Hilarious things you've found in RAW?

[Scots Dragon]

Except you're rendered blind if you're in darkness, even if it's a shadow in an otherwise lit room. Blindness renders you unable to see, and you therefore cannot make Spot checks.

Oh god don't make me tap the sign again;

The rules were intended for actual human beings using the English language, not modrons using arcane alien legalese. You're expected to use your common sense.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Oh god don't make me tap the sign again;

The rules were intended for actual human beings using the English language, not modrons using arcane alien legalese. You're expected to use your common sense.

Tell that to drown-healing.

Yes, you're expected to use common sense to make the rules make sense, but it's still houserules.

[Morphic tide]

Oh god don't make me tap the sign again;

The rules were intended for actual human beings using the English language, not modrons using arcane alien legalese. You're expected to use your common sense.

It comes down entirely to the fact that Spot uses the viewer's situation rather than the subject's to determine lighting, meaning that every layer of the rules makes the incorrect assumption that standing in darkness makes it harder to see.

At its conclusion, the game uses the Blinded condition for standing in total darkness, which creates a large pile of ridiculous results. There is nothing in how the Spot rules work to fix the problem.

It isn't "arcane alien legalese", it's "the game handles lighting backwards".

[MaxiDuRaritry]

And remember, this thread is about "Hilarious things you've found in RAW," and houserules ain't RAW.

[ShurikVch]

Except you're rendered blind if you're in darkness, even if it's a shadow in an otherwise lit room. Blindness renders you unable to see, and you therefore cannot make Spot checks.

Complete Darkness: In general, a light source can be spotted (Spot DC 20) at a distance equal to 20 times its radius of illumination, if the area is otherwise in complete darkness. For example, a sunrod can be seen from 600 feet away, provided that nothing obstructs the line of sight. An observer who fails this Spot check automatically spots the light source at half that distance.

See the bold text? "Complete Darkness"! Thus, it works.

The Listen DC for a battle is only at -10, and 210' away is a -21 penalty to your Listen check. For a fighter with 10 Wis and no ranks in Listen (which is quite common for fighters, given they're MAD, don't need Wis for much, and don't get Spot as a class skill), Taking 10 won't help at all.

Well, our supposed fighter may actually roll Listen and get 11+, and the masterwork tools are affordable even for 1st-level fighter
But you're right - in the sense the Listen DC Modifiers are on the steep side: IRL calm human conversation can be heard (according to different sources) from 0,05-0,2 km (exact distance depends on air pressure/humidity and background noises level). By the DC modifier, it should be check somewhere from 16 to 65...

[MaxiDuRaritry]

See the bold text? "Complete Darkness"! Thus, it works.

If you're in complete darkness, you can't see someone who isn't, even if they're holding a torch. Go outside on a very dark night. You are blind. You can't even see the stars in the sky or the campfire sitting a few hundred feet away with nothing between you and it.

It's the same principle either way.

[InvisibleBison]

And since Spot takes a -1 penalty for every 10' of distance between you and a target, it's quite likely that nobody standing on the surface of Earth can see the sun or the light therefrom.

Except that you don't need to make a Spot check to see the sun. The Spot skill lays out a number of scenarios where you have to make a Spot check, and "seeing a large, glowing object in plain sight" is not one of them.

[ShurikVch]

If you're in complete darkness, you can't see someone who isn't, even if they're holding a torch. Go outside on a very dark night. You are blind. You can't even see the stars in the sky or the campfire sitting a few hundred feet away with nothing between you and it.

It's the same principle either way.

Eh, I don't get it: is it a game-talk or IRL-talk?
Because - for the IRL - "the farthest from which an average unaided human could see a candle is about 1.6 miles."
For the game - I just gave you the RAW quote which disproved it...

[Jervis]

See the bold text? "Complete Darkness"! Thus, it works.


Well, our supposed fighter may actually roll Listen and get 11+, and the masterwork tools are affordable even for 1st-level fighter
But you're right - in the sense the Listen DC Modifiers are on the steep side: IRL calm human conversation can be heard (according to different sources) from 0,05-0,2 km (exact distance depends on air pressure/humidity and background noises level). By the DC modifier, it should be check somewhere from 16 to 65...

FWIW the darkness rules could fall into a situation where it contradicts rules from the core books so it technically could just do nothing.

Also, masterwork tools of listen? What is that? This is the biggest raw anomaly. People just assume there’s a masterwork tool for everything and treat it like it’s a passive modifier. What even could you use as a masterwork tool for Listening? Same goes for things like Concentration where the check is made reactively. How are you using a tool? I’ll never forgive the 3.5 devs for this. I’ve had so many players ask to buy 50GP fidget spinners to get a +2 to concentration checks.

