Page 10 of 18 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415161718 LastLast
Results 271 to 300 of 534
  1. - Top - End - #271
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location

    Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

    It's good to see we're getting some discussion here again.



    I, too, believe the authors of the spell were making an erroneous assumption...assuming that the 'default' is an illuminated area that darkness is being cast into, and that the description (while clearly written) is proceeding from that same erroneous assumption and not accounting for casting "darkness" into an already dark area to make it lighter.

    On the basis of darkness 'cancelling out' and opposing light, I can't support an interpretation where a darkness-descriptor spell actually creates more light than already exists in that area. The intent seems clear to me, and RACSD to me dictates that it should be as Rule 041 puts it.

    However...Menteith, Szar_Lakol...that's exactly what this thread is for. We're trying to achieve a consensus about common sense, and that's why all are welcome to participate and comment. If everything in this threat were clear-cut, it'd all be 100% down the line. Heck, rules I've offered up aren't all approved either.





    erikun, I see where you're coming from on rule 034....but explain to me why "magical pajamas" (and you'll note that by the writing of 034, it's intended for actual existing outfits as defined in the PHB, pajamas isn't one of them) shouldn't have that power, but a pair of wristbands can? It's the same rules bracers operate under.

    Also, your understanding is incorrect...it's spelled out plainly in A&EG. +8 Heavy Fortification bracers are +13 equivalent....169,000 GP. A&EG allows the armor bonus to get up to +8, the "+ abilities" bonus to get up to +5, but the two are added together for the total plus for cost purposes.





    Any further commentary about a threshold of unanimous concent to remove voting for an issue?


    Rule 10's status is now approved.
    Rule 41 is added, and is currently approved.
    Whadda ya mean, Orcs got levels too?

  2. - Top - End - #272
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Szar_Lakol's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Denmark
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

    Quote Originally Posted by Menteith View Post
    The same way that Deathwatch is an [Evil] spell. I'd agree with changing the descriptor of the spell - I've already said that. Please don't insult me, call me intellectually dishonest, or insinuate that my reasoning is automatically inferior to yours. I've presented my argument - the spell's effect is laid out, is functional, and does exactly what it says - and I've asked for you to elaborate on what precisely is flawed with my argument. If you're getting this angry about it, then I apologize, as my intent was not to frustrate you. We disagree with the way the spell functions, and with the intent of the authors - that's all.
    My frustration is my own fault, and I have calmed down some now. I apologize for the outburst, for what it's worth.

    The name of the spell, the fact that it has the [Darkness] descriptor, the fact that it cancels out [Light] spells, the legacy of the spell itself (it existed in 3.0, in 2E, possibly even in earlier editions) -- all speaks to the intent of the authors, and it is not what you are implying. Everything about it, save for one line, which can be interpreted in more than one way, implies this spell was intended to create darkness, not light. This is why I called you intellectually dishonest: I don't see how anyone can honestly believe what you say you do. Either you dismiss every single fact except that one line as unimportant--with no basis for it--or ... I don't even know. Like I said, I cannot see how your stance is in any way reasonable.

    It is not impossible to have a spell that does what you want darkness to do, and it is not wrong in any way -- but it wouldn't be darkness. What you are describing is two separate effects: One which creates darkness (when there is light), and one which creates light (when there is darkness).

  3. - Top - End - #273
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location

    Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

    So in essense, Szar_Lakol, you have no problem with a spell called "Create Shadow Zone" that does exactly what Darkness describes.

    While Menteith...you have no problem with calling the spell "Create Shadow Zone" by the name "Darkness"?
    Whadda ya mean, Orcs got levels too?

  4. - Top - End - #274
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Keld Denar's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

    I like 41,but I think it is a bit awkwardly worded. As worded, two overlapping darkness spells would stack. I think a better way to phrase it would be to use a phrase like "The level of illumination drops to shadowy illumination or the level of the prevailing darkness, whichever is deeper."

    I like it, it just needs better phrasing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fax Celestis View Post
    AILHAY THULUCAY! AILHAY THULUCAY! AILHAY THULUCAY!
    _________________________________
    A beholder’s favorite foods include small live mammals, exotic mushrooms and other fungi, gnomes, beef, pork, colorful leafy vegetables, leaves, flower petals, insects, and birds.

  5. - Top - End - #275
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

    If I was making Light rules up from scratch, I'd have it in "bands" ranging from extremely intense light to pitch black.

    In this case the Darkness spell would have lowered the light level by a band or two- so if the light was bright enough initially then it would lower it to " normal" and if it was already dark, it would go to total blackout.

    But that would be homebrew and this topic is about RAW- and when it is nonsensical enough that it needs changing.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine

  6. - Top - End - #276
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Menteith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Minnesnowta

    Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

    Quote Originally Posted by Szar_Lakol View Post
    My frustration is my own fault, and I have calmed down some now. I apologize for the outburst, for what it's worth.
    I'm sorry too, I've been under stress from finals, and I was being snarky. Either way, water under the bridge?

