"Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

[Tyndmyr]

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:

I am referencing the rule as listed in the initial post. Your post appears different, and appears to avoid the later ambiguity.

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).

Same as any other attack for which you can't see the target. 50% miss chance. No homebrew needed for that.

The issue is, there's no way to keep the current functionality without it...not really making sense. The fact that I can, by RAW, not attack you while using it, but CAN cast spells while using it, is odd. If it's neither...it's still odd. There's no reason you'd expect to be unable to block to the left with a tower shield, and fight the guy on your right. Tower shields are funky. You need to change the functionality to make it make sense.

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.)

Count them as abstentions for the purposes of voting, but a desire to strike the ruling entirely, as in these instances, RAW already makes sense.

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).

Note also that if this overrides all restrictions on reducers, this actually makes many reducers MORE powerful.

Strictly speaking, however, there is no metamagic reducer that allows the modified spell to have a lower slot than the starting spell. There ARE a couple of metamagic ways to do this, but that's different.

In short, this fixes nothing, but introduces complications. Nor is it particularly common sense. A house rule, at best.

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.

If a proposed rule breaks lots of things, that's...probably not how it ought to work.

And I do not see these all of things as loopholes. That's an opinion.

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?

There is no instance in which a metamagic reduced spell can lower the level MORE than is possible without the reducer. So, the rule, read strictly, accomplishes nothing.

However, this could be read in such a way as to make metamagics such as Sanctum Spell not function in the way they were obviously designed to work.

Either way, that's not a desirable addition to the rules, and it makes nothing make more sense.

If you have a problem with the use of Arcane Thesis, and it's very clear errata, just houserule it, and admit it's a house rule.

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".

The intended purpose of legacy champion was that you would use a legacy weapon while continuing your general class theme. It does that according to RAW.

Now, sadly, legacy weapons suck...but that's neither here nor there. And I don't think that RAI on Mystic Theurge(or similar combos) was that you could gleefully theurge it from level 5 to 15, forget how to do it for five levels, then resume doing it at level 20. That....does not make sense. This makes the game make MORE sense, not less.

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.

It may not be balanced, and restricting them is a reasonable house rule, but there are many things that use downtime as a balancing function. It may not work well in all campaigns, but it's not a nonsensical option.

It's easy to interpret the existing rules, and they make sense. Lack of balance is not the same as not making sense....or we'd be including house rules for nerfing druid in here.

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).

Reminders of rules are different than fixing areas of the rules that do not make sense. There are many rules that get overlooked or forgotten, but I feel that is a different thing entirely.

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

Don't have RC with me, but it's trivial to find at this link in the SRD. I think the line is quite clear.

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.

Why not? The entire fluff of that section is about how kobolds are striving to be truly draconic. It makes perfect sense in the context of the fluff. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it was RAI, though I obviously can't prove that.

(Tyndmyr, you can of course change your take as well if you disagree with my assumption).

Sounds good. A lot of disagreement on these were based on fairly pedantic points. If a rule introduces further rules ambiguity, I'll automatically be against it. Therefore, with rephrasing, I will likely change my stance on a few of em.

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.

Agreed. There's very good reasons to suspect it might have been an intentional option. It could also have been merely an oversight. It's hard to be sure of RAI, really, but I can definitely see both interpretations. I allow the RAW version for my players, and feel that makes more sense.

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.

I suspect that the "common sense" reading of the epic rules is that they're talking about epic progressions, not legacy champion.

[TuggyNE]

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.

Given that I eventually disagreed with 032A on this count, put me down as agreeing with 032B (although I would probably houserule it to 032A in any game I ran ).

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

Very true. There is little as surprising as realizing how genuinely unobvious certain things can be to people, even those arguing in good faith. One of the useful side effects of this thread is probably realizing this.

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.

I'd like to suggest a further minor change I just thought of: list the unanimously approved rules in the first post as well as in the second. (This will unfortunately create a bit more work for you, but should make the thread a bit more accessible to anyone looking for a quick summation of the Playground's best common sense.)

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.

Hmm, I believe both of those should be OK, although giving wizards and commoners gauntlet proficiency may be a bit much. (The weight of the gauntlet may throw off unarmed strikes, and its optimum striking areas may not be immediately obvious either.)

For now, especially with those changes, agreed.

Same as any other attack for which you can't see the target. 50% miss chance. No homebrew needed for that.

Wow, how did I not think of that. OK, objection basically withdrawn.

The issue is, there's no way to keep the current functionality without it...not really making sense. The fact that I can, by RAW, not attack you while using it, but CAN cast spells while using it, is odd. If it's neither...it's still odd. There's no reason you'd expect to be unable to block to the left with a tower shield, and fight the guy on your right. Tower shields are funky. You need to change the functionality to make it make sense.

