Dysfunctional Rules VIII: When General Trumps Specific

[Bucky]

I thought specific bonus feats like those didn't require the prerequisites by default?

[Andezzar]

Only those marked with ^B.

[Jormengand]

No, this applies to all bonus feats; MMI page 7 "Creatures often do not have the prerequisite for a bonus feat. If this is so, the creature can still use the feat." This is not limited to "bonus feats, marked with a superscript B (^B)", but applies to all of them.

[Andezzar]

No, this applies to all bonus feats; MMI page 7 "Creatures often do not have the prerequisite for a bonus feat. If this is so, the creature can still use the feat." This is not limited to "bonus feats, marked with a superscript B (^B)", but applies to all of them.

PHB says you need to fulfil the prerequisites. MM1 says you do not for bonus feats. According to the primary source rule, unless concerned with monsters the MM cannot override the PHB. Ergo it only applies to the bonus feats in the MM (which all should be marked with ^B).

[Jormengand]

Specific also trumps general, so an exception about bonus feats and a rule about feats in general are not in contradiction, so primary source doesn't take effect.

[The Viscount]

That rule is in the Monster Manual in a section describing feats in a monster entry. It has nothing to do with class granted bonus feats.

Class granted bonus feats themselves are something of a sticky wicket. There exist classes (such as ranger) that say you can have a feat even if you don't qualify. There exist classes (such as wizard) that say you must qualify for the feat you receive. I don't know of any general rule on class granted bonus feats, so I suppose I should have said that soulknife may or may not be denied the use of the bonus feats.

[Anlashok]

That rule is in the Monster Manual in a section describing feats in a monster entry. It has nothing to do with class granted bonus feats.

It has to do with bonus feats, period. There's no distinction made.

[Jormengand]

Where the rule is doesn't matter. If a section in the monster manual described a new item in the middle of a monster entry, it would sound ridiculous to say that the item doesn't exist because it's not in the magic items section. The same is true for bonus feats: it doesn't say that it's only talking about monster bonus feats.

Come on, if that were true then you could only use the feat if you put a little B next to it on your character sheet. That is, how you chose to format your character sheet would change your character's abilities. You're picking the most insane possible reading of primary source, but there is no contradiction so it doesn't matter where the rules are written.

[Calthropstu]

General Trump? I didn't know he was in the military.

[ShurikVch]

Not so much "real dysfunction", as sever case of "fluff/crunch disconnection":
Incubi (Dragon #353)

They have no innate ability to mask their demonic forms, nor do they care to.

Except

Spell-Like Abilities (CL 8th)
At will - ... disguise self (DC 16, no limit on duration)

[Deadkitten]

Not so much "real dysfunction", as sever case of "fluff/crunch disconnection":
Incubi (Dragon #353)Except

I think disguise self does not let you hide type, so the description might tecnically be true.

[Snow-blind]

I think disguise self does not let you hide type, so the description might tecnically be true.

So it can "only" disguise itself as an Angel, or an Inevitable, or whatever other outsider it feels like, but not a plain old vanilla human?

Pretty sure that still counts as a dysfunction. Arguably two dysfunctions.

[zergling.exe]

So it can "only" disguise itself as an Angel, or an Inevitable, or whatever other outsider it feels like, but not a plain old vanilla human?

Pretty sure that still counts as a dysfunction. Arguably two dysfunctions.

So long as you have a humanoid body shape, you can look like a human:

You cannot change your body type. For example, a human caster could look human, humanoid, or like any other human-shaped bipedal creature.

Size discrepancies aside.

[Coretron03]

Here's one i didn't find in the hand book,
In pathfinder(and maybe 3.5 too) There is the Advanced template and the dengenrate template, him you combine these two you end up with a monster that is slightly stronger, but the same cr, as they get a +2 to ac and CMD
Dunno of it counts but it weird

[Inevitability]

Here's one i didn't find in the hand book,
In pathfinder(and maybe 3.5 too) There is the Advanced template and the dengenrate template, him you combine these two you end up with a monster that is slightly stronger, but the same cr, as they get a +2 to ac and CMD
Dunno of it counts but it weird

That's not dysfunctional, just a quirk of the system. It's in fact surprisingly clear as far as rule interactions go.

[Jormengand]

That's not dysfunctional, just a quirk of the system. It's in fact surprisingly clear as far as rule interactions go.

I would say that "Anything up to infinite boost to AC and CMD doesn't change how challenging game thinks monster is" is dysfunctional.

