"Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

[Acanous]

Have to vote Against on Rule 38.
A Creature with Telepathy, who makes the Will save against Phantasmal Assailants or Phantasmal Killer turns the effect back at the caster, who then has to make his own saves.
Rule 38 would automatically nullify that. The Will portion of Phantasmal Assailants/Killer is specifically tagged as "disbelief".

I could see this working if it was ammended to "Rule 38: A Caster may not believe in their own Illusion (Figment) or Illusion (Glammer) spells, even if they want to".

[lesser_minion]

"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.

I thought I was quite clear that the rule talks only about whether or not you can claim cover for the purposes of the hide skill: it does not prevent you from claiming cover against an attack.

In any event, how's this?

Rule 31r2 -- Nobody Notices the Guy with the Tower Shield:

A character may not attempt a hide check against an observer against whom she lacks effective cover or concealment. When determining whether or not a character may attempt a hide check against a particular observer, do not consider any cover that does not impede the observer's vision or that would be hidden as a result of a successful check.

[TuggyNE]

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.

Welcome back!

Warning: lots of spoiler tags ahead to condense this wall of text into something hopefully more readable.

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

Spoiler

Show

Nay.

Any suggestions on improving this?

Rule 018: Claw, Stab Claw…and now with my other arm!

Spoiler

Show

Nay.
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.

Hmm, this suggests a detailed analysis of natural weapon types:

• Bite: Rule works correctly
• Claw or Talon: Rule works correctly
• Gore: It would be difficult to conceive of a creature holding something in its horns, and rule works correctly
• Slap or Slam: Special case being worked on in e.g. 045; rule is incomplete
• Sting: Same as gore
• Tentacle: Much like slap/slam, and should perhaps be folded in

So I propose either folding 045 into this rule, making the appropriate changes, or using 045 as a catchall for exceptions to this one.

Rule 021: Enchanting Enhanced Projectiles

Spoiler

Show

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

The vagueness could use a bit of work.

Alternatively, perhaps say that any effect that does not specifically mention projectile weapons transferring to their ammunition cannot be applied to projectile weapons or ammunition. (Fortunately, shuriken are considered ammunition.)

Rule 034: Armored Outfits

Spoiler

Show

Nay.
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.

Hmm. A possible solution to this is to require that e.g. at least one full slot must be occupied by parts of the outfit, so that an outfit that includes body wear, a cape, gloves, and boots would still function if the cape, gloves, and boots were substituted. Or more precisely, say that only the parts of outfits physically occupying the body slot need be worn for its magic to be in effect, and that other components have no special effect.

Rule 040: When All Else Changes, Cooldowns Remain

Spoiler

Show

Nay.

Do any of the three interpretations (specific body, general form, inherent/external magic) I mentioned in a previous post seem sensible, or is there something else I've missed?

Rule 047: Fantasy is Not Realer than Reality

Spoiler

Show

Nay.
See my argument against Rule 038.

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.

Heh, now I have to take a hard look at this again.

I suspect my own desire to limit SCM nonsense, as more of a houserule, got me carried away a bit here.

Changing my vote to abstain; it's a plausible change, but not quite enough to make it beyond houserule status.

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.

The rule as written specifically mentions becoming undead as a way to remove the dead condition. Zombies, with Int --, are not playable, and my reading of this rule does not indicate that it overrides that, merely mentions that (some) reanimated creatures are playable. So I believe it adequate as it stands.

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.

That said, I don't object to this rewrite, as it seems clearer and more precise.

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.

This seems like a sensible idea.

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

I would suggest a somewhat different set, actually: 028 might qualify, 037 certainly would, 047 would as mentioned earlier, and the idea behind 048 is another one. Mostly, though, we've been filtering those out as we go; should these guidelines migrate to another thread, or stay here?

Have to vote Against on Rule 38.
A Creature with Telepathy, who makes the Will save against Phantasmal Assailants or Phantasmal Killer turns the effect back at the caster, who then has to make his own saves.
Rule 38 would automatically nullify that. The Will portion of Phantasmal Assailants/Killer is specifically tagged as "disbelief".

I could see this working if it was ammended to "Rule 38: A Caster may not believe in their own Illusion (Figment) or Illusion (Glammer) spells, even if they want to".

This is a good change to make, and I agree with it (and abstain from 038 as written, as usual ).

Rule 31r2 -- Nobody Notices the Guy with the Tower Shield:

A character may not attempt a hide check against an observer against whom she lacks effective cover or concealment. When determining whether or not a character may attempt a hide check against a particular observer, do not consider any cover that does not impede the observer's vision or that would be hidden as a result of a successful check.

I believe this change is correct now, so switching agreement over to it.

Rule 021: Enchanting Enhanced Projectiles

Spoiler

Show

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.)

See my response to Jeff the Green on 021 above; also, defending per RAW does not in fact require you to make an attack action with the weapon, or even necessarily hold it (it merely says "use", which is too vague). Furthermore, the benefit is not related to attacking with the weapon, only the requirement (sort of) is.

Rule 028: Qualified and Disqualified

Spoiler

Show

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.

Same thing happens as when a Str 13 finessing Fighter gets hit by ray of enfeeblement, or a Dex 17 GTWFer suffers ray of clumsiness. As far as I know, the rules already cover this, so 028 doesn't need to make any special provisions.

[Jeff the Green]

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

Spoiler

Show

Any suggestions on improving this?

