-
"Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Inspired by the "easy exploits", I'd like to collect things in this thread where the rules simply fail to achieve what was (most likely) intended, and thus requires houseruling to make it work.
Examples:
- Monks are not proficient with Unarmed Strikes.
- Ruby Knight Vindicators have to expend a Standard Action to gain an additional Swift Action. (Reason: since the Divine Impetus description says nothing about what kind of Action is required, it defaults to Standard Action, as for any Su Ability that doesn't specify otherwise)
Bring it on. =)
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Disfunctional Rules Collection
Shadow Sun Ninja (ToB) has an ability (Flame of the Shadow Sun) that lets you absorb a cold attack as an immediate action. Doing so grants you the ability to launch a bolt of fire as a swift action on your next turn. Damn shame about how using an immediate action means you don't get a swift action next turn, huh?
There is no RAW provision for making oils (defined as "potion-like things that work on objects"), despite many examples of such existing in the "Potions and Oils" section of the DMG, since Brew Potion specifies that the spell must target a creature. You might find an Oil of Magic Weapon, but you'll never be able to make one. At least, not in the way you think you are.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Disfunctional Rules Collection
Using a ranged weapon to make an attack as a standard action provokes an attack of opportunity.
Using a ranged weapon to make a full attack action does not.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Disfunctional Rules Collection
*Points at the entire Truenamer thread*
Also, Ur-Priests don't actually work.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Disfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Psyren
Also, Ur-Priests don't actually work.
*Re-reads ur-priest class.*
How is this?
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Disfunctional Rules Collection
Hide behind your tower shield, to gain total cover for you and your equipment. Your tower shield now has total cover.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Disfunctional Rules Collection
Also, "dysfunctional" has a y in it.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Disfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zaq
Also, "dysfunctional" has a y in it.
Yes, but "disfunctional" does not. You'll find that listed as an acceptable variant spelling in many sources.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Disfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ChumpLump
Using a ranged weapon to make an attack as a standard action provokes an attack of opportunity.
Using a ranged weapon to make a full attack action does not.
I used this in a game once. Good thing it was online or I would have gotten dice or even books thrown at me.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Disfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ChumpLump
Using a ranged weapon to make an attack as a standard action provokes an attack of opportunity.
Using a ranged weapon to make a full attack action does not.
How so?
The SRD actions in combat chart does not differentiate between action types. It just lists "ranged attack" as a means of provoking an AoO. When taking a standart action to attack with a ranged weapon, you are making a ranged attack and thus provoke. When taking an full round action to full attack with a ranged weaopon, you are makin ranged attacks and thus provoking AoOs.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Disfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zombimode
Really? The link you gave has separate tables for standard actions, move actions, full round actions and so forth.
Under "Standard Actions", it says ranged attacks provoke. Under "Full round Actions", it doesn't say that, and the table clearly says that full attack doesn't provoke.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Disfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ranagrande
Yes, but "disfunctional" does not. You'll find that listed as an acceptable variant spelling in many sources.
Nono, Zaq is totally right. Dysfunctional is the better spelling. I'll fix it. ^^
(I had written "dys-" at first, then thought it looked funny, and changed it.)
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
*fails reading comprehension check*
Damn, you guys are right :smallredface:
Yeah, this is stupid.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Disfunctional Rules Collection
Taking the "Self-Sufficient" feat is the absolute worst thing you can do if you want your character to be self-sufficient.
In fact, if your character concept is "A swordsman that is tough and self-sufficient, with godlike endurance", for the love of god, don't play a fighter with toughness, self-sufficient, and endurance.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zombimode
Yeah, this is stupid.
No argument there. That's how it found it's way to this thread. :smalltongue:
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Disfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ChumpLump
*Re-reads ur-priest class.*
How is this?
Quote:
Special: The character must have no ability to cast divine spells.
Ur-priests cast divine spells.
Obviously, this is meant only for preexisting abilities, but strict reading of RAW* gives no such exception.
It's sort of like the Schrödinger's Dragon Disciple case.
(*Provided one accepts Complete Warrior and Complete Arcane's "if you no longer meet the requirements of a PrC you lose access to its class abilities" rule extends to other Prestige Classes.)
