"Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection

[Arbane]

It just seems to me as though a creature which is liquidy enough to be able to Engulf things shouldn't be susceptible to physical damage, like at all. Maybe if you have DBZ power levels, but mostly stabbing an ooze ought to be about as effective as stabbing a lake. Acid and fire and such are "supposed" to be necessary to kill oozes; 3E D&D is one of the few takes on fantasy I've encountered where this doesn't seem to be true.

Eh, it depends on the type. Stab a giant amoeba right in the nucleus, that might do it in.

[Menteith]

It just seems to me as though a creature which is liquidy enough to be able to Engulf things shouldn't be susceptible to physical damage, like at all. Maybe if you have DBZ power levels, but mostly stabbing an ooze ought to be about as effective as stabbing a lake. Acid and fire and such are "supposed" to be necessary to kill oozes; 3E D&D is one of the few takes on fantasy I've encountered where this doesn't seem to be true.

Depends on how the "Engulf" occurs. Endocytosis occurs with cells/organisms that have distinct (semi) solid membranes, and that's basically what an Ooze is doing.

[SaintRidley]

Iron Golems have a soft center ?

The insides are caramel. Powered by a bound spirit from the Quasi-Elemental plane of Sweets.

[TuggyNE]

It just seems to me as though a creature which is liquidy enough to be able to Engulf things shouldn't be susceptible to physical damage, like at all. Maybe if you have DBZ power levels, but mostly stabbing an ooze ought to be about as effective as stabbing a lake. Acid and fire and such are "supposed" to be necessary to kill oozes; 3E D&D is one of the few takes on fantasy I've encountered where this doesn't seem to be true.

Ah, so you meant "supposed" from a fluff perspective, not a game design perspective. It's interesting; I wouldn't have considered oozes that fluid, but rather more like a slightly runny clay, a thickened jellyfish, or an enormous bowl of Jell-O™ without the bowl . I suppose it depends on what you're used to, though.

[Kane0]

Oozes will always be Jelly to me

[Gnomish Wanderer]

This thread is awesome. Just read through all 25 pages, lots of lol's to be had.

And, overall, it is a simple but effective way to make casters stronger... Beside think about a battle: 1000 people vs 1000 people. I would mean what every 6 seconds 100 people drop the weapon, fall down, ... assuming only one attack.

If your DM does this, speak friendly with him. If he does not understand go Archivist or Wizard.

I make them reroll the 1, and only crit. fail with another 1. so 2.5 embarrassing mistakes per 1000 warriors seems right to me.

Rant:

Spoiler

Show

now don't get me started on the 10,000 gp worth of diamond for a resurrection. A while back in a mid level campaign (i think) we managed to secure a diamond mine and build a base on top and somewhat into it, anyway the DM SERIOUSLY wanted me to go out and buy diamonds for the spell because he said we didn't pay for THOSE diamonds so we could not use them!

end rant

You should have taken 10,000 worth of diamonds with you, sold it, and then immediately bought it back for 10,000 gold.

[TypoNinja]

This thread is awesome. Just read through all 25 pages, lots of lol's to be had.
I make them reroll the 1, and only crit. fail with another 1. so 2.5 embarrassing mistakes per 1000 warriors seems right to me.
You should have taken 10,000 worth of diamonds with you, sold it, and then immediately bought it back for 10,000 gold.

Well at one point it was one X GP diamond, which might be rare, then 3.5 changed it to X GP worth of diamonds

This has the hilarious side effect of making the material component variable in size.

As a precious gem Diamonds are of course valued based on size and cut. One large brilliant stone is not going to be 100 times the mass of 100 lesser stones equal to its value.

[nedz]

What's in the center of a hollow Iron Golem ?
It probably ought to be the material for the poison gas breath weapon.
An ooze would be fun however: "You kill the Golem, and this green stuff starts to seep out", ...
However a Fire based Living Spell would be OP.

[Wookie-ranger]

What's in the center of a hollow Iron Golem ?
It probably ought to be the material for the poison gas breath weapon.
An ooze would be fun however: "You kill the Golem, and this green stuff starts to seep out", ...
However a Fire based Living Spell would be OP.

hmmm, that would be a very interesting (and somewhat viable) house rule.
"when ever a golem is destroyed, in a way that the majority of its body remains, the elemental spirit that animated it breaks free attacking any hostiles.'
may be add;
"the elemental is one (may be two?) size category smaller then the golem and only has 1/2 its normal hp left due to the destruction of the golem"

[noparlpf]

It just seems to me as though a creature which is liquidy enough to be able to Engulf things shouldn't be susceptible to physical damage, like at all. Maybe if you have DBZ power levels, but mostly stabbing an ooze ought to be about as effective as stabbing a lake. Acid and fire and such are "supposed" to be necessary to kill oozes; 3E D&D is one of the few takes on fantasy I've encountered where this doesn't seem to be true.

Depends on how the "Engulf" occurs. Endocytosis occurs with cells/organisms that have distinct (semi) solid membranes, and that's basically what an Ooze is doing.

