Dysfunctional Rules III: 100% Rules-Legal, 110% Silly

[TuggyNE]

This is the third Dysfunctional Rules Collection. Previous editions include Firechanter's and Nedz's.

There is also a Handbook, or index as the case may be.

Gentlemen, dys your functions!

[The Viscount]

Let's start it off then. Razorclaw trait gives 2 claw attacks to Shifters. It allows you to make a single claw attack if your other hand is grasping a weapon, but all attacks made in that round take a -2 penalty. This bizarre flurry-like ability doesn't really make sense. In addition, the penalty is only tripped if the shifter is wielding a weapon in his primary hand, if you want to read it that closely.

[noparlpf]

Let's start it off then. Razorclaw trait gives 2 claw attacks to Shifters. It allows you to make a single claw attack if your other hand is grasping a weapon, but all attacks made in that round take a -2 penalty. This bizarre flurry-like ability doesn't really make sense. In addition, the penalty is only tripped if the shifter is wielding a weapon in his primary hand, if you want to read it that closely.

Seems like they should just run it by TWF rules instead. Also, is there even a definition of which hand is primary when you're using a weapon and a natural weapon simultaneously?

[Sith_Happens]

Hey tuggyne, how come your hyperlinks don't open in a new tab like everyone else's?

[noparlpf]

Hey tuggyne, how come your hyperlinks don't open in a new tab like everyone else's?

That's a browser thing, not an attribute of the link itself.

Edit: ...isn't it?

Edit: Weird. Some links on here open new tabs and some don't. I'm super-confused.

[Zombulian]

Hey tuggyne, how come your hyperlinks don't open in a new tab like everyone else's?

*checks* that is weird. Huh.

[TuggyNE]

Hey tuggyne, how come your hyperlinks don't open in a new tab like everyone else's?

Because I'm awesome.

---

1
Also, because I used the [post=][/post] and [thread=][/thread] tags, rather than [url=""][/url] tags. If you're curious, GitP's vBCode parser sticks an extra target="_blank" attribute on the generated HTML of the latter, but not either of the former. Presumably because off-site URLs are supposed to be separated?

[The Viscount]

Seems like they should just run it by TWF rules instead. Also, is there even a definition of which hand is primary when you're using a weapon and a natural weapon simultaneously?

When using a weapon and a natural attack, the weapon is always primary.

[noparlpf]

When using a weapon and a natural attack, the weapon is always primary.

Thought so. Human-centric idea that weapons dominate.

[TuggyNE]

Thought so. Human-centric idea that weapons dominate.

It's weaponism, is what it is. There oughta be a law!

[mattie_p]

Cross post from previous thread:

Where do you get that? Everyone next to the DN becomes shaken. There is no mention when this condition is removed or that it only applies as long as the opponents remain there. So it lasts forever by RAW.

Your question calls to mind the movie "A Few Good Men". Paraphrased:

In it, the prosecution makes the claim that 'code reds' simply don't exist because they aren't in the manual of regulations.

The defense immediately gets up and asks the witness to show them where in the manual the mess hall is. The corporal balks, confused by the question as the location of the mess hall would never be in the manual of regulations.

The defense asks: Do you mean to tell me, you've never had a meal on base?

The witness replies: No sir, three square meals a day.

The defense asks: So how do you know where to eat, if it isn't in this manual?

The witness replies: I guess I just follow the crowd at lunch time.


Now, this is all a round about way of saying: The aura can't continue to effect the target if the target isn't in the aura unless the aura 'says' that. It doesn't say it lasts while the target isn't in the aura, so it doesn't.

Pickford, if a mage casts a debuff spell (ray of enfeeblement, for example), and then planeshifts, does the spell still affect the target? Remember the wizard no longer has line of effect to the target.

Of course the spell lasts! The initiation of the effect lasts per the description of the effect, it doesn't matter that the character who created the effect is no longer around. The spell lasts per the duration in the spell description.

We rely upon the text of the rules in order for us to play the game. If there is not a rule that adequately describes the effect, there is a dysfunction. What if Ray of Enfeeblement had no duration listed? That would be a dysfunction. You may assume that the spell lasts as long as the target is within range, but there is no way to ensure that is valid. Other DMs might assume other rules.

