Hilarious things you've found in RAW?

[Darg]

No - I really don't understand it: so, spell with "Spell Resistance: Yes (object)" was actually cast on an object - and then...
What, exactly, supposed to happen? And how it's different from spells with "Spell Resistance: Yes" - without the "(object)" tag?
Let alone the fact - there are some spells with "Spell Resistance: No (object)" - like Mighty Wallop, Spell Snare, or Suspended Silence; how you explain it?

I think the "assumption" is that attended items would use the attendee's spell resistance, but that isn't explained. There is also the unique case of a monk's UAS acting as a manufactured weapon for spells, meaning that the monk's spell resistance can get in the way of applying magic weapon. The usual case is that the object tag is used when the spell specifically targets objects or works differently on objects. Fireball can't specifically target objects and doesn't affect objects differently. Orb of Acid can target anything and only creatures need to save against the secondary effect. Disintegrate on the other hand targets creatures or objects exclusively (can't target magical effects) and has a different effect on objects (if it fails it disintegrates without needing to take damage to 0 hp).

[ShurikVch]

Multiheaded Creature template (Savage Species):

"Multiheaded" is an inherited template that can be added to any corporeal creature that has a discernible head (hereafter referred to as the base creature).

Now, what's the smallest creature in the game we can, probably, use it on? (Excluding the extreme cases like Alter Size or Return to Nature abuse)
Mouse? No.
The smallest (and, probably, strangest) creatures for this template are Animated Coins.
See: Coins are corporeal, and have discernible heads (and tails )
Sure, because Coins are no bigger than Medium size, they allowed only one additional head, but still - how the heck Two-Headed Coin should look like?
Also, if "Cryo Creatures" variant would be used for our supposed Two-Headed Animated Coins, then we would get some cryocurrency...

[Wildstag]

A multi-headed coin would have three faces, two that are heads, and one that is tails, duh...

[Beni-Kujaku]

A multi-headed coin would have three faces, two that are heads, and one that is tails, duh...

It's always weird when a creature has more faces than it has heads.

[Inevitability]

It's always weird when a creature has more faces than it has heads.

Like this?

[ShurikVch]

Creature which is so enormous nobody ever seen it whole still somehow feats neatly in a 30' cube; creature which is so miniscule it's able to get total cover from a single grain of sand is still needs ½-ft. cube of space for some reason...

[Darg]

Creature which is so enormous nobody ever seen it whole still somehow feats neatly in a 30' cube; creature which is so miniscule it's able to get total cover from a single grain of sand is still needs ½-ft. cube of space for some reason...

If that trips you up, you should see black holes and atoms.

[Beni-Kujaku]

Creature which is so enormous nobody ever seen it whole still somehow feats neatly in a 30' cube; creature which is so miniscule it's able to get total cover from a single grain of sand is still needs ½-ft. cube of space for some reason...

I blame 3.5 normalization. The Tarrasque still misses her 40x40, and the ridiculously gigantic Leviathan and Cloud Ray from MM2 miss their 200x50ft and 100x60ft. At least the latter now has more than 5ft reach. That's absolutely ridiculous for such a beast to not be able to strike at least 3 meters away from its body, but hey, that's 3.0 weirdness and I absolutely adore it (not that I miss the pre-revision edition in the slightest, 3.5 is way easier and feels way better to play).

[Promethean]

Flying weapons have hit dice and are valid targets of awaken construct.

Awakened flying weapons are 1 HD construct with an intelligence modifier >=3, so they're able to take class levels.

Awakened Flying weapons are still weapons with an enhancement bonus and everything, so they're both valid target to be used As weapon grafts and valid targets to Receive weapon grafts.

I heard you like Swords...

[InvisibleBison]

Flying weapons have hit dice and are valid targets of awaken construct.

Awaken construct can only affect humanoid-shaped constructs.

[Promethean]

Awaken construct can only affect humanoid-shaped constructs.

Make a humanoid-shaped sword, or make it a morphic weapon.

There's not exactly any rules on how your weapon needs to be Shaped to count as it's weapon type.

[InvisibleBison]

Make a humanoid-shaped sword, or make it a morphic weapon.

There's not exactly any rules on how your weapon needs to be Shaped to count as it's weapon type.

Yes, there is. It's the bit where it's called a sword. A small statue of a person is not a sword.

[noob]

Yes, there is. It's the bit where it's called a sword. A small statue of a person is not a sword.

Make the handle look like an human (the guard of the sword is the arms and the pommel to prevent sliding while holding is shaped like feet) and the blade seemingly be the hair of that human, it is definitively still a sword (there is a lot of precedents for overly decorated sword handles) but it is now humanoid shaped.
Just make some effort in designing the sword and it can be fully functional while humanoid shaped (it would just be shaped like a twisted humanoid with an hair blade).

