Page 12 of 18 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112131415161718 LastLast
Results 331 to 360 of 534
  1. - Top - End - #331
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tyndmyr's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Gender
    Male

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

    Mm, yeah, that's odd. Usually that sort of thing is natural armor, but check penalty, etc is usually a normal armor thing. Do you shed it every night before sleeping or is it more restrictive?
    Last edited by Tyndmyr; 2012-05-15 at 11:04 AM.
    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!

  2. - Top - End - #332
    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
    Mm, yeah, that's odd. Usually that sort of thing is natural armor, but check penalty, etc is usually a normal armor thing. Do you shed it every night before sleeping or is it more restrictive?
    You can sleep in it without penalty (specifically says you can). You cannot wear any other armor while it's on. It is not treated as armor for the purposes of spells or effects (so no Magic Vestment). You can spend 10m shedding it to remove it...although there's also not way to gain it back if you shed it. I'll edit my post to give it one.
    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...

  3. - Top - End - #333
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location

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

    Tyndmyr, I've had a chance to actually read over the errata for Arcane Thesis, and it does solve the issue of rule 036 (assuming, of course, that nowhere in the whole of 3.X is there another missed variation).

    However, from what I read, it still doesn't solve the problem Rule 002 was created to deal with. I'll break it down once again.

    Consider the 1st level spell Magic Missile, Arcane Thesis, and the two metamagic feats Empower Spell (normally a 2-level adjustment) and Invisible Spell (normally a 0-level adjustment).

    According to the (errataed) version of Arcane Thesis:

    A Magic Missile is 1st level
    An Invisible Magic Missile is 1st level (total meta cost can't drop below 0, so it's 1+0)
    An Empowered Magic Missile is 2nd level (1 + (2-1)) = 2.
    and...
    An Invisible Empowered Magic Missile is 1st level (1 + (2-1 + 0-1)) = 1. Total meta cost remains 0, but each individual meta is still reducable by 1...nothing I read in the errata...unless I'm reading the wrong one...indicates otherwise.

    So we are still left with the non-sensical situation where ADDING an additional metamagic effect that isn't by design intended to reduce the spell level (unlike sanctum spell), you are LOWERING the level of the overall final spell cast.

    Tacking 0-adjustment metamagics onto Arcane Thesis'd spells is a cornerstone of the absurdly-reduced metamagic spell loophole. Rule 002 is intended to combat this and set a floor of 0 to any individual metamagic effect (with the obvious and now-stated exception of sanctum spell), not just the "net of 0" combinative effect, as seen in the above example. The net effect is to prevent making a spell easier to cast by adding MORE metamagic effects to it...something that makes no sense.


    So again, what we're left with in rule 002 is a rule that either:

    A) Prevents an illogical loophole by which casters throw extra 0-cost metamagic effects onto spells in order to actually LOWER the overall cost, buying off more expensive metamagic adjustments that would otherwise apply in their absence.

    OR

    B) It does nothing because you've successfully shown that EVERY possible metamagic-reducing effect published has been either written or errataed to prevent this effect to begin with. Your argument that it would in any way modify or interfere with other reducers that cap at +1 is a straw-man...the restrictions are in no way worded to be mutually exclusive.



    If you genuinely believe B (and please show me the errata to Arcane Thesis that I missed that clearly prevents this), then at a maximum, you're neutral on Rule 002, as it thus doesn't do anything.

    If, on the other hand, there's any possible that A could be true, and you agree that the outcome is not in line with common sense (ie, you agree with the premise that A is correct and desirable), you should be for Rule 002.

    The only way I can see someone being against rule 002 is if they disagree with the underlying premise of A, and that by adding extra 0-adjustment metamagics it should actually be possible to lower the final spell level, buying off more expensive metamagics by making the spell MORE complex.

    Personally, while I do appreciate your exhaustive list of known reducers, I'm not confident and convinced that it's comprehensive. You, yourself, openly admit one counter-example which you dismiss as being third-party and otherwise...questionable. I'm not convinced that there aren't others out there in the whole of 3.X...and even if they were, the worst we have is a rule that prevents an exploit that doesn't exist.

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

    Essence of War...I can't take partial votes. You're either approving of 42 as-writ, abstaining, or against. Comment is fine, but I can't record a "partial" vote.



    Darrin, there's a threshold for dropping rules off. Rule 19 is near it, but hasn't dropped off yet. I've reworded Rule 045 a bit and posted it.


    Menteith, Darrin beat you to rule 045, so Dragonscale Husk and Armor is considered Rule 046 instead. I added a couple of minor clarifications...and yes, that's exactly how I would handle it. It has much in common (while not being identical) to a Warforged's composite plating. I did NOT include your "regrow" comment, because it contradicts what's already written...which is that it regrows over the course of 8 hours while you are sleeping.






    (Please see above as a reason why you should include at least a minimum bit of explanation when you're voting for rules that aren't initially posted. Feel free to do so, but make sure I know which one you're referring to by description, not just by number)


    Rule 015 is now disapproved
    Rule 026 is now disapproved
    Rule 045 is added, and is approved
    Rule 046 is added, and is approved
    Whadda ya mean, Orcs got levels too?

  4. - Top - End - #334
    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 Andorax View Post
    Menteith, Darrin beat you to rule 045, so Dragonscale Husk and Armor is considered Rule 046 instead. I added a couple of minor clarifications...and yes, that's exactly how I would handle it. It has much in common (while not being identical) to a Warforged's composite plating. I did NOT include your "regrow" comment, because it contradicts what's already written...which is that it regrows over the course of 8 hours while you are sleeping.
    Well, I feel smart . Thanks for catching that!
    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...

