"Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

[Andorax]

I guess it's a difference in approach then. Generally speaking, I would prefer to make a rule that covers every case I can think of (or all but one) and state that as the exception, rather than a bunch of individual rulings.

To this particular instance, we could:

1) Let Rule 21 stand as-writ, then make a singular exception allowing for spell-storing ammunition to store hostile-only spells (also requiring two other exceptions, one to the allowed enhancements since it's not on the ranged chart, and another to specify what you can and can't put into spell-storing).

2) Tear down Rule 21 because you mostly agree with it, but can think of one possible (and as mentioned, further house-ruled) exception that should make it be allowed.

If you've got to make other exception-rulings anyways, do you feel that Rule 021 as-writ gets you closer to correct, or further from it?

Personally, I'm against the hostile-spell-in-stored-ammo approach too, which is why I have no issue with the blanket rule (A single standard action to greater manyshot someone with four spells...on the cheap...has way too many ugly ramifications).

[erikun]

I think that spell-storing ammunition is fine. As mentioned by others, there isn't really any abuse involved (as I can see) because a character is required to cast 50 spells to fill the ammunition, and each casting is still only single-use. Sure, it is 160g rather than 8000g for a single Spell-Storing shuriken, but the spell inside can only be used by attacking with it and you lose the weapon (enhancement and all) after doing so.

Rather, the problem with ammunition is the passive benefits. The +5 Defending shuriken grants a +5 AC for 3600gp, and isn't destroyed when doing so. That's the problem - providing a continuous, passive benefit without the loss of the weapon.

I'd recommend changing the wording or at least removing the reference to spell-storing from the description; that seems to be most people's objection. And in any case, spell-storing only takes affect when it strikes a creature and deals damage, which does actually make the enhancement related to attacking anyways.

[Edit]

Personally, I'm against the hostile-spell-in-stored-ammo approach too, which is why I have no issue with the blanket rule (A single standard action to greater manyshot someone with four spells...on the cheap...has way too many ugly ramifications).

Given that you can Quick Draw for the exact same effect, I'm not sure that is such an overpowered option.

[Zeful]

I think that spell-storing ammunition is fine. As mentioned by others, there isn't really any abuse involved (as I can see) because a character is required to cast 50 spells to fill the ammunition, and each casting is still only single-use. Sure, it is 160g rather than 8000g for a single Spell-Storing shuriken, but the spell inside can only be used by attacking with it and you lose the weapon (enhancement and all) after doing so.

50 times the effect for 1/50th the cost. That's the abuse right there. That they have to cast spells 50 times and lose it afterwards is pretty much irrelevant to the 2500% efficiency boost players get in doing so.

[erikun]

50 times the effect for 1/50th the cost. That's the abuse right there. That they have to cast spells 50 times and lose it afterwards is pretty much irrelevant to the 2500% efficiency boost players get in doing so.

It's not 50 times the effect for 1/50th of the cost. It's 50 times the effect for 1x the cost, or 1x the effect for 1/50th of the cost.

More importantly, it is single-use 50 times the effect for 1 times the permanent cost. Using a single longsword to unload a spell 51 times is cheaper than using arrows to do the same thing.

Unless you are saying that firing 5 spell-storing arrows is cheaper than throwing 5 spell-storing knives, which is the case... but again, it is not considering the lost wealth in doing so. Those five arrows are 800g, which is kind of expensive against a single enemy. Given that one of the big no-save, auto-lose spells is only 1500g per casting, spending roughly the same amount on only 50d6 damage (~175) or a single save-or-suck effect twice isn't exactly an amazing capability.


So in short, while spell-storing looks better on ammunition than on melee weapons, that doesn't make it broken on ammunition. Some properities are just going to be better on certain types of weapons. And I'm not convinced that this is some kind of exploit entirely unintended or undesired by designers; there are plenty of other expensive-but-easily-consumable items available, notably potions and alchemy, that are intended to be far cheaper than items that could be used repeatedly. See Bracers of Armor +5 (25,000 gp) vs Potion of Shield of faith +5 (900 gp).

[TuggyNE]

Hurray for taking a break for a few days! Heh.

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.

Yes, that's basically what the rule is saying. The SRD text is under Types and Subtypes.

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."

042 should be fine now; agreed.

043 seems a bit funky still, for the reasons Mnemosyne mentioned.

[Siosilvar]

One more drive-by approval of a few rules: 36, 37, 38, 39, 41

40 is an interesting case because it makes balance sense but not physical sense to me, since you're shapechanging into a completely new base creature; whatever processes the cooldown would imply are reset. I don't particularly care for an arbitrary spiritual cooldown thingy, so I'll have to disapprove 40 on grounds of not being able to come up with any way to justify it in an in-game way.

42 could be argued either way. "Monks and the SUS feat are only training with unarmed strikes" vs. "Refluff them as handwraps or special shin guards or something since they need the enhancement bonuses." I'll abstain.

Not sure why 43 makes the distinction between gauntlets and armor suit gauntlets, so I'll disapprove 43 as well.

45... I'd leave this ad-hoc based on the creature. Slams that are specifically mentioned as arms, for example, should be lost when the arm is. For vampires and the like, chopping off the head would probably remove the blood drain + slam combination. So I think I have to disapprove 45 since it's too far-reaching.

Assuming the "ACF" in rule 46 is supposed to be arcane spell failure, I'll approve 46 to make the dragonscale husk actually usable.

It's not 50 times the effect for 1/50th of the cost. It's 50 times the effect for 1x the cost, or 1x the effect for 1/50th of the cost.

More importantly, it is single-use 50 times the effect for 1 times the permanent cost. Using a single longsword to unload a spell 51 times is cheaper than using arrows to do the same thing.

No, it's single-use 50 times the effect for 1 times the single-use rechargeable cost.