Again, as I see it, your issue is essentially fixed by the facing variant rules. I fully sympathize, but trying to wedge the good sense of facing into a system that does not use its rules elsewhere is foolhardy.

Note also that if this overrides all restrictions on reducers, this actually makes many reducers MORE powerful.

I'm afraid you'll have to explain this to me.

If you have a problem with the use of Arcane Thesis, and it's very clear errata

Which reminds me that I discovered some errata from another thread that quite possibly eliminates the need for 036 at all.

[erikun]

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.

Thinking about it, although it is unnecessary. Note that the description of gauntlets in the SRD and in the PHB (pg. 117-118) state that a gauntlet allows a user to deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage. That's the only thing it does, despite having its own entry on the table.
[Edit] Missed the part about every character being proficient in gauntlets. I would think that, at least, characters not proficient in armor wouldn't be proficient in punching with armored 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.

How exactly are gauntlets supposed to be armor? They are included with enhanced armor, but it doesn't make sense for gauntlets to be armor (and granting an AC bonus) themselves.

I'd approve of gauntlets being forged with special weapon materials and enhanced as weapons.

Actually, this does make me think of one more change to implement.

Rule 044: Spiked Improvement
Gauntlet Spikes improve the damage of an unarmed attack by one size category. The damage value on the PHB table is for a standard unarmed attack.
[Edit] Removed for now, while I think it over a bit more.

This is to prevent monks or anyone with boosted-unarmed damage from only dealing 1d4 due to putting spikes on their gauntlets.

[Amphetryon]

Disapprove of 044:

Unless I missed a FAQ, a Spiked Gauntlet is explicitly an armed strike.

[Evil the Cat]

Hmm, I like this thread, think I'll weigh in a bit.


Rule 2: Approve. This requires putting common sense explicitly above RAI and RAW, since while I think it is incredibly stupid, the errata for Arcane Thesis was quite clear on their intent.

A cold substituted, electricity substituted, acid substituted, fire substituted, invisible, twinned, repeating fireball should not be easier to cast than a twinned fireball, no matter how skilled you are at casting fireball.

Rule 3: No Opinion. based on the ELH, you cannot generally allow a character to advance further in 5 level prestige classes, but specific usually overrides general. I can easily go either way on this one. What ultimately has me not caring is that there are few circumstances where it is game breaking.

Rule 4: Approve

Rule 6: Approve, this always annoyed me.

Rule 7: Approve, there are too many possible D&D mounts without hooves that should be able to trample.

Rule 8: Disapprove. Feats should be a bit stronger, and the specific mention of it adding the ability to take such feats strongly implies that it is not a standard part of being dragonblooded.

Rule 10: No vote. did some reading, but don't properly understand what problem this is addressing.

Rule 11: Approve

Rule 13: Approve (may be the most blatant example of RACS in existence)

Rule 14: Approve

Rule 15: I would tend to consider most mental resistance to be a mix of conscious and subconscious. If I'm awake and I feel something trying to control my mind, I'll fight it. I have to wonder if I would do so while asleep. I'm not sure if it is printed anywhere, but I've always wondered if you're aware of it when someone casts a will save spell on you (such as charm person.) Do you notice the attempt to alter your thoughts or not? If you don't notice it, then will saves are subconscious and should be allowed while sleeping. At the moment, I have to go "Undecided" while I consider further. I would easily agree with resisting all "mind-affecting" effects, but I'm not sure about other forms of will saves.

Rule 16: No Opinion, tower shields are screwed up, but this doesn't quite seem right as worded. Maybe add something about everyone else has total cover from the person using the tower shield for total cover.

Rule 19: Disagree, mostly because it seems unnecessary.

Rule 20: Agree, houseruled this at home for years.

Rule 21: Agree

Rule 23: Agree

Rule 26: Agree, though I thought this was explicitly mentioned somewhere already.

Rule 28: Disapprove, temporary means should not generally be enough to qualify for feats and prestige classes. Maybe allow temporary abilities with a duration of 24 hours or more.

Rule 29: No opinion

Rule 30: Approve

Rule 31: Approve

Rule 32A: Disapprove. Trying to repeatedly fire a bow while a guy is stabbing you is hell. I've had some personal experience with this. (Did Amtgard, used a bow). Having each attack provoke an aoe is unfortunately more realistic.

Rule 32B: Approve: See comments on 32A

Rule 33: Disapprove. Unless the ability has the same name or type of bonus, it seems to work just fine.

Rule 34: Agree, seems to work well as written, though I'd prefer simpler wording.

Rule 36: Agree, seems good.

