"Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

This forum caters to people with a wide variety of opinions and styles of play. I've seen some remarkable "game tricks" here, things I never even considered before. I've also seen a lot of debate, using the terms RAW (Rules As Written) and RAI (Rules As Intended...a highly debated term). And I've seen the phrase "common sense" batted about, and hotly argued, on a number of occasions.

In an attempt to bring some clarity and focus to the debate, and to try and balance out some of the more egregious "game tricks" I've seen, I'd like to put a new term out there and see what comes of it. This thread is about RACSD (Rules As Common Sense Dictates).

This is not an attempt to override rules with what physics demands. It is not an attempt to guess at every possible RAI. What it is is an attempt to get a consensus opinion of the very knowledgable playerbase here as to which rules interpretations are reasonable, and which are attempts to circumvent reason, intent, game balance, and so forth.

I welcome all players' input on the specific issues raised, but would ask that those who disagree with the very concept of the thread mind their own business. If you decry the very concept, decry it somewhere else.

I will attempt to use the next post to index the RACSD rulings, and will do my best to keep up on this thread and maintain it. Anyone is welcome to post their own common interpretations that they think are unsure or debatable...please number (and refer to the number of) them according to a similar convention to what has been done in the FAQ thread. Please post the (numbered) rule title in bold, your commentary in regular text, and the actual proposed rules change in italics, as seen below.

For the purpose of this thread, an 80% agreement with a proposed rule change will be considered sufficient consensus to be called "common sense". Note that this means rules will, over time, float in and out of being considered valid.

Rules that receive 80% disagreement will be considered too poorly supported to maintain, and will be noted as "removed by general agreement".

Finally, a rule that has full 100% agreement through 20 votes is considered sufficiently unanimous that the voting will be removed for it as well, and a notation of "approved by unanimous consensus" will be added...no further voting or debate will be needed on these issues.

Please post not only your 'vote' on the rules, but your reasoning for it. Please do NOT vote against a proposed rules change just because you enjoy that particular exploit...admit it's an exploit and don't play by RACSD in your own games. The goal here is to get at at what is genuinely believed to be the actual, reasonable intent.

Quote:

---

DISCLAIMER: I make no special appeal of the validity of this thread as a source of ultimate authority. It does not have the blessing of major deities, the force of law, or even the approval of WoTC. It is nothing more than the collective opinions of those who have chosen to participate. It is common sense only so far as it is the opinions of all of us in common (nobody set forward as a specific expert or authority) that make sense (seem to be the right and rational way of handling the rules).

The percentages, numbers and named votes are listed so that anyone viewing this thread knows *exactly* how much credence, authority, and validity it holds, and each such individual may judge the value of this list accordingly. 80% was chosen for no specific statistical or politial value, it just seemed to be an appropriate figure at the time the thread was created. Other, lower-percentage rulings that are technically disapproved may themselves still be considered to have value.

---

Updated 6/25/2012

Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes (approved by unanimous consensus)

Spoiler

Show

Replaces DMG p304, second paragraph of Drowning: "When the character finally fails her Constitution check, she begins to drown. In the first round, she falls unconscious; and is reduced to 0 hp (unless already below that point). In the following round, she drops to -1 hit points (unless already below that point) and is dying. In the third round, she drowns (and is dead). A character immediately ceases drowning as soon as she is no longer subjected to the environment/condition/spell effect that caused the drowning condition."

Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier(currently disapproved 72% of 36)

Spoiler

Show

Override for all forms of Metamagic cost reduction: "The application of any individual metamagic feat cannot reduce the spell level of the overall spell. The minimum reduction applied by each individual metamagic feat is +0, regardless of the method utilized to achieve said reduction." Specific exception to this rule is granted to the Sanctum Spell metamagic feat, which allows for such reduction in and of itself (rather than in combination with any other effect, and with considerable restriction).
For: 26(Andorax, Doug Lampert, Ashtagon, Talya, docnessuno, Lapak, Lonely Tylenol, zagan, erikun, pigkappa, lesser minion, nyjastul69, Morph Bark, Lactantius, Gwendol , Zeful, Sutremaine, Carr0t, Msebazco, DeAnno, Istari, EchoKnight, Essence of War, Evil the Cat, Asheram, Yorae)
Against: 10(GoodbyeSoberDay, JoeYounger, Dandria, Namfuak, Jeff the Green, Godskook, Cor1, tuggyne, Tyndmyr, Mnemnosyne)

Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels (currently disapproved 67% of 33)

Spoiler

Show

Limit to Class Features: "No class (base or prestige) can have its class features progressed beyond the maximum printed level of the class itself, with the exception of the rules for epic progression that provides design rules for progressing base and prestige classes beyond their respecitve 20 and 10 level limits into character levels beyond 20th."
For: 22(Andorax, Doug Lampert, JoeYounger, Ashtagon, docnessuno, Dandria, Namfuak, SheepInDisguise, zagan, Lonely Tylenol, lesser minion, Godskook, nyjastul69, Lactantius, Gwendol, Zeful, Carr0t, DeAnno, Istari, EchoKnight, Essence of War, Asheram)
Against: 11(GoodbyeSoberDay, JadePhoenix, Siosilvar, erikun, pigkappa, Jeff the Green, moritheil, Msebazco, Tyndmyr, Mnemnosyne, Yorae)

Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike(currently approved 97% of 32)

Spoiler

Show

Add the following notation to Superior Unarmed Strike (Tome of Battle p. 33): Your unarmed damage is calculated based on the higher damage of your monk class levels plus four, or the damage listed on the table below based on your total character levels. If you do not have any monk class levels, use the table below.
For: 31(Andorax, Sgt. Cookie, GoodbyeSoberDay, tuggyne, Doug Lampert, JoeYounger, Ashtagon, Talya, Lapak, Dandria, Siosilvar, zagan, Lonely Tylenol, Jeff the Green, lesser minion, Godskook, Szar Lakol, nyjastul69, Lactantius, Gwendol, Sutremaine, Carr0t, Msebazco, DeAnno, Istari, EchoKnight, Essence of War, Evil the Cat, Mnemnosyne, Asheram, Yorae)
Against: 1(docnessuno )

Rule 005: Dead is Dead (approved by unanimous consensus)

Spoiler

Show

A dead character is rendered unplayable until the "dead" condition is removed (through being returned to life, turned into an undead creature, retired from the game, etc.). Such a character can take no actions (including free actions and reflexive non-actions such as spot and listen checks).

Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally(currently approved 89% of 37)

Spoiler

Show

All creatures are proficient with unarmed strikes, and all creatures naturally in possession of any form of natural attack are proficient with said natural attack.
For: 33(tuggyne, KillianHawkeye, Andorax, Doug Lampert, JoeYounger, Ashtagon, Talya, docnessuno, Lonely Tylenol, Dandria, Namfuak, Siosilvar, zagan, erikun, pigkappa, Jeff the Green, lesser minion, Godskook, Szar Lakol, Lactantius, Gwendol, Zeful, Sutremaine, Carr0t, MSebazco, DeAnno, Istari, Essence of War, Evil the Cat, Mnemnosyne, ideasmith, Asheram, Yorae)
Against: 4(nyjastul69, Onikani, EchoKnight, Tyndmyr)

Rule 007: Lions with Hooves(currently approved 85% of 34)

Spoiler

Show

Revised wording for the Trample feat (PHB p. 102). When you attempt to overrun an opponent while mounted, your target may not choose to avoid you. Your mount may make one attack with an appropriate natural weapon (hoof, claw, or other leg-based attack) against any target you knock down, gaining the standard +4 bonus on attack rolls against prone targets.
For: 29(Menteith, Andorax, Doug Lampert, JoeYounger, Talya, docnessuno, Dandria, Namfuak, Siosilvar, zagan, erikun, lesser minion, tuggyne, Morph Bark, Gwendol, Zeful, Sutremaine, Carr0t, Msebazco, DeAnno, Istari, EchoKnight, Essence of War, Tyndmyr, Evil the Cat, Mnemnosyne, ideasmith, Asheram, Yorae)
Against: 5(Ashtagon, Lonely Tylenol, Jeff the Green, Godskook, nyjastul69)

Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage(currently disapproved 50% of 22)

Spoiler

Show

Currently, the Dragontouched feat (Dragon Magic p. 18) grants the dragonblooded subtype, and makes the person with the feat able to take Draconic feats as if they were a Sorceror of their HD. Clarification: creatures who already have the dragonblooded subtype are ALSO able to take draconic feats as a sorceror of a level equal to their HD.
For: 11(Sgt. Cookie, Talya, docnessuno, SheepInDisguise, zagan, Andorax, Morph Bark, Carr0t, Essence of War, Mnemnosyne, Asheram)
Against: 11(JadePhoenix, Ashtagon, Dandria, Siosilvar, pigkappa, Jeff the Green, Godskook, DeAnno, Tyndmyr, Evil the Cat, Yorae)

Rule 009: It's not armour, it's thick clothing Removed…see Rule 34.

Rule 010: Who's Charging, Anyways?(currently disapproved 74% of 23)

Spoiler

Show

While mounted, a rider cannot charge. If the rider directs his mount to charge (either as a move action or as a free action), then the rider gains the same attack bonus and AC penalty for charging as the mount. When using Spirited Charge, the mount uses a full-round action to charge, and the rider deals double damage with a melee weapon (triple wth a lance). Directing the mount is either a move action ("Control Mount in Battle", DC 20), or a free action on mounts that are trained for battle ("Fight with a Warhorse", DC 10). If your mount moves more than 5', you may make only a single melee attack as a standard action, even if you still have a full-round action available.
For: 17(Darrin, Andorax, Namfuak, Ashtagon, zagan, pigkappa, lesser minion, nyjastul69, Gwendol, Zeful, Sutremaine, Carr0t, Msebazco, DeAnno, EchoKnight, Essence of War, Asheram)
Against: 6(Siosilvar, Jeff the Green, tuggyne, Morph Bark, Tyndmyr, Mnemnosyne)

Rule 011: Who's Riding By, Anyways?(currently approved 83% of 24)

Spoiler

Show

The mount must use a full-round action to charge, not the rider. The rider directs the mount to the closest square where the rider can attack and the mount can still continue forward in a straight line. The rider may make a single melee attack from this square as per the charge rules. If there is no such square, or if the mount's path is blocked by an obstacle that it can't jump over, then it is not possible to charge. At the end of the mount's movement, if any opponents are still within melee range, the mount may make a single melee attack as per the charge rules.
For: 20(Darrin, Andorax , Ashtagon, zagan, erikun, pigkappa, lesser minion, nyjastul69, Lactantius, Gwendol, Zeful, Sutremaine, Carr0t, Msebazco, DeAnno, EchoKnight, Essence of War, Evil the Cat, Asheram, Yorae)
Against: 4(Jeff the Green, tuggyne, Morph Bark, Tyndmyr)

Rule 012: Anything can be Armor Removed..see Rule 034.

