were caught in the initial casting. After that, there's nothing to suggest that other creatures are restricted in any way.

I disagree, I think the relevant text are the first words.


Web creates a many-layered mass of strong, sticky strands. These strands trap those caught in them.


Its a conjuration creation effect, you aren't casting and that's it. You are summoning up a large mass of sticky fibers. Entering the area they occupy will require you are effected by results of there being a mass of sticky goo there.

Basically you are trying to assert that walking into the large mass of sticky doesn't count as being "caught" in it.

Which would seem to be an incorrect interpretation since the spell calls out it can be made permanent, which would have no use at all by your logic. Clearly walking in counts as being 'Caught' in it.

[Mystify]

I disagree, I think the relevant text are the first words.



Its a conjuration creation effect, you aren't casting and that's it. You are summoning up a large mass of sticky fibers. Entering the area they occupy will require you are effected by results of there being a mass of sticky goo there.

Basically you are trying to assert that walking into the large mass of sticky doesn't count as being "caught" in it.

Which would seem to be an incorrect interpretation since the spell calls out it can be made permanent, which would have no use at all by your logic. Clearly walking in counts as being 'Caught' in it.
That is what is meant for it to do, that is not what the spell says it does.

[TuggyNE]

Basically you are trying to assert that walking into the large mass of sticky doesn't count as being "caught" in it.

Which would seem to be an incorrect interpretation since the spell calls out it can be made permanent, which would have no use at all by your logic. Clearly walking in counts as being 'Caught' in it.

The thing is, being "caught" in the spell is not specifically defined as being connected to the precise penalties and chance to avoid as the rest of the spell. It's little more than fluff, in other words; it just says "hey dudes, if you get caught in the spell, bad things! oh yeah, and if you were in the spell from the beginning, make a reflex save to avoid getting entangled, or a Str check to get out, and either way, you have to move slower."

It wouldn't be hard to correct the spell text to actually say what it's supposed to, so it's only a minor dysfunction, but it is there.

[TypoNinja]

The thing is, being "caught" in the spell is not specifically defined as being connected to the precise penalties and chance to avoid as the rest of the spell. It's little more than fluff, in other words; it just says "hey dudes, if you get caught in the spell, bad things! oh yeah, and if you were in the spell from the beginning, make a reflex save to avoid getting entangled, or a Str check to get out, and either way, you have to move slower."

It wouldn't be hard to correct the spell text to actually say what it's supposed to, so it's only a minor dysfunction, but it is there.

If you wanna call it a dysfunction I suppose you could, but I think its one of those cases where its only a dysfunction if you go out of your way to make it one, RAI is so blindingly obvious most people won't even notice, hell permanent web traps are pretty common in published adventures. Its why I'm so familiar with the spell, I keep running into the damn things.

Putting one right around a blind corner you expect people to be running around is just plain mean says I!

[Flickerdart]

RAI is so blindingly obvious
Is it? Then tell me - when is the Reflex save made? When you walk in? Because other spells like that - say, Grease - only ask for a save if a creature is standing in it on the caster's turn. Substantiate your reasoning.

[MirddinEmris]

Actually, you can make Ride-By charge attack and move after.


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

Closest space, depending on your position, doesn't have to be right next to your opponent, especially, if you have reach (and lance have). Let's say, that a Paladin Paladinson, Sir Charge-A-Lot have Ride-By Attack, Spirited Charge, he is mounted (for a sake of simplicity let's assume that he is a halfling on a medium mount), wield lance and begins in a C5 square (X). In a E1 there stand poor Mooky McMookerty (O) and it's not his turn. From a description of a Charge action first what our paladin have to do is move to the closest space from which he can attack, which is a C3 square marked by asterisk (remember, that he has a lance - reach weapon), then attack and can continue (per Ride-By Attack feat) straight line of movement up to double that of his mount. He can do that even without reach weapon, though it's more restrictive that way, and do not provoke AoO from target of his charge.

Granted, that you couldn't always move like this, but it's makes it rather situational feat than dysfunctional (wouldn't be the first one for melee guys :) ). Oh, and if you kill your opponent or knocked him out, you could totally move through his square.

