Dysfunctional Rules Thread V: Dysfunctions All the Way Down

[Sith_Happens]

Ever find something in D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder that the author should have been a little more careful with? Maybe a feat doesn't do what it's obviously supposed to, or using a particular rule as written has nonsensical consequences (drown-healing, I'm looking at you). This thread is for posting all those times where you look at a bit of RAW and think "Wait, that doesn't work right."

If you're new here, please make sure your Dysfunction isn't already in the handbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267985); this is the fifth thread of this.

Previous threads:

"Wait, That Didn't Work Right" - The Dysfunctional Rules Collection (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214988)
"Wait Again, That Didn't Work Right" - The Dysfunctional Rules Collection (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267923)
Dysfunctional Rules III: 100% Rules-Legal, 110% Silly (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283778)
Dysfunctional Rules IV: It's Like a Sandwich Made of RAW Failure! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=304817)

[TuggyNE]

Woo new thread!

Recently I realized that, as far as I can tell, troglodytes are only proficient with simple weapons, but their natural weapons are not, as such, simple.

This is related to the Monk proficiency debacle but is not quite the same thing.

[Sith_Happens]

Woo new thread!

Recently I realized that, as far as I can tell, troglodytes are only proficient with simple weapons, but their natural weapons are not, as such, simple.

This is related to the Monk proficiency debacle but is not quite the same thing.

I can never remember whether there's a rule anywhere saying that creatures are always proficient with their own natural weapons. If so, then the above is not dysfunctional. If not, then almost everything in the game that has or gives natural weapons has the same problem.

Similar, definite dysfunction: A standard, straight-from-the-Monster-Manual Gnoll uses a battleaxe and a shortbow, but is not proficient with either.

[Drachasor]

I can never remember whether there's a rule anywhere saying that creatures are always proficient with their own natural weapons. If so, then the above is not dysfunctional. If not, then almost everything in the game that has or gives natural weapons has the same problem.

Similar, definite dysfunction: A standard, straight-from-the-Monster-Manual Gnoll uses a battleaxe and a shortbow, but is not proficient with either.

It seems that the Type is what determine proficiency. Humanoids aren't listed as being proficient with their natural weapons.

"Proficient with all simple weapons, or by character class."

That's it. Other entries usually have "proficient with natural weapons only" or "proficient with whatever weapons are mentioned in its entry" or other such stuff.

The section on "Natural Weapons" in the SRD at least, doesn't mention proficiency one way or the other. Nor does weapon proficiency in general. I think at some point they didn't think that term applied to natural weapons.

They'd be ok if they were monstrous humanoids.

[bekeleven]

How does a humanoid gain proficiency with natural weapons if they aren't, as I assumed, simple? They wouldn't be martial or exotic.

[Drachasor]

How does a humanoid gain proficiency with natural weapons if they aren't, as I assumed, simple? They wouldn't be martial or exotic.

I don't think there is any way to do that. Natural Weapons are Natural Weapons -- not simple, martial, or exotic.

[Socksy]

I'm not sure if my post got eaten by the end-of-thread stuff, but is Fiend Folio 3.5?

If so, the Vorr has a "Shadow Form" with DR 50/+5, but no clause saying it can't attack while in that form.

[TuggyNE]

I can never remember whether there's a rule anywhere saying that creatures are always proficient with their own natural weapons. If so, then the above is not dysfunctional. If not, then almost everything in the game that has or gives natural weapons has the same problem.

Neither is quite the case. All types except Humanoid explicitly provide that all creatures of that type are proficient with either a) natural weapons or b) whatever they are described as using. So it's only those Humanoids that foolishly chose to grow natural weapons that might have a problem here. (Ninja'd because of a browser crash and ensuing distraction.)


Similar, definite dysfunction: A standard, straight-from-the-Monster-Manual Gnoll uses a battleaxe and a shortbow, but is not proficient with either.

Ouch. Yep. The crucial distinction between a 1 HD and a 2 HD Humanoid was apparently lost on them. (One, of course, is likely to be of Warrior class and thus can actually manage martial weapons; the other is just useless RHD.)

[Sith_Happens]

So it's only those Humanoids that foolishly chose to grow natural weapons that might have a problem here. (Ninja'd because of a browser crash and ensuing distraction.)

So basically, if you plan on using a shapechanging effect for some natural weapon action, it had better be an effect that changes your type.

[nedz]

I'm not sure if my post got eaten by the end-of-thread stuff, but is Fiend Folio 3.5?

Fiend Folio is 3.0

[Fax Celestis]

So basically, if you plan on using a shapechanging effect for some natural weapon action, it had better be an effect that changes your type.

So Totemists have the same problem as Monks, basically.

[Zweisteine]

I can never remember whether there's a rule anywhere saying that creatures are always proficient with their own natural weapons.

Similar, definite dysfunction: A standard, straight-from-the-Monster-Manual Gnoll uses a battleaxe and a shortbow, but is not proficient with either.
I'm pretty sure it says that everything is proficient with their natural weapons.
It also says that everything is proficient with everything in their stat block.

[Chronos]

If it did say that everything is proficient with its natural weapons, then monks would be fine, since unarmed strike is a natural weapon (albeit a peculiar one). Alas, though, it does not.

Totemists, though, explicitly gain proficiency with the natural weapons they shape.

And the Fiend Folio was officially updated to 3.5, but the Vorr wasn't mentioned in the update, leaving it unclear what its DR should be. In any event, it was certainly dysfunctional under 3.0 rules, since its DR would be completely insurmountable for any 4th-level party.

[The Viscount]

All DR that is 10X/+X in 3.5 is changed to /magic, so the DR isn't necessarily a dysfunction, though it unfortunately stands at an unrealistic 50. The shadow form by itself is definitely lacking in rules to explain things.

I love that we've managed to fill 4 threads with this stuff.

[Ksheep]

Not necessarily a dysfunction, per se, but an oddity pertaining to AoO and Combat Reflexes (and no, it's not the Thicket of Blades discussion we've been having in the last thread). According to the AoO rules:


If you have the Combat Reflexes feat you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus.

So an enemy could spend an entire turn running hustling in a circle square around an enemy that has Combat Reflexes and only provoke once, but if he were to walk through a threatened square, stop, and then cast a spell, they'd provoke twice. Even if the one moving through made one and a half loops around the defender (assuming 30' movement, taking a double move action, and the defender being medium sized), the defender can only try to hit him once, no matter how high of a DEX bonus you have…

[The Viscount]

Sanctify the Wicked has a focus of a diamond costing 10,000gp that is destroyed when the spell is complete. While making it a material component certainly would not fix this, it's not really a focus if it's consumed as part of the spell, is it?

[georgie_leech]

Sanctify the Wicked has a focus of a diamond costing 10,000gp that is destroyed when the spell is complete. While making it a material component certainly would not fix this, it's not really a focus if it's consumed as part of the spell, is it?

The text I'm reading here (http://dndtools.eu/spells/book-of-exalted-deeds--52/sanctify-the-wicked--93/) suggests that it's a conscious choice to shatter the diamond, not a spell effect. That is, "if some external force shatters the diamond, here's what happens."

[XionUnborn01]

The text I'm reading here (http://dndtools.eu/spells/book-of-exalted-deeds--52/sanctify-the-wicked--93/) suggests that it's a conscious choice to shatter the diamond, not a spell effect. That is, "if some external force shatters the diamond, here's what happens."

Yeah, I think the real dysfunction here is that you apparently give a formerly evil creature a 10,000gp diamond for turning good. That's bribery and I like it!

[georgie_leech]

Yeah, I think the real dysfunction here is that you apparently give a formerly evil creature a 10,000gp diamond for turning good. That's bribery and I like it!

Less "bribery" and more "Force them to spend a year in the ultimate solitary confinement to reflect on past misdeeds." Supposedly, at least; mechanically, it does something else. To wit:


Incidentally, on the evidence that Sanctify the Wicked is more about magic than a real epiphany, the text says that if the diamond is destroyed before the year is up, the creature is restored to their original condition. Strictly speaking, if you break the diamond 11 months, 29 days and 14399 rounds after casting the spell, the captured soul doesn't change at all (minus whatever being stuck in a gem for year would do), while doing so one round later drastically changes the creature's alignment.

[illyahr]

Not necessarily a dysfunction, per se, but an oddity pertaining to AoO and Combat Reflexes (and no, it's not the Thicket of Blades discussion we've been having in the last thread).

Let's just agree that Thicket of Blades is dysfunctional simply due to the vagueness of it's wording. It may or may not actually be dysfunctional, but it has caused enough confusion to warrant the tag.

[Fax Celestis]

Channel Charge feat from Lost Empires of Faerun has the following text:


When you use a spell trigger-magic item with charges (such as a wand or a staff), you can make a Use Magic Device check (DC 15 + the item's caster level). If you succeed, you can sacrifice a spell slot or prepared spell instead of using a charge. The spell slot or spell sacrificed must be one level higher than the level of the desired effect from the item. If the check fails, both your spell slot (or prepared spell) and 1 charge from the item are expended.

This is the dysfunction: DC 15 + the item's caster level. However:

Staff Descriptions
Staffs use the wielder’s ability score and relevant feats to set the DC for saves against their spells. Unlike with other sorts of magic items, the wielder can use his caster level when activating the power of a staff if it’s higher than the caster level of the staff.
...So the feat gets harder to use the better you are.

[Vedhin]

The Construct type does not give immunity to the Sickened or Nauseated conditions. :smallconfused:

[Drachasor]

The Construct type does not give immunity to the Sickened or Nauseated conditions. :smallconfused:

It can distinguish itself from others (non-zero charisma) and it can observe them (non-zero wisdom), therefore it can become sicked and nauseated by them.

[Venger]

I'm not sure if my post got eaten by the end-of-thread stuff, but is Fiend Folio 3.5?

If so, the Vorr has a "Shadow Form" with DR 50/+5, but no clause saying it can't attack while in that form.

the vorr was addressed in the last thread.


The Construct type does not give immunity to the Sickened or Nauseated conditions. :smallconfused:

while that's true, many of the ways to inflict sickness and nausea are necromancy effects, which constructs are immune to.

[3WhiteFox3]

Channel Charge feat from Lost Empires of Faerun has the following text:



This is the dysfunction: DC 15 + the item's caster level. However:

...So the feat gets harder to use the better you are.

I'm not so sure. I see two issues with that reading.


Staff Descriptions
Staffs use the wielder’s ability score and relevant feats to set the DC for saves against their spells. Unlike with other sorts of magic items, the wielder can use his caster level when activating the power of a staff if it’s higher than the caster level of the staff.

1. 'Can use' not must use. It's optional.
2. The caster level increase is only for the purposes of activating the staff's power.

The feat is not the staves power and the caster can just decide to not use his caster level in the place of the staff's caster level.

[NEO|Phyte]

How does a humanoid gain proficiency with natural weapons if they aren't, as I assumed, simple? They wouldn't be martial or exotic.
Druids gain proficiency with the natural weapons of forms they assume via Wild Shape, at least.

[bekeleven]

Druids gain proficiency with the natural weapons of forms they assume via Wild Shape, at least.

...Yet wild shape rangers do not...

[TuggyNE]

I'm pretty sure it says that everything is proficient with their natural weapons.
It also says that everything is proficient with everything in their stat block.

Nope! Both are specific rules that apply to some types, but not all; the majority of types do not specifically grant proficiency with listed weapons/armor, but rely on simple/martial/natural weapon proficiency. And, as mentioned, Humanoids do not qualify for either.

[TypoNinja]

Nope! Both are specific rules that apply to some types, but not all; the majority of types do not specifically grant proficiency with listed weapons/armor, but rely on simple/martial/natural weapon proficiency. And, as mentioned, Humanoids do not qualify for either.

Wait, this means that the Monk/Unarmed strike dysfunction is slightly narrower than I thought. Since say, Monstrous Humanoids do get the magic "Proficient with all simple weapons and any weapons mentioned in its entry." phrase, an Orc monk is proficient with his unarmed strikes, but any normal Humanoid is hosed.

So really its Humanoid Monks, not monks in general.

[TuggyNE]

Wait, this means that the Monk/Unarmed strike dysfunction is slightly narrower than I thought. Since say, Monstrous Humanoids do get the magic "Proficient with all simple weapons and any weapons mentioned in its entry." phrase, an Orc monk is proficient with his unarmed strikes, but any normal Humanoid is hosed.

Orcs are humanoids, but besides that, Monk unarmed strikes are not, of course, mentioned in the MM entry. So any type without proficiency "in its natural weapons" will have this problem, which means some constructs (including warforged), many dragons, some elementals, all fey, all humanoids, all monstrous humanoids, and all outsiders. The magic wording is really that of giants (or undead, and to a lesser extent aberrations):
Proficient with all simple and martial weapons, as well as any natural weapons.

Mind you, of those only humanoids have any problems with natural weapons listed in their entry. The distinction is subtle. :smallsigh:

[Lightlawbliss]

The Construct type does not give immunity to the Sickened or Nauseated conditions. :smallconfused:

- Con however (which most constructs have) if a different story.

[Vedhin]

- Con however (which most constructs have) if a different story.

Nope (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#nonabilities):


A creature with no Constitution has no body or no metabolism. It is immune to any effect that requires a Fortitude save unless the effect works on objects or is harmless. The creature is also immune to ability damage, ability drain, and energy drain, and automatically fails Constitution checks. A creature with no Constitution cannot tire and thus can run indefinitely without tiring (unless the creature’s description says it cannot run).

Words for the spam filter! Blood for the blood god!

[ZamielVanWeber]

So basically, if you plan on using a shapechanging effect for some natural weapon action, it had better be an effect that changes your type.

Or posses the shapechanger subtype.

