Dysfunctional Rules VII: Mordenkainen's Dysfunction

[Venger]

Improved Uncanny Dodge and Sneak Attack interact in all sorts of horrendous ways.

Firstly: Assassin grants Improved Uncanny Dodge, and mentions it can be overcome if " rogue at least four levels higher than the assassin can flank him." Is this four more rogue levels than the assassin has rogue levels? Is this four more rogue levels than the assassin has assassin levels? Is it four more rogue levels than the assassin has character levels? If the first, non-rogue Assassins are in a bind, and if the second they're going to be overcome quite a lot.

Secondly: There are classes that are not rogue, but grant sneak attack, such as binder, savant, factotum, spellthief, swordsage, and a long list of prcs (ones like Blackguard that grant, not progress). None of these classes have effective rogue levels, so are powerless against IUD

Thirdly: On a not really dysfunctional note, no classes stack with rogue for the purposes of overcoming Improved Uncanny Dodge, so the ability is made quite stronger in practical play if anyone decides to Prc (as many will). Even Assassin, a DMG class, doesn't address this problem.

wait that's...

oh man that's all a mess.

cunning strike actually gives factotum an effective rogue level of his class level, and explicitly includes checking for IUD penetration, but everything else you said is accurate.

EDIT: upon actually checking factotum, it says it's for overcoming "uncanny dodge" which is not a thing, wrongly conflating it with improved uncanny dodge. how far down does this rabbit hole go?

[Gemini476]

So I guess this is one of those weird hidden benefits to being a Rogue, like being able to find and disable the Symbol of X spells?

[Venger]

So I guess this is one of those weird hidden benefits to being a Rogue, like being able to find and disable the Symbol of X spells?

It looks like it. Still not much consolation for Being a straight rogue though

[Vrock_Summoner]

Well, I didn't see this one in the Handbook, so if it's already been said, I apologize... But the Druid spell Antipathy appears to, by RAW, permanently cut by 4 the Dexterity of anyone who passes its Will save. It says it simply reduces their Dexterity, without mentioning their Dexterity going back up when the spell expires or if they go out of the range.

[Jormengand]

Well, I didn't see this one in the Handbook, so if it's already been said, I apologize... But the Druid spell Antipathy appears to, by RAW, permanently cut by 4 the Dexterity of anyone who passes its Will save. It says it simply reduces their Dexterity, without mentioning their Dexterity going back up when the spell expires or if they go out of the range.

A creature that makes a successful saving throw can stay in the area or touch the item but feels uncomfortable doing so. This distracting discomfort reduces the creature’s Dexterity score by 4 points.

They only lose the 4 dexterity while uncomfortable, and they're only uncomfortable while in the area. Either way, the effects of the spell end with the spell, except in odd cases like fly, otherwise Animal's Ability Score spells would be hilarious.

[Story]

If you have a Strength less than 10, you're better off wielding melee weapons off-hand to halve the strength penalty to damage.

[Bucky]

(Pf)

Eaglesoul spell - Switching from passive (hr/lvl) to active (rounds/lvl) mode, when attacking an evil Outsider, is both automatic and a free action. In the case of an Attack of Opportunity, the caster might be both required and unable to switch modes.

[No brains]

If you have a Strength less than 10, you're better off wielding melee weapons off-hand to halve the strength penalty to damage.

Are you sure that works that way? The bonus/penalty distinction might keep that from working. Although it is odd that there is a 'floor' of offhand non-proficiency and that its only ever a problem the amazingly strong have.

[Jormengand]

PHB 314 defines an unarmed attack as one made "With no weapon in hand." This means attacks with boot blades, spiked armour, and so forth are unarmed strikes, unless you're holding a weapon in your hands.

[bekeleven]

Are you sure that works that way? The bonus/penalty distinction might keep that from working. Although it is odd that there is a 'floor' of offhand non-proficiency and that its only ever a problem the amazingly strong have.

You're correct. You apply 1x your strength penalty to damage rolls except in exceptional circumstances.

I can find a few relevant passages here.

[Apply strength to] Damage rolls when using a melee weapon or a thrown weapon (including a sling). (Exceptions: Off-hand attacks receive only one-half the character’s Strength bonus, while two-handed attacks receive one and a half times the Strength bonus. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies to attacks made with a bow that is not a composite bow.)