{table=head]A|B|C|D|E|F|G
1| | | |O| |
2| | | | | |
3| | * | | | |
4| | | | | |
5| |X| | | |
[/table]


Grapple Colossal creatures get +32 to grapple Fine ones
I don't think that +32 in Colossal vs Fine is dysfunctional, after all, grapple check comes after successful touch attack, which can be very difficult. So, this bonus used after "I've got you!" moment.

What i would call dysfunctional is that attacks keyed of strength and the bigger the monster is, the MORE PRECISE his attacks are (Str bonus grows more quickly that size penalty), so they have no trouble making aforementioned touch attacks.


Antimagic Field Doesn't affect melee attacks made from outside the field, but does affect ranged attacks
Antimagic negating ranged attacks and not melee can be explained through rules about unattended object - projectiles become unattended, so while melee weapon depend on your position (outside AMF), unattended objects depend on their own (inside AMF)


Freedom of Movement Has a somatic component, caster cannot free self

How is that dysfunctional?) Inconvenient - maybe, but being able to cast this spell without somatic components would certainly make casters even more powerful (hello, Heart of Water :smallwink: )

[The Viscount]

I don't think that +32 in Colossal vs Fine is dysfunctional, after all, grapple check comes after successful touch attack, which can be very difficult. So, this bonus used after "I've got you!" moment.

What i would call dysfunctional is that attacks keyed of strength and the bigger the monster is, the MORE PRECISE his attacks are (Str bonus grows more quickly that size penalty), so they have no trouble making aforementioned touch attacks.


Have you ever tried to catch a mosquito with your bare hand? It's very difficult, and that's as a medium creature. As a colossal creature, you couldn't keep a grip on something that small, but the rules say you can. While the fact that bigger monsters have higher strength may make to-hit seem a bit odd, remember that hitting a creature's AC also means punching through armor and penetrating its hide.

[soapdude]

Have you ever tried to catch a mosquito with your bare hand? It's very difficult, and that's as a medium creature. As a colossal creature, you couldn't keep a grip on something that small, but the rules say you can. While the fact that bigger monsters have higher strength may make to-hit seem a bit odd, remember that hitting a creature's AC also means punching through armor and penetrating its hide.

Except grapple takes a touch attack first. You being medium trying to grab a mosquito is tough since the mosquito gets a +8 to its AC. However, if that does succeed, it gets a -16 grapple check to evade, which makes since. It may be difficult to get a hand on the mosquito, but if you do, its very unlikely the mosquito will have a chance to not die.

Same goes (even more so) for Colossal to Fine. Very difficult to land the hit (-8 Attack vs +8 AC, so -16 net on touch attack), but very easy to kill once established (+16 vs -16, so +32 net on grapple check).

[TypoNinja]

Is it? Then tell me - when is the Reflex save made? When you walk in? Because other spells like that - say, Grease - only ask for a save if a creature is standing in it on the caster's turn. Substantiate your reasoning.

It's pretty clear. Here.


Anyone in the effect’s area when the spell is cast must make a Reflex save.

Were you in it at time of casting? Then no save. And no effects related to failing the save.

But if you just walk into it, you take the effects that aren't related to the saving throw, just the persistent effects of impeded terrain. Beacause remember this was Conjuration (Creation) spell. Something was summoned up. Its not magically "A wizard did it, you can't move" there's a big mess on the ground/strung across the walls/whatever. You have to deal with that if you enter its area.

Enough sticky substace was summoned up to immobilize somebody who fails their reflex save, you can't walk through it just because it doesn't specifically forbid you to. You aren't specifically forbidden to set things on fire with your mind either, but you wouldn't seriously claim you have that power without good reason, so why should you also ignore a persistent spell effect?

Anyway.



Each round devoted to moving allows the creature to make a new Strength check or Escape Artist check. The creature moves 5 feet for each full 5 points by which the check result exceeds 10.

What happens to you after you make the save is going to be the same thing that happens if you enter the area later, because there are two conditions to the spell, conditions immediately upon casting, and then its persistent effects. You take one or both as appropriate when in the spells area.

[TuggyNE]

It's pretty clear. Here.



