Rules you got wrong or had forgotten over the years/decade+ until recently?

[soullos]

As the title says, are there any rules you being using wrong for years on end only to find out it works another way? A rule you'd forgotten but just now remembered?

Early this year I went back to 3.5 after playing/running 5e for years and finding it fun but very limited in options, and after a decade or more I pick up 3.5 PHB for the first time and start reading. It was a nostalgic trip! I felt at home again. I get to the combat section and I read that if you have cover against a foe, they can't make an attack of opportunity on you. Huh. I'd forgotten about that little detail and now my mind is exploring the expanded tactical options. :D

I just learned today, yes today!, that not all bardic music abilities require him to concentrate each and every round. You can attack normally while singing without issue unless the specific bardic music ability calls out concentration. After all these years, since the books came out, I thought every round the bard must devote a standard action to maintain the effect, like Inspire Courage. No wonder I thought bards sucked lol. I think I might roll up a bard now. ;)

[KillianHawkeye]

I had to look up the Combat Casting (3.5) feat because I had forgotten that you also get the bonus to Concentration checks when you're being grappled.

It's a situation that doesn't come up very often, and Combat Casting is usually just a feat that Wizards have to take as a prerequisite for something, and the main usage is for casting defensively.

[D+1]

Prestige classes are purely optional and always under the purview of the DM. We encourage you, as the DM, to tightly limit the prestige classes available in your campaign. The example prestige classes are certainly not all encompassing or definitive. They might not even be appropriate for your campaign. The best prestige classes for your campaign are the ones you tailor make yourself.
Okay... I didn't forget it or get it wrong. I've been preaching that **** for years.

[Calthropstu]

For the first 2 years that I played pf, I thought constructs and undead were immune to sneak attack.

[Boci]

Okay... I didn't forget it or get it wrong. I've been preaching that **** for years.

That argument lost a lot of persuasive power when WotC started bulking every splatbook with new PrCs. At that point it starts looking like something that should be part of any splat heavy game, rather than something that should be tightly controlled.

I only recently found out in pathfinder you can retry IDying a magical item each day. In 3.5 you had to wait until you levelled up and increased your ranks to retry, and I just assumed that hadn't been changed.

[Crake]

I only recently found out in pathfinder you can retry IDying a magical item each day. In 3.5 you had to wait until you levelled up and increased your ranks to retry, and I just assumed that hadn't been changed.

That's knowledge checks, not IDing a magical item. In 3.5, spells that ID a magic item are a guarantee, Identify, analyze dweomer etc, they 100% identify an item, and detect magic has no capability of doing so at all, it merely gets the strength and school of the magic item's aura.

[Boci]

That's knowledge checks, not IDing a magical item. In 3.5, spells that ID a magic item are a guarantee, Identify, analyze dweomer etc, they 100% identify an item, and detect magic has no capability of doing so at all, it merely gets the strength and school of the magic item's aura.

True, learn something new everyday (though you can ID potions with spellcraft in 3.5).

[Crake]

True, learn something new everyday (though you can ID potions with spellcraft in 3.5).

Something worth noting though, Identify has a 1%/CL chance of identifying a cursed item for what it really is, wheras analyze dweomer automatically identifies a cursed item. That rule is hidden away in the cursed items section in the DMG, as opposed to being noted in the spells' actual descriptions.

[Bohandas]

I only recently noticed the price multiplier for continuous/unlimited use items which duplicate spells with durations shorter than 1 hour per level (I still don't understand why they didn't give the price for 1 round/level spells as the baseline and have a discount for longer duration spells)

Also, I've noticed that many other people seem to miss that magic missile is supposed to be limited to creatures as potential targets.

People also miss that poison is explicitly not Evil (PHB pg219, under the description of Detect Evil "Animals, traps, poisons, and other potential perils are not evil, and as such this spell does not detect them")

[Mr Adventurer]

People also miss that poison is explicitly not Evil (PHB pg219, under the description of Detect Evil "Animals, traps, poisons, and other potential perils are not evil, and as such this spell does not detect them")

No it's not - but using it is.