[InvisibleBison]

Make the handle look like an human (the guard of the sword is the arms and the pommel to prevent sliding while holding is shaped like feet) and the blade seemingly be the hair of that human, it is definitively still a sword (there is a lot of precedents for overly decorated sword handles) but it is now humanoid shaped.
Just make some effort in designing the sword and it can be fully functional while humanoid shaped (it would just be shaped like a twisted humanoid with an hair blade).

It turns out people have actually made hilts meant to look like people (admittedly, on a different model than you suggest), and they are not humanoid. They're clearly quite stylized. And while a different artisan could make objects that were more humanoid, that would impede its ability to function as a sword. I don't think there's a way to square this circle.

[ShurikVch]

Make a humanoid-shaped sword

Like this?

Spoiler

Show

On a tad more serious note, Flying weapon special ability was published in Oriental Adventures later than in Magic of Faerûn - thus, can, technically, take priority. And OA version - unlike the MoF - don't have the "Animated Object" clause

Sure, you can use Minor Servitor spell on the sword to make it animated - but still, Weapon Graft must be "grafted onto the hand of a thrall", thus - target creature would still need a hand...

[Thurbane]

Anthropoid hilts weren't entirely uncommon, but not sure that would qualify the whole weapon as being humanoid-shaped.

[Tzardok]

If I wanted to be puerile, I would mention a sword's phallic shape and how you could take that more seriously than usual. But I won't; I am a pure spirit who wouldn't even think about such stuff.

[loky1109]

Anthropoid hilts weren't entirely uncommon, but not sure that would qualify the whole weapon as being humanoid-shaped.

Why not? Yes, it's humanoid with some oversized body part, maybe hair, maybe... some other part, but I don't see why it isn't humanoid-shaped. Too big... hm... hair? Well, make not a sword, but a dagger.

[noob]

Why not? Yes, it's humanoid with some oversized body part, maybe hair, maybe... some other part, but I don't see why it isn't humanoid-shaped. Too big... hm... hair? Well, make not a sword, but a dagger.

No matter how long the hair is, it is still an humanoid.
Hence my suggestion to basically have a T posing human with a blade hair as a sword.

[InvisibleBison]

Humanoid doesn't mean "recognizably depicting a human", it means "having human characteristics or form; resembling human beings." Even if we would accept that an anthropomorphic hilt is humanoid, the sword as a whole is not - humans don't have giant sword blades sticking out of any part of their body. A sword does not resemble a human or have a human form, no matter what its hilt looks like.

[noob]

Humanoid doesn't mean "recognizably depicting a human", it means "having human characteristics or form; resembling human beings." Even if we would accept that an anthropomorphic hilt is humanoid, the sword as a whole is not - humans don't have giant sword blades sticking out of any part of their body. A sword does not resemble a human or have a human form, no matter what its hilt looks like.

However there is humans with 5 meter long hair in real life and by dnd standards, hair is part of the individual

and some piece of the creature to be duplicated (hair, nail, or the like)

(ref: the simulacrum spell)
Since hair is part of the humanoid creature, there is a non ambiguous interpretation of raw that allows to have an entire sword be humanoid like.
Regardless everything you are saying is not in the right context for the discussion because we are using the awaken construct spell which does not require the target to have the humanoid type and is clearly intended to work on creatures that are not humanoid but are depictions of humanoid such as golems which generally have nonsensical body proportions (just look at their pictures) and are generally made of metals (look at their descriptions).

Awaken construct

This spell awakens a humanoid-shaped construct to humanlike sentience.

Humanoid shaped, so since an human can have the same shape as a specific sword with the right haircut you can use that spell on that specific sword.
Unless you are going to tell me that such haircut makes you stop being an humanoid in which case people at your table can become immune to hold person through the power of hair styling.

[InvisibleBison]

However there is humans with 5 meter long hair in real life and by dnd standards, hair is part of the individual

(ref: the simulacrum spell)
Since hair is part of the humanoid creature, there is a non ambiguous interpretation of raw that allows to have an entire sword be humanoid like.
Regardless everything you are saying is not in the right context for the discussion because we are using the awaken construct spell which does not require the target to have the humanoid type and is clearly intended to work on creatures that are not humanoid but are depictions of humanoid such as golems which generally have nonsensical body proportions (just look at their pictures) and are generally made of metals (look at their descriptions).

Awaken construct

Humanoid shaped, so since an human can have the same shape as a specific sword with the right haircut you can use that spell on that specific sword.
Unless you are going to tell me that such haircut makes you stop being an humanoid in which case people at your table can become immune to hold person through the power of hair styling.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue.

[Promethean]

Like this?

Spoiler

Show

On a tad more serious note, Flying weapon special ability was published in Oriental Adventures later than in Magic of Faerûn - thus, can, technically, take priority. And OA version - unlike the MoF - don't have the "Animated Object" clause

Sure, you can use Minor Servitor spell on the sword to make it animated - but still, Weapon Graft must be "grafted onto the hand of a thrall", thus - target creature would still need a hand...