My main problem is that it allows a wizard to peek out and fireball, but a rogue can't peek out and fire a crossbow. I think a more appropriate version would be:

At the start of their turn, a creature using a Tower Shield decides whether to use the Total Cover version of their shield, or whether to use it for a shield bonus. This is a free action, and the decision remains in effect until they decide to change it by making a free action at the start of their turn. Tower Shields being used to provide Total Cover provide cover in all directions. All creatures have Total Cover from a creature using a tower shield to provide Total Cover.

or

At the start of their turn, a creature using a Tower Shield decides whether to use the Total Cover version of their shield, or whether to use it for a shield bonus. This is a free action, and the decision remains in effect until they decide to change it by making a free action at the start of their turn. Tower Shields being used to provide Total Cover provide cover in all directions. You do not have Total Cover from any creature you affected in any way during your last turn.

Rule 018: Claw, Stab Claw…and now with my other arm!

Spoiler

Show

• Bite: Rule works correctly
• Claw or Talon: Rule works correctly
• Gore: It would be difficult to conceive of a creature holding something in its horns, and rule works correctly
• Slap or Slam: Special case being worked on in e.g. 045; rule is incomplete
• Sting: Same as gore
• Tentacle: Much like slap/slam, and should perhaps be folded in

So I propose either folding 045 into this rule, making the appropriate changes, or using 045 as a catchall for exceptions to this one.

I would support any of those three solutions, though I think folding 045 into 018 would be better, since exceptions to a rule should be referrenced in the rule.

Rule 034: Armored Outfits

Spoiler

Show

Hmm. A possible solution to this is to require that e.g. at least one full slot must be occupied by parts of the outfit, so that an outfit that includes body wear, a cape, gloves, and boots would still function if the cape, gloves, and boots were substituted. Or more precisely, say that only the parts of outfits physically occupying the body slot need be worn for its magic to be in effect, and that other components have no special effect.

I think it would be simpler to say that a single garment worn on the body can be enchanted in such a way.

Rule 040: When All Else Changes, Cooldowns Remain

Spoiler

Show

Do any of the three interpretations (specific body, general form, inherent/external magic) I mentioned in a previous post seem sensible, or is there something else I've missed?

The problem is that they all make sense. I think that this is one of those "there is no RACSD, and RAW is confusing" things and should be decided by individual DMs.

Rule 005: Dead is Dead

Spoiler

Show

The rule as written specifically mentions becoming undead as a way to remove the dead condition. Zombies, with Int --, are not playable, and my reading of this rule does not indicate that it overrides that, merely mentions that (some) reanimated creatures are playable. So I believe it adequate as it stands.

Except that it doesn't say that becoming undead removes the dead condition. It only gives it as an example where it needs to be explicitly stated. And, unlike my proposed change, it leaves a great deal up to individual DMs. (Is becoming Deathless sufficiently similar to becoming Undead? What about undead, since they're never "dead," only destroyed?)

I would suggest a somewhat different set, actually: 028 might qualify, 037 certainly would, 047 would as mentioned earlier, and the idea behind 048 is another one. Mostly, though, we've been filtering those out as we go; should these guidelines migrate to another thread, or stay here?

I agree with those additions to the list. I think in general any "magic is counter intuitive" rules should go into such a list. Probably they should go into a separate thread, since they're explicitly not RACSD. I'll start said thread if others think such a reference would be useful.

[erikun]

Re: Rule 034: Armored Outfits

My big problem with the rule was that it presented a RAW-legal (if obscure) rule as something that should only be valid and useable for sets of clothing.

What's more, it is already possible to create magical items with existing properities that take up a different body slot. As such, despite the rule's tone of "only full outfits may make use of these benefits," you can already make a Vest of Armor +8 or Cloak of Armor +8 or even Gloves of Armor +8.

As such, the only thing the rule is truely saying is that you can enhance an outfit, and it takes up the armor/robe slot when doing so. If this is all it is, then that is all it should say, rather than the whole mess of applicable enhancements and disallowing wearing boots along with it. The idea of a "Rules As They Make Sense" approach is to have everything clear and obvious, not to obfuscate the situation as badly as the existing rules already have.

[Ashtagon]

Originally Posted by Jeff the Green View Post
Nay.
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.

Presumably, the same thing that would happen to any other suit of armour that consists of multiple pieces. Because any armour more complex than a breastplate (and not even that if it covers the back as well as the front) consists of multiple pieces, which could technically be worn individually, albeit with some additional work in certain cases. For example, plate armour remains plate armour if you fluff the description as missing greaves, bracers, or helmet. Similarly, "clerical vestments" remain so even if you forget your scarf or your socks or wear the wrong underwear.

[Jeff the Green]

Presumably, the same thing that would happen to any other suit of armour that consists of multiple pieces. Because any armour more complex than a breastplate (and not even that if it covers the back as well as the front) consists of multiple pieces, which could technically be worn individually, albeit with some additional work in certain cases. For example, plate armour remains plate armour if you fluff the description as missing greaves, bracers, or helmet. Similarly, "clerical vestments" remain so even if you forget your scarf or your socks or wear the wrong underwear.

You're right, but it still doesn't fix the rule. If anything, it points out the fact that the rules are ambiguous about whether you keep the magical powers from a set of full plate if you swap out the gauntlets, boots, helmet, or padding.

