Dysfunctional Rules IX: 1d3 Dysfunctions from the 8th Level List

[Flickerdart]

I guess it's just an option for that weird alternate multiclass progression they suggest with swapping spellcasting levels (i really want to say sorc levels but i dont think it was that specific) for shadowcaster levels?

Unlikely - the multiclass progression allowed a wizard to trade in wizard levels for shadowcaster levels, thus losing his arcane casting and making metamagic feats progressively more useless.

[nailbudday]

Unlikely - the multiclass progression allowed a wizard to trade in wizard levels for shadowcaster levels, thus losing his arcane casting and making metamagic feats progressively more useless.

I'm aware but it's literally the only explanation that make any sense, even if it's only an iota of it.

[Socksy]

Beholders.

They attack most other forms of Beholder on sight. They dream other Beholders into existence and then fight to the death, although that might only be 5e.

But the big problem is, their flight is (Su) as they don't have wings.
Which means, if two Beholders get into a fight, which is exceedingly likely, they just writhe around hopelessly on the ground at a speed of 5ft, trying to bite each other for a ludicrously small amount of damage which only hits on a crit.

I'm not sure if this is a dysfunction, but it's hilarious.

[Inevitability]

Beholders.

They attack most other forms of Beholder on sight. They dream other Beholders into existence and then fight to the death, although that might only be 5e.

But the big problem is, their flight is (Su) as they don't have wings.
Which means, if two Beholders get into a fight, which is exceedingly likely, they just writhe around hopelessly on the ground at a speed of 5ft, trying to bite each other for a ludicrously small amount of damage which only hits on a crit.

I'm not sure if this is a dysfunction, but it's hilarious.

What makes you think their flight is a (Su)? The MM specifically lists it as Extraordinary.

[Socksy]

What makes you think their flight is a (Su)? The MM specifically lists it as Extraordinary.

Gah, you're right. I double-checked but couldn't find the flight anywhere, because it was put in a strange place.

[ShurikVch]

Zombie:

Skills
A zombie has no skills.

Skeleton:

Skills
A skeleton has no skills.

Petitioners:

Skills
Petitioners have no skills. Previous skills are lost.

In some cases they went so far as completely skipping the "Skills:" line in creature's entries

Problems?

Technically speaking, nobody have "skills" - they may have skill list, skill ranks, and skill modifiers, but not just "skills"

This aside, how the heck exactly works complete lack of skills?
For example, Climb skill - it's Str-based skill, so Zombies likely to have at least +1 from ability bonus alone; also, there are creatures with Climb speed, which should give them +8 on all Climb checks (such as Dire Ape Zombie and Dire Rat Skeleton), but their Skills line is still empty/absent; are they among those mega-dumb Undeads who even incapable to climb a stair?
Or Jump skill - one more Str-based not-trained-only skill; does it's absence in statblocks mean Cat Skeleton (for example) is completely incapable to jump?
Or how about the Listen/Spot skills? Are those undead completely blind and deaf as well?

At least Skeletons and Zombies have excuse of being Undead and Mindless (shoddy excuse - those things, while true, doesn't prevent them from understanding master's orders and wielding clubs without penalties); Petitioners have their bodies and mind intact (specific exceptions aside)


Not a "real dysfunction", just a fluff complain:

+2 racial bonus on Craft (alchemy) checks: A gnome's sensitive nose allows him to monitor alchemical processes by smell.

While by itself it's OK - fluff-wise and crunch-wise, I can't help but notice: AFAIK, no other creature with good olfaction - such as Lupins with their Acute Sense of Smell, or all those with Scent SQ - got similar bonus

[The Viscount]

Their nose can't be too sensitive, or else they'll be overwhelmed! You gotta have that goldilocks zone of sensitive smell.

[Jormengand]

Technically speaking, nobody have "skills" - they may have skill list, skill ranks, and skill modifiers, but not just "skills"

This aside, how the heck exactly works complete lack of skills?
For example, Climb skill - it's Str-based skill, so Zombies likely to have at least +1 from ability bonus alone; also, there are creatures with Climb speed, which should give them +8 on all Climb checks (such as Dire Ape Zombie and Dire Rat Skeleton), but their Skills line is still empty/absent; are they among those mega-dumb Undeads who even incapable to climb a stair?
Or Jump skill - one more Str-based not-trained-only skill; does it's absence in statblocks mean Cat Skeleton (for example) is completely incapable to jump?
Or how about the Listen/Spot skills? Are those undead completely blind and deaf as well?

