Dysfunctional Rules IX: 1d3 Dysfunctions from the 8th Level List

[Debatra]

You realize you're responding to posts that were made four years ago? (And one of the people you're replying to is banned, so can't respond further.)

{scrubbed}

[Voldine]

{scrubbed}

[ShurikVch]

Finger of death does not always cause death, disintegrate does not always cause disintegration.

It's correct: those spells not always, but sometimes cause death/disintegration; but Curse of Pain Eternal would never be "eternal" (obviously, excluding planes with non-standard timeflow)

A fireball is not a ball (it is a bunch of cubes)

And Goldberg polyhedron is not a ball - it's polyhedron:



But, if somebody would call it "ball" - it's no big deal: it's, while not, truly, a "ball", is rather ball-like (more incorrect would be "sphere")

, and whether it is fire is debatable as there is no way to keep a creature burning after the spell was cast

What's you mean "no way to keep a creature burning"?
It sets flammable things afire
If creature is on fire - it would burn until extinguished
If creature isn't afire - then it either isn't flammable, or succeed on Reflex save

and worn equipment is not affected by it.

It's incorrect twice:
Firstly -

If a creature rolls a natural 1 on its saving throw against the effect, however, an exposed item is harmed (if the attack can harm objects). Refer to Table: Items Affected by Magical Attacks. Determine which four objects carried or worn by the creature are most likely to be affected and roll randomly among them. The randomly determined item must make a saving throw against the attack form and take whatever damage the attack deal.

And secondly -

Those unlucky enough to have their clothes or equipment catch fire must make DC 15 Reflex saves for each item. Flammable items that fail take the same amount of damage as the character.

The name does not create the function or invalidate it.

Hand and Foot style, Foot and Fist Mastery feat - both don't required to have neither fists, nor feet
Not a dysfunction?..

[InvisibleBison]

Hand and Foot style, Foot and Fist Mastery feat - both don't required to have neither fists, nor feet
Not a dysfunction?..

No, not a dysfunction. A rules element having a non-indicative name doesn't cause the rules to fail to function properly.

[AvatarVecna]

No, not a dysfunction. A rules element having a non-indicative name doesn't cause the rules to fail to function properly.

As an example: Great Cleave does not, in fact, require you to have great cleavage.

[ShurikVch]

No, not a dysfunction. A rules element having a non-indicative name doesn't cause the rules to fail to function properly.

"Non-indicative name"?
Try "non-indicative description"!

Students of the Hand and Foot style learn to use their appendages for both offense and defense.

You have mastered the martial arts style of "Foot and Fist" - a hard form emphasizing strikes with the hands and feet.

Moreover, its prerequisites are: Improved Unarmed Strike, Power Attack, Roundabout Kick, Flying Kick, Fists of Iron, Deflect Arrows, 5 or more ranks in Jump and Tumble.
Neither martial styles by itself, nor certain prerequisites of the latter are required to actually have any hands, fists, feet, or even legs!
(Oozes, at least, have pseudopods, Beholders - eyestalks; but how about Lantern Archon?)

IMHO, if spell is called "Sphere of Fire", it shouldn't produce cube of ice...

As an example: Great Cleave does not, in fact, require you to have great cleavage.

Oh, come on!..
It's not even the same word!
Is band and bandage the same thing for you too?

[AvatarVecna]

Oh, come on!..
It's not even the same word!
Is band and bandage the same thing for you too?

Well somebody's not a fan of references...

(in case the smiley's weren't making it clear, I was in fact not making a serious argument one way or the other. )

[bekeleven]

Something I could swear was covered in one of these threads but isn't in the handbook's only entry of "favored enemy." Just for reference:

Due to his extensive study on his chosen type of foe and training in the proper techniques for combating such creatures, the ranger [...] gets a +2 bonus on weapon damage rolls against such creatures.

So, say two first-level rangers encounter an Asperi, from Monster Manual 2. Asperis are magical beasts, and their description begins: "At first glance, an asperi appears to be nothing more than an unusually beautiful horse." One of these two rangers has Favored Enemy (Magical Beasts), and the other has Favored Enemy (Animals).

It's entirely reasonable that both players will be reporting incorrect damage values to their DM in the ensuing combat. If they believe it to be an animal, ranger 1 will be giving incorrectly low damage and ranger 2 incorrectly high. Should the DM correct these damage values for them? Since the damage bonus from ranger 1 comes from knowing how to combat magical beasts so well, it could be argued that they're not using the correct combat techniques and therefore don't gain any damage bonus.

