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

[georgie_leech]

Ink: The Poor Man's Bag of Holding.

...Wait, no. At 8gp per ounce, that barrel of ink would actually cost 44,034gp (counting the 2gp barrel).

Ink: The Rich Man's Hot Air Balloon.

[Inevitability]

Ink: The Rich Man's Hot Air Balloon.

Can I sig this?

[georgie_leech]

Can I sig this?

By all means

[Jormengand]

There is a fairly complicated but pretty much indisputable (I know someone will try anyway) problem with protection from chaos, protection from good and protection from law. Here goes:

Exhibit A is the spell description of protection from evil, particularly the fourth paragraph (albeit the one beginning "Third"):

"Third, the spell prevents bodily contact by summoned creatures. This causes the natural weapon attacks of such creatures to fail and the creatures to recoil if such attacks require touching the warded creature. Good summoned creatures are immune to this effect."

This means that the spell protects against evil and neutral summoned creatures. Let's look at protection from chaos:

"This spell functions like protection from evil, except that the deflection and resistance bonuses apply to attacks from chaotic creatures, and chaotic summoned creatures cannot touch the subject."

This means that either the spell now only protects against chaotic summoned creatures and not neutral ones (which is dysfunctional because it's clearly intended that the four protection from alignment spells have analogous effects), or it only protects against chaotic neutral and chaotic evil creatures because PfC doesn't remove the stipluation that good creatures are immune to the effect. It gets even worse in PfG's case - it has equivalent text to PfC, but in this case, "Good summoned creatures cannot touch the subject" could be interpreted as just removing the stipulation that "Good creatures are immune to this effect." PfL shares PfC's issues.

[Celestia]

There is a fairly complicated but pretty much indisputable (I know someone will try anyway) problem with protection from chaos, protection from good and protection from law. Here goes:

Exhibit A is the spell description of protection from evil, particularly the fourth paragraph (albeit the one beginning "Third"):

"Third, the spell prevents bodily contact by summoned creatures. This causes the natural weapon attacks of such creatures to fail and the creatures to recoil if such attacks require touching the warded creature. Good summoned creatures are immune to this effect."

This means that the spell protects against evil and neutral summoned creatures. Let's look at protection from chaos:

"This spell functions like protection from evil, except that the deflection and resistance bonuses apply to attacks from chaotic creatures, and chaotic summoned creatures cannot touch the subject."

This means that either the spell now only protects against chaotic summoned creatures and not neutral ones (which is dysfunctional because it's clearly intended that the four protection from alignment spells have analogous effects), or it only protects against chaotic neutral and chaotic evil creatures because PfC doesn't remove the stipluation that good creatures are immune to the effect. It gets even worse in PfG's case - it has equivalent text to PfC, but in this case, "Good summoned creatures cannot touch the subject" could be interpreted as just removing the stipulation that "Good creatures are immune to this effect." PfL shares PfC's issues.

That is definitely just typos from poor adaptation. The intended effect is obvious.

[Jormengand]

That is definitely just typos from poor adaptation.

This is the point where I remind people again that a "Typo" is a typographical error, such as accidentally writing "Share laser form" instead of "Share lesser form" or writing "1d33" instead of "1d3³". It is not what happens when you accidentally write "chaotic creatures cannot touch the subject" instead of "lawful creatures, not good ones, are immune to the effect that prevents summoned creatures from touching the subject". That would be a pretty impressive typo - covfefe, eat your heart out.

The intended effect is obvious.

So's the intended effect of drowning. That's not how we do things here.

[Celestia]

This is the point where I remind people again that a "Typo" is a typographical error, such as accidentally writing "Share laser form" instead of "Share lesser form" or writing "1d33" instead of "1d3³". It is not what happens when you accidentally write "chaotic creatures cannot touch the subject" instead of "lawful creatures, not good ones, are immune to the effect that prevents summoned creatures from touching the subject". That would be a pretty impressive typo - covfefe, eat your heart out.