Were you in it at time of casting? Then no save. And no effects related to failing the save.

Wait. Seriously? You're saying "RAI is so blindingly obvious", and then not saying that you get entangled upon walking in unless you succeed on a save?

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and say "RAI is pretty murky". Because, and I kid you not, I had a very clear idea in my mind of what you would likely say, or what I would say if I was DMing this, and that wasn't it.

[MirddinEmris]

Have you ever tried to catch a mosquito with your bare hand? It's very difficult, and that's as a medium creature. As a colossal creature, you couldn't keep a grip on something that small, but the rules say you can.

As a matter of fact, it's one of my favorite part of training) But, that's a touch attack to initiate grapple (in DnD terms), when you catch him, establishing and maintaining the hold isn't so difficult (that's where grapple size modifiers come into play).


While the fact that bigger monsters have higher strength may make to-hit seem a bit odd, remember that hitting a creature's AC also means punching through armor and penetrating its hide

Yes, when it is a punching force, it's pretty easy to imagine, but because of mixing two different thing (hitting and punching through) sometimes rules produce very odd results, and while Colossal creature got -16 net to hit Fine creature, +32 Str (compared to medium creature, from Improving Monsters part) compensate it fully. That's what i call dysfunctional, because the idea was that big creatures are strong, but have troubles to hit, at least it seems to me so with all this size mods to attack/AC

[Malimar]

I'd like to point out that smaller creatures have a bonus to dexterity, just as large creatures have a penalty to strength.

If you take two Medium creatures and (mis)use the Size Increases table to shrink one down to Fine and bloat one up to Colossal: the Colossal one gains +32 str which translates to +16 to his attacks, but he also gets -8 size penalty to attack, so his attacks increase by a total of +8; the Fine one gains +8 size bonus to AC, and +8 to Dexterity which translates to +4 to his AC, so his AC increases by a total of +12. In the end, the Colossal creature will find it a grand total of 4 points more difficult to hit the Fine creature with a melee attack than he would have if they had both remained Medium.

You can certainly argue that this difference isn't as vast as it should be, but it isn't the case that the larger creature finds it easier to hit the smaller one than he would if the size difference didn't exist.

(By my math, it works if you start at the extremes instead of the middle. A Fine creature gains a total of +5 attack if you grow him to Colossal; a Colossal creature shrunk to Fine gains a total of +9 to AC (accounting for natural armor loss). Difference still winds up being the newly-Fine creature is 4 points harder for the newly-Colossal creature to hit than he was before.)

[TypoNinja]

Wait. Seriously? You're saying "RAI is so blindingly obvious", and then not saying that you get entangled upon walking in unless you succeed on a save?

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and say "RAI is pretty murky". Because, and I kid you not, I had a very clear idea in my mind of what you would likely say, or what I would say if I was DMing this, and that wasn't it.

Then you apparently completely misread me. Cause I didn't say that.

Lets try again.

Are you still entangled after making the reflex save? Why yes you are.

Did I say you'd take the effects not related to the saving throw. Why yes I did.

I divided the spell into two parts for ease of understanding.

Part one is being caught in at time of casting. There is a save and extra downsides if you fail.

Part two is walking into to late, because it summoned up something that's still there. There are no saves because its not a surprise, you know what you are walking into. And the effects you suffer would be identical to the listed effects minus the possibility of any of the failed save parts.

What is ambiguous about that?

I feel like your problem is you are looking at the spell text, but ignoring the implication of the blindingly obvious. Its a conjuration creation effect. No the spell doesn't literally say "These sticky fibers persist for 10 minutes/level" but if you have a conjuration creation spell with a duration, it stands to reason the crap you summoned up stays for that duration, and the stuff that got summoned does something.

Summon monster has the same problem if you want to go full pendant on it. By the strictest reading a summoned monster only attacks once no matter how long it lasts because the spell says nothing about what it can do on round two, just its actions immediately upon appearing. But clearly, an attack of common sense dictates that it will still do things as long as its around.

[TuggyNE]

Then you apparently completely misread me. Cause I didn't say that.

Lets try again.

Are you still entangled after making the reflex save? Why yes you are.

