Can you suppress your immunities?

[Duke of Urrel]

The following rule appears on page of the PLAYER'S HANDBOOK v. 3.5 (2012).


Even a character with a special resistance to magic (for example, an elf ’s resistance to sleep effects) can suppress this quality.

How general is this rule? Does it apply only to resistances, or does it apply to immunities as well?

In particular, I wonder whether the sages of the Forum believe that polymorph immunity in particular should be suppressible at will. This rule would apply above all to liches and intelligent creatures of the Plant type, such as treants.

[Telonius]

The following rule appears on page of the PLAYER'S HANDBOOK v. 3.5 (2012).



How general is this rule? Does it apply only to resistances, or does it apply to immunities as well?

In particular, I wonder whether the sages of the Forum believe that polymorph immunity in particular should be suppressible at will. This rule would apply above all to liches and intelligent creatures of the Plant type, such as treants.

For the example in question, the elf's "resistance" to sleep effects is an actual immunity.

There's a lot of debate about this, since it can lead to some really weird rules interactions. Was the quote just talking about saving throws, or can you suppress it if there's non-save-based damage? Is it about magic resistance only? How about other natural immunities, like a Fire Elemental being immune to [Fire] effects? Can a mindless creature voluntarily suppress its immunity to mind-affecting? Can you command a Zombie to fail a mind-affecting save? And so on.

It's really not spelled out particularly clearly; just that a character (even with special immunities to a magical effect) can willingly suppress the immunity in order to voluntarily fail a save. So unfortunately for the rest of it, I'd say that it's in "Ask your DM" territory.

Personally I'd allow a creature to suppress the immunity unless it were a case that really didn't make much sense. I wouldn't allow the "unattended Zombie" to voluntarily lower its mind-affecting immunity - since it doesn't have a mind to begin with, there's no "voluntary" to be had.

[Feantar]

The following rule appears on page of the PLAYER'S HANDBOOK v. 3.5 (2012).



How general is this rule? Does it apply only to resistances, or does it apply to immunities as well?

In particular, I wonder whether the sages of the Forum believe that polymorph immunity in particular should be suppressible at will. This rule would apply above all to liches and intelligent creatures of the Plant type, such as treants.

I think the general implication is that you can suppress any and all immunities. That said, it will lead to some non-sensical things, like creatures without metabolism being poisoned. But I treat that as drown healing. If you want to go thematically there are two types of immunities:


Things about yourself that you have complete and absolute control over. See, elves' sleep immunity. Elves have the capacity to sleep, they've just transcended the need for it, and with that, the natural instincts that can trigger it involuntarily.
Things / aspects of the multiverse that you don't belong to. Constructs aren't alive. They are not immune to poison because they control their metabolism, the whole concept of metabolism doesn't apply.


Of course, there are things that are a bit of a middle ground. I'll give you some examples as to where I stand.


Undead and Poison or Disease: This depends on the undead, and how closely they mimic life. A vampire wishing to be subject to a poison or disease I would grant, these beings are very similar to living organisms. A skeleton being subject to a disease... meh, unless it's something that infects bone marrow, no, and even then, probably not.
Golems and being subject to spells: I think that's easy. Golems are already subject to -some- spells most of the time, and they are creations of magic, so I'd rule that they are not excluded from magic as much as in control of its flow, and can enable it if they choose (or are ordered to).
Lich's and Transmutation: I think this would be extremely straightforward. Lich's are master spellcasters, it seems stupid to disable half of a school. It seems to be an extension of their mastery, not an inherent thing. That being said, there's not a lot of data on that, and I get having a different headcanon than mine.

[Zanos]

The Lich template has a specific exemption allowing them to polymorph themselves.

But in general, I'd say that yes, you can suppress an immunity with regards to a spell to accept the effect. I'm not sure the intent of the passage with regards to other effects, but it seems clear to me that if you have a specific immunity to a type of effect, you can willingly forgo that in order to have a spell work on you. I do acknowledge this can create weird results, but I think the intent is that an immunity is never really supposed to be a disadvantage and make you immune to spells that you want to work.

[Crake]

I’d say the delineation is drawn between immunities that stem from natural abilities, vs other kinds. Natural abilities are a result of your existence, so this covers most type based immunities like [fire] creatures being immune to fire, or plants being immune to mind affecting and poisons etc. But if the ability is extraordinary, or supernatural in nature, then its something they can suppress, as its not inherent to their form.

[Darg]

Immunity: A creature that has immunity to an effect is never harmed (or helped) by that effect. A creature cannot suppress an immunity to receive a beneficial effect.


Spell Immunity (Ex): A creature with spell immunity avoids the effects of spells and spell-like abilities that directly affect it. This works exactly like spell resistance, except that it cannot be overcome. Sometimes spell immunity is conditional or applies to only spells of a certain kind or level. Spells that do not allow spell resistance are not affected by spell immunity.


Immunity to magic sleep effects, and a +2 racial saving throw bonus against enchantment spells or effects.


Immunity to sleep spells and effects, and a +2 racial saving throw bonus against enchantment spells or effects.

My inclination is that the Elf's immunity is a spell immunity, not an immunity. As spell immunity works exactly like spell resistance it can be lowered with a standard action. I cannot comment on the OP's immunity to polymorph, but something like a chaos beast's immunity to transformation isn't a real immunity either.

[Gruftzwerg]

The following rule appears on page of the PLAYER'S HANDBOOK v. 3.5 (2012).



How general is this rule? Does it apply only to resistances, or does it apply to immunities as well?

In particular, I wonder whether the sages of the Forum believe that polymorph immunity in particular should be suppressible at will. This rule would apply above all to liches and intelligent creatures of the Plant type, such as treants.

Lich:

Target: Willing living creature touched
You can't change the target restriction Polymorph has. (except for things like Zanos mentioned)


Plant type:
Imho a willing plant creature should be able to profit here. It is a valid target.
Or do you think that if you use Shapechange to change into a "plant" form (gives you the immunity) creates a dysfunction?



Incorporeal or gaseous creatures are immune to being polymorphed
Since the spell calls this limitation out, imho this can't be suppressed. It would make no sense if you could bypass it that easily.


As it seems, we sole can create functional rules if we assume that "immunity to polymorph effects (except those excluded in the spells "target" and "effect" text) can be suppressed".

[Crake]

Lich:

You can't change the target restriction Polymorph has. (except for things like Zanos mentioned)

PAO doesn't require living targets though, nor does baleful polymorph, so the lich polymorph immunity is still useful in those cases.

[Darg]

A lich's polymorph immunity only affects polymorph attacks. Meaning it can still be affected by polymorph so it isn't a true immunity. Similar to the Elf's immunity.

Yes, if you shapechange into a plant type creature you are stuck as one until the spell expires. Immunity does not grant removal of an effect. It just prevents any future benefit or harm from an effect.