[Vedhin]

PHBII, pg 158. The Cunning Ambush Teamwork Benefit allows the team leader to make Hide checks on behalf of team members, in order to conceal them. The team member's Dexterity modifiers and armor check penalties replace those of the team leader for these checks. Their size modifiers do not. So if a flea hides a titan, the titan effectively gets the bonus for being Fine sized. If the titan hides the flea, it is effectively Colossal.

[Telonius]

I just came across a real gem in Races of Stone.

Tumbler's Breastplate: "The wearer receives a +2 circumstance bonus on Tumble checks, but the normal armor check penalty still applies."

From the table: Medium Armor. Speed (30 ft): 20 ft. Speed (20 ft): 15 ft.

From the Tumble skill description: "You can’t use this skill if your speed has been reduced by armor, excess equipment, or loot."

:smallsigh:

EDIT: Being a dwarf would negate the penalty, and so would a mithral version of it; but seriously.

[illyahr]

Tumbler's Breastplate: "The wearer receives a +2 circumstance bonus on Tumble checks, but the normal armor check penalty still applies."

"We'll give you a bonus on a skill you can't use while wearing this armor cuz we're nice like that." :smalltongue:

[nedz]

The Construct type does not give immunity to the Sickened or Nauseated conditions. :smallconfused:

How are you getting these conditions ?
Because:

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

[Sith_Happens]

How are you getting these conditions ?
Because:

I'm positive there's at least one effect somewhere that inflicts sickening or nausea without a Fortitude save and doesn't call out Constructs as immune.

[Vedhin]

How are you getting these conditions ?
Because:

Unholy Blight (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/unholyBlight.htm) from the PHB will do the job against Good-aligned constructs.

Destiny Dissonance (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/destinyDissonance.htm) from the XPH will work against anything.

[nedz]

I'm positive there's at least one effect somewhere that inflicts sickening or nausea without a Fortitude save and doesn't call out Constructs as immune.

Well that effect would be the dysfunction perhaps ? Or at least the combination of the two.

[No brains]

Sanctify the Wicked has a focus of a diamond costing 10,000gp that is destroyed when the spell is complete. While making it a material component certainly would not fix this, it's not really a focus if it's consumed as part of the spell, is it?

That's not even the funniest part of the spell- the spell specifies that the caster of the spell becomes a hated enemy of the target without specifying whether this happens on a failure or success.

"Gee, I agree with you on all moral and ethical dilemmas after that year in the diamond, but I sure hate the crap out of you."

[Sith_Happens]

That's not even the funniest part of the spell- the spell specifies that the caster of the spell becomes a hated enemy of the target without specifying whether this happens on a failure or success.

"Gee, I agree with you on all moral and ethical dilemmas after that year in the diamond, but I sure hate the crap out of you."

It's in the paragraph describing what happens if the diamond is broken prematurely. The previous paragraph describes what happens if it's broken after the year's actually up.

The dysfunction is that nothing says you have to shatter the diamond once a year has passed and the target's converted, you can totally just leave the now-Good creature's soul trapped in there forever.

[Drachasor]

I mentioned this in the last thread, but it didn't seem to make the list:

Magic Jar and Buffs, how do they interact? Do buffs on a target stick with the soul or the body?

If you cast Bull's Strength on yourself, and then move into someone else's body, does the new body have it or your old one?

What about Fox's Cunning?

What about Enlarge Person, Alter Self, Shape Change?

Now here's where it gets trickier...

If you are in a new body and cast....

Anti-Magic Field, what happens? Are you kicked out with the anti-magic field following you, or are you kicked out with the owner of the body keeping the AMF?

What if you cast Protection from Evil or Mind Blank on yourself in the new body? Do you get kicked out or not? If you had them on before you moved, do they stay with you and if so do they kick you out? What if you are a Collegiate Arcanist (PF) of 5th or higher and so have Protection From Evil constantly active, can you not use Magic Jar without dispelling the Protection from Evil First? (The latter applies to similar PrCs and abilities too, of course).

The rules really don't distinguish between a soul, body, and creature 99% of the time, so they really don't handle this at all. A DM can probably handwave it easily enough for some things, but for others it is less clear. And potentially you get the ability to put personal buffs on anyone you want...maybe.

[TypoNinja]

Since spells typically target a "Creature" and the resurrection spells (and outsider/elemental descriptions) establish that a soul is a distinct and separate entity from the body, I'd say the spell stays with the physical form

[Drachasor]

Since spells typically target a "Creature" and the resurrection spells (and outsider/elemental descriptions) establish that a soul is a distinct and separate entity from the body, I'd say the spell stays with the physical form

The game also establishes that dead creatures are objects, and resurrection spells target "dead creatures." So yes, the game establishes that a body isn't a creature necessarily -- though you don't need a soul to have a creature if it is a construct or the like. On the other hand, creature types that have souls seem to need that soul component to be creatures -- otherwise they are just bodies (even magic jar seems to indicate this).

So whether a given ensouled creature is a body with any soul in it, a body with a particular soul in it, or just the soul doesn't seem to be clear. It doesn't SEEM to be just a body, but that doesn't rule out the possibility that a buff might stay behind on the body.

[Drachasor]

Oh, I don't think this has been brought up.

Pathfinder: If you have a Polymorph spell on you, then you are immune to all hostile polymorph effects:


You can only be affected by one polymorph spell at a time. If a new polymorph spell is cast on you (or you activate a polymorph effect, such as wild shape), you can decide whether or not to allow it to affect you, taking the place of the old spell. In addition, other spells that change your size have no effect on you while you are under the effects of a polymorph spell. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic#TOC-Transmutation)

Though, this mostly seems limited to Flesh Curdle, Excruciating Deformation, and Polymorph Any Object.* Though there might be some polymorph spell-likes. Flesh to Stone isn't in the Polymorph sub-school -- which is a bit amusing since PAO can duplicate it. (Baleful Polymorph has a line explicitly dispelling other Polymorph effects if you fail the save).

*I might have missed a couple, but most Polymorph spells are beneficial - or ostensibly beneficial.

[Chronos]

Quoth Drachasor:

The game also establishes that dead creatures are objects...
I don't think this is actually true. It's intuitive, but dead creatures not being objects actually resolves a number of dysfunctions.

[squiggit]

Not quite sure if this counts but the epic spell Spell Worm (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/spells/spellWorm.htm) has an odd bit of functionality:

Every round the victim of the spell loses a standard action and one of their highest level spell slots left. The spell goes on to say that if the subject has multiple prepared spells at that level they get to choose which spell they lose... then the ability goes on to say that the victim is unaware that they no longer have access to that spell unless they try to cast it.

So I'm not really sure how you're supposed to reconcile someone actively choosing which spell they lose while somehow still not knowing which one they've lost (or that they're losing them at all).

[georgie_leech]

Not quite sure if this counts but the epic spell Spell Worm (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/spells/spellWorm.htm) has an odd bit of functionality:

Every round the victim of the spell loses a standard action and one of their highest level spell slots left. The spell goes on to say that if the subject has multiple prepared spells at that level they get to choose which spell they lose... then the ability goes on to say that the victim is unaware that they no longer have access to that spell unless they try to cast it.

So I'm not really sure how you're supposed to reconcile someone actively choosing which spell they lose while somehow still not knowing which one they've lost (or that they're losing them at all).

Separation of IC/OOC Knowledge, in the same way that creatures don't know when they've failed a Spot Check. Players would control their PC's spell loss, but their character wouldn't know which one vanished; the DM does likewise for NPC's.

[No brains]

It's in the paragraph describing what happens if the diamond is broken prematurely. The previous paragraph describes what happens if it's broken after the year's actually up.

The dysfunction is that nothing says you have to shatter the diamond once a year has passed and the target's converted, you can totally just leave the now-Good creature's soul trapped in there forever.

When I looked here (http://dndtools.eu/spells/book-of-exalted-deeds--52/sanctify-the-wicked--93/) the bit on hated enemies was in its own paragraph at the end of the rest of the spell effects. I lost my books so that's what I'm going on for now.

So let's see, you can make a good creature hate you forever if you decide to let it out of a prison after a year. Hmm.

Maybe you can just seal some great evil inside of it and put it deep in a dungeon. Its minions and allies will march to their deaths to recover it and when/if they do, they'll get a nasty surprise.

[squiggit]

When I looked here (http://dndtools.eu/spells/book-of-exalted-deeds--52/sanctify-the-wicked--93/) the bit on hated enemies was in its own paragraph at the end of the rest of the spell effects. I lost my books so that's what I'm going on for now.

I just checked my copy of BoED: The hated enemy line is in the same paragraph as the rest of the part about being shattered. The website splitting them up would be inaccurate.


Separation of IC/OOC Knowledge, in the same way that creatures don't know when they've failed a Spot Check. Players would control their PC's spell loss, but their character wouldn't know which one vanished; the DM does likewise for NPC's.

Yeah that's how I'd handle it (Though resisting meta-knowledge like that as a player is hard) my problem comes from the way the text specifies that the spellcaster themselves chooses.

[Sith_Happens]

Maybe you can just seal some great evil inside of it and put it deep in a dungeon. Its minions and allies will march to their deaths to recover it and when/if they do, they'll get a nasty surprise.

This idea. I like it.

[Drachasor]

I don't think this is actually true. It's intuitive, but dead creatures not being objects actually resolves a number of dysfunctions.

I think I was misremembering a FAQ answer as RAW, which it isn't. But more vagueness doesn't really resolve the issues with Magic Jar.

[Drachasor]

Here's an odd one.

Permanency: It has a duration of "Permanent." It changes the target spell to have a duration of "Permanent."

So you cast a targeted Dispel Magic on a guy who only has a Permanent Detect Magic.

By RAW you make two dispel checks. One for the Detect Magic and one for the Permanency. Both of these have a Permanent Duration right now. If you dispel either, you dispel the spell. It's a unclear how this works with spells that have an actual duration (rather than concentration). Does the original duration play out after the dispel or is it considered to have already played out?

And a further oddity. Can you dispel the original spell if your Caster Level is less than the caster of Permanency (assuming a self-buff)? The text is: "This application of permanency can be dispelled only by a caster of higher level than you were when you cast the spell." Is the application just the Permanency Spell? Or does it also protect the original spell from being dispelled? It reads like the former to me (you can dispel the original spell, but not the permanency if your CL is too low...oddly this leaves the original spell gone but the Permanent modifier on it still there).*

In any case, I doubt the intention was to have two spells to dispel here. Permanency should probably have a duration of "instantaneous". Dispel protections should have clearly protected the targeted spell.

*Though since it basically targets a spell, it probably goes away. Then again, the exact target isn't clear. Is it the spell or the person/object/area?

[Erik Vale]

Here's a new one.
Wizard's need Read Magic to read their spell books, or need to make a DC20+Spell level check check for each spell they want to prepare without using read magic, with each failure being something you can't repeat.

This means, wizards need to spend 15 minutes to prep a cantrip [preparing part of their list] before they can actually spend an hour prepping the rest of their spell slots, unless they've boosted their skill checks and are well past level 1. [Need a Skill mod of 10+Max spell level cast to prepare them all in one go by taking 10]

[Inevitability]

Dunno if this has been posted before, but by RAW, you can coup de grace somebody with a WHIP. And kill them.

A perfectly average guy, who just picks up a whip can still deal 6 damage with a coup de grace, forcing a DC 16 fortitude save. Since you always fail on a natural 1 when making a saving throw, you could kill something like a Great Wyrm. That's right. A first level commoner who happens to have chosen a weird feat can kill the most powerful dragon alive with a whip.

[Drachasor]

Here's a new one.
Wizard's need Read Magic to read their spell books, or need to make a DC20+Spell level check check for each spell they want to prepare without using read magic, with each failure being something you can't repeat.

This means, wizards need to spend 15 minutes to prep a cantrip [preparing part of their list] before they can actually spend an hour prepping the rest of their spell slots, unless they've boosted their skill checks and are well past level 1. [Need a Skill mod of 10+Max spell level cast to prepare them all in one go by taking 10]

You don't actually have to do this:

Once a character deciphers a particular magical writing, she does not need to decipher it again. Deciphering a magical writing allows the reader to identify the spell and gives some idea of its effects (as explained in the spell description). If the magical writing was a scroll and the reader can cast arcane spells, she can attempt to use the scroll.

Now, the rules don't actually say you automatically understand the spells in your spellbook. On the other hand, the rules don't say you need to decipher the spells in it to prepare them. You only have to do that for borrowed books.

Though the prep check is pretty easy at 15+Spell Level on Spellcraft. Since you can take 10 this shouldn't be a problem for anyone.

[Malcador]

Dunno if this has been posted before, but by RAW, you can coup de grace somebody with a WHIP. And kill them.

A perfectly average guy, who happens to pick up a whip can still deal 6 damage with a coup de grace, forcing a DC 16 fortitude save. Since you always fail on a natural 1 when making a saving throw, you could kill something like a Great Wyrm. That's right. Tim the first level commoner who happens to have chosen a weird feat can kill the most powerful dragon alive with a whip.

Isn't the point of a coup de grace that you can kill just about anything with enough time and access to its vital organs? If you can get a Great Wyrm helpless for 2 minutes (20 full-round actions, effectively "taking 1" on its save), I think you deserve to kill it. If you want to try your luck, 5% of the time you get it right on the first attempt, but this just represents that 5% of the time you happen to jab the whip handle in just the right place.

[TuggyNE]

Dunno if this has been posted before, but by RAW, you can coup de grace somebody with a WHIP. And kill them.

A perfectly average guy, who just picks up a whip can still deal 6 damage with a coup de grace, forcing a DC 16 fortitude save. Since you always fail on a natural 1 when making a saving throw, you could kill something like a Great Wyrm. That's right. A first level commoner who happens to have chosen a weird feat can kill the most powerful dragon alive with a whip.

