Hilarious things you've found in RAW?

[Gemini476]

If we look definition of a "Commoner" in the Wikipedia - we would see:

For a less advanced societies - like nomads, or even hunter-gatherers - there would be no Commoner at all, regardless of what DMG may say

Yes, but also, this is D&D: logic has little place here, it's all just the mind of the writers.

Case in point...

If you allow me example from real history - at the start of XIX century, in Russia, all cities and towns contained whopping 6,5% of population
Thus, don't matter how much people are in the cities - without knowing the whole picture, we can't make any assumptions there

See, here's the funny bit: the DMG actually gives us demographics for settlements ranging from 20 to >25,001 inhabitants on page 137. And they're weird, since they're meant to give a good chance of encountering big cities.

50% of settlements have more than 900 inhabitants. Assuming average rolls for each population, 64.83% of the population lives in a "city" or "metropolis".

Also, one more hilarious moment: none of "example" Goblin(/Orc/...) Warriors have any bonus to Survival, but have Wis penalty - shouldn't they get lost all the time?..

Probably not? Orcs live in temperate hills, goblins in temperate plains. The DC for getting lost in hills is 10 when off a trail, checked every hour, but that goes down to 6 if you have a map. Plains, meanwhile, you just straight-up can't get lost in unless there's poor visibility from fog etc. (in which case it's DC 12).

However, the orcs that do get lost are unlikely to make it back home again - the DC 20 (-1/hour of random travel) check is tricky with a -2 modifier, and the check to set a new course is DC 15 (+2/hour of random travel) which is likely to be untenable.

No, the ones you should be worried about are the elves - they have a -1 Survival modifier, after all, and the DC to not get lost in a forest is 15.

[ShurikVch]

Yes, but also, this is D&D: logic has little place here, it's all just the mind of the writers.

Please, tell me: what's Commoners are supposed to do in a society which don't uses agriculture?

Case in point...

See, here's the funny bit: the DMG actually gives us demographics for settlements ranging from 20 to >25,001 inhabitants on page 137. And they're weird, since they're meant to give a good chance of encountering big cities.

50% of settlements have more than 900 inhabitants. Assuming average rolls for each population, 64.83% of the population lives in a "city" or "metropolis".

Well, firstly: the "demographics" in the DMG is a guidelines - not a rules
This aside - let's look, for example, on the famous Blackmoor: its population is 110000, but the capital contains only 709 citizens, and other major towns are 180 (Egg of Coot), 150 (Tonnsborg), and "ruined" (Blackmoor Town). Thus, all the Major Towns of Blackmoor inhabited by the less than 1% of population.
And I wouldn't be surprised if it's not a singular occurrence - but rather, none of published settings fits to the DMG demographics guidelines

[Malphegor]

this reminds me of a funny thing I read around here once.

Climb is a skill based off of strength.

Elephants are strong. Ridiculously so. Enough that they surpass any penalty from being so big.

Beware the drop-elephant. The pachyderms are known for climbing trees to ambush potential predators to the herd.

[Gemini476]

See, the problem with going to published settings is that they generally predate 3E - the one major exception being Eberron. In fact, Blackmoor predates D&D.

Even going by their actual words rather than their faulty table, you still get 10% of the population in larger communities:

In general, the number of people living in small towns and larger communities should be about 1/10 to 1/15 the number living in villages, hamlets, thorps, or outside a community at all.

Actually, here's a fun exercise. If we assume that this is true and the table are true (and remember, this entire thread is about RAW), then...

Rather than 93.55% of people living in towns and larger, it's 10%.
Rather than 6.45% of people living in thorps, hamlets and villages, it's 0.69%.
Also, 89.31% of the population is "invisible", living "outside communities".

Going for the 1/15th number instead, you end up with 6.67% of people in larger communities, 0.46% in smaller communities, and 92.87% as outsiders.

The Implied D&D 3.5e Setting is quite unlike history, I think.

[InvisibleBison]

50% of settlements have more than 900 inhabitants.

Not so. A randomly generated settlement has a 50% chance of having more than 900 settlements, but nowhere does it say that all settlements are randomly generated. In fact, the text explicitly says that using Table 5-2 to generate settlements is purely optional ("When the PCs come to into a town [...] you can use the following material.")

[ShurikVch]

this reminds me of a funny thing I read around here once.

Climb is a skill based off of strength.

Elephants are strong. Ridiculously so. Enough that they surpass any penalty from being so big.

Beware the drop-elephant. The pachyderms are known for climbing trees to ambush potential predators to the herd.