Being able to stock up 50 spells for use instead of just one ought to carry some kind of premium, even if the one can be recharged overnight. Let's compare to other items:
50 charges cost: 750*CL*SL.
1/day cost: 400*CL*SL.

So spell-storing arrows ought to be about 27 to the spell-storing sword if you're pricing them the same way as other items are, which you should given the comparable effects.

[CheeseMerchant]

Rule 38: No

Reason: The "common sense" justification for this seems to rely on the fact that the caster knows he/she is casting an illusion spell. That, insofar as it goes, makes sense. The problem arises when another character, through the use of Spellcraft, Knowledge: Arcana, Detect Thoughts, etc., gains the same knowledge as the caster about the nature of the spell he/she is casting.

Do they then automatically pass their Will save to disbelieve?
What about when the caster has the Chains of Disbelief AFC?
How does this interact with Shadow Conjuration/Evocation?

I can construct a scenario wherein the caster gains a material advantage if his opponents automatically succeed on the Will save to disbelieve (through use of the Shadowcraft Mage PRC). It seems counter to "common sense" that succeeding on a Will save would net you a worse result, but that is mechanically possible.

Additionally, an Illusion is a Mind Effecting affect. As such it is within the bounds of "common sense" to structure it such that the caster may choose to fail their Will save (allow the Mind Effecting magic to alter her/her perceptions).

Thank you

[erikun]

Being able to stock up 50 spells for use instead of just one ought to carry some kind of premium, even if the one can be recharged overnight. Let's compare to other items:
50 charges cost: 750*CL*SL.
1/day cost: 400*CL*SL.

So spell-storing arrows ought to be about 27 to the spell-storing sword if you're pricing them the same way as other items are, which you should given the comparable effects.

So the only problem with allowing spell-storing ammunition is that they are roughly half the price of what they "should" cost, by some other measurement?

I suppose this is a valid complaint about the enhancement, but hardly seems like a reason to bad them outright. I mean, it would not be the only item that is wildly mispriced, but this wouldn't really be the thread to talk about banning Candles of Invocation.

Reason: The "common sense" justification for this seems to rely on the fact that the caster knows he/she is casting an illusion spell. That, insofar as it goes, makes sense. The problem arises when another character, through the use of Spellcraft, Knowledge: Arcana, Detect Thoughts, etc., gains the same knowledge as the caster about the nature of the spell he/she is casting.

A character who identifies the spell of someone else is not considered the caster of the spell, by any definition of the term.

All the methods you mentioned could give incorrect information, either through deceit or poor rolls. Identifying a spell as an illusion through Spellcraft or Detect Thoughts is basically the same as identifying it as an illusion through watching an ally walk through it - pretty convincing, but there are still situations where the "convincing" evidence is still incorrect.

The rest of your comments are a lot more valid, although the do bring up one other ruling to mind.


Rule 047: Fantasy is Not Realer than Reality
Illusions that produce a percentage of their effect when a target makes their save, such as Shadow Conjuration or Shadow Evocation, cannot have greater than a 100% effect on a target after a successful save. No effect produced by an illusion can produce a greater effect after a successful save than it could produce with a failed save.


It might be possible to word that better, although the intent is simply to disallow 130% shadow illusions that deal more damage when characters believe them than when they disbelieve them. An illusion that is "realer than real" is already represented by it dealing more damage/having a greater base effect.

[Essence_of_War]

I 2nd Mnemnosyne's suggested re-wording for Rule 44:

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.

So the relevant sentence in the Open Chakra feats would read:

You can now bind a soulmeld or a magic item to that chakra, and you gain one bind that can be used for that chakra only. In addition, you gain a minor benefit...

Edit:

With regards to rules 45 and 46:

45) Yes. - I think it's reasonable to be able to execute a natural bludgeoning attack with just about any part of the body (arms, shoulders, pseudopod etc). If you're dangerous enough at battering to do it with an arm, you're probably dangerous enough to do it with a leg, or a body slam. Moreover, slam attacks are usually associated with things that are generally hardy and tough (often supernaturally so!) like warforged, giants, and vampires, as opposed to claw attacks which are associated with simply "having claws". Supernaturally (or nearly so) resilient and tough creatures should be dangerous no matter what part of their body that they bludgeon you with.
46) Yes. - It seems that this was a victim of bizarre editing. From the text, it seems pretty clear to me that this is supposed to work like armor, and not like natural armor. This is a clean way to patch it up.

[Andorax]

Siosilvar, you assumed correctly (despite the fail acronym). Rule 036 now spells out Arcane Spell Failure (which is ASF, not ACF...bad me).


erikun, I'm with you on Rule 047...really, I am.



As the result of a debate in another thread, I've added the following to the original post starting this all off.

DISCLAIMER: I make no special appeal of the validity of this thread as a source of ultimate authority. It does not have the blessing of major deities, the force of law, or even the approval of WoTC. It is nothing more than the collective opinions of those who have chosen to participate. It is common sense only so far as it is the opinions of all of us in common (nobody set forward as a specific expert or authority) that make sense (seem to be the right and rational way of handling the rules).

The percentages, numbers and named votes are listed so that anyone viewing this thread knows *exactly* how much credence, authority, and validity it holds, and each such individual may judge the value of this list accordingly. 80% was chosen for no specific statistical or politial value, it just seemed to be an appropriate figure at the time the thread was created. Other, lower-percentage rulings that are technically disapproved may themselves still be considered to have value.




Rule 036 is back in the approved column
Rule 040 is now disapproved
Rule 044 has been reworded...and the only two who have chimed in have already approved the rewording.

[Sgt. Cookie]

Rule 48: Vow of Non... Human hurting?

Now, I never understood why the two types listed in the VoN (I think that's the arcronym?) were "Humanoid and monstrous humanoid", meaning that a dragon who takes the vow can kick the crap out of other dragons, but can't even scratch a human or elf.