Not entirely sure if it works, given the text in Regeneration that indicates that nonlethal damage can't be used for coup de grace attempts. However, there's an argument to be made that the special quality rules don't apply in general despite their obvious general applicability, so in my tweaks to coup de grace I rolled it all in.

[Inevitability]

The point is that you're killing a monster as big as a small castle that has scales strong as steel and can breathe fire by HITTING IT WITH A WHIP.

You're saying that 5% of the time, you can hit a vital spot of the dragon. How? Even if you can get trough its scales, the whip is way to short to reach anything but its dermis. I can't see how scratching its dermis would kill a dragon.

Even more extreme, a PIXIE could kill a great wyrm with a whip. The scales of the dragon are probably thicker than the whip's length. It just makes no sense.

[Sith_Happens]

Whips deal no damage to anything with at least +3 natural armor, actually.

A sap, on the other hand, will work.

[TuggyNE]

The point is that you're killing a monster as big as a small castle that has scales strong as steel and can breathe fire by HITTING IT WITH A WHIP.

You're saying that 5% of the time, you can hit a vital spot of the dragon. How? Even if you can get trough its scales, the whip is way to short to reach anything but its dermis. I can't see how scratching its dermis would kill a dragon.

Even more extreme, a PIXIE could kill a great wyrm with a whip. The scales of the dragon are probably thicker than the whip's length. It just makes no sense.

It's the same thing with a dagger, and really the same thing with any saving throw.

Although it occurs to me that if you don't do any damage through the DR it probably doesn't count, so there's that. (Never mind the blindsense that should by all rights guarantee no such sneaky commoner manages to get near enough, nor yet the casting that can readily afford an alarm a night to likewise prevent trouble.)

And I guess Sith is correct about natural armor, although I'd forgotten about that.

[Drachasor]

It's the same thing with a dagger, and really the same thing with any saving throw.

I agree here. This is more of a problem with any weapon.

Heck, it goes beyond CDG. There are some things where a greatsword is still going to have very little penetration. A spear on a Colossal Creature? That's going to be similar to stabbing someone with a 1" needle. Greatswords aren't going to be any better there either.

I think this falls under the general idea that abstract damage has some major oddities. But it isn't a rules dysfunction per se.

Though, perhaps CDG with non-lethal damage is a rules dysfunction. And a Whip is an especially odd version of that.

[Inevitability]

The thing is, even if you deal 0 damage, a DC 10 fort save is still required. (which may be a dysfunctional rule on itself). So even if our whip barely scratches the dragon's scales, he still risks dying. Pretty stupid, since your whip has about as much effect as if you were attacking the dragon while it isn't helpless. Only if its helpless, the dragon has to make a fortitude save to avoid dropping dead for no reason.

[Drachasor]

The thing is, even if you deal 0 damage, a DC 10 fort save is still required. (which may be a dysfunctional rule on itself). So even if our whip barely scratches the dragon's scales, he still risks dying. Pretty stupid, since your whip has about as much effect as if you were attacking the dragon while it isn't helpless. Only if its helpless, the dragon has to make a fortitude save to avoid dropping dead for no reason.


Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury type poison, a monk’s stunning, and injury type disease. Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact.

The above applies. But this gets into the vague definition of an "attack" since CDG is not explicitly called an attack.

[Chronos]

The permanency one isn't a dysfunction; it's just the way the spell works. If you dispel the spell itself, it's gone. If you dispel the permanency, then the spell reverts to its normal duration, which is probably already expired, and so it's probably gone. RAW, you get two opportunities to dispel it, which appears to be just how it was intended.

[Drachasor]

The permanency one isn't a dysfunction; it's just the way the spell works. If you dispel the spell itself, it's gone. If you dispel the permanency, then the spell reverts to its normal duration, which is probably already expired, and so it's probably gone. RAW, you get two opportunities to dispel it, which appears to be just how it was intended.

In what sense does that appear to be how it was intended?

Taking personal spells as an example, this would seem to NOT be how it was intended.

[Fax Celestis]

The point is that you're killing a monster as big as a small castle that has scales strong as steel and can breathe fire by HITTING IT WITH A WHIP.

You're saying that 5% of the time, you can hit a vital spot of the dragon. How? Even if you can get trough its scales, the whip is way to short to reach anything but its dermis. I can't see how scratching its dermis would kill a dragon.

Even more extreme, a PIXIE could kill a great wyrm with a whip. The scales of the dragon are probably thicker than the whip's length. It just makes no sense.
Asphyxiation, maybe?

[CyberThread]

Lucid Dreaming + Grappling . I have to be nerdy and strong to send you off to la la land.

[Sith_Happens]

Lucid Dreaming + Grappling . I have to be nerdy and strong to send you off to la la land.

Speaking of Lucid Dreaming, the accompanying rules for the Plane of Dreams completely fail to specify what happens if you want your dream-self to Plane Shift out of it.

[Lightlawbliss]

...It just makes no sense.

Welcome to DND, a game full of stupid mistakes and technicalities that make no sense.

[Necroticplague]

Speaking of Lucid Dreaming, the accompanying rules for the Plane of Dreams completely fail to specify what happens if you want your dream-self to Plane Shift out of it.

...did you just re-invent astral projection?

[No brains]

Welcome to DND, a game full of stupid mistakes and technicalities that make no sense.

Welcome to D&D! The game where everything's messed up and the rules don't matter! :bigdrewcarey:

[The Viscount]

The Nereid from Stormwrack has 2 semi-dysfunctions with it.

Firstly, the Nereid has a touch that has the effect of DC 16 fort or begin drowning, which as we all know is entirely unavoidable and culminates in death, making this CR 4 monster unnaturally dangerous.

Secondly, it makes mention of a magical shawl of seafoam that, if destroyed, results in the Nereid's death in an hour. The Nereid has nothing to fear from this eventuality, since the shawl has no stats and thus cannot even be damaged, and separation from the shawl has no ill effects.

[deuxhero]

The PF spell Instant Armor (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/i/instant-armor) replaces currently worn garments, which is pretty damn weird on its own to be honest (be glad it's explicitly opaque unlike normal force effects), but means that unless you make full plate, you are barefoot.

[Svata]

Where everything's messed up and the rules don't matter!

This should be the next thread title. Know its early to be deciding that, but still.

[ace rooster]

The ghaele (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ghaele.htm)'s protective aura. It functions as a lesser globe of invulnerabilty, which it cannot turn off. This supresses it's own spell like abilities. it cannot use aid, color spray, cure light wounds, disguse self, comprehend languages, or see invisability. It can read your mind, but not if you are standing next to it.

[deuxhero]

(PF) The alchemist's "bombs" feature explicitly gives a weight (1 ounce, 1/16th of a pound) for a "prepared" bombed and says an alchemy kit (5 pounds) is assumed to have everything needed to prepare bombs.

While it's impossible for a single Alchemist to get the 81 bombs needed to exceed the kit's weight (I got 56 as the highest number in a day. Mythic could prob swing it a bit higher, as could using PFS's rule that you get extra bombs in place of brew potion, but I don't think it will add 24 no matter what you do), nothing says multiple alchemists can't use the same kit. If 3 decent level alchemists all drew from the same kit, they could get more catalyst than the kit weighs.

Another one that's hardly new (but I don't think has been mentioned here).

The PF trait Unnatural Presence lets you intimidate on animals... which you can do anyways, and vermin... which you could also do already, but most are mindless and immune to fear effects as a result.

[Jack_Simth]

3.5:

The Summon Instrument (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/summonInstrument.htm) spell is a Conjouration (Summoning) spell with a duration of 1 min./level. The Summoning Subschool (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#summoning) says "When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this" (emphasis added). Summon Instrument does not specifically say the instrument goes anywhere. Which means by RAW, it sticks around after the duration is over. You only need to cast it once, apparently. Of what use is the duration?

[Necroticplague]

(PF) The alchemist's "bombs" feature explicitly gives a weight (1 ounce, 1/16th of a pound) for a "prepared" bombed and says an alchemy kit (5 pounds) is assumed to have everything needed to prepare bombs.

While it's impossible for a single Alchemist to get the 81 bombs needed to exceed the kit's weight (I got 56 as the highest number in a day. Mythic could prob swing it a bit higher, as could using PFS's rule that you get extra bombs in place of brew potion, but I don't think it will add 24 no matter what you do), nothing says multiple alchemists can't use the same kit. If 3 decent level alchemists all drew from the same kit, they could get more catalyst than the kit weighs.

Not really that odd for several reasons. The materials in the kit are obviously inert in whatever form their in (supported by the fact bombs go back to being inert if you don't fling them soon). Plus, given how the bombs are explosive, it's highly likely a reaction that involves preparing them would involve absorbing compounds from the air, increasing its mass (likely nitrogen and oxygen).

[Flickerdart]

3.5:

The Summon Instrument (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/summonInstrument.htm) spell is a Conjouration (Summoning) spell with a duration of 1 min./level. The Summoning Subschool (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#summoning) says "When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this" (emphasis added). Summon Instrument does not specifically say the instrument goes anywhere. Which means by RAW, it sticks around after the duration is over. You only need to cast it once, apparently. Of what use is the duration?
It seems like the general rule is the dysfunction, rather than the spell - if the summoned object is supposed to stay forever, just make the duration Instantaneous or Permanent.

[Jack_Simth]

It seems like the general rule is the dysfunction, rather than the spell - if the summoned object is supposed to stay forever, just make the duration Instantaneous or Permanent.
Changing the general rule would break Instant Summons (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/instantSummons.htm), causing that to need revision.

I'm not going to lay claim to exactly where the dysfunction lies. But the net effect is that something needs to be updated for things to make sense.

[Drachasor]

Changing the general rule would break Instant Summons (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/instantSummons.htm), causing that to need revision.

I'm not going to lay claim to exactly where the dysfunction lies. But the net effect is that something needs to be updated for things to make sense.

Instant Summon should be a teleportation spell.

[Jack_Simth]

Instant Summon should be a teleportation spell.Which would be a revision. Yes, that is indeed one way to deal with it. However, now you're making two changes (and who knows how many others to other effects out there) - wouldn't it be simpler just to add "and the instrument vanishes at the end of the spell's duration" rather than deleting a line from the summoning subschool and changing the subschool on another spell?

Regardless, though, if it obviously needs changing, it is dysfunctional, no?

[Drachasor]

Which would be a revision. Yes, that is indeed one way to deal with it. However, now you're making two changes (and who knows how many others to other effects out there) - wouldn't it be simpler just to add "and the instrument vanishes at the end of the spell's duration" rather than deleting a line from the summoning subschool and changing the subschool on another spell?

Regardless, though, if it obviously needs changing, it is dysfunctional, no?

Yeah, it's definitely dysfunctional. Rather than have special rules for all sorts of spells though, I think the sensible revision would be one that makes clear distinctions between them. Right now the difference between calling, teleportation, and summoning is quite muddled (particularly with regards to objects).

[ZamielVanWeber]

A tarrasque with over one million non lethal cannot be.killed, even by wish or miracle. It specifies it must be at 868 nonlethal for them to work. Good luck keeping careful track.of the ones digit of your damage.

[TuggyNE]

A tarrasque with over one million non lethal cannot be.killed, even by wish or miracle. It specifies it must be at 868 nonlethal for them to work. Good luck keeping careful track.of the ones digit of your damage.

That's the same sort of reading that would say you lose Power Attack if you accidentally get up to 14 Str.

Next.

[Drachasor]

That's the same sort of reading that would say you lose Power Attack if you accidentally get up to 14 Str.

Next.

Eh, how so?


The tarrasque can be slain only by raising its nonlethal damage total to its full normal hit points +10 (or 868 hit points) and using a wish or miracle spell to keep it dead.

[Svata]

Eh, how so?

Because The requirement for Power Attack is 13 STR, not 13 or more/ 13+ STR. If your damage would have to be exact, so would your STR score, if you haveany sortof internal consistency at all.

[ZamielVanWeber]

That is not a good.example for.internal consistency. One is a prerequisite, the other a random chunk of rules text from a monster block that creates a unique condition when it can die.

[Drachasor]

Because The requirement for Power Attack is 13 STR, not 13 or more/ 13+ STR. If your damage would have to be exact, so would your STR score, if you haveany sortof internal consistency at all.

Oh, I missed the first "non."

I thought what was said was that over a million lethal damage wouldn't kill it (which is true). Though it is hard to deal lethal damage to a Tarrasque.

Edit: To be clear, the lethal damage wouldn't even help you kill it. Well, it would disable the Tarrasque for a time, but you'd still have to deal a bunch of non-lethal -- that's weird.

[Svata]

That is not a good.example for.internal consistency. One is a prerequisite, the other a random chunk of rules text from a monster block that creates a unique condition when it can die.

:smallsigh: If you rule that because it says a number for how much non-lethal damage you must deal, and doesn't have an "or more" in there, you must deal exactly that much. By the same logic, as power attack says the requirement is 13 STR, with no "or more/ at least" in there, you must have exactly that much strength. It doesn't matter that they are two different types of rules, the language used is the same, so it is consistent to have them work the same way.

[georgie_leech]

Aside from that, all it says is that you must raise the non-lethal damage to that number before using a Wish. Raising it to a million meets that requirement, and happens to have a lot of spare damage to keep it down too.

[TypoNinja]

That is not a good.example for.internal consistency. One is a prerequisite, the other a random chunk of rules text from a monster block that creates a unique condition when it can die.

Actually its pretty much identical. Consider it a prerequisite for big T's death.