[ShurikVch]

Also, masterwork tools of listen? What is that?

Ear trumpet?

[Scots Dragon]

Tell that to drown-healing.

Yes, you're expected to use common sense to make the rules make sense, but it's still houserules.

And remember, this thread is about "Hilarious things you've found in RAW," and houserules ain't RAW.

The fact that you would adjudicate the rules is also rules as written.

Adjudicating
When everyone gathers around the table to play the game, you’re in charge. That doesn’t mean you can tell people what to do outside the boundaries of the game, but it does mean that you’re the final arbiter of the rules within the game. Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook. Good DMs know not to change or overturn a published rule without a good, logical justification so that the players don’t rebel (more on that later).

To carry out this responsibility, you need to know the rules. You’re not required to memorize the rulebooks, but you should have a clear idea of what’s in them, so that when a situation comes up that requires a ruling, you know where to reference the proper rule in the book.

Often a situation will arise that isn’t explicitly covered by the rules. In such a situation, you need to provide guidance as to how it should be resolved. When you come upon a situation that the rules don’t seem to cover, consider the following courses of action.

• Look to any similar situation that is covered in a rulebook. Try to extrapolate from what you see presented there and apply it to the current circumstance.
• If you have to make something up, stick with it for the rest of the campaign. (This is called a house rule.) Consistency keeps players satisfied and gives them the feeling that they adventure in a stable, predictable universe and not in some random, nonsensical place subject only to the DM’s whims.
• When in doubt, remember this handy little rule: Favorable conditions add +2 to any d20 roll, and unfavorable conditions penalize the roll by –2. You’ll be surprised how often this “DM’s best friend” will solve problems.

If you come upon an apparent contradiction in the rules, consider these factors when adjudicating.

• A rule found in a rulebook overrules one found in a published adventure, unless the rule presented in the published adventure deals with something specific and limited to the adventure itself.
• Choose the rule that you like the best, then stick with it for the rest of the campaign. Consistency is a critical aspect of rules adjudication.

[Pinkie Pyro]

That illusion(shadow) and evocation(Darkness) don't have the same aversion to (light) spells.

It really feels like something that they thematically would have added, so having an N+1 light spell cancels shadowcraft illusion, but no, you're only screwed if you're making darkness, not shadows.

Looping back to invisible spell weirdness, using invisible spell (teleport) should cause you to visibly stay in your old location permanently, as the visible manifestation of teleport would be disappearing from your initial location and appearing in your new location.

[RSGA]

It should only be instantaneously there, both because teleport is instantaneous and because it doesn't suppress any secondary effects. And it's hard to argue that not being seen isn't part and parcel of not being there in the same way that visible flames is part of being set on fire for a lot of temperatures. The example for Invisible Spell even says that things lit on fire by an Invisible Fireball will still burn with visible flames.

So Invisible Teleport should probably just cause disagreements on how you're not there, not that you're not there.

[Scots Dragon]

You just vanish with no visible flash of light or swirling energy to indicate you've teleported. You just sorta jump-cut away.

[InvisibleBison]

The difficulty with invisible spell is that the visual manifestation of a spell is not a defined rules term, so what if anything it means for any given spell is usually rather ambiguous.

[YellowJohn]

This has probably already been mentioned, but Thrown Weapons. Is there anything, anywhere, that adjusts their range for size and/or strength?
As it stands, a Quasit can throw a Shot Put just as far as a Titan - and with greater accuracy. Yes I know the Quasit throws a smaller shot put, but come on.
The Titan starts accruing range penalties inside their reach, which is just ridiculous.

[Vaern]

Also, masterwork tools of listen? What is that? This is the biggest raw anomaly. People just assume there’s a masterwork tool for everything and treat it like it’s a passive modifier. What even could you use as a masterwork tool for Listening? Same goes for things like Concentration where the check is made reactively. How are you using a tool? I’ll never forgive the 3.5 devs for this. I’ve had so many players ask to buy 50GP fidget spinners to get a +2 to concentration checks.

Masterwork tools are generic and applicable to whatever skill they were made for. They are, of course, subject to DM approval depending on how ridiculous they are. I'd let someone get away with the ear horn for listen checks, a spyglass for spot, magnifying glass for search, books for knowledge checks related to specific subjects... Certainly not a fidget spinner for concentration, but I might let someone get away with using something like an orb as a focus to help maintain concentration on spells.

[loky1109]

Certainly not a fidget spinner for concentration, but I might let someone get away with using something like an orb as a focus to help maintain concentration on spells.

[Godskook]

Except you're rendered blind if you're in darkness, even if it's a shadow in an otherwise lit room. Blindness renders you unable to see, and you therefore cannot make Spot checks.

You're just reading the rules wrong.

