Dysfunctional Rules IV- It's like a sandwich made of RAW failure! [Archive]

The Viscount

2013-09-23, 02:18 AM

Though of course if you use your rebuke undead granted by Tenebrous, some might say you cease to qualify for 5 rounds. Also, using Tenebrous' rebuke would cause problems when you tried to use destroy/empower undead. It requires 2 rebuke attempts, which it's very unclear if Tenebrous' rebuke lets you supply at once. If not, then that's an ability you can't use. If so, then that means you can use Tenebrous' rebuke with divine metamagic and spend an arbitrarily high number of turn attempts to pump a spell up with all sorts of things.

The Disease (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#disease) entry in the DMG is wrong about mummy rot on two counts. It lists the incubation period as 1 day and the damage as 1d6 Con instead of the 1 minute and 1d6 Con and Cha that are the true properties.

TuggyNE

2013-09-23, 02:55 AM

The Disease (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#disease) entry in the DMG is wrong about mummy rot on two counts. It lists the incubation period as 1 day and the damage as 1d6 Con instead of the 1 minute and 1d6 Con and Cha that are the true properties.

Clearly natural mummy rot is less dangerous than that spread by mummies.

Kazyan

2013-09-23, 06:08 AM

Those complications are just a symptom of the dysfunction. You shouldn't be able to accidentally the prestige class in the first place.

Hamste

2013-09-23, 06:14 AM

Not sure, if this was mentioned before but... shadow creatures from shadow conjuration are mentioned to do only 1/5th damage then it says any special abilities that do anything other than lethal damage has a 1/5th chance to work. This means non-lethal damage and ability damage do 1/5th damage and have an 80% chance of not working. It's also possible (probably) for disbelieving to increase the conjuration's defence if it's dexterity is in the negative modifier range

NeoPhoenix0

2013-09-23, 10:27 AM

Though of course if you use your rebuke undead granted by Tenebrous, some might say you cease to qualify for 5 rounds...

I have a question for those people, Do clerics cease to qualify for certain prestige classes for the rest of the day when they run out of turn/rebuke attempts?

Fax Celestis

2013-09-23, 10:47 AM

Sort of got lost in the mishmash last thread, but:

You can fight with two weapons with no penalties without the TWF feat. You only take the penalties for TWFing when you gain extra attacks from wielding two weapons. BUT you still take penalties for wielding a weapon in your off-hand, despite handedness not being a thing.

Relevant ancient thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-32753.html)

Roguenewb

2013-09-23, 11:00 AM

I have a question for those people, Do clerics cease to qualify for certain prestige classes for the rest of the day when they run out of turn/rebuke attempts?

Don't dig yourself into the morass that is gaining and losing pre-reqs for prestige classes. It never makes sense except in the absolute simplest cases, like losing an alignment. It's always wierd, and people like to bring it up cause it seems strange and attractively odd.

Fax Celestis

2013-09-23, 11:02 AM

Don't dig yourself into the morass that is gaining and losing pre-reqs for prestige classes. It never makes sense except in the absolute simplest cases, like losing an alignment. It's always wierd, and people like to bring it up cause it seems strange and attractively odd.

Having zero uses of an ability is not the same thing as not having an ability. You can still use Turn Undead when you are out of daily uses: you just need to rest for a while before you can. Not having the ability, however: no amount of rest will allow you to recover the ability.

Mathematically, it's the difference between 0 and Ø.

NeoPhoenix0

2013-09-23, 11:07 AM

Having zero uses of an ability is not the same thing as not having an ability. You can still use Turn Undead when you are out of daily uses: you just need to rest for a while before you can. Not having the ability, however: no amount of rest will allow you to recover the ability.

Mathematically, it's the difference between 0 and Ø.

Then Tenebrous binders are OK because they still have the ability they just aren't allowed to use it for 5 rounds.

nedz

2013-09-23, 11:13 AM

Fax Celestis

2013-09-23, 11:18 AM

How/When do you designate which hand is your off hand ?

Can you re-designate this just prior to each attack ?

According to the RotG games articles, you can redesignate your handedness once per round.

Off Hand, Off-Hand Weapon: When attacking with two weapons, the character must designate one of his hands as his off hand; the weapon held in that hand is treated as his off-hand weapon. The game rules don’t really care about whether you’re right-handed or left-handed, and it’s even OK to change your off hand designation from one round to the next.

The Viscount

2013-09-23, 11:30 AM

Clearly natural mummy rot is less dangerous than that spread by mummies.

Made even better by the fact that mummies are the only way to get mummy rot.

EDIT: Speaking of disease bearing undead, the plague blight forces you to make a save or be nauseated, with no duration.

bekeleven

2013-09-23, 02:40 PM

According to the RotG games articles, you can redesignate your handedness once per round.

Which is very good to remember, when wielding a whip-dagger in one hand and a melee weapon in the other. Armor spikes are just a pain.

nedz

2013-09-23, 03:25 PM

According to the RotG games articles, you can redesignate your handedness once per round.

Hilarious, but that's not rules though is it ?

Fax Celestis

2013-09-23, 03:36 PM

Hilarious, but that's not rules though is it ?

Show me where there's rules in the SRD about designating your handedness.

nedz

2013-09-23, 05:04 PM

Show me where there's rules in the SRD about designating your handedness.

There isn't — we both know this.

There is just the off hand penalty under the TWF rules.

But you're missing my point:
Are the RotG articles RAW ?

Fax Celestis

2013-09-23, 05:24 PM

We can't pick and choose on articles. Either WotC-site articles aren't RAW (which means no footsteps of the divine, psychic rogue, psychic assassin, Zceryll, etc.), or they are (and we use RotG articles).

Chronos

2013-09-23, 05:56 PM

Sure we can. Articles which provide new content are the rules for that content. The Rules of the Game articles, though, are just interpretations of the existing rules, and are no more authoritative than (and usually less reliable than) the Simple Q&A thread here.

JaronK

2013-09-23, 07:12 PM

Those articles, though, are actual RAI. I think that's very valuable.

JaronK

The Viscount

2013-09-23, 11:59 PM

mattie_p

2013-09-24, 12:03 AM

The Viscount

2013-09-24, 01:31 PM

Thrall of Orcus' death touch, which is actually what brought this up. I took the fact that nobody answered it to mean that there wasn't one, but it could be tucked away somewhere.

The Random NPC

2013-09-24, 02:04 PM

I think there may be a dysfunction with some classes that present abilities as SLAs when they don't specify which spell they mimic. The problem is, I can't tell you what the DC is to cast them defensively. I'm not sure there's a rule for it. It could just be my searching has failed me.

There's a general rule when that happens, it starts with wizard/sorcerer, but I can't remember where it is, or what the order is.

EDIT: Here it is (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm)

If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order.
EDIT 2: My interwebz searches says that that isn't a real spell, so disregard.
EDIT 3: According to Skip Williams in his article All About Spell-like Abilities (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040427a) you find a spell similar to the effect and use that for the level.

NeoPhoenix0

2013-09-24, 11:58 PM

A_S

2013-09-25, 12:05 AM

I may be a bit premature in posting this here, but someone asked an interesting question about spellguard rings from Complete Mage. The rings work as a pair, the caster wears one and someone else wears another. It is a free action for the caster to activate it. The bearer of the other ring is immune to spells the caster casts for the next round. the caster can activate the rings three times per day.

The weird part comes in when the other guy is immune to spells like solid fog or grease. This is probably best turned into infinite spell resistance, like what golems have. Immunity to spells just gets weird.
Already covered by the definition of spell immunity; essentially, you can't become immune to SR:no spells. SRD quote (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm):

Spell Immunity
A creature with spell immunity avoids the effects of spells and spell-like abilities that directly affect it. This works exactly like spell resistance, except that it cannot be overcome. Sometimes spell immunity is conditional or applies to only spells of a certain kind or level. Spells that do not allow spell resistance are not affected by spell immunity.

Harrow

2013-09-25, 12:08 AM

There's a general rule when that happens, it starts with wizard/sorcerer, but I can't remember where it is, or what the order is.

EDIT: Here it is (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm)

EDIT 2: My interwebz searches says that that isn't a real spell, so disregard.
EDIT 3: According to Skip Williams in his article All About Spell-like Abilities (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040427a) you find a spell similar to the effect and use that for the level.

That article is also in direct contradiction of RAW. He uses the Paladin's special mount as an example, saying it's basically the 1st level spell mount. First of all, this is very much wrong, a paladin's mount is much stronger, probably closer to Phantom Steed. Second of all, the Paladin's mount spell-like actually has a defined spell level :

"This ability is the equivalent of a spell of a level equal to one-third the paladin’s level."

Not to say what the article is saying is wrong, it's good advice, that implementation was just bad. I found this out while trying to figure out what level to treat the Spell-like abilities of an Acolyte of the Ego.

NeoPhoenix0

2013-09-25, 12:15 AM

Already covered by the definition of spell immunity; essentially, you can't become immune to SR:no spells. SRD quote (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm):

Yeah that is how it should work, but it doesn't say it confers spell immunity. It says:

When the rings are activated, the wearer of the bronze ring becomes immune to any spell cast by the wearer of the gold ring, as long as that spell is cast within 1 round.

The spell immunity special ability is never referenced. Good reference for a good houserule though.

A_S

2013-09-25, 12:17 AM

The spell immunity special ability is never referenced. Good reference for a good houserule though.
Hmmm...I've always considered "become immune to a spell" to be the same thing as "gain spell immunity vs. a spell," i.e., anything that uses any form of the word "immune" inherits the stuff about spell immunity.

You're right that that's iffy, though, since the Spell Immunity description is under creature abilities, not somewhere where it's obviously saying "this is what it means to be immune to a spell in D&D."

NeoPhoenix0

2013-09-25, 12:20 AM

That's why they had to change the spell immunity ability to what it is now. It wasn't easy to use before.

Chronos

2013-09-25, 10:00 PM

NeoPhoenix0

2013-09-25, 10:23 PM

The Ghost Touch weapon property won't actually let the weapon touch a ghost. Ghost Touch just bypasses incorporeality, but ghosts are normally also ethereal, and Ghost Touch doesn't do anything about ethereal.

Most people can't even find an ethereal ghost, let alone try to hit it. I'm pretty sure it was designed to hit a manifested ghost.

bekeleven

2013-09-25, 11:33 PM

Likely mentioned before, but in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=305511) people discuss how some abilities on aquatic animals (such as the octopus's ink cloud and jet abilities) don't specify that they are restricted to water. The context of this was octopi lycanthrope PCs gaining the abilities.

NeoPhoenix0

2013-09-26, 12:25 AM

So, theoretically a whale, despite not having a land speed, can use a full round action to move 5 ft on land. They don't die when outside the water. They just need some food and water like any other creature. So train your very own land whale.

Edit: Also, the sea snake familiar option in stormwrack doesn't specify a size. Since the sea snake uses a modified viper stat block, I would assume that it was supposed to be tiny.

Sith_Happens

2013-09-26, 02:42 AM

Not a dysfunction with the rule itself, but with the truly maddening amounts of bookkeeping and/or math it can easily end up taking to actually use it as written:

Once per round, a random object within 20 feet of a ravid animates as though by the spell animate objects (caster level 20th). These objects defend the ravid to the best of their ability, but the ravid isn’t intelligent enough to employ elaborate tactics with them.

There are easily over 100 distinct objects in the ~10x10x10ft room from which I'm writing this. Sure, many of them would be functionally identical to each other as Animated Objects, but I'd still have to know how many and construct an entire percentage table based on that.:smalleek:

TuggyNE

2013-09-26, 03:53 AM

So, theoretically a whale, despite not having a land speed, can use a full round action to move 5 ft on land. They don't die when outside the water. They just need some food and water like any other creature. So train your very own land whale.

To go with your land shark (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/bulette.htm), of course.

Fax Celestis

2013-09-26, 08:52 AM

The Ghost Touch weapon property won't actually let the weapon touch a ghost. Ghost Touch just bypasses incorporeality, but ghosts are normally also ethereal, and Ghost Touch doesn't do anything about ethereal.

Irrelevant. The only time a ghost would be using a ghost touch weapon would be when it is manifesting.

Manifestation (Su)

Every ghost has this ability. A ghost dwells on the Ethereal Plane and, as an ethereal creature, it cannot affect or be affected by anything in the material world. When a ghost manifests, it partly enters the Material Plane and becomes visible but incorporeal on the Material Plane. A manifested ghost can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons, or spells, with a 50% chance to ignore any damage from a corporeal source. A manifested ghost can pass through solid objects at will, and its own attacks pass through armor. A manifested ghost always moves silently. A manifested ghost can strike with its touch attack or with a ghost touch weapon (see Ghostly Equipment, below). A manifested ghost remains partially on the Ethereal Plane, where is it not incorporeal. A manifested ghost can be attacked by opponents on either the Material Plane or the Ethereal Plane. The ghost’s incorporeality helps protect it from foes on the Material Plane, but not from foes on the Ethereal Plane.