    Quote Originally Posted by Szar_Lakol View Post
    The name of the spell, the fact that it has the [Darkness] descriptor, the fact that it cancels out [Light] spells, the legacy of the spell itself (it existed in 3.0, in 2E, possibly even in earlier editions) -- all speaks to the intent of the authors, and it is not what you are implying. Everything about it, save for one line, which can be interpreted in more than one way, implies this spell was intended to create darkness, not light. This is why I called you intellectually dishonest: I don't see how anyone can honestly believe what you say you do. Either you dismiss every single fact except that one line as unimportant--with no basis for it--or ... I don't even know. Like I said, I cannot see how your stance is in any way reasonable.

    It is not impossible to have a spell that does what you want darkness to do, and it is not wrong in any way -- but it wouldn't be darkness. What you are describing is two separate effects: One which creates darkness (when there is light), and one which creates light (when there is darkness).
    I'll use Deathwatch as a similar example. Deathwatch is an [Evil] spell - based on the descriptor, it seems clear that the developers only saw the potential for this spell to be used in an Evil capacity. The spell's actual effect is in no way evil, and the spell actually appears on the Healer's spell list. Deathwatch is fully capable of being used outside of the narrow purview intended by the original authors of the spell.

    I feel the same way about Darkness - it may have been intended (although RAI is always sketchy to some degree) to be used solely to reduce the amount of light, but the actual spell can be used in ways that are beyond the intent of the developers - and in interesting ways that aren't harmful to the game. I try to avoid making changes to the game whenever I can avoid it, and in this case, I don't see a problem with Darkness behaving in this way. Which is the fundamental reason I'm opposed to it, I suppose - I feel like this is a change made for the sake of making a change, and reduces the options available by limiting a spell needlessly.

    I do see your point, and I understand where you're coming from. And I'll agree that it's quite likely that the writers just didn't think of a situation where Darkness could be used to provide illumination. But I don't think that's a reason to remove the functionality from the spell.

    EDIT

    Andorax - Yeah, that's correct. A spell's name doesn't have to be a perfect description of its function. It helps of course, but there's already a multitude of things in 3.5 whose effects don't perfectly fit their names.
    Last edited by Menteith; 2012-05-10 at 02:19 PM.
    There is the moral of all human tales;
    'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past.
    First freedom and then Glory - when that fails,
    Wealth, vice, corruption - barbarism at last.
    And History, with all her volumes vast,
    Hath but one page...

  7. - Top - End - #277
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

    Quote Originally Posted by Menteith View Post
    I'll use Deathwatch as a similar example. Deathwatch is an [Evil] spell - based on the descriptor, it seems clear that the developers only saw the potential for this spell to be used in an Evil capacity. The spell's actual effect is in no way evil, and the spell actually appears on the Healer's spell list. Deathwatch is fully capable of being used outside of the narrow purview intended by the original authors of the spell.
    and on the list of the Exalted PRC Slayer of Domiel.

    It didn't have the Evil tag in 3.0. Late in 3.0 Monte Cook, in BoVD, recommended giving it the Evil tag- and in 3.5 it finally gained that tag. I'm guessing the writers of Miniatures Handbook and BoED either weren't aware of this, or disagreed with the decision.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine

  8. - Top - End - #278
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Menteith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Minnesnowta

    Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

    While we're on the subject, figuring out exactly how the hell light works might be useful. If there's a group of adventurers carrying torches in a pitch black cave, 500ft away from me, is it possible for me to see them? The light from the torches doesn't go far enough, putting me in total darkness....
    There is the moral of all human tales;
    'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past.
    First freedom and then Glory - when that fails,
    Wealth, vice, corruption - barbarism at last.
    And History, with all her volumes vast,
    Hath but one page...

  9. - Top - End - #279
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

    Underdark (Faerun but fairly useful in any campaign setting) discusses this issue.

    On page 106, it gives figures- in otherwise total darkness, a light source can normally be spotted (spot DC 20) at a distance equal to 20 times the radius of illumination- and you automatically spot it at half this distance.

    So a sunrod can be seen at 600 ft and is automatically seen at 300.

    In starlight/moonlight level light conditions, it's 10 times the radius of illumination. (sunrod can be seen at 300 ft, is automatically seen at 150 ft)

    As long as you're close enough to automatically see it, you're close enough to make Spot checks to see things in the illuminated area.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine

  10. - Top - End - #280
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Menteith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Minnesnowta

    Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    Underdark (Faerun but fairly useful in any campaign setting) discusses this issue.

    On page 106, it gives figures- in otherwise total darkness, a light source can normally be spotted (spot DC 20) at a distance equal to 20 times the radius of illumination- and you automatically spot it at half this distance.

    So a sunrod can be seen at 600 ft and is automatically seen at 300.