For that reason, I propose the following rule:

Rule 053: Full plate, disassembled:
Any armor that includes pieces that would prevent the wearing of a magic item that does not occupy the body slot does not require those pieces to provide its entire armor bonus or enchantment. Those pieces separated from the armor confer no armor bonus and no enchantment.

[erikun]

You're right, but it still doesn't fix the rule. If anything, it points out the fact that the rules are ambiguous about whether you keep the magical powers from a set of full plate if you swap out the gauntlets, boots, helmet, or padding.

Quoted from here:

Armor is always created so that even if the type of armor comes with boots or gauntlets, these pieces can be switched for other magic boots or gauntlets.

It would be logical to conclude that you could swap helmets as well, of course.

[Jeff the Green]

It would be logical to conclude that you could swap helmets as well, of course.

You're right; I either hadn't seen it or didn't remember it. Still, taking "logical to conclude" out of the equation is what this project aims to do, no?

[Tyndmyr]

I thought I was quite clear that the rule talks only about whether or not you can claim cover for the purposes of the hide skill: it does not prevent you from claiming cover against an attack.

In any event, how's this?

Rule 31r2 -- Nobody Notices the Guy with the Tower Shield:

A character may not attempt a hide check against an observer against whom she lacks effective cover or concealment. When determining whether or not a character may attempt a hide check against a particular observer, do not consider any cover that does not impede the observer's vision or that would be hidden as a result of a successful check.

Honestly, I'd prefer we just tie it to concealment.

Have concealment? Can hide.
No concealment? Cannot hide.

Concealment= stuff blocking vision.
Cover= stuff blocking attacks.

D&D is not always fantastic with differentiating between cover and concealment, and that's the root cause of all this confusion. Realistically, something could easily be only one or the other, or even both. It makes sense to allow you to hide behind anything that grants concealment, and cover need not be considered at all.


Additionally, I see no particular reason why armor bits can't be substituted out with magical items. I suspect that the line about gauntlets, etc indicates that RAI is that they can be.

However...if you literally swap out all the bits, is it still the same set of armor?

[TuggyNE]

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

Spoiler

Show

At the start of their turn, a creature using a Tower Shield decides whether to use the Total Cover version of their shield, or whether to use it for a shield bonus. This is a free action, and the decision remains in effect until they decide to change it by making a free action at the start of their turn. Tower Shields being used to provide Total Cover provide cover in all directions. All creatures have Total Cover from a creature using a tower shield to provide Total Cover.

I think this is the best revision; preventing someone from sniping and then covering on the next turn seems entirely unwarranted. (Otherwise you would have to get into invisibility-style disclaimers about what does and does not constitute "affecting" for these purposes, etc etc etc. Very tedious.)

Rule 018: Claw, Stab Claw…and now with my other arm!

Spoiler

Show

I would support any of those three solutions, though I think folding 045 into 018 would be better, since exceptions to a rule should be referrenced in the rule.

Technically only two solutions; the comma was misleading there. But I agree that putting exception with rule is best when possible.

Rule 040: When All Else Changes, Cooldowns Remain

Spoiler

Show

The problem is that they all make sense. I think that this is one of those "there is no RACSD, and RAW is confusing" things and should be decided by individual DMs.

Hmm, perhaps so; I do think it's decidable, but I'll admit my own choice of the three is colored largely by balance concerns.

I think in general any "magic is counter intuitive" rules should go into such a list. Probably they should go into a separate thread, since they're explicitly not RACSD. I'll start said thread if others think such a reference would be useful.

There are probably some others as well, obviously.

And yeah, separate threads is probably fine.

Honestly, I'd prefer we just tie it to concealment.

Have concealment? Can hide.
No concealment? Cannot hide.

Concealment= stuff blocking vision.
Cover= stuff blocking attacks.

D&D is not always fantastic with differentiating between cover and concealment, and that's the root cause of all this confusion. Realistically, something could easily be only one or the other, or even both. It makes sense to allow you to hide behind anything that grants concealment, and cover need not be considered at all.

My only concern here is that cover and concealment each have an effect on attacks, so there'd need to be an addendum to the cover section in Combat Modifiers that visible cover acts like concealment for the purpose of hiding, but does not grant any miss chance or additional AC because of that.

You're right, but it still doesn't fix the rule. If anything, it points out the fact that the rules are ambiguous about whether you keep the magical powers from a set of full plate if you swap out the gauntlets, boots, helmet, or padding.

Additionally, I see no particular reason why armor bits can't be substituted out with magical items. I suspect that the line about gauntlets, etc indicates that RAI is that they can be.

However...if you literally swap out all the bits, is it still the same set of armor?

No, my instinct is to say that any given magical item with multiple parts has one slot-occupying item that is the core; the others are connected magically, but have no special effect on their own. (Or, in the case of paired gloves/boots, neither one is the core, and they only function when occupying the same slot together.)

I'm not sure how much of that is RAW, RAI, or even RACSD, though.

[Tyndmyr]

My only concern here is that cover and concealment each have an effect on attacks, so there'd need to be an addendum to the cover section in Combat Modifiers that visible cover acts like concealment for the purpose of hiding, but does not grant any miss chance or additional AC because of that.

Mmm, yes, good call. Double dipping is def not the intention here.

No, my instinct is to say that any given magical item with multiple parts has one slot-occupying item that is the core; the others are connected magically, but have no special effect on their own. (Or, in the case of paired gloves/boots, neither one is the core, and they only function when occupying the same slot together.)

