Dysfunctional Rules X: I Cast Comprehend Rules

[GreatWyrmGold]

So, you think it actively reducing the strength of existing Aura of Good?
Are you sure?
I mean - if it's from the feats rather than class features...

AFAIK, there isn't a specific ruling on how multiple rules that change how your alignment auras interact, because there aren't a lot of rules like that. But since Harper Paragon's modification comes from a class feature an exalted feats' from a general rule covering several feats, and since the Harper Paragon requires exalted feats to enter, it feels like HP's class feature is more specific than the exalted feat rules, and specific trumps generic.

[ShurikVch]

AFAIK, there isn't a specific ruling on how multiple rules that change how your alignment auras interact, because there aren't a lot of rules like that. But since Harper Paragon's modification comes from a class feature an exalted feats' from a general rule covering several feats, and since the Harper Paragon requires exalted feats to enter, it feels like HP's class feature is more specific than the exalted feat rules, and specific trumps generic.

I mean:
HarPar AoG = class levels + levels in any other classes which give AoG
Exalted feat AoG = levels in any classes, period

For me, it looks like HarPar gives AoG - rather than sets it

I mean: if they really wanted for HarPar to reduce the existing AoG intensity - they kinda should be more direct about it

Personally, I'm sure they just forgot [exalted] feats give AoG too...

[GreatWyrmGold]

Obviously, but this isn't a thread for dysfunctional intent, but for dysfunctional rules. And I don't think there's any distinction between "giving" and "setting" an aura.

It sounds like you're saying that detect good (and similar spells) detects the strongest aura provided by various features a character has, which suggests that features that give a character no alignment aura would do nothing, since there's still a positive aura to detect. I feel that this interpretation is in error, and not just because it makes this one example ridiculous. Characters don't have "multiple alignment auras"; they have abilities which influence how one specific spell (and derivative effects) responds to them.

[Venger]

Sword of conscience deals variable amounts of wis and cha damage to evil creatures. Like other spells keyed off detect evil, it has a chart that inflicts more damage to certain types of creatures. Footnote 1 says elementals, undead, and outsiders have their own entry on the table. Undead do not have their own entry on the table. So they just take the small amount of damage like any other generic evil creature.

[Frostmoon]

Sword of conscience deals variable amounts of wis and cha damage to evil creatures. Like other spells keyed off detect evil, it has a chart that inflicts more damage to certain types of creatures. Footnote 1 says elementals, undead, and outsiders have their own entry on the table. Undead do not have their own entry on the table. So they just take the small amount of damage like any other generic evil creature.

I don't think that's exactly right: undead actually are listed in the table, they're just listed with elementals, for some unknown reason. Under the "Evil Elemental" section of the table, the 1d6 damage bar lists "2 or lower or undead", which means...I guess undead always take 1d6? Maybe? Or they count as elementals for this, and they scale the same way...? BoED is weird.

[Venger]

Oh hey you're right.

You know what I think it is? I think "or undead (HD)" was actually supposed to be left aligned under "evil elemental," which is why there's that huge gap of white space underneath it but they screwed up and put it under "2 or lower" instead. I believe the intent was probably for undead to take damage like evil elementals. Still a little weird.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Another thing about that spell:

The creature regains lost abilities normally; they do not automatically return when the spell's duration expires.

The duration is Instantaneous. Does the author of that clause think fireball damage reverts when the spell's duration expires, or was there some weird chain of edits which involved a stage where this was a reasonable thing to specify?

[Venger]

I think the writer was probably thinking of penalties and didn't understand it was discrete from damage.

[Inevitability]

Sometimes the rules state what the rules already state, and BoED was in a period of change from 3.0 to 3.5: I can totally understand putting a redundant rule in there for clarity and to make sure it holds up to potential reworkings of ability damage.

[Beni-Kujaku]

Oh hey you're right.

You know what I think it is? I think "or undead (HD)" was actually supposed to be left aligned under "evil elemental," which is why there's that huge gap of white space underneath it but they screwed up and put it under "2 or lower" instead. I believe the intent was probably for undead to take damage like evil elementals. Still a little weird.