The the feat, Vow of Nonviolence (BoED) replace the "Cannot harm humanoid/monstrous humanoid" section with the following:

"When you take this feat, select 1-2 types as documented in the MM. The bonuses and restrictions of this feat apply to that type(s)."

[Tyndmyr]

50 times the effect for 1/50th the cost. That's the abuse right there. That they have to cast spells 50 times and lose it afterwards is pretty much irrelevant to the 2500% efficiency boost players get in doing so.

This is ridiculous. First off, it's not fifty times the effect. It's the same effect. But in consumable form.

And oil of magic weapon is cheaper than getting a +1 weapon. Consumables are always cheaper than permanent bonuses.

This is working as expected.

Also, I'd like to disapprove rule 47, if it makes the list. Realer than real is a fantasy thing. It's much like knurd in discworld in concept. D&D is a fantasy game. I don't see why this shouldn't be a thing.

48 I would also like to disapprove, if it makes the list. It is a good and reasonable house rule, but you cannot reasonably say that such an interpretation of the existing rules is common sense.

[Mnemnosyne]

On rule 21, I tend to be of the opinion that if a rule has unintended or undesirable consequences, then it shouldn't be implemented until those consequences are fully dealt with. In order to call out everything that I think should be an exception to that rule, I'd have to go through every possible magic weapon property in the game, something I'm not quite ready to do right now. If and when I have the time to do so, I might do just that, and then propose an amendment or alternate rule that would be more constrained.

Now, on Rule 47, I'm of two minds on it; I agree that if you disbelieve the illusion it should not produce a greater effect than if you believe it, but I also like the mechanic of pumping your illusions to over 100% quasireality for the conceptual and fantasy reasons Tyndmyr explained. I am going to abstain from this one for the moment, but I am inclined to disagree with it.

In my mind, once quasireality hits 100% or higher, the reasonable thing to do is disregard the save entirely; whether it's believed or not, the illusion is now totally real or even more real than reality, and therefore the subjects' belief has no effect upon it whatsoever. I may propose an alternate rule to this effect later; it makes more sense to me, I think.

Rule 48 sort of makes sense, but yeah, it doesn't seem like common sense. The original feat is written under the assumption that the character taking the feat will be a humanoid, I believe. It is also based on the fact that humanoids and monstrous humanoids are some of the most common enemy types in D&D. Therefore I am going to disagree with this one, if it makes the list.

As proposed, the rule allows you to choose two creature types that are encountered incredibly rarely, such as Deathless and Plant, or Fey instead of Deathless if Deathless don't exist in that setting. All of those types are pretty rare, and the majority of Fey are non-evil, so a good character is unlikely to come into physical conflict with them.

[erikun]

Rule 48: Vow of Non... Human hurting?

Now, I never understood why the two types listed in the VoN (I think that's the arcronym?) were "Humanoid and monstrous humanoid", meaning that a dragon who takes the vow can kick the crap out of other dragons, but can't even scratch a human or elf.

The the feat, Vow of Nonviolence (BoED) replace the "Cannot harm humanoid/monstrous humanoid" section with the following:

"When you take this feat, select 1-2 types as documented in the MM. The bonuses and restrictions of this feat apply to that type(s)."

I don't know, "Vow of Not Hurting Insects but Killing People is Okay" seems to go a bit against the intent of the feat, from what I can tell.

Also, I'd like to disapprove rule 47, if it makes the list. Realer than real is a fantasy thing. It's much like knurd in discworld in concept. D&D is a fantasy game. I don't see why this shouldn't be a thing.

Well we already have more real that real effects, in the sense of magical fire that deals more damage than fire, or magical lava that deals more damage than lava.

On the other hand, I don't know any fiction where a character is suddenly affected more the moment they realize that what they're encountering is fake. There are storied of impossibly hot fireballs and such, but these involve the fireball actually being impossibly hot, not just being a regular fire that suddenly becomes hotter when they realize it isn't normal.

The closest I could think of would be Cthulhuverse-like insanity as a result of perceiving clear "reality", but D&D illusions most definitely are not presented in that fashion.

[CheeseMerchant]

A character who identifies the spell of someone else is not considered the caster of the spell, by any definition of the term.

All the methods you mentioned could give incorrect information, either through deceit or poor rolls. Identifying a spell as an illusion through Spellcraft or Detect Thoughts is basically the same as identifying it as an illusion through watching an ally walk through it - pretty convincing, but there are still situations where the "convincing" evidence is still incorrect.

The rest of your comments are a lot more valid, although the do bring up one other ruling to mind.

There are two issues herein that I think deserve separate treatment.

1) The caster is in possession of knowledge that is impossible to otherwise gain.

2) The caster is, by dint of being the caster, forced to succeed on the Will (Disbelief) save.

Both of these are very sensible approaches, but I'm concerned that the logic allows for some very nonsensical results.

First, the idea that the caster of the spell has knowledge that it is impossible to otherwise gain is somewhat outside the bounds of common sense. If nothing else, the caster should have the ability to relay all possible information about the spell he is casting (or has cast, or will cast) to the best his knowledge. Since the caster's knowledge is the point of the exercise, then it would follow that the caster can allow his allies to automatically save against any illusion spell he casts that allows a Will (Disbelief) save. That isn't something that automatically follows from a "common sense" standpoint. So it isn't knowledge that forces the caster to succeed on his Will save.

Second, the idea that the caster, by dint of being the caster, is forced to succeed in his Will save opens up some interesting, but nonsensical, ideas. The foremost such notion (and the easiest to convey) is the interaction that must then occur between Illusion and Spell Turning. If the caster's illusion spell is redirected via Spell Turning to target the caster, then we must rule that the caster automatically succeeds in his save. This seems counter to the idea behind Spell Turning and, more importantly, is something that isn't permitted by the rules.