Rule 013: Clarifying the Dragon Disciple Paradox (approved by unanimous consensus)

Spoiler

Show

A power or ability granted by a Prestige Class will never cause a character to become ineligible for that Prestige Class (such as the Dragon Disciple's capstone ability making the character ineligible to be a Dragon Disciple) or take away the class' own features (such as the Ur-Priest's divine spellcasting making the Ur-Priest unable to continue as an Ur-Priest).

Rule 014: I'm Not Left Handed(currently approved 90% of 29)

Spoiler

Show

Clarification: No character has an offhand unless they are using two (or more) weapon fighting. If and only if a character is utilizing the Two Weapon Fighting rules found in the Combat chapter of the PHB, does that character have an offhand. Otherwise, whichever hand they are using to make attacks, or even a non-handed attack, is always main hand.
For: 26( Keld Denar, Talya, Namfuak, Ashtagon, zagan, erikun, Jeff the Green, lesser minion, tuggyne, Gwendol, nyjastul69, Lactantius, Lapak, siosilvar, Zeful, Carr0t, Msebazco, DeAnno, Istari, EchoKnight, Essence of War, Evil the Cat, Mnemnosyne, ideasmith, Asheram, Yorae)
Against: 3(Szar Lakol, Andorax, Gwendol )

Rule 015: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped(currently disapproved 78% of 27)

Spoiler

Show

Clarification: An unconscious creature is not hindered from making a Will save. In the case of harmless effects, or in the case of spells that affect willing targets only, the creature is considered willing
For: 21(Malachei, Namfuak, siosilvar, lesser minion, erikun, Morph Bark, Lactantius, Gwendol, tuggyne, Zeful, Sutremaine, hamishspence, Carr0t, Msebazco, DeAnno, Istari, Psydon, Essence of War, Mnemnosyne, ideasmith, Jeff the Green, Asheram)
Against: 6(Emperor Tippy, Ashtagon, Szar Lakol, Tyndmyr, Midnight, Yorae)

Rule 016: Tower Shields; How the #&%@ Do They Work?(currently disapproved 52% of 21)

Spoiler

Show

"At the start of their turn, a creature using a Tower Shield decides whether to use the Total Cover version of their shield, or whether to use it for a shield bonus. This is a free action. Tower Shields being used to provide Total Cover provide cover in all directions. You cannot make any Attacks*, as defined by the Glossery, while using a Tower Shield to gain cover. Actions which do not provide an attack roll are not attacks, and may be used while a tower shield is providing cover.

"
For: 11(Menteith, tuggyne, Szar Lakol, Morph Bark, Ashtagon, Gwendol, siosilvar, Zeful, Msebazco, ideasmith, Asheram)
Against: 10(lesser minion, Godskook, nyjastul69, Lapak, DeAnno, Essence of War, Tyndmyr, Mnemnosyne, Jeff the Green, Yorae)

Rule 017: Non-Floating Armour (approved by unanimous consensus)

Spoiler

Show

Armor check penalties, when applied to swim checks, are doubled (this is a potentially redundant rule, but is included because it appears to be ambiguous in the 3.0 to 3.5 transition).

Rule 018: Claw, Stab Claw…and now with my other arm! (approved by unanimous consensus)

Spoiler

Show

If a natural weapon is occupied, such as a creature with a claw attack wielding a manufactured weapon in that claw, then it can't make an attack as a natural weapon.

Rule 019: All Slams Are Not Created Equally (Removed by general agreement)

Rule 020: My Weapon Is My Shield!(currently approved 92% of 26)

Spoiler

Show

Page 125 in the Player's Handbook: You can bash an opponent with a light shield or heavy shield, using it as a standard weapon or an off-hand weapon with two-weapon fighting.
For: 24(erikun, Jeff the Green, Amphetryon, lesser minion, Szar Lakol, tuggyne, nyjastul69, Ashtagon, Lactantius, Lapak, siosilvar, Zeful, Sutremaine, Carr0t, Msebazco, DeAnno, Istari, EchoKnight, Essence of War, Tyndmyr, Evil the Cat, Mnemnosyne, Asheram, Yorae)
Against: 2(Godskook, Gwendol )

Rule 021: Enchanting Enhanced Projectiles(currently approved 81% of 27)

Spoiler

Show

Magical enhancements that produce benefits unrelating to attacking with the weapon (such as defending, manifesting, spell-storing) may NOT be placed on weapons that are considered "ammunition" and are eligible for the 50-for-1 (or similar) bulk discount on enchanting.
For: 22(Andorax, Ashtagon, lesser minion, Szar Lakol, erikun, tuggyne, Godskook, Lactantius, Lapak, Gwendol, siosilvar, Zeful, Sutremaine, Carr0t, Msebazco, DeAnno, Istari, EchoKnight, Essence of War, Evil the Cat, Asheram, Yorae)
Against: 5(nyjastul69, Tyndmyr, Mnemnosyne, ideasmith, Jeff the Green)

Rule 022: Swordsaging in Leather or No (approved by unanimous consensus)

Spoiler

Show

"Page 16 in Tome of Battle: Starting at 2nd level, you can add your Wisdom modifier as a bonus to Armor Class, so long as you wear light armor or no armor, are unencumbered, and do not use a shield. This ability does not stack with the monk's AC bonus ability, or similar abilities.
"

Rule 023: Positive Drawbacks to Undead(currently approved 92% of 26)

Spoiler

Show

Fast healing granted by a Positive-Dominant plane deals positive energy damage rather than increasing HP for undead. The loss of HP may be mitigated by positive-energy protection.
For: 24(erikun, Andorax, Ashtagon, lesser minion, tuggyne, Szar Lakol, Morph Bark, Lapak, Gwendol , siosilvar, Zeful, Sutremaine, Carr0t, Msebazco, DeAnno, Istari, EchoKnight, Essence of War, Tyndmyr, Evil the Cat, Mnemnosyne, ideasmith, Asheram, Yorae)
Against: 2(Jeff the Green, nyjastul69)

Rule 024: Chakra Binds Are Not Free Removed by general agreement

Rule 025: Lava Is Easily Resisted (approved by unanimous consensus)

Spoiler

Show

Revision: Resistance to fire provides an equal amount of resistance to the fire damage caused by lava (in place of the lava 'immunity' currently written in the rules).

Rule 026: Extraordinary Feats (currently disapproved 71% of 17)

Spoiler

Show

Unless otherwise specified (such as Divine feats), a feat is considered an [Ex]traordinary ability.
For: 12(Szar Lakol, Ashtagon, Zeful, Carr0t, Msebazco, DeAnno, EchoKnight, Essence of War, Evil the Cat, Jeff the Green, Asheram, Yorae)
Against: 5(nyjastul69, Tyndmyr, Togo, tuggyne, ideasmith)

Rule 027: Don't Penalize the Prestigeous (approved by unanimous consensus)

Spoiler

Show

Experience penalties for multiclassing do not apply to prestige classes (rule from 3.0 that was dropped, presumably due to an editing error).

Rule 028: Qualified and Disqualified(currently disapproved 56% of 25)

Spoiler

Show

If you have the ability to meet a prerequisite or requirement through temporary means, you may take a feat or class or use an ability with such a requirement. When you do not meet the requirements, you may not use the ability and are not treated as possessing the feat or class abilities of the class.
For: 14(siosilvar, lesser minion, tuggyne, Szar Lakol, nyjastul69, Ashtagon, Lactantius, Zeful, moritheil, Carr0t, DeAnno, Istari, Essence of War, Yorae)
Against: 11(erikun, Godskook, Gwendol, Sutremaine, Msebazco, EchoKnight, Tyndmyr, Evil the Cat, Mnemnosyne, Jeff the Green, Asheram)

Rule 029: Whiplash(currently disapproved 56% of 9)

Spoiler

Show

The Exotic Weapon Master (CWar)'s Exotic Reach ability, if taken for a whip, allows you to make attacks of opportunity with it. You threaten an area out to the range you could make an attack with the whip (normally 15 feet).
For: 5(siosilvar, Zeful, Sutremaine, Carr0t, Asheram)
Against: 4(Ashtagon, moritheil, DeAnno, Essence of War)

Rule 030: Strict Aptitude(currently approved 100% of 16)

Spoiler

Show

The Aptitude ability (ToB) allows the user to use the enhanced weapon with any feat that applies to only a single chosen type of weapon, like Weapon Focus or Improved Critical. (This one closes some ridiculous exploits, but RAW-wise it relies on inferring a distinction not made by the text of the ability.)
For: 16(Andorax, lesser minion, tuggyne, Godskook, Zeful, Sutremaine, Carr0t, Msebazco, DeAnno, Istari, EchoKnight, Essence of War, Tyndmyr, JadePhoenix, Evil the Cat, Jeff the Green, Asheram)
Against: 0(Yorae)

Rule 031: Nobody Notices the Guy with the Tower Shield(currently approved 96% of 26)

Spoiler

Show

"To be added to the description of the hide skill: A character may not attempt a hide check against an observer against whom she lacks effective cover or concealment. When determining whether or not a character may attempt a hide check against a particular observer, do not consider any cover that does not impede the observer's vision or that would be hidden as a result of a successful check.
"
For: 25(lesser minion, Andorax, Szar Lakol, erikun, Godskook, nyjastul69, Ashtagon, Lapak, Gwendol, siosilvar, Zeful, Sutremaine, Carr0t, Msebazco, DeAnno, Istari, EchoKnight, Essence of War, Evil the Cat, Mnemnosyne, ideasmith, Jeff the Green, tuggyne, Asheram, Yorae)
Against: 1(Tyndmyr)

Rule 032: Full Attack and Multiple Attacks of Opportunity(currently approved 100% of 9)

Spoiler

Show

If you make ranged or unarmed attacks as part of a full attack, you provoke an attack of opportunity as explained under the rules for the Attack standard action for each attack that is part of the full attack action…thus, making multiple ranged or unarmed attacks would provoke multiple opportunities.
For: 9(Tyndmyr, tuggyne, Evil the Cat, Ashtagon, Mnemnosyne, ideasmith, Andorax, Asheram, Yorae)
Against: 0()

Rule 033: No Double Dipping(currently disapproved 40% of 25)

Spoiler

Show

Multiple ability-based bonuses that are of the same type (or are typeless) cannot stack unless specifically permitted in the description of the ability. There are ways, for example, to get your Charisma bonus to AC, your Wisdom bonus to AC, etc...but you cannot get your Wisdom bonus x2 to AC through two different classes.
For: 10(Andorax, Amphetryon, lesser minion, Gwendol, Zeful, Sutremaine, Carr0t, Msebazco, DeAnno, Asheram)
Against: 15(Szar Lakol, erikun, tuggyne, Godskook, nyjastul69, Cor1, moritheil, Istari, Essence of War, Tyndmyr, Evil the Cat, Mnemnosyne, ideasmith, Jeff the Green, Yorae)

