Dysfunctional Rules VIII: When General Trumps Specific

[flare'90]

I believe the intent is that the "Special" section is supposed to be a perk for nomads, which is why they're the only class list not called out. However, since nomads are psions, it actually doesn't apply to them, which is a dysfunction. At the time of the power's printing, it only applied to a War Mind or a Fist of Zuoken, which I don't think was the intent.

I think that the intent is that nomads CAN use the powers on others, while psions/psywarriors/wilders get only to use the power on themselves.
It probably should read: "Target: you; Special: a nomad can target one willing creature or one object (total weight up to 100 lb./level) in close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) range instead of itself. An object can apply it power resistance to this power."

[Troacctid]

Right, isn't that what I said?

[flare'90]

Right, isn't that what I said?

You're saying that the Special section (these x classes can use the power only on themselves) should apply only to nomads. I'm saying that only a nomad can use the power on other targets.
In the end it's the same, but you reasoning is exclusive (x can't do that), while mine gives a bonus (x can do this AND that).

[Troacctid]

No, I said the special section is meant to be a perk for nomads, i.e. the other classes can't do this thing, but nomads can.

[Inevitability]

Not strictly dysfunctional, but weird: striking a magmin with an iron weapon (melting point: around 1500 degrees Celsius) may cause the weapon to spontaneously melt. Striking a magmin with a glass, wooden, or even paper object is apparently completely safe.

[Florian]

Not strictly dysfunctional, but weird: striking a magmin with an iron weapon (melting point: around 1500 degrees Celsius) may cause the weapon to spontaneously melt. Striking a magmin with a glass, wooden, or even paper object is apparently completely safe.

Isn´t the general rule that "Things work as in RL unless stated otherwise"?

[illyahr]

The game very consistently calls out effects that can set combustables on fire. If it doesn't say that a magmin does, then it wouldn't under standard ruling.

[Inevitability]

The game very consistently calls out effects that can set combustables on fire. If it doesn't say that a magmin does, then it wouldn't under standard ruling.

Also, any DM who starts ruling attacking fire creatures with no weapon-melting abilities may destroy your weapon anyway is just an ass.

[No brains]

What I find weird about this little jerk is that their fiery aura does "heat" damage.

I think the idea was that weapons that would cut into the magmin's body are usually made of metal. So maybe a sword digs in deep enough to get exposed to the magmin's higher core temperature. This still doesn't make sense for a mace clobbering the critter or a non-metal spear staking it. Arrows are always destroyed when they hit, so it doesn't matter there. Don't even ask what happens to gauntlets and shields that hit the thing.

What's REALLY stupid is that a magmin's heat does 1d8 damage and melts metal immediately, but a salamander's heat does 1d6 and is harmlessly conducted by its metal weapons. Somewhere in ~2 fire damage, metal gets completely liquefied. Unless it passes as meager DC 12 Fort save, which seems bizarrely low for a sudden change in state.

[Jormengand]

Adepts are skilled with simple weapons. They're not proficient with them, apparently, but they are skilled with them.

EDIT: "A psion can manifest any power that has a power point cost equal to or lower than his manifester level." So... he doesn't need to know the powers or even have them on his power list?

[Troacctid]

Adepts are skilled with simple weapons. They're not proficient with them, apparently, but they are skilled with them.

Anybody but a druid, monk, or wizard is proficient with all simple weapons.

EDIT: "A psion can manifest any power that has a power point cost equal to or lower than his manifester level." So... he doesn't need to know the powers or even have them on his power list?

Actually, yes. You totally can manifest powers you don't know. There's a special process for it, though, and it's more difficult.

[Jormengand]

Anybody but a druid, monk, or wizard is proficient with all simple weapons.

We've had this conversation: either that's reminder text or it's a dysfunction in its own right. My money's on the former, because the special line of feats is practically specifically called out as reminder text.

[Inevitability]

Despite being unable to move, a shrieker can still separate two items bound together with Stick as a move action.

[No brains]

Despite being unable to move, a shrieker can still separate two items bound together with Stick as a move action.

Could an incorporeal ghost brute shrieker do it?

[Inevitability]

Could an incorporeal ghost brute shrieker do it?

Because it is a creature and has move actions, yes.

[ShurikVch]

Note (from Glossary):

Strength
Any creature that can physically manipulate other objects has at least 1 point of Strength.

Abilities: Str Ø, Dex Ø, Con 13, Int Ø, Wis 2, Cha 1

[Troacctid]

Could an incorporeal ghost brute shrieker do it?

No, only a corporeal creature can separate the stuck items with a move action.

[GnomishPride]

What if it took Ghostly Grasp?

[The Viscount]

It lacks the sufficient Cha to take the feat.

[Inevitability]

It lacks the sufficient Cha to take the feat.

Could it receive a feat through for example the Otyugh Hole, then switch it out for Ghostly Grasp by means of a DCFS?

[Andezzar]

Nope, Shun the Dark Chaos still requires the recipient of the feat to fulfil the prerequisites:

If the subject possesses any Abyssal heritor feats, one of them is immediately removed and replaced by any other feat for which the subject qualifies (except an Abyssal heritor feat). The subject chooses both the feat lost and its replacement.

[Inevitability]

The Unseelie Court Noble Kelir feat has some... interesting prerequisites.

Fey and Seelie Court Member, or Fey and Diplomacy 5 ranks

Apparently being part of the Seelie Court grants you favor with their enemies.

EDIT: Also, the feat doesn't say what it actually does.

[Florian]

Apparently being part of the Seelie Court grants you favor with their enemies.

I´d rather trust the known opposition than an unknown factor. So, actually fitting.

[Jormengand]

Controlled Immolation lets you burn people who strike you with a handheld weapon, even if they're wielding a whip and are therefore nowhere near you. You deal no damage, however, to a creature you are grappling.

[PallentisLunam]

Controlled Immolation lets you burn people who strike you with a handheld weapon, even if they're wielding a whip and are therefore nowhere near you. You deal no damage, however, to a creature you are grappling.

The feat says "a creature striking you with it's body" I think grappling falls under that heading. However even a bow or a sling are hand held weapons I guess this feat turns you into Pyro from X-men, just not vs siege weapons

Huh, even if it is dysfunctional that's not exactly game breaking... could be fun...

[Inevitability]

The feat says "a creature striking you with it's body" I think grappling falls under that heading. However even a bow or a sling are hand held weapons I guess this feat turns you into Pyro from X-men, just not vs siege weapons

Huh, even if it is dysfunctional that's not exactly game breaking... could be fun...

Fairly sure you aren't struck with the bow of sling, but the projectile it launches. And if you are smacked in the face by someone with a bow while you're on fire, they should get burned.

[Jormengand]

The feat says "a creature striking you with it's body" I think grappling falls under that heading.

You grappling them is not them striking you. It does not cause them to burn, even though it ought to.

[Sliver]

Unless they attack you using one of the two attack options for grapple (grapple check for unarmed strike damage, or attack with unarmed strike, light weapon or natural weapon, IIRC).

[Jormengand]

Unless they attack you using one of the two attack options for grapple (grapple check for unarmed strike damage, or attack with unarmed strike, light weapon or natural weapon, IIRC).

True, but the fact that you take no damage from being grappled by someone who is on fire, but you do if you whip them from fifteen feet away, is a bit odd.

[georgie_leech]

True, but the fact that you take no damage from being grappled by someone who is on fire, but you do if you whip them from fifteen feet away, is a bit odd.

Agreed. It's one of those rules that function just fine but make no narrativist sense.