"Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

[erikun]

erikun, could I ask you to look over Rule 3 again? The intent is NOT to prevent, or even MODIFY, the rules for epic class progressions. In fact, those are explicitly called out (and now with a reword more clearly so) as an exception to the rule. The intent is to prevent people from using "+class features" clases, such as the Legacy Champion, to level certain other classes (such as the Hellfire Warlock) beyond their exisiting 3 levels. I've recorded you as against for the time being, but I think you may be reading something into it that isn't there.

Perhaps. I'm not familiar with the particular exploit, so perhaps I'm missing what it is trying to fix. I'll change my stance from disapproved to Neutral for the time being.

Some of your added rules are in. Your Animate and Deathwatch rules appear to be a bit too far into the realm of "sensible houserule"...it's clearly spelled out that they have the [Evil] descriptor at present. Personally, I'd agree with both, but I don't think they're quite what we're looking for in this thread.

That's fair.

I've also taken a completely different tack on Enchanting Projectiles (rule #022)...the problem I saw with your original wording was that it leaves "the bulk of" up for debate...is 40 enough? 30? Why does firing that 21st arrow negate it, when it applied while you still had 30? A ban is a far more logical (makes no sense to put it on ammo in the first place) approach. I have NOT recorded your vote either way, since it's such a drastic change. Ironically, I made this change prior to seeing two other people pre-emtively cast votes for the same change.

Finally, I made a tweak to your positive drawbacks rule (#023)...there is a such a thing as positive energy protection, and it ought to work for undead.

Both work just fine. I'll be mentioning them again, below, along with everything else new to the first post.

There's been a lot of debate about Rule #012...including some people who have claimed that it's already in there. Can someone give me a better bit of source, beyond "I think it's in the MiC Somewhere", for where this supposed in-print rule is?

I think it's a combination of Magic Vestment working on ordinary clothing and AC-providing magical clothing such as Robe of the Archmagi. I am fairly certain there is no rule related to putting armor enhancements on standard clothing.

I'll just skip the rules I'm neutral on.

Rule 017: Non-Floating Armour
Approved, and it was probably forgotten with the system change.

Rule 018: Claw, Stab Claw…and now with my other arm!
Approved, as long as we aren't considering slams (below). Attempting to claw or bite while holding something in that appendage doesn't make sense, unless they drop said item as a free action to make the attack.

Rule 019: All Slams Are Not Created Equally
Disapproved. A slam is much like an unarmed strike; something competent enough to have one in their stat block would be able to use them with their hands full. I could see not allowing a slam attack from an arm strapped into a tower shield, for example, but it should not be difficult to smack someone in the head with your arm even if it is holding a longsword.

Rule 021: Enchanting Enhanced Projectiles
Approved.

Rule 025: Lava Is Easily Resisted
Approved, and a much more sensible interaction.

Rule 027: Don't Penalize the Prestigeous
Approved, as this is another rule that seems to have mistakenly vanished on the edition change.

Rule 028: Qualified and Disqualified
Disapproved. This is kind of unusual rule in general, but the specific wording (the ability to meet a prerequisite or requirement through temporary means) means that, for example, any character could take anything with Evasion as a prerequisite because they have the ability to acquire it through a Ring of Evasion, even if they don't have the ring.

There is also the problem of any spell which grants capabilities, even for one round, grants entry into a prestige class. A human could enter Beholder Mage at first level, because they have the ability to be affected by Polymorph and change into a beholder for a few rounds.

There is also the big question of what class abilities (speaking of prestige classes) are "dependent" on the specific feat.

Rule 31: Nobody Notices the Guy with the Tower Shield
Approved.

Rule 032: Full Attack and Attacks of Opportunity
Approved. I'm not so sure it is a clarification as much as a house rule, but I doubt anyone intented the archer receiving 4x power attacks just for attacking.

Rule 033: No Double Dipping

Multiple ability-based bonuses 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.

Commentary: Wording explicitly disallowing this sort of stacking is inconsistently present throughout the game (see, for example, the Wis-To-AC ability of Ninjas that is specifically described as not stacking with a Monk's Wis-to-AC bonus). I would argue that its absence is a lack of consistent wording and editing, not an intent to allow it to sometimes count and sometimes not.

I'm a bit on the fence about this. On the one hand, some situations (Paladin + Crusader, Monk + Ninja) were clearly not intended to stack.

On the other hand, we have situations like Fist of the Forest + Deepwarden. This combination is clearly supposed to stack, as FotF grants the CON bonus as natural armor, while Deepwarden replaces DEX with CON for AC purposes.

Saying that it doesn't stack unless specifically permitted by the ability is unusual, as I know of no situation where this is specifically called out.