Dysfunctional Rules IX: 1d3 Dysfunctions from the 8th Level List

[The Viscount]

Welcome to the 9th incarnation of our grand tradition of pointing out rules in 3.5 and Pathfinder that don't work.

Check the handbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267985) to see if your dysfunction is already there, because we've covered many before.

Previous threads:

"Wait, That Didn't Work Right" - The Dysfunctional Rules Collection (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214988)
"Wait Again, That Didn't Work Right" - The Dysfunctional Rules Collection (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267923)
Dysfunctional Rules III: 100% Rules-Legal, 110% Silly (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283778)
Dysfunctional Rules IV: It's Like a Sandwich Made of RAW Failure! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=304817)
Dysfunctional Rules Thread V: Dysfunctions All the Way Down (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?333789-Dysfunctional-Rules-Thread-V-Dysfunctions-All-the-Way-Down)
Dysfunctional Rules VI: Magic Circle Against Errata (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?372964-Dysfunctional-Rules-VI-Magic-Circle-Against-Errata)
Dysfunctional Rules VII: Mordenkainen's Dysfunction (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?413407-Dysfunctional-Rules-VII-Mordenkainen-s-Dysfunction)
Dysfunctional Rules VIII: When General Trumps Specific (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?471964-Dysfunctional-Rules-VIII-When-General-Trumps-Specific)

What this thread is for:


Rules that clearly do something that is pointless or self-abnegating (EG Focused Lexicon is a feat that provides nothing but a penalty, no-one can use Chain Power, Hindering Opportunist helps your enemy).
Rules that do something that is vastly contrary from anything that could possibly be the intended effect (Drown Healing, Greater Reversed Seek the Sky lasts forever, Reversed Mystic Rampart is meant to lower someone's saves but actually drops a tower on them).
Rules that cause an non-resolvable game state (Peerless Archers can stack infinite attacks of opportunity)
Rules that don't define something well enough to use it ("Distracted", "Minimum Caster Level", "Paladin spell", "Primary Ability Score", "Special Material", anything missing a range or other variables).
Rules that, while they don't actually have a negative impact on the game as a game, do stop it making sense (EG fire and acid don't do fire and acid damage, you can fall 9 feet onto your head and take no damage, falling creatures deal no damage if they land on you).
Two or more rules combine to cause an above problem (AC bonuses and bonus feats exist, but bonuses are only applicable to die rolls so no they don't).
As a general rule, if you need to write a house rule for it.


What this thread is not for


Typos (Weapon deals 1d33 or 1d43 damage because 3 isn't superscript; "Share Lesser Form" mistyped as "Share Laser Form".)
Dysfunctions that only arise because of a specific reading of the text (In combat, everyone is flat-footed until they act, so they must have been flat-footed whenever they weren't in combat, even though the text only specifies that they're flat-footed in combat. Someone who can't be flanked can't have a person on each side of them because if they did, they would be flanked.) Unless every possible reading of the text is dysfunctional no matter how you read it (even if it's dysfunctional in different ways).


To start us off, here's a fun one

First, Soul Eater's capstone begins with the following line: "After a 10th-level soul eater has drained energy, all spell-like and supernatural abilities gain a +2 profane bonus to their saving throw DC for 24 hours."
Because they said "all" and not "all its" this line means that if a soul eater anywhere drains energy, then all creatures enjoy +2 to the DCs of SLAs and Su abilities. Handy!

[Technetium43]

Well, on the topic of Soul Eater (although I'm pretty sure this has been brought up before, it's just not in the handbook), its 9th level ability reads:


Soul Slave (Su): If a 9th-level soul eater completely drains a creature of energy, the victim becomes a wight under the command of the soul eater.

However, this happens even if the creature is, say, a dragon or beholder, in which case they are spontaneously transmogrified into a humanoid wight.

[Jormengand]

Well, on the topic of Soul Eater (although I'm pretty sure this has been brought up before, it's just not in the handbook), its 9th level ability reads:

However, this happens even if the creature is, say, a dragon or beholder, in which case they are spontaneously transmogrified into a humanoid wight.

"Wight is a creature, not a template" is listed under Monsters>Wight already. Listing the many things that turn a creature into a wight is probably unnecessary.

[Troacctid]

I mean, there is a wight template, but only wights created with the template can pass the template on to their spawn; wights from any other source just rise as Monster Manual wights.

[No brains]

When a creature is sensitive to bright light, does it need to be able to see the bright light to be affected? Would Orcs and Drow take additional penalties if they were blind and in the area of a bright light?

[Technetium43]

"Wight is a creature, not a template" is listed under Monsters>Wight already. Listing the many things that turn a creature into a wight is probably unnecessary.

Ah, good catch. I was just checking under the Prestige Class section to see if Soul Eater was listed, assuming that other things had less terrible wording. In retrospect, that was probably a terrible thing to assume given well, the existence of any of this.

[Tarvus]

When a creature is sensitive to bright light, does it need to be able to see the bright light to be affected? Would Orcs and Drow take additional penalties if they were blind and in the area of a bright light?

Well, in the case of an Orcs Light Sensitivity, it inflicts the dazzled condition.


The character cannot see. He takes a -2 penalty to Armor Class, loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), moves at half speed, and takes a -4 penalty on Search checks and on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Spot checks) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) to the blinded character. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.



The creature is unable to see well because of overstimulation of the eyes. A dazzled creature takes a -1 penalty on attack rolls, Search checks, and Spot checks.

Neither actually specify that the penalties actually arise from not being able to see, just that the character can't see and that the character gets those penalties. So by that interpretation, you could potentially argue they stack.

On a related note (I'm not sure if this counts), a Character blinded by Darkness can make a Listen check as a free action to locate foes. An actual Blinded person does not have that provision, because being blinded makes your hearing less sharp I guess?
Not a negative effect on the game, but it does not really make sense.

[nailbudday]

A few more from Magic of Incarnum: the feat Shape Soulmeld allows you to shape any one meld. The issue is that for melds that grant an ability with a DC associated with them, brass mane and winter mask, there's no way to determine what the DC actually IS if you've accessed these through the feat. I'm inclined to say its 10 +#Essentia+Con since they're Totemist melds, but who knows?

Also, both of those soulmelds fatigue opponents, but there is no given duration for either.

[ShurikVch]

There are several examples of immunity to blindness in the game: Harssaf, Prismatic Half-Dragon template, Stone Body spell...
Sunwyrm says it more clearly:
Immunity to Blindness (Ex): A sunwyrm cannot be blinded through either magical or mundane means.Problem?
Seething Eyebane spell (Book of Vile Darkness) make target's eyes explode.
Thus, it's unclear if immunity to blindness make them also immune to Seething Eyebane, or are they just able to see without eyes?
Also, does immunity to blindness from Stone Body spell mean affected creature, who was previously blind, will be suddenly able to see? (Extra points for creatures who don't even have any eyes :smallamused:)

EDIT: Also, this question matter for Blinding SA of Murder of Crows

[The Viscount]

A few more from Magic of Incarnum: the feat Shape Soulmeld allows you to shape any one meld. The issue is that for melds that grant an ability with a DC associated with them, brass mane and winter mask, there's no way to determine what the DC actually IS if you've accessed these through the feat. I'm inclined to say its 10 +#Essentia+Con since they're Totemist melds, but who knows?

Also, both of those soulmelds fatigue opponents, but there is no given duration for either.

You're totally right about shape soulmeld.

As for brass mane and winter mask, that's actually normal. Fatigue as a condition lasts until you get 8 hours of sleep, with most PC instances (rage, touch of fatigue) actually being exceptions. That's how normal dragonne's roar works.

[nailbudday]

You're totally right about shape soulmeld.

As for brass mane and winter mask, that's actually normal. Fatigue as a condition lasts until you get 8 hours of sleep, with most PC instances (rage, touch of fatigue) actually being exceptions. That's how normal dragonne's roar works.


I know fatigue as a condition normally lasts until you get a good rest but I just don't believe that they intended for a level 1 character to be able to touch fatigue every enemy in an encounter with winter mask or just take a... standard action?(that's not actually specified in the entry either so add another one) and fatigue every encounter with brass mane. I guess it's not a dysfunction but it can't be intended behaviour. And looking at it again, brass mane doesn't specify opponents or even 'other creatures'. You have to save against your own roar, and investing essentia just increases the odds of you catching your party members in it as well. Maybe not a dysfunction either but super annoying, especially since totemist has a crap will save.

[Inevitability]

I know fatigue as a condition normally lasts until you get a good rest but I just don't believe that they intended for a level 1 character to be able to touch fatigue every enemy in an encounter with winter mask or just take a... standard action?(that's not actually specified in the entry either so add another one) and fatigue every encounter with brass mane. I guess it's not a dysfunction but it can't be intended behaviour. And looking at it again, brass mane doesn't specify opponents or even 'other creatures'. You have to save against your own roar, and investing essentia just increases the odds of you catching your party members in it as well. Maybe not a dysfunction either but super annoying, especially since totemist has a crap will save.

Annoying stuff does not equal dysfunctional stuff.

[The Viscount]

I know fatigue as a condition normally lasts until you get a good rest but I just don't believe that they intended for a level 1 character to be able to touch fatigue every enemy in an encounter with winter mask or just take a... standard action?(that's not actually specified in the entry either so add another one) and fatigue every encounter with brass mane. I guess it's not a dysfunction but it can't be intended behaviour. And looking at it again, brass mane doesn't specify opponents or even 'other creatures'. You have to save against your own roar, and investing essentia just increases the odds of you catching your party members in it as well. Maybe not a dysfunction either but super annoying, especially since totemist has a crap will save.

Remember that with winter mask you're doing this at the cost of any other offensive action, fatigue won't make monsters that much easier to kill, cold resistance protects against it, and many monsters have high Fort saves. Brass mane is limited by the essentia invested to a smaller range, and remember this is from the throat bind, available at level 14. At this point waves of fatigue has no save and has been online for several levels.

Brass Mane affecting everybody is totally dysfunctional thought, that's what happens when the writers copy/paste without thinking.

[No brains]

Annoying stuff does not equal dysfunctional stuff.

This probably goes beyond the scope of this thread, but if something in a game is patently un-fun and annoying for everyone involved, isn't that a dysfunction of having any fun with the game?

[Technetium43]

This probably goes beyond the scope of this thread, but if something in a game is patently un-fun and annoying for everyone involved, isn't that a dysfunction of having any fun with the game?

... You seem to be assuming that anything in here has any relation to the actual game of D&D that people play, which is just patently untrue. :smalltongue:

[Inevitability]

Natural Heavyweight's fluff is basically 'on a plane with normal gravity, you feel buoyant'. However, the feat makes staying afloat on such a plane harder.


... You seem to be assuming that anything in here has any relation to the actual game of D&D that people play, which is just patently untrue. :smalltongue:

I like the cut of your jib, Tech.

[Venger]

I mean, there is a wight template, but only wights created with the template can pass the template on to their spawn; wights from any other source just rise as Monster Manual wights.

I'm pretty sure there was a page on the wotc site about Monte running a game for his friends on april fool's day and saying they encountered a white dragon so they'd use fire against it, then he said "surprise, it's actually a wight dragon" and it had undead immunities. it had a wight monster template you could apply to stuff from one of the dragon magazines. it might have also been under one of the christmas articles. can anyone else find it?

[lylsyly]

Dragon Magazine #300 (3.0 territory). Templates for Wight, Wraith, Ghost Brute and Mummy. Wight is page 76.

[Inevitability]

The Fire Spiders spell has the following bit of text:


Any cold spell of 3rd level or higher can disperse the fire spiders, ending the spell.

Assuming that including the spiders in the area of such a spell is enough to disperse them (which seems like it'd make sense), an Anticold Sphere including the spiders in its AoE would destroy them.

That's right: protecting the tiny fire elementals against cold harms them. If that's not dysfunctional...

[The Viscount]

Two dysfunctions here, one short and one long.

First, the Ravenous template from Dragon Compendium grants a creature the Feed ability, dealing automatic bite damage with a grapple check. It also grants improved grab triggered by "a natural attack." Does this mean that the creature hits with any natural attack, begins a grapple, and then starts dealing bite damage with the check? Does this mean that it deals the bite damage on top of the damage from the natural attack used to grab? Is it supposed to be that it triggers when the creature hits with a bite and they just didn't edit properly? In this case, does it deal bite damage from Feed on top of the automatic bite damage from improved grab?

Now the long one. Rend is a mess of drastic proportions. Many creatures in the srd have it, triggered when 2 claws hit, and it deals 2xclaw +1.5 str damage. This is even followed in the Rend feat in Draconomicon. Except the gray render has some sort of completely different ability called rend that triggers when it starts grappling with its bite and deals bite+1.5 str damage. To resolve this let's just examine the glossary entry for rend. We find that it does not exist in MM1 nor in MM2. If we turn to MM3 and the Rules Compendium, they give the same formula of natural attack+1.5 str damage. Gray render is the only 3.5 monster I can find that adheres to this formula. All other ones adhere to the formula of 2xnat attack +1.5 str damage. In the case of 3.0 monsters, of the 3 creatures with rend in MM2, one of them, the blood ape doesn't follow either formula (adding 1.5 str to a different die of damage) and the rest follow the general trend. In FF, one creature, the klurichir, follows the glossary formula, the senmurv follows neither (doubles claw but applies only 1xstr), the varrangoin follows neither (1.5 str to a different die), Bacchae follows general trend, and the Half-Troll template gives us a chart that follows the general trend formula. There is no glossary entry for rend in MM2. To me this seems to suggest there wasn't a formula in 3.0, and there sort of was one for 3.5, just not codified until later. I can see whoever did write up the glossary entry going to gray render because rend is in the name and using that as the basis. The weird thing is that after the glossary entry, no monster follows it.
Don't even bother talking about rend for PCs from classes or feats. They're all different from each other and the above.

In summary, the only rule we have for rend applies to only one 3.5 monster, and a general trend that isn't in the rules. Either way, somethings dysfunctional.

[No brains]

I think feed is supposed to work like constrict, but the phrasing of that ability always confused me too. What I guess it's supposed to mean is, "In addition to the normal options in a grapple, you may make a grapple check to automatically deal your applicable natural attack's damage." Otherwise the ability to deal damage on EVERY grapple check is freakishly strong.

[Venger]

Complete Arcane's argent savant requires you be able to cast a bunch of force spells to enter. It does not discriminate based on whether you're divine or arcane. So far so bad.

the text regarding spell progression, however, says it will only advance an arcane casting class. a divine caster could enter, but she would perform the magic trick of transmuting a 4/5 class into a 0/5 class.

presto changeo!

[Inevitability]

Complete Arcane's argent savant requires you be able to cast a bunch of force spells to enter. It does not discriminate based on whether you're divine or arcane. So far so bad.

the text regarding spell progression, however, says it will only advance an arcane casting class. a divine caster could enter, but she would perform the magic trick of transmuting a 4/5 class into a 0/5 class.

presto changeo!

