Hilarious things you've found in RAW?

[Wildstag]

That's certainly not what the primary source says:

So once again we get into the perennial debate: whether the later-published source matters more or the original source. I side with the later-published argument. Updates need not be an errata or faq to update existing material, imo. Besides, if that's the case, Half-Dragons don't actually have an extended lifespan (as stated in RotD) because it's not explicitly stated in MM1.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

So once again we get into the perennial debate: whether the later-published source matters more or the original source. I side with the later-published argument. Updates need not be an errata or faq to update existing material, imo. Besides, if that's the case, Half-Dragons don't actually have an extended lifespan (as stated in RotD) because it's not explicitly stated in MM1.

Expanding on an item is one thing, but changing it from what it was is another entirely. And to my knowledge, no errata was published on the subject.

[Pinkie Pyro]

So once again we get into the perennial debate: whether the later-published source matters more or the original source. I side with the later-published argument. Updates need not be an errata or faq to update existing material, imo.

We can solve this debate pretty easy: All dragons were also two-halves dragon if they were born before RotD came out, simple.

Something I came across reading stronghold builder's guide... a 500x30x15 ft moat costs 50,000 gold. what's weird about this is that digging was historically one of the cheapest labors, the biggest cost would just be from the potential retaining wall keeping the moat's shape. but, they explain that all stronghold costs assume you're using magic where applicable... two castings of move earth would be able to dig this out, and only cost a total of 1,320 gold. so where is this other ~49K gold cost coming from?

clearly the moat diggers have a very, very good union.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Something I came across reading stronghold builder's guide... a 500x30x15 ft moat costs 50,000 gold. what's weird about this is that digging was historically one of the cheapest labors, the biggest cost would just be from the potential retaining wall keeping the moat's shape. but, they explain that all stronghold costs assume you're using magic where applicable... two castings of move earth would be able to dig this out, and only cost a total of 1,320 gold. so where is this other ~49K gold cost coming from?

clearly the moat diggers have a very, very good union.

Pretty much everything in the SBG is insanely overpriced, especially since apparently, despite magic being able to completely build stuff for 100% free in very little time (spell slots notwithstanding), spellcasting only grants a minor reduction in cost, for some reason. I mean, I can use wall of stone and summon monster spells to build walls and dig pits respectively, and use stone shape, (greater) fabricate, and planar binding to do detail work and plumbing and stuff, basically giving me ALL of the materials and ALL the labor for free, but it only saves me a small percentage of the cost of materials and labor. Whyyyy?

[Seward]

Traditionally in D&D (1st edition) strongholds existed entirely as a means of sucking away excess gold pieces that were basically worthless at higher levels (they were valuable mostly for the XP you got looting them. There was very little to spend on since markets for magic items, at least in Greyhawk, were entirely low end stuff and commissioning items for mere gold as opposed to favors or trade in equivalent items wasn't really done by the folks who could make it - circle of 8, great druid, leaders of various religions etc). In lower levels gold was always in short supply due to very high training costs compared to WBL just to advance to the next level. The entire economy was a protection racket designed to siphon gold from citizens into adventurer guilds. (monsters raid, adventurers kill monsters and loot whatever they raided, then pay basically all of it to the Guild in exchange for being trained)

So yeah, it was all hideously overpriced and that continues through 3rd edition. In spite of the fact wall of stone can do most of the expensive stuff (and move earth followed by mud to rock will make a pretty good moat too, just add rain from control weather....)

[Bavarian itP]

Could somebody be so kind to tell me the rules for the mysterious weapon "check toee"? According to Complete Divine pg. 121, this is Tharizdun's favored weapon. With a ridiculous name like that, I guess it's some kind of polearm ...

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Could somebody be so kind to tell me the rules for the mysterious weapon "check toee"? According to Complete Divine pg. 121, this is Tharizdun's favored weapon. With a ridiculous name like that, I guess it's some kind of polearm ...

https://dungeonsdragons.fandom.com/wiki/Check_toee

"Check toee" was an error which appeared in Complete Divine (2004), p.121, on Table 5-2, "Other Greyhawk Deities". It appears to be a note written by the author, "Check ToEE" meaning to check Temple of Elemental Evil for Tharizdun's favored weapon. This probably refers to the D&D 3rd edition adventure module Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil (2001) rather than the original AD&D T1-4 The Temple of Elemental Evil (1985), as favored weapons were a game mechanic introduced by D&D 3rd edition (2000).

