2012-04-20, 01:07 PM
Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)
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.
Last edited by Ashtagon; 2012-04-20 at 01:37 PM.
Indigo is a much more appropriate colour for sarcasm, don't you think?
Blue is strictly for emphasis.
And grey is kind of like an aside to my main point.
Avatar by The Succubus