And colloquially, it has become a catchall term for any written error. Language is descriptivist, not prescriptivist. You knew what I meant but decided to try distracting me with semantics debate. It won't work. This is a simple error, not a dysfunction.

[Jormengand]

And colloquially, it has become a catchall term for any written error. Language is descriptivist, not prescriptivist. You knew what I meant but decided to try distracting me with semantics debate. It won't work. This is a simple error, not a dysfunction.

Errors are dysfunctions, and all 3.5 errors are written errors. It's not a typo in any sense of the word (and the stipulation in the OP that typos are not dysfunctions comes from a note in official errata saying that they are not meant to fix typographical errors): it's an actual mistake born of them not remembering how their own spell works that leads to spells doing something they're not meant to. That's a dysfunction through and through.

[Celestia]

Errors are dysfunctions, and all 3.5 errors are written errors. It's not a typo in any sense of the word (and the stipulation in the OP that typos are not dysfunctions comes from a note in official errata saying that they are not meant to fix typographical errors): it's an actual mistake born of them not remembering how their own spell works that leads to spells doing something they're not meant to. That's a dysfunction through and through.

I suppose you have a point.

[EliDupree]

This means that either the spell now only protects against chaotic summoned creatures and not neutral ones (which is dysfunctional because it's clearly intended that the four protection from alignment spells have analogous effects), or it only protects against chaotic neutral and chaotic evil creatures because PfC doesn't remove the stipluation that good creatures are immune to the effect. It gets even worse in PfG's case - it has equivalent text to PfC, but in this case, "Good summoned creatures cannot touch the subject" could be interpreted as just removing the stipulation that "Good creatures are immune to this effect." PfL shares PfC's issues.

Since you're enumerating the possible dysfunctional readings... Didn't you miss the most literalistic one?

"prevents bodily contact by summoned creatures. ... Good summoned creatures are immune to this effect."
+ "except that ... chaotic summoned creatures cannot touch the subject."
= Protection from non-good creatures AND chaotic creatures, i.e. everything but Neutral Good and Lawful Good.

[Debatra]

Yeah, this is a pretty good one.

[georgie_leech]

Mm. Intentional effect is obvious, but without reading in extra qualifications, good creatures still bypass the effect. Nice find.

[Nifft]

I was looking at a White Half-Dragon Red Dragon -- is this a True Dragon or not?

RAW, a Red Dragon is explicitly a True Dragon, but by the definitions in Draconomicon, applying the Half-Dragon template results in what is explicitly not a True Dragon.

But then, following the Draconomicon rules to determine if a creature is a True Dragon, you get a creature of the Dragon type which advances through 12 age categories (since the template enforces the former and doesn't change the latter)... and no matter which interpretation you use for "advances through", you get a creature which is defined as a True Dragon.


Has this already been discussed here?

[Troacctid]

I think that falls under the same dysfunction as "Half-Dragon Dragons exist."

[ross]

Chain Power [Metapsionic]

You can manifest powers that arc to hit other targets in addition to the primary target.
Benefit

To use this feat, you must expend your psionic focus. You can chain any power that affects a single target and that deals either acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic damage. After the primary target is struck, the power can arc to a number of secondary targets equal to your manifester level (maximum twenty). The secondary arcs each strike one target and deal half as much damage as the primary one did (round down).

Each target gets to make a saving throw, if one is allowed by the power. You choose secondary targets as you like, but they must all be within 30 feet of the primary target, and no target can be struck more than once. You can choose to affect fewer secondary targets than the maximum (to avoid allies in the area, for example).

Using this feat increases the power point cost of the power by 6. The power’s total cost cannot exceed your manifester level.

What prevents a psion from taking this feat?

[Bucky]

Nothing. But how many powers (a) have a single target, (b) strike that target and (c) do elemental damage when they strike it? The person who posted it couldn't find anything except that Energy Conversion technically works if you hit yourself with the main ray.

They also named Weapon of Energy, but that doesn't work because it targets the weapon but damages something else.

[Nifft]

What prevents a psion from taking this feat?