[Bucky]

Do we consider recursive template stacking to be dysfunctional by itself? Because if we do, the +2 AC and CMD from applying both templates once is essentially a rounding error.

Giving a monster an extra potion of Barkskin doesn't increase its CR either.

[No brains]

If a creature gets raised as a zombie, it has no skills because it has Int -. This is the one of the few ways that intelligence can retroactively affect skill points, something that's normally considered to complicated to bother doing. If that creature gets restored to its normal state, is there anything that says that its skills come back?

What I'm asking is, can I permanently delete something's skill points by raising it as a mindless undead? If not, can I allow a creature to retake skill points at an improved Int score by wiping its skills through a temporary application of a mindless undead template?

This might not be a concern if all class-based HD are discarded permanently upon application of the template. Yeah, then things might be worse.

Also by RAW, can something with 21 class levels be raised as a skeleton or zombie? Normally class HD are thrown out, but that supposedly happens after qualifying for the template. If something has too many HD to qualify, those HD can't be lost through the application of the template.

[InvisibleBison]

Also by RAW, can something with 21 class levels be raised as a skeleton or zombie? Normally class HD are thrown out, but that supposedly happens after qualifying for the template. If something has too many HD to qualify, those HD can't be lost through the application of the template.

I'm not sure about the rest of your questions, but this one I can address. The HD limit for zombies and skeletons only applies if they're created by animate dead. Other effects, like the plague of undead spell or the mohrg's create spawn ability, aren't limited in this fashion.

[Flickerdart]

If a creature gets raised as a zombie, it has no skills because it has Int -. This is the one of the few ways that intelligence can retroactively affect skill points, something that's normally considered to complicated to bother doing. If that creature gets restored to its normal state, is there anything that says that its skills come back?

What I'm asking is, can I permanently delete something's skill points by raising it as a mindless undead? If not, can I allow a creature to retake skill points at an improved Int score by wiping its skills through a temporary application of a mindless undead template?

There's no such thing as "restored to its normal state" because you are not altering the actual creature's state. It's hard to figure out because 3.5 is very obtuse with what a corpse is, but consider this sequence of events: Ember the Human Monk goes into battle against a necromancer, and is killed. The necromancer raises a zombie out of her corpse. Later, the zombie is slain by Ember's friend Jozan, and Jozan casts true resurrection to bring Ember back to life.

Was the zombie Ember? No, it was her corpse, an object, turned into a creature. The zombie was a Human Zombie, not an Ember Zombie. Ember was dead, and then Jozan brought her back to life. The zombie was no more Ember than an animate object spell cast on her corpse would be Ember.

Where it gets weird is intelligent undead that retain the base creature's abilities, but those keep the skill points, so your question doesn't apply.

[Inevitability]

There's no such thing as "restored to its normal state" because you are not altering the actual creature's state. It's hard to figure out because 3.5 is very obtuse with what a corpse is, but consider this sequence of events: Ember the Human Monk goes into battle against a necromancer, and is killed. The necromancer raises a zombie out of her corpse. Later, the zombie is slain by Ember's friend Jozan, and Jozan casts true resurrection to bring Ember back to life.

Was the zombie Ember? No, it was her corpse, an object, turned into a creature. The zombie was a Human Zombie, not an Ember Zombie. Ember was dead, and then Jozan brought her back to life. The zombie was no more Ember than an animate object spell cast on her corpse would be Ember.

Where it gets weird is intelligent undead that retain the base creature's abilities, but those keep the skill points, so your question doesn't apply.

No, the weird thing is that a 17th-level cleric decides raising a monk is worth 25000 GP.

[ShurikVch]

Was the zombie Ember? No, it was her corpse, an object, turned into a creature. The zombie was a Human Zombie, not an Ember Zombie. Ember was dead, and then Jozan brought her back to life. The zombie was no more Ember than an animate object spell cast on her corpse would be Ember.

Actually, "corpses are objects" is fanon
There is the Dead condition, thus corpse of Ember is still Ember, and Zombie is Ember Zombie; corpse should be immune to animate object - because isn't an object

[No brains]

There's no such thing as "restored to its normal state" because you are not altering the actual creature's state. It's hard to figure out because 3.5 is very obtuse with what a corpse is, but consider this sequence of events: Ember the Human Monk goes into battle against a necromancer, and is killed. The necromancer raises a zombie out of her corpse. Later, the zombie is slain by Ember's friend Jozan, and Jozan casts true resurrection to bring Ember back to life.