When a spellcasting ghost is not manifested and is on the Ethereal Plane, its spells cannot affect targets on the Material Plane, but they work normally against ethereal targets. When a spellcasting ghost manifests, its spells continue to affect ethereal targets and can affect targets on the Material Plane normally unless the spells rely on touch. A manifested ghost’s touch spells don’t work on nonethereal targets.

A ghost has two home planes, the Material Plane and the Ethereal Plane. It is not considered extraplanar when on either of these planes.

Darrin

2013-09-26, 09:43 AM

Show me where there's rules in the SRD about designating your handedness.

PHB p. 143:

"If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first."

Granted, this doesn't really say that you're designating which weapon is primary or that you can switch whenever you like, but I interpret this to mean that whenever you make an iterative attack, you can choose any weapon that you have readed to attack.

There is an argument that whenever you hold a second weapon in your other hand, you automatically incur TWF penalties because you are now "wielding" two weapons, even if you don't choose to make any attacks with your second weapon. Gwendol has championed this argument many times, and although hardly anyone agrees with him, there is no clear indication from RAW that he's wrong.

As far as Rules of the Game goes, most folks consider those at the same level of authoriy as the FAQ (which is mostly Skip's Sage rulings anyway): advice/suggestions on RAI, but not RAW or Official Errata.

Chronos

2013-09-26, 09:51 AM

I'm not talking about a ghost using it. I'm talking about using it against a ghost.

Incidentally, the Ethereal Reaver weapon property from MIC also doesn't let you hit ethereal, despite it being right there in the name.

Fax Celestis

2013-09-26, 09:57 AM

PHB p. 143:

"If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first."

Granted, this doesn't really say that you're designating which weapon is primary or that you can switch whenever you like, but I interpret this to mean that whenever you make an iterative attack, you can choose any weapon that you have readed to attack.

There is an argument that whenever you hold a second weapon in your other hand, you automatically incur TWF penalties because you are now "wielding" two weapons, even if you don't choose to make any attacks with your second weapon. Gwendol has championed this argument many times, and although hardly anyone agrees with him, there is no clear indication from RAW that he's wrong.

As far as Rules of the Game goes, most folks consider those at the same level of authoriy as the FAQ (which is mostly Skip's Sage rulings anyway): advice/suggestions on RAI, but not RAW or Official Errata.

As I quoted earlier in the thread, you only incur TWF penalties when you gain extra attacks from fighting with two or more weapons. It's very clear.

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways:

I'm not talking about a ghost using it. I'm talking about using it against a ghost.

Incidentally, the Ethereal Reaver weapon property from MIC also doesn't let you hit ethereal, despite it being right there in the name.

And when a ghost manifests it becomes material and incorporeal, and ethereal. It's coexistent, and as such it is subject to ethereal-only effects as well as material effects that can strike incorporeal creatures.

Darrin

2013-09-26, 10:29 AM

As I quoted earlier in the thread, you only incur TWF penalties when you gain extra attacks from fighting with two or more weapons. It's very clear.

Clear as mud, yes. (I got this one, Gwendol.)

PHB p. 160:

"If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. Fighting in this way is very hard, however, and you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand."
(emphasis added)

Can is not must. The other issue is "wield" is not explicitly defined in the rules. If you define it as holding a weapon in your hand so it is ready to attack, then any time you hold a weapon in your right hand and a second weapon in your left hand, you incur TWF penalties even though you may have chosen not to get an extra attack. This has been thoroughly argued back and forth before, to no definitive conclusion (or I should say, we haven't managed to convince Gwendol that he's wrong yet).

I actually disagree with Gwendol, but I can't say that the *rules* disagree with him. It can be interpretted that way, and I see no clear indication from the rules that my way or his way is the intended interpretation.

Fax Celestis

2013-09-26, 10:37 AM

Clear as mud, yes. (I got this one, Gwendol.)

PHB p. 160:

"If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. Fighting in this way is very hard, however, and you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand."
(emphasis added)The implication is that if you get an extra attack, you take a penalty. This is supported with two-weapon-fighting-esque feats like Snap Kick and Rapid Shot--get an extra attack, take a -2 penalty.

I actually disagree with Gwendol, but I can't say that the *rules* disagree with him. It can be interpretted that way, and I see no clear indication from the rules that my way or his way is the intended interpretation.
Granted.

Darrin

2013-09-26, 10:53 AM

The implication is that if you get an extra attack, you take a penalty. This is supported with two-weapon-fighting-esque feats like Snap Kick and Rapid Shot--get an extra attack, take a -2 penalty.

Implication is not RAW.

There may be another rules dysfunction with TWF (as explained by Emperor Tippy (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15494294&postcount=32)), but it was "fixed" in the Rules Compendium. By RAW, there's an argument that the text from the TWF feat is an exception to the "you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks" rule on page 143 of the PHB. As in, specific trumps general. Thus, taking the TWF feat allows a primary + offhand attack as a standard action. However, Tippy is the only one I've ever seen make this argument.

The Viscount

2013-09-27, 02:36 PM

As if you needed any more reason not to mess with the Elemental Weirds, they all have regeneration 10, but their entries don't list what overcomes said regeneration, so I suppose nothing does.

TuggyNE

2013-09-27, 06:36 PM

As if you needed any more reason not to mess with the Elemental Weirds, they all have regeneration 10, but their entries don't list what overcomes said regeneration, so I suppose nothing does.

How about being hit with a Tarrasque? :smalltongue:

3WhiteFox3

2013-09-27, 10:35 PM

As if you needed any more reason not to mess with the Elemental Weirds, they all have regeneration 10, but their entries don't list what overcomes said regeneration, so I suppose nothing does.

Trollbane would still work. It only cares if you have regeneration, not if it can be normally surpassed by anything or not.

TuggyNE

2013-09-28, 02:42 AM

Trollbane would still work. It only cares if you have regeneration, not if it can be normally surpassed by anything or not.

But isn't it at least vaguely poison-ish? The weirds should (if I'm not completely off-base) be immune to it on that basis.

NeoPhoenix0

2013-09-28, 10:03 AM

But isn't it at least vaguely poison-ish? The weirds should (if I'm not completely off-base) be immune to it on that basis.

It functions as an injury poison, and doesn't say poison immunity doesn't work. So poison immunity will stop trollbane.

Although there is some weirdness there as it only has an initial effect and doesn't require a save. BY RAW I still say trollbane doesn't work on things immune to poison.

3WhiteFox3

2013-09-28, 10:06 AM

But isn't it at least vaguely poison-ish? The weirds should (if I'm not completely off-base) be immune to it on that basis.

I'm honestly not sure. It kind of acts like a poison, but it also doesn't. I believe it's listed as an alchemical item. I'm afb unfortunately, so I can't check right now.

NeoPhoenix0

2013-09-28, 10:34 AM

Trollbane is in the alchemical substance section, but it "functions as an injury poison". For reference trollbane is the most un-injury-poison like injury poison. It doesn't actually require you to do damage, you just have to hit forcefully with a piercing or slashing weapon. It also has no save or secondary effect.

nedz

2013-09-28, 02:22 PM

Were-Rats are invalid Lycanthropes

This animal can be any predator, scavenger, or omnivore whose size is within one size category of the base creature’s size (Small, Medium, or Large for a Medium base creature). Lycanthropes can also adopt a hybrid shape that combines features of the base creature and the base animal. A lycanthrope’s hybrid form is the same size as the base animal or the base creature, whichever is larger.

Humans are Medium, Rats are Tiny.

mattie_p

2013-09-28, 02:38 PM

Were-Rats are invalid Lycanthropes

Humans are Medium, Rats are Tiny.

Sorry, I cross-posted in the lycanthrope thread.

This is not [a dysfunction]. The were-rat lycanthrope form (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lycanthrope.htm#wererat) specifies it is a Dire-rat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/direRat.htm), which is size small (and combined with a medium human).

nedz

2013-09-28, 02:57 PM

Sorry, I cross-posted in the lycanthrope thread.

My fault for jumping the gun here then :smallsmile:

fluke1993

2013-09-28, 04:42 PM

Nah, you can still make a were-rat halfling.

Drelua

2013-09-28, 04:58 PM

Here's a good one I just noticed from the Pathfinder Fighter archetype Armor Master:

Deflective Shield (Ex)

At 2nd level, an armor master specializes in using his shield to deflect attacks. He gains a +1 bonus to his touch AC, and this bonus increases for every four levels beyond 2nd (to a maximum of +6 at 20th level); however, this bonus cannot exceed the sum of the armor and enhancement bonus to AC provided by the shield that the armor master is currently carrying.

Of course, shields provide a shield bonus, not an armor bonus. So this ability is limited by the enhancement bonus on your shield, meaning you can never get the full +6 at level 20. The intent is at least clear, but still.

ShurikVch

2013-09-28, 06:52 PM

Winter werewolves are invalid Lycanthropes
Winter wolf is not an animal, but a magical beast

Chronos

2013-09-28, 09:08 PM

Is there any claim otherwise? Because if we're just listing all of the things that make for invalid lycanthropes, we could be here for quite a while.

Ksheep

2013-09-28, 09:20 PM

Winter werewolves are invalid Lycanthropes
Winter wolf is not an animal, but a magical beast

Isn't Winter Werewolf from Dungeon Magazine? Doesn't that put it on kinda shaky ground to begin with? Also, looks like it was from one of the 3.0 issues, not 3.5… was Winter Wolf a magical beast in 3.0? Did lycanthropes have to be animals in 3.0, or were magical beasts allowed?

NeoPhoenix0

2013-09-28, 10:31 PM

Aren't all the were creatures with stat blocks automatically valid because they are specific were creatures, and specific trumps general?

TiaC

2013-09-28, 11:28 PM

Isn't Winter Werewolf from Dungeon Magazine? Doesn't that put it on kinda shaky ground to begin with? Also, looks like it was from one of the 3.0 issues, not 3.5…*was Winter Wolf a magical beast in 3.0? Did lycanthropes have to be animals in 3.0, or were magical beasts allowed?

I think it wasn't a generalized template in 3.0. You couldn't just make a new lycanthrope out of any animal so there weren't any rules restricting valid animal bases.

Venger

2013-09-28, 11:40 PM

Isn't Winter Werewolf from Dungeon Magazine? Doesn't that put it on kinda shaky ground to begin with? Also, looks like it was from one of the 3.0 issues, not 3.5…*was Winter Wolf a magical beast in 3.0? Did lycanthropes have to be animals in 3.0, or were magical beasts allowed?

i think winter wolf had the ill-thought out "beast" type back in 3.0 which used to be valid lycanthrope bases iirc

Curmudgeon

2013-09-29, 12:25 AM

Though of course if you use your rebuke undead granted by Tenebrous, some might say you cease to qualify for 5 rounds.
Well, some people are wrong. Tome of Magic doesn't have any rules stipulating that you lose prestige class abilities if you no longer have the entry requirements after entry. Neither does the Dungeon Master's Guide, which is the primary source for prestige classes. Nor does the Player's Handbook, which has the basic rules for playing the game. If you lose the entry requirement for most (non-CW, non-CA) PrCs, you just can't enter into them again when you gain extra levels.

There are a couple of books which have rules about continuously maintaining prestige class entry requirements: Complete Warrior and Complete Arcane. Those two rules are substantially different. The proper scope of each rule is just the prestige classes in that book.

Context is important.

ShurikVch

2013-09-29, 01:35 PM

CURSE OF PAIN ETERNAL (Dr#300) Duration: 10 minutes/level

Anthropomorphic animals.
Changes of size make crazy things with basic animal stats:
Strength go through the roof as creature increased in size (or drop as stone if size decreasing). As result, anthropomorphic eagle or albatross is much stronger (Str +4) than, say, anthropomorphic donkey (Str +0).
Dexterity, on the other hand, quickly increased with decreasing of size. This lead to the situation when anthropomorphic elephant is exactly as dexterous as anthropomorphic rat (Dex +2).
Also, table A-58. Numbers are wildly inaccurate. Anthropomorphic heavy horse Str -4? O RLY?

Isn't Winter Werewolf from Dungeon Magazine? Yes.

Also, looks like it was from one of the 3.0 issues, not 3.5… was Winter Wolf a magical beast in 3.0? Yes.

Did lycanthropes have to be animals in 3.0, or were magical beasts allowed?
... The lycanthrope take on the characteristics of some type of carnivorous animal (referred to hereafter as "animal"). This can be any predator between the size of a small dog and a large bear.

The Viscount

2013-10-01, 07:38 PM

This one's only sort of dysfunctional, but it's quite irritating.

Changelings can use their minor change shape to disguise with a +10 bonus. However, because they basically always disguise themselves as other races, they take a -2 penalty, and a further -2 penalty if they emulate a different sex, despite the numerous mentions of changelings being fully able to choose their sex. That +10 is rather misleading.

