Hidden Rules

[Omegas]

I have played a significant number of RPGs but I cant think of any that frequenter have more rules that are obscurely written as part of an ability to counter them then D&D.

What I mean is that in D&D, many rules are defined in place in the book that rarely seem appropriate. Example Feats. How many rules start "Normally characters..." and this is the only place it is defined in the book.

Perhaps it is just be but I think the books in general could have been edited and organized better while retaining all of the information.

Is this just my perspective or do you agree?

[OldTrees1]

Frequently the default cases for those "hidden rules" were printed in the overlooked PHB chapters. (Sometimes with the assumption of common sense being used)

However I am opposed to hidden rules in general.

[Keld Denar]

Firing ranged weapons into a grapple, specifically the chance to hit the wrong target, is mentioned aa foot note under a table of other situational combat modifiers.

Its not mentioned at all in the grapple section.

[Phelix-Mu]

It's pretty evident to anyone with editing experience that the core books all could have benefited from another round of design layout and copy editing. Outside of core, there are a handful of gems that are so badly strung together that my eyes practically bleed (ToB).

But, as a player of several other rpgs, there is more than one way to screw up rules descriptions, and I think most of the vital rules to play the game aren't terribly hard to access. It's the details where stuff gets vague and mucky, and generally, a DM would do well to shut the book and just make up something that makes sense at their table. Or crowdsource a ruling, thanks to our modern communications paradigm.

[Duke of Urrel]

Some rules have to be found by induction, that is, by looking up how a particular word is used in multiple contexts in order to determine what it really means.

For example, I recently concluded, with the help of the Playground by the way, that the words "extradimensional" and "nondimensional" mean the same thing. (I once disputed this, as this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=322556) shows.) The properties of either an extradimensional or nondimensional space, or of a gate that separates this space from normal space, depend purely on how this space or gate is created. The words are used interchangeably only in the description of the Portable Hole (though the description of the Mirror of Life Trapping includes the phrase "nonspatial extradimensional compartments"). But if we use Jans Carton's helpful SRD to look up every place where these two words appear, we can never find any distinction between the two words, or any apparent reason why one word is ever used in preference of the other. At least, I can't. So inductively, I think we have to conclude that the words mean the same thing.

Magic is another concept whose full meaning can only be discovered inductively. I once pondered how the residue of a dragon's breath weapon or a cleric's turning action should look when examined by the Detect Magic spell, but then I realized (with the help of Curmudgeon) that supernatural magic is simply of a higher order than magic created by spells or spell-like abilities, so that the Detect Magic spell cannot detect it at all. Formerly, I had been stuck on the notion that magic is magic, that supernatural abilities are magical because they are suppressed in an Antimagic Field, and that therefore, the Detect Magic spell should detect supernatural magic as well as any other magic. What changed my mind? Well, if you look for rules for how supernatural effects appear when examined by the Detect Magic spell, you can't find any.

The appropriate conclusion to draw from this is that the Detect Magic spell doesn't detect supernatural magic. Presumably it doesn't detect deific magic, either, or the magic that is present in an interplanar vortex, but a more thorough empirical investigation of this question may be needed. What I know now for certain is that the Detect Magic spell detects spells and spell-like abilities, which I now refer to as "natural magic" to contrast it with the supernatural. This is a concept that I have built purely by induction – and it is still developing!

[Brookshw]

Why, yes! The editing and layout could be much better done. Waiting to see what 5e will do.

[Arc_knight25]

If you haven't heard of Anima yet its layout is less then to be desired.

It was originally printed in Spanish and in 2008 was printed in English.

Needless to say the format from front to back is so disjointed it is hard to even create a character yet alone play the game.

But once you get past the formatting of the book, its a really interesting game. Pretty much just a % system.

[Gemini476]

The appropriate conclusion to draw from this is that the Detect Magic spell doesn't detect supernatural magic. Presumably it doesn't detect deific magic, either, or the magic that is present in an interplanar vortex, but a more thorough empirical investigation of this question may be needed. What I know now for certain is that the Detect Magic spell detects spells and spell-like abilities, which I now refer to as "natural magic" to contrast it with the supernatural. This is a concept that I have built purely by induction – and it is still developing!