This brings me to part 2 of the dysfunction. Rangers have 3 knowledge skills. One covers 6 creature types, one covers two creature types, and the third (geography) doesn't cover any creature types. The class has no built-in ways to add further knowledge skills. This means that the ranger class is assumed to be familiar with at most six of the 32 possible configurations of favored enemy presented in the class description. The system, in other words, is actively hostile to rangers knowing whether their class features apply at all. Take a ranger trying to spot a Dread Guard (also from MM2). It's a construct that "appears to be an armored undead." If a ranger with favored enemy (Constructs) who doesn't have any ranks in knowledge (Arcana) (or has insufficient ranks, since they're cross-class) is attempting to track one, while a ranger with Favored Enemy (Undead) who doesn't have any ranks in Knowledge (Religion) is looking for one in the distance with Spot, who's adding what to what roll?

Edit: Looks like this was alluded to on page 3 of thread 1, but never expanded upon and not added to the handbook.

[Beni-Kujaku]

It's entirely reasonable that both players will be reporting incorrect damage values to their DM in the ensuing combat. If they believe it to be an animal, ranger 1 will be giving incorrectly low damage and ranger 2 incorrectly high. Should the DM correct these damage values for them? Since the damage bonus from ranger 1 comes from knowing how to combat magical beasts so well, it could be argued that they're not using the correct combat techniques and therefore don't gain any damage bonus.

And that's why you always take Nemesis on a ranger if you can ^^ Also, I'm pretty sure that if you've studied extensively one type of creature, you should know when you're fighting one, even if it looks like something else. So the DM should correct you on the damage.

[bekeleven]

I've been getting into the weeds with the retraining rules (PHBII) lately and there's a lot of stuff I can't make heads or tails of.

Just to give a few examples:

1. Take the feat Mercantile Background. It's level 1 only and (among other benefits) lets you start with 300 extra GP. After level 1, retrain it. Is this legal?
2. Take the feat Able learner. It's level 1 only and lets you buy cross-class ranks for 1 skill points each. After one or two levels of taking cross-class skills at half price, retrain it. Is this legal?
3. Take Mercanile Background. After level 1, retrain it to Able Learner, a feat that can only be taken level 1. Is this legal? (I don't think any interpretation of the rules lets you retrain into mercantile background for 300 extra GP at higher levels.)
4. Let's do a non-feat one. Spell or Power retraining appears aimed at sorcerers and other spontaneous casters, but its language is rather inclusive. I, a wizard, learn two spells on level-up, then copy them into my spellbook. Next time I level up, I retrain which spells I took. I feel the need to emphasize that retraining isn't a retroactive thing; it represents you learning some new stuff and neglecting your previous studies. Does this mean that you, for free, added 2 new spells to your spellbook? Or did you erase rearrange the ink on pages of your spellbook, for free, to write down different spells?

[Silly Name]

1 & 2 are legal under the Retraining rules as presented in PHB2. Number 3 is not because "if the new feat has prerequisites, not only your character must meet them in his current state..." (emphasis mine). So you can never retrain to a feat that's "level 1 only".

I think number 4 is really stretching it. The book refers to "known spells", which I'd say is evidence it only applies to those classes that have a number of spells known. In any case retraining is about switching something for something else - for a wizard it'd probably look like erasing a few pages from their spellbook to make space for new spells.

[bekeleven]

The book refers to "known spells", which I'd say is evidence it only applies to those classes that have a number of spells known.

A wizard knows all the spells in their spellbook.

[loky1109]

A wizard knows all the spells in their spellbook.

No, he doesn't. Wizard has no spell known at all. Maybe wizard with Spell Mastery is exception.

[bekeleven]

No, he doesn't. Wizard has no spell known at all. Maybe wizard with Spell Mastery is exception.

known spell: A spell that an arcane spellcaster has learned and can prepare. For wizards, knowing a spell means having it in their spellbooks. For sorcerers and bards, knowing a spell means having selected it when acquiring new spells as a benefit of level advancement.

PHB, 310 in my copy.

[loky1109]

PHB, 310 in my copy.

As I think:

[ShurikVch]

Magic of Incarnum have this text:

Meldshapers cannot give a meld to someone else, or shape one on anyone other than themselves. Shaped soulmelds cannot be removed from the meldshapers body.