This was taken care of in the very Monster Manual:

Natural Tendencies: Some creatures simply aren't made for certain types of physical activity. Elephants, despite their great Strength scores, are terrible at jumping. Giant crocodiles, despite their high Strength scores, don't climb well. Horses can't walk tightropes. If it seems clear to you that a particular creature simply is not made for a particular physical activity, you can say that the creature takes a –8 penalty on skill checks that defy its natural tendencies. In extreme circumstances (a porpoise attempting a Climb check, for instance) you can rule that the creature fails the check automatically.

See, the problem with going to published settings is that they generally predate 3E - the one major exception being Eberron. In fact, Blackmoor predates D&D

You say "Eberron" - OK, there's Eberron:
Zilargo
Population - 250,000
Trolanport - 27,500;
Korranberg - 17,230;
Zolanberg - 6,170.
Other cites and settlements have no exact numbers listed, but Oskilor and Thurimbar are large towns; Dragonroost and Tzanthus - small towns; Quesk, Reven, Tariston - villages; Tarandro - hamlet; Liugwen - thorp.
By my calculation - correct me if it's erroneous -, no more than 27.232% of Zilargo's population are inhabit those cites and settlements. Where are the rest 72.768%?

[InvisibleBison]

By my calculation - correct me if it's erroneous -, no more than 27.232% of Zilargo's population are inhabit those cites and settlements. Where are the rest 72.768%?

Presumably they're living in other settlements that the source doesn't list.

[loky1109]

this reminds me of a funny thing I read around here once.

Climb is a skill based off of strength.

Elephants are strong. Ridiculously so. Enough that they surpass any penalty from being so big.

Beware the drop-elephant. The pachyderms are known for climbing trees to ambush potential predators to the herd.

Swim, too.
Iron golem has big Str. It should swim good.

[ShurikVch]

No, the ones you should be worried about are the elves - they have a -1 Survival modifier, after all, and the DC to not get lost in a forest is 15.

If we should worry about Elves - then what's about Forest Gnomes?
Hadozee?
Kobolds?
O'bati?
Phanatons?
Tasloi?
Xephs?
Xvarts?
I mean - they are all living in some forests, have Wis penalty, and no ranks in Survival...

Bamboo Spirit Folk, Forestkith Goblins, Saurials, and Vanaras are, at the very least, have no Wis penalties. Finhead Saurial and Vanara get actual Wis bonus (+1)
The only one of "forest races" with actual bonus to Survival (AFAIK) is Laika from the Savage Species Web Enhancement

[Seward]

Hm, another thing I noticed today.

Put a dwarf in heavy plate armor and a tower shield with 10 or lower dex.
He's rocking a move silent and hide skill pushing -20.

His "take 10" on move silent is about as loud as an entire battle, and his "take 10" on hiding is about like noticing a size huge creature with low dex or light armor. I mean damn, does his armor resonate with each step and shine like a beacon?

[Telok]

Swim, too.
Iron golem has big Str. It should swim good.

For some reason... no, I know why... anyhoo I always thought iron golems were hollow. There is a pic in the... 2nd?... edition AD&D PH (the one with the extra bad art) of someone making one, and there was something about where the gas came from too. But I always thought they were hollow which, if properly sealed, meant an iron golem of the correct dimensions could float.

But is even an ad hoc -8 enough to offset the elephant strength bonus?... wait, look it up... Ha! Strength 30, +10-8 fir +2, better than most humans at climbing (big) trees and another +4 jumping for the 40' move speed.

[RSGA]

Hm, another thing I noticed today.

Put a dwarf in heavy plate armor and a tower shield with 10 or lower dex.
He's rocking a move silent and hide skill pushing -20.

His "take 10" on move silent is about as loud as an entire battle, and his "take 10" on hiding is about like noticing a size huge creature with low dex or light armor. I mean damn, does his armor resonate with each step and shine like a beacon?

I mean, by most RAW metrics a 3.5 tower shield is a mobile wooden door of some sort with additional banding and cladding to give it those extra 5-10 hit points. So the guy is trying to carry and balance this door+ with one arm and some straps. He's probably banging his armored shins, the floor, and nearby walls often enough to inspire a bad bard.

I figure that seeing a repurposed, improved door moving is probably also eye catching. Especially once it has a livery or heraldric decoration on it.

[Batcathat]

Hm, another thing I noticed today.

Put a dwarf in heavy plate armor and a tower shield with 10 or lower dex.
He's rocking a move silent and hide skill pushing -20.

