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

[ShurikVch]

Dragons display many cat-like properties, and kobolds display many dragon-like properties. Clearly the ability to squeeze through ridiculously tight spaces is inherited from cats to dragons to kobolds.

I tried to find this hypothetical Kobold's thickness by using calculations for cylinder filled with water
I doesn't sure how accurate were my results, but it was around 1.5' thick
For "vertical" creature of only 2' 3" tall, it's huge!
If such Kobold will attempt "squeezing" through a restrictive space, I expecting the obvious result:

Well if acts can be evil and objects can be evil and places can be evil and creatures can be inherently evil regardless of their actual moral proclivities then why can't unintelligent creatures touched/created by evil be evil themselves?

alignment:

One of the nine descriptors of morality for intelligent creatures

See - it says "intelligent"!
Also, by your counter-examples:
"... acts can be evil ..." - only if they were committed by intelligent person: if goblin poisoned somebody, it's Evil; but is Monstrous Scorpion stung and poisoned somebody - it's Neutral
"... objects can be evil ..." - only if they have Int score
"... places can be evil ..." - only if they reside on Evil-aligned plane, or directly near the planar breach or gate to such plane
"... creatures can be inherently evil regardless of their actual moral proclivities ..." - How? Evil subtype? I already mentioned it as "one true way"...

[PallentisLunam]

"... acts can be evil ..." - only if they were committed by intelligent person: if goblin poisoned somebody, it's Evil; but is Monstrous Scorpion stung and poisoned somebody - it's Neutral
"... objects can be evil ..." - only if they have Int score
"... places can be evil ..." - only if they reside on Evil-aligned plane, or directly near the planar breach or gate to such plane
"... creatures can be inherently evil regardless of their actual moral proclivities ..." - How? Evil subtype? I already mentioned it as "one true way"...

Casting a spell with the evil descriptor is an evil act, regardless of the alignment of the caster and since there is no unaligned value in 3.5 even an unintelligent creature who casts a spell with the evil descriptor has committed an evil act. I don't know for certain, because there is a lot of information to sift through, but I think I can safely assume that an unintelligent monster somewhere in all the vast domain that is 3.5 can cast a spell or use an SLA that has the evil descriptor.

An unholy weapon radiates evil. Last I checked you can have an unintelligent unholy weapon. Would you like to argue that something can exude an aura of evil without having the evil alignment?

The variant rule Taint says that places can be evil and this is where taint gathers. However, a variant in UA might not be good enough for you, so maybe the DMG II will be more convincing. The Terrible Cyst grants evil creatures the power to smite good. Also I seem to recall that temples dedicated to good and evil deities radiate their god's alignment but I don't feel like looking it up

And yes, I was referring to the evil subtype. You win a cookie.

[ZamielVanWeber]

The Paraelemental Power feat can be taken multiple times, each time it must be the same type as one of the types chosen with Privileged Energy. Privileged Energy cannot be taken multiple times.

[ShurikVch]

Casting a spell with the evil descriptor is an evil act, regardless of the alignment of the caster and since there is no unaligned value in 3.5 even an unintelligent creature who casts a spell with the evil descriptor has committed an evil act. I don't know for certain, because there is a lot of information to sift through, but I think I can safely assume that an unintelligent monster somewhere in all the vast domain that is 3.5 can cast a spell or use an SLA that has the evil descriptor.

No.
Only intentional cast of [Evil] spell is an Evil act
Otherwise, this example CR 10 trap (Forcecage and Summon Monster VII, summons hamatula) commits an Evil act every time it's triggered

An unholy weapon radiates evil. Last I checked you can have an unintelligent unholy weapon.

Yes, you can.
But, unless the weapon in question is got Int score somehow, it's an object, and it's "alignment" (like for all other objects) is "—"

Would you like to argue that something can exude an aura of evil without having the evil alignment?