Now, description of Incarnate Weapon soulmeld:

Your incarnate weapon cannot be sundered or otherwise destroyed (except by effects that unshape soulmelds). If your incarnate weapon leaves your hand for any reason, it returns to your grasp at the beginning of your next turn. If that is impossible, it falls at your feet (but attempts to return again on your next turn). Any other creature attempting to wield your incarnate weapon gains none of its special benefits (but can wield it as a normal weapon of that kind).

So, cannot be removed?.. Cannot give to someone else?..

Another dysfunction: Sleight of Hand checks (AFAIK) don't required to actually have a hand(s)

[Luccan]

Another dysfunction: Sleight of Hand checks (AFAIK) don't required to actually have a hand(s)

IDK if that counts. I know that's what the skill is called, but I'd argue it's intended to cover small sneaky actions done in front of a person, not just hand-based trickery. Like, if I were trying to kick a small object out of view or to my ally surreptitiously, I'd say Sleight of Hand is the most appropriate check.

[ShurikVch]

IDK if that counts. I know that's what the skill is called, but I'd argue it's intended to cover small sneaky actions done in front of a person, not just hand-based trickery. Like, if I were trying to kick a small object out of view or to my ally surreptitiously, I'd say Sleight of Hand is the most appropriate check.

See: I stumbled on it by checking rules for Tibbit and their Feline Transformation: Tibbit get no penalties for SoH while under the Feline Transformation. Does it mean kitty is able to pick pockets etc?
But Feline Transformation refers to Polymorph, and Polymorph - to Alter Self; neither of which saying something about SoH restrictions
But what says the RAW for Sleight of Hand itself? Checking... Yup, it don't asks for actually have a hand (or claw/tentacle/any other appendage). Ooze still got their pseudopod, Beholder - telekinesis; but how about Lantern Archon?..

[bekeleven]

I tried in multiple earlier threads to get an official ruling placing a moratorium on Polymorph Any Object, but it never took, so really, this is your fault.

PAO doesn't affect magical items. PAO can't turn nonmagical items into magical items. And PAO can't create materials of "Great intrinsic value" like mithral, platinum, etc.

PAO has no rule against turning a creature into a magical item, and no price limit on what it would be capable of reproducing. Assuming that parchment and magical ink aren't material of "great intrinsic value" - which I will, since you can turn a profit selling these things for 12.5GP - you can turn a creature into a scroll and then read it before the duration expires. There's other shenanigans you can pull but that was a simple example. (what happens if I turn someone into a potion and PAO expires after I drank them?)

[Zaq]

The glot, a thrown weapon found in Frostburn pp. 75-6, allows ranged trip attacks, which is cool on its face.

Most forms of unusual trip attacks, especially ranged ones, have language stating that if you fail the trip attempt, your opponent cannot attempt to trip you in return. The glot, notably, lacks such language, leading to the amusing and almost certainly unintended situation where you can throw a glot at someone, you attempt to trip them, you fail, and then they countertrip you, presumably through quantum entanglement. (It doesn't SAY that they catch it and yeet it back at you, so presumably that doesn't happen, especially since that would have a mechanical effect regarding who's in position to pick the glot up off the ground. Hence, quantum entanglement.) This does not break the game irreparably, but it does fly in the face of narrative sense while being entirely predictable with the rules, so I feel comfortable calling it a (mild and humorous) dysfunction.

When tripping with a typical weapon, if you're the subject of a countertrip, you can usually drop the weapon you're holding to avoid being tripped back. But since you're no longer holding the glot after you throw it, presumably this is not an option.

[Thurbane]

Not sure if this has been brought up before, or is really a dysfunction, but the Hammer and Piton feat lets you hammer a piton into an enemy for 1d4 + Str damage.

This damage does not change regardless of your size, so a Fine creature (assuming they could meet reqs) and a Colossal creature both inflict the same base damage with their piton, even though one would be the size of a sewing needle, and the other the size of a fence post.

[ShurikVch]

I don't sure if it was mentioned, but there is this funny part about certain Wondrous Architecture in Stronghold Builder's Guidebook:

Desecrated Shrine: The entire stronghold space is desecrated, as per the spell. All Charisma checks to turn undead suffer a –6 penalty. Undead in the space gain a profane +2 bonus on attack and damage rolls and saves. Undead cannot be created within nor summoned into this space. Undead summoned or created in this space gain +2 hit points per HD.
The desecrated shrine must contain an altar, shrine, or other permanent fixture dedicated to the creator's chosen higher power.
A consecrate spell negates the effect of the desecrated shrine for the duration of the consecrate spell. After that, the effects of the desecrated shrine return.
Caster Level: 3rd; Prerequisites: Craft Wondrous Item, fixture dedicated to chosen higher power, desecrate;
Market Price: 3,000 gp.