A similar apparent error appeared in Living Greyhawk Gazetteer (2000), p.185, which lists Tharizdun's favored weapon as the "spiral of decay". This is most likely an error caused by misreading a table, as the spiral of decay is the name for Tharizdun's holy symbol.

Tharizdun's favored weapon is usually referred to in other sources as a dagger.

[Seward]

Check toee" was an error which appeared in Complete Divine (2004), p.121

What I find hilarious is that it was entirely reasonable to assume this was strange custom polearm, rather than a typo

[Vaern]

https://dungeonsdragons.fandom.com/wiki/Check_toee

Check toee" was an error which appeared in Complete Divine (2004), p.121, on Table 5-2, "Other Greyhawk Deities". It appears to be a note written by the author, "Check ToEE" meaning to check Temple of Elemental Evil for Tharizdun's favored weapon. This probably refers to the D&D 3rd edition adventure module Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil (2001) rather than the original AD&D T1-4 The Temple of Elemental Evil (1985), as favored weapons were a game mechanic introduced by D&D 3rd edition (2000).

A similar apparent error appeared in Living Greyhawk Gazetteer (2000), p.185, which lists Tharizdun's favored weapon as the "spiral of decay". This is most likely an error caused by misreading a table, as the spiral of decay is the name for Tharizdun's holy symbol.

Tharizdun's favored weapon is usually referred to in other sources as a dagger.

So it's a typo attempting to direct you to the wrong version of a module that misprinted the information it's referencing?
Why couldn't they just say favored weapon: dagger?

[Tzardok]

So it's a typo attempting to direct you to the wrong version of a module that misprinted the information it's referencing?
Why couldn't they just say favored weapon: dagger?

Propably whoever wrote that thing didn't remember the right weapon, so he put in a note to look it up (and where). And then he never actually did it and the note ended up in the printed book.

Incidentally, whoever translated the book to German did look it up and put the correct weapon in the table.

[Gemini476]

It's far from the worst editing error to make it into a published D&D book. That price goes to the 2E Encyclopedia Magica, Volume 1, a comprehensive magic item collection which infamously had them run a find-replace to change all the instances of "Mage" to "Wizard" (fitting with the TSR house style).
The issue, which made it into the printed book, is that this also resulted in a lot of talk about "iwizards", or how much "dawizard" the item in question could cause or survive...

(Less disastrous, but very similar to the "check toee" issue, was how the old Vampire: The Masquerade and Werewolf: The Apocalypse books would occasionally tell to player to "See Page XX". The issue with placeholders is that you need to make sure you replace them all before you ship.)

[Pinkie Pyro]

Pretty much everything in the SBG is insanely overpriced, especially since apparently, despite magic being able to completely build stuff for 100% free in very little time (spell slots notwithstanding), spellcasting only grants a minor reduction in cost, for some reason. I mean, I can use wall of stone and summon monster spells to build walls and dig pits respectively, and use stone shape, (greater) fabricate, and planar binding to do detail work and plumbing and stuff, basically giving me ALL of the materials and ALL the labor for free, but it only saves me a small percentage of the cost of materials and labor. Whyyyy?

they actually *kinda* go over this, It's spread around but that was meant to represent *hiring* a caster capable of doing that, not just doing it yourself, and free specialized labor forces (summon monster) DO save you money and time.