    In starlight/moonlight level light conditions, it's 10 times the radius of illumination. (sunrod can be seen at 300 ft, is automatically seen at 150 ft)

    As long as you're close enough to automatically see it, you're close enough to make Spot checks to see things in the illuminated area.
    That makes a lot more sense than the material in the SRD. Looks like I have another book I need to get a hold of. Thanks hamish.
    There is the moral of all human tales;
    'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past.
    First freedom and then Glory - when that fails,
    Wealth, vice, corruption - barbarism at last.
    And History, with all her volumes vast,
    Hath but one page...

  11. - Top - End - #281
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tyndmyr's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

    My Opinions:

    1. Approve.

    2. Disapprove. Breaks all manner of currently useful things.

    3. Disapprove. This just makes Legacy Champion, etc entirely useless. At least now they have a marginal niche.

    4. No Opinion.

    5. Unnecessary. The "Dead" condition already covers it more comprehensively, as does basic knowledge of the common English word "Dead". The rulebook need not contain definitions for every common word.

    6. Disapprove. Natural Attacks already have adequate rule coverage, and proficiency/non-proficiency is unnecessary to it.

    7. Approve.

    8. Approve.

    10. Disapprove. It's like pounce in actions, even if you've disallowed attacks, allowing you to do things like move while casting a full round spell, or take a move action after moving on a mount.

    11. Disapprove. See above.

    13. Approve.

    14. Unnecessary, seriously, this is effectively the case. Nothing designates an offhand penalty currently otherwise.

    15. Disapprove. It makes absolutely no sense that an unconscious person has the same strength of will as an alert, resisting one does.

    16. Disapprove. You can have cover and make attacks. This is quite possible.

    17. Unnecessary, since it's already a rule. Yes, if you insist on including it.

    18. Approve.

    19. Disapprove. Pretty sure I can slam into a dude while also holding things. Even worse, it doesn't cleanly link the "one or both" together, making this rule terribly ambiguous.

    20. Unnecessary, shield bashing is already a thing. Approve if you insist on including it.

    21. Disapprove. Spell-Storing seems pretty relevant to attacking.

    22. Approve.

    23. Approve, though suggest removing the redundant line about protection. EVERYTHING has ways to protect against it. No specific line is necessary.

    25. Approve.

    26. Disapprove. This would make many current, perfectly logical Natural Abilities into Ex abilities.

    27. Approve. Could have sworn this was in RC, though.

    28. Disapprove. Entrance requirements are for entrance.

    29. No Opinion.

    30. Approve.

    31. Disapprove. If party A is hidden, and has true seeing, party C has invisibility, and party B has no way to detect party C, A can legitimately claim cover from both by hiding. If you're talking about an invisible object GRANTING cover, rewrite the rule to not be terrible. Also, while you're at it, the first sentence is also grammatically terrible.

    32. Disapprove. Making a ranged attack provokes. Doing it multiple times provokes multiple times.

    33. Disapprove. This constitutes a change to stacking rules. Have never heard of it before, obviously not common sense.

    34. Approve.

    36. Disapprove. See also, Sanctum Spell.

    37. Disapprove. I wish...but I have to explicitly list this requirement in rules in games I run. It's not common sense. Additionally, "recursive" is really, really ambiguous. Lots of things are recursive without being infinite, such as Font of Inspiration.

    38. Disapprove. The "delusional illusionist" archtype sees a lot of play at my table. I would not restrict what a char can believe. Automatic disbelieving if they want to is fine, though.

    30. Disapprove. Seriously, the entire point of them is that kobolds are draconic.

    40. Unnecessary. Cooldowns are cooldowns, and nothing about polymorph removes them.

    41. Disapprove. The "effectively blind" is far too vague. This would seem to, by RAW, apply to mindsight and such. It's terrible and I hate it.


    Hmm, not a lot of consensus on most "common sense" things.
    Back from a lengthy vacation from Giantitp. I've been dabbling with 3d printer technology and game design, PM if you're curious.

    "World domination is such an ugly phrase. I prefer to call it world optimization."

    New: Tyndmyr has a game shop!

  12. - Top - End - #282
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Menteith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Minnesnowta

    Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyndmyr View Post
    16. Disapprove. You can have cover and make attacks. This is quite possible.
    Yeah, except the Tower Shield specifically calls you out on being unable to make attacks.

    "However, you can instead use it as total cover, though you must give up your attacks to do so" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm)
    There is the moral of all human tales;
    'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past.
    First freedom and then Glory - when that fails,
    Wealth, vice, corruption - barbarism at last.
    And History, with all her volumes vast,
    Hath but one page...

  13. - Top - End - #283
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tyndmyr's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

    Quote Originally Posted by Menteith View Post
    Yeah, except the Tower Shield specifically calls you out on being unable to make attacks.

    "However, you can instead use it as total cover, though you must give up your attacks to do so" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm)
    Yeah, but that's not common sense. It makes a lot of sense that you can't attack the person you're taking cover from....unless you're using indirect fire, like blind throwing of splash weapons. However, it makes little sense that you can't attack someone in an entirely different direction.

