Dysfunctional Rules IV- It's like a sandwich made of RAW failure!

[ShurikVch]

At least regular bats have no attacks

Half-Troll Bats have Bite (dmg 1)
They will troll you to death!

Spoiler

Show

[Chronos]

An arcane caster must use spells of opposed alignments to call aligned outsiders (for instance, Magic Circle against Good (an Evil spell) and Planar Binding (a Good spell) to call an archon). While it's not strictly prohibited for an arcane caster to cast opposite-alignment spells, it's still rather odd.

[Andezzar]

The odd thing about those spells is that trapping/imprisoning a good outsider is a good spell, instead of the other way around.

[Flickerdart]

The odd thing about those spells is that trapping/imprisoning a good outsider is a good spell, instead of the other way around.

Not that odd. It's [Good] in the same way that a fireball is [Fire] - it uses the appropriate type of magic to the effect it's creating, which in this case is producing a Good outsider.

[Andezzar]

Not that odd. It's [Good] in the same way that a fireball is [Fire] - it uses the appropriate type of magic to the effect it's creating, which in this case is producing a Good outsider.

For planar binding maybe, but magic circle does not call any creature, it merely hinders the movement of a called creature. Imprisonment does not get a descriptor based on the inmate either.

[Flickerdart]

For planar binding maybe, but magic circle does not call any creature, it merely hinders the movement of a called creature. Imprisonment does not get a descriptor based on the inmate either.

Magic Circle Against Good is [Evil] because fighting Good is Evil and the spell helps you specifically fight Good creatures better.

[Andezzar]

Reading fail on my part.

[Kazyan]

Blockade summons a 5' cube of wood in a square. It's very specific about the square having to be empty. It also has a range of 0 ft., so the only valid square to create the block in is your own. Which is not empty.

[bekeleven]

Blockade summons a 5' cube of wood in a square. It's very specific about the square having to be empty. It also has a range of 0 ft., so the only valid square to create the block in is your own. Which is not empty.

Would it work if the caster were incorporeal?

[Curmudgeon]

Blockade summons a 5' cube of wood in a square. It's very specific about the square having to be empty. It also has a range of 0 ft., so the only valid square to create the block in is your own.

Actually, the valid squares to create the block in is any one touching any of your square's grid intersections: 0' from those includes 8 squares surrounding your own. All spell effects originate at grid intersections.

[The Viscount]

Fangs of the vampire king grants you a bite attack dealing a flat 1d6+Str damage that also deals 1 Con. It specifically mentions that you can use it as a secondary natural attack. Ignoring the non-dysfunctional hilarity of this meaning you can grant your diminutive toad a 1d6 bite attack, if you choose to allow, say, a rat gain the bonus, the animal seems to have a full attack of 2 bites, unless a rule somewhere prevents this.

[NeoPhoenix0]

Actually, the valid squares to create the block in is any one touching any of your square's grid intersections: 0' from those includes 8 squares surrounding your own. All spell effects originate at grid intersections.

But those squares are outside the range of the spell, so nothing happens in those squares because a spells effect only takes place within the range of the spell.

[Pickford]

It's an entirely valid reading; "(Creatures without swim speeds) cannot make jumps (out of water)" is a grammatically correct parsing, albeit an incredibly silly one that no one honestly thinks is intended.

To put it another way, "out of" can mean either "leave the (water)" or "(jumps that) take place outside of (the water)." Both meanings result in valid sentences.

Either way, that doesn't actually say that you use swim speed to determine maximum jumping distance out of the water, so the dysfunction stands.

There are no commas and thus no parenthetical expressions as the sentence is written. You are incorrect.

[georgie_leech]

There are no commas and thus no parenthetical expressions as the sentence is written. You are incorrect.

The parentheses are there solely to indicate which adverbs are affecting which words. The important bit is that "cannot make jumps out of water" can be grammatically correct both in the case of "out of" altering "jump" so that it means "to jump such that you leave the water," and in the case of "out of" altering "water," in which case the sentence means "it is impossible to jump unless you are in water." The latter is certainly not intended and is incredibly silly. No one honestly believes the second interpretation is how the game works. That doesn't change whether the second interpretation is grammatically correct.

As an illustration that "grammatically correct" doesn't necessarily coincide with "correct," "Colurless green ideas sleep furiously" is a grammatically correct sentence that is completely nonsensical.