Rule 034: Armored Outfits(currently approved 94% of 17)

Spoiler

Show

Clarification/Combination: An entire SET of clothing (such as an Explorer's outfit) can be enhanced as a protective item. Such a set of clothing is considered to occupy the Body slot (as would armor or robes), and can be given an armor bonus in the same manner as Bracers of Armor (with the same limitations and benefits), with a maximum (pre-epic) bonus of +8. Either Bracers of Armor OR "Armored Clothing" can also be given up to 5 "plus equivalent" armor enhancements, as well as +GP enhancements, subject to the standard Epic cap. Note that clothing enhanced in such a manner is not "armor", does not count against class features that forbid the wearing of armor, and the bonus granted is itself an Armor bonus, not an Encancement bonus TO armor (again, as per the rules for Bracers of Armor). Please reference A&E 130 AND MIC 233. See also Rule 053.
For: 16(Andorax, Gwendol, siosilvar, Zeful, Sutremaine, tuggyne, Ashtagon, Carr0t, DeAnno, Istari, EchoKnight, Essence of War, Tyndmyr, Evil the Cat, Asheram, Jeff the Green)
Against: 1(erikol)

Rule 035: Dodging While Asleep Removed by general agreement

Rule 036: Lesser Metamagic Reduction Rule (see Rule 002)(currently approved 85% of 13)

Spoiler

Show

No form of metamagic reduction may reduce the spell's level below its original, or in the case of a heightened spell, below its heightened level. This rule has no effect on metamagic feats that, in and of themselves, reduce a spell's level (such as Sanctum Spell).
For: 11(tuggyne, Andorax, DeAnno, Istari, EchoKnight, Essence of War, Evil the Cat, Siosilvar, Jeff the Green, Asheram, Yorae)
Against: 2(Tyndmyr, Mnemnosyne)

Rule 037: Minus Infinity(currently disapproved 53% of 15)

Spoiler

Show

Infinite loops are right out: Anything that would cause an infinite or recursive gain is automatically disallowed.
For: 8(moritheil, EchoKnight, Ashtagon, erikun, Essence of War, Evil the Cat, Siosilvar, Asheram)
Against: 7(DeAnno, Istari, Tyndmyr, Mnemnosyne, ideasmith, Jeff the Green, Yorae)

Rule 038A: On the Delusions of an Illusionist(currently disapproved 53% of 19)

Spoiler

Show

A character does not believe in her own illusions, even if she wants to.
For: 10(Malachei, Szar Lakol, Istari, DeAnno, Zeful, EchoKnight, Ashtagon, Essence of War, Siosilvar, Asheram)
Against: 9(Tyndmyr, Mnemnosyne, Siosilvar, ideasmith, Jeff the Green, Acanous, erikun, tuggyne, Yorae)

Rule 038B: Illusionists Retain Some Delusions(currently approved 80% of 5)

Spoiler

Show

A Caster may not believe in their own Illusion (Figment) or Illusion (Glamer) spells, even if they want to.
For: 4(Acanous, Andorax, Asheram, erikun)
Against: 1(lesser minion)

Rule 038C: Illusionists Can't Visually Trick Themselves(currently approved 100% of 4)

Spoiler

Show

A Caster may not believe in their own non-mind-affecting illusions, even if they want to.
For: 4(lesser minion, Andorax, erikun, tuggyne)
Against: 0()

Rule 039: Koboldian Delusions of Grandeur(currently approved 82% of 11)

Spoiler

Show

"Dragonwrought Kobolds are not quite true dragons. They cannot use their age category to qualify for Epic Feats, and cannot apply a True-Dragons-Only option which requires them to reduce the size of racial HD they do not possess (such as Loredrake). Despite referring to themselves as having age categories, and (through the Dragonwrought feat) access to the Dragon type, they still are not considered ""True Dragons"".
"
For: 9(DeAnno, Andorax, Zeful, Ashtagon, erikun, Essence of War, Evil the Cat, Siosilvar, Asheram)
Against: 2(Tyndmyr, Jeff the Green)

Rule 040: When All Else Changes, Cooldowns Remain(currently disapproved 64% of 11)

Spoiler

Show

If you are subject to a "cooldown" or "recharge" delay on an ability, that cooldown requirement remains, even if it no longer applies to you due to a change of form (for example, using a breath weapon while under the effects of Shapechange causes a rounds-long delay before you can use a breath weapon again. Changing forms out of a breath-weapon-allowed form, or even into another, does not eliminate this delay).
For: 7(tuggyne, Andorax, erikun, Essence of War, Evil the Cat, ideasmith, Asheram)
Against: 4(Mnemnosyne, Siosilvar, Jeff the Green, Yorae)

Rule 041: I Can't See a Thing! No Worries, I'll Cast Darkness(currently approved 94% of 16)

Spoiler

Show

A darkness effect causes the level of illumination to drop to shadowy illumination or the current prevailing condition, whichever is lower. Darkvision is ineffective in magical darkness, and confers no advantage over normal vision.
For: 15(tuggyne, Gwendol, erikun, Szar_Lakol, Andorax, Menteith, Evil the Cat, Essence of War, Ashtagon, Mnemnosyne, Siosilvar, ideasmith, Jeff the Green, Asheram, Yorae)
Against: 1(Tyndmyr)

Rule 042: Gauntlets and Unarmed Damage(currently disapproved 64% of 11)

Spoiler

Show

If you posses an unarmed damage progression, or the superior unarmed strike feat, your damage with gauntlets also increases. A gauntlet is considered a simple weapon.
For: 7(Sgt. Cookie, Andorax, erikun, Mnemnosyne, tuggyne, ideasmith, Asheram)
Against: 4(Tyndmyr, Ashtagon, Jeff the Green, Yorae)

Rule 043: Enchanted Gauntlets(currently disapproved 36% of 11)

Spoiler

Show

Only gauntlets that are independent of armour may be enchanted as weapons. However, gauntlets that come with armour may be given any non-magical weapon enhancements, such as masterwork or a special material. A pair of gauntlets is considered a single weapon for enchanting and material purposes.
For: 4(Sgt. Cookie, Essence of War, Andorax, Yorae)
Against: 7(erikun, Ashtagon, Mnemnosyne, Siosilvar, ideasmith, Jeff the Green, Asheram)

Rule 044: Open Chakras Clarified(currently approved 100% of 4)

Spoiler

Show

Revise all of the Open ___ Chakra feats to include the following sentance: You can now bind a soulmeld or a magic item to that chakra, and you gain one bind that can be used for that chakra only.
For: 4(Essence of War, Mnemnosyne, Jeff the Green, Yorae)
Against: 0()

Rule 045: Just What Are You Slamming Me With?(currently disapproved 70% of 10)

Spoiler

Show

Creatures with a "slam" attack listed in their entry are not considered to be specifically bound to use a particular limb or body part for that slam attack. Rendering a particular limb unavailable does not deny them their slam attack.
For: 7(Darrin, Gwendol, Mnemnosyne, Essence of War, Jeff the Green, Asheram, Yorae)
Against: 3(Siosilvar, Tyndmyr, ideasmith)

Rule 046: Dragonscale Husk and Armor(currently approved 100% of 7)

Spoiler

Show

The alternate class feature Dragonscale Husk (See Dragon Magic p. 12) gives an armor bonus, instead of an untyped bonus to your armor class. This armor bonus does not stack with any other armor bonus, but does stack with other appropriate bonuses (this replaces the section stating that this bonus doesn't stack with any feat, racial trait, or other special ability that would grant you a bonus to Armor Class). The husk carries no Arcane Spell Failure and is weightless.
For: 7(Menteith, Andorax, Siosilvar, Essence of War, Jeff the Green, Asheram, Yorae)
Against: 0()

Rule 047: Fantasy is Not Realer than Reality(currently disapproved 67% of 6)

Spoiler

Show

Illusions that produce a percentage of their effect when a target makes their save, such as Shadow Conjuration or Shadow Evocation, cannot have greater than a 100% effect on a target after a successful save. No effect produced by an illusion can produce a greater effect after a successful save than it could produce with a failed save.
For: 4(erikun, Andorax, Asheram, Yorae)
Against: 2(Tyndmyr, Jeff the Green)

Rule 048: Vow of Non…Human Hurting? Removed by general agreement

Rule 049: Trees are Immune to Disintegration(currently approved 100% of 7)

Spoiler

Show

Replaces PHB p222, first sentence of second paragraph of Disintegrate: "When used against an object, the ray simply disintegrates as much as one 10-foot cube of living or nonliving matter."
For: 7(ideasmith, Andorax, tuggyne, erikun, Jeff the Green, Mnemnosyne, Ashtagon)
Against: 0()

Rule 050: Die Hard, Sleep Easy(currently approved 100% of 8)

Spoiler

Show

Add the following to the description of Diehard, PHB p92 "Also, the amount of nonlethal damage needed to knock you staggered or unconscious is increased by 10." Similarly, add to the dext of the Frenzied Berserker (CW 35) Deathless Frenzy ability, "The Frenzied Berserker cannot be knocked unconscious by non-lethal damage while in a Deathless Frenzy."
For: 8(ideasmith, Andorax, Tyndmyr, tuggyne, erikun, Jeff the Green, Asheram, Mnemnosyne)
Against: 0()

Rule 051: Titan Dagger Reach: 15 Feet. Titan Whip Reach: also 15 Feet.(currently approved 100% of 9)

Spoiler

Show

Replaces PHB 121, third sentence of first paragraph of Whip: "The whip is treated as a melee weapon with a reach of triple the wielder’s normal reach, though you don’t threaten the area into which you can make an attack." Similarly, the Awl Pike (from Dragon 331 p. 23 is considered to have an equivalent 'double reach'.
For: 9(ideasmith, Andorax, erikun, Jeff the Green, Asheram, tuggyne, Yorae, Mnemnosyne, Ashtagon)
Against: 0()

Rule 052: 1HD Race Characters(currently approved 88% of 8)

Spoiler

Show

Appended to the section on Humanoids and Class Levels: Additionally, any creature with 1 Hit Die that has an Intelligence score of at least 3 may exchange the features of their racial Hit Die for the class features of a PC or NPC class in a manner identical to humanoids; racial traits are unaffected by this.
For: 7(tuggyne, Andorax, Jeff the Green, Asheram, Yorae, Mnemnosyne)
Against: 1(Ashtagon)

Rule 053: Piecemeal Magic Items(currently approved 100% of 8)