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Disfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NNescio
(*Provided one accepts Complete Warrior and Complete Arcane's "if you no longer meet the requirements of a PrC you lose access to its class abilities" rule extends to other Prestige Classes.)
But it's generally accepted that those only apply to the books in question.
There's the old "Heal by Drowning" trick, that needs no further explanation.
Empty flasks weigh more than full flasks of Alchemists's Fire, Holy Water, etc.
The good-only Healer class has an [evil] spell (Deathwatch) on their list. I can't check right now, but I think they can't even cast it.
Undead are completely fine on the Positive Energy Plane, since they are technically immune to the negative effects of the plane. They're probably better off than living things even.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Disfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Claudius Maximus
But it's generally accepted that those only apply to the books in question.
Actually, that rule is generally disregarded entirely. If you were to apply it, there is no basis to apply it selectively, because it doesn't specify "the prestige classes in this book."
And CArc has other rules that are applied to general D&D, such as sneak attack/crits on weapon-like spells. Following that logic would mean that you could only do that with the spells in CArc.
Anyway, I think the rule is silly (just like I think Ur-Priest self-disqualifying is silly) - I merely mentioned it because this is a thread for silly rules.
EDIT: Might as well throw in Dragon Disciple while we're on the subject, for the same reason.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Disfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NNescio
Ur-priests cast divine spells.
It's sort of like the Schrödinger's Dragon Disciple case.
First I was like this: oÔ
And then I LOLed! ^_^
Thanks for that, I'm still laughing. =)
Quote:
The good-only Healer class has an [evil] spell (Deathwatch) on their list. I can't check right now, but I think they can't even cast it.
Yeah. I just noticed the other day that Deathwatch is described as "Evil", though I cannot imagine why.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Yeah, I'd say the real problem is that Deathwatch is an Evil spell; it's only evil because of the fluff. There's nothing to prevent Healers from using it though.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Disfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NNescio
(*Provided one accepts Complete Warrior and Complete Arcane's "if you no longer meet the requirements of a PrC you lose access to its class abilities" rule extends to other Prestige Classes.)
The complete warrior rule is dysfunctional, every GM have to make something new. I personally say that the character must satisfy naked and without spells active to take the first level. Once you got your first level it is ok. If you satisfy only in certain situations like Two-weapon fighting and the Ranger you qualify.
Similarly the PrC Survivor (Savage Species) has this prerequisite:
You highest Base Saving Throw must be lower than your level.
Too bad once you take your first level you probably fail that requisite losing the first level power....
E.g.
1 level Commoner saving throws 0 0 0
2 level Survivor saving throws 2 2 2
OPS!
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Disfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Claudius Maximus
The good-only Healer class has an [evil] spell (Deathwatch) on their list. I can't check right now, but I think they can't even cast it.
It's on Slayer of Domiel's list too IIRC - an Exalted PrC from BoED, i.e. "gooder than good."
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Disfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Psyren
Actually, that rule is generally disregarded entirely. If you were to apply it, there is no basis to apply it selectively, because it doesn't specify "the prestige classes in this book."
Actually, Primary Source applies here. The DMG is primary source for how prestige classes work. Unless another book specifically over-rules that, like how Spell Compendium and Magic Item Compendium specifically are the definitive new rules for the stuff in there, then any new rules about Prestige Classes can only apply to the book those rules came from- everything else refers either to itself or to the DMG if no specific rules are given.
Edit: As distinct from the Weapon-like spells rules, which are generally applied because the core books don't tell you how to deal with those.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Disfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tyckspoon
Actually, Primary Source applies here. The DMG is primary source for how prestige classes work. Unless another book specifically over-rules that, like how Spell Compendium and Magic Item Compendium specifically are the definitive new rules for the stuff in there, then any new rules about Prestige Classes can only apply to the book those rules came from- everything else refers either to itself or to the DMG if no specific rules are given.
Edit: As distinct from the Weapon-like spells rules, which are generally applied because the core books don't tell you how to deal with those.