Polymorph and incorporeal and gaseous creatures being immune is definitely a spell limitation, not an actual immunity. It's like cure spells being unable to heal undead. There is no rule that says they can't be healed by these spells except in the spells themselves.

[Gruftzwerg]

A lich's polymorph immunity only affects polymorph attacks. Meaning it can still be affected by polymorph so it isn't a true immunity. Similar to the Elf's immunity.
It's not about immunity here, because Polymorph normally requires a "living target", and a Lich doesn't qualify for that under normal circumstances.


Yes, if you shapechange into a plant type creature you are stuck as one until the spell expires. Immunity does not grant removal of an effect. It just prevents any future benefit or harm from an effect.

Immunity not sole prevents the application but also prevents that you are affected by the target stuff (that may already be on you).
If you are affected by the damage over time of an Acid Arrow, you can react via Energy Immunity (acid) to prevent any further damage.

Same here.
You can't be stuck in a plant form.

Either it works without dysfunctions (because you can suppress the immunity), or as soon as you get the immunity it cancels the Polymorph effect. Imho the latter creates a dysfunction since you are supposed to be able to shape into any type. I would prefer the option that doesn't cause any dysfunctional outcomes here.




Polymorph and incorporeal and gaseous creatures being immune is definitely a spell limitation, not an actual immunity. It's like cure spells being unable to heal undead. There is no rule that says they can't be healed by these spells except in the spells themselves.

I agree. I just wanted to point out the difference here (compared with regular immunities).

[Crake]

If you are affected by the damage over time of an Acid Arrow, you can react via Energy Immunity (acid) to prevent any further damage.


You’re still affected by the spell, the acid is still on you, you just become immune to the damage. If someone dispels the immunity right away, you’ll go right back to taking damage.

I think a better example would be a mind affecting spell, and mind blank.

[Duke of Urrel]

For the example in question, the elf's "resistance" to sleep effects is an actual immunity.

This is the first thing that a failed to notice, though I think it's not easy to spot. But you're right, Telonius. Thanks for this!


The Lich template has a specific exemption allowing them to polymorph themselves.

And this is the second thing that I failed to notice. Thanks for this!

The following two arguments seem to state the two sides to this debate pretty clearly.


But in general, I'd say that yes, you can suppress an immunity with regards to a spell to accept the effect. I'm not sure the intent of the passage with regards to other effects, but it seems clear to me that if you have a specific immunity to a type of effect, you can willingly forgo that in order to have a spell work on you. I do acknowledge this can create weird results, but I think the intent is that an immunity is never really supposed to be a disadvantage and make you immune to spells that you want to work.


Polymorph and incorporeal and gaseous creatures being immune is definitely a spell limitation, not an actual immunity. It's like cure spells being unable to heal undead. There is no rule that says they can't be healed by these spells except in the spells themselves.

Is Polymorph immunity a power that creatures of the Plant type have that they can willingly suppress? Or is the Polymorph immunity of Plant creatures simply a limitation of spells of the Polymorph school?

To put it another way, is Polymorph immunity a personal power that you have control over, or is does the Polymorph subschool simply have limitations that nobody can wish away? This is a good question.

After some searching, I have found a strange lack of creatures with the Plant type that can advance by character class. So the rulebooks don't strictly allow for the existence of treant or myconid wizards, who would be frustrated by their inability to cast Polymorph spells on themselves. But these Plant creatures are Intelligent and able to make choices. Should an Intelligent Plant creature be able to suppress its immunity to Polymorph spells when a helpful allied creature casts one?

It makes sense to assume that some immunities are, as Crake says, "natural," or as Feantar says, "aspects of the multiverse" that are not under your control. On the other hand, Zanos is right to say that the passage I quoted from the PLAYER'S HANDBOOK above expresses clearly the "intent is that an immunity is never really supposed to be a disadvantage and make you immune to spells that you want to work."

I need to think some more about this.

*** *** ***


Yes, if you shapechange into a plant type creature you are stuck as one until the spell expires. Immunity does not grant removal of an effect. It just prevents any future benefit or harm from an effect.

This happens to be something that I agree with – assuming for the moment that you can't willingly suppress your Polymorph immunity as an Intelligent Plant creature, or as a creature with no Constitution score. Here's how I see it.

The Polymorph spell's entry in the PLAYER'S HANDBOOK states explicitly that it works only on living (and willing) creatures. In contrast, the Baleful Polymorph's entry never states explicitly that this spell works only on living creatures, and the Polymorph Any Object spell's entry never states explicitly that this spell also works on "virtually living" creatures such as Constructs and Undead. However, these two conclusions follow logically when we apply the following rule, which appears in the SRD's discussion of Nonabilities (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#nonabilities) includes this passage.


A creature with no Constitution […] is immune to any effect that requires a Fortitude save unless the effect works on objects or is harmless.

When we apply this rule to the Baleful Polymorph spell, we can deduce that this spell cannot work on creatures that have no Constitution scores (i.e., Constructs and Undead), because it requires a Fortitude save, is not harmless, and does not work on objects.

When we apply this rule to the Polymorph Any Object spell, we can deduce that this spell can work on creatures that have no Constitution scores, because it requires a Fortitude save and is not harmless but does work on objects.

[Chronos]

Any creature with an Int of at least 3 can advance by character class. The presence or absence of "by character class" in the [Advancement] entry of a creature just means how that creature typically advances.

[Duke of Urrel]

I have found another text passage that apparently stands in direct opposition to the text that I quoted from the PLAYER'S HANDBOOK above. It's from page 310 of the MONSTER MANUAL v. 3.5 (2012).


Immunity: A creature that has immunity to an effect is never harmed (or helped) by that effect. A creature cannot suppress an immunity in order to receive a beneficial effect.


So, this looks like a disappointment for myconid wizards who might wish to specialize in Transmutation.

[Thane of Fife]

Is Polymorph immunity a power that creatures of the Plant type have that they can willingly suppress? Or is the Polymorph immunity of Plant creatures simply a limitation of spells of the Polymorph school?

To put it another way, is Polymorph immunity a personal power that you have control over, or is does the Polymorph subschool simply have limitations that nobody can wish away? This is a good question.

Pure speculation, but I would suggest the reason for the plant's immunity is to be found under Polymorph Any Object, where Same Kingdom (Animal, Plant, Mineral) is one of the bonuses. Some individual probably thought, "You can't Polymorph a human into a blade of grass (at least, not with a normal Polymorph spell), so why can you Polymorph them into a treant (and vice-versa)," and didn't think through the implications of a blanket immunity.

[Darg]

I have found another text passage that apparently stands in direct opposition to the text that I quoted from the PLAYER'S HANDBOOK above. It's from page 310 of the MONSTER MANUAL v. 3.5 (2012).

The PHB quote being under saving throws really seems to imply it's just a clerical error between versions of the elf's resistance to sleep. In AD&D elves had a 90% resistance to sleep and charm spells. It's quite possible early alpha and beta iterations of 3.0 elves didn't have immunity and instead had higher resistances, like maybe a higher than normal saving throw or a version of the AD&D resistance system. The 3.5 handbook has a lot of mistakes due to copy and pasting errors itself so it's not surprising the text survived the update.