Spoiler

Show

Any magic item (armor, outfits, etc.) that includes multiple pieces only requires the pieces that occupy the item's declared item slot to function...such as the body slot for a suit of armor, or both feet for a pair of boots. Additional pieces, such as the helm of a set of plate mail, or a belt from a cleric's vestments, can be replaced by other magic (or non-magic) items in their respective item slots without interfering with the divided item's function.
For: 8(Jeff the Green, Andorax, tuggyne, Jeff the Green, erikun, Yorae, Mnemnosyne, Ashtagon)
Against: 0()

Rule 054A: You can't trick yourself into disbelieving your own illusions(currently disapproved 20% of 5)

Spoiler

Show

A spellcaster faced with proof that an effect is illusionary automatically disbelieves the illusion. If you create an illusion that allows a save for disbelief, you automatically disbelieve it (and therefore cannot voluntarily fail a save). Because phantasms create effects that are personalized mental impressions, a spellcaster does not automatically disbelieve his own phantasm (for instance, if it is turned back on him via Spell Turning or a Helm of Telepathy). See also Rule 038.
For: 1(Malachei)
Against: 4(Jeff the Green, erikun, Yorae, Mnemnosyne)

Rule 054B: You can't trick yourself to believe in illusionary Contingency(currently disapproved 40% of 5)

Spoiler

Show

In case of Greater Shadow Evocation or similar spells being used to duplicate Contingency, the spellcaster automatically recognizes the spell as an illusion, automatically disbelieves (and therefore cannot voluntarily fail the save). Thus, the shadow evoked Contingency does not work. See also Rule 038.
For: 2(Malachei, erikun)
Against: 3(Jeff the Green, Yorae, Mnemnosyne)

Rule 055: Listening Is A Free Check(currently disapproved 50% of 4)

Spoiler

Show

The DC to hear people talking is reduced to -5 base.
For: 2(tuggyne, Mnemnosyne)
Against: 2(kazyan, Yorae)

Rule 056: Identifying Yourself Is A Take 10(currently disapproved 33% of 3)

Spoiler

Show

Identification DCs are adjusted to 9 + monster HD, in general.
For: 1(tuggyne)
Against: 2(kazyan, Yorae)

Rule 057: On Poison Delays and Neutralization Withdrawn as unnecessary

Rule 058: Various Adjustments to Equipment Costs(currently disapproved 67% of 3)

Spoiler

Show

Ladders cost 5sp; Spellbooks cost 25gp; Pages of paper cost 2sp each; Chain costs 2gp per foot; No weapon or item of equipment costs less than one copper piece; Flasks come in two sizes: small (1 pint, ½ lb, 2cp) and large (2 quarts, 1½ lb, 3cp).
For: 2(tuggyne, Yorae)
Against: 1(kazyan)

Rule 059: Improved Precise Shot Is Not Omnipotent(currently disapproved 75% of 4)

Spoiler

Show

Adjust the first sentence of Improved Precise Shot's Benefit (PHB): "Your ranged attacks ignore the AC bonus from cover granted targets by anything less than total cover, and the miss chance from cover granted targets by anything less than total concealment."
For: 3(tuggyne, Andorax, Mnemnosyne)
Against: 1(kazyan)

Rule 060: Dread Necromancers and Scarlet Corsairs Are The Scariest Creatures Around(currently approved 100% of 4)

Spoiler

Show

A Dread Necromancer (Heroes of Horror) fear aura and a Scarlet Corsair (Stormwrack) Frightning Lunge has a duration of 1 round per level.
For: 4(tuggyne, Andorax, kazyan, Mnemnosyne)
Against: 0()

Rule 061: How to Make Magic Oils(currently approved 100% of 6)

Spoiler

Show

The first sentence of Brew Potion's Benefit changes as follows: "You can create a potion of any 3rd-level or lower spell that you know and that targets one or more creatures; alternatively, you can create an oil of any 3rd-level or lower spell that you know and that targets one or more objects."
For: 6(tuggyne, Andorax, kazyan, Yorae, Mnemnosyne, Ashtagon)
Against: 0()

Rule 062: Because infinite chickens are only funny once(currently approved 100% of 6)

Spoiler

Show

As long as you are not grappled, you may retrieve and prepare any components required for a spell as part of the same action used to cast it.
For: 6(lesser_minion, Andorax, Yorae, tuggyne, Tyndmyr, Mnemnosyne)
Against: 0()

Rule 063: Alternative Dragons can still be True(currently approved 100% of 1)

Spoiler

Show

Obsidian Dragons (WotC Web) and Incarnum Dragons (Magic of Incarum) are considered True Dragons.
For: 1(kazyan)
Against: 0()

Rule 064A: Giving Quick Draw a point(currently approved 100% of 1)

Spoiler

Show

Since you do not need a sleight of hand check in order to draw a concealed weapon, you may not take a penalty to your sleight of hand check in order to do so more quickly.
For: 1(lesser minion)
Against: 0()

Rule 064B: Giving the Gnomish Quickrazor a point(currently approved 100% of 1)

Spoiler

Show

You may not attempt to conceal a weapon more quickly by taking a penalty to your sleight of hand check.
For: 1(lesser minion)
Against: 0()

Rule 065: I Met Your Little Brother Once(currently approved 100% of 1)

Spoiler

Show

If you can make a successful knowledge check (PHB 78) to identify a fundamentally similar creature's traits, you can successfully identify all of the common traits between that creature and the one you are observing. The exact defition of fundamentally similar may vary by DM, but at its most basic level, it includes all versions of a creature that advances by ages or age categories (for example, the True Dragons MM68-88, Neogi Spawn -> Adult Neogi MM2 159), all creatures who are called the same thing with only a size category distinction (for example, the Elementals MM 95-101), and any creature that is described as being a "Lesser" or "Greater" version of another (Stone Golem -> Greater Stone Golem, Fihyr -> Great Fihyr (MM2 100)).
For: 1(Andorax)
Against: 0()

Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes.

While strict RAW indicates that you can raise someone from negative hit points to 0 hps in the first round of that individual having failed to hold their breath underwater, this ruling clearly makes no sense. The intent (a DROP to 0 hps) would seem to be clear and much more logical. As such, the following rule is now in effect:

Replaces DMG p304, second paragraph of Drowning: "When the character finally fails her Constitution check, she begins to drown. In the first round, she falls unconscious; and is reduced to 0 hp (unless already below that point). In the following round, she drops to -1 hit points (unless already below that point) and is dying. In the third round, she drowns (and is dead)."


Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier.

As has frequently been pointed out in a number of builds, Arcane Thesis is a cornerstone of metamagic-reducing builds. By applying metamagic to a spell, you can get the enhanced, modified spell to use up a spell slot one level lower than normal. The text of this feat, however, seems to ignore that there are a selection of feats (yes, even ones published earlier than the PHBII) that already add 0 levels to the slot. Thus, by applying a 0-level metamagic, you can actually DECREASE the level of the spell.

Another common cornerstone for reducing the cost of Metamagic is the Incantatrix prestige class from the 3.5 Player's Guide to Faerun. At 10th level, the incantatrix gains a similar ability that reduces the required increase in spell level, though with a minimum of +1 spell level. This, to my mind, sets something of a precident. Combined with the idea that it shouldn't be EASIER to cast a spell just by adding metamagic components to it, regardless of the number and manner of reducing abilities you utilize (there are others...thus, the rule will be a blanket one), I would propose:

Override for all forms of Metamagic cost reduction: "The application of any individual metamagic feat cannot reduce the spell level of the overall spell. The minimum reduction applied by each individual metamagic feat is +0, regardless of the method utilized to achieve said reduction."


Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels.

The Legacy Champion (Weapons of Legend) is a very unique prestige class, in that it tries to cover every possible contingency of "more of what you would get if you were still in your regular class" while giving its legacy-related benefits. The intention here seems plain...if you're a Barbarian 10/Legacy Champion 10, you 'count' as being a Barbarian 18 in nearly all respects. If you're a Rogue 10/LC 10, you're basically a Rogue 18, and so forth. This seemed to be a much more efficient approach than to try and create a dozen different Legacy Champion classes...the Legacy Champion Warior, the Legacy Champion Wizard, etc.

Once again, however, some creative individuals have been able to utilize this in a manner that, as far as I can tell, goes well beyond the intent of the class...the ability to continue getting levels in a class, typically a prestige class...that otherwise wouldn't HAVE any more such levels.

The most popular use I've seen for this particular bit of slight of hand is the Hellfire Warlock (Fiendish Codex II, p. 89+). It's an unusual class, in that it only has 3 levels to it...and unlike the regular Warlock (who's eldrich blast only improves by +1d6 per two levels), the Hellfire Warlock improves at the rate of +2d6 EACH LEVEL. I, personally, am assuming that this advanced rate of progression is mitigated by the fact that there are only 3 levels to the class.

Others would disagree, and by combining the Hellfire Warlock with the Legacy Champion, manage to get 11 levels' worth of +2d6s to the Eldrich Blast ability. Whether or not this is reasonable, necessary to 'fix' the Warlock, and so forth is entirely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned...my issue with it is that the Legacy Champion would appear to be intended to keep your regular progresison going, not to stretch a class beyond its limits.

Since I am not sure if there are other sources besides the Legacy Champion that introduce similar "+1 level of your class features", I therefore propose:

Limit to Class Features: "No class (base or prestige) can have its class features progressed beyond the maximum printed level of the class itself, save for the specific exceptions spelled out in the rules for epic progression."

Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike:

As per RAW of this feat, a Monk dip locks your unarmed damage to a fixed amount.

Add the following line:

If your total character level is higher than your enhanced Monk level, you continue to gain unarmed damage as if you were not a Monk.

Rule 004:

I can definately get behind that...makes perfect sense. Agree.

Drowning for Health Purposes should include a rule to allow you to STOP drowning...no such rule currently exists.



Rule 5: Dead is Dead

Currently, a dead character is, by the rules, merely unconscious and paralyzed, which allows them to take purely mental actions: you can play a dead Psion, if you so desire. Add the following.

[i]A dead character is rendered unplayable until returned to life or retired from the game. Such a character can take no actions (including free actions) whatsoever, save a mandatory full-round action each round used solely to gently decompose over the course of several weeks. :smallbiggrin:

I'm not sure this is going to be definitive, but it may certainly be informative.

001: Yes, with the same suggested change as Djinn_In_Tonic proposed.
002: No, I don't think something as abstract as metamagic cost reduction applies to this thread, unless by RACSD you just mean "Common Houserules."
003: No, see 002, and this one isn't even overpowered in most cases. This one I could see how it might not have been intended, but we're in the land of new acronyms.
004: Yeah, sure.
005: Yes, though this is one of those rules that everyone uses anyway.