That's not dysfunctional. It's poor design, it's annoying, it's in one or two cases actually interesting for a divine caster, but it works fine.

[Venger]

That's not dysfunctional. It's poor design, it's annoying, it's in one or two cases actually interesting for a divine caster, but it works fine.

I mean, it seems like an oversight allowing a swath of classes to enter a class when they won't get anything from it. When would a divine caster want this?

[Inevitability]

I mean, it seems like an oversight allowing a swath of classes to enter a class when they won't get anything from it. When would a divine caster want this?

The first level doesn't grant casting advancement anyway, and the class's requirements are pretty easy (what cleric isn't going to pump spellcraft?), so I could see a cleric with lots of force spells taking a level. In a low-op environment, +15 damage on your Blade Barriers may be worth a single lost caster level.

[Venger]

The first level doesn't grant casting advancement anyway, and the class's requirements are pretty easy (what cleric isn't going to pump spellcraft?), so I could see a cleric with lots of force spells taking a level. In a low-op environment, +15 damage on your Blade Barriers may be worth a single lost caster level.

fair enough. or like an ur-priest or nar demonbinder once they run out of hierophant levels.

[Flickerdart]

There are several examples of immunity to blindness in the game: Harssaf, Prismatic Half-Dragon template, Stone Body spell...
Sunwyrm says it more clearly:Problem?
Seething Eyebane spell (Book of Vile Darkness) make target's eyes explode.
Thus, it's unclear if immunity to blindness make them also immune to Seething Eyebane, or are they just able to see without eyes?
Also, does immunity to blindness from Stone Body spell mean affected creature, who was previously blind, will be suddenly able to see? (Extra points for creatures who don't even have any eyes :smallamused:)

EDIT: Also, this question matter for Blinding SA of Murder of Crows

Do sunwyrms even have eyes?

[The Viscount]

Do sunwyrms even have eyes?

Looks like so to me.
http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/sfery/images/3/39/Sunwyrm.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20100829110256

[Inevitability]

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/3/35/Sunwyrm.JPG/revision/20160123210210

Do they? Looks like two empty whitish spheres to me. I wouldn't be surprised if they lacked eyes.

[PallentisLunam]

I seem to recall flavor text saying that all dragons lose their pupils as they age, with older dragons simply having solid orbs reminiscent of their elemental type.

Edit: Yep


The pupils of a red dragon fade as it ages; the oldest red dragons have eyes that resemble molten lava orbs.

And there are similar lines for other dragons.

[Inevitability]

I seem to recall flavor text saying that all dragons lose their pupils as they age, with older dragons simply having solid orbs reminiscent of their elemental type.

Isn't that only for true dragons, though? Sunwyrms are a standalone monster that happens to have the dragon type.

[PallentisLunam]

Isn't that only for true dragons, though? Sunwyrms are a standalone monster that happens to have the dragon type.

Okay fair point, but:


A fanged mouth and horns dominate the creature's draconic head, and almost-liquid light seems to seep from its eyes.

Therefore, sunwryms have eyes.

[Inevitability]

Okay fair point, but:



Therefore, sunwryms have eyes.

Nice find: guess you're right.

[The Viscount]

The Sentry Ooze template states in the abilities section it is +2 Int. They are under the impression that doing this to a mindless ooze will give it an Int of 2, but nonabilities aren't zero.

It might have been said before, but Spikers have DR 2/bludgeoning. The text describes it as if it were DR 2/slashing or piercing.

[Troacctid]

It might have been said before, but Spikers have DR 2/bludgeoning. The text describes it as if it were DR 2/slashing or piercing.
This one was said before, and it was pointed out that it was fixed in errata, so a close call but no dysfunction.

[ShurikVch]

Book of Blood (Complete Arcane): one of it's powers is finger of death 1/day...
but each such use permanently drains 1 hit point from the wielder.Wait a minute, how the heck exactly works hp drain?
Is there any ways to protect from it (short of Timeless Body (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/timelessBody.htm))?
How we can even restore drained hps?
Also, Book of Blood is one more unconventional way to kill the Tarrasque (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/tarrasque.htm) without resorting to Wish or Miracle: Regeneration doesn't do jack against the hp drain, so, if somebody with Book of Blood will possess T - after the ~ 2 years, 4 months, 2 weeks, and few days - it will be dead. It looks like very long and ineffective way to do it, but it's one more way to ignore supposedly-set-in-stone restriction
The tarrasque can be slain only by raising its nonlethal damage total to its full normal hit points +10 (or 868 hit points) and using a wish or miracle spell to keep it dead.


Constructs who are made wholly of adamantine - such as Adamantine Golem (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/golem.htm) or Animated Object (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/animatedObject.htm) (chunk of adamantine) - are incapable neither to overcome DR/adamantine, nor to ignore hardness up to 20

Spikes of Warforged from Spiked Body feat may cause damage: "1d6 points for a Medium warforged"; spikes of Warforged Juggernaut - "1d6 points of piercing damage" - regardless of size
Also,
Healing Immunity: Starting at 3rd level, as a warforged juggernaut becomes more like a construct and less like a living creature, it becomes immune to the effects of spells from the healing subschool.Guess: in which subschool are Raise Dead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/raiseDead.htm), Resurrection (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/resurrection.htm), and True Resurrection (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/trueResurrection.htm)? :smallsigh:
(Also, no way to animate as Undead: Construct Perfection III cause immunity to Necromancy)

[Inevitability]

Book of Blood (Complete Arcane): one of it's powers is finger of death 1/day... Wait a minute, how the heck exactly works hp drain?
Is there any ways to protect from it (short of Timeless Body (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/timelessBody.htm))?
How we can even restore drained hps?
Also, Book of Blood is one more unconventional way to kill the Tarrasque (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/tarrasque.htm) without resorting to Wish or Miracle: Regeneration doesn't do jack against the hp drain, so, if somebody with Book of Blood will possess T - after the ~ 2 years, 4 months, 2 weeks, and few days - it will be dead. It looks like very long and ineffective way to do it, but it's one more way to ignore supposedly-set-in-stone restriction

You don't kill big T that way, you just incapacitate it permanently in yet another way. To kill it you still need a Wish or Miracle.


Spikes of Warforged from Spiked Body feat may cause damage: "1d6 points for a Medium warforged"; spikes of Warforged Juggernaut - "1d6 points of piercing damage" - regardless of size

No dysfunction. Weird, but no dysfunction.


Also,Guess: in which subschool are Raise Dead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/raiseDead.htm), Resurrection (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/resurrection.htm), and True Resurrection (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/trueResurrection.htm)? :smallsigh:
(Also, no way to animate as Undead: Construct Perfection III cause immunity to Necromancy)

'Cannot be raised or resurrected' is not a dysfunction. The same goes for 'cannot be raised as undead'. At most, it's an unintended consquence of following the rules, like a monk 20 becoming immune to Enlarge Person.

[ShurikVch]

You don't kill big T that way, you just incapacitate it permanently in yet another way. To kill it you still need a Wish or Miracle.Dead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#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.Also, line about "wish or miracle" is in the Regeneration SQ. Regeneration doesn't do a thing against hp drain, and Dead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#dead) creatures are incapable to regenerate


'Cannot be raised or resurrected' is not a dysfunction. The same goes for 'cannot be raised as undead'. At most, it's an unintended consquence of following the rules, like a monk 20 becoming immune to Enlarge Person.Isn't many of dysfunctions are exactly "an unintended consquence of following the rules" (such as, for example, Dread Necromancer can be harmed by his own Negative Energy Burst)?
I pointed it as dysfunction, because I seriously doubt writer's intention was: "If Juggernaut is dead - then it should stay dead! Yes, and no necromancy! I wouldn't allow a robot zombie in my game!"

[ZamielVanWeber]

Also HP drain is explicitly healed by Wish or Miracle in the rules for it in BoED. I did not realize there was a second source of it gloating around the game though.

[zergling.exe]

Isn't many of dysfunctions are exactly "an unintended consquence of following the rules" (such as, for example, Dread Necromancer can be harmed by his own Negative Energy Burst)?
I pointed it as dysfunction, because I seriously doubt writer's intention was: "If Juggernaut is dead - then it should stay dead! Yes, and no necromancy! I wouldn't allow a robot zombie in my game!"

I think it is totally intended. Warforged Juggernauts become more construct-like, and constructs cannot be raised or animated. Without specific spells of course.

[ShurikVch]

Also HP drain is explicitly healed by Wish or Miracle in the rules for it in BoED. I did not realize there was a second source of it gloating around the game though.Ah, Vassal of Bahamut... :smallsmile:
Indeed - it cause "permanent hit point drain"
But, by the RAW, "wish or miracle spell can restore hit points drained permanently by a vassal's dragonwrack ability."
Thus, ways to restore hit point drain by any other reason - such as Book of Blood - is still unclear


I think it is totally intended. Warforged Juggernauts become more construct-like, and constructs cannot be raised or animated. Without specific spells of course.Rebuild Item utterance actually able to restore at least some of Constructs - since Craft Construct (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsterFeats.htm#craftConstruct) is [Item Creation] feat, Constructs are items

[No brains]

Isn't there also 'revive construct'? Is that a healing spell?

[ShurikVch]

Isn't there also 'revive construct'? Is that a healing spell?AFAIK, 'revive construct' is a homebrew

[PallentisLunam]

In relation to ShurikVch's quote about the dead condition, while I haven't read the rules regarding HP drain, I would contend that while the target's HPs are going down, this is different that reducing their HP via damage. You are changing the total possible value rather than the current value.

How is it even possible to have a HP max of -10. Isn't there a rule that states a creature always has a minimum of 1 HP per HD?

Apologies if this is addressed in the rules for HP drain.

[No brains]

AFAIK, 'revive construct' is a homebrew

I was sure it was in spell compendium next to revive outsider...

Regarding the tarrasque, I suppose the thing that keeps it 'alive' at -10 hp is that its soul doesn't leave at that point. We need wish or miracle to boot that spark out.

[nailbudday]

In relation to ShurikVch's quote about the dead condition, while I haven't read the rules regarding HP drain I would contend that while the target'still HPs are going down this is different that reducing their HP via damage. You are changing the total possible value rather than the current value.

How is it even possible to have a HP max of -10. Isn't there a rule that states a creature always has a minimum of 1 HP per HD?

Apologies if this is addressed in the rules for HP drain.

I'm pretty sure that rule only applies to HP penalties per hit die. It's to stop you rolling negative health as you level a character

[ZamielVanWeber]

I'm pretty sure that rule only applies to HP penalties per hit die. It's to stop you rolling negative health as you level a character

IIRC the rule is that you cannot roll below a 1 on health, but if your Con drops your max HP can fall under what that rule would provide. EX: A person with 3 levels, a d4, and a Con of 4 would have 3 HP max. If they took one Con damage their max HP would fall to 0 and they would suffer appropriate.

[Venger]

I was sure it was in spell compendium next to revive outsider...

Regarding the tarrasque, I suppose the thing that keeps it 'alive' at -10 hp is that its soul doesn't leave at that point. We need wish or miracle to boot that spark out.

You are mistaken. The spell immediately before revive outsider is reverse arrows. Revive construct does not exist in 3.5 (though it really should) since the spell right after is revive undead.

Interestingly, this brings me to a related dysfunction:

If you take at least 3 levels of warforged juggernaut, you cannot be brought back from the dead with any of the normal rez spells. you'd have to be reincarnated or last breathed.


IIRC the rule is that you cannot roll below a 1 on health, but if your Con drops your max HP can fall under what that rule would provide. EX: A person with 3 levels, a d4, and a Con of 4 would have 3 HP max. If they took one Con damage their max HP would fall to 0 and they would suffer appropriate.

Yes, that's correct. it's on p58 of the phb.

If you take the frail flaw under these circumstances, you can have 0hp for the level.

[Jormengand]

A crowbar gives a +2 bonus on strength checks made for "such purposes"; no context given.

Hitting someone with a hammer deals as much bludgeoning damage as a spiked gauntlet of its size, which is zero.

[PallentisLunam]

A crowbar gives a +2 bonus on strength checks made for "such purposes"; no context given.

Hitting someone with a hammer deals as much bludgeoning damage as a spiked gauntlet of its size, which is zero.

The text is elaborated upon and given the required context in the PHB. Why those parts were removed from the SRD is beyond me.

How do you figure? A spiked gauntlet is a light weapon that deals 1d4 points of damage for a medium creature. Therefore a hammer, as a one-handed weapon made for a medium creature, should deal 1d6.

[ShurikVch]

I know it's not for serious, but still: Pig Bound - pig is "maximum load"; clothing (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#clothing) have listed weights; does it mean hypothetical Pig Bound Commoner should be also either immobile, naked, or mounted?

[georgie_leech]

How do you figure? A spiked gauntlet is a light weapon that deals 1d4 points of damage for a medium creature. Therefore a hammer, as a one-handed weapon made for a medium creature, should deal 1d6.

Meaning a Spiked Gauntlet does precisely 0 Bludgeoning damage. It does deal piercing damage though.

[Inevitability]

Couldn't the sentence be read as 'deals as much bludgeoning damage as the amount of damage done by a spiked gauntlet of its size?'.

A spiked gauntlet deals 1d4 points of damage: type is irrelevant. Therefore, a hammer deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage.

[georgie_leech]

Couldn't the sentence be read as 'deals as much bludgeoning damage as the amount of damage done by a spiked gauntlet of its size?'.

A spiked gauntlet deals 1d4 points of damage: type is irrelevant. Therefore, a hammer deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage.

Oh yeah, that's clearly the way everyone both initially and should interpret it. The whole sensible interpretation thing means it probably shouldn't be added to the handbook or anything. I was just trying to clarify what the proposed dysfunction was.

[Flickerdart]

immobile, naked, or mounted

I really want to make a certain Brooklyn Nine Nine reference here.

[Story]

Can't remember if I mentioned this before, but casting Alter Self to turn into a swarm doesn't grant you swarm traits. Which means that despite your body physically turning into thousands of little critters, you can somehow still be grappled.

[Jormengand]

Couldn't the sentence be read as 'deals as much bludgeoning damage as the amount of damage done by a spiked gauntlet of its size?'.

A spiked gauntlet deals 1d4 points of damage: type is irrelevant. Therefore, a hammer deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage.

I don't think it could be. If I say "There are as many green feathers in the box as in the barrel", that means "The number of feathers which are green and in the box is the same as the number of feathers which are green and in the barrel", not "The number of feathers which are in the box is the same as the number of feathers which are in the barrel, and also the ones in the box are green but I can make no assurances about the colours of the ones in the barrel."

[nailbudday]

I don't think it could be. If I say "There are as many green feathers in the box as in the barrel", that means "The number of feathers which are green and in the box is the same as the number of feathers which are green and in the barrel", not "The number of feathers which are in the box is the same as the number of feathers which are in the barrel, and also the ones in the box are green but I can make no assurances about the colours of the ones in the barrel."