    Now, by strict RAW, you're only giving up melee attacks, so...at least magical chars get to sort of use this, but this "common sense" fix ends up munging up more stuff.

    I agree that RAW isn't great, I just don't like this write-up either.
    Back from a lengthy vacation from Giantitp. I've been dabbling with 3d printer technology and game design, PM if you're curious.

    "World domination is such an ugly phrase. I prefer to call it world optimization."

    New: Tyndmyr has a game shop!

  14. - Top - End - #284
    Troll in the Playground
     
    lesser_minion's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK

    Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyndmyr View Post
    31. Disapprove. If party A is hidden, and has true seeing, party C has invisibility, and party B has no way to detect party C, A can legitimately claim cover from both by hiding. If you're talking about an invisible object GRANTING cover, rewrite the rule to not be terrible. Also, while you're at it, the first sentence is also grammatically terrible.
    Could you elaborate on this, please?

    I don't understand what you're saying about the rule, and I'd like to know how I screwed up badly enough to warrant accusations of 'terrible' grammar.

    For reference, here is the rule, with rationale, as it was originally posted to this thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by lesser_minion View Post
    30 -- Nobody Notices the Guy with the Tower Shield

    To be added to the description of the hide skill:

    For the purposes of the Hide skill, a character may not claim cover from an object she wishes to hide, nor may she claim cover from an object that is invisible or transparent to those from whom she wishes to hide.

    This patches a rules oversight: the hide skill requires cover or concealment before it can be used, but accepts cover that it really shouldn't. If you have a tower shield, you can use it to grant cover and then use that cover to hide -- which also hides the shield. RAW also allows you to hide behind things that don't impede vision, such as invisible creatures and force constructs.
    Thanks to Serpentine for the half-elf sorceress avatar.

    Spoiler
    Show

  15. - Top - End - #285
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Szar_Lakol's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Denmark
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

    Quote Originally Posted by Menteith View Post
    I'm sorry too, I've been under stress from finals, and I was being snarky. Either way, water under the bridge?
    Yeah.

    Quote Originally Posted by Menteith View Post
    I'll use Deathwatch as a similar example. Deathwatch is an [Evil] spell - based on the descriptor, it seems clear that the developers only saw the potential for this spell to be used in an Evil capacity. The spell's actual effect is in no way evil, and the spell actually appears on the Healer's spell list. Deathwatch is fully capable of being used outside of the narrow purview intended by the original authors of the spell.
    Yes, I agree with this. But deathwatch is a very different spell from darkness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Menteith View Post
    I feel the same way about Darkness - it may have been intended (although RAI is always sketchy to some degree) to be used solely to reduce the amount of light, but the actual spell can be used in ways that are beyond the intent of the developers - and in interesting ways that aren't harmful to the game. I try to avoid making changes to the game whenever I can avoid it, and in this case, I don't see a problem with Darkness behaving in this way. Which is the fundamental reason I'm opposed to it, I suppose - I feel like this is a change made for the sake of making a change, and reduces the options available by limiting a spell needlessly.
    There isn't a problem with it, except that it doesn't make sense. We are trying to clarify rules according to common sense, so I feel that is a more important criteria than whether or not it is balanced.

    Quote Originally Posted by Menteith View Post
    I do see your point, and I understand where you're coming from. And I'll agree that it's quite likely that the writers just didn't think of a situation where Darkness could be used to provide illumination. But I don't think that's a reason to remove the functionality from the spell.
    It is, though--especially when making it "make sense" would involve changing the spell itself.

  16. - Top - End - #286
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Menteith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Minnesnowta

    Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

    Quote Originally Posted by Szar_Lakol View Post
    Yeah.

    Yes, I agree with this. But deathwatch is a very different spell from darkness.

    There isn't a problem with it, except that it doesn't make sense. We are trying to clarify rules according to common sense, so I feel that is a more important criteria than whether or not it is balanced.

    It is, though--especially when making it "make sense" would involve changing the spell itself.
    Deathwatch and Darkness are spells whose effects are different than the descriptions, and likely intent of the writers. One has an [Evil] descriptor even though - as written - it has uses that are [Good] (like monitoring the health of patients in a hospital), while the other has a [Darkness] descriptor and can be used to create light under specific circumstances. Instead of changing what Deathwatch does to make it evil, it's simpler to remove the [Evil] descriptor and leave the spell the way it is to me. The same is my reasoning for Darkness.

    You say the spell doesn't make sense to you right now. I say that the spell does make sense to me. I honestly have no issue with a spell called Darkness creating shadowy illumination - the spell's name isn't a perfect fit, but there are many things in D&D who have non-indicative names, so this isn't an issue for me. Writer intent isn't relevant when the spell is clearly detailed to me. Again, I'm not saying that true for anyone but me, I'm just explaining my position.
    Last edited by Menteith; 2012-05-10 at 05:11 PM.
    There is the moral of all human tales;
    'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past.
    First freedom and then Glory - when that fails,
    Wealth, vice, corruption - barbarism at last.
    And History, with all her volumes vast,
    Hath but one page...

