Common rules new players/DMs don't know?

[RoboEmperor]

1. Ranged touch are affected by both cover and melee penalties. So if you're behind an ally that is engaged in melee with your target, that is a -8 to your ranged touch attack unless you have precise shot.
2. Missing the above shot does NOT incur a chance to hit your ally instead. That only happens in Grapple.
3. All of the grappling rules. Especially the part where you can make one grapple check for every iterative attack you have from BAB (rules compendium)
4. All creatures are flat-footed until their first turn.
5. Prestidigitation lets you do all of its effects for 1 hour. So you can create 600 brittle objects before the spell ends. It doesn't end after 1 effect.

I think it's nice to have a nice list of commonly overlooked rules to show new players and DMs. That ranged touch thing always comes up. Always and the spellcaster always says I'm wrong :(

[Maat Mons]

Yeah, I once pointed out #4 to a group. None of them believed me, until I showed them the page in the book. Then they all wanted to houserule it to work the way they had previously thought it did.

[Allanimal]

6. critical hits need to be confirmed.
7. Weapons with larger crit ranges don’t auto hit in that larger range.
8. Skill checks don’t auto succeed on a 20.
9. Skill checks don’t auto fail on a 1.

[Zanos]

8. Skill checks don’t auto succeed on a 20.
9. Skill checks don’t auto fail on a 1.
More generally, the 1/20 rules only apply to attack rolls and saving throws.

[MisterKaws]

10. You can't target limbs unless explicitly stated.

[ben-zayb]

6. critical hits need to be confirmed.
11. Related to that, is that critical threats aren't automatic hits.

[Eldariel]

Honestly, all the minor stuff about spell effects. Abjurations active near one another reacting and producing visible effects, Conjuration destination being restricted to surfaces that can support the subject, Summon Monster and similar preventing the summon from using of teleportation/plane shifting and SLAs with expensive components as spells, etc.

[The Viscount]

I feel like there are a lot of people that forget death from massive damage isn't an optional rule, due to how commonly it is houseruled away.

[Mike Miller]

I feel like there are a lot of people that forget death from massive damage isn't an optional rule, due to how commonly it is houseruled away.

That is a variant in the DMG...pg 27

[Palanan]

Summon spells as a full-round action. My first 3.5 group just assumed that casting a summons brings the creature into play on the same turn that you summoned it. I played in a number of groups and that was the default assumption, purely because no one (including myself) read the text carefully.

[Eldariel]

Summon spells as a full-round action. My first 3.5 group just assumed that casting a summons brings the creature into play on the same turn that you summoned it. I played in a number of groups and that was the default assumption, purely because no one (including myself) read the text carefully.

Related, we thought for the longest time that summons have to wait until the next round from their summoning to act kind of MTG summoning sickness-sorta way. They got a lot stronger when we realised they get to act immediately. And not a full-round action but a full round - I'm sure that a was a typo, but it's a big difference in that a full-round action would be finished the turn you start it while an action taking one round always takes until the next one.

[Buufreak]

Fumble rules are entirely optional, and rolling a 1 doesn't automatically maim yourself or another player.

[Morcleon]

That is a variant in the DMG...pg 27

Massive Damage is a rule listed on PHB pg 145. DMG pg 27 lists a variant of the Massive Damage rule that works based off the size of the creature rather than a flat 50 damage.

[mabriss lethe]

In general: Grappling. but that's understandable. It's kind of a fiddly set of rules that is of binary relevance.

[HouseRules]

Negating the Shooting into Melee Penalty is called Close Air Support.

MAXIM 4: Close air support covereth a multitude of sins.
MAXIM 5: Close air support and friendly fire should be easier to tell apart.


Summoning is Full-Round Action.
Thus, they still have their named free action such as quick action and/or immediate action.
Using an immediate action during an attack of opportunity is using the quick action of the next round.



Not having an Attribute (Ability Score is listed as an em dash —) has an Ability Score Modifier of 0.

[Zaq]

Undead and constructs are immune to Fort saves unless they affect objects.
Initiative is a DEX check and therefore is affected by things that penalize (or boost) DEX checks, including nonproficiency with armor.
For psionics, you can never spend more PP than your manifester level on one manifestation.
Being blinded drops your speed by half.

[Malimar]

A couple that tripped me up early on:
Spells don't end if their caster goes unconscious (unless it's "Duration: Concentration").
Even more counterintuitively, a barbarian's rage doesn't end if they go unconscious (which is important, because if they did then unconsciousness would usual equal death because of the loss of the HP from bonus Constitution from rage -- something that PF consciously and deliberately broke (in the bad way), before fixing it again in Unchained).


For psionics, you can never spend more PP than your manifester level on one manifestation.
It's funny -- this is so commonly mentioned as The One Stupid Mistake Every Group Always Makes At First -- literally the first comment on every "I'm new to psionics, what do I need to know" thread is a caution to this effect -- but I've never had a group that was under the contrary misapprehension.

[weckar]

1. Ranged touch are affected by both cover and melee penalties. So if you're behind an ally that is engaged in melee with your target, that is a -8 to your ranged touch attack unless you have precise shot.Wait, I didn't know creatures could provide cover at all, save for tower shields...

[RoboEmperor]

Wait, I didn't know creatures could provide cover at all, save for tower shields...

Soft cover not total cover


To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC)

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Only one action in surprise rounds.

If you only have one action in a turn, you can still charge. This is super important for zombies.

[Particle_Man]

Bonuses of the same type do not stack.

[HouseRules]

Arrow and Bow bonus stack in 3.0, but does not stack in 3.5.

[Ashtagon]

Not sure if 3.5 continued it, but in 3.0, followers (from Leadership) could only be experts, warriors, or commoners.

[RNightstalker]

I just learned we were overlooking the line in Persistent Spell where it said you can't persist Dischargeable spells.

[Zaq]

Any part of a spell's area or effect that falls outside of the spell's range is wasted.

(Admittedly, playing that one to the hilt breaks a lot of spells—it seems lots of devs weren't aware of that rule either.)

