Dysfunctional Rules VII: Mordenkainen's Dysfunction

[NeoPhoenix0]

Time for another thread in a long line of threads collecting rules from 3.5 and pathifnder that just don't seem to work right.

Check the handbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267985) to see if your dysfunction is already there, cause this is the 7th thread.

Previous threads:

"Wait, That Didn't Work Right" - The Dysfunctional Rules Collection (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214988)
"Wait Again, That Didn't Work Right" - The Dysfunctional Rules Collection (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267923)
Dysfunctional Rules III: 100% Rules-Legal, 110% Silly (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283778)
Dysfunctional Rules IV: It's Like a Sandwich Made of RAW Failure! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=304817)
Dysfunctional Rules Thread V: Dysfunctions All the Way Down (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?333789-Dysfunctional-Rules-Thread-V-Dysfunctions-All-the-Way-Down)
Dysfunctional Rules VI: Magic Circle Against Errata (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?372964-Dysfunctional-Rules-VI-Magic-Circle-Against-Errata)

[Flickerdart]

Dysfunction: "Mordenkainen's Dysfunction" should have been a 9th level thread. :smalltongue:

[NeoPhoenix0]

Dysfunction: "Mordenkainen's Dysfunction" should have been a 9th level thread. :smalltongue:

We are obviously using shenanigans to cast it in a lower slot. though i am not sure how to get a spell two levels lower

[Flickerdart]

We are obviously using shenanigans to cast it in a lower slot. though i am not sure how to get a spell two levels lower
Shadow miracles to emulate sanctum mordenkainen's dysfunction? Although for anyone casting the spell, GitP is probably the sanctum, so it would actually be a 10th level spell!

[Jormengand]

Something I just noticed is that someone who falls onto their head, onto rocky ground, from nine feet in the air, takes no damage. Because that totally makes sense.


And how is "dispel" defined?

Uhm... does it matter? This argument was literally about whether MKDJ dispels or not, and you seem to accept that as proven.

[Curmudgeon]

Something I just noticed is that someone who falls onto their head, onto rocky ground, from nine feet in the air, takes no damage.
That's because in D&D there is no "facing", so the game world mechanics make it impossible for you to fall onto your head. You simply fall and get a nonspecific ouchie which doesn't matter in terms of performance.

[No brains]

Also the ground doesn't have sneak attack, so it can't attack vital areas like one's head.

[Jormengand]

That's because in D&D there is no "facing", so the game world mechanics make it impossible for you to fall onto your head. You simply fall and get a nonspecific ouchie which doesn't matter in terms of performance.

I think that the inability to perform a handstand is a dysfunction in its own right, though. :smalltongue:

[Curmudgeon]

I think that the inability to perform a handstand is a dysfunction in its own right, though. :smalltongue:
Oh, you can definitely do that. In fact, you do so while simultaneously looking in all directions, so it's particularly impressive.

[Jormengand]

Oh, you can definitely do that. In fact, you do so while simultaneously looking in all directions, so it's particularly impressive.

Would you like to continue making my point for me? :smalltongue:

[With a box]

with this lot dysfuntions, how the game still playable?

[Necroticplague]

with this lot dysfuntions, how the game still playable?

Because alot of these are only dysfunctional is that they aren't realisitc (see curmudeon's above point). However, if you aren't trying to simulate reality, the system still works as a game.

[Jormengand]

Oh, and either "Lava or magma" is a damage type and is never defined as one, or anyone who's immune to lava is immune to any kind of damage caused as a function of lava or magma, for example having a ton of it dropped on their head. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19177157&postcount=49) The ability "Immunity to lava or magma" (granted by any resistance/immunity to fire, an absurdity that's already listed) either means that you're immune to a damage type called "Lava or magma", or you're immune to a damage type called "Lava" and another one called "Magma", or that you're immune to anything that happens to you as a result of lava or magma.

The first two imply that there are one or two damage types that are never defined in the rules (and anyway, lava and magma are never specified to do "Lava or magma" or "Lava" and "Magma" damage) and the third is just silly.

[Troacctid]

with this lot dysfuntions, how the game still playable?

Because it's not a video game that freezes and crashes when you encounter a bug. Patching up holes in the rules is trivially easy.

[Jormengand]

If you're petrified and turn back to flesh with bits missing, you're dealt an amount of damage. No-one knows how much.

Flying, swimming, and prone creatures can't be fascinated because you have to be standing or sitting.

If a barbarian would get improved uncanny dodge, but already has uncanny dodge from another class, he gets IUD instead of... IUD.

A Thousand Faces is and isn't an illusion.

I would take off "Woodland Stride makes you immune to damage (etc.) when in undergrowth" because it only works if the druid is actually moving.

20th-level outsider monks are unlike other outsiders in that they can be brought back from the dead as though they were outsiders, which can't be brought back from the dead.

[NeoPhoenix0]

Actually, can anyone give an example of something that causes the petrified condition?
Flesh to stone and basilisks don't actually cause this condition.

[Curmudgeon]

Actually, can anyone give an example of something that causes the petrified condition?
Flesh to stone and basilisks don't actually cause this condition.
Oh, but they do. From the Glossary (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_petrified&alpha=P):
petrified: Turned to stone. It's not necessary to call out that exact term; it's only necessary that the creature be turned to stone.

[NeoPhoenix0]

If a barbarian would get improved uncanny dodge, but already has uncanny dodge from another class, he gets IUD instead of... IUD.

20th-level outsider monks are unlike other outsiders in that they can be brought back from the dead as though they were outsiders, which can't be brought back from the dead.

These two typographical errors do not appear in the official SRD or my version of the PHB.


Oh, but they do. From the Glossary (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_petrified&alpha=P): It's not necessary to call out that exact term; it's only necessary that the creature be turned to stone.

This tells us all instances of petrification involve turning to stone. This does not necessarily mean all instances of turning to stone are petrification.

[Chronos]

Eh, all of the stoning creatures' abilities have "petrify" or "petrification" in the name.

On the other hand, though, basilisks and medusas turn their targets into stone permanently, not instantaneously, which has some odd implications.

[NeoPhoenix0]

Eh, all of the stoning creatures' abilities have "petrify" or "petrification" in the name.

On the other hand, though, basilisks and medusas turn their targets into stone permanently, not instantaneously, which has some odd implications.

neat, i might make an npc sometime that was attacked by a basilisk and has a permanent anti-magic field with them.

[Jormengand]

These two typographical errors do not appear in the official SRD or my version of the PHB.

Are you sure? This is the SRD I'm using:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/barbarian.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/monk.htm


If a character already has uncanny dodge from a second class, the character automatically gains improved uncanny dodge instead [of improved uncanny dodge], and the levels from the classes that grant uncanny dodge stack to determine the minimum level a rogue must be to flank the character.
At 20th level, a monk becomes a magical creature. She is forevermore treated as an outsider rather than as a humanoid (or whatever the monk’s creature type was) for the purpose of spells and magical effects. Additionally, the monk gains damage reduction 10/magic, which allows her to ignore the first 10 points of damage from any attack made by a nonmagical weapon or by any natural attack made by a creature that doesn’t have similar damage reduction. Unlike other outsiders, the monk can still be brought back from the dead as if she were a member of her previous creature type. [Even if that previous creature type was outsider, which can't be brought back from the dead, so you can be brought back from the dead as though you were an outsider, who can't be brought back from the dead, unlike other outsiders who cannot be brought back from the dead.]

[Curmudgeon]

If a barbarian would get improved uncanny dodge, but already has uncanny dodge from another class, he gets IUD instead of... IUD.
That would be IUD from the Barbarian class instead of IUD from the other class. Does it make a difference? Probably not, because all of these ability descriptions seem to also state
and the levels from the classes that grant uncanny dodge stack to determine the minimum level a rogue must be to flank the character.
but it does guaranteed the Barbarian gets to use all their relevant levels against the Rogue attempting to flank them in case that other class with IUD lacks a stacking statement.

[NeoPhoenix0]

Are you sure? This is the SRD I'm using:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/barbarian.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/monk.htm

1. those links are to a very accurate copy of the SRD. they aren't the official SRD that can be located here:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35
2. In this case, the copy has the same wording, but some things have been found to be inaccurate in the past on very rare occasions.
a. In this case the barbarian text is redundant text that can cover some weird outlying cases, but in the end doesn't case anything to act strange rules wise so i don't see any issues.
b. monks who went from outsider to outsider can be brought back from the dead in the same way outsiders can. Outsiders can be brought back it is just a bit harder. In this case it requires limited wish, wish, miracle, or true resurrection. so this is just some redundancy.

[No brains]

I would just think that lava or magma deals fire damage, as it sets things on fire. But that doesn't actually do fire damage itself, so I dunno. Say, can someone be on fire while submerged in magma? I can get that magma is hot enough for most materials to oxidize, but when there's no oxygen, you drown in magma while being lit on fire.

As for the monk being raised as an outsider, I thought they became a native outsider, which has an exception among outsiders for their ability to be raised from the dead.

[Jormengand]

1. those links are to a very accurate copy of the SRD. they aren't the official SRD that can be located here:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35
2. In this case, the copy has the same wording, but some things have been found to be inaccurate in the past on very rare occasions.
a. In this case the barbarian text is redundant text that can cover some weird outlying cases, but in the end doesn't case anything to act strange rules wise so i don't see any issues.
b. monks who went from outsider to outsider can be brought back from the dead in the same way outsiders can. Outsiders can be brought back it is just a bit harder. In this case it requires limited wish, wish, miracle, or true resurrection. so this is just some redundancy.

Anything that tries to grant an ability instead of granting the same ability, or says that this outsider is different from other outsiders because it can be resurrected just like an outsider (what about construct monks, anyhow?), would appear to be dysfunctional, even if it's only unhelpful rather than actually "Crashing the game" or actually even changing anything.

[NeoPhoenix0]

It isn't dysfunctional, it functions how it is supposed to do and nothing more. Occasionally that means when it is functioning properly it does nothing.

[Jormengand]

It isn't dysfunctional, it functions how it is supposed to do and nothing more. Occasionally that means when it is functioning properly it does nothing.

But the monk specifies that it's "Unlike other outsiders" even if it's not. It's misinformation.

[Ksheep]

Re: Petrify, I notice that Flesh To Stone doesn't mention that the target is Petrified, but it does include the "if the statue is broken or damaged, the creature is similarly damaged or deformed (if returned to it's original state)" Slightly paraphrased. So… does Petrification/Flesh To Stone give us a use for Regenerate? IIRC, we had mentioned in one of the earlier threads that there really weren't many (if any) in-game causes for loss of digits, limbs, or other body parts which Regenerate would fix. Does that mean that it was made solely for fixing someone who was petrified/turned to stone? Still doesn't give any use for the other half of Regenerate though, what with fixing broken bones and damaged organs…

To be honest, I was just posting something in here so I could be notified when there are new posts. Don't have much to add at this point which hasn't already been added.

[NeoPhoenix0]

Re: Petrify, I notice that Flesh To Stone doesn't mention that the target is Petrified, but it does include the "if the statue is broken or damaged, the creature is similarly damaged or deformed (if returned to it's original state)" Slightly paraphrased. So… does Petrification/Flesh To Stone give us a use for Regenerate? IIRC, we had mentioned in one of the earlier threads that there really weren't many (if any) in-game causes for loss of digits, limbs, or other body parts which Regenerate would fix. Does that mean that it was made solely for fixing someone who was petrified/turned to stone? Still doesn't give any use for the other half of Regenerate though, what with fixing broken bones and damaged organs…

To be honest, I was just posting something in here so I could be notified when there are new posts. Don't have much to add at this point which hasn't already been added.

It was probably just left over from earlier editions that were generally a little less rulesy and more descriptive in implementation.

[JDL]

Pathfinder

Vermin familiars, eg. Greensting Scorpion, gain an Intelligence score for being a familiar and lose the Mindless trait. Mindless creatures have no feats or skills. Creatures who gain a permanent increase to Intelligence gain feats and skills retroactively. However since "Familiars retain the appearance, Hit Dice, base attack bonus, base save bonuses, skills, and feats of the normal animal it once was," being a Familiar prevents the creature gaining the benefits of having an Intelligence score. A Familiar wearing a Headband of Vast Intelligence would be similarly prevented from gaining skill ranks from this item due to the same rule.

[The Viscount]

A Thousand Faces is and isn't an illusion.


Should it be? Its presumably harnessing the shapechanging ability of the druid as with Changeling's minor change shape. The real weirdness is that it specifically says changeling's can bee seen through with true seeing, but nothing about druid. Can you true see through the druid's one as well going by disguise self, in which case changeling has redundant information, or can you not, in which case weirdness arises?

[Jormengand]

Should it be? Its presumably harnessing the shapechanging ability of the druid as with Changeling's minor change shape. The real weirdness is that it specifically says changeling's can bee seen through with true seeing, but nothing about druid. Can you true see through the druid's one as well going by disguise self, in which case changeling has redundant information, or can you not, in which case weirdness arises?

I did say that it both is and isn't, at the same time, due to belonging to the illusion school and specifically not being an illusion.

[Flickerdart]

Pathfinder
I wouldn't go as far as saying that Pathfinder is a dysfunction. :smalltongue:

[Chronos]

Quoth NeoPhoenix0:

It was probably just left over from earlier editions that were generally a little less rulesy and more descriptive in implementation.
And yet, those earlier editions did have actual rules that would lead to limb loss: Regenerate had a reversed version that caused it, and there was also the Sword of Sharpness, a little brother to Vorpal, that caused loss of non-essential limbs.


Quoth The Viscount:

Should it be? Its presumably harnessing the shapechanging ability of the druid as with Changeling's minor change shape. The real weirdness is that it specifically says changeling's can bee seen through with true seeing, but nothing about druid. Can you true see through the druid's one as well going by disguise self, in which case changeling has redundant information, or can you not, in which case weirdness arises?
Doesn't matter in this case, since True Seeing sees through both illusions and actual changes of shape.

[Telok]

Something I haven't had the vitrol to do since AD&D days is to Flesh to Stone someone and then Stone Shape them into a pig.

BLTs are so darned tasty.

So are they a pig or a person? Do they take damage? This isn't Polymorph so these questions aren't adressed. The scary thing is that you could plausably (by the rules only) end up with a pig that can do everything a humanoid can, use all the same equipment, and retains all class abilities.

Hmmm. Flesh to stone, shrink item, stone shape, stone to flesh. Repeat once or twice. Can we get a fine sized wizars out of this?

