Dysfunctional Rules VI: Magic Circle Against Errata

[Ksheep]

(Also, if you suit up a commoner 1 in full platemail a cat still has an overly large chance to kill them right through the armor. All dog trainers across the world inevitably die to mortal wounds caused by the dogs in question rolling a crit and getting through those tough fabric bite suits. That's maybe more an issue in AC vs. DR, though.)

And that's why I used the Armor as DR rules from Unearthed Arcana in my last campaign… then I dropped it because I kept forgetting to apply it to pre-rolled monsters when using published adventures/modules.

[Flickerdart]

Only if he has Combat Reflexes and, honestly, what heavy fighter has that? At best, he hits one target. That leaves the rest of the mob.

He gets a guaranteed hit and kill every round, basically. Only 8 commoners can attempt at a time, meaning that they will need a lot of cannon fodder to manage to disarm and grapple him. Quite possibly more than the 200 you need for the dragon, although I've not done the math.

[Qwertystop]

Full attacking might clear out several more each round, until they succeed in grappling him.

[illyahr]

He gets a guaranteed hit and kill every round, basically. Only 8 commoners can attempt at a time, meaning that they will need a lot of cannon fodder to manage to disarm and grapple him. Quite possibly more than the 200 you need for the dragon, although I've not done the math.

Quite possibly, a lot less than that.

1. Grapple, AoO, dies
2. Trip, success
3. Grapple, success
4. Disarm (can't attack with weapon so uses unarmed, -4 penalty on check, prone so another -4 vs. melee attack)

Best case scenario, it'd only take 4 people.

[Lightlawbliss]

He gets a guaranteed hit and kill every round, basically. Only 8 commoners can attempt at a time, meaning that they will need a lot of cannon fodder to manage to disarm and grapple him. Quite possibly more than the 200 you need for the dragon, although I've not done the math.

You're assuming 1 per square and 2D combat, but they could squeeze for very little if any real loss and the commoners could be attacking him under a tree with commoners in the tree (I am assuming the commoners can get into the tree without much problem and are still able to attack) while he is crossing a low bridge with bridges next to it.
With these, I believe it would cap at (8[same hight]+9[above]+6[between bridges])*4, or 92. With how many commoners we are having attacking a fighter, we can at least have them use some tactics.

[Flickerdart]

You're assuming 1 per square and 2D combat, but they could squeeze for very little if any real loss and the commoners could be attacking him under a tree with commoners in the tree (I am assuming the commoners can get into the tree without much problem and are still able to attack) while he is crossing a low bridge with bridges next to it.
With these, I believe it would cap at (8[same hight]+9[above]+6[between bridges])*4, or 92. With how many commoners we are having attacking a fighter, we can at least have them use some tactics.

When you have to get this contrived, you might want to step back and rethink the scenario.

[Andezzar]

Quite possibly, a lot less than that.

1. Grapple, AoO, dies
2. Trip, success
3. Grapple, success
4. Disarm (can't attack with weapon so uses unarmed, -4 penalty on check, prone so another -4 vs. melee attack)

Best case scenario, it'd only take 4 people.

And how do you guarantee that 3 of the 4 roll succeed at the touch attack and the STR/Grapple check in the same round?

[illyahr]

And how do you guarantee that 3 of the 4 roll succeed at the touch attack and the STR/Grapple check in the same round?

I never said it was a sure thing, I just said it was the best case scenario. I was responding to the statement that it would require a lot of fodder and possibly more than 200. Level wasn't part of the original point so I'm assuming equal levels. In that case, it's quite possible to do it with 4 commoners.

[Necroticplague]

Still doesn't quite work, at least in one round. Armor and shields are most likely considered to be well secured (since its physically strapped to you), so the person would need to be pinned, not just grappled. And they'd get a +4 to resist (nicely cancelling out the penalty from prone). And, depending on whether headers count as rules text, the disarmer would have to be the one doing the pinning (which would have...action economy difficulties, unless their BAB was at least+6. But if it was, this whole discussion would be moot anyway!)

[SinsI]

Nobody disputes that the natural 20/natural 1 rules do not reflect reality very well, but that does not make them dysfunctional. They work exactly as written. So they have no place in this thread.

No. Natural 20 rule and Armor Class rule taken together are dysfunctional. Armor is supposed to protect you, making it harder to damage you - and natural 20 rule makes it fail to fulfill its purpose.