I'm not sure how much of that is RAW, RAI, or even RACSD, though.

I do it the same way, but yeah, I can't cite any thing explicit for it. For full plate, it's the breastplate. However, this gets sticky if the person wants to swap out everything but the breastplate, and notes that "breastplate" has a different set of stats than fullplate. For that matter, same same for half plate.

It's something that's marginally awkward, and mostly I just hope it doesn't come up.

[Darrin]

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

Are you trying to make me cry?

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

Ok... so my original 19 was too complicated (or too poorly worded). Now that some of you are seeing the consequences of keeping slams... would this work better:

1) Creatures with a single slam attack treat this as a body slam and keep it regardless of whether their arms are occupied with something else.

2)Creatures with two slam attacks (and a roughly humanoid shape) are assumed to be using their arms to slam, and thus lose these slams if their arms are occupied.

This covers just about all the stat blocks (including the half-dozen or so medium creatures with 2 slams in MM2/MM3), but keeps the Vampire and Woodling slams intact. Warforged are a little more powerful, but the slam is nice flavor and just one slam isn't overly powerful.

[Jeff the Green]

1) Creatures with a single slam attack treat this as a body slam and keep it regardless of whether their arms are occupied with something else.

2)Creatures with two slam attacks (and a roughly humanoid shape) are assumed to be using their arms to slam, and thus lose these slams if their arms are occupied.[/I]

Perhaps the question betrays my relative unfamiliarity with monsters, but why not say something like "If the creature is described as having a weapon attack or a slam(s), it loses the slams if its arms are occupied."?

[Asheram]

001: Approve
002: Approve
003: Approve
004: Approve
005: Approve
006: Approve
007: Approve
008: Approve
010: Approve
011: Approve
013: Approve
014: Approve
015: Approve (I still believe that an unconcious creature should have a penalty to will saves though)
016: Approve
017: Approve
018: Approve
020: Approve
021: Approve
022: Approve
023: Approve
025: Approve
026: Approve
027: Approve
028: Against (I refer to page 58 in the phb on gaining skillpoints "Use your character’scurrent Intelligence score, including all permanent changes (such as inherent bonuses, ability drains, or an Intelligence increase gained at step 4, above) but not any temporary changes (such as ability damage, or enhancement bonuses gained from spells or magic items, such as a headband of intellect), to determine the number of skill points you gain." In my eyes it's the same thing.
029: Approve ((Whip needs all the love it can get. And it specifically says "When wielding an exotic weapon with reach"
030: Approve
031: Approve
032a: Against
032b: Approve
033: Approve (I can see the argument how you could use the same modifier in different ways, but if it doesn't say so then I'd say no)
034: Approve.
036: Approve
037: Approve ((Up to DM's judgement, but infinite loops should be frowned upon))
038: Approve ((Unless the character honestly doesn't remember casting the illusion or it has changed since initial casting))
039: Approve
040: Approve ((to the same type of breath weapon, say, for example, dragon breath weapon))
041: Approve
042: Approve
043: Against: ((Weapons are weapons, a gauntlet is a wepaon attached to armor))
044: Abstain vote
045: Approve
046: Approve
047: Approve
049: Abstain ((I want to point out the Urban Wildshape or Baleful Polymorph))
050: Approve
051: Approve
052: Approve

[erikun]

You're right; I either hadn't seen it or didn't remember it. Still, taking "logical to conclude" out of the equation is what this project aims to do, no?

True, but isn't there a simpler or more generic way of stating it?

Magical armor only requires being worn on the body (in the body slot) to grant benefit. Gauntlets, boots, helmet, and other items may be removed or replaced without losing the magical properitied. Gauntlets, boots, and helmets seperate from enhanced armor have no properities of their own beyond the materials used in their construction.

[Darrin]

Perhaps the question betrays my relative unfamiliarity with monsters, but why not say something like "If the creature is described as having a weapon attack or a slam(s), it loses the slams if its arms are occupied."?

Several problems with this:

1) Stat blocks are error-prone and inconsistent. Many designers were unfamiliar with how natural attacks worked with other weapons, and some of them make contradictory assumptions, depending on the sourcebook.

2) Existing stat blocks don't cover PCs who acquire slams via templates or other special abilities.

3) You're essentially saying "the stat block determines whether your slams are arm-dependent", which completely avoids the whole point of coming up with a common-sense rule that covers a hole in the 3.x rules. It also creates a problem where certain forms (notably the golem, elemental, and undead creatures with two slams and no manufactured weapons in their stat blocks) are much more preferrable than others. So the savvy PC just picks whatever form doesn't have an "or" and thus allows weapon attacks + 2 slams.

We need a rule that describes (mostly) how the stat blocks are the way they are, and is simple enough to adjudicate when the PCs get creative with templates and polymorph.

I would think the "one slam good, two slams bad" approach satisfies both requirements without too many headaches. After going through all the MMs, a creature with exactly 2 slams is almost invariably using its arms. I thought size might be important, giving the wording in the MM/SRD, but even medium-sized creatures with 2 slams are usually described as using their arms (although I have no idea what's going on with the Loxo). Single slams appear to be less common with humanoids (Doppelganger and Warforged are probably the best examples), but are never described as using the arms. Rather than subdivide slams into three categories, there'd be only two types of slams:

1) body slam common to most oozes, worms, medium-sized humanoids, and templates

2) arm-based slams common to giants, elementals, and golems, denoted by "2 slams" in the stat block, more or less granted by designer fiat.