[Quertus]

Not sure if 3.5 continued it, but in 3.0, followers (from Leadership) could only be experts, warriors, or commoners.

Citation? I thought they could be other classes, at penalties. Like, half level or something.

[Zhorn]

"Floor dice don't count"

If a roll falls off the table, it doesn't matter how good it is or what you claim it landed as, it's outcome is ignored.
(I know some rule that floor dice are treated as 1's, but I find that ruling just as unfair)

[Crake]

Citation? I thought they could be other classes, at penalties. Like, half level or something.

That's an optional rule in the epic level handbook, adept and aristocrat followers are treated 2 levels higher, PC class level followers are treated as 3 levels higher, and followers with prestige class levels are treated as 5 levels higher.

[Quertus]

That's an optional rule in the epic level handbook, adept and aristocrat followers are treated 2 levels higher, PC class level followers are treated as 3 levels higher, and followers with prestige class levels are treated as 5 levels higher.

Ah, that's probably what I was thinking of, thanks!

[SirNibbles]

I just learned we were overlooking the line in Persistent Spell where it said you can't persist Dischargeable spells.

Would be nice if you could persist a Reserves of Power Nimbus of Light to deal 1d8+14,000 once a day with a 1st level spell.

[Doctor Awkward]

"The Take 10 and Take 20 rules on skill checks also apply to ability checks."

So if circumstances allow, you are free to Take 20 to bend the bars on your cage or rip your manacles off of the wall or just flex for a couple of minutes and snap the ropes that you have been tied with.


"A withdraw action does not have to be in a straight line."

Unlike running, when you use a full-round action to withdraw you are merely making a double move that does not provoke an attack of opportunity with your first square of movement. I've had more than a couple occasions that I've re-positioned myself on the other side of a battle from what would otherwise have been a fatal combat round when playing characters with higher than 30 ft. movement rates.


"Failing a Concentration check to cast a spell defensively does not result in an attack of opportunity. You simply lose the spell."

Self-explanatory, but it's surprising how many people don't know this. For years our group ran things such that a failed defensive cast resulted in an AoO, which was followed by another concentration check to see if the spellcasting was actually disrupted.

[OgresAreCute]

"Failing a Concentration check to cast a spell defensively does not result in an attack of opportunity. You simply lose the spell."

Self-explanatory, but it's surprising how many people don't know this. For years our group ran things such that a failed defensive cast resulted in an AoO, which was followed by another concentration check to see if the spellcasting was actually disrupted.

Huh, I thought it worked like
Defensive cast > fails > attack of opportunity > if the AoO hits, you lose the spell (no save/check)

[Khedrac]

"The Take 10 and Take 20 rules on skill checks also apply to ability checks."

So if circumstances allow, you are free to Take 20 to bend the bars on your cage or rip your manacles off of the wall or just flex for a couple of minutes and snap the ropes that you have been tied with.
Citation please. Whilst I would agree with your examples, remember that initiative rolls are explicitly dexterity checks so while "take 20" would not apply, this would aloow one to "take 10" on initiative checks.


"A withdraw action does not have to be in a straight line."

"Failing a Concentration check to cast a spell defensively does not result in an attack of opportunity. You simply lose the spell."
Oddly I have never seen anyone get these wrong.

Come to think of it:

"When charging one has to move to the closest square from which one can attack the enemy with the chosen weapon."

This one is so counter-intuitive it seems to get new players a lot.

[Ashtagon]

Citation? I thought they could be other classes, at penalties. Like, half level or something.

DMG 3.0, page 46, under Followers.

[RoboEmperor]

Citation please. Whilst I would agree with your examples, remember that initiative rolls are explicitly dexterity checks so while "take 20" would not apply, this would aloow one to "take 10" on initiative checks.

No? Cause, you know, a guy might consider combat a stressful situation.

[Khedrac]

No? Cause, you know, a guy might consider combat a stressful situation.

Good point, and whilst there are a number of abilities allowing take 10s on skills in stressful circumstances, I don't know any for ability checks. Concerns addressed, I will add this to the list of rules for me to remember :)

[Crake]

Citation please. Whilst I would agree with your examples, remember that initiative rolls are explicitly dexterity checks so while "take 20" would not apply, this would aloow one to "take 10" on initiative checks.

It's right after the take 10/20 rules on the SRD, and I'm pretty sure in the book as well:


Ability Checks and Caster Level Checks

The normal take 10 and take 20 rules apply for ability checks. Neither rule applies to caster level checks.

Note that there is a feat, arcane mastery, that allows you to take 10 on caster level checks, even in stressful situations.

[Kaleph]

I don't know why, but I know several DMs that believe that you cannot use a tower shield when mounted. That's a bit the other side of the barricade, people believe that a rule exists but it doesn't.

Coming back to the topic, I guess all players and DMs I've played with didn't know that you can use a skill defensively.
Which becomes somehow funny when you do a concentration check to become psionically focused, and you do it defensively so that you must make another concentration check to do it defensively. So, I concentrate while I concentrate.

[Awakeninfinity]

Bonuses of the same type do not stack.

I can't stress that part enough; my contribution is personal spells cannot be in potion form (DMG 286; the only entry I can find in the core rules- oddly enough)

And Masterwork potion belts do not allow you drink the potion with the same action you used to draw it.

Templates do not stop you from gaining the Human bonus feat just because it has "half" in the name like Half-elf and Half-orc; those are races; not a template.

[Biggus]

Not sure if 3.5 continued it, but in 3.0, followers (from Leadership) could only be experts, warriors, or commoners.

It was changed, in 3.5 it just says followers are "generally low-level NPCs".


That's an optional rule in the epic level handbook, adept and aristocrat followers are treated 2 levels higher, PC class level followers are treated as 3 levels higher, and followers with prestige class levels are treated as 5 levels higher.

As the 3.5 rules don't explicitly limit you to experts, warriors and commoners any more, the part about allowing other classes to be followers is not technically an optional rule now, but the part about making them lower level is. However, it's such a logical and obvious rule that everyone I know who's aware of it uses it (if they allow Leadership at all).