The core book also doesn't mention what happens when you lose the requirements for a PrC, so it could be argued that there is nothing in core for CA and CW to overrule.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Disfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tyckspoon
Actually, Primary Source applies here. The DMG is primary source for how prestige classes work. Unless another book specifically over-rules that, like how Spell Compendium and Magic Item Compendium are the definitive rules for the stuff in there, then any new rules about Prestige Classes can only apply to the book those rules came from- everything else refers either to itself or to the DMG if no specific rules are given.
1) Primary Source only applies if that source actually has a rule that covers this situation. The DMG says nothing about what happens if you fail to meet the prereqs for a PrC after entering it, therefore defaulting to it does nothing.
(Ninja'd by Boci.)
2) The Primary Source rule comes second to Specific trumps General in the rules hierarchy. For instance, both the DMG and PHB both say there are only 11 base classes in D&D, yet it's obvious that this is wrong due to splat books adding more; yet putting Primary Source in first place would eliminate every other base class in 3.5.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Swordsage's AC bonus.
Unarmed Swordsages.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
The fact people start arguing this way is proof of dysfunction.
Also the big one.... Tiers! How is possible that after few years of 3.0 they could not make a collection of Tiers 3 base classes?!?
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Xefas
Taking the "Self-Sufficient" feat is the absolute worst thing you can do if you want your character to be self-sufficient.
In fact, if your character concept is "A swordsman that is tough and self-sufficient, with godlike endurance", for the love of god, don't play a fighter with toughness, self-sufficient, and endurance.
If we're going about misleading names, how about Amulet of Mighty Fists and Necklace of Natural Attacks? Guess which one is better for someone punching people in the face, and which one benefits the million-tentacled elder horror more?
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
It can be extended to most feats.
Feats are really badly written, it seems authors are scared to write decent feats and yet have no problems writing broken spells. Most core feats are almost useless (Tier 6 if you prefer).
Weapon Specialization +2 damage VS Fireball 1d6 damage per level....ok, there is a cap. But the point should be clear.
Endurance ... you get 3 HP. WHAT? My character will have 7 feats in all his career and I should use one for 3 HP?!? No, seriously... do they play tested anything?
If it were something like 1 HP per level (min 3) my Wizard might think about it...
Of course this is the real problem of the Fighter class. Bad feats, bad class that lives of feats.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
You cannot be a Dragon Disciple if you are a dragon.
Gain dragon as a type through Dragon Disciple.
You no longer qualify as a Dragon Disciple.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
etrpgb
It can be extended to most feats.
Feats are really badly written, it seems authors are scared to write decent feats and yet have no problems writing broken spells. Most core feats are almost useless (Tier 6 if you prefer).
Weapon Specialization +2 damage VS Fireball 1d6 damage per level....ok, there is a cap. But the point should be clear.
Endurance ... you get 3 HP. WHAT? My character will have 7 feats in all his career and I should use one for 3 HP?!? No, seriously... do they play tested anything?
If it were something like 1 HP per level (min 3) my Wizard might think about it...
Of course this is the real problem of the Fighter class. Bad feats, bad class that lives of feats.
1. Endurance doesn't give any HP.
2. I'd like to see a breakdown of how "most" core feats - where we get metamagic, item creation, power attack, and natural spell, among others - are "almost useless".
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Toughness, yeah... language barrier.
Here is the list, check by yourself.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
etrpgb
I'm aware of the list. I'm saying "most" of those aren't "almost useless". I'm asking what percentage of them you were considering when you made the assertion.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
My favorite here is still "gaining cover with a tower shield grants the tower shield itself cover."
- Smaller creatures gain bonuses to hide because they are smaller. Makes sense. But it begins to get silly when you realize that two diminutive creatures will never find each other ever.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Disfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Amphetryon
Hide behind your tower shield, to gain total cover for you and your equipment. Your tower shield now has total cover.
Follow up by using the total cover from the shield to make a hide check. You, and thus your tower shield, are now hidden.
Mounted combat almost as a whole, with special mention of ride by attack.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lord.Sorasen
My favorite here is still "gaining cover with a tower shield grants the tower shield itself cover."