[Gruftzwerg]

I have found another text passage that apparently stands in direct opposition to the text that I quoted from the PLAYER'S HANDBOOK above. It's from page 310 of the MONSTER MANUAL v. 3.5 (2012).




So, this looks like a disappointment for myconid wizards who might wish to specialize in Transmutation.

I can't find the quote you posted from page 310 of the MM.

I could sole find this on page 315:

Spell Immunity (Ex): A creature with spell immunity avoids the effects of spells and spell-like abilities that directly affect it. This works exactly like spell resistance, except that it cannot be overcome. Sometimes spell immunity is conditional or applies to only spells of a certain kind or level. Spells that do not allow spell resistance are not affected by spell immunity.

The SRD (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm) has the same quote.

[Darg]

I can't find the quote you posted from page 310 of the MM.

I could sole find this on page 315:


The SRD (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm) has the same quote.

They said it's from a 2012 printing. Otherwise you can find it in the MM 3, 4, and 5 which all have the same thing.

[Gruftzwerg]

They said it's from a 2012 printing. Otherwise you can find it in the MM 3, 4, and 5 which all have the same thing.

I guess that is the Premium Monster Manual. And IIRC there was a debate whether or not the Premium books trump CORE or not. Since I don't own any of em, I can't say anything about it. Like, do they explicitly call themselves as rule update like Rules Compendium/ERRATA?

Maybe I can find a preview of the first pages on the internet..

[Darg]

I guess that is the Premium Monster Manual. And IIRC there was a debate whether or not the Premium books trump CORE or not. Since I don't own any of em, I can't say anything about it. Like, do they explicitly call themselves as rule update like Rules Compendium/ERRATA?

Maybe I can find a preview of the first pages on the internet..

It doesn't matter if it trumps the original core or not. There is no topic precedent for immunity other than to fire and cold. So the MM3 is the primary source for the definition and designation for immunity.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

For future reference in this thread, the lich template has this bit:


Immunities (Ex)
Liches have immunity to cold, electricity, polymorph (though they can use polymorph effects on themselves), and mind-affecting attacks.

Now, does this overcome polymorph's inability to be used on unliving targets, since liches can explicitly cast polymorph on themselves and expect it to function?

[Crake]

For future reference in this thread, the lich template has this bit:



Now, does this overcome polymorph's inability to be used on unliving targets, since liches can explicitly cast polymorph on themselves and expect it to function?

No, because it doesn't specify the polymorph spell when saying they can cast on themselves, it only refers to polymorph effects, and as I noted earlier in the thread, there are plenty of polymorph effects which aren't limited to living targets, including PAO and shapechange, neither of which specify a living target in their target line.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

No, because it doesn't specify the polymorph spell, it only refers to polymorph effects, and as I noted earlier in the thread, there are plenty of polymorph effects which aren't limited to living targets, including PAO and shapechange, neither of which specify a living target in their target line.

Except polymorph is a "polymorph effect," and the line says they can use those on themselves, meaning that overcomes the normal targeting limitation on various polymorph effects, which polymorph very much is.

[Crake]

Except polymorph is a "polymorph effect," and the line says they can use those on themselves, meaning that overcomes the normal targeting limitation on various polymorph effects, which polymorph very much is.

Except you need to take it into context, it's talking about the immunity, so when you view it in that context, it's clearly referring to the lich being able to bypass their own immunity, not that they can bypass any other restrictions on the spell. If it were intending to bypass the living component of polymorph, it would need to specifically call that out, otherwise specific trumps general, polymorph's specific targeting rule trumps the general rule that liches can use polymorph effects on themselves.

[Feantar]

Partial solution to the Polymorph problem for liches everywhere:


Find high HD animal and use magic jar on it.
Polymorph
?????
Profit

[Gruftzwerg]

It doesn't matter if it trumps the original core or not. There is no topic precedent for immunity other than to fire and cold. So the MM3 is the primary source for the definition and designation for immunity.
Sorry but it ain't that easy.
The books outside of core are all optional and thus can't create rules on a global lvl as core does. Any non-core book that relies on other non-core book sources calls these explicitly out for this very reason. And the MM (I) doesn't call out the MM III as source... ;)

And if you wanna ask where the rules for "core" are:
The "core" books are indirectly defined by the Primary Source Rule.
It tells you which books contain the general rules of the game (PHB, DMG, MM) and with the topics they each have supremacy over.
And it's the MM (I) which has supremacy over EX, SLA & SU, not the MM III.
The MM III can sole add stuff to its own niche. This is the reason why some added feats of MM II-V are repeated over and over. Because each other MM (then I) has to expect that you don't own the other MM II-V.
What can always be expected is the access to PHB, DMG and MM (I) by RAW and any official rule updates (some mandatory as ERRATA, others optional like RC).

So, it still is important to know how the Premium books are declared. The problem I see it that by adding "Premium" to the title, by RAW they aren't the same books unless they explicitly call em out as such. The definition fo these books is important.




Except you need to take it into context, it's talking about the immunity, so when you view it in that context, it's clearly referring to the lich being able to bypass their own immunity, not that they can bypass any other restrictions on the spell. If it were intending to bypass the living component of polymorph, it would need to specifically call that out, otherwise specific trumps general, polymorph's specific targeting rule trumps the general rule that liches can use polymorph effects on themselves.

I fully agree with Crake here. The immunity of the Lich is altered here but not the target restriction for the regular Polymorph spell. As it has been said, it's for other polymorph effects like PAO, Shapechange and stuff like that...

[Darg]

So, it still is important to know how the Premium books are declared. The problem I see it that by adding "Premium" to the title, by RAW they aren't the same books unless they explicitly call em out as such. The definition fo these books is important.

"premium edition" is technically a version designation. Google images shows that "premium edition" is not part of the title. So there is little reason to think they aren't RAW other than the fact they were released many years after working on 4e so the debate circles around the rules might not be accurate to the times. IF immunity is defined in the premium edition or even late stage printings of the MM (don't have one) then there's no reason to think the definition doesn't have topic precedence.

[Gruftzwerg]

"premium edition" is technically a version designation. Google images shows that "premium edition" is not part of the title. So there is little reason to think they aren't RAW other than the fact they were released many years after working on 4e so the debate circles around the rules might not be accurate to the times. IF immunity is defined in the premium edition or even late stage printings of the MM (don't have one) then there's no reason to think the definition doesn't have topic precedence.

I get what you mean here, but I just want someone to physically confirm how it is defined at the opening pages.

On my search for a PDF preview, I did found one. Declared as from 2012, but it wasn't the premium MM (has a slightly different cover art). As such, I don't wanna rely on how it is advertised on google or some other internet pages.

I hope that you understand my concerns here.