Well that depends on the context. This might just be me but if I don't know the contents of the barrel, or if the barrel has some known number of green feathers in it, I'd assume that there are as many green feathers in it as in the box. But if I know that if there are some number of feathers in the barrel and NONE of them are green, I'd assume you meant "There are as many green feathers in the box as total feathers in the barrel" and not "There are zero green feathers you dummy" (barring obvious sarcasm). I think that "A hammer deals the same damage that a spiked gauntlet does, but as bludgeoning damage" is valid since we know a spiked gauntlet doesn't deal bludgeoning damage.

[Jormengand]

I personally think that in a RAW based thread, we need to look at what an ability says, not what we think it's obvious that it means.



Unrelated: Gen, who cannot cast spells and, when forced to fight, do so with their slam attack, have the Combat Casting and Weapon Finesse feats.

[georgie_leech]

I personally think that in a RAW based thread, we need to look at what an ability says, not what we think it's obvious that it means.

The point is that when you have a sentence that requires parsing, and one way of parsing it has no dysfunction and the other does, it's not a dysfunction. Or at least, not a strong one. If the rule was "you get 100 gp every time you give me all the red feathers in that magic box that generates red feathers sometimes," and there are no red feathers in the box, the rule either means you can't give any red feathers until some appear, or that you get infinite gp because you can give me 0 red feathers in an infinitesimally small time. The one is clearly dysfunctional, but that doesn't mean it's what the rule says, per se.

[Jormengand]

The point is that when you have a sentence that requires parsing, and one way of parsing it has no dysfunction and the other does, it's not a dysfunction.

But only one of the two interpretations is a correct interpretation of what the sentence actually says. We can, for most of the dysfunctions already brought up, be quite clear on what the rule is supposed to mean (obviously, drowning someone is only ever supposed to reduce their hit points), but what the rule actually says is the bludgeoning damage dealt by the hammer is the same as the amount dealt by the spiked gauntlet, id est zero. There is no real argument to be had that what the sentence actually says is "The hammer deals bludgeoning damage equal to the damage dealt by a spiked gauntlet of the same size", only one that it might have been intended to say that.

Incidentally, the fact that all of the red feathers in a box with zero red feathers in is zero red feathers is even more blindingly obvious, so I don't see what the point of that example is.

[PallentisLunam]

Unrelated: Gen, who cannot cast spells and, when forced to fight, do so with their slam attack, have the Combat Casting and Weapon Finesse feats.

Antimagic fields are a thing and Weapon Finesse can be used with any and all natural weapons.

[Troacctid]

If an effect said it dealt bludgeoning damage equal to your Strength modifier, would it deal no damage because your Strength modifier doesn't deal bludgeoning damage?

[Jormengand]

If an effect said it dealt bludgeoning damage equal to your Strength modifier, would it deal no damage because your Strength modifier doesn't deal bludgeoning damage?

No, but if it said it dealt bludgeoning damage equal to that dealt by your strength modifier, which is the wording used by the hammer, then it would deal no damage. If the amount of damage that the hammer dealt actually was a spiked gauntlet, that would be even more dysfunctional, though.

[Inevitability]

No, but if it said it dealt bludgeoning damage equal to that dealt by your strength modifier, which is the wording used by the hammer, then it would deal no damage. If the amount of damage that the hammer dealt actually was a spiked gauntlet, that would be even more dysfunctional, though.

Optimization challenge: create a build that deals the most spiked gauntlets of damage per round.

[Jormengand]

Optimization challenge: create a build that deals the most spiked gauntlets of damage per round.

"Optimisation stops being practical and starts being theoretical when your damage per round is measured in spiked gauntlets instead of hit points". :smalltongue:

[Debatra]

What this thread is not for


Dysfunctions that only arise because of a specific reading of the text (In combat, everyone is flat-footed until they act, so they must have been flat-footed whenever they weren't in combat, even though the text only specifies that they're flat-footed in combat. Someone who can't be flanked can't have a person on each side of them because if they did, they would be flanked.) Unless every possible reading of the text is dysfunctional no matter how you read it (even if it's dysfunctional in different ways).
ten characters

[Inevitability]

S P I K E D G A U N T L E T
19 + 16 + 9 + 11 + 5 + 4 + 7 + 1 + 21 + 14 + 20 + 12 + 5 + 20
164

Q.E.D: hammers can smash through an iron door, an inch of stone, and then another iron door with a single blow.

[Jormengand]

ten characters

Indeed, all 1 of the possible English readings of the text are dysfunctional!



Savage Species' Chain Lash:

"You can fight with it as if fighting with two weapons, incurring all the normal attack penalties as if using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. In this case, you can only strike at an adjacent opponent."
"In addition, unlike other weapons with reach, you can use it against an adjacent foe. In this case, you can only use one end of the chain effectively; you cannot use it as a double weapon."

[flare'90]

Savage Species' Chain Lash:

"You can fight with it as if fighting with two weapons, incurring all the normal attack penalties as if using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. In this case, you can only strike at an adjacent opponent."
"In addition, unlike other weapons with reach, you can use it against an adjacent foe. In this case, you can only use one end of the chain effectively; you cannot use it as a double weapon."
So you can use the weapon as a double weapon, but it does not have reach. Or you can use it as a reach weapon and it can also hit adjacent opponents, like a spiked chain.
No dysfunctions here. The 2 phrases are separated to refer to the two possible uses of the weapon.

[Jormengand]

So you can use the weapon as a double weapon, but it does not have reach. Or you can use it as a reach weapon and it can also hit adjacent opponents, like a spiked chain.
No dysfunctions here. The 2 phrases are separated to refer to the two possible uses of the weapon.

Right, ignoring the fact that the distinction between using an inclusive reach weapon to attack an adjacent square and using a reach weapon as a non-reach weapon to attack that same square is nothing. There's no difference between one action, which is forbidden, and another action, which is allowed.

[flare'90]

Right, ignoring the fact that the distinction between using an inclusive reach weapon to attack an adjacent square and using a reach weapon as a non-reach weapon to attack that same square is nothing. There's no difference between one action, which is forbidden, and another action, which is allowed.
No, attacking with a inclusive reach weapon (like a spiked chain, or the chain lash in this case) an adjacent square is explicitly allowed. And attacking an adjacent square with a non-reach weapon is allowed.
I don't get what do you think is the dysfunction.
EDIT: Also, this is the weapon text:

Chain Lash:This is a simple chain with weighted ends.
It can be whirled quickly, striking with hard blows because
of the weights. One end can also be swung out to entangle
an opponent. Kytons often wield these weapons in place of
their chain rakes and apply their dancing chains ability to
them.
The chain lash can be used either as a double weapon or
as a reach weapon. You can fight with it as if fighting with
two weapons, incurring all the normal attack penalties as if
using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. In this
case, you can only strike at an adjacent opponent.
If you use the chain lash as a reach weapon, you can strike
opponents 10 feet away with it. In addition, unlike other
weapons with reach, you can use it against an adjacent foe.
In this case, you can only use one end of the chain effec-
tively; you cannot use it as a double weapon.
Because the chain lash can wrap around an enemy’s leg or
other limb, you can make trip attacks with it. If you are
tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the
chain lash to avoid being tripped.
When using a chain lash, you get a +2 bonus on your
opposed attack roll when attempting to disarm an oppo-
nent (including the roll to avoid being disarmed if you fail
to disarm your opponent).
You can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dex-
terity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack
rolls with a chain lash.

Bolded for emphasis.

[Jormengand]

I don't get what do you think is the dysfunction.

The dysfunction is that you both can only, and cannot, attack adjacent squares while using it as a double weapon:

"You can fight with it as if fighting with two weapons, incurring all the normal attack penalties as if using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. In this case, you can only strike at an adjacent opponent."
""In addition, unlike other weapons with reach, you can use it against an adjacent foe. In this case, you can only use one end of the chain effectively; you cannot use it as a double weapon."

[flare'90]

The dysfunction is that you both can only, and cannot, attack adjacent squares while using it as a double weapon:

"You can fight with it as if fighting with two weapons, incurring all the normal attack penalties as if using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. In this case, you can only strike at an adjacent opponent."
""In addition, unlike other weapons with reach, you can use it against an adjacent foe. In this case, you can only use one end of the chain effectively; you cannot use it as a double weapon."

"The chain lash can be used either as a double weapon or as a reach weapon."
You chose to use the chain lash as a double weapon or as a reach weapon, not both.
In the first case (double weapon) it does not have reach. You can only attack adjacent opponents.
In the second case (reach weapon) it does have reach. You can attack opponents 10' away. In addition you can attack adjacent opponents, since the text explicitly tells you that you can.

[Jormengand]

"The chain lash can be used either as a double weapon or as a reach weapon."
You chose to use the chain lash as a double weapon or as a reach weapon, not both.
In the first case (double weapon) it does not have reach. You can only attack adjacent opponents.
In the second case (reach weapon) it does have reach. You can attack opponents 10' away. In addition you can attack adjacent opponents, since the text explicitly tells you that you can.

Okay, let me rephrase:

What is the point of the reach weapon form of the weapon being inclusive reach, given that if you were going to attack the creature 5 feet away, you could use the double weapon form?

Or to rephrase again:

When you attack a creature 5 feet away, you can either choose to fight with it as a double weapon, or as an inclusive reach weapon. Doing the latter is clearly pointless. However, the only time when you can't attack with it as a double weapon is when it's in the secondary mode, and you're attacking a creature 5 feet away. Thus, the entire thing with it having two modes is pointless anyway.

Or to rephrase again:

The given case where "You can only use one end of the chain effectively; you cannot use it as a double weapon" is when "you... use it against an adjacent foe". However, when you're attacking from 5 feet away, you can attack with it as a double weapon anyway. Even if you read the "You cannot use it as a double weapon" as applying to the whole "If you use the chain lash as a reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away with it. In addition, unlike other weapons with reach, you can use it against an adjacent foe," then giving it inclusive reach is totally pointless, because being a double weapon is just better than not being (if you have a double weapon, you can wield it as a single weapon anyway) and because you can choose on each attack, the weapon description is just redundant and self-abnegating.

[flare'90]

Okay, let me rephrase:

What is the point of the reach weapon form of the weapon being inclusive reach, given that if you were going to attack the creature 5 feet away, you could use the double weapon form?

Or to rephrase again:

When you attack a creature 5 feet away, you can either choose to fight with it as a double weapon, or as an inclusive reach weapon. Doing the latter is clearly pointless. However, the only time when you can't attack with it as a double weapon is when it's in the secondary mode, and you're attacking a creature 5 feet away. Thus, the entire thing with it having two modes is pointless anyway.

Or to rephrase again:

The given case where "You can only use one end of the chain effectively; you cannot use it as a double weapon" is when "you... use it against an adjacent foe". However, when you're attacking from 5 feet away, you can attack with it as a double weapon anyway. Even if you read the "You cannot use it as a double weapon" as applying to the whole "If you use the chain lash as a reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away with it. In addition, unlike other weapons with reach, you can use it against an adjacent foe," then giving it inclusive reach is totally pointless, because being a double weapon is just better than not being (if you have a double weapon, you can wield it as a single weapon anyway) and because you can choose on each attack, the weapon description is just redundant and self-abnegating.

Maybe it's useful if you want to attack a target 10' away, you drop it and use Cleave to attack someone adjacent?
What's more likely to be a dysfunction is that the weapon does not specifies if you're meant to choose reach or double weapon at the start of a full attack action or you can mix in the same full-attack. Presonally I read it as "chose one or the other for this round" but it's ambigous.

[PallentisLunam]

Maybe it's useful if you want to attack a target 10' away, you drop it and use Cleave to attack someone adjacent?
What's more likely to be a dysfunction is that the weapon does not specifies if you're meant to choose reach or double weapon at the start of a full attack action or you can mix in the same full-attack. Presonally I read it as "chose one or the other for this round" but it's ambigous.

You do have to decide how you are going to use it at the beginning of the round and for the whole round because that's how you calculate your to-hit bonus or penalty.

The text is important because you have to choose for the round whether you want reach or an extra attack and when you get into BABs of 6 and above I can think of plenty of situations where the decision would be relevant.

[flare'90]

You do have to decide how you are going to use it at the beginning of the round and for the whole round because that's how you calculate your to-hit bonus or penalty.

The text is important because you have to choose for the round whether you want reach or an extra attack and when you get into BABs of 6 and above I can think of plenty of situations where the decision would be relevant.

Good. So the ability to chose attack close even with the reach function has a purpose.

[zergling.exe]

"You can fight with it as if fighting with two weapons, incurring all the normal attack penalties as if using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. In this case, you can only strike at an adjacent opponent."
""In addition, unlike other weapons with reach, you can use it against an adjacent foe. In this case, you can only use one end of the chain effectively; you cannot use it as a double weapon."

Okay clarifying. To use it as a double weapon, you have to attack adjacent targets, as the the first paragraph. BUT! To attack adjacent, you cannot use it as a double weapon, as the second. That is what the text says.

[PallentisLunam]

"You can fight with it as if fighting with two weapons, incurring all the normal attack penalties as if using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. In this case, you can only strike at an adjacent opponent."
""In addition, unlike other weapons with reach, you can use it against an adjacent foe. In this case, you can only use one end of the chain effectively; you cannot use it as a double weapon."

Okay clarifying. To use it as a double weapon, you have to attack adjacent targets, as the the first paragraph. BUT! To attack adjacent, you cannot use it as a double weapon, as the second. That is what the text says.

No, what the text says is that you cannot use it as both a reach weapon and a double weapon at the same time.

As such when it is a reach weapon the inclusive reach rules apply and the double weapon rules do not and when it is a double weapon the double weapon rules apply and the inclusive reach rules do not

[zergling.exe]

No, what the text says is that you cannot use it as both a reach weapon and a double weapon at the same time.

As such when it is a reach weapon the inclusive reach rules apply and the double weapon rules do not and when it is a double weapon the double weapon rules apply and the inclusive reach rules do not

That's not what it's saying though. The second paragraph there, in direct contradiction to the first, says that you cannot attack adjacent targets with it while using it as a double weapon. And also, you could switch between using it as a double weapon and as a reach weapon. You just have to accept TWF penalties on all your attacks, just like if you were using a ranseur with a spiked gauntlet.

[PallentisLunam]

That's not what it's saying though. The second paragraph there, in direct contradiction to the first, says that you cannot attack adjacent targets with it while using it as a double weapon. And also, you could switch between using it as a double weapon and as a reach weapon. You just have to accept TWF penalties on all your attacks, just like if you were using a ranseur with a spiked gauntlet.

No. The first line of the entry says you can use the weapon as a reach weapon or a double weapon. It is never a reach double weapon. So the rules don't ever apply at the same time.

You have, however, convinced me that as long as you declare the penalties from the start you can switch back and forth as many times as you have attacks

[zergling.exe]

No. The first line of the entry says you can use the weapon as a reach weapon or a double weapon. It is never a reach double weapon. So the rules don't ever apply at the same time.
Let's look at those two lines again:

You can fight with it as if fighting with two weapons, incurring all the normal attack penalties as if using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. In this case, you can only strike at an adjacent opponent.
This one says that you can only attack adjacent creatures while using it as a double weapon.