  5. - Top - End - #335
    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 Andorax View Post
    Tyndmyr, I've had a chance to actually read over the errata for Arcane Thesis, and it does solve the issue of rule 036 (assuming, of course, that nowhere in the whole of 3.X is there another missed variation).

    However, from what I read, it still doesn't solve the problem Rule 002 was created to deal with. I'll break it down once again.

    Consider the 1st level spell Magic Missile, Arcane Thesis, and the two metamagic feats Empower Spell (normally a 2-level adjustment) and Invisible Spell (normally a 0-level adjustment).

    According to the (errataed) version of Arcane Thesis:

    A Magic Missile is 1st level
    An Invisible Magic Missile is 1st level (total meta cost can't drop below 0, so it's 1+0)
    An Empowered Magic Missile is 2nd level (1 + (2-1)) = 2.
    and...
    An Invisible Empowered Magic Missile is 1st level (1 + (2-1 + 0-1)) = 1. Total meta cost remains 0, but each individual meta is still reducable by 1...nothing I read in the errata...unless I'm reading the wrong one...indicates otherwise.

    So we are still left with the non-sensical situation where ADDING an additional metamagic effect that isn't by design intended to reduce the spell level (unlike sanctum spell), you are LOWERING the level of the overall final spell cast.

    Tacking 0-adjustment metamagics onto Arcane Thesis'd spells is a cornerstone of the absurdly-reduced metamagic spell loophole. Rule 002 is intended to combat this and set a floor of 0 to any individual metamagic effect (with the obvious and now-stated exception of sanctum spell), not just the "net of 0" combinative effect, as seen in the above example. The net effect is to prevent making a spell easier to cast by adding MORE metamagic effects to it...something that makes no sense.
    I don't consider that a loophole. This was something that was looked at carefully for errata, and was specifically written this way. It's pretty obviously intended.

    These are not "Rules as I Think They Should Be", it's a common sense clarification of things like drown-healing that legitimately make no sense, and were likely mere oversights.

    In here, adding on seventeen different metamagics with all manner of reducers to a spell via arcane thesis cannot lower it beyond the original spell level. This makes sense. Do certain combinations of reducers, metamagics, and spells have lower levels than others? Sure. Why shouldn't they? That's kind of how they obviously work.

    So again, what we're left with in rule 002 is a rule that either:

    A) Prevents an illogical loophole by which casters throw extra 0-cost metamagic effects onto spells in order to actually LOWER the overall cost, buying off more expensive metamagic adjustments that would otherwise apply in their absence.

    OR

    B) It does nothing because you've successfully shown that EVERY possible metamagic-reducing effect published has been either written or errataed to prevent this effect to begin with. Your argument that it would in any way modify or interfere with other reducers that cap at +1 is a straw-man...the restrictions are in no way worded to be mutually exclusive.
    Well, technically speaking, specific overriding general, B isn't a problem because the limits included in the metamagics themselves would override it. That said, that same prioritization would make the rule pointless. I only included it with a "if this overrides everything" clause, because otherwise the rule does not matter for anything, so it makes sense that it overrides individual limitations.

    You need SOME sort of explicit rules priority here, and you don't have it.

    If you genuinely believe B (and please show me the errata to Arcane Thesis that I missed that clearly prevents this), then at a maximum, you're neutral on Rule 002, as it thus doesn't do anything.

    If, on the other hand, there's any possible that A could be true, and you agree that the outcome is not in line with common sense (ie, you agree with the premise that A is correct and desirable), you should be for Rule 002.

    The only way I can see someone being against rule 002 is if they disagree with the underlying premise of A, and that by adding extra 0-adjustment metamagics it should actually be possible to lower the final spell level, buying off more expensive metamagics by making the spell MORE complex.
    I don't accept A as true. Honestly, I could see purely negative level metamagics as being conceptually ok. Perhaps doing XYZ makes it easier to cast. How the hell should I know? I can't cast magic. But I see nothing that violates common sense about the rules as written.

    Personally, while I do appreciate your exhaustive list of known reducers, I'm not confident and convinced that it's comprehensive. You, yourself, openly admit one counter-example which you dismiss as being third-party and otherwise...questionable. I'm not convinced that there aren't others out there in the whole of 3.X...and even if they were, the worst we have is a rule that prevents an exploit that doesn't exist.
    I can't vouch for every third party/homebrew solution, but the fact that official sources routinely list them on metamagic reducers indicates it's as standard as listing the metamagic adjustment on metamagics. Third party/homebrew people who do not produce content up to official standards should not be a concern. The number of potential bad homebrewed rules is infinite. We can't fix all that.

    A rule that prevents an exploit that doesn't exist is redundant, and should be removed for brevity, IMO.
    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!

  6. - Top - End - #336
    Titan in the Playground
     
    TuggyNE's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Recovering from RSI
    Gender
    Male

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

    Rule 026: I've been hesitating on actually coming down against this for a while, but I don't think the change is justified, so I'll now officially disagree.

    I also propose that 036 be removed in favor of mentioning the errata for Arcane Thesis, and 019 be removed in favor of 045.