So could anyone who has a copy (physical or pdf) check how the Premium MM defines itself in its opening pages?
I'm curious and would really appreciate that.

I mean, just think about the Rules Compendium. While it gives itself the permission to make changes in the CORE books, it itself ain't part of it. You are not expected to have the RC by RAW (see Primary Source Rule) to play the game.
Thus, RC remains optional by strict RAW.
And no, I don't have any intentions to exclude RC or Premium books from rule discussions in general. It's just sometimes good to know if it is intended as official rule update (ERRATA) or if it is official but sole an optional update (RC).

[Crake]

I get what you mean here, but I just want someone to physically confirm how it is defined at the opening pages.

On my search for a PDF preview, I did found one. Declared as from 2012, but it wasn't the premium MM (has a slightly different cover art). As such, I don't wanna rely on how it is advertised on google or some other internet pages.

I hope that you understand my concerns here.

So could anyone who has a copy (physical or pdf) check how the Premium MM defines itself in its opening pages?
I'm curious and would really appreciate that.

I mean, just think about the Rules Compendium. While it gives itself the permission to make changes in the CORE books, it itself ain't part of it. You are not expected to have the RC by RAW (see Primary Source Rule) to play the game.
Thus, RC remains optional by strict RAW.
And no, I don't have any intentions to exclude RC or Premium books from rule discussions in general. It's just sometimes good to know if it is intended as official rule update (ERRATA) or if it is official but sole an optional update (RC).

You understand that a book can still be authoritative over topics, even over core, without being mandatory, right? There are countless examples of this in other games and systems where an optional expansion fundamentally alters the rules in various circumstances. But they’re optional. So it becomes a case of the DM saying “we’re playing with the rules from XYZ books”, and that determines which rules are to be used.

Kinda like how complete psionic nerfed astral construct, but your DM can choose to say “we’re not playing with the complete psionic rules”.

Even the errata is optional, if you have an old copy of the core books, and want to play the pre-polymorph changes rules, you dont HAVE to follow the errata.

[D+1]

The following rule appears on page of the PLAYER'S HANDBOOK v. 3.5 (2012).

Even a character with a special resistance to magic (for example, an elf ’s resistance to sleep effects) can suppress this quality.
How general is this rule? Does it apply only to resistances, or does it apply to immunities as well?

In particular, I wonder whether the sages of the Forum believe that polymorph immunity in particular should be suppressible at will. This rule would apply above all to liches and intelligent creatures of the Plant type, such as treants.The quote is from PH p.177 by the way. Might want to correct the OP to help people find it.

The rule applies to saving throws. If you have a resistance to a spell and get a saving throw against it - you can voluntarily fail the save. The ability extends no further than that. If the spell has no save obviously you don't get an OPTION to fail it voluntarily, but just as obviously your resistance against A SPELL doesn't mean that you are being granted a save, or ability to reduce or eliminate any similar effect or entire category of effects, or the like. If you have a general resistance to all magic - you can forego ANY save against magic effects.

[Gruftzwerg]

You understand that a book can still be authoritative over topics, even over core, without being mandatory, right?
Yeah like the Rules Compendium is optional. And if you use it, it trumps the core books. You seem to kinda miss my point...



Even the errata is optional, if you have an old copy of the core books, and want to play the pre-polymorph changes rules, you dont HAVE to follow the errata.

As DM yeah, the ERRATA is optional. Since the DM can always make "house rules".

But that is not what is considered RAW.

For RAW, the ERRATA is not optional. It's a free update to the books (the core books in our case).
If you ignore em or don't even know of their existence, you don't play RAW. You sole live under the misconception that you play RAW if you ignore the ERRATA for whatever reason.

If a DM wants to stick to RAW, he can dismiss or allow non-core books as he wishes.
But ignoring the ERRATA to a core book (or any other book the DM allowed) would be a house rule and not RAW.

Thus, I would like to know if the Premium books are intended as optional like the RC or are official rule update like the ERRATA.

And imho these things are kinda important to a degree. If a veteran player joins a table, it is common that the question occurs which books are allowed and if the table has any house rules. For that, everybody needs to be on the same page:
1. what is an "official rule update by RAW"
2. what is an "optional rule update by RAW"
Especially regarding the core books.

Otherwise you can't tell the other person where you are applying house rules, if you don't know where your rules differ from RAW. Because you don't know what is RAW and what not to begin with.

Imho it is of importance to know if the Premium books are official updates to core or just optional rules for core.
The latter a DM can dismiss by just not including em to the allowed books. But the former needs to be house ruled away if you wants to exclude it.

Thus my question still remains: How do the Premium books define themselves?

[Crake]

Yeah like the Rules Compendium is optional. And if you use it, it trumps the core books. You seem to kinda miss my point...




As DM yeah, the ERRATA is optional. Since the DM can always make "house rules".

But that is not what is considered RAW.

For RAW, the ERRATA is not optional. It's a free update to the books (the core books in our case).
If you ignore em or don't even know of their existence, you don't play RAW. You sole live under the misconception that you play RAW if you ignore the ERRATA for whatever reason.

If a DM wants to stick to RAW, he can dismiss or allow non-core books as he wishes.
But ignoring the ERRATA to a core book (or any other book the DM allowed) would be a house rule and not RAW.

Thus, I would like to know if the Premium books are intended as optional like the RC or are official rule update like the ERRATA.

And imho these things are kinda important to a degree. If a veteran player joins a table, it is common that the question occurs which books are allowed and if the table has any house rules. For that, everybody needs to be on the same page:
1. what is an "official rule update by RAW"
2. what is an "optional rule update by RAW"
Especially regarding the core books.

Otherwise you can't tell the other person where you are applying house rules, if you don't know where your rules differ from RAW. Because you don't know what is RAW and what not to begin with.

Imho it is of importance to know if the Premium books are official updates to core or just optional rules for core.
The latter a DM can dismiss by just not including em to the allowed books. But the former needs to be house ruled away if you wants to exclude it.

Thus my question still remains: How do the Premium books define themselves?

Can you quote me the rules that state the errata is a mandatory update that must be included in play?

[Duke of Urrel]

Yeah like the Rules Compendium is optional. And if you use it, it trumps the core books. You seem to kinda miss my point...

As DM yeah, the ERRATA is optional. Since the DM can always make "house rules".

But that is not what is considered RAW.

For RAW, the ERRATA is not optional. It's a free update to the books (the core books in our case).
If you ignore em or don't even know of their existence, you don't play RAW. You sole live under the misconception that you play RAW if you ignore the ERRATA for whatever reason.

If a DM wants to stick to RAW, he can dismiss or allow non-core books as he wishes.
But ignoring the ERRATA to a core book (or any other book the DM allowed) would be a house rule and not RAW.

Thus, I would like to know if the Premium books are intended as optional like the RC or are official rule update like the ERRATA.

[…]

Imho it is of importance to know if the Premium books are official updates to core or just optional rules for core.
The latter a DM can dismiss by just not including em to the allowed books. But the former needs to be house ruled away if you wants to exclude it.