001: Agree, but again suggest the addition of rules for stopping drowning.
002: Hmm, a bit dubious. I think nearly everyone would agree that adding Invisible Spell to an Arcane Thesis'd Fireball should not give you a level 2 Fireball. However, not everyone would agree that Empower Spell + Invisible Spell should equal Empower Spell. I suggest splitting this into 002a and 002b to determine a more precise consensus, and would register my agreement to 002a ("A spell's level cannot be reduced below its original by any means of metamagic reduction." or similar), but abstain from 002b for now.
003: This seems reasonable enough, although I'd prefer limiting it to the problem class in question if possible.
004: Yeah, this should be fine.
005: Definitely, although a bit of rephrasing wouldn't hurt. :smalltongue:

Rule 006: I Really Do Know Kung Fu!
Monks, as written, do not have proficiency with unarmed strikes. The first line of the monk's Weapon and Armor Proficiency feature should read as follows:
"Monks are proficient with club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, handaxe, javelin, kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, siangham, sling, and unarmed strike."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tuggyne

Rule 006: I Really Do Know Kung Fu!
Monks, as written, do not have proficiency with unarmed strikes. The first line of the monk's Weapon and Armor Proficiency feature should read as follows:
"Monks are proficient with club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, handaxe, javelin, kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, siangham, sling, and unarmed strike."

---

You might as well go all the way and just say that all creatures are proficient with their natural weapons (unarmed strike is a natural weapon, it just doesn't operate like one). As written, only Aberrations, Animals, Constructs, Dragons, Elementals, Giants, Magical Beasts, Oozes, Plants, Undead, and Vermin have proficiency with their natural weapons. This is despite the fact that many other types of creatures possess natural attacks, such as Lizardfolk (Humanoid), Minotaurs (Monstrous Humanoid), most demons and devils (Outsider), and IIRC the Jaebrin from MM3 (Fey).

Rule 007: Wolves with Hooves

The Trample Feat currently gives any mount that successfully Overruns a target a Hoof attack. This occurs regardless of what the mount is. Instead, the line should read;

When you attempt to overrun an opponent while mounted, your target may not choose to avoid you. Your mount may make one attack with an appropriate natural weapon against any target you knock down, gaining the standard +4 bonus on attack rolls against prone targets.

Mounted Combat in general is sort of borked, but Trample stands out to me as a fairly easy fix to a glaring RAW issue.

008: Dragonblood and heritage:

Unless I am missing something, you have to take several feats or be a sorcerer to benefit from Dragon Heritage feats.

Characters with the Dragonblood subtype count as a Sorcerer of their character level in regards to Dragon Heritage feats.


009: It's not armour, it's thick clothing

Padded armour; what is there to say about it? ... It's cheap, I suppose. But really, it's padded clothing. A little bulky, perhaps, but nowhere near being labled "armour". It even says in the description that it's only "quilted layers of cloth and batting."

Padded armour is not considered armour for any reason, except for enchanting purposes ONLY, but retains its AC bonus and maximum dexterity bonus. Padded armour must still be made masterwork before it can be enchanted. It only costs 100 additional gold to create masterwork padded armour.

Regarding Rule 002: The intent here isn't "common houserules"...it's to say that nowhere along the line was there an intent that you can make a spell LOWER level by ADDING metamagic to it. I know this particular rules loophole is popular...and sadly, that popularity means it's likely to not pass a general consensus muster, but I stand by both the rule and the reasoning behind it.

Regarding Rule 003: It's not a question of whether or not it "isn't even overpowered". In fact, some of these (see #4) are intended to correct unnecessary weakening of abilities through obscure corner-cases. I just genuinely believe that a class's features aren't intended to be exptended beyond the actual levels of the class...and the cited example is a pretty gross example of that.

I didn't narrow it down to just the specific class (both abusing and abused) because my resources to research the issue are limited...I don't know how many other short clases have desirable extensible features, and how many other "+class features" classes exist. The principle itself is sound and logical, I can't think of a good reason to have exceptions.

Regardinr Rule 005: Minor reword...sorry to de-humor it, but I can just see someone working in some bizarre ability that lets you do something whenever you're also taking a full round action.

Regarding Rule 006: Hopefully, you guys are ok with my rewording. It's pretty general, but I can't think of a reason why it shouldn't be. The concept is universal (and obvioiusly, I'm for it).

Regarding Rule 007: I'm also for this...added a bit for clarification. I'm presuming your intent wasn't to allow bite, gore, or wing slap attacks during a trample.

Regarding Rule 008: My take on this is that this is specifically aimed at Sorcerers. The subsequent feats also have Sorcerer level requirements, the feats nearly all relate to arcane casting...I read it as something intended specifically for the sorceror class, the class that "gains its powers from a hint of draconic ancestry".

I know it's hard to explain the distinction, as I'd probably allow this to stand as a house rule if one of my players asked it...but I can't honestly say that intent and common sense dictates this rule.

Regarding Rule 009: Regular clothing is considered +0/No max dex/no penalty/no ACF armor for the purpose of adding things to it (such as the Magic Vestment spell). In light of this, I don't see why padded armor needs to be made "not armor". Something has to be the lightest form of armor, it's described and established as such in that role, and yes...bulky quilted layers of cloth are (ever so slightly) harder to move around in than a regular t-shirt. I think it's clear that Padded armor was intended to be armor, even if just barely.

I disaprove of 3, 8 and 9.

Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes

Yes, this rule is just stupid.

Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier

Yes, I don't care if it's a corner case, "invisible spell" or "energy substitution" makes a spell EASIER to cast than it would be were it closer to the base spell is simply stupid. It fails common sense which is what was asked for.

Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels

The progression simply does not exist past the maximum level unless there's an epic progression. You can't apply a progression that doesn't exist.

Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike

Yes, monk training does not make you less capable at hand to hand.

Rule 005: Dead is Dead

Yes, it's an oversight that the condition is defined, but not defined properly.

Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally

Yes. I can see declaring that commoners aren't proficient with natural attacks, but I can't see this as worth putting in the rules. Everything should be proficient with natural attacks.

Rule 007: Wolves with Hooves

Yes, just a modification for the fact that the writer didn't take into account that not all mounts are horses.

Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage

No opinion.

Rule 009: It's not armour, it's thick clothing

Not correct by common sense or history or usage of the language (the first definition I get on dictionary.com is "any covering worn as a defense against weapons"). At what point in "you can enchant it for defense" is this NOT a covering worn as a defense against weapons? Seriously. Heavy cloth was FREQUENTLY used as armor and was considered armor by the makers and the wearers. I simply see no justification for the proposed rule.

Rule 008: What is the point of the Dragontouched feat, then? I have no idea if I have a vote, but I'm "Against" it. I'm a little puzzled why you'd want to clarify the sorcerer thing, when I would think the biggest head-scratcher for Dragonborn is "Can I apply this to non-humanoids?"

Rule 009: I prefer treating padded armor as armor +1, and clothing as armor +0. Simpler that way. Against.

You might want to address the Mounted Combat/Ride-By Attack mess:

Rule 0??: While mounted, a rider cannot charge. If the rider directs his mount to charge (either as a move action or as a free action), then the rider gains the same attack bonus and AC penalty for charging as the mount. When using Spirited Charge, the mount uses a full-round action to charge, and the rider deals double damage with a melee weapon (triple wth a lance). Directing the mount is either a move action ("Control Mount in Battle", DC 20), or a free action on mounts that are trained for battle ("Fight with a Warhorse", DC 10). If your mount moves more than 5', you may make only a single melee attack as a standard action, even if you still have a full-round action available.

Rule 0??: Ride-By Attack. The mount must use a full-round action to charge, not the rider. The rider directs the mount to the closest square where the rider can attack and the mount can still continue forward in a straight line. The rider may make a single melee attack from this square as per the charge rules. If there is no such square, or if the mount's path is blocked by an obstacle that it can't jump over, then it is not possible to charge. At the end of the mount's movement, if any opponents are still within melee range, the mount may make a single melee attack as per the charge rules.

Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes

Yes, this rule is just stupid.

Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier

Yes, I don't care if it's a corner case, "invisible spell" or "energy substitution" makes a spell EASIER to cast than it would be were it closer to the base spell is simply stupid. It fails common sense which is what was asked for.

Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels

The progression simply does not exist past the maximum level unless there's an epic progression. You can't apply a progression that doesn't exist.

Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike

Yes, monk training does not make you less capable at hand to hand.

Rule 005: Dead is Dead

Yes, it's an oversight that the condition is defined, but not defined properly.

Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally

Yes. I can see declaring that commoners aren't proficient with natural attacks, but I can't see this as worth putting in the rules. Everything should be proficient with natural attacks.

Rule 007: Wolves with Hooves

Yes, just a modification for the fact that the writer didn't take into account that not all mounts are horses.

Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage

No opinion.

Rule 009: It's not armour, it's thick clothing

I don't see the point in this, anyone care to enlighten me as to why this clarification should exist?

1 - Agree

2 - Agree

3 - Agree

4 - Other.

Should be re-written to: Your unarmed damage is calculated based on the higher damage of your monk class levels plus four, or the damage listed on the table below based on your total character levels.

This allows for the possibility that either of these two calculations could be the one that results in the higher damage.

5 - Agree

6 - Agree.

As an extension of this, all characters should be assumed to be proficient with their natural weapons, unless specifically called out in their racial description. The SRD says all humanoid types are "Proficient with all simple weapons, or by character class." Who chooses which one applies?

7 - Disagree.

A creature that has a hoof attack can make a hoof attack as part of its trample feat usage. if it doesn't normally have a hoof attack, it doesn't get to make one.

8 - Disagree.

These feats were written to let sorcerers have nice things.

9 - Disagree.

Although I don't see how this actually changes anything. However...

10. Anything Can Be Armour: Since padded armour is essentially just a very thick quilted jacket, it follows that an normal light suit of clothing could likewise be considered "armour". Such armour provides no special armour protection, skill check penalty, or Dexterity bonus limit. However, it can be enchanted as if it were armour, provided it is made as masterwork.

This is just a logical extension of what padded armour is. There's no logical reason for heavy clothing to be allowed enchantments, but light clothing not.

Edit: Game-balance-wise, the classes that would benefit most are monks (who need something nice anyway) and sorcerers/wizards (who don't really gain all that much considering they probably have their mage armour up first thing in the morning anyway). This also allows for more protection in "diplomacy" or "court" situations, provided players are willing to spend some of their WBL on secondary armour.

Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes - Agreed.
Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier - Agreed.
Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels - indifferent.
Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike - Agreed.
Rule 005: Dead is Dead - Duh.
Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally - Obvious.
Rule 007: Wolves with Hooves - Yeah.
Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage - BIG Agreed.
Rule 009: It's not armour, it's thick clothing - No. Padded armor is considered armor because it adds a nonmagical armor bonus and can be enchanted as armor. It also has a max dex bonus. I think padded armor was already "working as intended."

I strongly disapprove of Rule 9 because it is factually incorrect and doesn't appear to serve any purpose.

Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes - Agree.
Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier - Agree.
Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels - Agree.
Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike - Disagree. - Change to: Your unarmed strikes deal damage as if you were a size larger.
Rule 005: Dead is Dead - Agree.
Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally - Agree.
Rule 007: Wolves with Hooves - Agree.
Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage - BIG Agreed.
Rule 009: It's not armour, it's thick clothing - Disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by docnessuno

Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike - Disagree. - Change to: Your unarmed strikes deal damage as if you were a size larger.

---

That can already be done with another feat.

Rule 011 - Clarifying the Dragon Disciple Paradox. A power or ability granted by a Prestige Class will never cause a character to become ineligible for that Prestige Class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Talya

That can already be done with another feat.

---

Only by monks (the only ones able to treat unarmed strikes as natural attacks), and i don't consider a feat giving one of the most class-defining abilities by himself (even if slightly nerfed) good design. Also the feat doesn't account for size, so a "fine" creature would still hit for 2d6 (ouch).

Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes: Agree.

Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier: Agree. Not only does it not make sense on the face of it (adding complications should not make something easier) this makes metamagic track with every other penalty-reduction. You can't have armor with a negative Arcane Failure Chance or Armor Check penalty, having more Energy Resistance than damage done to you doesn't transform that damage into healing, and reducing the level-adjustment of metamagic shouldn't drop it below zero.

Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels: No opinion.

Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike: Agree.

Rule 005: Dead is Dead: Agree.

Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally: Undecided. On the one hand, there are obviously people who don't know how to throw a punch; on the other, there are obvious holes in existing classes if you don't cover them with a house rule.

Rule 007: Wolves with Hooves: No opinion.

Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage: Not familiar enough with this to say.

Rule 009: It's not armour, it's thick clothing: Disagree. Padded armor is very definitely armor.

Rule 010: Agree.

I agree with:
Rule 1: Drowning is drowning. The fact that it reduces your health to 0, by RAW, was clearly not intended to increase your health.
Rule 2: Again, technically RAW-legal (and I have done this to create a fiery empowered Orb of Cold as a level 4 spell; I quit before going higher levels), but it should never have been.
Rule 5: Dead is dead.
Rule 6: Monks aren't proficient with unarmed strikes because they... Aren't proficient with simple weapons? Yeah, sure, OK, roll to punch things with your fists at -4. Makes perfect sense.

I disagree with:
Rule 3: Forgive me if I'm reading this wrong (it's early and I'm weary), but doesn't this explicitly state that no class can have its features advanced beyond 20 unless specific mention was made of them? That seems very awkward, as it's going to boil down to what book the class was printed in, as opposed to the actual merits of the class features being advanced. (There are epic progressions for Barbarian through Rogue; are there any for Knight, Factotum, Scout, or Dragon Shaman? Common sense dictates that the Fighting Challenge/Shield Block features of the Knight, Inspiration progression of the Factotum, Skirmish, bonus feat and perhaps battle fortitude progressions of the Scout, and breath, aura and natural armor progressions of the Dragon Shaman, respectively, should naturally progress to epic levels, but (and unless I'm missing something; I'm not too familiar with the epic rules) they won't because specific mention was not made of them, which seems contrary.
Rule 7:
Trampling with paws doesn't make sense. Nor, for that matter, does trampling with unarmed strike (which is what a human with trample, which can happen with the right feats/maneuvers/spells, though I can't recall how, would do). A monk steps on you harder? This feat should instead have "prerequisite: hooves (4)".
Rule 9:
Padded armor is, in fact, distinct from heavy clothing. A fitting modern-day comparison might be the difference between the armor padding that fencers and other swordsman (such as those practicing kendo) have to use, vs.... Heavy clothing.

Further, I maintain that it makes no sense for clothing to ever have an armor bonus. +5 loincloth makes a lot less sense than counting padded armor (which is historically a thing that exists) as armor.

I don't understand the implications of:
Rule 4: What's the difference between this and what we have now? Somebody has to spell this out for me.
Rule 8: Isn't there already a feat that does this? Or am I misremembering?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lonely Tylenol

I don't understand the implications of:
Rule 4: What's the difference between this and what we have now? Somebody has to spell this out for me.

---

Right now, SUS improves your damage in one of two ways: if you have no Monk levels, it has its own table; if you have at least one level in Monk, it buffs your effective Monk level.

What this means is that a Monk 1 / Non-Monk X will eventually do LESS damage than a straight Non-Monk X+1, because their damage from SUS is pinned at Monk 5.

I'm not left handed

No character has an offhand unless they are TWFing. If and only if a character is utilizing the Two Weapon Fighting rules found in the Combat chapter of the PHB, does that character have an offhand. Otherwise, whichever hand they are using to make attacks, or even a non-handed attack, is always main hand. This goes normal for any character, mmonk or otherwise.

The reason for this is that there seems to be a lot of confusion with regards to the phrase in the monk class "There is no such thing as an offhand attack for a monk striking unarmed." This phrase is redundant, since without TWF, which isn't mentioned in that text, there is no such thing as an offhand attack for ANY character, unarmed or otherwise. The default state of being for any character is sans-offhand, and only when a character TWFs does that character gain an offhand attack with all of the mechanical benefits and penalties that apply. I believe that the text there was simply to clarify that even though a monk may strike with multiple surfaces of their body in any combination, they aren't TWFing, and thus aren't affected by the TWFing rules. It's a backwards way of saying it, but its a valid interpretation that leads to the most internal consistancy across the rules. Monks play by the exact same TWFing rules as everyone else, why should they be different?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashtagon

10. Anything Can Be Armour: Since padded armour is essentially just a very thick quilted jacket, it follows that an normal light suit of clothing could likewise be considered "armour". Such armour provides no special armour protection, skill check penalty, or Dexterity bonus limit. However, it can be enchanted as if it were armour, provided it is made as masterwork.

---

I believe this is already the case as per the Magic Item Compendium. Costs the same as bracers of armor, if I remember correctly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keld Denar

The reason for this is that there seems to be a lot of confusion with regards to the phrase in the monk class "There is no such thing as an offhand attack for a monk striking unarmed."

---

It IS redundant, but I think it's there to point out the difference between Flurry of Blows and two-weapon-fighting. Unarmed strike is technically one weapon, not two, despite that you can interchange body parts.

Also keep in mind that a monk can use flurry AND 2-weapon fighting, so it clarifies that your unarmed attacks always deal Str bonus damage, not 1/2 str bonus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keld Denar

I'm not left handed

No character has an offhand unless they are TWFing. If and only if a character is utilizing the Two Weapon Fighting rules found in the Combat chapter of the PHB, does that character have an offhand. Otherwise, whichever hand they are using to make attacks, or even a non-handed attack, is always main hand. This goes normal for any character, mmonk or otherwise.

The reason for this is that there seems to be a lot of confusion with regards to the phrase in the monk class "There is no such thing as an offhand attack for a monk striking unarmed." This phrase is redundant, since without TWF, which isn't mentioned in that text, there is no such thing as an offhand attack for ANY character, unarmed or otherwise. The default state of being for any character is sans-offhand, and only when a character TWFs does that character gain an offhand attack with all of the mechanical benefits and penalties that apply. I believe that the text there was simply to clarify that even though a monk may strike with multiple surfaces of their body in any combination, they aren't TWFing, and thus aren't affected by the TWFing rules. It's a backwards way of saying it, but its a valid interpretation that leads to the most internal consistancy across the rules. Monks play by the exact same TWFing rules as everyone else, why should they be different?

---

I completely agree with this, but it's more of a clarification than anything else, because by RAW, if you read closely enough, it already functions this way. You're just making it much more clear than the rules specify.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prufock

I believe this is already the case as per the Magic Item Compendium. Costs the same as bracers of armor, if I remember correctly.

---

Technically, not quite the same. Bracers don't occupy the "body" slot, so cost twice as much for their armour enhancement bonus. A linen shirt +2 would occupy the body slot for magical equipment purposes, and so the magical enhancement costs the same as if it were a chain shirt +2.

Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes - Agreed.
Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier - No. It makes sense, but I don't see it as something obvious.
Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels - Agreed.
Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike - Agreed.
Rule 005: Dead is Dead - Agreed.
Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally - Agreed.
Rule 007: Wolves with Hooves - Agreed.
Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage - Eh, not really.
Rule 009: It's not armour, it's thick clothing - No.
Rule 010: Anything Can Be Armour - No. Again, it makes perfect sense, but it's more of a trivial house rule than an interpretation.
Rule 011: Clarifying the Dragon Disciple Paradox - Agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashtagon

Technically, not quite the same. Bracers don't occupy the "body" slot, so cost twice as much for their armour enhancement bonus. A linen shirt +2 would occupy the body slot for magical equipment purposes, and so the magical enhancement costs the same as if it were a chain shirt +2.

---

Bracers of armor +2 cost 4,000 gp (per the SRD)
Chain shirt +2 costs 4,250 gp (likewise)

Bracers are not double cost since they occupy a slot usable for defense.

Just to keep things tidied up, and because I think it's a reasonable measure, here's a minor amendment to the rules.

Should a proposed rule reach the anti-thesis of approved (Only 20% for), it will be purged.






JadePhoenix, I'd appreciate your reasoning behind those opinions.


Darrin, both of your proposed clarifications to charging while mounted and ride-bys make sense to me. I've added, commented, and named them (hope you're ok with the rule names I used).

Ashtagon, I'm not sure but what the current wording accomplishes the same thing on Rule 4...but your wording is clearer. As the result is the same, I'll keep the previous votes as-is, and adopt/adapt the wording you provided.

I'd ask that the issue of simple weapons be taken up as a separate issue...feel free to propose it.


Telonius, I completely agree...but please note that the number has shifted to #013.



Lonely Tylenol...regarding Rule 3...

It makes specific mention that the Epic rules still apply as normal..and there are blanket rules for how to epicly progress classes and 10-level prestige classes. Would that change your stance? Would a rewording be required?

Keld Denar...in as rule #014

prufock, can you give me a page # on that? If so, I'll remove it for already being an established rule.




Please recheck numbers, since we've gotten some drift.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashtagon

Technically, not quite the same. Bracers don't occupy the "body" slot, so cost twice as much for their armour enhancement bonus. A linen shirt +2 would occupy the body slot for magical equipment purposes, and so the magical enhancement costs the same as if it were a chain shirt +2.

---

Depends if Armor bonus counts as Combat affinity.
Otherwise you are correct.

Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes - Yes
Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier - After all metamagic is applied, the spell level should not be less than the original level of the spell. I do not agree with outright restricting it to certain metamagic.
Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels - Yes
Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike - Abstain
Rule 005: Dead is Dead - Yes
Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally - Yes
Rule 007: Wolves with Hooves - Yes
Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage - Abstain
Rule 009: It's not armour, it's thick clothing - No
Rule 010: Anything Can Be Armour - Yes, although it must take up a slot that is not otherwise filled by something else (IE, you can't have a robe over armor and benefit from both, at least stat-wise)
Rule 011: Clarifying the Dragon Disciple Paradox - I would adjust this to say that a prestige class's prerequisites and class features can never prevent you from taking advantage of any other feature of the class, nor prevent you from advancing in it (I'm specifically thinking of Ur-Priest, who has to not be able to cast divine spells in order to advance in the class, but by RAW this means he cannot cast his own spells).

EDIT: Also, I agree with the "I'm not left-handed" one.

4 - additional rewrite:

Add the following notation to Superior Unarmed Strike (Tome of Battle p. 33): Your unarmed damage is calculated based on the higher damage of your monk class levels plus four, or the damage listed on the table below based on your total character levels. If you do not have any monk class levels, use the table below.

10 - Agree

11 - Agree

12 - Agree

13 - Agree

14 - Agree

Rule 15: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped

It has been argued whether unconscious creatures get a Will save. To me, it is clear that the following paragraph is to be read in context:

Quote:

---

Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you’re flat-footed or it isn’t your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.

---

Which implies that it applies to spells that affect willing targets (unless one purposefully ignores the first part of the paragraph).

The rules on the condition unconscious in no way indicate an unconscious target would not get a save, or not a Will save: see the SRD.

Denying an unconscious creature a Will save opens the gates to all kind of abuse, including mindrape.


Thus, I propose rule 15:

Clarification: An unconscious creature is not hindered from making a Will save. In the case of harmless effects, or in the case of spells that affect willing targets only, the creature is considered willing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malachei

Rule 15: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped

It has been argued whether unconscious creatures get a Will save. To me, it is clear that the following paragraph is to be read in context:



Which implies that it applies to spells that affect willing targets (unless one purposefully ignores the first part of the paragraph).

The rules on the condition unconscious in no way indicate an unconscious target would not get a save, or not a Will save: see the SRD.

Denying an unconscious creature a Will save opens the gates to all kind of abuse, including mindrape.


Thus, I propose rule 15:

Clarification: An unconscious creature is not hindered from making a Will save. In the case of harmless effects, or in the case of spells that affect willing targets only, the creature is considered willing.

---

I agree with this so long as there is some penalty to will saves while someone is unconscious. Maybe a -4 penalty?

EDIT: In hindsight, I agree with Malachei that the penalty probably falls under a different purview in terms of ruling than his interpretation, so if it is to be included it should probably at the very least be separated in the main post.

I support rules 3 and 8 and a -4 penalty in rule 15.

Thank you for your comment. Because it is about a clarification of RAW from a "common sense" perspective, I'd rather keep it completely RAW. Introducing a penalty would be a houserule -- I guess a good one, but still. I think this point is really clear by RAW, it just has been poorly defended.

EDIT:

A commentary on clarification vs. changes:

This question also goes to the OP: Do we focus on clarifications or on actual rules changes?

My personal opinion is that we should try to focus more on clarifications. If we introduce actual changes, we'd no longer be clarifying 3.5, but we'd be starting to define a set of houserules in the spirit of a "Pathfinder II".

Also, shouldn't we say "Yes" / "No" / "No Idea". Because a conditional yes is hard to follow up, if several answers include different suggestions.

Approve

001 (Drowning)
004 (SUS & Monks)
005 (Dead)
006 (Unarmed Strikes), so long as herbivorous animals keep their "all natural weapons counted as secondary", which admittedly has nothing to do with proficiency.
007 (Trample) Note, however, that wolves don't have an appropriate attack, which makes the name as given in the post a bit of a misnomer.
013 (Dragon Disciple) Want to make a call on what happens when you lose prerequisites as well?

Conditional

012 (Clothing as armor) MIC page 234 allows deflection, armor, and natural armor bonuses in the body slot at normal price anyway. I say no unless you're going to allow anything with an armor bonus to get special abilities like Soulfire or whatever; I don't see a reason for clothing to be singled out from Bracers of Armor in this respect.
014 (TWF), if it's added that you don't take the TWF penalties unless you're actually using the TWF action.

Disapprove

003 (Legacy & Bloodline Levels) Eh, as it stands, it's a bit far-reaching. I might support No prestige class with fewer than 10 levels may have its class features advanced beyond its maximum level, however, since that fits in nicely with the epic rules and doesn't cause problems with 10-level classes that don't have RAW epic advancement.
008 (Draconic Sorcerers), unless you can find one of these feats that requires sorcerer levels and doesn't require burning an arcane spell. Not inclined to give wizards access to those even if they are dragontouched.
010 (Mounted Charges) As currently written, it completely excludes Pounce, Headlong Rush, Furious Charge, and similar abilities from applying with a mounted charge, since the rider isn't treated as charging, only gaining the same bonus & penalties as the mount. I think you'd also have to rewrite Spirited Charge to fit, since the rider isn't taking a full-round action to charge any more. I do like the idea behind the change, though.

Neutral

002 (Thesis) I'm inclined to believe behavior on the reducers is as intended. If this is an exploit, I've never seen it used in a game. I'm not going to pass a judgment on it quite yet, though. EDIT > I would absolutely support errata that made it so that no spell could be reduced below its original level, or even that allowed only one metamagic to apply a net -1. <
011 (More Charges) This clarifies Ride-by Attack, yes? I think it still has the issue of not actually working, since you can't move through an opponent and almost every legal charge would have you continuing through them.

Ideas for Consideration

I'm not going to give these "official" numbers, because I'm not sure what ones you even want to consider.

S1 Unless otherwise specified (like for Divine feats), a feat is an [Ex]traordinary ability. (I haven't looked at the ruleset in-depth to figure out exactly what this interacts with yet.)
S2 Experience penalties for multiclassing do not apply to prestige classes (IIRC, this rule was accidentally dropped in the transition from 3.0 to 3.5).
S3 If you have the ability to meet a prerequisite or requirement through temporary means, you may take a feat or class or use an ability with such a requirement. When you do not meet the requirements, you may not use the ability and are not treated as possessing the feat or class abilities of the class.
S4 The Exotic Weapon Master (CWar)'s Exotic Reach ability, if taken for a whip, allows you to make attacks of opportunity with it. You threaten an area out to the range you could make an attack with the whip (normally 15 feet).

And, of course, the ever-dividing Aptitude:
S5a The Aptitude ability (ToB) allows the user to use the enhanced weapon with any feat that applies to only a single type of weapon, chosen or preset, like Weapon Focus or Lightning Maces. (This one is supported by the actual text of Aptitude, but leads to some system abuse, especially with the aforementioned Lightning Maces.)
S5b The Aptitude ability (ToB) allows the user to use the enhanced weapon with any feat that applies to only a single chosen type of weapon, like Weapon Focus or Improved Critical. (This one closes some ridiculous exploits, but RAW-wise it relies on inferring a distinction not made by the text of the ability.)

Rule 001: Drowning for Health Purposes - Agreed.
Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier - Agreed. It make sense that you could reduce the level of a spell by apllying a metamagic feat to it.
Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels - Agreed.
Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike - Agreed.
Rule 005: Dead is Dead - Agreed.
Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally - Agreed.
Rule 007: Wolves with Hooves - Agreed.
Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage - I would tend to agree but I'm not sure it belong in this thread.
Rule 009: It's not armour, it's thick clothing - It was apparently removed.
Rule 010: Who's Charging, Anyways? - Agreed
Rule 011: Who's Riding By, Anyways? - Agreed
Rule 012: Anything Can Be Armour - Agreed
Rule 013: Clarifying the Dragon Disciple Paradox - Agreed.
Rule 014: I'm Not Left Handed - Agreed

Rule 16 Tower Shields: How the #&%@ do they work?

Suggested Fix
At the start of their turn, a creature using a Tower Shield decides whether to use the Total Cover version of their shield, or whether to use it for a shield bonus. This is a free action. Tower Shields being used to provide Total Cover provide cover in all directions. You cannot make any Attacks*, as defined by the Glossery, while using a Tower Shield to gain cover. Actions which do not provide an attack roll are not attacks, and may be used while a tower shield is providing cover.

*Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent. The outcome of an attack is determined by an attack roll.

Non-Floating Armour: Armour check penalties should apply to Swim checks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashtagon

Non-Floating Armour: Armour check penalties should apply to Swim checks.

---

They do. Double, in fact.

I do need to point out something. There already is a feat that does what rule 8 proposes. Dragontouched, page 18 of dragon magic. Go read it up. What rule 8 does is it means that if you already HAVE the dragonblood subtype, then you don't need to burn a feat for something you already have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Siosilvar

They do. Double, in fact.

---

You'd think so but no they do not. The relevant text is in the armor proficiency feats.

from the SRD

Quote:

---

Armor Proficiency (Light) [General] Benefit: When you wear a type of armor with which you are proficient, the armor check penalty for that armor applies only to Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Hide, Jump, Move Silently, Sleight of Hand, and Tumble checks. Normal: A character who is wearing armor with which she is not proficient applies its armor check penalty to attack rolls and to all skill checks that involve moving, including Ride.Special: All characters except wizards, sorcerers, and monks automatically have Armor Proficiency (light) as a bonus feat. They need not select it.

---

Medium and Heavy armor proficiency feats sre the same but apply to different classes.
Whats more specific, a feat, the armor rules, or type descriptions because this also means all creatures are proficient with light armor because all creatures are characters even if only NPCs. This also goes for simple weapon proficiency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Siosilvar

They do. Double, in fact.

---

That got lost in proof-reading between 3.0 and 3.5.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prufock

Also keep in mind that a monk can use flurry AND 2-weapon fighting, so it clarifies that your unarmed attacks always deal Str bonus damage, not 1/2 str bonus.

---

No, see, this is the part I don't get. The TWFing rules supercede the Monk rules, IMO. The rules in the Monk class description only deal with your normal attack routines and you don't have an offhand no matter which hand you use. The TWFing rules then give you an offhand UAS, which is subject to all of the benefits and penalties of TWF, including the 1/2 +Str bonus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malachei

Rule 15: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped

It has been argued whether unconscious creatures get a Will save. To me, it is clear that the following paragraph is to be read in context:



Which implies that it applies to spells that affect willing targets (unless one purposefully ignores the first part of the paragraph).

The rules on the condition unconscious in no way indicate an unconscious target would not get a save, or not a Will save: see the SRD.

Denying an unconscious creature a Will save opens the gates to all kind of abuse, including mindrape.


Thus, I propose rule 15:

Clarification: An unconscious creature is not hindered from making a Will save. In the case of harmless effects, or in the case of spells that affect willing targets only, the creature is considered willing.

