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

[Namfuak]

Sounds like a poorly-worded explicit exception to the "no actions except one move" bit.

I think you're right, but this thread IS about rules-lawyering

[Ksheep]

So, as a swift action, the subject makes a save, but the subject cannot make any action other than a move. That part seems dysfunctional to me.

Actually, it says that if you fail the save, you only get a move action for the rest of the round, and that you can attempt a save at the beginning of the round as a swift action (i.e. before doing anything else).

[noparlpf]

Actually, it says that if you fail the save, you only get a move action for the rest of the round, and that you can attempt a save at the beginning of the round as a swift action (i.e. before doing anything else).

"So why bother to choose to save?"
I'm pretty sure if you failed the initial save, you experience the effect unless you pass the saves on subsequent rounds.

[TypoNinja]

Actually, it says that if you fail the save, you only get a move action for the rest of the round, and that you can attempt a save at the beginning of the round as a swift action (i.e. before doing anything else).

Pretty sure it was intended to be more like "on any subsequent turns you may attempt a save as a swift action."

The reason for that is this.

On a failed save, the subject can take no action other than a move action on its current turn.

Remember you are casting this on its turn, it fails the save triggered by casting and is limited to a move action.

Each round, as a swift action at the start of its turn, the subject can attempt a new saving throw to end the effect. If the save succeeds, the subject can then act normally.

I think this clause should be where the subsequent gets put it, because its ambiguous without it, but I think taken as a whole its clear they intended this to be essentially a repeating spell for its duration.

Plus after you fail the save the first time, you are limited to a move action, you don't have a swift action to try to make a save with anymore on that first turn.


Were I DM I would rule it functioned like so;

Cast spell at the start of targets turn, target makes save no effect. Or target fails save can only take a move action this turn.

On targets next turn he must decide to attempt save or not. Target makes save spends swift action otherwise acts normally. Or target fails save and can only take a move action.

[Theoboldi]

The Fiend-Blooded PrC requires you to have 8 ranks in knowledge (the planes) and be able to cast spontenous 2nd level spells amongst other things in order to enter it.

Why? Why would you have these ridiculous requirements on a class essentially tailor-made for sorcerers? It gets even worse when you take a look at the sample Fiend-Blooded they put in the book, who only has levels in sorcerer before going into Fiend-Blooded, with no feats that would give him knowledge (the planes) as a class skill, and the fact that they specifically call out sorcerers as a good entry class.

[noparlpf]

The Fiend-Blooded PrC requires you to have 8 ranks in knowledge (the planes) and be able to cast spontenous 2nd level spells amongst other things in order to enter it.

Why? Why would you have these ridiculous requirements on a class essentially tailor-made for sorcerers? It gets even worse when you take a look at the sample Fiend-Blooded they put in the book, who only has levels in sorcerer before going into Fiend-Blooded, with no feats that would give him knowledge (the planes) as a class skill, and the fact that they specifically call out sorcerers as a good entry class.

That does seem pretty broken.

[Wyntonian]

The Fiend-Blooded PrC requires you to have 8 ranks in knowledge (the planes) and be able to cast spontenous 2nd level spells amongst other things in order to enter it.

Why? Why would you have these ridiculous requirements on a class essentially tailor-made for sorcerers? It gets even worse when you take a look at the sample Fiend-Blooded they put in the book, who only has levels in sorcerer before going into Fiend-Blooded, with no feats that would give him knowledge (the planes) as a class skill, and the fact that they specifically call out sorcerers as a good entry class.

What!?!?!? WotC derping on PrC entry requirements?

Stop. The. Mothersnuggling. Presses.


Seriously, though, that wouldn't be the first time they done goof'd. Good catch, though .

[TypoNinja]

The Fiend-Blooded PrC requires you to have 8 ranks in knowledge (the planes) and be able to cast spontenous 2nd level spells amongst other things in order to enter it.

Why? Why would you have these ridiculous requirements on a class essentially tailor-made for sorcerers? It gets even worse when you take a look at the sample Fiend-Blooded they put in the book, who only has levels in sorcerer before going into Fiend-Blooded, with no feats that would give him knowledge (the planes) as a class skill, and the fact that they specifically call out sorcerers as a good entry class.

Its like the guy designing the class thought it was a class skill, the 8 ranks is standard to force a 6th level entry as you'd expect from a PrC, its just not a skill you get as a Sorc.

[The Viscount]

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sp/20031010a

The smite good ability of this half fiend is a copying error, but strict RAW is very odd and doesn't work.

[noparlpf]

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sp/20031010a

The smite good ability of this half fiend is a copying error, but strict RAW is very odd and doesn't work.

This is why one should never copy and paste, and should always have an editor look over the finished product.

[Flickerdart]

Technically, the ability does work - a Good creature with the [Evil] subtype, or vice-versa, is a valid target. You're not likely to see many of those around, though.

[noparlpf]

Technically, the ability does work - a Good creature with the [Evil] subtype, or vice-versa, is a valid target. You're not likely to see many of those around, though.