Did I say you'd take the effects not related to the saving throw. Why yes I did.

OK, my apologies, I meant "you aren't immobilized on a failed save".

See, I would have expected walking into a web to have a good chance of sticking you in place. Apparently that's not RAI though!

[TypoNinja]

OK, my apologies, I meant "you aren't immobilized on a failed save".

See, I would have expected walking into a web to have a good chance of sticking you in place. Apparently that's not RAI though!

Are you just being deliberately contrary now? Or did you never actually read the spell text?

You are (possibly) stuck upon walking in.



Each round devoted to moving allows the creature to make a new Strength check or Escape Artist check. The creature moves 5 feet for each full 5 points by which the check result exceeds 10.

If you fail these checks you do not move.

[ShurikVch]

Undead templates disfunctions:
Psychic Vampire (LM)
does not have the vampire’s energy drain ability And yet every single psychic vampire from Tarus's Banquet still have it!
Dracolich: to become one, you're don't need to be spellcaster... or dragon!
Level Adjustment: Standard vampire template have LA +8. Sample vampire have LA +5!
Dry lich template have listed LA +5. But the only known way to get it is capstone from PrC Walker in the waste. And templates acquired as CF are LA-free.

[Rhatahema]

Pathfinder, Advanced Race Guide: Defoliant Bomb: When the alchemist creates a bomb, he can choose to have it deal extra damage against plant creatures but less damage against other creatures...This is a poison effect."

The plant type grants immunity to poison, and this discovery makes no note of overcoming that immunity, making it useless against plant creatures.

[Kazyan]

Quadrupeds have a higher carrying capacity...so they can fly with heavier loads, even though those legs do nothing in the air. Probably too corner-casey to have a rule for, but still, wut?

[The Viscount]

I'm probably missing something here, but alter self doesn't seem to have the restrictions on incorporeality and swarm forms that polymorph does. Is this right, or did I fail my comprehension check?

[TypoNinja]

Dracolich: to become one, you're don't need to be spellcaster... or dragon!



Dracolich is an acquired template that can be added to any evil dragon (hereafter referred to as the base creature), though dragons
of old age or older, with spellcasting abilities, are preferred.


Donnou bout your Draconomicon, but mine says you need to be a dragon.


I'm probably missing something here, but alter self doesn't seem to have the restrictions on incorporeality and swarm forms that polymorph does. Is this right, or did I fail my comprehension check?

Alter self requires you to keep the same type, so its pretty limited that way. Incorporeal is its own subtype, and so is swarm.

[Jeff the Green]

Dry lich template have listed LA +5. But the only known way to get it is capstone from PrC Walker in the waste. And templates acquired as CF are LA-free.

As far as I know, that's not RAW.

And that's not the only way to become a Dry Lich. Be an artificer. Use UMD to emulate the Dry Lich class feature of the WitW class to craft the Canopic Jars. Craft a scroll of Command Undead, and use it on a member of the Dusty Conclave. Then force your dry lich slave to help you undergo the sere rite.

Granted, you'll have a bunch of unkillable super liches after you, but you're a Dry Lich without levels in WitW.

[TuggyNE]

Are you just being deliberately contrary now? Or did you never actually read the spell text?

You are (possibly) stuck upon walking in.

Neither, and quite the contrary. I was attempting to point out how, surely, you should be stuck upon walking into a web, but how your stated RAI didn't mention that.


The same thing that happens if you make the save, you may move slowly through the area making the appropriate checks, but are not entangled. The spell creates a terrain hazard essentially.


Were you in it at time of casting? Then no save. And no effects related to failing the save.

But if you just walk into it, you take the effects that aren't related to the saving throw, just the persistent effects of impeded terrain. Beacause remember this was Conjuration (Creation) spell. Something was summoned up. Its not magically "A wizard did it, you can't move" there's a big mess on the ground/strung across the walls/whatever. You have to deal with that if you enter its area.


Then you apparently completely misread me. Cause I didn't say that.

Lets try again.

Are you still entangled after making the reflex save? Why yes you are.

Did I say you'd take the effects not related to the saving throw. Why yes I did.

I divided the spell into two parts for ease of understanding.