His "take 10" on move silent is about as loud as an entire battle, and his "take 10" on hiding is about like noticing a size huge creature with low dex or light armor. I mean damn, does his armor resonate with each step and shine like a beacon?

Now I envision a poor (in both senses of the word) dwarf who makes a living acting as a distraction for hire. I imagine he's popular with criminals, who can just take whatever they want as long as the world's loudest dwarf is walking around outside.

[King of Nowhere]

He's easier to see than a colossal-sized dragon. Quite the feat to accomplish for this dwarf.

[Scots Dragon]

See, the problem with going to published settings is that they generally predate 3E - the one major exception being Eberron. In fact, Blackmoor predates D&D.

The Forgotten Realms does as well, being created by Ed Greenwood sometime in the 1960s as a setting to tell stories in that he adapted to his home D&D hobby in the 1970s, and started inserting details from when he was hired on for Dragon Magazine in the early-1980s.

It's why it has so many high-detail quirks when you look past the surface details.

[ShurikVch]

For some reason... no, I know why... anyhoo I always thought iron golems were hollow.

Completely Dysfunctional Handbook [3.5]:

Iron Golem

Iron Golem is Hollow

Hm, another thing I noticed today.

Put a dwarf in heavy plate armor and a tower shield with 10 or lower dex.
He's rocking a move silent and hide skill pushing -20.

His "take 10" on move silent is about as loud as an entire battle, and his "take 10" on hiding is about like noticing a size huge creature with low dex or light armor. I mean damn, does his armor resonate with each step and shine like a beacon?

That's because it's Heavy Metal Armor: it plays dwarven Heavy Metal on speakers, and very easy to notice because of all the light show and pyrotechnics...

[Azuresun]

this reminds me of a funny thing I read around here once.

Climb is a skill based off of strength.

Elephants are strong. Ridiculously so. Enough that they surpass any penalty from being so big.

Beware the drop-elephant. The pachyderms are known for climbing trees to ambush potential predators to the herd.

The Gargatuan Dire Elephant has a listed climb speed. What would something that big even need to climb?!

[Azuresun]

I'm seriously puzzled by the lack of facing rules: no matter from which side you're coming to the creature, it's always supposed to be laser-guided on you - even if it's sleeping. And it's get weirder in case of multiple attackers...

Having played wargames with facing rules....they don't add that much. It produces its own brand of weirdness when, until their turn comes up, a combatant will not react to their clearly visible enemy jogging around behind them and stabbing them in the back.

[Gemini476]

The Gargatuan Dire Elephant has a listed climb speed. What would something that big even need to climb?!

The Alps, perhaps?

If nothing else, the classic caveman anti-mammoth tactic of "lob spears and shoot arrows from atop a cliff" won't work.

[ShurikVch]

The Gargatuan Dire Elephant has a listed climb speed. What would something that big even need to climb?!

Fixed in the 3.5 update booklet:

Dire Elephant: Animal; 20 ft./10 ft.; Listen +19, Spot +15; Alertness,
Endurance, Improved Bull Rush, Iron Will, Power Attack, Skill Focus (Listen),
Weapon Focus (gore); LA —; No climb speed (and no racial bonus on Climb).
Feats improved gore attack bonus to +27 melee and Will save bonus to +16.

Having played wargames with facing rules....they don't add that much.

The problem for me is a verisimilitude: the classical way to move stealthy is to do it behind the back of the observers, and the original form of Sneak Attack was called "Backstab" (thus, must be done in the back). In the "no facing" rules, we're supposed to believe the rogue somehow moves stealthy despite the fact the watchers staring right at them, and stabs the watchers in the face...

It produces its own brand of weirdness when, until their turn comes up, a combatant will not react to their clearly visible enemy jogging around behind them and stabbing them in the back.

It's the price of turn-based combat system: participants wouldn't even sneeze until it's their turn...

[Azuresun]

The problem for me is a verisimilitude: the classical way to move stealthy is to do it behind the back of the observers, and the original form of Sneak Attack was called "Backstab" (thus, must be done in the back). In the "no facing" rules, we're supposed to believe the rogue somehow moves stealthy despite the fact the watchers staring right at them, and stabs the watchers in the face...

Ah, you're assuming that everyone freezes in place as soon as their turn ends, rather than characters continuing to move and react in abstracted ways (blocking an attack with a shield or resisting a grapple, for example).