Also, similar stuff was already mentioned, but still: Powerful Build and Kobold's Slight Build
Certain transformations are remove all the SQ - including the possible Powerful Build/Slight Build
The problem? The fluff is "they're that big/small"
If the Dragonborn's Rite of Rebirth, at the very least, may be excused by "They became smaller/bigger" (weird, but OK) - then what's the excuse for Effigy, Elder Eidolon, or Ice Beast?

[Maat Mons]

According to Magic of Faerun, a suit of platinum full plate costs 6,500 gp and weighs 100 pounds. According to Player's Handbook, 100 pounds of platinum is worth 50,000 gp.

[ideasmith]

According to Magic of Faerun, a suit of platinum full plate costs 6,500 gp and weighs 100 pounds. According to Player's Handbook, 100 pounds of platinum is worth 50,000 gp.

Is said full plate stated to be pure platinum? Could it perhaps be a layer of platinum over something less expensive? Or even some alloy? (There would also be straps and padding, but those don't explain that difference in price.)

[Beni-Kujaku]

According to Magic of Faerun, a suit of platinum full plate costs 6,500 gp and weighs 100 pounds. According to Player's Handbook, 100 pounds of platinum is worth 50,000 gp.

Well, platinum is not fit for an armor at all. It's almost as malleable as gold. A platinum armor would not protect as well as a steel one, so it's most probably just a plating of platinum on your full plate (and no, you can't eat on it like on a plate, and it would not please your palate. I love english.).

[Troacctid]

Well, platinum is not fit for an armor at all. It's almost as malleable as gold. A platinum armor would not protect as well as a steel one, so it's most probably just a plating of platinum on your full plate (and no, you can't eat on it like on a plate, and it would not please your palate. I love english.).

Platinum is immune to metalbending, making it the superior material by far both for weapons and armor if you expect to be facing earthbenders in combat.

[Debatra]

Well, platinum is not fit for an armor at all. It's almost as malleable as gold. A platinum armor would not protect as well as a steel one, so it's most probably just a plating of platinum on your full plate (and no, you can't eat on it like on a plate, and it would not please your palate. I love english.).

Actually, the book mentions the platinum has to be magically treated to make it as sturdy as steel, so it very well might be pure platinum.

And that just begs the question of why one would bother making armor out of the stuff. You get two points of cold and sonic resistance, but the trade-off is an inversion of mithril's benefits.

But being worse than useless doesn't make something dysfunctional, so I digress.

[Doctor Despair]

Actually, the book mentions the platinum has to be magically treated to make it as sturdy as steel, so it very well might be pure platinum.

And that just begs the question of why one would bother making armor out of the stuff. You get two points of cold and sonic resistance, but the trade-off is an inversion of mithril's benefits.

But being worse than useless doesn't make something dysfunctional, so I digress.

Maybe the town is built on a platinum mine, and it isn't used as currency there. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[loky1109]

It's almost as malleable as gold. A platinum armor would not protect as well as a steel one, so it's most probably just a plating of platinum on your full plate (and no, you can't eat on it like on a plate, and it would not please your palate. I love english.).

Beni, you aren't really right. Brinell scale of platinum is almost two times more than Brinell scale of gold.

[Beni-Kujaku]

Beni, you aren't really right. Brinell scale of platinum is almost two times more than Brinell scale of gold.

Indeed, in terms of hardness, it seems almost as good as steel. However, that doesn't make it less ductile and malleable. The armor would probably not break against any hit, but would deform and transmit most of the blow to your body. Not counting the difficulty to shape it into an armor when it necessitates extremely high temperatures to be melted or cast.

Link here
The Mohs hardnesses of Pd and Pt are 4.8 and 4.6 (or 4.3), respectively, which are quite high for metals, and the other members of the family are even harder. Hardest seems to be Os, at 7.0, while Ir and Ru are not far behind at 6.5. This means that platinum is as hard as iron, while osmium is as hard as quartz. A platinum-rhodium alloy is even harder, and is used for high-quality fountain pen nibs. Hardness does not imply that the metals are not malleable and ductile. In fact, platinum is very ductile and can be rolled into very thin sheets and drawn into fine wire. Its crystal structure is face-centred cubic, characteristic of soft metals.