[nedz]

Something I haven't had the vitrol to do since AD&D days is to Flesh to Stone someone and then Stone Shape them into a pig.

BLTs are so darned tasty.

So are they a pig or a person? Do they take damage? This isn't Polymorph so these questions aren't adressed. The scary thing is that you could plausably (by the rules only) end up with a pig that can do everything a humanoid can, use all the same equipment, and retains all class abilities.

Hmmm. Flesh to stone, shrink item, stone shape, stone to flesh. Repeat once or twice. Can we get a fine sized wizars out of this?

Reminds me of the time I temporarily turned a PC into gold — and someone cut off an ear, because loot.

From this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?413624-Why-Precocious-Apprentice-early-entry-doesn-t-work-by-RAW): Precocious Apprentice is a Schroedinger feat.

[SirKazum]

Regarding A Thousand Faces, for me it's pretty clear from a RAW reading that it is not an illusion, but rather a physical alteration, period. The reference to disguise self is simply a way to determine what can and can't be altered. It doesn't say "ability to cast disguise self" or even "duplicate the effects of disguise self", but rather "change her appearance at will, as if using the disguise self spell". Seems pretty clear to me.

The IUD thing though, it sounds like they just copy-pasted the Uncanny Dodge text, which would be incredibly sloppy. Can't see how "instead of Improved Uncanny Dodge, you get Improved Uncanny dodge" makes any sense at all. Stating that the levels stack is useful (although redundant), but "you get IUD instead" is nonsensical, I agree.

As for Flesh to Stone + Stone Shape, I recall seeing it in a Sage Advice (a Dragon Magazine column) that it kills the recipient, but (1) that was 2nd edition, so it doesn't matter anyway, and (2) a magazine column, even if it's officially coming from the game designers, is barely above houseruling. Don't remember if there's any official provision about it in 3E.

[Flickerdart]

Something I haven't had the vitrol to do since AD&D days is to Flesh to Stone someone and then Stone Shape them into a pig.

BLTs are so darned tasty.

So are they a pig or a person?
Stone Shape will let you make the stone into a pig-shaped stone, but it's no more a pig than if you carved it yourself from marble. Stone to Flesh will give you a pig-shaped lump of meat. This is the same as if you threw someone into a blender and then sculpted a pig shape out of their liquefied remains.

[SirKazum]

Stone Shape will let you make the stone into a pig-shaped stone, but it's no more a pig than if you carved it yourself from marble. Stone to Flesh will give you a pig-shaped lump of meat. This is the same as if you threw someone into a blender and then sculpted a pig shape out of their liquefied remains.

Hmmm... Looking a bit closer at the relevant material (Flesh to Stone, Stone to Flesh, Stone Shape and the Petrified condition), there seems to be a pretty clear criterion that whatever damage or deformity happens to the stone... stuff is reflected in the creature when it gets turned back into flesh. (I mean "clear" in that this is clearly what happens - the precise effects, beginning with the exact amount of HP damage, are left completely vague). And Stone Shape doesn't allow any sort of fine detail, other than something like a crude door or chest (the examples used).

So, it seems to me the obvious interpretation of the FtS -> Stone Shape into pig statue -> StF thing is that you end up with a human body moulded into a crude, vaguely pig-like blob. One can infer (although that's not obvious) that any alteration to the petrified, stone body is a form of damage, so the de-petrified victim would be badly damaged by the process. What that means in practical terms is completely up in the air. In any event, you're not getting a pig out of it, or even a human transformed into a functional pig-like body. Of course, sculpting the statue into a more precise and life-like pig would be even worse, since you'd be chipping and shaving off parts of the stone that's supposed to be transmuted back later. I'll leave the results of that as an exercise for the reader.

[No brains]

Since grafts were implemented in D&D, regeneration has a use. If you lose a limb, put a graft in its place, and somehow lose the effect of the graft, you'll need a new limb.

[Gemini476]

Since grafts were implemented in D&D, regeneration has a use. If you lose a limb, put a graft in its place, and somehow lose the effect of the graft, you'll need a new limb.

There's also the odd case like Grim Revenge or that spell that creates Crawling Claws or the possibility of someone Stone Shaping away your petrified arm and then using Stone to Flesh.

...I'm unsure if there's any mechanical penalty to losing an arm beyond the obvious ones relating to wielding stuff, though.

[Kurald Galain]

The ranger has an ability called "combat style" that allows him to pick up style feats. You'd expect that to be the same as Style feats (www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/style-feats), but nope.

[Flickerdart]

The ranger has an ability called "combat style" that allows him to pick up style feats. You'd expect that to be the same as Style feats (www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/style-feats), but nope.
Except those are not ranger combat styles. It's no more of a dysfunction than wizards casting spells but being unable to select divine spells.

[Kurald Galain]

Except those are not ranger combat styles. It's no more of a dysfunction than wizards casting spells but being unable to select divine spells.

The dysfunction is that there are two different rules items with the same name (i.e. "combat style") that are distinct and not compatible with one another. It would be similar to if there were, say, two spells with the same name but a different effect.

[Flickerdart]

The feats are called "style feats" for the monk and "combat style feats" for the ranger. It's not the same.

[Kurald Galain]

Funnily enough, style feats are in fact combat feats, making them combat style feats. Which are distinct from Combat Style feats for no good reason (and not just in name; Combat Style feats have rules and restrictions that don't apply to combat style feats, and vice versa).

[No brains]

Both diseases and poisons can be delivered by injury. To deliver a poison by injury, the attack must deal at least one point of damage. To deliver a disease by injury the wound "may be transmitted by as small an injury as a flea bite". Referring to creatures without stats and injuries too small to deal even 1 hp of damage can lead to huge dysfunctions.

One consequence is that DR might not stop diseases. Another is that injury diseases can be effectively indistinguishable from contact or inhaled diseases. Last one I can think of is that sterilization might be impossible because there's nothing that can protect against or affect these mysterious flea creatures.

[The Viscount]

Blessedly fleas have no stats, so we are safe from their unholy power.

[No brains]

Maybe fleas exist as a symptom of disease and casting remove disease kills all the fleas on and around the recipient...

[Dimers]

there's nothing that can protect against or affect these mysterious flea creatures.

Repel Vermin? Repel Metal Or Stone gives precedent for affecting both creatures and objects, so whether a flea is a creature or not, it seems like a reasonable assumption. (Not gonna try to argue that it's RAW.)

[ShurikVch]

One more dysfunction from the dysfunctional book Savage Species: Area Attack feat.

Benefit: You can use your great size and strength to pick up a heavy object and attack an area as a standard action. Such an attack may consist of swinging a large log or smashing a door down on opponents’ heads. The area affected is a half-circle with a radius equal to your reach. You deal damage to all creatures two or more size categories smaller than you within the area.1) Feat assuming there is something to whack enemies with. But what if you are, say, in a desert, and all what you have around is a sand, more sand, and even more sand. Or worse, what if you are... IN SPAAACE?!! Do you summon log from the Elemental Plane of Wood?
2) Feat doesn't even required to have a hands, claws, tentacles, or even mouth!
3)
Though it can deal significant damage, this form of attack is awkward and unbalancing. You incur a –2 penalty to your Armor Class and on Reflex saves until your next action. Talking is a free action

[Gemini476]

One more dysfunction from the dysfunctional book Savage Species: Area Attack feat.
1) Feat assuming there is something to whack enemies with. But what if you are, say, in a desert, and all what you have around is a sand, more sand, and even more sand. Or worse, what if you are... IN SPAAACE?!! Do you summon log from the Elemental Plane of Wood?
2) Feat doesn't even required to have a hands, claws, tentacles, or even mouth!
3) Talking is a free action


It seems to me that if you cannot in fact "pick up a heavy object and attack an area", you cannot use the feat. That's more than just fluff, y'know.
To be fair, it's not like it would make sense to limit it that much given the variety that monsters have. Being unable to pick something up would probably limit you, though, for reasons outlined in 1.
I'm pretty sure "action" is just 3.0 terminology leaking through. (Which leads me to wonder how that works with partial actions.) Also I'm not entirely sure if speaking could be done outside of your turn in 3.0 - the SRD doesn't say anything on the matter, at least.
Also also, I'm pretty sure that actions are simultaneous in 3.0? Like, if you're doing a Standard Action then part of that standard action might include moving and any free actions during your turn take place during the standard action as well. I dunno, I'm just going off the "Combat Actions" part of the SRD.

[Kurald Galain]

1) Feat assuming there is something to whack enemies with.
No it doesn't, in the exact same sense that weapon focus (longsword) doesn't assume that you have a longsword around. It just doesn't do a lot if there isn't.

[ShurikVch]

It seems to me that if you cannot in fact "pick up a heavy object and attack an area", you cannot use the feat. That's more than just fluff, y'know.
No it doesn't, in the exact same sense that weapon focus (longsword) doesn't assume that you have a longsword around. It just doesn't do a lot if there isn't.No.
IT IS A FLUFF TEXT.
Because it always do the same amount of damage, regardless of is the item in question is blunt or sharp, and how much exactly it weight.
Actually, it do untyped damage, because description doesn't specify

EDIT: Also, the very term "heavy object" is not defined. How much is "heavy"?

[Kurald Galain]

No.
IT IS A FLUFF TEXT.
You're confusing Pathfinder with 4E D&D. Yes, in 4E a power like this would still work without a heavy object present. No, in PF it does not.

That words like "heavy" with a clear IRL meaning don't have a mathematical game definition isn't a dysfunction either. But we do have a thread for those, too.

[Milo v3]

You're confusing Pathfinder with 4E D&D. Yes, in 4E a power like this would still work without a heavy object present. No, in PF it does not.

That words like "heavy" with a clear IRL meaning don't have a mathematical game definition isn't a dysfunction either. But we do have a thread for those, too.

And you're confusing 3.0 with Pathfinder :smalltongue:

Since savage species is 3.0.

[No brains]

I don't remember if we have clearly addressed this yet, but it causes enough confusion to at least reiterate: in 3.X fluff/descriptive text is RAW with real rules implications.

The big example I found in this is that there are no 'real rules' for a hydra regenerating its heads. That is to say that the ability is listed without an (Ex/Su/Sp) header. It 'only' has fast healing and the entry for fast healing doesn't specifically exempt the hydra from the general rule in the glossary that fast healing cannot regrow body parts. Nevertheless, the general text under combat for the hydra are real rules with real mechanical effects. It also doesn't have a header for its 'hydra pounce', but you are supposed to have the hydra play that way. It's just a natural ability for the creature.

The big confusion that stems from this is that even though it is never said, the layout of the rules gives an impression of places that should say "actual rules start here". The most infamous example of this flub is that in PHB2, rouse has no apparent effect. The authors had the intent that the spell should do exactly what the flavor text said it did and felt no need to reiterate it. This at least implies that descriptive text is supposed to have some real weight to it.

The secondary reason for this confusion is that descriptive text is pretty low on the rules hierarchy. If something in a 'real rules' block contradicts the descriptive text, then the description is to be ignored. I remember seeing this point before, but I need some help remembering some of the good examples.

[Andezzar]

The secondary reason for this confusion is that descriptive text is pretty low on the rules hierarchy. If something in a 'real rules' block contradicts the descriptive text, then the description is to be ignored. I remember seeing this point before, but I need some help remembering some of the good examples.What are you basing that assumption on? I don't remember the primary source rule giving different weight to different parts of the same long description of an ability/spell/etc.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Blessedly fleas have no stats, so we are safe from their unholy power.

The Lady of Pain also has no stats. Fleas are scarier than you might think.

Elder Giant Magic's concentration DC goes up every time you use it with no reset condition. Eventually the feat becomes unusable.

[Milo v3]

The big confusion that stems from this is that even though it is never said, the layout of the rules gives an impression of places that should say "actual rules start here". The most infamous example of this flub is that in PHB2, rouse has no apparent effect.

*Looks in the PHB2*

Wow, that's... bad.

[turbo164]

Rouse got some rules text in the errata, at least.

[The Viscount]

I think it might be possible to keep fleas away using an insectbane candle, which is described pretty broadly.

On the subject of repelling, is Antilife Shell worded specifically enough to function?

[Troacctid]

I can't remember. Have we talked about how there are no stats for children (true dragons aside)? The stats in a race's entry only apply to characters of adult age or older, which means underage characters are either a. unstattable by RAW or b. the same as adults, meaning that, for example, a newborn infant human is medium size and can run at a speed of 120 feet per six seconds. Either way, it's dysfunctional.

[No brains]

I can't remember. Have we talked about how there are no stats for children (true dragons aside)? The stats in a race's entry only apply to characters of adult age or older, which means underage characters are either a. unstattable by RAW or b. the same as adults, meaning that, for example, a newborn infant human is medium size and can run at a speed of 120 feet per six seconds. Either way, it's dysfunctional.

To my knowledge there is only one babby with any stats. It is Eve, from Annalee's Baby from Heroes of Horror.

She has pretty mind-warping stats; they are oddly specific and too vague in all the wrong places. For example: she is somehow a CR 2 encounter. By the entry on the Unholy Scion template, this either makes the base babby a CR1 creature with 4 HD or less or a CR0 creature with 5-10 HD. If we're generous and let her basic commoner mother add a whole 1 CR to the fight, it seems like babbies have 4 or less HD.

The permissive phrasing of 4 HD or less gives a ridiculously broad space for giving a babby stats. Even if you start conservatively and decide that she has the minimum HD allowed, that still doesn't rule out fractional hit dice, or even a potential class. It could even be possible that babies have 0 HD. It is likely that babies have at least 1 hp as being constantly disabled would be worth mentioning for its impact on play even if it wasn't a feature.

Where this gets extremely weird is when a foetus gets the Unholy Scion template. Apparently foetuses: are separate entities from their mother, have the humanoid type, have mental ability scores, and can take actions. It is possible that they have non-abilities in their physical ability scores as the bonuses from the template don't come into play until birth.

I normally fancy myself a connoisseur of stupid things, but I think I may have gone out of my depth here. I don't really know if I should keep looking at this. The real horror in all of this is that I think the weirdness of unholy scion deserves its own thread...

[Jormengand]

EK both explicitly does and explicitly doesn't increase CL. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19226499&postcount=93)

[SirKazum]

EK both explicitly does and explicitly doesn't increase CL. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19226499&postcount=93)

Since it comes up a lot in PrCs, this sounds like a case of WotC desperately needing some clear nomenclature that means "you increase your spellcasting capabilities for a given class, but no other class features or class abilities". I mean, the intent is pretty clear there (especially since they do mention "caster level" in the same paragraph), but the mention of "spells per day and nothing else" is rather wonky.

