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

[hymer]

@ noparlpf: Physics gang to the obstruction, laying into those catgirls like nobody's business: Light does so have mass! <1×10−18 eV/c2 to be unprecise, so for most practical purposes it's 0.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
Anyway, mass and energy are inherently the same (another vicious jab).

[Kazyan]

Slay all the catgirls!

But seriously, I'll grant that an incorporeal mass of non-living matter is odd, but not necessarily dysfunctional.

It makes about as much sense as vestiges, and nobody questions those.

[Ksheep]

The Monster of Legend template (MMII) can give a creature the ability "Reflective Hide". This ability means that the creature is constantly under the effect of a Spell Turning effect. Spell Turning does the following:

Spells and spell-like effects targeted on you are turned back upon the original caster. The abjuration turns only spells that have you as a target. Effect and area spells are not affected. Spell turning also fails to stop touch range spells.

From seven to ten (1d4+6) spell levels are affected by the turning. The exact number is rolled secretly.

When you are targeted by a spell of higher level than the amount of spell turning you have left, that spell is partially turned. The subtract the amount of spell turning left from the spell level of the incoming spell, then divide the result by the spell level of the incoming spell to see what fraction of the effect gets through. For damaging spells, you and the caster each take a fraction of the damage. For nondamaging spells, each of you has a proportional chance to be affected.

Therefore, a MoL can be effectively immune to any non-AoE, non-ray spell cast at it, or at the very least much less effected by it. Oh, and it can choose SR of 10+(1/2 HD) as well. All this and more for a +2 LA.

----------------------------

Another interesting thing that A friend pointed out to me: Sneak Attack.

A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernible anatomies—undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures lack vital areas to attack. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to sneak attacks. The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.

Now, how can one best avoid sneak attacks? How about being in darkness?

In an area of shadowy illumination, a character can see dimly. Creatures within this area have concealment relative to that character. A creature in an area of shadowy illumination can make a Hide check to conceal itself.

In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded. In addition to the obvious effects, a blinded creature has a 50% miss chance in combat (all opponents have total concealment), loses any Dexterity bonus to AC, takes a -2 penalty to AC, moves at half speed, and takes a -4 penalty on Search checks and most Strength and Dexterity-based skill checks.

Unless a rogue has darkvision, he/she cannot sneak attack anyone who is in the shadows, and the best defense to stop a rogue is to move into the very shadows that the rogue is likely hiding in.

[TuggyNE]

Therefore, a MoL can be effectively immune to any non-AoE, non-ray spell cast at it, or at the very least much less effected by it. Oh, and it can choose SR of 10+(1/2 HD) as well. All this and more for a +2 LA.

That's not really dysfunctional, just an incorrect CR adjustment on a powerful template. (Also, orb spells, and probably several other sorts of effect spells, also ignore spell turning. Yet another reason they're useful!)

[Doorhandle]

That's not really dysfunctional, just an incorrect CR adjustment on a powerful template. (Also, orb spells, and probably several other sorts of effect spells, also ignore spell turning. Yet another reason they're useful!)

Yet another reason they can be broken and should probably be be evocation spells...

[Fable Wright]

Fun fact: Wood burns insanely fast in D&D. Torches burn out in either 2 minutes or 2 rounds, depending on how you interpret their thickness, and you can burn down a 10ft thick section of wooden wall in under 20 minutes. Ponder that for a second. A ten foot cube of wood takes 20 minutes to burn to a crisp. A 2-ft diameter log burns to a crisp in 4 minutes. Why? The 1d6 damage dealt by being on fire is doubled and ignores hardness; 7 damage per round adds up quickly.

There is a flip side to this, however. The damage you take from catching on fire isn't explicitly fire damage, meaning that the block of wood would take 1 point of damage every 6 rounds or so, making for a reasonable burn time. On the other hand, if I'm not misinterpreting this, you could set a Fire elemental on fire, and it would burn to death if it failed its saves.

Finally, an interesting bit of stupidity: You can not only set a rock on fire and have it burn indefinitely, but you can set literally any unattended object on fire (since they always fail their saving throws, being unattended) regardless of its inflammability or lack thereof. This may or may not be intentional: Since holding a torch near anything doesn't technically cause them to catch on fire, the ease of adventurers setting the world on fire accidentally is minimal. Fire Elementals, on the other hand, set any inanimate object they touch on fire that may or may not ever burn out.

[TuggyNE]

Fun fact: Wood burns insanely fast in D&D. Torches burn out in either 2 minutes or 2 rounds, depending on how you interpret their thickness, and you can burn down a 10ft thick section of wooden wall in under 20 minutes. Ponder that for a second. A ten foot cube of wood takes 20 minutes to burn to a crisp. A 2-ft diameter log burns to a crisp in 4 minutes. Why? The 1d6 damage dealt by being on fire is doubled and ignores hardness; 7 damage per round adds up quickly.

