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

[JellyPooga]

Does it include a Weapon Focus or just Specialization?

Just Spec, but it will stack with regular Weapon Specialisation if you were willing to eat 4 levels of Fighter to get it, as you say. If you want to Dual Wield, take Oversized TWF from Complete Adventurer, though we're not exactly talking high-op here. 2nd level Cleric spells and +4 damage per hit at 8th level isn't exactly gravy.

[Amphetryon]

Just Spec, but it will stack with regular Weapon Specialisation if you were willing to eat 4 levels of Fighter to get it, as you say. If you want to Dual Wield, take Oversized TWF from Complete Adventurer, though we're not exactly talking high-op here. 2nd level Cleric spells and +4 damage per hit at 8th level isn't exactly gravy.

You could also get "stacking" Weapon Specialization through Pious Templar, which might be less painful than 4 levels of Fighter, depending on concept.

[willpell]

Just Spec, but it will stack with regular Weapon Specialisation if you were willing to eat 4 levels of Fighter to get it, as you say. If you want to Dual Wield, take Oversized TWF from Complete Adventurer, though we're not exactly talking high-op here. 2nd level Cleric spells and +4 damage per hit at 8th level isn't exactly gravy.

It sounds comparable to Paladin, which is about as "optimized" as I like to get.

[willpell]

This is kind of applicable to any profession. A dex 1 character shouldn't even be able to thread a needle, but apparently is just as good at sewing as one with dex 20 if they have the same wis score and points invested.

I'll add another entry to this list - Profession: Accountant doesn't care about your Intelligence. In general I think basing professions on Wisdom was the right move, since it governs your ability to fit into a workplace environment, accept orders gracefully or coordinate others with orders of your own, adapt to new tasks and challenges, etc. But it's a little weird that the most seemingly appropriate skill never applies. Particularly in cases where a Profession closely matches a Craft (Weaver/Weaving) or a Knowledge (Historian/History)

*I am aware that a stone is a real unit of measurement, but no one in most parts of the world is likely to know how much it is or even exactly what it is, so it works well enough.

Actually weighing things in "Stones" rather than "pounds" (what exactly is the etymology of that usage?) makes perfect sense for a medieval setting.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I'll add another entry to this list - Profession: Accountant doesn't care about your Intelligence. In general I think basing professions on Wisdom was the right move, since it governs your ability to fit into a workplace environment, accept orders gracefully or coordinate others with orders of your own, adapt to new tasks and challenges, etc. But it's a little weird that the most seemingly appropriate skill never applies. Particularly in cases where a Profession closely matches a Craft (Weaver/Weaving) or a Knowledge (Historian/History)

How is that weird? Profession represents being good at the parts of a job involving social interaction and making money, while Knowledge and Craft represent being good at those parts that require you know what you're doing, and I've worked with plenty of people with max ranks in Profession and zero in Knowledge.

[Wookie-ranger]

I've worked with plenty of people with max ranks in Profession and zero in Knowledge.

I second that

[TuggyNE]

Actually weighing things in "Stones" rather than "pounds" (what exactly is the etymology of that usage?) makes perfect sense for a medieval setting.

I should probably note that this wasn't my idea originally; I got it from Justin Alexander, but it seems like a sensible abstraction for, well, pretty nearly anything fantasy with less precision in simulation than GURPS.

Edit:

How is that weird? Profession represents being good at the parts of a job involving social interaction and making money, while Knowledge and Craft represent being good at those parts that require you know what you're doing, and I've worked with plenty of people with max ranks in Profession and zero in Knowledge.

Indeed. In fact, were it possible, I would say some people have negative ranks, not just negative ability score modifiers.

[Jeff the Green]

How is that weird? Profession represents being good at the parts of a job involving social interaction and making money, while Knowledge and Craft represent being good at those parts that require you know what you're doing, and I've worked with plenty of people with max ranks in Profession and zero in Knowledge.

And I the opposite. Though you kind of have to have a negative wisdom modifier to go into my field to begin with.

[willpell]

How is that weird? Profession represents being good at the parts of a job involving social interaction and making money, while Knowledge and Craft represent being good at those parts that require you know what you're doing, and I've worked with plenty of people with max ranks in Profession and zero in Knowledge.

Except that Knowledge has no bearing on success in any Profession in D&D, whereas in reality there are many jobs (eg Nuclear Physicist) where no amount of bluffing is going to enable you to perform even the most basic functions without concrete awareness. Besides, we all know Knowledge skills are only used for identifying monsters and magic items.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Except that Knowledge has no bearing on success in any Profession in D&D, whereas in reality there are many jobs (eg Nuclear Physicist) where no amount of bluffing is going to enable you to perform even the most basic functions without concrete awareness.