And....they're not staring right at each other. By the rules of Sneak Attack, you need to have some kind of edge that is making your attack easier, such as the enemy being blind, knocked down, restrained or stunned, etc, or an ally needs to be engaging the enemy. Those all sound exactly like things that mean the enemy does not have their full attention on you, or cannot defend themselves properly.

[Seward]

He's easier to see than a colossal-sized dragon. Quite the feat to accomplish for this dwarf.

We used to joke about Sneakasouruses - how a gigantic dinosaur in D&D could hide behind a tiny tree and do better than a lot of PC's.

Then we rescued a bright orange, 110 lb sled-dog mix. He was a ninja. He cared about only 2 things - food and exploration/escape. He had an uncanny way of knowing where everybody's attention was and would scout a new environment for all exits, and how people went through them (like who was sloppy and didn't close it properly).

He would escape from people who worked with dogs for a living, from a moment of inattention. He could work french doors, sliding glass doors, ACA handles and screen doors almost as fast as a human. Which is all impressive, but not so much as his stealthy food activities. He literally pulled the meat out of a sandwich while somebody was holding it and having a conversation and they didn't notice till they bit into it and deduced it mainly because "that dog just went by" and "it seems to be swallowing something". He was good at containers too, he once taught the dogs in his kennel how to open tupperware (knock it to the ground and pounce on it. Pop, food spills out), and had a thing where he'd sidle up to a beer-can on the ground, tip it over and lap it up while the owner is watering the lawn or similar a foot away.

He was huge, his tail curled up and made him even more visible when he was up to no good. But unless he was unaware of you, you would almost never notice anything he got up to until it was too late.

That experience made us less skeptical of Dinosaur stealth. But still, it can be kind of silly in D&D.

[ShurikVch]

Having played wargames with facing rules....they don't add that much. It produces its own brand of weirdness when, until their turn comes up, a combatant will not react to their clearly visible enemy jogging around behind them and stabbing them in the back.

Let's say our supposed rogue stabbed a Colossal-sized Dragon in the back.
Do you have any idea how much time it should take for such bulk to turn around?
It bugged me in combats of Heroes of Might and Magic, and it bugs me in a "no facing" tabletop combats...

Ah, you're assuming that everyone freezes in place as soon as their turn ends, rather than characters continuing to move and react in abstracted ways (blocking an attack with a shield or resisting a grapple, for example).

No, I don't assuming such thing. But I don't seeing how it's relevant there.

And....they're not staring right at each other. By the rules of Sneak Attack, you need to have some kind of edge that is making your attack easier, such as the enemy being blind, knocked down, restrained or stunned, etc, or an ally needs to be engaging the enemy. Those all sound exactly like things that mean the enemy does not have their full attention on you, or cannot defend themselves properly.

No problems with "the enemy being blind, knocked down, restrained or stunned, etc" (After all, it's doable IRL too)
But "an ally needs to be engaging the enemy" is a doozy: how can we know the enemy in the example really would be distracted by the ally in question, and not to focus on the rogue instead?
(Unless both allies have Sneak Attack. But even in that case - which one of them should get the opportunity to execute it?)


One more hilarious thing - "hit points aren't wounds"
As it was said in The "BUT DRAGONS!" Fallacy thread:

Yeah, but that provides a funny mental image...

"Cleric! I need a heal! That attack almost injured me!"

It's called Cure Moderate Wounds, not Replenish Moderate Luck.

Indeed. The whole "hit points aren't wounds" shtick gets completely ridiculous when you apply it to actual gameplay, and the only weird thing about "hit points are wounds" is that moderate-level characters are as tough as heroes from action movies.

[AsuraKyoko]

No problems with "the enemy being blind, knocked down, restrained or stunned, etc" (After all, it's doable IRL too)
But "an ally needs to be engaging the enemy" is a doozy: how can we know the enemy in the example really would be distracted by the ally in question, and not to focus on the rogue instead?
(Unless both allies have Sneak Attack. But even in that case - which one of them should get the opportunity to execute it?)

I mean, the enemy is trying to pay attention to both of them, and thus can't focus on either. It's very difficult to just decide to not pay attention to someone who is actively trying to kill you; even if you largely ignore them, getting stabbed/slashed/smacked in the back is, at best, incredibly distracting, and the rogue will use that distraction to hit a vulnerable area.

[Telok]

I mean, the enemy is trying to pay attention to both of them, and thus can't focus on either. It's very difficult to just decide to not pay attention to someone who is actively trying to kill you; even if you largely ignore them, getting stabbed/slashed/smacked in the back is, at best, incredibly distracting, and the rogue will use that distraction to hit a vulnerable area.