The rules provide a common baseline for us to play the game. Whenever there is room for interpretation, or there is a contradiction within the rules, a dysfunction exists. "Common sense" does not come in to play (what is common for you might be uncommon for me, and vice versa), especially in a game where magic is prevalent. Magical effects break all common sense in the rational world we live in.

The game designers surely had a duration in mind for this effect, it just never got into the rulebook.

[TuggyNE]

Pickford, if a mage casts a debuff spell (ray of enfeeblement, for example), and then planeshifts, does the spell still affect the target? Remember the wizard no longer has line of effect to the target.

I'd also like to note that, unlike most aura effects, this requires an action (a free action) to activate. It's not necessarily on all the time, and if the DN is prevented from acting on their turn, they can't trigger it.

So it's possible to have a creature that was affected by the Fear Aura on one round and remains adjacent to the DN, and another creature that was not within range at the time, but is now adjacent, and a paralyzed DN. What happens, and why?

[Nettlekid]

This has probably been mentioned many times before but I find it hilarious. Technically, I guess as a result of omission, trees are immune to Disintegrate. It can target creatures and nonliving matter. Trees are neither of those things.

[Zombulian]

This has probably been mentioned many times before but I find it hilarious. Technically, I guess as a result of omission, trees are immune to Disintegrate. It can target creatures and nonliving matter. Trees are neither of those things.

Wha... How... *slow clap*

[Lady Serpentine]

The rules provide a common baseline for us to play the game. Whenever there is room for interpretation, or there is a contradiction within the rules, a dysfunction exists.

To be fair, sometimes that can be intentional. For instance, almost all conditional modifiers require this to some extent; what constitutes a swamp, for instance, and what sort of terrain modifiers are appropriate?

PF dysfunction: The Bag of Holding states that if a living creature is placed inside it, then it suffocates in ten minutes. Besides the fact that not only does this ignore the fact that the interior of various grades of bag differ in size quite drastically, it also makes no allowance for creature size, or the number of creatures inside.

It also contradicts the Bottle of Air, as no mention is made of exceptions if one has such an item.

[Jeff the Green]

PF dysfunction: The Bag of Holding states that if a living creature is placed inside it, then it suffocates in ten minutes. Besides the fact that not only does this ignore the fact that the interior of various grades of bag differ in size quite drastically, it also makes no allowance for creature size, or the number of creatures inside.

It also contradicts the Bottle of Air, as no mention is made of exceptions if one has such an item.

Also dysfunctional is that you can put a fish in and it doesn't start to suffocate for 10 minutes, while if you fill it with water and then stick the fish in, it still suffocates in 10 minutes.

[Flickerdart]

This has probably been mentioned many times before but I find it hilarious. Technically, I guess as a result of omission, trees are immune to Disintegrate. It can target creatures and nonliving matter. Trees are neither of those things.

I think it's been mentioned, but it hasn't stopped being funny yet.

[TypoNinja]

I think it's been mentioned, but it hasn't stopped being funny yet.

Technically not a dysfunction, just because D&D has its own dictionary.

The definitions are such that everything in D&D is either a Creature or an Object, there is no "other".

A tree as a "living being" qualifies as a Creature under D&D terms.

[Mystify]

Technically not a dysfunction, just because D&D has its own dictionary.

The definitions are such that everything in D&D is either a Creature or an Object, there is no "other".

A tree as a "living being" qualifies as a Creature under D&D terms.

When used against an object, the ray simply disintegrates as much as one 10-foot cube of nonliving matter.

the tree may be an object, but since it is not non-living matter, there is nothing for it to disintegrate

edit: nevermind this, I misread what your objection was.

[TuggyNE]

Technically not a dysfunction, just because D&D has its own dictionary.

The definitions are such that everything in D&D is either a Creature or an Object, there is no "other".

A tree as a "living being" qualifies as a Creature under D&D terms.

No it very definitely doesn't. Trees have no Cha or Wis scores, which is explicitly defined as the differentiation; not all creatures are living, and not all living things are creatures. However, the writer of disintegrate was apparently not fully aware of this, and assumed that there weren't any living objects for some reason.

[Gnome Alone]

Hey tuggyne, how come your hyperlinks don't open in a new tab like everyone else's?

He's a witch!

[TuggyNE]

He's a witch!

Even if I turned you into a newt, which I do not at all confess to, surely you got better?