- Smaller creatures gain bonuses to hide because they are smaller. Makes sense. But it begins to get silly when you realize that two diminutive creatures will never find each other ever.
And while we are at it, the Spot rules and their interaction with various celestial objects...
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
As DMG a Tiny creature cannot attack a Small creature as it cannot enter in its square.
@Amphetryon
I made a quick count, there are about 110 feats and I counted 47 that I do not think anyone would ever want. I might not be `most', but it is surely `many'.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lord.Sorasen
My favorite here is still "gaining cover with a tower shield grants the tower shield itself cover."
- Smaller creatures gain bonuses to hide because they are smaller. Makes sense. But it begins to get silly when you realize that two diminutive creatures will never find each other ever.
How is that silly? Being needle-sized doesn't make it much easier to find a needle in a haystack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NNescio
And while we are at it, the Spot rules and their interaction with various celestial objects...
I don't think you need to make a Spot check unless the object is hidden or otherwise difficult to see.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Swiftmongoose
Swordsage's AC bonus.
Unarmed Swordsages.
Please elaborate.
--
Also, regarding Spot checks, I'm not quite sure if I'm just not reading the rules correctly... or if an average person cannot see another average person beyond 200ft (60 metres) even if the latter isn't even trying to hide (Spot check +0, Hide Check 0, Distance penalty -21).
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
etrpgb
As DMG a Tiny creature cannot attack a Small creature as it cannot enter in its square.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SRD
Very Small Creature
A Fine, Diminutive, or Tiny creature can move into or through an occupied square. The creature provokes attacks of opportunity when doing so.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/mov...throughaSquare
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Disfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Boci
The core book also doesn't mention what happens when you lose the requirements for a PrC, so it could be argued that there is nothing in core for CA and CW to overrule.
Fun stuff: History of the game.
In D&D 3.0, the DMG does not include the Dragon Disciple PrC - that was found in a different book. Additionally, the 3.0 DMG PrC header had the same clause that shows up in the 3.5 Complete Arcane and the 3.5 Complete Warrior books.
In D&D 3.5, the DMG inludes the Dragon Disciple PrC... and the DMG PrC header does not include the troublesome clause that shows up in Complete Arcane and Complete Warrior.
The clause was specifically removed from the DMG in the 3.0 -> 3.5 transition. Complete Arcane and Complete Warrior? They were very early books in 3.5, that mostly functioned as compilations of various items from 3.0 sources with minor edits.
As nearly as I can tell, the presence of that troublesome clause is an editing error.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Firechanter
Please elaborate.
By RAW, Swordsages only get Wis to AC in light armor. (i.e. any other level of armor - including no armor at all - loses the bonus.)
Not sure what the issue is with Unarmed Swordsages, they seem playable. (though they would be hit even harder by the rule above.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jack_Simth
As nearly as I can tell, the presence of that troublesome clause is an editing error.
I don't think it belongs in 3.5 either - but again, this is the "silly rules" thread.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PirateMonk
I don't think you need to make a Spot check unless the object is hidden or otherwise difficult to see.
Nope, an example of a DC: 10 skill check is spotiing a large object in plain sight.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Firechanter
Please elaborate.
Only works in light armor.
Have to take Improved Unarmed Strike, don't get it as a bonus feat.
Quote:
--
Also, regarding Spot checks, I'm not quite sure if I'm just not reading the rules correctly... or if an average person cannot see another average person beyond 200ft (60 metres) even if the latter isn't even trying to hide (Spot check +0, Hide Check 0, Distance penalty -21).
Even with the massive size penalty, the Sun is too far away to see.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Firechanter
Please elaborate.
The Swordsage's AC Bonus technically only applies when they are in light armour (and unencumbered while not using a shield). Strict reading of RAW does not grant them this bonus when they are actually unarmoured. Amusingly.
This is exacerbated with Unarmed Swordsages, who lose proficiency with light armour.
Edit: Swordsage'd. Fitting.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
etrpgb
It can be extended to most feats.
Feats are really badly written, it seems authors are scared to write decent feats and yet have no problems writing broken spells. Most core feats are almost useless (Tier 6 if you prefer).