[Menteith]

I'd like to know how other people read the Soul Eater's Energy Drain ability (BoVD p66). The PrC has an entry requirement of Weapon Focus on a natural attack, and Energy Drain states that the "touch of a Soul Eater bestows one negative level on the target", without specifying if this works on literally every touch or if it's an unique special touch attack that defaults to a standard action as per the usual rules. It's one of my favorite classes, but the vagueness of the wording can be very frustrating.

[Tyndmyr]

Honestly, in my group, we allow charged touch spells to be discharged on a grapple or any other situation in which you have clearly touched them, even if a touch attack was not rolled by you. IE, don't grapple the guy glowing with ethereal energy.

That said, it's not strictly RAW, though it does make a certain kind of sense. Therefore, we'd treat it as a touch attack...but it could also go off on other touches.

[Andorax]

Sheesh...go on a holiday vacation and the thread takes off on ya. Back to catching things up:


tuggyne, thanks for the format catch on rule 31.


ideasmith, Asheram, and all other newcommers...welcome to the discussion. Jeff the Green, welcome back.

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

The errata only regards Arcane Thesis. I am not yet convinced that this is the only means of producing unintended negative modifier effects.


Jeff the Green, I appreciate your wanting to toss your 2cp into the discussion, but once a rule's removed from discussion, it's removed. I'm not going to bring them back up (re: 5, 17, 18, 25, 27)

Regarding Rule 034: I appreciate where you're coming from regarding "piecemeal" outfits...and to be honest, I think that there's a lot of value in the discussion over Rule 053 to cover that very issue. In light of rule 053, and how it relates back to rule 034, does that shift your opinion?

Regarding your comment on Rule 039...if the definition of "true dragon" is bad to begin with, don't you think that we SHOULD be using RACSD to clean it up? You already seem to agree that the rule fixes unintended abuses.

Finally,

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.

I just don't see this as being something that can be a clearcut threshold. What, in my judgement, would fall as a "DM's judgement/Houserule" item versus a RACSD, won't match anyone else. The alternative, opening up a parallel set of voting for how to classify each rule, is more confusion and overhead than I'm prepared to withstand. It's a good idea, but I'm afraid it's not readily implementable.

All in all, I'd just say that ALL of this is up to DM's interpretation, and that (generally speaking) all of it is debatable, else it wouldn't be here. You've brought up, yourself, an objection to a rule already deemed 'unanimous'...so yes, everything's subject to debate, and any DM that wants to utilize this set of rules needs...

...to use common sense in adopting, and interpreting, them.


lesser_minion, I've noted your reword on rule 31...I hate to reword something with near universal agreement in its original incarnation, but it makes sense.


With Acanous's alternate wording, I think a split on 038 is in order.



tuggyne:

Rule 047: Fantasy is Not Realer than Reality

Changing my vote to abstain; it's a plausible change, but not quite enough to make it beyond houserule status.

I'll say again...a fair number of these rules ARE houserules...they're outright, blatant changes to how the rules as written are put forward.

If you think something isn't RACSD because it's a "houserule" then you're only going to support the interpretation/clarification portions of this thread, which is a shame.

The question is...does the "houserule" make more sense than the baseline? Feel free to continue abstaining on 047, I'm not lobbing the rule, just the (apparent) line of reasoning.



Jeff The Green, your Rule 053 (somewhat edited) is now in place...and makse good, solid sense to me.


Asheram...thanks for joining the discussion, but was it really necessary to use Approve and Against (two seven letter words starting with A)? My head hurts from picking apart your votes.

Also, I inferred that you'd be for either version of the now-split 38...please correct me if I am wrong.


32A hasn't reached the threshold for disapproval, but it seems clear to me at this point that Rule 32B is greatly favored. As such, I've gone ahead and removed 32A and made 32B into just plain "32".

That said, even though I personally liked the old 32A variation better, I'll throw my support behind rule 32.



Rule 015 is now approved
Rule 031 has been reworded...please revisit and comment accordingly.
Rule 038 (now 038A) is now disapproved, and split.
Subsequently, Rule 038B is now approved
Rule 045 is now disapproved

[Tyndmyr]

The errata only regards Arcane Thesis. I am not yet convinced that this is the only means of producing unintended negative modifier effects.

What, exactly, would be the necessary bar of proof for convincing you of this? I've posted a rather extensive list, and own all official first party 3.0 and 3.5 books. Nobody's shown a counter-example. All indications point to the rule being redundant.

[TuggyNE]

Ok... so my original 19 was too complicated (or too poorly worded). Now that some of you are seeing the consequences of keeping slams... would this work better:

1) Creatures with a single slam attack treat this as a body slam and keep it regardless of whether their arms are occupied with something else.

2)Creatures with two slam attacks (and a roughly humanoid shape) are assumed to be using their arms to slam, and thus lose these slams if their arms are occupied.

This covers just about all the stat blocks (including the half-dozen or so medium creatures with 2 slams in MM2/MM3), but keeps the Vampire and Woodling slams intact. Warforged are a little more powerful, but the slam is nice flavor and just one slam isn't overly powerful.

If no one has a counter-example, I'd go with this.