Part one is being caught in at time of casting. There is a save and extra downsides if you fail.

Part two is walking into to late, because it summoned up something that's still there. There are no saves because its not a surprise, you know what you are walking into. And the effects you suffer would be identical to the listed effects minus the possibility of any of the failed save parts.

These quotes all say slightly different things, and the first quite explicitly says you aren't entangled if you walk in after the spell is cast. Mind you, I initially confused entangling and immobilization.

RAI is, indeed, quite clear to anyone who cares to take a cursory glance, of course. Who could ever mistake it for anything else unless they were deliberately misreading it for some nefarious purpose?

What I'm getting at is that web is sufficiently confusing to make almost anyone misunderstand and/or misstate its effects on the first and maybe second try. You, me, Flickerdart, whoever. That is not the mark of a spell with clear RAI, and no one who misreads it is necessarily at fault.

<Edit>Oh yeah, almost forgot to put this in:
Creatures caught within a web become entangled among the gluey fibers.</Edit>


I'm probably missing something here, but alter self doesn't seem to have the restrictions on incorporeality and swarm forms that polymorph does. Is this right, or did I fail my comprehension check?

As TypoNinja said, incorporeal and swarm are subtypes; alter self retains all your subtypes and doesn't add any.

[Cheiromancer]

I apologize if this has been mentioned already, but I didn't see any mention of Domain Wizards in the handbook. I discovered today that a Domain Wizard gets a bonus spell slot for every spell level, with no mention of when they get them! So if you are a Domain Wizard you have bonus spell slots up to level 9... or maybe even higher! They even have something to cast in those slots, since they know a spell of every level they can cast, which would be any level that they have a spell slot. The text is as follows:


A domain wizard automatically adds each new domain spell to her list of known spells as soon as she becomes able to cast it....

A domain wizard prepares and casts spells like a normal wizard. However, a domain wizard gains one bonus spell per spell level, which must be filled with the spell from that level of the domain spell list (or with a lower-level domain spell that has been altered with a metamagic feat).

Also, note that an unmodified domain spell cannot be prepared in a higher level spell slot- it must be altered with a metamagic feat. (A smaller level of dysfunction, but still.)

[Andezzar]

And templates acquired as CF are LA-free.Is this an actual rule? Not using it would screw with most template granting classes, but that does not mean that such a sensible rule exists.

[TypoNinja]

entangled/immobile sometimes me fingers and brain don't agree. I can edit the original uses to other words if that makes you feel better, but honestly I think I'm done here.

You are just being a pendant to no purpose going out of your war as far as possible to deliberately misinterpret or misrepresent what I'm saying. I don't see any productive outcomes from continuing to waste my time on you.

Just about every rule in D&D is dysfunctional if you try hard enough to ignore common sense, but applying even the tiniest amount solves most problems.

As I've mentioned several times, which you never bothered to address. Its a Creation effect. It made something. Why would you default to assuming that the something it made does nothing?

[Mystify]

When the rules don't say what it means, it is dysfunctional, even if RAI is clear.

[TuggyNE]

Just about every rule in D&D is dysfunctional if you try hard enough to ignore common sense, but applying even the tiniest amount solves most problems.

That's what I would have thought, but since both you and I have at least some common sense, and since neither of us actually got it right the first try (or even necessarily the second), and since it's still not quite clear whether it should be possible to get immobilized by a web if you run into it at full speed or something… I don't think this is one where common sense is trivial enough to just ignore the dysfunction. It actually requires a fair bit of thought to resolve properly, and you just about have to draw a table or something to follow the logic.


As I've mentioned several times, which you never bothered to address. Its a Creation effect. It made something. Why would you default to assuming that the something it made does nothing?

Of course. Of course it does something, of course it sticks around, of course it entangles, of course it immobilizes — what's that, you say it doesn't? Hang on, where are we again?

I'm not denying it's a useful spell, or saying that it's tremendously impractical to figure out (mostly) what it does in practice, but the actual text could be a whole lot clearer, and perhaps its effect could be adjusted to make more sense as well. The amount of confusion generated in this discussion proves my point*.


*Well, unless you assume bad faith on the part of those you disagree with, which is kind of uncool.