"Once per day, a half-fiend of at least 3rd level may attempt to smite a good creature with one normal melee attack. This attack deals extra damage equal to her character level (maximum +20) against a good foe. If she accidentally smites a creature that is not evil, the smite has no effect but is still used up for the day."

In other words, Smite Good works on good creatures, but only if they're evil. So technically, it does work, in the two cases you just cited, but that's not the intent, therefore it is dysfunctional.

[Water_Bear]

Maybe the word "accidentally" can help; since you're using Smite Good on a, presumably, Good creature, you'll never accidentally smite a creature which isn't Evil. It will always be intentional, thus the effect won't trigger.

[ahenobarbi]

Maybe the word "accidentally" can help; since you're using Smite Good on a, presumably, Good creature, you'll never accidentally smite a creature which isn't Evil. It will always be intentional, thus the effect won't trigger.

Such ruling would help paladins "I know you're not evil and this is no accident, Smite Evil!"

[Flickerdart]

"Once per day, a half-fiend of at least 3rd level may attempt to smite a good creature with one normal melee attack. This attack deals extra damage equal to her character level (maximum +20) against a good foe. If she accidentally smites a creature that is not evil, the smite has no effect but is still used up for the day."

In other words, Smite Good works on good creatures, but only if they're evil. So technically, it does work, in the two cases you just cited, but that's not the intent, therefore it is dysfunctional.

That's...exactly what I just said, yes.

[noparlpf]

That's...exactly what I just said, yes.

Yeah, I was clarifying for myself because I had to walk through what you said to make sure I got it.

[Story]

Has it been mentioned yet that the undead get healed by the Positive Energy Plane with no risk of exploding?

[weckar]

Necropolitans get healed by negative AND positive energy. Introduce the Shadow Sun Ninja and we've got a nice case of 'stop hitting yourself'.

[Story]

Where does it say that Necropolitans are healed by positive energy? Even by RAW, I think they are hurt by spells like CLW, since their type changes to undead.

[noparlpf]

Where does it say that Necropolitans are healed by positive energy? Even by RAW, I think they are hurt by spells like CLW, since their type changes to undead.

I think the Necropolitan with the Human Heritage feat or whatever would heal from both. Not sure I have that right, though.

[Amidus Drexel]

Where does it say that Necropolitans are healed by positive energy? Even by RAW, I think they are hurt by spells like CLW, since their type changes to undead.

They may be referencing the fact that Undead are technically healed by the positive energy plane, because it doesn't do positive energy damage, it just gives fast healing 5.

[Wookie-ranger]

I think the Necropolitan with the Human Heritage feat or whatever would heal from both. Not sure I have that right, though.

Nerco + Human Heritage does not give you both healing options.
With the same line of argument you can say that they get harmed by both. Therefore a Neropolitan with Human heritage would be neither healed nor damaged by both energy types.

[weckar]

Unnatural Resilience (Ex): Necropolitans automatically heal hit point damage and ability damage at the same rate as a living creature. The Heal skill has no effect on necropolitans; however, negative energy (such as an inflict spell) heals them.

As the general idea of being healed by negative energy is repeated here and only the heal skill is brought as having no effect. It is NOT, as often believed, part of 'undead traits' that positive energy or heal spells will damage an undead creature. Not by RAW, at least.

[Amidus Drexel]

As the general idea of being healed by negative energy is repeated here and only the heal skill is brought as having no effect. It is NOT, as often believed, part of 'undead traits' that positive energy or heal spells will damage an undead creature. Not by RAW, at least.

*double-checks*

Yup. That rule is with the cure X wounds spell, if I'm not mistaken, although its exact wording may be suspect.

Edit: It doesn't specifically say that undead are hurt by positive energy (even if it strongly implies it)

Originally posted by Cure Light Wounds
Since undead are powered by negative
energy, this spell deals damage to them
instead of curing their wounds.

[weckar]

Ergo, my original point stands.

[Amidus Drexel]

Ergo, my original point stands.

While I'm willing to give you the point, I'd still like to see the source of positive energy damage that doesn't have a clause specifically hurting undead like the one in cure light wounds.

[weckar]

Touch of the Shadow Sun, Shadow Sun Ninja, ToB 126.

[Amidus Drexel]

Touch of the Shadow Sun, Shadow Sun Ninja, ToB 126.

Oh, you posted that earlier, didn't you. *facepalm*

Heh, that lets you heal yourself twice with the same ability, doesn't it?

[weckar]

Heh, that lets you heal yourself twice with the same ability, doesn't it?

Or you and then someone else. Either way, I consider my point made. I don't believe the rule was INTENDED like this, but it is how it is written.

[VGLordR2]

Oh, you posted that earlier, didn't you. *facepalm*

Heh, that lets you heal yourself twice with the same ability, doesn't it?

Doesn't the amount healed correspond to the amount of damage dealt? Which, in this case, would be zero?