Rule 37: Agree, I'm pretty sure that no DM allows infinite loops in-game, and if this thread is about common sense, then this seems to me like a prime example of a common sense rule. Most are caused by problems in wording of abilities, or by unexpected interactions and should be looked at individually as well.

Rule 38: No vote as written. I agree in most cases, but only when the spell is cast. I see no reason why an illusionist couldn't be tricked by their own permanent illusions later on down the line, especially if under the influence of mind-affecting abilities. There are also spells and abilities that allow you to steal control of another caster's spell, I don't see why you would necessarily be immune to the effects when this happens, unless you know this has happened. I'd put it more as, "A character does not generally believe in her own illusions and can not actively choose to believe in her own illusions, but may believe in her own illusions under specific circumstances."

Rule 39: Agree

Rule 40: Agree, though I thought this was already mentioned somewhere.

Rule 41: Agree.
I thought about this for a bit, but what ultimately decided me was two things:
A: The darkness descriptor. It seems to me that something with the darkness descriptor should not create light.
B: Interactions between light and darkness. As written, it there is an area of total darkness, and someone casts a [light] spell to see, you could then cast a [darkness] spell of equal level. This means that prevailing conditions now apply and the area becomes total darkness again. However, the person could now dismiss their [light] spell, and cause the area to increase in illumination. Dismissing an active [light] spell should not make an area brighter. Heck, if there is total darkness, and someone casts darkness to give themselves shadowy illumination to see, someone else could use a light spell to make the area dark again. To me, this very much violates common sense.

[erikun]

Disapprove of 044:

Unless I missed a FAQ, a Spiked Gauntlet is explicitly an armed strike.

Perhaps I should revise how it is explained? The spiked gauntlet would still be an armed attack, the damage would just increase one step from a character's unarmed strike rather than being set at 1d4 damage. As read by the rules, a character with the Improved Natural Attack feat or some kind of unarmed attack progression would do equal-or-less damage by adding spikes to a gauntlet than by using a gauntlet without spikes.

[Tyndmyr]

Again, as I see it, your issue is essentially fixed by the facing variant rules. I fully sympathize, but trying to wedge the good sense of facing into a system that does not use its rules elsewhere is foolhardy.

I actually solve it by treating the tower shield(when used for cover) as a separate item from the char. It resolves everything great. No worries about hiding because of gear...no worries about facing, since it has it's own little marker, and you can do perfectly logical things like interposing a shield between other people.

That said, such a solution is probably also not common sense, since it's not one the rules would naturally lead you toward.

Note also that if this overrides all restrictions on reducers, this actually makes many reducers MORE powerful.

I'm afraid you'll have to explain this to me.

Many reducers, such as Easy Metamagic, are limited to changing the modifier no lower than a +1. This rule would, if treated as overriding specific rules existing now, make these reducers more powerful, not less. This is...probably both not common sense and mechanically undesirable.

Which reminds me that I discovered some errata from another thread that quite possibly eliminates the need for 036 at all.

Hey, a tighter list is always a good thing, =)

But yeah, the errata on Arcane Thesis is important to keep in mind.

[TuggyNE]

I actually solve it by treating the tower shield(when used for cover) as a separate item from the char. It resolves everything great. No worries about hiding because of gear...no worries about facing, since it has it's own little marker, and you can do perfectly logical things like interposing a shield between other people.

That said, such a solution is probably also not common sense, since it's not one the rules would naturally lead you toward.

Sounds like a good system, yes, but sadly not really common sense. (I should bookmark this for later reference....)

Many reducers, such as Easy Metamagic, are limited to changing the modifier no lower than a +1. This rule would, if treated as overriding specific rules existing now, make these reducers more powerful, not less. This is...probably both not common sense and mechanically undesirable.

Yeah, I was assuming this was additive, rather than overwriting. A specific note that some metamagic reducers cannot even drop to +0 would be helpful, I suppose.

[Sgt. Cookie]

How exactly are gauntlets supposed to be armor? They are included with enhanced armor, but it doesn't make sense for gauntlets to be armor (and granting an AC bonus) themselves.

Enhancement bonus to armour, armour-only enchantements, etc.

Hmm, I believe both of those should be OK, although giving wizards and commoners gauntlet proficiency may be a bit much. (The weight of the gauntlet may throw off unarmed strikes, and its optimum striking areas may not be immediately obvious either.)

Since I can punch, I can say I'm "proficent" with brass knuckles, despite never using them. The same principle applies here.