[TypoNinja]

No it very definitely doesn't. Trees have no Cha or Wis scores, which is explicitly defined as the differentiation; not all creatures are living, and not all living things are creatures. However, the writer of disintegrate was apparently not fully aware of this, and assumed that there weren't any living objects for some reason.

Not to not nitpick, but where is that defined?

The only definition I know of is in the back of the PHB, and it says a creature is

A living or otherwise active being, not an object.

If its alive, its a "Creature". Sentience isn't the benchmark, or we leave out the Plant and Animal Types, and of course 'otherwise active' covers the constructs and undead.

[TuggyNE]

Not to not nitpick, but where is that defined?

In the description of nonabilities.

[TypoNinja]

In the description of nonabilities.

Cool, but I don't see where we establish that a Mundane tree lacks a Wis or Cha score. I don't know of a way to settle it by RAW, since I don't know of anywhere a Tree gets statted out, however, it is known that plants have the traits associated with a Wis and Cha score.

Plants have awareness of their surroundings, some even have drastic reactions to changes, like rolling up disturbed leaves, releasing a chemical to paralyze insects eating it, ect. Just about all of them will simply grow towards the light.

They can also tell the difference between themselves and other things, as they possess a functioning immune system.

Clearly these stats won't be high (I'm thinking 1's maybe 2's or 3's for the carnivorous plants), but I don't think they are non-abilities.

[Sgt. Cookie]

According to the Plant type:

"Note that regular plants, such as one finds growing in gardens and fields, lack Wisdom and Charisma scores (see Nonabilities) and are not creatures, but objects, even though they are alive."


So, yeah. Trees are objects, but alive.

[Necroticplague]

Cool, but I don't see where we establish that a Mundane tree lacks a Wis or Cha score. I don't know of a way to settle it by RAW, since I don't know of anywhere a Tree gets statted out, however, it is known that plants have the traits associated with a Wis and Cha score.

Plants have awareness of their surroundings, some even have drastic reactions to changes, like rolling up disturbed leaves, releasing a chemical to paralyze insects eating it, ect. Just about all of them will simply grow towards the light.

They can also tell the difference between themselves and other things, as they possess a functioning immune system.

Clearly these stats won't be high (I'm thinking 1's maybe 2's or 3's for the carnivorous plants), but I don't think they are non-abilities.

They don't have a wisdom score because while they may have crude senses, they don't have perceptions. They don't process information given to them, they merely react due to complicated chemical reactions that take place as a result of stimulus. You can tell this because they react the exact same way, even if it is disadvantageous to them, because its just a reflex, no actual thinking involve. In addition, their immune system is simply"release toxins" as a reaction to getting hurt,no need for actually knowing a disease is their required.

In addition, there is a precedence for treating trees as object, due to several places where wood is mentioned have is have a hardness score and break according to the rules for breaking objects. So logically, if wood has a hardness, then so to must trees (given how they're made out of wood). Since creatures don't have hardness scores (that's what DR's for), then trees must be objects, since they have a hardness.

[Lady Serpentine]

Doesn't bone also have a Hardness, though?

(Of course, that might be another dysfunction on its own, given that argument...)

[TuggyNE]

Thanks, Sgt. Cookie, I'd forgotten about the Plant type entry, though I know it shaped my ideas on this.

In addition, there is a precedence for treating trees as object, due to several places where wood is mentioned have is have a hardness score and break according to the rules for breaking objects. So logically, if wood has a hardness, then so to must trees (given how they're made out of wood). Since creatures don't have hardness scores (that's what DR's for), then trees must be objects, since they have a hardness.

Well, most creatures don't have hardness. Psicrystals do, though, as well as animated objects, and maybe a few other constructs. They're special cases, of course, since they're even closer to being objects than is usual.

Doesn't bone also have a Hardness, though?

(Of course, that might be another dysfunction on its own, given that argument...)

Most objects have hardness, yes. There's no particular dysfunction involved with that that I can see.

[Lady Serpentine]

Most objects have hardness, yes. There's no particular dysfunction involved with that that I can see.

Eh, it was mostly just extending the 'trees should be objects because they have hardness; they have hardness because wood does' argument to Skeletons. I don't think it's an actual dysfunction, but it could have been, in that very specific case.