If it has a lipid bilayer type membrane, slashing and piercing would do the most damage to it. However, the square-cube law would do more.

[TypoNinja]

If it has a lipid bilayer type membrane, slashing and piercing would do the most damage to it. However, the square-cube law would do more.

Quite a few things are pretty much murdered by the square-cube law. Any humanoid bigger than Large and any quadruped bigger than Huge.

Hmm. I wonder if the existence of Giants and Dragons would prove that gravity is lighter in D&D. Might explain the falling damage cap too.

[Menteith]

If it has a lipid bilayer type membrane, slashing and piercing would do the most damage to it. However, the square-cube law would do more.

It has a membrane of some kind, as it's distinct from its environment. I'm guessing that the membrane is a good deal more solid just a single phospholipid bilayer, but I honestly don't know. As for the square-cube law, there are so many middle fingers to it in D&Dverse...I still sort of with that Reduce/Enlarge Person (or Shrink Item, or whatever size changer you want) lead to massive heart attacks (due to the proportionally huge heart required), intelligence of 1 or 0 (as brain mass decreases), or huge cold damage (as people freeze to death at lowered sizes).

[Ksheep]

You could also complain about the giant insects. Due to their method of breathing (via tracheal tubes), the size that an insect can grow is limited by the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. With current oxygen levels (about 20%), insects can't grow much larger than 20 cm. Even in the Paleozoic, with oxygen levels at almost twice what it is today, insects couldn't get much larger than a meter. So… unless D&D world has 50% or more oxygen concentration, insects larger than Small size would be impossible… and if the oxygen WAS that high, you might have a slight problem of spontaneous combustion. The slightest spark would turn any flammable object into a roaring inferno.

[noparlpf]

It has a membrane of some kind, as it's distinct from its environment. I'm guessing that the membrane is a good deal more solid just a single phospholipid bilayer, but I honestly don't know. As for the square-cube law, there are so many middle fingers to it in D&Dverse...I still sort of with that Reduce/Enlarge Person (or Shrink Item, or whatever size changer you want) lead to massive heart attacks (due to the proportionally huge heart required), intelligence of 1 or 0 (as brain mass decreases), or huge cold damage (as people freeze to death at lowered sizes).

I was kind of joking with that. I typically assume oozes are magic and don't need membranes, or that they're like a communal organism like a slime mold and are made of a bunch of loosely connected single-celled organisms. Can't real-world slimes move slightly? Or are they growing new colonies and letting the old ones die when they move?

[nedz]

hmmm, that would be a very interesting (and somewhat viable) house rule.
"when ever a golem is destroyed, in a way that the majority of its body remains, the elemental spirit that animated it breaks free attacking any hostiles.'
may be add;
"the elemental is one (may be two?) size category smaller then the golem and only has 1/2 its normal hp left due to the destruction of the golem"

The point is that fire damage heals the Iron Golem.
You could do it with a small elemental, but their damage output, and hence healing, is rather low.
No house-rule required really, Golems are constructs, you just make one with a cavity which you fill with an inner fire.

[gkathellar]

What's in the center of a hollow Iron Golem?

And more importantly, how many licks does it take to get to the center of an Iron Golem?

[mattie_p]

So… unless D&D world has 50% or more oxygen concentration, insects larger than Small size would be impossible… and if the oxygen WAS that high, you might have a slight problem of spontaneous combustion. The slightest spark would turn any flammable object into a roaring inferno.

Which is why there are so many fire-breathing dragons.

[Khedrac]

Splitting oozes are actually worse that non-splitting.

Take one Ooze with 80hp and an archer

Rapid shot 1st:
2 Oozes with 40hp: 40,40
rapid shot 2nd:
40,20,20
rapid shot 3rd:
20,20,20,20

Wizard:
Fireball...

The best way to take them down if you know where in the initiative they are is split them down to the minimum size (10hp?) and then use a small AoE on them.

[Qwertystop]

You could also complain about the giant insects. Due to their method of breathing (via tracheal tubes), the size that an insect can grow is limited by the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. With current oxygen levels (about 20%), insects can't grow much larger than 20 cm. Even in the Paleozoic, with oxygen levels at almost twice what it is today, insects couldn't get much larger than a meter. So… unless D&D world has 50% or more oxygen concentration, insects larger than Small size would be impossible… and if the oxygen WAS that high, you might have a slight problem of spontaneous combustion. The slightest spark would turn any flammable object into a roaring inferno.

Question: Why does breathing through a differently-located orifice make them rely more on oxygen concentrations than humans?

[noparlpf]

Question: Why does breathing through a differently-located orifice make them rely more on oxygen concentrations than humans?

Bugs breathe through small openings and have very little control over their rate of respiration because they don't have diaphragms. We can breathe more quickly by pumping our diaphragms.

[Mystify]

Question: Why does breathing through a differently-located orifice make them rely more on oxygen concentrations than humans?

They don't have proper lungs

[ahenobarbi]

Question: Why does breathing through a differently-located orifice make them rely more on oxygen concentrations than humans?