There is a flip side to this, however. The damage you take from catching on fire isn't explicitly fire damage, meaning that the block of wood would take 1 point of damage every 6 rounds or so, making for a reasonable burn time. On the other hand, if I'm not misinterpreting this, you could set a Fire elemental on fire, and it would burn to death if it failed its saves.

Finally, an interesting bit of stupidity: You can not only set a rock on fire and have it burn indefinitely, but you can set literally any unattended object on fire (since they always fail their saving throws, being unattended) regardless of its inflammability or lack thereof. This may or may not be intentional: Since holding a torch near anything doesn't technically cause them to catch on fire, the ease of adventurers setting the world on fire accidentally is minimal. Fire Elementals, on the other hand, set any inanimate object they touch on fire that may or may not ever burn out.

That is amazing stuff.

[Doorhandle]

That is amazing stuff.

... What action does it take to do that? I think their should be a theoretical optimisation for that.

[TuggyNE]

... What action does it take to do that? I think their should be a theoretical optimisation for that.

Lighting a fire, or writing up a great post like that? If the former, a full-round action is normal, I think, though some things reduce it to standard actions. (And magic can of course reduce it to a swift action at the very most.)

If you mean writing a fine post about an odd quirk in rules, well, research for it and drafting the post itself probably took a few hours.

[Telok]

Fun fact: Wood burns insanely fast in D&D. ...The 1d6 damage dealt by being on fire is doubled and ignores hardness

If you're referencing this section of the rules, it does not say that wood is vulnerable to fire.

There is a flip side to this, however. The damage you take from catching on fire isn't explicitly fire damage

Are you referencing this? Because it's a willful misreading of intent to go from saying "someone on fire takes 1d6 damage from being on fire" to claiming that they aren't taking fire damage.

[TypoNinja]

If you're referencing this section of the rules, it does not say that wood is vulnerable to fire.

It also ignores the wick effect. A torch is a pitch soaked rag on a stick, the stick isn't the part that's burning, the fuel is the pitch.

[Necroticplague]

There is a flip side to this, however. The damage you take from catching on fire isn't explicitly fire damage, meaning that the block of wood would take 1 point of damage every 6 rounds or so, making for a reasonable burn time. On the other hand, if I'm not misinterpreting this, you could set a Fire elemental on fire, and it would burn to death if it failed its saves..

Actually, if it was explicitely fire damage, it would actually do even less damage, since fire does half damage to objects. Interestingly, this means a piece of wood set on fire would never burn out, since it would take half of the fire damage (3 at max) then have it reduced to zero by its hardness. In a similar nature, stone has hardness 8. A medium heavy pick only does 1d6, and even a large heavy pick only does 1d8. So if you really want to do some mining, you either have to be exceptionally strong, or be using something bigger than a heavy pick (though you could pull it off if you're a Huge or bigger race). Time to bust out the greatswords!

[toapat]

Actually, if it was explicitely fire damage, it would actually do even less damage, since fire does half damage to objects. Interestingly, this means a piece of wood set on fire would never burn out, since it would take half of the fire damage (3 at max) then have it reduced to zero by its hardness. In a similar nature, stone has hardness 8. A medium heavy pick only does 1d6, and even a large heavy pick only does 1d8. So if you really want to do some mining, you either have to be exceptionally strong, or be using something bigger than a heavy pick (though you could pull it off if you're a Huge or bigger race). Time to bust out the greatswords!

this has been brought up twice before

both times it has been pointed out that certain things In the rules will be vulnerable to others, as by logic. This means no hardness, or outright double damage and no hardness

Thus, Axes and Fire ignore hardness for wood, Picks ignore stone hardness.

[Fable Wright]

If you're referencing this section of the rules, it does not say that wood is vulnerable to fire.

It doesn't actually state any substances are vulnerable to certain attacks, just that they exist. There's probably some obscure rule somewhere stating that Wood is vulnerable to fire. If not, there is the fact that wood never burns out to add to the compendium.

Are you referencing this? Because it's a willful misreading of intent to go from saying "someone on fire takes 1d6 damage from being on fire" to claiming that they aren't taking fire damage.

Indeed. I'm talking about RAW, not RAI. RAI, none of the stuff in this compendium should exist. It's implied to be fire damage, but it's not explicitly stated to be fire damage anywhere.

[alanek2002]

About that, Being on fire is not a attack. Thus, it still wouldn't help with the wood on fire bit.

[Necroticplague]

this has been brought up twice before

both times it has been pointed out that certain things In the rules will be vulnerable to others, as by logic. This means no hardness, or outright double damage and no hardness

Thus, Axes and Fire ignore hardness for wood, Picks ignore stone hardness.