Yes.
Easily.
For example, read Planar Motes entry in Complete Scoundrel - they radiating alignment of their home plane, but are "unintelligent" and "harmless"

The variant rule Taint says that places can be evil and this is where taint gathers. However, a variant in UA might not be good enough for you, so maybe the DMG II will be more convincing. The Terrible Cyst grants evil creatures the power to smite good. Also I seem to recall that temples dedicated to good and evil deities radiate their god's alignment but I don't feel like looking it up

There is also Lingering Effects of Evil variant rules in Book of Vile Darkness - except for the whole article there isn't a single word "alignment"
As for the Terrible Cyst - it's unclear about if it have actual alignment or not; but, even if it have - then it's a creature

And yes, I was referring to the evil subtype. You win a cookie.

The problem is: aura of Evil, Evil subtype, Evil descriptor, Evil Exception, Tainted With Evil - all this isn't Alignment - for example, Eludecia doesn't fall for having Evil subtype

[PallentisLunam]

No. Only intentional cast of [Evil] spell is an Evil act.

How exactly would one unintentionally cast a spell or use an SLA?

Otherwise, this example CR 10 trap (Forcecage and Summon Monster VII, summons hamatula) commits an Evil act every time it's triggered.

And why can't that be the case? If a tool does something evil then the guilt is assigned to the operator, and traps don't make themselves.

Yes. Easily. For example, read Planar Motes entry in Complete Scoundrel - they radiating alignment of their home plane, but are "unintelligent" and "harmless"

Let's get the full quote there, "largely harmless and seemingly unintelligent"
Planar motes don't seem well enough defined to make a case with.

The problem is: aura of Evil, Evil subtype, Evil descriptor, Evil Exception, Tainted With Evil - all this isn't Alignment - for example, Eludecia doesn't fall for having Evil subtype

So any time a creature is afflicted by a Feeblemind spell they lose their alignment? Like I said there is no value outside the 3x3 so would this set them to true neutral?

Does a character whose intelligence is reduced to 0 gain immunity to any effects which rely on the character being good, evil, lawful, or chaotic?

[ZamielVanWeber]

You can tell where I have been spending a bunch of time:
Energy Emanation, a no save power, scales its save DC based on how many power points you spend to augment it. Weirdly enough this is not entirely useless as it affects the save of Privileged Energy if you should use it.

[zergling.exe]

The Paraelemental Power feat can be taken multiple times, each time it must be the same type as one of the types chosen with Privileged Energy. Privileged Energy cannot be taken multiple times.

Not dysfunctional. Something having rules for a situation that can't actually occur is just extra words. Everything still functions as it should.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Not dysfunctional. Something having rules for a situation that can't actually occur is just extra words. Everything still functions as it should.

Fair enough. I guess so many weird issues pop up in CPsi that I tend to think of all of them as dysfunctional.

[ShurikVch]

How exactly would one unintentionally cast a spell or use an SLA?

One example is magical traps - even if they cast spells, it wasn't their intention
Verran’s Flesh Golems use trigger-activated amulets, but still "Int -", and what's the intention without sapience?

And why can't that be the case? If a tool does something evil then the guilt is assigned to the operator, and traps don't make themselves.

While act of setting the trap may be Evil (I don't sure), but the act of summoning the devil committed by the trap, not the trapper; and trap is lacks alignment altogether - not even True Neutral

Let's get the full quote there, "largely harmless and seemingly unintelligent"
Planar motes don't seem well enough defined to make a case with.

OK...
Have you any quotes which can prove it's impossible to have aura of alignment without actually having alignment?

So any time a creature is afflicted by a Feeblemind spell they lose their alignment? Like I said there is no value outside the 3x3 so would this set them to true neutral?

Does a character whose intelligence is reduced to 0 gain immunity to any effects which rely on the character being good, evil, lawful, or chaotic?

Good questions!
No, seriously, if somebody was damaged into Int 0, Wis 0, Cha 0 - then how's he/she will perceive the world?
Apparently, either Alignment have absolutely nothing to do with innate beliefs and general worldview, or both Alignment and mental capabilities are very poorly thought-out

[PallentisLunam]

One example is magical traps - even if they cast spells, it wasn't their intention
Verran’s Flesh Golems use trigger-activated amulets, but still "Int -", and what's the intention without sapience?
While act of setting the trap may be Evil (I don't sure), but the act of summoning the devil committed by the trap, not the trapper; and trap is lacks alignment altogether - not even True Neutral

Well it gets rather technical and would require us to dive into real world metaphysics and systems of logic, morality, and ethics, but the short version would be that when an act itself is evil guilt or responsibility falls on the most proximal sapient entity.