So rolling back around to the innate spell thing, an at-will spell like ability of fabricate, with eschew material components, lets you just arbitrarily create anything. You first have to cast the actual spell version of fabricate, using eschew materials to create 1 GP worth of whatever it is you want. then you use that 1 GP worth of, oh, diamonds, as your focus for at will fabricate. you start off only being able to freely make 1/50th of a GP worth, but as the pile gets bigger, so do the returns. after you've cast 50 times, you have 2 GP worth of diamonds, so you get 1/25th GP each casting. this continues forever, allowing you to make infinite whatever.

this means you can power your entire empire with cookie clicker wizards.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

*Sigh*

I'm looking over feats from Dragon Magazine, and I just got to the Tireless [Ancestor] feat, from Dragon#318, and I realize that it most definitely doesn't do what I'm sure the author thought it does, and the fact that I've seen nigh identical wording for other similar abilities elsewhere means they probably all suffer the same fate:

You reduce the effects of exhaustion and fatigue by 1 step. You cannot become exhausted; if you are exposed to an effect or condition that would make you exhausted [such as the spell waves of exhaustion], you become fatigued instead. If an effect or condition [such as the end of barbarian rage] would make you fatigued, you suffer no penalty at all.

So you're immune to exhaustion, and any effect that would have made you exhausted make you fatigued, instead. But you take no penalties from fatigue, so...

[hamishspence]

Seems pretty obvious to me - Exhaustion effects become Fatigued effects, and, separately, Fatigued effects become "nothing at all" effects.

"Suffer no penalty at all" applies only to "just becoming fatigued" not to "becoming exhausted".

Having a character who would normally become exhausted suffer no penalty at all, would be "reducing it by two steps" not one.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Seems pretty obvious to me - Exhaustion effects become Fatigued effects, and, separately, Fatigued effects become "nothing at all" effects.

"Suffer no penalty at all" applies only to "just becoming fatigued" not to "becoming exhausted".

Having a character who would normally become exhausted suffer no penalty at all, would be "reducing it by two steps" not one.

But the fatigued status doesn't give you any penalties if you have it, meaning that, regardless of RAI, RAW is that exhaustion is reduced to fatigue, and fatigue doesn't affect you at all.

[Buufreak]

It's far from the worst editing error to make it into a published D&D book. That price goes to the 2E Encyclopedia Magica, Volume 1, a comprehensive magic item collection which infamously had them run a find-replace to change all the instances of "Mage" to "Wizard" (fitting with the TSR house style).
The issue, which made it into the printed book, is that this also resulted in a lot of talk about "iwizards", or how much "dawizard" the item in question could cause or survive...

(Less disastrous, but very similar to the "check toee" issue, was how the old Vampire: The Masquerade and Werewolf: The Apocalypse books would occasionally tell to player to "See Page XX". The issue with placeholders is that you need to make sure you replace them all before you ship.)

2 notes to make. Firstly, haha, a typo in a post about a typo (price not prize). Second, let this be a lesson kids: when doing a replace function, hit space, type the word, then space again for both the find and replace. If Stewie Griffon can learn this lesson, so can you.

[hamishspence]

But the fatigued status doesn't give you any penalties if you have it, meaning that, regardless of RAI, RAW is that exhaustion is reduced to fatigue, and fatigue doesn't affect you at all.

It's pretty clear that "not giving you any penalties" only applies to "regular fatigue" not "exhaustion reduced to fatigue"

Having "exhaustion reduced to fatigue" apply no penalty at all, would be reducing the effects of exhaustion two steps, not one.

You have to apply all the RAW, not just part of it - and "reduced one step" is an important part of it.




If someone were to claim that their exhausted character suffers no penalty, I would say

"Sorry, you have just reduced the effects of exhaustion two steps, not one as the rules demand."

[Scots Dragon]

It's pretty clear that "not giving you any penalties" only applies to "regular fatigue" not "exhaustion reduced to fatigue"

Having "exhaustion reduced to fatigue" apply no penalty at all, would be reducing the effects of exhaustion two steps, not one.

You have to apply all the RAW, not just part of it - and "reduced one step" is an important part of it.




If someone were to claim that their exhausted character suffers no penalty, I would say

"Sorry, you have just reduced the effects of exhaustion two steps, not one as the rules demand."

This is all an exact example of what I was talking about in the 'Spells Known' thread with ordinary naturalistic English langauge reading comprehension being subsumed by a weird alien legalese when it comes to the discussions around D&D 3.5e.

