PDA

View Full Version : D&D glitches



Suzaku
2007-02-23, 10:43 AM
So what D&D glitches have you noticed that no sane DM would allow even if the RAW supports it.

1) Instead of moving 60 feet each round (using double movement) the party if there five or more members with 30 feet movement (or 4 members with 30 movement and one or more with 20 movement) could grapple each other to move forward. On each member's turn that person makes a grapple check to move the party at half her/his speed while the other members choose to fail the grapple, and this continues for each member's turn until they reach their destination. With 5 members you could reach a speed of 75 feet per round 15 feet faster then if they double movement.


2) Using a Bastard sword two handed is treated as a martial weapon and using it one handed is treated as an exotic weapon. Now if a Cleric, rogue or what ever decides to take exotic weapon proficiency bastard sword s/he's proficient using it one handed. However since Exotic weapon proficiency feat is treated as having gained proficiency with only one weapon, and in this case using bastard sword one handed s/he is not proficient with the two handed Bastard Sword because it's a martial weapon.

hewhosaysfish
2007-02-23, 10:53 AM
The first point is well known about; "Hugging you friends lets you move faster!"

The second... isn't real. You can use any one-handed weapon two-handed. End of panic.

The_Werebear
2007-02-23, 10:56 AM
One word

Polymorph

Darrin
2007-02-23, 11:32 AM
1) Instead of moving 60 feet each round (using double movement) the party if there five or more members with 30 feet movement (or 4 members with 30 movement and one or more with 20 movement) could grapple each other to move forward. On each member's turn that person makes a grapple check to move the party at half her/his speed while the other members choose to fail the grapple, and this continues for each member's turn until they reach their destination. With 5 members you could reach a speed of 75 feet per round 15 feet faster then if they double movement.


Initiating a grapple and moving while grappled are both standard actions (not sure if you can use iterative or offhand attacks to get multiple people). So you lose some ground on the first round to get things set up... assuming you have X participates, you'll need X/2 standard actions to get everyone into the same grapple, so a 5-member party could move 30' on round 1 and then 75' on round 2 for a total of 105', while a non-grappler could double-move for 120'. After that first round, though... neat trick!



2) Using a Bastard sword two handed is treated as a martial weapon and using it one handed is treated as an exotic weapon. Now if a Cleric, rogue or what ever decides to take exotic weapon proficiency bastard sword s/he's proficient using it one handed. However since Exotic weapon proficiency feat is treated as having gained proficiency with only one weapon, and in this case using bastard sword one handed s/he is not proficient with the two handed Bastard Sword because it's a martial weapon.

Ah, my favorite weapon... Gripping both hands on a one-handed weapon you're already proficient with doesn't require any additional proficiency, melee or otherwise. The ability to use it two-handed is given by the weapon size, not your proficiency with it, as described in the Equipment/Weapons section of the SRD.

One thing I've always wondered about, though, is War deities that grant WF and proficiency with Bastard Swords... Kelanen and Mayaheine, I think? They grant it as a two-handed martial weapon, yes? So you still have to burn a feat on EWP to use it one-handed?

InaVegt
2007-02-23, 11:46 AM
The second... isn't real. You can use any one-handed weapon two-handed. End of panic.
Except the bastard sword is a one handed weapon, which happens to be usable as a martial weapon two handed.

hewhosaysfish
2007-02-23, 11:50 AM
Except the bastard sword is a one handed weapon, which happens to be usable as a martial weapon two handed.
That's funny, I've always looked at it as two-handed weapon with an associated feat to let you use it one-handed, like a non-sucky Monkey Grip.

But it doesn't matter: if you can use it one-handed, the you can use it two-handed.

Green Bean
2007-02-23, 11:58 AM
There's the famous 'ten-foot pole' glitch. Basically, you are allowed to buy a ten foot pole for 2sp, and a ten foot ladder for 5cp. What you can do is buy a ladder, then split it in two, then sell the two poles for 1sp each.

Hyfigh
2007-02-23, 11:59 AM
The worst glitch ever... (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=491801)

ExHunterEmerald
2007-02-23, 11:59 AM
If we're calling them glitches, does that make Pun-Pun Neo?

Whoa. :smallcool:

NEO|Phyte
2007-02-23, 12:08 PM
If we're calling them glitches, does that make Pun-Pun Neo?

Whoa. :smallcool:
Yes, I am Pun-Pun :smallcool:

So, is the Omniscificer Agent Smith, then?

YPU
2007-02-23, 12:08 PM
Anybody ever noticed the grapple check on a heavy warhorse? Now get me any proof a horse can do that.

Darrin
2007-02-23, 12:10 PM
Also:

* Unarmed Strike is a simple weapon. Monks are not proficient with simple weapons.

(This one can be explained away by saying all creatures capable of making an attack roll are automatically proficient with an unarmed strike, it's just not explicitly stated anywhere. Not sure if the same reasoning applies to gauntlets, however.)

Thomas
2007-02-23, 12:11 PM
Do you want to try grappling a horse? I doubt you'd have a lot of luck... The check's used for defensive purposes too, you know.

Who
2007-02-23, 12:13 PM
What exactly is the Omniscifier?

NullAshton
2007-02-23, 12:15 PM
What exactly is the Omniscifier?

Uses another infinite loop in order to have infinite(yes, infinite, not nigh-infinite, INFINITE) checks to all skills. Then makes a knowledge check about everything in the world, and suddenly knows everything. Including a certain kobold called Pun-Pun, who is going to ascend one day. Then the Omniscifier simply tells the gods to smite him.

Fax Celestis
2007-02-23, 12:20 PM
Uses another infinite loop in order to have infinite(yes, infinite, not nigh-infinite, INFINITE) checks to all skills. Then makes a knowledge check about everything in the world, and suddenly knows everything. Including a certain kobold called Pun-Pun, who is going to ascend one day. Then the Omniscifier simply tells the gods to smite him.

Or smites his parents.

Who
2007-02-23, 12:24 PM
Uses another infinite loop in order to have infinite(yes, infinite, not nigh-infinite, INFINITE) checks to all skills. Then makes a knowledge check about everything in the world, and suddenly knows everything. Including a certain kobold called Pun-Pun, who is going to ascend one day. Then the Omniscifier simply tells the gods to smite him.

Thank you my good sir, have a cookie

Neek
2007-02-23, 12:25 PM
Also:

* Unarmed Strike is a simple weapon. Monks are not proficient with simple weapons.

(This one can be explained away by saying all creatures capable of making an attack roll are automatically proficient with an unarmed strike, it's just not explicitly stated anywhere. Not sure if the same reasoning applies to gauntlets, however.)

It's de facto that any creature is proficient with natural weapons. It'll be funny to expect an Awakened Scorpion to take weapon proficiency with its stinger.

As for the Bastard sword: This is a left-over from 2nd ed, where the sword could function as a long sword or two-handed sword (and do damage accordingly) without having to carry either around. 3rd edition provides no different dice for wielding a sword with both hands, except you add Strength x 1.5.

ravenkith
2007-02-23, 12:46 PM
Anybody ever noticed the grapple check on a heavy warhorse? Now get me any proof a horse can do that.

I've had the 'joyful experience' of watching two horses mate.

They've got grapple.

Trust me.

TheOtherMC
2007-02-23, 12:52 PM
I've had the 'joyful experience' of watching two horses mate.

They've got grapple.

Trust me.

:smalleek:

Fax Celestis
2007-02-23, 12:56 PM
:smalleek:

I think this warrants the use of :eek:, not :smalleek:.

Voleta
2007-02-23, 01:48 PM
There's the famous 'ten-foot pole' glitch. Basically, you are allowed to buy a ten foot pole for 2sp, and a ten foot ladder for 5cp. What you can do is buy a ladder, then split it in two, then sell the two poles for 1sp each.

That was debunked in the last DnD glitches thread.

Green Bean
2007-02-23, 01:50 PM
That was debunked in the last DnD glitches thread.

Really? What was the problem with it? :smallconfused:

You know, aside from the whole 'infinite money loop' thing.

DrummingDM
2007-02-23, 01:58 PM
Really? What was the problem with it? :smallconfused:

You know, aside from the whole 'infinite money loop' thing.I believe the problem was the fact that each pole would have a series of holes in them...thereby weakening the structure of the pole and rendering it valueless.

Voleta
2007-02-23, 02:20 PM
I believe the problem was the fact that each pole would have a series of holes in them...thereby weakening the structure of the pole and rendering it valueless.


Exactly, but I shall elaborate.

There are two kinds of a ladders. Straight, and A-Frame. You can't possibly do this "glitch" with an A-frame, and I think its pretty safe to assume that at least 25% of ladders in D&D are A-frame (The people have freaking alchemist fire and magic, surely some gnome has invented the hinge).

So maybe you can purchase ladders that are all straight ladders, but there is still the matter of the shape of the components. It could be a box straight ladder, meaning that it is something like boards set up like a shelf without a back to it. Really, getting flat boards is easier than trimming a pole into a nice circle, so I feel like this would be more common than dowel ladders. Of course, straight brances or saplings could be used as the sides. Regardless, you would have to find a dowel straight ladder.

If you did find an abundant supply of dowel straight ladders, you would have to be careful how the rungs are attatched. They could be hammered in from the outside, which would be the most beneficial. They could be notched, or it could have holes all the way through.

A good sturdy ladder would have some kind of metal reinforcing on the joints, so you would have to deal with that as well.

All in all, if you really think about it, the chances of it working are slim. You could say "I split the ladder in two and throw away the rungs", just as you could say "I steal his horse and ride off into the sunset". However, its much more complicated than that.

Gamebird
2007-02-23, 02:29 PM
Anybody ever noticed the grapple check on a heavy warhorse? Now get me any proof a horse can do that.

If a horse steps on your foot, you're grappled. Trust me.


It's de facto that any creature is proficient with natural weapons.

Actually it's not. "Unarmed strike" is explicitly listed as a simple weapon. Not all classes get access to all simple weapons. Monsters are listed as having certain weapons and they are stated to have proficiency with all weapons listed for them. Unarmed strike is not listed for elves, dwarves, gnomes or halflings. Humans don't have stats at all. If a weapon isn't listed for a monster, you can consult their "Type" listing, which might say something like being proficient with all natural weapons. For humanoids it says this:

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

So, since monks (and wizards and rogues, maybe bards - I'm not sure) don't get simple weapon proficiency, then they aren't proficient with their natural weapons.


I believe the problem was the fact that each pole would have a series of holes in them...thereby weakening the structure of the pole and rendering it valueless.

To me, the problem is more that a 10' ladder is not specifically constructed of two 10' poles. What you have after taking it apart is not a pair of 10' poles, but instead two halves of a 10' ladder.

---------------

Another glitch (?) is that there are no infants, children or juveniles in D&D, except for dragons.

The_Werebear
2007-02-23, 02:32 PM
Actually....

They do mention how many young or hatchlings will be going along with adults in many monster manual entries, and in a few, they mention to give young ones less HD. I'll see if I can find an example.

Edit-Here we go. Page 120 in the Monster manual gives the stats for making a young giant.

Neek
2007-02-23, 02:34 PM
d20 Modern and Star Wars d20 contains rules for creating children, &c. I prefer the House Rule that you can find in homebrewing somewhere.

And I sadly never read that into the MM to notice that natural weapons require a general proficiency, so I presumed it was de facto. Thank you for the correction, however.

YPU
2007-02-23, 03:00 PM
If a horse steps on your foot, you're grappled. Trust me.
true, but horses aren’t that great at aiming their feet. And don’t tell me you wouldn’t be able to dodge it when you are prepared for it. I am not questioning a horses ability to maintain a grapple, but starting one I find rather dubious.

Gamebird
2007-02-23, 03:04 PM
They can simply knock you over with mass.

I agree they can't grapple a person in the manner that a human can, but a horse that's sharing your square, knocked you down and trying to stomp on you will be giving you all the game effects of grapple.

averagejoe
2007-02-23, 03:38 PM
I dunno if this is a glitch, but I find the "masterwork tool" to be pretty silly, although some of the things people come up with are, admittedly, pretty creative. But, there's some sort of tool that gives you a bonus to sense motive or bluff? Technically, yes, but what could it possibly be?

Gamebird
2007-02-23, 03:40 PM
Masterwork Bluff tools: Expensive clothing making you seem like an important person, to be believed and not to be trifled with.