Thus my question still remains: How do the Premium books define themselves?


Can you quote me the rules that state the errata is a mandatory update that must be included in play?

The claim that the D&D version 3.5 ERRATA of 2006 are the Ultimate Authority on mandatory rules is controversial, because it appears on Page One of the D&D v. 3.5 ERRATA of 2006 (https://dtdnd.neocities.org/books/player/Player%27s%20Handbook%20I%20[Errata].pdf). Why is this the Ultimate Authority? Because it says so.


When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.
Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The MONSTER MANUAL is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

This is where it comes from. I believe this is also the source for the claim that the three core rulebooks take precedence over all others.

But what about the RULES COMPENDIUM v. 3.5? Well, sadly for this useful book, which I happen to like very much, it did not come out until 2007. (Dun, dun, DUNNNNN!) Some people have argued that since Page One of the D&D v. 3.5 ERRATA of 2006 does not mention the RULES COMPENDIUM, the latter is optional, because the former is the official Last Word of all official rules. (Why? Because it says so right there.)

But others argue that earlier books simply cannot have any authority over later books, no more than a Constitution can permit itself to be amended, and no more than a general rule can prohibit all future rules that carve out exceptions to it.

As for the "premium" rulebooks, I think they belong in the same category as the RULES COMPENDIUM, for whatever that's worth. After all, they came out even later, in 2012.

I will say that any change that appears in the "premium" rulebooks may also have appeared in earlier rulebooks. For example, the "Polymorph Subschool" discussion that was added to the "premium" PLAYER'S HANDBOOK (2012) originally appeared in the PLAYER'S HANDBOOK II, which came out in … 2006. (Dun, dun, DUNNNNN!) I haven't researched the origin of the "premium" MONSTER MANUAL rule (with which I seem to have practically derailed my own thread) that "immunities generally can't be suppressed." Maybe this rule appeared in some earlier rulebook, but I have no idea whether it did, and I also have no idea whether it appeared pre-2006 or post-2006.

For my part, I have a lot of respect for the "core rulebooks rule" that appears on Page One of the D&D v. 3.5 ERRATA of 2006. ON the other hand, I don't believe in any Ultimate Authority apart from the dungeon master. However, I also believe a dungeon master should rule as an enlightened constitutional monarch, not as a tyrant. This doesn't answer any of my questions and may not help with yours, but this is what I've got.

(Should you want to read over an old thread that taught me everything I know about this particular topic, just click here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?511993-Do-the-2012-issues-of-the-core-rulebooks-supersede-the-Rules-Compendium).)

[Darg]

Maybe this rule appeared in some earlier rulebook, but I have no idea whether it did, and I also have no idea whether it appeared pre-2006 or post-2006.

Monster Manual III 2004.

[Crake]

The claim that the D&D version 3.5 ERRATA of 2006 are the Ultimate Authority on mandatory rules is controversial, because it appears on Page One of the D&D v. 3.5 ERRATA of 2006 (https://dtdnd.neocities.org/books/player/Player%27s%20Handbook%20I%20[Errata].pdf). Why is this the Ultimate Authority? Because it says so.



This is where it comes from. I believe this is also the source for the claim that the three core rulebooks take precedence over all others.

But what about the RULES COMPENDIUM v. 3.5? Well, sadly for this useful book, which I happen to like very much, it did not come out until 2007. (Dun, dun, DUNNNNN!) Some people have argued that since Page One of the D&D v. 3.5 ERRATA of 2006 does not mention the RULES COMPENDIUM, the latter is optional, because the former is the official Last Word of all official rules. (Why? Because it says so right there.)

But others argue that earlier books simply cannot have any authority over later books, no more than a Constitution can permit itself to be amended, and no more than a general rule can prohibit all future rules that carve out exceptions to it.

As for the "premium" rulebooks, I think they belong in the same category as the RULES COMPENDIUM, for whatever that's worth. After all, they came out even later, in 2012.

I will say that any change that appears in the "premium" rulebooks may also have appeared in earlier rulebooks. For example, the "Polymorph Subschool" discussion that was added to the "premium" PLAYER'S HANDBOOK (2012) originally appeared in the PLAYER'S HANDBOOK II, which came out in … 2006. (Dun, dun, DUNNNNN!) I haven't researched the origin of the "premium" MONSTER MANUAL rule (with which I seem to have practically derailed my own thread) that "immunities generally can't be suppressed." Maybe this rule appeared in some earlier rulebook, but I have no idea whether it did, and I also have no idea whether it appeared pre-2006 or post-2006.

For my part, I have a lot of respect for the "core rulebooks rule" that appears on Page One of the D&D v. 3.5 ERRATA of 2006. ON the other hand, I don't believe in any Ultimate Authority apart from the dungeon master. However, I also believe a dungeon master should rule as an enlightened constitutional monarch, not as a tyrant. This doesn't answer any of my questions and may not help with yours, but this is what I've got.

(Should you want to read over an old thread that taught me everything I know about this particular topic, just click here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?511993-Do-the-2012-issues-of-the-core-rulebooks-supersede-the-Rules-Compendium).)

That was kinda my point, that errata’s authority is entirely self appointed, so it only becomes mandatory if you include it as one of your rules sources, which becomes rather irrelevant, since, at that point, you’re already including it.

[Duke of Urrel]

Monster Manual III 2004.

"Dun, dun, DUNNNNN!"


Thank you for this.

*** *** ***

On the one hand, it's clear beyond any reasonable doubt that elves can suppress their immunity to sleep. Whatever else the passage I quoted from the PLAYER'S HANDBOOK means, it surely means this. I can even imagine ways for this particular power to be useful. If you're an elf and you want to be receive a message sent by the Dream spell, you need to sleep, so it helps to be able to suppress your sleep immunity.

But the general rule of the PLAYER'S HANDBOOK that you can suppress your immunity bumps up against the general rule of the MONSTER MANUAL III that you can't.

Maybe the PLAYER'S HANDBOOK outweighs the MONSTER MANUAL III because the former book belongs to the core and the latter doesn't. But I don't feel that I can just wave away the MONSTER MANUAL III of 2004 – or the "premium" MONSTER MANUAL of 2012 – for this reason.

This is still a theoretical question for me. I am not a player who wants to play a myconid wizard specializing in Transmutation, nor am I a dungeon master with a player who is begging to do this. If I suddenly had a player who wanted to be a Plant creature who could polymorph ... I am still not sure what I would say. Maybe it would depend on how badly the player wanted this power, or how great a backstory the player had dreamed up to account for it.

[Crake]

But the general rule of the PLAYER'S HANDBOOK that you can suppress your immunity bumps up against the general rule of the MONSTER MANUAL III that you can't.


Actually, the players handbook specifically refers to “special magic resistances”, and includes the elf sleep immunity as an example. A general immunity is different from a magical resistance, so you cant suppress your immunity to fire, but you can suppress your immunity to fire spells (if such a specific immunity existed).