Since I take it as a given that our "common sense" should directly override what the rules enforce (for example, no bringing in physics as a rationale for why the Rock Throwing rules are absurd) I must continue to stand by my position.

Thank you.

Rule 047: Fantasy is Not Realer than Reality
Illusions that produce a percentage of their effect when a target makes their save, such as Shadow Conjuration or Shadow Evocation, cannot have greater than a 100% effect on a target after a successful save. No effect produced by an illusion can produce a greater effect after a successful save than it could produce with a failed save.

I would alter this to read:

"Anything that would modify an Illusion (shadow) and/or Illusion (figment) spell (or SLA, or SU, or etc.) such that it has a percentage effect greater than 100% on a successful save instead modifies the aforementioned spell/effect to have an effect of 100% on a successful save."

But yes, I agree that this makes sense.

[ideasmith]

Rule 0??: Trees are immune to disintegration.

The spell disintegrate, as currently worded, only affects, creatures and nonliving matter. Many plants, and even some animals, are neither.

Replaces PHB p222, first sentence of second paragraph of Disintegrate: "When used against an object, the ray simply disintegrates as much as one 10-foot cube of living or nonliving matter."

Rule 0??: Diehard is useless.

Diehard, as currently worded, does nothing to prevent unconsciousness due to nonlethal damage. Since 0 is higher than any negative number, this means a character with 0 nonlethal damage will be unconscious whether or not she has Diehard.

Add the following to the description of Diehard, PHB p92 "Also, the amount of nonlethal damage needed to knock you staggered or unconscious is increased by 10."

Rule 0??: Titan dagger reach: 15 feet. Titan whip reach: also 15 feet.

As worded, any creature, regardless of size, has a 15 foot reach when wielding a whip.

Replaces PHB 121, third sentence of first paragraph of Whip: "The whip is treated as a melee weapon with a reach of triple the wielder’s normal reach, though you don’t threaten the area into which you can make an attack."

[Crow]

After reading the voting totals on all these, I have come to the conclusion that Tyndmyr is a maniac!

[erikun]

Second, the idea that the caster, by dint of being the caster, is forced to succeed in his Will save opens up some interesting, but nonsensical, ideas. The foremost such notion (and the easiest to convey) is the interaction that must then occur between Illusion and Spell Turning. If the caster's illusion spell is redirected via Spell Turning to target the caster, then we must rule that the caster automatically succeeds in his save. This seems counter to the idea behind Spell Turning and, more importantly, is something that isn't permitted by the rules.

Spell Turning requires the spell to target the user, and the only two illusions I see that can have this effect are Nightmare and Phantasmal Killer. I could reasonably see a Phantasmal Killer being tossed back onto the illusionist and forcing a save, although primarily due to it being a Phantasm (a construct of the target's mind and mentally needs to be resisted). Perhaps, then, it would be best to exclude Phantasms from the illusionist's auto-disbelief?

(Veil can technically be spell-turned back to the caster, but disbelieving your own Veil makes as much sense as disbelieving your own illusions.)

Other than that, I'm not so much trying to convince you as convince others who might be reading this and making a decision - and, perhaps, recommending corrections for unusual cases, as above. You're free to vote or consider however you choose, after all.

[CheeseMerchant]

Spell Turning requires the spell to target the user, and the only two illusions I see that can have this effect are Nightmare and Phantasmal Killer. I could reasonably see a Phantasmal Killer being tossed back onto the illusionist and forcing a save, although primarily due to it being a Phantasm (a construct of the target's mind and mentally needs to be resisted). Perhaps, then, it would be best to exclude Phantasms from the illusionist's auto-disbelief?

(Veil can technically be spell-turned back to the caster, but disbelieving your own Veil makes as much sense as disbelieving your own illusions.)

Additional Illusions which could be Turned (that also have a Will Disbelief)

Spell name (Notes)
DEAD END (Harmless)
DISGUISE UNDEAD (Harmless)
PHANTASMAL ASSAILANTS (Phantasm)
PHANTASMAL DECOY (Phantasm)
PHANTOM FOE (Phantasm)
SENSORY DEPRIVATION (Phantasm)

It should likewise be noted that some Illusion spells that allows saves do not, explicitly, allow Disbelief. There are a couple of examples from the Illusion (Pattern), Illusion (Shadow), and Illusion (Glamer) sub-schools that offer a reduced effect on a successful save that do not suffer from Disbelief.

If you check out the Spell Compendium you will find a lot more examples of what I am describing.

(And I wholeheartedly agree that this isn't about convincing anyone that you or I are "right". I figure we just present our thoughts as best we can and hope they help someone else come to a conclusion that they might have missed.)

Thanks!

[Tyndmyr]

I don't know, "Vow of Not Hurting Insects but Killing People is Okay" seems to go a bit against the intent of the feat, from what I can tell.

Right. Reasonable house rule, if you're into that kind of thing, but not something you could reasonably get from the rules itself. Certainly not common sense.

Well we already have more real that real effects, in the sense of magical fire that deals more damage than fire, or magical lava that deals more damage than lava.

Those certainly exist, yes.

On the other hand, I don't know any fiction where a character is suddenly affected more the moment they realize that what they're encountering is fake. There are storied of impossibly hot fireballs and such, but these involve the fireball actually being impossibly hot, not just being a regular fire that suddenly becomes hotter when they realize it isn't normal.

The closest I could think of would be Cthulhuverse-like insanity as a result of perceiving clear "reality", but D&D illusions most definitely are not presented in that fashion.

The far realms are something like that...but illusions aren't really specifically tied to any plane fluffwise. And saving throws are something that doesn't always exactly model fantasy. In any story I've seen where something is realer than reality, it's always just been that, and been always more effective, rather than having any kind of saving throw.

That said, tossing out the saving throw entirely kind of breaks the mechanic, and is likely not intended by the authors. Even if it models fantasy better, I'm not sure it's common sense.


If the modification to Diehard is added to the list, I'd like to approve it. I feel like it should work with non-lethal.

After reading the voting totals on all these, I have come to the conclusion that Tyndmyr is a maniac!

Not at all sir. That'd be CE or some such. Clearly, I am lawful evil. These rules are important!


Also, mark me down as against 47. The rules seem pretty clear on this, and no such restriction is ever given or implied. This, together with the existence of "realer than real" as a fantasy trope indicates that >100% reality is a valid interpretation.

[Andorax]

ideasmith, those all make clear sense...I'm on board with ya on 49 through 51.


Sgt. Cookie, I'm afraid I'm also concerned about how Rule 048 implements. As currently writ, one could (as has been selected) nerf the effect of the rule considerably by choosing less commonly encountered types...there's a reason Love of Nature is a popular flaw.

Even if the same intent were somehow preserved, say by restricting it to YOUR type and the TYPE MOST SIMILAR to your own, you are still left with a character FROM an obscure type that pulls the same trick off, plus a horrendously difficult debate about what your 'next closest type' constitutes.

The purpose of the restriction is to be significant when operating in and amongst the commonly-encountered majority population. No matter how you slice it, the restriction is intended to involve your most common interactions. The only way varying from it makes any sense is if the entire campaign setting and premise is set in a different environment (say a campaing that revolves entirely around the fey court), where choosing types of say fey and plant would make sense, and the original feat would be a cheesy choice.

Overall, I'm thinking this issue is much better handled on a case by case and campaign by campaign basis.



Some good thought going into trying to pass off "more real than real" as valid...but I'm still just not buying it. On a gut "makes sense" level, I see 100% as the cap...more real than reality just doesn't make intuitive sense to me. On a rules/campaign level, I just can't see how allowing >100% effects adds anything to the campaign. It's a rule that's both logical and intuitive, and damages nothing of value.



Say tuggyne, do you have a version of the "1HD Non-humanoids" issue that is ready to put forward?



Rule 047 is now disapproved
Rule 048 is now disapproved
Rule 049 has been added, and is currently approved
Rule 050 has been added, and is currently approved
Rule 051 has been added, and is currently approved

[TuggyNE]

Assorted quick votes on added rules:
I agree with 047; the Shadowcraft tricks are ingenious and amusing, but kind of silly, and I see no necessity for allowing them.
049, while a little awkward in phrasing, should be correct; agreed.
050 is probably also reasonable, so I agree with that too.
051 seems right, although I'd like a comparison with the awl pike text if possible (since that's the only other weapon I know of with triple reach).

Sgt. Cookie, I'm afraid I'm also concerned about how Rule 048 implements. As currently writ, one could (as has been selected) nerf the effect of the rule considerably by choosing less commonly encountered types...there's a reason Love of Nature is a popular flaw.

Even if the same intent were somehow preserved, say by restricting it to YOUR type and the TYPE MOST SIMILAR to your own, you are still left with a character FROM an obscure type that pulls the same trick off, plus a horrendously difficult debate about what your 'next closest type' constitutes.

The purpose of the restriction is to be significant when operating in and amongst the commonly-encountered majority population. No matter how you slice it, the restriction is intended to involve your most common interactions. The only way varying from it makes any sense is if the entire campaign setting and premise is set in a different environment (say a campaing that revolves entirely around the fey court), where choosing types of say fey and plant would make sense, and the original feat would be a cheesy choice.

Overall, I'm thinking this issue is much better handled on a case by case and campaign by campaign basis.

This is essentially the conclusion I came to independently, including the idea of restricting it to your own type and a closely-related one. I'm disagreeing with this proposed rule, because I think an entirely different solution needs to be thought of for this particular problem.

Say tuggyne, do you have a version of the "1HD Non-humanoids" issue that is ready to put forward?

I believe this should work. Phrasing this alternately with reference to a creature becoming a character should be fine as well, though.
Rule 052
Appended to the section on Humanoids and Class Levels: Additionally, any creature with 1 Hit Die that has an Intelligence score of at least 3 may exchange the features of their racial Hit Die for the class features of a PC or NPC class; racial traits are unaffected by this.

The last sentence is simply a clarification, and is strictly speaking redundant; racial traits and features are separate anyway.

[erikun]

Rule 048: Vow of Non…Human Hurting?
Disapprove, for much the same reasons given earlier: choosing not to hurt, say, Vermin and Oozes doesn't really fit the description of "Vow of Nonviolence".

Rule 049: Trees are Immune to Disintegration
Awkwardly worded, but still approved.

Rule 050: Die Hard, Sleep Easy
Approved, as people probably play it that way anyhow.

Rule 051: Titan Dagger Reach: 15 Feet. Titan Whip Reach: also 15 Feet.
Approved.

[Andorax]

tuggyne, the Awl Pike (only source I know if is the Polearms article in Dragon 331) suffers from the same problem:

"Built similarly to a longspear, the awl pike is almost 15 feet long. You can strike opponents 15 feet away with it, but you can't use it against foes closer than that...."

I'd lobby for extending rule 051 to take into account Awl Pikes, but since they're an obscure weapon to begin with, I find it highly unlikely we're going to see any Cloud Giant-sized Awl Pikes anytime soon to worry about whether or not they should have 45' reach.


I added a minor tweak for clarification to Rule 052..."in a manner identical to humanoids". Basically, making it clear that we're treating other 1HD races the same way, which is what I understand the intent of the rule to be.

And with solid wording in place for it, I also agree.




Rule 048 has reached the threshold of removal by general agreement.
Rule 052 is added, and currently approved.

[TuggyNE]

tuggyne, the Awl Pike (only source I know if is the Polearms article in Dragon 331) suffers from the same problem:

"Built similarly to a longspear, the awl pike is almost 15 feet long. You can strike opponents 15 feet away with it, but you can't use it against foes closer than that...."

I'd lobby for extending rule 051 to take into account Awl Pikes, but since they're an obscure weapon to begin with, I find it highly unlikely we're going to see any Cloud Giant-sized Awl Pikes anytime soon to worry about whether or not they should have 45' reach.

Hmm, well, strict correctness would suggest including it anyway.

The change to 052 looks good to me to further clarify things.

---

1
So, I decided to go back through the list and see if we couldn't resolve some of the older debates that dropped off the radar. Obviously, some of the posters may not be following the discussion anymore, so I might send them PMs just in case (thoughts?).

Rule 004: Superior Unarmed Strike (one short of unanimous)

Only by monks (the only ones able to treat unarmed strikes as natural attacks), and i don't consider a feat giving one of the most class-defining abilities by himself (even if slightly nerfed) good design. Also the feat doesn't account for size, so a "fine" creature would still hit for 2d6 (ouch).

This seems to be objecting more to the existence of SUS itself, rather than the fix (and might have worked better as an abstention); however, perhaps a followup could include adjustments for size in a new table?


Rule 023: Positive Drawbacks to Undead (two short of unanimous)
Jeff the Green commented that this seemed more like a houserule than a dictate of common sense, and nyjastul69 did not mention the reason for disagreeing.

While I can certainly see that this is in a bit of a gray area between rules clarifications and simple houserules, it seems so general a fix that it should probably be included. In other words, it's an issue that everyone who runs across it needs to resolve some way, and this is the most sensible solution (IMO).


Rule 031: Nobody Notices the Guy with the Tower Shield (one short of unanimous)
Tyndmyr, I think the request for explaining your objection to this got lost in the shuffle, or at least I am unable to find and figure it out precisely. In particular,

If party A is hidden, and has true seeing, party C has invisibility, and party B has no way to detect party C, A can legitimately claim cover from both by hiding. If you're talking about an invisible object GRANTING cover [...]

seems to be covered correctly by the rule as currently stated.

Unrelatedly, Andorax, this seems to be missing a leading 0 in the listing.


Rule 036: Lesser Metamagic Reduction Rule
Pretty sure it's time to retire this in favor of mentioning the errata in a prominent place.


And now for a few more recent ones:
Rule 040: When All Else Changes, Cooldowns Remain

40 is an interesting case because it makes balance sense but not physical sense to me, since you're shapechanging into a completely new base creature; whatever processes the cooldown would imply are reset. I don't particularly care for an arbitrary spiritual cooldown thingy, so I'll have to disapprove 40 on grounds of not being able to come up with any way to justify it in an in-game way.

It seems to me that the recharge is based on that particular form's breath weapon, not any breath weapon.

My own explanation would be that the spell itself provides the ability to use breath weapons, and the cooldown is part of the magic. However, I can see three possible interpretations/outcomes:

• The cooldown is a physical artifact of your current specific body, and changing from one form to another removes any linkage (the current state)
• The cooldown is a physical artifact of your current general form, and is kept track of between forms; black dragon breath weapon and red dragon breath weapon would have separate timers
• The cooldown is an artifact of inherent or external magic or similar, and is maintained in all forms (the proposal).

Rule 041: I Can't See a Thing! No Worries, I'll Cast Darkness
Tyndmyr, I believe the text was later corrected to (hopefully) resolve the problem with mindsight etc, and I can't find a post of yours that reexamines it; mind doing that now?


Rule 045: Just What Are You Slamming Me With?

45... I'd leave this ad-hoc based on the creature. Slams that are specifically mentioned as arms, for example, should be lost when the arm is. For vampires and the like, chopping off the head would probably remove the blood drain + slam combination.

Mind giving an example of a slam that's specifically an arm? Also, vampires are killed when they lose their head to a vorpal attack; they deal blood drain on grapple + pin, but negative levels on slams. I believe the proposed rule handles vampires fine.

[Darrin]

Mind giving an example of a slam that's specifically an arm?

From the SRD: "Large creatures with arms or arm-like limbs can make a slam attack with each arm"

This includes most giants, elementals, and golems. Giants in particular become significantly more frightening: not only do they all get to attack with a two-handed weapon, they can now slam twice on top of that, since they don't "lose" their slams for wielding a two-handed weapon. In the MM stat blocks, their Full Attack line says they attack with a two-handed weapon *or* slam twice (*or* throw a rock, to be precise). Rule 045 would allow them to do greatsword/slam/slam in the same round.

(this is why I'm leery of supporting Rule 045... I much rather prefer my previous attempt at straightening this out, but the opposition was overwhelming, if a bit confused)

One of the main arguments against Rule 045 would be doesn't match the stat blocks very well, but as has been pointed out, "statblocks are crap" and frequently can't be trusted.

[Tyndmyr]

From the SRD: "Large creatures with arms or arm-like limbs can make a slam attack with each arm"

This includes most giants, elementals, and golems. Giants in particular become significantly more frightening: not only do they all get to attack with a two-handed weapon, they can now slam twice on top of that, since they don't "lose" their slams for wielding a two-handed weapon. In the MM stat blocks, their Full Attack line says they attack with a two-handed weapon *or* slam twice (*or* throw a rock, to be precise). Rule 045 would allow them to do greatsword/slam/slam in the same round.

(this is why I'm leery of supporting Rule 045... I much rather prefer my previous attempt at straightening this out, but the opposition was overwhelming, if a bit confused)

One of the main arguments against Rule 045 would be doesn't match the stat blocks very well, but as has been pointed out, "statblocks are crap" and frequently can't be trusted.

Oh, good call. Yeah, such a major change to monsters is definitely problematic. You have convinced me to oppose rule 45.

Statblocks are not always great, but I feel like, in general, if a slam attack is tied to the limb in the rules, removal of limb should remove it. If not, not. Both types of slams exist in D&D, so a generalized rule that treats them all as only one type is kind of awkward.

Rule 031: Nobody Notices the Guy with the Tower Shield (one short of unanimous)
Tyndmyr, I think the request for explaining your objection to this got lost in the shuffle, or at least I am unable to find and figure it out precisely. In particular, seems to be covered correctly by the rule as currently stated.

"nor may she claim cover from an object that is invisible or transparent to those from whom she wishes to hide."

The intended definition appears to be something like"you can't hide behind an invisible object". That said, even this definition is problematic, and the word "concealment" is superior to cover. A invisible wall of iron should not block LOS, but it should DEFINITELY provide cover against someone on the other side.

Unfortunately, by the rules of grammar, the above sentence ALSO bans getting cover against objects who are invisible to others. An example may be in order. Rogue with "See Invisibility" active has a castle to his left. He is hiding from a mundane guard to his right. On the far side of the castle, an animated object with Invisibility active is hunting the rogue. According to this rule, the rogue cannot claim cover from the animated object due to the castle, because the guard cannot see the animated object.

While the previous interpretation of the rule was merely bad, this one is freaking bizarre.

So, both interpretations of the rule as written are terribly bad, and it needs to be killed with fire.

Also, by current RAW, an invisible object would in fact provide cover, as per the SRD. RAW makes a great deal more sense than this rule. People upholding this rule as "common sense" are invited to demonstrate making an unarmed attack through glass.

[TuggyNE]

From the SRD: "Large creatures with arms or arm-like limbs can make a slam attack with each arm"

This includes most giants, elementals, and golems. Giants in particular become significantly more frightening: not only do they all get to attack with a two-handed weapon, they can now slam twice on top of that, since they don't "lose" their slams for wielding a two-handed weapon. In the MM stat blocks, their Full Attack line says they attack with a two-handed weapon *or* slam twice (*or* throw a rock, to be precise).

I stand corrected. This is entirely undesirable, and should be fixed; abstaining until then.

"nor may she claim cover from an object that is invisible or transparent to those from whom she wishes to hide."

The intended definition appears to be something like"you can't hide behind an invisible object". That said, even this definition is problematic, and the word "concealment" is superior to cover. A invisible wall of iron should not block LOS, but it should DEFINITELY provide cover against someone on the other side.

Unfortunately, by the rules of grammar, the above sentence ALSO bans getting cover against objects who are invisible to others. An example may be in order. Rogue with "See Invisibility" active has a castle to his left. He is hiding from a mundane guard to his right. On the far side of the castle, an animated object with Invisibility active is hunting the rogue. According to this rule, the rogue cannot claim cover from the animated object due to the castle, because the guard cannot see the animated object.

While the previous interpretation of the rule was merely bad, this one is freaking bizarre.

So, both interpretations of the rule as written are terribly bad, and it needs to be killed with fire.

Also, by current RAW, an invisible object would in fact provide cover, as per the SRD. RAW makes a great deal more sense than this rule. People upholding this rule as "common sense" are invited to demonstrate making an unarmed attack through glass.

Ouch. I stand corrected again (and will again abstain until the right fixes are made). Yes, this probably needs to be changed so that an object cannot provide concealment against a creature that cannot see it. Also, effectively-invisible cover is not sufficient to Hide with (you can't hide behind a pane of glass).

Also, the overly-general "those from whom she wishes to hide" is certainly most unfortunate.

[ideasmith]

Rule 006: Using What Comes Naturally
Yes.

Rule 007: Lions with Hooves
Yes.

Rule 010: Who's Charging, Anyways?
Uncertain. This looks like a house rule, but charges do need cleaning up and I don’t as yet have a better suggestion.

Rule 011: Who's Riding By, Anyways?
Uncertain. This looks like a house rule, but ride-by do need cleaning up and I don’t as yet have a better suggestion.

Rule 014: I'm Not Left Handed
Yes

Rule 015: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped
Yes

Rule 016: Tower Shields; How the #&%@ Do They Work?

Yes

Rule 020: My Weapon Is My Shield!
Needs work. Current wording ambiguous. Possibly:Page 125 in the Player's Handbook: You can bash an opponent with a light shield or heavy shield, typically using it as an off-hand weapon.


Rule 021: Enchanting Enhanced Projectiles
No. Both defending and spells storing are, as written, related to attacking with the weapon. I am not convinced that either is a problem. (Dropping the section in parentheses would change this to a yes.)

Rule 023: Positive Drawbacks to Undead
Yes

Rule 026: Extraordinary Feats
No. Most feats should not take a standard action (PHB 142)

Rule 028: Qualified and Disqualified
Needs clarification re indirect prerequisites. That is If you lose your gauntlets of ogre power, dropping your Strength score below 13, and thus losing Cleave, Improved Sunder, and Power Attack, do you also lose your Blackguard class features? I would say yes, but am not sure what this rule says.

Rule 31: Nobody Notices the Guy with the Tower Shield
Yes

Rule 032A: Full Attack and an Attack of Opportunity
No

Rule 032B: Full Attack and Multiple Attacks of Opportunity
Yes

Rule 033: No Double Dipping
No.

Rule 037: Minus Infinity
No.

Rule 038: On the Delusions of an Illusionist
No.

Rule 040: When All Else Changes, Cooldowns Remain
Yes.

Rule 041: I Can't See a Thing! No Worries, I'll Cast Darkness
Yes.

Rule 042: Gauntlets and Unarmed Damage
Yes.

Rule 043: Enchanted Gauntlets
No

Rule 045: Just What Are You Slamming Me With?
No. Needs a ‘not if a specific body part is mentioned’ caveat.

[Jeff the Green]

tuggyne asked me to come back and explain my Nay vote on Rule 023 (Positive Drawbacks to Undead). I based it on my misunderstanding of the immunities of deathless creatures, so I'm changing my vote to Yay. Here are my votes for the other rules proposed since I last voted and one or two for which my previous vote wasn't counted.

Rule 015: Unconscious does not mean Mindraped Yay
Rule 016: Tower Shields; How the #&%@ Do They Work? Nay.
Rule 017: Non-Floating Armour Yay.
Rule 018: Claw, Stab Claw…and now with my other arm! Nay.

Spoiler

Show

This should be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis. For example, a creature with a tentacle attack should be able to hold something in it while simultaneously hitting something with the remainder of the tentacle.

Rule 021: Enchanting Enhanced Projectiles Nay.

Spoiler

Show

I agree with erikun, and it's also too vague.

Rule 025: Lava Is Easily Resisted Yay.
Rule 026: Extraordinary Feats Yay.
Rule 027: Don't Penalize the Prestigeous Yay.
Rule 028: Qualified and Disqualified Nay.

Spoiler

Show

This should be decided by individual DMs, and on a case-by-case basis.

Rule 029: Whiplash Abstain.
Rule 030: Strict Aptitude Yay.
Rule 31: Nobody Notices the Guy with the Tower Shield Yay.
Rule 032A: Full Attack and an Attack of Opportunity Abstain; see 032B.
Rule 032B: Full Attack and Multiple Attacks of Opportunity Abstain.

Spoiler

Show

It's my opinion that ranged attacks should not provoke attacks of opportunity to begin with; mundane archers have it hard enough.

Rule 033: No Double Dipping Nay.
Rule 034: Armored Outfits Nay.

Spoiler

Show

I see a potential problem with this as worded. What happens when the set of clothing is worn piecemeal? This is particularly relevant when you consider that outfits likely include shoes or boots, so even though the set doesn't occupy the feet slot, it effectively prevents you from using magical footware. Similar problems might arise with gloves, belts and capes.

Rule 036: Lesser Metamagic Reduction Rule (see Rule 002) Yay.
Rule 037: Minus Infinity Nay.

Spoiler

Show

This is too vague. Some "infinite loops" from TO are only probabilistically infinite, not deterministically infinite. That is, most of the time, you'll end up with an infinite loop, but not necessarily. (The d2 crusader is an example.) I also suspect that there are cases where there is a non-zero but negligible chance of an infinite loop, and still others where there is an infinitesimal (=0) chance of an infinite loop that nonetheless has a significant chance of going through more iterations than is conducive to gameplay. I would suggest that a more appropriate solution would be to limit the number of iterations a loop can go through before automatically terminating, though this is something that would have to be implemented on a case-by-case basis.

Rule 038: On the Delusions of an Illusionist Nay.

Spoiler

Show

This seems a reasonable house rule, but it's not RACSD. I'd reference tuggyne's early argument against Rule 002; this is a problem of "magic being magic," so we can't necessarily apply common sense as applicable to the real world.

Rule 039: Koboldian Delusions of Grandeur Nay.

Spoiler

Show

Granted, allowing dragonwrought kobolds to become loredrakes or take epic feats is far too powerful for most campaigns, but so is the Rainbow Warsnake. The definitions of "true dragon" found scattered across various books are so vague and contradictory as to allow reasonable people to disagree, and it's not like the fluff rules it out.

Rule 040: When All Else Changes, Cooldowns Remain Nay.
Rule 041: I Can't See a Thing! No Worries, I'll Cast Darkness Yay.
Rule 042: Gauntlets and Unarmed Damage Nay.
Rule 043: Enchanted Gauntlets Nay.
Rule 044: Open Chakras Clarified Yay.
Rule 045: Just What Are You Slamming Me With? Yay.
Rule 046: Dragonscale Husk and Armor Yay.
Rule 047: Fantasy is Not Realer than Reality Nay.

Spoiler

Show

See my argument against Rule 038.

Rule 049: Trees are Immune to Disintegration Yay.
Rule 050: Die Hard, Sleep Easy Yay.
Rule 051: Titan Dagger Reach: 15 Feet. Titan Whip Reach: also 15 Feet. Yay.
Rule 052: 1HD Race Characters Yay.

I'd also like to note that I still vote Nay. on Rule 005: Dead is Dead, for the same reason I did way back in April. Turning into an undead creature does not remove the "dead" condition. Even ignoring that problem, were a BBG to kill a PC, then reanimate it as a Zombie, according to this rule the zombie would become playable. I propose the following rewrite:

A living creature that is dead is unplayable until it is either returned to life or raised as an intelligent construct, deathless, or undead. A deathless or undead creature that is destroyed is unplayable until either it is revived as a deathless or undead creature (respectively), it is returned to life, it reforms (e.g. as a lich reforming after being destroyed while still possessing a functioning phylactery) or the corpse remaining (if any) is raised as an intelligent construct, deathless, or undead. A non-living construct that is destroyed is unplayable until it is revived.

Such a character can take no actions, including free actions, nor can it know or perceive anything, nor can it perform non-actions such as spot and listen checks. All of its abilities are non-abilities; it is effectively a non-magical object.

I think that covers all cases.

I'd also like to propose something. A couple rules here I think are not warranted as being RACSD, but do require substantial interpretation by DMs. I would like to suggest that these rules be flagged with something like "reasonable people can disagree on this rule, so there is no RACSD, but RAW is vague, contradictory, or nonexistant, so each DM must make a houserule and ought to do so sooner rather than later." Maybe something a little less long-winded.

The rules that fall into that category, IMO, are 018, 028, and 39.