[illyahr]

Still doesn't quite work, at least in one round. Armor and shields are most likely considered to be well secured (since its physically strapped to you), so the person would need to be pinned, not just grappled. And they'd get a +4 to resist (nicely cancelling out the penalty from prone).

Armor, sure. I'd think it would be up to the DM about shield. I don't think it would be any more difficult than the weapon since you can use a shield as a weapon.

[Necroticplague]

Armor, sure. I'd think it would be up to the DM about shield. I don't think it would be any more difficult than the weapon since you can use a shield as a weapon.

Well, since we're talking about a random level 1 dude in armor, assuming no magic armor, then for his AC for be high enough for this to come up, the shield would have to be a tower shield, which can't be bashed with (or used for anything else, for that matter). But fair enough point.

[Flickerdart]

If he's using a tower shield, no commoners can touch him because of total cover, but that's its own well-known dysfunction.

[Andezzar]

No. Natural 20 rule and Armor Class rule taken together are dysfunctional. Armor is supposed to protect you, making it harder to damage you - and natural 20 rule makes it fail to fulfill its purpose.

You said it yourself, armor is supposed to make it harder to damage an armored opponent. The rules never claim that certain people are always incapable of damaging people that are armored well enough. This would not reflect reality well either. It is an abstraction. Armor is not one uniform hull of invulnerability. There are always gaps and even an unskilled fighter can find them. That no gap is harder to find than 5% of all attacks, is just as weird as certain people being unable to ever damage a sufficiently armored opponent.

You may dislike how the rule works, but there is no doubt about it that the rule works as written. There is no ambiguity or contradiction what happens when a natural 20 is rolled. So the rule is not dysfunctional.

[ShurikVch]

If you removed the automatic hit on a 20, everyone with AC 21 or more would be immune to damage from commoners. That would be just as weird.

Such as a chump with full plate and a big shield.

Armored knight vs commoners is a venue of Grapple, Flanking, Disarm and Sunder, from multiple opponents - he'll be quickly pinned down and stripped off all his worn equipment. Automatic hit on 20 doesn't do anything in that situation.

No he wouldn't - the commoners provoke AoOs whenever they try, meaning that they'll be dead before the odds tip in their favour.

According to Cityscape, Mob of Humans is CR 8, have 135 hp, and deals 5d6 damage without any roll

I generally assume people try to cite rulebook content honestly in this forum, but it would appear that your reliability is lower than the average poster. I just checked, and Poison Dusk Lizardfolk are not Monstrous Humanoids, but rather Humanoids. They fall under the usual 1 HD Humanoid exchange rule, so there's no new discovery (in the rules, anyway) here.

If you want example of no-racial-HD Monstrous Humanoid, Expanded Psionics Handbook have Dromites, which are of Monstrous Humanoid type
Oh, and Muckdweller from the Serpent Kingdoms: ¼ HD - how you would calculate it?

[Flickerdart]

According to Cityscape, Mob of Humans is CR 8, have 135 hp, and deals 5d6 damage without any roll

If you're using Mobs, then the example with the dragon doesn't hold true and there's no reason to remove the natural 20 = auto-hit rule, which is why we're looking at the armoured knight to start with.

[Andezzar]

According to Cityscape, Mob of Humans is CR 8, have 135 hp, and deals 5d6 damage without any roll

So? According to the rules a mob of humans is one Gargantuan Humanoid. So it follows different rules than a certain number of humans. Just like a swarm of rats follows different rules than a large number of rats. Again an abstraction that is not dysfunctional.

If you want example of no-racial-HD Monstrous Humanoid, Expanded Psionics Handbook have Dromites, which are of Monstrous Humanoid type

A specific exception does not mean that a general rule exists.

[Sliver]

No. Natural 20 rule and Armor Class rule taken together are dysfunctional. Armor is supposed to protect you, making it harder to damage you - and natural 20 rule makes it fail to fulfill its purpose.

The armor is what makes it difficult and impossible to hit on anything but a 20 in the first place. Stacking more won't help in this case because the creature already needs that perfect shot to hit you. The perfect shot happens to be 5% of the time, because that's the system you are playing with. It's still not dysfunctional.

Hey, if you want to continue talking about it, why not open a new thread?

[No brains]

/snip According to the rules a mob of humans is one Gargantuan Humanoid. So it follows different rules than a certain number of humans.

The REAL dysfunction is that they can be bitten by a killer whale and all turn into one were-orca.

[illyahr]

The REAL dysfunction is that they can be bitten by a killer whale and all turn into one were-orca.