It's so plainly obvious what the intention is, and they don't need to go into some weird legalistic language with regards to how these things function because you're meant to actually parse things with your ability to comprehend language. It's the same thing with so many other 'dysfunctional' rules, and I'm really tired of it. I don't know when or where all this nonsense started, but it's probably the most annoying thing about discussing Dungeons & Dragons online.

[Promethean]

I don't know when or where all this nonsense started, but it's probably the most annoying thing about discussing Dungeons & Dragons online.

It started with theoretical optimization.

When people started taking advantage of alien legalese interpretations of the rules to make funny builds to post on the internet, they built up a habit reading the rules with a Legalese filter on. This leads those who also like Playing balanced games to have the knee-jerk reaction to "fix" what they perceive as a "problem"(even though common sense in enough for most tables).

This eventually leads to the weird imaginary rules disjunctions that people come up with. Confirmation bias is a thing, and when you have a (nerf)hammer, everything looks like a nail.

[Pinkie Pyro]

*Sigh*

I'm looking over feats from Dragon Magazine, and I just got to the Tireless [Ancestor] feat, from Dragon#318, and I realize that it most definitely doesn't do what I'm sure the author thought it does, and the fact that I've seen nigh identical wording for other similar abilities elsewhere means they probably all suffer the same fate:

You reduce the effects of exhaustion and fatigue by 1 step. You cannot become exhausted; if you are exposed to an effect or condition that would make you exhausted [such as the spell waves of exhaustion], you become fatigued instead. If an effect or condition [such as the end of barbarian rage] would make you fatigued, you suffer no penalty at all.

So you're immune to exhaustion, and any effect that would have made you exhausted make you fatigued, instead. But you take no penalties from fatigue, so...

Hilariously this is entirely a timing issue if you go go by formal logic. you are saying if 2, then 1, and if 1, then 0.

but all you need is if 1, then 0, if 2, then 1.

And Scotsdragon, you have to remember that WotC's *other* product, MTG, does work exactly in that weird legalistic sense, so the spillover probably comes from there.

Yes, a table has a DM and they can do whatever the hell they want. but that's just it, there's no point in discussing that when making theoretical builds because that same DM could just decide "eh, i'm not allowing wizard this game".

Plus, the study of RAW is great for us DMs who do political intrigue, because it teaches you that you can say one thing, people will interpret it in a certain way, but you did not actually say what they think you said.

the *real* frustrating thing here is how this is a RAW thread and people keep arguing against RAW with RAI. yes, when you apply any amount of logic to some of these things, they turn out differently, but the whole point of the thread is not applying logic, just reading what is written.

[Scots Dragon]

And Scotsdragon, you have to remember that WotC's *other* product, MTG, does work exactly in that weird legalistic sense, so the spillover probably comes from there.

But Dungeons & Dragons is not and has never been a competitive card-game that has a simple one-versus-one assumption for fifteen minute length games. It is a collaborative roleplaying game.

The basic assumptions are thus radically different.

[Silly Name]

And Scotsdragon, you have to remember that WotC's *other* product, MTG, does work exactly in that weird legalistic sense, so the spillover probably comes from there.

I'd argue that, barring a few exceptions mostly from older sets from when card design was more lax, MtG cards tend to be quite plain and easy to parse. They're written in a tight, defined language that leaves no space for ambiguity or disagreements on how things work because it allows the game to run smoothly. Most of the time - sometimes rules clarification are needed, as well as clarification for some edge-case interaction, but those are exceptions.

This is all to say that the MtG's syntax and dictionary is nowhere near the absurd alien nonsense of some "RAW" that I've seen purpoted on the net. Anyone trying to contort the rules of MtG in the same way people contort the rules of D&D 3.5 would be quickly laughed off most tables and boards. There's a funny copypasta about this exact thing, a guy refusing to accept being disqualified from a tournament for cheating because he had a card saying "You can't lose the game" in play, and the humour is about the judges and even the police conceding to this absurd train of thought (it's obviously a fictional story, but it makes fun of the mindset that rules exist in a vacuum and apply to stuff they obviously don't).

