PDA

View Full Version : Stupid things found in the core books



Pages : [1] 2

knightsaline
2007-05-05, 04:38 AM
Ever find something really stupid in the core books that makes no sense whatsoever? I didn't find this one but...

barbarians and rage
according to my downloaded copy of the SRD, barbarians can
"use any feat he has except Combat Expertise, item creation feats, and metamagic feats"

why would a barbarian try and create items while raging? rages don't last that long. assuming a 20th level barb, a barbarian does not learn how to create items anyway. he may have craft as a class skill, but who in the nine hells or the infinite layers of the abyss ever sink precious skill ranks into Craft on their barbarian. my barbarians sink ranks into survival and jump. unless the barbarians try to sink ranks into Craft (scars), I don't think anyone is going to bother to sink ranks into craft.

post the stupidest things you have found in any SRD books

Quietus
2007-05-05, 05:03 AM
Well, to be fair, this prevents them from raging then using the Craft skill to produce infinite quarterstaves, which they could then lob with their high strength score.

Pauwel
2007-05-05, 05:06 AM
Which is another silly thing in and of itself.
The "Hugging your friends makes you go faster"-loophole is another thing I thought was really stupid.

Ivius
2007-05-05, 05:08 AM
Anyone see the "Variant: No variant sidebars" sidebar in the DMG? I really hope that was a joke.

knightsaline
2007-05-05, 05:11 AM
what about the ever popular quarterstaff railgun! just get 196 million commoners to ready an action to hand a quarterstaff to the next person in the line.

Attilargh
2007-05-05, 05:20 AM
Diplomacy. Using only the Core rules, one can build a 4th-level character who can talk anyone into being his friend in a minute.

Ooh, the 5-foot metal coffin bomb! Get a metal box with a 5-by-5 feet square floor. Then get N people, and have all of them grapple each other inside the box. Seal the box, go somewhere safe, and tell the people to stop grappling.

The osmium - anti-osmium bomb! All you need is Major Creation, Eschew Materials and some knowledge of natural sciences, and you can blow up Earth!

The mount-unmount method of traveling around the world: To perform this trick, you need a few ranks in Ride. Use Ride to mount a horse as a free action. Use Ride to unmount the horse as a free action, but go to the other side of the animal. Mount the next horse. Et cetera ad nauseam (or at least until you run out of horses).

Caelestion
2007-05-05, 07:15 AM
That mount-unmount thing is beyond ridiculous. Can you seriously expect people to legislate for player idiocy of that calibre?

Eldmor
2007-05-05, 08:24 AM
The Samurai base class from Complete Warrior. I think that validates as stupid.

knightsaline
2007-05-05, 08:29 AM
I agree with you about the CWar samurai. i mean the ability to fart a MW katana and MW short sword at 1st level is just wrong.

The Glyphstone
2007-05-05, 08:35 AM
But CWar isn't core...:smile:

The White Knight
2007-05-05, 09:14 AM
barbarians and rage
according to my downloaded copy of the SRD, barbarians cannot
"use any feat he has except Combat Expertise, item creation feats, and metamagic feats"

why would a barbarian try and create items while raging? rages don't last that long. assuming a 20th level barb, a barbarian does not learn how to create items anyway. he may have craft as a class skill, but who in the nine hells or the infinite layers of the abyss ever sink precious skill ranks into Craft on their barbarian. my barbarians sink ranks into survival and jump. unless the barbarians try to sink ranks into Craft (scars), I don't think anyone is going to bother to sink ranks into craft.

Actually, if you check that again carefully (unless it's a really terrible copy of the SRD), it reads "can use any feat he has except Combat Expertise, ...etc." Or so sayeth my PHB, which trumps any SRD.

EDIT: Nevermind, I now get the impression you knew this already and just misworded your OP. I appear to have misunderstood your initial point, being that specifying the Item Creation feats as an [unlikely] exception is absurd, since they are so very unlikely to be used under such circumstances. Or have I?

brian c
2007-05-05, 12:42 PM
Actually, if you check that again carefully (unless it's a really terrible copy of the SRD), it reads "can use any feat he has except Combat Expertise, ...etc." Or so sayeth my PHB, which trumps any SRD.

EDIT: Nevermind, I now get the impression you knew this already and just misworded your OP. I appear to have misunderstood your initial point, being that specifying the Item Creation feats as an [unlikely] exception is absurd, since they are so very unlikely to be used under such circumstances. Or have I?

Yeah, I think the OP was a misquote and no one else even noticed it. The point is that it's absurd to ban Item Creation during a rage, because honestly
1) It generally takes much longer than the rage duration to craft something
2) How many Barbarians take Item Creation feats anyway?
3) Rage wouldn't help you at all (craft is an Int-based skill)

thorgrim29
2007-05-05, 02:45 PM
Well, pegasi lay eggs, diplomacy is ridiculous, setting someone on fire is basically harmless after a few levels, why so many oozes?, when you prc a wizard or sorceror your familiar does'nt get better, the time it takes to forge an adamantine full plate, a lot of things actually.

Morty
2007-05-05, 02:56 PM
when you prc a wizard or sorceror your familiar does'nt get better

Why should it? Former class' features don't improve when you go into PrC.

Jasdoif
2007-05-05, 02:56 PM
Darkness (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/darkness.htm) doesn't actually create darkness. It creates shadowy illumination (and prevents brightening the area further). So you could literally cast Darkness in the middle of darkness and end up with more lighting.

Talk about a misnamed spell....


why would a barbarian try and create items while raging? rages don't last that long. assuming a 20th level barb, a barbarian does not learn how to create items anyway. he may have craft as a class skill, but who in the nine hells or the infinite layers of the abyss ever sink precious skill ranks into Craft on their barbarian. my barbarians sink ranks into survival and jump. unless the barbarians try to sink ranks into Craft (scars), I don't think anyone is going to bother to sink ranks into craft.I do have a theory for this one. The spell rage (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/rage.htm) behaves like a barbarian's range, and can last a bit longer then the caster concentrates.

I can see a scenario where one caster cast rage on another, then proceeds to concentrate for days while the other caster works on a magic item, taking advantage of the increased Con and hit points when the inevitable assassination happens.

And then the designers add a clause about "can't use item creation feats" to the barbarian's rage.

mikeejimbo
2007-05-05, 03:03 PM
I thought you couldn't cast spells while raging, so why ban metamagic feats?

Threeshades
2007-05-05, 03:22 PM
The mount-unmount method of traveling around the world: To perform this trick, you need a few ranks in Ride. Use Ride to mount a horse as a free action. Use Ride to unmount the horse as a free action, but go to the other side of the animal. Mount the next horse. Et cetera ad nauseam (or at least until you run out of horses).

I can already see the future of all D&D worlds: instead of roads there will be long rows of horses between the cities and messengers will be heavily trained in riding so they can travel halfway across a continent within 6 secons.

Same for the quarterstaff railgun. rows of millions of commoners next to the horserows to directly send small items from one town to the other.

brian c
2007-05-05, 03:25 PM
I thought you couldn't cast spells while raging, so why ban metamagic feats?

Because if they didn't, them some munchkin would say

"hey, it doesn't say I can't use meta-magic feats, and since you need to be casting a spell to be using meta-magic feats, that means that I can cast spells while raging, but only if I use a meta-magic feat with them!"

though what that would accomplish, I don't know.

Inyssius Tor
2007-05-05, 03:25 PM
One thing I think is really stupid? An empty 1-pint flask weighs 1.5 pounds, but a flask that contains a pint of oil weighs 1 pound.

EDIT: Hey, it gets more useful with feats like Energy Substitution, which doesn't raise spell levels.

Draz74
2007-05-05, 03:49 PM
The way Monks technically aren't proficient in Unarmed Strikes.

Ikkitosen
2007-05-05, 03:54 PM
The way Monks technically aren't proficient in Unarmed Strikes.

I thought creatures were always proficient with their own unarmed strikes..?

Threeshades
2007-05-05, 03:56 PM
I thought creatures were always proficient with their own unarmed strikes..?

i thought so too. otherwise NO ONE is proficient with unarmed strikes or any natural weapons

Draz74
2007-05-05, 03:58 PM
I thought creatures were always proficient with their own unarmed strikes..?

Nope. Most creatures are proficient with their Natural Weapons (and therefore Unarmed Strikes, if they are monks and therefore their unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon in some ways), as a function of their Type. But Humanoids are the exception.

The only creatures proficient in their own unarmed strikes are those whose classes say they are proficient in all simple weapons.

OttotheBugbear
2007-05-05, 04:21 PM
Buy an iron pot, melt it down, sell the iron for profit.

But a 10' ladder, break it into two 10' poles, sell them for profit.

No creature ever survives winter in D&D, they all die of exposure due to the way damage is dealt.

Corolinth
2007-05-05, 04:29 PM
The rules are written with the assumption that your DM is a person, not a computer, and will go upside your head for trying something stupid.

Item creation and metamagic feats are written into the rage description because you might have multiclassed.

brian c
2007-05-05, 04:46 PM
Buy an iron pot, melt it down, sell the iron for profit.

But a 10' ladder, break it into two 10' poles, sell them for profit.

No creature ever survives winter in D&D, they all die of exposure due to the way damage is dealt.


The rules are written with the assumption that your DM is a person, not a computer, and will go upside your head for trying something stupid.

Exactly. Any DM that lets you pull off the ladder = two 10-ft poles trick needs to read rule 0, and get some brains.


Item creation and metamagic feats are written into the rage description because you might have multiclassed.

Yes, but the point is that item creation feats are mentioned, even though there's really no reason that you would craft an item while enraged (crunch-wise).

As I said before,


1) It generally takes much longer than the rage duration to craft something
2) How many Barbarians take Item Creation feats anyway?
3) Rage wouldn't help you at all (craft is an Int-based skill)

Ikkitosen
2007-05-05, 04:50 PM
Nope. Most creatures are proficient with their Natural Weapons (and therefore Unarmed Strikes, if they are monks and therefore their unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon in some ways), as a function of their Type. But Humanoids are the exception.

The only creatures proficient in their own unarmed strikes are those whose classes say they are proficient in all simple weapons.

In fact yes, and only humanoids with classes aren't proficient - humanoids without classes are proficient in simple weapons. Silly.

Caelestion
2007-05-05, 04:54 PM
The so-called fact that monks supposedly aren't proficient with the unarmed strike is a complete load of bilgewater. While there isn't much that can match up to the infinite-horses/travel-around-the-world-as-a-free-action rubbish, this one is pretty close.

martyboy74
2007-05-05, 04:56 PM
Humans are not humanoids. In fact, they don't even have a type. Therefore, they do not need to eat, sleep, or drink, and are also immune to effects that only target certain types.

Thank you fictional powergaming webcomic characters!

Caelestion
2007-05-05, 05:00 PM
What? They're Humanoid (Human).

martyboy74
2007-05-05, 05:02 PM
What? They're Humanoid (Human).

Where does it say that? I could easily be wrong, but I would like proof. I have looked in my copy of the PHB and MM.

Also, humans techincally shouldn't be humanoids. The very nature of the term implies that it shouldn't apply to humans.

Collin152
2007-05-05, 05:07 PM
Look under the ranger's favored enemies list.

Ikkitosen
2007-05-05, 05:09 PM
If nowhere else, they're listed as such under the Ranger's Favoured Enemy ability.

goat
2007-05-05, 05:24 PM
I always like to think that perhaps the 10' pole is made of a better quality of wood than the ladder. Something lighter but stronger perhaps.

I like the fact that quarterstaves are free, but firewood isn't.

martyboy74
2007-05-05, 05:27 PM
I always like to think that perhaps the 10' pole is made of a better quality of wood than the ladder. Something lighter but stronger perhaps.

I like the fact that quarterstaves are free, but firewood isn't.

Presumably firewood comes with tinder and kindling, which is actually a good deal harder to get than logs.

Just asking, but is there a monster entry for humans?

Threeshades
2007-05-05, 05:31 PM
Presumably firewood comes with tinder and kindling, which is actually a good deal harder to get than logs.

Just asking, but is there a monster entry for humans?

no, but i can make one for you if you want to

brian c
2007-05-05, 05:54 PM
I always like to think that perhaps the 10' pole is made of a better quality of wood than the ladder. Something lighter but stronger perhaps.

I like the fact that quarterstaves are free, but firewood isn't.

I'd like to think that 10-ft poles don't have holes in them for rungs...

goat
2007-05-05, 06:03 PM
Just asking, but is there a monster entry for humans?

You know, I can't remember seeing one, and that's annoying me the more I think about it.

There are entries for elves, dwarves etc in the MM, but none for humans. I could understand this more if they hadn't given fluff in the PHB. It describes humans as being the descendants of pioneers, travelers and "people on the move", suggesting a lack of established human cities. But it also talks about them being fairly common.

I'd have thought that the sheer ubiquitousness of humans should get them a MM entry, even if it just provides an example character and some guff about their major sociological and warfare characteristics in the D&D world. Some indication of which habitats the humans are normally found in (i.e. the ones they're capable of defending from the normal inhabitants) could be nice, as would information about sub-race relations, seeing how they all seem to be human related...

As a relatively common foe, you'd think they'd give SOMETHING.


I'd like to think that 10-ft poles don't have holes in them for rungs...

Ah, but that implies a larger amount of working, suggesting that ladders should be even more expensive. Really, I just prefer the "No, they're priced the wrong way round" option.

Caelestion
2007-05-05, 06:10 PM
Humans had an entry in the 2nd Edition MM, but it was so basic and generic, I quite understand why it got cut in the 3E transition.

Websters says that "humanoid" means to have human characteristics. I'm not even going to waste my time looking at my complete OED...

Dark
2007-05-05, 08:16 PM
The osmium - anti-osmium bomb! All you need is Major Creation, Eschew Materials and some knowledge of natural sciences, and you can blow up Earth!
That doesn't work. Major Creation lets you create any kind of matter. Anti-osmium is anti-matter :)

Leon
2007-05-05, 08:26 PM
Anyone see the "Variant: No variant sidebars" sidebar in the DMG? I really hope that was a joke.

Given that its at the start of the Variant section, i understand it fully

Ninja Chocobo
2007-05-05, 08:35 PM
I thought you couldn't cast spells while raging, so why ban metamagic feats?
Rage Mage, from CWar or CAdv. Probably CWar.

Gralamin
2007-05-05, 08:37 PM
That doesn't work. Major Creation lets you create any kind of matter. Anti-osmium is anti-matter :)

Anti-matter is a form of matter.

My Favourite? Where does it say that medium sized Humans have medium sized unarmed strikes?
Following this train of logic, you get a huge Fist of death, with a -X to attack.
You then start pounding the grounds, missing frequently, until you get a 20, and destroy the world,

Roderick_BR
2007-05-05, 09:15 PM
Anti-matter is a form of matter.

My Favourite? Where does it say that medium sized Humans have medium sized unarmed strikes?
Following this train of logic, you get a huge Fist of death, with a -X to attack.
You then start pounding the grounds, missing frequently, until you get a 20, and destroy the world,
Oddly enough, in the weapon's list in the PHB. It's listed as Single - Unarmed, along the gauntlet.

And yes, everyone is supposed to be proficient with unarmed strike. Read the way Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization, and Improved Critical comments that unarmed strikes and grapples can be select as valid weapons. The old Weapon Master from Sword & Fists (3.0) says that a character can pick unarmed strike as his weapon of choice for the class's special abilities.

brian c
2007-05-05, 09:32 PM
Anti-matter is a form of matter.

Um..... that's a rather liberal interpretation of the rules. However, I don't see what the magical engeries harnessed by Major Creation have to do with the difference between matter and anti-matter, so it seems reasonable to allow it to create anti-matter, though this is contrary to the RAW and will succeed only in the mass murder of catgirls.