The rules clearly state that in an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly. This comes first and is unequivocal. It is also quite clear as to whom's actions are being limited. The character who might be spotted, or hidden. They simply cannot. They are seen. No mention here is made as any requirement as to where the viewer needs to stand, as it is immaterial to the determination. You are in bright light, you cannot hide, I get to see you. Period, full stop. End of PARAGRAPH.

The rules then go on to describe in very similar language and clarity about shadowy illumination(read: "shadow"), and again, the relevant criteria is placed on the creature to be seen, not the one to see.

Finally, the rules go on to describe what happens in complete darkness, and while this paragraph is vague, it is fundamentally required within English to read things within their context. You cannot isolate this text from the formula of it's predecessors, which give a first-order interpretation for what is being said here. Which means that despite the more ambiguous and twistable reading, we must pick interpretations that most-align with our previous understanding. Since we've had two paragraphs of text with which to see the example of "it is the creature to be seen's position within this illumination category that matters, the interpretation of the third paragraph we must take, if we can, is one where that same holds true. And low and behold, the last paragraph CAN be read that way.

So glad Scots Dragon could start tapping the sign.

[Vaern]

You're just reading the rules wrong.

The rules clearly state that in an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly. This comes first and is unequivocal.

Technically, he's still right. It says all characters can see clearly in an area of bright light, not that they can be seen clearly. The creature in darkness is still effectively blind, and all other creatures are treated as invisible.

[Saint-Just]

Technically, he's still right. It says all characters can see clearly in an area of bright light, not that they can be seen clearly. The creature in darkness is still effectively blind, and all other creatures are treated as invisible.

Sounds ambiguous. More natural interpretation (I do not mean more logical, just following the usual structure of sentences) would be "characters who are themselves in an area of bright light can see clearly". You can tro to interpret "in" as "into" and decide that "in an area of the bright light" modifies "see" instead of "characters", but that's a more convoluted interpretation and in any case one possible interpretation out of a few.

[Morphic tide]

You're just reading the rules wrong.

The rules clearly state that in an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly. This comes first and is unequivocal. It is also quite clear as to whom's actions are being limited. The character who might be spotted, or hidden. They simply cannot. They are seen. No mention here is made as any requirement as to where the viewer needs to stand, as it is immaterial to the determination. You are in bright light, you cannot hide, I get to see you. Period, full stop. End of PARAGRAPH.

Actually there's semantic ambiguity here because "hide" refers to the entire skill, both the act of initiating it (which requires a break of visibility by default) and successfully moving elsewhere/avoiding being spotted to the next round. The Hide skill itself makes no mention of such, Ranger's HiPS has its only qualifier be "natural terrain", and Shadowdancer's HiPS seems to be the only thing on the end of the Hide skill that references lighting in the SRD.

Furthermore, Shadowy illumination is described as follows:

"In an area of shadowy illumination, a character can see dimly. Creatures within this area have concealment relative to that character. A creature in an area of shadowy illumination can make a Hide check to conceal itself."

Since this described hide as in the check to start, and Bright Light states you can hide with invisibility or cover, it seems to be referring to "the check to start hiding". Because the rule in question is ambiguous as to what part of the Hide skill is invalid, allows it with cover under bright light, the lower lighting says you may start hiding from it, and Bright Light is "is daytime", the most functional reading is "you need Invisibility or cover to make a Hide check to conceal yourself in bright light".

Edit: In simpler terms, the "hide" mentioned seems to be the pseudo-action check itself, rather than the act of moving.

Additionally, the Hide skill's basic mode of function is the check following you where you cannot make it, in that you roll, then leave cover, and the result is the Spot DC to see you once you've left cover. Specifically allowing hide while behind cover makes zero sense if this is not the intent, because you don't need to roll to see if you're concealed from people on the other side of an obstruction, causing the roll to do nothing because you're seen the moment you leave cover. Thus, the only coherent reading, given other parts of the paragraph itself in addition to the Hide skill's text, is that it is specifically needing invisibility or cover to make the check.

Finally, the rules go on to describe what happens in complete darkness, and while this paragraph is vague, it is fundamentally required within English to read things within their context. You cannot isolate this text from the formula of it's predecessors, which give a first-order interpretation for what is being said here.

I'm sorry, what about ten listed points referencing Blinded creatures makes you think they do not have the condition? Which specifically notes that any check or action based on vision, such as reading or Spot checks, automatically fail? Non-actions with no DC still fail in total darkness, because you are Blind. Period, end-of-sentence, any other reading results in people who have literally had their eyes blown out of their skull seeing things.

[ShurikVch]

Material components for Create Crawling Claw are:

Clippings from a ghoul's fingernails, and a ring that someone else lost.

Components:

Material (M)
A material component is one or more physical substances or objects that are annihilated by the spell energies in the casting process.