On that note, out of curiosity, I decided to check how they've handled it in the other classes that advance spellcasting... and they're all over the place. The Loremaster, Mystic Theurge and Thaumaturge are worded the same way as the Eldritch Knight - first it's "spells per day and spells known but nothing else", and later in the same paragraph, they mention caster level as well. However, the archmage and arcane trickster do not have this additional sentence that mentions caster level, so technically, they do not increase CL at all, just spells per day. (Archmage mentions spells known, but arcane trickster doesn't.) And the hierophant is a weird case, in that it explicitly and unambiguously increases caster level but no other spellcasting capabilities, such as spells per day. I checked just the SRD as I don't have any other sourcebooks with me right now.

The plot thickens... up until today, I just assumed all "+1 level of existing class" PrCs increased spellcasting the same way - namely, spells per day, spells known, caster level, maximum spell level available, all that spellcasting-related stuff, and no other class features or abilities - but now it doesn't seem so clear at all.

[ShurikVch]

I can't remember. Have we talked about how there are no stats for children (true dragons aside)? The stats in a race's entry only apply to characters of adult age or older, which means underage characters are either a. unstattable by RAW or b. the same as adults, meaning that, for example, a newborn infant human is medium size and can run at a speed of 120 feet per six seconds. Either way, it's dysfunctional.From the Book of Vile Darkness:
Assume the captive children to be 1st-level commoners with 1d6 hit points (1d4 plus random Constitution modifier).
From the Cityscape:
Throng of Children CR 5
CN Huge humanoid (throng of Tiny and Small humans)
...
Abilities Str 9, Dex 12, Con 9, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 10
...

Oh, and dysfunction from the BoVD: Ring of the Dread Emperor
The wearer of the ring gains the effect of a free action spell for the next 24 hours. No such spell.

[Jormengand]

Desert terrain mastery (Horizon walker) turns exhaustion into fatigue, but also makes you immune to fatigue.

[Necroticplague]

Desert terrain mastery (Horizon walker) turns exhaustion into fatigue, but also makes you immune to fatigue.

If we count this, the Tireless feat has the same problem. It negates effects/conditions that would render you fatigued, and makes it so things that would normally render you exhausted instead make you fatigued. Depends on how exactly you define the 'normally' part of the feat.

[Nettlekid]

I've found something that doesn't seem to be listed in the handbook yet. The Shifter-only spell Aspect of the Werebeast says that if you take on the aspect of the wolf, then "if you have a natural bite attack, you can attempt to trip your opponent as a free action without making a touch attack or provoking an attack of opportunity." It doesn't actually say that this is part of making that bite attack. It just lets you make trip attacks as free actions.

[No brains]

I've found something that doesn't seem to be listed in the handbook yet. The Shifter-only spell Aspect of the Werebeast says that if you take on the aspect of the wolf, then "if you have a natural bite attack, you can attempt to trip your opponent as a free action without making a touch attack or provoking an attack of opportunity." It doesn't actually say that this is part of making that bite attack. It just lets you make trip attacks as free actions.

They all fall down!

[ShurikVch]

More fluff/crunch disconnections: Dragon Ascendant capstone and Epic Destiny (Demigod) don't grant you actual divinity, because it doesn't say something like "see in Deities & Demigods (or Faiths & Pantheons)", nor does it list all benefits of being a deity separately.
Divinity have numerous benefits (from movement speed increase to domain SLAs); DA 12 and ED(D) get only some of it
DA 12, despite mention of "quasi-deity", doesn't actually say "Divine Rank: 0"; divine rank of (Demigod) wasn't mentioned too

BTW, actually all Epic Destinies are dysfunctional: their "final" ability - such as Demigod's "Divine Immortality" - not listed in the progression table, so it's unclear when you should get it

[Debatra]

From the 3.5e SRD:
To record an arcane spell in written form, a character uses complex notation that describes the magical forces involved in the spell. The writer uses the same system no matter what her native language or culture. However, each character uses the system in her own way. Another person’s magical writing remains incomprehensible to even the most powerful wizard until she takes time to study and decipher it.

[Troacctid]

I may be very wrong here, but I think I discovered something big.
So a penalty is something you subtract from a roll, right? Makes sense. If the text says I take a -2 penalty, then I would subtract -2 from my roll. When you subtract a negative number, then it means you add the inverse of that number, meaning a -2 penalty is the same as a +2 bonus.
This would mean that a Raging barbarian would get +2 AC, and when done raging, +2 Str and Dex.
Using Improvised tools is just as good as master work tools.
Using a weapon you aren't proficient with makes you a master with it.
Being deaf makes you MORE likely to go first.
Not to mention a character with all 1s in their ability scores gets worse as they level up and have to add to their ability scores.
At least, I think. I can't find where it defines a penalty in the SRD or the 3.5 PHB, but the 3.0 PHB described a penalty as something you subtract.

Penalties don't work that way. A penalty is merely another word for a modifier with a negative value.


A modifier is any bonus or penalty applying to a die roll. A positive modifier is a bonus, and a negative modifier is a penalty.

There is no basis in the rules for your idea of negative penalties becoming bonuses. In fact, since all bonuses are positive and all penalties are negative, it's quite impossible.

[No brains]

From the 3.5e SRD:
To record an arcane spell in written form, a character uses complex notation that describes the magical forces involved in the spell. The writer uses the same system no matter what her native language or culture. However, each character uses the system in her own way. Another person’s magical writing remains incomprehensible to even the most powerful wizard until she takes time to study and decipher it.

I don't quite see this as a dysfunction. What your emphasis reminds me of is mathematics. There are tons of ways to write the same equation or even regular numbers and people can get to the same answers through visually different paths. Maybe some wizards draw circles while others write the equation for one of the same dimensions. Maybe some add the same number multiple times in tiny text across an entire page while some just use an exponent. It's pretty cool to think about in a way.

Another thing to think about is that every wizard has the same spells in their spell book and in time one can figure out that some mess of patterns means magic missile. There has to be some reason that the spellcraft skill can untie the Gordian knot of some loony's personal code. You could technically call this a 'pro-function' where the fluff backs up the RAW perfectly.

Also this is probably the most fertile place for writing something off as just 'mysterious magic'. It's pretty easy to say "A wizard did it" when describing something that wizards specifically do. :smalltongue:

[Andezzar]

The dysfunction is there but only very rarely are penalties actually subtracted resulting in a bonus. One such example:
natural: A natural result on a roll or check is the actual number appearing on the die, not the modified result obtained by adding bonuses or subtracting penalties.

[SirKazum]

I've found something that doesn't seem to be listed in the handbook yet. The Shifter-only spell Aspect of the Werebeast says that if you take on the aspect of the wolf, then "if you have a natural bite attack, you can attempt to trip your opponent as a free action without making a touch attack or provoking an attack of opportunity." It doesn't actually say that this is part of making that bite attack. It just lets you make trip attacks as free actions.

This sounds a lot like the joke about the software engineers who brings home a dozen cartons of milk from the grocery store, because his wife told him to "buy a carton of milk; if there are eggs, bring a dozen"...

[Chronos]

Quoth ShuriVch:

More fluff/crunch disconnections: Dragon Ascendant capstone and Epic Destiny (Demigod) don't grant you actual divinity, because it doesn't say something like "see in Deities & Demigods (or Faiths & Pantheons)", nor does it list all benefits of being a deity separately.
Divinity have numerous benefits (from movement speed increase to domain SLAs); DA 12 and ED(D) get only some of it
DA 12, despite mention of "quasi-deity", doesn't actually say "Divine Rank: 0"; divine rank of (Demigod) wasn't mentioned too
Not a dysfunction. The divine rules define a "quasi-deity" as a being with divine rank 0, so if the divine rules are in play, then a 12th-level Dragon Ascendant has divine rank 0. And if the divine rules aren't in play, then divine rank isn't defined, either, so it doesn't matter.

[Jormengand]

If anyone, whether your ally or your direst enemy, attacks a creature you've enthralled, then each enthralled creature becomes unfriendly - even if they were hostile before they were enthralled - and every creature in existence with 4+ HD or 16+ Wis turns hostile. Just as well that it never specifies who they're hostile towards, right?

Overall, it's a mess.

[ShurikVch]

Not a dysfunction. The divine rules define a "quasi-deity" as a being with divine rank 0, so if the divine rules are in play, then a 12th-level Dragon Ascendant has divine rank 0. And if the divine rules aren't in play, then divine rank isn't defined, either, so it doesn't matter.
It's the same problem as with Dread Necromancer, Level 20 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?409212-Dread-Necromancer-Level-20)
There are 2 possibilities:
1) 12th-level Dragon Ascendant gets divine rank 0 because it says "quasi-deity"
2) 12th-level Dragon Ascendant gets only Immortality, "quasi-deity" is a flavor text

Number 1 is your point, but have one problem: if DA 12 get DR 0, then why it list reprint of Immortality (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineRanksAndPowers.htm#immortality) from Divine Characteristics (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineRanksAndPowers.htm#divineCharacteristics)? It will be gotten anyway as a part of new shiny divinity package :smallconfused:

Number 2 - let's see:
SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/divineRanksPowers.htm):
Divine Characteristics
Levels
Hit Points
Speed
Armor Class
Attacks
Bypassing Damage Reduction
Always Maximize Roll
Saving Throws
Checks
Deities and Synergy Bonuses
Immunities
Transmutation
Energy Drain, Ability Drain, Ability Damage
Mind-Affecting Effects
Energy Immunity
Damage Reduction
Resistances
Energy Resistance
Spell Resistance
Salient Divine Abilities
Domain Powers
Spell-Like Abilities
Immortality
Senses
Remote Sensing
Block Sensing
Portfolio
Portfolio Sense
Automatic Actions
Create Magic Items
Divine Aura
Daze
Fright
Resolve
Grant Spells
Spontaneous Casting
Communication
Remote Communication
Godly Realm
Travel
Familiar Dragon Ascendant gets Hit Points, Armor Class, Immunities (Transmutation, Energy Drain, Ability Drain, Ability Damage, Mind-Affecting Effects), Damage Reduction, Resistances (Energy Resistance, Spell Resistance), Immortality; and even Aura (Daze, Fright, Resolve), despite technically not qualify to it
Where is the rest?
Where is the Speed, Saving Throws, Checks, Deities and Synergy Bonuses, Spell-Like Abilities, and Grant Spells?
Looks like Dragon Ascendant was shortcharged :smallfrown:

Unlike the "quasi-deity", Demigod(dess) may have from 1 to 5 Divine Ranks.
Epic Destiny (Demigod) doesn't specify how much you get

[Jormengand]

Similar problem with DD 10 - do you get the Half-dragon template including the listed bonuses or the half-dragon template and the listed bonuses?

[Chronos]

Quoth ShurikVch:

Where is the Speed, Saving Throws, Checks, Deities and Synergy Bonuses, Spell-Like Abilities, and Grant Spells?
All that's missing from Dragon Ascendant is the speed and synergy bonus. The rest of that doesn't apply to rank 0. What, would you prefer that the Dragon Ascendant description specify "The dragon gains a +0 bonus to all saving throws and checks"?

[ShurikVch]

All that's missing from Dragon Ascendant is the speed and synergy bonus. The rest of that doesn't apply to rank 0. What, would you prefer that the Dragon Ascendant description specify "The dragon gains a +0 bonus to all saving throws and checks"? OK, +0 bonus is unnecessary, but what's about the Spell-Like Abilities, and Grant Spells?

[ZamielVanWeber]

OK, +0 bonus is unnecessary, but what's about the Spell-Like Abilities, and Grant Spells?

Quasi-deities (rank 0 deities) cannot do those.

[ShurikVch]

Quasi-deities (rank 0 deities) cannot do those.
Please prove it.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Please prove it.

The spell like abilities are explicitly stated to come from the domains that the deity grants. So we just need to look at granted spells, which is covered under the rules for Rank 0.


These entities cannot grant spells, but are immortal and usually have one or more ability scores that are far above the norm for their species.
and

A deity can use any domain spell it can grant as a spell-like ability at will.

[Karnith]

Please prove it.
Per the SRD: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineRanksAndPowers.htm#rank0)

Rank 0
Creatures of this rank are sometimes called quasi-deities or hero deities. Creatures that have a mortal and a deity as parents also fall into this category. These entities cannot grant spells, but are immortal and usually have one or more ability scores that are far above the norm for their species. They may have some worshipers. Ordinary mortals do not have a divine rank of 0. They lack a divine rank altogether.
(Emphasis mine)

And (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineRanksAndPowers.htm#spellLikeAbilities):

A deity can use any domain spell it can grant as a spell-like ability at will. The deity’s effective caster level for such abilities is 10 + the deity’s divine rank. The saving throw DC for such abilities is 10 + the spell level + the deity’s Charisma bonus (if any) + the deity’s divine rank.
(Emphasis mine)

[ShurikVch]

The spell like abilities are explicitly stated to come from the domains that the deity grants. So we just need to look at granted spells, which is covered under the rules for Rank 0.
These entities cannot grant spells, but are immortal and usually have one or more ability scores that are far above the norm for their speciesTchazzar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tchazzar) can and do granting spells, and he is DR 0
Erbin from Deities and Demigods have domains even as a DR 0 Rogue 1

[ZamielVanWeber]

Tchazzar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tchazzar) can and do granting spells, and he is DR 0
Erbin from Deities and Demigods have domains even as a DR 0 Rogue 1

Assuming that the writers know the rules they operate under is going to lead to serious mistakes. This is where a good number of dysfunctions come from; you found two dysfunctional deities.

[Karnith]

Tchazzar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tchazzar) can and do granting spells, and he is DR 0
Tchazzar is a special case; his clerics were only granted spells before he died, when he was an actual god (well, and after, too, if you count the the Servant of the Fallen feat). Once he came back, he was a quasideity (via the Dragon Ascendant class), did not grant spells, and did not have the SLAs associated with Strength, Scalykind, or War domains.

[ShurikVch]

then how creatures who are not even a DR 0, grant spells to their followers?
Lord of Blades, Blood of Vol, Tenebrous, archfiends, Elder Evils...
Actually, do Wakers of the Beast get their divine spells? They worship the Tarrasque...

[ZamielVanWeber]

then how creatures who are not even a DR 0, grant spells to their followers?
Lord of Blades, Blood of Vol, Tenebrous, archfiends, Elder Evils...
Actually, do Wakers of the Beast get their divine spells? They worship the Tarrasque...