    Rule 046: Dragonscale Husk and Armor
    The alternate class feature Dragonscale Husk (See Dragon Magic p. 12) 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 (this replaces the section stating that this bonus doesn't stack with any feat, racial trait, or other special ability that would grant you a bonus to Armor Class). The husk carries no ACF and is weightless.
    I assumed this should be 0 ACP, or possibly ASF, as I don't have access to the source (this is also why I'm not voting one way or another); however, it looks like it has -4 ACP and 0% ASF.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyndmyr View Post
    In here, adding on seventeen different metamagics with all manner of reducers to a spell via arcane thesis cannot lower it beyond the original spell level. This makes sense. Do certain combinations of reducers, metamagics, and spells have lower levels than others? Sure. Why shouldn't they? That's kind of how they obviously work.
    [...]
    I don't accept A as true. Honestly, I could see purely negative level metamagics as being conceptually ok. Perhaps doing XYZ makes it easier to cast. How the hell should I know? I can't cast magic. But I see nothing that violates common sense about the rules as written.
    This is pretty much my position. While it is counter-intuitive that adding metamagic can make a spell easier to cast, it is not necessarily common sense to say that this is impossible and cannot be the case. As an example from real life, cryptography has a field of techniques ("zero-knowledge proofs") for proving that you know a particular thing without actually revealing it to anyone; it is possible to prove that you have a new scientific discovery, and later verify it in detail, without allowing anyone access to the knowledge ahead of time. This is bizarre, counter-intuitive, and seemingly magical, but it is a fact of mathematics, and is applied in practice in various situations.

    If the writers chose to create a counter-intuitive aspect of magic that makes some things surprisingly easy, while leaving others surprisingly hard*, that is not necessarily a flaw in the system.


    *Of course, actually finding something in 3.5 that magic has trouble doing might be a tougher challenge, but I digress....
    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

  7. - Top - End - #337
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location

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

    Tyndmyr, since you're clearly good with rejecting "alternative A", I'll let ya be on the issue...but I do want to point one thing out.

    "A rule that prevents an exploit that doesn't exist is redundant, and should be removed for brevity, IMO."

    The only rules that get removed are ones that are withdrawn by request of the original poster within a short timeframe (spiked gauntlets), ones that are absolutely clearly covered under RAW without interpretation (it's come up once that something was stated elsewhere), and ones that are overwhelmingly opposed (80% against). Voting something down is not at all likely to get it removed.

    Please do NOT vote against a rule because you want it removed...only if you disagree with it. Rules you feel are unnecessary, you're free to ignore...but you're definately hurting the very premise of this thread if people start saying "I don't think that's needed, so I'll say 'against'."
    Whadda ya mean, Orcs got levels too?

  8. - Top - End - #338
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Amphetryon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2006

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

    Please do NOT vote against a rule because you want it removed...only if you disagree with it. Rules you feel are unnecessary, you're free to ignore...but you're definately hurting the very premise of this thread if people start saying "I don't think that's needed, so I'll say 'against'."
    I'm having a hard time understanding the distinction you're trying to make here. In voting against a rule, aren't you automatically saying that the proposed rule needs to be removed or reworded in its present form? If not, what, exactly, do you perceive a vote against something to mean?
    Iron Chef in the Playground veteran since Round IV.

    Who made my awesome Dwarf Hexblade avatar, you ask? BRC did!
    Spoiler
    Show

  9. - Top - End - #339
    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 Andorax View Post
    Tyndmyr, since you're clearly good with rejecting "alternative A", I'll let ya be on the issue...but I do want to point one thing out.

    "A rule that prevents an exploit that doesn't exist is redundant, and should be removed for brevity, IMO."

    The only rules that get removed are ones that are withdrawn by request of the original poster within a short timeframe (spiked gauntlets), ones that are absolutely clearly covered under RAW without interpretation (it's come up once that something was stated elsewhere), and ones that are overwhelmingly opposed (80% against). Voting something down is not at all likely to get it removed.

    Please do NOT vote against a rule because you want it removed...only if you disagree with it. Rules you feel are unnecessary, you're free to ignore...but you're definately hurting the very premise of this thread if people start saying "I don't think that's needed, so I'll say 'against'."
    I disagree with it, think it's a bad rule, and that it clarifies nothing, and introduces confusion. Thus, it should not exist. Why would I not vote "against"?
    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!

  10. - Top - End - #340
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location

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

    "I want to see it removed from the list because I think it's redundant or unnecessary". <-- bad reasoning.

    "I disagree with the premise. I think it is incorrect/inaccurate/illogical or otherwise a poor solution.' <-- good reasoning.


    Basically, having people oppose rules they think aren't needed or redundant (as opposed to rules they actually disagree with) is essentially turning all "abstain" votes into "no" votes. The power of apathy being what it is, there won't be much of anything that can get a 80% pass.

    There's also a big difference between wanting a rule defeated (ie, disapproved) and wanting a rule removed (pruned from the list entirely).

    Since both are true for Tyndmyr, I have no issue with his "no" vote on 002 at this point. I just want to head off at the pass the idea of "we don't need that rule, so I'll vote against it in hopes of getting it removed from the list." It's twice-over faulty reasoning.
    Last edited by Andorax; 2012-05-16 at 04:09 PM.
    Whadda ya mean, Orcs got levels too?

  11. - Top - End - #341
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Amphetryon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2006

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    "I want to see it removed from the list because I think it's redundant or unnecessary". <-- bad reasoning.

    "I disagree with the premise. I think it is incorrect/inaccurate/illogical or otherwise a poor solution.' <-- good reasoning.


    Basically, having people oppose rules they think aren't needed or redundant (as opposed to rules they actually disagree with) is essentially turning all "abstain" votes into "no" votes. The power of apathy being what it is, there won't be much of anything that can get a 80% pass.

    There's also a big difference between wanting a rule defeated (ie, disapproved) and wanting a rule removed (pruned from the list entirely).