[erikun]

I think I'm going to remove the proposed Rule #44 (freeing up the number for other people) until I think about it some more. The idea is simple: to increase the damage done with spikes compared to a gauntlet, much how spikes on a shield increase its damage or Shillelagh increases the damage of a club. However, I'm finding it awkward trying to state so clearly in the rules. Limiting it to unarmed strikes means that giants (who would logically benefit from spiked gauntlets) could not use them at all. Ruling them for unarmed strikes and slams would imply that putting gauntlets on an elephant (somehow) would improve its ability to slam into opponents. Just applying it to any natural attack produces silliness such as giving gauntlets to a wolf to make its bite better.

I'll need to think it over to find a good phrasing.

[Essence_of_War]

Would this be a good opportunity to get a common sense adjudication on how the "Open Chakra X" lines of feats are supposed to work?

As written, it would seem that all they do, for a character with meldshaper levels, is allow them to expend their binds from class levels on a (potentially) new chakra. For a character without meldshaper levels, they would appear to give that character binds. Thus, the feats are only useful for a multiclassed meldshaper character or a character with no meldshaper levels.

I think this is probably a combination of poor editing/oversight. It seems pretty strange that there are ways to increase a meldshaper's # of essentia and soulmelds through feats, but not their # of binds.


I propose the following:

Rule 44: The "Open Chakra" line of feats has the following addition:

(additions in bold, open least chakra as example):

When this feat is selected, choose one of the following chakras: crown, feet, or hands. You can now bind a soulmeld or a magic item to that chakra. If you have chakra binds from a meldshaping class, you gain 1 bind that can be used for this chakra only. In addition, you gain a minor benefi t from this new found chakra, depending on the chakra chosen. Crown: +1 insight bonus on Will saves. Feet: +1 insight bonus on Balance and Move Silently checks. Hands: +1 insight bonus on Climb and Swim checks.

[Andorax]

JadePhoenix...I couldn't disagree with you more about the Legacy Champion thing.

Legacy Champions aren't heroes to heroes, legends among legends...they're an equally-legitimate PC class who's "schtick" is tying up their fate with a particular magic item. The Magic Item may be a legend among magic items, but the PC is no more or less heroic for it.

And unless you mean that an Uncanny Trickster is that way because he's "adept at finding loopholes in the game rules", again, I don't see the association.

Nothing about either class suggests that someone who takes it should be able to be a better X than the ones who actually stick with being an X!

Zeful gets, on some level, my reasoning here. It's not "impossible" as he suggests, but it certainly is suggestive of intent...that 3 and 5 level PrCs are certainly not intended to have 8 extra levels of progression of their abilities assumed, extrapolated, then glued onto them.



Sadly, Sgt. Cookie, I can't support either Rule 42 or Rule 43.

Rule 42 suggests that gauntlets are a damage-increaser. I don't see them as such. I see gauntlets as being an alternate way for those who aren't great with unarmed combat to still dish out some lethal damage with a mailed fist. I also don't see proficiency as automatic. A wizard can throw a punch...ineffectually, but they can. But a wizard with a heavy plate gauntlet on is going to be more awkward, not less. "All simple weapons" is a proficiency that is generally available to everyone who I think ought to have it, and for those few for whom it isn't provided, I'm quite comfortable with them being awkward wearing plate gloves.


Rule 043...I am find with the material portion of it, but take issue with the "enchanted as armor" part. A pair of gauntlets do not a suit of armor make (same reason I limited Rule 034 to clothing "sets", not individual pieces). Neither do they take up either of the allowed armor-granting body slots (Body and Arms).

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

Tyndmyr, I rightly pointed out that I hadn't considered, or accounted, for Sanctum Spell when I wrote Rule 002...and have subsequently modified it to allow for it as a specific exception. The errata for Arcane Thesis isn't widely known or circulated (see the response to your own post), and even if it were, I have not had opportunity to check and see if every other form of metamagic reduction includes the same proviso. Some do, some don't, but the logic remains sound across the board.

If the rule accomplishes nothing, there's no reason to oppose it...but as I've mentioned, there ARE ways for a metamagic reduced spell to lower the level more than is possible without the reducer...see many threads on the topic of metamagic reducing PCs (variations on the "Postman" I believe are the most popular).

You also mentioned this:

"Many reducers, such as Easy Metamagic, are limited to changing the modifier no lower than a +1. This rule would, if treated as overriding specific rules existing now, make these reducers more powerful, not less. This is...probably both not common sense and mechanically undesirable. "

The rules (002 and 036) are separate limiters. Nothing about making ALL such reducers unable to go below 0 changes specific reducers being capped at 1. This arugment makes no sense. I guess my main concern is this:

If ALL metamagic-reducing feats, spells, class-features, obscure races, and so forth from all of 3.x either as-writ, or by errata, cap at +0 (or more restrive)...then the rule is not necessary, but changes nothing, and thus does no harm.

