My Opinions:

1. Approve.

2. Disapprove. Breaks all manner of currently useful things.

3. Disapprove. This just makes Legacy Champion, etc entirely useless. At least now they have a marginal niche.

4. No Opinion.

5. Unnecessary. The "Dead" condition already covers it more comprehensively, as does basic knowledge of the common English word "Dead". The rulebook need not contain definitions for every common word.

6. Disapprove. Natural Attacks already have adequate rule coverage, and proficiency/non-proficiency is unnecessary to it.

7. Approve.

8. Approve.

10. Disapprove. It's like pounce in actions, even if you've disallowed attacks, allowing you to do things like move while casting a full round spell, or take a move action after moving on a mount.

11. Disapprove. See above.

13. Approve.

14. Unnecessary, seriously, this is effectively the case. Nothing designates an offhand penalty currently otherwise.

15. Disapprove. It makes absolutely no sense that an unconscious person has the same strength of will as an alert, resisting one does.

16. Disapprove. You can have cover and make attacks. This is quite possible.

17. Unnecessary, since it's already a rule. Yes, if you insist on including it.

18. Approve.

19. Disapprove. Pretty sure I can slam into a dude while also holding things. Even worse, it doesn't cleanly link the "one or both" together, making this rule terribly ambiguous.

20. Unnecessary, shield bashing is already a thing. Approve if you insist on including it.

21. Disapprove. Spell-Storing seems pretty relevant to attacking.

22. Approve.

23. Approve, though suggest removing the redundant line about protection. EVERYTHING has ways to protect against it. No specific line is necessary.

25. Approve.

26. Disapprove. This would make many current, perfectly logical Natural Abilities into Ex abilities.

27. Approve. Could have sworn this was in RC, though.

28. Disapprove. Entrance requirements are for entrance.

29. No Opinion.

30. Approve.

31. Disapprove. If party A is hidden, and has true seeing, party C has invisibility, and party B has no way to detect party C, A can legitimately claim cover from both by hiding. If you're talking about an invisible object GRANTING cover, rewrite the rule to not be terrible. Also, while you're at it, the first sentence is also grammatically terrible.

32. Disapprove. Making a ranged attack provokes. Doing it multiple times provokes multiple times.

33. Disapprove. This constitutes a change to stacking rules. Have never heard of it before, obviously not common sense.

34. Approve.

36. Disapprove. See also, Sanctum Spell.

37. Disapprove. I wish...but I have to explicitly list this requirement in rules in games I run. It's not common sense. Additionally, "recursive" is really, really ambiguous. Lots of things are recursive without being infinite, such as Font of Inspiration.

38. Disapprove. The "delusional illusionist" archtype sees a lot of play at my table. I would not restrict what a char can believe. Automatic disbelieving if they want to is fine, though.

30. Disapprove. Seriously, the entire point of them is that kobolds are draconic.

40. Unnecessary. Cooldowns are cooldowns, and nothing about polymorph removes them.

41. Disapprove. The "effectively blind" is far too vague. This would seem to, by RAW, apply to mindsight and such. It's terrible and I hate it.


Hmm, not a lot of consensus on most "common sense" things.