Agreed. Even more probable considering this is basically the same table as Detect Evil, only with Evil Elemental added in the second line. Up to the "Some characters who are not clerics may radiate an aura of equivalent power. The class description will indicate whether this applies." which makes not much sense in this case but probably indicates that paladins get damaged as much as clerics, and that the spell is supposed to run on aura strength. 2d8 Wisdom to a paladin might very well render them insane.

[ShurikVch]

It's, technically, possible to scribe a scroll of a Dread Word spell (Book of Vile Darkness).

The caster speaks a single unique word of pure malevolence - a powerful utterance from the Dark Speech (see Chapter 2).

The Dark Speech has no written form. It cannot be transliterated into another language's written form without losing all of its meaning and power.

The same problem arise when Spellhoarding Dragon uses their Spellcatching SQ on a Baleful Utterance invocation to add it to their Spellhoard. (DM can invoke the "can't counterspell SLA" clause - but it's dysfunctional in its own right)

[Inevitability]

It's, technically, possible to scribe a scroll of a Dread Word spell (Book of Vile Darkness).

Even if a spell scroll is a full description of the somatic and verbal components of a spell (dubious assumption), ultimately the Dark Speech still has phonemes, right? "Make these specific sounds in this order" should work as a description of the verbal component, it's not a transliteration because it doesn't try to preserve meaning.

[ShurikVch]

Even if a spell scroll is a full description of the somatic and verbal components of a spell (dubious assumption), ultimately the Dark Speech still has phonemes, right? "Make these specific sounds in this order" should work as a description of the verbal component, it's not a transliteration because it doesn't try to preserve meaning.

Well, firstly: transliteration communicates not what the word means, but merely how it sounds (more or less accurate)
Secondly, the Dark Speech is highly magical: say, you will die (without any save and regardless of protective magic) if try to pronounce the Dread Word without actually casting the Dread Word - thus, I wouldn't be so sure about the "Make these specific sounds in this order"...


One more dysfunction - Crawling Eye invocation (Complete Mage):

You can't cast most invocations or spells through the eye, but any spells or invocations that affect your sense of sight such as devil's sight, all-seeing eyes, or detect magic function through the eye as though it was still attached.

Detect Magic don't depend on sight - blind or eyeless creatures are able to use it just fine, as well as "normally"-sighted creatures during the restricted visibility. Heck, it's even able to penetrate solid barriers...

[Inevitability]

Well, firstly: transliteration communicates not what the word means, but merely how it sounds (more or less accurate)
Secondly, the Dark Speech is highly magical: say, you will die (without any save and regardless of protective magic) if try to pronounce the Dread Word without actually casting the Dread Word - thus, I wouldn't be so sure about the "Make these specific sounds in this order"...

Then maybe in the scroll's instructions there's a big obvious gap where some word of power is clearly supposed to go, and anyone who knows dark speech can fill it just as easily as an English-speaker can fill the gap in the sentence "The angry man's mouth was slightly open, showing how he was gnashing his ____."

That doesn't explain why a caster unfamiliar with dark speech can use the scroll, but honestly I've got half a mind to say they can't: the rule that you can cast spells from scrolls is trumped by the rule that Dark Speech, specifically, kills untrained speakers.


Semi-related: it's kind of funny how this spell and the Power Word line can be cast perfectly well with the Silent Spell feat applied.

[St Fan]

I am bothered by the fact that some wondrous magic items require a permanency spell during creation (notably, the broom of flying and carpet of flying). This, for two reasons:

Firstly, the great majority of permanent magic items don't need such a spell, the process of making them a magic item in the first place is sufficient to make them last indefinitely. Why would a couple need permanency on top?

And secondly, permanency is one spell that have an XP cost! Except this cost is variable, depending on the level of the spell usually targeted. What is this value for a magic item creation? And should it be paid with every casting of the spell, i.e. once per day of crafting? It takes 17 days to make a broom of flying, and up to 60 days for the largest carpet of flying. Are we supposed to pay 2500xp per day in addition to the normal crafting cost?