In theory, my field (software engineering) requires logical reasoning, problem-solving abilities, abstract thinking and visualization, a working knowledge of current technologies, good design abilities, and several other talents to get even the simplest task done at a large scale.

In practice, I've seen some code written by previous employees at my company that a bunch of brain-damaged monkeys would be ashamed to take credit for. Doing well on Knowledge checks for the easy tasks through sheer luck (roll high despite 0 ranks and a negative Int mod) plus a heaping helping of Bluff and Perform (Sleep with the Boss) will get you far, apparently.

[JaronK]

I'd disagree with you on that point if I hadn't seen how many "programmers" are unable to write fizzbuzz, and yet still get hired. *sigh*

JaronK

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I'd disagree with you on that point if I hadn't seen how many "programmers" are unable to write fizzbuzz, and yet still get hired. *sigh*

JaronK

I recently helped interview 15 people for some job openings we had. We were trying to fill 6 openings, but only gave offers to two of them because, while all of them had supposedly earned Master's degrees, ten of them failed basic programming questions (write fizzbuzz, write a string comparison, tell me what a pointer is and why it's useful, why shouldn't you use bubble sort, etc.) and the other three failures could code but couldn't explain things conceptually (as in "my teachers told me to use a hash for X and a binary tree for Y, but I don't know why").

They make those of us Masters-level programmers who are competent look bad. Zero Knowledge ranks indeed.

[The Viscount]

Here's a fun one: The Revenant template from MoF. It changes type to undead and gives regeneration, stating that fire deals lethal and all other damage heals at 3 per round.
Ruby Golems in the same book have regeneration 10, overcome by sonic.

[toapat]

Here's a fun one: The Revenant template from MoF. It changes type to undead and gives regeneration, stating that fire deals lethal and all other damage heals at 3 per round.
Ruby Golems in the same book have regeneration 10, overcome by sonic.

thats not a dysfunction. that is just an interaction that is rediculous.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

thats not a dysfunction. that is just an interaction that is rediculous.

It's a dysfunction because you need to have a Con score to have regeneration in 3.5, and neither revenants nor golems have one. It turns to fast healing with the update, though, so it's only a dysfunction if used as-is.

[Jack_Simth]

Here's a fun one: The Revenant template from MoF. It changes type to undead and gives regeneration, stating that fire deals lethal and all other damage heals at 3 per round.
Ruby Golems in the same book have regeneration 10, overcome by sonic.

And that appears to be a disfunction because Regeneration requires a Con score in D&D 3.5.

However: Monsters of Faerun is a 3.0 book. In 3.0, the Con restriction on Regeneration did not exist. As part of updating a beast to 3.5 from 3.0, you're supposed to make such changes - regeneration for beasties that no longer qualify for regeneration is supposed to become fast healing.

[noparlpf]

Here's a fun one: The Revenant template from MoF. It changes type to undead and gives regeneration, stating that fire deals lethal and all other damage heals at 3 per round.
Ruby Golems in the same book have regeneration 10, overcome by sonic.

Why is that dysfunctional?

Edit:

And that appears to be a disfunction because Regeneration requires a Con score in D&D 3.5.

However: Monsters of Faerun is a 3.0 book. In 3.0, the Con restriction on Regeneration did not exist. As part of updating a beast to 3.5 from 3.0, you're supposed to make such changes - regeneration for beasties that no longer qualify for regeneration is supposed to become fast healing.

Okay, that explains it nicely.
(In my opinion needing Con to regenerate is a bit silly, plenty of regenerating undead and constructs work thematically.)

[The Viscount]

I didn't mention those examples because they break the regeneration rules of requiring a Con score. I mentioned it because both examples state how much nonlethal damage is healed, 3 and 10 points, respectively for creatures incapable of taking such damage. It seems that the writers did not realize they could have simply given them immunities.

[Douglas]

(In my opinion needing Con to regenerate is a bit silly, plenty of regenerating undead and constructs work thematically.)

The restriction isn't there for thematic reasons, but because not having a Con score makes you immune to nonlethal damage, and immunity to nonlethal interacts with regeneration in a brokenly overpowered way.

Fast healing does not have this problem, which is why the 3.5 update changes regeneration for such creatures into fast healing.

[willpell]

The restriction isn't there for thematic reasons, but because not having a Con score makes you immune to nonlethal damage, and immunity to nonlethal interacts with regeneration in a brokenly overpowered way.

It could have just been ruled that the regeneration damage was an exception to the no-nonlethal-damage rule.

[The Viscount]

Possible, but not probable. 3.0 was more studded with errors. For example, another amusing dysfunction, this one which I doubt will be contended.

Keeper from FF has blindsight and is stated to be blind and have no eyes. The outsider traits in its entry give it darkvision.