[Pickford]

The parentheses are there solely to indicate which adverbs/adjectives are affecting which words. The important bit is that "cannot make jumps out of water" can be grammatically correct both in the case of "out of" altering "jump" so that it means "to jump such that you leave the water," and in the case of "out of" altering "water," in which case the sentence means "it is impossible to jump unless you are in water." The latter is certainly not intended and is incredibly silly. No one honestly believes the second interpretation is how the game works. That doesn't change whether the second interpretation is grammatically correct.

As an illustration that "grammatically correct" doesn't necessarily coincide with "correct," "Colurless green ideas sleep furiously" is a grammatically correct sentence that is completely nonsensical.

Out of isn't an adjective, you are incorrect.

[georgie_leech]

Out of isn't an adjective, you are incorrect.

Indeed. I'll be editing my post to reflect that correction. Much obliged. Any other quibbles?

[Pickford]

Indeed. I'll be editing my post to reflect that correction. Much obliged. Any other quibbles?

Yes, could you stop torturing the English language and have the good grace to admit when you (or someone else) were incorrect about the scope of the rules? (For example: Oh yes, there are rules about jumping out of water, sorry!)

[georgie_leech]

Yes, could you stop torturing the English language and have the good grace to admit when you (or someone else) were incorrect about the scope of the rules? (For example: Oh yes, there are rules about jumping out of water, sorry!)

No one is arguing that. I'm objecting to you arguing about something said in "Silly" tags (clearly communicating he is being silly, as in joking) and doing so from an incorrect position (the silly interpretation is in fact grammatically correct)

EDIT: The Dysfunction is that the rule only says a Swim Speed is necessary to jump out of water, not that the Swim Speed is the maximum speed in that circumstance. Produce text that the Swim speed is listed as limiting the speed of said jumps out of water, and then you'll be correct on whether the rules indicate which speed to use when determining the maximum distance of jumps.

[Andvare]

Yes, could you stop torturing the English language and have the good grace to admit when you (or someone else) were incorrect about the scope of the rules? (For example: Oh yes, there are rules about jumping out of water, sorry!)

That is quite funny, coming from you.

[Cybris75]

A new(?) dysfunction: Mrs. Commoner 1 slaps her husband, Mr. Expert 1, in the face. She only has a 35% chance to hit him (AC 10, BAB0, -4 for not being proficient with her weapon).
If she is used to hitting people with her hands, she hits him 40% of the time (Weapon Focus: Unarmed Strike).
But unless she is an expert in unarmed combat, he can hit her first (Improved Unarmed Strike). Unless he is surprised that she hits him because she found out he cheated on her...

[Big Fau]

Fangs of the vampire king grants you a bite attack dealing a flat 1d6+Str damage that also deals 1 Con. It specifically mentions that you can use it as a secondary natural attack. Ignoring the non-dysfunctional hilarity of this meaning you can grant your diminutive toad a 1d6 bite attack, if you choose to allow, say, a rat gain the bonus, the animal seems to have a full attack of 2 bites, unless a rule somewhere prevents this.

Multiple natural weapons of the same type overlap.

[Andezzar]

A new(?) dysfunction: Mrs. Commoner 1 slaps her husband, Mr. Expert 1, in the face. She only has a 35% chance to hit him (AC 10, BAB0, -4 for not being proficient with her weapon).
If she is used to hitting people with her hands, she hits him 40% of the time (Weapon Focus: Unarmed Strike).
But unless she is an expert in unarmed combat, he can hit her first (Improved Unarmed Strike). Unless he is surprised that she hits him because she found out he cheated on her...

I really don't get what you are trying to say.
Mrs Commoner is proficient with one simple weapon. This could be the rolling pin (club) or the unarmed strike. If she is proficient with the weapon she uses she has a 55% chance of hitting. Mr Expert can always hit her with a 55% chance because he is proficient with all simple weapons. This includes Unarmed Strike. The expert does not get Improved Unarmed Strike, an thus does not threaten Mrs Commoner, unless he purchases that feat (which Mrs Commoner could do just as well).
I see no dysfunction here

[Cybris75]

I really don't get what you are trying to say.
Mrs Commoner is proficient with one simple weapon. This could be the rolling pin (club) or the unarmed strike. If she is proficient with the weapon she uses she has a 55% chance of hitting. Mr Expert can always hit her with a 55% chance because he is proficient with all simple weapons. This includes Unarmed Strike. The expert does not get Improved Unarmed Strike, an thus does not threaten Mrs Commoner, unless he purchases that feat (which Mrs Commoner could do just as well).
I see no dysfunction here

Oh, you're right about the proficiency, I didn't remember that. I also misremembered the not-threatening part (sorry, was waiting for my meal to finish cooking - not enough bloodsugar).