So I would say that the PHB has the specific rule vs the MM3 having the general rule. Immunities cannot be willing lowered, unless they are specifically against magic, and not a general immunity.

[Gruftzwerg]

Can you quote me the rules that state the errata is a mandatory update that must be included in play?
Thankfully the Duke of Urrel has posted it my absence.


That was kinda my point, that errata’s authority is entirely self appointed, so it only becomes mandatory if you include it as one of your rules sources, which becomes rather irrelevant, since, at that point, you’re already including it.
As is all authority in 3.5.
Any authority in 3.5 is self appointed. And depending on the things it has supremacy over, a hierarchical structure is created.
The Primary Source Rule sits at the top of everything, since its job is to tell how you compare rules to each other and resolve em. It's nature is to control all other rules by its own definition. And yeah its authority is self appointed. As is any authority claim of the starting pages of some books (PHB, DMG, MM, RC, Draconomicon).

Either you follow em all and get a rule hierarchy (with nice tools like "Specific Trumps General") or you end up in a mess without any hierarchy and authority at all (and suddenly Specific becomes General)...


If you wanna know more on the hierarchy of 3.5 books, continue reading my response to the Duke of Urrel.



The claim that the D&D version 3.5 ERRATA of 2006 are the Ultimate Authority on mandatory rules is controversial, because it appears on Page One of the D&D v. 3.5 ERRATA of 2006 (https://dtdnd.neocities.org/books/player/Player%27s%20Handbook%20I%20[Errata].pdf). Why is this the Ultimate Authority? Because it says so.



This is where it comes from. I believe this is also the source for the claim that the three core rulebooks take precedence over all others.
First, thanks for providing the quote in my absence. "The ERRATA says so" is basically the main RAW argument here.
As simple or stupid this may sound, it is as it is.^^





But what about the RULES COMPENDIUM v. 3.5? Well, sadly for this useful book, which I happen to like very much, it did not come out until 2007. (Dun, dun, DUNNNNN!) Some people have argued that since Page One of the D&D v. 3.5 ERRATA of 2006 does not mention the RULES COMPENDIUM, the latter is optional, because the former is the official Last Word of all official rules. (Why? Because it says so right there.)
I agree that it is optional.
The RC had the opportunity to alter the Primary Source Rule presented in the ERRATA but didn't do so for some unknown reason...

If you ask me about the reason.. this was a pure marketing decision, because WOTC had already backlash from the community for the short time between 3.0 and 3.5 release.
Many felt forced to buy the new 3.5 core books, which caused some of em to stick to 3.0. Something that rings all alarm belts in a capitalistic company.

This wasn't great from WOTC's point of view. Remind you that at that point they where the fresh new owners of D&D and that this (quick change from 3.0 to 3.5) didn't help to build up trust for the new company in the community. They had to be careful with their further actions. At the same time "internet" did become more and more popular/available and the D&D franchise had immense amount of feedback due to official forums. For the first time the franchise in its entirety could see how flawed their rules are. This was the reason for the quick change to 3.5 to begin with.

So what to do if you have buggy rules on one side that annoys the community, While others angered about the quick book update releases?

ERRATA was the first tool here. They are free downloadable and shareable for everyone to use. This was a good solution for smaller bugfixes after a new physical book was released. A nice tool for WOTC to make changes without charging the community and angering em due to that.
Note here that this was the moment that they realized the lack of the Primary Source Rule. The rules where build with this logic in mind without explicitly pointing it out in any physical book. But the damage was done to the 3.0+3.5 community and many misconceptions have been born outta this and some still prevail.., since the PSR still keeps being a mystery for a big part of the community (remind you. that are still many tables who aren't even aware of ERRATA. I've seen enough of those in my 20+ years of 3.X).


But over time, many questions and misconceptions accumulated. This lead to side projects like the "Rules of the Game" pages (can still be accessed by wayback machine if anyone should be interested). And those grew so big, that WOTC thought, we could make some money by printing a book for it: Rules Compendium
Remind you that RC barely makes changes. For the most part it just explains the rules we already had (including ERRATA).

As said, they could have included the RC into the PSR just by letting the RC change the PSR accordingly. If they would have done that, this would mean that the RC would become a part of "Core". An additional book that you "officially need" to play. Imho WOTC was afraid of the possible backlash for good reasons here and thus went with the solution to make it "optional".

For the same reason I assume that it would be just "natural" that the Premium books are also sole optional and not "core". But since I don't own any Premium copies myself, I can't be sure of that. Again, if anyone owns a copy and could provide a quote, I would be really appreciating it.






But others argue that earlier books simply cannot have any authority over later books, no more than a Constitution can permit itself to be amended, and no more than a general rule can prohibit all future rules that carve out exceptions to it.

This sole is build up upon a FAQ response and not an actual rule. And that response exclude any options that include rules from the core books:




Q:
Both [Complete Arcane] and [Player's Guide to Faerûn] include a feat named Innate Spell, but the prerequisites and uses per day differ. Which version is correct?
___________

A:
Unless stated otherwise, any time that a rule appears in two different sourcebooks (other than the PH, DMG, and MM), the most current sourcebook is considered correct and all previous sources are superseded. A book’s credits page lists its publication date (typically near the bottom of the page).

In this case, [Complete Arcane] (published in November 2004) supersedes [Player's Guide to Faerûn] (published in March 2004), and thus its version of Innate Spell should be considered the official version. (41-2)

The response doesn't touch the supremacy that the PSR grants to the core books!
It sole adds RAI for the gray area when two non-core books collide with each other.
No matter how you look at it, the supremacy of the core books is untouched.



As for the "premium" rulebooks, I think they belong in the same category as the RULES COMPENDIUM, for whatever that's worth. After all, they came out even later, in 2012.
As said, I also assume that they are optional like the RC for the very same marketing reasons. But to be sure, we would need a quote from the starting pages of each Premium book...^^

[Crake]

As is all authority in 3.5.
Any authority in 3.5 is self appointed. And depending on the things it has supremacy over, a hierarchical structure is created.
The Primary Source Rule sits at the top of everything, since its job is to tell how you compare rules to each other and resolve em. It's nature is to control all other rules by its own definition. And yeah its authority is self appointed. As is any authority claim of the starting pages of some books (PHB, DMG, MM, RC, Draconomicon).


Yes, but the difference is you don't need the errata to have a functional ruleset with which to play the game, so the only real books that are "mandatory" are the core books, as they're pretty integral to having a complete foundation upon which to play the game. These books, however, do not state anywhere that the errata is mandatory, so your argument that the errata IS mandatory is in a catch22 state, because the only truly mandatory books do not call out the errata as mandatory, and the errata only calls itself mandatory, but it's authority doesn't exist unless it's in play to begin with. Ergo, the errata is only mandatory while it is in play, but if it's in play, then it's designation as mandatory is pointless.

