RAW Issues

[2xMachina]

So, I'm reading some feats, and saw some things that can be stupid.

Combat Reflexes.
Put it on someone with 8 dex, and suddenly, he can make -1AoO per round. How does -1 even work?

Diehard/rageclaws
Oh, so you can work normally at negative HP? If you were hit with 1 nonlethal damage, you're unconscious like any other fella with no feat.

Any other things?
I know Drown healing (which kills you anyway), Monk non-proficiency.

[WinWin]

Death does not prevent you from taking actions. Being unconscious does.

[Terazul]

*Looks in*

So, I'm reading some feats, and saw some things that can be stupid.

Combat Reflexes.
Put it on someone with 8 dex, and suddenly, he can make -1AoO per round. How does -1 even work?

No. It says you can make a number of additional AoOs based on your Dexterity bonus. You don't have a bonus, you have a penalty. So it does nothing, and you keep your 1 AoO a round.

Don't remember how the rageclaws soulmeld works off the top of my head, so... eh.

[Morph Bark]

Combat Reflexes.
Put it on someone with 8 dex, and suddenly, he can make -1AoO per round. How does -1 even work?

It says "You may make a number of additional attacks of opportunity equal to your Dexterity bonus". It does not mention penalties, so you never get less AoOs.

EDIT: Hey look, first time I got ninja'd rather than doing the ninja-ing.

[Yora]

I think there's not a single game that can be played by raw. At least no RPG. This is why there's a gm who brings common sense to the game as required.

[lesser_minion]

It is reasonable to assume that even if a feat does not have prerequisites, one does not take it if one does not stand to benefit.

One of the nastiest ones is using a tower shield with the Hide Skill... which somehow allows you to hide yourself, including the shield.


Rules as written will always include bugs, simplifications, and oversights. You just have to bring a decent DM to the table, instead of adopting an attitude of "Do not slight the Written Rules Most Holy".

RAW is often shorthand for RAIITAYCPMWN, after all.

[Bharg]

It is reasonable to assume that even if a feat does not have prerequisites, one does not take it if one does not stand to benefit.

One of the nastiest ones is using a tower shield with the Hide Skill... which somehow allows you to hide yourself, including the shield.


Rules as written will always include bugs, simplifications, and oversights. You just have to bring a decent DM to the table, instead of adopting an attitude of "Do not slight the Written Rules Most Holy".

RAW is often shorthand for RAIITAYCPMWN, after all.

Oh really?!

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Threads discussing oddities or failures of RAW are frequent. I'm going to change the title of this one to attempt to prevent the term "RAWtard" from becoming one that gets used here. (If directed at a fellow poster, it is an insult.)

[lesser_minion]

Oh really?!

It gets better -- objects can provide cover even if they're completely transparent. So you can hide behind a pane of glass.

[Bharg]

So you place your Tower Shield to provide cover to you and use the cover to hide? Sounds convenient to me, though an enemy might assume that there is a person related to the standing shield. Hiding the cover itself otherwise... Kinda retroproductive... You can't hide something in plain sight, right?

Hiding behind a box of air?

Standing behind something transparent would still mean you are in line of sight, if I am not mistaken...

[Townopolis]

Who? Me? Oh no, I'm just a mannequin showing off this armor for all the window shoppers.

[lesser_minion]

So you place your Tower Shield to provide cover to you and use the cover to hide? Sounds convenient to me, though an enemy might assume that there is a person related to the standing shield. Hiding the cover itself otherwise... Kinda retroproductive... You can't hide something in plain sight, right?

The point is that it's part of your equipment, so you've successfully hidden it, even though you're hiding behind it.

It's just one of the nastiest cases of "Written Rules Most Holy" in existence. With the possible exception of the even nastier "hide behind a pane of glass".


Commoner Packet Relay Service is pretty bad as well.

[Bharg]

Are you sure, there aren't always other rules that have to be ignored to exploit something like that (other than the DM saying: Nay, nay!)? :\

[Yora]

The point is that it's part of your equipment, so you've successfully hidden it, even though you're hiding behind it.

It's just one of the nastiest cases of "Written Rules Most Holy" in existence. With the possible exception of the even nastier "hide behind a pane of glass".

But is there really any need to write it in the rulebooks that you can't do such things? I don't think so.

[Runestar]

It's funny, I always thought combat reflexes had a prereq of 13dex...

[2xMachina]

Aw, I was wrong.

For the diehard, it does not overwrite unconsciousness by non-lethal though.

[IdleMuse]

In the same line as Combat Reflexes, a 'quick' reading of the rules indicates that a character with Dex 8 has a HIGHER Flat-footed AC than their regular AC

[Douglas]

In the same line as Combat Reflexes, a 'quick' reading of the rules indicates that a character with Dex 8 has a HIGHER Flat-footed AC than their regular AC

Only if by 'quick' you mean 'someone who doesn't know the bonus vs modifier distinction'.

[IdleMuse]

Only if by 'quick' you mean 'someone who doesn't know the bonus vs modifier distinction'.

That's exactly what I mean same situation with Combat Reflexes really.

[Curmudgeon]

Full attacks (melee or ranged) never provoke attacks of opportunity.

[Tinydwarfman]

So you place your Tower Shield to provide cover to you and use the cover to hide? Sounds convenient to me, though an enemy might assume that there is a person related to the standing shield. Hiding the cover itself otherwise... Kinda retroproductive... You can't hide something in plain sight, right?

Hiding behind a box of air?

Standing behind something transparent would still mean you are in line of sight, if I am not mistaken...

Hey, if it works for solid snake...

[Bharg]

Hey, if it works for solid snake...

Well, he is hiding inside a cardboard box! Enemies still see the box. It doesn't disappear. And he only can do so while he is not being observed!

Hide says: You can't hide while being observed. That's the problem with glass I guess. You can hide behind it, but people will still see you and you're !.

[lesser_minion]

Full attacks (melee or ranged) never provoke attacks of opportunity.

Wrong. A full attack allows you to make several attack actions. Those are defined under the standard action entry.

As for hiding behind a pane of glass, just distract them. You are now hidden.

[Curmudgeon]

Wrong. A full attack allows you to make several attack actions. Those are defined under the standard action entry.

That's not correct at all. You don't get to make any standard action attacks as part of a full attack action. Plus, the term "attack action" is never defined in the D&D rules.

[lesser_minion]

That's not correct at all. You don't get to make any standard action attacks as part of a full attack action. Plus, the term "attack action" is never defined in the D&D rules.

Attack. Go back and look under the standard actions table.

They don't magically turn into something else because you're making them as part of a full attack.

[NecroticPunch]

So if you can hide behind a pane of glass, or a tower shield, and by hiding behind a tower shield they can not see the tower shield... does that mean that RAW is insane?

[lesser_minion]

So if you can hide behind a pane of glass, or a tower shield, and by hiding behind a tower shield they can not see the tower shield... does that mean that RAW is insane?

No. The writers just forgot that you could gain cover from your equipment and from objects that can be seen through.

[NecroticPunch]

I wonder... what if you were to hide behind a mirror, whenever there is a mirror behind you reflecting your image. Would you get cover still?

[Bharg]

Does glass still block line of effect if it has no hitpoints ergo is less than 30 inch thick?

[Curmudgeon]

Attack. Go back and look under the standard actions table.

Standard actions cannot be used in a full attack. The Actions in Combat table states that full attacks do not provoke attacks of opportunity, and the text does not contradict this. A statement that a standard action ranged attack provokes has no relevance to a full attack.