To give an example if somebody commits a murder with a gun it was the gun that did the killing but we assign blame to the killer not to the tool. It gets more complicated when you add in magic and rigidly define good and evil and what a good or evil act is but the base assumptions are the same.

OK...
Have you any quotes which can prove it's impossible to have aura of alignment without actually having alignment?
No, seriously, if somebody was damaged into Int 0, Wis 0, Cha 0 - then how's he/she will perceive the world?
Apparently, either Alignment have absolutely nothing to do with innate beliefs and general worldview, or both Alignment and mental capabilities are very poorly thought-out

The rules don't work that way. You're not going to find rules that describe every impossible situation in minute detail. In situations like this we have to apply the rules we have consistently and work from general to specific to define what is possible not what isn't. We know that creatures have to have alignments. We know that things (anything that doesn't fall under the definition of creature) can have alignments therefore if something radiates evil it is possible that it radiates evil because it has the evil alignment.

I think there is a thread rule somewhere that say alignment itself is not something subject to being dysfunctional as defined herein.

[Jon_Dahl]

I'm sorry, this must have come up several times before, but I have I understood it correctly that if you are fighting someone who is armed with a small weapon, e.g. a spiked gauntlet, you can try a Sleight of Hand check. If you beat DC 20 and the opponent's/opponents' spot, you can take the gauntlet unnoticed?

Edit: And you can try this an infinite amount of times on your turn if you take -20 penalty and perform the check as a free action.

[ShurikVch]

We know that things (anything that doesn't fall under the definition of creature) can have alignments

Really? Prove it

[weckar]

I'm sorry, this must have come up several times before, but I have I understood it correctly that if you are fighting someone who is armed with a small weapon, e.g. a spiked gauntlet, you can try a Sleight of Hand check. If you beat DC 20 and the opponent's/opponents' spot, you can take the gauntlet unnoticed?

Edit: And you can try this an infinite amount of times on your turn if you take -20 penalty and perform the check as a free action.

Why not take their clothes while you're at it? Volume wise it'd easily count as Small.

I think the real dysfunction here that there is NO WAY to pickpocket a Tiny or smaller item.

[Jon_Dahl]

Why not take their clothes while you're at it? Volume wise it'd easily count as Small.

I think the real dysfunction here that there is NO WAY to pickpocket a Tiny or smaller item.

I would call both phenoma dysfunctional, I do not see any point in ranking them.

[ShurikVch]

I'm sorry, this must have come up several times before, but I have I understood it correctly that if you are fighting someone who is armed with a small weapon, e.g. a spiked gauntlet, you can try a Sleight of Hand check. If you beat DC 20 and the opponent's/opponents' spot, you can take the gauntlet unnoticed?

Edit: And you can try this an infinite amount of times on your turn if you take -20 penalty and perform the check as a free action.

Why not take their clothes while you're at it? Volume wise it'd easily count as Small.

I think the real dysfunction here that there is NO WAY to pickpocket a Tiny or smaller item.

I wonder: what's the size category of Armor Spikes?..

[Troacctid]

The -20 for Sleight of Hand was updated to be a move action, not a free action.

[Darrin]

The -20 for Sleight of Hand was updated to be a move action, not a free action.

Text trumps table. The table entry in the Rules Compendium that categorizes this as a move action was never explained in the text. There's no indication from the designers that this was intended to be a change in the rules.

[Jon_Dahl]

Text trumps table. The table entry in the Rules Compendium that categorizes this as a move action was never explained in the text. There's no indication from the designers that this was intended to be a change in the rules.

Clothes and armor spikes have been mentioned, so let's take it all in just one round with free action Sleight of Hand checks.

[ShurikVch]

I don't sure how "dysfunctional" it is, but still:

Chitine, male (Underdark) - Small size; by the Random Height and Weight table, may be 4' 5" tall, and weighs 131 lbs.