[Gnaeus]

Except you need to take it into context, it's talking about the immunity, so when you view it in that context, it's clearly referring to the lich being able to bypass their own immunity, not that they can bypass any other restrictions on the spell. If it were intending to bypass the living component of polymorph, it would need to specifically call that out, otherwise specific trumps general, polymorph's specific targeting rule trumps the general rule that liches can use polymorph effects on themselves.

Or the Lich can research a hypothetical Polymorph Undead spell.

[Crake]

Or the Lich can research a hypothetical Polymorph Undead spell.

That already exists, its called polymorph any object :smallbiggrin:

[Gruftzwerg]

Yes, but the difference is you don't need the errata to have a functional ruleset with which to play the game, so the only real books that are "mandatory" are the core books, as they're pretty integral to having a complete foundation upon which to play the game. These books, however, do not state anywhere that the errata is mandatory, so your argument that the errata IS mandatory is in a catch22 state, because the only truly mandatory books do not call out the errata as mandatory, and the errata only calls itself mandatory, but it's authority doesn't exist unless it's in play to begin with. Ergo, the errata is only mandatory while it is in play, but if it's in play, then it's designation as mandatory is pointless.

Remind you that without the ERRATA you can't compare any rules. You can't apply "Specific Trumps General" anymore, since that is a tool that thrives from the Primary Source Rule. Dunno if you wanna play a totally dysfunctional game where Power Attack is in conflict with the general Attack rules, or anyone can apply effects on their unarmed strike like a monk does. Or that some size changing abilities can stack (because their description doesn't say it doesn't stack) These kind of problems did give birth to release the ERRATA which contains the PSR.
Come on, be honest. Do you really wanna exclude the ERRATA here just for the sake of discussing? Do we really need to go so far? (no offense here, just a simple question. imho lets pls skip this madness. it won't lead to anything)






Or the Lich can research a hypothetical Polymorph Undead spell.That already exists, its called polymorph any object :smallbiggrin:

I totally agree here
Imho this is the best answer a DM should give to such an request. "After months of expensive research you end up with PaO"^^

[Crake]

Remind you that without the ERRATA you can't compare any rules. You can't apply "Specific Trumps General" anymore, since that is a tool that thrives from the Primary Source Rule. Dunno if you wanna play a totally dysfunctional game where Power Attack is in conflict with the general Attack rules, or anyone can apply effects on their unarmed strike like a monk does. Or that some size changing abilities can stack (because their description doesn't say it doesn't stack) These kind of problems did give birth to release the ERRATA which contains the PSR.
Come on, be honest. Do you really wanna exclude the ERRATA here just for the sake of discussing? Do we really need to go so far? (no offense here, just a simple question. imho lets pls skip this madness. it won't lead to anything)





I totally agree here
Imho this is the best answer a DM should give to such an request. "After months of expensive research you end up with PaO"^^

People played dnd for years without issue before the errata was released, you trying to say the game wasnt playable for all that time?

[Darg]

People played dnd for years without issue before the errata was released, you trying to say the game wasnt playable for all that time?

The errata for overrun while charging was stupid. I ignore it.

[Gruftzwerg]

People played dnd for years without issue before the errata was released, you trying to say the game wasnt playable for all that time?
Dunno if you have ever read stuff on the official forums before the ERRATA did come out.

The assumptions and arguments that have been made where going crazy due to the lack of the PSR.

The lack of the PSR caused so much damage that a big part of the community argued against the FAQ and sage advice not being RAW answers (Note: imho the FAQ calls out where it sole gives RAI answers).
The community needed about 5-10years to halfway get what the PSR does and why the FAQ and the sage have been right on many things (e.g. about size changing effects not being stackable).

Some of the problems that might occur without the PSR:
- size changing effects suddenly become stackable when they don't call it out
- anyone can use spells and effect for their Unarmed Strike like a monk
- people where extrapolating info outta spell descriptions to make general rules
- fluff text has been used for arguments
- people do ignore definitions
...

The game becomes very buggy without a correct application of the PSR.

And you can always "play" the game. The question is how close your game is to the intended RAW and how often you don't realize that you don't play according to the rules. And if you don't understand the PSR the game becomes dysfunctional at many parts. The DM then needs to apply either further houserules or just straight ignore the problems.

Sadly the official forums don't exist. But you can see on other boards how crazy the arguments had been back then. Really, there is nothing worse than the lack of the PSR. And we still are arguing about misconceptions that imho thrive from the problem that everyone first learns the rules without the PSR. Since that is placed into the ERRATA which imho everybody gets to see later. In the meanwhile your brain did build up misconceptions about how the rules work.
Imho we would need to place the PSR first before everything else in the PHB to reduce misconceptions to a minimum. But it is as it is and the dmg to the community is done and we are still dealing with it 20 years later..


The errata for overrun while charging was stupid. I ignore it.
I dislike it too. And just because of the annoying limitation of charge to stop at the first square where you are in reach (I hate this much more).

[Darg]

I dislike it too. And just because of the annoying limitation of charge to stop at the first square where you are in reach (I hate this much more).

Currently using the 3.0 version of charge:


Movement during a Charge: You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet and may move up to double your speed. All movement must be in a straight line, with no backing up allowed. You must stop as soon as you are within striking range of your target. You can’t run past him and attack from another direction.

Much more freedom. You don't have to move to the nearest space, just one within reach. And you can charge as long as you are able to move to the spot and it's a straight line. Jumping? it works. difficult terrain? half speed but sure. More opportunity to ready against a charge? hell yeah. Ride-by-attack works well and intuitively? most definitely.

[Gruftzwerg]

Currently using the 3.0 version of charge:



Much more freedom. You don't have to move to the nearest space, just one within reach. And you can charge as long as you are able to move to the spot and it's a straight line. Jumping? it works. difficult terrain? half speed but sure. More opportunity to ready against a charge? hell yeah. Ride-by-attack works well and intuitively? most definitely.

The (RAW) dysfunction is still there. As DM you are free to ignore it (and I highly support it/this). But the main problem is still the same:


You must stop as soon as you are within striking range of your target.

First, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent.

As soon as you are within your melee reach, you have to stop and make your charge attack. How are you gonna enter the enemies space (Bull Rush) or get even past him (overrun)?

The Errata sole focused on this:

You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles).

IIRC the argument was that Overrun doesn't change this limitation of charge and thus you don't have a clear path for more than a single enemy.

But the other restriction (stopping at the first square where your enemy is in reach) is still there. As such you can't Bull Rush them:

First, you move into the defender’s space.
Bull Rush sole tells you what you "have" to do. It doesn't give you more permissions than you had before. As such, it doesn't trump the limitations set by charge. And if we look at Charge, our movement stopped at the first square where the enemy is in reach..?!?..

Imho by RAW 3.5 Charge + Bull Rush is (still) dysfunctional. And a switch to 3.0 Charge doesn't help here. It has the same flaws.