If, on the other hand, there is a counter-example somewhere out there that as a metamagic-reducer (and not in and of the metamagic itself, such as Sanctum Spell) that can result in a -1 SL through SOME combination, then the rules (002 and 036) as writ are needed to prevent this loophole.

But unless you actually think that by ADDING a reducer to a metamagic effect should allow the spell to be reduced in CL (and yes, some people DO think this, hence some of the no votes), there should be no reason for you to vote against 002/036...at most, abstain.

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

Regarding Rule 003...it makes the game make MORE sense that, if you are associated with a specific old magic item, you gain the ability to be a better X than those who have been Xing all along? The Epic rules seem clear, and reasonably balanced, on what classes can be extended, and what aspects of them, and when. Gluing 8 extra levels onto a class that only has 3 or 5 to begin with (and by the Epic rules, is impossible to extend anyways)...makes at worst the same lack of sense, or to my mind...far less.



erikun...looking over your response to 042 and 043...there's lots of comment, but no clear indication of your stated "vote". When you get done commentarying, could you please end it with a "FOR" "Against" or "Abstaining for now"...or words to that effect?



tuggyne, I thought about your suggestion to double-list the rules that are removed from voting for 100% agreement...and decided that aside from the added work, it would also put the rules that are still agreed to, but with only one or two dissenters, in a "lesser" category. I don't really think that's fair, nor that we can call the 100%ers the "best". So for now, I'm going to leave as-is, but I do thank you for the suggestion.


Essence of War, since erikun withdrew his spiked gauntlet proposal, your chakra clarification is now in at Rule 44.


Rule 42 is added, and currently disapproved
Rule 43 is added, and currently disapproved
Rule 44 is added, and currently approved


As a general rule, I'd like to ask that you not disapprove of a rule solely because you think it is "unnecessary". If a rule is reduntant, then it does no harm to have it approved. Particularly if a rule has debate on both sides, votes on both sides, then it would seem apparent that there are some people who feel it does serve a purpose.

[Essence_of_War]

Rules :

• 41) Yes. Darkness spells are very clearly intended to reduce visibility, not to provide additional shadowy illumination in pitch black areas.
• 42) Partial yes. I think it's fine to allow gauntlets to deal unarmed damage if you have a better unarmed progression, as the PHB sort of implies that they exist to allow people to deal lethal damage with unarmed strikes. It's probably reasonable to let everyone be proficient with them so long as this doesn't remove the "gauntlets don't let you count as 'armed' when you use unarmed strikes" behavior.
• 43) Yes. This seems like a fairly obvious "melee should be able to have nice things" issue to me. I don't see why you should have to use spiked gauntlets or take levels in kensai if you want to use unarmed strikes.
• 44) Yes. For my reasons stated up-thread

[Tyndmyr]

Tyndmyr, I rightly pointed out that I hadn't considered, or accounted, for Sanctum Spell when I wrote Rule 002...and have subsequently modified it to allow for it as a specific exception. The errata for Arcane Thesis isn't widely known or circulated (see the response to your own post), and even if it were, I have not had opportunity to check and see if every other form of metamagic reduction includes the same proviso. Some do, some don't, but the logic remains sound across the board.

No printed official metamagic allows a negative spell level adjustment as a result. Even class abilities such as Incantatrix have a floor, and some are +1. Some have additional restrictions such as limited uses per day, but none actually violate this proposed rule.

Let's go over the list off the top of my head....

DMM: All or nothing. It takes it to 0, but has no potential for partial reduction or reducing to below zero.
Metamagic Rods: All or nothing. Cannot go below zero.
Incantatrix capstone. Floor at +1. Cannot go below zero.
Dweomerkeeper capstone. Floor at +1
Haalran Elder. Floor at +1.
Sudden Metamagics. All +0, does not alter spell level.
Metamagic School Focus. Reduces the cost. This, by strict RAW, only reduces to +0, as no mention is made of turning the cost into a benefit. Also, limited to 3/day, one school, rough prereqs...not fantastic.
Arcane Thesis: Errata limits total mods to +0.
Easy Metamagic. Good one, but has a floor at +1 per metamagic. Def not problematic.
Metamagic Song. All or nothing, much like DMM.
Abjurant Champion, the shadowcaster PrCs, Incantarix(multiple times), Escalation Mage, etc...they offer a metamagic applied for free. Just free, no zeros.
Illumian - Naenhoon is all or nothing, like DMM.
Forcefull Metamagic...don't have the Dragon issue with me, but recall it having a floor. Even if it didn't, it's 1/day and from an obscure source, so...kind of weak.
Residual Metamagic is, again, all or nothing.