028: Against (I refer to page 58 in the phb on gaining skillpoints "Use your character’scurrent Intelligence score, including all permanent changes (such as inherent bonuses, ability drains, or an Intelligence increase gained at step 4, above) but not any temporary changes (such as ability damage, or enhancement bonuses gained from spells or magic items, such as a headband of intellect), to determine the number of skill points you gain." In my eyes it's the same thing.

That is fairly reasonable, though I suspect a lot of reasonable people will disagree on the issue.

033: Approve (I can see the argument how you could use the same modifier in different ways, but if it doesn't say so then I'd say no)

The stacking is a bit ambiguous in these situations; they're from different sources, and don't have any specific type, unless it's "Wisdom"/Charisma"/etc. And the specific examples of forbidden stacking seem to gate it on similarity of source as much as on ability type.

040: Approve ((to the same type of breath weapon, say, for example, dragon breath weapon))

Hmm. Dragon breath in general, for example, or specific to the varieties? Because my intent in wording it was to include all breath weapons on the same timer.

I just don't see this as being something that can be a clearcut threshold. What, in my judgement, would fall as a "DM's judgement/Houserule" item versus a RACSD, won't match anyone else. The alternative, opening up a parallel set of voting for how to classify each rule, is more confusion and overhead than I'm prepared to withstand. It's a good idea, but I'm afraid it's not readily implementable.

If we do decide to split off these rules, having Jeff the Green (or someone else) run the other thread would probably ease things a bit. However, there's definitely more work involved total for all concerned.

On the other hand, I think if we collectively use our best judgement as to what common sense dictates, and decide that a given rule doesn't and can't adequately cope with its identified problem, that would be an excellent target for "Rules As DMs Must Make", or whatever. (I apologize for the butchered grammar.) Effectively, if there's a reasonable single solution that we can agree on to fix a particular problem, well and good; it's RACSD. It's only the ones where the problem is clear, but not the solution, that don't fit.

At any rate, that's my take on it.

All in all, I'd just say that ALL of this is up to DM's interpretation, and that (generally speaking) all of it is debatable, else it wouldn't be here. You've brought up, yourself, an objection to a rule already deemed 'unanimous'...so yes, everything's subject to debate, and any DM that wants to utilize this set of rules needs...

...to use common sense in adopting, and interpreting, them.

Indeed. The process has limitations.

With Acanous's alternate wording, I think a split on 038 is in order.

Mark me as abstaining from 038A; I consider it inferior to 038B, although not necessarily wrong. (Also, 038B is marked as disapproved despite 100% agreement so far.)

I'll say again...a fair number of these rules ARE houserules...they're outright, blatant changes to how the rules as written are put forward.

If you think something isn't RACSD because it's a "houserule" then you're only going to support the interpretation/clarification portions of this thread, which is a shame.

The question is...does the "houserule" make more sense than the baseline? Feel free to continue abstaining on 047, I'm not lobbing the rule, just the (apparent) line of reasoning.

Hmm, I think my choice of words was unfortunate. Let's see if I can clarify. It's not so much that they're houserules, as that they are houserules that differ widely in practice. In other words, they're houserules of preference, rather than houserules of ... let's say correction. Much like choice of point buy or roll system, there are arguments for each, but no real way to come to universal agreement. Contrast to many of the houserules in the 2E era that were generalized into 3E.
I'll note that all of my examples are currently disapproved by the thread. (At the time, I didn't check that as thoroughly as I would now, so consider that a happy coincidence.)


Finally, I agree with 053.

[Jeff the Green]

Regarding Rule 034: I appreciate where you're coming from regarding "piecemeal" outfits...and to be honest, I think that there's a lot of value in the discussion over Rule 053 to cover that very issue. In light of rule 053, and how it relates back to rule 034, does that shift your opinion?

Assuming 053 remains approved, it changes my vote to Yay. I still think it'd make more sense to say you enchant a single piece of an outfit, but it ends up having the same game effect.

Regarding your comment on Rule 039...if the definition of "true dragon" is bad to begin with, don't you think that we SHOULD be using RACSD to clean it up? You already seem to agree that the rule fixes unintended abuses.

No, because I don't think there is a RACSD here. "True Dragon" is not a defined game term, nor is it a consistently applied term in the fluff, nor is it something in the real world that we have experience with. I imagine that it might be RAI, but if we used D&D as intended we'd all be playing heal-bot clerics and blasty wizards. The truth is that whether dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons or not is going to depend on the campaign world and its conception of dragons.

And I don't think it fixes abuses. I think it eliminates one possible route of high-level practical optimization, which may be appropriate for some campaigns and not for others (i.e I wouldn't allow it in my tier-3 semi-horror campaign, but in a party with a God wizard, a DMM cleric with four different pools of turning, and a psionic artificer it would fit right in).

I just don't see this as being something that can be a clearcut threshold. What, in my judgement, would fall as a "DM's judgement/Houserule" item versus a RACSD, won't match anyone else. The alternative, opening up a parallel set of voting for how to classify each rule, is more confusion and overhead than I'm prepared to withstand. It's a good idea, but I'm afraid it's not readily implementable.

All in all, I'd just say that ALL of this is up to DM's interpretation, and that (generally speaking) all of it is debatable, else it wouldn't be here. You've brought up, yourself, an objection to a rule already deemed 'unanimous'...so yes, everything's subject to debate, and any DM that wants to utilize this set of rules needs...