The wielder applies his or her Strength modifier to damage dealt by thrown weapons (except for splash weapons).

Light crossbows, slings, heavy crossbows, shortbows, composite shortbows, longbows, composite longbows, hand crossbows, and repeating crossbows are projectile weapons. Most projectile weapons require two hands to use (see specific weapon descriptions). A character gets no Strength bonus on damage rolls with a projectile weapon unless it’s a specially built composite shortbow, specially built composite longbow, or sling. If the character has a penalty for low Strength, apply it to damage rolls when he or she uses a bow or a sling.

This all shakes out without dysfunction assuming crossbows are not bows, despite the second half of them being "bow".

[Gemini476]

This all shakes out without dysfunction assuming crossbows are not bows, despite the second half of them being "bow".

No problem there. Crossbows have some rather distinct differences from bows. If names worked that way, guinea pigs and sea cows and sea cucumbers would be quite different.

Also, applying the strength penalty to crossbow damage would be weird. Bows I can understand since we're talking about draw strength and whatnot, but crossbows?

[Jormengand]

Also, applying the strength penalty to crossbow damage would be weird. Bows I can understand since we're talking about draw strength and whatnot, but crossbows?

I dunno, applying a strength bonus/penalty to a gastraphetes would make sense. You'd just have to have different notches for the string for different strengths.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

PHB 314 defines an unarmed attack as one made "With no weapon in hand." This means attacks with boot blades, spiked armour, and so forth are unarmed strikes, unless you're holding a weapon in your hands.

And, from the same thread, crafting a gauntlet is problematic, because there's no listed DC for crafting a simple weapon that isn't light melee or thrown, one-handed melee or thrown or two-handed melee or thrown, and the gauntlet is listed as an unarmed attack rather than any of those.

[Troacctid]

And, from the same thread, crafting a gauntlet is problematic, because there's no listed DC for crafting a simple weapon that isn't light melee or thrown, one-handed melee or thrown or two-handed melee or thrown, and the gauntlet is listed as an unarmed attack rather than any of those.

I believe that's because they're considered part of a suit of armor. (Like, they also don't list a craft DC for just the greaves or the gorget.)

[grarrrg]

Improved Uncanny Dodge and Sneak Attack interact in all sorts of horrendous ways.

Firstly: Assassin grants Improved Uncanny Dodge, and mentions it can be overcome if " rogue at least four levels higher than the assassin can flank him." Is this four more rogue levels than the assassin has rogue levels? Is this four more rogue levels than the assassin has assassin levels?

This is covered by the next bit:
"If a character gains uncanny dodge (see above) from a second class the character automatically gains improved uncanny dodge, and the levels from those classes stack to determine the minimum rogue level required to flank the character."

Can't help/hurt you with the rest.

If you have a Strength less than 10, you're better off wielding melee weapons off-hand to halve the strength penalty to damage.

Bonuses/penalties inherently work differently. Quickest example is that Bonuses by default do NOT necessarily stack, while Penalties by default DO always stack.
The line in the rules is:
"When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only ½ your Strength bonus."
It says 1/2 Bonus, not 1/2 Score-Modifier, and nothing about penalties, so penalties would be unaffected.

[No brains]

And, from the same thread, crafting a gauntlet is problematic, because there's no listed DC for crafting a simple weapon that isn't light melee or thrown, one-handed melee or thrown or two-handed melee or thrown, and the gauntlet is listed as an unarmed attack rather than any of those.

While not D&D by a long shot (but loosely based off of a rival tabletop system), Dragonrealms has a shop where one may buy a 'gauntlet'. This item is not armor that can be worn on the hand, but it is a light bludgeoning weapon. Maybe someone really loved the idea of glove-slapping someone (to death)?

[Story]

Bonuses/penalties inherently work differently. Quickest example is that Bonuses by default do NOT necessarily stack, while Penalties by default DO always stack.
The line in the rules is:
"When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only ½ your Strength bonus."
It says 1/2 Bonus, not 1/2 Score-Modifier, and nothing about penalties, so penalties would be unaffected.

After carefully rereading the rules, it looks like this is the case. It's unfortunate that they use the term penalty for multiple things and that they don't clearly spell it out.

[Chronos]

It looks to me like "penalty" has only one meaning, and that it is clearly spelled out.