The *only* exception I can think of is Metaphysical Spell Shaper, which is...not an official class. Seriously, if you're allowing BoEF, you already have issues.

That's all of em, I believe, and I delved into some reasonably obscure stuff. Metamagic reducers just do not make the final spell level negative, except in cases like Sanctum Spell, which is intentionally supposed to do that, and is otherwise pointless. Ditto, Dark Scholar.

Hell, even Tainted Scholar doesn't let you negate the floor, and that class is pretty horrifically broken. There isn't a cause for concern here. If anything, it only causes concern with a very few legitimate abilities that interact with spell level(does the free heighten on geometer 5 count as making a spell lower? It certainly isn't a problem or particularly awesome combo, but it's legitimately confusing with your "common sense" rule). Is earth spell a violation? If so, then you've just made earth spell, like Sanctum Spell, not do the very thing it's obviously supposed to do. It's now a worthless feat that does nothing.

The ruling fixes no RAW-legal loophole, reminders of the limit exist in each individual metamagic, so it's even superfluous as a reminder, and creates subjectivity over perfectly viable options.

I can't imagine how it could be described as common sense.

[JadePhoenix]

JadePhoenix...I couldn't disagree with you more about the Legacy Champion thing.

It's a free country (well, mine is).

Legacy Champions aren't heroes to heroes, legends among legends...they're an equally-legitimate PC class who's "schtick" is tying up their fate with a particular magic item. The Magic Item may be a legend among magic items, but the PC is no more or less heroic for it.

That goes against the fluff of legacy items, as they are created due to being wilded by badasses. Anyway, I was just stating my opinions. If you disagree, I can't do anything about it.

And unless you mean that an Uncanny Trickster is that way because he's "adept at finding loopholes in the game rules", again, I don't see the association.

Uncanny Tricksters do stuff people usually can't do. I always remember that frequent quote in 3.0 books:
Regdar: "How did you do that?"
Lidda: "It's just a flick of the wrist."
I see an association between this and improving class abilities beyond their normal 'cap'. If you don't, well, it's a good thing we don't have to agree on everything.

Nothing about either class suggests that someone who takes it should be able to be a better X than the ones who actually stick with being an X!

But that's not what I said. It only gets better than an X if you have max leves in X then go into the other class.

Zeful gets, on some level, my reasoning here. It's not "impossible" as he suggests, but it certainly is suggestive of intent...that 3 and 5 level PrCs are certainly not intended to have 8 extra levels of progression of their abilities assumed, extrapolated, then glued onto them.

I don't think it's intended, I just think it fits the fluff and as such I don't see any reason to mess with RAW here.

[Tyndmyr]

That goes against the fluff of legacy items, as they are created due to being wilded by badasses. Anyway, I was just stating my opinions. If you disagree, I can't do anything about it.

I have to agree...Legacy items are certainly fluffed as being above the normal stuff, and the people who wield that as being above the average hero.

It's a shame the mechanics of the items themselves doesn't work out too well, but the fluff, at least, is fun to read, and certainly does not lack for talking the items and their users up.

[Midnight_v]

I'm going to have to give this much more time, later, but ...

Rule #15. Add me to the against numbers.

[erikun]

erikun...looking over your response to 042 and 043...there's lots of comment, but no clear indication of your stated "vote". When you get done commentarying, could you please end it with a "FOR" "Against" or "Abstaining for now"...or words to that effect?

I was commenting on them, rather than applying votes at that time. Now that they're up on the first page and I've had time to think about them, I'll vote now.

Rule 042: Gauntlets and Unarmed Damage
Against, primarily due to every character becoming proficient in gauntlets. At the very least, only characters proficient in all simple weapons would be proficient in gauntlets - although limiting it to those proficient in medium and heavy armor (which use gauntlets) would make more sense. I'm fine with the general idea of gauntlets dealing damage equal to the character's unarmed strike.

Rule 043: Enchanted Gauntlets
Against due to unclear wording. I'm still not sure what enhancing them as "weapons OR armour" is supposed to mean, or how armor-enhanced gauntlets are supposed to protect the body. I'm not sure that enhancing two gauntlets for the price of one is really ever intended by the ruleset.

[hamishspence]

Rule 15: I would tend to consider most mental resistance to be a mix of conscious and subconscious. If I'm awake and I feel something trying to control my mind, I'll fight it. I have to wonder if I would do so while asleep. I'm not sure if it is printed anywhere, but I've always wondered if you're aware of it when someone casts a will save spell on you (such as charm person.) Do you notice the attempt to alter your thoughts or not? If you don't notice it, then will saves are subconscious and should be allowed while sleeping. At the moment, I have to go "Undecided" while I consider further. I would easily agree with resisting all "mind-affecting" effects, but I'm not sure about other forms of will saves.