Clerics can gain spells even without gods granting them. A cleric who worships an entity not capable of granting spells is essentially a cleric of a cause and his cause is the thing he worships.

There are exceptions:
You cannot gain spells by worshiping an Elder Evil except for Sertrous, who grants all domains.
Archdukes grant spells by using the divine power they extract from souls. Demon Princes' spells are granted by the Abyss itself.

[Necroticplague]

Because you don't need to be granted spells to get them. Even as a cleric. Sufficiently worshipping hard enough S a cleric coud simply let you take them up as a cause ( similar to a cleric of Good). Select whatever two domains you associate with them. Keep in mind you can get divine spells from beings that don't even exist (for another warforged related example, clerics of The Becoming God exist and have spells like any other, despite knowing their god doesn't exist).

[ShurikVch]

There are exceptions:
You cannot gain spells by worshiping an Elder Evil except for Sertrous, who grants all domains.
Aren't Kyuss a demigod?

Archdukes grant spells by using the divine power they extract from souls. Demon Princes' spells are granted by the Abyss itself.What's about the Yugoloths?

Also, Fiend of Blasphemy PrC (Fiend Folio) grant spells to cultists - it's class feature from 3rd level

[ZamielVanWeber]

Aren't Kyuss a demigod?
What's about the Yugoloths?
Never stated. Then again I don't recall any commonly worshiped yugoloth lords, but most likely they would default to the "you are really a cleric of a cause." As for Kyuss his final update was in Elder Evils as an Elder Evil, not a demigod.


Also, Fiend of Blasphemy PrC (Fiend Folio) grant spells to cultists - it's class feature from 3rd level
Which means just that: a Fiend of Blasphemy can grant spells. I am not sure how this pertains to the bog standard rank 0 deity being unable to grant spells.

[Telok]

In D&D you can worship the idea of cupcakes hard enough to be able to cast Miracle, certain demons can grant spells, and everyone ignores the minor gods because those can't.

[Gemini476]

There used to be rules, back in AD&D, that said that (IIRC) 1st-3rd level spells are innate to the Cleric, 4th-6th are granted by serventsof their god, and 7th-9th are granted by their god directly. That's no longer a thing in 3E, however, and I'm not even sure that it survived into 2E.

[No brains]

There used to be rules, back in AD&D, that said that (IIRC) 1st-3rd level spells are innate to the Cleric, 4th-6th are granted by serventsof their god, and 7th-9th are granted by their god directly. That's no longer a thing in 3E, however, and I'm not even sure that it survived into 2E.

That rule made it over into 2E. I can understand the flavor of it, but I wonder if there was some sort of new rule about cleric casting in the transition that made them ditch it.

[Gemini476]

That rule made it over into 2E. I can understand the flavor of it, but I wonder if there was some sort of new rule about cleric casting in the transition that made them ditch it.
Probably because it was overly complicated and also Clerics can get their power from causes now (which was in turn probably because of the Satanic Panic, if I had to guess.)

[SirKazum]

I remember you could be a "cleric of a cause/philosophy/force" at least as early as the 2nd edition Complete Priest's Handbook. Don't know about earlier editions as I haven't played that. And cleric spells went only up to 7th level...

[Chronos]

I imagine that they mostly dropped the rule because it didn't really matter. You're a spellcaster, you can cast spells, who cares how?

[Jormengand]

If you look at a sequestered creature, because your vision of that creature is impaired by the sequester effect, you are "Affected by sequester" and therefore suffer the effects as though you were the target, though you don't have to be willing and only get a save if you're an object.

[Zaq]

This isn't so much a proper dysfunction as it is a realization that the rules don't quite work the way I expected them to.

I had always assumed that you needed to somehow manipulate the material components of a spell, including getting them out of your spell component pouch. But pg. 174 of the PHB actually says no such thing. It just says that you have to have them, and unlike somatic components, it doesn't specify that you have to have a hand free for it. Pg. 140 of the PHB specifies that "preparing these materials is a free action," but it doesn't say that you have to physically get them out of your pouch. I'd always assumed that you could use the same free hand to pull the material components out of your pouch and make your somatic component, but I had nonetheless assumed that it still took a free hand. All the more reason for your casters to keep their component pouches tucked inside their boots—it doesn't look like you have to actually do anything with the pouch to cast the spells.

Like I said, this isn't really a proper dysfunction. It's just more of a rules oddity. If it DIDN'T work this way, the feat Somatic Weaponry (which assumes that you're casting spells with two hands full) would be nearly useless without Eschew Materials, but I guess everything actually works out.

(Okay, truth be told, I really just wanted to get a post in this thread to make it easier to find. But still, I found this to be a little weird, if not on the level of many of the other dysfunctions we've uncovered.)

[Debatra]

One coin weighs 1/50 of a pound, which also lines up with the cost of the material (one pound of gold is 50gp, silver is 50sp/pound, etc). It costs 1/3 of an item's base value to create it with the Craft skill, meaning that the Crafting of fifty gold coins somehow costs less than the pound of gold it takes to make them. EDIT: Okay, sorry. We already had this one.

This also leads to what I originally thought was a dysfunction, but isn't quite so bad once you do the math. A silver holy symbol weighs one pound and costs 25gp. This is equivalent to five pounds of silver. Once again, Crafting takes 1/3 the base price in materials, which comes up to ~1.6 pounds of silver. Some of that would be lost when it's carved into the right shape unless you used magic to mold it. Maybe not that much, but it's better than the idea of a pound of silver costing the same as five pounds of the same.


If you look at a sequestered creature, because your vision of that creature is impaired by the sequester effect, you are "Affected by sequester" and therefore suffer the effects as though you were the target, though you don't have to be willing and only get a save if you're an object.

You could make that argument for just about any Illusion as well.

[Flickerdart]

This also leads to what I originally thought was a dysfunction, but isn't quite so bad once you do the math. A silver holy symbol weighs one pound and costs 25gp. This is equivalent to five pounds of silver. Once again, Crafting takes 1/3 the base price in materials, which comes up to ~1.6 pounds of silver. Some of that would be lost when it's carved into the right shape unless you used magic to mold it. Maybe not that much, but it's better than the idea of a pound of silver costing the same as five pounds of the same.
The value of a holy symbol is not that it's made of precious metal, it's that it is intricately sculpted and probably also blessed by the priests that make them.

[Troacctid]

If you look at a sequestered creature, because your vision of that creature is impaired by the sequester effect, you are "Affected by sequester" and therefore suffer the effects as though you were the target, though you don't have to be willing and only get a save if you're an object.

Glamers don't impair vision. They alter the appearance of something. Only the thing whose appearance is altered is "affected". There's no dysfunction here.

[No brains]

This isn't so much a proper dysfunction as it is a realization that the rules don't quite work the way I expected them to.

I had always assumed that you needed to somehow manipulate the material components of a spell, including getting them out of your spell component pouch. But pg. 174 of the PHB actually says no such thing. It just says that you have to have them, and unlike somatic components, it doesn't specify that you have to have a hand free for it. Pg. 140 of the PHB specifies that "preparing these materials is a free action," but it doesn't say that you have to physically get them out of your pouch. I'd always assumed that you could use the same free hand to pull the material components out of your pouch and make your somatic component, but I had nonetheless assumed that it still took a free hand. All the more reason for your casters to keep their component pouches tucked inside their boots—it doesn't look like you have to actually do anything with the pouch to cast the spells.

Like I said, this isn't really a proper dysfunction. It's just more of a rules oddity. If it DIDN'T work this way, the feat Somatic Weaponry (which assumes that you're casting spells with two hands full) would be nearly useless without Eschew Materials, but I guess everything actually works out.

(Okay, truth be told, I really just wanted to get a post in this thread to make it easier to find. But still, I found this to be a little weird, if not on the level of many of the other dysfunctions we've uncovered.)

I need to read more about casting spells to confirm exactly how these interact, but another rule affects this dysfunction. When grappling, you must have spell components in hand to cast a spell and getting spell components becomes a full round action.

If you're correct and one doesn't actually need to hold a material component, we get another dysfunction in the form of a useless or backward rule.

[Jormengand]

Glamers don't impair vision. They alter the appearance of something. Only the thing whose appearance is altered is "affected". There's no dysfunction here.

They make you incapable of seeing something that would otherwise be visible to you: that has the effect on you of preventing you from seeing that thing. Your vision is not impaired directly, but try arguing that making everything, ever, except you, invisible wouldn't affect you because your vision is technically not being impaired and you'll get laughed at.

[Troacctid]

They make you incapable of seeing something that would otherwise be visible to you: that has the effect on you of preventing you from seeing that thing. Your vision is not impaired directly, but try arguing that making everything, ever, except you, invisible wouldn't affect you because your vision is technically not being impaired and you'll get laughed at.

The subject, AKA creature affected by, a glamer spell, is the one whose sensory qualities are altered, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear.


A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear.

A creature affected by a spell.

In the case of invisibility, the only subject of the spell is the target, who becomes invisible. This is referenced several times in the spell's text.

[Jormengand]

In the case of invisibility, the only subject of the spell is the target, who becomes invisible. This is referenced several times in the spell's text.

Right, but sequester knocks comatose any creature affected by the spell, and you are affected inasmuch as that you are no longer capable of seeing a creature you would otherwise be able to see, which is an effect which (indirectly) affects you.

Invisibility, however, isn't dysfunctional - rather than turning invisible any creature affected by it, it turns invisible: "creature or object touched", the equipment of "the recipient", "the subject", no item further than 10 feet from "the subject", and so forth.

I'm not sure why you're talking about glamers and invisibility, when I'm talking about the subtypeless abjuration sequester.

[Troacctid]

Right, but sequester knocks comatose any creature affected by the spell, and you are affected inasmuch as that you are no longer capable of seeing a creature you would otherwise be able to see, which is an effect which (indirectly) affects you.

Invisibility, however, isn't dysfunctional - rather than turning invisible any creature affected by it, it turns invisible: "creature or object touched", the equipment of "the recipient", "the subject", no item further than 10 feet from "the subject", and so forth.

I'm not sure why you're talking about glamers and invisibility, when I'm talking about the subtypeless abjuration sequester.

Because sequester says "as the spell invisibility".

Being "affected" in the normal English sense of the word is not the same as being a subject of a spell. If I get a +1 morale bonus on my attack against you because of a bless spell, you're not the subject of the bless spell. If I burn your shop down with a fireball while you're out on a lunch break, you're not the subject of the fireball. If you benefit from a reduced crime rate in your city after the guards start using divination spells to help catch criminals, you are not the subject of the divination spells. If you cry at night because an evil wizard murdered your daughter with a phantasmal killer spell, you are not the subject of the phantasmal killer.

Being affected by the consequences isn't the same as being affected by the magic.

[Jormengand]

Because sequester says "as the spell invisibility".

Which only explains the manner of exactly how they are turned invisible, not who they are. It still renders the affected creature invisible, as invisibility. It's like how invisibility sphere works like invisibility, it just affects different people.


Being "affected" in the normal English sense of the word is not the same as being a subject of a spell. If I get a +1 morale bonus on my attack against you because of a bless spell, you're not the subject of the bless spell. If I burn your shop down with a fireball while you're out on a lunch break, you're not the subject of the fireball. If you benefit from a reduced crime rate in your city after the guards start using divination spells to help catch criminals, you are not the subject of the divination spells. If you cry at night because an evil wizard murdered your daughter with a phantasmal killer spell, you are not the subject of the phantasmal killer.

Which is fine, because I never claimed that they were the subject of the spell. I claimed that they were affected by the spell, because sequester turns invisible the affected creature. The fact that it does it in the manner of invisibility doesn't mean that it only turns invisible "The creature or object touched". It turns invisible "The affected creature."

[Troacctid]

"The affected creature" and "the subject" are the same thing, by definition, as quoted above. I mean, unless you have a rule you can cite that says otherwise?

[Andezzar]

The subject is a creature affected by the spell, but is a creature affected by the spell necessarily the subject? I don't see a rule proving this equivalence.

[Troacctid]

The subject is a creature affected by the spell, but is a creature affected by the spell necessarily the subject? I don't see a rule proving this equivalence.

That's how the term "subject" is defined in the glossary--a creature affected by a spell is a subject of the spell.

[Jormengand]

"The affected creature" and "the subject" are the same thing, by definition, as quoted above. I mean, unless you have a rule you can cite that says otherwise?

"Fireball allows you to fly at a speed of 60 feet, unless you have a rule you can cite that says otherwise?"

Affect is a word in the English language, and you can assert as much as you like that being affected by something is the same as being the subject, but all you've proven is that being the subject causes you to be affected by a spell, not that only the subject (who, for many spells, does not exist) is affected. "The affected creature" and "The subject" are not at all equivalent - the subject is defined in the rules, and the affected creature is just that: a creature who is affected in some capacity by the spell.

EDIT: Fly is dysfunctional because creatures who can no longer attack the flying creature are affected by it, meaning they must be the subjects, so they can also fly at 60 feet.

[Troacctid]

Except "affect" does have a game meaning. And there are plenty of other rules about who spells can affect. For example:


When you cast a spell, you must make some choice about whom the spell is to affect or where the effect is to originate, depending on how the spell works. A spell description defines the spell’s target (or targets), its effect, or its area, as appropriate.

Touch
You must touch a creature or object to affect it.

[Jormengand]

Except "affect" does have a game meaning. And there are plenty of other rules about who spells can affect. For example:

Therefore invisibility doesn't work because it doesn't prevent anyone from seeing you, because it doesn't affect them in any way (including preventing them seeing you) because they're not the target?

[Troacctid]

The spell doesn't need to affect them, it only needs to affect you. The default rule is that spells "affect" creatures directly, not indirectly.


Creatures: A spell with this kind of area affects creatures directly (like a targeted spell), but it affects all creatures in an area of some kind rather than individual creatures you select.

Interpreting the text in the way you're describing involves ignoring a lot of rules, both specific and general.

[Gadora]

Yes, if you willfully ignore the obvious meanings of rules, the rules don't make sense. This does not make the rules dysfunctional.

[Jormengand]

Yes, if you willfully ignore the obvious meanings of rules, the rules don't make sense. This does not make the rules dysfunctional.

I'm not ignoring the meanings of the rules: I'm reading literally what's there.

[Troacctid]

You can't take a literal reading of the text, ignore any context or other rules that contradict your reading, and call it dysfunctional. The rules of the game don't work that way, and the rules of the English language don't work that way. This is the dysfunctional rules thread, not the "D&D 3.5 As DM'd By Amelia Bedelia" thread (although I'm sure that thread would be fun).