Nothing. But how many powers (a) have a single target, (b) strike that target and (c) do elemental damage when they strike it? The person who posted it couldn't find anything except that Energy Conversion technically works if you hit yourself with the main ray.

They also named Weapon of Energy, but that doesn't work because it targets the weapon but damages something else.

IIRC you can use it with Energy Ray, Energy Push, and Energy Retort -- all 3 of those are in the SRD, and all 3 are single-target Ray attacks which strike a single target.

[Troacctid]

Those powers aren't Target: Creature; they're Effect: Ray. They don't directly target anything.

Well, Energy Retort does, but it has two targets, so it still doesn't work.

[Inevitability]

I think that falls under the same dysfunction as "Half-Dragon Dragons exist."

To be fair, as far as 'what happens when two dragon variants crossbreed' goes, half-dragon dragons aren't the worst possible answer.

[nailbudday]

The real question is if a White-half-red gets its choice of breath weapons or if chicanery happens and it gets a rimefire breath weapon.

[Debatra]

That one at least has a real answer. The Half-Dragon template retains the special attacks of the base creature (including breath weapons). So it would have both. The base dragon's usable once per 1d4 rounds, and the template's usable once per day.

[peacenlove]

Tome of Magic pg. 138
Mysteries function as ...

...Cannot benefit from feats that enhance spells, such as metamagic feats, Ability Focus, or Empower Spell-Like Ability. Instead, mysteries benefit from metashadow feats.

2 out of the 3 examples do not apply to spells either way.

[Inevitability]

Tome of Magic pg. 138
Mysteries function as ...

...Cannot benefit from feats that enhance spells, such as metamagic feats, Ability Focus, or Empower Spell-Like Ability. Instead, mysteries benefit from metashadow feats.

2 out of the 3 examples do not apply to spells either way.

Alternate reading:

...Cannot benefit from feats that enhance spells, such as metamagic feats and cannot benefit from Ability Focus and cannot benefit from Empower Spell-Like Ability.

[Jormengand]

This does serve as an excellent warning against using commas as list separators and parenthetically in the same sentence, but isn't a dysfunction.

[ShurikVch]

It's fairly minor thing, but still may count as dysfunction:
Carrionette (Dragon #339), being Construct, have creation rules:

CL 5th; Craft Construct (see Monster Manual, page 303), detect magic, slow, magic jar, caster must be at least 5th level; Price 2500 gp +100 XP.

But, instead "Cost" there is "Price"
Thus, Carrionettes are, apparently, completely free to create, but - in addition to monetary price - would drain 100 XP from the buyer...

[Debatra]

There's still the general creation cost rules, but the XP drain on purchase is a good one.

[ShurikVch]

There's still the general creation cost rules, but the XP drain on purchase is a good one.

It's not like I'm disagreeing or something, but still - which "general creation rules"?

[Debatra]

In this case, the ones for the Craft Construct feat. I'm away from my books at the moment, but I believe it follows the usual "half the base price in gp, 1/25th the price in xp" rule.

[Jormengand]

Some monsters, like dire weasels, have the ability to attach to a creature they bite, but this is weird in a lot of ways. For a start, a dire weasel can't not attach to someone it bites, ("Latches onto" not "May latch onto"). Second, it doesn't seem to have a way to get off the creature without assistance. Third, it's not quite clear what attaching actually does. Is it a kind of grapple? The text sorta implies that it might be ("An attached dire weasel can be struck with a weapon or grappled itself") but it's totally unclear what the ability actually does.

[flare'90]

Some monsters, like dire weasels, have the ability to attach to a creature they bite, but this is weird in a lot of ways. For a start, a dire weasel can't not attach to someone it bites, ("Latches onto" not "May latch onto"). Second, it doesn't seem to have a way to get off the creature without assistance. Third, it's not quite clear what attaching actually does. Is it a kind of grapple? The text sorta implies that it might be ("An attached dire weasel can be struck with a weapon or grappled itself") but it's totally unclear what the ability actually does.

On the second point, technically they can get off when the creature dies, since a corpse is treated as an object and the ability specifies that it latches to a creature.