[ShurikVch]

Some creatures are notably less scary as a Zombie, because they lose their Frightful Presence

[SirKazum]

They only lose the 4 dexterity while uncomfortable, and they're only uncomfortable while in the area. Either way, the effects of the spell end with the spell, except in odd cases like fly, otherwise Animal's Ability Score spells would be hilarious.

Couldn't find Fly in the handbook, and I can't see any problems with a cursory reading of the rules. What's that about?

[Jormengand]

Couldn't find Fly in the handbook, and I can't see any problems with a cursory reading of the rules. What's that about?

There's nothing wrong with the fly spell, it's just an example of the spell effect continuing after the spell is dispelled.

[SirKazum]

There's nothing wrong with the fly spell, it's just an example of the spell effect continuing after the spell is dispelled.

Doesn't dispelling a spell with a duration end any ongoing effects, though? Or is that the dysfunction?

[Jormengand]

Doesn't dispelling a spell with a duration end any ongoing effects, though? Or is that the dysfunction?

No, the fly spell is a special exception that isn't in any way dysfunctional. I was literally just using it as an example of an exception to the rule that spells end when dispelled.

[Gemini476]

Doesn't dispelling a spell with a duration end any ongoing effects, though? Or is that the dysfunction?

It's not a dysfunction, it's just a weird little exception baked into the spell. Specific beats general and whatnot.

Should the spell duration expire while the subject is still aloft, the magic fails slowly. The subject floats downward 60 feet per round for 1d6 rounds. If it reaches the ground in that amount of time, it lands safely. If not, it falls the rest of the distance, taking 1d6 points of damage per 10 feet of fall. Since dispelling a spell effectively ends it, the subject also descends in this way if the fly spell is dispelled, but not if it is negated by an antimagic field.

The reason Jormungand brought it up seems to be because it's an exception to the rule that's worth pointing out - that while most effects do end when their durations do, there are some strange little edge cases where that isn't true. Those edge cases need to specifically point it out, though.

EDIT: Swordsage'd.

[SirKazum]

Oh! I get it now.

They only lose the 4 dexterity while uncomfortable, and they're only uncomfortable while in the area. Either way, the effects of the spell end with the spell, except in odd cases like fly, otherwise Animal's Ability Score spells would be hilarious.

That's what I get for perusing the thread looking for dysfunctions So it's an exception, not a dysfunction, and the context is that exceptions (such as Fly) need to be spelled out. Gotcha.

[Story]

It looks to me like "penalty" has only one meaning, and that it is clearly spelled out.

Penalty is used to refer both to negative ability modifiers and to things that effectively change your ability scores (see Ray of Enfeeblement, for instance). The two rules grarrg quoted are referring to different usages of the term penalty.

Some creatures are notably less scary as a Zombie, because they lose their Frightful Presence

That's not a dysfunction, just a bit odd. Besides, I'd be a lot more afraid of a real dragon than a zombie dragon.

[Gemini476]

That's not a dysfunction, just a bit odd. Besides, I'd be a lot more afraid of a real dragon than a zombie dragon.

I was going to mention the Zombie Dragon template from Draconomicon, but then I saw that it specifically mentions that they lose Frightful Presence, although they get to keep all other Extraordinary special attacks that don't have a Charisma-based saving throw.

So yeah, if that's a dysfunction then it's one that the designers figured out themselves and decided that they wanted to keep.

[ShurikVch]

Besides, I'd be a lot more afraid of a real dragon than a zombie dragon.

Spinosaurus
Jarilith demon
Ocean Strider
Tarrasque

[Flickerdart]

A zombie human is scarier than a normal human, because of various body horror issues and also because it's turned a (potentially) reasonable person into a mindless, hungry predator.

A dinosaur is already a mindless, hungry predator. Becoming a zombie makes it less scary because instead of a bone-chilling roar, it just sort of moans.

[Gemini476]

Also, a zombie Tarrasque loses pretty much everything that makes the original threatening besides the natural weapons. All of those special attacks and qualities go straight out the window, and you're left with a critter with 96d12 hit dice and an inability to make full attacks.

It's still threatening, yes, but it's also much more easy to deal with. It only has 624hp, for instance, no Regeneration, DR 5/slashing, and a +58 Bite dealing 4d8+18 damage. That's not the most threatening creature out there.


That's all ignoring the bit where you're getting a Zombie from a creature with more than 10HD, because I'm fairly certain there's some way around that somewhere.