At least Skeletons and Zombies have excuse of being Undead and Mindless (shoddy excuse - those things, while true, doesn't prevent them from understanding master's orders and wielding clubs without penalties); Petitioners have their bodies and mind intact (specific exceptions aside)

I mean, it's not entirely unreasonable that a skeleton with no ears or eyes or joints simply cannot make listen, spot or jump skill cecks. You also do not usually need a climb check to walk up stairs (You only need a check for "A slope too steep to walk up").

[nailbudday]

Something I noticed while looking through PrC's for an upcoming game today:

With a sap (blackjack) or an unarmed strike, a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual –4 penalty, because she must make optimal use of her weapon in order to
execute a sneak attack.

Alright makes sense enough... But what about whips? You can't deal lethal damage with them, but you can't deal nonlethal SA damage with them either since it's not a sap or unarmed strike. Do you not get to sneak attack? Does your attack deal nonlethal but your SA deals lethal? How many whips does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop? The world may never know.

As far as I've found, there is exactly one class with SA damage that circumvents this: the 3.0 Lasher PrC. Everything else either copies the rogue SA entry but replaces 'rogue' with the class name, or just says 'gains sneak attack as a rogue would' or similar.

[Jormengand]

You cannot whip a creature's weak points for MASSIVE DAMAGE. This seems... entirely reasonable.

[nailbudday]

And yet I can kill giant enemy crabs with halfling skiprocks or a club larger than the enemy i'm fighting all day long and still get a sneak attack

[Telok]

Gah, you're right. I double-checked but couldn't find the flight anywhere, because it was put in a strange place.

To be fair, while they are still flying it's still a funny biting contest without the eye rays.

[Socksy]

To be fair, while they are still flying it's still a funny biting contest without the eye rays.

This seems to get even sillier if Beholder Magi are involved, as they'll straight-up lose in a fight to any other Beholder, which is the opposite of what they're meant to do.

[The Viscount]

Something I noticed while looking through PrC's for an upcoming game today:



Alright makes sense enough... But what about whips? You can't deal lethal damage with them, but you can't deal nonlethal SA damage with them either since it's not a sap or unarmed strike. Do you not get to sneak attack? Does your attack deal nonlethal but your SA deals lethal? How many whips does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop? The world may never know.

As far as I've found, there is exactly one class with SA damage that circumvents this: the 3.0 Lasher PrC. Everything else either copies the rogue SA entry but replaces 'rogue' with the class name, or just says 'gains sneak attack as a rogue would' or similar.

Interestingly enough, this also means that you can't deal nonlethal damage with something like a truncheon or merciful weapon.

This seems to get even sillier if Beholder Magi are involved, as they'll straight-up lose in a fight to any other Beholder, which is the opposite of what they're meant to do.

Unless of course the mage has pre-buffed with antimagic field and is circumventing it by normal means.

EDIT: In another issue, vampires who had familiars must trade them in for a bat or rat as the old one runs away. This is worded broadly so would apply even to improved familiars, making the feat worthless.

[Jormengand]

If you buy an explorer's outfit, you can get any item included with it so long as you might need it.

[georgie_leech]

There are no general Including Items With Other Items rules that the Explorer's Outfit runs afoul of, so the only relevant rules are in the text of the item itself. "Includes any extra items you might need" isn't a RAW statement about all items everywhere, but a description indicating it includes other sorts of exploring related items.

[Uncle Pine]

Alright makes sense enough... But what about whips? You can't deal lethal damage with them, but you can't deal nonlethal SA damage with them either since it's not a sap or unarmed strike. Do you not get to sneak attack? Does your attack deal nonlethal but your SA deals lethal? How many whips does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop? The world may never know.

As far as I've found, there is exactly one class with SA damage that circumvents this: the 3.0 Lasher PrC. Everything else either copies the rogue SA entry but replaces 'rogue' with the class name, or just says 'gains sneak attack as a rogue would' or similar.