Seeing as the "You count as willingly forgoing your save for all spells when unconscious" interpretation allows for Fort-based spells as well (so if you were unconscious and someone cast disintegrate on you, you'd get no save) that's the reason I came down against it and in favour of the Rule 15 version instead, earlier in the thread.

[TuggyNE]

Since I can punch, I can say I'm "proficent" with brass knuckles, despite never using them. The same principle applies here.

Except I am not at all confident that this is valid to begin with, much less when you add gauntlets in. There is enough difference in proper technique involved that I don't think wizards or commoners should necessarily know how to use them properly. Andorax captures my reasoning here:

Rule 42 suggests that gauntlets are a damage-increaser. I don't see them as such. I see gauntlets as being an alternate way for those who aren't great with unarmed combat to still dish out some lethal damage with a mailed fist. I also don't see proficiency as automatic. A wizard can throw a punch...ineffectually, but they can. But a wizard with a heavy plate gauntlet on is going to be more awkward, not less. "All simple weapons" is a proficiency that is generally available to everyone who I think ought to have it, and for those few for whom it isn't provided, I'm quite comfortable with them being awkward wearing plate gloves.

So I think it's more consistent for me to withdraw my provisional approval until the changes are made.

tuggyne, I thought about your suggestion to double-list the rules that are removed from voting for 100% agreement...and decided that aside from the added work, it would also put the rules that are still agreed to, but with only one or two dissenters, in a "lesser" category. I don't really think that's fair, nor that we can call the 100%ers the "best". So for now, I'm going to leave as-is, but I do thank you for the suggestion.

OK, fair enough.

I'm not sure that enhancing two gauntlets for the price of one is really ever intended by the ruleset.

This, specifically, may be intended to model the various wondrous items that fit the hand slot; all of them work as a pair, and are bought for the price of a single item.
The rest is basically as you say, though.

Rule 15: I would tend to consider most mental resistance to be a mix of conscious and subconscious. If I'm awake and I feel something trying to control my mind, I'll fight it. I have to wonder if I would do so while asleep. I'm not sure if it is printed anywhere, but I've always wondered if you're aware of it when someone casts a will save spell on you (such as charm person.) Do you notice the attempt to alter your thoughts or not? If you don't notice it, then will saves are subconscious and should be allowed while sleeping. At the moment, I have to go "Undecided" while I consider further. I would easily agree with resisting all "mind-affecting" effects, but I'm not sure about other forms of will saves.

The SRD's saving throw section of Spell Descriptions mentions:

A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack.

Given that charm person would obviously be ineffective if a failed save still allowed you to notice something was wrong, I think you're only able to notice the attempt to attack you if it fails, which implies you resist before you notice anything is wrong.

Rule 16: No Opinion, tower shields are screwed up, but this doesn't quite seem right as worded. Maybe add something about everyone else has total cover from the person using the tower shield for total cover.

That would probably work well.

Rule 26: Agree, though I thought this was explicitly mentioned somewhere already.

To the best of my knowledge, it isn't, and some are implied to not be Extraordinary. Other posters can probably give more examples.

Rule 37: Agree, I'm pretty sure that no DM allows infinite loops in-game, and if this thread is about common sense, then this seems to me like a prime example of a common sense rule. Most are caused by problems in wording of abilities, or by unexpected interactions and should be looked at individually as well.

The main problem as I see it is that this is less of a rule and more of a principle. It's a fine principle, to be sure, but it's not the same thing.

Rule 40: Agree, though I thought this was already mentioned somewhere.

Source? Would be great if it was....

[Evil the Cat]

Seeing as the "You count as willingly forgoing your save for all spells when unconscious" interpretation allows for Fort-based spells as well (so if you were unconscious and someone cast disintegrate on you, you'd get no save) that's the reason I came down against it and in favour of the Rule 15 version instead, earlier in the thread.

The rule as currently written here only includes Will saves. I would definitely allow Fort saves under almost any condition.

Given that charm person would obviously be ineffective if a failed save still allowed you to notice something was wrong, I think you're only able to notice the attempt to attack you if it fails, which implies you resist before you notice anything is wrong.

If you resist before you know anything is wrong, then resisting is a subconscious act, and consciousness should not matter much. Though, the mind functions a bit differently while asleep. A penalty probably makes sense.

Though this reminds me of an evil character I had in a game once. We had a captured wizard, and I was playing a sorcerer. I stood in plain view casting Charm Person on the him over and over again until he failed his save. He was getting pretty pissed until he failed on the 3rd time I cast it. At that point, he was surprisingly ok with the whole thing.

To the best of my knowledge, it isn't, and some are implied to not be Extraordinary. Other posters can probably give more examples.