D&D was simply never meant to be read like that. As Scots Dragon said, it was written on the assumption that the readers were human beings who can parse plain English and are able to apply common sense to rules interpretation, not try to contort plain English into absurd legalese to create ridicolous situations.

[Pinkie Pyro]

But Dungeons & Dragons is not and has never been a competitive card-game that has a simple one-versus-one assumption for fifteen minute length games.

Some might disagree with that but that's not really the point, just that we're making fun of the rules as written.

Anyway, a new one:

The "invisible spell" metamagic stipulates:

"You can modify any spell you cast so that it carries no visual manifestation."

So if you applied this to the spell invisibility... it stops the visible manifestation, which is you turning invisible. but

"Those with detect magic, see invisibility, or true seeing spells or effects active at the time of the casting will see whatever visual manifestations typically accompany the spell"

meaning that people with see invisible instead see the normal manifestation of the spell... which is you being invisible. I think after that you'd still have the typical effects of those spells (which means you're only truely invisible to people using detect magic, hilariously) but you would *appear* to be trying to be invisible.

[Seward]

Invisible spell has all kinds of weird consequences that aren't at all thought out in the feat description. Basically player and GM need to work out how it behaves at her table.

[Bohandas]

On a completely diffetent topic, has anyone yet pointed out the absurdity that two different characters with the same class levels, ability scores, and race could have wntirely diffetent amounts of skill points based solely on what order they took the class levels and their ability acore increases in

2 notes to make. Firstly, haha, a typo in a post about a typo (price not prize). Second, let this be a lesson kids: when doing a replace function, hit space, type the word, then space again for both the find and replace. If Stewie Griffon can learn this lesson, so can you.

Technically after you did space-word-space you'd also have to run the function for space-word-perios, space-word-exclamation-point, space-word-questionmark, and possibly space-word-quotation-mark

[Scots Dragon]

On a completely diffetent topic, has anyone yet pointed out the absurdity that two different characters with the same class levels, ability scores, and race could have wntirely diffetent amounts of skill points based solely on what order they took the class levels and their ability acore increases in

Also different average hit point scores, for that matter.

[Jervis]

Invisible spell has all kinds of weird consequences that aren't at all thought out in the feat description. Basically player and GM need to work out how it behaves at her table.

My favorite is Invisible Solid Fog. Not only is it hilarious to pull on players but it means that the only ones with obscured vision are people with see invisibility and true sight. Honestly it’s a neat way of testing if someone has true sight or see invisibility. Just cast invisible spell fabricate to make a hat that has a sign with some shocking image on it. So if someone does a double take you know they have s p e c i a l e y e s

[Buufreak]

Technically after you did space-word-space you'd also have to run the function for space-word-perios, space-word-exclamation-point, space-word-questionmark, and possibly space-word-quotation-mark

All of which is apparently way more effort than an editing team can manage.

[ShurikVch]

High-level single-class Monks are able to take Craft Wondrous Item (supernatural special abilities have CL=HD) and thus - qualify for Lich template.

I'm still baffled by the fact you can wound an Air Elemental with non-magical weapon. What's up - is it bleeding? Did we damaged its vital organs? Or, maybe, cut off pieces of its body?..

Breakage of ammunition can get ridiculous really easy and fast: catapult ammo made of adamantine hit a rat and... breaks into nothing? (Even more silly example - ballista bolt made of riverine)

Simulacrum: "If reduced to 0 hit points or otherwise destroyed, it reverts to snow and melts instantly into nothingness."
Wight: "Any humanoid slain by a wight becomes a wight in 1d4 rounds."
Thus, apparently, the new Wight would appear out of "nothingness"

Animated Armor is a creature.
Being a creature, it's able to wear armor.
If the armor it's wearing is animated too - it should be able to wear armor too...
Rinse and repeat. Pack in enough armors to crush enemies by the sheer weight...

[Jervis]

Animated Armor is a creature.
Being a creature, it's able to wear armor.
If the armor it's wearing is animated too - it should be able to wear armor too...
Rinse and repeat. Pack in enough armors to crush enemies by the sheer weight...

Russian nesting armor is my new favorite enemy