You can sabotage (City of Stormreach 140) whips and other similar weapons with a DC 15 Disable Device check to make them deal lethal damage instead.

[Jormengand]

"Includes any extra items you might need" isn't a RAW statement about all items everywhere, but a description indicating it includes other sorts of exploring related items.

Except that a statement about all items everywhere is exactly what it is, as written. It doesn't specify that it only includes "Exporing-related" items, whatever those are.

[Dagroth]

Except that a statement about all items everywhere is exactly what it is, as written. It doesn't specify that it only includes "Exporing-related" items, whatever those are.

True... but even if it did...

If you're "exploring" a Library, you might need an index... or a book that translates the texts.

If you're exploring a dungeon, you might need a lit torch... or a flask of alchemist's fire to throw on a swarm of spiders... or a map of the dungeon... or a book that explains how to disable the trap you just found.

Yeah, there's a lot of things you could "need" while you're "exploring".



Heck, if you want to get really bad... what about when you're "exploring your sexuality"?

[Jormengand]

Heck, if you want to get really bad... what about when you're "exploring your sexuality"?

Explorer's outfit: now comes with free lesbian.

[Inevitability]

Explorer's outfit: now comes with free lesbian.

Permission to sig?

[Jormengand]

Permission to sig?

Granted.

[georgie_leech]

Except that a statement about all items everywhere is exactly what it is, as written. It doesn't specify that it only includes "Exporing-related" items, whatever those are.

See, I read that as using an English idiom, where 'any [things] you might need' is a general statement of category, and not a specific statement of including absolutely everything. I concede that it's possible to read it that way. Doing so seems a bit too Drax the Destroyer for my tastes though.

[zergling.exe]

See, I read that as using an English idiom, where 'any [things] you might need' is a general statement of category, and not a specific statement of including absolutely everything. I concede that it's possible to read it that way. Doing so seems a bit too Drax the Destroyer for my tastes though.

Wouldn't that mean it's not dysfunctional, as it is possible to read it in a way that is non-dysfunctional? Or at the very least, not the kind this thread is looking for?

[Jormengand]

Wouldn't that mean it's not dysfunctional, as it is possible to read it in a way that is non-dysfunctional? Or at the very least, not the kind this thread is looking for?

I mean, it's not dysfunctional if you completely ignore what it says in favour of what it means, sure, but that's why this is a thread for RAW dysfunctions.

[Bucky]

The explorer's outfit, by RAW, might come with items that are otherwise unobtainable, like scuba gear.

[zergling.exe]

I mean, it's not dysfunctional if you completely ignore what it says in favour of what it means, sure, but that's why this is a thread for RAW dysfunctions.

Well georgie did say they read it in a way that's not dysfunctional, and OP has this to say:

Unless every possible reading of the text is dysfunctional no matter how you read it (even if it's dysfunctional in different ways).

Meaning that since it is possible to read it in a non-dysfunctional way, it doesn't belong in the handbook.

[Jormengand]

Meaning that since it is possible to read it in a non-dysfunctional way, it doesn't belong in the handbook.

The OP means "Unless every possible meaning of what the text actually says is dysfunctional", not "Unless every way one could possibly choose to interpret it, even if you are incorrect in doing so, is dysfuctional". Otherwise nothing would be a dysfuction.

[georgie_leech]

Wouldn't that mean it's not dysfunctional, as it is possible to read it in a way that is non-dysfunctional? Or at the very least, not the kind this thread is looking for?

That is my point, yes. I put forth that there's a difference between the literal writing and the literal meaning. That is, the giant here is not physically restraining an unspecified something,, even though those are the words being used. Expressions taken as a whole can have a meaning distinct from the individual pieces.

This is distinct from things like Drown Healing. That 'works' not because of idiomatic expressions, but because the rules are actually quite specific, albeit lacking a clause about what happens if your HP is low.

[Jormengand]

That is my point, yes. I put forth that there's a difference between the literal writing and the literal meaning.

Sorry, this is the RAW dysfunction thread, not the RAM ("Rules as meant") dysfunction thread.

---

You can attack into a square but only if you think that a creature with total concealment is in it. It's unclear how exactly this works, especially if multiple creatures occupy that square somehow.