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

[georgie_leech]

This is the rules text on trial here. To me the words voluntary and willingly imply that a creature must have intelligence to use them. It doesn't seem to imply anything about mindless creatures spontaneously having the mind to forego a saving throw or special resistance.

It could arise if an Ooze commanded by Oozepuppet was forced to lower its immunity. While it says it performs to the best of its ability, I can't find anything suggesting that mindless creatures are incapable of lowering said immunity (likewise, I can't find any text actually saying that immunity to mind affecting can be lowered at all, but this is assuming it is.) so much as the interpretation as they lack the decision making power to make said choice at all. In other words, it should be possible to force a mindless creature to lower this immunity, if it is in fact an immunity that can be lowered.

[NeoPhoenix0]

It could arise if an Ooze commanded by Oozepuppet was forced to lower its immunity. While it says it performs to the best of its ability, I can't find anything suggesting that mindless creatures are incapable of lowering said immunity (likewise, I can't find any text actually saying that immunity to mind affecting can be lowered at all, but this is assuming it is.) so much as the interpretation as they lack the decision making power to make said choice at all. In other words, it should be possible to force a mindless creature to lower this immunity, if it is in fact an immunity that can be lowered.

Yes, as long as the method you are using to force it to drop the immunity can actually affect, like I suppose this oozepuppet could for oozes. This doesn't seem dysfunctional at all, since someone intelligent is making the choice for them.

[Big Fau]

One final rehash of the old Monk Proficiency debate, taken from this article:

Unarmed Strikes and Natural Weaponry

Before we move on, it's worth pointing out that a character making an unarmed attack, even with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, does not have natural weapons. Nor is a natural weapon a substitute for the Improved Unarmed Strike feat.

As such, they are de facto Simple weapons due to their listing in the PHB. Monks truly are not proficient with their unarmed strikes. Every sample Monk character that uses Unarmed Strikes in ANY WotC-published book is incorrect, as they do not apply the -4 penalty to Unarmed Strikes.

Edit: Even more dysfunction, that quote means you cannot combine Unarmed Strikes and Natural Weapons because your natural weapons don't exist while you are using an Unarmed Strike attack. Way to murder the Monk, Skip.

[Andezzar]

The "Rules of the Game" articles are not RAW. They are a collection of musings and houserules by Skip Williams that only occasionally are marked as such.

[Big Fau]

The "Rules of the Game" articles are not RAW. They are a collection of musings and houserules by Skip Williams that only occasionally are marked as such.

Got proof? I can understand disagreing with those articles on certain subjects, but it is a WotC-published/approved article that provides clarification on the rules of the game.

[Scow2]

Also, it's disingenuous to interpret the rule that way. Unarmed strikes are not ANY kind of weapon, though they count as Simple weapons to have a place on the table (3.0 had them in their own spot - unarmed strike) to list damage, but the Combat rules make it clear they are not an actual weapon: They are a "Special Attack", like Bull Rush, Trip, Grapple, Disarm, and Overrun. The RAWtard ruling would be "You take the nonproficiency penalty if you attack with an Unarmed Strike, but not if you use your attack to make an unarmed strike"

That Rules of the Game article doesn't mean a character making an unarmed strike lacks all Natural Weapons it would otherwise have - it's merely clarifying that Natural Weapons are not considered natural weapons, and having an Unarmed Strike doesn't give you a natural weapon. Magic Fang treats Unarmed Strikes as a natural weapon, but that's an exception to the rule. It does imply that natural weapons replace the ability to make unarmed strikes, though.

[Andezzar]

Got proof? I can understand disagreing with those articles on certain subjects, but it is a WotC-published/approved article that provides clarification on the rules of the game.

They are WotC-published articles but they are neither rule books nor errata. As such they cannot change rules or introduce new ones.

That Rules of the Game article doesn't mean a character making an unarmed strike lacks all Natural Weapons it would otherwise have - it's merely clarifying that Natural Weapons are not considered natural weapons, and having an Unarmed Strike doesn't give you a natural weapon. Magic Fang treats Unarmed Strikes as a natural weapon, but that's an exception to the rule. It does imply that natural weapons replace the ability to make unarmed strikes, though.

Magic Fang has no additional rules for Unarmed Strikes. If an unarmed strike weren't a natural weapon, this spell would not affect it.

[Chronos]

I would argue that "mindless" isn't an ability, per se, but rather just a description of the consequences of not having an Int score, in the same way that immunity to most Fort-save effects is a consequence of not having a Con score. So neither can be suppressed unless you can gain the appropriate score.

[NeoPhoenix0]

First, I'm on the side that the Rules of the games articles are not RAW. Even if they were they have to defer to primary sources, because they make no claim otherwise.

There are some spell descriptions that name unarmed strike as a natural weapon. Other locations in the PHB describe unarmed strikes as making an attack without a weapon. The only places that define what type of weapon an unarmed strike is in the PHB is the spell descriptions. one such spell description is Align Weapon.