Dwarf, female - Medium size; according to the Random Height and Weight table, may be just 3' 9" tall, and weighs 104 lbs.

[Hish]

Dwarves are stocky, which gives them their size category. No clue how much sense that makes, but I think that was the intention.
I'm not sure how to account for the weight difference. Maybe dwarves have hollow bones?

Out of curiosity, how do the average and maximum weights compare?

[The Viscount]

Why not take their clothes while you're at it? Volume wise it'd easily count as Small.

I think the real dysfunction here that there is NO WAY to pickpocket a Tiny or smaller item.

That's especially messed up considering that coins would be diminutive if not fine objects, so you can't actually pick someone's pocket for the 1 thing most pickpockets are after.

[Inevitability]

I'm not sure how to account for the weight difference. Maybe dwarves have hollow bones?

Chitines have extra limbs, which may explain it.

[Jormengand]

Creatures cannot speak unless they spend skill points to learn extra languages, because speak language is trained only.

[The Viscount]

Other than the languages that every "intended" PC race speaks by virtue of race?

Vampire template can be applied to any humanoid or monstrous humanoid, but vampires can only spawn vampires from creatures of 5HD or more.

[Jormengand]

Other than the languages that every "intended" PC race speaks by virtue of race?

No, including those languages. It's trained only, so you cannot speak language unless you have spent a skill point on the skill.

[Malimar]

No, including those languages. It's trained only, so you cannot speak language unless you have spent a skill point on the skill.

Even allowing for the possibility that "used" in "Many skills can be used only by someone who is trained in them." doesn't refer solely to making checks (which Speak Language specifies twice is not a thing you do)...

• You start at 1st level knowing one or two languages (based on your race), plus an additional number of languages equal to your starting Intelligence bonus.
• You can purchase Speak Language just like any other skill, but instead of buying a rank in it, you choose a new language that you can speak.

...It seems reasonably clear to me that your starting languages are not a function of the Speak Language skill.

That said, the possibility exists that you can't speak any of the languages you purchase through Speak Language because you may need to have ranks in a Trained Only skill to use it...

A skill check takes into account a character’s training (skill rank), natural talent (ability modifier), and luck (the die roll).

...but you can't put ranks in Speak Language, you only choose a new language for each skill point you spend.

[PallentisLunam]

No, including those languages. It's trained only, so you cannot speak language unless you have spent a skill point on the skill.

Actually no, that's not the way it's written. "Trained Only" refers to the rules about making skill checks with the skill in question. Speak Language has no skill checks. And one can never have ranks in Speak Language. Spending a skill point grants a new language known rather than ranks in Speak Language and characters start with a certain number of languages known.

[InvisibleBison]

The rules for riding do not, as far as I know, make any allowance for non-human-shaped riders. Thus, a human, a merfolk, an ethereal marauder, or an awakened medium snake can all ride a horse using the same equipment and without suffering any penalties.

[PallentisLunam]

The rules for riding do not, as far as I know, make any allowance for non-human-shaped riders. Thus, a human, a merfolk, an ethereal marauder, or an awakened medium snake can all ride a horse using the same equipment and without suffering any penalties.

Centaurs riding horses... God help us.

[Inevitability]

The rules for riding do not, as far as I know, make any allowance for non-human-shaped riders. Thus, a human, a merfolk, an ethereal marauder, or an awakened medium snake can all ride a horse using the same equipment and without suffering any penalties.

DMG, page 204.

You have the final decision on what is or is not a suitable mount. At its most basic level, a mount should have the following characteristics:

-Able and willing to carry its rider in a typical fashion. (A camel is able and willing. A tiger might be capable but may not be willing. A giant might be willing but not truly able.)
-At least one size category larger than the character. Also, a flying mount can carry no more than a light load aloft.
-The mount's Challenge Rating should be no more than 3 less than the rider's character level. If the mount can fly, its Challenge Rating should be no more than 4 less than the rider character level.

The last one's pretty weird, (can a 20th-level paladin not use their own special mount anymore?), but the first one seems to resolve this dysfunction.