...to use common sense in adopting, and interpreting, them.

I'll point out that my objection wasn't to the rule, but to the poor wording of it (and it wasn't actually unanimous, since the change didn't address my original reason for voting Nay, so my Nay vote remained).

While I agree that there are corner cases, the fact that there are a number of rules with 30%-70% means that there is no RACSD, unless you're going to use a very strange definition of "common sense." I'll use Rule 030 as an example. As near as I can tell, there is no RAW on this, since the designers didn't seem to grasp that you could shapechange between a blue dragon and a red dragon. Similarly, there is no RACSD, as evidenced by the 30/70 split in voting.

In addition, as Tuggyne pointed out earlier, how a DM rules on cooldown is going to depend almost entirely on how they conceive of magic working in their world. Unlike, say, drowning to stabilize someone or whether you can replace the boots that come with full plate, it is something that almost always impacts the game world and not just the game.

Of course this is all subject to DM judgment - not common sense, though, because common sense, by definition, is the average judgment of many people - but I think there are enough proposed rules that are controversial enough to be clear-cut examples of rulings a DM needs to make, taking into mind their campaign world and their campaign.

Edit: Yeah, basically what Tuggyne said. Also, I didn't see Darrin's answer to my question until I posted; I'll vote Yay on the revised rule 019.

[lesser_minion]

Disapprove 38B, since it doesn't fix the problem that 38 was written to solve (GSE :: Contingency). I'd be fine with it if it read "non mind-affecting illusions" as opposed to "illusion (figment) and illusion (glamer)" spells, however.

However, the belief and disbelief rules seem bad enough to warrant a complete overhaul.

As for Rule 40, wouldn't it be better to just reset the cooldowns when you transform? It would certainly be easier to justify in fluff.

[Tyndmyr]

No, because I don't think there is a RACSD here. "True Dragon" is not a defined game term, nor is it a consistently applied term in the fluff, nor is it something in the real world that we have experience with. I imagine that it might be RAI, but if we used D&D as intended we'd all be playing heal-bot clerics and blasty wizards. The truth is that whether dragonwrought kobolds are true dragons or not is going to depend on the campaign world and its conception of dragons.

Strictly speaking, there is a defined game term of True Dragon in Draconomicon. It's fairly obviously intended as such.

That said, fluff on what happens to be a true dragon IS very subjective. There's a *lot* of draconic stuff, and stuff that's trying to be draconic. Which one is 'true' is debateable. Certainly, Dragonwrought kobolds have pages of fluff about just how danged draconic they are.

Banning it because it's too high powered for a campaign is quite reasonable, but calling it "common sense" really seems to be just looking for a justification for something you're just doing for balance reasons.

While I agree that there are corner cases, the fact that there are a number of rules with 30%-70% means that there is no RACSD, unless you're going to use a very strange definition of "common sense." I'll use Rule 030 as an example. As near as I can tell, there is no RAW on this, since the designers didn't seem to grasp that you could shapechange between a blue dragon and a red dragon. Similarly, there is no RACSD, as evidenced by the 30/70 split in voting.

In addition, as Tuggyne pointed out earlier, how a DM rules on cooldown is going to depend almost entirely on how they conceive of magic working in their world. Unlike, say, drowning to stabilize someone or whether you can replace the boots that come with full plate, it is something that almost always impacts the game world and not just the game.

I also agree on all of this. Things like drowning not healing you? Common sense. We all agree that shouldn't work. The only possible objections are phrasing issues, or other things of that nature*.

Things that are "I don't like this because I don't believe it's balanced" are not the same as common sense. Is a candle of invocation to get a genie balanced? God no. But saying it's "common sense" to work differently is just slapping a weak justification on your rules change instead of admitting to the real one. I see a lot of rules in here as the same sort of thing.

*Strictly speaking, I see it as entirely redundant, since Stormwrack already fixed this officially.

[TuggyNE]

Disapprove 38B, since it doesn't fix the problem that 38 was written to solve (GSE :: Contingency). I'd be fine with it if it read "non mind-affecting illusions" as opposed to "illusion (figment) and illusion (glamer)" spells, however.

Hmm. That might solve the problem better. (Am I the only one who's a bit disturbed that the thread has gone through three versions of that rule already?)

As for Rule 40, wouldn't it be better to just reset the cooldowns when you transform? It would certainly be easier to justify in fluff.

As in, whenever you use your free action to switch to a new form, all cooldowns are reset and you can use breath weapons freely again? Obviously, there's some justification for that, enough to make it debatable, but the point of the rule as proposed is specifically to restrict that; if you consider that the best interpretation, please vote against 040.

Or did you mean something more like, "all breath weapons are put on cooldown as though you had just used them whenever changing forms"? I could get behind that.

[Andorax]

An important note here. You do NOT have to split your vote between two variations. You can, for example, agree with 038A which, logically, would suggest that you actually ALSO agree with 038B, much as some people have agreed with both 036 AND 002.

It's not a case of "one must fail so the other can live"...consider each rule in isolation and note whether you agree with it or not. If you agree with 038A, please explain how you can disagree with 38B IN AND OF ITSELF.

Keep in mind that people can see, and use in their own campaigns, whichever variation of the rule seems to be the best fit for them, or the one with the highest % support. Unless one is voted down out of consideration (or clearly headed that way), it'll stick around.


Also, it's a corner case, but the situation of turning a Phantasmal Killer is enough for me to withdraw support from 038A.