[noparlpf]

Possible, but not probable. 3.0 was more studded with errors. For example, another amusing dysfunction, this one which I doubt will be contended.

Keeper from FF has blindsight and is stated to be blind and have no eyes. The outsider traits in its entry give it darkvision.

They probably assumed that "it's blind" overrode the darkvision from the outsider traits.

[TuggyNE]

It could have just been ruled that the regeneration damage was an exception to the no-nonlethal-damage rule.

That just becomes confusing. Undead/Constructs are immune to non-lethal damage, except when they aren't because it used to be lethal damage before Regeneration converted it....

No, it's easiest to just leave Fast Healing for creatures that can piece themselves back together over time, and Regeneration for creatures whose life force is so strong they can only really be properly damaged by certain things (but can still be affected by ordinary damage).

[willpell]

Were the Appraise skill rules ever mentioned here? They look pretty dysfunctional to me....

Check
You can appraise common or well-known objects with a DC 12 Appraise check. Failure means that you estimate the value at 50% to 150% (2d6+3 times 10%,) of its actual value.
Appraising a rare or exotic item requires a successful check against DC 15, 20, or higher. If the check is successful, you estimate the value correctly; failure means you cannot estimate the item’s value.

A magnifying glass gives you a +2 circumstance bonus on Appraise checks involving any item that is small or highly detailed, such as a gem. A merchant’s scale gives you a +2 circumstance bonus on Appraise checks involving any items that are valued by weight, including anything made of precious metals.
These bonuses stack.
See also: epic usages of Appraise.

Action
Appraising an item takes 1 minute (ten consecutive full-round actions).

Try Again
No. You cannot try again on the same object, regardless of success.

Special
A dwarf gets a +2 racial bonus on Appraise checks that are related to stone or metal items because dwarves are familiar with valuable items of all kinds (especially those made of stone or metal).
The master of a raven familiar gains a +3 bonus on Appraise checks.
A character with the Diligent feat gets a +2 bonus on Appraise checks.

Synergy
If you have 5 ranks in any Craft skill, you gain a +2 bonus on Appraise checks related to items made with that Craft skill.

Untrained
For common items, failure on an untrained check means no estimate. For rare items, success means an estimate of 50% to 150% (2d6+3 times 10%).

So if you don't have ranks in appraise and you fail your check to appraise a bucket, you have no idea how much it's worth, but if you fail your check versus a magic wand, you can get within 50% of its gold value, which is enough to tell you whether it has 1st level spells or 4th level ones. Whereas if you do put ranks in Appraise, you can make a DC 12 check to appraise the bucket, and failure leaves you with a guess on the bucket's worth, while failure versus the DC 15+ check to appraise the magic wand produces "no signal". This means that the moment you put one rank in Appraise, you produce the opposite result from if you were making the checks untrained.

[mattie_p]

Were the Appraise skill rules ever mentioned here? They look pretty dysfunctional to me....

So if you don't have ranks in appraise and you fail your check to appraise a bucket, you have no idea how much it's worth, but if you fail your check versus a magic wand, you can get within 50% of its gold value, which is enough to tell you whether it has 1st level spells or 4th level ones. Whereas if you do put ranks in Appraise, you can make a DC 12 check to appraise the bucket, and failure leaves you with a guess on the bucket's worth, while failure versus the DC 15+ check to appraise the magic wand produces "no signal". This means that the moment you put one rank in Appraise, you produce the opposite result from if you were making the checks untrained.

The underlined portion is a misinterpretation, willpell. Doublecheck the untrained text, please.

Untrained
For common items, failure on an untrained check means no estimate. For rare items, success means an estimate of 50% to 150% (2d6+3 times 10%).

It is only on a success that that the untrained character gets within 50% of the value.

[willpell]

*thud*. That could have been written a bit more clearly, but I definitely failed my roll when reading it. Thanks.

[rockdeworld]

Excuse me if this has been mentioned already, as I haven't kept track.

The Planar Binding line requires you to target an elemental or outsider, which you can't do unless you can see (or touch) them, even if you're only calling a specific type of creature.

So you have to, at minimum, cast scrying on a creature that gets +15 to its will save to avoid being scryed, just to cast the spell. At maximum you have to be on the same plane as it.

Or am I missing something

[Venger]

which you can't do unless you can see (or touch) them

where did you get that idea?

I don't see anything like that in the rules, did you read it someplace else?

[toapat]

where did you get that idea?

I don't see anything like that in the rules, did you read it someplace else?

Targetting requires line of Effect.

Total cover, such as that granted by being in a different dimension, blocks line of effect

[Douglas]

where did you get that idea?

I don't see anything like that in the rules, did you read it someplace else?

Spell targeting rules.