Do note that this also means that a full one-third of Shadow Magic cannot be detected by Detect Magic (1st-3rd level Mysteries after 13th level, as well as some more if you take the feat to convert them to (Su)), and (if you go by that interpretation) a Psion can take a feat to make all of their ordinarily (Ps) Psionics (Su).

[Duke of Urrel]

Do note that this also means that a full one-third of Shadow Magic cannot be detected by Detect Magic (1st-3rd level Mysteries after 13th level, as well as some more if you take the feat to convert them to (Su)), and (if you go by that interpretation) a Psion can take a feat to make all of their ordinarily (Ps) Psionics (Su).

I'm glad you wrote this, for two reasons.

Firstly: Yes, as you say, if we follow the rule that the Detect Magic spell can't detect supernatural effects, then we must concede that according to this rule, some effects Shadow Magic are undetectable.

Secondly: Before I read what you wrote, I had been unaware of Shadow Magic and had no idea that supernatural spells existed. But you know what this means, don't you? It means that my inductive reasoning, which is the whole basis for my rule that the Detect Magic spell can't detect supernatural effects, is flawed. If some supernatural effects are also spell effects, then maybe not all supernatural magic is beyond the power of the Detect Magic spell to detect. You remember, my whole inductive conclusion was based upon the lack of supernatural effects that are also spells, or that resemble them enough so that we can directly apply the description of the Detect Magic spell to them. Now that I know that supernatural spells exist, I must re-think my position!

Unfortunately, this is how induction works. You look at various cases and slowly develop a rule that applies to them all, and eventually, you become confident that this rule is a general rule. But then, all of a sudden, you discover an exception to what you thought was a rule. And then you have to revise your rule.

This happens with D&D a lot. But I don't blame the game designers. I think it's just a consequence of trying to create a game with lots of variety and complexity.

[JaronK]

Considering I'm building automated programs to use all the randomization tables and whatnot and create encounters... dear lord I've found a lot of weird stuff.

It's incredibly frustrating just coming up with what the demographics are actually supposed to be in this game. Randomized magic items (as you're supposed to do with treasure) are brutally hard due to tables being everywhere. And I think very few people realize that you're not often going to be fighting monsters of your CR or higher... most monsters come in groups, so you're far more likely to fight 4 or more critters below your CR even in the harder fights. Plus, it's possible to end up fighting an entire army, due to the organization sections of some monsters.

It's pretty wacky.

JaronK

[Dawgmoah]

This happens with D&D a lot. But I don't blame the game designers. I think it's just a consequence of trying to create a game with lots of variety and complexity.

It has been stated on the Playground more than once by folks that hidden rules are something to avoid. Now the problem I would hold forth is with a process some folks have also mentioned on the Playground, Red Fel I believe did a good job of describing it in another post. And that is using only what you understand and then slowly bolting on/adding the new rules, items, feats, classes (etc) to your game once you're comfortable with them. When that happens you have to go back and "retread" the effects of these new rules and so on as how they affect the rest of the game. Hidden rules can come to the surface I would guess during this process.

Like your stand on Detect Magic: will did know about the supernatural spells and will now have to adjust accordingly. It may be something the players notice or it just might be a footnote for your campaign.

That's the benefit of reading and posting on the Playground in that you see different opinions, and can even learn from those you disagree with.

[icefractal]

Plus, it's possible to end up fighting an entire army, due to the organization sections of some monsters.I was surprised by that same thing when I was considering a sort of sim-adventurer program. For example, check this out:
solitary, pair, patrol (3–6), squad (7–12), or company (13–30 plus 2–4 fighters or rogues of 2nd–4th level, 1 oracle or sorcerer of 5th–8th level, 1 ranger or monk commander of 5th–6th level, 10–20 yetis, 1–4 cloud giants, 8–12 frost giants, 10–16 stone giants, 4–8 lamia matriarchs, and 1–2 adult blue dragons)I don't even know exactly what CR that is, the calculator doesn't have that many slots. But it's in the high 20s.

[JaronK]

Indeed, that's one of the puzzling things we're trying to figure out in our "automate all of D&D" program.

It certainly changes a lot of assumptions about the rules though. So many people talk about Adamantium Horrors being so weak for their CR, but it's rarely pointed out that they never travel alone and thus are never found at that CR.