Jeff the Green, here's the best I could come up with regarding Rule 039:

Spoiler

Show

MM 68

"True dragons are winged, reptilelike creatures of ancient lineage. They are known and feared for their size, physical prowess, and magical abilities. The oldest dragons are among the most powerful creatures in the world."
"The known varieties of true dragons (as opposed to other creatures that have the dragon type) fall into two broad categories: chromatic and metallic..."
"All true dragons gain more abilities and greater power as they age (Other creatures that have the dragon type do not). They range in length from several feat upon hatching to more than 100 feet after attaining the status of great wyrm. The size of a partocular dragon varies according to age and variety."

Draconomicon 4

"For the most part, this book concerns itself with the ten varieties of true dragon described in the Monster Manual...True dragons are those creatures that become more powerful as they grow older."
"A number of other true dragons are described in Chapter 4 of this book. In addition, Appendix 2: Index of Dragons provides a complete list of all true dragons that have been presented in official sources."

Note: Kobolds were published well before the Draconomicon, and do not appear on the list of True Dragons, nor even the list of Lesser Dragons.

In fairness, also note: Draconomicon is (C) 2003, Races of the Dragon, where they talk about Dragonwrought Kobolds and Kobolds considering themselves as having "age categories", is (C) 2006.

Kobolds are explicitly called out as "Dragonkind" (Races of the Dragon p4), but so too are numerous creatures from both the True Dragon and Lesser Dragon list.

One could argue (several have) that since they describe themselves as having 12 age categories, and suffer no age penalties to Str/Dex/Con, they become "more powerful as they get older", and thus count as True Dragons.

Others would argue that they fail the other criterian later in the description. They're not "feared for their size and physical prowess", they don't "range in length from several feet upon hatching" (in fact, even adult Kobolds aren't "several" feet long, they can't even manage 3') and certainly aren't "more than 100 feet after attaining the status of great wyrm".

So yes, I'd say there is solid evidence of "True Dragon" as a game term, and enough of a definition to be able to string together a good idea of what it means. And, Kobold delusions aside, I don't think that definition has any room in it for a kobold with one feat.

Rule 038 has split again, with a variation C.

[Tyndmyr]

The primary source for the definition of True Dragon appears in draconomicon. Relying on the fluff description of dragons from the MM(or elsewhere) does not trump this.

Other true dragons were published post-draconomicon. Some of the explicitly listed true dragons, like the lung dragon, also do not fit the MM description.

The obvious conclusion was that the MM description was valid for the dragons in the monster manual, and that the list of true dragons in draconomicon was valid at the time that book was published. You can't expect them to list things in books printed later. No lists in D&D work that way.

You can't treat a bit of fluff in the monster manual as equivalent to explicit rules in Draconomicon as to what constitutes a True Dragon. None of those size things are requirements. Additionally, Lesser Dragons have requirements that DW Kobolds do not fulfill. So, when it's an either/or situation, and one obviously fits by the rules, and the other obviously does not...it's a remarkably easy call by RAW.

Now, if you don't like RAW, houserule away. But take the credit for the rules you introduced, don't try to pass it off like everyone does things exactly the same way as you.

[Ashtagon]

The primary source for the definition of True Dragon appears in draconomicon. Relying on the fluff description of dragons from the MM(or elsewhere) does not trump this.

Other true dragons were published post-draconomicon. Some of the explicitly listed true dragons, like the lung dragon, also do not fit the MM description.

The obvious conclusion was that the MM description was valid for the dragons in the monster manual, and that the list of true dragons in draconomicon was valid at the time that book was published. You can't expect them to list things in books printed later. No lists in D&D work that way.

You can't treat a bit of fluff in the monster manual as equivalent to explicit rules in Draconomicon as to what constitutes a True Dragon. None of those size things are requirements. Additionally, Lesser Dragons have requirements that DW Kobolds do not fulfill. So, when it's an either/or situation, and one obviously fits by the rules, and the other obviously does not...it's a remarkably easy call by RAW.

Now, if you don't like RAW, houserule away. But take the credit for the rules you introduced, don't try to pass it off like everyone does things exactly the same way as you.

Draconomicon says a true dragon is a creature with the dragon type that gains power as it ages. Kobolds, even with the Dragonwrought feat, both gain and lose on their ability scores as they age, which is not the case with the true dragons that have been explicitly identified as such. One thing the lesser dragons have in common is that they do not have the 12 age categories defined for true dragons in the Monster Manual. Since they are living creatures, they must therefore use the same ageing categories (albeit with different and generally unspecified numbers) that humans and other lessers use. In this regard they are identical in creature type and ageing pattern to, say, a kobold with the Dragonwrought feat.

That's why I don't think kobolds can ever be true dragons.

[Tyndmyr]

Draconomicon says a true dragon is a creature with the dragon type that gains power as it ages. Kobolds, even with the Dragonwrought feat, both gain and lose on their ability scores as they age, which is not the case with the true dragons that have been explicitly identified as such.

This is incorrect. DW Kobolds are explicitly exempt from loosing abilities scores as you normally do while aging.

Therefore, it's a pure gain. +mental stats, no negatives anywhere. gain & loss would be a power trade, but this is a pure gain.

Additionally, the DW Kobolds do have the 12 aging categories of a dragon. They not only have the right number of categories, they have the correct draconic titles.