Dysfunctional Rules VIII: When General Trumps Specific

[Jormengand]

That is indeed the formula used for (Ex) abilities, as per the Rules Compendium.

Hmm... then can we throw "Relevant ability modifier" in the "Not defined well enough to use" pile?

I thought that 'cast a spell', which is permitted in a grapple, was a distinct action from 'use a spell-like ability', which is not mentioned.

"Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells", so they can be used in a grapple just the same.

[Troacctid]

Hmm... then can we throw "Relevant ability modifier" in the "Not defined well enough to use" pile?

I can't think of any examples of abilities that offer saving throws that scale with ability mods without specifying what ability they scale with. If you can dig any up, I think it falls under a specific dysfunction for that ability, not a general dysfunction for saving throw calculations.

"Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells", so they can be used in a grapple just the same.

Ugh, I just started imagining all the dysfunctions it would create if spell rules didn't apply to spell-like abilities unless they specifically said they do. Spell-like abilities basically wouldn't function at all.

[No brains]

Where can I find a quick primer on how SLAs are and are not like spells, because I think I'm confused.

[Andezzar]

Where can I find a quick primer on how SLAs are and are not like spells, because I think I'm confused.

Here.1010 characters

[Jormengand]

I can't think of any examples of abilities that offer saving throws that scale with ability mods without specifying what ability they scale with. If you can dig any up, I think it falls under a specific dysfunction for that ability, not a general dysfunction for saving throw calculations.

Well, I mean, is "Relevant" actually defined?

[Troacctid]

It doesn't need to be specially defined here, since it's just being used in its capacity as a normal English word.

[No brains]

From the bits about requiring concentration and how SLAs can be disrupted just like spells, I guess they should be allowed in a grapple. I am still unsure from a strictly robotic RAW point of view, the rules do mention that it is distinct from plain casting and that distinction without a difference might still bar them.

[Inevitability]

Has the dysfunction of a Holy weapon causing Evil creatures to raise as (free-willed) wights already been noted?

[Jormengand]

Has the dysfunction of a Holy weapon causing Evil creatures to raise as (free-willed) wights already been noted?

Yes, it's under equipment, unsurprisingly.

EDIT: Next dysfunction: Polymorphing a creature with RHD can result in a humanoid with dragon hit dice, for example.

[Malimar]

Octopus lists as an attack:

Attack: Arms +5 melee (0)

It seems clear that the intention is that this does no damage (or else it should at least add the octopus's +1 strength modifier) and serves only to trigger

Improved Grab (Ex): To use this ability, an octopus must hit an opponent of any size with its arms attack...

But wait! Octopus doesn't make a specific exception for:

Exception: Certain rolls, such as damage and hit points, have a minimum of 1.

Despite the designers' apparent intention, it would seem an octopus's arms attack still does the minimum of 1 damage.

But wait! The following is more specific:

Minimum Damage
If penalties reduce the damage result to less than 1, a hit still deals 1 point of damage.

Which would seem at first glance to supersede the other rule, and because it's not penalties reducing the result to less than 1, the 0 stands...

...except "specific trumps general" only takes effect in the event of a disagreement, and the two rules aren't actually in disagreement. Damage has a minimum of 1 in the specific situation of penalties, but it also has a minimum of 1 generally.

Have I wandered off into the woods on any of this, or is this actually a dysfunction (in at least the sense of not being an intended function)?

[InvisibleBison]

Have I wandered off into the woods on any of this, or is this actually a dysfunction (in at least the sense of not being an intended function)?

I don't think this is a dysfunction; the specific rule that an octopus's attacks don't do damage trumps the general rule that attacks do at least 1 damage.

[Malimar]

I don't think this is a dysfunction; the specific rule that an octopus's attacks don't do damage trumps the general rule that attacks do at least 1 damage.

But it doesn't say that an octopus's attacks don't do damage, it just lists 0 as their damage. Which... you might be right, that certainly implies that there's a specific rule at play here, I don't know if it needs to get more explicit than that.

[Troacctid]

Nah, it's a pretty clear-cut case of specific trumping general, I think.

[Andezzar]

I agree, there are no penalties that reduce the damage to zero, so the increase to one does not apply nor is a fraction rounded.

[Inevitability]

It says certain rolls have a minimum of 1. (1d6-3) is a roll, but (0) isn't.

Unless you can convince your DM to read 0 as 0d6 or 0d0, good luck dealing damage with octo-arms.

[Inevitability]

Another dysfunction, or at least something weird as hell:

Skills
A doppelganger has a +4 racial bonus on Bluff and Disguise checks.

*When using its change shape ability, a doppelganger gets an additional +10 circumstance bonus on Disguise checks. If it can read an opponent’s mind, it gets a further +4 circumstance bonus on Bluff and Disguise checks.