That is so stupid it's hilarious.

[Necroticplague]

The REAL dysfunction is that they can be bitten by a killer whale and all turn into one were-orca.

That is so stupid it's hilarious.

"We are Orca. We are Many."

[SinsI]

The armor is what makes it difficult and impossible to hit on anything but a 20 in the first place. Stacking more won't help in this case because the creature already needs that perfect shot to hit you. The perfect shot happens to be 5% of the time, because that's the system you are playing with. It's still not dysfunctional.

Not in this case. They have total attack penalty of -24 (-20 for range, -4 for nonproficiency), so opponent might as well be naked and paralyzed.
Armor is supposed to protect you - but in this case it becomes completely irrelevant and thus dysfunctional.

[Sliver]

Not in this case. They have total attack penalty of -24 (-20 for range, -4 for nonproficiency), so opponent might as well be naked and paralyzed.
Armor is supposed to protect you - but in this case it becomes completely irrelevant and thus dysfunctional.

Or you could not ignore the part that you didn't quote from my post and start a new thread.

[Lightlawbliss]

Or you could not ignore the part that you didn't quote from my post and start a new thread.

I second this suggestion.

[illyahr]

Or you could not ignore the part that you didn't quote from my post and start a new thread.

+1. Moving on.

[Pinkie Pyro]

A minor one, possibly:


A casting glove allows you to store an item
and make use of it without first retrieving
it. It functions as a glove of storing (DMG
257), allowing you to store or retrieve a
single item within it as a free action...

That first line is describing the item means that you can use any item without retrieving it, although it then goes on to point out that:

In addition, once per round while
wearing a casting glove, you can activate or
consume a stored magic item as if you were
holding it in your hand. The activation and
all effects function just as normal for the
item, and the activation requires the same
type of action.

This does not mention non-magical Items, although the first line says "An item"

Grammatically, wouldn't this mean you could put something like say, a sword, and then use it without retrieving it? meaning: start waving gloved hand around and suddenly enemy takes sword damage.

Seems like there might be some abusable possibilities if it's true, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

[Necrovosh]

Sorry if this is elsewhere, but I couldn't find it.

Reading through my copy of the PHB, I can't find anywhere that says clerics can cast domain spells. Page 32 continually mentions both prepare and cast when talking about cleric spells, but the section on domain spells only says that they have access to and can prepare. Nowhere does it add them to the cleric spell list (in fact, it makes a direct distinction) nor does it ever actually say they can be cast. So, by my reading, the domain slots may sit filled, but never usable.

[Flickerdart]

A minor one, possibly:


A casting glove allows you to store an item
and make use of it without first retrieving
it. It functions as a glove of storing (DMG
257), allowing you to store or retrieve a
single item within it as a free action...

That first line is describing the item means that you can use any item without retrieving it, although it then goes on to point out that:

In addition, once per round while
wearing a casting glove, you can activate or
consume a stored magic item as if you were
holding it in your hand. The activation and
all effects function just as normal for the
item, and the activation requires the same
type of action.

This does not mention non-magical Items, although the first line says "An item"

Grammatically, wouldn't this mean you could put something like say, a sword, and then use it without retrieving it? meaning: start waving gloved hand around and suddenly enemy takes sword damage.

Seems like there might be some abusable possibilities if it's true, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

A sword is not a use-activated item.

[Curmudgeon]

Reading through my copy of the PHB, I can't find anywhere that says clerics can cast domain spells. Page 32 continually mentions both prepare and cast when talking about cleric spells, but the section on domain spells only says that they have access to and can prepare. Nowhere does it add them to the cleric spell list (in fact, it makes a direct distinction) nor does it ever actually say they can be cast.

Like other spellcasters, a cleric can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. His base daily spell allotment is given on Table: The Cleric. In addition, he receives bonus spells per day if he has a high Wisdom score. A cleric also gets one domain spell of each spell level he can cast, starting at 1st level.

The leading sentence of the paragraph sets the context: the spells a Cleric can cast. When they "get" a domain spell, it's gotten for casting.

[Necrovosh]

The leading sentence of the paragraph sets the context: the spells a Cleric can cast. When they "get" a domain spell, it's gotten for casting.

You're right, my sleep starved brain must have been too focused on the exact word "cast." I thought at the time it was super nit-picky, but also sort of funny that every other class specifies exactly which spells they can cast with the verb "cast," but clerics need that little bit of leeway.