[Sith_Happens]

The Blind-Fight feat lets you keep your Dexterity bonus to AC against an invisible attacker, but not when you yourself are blinded.

Uncanny Dodge has the same problem, but at least its name and description don't directly imply that it should work when blinded.

[Sith_Happens]

Found another one:


Uncanny Blow: When wielding a one-handed exotic melee weapon in two hands, the character can focus the power of his attack so that he deals extra damage equal to his Strength bonus ×2 instead of his Strength bonus ×1-1/2. If he has the Power Attack feat, he treats the weapon as twohanded for purposes of determining his bonus on damage rolls.

As far as I can tell it's extremely ambiguous whether you have to wield the weapon two-handed to benefit from the bolded portion, and if you do then it does nothing.

[Andezzar]

As far as I can tell it's extremely ambiguous whether you have to wield the weapon two-handed to benefit from the bolded portion, and if you do then it does nothing.The bolded part says nothing about being required to wield the one-handed weapon with both hands. You are right though, that if you do the feat does nothing. The idea is to get all the benefits of THF without actually using both hands.

[Vedhin]

Found a possible dysfunction in Necrocarnate, that turns it into a sort-of Incarnum/Incarnum theurge.


Basically, multiclassing between two incarnum classes requires you keep your chakra binds, available chakras, shaped soulmelds, and class soulmeld lists separate. You do get to combine the essentia pools, and the max essentia you can invest in things is based on your character level.

Necrocarnate throws this out of whack by simply adding chakra binds, available chakras, and shaped soulmelds, instead of doing the "+1 meldshaper level" thing. These added whatevers are not associated with any class, so you could have them with Incarnate melds one day, and Totemist melds the next, and a mix the third day.
And depending on how you interpret things, "Improved Meldshaper Level" might stack Necrocarnate levels with all meldshaper classes, as it doesn't have the "if you have more than one class, choose one..." clause.

[Ksheep]

Not sure if this is a dysfunction, per se, or simply an oddity. From the Wizard class:


A wizard begins play with a spellbook containing all 0-level wizard spells (except those from her prohibited school or schools, if any; see School Specialization, below) plus three 1st-level spells of your choice.

Where does the spellbook come from? Does the Wizard have to purchase one, or does it just appear? What if a character decided to multi class into Wizard while away from any supplier of spellbooks? Does he just find that one suddenly popped into his backpack over night as soon as he gains a level in Wizard? A strict reading would suggest this, even if it makes little sense.

[Flickerdart]

Where does the spellbook come from? Does the Wizard have to purchase one, or does it just appear?
The rule doesn't specify how individual wizards come by their spellbooks, merely that they must always begin play with one.


What if a character decided to multi class into Wizard while away from any supplier of spellbooks? Does he just find that one suddenly popped into his backpack over night as soon as he gains a level in Wizard? A strict reading would suggest this, even if it makes little sense.
No, quite the opposite: because a character that's suddenly multiclassing into a wizard doesn't begin play as one, he does not get the benefits of a spellbook or any spells except read magic until he has gained another level for the 2 free spells.

[Ravens_cry]

I picked up Players Handbook II at a second hand store, and I have a sneaking suspicion Mystic Aegis was not supposed to give you spell resistance against the specific hostile spell, forever and henceforth, but that's how it looks to me RAW.

[Ksheep]

No, quite the opposite: because a character that's suddenly multiclassing into a wizard doesn't begin play as one, he does not get the benefits of a spellbook or any spells except read magic until he has gained another level for the 2 free spells.

Except that the example given in the PHB (yes, I know, examples are often wrong) states that the character WOULD get the beginner wizards spellbook. Also, even if you aren't going into Wizard until after your first level, you are now beginning play as a wizard. Of course, the wording is a bit too vague to tell one way or another, and it's easy to read either interpretation. The fluff stating that Wizards need years of training under the supervision of another wizard really doesn't help, as that's just fluff and not actual rules text…

[Flickerdart]

Except that the example given in the PHB (yes, I know, examples are often wrong) states that the character WOULD get the beginner wizards spellbook.
Examples aren't rules.



Also, even if you aren't going into Wizard until after your first level, you are now beginning play as a wizard.
No, you're beginning to play a wizard, but you're continuing play from before. Unless, of course, you are arguing that every time a wizard player sits down at the table to play D&D, he gets a new spellbook for free.

[Lightlawbliss]

Examples aren't rules.


No, you're beginning to play a wizard, but you're continuing play from before. Unless, of course, you are arguing that every time a wizard player sits down at the table to play D&D, he gets a new spellbook for free.

Because wizards totally need free cash

[Svata]

From the thread on prestidigitation. Prestidigitation cannot replicate the effects of any other spell, so, since wish is a thing, and can do anything that Prestidigitation would, Prestidigitation cannot do anything.

[TuggyNE]

From the thread on prestidigitation. Prestidigitation cannot replicate the effects of any other spell, so, since wish is a thing, and can do anything that Prestidigitation would, Prestidigitation cannot do anything.

I already addressed that; one of wish's possible effects is duplicating any 8th-level or lower Sor/Wiz spell that's not of a banned school, including prestidigitation. Prestidigitation can be a single 0th-level Universal Sor/Wiz spell (namely, itself). That is not duplicating another spell, but creating an effect that is a strict and extremely limited subset of the indirect effect of another spell.

[Ksheep]

With Wish, it says "Duplicate any wizard or sorcerer spell of 8th level or lower, provided the spell is not of a school prohibited to you." Should that not be "Duplicate the effects of any…"? If you were to truly duplicate the spell in it's entirety, you'd also be duplicating the casting time and whether SR applies, but those two parts of Wish are clearly defined (with everything else saying "see text"). Or is the casting time for Wish merely added on top of the normal casting time for the spell being duplicated?

For instance, if one were to use Wish to cast Scrying, would the casting time be 1 Standard Round, or would it be 1 Hour + 1 Standard Round?

Also, as a side note, Wish does mention Material Components, and that if the duplicated spell requires one worth more than 10,000 GP that it needs to be provided, but it doesn't state anything about foci. If the duplicated spell needs a focus, do you still need to provide it, or is it provided by Wish? Again with the Scry example, the focus is a mirror worth 1,000 GP, which is under the Material Component limit, but Wish doesn't state one way or the other whether it's provided for or not.

[deuxhero]

Know how component pouches had artifacts in 3.5 thanks to Apocalypse From the Sky? Well now it's in PF thanks to a badly written and underpowered spell with a cool visual (http://www.archivesofnethys.com/SpellDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Storm%20of%20Blades) you can pull any "sword" artifact small enough to fit out (being big should be sufficent).

It also lets you destroy such artifacts with ease, despite PF making a big deal of artifact destruction.

[georgie_leech]

Know how component pouches had artifacts in 3.5 thanks to Apocalypse From the Sky? Well now it's in PF thanks to a badly written and underpowered spell with a cool visual (http://www.archivesofnethys.com/SpellDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Storm%20of%20Blades) you can pull any "sword" artifact small enough to fit out (being big should be sufficent).

It also lets you destroy such artifacts with ease, despite PF making a big deal of artifact destruction.

Someone really needs to plug the priceless=/=worthless gap in future versions. If something has no price because it's too precious to be sold, it really needs to indicate that.

[No brains]

Know how component pouches had artifacts in 3.5 thanks to Apocalypse From the Sky? Well now it's in PF thanks to a badly written and underpowered spell with a cool visual (http://www.archivesofnethys.com/SpellDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Storm%20of%20Blades) you can pull any "sword" artifact small enough to fit out (being big should be sufficent).

It also lets you destroy such artifacts with ease, despite PF making a big deal of artifact destruction.

In 3.5 there was a spell called whirling blade or something similar that had the focus component of a dagger. Now daggers typically have prices, but the spell doesn't specify any price for its dagger focus. I'm not sure, but I think in some books there are "daggers" that don't work exactly like the weapon in the PHB.

So what's in the bag?
A. Infinity mundane daggers
B. Infinity knife-like objects that can't be used as a weapon
C. No daggers of any kind

Unless there's some clause by RAW that word always equals word, this could mean component pouches effectively give the wearer quick-draw.

Aside, how does RAW interact with homonyms? In cases where the implication is less than obvious, can RAW-in-RAW-out be satisfied with some weird objects?

[Andezzar]

1. focus components are not consumed when the spell is cast, as such the component pouch need only contain one or two depending on the spell.

2. There may be different objects that work like daggers but I'm not aware of any object that is also called dagger, besides the one in the PHB. I don't know of a dagger without a price either.

3. While taking the dagger out of the component pouch as a spell component may be included in the action to cast the spell, this does not mean this action also qualifies as drawing the weapon (i.e. removing it from a container and making it ready to be used as a melee or ranged weapon).

[bekeleven]

As pointed out in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=335600): A changeling's Minor Change Shape references Disguise Self, then says it provides a +10 circumstance bonus to disguise - which RAW stacks with Disguise Self's unnamed +10 bonus. Reminds me a bit of PF's disguise self issues, which I mentioned in the last thread.

[No brains]

Regarding RAW homonym madness, is it possible to obtain a "diamond worth x gp" by casting the gold by weight into a rhomboid shape? It's in one sense a "diamond" and by at least one metric it is "worth X gp".

[Lightlawbliss]

Regarding RAW homonym madness, is it possible to obtain a "diamond worth x gp" by casting the gold by weight into a rhomboid shape? It's in one sense a "diamond" and by at least one metric it is "worth X gp".

honestly, I wouldn't care if this came up in a game I was DMing. it isn't even slightly annoying, since the gold value is the real cost not the form it is in. The form is mainly for rp use (and diamonds are likely less weight per value).

[No brains]

Wow, the thread's been eerily quiet eerily long.

The alarm spell isn't tripped by 'astral' creatures. What is an astral creature?

Chill Touch is pretty bizarre, first it lists a casting time of 1 standard action with a duration of instantaneous, but then needs to specify that the attack can only be made once a round. What's up with that? Is this another one of those accidentally permanent spells? Moreover, how exactly should a living creature with TTS be affected by this?

Cloak of Chaos existed before the designation of 'relic' for an item, but could any box with a chaotic relic inside satisfy the 500gp cost? Could anything satisfy this after the declaration of relics being worthless? Is the box the real source of power?

Clone fails to mention being undeath as a hindrance. If a lich casts clone before becoming undead, they can make an army of themselves.

I'll try to find more homonym dysfunctions now that I have my phb back

[nedz]

Wow, the thread's been eerily quiet eerily long.
Well we found 666 Dysfunctions. I'm sure that there are more out there really.


The alarm spell isn't tripped by 'astral' creatures. What is an astral creature?
A creature on the Astral plane ?


Cloak of Chaos existed before the designation of 'relic' for an item, but could any box with a chaotic relic inside satisfy the 500gp cost? Could anything satisfy this after the declaration of relics being worthless? Is the box the real source of power?
In previous editions Relic and Artefact were synonyms. CDiv then redefined Relics.

[ZamielVanWeber]

In previous editions Relic and Artefact were synonyms. CDiv then redefined Relics.

Then BoED re-redefined them.

[Necroticplague]

Then BoED re-redefined them.

Then MIC re-re-redefined them, to something a bit closer to the CDiv definition .

[KorbeltheReader]

I'd like to appeal to have one I suggested in thread IV be added to the list, please. I think it's egregious enough to merit a second look and I believe my case is ironclad. I'm assuming here is the proper place to ask.


The voor yugoloth, from MMIV. This one is infuriating because it should be one of the better summons on the Summon Monster IV list. The voor is similar to the xenomorphs from the Aliens series. It has great immunities, 6 attacks and a rend with a good chance to hit, DR, an ok AC, and 20ft. reach with combat reflexes.

Except it really doesn't.

You see, the voor (possibly by mistake, but there's no errata) has blindsense, not blindsight, so while it is indeed immune to gaze attacks, illusions, etc. and doesn't have to make spot or listen check to determine what square opponents are in, it is still blind. That means:

the voor's AC 17 is wrong. It takes a -2 to its AC and is then denied the DEX bonus the book mistakenly gave it, giving it an actual AC of 13.

Its movement is not the printed 30 ft., but actually 15.

All 4 of its attacks are made vs. total concealment, meaning every hit needs to beat a 50% concealment roll to penetrate.

Because all creatures have total concealment against the voor, it cannot make attacks of opportunity. It apparently took Combat Reflexes for nothing.
And answering a question from the other thread, it is indeed listed as having the blind condition. Here is the SRD on blindsense for reference:


Blindsense is a lesser ability that lets the creature notice things it cannot see, but without the precision of blindsight, using nonvisual senses, such as acute smell or hearing. The creature usually does not need to make Spot or Listen checks to pinpoint the location of a creature within range of its blindsense ability, provided that it has line of effect to that creature. Any opponent the creature cannot see still has total concealment (50% miss chance) against the creature with blindsense, and the creature still has the normal miss chance when attacking foes that have concealment. Visibility still affects the movement of a creature with blindsense. A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures it cannot see.

[Fax Celestis]

Then BoED re-redefined them.

You've got that the wrong way 'round. BoED released in October 2003, CDiv in March 2004

[ZamielVanWeber]

You've got that the wrong way 'round. BoED released in October 2003, CDiv in March 2004

Holy crud. I got my BoVD in '03, CDiv in '04, and BoED in '06. Crazy.

[nedz]

Holy crud. I got my BoVD in '03, CDiv in '04, and BoED in '06. Crazy.

We even have a Publication list in the Handbook now — bottom of post one;
Courtesy of Chronos.

I don't actually own BoED or MiC so I wasn't aware of the definitions therein.

[Necroticplague]

We even have a Publication list in the Handbook now — bottom of post one;
Courtesy of Chronos.