I blame Fighter. The very existence of the class devalues the worth of melee feats.
Looking over SRD for general feats:
Utterly useless (30):
Spoiler
Show
Acrobatic
Agile
Alertness
Animal Affinity
Athletic
Combat Casting
Deceitful
Deft Hands
Diligent
Dodge
Endurance
Improved Counterspell
Investigator
Magical Aptitude
Martial Weapon Proficiency
Trample
Negotiator
Nimble Fingers
Persuasive
Shot On The Run
Great Cleave
Improved Overrun
Run
Self-Sufficient
Simple Weapon Proficiency
Skill Focus
Stealthy
Toughness
Track
Two-Weapon Defense
Mostly useless (29):
Spoiler
Show
Armor Proficiency (Light)
Armor Proficiency (Medium)
Armor Proficiency (Heavy)
Blind-Fight
Improved Disarm
Improved Feint
Whirlwind Attack
Mobility
Spring Attack
Diehard
Eschew Materials
Extra Turning
Great Fortitude
Improved Turning
Snatch Arrows
Stunning Fist
Iron Will
Lightning Reflexes
Point Blank Shot
Far Shot
Cleave
Improved Bull Rush
Improved Sunder
Quick Draw
Rapid Reload
Shield Proficiency
Improved Shield Bash
Tower Shield Proficiency,
Greater Two-Weapon Fighting
That's 59 out of PHB's 92 general feats. Then there are 17 metamagic or item creation feats.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
There's 110 feats in the PHB. 16 of those are the +2/+2 skill feats and Skill Focus. So a bit over a tenth are almost completely pointless. Then there's the class that is merely 'really bad', often because you can get the same effect with something less valuable than a feat- the save boosters, Armor/shield proficiencies, and weapon proficiencies. 3 saves, 3 kinds of armor, 3 kinds of weapon (I *might* exempt Exotic Weapon Prof from this, but just because the Spiked Chain is pretty good. Everything else is a terrible return on a feat), 2 different shield proficiency feats. 11 more feats, and we're up to just shy of one quarter of the feats are what I'd call truly almost useless, in that you could pretty easily forget you ever took the feat, and probably strike the bonus it gave you off your sheet without noticing too much (actually, Toughness probably belongs here too. So 28 feats.)
And there's the stuff that *would* be useful, if the core mechanics worked differently/better- Great Cleave. Extra Turning/Improved Turning without really relevant things that work off Turning. Stunning Fist for everybody who isn't a Monk taking it as a bonus feat. Improved Overrun. Improved Counterspell. Eschew Materials. Spring Attack and Shot On The Run. Trample. Ride-By Attack. Combat Casting. Dodge and Mobility. The mechanics associated with all of these are either weak, dysfunctional, or generally irrelevant enough that it would take either dramatically more powerful feats or a system rewrite to make the associated feats useful. And now we're up to 42 feats that I would not consider worth using outside of builds carefully designed to abuse a certain ability (or that were forced into it by prestige classes, I'm lookin' at you Combat Casting and Skill Focus.)
And let's get into stuff that is actually kinda useful, but just completely fails to be worth a rare feat slot! How 'bout Endurance and Diehard? Whirlwind Attack? Run? Track (as somebody's sig says re: Rangers-"we were given a railroading tool and tricked into believing it was a class feature") Improved Feint? Widen Spell (even metamagic has a turkey in it!) Two-Weapon Defense? Point-blank Shot? Far Shot? 52 feats so far, not terribly far from a majority!
Thankfully, we're now into the realms of merely questionable feats, the stuff you take because it does something decent and you're stuck in Core so you don't have a better way to get these effects, it's required to make a poorly-supported concept work, or you just ran out of really good feats. (Note: This bit is strongly personal opinion.) This is the realm of your Weapon Focus and Specialization line. Spell X (Mastery/Focus/Penetration), Two-Weapon Fighting, and Rapid Reload also occupy this level. So that's.. 2 each for the Weapon stuff, 2 more for Spell Focus and Penetration, 3 TWF feats, and then Rapid Reload and Spell Mastery.. 13 more feats on the pile. 65 total. Well more than half the feats in the PHB are somewhere in between "Oh my gods why would you take that" and "well, I guess that's not completely terrible."