It is kind of like arguing that in order to affect a creature, a spell must take on the mannerisms of the creature, because after all that is what the word "affect" means (if you ignore context and common sense).

[Andezzar]

You can't take a literal reading of the text, ignore any context or other rules that contradict your reading, and call it dysfunctional. The rules of the game don't work that way, and the rules of the English language don't work that way. This is the dysfunctional rules thread, not the "D&D 3.5 As DM'd By Amelia Bedelia" thread (although I'm sure that thread would be fun).Please remind me what context and rules you think we are ignoring. The glossary only says that the subject is an affected creature, it does not say that every affected creature is the subject.


It is kind of like arguing that in order to affect a creature, a spell must take on the mannerisms of the creature, because after all that is what the word "affect" means (if you ignore context and common sense).I think you confuse the noun affect with the verb to affect here. From what Jormengand and I wrote, only ever refers to the verb, unles I missed something.

[Troacctid]

Please remind me what context and rules you think we are ignoring. The glossary only says that the subject is an affected creature, it does not say that every affected creature is the subject.
Here are some more examples of context other than the several I quoted on the previous page. None of them make a lick of sense under a broader interpretation of "affect" that includes creatures affected indirectly by the spell's consequences, rather than directly by the spell itself.


A line describes some kinds of attacks [usually magical]. It affects creatures in a straight line away from the spellcaster's square to any intersection within range. All squares through which the line passes or touches are affected by the attack. The line continues to full range, usually beyond the target intersection and possibly affecting more characters or creatures.

If a spell's area touches only the near edge of a square, however, anything within that square is unaffected by the spell.

A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, even including creatures that you can’t see. It can’t affect creatures that have total cover from its point of origin—its effects don’t extend around corners.

Some spells create or summon things rather than affecting things that are already present.

Many spells affect "living creatures," which means all creatures other than constructs and undead. Creatures in the spell’s area that are not of the appropriate type do not count against the creatures affected.

Etc.


I think you confuse the noun affect with the verb to affect here. From what Jormengand and I wrote, only ever refers to the verb, unles I missed something.

What noun? It's a verb, and a transitive one, too.


af·fect (ə-fĕkt′)
tr.v. af·fect·ed, af·fect·ing, af·fects
To put on a false show of; simulate: affected a British accent.

To have or show a liking for: affects dramatic clothes.
Archaic To fancy; love.
To tend to by nature; tend to assume: a substance that affects crystalline form.
To imitate; copy: "Spenser, in affecting the ancients, writ no language" (Ben Jonson).

And it makes about as much sense in this context.

[Jormengand]

Here are some more examples of context other than the several I quoted on the previous page. None of them make a lick of sense under a broader interpretation of "affect" that includes creatures affected indirectly by the spell's consequences, rather than directly by the spell itself.

Congratulations, that is exactly why it's a dysfunction. Because when it's read by a speaker of the English language, it doesn't make sense.

[Telok]

Sequester
Target: One willing creature or object (up to a 2-ft. cube/level) touched

No other creatures or objects are referenced in the spell description. Where is the text saying that someone other than the target is sequestered?

Is someone arguing that the inability to see the sequestered creature means that all possible viewers are the target of the Sequester? That can't happen because the spell only has a single person/object for a target.

I don't inderstand what this 'affect' argument is about.

[Troacctid]

Jormengand is arguing that anyone who is influenced by a spell in any way, e.g. by looking at it, talking about it, or having an emotional reaction to it, counts as "affected" by it.

[Jormengand]

Jormengand is arguing that anyone who is influenced by a spell in any way, e.g. by looking at it, talking about it, or having an emotional reaction to it, counts as "affected" by it.

Exactly, because that's what the word "Affected" means in the English language, and there's no better rules definition. We know that a subject is a creature affected by a spell, but not what "Affected" means except for, well, affected.

[Andezzar]

When cast, this spell not only prevents divination spells from working to detect or locate the creature or object affected by sequester, it also renders the affected creature or object invisible to any form of sight or seeing (as the invisibility spell). The spell does not prevent the subject from being discovered through tactile means or through the use of devices. Creatures affected by sequester become comatose and are effectively in a state of suspended animation until the spell wears off or is dispelled.So the target of the spell becomes invisible. Other creatures no longer being able to see the target of sequester are (indirectly) affected by the spell.

Also note that the target of sequester always is a single creature (or object), yet multiple creatures become comatose when affected by the spell. If only the target were to become comatose the rule would have to say either "the target" or "the creature affected by sequester".

[illyahr]

So the target of the spell becomes invisible. Other creatures no longer being able to see the target of sequester are (indirectly) affected by the spell.

Also note that the target of sequester always is a single creature (or object), yet multiple creatures become comatose when affected by the spell. If only the target were to become comatose the rule would have to say either "the target" or "the creature affected by sequester".

Ok, all arguing aside: proof of dysfunction right there. Single target spell, but description states it affects multiple creatures.

[Andezzar]

If the number of targets in relation ot the number of affected creatures is a dysfunction any burst or spread spell is dysfunctional. They have no target, yet all creatures in the area are affected.

[Telok]

So by that reading then anybody seeing or hearing a Fireball is affected by the spell and takes damage.

This only works if you ignore the other rules governing spells. Targets, areas, and ranges have to be disregarded for that interpretation to dysfunction.

Perhaps the better way to talk about it would be to admit that that people who are indirectly affected by a spell are not directly affected. If you are indirectly affected by seeing a Fireball then the indirect effect on you is that someone else has fewer hit points. The indirect effect of Sequester on people who are not the target is that they have a hard time finding the target of the spell. Someone who is indirectly affected by the spell does not suffer the direct effects of that spell.

[Andezzar]

So by that reading then anybody seeing or hearing a Fireball is affected by the spell and takes damage.

This only works if you ignore the other rules governing spells. Targets, areas, and ranges have to be disregarded for that interpretation to dysfunction.

Perhaps the better way to talk about it would be to admit that that people who are indirectly affected by a spell are not directly affected. If you are indirectly affected by seeing a Fireball then the indirect effect on you is that someone else has fewer hit points. The indirect effect of Sequester on people who are not the target is that they have a hard time finding the target of the spell. Someone who is indirectly affected by the spell does not suffer the direct effects of that spell.The difference is that the fireball never claims that anything happens to creatures (indirectly) affected by the spell. Creatures in the area of the spell take damage, nothing more nothing less. Sequester on the other hand speaks of multiple creatures (only one of which can be the target of the spell) falling comatose when they are affected by sequester.

[Troacctid]

It's a grammatical oddity, but it's not really a dysfunction, or even necessarily wrong. At most, it's an odd editing decision. There's nothing stopping you from casting multiple sequesters, which would result in multiple creatures being affected by sequester.

Edit: A comparable structure can be found in the text of Miser's Envy: "Dragons, due to their greedy nature, take a -4 penalty on their saving throws against this spell." (The spell only targets one creature.)

[The Random NPC]

It's a grammatical oddity, but it's not really a dysfunction, or even necessarily wrong. At most, it's an odd editing decision. There's nothing stopping you from casting multiple sequesters, which would result in multiple creatures being affected by sequester.

Edit: A comparable structure can be found in the text of Miser's Envy: "Dragons, due to their greedy nature, take a -4 penalty on their saving throws against this spell." (The spell only targets one creature.)

I think in this case, the plural is used to show that all Dragons are affected by the penalty. It's similar in Sequester, it's saying any creature affected by Sequester is comatose, the spell isn't just talking about this casting, but all of them. You have to match plurality (though I will admit that there's no reason to refer to multiple castings when they are all identical).

[bekeleven]

Sigh.

Ok then.


BANE
Area: All enemies within 50 ft.
Bane fills your enemies with fear and doubt. Each affected creature takes a –1 penalty on attack rolls and a –1 penalty on saving throws against fear effects.If an opponent misses me, I get -1 to attack rolls, because I was helped (and thus affected) by my casting of Bane. Or possibly if they only missed by one?


ACCURACY
Target: One thrown weapon/level touched or one projectile weapon touched
When you cast this spell, you enhance one or more thrown weapons or one projectile weapon to improve its chance of hitting distant targets. For the duration of the spell, the range increment for the affected weapon or weapons is doubled.Attempting a ranged sunder with a weapon under the affect of Accuracy causes that weapon's range increment to double.

This might only happen if you were firing at someone beyond 1 normal range increment. Because if the spell Accuracy didn't help your roll, it can hardly be said to have affected the other weapon, right?


ALLEGRO
Area: 20-ft. radius burst centered on you
Each creature within the spell’s area gains a 30-foot enhancement bonus to its land speed, up to a maximum of double the creature’s land speed. Affected creatures retain these effects for the duration of the spell, even if they leave the original area.
Allegro applies a buff to people near you. Everyone they charge or bull rush also gain these buffs.


ANIMATE WEAPON
Target: Weapon touched
A weapon affected by this spell gains the ability to move and attack on its own and functions in most ways like an animated object of its size.A weapon that falls to the ground because its wielder was downed by your animated weapon also animates.


ALGID ENHANCEMENT
Target: One cold creature/level
You energize cold creatures with a surge of coldfire. Creatures with the cold subtype affected by this spell gain a +1 deflection bonus to AC, +1d8 temporary hit points, a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls, and a +2 bonus on saving throws against fire effects.Any cold creature that misses or is struck by the targets gains their buffs.


ATTUNE FORM
Target: One creature/3 levels
This spell allows you to attune the affected creatures to the plane you are currently on, negating the harmful effects of that plane.If your group is larger than 1 person/3 levels, just run around and punch everyone else with your healthy, not-on-fire hands to cure them.


BANISH DRAGONMARK
Target: One Dragonmarked Creature
If the target fails its save, its dragonmark is stripped away for the spell’s duration. The affected subject cannot use any of its dragonmarked spell-like abilities (or other abilities that rely on dragonmarks) during this time. If the target creature’s dragonmark is one step more powerful than yours, the creature gains a +2 bonus on its Will save.This is a good time to note that only the target is offered a will save here. Anyone affected by the fact that they can't use their dragonmark? Instantly can't use one of their own.


BATTLETIDE
Target: You and up to one creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart
You steal energy from others. Each target other than you takes a –2 penalty on saving throws, attack rolls, and weapon damage rolls. As long as at least one enemy is affected by the spell, you receive the following benefits:I kill an enemy soldier. His wife (now widow) doesn't know it, but I just affected her. I declare her my enemy. I retain battletide's bonuses forever.

Or, maybe it's 100% crystal clear what all these spells do.

For a bonus, here's one that has this dysfunction and a real dysfunction:


BATTLE CRY
Target: You and all allies within 60 ft.
When you cast battlecry, you and your allies gain a burst of confidence and combat prowess. The next single attack made by any affected creature gains a +5 morale bonus on the damage roll, provided the attack is made before the end of your next turn. This bonus applies only to a single attack. The spell affects all allies within 60 feet... at least, the next one in the initiative order. If you want, you can claim it affects the person they smack, but since the single attack has already been made, the effect does nothing. For even more confusion, this spell's duration is instantaneous, meaning the chain of causality can grow and grow chaos theory-style until the spell affects every person in the world... yet the only mechanical representation of that effect was expended less than a round after it was cast.

[Troacctid]

Don't forget that every time a spell affects a creature, it's also imitating that creature's mannerisms, as per the definition of the word "affect."

[Jormengand]

Sigh.

Ok then.

If an opponent misses me, I get -1 to attack rolls, because I was helped (and thus affected) by my casting of Bane. Or possibly if they only missed by one?

Attempting a ranged sunder with a weapon under the affect of Accuracy causes that weapon's range increment to double.

This might only happen if you were firing at someone beyond 1 normal range increment. Because if the spell Accuracy didn't help your roll, it can hardly be said to have affected the other weapon, right?

Allegro applies a buff to people near you. Everyone they charge or bull rush also gain these buffs.

A weapon that falls to the ground because its wielder was downed by your animated weapon also animates.

Any cold creature that misses or is struck by the targets gains their buffs.

If your group is larger than 1 person/3 levels, just run around and punch everyone else with your healthy, not-on-fire hands to cure them.

This is a good time to note that only the target is offered a will save here. Anyone affected by the fact that they can't use their dragonmark? Instantly can't use one of their own.

I kill an enemy soldier. His wife (now widow) doesn't know it, but I just affected her. I declare her my enemy. I retain battletide's bonuses forever.

Yes, that is exactly what the spells say they do, and that is exactly why, when read as written - which is what a RAW dysfunction is, they are dysfunctional.


Don't forget that every time a spell affects a creature, it's also imitating that creature's mannerisms, as per the definition of the word "affect."

No, see, sequester only knocks creatures comatose if it's imitating their mannerisms.

The thing is, whichever of the many definitions of "Affect" you use, it doesn't make sense, either because it knocks any creature that looks at the sequestered creature out with them, or because it only knocks creatures out if it's imitating their mannerisms. Trying to shift goalpoasts by using a different definition of "Affect" doesn't help your case: if anything it makes the spell more dysfunctional as it changes it from "Knocks out too many creatures" to "Literally does not function."

[illyahr]

It's a grammatical oddity, but it's not really a dysfunction, or even necessarily wrong. At most, it's an odd editing decision. There's nothing stopping you from casting multiple sequesters, which would result in multiple creatures being affected by sequester.

Edit: A comparable structure can be found in the text of Miser's Envy: "Dragons, due to their greedy nature, take a -4 penalty on their saving throws against this spell." (The spell only targets one creature.)

As the spell is written, it only targets one creature to be the subject of the spell but makes mention of multiple creatures falling into a coma. Without clarification, this could be taken to mean that anyone affected by the spell (as pointed out by Jormengand) would fall into a coma and still be grammatically correct. An oddity in language, yes, but that oddity is what causes the dysfunction.

[georgie_leech]

While the affect as 'anyone influenced by the spell in any way' reading is a grammatically correct, it's not the only one. Affect as 'the creature targeted by the spell' is not dysfunctional in any of these cases and is also grammatically correct. Wasn't there a discussion a few threads back about how if there are multiple readings of the rule but only one results in a dysfunction, it's not that dysfunctional? No rules need to be changed for this dysfunction not to exist, after all.

[Jormengand]

While the affect as 'anyone influenced by the spell in any way' reading is a grammatically correct, it's not the only one. Affect as 'the creature targeted by the spell' is not dysfunctional in any of these cases and is also grammatically correct. Wasn't there a discussion a few threads back about how if there are multiple readings of the rule but only one results in a dysfunction, it's not that dysfunctional? No rules need to be changed for this dysfunction not to exist, after all.