In addition, unlike other weapons with reach, you can use it against an adjacent foe. In this case, you can only use one end of the chain effectively; you cannot use it as a double weapon.

This line says that you can attack adjacent foes with it, as already mentioned in the double weapon part. However, it also says that when you are attacking adjacent foes, you cannot use it as a double weapon. So at one point it says you can use it as a double weapon, but another says that you cannot use it as a double weapon in the only situation it previously said you could. Because that second sentence comes after saying that you can attack adjacent creatures rather than after saying it is a reach weapon, logically it follows that it is applied to attacking adjacent creatures.
So if these three sentences:

If you use the chain lash as a reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away with it. In addition, unlike other weapons with reach, you can use it against an adjacent foe. In this case, you can only use one end of the chain effectively; you cannot use it as a double weapon.
Were instead aligned like:

If you use the chain lash as a reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away with it. In this case, you can only use one end of the chain effectively; you cannot use it as a double weapon. In addition, unlike other weapons with reach, you can use it against an adjacent foe.
Then yes, there would be no dysfunction.

[Darrin]

I'm not sure if this has been noted before.

Reptilian template in Savage Species:

"Attacks: A reptilian gains a claw attack if it did not already have one."

A claw. As in, just one. Because bilateral symmetry is for those nerdy therapsids.

[PallentisLunam]

The line I was referring to is this one:


The chain lash can be used either as a double weapon or as a reach weapon.

But let me address your points


Let's look at those two lines again:


You can fight with it as if fighting with two weapons, incurring all the normal attack penalties as if using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. In this case, you can only strike at an adjacent opponent.

This one says that you can only attack adjacent creatures while using it as a double weapon.

No. This line says that when using the weapon as a double weapon, you may only attack adjacent creatures. An important distinction.



In addition, unlike other weapons with reach, you can use it against an adjacent foe. In this case, you can only use one end of the chain effectively; you cannot use it as a double weapon.

This line says that you can attack adjacent foes with it, as already mentioned in the double weapon part. However, it also says that when you are attacking adjacent foes, you cannot use it as a double weapon. So at one point it says you can use it as a double weapon, but another says that you cannot use it as a double weapon in the only situation it previously said you could. Because that second sentence comes after saying that you can attack adjacent creatures rather than after saying it is a reach weapon, logically it follows that it is applied to attacking adjacent creatures.

What this line says is that when the weapon has the reach property you can use it to attack adjacent foes, but only as a reach weapon not as a double weapon. And the "case" referred to in this line is not "when attacking adjacent creatures" it is "when the weapon has the inclusive reach property and you use it to attack adjacent creatures" therefore there is no dysfunction.


A claw. As in, just one. Because bilateral symmetry is for those nerdy therapsids.

Is it dysfunctional that a warforged only gets one slam attack?

[Flickerdart]

A claw. As in, just one. Because bilateral symmetry is for those nerdy therapsids.
Octopi (not giant, regular) get a single attack with their 8 arms combined. Maybe these guys are the same.



Is it dysfunctional that a warforged only gets one slam attack?
I think there is actually a rule or at least generalization in the MM along the lines of "medium creatures typically have one slam attack, large creatures have two" because a Medium creature uses its entire body to slam, and a Large one can use each forelimb by itself.

[Darrin]

Is it dysfunctional that a warforged only gets one slam attack?

Yes! But only when wielding a two-handed weapon or both arms are occupied. You may not be aware, but slam attacks can be something of a sore spot for me...



I think there is actually a rule or at least generalization in the MM along the lines of "medium creatures typically have one slam attack, large creatures have two" because a Medium creature uses its entire body to slam, and a Large one can use each forelimb by itself.

If only! Generalization, possibly... Rule, not so much. Actually, all the RAI I can find points to slams always being associated with arms. The dysfunction is when you have a single slam and are trying to do something else with your arms, when is the slam no longer available? But I'm pretty sure that's a known dysfunction.

I'm ok with the octopus only getting a single arms attack, although I am sad that it can't take advantage of Multi-Weapon Fighting. A better example might be the hawk which has two talons but only one attack roll for both of them.

[Troacctid]

Some slams are made with the whole body. You see it sometimes with aquatic creatures, like the porpoise.

[nailbudday]

I always assumed warforged got one slam because it was a two handed overhead smash kinda thing.

[zergling.exe]

The line I was referring to is this one:
I understand that, and am not questioning it.


But let me address your points

No. This line says that when using the weapon as a double weapon, you may only attack adjacent creatures. An important distinction.
That is what I meant to say, just not in a very clear way it seems.


What this line says is that when the weapon has the reach property you can use it to attack adjacent foes, but only as a reach weapon not as a double weapon. And the "case" referred to in this line is not "when attacking adjacent creatures" it is "when the weapon has the inclusive reach property and you use it to attack adjacent creatures" therefore there is no dysfunction.
That's not how English works. 'In this case' refers to the last situation that was talked about, and in RAW that situation is attacking adjacent targets, not using it as a reach weapon. Putting it before the sentence talking about adjacent targets makes it refer to not being usable as a double weapon with reach, and the distinction wasn't even necessary as the double weapon part already specified this. By RAW it both can and cannot be used as a double weapon to attack adjacent targets.

[Venger]

I always assumed warforged got one slam because it was a two handed overhead smash kinda thing.

nah, it's one hand, thus the existence of the second slam feat.

[ZamielVanWeber]

nah, it's one hand, thus the existence of the second slam feat.

It's not dysfunctional, but Second Slam does not grant you a 2nd slam attack. Its grants you an iterative attack with your slam.

[PallentisLunam]

That is what I meant to say, just not in a very clear way it seems.

You remember that scene in Alice In Wonderland with the Mad Hatter where he explains that "I say what I mean" is not the same as "I mean what I say"? That's what is happening here.

"When using the weapon as a double weapon, you may only attack adjacent creatures" does not equate to "you can only attack adjacent creatures while using it as a double weapon". In the former case the restriction is caused by the state of the weapon (possessing the double weapon property). In the latter case (which is incorrect) the restriction is caused by the location of the target (being adjacent). You can use the weapon in its reach form to attack adjacent targets because it is an inclusive reach weapon; therefore, it is not true that you can only attack adjacent targets by using the weapon as a double weapon.


That's not how English works. 'In this case' refers to the last situation that was talked about, and in RAW that situation is attacking adjacent targets, not using it as a reach weapon. Putting it before the sentence talking about adjacent targets makes it refer to not being usable as a double weapon with reach, and the distinction wasn't even necessary as the double weapon part already specified this. By RAW it both can and cannot be used as a double weapon to attack adjacent targets.

The last situation specifically refers to reach weapons and adjacent creatures. You can't remove the parts about reach weapons because that changes the nature of the text.

The RAW is that when it is being used as a double weapon either end can be used against adjacent foes and when being used as a reach weapon one end may be used against foes 10 ft away or adjacent but the other end cannot be used at all.

It is entirely within the rules of the English language to write the passage like this without changing the meaning at all:


Chain Lash:This is a simple chain with weighted ends. It can be whirled quickly, striking with hard blows because of the weights. One end can also be swung out to entangle an opponent. Kytons often wield these weapons in place of their chain rakes and apply their dancing chains ability to them.


The chain lash can be used either as a double weapon or as a reach weapon.


You can fight with it as if fighting with two weapons, incurring all the normal attack penalties as if using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. (Whenever using the chain lash as a double weapon), you can only strike at an adjacent opponent.


If you use the chain lash as a reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away with it. In addition, unlike other weapons with reach, you can use it against an adjacent foe. (Whenever using the chain lash as a reach weapon, even when only to attack adjacent targets), you can only use one end of the chain effectively; you cannot use it as a double weapon (when using it as a reach weapon).


Because the chain lash can wrap around an enemy’s leg or other limb, you can make trip attacks with it. If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the chain lash to avoid being tripped.


When using a chain lash, you get a +2 bonus on your opposed attack roll when attempting to disarm an opponent (including the roll to avoid being disarmed if you fail
to disarm your opponent).


You can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with a chain lash.

Above the first line is description and flavor text.

Above the second line is a rule that dictates that the weapon can have one of these two properties at any given time. Most English uses an inclusive 'or' (which also covers 'and' situations) so the weapon having both properties simultaneously is not ruled out at this time.

Above the third line are the rules for using the weapon as a double weapon which are the same as any other double weapon.

Above the fourth line are the rules for using the weapon as a reach weapon. This is the situation being discussed by "In this case" replaced above. The middle sentence begins with "In addition". In addition to what? The previous sentence. The middle sentence is simply clarifying that this reach weapon does not follow the standard rules for reach weapons. That does not force "In this case" to refer only to the most proximal sentence because the most proximal sentence refers to the one before it, i.e. the case being discussed (use of the weapon as a reach weapon). And it is here that the inclusive 'or' above the second line becomes an exclusive 'or' because we are told specifically that the weapon cannot be both a reach weapon and a double weapon at the same time.

The rest of the lines are included for completeness's sake and to support the parsing out of all of the different rules text.

[zergling.exe]

"When using the weapon as a double weapon, you may only attack adjacent creatures" does not equate to "you can only attack adjacent creatures while using it as a double weapon". In the former case the restriction is caused by the state of the weapon (possessing the double weapon property). In the latter case (which is incorrect) the restriction is caused by the location of the target (being adjacent). You can use the weapon in its reach form to attack adjacent targets because it is an inclusive reach weapon; therefore, it is not true that you can only attack adjacent targets by using the weapon as a double weapon.

How my brain parsed it is that the emphasis was on 'while using it as a double weapon' being the qualifier. Likewise, my brain parses 'In this case' to be referring to attacking adjacent creatures. Your brain parses it differently than mine, thus leading to reading it differently.

[PallentisLunam]

How my brain parsed it is that the emphasis was on 'while using it as a double weapon' being the qualifier. Likewise, my brain parses 'In this case' to be referring to attacking adjacent creatures. Your brain parses it differently than mine, thus leading to reading it differently.

Well then we are back to one way causes a dysfunction and the other doesn't. However I think we still have a dysfunction because we are never told what kind of action is required to change between uses of the weapon. It appears to be within the rules to hold it as a double weapon, attack, switch to a reach weapon, attack, and switch back to a double weapon to attack again, meaning the choice is only significant at BABs of 5 or lower.

[Darrin]

It's not dysfunctional, but Second Slam does not grant you a 2nd slam attack. Its grants you an iterative attack with your slam.

It does not. It grants you a second slam on any turn where you make a full attack that includes a slam. Attack bonus is BAB -5, but it makes no mention about getting a third slam at BAB +11 or fourth at BAB +16.

[Jormengand]

Well then we are back to one way causes a dysfunction and the other doesn't. However I think we still have a dysfunction because we are never told what kind of action is required to change between uses of the weapon. It appears to be within the rules to hold it as a double weapon, attack, switch to a reach weapon, attack, and switch back to a double weapon to attack again, meaning the choice is only significant at BABs of 5 or lower.

I like how this weapon is so dysfunctional that no-one can actually agree what the dysfunction is.

[The Viscount]

In this case I think we should just agree there's a problem with the lash and enter it as "it's a mess."

[LordOfCain]

A friend pointed this out to me and I don't think its been mentioned yet. Necropolitans don't lose the level or the xp until they open their eyes. What if your character doesn't have any eyes?

[ZamielVanWeber]

It does not. It grants you a second slam on any turn where you make a full attack that includes a slam. Attack bonus is BAB -5, but it makes no mention about getting a third slam at BAB +11 or fourth at BAB +16.

I like how you said I am wrong and then spelled out what I said in many more words. Please notice the use of the single "iterative" not the plural "iteratives." You get one attack that generally follows the rules for iteratives (BAB -5, full attack required, comes after a specific attack).

[Darrin]

I like how you said I am wrong and then spelled out what I said in many more words. Please notice the use of the single "iterative" not the plural "iteratives." You get one attack that generally follows the rules for iteratives (BAB -5, full attack required, comes after a specific attack).

I apologize. I misunderstood you. I didn't realize you were referring to it as a singular. "Iterative" might not be the best term to use, as it's not really a defined game term. I assumed you meant "multiple attacks as determined by your BAB."

There's a bit of a dysfunction with Second Slam because it doesn't specify if you get your full Str bonus (as a primary attack) or 1/2 Str bonus (as a secondary attack). My inclination was to say Second Slam gets the same Str bonus as whatever the first slam gets.

[Inevitability]

A friend pointed this out to me and I don't think its been mentioned yet. Necropolitans don't lose the level or the xp until they open their eyes. What if your character doesn't have any eyes?

Even better: just have your eyelids cut away at the end of the ritual (which surprisingly hardly worsens it). Without the very ability to ever open your eyes again (even Regenerate only works on the living), you'll be free of the level loss! And well, it's not like undead you needs to keep their eyes moisturized.

[nailbudday]

Whirlwind Attack lets you hit adjacent enemies with reach weapons, even if your reach weapon doesn't allow it.

[flare'90]

Whirlwind Attack lets you hit adjacent enemies with reach weapons, even if your reach weapon doesn't allow it.


Benefit

When you use the full attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus against each opponent within reach.

When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities.

Well that's a possible interpretation of the text.

[Jormengand]

Adjacent squares are not within the area you can reach; they are in one of the two regions outside of it.

[flare'90]

When you initiate this strike, you make
a melee attack against every opponent
adjacent to you. Resolve each attack
separately. You gain a +2 bonus on each
of these attacks, which are otherwise
made at your highest attack bonus.

On the other hand, Mithral Tornado does let you attack adjacent opponents with a reach weapon.

[Inevitability]

On the other hand, Mithral Tornado does let you attack adjacent opponents with a reach weapon.

If that's how we're reading it, I guess it should also be mentioned that a creature without natural reach (say, a jermlaine) suddenly can attack his opponents in this way.

[flare'90]

If that's how we're reading it, I guess it should also be mentioned that a creature without natural reach (say, a jermlaine) suddenly can attack his opponents in this way.

"When you initiate this strike, you make a melee attack against every opponent adjacent to you."

Tell me, how do you read it?
Yes, you can attack adjacent opponents with a reach weapon. You can also attack adjacent opponents if you do not have reach at all.
You can't attack opponents in your square with it, unless you rule that your square is adjacent to itself.

Another one for the Handbook?

[Jormengand]

This is the same book which gave us nonmagical teleportation, so really I don't think that being able to attack creatures in a position you normally couldn't is that odd. Maybe executing Mithril Tornado with a glaive involves holding it in a position unsuitable for regular combat, for example.

[Inevitability]

This is the same book which gave us nonmagical teleportation...

Don't forget the part where they decided teleportation was apparently fine as a nonmagical power, but avoiding fire by tumbling out of the way had to be supernatural.

[Inevitability]

New one:

The Dinosaur Stampede spell can be used on a foe standing on the ground.
The Dinosaur Stampede spell can't be used on a foe flying 20 feet up in the air.
The Dinosaur Stampede spell can be used on a foe flying on a plane without ground.