Yes, it dos state that some things are vulnerable to others. Nowhere does it state that this is such a case, though, though logic would quickly say so. Under neither stone nor picks does it make any note of beating the vulnerability of it. So as it makes out in a ridiculously strict reading of rules, it doesn't make sense. Yes, by this logic, there aren't any actual vulnerabilities since nothing is listed as having him. That is also a problem with the rules itself, though an acceptable one given the wide amounts of substances and things to hit them with.

I am, however, sorry for repeating something already stated, although given the sheer length of this thread and the limits of memory, this is inevitable.

[ManInOrange]

Has anyone thought about WHY shuriken are instantly destroyed when you hit a target? From SRD:

When a magic arrow, crossbow bolt, shuriken, or sling bullet misses its target, there is a 50% chance it breaks or otherwise is rendered useless. A magic arrow, bolt, bullet, or shuriken that hits is destroyed.

Imagine throwing a bo-shuriken at a gelatinous cube. (Maybe it was an act of desperation.) Gelatinous cubes' acid does not harm metal, and if I could think of a single instance of giving a metal object a safe landing, it would be in a big cube of gelatin.
And yet...

[hymer]

Because the magic (invoked when used to attack) expends the missile? That's how I thought about it.

[noparlpf]

Because the magic (invoked when used to attack) expends the missile? That's how I thought about it.

What magic? It's a chunk of metal.

[hymer]

I was just looking at the provided quote.

[noparlpf]

I was just looking at the provided quote.

Oh, yeah. It applies to nonmagical missiles too though, hang on...
Scroll down to "Ammunition".

Ammunition
Projectile weapons use ammunition: arrows (for bows), bolts (for crossbows), or sling bullets (for slings). When using a bow, a character can draw ammunition as a free action; crossbows and slings require an action for reloading. Generally speaking, ammunition that hits its target is destroyed or rendered useless, while normal ammunition that misses has a 50% chance of being destroyed or lost.

Although they are thrown weapons, shuriken are treated as ammunition for the purposes of drawing them, crafting masterwork or otherwise special versions of them (see Masterwork Weapons), and what happens to them after they are thrown.

[hymer]

Ok. Well, it does hedge. 'Generally speaking' could probably be said not to include throwing a shuriken at a vat of jelly. :)

[TypoNinja]

Yes, it dos state that some things are vulnerable to others. Nowhere does it state that this is such a case, though, though logic would quickly say so. Under neither stone nor picks does it make any note of beating the vulnerability of it. So as it makes out in a ridiculously strict reading of rules, it doesn't make sense. Yes, by this logic, there aren't any actual vulnerabilities since nothing is listed as having him. That is also a problem with the rules itself, though an acceptable one given the wide amounts of substances and things to hit them with.

I am, however, sorry for repeating something already stated, although given the sheer length of this thread and the limits of memory, this is inevitable.

Actually, there are places where it does spell out certain weaknesses, for instance wood saw/ax's from the Arms and equipment guide have a rating of inches cut rather than damage dealt, and I can't think of the book name, somewhere its spelled out how to use profession miner checks and your result is a given volume of material rather than HP damage done to a rock.

[toapat]

Yes, it dos state that some things are vulnerable to others. Nowhere does it state that this is such a case, though, though logic would quickly say so. Under neither stone nor picks does it make any note of beating the vulnerability of it. So as it makes out in a ridiculously strict reading of rules, it doesn't make sense. Yes, by this logic, there aren't any actual vulnerabilities since nothing is listed as having him. That is also a problem with the rules itself, though an acceptable one given the wide amounts of substances and things to hit them with.

Except that that specific rule says by logic

[Venger]

somewhere its spelled out how to use profession miner checks and your result is a given volume of material rather than HP damage done to a rock.

races of the dragon p 98. there's a table telling how your size and the kind of material you want to move affects your progress

[mattie_p]

races of the dragon p 98. there's a table telling how your size and the kind of material you want to move affects your progress

Yes! Because Races of the Dragon is totally the book I would check to see how my Profession(mining) checks are doing!

[Ksheep]

Yes! Because Races of the Dragon is totally the book I would check to see how my Profession(mining) checks are doing!

You would if you were a Kobold.

[mattie_p]

I'm with you, but there are plenty of miners in lots of campaign setting who are not. Great tip (for those who have the book) but otherwise dysfunctional, because other races still can't mine.

[TypoNinja]

Yes! Because Races of the Dragon is totally the book I would check to see how my Profession(mining) checks are doing!

I was actually thinking it was races of dragon or something because I was fairly sure it was included with stuff about Kobolds but i wasn't sure :P

[Venger]

Yes! Because Races of the Dragon is totally the book I would check to see how my Profession(mining) checks are doing!

huh?

I'm with you, but there are plenty of miners in lots of campaign setting who are not. Great tip (for those who have the book) but otherwise dysfunctional, because other races still can't mine.

other non-kobolds can still do this. kobolds just count as medium instead of small to avoid a penalty

I feel I'm misunderstanding you. what is it you're saying?