TiaC

2013-10-02, 06:40 AM

The pathfinder feat Escape route makes you immune to AoOs from movement.
Benefit: An ally who also has this feat provokes no attacks of opportunity for moving through squares adjacent to you or within your space. Since you are your own ally, no movement provokes.

The Random NPC

2013-10-02, 09:59 AM

The pathfinder feat Escape route makes you immune to AoOs from movement. Since you are your own ally, no movement provokes.

There's a fix for that, you aren't your own ally when it doesn't make sense. Which, I think, is a stupid fix, as it leads to questions like how many people are needed to make Gang Up work.

TiaC

2013-10-02, 02:33 PM

There's a fix for that, you aren't your own ally when it doesn't make sense. Which, I think, is a stupid fix, as it leads to questions like how many people are needed to make Gang Up work.

I checked, the fix is "you are your own ally except for when you aren't" which is useless. Would it kill them to have an editor make the word be used consistently? It's White Raven Tactics all over again.

Lord_Gareth

2013-10-02, 05:35 PM

The Random NPC

2013-10-02, 08:56 PM

The actual fix should be to word the feat, "Benefit: Allies (other than you) who also have this feat provokes no attacks of opportunity for moving through squares adjacent to you or within your space."

Yeah, but it's supposed to be a general fix for every instance with the word ally in it. The problem is that for some of the feats you are allowed to count yourself as an ally.

Lord_Gareth

2013-10-02, 08:58 PM

Yeah, but it's supposed to be a general fix for every instance with the word ally in it. The problem is that for some of the feats you are allowed to count yourself as an ally.

Eh, I'm not sure 'ally' is the problem. Legend has the hardline rule that you're always your own ally but manages to do feats and abilities that only affect other allies just fine.

TuggyNE

2013-10-02, 09:38 PM

Yeah, but it's supposed to be a general fix for every instance with the word ally in it. The problem is that for some of the feats you are allowed to count yourself as an ally.

Attempting to fix broad confusion of terms by fiating a single general rule without attempting to examine individual cases is almost always doomed to fail, and will usually make things worse.

The Random NPC

2013-10-03, 12:44 AM

Eh, I'm not sure 'ally' is the problem. Legend has the hardline rule that you're always your own ally but manages to do feats and abilities that only affect other allies just fine.

I guess it's more the arbitrariness of the application that really annoys me. Pazio's sense of what makes sense is very different from my own.

Story

2013-10-05, 10:21 AM

Fax Celestis

2013-10-05, 10:35 AM

Andezzar

2013-10-05, 10:58 AM

Permanently turn any creature into a tiny elemental as a 3rd level spell? How OP is that?It still costs 500xp per creature. At level 5 that is still substantial. At high levels not so much. Additionally the target gets a saving throw and SR.

Fax Celestis's fix woudl do it of course.

Gemini476

2013-10-05, 12:39 PM

It still costs 500xp per creature. At level 5 that is still substantial. At high levels not so much. Additionally the target gets a saving throw and SR.

Fax Celestis's fix woudl do it of course.

It's basically Baleful Polymorph except two levels lower with a 500xp cost.

...I'm not entirely sure, but wouldn't that actually be somewhat useful in some cases? I think you'd keep your class levels and such while it just changed your race, and if you take the ability array rather than racial modifiers it's probably worse, but couldn't you get a bunch of neat abilities from that?

It's a weird dysfunction, but I'm not so sure that it's that bad in practice? It's definitely not RAI, though.

bekeleven

2013-10-05, 03:59 PM

In addition to the XP cost, you must have a familiar to cast it, and you permanently lose its ability. Read (formatting mine):

You lose any special ability the familiar previously granted to you (such as the +2 bonus to Move Silently checks bestowed by a cat familiar). However, you gain a replacement special ability, depending on the type of elemental your familiar becomes:

Telok

2013-10-06, 01:25 AM

I know casters and rogues who would happily cast that on thenselves. "Stuff that plus two to stealth from the cat! I'm getting size bonuses, flight, natural armor, and a dex boost!"

It's not quite a rule but the Bearskin Armor (Magic Item Comp p.16) is meant for druids.

Shaggy black fur, like that
of a great bear, covers this
metal breastplate...

...The special properties of a suit of bear
skin armor function normally while you
are in wild shape (although it does not
grant its armor bonus to AC).
Prerequisites: Craft Magic Arms and
Armor, bear's endurance, wild shape.

Except of course, druid (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/druid.htm).

A druid who wears prohibited (metal) armor or carries a prohibited shield is unable to cast druid spells or use any of her supernatural or spell-like class abilities while doing so and for 24 hours thereafter.

Sith_Happens

2013-10-06, 01:36 AM

I know casters and rogues who would happily cast that on thenselves. "Stuff that plus two to stealth from the cat! I'm getting size bonuses, flight, natural armor, and a dex boost!

Actually, it looks like the spell turns any target into a completely ordinary Tiny Elemental. But hey, if you think those racial abilities are worth all your class levels then go right ahead.:smalltongue:

Fax Celestis

2013-10-06, 08:37 AM

Was looking at PHB-II today and realized some of the spell schools are pretty funky.

Condemnation stuns and lowers the spell resistance of an outsider...and is Abjuration?
Explosive rune field is basically AoE explosive runes (an Abjuration [Force] spell), and is...Conjuration (Fire). Not Conjuration [Fire], mind you, but Conjuration (Fire).
Both sonic shield and thunder field are missing the [Sonic] descriptor.
Vertigo field, the upgraded AoE version of vertigo, manages to not only change from Illusion (Phantasm) to Illusion (Pattern) inexplicably, but also drops the [Fear, Mind-Affecting] descriptors. Feel free to give zombies seasickness!

Andezzar

2013-10-06, 09:00 AM

I'm pretty sure it has ben mentioned already, but I find it funny every time I read it:
The spells Darkness (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/darkness.htm) and Deeper Darkness (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/deeperDarkness.htm) don't actually produce Darkness (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_darkness&alpha=D) but shadowy illumination.

If you cast either spell in an area that already is in natural darkness, the area of effect gets lighter.

Talderas

2013-10-06, 09:44 AM

Nothing says that Elemental Familiar (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/sb/sb20011109a) must be cast on your familiar, only that you must have one to cast it.

Permanently turn any creature into a tiny elemental as a 3rd level spell? How OP is that?

While the spell states that the target is "Creature touched" the text of the spell also stipulates that the creature must be a familiar and that only familiars are transmuted by the spell. Familiar is a relationship that exists between two creatures. While all toad familiars are familiars and creatures, not all toad creatures are familiars. If you come across a toad and cast the spell on it, if it isn't a familiar then the spell will fail like any spell that has an invalid target.

What is unclear, at least to me, is whether the target must be your familiar. The rules for changing the familiar, at least, only shed special abilities granted if it is your familiar. So if this spell is cast on another spellcaster's toad familiar they'll have a tiny air elemental familiar that retained the toad's bonus to the wizard rather than gaining the air elemental bonus.

Chambers

2013-10-06, 09:47 AM

mattie_p

2013-10-06, 09:53 AM

While the spell states that the target is "Creature touched" the text of the spell also stipulates that the creature must be a familiar and that only familiars are transmuted by the spell. Familiar is a relationship that exists between two creatures. While all toad familiars are familiars and creatures, not all toad creatures are familiars. If you come across a toad and cast the spell on it, if it isn't a familiar then the spell will fail like any spell that has an invalid target.

What is unclear, at least to me, is whether the target must be your familiar. The rules for changing the familiar, at least, only shed special abilities granted if it is your familiar. So if this spell is cast on another spellcaster's toad familiar they'll have a tiny air elemental familiar that retained the toad's bonus to the wizard rather than gaining the air elemental bonus.

Actually, I think you have it backwards.

Target: Living creature touched ...

In order to cast this spell, you must have a familiar. When you cast the spell, the target creature becomes a Tiny air, earth, fire, or water elemental, as detailed below. You choose what type of elemental the creature becomes. The creature retains its basic shape, but it is in every way an elemental, not an element creature (as described in Manual of the Planes). ...

Only a limited wish, miracle, or wish or similar magic can restore a transmuted familiar to its original state. Otherwise, the familiar remains an elemental forevermore. You cannot cast this spell on another character's familiar. Most creatures consider the transformation harmless and beneficial, but if the creature decides to resist, a successful Fortitude save negates the spell.

So you must have a familiar, you can cast it on your own familiar if you wish, you can't cast it on another character's familiar, but the text does not restrain you from casting it on a non-familiar creature (although it is heavily implied).

Talderas

2013-10-06, 11:01 AM

Actually, I think you have it backwards.

So you must have a familiar, you can cast it on your own familiar if you wish, you can't cast it on another character's familiar, but the text does not restrain you from casting it on a non-familiar creature (although it is heavily implied).

The first sentence of the spell will indicate one of two scenarios. Either the subject of the spell is a familiar or the familiar is a component necessary to casting the spell and consequently is destroyed as a material component.

Andezzar

2013-10-06, 11:26 AM

The first sentence of the spell will indicate one of two scenarios. Either the subject of the spell is a familiar or the familiar is a component necessary to casting the spell and consequently is destroyed as a material component.No. What Material Component the spell requires is at the bottom of the description:
Material Component: A small quantity of air, earth, fire, or water, depending on the elemental type the creature is to become.Since a familiar is not mentioned there it is not a material component. The familiar is not a focus component either because it does not necessarily remain unchanged by the casting and the spell does not require a focus component. having a familiar is just a condition that must be met for the spell to work, just like you cannot cast certain spells under water or they function differently in a thunderstorm etc.

TiaC

2013-10-07, 01:09 AM

Neutral characters can cast Sanctified spells.

Spellcasters prepare sanctified spells just as they do regular spells, and casters who do not prepare spells (including sorcerers and bards) cannot make use of them except from a scroll. Evil characters cannot cast sanctified spells, including ones cast from magic items.

TuggyNE

2013-10-07, 02:24 AM

Devourers have the ability to deflect various spells cast at them to instead hit the essence trapped inside. However, at least half the spells in the list of viable choices are [mind-affecting] spells, which the devourer is immune to anyway as an undead, and are furthermore incapable of destroying or removing the essence. So... why does it care about crushing despair or hypnotism? And who would be stupid enough to cast those at an obviously skeletal monster anyway?

The Viscount

2013-10-08, 12:29 AM

The sentry ooze template can only be applied to mindless oozes. In the ability scores section it says Int +2. The sample sentry ooze has an Int of 2. Now that's math!

TuggyNE

2013-10-08, 12:35 AM

The sentry ooze template can only be applied to mindless oozes. In the ability scores section it says Int +2. The sample sentry ooze has an Int of 2. Now that's math!

Only thing missing there is a specific note that yes, it does change Int from Ø to 0 and then to 2.

Sith_Happens

2013-10-08, 01:05 AM

Neutral characters can cast Sanctified spells.

I'd say the only necessarily dysfunctional part of that is the asymmetry with Corrupt spells (which Good characters can cast, and Evil Clerics can't cast spontaneously like Good Clerics can with Sanctified spells).

TiaC

2013-10-08, 02:18 AM

I'd say the only necessarily dysfunctional part of that is the asymmetry with Corrupt spells (which Good characters can cast, and Evil Clerics can't cast spontaneously like Good Clerics can with Sanctified spells).

The fluff does talk about Sancitfied spells being for characters who are willing to utterly devote themselves to good. This seems a little dysfunctional.

EDIT: what the heck is the caster wearing in the chapter image for BoED's magic chapter. Is that pantaloons under skinny scale shorts with flowers on the knees?

SiuiS

2013-10-08, 02:26 AM

Show me where there's rules in the SRD about designating your handedness.

The rules are I. The 3.0 players handbook, and could be considered grandfathered in in the same way 3.0 prestige classes still exist, whole and complete, unless they use a rule which has been changed drastically.

Curmudgeon

2013-10-08, 03:38 AM

The rules are I. The 3.0 players handbook, and could be considered grandfathered in in the same way 3.0 prestige classes still exist, whole and complete, unless they use a rule which has been changed drastically.
Yeah, there is a drastic change: they removed the whole handedness concept. There's no Ambidexterity feat any more in 3.5 D&D.

NeoPhoenix0

2013-10-08, 02:14 PM

Only thing missing there is a specific note that yes, it does change Int from Ø to 0 and then to 2.

Right, a note on a template for mindless creatures that makes you do math by turning naught into 0 and then adding two makes perfect sense. Seriously it is impossible for a creature to have an int that isn't 2 when used like this so just make it so int becomes 2.

bekeleven

2013-10-08, 02:16 PM

Came up recently: If staggered, you can ready a charge. Otherwise you can't.

NeoPhoenix0

2013-10-08, 02:22 PM

Came up recently: If staggered, you can ready a charge. Otherwise you can't.

Zombies can always ready a charge. Not sure why they would. You can also ready a charge in a surprise round, But yeah. I suddenly see munchkins with magic items to stagger themselves somehow so they can ready a charge.

Fax Celestis

2013-10-08, 03:09 PM

Right, a note on a template for mindless creatures that makes you do math by turning naught into 0 and then adding two makes perfect sense. Seriously it is impossible for a creature to have an int that isn't 2 when used like this so just make it so int becomes 2.

This is done intentionally for the corner case where there might be an ooze with an Intelligence score. IIRC, the text of the template explicitly discusses the case of an INT -- turning into an INT 2, but I'm AFB so I'll have to look later.

The Viscount

2013-10-08, 03:11 PM

That would be a nice explanation, but it only applies to mindless oozes.

Talderas

2013-10-08, 03:50 PM

That would be a nice explanation, but it only applies to mindless oozes.

There's no problem with a mindless ooze gaining +2 intelligence from the template. A mindless ooze would still remain a mindless ooze. However if a mindless ooze would somehow gain an intelligence score after becoming a sentry ooze, the +2 from the template would then have an effect.

Fax Celestis

2013-10-08, 04:05 PM

There's no problem with a mindless ooze gaining +2 intelligence from the template. A mindless ooze would still remain a mindless ooze. However if a mindless ooze would somehow gain an intelligence score after becoming a sentry ooze, the +2 from the template would then have an effect.

No, the template specifically states (and the example supports) that an ooze with INT -- gets INT 2.

Karnith

2013-10-08, 04:12 PM

No, the template specifically states (and the example supports) that an ooze with INT -- gets INT 2.
It only references that indirectly in the Skills section ("A sentry ooze gains skill points [...] to account for its new Intelligence score of 2"). The actual Abilities section just says Int +2 (well, plus the other ability adjustments), which doesn't normally grant Int 2 to Int: - creatures. Hence the dysfunction; one part of the template says one thing, and another, another.

EDIT: I guess it bears mentioning that the fluff says that the template grants them rudimentary Intelligence, also. This seems like a fairly clear case of a writer forgetting how the rules actually work (i.e. that Int: - is not the same as Int 0).

Menzath

2013-10-08, 04:17 PM

Goliaths can be infected with and become were T-rex's thanks to powerful build and how it is word to work when hit by abilities/effects.

EDIT: well, any were-thing of huge size can infect them really. A T-Rex is just one of the funny ones to imagine.

bekeleven

2013-10-08, 05:05 PM

Goliaths can be infected with and become were T-rex's

This is a dysfunctional rules thread, not an awesome rules thread.

GreenSerpent

2013-10-08, 05:07 PM

Not sure if this was errataed, but Disciple of Baalzebul has +8 BAB at level 10. Not +7 as normal for a 3/4 progression class, +8.

Chronos

2013-10-08, 07:10 PM

Goliaths can be infected with and become were T-rex's thanks to powerful build and how it is word to work when hit by abilities/effects.
Actually, they can't: Only humanoids and giants can become lycanthropes, and goliaths are monstrous humanoids.

It might work with half-giants, though.

Venger

2013-10-08, 07:58 PM

Not sure if this was errataed, but Disciple of Baalzebul has +8 BAB at level 10. Not +7 as normal for a 3/4 progression class, +8.

so does disciple of mammon.

bafflingly, errata says it was deliberate. uhhh what?

nedz

2013-10-08, 08:18 PM

I don't know if it's relevant, but BoVD was a 3.0 book.

bekeleven

2013-10-08, 08:21 PM

I don't know if it's relevant, but BoVD was a 3.0 book.

There are other examples of 3.0 making custom BABs. I'm thinking of Survivor and War Hulk.

Karnith

2013-10-08, 08:31 PM

so does disciple of mammon.

bafflingly, errata says it was deliberate. uhhh what?
Sorry, where is this stated? To the best of my knowledge BoVD never got an errata or an update booklet, and its FAQ doesn't seem to have anything on this.

Not doubting you, mind, just curious.

There are other examples of 3.0 making custom BABs. I'm thinking of Survivor and War Hulk.
Was War Hulk printed somewhere before Miniatures Handbook?

bekeleven

2013-10-08, 08:33 PM

Was War Hulk printed somewhere before Miniatures Handbook?

Well, now I feel stupid. Always assumed MH was 3.0.

mattie_p

2013-10-08, 10:18 PM

Andezzar

2013-10-09, 01:01 AM

Popped up in advice I received regarding a potential build:

Moon Guardian class (from the Complete Divine Web Enhancement) provides Natural Spell as a bonus feat. Lycanthropes (whom the class is designed for) do not meet the prerequisites for the feat, nor do they benefit from the feat by RAW.Nothing in the lycanthropy template makes the character ineligible for Natural Spell. To qualify for Moon Guardian the character must be able to cast 3rd level spells. This could be from having 5+ levels of druid. So that character would indeed benefit from Natural Spell, just not in his alternate forms granted by his lycanthropy. The feat works as intended if the character is wildshaped.

There is no dysfunction. The feat merely does not do what you or your advisor want it to do.

Venger

2013-10-09, 01:08 AM

Sorry, where is this stated? To the best of my knowledge BoVD never got an errata or an update booklet, and its FAQ doesn't seem to have anything on this.

Not doubting you, mind, just curious.

I wrongly remembered it being from the errata wen it was indeed from an informal FAQ (trigger warning: infuriating) (http://okayyourturn.yuku.com/topic/6197/BoVD-Questions?page=1#.UJLq8mmc6cE). so no, it's not RAW, but still very obnoxious

The Viscount

2013-10-09, 02:35 PM

Nothing in the lycanthropy template makes the character ineligible for Natural Spell. To qualify for Moon Guardian the character must be able to cast 3rd level spells. This could be from having 5+ levels of druid. So that character would indeed benefit from Natural Spell, just not in his alternate forms granted by his lycanthropy. The feat works as intended if the character is wildshaped.

There is no dysfunction. The feat merely does not do what you or your advisor want it to do.

It seems like they intended to give this feat to lycanthropes so they could cast in their other forms, since this is a class about being a lycanthrope. It's possible they meant to give surrogate spellcasting instead but got confused. Taking a step back, can you name another PrC that gives you a bonus feat that is only useful if you entered through one class when it is possible to enter through more than one class?

Andezzar

2013-10-09, 03:11 PM

Fax Celestis

2013-10-09, 03:38 PM

Off the top of my head I cannot think of such bonus feats but there are several PrCs that give fewer benefits if you fulfill the prerequisites with a divine casting class that does not grant domain spell slots. Church Inquisitor and Contemplative from CD are two such classes. Without a domain spell slot a character cannot prepare or cast the additional spells. both classes can be entered with Favored soul for example.

Yes you can.

EXTRA DOMAINS
Several of the prestige classes described in this chapter allow a member of that class to select an additional domain, which gives an additional granted power and offers more spells for the character to choose as domain spells. Sometimes a domain is specified, and other times a character can choose from any domains offered by his deity (or can choose any domain if he doesn't worship a specific god).

If a noncleric enters a prestige class that allows access to a domain, the character still gains access to the domain. She can use the granted power bestowed by the domain normally. If she memorizes spells like a druid, paladin, or ranger, then she can simply choose to memorize one of that domain’s spells instead of one of her usual spells, but never more than one domain spell of each level. If she is a spellcaster who keeps a spellbook as a wizard does, then she must find or purchase a scroll of that spell and pay the usual price to scribe the spell into her spellbook. In cases where the spell is only divine the wizard may scribe a divine scroll into his book. The wizard then may memorize one domain spell of each level each day. If the noncleric is a spontaneous caster like a sorcerer or favored soul, then she may select a domain spell to add to her spells known whenever she would have an option to choose a new known spell. A sorcerer does not get to exceed his normal limit of spells known. Once the domain spell is known, the sorcerer may cast it freely. Unless the prestige class specifies otherwise, such spells are considered arcane spells when cast by arcane spellcasters.

ShurikVch

2013-10-09, 05:38 PM

A possibly new dysfunction:

Nobody can enter the Black Flame Zealot PrC (CD p. 21), because there is no Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Kukri) Feat. The Kukri is a martial weapon.

Warblade can - via Weapon Aptitude :smallwink:

Curmudgeon

2013-10-09, 06:54 PM

A possibly new dysfunction:

Nobody can enter the Black Flame Zealot PrC (CD p. 21), because there is no Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Kukri) Feat. The Kukri is a martial weapon.
There is a way to make this work by the RAW. You make a kukri out of kaorti resin (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/re/20031014a), and can then qualify to take Exotic Weapon Proficiency (kukri).
Weapons made from kaorti resin require the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat to wield, and each must be specific to each ribbon weapon. For example, if the character acquires one of the ribbon longswords of wounding wielded by the Guardians of Gloom and Despair, she must take the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (longsword) feat. I'd still rate this as (mostly) dysfunctional.

Big Fau

2013-10-09, 09:31 PM

Curmudgeon

2013-10-09, 10:43 PM

Gold and Platinum weapons also work.
Only in a 3.0 game, I'm afraid. Gold and Platinum heavy weapons are detailed in Magic of Faerûn on pages 179-180. However, they modify weapon weights from the 3.0 standard weight categories. Since those weapon categories were discarded in the change to 3.5 D&D, the heavy metals special material rules are incompatible with 3.5 weapons.

deuxhero

2013-10-10, 12:13 AM

In PF, Bastard Swords, Katanas and Dwarven Waraxes are all supposed to do the same thing (you can wield it in two hands with martial weapon proficiency, or one with exotic), but all 3 have unique wordings.

Strict raw supported by FAQ (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qno) that a two-handed weapon is still a two-handed weapon if used in one hand, means this might actually do something

3WhiteFox3

2013-10-10, 01:09 AM

Some of the mythic path abilities/feats (from Pathfinder's Mythic adventures) were terribly worded.

The two that stuck out at me when it first came out were these.

1) The Tangible illusion path ability is obviously intended to make illusions work like a creation spell. However, there are too few limits as to what can be created and the spell is vaguely worded.

You can temporarily transform an illusory object into a real one. As a full-round action, you can expend one use of mythic power to temporarily transform a single object created by an illusion spell that you cast into a physical, non-magical version of that object. The object lasts for 10 minutes per tier, after which it reverts to being an illusion (or vanishes, if the duration of the original illusion has expired). During that time, the illusion gains all the physical properties of the depicted illusory object. You must touch the illusion to use this ability, and the object can be no larger than 5 cubic feet per tier. For example, if you create an illusory stone door, you transform it into an actual non-magical stone door.

So as long as you make a non-magical version of an object that is within the size limits, you can make anything. Including expensive spell components, and since the earliest you get the ability is tier 3... Have fun with 15 cubic feet of platinum, or any expensive material of choice. What happens if you create something physically impossible (such as many real-life illusions)? Does the ability fizzle? Does it create an object that appears to be impossible, but is actually mundane? There isn't a RAW answer.

2) Mythic Racial Heritage - Racial Heritage is already a strong feat. However, the mythic designers didn't realize just what you can gain if you get to pick even a single racial trait from any humanoid 'race'. but what a race is and even what a single racial trait actually is, is ambiguous.

Benefit: Choose another humanoid race. You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race. For example, if you choose dwarf, you are considered both a human and a dwarf for the purpose of taking traits, feats, how spells and magic items affect you, and so on.

Benefit: You gain a single racial trait of your choice from the race you picked when you took non-mythic Racial Heritage. That racial trait can't modify your size or ability scores. You also gain the racial language of the race (if any) if you don't already know it. For races with multiple racial languages, you gain all of them.

The questions here mainly lie in two areas.

What is a race? Are 'monstrous' races eligible? What about Acquired Templates? Inherited Templates? What about Racial/Monster Variants? Racial Variants created by a template? Is anything with a monster statblock eligible? Or can I add templates to an existing race?

What is a 'Single Racial Trait' and how does that interact with modifying size and ability scores? Can I grab Enlarge Person as an SLA (it modifies both size and ability scores) or ? What about other SLAs? Do I grab one SLA or do I follow the implication given by the Advanced Race Guide that as long as the frequency of the SLA is the same, a bunch of SLAs are considered to be one racial trait or do I follow the formatting which suggests that SLAs are all grouped together? Can I grab things like SR? Things obviously tied to physical bodies like the Android's Immunities? Can I grab alternate racial traits?

There are even more besides the ones I listed. Very vague wording means that it's going to be completely up to the GM to make sense out of what the poorly worded abilities mean.

Talderas

2013-10-10, 07:03 AM

There is a way to make this work by the RAW. You make a kukri out of kaorti resin (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/re/20031014a), and can then qualify to take Exotic Weapon Proficiency (kukri). I'd still rate this as (mostly) dysfunctional.

The feat Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Kukri) must exist under one of the following four conditions.

1. The character posesses a kaorti resin kukri.
2. The character knows a kaorti resin kukri exists.
3. The character can take the feat because kaorti resin exists in the setting.
4. The character can take the feat anyway despite it being useless.

nedz

2013-10-10, 07:29 AM

4. The character can take the feat anyway despite it being useless.

But Kukri is not a valid target for Exotic Weapon Proficiency, because it's not an exotic weapon.

I could be wrong but isn't there some rule about weapons of the wrong size being exotic ?

Talderas

2013-10-10, 07:49 AM

But Kukri is not a valid target for Exotic Weapon Proficiency, because it's not an exotic weapon.

I could be wrong but isn't there some rule about weapons of the wrong size being exotic ?

Technically, it's a valid target. Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Kukri) and Martial Weapon Proficiency (Kukri) are two feats that deal with two different types of weapons. EWP (Kukri) doesn't grant you proficiency in martial kukris and MWP (Kukri) doesn't grant you proficiency in exotic kukris. Whether or not an exotic kukri exists is only matter for whether or not a feat can have a non-existent but valid object as the target.

Curmudgeon simply provided an example of an exotic kukri which subverts that last question but in any setting in which kaorti resin does not exists causes the question to be raised again for BFZ.

nedz

2013-10-10, 07:57 AM

Technically: Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Kukri) is not the same as Exotic Weapon Proficiency (kaorti Kukri).

Talderas

2013-10-10, 08:13 AM

Technically: Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Kukri) is not the same as Exotic Weapon Proficiency (kaorti Kukri).

If you read the section Curmudgeon posted on kaorti resin, you become proficient with a kaorti resin longsword with the feat EWP (longsword) and not EWP (kaorti longsword).

deuxhero

2013-10-10, 08:39 AM

What is a race? Are 'monstrous' races eligible? What about Acquired Templates? Inherited Templates? What about Racial/Monster Variants? Racial Variants created by a template? Is anything with a monster statblock eligible? Or can I add templates to an existing race?

THAT isn't a problem (though the other one is) You have to choose a humanoid for Racial Heritage, and choose the same ancestor for the mythic version.

nedz

2013-10-10, 08:41 AM

If you read the section Curmudgeon posted on kaorti resin, you become proficient with a kaorti resin longsword with the feat EWP (longsword) and not EWP (kaorti longsword).

Then Curmudgeon may be wrong because EWP requires that you take it with an exotic weapon.

Exotic Weapon Proficiency [General]

Choose a type of exotic weapon. You understand how to use that type of exotic weapon in combat.

I'm not sure what the source of his quote was, but that's likely to be a further dysfunction.

Karnith

2013-10-10, 08:52 AM

I'm not sure what the source of his quote was, but that's likely to be a further dysfunction.
His source is the rules for Kaorti resin weapons. Once again, per Random Encounters: The Kaorti Ubercyst (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/re/20031014a):

Weapons made from kaorti resin require the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat to wield, and each must be specific to each ribbon weapon. For example, if the character acquires one of the ribbon longswords of wounding wielded by the Guardians of Gloom and Despair, she must take the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (longsword) feat. If she has acquired a ribbon dagger also, she must take the dagger version of the feat as well.

3WhiteFox3

2013-10-10, 08:58 AM

I just love it when we find those special dysfunctions that end up revealing even more dysfunctional rules.

Talderas

2013-10-10, 09:08 AM

Then Curmudgeon may be wrong because EWP requires that you take it with an exotic weapon.

I'm not sure what the source of his quote was, but that's likely to be a further dysfunction.

Kaorti resin causes the weapon to become an exotic weapon if it isn't already. That rule creates a whole new weapon that just shares the name and stats of the original weapon. Thus every weapon which kaorti resin can be used also has an exotic version of itself. Light Hammer (Simple) and Light Hammer (Exotic). Longsword (Simple) and Longsword (Exotic). Proficiency in one does not grant proficiency in the other so if you have SWP and EWP(Longsword) you would take the -4 non-proficiency penalty when wielding a martial longsword and no penalty when wielding an exotic longsword. This means that in any setting in which kaorti resin exists, all simple and martial weapons that can receive it also have an exotic version. This permits the black flame zealot to be entered as EWP (Kukri) most certainly exists.

The questions I raised specifically were in #1/2/4 of the options I listed. #1/2 required that the character have knowledge of the kaorti resin before being able to enter the prestige class. It's annoying but doable. #4 is different in that it questions whether an exotic weapon must exist for you take EWP in it. For instance, EWP (Banjo the Clown). Is this a valid EWP? There is no Banjo the Clown weapon listed in any material.

killem2

2013-10-10, 10:37 AM

Isn't there something in Frostburn about bone weapons or primitive weapons and EWPs?

I can't access the book right now but I thought there was something there. :smallconfused::smallconfused:

Chronos

2013-10-10, 10:58 AM

As an aside, kaorti resin is a great material to make a kukri out of, anyway. So the workaround here really wouldn't hurt a character much.

nedz

2013-10-10, 11:05 AM

Kaorti resin causes the weapon to become an exotic weapon if it isn't already. That rule creates a whole new weapon that just shares the name and stats of the original weapon. Thus every weapon which kaorti resin can be used also has an exotic version of itself. Light Hammer (Simple) and Light Hammer (Exotic). Longsword (Simple) and Longsword (Exotic). Proficiency in one does not grant proficiency in the other so if you have SWP and EWP(Longsword) you would take the -4 non-proficiency penalty when wielding a martial longsword and no penalty when wielding an exotic longsword. This means that in any setting in which kaorti resin exists, all simple and martial weapons that can receive it also have an exotic version. This permits the black flame zealot to be entered as EWP (Kukri) most certainly exists.

The questions I raised specifically were in #1/2/4 of the options I listed. #1/2 required that the character have knowledge of the kaorti resin before being able to enter the prestige class. It's annoying but doable. #4 is different in that it questions whether an exotic weapon must exist for you take EWP in it. For instance, EWP (Banjo the Clown). Is this a valid EWP? There is no Banjo the Clown weapon listed in any material.

I don't think anyone is arguing about the RAI, just the RAW.

NeoPhoenix0

2013-10-10, 11:30 AM

I just love it when we find those special dysfunctions that end up revealing even more dysfunctional rules.

Me too. The thread title is especially appropriate for these moments. Gotta love those sandwiches.

Andezzar

2013-10-10, 11:39 AM

Most likely it is just a copy paste error from Unapproachable East. In third edition (UE is 3.0) the kukri was an exotic weapon.

georgie_leech

2013-10-10, 11:49 AM

It came up in the Barbarian vs Wizard thread here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16178479&postcount=588) that, by using the Ghost Rager Rage Power, it's possible to have a Touch AC higher than your actual AC. Apparently just landing a blow on a Ghost Rager is harder than landing a blow as well as getting through armor.

Rijan_Sai

2013-10-10, 11:58 AM

Alright, so I know I'm kicking a sacred cow here, but Invisibility does not allow for Sneak Attack! (I actually found this while looking into the Ninja's Sudden Strike, as that is even more restrictive then SA, and Ninja gets Invisibility for one round as an (Su) ability!)

Now, I know this is generally accepted, for example, in the FAQ:

If a rogue gets multiple attacks in a round (such as from a high base attack bonus or the Rapid Shot feat), can she make sneak attacks for all of them?
Yes, but only if each attack meets a requirement to be a sneak attack. For instance, a rogue who flanks an enemy can delivery a sneak attack with every melee attack she makes. A rogue under the effect of a greater invisibility spell treats every attack as a sneak attack, since she remains invisible despite attacking. If later attacks in a round no longer meet any requirement to be a sneak attack, they aren't sneak attacks. For example, a rogue under the effect of an invisibility spell would deal sneak attack damage only with her first attack in a round, because she turns visible as soon as she makes the attack.

However, let's look at what the Invisibility (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#invisibility) Special Ability actually says...but first, some other (semi-anecdotal rules text for comparison; just the relevant bits):

Sneak Attack (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/rogue.htm#sneakAttack)

The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target.
^To establish the Sneak Attack rules.

Blinded (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#blinded)

The character cannot see. He takes a -2 penalty to Armor Class, loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any),
Paralyzed (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#paralyzed)

A paralyzed character has effective Dexterity and Strength scores of 0 and is helpless,
Unconscious (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#unconscious)

Knocked out and helpless.
Helpless (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#helpless)

A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (-5 modifier). Melee attacks against a helpless target get a +4 bonus (equivalent to attacking a prone target). Ranged attacks gets no special bonus against helpless targets. Rogues can sneak attack helpless targets.
Stunned (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#stunned)

A stunned creature drops everything held, can’t take actions, takes a -2 penalty to AC, and loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any).

Alright, now for the important part:
Invisibility (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#invisibility)

Visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any).

As we can see, being Invisible allows you to "ignore [your] opponents' Dexterity bonus to AC (if any)." It does not, however, deny your opponent their Dex bonus to AC; they still have it, you just ignore it.
"The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not)" ..."denied," not "ignored"

Conclusion:
RAW Sneak Attack (and Sudden Strike) can not be used from Invisibility alone!

Edit: Proof against ^^ down there vv

Fax Celestis

2013-10-10, 12:06 PM

Alright, so I know I'm kicking a sacred cow here, but Invisibility does not allow for Sneak Attack!

Incorrect.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm

{table=head]Attacker is… | Melee | Ranged
Dazzled | -1 | -1
Entangled | -21 | -21
Flanking defender | +2 | —
Invisible | +22 | +22[/table]

2The defender loses any Dexterity bonus to AC. This bonus doesn’t apply if the target is blinded.

Conclusion: denied, lost, and ignored can be used interchangeably.

3WhiteFox3

2013-10-10, 12:10 PM

Incorrect.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm

Conclusion: denied, lost, and ignored can be used interchangeably.

My take away is that you have to be very careful when reading RAW, making sure that what seems to be a dysfunction isn't just reading too much into word choice.

Darrin

2013-10-10, 12:13 PM

Only in a 3.0 game, I'm afraid. Gold and Platinum heavy weapons are detailed in Magic of Faerûn on pages 179-180. However, they modify weapon weights from the 3.0 standard weight categories. Since those weapon categories were discarded in the change to 3.5 D&D, the heavy metals special material rules are incompatible with 3.5 weapons.

This is not compatible with your usual advice. All 3.0 rules not specifically updated are still valid for 3.5 games, and this would fall under your much-quoted "minor adjustment" clause on page 4 of the DMG. It is not all that difficult to adapt the heavy weapon rules in MoF to the 3.5 weapon size rules.

As we can see, being Invisible allows you to "ignore [your] opponents' Dexterity bonus to AC (if any)." It does not, however, deny your opponent their Dex bonus to AC; they still have it, you just ignore it.
"The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not)" ..."denied," not "ignored"

Pretty crafty rules dicing there, but the Rules Compendium clarified this on pages 76-77:

"Opponents are denied their Dexterity bonuses to AC against an invisible attacker’s attacks."

Rijan_Sai

2013-10-10, 12:38 PM

Incorrect.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm

Conclusion: denied, lost, and ignored can be used interchangeably.

You know...I knew I was going to miss something simple like that..although "Text trumps Table" and all that...
However:

Pretty crafty rules dicing there, but the Rules Compendium clarified this on pages 76-77:

"Opponents are denied their Dexterity bonuses to AC against an invisible attacker’s attacks."

THAT'S the big one I missed...and I looked in THAT section for THAT rule...:smallfurious::smallmad::smallannoyed:

Oh well...I tried!:smallbiggrin:

Fax Celestis

2013-10-10, 12:41 PM

Text trumps table only applies to classes.

nedz

2013-10-10, 12:48 PM

Text trumps table only applies to classes.

My version of the PH has Colour Spray only effect 1d6 weak creatures, in the spell table (P192). The Spell Description says otherwise.

Fax Celestis

2013-10-10, 12:53 PM

My version of the PH has Colour Spray only effect 1d6 weak creatures, in the spell table (P192). The Spell Description says otherwise.

...which is not a "text vs table" issue. That's not a table, it's a directory. The short descriptions are overwritten by long descriptions when appropriate.

Talderas

2013-10-10, 01:32 PM

This is not compatible with your usual advice. All 3.0 rules not specifically updated are still valid for 3.5 games, and this would fall under your much-quoted "minor adjustment" clause on page 4 of the DMG. It is not all that difficult to adapt the heavy weapon rules in MoF to the 3.5 weapon size rules.

The rules were updated in 3.5. The 3.0 rules were discarded in 3.5 thus any rules in 3.0 based on the weapon weights are not valid for 3.5.

Darrin

2013-10-10, 01:50 PM

The rules were updated in 3.5. The 3.0 rules were discarded in 3.5 thus any rules in 3.0 based on the weapon weights are not valid for 3.5.

DMG page 4, 9th paragraph, last sentence:

"This revision is compatible with existing products, and these products can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments."

NeoPhoenix0

2013-10-10, 01:58 PM

Text trumps table only applies to classes.

No the errata rule goes like this.

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

Any instance of a disagreement between text and table goes to the text no matter what kind of table it is.

Talderas

2013-10-10, 02:09 PM

DMG page 4, 9th paragraph, last sentence:

"This revision is compatible with existing products, and these products can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments."

That is only pertinent to non-core material. No rules for PHB 3.0, DMG 3.0 or MM 3.0 are able to be used for 3.5 as those books were reprinted in their entirety. Any of the rules present in the 3.0 versions but not the 3.5 version are not valid rules for 3.5. While the 3.0 rules for gold and other weights were not in the PHB/DMG/MM the rules which they are dependent upon in order to function were located in those books. Since those rules were removed the content from other books that is dependent on those rules is no longer valid.

hamishspence

2013-10-10, 02:15 PM

Any instance of a disagreement between text and table goes to the text no matter what kind of table it is.

Quite a lot of dysfunctions are cases of this- where the table made more sense than the text did.

Ones that stand out most in the mind- the Rainbow Servant (Complete Divine) and the Flay Foe/Skewer Foe/Pulverise Foe feats in Champions of Ruin (Flay Foe is vastly weaker than the other two in text, yet they have similar prerequisites, and are identical in effect in table)

NeoPhoenix0

2013-10-10, 04:17 PM

Quite a lot of dysfunctions are cases of this- where the table made more sense than the text did.

Ones that stand out most in the mind- the Rainbow Servant (Complete Divine) and the Flay Foe/Skewer Foe/Pulverise Foe feats in Champions of Ruin (Flay Foe is vastly weaker than the other two in text, yet they have similar prerequisites, and are identical in effect in table)

Rainbow servant huh? There's a reason very few people play RAW. The main thing is that beguilers and warmages are more powerful than god mode wizards, what with spontaneously casting: their list, the cleric's list, a few domains, and their entire wizard spellbook (and that's just with rainbow servant, wizard 1, and versatile spellcaster). More can be put on the list but you start to lose more casting levels and you want 9 level slots.

bekeleven

2013-10-10, 04:31 PM

Rainbow servant huh? There's a reason very few people play RAW. The main thing is that beguilers and warmages are more powerful than god mode wizards, what with spontaneously casting: their list, the cleric's list, a few domains, and their entire wizard spellbook (and that's just with rainbow servant, wizard 1, and versatile spellcaster). More can be put on the list but you start to lose more casting levels and you want 9 level slots.

(As an aside, 10 level in rainbow servant already denies 4 caster levels, enough that nobody's getting level 9 slots)

hamishspence

2013-10-10, 04:33 PM

Only if you're following Table rather than Text.

nedz

2013-10-10, 04:38 PM

(As an aside, 10 level in rainbow servant already denies 4 caster levels, enough that nobody's getting level 9 slots)

RS is 10/10 casting by RAW.

bekeleven

2013-10-10, 04:42 PM

Wow. I was reading this discussion, went to the book, then my brain self-corrected for the class being balanced somehow. Sorry about that.

JaronK

2013-10-10, 06:20 PM

Only if you're following Table rather than Text.

As a note, in other language publishings, sometimes the text says it's 6/10, and sometimes the table is 10/10. So we can't even use that to figure out which one's right.

So yeah, RAW, 10/10. But RAI... well, I'd hope 6/10.

JaronK

NeoPhoenix0

2013-10-10, 06:29 PM

Oh and versatile spellcaster isn't on the handbook list. I'm too busy to look up if it was talked about in the stuff that hasn't been covered yet, but I think it should be on the list. It's perfectly functional under RAW, but can be stupidly broken. I don't think it was intended to be used by sorcerers (or other spontaneous caster) to spontaneously cast spells from their wizard spellbook (obtained with wizard dip) using sorcerer spell slots.

nedz

2013-10-10, 07:38 PM

As a note, in other language publishings, sometimes the text says it's 6/10, and sometimes the table is 10/10. So we can't even use that to figure out which one's right.

So yeah, RAW, 10/10. But RAI... well, I'd hope 6/10.

JaronK

Since it wasn't erratad this sounds like a translators fix-up.

Oh and versatile spellcaster isn't on the handbook list. I'm too busy to look up if it was talked about in the stuff that hasn't been covered yet, but I think it should be on the list. It's perfectly functional under RAW, but can be stupidly broken. I don't think it was intended to be used by sorcerers (or other spontaneous caster) to spontaneously cast spells from their wizard spellbook (obtained with wizard dip) using sorcerer spell slots.

We are not looking for stupidly broken stuff, there are/have been other threads for that. What we are looking for is RAW that doesn't make sense and requires a compulsory house-rule.

Story

2013-10-10, 08:15 PM

Rainbow servant huh? There's a reason very few people play RAW. The main thing is that beguilers and warmages are more powerful than god mode wizards, what with spontaneously casting: their list, the cleric's list, a few domains, and their entire wizard spellbook (and that's just with rainbow servant, wizard 1, and versatile spellcaster). More can be put on the list but you start to lose more casting levels and you want 9 level slots.

People say that a lot, but I'm not really convinced. First off, that trick doesn't come online until level 16, which doesn't come up much in real play. Second, you have to compare it with stuff like Incantrix and Dweomerkeeper. Lastly, their spelllist still has some gaps. Miracle is nice, but they don't get Shapechange for instance.

NeoPhoenix0

2013-10-10, 08:29 PM

People say that a lot, but I'm not really convinced. First off, that trick doesn't come online until level 16, which doesn't come up much in real play. Second, you have to compare it with stuff like Incantrix and Dweomerkeeper. Lastly, their spelllist still has some gaps. Miracle is nice, but they don't get Shapechange for instance.

The cleric casting doesn't come until 16 level 15 but they can start casting wizard spells spontaneously starting at level 2. Also they can buy more spells for their spellbook. So at level 2 they can spontaneously cast 2nd level spells. They can also buy shapechange to add to their spellbook and cast it at level 17 spontaneously. The cleric list is just a nice big juicy bonus.

Edit: it's level 15 actually, because they are casting 3rd level spells from their wizard spellbook by giving up two level 2 spell slots at level 5, so they qualify then.

Story

2013-10-10, 08:58 PM

That seems to be more about abusing Versatile Spellcaster than anything to do with Rainbow Servant.

Using the same trick, Wizards can spontaneously cast their entire spellbook and get 9th level spells at level 15. If you're willing to pull stuff like that, I think you could get spontaneous casting of mutiple spelllists on a Wizard chasis too.

It's like saying Monks are overpowered because a Wizard 19/Monk 1 is god.

NeoPhoenix0

2013-10-10, 11:14 PM

It's about spontaneous access to two of the big three spell lists. Also the whole wizards using it thing is debatable. To qualify they need spontaneous spellcasting and to use it at the very least they need to leave slots unprepared.

Story

2013-10-11, 12:35 AM

NeoPhoenix0

2013-10-11, 12:42 AM

No need to leave slots unprepared - Spontaneous Divination lets you cast from prepared slots.

Anyway, at the point where you're talking about stuff like spontaneous Incantrixes with access to spells two levels early, it's hard to make meaningful power comparisons since everyone is god already. By my standards, it's pretty far into TO anyway.

They can't cast using versatile spellcaster if the spell slots are prepared. That would be using two prepared spells to cast a spell of higher level not two spell slots. There is a difference. I know it's semantics but it makes a difference.

Edit: personally, I like the wizard 1/sorcerer 4/incantatrix 10/x 5 build. You get more spells that way. Sorcerer knows spells you know you are going to use all the time, and you fill the spell book with higher level spells and utilities. You can get a lot of mileage out of your spells per day then.

Andezzar

2013-10-11, 12:51 AM

They can't cast using versatile spellcaster if the spell slots are prepared. That would be using two prepared spells to cast a spell of higher level not two spell slots. There is a difference. I know it's semantics but it makes a difference.Huh? Don't you prepare spells in spell slots? I know of no rule that says you lose a slot if you fill it with a spell.

NeoPhoenix0

2013-10-11, 01:20 AM

Huh? Don't you prepare spells in spell slots? I know of no rule that says you lose a slot if you fill it with a spell.

The feat versatile spellcaster does not give you the ability to lose prepared spells. You cannot use spell slots that are already filled to cast a different spell.

What you are suggesting is that you can take spell slots with prepared spell and use the to cast another spell. This doesn't work because you need slots to keep the prepared spells that were in the slot before.

In the case of spontaneous divination, the wizard can lose prepared spell slots for that ability, but that is a different ability from versatile spellcaster.

Story

2013-10-11, 01:36 AM

Wall of Sand says that you can attack targets through it, but they have total cover, meaning they can't be attacked. Anyone know if this has come up before?

Curmudgeon

2013-10-11, 01:49 AM

Wall of Sand says that you can attack targets through it, but they have total cover, meaning they can't be attacked.
Your assumption is incorrect. The spell doesn't give total cover; it only gives total concealment. Total concealment doesn't keep anyone from being attacked; it only keeps them from being targeted. You attack the square, sight unseen, and have a 50% miss chance on each shot. Wall of Sand has special rules for its sand cover (a reduction in damage for attacks passing through the sand), but it's not total cover.

Andezzar

2013-10-11, 01:50 AM

You cannot use spell slots that are already filled to cast a different spell.Where do the rules say that?

What you are suggesting is that you can take spell slots with prepared spell and use the to cast another spell. This doesn't work because you need slots to keep the prepared spells that were in the slot before.That is much more than I thought and more than versatile spellcaster does. You are suggesting that you could cast three spells with two slots. two of the level which are prepared and one spontaneously one level higher.

In the case of spontaneous divination, the wizard can lose prepared spell slots for that ability, but that is a different ability from versatile spellcaster.Yes the wording is different, but for wizards the benefit would be marginal if the ACF would require an empty spell slot.

TuggyNE

2013-10-11, 02:24 AM

Your assumption is incorrect. Total cover doesn't keep anyone from being attacked; it only keeps them from being targeted. You attack the square, sight unseen, and have a 50% miss chance on each shot.

I think you're mixing cover and concealment here.

Total Cover
If you don’t have line of effect to your target he is considered to have total cover from you. You can’t make an attack against a target that has total cover.
[…]
Total Concealment
If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).

Dysfunction appears to be upheld, assuming the spell does say cover instead of concealment.

Curmudgeon

2013-10-11, 03:04 AM

I think you're mixing cover and concealment here.

You're quite right. (It's impressive how distracting an 8 lb. cat can be when it's hungry, and the post wasn't even close to comprehensible when I submitted it.) I've edited the message so that it makes sense.

Dysfunction appears to be upheld, assuming the spell does say cover instead of concealment.
It doesn't, though. (Sandstorm, page 127)

Darrin

2013-10-11, 04:51 AM

It doesn't, though. (Sandstorm, page 127)

Spell Compendium (December 2005) was published after Sandstorm (March 2005), so the Spell Compendium version takes precedence.

That version says:

"Creatures with reach can attempt to attack through the wall, but targets have total concealment and total cover, and the attacker must have a general idea where the target is located." (emphasis added)

So targets have both, but in this case, the specific text of the spell trumps the general rules: creatures with reach can attack, but they pick a square and roll their 50% miss chance.

However, that's a dysfunction: if your target is just inside the edge of the wall and you don't have reach, you can't attack him, even if you're directly adjacent.

NeoPhoenix0

2013-10-11, 09:21 AM

Where do the rules say that?

The burden of proof here is on you. Where does it say in the rules that you can use spell slots that are already in use for another purpose. The wizard ACF is an exception, it specifically gives you the ability to lose the prepared spell and cast a divination. The feat versatile spellcaster does not let you lose prepared spells from the spell slots to cast a spell. They are already in use and cannot be used. "because the rules don't say I can't" is not a valid arguement.

That is much more than I thought and more than versatile spellcaster does. You are suggesting that you could cast three spells with two slots. two of the level which are prepared and one spontaneously one level higher.

No, I'm pointing out that it is ridiculous to assume you can use a spell slot that is already prepared for another purpose unless that purpose allows you to lose the prepared spell.

Edit:"also that the feat versatile spellcaster doesn't have language for losing prepared spells to use it."

Yes the wording is different, but for wizards the benefit would be marginal if the ACF would require an empty spell slot.

I was pointing out here that the wizard ACF functions differently than the feat versatile spellcaster because it has specific rules about losing prepared spells to cast divinations. In fact that ACF can't use empty spell slots because of the specific language involved.

Andezzar

2013-10-11, 10:52 AM

The burden of proof here is on you. Where does it say in the rules that you can use spell slots that are already in use for another purpose. The wizard ACF is an exception, it specifically gives you the ability to lose the prepared spell and cast a divination. The feat versatile spellcaster does not let you lose prepared spells from the spell slots to cast a spell. They are already in use and cannot be used. "because the rules don't say I can't" is not a valid arguement.If you fill a spell slot with a spell, does the spell slot disappear? If not you still have a spell slot (a filled one) that can be exchanged for another spell per versatile spellcaster.