  17. - Top - End - #287
    Titan in the Playground
     
    TuggyNE's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Pondering turns of phrase
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

    Quote Originally Posted by Keld Denar View Post
    I like 41,but I think it is a bit awkwardly worded. As worded, two overlapping darkness spells would stack. I think a better way to phrase it would be to use a phrase like "The level of illumination drops to shadowy illumination or the level of the prevailing darkness, whichever is deeper."

    I like it, it just needs better phrasing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyndmyr View Post
    41. Disapprove. The "effectively blind" is far too vague. This would seem to, by RAW, apply to mindsight and such. It's terrible and I hate it.
    Better phrasing would be welcomed, definitely; I was not entirely happy with my draft, though it seemed good enough to start with.

    In particular, my use of examples is not ideal (and runs into problems as Tyndmyr mentioned). However, starting with a list of examples and then condensing that into a list of requirements seems like a workable approach.
    Mindsight, lifesight, blindsight, blindsense, tremorsense should all work (some of them explicitly work while blind already, some effectively provide their own virtual light source).
    Normal vision, low-light vision, improved low-light vision, darkvision should all suffer approximately the same penalties from magical darkness, although low-light vision in "shadowy" illumination should still see farther than normal vision.

    Given this list, it appears there is only one exception to make: darkvision is treated as normal vision for purposes of magical darkness.

    So, a revised version:
    A darkness effect causes the level of illumination to drop to shadowy illumination or the current prevailing condition, whichever is lower. Darkvision is ineffective in magical darkness, and confers no advantage over normal vision.



    As far as the deathwatch/darkness debate, I consider the spells fundamentally dissimilar; deathwatch did not originally have the [evil] descriptor, and its addition does not fit the spell. Darkness has no other purpose than to serve as a low-level [darkness] spell, and using it for a purpose directly antithetical in such a simple manner is extremely dubious.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tyndmyr View Post
    16. Disapprove. You can have cover and make attacks. This is quite possible.
    As noted elsewhere, the tower shield is specifically designed to forbid you from making attacks from total cover. "Blind" attacks, targeting a square at AC 5, might receive a special exception, but that's veering a little closer to homebrew (is there a penalty for being unable to clearly see your targeted square? how much? and so on).

    The default (facing-less) rules make this pretty funky, but I feel it's a necessary abstraction.

    Whether spells should be castable from total cover I am not entirely certain, although I think the current form is more or less correct.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tyndmyr View Post
    5. Unnecessary. The "Dead" condition already covers it more comprehensively, as does basic knowledge of the common English word "Dead". The rulebook need not contain definitions for every common word.
    [...]
    14. Unnecessary, seriously, this is effectively the case. Nothing designates an offhand penalty currently otherwise.
    [...]
    17. Unnecessary, since it's already a rule. Yes, if you insist on including it.
    [...]
    20. Unnecessary, shield bashing is already a thing. Approve if you insist on including it.
    [...]
    40. Unnecessary. Cooldowns are cooldowns, and nothing about polymorph removes them.
    So, are these abstentions, reluctant ayes, or what?
    (I am personally of the opinion that if someone has, or reasonably might, dispute the common sense readings, our consensus on what is common sense should be written down to guide them.)



    Quote Originally Posted by Tyndmyr View Post
    36. Disapprove. See also, Sanctum Spell.
    This is a bit of a tricky one. Oddly, I think simply changing "reduce the spell's level" to "allow the spell to take up a lower-level slot" would fix this (without losing any of the intent).
    Quote Originally Posted by Water_Bear View Post
    That's RAW for you; 100% Rules-Legal, 110% silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    "Common sense" and "RAW" are not exactly on speaking terms
    Projects: Homebrew, Gentlemen's Agreement, DMPCs, Forbidden Knowledge safety, and Top Ten Worst. Also, Quotes and RACSD are good.

    Anyone knows blue is for sarcas'ing in · "Take 10 SAN damage from Dark Orchid" · Use of gray may indicate nitpicking · Green is sincerity

  18. - Top - End - #288
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Szar_Lakol's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Denmark
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

    Quote Originally Posted by Menteith View Post
    Deathwatch and Darkness are spells whose effects are different than the descriptions, and likely intent of the writers. One has an [Evil] descriptor even though - as written - it has uses that are [Good] (like monitoring the health of patients in a hospital), while the other has a [Darkness] descriptor and can be used to create light under specific circumstances. Instead of changing what Deathwatch does to make it evil, it's simpler to remove the [Evil] descriptor and leave the spell the way it is to me. The same is my reasoning for Darkness.
    The analogy doesn't work. Deathwatch should never have had the [Evil] descriptor--it never made any kind of sense. Darkness, on the other hand, only makes sense with the descriptor. It is a spell that creates darkness!

    Again, you ignore not just the descriptor, but the name of the spell, the spell's legacy throughout D&D, and the fact that it cancels out [Light] spells, all to satisfy your personal interpretation of an ambiguously written sentence.