In what language are "Affected" and "Targeted" synonyms? Because it's not English. Sure, RAI isn't dysfunctional, obviously, but RAW? Is.

EDIT: Next dysfunction is that the text of Undead Torch would only have it do anything to one creature, even though it can target one per level.

[Troacctid]

Rules that are only dysfunctional when you remove them from the context of the rules they're in are not dysfunctional by the rules as written. They function just fine under the rules as written. Taking them out of context moves you out of the realm of rules as written.

The point is, you can't ignore all the rules that clarify the usage to prevent it from being dysfunctional, and then claim it is dysfunctional. I mean, you can, but you'd be wrong.

If a rule said "Attacking with the point of a spear deals piercing damage," would you interpret it to mean that you can attack with the abstract notion of a spear's purpose? No, because while that's one of the definitions of the word "point," it's clear from the context that that's not the definition being used.

[Kurald Galain]

Can we please split this thread in two, one for dysfunctions in the rules and the other for hilarious ways to misinterpret basic grammar? Thanks.

[Jormengand]

Rules that are only dysfunctional when you remove them from the context of the rules they're in are not dysfunctional by the rules as written. They function just fine under the rules as written. Taking them out of context moves you out of the realm of rules as written.

The point is, you can't ignore all the rules that clarify the usage to prevent it from being dysfunctional, and then claim it is dysfunctional. I mean, you can, but you'd be wrong.

If a rule said "Attacking with the point of a spear deals piercing damage," would you interpret it to mean that you can attack with the abstract notion of a spear's purpose? No, because while that's one of the definitions of the word "point," it's clear from the context that that's not the definition being used.

I'm not the one changing the meaning of the word "Affect". You are.

[No brains]

Can we please split this thread in two, one for dysfunctions in the rules and the other for hilarious ways to misinterpret basic grammar? Thanks.

Agreed. The fun of this thread has been affected by sequester. I can't find it anywhere.

[Flickerdart]

Agreed. The fun of this thread has been affected by sequester. I can't find it anywhere.
I can still find you, though, so clearly you're not affected by Sequester.

[illyahr]

I can still find you, though, so clearly you're not affected by Sequester.

No, that just means he's not the target of sequester. The fact that he's not in a coma means he's not affected. :smallwink:

I do agree it's time to move on, though.

[Jormengand]

I can still find you, though, so clearly you're not affected by Sequester.

Yeah, man, you're not the target of the spell, so clearly it's not having any effect on you.

[Debatra]

Can we please split this thread in two, one for dysfunctions in the rules and the other for hilarious ways to misinterpret basic grammar? Thanks.

We need a Like button.

[Venger]

mm3's trilloch can use its death knell SLA as a "quickened action." no, I don't know what that is either.

[Gemini476]

mm3's trilloch can use its death knell SLA as a "quickened action." no, I don't know what that is either.
... Does MM3 predate swift actions? Because if it does then what they mean is one of those 1/turn free actions that Quickened spells use.

[SirKazum]

... Does MM3 predate swift actions? Because if it does then what they mean is one of those 1/turn free actions that Quickened spells use.

While that sounds like it's clearly what they intended, "Quickened Action" isn't defined anywhere (that I know of), so yeah, it's rather dysfunctional.

[Curmudgeon]

mm3's trilloch can use its death knell SLA as a "quickened action." no, I don't know what that is either.

While that sounds like it's clearly what they intended, "Quickened Action" isn't defined anywhere (that I know of), so yeah, it's rather dysfunctional.
The meaning of the term is stated right in the monster description.

Feats: Ability Focus (control rage), Improved Initiative, Quicken Spell-Like Ability (death knell)
Death Knell (Sp): As a quickened action at will, a trilloch can create an effect similar to death knell on all creatures within 180 feet.
The Quicken Spell-Like Ability feat appears on page 207 of the book.
Using a quickened spell-like ability is a swift action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

The only dysfunction here is in the reading. :smallwink:

[Gemini476]

While that sounds like it's clearly what they intended, "Quickened Action" isn't defined anywhere (that I know of), so yeah, it's rather dysfunctional.

Well, what other wording could they have used? "Cast a quickened spell" action?


Cast a quickened spell [Free][AoO: No]
Description: Self explanatory.

Cast a Quickened Spell
You can cast a quickened spell (see the Quicken Spell feat) or any spell whose casting time is designated as a free action as a free action. Only one such spell can be cast in any round, and such spells don’t count toward your normal limit of one spell per round. Casting a spell with a casting time of a free action doesn’t incur an attack of opportunity.


However, I looked it up and as it turns out MM3 was released a year after the Miniatures Handbook (and hence Swift Actions) so they don't really have much of an excuse. Especially since the reason the Trilloch's Death Knell is a "quickened action" is because it has Quicken Spell-Like Ability(Death Knell) and the same page in MM3 that has that feat also has a sidebar explaining Swift Actions! I guess they might have wanted to keep the term "swift action" out of the description so they didn't confuse people who had no idea what a swift action was, but jeez.

[ShurikVch]

Libris Mortis have
Werewolf (Human Commoner) Zombie, Hybrid Form But...
A slain lycanthrope reverts to its humanoid form, although it remains dead.

[Andezzar]

A zombie is undead, not dead. Perhaps someone found a way to make undead in general or at least zombies in particular from creatures without them being dead at first.

[illyahr]

A lycanthrope reverts to base form when it dies. There's nothing stopping it from transforming again afterward.

[Andezzar]

Actually there is:

Special Qualities

A lycanthrope retains all the special qualities of the base creature and the base animal, and also gains those described below.
Alternate Form (Su)

A lycanthrope can assume the form of a specific animal (as indicated in its entry).

Changing to or from animal or hybrid form is a standard action.


A zombie loses most special qualities of the base creature. It retains any extraordinary special qualities that improve its melee or ranged attacks. A zombie gains the following special quality. The Alternate Form ability that enables the lycanthrope to assume the hybrid form is a Supernatural ability which is lost when the zombie template is applied. On top of that a zombie is mindless so it is at least questionable whether it has the agency to assume an alternate form.

[illyahr]

Actually there is:


The Alternate Form ability that enables the lycanthrope to assume the hybrid form is a Supernatural ability which is lost when the zombie template is applied. On top of that a zombie is mindless so it is at least questionable whether it has the agency to assume an alternate form.

Fair enough. :smallbiggrin:

[Flickerdart]

The Alternate Form ability that enables the lycanthrope to assume the hybrid form is a Supernatural ability which is lost when the zombie template is applied.
By strict RAW, we don't know that - the template says that only most special qualities are lost. While it gives a category of qualities that are retained, it never says that those are the only special qualities that can be retained. :smalltongue:

[illyahr]

By strict RAW, we don't know that - the template says that only most special qualities are lost. While it gives a category of qualities that are retained, it never says that those are the only special qualities that can be retained. :smalltongue:

The next sentance clarifies which qualities it retains. To whit: extraordinary special abilities that aid its melee or ranged attacks. The ability to change shape is supernatural, not extraordinary, so it would lose that ability.

[Flickerdart]

The next sentance clarifies which qualities it retains. To whit: extraordinary special abilities that aid its melee or ranged attacks. The ability to change shape is supernatural, not extraordinary, so it would lose that ability.
The next sentence definitely provides an example of what is kept, but there is no language marking it as exclusive.

[No brains]

What if it was somehow changed instantly into a zombie without dying? There might be other ways to do it, but maybe someone blew a wish just to get a weird zombie.

[Flickerdart]

What if it was somehow changed instantly into a zombie without dying? There might be other ways to dodo it, but maybe someone blew a wish just to get a weird zombie.
Hm, that's an interesting thought - what happens to a lycanthrope that loses Alternate Form while in said Alternate Form?

[illyahr]

What if it was somehow changed instantly into a zombie without dying? There might be other ways to dodo it, but maybe someone blew a wish just to get a weird zombie.

So A Wizard Did It (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AWizardDidIt)? :smalltongue:

[ShurikVch]

Also, there is one more dysfunction:
A slain lycanthrope reverts to its humanoid form, although it remains dead. But...
"Lycanthrope" is a template that can be added to any humanoid or giant (referred to hereafter as the base creature).

[georgie_leech]

Also, there is one more dysfunction: But...

That's mostly a case of using non-game terminology, since giants are very much human-shaped.

[ShurikVch]

That's mostly a case of using non-game terminology, since giants are very much human-shaped. Half-Troll/Half-Wyvern (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/eo/20040201a)

[bekeleven]

As brought up in a discussion between me and Psyren in the TWF thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?414008-Double-Weapons-1-5x-str-or-not/page2):

Some actions in a grapple take the place of attacks. If you have high enough BAB to make multiple attacks, you can make multiple of these actions at descending BAB.

When you are grappling (regardless of who started the grapple), you can perform any of the following actions. Some of these actions take the place of an attack (rather than being a standard action or a move action). If your base attack bonus allows you multiple attacks, you can attempt one of these actions in place of each of your attacks, but at successively lower base attack bonuses.
I laid out the following scenario based on the RAW wording:


Monk 7: +5 BAB. Grapples opponent. Rolls opposed grapple to deal unarmed damage.

Monk 8: +6 BAB. Flurries for three attacks with primary Sai, strikes with off-hand sai. Hits with secondary natural attacks: unarmed strike, slam (warforged) and bite (jaws of death). STR +1/+1/-4 Sai, -3 Sai, +0 Unarmed Strike, +0 Slam, +0 Bite.* Rolls too low to hit, you say? Give up every attack for 7 opposed grapples to deal damage - with no penalty.*Numbers fixed from original posting.
This in itself is probably dysfunctional, in the "makes no sense in-game or out-of-game" way, but admittedly it doesn't appear to cause any contradictions as yet.

The issue is: If the actions are perform at "successively lower base attack bonuses," then what do you add to each grapple check?

I suggest replacing each attack with a grapple check using that attack's BAB. In this case, that would result in grapple checks with the BAB of 6, 6, 1, 6, 6, 6, 6. Although you could make the argument that the -5 penalty to secondary natural attacks functions "in place" of a lowered iterative BAB and means the final 3 should be at BAB +1 as well (+6/+6/+1/+6/+1/+1/+1).

Regardless of how you interpret this, it's ambiguous, and it appears to violate the phrase "successively lower base attack bonus," as you're resolving lower base attack bonus and then jumping up to a higher one, although arguably you can change the order of those attacks. Would doing so be required in most circumstances? In this circumstance only? I don't recall rules specifying what order you take iteratives vs. off-hand attacks.

Please avoid discussing the dysfunction where I used the unarmed strike as a natural attack to get extra hits in. I'm sure that's in one of these threads already, even if Darrin's handbook didn't mention it...

[georgie_leech]

Half-Troll/Half-Wyvern (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/eo/20040201a)

Hey, it's still got a torso, two limbs at the top sides, two limbs out the bottom, and a head!:smallbiggrin:

[No brains]

As brought up in a discussion between me and Psyren in the TWF thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?414008-Double-Weapons-1-5x-str-or-not/page2):

Some actions in a grapple take the place of attacks. If you have high enough BAB to make multiple attacks, you can make multiple of these actions at descending BAB.

I laid out the following scenario based on the RAW wording:

*Numbers fixed from original posting.
This in itself is probably dysfunctional, in the "makes no sense in-game or out-of-game" way, but admittedly it doesn't appear to cause any contradictions as yet.

The issue is: If the actions are perform at "successively lower base attack bonuses," then what do you add to each grapple check?

I suggest replacing each attack with a grapple check using that attack's BAB. In this case, that would result in grapple checks with the BAB of 6, 6, 1, 6, 6, 6, 6. Although you could make the argument that the -5 penalty to secondary natural attacks functions "in place" of a lowered iterative BAB and means the final 3 should be at BAB +1 as well (+6/+6/+1/+6/+1/+1/+1).

Regardless of how you interpret this, it's ambiguous, and it appears to violate the phrase "successively lower base attack bonus," as you're resolving lower base attack bonus and then jumping up to a higher one, although arguably you can change the order of those attacks. Would doing so be required in most circumstances? In this circumstance only? I don't recall rules specifying what order you take iteratives vs. off-hand attacks.

Please avoid discussing the dysfunction where I used the unarmed strike as a natural attack to get extra hits in. I'm sure that's in one of these threads already, even if Darrin's handbook didn't mention it...

Okay, this needed some serious rules wrangling. I see a few places where you went wrong here:

First, you're playing a monk. :smalltongue:

Second, you can't attack with two weapons in a grapple. The RAW language is not that you cannot use the benefits of two-weapon fighting, it's that you can't attack with two weapons. You might be safe because you're attacking with more than two weapons and not exactly two weapons, but I found this to be a particularly silly rules snarl.

Past here, I might be misreading the rules.

Third, flurry of blows doesn't work with a grapple. A monk must use a full attack action to strike with a flurry of blows. Even though the grappling rules work exactly like a full attack and even though the entry uses language that says the permitted actions take the place of attacks in a full attack, 'full attack' is not one of the options one is allowed in a grapple. Only one's BAB affects how many actions one can take in a grapple, not their number of attacks.

Points two and three almost make sense together, but from a fluffy, RAI perspective. When tangling with an enemy, it is impossible to do more than coordinate a frenzied succession of stabs. Haste and monk training won't help, just one's practice at fighting.

However this opens to door to a terrible new dysfunction: because grappling works like a full attack without actually being one, creatures can improvise an iterative attack with their natural weapons in a grapple. I'm not sure if this is intended, but it's weird that an iterative attack with natural weapons is only possible in a confused melee.

I really hope I'm reading something wrong. What I think my problem might be is that the grapple option, "attack your opponent" opens the door to the standard decision gate where one decides whether to make an attack as a standard action or a full attack as a full round action. When one elects to take the option of attacking their opponent, then they get the other options permitted in place of their usual attacks. I'm not sure and wish I had some brains for this.

[bekeleven]

Second, you can't attack with two weapons in a grapple. The RAW language is not that you cannot use the benefits of two-weapon fighting, it's that you can't attack with two weapons.I'm not attacking with two weapons. If you'll notice, I'm in fact attacking with 0 weapons.

I'm just using a special action that replaces my attacks. And because I'm holding two weapons, I have an extra attack.