We're making humanoid swords already(or any other weapon), may as well give them hands.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue.

Why on earth would you go for the ruling that's less fun?

Especially once you realize you can acheive the same effect with the item familiar feat and each flying item familiar constuct would be eligable to take item familiar to make more constructs to place inside themselves.

[Tohron]

So, to give a specific example, would this qualify as a "humanoid sword"?


It has a "head" area (eyes could be added to the bottom of the blade, if necessary), along with two arms and two legs. It can also be held and used as a sword.

And as a bonus visualization of what the weapon graft combo might look like:

Spoiler

Show

[InvisibleBison]

Why on earth would you go for the ruling that's less fun?

This thread isn't about interpreting the rules in a way that is fun, it's about interpreting the rules in a way as close to the literal meaning of the text as possible. That's why it's called "Hilarious things you've found in RAW?" and not "Hilarious houserules you've made?".

[Promethean]

This thread isn't about interpreting the rules in a way that is fun, it's about interpreting the rules in a way as close to the literal meaning of the text as possible. That's why it's called "Hilarious things you've found in RAW?" and not "Hilarious houserules you've made?".

But the RAW is vague and up to interpretation.

By the point you just presented, You were literally presenting your own houserule on what "humanoid shaped" means.

[Metastachydium]

But the RAW is vague and up to interpretation.

By the point you just presented, You were literally presenting your own houserule on what "humanoid shaped" means.

For the record,

A humanoid usually has two arms, two legs, and one head, or a humanlike torso, arms, and a head.

Emphases mine. If we go by official definitions, certain bits (such as legs) are entirely unneccessary, and proportions don't really matter. Case in point, phaerlocks (four-eyed dromaeasaurids with weird, long fingers) and crucians (hunched creatures with many-jointed, two-toed legs and a massive hemispherical shell) are humanoids. Why exactly a creature with a single, rigid leg, a short humanoid torso, two short arms and a head couldn't be a humanoid or considered humanoid-shaped is beyond me.

[Telok]

Sooo... double weapons.... if the flying enhancement makes the weapon a construct and you enchant both ends of a double weapon is it a double construct? Should you add the hit dice? Because a double weapon is still a single weapon, you just enchant the two ends separately, and the enchant makes the whole weapon a construct.

On the 'humanoid" thing: I could see forging a double trident, one peice of steel five feet long, two tines on one end and three on the other. Make the tines long-ish and at the correct angles, you could get a sort of mutant stick figure person shape off it.

[InvisibleBison]

But the RAW is vague and up to interpretation.

By the point you just presented, You were literally presenting your own houserule on what "humanoid shaped" means.

Yes, when the rules are ambiguous they require interpretation, and yes, I interpreted the rules in my earlier posts. I never denied any of that, but you seem to think that I'm contradicting myself somehow. I don't understand what point you're trying to make here.

[Promethean]

For the record,

Emphases mine. If we go by official definitions, certain bits (such as legs) are entirely unneccessary, and proportions don't really matter. Case in point, phaerlocks (four-eyed dromaeasaurids with weird, long fingers) and crucians (hunched creatures with many-jointed, two-toed legs and a massive hemispherical shell) are humanoids. Why exactly a creature with a single, rigid leg, a short humanoid torso, two short arms and a head couldn't be a humanoid or considered humanoid-shaped is beyond me.

So RAW is 100% on board with humoid swords? Cool.

Sooo... double weapons.... if the flying enhancement makes the weapon a construct and you enchant both ends of a double weapon is it a double construct? Should you add the hit dice? Because a double weapon is still a single weapon, you just enchant the two ends separately, and the enchant makes the whole weapon a construct.

On the 'humanoid" thing: I could see forging a double trident, one peice of steel five feet long, two tines on one end and three on the other. Make the tines long-ish and at the correct angles, you could get a sort of mutant stick figure person shape off it.

My money is that they'd be 2 separate constructs connected by a shared peice, like conjoined twins.

Yes, when the rules are ambiguous they require interpretation, and yes, I interpreted the rules in my earlier posts. I never denied any of that, but you seem to think that I'm contradicting myself somehow. I don't understand what point you're trying to make here.

Because it does contradict your point.

The raw is vague enough about a specific mechanic that a valid interpretation interpretation results in hilarious scenarios.

You derided that idea as somhow not RAW by presenting your own interpretations and deriding the others on the basis that yours was the only valid way to interpret the RAW as "close to the literal meaning of the text as possible", which multiple people have disagreed with. You can't in your earlier posts say yours is the only valid interpretation and then in another that all interpretations of RAW are houserules removed from the RAW. It defeats the entire point of all your arguments until now.

All of this is pretty moot now though.