Prerequisite

Ability to spontaneously cast spells,
Benefit

You can use two spell slots of the same level to cast a spell you know that is one level higher. For example, a sorcerer with this feat can expend two 2nd-level spell slots to cast any 3rd-level spell he knows.The feat does not specify that the spell slot must be empty or one of the universal ones spontaneous casting classes get. It is any kind of spell slot. A Sorc1/Wiz19 (sans spontaneous divination) could even use all his wizard slots because the feat is not restricted to only those slots that enabled taking the feat.

Spell Slots: The various character class tables in Chapter 3: Classes show how many spells of each level a character can cast per day. These openings for daily spells are called spell slots. A spellcaster always has the option to fill a higher-level spell slot with a lower-level spell. For example, a 7th-level wizard has at least one 4th-level spell slot and two 3rd-level spell slots (see Table 3–18: The Wizard, page 55). However, the character could choose to prepare three 3rd-level spells instead, filling the 4th-level slot with a 3rdlevel spell. A spellcaster who lacks a high enough ability score to cast spells that would otherwise be his or her due still gets the slots but must fill them with spells of lower levelso as long as you have not cast a spell you have spell slots. Additionally this does not say that spell slots cease to exist if they are filled with a spell. Nowhere does it say that a spell prepared in a spell slot is something else than a filled spell slot. If this did happen you could not cast a spell because of the underlined rule.

No, I'm pointing out that it is ridiculous to assume you can use a spell slot that is already prepared for another purpose unless that purpose allows you to lose the prepared spell.You might consider it ridiculous, but that is what the rule says. A spell slot is a spell slot, whether it is filled or not.

The Viscount

2013-10-11, 11:08 AM

As discussed in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=307849), clerics that pray for spells at dusk must have nocturnal adventuring cycles.

Andezzar

2013-10-11, 11:15 AM

As discussed in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=307849), clerics that pray for spells at dusk must have nocturnal adventuring cycles.It's not a dysfunction just an obstacle for certain clerics.

The Viscount

2013-10-11, 02:09 PM

Praying for spells at dusk seems mainly a flavor thing. The fact that it results in a necessary adjustment of game play to avoid hitting against the 8 hour spells rule seems dysfunctional.

TuggyNE

2013-10-15, 07:48 PM

Telepathic bond is not mind-affecting, so you can slap it on a treant, a ghoul, or an inevitable with no difficulty whatsoever. :smallconfused:

Story

2013-10-15, 10:22 PM

It doesn't seem that dysfunctional. You could argue that it's more like giving someone a magic cellphone then trying to actually affect their mind.

After all, Sending isn't Mind Effecting either.

mattie_p

2013-10-15, 11:14 PM

So, I was reading through Tome of Magic looking at random stuff when I found this -

Disciple of the Word (p 216)

Monk Abilities: A disciple of the word adds her class level to her monk level to determine her ... flurry of blows penalty...

...

A disciple of the word does not count her class levels for the purpose of determining when she gains any other monk class features, such as reduced penalties for flurry of blows attack rolls ...

So which is it? Do we add them or not?

TuggyNE

2013-10-15, 11:21 PM

It doesn't seem that dysfunctional. You could argue that it's more like giving someone a magic cellphone then trying to actually affect their mind.

After all, Sending isn't Mind Effecting either.

Sending, though, doesn't (from what I'm reading) indicate anything about a mental message or whatever. It could just as easily be the magic cellphone effect, perhaps evoking your words to come out near the target or what have you.

But telepathic bond, for all that it's Divination, is obviously meddling directly with its subjects' minds. So that's just baffling to me.

mattie_p

2013-10-16, 12:22 AM

Sending, though, doesn't (from what I'm reading) indicate anything about a mental message or whatever. It could just as easily be the magic cellphone effect, perhaps evoking your words to come out near the target or what have you.

But telepathic bond, for all that it's Divination, is obviously meddling directly with its subjects' minds. So that's just baffling to me.

So are you arguing that it is a RAI dysfunction? By the RAW, even creatures with immunity to certain conditions can be affected if willing (by dropping their immunity), and telepathic bond only affects willing creatures.

I don't think this is the thread for RAI dysfunctions, though.

Fax Celestis

2013-10-16, 12:25 AM

I'm with the RAW dysfunction here, since the basically-equivalent psionic version, mindlink (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/mindlink.htm), is Telepathy [Mind-Affecting].

mattie_p

2013-10-16, 12:38 AM

I'm with the RAW dysfunction here, since the basically-equivalent psionic version, mindlink (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/mindlink.htm), is Telepathy [Mind-Affecting].

Again, willing target. Willing targets can drop immunity to almost anything they wish (although, as a standard action - readied, in this case?). Psionics and Magic, despite transparency, are different, and function in different ways (magic mantle excepted).

Fax Celestis

2013-10-16, 12:43 AM

Again, willing target. Willing targets can drop immunity to almost anything they wish (although, as a standard action - readied, in this case?). Psionics and Magic, despite transparency, are different, and function in different ways (magic mantle excepted).

Read the text of the spell. They are virtually identical, barring target quantities (and mindlink has an augment that lets you manifest it on an unwilling creature, so...).

Big Fau

2013-10-16, 07:21 AM

Chronos

2013-10-16, 08:15 AM

Quoth Fax:

Read the text of the spell. They are virtually identical, barring target quantities (and mindlink has an augment that lets you manifest it on an unwilling creature, so...).
Well, that accounts for that, then. Since Telepathic Bond only works on willing targets anyway, it doesn't matter whether it's [mind effecting] or not, since immune creatures would just lower their immunity. But Mindlink can be forced on unwilling targets, so it matters, and so they added the tag.

georgie_leech

2013-10-16, 10:21 AM

Can you actually lower immunity from mind affecting from mindlessness? Because that sounds kind of dysfunctional in itself; spontaneous development of intelligence in less than six seconds.

Andezzar

2013-10-16, 10:29 AM

I'm not aware that you can lower immunities. SR has an explicit exception.

NeoPhoenix0

2013-10-16, 10:33 AM

This could be a stupid question, but where does it say you can lower immunity. I know that you can lower spell resistance and that some cases of immunity explicitly give exceptions or allow you to willingly take effects. But I can't find a general rule for immunities that don't explicitly say anything.

Edit: ninja'd by several minutes. wait, I remeber a discussion about the definition of getting monk'd, this might fall into that.

nedz

2013-10-16, 12:04 PM

No Monk'd is like Ninja'd only you miss by hours, if not days. The worst I've seen was 2 1/2 years, thread necromancy was involved obviously.

Chronos

2013-10-16, 12:46 PM

Well, if you're mindless, you can't do much of anything, beyond what you're instinctively programmed to do, and Telepathic Bond would pick up a blank, anyway.

TuggyNE

2013-10-16, 04:18 PM

Well, that accounts for that, then. Since Telepathic Bond only works on willing targets anyway, it doesn't matter whether it's [mind effecting] or not, since immune creatures would just lower their immunity. But Mindlink can be forced on unwilling targets, so it matters, and so they added the tag.

It does matter, since lowering immunity (or, I think, raising it again) is a standard action, so that's an extra delay.

But eh.

mattie_p

2013-10-16, 04:59 PM

Can you actually lower immunity from mind affecting from mindlessness? Because that sounds kind of dysfunctional in itself; spontaneous development of intelligence in less than six seconds.

I'm not aware that you can lower immunities. SR has an explicit exception.

This could be a stupid question, but where does it say you can lower immunity. I know that you can lower spell resistance and that some cases of immunity explicitly give exceptions or allow you to willingly take effects. But I can't find a general rule for immunities that don't explicitly say anything.

Edit: ninja'd by several minutes. wait, I remeber a discussion about the definition of getting monk'd, this might fall into that.

PHB p 177. Even creatures with a special immunity to certain magic can suppress that ability. It is under voluntarily failing saving throws, but describes an elf accepting a sleep spell.

NeoPhoenix0

2013-10-16, 05:26 PM

PHB p 177. Even creatures with a special immunity to certain magic can suppress that ability. It is under voluntarily failing saving throws, but describes an elf accepting a sleep spell.

That is very informative, thank you.

It does matter, since lowering immunity (or, I think, raising it again) is a standard action, so that's an extra delay.

But eh.

You are thinking of lowering spell resistance, which is a standard action to lower and remains lowered until the start of your turn. You need to lower it every turn if you want to keep it down.

Based on PH pg 177, creatures with "special resistance" can just chose to not use it. Unless you can find a more specific rule for immunity.

TuggyNE

2013-10-16, 05:43 PM

You are thinking of lowering spell resistance, which is a standard action to lower and remains lowered until the start of your turn. You need to lower it every turn if you want to keep it down.

Based on PH pg 177, creatures with "special resistance" can just chose to not use it. Unless you can find a more specific rule for immunity.

I was, yes, mostly because the alternative was too baffling to initially think of. :smallsigh:

nedz

2013-10-16, 06:37 PM

I'm not sure this is a full on dysfunction, but it does fly in the face of reason.

Intimidating Strike is a standard action so you can't use it on a charge.

Aren't charges meant to be intimidating ?

GlorinSteampike

2013-10-16, 06:46 PM

TuggyNE

2013-10-16, 07:37 PM

I agree. It now seems the disfunction is my Undead minions can lower their special immunities to be granted Morale bonuses.

Isn't there actually a bardic ACF or something for that apparent purpose? Or is that just so you can fascinate and suggestion your enemies?

NeoPhoenix0

2013-10-16, 09:18 PM

Isn't there actually a bardic ACF or something for that apparent purpose? Or is that just so you can fascinate and suggestion your enemies?

There is a feat called Requiem in libris mortis.

3WhiteFox3

2013-10-16, 09:51 PM

Does that mean that mindless vermin and oozes can also lower their immunity to mind-affecting spells? If so, that seems really wrong.

Ksheep

2013-10-16, 10:12 PM

Does that mean that mindless vermin and oozes can also lower their immunity to mind-affecting spells? If so, that seems really wrong.

Wouldn't they need to willingly lower that immunity? Consciously make an effort to suppress it? Isn't that then a moot point, seeing as they are mindless and cannot think "Oh, hey, it might be a good idea to lower my immunity to things that alter my mind"?

Andezzar

2013-10-16, 11:20 PM

for vermin and oozes this sounds indeed wrong, but I can see golems and other mindless constructs to have received such instructions.

georgie_leech

2013-10-16, 11:52 PM

*coughs*

Can you actually lower immunity from mind affecting from mindlessness? Because that sounds kind of dysfunctional in itself; spontaneous development of intelligence in less than six seconds.

To rephrase, as rule that implies that it's possible to spontaneously generate a mind to affect by [mind affecting] spells with a Standard Action seems pretty dysfunctional.

NeoPhoenix0

2013-10-17, 12:31 AM

Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw

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

This is the rules text on trial here. To me the words voluntary and willingly imply that a creature must have intelligence to use them. It doesn't seem to imply anything about mindless creatures spontaneously having the mind to forego a saving throw or special resistance.

Andezzar

2013-10-17, 12:37 AM

Additionally being mindless is not a special imunity to magic, it is being an invalid target for mind-affecting abilities. Just as you cannot dominate a chair, you cannot dominate a mindless creature.
If however an intelligent creature somehow acquired immunity to mind-affecting abilities, it could suppress that immunity.

georgie_leech

2013-10-17, 12:38 AM

This is the rules text on trial here. To me the words voluntary and willingly imply that a creature must have intelligence to use them. It doesn't seem to imply anything about mindless creatures spontaneously having the mind to forego a saving throw or special resistance.

It could arise if an Ooze commanded by Oozepuppet was forced to lower its immunity. While it says it performs to the best of its ability, I can't find anything suggesting that mindless creatures are incapable of lowering said immunity (likewise, I can't find any text actually saying that immunity to mind affecting can be lowered at all, but this is assuming it is.) so much as the interpretation as they lack the decision making power to make said choice at all. In other words, it should be possible to force a mindless creature to lower this immunity, if it is in fact an immunity that can be lowered.

NeoPhoenix0

2013-10-17, 01:02 AM

It could arise if an Ooze commanded by Oozepuppet was forced to lower its immunity. While it says it performs to the best of its ability, I can't find anything suggesting that mindless creatures are incapable of lowering said immunity (likewise, I can't find any text actually saying that immunity to mind affecting can be lowered at all, but this is assuming it is.) so much as the interpretation as they lack the decision making power to make said choice at all. In other words, it should be possible to force a mindless creature to lower this immunity, if it is in fact an immunity that can be lowered.

Yes, as long as the method you are using to force it to drop the immunity can actually affect, like I suppose this oozepuppet could for oozes. This doesn't seem dysfunctional at all, since someone intelligent is making the choice for them.