_______________________

sorry for the lil offtopic here. I think the original thread is dead (since everything was said I guess), but I wanted to respond on the charge topic. If there is interest we could make a thread for that. Imho an interesting topic.

[ShurikVch]

Excuse me, but can you even Overrun during a Charge?
I mean:

You can attempt an overrun as a standard action taken during your move. (In general, you cannot take a standard action during a move; this is an exception.)
Maybe I missing something - but, at a cursory glance, nothing pointing at the fact you actually should be able to do it...

For a "Charge + Bull Rush": while, generally, - yes, it doesn't works - there are two corner cases:
0' reach - you must enter your opponent's space in order to attack
Hurling Charge (Miniatures Handbook) + Rout (Dragon #304) feats - Rout works like a ranged Bull Rush (as long as the weapon thrown weighs at least 2 lbs., you don't move the opponent back more than 5', and don't move along with the defender), and Hurling Charge adds option of ranged attack (with a thrown weapon) during a charge (in addition to the standard melee attack)

[icefractal]

The game becomes very buggy without a correct application of the PSR.

And you can always "play" the game. The question is how close your game is to the intended RAW and how often you don't realize that you don't play according to the rules. And if you don't understand the PSR the game becomes dysfunctional at many parts. The DM then needs to apply either further houserules or just straight ignore the problems.Thing is, you're using a definition of "buggy" different than what 99% of users care about.

It's true that if your goal is "to be able to say what's RAW with as close to 100% certainty as possible", then the PSR helps considerably. Still not 100%, there are a few things ambiguous even then, but considerably.

However, most players and GMs don't care if they're playing 100% RAW, they care that the game is functional as a game/activity. And that's where the statement above is wrong, IMO - the game can become "dysfunction" while following RAW 100% and may indeed require house-rules or ignoring problems. But going to 100% RAW doesn't solve those problems.

Drown healing, for example. It's not something that fits the style of most campaigns. Most GMs and players don't want it in their game. But a few are fine with it, or actively enjoy it. Whether it's RAW or not doesn't matter for that, it doesn't change whether it's a good or bad thing to have as part of the game.

For another example - multiclass XP penalties. Most tables intentionally don't use them. Not because the RAW is ambiguous (the RAW definitely says you take them), but because they've observed the effect of that rule on the game and decided that it provides negative utility. The game is more functional (in that case) by being less RAW.


But TBH, most of our posting here is as much about thought experiments as actual play, right? Mine is, anyway. But even for thought experiment purposes, I find "being an internally consistent system which has room to optimize without hitting 'nothing matters because everything is infinite' territory" more useful than being perfectly RAW. So things like "a spell component pouch includes unlimited artifacts and deity eyebrows" - whether they're RAW or not, I'm not going to use them for thought experiment purposes because they make a worse thought experiment.

[Gruftzwerg]

Thing is, you're using a definition of "buggy" different than what 99% of users care about.

It's true that if your goal is "to be able to say what's RAW with as close to 100% certainty as possible", then the PSR helps considerably. Still not 100%, there are a few things ambiguous even then, but considerably.

However, most players and GMs don't care if they're playing 100% RAW, they care that the game is functional as a game/activity. And that's where the statement above is wrong, IMO - the game can become "dysfunction" while following RAW 100% and may indeed require house-rules or ignoring problems. But going to 100% RAW doesn't solve those problems.

Drown healing, for example. It's not something that fits the style of most campaigns. Most GMs and players don't want it in their game. But a few are fine with it, or actively enjoy it. Whether it's RAW or not doesn't matter for that, it doesn't change whether it's a good or bad thing to have as part of the game.

For another example - multiclass XP penalties. Most tables intentionally don't use them. Not because the RAW is ambiguous (the RAW definitely says you take them), but because they've observed the effect of that rule on the game and decided that it provides negative utility. The game is more functional (in that case) by being less RAW.
Imho the changes you implied here are all minor and thus save changes. Your system mastery is enough to predict any possible outcomes since these things ain't that complex and deep.

But not all topics are that simple.
Over the years on the internet (on several pages/forums) I did see enough houserule suggestion that have been totally unnecessary. I had the opportunity to show people that RAW ain't always that buggy as people assume, and that often the rules have solutions to problems. Sometimes even better as the suggested one.
Then I have seen suggestions that will fix one thing, but will cause a mess on the other end.

For all that, the DM needs a lot of system mastery to make the right predictions and come up with good (houserule) solutions. I mean, you don't wanna change your own houserules every few sessions, just because you realized what mess you caused again.



But TBH, most of our posting here is as much about thought experiments as actual play, right? Mine is, anyway. But even for thought experiment purposes, I find "being an internally consistent system which has room to optimize without hitting 'nothing matters because everything is infinite' territory" more useful than being perfectly RAW. So things like "a spell component pouch includes unlimited artifacts and deity eyebrows" - whether they're RAW or not, I'm not going to use them for thought experiment purposes because they make a worse thought experiment.

That is the difference between Practical Optimization (PO) and Theoretical Optimization (TO).

The former (PO) tries to keep his sanity and tries to build something that may be playable at a high optimization table. It doesn't really try to break the game. The focus is more on just having a strong and flavorful build here.

The latter (TO) is just a "crash test of the rules" (where the human hivemind of the forum is the crash test kinda). The builder/writer tries to predict any rule interactions and tries to find the most broken but still legal interpretation. That is then abused as much as possible. The main intention here is to just have some fun showcasing the possible extend of RAW. But at the same time the "results" of the crash test are very useful too. A DM can see possible rule exploits and can make houserules. He can also see the full extend of optimization. Which helps to better predict the power lvl of the builds his own players. He can then talk to the player about the intended optimization lvl and assure that the player knows how far he may go. This prevents players getting angry or sad because the build they have put thought and effort into (and maybe played for years) does suddenly get nerfed in the mid of an adventure, because the DM didn't realize what he was getting into. Imho it's always better to have enough foresight (as DM) to prevent undesirable outcomes. (easier said than done, I know..).

[Darg]

Excuse me, but can you even Overrun during a Charge?
I mean:

Maybe I missing something - but, at a cursory glance, nothing pointing at the fact you actually should be able to do it...

For a "Charge + Bull Rush": while, generally, - yes, it doesn't works - there are two corner cases:
0' reach - you must enter your opponent's space in order to attack
Hurling Charge (Miniatures Handbook) + Rout (Dragon #304) feats - Rout works like a ranged Bull Rush (as long as the weapon thrown weighs at least 2 lbs., you don't move the opponent back more than 5', and don't move along with the defender), and Hurling Charge adds option of ranged attack (with a thrown weapon) during a charge (in addition to the standard melee attack)

It got errata'd out with the excuse that you can't even initiate a charge if something is in the way. Psionic charge doesn't make special exception for this rule and yet it's assumed it does. With my older version of the PHB I've been playing with the assumption that it was a common sense exception in the same vein of psionic charge. Still, it was errata'd out to the detriment of the game.