Of course that doesn't work real well for mindless zombies or golems and such. Zero thoughts, zero self preservation, just ordered to "kill bob" and they'll happily completely ignore everyone else. You can argue that basic SA won't work on them but it ignores all the assorted "make SA work on <type>" things and the same logic applies to flanking or mindless things that aren't SA immune.

[ShurikVch]

I mean, the enemy is trying to pay attention to both of them, and thus can't focus on either. It's very difficult to just decide to not pay attention to someone who is actively trying to kill you

While difficult it may be - it's still the only way, and any minimally sensible enemy should understand it:
"Chaser of the two hares catches neither"; "Grasp all, lose all"
After all, they have only one weapon, and only one pair of eyes...
(Ettins and Hydras have more than one - but why they're legal for flanking is beyond me)

even if you largely ignore them, getting stabbed/slashed/smacked in the back is, at best, incredibly distracting, and the rogue will use that distraction to hit a vulnerable area.

When the enemy is facing the rogue in question? Thus, we're coming back to the "stabbing in the face"...
Do you understand how difficult it should be to shiv somebody who actively using a shield?

[Pinkie Pyro]

Innate spell (complete arcane) contains this wordage:

"Choose any spell you can cast. You can now cast this spell at will as a spell-like ability once per round. One spell slot eight levels higher than the innate spell is permanently used to power it,"

But the prerequisites:

"Quicken Spell (PH) , Silent Spell (PH) , Still Spell (PH) "
doesn't list having a spell slot of 8th level or higher, so you can pick it as soon as you have the 3 metamagic feats, and lastly:

"As well, spellcasters who become unable to cast spells of the level of the spell slot used to power the innate spell become unable to use the spell-like ability."

Appears at the end of the text... keyword "become unable", meaning you had to be able to cast and then unable. if you weren't able in the first place, there's no RAW issue, and you can cast your spell to your hearts content. Also, if you were able and become unable, you permanently lose the use of the feat by the wording, as there's no clause for becoming able to cast > become able to use spell-like ability. Yay formal logic.

Before the arguments start, logic chain as follows:

Have: quicken, silent, still spell feats > able to choose this feat > pick a spell > no check for if you actually have a spell slot 8 levels above the chosen spell > check if you *lose* access to spell slots 8 levels above chosen spell > permanent loss of feature.

[InvisibleBison]

Innate spell (complete arcane) contains this wordage:

"Choose any spell you can cast. You can now cast this spell at will as a spell-like ability once per round. One spell slot eight levels higher than the innate spell is permanently used to power it,"

But the prerequisites:

"Quicken Spell (PH) , Silent Spell (PH) , Still Spell (PH) "
doesn't list having a spell slot of 8th level or higher, so you can pick it as soon as you have the 3 metamagic feats, and lastly:

"As well, spellcasters who become unable to cast spells of the level of the spell slot used to power the innate spell become unable to use the spell-like ability."

Appears at the end of the text... keyword "become unable", meaning you had to be able to cast and then unable. if you weren't able in the first place, there's no RAW issue, and you can cast your spell to your hearts content. Also, if you were able and become unable, you permanently lose the use of the feat by the wording, as there's no clause for becoming able to cast > become able to use spell-like ability. Yay formal logic.

Before the arguments start, logic chain as follows:

Have: quicken, silent, still spell feats > able to choose this feat > pick a spell > no check for if you actually have a spell slot 8 levels above the chosen spell > check if you *lose* access to spell slots 8 levels above chosen spell > permanent loss of feature.

That's certainly one way to interpret the text. I don't see why anyone would choose such an obviously dysfunctional reading, though.

[Pinkie Pyro]

That's certainly one way to interpret the text. I don't see why anyone would choose such an obviously dysfunctional reading, though.

Because it's RAW, and that is the logic chain.

By all means, present yours.

The key part it's missing to work as intended is changing the stops working bit to "if you ARE unable to cast yadda yadda, you can't use this ability" as that's a state-based conditional instead of a one time check conditional.

As for why you'd use it in game:

Who the hell is sacrificing a 9th level spell slot for an at will 1st level spell? you can get that with what, 2k gold? that's chump change at 17th level. Using a feat to be able to use any one spell of any level you know at will is totally worth it, though.

[Tzardok]

"One spell slot eight levels higher than the innate spell is permanently used to power it" means that if you don't have a spell slot eight levels higher, you can't power the spell-like ability, i.e. you can't use it. Seems like the most obvious reading to me.