    Even if you ignore the obvious intent, how can you write off a key signature of [Darkness] spells -- cancelling out their opposite number?

    Also, there are only two [Darkness] spells in the PHB: darkness and deeper darkness, which functions like darkness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Menteith View Post
    You say the spell doesn't make sense to you right now. I say that the spell does make sense to me. I honestly have no issue with a spell called Darkness creating shadowy illumination - the spell's name isn't a perfect fit, but there are many things in D&D who have non-indicative names, so this isn't an issue for me. Writer intent isn't relevant when the spell is clearly detailed to me. Again, I'm not saying that true for anyone but me, I'm just explaining my position.
    I'm saying your interpretation doesn't make sense. The spell makes perfect sense to me; it creates darkness. That's the long and short of it. The writers decided to try and get fancy by incorporating their new illumination terminology when they updated the spell to 3.5, and it backfired on them when it's read by strict RAW. Just like many other things in the game.

  19. - Top - End - #289
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Menteith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Minnesnowta

    Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

    Quote Originally Posted by Szar_Lakol View Post
    The analogy doesn't work. Deathwatch should never have had the [Evil] descriptor--it never made any kind of sense. Darkness, on the other hand, only makes sense with the descriptor. It is a spell that creates darkness!

    Again, you ignore not just the descriptor, but the name of the spell, the spell's legacy throughout D&D, and the fact that it cancels out [Light] spells, all to satisfy your personal interpretation of an ambiguously written sentence.

    Even if you ignore the obvious intent, how can you write off a key signature of [Darkness] spells -- cancelling out their opposite number?

    Also, there are only two [Darkness] spells in the PHB: darkness and deeper darkness, which functions like darkness.

    I'm saying your interpretation doesn't make sense. The spell makes perfect sense to me; it creates darkness. That's the long and short of it. The writers decided to try and get fancy by incorporating their new illumination terminology when they updated the spell to 3.5, and it backfired on them when it's read by strict RAW. Just like many other things in the game.
    Those....are all very good points. If it didn't counter/dispel Light spells, then I might still have an argument, but it does. You've convinced me - Andorax, can you change my opinion on rule 41 to support?
    Last edited by Menteith; 2012-05-10 at 09:13 PM.
    There is the moral of all human tales;
    'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past.
    First freedom and then Glory - when that fails,
    Wealth, vice, corruption - barbarism at last.
    And History, with all her volumes vast,
    Hath but one page...

  20. - Top - End - #290
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    JadePhoenix's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

    I agree completely with 30! RAI is obvious here.
    Fighter Girl avatar by Threeshadows

  21. - Top - End - #291
    Titan in the Playground
     
    TuggyNE's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Pondering turns of phrase
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    Any further commentary about a threshold of unanimous concent to remove voting for an issue?
    I suggest using 15 unanimous votes as the threshold; as far as I know, all issues have had dissenting voices raised before then, or not at all. 10 might also work, but is not quite as reliable; 20 would be OK as well, if a little high.
    Quote Originally Posted by Water_Bear View Post
    That's RAW for you; 100% Rules-Legal, 110% silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    "Common sense" and "RAW" are not exactly on speaking terms
    Projects: Homebrew, Gentlemen's Agreement, DMPCs, Forbidden Knowledge safety, and Top Ten Worst. Also, Quotes and RACSD are good.

    Anyone knows blue is for sarcas'ing in · "Take 10 SAN damage from Dark Orchid" · Use of gray may indicate nitpicking · Green is sincerity

  22. - Top - End - #292
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location

    Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

    Tyndmyr, I'm a bit at a loss for some of your reasoning. The goal here is to figure out how the rules ought to work, not decry them for breaking things that you like. If you genuinely believe that's how it is SUPPOSED to work, then by all means, disapprove. But please don't shut things down just because you're fond of using a known rules loophole to your advantage.

    It may be I'm just reading too much into your tone, but that is how you're coming across in some of your explanations.

    To specific examples:

    Your opinion on rule 002 doesn't at all acknowledge whether or not it makes sense for ADDING a metamagic effect to make it EASIER to cast a spell. All you are doing is saying that the rule breaks "currently useful" things. Are they useful because they're how the rules ought to work, or are they useful because it's a wildly popular rules loophole that many who actually DO use it also aknowledge that it's broken, then do it anyway?

    Your opinion on rule 003 is that it "makes Legacy Champion entirely useless". Do you genuinely believe that the intended purpose of Legacy Champion was stretching classes beyond their existing level limits, and not letting you keep moving your class along, while getting legacy-specific benefits? Your reasoning here seems to be more of "I like that combo" than "I think that's how it is supposed to work".