Because it's less effective (more passive). Kind of like humans have easier time surviving with on desert because they can grab a bottle of water and drink some while plants have to wait for water to come to them.

[Qwertystop]

So wouldn't having more of said orifice, and possibly a more efficient way of absorbing oxygen from the air that does come in (like the little blobby upsidedown tree things in our lungs), solve that problem?

[ahenobarbi]

But then you have less space for muscles, jaws, poisons, wings and whatever else you want in your insect. Using more efficient breathing method could work but it wouldn't be a proper insect any more. Or since it's d&d you could just attribute this to magic

Note to self: I'm tired. I just wrote " Using more efficient breathing method could work but it wouldn't work"

[Flickerdart]

I make them reroll the 1, and only crit. fail with another 1. so 2.5 embarrassing mistakes per 1000 warriors seems right to me.

The Battle of, say, Waterloo had 180,000 combatants, and yet 450 soldiers did not inexplicably drop their muskets every six seconds (unless, of course, they were dead). Having such a high chance of gruesome screwups is preposterous.

[Randomguy]

I make them reroll the 1, and only crit. fail with another 1. so 2.5 embarrassing mistakes per 1000 warriors seems right to me.

This means that if a level 20 fighter spent one hour sparring against a practice dummy, he would stab himself (or drop his sword) six times.


Something else that just doesn't work right: You take epic spell backlash during every round of the duration of the spell. In the epic handbook, the epic spell reflection spell has a permanant duration and 20d6 backlash, so casting it is basically suicide. At least the spell doesn't have a range of personal.

[Ksheep]

So wouldn't having more of said orifice, and possibly a more efficient way of absorbing oxygen from the air that does come in (like the little blobby upsidedown tree things in our lungs), solve that problem?

Having more would help, but they can only be so long, as the oxygen is used up as it passes through the pipes. Since insects don't have blood, they can't transport the oxygen from the orifices to the parts of the body that need it. If the body is too thick, the oxygen will be used up before it reaches the center, so spherical insects could not work, but long slender ones such as dragonflies work much more effectively (since the pipes don't need to be as long to go from the surface to the center). Your suggestion of having areola wouldn't work, because, as stated earlier, they have no blood to pump the oxygen to where it is needed.

[Arbane]

The Battle of, say, Waterloo had 180,000 combatants, and yet 450 soldiers did not inexplicably drop their muskets every six seconds (unless, of course, they were dead). Having such a high chance of gruesome screwups is preposterous.

But it's just not a GAME without mundanes having a completely unavoidable chance of humiliating failure!

[Agent 451]

Having more would help, but they can only be so long, as the oxygen is used up as it passes through the pipes. Since insects don't have blood, they can't transport the oxygen from the orifices to the parts of the body that need it. If the body is too thick, the oxygen will be used up before it reaches the center, so spherical insects could not work, but long slender ones such as dragonflies work much more effectively (since the pipes don't need to be as long to go from the surface to the center). Your suggestion of having areola wouldn't work, because, as stated earlier, they have no blood to pump the oxygen to where it is needed.

Pretty sure insects have blood, but it likely isn't red (since there are no lungs needed to transport oxygen there isn't a need for hemoglobin). How else are nutrients distributed to the cells?

[Doug Lampert]

The Battle of, say, Waterloo had 180,000 combatants, and yet 450 soldiers did not inexplicably drop their muskets every six seconds (unless, of course, they were dead). Having such a high chance of gruesome screwups is preposterous.

Actually, ammusing musket screwups seem to have been fairly common in battle, some sort of screwup may well have been more common than that. Shooting off the ramrod was supposed to be fairly common on the second volley (in the stress of battle you forget to take it back out the first time you reload), and there are a few muskets in museums that were found on the field sometime after a battle and that appear to have misfired and the guy just kept on loading in more bullets into the non-functional weapon.

Note that these are RELOADING screwups, reloading was actually a sequence of many steps all of which had to be done correctly and in order. I'm not familiar with people accidently shooting their own left arm or whatever other fumble comes up on game fumble tables.

I've played both historical minatures games and wooden ship combat games which give a small bonus for the first volley from any ship or unit on the basis that that was the one loaded when the unit wasn't under fire. Getting a good shot for that first volley seems to have been a historical concern as people did in fact screw up reloading.

So my favored example of why fumble rules are bad isn't from the era of muskets, where fumbles were suprisingly common, it's from me driving to and from work. Say I face a moderate stress task requiring a roll on average each trip (at least 10 trips a week, or 520+ a year). If the accident rate is more than one fender bender per decade or two at that rate then it's VASTLY too high.

This means roll a 1 on the check, roll a 1 to confirm, roll another 1 to reconfirm is MAYBE about right (assuming you only roll once per trip rather than once per round or once per decision), but it's probably still too common and remember that this tripple 1 includes accidents that don't acually seriously injure anyone or total either car.

If it's much worse than that then my insurance company needs to be informed so they can raise my rates.