JaronK

[ZamielVanWeber]

Destruction at will weak for CR 9? I always vonsidered Adamantine horror to be one of these crazy rocket tag monsters. Whoever goes first has a good chance of winning.

Abd yes, this it is horrible. The sleeping rules are printed in a random secyion of Elder.Evils.

[Brookshw]

Wow, uh...okay, just saw an odd one actually. DMG, 11, "It's best if you decide ahead of time which books (other than the Player's Handbook) a player can reference during a playing session"

Emphasis mine. That has some interesting consequences......

You took a prestige out of Complete Scoundrel? How you memorized it because you can't reference it during the game!

You forgot how the magic item out of BoED works? Too bad! Better look it up between sessions!

You want to shapechange into a [thing]? Hope you know the stats by heart because you can't reference them during play!

And so on.....

[Gotterdammerung]

I agree that the rules could of been edited better. And I can see where people come from when they say D&D 3.5 needed a talented continuity coordinator. But at the same time all the little human hiccups in this system actually endear the game to me. Even though I have played this game for a small lifetime, I still find new and interesting character builds. I believe this functionally infinite replay value comes from all the little human errors made while designing the game. The idea of so many minds contributing to a system without properly coordinating is intriguing and I find the end result unbelievably functional. It is kind of like watching twitch plays pokemon and being shocked when a chaotic community actually clears a section of the game.

But even if these little mistakes bother you, it is important to understand where they come from.

1. Some mistakes are a result of edition changes and copy/paste without proper proofreading. An example, the aforementioned rules for firing into a grapple. These were 3.0 rules. Some of the rules for this mechanic were deleted, but a single line was missed under a feat. Since it is in the 3.5 rulebook (even if it was a mistake) it is actually still a rule. But it is a rule in a very odd place.

2. (this one is more of a balance issue stemming from the same root but I will list it anyway) Poor communication through designers. example, designers A, B, and C are all working on their own content. Designer A happens upon an idea of using the momentum of a charge to deal additional damage. So he writes up a feat to embody this idea. Designer B comes across the same idea but never talks to designer A. Designer B writes his feat out in a different language and the result is slightly different in game terms. Designer C also makes a feat about using extra momentum from a charge to deal damage. At the end of the day, since all of these designers never communicated the end result is 3 different feats that are all born out of the same concept, all representing the same momentum as fuel for the power of the feat, that still stack with each other because of uncoordinated use of game terms.

3. different understandings of the rules in house. Just like on this forum, or in a home game, different people see the rules of this game differently. On the outside looking in, we players assume there is some D&D overlord who has complete mastery of the rules. But there isn't. Even at the top, there are small arguments about how certain things work. No one really knows the "correct rules". This works anyway because D&D was designed to give ultimate jurisdiction to your moderator. So it doesn't matter if 2 designers disagree, because your GM gets the final call on how everything works. This mitigating factor becomes less valuable to the online community because here we don't have a GM. In fact, if a GM lets you do something outside the normal game rules, the online community is more likely to discredit that character. Occasionally, you will have a designer clarify a particular facet of the game so that the rules coincide with their perspective. This creates shadow rules. A much debated mystery is suddenly clarified in some random content.
Examples: Losing prerequ's for prestige classes= losing the prestige classes abilities.

Changing type leaves you with the augmented subtype clashing with dragonmarks restrictive race rules. Normally if you were changed into an undead for instance, you would be undead type with the subtype augmented humanoid (human). Previously, this meant you were still considered human for all intents and purposes. You were not a lesser form of human. But Eberron came back and negated this rule to support the fluff of their deathmark lich queen who lost her dragonmark of death. Now there is clarification between this new "true human" and creature who are still (human). But since, they only clarified this rule to reflect on their own content, dragonmarks, Both renditions of the rules still exist. A Neanderthal can take the human Paragon class but he can not take a human's dragonmark.

Sometimes these designer clarifications are not localized. Sometimes they have broad implications. For instance, a while back there was a large argument on this forum about what happens when you add a spell to a class list. If a wizard adds a cleric spell to his class list, is it now classified as a wizard spell? The argument was split down the middle and no one could make any headway. But the designer of the feat Winter's Champion from Frostburn, introduced the first clarification of what happens when a spell is added to a list when it clarifies that the winter and cold domain spells added to the paladin list are indeed now classified as paladin spells. They will combo with anything else that references "paladin spells".