Was the zombie Ember? No, it was her corpse, an object, turned into a creature. The zombie was a Human Zombie, not an Ember Zombie. Ember was dead, and then Jozan brought her back to life. The zombie was no more Ember than an animate object spell cast on her corpse would be Ember.

Where it gets weird is intelligent undead that retain the base creature's abilities, but those keep the skill points, so your question doesn't apply.

I feel like arguing this would get into dissecting the English language, which kills the fun of this thread and reanimates it as a pesky CR 1/2 nuisance. I will agree that it is possible to read the spell Animate Dead not as actually affecting creatures. I support that creatures have corpses, but that the corpses themselves are not necessarily the creature. It makes a demented kind of sense.

There are still benefits for choosing specific individuals for animation. Creatures keep their weapon proficiency when animated as zombies or skeletons, and the ability for a lackey to use certain weapons is a worthy consideration. I find it weird that this rule would exist without any means of actually employing it. We do have Mohrgs [sic and sick], which undoubtedly raise creatures as zombies, so what happens to the vanishing skill points then?

[Jormengand]

Actually, "corpses are objects" is fanon
There is the Dead condition, thus corpse of Ember is still Ember, and Zombie is Ember Zombie; corpse should be immune to animate object - because isn't an object

Corpses are objects and take object saving throws.

[ShurikVch]

Corpses are objects and take object saving throws.

And where exactly it says it?
Saving Throw/Spell Resistance?
let me point the relevant line:

The spell also works on severed body parts and the like.

Dead creatures aren't object, but "severed body parts"...

Also, Raise Dead and Reincarnate spells have line:

Target: Dead creature touched

Note: "Dead creature"
Creature.
Not an object.
If corpses were objects, then those spell wouldn't work

[Jormengand]

And where exactly it says it?
Saving Throw/Spell Resistance?
let me point the relevant line:Dead creatures aren't object, but "severed body parts"...

Okay, invisibility works on creatures and objects too! Let's look at what its saving throw line is...

Will negates (harmless) or Will negates (harmless, object)

Oh, wait! Obviously, one of those is for when you're targeting a creature, and one is for when you're targeting an object! Let's look at sequester, a spell that affects creatures and objects, but only objects can save...

None or Will negates (object)

Wow! It looks like spells which can affect creatures and objects list the saves for creatures and the saves for objects separately! I guess that means that gentle repose isn't one of those spells after all!

[No brains]

What is a corpse, but all the parts of a body severed from its animating spirit?

The rules don't permit cutting up creatures, but they do allow you to change one object into another. Letting corpses be objects that can be 'crafted' into body parts both allows you to use spells that have icky components and gives regeneration a reason to exist.

So what about the skill points that get flushed by a mohrg zombifying a creature? Do those get severed into objects?

[ShurikVch]

Okay, invisibility works on creatures and objects too! Let's look at what its saving throw line is...



Oh, wait! Obviously, one of those is for when you're targeting a creature, and one is for when you're targeting an object! Let's look at sequester, a spell that affects creatures and objects, but only objects can save...



Wow! It looks like spells which can affect creatures and objects list the saves for creatures and the saves for objects separately! I guess that means that gentle repose isn't one of those spells after all!

No, it's not what "(object)" mean:

(object)

The spell can be cast on objects, which receive saving throws only if they are magical or if they are attended (held, worn, grasped, or the like) by a creature resisting the spell, in which case the object uses the creature’s saving throw bonus unless its own bonus is greater. (This notation does not mean that a spell can be cast only on objects. Some spells of this sort can be cast on creatures or objects.) A magic item’s saving throw bonuses are each equal to 2 + one-half the item’s caster level.

It's "can be cast on objects", not "must be cast on objects"!
For example, let's see Disintegrate:

Saving Throw: Fortitude partial (object)

Do you expecting it wouldn't work on creatures?
Line from sequester don't do anything to disprove me: spell affect both objects and creatures, just differently. Big deal!
The invisibility is weird. But there is the Dysfunctional Rules thread...

[Jormengand]

So, today we've learned that Wizards don't know how their own spell notation works. Thanks, Invisibility!

EDIT: Also, dead creatures get weird when you consider a petitioner or a ghost, both of which are templates. Is the corpse a creature, or is the ghost a creature? If they're both creatures, then surely they're the same creature?

[Andezzar]

Does a corpse have a wisdom score? Since a corpse of a creature is not the same as the creature itself, we cannot assume that a wisdom score is inherited.

Anything without a wisdom score is an object.

Anything with no Wisdom score is an object, not a creature.