Third, flurry of blows doesn't work with a grapple. A monk must use a full attack action to strike with a flurry of blows. Even though the grappling rules work exactly like a full attack and even though the entry uses language that says the permitted actions take the place of attacks in a full attack, 'full attack' is not one of the options one is allowed in a grapple.This one might be true. I was mostly making the original post as a thought experiment based on Psyren's interpretations of the text. But by the end, I liked it so much that I wanted it to work.


Only one's BAB affects how many actions one can take in a grapple, not their number of attacks.This is the real point of contention in the rules. I have enough BAB to allow me to make more than one attack. Therefore, I replaced each of my attack with an equivalent action. I have 7 attacks.

The text should read, "In place of each of your iterative attacks" or similar. It does not.

[No brains]

I'm not attacking with two weapons. If you'll notice, I'm in fact attacking with 0 weapons.

I'm just using a special action that replaces my attacks. And because I'm holding two weapons, I have an extra attack.

This one might be true. I was mostly making the original post as a thought experiment based on Psyren's interpretations of the text. But by the end, I liked it so much that I wanted it to work.

This is the real point of contention in the rules. I have enough BAB to allow me to make more than one attack. Therefore, I replaced each of my attack with an equivalent action. I have 7 attacks.

The text should read, "In place of each of your iterative attacks" or similar. It does not.

They presumably wrote "you can't attack with two weapons" so that players couldn't replace their extra, non-BAB attack(s) for another grapple action. If one can't attack in the first place, exchanging that attack for something else is probably not a legal action. The trouble is that a second weapon isn't the only way to gain more attacks...

Maybe natural attacks, flurry, and haste are extra attacks that are independent of BAB. Because they aren't extra attacks granted by BAB, they don't apply to the phrase "your attacks" within the context of that sentence. I'm not enough of a lawyer/ grammar teacher to make a great case for this though.

The provision of making attacks that only a high BAB would specifically allow might also safeguard against animals suddenly becoming more powerful. They can't bend the rules to make iterative attacks with their primary weapon because their BAB would never have allowed them to make extra attacks with that weapon. I am in favor of any rules that keeps that damn crab from constricting more than once a turn.

I have to apologize if I'm seeming too argumentative, bekeleven. I don't really like debating little points like this. Can we bring up something more fun and Baron Munchhausen-like? I came to this thread to see goofy things, not nitpick grammar.

I also want to say that the old link to that damn crab is broken and we need a new one to get to its archived page.

[Ksheep]

I also want to say that the old link to that damn crab is broken and we need a new one to get to its archived page.

This the one?
http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fw/20040221a

[Story]

I just discovered that the description for the Blindness condition says that you take a penalty on "most" strength and dexterity based skill checks. However, there is no clarifying language. As far as I can tell, which skills you take a penalty on is never specified anywhere, meaning that presumably you don't take any penalties by RAW.

[Troacctid]

I just discovered that the description for the Blindness condition says that you take a penalty on "most" strength and dexterity based skill checks. However, there is no clarifying language. As far as I can tell, which skills you take a penalty on is never specified anywhere, meaning that presumably you don't take any penalties by RAW.

RAW says you take a penalty on most of them, not none of them. If you interpret it as none, then you're going against the RAW.

[illyahr]

This the one?
http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fw/20040221a

This is the first time I have actually gotten to look at that thing's stats. What was WOTC thinking when they made it CR 3? They made it nearly immune to almost everything a party of level 3 characters could do to it.

[No brains]

Here's one worth pointing out (though there may be ways to weasel around it): Animate Dead does not restore hit points to the creature it animates. When this spell adds the skeleton or zombie template to a creature, it is instantly destroyed. Dead creatures always have -10 HP and if they are raised, they aren't dead and so aren't valid targets for the spell anymore.

This is where rules failing to play well with each other might work out for the spell's sake. When a caster creates a skeleton or zombie with Animate Dead, the description does not say, "the skeleton/zombie template is added to the target". It has a target of a dead creature and it "creates from" these creatures. While adding the template makes the most sense, that's not exactly what it says and the RAWful evil devil is in the details. Either way it's dysfunctional.

There is no dysfunction with Create (Greater) Undead. The corpse/creature discrepancy is largely solved by the spell creating an entirely new creature without applying a template. A completely new ghoul as described in the MM has HP and without base creature muddling, there's no reason for it not to.

[Story]

RAW says you take a penalty on most of them, not none of them. If you interpret it as none, then you're going against the RAW.

Then which skills do you take a penalty on? Do you have an interpretation which is better supported by RAW? If so, I'm all ears. I asked about it on the RAW questions thread earlier but noone could answer.

[Qwertystop]

Then which skills do you take a penalty on? Do you have an interpretation which is better supported by RAW? If so, I'm all ears. I asked about it on the RAW questions thread earlier but noone could answer.

The fact that it doesn't specify which skills take a penalty means that which ones is entirely up to Rule 0.

[Story]

But any dysfunction can be Rule 0'd. We're dealing with RAW here.

It doesn't even say that the DM should pick which skills get a penalty or something. It's clearly a mistake.


Edit: Just found another one. In the space of three sentences Lords of Madness says both that a Tsochar can remain in the victims form for up to a year and that it can remain in that form indefinitely. So which is it?

Edit 2: I just found an explanation of the blindness thing. Under the Environment Darkness section it says that blindness causes a -4 penalty on STR and DEX based checks with an ACP. So I guess that clears that up.

[SirKazum]

But any dysfunction can be Rule 0'd. We're dealing with RAW here.

I know that's been cleared up already, but I think you raise an interesting point. The thing is, the game was made under the assumption that Rule 0 is its bread and butter. Even before they started discussing it in rulebooks, it was there since the beginning as an assumption that the designers thought was obvious, until they probably realized they had to spell it out in the DMG. But anyway, lots of these dysfunctions pop up because "this needs common-sense adjudication by the DM to work" was never seen as a flaw by the game designers, and for good reason. I'm not invalidating the thread, it's still fun to point out these little things (like the "Questions without answer... answered by RAW" thread as well), but sometimes you'll trip against the fact that Rule 0 is assumed to be in operation. For example, Wish specifically says that "You may try to use a wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so is dangerous. (The wish may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment.)" This is deliberately vague and variable, and left up to the DM. It's literally impossible to determine what you can or can't do according to that line just by RAW - Rule 0 is required by the text.

[Qwertystop]

Yeah. There's a difference between "the rules do not fill in this blank for you" and "this rule explicitly states things which contradict each other or otherwise render something nonfunctional."

[The Viscount]

Here's one worth pointing out (though there may be ways to weasel around it): Animate Dead does not restore hit points to the creature it animates. When this spell adds the skeleton or zombie template to a creature, it is instantly destroyed. Dead creatures always have -10 HP and if they are raised, they aren't dead and so aren't valid targets for the spell anymore.

This is where rules failing to play well with each other might work out for the spell's sake. When a caster creates a skeleton or zombie with Animate Dead, the description does not say, "the skeleton/zombie template is added to the target". It has a target of a dead creature and it "creates from" these creatures. While adding the template makes the most sense, that's not exactly what it says and the RAWful evil devil is in the details. Either way it's dysfunctional.

There is no dysfunction with Create (Greater) Undead. The corpse/creature discrepancy is largely solved by the spell creating an entirely new creature without applying a template. A completely new ghoul as described in the MM has HP and without base creature muddling, there's no reason for it not to.

This one's semi-covered. The spell itself says that it creates a zombie or skeleton from a corpse. You don't have to deal with creature weirdness because a creature isn't a corpse. Then again when a creature reaches -10, it doesn't necessarily become a corpse, so problem still stands.

[Flickerdart]

It's curious that Raises Dead uses the wording "dead creature touched" but Animate Dead is "corpses touched." Is it possible to have a corpse that is not a dead creature, or a dead creature that is not a corpse?

[SirKazum]

Yeah. There's a difference between "the rules do not fill in this blank for you" and "this rule explicitly states things which contradict each other or otherwise render something nonfunctional."

Well yeah, the second case are those worse dysfunctions that go beyond just "poking fun at something that's weird on its face" and into "this plain doesn't work as presented". Some of those cases are relatively easy with a little corrective house-ruling, but some are genuinely baffling. Those ones are, IMO, the cream of the crop of D&D dysfunctions :smallsmile:

[ShurikVch]

Templates Divine Minion (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mb/20050209a) and Incarnate Construct are require "humanoid form", yet it isn't written nowhere in the RAW
For example, is Modron "humanoid-shaped"?
http://utrpg.memethief.com/images/thumb/e/e3/Modron.JPG/300px-Modron.JPG
So what is "humanoid shape"?
"Behold! I've brought you a man." Diogenes of Sinope (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes_of_Sinope)
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-txwe9TC2e3U/UEr5UtgxEYI/AAAAAAAACmE/IS3PXU1VBwg/s1600/tim-flach-more-than-human-animal-portraits-featherless-chicken-breed.jpg
It's even worse with the Proper State spell from Ghostwalk - it forbid "giantlike creature". Quickly, what's the difference between the shapes of Humanoid and Giant?

[Flickerdart]

Templates Divine Minion (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mb/20050209a) and Incarnate Construct are require "humanoid form", yet it isn't written nowhere in the RAW
A couple of other things like Control Body sort of skirt around this - Control Body says "outsiders and undead with human physiology" which is a little bit more specific than "humanoid form" but still up to interpretation.


It's even worse with the Proper State spell from Ghostwalk - it forbid "giantlike creature". Quickly, what's the difference between the shapes of Humanoid and Giant?
*deep breath*
The size of their diiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiii
iiiiiii
mples. What did you think I was going to say? :smallamused:

[Telok]

The effect of a Helm of Opposite Alignment is not [mind-affecting].

[Chronos]

I think it's possible to have a corpse that's not a dead creature: The Clone spell will produce one, if you're still alive when it finishes, and Stone to Flesh cast on a statue will also produce a corpse. An ordinary corpse, though, is just a creature with the "Dead" status condition.

[Curmudgeon]

It's curious that Raises Dead uses the wording "dead creature touched" but Animate Dead is "corpses touched." Is it possible to have a corpse that is not a dead creature, or a dead creature that is not a corpse?
Polymorph Any Object, except when duplicating a spell like Stone to Flesh, has no ability to create life or HD. Consequently any "creature" created by the spell must actually be a corpse.

[Flickerdart]

I think it's possible to have a corpse that's not a dead creature: The Clone spell will produce one, if you're still alive when it finishes, and Stone to Flesh cast on a statue will also produce a corpse. An ordinary corpse, though, is just a creature with the "Dead" status condition.
From a strictly RAW perspective, a Clone is a "body" or "inert flesh" but is never described as a corpse. Stone to Flesh does create a corpse though - but what happens when you cast Animate Dead on it?

[No brains]

From a strictly RAW perspective, a Clone is a "body" or "inert flesh" but is never described as a corpse. Stone to Flesh does create a corpse though - but what happens when you cast Animate Dead on it?

Nothing. A 'rock corpse' doesn't have bones or a "true anatomy" so it is ineligible to become either a zombie or skeleton.

If we're looking for ways to find 'corpses' which aren't 'creatures with the dead condition' can we find any spells or effects that have some mention of 'leaving a corpse' in it's descriptive text? It is still RAW...

[nedz]

The effect of a Helm of Opposite Alignment is not [mind-affecting].

Interesting point, but alignments are more like forces of nature than mental attitude. Alignments are in your soul, not your mind.

It depends upon how you look at it I guess ?

[Taveena]

mm3's trilloch can use its death knell SLA as a "quickened action." no, I don't know what that is either.

I'd like to point out that even if it DOES refer to it getting to use it as a Swift Action through the Quicken SLA feat... it's not at will. Quicken SLA is only usable three times per day. I'm not sure if that counts as a dysfunction, but it's definitely not at will.

Alternatively, it IS at will regardless, and the Quicken Spell-Like Ability feat does nothing?

[Debatra]

Maybe we should just have a "Various" entry for actions that don't exist.

Either way, since the ability's description calls it a quickened action, the fact that it also has Quickened Spell-Like Ability (death knell) becomes a redundancy.

Another for the Trilloch: While it's fairly obvious what was intended, its "Natural Invisibility" Su ability technically doesn't do anything. On an accidentally-unrelated note, it is mentioned elsewhere in the entry that Trillochs are invisible.

They also have Immunity to Magic (with some listed exceptions). It's mentioned that they are treated as undead for the purpose of cure spells, but those allow Spell Resistance and therefore don't affect Trillochs. There's also no mention of inflict spells, so I guess it would be hurt by both if it weren't immune to them.

[Flickerdart]

It's mentioned that they are treated as undead for the purpose of cure spells, but those allow Spell Resistance and therefore don't affect Trillochs.
In the event of (Su) cures?

[Debatra]

I suppose that could happen. Still odd that inflicts weren't mentioned.

The crazy part is that this very creature had some things addressed in the MM3 errata, but these things were left untouched.

[nedz]

Longbow, Composite

You need at least two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size. You can use a composite longbow while mounted. All composite bows are made with a particular strength rating (that is, each requires a minimum Strength modifier to use with proficiency). If your Strength bonus is less than the strength rating of the composite bow, you can’t effectively use it, so you take a -2 penalty on attacks with it. The default composite longbow requires a Strength modifier of +0 or higher to use with proficiency. A composite longbow can be made with a high strength rating to take advantage of an above-average Strength score; this feature allows you to add your Strength bonus to damage, up to the maximum bonus indicated for the bow. Each point of Strength bonus granted by the bow adds 100 gp to its cost.

So, say you have a Composite Longbow rated for a +3 Strength modifier but you only have a +2 Strength modifier: What's your damage bonus ?

+3 because that's the bow's rating
+2 because that's your damage bonus
+0 because you can’t effectively use it

[bekeleven]

You take a -2 on attack rolls since your strength bonus is under the bow's max bonus.

If you hit, add your strength bonus (+2) to damage, up to the bow's maximum bonus. 1D8+2.

Under a particularly tortured reading, you could argue that you get a further -4 to the attack roll due to its use of "Proficiency," but I wouldn't rule it. Either way, it wouldn't affect damage.

[georgie_leech]

So, say you have a Composite Longbow rated for a +3 Strength modifier but you only have a +2 Strength modifier: What's your damage bonus ?

+3 because that's the bow's rating
+2 because that's your damage bonus
+0 because you can’t effectively use it


+2 because you add your Str Mod up to the bow's maximum, and you take a -2 penalty to attack rolls because +2 is less than the bow's maximum of +3.

Edit: dang ninjas, always creeping around when my phone is slow to post.