That's right. If you pick a fight with a hobo and read his mind while disguising yourself as someone that hobo has never seen, it turns out better than if you don't.

[Jormengand]

That's right. If you pick a fight with a hobo and read his mind while disguising yourself as someone that hobo has never seen, it turns out better than if you don't.

Unsurprising. What kind of things does that hobo look for when deciding whether or not they really believe that they're talking to the King of Somewhere? Well, I dunno, try reading his mind.

[Malimar]

It says certain rolls have a minimum of 1. (1d6-3) is a roll, but (0) isn't.

Unless you can convince your DM to read 0 as 0d6 or 0d0, good luck dealing damage with octo-arms.

Oh, that's a really good point. No dysfunction!

[Telok]

Dire_Stirge, if I'm reading that right, and you quoted it correctly, the doppleganger doesn't need to actually read the guy's mind. The word "can" in the sentence refers in a literal sense to the ability to do something. They probably meant that if the creature _had_ read the guy's mind it would get the bonus. What they wrote was that if the doppleganger is _able_ to read the guy's mind then it gets the bonus.

[Troacctid]

The doppelganger can't read the guy's mind unless its detect thoughts ability is active and the guy failed his save.

[Inevitability]

Unsurprising. What kind of things does that hobo look for when deciding whether or not they really believe that they're talking to the King of Somewhere? Well, I dunno, try reading his mind.

How about reading the thoughts of a bat who's lived in a secluded cave all his life, has never seen a king, or any human at all, and has been Mindraped to think contradictory things about everything ever? RAW you'd still get the bonus.

[Debatra]

I'm pretty sure "but what if these extremely specific circumstances cause it to not quite make sense?" doesn't qualify something as a dysfunction.

Frankly, I find it odd that apparently only Dopplegangers get a bonus to social checks when able to read minds. (still not dysfunctional)

[Inevitability]

I'm pretty sure "but what if these extremely specific circumstances cause it to not quite make sense?" doesn't qualify something as a dysfunction.

Frankly, I find it odd that apparently only Dopplegangers get a bonus to social checks when able to read minds. (still not dysfunctional)

A specific dysfunction is still a dysfunction. Heck, most of the things in the handbook work fine 99% of the time until some specific circumstances come up.

[Troacctid]

How about reading the thoughts of a bat who's lived in a secluded cave all his life, has never seen a king, or any human at all, and has been Mindraped to think contradictory things about everything ever? RAW you'd still get the bonus.

I don't see what doesn't make sense about this. Of course you would still get the bonus. It would be weird if you didn't.

[Jormengand]

I don't see what doesn't make sense about this. Of course you would still get the bonus. It would be weird if you didn't.

In fact, understanding what was going on in the bat's mind would make even more of a difference if its understanding of who the King of Somewhere was was self-contradictory and ludicrous.

[Inevitability]

Okay, new dysfunction. The D&D glossary says:

Unlike other constructs, a living construct can use the run action.

Except nowhere in the books is it stated that constructs can't run.

I'm not sure if the dysfunction appears in the books too. Can anyone who has them check?

[Jormengand]

Okay, new dysfunction. The D&D glossary says:



Except nowhere in the books is it stated that constructs can't run.

I'm not sure if the dysfunction appears in the books too. Can anyone who has them check?

No, it does not.

[Telok]

The doppelganger can't read the guy's mind unless its detect thoughts ability is active and the guy failed his save.

That's absolutely what was intended.

Now that I'm not on a mobile device Dire_Stirge did quote it correctly, "If it can read an opponent’s mind". This implies the ability to do something, not that it already has done something.

Ok, having checked the Detect Thoughts spell It does take the four rounds and a save for the doppleganger to have the ability to read someone's thoughts. That's because the spell doesn't let you read thoughts untill then. If the doppleganger had an ability that caused the save on activation and allowed thought reading after that then it wouldn't have to read the thoughts, just use the ability and get a failed save.

So, working as intended because of clauses in the spell not because the skill bonus was written correctly.

[Troacctid]

That's absolutely what was intended.

Now that I'm not on a mobile device Dire_Stirge did quote it correctly, "If it can read an opponent’s mind". This implies the ability to do something, not that it already has done something.

Yes... that's what I meant. It works if you CAN read their mind, present tense, not if you HAVE read their mind at some point in the past. Meaning it only applies if your Detect Thoughts ability is currently active and allowing you to read their mind right now.

[Debatra]

Yes... that's what I meant. It works if you CAN read their mind, present tense, not if you HAVE read their mind at some point in the past. Meaning it only applies if your Detect Thoughts ability is currently active and allowing you to read their mind right now.

Okay, but how does that turn it into a dysfunction?