I don't actually own BoED or MiC so I wasn't aware of the definitions therein.

BoED: a small bunch of crappy magic items that continue to work when normal ones wouldn't, and honestly have been entirely forgotten by most people, though one infamous thread on these boards brings it up.

MIC:Magic items that have a normal magic effect, and have an extra power that can activate if you worship the right god and have the True Believer feat or sacrifice spell slots.

[No brains]

Well we found 666 Dysfunctions. I'm sure that there are more out there really.
ALRIGHT! HAIL SATAN! \m/


A creature on the Astral plane ?
This seems plausible, but it is the ethereal, not astral plane that is coterminous with the the material plane. A creature on the astral plane is nowhere near the alarm to begin with, unless the spell just doesn't work on the astral plane. It could also be that our mystery guest is a creature using astral projection, but that's a distinction so wildly specific it deserves to be a dysfunction on its own.


In previous editions Relic and Artefact were synonyms. CDiv then redefined Relics.

Okay, so it is the fancy box that provides the cost. I guess to find the relic to put inside it, you just get that out of the spell pouch.

[Vedhin]

ALRIGHT! HAIL SATAN! \m/

*tackles* NOOO! No hail! We don't need a cold day in hell; do you have any idea what kind of madness would happen?

[Big Fau]

*tackles* NOOO! No hail! We don't need a cold day in hell; do you have any idea what kind of madness would happen?

Madness?

THIS! IS! SPARTA CANIA!

[Andezzar]

Madness?

THIS! IS! SPARTA CANIA!
Where is the like button?

[ShurikVch]

Wind Wall (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/windWall.htm). Term "massive ranged weapons" is not defined.

Antimagic Field (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicField.htm).
Area: 10-ft.-radius emanation, centered on you Say, colossal dragon occupy 30 ft. Does it mean AMF will be completely within? It, probably, can protect against magic in the stomach (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0638.html) or Scarab of Death (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#scarabofDeath), but still way way too situational...

Spell Necromantic Singularity (from CoR) have
Range: 300 ft.
Area: 1-mile radius Please, aim carefully... :smallbiggrin:

Template "Dream Element" creature (from Dragon #287) have "Wis -"

[Flickerdart]

Spell Necromantic Singularity (from CoR) have Please, aim carefully... :smallbiggrin:

The best part is that a spell's area of effect does not extend beyond its range, so most of it is wasted.

[TuggyNE]

Wind Wall (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/windWall.htm). Term "massive ranged weapons" is not defined.

It's defined by example, which is good enough: "A giant-thrown boulder, a siege engine projectile, and other massive ranged weapons…".


Antimagic Field (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicField.htm). Say, colossal dragon occupy 30 ft. Does it mean AMF will be completely within? It, probably, can protect against magic in the stomach (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0638.html) or Scarab of Death (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#scarabofDeath), but still way way too situational...

Not a dysfunction, just a limitation of the spell.

[The Viscount]

I feel like I've read an emanation comes from the outside of your occupied squares, not your center, or else every damaging burst would also damage the caster. Unfortunately I can't find such evidence, and the DMG unhelpfully provided no images for how bursts or emanations work.

[No brains]

Wind Wall (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/windWall.htm). Term "massive ranged weapons" is not defined.



It's defined by example, which is good enough: "A giant-thrown boulder, a siege engine projectile, and other massive ranged weapons…".

As I remember, the DMG gets into similar detail defining massive weapons when describing wind speeds. Where this gets weird is when someone attempts to throw a spear through a wind wall; a two-handed weapon for a medium creature is a medium object just like the one-handed rock from a large hill giant, exactly as a ballista is a huge crossbow, which fires a bolt which when alone is treated as a dagger (at least by improvised damage), which when increased two size categories becomes medium. By the data, two-handed medium weapons are sufficiently 'massive'.

For maximum headaches, Fling, by feat or ability, a medium creature against a wind wall and see where they land.

[TypoNinja]

It's defined by example, which is good enough: "A giant-thrown boulder, a siege engine projectile, and other massive ranged weapons…".



Not a dysfunction, just a limitation of the spell.

Isn't there a rule somewhere about larger creatures and AoE? I seem to remember reading somewhere that if any part of a very large creature is caught in AoE they still take full effects.

Can't think of where though.



For maximum headaches, Fling, by feat or ability, a medium creature against a wind wall and see where they land.

New amusement part ride for small and smaller races. Carefully position Wind Walls and have a friendly giant hurl you into the first one at an appropriate angle.

Bounce all over the place, screaming like a mad man.

Include a resetting trap of shrink monster for when the larger races inevitably get jealous and want a turn.

[ShurikVch]

The best part is that a spell's area of effect does not extend beyond its range, so most of it is wasted.
Hey, what's about area spells with "Range: Personal", such as Zone of Silence (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/zoneOfSilence.htm) or Negative (http://dndtools.eu/spells/spell-compendium--86/negative-energy-aura--4590/)/Positive (http://dndtools.eu/spells/spell-compendium--86/positive-energy-aura--4653/) Energy Aura ? Are they affect only a caster?

What, nobody freaked about Wisdom-less template?
Nonabilities (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#nonabilities)

Wisdom

Any creature that can perceive its environment in any fashion has at least 1 point of Wisdom. Anything with no Wisdom score is an object, not a creature. Anything without a Wisdom score also has no Charisma score.

[Andezzar]

I feel like I've read an emanation comes from the outside of your occupied squares, not your center, or else every damaging burst would also damage the caster. Unfortunately I can't find such evidence, and the DMG unhelpfully provided no images for how bursts or emanations work.Here you go:
Regardless of the shape of the area, you select the point where the spell originates, but otherwise you don’t control which creatures or objects the spell affects. The point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection.No dysfunction here. Nothing to see move it along.

[TuggyNE]

Hey, what's about area spells with "Range: Personal", such as Zone of Silence (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/zoneOfSilence.htm) or Negative (http://dndtools.eu/spells/spell-compendium--86/negative-energy-aura--4590/)/Positive (http://dndtools.eu/spells/spell-compendium--86/positive-energy-aura--4653/) Energy Aura ? Are they affect only a caster?

Presumably.


What, nobody freaked about Wisdom-less template?
Nonabilities (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#nonabilities)

What's there to say? It's obviously dysfunctional, end of story, nothing especially interesting except that it's a problem.

[The Viscount]

Final Strike has a prerequisite of air, cold, earth, fire, water, acid, or electricity subtype. You will notice that the last two are not real subtypes.

[ShurikVch]

Presumably. This spells can be at least useful for personal usage. But Cloud of the Achaierai (http://dndtools.eu/spells/book-of-vile-darkness--37/cloud-of-the-achaierai--136/) or Mycontil's Last Resort (http://dndtools.eu/spells/shining-south--25/mycontils-last-resort--3276/) turn completely pointless.


What's there to say? It's obviously dysfunctional, end of story, nothing especially interesting except that it's a problem.
Obviously, this template was intended to usage in overpowered stacking for tauric creatures - this way it can have Wis/Cha

[TuggyNE]

Archmage and Arcane Trickster PrCs in Core, as well as (many? most? all?) CArc PrCs and probably various others, do not advance caster level.
Spells per Day/Spells Known
When a new archmage level is gained, the character gains new spells per day (and spells known, if applicable) as if he had also gained a level in whatever arcane spellcasting class in which he could cast 7th-level spells before he added the prestige class level. He does not, however, gain any other benefit a character of that class would have gained. If a character had more than one arcane spellcasting class in which he could cast 7th-level spells before he became an archmage, he must decide to which class he adds each level of archmage for the purpose of determining spells per day.

Most other Core PrCs specifically say that caster level is advanced, such as Eldritch Knight; some, of course, advance only caster level, such as Hierophant.

Somehow, this feels like the worst dysfunction we've uncovered for quite a while. Not sure exactly why.

[No brains]

Archmage and Arcane Trickster PrCs in Core, as well as (many? most? all?) CArc PrCs and probably various others, do not advance caster level.

Most other Core PrCs specifically say that caster level is advanced, such as Eldritch Knight; some, of course, advance only caster level, such as Hierophant.

Somehow, this feels like the worst dysfunction we've uncovered for quite a while. Not sure exactly why.

This might be some kind of Thicket of Blades paradox again, even though archmage doesn't increase caster level by increasing the CL of the prerequisite class, it does increase CL by advancing in itself. Is its clause in the description specific enough to override the general rule of casting classes increasing their CL with levels?

[TuggyNE]

This might be some kind of Thicket of Blades paradox again, even though archmage doesn't increase caster level by increasing the CL of the prerequisite class, it does increase CL by advancing in itself. Is its clause in the description specific enough to override the general rule of casting classes increasing their CL with levels?

What general rule would that be? Archmage has no casting of its own.

[TypoNinja]

What general rule would that be? Archmage has no casting of its own.

Maybe not what he was going for, but advancing in spellcasting requires an advance in caster level, since you are forbidden from casting at a lower caster level than the spells minimum. There is no such thing as a caster level 2 fireball (barring some hilarious cheeze im not aware of anyway).

If it doesn't it sets up a contradiction, the class tells you to gain spells per day (and known), while the spellcasting rules forbid it. Furthermore The rules compendium does not make a distinction between caster level and spell casting levels, neither does the glossary.

The rules don't separate the two, at least not anywhere I can find with a quick search.

[Andezzar]

Maybe not what he was going for, but advancing in spellcasting requires an advance in caster level, since you are forbidden from casting at a lower caster level than the spells minimum. There is no such thing as a caster level 2 fireball (barring some hilarious cheeze im not aware of anyway).At least Ur-priest casting differs. An Ur-priest cast 9th level cleric spells with a caster level of 9 or 10. Paladins and rangers cast 4th l


If it doesn't it sets up a contradiction, the class tells you to gain spells per day (and known), while the spellcasting rules forbid it. Furthermore The rules compendium does not make a distinction between caster level and spell casting levels, neither does the glossary.I can only find these rules
A spell’s power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to your class level in the class you’re using to cast the spell.

You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level.

In the event that a class feature, domain granted power, or other special ability provides an adjustment to your caster level, that adjustment applies not only to effects based on caster level (such as range, duration, and damage dealt) but also to your caster level check to overcome your target’s spell resistance and to the caster level used in dispel checks (both the dispel check and the DC of the check).If a character gets a spell slot of a certain level knows at least one spell of that level and has the minimum ability score, how can his caster level be too low to cast the spell? A wizard does not get 9th level spells until having 17 levels. But a wizard 15/Archmage 2 gets a 9th level spell slot and two known 9 th spells despite having only a CL of 15 (unless he takes the appropriate High Arcana). The rules only reference how casting a spell at a caster level lower than normal works. They say nothing about not being able to cast it at your normal caster level, if this is lower than what you would expect.


The rules don't separate the two, at least not anywhere I can find with a quick search.Of course there are differences. First of all the glossary (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_casterlevel&alpha=C) implies that they are not always the same. The most obvious examples are rangers and paladins. At level 4 these classes become casters and as such all their levels contribute to their level in a spellcasting class, yet their caster level is equal to half that number. Other examples include: Practiced spellcaster does not give early access to spells, nor do the various domains that allow you to cast certain spells at +1 caster level.

[Sith_Happens]

Don't remember if this has been posted yet:


If used against an undead creature, heal instead acts like harm.

Harm charges a subject with negative energy that deals 10 points of damage per caster level (to a maximum of 150 points at 15th level)

Therefore, Heal deals negative energy damage to undead (the reverse is also true; Harm heals undead with positive energy).

[georgie_leech]

Don't remember if this has been posted yet:




Therefore, Heal deals negative energy damage to undead (the reverse is also true; Harm heals undead with positive energy).

Oddly enough, without the language that negative energy heals undead that most of the inflict spells have, one dysfunction solves another. However, it says Heal works as Harm if cast on an Undead. Meanwhile, Harm, cast on an Undead, acts as Heal. So Casting Heal makes the spell behave as Harm which switches to Heal which...

[TuggyNE]

Maybe not what he was going for, but advancing in spellcasting requires an advance in caster level, since you are forbidden from casting at a lower caster level than the spells minimum. There is no such thing as a caster level 2 fireball (barring some hilarious cheeze im not aware of anyway).

If it doesn't it sets up a contradiction, the class tells you to gain spells per day (and known), while the spellcasting rules forbid it.

There's no problem gaining spell slots for a level that you can't cast yet: a third-level wizard with 11 Int has at least one of them, for example. They can be used for metamagic.

Spells known is a bit trickier, but I'm actually not sure there's any particular reason to suppose you can't learn a spell you can't cast yet. Barring such a reason, well, there you are. No contradiction.

In any case, of course, if there is a contradiction, that almost makes it worse, because it doesn't actually tell you you get caster level advancement: it just means your spells don't work right at all.


Furthermore The rules compendium does not make a distinction between caster level and spell casting levels, neither does the glossary.

That might solve the problem, but failing to make a distinction in one or two general places where the distinction is clearly made in several other more specific places (namely, the other prestige classes that explicitly do advance caster level) does not fill me with confidence.

[Chronos]

Quoth ShurikVch:

What, nobody freaked about Wisdom-less template?
That would definitely be a dysfunction if it existed. Is there any such template, though? I've never heard of one.

And the bit about "you can't cast a spell unless you have the minimum caster level required" is problematic, since it's nowhere stated what the minimum caster level for any spell is, and any argument for what it is turns out to be circular.

[No brains]

*tackles* NOOO! No hail! We don't need a cold day in hell; do you have any idea what kind of madness would happen?

I knew there was something up with what you said, but could only just figure it out: control weather makes hail storms in summer. So either hell is safe or D&D needs to check its meteorology.

[Flickerdart]

And the bit about "you can't cast a spell unless you have the minimum caster level required" is problematic, since it's nowhere stated what the minimum caster level for any spell is, and any argument for what it is turns out to be circular.
It's perfectly straightforward: you can only cast the spells that you can cast, and can't cast any other spells.

[ShurikVch]

That would definitely be a dysfunction if it existed. Is there any such template, though? I've never heard of one. Template "Dream Element" (from Dragon #287) have "Wis -" (and, by extension, "Cha -")

[No brains]

Does the magazine give any justification as to why the creature breaks the standard rules? One way I could imagine it is if a creature had no senses and was externally controlled by orders relayed from a master that did have senses. From what I can guess of the name, dream elements weasel past the rules by not actually existing as something separate from the dreamer.

Now I want to make a Ghost Brute Dream Element Shrieker.

[nedz]

And the bit about "you can't cast a spell unless you have the minimum caster level required" is problematic, since it's nowhere stated what the minimum caster level for any spell is, and any argument for what it is turns out to be circular.
It's normally defined in the class

Cleric
To prepare or cast a spell, a cleric must have a Wisdom score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a cleric’s spell is 10 + the spell level + the cleric’s Wisdom modifier.

Druid
To prepare or cast a spell, the druid must have a Wisdom score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a druid’s spell is 10 + the spell level + the druid’s Wisdom modifier.
and so on ...
Unless you know of a base class for which this isn't defined ?

[Flickerdart]

It's normally defined in the class


and so on ...
Unless you know of a base class for which this isn't defined ?
None of those quotes say anything about CL.

[Ksheep]

I knew there was something up with what you said, but could only just figure it out: control weather makes hail storms in summer. So either hell is safe or D&D needs to check its meteorology.

Hail oftentimes occurs during summer months. All it needs to form is a thunderstorm, preferably with strong updrafts, and in the Central US states, these storms typically occur in the summer months.


In North America, hail is most common in the area where Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming meet, known as "Hail Alley". Hail in this region occurs between the months of March and October during the afternoon and evening hours, with the bulk of the occurrences from May through September.

[georgie_leech]

It's normally defined in the class


and so on ...
Unless you know of a base class for which this isn't defined ?

Trouble is, those don't actually define what the minimum caster level is. :smalltongue: Some language like "To cast a spell of a given level requires a caster level of 1 less than twice the spell level" or something might, but as is it doesn't mention Caster level at all.

[Andezzar]

This defines the minimum ability score, it does not define the minimum caster level.

You need a spell slot and a spell to cast a spell. Prepared casters normally get a spell slot of a higher level every odd level in a spellcasting class, and have a caster level equal to their level in a spellcasting class. Now the Archmage and several other PrCs do not advance the caster level but give new spell slots and known spells. So single class wizard would need CL 17 to cast 9th level spells but a Wizard 15/Archmage 2 would still be able to prepare and cast 9th level spells despite having a CL of 15 (without Spell Power).

[Necroticplague]

Trouble is, those don't actually define what the minimum caster level is. :smalltongue: Some language like "To cast a spell of a given level requires a caster level of 1 less than twice the spell level" or something might, but as is it doesn't mention Caster level at all.

If you did define it like that, you would run into problems with accelerated progression casting, like ur-priest, or any spell that appears on multiple lists at different levels (like sand shaper giving buffs at lower levels).

[georgie_leech]

If you did define it like that, you would run into problems with accelerated progression casting, like ur-priest, or any spell that appears on multiple lists at different levels (like sand shaper giving buffs at lower levels).

Nah, it would be class specific. It's odd that it doesn't seem to actually be defined anywhere.

[amalcon]

Odd one I noticed the other day: Apparently, a level 20 Spirit Shaman is unable to avoid being hit by his or her own Chastise Spirits ability.

[TypoNinja]

Nah, it would be class specific. It's odd that it doesn't seem to actually be defined anywhere.

It is, its buried in preparation. There's a bit about how if you have the same spell from more than one source you choose which version on prepatarion. So a Paladin 2 Cleric 3 spell has different minimums depending on which class you chose to prepare it as.

[Flickerdart]

It is, its buried in preparation. There's a bit about how if you have the same spell from more than one source you choose which version on prepatarion. So a Paladin 2 Cleric 3 spell has different minimums depending on which class you chose to prepare it as.
That's not actually saying anything about minimum caster levels, though.

[nedz]

Oops, seems I grabbed the wrong end of the stick. However, TypoNinja has it.
From here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/divineSpells.htm#preparingDivineSpells) or here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/arcaneSpells.htm#preparingWizardSpells):


Spell Slots

The character class tables show how many spells of each level a character can cast per day. ...


Spell Slots

The various character class tables show how many spells of each level a character can cast per day. ...

It's an implicit definition pointing you at the class tables.

[HeyThereImBear]

The demon-lord template's Unique ability.

(also can be found on the fallen template)

Because you wanna know what you can do with a unique ability?

Anything.

[Flickerdart]

That still has nothing to do with caster level. The contention is not how many spells of each level a character of a certain level can cast per day. The contention is that the minimum caster level necessary to cast a spell (in situations where a character's CL is lower than his level in a spellcasting class) is not actually defined anywhere in non-circular logic.

[georgie_leech]

That still has nothing to do with caster level. The contention is not how many spells of each level a character of a certain level can cast per day. The contention is that the minimum caster level necessary to cast a spell (in situations where a character's CL is lower than his level in a spellcasting class) is not actually defined anywhere in non-circular logic.

In other words, it's one of those dysfunctions that cropped up because the designers all assumed it worked a certain way, and that that particular way was written down somewhere, even if they couldn't remember where.

[TypoNinja]

In other words, it's one of those dysfunctions that cropped up because the designers all assumed it worked a certain way, and that that particular way was written down somewhere, even if they couldn't remember where.

Sort of. It kind of requires an especially hostile reading, its a case of "it never said so you are screwed"

The SRD has this to say about caster level.


You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level.

Since no minimum spell level is ever defined in the spell text, I contend that this requires you to refer to each individual class, for what level they gain a spell at, as minimum caster level would be established by that, rather than a universal rule, since many spells come at different levels for different classes.

The counter thought is that since there is no "Minimum Caster Level" definition or entry its a dysfunction by omission.

This to me seems silly, as by the same logic I could say that your base reflex save never specified what days of the week it worked on, so reflex saves are dysfunctional. There is a line between a strict reading and deliberately being obtuse that I think gets crossed in this case.

Alas, the only place I can find Minimum Caster Level discussed at all is in magic item creation rules, and that's just talking about using the spell if no level is specified.

[Necroticplague]

The counter thought is that since there is no "Minimum Caster Level" definition or entry its a dysfunction by omission.

This to me seems silly, as by the same logic I could say that your base reflex save never specified what days of the week it worked on, so reflex saves are dysfunctional. There is a line between a strict reading and deliberately being obtuse that I think gets crossed in this case.

Except the difference is that their is never in the rules even implied that such a thing as day-save relation does exist, while the rule about 'Minimum Caster Level'is referenced, despite its non-existence. So no, this is not being overly obtuse. While your statement about looking at the charts is reasonable and likely intentional, it is not stated anywhere.

[Flickerdart]

This to me seems silly, as by the same logic I could say that your base reflex save never specified what days of the week it worked on, so reflex saves are dysfunctional.
That's not the same reading at all. There would have to be a rule that read "you can only use Reflex saves on days of the week that Reflex saves are usable by you." It implies that there are days on which they are not usable, but offers absolutely no guidance as to what those days would be.

[Andezzar]

You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level.This only says that lowering the caster level for a spell below your normal caster level may make it impossible to cast the spell. The rule does not say that you generally need to have a minimum caster level to cast a spell.

So without additional rules (which no one has found yet) a Wizard 15/Archmage 2 could cast 9th level spells, but could not lower the CL further, because for him the normal caster level is 15. A wizard 17 could not go lower than CL 17 on those spells. It is not quite clear, what happens if the Wiz15/Archm2 takes the Spell Power High Arcana. I'd say he cannot reduce the CL of 9th level spells below 17.

It boils down to the question what "normal" means. It is defined nowhere and adds ambiguity not only to this rule.

[Necroticplague]

This only says that lowering the caster level for a spell below your normal caster level may make it impossible to cast the spell. The rule does not say that you generally need to have a minimum caster level to cast a spell.

So without additional rules (which no one has found yet) a Wizard 15/Archmage 2 could cast 9th level spells, but could not lower the CL further, because for him the normal caster level is 15. A wizard 17 could not go lower than CL 17 on those spells. It is not quite clear, what happens if the Wiz15/Archm2 takes the Spell Power High Arcana. I'd say he cannot reduce the CL of 9th level spells below 17.

It boils down to the question what "normal" means. It is defined nowhere and adds ambiguity not only to this rule.
The fact the section refers to "you" doesn't help matters. Is it the specific "you" as in, what that character can do? Some could grab 9th level spells at level1. Or is it a general "you" meaning "spellcasters in general", in which case various abilities allowing you to cast stuff early interacts weirdly without a definite limit to the CL.

[Vedhin]

Now I want to make a Ghost Brute Dream Element Shrieker.

Unfortunately, this doesn't work. A Crypt Spawn Dream Element Shrieker works though.
You end up with an inert, incorporeal thing that deals Wisdom damage to anything dumb enough to touch it. It doesn't shriek because it cannot perceive things.

[Inevitability]

When a rock with contact poison is more powerful than the creature that has 2 templates tacked on it, you know you did something wrong. :smallwink:

[Story]

When a rock with contact poison is more powerful than the creature that has 2 templates tacked on it, you know you did something wrong. :smallwink:

Then again, it's easier to become immune to poison than ability damage.

[Inevitability]

True, but the rock has more versatility. On monday, the day stupid fighters try to take on your lair, you put dragon bile on it and watch how the fighters are reduced to piles of immobilized flesh in their heavy armor.
On tuesday, however, you can decide to do something crazy and put instead some Black Lotus Extract on it.

Don't you see it? The inert Shrieker may have more raw power, but the rock has something the Shrieker will never have. VERSATILITY.

Also, the rock will probably be lighter than the Shrieker, allowing it to be used as a improvised thrown weapon should the need arise.

[Lightlawbliss]

...
Also, the rock will probably be lighter than the Shrieker, allowing it to be used as a improvised thrown weapon should the need arise.

throw a rock covered in ...contact... poison. So you are contacting your rock covered in contact poison before getting any use out of it.

[nedz]

throw a rock covered in ...contact... poison. So you are contacting your rock covered in contact poison before getting any use out of it.

I believe that gloves are traditional accessories to Contact Poison.

[No brains]

Unfortunately, this doesn't work. A Crypt Spawn Dream Element Shrieker works though.
You end up with an inert, incorporeal thing that deals Wisdom damage to anything dumb enough to touch it. It doesn't shriek because it cannot perceive things.

I accept this as appropriate reparations for your wrongful tackle.:smalltongue:

Does anyone have a link to the actual info on the dream element template? I can't seem to find it.

Oh and I guess this creature can be an honorary dysfunction, even though template piling usually makes really bizarre crap on its own. This creature is a creature despite breaking every rule for being a creature.

Edit: While this should be a common-sense issue (see everything else in this thread) the shrieker's shriek makes no mention of the creature actually perceiving the trigger. This could allow shriekers to scream at incorporeal and ethereal creatures. Also, there is no listen DC for the shriek, so there's no indication of how loud the creature is supposed to be. I guess you could call it a 'battle' for a DC of -10.

P.S. I meant the one template named "Ghost Brute" As seen here (http://www.realmshelps.net/monsters/templates/ghostbrute.shtml). It's supposed to work on plants with CHA<8, but does the dream element template wreck the 'reqs?

[bekeleven]

I believe that gloves are traditional accessories to Contact Poison.

I prefer living construct subtype, but to each his own.

[XionUnborn01]

It's perfectly straightforward: you can only cast the spells that you can cast, and can't cast any other spells.

This might be the most straightforward explanation I've ever heard. You should work for WOTC, Flickerdart, because you would clear up so many problems.

[deuxhero]

No matter how many ranks in Knowledge: Religion you have, you don't know anything about angels, demons or the place you go when you die, as that's all covered by Knowledge: Planes.

Gets even odder if you are in a setting where gods have stats instead of being "you lose", as they are outsiders.

[Vedhin]

True, but the rock has more versatility. On monday, the day stupid fighters try to take on your lair, you put dragon bile on it and watch how the fighters are reduced to piles of immobilized flesh in their heavy armor.
On tuesday, however, you can decide to do something crazy and put instead some Black Lotus Extract on it.

Don't you see it? The inert Shrieker may have more raw power, but the rock has something the Shrieker will never have. VERSATILITY.

Also, the rock will probably be lighter than the Shrieker, allowing it to be used as a improvised thrown weapon should the need arise.

Can I sig this?


P.S. I meant the one template named "Ghost Brute" As seen here (http://www.realmshelps.net/monsters/templates/ghostbrute.shtml). It's supposed to work on plants with CHA<8, but does the dream element template wreck the 'reqs?

Dream Element changes the type to elemental (dream). It also makes it incorporeal.

That's another dysfunction. (dream) is not a defined subtype, and incorporeal creatures are supposed to have the subtype.

[Chronos]

That's another dysfunction. (dream) is not a defined subtype,...
It is now. There might not be any general rules applying to that subtype, but then again, there aren't any general rules applying to most subtypes.

[Vedhin]

Knowledge (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/knowledge.htm) (Nobility and Royalty) does not actually cover royalty. That is the province of Knowledge (History). :smallconfused:

[Story]

Royalty is covered under both depending on which aspects of royalty you're talking about.

[Lightlawbliss]

Royalty is covered under both depending on which aspects of royalty you're talking about.

and/or knowlege local

[The Viscount]

While we're on the subject of incorporeal beings, if you use alter self to turn into an incorporeal creature, you unfortunately cannot move, as it can only fly supernaturally, and you do not gain this.

Another thing about alter self. You do not gain the subtype of a creature you turn into. If you turn into an incorporeal creature, does that mean then that you are effectively corporeal and lose all the benefits of being incorporeal? If so that's hilarious, because it means none of the incorporeal creatures are any good.

[TuggyNE]

While we're on the subject of incorporeal beings, if you use alter self to turn into an incorporeal creature, you unfortunately cannot move, as it can only fly supernaturally, and you do not gain this.

Not sure if it's actually supernatural flight. It is certainly not marked as such in the subtype description, the special ability description, or e.g. the wraith's MM writeup.


Another thing about alter self. You do not gain the subtype of a creature you turn into. If you turn into an incorporeal creature, does that mean then that you are effectively corporeal and lose all the benefits of being incorporeal? If so that's hilarious, because it means none of the incorporeal creatures are any good.

Presumably, although that's kind of a weird corner case of "something you probably shouldn't do that will have no good results if you do". It's not so much dysfunctional as just "that's not what the spell works for".

[Lightlawbliss]

on alter self: IIRC, alter self only turns you into something of your own type. That makes this issue significantly less likely inside core (where this was writen)

[Necroticplague]

on alter self: IIRC, alter self only turns you into something of your own type. That makes this issue significantly less likely inside core (where this was writen)

Lich is also core, so having somebody attempt to alter self into a ghost is very plausible.

Also, alter self not granting subtypes leads to more wierdness: turning into a normally water-breathing creature wont allow you to breath water (or even force you to) because you wont gain the aquatic subtype. So if you see any suspiciously long-winded water elves, make sure you cast dispel on them.

[Flickerdart]

Lich is also core, so having somebody attempt to alter self into a ghost is very plausible.
You can't alter self into a creature with a template, and there are no untemplated ghosts.

[Karnith]

You can't alter self into a creature with a template, and there are no untemplated ghosts.
Core does, however, still have Allips, Shadows, and Wraiths to Alter Self into.

[Necroticplague]

You can't alter self into a creature with a template, and there are no untemplated ghosts.

The central point still stands. Replce "ghost" with "shadow" or "wraith".

[Ksheep]

You also have the 5 HD limit on Alter Self. In what situation would a spell-casting Lich want to use Alter Self to turn himself into a Wraith, Shadow, or Allip? What would he gain from that?

[TuggyNE]

You also have the 5 HD limit on Alter Self. In what situation would a spell-casting Lich want to use Alter Self to turn himself into a Wraith, Shadow, or Allip? What would he gain from that?

The ability to make smart remarks about how stupid alter self is? I dunno.

Seriously, it's just a weird thing that the spell doesn't attempt to cover; were it something the spell claimed to cover, or reasonably should cover, it would be dysfunctional, but as near as I can figure it's neither, so it really isn't worth much drama.

[TypoNinja]

No matter how many ranks in Knowledge: Religion you have, you don't know anything about angels, demons or the place you go when you die, as that's all covered by Knowledge: Planes.

Gets even odder if you are in a setting where gods have stats instead of being "you lose", as they are outsiders.

Wouldn't your Churches Holy Texts at least have descriptions of these things? I mean like you know "And his champion was a giant of a man, fully nine foot, great feathered wings, and a voice that rattled windows."

"Be known that those of true faith, shall earn their reward in the celesital home of <dieity>, in the <defining traits of an Upper Plane>."

I mean, its not like you are going to pull tactically useful data, or in depth information like a Knowledge (The Planes) result would give you, but something is seriously wrong if ordained clergy can't even tell you what their God looks like.

[No brains]

A possible justification for religion vs the planes could be that religious knowledge just covers mortal traditions whereas planes cover more metaphysical concepts.

Maybe the best example could be that going to church every day forever and paying close attention wouldn't let one know what heaven is like or god's touch AC.

[Namfuak]

Wouldn't your Churches Holy Texts at least have descriptions of these things? I mean like you know "And his champion was a giant of a man, fully nine foot, great feathered wings, and a voice that rattled windows."

"Be known that those of true faith, shall earn their reward in the celesital home of <dieity>, in the <defining traits of an Upper Plane>."

I mean, its not like you are going to pull tactically useful data, or in depth information like a Knowledge (The Planes) result would give you, but something is seriously wrong if ordained clergy can't even tell you what their God looks like.

Clerics get K:Planes as a class skill, so it's reasonable that most would have at least enough to know what their god looks like and the more scholarly ones would split their study to both the mortal (religion) and spiritual (planes).

On the other hand, Paladins do not have K:Planes, so as far as they know they are the champion of a particularly luminous piece of cheese. And as is always humorous to point out, Favored Souls have neither.

[TypoNinja]

Clerics get K:Planes as a class skill, so it's reasonable that most would have at least enough to know what their god looks like and the more scholarly ones would split their study to both the mortal (religion) and spiritual (planes).

On the other hand, Paladins do not have K:Planes, so as far as they know they are the champion of a particularly luminous piece of cheese. And as is always humorous to point out, Favored Souls have neither.

"I AM THE CHOSEN OF PELOR, HE HAS INVESTED ME WITH HIS POWER!"
"What do you stand for?"
"I DON'T KNOW!"

[lunar2]

the doppelganger racial class from races of destiny does not give the change shape ability until level 3. however, doppelgangers can not eat in their native form, since they have no mouths. so a doppelganger has to go from birth to level 3 in a matter of days or they will fall into a coma from starvation which they will never wake from.

on a related note, dehydration and starvation do non-lethal damage. it is impossible to die from either.

[Karnith]

on a related note, dehydration and starvation do non-lethal damage. it is impossible to die from either.
Dehydration was actually fixed in Sandstorm, with the fix (or at least a similar one) persisting in the Rules Compendium.

As far as I know, you still can't starve to death, though.

[Namfuak]

the doppelganger racial class from races of destiny does not give the change shape ability until level 3. however, doppelgangers can not eat in their native form, since they have no mouths. so a doppelganger has to go from birth to level 3 in a matter of days or they will fall into a coma from starvation which they will never wake from.

on a related note, dehydration and starvation do non-lethal damage. it is impossible to die from either.

They also would not be able to breath, unless they do everything through their skin. Another problem with this is that even at level 1 they have the shapechanger subtype, but the subtype specifies "A shapechanger has the supernatural ability to assume one or more alternate forms." So, their inability to do so at first contradicts their subtype. I suppose this could be specific versus general, but it seems to me that qualification for a subtype would be specific to the subtype, not the creature. Otherwise the qualification is worthless.

[Ksheep]

the doppelganger racial class from races of destiny does not give the change shape ability until level 3. however, doppelgangers can not eat in their native form, since they have no mouths. so a doppelganger has to go from birth to level 3 in a matter of days or they will fall into a coma from starvation which they will never wake from.

Don't you know? Doppelgängers are given a Ring of Sustenance as soon as they are born, and they wear it until they are old enough to feed themselves.

[Story]

Lich is also core, so having somebody attempt to alter self into a ghost is very plausible.

Also, alter self not granting subtypes leads to more wierdness: turning into a normally water-breathing creature wont allow you to breath water (or even force you to) because you wont gain the aquatic subtype. So if you see any suspiciously long-winded water elves, make sure you cast dispel on them.

Speaking of the limitations of Alter Self, I remember one time I Polymorphed a party member into a Bladerager Troll. He was unhappy with the "in constant agony" bit, but I argued that since Tortured Mind is an Ex special quality and hence not granted by Polymorph, it shouldn't be a problem.

[lunar2]

They also would not be able to breath, unless they do everything through their skin. Another problem with this is that even at level 1 they have the shapechanger subtype, but the subtype specifies "A shapechanger has the supernatural ability to assume one or more alternate forms." So, their inability to do so at first contradicts their subtype. I suppose this could be specific versus general, but it seems to me that qualification for a subtype would be specific to the subtype, not the creature. Otherwise the qualification is worthless.

sure enough, the picture has no nostrils, either. however, i was just looking for where it was stated that doppelgangers had to change shape to eat, and i can't find it. it's not in the monster manual, it's not in the faq, and it's not in their racial entry in races of destiny. i know i read it somewhere, but i have no clue where, and google has failed me. the monster manual glossary does say that monstrous humanoids eat, drink, and breathe, and doppelgangers don't have any exception to that, but apparently they don't actually need a mouth or nose to do so.

so i guess that wasn't an actual dysfunction after all. however, they still can't speak (except drow sign language) until 3rd level. and there's still the starvation dysfunction.

[nedz]

You also have the 5 HD limit on Alter Self. In what situation would a spell-casting Lich want to use Alter Self to turn himself into a Wraith, Shadow, or Allip? What would he gain from that?

Disguise.

Wait, did that Shadow just cast Meteor Swarm ? Which one was it again ?

[The Viscount]

Not sure if it's actually supernatural flight. It is certainly not marked as such in the subtype description, the special ability description, or e.g. the wraith's MM writeup.

Sorry. What I meant was that alter self only gives flight with wings, which none of these creatures have, and because it is the only movement mode of theirs you are rendered immobile. But as you said the explanation is clear and they didn't plan on having nonhumanoid PC

[Rubik]

The Chain Power metapsionic feat really doesn't work with anything. IIRC, the only two powers that it can be applied to are Weapon of Energy and Energy Conversion, and the latter only really works on a technicality.

[Max Caysey]

This might be some kind of Thicket of Blades paradox again, even though archmage doesn't increase caster level by increasing the CL of the prerequisite class, it does increase CL by advancing in itself. Is its clause in the description specific enough to override the general rule of casting classes increasing their CL with levels?

I have got to ask. What is the Thicket of Blades paradox?

[Necroticplague]

I have got to ask. What is the Thicket of Blades paradox?

If you tumble past a person using Thicket of Blades, do they get an attack of oppurtunity? (assuming you succeed your check)

[Max Caysey]

If you tumble past a person using Thicket of Blades, do they get an attack of oppurtunity? (assuming you succeed your check)

Ahh... thanks!

[Inevitability]

Can I sig this?

I'd consider it a honor if you did.

[ShurikVch]

Feat Vampire Hunter (http://dndtools.eu/feats/libris-mortis-the-book-of-the-dead--71/vampire-hunter--3410/) from Libris Mortis give, among other benefits, immunity
to the dominating gaze ability of vampires and vampire spawn. But let's see: there is Vampire (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/vampire.htm), and there is Vampire Spawn (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/vampire.htm#vampireSpawn). Do you see the Dominating Gaze SA? I'm not. (AFAIK, the only vampires with this ability are the Black Duke and the Red Widow from the Monster Manual V)


on a related note, dehydration and starvation do non-lethal damage. it is impossible to die from either. Also, it's one more reason why the Tarrasque is nonsense. It's awake exactly how often? It must have billions of negative nonlethal hp from starvation. And it's regeneration can't restore it!

[Andezzar]

The ability is simply incorrectly named, but you could be able to deduce what is meant by the short hand in the feat:

Dominate (Su)

A vampire can crush an opponent’s will just by looking onto his or her eyes. This is similar to a gaze attack, except that the vampire must use a standard action, and those merely looking at it are not affected. Anyone the vampire targets must succeed on a Will save or fall instantly under the vampire’s influence as though by a dominate person spell (caster level 12th). The ability has a range of 30 feet.


Domination (Su)

A vampire spawn can crush an opponent’s will just by looking onto his or her eyes. This is similar to a gaze attack, except that the vampire must take a standard action, and those merely looking at it are not affected. Anyone the vampire targets must succeed on a DC 14 Will save or fall instantly under the vampire’s influence as though by a dominate person spell from a 5thlevel caster. The ability has a range of 30 feet. The save DC is Charisma-based.

[TuggyNE]

Also, it's one more reason why the Tarrasque is nonsense. It's awake exactly how often? It must have billions of negative nonlethal hp from starvation. And it's regeneration can't restore it!

While looking into this, I noticed that, while starvation's nonlethal damage cannot be recovered from by any means other than eating, there is no such rule for suffocation, at least not in Core. A fifteenth- or sixteenth-level character, then, can reliably avoid slow suffocation in all cases, simply by beating the average 14 non-lethal per hour from 4d6 with their constant 15/16 non-lethal recovery per hour from levels. I don't know how much this is dysfunction and how much it's "just that awesome", but it's something to think about.

A similar dysfunction was noted in Thread II on page 42 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?267923-quot-Wait-again-that-didn-t-work-right-quot-the-Dysfunctional-Rules-Collection/page42), but this is a bit more general, since no action is necessary, only being of a given level.

[ShurikVch]

The ability is simply incorrectly named, but you could be able to deduce what is meant by the short hand in the feat: If ability named incorrectly, then RAW feat doesn't protect from it

[georgie_leech]

If ability named incorrectly, then RAW feat doesn't protect from it

The Feat doesn't capitalise the "dominating gaze" part though, so it's not naming a specific ability that it protects from, just a general class of abilities. There could be a vampire with a dominating gaze attack called "Edward's Effulgent Eyes" and the Feat would still protect you because it's a vampire's dominating gaze ability.

[ShurikVch]

The Feat doesn't capitalise the "dominating gaze" part though, so it's not naming a specific ability that it protects from, just a general class of abilities. There could be a vampire with a dominating gaze attack called "Edward's Effulgent Eyes" and the Feat would still protect you because it's a vampire's dominating gaze ability.
Not exactly. Let's see:

A vampire (spawn) can crush an opponent’s will just by looking onto his or her eyes. This is similar to a gaze attack, except that the vampire must use a standard action, and those merely looking at it are not affected. "Similar to a gaze attack"≠Gaze attack

[georgie_leech]

Not exactly. Let's see:
"Similar to a gaze attack"≠Gaze attack

Conveniently, the Feat doesn't say it's a Gaze Attack that it protects from. :smallbiggrin:

[ShurikVch]

Conveniently, the Feat doesn't say it's a Gaze Attack that it protects from. :smallbiggrin: Yes, but, red text aside, it also doesn't say Dominate/Domination SA is a gaze :smalltongue:

[georgie_leech]

Yes, but, red text aside, it also doesn't say Dominate/Domination SA is a gaze :smalltongue:

Sure it does, the ability says the vampire needs to look into the target's eyes. Given that it's "gaze" (as oppose to Gaze Attack), or "look steadily and intently," a vampire needing to look into the target's eyes qualifies it as a gaze.

[The Viscount]

Here's a new one: Deathless are vulnerable to energy drain unlike undead. However, they aren't quite as vulnerable as they may seem. Though they certainly could get too many negative levels and die, if a deathless has a negative level, it can just wait 24 hours for the save to come up, which it is immune to since it doesn't affect objects, and thus the levels disappear, no permanent level loss. I'm not sure if this is intentional on the designers part, but knowing them it doesn't seem like it.

[ShurikVch]

New dysfunction:

True Resurrection (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/trueResurrection.htm)
... This spell can even bring back creatures whose bodies have been destroyed, or can't?
Spell RAW cross-reference the Raise Dead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/raiseDead.htm), which have

Range: Touch
Target: Dead creature touched
No body to touch - no casting - no TrueRes

[georgie_leech]

New dysfunction:
or can't?
Spell RAW cross-reference the Raise Dead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/raiseDead.htm), which have

No body to touch - no casting - no TrueRes

Except for the passage immediately after, in the same sentence, which describes how you can bring back creatures without a body to touch.


This spell can even bring back creatures whose bodies have been destroyed, provided that you unambiguously identify the deceased in some fashion (reciting the deceased’s time and place of birth or death is the most common method).

General Targeting rules (Dead Creature touched) are overwritten by the Specific spell text (Identify the creature unambiguously, resurrect it).

[ShurikVch]

General Targeting rules (Dead Creature touched) are overwritten by the Specific spell text (Identify the creature unambiguously, resurrect it). Then what is the target?

[TuggyNE]

Then what is the target?

Presumably the soul or whatever else is drawn back.

[ShurikVch]

Presumably the soul or whatever else is drawn back. Unfortunately, range is still "Touch", so, unless you touch the soul in question, it's out of range and not available for resurrection

[No brains]

Unfortunately, range is still "Touch", so, unless you touch the soul in question, it's out of range and not available for resurrection

Souls are troublesome RAW objects. I'm not exactly certain if this is a RAW crunch or just fluff dysfunction, but the lack of good definitions for souls might make it possible for a wizard to copy themselves with the clone spell when becoming a lich, as the ambiguous definition of souls makes it hard to tell if it can go to multiple places at once.

[Inevitability]

Commoners are supposed to be average people, right?
The rules for improving creatures say:


Nonelite Array
The nonelite array is 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8. [...] The nonelite array is most appropriate for monsters who add class levels in a NPC class.

In the SRD, every creature with NPC class levels has those stats.
So an commoner would have slightly above average stats, while they're supposed to be average members of their race.

[Peregrine]

My favourite was always the shadow veil (MIC p.133).

...while in shadowy areas, you are treated as if you had concealment against creatures lacking darkvision, blindsight, or some other sensory ability that does not rely on light.
So, as long as you're in shadows, you get concealment (against anything that can't see through the shadows).

That's a fantastic advantage, right? Because normally, standing in shadows only gives you... uh...

In an area of shadowy illumination, a character can see dimly. Creatures within this area have concealment relative to that character.

Huh.

The shadow veil was introduced in Libris Mortis, where it cost 10,000gp instead of MIC's 16,000gp. The original also gave a higher deflection bonus to AC. So not only did they think this "concealment when in shadows" thing was novel and useful, they actually decided it was too awesome and needed to be made more expensive!

[Andezzar]

I tried to find a saving grace for the shadow veil, but found another dysfunction instead: Low Light vision is supposed to let the person see better in low light conditions, but creatures are just as concealed from people with low light vision as from people with normal vision.

[Peregrine]

Low Light vision is supposed to let the person see better in low light conditions, but creatures are just as concealed from people with low light vision as from people with normal vision.
Well, the rule isn't that low-light vision lets you see better in shadowy illumination; it's that you don't consider a square to be shadowy at all, until you get twice as far from the light (compared to a human's vision). Once it's dark enough that you do consider a square shadowy, the effect is the same (but of course, at that distance, the human probably considers the illumination to be total darkness).

This rule is somewhat awkward to keep track of, however, and interacts weirdly with abilities that imply "shadowy" to be an innate quality of a square, rather than in the eye of the beholder.

[Flickerdart]

Honestly, all the rules on shadows are really dumb. Rogues not being able to use their defining class feature while in shadows, their preferred environment? Who came up with that?

[Vedhin]

The talk of illumination reminds me of something: "In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded."

Ignoring some of the inanities caused by that (-4 penalites to most Str and Dex based skill checks. -4 Jump? -4 Hide?), that also means that immunity to blindness might help. Even if you still can't see.

Also, the Raptor's Mask from the MIC grants immunity to effects that would blind or dazzle you. Not the conditions, the effects that induce them. So if someone were to make an epic spell that dealt ridiculousd6 damage, and dazzled the target (to add insult to injury?), the Raptor's Mask would block that.

[Andezzar]

Well, the rule isn't that low-light vision lets you see better in shadowy illumination; it's that you don't consider a square to be shadowy at all, until you get twice as far from the light (compared to a human's vision). Once it's dark enough that you do consider a square shadowy, the effect is the same (but of course, at that distance, the human probably considers the illumination to be total darkness).This makes sense for light sources with a small illumination radius, but outside during dusk or dawn what does low light vision do there?


Honestly, all the rules on shadows are really dumb. Rogues not being able to use their defining class feature while in shadows, their preferred environment? Who came up with that?You're talking about sneak attack, right? Well it makes sense that you cannot reliably pierce the guy's liver if you cannot clearly see where that liver is going to be.

[Flickerdart]

You're talking about sneak attack, right? Well it makes sense that you cannot reliably pierce the guy's liver if you cannot clearly see where that liver is going to be.
Sure, that's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that the assassin who sneaks up behind people in the darkness and slits their throats is practically a genre staple, and rogues can't do it without a magic item or kooky race.

[Andezzar]

Sure, that's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that the assassin who sneaks up behind people in the darkness and slits their throats is practically a genre staple, and rogues can't do it without a magic item or kooky race.The rogue can be in shadowy illumination and the victim can be clearly illuminated. In case of a surprise round, which the rogue should get if he is successfully hiding, he can even run yelling to the target and stab it (charge) and still get sneak attack.

[Necroticplague]

Sure, that's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that the assassin who sneaks up behind people in the darkness and slits their throats is practically a genre staple, and rogues can't do it without a magic item or kooky race.

Your telling me that there's something weird about dwarfs making the best rogues?

On the other hand, it means some fiends are excellent stabbers, given they can see in even magical darkness.

[Andezzar]

Your telling me that there's something weird about dwarfs making the best rogues?What about Tieflings? Aasimar are weird though.


On the other hand, it means some fiends are excellent stabbers, given they can see in even magical darkness.They even have their own species for it: Babau. BTW what ability allows them to see through magical darkness? I know some fiends have True Seeing but that is a feature of the particular race and not of their fiendishness in general.

[Necroticplague]

What about Tieflings? Aasimar are weird though.

They even have their own species for it: Babau. BTW what ability allows them to see through magical darkness? I know some fiends have True Seeing but that is a feature of the particular race and not of their fiendishness in general.

Devils are fiends too, and a good chunk have an ability called See in Darkness.

[Andezzar]

Devils are fiends too, and a good chunk have an ability called See in Darkness.Yeah that's what I meant. Many fiends (and other creatures) can pierce magical concealment but that ability is not due to them being fiends or outsiders in general. AFAIK the Fiend Subtype (if it even is a subtype) does not grant any abilities. Darkvision on the other hand comes from being an Outsider.

[squiggit]

Yeah that's what I meant. Many fiends (and other creatures) can pierce magical concealment but that ability is not due to them being fiends or outsiders in general. AFAIK the Fiend Subtype (if it even is a subtype) does not grant any abilities. Darkvision on the other hand comes from being an Outsider.

That's probably why he said "some fiends" >.>

[No brains]

HAY! We're not letting this thread die until we get to my suggested title!

Returning to Disabled vs Staggered: Disabled describes creatures that can be stable and conscious at negative hit points here (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Disabled), but both staggered and unconscious call how creatures with negative hit points as always being unconscious here (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Staggered) and here (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Unconscious) respectively. What entry takes precedence?

[ShurikVch]

Dysfunctions, related to soul and soul-related spells (Trap the Soul (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/trapTheSoul.htm), Soul Bind (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/soulBind.htm), Soul Shackles (http://dndtools.eu/spells/book-of-vile-darkness--37/soul-shackles--219/), Imprison Soul (http://dndtools.eu/spells/heroes-of-horror--70/imprison-soul--1441/), Ensul's Soultheft (http://dndtools.eu/spells/city-of-splendors-waterdeep--16/ensuls-soultheft--349/) and, maybe, several more):
1. Nowhere in the spell's descriptions was mentioned necessity for target to actually have soul in the first place (And, if you think everyone have souls, just one counter-example: Death Giants)
2. Also, descriptions don't specify how many times target can be affected (So, you can potentially harvest unlimited amount of souls from the very same target and use them to bargain with fiends, or as described in BoVD optional rule "Souls as power")
3. Description of Soul Shackles says:
If the subject is hostile, or if the answer to the question was an important secret to it in life, the subject gains a Will saving throw. A successful saving throw indicates that the spell ends and the soul departs to the afterlife.
Yet it have
Duration: Instantaneous

[Allanimal]

Odd one I noticed the other day: Apparently, a level 20 Spirit Shaman is unable to avoid being hit by his or her own Chastise Spirits ability.


Chastise Spirits (Su): Beginning at 2nd level, a spirit shaman can use divine energy granted by her patrons in the spirit world to damage hostile spirits (see the What is a Spirit? sidebar). (emphasis mine)

A 20th level spirit shaman using chastise spirits presumably does not consider itself hostile, so is able to avoid the damage.

[Chronos]

Commoners are supposed to be average people, right?
The rules for improving creatures say:



In the SRD, every creature with NPC class levels has those stats.
So an commoner would have slightly above average stats, while they're supposed to be average members of their race.

What's the dysfunction here? 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 is average. An NPC built with those stats is a little above average in some ways and a little below average in others, just as you'd expect, but average overall.

[Inevitability]

What's the dysfunction here? 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 is average. An NPC built with those stats is a little above average in some ways and a little below average in others, just as you'd expect, but average overall.

Yes, but an average Gnoll, an average Vrock or an average dragon uses the 10,10,10,11,11,11 ability score array. Why should an average human use other scores? It'd be logical to assume that dragons also have their strong and weak abilities, yet they get 'completely' average scores.

[No brains]

Dysfunctions, related to soul and soul-related spells (Trap the Soul (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/trapTheSoul.htm), Soul Bind (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/soulBind.htm), Soul Shackles (http://dndtools.eu/spells/book-of-vile-darkness--37/soul-shackles--219/), Imprison Soul (http://dndtools.eu/spells/heroes-of-horror--70/imprison-soul--1441/), Ensul's Soultheft (http://dndtools.eu/spells/city-of-splendors-waterdeep--16/ensuls-soultheft--349/) and, maybe, several more)

The definition of souls is itself a dysfunction. The only place where souls are even slightly defined is somewhere that I can't remember where it says that incorporeal undead creatures are souls (and so anything that could contain their soul contains the creature?) and in creature types in Monster Manual where it mentions that outsiders do not have souls as a unit separate from their bodies.

I suspect that we could make an entire thread devoted to soul dysfunctions. Then again, since this is a popular topic in philosophy, all the dysfunctions could be an elaborate (and seriously nerdy) easter egg by the devs.


What's the dysfunction here? 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 is average. An NPC built with those stats is a little above average in some ways and a little below average in others, just as you'd expect, but average overall.


Yes, but an average Gnoll, an average Vrock or an average dragon uses the 10,10,10,11,11,11 ability score array. Why should an average human use other scores? It'd be logical to assume that dragons also have their strong and weak abilities, yet they get 'completely' average scores.

What I'm going to guess is up here is that the high variance for NPCs is to give them character. When talking to and interacting with a person, their strengths and flaws have an impact on what they might do or say and may even be outwardly noticeable. When a creature like a gnoll or dragon busts out of concealment to attack someone, the most that is apparent is that it is attacking someone...

[Sith_Happens]

When importing it from Manual of the Planes, the writers of the Spell Compendium saw fit to remove the lines in the Ethereal Mount spell stating that it only works on the Ethereal Plane. They did not, however, see fit to define what the speed of an Ethereal Mount is on any plane other than the Ethereal.

[TrueJordan]

I posted in the wrong thread, but tell me if this makes sense:

If you look at the wording for heal:



So if you use heal on an undead creature, it refers you to harm, right? Let's take a look at harm:



So you use heal on an undead guy, and RAW it acts like harm, which in turn (because he's undead) works like heal, which works like harm... etc. ad infinitum.

Obviously even the slightest interpretation of RAI will fix this but RAW... derp derp

[weckar]

Not necessarily dysfunctional, but an interesting oddity to think about: Duskblades are not proficient with simple weapons.