Big Fau

2013-10-17, 07:28 AM

One final rehash of the old Monk Proficiency debate, taken from this article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070403a):

Unarmed Strikes and Natural Weaponry

Before we move on, it's worth pointing out that a character making an unarmed attack, even with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, does not have natural weapons. Nor is a natural weapon a substitute for the Improved Unarmed Strike feat.

As such, they are de facto Simple weapons due to their listing in the PHB. Monks truly are not proficient with their unarmed strikes. Every sample Monk character that uses Unarmed Strikes in ANY WotC-published book is incorrect, as they do not apply the -4 penalty to Unarmed Strikes.

Edit: Even more dysfunction, that quote means you cannot combine Unarmed Strikes and Natural Weapons because your natural weapons don't exist while you are using an Unarmed Strike attack. Way to murder the Monk, Skip.

Andezzar

2013-10-17, 07:41 AM

The "Rules of the Game" articles are not RAW. They are a collection of musings and houserules by Skip Williams that only occasionally are marked as such.

Big Fau

2013-10-17, 07:45 AM

The "Rules of the Game" articles are not RAW. They are a collection of musings and houserules by Skip Williams that only occasionally are marked as such.

Got proof? I can understand disagreing with those articles on certain subjects, but it is a WotC-published/approved article that provides clarification on the rules of the game.

Scow2

2013-10-17, 07:56 AM

Also, it's disingenuous to interpret the rule that way. Unarmed strikes are not ANY kind of weapon, though they count as Simple weapons to have a place on the table (3.0 had them in their own spot - unarmed strike) to list damage, but the Combat rules make it clear they are not an actual weapon: They are a "Special Attack", like Bull Rush, Trip, Grapple, Disarm, and Overrun. The RAWtard ruling would be "You take the nonproficiency penalty if you attack with an Unarmed Strike, but not if you use your attack to make an unarmed strike"

That Rules of the Game article doesn't mean a character making an unarmed strike lacks all Natural Weapons it would otherwise have - it's merely clarifying that Natural Weapons are not considered natural weapons, and having an Unarmed Strike doesn't give you a natural weapon. Magic Fang treats Unarmed Strikes as a natural weapon, but that's an exception to the rule. It does imply that natural weapons replace the ability to make unarmed strikes, though.

Andezzar

2013-10-17, 08:22 AM

Got proof? I can understand disagreing with those articles on certain subjects, but it is a WotC-published/approved article that provides clarification on the rules of the game.They are WotC-published articles but they are neither rule books nor errata. As such they cannot change rules or introduce new ones.

That Rules of the Game article doesn't mean a character making an unarmed strike lacks all Natural Weapons it would otherwise have - it's merely clarifying that Natural Weapons are not considered natural weapons, and having an Unarmed Strike doesn't give you a natural weapon. Magic Fang treats Unarmed Strikes as a natural weapon, but that's an exception to the rule. It does imply that natural weapons replace the ability to make unarmed strikes, though.Magic Fang (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicFang.htm) has no additional rules for Unarmed Strikes. If an unarmed strike weren't a natural weapon, this spell would not affect it.

Chronos

2013-10-17, 09:24 AM

I would argue that "mindless" isn't an ability, per se, but rather just a description of the consequences of not having an Int score, in the same way that immunity to most Fort-save effects is a consequence of not having a Con score. So neither can be suppressed unless you can gain the appropriate score.

NeoPhoenix0

2013-10-17, 09:36 AM

First, I'm on the side that the Rules of the games articles are not RAW. Even if they were they have to defer to primary sources, because they make no claim otherwise.

There are some spell descriptions that name unarmed strike as a natural weapon. Other locations in the PHB describe unarmed strikes as making an attack without a weapon. The only places that define what type of weapon an unarmed strike is in the PHB is the spell descriptions. one such spell description is Align Weapon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/alignWeapon.htm).

I have no idea what being a natural weapon would do for proficiency, because I have never found a general rule for natural weapons. Only that monsters are proficient with weapons listed in their monster entries, and almost every source of natural weapons outside of monster entries seems say you are proficient with them. Unless their is a general rule, I'd have to say monks aren't proficient with them anyway.

Please point out to me a general rule on natural weapons if I have missed it.

FullStop

2013-10-17, 10:42 AM

...you cannot dominate a chair...
Tell that to the loveseat I have tied up and gagged in my basement.

bekeleven

2013-10-17, 11:39 AM

On the bright side, the willingly lowering immunity clause resolves the dysfunctionalily with Sympathy/Antipathy mentioning Vampires as a valid target.

Sure, it will only affect vampires that choose specifically to let it affect them, but it IS valid!

georgie_leech

2013-10-18, 07:15 PM

Charm Person, if cast on someone who is either already Helpful or Fanatic, will actually cause the target to like you less as the target is treated as Friendly, no qualifiers.

mattie_p

2013-10-18, 09:02 PM

Charm Person, if cast on someone who is either already Helpful or Fanatic, will actually cause the target to like you less as the target is treated as Friendly, no qualifiers.

If the target is already helpful or fanatic, why would you waste a spell slot on casting the spell? It's an idiot tax (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0662.html) for the caster, if you ask me, and not a dysfunction.

georgie_leech

2013-10-18, 09:05 PM

If the target is already helpful or fanatic, why would you waste a spell slot on casting the spell? It's an idiot tax for the caster, if you ask me, and not a dysfunction.

Maybe the local religious leaders are concerned about a rapidly growing cult and the Wizard doesn't want their followers to be quite so enthusiastic for a day. I don't know. The point is that there are circumstances where the spell functions presumably not as intended, like how Darkness can actually raise the level of illumination under certain circumstances. It's a much less likely circumstance sure, but it still seems like a dysfunction that the spell cast to make people like you can actually make them like you less.

NeoPhoenix0

2013-10-18, 09:06 PM

The fanatic stalker that you didn't know existed until now just became friendly. They lose fanatical interest in you for the duration of the spell. They also lose track of you as you run far away before the spell wears off.

Maybe it can be used as a feature?

seriously, I intended that to be funnier, but it took a turn towards the useful at the end.

Edit: Could be useful for sorcerers and their raving fan-girls or flirtatious fan-boys.

nedz

2013-10-18, 09:41 PM

It could also be useful for stacking.

Take a Bard. Say he had used his music to fascinate and then hold someone under a suggestion. Stacking a Charm would make them still friendly after they have completed the suggested task.

Scow2

2013-10-18, 10:08 PM

It would seem that Drowning, Darkness, and Charm spells all have "Set to" instead of "raise/lower to" issues.

georgie_leech

2013-10-18, 10:17 PM

It would seem that Drowning, Darkness, and Charm spells all have "Set to" instead of "raise/lower to" issues.

Charm is "treated as" actually, explaining what happens after the duration (no longer being treated as Friendly).

Chambers

2013-10-18, 10:59 PM

Charm Person, if cast on someone who is either already Helpful or Fanatic, will actually cause the target to like you less as the target is treated as Friendly, no qualifiers.

This is my new favorite Dysfunction as I think of the unusual beneficial uses it may have.

Story

2013-10-19, 03:37 PM

If you're a spellcaster, you automatically know when you're threatened by someone with the Mage Slayer feat, even if they're invisible.

TuggyNE

2013-10-19, 06:35 PM

If you're a spellcaster, you automatically know when you're threatened by someone with the Mage Slayer feat, even if they're invisible.

"Fellow adventurers, I feel a sudden sensation of dread and inability to cast spells unthreatened. Perchance there be some ambush sprung?"

The Viscount

2013-10-22, 11:47 AM

Rage Mage, like Bladesinger, can quicken a spell without adjusting the spells level or casting time.

Andezzar

2013-10-22, 11:54 AM

Rage Mage, like Bladesinger, can quicken a spell without adjusting the spells level or casting time.Where is the dysfunction? It is a class feature.

Fax Celestis

2013-10-22, 11:57 AM

Where is the dysfunction? It is a class feature.

Let's go over this again.

Rage Mage [...] can quicken a spell without adjusting the spells [...] casting time.

Karnith

2013-10-22, 11:57 AM

Where is the dysfunction? It is a class feature.
You quicken the spell, but per the class ability you do so without adjusting the casting time. So, no effect.

EDIT: Swordsage'd

Chambers

2013-10-22, 12:17 PM

Rage Mage, like Bladesinger, can quicken a spell without adjusting the spells level or casting time.

That's wonderful. I wonder if there's any possible beneficial interaction with Arcane Spellsurge.

nedz

2013-10-22, 01:18 PM

You quicken the spell, but per the class ability you do so without adjusting the casting time. So, no effect.

Actually it's a little stranger than that:

... a rage mage can quicken one spell of 4th level or lower (as if she had used the Quicken Spell feat), but without adjusting the spell's level or casting time. She may use this ability once during each rage.

Quicken Spell [Metamagic]
Casting a quickened spell is an swift action.

So it's a Swift Action which takes a Std Action.
So some unhelpful Time Dilation too.
Also it consumes your Swift action for the round.

TuggyNE

2013-10-22, 05:51 PM

Rage Mage, like Bladesinger, can quicken a spell without adjusting the spells level or casting time.

It's not hard to figure out what they meant, but boy howdy, did they ever not say it right.

The Viscount

2013-10-23, 12:24 AM

Story

2013-10-23, 12:40 AM

That's a problem of fluff, not RAW. And you might as well ask what happens when a Cleric of an ideal, or an Archivist, or even a Wyrm Wizard casts Miracle.

Aharon

2013-10-23, 12:49 AM

Indeed. That one's simple enough to fix. On the subject of something not so simple, what happens when an Ur-Priest casts miracle? It's supposed to be a petition to your deity for aid, but that doesn't really work here.

He only reaches the automatic helpline instead of the god and gets colon cancer instead of cure serious wounds? :smallbiggrin:

TuggyNE

2013-10-23, 05:02 AM

Two this time. Specialist wizards are capable of activating all spell trigger and spell completion items of banned schools just fine — with the trifling exception of wands and scrolls, but notably not staffs.

And, while longbows are not usable from horseback, composite longbows are.

Andvare

2013-10-23, 06:48 AM

And, while longbows are not usable from horseback, composite longbows are.

Which does make some sense, in that the Welsh Longbow is rather long (2 meters), and it is probably the model used. Whereas the composite bow bit is probably modelled after the Mongol Bow, which is closer to 1 meter in length.
The composite bow is also the one used historically on horsies.

Edit: What is strange, is that the Longbow doesn't get a strength score.

TuggyNE

2013-10-23, 07:26 AM

Which does make some sense, in that the Welsh Longbow is rather long (2 meters), and it is probably the model used. Whereas the composite bow bit is probably modelled after the Mongol Bow, which is closer to 1 meter in length.
The composite bow is also the one used historically on horsies.

Edit: What is strange, is that the Longbow doesn't get a strength score.

I'd submit the Mongol bow would be better modeled as a composite shortbow.

Andvare

2013-10-23, 07:33 AM

I'd submit the Mongol bow would be better modeled as a composite shortbow.

Sure, the problem lies more in the odd classification of bows in D&D. But then, most weapons are oddly categorized in D&D.

Talderas

2013-10-23, 08:38 AM

Rage Mage, like Bladesinger, can quicken a spell without adjusting the spells level or casting time.

This is not a dysfunction. This is another situation where they're slightly overloading terminology and people thinking from a wizard centric world. The statement for bladesinger and rage mage is applying to the costs of using metamagic and not the spell itself.

Sorcerers and Bards
Sorcerers and bards choose spells as they cast them. They can choose when they cast their spells whether to apply their metamagic feats to improve them. As with other spellcasters, the improved spell uses up a higher-level spell slot. But because the sorcerer or bard has not prepared the spell in a metamagic form in advance, he must apply the metamagic feat on the spot. Therefore, such a character must also take more time to cast a metamagic spell (one enhanced by a metamagic feat) than he does to cast a regular spell. If the spell’s normal casting time is 1 standard action, casting a metamagic version is a full-round action for a sorcerer or bard. (This isn’t the same as a 1-round casting time.)

For a spell with a longer casting time, it takes an extra full-round action to cast the spell.

The bladesinger and rage mages abilities let you ignore the bolded clause.

Fax Celestis

2013-10-23, 08:42 AM

The bladesinger and rage mages abilities let you ignore the bolded clause.
They also make you ignore this bolded clause:

Quicken Spell [Metamagic]
Benefit
Casting a quickened spell is an swift action. You can perform another action, even casting another spell, in the same round as you cast a quickened spell. You may cast only one quickened spell per round. A spell whose casting time is more than 1 full round action cannot be quickened. A quickened spell uses up a spell slot four levels higher than the spell’s actual level. Casting a quickened spell doesn’t provoke an attack of opportunity.

Special
This feat can’t be applied to any spell cast spontaneously (including sorcerer spells, bard spells, and cleric or druid spells cast spontaneously), since applying a metamagic feat to a spontaneously cast spell automatically increases the casting time to a full-round action.