[ShurikVch]

I am bothered by the fact that some wondrous magic items require a permanency spell during creation (notably, the broom of flying and carpet of flying). This, for two reasons:

Firstly, the great majority of permanent magic items don't need such a spell, the process of making them a magic item in the first place is sufficient to make them last indefinitely. Why would a couple need permanency on top?

And secondly, permanency is one spell that have an XP cost! Except this cost is variable, depending on the level of the spell usually targeted. What is this value for a magic item creation? And should it be paid with every casting of the spell, i.e. once per day of crafting? It takes 17 days to make a broom of flying, and up to 60 days for the largest carpet of flying. Are we supposed to pay 2500xp per day in addition to the normal crafting cost?

You pay no extra XP cost for Permanency (how you even calculated that "2500 XP"? )
Creating Wondrous Items:

If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the item, the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) but need not provide any material components or focuses the spells require, nor are any XP costs inherent in a prerequisite spell incurred in the creation of the item. The act of working on the item triggers the prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each day of the item’s creation. (That is, those spell slots are expended from his currently prepared spells, just as if they had been cast.)

[St Fan]

You pay no extra XP cost for Permanency (how you even calculated that "2500 XP"? )
Creating Wondrous Items:

Okay, at least that part is covered... I got confused with the creation of scrolls or wands, where a cost of components or XP is integrated.

(2500 XP is the cost for making permanent a 5th-level spell, such as overland flight.)

[Bucky]

(PF) has a bit of an inconsistency regarding the Bolt Ace gunslinger archetype and gun rarity categories.

In a "No Guns" campaign, guns don't exist. You can still use the Bolt Ace archetype of the gunslinger class, which uses crossbows instead of guns.
In a "Very Rare Guns" campaign, guns exist but the gunslinger class doesn't. So you can't be a Bolt Ace.

In other words, in any given campaign world, there can be Bolt Aces before guns are invented. But as soon as a single gun exists anywhere in the world, they lose their powers until firearms become sufficiently common that ordinary gunslingers emerge.

[ShurikVch]

(2500 XP is the cost for making permanent a 5th-level spell, such as overland flight.)

The last time I checked, Permanency cost was case-by-case (and Overland Flight is not even on the list of suitable spells)

[goodpeople25]

The last time I checked, Permanency cost was case-by-case (and Overland Flight is not even on the list of suitable spells)

It's listed as tables but all the spells on it use the same formula* you can reverse engineer. The spell in the PHB (pg. 260) does leave additional spells to be added up to the DM and discoverable through the spell research rules.


*X = spell level of target spell to be made permanent. Minimum 1.
Minimum CL = X + 8
XP cost = X*500

I borrowed the formula from a previous GitP thread from over a decade ago. I've checked a good number of them and found only one outlier so far in gust of wind which was the right level in 3.0 where the spell also exists.

[St Fan]

It's listed as tables but all the spells on it use the same formula* you can reverse engineer. The spell in the PHB (pg. 260) does leave additional spells to be added up to the DM and discoverable through the spell research rules.

Yup, I thought everybody was aware of that. It's pretty obvious when you look at the permanency tables.

Okay, this one I'm not sure that it's really dysfunctional, or if I'm missing something:

The spells persistent blade and Grazt's long grasp both create something capable of attacking foes at a distance (a dagger of force in the first case, the caster's disembodied hand in the second). The spells also specify that they can be used to flank enemies.

Problem, in both cases the created attacker is likely of tiny size; tiny creatures have a natural reach of 0ft; opponents with a reach of 0ft cannot flank.

[Bucky]

Pathfinder's Pack Flanking feat does literally nothing under normal circumstances due to a dysfunction.

One of its prerequisites is "ability to acquire an animal companion".

Its benefit applies "When you and your companion creature have this feat..."

You can take the feat just fine, but your animal companion can't because it can't have its own animal companion, so it does nothing.

There are situations where an animal companion can get it as a bonus feat ignoring prerequisites. But it's dysfunctional if you try to simply include it in your build.