Mewtarthio
2007-05-05, 10:14 PM
What is this "antimatter" of which you speak? Is it another one of those ridiculous "physics" things? Why, just last week I heard some madman ranting about how there are over a hundred elements! Imagine that! You need only cast a few Plane Shift spells to travel to the Elemental Planes and see how patently false that is! Next you'll be talking about that "chemistry" thing that's supposed to supplant alchemy! I'd like to see a chemist duplicate a Potion of Cure Light Wounds!

Dhavaer
2007-05-05, 10:21 PM
I'd like to see a chemist duplicate a Potion of Cure Light Wounds!

Alchemists can't either.

OttotheBugbear
2007-05-05, 10:24 PM
Exactly. Any DM that lets you pull off the ladder = two 10-ft poles trick needs to read rule 0, and get some brains.

Nobody said otherwise from this account. The thread is asking for stupid things in the rules. Those things I listed qualify.

Or are you trying to argue that it's not a stupid part of the rules?
One that doesn't require DM interpretation?

Gralamin
2007-05-05, 10:55 PM
Um..... that's a rather liberal interpretation of the rules. However, I don't see what the magical engeries harnessed by Major Creation have to do with the difference between matter and anti-matter, so it seems reasonable to allow it to create anti-matter, though this is contrary to the RAW and will succeed only in the mass murder of catgirls.

No, no it isn't.
Anti-Matter and matter have a mere two differences (That I know of, I don't understand Quarks): Positrons vs Electrons and Antiprotons vs Protons.
The difference between these two things? + and -. That is why it cancels normal matter. It is a Type of Matter, with a different charge.

edit: Killing Catgirls is a way of life

Fax Celestis
2007-05-05, 11:04 PM
How about the fact that Deja Vu appears in the list of psionic powers twice?

Or the fact that Thri-Kreen get Psionic Displacement as a PSA, but it's not in the book?

brian c
2007-05-05, 11:14 PM
Nobody said otherwise from this account. The thread is asking for stupid things in the rules. Those things I listed qualify.

Or are you trying to argue that it's not a stupid part of the rules?
One that doesn't require DM interpretation?

Well, technically the rules don't say that a 10-foot ladder is = a pair 10-foot poles with connecting rungs. So no, I don't think that it's a part of the rules, stupid or otherwise. It's more of a stupid (albeit creative) interpretation of the rules that the DM needs to shoot down.

Inyssius Tor
2007-05-05, 11:42 PM
Oh, hey, a pair of ten-foot poles with connecting rungs. (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ph35_gallery/PHB35_PG130_WEB.jpg)

brian c
2007-05-05, 11:46 PM
Oh, hey, a pair of ten-foot poles with connecting rungs. (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ph35_gallery/PHB35_PG130_WEB.jpg)

The pole is rounded, the ladder is square. Besides, the pictures are just for flavor. RAW stands for rules as written, not RAD for rules as drawn.

Inyssius Tor
2007-05-05, 11:48 PM
Good point; the pictures are hardly RAW, and the pole does appear to be of a higher quality than the ladder.

BardicDuelist
2007-05-05, 11:49 PM
Ever find something really stupid in the core books that makes no sense whatsoever? I didn't find this one but...

barbarians and rage
according to my downloaded copy of the SRD, barbarians cannot
"use any feat he has except Combat Expertise, item creation feats, and metamagic feats"


According to the PHB, it is can use any feat, except CEx, item creation, and metamagic feats.

Your SRD must have typo.

Skjaldbakka
2007-05-05, 11:57 PM
How about the fact that Deja Vu appears in the list of psionic powers twice?

I like to think of that one as a joke by the writers, but maybe thats just me.

BardicDuelist
2007-05-06, 12:10 AM
On the WOTC site, the had an article about humor in books, and said that while it was common in past editions, they severely cut it so that the game didn't become too silly by defalt. They said that their jokes were now subtle like the strange numbering of tables (see the DMG on personality traits for NPCs). The Deja Vu thing, and a few others were later admitted to be part of this.

brian c
2007-05-06, 12:12 AM
According to the PHB, it is can use any feat, except CEx, item creation, and metamagic feats.

Your SRD must have typo.

Um... I'm not sure what your point was, but my 3.5 PHB does indeed have the word "feats" directly after the words "item creation" in the passage about Barbarians raging, so maybe your PHB has a typo, or maybe you're using 3.0 and they changed it, I dunno.



I like to think of that one as a joke by the writers, but maybe thats just me.

Yeah, probably is.

BardicDuelist
2007-05-06, 12:15 AM
[QUOTE=brian c;2542241]Um... I'm not sure what your point was, but my 3.5 PHB does indeed have the word "feats" directly after the words "item creation" in the passage about Barbarians raging, so maybe your PHB has a typo, or maybe you're using 3.0 and they changed it, I dunno.
QUOTE]

I was paraphrasing. The OP said that they COULDN'T use any feats except (list). I was saying that it should be that they COULD use any feats except (list).

Mewtarthio
2007-05-06, 12:32 AM
No, no it isn't.
Anti-Matter and matter have a mere two differences (That I know of, I don't understand Quarks): Positrons vs Electrons and Antiprotons vs Protons.
The difference between these two things? + and -. That is why it cancels normal matter. It is a Type of Matter, with a different charge.

edit: Killing Catgirls is a way of life

I reiterate: Since when does antimatter exist in DnD? You might as well conjure up a critical mass of plutonium or work out a gold-to-USD conversion ratio to build a B-52 with True Creation.

mikeejimbo
2007-05-06, 12:54 AM
I reiterate: Since when does antimatter exist in DnD? You might as well conjure up a critical mass of plutonium or work out a gold-to-USD conversion ratio to build a B-52 with True Creation.

Well, to be fair, the DMG does provide stats for guns, even some modern ones, I believe, and even futuristic alien technology. It's not inconceivable that it would be allowed given the right campaign, but the summoning of antimatter should be the last thing that that wizard ever does.

brian c
2007-05-06, 01:32 AM
I was paraphrasing. The OP said that they COULDN'T use any feats except (list). I was saying that it should be that they COULD use any feats except (list).

Oh, okay. I think that was pointed out earlier, just a typo on the OP's part anyway.

Mewtarthio
2007-05-06, 01:33 AM
Well, to be fair, the DMG does provide stats for guns, even some modern ones, I believe, and even futuristic alien technology. It's not inconceivable that it would be allowed given the right campaign, but the summoning of antimatter should be the last thing that that wizard ever does.

Unless, of course, he does it during a Time Stop and then used Plane Shift or Gate to escape.

...Stupid Wizard. I bet he used a Rod of Maximize and cast Celerity along with Foresight right before he destroyed the world.

FdL
2007-05-06, 01:37 AM
Wow. This has gone from "stupid things in the core books" to a listing of mostly far fetched loopholes, cheats and rule abuses in record time. Way to go! Especially considering that it's precisely the reason the sometimes absurd explicit statements are included in the rules.

JaronK
2007-05-06, 04:23 AM
No no, there's some good ones. Monks not being proficient with unarmed strikes is a favorite of mine... and yes, it's true. Most types of creatures are automatically proficient, but humanoids are proficient with all simple weapons (including unarmed strikes), unless they have class levels. Humanoids with class levels do not get the free simple weapon proficiency, and instead get the proficiencies of their class. Monks do not get simple weapon proficiency or proficiency with unarmed strikes specifically, and no, Improved Unarmed Strike doesn't give you proficiency either.

It's a silly oversight, and no one in their right mind would play that way, but it's pretty damned hilarious.

I do have to wonder if the Barbarian thing and the sidebar about not using sidebars are intentional jokes, though.

JaronK

Dhavaer
2007-05-06, 04:46 AM
I do have to wonder if the Barbarian thing and the sidebar about not using sidebars are intentional jokes, though.

The 'no variant sidebars' sidebar is actually reasonable, given that the rest of the book was full of them, and the chapter it was in was basically all variants.

Turcano
2007-05-06, 04:47 AM
That doesn't work. Major Creation lets you create any kind of matter. Anti-osmium is anti-matter :)

Although you could research major anti-creation; that would give you what you want.

65 posts and no one's mentioned the drowning rules yet? For shame, people.

Swooper
2007-05-06, 05:52 AM
Halflings wearing shoes, now that's a stupid thing in the core.

Also, I find gnomes with a racial con bonus bloody stupid.

Attilargh
2007-05-06, 06:40 AM
65 posts and no one's mentioned the drowning rules yet? For shame, people.
Heckdarnit, those are one of my favorites.

To summarise, once you begin drowning, your hit points fall to 0 and you start dying on the next round. There is no way of stopping this. Also, drowning actually cures you from negative hit points, if only for a while.

Dark
2007-05-06, 06:49 AM
Anti-matter is a form of matter.
Not in common usage. In fact, if you do a web search for "matter antimatter", most articles you'll find will contrast them, as in "matter-antimatter annihilation" or "when matter meets antimatter". Add NASA to the search string to see scientists and engineers use it that way.

By contrast, I couldn't find any article that described antimatter as a form of matter. Except yours, of course :)

ThunderEagle
2007-05-06, 06:55 AM
If you get a standard strand of prayer beads with just a bead of healing, you make 11000 gp. You can also get beads of karma for if you just get them alone from a standard strand of prayer beads.

Only just found this one, while making a character for a friend. the relevant rules can be found in this link: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#strandofPrayerBeads. you just reduce the price for the missing beads and make loads of money or get a free +4 CL.

Dhavaer
2007-05-06, 07:04 AM
Halflings wearing shoes, now that's a stupid thing in the core.

Also, I find gnomes with a racial con bonus bloody stupid.

Is there a reason why?

Ashes
2007-05-06, 08:43 AM
I can't find the sidebar :( Page number please?

Arbitrarity
2007-05-06, 08:47 AM
Anti-Matter is just matter with inverted charges :P. Nothing tough about that.

"I make 6 cubic feet of osmium, albeit the electrons have positive charge and are so positrons, and the protons have negative charge!"

EDIT: Shhh.... they don't know that.

And actually, what's sad is, they probably do. When you have one of those Uberwizards with 38 intelligence, they comprehend a lot. 38 intelligence is a LOT.

Caelestion
2007-05-06, 08:49 AM
Everyone is of course ignoring the fact that nobody in a standard fantasy world has even the first clue about modern physics...

skywalker
2007-05-06, 12:03 PM
Not only could you sell your 10ft poles for a profit, you could make torches out of the rungs...

My favorite stupid thing found in the core books is the monk class. My RBDM throws NPC monks at my group all the time, it sucks. For PCs, monks are balanced by the fact that they must be lawful, and usually have to dump CHA or INT, whereas a lack of CHA or INT doesn't really matter to someone who's just intent on killing the PCs. They get DEX and WIS bonuses to their AC, they get an unarmored bonus to AC, they all take dodge, they get shockingly useful bonus feats, and their unarmored bonus to speed is ridiculous. Their unarmed strikes turn into the most powerful weapons in the game size-for-size. Greater flurry of blows is totally broken, and don't get me started on stunning fist. Monks were never meant to be applied to NPCs.

Jimp
2007-05-06, 01:05 PM
Although you could research major anti-creation

Major Anti-Creation AKA Major Destruction? :smallbiggrin:

Closet_Skeleton
2007-05-06, 01:06 PM
Although you could research major anti-creation; that would give you what you want.

...

Anti-creation is destruction. Creating anti-matter is still creation.

Well, assuming there's no matter around.

Turcano
2007-05-06, 01:19 PM
...

Anti-creation is destruction. Creating anti-matter is still creation.

Well, assuming there's no matter around.

It's destruction in a roundabout way, I guess, as you're creating something that instantaneously destroys normal matter.

Yahzi
2007-05-06, 01:42 PM
Exactly. Any DM that lets you pull off the ladder = two 10-ft poles trick needs to read rule 0, and get some brains.
This isn't a thread about DMs. This is a thread about stupid things in the Core books.

Obviously you agree that the ladder/pole example is stupid. And you agree it is in the Core books. So... what was your point?

My favorite is the price of a cow. A pound of meat costs 1/2 a gold; an entire cow costs 10 gp.

You do the math. And then discover that all your characters want to run a butcher shop!

JaronK
2007-05-06, 03:20 PM
If you get a standard strand of prayer beads with just a bead of healing, you make 11000 gp. You can also get beads of karma for if you just get them alone from a standard strand of prayer beads.

Only just found this one, while making a character for a friend. the relevant rules can be found in this link: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#strandofPrayerBeads. you just reduce the price for the missing beads and make loads of money or get a free +4 CL.

Note that this price was later errataed.

And yes, the pound of meat thing is funny. D&D economics are very... odd to say the least.

JaronK

Arbitrarity
2007-05-06, 03:27 PM
Statue.

Is it just me, or do you get hardness 8, immunity to many things, and 1/2 damage from acid and fire, etc? For hour/level! Whenever it's not your turn, bam! Nice poison Mr. assasin, sadly, I'm a rock, and so immune to your death attack, and poison.

WTF?

Draz74
2007-05-06, 03:32 PM
Note that this price was later errataed.


Where? And to what? (srd.org usually updates with errata ...)

brian c
2007-05-06, 03:36 PM
This isn't a thread about DMs. This is a thread about stupid things in the Core books.

Obviously you agree that the ladder/pole example is stupid. And you agree it is in the Core books. So... what was your point?

My favorite is the price of a cow. A pound of meat costs 1/2 a gold; an entire cow costs 10 gp.

You do the math. And then discover that all your characters want to run a butcher shop!

Actually, what I'm saying is that although the 10-foot pole and 10-foot ladder are both items that are described in the Core books, there's nothing at all that says that one ladder is = two 10-foot poles. That little trick is not something "in the core books", it's something in the minds of players. That's what I'm saying- there was no stupidity by WotC in that case.

JaronK
2007-05-06, 03:44 PM
Where? And to what? (srd.org usually updates with errata ...)

I don't remember where, but the price was increased pretty dramatically for the beads.

JaronK

Swooper
2007-05-06, 04:11 PM
Is there a reason why?
Well, for the first point: Halflings are a race conceived by J.R.R. Tolkien, and those definitely had hairy feet, and so have all previous incarnations of halflings in the various editions of D&D - with the sole exception of Kender (who weren't really halflings, they're just short annoying gits) and the Athasian halflings (but hey, everything was weird in Dark Sun). Modeling the 3rd Edition halflings after Kender instead of actual halflings (hobbits, if you will) sounds damn stupid to me.

As for the gnomes... They're tiny! How can they be tougher than humans, on avarage? It doesn't make sense to me or my group, so we houserule it so they get an int bonus instead, like they had in 2nd edition.

Maxymiuk
2007-05-06, 04:45 PM
As for the gnomes... They're tiny! How can they be tougher than humans, on avarage? It doesn't make sense to me or my group, so we houserule it so they get an int bonus instead, like they had in 2nd edition.

Oh, I don't know...

Denser musculature? Hitting them is like hitting a piece of oak.
Resilient skeletal structure? When they fall, they bounce.
Physiology completely different from humans? Poison doesn't bother them as much, and neither does extreme cold or heat.
Efficient metabolism. They derive more energy from their food, and can store it more efficiently, which means they have much better stamina, even if they do move slower due to having shorter legs.

Gnomes are gnomes. A whole different race. They're not smaller, and thus weaker versions of humans.

goat
2007-05-06, 05:08 PM
My favorite is the price of a cow. A pound of meat costs 1/2 a gold; an entire cow costs 10 gp.

You do the math. And then discover that all your characters want to run a butcher shop!

It if were lambs or sheep, I could believe that in real life.

kellandros
2007-05-07, 01:28 AM
Originally Posted by Yahzi
My favorite is the price of a cow. A pound of meat costs 1/2 a gold; an entire cow costs 10 gp.

You do the math. And then discover that all your characters want to run a butcher shop!

Sure its a bit absurd, but the cost of labor involved makes it somewhat less so. If you've ever seen car repair or plumber's bills, you can see what trained workers cost. Of course, that is a modern example, but most materials tend to be more expensive(things you can't run off and make yourself) nowadays.

Plus, would you want to buy meat from someone who is attempting to butcher an animal untrained? Equally hilarious would be the adventurers trying to use a Profession: Butcher skill in combat.

knightsaline
2007-05-07, 02:19 AM
I misquoted. to stop the arguements about misquoting, I will change the OP

Merlin the Tuna
2007-05-07, 02:20 AM
Gnomes are gnomes. A whole different race. They're not smaller, and thus weaker versions of humans.Heh. This is ultimately the biggest problem with Tolkienian fantasy. You're stuck with humans, short humans, short fat humans, skinny humans, half-skinny humans... not necessarily a whole lot of variety.

Getting back to the point, though, gnomes are indeed totally different from humans. To illustrate... Elephants are bigger than humans and are significantly tougher. Emperor Penguins are smaller than humans and are significantly tougher. When you get right down to it, humans are pansies.

Hzurr
2007-05-07, 02:44 AM
When you get right down to it, humans are pansies.

That's why I decided to stop being one.

Er...

knightsaline
2007-05-07, 02:54 AM
That's why I decided to stop being one.

Er...

then what exactly are you? I'm the only human in my village!

Dhavaer
2007-05-07, 03:43 AM
When you get right down to it, humans are pansies.

Male humans are stronger than horses, weight for weight.

We also tire slower than everything that's faster than us, and are faster than everything that tires slower than us. We're pretty big, as well, compared to most other animals, and that can help. Our only real problem is our lack of fur and claws/fangs. Although being as strong as orangutans would be cool.

Falconsflight
2007-05-07, 03:47 AM
Well, for the first point: Halflings are a race conceived by J.R.R. Tolkien, and those definitely had hairy feet, and so have all previous incarnations of halflings in the various editions of D&D - with the sole exception of Kender (who weren't really halflings, they're just short annoying gits) and the Athasian halflings (but hey, everything was weird in Dark Sun). Modeling the 3rd Edition halflings after Kender instead of actual halflings (hobbits, if you will) sounds damn stupid to me.

As for the gnomes... They're tiny! How can they be tougher than humans, on avarage? It doesn't make sense to me or my group, so we houserule it so they get an int bonus instead, like they had in 2nd edition.

Err, Hate to break it to you, but according to 3.5 rules and FLUFF, Halflings are definitly NOT Hobbits. Halflings travel the world, Hobbits prefer to sit in their burrows and smoke a pipe while reading a good book. Halflings like to steal stuff, and justify it as something else. So far, the only hobbit that stole something was Bilbo and he doesn't actually believe he stole anything.

Also: Who says tiny can't be tough? A dwarf can be tough but a Gnome can't? A dwarf is only a medium creature becuase he makes up in girth what he loses in height.

Bender
2007-05-07, 04:10 AM
Why does everyone want to create Osmium, why not just create a black hole? (or a neutrino star, if you don't want to deal with too much space curvature) It's a silly rule that the creation spells have a size limit rather than a weight limit.
And if you think just having your opponents disappear in a tiny black hole is lame, add an anti-black hole for the big Kaboom. (I'm not sure the matter anti-matter thing would work with black holes though...)

You could argue that the mass you create in the black hole is limited by the event horizon of the resulting black hole, but for a black hole with the mass of the earth, this would still only be a few cm.

now about raging crafters: I would allow it anyway. Oops, losing your focus while raging, you completely destroyed your material components and have to start over...

brian c
2007-05-07, 05:02 AM
Why does everyone want to create Osmium, why not just create a black hole? (or a neutrino star, if you don't want to deal with too much space curvature) It's a silly rule that the creation spells have a size limit rather than a weight limit.
And if you think just having your opponents disappear in a tiny black hole is lame, add an anti-black hole for the big Kaboom. (I'm not sure the matter anti-matter thing would work with black holes though...)

You could argue that the mass you create in the black hole is limited by the event horizon of the resulting black hole, but for a black hole with the mass of the earth, this would still only be a few cm.

now about raging crafters: I would allow it anyway. Oops, losing your focus while raging, you completely destroyed your material components and have to start over...

Yeah, I'm a bit rusty but I don't think that you can really have such a thing as an "anti-black hole", unless you mean a "white hole" that spews out matter.

Dhavaer
2007-05-07, 05:15 AM
Yeah, I'm a bit rusty but I don't think that you can really have such a thing as an "anti-black hole", unless you mean a "white hole" that spews out matter.

I think he means a black hole made up of anti-matter.

Bender
2007-05-07, 06:01 AM
I think he means a black hole made up of anti-matter.

That's indeed what I meant, but it depends how much matter is broken down in a black hole...
In neutron stars, electrons and protons are pressed together to form neutrons, but they still consist of either normal quarks or anti-quarks.

In case any catgirls survived this assault: the fact that magic exists in the DnD universe proves that the physical laws of the real world do not apply there anyway, since all matter consists of a certain proportion of earth, water, air and fire (and perhaps some love :smallwink:)

edit: is there any occurrence of radioactivity in dnd?

Pauwel
2007-05-07, 06:10 AM
My favorite stupid thing found in the core books is the monk class. My RBDM throws NPC monks at my group all the time, it sucks. For PCs, monks are balanced by the fact that they must be lawful, and usually have to dump CHA or INT, whereas a lack of CHA or INT doesn't really matter to someone who's just intent on killing the PCs. They get DEX and WIS bonuses to their AC, they get an unarmored bonus to AC, they all take dodge, they get shockingly useful bonus feats, and their unarmored bonus to speed is ridiculous. Their unarmed strikes turn into the most powerful weapons in the game size-for-size. Greater flurry of blows is totally broken, and don't get me started on stunning fist. Monks were never meant to be applied to NPCs.

...

...

Nah, not worth it. Maybe someone else will do it.

brian c
2007-05-07, 07:04 AM
I think he means a black hole made up of anti-matter.

I know. Basically though, all a black hole really amounts to is a gravitational singularity. Matter and anti-matter interact in the same ways with the gravitational force, so whether a black hole was formed by a collapsing neutron star or by a collapsing anti-neutron star wouldn't matter.

NullAshton
2007-05-07, 07:06 AM
That's indeed what I meant, but it depends how much matter is broken down in a black hole...
In neutron stars, electrons and protons are pressed together to form neutrons, but they still consist of either normal quarks or anti-quarks.

In case any catgirls survived this assault: the fact that magic exists in the DnD universe proves that the physical laws of the real world do not apply there anyway, since all matter consists of a certain proportion of earth, water, air and fire (and perhaps some love :smallwink:)

edit: is there any occurrence of radioactivity in dnd?

I'm not sure, but I think that an 'anti-blackhole' would be the same as a black hole. Even if they do annihilate each other, it will create ENERGY. Inside the event horizon of a black hole. And energy still produces gravity. THUS, you'll get an explosion in the event horizon of the black hole, doing absolutely nothing. It's more complicated than that... but it still won't do anything.

I don't believe there's radiation.

Arbitrarity
2007-05-07, 07:13 AM
Monks suck. Horribly.

Really, it's true. Monk "powers" are good for nothing but keeping themselves alive, the Flurry screams "I love to contradict myself!" and the fast movement just means they can run faster.

You can't flurry and retian mobility, you have such MAD it's not even funny, and dodge is a horrible, horrible feat. Stunning fist is pretty much one of the few useful features, and at higher levels everything is immune.

"We get dex and wisdom to AC!"
"We get Full Plate, STFU!"
"But I have 18 wis and 18 Dex!"
"But I have 18 STR and 12 dex, and therefore have better AC than you, and have +9 to hit with my MW greatsword, for 2d6+6"
"But I have... crap. 14 STR! So I have +....(I hate 3/4 BAB) 5 to hit! And I deal 1d8+2!"
"Yeah. Come over here now"
"No! I shall use my mobility and... Damnit! Who thought up this flurry of blows ****?! I can't move and use it?! Well... Well... I'm cheaper than you are!"
"Yes. Yes you are."

Ninja Chocobo
2007-05-07, 07:19 AM
You can recite the entire works of Shakespeare infinite times in less than 6 seconds.

Swooper
2007-05-07, 07:20 AM
Err, Hate to break it to you, but according to 3.5 rules and FLUFF, Halflings are definitly NOT Hobbits. Halflings travel the world, Hobbits prefer to sit in their burrows and smoke a pipe while reading a good book. Halflings like to steal stuff, and justify it as something else. So far, the only hobbit that stole something was Bilbo and he doesn't actually believe he stole anything.

Also: Who says tiny can't be tough? A dwarf can be tough but a Gnome can't? A dwarf is only a medium creature becuase he makes up in girth what he loses in height.
That's what I was saying - Halflings SHOULD be hobbits and not Kender. They were hobbits in all previous versions of D&D, then poof, with 3.0 they're suddenly kender? WTH happened? Aren't regular hobbits "serious" enough for D&D anymore? If not then kender sure as hell ain't either.

As for the gnomes... I just don't think it fits their racial character to be tough. Gnomes are the small-frail-and-too-curious-for-their-own-good race, not the small-tough race. That's dwarves, as you said. I think gnomes having a con bonus infringes on the dwarves' niche in the game world.

Dhavaer
2007-05-07, 07:27 AM
That's what I was saying - Halflings SHOULD be hobbits and not Kender.

Why should they be either? Hobbits are too dull for an adventuring game and kender are frequently too insane/annoying. The blend they have now is a good medium of the two.

Dausuul
2007-05-07, 07:30 AM
Which is another silly thing in and of itself.
The "Hugging your friends makes you go faster"-loophole is another thing I thought was really stupid.

Actually, "hugging your friends" does not work. To the best of my knowledge, nowhere in the rules is it stated that you can voluntarily fail a grapple check.

Hey, it's a stupid technicality, but since "hugging your friends" is already based on a stupid technicality...

Pauwel
2007-05-07, 08:06 AM
Isn't it stated that you can voluntarily fail ANY check, no matter what kind?

Gungnir
2007-05-07, 08:06 AM
Actually, "hugging your friends" does not work. To the best of my knowledge, nowhere in the rules is it stated that you can voluntarily fail a grapple check.

Hey, it's a stupid technicality, but since "hugging your friends" is already based on a stupid technicality...

Yeah, it's pretty stupid to not be able to voluntarily fail checks. Especially since it can be pretty useful sometimes. I've intentionally failed a grapple to let a demonic lion grab my character, thus keeping it from changing its focus to much squishier members of the party than the fighter.

Which brings me to another point: At pretty low levels, a fighter can out-wrestle a lion.

Dausuul
2007-05-07, 08:26 AM
Isn't it stated that you can voluntarily fail ANY check, no matter what kind?

Not that I know of. You can voluntarily fail a saving throw versus a spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm), but I'm not aware of any general rule that says you can voluntarily fail any check. If you can find this rule, please let me know.

As it is, it appears to be just a near-universal house rule.

Mr. Moogle
2007-05-07, 08:30 AM
in deitys and demigods the ability alter reality is SO full of holes. it says you can make temporary anything. But in the next sentance it says you can make anything temporary permenent. We made gods with divine rank one and summoned up some swords of kas and such and we obliterated pelor :smallbiggrin:

Bender
2007-05-07, 08:57 AM
a first level commoner with agile and run as feats can break the long jump world record, but is as likely to jump only 3 meter.

If you start a long jump at the end of your turn, you end your turn in the air.

An expert painter with 20 ranks in craft(painting) has a very high BAB. In fact any expert or wizard or anyone who never, ever gets close to melee combat gets better in it over time.

edit: besides, how does an expert gain the experience for advancing levels anyway

Talanic
2007-05-07, 09:12 AM
There was a page I saw recently that cleared up the level 20 expert painter thing quite nicely.

Basically, there is no reason to have any expert or other npc with level over 5. He took Einstein as a level 5 expert with full skill points in knowledge: Physics, plus skill focus, 18 int, et cetera. He was able to answer DC 35 questions on physics by taking ten by adding in synergies and having a good laboratory.

If someone's a level 20 expert or commoner or what-have-you, we're talking a pig farmer whose pigs are trained to the point that they can take out Navy SEALS in hand-to-hoof combat and/or operate or manufacture complex electronics, or a painter whose worst painting on any given day would stir the masses into supreme eternal revolution at a glance, and whose mediocre painting would be worth about California.

Edit:
Quest experience. Completing paintings and selling them.

goat
2007-05-07, 09:17 AM
Hmm, some sort of trading BAB for bonus in max skill ranks.

Yes, you're a level 4 expert at BAB+0, but your max skill rank is 10.

Hmm, would probably be too breakable.

Fax Celestis
2007-05-07, 09:48 AM
I homebrewed this for similar circumstances:

Skillful Penchant
Requirements: BAB +1, Intelligence 15+

Benefit: You gain an extra two skill points each time you gain a level after taking this feat. In addition, you gain one skill point to be used immediately for each of your levels when you take this feat, including one for the current level.

Special: Your Base Attack Bonus lowers by 1.


Do note it can only be taken once.

Tor the Fallen
2007-05-07, 10:12 AM
Ever find something really stupid in the core books that makes no sense whatsoever? I didn't find this one but...

barbarians and rage
according to my downloaded copy of the SRD, barbarians can
"use any feat he has except Combat Expertise, item creation feats, and metamagic feats"

why would a barbarian try and create items while raging? rages don't last that long. assuming a 20th level barb, a barbarian does not learn how to create items anyway. he may have craft as a class skill, but who in the nine hells or the infinite layers of the abyss ever sink precious skill ranks into Craft on their barbarian. my barbarians sink ranks into survival and jump. unless the barbarians try to sink ranks into Craft (scars), I don't think anyone is going to bother to sink ranks into craft.

post the stupidest things you have found in any SRD books

1. Item creation feats are for making magic items. Most of the time you don't even need ranks in a craft skill.2
2. Many of my characters, especially ones with non-urban backgrounds, put ranks in the craft skill. My first barbarian crafted masterwork armor from the monsters he killed.


The osmium - anti-osmium bomb! All you need is Major Creation, Eschew Materials and some knowledge of natural sciences, and you can blow up Earth!

By 'some' knowledge of the natural sciences, you mean that of a 20th century scientist? osmium & anti-osmium, regardless of their existence in D&D, would hardly fall under the category of 'some knowledge'. I think the word you are looking for is 'metagaming'.


The mount-unmount method of traveling around the world: To perform this trick, you need a few ranks in Ride. Use Ride to mount a horse as a free action. Use Ride to unmount the horse as a free action, but go to the other side of the animal. Mount the next horse. Et cetera ad nauseam (or at least until you run out of horses).

Who needs roads when you can have lines of horses!

Indon
2007-05-07, 10:22 AM
Plus, would you want to buy meat from someone who is attempting to butcher an animal untrained? Equally hilarious would be the adventurers trying to use a Profession: Butcher skill in combat.

Isn't Profession: Butcher precisely what adventuring is?

I'm not so sure about the Monk Unarmed Strike thing. Monks don't actually _use_ the Unarmed Strike listed in the PHB; they use an unlisted weapon with higher damage. To my knowledge, unlisted weapons (such as touch attacks) do not have proficiency penalties.

Talanic
2007-05-07, 10:29 AM
Nah, although some adventurers try it, butchering is specifically cutting up something with intent to EAT it. While it would work fine on animals, and perhaps some types of humanoids, it would not be so nice against undead, elementals, golems, or some outsiders (the demon from Dogma comes to mind...).

Jayabalard
2007-05-07, 10:30 AM
Yeah, it's pretty stupid to not be able to voluntarily fail checks. if it's a useful outcome, then you should have to succeed at your check in order to fail the action... just my opinion...

Hzurr
2007-05-07, 10:31 AM
Not that I know of. You can voluntarily fail a saving throw versus a spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm), but I'm not aware of any general rule that says you can voluntarily fail any check. If you can find this rule, please let me know.

As it is, it appears to be just a near-universal house rule.

Actually, I think its that you can voluntarily fail saving throws in general. One example it gave in the core books (I think in the lycanthropy section of the MM, or when it explains ECL/LA/Racial HD), is that Lidda the rogue was bitten by a were-rat, and decided that she'd like to become one, so she voluntarily failed her fort save against lycanthropy.

As far as checks in general, I don't know about voluntary failures, but you can choose to do things that will make it very probable for you to failure (i.e., really wanting to believe someone, so you take a penalty on your sense motive; Never actually looking around, so that you'll fail your spot; singing to yourself so you'll fail a listen, etc.)

As far as stupid things go, one of mine would be sorcerers with d4 HD. I mean, for wizards it makes sense, because they spend their time inside studying and reading. The flavor for sorcerers implies that they're out in the world, actively doing stuff, and adventuring, and they just inherently learn their spells. So how do they have the same HD as a wizard? It just feels like they need a d6

Bender
2007-05-07, 10:37 AM
Actually, it's impossible to fail a listen check to avoid hearing a loud, obvious noise. Otherwise it would be very easy to negate a lot of spells that depend on the subject hearing it. (He can't dominate me, I'm failing my listen checks) Same goes for most passive skill checks.
If you sense someone is lying (sense motive check), you can decide to go along, but it is very hard to really believe it.

Of course, you can fail any check that requires a certain action by not doing the action properly.

Gungnir
2007-05-07, 10:48 AM
if it's a useful outcome, then you should have to succeed at your check in order to fail the action... just my opinion...

I guess that's true depending on what you're doing. With some things though, it's probably just going to turn into a different check; missing on purpose might turn into a bluff check, so on, so forth.

However, sometimes it doesn't really make sense to actually keep the check, like when letting a lion tackle you. It WANTED to do so, and made its touch attack, and I WANTED to get tackled. Character stands still and lands on his ass. Or maybe a character is fighting a vampire or something, and the vampire wants to get hit to scare the crap out of the guy because he knows he doesn't have a good enough weapon. Even if the guy doesn't beat 10, one might assume he was so clumsy that the vamp just took his sword by the blade and helped the guy stab him, smiling all along.

Tor the Fallen
2007-05-07, 10:48 AM
if it's a useful outcome, then you should have to succeed at your check in order to fail the action... just my opinion...

Like when the party cleric casts clw on you?

goat
2007-05-07, 11:03 AM
I homebrewed this for similar circumstances:

Skillful Penchant
Requirements: BAB +1, Intelligence 15+

Benefit: You gain an extra two skill points each time you gain a level after taking this feat. In addition, you gain one skill point to be used immediately for each of your levels when you take this feat, including one for the current level.

Special: Your Base Attack Bonus lowers by 1.


Do note it can only be taken once.

I think that for a crafter or professional, a raised skill cap would be more useful than a larger points pool. After all, the only other (non-monetary) method of improving those abilities is with skill focus, which can only be taken once per skill, synergies (Which I don't think there are any of), racial skills, or ability bonuses, which don't add up to all that much.

But once you can afford a nice item of +10 or more competance in the skill, I suppose it becomes quite a minimal issue, although how long it will take them to MAKE the 10,000 gold necessary for that, I'm not sure. That would require 100% profit on 10 full plate suits of armour, each of which is going to take months to make.

I suppose magic items are the answer, but that requires every blacksmith/armourer be a low level wizard...

Jayabalard
2007-05-07, 11:05 AM
Like when the party cleric casts clw on you?it's always important to keep in mind the context of other's statements... last time I checked casting clw is not a skill check.

In the case of a cleric casting clw you can voluntarily forgo making a saving throw, which is not the same thing as voluntarily failing, since that is explicitly stated in the rules.

The only rules that I'm aware of for forgoing a skill check involve taking 10, and taking 20...

Fax Celestis
2007-05-07, 11:09 AM
I think that for a crafter or professional, a raised skill cap would be more useful than a larger points pool. After all, the only other (non-monetary) method of improving those abilities is with skill focus, which can only be taken once per skill, synergies (Which I don't think there are any of), racial skills, or ability bonuses, which don't add up to all that much.

But once you can afford a nice item of +10 or more competance in the skill, I suppose it becomes quite a minimal issue, although how long it will take them to MAKE the 10,000 gold necessary for that, I'm not sure. That would require 100% profit on 10 full plate suits of armour, each of which is going to take months to make.

I suppose magic items are the answer, but that requires every blacksmith/armourer be a low level wizard...

Well, the feat was designed for PCs, not NPCs.

Tor the Fallen
2007-05-07, 11:13 AM
it's always important to keep in mind the context of other's statements... last time I checked casting clw is not a skill check.

In the case of a cleric casting clw you can voluntarily forgo making a saving throw, which is not the same thing as voluntarily failing, since that is explicitly stated in the rules.

The only rules that I'm aware of for forgoing a skill check involve taking 10, and taking 20...

It's not forgoing, it's choosing not to pass.
What if the BBEG wants you to climb up some really hard to climb surface to get something, and you have like a +30 to climb. Should you be unable to choose whether or not you cannot climb the wall? That you take a fall halfway up? Nah, if you can make the skill check, you have to make it all the way to the top, goddammit!


Speaking of context, what does taking 10 have to do with grappling? As far as I know, there's no grapple skill.

And would this mean all hugs require opposing grapple checks? Heh, it's a good things parents get those size bonuses for grappling their children, otherwise their offspring may not get the care and attention they need, but are unable to recieve due to their automatic resistance to their parent grappling them, regardless of whether or not they want a hug!

brian c
2007-05-07, 11:18 AM
I homebrewed this for similar circumstances:

Skillful Penchant
Requirements: BAB +1, Intelligence 15+

Benefit: You gain an extra two skill points each time you gain a level after taking this feat. In addition, you gain one skill point to be used immediately for each of your levels when you take this feat, including one for the current level.

Special: Your Base Attack Bonus lowers by 1.


Do note it can only be taken once.

Question for that: when you say BAB lowers by 1, is that just -1 or is it -1/-1 etc... like if a 6th level fighter takes this feat, not that he should, but if he did, does his BAB go from +6/+1 to +5/+1, or does it go to +5/+0, or back to just +5, or what?

Lapak
2007-05-07, 11:37 AM
Well, the feat was designed for PCs, not NPCs.


Question for that: when you say BAB lowers by 1, is that just -1 or is it -1/-1 etc... like if a 6th level fighter takes this feat, not that he should, but if he did, does his BAB go from +6/+1 to +5/+1, or does it go to +5/+0, or back to just +5, or what?

BAB is only the first value. It would lower the fighter's BAB from +6 to +5, which would cost him his iterative attack; thus, it's not an attractive feat for fighters.

It's a VERY attractive feat for any caster-class, though; their BAB is already abysmal, so one point is not going to make that much of a difference, but they get another 2 skill points per level. As a sorceror or wizard, I'd take this as soon as it became available; I'd seriously consider it in a 3/4 BAB class, too. I think it's a little too good, myself.

goat
2007-05-07, 11:47 AM
I'd question how many sorcerors you'd find with 15 Int though.

I can see it being a massive help for Wizards though. Effectively gives them a free cross class skill for the price of a feat.

Indon
2007-05-07, 11:59 AM
It's not forgoing, it's choosing not to pass.
What if the BBEG wants you to climb up some really hard to climb surface to get something, and you have like a +30 to climb. Should you be unable to choose whether or not you cannot climb the wall? That you take a fall halfway up? Nah, if you can make the skill check, you have to make it all the way to the top, goddammit!


Well, you can say, "I climb halfway up and then intentionally fall", and then you'd just make a climb check for until you intentionally fall.



And would this mean all hugs require opposing grapple checks? Heh, it's a good things parents get those size bonuses for grappling their children, otherwise their offspring may not get the care and attention they need, but are unable to recieve due to their automatic resistance to their parent grappling them, regardless of whether or not they want a hug!

Some kids really are like that, seems to me.

But really, if you want to not pass a grapple check, it seems to me that you simply render yourself helpless (because you are not resisting).

One more absurd thing (at least, when looked at in comparison to reality) is the D20 variance itself; The difference between a complete newbie at a skill and the Ultimate Master of The Skill is about the same as the luck factor is; thusly, it is possible though unlikely for a level 4 character to make a skill check that his level 18 future self fails!

Fax Celestis
2007-05-07, 12:06 PM
His BAB in all regards would lower, so a fighter taking this would lose iterative attacks if his BAB were not above 6.

Turcano
2007-05-07, 12:33 PM
As for the gnomes... They're tiny! How can they be tougher than humans, on avarage? It doesn't make sense to me or my group, so we houserule it so they get an int bonus instead, like they had in 2nd edition.

You obviously aren't familiar with the works of Terry Pratchett.

Jayabalard
2007-05-07, 12:50 PM
It's not forgoing, it's choosing not to pass.The SRD says otherwise.


Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw

A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result.

perhaps you're using a different source that uses different wording?


What if the BBEG wants you to climb up some really hard to climb surface to get something, and you have like a +30 to climb. Should you be unable to choose whether or not you cannot climb the wall? That you take a fall halfway up? Nah, if you can make the skill check, you have to make it all the way to the top, goddammit!Player :I climb to the halfway point (roll to succeed or fail )
Player(after succeeding): I fake that I lost my grip and fall to the ground, (roll to succeed on climbing or bluff skill).

If the player fails on the first check, they don't need to bluff or fake out the BBEG.
If the player succeeds on the first check, they don't fall on their way up to the halfway point; in order to fool the BBEG, they would have to successfully fool (bluff) the BBEG into thinking that they fell accidentally. Personally I'd let them use their climbing skill in place of their bluff skill, since their climbing knowledge would let them convincingly fake their own fall.

it does take some creative GMing... but the bottom line is that failing a skill roll should not give you the desired results...


Speaking of context, what does taking 10 have to do with grappling? As far as I know, there's no grapple skill./shrug I tend to blur the lines between attribute and skill checks... They're the same thing in many systems

Back to the point: is there something that explicitly states that you can fail or forego a grapple check? it's been asked a few times, and noone has come up with an answer with a reference afaik.


And would this mean all hugs require opposing grapple checks? Only the ones where you're trying to grapple someone. The vast majority of hugs are not grapples; just like the vast majority of asspats are not unarmed attacks...

Corolinth
2007-05-07, 01:21 PM
Yes, but the point is that item creation feats are mentioned, even though there's really no reason that you would craft an item while enraged (crunch-wise).Except that it makes perfect sense. Rothgar the Destroyer is tweaked off, and swinging his axe at everything that moves. He can't try to brew potions until he's eaten a twinkie and taken a nap. It doesn't matter that no munchkin would try to use item creation feats while raging because your strength doesn't help you. That's irrelevent.

We don't care that you have no reason to try to craft an item while enraged. That does not matter at all. You're hacked off, you have a big axe, and you're chop-chopping things. It stands to reason that you can not sit down at a workbench and make a magical gnomish vibrating butterfly with shinies. A leads to B.

Who would want to urinate lightning bolts? Who would even try? That does not matter. You can't do it.

Draz74
2007-05-07, 01:25 PM
But once you can afford a nice item of +10 or more competance in the skill, I suppose it becomes quite a minimal issue, although how long it will take them to MAKE the 10,000 gold necessary for that, I'm not sure. That would require 100% profit on 10 full plate suits of armour, each of which is going to take months to make.

I suppose magic items are the answer, but that requires every blacksmith/armourer be a low level wizard...

... or requires re-writing the Item Creation feats so that they don't have to be done by spellcasters.

Which is attractive mainly because there are a LOT of examples in literature of non-casters creating magic items! To name only the most D&D-centric and obvious example, in Forgotten Realms we have Bruenor, the essential dwarven fighter, creating Aegis-Fang the magic hammer.

SpiderBrigade
2007-05-07, 01:30 PM
Male humans are stronger than horses, weight for weight.

We also tire slower than everything that's faster than us, and are faster than everything that tires slower than us. We're pretty big, as well, compared to most other animals, and that can help. Our only real problem is our lack of fur and claws/fangs. Although being as strong as orangutans would be cool.I donno, I think you can very easily turn all of those things around, to suggest the opposite of the point you're trying to make. Thus:

Humans have decent endurance, but all the things we can outlast, are actually faster than we are. All the things we're faster than, have more endurance. It doesn't matter if we have more endurance than a cheetah, because it is so much faster. It doesn't matter if we can run faster than a wolf (don't know if this is true, just hypothetically) because it has more endurance. Either way we get eaten.

Also we may be stronger weight for weight than a horse, but an ant is stronger than we are, weight for weight.

Of course our real advantage is cleverness and tool-using. Which is why we do so well.

Indon
2007-05-07, 02:01 PM
Humans have decent endurance, but all the things we can outlast, are actually faster than we are. All the things we're faster than, have more endurance. It doesn't matter if we have more endurance than a cheetah, because it is so much faster. It doesn't matter if we can run faster than a wolf (don't know if this is true, just hypothetically) because it has more endurance. Either way we get eaten.


Physically, I'd say humans are just very versatile. It makes us highly adaptable (especially combined with our intelligence) and it gives us a fighting chance even with low tech against most other mammals, and even some birds or fish.

Jayabalard
2007-05-07, 02:07 PM
I donno, I think you can very easily turn all of those things around, to suggest the opposite of the point you're trying to make. Thus:Nope; the reason that people list it the way that he does is that it accurately represents the situation. Man is faster over long distances than pretty much any other creature (meaning: I'm not aware of one that is a better long distance runner), hitting the sweet spot between endurance and speed; there's plenty of articles (http://www.physorg.com/news95954919.html) on the subject.

Ninja Chocobo
2007-05-08, 06:21 AM
You obviously aren't familiar with the works of Terry Pratchett.
I thought they were called Pictsies...?

Attilargh
2007-05-08, 06:27 AM
He has gnomes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnomes_%28Discworld%29) too.

Tor the Fallen
2007-05-08, 07:29 PM
Humans have decent endurance, but all the things we can outlast, are actually faster than we are. All the things we're faster than, have more endurance. It doesn't matter if we have more endurance than a cheetah, because it is so much faster. It doesn't matter if we can run faster than a wolf (don't know if this is true, just hypothetically) because it has more endurance. Either way we get eaten.

Also we may be stronger weight for weight than a horse, but an ant is stronger than we are, weight for weight.

Of course our real advantage is cleverness and tool-using. Which is why we do so well.

Not quite.
After the initial run, dodge, tuck and weave, humans can outlast pretty much any other animal in a long distant jog on the face of the planet. The only thing that comes close are canines. It's no accident they were the first animal domesticated- humans are practically upright dogs.

Dhavaer
2007-05-08, 07:52 PM
He has gnomes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnomes_%28Discworld%29) too.

Discworld gnomes are pictsies. they're one species with a whole bunch of names.

Ditto
2007-05-08, 09:51 PM
Anyone ever wonder where the 3' halfling rogue carries the 10' pole?

Some folks say it's collapsible, but that's just silly. I always assume my characters have come into possession of a Bag of Holding 10 Foot Poles.

It can only contain poles, obviously, but I never decided if it can only hold one, or an infinite amount. :smallsmile:

OttotheBugbear
2007-05-10, 07:03 PM
Another stupid thing found in the core books: Hiding.

mauslin
2007-05-10, 07:55 PM
Male humans are stronger than horses, weight for weight.

We also tire slower than everything that's faster than us, and are faster than everything that tires slower than us. We're pretty big, as well, compared to most other animals, and that can help. Our only real problem is our lack of fur and claws/fangs. Although being as strong as orangutans would be cool.

If humans were as strong as orangutans, we couldn't swim.

Muscle is very dense; having more muscle mass makes you less buoyant. None of the great apes (besides humans) can swim; they sink like rocks.

In a logical world, Dwarves should get swim penalties for this reason.

Caelestion
2007-05-10, 08:11 PM
Another stupid thing found in the core books: Hiding.

You're going to need to be a little more specific...

F.L.
2007-05-10, 08:14 PM
In a logical world, Dwarves should get swim penalties for this reason.

They do. It's called, Always Wearing Heavy Armor. Always.

DaMullet
2007-05-10, 08:52 PM
You're going to need to be a little more specific...
I believe his notation is this:

"Small: As a Small creature, a halfling gains a +1 size bonus to Armor Class, a +1 size bonus on attack rolls, and a +4 size bonus on Hide checks, but she uses smaller weapons than humans use, and her lifting and carrying limits are three-quarters of those of a Medium character."

Note, that if you have two halflings in a house, they hide at x, and spot at x.

If you have two halflings hiding in the same house, but to scale, they still spot at x, they hide at x+4.

It's small inconsistency, but it bugs me.

OttotheBugbear
2007-05-10, 09:07 PM
You're going to need to be a little more specific...

I know, I was ready to post at length, then got distracted. :smallbiggrin:

Ok. More specifically, hiding, rogues, and concealment.

What does a rogue need to hide? Concealment or cover.

What can a tower shield provide as long as it's declared? Cover.

A rogue can carry a tower shield, use it to gain cover, then hide himself and all his equipment, including his tower shield. Which makes the entire universe implode.

It's a totally standard staple of fantasy (or even action/adventure) to sneak up behind someone and stab them in the face/shoot them/knock them out. Except in D&D, rogues cannot do that. A guard could, literally, have a -50 to his spot check, and a rogue (not using that stupid tower shield trick above) can never sneak up behind that guard unless the rogue gets cover/concealment. There is no facing in D&D. The guard always knows the stuff (like rogues) around him as long as that thing has no cover or concealment.

You can attempt to hide in combat, with restrictions.
1. If you're invisible and attack a character, that character can guess what square you're in. Even if you retain your invisibility, that's just Full Concealment and they could still hit you.
2. Hiding while fighting in combat is a -20 penalty. Most people can't hide at -20
3. Once you're seen, you're seen. Because there's no facing, you can't hide unless you leave the scene or break line of sight.
4. Questionably, you can get up to a +10 bonus to spot checks if you know what you're looking for and are "very familiar" with it (like, it just stabbed you in the face). It's under the disguise skill, so that makes it questionable, but there it is.

Invisibility doesn't make you invisible. It only gives you a bonus to your hide checks.



Special: If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Hide checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on hide checks if you're moving.

So, Grog the fighter you just cast improved invisibility on is actually, well, not.
Grog the fighter, 10 dex, 0 ranks, -5 ACP (mw full plate), -1 (mw heavy shield) for a subtotal of -6 on hide checks.
Let's be generous and say "+20 if you're moving" means moving squares across the grid, not just flailing your sword about, so he gets a +40 for standing in one square stabbing that hill giant in the face. The new subtotal is +34.
He attacks, and suffers a -20 penalty to his hide check. Now he's at a grand total of +14 to his hide check.
The hill giant has a +6 spot.
The fighter rolls d20+14 to hide and attack while "invisible" against a DC of d20+6.
Now, if the hill giant knows what he's looking for (ala the disguise skill) he can get up to a +10 bonus to spot.

And all that ignores the fact that Grog has no concealment or cover, so the hill giant automatically makes his spot check!

Shall we move on to Stabby the Rogue sneaking through a dark room to stab something in the nads. It's dark like the spell, so he gains 20% concealment! He doesn't automatically fail his hide check! Yay! So, he stabs McVictim in the nads, for 0 sneak attack damage. Remember that sneak attack doesn't work if the victim has concealment. :smallannoyed:

So, yeah. It's mainly stupid because of all those little hidden gems (invisibility just gives you a bonus to hide), and because it requires intervention by players and DMs going against the written rules to actually work the way you expect it to.

Caelestion
2007-05-10, 09:12 PM
That's very clear. I take my hat off to you (or at least I would if I was wearing one).

brian c
2007-05-10, 09:15 PM
If humans were as strong as orangutans, we couldn't swim.

Muscle is very dense; having more muscle mass makes you less buoyant. None of the great apes (besides humans) can swim; they sink like rocks.

In a logical world, Dwarves should get swim penalties for this reason.

Heh... you sir have given me a new rule for my homebrew. Dwarves: -2 racial penalty to swim

Aquillion
2007-05-10, 10:24 PM
Monks suck. Horribly.

Really, it's true. Monk "powers" are good for nothing but keeping themselves alive, the Flurry screams "I love to contradict myself!" and the fast movement just means they can run faster.

You can't flurry and retian mobility, you have such MAD it's not even funny, and dodge is a horrible, horrible feat. Stunning fist is pretty much one of the few useful features, and at higher levels everything is immune.Actually, as NPC annoyances lone monks with a level high enough to give proper CR aren't that bad. They're not good, no, and not what you'd use for the BBEG, but it at least being the only opponent forces the players to attack them, playing to their one strength. Plus NPCs don't have to worry about MAD.

What makes PC monks so awful is that the monsters can just kill everyone else, then finish off the monk when they're alone. Pure defense doesn't do anything for a PC, since the party is still only as good as its weakest link.

I_Got_This_Name
2007-05-11, 12:41 AM
The only thing that comes close are canines. It's no accident they were the first animal domesticated- humans are practically upright dogs.

I hear wolves can maintain 10 miles per hour for hours on end.

I think horses are also pretty good for distances; there's a reason cavalry rode overland, rather than marching and saddling for battle. Of course, the horse has been domesticated for so long that the kind we ride are barely recognizable as their wild ancestors, like dogs and wolves; even "wild" horses are actually descendants of domesticated horses (with one known group of exceptions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Przewalski%27s_Horse)).

Of course, on a hot day, we can outlast dogs (assuming, of course, that you're in practice running and reasonably physically fit; in this modern day, quite a few of us aren't), since we have one advantage over them: sweat.

Outside of a dog (and maybe a horse), though, or on a hot day, we're the best distance runners on this planet. Not counting things we built, of course (Edit: Don't know if the horse falls into this category; I definitely know the automobile does).

kellandros
2007-05-11, 01:08 AM
Outside of a dog (and maybe a horse), though, or on a hot day, we're the best distance runners on this planet.

And inside of a dog? Sorry, couldn't resist.

Talanic
2007-05-11, 01:24 AM
Inside of a dog, there's not a lot of distance to run.

Leon
2007-05-11, 01:33 AM
You obviously aren't familiar with the works of Terry Pratchett.

Discworld gnomes are nothing like D&D gnomes



"Outside of a Dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside a dog its too dark to read"

Justin_Bacon
2007-05-11, 03:01 AM
A rogue can carry a tower shield, use it to gain cover, then hide himself and all his equipment, including his tower shield. Which makes the entire universe implode.

That doesn't work because, obviously, the tower shield isn't granting cover to itself. You could argue that the rules don't specifically require that the rogue's equipment also be behind cover, but that's nothing more than pedantry.

Obviously a rogue could hide behind a tower shield.


It's a totally standard staple of fantasy (or even action/adventure) to sneak up behind someone and stab them in the face/shoot them/knock them out. Except in D&D, rogues cannot do that.

Sure they can. Even ignoring one of the Complete books which gives more detailed rules for handling movement while hiding, under the core rules you simply move up to the flat-footed guard and sneak attack them. This more than adequately models what you're trying to accomplish.


Invisibility doesn't make you invisible. It only gives you a bonus to your hide checks.

It does make you invisible. That's why you get a bonus to your Hide check and, even if someone spots you, they've only pinpointed your position (they haven't actually seen you). But you still leave footprints and the like, which is why people can notice where you're at.


Let's be generous and say "+20 if you're moving" means moving squares across the grid, not just flailing your sword about, so he gets a +40 for standing in one square stabbing that hill giant in the face. The new subtotal is +34.

That's not generous, that's what the rule is.


He attacks, and suffers a -20 penalty to his hide check. Now he's at a grand total of +14 to his hide check.

Makes perfect sense. Put a blindfold on and have someone hit you. Can you get a pretty good idea of where they're hitting you from?


And all that ignores the fact that Grog has no concealment or cover, so the hill giant automatically makes his spot check!

Invisibility grants concealment. See the Combat chapter.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

Annarrkkii
2007-05-11, 06:48 AM
Going by weights, the standard climber's kit for a small character holds something like 2 pitons.

Lidda calls her Move Silently skill "Footpaddin'."

Roderick_BR
2007-05-11, 08:59 AM
... How can a rogue hide a tower shield behind itself? The moment you take the tower shield out of place, you cover is gone, and your hidding ends.
Plus, you need to be very dumb to don't notice someone hidding behind a shield. Maybe a epic rogue could do that.
"Hmm...?"
"What's up, Bob?"
"I think I saw something there."
"There's only the armory, with the armors."
"Someone is hidding behind that shield."
"... You better go home and sleep, Bob. I'll take over the rest of the night."

And for magic itens. Well, if something is magic, the creator needs to use magic.
Options are HOW some weapons can be made. Using rare and exotic materials could be used to make superior itens, including magic effects.
Races of Stone have the BattleSmith, a dwarf PrC that can make magic weapons and armor, without the need to be a caster. He can make weapons and armor with enhancement bonuses, but for others effects (keen, flamming), he needs someone else to cast these for him, as the normal rules for crafting magic weapons allow, and he could use a magic forge (in Races of Stone too) that provides him all the requisite spells, but he still needs a spellcaster to create the forge! XD

Tokiko Mima
2007-05-11, 10:36 AM
Someone said something that struck a chord here. Why in the world does armor penalize your Hide skill?

I understand how it would make you less able to Move Silently, but to a deaf person the guy in blackened chain mail is just as visible as the guy in a black ninja suit.

Fax Celestis
2007-05-11, 10:39 AM
Mobility. It's harder to stay effectively hidden when you can't crouch down all the way.

GoC
2007-05-11, 10:46 AM
I hear wolves can maintain 10 miles per hour for hours on end.

I think horses are also pretty good for distances; there's a reason cavalry rode overland, rather than marching and saddling for battle. Of course, the horse has been domesticated for so long that the kind we ride are barely recognizable as their wild ancestors, like dogs and wolves; even "wild" horses are actually descendants of domesticated horses (with one known group of exceptions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Przewalski%27s_Horse)).

Of course, on a hot day, we can outlast dogs (assuming, of course, that you're in practice running and reasonably physically fit; in this modern day, quite a few of us aren't), since we have one advantage over them: sweat.

Outside of a dog (and maybe a horse), though, or on a hot day, we're the best distance runners on this planet. Not counting things we built, of course (Edit: Don't know if the horse falls into this category; I definitely know the automobile does).

I thought most quadrapeds can outlast humans in long distance. Gazels, antelope, ect.?

SpikeFightwicky
2007-05-11, 11:09 AM
For that whole 'Failing a check on purpose' argument, here's something out of the SRD:

'Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.'

Also, there's no such thing as 'Proficiency' with an unarmed attack. Even the Weapon Prof. feats specify 'attacks with weapons'.

SIMPLE WEAPON PROFICIENCY [GENERAL]
Benefit: You make attack rolls with simple weapons normally.

Normal: When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls.

I also second the absurdity that a full flask weighs 1lb., but an empty flask weighs 1.5 lb.

NPCs with character classes and their Challenge Ratings are a little off. A level 3 human fighter is (per the rules), a CR 3 creature, as is a Howler. Both are supposed to provide a decent encounter for a level 3 party. However, that means that the howler is alot more powerful than a single 3rd level character, which means it's alot more powerful than the CR 3 human fighter, but they still have the same CR. So by encounter guidelines, NPCs with class levels are an inferior challenge for their level.

Fax Celestis
2007-05-11, 11:14 AM
For that whole 'Failing a check on purpose' argument, here's something out of the SRD:

'Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.'

Also, there's no such thing as 'Proficiency' with an unarmed attack. Even the Weapon Prof. feats specify 'attacks with weapons'.

SIMPLE WEAPON PROFICIENCY [GENERAL]
Benefit: You make attack rolls with simple weapons normally.

Normal: When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls.

I also second the absurdity that a full flask weighs 1lb., but an empty flask weighs 1.5 lb.

NPCs with character classes and their Challenge Ratings are a little off. A level 3 human fighter is (per the rules), a CR 3 creature, as is a Howler. Both are supposed to provide a decent encounter for a level 3 party. However, that means that the howler is alot more powerful than a single 3rd level character, which means it's alot more powerful than the CR 3 human fighter, but they still have the same CR. So by encounter guidelines, NPCs with class levels are an inferior challenge for their level.

1. Your fists are weapons. Ask a boxer.
2. Flasks are strange, yes.
3. The difference between a howler and a L3 fighter is one thing: equipment. Gear is the great equalizer.

Yahzi
2007-05-11, 11:18 AM
Inside of a dog, there's not a lot of distance to run.
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read." —Groucho Marx

Edit: Aw, Leon beat me to it...

Khantalas
2007-05-11, 11:18 AM
Actually, a CR 3 encounter is meant to consume 25% of the resources of a four people party of level 3 people. So, a CR 3 Fighter is as powerful as a Howler.

OttotheBugbear
2007-05-11, 11:43 AM
That doesn't work because, obviously, the tower shield isn't granting cover to itself. You could argue that the rules don't specifically require that the rogue's equipment also be behind cover, but that's nothing more than pedantry.

Obviously a rogue could hide behind a tower shield.

It works and is stupid because your equipment hides with you. The tower shield is part of the rogue's equipment, thus it's hidden when the rogue is hidden. That's what makes it stupid.

Of course you should always rule against this sort of stuff. That doesn't change the fact that it's stupid. That supports the fact that it's stupid.


Sure they can. Even ignoring one of the Complete books which gives more detailed rules for handling movement while hiding, under the core rules you simply move up to the flat-footed guard and sneak attack them. This more than adequately models what you're trying to accomplish.

I made no mention of getting sneak attack on a flat-footed opponent. I said that the rogue with no concealment or cover absolutely cannot move up to that guard without being seen. Sure, the rogue may catch the guard flat-footed and sneak attack him for Xd6, but the guard saw the rogue.

There is no facing in D&D.
The rogue needs cover or concealment to hide.
The rogue has no cover or concealment.
The rogue is seen by the guard, even when trying to sneak up "behind" the guard.


It does make you invisible. That's why you get a bonus to your Hide check and, even if someone spots you, they've only pinpointed your position (they haven't actually seen you). But you still leave footprints and the like, which is why people can notice where you're at.

Read hide. Invisibility doesn't make you invisible, it only gives you a bonus to hide checks. If you were truly invisible, there wouldn't need to be a bonus to hide checks, you'd be so well hidden you could never be spotted. Spot also doesn't say that spotting someone only pinpoints their location. It says you see them. Invisibility contradicts itself even.

"The creature or object touched becomes invisible, vanishing from sight, even from darkvision."

Vanishes from sight. An absolute statement.

"Invisible creatures can be noticed by making a spot check. The DC to spot an invisible creature is 30 if the invisible creature is active (moving, attacking, casting, etc.) and the DC is 50 if the invisible creature is inactive (standing still, taking precautions to not be noticed, such as moving only when behind concealment)."

Except it doesn't vanish from sight, just makes it harder to spot.

Invisibility does not say it grants you concealment.


That's not generous, that's what the rule is.

The rules is actually unclear. If I move my arm, I'm moving my arm. If I move into the other room, I'm moving also. I think the intent is that +20 is when using the movement = traveling and the +40 is staying in the same square, but it's a little vague. Couple that with the fact that the DC is different in the spell description (DC 30 when moving, attack, casting, etc.), compared to what it states in the Hide skill (+20/+40) and that leads to even more confusion.


Invisibility grants concealment. See the Combat chapter.

Thanks! That's even more stupidity to add to this thread. I'm AFB right now, but if that's true, why the **** isn't that in the spell invisibility?

So now, invisibility is actually described in
1. The spell invisibility
2. The Hide skill
3. The combat chapter
4. (questionably) the Disguise skill

And in those, it directly contradicts itself.

W. T. F.

OttotheBugbear
2007-05-11, 11:48 AM
... How can a rogue hide a tower shield behind itself? The moment you take the tower shield out of place, you cover is gone, and your hidding ends.
Plus, you need to be very dumb to don't notice someone hidding behind a shield. Maybe a epic rogue could do that.

It's quite simple. When a character hides, his equipment hides with him. The tower shield is part of the rogue's equipment. The tower shield grants cover. Cover means the rogue can hide. The rogue hides. All the rogue's equipment hides as well, including all his equipment. The tower shield is part of his equipment, so that's hidden as well.

Who says you take it out of place? It hasn't moved out of place unless the rogue moves it out of place. He continues to hold it in place and grant himself cover.

Very dumb, or very following-the-rules-without-common-sense (which equates to the same thing).

SpikeFightwicky
2007-05-11, 11:58 AM
1. Your fists are weapons. Ask a boxer.
2. Flasks are strange, yes.
3. The difference between a howler and a L3 fighter is one thing: equipment. Gear is the great equalizer.

3. Meh, a 3rd level fighter with full plate and a mstwrk great sword can't mess up a party like a howler could.

Another stupid thing: Favored enemies. Why does the ranger have to pick seperate humanoid or outsider subtypes, but something like 'Magical Beast' includes every one from shocker lizard to pheonix? It seems like more of a balance issue (I think?), but that's the only argument I can come up with. According to this, Humans and elves are completely different (which they are), but a sphinx and a stirge are somehow close enough to fall under the same category?

Fax Celestis
2007-05-11, 12:04 PM
There is no facing in D&D.
The rogue needs cover or concealment to hide.
The rogue has no cover or concealment.
The rogue is seen by the guard, even when trying to sneak up "behind" the guard.

There is facing in D&D (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/combatFacing.htm).

brian c
2007-05-11, 12:15 PM
There is facing in D&D (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/combatFacing.htm).

Indeed. I've always wanted to use those rules, but it seems like it would just be too much work. It makes sense to use those when it's important (like for sneaking up on someone) but use normal rules in most situations.

Indon
2007-05-11, 12:31 PM
It works and is stupid because your equipment hides with you. The tower shield is part of the rogue's equipment, thus it's hidden when the rogue is hidden. That's what makes it stupid.

It's not a part of the rogue's equipment if he's dropped it to gain cover (rather than the shield bonus he gains from actually equipping it). He has to pick it back up (losing cover) to make it his equipment again. Otherwise, if he moves, he leaves the shield behind.



I made no mention of getting sneak attack on a flat-footed opponent. I said that the rogue with no concealment or cover absolutely cannot move up to that guard without being seen. Sure, the rogue may catch the guard flat-footed and sneak attack him for Xd6, but the guard saw the rogue.

There is no facing in D&D.
The rogue needs cover or concealment to hide.
The rogue has no cover or concealment.
The rogue is seen by the guard, even when trying to sneak up "behind" the guard.

Unless you're invisible, chances are you can't be snuck up on like that in real life, too, if you're guarding. Surprised, yes, ambushed, yes, but not even seeing your opponent crossing 20-30 feet until he's on you? That's not a person failing spot checks to see someone hiding, that's a person failing spot checks to start an encounter (which, I might add, are really fuggin' easy at that distance).

Admittedly, someone could just pop around a corner and sap a guard... but corners provide cover so by RAW that works.



Read hide. Invisibility doesn't make you invisible, it only gives you a bonus to hide checks. If you were truly invisible, there wouldn't need to be a bonus to hide checks, you'd be so well hidden you could never be spotted. Spot also doesn't say that spotting someone only pinpoints their location. It says you see them. Invisibility contradicts itself even.

"The creature or object touched becomes invisible, vanishing from sight, even from darkvision."

Vanishes from sight. An absolute statement.

"Invisible creatures can be noticed by making a spot check. The DC to spot an invisible creature is 30 if the invisible creature is active (moving, attacking, casting, etc.) and the DC is 50 if the invisible creature is inactive (standing still, taking precautions to not be noticed, such as moving only when behind concealment)."

Except it doesn't vanish from sight, just makes it harder to spot.

Invisibility does not say it grants you concealment.

Have you ever:

-Read the text regarding the special quality of invisibility? It's in www.d20srd.org in the same section that covers things like damage reduction.
-Seen ANY television show concerning an invisible person sneaking around? They leave footprints. Rain bounces off them. They leave clearly visible traces. Even vanished from sight, leaves are still going to visibly crunch under your feet. Someone who is attentive will SPOT that and could tell what's going on.



The rules is actually unclear. If I move my arm, I'm moving my arm. If I move into the other room, I'm moving also. I think the intent is that +20 is when using the movement = traveling and the +40 is staying in the same square, but it's a little vague. Couple that with the fact that the DC is different in the spell description (DC 30 when moving, attack, casting, etc.), compared to what it states in the Hide skill (+20/+40) and that leads to even more confusion.


Base DC is 10, and the +20/+40 numbers are modifiers to that DC.



And in those, it directly contradicts itself.


No, it really doesn't.

Roderick_BR
2007-05-11, 01:43 PM
It's quite simple. When a character hides, his equipment hides with him. The tower shield is part of the rogue's equipment. The tower shield grants cover. Cover means the rogue can hide. The rogue hides. All the rogue's equipment hides as well, including all his equipment. The tower shield is part of his equipment, so that's hidden as well.

Who says you take it out of place? It hasn't moved out of place unless the rogue moves it out of place. He continues to hold it in place and grant himself cover.

Very dumb, or very following-the-rules-without-common-sense (which equates to the same thing).
It's dumb only if a DM doesn't know how to rule it.
Player: "I hide behind the tower shield"
DM: "Ok, you stand near the old armors in the room, so people just notice a shield near a wall"
Player: "No, they can't see the shield. It's hidden."
DM: "Hidden? Where?"
Player: "I'm hidding, and the shield is part of my equipment. It's tied on my arm right now. So, as the rest of my equipment, it's hidden."
DM: "And where the shield is hidden?"
Player: "uh... behind the shield?" :D
DM: "...As I was saying, people just see the shield near the wall..."

You don't need house rules. Just common sense. And as "moving" the shield, I meant that if you try to hide it, it gets moved.

OttotheBugbear
2007-05-11, 05:06 PM
It's not a part of the rogue's equipment if he's dropped it to gain cover (rather than the shield bonus he gains from actually equipping it). He has to pick it back up (losing cover) to make it his equipment again. Otherwise, if he moves, he leaves the shield behind.

Ah. I see your mistake. It seems from this that you think someone has to drop the shield to gain cover. That's not written anywhere. If you're actually forcing a character to drop the tower shield to gain the benefit of cover, of course he's not holding it anymore. The entry for Tower Shield doesn't say you have to drop the shield to gain cover.


Unless you're invisible, chances are you can't be snuck up on like that in real life, too, if you're guarding. Surprised, yes, ambushed, yes, but not even seeing your opponent crossing 20-30 feet until he's on you? That's not a person failing spot checks to see someone hiding, that's a person failing spot checks to start an encounter (which, I might add, are really fuggin' easy at that distance).

"Real life" You're a funny guy. What does that have to do with how the rules are presented to us?


Have you ever:

-Read the text regarding the special quality of invisibility? It's in www.d20srd.org in the same section that covers things like damage reduction.

I actually said, "I'm AFB...", which means "Away From Books." Then I mentioned admitting that if it were there, that just leads to even more stupidity in the rules. You know, the topic of this thread.

Now that I'm home, I see that it says, "Although invisibility provides total concealment," -- there it is -- "sighted opponents may still make Spot checks to notice the LOCATION of an invisible character. ... figure you where you are from other visual clues."

So, I was wrong about them being able to see the invisible creature walking around with a spot check.

But, that does bring up another really stupid thing in the rules.

Why isn't that copied directly into the invisibility spell?
Are we back to Ivory Tower Game Design?
Just put it all in the same place!

The "+20/+40" should be included in invisibility, instead of in the Hide rules and on PHB page 153. It should either be a +20/+40 OR a DC 30/DC 50, not both.

Tell me, why is it not stupid game design to have that crap spread into three different locations (without even counting the retarded tower shield thing), that don't match each other?


-Seen ANY television show concerning an invisible person sneaking around? They leave footprints. Rain bounces off them. They leave clearly visible traces. Even vanished from sight, leaves are still going to visibly crunch under your feet. Someone who is attentive will SPOT that and could tell what's going on.

What does television shows have to do with how the D&D rules are presented to us? Unless those shows expressly use the D&D rules, it really proves nothing about how it actually works as written.

Sure, it should be laid out exactly like you describe. In fact, that's exactly what I do. I say that the spot check is to see footprints or other sign of the space the creature occupies. (And cannot be used to spot where flying creatures are.) See how easy that is to distinguish? I'm guessing you're doing the same thing, based on your posts. Now, if it's that easy to spell out, yet the rules don't spell it out that way, what does that tell us? It tells us that it was done pretty stupid in the rules.

So, if you're looking for agreement that it should work that way, that's a no-brainer.


Base DC is 10, and the +20/+40 numbers are modifiers to that DC.

Except the part where a Spot check is used to discover a hiding character, by trying to beat their Hide check.


No, it really doesn't.

Hide is opposed by a spot check.
Invisibility
A) gives a bonus to hide checks +20/+40 (which are opposed by Spot checks), &
B) sets the Spot DC at 30/50

Is that a contradiction?

And if you say the DC is 10 plus the bonuses, to get 30/50, at least explain where the 10 comes from?


It's dumb only if a DM doesn't know how to rule it.
*snip stuff*

Exactly right. It's written in a way that DM's will have to make the call. DM's should make the call in that way. It's a stupid thing in the rule that DM's have to make the call on.

Caelestion
2007-05-11, 05:33 PM
Ah. I see your mistake. It seems from this that you think someone has to drop the shield to gain cover. That's not written anywhere. If you're actually forcing a character to drop the tower shield to gain the benefit of cover, of course he's not holding it anymore. The entry for Tower Shield doesn't say you have to drop the shield to gain cover.

Surely that comes under the category of "brain dead rules-lawyering"? If it's so laughably stupid that you can't think why it wasn't explicitly banned, that's probably why. After all, it says in the rules that humanoids eat, sleep and breathe, but it doesn't say that they drink or in fact that they need to do any of that lot.

JaronK
2007-05-11, 05:36 PM
I thought most quadrapeds can outlast humans in long distance. Gazels, antelope, ect.?

Actually no. If you're in shape and practiced at jogging long distances, you can actually hunt by outlasting such animals. One method of deer hunting is actually to just jog after one. It'll sprint away, but in the plains you can still see it, so you just jog on up to it. It sprints away again. After about an hour of this, the deer is too tired to move, and you're basically fine. Then you spear the poor thing.

This absolutely works and was a common technique in some open areas for early tribal hunters. Sneaking up on the deer is more efficient usually, but if you can't do that, just jog after it.

JaronK

OttotheBugbear
2007-05-11, 06:27 PM
Surely that comes under the category of "brain dead rules-lawyering"? If it's so laughably stupid that you can't think why it wasn't explicitly banned, that's probably why. After all, it says in the rules that humanoids eat, sleep and breathe, but it doesn't say that they drink or in fact that they need to do any of that lot.

No. Because the opposite is "you have to drop your tower shield to gain cover from it."

Caelestion
2007-05-11, 06:34 PM
But clearly, if you're hiding behind a shield, you should not need text indicating that the shield is not hidden. After all, "the rules don't say I need to drink. Cya barman - you sucker."

I_Got_This_Name
2007-05-11, 07:25 PM
Actually no. If you're in shape and practiced at jogging long distances, you can actually hunt by outlasting such animals. One method of deer hunting is actually to just jog after one. It'll sprint away, but in the plains you can still see it, so you just jog on up to it. It sprints away again. After about an hour of this, the deer is too tired to move, and you're basically fine. Then you spear the poor thing.

This absolutely works and was a common technique in some open areas for early tribal hunters. Sneaking up on the deer is more efficient usually, but if you can't do that, just jog after it.

JaronK

The way I've always heard it, it works best on a hot day. That way, you've got an added advantage: the deer sprints and you run; you both get heated by this. You sweat. Deer gets heatstroke. Spear it when it collapses.

I've heard this hypothesized as why we are hairless, tailless bipeds, too; we evolved to do that, and advanced tool use was something picked up once we got our hands free.

In that case, replace "spear it" with "you and your buddies tear it limb from limb."

JaronK
2007-05-11, 08:17 PM
The way I've always heard it, it works best on a hot day. That way, you've got an added advantage: the deer sprints and you run; you both get heated by this. You sweat. Deer gets heatstroke. Spear it when it collapses.

Yeah, well, tiredness is very much related to how overheated your muscles are, so it's the same thing. And yes, we're evolved to hunt in the African plains, so it's a tactic that works great in hot expanses of plains.

JaronK

PirateMonk
2007-05-11, 09:06 PM
I can already see the future of all D&D worlds: instead of roads there will be long rows of horses between the cities and messengers will be heavily trained in riding so they can travel halfway across a continent within 6 secons.

I was wondering how they feed and dispose of the waste of all those horses, but someone pointed out that they don't necessarily need to be living, and statues should logically be easier to mount. Of course, this won't necessarily work, since rules aren't logical, but it's worth a shot, right?

Also, while we're killing catgirls in droves, since you're going all that distance as a free action (ie in effectively no time), your mass becomes infinite (and then some), in accordance with relativity. So you don't even need Major Creation for your own personal black hole...

Umarth
2007-05-11, 09:14 PM
Intresting article here about why humans are such good runners: http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2004.php?subaction=showfull&id=1177191013&archive=&start_from=&ucat=7&


Also here's the grand daddy of all stupid things in the core RAW:

Dead
The character’s hit points are reduced to -10, his Constitution drops to 0, or he is killed outright by a spell or effect. The character’s soul leaves his body. Dead characters cannot benefit from normal or magical healing, but they can be restored to life via magic. A dead body decays normally unless magically preserved, but magic that restores a dead character to life also restores the body either to full health or to its condition at the time of death (depending on the spell or device). Either way, resurrected characters need not worry about rigor mortis, decomposition, and other conditions that affect dead bodies.


Nothing here prevents you from simply getting up and continue on with your "life". Dead characters are not incapacitated in any way, have no penalties on movement, are not kept from doing anything.

Might be nice to have someone cast gentle repose on you every now and again but since there arn't any rules saying what happens when you decompose you're probably safe ignoring that.

Being dead is the only way to live.

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-11, 09:21 PM
Also, while we're killing catgirls in droves, since you're going all that distance as a free action (ie in effectively no time), your mass becomes infinite (and then some), in accordance with relativity. So you don't even need Major Creation for your own personal black hole...
Relativity has nothing to do with this at all. You never actually travel faster than the horses speed with its run action. Or 240 feet per 6 seconds.

Einstein never said that you couldn't ago faster than the speed of light, only that you couldn't accelerate to that speed.

Weezer
2007-05-11, 09:28 PM
I thought most quadrapeds can outlast humans in long distance. Gazels, antelope, ect.?
Actually in ireland their is an annual 24 mile run pitting humans against horses and 5 times in the last 10 years humans have beaten world class horses, I think that shows that humans can outrun common quadrupeds.

PlatinumJester
2007-05-12, 05:14 AM
That a small dagger does 1d3 damage. Who the **** has a d3 - no one. Can't they make it a d2 since then you could just flip a coin.

Dhavaer
2007-05-12, 05:18 AM
Who the **** has a d3 - no one.

You can buy them. They aren't that hard to find.

PlatinumJester
2007-05-12, 06:31 AM
You can buy them. They aren't that hard to find.

I refuse to buy something so useless and pathetic.

Renx
2007-05-12, 06:34 AM
I'll just comment on the invisibility conversation... aren't you supposed to actively try to Spot an invisible something, and not just get an automatic Spot check when someone invisible is around?

Still, invisibility (especially Greater invisibility) is ridiculous in combat... -4 to hit and a 50% chance to miss? Sh'ya right. Show me any level 10 fighter-type who can't hit an invisible [something] at least once per turn and I'll show you someone with very bad luck.

Dhavaer
2007-05-12, 06:47 AM
I refuse to buy something so useless and pathetic.

You just pointed out that they have a use.

skyclad
2007-05-12, 07:32 AM
That a small dagger does 1d3 damage. Who the **** has a d3 - no one. Can't they make it a d2 since then you could just flip a coin.

Are you kidding me? Just use a d6 and have 12 = 1, 34 = 2, 56 = 3.

Erk
2007-05-12, 09:13 AM
Are you kidding me? Just use a d6 and have 12 = 1, 34 = 2, 56 = 3.

QFT. That's the first time I have ever seen someone whine about not being able to make a d3 work. Or if that's too tough to calculate (dividing by two being what it is) then roll a d4 and just reroll it if you get a 4.

Serenity
2007-05-12, 10:58 AM
Intresting article here about why humans are such good runners: http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2004.php?subaction=showfull&id=1177191013&archive=&start_from=&ucat=7&


Also here's the grand daddy of all stupid things in the core RAW:

Dead
The character’s hit points are reduced to -10, his Constitution drops to 0, or he is killed outright by a spell or effect. The character’s soul leaves his body. Dead characters cannot benefit from normal or magical healing, but they can be restored to life via magic. A dead body decays normally unless magically preserved, but magic that restores a dead character to life also restores the body either to full health or to its condition at the time of death (depending on the spell or device). Either way, resurrected characters need not worry about rigor mortis, decomposition, and other conditions that affect dead bodies.


Nothing here prevents you from simply getting up and continue on with your "life". Dead characters are not incapacitated in any way, have no penalties on movement, are not kept from doing anything.

Might be nice to have someone cast gentle repose on you every now and again but since there arn't any rules saying what happens when you decompose you're probably safe ignoring that.

Being dead is the only way to live.

They don't need penalties because they're, y'know, dead. That's kinda got a very definite meaning. Even the most devoted munchkin would be loath to argue that their dead character can just get back up. They'll argue why he shouldn't be dead, but not that being dead isn't being dead.

The Glyphstone
2007-05-12, 11:18 AM
Not core, but in Lords of Madness, there's a 9th level swift-action spell called Invoke Magic. It lets you call a bit of magic into a null or anti-magic zone or field, enough to cast a single 4th level or less spell (obviously meant to be an anti-beholder tool). But it doesn't anywhere in the spell actually say you can cast Invoke Magic while under an AMF....:smallyuk:

Dark
2007-05-12, 12:24 PM
Dead
The character’s hit points are reduced to -10, his Constitution drops to 0, or he is killed outright by a spell or effect. The character’s soul leaves his body.
What happens next depends on whether you're playing the soul or the body :) Are you now a bodiless soul or a soulless body?

Maybe I should explore the concept in a D&D novel.

Umarth
2007-05-12, 02:13 PM
They don't need penalties because they're, y'know, dead. That's kinda got a very definite meaning. Even the most devoted munchkin would be loath to argue that their dead character can just get back up. They'll argue why he shouldn't be dead, but not that being dead isn't being dead.

Dead is a condition just like blinded, deafened, or paralyzed. Conditions in D&D have very specific in game rules.

Playing by RAW when your dead you soul leaves your body (no rules cover this so probably just flavor text), you can't benefit from normal or magical healing (specific in game effect), you can be restored to life by certain spells (specific in game effect), your body decays (again no rules cover what the effect of this is so no bonuses or penalties for it) though it can be preserved through magic.

There is nothing in the dead condition that prevents you from moving, casting spells, attacking, making skill checks, or doing anything else.


Now I'm not saying that people shouldn't use a homebrew rule that adds the blind, deaf, paralyzed, unconscious and helpless. Per RAW though none of those conditions apply to you. Once you are at -10 hps or below your just fine.

Oddly this can also be combined with drowning as a cheap form of resurrection. Drown them brings them up to 0 hps and then you can heal them like normal.

If you disagree point me to the the rule(s) I'm missing.

Foeofthelance
2007-05-12, 02:36 PM
Aren't characters that are at less then -1 HP automatically unconcious? So a dead character wouldn't be able to move until healed. Using the drowning rule should count as healing (Healing being defined as anything that either prevents further loss of HP or restores lost HP). Being dead makes it so that you can't be healed. Therefore a dead character is unconcious, and suffers all of the same penalties, just has a different title. Just the way I'd figure it.

The_Werebear
2007-05-12, 02:37 PM
Oddly this can also be combined with drowning as a cheap form of resurrection. Drown them brings them up to 0 hps and then you can heal them like normal.

If you disagree point me to the the rule(s) I'm missing.

Nothing stops drowning, Once you start, you will progress from 0 to -1 to Dead, even if you pull your head out of the water and get healed.

Umarth
2007-05-12, 03:01 PM
Nothing stops drowning, Once you start, you will progress from 0 to -1 to Dead, even if you pull your head out of the water and get healed.

Ohh.. good call out. That will be fun to DM next time.


Aren't characters that are at less then -1 HP automatically unconcious? So a dead character wouldn't be able to move until healed. Using the drowning rule should count as healing (Healing being defined as anything that either prevents further loss of HP or restores lost HP). Being dead makes it so that you can't be healed. Therefore a dead character is unconcious, and suffers all of the same penalties, just has a different title. Just the way I'd figure it.

Unconscious
Knocked out and helpless. Unconsciousness can result from having current hit points between -1 and -9, or from nonlethal damage in excess of current hit points.

When your dead your at -10 hps. and thus not unconscious.

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-12, 03:45 PM
Nothing stops drowning, Once you start, you will progress from 0 to -1 to Dead, even if you pull your head out of the water and get healed.

Incorrect. Go read the text on Stabilize, page 145-146 of the PHB.

Attilargh
2007-05-12, 03:56 PM
When the character finally fails her Constitution check, she begins to drown. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hp). In the following round, she drops to -1 hit points and is dying. In the third round, she drowns.
Note how drowning doesn't follow the normal rules for dying. You first drop to zero, then to minus one and start dying, and then you drown. Stabilization only prevents a character from losing hit points.

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-12, 04:10 PM
No. Its what happens when your HP's are raised to 1 or higher (which is in the stabilize text).


Healing that raises his hit points to 1 or more makes him fully functional again, just as if he'd never been reduced to 0 or lower.

Saph
2007-05-12, 04:16 PM
There is nothing in the dead condition that prevents you from moving, casting spells, attacking, making skill checks, or doing anything else.

If you disagree point me to the the rule(s) I'm missing.

I think it's under the section marked "If You Need This Explained You're Probably Too Dumb To Play The Game Anyway".

I mean, honestly. There's following RAW, and then there's being wilfully stupid. This should go under 'stupid players', not 'stupid things in the core books'. Are you actually saying that your group gets confused by what 'dead' means?

- Saph

Dausuul
2007-05-12, 04:18 PM
They don't need penalties because they're, y'know, dead. That's kinda got a very definite meaning. Even the most devoted munchkin would be loath to argue that their dead character can just get back up. They'll argue why he shouldn't be dead, but not that being dead isn't being dead.

You don't go by dictionaries in D&D, you go by the rulebooks. This thread is about stupid things in the core rulebooks. By those rules--strictly RAW--being "dead" does not inconvenience you in the least. Is that stupid? Of course, it's unbelievably stupid. That's why it's in this thread.

Maroon
2007-05-12, 04:37 PM
As for the gnomes... I just don't think it fits their racial character to be tough. Gnomes are the small-frail-and-too-curious-for-their-own-good race, not the small-tough race. That's dwarves, as you said. I think gnomes having a con bonus infringes on the dwarves' niche in the game world.
You need the extra hit points when your species consists entirely of wizard pranksters.

PirateMonk
2007-05-12, 04:41 PM
Now that I think about it, I don't recall any RPG that specifically states you can't do anything once you're dead...


You need the extra hit points when your species consists entirely of wizard pranksters.

Indeed :smallamused: ...

Serenity
2007-05-12, 05:21 PM
You don't go by dictionaries in D&D, you go by the rulebooks. This thread is about stupid things in the core rulebooks. By those rules--strictly RAW--being "dead" does not inconvenience you in the least. Is that stupid? Of course, it's unbelievably stupid. That's why it's in this thread.

No, it's not stupid, because it's ridiculous to expect there to have to be a rule that dead means dead.

I defer to Tom Cruise in A Few Good Men: "Can you show me where in the Uniform Code it tells you where the mess hall is? No? Then how did you find where to eat?" (Heavily paraphrased.)

Indon
2007-05-12, 05:41 PM
No, it's not stupid, because it's ridiculous to expect there to have to be a rule that dead means dead.


The thread is essentially "Stupid results of rules-lawyering", in any case. The Death thing is just an extreme example.

Also, regarding the invisibility/hiding/cover thing, there's nothing that says that objects inherit their owners' cover/hiding status, so that would mean they simply share it. This means that if you hide behind a tower shield, the tower shield doesn't neccessarily get to hide too.

Telok
2007-05-12, 05:55 PM
A level 20 rogue cannot sneak attack a sleeping level 1 commoner as long as the commoner has his blanket pulled up over his head.


A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/rogue.htm#sneakAttack

DaMullet
2007-05-12, 06:04 PM
A level 20 rogue cannot sneak attack a sleeping level 1 commoner as long as the commoner has his blanket pulled up over his head.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/rogue.htm#sneakAttack
There are vital areas not connected to the head and neck. Specifically the kidneys, several major arteries in the thigh and wrists, and the general chest area.

If the blanket is just over his head, the rogue can still cut him.

If he's wearing a mummy-style sleeping bag, then the rogue is SOL, but the blanket alone won't stop anything.

Dausuul
2007-05-12, 07:10 PM
No, it's not stupid, because it's ridiculous to expect there to have to be a rule that dead means dead.

I defer to Tom Cruise in A Few Good Men: "Can you show me where in the Uniform Code it tells you where the mess hall is? No? Then how did you find where to eat?" (Heavily paraphrased.)

I don't think I'd consider it stupid were it not for the fact that the D&D rulebooks make such a point of spelling out exactly how everything works. Furthermore, the rules frequently don't make sense in terms of the real world, even when you're using them strictly as intended. So, if one is going to make such a fussily legalistic, rigid, and realism-defying rule set, one ought perhaps to spell out such basic elements as "When you're dead, you can't do anything."

It's not, in fact, entirely a moot point. In a world where the dead can be resurrected or turned into undead, the question of what happens when you're dead is somewhat important. Do resurrected people have any memory of the time when they were dead? If so, what do they remember? Suppose you were under a spell effect when you were living, does that spell effect persist after you die and get resurrected? For that matter, when it says in raise dead that the soul must be willing to return: Suppose you died under the influence of charm monster, does that influence your decision to return or not? Can you target a dead creature with spells that target creatures, or does it get treated as an object? (If the latter, how come it still has a creature type? Can objects have creature types?) Et cetera.

Umarth
2007-05-12, 08:44 PM
Dausuul has it completely right.

In a world with zombies, resurrection, monsters that can't be killed if chopped into a thousand tiny bits, ect, ect, ect what happens when you die in such a world isn't something that can be completely taken for granted.

D&D isn't our world things like what happens when your dead should be spelled out.

Now that being said no this isn't something my group has problems with but it is legal per RAW.

Fun thing to do to a group your DMing for as a joke.

Players: My god why won't this kobold die!
DM: Well he's actually been dead for 10 rounds now. But he's not going to let that stop him.

tbarrie
2007-05-12, 10:53 PM
You don't go by dictionaries in D&D, you go by the rulebooks. This thread is about stupid things in the core rulebooks. By those rules--strictly RAW--being "dead" does not inconvenience you in the least. Is that stupid? Of course, it's unbelievably stupid. That's why it's in this thread.

While I see your point, I find it amusing that this thread has both people citing rules for things that are obvious and don't need to be spelled out AND people citing failures to spell out the obvious as "stupid things". Bit of a Catch-22, no?

Dausuul
2007-05-12, 11:09 PM
While I see your point, I find it amusing that this thread has both people citing rules for things that are obvious and don't need to be spelled out AND people citing failures to spell out the obvious as "stupid things". Bit of a Catch-22, no?

Heh. Good point.

Of course, if D&D didn't have so many rules pointing out the obvious, the places where it failed to point out the obvious wouldn't stick out so much.

Erk
2007-05-12, 11:23 PM
I have to say I agree it's a stretch to say not describing "dead" is a "stupid thing". I do agree that many questions about death in a fantasy environment need to be spelled out, but that doesn't mean that the description of "dead" needs to clarify that the dead character can't still get up and walk around. That's just stupid lawyering.

PirateMonk
2007-05-13, 08:41 AM
I don't think I'd consider it stupid were it not for the fact that the D&D rulebooks make such a point of spelling out exactly how everything works. Furthermore, the rules frequently don't make sense in terms of the real world, even when you're using them strictly as intended. So, if one is going to make such a fussily legalistic, rigid, and realism-defying rule set, one ought perhaps to spell out such basic elements as "When you're dead, you can't do anything."

It's not, in fact, entirely a moot point. In a world where the dead can be resurrected or turned into undead, the question of what happens when you're dead is somewhat important. Do resurrected people have any memory of the time when they were dead? If so, what do they remember? Suppose you were under a spell effect when you were living, does that spell effect persist after you die and get resurrected? For that matter, when it says in raise dead that the soul must be willing to return: Suppose you died under the influence of charm monster, does that influence your decision to return or not? Can you target a dead creature with spells that target creatures, or does it get treated as an object? (If the latter, how come it still has a creature type? Can objects have creature types?) Et cetera.

Exactly. And if invisible isn't invisible and Darkness isn't dark, why should dead be dead?

Bouldering Jove
2007-05-13, 09:07 AM
No. Its what happens when your HP's are raised to 1 or higher (which is in the stabilize text).
The stabilize text doesn't counteract the drowning text. The drowning text just causes certain states to happen in a round-by-round sequence, regardless of all other factors.

The description of how characters become "fully functional again, just as if [they'd] never been reduced to 0 or lower" is a statement that the full capacities of the character to do things are back; it's not a statement that every impairment afflicting them has been removed. Returning from being disabled to being fully functional can't remove the state of drowning any more than it can remove poison, magical effects, or any other ailment.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-05-13, 04:14 PM
No, it's not stupid, because it's ridiculous to expect there to have to be a rule that dead means dead.

I defer to Tom Cruise in A Few Good Men: "Can you show me where in the Uniform Code it tells you where the mess hall is? No? Then how did you find where to eat?" (Heavily paraphrased.)

Just as it's ridiculous to expect there to have to be a rule that means - say - that an unconscious character cannot take actions (which there is).

The problem is not that D&D does not game mechanically define "death" but rather that it *does* explicitly define the game mechanical condition "Dead" but doesn't directly associate it with anything. Since D&D is full of mechanically-defined conditions (unconscious, dying, petrified, and so on) it is not unreasonable to expect "dead" to be just as clearly defined as - say - "nauseated".

Erk
2007-05-13, 05:06 PM
well, to be fair, a lot more players keep trying to have their characters say/do things when they are KO'd than try to have them say things when they are dead ;)

Theodoxus
2007-05-13, 05:28 PM
Nothing stops drowning, Once you start, you will progress from 0 to -1 to Dead, even if you pull your head out of the water and get healed.

You progress from 0 to -1 to Drowned, and no where in the Drowned section does it reference Dead.

The closest it comes is: 'in the following round, she drops to -1 hit points and is dying. In the third round, she drowns.'

Drowned isn't defined anywhere - so it's a grey area. Given that people survive drowning all the time with limited medical resources (CPR, mostly) it certainly isn't unreasonable to assume that healing magic given to a drowning victim will resuccitate them immediately. Of course, it would require a bit of houseruling, but just quick and dirty, the 10 rounds it would take a normal person to die from -1 is probably the safest bet.

Using drowning on a dying victim won't work unless their con is 4 or less, as they can survive con x2 rounds before making the first check for drowning. An average character would be dead before they ran out of breath.

Pastafarian
2007-05-13, 05:31 PM
Relativity has nothing to do with this at all. Einstein never said that you couldn't ago faster than the speed of light, only that you couldn't accelerate to that speed.
Can you explain what you mean by this? If I understand the rules right, the horses exploit lets you travel a distance greater than zero in zero time, which means a velocity of infinity. Or are you saying that it isn't affected by relativity, because you are never going between 100 and 300,000 m/s, and Einstein never predicted what would happen if you went faster than light, because in real life it's impossible to do that without accelerating past it?

You never actually travel faster than the horses speed with its run action. Or 240 feet per 6 seconds.
But you do go faster than a horse can run; the horse goes 240' per 6 seconds, whereas someone using the horse exploit can go 10' (I think) per horse, in no time at all.

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-13, 05:49 PM
Can you explain what you mean by this? If I understand the rules right, the horses exploit lets you travel a distance greater than zero in zero time, which means a velocity of infinity. Or are you saying that it isn't affected by relativity, because you are never going between 100 and 300,000 m/s, and Einstein never predicted what would happen if you went faster than light, because in real life it's impossible to do that without accelerating past it?
This is what happens when you try to apply real life physics to D&D.

To go 6 thousand miles in 6 seconds in real life you must have an average velocity of 1,000 miles per second.

You can go 6,000 miles in 6 seconds in D&D without ever exceeding a speed of 250 feet per second.

The effect is most like what is predicted to occur if one where to travel through a wormhole. You arrive at a distant location in far less time then your velocity woudl ever allow.

And relativity doesn't apply because, as you said, your velocity (in any frame of reference) never exceeds 240 feet per second.


But you do go faster than a horse can run; the horse goes 240' per 6 seconds, whereas someone using the horse exploit can go 10' (I think) per horse, in no time at all.
No, using the horse exploit you can go 240 feet per horse in no time. Mounts act on your turn but they act independently of your actions. The horse can use a run action to travel 240 feet and then you dismount and mount another horse. That horse then travels 240 feet, and so on and so on.

dr.cello
2007-05-13, 07:45 PM
No, using the horse exploit you can go 240 feet per horse in no time. Mounts act on your turn but they act independently of your actions. The horse can use a run action to travel 240 feet and then you dismount and mount another horse. That horse then travels 240 feet, and so on and so on.

Why do the horses have to be 240 feet apart? The original suggestion simply had them all standing in a line, so Player X could simply Legolas his way onto the first horse as a free action, then gracefully dismount and Legolas his way onto the next horse and--

Of course, the rules actually have a provision which says you can take as many free actions as the DM deems reasonable so I don't know if this necessarily qualifies as stupid.

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-13, 07:58 PM
Why do the horses have to be 240 feet apart? The original suggestion simply had them all standing in a line, so Player X could simply Legolas his way onto the first horse as a free action, then gracefully dismount and Legolas his way onto the next horse and--

Of course, the rules actually have a provision which says you can take as many free actions as the DM deems reasonable so I don't know if this necessarily qualifies as stupid.

It works with 10 feet just fine. My way just requires less horses. In fact you need 24 times as many horses as I do.

dr.cello
2007-05-13, 08:09 PM
It works with 10 feet just fine. My way just requires less horses. In fact you need 24 times as many horses as I do.

True, but we are on the subject of things which are ridiculous.

Emperor Tippy
2007-05-13, 08:25 PM
True. But thats a lot of horses that you need. I like to save my gold so I can do other things with it. :smallbiggrin:

Erk
2007-05-13, 10:18 PM
Drowned isn't defined anywhere - so it's a grey area. Given that people survive drowning all the time with limited medical resources (CPR, mostly) it certainly isn't unreasonable to assume that healing magic given to a drowning victim will resuccitate them immediately. Of course, it would require a bit of houseruling, but just quick and dirty, the 10 rounds it would take a normal person to die from -1 is probably the safest bet.


drown (droun)
v. drowned, drown·ing, drowns
v.tr.
1. To kill by submerging and suffocating in water or another liquid.
2. To drench thoroughly or cover with or as if with a liquid.
3. To deaden one's awareness of; blot out: people who drowned their troubles in drink.
4. To muffle or mask (a sound) by a louder sound: screams that were drowned out by the passing train.
v.intr.
To die by suffocating in water or another liquid.
Or, from a medical dictionary,

drowning /drown·ing/ (droun´ing) suffocation and death resulting from filling of the lungs with water or other substance.
A drowning person is not dead. A drowned person is dead, by the definition of the word. Drowned people don't get brought back by CPR, not quite yet.

dr.cello
2007-05-14, 02:59 AM
True. But thats a lot of horses that you need. I like to save my gold so I can do other things with it. :smallbiggrin:

Nonsense! My horse army will destroy you!

Bender
2007-05-14, 03:41 AM
Just a thought:
If the horses you are using have ranks in ride, they can mount/dismount other horses as a free action, and you only need two horses...

or better, the horse can mount/dismount you, and you only need one. Might be better to take a pony :smallwink:

(this of course requires a liberal interpretation of the rules where the horse getting free actions while it's not its turn...)

Tor the Fallen
2007-05-14, 03:56 AM
Why bother with a horse and instead hire a professional 'mount' for the low, low price of three sp a day?

Alternatively; nymphs.

Demented
2007-05-14, 05:15 AM
(this of course requires a liberal interpretation of the rules where the horse getting free actions while it's not its turn...)Even more liberal interpretation of the rules:

It makes sense that it's possible to repeat an action that you've readied, under the right circumstances and if you have sufficient actions.

See where I'm going with this?

The DC to mount/dismount as a free action is 20.
Your check is decreased by 5 if you're doing so bareback.
You may need to take into account another -5 if your mount is ill-suited to being ridden; in this case, you aren't strictly riding your mount.
Total DC is 25 (30).

Who needs a horse?

Make sure you can auto-succeed on the ride check.
Make sure you have a friend who can auto-succeed as well.
Ready an action to mount your friend and then dismount on the other side, whenever he's in the appropriate location to be mounted, for the next 50 times.
Then have your friend do likewise.

When you open your eyes next round, you'll have just hopscotched 250 ft. Just be careful to set the limit... It'd be unfortunate if you got caught in an infinite hopscotching loop! Not to mention the horrendously derisive mockery you'd suffer.

Edit:
I apologize.
I was wrong.

It's leapfrog, not hopscotch.

Dhavaer
2007-05-14, 05:18 AM
The problem with that is that a mount must be a size category larger thna the rider.

Demented
2007-05-14, 05:28 AM
You may be right, but I'm going off what I found in the Ride skill. I couldn't think of any other places where it'd mention what you can/cannot ride.

Emphasis bold:

Fast Mount or Dismount: You can attempt to mount or dismount from a mount of up to one size category larger than yourself as a free action, provided that you still have a move action available that round. If you fail the Ride check, mounting or dismounting is a move action. You can’t use fast mount or dismount on a mount more than one size category larger than yourself.

That implies you can mount/dismount creatures that are of a size category equal to your own. Or, at least, less than one size category larger... So you can mount/dismount creatures that are half of one size category larger.

Graah
2007-05-14, 05:40 AM
If you start a long jump at the end of your turn, you end your turn in the air.
If that is strange, then how strange it is that in D&D combat, one combatant at a time takes 10 seconds worth of actions and everyone else, basically, waits, doing nothing. And after everyone has taken 10 seconds worth of actions at their initiative, only 10 seconds of time has passed!

Erk
2007-05-14, 05:43 AM
now now folks, turn based combat isn't a flaw of D&D, it's a flaw of GMs' inability to listen to and react to six clamouring players at once. It's silly in any game system.

Graah
2007-05-14, 05:43 AM
In a world with zombies, resurrection, monsters that can't be killed if chopped into a thousand tiny bits, ect, ect, ect what happens when you die in such a world isn't something that can be completely taken for granted.

D&D isn't our world things like what happens when your dead should be spelled out.

That's partly the same reason you can't use Major Creation to make anti-osmium. There is no anti-osmium in D&D multiverse. There are five energy types, four major elemental planes, shadow, etheral, and astral things, adamantium, etc. but osmium does not exist, neither does anti-matter. The laws of physics in D&D are not the same as in our world.

Bender
2007-05-14, 06:35 AM
The DC to mount/dismount as a free action is 20.
Your check is decreased by 5 if you're doing so bareback.
You may need to take into account another -5 if your mount is ill-suited to being ridden; in this case, you aren't strictly riding your mount.
Total DC is 25 (30).


you could lower the DC with an exotic saddle. Your 'mount', having ranks in ride anyway, can aid you, resulting in a DC of only 18(23). Of course, if you are both horses or other suitable mounts, you don't have to worry about the (23). Besides, I don't see why a humanoid, who often has a nice, smooth, ridable back, should get a penalty for getting ridden on...



The problem with that is that a mount must be a size category larger than the rider.
Where does it say that?

urodivoi
2007-05-14, 06:42 AM
Am I the only one who is amused by the patent contradiction of the the Outsider (Native) type.:smallamused:

Native outsiders are described as outsiders (extra planar creatures) the are native to the material plane (not outsiders at all!):smallconfused:

weird - but we keep fighting them in my campaign.

lumberofdabeast
2007-05-14, 07:23 AM
By 'some' knowledge of the natural sciences, you mean that of a 20th century scientist? osmium & anti-osmium, regardless of their existence in D&D, would hardly fall under the category of 'some knowledge'. I think the word you are looking for is 'metagaming'.

Einstein was a 5th-level expert who dealt in complex theoretical physics.

I think a 9th-level wizard would be able to figure out easy things like antimatter and the existance of osmium.

Bender
2007-05-14, 07:38 AM
Einstein was a 5th-level expert who dealt in complex theoretical physics.

I think a 9th-level wizard would be able to figure out easy things like antimatter and the existance of osmium.

Then why don't they have hydrogen bombs and electric toasters...
besides, the 9th-level wizard doesn't have a particle accelerator to figure it out...
A wizard might of course figure out that things like antimatter and osmium don't exist in his universe. :smallwink:

lumberofdabeast
2007-05-14, 07:53 AM
Then why don't they have hydrogen bombs and electric toasters...
besides, the 9th-level wizard doesn't have a particle accelerator to figure it out...
A wizard might of course figure out that things like antimatter and osmium don't exist in his universe. :smallwink:
Why would he need a particle accelerator? He would be one of the smartest humans ever to live, and he'd have magic items to bolster his Intelligence as well. He could up his Knowledge: Whatever skill to the point where even a 1 would succeed.

And as for why they don't have hydrogen bombs or electric toasters, I'm guessing it's for the same reason as everyone having a ton of magic items, despite the rarity of mage-wrights.

Saph
2007-05-14, 08:26 AM
Why would he need a particle accelerator? He would be one of the smartest humans ever to live, and he'd have magic items to bolster his Intelligence as well. He could up his Knowledge: Whatever skill to the point where even a 1 would succeed.

No he couldn't, because there's no such thing in core D&D as Knowledge (physics) or Knowledge (chemistry). How are you going to put ranks in a skill that doesn't exist?

Modern natural science is built on thousands of years of cumulative research by tens of thousands of different people, each bringing different resources and insights. A single person wouldn't have a hope of duplicating it. Aristotle was probably more intelligent than anybody living in the world today, but he didn't manage to work out the periodic table. Intelligence alone isn't enough.

So no, the anti-osmium thing doesn't work, because to find out whether anti-osmium exists and what it is would take a Knowledge check higher than anyone could possibly get. Remember that if you don't have ranks in a Knowledge skill, all you know is 'common knowledge', DC 10 or lower. In no standard D&D setting is the nature of anti-osmium 'common knowledge'!

- Saph

Graah
2007-05-14, 08:31 AM
Then why don't they have hydrogen bombs and electric toasters...
besides, the 9th-level wizard doesn't have a particle accelerator to figure it out...
A wizard might of course figure out that things like antimatter and osmium don't exist in his universe. :smallwink:
Exactly, where in the rulebooks (even outside Core books, which are the subject of this thread) are osmium and antimatter? They are more like "stupid things that are NOT found in the core books". :smalltongue:

Bender
2007-05-14, 08:54 AM
I would like to add one more stupid thing about the creation of matter in d&d.

Let's make a simple calculation and kill all remaining catgirls in range of this thread:
In the modest, but high energy consuming Belgium, we continuously produce about 10 GW of power (it's more, but 10 is nice and round), in 10 days time, this amounts to approximately 1016 Joule.
Let's now look at E=mc2
If we take the amount of energy Belgium consumes in 10 days, and convert it to matter, we get...
...
1 gram

yet in dnd, a wizard can create a magnitude of this in normal matter, up to more than a ton (possibly more energy than the entire world consumes in 10 days). But that same wizard can, with the same effort, only produce a puny ball of fire that's hardly strong enough to knock down a horse???

add to this the fact that it is much, much easier to produce chaotic energy than it is to do something constructive with it.
If anything, this proves that real world physics doesn't apply in dnd (or in a very different way: if c is considerably slower over there, it could work :smallcool:)

Indon
2007-05-14, 10:10 AM
Aristotle was probably more intelligent than anybody living in the world today, but he didn't manage to work out the periodic table.

The ancient greeks _did_ have a 'table' of elements. It was just very small.

Bender
2007-05-14, 10:28 AM
The ancient greeks _did_ have a 'table' of elements. It was just very small.

and didn't contain osmium

SpikeFightwicky
2007-05-14, 11:13 AM
On a less extreme note, I find it weird that there's no way to have a character both dying AND conscious per the rules. As soon as you start dying, you're unconcious. So much for last minute good-byes, and drawn out action-movie style bad-guy-dying speeches!

Dausuul
2007-05-14, 11:50 AM
On a less extreme note, I find it weird that there's no way to have a character both dying AND conscious per the rules. As soon as you start dying, you're unconcious. So much for last minute good-byes, and drawn out action-movie style bad-guy-dying speeches!

Take the Diehard feat.

Indon
2007-05-14, 11:52 AM
Take the Diehard feat.

If ever there was a feat that just invited a homebrewed feat tree...

SpikeFightwicky
2007-05-14, 11:58 AM
Take the Diehard feat.

That has a couple other problems:

1 - Costs two feats (Endurance is a Prereq)

2 - With Diehard, you don't get the 'Dying' condition and auto-stabilize. As such, you won't get any last words in, since you'll either still be fighting or get the heck out of there as fast as possible.