But still, the low percentages seem like a dysfunction to me. Why would she ever miss in the first place, unless she was really clumsy?

[Big Fau]

But still, the low percentages seem like a dysfunction to me. Why would she ever miss in the first place, unless she was really clumsy?

Because he dodged. That's one thing AC is supposed to represent; even without a Dex modifier you can still avoid attacks.

The real dysfunction is that, when trying to slap her husband awake, she has a 5% chance of knocking him right back out.

[Cybris75]

Because he dodged. That's one thing AC is supposed to represent; even without a Dex modifier you can still avoid attacks.

If she initiates combat and wins initiative then he is flatfooted. Does that still account for dodging? Hm, I guess if he was not moving at all he would have AC 5, which makes her chances of hitting him better, but still not quasi-automatic.

The real dysfunction is that, when trying to slap her husband awake, she has a 5% chance of knocking him right back out.

Hehe, true, if he is helpless I guess the crit confirms automatically. But I would think that she wouldn't inflict normal damage, because she wouldn't be using her full possible strength for that.

[Andezzar]

Because he dodged. That's one thing AC is supposed to represent; even without a Dex modifier you can still avoid attacks.

The real dysfunction is that, when trying to slap her husband awake, she has a 5% chance of knocking him right back out.

If you are slapping someone awake in the same way as attacking to kill/disable then you are doing it wrong. Slapping someone awake is not combat.

The dysfunction is that an alert spouse is exactly as easy to hit as a flat-footed one.

[Fax Celestis]

The second bolded segment shows that the 1.5x strength modifier only applies when the weapon is NOT used with TWF. Hope that clears this up.

That would be a damage penalty, not an attack penalty.

[Pickford]

No one is arguing that. I'm objecting to you arguing about something said in "Silly" tags (clearly communicating he is being silly, as in joking) and doing so from an incorrect position (the silly interpretation is in fact grammatically correct)

EDIT: The Dysfunction is that the rule only says a Swim Speed is necessary to jump out of water, not that the Swim Speed is the maximum speed in that circumstance. Produce text that the Swim speed is listed as limiting the speed of said jumps out of water, and then you'll be correct on whether the rules indicate which speed to use when determining the maximum distance of jumps.

If you don't have a swim speed, you have to make a swim check to move through water. According to the PHB you move at 1/2 your speed (full-round action) or 1/4 (move action)

So, as a full-round action, you could (Absent the rules in Stormwrack) take a full-round action (assuming the swim check passed) to move 1/2 speed (15' or 10' for most creatures) and then jump...unfortunately your reduced speed puts in a -6 penalty on the 15' and -12 on the 10' speed guy) and because they can't (in a single round mind) go 20' prior to the jump, they suffer a double DC penalty on top of that. So getting 1 foot above water (assuming vertical reach is the top of the water) would be DC 4 x 2 (8) + 16 or 22.

[georgie_leech]

If you don't have a swim speed, you have to make a swim check to move through water. According to the PHB you move at 1/2 your speed (full-round action) or 1/4 (move action)

So, as a full-round action, you could (Absent the rules in Stormwrack) take a full-round action (assuming the swim check passed) to move 1/2 speed (15' or 10' for most creatures) and then jump...unfortunately your reduced speed puts in a -6 penalty on the 15' and -12 on the 10' speed guy) and because they can't (in a single round mind) go 20' prior to the jump, they suffer a double DC penalty on top of that. So getting 1 foot above water (assuming vertical reach is the top of the water) would be DC 4 x 2 (8) + 16 or 22.

...Okay, you found text "limiting" the maximum distance in that there are large penalties. That doesn't actually address the dysfunction being discussed, where it doesn't say which speed to use to determine the maximum distance it's possible to jump in a single round.

[Pickford]

...Okay, you found text "limiting" the maximum distance in that there are large penalties. That doesn't actually address the dysfunction being discussed, where it doesn't say which speed to use to determine the maximum distance it's possible to jump in a single round.

It depends entirely on which speed you're using. If you have a swim speed, you use that (and no swim check is required), if you don't you have to make the check and the limit is 1/2 your land speed.