---

You would be wrong by RAW and what you propose is the opposite of common sense. Why do you think that a character you has been knocked out is in any position to resist someone tinkering around in his head?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SRD on Spell Descriptions

Some spells restrict you to willing targets only.
This is clear, willing target is a special subset of targets and some spells restrict you to only this subset (like others restrict you to, say, constructs).
Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you’re flat-footed or it isn’t your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.

---

If you are unconscious then you are willing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SRD on Saving Throws

Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw

A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.

---

If you are willing (which being unconscious makes you) then you give up your saving throw.

Note that a creature who is asleep is not suffering from Unconsciousness (they are merely helpless) and thus still get's a saving throw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashtagon

That got lost in proof-reading between 3.0 and 3.5.

---

I just checked my copy of the PHB. Swim skill, proficiency feats, armor section in equipment; it's there in all three places. d20SRD appears to be missing that text in the proficiency feats, which is strange. It's there in the other two, and I'm inclined to value the description of armor check penalties and the skill telling you what modifiers apply over the lack of text in the feats (being that lack of text does not preclude additions by other rules).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emperor Tippy

If you are willing (which being unconscious makes you) then you give up your saving throw.

Note that a creature who is asleep is not suffering from Unconsciousness (they are merely helpless) and thus still get's a saving throw.

---

I was with you up until here. Just because they're willing doesn't mean they're going to forgo their saving throw. Admittedly, they're likely to, but it's not part of the rules definition of "willing", the use of "willingly" notwithstanding. "Willing" only means that you can cast spells restricted to willing targets only on them (or so the argument goes).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lapak

Right now, SUS improves your damage in one of two ways: if you have no Monk levels, it has its own table; if you have at least one level in Monk, it buffs your effective Monk level.

What this means is that a Monk 1 / Non-Monk X will eventually do LESS damage than a straight Non-Monk X+1, because their damage from SUS is pinned at Monk 5.

---

Ah, I see. Wouldn't the feat just make more sense if the feat (and the Monk's unarmed strike damage) both calculated the number of steps that they increased damage by, which is actually what they do, instead of the "effective levels" of the class that progresses it? Monk's unarmed strike damage progresses by 2 + x/4 rounded down, where x is your level, and Superior Unarmed Strike progresses by 1+ x/4 rounded down. Worded that way, there should be an obvious way to state that your unarmed damage with the Monk increases by an additional step, such as "Monk levels stack with Superior Unarmed Strike for determining bonus damage steps at level 1, but overlap for the purposes of determining damage progression on subsequent levels". Or some other wording that is much, much less stupid. The result is that your Unarmed Strike progression if you have any levels in Monk becomes 3 + x/4 rounded down (which was the purpose of this feat as it was intended). None of this "effective Monk level" nonsense.

In any case, my vote is now yes for 4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andorax

Lonely Tylenol...regarding Rule 3...

It makes specific mention that the Epic rules still apply as normal..and there are blanket rules for how to epicly progress classes and 10-level prestige classes. Would that change your stance? Would a rewording be required?

---

I think a rewording might be required, but I get what I did wrong - I read the ruling as "unless the feature's progression is explicitly made mention of, it doesn't advance", as in "unless a table spells out its epic level progression, it doesn't have one", which means that by default no class features advance unless there's an Epic Progression table, which only exists for SRD classes and prestige classes (meaning that, by default, anything not printed in an SRD-ready book doesn't have an epic level progression). Per my reading, the only base classes that would have an epic level progression at all would be the Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Monk, Rogue, Soulknife, and Wilder (since they have tables outlining their epic level progression that include class features), and the rest of the SRD (for epic or psionic feats only).

Assuming that your rule simply refers to the scaling of class abilities that run on a fixed level progression (such as the Marshal's major aura bonus) and so on, as opposed to a blanket ban on everything not spelled out on a table, my vote for 3 becomes yes.

Let it be known, however, that my vote for 12 follows my vote for 9 logically as a no. There is a difference between codpiece of armor +2 and a +2 codpiece, that being that the former actually does use the MIC enhancement guidelines for applying armor, natural armor and deflection bonii to unusual items (which doesn't change per this ruling either way), and the latter applies a new rule which allows you to treat a striped sweater as masterwork, and then enchant it as you would a chain shirt (which is changing), which means that you could have a +5 slick striped sweater of invulnerability, shadow, silent moves, acid resistance and arrow catching (using SRD enhancements only) because your striped sweater is technically now "armor". Congratulations: your striped sweater magically makes you Waldo (and also grants damage reduction and stuff).

It gets even more absurd if you can wear clothing with your armor (and why wouldn't you wear at least undergarments to keep your armor from smelling bad?), because you now have a +5 armor of various enhancements for your actual Armor Class value, and a +1 speedo of various other enhancements for the things you couldn't tack onto your first armor without turning it epic.

I'll vote on the others later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Siosilvar

I was with you up until here. Just because they're willing doesn't mean they're going to forgo their saving throw. Admittedly, they're likely to, but it's not part of the rules definition of "willing", the use of "willingly" notwithstanding. "Willing" only means that you can cast spells restricted to willing targets only on them (or so the argument goes).

---

Being a willing target is a subset of the targets. You can enter that set in two ways 1) be voluntarily entering it or 2) by being unconscious. If you are part of that set then you don't get a save against any spell.

If you are conscious then you get to make your choice whether to be part of the willing targets set whenever you want (and people can be assumed to default to being unwilling), if you are unconscious then you automatically become a willing target.

Willing is not something that only exists for specific spells, specific spells just restrict you to only willing targets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emperor Tippy

Being a willing target is a subset of the targets. You can enter that set in two ways 1) be voluntarily entering it or 2) by being unconscious. If you are part of that set then you don't get a save against any spell.

If you are conscious then you get to make your choice whether to be part of the willing targets set whenever you want (and people can be assumed to default to being unwilling), if you are unconscious then you automatically become a willing target.

Willing is not something that only exists for specific spells, specific spells just restrict you to only willing targets.

---

The two sections don't reference each other. Willing might be something that only exists for specific spells if you look at the RAW. For other spells, it's "voluntarily forgo[ing] a saving throw". Does common sense tell us it's the same? Maybe, maybe not.

I'm going to go ahead and support 015: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped until further notice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Siosilvar

014 (TWF), if it's added that you don't take the TWF penalties unless you're actually using the TWF action.

---

I'm all for this, so long as we make it explicit in the combat rules that you can change between primary weapons on all your iterative attacks. Right now under Full Attack it says "you can strike with either weapon first", but doesn't specify that you can still switch on subsequent attacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Siosilvar

010 (Mounted Charges) As currently written, it completely excludes Pounce, Headlong Rush, Furious Charge, and similar abilities from applying with a mounted charge, since the rider isn't treated as charging, only gaining the same bonus & penalties as the mount. I think you'd also have to rewrite Spirited Charge to fit, since the rider isn't taking a full-round action to charge any more. I do like the idea behind the change, though.

---

Actually, I would like to include Pounce/Headlong Rush/Furious Charge into mounted charges (I like letting melee have nice things), and in fact I'd like to get rid of the "single melee attack" on mounted charges altogether (can't the rider just delay his action until after his mount moves?) but I felt that wasn't the original intent behind the mounted combat rules. But we do need to specify what happens when the rider has Pounce and his mount is charging.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Siosilvar

011 (More Charges) This clarifies Ride-by Attack, yes? I think it still has the issue of not actually working, since you can't move through an opponent and almost every legal charge would have you continuing through them.

---

You need to be able to charge past your target, yes... but oddly enough, while this requires the mount to charge, it can't actually get an attack if it continues to move away from the target.

Technically, the Rules Compendium allows you to jump over "obstacles", so you could try Jumping over your target to continue moving in a straight line, but that would look silly. Also, the Rules Compendium never defined what an "obstacle" was, so there's no indication if allies or opponents count as an "obstacle".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Siosilvar

The two sections don't reference each other. Willing might be something that only exists for specific spells if you look at the RAW. For other spells, it's "voluntarily forgo[ing] a saving throw". Does common sense tell us it's the same? Maybe, maybe not.

I'm going to go ahead and support 015: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped until further notice.

---

No, Willing explicitly doesn't exist only for spells that say (willing only).

When you cast a spell it checks target and then decides what happens. Willing is the most restrictive of the various subsets in targets (everything but objects falls into the creature subset, for example; or everything that is undead falls into the undead subset, which is a part of the creatures subset. So a lich would fall into the Creature (Undead (Intelligent Undead)) set.

The bottom of the set is willing; you become part of that set in only 2 situations, if you choose it or if you are unconscious. Everything that is part of the willing subset gets no save.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emperor Tippy

No, Willing explicitly doesn't exist only for spells that say (willing only).

When you cast a spell it checks target and then decides what happens. Willing is the most restrictive of the various subsets in targets (everything but objects falls into the creature subset, for example; or everything that is undead falls into the undead subset, which is a part of the creatures subset. So a lich would fall into the Creature (Undead (Intelligent Undead)) set.

The bottom of the set is willing; you become part of that set in only 2 situations, if you choose it or if you are unconscious. Everything that is part of the willing subset gets no save.

---

"Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you’re flat-footed or it isn’t your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing."

Nothing in that states that a willing creature doesn't get a save. Forgoing your save is a different section of the text:

"A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality."

I'm not going to argue RAW any further, and "common sense" could swing either way, so how about we let this thread do what it was designed to do and crowdsource it?

Seems like the confusion is people looking at "willing" in different way. Strictly looking at syntax, why are "forego a saving throw and willingly (adverb) accept a spell results" and "a willing (adjective) creature" being treated as the same thing? The former implies an action, something a creature has to make a choice to do; how would an unconcious creature make this choice?

Because you (and most people) misunderstand how targeting works in D&D.

When you cast a spell it asks "Is this target X?" where X is whatever the spell is able to effect, say intelligent undead.

With willing only spells it asks "Is this target willing (unconscious or choosing to forgo their save)?" and if the answer is yes then the spell works

Will all other spells it asks, for example, "Is this target a creature?" If it get's a yes it then asks "Is this target immune to this spell, say [mind affecting]?" if it receives a no then it asks "Is this target willing?" if the answer is no then it gets a save.

A creature must be unwilling for a save to be rolled.

The main problem with the unconscious willing target argument is that there is no real way to apply common sense to it, since we don't actually know how mind-affecting spells work (do they change something about the conscious brain, or the unconscious one? If the former, it wouldn't work on unconscious targets since their conscious brain is turned off; if the latter, it would still work since their brain is still functioning, albeit at a lower level). So, it may be better to just drop it for the purposes of this thread.

Also Tippy, by RAW (I agree with your reading, just not that it is RAI) it would effectively make coup-de-graces on unconscious targets succeed automatically as well, since they would be "willing" to forgo the fortitude save, which my common sense says is ridiculous.