Edit: 109 feats. Forgot that Leadership is actually in a DMG sidebar. And I suppose I shouldn't be all that surprised that I'm not the only person who took the time to sort all those feats out.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Psyren
I don't think it belongs in 3.5 either - but again, this is the "silly rules" thread.
True enough. Of course, with the availability of the Chaos Shuffle, the PHB II retraining rules, and the Psychic Reformation power, the clause also serves a purpose: If the feat cost is a balancing mechanism for stonger PrC's, then the ability to effectively remove the feat cost is a bad thing.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Swiftmongoose
Have to take Improved Unarmed Strike, don't get it as a bonus feat.
That one's at least arguable. Unarmed Swordsage says you get "the monk's unarmed strike progression". If you interpret this as gaining the "Unarmed Strike" class feature of the monk, there's no problem because the very first sentence of that gives you Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
"Progression" typically means just the numbers, i.e. in this case, attack bonuses and iteratives.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greenish
I blame Fighter. The very existence of the class devalues the worth of melee feats.[...]
That's 59 out of PHB's 92 general feats. Then there are 17 metamagic or item creation feats.
You has been more restrictive than me (for example I set Cleave as useful), but I assume we agree on the main point.
I miss the point of the Fighter... isn't the opposite? Bad feats meant bad Fighter?
After all, with lots of Feats of the power of Shock Trooper (that become stronger with the BAB) or lots of Feats that give new ways to attack like the ``Zhentarim Soldier'' levels the Fighter might be interesting.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Firechanter
"Progression" typically means just the numbers, i.e. in this case, attack bonuses and iteratives.
That's 3.0 monk, this one just increases damage.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PirateMonk
I said ``as DMG'' with a reason. SRD fixed the problem.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Knowledge Devotion is poorly designed. It is possible to fail to identify a monster but still gain bonuses to-hit and damage against it even though you haven't got a clue what you are fighting.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Knowledge Devotion is the way of the Wizard of the Coast wanted to say:
- Weapon Focus is wrong, yes... Use this one.
What about Travel Devotion? You can move all your movement in a Immediate Action. It means you can avoid a fall jumping midair! Or do a double jump!
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Edit: Nevermind, misread what someone said.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
etrpgb
I said ``as DMG'' with a reason. SRD fixed the problem.
I don't think it's fair to highlight the rules they actually fixed with errata in this thread though. Give the devil it's due, and all that.
(Besides, there's more than enough that they didn't get around to :smalltongue:)
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
etrpgb
Knowledge Devotion is the way of the Wizard of the Coast wanted to say:
- Weapon Focus is wrong, yes... Use this one.
I can't disagree, but just the way it works is poorly designed. My group uses this house rule:
If you identify the monster (DC = 10 + HD) then you gain +1 to-hit and damage
For every extra bit of information (for every 5 you exceed the identification DC) you gain another +1 to hit and damage.
To go with it, Ancestral Knowledge is house ruled not to be racially constrained.
As for Weapon Focus, it scales by level. At level 4, weapon focus automatically grants weapon specialization. At level 8, it automatically grants Greater Weapon Focus. At level 11, it automatically grants Greater Weapon Specialization. Then it stops.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
n00bsticker
As for Weapon Focus, it scales by level. At level 4, weapon focus automatically grants weapon specialization. At level 8, it automatically grants Greater Weapon Focus. At level 11, it automatically grants Greater Weapon Specialization. Then it stops.
I'm guessing houserule. That doesn't fix the RAW.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
etrpgb
What about Travel Devotion? You can move all your movement in a Immediate Action. It means you can avoid a fall jumping midair! Or do a double jump!
Well. I think that's okay. It is a kind of mini-teleport. There are lots of ways to do this.
What bugs me about most Devotion feats is that Clerics get so much more out of them. Right, because this class really needed more of a boost than any Mundane. oÔ
But well, it's bad game balance, not dysfunctional as such.