[Efrate]

Only using poison that causes ability score damage/drain/ hp damage. Purely status poison is fine, even fine for exalted good.
Drow sleep poison is the main contender. Your exalted rogue can use it no issues, other than accidentially poisoning himself. Even paladins iirc.

[Venger]

poison use is not evil, it's just against the paladin's code, which is why most people assume it's an evil act.

[HouseRules]

Too many old DM's used to the AD&D rules where Poison was Evil.
Gosh, this is 3E not AD&D.
Why do DM's keep going back to the old rules without thinking?
It must be a memory thing right?
It must be they did not truly learn the newer editions.
They are still remembering elements of older editions.

[Mr Adventurer]

Too many old DM's used to the AD&D rules where Poison was Evil.
Gosh, this is 3E not AD&D.
Why do DM's keep going back to the old rules without thinking?
It must be a memory thing right?
It must be they did not truly learn the newer editions.
They are still remembering elements of older editions.

False, it's specified in the Book of Exalted Deeds at the least.

[Crake]

I only recently noticed the price multiplier for continuous/unlimited use items which duplicate spells with durations shorter than 1 hour per level (I still don't understand why they didn't give the price for 1 round/level spells as the baseline and have a discount for longer duration spells)

Also, I've noticed that many other people seem to miss that magic missile is supposed to be limited to creatures as potential targets.

People also miss that poison is explicitly not Evil (PHB pg219, under the description of Detect Evil "Animals, traps, poisons, and other potential perils are not evil, and as such this spell does not detect them")


Too many old DM's used to the AD&D rules where Poison was Evil.
Gosh, this is 3E not AD&D.
Why do DM's keep going back to the old rules without thinking?
It must be a memory thing right?
It must be they did not truly learn the newer editions.
They are still remembering elements of older editions.


poison use is not evil, it's just against the paladin's code, which is why most people assume it's an evil act.

Uh, actually, according to the book of exalted deeds:


Using poison that deals ability damage is an evil act because it causes undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an opponent. Of the poisons described in the Dungeon Master’s Guide, only one is acceptable for good characters to use: oil of taggit, which deals no damage but causes unconsciousness. Ironically, the poison favored by the evil drow, which causes unconsciousness as its initial damage, is also not inherently evil to use.

So yeah, poison being inherently evil is actually a 3.5 thing.

[StevenC21]

Which makes zero sense, anyways.

I can stab you, I can cast a spell to damage your stats, I can even slowly burn you death with a Combustion spell, but by golly you better not use poison!

[ericgrau]

That argument lost a lot of persuasive power when WotC started bulking every splatbook with new PrCs. At that point it starts looking like something that should be part of any splat heavy game, rather than something that should be tightly controlled.
More like they're providing extra options for the DM. Or ideally they are. PrCs did make a big mess on powercreep. Part of that is because even the DMG options are mostly stronger and much more flexible than the PHB classes. Affecting not only class balance but messing up the multiclassing system itself. So if you want it balanced and freely available to all players, they should be a good bit weaker than the DMG PrCs. And that's pretty hard to swallow, there'd be so much rage. So the other option would be to repeat the warning that the PrC material is for DM use and allowed to players only by special permission. That's still a bit to ask of an author who wants to make his book look good, vs the ease of saying nothing.

But let's see what there was early on at least:
7/2003: PHB I.
10/2003: BoED. Intro says that while BoVD was directed at DMs, BoED is directed at players. No qualifications given in front of prestige classes, besides that entrance should be for the very good. There is suggestion that prestige classes could be motivation for character creation too, not some odd thing that players wouldn't think of without permission.
11/2003 Draconomicon: Mentions prestige classes for the DM, but that's because they're meant for dragons. Mentions dragon slaying prestige classes for players.
12/2003: Complete Warrior: Seems to advertise prestige classes directly to all types of players. Intro on picking a prestige class has some considerations to look into before doing so, none of which is asking the DM. Text seems to imply that either a PC or DM could be reading the book. No suggestion for a DM to consider which PrCs to allow based on XYZ (or to consider it at all).

I don't think it was the intent in these books for prestige classes to be by DM special permission only. But this DMG rule/suggestion on heavily restricting PrCs could have been copied from the 3.0 DMG. I'd be curious if it's in the 3.0 DMG and what the early 3.0 splats say on PrCs. Perhaps by 3.5 the authors were already in Christmas mode when it comes to PrCs. I ran out of time to check 3.0 though. I gtg.

I thinking going all Christmas mode on giving PrCs to PCs was a mistake, but it does seem intentional. If anything this is a rules contradiction where later books are flagrantly disregarding the DMG rule/suggestion. At least by the time 3.5 came around. Would be interesting if anyone wants to check the early 3.0 splats.

[Crake]

Which makes zero sense, anyways.

I can stab you, I can cast a spell to damage your stats, I can even slowly burn you death with a Combustion spell, but by golly you better not use poison!

I mean, I don't disagree with you :smalltongue: But claiming poison is evil isn't using the rules wrong like people are saying.

[weckar]

Detect Magic is probably the spell that comes up most often at my table. So much, that we hadn't actually read the spell in years. All of us had actually forgotten you need to roll spellcraft to make sense of it all...

[Boci]

I mean, I don't disagree with you :smalltongue: But claiming poison is evil isn't using the rules wrong like people are saying.

To be fair you had to delve into a splat book to get that ruling. Not every table uses BoED.

[Biggus]

To be fair you had to delve into a splat book to get that ruling. Not every table uses BoED.

This is true, but it's the main place where the details of what are considered good and evil acts were clarified in 3.5. I can understand why some people don't use it though, some of the rulings there are pretty stupid IMO (another highly questionable one came up in another thread on here only the other day in fact).

[rrwoods]

Okay... I didn't forget it or get it wrong. I've been preaching that **** for years.
I understand and accept that the rule exists. Tables where prestige classes are allowed by default are more fun than tables where they’re not. So, like many other things in the RAW: I pat it on the head and tell it it’s getting an A for effort. Now go play outside while I use as many prestige classes as I need to execute on the concept I’m trying to bring to the table.

[Bohandas]

I mean, I don't disagree with you :smalltongue: But claiming poison is evil isn't using the rules wrong like people are saying.

The core rules say otherwise

[Crake]

The core rules say otherwise

as far as I'm aware, the core rules don't say otherwise, because the core rules don't say anything specifically on the matter. Detect evil saying mentioning poison is irrelevant to the point, because it's basically saying that mundane objects don't radiate evil auras, even if they've been set up in evil ways. Torture devices also don't register as evil, so if we follow that logic, that means torture isn't evil?

[RedMage125]

One rule that I got wrong for years (until recently) was in regards to Mithral Armor. I know it's considered one category lighter for purposes of movement and other limitations, which does not include proficiency.

However, as a caveat to that, I decided that classes who can cast arcane spells in certains classes of armor (bard, warmage), it would count as the lighter category in that respect, since ASF is based on movement restriction.

Of course, one can always custom-order a suit of +1 Mithral Breastplate with the Twilight and Nimbleness enchantments (and a thistledown lining from Races of the Wild), which has a +6 armor bonus, -0 ACP and 0% ASF. The only penalty for wearing armor with which one is not proficient is to take the ACF (-0) to your attack rolls.

[ChaosStar]

A rule I just found out I got wrong was Bonus Spells per Day. I thought you got your Casting Stat Modifier as a Bonus, but nope. The Bonus is very small instead.

[PraxisVetli]

A rule I just found out I got wrong was Bonus Spells per Day. I thought you got your Casting Stat Modifier as a Bonus, but nope. The Bonus is very small instead.

Can you elaborate on this?
I'm not sure what you mean and now I'm suddenly second guessing every caster I've played.
You use your modifier for the table on page 8 of the Player's Handbook...right?

[Boci]

Can you elaborate on this?
I'm not sure what you mean and now I'm suddenly second guessing every caster I've played.
You use your modifier for the table on page 8 of the Player's Handbook...right?

I think ChaosStar assumed you just added your modifier to the number of spells you got, rather than going through the table.

[PraxisVetli]

I think ChaosStar assumed you just added your modifier to the number of spells you got, rather than going through the table.

Oh.
Whew!
That'd be pretty great though wouldn't it?

[Crake]

One rule that I got wrong for years (until recently) was in regards to Mithral Armor. I know it's considered one category lighter for purposes of movement and other limitations, which does not include proficiency.

However, as a caveat to that, I decided that classes who can cast arcane spells in certains classes of armor (bard, warmage), it would count as the lighter category in that respect, since ASF is based on movement restriction.

Of course, one can always custom-order a suit of +1 Mithral Breastplate with the Twilight and Nimbleness enchantments (and a thistledown lining from Races of the Wild), which has a +6 armor bonus, -0 ACP and 0% ASF. The only penalty for wearing armor with which one is not proficient is to take the ACF (-0) to your attack rolls.

"Other limitations" is pretty broad to the point where you could include proficiencies and casting limitations. It does outright say "Heavy armors are treated as medium, and medium armors are treated as light, but light armors are still treated as light."

Pathfinder specifically noted that proficiencies aren't changed for these armors, but I think in 3.5, proficiencies requirements could definitely be seen as being reduced. In some circumstances, this actually makes armor worse, such as in the case of heavy armor optimization, a mithril full plate for example would be treated as medium armor, and wouldn't gain the benefits of heavy armor optimization.

[RedMage125]

"Other limitations" is pretty broad to the point where you could include proficiencies and casting limitations. It does outright say "Heavy armors are treated as medium, and medium armors are treated as light, but light armors are still treated as light."

Pathfinder specifically noted that proficiencies aren't changed for these armors, but I think in 3.5, proficiencies requirements could definitely be seen as being reduced. In some circumstances, this actually makes armor worse, such as in the case of heavy armor optimization, a mithril full plate for example would be treated as medium armor, and wouldn't gain the benefits of heavy armor optimization.

That wording's too vague to count as a solid rule. I know myself and every DM I've ever had ruled it that way, tho.

[Anachronity]

I switch a lot between playing PF and playing 3.5, and every time I do I forget how grapple works because I'm used to how it works in the other edition.

I don't think that's limited to me though. Grappling in 3.5 is nightmarishly complicated, but grappling in PF has odd nonsense like requiring a standard action each round just to hold on in addition to allowing the foe a standard action each round to escape, and therefore being unable to make a full attack if you're the one controlling the grapple, but allowing the one being grappled to do so. Also you're assumed to have one hand free if you're being grappled until you're actually pinned which makes Still Spell basically useless, and size bonuses to grapple are minuscule.

On the other hand, the concentration check to cast during a grapple is generally much higher in PF (as it incorporates the grapple-controller's full grapple bonus). So grappling is actually a good way to incapacitate casters even into high levels, as was originally intended. Unless of course you're playing the sort of game where high-level casters are immune to ever being within melee reach of some plebeian who doesn't have spell slots.

[KillianHawkeye]

Mithral armors are indeed listed as being one category lighter in all respects on the table in Races of the Wild. For example, it lists mithral full-plate as a medium armor. You don't need heavy armor proficiency to effectively wear it.

[AvatarVecna]

It's been so long since I played a game that wasn't PF or 3.P that when I started building for board contests I needed to refamiliarize myself with some of the rules, particularly the section on skills. I forgot how dumb pure 3.5 skill rules are. Figuring out the maze of class/cross-class skills in a build, double price for cross-class, Heal is complete garbage rather than mostly garbage...but the one that nearly tripped me up while building was how increases to Int don't retroactively grant skill points for past HD.

[Stevesciguy]

It's been so long since I played a game that wasn't PF or 3.P that when I started building for board contests I needed to refamiliarize myself with some of the rules, particularly the section on skills. I forgot how dumb pure 3.5 skill rules are. Figuring out the maze of class/cross-class skills in a build, double price for cross-class, Heal is complete garbage rather than mostly garbage...but the one that nearly tripped me up while building was how increases to Int don't retroactively grant skill points for past HD.

Yup, 3.5 skills are hellish. The only good way I've found to do it is to do it level by level, which takes 10× longer than PF skills or even just 3.5 skills with retroactive Intelligence.

[Venger]

have you seen how 3.0 did skills?

[StevenC21]

How did 3.0 do skills?

I don't think it could be much worse.

[Stevesciguy]

have you seen how 3.0 did skills?

My only experience with 3.0 skills was NWN. The only difference I can recall is that some skills just couldn't be taken by some classes.

[AvatarVecna]

My only experience with 3.0 skills was NWN. The only difference I can recall is that some skills just couldn't be taken by some classes.

Same. I never knew if this was a coding issue or a 3.0 mechanic, but if I took max ranks in a class skill one level, then switched to another class that didn't have it as a class skilln I couldn't upgrade it even for double cost because it was beyond maximum rank for a single-classed cross-class skill.

[Venger]

How did 3.0 do skills?

I don't think it could be much worse.
It is considerably worse.


My only experience with 3.0 skills was NWN. The only difference I can recall is that some skills just couldn't be taken by some classes.

Yes. If a skill is "an exclusive skill", then no one else is allowed to take it at all, even cross-class.
animal empathy for druid/ranger
decipher script for rogue
read lips for rogue
scry for bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard
and umd for bard and rogue

If you don't have any levels in that class, you are not allowed to take it. Period.

In addition to this, you know how the cap works in 3.5. Let's say you start as a rogue, then take a level in cleric.

Initially, your cap for umd was lvl+3. Once you get into cleric, umd is an exclusive skill you don't have. But it was a class skill at one point, so your cap is still lvl+3, right? even if you do have to pay double to keep it maxed.

nope!

if you take levels in a class without an exclusive skill, that level does not count for the purposes of cap raising. yes, all these skills are tracked separately, so a rogue 1/cleric 9 would have a cap of 4 for umd (and remember, he couldn't buy any ranks in umd with his cleric skill points) but his cap for scry would be 12.

if you think skills are restrictive in 3.5, they are basically impossible in 3.0. especially when it comes to doing things like, entering a prestige class through an unexpected avenue, given how all classes have a million dumb taxes to pay.

[Spore]

Lighting rules.

Everyone always clamors that humans are so OP, and that they are incredible. Yet when it comes to seeing in the dark, suddenly no one wants to be human anymore. Also it's pretty much impossible to maintain theater of the mind when different darkvision ranges and lowlight vision comes into play.

If you're a stickler for rules and have multiple weak light sources, oh boy, every other square has different lighting.

[Anachronity]

Lighting rules.

It's true. Although I think this is less one that people get wrong/forget and more one that people 'forget' and then nobody wants to remind them.

[HighWater]

Lighting rules.

Everyone always clamors that humans are so OP, and that they are incredible. Yet when it comes to seeing in the dark, suddenly no one wants to be human anymore. Also it's pretty much impossible to maintain theater of the mind when different darkvision ranges and lowlight vision comes into play.

If you're a stickler for rules and have multiple weak light sources, oh boy, every other square has different lighting.


It's true. Although I think this is less one that people get wrong/forget and more one that people 'forget' and then nobody wants to remind them.

Very much true. I have so many other, much more interesting things to do than "rendering" (it really feels like rendering) light conditions for every square for every player with a different vision mode affected by those lighting conditions! I also don't want to do the mental gymnastics associated with the different drop-off scaling for lowlight vision vs regular vision in shadowy conditions etc. Instead, for me lowlight vision is a flat +4 on spot checks in poor lighting conditions. Come to think of it, maybe I should inform my players so THEY can keep track of that bonus instead of me. :smallconfused:

Humans do get a bit less OP when you start enforcing proper lighting, but it's so much work.