    Since both are true for Tyndmyr, I have no issue with his "no" vote on 002 at this point. I just want to head off at the pass the idea of "we don't need that rule, so I'll vote against it in hopes of getting it removed from the list." It's twice-over faulty reasoning.
    So, you're saying there will be rules we're voting against that we DON'T want removed from consideration? How does that work, exactly? It really reads like we're going to be voting against things and still hoping they stay on and get approved. Otherwise, the concern is simply whether the method of objection fits the particular verbiage you're looking for.
    Iron Chef in the Playground veteran since Round IV.

    Who made my awesome Dwarf Hexblade avatar, you ask? BRC did!
    Spoiler
    Show

  12. - Top - End - #342
    Titan in the Playground
     
    TuggyNE's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Recovering from RSI
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    Basically, having people oppose rules they think aren't needed or redundant (as opposed to rules they actually disagree with) is essentially turning all "abstain" votes into "no" votes. The power of apathy being what it is, there won't be much of anything that can get a 80% pass.

    There's also a big difference between wanting a rule defeated (ie, disapproved) and wanting a rule removed (pruned from the list entirely).

    Since both are true for Tyndmyr, I have no issue with his "no" vote on 002 at this point. I just want to head off at the pass the idea of "we don't need that rule, so I'll vote against it in hopes of getting it removed from the list." It's twice-over faulty reasoning.
    Quote Originally Posted by Amphetryon View Post
    So, you're saying there will be rules we're voting against that we DON'T want removed from consideration? How does that work, exactly? It really reads like we're going to be voting against things and still hoping they stay on and get approved. Otherwise, the concern is simply whether the method of objection fits the particular verbiage you're looking for.
    Actually, I suspect Andorax was talking about rules one wants to remove from consideration, but do not disagree with, rather than the other way around.

    As I see it, there are several possible reasons to want to remove a rule from the list: a) it's wrong; b) RAW already (more or less) covers it; c) RAI already covers it. Reason c) is specifically invalid, because RAI is too subjective to use without clarification, which this thread is for. Reason b) is sometimes valid (see: 036, potentially), but there are cases where RAW is sufficiently debated that clarification is needed. Essentially, this thread should cover all cases of "reasonable doubt".

    There also are several possible reasons to abstain from voting: a) one doesn't know enough about the situation; b) the current phrasing is incorrect, but better than the existing rules, and can be made better yet; c) the rule seems unnecessary because of RAW or RAI. Again, I don't believe c) is a valid choice; if RAW already unarguably covers it, remove the rule, but otherwise approve of it.

    After analyzing this, I've come to the realization that some of my voting choices have been inconsistent. Accordingly, I'm changing my vote on 043 to abstain until the language on enchanting as armor is removed.

    Unrelatedly, 045 appears to be correct, so I approve.

    Also, On Half-Fiends, Half-Celestials, Planetouched and other things, and RHD (RAI?) has a lengthy and rather complicated discussion of whether non-humanoids with 1 RHD are allowed to trade that in for their first class level or not. My own interpretation is that they should be allowed to.

    Rule 047: Non-Humanoids and Class Levels*
    Appended to the section on Humanoids and Class Levels: Creatures with 1 Hit Die that advance by class level may exchange the features of their racial Hit Die for the class features of a PC or NPC class.

    A possible change: limiting it only to those that advance by class level may not be justified (instead, requiring at least 3 int). I suggest deciding on this before the rule is inserted for voting.

    *Yes, this is a lame un-funny title. Oh well.
    Last edited by TuggyNE; 2012-05-16 at 06:36 PM.
    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

  13. - Top - End - #343
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Amphetryon View Post
    So, you're saying there will be rules we're voting against that we DON'T want removed from consideration? How does that work, exactly? It really reads like we're going to be voting against things and still hoping they stay on and get approved. Otherwise, the concern is simply whether the method of objection fits the particular verbiage you're looking for.
    What I'm saying is that you vote against rules that you disagree with. Don't try to "game the system", simply weigh in on the rule itself...do you agree or disagree with it, or choose to do neither?

    Voting against rules does not, except for unusual circumstances, get a rule removed...it simply gets it marked disapproved. A vote against should be intended for that purpose alone...that the rule be disapproved.

    Saying that the rule "shouldn't be on the list at all" and voting to "try and get it removed" is faulty reasoning. If you think a rule accomplishes nothing, changes nothing, does nothing...then do the same. Ignore it. Only if you think a rule does something WRONG, that you disagree with where its going should you vote it down.

    The phrases "Rules as Written is clear" and "Rules as Intended is Obvious" have come up. The first isn't, the second never will be. Rules are here because of this, and our attempt at achieveing consensus is because RAW and RAI are insufficient.



    Rule 047 is currently open to discussion how best to phrase it, and as such, is not open for voting as of yet.
    Whadda ya mean, Orcs got levels too?

  14. - Top - End - #344
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Amphetryon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2006

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

    Saying that the rule "shouldn't be on the list at all" and voting to "try and get it removed" is faulty reasoning. If you think a rule accomplishes nothing, changes nothing, does nothing...then do the same. Ignore it. Only if you think a rule does something WRONG, that you disagree with where its going should you vote it down.
    Again, that's a matter of phrasing, not on voting methodology. If I've voted against a rule, it's because I disagree with it in its proposed verbiage. I most likely will hold the opinion that it should be disapproved, and ultimately dropped. You're telling us that the second half, though a perfectly reasonable extension of disagreement, is somehow wrong.
    Iron Chef in the Playground veteran since Round IV.

    Who made my awesome Dwarf Hexblade avatar, you ask? BRC did!
    Spoiler
    Show

  15. - Top - End - #345
    Titan in the Playground
     
    TuggyNE's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Recovering from RSI
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    Saying that the rule "shouldn't be on the list at all" and voting to "try and get it removed" is faulty reasoning. If you think a rule accomplishes nothing, changes nothing, does nothing...then do the same. Ignore it. Only if you think a rule does something WRONG, that you disagree with where its going should you vote it down.
    Quote Originally Posted by Amphetryon View Post
    Again, that's a matter of phrasing, not on voting methodology. If I've voted against a rule, it's because I disagree with it in its proposed verbiage. I most likely will hold the opinion that it should be disapproved, and ultimately dropped. You're telling us that the second half, though a perfectly reasonable extension of disagreement, is somehow wrong.
    Disagreeing, and therefore wishing to remove a rule from the list, is reasonable, as Andorax said; wishing to remove a rule without disagreeing with it is not so much. Does that clarify things?

    Or how about something like this to summarize why you should (or should not) vote in a particular way:
    {table=head]Vote | Valid Reasons | Insufficient Reasons
    Yea | Sensible, correctly phrased, necessary | well-intended but sloppy
    Nay | Poorly designed; counter to common sense | poorly worded*, unnecessary
    Abstain | Well-intended but sloppy; not enough information; unnecessary* | [/table]
    *these are a bit more subjective than the others
    Last edited by TuggyNE; 2012-05-17 at 06:52 PM. Reason: Stray asterisk
    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

  16. - Top - End - #346
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Amphetryon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2006

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

    wishing to remove a rule without disagreeing with it* is not so much. Does that clarify things?
    As I've not seen the former without the latter being true, no, it really doesn't.
    Iron Chef in the Playground veteran since Round IV.

    Who made my awesome Dwarf Hexblade avatar, you ask? BRC did!
    Spoiler
    Show

  17. - Top - End - #347
    Titan in the Playground
     
    TuggyNE's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Recovering from RSI
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Amphetryon View Post
    As I've not seen the former without the latter being true, no, it really doesn't.
    As far as I know, it hasn't really happened yet:
    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    I just want to head off at the pass the idea of "we don't need that rule, so I'll vote against it in hopes of getting it removed from the list."
    I believe this is what caused Andorax to bring this up originally:
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyndmyr View Post
    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.
    Looking at it more closely, the use of abstention is, in fact, entirely correct. Voting Nay to such rulings, despite agreeing with their phrasing, would be an example of the incorrect reasoning I was describing.


    But... I suspect it's fair to say this is mostly just beating on a dead horse. As you say, no one has actually exhibited this reasoning yet, so it's a bit premature to worry about it.
    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 - #348
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    DeAnno's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Gender
    Male

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

    I think a lot of this angst over votes is being caused by the magic 80% threshold which, as far as I can tell, was pulled out of a hat and means absolutely nothing. It could just as easily be 67% or 75% or 95%. I think you should strip out the approved/disapproved, as it suggests a divide that doesn't really exist, and just let things be judged by their percentages.

  19. - Top - End - #349
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    erikun's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

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

    Quote Originally Posted by tuggyne View Post
    Rule 047: Non-Humanoids and Class Levels*
    Creatures with 1 Hit Die that advance by class level may exchange the features of their racial Hit Die for the class features of a PC or NPC class.

    A possible change: limiting it only to those that advance by class level may not be justified (instead, requiring either at least 1 int or at least 3 int). I suggest deciding on this before the rule is inserted for voting.
    Huh? What does this mean, exactly?

    As written, it looks like anything with only 1HD may exchange their "racial Hit Dice features" (meaning, everything they have) in exchange for the 1st level class features from any class.

    That is, for example, a baboon could exchange its +8 to climb (and perhaps low-light vision + scent) in exchange for, say, 1st level cleric spellcasting, turn undead, and the choice of two domains.

    Perhaps that isn't what you had intended... but then what? The phrasing isn't clear. (Neither is why it is limited to non-humanoids.)
    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

  20. - Top - End - #350
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Mnemnosyne's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010

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

    Interesting idea, I think I'll go through and give my comments on most of them.

    Rule 002: My Thesis: More Complex Is Easier:
    No. It's been errata'd to prevent a spell from being reduced below its original level, but did not change the stacking, suggesting stacking is intentional or at least not clearly against intended rules. Furthermore, I can imagine how a +0 metamagic (which normally does not increase the complexity of a spell in the slightest) might be used to modify a spell and make other metamagic easier to apply, so it's not common sense to me.

    Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels:
    No. I think the Legacy Champion and Uncanny Trickster should indeed be able to advance classes beyond their 'normal' maximum. The Hellfire Warlock is the only class I can think of off-hand where I might disagree with this, and if a restriction were to be placed, I would put it on the HFW side, not the Legacy Champion/Uncanny Trickster side. I also think this would be more of a houserule than a general common-sense rule.

    Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike:
    Yes. Reasonable, seems like an oversight.

    Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally:
    Yes. Seems reasonable, and it doesn't remove the AoO for attacking unarmed.

    Rule 007: Lions with Hooves:
    Yes. Reasonable, seems like an oversight.

    Rule 008: Dragonblood and heritage:
    Yes. Seems pretty clear that dragonblood is meant to give access.

    Rule 010: Who's Charging, Anyways?
    No. It seems reasonable to me that a mount should be able to bring a character into position to make an attack, and additional limits on full attacks don't seem to help the fact that melee is already weak enough as it is.

    Rule 011: Who's Riding By, Anyways?
    Not sure what this one's doing, exactly.

    Rule 014: I'm Not Left Handed:
    Yes. With the removal of Ambidexterity and the ability to declare either hand your 'primary' during TWF, I see no reason to designate an offhand at anytime other than when you're TWFing.

    Rule 015: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped:
    Yes. Being unconscious doesn't completely shut off someone's mental functions; people can dream, hallucinate, etc, while unconscious and therefore anything that affects an unconscious mind should still be able to be resisted. Additionally, I do not think that the use of the word 'willingly' under voluntarily foregoing a saving throw means 'a willing target' as defined in the targeting rules - in this sentence, it appears to be used as the common english word, not as the specific binary choice under the targeting rules. While I would support a penalty to the will save, that seems to be outside the purview of this particular rule.

    Rule 016: Tower Shields; How the #&%@ Do They Work?
    No. While the use of tower shields would appear to need some clarification, I don't think this rule clears it up effectively. Furthermore, why does the rule not allow for an attack roll, but does allow for spells or other non-attack-roll attacks? It seems inconsistent with no common sense reasoning.

    Rule 019: All Slams Are Not Created Equally:
    No. Slam seems reasonable coming from any part of the body, not just arms if you happen to have them.

    Rule 020: My Weapon Is My Shield!
    Yes. Reasonable clarification, especially considering Rule 014.

    Rule 021: Enchanting Enhanced Projectiles:
    No. Enchanted projectiles have the drawback of breaking, being lost, and otherwise being destroyed. While some enchanted projectiles can function in unintended bad ways, this rule limits too many valid uses in order to strike down the negative ones.

    Rule 023: Positive Drawbacks to Undead:
    Yes. Positive energy usually harms undead, should apply on the positive energy plane.

    Rule 026: Extraordinary Feats:
    Not sure what's trying to be accomplished here, or how this changes things, would need more info before committing to a position.

    Rule 028: Qualified and Disqualified:
    No. Wording isn't completely clear, plus it goes against the rules on DMG 176 (...before they can take their first level of a prestige class.) which suggests the entry requirements only apply in order to initially enter the class. The 'first level' terminology is also repeated several times; if it was intended for characters to be able to un-qualify it would call this out specifically, or at the very least specify they can no longer advance further.

    Rule 030: Strict Aptitude:
    Not entirely clear on this one or what it's about. It sounds like an additional limitation on the magical weapon ability, but I don't clearly understand what it's limiting.

    Rule 31: Nobody Notices the Guy with the Tower Shield:
    Yes. Both of these present nonsensical situations.

    Rule 032A: Full Attack and an Attack of Opportunity:
    No. While this makes it easier on the archer, I don't see where any distinction is made prohibiting multiple AOO's on an archer if he provokes multiple AOO's in the same round.

    Rule 032B: Full Attack and Multiple Attacks of Opportunity:
    Yes. Seems reasonable, and looks like the way it should work.

    Rule 033: No Double Dipping:
    No. The presence of specific instances which are called out to disallow it implies that where it is not specifically disallowed, it is by default, permitted. And I see no common-sense reason why two separate abilities shouldn't be able to apply to the same thing, if they are untyped.

    Rule 034: Armored Outfits:
    Would suggest altering this from an entire outfit to any individual piece of clothing. Regardless of what piece of clothing it may be, it would still occupy the 'body' slot. Reasoning: Keeping track of precisely what makes up a 'set' would be difficult. Furthermore, the very description of the Explorer's Outfit used in the example includes boots, belt, shirt, gloves, and cloak, suggesting that if the entire outfit must be worn to gain this benefit, then all those other magical item slots become unusable (or you're wearing two sets of gloves, two belts, etc). Additionally, it doesn't really cover what happens if you lose or someone steals a single part of the outfit (say someone swipes the belt, or even the scarf or wide-brimmed hat from an explorer's outfit, what then?) so it adds needless complication. Bringing it down to a single item means you either have it, or you don't, you're either wearing it, or you're not.

    Rule 036: Lesser Metamagic Reduction Rule (see Rule 002):
    No. Already part of the errata for Arcane Thesis, and seems to have questionable interaction with Earth Spell.

    Rule 037: Minus Infinity:
    No. Just not specific enough. General idea, not a specific rule, even if it is common sense.

    Rule 038: On the Delusions of an Illusionist:
    No. It seems possible for an illusionist to believe he's casting 'real' spells instead of illusions through various means.

    Rule 039: Koboldian Delusions of Grandeur:
    Not sure. I don't much care for kobolds, so I'm inclined to agree with this one, but it seems clear that with all the 'dragonizing' kobolds have received that it is intended for kobolds to be able to count as dragons, so if I agree it might be out of my own bias against kobolds. Will have to think about it further and look into it more.

    Rule 040: When All Else Changes, Cooldowns Remain:
    No. It seems to me that the recharge is based on that particular form's breath weapon, not any breath weapon.

    Rule 041: I Can't See a Thing! No Worries, I'll Cast Darkness:
    Yes. Silly oversight in the rules, a spell called Darkness should create darkness and never light, plus this is more consistent with its functionality in previous editions.

    Rule 042: Gauntlets and Unarmed Damage:
    It seems reasonable, but I'm not sure it fits the purpose of the thread. I'll have to give it more thought. I want to say yes, but not sure about it yet.

    Rule 043: Enchanted Gauntlets:
    Don't quite get the point. Is it just to prohibit gauntlets from being enchanted as both weapons and armor at the same time? I admit, I'm not sure how that would work if someone tried it, but I'm not sure it needs a rule prohibiting it.

    Rule 044: Open Chakras Clarified:
    Yes. Although it would be simpler and clearer to remove the "If you have chakra binds from one or more meldshaping class(es)," portion of the sentence: everyone who takes the feat gains one bind that can be used for that chakra only.

    Rule 045: Just What Are You Slamming Me With?
    Yes. Slamming into someone with your shoulder, if your hands are full, seems entirely logical.

    Rule 046: Dragonscale Husk and Armor:
    Don't really understand the ability well enough to say.
    Last edited by Mnemnosyne; 2012-05-17 at 11:46 PM.
    -Do you honestly think that we believe ourselves evil? My friend, we seek only good. It's just that our definitions don't quite match.-
    Ailanreanter, Arcanaloth

  21. - Top - End - #351
    Banned
     
    Zeful's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mnemnosyne View Post
    Rule 003: Bonus Legacy Class Levels:
    No. I think the Legacy Champion and Uncanny Trickster should indeed be able to advance classes beyond their 'normal' maximum.
    How? What about those prestige classes makes that interpretation Common Sense?

  22. - Top - End - #352
    Titan in the Playground
     
    TuggyNE's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Recovering from RSI
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by erikun View Post
    Huh? What does this mean, exactly?

    As written, it looks like anything with only 1HD may exchange their "racial Hit Dice features" (meaning, everything they have) in exchange for the 1st level class features from any class.

    That is, for example, a baboon could exchange its +8 to climb (and perhaps low-light vision + scent) in exchange for, say, 1st level cleric spellcasting, turn undead, and the choice of two domains.
    The general idea is, anything that can be a PC/NPC can run this trade. The alternate 1 Int minimum therefore fails the sniff test. I'm not sure whether allowing only creatures that advance by class to perform this trade is sufficiently generous, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by erikun View Post
    Perhaps that isn't what you had intended... but then what? The phrasing isn't clear. (Neither is why it is limited to non-humanoids.)
    The limitation to non-humanoids is to avoid messing up the existing rules on humanoids (which is that they must trade in their hit die, unless they have more than one RHD). Do the changes help?
    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

  23. - Top - End - #353
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Sgt. Cookie's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Gender
    Male

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

    Rule 42 amendment:

    Replace the last sentence with the following:

    "A gauntlet is considered a simple weapon."


    Rule 43 amendment:

    Replace the first two sentences with:

    "Only gauntlets that are independent of armour may be enchanted as weapons. However, gauntlets that come with armour may be given any non-magical weapon enhancements, such as masterwork or a special material."
    Last edited by Sgt. Cookie; 2012-05-18 at 06:06 AM.
    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.

  24. - Top - End - #354
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Ashtagon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hillvale, Isle of dawn
    Gender
    Female

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

    42 Disagree. They are rated as simple weapons, which includes pretty much everyone who isn't specifically called out as not having them. And I would argue that RAI says the unarmed damage progression replaces the weapon damage. Perhaps the gauntlets block your chi, or don't let you position your hand just right.

    43 Disagree. By default, they can't take armour enchantments, and I don't think RAI means to give more than two places (body, shield) where you can pile on armour enchantments. +5 shield, gloves, and body armour gets silly.
    Last edited by Ashtagon; 2012-05-18 at 08:10 AM.
    Indigo is a much more appropriate colour for sarcasm, don't you think?
    Blue is strictly for emphasis.
    And grey is kind of like an aside to my main point.

    Avatar by The Succubus

  25. - Top - End - #355
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    erikun's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

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

    Quote Originally Posted by tuggyne View Post
    The general idea is, anything that can be a PC/NPC can run this trade. The alternate 1 Int minimum therefore fails the sniff test. I'm not sure whether allowing only creatures that advance by class to perform this trade is sufficiently generous, though.
    Aha, so you're just saying that 1HD creatures can take class levels, and replace their HD with the HD of the first level of the class? (Note that classed individuals don't lose their racial features.)

    I suppose that works, although it's an awkward way of phrasing it. Perhaps something like: Non-Humanoids may take Class Levels as well as Humanoids, and Non-Humanoid Creatures with 1 Racial Hit Die replace their Racial Hit Die with the first-level Hit Die of the chosen class, as normal for Humanoids.

    Also, I don't recall where that rule is located, so a link (if it is in the SRD) would be appropriate.
    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 - #356
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Mnemnosyne's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeful View Post
    How? What about those prestige classes makes that interpretation Common Sense?
    Common sense tells me you can always get better at something. Ideally I'd go for a rule that says that, except in specific, rare cases, all prestige classes can be extended indefinitely so you wouldn't have to use Legacy Champion, you could just go right on ahead taking levels of Mystic Theurge or Anima Mage or whatever. But lacking that rule, Legacy Champion and Uncanny Trickster are at least an option to continue getting better at things you should be able to get better at.

    Come to think of it, I don't think I'd even agree with Hellfire Warlock being limited as I mentioned above - there doesn't seem to be anything specific and inherent to the class that suggests you can't get better at it. Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil might be a better example: you can't add more layers to a prismatic after seven because there aren't any. In that case, it makes sense that you can't extend the class. But any class that's just 'get better at what you were already doing' it makes no sense that you can't extend it. Granted, balance-wise, I see reasons to prohibit that in some cases. But those don't strike me as common sense rules - a balance rule arbitrarily preventing you from getting better at something you were doing might be useful in the sense of retaining balance, but it's also not a 'common sense' rule from my point of view.
    -Do you honestly think that we believe ourselves evil? My friend, we seek only good. It's just that our definitions don't quite match.-
    Ailanreanter, Arcanaloth

  27. - Top - End - #357
    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 Mnemnosyne View Post
    Common sense tells me you can always get better at something. Ideally I'd go for a rule that says that, except in specific, rare cases, all prestige classes can be extended indefinitely so you wouldn't have to use Legacy Champion, you could just go right on ahead taking levels of Mystic Theurge or Anima Mage or whatever. But lacking that rule, Legacy Champion and Uncanny Trickster are at least an option to continue getting better at things you should be able to get better at.

    Come to think of it, I don't think I'd even agree with Hellfire Warlock being limited as I mentioned above - there doesn't seem to be anything specific and inherent to the class that suggests you can't get better at it. Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil might be a better example: you can't add more layers to a prismatic after seven because there aren't any. In that case, it makes sense that you can't extend the class. But any class that's just 'get better at what you were already doing' it makes no sense that you can't extend it. Granted, balance-wise, I see reasons to prohibit that in some cases. But those don't strike me as common sense rules - a balance rule arbitrarily preventing you from getting better at something you were doing might be useful in the sense of retaining balance, but it's also not a 'common sense' rule from my point of view.
    That's reasonable too. Learning more veils for IoT7V doesn't make sense. I'd let someone continue in the class for more than seven levels...but they'd only get stuff like increasing DCs to abjuration and the other various abilities as normal. There just are no more veils to learn. But say, archmage...there's no reason you'd stop getting better as an archmage after five levels.

    From a common sense perspective, a char could specialize in almost anything, and keep getting better at it almost indefinitely.
    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!

  28. - Top - End - #358
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location

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

    Mnemnosyne, consider this regarding Rule 021:

    Technically speaking, the abilities in question aren't even on the Ranged weapon chart, so RAW is in debate here, RAI certainly is open to question. The key here is that the abilities aren't directly tied to their disposable ammunition nature. A defending crossbow bolt doesn't have to be fired to work, and you can craft one batch of defending crossbow bolts and distribute them to your whole platoon. A manifesting slingstone can store PP used for powers, and at the 50-1 discount you can have a LOT more stored power than your WBL should allow (price it out as Cognizance crystals).

    There's nothing wrong with having ammunition that's used up in the process having bonuses that apply to their function as a weapon only (flaming, etc.)...it's when they have bonuses that can be realized without using them as weapons, and thus break the cost/benefit, that there is a problem (50 arrows storing Cure Serious Wounds).






    Please note: Rules 42 and 43 have been significantly amended...you may want to revisit your take on them. I have, and now approve of both under the new wording.



    Rule 19 has reached the "anti-approval" threshold of 20%, and is removed.
    Rule 36 is now disapproved
    Whadda ya mean, Orcs got levels too?

  29. - Top - End - #359
    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
    Please note: Rules 42 and 43 have been significantly amended...you may want to revisit your take on them. I have, and now approve of both under the new wording.
    Rule 042: Gauntlets and Unarmed Damage
    Changing this to Approved, as my complain about the ruling has been changed. I agree with the general idea anyways.

    Rule 043: Enchanted Gauntlets
    I am keeping this ruling at Unapproved. The first problem is that gauntlets are by default included with a number of armors, and that most use of gauntlets are from these. The second is that gauntlets-with-armor, by default, can be enhanced as weapons normally, and this ruling (myseriously) disallows it. Third is that a character wearing +5 gauntlets in a breastplate can use them as weapons, but wearing the same in fullplate strangely cannot.

    And of course, there is the problem that gauntlets are enhanced by the set, when every other double weapon (see: quarterstaff) is not. That's clearly not as intended or consistent.
    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

  30. - Top - End - #360
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Mnemnosyne's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Andorax View Post
    Mnemnosyne, consider this regarding Rule 021:

    Technically speaking, the abilities in question aren't even on the Ranged weapon chart, so RAW is in debate here, RAI certainly is open to question. The key here is that the abilities aren't directly tied to their disposable ammunition nature. A defending crossbow bolt doesn't have to be fired to work, and you can craft one batch of defending crossbow bolts and distribute them to your whole platoon. A manifesting slingstone can store PP used for powers, and at the 50-1 discount you can have a LOT more stored power than your WBL should allow (price it out as Cognizance crystals).

    There's nothing wrong with having ammunition that's used up in the process having bonuses that apply to their function as a weapon only (flaming, etc.)...it's when they have bonuses that can be realized without using them as weapons, and thus break the cost/benefit, that there is a problem (50 arrows storing Cure Serious Wounds).
    My main problem with Rule 21 is the spell storing limitation. That IS related to attacking (sometimes) and blanket limiting it from being put on ammunition is too restrictive. While I do know there are some potential abuses, those abuses have their own costs (time, in the example of storing 50x of a beneficial spell, for instance) and when they are too abusive to be allowed, I think they would be better limited by a specific houserule such as 'you can't put beneficial spells into a spell-storing weapon' - this is a rule I might be more willing to support as a common sense rule, maybe. I'd have to give it a lot of thought, but since you do have to do damage to trigger a stored spell, it does suggest that it's meant for offensive purposes. But then, some spells are both beneficial and detrimental based on certain factors: Cure X Wounds, for instance, would be decent to spell-store for offensive use against the undead, and Inflict X Wounds would function as healing if the user were undead. So a rule like this would run into issues defining 'beneficial spell'.

    And while I agree in principle on the Defending and Manifester limitations, there might be other properties I'm not thinking of offhand that fall under the same category as spell storing, being too restrictive for a blanket limitation.

    On rule 42:
    Change my vote on that one to approved, I like the new wording and I think that makes good sense.

    Rule 43:
    Going to disagree with this one - I see no reason to limit gauntlets that are part of a suit of armor from being enchanted as weapons, and gauntlets can already be enchanted as weapons or as 'hands' items (or possibly even both) by default.
    -Do you honestly think that we believe ourselves evil? My friend, we seek only good. It's just that our definitions don't quite match.-
    Ailanreanter, Arcanaloth

Posting Permissions

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