Masterwork Sense Motive tools: An extensive catalog of facial expressions and behaviors correlated to honesty and lying.

Edit: Note: neither of these are RAW.

averagejoe
2007-02-23, 03:49 PM
So you're sensing motive:

"Yes, I see, that's interesting. Could you do me a favor, and hold that expression for a few more seconds?" *Glances at his catalog* "Why, you're lying to me! I'm sure of it! You're making expression 56 A."

How, pray tell, do clothes make you seem more trustworthy? I mean, I see how nice clothes (or, at least, appropriate ones) could give a bonus (or negate a penalty) to diplomacy in certain circumstances, but I don't see how that works with bluff. And don't even get me started with cultural boundaries.

What about intimidate? A scary mask that you can pull out and shout, "Booga booga booga," or something?

I mean, technically by RAW, you should be able to get some sort of universal masterwork appraise tool and not have to muck around with scales and magnifying glasses.

And for the tumbling "padded armor" (or whatever thing), I can see how this would work insofar as a negation of the check penalty, but I just don't see someone putting on a suit of leather armor and tumbling better than they do naked.

ExHunterEmerald
2007-02-23, 04:10 PM
Intimidate is easy. A cruel-looking, harsh instrument like a scalpel on crack.

TRM
2007-02-23, 04:18 PM
So you're sensing motive:

"Yes, I see, that's interesting. Could you do me a favor, and hold that expression for a few more seconds?" *Glances at his catalog* "Why, you're lying to me! I'm sure of it! You're making expression 56 A."
No, you study the catalouge and thus become more aquainted with facial expressions.

Gamebird
2007-02-23, 04:28 PM
So you're sensing motive:

"Yes, I see, that's interesting. Could you do me a favor, and hold that expression for a few more seconds?" *Glances at his catalog* "Why, you're lying to me! I'm sure of it! You're making expression 56 A."

I would imagine it to be a reference book you consulted in between talking to people.


How, pray tell, do clothes make you seem more trustworthy? I mean, I see how nice clothes (or, at least, appropriate ones) could give a bonus (or negate a penalty) to diplomacy in certain circumstances, but I don't see how that works with bluff. And don't even get me started with cultural boundaries.

A guy in a nice suit, looking well groomed and wearing a few choice pieces of jewelry (expensive watch, nice wedding ring, etc.) will be believed a lot more than some scroungy, bed-head fellow in stained, ragged jeans and a t-shirt with holes under the sleeves. It's not just a matter of diplomacy. If a well dressed man is found in an unauthorized area, he's going to be far better treated than a ruffian in the same location. The guards may well believe the well-dressed man's story that he accidentally got lost, whereas the ruffian will be thought to have been looking for something to steal.


What about intimidate? A scary mask that you can pull out and shout, "Booga booga booga," or something?

The skillful applications of certain make-ups, the choice of certain clothing (see above), adorning your armor or weapons with fearsome motifs - I'm not saying it would work in all cases, but adding an inch to your apparent height makes you a bit more intimidating than you were before (yay platform shoes).


And for the tumbling "padded armor" (or whatever thing), I can see how this would work insofar as a negation of the check penalty, but I just don't see someone putting on a suit of leather armor and tumbling better than they do naked.

Heh. This is the only one I strongly disagree with you on. Professional acrobats almost always perform on padded stages. In a dungeon, you don't have this luxury. Being padded enough to be willing to throw yourself on the floor for a slide across pea gravel is a good thing. Doing it naked would be painful!

MrNexx
2007-02-23, 04:30 PM
Ladder (http://www.hobbybunker.com/images/products/ctsSinglePole.jpg)

Make 2 ten-foot poles out of that.

I doubt that's what they were thinking, of course... they likely weren't thinking... but it is a fairly simple method of making a ladder, especially if you have a tree.

barawn
2007-02-23, 04:36 PM
Make 2 ten-foot poles out of that.


A ladder is still cheaper than one ten foot pole (1/4 the price, actually). I might not be able to make 2 ten foot poles out of each ladder, but I can certainly make one.

MobiusKlein
2007-02-23, 04:40 PM
Seems that to have a Masterwork tool for skill X, there is an _implied_ (or explicit) non masterwork version that is required. Craft (sewing) for example does not list that it needs tools, but is implied. A masterwork tool would be the nifty sewing machine that grants the +2. But for the normal sewing check, you still need needle & thread.

Since normal Bluff does not require any tools, there are no generic Masterwork versions of them.

That said, a GM could grant circumstance bonuses for smart uses of the Disguise skill to a particular Bluff check - that is akin to the Aid Another use of a skill. But that costume would not help the generic Bluff one bit.

Zeb The Troll
2007-02-23, 04:48 PM
That said, a GM could grant circumstance bonuses for smart uses of the Disguise skill to a particular Bluff check - that is akin to the Aid Another use of a skill. But that costume would not help the generic Bluff one bit.I agree. I see an effective disguise as negating potential penalties rather than providing bonuses.

e.g. Your party is searching a building looking for clues for their current mission/quest when they're caught by the guards. A successful Bluff might let someone explain that they're there as health inspectors or something, but being dressed as adventurers will make that tougher. Being dressed in official looking attire, or even normal clothing for the area, would remove that penalty.

kamikasei
2007-02-23, 04:49 PM
Heh. This is the only one I strongly disagree with you on. Professional acrobats almost always perform on padded stages. In a dungeon, you don't have this luxury. Being padded enough to be willing to throw yourself on the floor for a slide across pea gravel is a good thing. Doing it naked would be painful!

This is very true. Go take a martial arts class, learn to take falls and perform rolls, note the mats on the floor. Then go outside and try doing it on the street, or lawn.

The ground is hard. Skin, elbows, knees, toes are fragile.

Attilargh
2007-02-23, 04:53 PM
When the character finally fails her Constitution check, she begins to drown. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hp). In the following round, she drops to -1 hit points and is dying. In the third round, she drowns.
"Arg, -56 quadrillion hit points! Must... Aim... For... The bucket..." *Splosh* "Gurgle."

Funnily enough, there seems to be no way to save someone from drowning once it has begun.

Oh, and I don't have to elaborate on why the Diplomacy rules as presented in the PHB are utterly ridiculous, do I?

Zeb The Troll
2007-02-23, 05:02 PM
Funnily enough, there seems to be no way to save someone from drowning once it has begun.I'm pretty sure the intention there is that if someone were to rescue you in that first or second round of drowning they could apply normal bandaging/healing techniques to keep you from dying.

It is pretty funny, though that presumably if you're at -8 hp, someone could throw you in face deep water where you would intentionally fail your con check and be brought back to 0 hp and can lift yourself out of it.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-02-23, 05:06 PM
I dunno if this is a glitch, but I find the "masterwork tool" to be pretty silly, although some of the things people come up with are, admittedly, pretty creative. But, there's some sort of tool that gives you a bonus to sense motive or bluff? Technically, yes, but what could it possibly be?
Ya got it backwards.


It grants a +2 circumstance bonus on a related skill check (if any).

You decide what the tool is. Then you decide on the skill to which it applies.

averagejoe
2007-02-23, 05:07 PM
I would imagine it to be a reference book you consulted in between talking to people.

They already have that. It's called, "the fluff explaining why you get skill points when you level up." A tool is something you use as you perform the task.

And the clothes thing I get, but it's hardly a universal tool. For your example, that suit totally wouldn't work if you were trying to bluff, say, a group of muggers or other criminals who are of the mentality that the rich are out to get you. It might help you bluff a city official or rich guy, but it would, if anything, make you more suspicious amongst other people.

And I have performed rolls and whatnot, and agree that padding is important. I do, however, refuse to believe that something that is heavy, cumbersome, and built so that it's harder to move and bend would net a benifit to such activities. Heck, I've tumbled on hard surfaces before, and while I grant it's no picknick, I can't see how wearing 15-20 extra pounds would be helpful, padded or not.

Besides, when was pain ever an issue in DnD (barring certain spells and effects)? You can stand in fire at no penalty except maybe death if you do it for too long. I highly doubt that rolling on a stone floor would cause serious problems.

Douglas
2007-02-23, 05:07 PM
Oh, and I don't have to elaborate on why the Diplomacy rules as presented in the PHB are utterly ridiculous, do I?
Leadership? Who needs a piddling little feat like that? I go to the town square and make a speech. Let's see, +150 diplomacy bonus, the entire town is now fanatically loyal to me, even those that wanted to kill me before. Only lasts a week or so, though, so... *deep breath* "CANNON FODDER, FORM UP AND MOVE OUT. WE HAVE A DUNGEON TO CLEAR!" :smallcool:

BlueWizard
2007-02-23, 05:11 PM
Alter Self... it is more powerful than FLY and lasts longer!

Zeb The Troll
2007-02-23, 05:16 PM
Alter Self... it is more powerful than FLY and lasts longer!Doesn't typically grant the same maneuverability as Fly and is self only.

Voleta
2007-02-23, 05:20 PM
A ladder is still cheaper than one ten foot pole (1/4 the price, actually). I might not be able to make 2 ten foot poles out of each ladder, but I can certainly make one.

I almost said "No. No you can't." Then i looked at the picture. Yes, you might be able to make a 10 foot pole out of that (assuming again that the rungs were lashed on and not nailed or pushed through holes)

Really, that is a terrible form of ladder, and would/should only be used in emergencies. Unless both ends are extremely well tied down, it will roll when weight is applied (Yes, it does resemble a tree trunk with branches. Yes you can make a ladder out of that. However, normally a tree is anchored the best way possible: in the ground).

The ten foot pole thing is a silly argument and it really is starting to get under my skin worse than going to an aquariam and hearing kids shout "omg nemo!!". It was cute, but it gets old. Fast.

Gamebird
2007-02-23, 05:27 PM
[snip]

I'm not going to argue with you that it is, or should be, RAW. By RAW there are no tools that help you Bluff. But then again, by RAW there's no explicit penalties for trying to Bluff people while naked, smeared in poo, holding a repeating crossbow to your own head and trying to convince people you're the king in disguise. The rules suggest penalties and bonuses depending on what the DM thinks is wise, given the situation. I'd say that there are "tools" that could give a +2 Bluff, Intimidate or Sense Motive check under certain circumstances. You're free to disagree with me, since it's a DM call.

On a related subject I think it's ridiculous to assume that a caster with the appropriate Craft item feat just transmutes gold pieces and a masterwork item into a magic item, like a sword or a folding boat. But by RAW, that's all you need - the feat, a masterwork item in some cases, and enough gold and xp. I would think that any sane DM would place some requirements.

It's like the Craft skill doesn't explicitly say you need tools. In fact, somewhere I think it says you only suffer a -2 for using improvised or shoddy tools. But it doesn't say what the penalty is, or even if there is one, for not using tools at all.

averagejoe
2007-02-23, 05:32 PM
On a related subject I think it's ridiculous to assume that a caster with the appropriate Craft item feat just transmutes gold pieces and a masterwork item into a magic item, like a sword or a folding boat. But by RAW, that's all you need - the feat, a masterwork item in some cases, and enough gold and xp. I would think that any sane DM would place some requirements.

I thought the cost was to pay for the materials. I've always ruled that you need to be somewhere with the base materials for the item available, at least.

Attilargh
2007-02-23, 05:35 PM
By the RAW, one can create clubs, quarterstaves and other weapons with a cost of 0 gold pieces instantly out of thin air with a single application of the Craft skill.

Gamebird
2007-02-23, 05:40 PM
I thought the cost was to pay for the materials. I've always ruled that you need to be somewhere with the base materials for the item available, at least.

Yeah, you'd think that and it makes sense, but the RAW doesn't say it. It just says that to make the item requires an area suitable for memorizing spells, the required gold & xp, and sometimes a masterwork item (depends on the thing you're crafting).

Zherog
2007-02-23, 05:52 PM
On the tools for Bluf, Sense Motive, etc.


Artisan’s Tools: These special tools include the items needed to pursue any craft. Without them, you have to use improvised tools (–2 penalty on Craft checks), if you can do the job at all.

Artisan’s Tools, Masterwork: These tools serve the same purpose as artisan’s tools (above), but masterwork artisan’s tools are the perfect tools for the job, so you get a +2 circumstance bonus on Craft checks made with them.

The tools only apply to Craft checks. Sorry - no fancy suits to grant a +2 to Bluff, and no books of facial expressions to grant a +2 to Sense Motive.

ExHunterEmerald
2007-02-23, 05:53 PM
Someone once used that quarterstaff free thing with leadership...or was it Thrallherd...to make a D&D railgun.
Basically, you line up the bunchtillion followers, all ready an action to pass it to the next guy, the end guy lets it fly. They calculate how many five foot squares it moves through in six seconds and it's incredibly fast.

NEO|Phyte
2007-02-23, 05:54 PM
On the tools for Bluf, Sense Motive, etc.



The tools only apply to Craft checks. Sorry - no fancy suits to grant a +2 to Bluff, and no books of facial expressions to grant a +2 to Sense Motive.
You may have a point...

But they are talking about the Masterwork Tool (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#toolMasterwork), not the Masterwork Artisan's Tools.

Attilargh
2007-02-23, 05:59 PM
Someone once used that quarterstaff free thing with leadership...or was it Thrallherd...to make a D&D railgun.
Basically, you line up the bunchtillion followers, all ready an action to pass it to the next guy, the end guy lets it fly. They calculate how many five foot squares it moves through in six seconds and it's incredibly fast.
The [object] moves at a speed of (the number of people participating) * 5 feet per six seconds. For reference, the speed of light is almost one foot per nanosecond, which is a billion feet per second, or 1,2 billion squares per turn. Ergo it is possible to break the speed of light without resorting to magic, psionics or other nonsense in the DnD universe.

Dareon
2007-02-23, 06:10 PM
...By RAW there are no tools that help you Bluff....
One of the splatbooks (Races of Destiny? I can't recall) provides rules for using a Forgery check to create documents that provide a +2 bonus to a certain Bluff or Diplomacy check. In essence, they provide you with the perfect tool for the job. Not completely the letter of what you're looking for, but still.

Personally, if you had access to the right crafters, I'd let you spend the requisite amount and get a "masterwork tool" that provided the bonus on some types of Bluff check, simply because as mentioned, a universal Bluff tool would be hard to identify. Like a small cloak that added +2 to your bluff checks to feint or whatever. There are other items that perform the same function, but if you just want a feint bonus instead of the shield/disarm ability of the dueling cloak (Dragon 335), hey, more power to you.

averagejoe
2007-02-23, 06:28 PM
It's like the Craft skill doesn't explicitly say you need tools. In fact, somewhere I think it says you only suffer a -2 for using improvised or shoddy tools. But it doesn't say what the penalty is, or even if there is one, for not using tools at all.

Uh, hello, McGyver. You just need, like, a deck of cards, some grass clippings and bubble gum to make a decent sword.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-02-23, 06:54 PM
By the RAW, one can create clubs, quarterstaves and other weapons with a cost of 0 gold pieces instantly out of thin air with a single application of the Craft skill.
Dividing by 0 is undefined (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_0), not 0.

From the Craft skill description (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/skillsAll.html#craft):
"The DC, your check results, and the price of the item determine how long it takes to make a particular item."
"If the result × the DC equals double or triple the price of the item in silver pieces, then you’ve completed the task in one-half or one-third of the time. Other multiples of the DC reduce the time in the same manner."
"You can make checks by the day instead of by the week. In this case your progress (check result × DC) is in copper pieces instead of silver pieces."

So let's make a quarterstaff using a days worth of work.

It's a simple melee weapon, so that's DC 12.
Let's say I get a result of 15. Success!
I make 12 x 15 = 180 cp in progress.
180 cp > 0 cp; I've finished it in less than a day.
180 / 0 = UNDEFINED; I've finished in 1/UNDEFINED of a day.

UNDEFINED simply means UNDEFINED. It has no meaning. You can't make any conclusions about the time it takes from such a value.

Unfortunately, there's no guideline to how this impacts actual quarterstaff creation. If we leave the realm of Mathematics and say the time it takes to create a quarterstaff is UNDEFINED, that typically translates into "DM fiat" in the D&D world. DM fiat may or may not be "instantaneous." Ask your DM.


Yeah, you'd think that and it makes sense, but the RAW doesn't say it. It just says that to make the item requires an area suitable for memorizing spells, the required gold & xp, and sometimes a masterwork item (depends on the thing you're crafting).
Uh, the SRD says, "Magic supplies for items are always half of the base price in gp...," in the section on Creating Magic Items ([url=http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/magicItemsCreation.html). Every Item Creation Feat (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/featsItc.html) says, "...you must... use up raw materials costing one half this base price." These firmly establish thatthat the gp is spent on actual materials.

Dareon
2007-02-23, 07:27 PM
In general, a quarterstaff or club could most easily be crafted in a wooded area, and would require at the least a handaxe or dagger and a full-round action. You could also craft one if you were within 30 feet of a ladder or ten-foot pole. Or a pair of 10-foot poles with several small holes in them. Hey, yeah, that's what you do with the rungs. Make clubs.

In town, they probably have a barrel of quarterstaves in the hardware store next to the cash register shopkeep. You know, like yardsticks these days.

It's a vaguely amusing concept that's meant to be chuckled at whenever someone mentions it. You don't need a grounding in algebra to figure out it doesn't work like that in practice.

It's like you can make a clay tankard in a few minutes by taking 10 with a halfway decent Int score. Anyone with some background in pottery knows to actually make a decent drinking vessel, you need to fire it for an hour or so.

SpiderBrigade
2007-02-23, 08:08 PM
gamebird, I see the point you're making about clothes and things, and how a well-groomed person is more likely to be believed than a hobo-looking guy...but. What about Feinting? What kind of special tools do you use to Feint? Would they be the same ones you use for "I have no idea what you're talking about, officer?"

THAT's the glitch, I think: the rules pretty much say that there is "A" tool, or set of tools that gives you a bonus to a skill. Which is really hard to figure out, for bluff.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-02-23, 08:48 PM
As I said above: The tool comes first, then you assign a skill to it.

Collin152
2007-02-23, 10:23 PM
Suit? Suit!? The masterwor ktool for bluffing is Amnesia Dust!

Counterpower
2007-02-23, 10:48 PM
All of these twisted interpretations of the rules are funny, but I would argue that DnD doesn't have glitches. Why? Because these kinds of glitches would be possible in a computer-run environment where the computer would, for example just say, "You buy a Masterwork Tool for Bluff checks" or calculate that the quarterstaff in one example was moving at 3c. The problem? Any DM would use basic common sense to shoot all of these down. For tools, I would definitely rule that the player has to explain how the tool would help, and for the quarterstaff, I would rule that it could only get passed so far in 6 seconds.


Yeah, you'd think that and it makes sense, but the RAW doesn't say it.

And in situations like that, I'll go with whatever makes sense. Unless I'm trying to create a comedy-themed game where nothing makes logical sense. But hey, if I wanted that, I'd go to www.giantitp.com and read some OotS. :smallwink:

Collin152
2007-02-23, 11:02 PM
EEk! YOu know what I just realized? OKay, so Pun-Pun is indestructible, and possibly benevlent to his mundane comrades, and takes a mate. Powers and other attributes given by Manipulate Form go to your progeny. A race of God-Slaying monstrosities!

Darrin
2007-02-23, 11:04 PM
All of these twisted interpretations of the rules are funny, but I would argue that DnD doesn't have glitches. Why? Because these kinds of glitches would be possible in a computer-run environment where the computer would, for example just say, "You buy a Masterwork Tool for Bluff checks" or calculate that the quarterstaff in one example was moving at 3c. The problem? Any DM would use basic common sense to shoot all of these down.

Uh-huh. Sorry, I just saw a thread where some players convinced a DM that urine breaks down the molecular bonds of water, and thus peeing on water elementals was a good way to destroy them.

Humans are much easier to BS than computers, since they aren't explicitly bound by the dictates of mathematics and logic.

Voleta
2007-02-24, 12:36 AM
Dividing by 0 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_0)

You can't divide by zero, if you do, OH SHI-

Piccamo
2007-02-24, 12:42 AM
Someone once used that quarterstaff free thing with leadership...or was it Thrallherd...to make a D&D railgun.
Basically, you line up the bunchtillion followers, all ready an action to pass it to the next guy, the end guy lets it fly. They calculate how many five foot squares it moves through in six seconds and it's incredibly fast.

Unfortunately because of the way DnD works the quarterstaff has no real speed. It moves at the same rate at the end as at the beginning.

Douglas
2007-02-24, 12:56 AM
By RAW, you can indeed get a quarterstaff moving at arbitrarily high speed with enough people. Also by RAW, how fast it moves down the chain is completely irrelevant to what happens at the end. A quarterstaff that just traveled around the world a dozen times has exactly the same weight, damage, range increment, etc. as a quarterstaff that the final person in line just happened to be holding. So, that trick is useful for transportation but nothing else.

magic8BALL
2007-02-24, 01:11 AM
So, since monks (and wizards and rogues, maybe bards - I'm not sure) don't get simple weapon proficiency, then they aren't proficient with their natural weapons.

But monks get the improved unarmed strike feat as part of their Unarmed Strike ability. Hence, profficient.

As for rogues, wizards and bards... they just cant punch. Too busy doin others things like actually getting some skills, studieing to altering the multiverse in under 6 seconds and learning to perform so well as to magically influence the abilities of others, amongst other things.

Bottom line, it's a game. What gets me is a High level fighter gets more HP than, for example, and elephant. A gnome fighter even. A whale even. See my point?

Also, a Dragon with 1.35billion HP can only take 50hp damage before it needs to make a fort save for 'massive damage'... as does a lvl 1 wizard with 5hp. Silly.

Leon
2007-02-24, 01:24 AM
Also, a Dragon with 1.35billion HP can only take 50hp damage before it needs to make a fort save for 'massive damage'... as does a lvl 1 wizard with 5hp. Silly.

Example of one of the rules - its all down to the discretion of the DM, one may choose to include the rule others may not



You can't divide by zero, if you do, OH SHI-

Another Black Hole



As for rogues, wizards and bards... they just cant punch. Too busy doin others things like actually getting some skills, studieing to altering the multiverse in under 6 seconds and learning to perform so well as to magically influence the abilities of others, amongst other things.


They can Punch, just not as well as someone who has practised the correct way to do it

Gamebird
2007-02-24, 01:30 AM
But monks get the improved unarmed strike feat as part of their Unarmed Strike ability. Hence, profficient.

Getting a feat as a bonus feat or special ability makes you proficient in that feat - it does not give you proficiency in the prerequisites for that feat. For example, if you take a class or prestige class that gives you Two-Weapon Fighting (like, say, Ranger) and your Dexterity score is 8, you don't automatically have a DEX 15 because you took TWF.

Similarly, a monk who gets IUS doesn't automatically become proficient with any simple weapons, like unarmed strike. They just get IUS. IUS means you're considered armed when using an unarmed strike and able to inflict lethal damage with it. It says nothing about granting proficiency in using an unarmed strike, as you can be armed with a weapon you're nonproficient in and still do lethal damage with it. You just take a -4 nonproficiency penalty.

I'm not seriously arguing that all monks should take a -4 penalty to their unarmed strikes. That's stupid. However, it is a glitch in the rules.

Attilargh
2007-02-24, 02:06 AM
Dividing by 0 is undefined (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_0), not 0.
Curses, foiled again by basic algebra. I will never make a proper Evil Overlord at this rate.

Voleta
2007-02-24, 12:31 PM
Another Black Hole

Aye, a time paradox. Truly it is a horror to behold.

Attilargh
2007-02-24, 12:40 PM
20 pounds of firewood costs a copper piece. 20 pounds of clubs cost nothing.

10 feet of chain costs 30 gold pieces. Spiked Chain costs 25 gold pieces. (Okay, so the difference in weight might have something to do with that.)

Arceliar
2007-02-24, 01:04 PM
Please note that clubs and quarterstaffs are not listed as "0" for their cost, but "-". This isn't the same as 0, which has literally no cost, but means rather that the cost is so minutely small and insignificant it shouldn't be bothered with.

AKA:

lim
c -> 0+
where c is the cost of the item

Therefore, if we divide by a limit approaching zero we don't get undefined, we get a limit approaching infinity. Not a big deal to most of you I'm sure, outside of ridiculous craft checks, but it matters to me.

EDIT: What's really going to bother you is when you realize this means they can craft a club as a free action, but drawing one strapped to their belt would have taken a move action.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-02-24, 01:14 PM
Please note that clubs and quarterstaffs are not listed as "0" for their cost, but "-". This isn't the same as 0, which has literally no cost, but means rather that the cost is so minutely small and insignificant it shouldn't be bothered with.
Ah, so it is a dash.

Collin152
2007-02-24, 01:16 PM
I thought craft checks were always at least a week long?

Arceliar
2007-02-24, 01:26 PM
From the craft description:

Progress by the Day
You can make checks by the day instead of by the week. In this case your progress (check result × DC) is in copper pieces instead of silver pieces.
also,
If the result × the DC equals double or triple the price of the item in silver pieces, then you’ve completed the task in one-half or one-third of the time.

So, when the price is - or a amount approaching zero, then any successful craft check approaches infinitely many times greater than the item's price.


Completely different subject: Would an item (let's say a masterwork adamantine greatsword) with a permanent antimagic field (base price 198,000 so it's legal non-epic) suppress it's own effect of creating said field? And if it did suppress the effect, would that not immediately negate the field, allowing the magic item to function normally and recreate it, thus requiring it suppress itself again....you see where I'm going with this...

EDIT: Wait, "Two or more antimagic fields sharing any of the same space have no effect on each other" so I guess it'd have to function normally..I think.....

I think I'm going to stop thinking about that and just houserule it works.

BlueWizard
2007-02-24, 01:32 PM
A ladder should just cost more. 5cp

Ever been to a hardware store, WotC? Ladders are expensive. I painted houses for several years! Even wooden ladders, which are hard to find nowadays. 5 cp is a joke! Especially if 1 long pole is 2 sp.

Telok
2007-02-24, 03:54 PM
As best I can find (limited time/using SRD) the DC to land on your feet from a fall of any distance is a Dex check of 20 or a Jump check of 15. With normal falling damage capping at 70 average, this has led to characters and NPCs hopping off 100' high walls and running around.

Although in one case it was a five foot step, 200' fall, and a full attack.

Mewtarthio
2007-02-25, 01:14 AM
180 / 0 = UNDEFINED; I've finished in 1/UNDEFINED of a day.

180 / 0 = INFINITY
1 / INFINITY = 0

Or, alternatively:

1 / (180 / 0) = 1 * 0 / 180 = 0

Turcano
2007-02-25, 03:39 AM
Masterwork Bluff tools: Expensive clothing making you seem like an important person, to be believed and not to be trifled with.

Edit: Note: neither of these are RAW.

When you think about it, the courtier's outfit behaves like a normal tool:


Courtier’s Outfit
This outfit includes fancy, tailored clothes in whatever fashion happens to be the current style in the courts of the nobles. Anyone trying to influence nobles or courtiers while wearing street dress will have a hard time of it (-2 penalty on Charisma-based skill checks to influence such individuals). If you wear this outfit without jewelry (costing an additional 50 gp), you look like an out-of-place commoner.


It doesn't give you a bonus, but it does negate a penalty for "improvised" checks. You could by analogy interpret the noble's/royal outfit as masterwork in that regard (although it still isn't RAW).

And about the ladder-to-pole bit: If the holes make that much of a difference, just cut the rungs out with a hacksaw or something and leave the rest in. I don't see it as an issue, myself. A 10-foot pole isn't load-bearing in any real way; you just use it to poke things from a reasonable distance.

averagejoe
2007-02-25, 03:45 AM
Off topic: Turcano that is a really, extraordinarily cool avatar.

I was never trying to argue that stuff like the cortier's outfit didn't have a place, but by RAW there should be some sort of universal bluff tool.

JimmyDPawn
2007-02-25, 05:43 AM
As best I can find (limited time/using SRD) the DC to land on your feet from a fall of any distance is a Dex check of 20 or a Jump check of 15. With normal falling damage capping at 70 average, this has led to characters and NPCs hopping off 100' high walls and running around.

Although in one case it was a five foot step, 200' fall, and a full attack.
Landing on your feet doesn't prevent the damage, it just reduces it a little. Try making that full attack on the ground clutching your broken legs.

Although, technically there's no rule for that... so as long as the fall doesn't outright kill you, you can stand. Hmm.... :/

Dark
2007-02-25, 06:11 AM
180 / 0 = INFINITY
1 / INFINITY = 0

Or, alternatively:

1 / (180 / 0) = 1 * 0 / 180 = 0

1 / INFINITY = 0
1 = 0 * INFINITY
1 = 0

Alternatively...

1 / (180 / 0) = 0
multiply both sides by (180 / 0)
1 = 0 * (180 / 0)
apply 0 * x = 0
1 = 0

You might have a problem with your math there :)

Infinity is not a number!

Attilargh
2007-02-25, 07:08 AM
Although, technically there's no rule for that... so as long as the fall doesn't outright kill you, you can stand. Hmm.... :/
Hit points. (http://www.cruisegazing.com/RPG_Motivational/HP.jpg) He's still got one left.

Hzurr
2007-02-25, 11:08 AM
180 / 0 = INFINITY vs. 180 / 0 = UNDEFINED


It all depends if you solve it as a mathematician, or an engineer.

In pure mathematical terms, 180/0 is undefined.

However, you rarely, if ever, will divide something by zero, so what it means more often is divide 180 by a very, very, very small number
(Or, if you want it in math terms, it will mean Limit(180/x) as x->0 )

So, if you treat it as 180/a-really-really-small-number, the answer will be infinity.

Overall, the craft skill is odd. I used to have a ranger in the party who had maxed out his craft skill to make arrows, and it got to the point where he would just say "I throw gold at the tree and make it turn into arrows"

ANYWAY, the point of things with a price of "-" is that this thing is so freaking common that you would be an idiot to pay money for it, because you can make one with ease by yourself. I mean, for a simple quarterstaff, you just find a sturdy branch, clear the twigs off of it, smooth it a bit, and there you go.

A MWK quarterstaff would cost money, because that means you have something where the wood has been worked and treated, then cut and molded for balance.

Tellah
2007-02-25, 11:42 AM
180/0 = nullity (http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/content/articles/2006/12/06/divide_zero_feature.shtml)

I just felt like I needed to derail the thread even further. As you were.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-02-25, 11:58 AM
Or Not. (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/British_computer_scientist%27s_new_%22nullity%22_i dea_provokes_reaction_from_mathematicians)

(Okay, my last word on the issue... :tongue:)

the_tick_rules
2007-02-25, 12:06 PM
that grappling thing is awesome. But that's assuming they all have a strength score high enough to carry everyone.

kamikasei
2007-02-25, 01:45 PM
1 / INFINITY = 0
1 = 0 * INFINITY
1 = 0

Alternatively...

1 / (180 / 0) = 0
multiply both sides by (180 / 0)
1 = 0 * (180 / 0)
apply 0 * x = 0
1 = 0

You might have a problem with your math there :)

Infinity is not a number!

Instead of 0, use n, where n is arbitrarily small.

You're looking for lim(n->0) (1/(180/n)) = lim(n->0) (n/180) = 0
The key is that, as someone mentioned, - is not 0 but "a vanishingly small amount".

Dark
2007-02-25, 02:16 PM
However, you rarely, if ever, will divide something by zero, so what it means more often is divide 180 by a very, very, very small number
(Or, if you want it in math terms, it will mean Limit(180/x) as x->0 )
Okay... but if you follow that reasoning, you have to accept that a price of "-" does not mean zero cost. It is small but nonzero. That doesn't mean that you can take the limit to zero, though. It simply raises the question "how small?". That sounds like a DM call to me. Since the smallest pricing unit is one copper piece, any price less than a copper piece could be listed as "-". Let's say a quarterstaff's value is half a copper piece.

Then, if you take a one-week Craft check and get 180 sp of progress, that's 3600 times the price of a quarterstaff, so you can make a quarterstaff in 1/3600th of a week. That works out to 2.8 minutes, or 28 rounds. It's fast but not unreasonable.

So, why half a copper piece instead of something else? Well, why not half a copper piece? It's consistent with the rules, once you've established that a price of "-" does not mean zero.

Conclusion: no glitch here.

Hzurr
2007-02-25, 03:31 PM
Okay... but if you follow that reasoning, you have to accept that a price of "-" does not mean zero cost. It is small but nonzero. That doesn't mean that you can take the limit to zero, though. It simply raises the question "how small?". That sounds like a DM call to me. Since the smallest pricing unit is one copper piece, any price less than a copper piece could be listed as "-". Let's say a quarterstaff's value is half a copper piece.

Then, if you take a one-week Craft check and get 180 sp of progress, that's 3600 times the price of a quarterstaff, so you can make a quarterstaff in 1/3600th of a week. That works out to 2.8 minutes, or 28 rounds. It's fast but not unreasonable.

So, why half a copper piece instead of something else? Well, why not half a copper piece? It's consistent with the rules, once you've established that a price of "-" does not mean zero.

Conclusion: no glitch here.

I talked about the price of a quarterstaff in the second half of the post. It's not that it doesn't cost anything, it's that it's so easy and cheap to make, there's no point in actually paying money for it.

The whole reason for the math explination was just for the people who were confusing what it means to divide something by zero.

Mewtarthio
2007-02-25, 04:04 PM
1 / INFINITY = 0
1 = 0 * INFINITY
1 = 0

Alternatively...

1 / (180 / 0) = 0
multiply both sides by (180 / 0)
1 = 0 * (180 / 0)
apply 0 * x = 0
1 = 0

You might have a problem with your math there :)

Infinity is not a number!

0 * INFINITY = INDETERMINATE :smalltongue:

Yeah, it's unrealistic that you can craft a quarterstaff as a free action (though it certainly sounds awesome: "I leap into the air, create a new quarterstaff in midair, and smash him over the head with it!"), but that's technically the rules.

Collin152
2007-02-25, 04:42 PM
If you want to prove you can divide by zero, than okay: Divide these 17 apples into 0 groups such that there are none of the original apples not in these groups.

Diddn't think you could do it either.

Mewtarthio
2007-02-25, 09:52 PM
If you want to prove you can divide by zero, than okay: Divide these 17 apples into 0 groups such that there are none of the original apples not in these groups.

Diddn't think you could do it either.

Divide 17 apples into one half of a group.

Besides, I'm not asking for evidence that dividing by zero is legal: It's not (the limit as x approaches 0 for 1/x is +INFINITY from the right and -INFINITY from the left, for instance). As has been posted twice before, it's really the limits in the mathematical sense: The cost of a quarterstaff is an infinitesmal amount that approaches zero (from the positive side) and so the time it takes to make one approaches zero as well.

---

Fun fact: The prerequisite for becoming a lich is essentially "have a phylactery." The prerequisite for a phylactery is "caster level 11, able to cast spells." Toss Belkar (level ~11 Ranger, Wis ~8) a periapt of wisdom (+4) and convince him to take Craft Wonderous Item. Let him make the phylactery and discard the periapt. TA-DAA! You now have a Lich that is unable to cast spells and has no intention of doing so!

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-02-25, 10:25 PM
Fun fact: The prerequisite for becoming a lich is essentially "have a phylactery." The prerequisite for a phylactery is "caster level 11, able to cast spells." Toss Belkar (level ~11 Ranger, Wis ~8) a periapt of wisdom (+4) and convince him to take Craft Wonderous Item. Let him make the phylactery and discard the periapt. TA-DAA! You now have a Lich that is unable to cast spells and has no intention of doing so!
Ranger caster level == 1/2 Ranger Level. Ranger must be Level 22 to become a lich. Or Level 14 with Practiced Spellcaster.

Mewtarthio
2007-02-25, 10:47 PM
Ranger caster level == 1/2 Ranger Level. Ranger must be Level 22 to become a lich. Or Level 14 with Practiced Spellcaster.

*double-checks*

Eh, you're right. Still works if you give our hypothetical Ranger Practiced Spellcaster (Belkar was just an example), but I suppose investing two feats that you'll never use into something you probably don't need is a bit much.

Still, it's doable, and that's the important thing.

Dareon
2007-02-26, 09:10 AM
That ranger thing is amusing. I like finding stuff like that that can be termed "The goggles of D&D" (They do nothing.)

For instance, using an action point to emulate a feat that affects your action points or their usage. You can only use one action point a round, and the feat goes away at the end of the round.

Zherog
2007-02-26, 01:22 PM
Just noticed this...


So, since monks (and wizards and rogues, maybe bards - I'm not sure) don't get simple weapon proficiency, then they aren't proficient with their natural weapons.

Rogues are proficient with all simple weapons.



All of these twisted interpretations of the rules are funny, but I would argue that DnD doesn't have glitches. Why? Because these kinds of glitches would be possible in a computer-run environment where the computer would, for example just say, "You buy a Masterwork Tool for Bluff checks" or calculate that the quarterstaff in one example was moving at 3c. The problem? Any DM would use basic common sense to shoot all of these down. For tools, I would definitely rule that the player has to explain how the tool would help, and for the quarterstaff, I would rule that it could only get passed so far in 6 seconds.

Just because you can create a houserule doesn't mean the problem does not exist.



Ranger caster level == 1/2 Ranger Level. Ranger must be Level 22 to become a lich. Or Level 14 with Practiced Spellcaster.

Hmmm... That's an idea worth playing around with just to create a different sort of villain. Although I'd leave the ranger's Wisdom high enough for limited spell casting.

Fallen paladin/blackguard might be another interesting way to go about it. I'm assuming a blackguard's caster level is equal to his class level (the SRD doesn't say). Assuming so, you'd need a 7th level blackguard with the Practiced Spellcaster.

barawn
2007-02-26, 01:50 PM
Besides, I'm not asking for evidence that dividing by zero is legal: It's not (the limit as x approaches 0 for 1/x is +INFINITY from the right and -INFINITY from the left, for instance). As has been posted twice before, it's really the limits in the mathematical sense: The cost of a quarterstaff is an infinitesmal amount that approaches zero (from the positive side) and so the time it takes to make one approaches zero as well.

The funniest thing is that the entire thing is clearly stupidly poor wording on WotC's part - the part regarding Craft (alchemy) indicates that yeah, you do have to be able to get the raw materials in order to Craft something, but it only lists alchemical Craft supplies as difficult to find.

I mean, of course every DM will rule that yes, you have to find the raw materials, but by RAW, you don't. And if you did have to find the raw materials, then this wouldn't matter, as the creation time would be zero. "Okay, you find a stick. Yay, you've got a quarterstaff."

Arbitrarity
2007-02-26, 04:45 PM
0 * INFINITY = INDETERMINATE :smalltongue:

Yeah, it's unrealistic that you can craft a quarterstaff as a free action (though it certainly sounds awesome: "I leap into the air, create a new quarterstaff in midair, and smash him over the head with it!"), but that's technically the rules.

0*inifinity = 0....

0 groups of infinity, etc.

infinity/0 = undefined....

Mewtarthio
2007-02-26, 09:57 PM
0*inifinity = 0....

0 groups of infinity, etc.

Actually, there are several indeterminate forms that don't mean anything by themselves. 0 / 0, INFINITY / INFINITY, INFINITY * 0, 0 ^ 0 (normally, zero to any power is zero, while anything to the power of zero is one), INFINITY ^ 0, 1 ^ INFINITY. None of those have any determinable value. A few examples:

WARNING: Contains Calculus
[(x+4)(x-2)]/(x-2) is obviously equal to (x+4) in most cases (eg at x = 0 you get 4 * -2 / -2, which is obviously 4). However, when x = 2, this comes out to 0 / 0. In this particular case, the limit as x approaches 2 is obviously 6, since every other value of x is equal to (x+4).

0 * INFINITY is a bit trickier to get a more obvious example. Let's say that we have e^x * e^(-x). As x goes to infinity, we approach 0 * INFINITY. Rewrite it as e^x / e^x, and the limit clearly approaches 1. Ergo 0 * INFINITY = 1. For more fun, try x * e^(-x). This also approaches 0 * INFINITY as x goes to infinity. Let's rewrite it as x / e^x, which goes to INFINITY / INFINITY. By l'Hopital's rule, we take the derivative over the numerator over the derivative of the denominator to get 1 / e^x, which goes to 1 / INFINITY, which is 0. Ergo, 0 * INFINITY = 0.

Golthur
2007-02-26, 11:13 PM
For more fun with infinities and infinitesimals, check out surreal numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surreal_numbers).

You still can't divide by zero, though, IIRC :smile:

Collin152
2007-02-26, 11:17 PM
Divide 17 apples into one half of a group.

Besides, I'm not asking for evidence that dividing by zero is legal: It's not (the limit as x approaches 0 for 1/x is +INFINITY from the right and -INFINITY from the left, for instance). As has been posted twice before, it's really the limits in the mathematical sense: The cost of a quarterstaff is an infinitesmal amount that approaches zero (from the positive side) and so the time it takes to make one approaches zero as well.

---

Fun fact: The prerequisite for becoming a lich is essentially "have a phylactery." The prerequisite for a phylactery is "caster level 11, able to cast spells." Toss Belkar (level ~11 Ranger, Wis ~8) a periapt of wisdom (+4) and convince him to take Craft Wonderous Item. Let him make the phylactery and discard the periapt. TA-DAA! You now have a Lich that is unable to cast spells and has no intention of doing so!
Certainly! Just hand me the apples and we may commence!






I diddn't think you could either.

Arceliar
2007-02-26, 11:45 PM
Actually, there are several indeterminate forms that don't mean anything by themselves. 0 / 0, INFINITY / INFINITY, INFINITY * 0, 0 ^ 0 (normally, zero to any power is zero, while anything to the power of zero is one), INFINITY ^ 0, 1 ^ INFINITY. None of those have any determinable value.

Don't forget the numbers that DO have a determinate value, like the definition of e: (1 + 1/x)^x as x approaches infinity.

It's basically saying "an infinitely small amount greater than one to an infinitely high power" for those of you who couldn't tell.

But anyways, d&d....

Ever notice how Reach Spell gives touch spells a fixed range...
And how Persistent Spell needs a spell to be personal or of fixed range...
And how the Vigor spells are all touch spells...
And how easy Divine Metamagic is to abuse, even at low levels...

Dareon
2007-02-27, 07:04 AM
Just because you can create a houserule doesn't mean the problem does not exist.
My initial knee-jerk response is "Sure it does."

If you want more explanation, go look up the bit about changing the rules, commonly known as Rule 0. Go ahead, I'll wait. I just want to make sure we're all on the same page here.

Got it? Now, by the Rules As Written, a Dungeon Master has the ability and the right to add, change or abolish any rule he feels does not accurately represent the feel he is going for in the campaign. These created rules have just as much weight as anything written in a rulebook.

If such a rule removes a given problem, who can say that it truly has a negative effect on the gameplay experience?

Likewise, if a Dungeon Master sees no need to correct what other people have deemed a problem, does that have a negative effect?

Consider: Two parties, both alike in dignity. Each assaults a castle. One party uses followers to create quarterstaves as a free action, then passes them along a line of other followers before launching them at relativistic speeds into the castle walls. The other stages a more traditional siege with their followers while they themselves infiltrate the castle. Is either party having less fun than the other? I would tend to doubt it.

Dungeons & Dragons is a game that both allows and encourages the rules to be changed. Arguments about massively powerful builds, rules loopholes, and similar ideas simply fall flat on one criteria: The Dungeon Master will more than likely not allow them.

Don't like that?

Play your game.

Vive la difference.

NullAshton
2007-02-27, 07:50 AM
Actually by the rules, the last commoner in the line would toss the quarterstaff at his normal throwing speed. The fact that it's being passed over a long distance in those 6 seconds makes little difference, as the last person in the line still does normal damage for throwing a quarterstaff.

Zherog
2007-02-27, 07:59 AM
My initial knee-jerk response is "Sure it does."

>>snipped to save space<<

Yes, I'm quite aware of "rule 0" in the game. Thank you.

That still doesn't change what I said, though. Just because you can houserule something doesn't mean the problem isn't there in the rules.

Let's try an analogy. Ford Pintos are well known for going kaboom when they're rear ended. This is because of some fault or another with the gas tank. If I buy a Ford Pinto and replace the gas tank with a non-exploding version, that doesn't eliminate the existence of the problem; sure, my Pinto won't explode. But your's and your neighbor's still will.

Dareon
2007-02-27, 09:11 AM
I see what you're getting at. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that, to continue your analogy, my Pinto doesn't make any difference to your Pinto. I might be fine with my Pinto exploding. If I wasn't, I'd probably change the gas tank too. Plus, my Pinto's tendency to explode wouldn't affect your Pinto in any way.

Since the problem no longer exists, either through attitude (being fine with the explosion) or alteration (replacing the gas tank)... Hmm. We might be getting a bit into Zen here. If a problem no longer exists, was it truly a problem? It did exist, yes. Your argument is fundamentally correct, but if it's no longer a problem... Hum. We might just be arguing two completely different things and be unable to reach a consensus here.

Regardless, D&D provides you with the tool kit you need to replace that gas tank, as well as add fuzzy dice, neon underlighting, airfoils, and decals. And at less cost than going out and buying a whole new car. It may not be the best, but it's cheap to fix and it gets you around.

Now aside from the fundamental argument being presented here, I'd like you to picture a Pinto with neon underlighting and tell me the concept doesn't at least make you smile ironically.

Quincunx
2007-02-27, 09:11 AM
With hybrids barely wise enough to know how to cast spells in the first place, they're just as likely to have made one of those apples into their phylactery, and then coated it with candy. Try to divide THAT.

*crunch, munch*

How many bites does it take to get to the center of a soul?
The world may never know.

Clementx
2007-02-27, 01:00 PM
Ever notice how Reach Spell gives touch spells a fixed range...

The real glitch is the person reading Reach Spell and thinking it makes a touch spell into an emanation. It makes a touch spell into a ray with a range of 30ft. It even says, "up to 30 feet", so even if you can't see the true effect of the feat, you have to admit it is no "fixed" therefore doesn't qualify for Persist.

Roderick_BR
2007-02-27, 03:03 PM
Since I'm feeling nostaugic...
The Elephant Ninja from AD&D (2nd edition)
The thing could attack with his trunk, his two tusks, and his two front legs, for a total of 5 attacks/rounds!

Or the falling rules. If you have more than 60 HP, you can fall from ANY height, since you can't take more than 10d6 points of damage from a fall.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-02-27, 03:11 PM
Or the falling rules. If you have more than 60 HP, you can fall from ANY height, since you can't take more than 10d6 points of damage from a fall.
Psst! You! Over there! The limit is 20d6.

If you take 50 or more points of damage from that fall, you risk death by massive damage.

Fax Celestis
2007-02-27, 03:12 PM
The real glitch is the person reading Reach Spell and thinking it makes a touch spell into an emanation. It makes a touch spell into a ray with a range of 30ft. It even says, "up to 30 feet", so even if you can't see the true effect of the feat, you have to admit it is no "fixed" therefore doesn't qualify for Persist.

ACTUALLY, Reach Spell does not make it a ray. It "effectively makes it a ray", which, while semantically sound, is an important distinction. :smallbiggrin:

Jarawara
2007-02-27, 03:15 PM
I see what you're getting at. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that, to continue your analogy, my Pinto doesn't make any difference to your Pinto. I might be fine with my Pinto exploding. If I wasn't, I'd probably change the gas tank too. Plus, my Pinto's tendency to explode wouldn't affect your Pinto in any way.


But it does. If your Pinto explodes, people will be less likely to buy my Pinto, or pay as much. I can tell them I fixed the gas tank, yes, it's safe to drive, go ahead and put your children into that car, you'll all be just fine... but they won't be convinced, and they'll go buy a Geo Metro instead.

And if you allow railguns in your game, when people come to play my game, I'll be trying to convince them that yes, it's safe to play my game, no, I don't allow a railgun, yes, I use logic, yes, it's safe to let your children ride in my Pinto... but they won't believe me either.

And worse, some who come to my game will actually *want* to use the railgun, arguing that the rules make it legal. When I invoke Rule Zero, they'll complain that you allow the railgun, and clearly I'm not as good of a DM as you. Though I guess I could point out that your Pinto exploded, that might work.

Of course, all of this could have been avoided if the glitches had been fixed in the rules by WotC, but I suppose the railgun supporters would find something else to argue for, like peeing on Water Elementals or something equally crazy. There'll always be some Pinto-driver wanting to pee on a Water Elemental.

But you can't say that the way you play your game does not affect my game in any way. Your players will come to my table, mine to yours, and outsiders looking in will see the railguns and pee-elementals, not the heroic fantasy, and that can hurt our chances of bringing in new players.

*~*~*

For the above post, I used the 'you' generic - I don't mean to imply that you personally allow the railgun or have your players pee on water elementals. But I do kinda suspect you have a Pinto. Lime Green. :smallbiggrin:

Gadhar&Sealgair
2007-02-27, 03:16 PM
Since I'm feeling nostaugic...
The Elephant Ninja from AD&D (2nd edition)
The thing could attack with his trunk, his two tusks, and his two front legs, for a total of 5 attacks/rounds!

Or the falling rules. If you have more than 60 HP, you can fall from ANY height, since you can't take more than 10d6 points of damage from a fall.

You just need to be careful of >80 feet falls and hot dice. You might pass the 50 damage needed for a fortitude save to not die from massive damage.

Suzaku
2007-02-27, 03:44 PM
You just need to be careful of >80 feet falls and hot dice. You might pass the 50 damage needed for a fortitude save to not die from massive damage.

That's just a variant rule, as such it's just a officially suggested house rule. For example if variant rules is raw that would mean rolling a 1 on a attack roll would mean -10 to the roll and auto miss at the same time.

Zherog
2007-02-27, 03:49 PM
pee-elementals

http://boards1.wizards.com/images/smilies/roflmao.gif

I suddenly have an idea for an April Fool's Day encounter for my group...

***

The other problem with invoking Rule 0 to say the problem doesn't exist is that it basically eliminates the need for message board discussions. I mean, yeah, some really wacky stuff always pops up in threads like this. And for the most part, everybody agrees this sort of stuff should be patched up with a tiny bit of spackle. That doesn't mean we can't get a chuckle from it; nor does it mean everybody fixes it the same way.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-02-27, 03:50 PM
That's just a variant rule, as such it's just a officially suggested house rule.
No.

No, it's not.

Can you tell me where on pg. 145 of the PHB, where Massive Damage is described, it says that massive damage is a variant?

Never mind the fact that none of the rules in the PHB are variants. The DM controls the variants. Therefore all variants mentioned in the core books are in the DMG.

Indon
2007-02-27, 03:59 PM
With hybrids barely wise enough to know how to cast spells in the first place, they're just as likely to have made one of those apples into their phylactery, and then coated it with candy. Try to divide THAT.

*crunch, munch*

How many bites does it take to get to the center of a soul?
The world may never know.

An edible phylactery with poison to kill the ingester and a contingency spell to transfer the soul? Hmm...

Collin152
2007-02-27, 06:47 PM
MMmm... Sacrelicious...

Arceliar
2007-02-27, 07:07 PM
From the SRD:


Inappropriately Sized Weapons
In general, (added: "in general" means usually but not always) a light weapon is an object two size categories smaller than the wielder, a one-handed weapon is an object one size category smaller than the wielder, and a two-handed weapon is an object of the same size category as the wielder.

The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder’s size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed.

Unarmed Strike
An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike.


Now...correct me if I'm wrong, but that could almost be interpreted that a character could take an infinitely large penalty due to incorrect weapon size, and deal damage with an unarmed strike infinitely many size categories higher than normal. You'd need a natural 20 to hit, but if you optimize for # of attacks you'll roll one eventually.

Or at the very least, a warforged's Battlefist could do so.

Of course, once again rule 0 should apply.

Mewtarthio
2007-02-27, 07:09 PM
Except the unarmed strike was designed for that particular creature. When he was born.

Arceliar
2007-02-27, 07:10 PM
Except the unarmed strike was designed for that particular creature. When he was born.

Obviously. Now find where it says that in the SRD.

EDIT: This is after all the "glitches" thread for a reason.

Douglas
2007-02-27, 07:16 PM
Now find where it says Unarmed Strike has a size. A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike. A Small character deals 1d2 points of nonlethal damage. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#unarmedStrike) Unarmed Strike's damage is based on the size of the wielder, not the size of the unarmed strike.

Arceliar
2007-02-27, 07:18 PM
Now find where it says Unarmed Strike has a size. A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike. A Small character deals 1d2 points of nonlethal damage. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#unarmedStrike) Unarmed Strike's damage is based on the size of the wielder, not the size of the unarmed strike.

Really, cause last I checked monks did more. And large creatures could unarmed strike too.

Again, obviously it should NEVER be allowed. I'm just saying, following the guidelines given in the SRD it's a bit ambiguous at best on this (and many other) issues.

Zeb The Troll
2007-02-27, 07:24 PM
Really, cause last I checked monks did more. And large creatures could unarmed strike too.

Again, obviously it should NEVER be allowed. I'm just saying, following the guidelines given in the SRD it's a bit ambiguous at best on this (and many other) issues.Monks do more as a class ability. Large creatures do more because they are large, not because their weapons are large. That was the point trying to be made. You can't oversize your unarmed strike because the damage is based on how big YOU are. That's why Unarmed Strike is always a light weapon and the weapon size will never be inappropriate for the character. (Barring some Improved Oversized Fist spell I'm not aware of, that's possible, but it's not SRD.)

EDIT: To put it another way, in douglas's post it says "a medium character does 1d3 damage" not "a character with medium sized fists does 1d3 damage".

Arceliar
2007-02-27, 07:32 PM
Yes, but again...

Unarmed Strikes are treates as a light weapon. It never says all weapons except unarmed strike deal damage based on different size categories.

Obviously it's (at least) as stupid as monks being nonproficient with their fists. But based on the fact that unarmed strike is a light weapon it must therefor follow the rules to which light weapons are subject.

Mewtarthio
2007-02-27, 07:40 PM
Yes, but again...

Unarmed Strikes are treates as a light weapon. It never says all weapons except unarmed strike deal damage based on different size categories.

Obviously it's (at least) as stupid as monks being nonproficient with their fists. But based on the fact that unarmed strike is a light weapon it must therefor follow the rules to which light weapons are subject.

But you can't get any oversized unarmed strikes. Not unless you're some freak born with fists the size of the Tarrasque. Show me where it says you can, say, use a Medium-sized dagger and deal damage as though it were Gargantuan.

Zeb The Troll
2007-02-27, 07:45 PM
Yes, but again...

Unarmed Strikes are treated as a light weapon. It never says all weapons except unarmed strike deal damage based on different size categories.
The difference here is that unarmed strike is not a weapon. It is "treated as a light weapon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm)" for determining modifiers where weapon size is important, such as two weapon attack penalties. Moreover it does specify that unarmed strike damage is dependent upon the size of the character.

Arceliar
2007-02-27, 07:47 PM
But you can't get any oversized unarmed strikes. Not unless you're some freak born with fists the size of the Tarrasque. Show me where it says you can, say, use a Medium-sized dagger and deal damage as though it were Gargantuan.

It doesn't. Closest thing is a Sun Sword.

However, a gargantuan dagger would. And there are no rules against using a gargantuan dagger provided you can wield it though some means.

This isn't a dagger. It's an unarmed strike. Because it's on the simple weapon table, it must be a simple weapon.

Now, obviously no sane DM will let someone use a unarmed strike not for their size (unless they're warforged).

Either unarmed strikes are not simple weapons, or they're capable of being wielded oversized RAW. Now, granted, how you explain a character having an unarmed strike of larger size is up for question. But game mechanic wise (as game mechanic never defines an unarmed strike very clearly) it appears technically possible.

I mean, the only indication given in the game as to its function is the name, and obviously if people rule that RAW you need proficiency to use it then name means little.

EDIT:
"Treated as a light weapon" with treated being the keyword SHOULD be significant, except that it's actually placed on the light weapon table.

I agree, this shouldn't work. But if unarmed strikes are weapon enough that monks need to be proficient, then from now on my monks are 2-weapon-fighting with fists dealing damage effective to that of about 5,000 size categories larger

Mewtarthio
2007-02-27, 07:49 PM
But you can't use any unarmed strike besides the one you're born with. In theory, if you somehow got Tarrasque-sized fists, then, yes, you'd deal more unarmed strike damage, but that's impossible.

Arceliar
2007-02-27, 07:57 PM
But you can't use any unarmed strike besides the one you're born with. In theory, if you somehow got Tarrasque-sized fists, then, yes, you'd deal more unarmed strike damage, but that's impossible.

Clearly you've never played a warforged monk.

That point aside, it never defines "unarmed strike" as being a natural weapon for the purposes of proficiency or being confined to your own. Other than the name, and the "always light" clause in the description, it's essentially identical to any manufactured weapon.

Zeb The Troll
2007-02-27, 08:01 PM
This isn't a dagger. It's an unarmed strike. Because it's on the simple weapon table, it must be a simple weapon.

EDIT:
"Treated as a light weapon" with treated being the keyword SHOULD be significant, except that it's actually placed on the light weapon table.It's worth noting that it is on the table as "unarmed attacks". This is notable because the definition of "unarmed" is "no weapon(s) in hand".


I agree, this shouldn't work. But if unarmed strikes are weapon enough that monks need to be proficient, then from now on my monks are 2-weapon-fighting with fists dealing damage effective to that of about 5,000 size categories largerNow, to this point this has been debatable, but, my interpretation of RAW is that at 1st level a monk is granted a class ability called Unarmed Strike (capitalized for a reason). This Unarmed Strike ability is defined later as including the Improved Unarmed Strike feat and the ability to do lethal damage while unarmed. This further boils down to the fact that a monk attacking without weapons is NOT the same as another class's striking while unarmed. As such, they are not proficient with fighter/warrior style pugilism, but ARE capable of fighting empty handed without non-proficiency penalties. But that's just me.

Arceliar
2007-02-27, 08:07 PM
It's worth noting that it is on the table as "unarmed attacks". This is notable because the definition of "unarmed" is "no weapon(s) in hand".

Now, to this point this has been debatable, but, my interpretation of RAW is that at 1st level a monk is granted a class ability called Unarmed Strike (capitalized for a reason). This Unarmed Strike ability is defined later as including the Improved Unarmed Strike feat and the ability to do lethal damage while unarmed. This further boils down to the fact that a monk attacking without weapons is NOT the same as another class's striking while unarmed. As such, they are not proficient with fighter/warrior style pugilism, but ARE capable of fighting empty handed without non-proficiency penalties. But that's just me.

Yes, "unarmed" is by definition just that. However, I see no mention of that in the SRD. And unfortunately common sense doesn't apply much in a game with magic and dragons. And rules lawyers >.>;

I completely agree on the monk thing. Unfortunately, that still leaves, at the very least, the poor neglected bard non proficient with his own hands. Obviously Improved Unarmed Strike is intended to function like proficiency, but following the SRD it doesn't and monks are nonproficient.

That by no means makes it right. But that's what the SRD says.

Douglas
2007-02-27, 08:11 PM
According to the Actions in Combat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#unarmedAttacks) section, an unarmed attack is a punch, kick, or head butt.

Arceliar
2007-02-27, 08:17 PM
According to the Actions in Combat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#unarmedAttacks) section, an unarmed attack is a punch, kick, or head butt.

Quite true.

However, it's still listed as weapon on the weapons table. Obviously this isn't INTENDED to mean monks are nonproficient or that you can use oversized ones. But as they're on the weapons table they're treated as a weapon.

And attacking with a punching dagger is virtually identical to just punching, for the record. Or attacking with a gauntlet. Yet these both also require proficiency.

EDIT: "Sure, you can punch while wearing a glove. But if it's made of metal you've gotta waste a feat on it"

Zeb The Troll
2007-02-27, 08:21 PM
Yes, "unarmed" is by definition just that. However, I see no mention of that in the SRD. And unfortunately common sense doesn't apply much in a game with magic and dragons. And rules lawyers >.>;

I completely agree on the monk thing. Unfortunately, that still leaves, at the very least, the poor neglected bard non proficient with his own hands. Obviously Improved Unarmed Strike is intended to function like proficiency, but following the SRD it doesn't and monks are nonproficient.

That by no means makes it right. But that's what the SRD says.Personally, I have no problem with a bard not being proficient in brawling. Or a druid or wizard for that matter. But now that you mention it, I find it odd that a sorcerer is proficient when a wizard isn't. If I had to pick only one of bard/druid/wizard/sorcerer to be capable of fisticuffs it would be the druid, not the sorc.

Arceliar
2007-02-27, 08:24 PM
If I had to pick only one of bard/druid/wizard/sorcerer to be capable of fisticuffs it would be the druid, not the sorc.

Exactly.

And following the "unarmed strike is a weapon" logic, a level 1 commoner has a 5% chance of sundering the earth if he really wants to. Obviously unarmed strike should be weapon-like but not a weapon. But they put it on the weapon table as a simple light weapon, so...yeah...

I guess really this is really more an attempt to ruin the day of a few very totalitarian DMs who would insist monks are nonproficient.

Zeb The Troll
2007-02-27, 08:28 PM
Quite true.

However, it's still listed as weapon on the weapons table. Obviously this isn't INTENDED to mean monks are nonproficient or that you can use oversized ones. But as they're on the weapons table they're treated as a weapon.

And attacking with a punching dagger is virtually identical to just punching, for the record. Or attacking with a gauntlet. Yet these both also require proficiency.

EDIT: "Sure, you can punch while wearing a glove. But if it's made of metal you've gotta waste a feat on it"Gauntlets are listed as "unarmed attacks" on that self same list. If you have simple weapons (and can therefore make unarmed attacks without penalty) you don't need to burn a feat. If not, you don't make unarmed attacks with or without gloves on without taking the penalty. I don't see the issue here.

As for punching daggers, I would disagree that their use is virtually identical to unarmed strikes in general (because of the protrusions). But I'm no expert on either, so I'll just leave it at that.

Clementx
2007-02-27, 08:28 PM
ACTUALLY, Reach Spell does not make it a ray. It "effectively makes it a ray", which, while semantically sound, is an important distinction. :smallbiggrin:

I wasn't expecting someone to be able to argue that with a straight face (or even a grinning emote). Now, which emote will you use when you claim that "at any distance up to 30 feet" is a fixed distance? That was the second part you ignored.

Nothing is more annoying to me than people that purposely misread feats. I mean, really- Persistent Spell requires a fixed/personal range spell, and if you think that Reach Spell makes a 30ft line of Vigor you swing around, you are hopeless.

Mewtarthio
2007-02-27, 08:35 PM
And following the "unarmed strike is a weapon" logic, a level 1 commoner has a 5% chance of sundering the earth if he really wants to.

What? Where do you get that?

Arceliar
2007-02-27, 08:36 PM
I wasn't expecting someone to be able to argue that with a straight face (or even a grinning emote). Now, which emote will you use when you claim that "at any distance up to 30 feet" is a fixed distance? That was the second part you ignored.

Then how would you define a fixed range? Works at exactly 30ft, no more no less?

Last I heard, a "fixed" distance would be "anything not dependent on level, except for touch spells because they generates an effect."


What? Where do you get that?

If unarmed strike is a weapon, and all weapons can be used at incorrect size categories withing the limitations of the ability to wield (which is none, as unarmed strikes are "always a light weapon") then a level 1 commoner could nonproficiently make an attack for lethal damage with a -4 penalty, or take Improved Unarmed Strike, then use an infinitely high size categoried unarmed strike and still hit on a natural 20. That's a 5% chance. All because WotC put it on the weapon table as a simple weapon.

SpiderBrigade
2007-02-27, 08:37 PM
Yeah, i was about to ask the same thing Mewthario. I think he might mean that he would have a chance of rolling a nat. 20 to hit...but there's no way in hell he could deal the damage it would take to actually sunder a planet (which has been calculated, for hte Hulking Hurler build...it's really a lot.)

Mewtarthio
2007-02-27, 08:48 PM
Yeah, i was about to ask the same thing Mewthario. I think he might mean that he would have a chance of rolling a nat. 20 to hit...but there's no way in hell he could deal the damage it would take to actually sunder a planet (which has been calculated, for hte Hulking Hurler build...it's really a lot.)

That makes more sense.

...Except the Earth is an inanimate object. Why would you need a natural twenty to hit the Earth?

Zeb The Troll
2007-02-27, 08:54 PM
If unarmed strike is a weapon, and all weapons can be used at incorrect size categories withing the limitations of the ability to wield (which is none, as unarmed strikes are "always a light weapon") then a level 1 commoner could nonproficiently make an attack for lethal damage with a -4 penalty, or take Improved Unarmed Strike, then use an infinitely high size categoried unarmed strike and still hit on a natural 20. That's a 5% chance. All because WotC put it on the weapon table as a simple weapon.Even with the (disputed) "unarmed strikes are weapons" theory, where in the cosmos would one acquire "infinitely high size category" errmm, uh, unarms? I'm not aware of any spell that enlarges any part of the body for the purpose of doing more damage. Furthermore, it has been pointed out that unarmed strike damage is based on the size of the creature, so in order to get an infinitely large unarmed strike, one would have to be infinitely large themselves.

EDIT:


That makes more sense.

...Except the Earth is an inanimate object. Why would you need a natural twenty to hit the Earth?And what's the hardness of a planet? I'm sure it's pretty high.

Arceliar
2007-02-27, 08:56 PM
That makes more sense.

...Except the Earth is an inanimate object. Why would you need a natural twenty to hit the Earth?

Objects have no dex, hence -5 to AC. They're immobile, so -4 more. That's a base AC of 1. The earth is going to have a significant penalty form size to AC. But if you're subtracting an infinite amount from your attack roll, you'll need to live off the natural-20-always-hits rule.

Now, were the earth alive and helpless you could coup it just fine.


How does one acquire an unarmed strike to begin with? It never addresses that, to the best of my knowledge. And remember, it says in GENERAL a weapon is a given size for a given character, that's not an absolute.

Now, with regards to the damage thing:

"A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike. A Small character deals 1d2 points of nonlethal damage."

Were that changed to:

"A Medium character deals 1d4 points of lethal damage with a dagger. A Small character deals 1d3 points of lethal damage."

Now if it said that, and I pointed out weapon damage for a given size and the rules for penalties for inappropriately sized weapons, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Mewtarthio
2007-02-28, 12:29 AM
Objects have no dex, hence -5 to AC. They're immobile, so -4 more. That's a base AC of 1. The earth is going to have a significant penalty form size to AC. But if you're subtracting an infinite amount from your attack roll, you'll need to live off the natural-20-always-hits rule.

But where do you get an infinitely large unarmed strike?

Zeb The Troll
2007-02-28, 02:12 AM
Now, with regards to the damage thing:

"A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike. A Small character deals 1d2 points of nonlethal damage."

Were that changed to:

"A Medium character deals 1d4 points of lethal damage with a dagger. A Small character deals 1d3 points of lethal damage."

Now if it said that, and I pointed out weapon damage for a given size and the rules for penalties for inappropriately sized weapons, we wouldn't be having this discussion.Now we get to the crux of the issue. What you're missing is that the correct statement would be:

"A medium character deals 1d4 points of damage with a medium dagger. A small character deals 1d3 points of damage with a small dagger. A small character does 1d4 points of damage with a medium dagger but it counts as a one-handed weapon instead of a light weapon and the character suffers a -2 attack penalty for using an inappropriately sized weapon one size category too large."


Inappropriately Sized Weapons
A creature can’t make optimum use of a weapon that isn’t properly sized for it. A cumulative -2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn’t proficient with the weapon a -4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.

The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder’s size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. If a weapon’s designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can’t wield the weapon at all.So even if you could make an infinitely large unarmed strike, you'd take a -2*(infinitely large) penalty to hit. This doesn't even take into account whether it's a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon yet so the rule that "unarmed strikes are always light weapons" doesn't negate this.

Not to mention that, if the creature is not within two size categories of the weapon's intended user, he can't use it at all. Strictly speaking, that means a small/medium character can't use a colossal (or larger) unarmed strike, even if it would be treated as a light weapon.

And as a final thought, there is no size category defined larger than colossal and there is nothing that says it's possible to advance the chart in any fashion like there is, say, for modifiers for exceptionally high ability scores or encumbrance for exceptionally high strength, for example. So the largest unarmed strike size category would be colossal, not infinite, and certainly not earth-sundering even if there was a way to do increase the size of your unarmed strike.

Dareon
2007-02-28, 04:18 AM
That doesn't mean we can't get a chuckle from it; nor does it mean everybody fixes it the same way.
Oh, certainly. I don't take anything in threads like this seriously if I can help it.

The discussions are interesting from a hypothetical standpoint, but I'm fairly sure that at the back of most people's minds is the thought that "Yeah, no sane DM and probably very few insane ones would allow this." The idea that at the back of the rest of the people's minds is "That's so cool! I gotta try that in my game."... Is something I try not to think about.


But you can't say that the way you play your game does not affect my game in any way. Your players will come to my table, mine to yours, and outsiders looking in will see the railguns and pee-elementals, not the heroic fantasy, and that can hurt our chances of bringing in new players.
True enough as far as our theoretical pair of Pintos goes. I'd argue the likelihood of one of my players coming to one of your games or vice versa, but that misses the whole point. I have a few minor arguments along the lines that Game X affects Game Y only as much as DM Y allows, but they're fairly weak and you're ultimately right.

Pocket lint
2007-02-28, 04:50 AM
Here's one glitch. I don't know how bad it is, but...

A dervish treats scimitars as light weapons for all purposes
When grappled, you can still attack with light weapons (at -4 to hit, but still)
If you're swallowed whole, you're treated as being grappled.

So if a dervish gets swallowed, he can still attack pretty much the normal way. Fortunately, he doesn't get a full-round action, or he would go all "Men in Black" on any big monster stupid enough to try to eat him.

Zincorium
2007-02-28, 07:05 AM
Here's one glitch. I don't know how bad it is, but...

A dervish treats scimitars as light weapons for all purposes
When grappled, you can still attack with light weapons (at -4 to hit, but still)
If you're swallowed whole, you're treated as being grappled.

So if a dervish gets swallowed, he can still attack pretty much the normal way. Fortunately, he doesn't get a full-round action, or he would go all "Men in Black" on any big monster stupid enough to try to eat him.

As long as you don't try and dervish dance. 'Cause it's real hard to make that 5 foot step each attack.

And really, this applies almost any character that mostly uses light weapons. Like monks. With versatile unarmed strike, to negate that pesky 'with a slashing or piercing weapon' bit.

Or monk/dervishes, which are amusing to play.

Roderick_BR
2007-02-28, 07:18 AM
From the SRD:


Now...correct me if I'm wrong, but that could almost be interpreted that a character could take an infinitely large penalty due to incorrect weapon size, and deal damage with an unarmed strike infinitely many size categories higher than normal. You'd need a natural 20 to hit, but if you optimize for # of attacks you'll roll one eventually.

Or at the very least, a warforged's Battlefist could do so.

Of course, once again rule 0 should apply.
And you'd need some veeeeery big hands....

Rigeld2
2007-02-28, 07:22 AM
If unarmed strike is a weapon, and all weapons can be used at incorrect size categories withing the limitations of the ability to wield (which is none, as unarmed strikes are "always a light weapon") then a level 1 commoner could nonproficiently make an attack for lethal damage with a -4 penalty, or take Improved Unarmed Strike, then use an infinitely high size categoried unarmed strike and still hit on a natural 20. That's a 5% chance. All because WotC put it on the weapon table as a simple weapon.
Except he cant use a weapon of infinitely high size. He can only use a Large weapon - bigger than that you dont even get the Innappropriate Size penalty, you simply cant use it. That is stated in the rules that you quoted.

Being a light weapon doesnt matter - there are Gargantuan Light Maces, Huge Daggers, etc, but a Medium or Small creature cannot wield them.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-02-28, 02:11 PM
Being a light weapon doesnt matter - there are Gargantuan Light Maces, Huge Daggers, etc, but a Medium or Small creature cannot wield them.
A Medium creature can use Huge daggers. Or any other Huge light weapon.

The rule (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/weapons.html#inappropriately-sized-weapons) is that for each size category a weapon is away from a particular creature, the effort for that creature changes one step and a -2 penalty is applied. You lose the ability to wield a particular weapon only if its effort-level would go higher than Two-handed or lower than Light.

Huge is two steps away from Medium. A Huge dagger is a Light weapon. A Medium creature attempting to use a Huge dagger would find its effort level go two steps up. That means a Medium creature can wield it as a Two-Handed weapon. The Medium creature would take a -4 penalty.