[Brookshw]

Not sure if this has come up before, but have Aleaxs (Alexi?) been flagged a dysfunction? I was thinking about how their created by a diety with no restrictions noted on their description, but that sounds a lot like Divine Creation, which requires divine rank 16 (and stuff). So they can be made by any god except for the fact they cant?

[nedz]

You take a -2 on attack rolls since your strength bonus is under the bow's max bonus.

If you hit, add your strength bonus (+2) to damage, up to the bow's maximum bonus. 1D8+2.

Well that's how I've always run it, but is that RAW or a house-rule ?

New, possible, dysfunction with Whirlwind attack, from this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?416267-Conrad-and-Lily-have-a-question) thread.

[Debatra]

New, possible, dysfunction with Whirlwind attack, from this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?416267-Conrad-and-Lily-have-a-question) thread.

Ouch. That's a bad one. No extra attack from Haste makes sense, but you also lose the +1 to your attack rolls. No GMW, no Weapon Focus line, no Rage...

Well, at least a magical weapon still functions. Still bad though.

[illyahr]

Well that's how I've always run it, but is that RAW or a house-rule ?

New, possible, dysfunction with Whirlwind attack, from this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?416267-Conrad-and-Lily-have-a-question) thread.

Oh, Lord. Like Whirlwind Attack needed anything else to make it terrible, now it doesn't even allow you to make it more useful.

[SirKazum]

Oh, Lord. Like Whirlwind Attack needed anything else to make it terrible, now it doesn't even allow you to make it more useful.

Looks to me like what they mean is something along the lines of:


Benefit
You gain the ability to execute a Whirlwind Attack as a full-round action. A Whirlwind Attack consists of one melee attack at your full base attack bonus against each opponent within reach.

That's it. Simple and easy. I could add another paragraph to clarify, although I don't think it's strictly necessary:


No attacks other than those specified in the paragraph above may be made as a result of the Whirlwind Attack action, regardless of feats, spells, or abilities.

Not sure if attacks done outside one's full-attack action (such as AoO) were meant to be negated by Whirlwind Attack; I could see it going either way. If that's the case, that should've been specified as well.

And yeah, doesn't seem like they ever intended to negate bonuses to attacks - just "bonus attacks" (as well as extra attacks), regardless of whether or not those are a real thing. It's just poorly worded throughout.

[Jormengand]

Anyhow, if you were going to lose both the bonus and the extra attack it would probably say "Any bonuses or extra attacks" or "Any bonus or extra attack". As in, "Any of those things which are bonuses or extra attacks", or "Anything such that it is a bonus or extra attack". The way that it's meant to be parsed is obvious.

[Zaq]

Anyhow, if you were going to lose both the bonus and the extra attack it would probably say "Any bonuses or extra attacks" or "Any bonus or extra attack". As in, "Any of those things which are bonuses or extra attacks", or "Anything such that it is a bonus or extra attack". The way that it's meant to be parsed is obvious.

The way that the majority of these dysfunctions are meant to be parsed is also obvious, up to and including the whole Sequester brouhaha. That doesn't stop them from being dysfunctional, and the same is true for Whirlwind Attack here.

[Jormengand]

The way that the majority of these dysfunctions are meant to be parsed is also obvious, up to and including the whole Sequester brouhaha. That doesn't stop them from being dysfunctional, and the same is true for Whirlwind Attack here.

But you can't - contrary to far-too-popular belief - parse the "Whole Sequester brouhaha" in a way that makes sense, but you can - and automatically would, naturally - parse whirlwind attack so it makes sense.

[Andezzar]

And yeah, doesn't seem like they ever intended to negate bonuses to attacks - just "bonus attacks" (as well as extra attacks), regardless of whether or not those are a real thing. It's just poorly worded throughout.AFAIK there are no bonus attacks anywhere in the books and there shouldn't be any according to the definition of bonus (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_bonus&alpha=B). An attack is not a die roll, it is an action. So you cannot add a positive number to it. It's very similar to the Leaping Dragon Stance dysfunction.
So from context, the bonus must be separate and not attached to attacks, making Whirlwind attack pretty useless

[Jormengand]

according to the definition of bonus (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_bonus&alpha=B)

The fighter would like a word with you. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/fighter.htm#bonusFeats)

[Necroticplague]

The fighter would like a word with you. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/fighter.htm#bonusFeats)

A "Bonus feat" is an object entirely distinct from using the word "bonus" as a modifier.

[Jormengand]

A "Bonus feat" is an object entirely distinct from using the word "bonus" as a modifier.

Why, then, can a bonus attack not be?

[Andezzar]

Because Bonus Feat is defined whereas bonus attack is not. Adding a positive number to an attack (not the attack roll) as per the definition of bonus makes no sense.

[illyahr]

But you can't - contrary to far-too-popular belief - parse the "Whole Sequester brouhaha" in a way that makes sense, but you can - and automatically would, naturally - parse whirlwind attack so it makes sense.

The point is: the fact that you have to basically translate the wording into something that makes sense means you are trying to figure out RAI from RAW. If RAW and RAI don't already match up, we have evidence of a dysfunction. Sure, obvious ruling is obvious but the fact that you need to connect the dots is what puts it in this thread.

[Jormengand]

The point is: the fact that you have to basically translate the wording

No you don't - you literally just have to read it the way it's literally written on the page.

[illyahr]

But you can't - contrary to far-too-popular belief - parse the "Whole Sequester brouhaha" in a way that makes sense, but you can - and automatically would, naturally - parse whirlwind attack so it makes sense.


Parse:
grammar : to divide (a sentence) into grammatical parts and identify the parts and their relations to each other

: to study (something) by looking at its parts closely

If you have to study the sentance to find its meaning, it's not intuitive. If it isn't intuitive, someone will get it wrong.

[Jormengand]

If you have to study the sentance to find its meaning, it's not intuitive. If it isn't intuitive, someone will get it wrong.

Technically, you have to study any sentence to find its meaning. So what?

[illyahr]

Technically, you have to study any sentence to find its meaning. So what?

Unless it is broken down Barney-style, someone isn't going to understand what they intended. When they can't convey what they intended, dysfunctions occur.

Hell, we are two reasonably-intelligent individuals and even we don't understand each other without a lot of back-and-forth. :smallbiggrin:

[Jormengand]

Unless it is broken down Barney-style, someone isn't going to understand what they intended. When they can't convey what they intended, dysfunctions occur.

Really? Because I understood it on the first reading. It's not that complicated, is it?

[illyahr]

Really? Because I understood it on the first reading. It's not that complicated, is it?

Did I say you didn't understand it? All I said that someone was going to misunderstand. In order to avoid as many as possible, the writers need to be perfectly clear. They are not.

Just because we understand what the writers intended to say most of the time doesn't mean the sentance structure isn't set up very poorly or that something in the phrasing was used incorrectly.

[Troacctid]

Yeah, I understood it too. Maybe you just have poor reading comprehension.

Awkward grammar ≠ dysfunction.

[illyahr]

Yeah, I understood it too. Maybe you just have poor reading comprehension.

Awkward grammar ≠ dysfunction.

First off: I resent that implication.

Second off: I know awkward grammar =/= dysfunction. That's not what I'm saying and hasn't been what I've been saying.

What I'm saying is this:

if [awkward grammar].possible meanings > 1
then possibility of dysfunction > 0

[No brains]

While reading on the animate dead dysfunction, I recalled reading once about some amorphous creature that had bones in it and had "a rudimentary skeletal system". I thought it was the bone ooze from MM2, but that wasn't the case. The reason I bring this up is that this ooze with bones can be turned into a skeleton by the spell and the template. It has "a skeletal... system" by the template and it merely "has bones" by the spell.

Actually the spell's wording could make it so that any corpse that by any loose definition "has bones" can be raised as a skeleton. It could have a foreign bone jammed into it, or it could even have a bone drawn on it.:smalltongue:

[The Viscount]

Cure Minor Wounds has a will save for half.....of 1. Which is 0, so it's actually will negates. Too much copy/paste there.

[Flickerdart]

Cure Minor Wounds has a will save for half.....of 1. Which is 0, so it's actually will negates. Too much copy/paste there.
A Cleric 1/Warmage 1 with 12 Intelligence would deal 2 damage with CMW (cast on undead) because of Warmage Edge, which would be reduced to 1 on a successful save.

[Jormengand]

A Cleric 1/Warmage 1 with 12 Intelligence would deal 2 damage with CMW (cast on undead) because of Warmage Edge, which would be reduced to 1 on a successful save.

Plus, if you can find a creature that isn't undead (or a construct) and is hurt by Positive Energy (pretty sure it's possible - any ideas?), if you have mortalbane and some way of getting CMW as a SLA, you can mortalbane CMW it in the face.

Which is probably the best you're going to get out of your mortalbane CMWs.

[The Random NPC]

Cure Minor Wounds has a will save for half.....of 1. Which is 0, so it's actually will negates. Too much copy/paste there.


A Cleric 1/Warmage 1 with 12 Intelligence would deal 2 damage with CMW (cast on undead) because of Warmage Edge, which would be reduced to 1 on a successful save.

Besides which, you can't do less than 1 for damage. It's one of the few places you round up.

[Curmudgeon]

Besides which, you can't do less than 1 for damage. It's one of the few places you round up.
No, you still round down. There's just a minimum damage amount after you round down.

[Story]

Wouldn't Knowledge Devotion add damage to CMW? It is a touch attack after all.

[Curmudgeon]

Wouldn't Knowledge Devotion add damage to CMW? It is a touch attack after all.
Certainly. The Knowledge check you're required to make will likely tell you the target is an Undead, and thus Cure Minor Wounds will be an attack spell rather than a Harmless willing target touch spell. If you hit with a weaponlike spell then you add your Knowledge Devotion bonus.

[The Viscount]

A Cleric 1/Warmage 1 with 12 Intelligence would deal 2 damage with CMW (cast on undead) because of Warmage Edge, which would be reduced to 1 on a successful save.

This particular instance doesn't work, Warmage Edge applies only to spells cast as a Warmage. I suppose a rainbow servant could theoretically pull this off, so point stands.

[Bucky]

(Pf) The Shadow Veil arcane exploit lasts for "a number of rounds equal to 1 + the arcanist's Charisma bonus."

Presumably they meant Charisma modifier, but that's not what it says. And it's unclear what happens when the arcanist has several bonuses to their Charisma.

[Curmudgeon]

(Pf) The Shadow Veil arcane exploit lasts for "a number of rounds equal to 1 + the arcanist's Charisma bonus."

Presumably they meant Charisma modifier, but that's not what it says. And it's unclear what happens when the arcanist has several bonuses to their Charisma.
Charisma bonus is a positive Charisma modifier, not any specific bonus to Charisma.

[Debatra]

The Darkstalker feat includes the line "You cannot hide in plain sight unless you have that ability as a class feature."

So I guess people with the Dark template and Collars of Umbral Metamorphosis are screwed.

[Andezzar]

That is unfortunate but not dysfunctional. Users without HiPS as a class feature can still use normal hiding against creatures with the special senses.

[SirKazum]

Can you gain HiPS from sources other than classes, though? I don't know those things Debatra is talking about, but I'd guess that's the problem. That Darkstalker only allows you to HiPS if it's a class that grants you that ability.

[Andezzar]

Debatra already mentioned two options. The Dark Creature Template and the Collar of Umbral Metamorphosis, an item that temporarily grants the aforementioned template. Both can be found in Tome of Magic, and a better version of the Template can be found in Cormyr: Tearing of the Weave.

[Chronos]

...and a better version of the Template can be found in Cormyr: Tearing of the Weave.
Sigh. It's better in some ways, and worse in others. Yes, it's better in that it removes the need for concealment, but it's also worse in that it's (su) instead of (ex). And no, that's not the same distinction: There are (ex) versions of HiPS that also remove the need for concealment. In fact, the ToM Dark template is the only version of HiPS that has that problem.

[Andezzar]

There are (ex) versions of HiPS that also remove the need for concealment.Which are those?

In fact, the ToM Dark template is the only version of HiPS that has that problem.Not quite, Ranger HiPS for instance also does not obviate the need for concealment, although that usually is not a problem because another class feature provides concealment.

[ShurikVch]

Which are those?6th level of Eye of Lolth PrC (Drow of the Underdark), or Shadow Cloak Knight 6th substitution level (Champions Of Valor WE)

[Andezzar]

None of those explicitly waive the need for concealment. The substitution level directly and the PrC indirectly references not needing something to hide behind, but if you have something to hide behind , wouldn't you have total concealment and thus obviate hiding in the first place? something that only partially blocks LoS would not count as a hiding place, would it?

[Chronos]

Which are those?
Behold the Brownie (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/al/20041006a).

And it's not a problem for rangers, because you can't get ranger HiPS without first getting Camouflage.

[Debatra]

Actually, I'm pretty sure that would make HiPS a dysfunction itself. Just being observed isn't normally a huge problem, as the Hide skill explicitly says "You can run around a corner or behind cover so that you’re out of sight and then hide, but the others then know at least where you went". If you still need to hide behind something, those versions of HiPS effectively do nothing.

[ShurikVch]

And it's not a problem for rangers, because you can't get ranger HiPS without first getting Camouflage.For Rangers - yes.
But for the Ebonmar Infiltrator, Justice of Weald and Woe, Luiren Marchwarden, Scar Enforcer, and Shadowspy PrCs, who all gain Ranger's HiPS without gaining Ranger's Camouflage (and without the levels in Ranger as prerequisite) it may be a problem

[Andezzar]

Behold the Brownie (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/al/20041006a).As the two ShurikVch listed, Brownie HiPS does not explicitly waive the need for concealment. It merley states that the brownie can hide without having something to hide behind, whatever that means.

[Debatra]

Huh. It also says "This ability does not stack with the hide in plain sight class feature".

...How exactly would they stack?

[SirKazum]

Huh. It also says "This ability does not stack with the hide in plain sight class feature".

...How exactly would they stack?

Yo dawg, I heard you like hiding, so I let you hide while you hide...?

[Forrestfire]

An artificer or other crafter can craft magic items in a dead magic zone or anti-magic field. For an artificer, Item Creation is an Extraordinary ability, and while he emulates prerequisites, he does not cast any spells. For a normal caster, they don't cast spells either, it merely "triggers the prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each day of the item’s creation." (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm)

So take note, future supervillains. When you put a genius wizard in a cave (WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS), make sure to put it in a dead magic zone. That way, he can craft, but nothing he makes will actually work until you pull it out of the area.

[Flickerdart]

Why is that a dysfunction?