I have no idea what being a natural weapon would do for proficiency, because I have never found a general rule for natural weapons. Only that monsters are proficient with weapons listed in their monster entries, and almost every source of natural weapons outside of monster entries seems say you are proficient with them. Unless their is a general rule, I'd have to say monks aren't proficient with them anyway.

Please point out to me a general rule on natural weapons if I have missed it.

[FullStop]

...you cannot dominate a chair...

Tell that to the loveseat I have tied up and gagged in my basement.

[bekeleven]

On the bright side, the willingly lowering immunity clause resolves the dysfunctionalily with Sympathy/Antipathy mentioning Vampires as a valid target.

Sure, it will only affect vampires that choose specifically to let it affect them, but it IS valid!

[georgie_leech]

Charm Person, if cast on someone who is either already Helpful or Fanatic, will actually cause the target to like you less as the target is treated as Friendly, no qualifiers.

[mattie_p]

Charm Person, if cast on someone who is either already Helpful or Fanatic, will actually cause the target to like you less as the target is treated as Friendly, no qualifiers.

If the target is already helpful or fanatic, why would you waste a spell slot on casting the spell? It's an idiot tax for the caster, if you ask me, and not a dysfunction.

[georgie_leech]

If the target is already helpful or fanatic, why would you waste a spell slot on casting the spell? It's an idiot tax for the caster, if you ask me, and not a dysfunction.

Maybe the local religious leaders are concerned about a rapidly growing cult and the Wizard doesn't want their followers to be quite so enthusiastic for a day. I don't know. The point is that there are circumstances where the spell functions presumably not as intended, like how Darkness can actually raise the level of illumination under certain circumstances. It's a much less likely circumstance sure, but it still seems like a dysfunction that the spell cast to make people like you can actually make them like you less.

[NeoPhoenix0]

The fanatic stalker that you didn't know existed until now just became friendly. They lose fanatical interest in you for the duration of the spell. They also lose track of you as you run far away before the spell wears off.

Maybe it can be used as a feature?

seriously, I intended that to be funnier, but it took a turn towards the useful at the end.

Edit: Could be useful for sorcerers and their raving fan-girls or flirtatious fan-boys.

[nedz]

It could also be useful for stacking.

Take a Bard. Say he had used his music to fascinate and then hold someone under a suggestion. Stacking a Charm would make them still friendly after they have completed the suggested task.

[Scow2]

It would seem that Drowning, Darkness, and Charm spells all have "Set to" instead of "raise/lower to" issues.

[georgie_leech]

It would seem that Drowning, Darkness, and Charm spells all have "Set to" instead of "raise/lower to" issues.

Charm is "treated as" actually, explaining what happens after the duration (no longer being treated as Friendly).

[Chambers]

Charm Person, if cast on someone who is either already Helpful or Fanatic, will actually cause the target to like you less as the target is treated as Friendly, no qualifiers.

This is my new favorite Dysfunction as I think of the unusual beneficial uses it may have.

[Story]

If you're a spellcaster, you automatically know when you're threatened by someone with the Mage Slayer feat, even if they're invisible.

[TuggyNE]

If you're a spellcaster, you automatically know when you're threatened by someone with the Mage Slayer feat, even if they're invisible.

"Fellow adventurers, I feel a sudden sensation of dread and inability to cast spells unthreatened. Perchance there be some ambush sprung?"

[The Viscount]

Rage Mage, like Bladesinger, can quicken a spell without adjusting the spells level or casting time.

[Andezzar]

Rage Mage, like Bladesinger, can quicken a spell without adjusting the spells level or casting time.

Where is the dysfunction? It is a class feature.

[Fax Celestis]

Where is the dysfunction? It is a class feature.

Let's go over this again.

Rage Mage [...] can quicken a spell without adjusting the spells [...] casting time.

[Karnith]

Where is the dysfunction? It is a class feature.

You quicken the spell, but per the class ability you do so without adjusting the casting time. So, no effect.

EDIT: Swordsage'd

[Chambers]

Rage Mage, like Bladesinger, can quicken a spell without adjusting the spells level or casting time.

That's wonderful. I wonder if there's any possible beneficial interaction with Arcane Spellsurge.

[nedz]

You quicken the spell, but per the class ability you do so without adjusting the casting time. So, no effect.

Actually it's a little stranger than that:

... a rage mage can quicken one spell of 4th level or lower (as if she had used the Quicken Spell feat), but without adjusting the spell's level or casting time. She may use this ability once during each rage.

Quicken Spell [Metamagic]
Casting a quickened spell is an swift action.

So it's a Swift Action which takes a Std Action.
So some unhelpful Time Dilation too.
Also it consumes your Swift action for the round.

[TuggyNE]

Rage Mage, like Bladesinger, can quicken a spell without adjusting the spells level or casting time.

It's not hard to figure out what they meant, but boy howdy, did they ever not say it right.

[The Viscount]

Indeed. That one's simple enough to fix. On the subject of something not so simple, what happens when an Ur-Priest casts miracle? It's supposed to be a petition to your deity for aid, but that doesn't really work here.

[Story]

That's a problem of fluff, not RAW. And you might as well ask what happens when a Cleric of an ideal, or an Archivist, or even a Wyrm Wizard casts Miracle.