Of course, you're right about the Gargatuan weapons. There is no Gargatuan weapon that would fit into the Light, One-handed, or Two-handed categories for the purposes of a Medium creature's attempts to wield it.

Arceliar
2007-02-28, 03:23 PM
1) Fling Ally (Races of Stone)
2) Distant Shot [Epic] (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#distantShot)
3) ???
4) Profit!

hewhosaysfish
2007-02-28, 03:59 PM
1) Fling Ally (Races of Stone)
2) Distant Shot [Epic] (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#distantShot)
3) ???
4) Profit!

If you're Epic, then surely you've got enough feats to have picked up Fling Enemy by now?
Say 'Hello' to the sun, loser!

Fax Celestis
2007-02-28, 04:01 PM
A Medium creature can use Huge daggers. Or any other Huge light weapon.

The rule (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/weapons.html#inappropriately-sized-weapons) is that for each size category a weapon is away from a particular creature, the effort for that creature changes one step and a -2 penalty is applied. You lose the ability to wield a particular weapon only if its effort-level would go higher than Two-handed or lower than Light.

Huge is two steps away from Medium. A Huge dagger is a Light weapon. A Medium creature attempting to use a Huge dagger would find its effort level go two steps up. That means a Medium creature can wield it as a Two-Handed weapon. The Medium creature would take a -4 penalty.

Of course, you're right about the Gargatuan weapons. There is no Gargatuan weapon that would fit into the Light, One-handed, or Two-handed categories for the purposes of a Medium creature's attempts to wield it.

But it would for a large-sized one!

Now I have a mighty urge to play a Goliath wielding a Gargantuan dagger.

Indon
2007-02-28, 04:12 PM
A Medium creature can use Huge daggers. Or any other Huge light weapon.


Huge Unarmed Strike would require some surgery.

Inyssius Tor
2007-02-28, 04:15 PM
"Yay, I've finally found the Hand of Giant Vecna!"

Indon
2007-02-28, 04:18 PM
"Yay, I've finally found the Hand of Giant Vecna!"

Or someone who is Diminuitive found the normal one, then got magiced-up in size?

Edit: Also, Giant Vecna is like a comedy platinum mine.

Roderick_BR
2007-02-28, 04:18 PM
1) Fling Ally (Races of Stone)
2) Distant Shot [Epic] (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#distantShot)
3) ???
4) Profit!
Thog could make his "Halfling special Tour discount rides".
"Reach in seconds any place withing sight... literally"

Missing Shoe
2007-02-28, 06:08 PM
Dividing by 0 is undefined (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_0), not 0.

From the Craft skill description (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/skillsAll.html#craft):
"The DC, your check results, and the price of the item determine how long it takes to make a particular item."
"If the result × the DC equals double or triple the price of the item in silver pieces, then you’ve completed the task in one-half or one-third of the time. Other multiples of the DC reduce the time in the same manner."
"You can make checks by the day instead of by the week. In this case your progress (check result × DC) is in copper pieces instead of silver pieces."So let's make a quarterstaff using a days worth of work.
It's a simple melee weapon, so that's DC 12.
Let's say I get a result of 15. Success!
I make 12 x 15 = 180 cp in progress.
180 cp > 0 cp; I've finished it in less than a day.
180 / 0 = UNDEFINED; I've finished in 1/UNDEFINED of a day.Sorry to take you back to this but it is possible to make garbage instantaneously. If your craft check result is 0 (say 1 rank with a -2 int mod plus a roll of 1, for a total of 0), you make 0 x DC cp. Lets use 5 as the DC (for a simple thing). Yes, you fail by 5 so you ruin it. But how long did it take you to fail?

0x5 = 0
=> 0/0 days.

What is 0/0?
Let a,b be elements of Z (integers)
Let c be an element of R (reals)

algebra tells us that we can say:
a/b=c for any a,b in Z and c in R.

For example: 2/2=1.0 or 3/4=0.75

Let a=b=0. Using algebra:

a/b=c => a=b*c => 0=0*c
What number of the Reals is equal to 0 when multiplied by 0?
The set of all Reals from negative infinity to positive infinity.

Ergo, the time taken to make your piece of crap could be 1, 0, or even negative time. Going out to the forest to make spoons out of sticks means you can transform those sticks into worthlessness before you were born.

How does this help you? Go to a city wall start crafting junk out of little bits of the wall. Therefore you can destroy the wall before it was even built.

Indon
2007-02-28, 06:52 PM
a/b=c => a=b*c => 0=0*c
What number of the Reals is equal to 0 when multiplied by 0?
[B]The set of all Reals from negative infinity to positive infinity.


That's division by zero (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DivisionbyZero.html) by another name. Namely, reciprocating multiplication.

Edit: A thought. Could a Treant monk be enchanted with this spell? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shillelagh.htm)

Roderick_BR
2007-02-28, 07:28 PM
That's division by zero (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DivisionbyZero.html) by another name. Namely, reciprocating multiplication.

Edit: A thought. Could a Treant monk be enchanted with this spell? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shillelagh.htm)
If they could, a giant could use it...
But it can't. "nonmagical club". A plant-creature doesn't count as a nonmagical club :p

Now, a broken epic one:
Improved Manyshot and Swarm of Arrow.

Douglas
2007-02-28, 07:45 PM
Now, a broken epic one:
Improved Manyshot and Swarm of Arrow.
How is that broken? If you're thinking about shooting an Improved Manyshot worth of arrows at each of the targets within 30 feet that Swarm of Arrows hits, it doesn't work that way. Improved Manyshot is a standard action just like Manyshot, not a replacement for an attack, and Swarm of Arrows is a special full round action. They cannot be combined.

The_Werebear
2007-02-28, 08:55 PM
Now, a broken epic one:
Improved Manyshot and Swarm of Arrow.

Epic is broken by definition anyway.

I find Distant Shot fairly amusing anyway.

You can throw something into the sun (it is a point in sight), or an infinite distance on a flat plane, but you can't arc something over the hill 20 feet away.

Roderick_BR
2007-02-28, 09:11 PM
How is that broken? If you're thinking about shooting an Improved Manyshot worth of arrows at each of the targets within 30 feet that Swarm of Arrows hits, it doesn't work that way. Improved Manyshot is a standard action just like Manyshot, not a replacement for an attack, and Swarm of Arrows is a special full round action. They cannot be combined.

Thank god :smallbiggrin:

Indon
2007-02-28, 11:51 PM
If they could, a giant could use it...
But it can't. "nonmagical club". A plant-creature doesn't count as a nonmagical club :p


Well, my point was, if the treant itself is nonmagical (that's the stretch, I guess), and its' monk weapons count as being both natural _and_ manufactured (and a big wooden stick is a club or quarterstaff)...

But I guess it's too much a stretch for the rules.

Hzurr
2007-03-01, 12:35 AM
1) Fling Ally (Races of Stone)
2) Distant Shot [Epic] (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#distantShot)
3) ???
4) Profit!

Better than Fling Ally, use Fling Enemy.

I AM THE UNDEAD LICH OF AWESOMENESS! *splats into the sun*

Maxymiuk
2007-03-01, 12:49 AM
Better than Fling Ally, use Fling Enemy.

I AM THE UNDEAD LICH OF AWESOMENESS! *splats into the sun*


Better yet, use it at night for near-instantaneous interstellar travel.

If the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is to believed, you can survive unprotected in space for far longer than one round, after all. :smalltongue:

Dark
2007-03-01, 05:09 AM
Ah, but do you have line of sight (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_lineofsight&alpha=L) to the sun?

PHB:

To determine line of sight, draw an imaginary line between your space and the target's space.

Where is the sun's space? Logically it would be the point of terrain that's directly under the sun. You might have line of sight to it at high noon at the correct latitude, but otherwise there's probably a mountain in the way.

Of course, while this fixes the Distant Shot glitch, it brings up some problems of its own. You don't have line of sight to a dragon that's flying over a city, because of all the buildings in the way :)

Telok
2007-03-01, 05:50 AM
Actually since you have line of sight to anything you can see without cover or concealment you will have line of sight to a dragon flying over a city much of the time. Mostly it's a question of relative positions, dragon altitude, how high the buildings are, and if the thrower is smart enough to be in a town square or on a roof.

Chucking things into the sun is a bit more problematic. Depending on your setting the sun may be 500 miles away or 93 million miles away and it's size may vary from a large chariot pulled by flaming horses to a ginormous ball of flaming gasses.

If the sun is burning gasses way far away then you have do deal with the fact that you aren't seeing where the sun really is, you're seeing where it was eight minutes ago. And what happens to a thrown lich who misses the sun because you didn't lead the target? A lich dosen't breathe, has no flesh to freeze/boil, and will probably only be mildly annoyed at you for delaying it's killing you for a round or two.

On the other hand if the sun is a fiery chariot then you have to decide whether or not you want to be the guy chucking things at a god. Depending on whether or not a thrown lich has enough fire resistance you may want to reconsider chucking vile undead casters at your local diety as having a fiery chariot come down out of the sky with a 15' tall red/orange guy asking "Did you lose something, boy?" could make for a very bad day.

Infinite throwing distance is amusing.

Mewtarthio
2007-03-01, 10:16 AM
If the sun is burning gasses way far away then you have do deal with the fact that you aren't seeing where the sun really is, you're seeing where it was eight minutes ago. And what happens to a thrown lich who misses the sun because you didn't lead the target? A lich dosen't breathe, has no flesh to freeze/boil, and will probably only be mildly annoyed at you for delaying it's killing you for a round or two.

Chuck him at Vega then. Or just pick a random star in the sky. Heck, technically you have LoS to an infinitely distant spot in the universe. Throw him towards a portion of the Blackness That Is Space. He will immediately fly several sextillion light years within six seconds until he crashes into something so distant that its light has yet to reach Earth.

Turcano
2007-03-01, 10:11 PM
Ah, but do you have line of sight (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_lineofsight&alpha=L) to the sun?

PHB:
To determine line of sight, draw an imaginary line between your space and the target's space.Where is the sun's space? Logically it would be the point of terrain that's directly under the sun. You might have line of sight to it at high noon at the correct latitude, but otherwise there's probably a mountain in the way.

Of course, while this fixes the Distant Shot glitch, it brings up some problems of its own. You don't have line of sight to a dragon that's flying over a city, because of all the buildings in the way :)

Your logic indicates two-dimensional thinking.

Foeofthelance
2007-03-01, 11:19 PM
Actually, I maybe wrong, but aren't the teleport spells limited to 1000 miles/caster level? So even he did survive getting thrown at the sun, it would probably take him two or three months of casting to get back, assuming he uses higher level slots to boost his teleporting capability.

Mewtarthio
2007-03-01, 11:25 PM
Actually, I maybe wrong, but aren't the teleport spells limited to 1000 miles/caster level? So even he did survive getting thrown at the sun, it would probably take him two or three months of casting to get back, assuming he uses higher level slots to boost his teleporting capability.

Just use Plane Shift instead. One to travel to a safe place, one to get back to the Prime Material. Of course, you need a forked rod attuned to the Prime Material, but anyone with Plane Shift should have one of those.

Collin152
2007-03-01, 11:26 PM
Actually, I maybe wrong, but aren't the teleport spells limited to 1000 miles/caster level? So even he did survive getting thrown at the sun, it would probably take him two or three months of casting to get back, assuming he uses higher level slots to boost his teleporting capability.
Gate cast twice will get you anywhere in the cosmos needs gettin' to.
"Wait, I thought it was only good for summoning!"
...
...
...
...
..
.
.
.
"It does other things!"

Dark
2007-03-02, 08:06 AM
Your logic indicates two-dimensional thinking.
Well, I was quoting the glossary on wizards.com :) I can't help it if line-of-sight logic is two-dimensional.

However, I couldn't find the part of the PHB they were supposedly quoting.

Arbitrarity
2007-03-02, 08:11 AM
Greater Teleport? Unlimited range :)
Teleport is 100 miles/CL.

Turcano
2007-03-02, 02:54 PM
Well, I was quoting the glossary on wizards.com :) I can't help it if line-of-sight logic is two-dimensional.

However, I couldn't find the part of the PHB they were supposedly quoting.

But the glossary doesn't say anything about two dimensions, either. And since rules for three-dimensional movement are included, there's no reason to assume that line-of-sight doesn't take place in three dimensions as well.