I'll have to recheck, because I really thought it was mentioned in one of the books. I know in my games I have always treated feats as [EX], unless in a special category such as divine, reserve, or wild.

Source? Would be great if it was....

I'll look for it, I thought I read it somewhere, but there are so many books that it could take a while to find it.

[tyckspoon]

I'll have to recheck, because I really thought it was mentioned in one of the books. I know in my games I have always treated feats as [EX], unless in a special category such as divine, reserve, or wild.

I'm not sure where the first statement of the rule is, but fwiw Exalted Deeds says this in the intro section about Exalted feats:

These feats are thus supernatural in nature (rather than being
extraordinary abilities, as most feats are).

[Darrin]

Rules:

• 19 - No. I don't like the interpretations of slams having to be with arms if you have them. I think it's valid to interpret them as kicks, body slams, etc.

The overwhelming majority appears to be against this (even if they can't always explain why), so this one should probably be marked as permanently disapproved or removed entirely.

How about:

Rule 0??: A "slam" may be a kick, elbow, body slam, pseudopod, or some other amorphous part of a creature's body. You do not lose a slam attack if your arms are occupied.

Much simpler, not a lot of rules headaches to straighten out... but it's going to make giants and other large creatures with two slam attacks much deadlier.

[Ashtagon]

32b - Approve

41 - Approve

[Gwendol]

The overwhelming majority appears to be against this (even if they can't always explain why), so this one should probably be marked as permanently disapproved or removed entirely.

How about:

Rule 0??: A "slam" may be a kick, elbow, body slam, pseudopod, or some other amorphous part of a creature's body. You do not lose a slam attack if your arms are occupied.

Much simpler, not a lot of rules headaches to straighten out... but it's going to make giants and other large creatures with two slam attacks much deadlier.

I approve of this.

[Togo]

It feels like rule 026 - Feats as (ex) unless otherwise stated, has been included to solve some kind of problem. I'm not clear what that problem is. I'm certainly nervous about equating feats with Ex abilities when there are abilities in the game that grant you access to one but not the other. (e.g. compare heroics to enchanced wildshape).

I'd disagree with 26, due to the unintended consequences, unless someone can show some kind of advantage?

[Menteith]

Rule 45: Dragonscale Husk and Armor

The alternate class feature Dragonscale Husk gives an armor bonus, instead of an untyped bonus to your armor class. This armor bonus does not stack with any other armor bonus, but does stack with other appropriate bonuses. The armor carries no ACF and is weightless. You can spend 10 minutes to shed the husk, and can regrow it after 10 minutes of rest.

Just the fix that I frequently use for one of my favorite ACFs. It's terrible as written, and this makes it viable for some characters.

[Tyndmyr]

Except I am not at all confident that this is valid to begin with, much less when you add gauntlets in. There is enough difference in proper technique involved that I don't think wizards or commoners should necessarily know how to use them properly. Andorax captures my reasoning here:

Excellent point. The bit you quoted convinced me NOT to support rule 42. Please count me as against it.

I've done notable martial arts training, and can assure you that not everyone can innately punch skillfully. Plenty of people could easily break their hand even without brass knuckles, and are probably equally unskilled with them or a larger gauntlet.

I like wizards, but the idea that a wizard automatically knows how to use a gauntlet is...not common sense.

Rule 45: Dragonscale Husk and Armor

The alternate class feature Dragonscale Husk gives an armor bonus, instead of an untyped bonus to your armor class. This armor bonus does not stack with any other armor bonus, but does stack with other appropriate bonuses. The armor carries no ACF and is weightless.

Just the fix that I frequently use for one of my favorite ACFs. It's terrible as written, and this makes it viable for some characters.

Wouldn't natural armor be more appropriate for this?

[Ashtagon]

Rule 45: Dragonscale Husk and Armor

The alternate class feature Dragonscale Husk gives an armor bonus, instead of an untyped bonus to your armor class. This armor bonus does not stack with any other armor bonus, but does stack with other appropriate bonuses. The armor carries no ACF and is weightless.

Just the fix that I frequently use for one of my favorite ACFs. It's terrible as written, and this makes it viable for some characters.

What rulebook was this in originally?

[Menteith]

The ACF is in Dragon Magic, page 11.

@Tyndmyr - You trade away all armor Proficiencies for it, and it specifically calls it out as counting as Medium Armor, gives it an armor check penalty, and a maximum Dexterity bonus. It does not specify a weight or a spellcasting failure chance, so I just clarified what I think is the intent. You can remove it by shedding. Natural Armor makes more sense overall, but the ability would need to be more heavily altered to accomplish it, so I tried to change it into an armor.