Citation please. Whilst I would agree with your examples, remember that initiative rolls are explicitly dexterity checks so while "take 20" would not apply, this would aloow one to "take 10" on initiative checks.


You can't take 10 in combat situations:

"When your character is not being threatened or distracted, you may choose to take 10. ... Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10."

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#taking10

[Crake]

Bonuses of the same type do not stack.

Except for circumstance and dodge bonuses, both of which stack with themselves.

[upho]

Except for circumstance and dodge bonuses, both of which stack with themselves.Which also makes you wonder why the devs believed it to be a good idea to make circumstantial bonuses a specific type, despite having rules identical to untyped bonuses... :smallsigh:

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Polymorph is still restricted by alter self except where noted, which prevents you from using polymorph to take forms more than one size category away from your own (in addition to not taking forms smaller than Fine, for some reason). So no polymorphing into a hydra unless you're already Large, Huge, or Gargantuan-sized.

[edit] Metamorphosis does not have this restriction.

[Ashtagon]

Which also makes you wonder why the devs believed it to be a good idea to make circumstantial bonuses a specific type, despite having rules identical to untyped bonuses... :smallsigh:

They are slightly different.

Untyped bonuses specifically always stack with everything.

Circumstance bonuses usually stack, but the GM is allowed to rule that some circumstance bonuses overlap, if the bonus arises from what is essentially the same circumstance. Using both nekode and a climbing axe is the most often cited example of overlapping circumstance bonuses.

[RoboEmperor]

Polymorph is still restricted by alter self except where noted, which prevents you from using polymorph to take forms more than one size category away from your own (in addition to not taking forms smaller than Fine, for some reason). So no polymorphing into a hydra unless you're already Large, Huge, or Gargantuan-sized.

[edit] Metamorphosis does not have this restriction.

This is incorrect. We had this debate before. Polymorph's size restriction replaces Alter Self's size restrictions, and I have official examples where creatures polymorph beyond 1 size category
For example, a series of polymorph spells might turn a creature into a mouse, a lion, and then a snail.. So this isn't a commonly misunderstood/forgotten rule. It's something you made up.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

This is incorrect. We had this debate before. Polymorph's size restriction replaces Alter Self's size restrictions,Nyet. There's nothing about "cannot take a form smaller than Fine" that overrides the restriction of "cannot take a form more than one size category from your own," except as a further restriction for those already of Fine size or below.


and I have official examples where creatures polymorph beyond 1 size category . So this isn't a commonly misunderstood/forgotten rule. It's something you made up.You can cast a series of polymorph spells that alter your size category so that further castings can take you farther up and down the size chain, since you're size X and can be further pushed to X +/- 1. That doesn't mean you're not still restricted. It's something you made up. I can quote mine directly in the rules. Yours is, at best, an (incorrect) inference.

[RoboEmperor]

Nyet. There's nothing about "cannot take a form smaller than Fine" that overrides the restriction of "cannot take a form more than one size category from your own," except it's a further restriction for those already of Fine size or below.

You can cast a series of polymorph spells that alter your size category so that further castings can take you farther up and down the size chain, since you're size X and can be further pushed to X +/- 1. That doesn't mean you're not still restricted. It's something you made up. I can quote mine directly in the rules. Yours is, at best, an (incorrect) inference.

Read the rest of the page


or example, if a wizard is using a shapechange spell to take the shape of an eagle, a polymorph spell could change her into a goldfish.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Read the rest of the pageEagles are typically Small size. I've seen goldfish (which are a type of ornamental carp) that could easily qualify as somewhere between Tiny and Small.

Case in point:
https://www.in-depthoutdoors.com/wp-content/uploads/bbu_images/fishing/post_images/1379521002_2013-08-1518.43.17.jpg

That does not negate my point in the least.

[RoboEmperor]

Eagles are typically Small size. I've seen goldfish (which are a type of ornamental carp) that could easily qualify as somewhere between Tiny and Small.

Case in point:
...

That does not negate my point in the least.

Yeah, sure, whatever. If you want to ignore the mountains of official examples across all the books and say the authors of PHB were referring to whatever you posted instead of a normal average goldfish all so you can say polymorph's size restriciton is an additional restriction instead of a replacement restriction, go ahead, I'm not looking for a RAW debate in this thread. Just know that you're alone in thinking that's the right interpretation.

[Karl Aegis]

Start/Complete Full Round Action is a Standard Action.

You cannot fight effectively with another creature in your square. This does not apply to Tiny or smaller creatures.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Yeah, sure, whatever. If you want to ignore the mountains of official examples across all the books and say the authors of PHB were referring to whatever you posted instead of a normal average goldfish all so you can say polymorph's size restriciton is an additional restriction instead of a replacement restriction, go ahead, I'm not looking for a RAW debate in this thread. Just know that you're alone in thinking that's the right interpretation.I'm apparently the only one actually reading the text, then, as nowhere in polymorph does it say that the "no size lower than Fine" replaces "within one size category." How does that replace alter self's restriction text? Please elucidate, as there's no logical way to read it that way; instead, there's only a further restriction there, not an allowance of any kind whatsoever.

And this wouldn't be the first or only time the devs themselves get stuff wrong. For instance, spell Range vs spell Area and Effect. They get that wrong all the time. That still doesn't negate the rule they're breaking. At all.

[edit] There is no "average, normal-sized goldfish." Those things keep growing until they're about to outgrow whatever body of water they live in. Put 'em in a small bowl? They stay small. Put 'em in a lake? They get really, really big. (https://www.google.com/search?q=huge+goldfish&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_ztmMlLziAhVKRa0KHcfECpEQ_AUIDigB&biw=1138&bih=566#imgrc=_)

[Awakeninfinity]

I forgot one: the minimum HP you gain per level is 1; you cannot lose HP as you level.

[Zaq]

Can we maybe take the polymorph argument to another thread?

A few more:

At level-up, you pick class before picking skills before picking feats, which matters an awful lot for certain prereqs. (Level 1 is explicitly different.)
You can’t AoO while flat-footed unless you have Combat Reflexes.
A balancing character without 5 actual ranks in Balance is flat-footed.
You can make a special combat maneuver like trip or disarm on an AoO. (However, tripping someone on the AoO you get while they’re standing up from prone doesn’t do much good because they’re already prone when you hit them, and you can’t make them double-prone. They can still stand up.)
Being prone doesn’t open you up to sneak attack. To sneak attack a prone critter, you still need to flank them or to deny them their DEX.

[Crake]

I'm apparently the only one actually reading the text, then, as nowhere in polymorph does it say that the "no size lower than Fine" replaces "within one size category." How does that replace alter self's restriction text? Please elucidate, as there's no logical way to read it that way; instead, there's only a further restriction there, not an allowance of any kind whatsoever.

And this wouldn't be the first or only time the devs themselves get stuff wrong. For instance, spell Range vs spell Area and Effect. They get that wrong all the time. That still doesn't negate the rule they're breaking. At all.

[edit] There is no "average, normal-sized goldfish." Those things keep growing until they're about to outgrow whatever body of water they live in. Put 'em in a small bowl? They stay small. Put 'em in a lake? They get really, really big. (https://www.google.com/search?q=huge+goldfish&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_ztmMlLziAhVKRa0KHcfECpEQ_AUIDigB&biw=1138&bih=566#imgrc=_)

Uhh, the example in the phb went from mouse to lion, definitely more than 1 size change there, and then down to snail, again, definitely more than one size change there.

If you want to understand how people are reading the sizd change clause, they are reading the “cannot assume a size smaller than fine” as a replacement to the size restriction clause in alter self, not an addendum. The other reading is, as you yourself stated, rather pointless, because all it does is affect a largely edge case of a fine creature trying to go smaller than fine. I think the sheer pointlessness of that reading is highly indicative that it is not the correct reading, and there are examples to back up the other reading, where fine is the only size restriction.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Uhh, the example in the phb went from mouse to lion, definitely more than 1 size change there, and then down to snail, again, definitely more than one size change there.

If you want to understand how people are reading the sizd change clause, they are reading the “cannot assume a size smaller than fine” as a replacement to the size restriction clause in alter self, not an addendum. The other reading is, as you yourself stated, rather pointless, because all it does is affect a largely edge case of a fine creature trying to go smaller than fine. I think the sheer pointlessness of that reading is highly indicative that it is not the correct reading, and there are examples to back up the other reading, where fine is the only size restriction.Definitely a dysfunction, either way.

Still, it is what it is, and houserules are fine (especially if it was intended that way to begin with). Unfortunately, the way it's written means you have to houserule it to make it do what it was intended to do.

[ayvango]

Definitely a dysfunction, either way.

Still, it is what it is, and houserules are fine (especially if it was intended that way to begin with). Unfortunately, the way it's written means you have to houserule it to make it do what it was intended to do.

Official sources contains polymorph usage examples that contradict strict reading. Therefore interpretation should be relaxed.

[StevenC21]

Official materials also contain example characters that don't meet requirements for the PrC's they represent.

Should we relax the interpretation of PrC requirements?

[ayvango]

Official materials also contain example characters that don't meet requirements for the PrC's they represent.

Should we relax the interpretation of PrC requirements?
Not. PrC has clear stated requirements that is hard to misinterpret. While the Polymorph spell has dubious description. It's unclear if one restriction overwrites another or they are combined together. In that case provided examples should be used to chose correct interpretation.

[upho]

They are slightly different.Well, very slightly:


Untyped bonuses specifically always stack with everything.Unless from the same/identical source, such as two instances of the same spell. Or say two instances of "handheld/-attached climbing tools"...


Circumstance bonuses usually stack, but the GM is allowed to rule that some circumstance bonuses overlap, if the bonus arises from what is essentially the same circumstance. Using both nekode and a climbing axe is the most often cited example of overlapping circumstance bonuses.An exception which is basically the same as the above mentioned exception for untyped bonuses IMO. Why wasn't this simply mentioned in the rules for bonuses and the superfluous circumstance type done away with?

[Zaq]

Well, very slightly:

Unless from the same/identical source, such as two instances of the same spell. Or say two instances of "handheld/-attached climbing tools"...

An exception which is basically the same as the above mentioned exception for untyped bonuses IMO. Why wasn't this simply mentioned in the rules for bonuses and the superfluous circumstance type done away with?

I guess I can see an argument (albeit a weak one) that the goal of the "circumstance" type is to allow for scenarios where two substantially similar factors might both offer a bonus to the same check because those two factors are technically separate, but they're similar enough that they'd only count as one "circumstance" and wouldn't be intended to stack.

Mind you, that's finicky as hell and I can't think of any actual examples of such a thing. Just kind of throwing a devil's-advocate argument out there.

[flappeercraft]

Any part of a spell's area or effect that falls outside of the spell's range is wasted.

(Admittedly, playing that one to the hilt breaks a lot of spells—it seems lots of devs weren't aware of that rule either.)

Anyone got source on this one? I've never heard of this.

[Doctor Awkward]

Citation please. Whilst I would agree with your examples, remember that initiative rolls are explicitly dexterity checks so while "take 20" would not apply, this would aloow one to "take 10" on initiative checks.

A couple of people have already answered this more or less but I want to emphasize that both Take 10 and Take 20 stipulate that your character cannot be facing threats or distractions when they wish to use these. I do not recall where and if it is specifically stated in the rules, but it is generally understood that being in combat precludes you from doing either of these, on account of the combat abstraction rules which assume that your character is constantly looking around them at all times to check the locations and status of their opponents.*

Also the rules do state that Initiative checks are explicitly made "at the start of battle" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/initiative.htm), so by the time you are rolling initiative combat has already begun and Taking 10/20 is no longer an option.



*In fact, there was one occasion that a player asked me if he could simply ignore the threats around him in order to focus on the task at hand in order to Take 10 on a Disable Device check. In that instance I ruled yes, but that he would be flat-footed until the beginning of his next round.

[ayvango]

1) The assumed form can't have more Hit Dice than your caster level (or the subject's HD, whichever is lower), to a maximum of 15 HD at 15th level.
2) You can't cause a subject to assume a form smaller than Fine

This two conditions are similar in the mechanics. Both impose limitations (on HD and size), both says nothing about negating parent conditions passed from the Alter Self spell. So they should be interpreted the same ways.

Restricted way:
1) Polymorphed form should not have more than 15 HD and polymorphed form should not have more than 5 HD. Conditions stack, so 5 HD is effective limit for the Polymorph spell.
2) Polymorphed form should not be smaller than Fine and polymorphed form should be within one size category of the target. Conditions stack, both restrictions are in play

Relieved way:
1) Polymorphed form should not have more than 15 HD overrides parent restriction on 5 HD limit.
2) Polymorphed form should not be smaller overrides parent restriction on size limit.

Nonsense we get interpreting spell in the restricted way.

[RNightstalker]

Anyone got source on this one? I've never heard of this.

Love your quote from Ezekielraiden.

[weckar]

A couple of people have already answered this more or less but I want to emphasize that both Take 10 and Take 20 stipulate that your character cannot be facing threats or distractions when they wish to use these. I do not recall where and if it is specifically stated in the rules, but it is generally understood that being in combat precludes you from doing either of these, on account of the combat abstraction rules which assume that your character is constantly looking around them at all times to check the locations and status of their opponents.*

Also the rules do state that Initiative checks are explicitly made "at the start of battle" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/initiative.htm), so by the time you are rolling initiative combat has already begun and Taking 10/20 is no longer an option.


Being threatened, as a game term, is explicit, and not necessarily true at the start of c

[HouseRules]

I forgot one: the minimum HP you gain per level is 1; you cannot lose HP as you level.

This is specifically a recall to odd editions. In old editions, you must re-roll all of your hit dice.

This is also a recall to the Constitution Penalty if you happen to have a negative Constitution Modifier.


As ayvango says, always take the more restricted form unless a specific circumstance overrides the general rule.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

This two conditions are similar in the mechanics. Both impose limitations (on HD and size), both says nothing about negating parent conditions passed from the Alter Self spell. So they should be interpreted the same ways.

Restricted way:
1) Polymorphed form should not have more than 15 HD and polymorphed form should not have more than 5 HD. Conditions stack, so 5 HD is effective limit for the Polymorph spell.
2) Polymorphed form should not be smaller than Fine and polymorphed form should be within one size category of the target. Conditions stack, both restrictions are in play

Relieved way:
1) Polymorphed form should not have more than 15 HD overrides parent restriction on 5 HD limit.
2) Polymorphed form should not be smaller overrides parent restriction on size limit.

Nonsense we get interpreting spell in the restricted way.Nope. For the size issue, the second condition fits within the first, thereby restricting the first restriction even more. For the hd restriction, polymorph redefines the 5 hd restriction because polymorph's new hd limits are outside alter self's limitations.

One is adding a restriction. The other is relaxing one. How are those the same? If polymorph said "Fine or larger," I'd agree, but it instead restricts alter self's effect to no smaller than Fine without addressing the other size restrictions. Unlike the hd restrictions, which are explicitly relaxed. It's redefining a subset to make it smaller vs redefining a superset to make it larger.

Not seeing how those aren't strictly polar opposites.

[edit] Just houserule it to work the way you've been doing, and you'll be fine.

[Ashtagon]

Being threatened, as a game term, is explicit, and not necessarily true at the start of c

You might not be threatened, but you're certainly distracted.

[weckar]

That would be up to a concentration check, methinks.

[RNightstalker]

That would be up to a concentration check, methinks.

Looks like you failed that check lol.

[Doctor Awkward]

Being threatened, as a game term, is explicit, and not necessarily true at the start of c

So is being distracted, which is "anything that might divert your attention from the battle." (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/attacksOfOpportunity.htm#performingaDistractingAct )

Thus the battle itself is the distraction preventing you from focusing on your task well enough to Take 10.

[gogogome]

Nope. For the size issue, the second condition fits within the first, thereby restricting the first restriction even more. For the hd restriction, polymorph redefines the 5 hd restriction because polymorph's new hd limits are outside alter self's limitations.

One is adding a restriction. The other is relaxing one. How are those the same? If polymorph said "Fine or larger," I'd agree, but it instead restricts alter self's effect to no smaller than Fine without addressing the other size restrictions. Unlike the hd restrictions, which are explicitly relaxed. It's redefining a subset to make it smaller vs redefining a superset to make it larger.

Not seeing how those aren't strictly polar opposites.

[edit] Just houserule it to work the way you've been doing, and you'll be fine.

If the parent spell says you must stay within 50ft of something, and then the child spell says you must stay within 100ft of something, is the child spell's restriction 50ft or 100ft? Yes you can interpret the text so that the child spell also must stay within 50ft if you quint real hard, but that is only your interpretation, not others and not WotC's

Same thing here. The parent spell says you must stay within 1 size category. The child spell says the new size can't be smaller than fine. Yes you can interpret the text so that the child spell also must stay within 1 size category if you squint real hard but that is only YOUR interpretation, not others and not WotC's.

Nothing says your reading of the text is correct one. Nothing. So if you think there is a dysfunction that's your fault. No house rule is necessary. Give us evidence that your reading is only possible RAW reading or admit that you are the one house ruling here. There is more than enough evidence that our interpretation of this unclear text is the correct one. Show us proof that your interpretation is the correct one and the rules are dysfunctional.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

If the parent spell says you must stay within 50ft of something, and then the child spell says you must stay within 100ft of something, is the child spell's restriction 50ft or 100ft? Yes you can interpret the text so that the child spell also must stay within 50ft if you quint real hard, but that is only your interpretation, not others and not WotC's

Same thing here. The parent spell says you must stay within 1 size category. The child spell says the new size can't be smaller than fine. Yes you can interpret the text so that the child spell also must stay within 1 size category if you squint real hard but that is only YOUR interpretation, not others and not WotC's.

Nothing says your reading of the text is correct one. Nothing. So if you think there is a dysfunction that's your fault. No house rule is necessary. Give us evidence that your reading is only possible RAW reading or admit that you are the one house ruling here. There is more than enough evidence that our interpretation of this unclear text is the correct one. Show us proof that your interpretation is the correct one and the rules are dysfunctional.Language and logic say that my interpretation is correct. If the parent spell says 50' and the child spell says "as parent, except 100'," that child spell has a range of 100' because it says it does. If the parent spell says "must stay within one secondary or primary color on the color wheel" and the child spell says "as parent, but cannot be blue," there's no relaxation of the color wheel limitation.

Polymorph says "as alter self, so no more than one size category away except the forms you can take cannot be smaller than Fine." There are no relaxing conditions on the restrictions. None. The hd restriction is explicitly lifted, but the size isn't even implicitly stated to be so; there's simply another restriction added on for Fine-sized polymorphers. Unless you can show me where the text on polymorph relaxes the within-one-size-category restriction? Because I'm seeing another restriction, not a relaxation of restrictions.

[gogogome]

Language and logic say that my interpretation is correct. If the parent spell says 50' and the child spell says "as parent, except 100'," that child spell has a range of 100' because it says it does. If the parent spell says "must stay within one secondary or primary color on the color wheel" and the child spell says "as parent, but cannot be blue," there's no relaxation of the color wheel limitation.

Polymorph says "as alter self, so no more than one size category away except the forms you can take cannot be smaller than Fine." There are no relaxing conditions on the restrictions. None. The hd restriction is explicitly lifted, but the size isn't even implicitly stated to be so; there's simply another restriction added on for Fine-sized polymorphers. Unless you can show me where the text on polymorph relaxes the within-one-size-category restriction? Because I'm seeing another restriction, not a relaxation of restrictions.

This is the exact language of the spell


This spell functions like alter self, except that you change the willing subject into another form of living creature.

Everything that follows in the same paragraph is a description of what "another form of living creature" is. So we have enough "language and logic" that says the size restriction replaces, and the official examples are the tie breakers.

Unless you provide us with an oxford created language logic chart you have no proof that your reading is more logical than ours.

edit: To elaborate
Alter self has the size category restriction
"another form of living creature" does not have the size restriction.
"another form of living creature" replaces Alter Self so it does not inherit the size category restriction.
"another form of living creature" replaces Alter Self so its size category restriction replaces size category restriction.
Official Examples and Author of PHB says we're right.
You have nothing.

So we are not the ones house ruling.

[Doctor Awkward]

Language and logic say that my interpretation is correct. If the parent spell says 50' and the child spell says "as parent, except 100'," that child spell has a range of 100' because it says it does. If the parent spell says "must stay within one secondary or primary color on the color wheel" and the child spell says "as parent, but cannot be blue," there's no relaxation of the color wheel limitation.

Polymorph says "as alter self, so no more than one size category away except the forms you can take cannot be smaller than Fine." There are no relaxing conditions on the restrictions. None. The hd restriction is explicitly lifted, but the size isn't even implicitly stated to be so; there's simply another restriction added on for Fine-sized polymorphers. Unless you can show me where the text on polymorph relaxes the within-one-size-category restriction? Because I'm seeing another restriction, not a relaxation of restrictions.

According to the old Rules of the Game article by Skip Williams, "Polymorphing: Part Three" (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040525a) which discusses the polymorph spell in detail and how it specifically differs from alter self, quote,


The assumed form's size can be anything from Fine to Colossal.
The kind of creature you choose for the assumed form determines the size. The subject becomes the same size as an average member of its kind. For example, if you turn the subject into a troll, the subject becomes size Large, which is the standard size for a troll.

So far as one of the game's lead designers was concerned, the polymorph spell was always intended to obviate the one size category restriction of alter self, even if it does not explicitly say so in the text.

Make of that what you will.

[Zaq]

Anyone got source on this one? I've never heard of this.

PHB pg. 175. Left-hand column, near the top.

Admittedly, that mentions a spell's "area" specifically, so a spell's "effect" that happens to go outside of the range might be permissible...

[Thurbane]

FWIW, the official FAQ basically agrees that Polymorph doesn't abide by the same size restrictions as Alter Self:


Alter self (PH 197), the base spell in the polymorph chain, says that the new form must be within one size category of your normal size. Is the same true of other spells in the chain?
Not necessarily, although the rules aren’t as clear as they could be. Polymorph, and any spell that refers back to it (such as polymorph any object), allows the new form to be of any size of Fine or greater. Shapechange specifically delineates its size limitations (Fine to Colossal), which is a much clearer way of saying the same thing.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

You have nothing.

So we are not the ones house ruling.I have what the spells actually say. I would think that would be more than enough, given that it's 100% RAW, with no ambiguity whatsoever.

Again, polymorph inherits all the clauses from alter self, and nowhere is it stated that the size restrictions are exempt from this. Unless someone would actually like to quote the spell's text wherein this is the case? Because it's not there. I can quote what the spell says, which supports my side of the argument. I'm pretty sure you can't, because the text that would support your arguments simply doesn't exist.

[gogogome]

I have what the spells actually say. I would think that would be more than enough, given that it's 100% RAW, with no ambiguity whatsoever.

Again, polymorph inherits all the clauses from alter self, and nowhere is it stated that the size restrictions are exempt from this. Unless someone would actually like to quote the spell's text wherein this is the case? Because it's not there. I can quote what the spell says, which supports my side of the argument. I'm pretty sure you can't, because the text that would support your arguments simply doesn't exist.

Are you ignoring my post? I explicitly showed you where the spells actually say you are wrong. I'll repeat it here.

You are trying to make the restrictions for "form of a creature of the same type as your normal form" apply to "another form of living creature".

"form of a creature of the same type as your normal form"

The new form must be within one size category of your normal size.
The maximum HD of an assumed form is equal to your caster level, to a maximum of 5 HD at 5th level.
You can change into a member of your own kind or even into yourself.


"another form of living creature"

The new form may be of the same type as the subject or any of the following types: aberration, animal, dragon, fey, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze, plant, or vermin.
The assumed form can’t have more Hit Dice than your caster level (or the subject’s HD, whichever is lower), to a maximum of 15 HD at 15th level.
You can’t cause a subject to assume a form smaller than Fine, nor can you cause a subject to assume an incorporeal or gaseous form. The subject’s creature type and subtype (if any) change to match the new form.


RAW text


This spell functions like alter self, except that you change the willing subject into another form of living creature.

Except means replace so you replace everything written for "form of a creature of the same type as your normal form" with "another form of living creature"

[ayvango]

I have what the spells actually say. I would think that would be more than enough, given that it's 100% RAW, with no ambiguity whatsoever.

Again, polymorph inherits all the clauses from alter self, and nowhere is it stated that the size restrictions are exempt from this.
Same goes for HD limit. There is no explicit statement that old HD limit is obsolete. Just another HD limit is added.

[zergling.exe]

Can we get back to rules people don't know about rather than argue about polymorph again?

[emeraldstreak]

Can we get back to rules people don't know about rather than argue about polymorph again?

- that a free hand is required to cast Somatic spells

- which shields still consider their hand 'free', and which don't

- which spells take 1 round to cast, and thus are cast the next turn: Sleep line and Summon Monster line

[emeraldstreak]

That in the absence of specific rules, Ex, Su, and Sp abilities default to their standard rules for 'use' action and so on.

[Malphegor]

It may be possible to qualify for some spells' effects via other spells, no matter what your base form is. (i.e. polymorphing into something to then be a valid target for some other spell).

Apparently also melee characters add their Strength modifier to their damage rolls? I normally play casters, so playing a barbarian recently was one hell of a learning curve for me. Spent a whole session just doing weapon damage with no strength, hah.
(this does also explain why my summons are historically weaker than other people's...)

[Mr Adventurer]

This is specifically a recall to odd editions. In old editions, you must re-roll all of your hit dice.

I believe this is, itself, a misconception. But I could be wrong.

[Troacctid]

Shadowy illumination provides a 20% miss chance unless the attacker has low-light vision. I'm guilty of forgetting this one myself embarrassingly often.

You can move in between casting a touch spell and touching the target (if you have a move action available). For example, you're 20 feet away from an enemy. You can cast inflict light wounds, then move into melee range, then touch them. You don't need to move into range first and cast defensively.

You need either line of sight or physical contact in order to target a creature with a spell. So if I have total concealment from you, perhaps by being invisible, you can't even attempt to cast magic missile or hold person or baleful polymorph at me—it won't work, period. Touch spells and ray spells are an exception; they merely have a 50% miss chance. The 7th level ability of the Dark Moon Disciple monk consequently makes them functionally immune to a great deal of effects.

[Thurbane]

Two more that many don't realise at first (we didn't):


Initiative is a Dexterity check.
Turning/Rebuking Undead is a Charisma check.

...this means they are both modified by things that affect those ability checks (Circlet of Persuasion, Marshal Auras etc.).

[Lapak]

This is specifically a recall to odd editions. In old editions, you must re-roll all of your hit dice.



I believe this is, itself, a misconception. But I could be wrong.

I'm not ruling out the idea that there's NO edition where it's true, because I've seen it used before in some settings and variants, but it's not 'old editions' generally. It's not true in OD&D (not B/X or BECMI, anyway), it's not true in AD&D1 or AD&D 2.

It's a perfectly fine rule that blunts the effect of high/low rolls over time without removing them entirely, though - 'reroll all hit dice including the new one, take the new result or your old total+1, whichever is greater' reduces the chance that a single set of dice rolled only once will make that character as fragile as glass or utterly beefy for the entire campaign.



This is also a recall to the Constitution Penalty if you happen to have a negative Constitution Modifier.
This, however, is accurate, and it's probably the reason that the rule is stated.

[ShurikVch]

Wild Shape (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/druid.htm#wildShape):
The form chosen must be that of an animal the druid is familiar with.Despite the RAW doen't say what is "familiar", I believe there must be a Knowledge check (mostly "nature", but "the planes" for Elemental shape, "dungeoneering" - for Aberrations, "arcana" - for Magical Beasts and Dragons, "religion" - for Undead, and "local" - for Humanoids)

[Llyarden]

Casting a spell with a 1-round casting time (like summon monster or sleep) means you're casting a spell all the way through the enemies' turns.

Being denied your Dex bonus is not the same as being flatfooted.

Flatfooted creatures cannot take immediate actions.

[Biggus]

Wild Shape (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/druid.htm#wildShape):Despite the RAW doen't say what is "familiar", I believe there must be a Knowledge check (mostly "nature", but "the planes" for Elemental shape, "dungeoneering" - for Aberrations, "arcana" - for Magical Beasts and Dragons, "religion" - for Undead, and "local" - for Humanoids)

That's how I play it. Note that the same applies to Shapechange "you can become just about anything you are familiar with". Requiring knowledge checks for anything they haven't encountered in-game goes a long way towards reducing the OP nature of those abilities.

[rrwoods]

Sleep has a one round casting time.

Okay maybe most people know that but I don’t play casters and have always assumed it was a standard action!

[Darkstryder401]

This is the exact language of the spell



Everything that follows in the same paragraph is a description of what "another form of living creature" is. So we have enough "language and logic" that says the size restriction replaces, and the official examples are the tie breakers.

Unless you provide us with an oxford created language logic chart you have no proof that your reading is more logical than ours.

edit: To elaborate
Alter self has the size category restriction
"another form of living creature" does not have the size restriction.
"another form of living creature" replaces Alter Self so it does not inherit the size category restriction.
"another form of living creature" replaces Alter Self so its size category restriction replaces size category restriction.
Official Examples and Author of PHB says we're right.
You have nothing.

So we are not the ones house ruling.

When polymorphing into say a 10 headed hydra would I be able to use all the heads to attack in a turn? My DM said they are limbs and I don't have the ability to use more then two since I am a human.

Also would I use my base attack or the Hydras +10 per head?

[Crake]

When polymorphing into say a 10 headed hydra would I be able to use all the heads to attack in a turn? My DM said they are limbs and I don't have the ability to use more then two since I am a human.

Also would I use my base attack or the Hydras +10 per head?

The rule in alter self talking about not being able to make more attacks is referring to iterative attacks. If you only have 4 bab, you can still only make 1 iterative attack, even if you have 20 arms. However, the hydra's heads are natural weapons, and natural weapons do not adhere to the normal limits of iterative attacks, you can attack with all of your natural weapons, even if 5 or less bab. Additionally, hydras have a special rule that says they can attack with all of their heads even if they move. This is not listed as a special ability, but rather is written in the combat section of the monster's entry, and thus most people see it as a natural ability, and thus one you gain from polymorph. So if you polymorph into a hydra, not only should you be able to attack with all of your heads, you should also be able to attack with all of them after moving.

The attack bonus you would use while in hydra form would be your bab, + the hydra's strength modifier (varies based on the number of heads, +5 for 10 headed), -2 from being huge. Since your bab will be terrible, it would almost certainly be a better option to polymorph the party fighter instead of yourself.


Shadowy illumination provides a 20% miss chance unless the attacker has low-light vision. I'm guilty of forgetting this one myself embarrassingly often.

This isn't necessarily true. Light levels are relative, and low-light vision will often result in what is normally shadowy-illumination being normal light levels for the creature in question, but not always. The darkness spell for example creates shadowy illumination, and low-light vision will not help at all.

[Doctor Awkward]

This isn't necessarily true. Light levels are relative, and low-light vision will often result in what is normally shadowy-illumination being normal light levels for the creature in question, but not always. The darkness spell for example creates shadowy illumination, and low-light vision will not help at all.

On a related note, the rules regarding light and dark, concealment and hiding and how they interact. Whether or not you you can use the Hide skill to conceal yourself is entirely relative to each individual creature you are attempting to hide from.

For example, say you have a goblin with Darkvision at the end of a pitch black 80-foot room. A dwarf, and a human carrying a torch both enter and the goblin hunkers down in a corner to hide, using the darkness as concealment. Due to the torchlight, the goblin can easily see both the human and the dwarf in the distance even though they would otherwise be out of range of his Darkvision, meanwhile neither the dwarf nor the human can see him.

When they approach within 60 feet, the human still cannot see the goblin due to the torch only providing 40 feet of shadowy illumination. Meanwhile the dwarf notices the goblin automatically because he has nothing but the darkness to use as concealment and he cannot use darkness to hide itself within range of his Darkvision.

On the other hand, if it were an elf carrying the torch instead of a human, he would be entitled to an opposed Spot check to notice the goblin from the moment he entered the room, since his low-light vision would extend the shadowy illumination from the torch out to 80 feet, while the dwarf would not be able to see him at all until they moved 20 feet forward.

[StevenC21]

Apparently, "Cones" are actually two-dimensional quarter circles.

[Zanos]

This isn't necessarily true. Light levels are relative, and low-light vision will often result in what is normally shadowy-illumination being normal light levels for the creature in question, but not always. The darkness spell for example creates shadowy illumination, and low-light vision will not help at all.
On that note, Darkness cast in a dark area will actually make the area brighter. :smalltongue:

[Crake]

Apparently, "Cones" are actually two-dimensional quarter circles.

can you provide a citation on this? Because the strafing breath weapon feat seems to suggest otherwise.

[Morcleon]

can you provide a citation on this? Because the strafing breath weapon feat seems to suggest otherwise.

From the Cone listing under Area: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#area)

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.

[Crake]

From the Cone listing under Area: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#area)

that would indeed be what a cone looks like on a 2d cross-section.

[StevenC21]

Yes.

But there is no evidence except for the name to suggest that they are, in fact, three dimensional.

[HouseRules]

Yes.

But there is no evidence except for the name to suggest that they are, in fact, three dimensional.

The New (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?590101-Cone-Areas-(3-5)) and the Old (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?503906-How-many-5-cubes-are-in-a-3D-cone-AoE).

[Malphegor]

wait, so do cones not work as actual 3d cones if one is flying overhead? It's still a horizontal 2d plane? That's... silly.

dang, I was hoping to get out the formulas and work out the diameter some spells would have based on the angle of casting. Bit annoying to do but mechanically rad since if casting from directly overhead you can theoretically hit a bigger surface area (because circles are magic) than whilst on the ground...

[RoboEmperor]

wait, so do cones not work as actual 3d cones if one is flying overhead? It's still a horizontal 2d plane? That's... silly.

It is silly which is why it doesn't work like that. The rules did not mention height so some people are trying to make that look like a dysfunction when, you know, height is also 2D when viewed from the side instead of the top.

[StevenC21]

The argument is that because a circle is an inherently two dimensional construct, so too is a D&D 3.5e cone.

If you look at it from many angles, it would then become multiple cones, or rotate the single cone.

:p

[PoeticallyPsyco]

For all DMs with players wanting to play cool races, LA Buy-off rules are in Unearthed Arcana.

[Malphegor]

Grease (level 1 spell) probably shouldn't be able to be lit on fire, given that a Level 2 spell, Incendinary Slime is Grease but instantly flammable (although it destroys the grease effect if you do set it on fire), and Grease itself makes no mention of the Grease itself being flammable...

my group houseruled in that grease can be lit on fire and it burns slowly because it was handy to have an early aoe in our early dungeons but it's 1d6 per round of fire damage to contrast against IS's 4d6 immediately, and it's not been something we've abused to be honest.