Thus, we're destroying



to create

[noob]

Material components for Create Crawling Claw are:

Components:


Thus, we're destroying



to create

Imagine a Sauron powered crawling hand: Sauron would try to get that hand to get back the power of the ring.

[Kama Itachi]

Rainbow Servant is supposed to grant only six spell levels, but because the Spell section of the PrC wasn't edited carefully and text trumps table, you get a spell EVERY level on top of its really good class features.

[sleepyphoenixx]

This one made me grin:

Making Mistakes

A magic item that allows the characters to move through walls
unhindered, giving them easy access to all sorts of places you do
not want them to go (at least without great effort), is a mistake.
A 4th-level spell that kills multiple foes with no saving throw is
a mistake. A race without a level adjustment that has bonuses of
+4 to Strength and Dexterity is a mistake.

One of these things is not like the others...

Rainbow Servant is supposed to grant only six spell levels, but because the Spell section of the PrC wasn't edited carefully and text trumps table, you get a spell EVERY level on top of its really good class features.

The only good class feature Rainbow Servant grants is cleric spells, as a capstone.
It also grants you a couple mediocre domains with weak powers and spells you already have and some flavor stuff.

And if it cost you 4 levels of casting progression it would be completely worthless.

After all you can just go wizard 3/cleric 3/mystic theurge 10 and lose one less level of casting, get double the spell slots, can choose domains that are actually good, get cleric spells at level 4 at the latest instead of 15...

Why would anyone ever take Rainbow Servant with 6/10 casting? "Text trumps table" really saved the day here.

[Seward]

Why would anyone ever take Rainbow Servant with 6/10 casting? "Text trumps table" really saved the day here.

The Text Trumps Table Rainbow servants should be wielding 1d43 Scorpion Whips (a Sandstorm item never getting errata and never reprinted, in spite of being an obvious typo. Not text trumps table, more like "table obviously wrong but never fixed")

Both are only actually allowed at tables that prize "rules as written" heavily over "rules as intended". But then a lot of stuff is pretty bad if you are super strict about "rules as written" which means those games can be fun too if everybody is in the spirit of it.

Just be prepared to fight weapon users that all uses some variation of scorpion whips, instead of longswords. Because average damage of 22 on a one-handed weapon with 15' reach (but no AOOs) is worth a single exotic weapon feat vs the 4.5-5 you usually get.

[InvisibleBison]

The Text Trumps Table Rainbow servants should be wielding 1d43 Scorpion Whips (a Sandstorm item never getting errata and never reprinted, in spite of being an obvious typo. Not text trumps table, more like "table obviously wrong but never fixed")

Both are only actually allowed at tables that prize "rules as written" heavily over "rules as intended". But then a lot of stuff is pretty bad if you are super strict about "rules as written" which means those games can be fun too if everybody is in the spirit of it.

Just be prepared to fight weapon users that all uses some variation of scorpion whips, instead of longswords. Because average damage of 22 on a one-handed weapon with 15' reach (but no AOOs) is worth a single exotic weapon feat vs the 4.5-5 you usually get.

There's a difference between a weapon whose damage is obviously a typo and a prestige class where the amount of casting it's supposed to provide is ambiguous. No one really thinks that scorpion whips are intended to do 1d43 damage (if for no other reason than no one has a d43), but there's no clear reason why rainbow servant shouldn't be full casting.

[Jervis]

There's a difference between a weapon whose damage is obviously a typo and a prestige class where the amount of casting it's supposed to provide is ambiguous. No one really thinks that scorpion whips are intended to do 1d43 damage (if for no other reason than no one has a d43), but there's no clear reason why rainbow servant shouldn't be full casting.

This is something a lot of people forget in this argument. Speaking as someone who makes a lot of homebrew table mistakes are easy to make. While you can say that from a balance perspective the class probably is meant to loose casting it’s entirely possible that the author flip flopped between one or the other when writing. In which case it’s actually kinda hard to determine which was the intended end product.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Both are only actually allowed at tables that prize "rules as written" heavily over "rules as intended".

Seriously? The very post you quoted points out why 6/10 Rainbow Servant makes no sense.

It's because at 6/10 it does nothing another class -the Mystic Theurge - doesn't do better in every way.
It literally does not offer a single ability a mystic theurge doesn't get while giving you less than half the number of spells/day. Do you think that's balanced?

A plain mystic theurge isn't exactly high-tier cheese, and a 6/10 rainbow servant is objectively worse in every way.

It's like making a melee PrC that's exactly like the fighter but doesn't get bonus feats. It makes no sense. There is not a single balance-related reason for RS to be 6/10.
Why would you think that was intended? I don't think the designers were trying to make useless prestige classes.