4. Poor wording from the designers. example: Factotums gaining inspiriation points every encounter without a rule to lose them at the end of the encounter. Thus introducing the ability to stock pile inspiration points by spamming small encounters.

Psicrystals getting feats as their hit dice increase.

These hidden rules tend to be overuled frequently by moderators, but they are new hidden raw rules, nonetheless.

[JaronK]

Destruction at will weak for CR 9? I always vonsidered Adamantine horror to be one of these crazy rocket tag monsters. Whoever goes first has a good chance of winning.

Sorry, meant to say it the other way, their CR is too low, making them seem weaker than they are.

But you never actually fight them at CR 9, because they have a whole group with them that pushes the CR to 12 or 13 or so. Still nasty, but not nearly as devastating.

JaronK

[Zombulian]

Well there's always the Mongoose Abridged PHB. I don't personally own it, but my friend does and professes it to be a pretty big help to the otherwise badly edited/organized book.

[Curmudgeon]

Wow, uh...okay, just saw an odd one actually. DMG, 11, "It's best if you decide ahead of time which books (other than the Player's Handbook) a player can reference during a playing session"
Not specifically because of that recommendation, but simply because it helps organize things better, I make good use of my multifunction printer/scanner/copier/... machine. I don't bring most whole books to the table; I bring just the pages pertinent to my character.

[Fitz10019]

I'd like to tag every heading by class, and then print a class-specific version of the PHB (or make a pdf), just to eliminate some page turning. I want a 40-page fighter-only version, a 60-page arcane-caster-only version, etc.

On the topic of hidden rules, PHB, taking the Two-Weapon Fighting feat has a secondary effect that is only mentioned in a footnote in the Combat chapter.

[Curmudgeon]

On the topic of hidden rules, PHB, taking the Two-Weapon Fighting feat has a secondary effect that is only mentioned in a footnote in the Combat chapter.
Are you sure about that? Sure, it's mentioned in a footnote to Table 8–2: Actions in Combat on page 141, but it's also plainly stated under Draw or Sheathe a Weapon on the following page.

[nyjastul69]

Wow, uh...okay, just saw an odd one actually. DMG, 11, "It's best if you decide ahead of time which books (other than the Player's Handbook) a player can reference during a playing session"

Emphasis mine. That has some interesting consequences......

You took a prestige out of Complete Scoundrel? How you memorized it because you can't reference it during the game!

You forgot how the magic item out of BoED works? Too bad! Better look it up between sessions!

You want to shapechange into a [thing]? Hope you know the stats by heart because you can't reference them during play!

And so on.....

That suggestion doesn't mean a player needs to memorize all of the sources the player might need to reference during a session. That suggestion is so the player and DM will be on the same page as to what sources can be referenced during a session. The salient bit is: don't spring a new bit, from a new book, on your GM during a session.

[Brookshw]

That suggestion doesn't mean a player needs to memorize all of the sources the player might need to reference during a session. That suggestion is so the player and DM will be on the same page as to what sources can be referenced during a session. The salient bit is: don't spring a new bit, from a new book, on your GM during a session.

I think you've missed the point of blue text.....

And the raw disagrees.

[Fitz10019]

Are you sure about that? Sure, it's mentioned in a footnote to Table 8–2: Actions in Combat on page 141, but it's also plainly stated under Draw or Sheathe a Weapon on the following page.

Ah, you're right. What irks still me is that this is an effect of the feat, and the feat description doesn't mention it.

[nyjastul69]

I think you've missed the point of blue text.....

And the raw disagrees.


The text doesn't render as exactly blue on my phone. It looks more like a purple. I guess I should have guessed it was sarcasm. My fail there. The blue text is an odd thing here. Where is there a RAW error to what I stated or referred to?

[Brookshw]

The text doesn't render as exactly blue on my phone. It looks more like a purple. I guess I should have guessed it was sarcasm. My fail there. The blue text is an odd thing here. Where is there a RAW error to what I stated or referred to?

No worries, it is an odd phenomena, I use blue myself for joking while others use it for sarcasm, (and of course overlaps) I agree with what you've said as the intended meaning, but in that it specifies a "playing session" you'd be free to reference whatever you like in between sessions, for example character leveling, you just couldn't reference them during an actual game. Poor wording choices by the writers.