    Regarding Rule 021: So you feel that someone can pay 8,306 to buy a +1 Sickle of Spell Storing, put an Inflict Serious Wounds into it and that's fine, but they could also pay 8,303 or so to buy 50 arrows of spell storing, take a month off to put an Inflict Serious Wounds into all 50 arrows, and fire them off 4 per round, and that's...equally fine? The 50:1 discount on ammunition means that, given enough time, you can spell-store and immediately make use of 50 stored spells instead of storing them one at a time...hence the reason for Rule 021.

    Regarding Rule 023: The line may well be redundant, it's mainly a reminder that such a thing exists for those who might not be aware of it, and it has no actual rules bearing (the extra line is neutral and thus harmless).

    Rule 027: Can you cite me a page? I've removed RACSD before that are documentably completely redundant.

    Rule 036: See reasoning for Rule 032 above, but I will also credit you with properly noting that the Sanctum Spell metamagic feat does, in fact, reduce a spell below its normal level BY THE FEAT ITSELF, not by a "metamagic reducer" applied to it. However, it is a noteworthy effect, and as such, will be remarked upon in the descriptions of both rules.

    Rule 039: I'll grant you that kobolds are draconic...in the same way that drakken are draconic, that dragonne are draconic. But you...genuinely think that by taking one feat, a kobold can count as a "True Dragon"? Again, this sounds like more of a case of a rule messing with an exploit you're fond of, not a rule actually making sense.

    Please note...all of your votes as-writ are recorded as such. I'll argue a point with you, but I will not invalidate your point just because I disagree.

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


    Seeing how the discussion has gone regarding Rule 032, I'm going to split it into alternate versions, similar to what was done for Aptitude weapons. The existing Rule 032 is now Rule 032A.

    Rule 032B is essentially the same, but denotes that each ranged or unarmed attack provokes separately, which seems to be the core objection many have raised.

    Please note...by a technical reading of RAW, a full-attack action that's ranged or unarmed doesn't provoke ANY attacks of opportunity...this is the reason Rule 032 was written in the first place.

    Personally, I prefer 32A, but I'm neutral on 32B. Since Tyndmyr, in his disapproving of 032 described a preference for the 32B phrasing, I've listed him as for it and am leaving others to their discretion as to whether to speak for or against it (Tyndmyr, you can of course change your take as well if you disagree with my assumption).

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

    tuggyne, I like your rewording of darkness. It doesn't make it a stackable effect, and I'm not sure it should have been...and it clears out a bunch of excess "blindness" baggage that is simply inherent in a non-illuminated area.

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

    JadePhoenix...I agree with you, but to be honest, I've gotten very cautious about using the word 'obvious' around here ;)

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

    I don't feel comfortable with a lower threshold, but I am going to go with tuggyne's suggestion of a 20-vote threshold. Anything that can go to 20 without a dissenting voice is enough of a unanimous consensus to dispense with the ongoing vote baggage.


    Rule 001 is now approved by unanimous consensus.
    Rule 005 is now approved by unanimous consensus.
    Rule 010 is now disapproved
    Rule 017 is now approved by unanimous consensus.
    Rule 018 is now approved by unanimous consensus.
    Rule 022 is now approved by unanimous consensus.
    Rule 027 is now approved by unanimous consensus.
    Rule 032 has been split into Rule 032A (disapproved) and Rule 032B (approved)
    Rule 041 has been reworded, and as such, would invite being revisited by those who have previously weighed in.
    Whadda ya mean, Orcs got levels too?

  23. - Top - End - #293
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Menteith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Minnesnowta

    Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

    Random note - you recorded Tyndmyr as "against" for rule 007, but he approved of it.
    There is the moral of all human tales;
    'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past.
    First freedom and then Glory - when that fails,
    Wealth, vice, corruption - barbarism at last.
    And History, with all her volumes vast,
    Hath but one page...

  24. - Top - End - #294
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    JadePhoenix's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

    I have something to say about rule 03. I don't know if it is intended, but it makes sense for both relevant classes (Legacy Champion and Uncanny Trickster) to advance a shtick's power beyond what is normally intended.

    A Legacy Champion is a Hero. A normal D&D character's feats are the stuff of legends - Legacy Champions are the legends among the legends. They summon power from conviction and willpower, founding magical items due to sheer badassitude. I can see this allowing you to spellwarp higher level spells and/or deal extra hellfire damage.

    An Uncanny Trickster deals with trickery, obviously. The class shtick is finding ways around stuff. Well, advancing powers more than they were initially intended to is certainly a way around stuff.

    That's basically my reasoning for being against rule 03.
    Fighter Girl avatar by Threeshadows

  25. - Top - End - #295
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    erikun's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    erikun, I see where you're coming from on rule 034....but explain to me why "magical pajamas" (and you'll note that by the writing of 034, it's intended for actual existing outfits as defined in the PHB, pajamas isn't one of them) shouldn't have that power, but a pair of wristbands can? It's the same rules bracers operate under.

    Also, your understanding is incorrect...it's spelled out plainly in A&EG. +8 Heavy Fortification bracers are +13 equivalent....169,000 GP. A&EG allows the armor bonus to get up to +8, the "+ abilities" bonus to get up to +5, but the two are added together for the total plus for cost purposes.
    Well, the first problem is that limiting the enhancements to PHB-listed outfits means that some very reasonable targets for the enhancing - a shirt or vest, or heck, even robes - are not valid targets.