[Bucky]

We already have bleeding oozes as a dysfunction in Pathfinder. But it's worse in 3.5. Crossposted from another thread, several sources of bleeding can make anything bleed regardless of whether that thing has blood to lose:

I thought this kind on nonsense is impossible in tabletop D&D: Skeletons have no blood, and thus - should be immune to bleeding damage...
But, apparently, I thought wrong: nobody in the game is innately immune to bleeding damage (by "bleeding" there I mean not Con damage, but hp DoT)
Instead, (in)vulnerability to bleeding is (usually) written in the RAW for attacks which causing it...
And, of course, they missed several of instances:
(Bone Ooze)(Chain Golem])(Desmodu Guard Bat)(Fleshraker (Knife Fiend))(Master of Chains PrC)
As we can see, there are no restrictions for "living" targets, for targets vulnerable to critical hits or sneak attacks, for "normal anatomy", or for certain creature types.
Thus, in 3.X D&D, Skeletons (and Mummies, and Stone Golems, and Fire Elementals, etc) can bleed!..

Incorporeal creatures appear to be immune because bleeding isn't a magic weapon, though.

[Monarch Dodora]

While we're on the subject of oozes, they're also not immune to the sickened or nauseated conditions. Apparently they can feel stomach distress even without stomachs.

[RSGA]

I guess that's what happens when the meal's too basic.

[ShurikVch]

We already have bleeding oozes as a dysfunction in Pathfinder. But it's worse in 3.5. Crossposted from another thread, several sources of bleeding can make anything bleed regardless of whether that thing has blood to lose:

Little fun fact: they tried to fix it for the Bat:

Desmodu Hunting Bat: Animal; 5 ft./5 ft.; Hide +12, Listen +13, Move
Silently +9, Spot +13; Dodge, Weapon Finesse; LA —; Creatures immune to
critical hits are immune to the wounding effects of bite attack. Replace blindsight
with blindsense.

But they messed it: Desmodu Hunting Bat don't have wounding attack; Desmodu Guard Bat, on the other hand, ...

Incorporeal creatures appear to be immune because bleeding isn't a magic weapon, though.

Fleshraker's Wounding Weapon is (Su), and Superior Spiked Chain may be magical?..

[Inevitability]

The Dragon Totem feat says this:

Choose one kind of true dragon as your totem. You gain resistance 5 to the type of energy associated with it.

Taking it qualifies one for the Dragon Rage feat, which says:

When you enter a rage or frenzy, your natural armor bonus improves by +2. In addition, for the duration of your rage or frenzy you gain resistance 10 to the energy type associated with your dragon totem (total resistance 15 while raging).

Except energy resistances don't stack, as per the rules compendium:

Multiple sources of resistance to a certain energy type don’t stack with each other. Only the highest value applies to any given attack.

[Remuko]

The Dragon Totem feat says this:



Taking it qualifies one for the Dragon Rage feat, which says:



Except energy resistances don't stack, as per the rules compendium:

is that really dysfunctional? sounds like just a case of specific (the feat) trumping the general rule of such not stacking.

[goodpeople25]

is that really dysfunctional? sounds like just a case of specific (the feat) trumping the general rule of such not stacking.

If so it would be because the feat says the total is 15 while raging which implies stacking but doesn't specifically mention that it does.
And that type of wording (instead of gain resistance blank X) as a specific rule can cause it's own issues/dysfunctions since those general rules not only disallows stacking but allows the highest value to apply.

[Remuko]

If so it would be because the feat says the total is 15 while raging which implies stacking but doesn't specifically mention that it does.
And that type of wording (instead of gain resistance blank X) as a specific rule can cause it's own issues/dysfunctions since those general rules not only disallows stacking but allows the highest value to apply.

idk that specific feat says its 15 (10 from it and 5 from its prereq feat) i dont see how it would cause dysfunction. it works how it says because it says it does. yes it ignores the general rule, but it effects nothing but when you have both feats because the general rule covers all other cases except this extremely specific one.