Basically, due to the spell's wording it only makes attacking flying foes impossible if they're a certain distance 'above the ground'. Somewhere without ground wouldn't trigger this restriction.

[No brains]

Regarding reach, was it ever added to the handbook that there's a possible gray area regarding reach weapons and attacking adjacent creatures? If a large creature is adjacent to a medium creature wielding a reach weapon, the medium creature can attack into a non-adjacent square that the large creature occupies, potentially hitting it.

[Inevitability]

From the ghost template:


Malevolence (Su)
Once per round, an ethereal ghost can merge its body with a creature on the Material Plane. This ability is similar to a magic jar spell (caster level 10th or the ghost’s Hit Dice, whichever is higher), except that it does not require a receptacle. To use this ability, the ghost must be manifested and it must try move into the target’s space; moving into the target’s space to use the malevolence ability does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The target can resist the attack with a successful Will save (DC 15 + ghost’s Cha modifier). A creature that successfully saves is immune to that same ghost’s malevolence for 24 hours, and the ghost cannot enter the target’s space. If the save fails, the ghost vanishes into the target’s body.

So, does the ghost have to be manifested or ethereal? Your guess is as good as mine.

[Darrin]

So, does the ghost have to be manifested or ethereal? Your guess is as good as mine.

I believe it's both. A manifested ghost is still technically ethereal. It exists on both planes while it's manifesting.

[Venger]

I believe it's both. A manifested ghost is still technically ethereal. It exists on both planes while it's manifesting.

No, a manifested ghost is incorporeal, but not ethereal.

[Darrin]

No, a manifested ghost is incorporeal, but not ethereal.

Nope, still both. Ghosts are somewhat unique among the incorporeal creatures that are explicitly on the ethereal plane. And even when they manifest, they're still partially on the ethereal plane.

"A manifested ghost remains partially on the Ethereal Plane, where is it not incorporeal. A manifested ghost can be attacked by opponents on either the Material Plane or the Ethereal Plane."

So I don't believe there's a dysfunction here, just some poorly explained rules.

[Troacctid]

From Dragon #332, the size of the Aberrant Paragon class's hit die is apparently as mysterious and incomprehensible as the Far Realms themselves, because it's not given in the text. Is it a d8? Is it a d6? Is it a dπ? No one knows!

Either that or I'm failing a Spot check. I certainly couldn't find it, anyway.

[flare'90]

From Dragon #332, the size of the Aberrant Paragon class's hit die is apparently as mysterious and incomprehensible as the Far Realms themselves, because it's not given in the text. Is it a d8? Is it a d6? Is it a dπ? No one knows!

Either that or I'm failing a Spot check. I certainly couldn't find it, anyway.

It's not you, it seems they forgot entirely. To the Handbook!

[Inevitability]

In the category "let's take things overly literal"...


• Evil Exception (Ex): Regardless of alignment or class restrictions, a hellbred can cast spells with the evil descriptor and never gains negative levels while wielding evil magic items, such as unholy weapons or demon armor. This ability does not shield a hellbred from losing access to class features if he violates a class’s code of conduct. For example, using a +1 unholy longsword to slay orcs would not violate a hellbred paladin’s code of conduct, though using the weapon to kill another paladin would.

What happens if a hellbred paladin uses a +1 unholy longsword to slay an orc paladin?

[Troacctid]

In the category "let's take things overly literal"...



What happens if a hellbred paladin uses a +1 unholy longsword to slay an orc paladin?
Then she falls, because the ability doesn't shield you from breaking your Code of Conduct. Easy.

The real question is why you apparently are immune to all negative levels while holding an unholy sword, not just those bestowed by the sword itself.

[georgie_leech]

Then she falls, because the ability doesn't shield you from breaking your Code of Conduct. Easy.

The real question is why you apparently are immune to all negative levels while holding an unholy sword, not just those bestowed by the sword itself.

That's not what the ability says, it says...

...

...huh, I guess that is what the ability says.

[The Viscount]

Noctumancer's Innate Counterspell has the following text (emphasis added)
"Once per day, you can counter a spell as an immediate action, by expending a mystery use per day, a spell slot (if you prepare spells), or a spell use (if you are a spontaneous caster)."

You may notice that this is flip-flopped. Real question is, are they still meaningful, or does it not function with a strict reading?

Guards and wards (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/guardsAndWards.htm) has a range that is inside its area. I'll plead ignorance as to whether this works, can someone help?

[Troacctid]

Guards and wards (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/guardsAndWards.htm) has a range that is inside its area. I'll plead ignorance as to whether this works, can someone help?
I don't see why it wouldn't work.

[nailbudday]

I think Guards and Wards is the least dysfunctional spell. The range is 'within the area to be warded' which means that you're actually warding a location or place instead of some random circle that happens to include most of the building you're fortifying.

[Flickerdart]

I think Guards and Wards is the least dysfunctional spell. The range is 'within the area to be warded' which means that you're actually warding a location or place instead of some random circle that happens to include most of the building you're fortifying.

Isn't there that rule to the effect of "spell area beyond its range is wasted"?

[The Viscount]

Right, and since the range is "anywhere in the area" instead of "all of the area specified" that would mean you only put the effect on a small part of the area, right?

[ShurikVch]

Eyes of the Eagle (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#eyesoftheEagle):
These items are made of special crystal and fit over the eyes of the wearer. These lenses grant a +5 competence bonus on Spot checks. Wearing only one of the pair causes a character to become dizzy and, in effect, stunned for 1 round. Thereafter, the wearer can use the single lens without being stunned so long as she covers her other eye. Of course, she can remove the single lens and see normally at any time, or wear both lenses to end or avoid the dizziness.


http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/images/dd_gallery/dd2/Cyclops_p133.jpg

[Jormengand]

Eyes of the Eagle (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#eyesoftheEagle):


http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/images/dd_gallery/dd2/Cyclops_p133.jpg

What's dysfunctional about a magic item designed by humanoids for humanoids that cyclopes can't use effectively?

[flare'90]

Eyes of the Eagle (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#eyesoftheEagle):


http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/images/dd_gallery/dd2/Cyclops_p133.jpg

Wear a lens over the other. Problem solved.

[ShurikVch]

What's dysfunctional about a magic item designed by humanoids for humanoids that cyclopes can't use effectively?OK, then how about the fact there are at least some creatures who have more than 2 eyes?
Eyes of the Eagle, by the RAW, would work just fine for them - despite they doesn't covering all of their eyes -, but any 1-eyed creature is incapable to use it normally, despite don't having any eyes which may stun them by unfocused images

[Inevitability]

There's this bit of text in the ardent's description:


Manifesting a power from an aligned mantle is considered an act of that alignment, however, so most ardents who take two opposed mantles are neutral.

In other words: a chaotic psion who liberally uses Hammer or Grip of Iron risks becoming lawful. That seems rather unintended.

[Troacctid]

I don't think Psions cast from mantles.

[nailbudday]

They don't, but a Psychic Warrior or Wilder that took the 'Mantled' acf from PHB II would be subject to this little bit of weirdness.

[Inevitability]

I don't think Psions cast from mantles.

I guess there's some ambiguity whether 'from' is referring to the power or the manifesting.

[neriractor]

There's this bit of text in the ardent's description:



In other words: a chaotic psion who liberally uses Hammer or Grip of Iron risks becoming lawful. That seems rather unintended.

I don't think that's a dysfunction, unless you believe [evil] spells making you evil is one. It just happens to be that the mantles themselves are what gives alignment to the powers, not the power itself (or the class).

[No brains]

I don't know, does Hammer or Grip of Iron have any fluff about "using the foul powers of unlife" to give their utterly neutral effects the [Evil] [Lawful] descriptor? :smallamused:

I've always been confused by mantles anyway. They aren't capes, why are the called that? :smalltongue:

[No brains]

I had some more thoughts on unarmed strikes.

I agree that there is some ambiguity as to whether or not a creature has more than one UaS, but there is another point to consider: could someone two-weapon fight with a gauntlet and an unarmed strike?

Is the Improved Unarmed Strike feat more specific than the Gauntlet weapon? Can a creature deal non-lethal damage with a gauntlet at no penalty if they have the feat?

If a character is wearing one gauntlet and they use an unarmed strike with an unarmored part of their body, does the gauntlet still let them deal lethal damage?

Enhancing weapons could be considered an 'effect'. Can a monk have their fists enhanced as though they were magic weapons? Is this more specific than a weapon needing to be masterwork before it is enhanced?

Weapons of a special material are always considered masterwork. If a monk could turn their body into adamantine or mythril, could their body be enhanced as a weapon?

[Troacctid]

Enhancing weapons could be considered an 'effect'. Can a monk have their fists enhanced as though they were magic weapons? Is this more specific than a weapon needing to be masterwork before it is enhanced?
No.


Weapons of a special material are always considered masterwork. If a monk could turn their body into adamantine or mythril, could their body be enhanced as a weapon?
Depends on how you do it. If it's via the Artifact Lord feat, sure, I guess. If it's via Adamantine Body, then no.

[The Viscount]

The Evergreen spell is one I don't understand. You heal a small amount of damage to natural plants in the area and make them immune to cold. This spell also affects creatures of the plant subtype, which of course does not exist.

[nailbudday]

Revisiting Elocator from XPH, the Scorned Earth class feature says that an Elocator floats 1 foot above the ground, and then immediately follows it with this gem:

While she remains within 1 foot of a flat surface of any solid or liquid, she can take normal actions and make normal attacks, and can move at her normal speed (she can even “run” at four times her normal speed). However, at distances higher than 1 foot above any surface, her speed diminishes to 10 feet per round.

Not, one foot above a flat surface. I guess this functions as the monk's slowfall feature but I'm near positive it's not supposed to. Also you can run 40ft a round sideways while falling which is definitely not supposed to happen since its based on levitate.

[Telok]

A question, and I ask it here because it could lead to an interesting issue. Is insanity itself explicitly mind affecting? Some spells are mind affecting, but the confused condition and insanity aren't defined as such.

So a monster has an EX ability to inflict insanity. Is that mind affecting? If the ability says "as though affected by the Insanity spell" does that indicate that it is mind affecting? Because it may also mean that it's an enchantment and subject to the effects that apply to that (otilukes suppressing field or break enchantment for example) even though it's not a spell.

So there are a couple of options. An EX confusion/insanity effect could lack the mind affecting tag and be applied to mindless creatures. The EX effect could inherit from the spells of the same names and then itself be affected by spell breaking/countering effects. I'm not quite sure how the RAW works out here.

[Troacctid]

Here's one I noticed working on my Warlock handbook. The dark discorporation invocation locks you into swarmlike form. You can't turn back to normal even if you want to. If it isn't dispelled, you're stuck as a swarm until the full duration expires. That's 24 hours of being unable to take any action besides a move action.

"But Troacctid! All invocations can be dismissed! It's a general rule!"

Right, and what action does it take to dismiss them, again? Let me see...ah, yes, a standard action. Isn't that nice.

https://media.tenor.co/images/ce441e4f0e6f115e9eb1b321955c1b80/raw

[Flickerdart]

Right, and what action does it take to dismiss them, again? Let me see...ah, yes, a standard action. Isn't that nice.

Obviously, the writers expected all warlocks with that invocation to have a slotless Belt of Battle and levels in Ruby Knight Vindicator.

[nailbudday]

Obviously by turning into a swarm you actually gain the Worm that Walks template.

Actually, speaking of Worm that Walks: Their Discorporate ability says they can scatter their component vermin and that if at least one survives it can breed and rebuild the Worm. No mention of how long this takes though.

[Flickerdart]

Actually, speaking of Worm that Walks: Their Discorporate ability says they can scatter their component vermin and that if at least one survives it can breed and rebuild the Worm. No mention of how long this takes though.

Well, standard action is the default, isn't it? :smalltongue:

[Troacctid]

It takes as long as the plot demands!

[ShurikVch]

Xorvintaal Dragon template, Rejuvenation ability:
When a xorvintaal dragon reaches –10 hit points, it doesn’t actually die. All life functions cease, however, and the dragon is functionally a corpse for the purpose of resolving all spells that affect dead bodies. It takes a Heal check (DC 20 + dragon’s age category) to detect any vital signs. It remains at –10 hit points no matter what damage or healing it receives. Death effects still affect the dragon normally, and dismembering or skinning the corpse is sufficient to kill it.
When 10 minutes have passed since the dragon last took damage, it gains fast healing 10. It still appears dead until it reaches its full normal hit points.I wonder: does those "spells" include such as Resurrection/True Resurrection?
If yes, then it may allow to make Zerg Rush - with dragons!

Game have several ways to make remotely controlled copies of creatures (such as Astral Projection or Ice Assassin), but notoriously obscure about how it works in more exotic situations.
For example, if Astral Projection was affected by Mind Seed, does it mean effect will come to your "real" body, or just fizzle away?
Or, what if Ice Assassin was hit with Searing Seed? Does it mean birth of second Ice Assassin with Half-Fiend template? Will that new Half-Fiend Ice Assassin also immune to healing, controlled by the caster, and have target detector? Will that spell work at all (it require living target)?
Or how about the Putrefaction spell? Would copies be affected at all? If Astral Projection affected, wouldn't it cause your "real" body to age too? Will Ice Assassin die from old age? If yes - then will it's Ghost appear?

[The Viscount]

Obviously by turning into a swarm you actually gain the Worm that Walks template.

Actually, speaking of Worm that Walks: Their Discorporate ability says they can scatter their component vermin and that if at least one survives it can breed and rebuild the Worm. No mention of how long this takes though.

if at least one survives it can breed and rebuild the Worm

one can breed

Wow, those are some impressive worms!

[No brains]

Wow, those are some impressive worms!

Well that's not biologically impossible, especially if it was just part of a huge colony of worms. Also it could find other worms somewhere else, although that invites a "worm swarm of Theseus" dilemma. Not to mention, cutting the worm in half can make 2 quickly enough.

[The Viscount]

Well the weirdness with finding other worms is that presumably the worms in a Worm that Walks are somehow different from your garden variety worm, so it's unclear whether they could "infect" the offspring.

Also, if they really are made of worms, how do they inflict damage on engulfed opponents? It's something I never understood.

In terms of actual rules, what does it mean when it says that when discorporated vermin "are treated no differently from other vermin"? They have no stats, so can they even be killed in the first place?

[Flickerdart]

Well the weirdness with finding other worms is that presumably the worms in a Worm that Walks are somehow different from your garden variety worm, so it's unclear whether they could "infect" the offspring.

Also, if they really are made of worms, how do they inflict damage on engulfed opponents? It's something I never understood.
Well, the engulf is Ex and the damage is untyped. Perhaps it is the crush of vermin (the worms linking together into a giant muscle that compresses the victim)? The worms could also attempt to burrow into soft tissues, which is how constructs are immune.

The real question is - what happens if all the worms survive, but are forcibly separated? Do they each begin to reproduce and work on a new body? How does the intellect decide which body to inhabit?

[Sky]

I have an interesting one from Pathfinder's Fifth Bestiary.

The Urannag (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/constructs/urannag) has the following special ability (emphasis added):



Exposed Mechanisms (Ex):
Although an urannag is a construct, it can be harmed by the methods used to disable traps.

A successful DC 20 Disable Device check targeting an urannag (a full-round action that provokes an attack of opportunity) deals damage that bypasses the urannag's DR equal to 3d6 + the character's total ranks in Disable Device. Additionally, the urannag is staggered for 1 round (DC 16 Fort negates the staggered condition).

It's immune to the staggered effect, since constructs are immune to anything which requires a Fortitude save. Despite this, it still has Great Fortitude as one of it's feats....

[Flickerdart]

It's immune to the staggered effect, since constructs are immune to anything which requires a Fortitude save. Despite this, it still has Great Fortitude as one of it's feats....
Aren't constructs only immune to Fortitude effects that can't affect objects? Disintegrate works on them just fine, for instance.

[Sky]

Aren't constructs only immune to Fortitude effects that can't affect objects? Disintegrate works on them just fine, for instance.

The wording from the bestiaries is "immune to any effect that requires a fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects or is harmless)." Source (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/creature-types#TOC-Construct)

So a construct is affected by disintegrate, yes, but the Exposed Mechanisms special quality doesn't work on objects, so the Urannag is immune.

[nailbudday]

Well the weirdness with finding other worms is that presumably the worms in a Worm that Walks are somehow different from your garden variety worm, so it's unclear whether they could "infect" the offspring.

Also, if they really are made of worms, how do they inflict damage on engulfed opponents? It's something I never understood.

In terms of actual rules, what does it mean when it says that when discorporated vermin "are treated no differently from other vermin"? They have no stats, so can they even be killed in the first place?

Well the idea is that the worms and stuff are magic by virtue of having consumed the magic in the corpse of the wiz/sorc/whatever. That's why the ritual to create one is a percentage based on how many unused spells the character had when they died. And magic is magic so the offpsring are also magic I guess? That's at least sort of consistent with the rest of the universe.

As far as the engulf goes at least some of the worms are actually maggots, so that's where your damage comes from.

And for 'treated no differently' I assume they mean can be effected by the same kind of things normal vermin can? Which is pretty much nothing except the Vermin Keeper class feature but uh, good to know I guess.

[Inevitability]

The real question is - what happens if all the worms survive, but are forcibly separated? Do they each begin to reproduce and work on a new body? How does the intellect decide which body to inhabit?

Going to say this can be explained by souls being unable to spread across all bodies. The Worm That Walks is an aberration/undead right?

[The Viscount]

Shadowstriker's third level ability lets you shoot a wave of energy that deals increased damage when you spend turn or smite uses. The maximum boost is set at +Sd8 damage.
We'll just check the errata on this and we see... that they made it less powerful but didn't address the cap.

[Venger]

Shugenja gets 4 0th level spells of their element.

Each element only has 4 spells.

So you either pick one extra, or leave one blank.

[Allanimal]

Shugenja gets 4 0th level spells of their element.

Each element only has 4 spells.

So you either pick one extra, or leave one blank.

Maybe I'm missing something, and I'm away from books at the moment, but I'm not seeing the problem.

[nailbudday]

A shugenja gets four (five if we count the order spell) 0 level spells at 1st level, but only half of his spells known have to match his favored alignment. So 2 of his spells MUST match the element but the other two can be whatever they want.

Although looking at Complete Divine, it says that a shugenja can "cast spells without preparing them ahead of time, as a wizard or cleric must" which is not only confusing rules-wise since wizards and clerics ARE prepared casters, but also syntactically weird with the use of must.

[Flickerdart]

Although looking at Complete Divine, it says that a shugenja can "cast spells without preparing them ahead of time, as a wizard or cleric must" which is not only confusing rules-wise since wizards and clerics ARE prepared casters, but also syntactically weird with the use of must.

It makes perfect sense, although it is indeed oddly worded. A shugenja can cast spells without preparing them ahead of time. Wizards and clerics are examples of classes that prepare spells.

[SirNibbles]

Martial Monk can take any fighter bonus feat without qualifying for it. (Dragon #310, page 45)


Martial Monk

Gain: Fighter bonus feat list to choose monk bonus feats (at 1st, 2nd, and 6th level); Intimidate is a class skill.

Lose: -1 skill point per level (and -4 skill points at 1st level); no Knowledge skills as class skills.

Multiclass Options: This monk can multiclass between fighter and monk with no penalty.

They then go on to provide a sample Martial Monk.

Half-Elf
Monk 2/Fighter 2
BAB +3
Str 14 | Dex 15 | Con 12 | Int 10 | Wis 14 | Cha 8
Feats: Dodge, Improved Unarmed Strike, Mobility, Spring Attack, Two-Weapon Defense, Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (Quarterstaff)


Now, what does the Monk's description say about qualifying for monk bonus feats?

"A monk need not have any of the prerequisites normally required for these feats to select them."

"But surely that applies only for the six monk feats, not the fighter bonus feats as well!", you may say.

Ten points to Gryffindor if you can find which feat the sample character can't have possibly gotten without being exempted from its prerequisites.


Spring Attack
Prerequisites
Dex 13, Dodge, Mobility, base attack bonus +4

The sample monk/fighter has a BAB of +3 and thus can only have Spring Attack if the prerequisite was waived.


Let's go back to that part about not needing ANY of the prerequisites.

You can take any Fighter bonus feat at first level, and second level, and sixth level.

Abuses:
-TWF/ITWF/GTWF by level 6 instead of +11 BAB and 19 Dex
-Whirlwind Attack at level 1 without the enormous feat tax
-Robilar's Gambit at level 1 instead of +12 BAB
-Defensive Sweep at level 1 instead of +15 BAB

There are many more ways to abuse this.

[The Viscount]

Maybe I'm missing something, and I'm away from books at the moment, but I'm not seeing the problem.

Once shugenja reaches level 9 this number changes to 5 0th level spells of their element. There are only 4 spells within the element, so they have to either break focus or have an empty slot. The order spell can't help, because that is tracked separately.

[georgie_leech]

Martial Monks are actually a rare thing, where two dysfunctions cancel each other out. All sample characters are terrible and frequently aren't following the rules. Martial Monks accidentally qualify for feats they shouldn't. The result: a sample character that accidentally qualifies for the feat they shouldn't have. :smalltongue:

[zergling.exe]

Abuses:
-TWF/ITWF/GTWF by level 6 instead of +11 BAB and 19 Dex
-Whirlwind Attack at level 1 without the enormous feat tax
-Robilar's Gambit at level 1 instead of +12 BAB
-Defensive Sweep at level 1 instead of +15 BAB

There are many more ways to abuse this.

I don't see how having a feat you can't use for many levels is an abuse. :smallconfused:

[SirNibbles]

I don't see how having a feat you can't use for many levels is an abuse. :smallconfused:

Oh, don't give me the 'Monks can't actually use Stunning Fist because they don't meet the prerequisites' argument.

Specific trumps general in the case of rules. The general rule is you can't use a feat if you don't have the prerequisite. Monk's specific rule overrides that.

[zergling.exe]

Oh, don't give me the 'Monks can't actually use Stunning Fist because they don't meet the prerequisites' argument.

Specific trumps general in the case of rules. The general rule is you can't use a feat if you don't have the prerequisite. Monk's specific rule overrides that.

The monk's rules allow them to ignore prerequisites when selecting the feats:

A monk need not have any of the prerequisites normally required for these feats to select them.
But has no rules allowing them to ignore prerequisites when using the feats:

Your character must have the indicated ability score, class feature, feat, skill, base attack bonus, or other quality designated in order to select or use that feat.

A character can’t use a feat if he or she has lost a prerequisite.
So there is no specific trumping general, and monks can't use most of their bonus feats without taking Combat Expertise.

[nailbudday]

It makes perfect sense, although it is indeed oddly worded. A shugenja can cast spells without preparing them ahead of time. Wizards and clerics are examples of classes that prepare spells.

Oh. Yeah that makes way more sense. I read that sentence like 5 times and didn't pick up on 'as a wizard...' being a modifier for preparing. Whoops.



Once shugenja reaches level 9 this number changes to 5 0th level spells of their element. There are only 4 spells within the element, so they have to either break focus or have an empty slot. The order spell can't help, because that is tracked separately.

On the other hand. This is easily fixed by rounding the half down instead of up; if we take the third number of spells as the favored element suddenly the problem goes away. So close to being okay, and yet... not. Also, what happens if a level one shugenja has 12 Cha? He gets an extra 1st level spell, but is it a favored element spell or a free spell?

[The Viscount]

On the other hand. This is easily fixed by rounding the half down instead of up; if we take the third number of spells as the favored element suddenly the problem goes away. So close to being okay, and yet... not. Also, what happens if a level one shugenja has 12 Cha? He gets an extra 1st level spell, but is it a favored element spell or a free spell?

The problem is that there's no rounding occurring whatsoever. If you crack open Complete Divine, Shugenja has a set table dictating exactly how many of the element and how many outside of the element they can learn. There's no way around the 5 you must have.

If a level one shugenja has 12 Cha he's destined for a life of hardship. His extra 1st level spell is an extra slot. You can't get more spells known from high Charisma.

[nailbudday]

The problem is that there's no rounding occurring whatsoever. If you crack open Complete Divine, Shugenja has a set table dictating exactly how many of the element and how many outside of the element they can learn. There's no way around the 5 you must have.

If a level one shugenja has 12 Cha he's destined for a life of hardship. His extra 1st level spell is an extra slot. You can't get more spells known from high Charisma.

It's a problem because there's rounding. I'm aware that there's a table but that table is functionally irrelevant because the text specifies that half of a shugenja's spells for a level have to be from their favored element, and Wizards rounded up on the half. The table is just so player's don't have to think too hard about it or question which half gets put into the element when there's an odd number. You're right about the slot though, I've yet again failed to remember how extra slots for a high casting stat work.

[Inevitability]

Not sure if dysfunctional, but Discern Shapechanger got reprinted in 3.5 books thrice and not once did people remember to change 'shapechanger type' to 'shapechanger subtype'.

[nailbudday]

Not sure if dysfunctional, but Discern Shapechanger got reprinted in 3.5 books thrice and not once did people remember to change 'shapechanger type' to 'shapechanger subtype'.

I mean, the spell just doesn't work at all. I'd call that a dysfunction for sure.

[The Viscount]

Under the section for flight as a monster ability, it mentions a flying monster can make a dive attack dealing double damage, but restricted to claws or talons. Certain flying creatures, such as Dire Bat or Arrowhawk, lack these attacks, so cannot make the dive.

The Blackguard has an ability to gain a "Medium-size skeleton or zombie" with enough previous levels in paladin which gains bonuses as a fiendish servant. Ignoring the vagueness being ripe for exploitation, bonuses as a fiendish servant include additional d8 HD.

Undetectable alignment conceals the alignment of a paladin from divination. However, the aura of good is a separate feature and will trigger detect good regardless of undetectable alignment.

[Telok]

So a 19th level expaladin/blackguard can have a 10 hit die human zombie. With the empathic sense and communicate with master. In addition, when it dies (and it will), the blackguard has to wait a year and a day to replace it. Just in case you want another instead of casting Animate Dead on a 10 headed hydra or something.

In unrelated news I am unable to find any references that call out the confused condition as being mind affecting. So EX abilities that cause confusion should affect mindless and Mind Blanked targets.

[The Viscount]

I didn't clarify in my original post, the problem is that you are adding d8 HD to undead, which should receive d12s.

[Catarang]

This may have been mentioned and shot down before, but I'm just gonna flag it for consideration to see the thought processes of other people.

The Versatile Spellcaster Feat from Races of Dragon:


Versatile Spellcaster [General]
You can use two lower-level spell slots to cast a spell one level higher.

Prerequisite:
Ability to spontaneously cast spells

Benefit:
You can use two spell slots of the same level to cast a spell you know that is one level higher. For example, a sorcerer with this feat can expend two 2nd-level spell slots to cast any 3rd-level spell he knows.


So RAI is, take this feat and a Sorceror or some other spontaneous spellcaster losses 2 spell slots from his own spells known list to cast a spell of one level higher that he knows. But what if you're multiclassed between 2 spontaneous casting classes? Should a Sorc/Favored Soul be able to sacrifice a spell from each of his level 2 spells known lists to cast one spell from either of his level 3 lists?

Also, I would like to know what other people think of this feat allowing a level 9 wizard/level 1 sorcerer to spontaneously lose memorized wizard spells to cast higher level wizard spells. I expect this isn't possible due to there being a difference between memorized and known spells, but the PHB says "unlike a bard or sorcerer, a wizard may know any number of spells..." (pg. 57 top left corner). I can also see a discrepancy with burning memorized spell slots, saying that you don't have that spell slot anymore until you sleep and get it back because you spent it to memorize a spell. But what if I voluntarily decide not to memorize spells, could I then use this feat to cast any of my spells known at will as long as I wanted to burn unused spell slots?

[Troacctid]

But what if you're multiclassed between 2 spontaneous casting classes? Should a Sorc/Favored Soul be able to sacrifice a spell from each of his level 2 spells known lists to cast one spell from either of his level 3 lists?
Rules Compendium says no.


Also, I would like to know what other people think of this feat allowing a level 9 wizard/level 1 sorcerer to spontaneously lose memorized wizard spells to cast higher level wizard spells. I expect this isn't possible due to there being a difference between memorized and known spells, but the PHB says "unlike a bard or sorcerer, a wizard may know any number of spells..." (pg. 57 top left corner). I can also see a discrepancy with burning memorized spell slots, saying that you don't have that spell slot anymore until you sleep and get it back because you spent it to memorize a spell. But what if I voluntarily decide not to memorize spells, could I then use this feat to cast any of my spells known at will as long as I wanted to burn unused spell slots?
As far as I can tell, the feat doesn't say it changes anything about the spellcasting process other than what spell slots you spend, so a Wizard should still have to prepare the spell normally, she'd just be able to do it in two lower-level slots instead of a higher-level one.

[Catarang]

Errr, does that still qualify as a dysfunction?

[Troacctid]

I don't think so.

[St Fan]

In the category "Feats that contradict the rule they concern":

The feat "Pebble Underfoot" (from Dragon Compendium) gives the following advantage:

"When attempting to trip a creature at least two size categories larger than you, you gain a +4 bonus on opposed trip checks. If you fail to trip the creature, it cannot immediately attempt to trip you."

Problem is, from the basic rules on Trip attacks: "You can only trip an opponent who is one size category larger than you, the same size, or smaller."

Pebble Underfoot says nowhere that it allows to trip creatures bigger than the normal rules permit, just seeming to assume it's already possible. So you get a bonus to trip creatures that are too big to be tripped.

[Jormengand]

A contemptative who couldn't previously have cast divine spells starts to cast them just as a cleric does. Contemplatives who couldn't previously have cast divine spells don't exist.

A favoured soul/divine oracle can prepare oracle domain spells in her nonexistent domain slots.

A geomancer who uses some ability score other than charisma or intelligence to determine arcane spell DCs can use whichever of intelligence and charisma he uses for his arcane spells for his divine spells as well.

[Troacctid]

A contemptative who couldn't previously have cast divine spells starts to cast them just as a cleric does. Contemplatives who couldn't previously have cast divine spells don't exist.
Actually, the rule applies to Contemplatives who did not previously belong to a divine spellcasting class. Which is totally a thing that can happen (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=1582.0).

[Flickerdart]

Actually, the rule applies to Contemplatives who did not previously belong to a divine spellcasting class. Which is totally a thing that can happen (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=1582.0).

Or you can just be the beneficiary of Imbue with Spell Ability.

[Inevitability]

Or an arcane caster with Southern Magician.

[ShurikVch]

A geomancer who uses some ability score other than charisma or intelligence to determine arcane spell DCs can use whichever of intelligence and charisma he uses for his arcane spells for his divine spells as well.AFAIK, the only Wis-based arcane caster is Unseelie Dark Hunter (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fey/20030315a) PrC


A favoured soul/divine oracle can prepare oracle domain spells in her nonexistent domain slots.
Extra Domains
If a noncleric enters a prestige class that allows access to a domain, the character still gains access to the domain. She can use the granted power bestowed by the domain normally. If she memorizes spells like a druid, paladin, or ranger, then she can simply choose to memorize one of that domain's spells instead of one of her usual spells, but never more than one domain spell of each level. If she is a spellcaster who keeps a spellbook as a wizard does, then she must find or purchase a scroll of that spell and pay the usual price to scribe the spell into her spellbook. In cases where the spell is only divine the wizard may scribe a divine scroll into his book. The wizard then may memorize one domain spell of each level each day. If the noncleric is a spontaneous caster like a sorcerer or favored soul, then she may select a domain spell to add to her spells known whenever she would have an option to choose a new known spell. A sorcerer does not get to exceed his normal limit of spells known. Once the domain spell is known, the sorcerer may cast it freely. Unless the prestige class specifies otherwise, such spells are considered arcane spells when cast by arcane spellcasters.

[nailbudday]

I'm going to assume OA stuff is fine since maho-tsukai is listed in the handbook.

The shaman runs into the same "we don't know if it's dysfunctional or not but something's screwy" issue with its unarmed strikes as the monk does.

Female Shinomen Naga of all types can turn their snake tails into human legs. But it never actually tells us how that translates into height. The top of their heads generally end up at a height about equal to a third of their length at rest, and it's not unreasonable to assume that's how tall they are in human form... except on the low end a Greensnake Naga is only 10 feet long, giving us a medium humanoid the same size as your average gnome.

Not a dysfunction, but while I'm trawling the book/update I might as well mention it: the Constrictor Naga is a huge humanoid. Back when OA was 3.0, it occupied a 10x5 space. In 3.5 they did away with that and made it's space... 15x15? Also it only has 20 ft movement, despite being the largest type of naga and every other type getting 30 ft.

The passage weapon ability allows a weapon to open a portal to the Spirit World as a plane shift once a day, except that it actually opens a portal that any character can travel through in either direction(so nothing like plane shift really). It also says that the portal stays open for d4 rounds, but once it closes "it cannot be opened again." Does this mean that you can't open a portal to the same place on the plane more than once? That you can't open a portal in the same location on the prime material? Your guess is as good as mine since after those d4 rounds the portal doesn't exist anymore.

The displacement weapon ability "makes its wielder appear to be standing right next to his actual location, just like the displacement spell. Only problem is, unlike blur, the visual effect of displacement doesn't actually cause the miss chance for displacement by RAW since they're two separate effects of the spell. So while the weapon makes you look like you're somewhere else, it doesn't actually help you in any way.

[ShurikVch]

Planar Travel (Su):
Gem dragons have the innate ability to pass instantly between the Material Plane and the Inner Planes, where they often make their homes.OK...
Except...
How, exactly, it works?
For example, how often it can be used?
Or how precise is it (i. e. - is it possible to get to one particular place on a plane)?

[Jormengand]

Detect magic is itself magical, which can cause problems (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21639178&postcount=102).

[nailbudday]

Bone knight from Five Nations gets all sorts of goodies, including some neato magic armor, a spooky skeleton horse, and 9/10 casting progression. It even lets you keep your paladin class features and gives you extra spells on your paladin spell list from the cleric list... but only if your only casting class before taking the prc was paladin. This makes perfect sense since it's obviously supposed to be an upgrade for pallies and WotC realized that they needed all the help they could get. Where it gets weird is that if you're a cleric 1/Paladin X/Bone Knight 2 you don't get those extra spells, even if you don't have access to them through cleric casting.

[Xanyo]

Gravity technically has no effect. There is no stated trigger for falling, and no requirement of being on a surface to jump. So you can just run straight up the air if you want to.

Man, RAW is fun.

[Jormengand]

Gravity technically has no effect. There is no stated trigger for falling, and no requirement of being on a surface to jump. So you can just run straight up the air if you want to.

Man, RAW is fun.

Discussion has been had:


The Material Plane tends to be the most Earthlike of all planes and operates under the same set of natural laws that our own real world does. This is the default plane for most adventures.

Most planes have gravity similar to that of the Material Plane. The usual rules for ability scores, carrying capacity, and encumbrance apply. Unless otherwise noted in a description, it is assumed every plane has the normal gravity trait.

[nailbudday]

That said, there's no actual written limit on what you can do while falling. Let's assume that if you only have a landspeed you don't get to move (laterally) unless you've got some shenanigans going on like an Elocater since you're hurtling downwards in free fall; your turn still come up in initiative order if the fall is long enough though. So what happens if you've got some way of becoming Ethereal during movement like a Phase Cloak? Do you get to move sideways since ethereal creatures don't fall or does falling preclude the movement to start with?

[Morphic tide]

I think I found another Hellfire Warlock-type dysfunction of Strongheart Vest. It gives constant PP gain without limit for nothing but maybe an action. The trick is, essentially, that Body Fuel lets you get 2 PP for 1 point of Ability Burn to Strength, Constitution and Dexterity. Strongheart Vest's example text lists all three types of ability damage, but ability burn might not count as ability damage. And Body Fuel doesn't list the type of action used, so it probably defaults to standard action.

Granted, it pales in comparison to the Bestow Power loop, but it's less overwhelmingly abusive, given that it scales less with Essentia invested and doesn't scale with Overchannel and ML.

[nailbudday]

Well I was going to say that Strongheart Vest didn't stop burn because it only stops ability damage and burn isn't explicitly that but, it totally is a type of damage so I guess it does.

Is there any situation where Shape Soulmeld is a bad feat choice?

[Morphic tide]

Well I was going to say that Strongheart Vest didn't stop burn because it only stops ability damage and burn isn't explicitly that but, it totally is a type of damage so I guess it does.

Is there any situation where Shape Soulmeld is a bad feat choice?

Given that it gives almost anything from a set of classes where "do everything somewhat" is the point of there existence... Not really... Also, the exact text for Body Fuel calls it Ability Burn Damage, so it is explicitly a type of ability damage for Body Fuel's purposes.

[Flickerdart]

Ability burn "cannot be magically or psionically healed—it goes away only through natural healing." Whether or not Incarnum (a Su ability) counts as magic or natural is anyone's guess.

[Morphic tide]

Ability burn "cannot be magically or psionically healed—it goes away only through natural healing." Whether or not Incarnum (a Su ability) counts as magic or natural is anyone's guess.

It cannot be healed magically, resisted is perfectly fine by RAW.

[Troacctid]

Well I was going to say that Strongheart Vest didn't stop burn because it only stops ability damage and burn isn't explicitly that but, it totally is a type of damage so I guess it does.

Is there any situation where Shape Soulmeld is a bad feat choice?
When you need other feats more, or when you don't qualify for it.

[ShurikVch]

Just noticed one small thing...

Dragon #321 have two PrCs: Infused Warrior and Infused Spellcaster - they are mostly the same, except Infused Warrior have full BAB, d12, and good Fort., and Infused Spellcaster - 3/4, d8, good Will, and 5/10 CL progression
So, Celestial Power IV (at capstone) - if "your" Celestial is Solar (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/angel.htm#angelSolar), then you will be able 1/day to make one of your arrows count as Slaying Arrow (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#slayingArrow).
(Keyed creatures for Slaying Arrow designate when you use Celestial Power IV)Nowhere in the RAW it doesn't say you can't designate Slaying Arrow to kill Outsider (good)

[The Viscount]

Could you explain what the problem with this is?

[Uncle Pine]

Detect magic is itself magical, which can cause problems (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21639178&postcount=102).

The area of effect of Detect Magic doesn't include the caster:

A cone-shaped spell shoots away from you in a quarter-circle in the direction you designate. It starts from any corner of your square and widens out as it goes. Most cones are either bursts or emanations (see above), and thus won’t go around corners.

[ShurikVch]

Solar helping kill other Celestials
Also, unlike many other Good-oriented classes, Infused doesn't have any "ex-" clause, thus you even can't fall for shooting some angels

[Flickerdart]

Solar helping kill other Celestials
Also, unlike many other Good-oriented classes, Infused doesn't have any "ex-" clause, thus you even can't fall for shooting some angels

So what? Good vs Good warfare is a thing.

[SirNibbles]

Sidewinder Monk from Dragon 331 (page 89) is meant to use Bluff.

Bluff isn't a class skill for the Monk nor for this variant class.

[Jormengand]

The area of effect of Detect Magic doesn't include the caster:

Really? I don't care, because it detects magical auras which are given out by SPELLS, not MAGICAL CREATURES. Detect magic is itself a SPELL.

Do I have to explain the problem with this to you? I mean, it's already explained in the link in the post that you just quoted, so maybe I do.

[nailbudday]

Really? I don't care, because it detects magical auras which are given out by SPELLS, not MAGICAL CREATURES. Detect magic is itself a SPELL.

Do I have to explain the problem with this to you? I mean, it's already explained in the link in the post that you just quoted, so maybe I do.

So much aggression. What he's saying is that since Detect Magic pings stuff in a cone that doesn't include you, and you're the source of the spell, the aura of Detect Magic is not in the area of Detect Magic so it doesn't detect itself.

[Jormengand]

So much aggression. What he's saying is that since Detect Magic pings stuff in a cone that doesn't include you, and you're the source of the spell, the aura of Detect Magic is not in the area of Detect Magic so it doesn't detect itself.

"Detect Magic: Detects spells and magic items within 60 ft."

Spells (and magic items), not creatures, are the sources of magic auras:

"A magical aura lingers after its original source dissipates (in the case of a spell) or is destroyed (in the case of a magic item)."

Is that clear to you now?

EDIT: If it ISN'T clear, take a look at Magic Aura:

"You alter an item’s aura so that it registers to detect spells (and spells with similar capabilities) as though it were nonmagical, or a magic item of a kind you specify, or the subject of a spell you specify."

Not the caster. The subject. Spells, not their casters, emanate magical auras.

[nailbudday]

I'm aware that the spell is the thing creating the aura. The spell, however, is centered on you, the caster, and the area is a 60 foot cone that, per the rules for for cone effect emanations, cannot ever include the square it's being cast from.Detect Magic only picks up on auras from spells/effects in that 60 foot cone. In order for it to be dysfunctional as you're describing (detect magic registering itself) it would have to be able to detect spells outside of the cone, which means that it's not a cone emanation, it's just a radius and the cone does nothing.
Granted, that might be it's own dysfunction since I don't normally play casters and I'm not familiar enough with spells that have a listed range and an area of 'cone-shaped emanation' to know if the rules cover how those work or even IF they explicitly work.


Preemptive Edit: Actually thinking about it a little more, I assume you mean the fact that the area of detect magic and not the source is what would be registering, which i still don't think is a legit way to parse that, but even then the rules allow for that:


Magical areas, multiple types of magic, or strong local magical emanations may distort or conceal weaker auras.

[Jormengand]

I'm aware that the spell is the thing creating the aura. The spell, however, is centered on you, the caster, and the area is a 60 foot cone that, per the rules for for cone effect emanations, cannot ever include the square it's being cast from.Detect Magic only picks up on auras from spells/effects in that 60 foot cone. In order for it to be dysfunctional as you're describing (detect magic registering itself) it would have to be able to detect spells outside of the cone, which means that it's not a cone emanation, it's just a radius and the cone does nothing.
Granted, that might be it's own dysfunction since I don't normally play casters and I'm not familiar enough with spells that have a listed range and an area of 'cone-shaped emanation' to know if the rules cover how those work or even IF they explicitly work.


Preemptive Edit: Actually thinking about it a little more, I assume you mean the fact that the area of detect magic and not the source is what would be registering, which i still don't think is a legit way to parse that, but even then the rules allow for that:

Auras are in the area of the spell, and have nothing to do with the caster. Detect magic is in its own area. Detect magic detects itself, not you. Therefore, the first round of detect magic is pointless as there will always be magic in the area. Whether you are in the area or not isn't relevant. The source quite clearly the spell, not the caster.

[nailbudday]

Yeah I understand that. You've said that several times. That's why I mentioned it in the last post: I'd always assumed auras registered from where the spell was cast and not the entire area of a spell in effect, which quite neatly fixes the problem you propose, allows the 'determine location' portion to function properly instead of just returning "the aura is somewhere around here but I can't tell you where" and is why I kept mentioning the caster. Unfortunately for both of us it doesn't actually say how/from where auras register so. Maybe dysfunctional, my money is on not, but it should still go in the handbook given that we can't actually know given what little the spell tells us.

[Jormengand]

Yeah I understand that. You've said that several times. That's why I mentioned it in the last post: I'd always assumed auras registered from where the spell was cast and not the entire area of a spell in effect, which quite neatly fixes the problem you propose, allows the 'determine location' portion to function properly instead of just returning "the aura is somewhere around here but I can't tell you where" and is why I kept mentioning the caster. Unfortunately for both of us it doesn't actually say how/from where auras register so. Maybe dysfunctional, my money is on not, but it should still go in the handbook given that we can't actually know given what little the spell tells us.

Check the magic aura spell again. Magic auras register on the subject of the spell, not the caster. In Detect Magic's case, that's the entire area of the detect magic spell.

[nailbudday]

Check the magic aura spell again. Magic auras register on the subject of the spell, not the caster. In Detect Magic's case, that's the entire area of the detect magic spell.


Subject: A creature affected by a spell
I'd hardly call the area of Detect Magic a creature.

[Jormengand]

I'd hardly call the area of Detect Magic a creature.

Nor the target of Magic Aura, but it calls that a subject too.

[nailbudday]

Nor the target of Magic Aura, but it calls that a subject too.

No it doesn't say that at all. It says that the target object registers as the subject of a spell of your choosing, not that 'the aura of the subject changes'.

[Jormengand]

No it doesn't say that at all. It says that the target object registers as the subject of a spell of your choosing, not that 'the aura of the subject changes'.

Yes, that's what I mean. But it couldn't be the subject of a spell of your choosing if it's not an object, right?

That, or subjects are just the things affected by spells, and the definition is wrong or doesn't apply to every instance of the word "Subject".

[nailbudday]

Let's say I have a spell. This spell reads: "Target object appears to detect spells as if it were a summoned Evil Outsider with 11 HD" This makes it ping on Detect Evil as a strong aura and Detect Magic as if it were a Conjuration spell. This does not make it a summoned Evil Outsider with 11 HD. Similarly, even if Magic Aura makes it appear to detect spells as the subject of a spell of your choice, this doesn't actually make it the subject of that spell nor does it mean that the definition of subject is incorrect because it's not a creature.

And even beyond that I've already agreed that this belongs in the handbook since it's ambiguous if detect magic registers itself and the fact that we're arguing proves that something isn't working properly

[Troacctid]

Jormengand is absolutely right on this one. Detect Magic definitely detects itself.

[Telok]

You can look at it this way too; if you only detect the target or source of a spell (point, creature, etc.) then you can't detect spells that just fill areas, like Silent Image. If you can detect the area of a spell effect then the area of Detect Magic gets detected because it's filled with a magical effect.

[Uncle Pine]

Really? I don't care, because it detects magical auras which are given out by spells, not magical creatures. Detect magic is itself a spell.
I didn't think about it that way and thought you based the dysfunction on the fact that the spell originated from the wrong origin point. That wasn't the case, so now that I got your point I agree that Detect Magic can detect itself.

EDIT: A new dysfuncion, assuming it hasn't already been spotted: depending on how you parse this sentence you can't dispel SLAs that aren't subject to SR.

Spell-like abilities are subject to being dispelled by dispel magic and to spell resistance if the spell the ability resembles or duplicates is subject to spell resistance.

[The Viscount]

Fossergrim and Sirines are both aquatic creatures that are mentioned as moving about on land. Both lack any sort of ability to allow them to breathe air.

[Flickerdart]

Fossergrim and Sirines are both aquatic creatures that are mentioned as moving about on land. Both lack any sort of ability to allow them to breathe air.

Well, you can hold your breath for twice your Constitution score in rounds...

[Morphic tide]

Here's a dysfunction I just found in Pathfinder: Bloodrager doesn't specify class restrictions on casting during a Bloodrage. So you can totally go Bloodrager 4 into any other caster and do casting during a Rage without material components. Bloodrage also doesn't work with Rage Powers, which damages half-orc Sythesist/Bloodragers by not letting them use their two Rage Powers from a half-orc Summoner archetype.

Overall, you can be a Bloodrager Magus and smash many, many faces with your angry melee caster. Or a Bloodrager/Scrollmaster to be a wizard whacking people with newspapers scrolls while really, really angry.

[Hish]

I think I have two more dysfunctions from the phb
First, Symbol of Death requires "powdered diamond and opal with a total value of at least 5,000 gp each." So does that mean 5,000 gp split between diamond and opal, or 5,000 gp of each?
Second, in regards to Web, fire can burn the web away at 5 sq ft per round. But a 5 foot square is 5 feet in each dimension, so they are 25 sq ft. So it actually takes 5 rounds to clear each square.

[nailbudday]

I think I have two more dysfunctions from the phb
First, Symbol of Death requires "powdered diamond and opal with a total value of at least 5,000 gp each." So does that mean 5,000 gp split between diamond and opal, or 5,000 gp of each?
Second, in regards to Web, fire can burn the web away at 5 sq ft per round. But a 5 foot square is 5 feet in each dimension, so they are 25 sq ft. So it actually takes 5 rounds to clear each square.

I think the diamond and opal thing means that you need 5000 gp of diamond, and 5000 gp of opal, but that you can combine multiple piles of powder to total 5000 for either if that makes any sense. So you don't have to find a diamond worth 5k and powder it, but you could find 5 1k diamonds and powder them to meet the requirement. Same for the opal.

[Jormengand]

Throw anything requires "Proficiency with weapon" but it doesn't require you to choose one specific type of weapon when taken.

[Inevitability]

Here's a dysfunction I just found in Pathfinder: Bloodrager doesn't specify class restrictions on casting during a Bloodrage. So you can totally go Bloodrager 4 into any other caster and do casting during a Rage without material components. Bloodrage also doesn't work with Rage Powers, which damages half-orc Sythesist/Bloodragers by not letting them use their two Rage Powers from a half-orc Summoner archetype.

Overall, you can be a Bloodrager Magus and smash many, many faces with your angry melee caster. Or a Bloodrager/Scrollmaster to be a wizard whacking people with newspapers scrolls while really, really angry.

How is this dysfunctional? It's a class feature that also benefits multiclass characters, that's hardly unprecedented.

Or would you say a Duskblade's free Combat Casting feat is dysfunctional, because you can use it even if you're casting spells from another class?

[Kurald Galain]

Here's a dysfunction I just found in Pathfinder: Bloodrager doesn't specify class restrictions on casting during a Bloodrage.

The ability literally says "While bloodraging, he can cast and concentrate on only his bloodrager spells (see below); spells from other classes cannot be cast during this state." So I have no idea where you're getting this from.

[The Viscount]

Throw anything requires "Proficiency with weapon" but it doesn't require you to choose one specific type of weapon when taken.

Since the feat title uses "anything" that seems to line up. Also it does restrict you to weapons you are proficient with.

[Jormengand]

Since the feat title uses "anything" that seems to line up. Also it does restrict you to weapons you are proficient with.

Well, no, it doesn't really do anything at all, assuming everyone is proficient with (at least one) weapon. It was clearly written by someone who was expecting the feat to work with a specific weapon chosen by you.

[Uncle Pine]

Well, no, it doesn't really do anything at all, assuming everyone is proficient with (at least one) weapon. It was clearly written by someone who was expecting the feat to work with a specific weapon chosen by you.

It does something, at the very least. Normal bears don't qualify for it.

[Jormengand]

It does something, at the very least. Normal bears don't qualify for it.

Bears are proficient with weapon. They can use their own natural weapons, specifically.

("Proficient with weapon" sounds like some kind of meme. I'm going to say it is now.)

[The Viscount]

Bears are proficient with weapon. They can use their own natural weapons, specifically.

("Proficient with weapon" sounds like some kind of meme. I'm going to say it is now.)

So the dysfunction is that it lets bears throw their paws? I'm not trying to be difficult here, I'm just not clear on what's dysfunctional, or what it should be.

[Bucky]

Pathfinder's Tetori Monk archetype uses its monk level instead of BAB for grapple checks. This makes it a fine option as a grappler package despite not being full BAB.

On the other hand, it means you completely ruin your ability to grapple if you dip Tetori, since you're stuck with an effective BAB of +1.

[Jormengand]

So the dysfunction is that it lets bears throw their paws? I'm not trying to be difficult here, I'm just not clear on what's dysfunctional, or what it should be.

The feat has a prerequisite which is pointless. It's clearly designed as though the person who wrote it wanted it to work for one specific weapon chosen when you take the feat, except that it's not written that way.

[nailbudday]

What makes it extra weird is that the Sword and Fist version doesn't have any proficiency requirement, so they felt like they needed to update it in Complete champion.

I guess it could be that since the Sword and Fist version just says "throw any weapon you can use" they wanted to preclude people saying 'well I'm not proficient with my spiked chain but I'm still using it, so I can throw it!', but they could have just mentioned that in the benefits section of the CC version(which they did) and left it out of the prereqs.

[Kurald Galain]

Pathfinder's Tetori Monk archetype uses its monk level instead of BAB for grapple checks. This makes it a fine option as a grappler package despite not being full BAB.

On the other hand, it means you completely ruin your ability to grapple if you dip Tetori, since you're stuck with an effective BAB of +1.

That's incorrect. You would use the BAB from all your other classes, plus your total levels (not BAB) in monk.

[ShurikVch]

Recently, someone mentioned about the one Rod of Wonder's effects changing a height, but not size, thus turning victim into comical flat creature - like it was just hit with cartoonish anvil

I dunno if it truth or just distilled humor, but I found one similar issue - Shrink Collar:
Regardless of his or her original size, the wearer shrinks to Small size, becoming around 3 feet in height and weighing no more than 60 pounds. None of the creature's other attributes change."None of the creature's other attributes change"...
Does it includes Reach and Space?

[Uncle Pine]

I dunno if it truth or just distilled humor, but I found one similar issue - Shrink Collar:"None of the creature's other attributes change"...
Does it includes Reach and Space?

I think attributes in that case refers to ability scores, special attacks, etc. Space, reach and size modifiers are inherently determined by size, so they'd change accordingly to it.

[Bucky]

That's incorrect. You would use the BAB from all your other classes, plus your total levels (not BAB) in monk.

RAW appears to say otherwise.

[Hish]

Bear Warrior from Complete Warrior can turn into a bear when raging or frenzying. The only limit on the uses per day is the uses of rage... Except it's only usable once per day. (Increasing at higher levels)

[Uncle Pine]

This (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fey/20030711a) online article contains a magic item whose description contradicts itself:

When the canine brushed the statue, the spell transferred to him, and the dog became stone, freeing the servant. This pattern continues, so whenever a living creature of medium or large size (including invisible creatures) touches the statue, the trapped creature becomes free and the new creature turns to stone.
In 3.5e, dogs (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dog.htm) are Small creatures and therefore immune to a decorative statue's effect.

[ShurikVch]

This (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fey/20030711a) online article contains a magic item whose description contradicts itself:

In 3.5e, dogs (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dog.htm) are Small creatures and therefore immune to a decorative statue's effect.Except it doesn't specified what kind of dog it was; Guard Dog, Hunting Dog, Mastiff, Riding Dog, and Saaniemian War Dog are all Medium-sized

[flare'90]

Bear Warrior from Complete Warrior can turn into a bear when raging or frenzying. The only limit on the uses per day is the uses of rage... Except it's only usable once per day. (Increasing at higher levels)

Check the errata, the limit was moved to number of rage/frenzy uses per day.

[ShurikVch]

Knight of the Chase PrC (Dragon #297):
Nemoud's Brethren: At 3rd level, the knight gains the services of a specially selected hound. This hound is similar to a war dog, however it also gains abilities in a comparable fashion to a wizard's familiar (see The War Dog Special Abilities chart in this article and page 51 of the Player's Handbook). Nemoud's Brethren, however, do not grant their master any special powers (such as the toad's +2 Constitution bonus) in the way that familiars do. If the dog is slain, the knight gains no replacement until he has gained an additional level as a knight.Problem: not in the article itself, nor (AFAIK) in any other printed source we have stats for ordinary "war dog"


Cultist of the Shattered Peak PrC (Lost Empires of Faerûn) is suffering from severe case of fluff-crunch disconnection:
"The pride of wizards and arcanists nearly doomed Faerûn once. Never again."
—Khemal Serist, Cultist of the Shattered Peak
...
Most of the tales about secret Netherese cults depict their members as power-mad wizards bent on raising the Empire of Magic once again, or exploiting its secrets for personal gain. But the Cult of the Shattered Peak bears no resemblance to the cults in these stories, since its membership includes not a single arcane spellcaster.
Becoming a Cultist of the Shattered Peak
...
The cult's sometimes ruthless tactics make paladins rare in its ranks, and arcane spellcasters are simply not permitted.
Entry Requirements
...
Special: You may not have any levels in an arcane spellcasting class.
Class Features
As a cultist of the Shattered Peak, you are focused on preventing arcane spellcasters from rediscovering the old ways of Netheril. Because that goal sometimes places you in direct conflict with arcane spellcasters, cult training grants you a number of abilities aimed at ensuring victory against such foes.Attention!..
Drum roll...
Spellcasting: You have the ability to cast a small number of arcane spells.:smallsigh: Please, somebody, tell me: is it bigotry, or are they just in denial?..

[nailbudday]

Scribe Scroll: at first level a wizard gains Scribe Scroll as a bonus feat. This feats enables
her to create magic schools (see Scribe Scroll, page 99, and Creating Magic Items, page 282 of the Dungeon Master’s Guide).

I desperately hope this was never corrected, because the thought of someone saying "I use my Scribe Scroll feat to craft Hogwarts" is hilarious. Alternatively, if you want to be a specialist wizard but don't want to give up your base schools, have your wizard friend just create new schools for you to ban.

[Telok]

I desperately hope this was never corrected, because the thought of someone saying "I use my Scribe Scroll feat to craft Hogwarts" is hilarious. Alternatively, if you want to be a specialist wizard but don't want to give up your base schools, have your wizard friend just create new schools for you to ban.

Sadly, it was fixed.

[Inevitability]

I desperately hope this was never corrected, because the thought of someone saying "I use my Scribe Scroll feat to craft Hogwarts" is hilarious. Alternatively, if you want to be a specialist wizard but don't want to give up your base schools, have your wizard friend just create new schools for you to ban.

That would explain Create Chosen One...

[dhasenan]

You can't give up on curing someone who suffers from lycanthropy:



The only other way to remove the affliction is to cast remove curse or break enchantment on the character during one of the three days of the full moon. After receiving the spell, the character must succeed on a DC 20 Will save to break the curse (the caster knows if the spell works). If the save fails, the process must be repeated.


If the cure doesn't take, you must try again. Your only other hope of escape (besides success) is for the spell to fail, repeating the process but not offering the save.

A lycanthrope could use this to lock down a cleric for an extended period of time by deliberately failing their save.

They meant to say that the process may be repeated, to clarify that it isn't a try-once-or-suffer-forever type deal.

[Zaq]

I hope this hasn't been mentioned already. I posted this in another thread, but it belongs here too.

The spell Awaken Undead (SpC, pg. 21) seems to grant the caster a measure of control over the awakened targets, even if the caster didn't previously have any control over them. The spell explicitly says that the awakened undead "don armor and take up weapons while obeying your commands," and there's nothing saying that the undead had to previously be ready to obey your commands.

This is amusing if used against undead that are under someone else's direct control (this wouldn't necessarily break that control, of course, but you could still definitely interfere with the original master's plans), and it's somewhat abusive if used to gain control over uncontrolled undead that you normally wouldn't have the capacity to control (because of your Animate Dead limit, your rebuke-based control limit, or whatever). And of course, Awaken Undead is instantaneous, so the willingness to obey your commands doesn't go away.

[Inevitability]

The Aspect of Pale Night has the following ability:


Truth Beneath the Veil (Su) Like Pale Night herself,
the true form of an aspect of Pale Night is one of
such unimaginable horror that reality itself
refuses to accept it. Thus, the aspect of Pale Night
does not have a form of madness like other
obyriths. Her true form is hidden by her shroud.
Anyone who attempts to part the shroud to get a
better look at the aspect must make a DC 20
Fortitude save. Success indicates that the creature’s
mind simply fails to process what it sees
before a new shroud automatically wraps around
the aspect’s incorporeal body. Failure indicates
that for a brief moment, the character views the
truth and is immediately rendered comatose and
stricken with total amnesia. Even if the coma and
amnesia effects are dispelled, the character
cannot remember what he or she saw under the
shroud. The save DC is Charisma-based.

Problem is, supernatural abilities can't be dispelled.