    Second, I can't be the only one who wasn't familiar with a 3.0 sourcebook which decided to allow armor enhancements to Bracers of Armor. And it still doesn't invalidate my earlier point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    Rule 041 has been reworded, and as such, would invite being revisited by those who have previously weighed in.
    That's still fine with me. Still approved.
    Thank you to zimmerwald1915 for the Gustave avatar.
    The full set is here.
    Quote Originally Posted by darthbobcat View Post
    There are no bad ideas, just bad execution.
    Spoiler
    Show

    Air Raccoon avatar provided by Ceika
    from the Request an OotS Style Avatar thread



    A big thanks to PrinceAquilaDei for the gryphon avatar!
    original image

  26. - Top - End - #296
    Banned
     
    Zeful's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

    Quote Originally Posted by JadePhoenix View Post
    I have something to say about rule 03. I don't know if it is intended, but it makes sense for both relevant classes (Legacy Champion and Uncanny Trickster) to advance a shtick's power beyond what is normally intended.

    A Legacy Champion is a Hero. A normal D&D character's feats are the stuff of legends - Legacy Champions are the legends among the legends. They summon power from conviction and willpower, founding magical items due to sheer badassitude. I can see this allowing you to spellwarp higher level spells and/or deal extra hellfire damage.

    An Uncanny Trickster deals with trickery, obviously. The class shtick is finding ways around stuff. Well, advancing powers more than they were initially intended to is certainly a way around stuff.

    That's basically my reasoning for being against rule 03.
    The only problem with that reasoning is that the rules emphatically disagree with it. 3 and 5 level prestige classes have no advancement beyond those levels. Even if the class is poorly written enough to let you take those levels, you wouldn't get anything. +0 Bab, +0 Saves +0 hit points, no special features, nothing, because those levels don't exist in the rules and thus have no benefits. Heck, even gaining the 11th level of a 10 level prestige class requires you to have qualify for the classes Epic advancement so no gaining an 11th level of Horizon Walker at level 16.
    Last edited by Zeful; 2012-05-11 at 12:03 PM.

  27. - Top - End - #297
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    JadePhoenix's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeful View Post
    The only problem with that reasoning is that the rules emphatically disagree with it. 3 and 5 level prestige classes have no advancement beyond those levels. Even if the class is poorly written enough to let you take those levels, you wouldn't get anything. +0 Bab, +0 Saves +0 hit points, no special features, nothing, because those levels don't exist in the rules and thus have no benefits. Heck, even gaining the 11th level of a 10 level prestige class requires you to have qualify for the classes Epic advancement so no gaining an 11th level of Horizon Walker at level 16.
    But that's not what Legacy Champion or Uncanny Trickster advance You don't get bab, saves, hit points or anything from them. I can't see your point.
    Fighter Girl avatar by Threeshadows

  28. - Top - End - #298
    Banned
     
    Zeful's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

    Quote Originally Posted by JadePhoenix View Post
    But that's not what Legacy Champion or Uncanny Trickster advance You don't get bab, saves, hit points or anything from them. I can't see your point.
    The example given here is a Hellfire Warlock using Leagcy champion to continue progressing the class past level 3 and get a larger bonus eldritch blast due to the class' +2d6 advancement to the feature every level.

    The Epic rules state that prestige classes that don't have 10 levels have no further advancement, thus the above example is impossible. The only way that would work is if the Legacy Champion specifically has rules for this kind of progression.

  29. - Top - End - #299
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Sgt. Cookie's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

    Rule 42: Gauntlets and unarmed damage
    If you posses an unarmed damage progression, or the superior unarmed strike feat, your damage with gauntlets also increases. Additionally, every character is "proficient" with gauntlets.

    Rule 43: Enchanted gauntlets
    Gauntlets can be enchanted as though they were weapons OR armour, but not both. They can also be forged from special materials that are normally used in weapons. A pair of gauntlets is considered a single weapon for enchanting and material purposes.
    Open the lid and snatch a homebrewed treat from Cookie's Jar

    Ponytar by Dirtytabs

    Like the look of the Prestige Bard/Paladin/Ranger, but don't know how best to use them? There's a guide for that.

  30. - Top - End - #300
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    JadePhoenix's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: "Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeful View Post
    The example given here is a Hellfire Warlock using Leagcy champion to continue progressing the class past level 3 and get a larger bonus eldritch blast due to the class' +2d6 advancement to the feature every level.

    The Epic rules state that prestige classes that don't have 10 levels have no further advancement, thus the above example is impossible. The only way that would work is if the Legacy Champion specifically has rules for this kind of progression.
    You're arguing against a point I never made. This thread is not even about RAW. I won't be discussing this with you, sorry.
    Fighter Girl avatar by Threeshadows

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •