"Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

[Ashtagon]

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.

While dragon-style age categories were defined (p38), they have no game mechanic effect -- they provide neither bonus nor penalty. The only ageing effects are applied at the standard age categories, which do not match up with the true dragon style age categories.

There is a line (p38) which notes that DW kobolds don't suffer age penalties, and that you should see the feat description for more info on this. But the feat itself is silent on the matter. Definitely some bad proof-reading going on. And there's no errata on it.

[Tyndmyr]

While dragon-style age categories were defined (p38), they have no game mechanic effect -- they provide neither bonus nor penalty. The only ageing effects are applied at the standard age categories, which do not match up with the true dragon style age categories.

There is a line (p38) which notes that DW kobolds don't suffer age penalties, and that you should see the feat description for more info on this. But the feat itself is silent on the matter. Definitely some bad proof-reading going on. And there's no errata on it.

True, but the two requirements are not tied together. True Dragon does not require that the draconic age categories CAUSE the power gain. Just that it happens as they age.

Since the standard age categories are linked to years, they also apply, and DW kobolds do age...(admittedly, much slower than normal kobolds), they get power as they age. It doesn't line up with the draconic age categories, but this is not in any way required by the TD definition.

I admit, I would have preferred if they had clarified this(go go proofreading), but using the rules strictly, there's no actual conflict.

[lesser_minion]

Do we have to have another true dragon debate?

Every rule that cares about true dragons provides its own definition, and that is the definition of a true dragon for the purposes of that rule (specific trumps general). You can be considered a true dragon for some purposes but not others.

This applies to the DWK -- there are some things that merely require you to be a dragon with 12 age categories, in which case the DWK counts. Others may be more specific about what is required.

[Tyndmyr]

Also, there's a separate thread about it now, so, wangling specific to that can happen over there.

I do think it's an entirely justifiable house rule to not allow kobolds access to draconic stuff, if that doesn't fit your campaign world. But if it does, go nuts. I believe RAW is clear that it works. "Common sense" varies significantly here.

Regardless of interpretation, I think it's pretty clear that dragons and humans are the fun partiers of the D&D universe, if you catch my drift.

[erikun]

Rule 038B: Illusionists Retain Some Delusions
Approved, as while it is still lacking in what should be included, illusionists should not be disbelieving their own figments and glamers.

Rule 038C: Illusionists Can't Visually Trick Themselves
Approved. This does make sense, making the illusionist vulnerable to their own mind-affecting traps but not believing what they know to be false.

Conversely,
Rule 038A: On the Delusions of an Illusionist
Changing this to Disapproved. Nightmare and other phantasms should clearly be able to target the caster, and having your own dream-terror thrown back at you is somewhat of a staple(sp?) in fantasy. Plus, I'd forgotten to consider spells like Hypnotic Pattern, which could ensnare the caster as easily as anyone else.

Rule 053: Piecemeal Magic Items
Disapproved mainly due to non-magical boots and helmets detecting as magical for no discernible reason. If they aren't providing a magical benefit and aren't magical themselves - at least getting the improved hardness and HP - then they shouldn't be detecting as magical either.

[Malachei]

Personally, I think the most important aspect of the Illusionists... series of suggestions is that you should not be able to use Greater Shadow Evocation to duplicate Contingency and then fail your Will Save against your own trick to make it work 100% of the time.

Thus, unless an existing rule covers this, I'd propose:

Illusory Contingency is not a fail-safe bargain to drop a school
In case of Greater Shadow Evocation or similar spells being used to duplicate Contingency, the spellcaster automatically succeeds on his save to recognize the spell as an illusion. Thus, the shadow evoked Contingency is 60% likely to work.

I find this reasonable also because of Contingency is one of the staples of an undervalued (and underestimated) school, and Gr. Shadow Evocation is often exploited to drop Evocation entirely. Also, there's a Rules of the Game article supporting this.

It may be covered by another rule, but as people might be opposing broader rules for specific reasons while, perhaps and hopefully, not opposing this one, I think it deserves a specific notion.

Andorax, would you assign a number, please?

[lesser_minion]

I forgot to mention this earlier, but since Acanous has shown rule 38A to be broken, I'd like to withdraw support for it.

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.

I completely agree. This probably is the best way to handle the issue.

[Jeff the Green]

Illusory Contingency is not a fail-safe bargain to drop a school
In case of Greater Shadow Evocation or similar spells being used to duplicate Contingency, the spellcaster automatically succeeds on his save to recognize the spell as an illusion. Thus, the shadow evoked Contingency is 60% likely to work.

I have to disagree that this is RACSD. It's certainly a reasonable houserule (and probably one I'd use myself, if I had an illusionist in my game), but there is nothing in the rules to suggest this might be the case. There isn't any ambiguity about it, and this is one of those "magic is weird" rules where reasonable people can disagree.

Also, it doesn't solve the problem; it's not all that hard to make GSE 100% real even on a successful save. This is clearly houserule territory.

A general argument against the various "illusionists (almost) always disbelieve their illusions" rules:

Spoiler

Show

The great illusionist Randija* pioneered a technique now used by nearly all illusionist. He found that by training his mind and altering his spells ever so slightly, he could make himself believe his own illusions. Extraordinary, yes. Some at the time even called it paradoxical. But the philosophers and skeptics soon had to accept the fact that Randija had developed a very powerful, if situational, tool.

This is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the rules, and no stranger than the very idea of creating illusions that are "partially real." Thus there is no RACSD on this issue.

*Cookies if you get the reference.

A blanket Nay vote for such rules.

Rule 53: Nay, as per erikun's argument. I don't know why you stuck that clause in, Andorax.

[Zeful]

I have to disagree that this is RACSD. It's certainly a reasonable houserule (and probably one I'd use myself, if I had an illusionist in my game), but there is nothing in the rules to suggest this might be the case. There isn't any ambiguity about it, and this is one of those "magic is weird" rules where reasonable people can disagree.

Then just excise Evocation. It'd be far more "reasonable" than keeping a school that has no apparent reason to exist than to be the school idiots pick.

[Jeff the Green]

Then just excise Evocation. It'd be far more "reasonable" than keeping a school that has no apparent reason to exist than to be the school idiots pick.

That's a problem of balance, not of rules not making sense, and so the proper response is a houserule, not declaring that your houserule is common sense. Note where I said "I'd use [it] myself."

And besides, that wouldn't save evocation. It's not versatile enough even with contingency. Contingency is nice, but it's too high a level to come into play most games and can be replicated with a Contingent Spells, which are a lot more versatile and allow duplicates.

Edit: Actually, I would support a limited version of 038. This makes this, what, version D?

A character whose Illusion (Phantasm) spell has been turned on them (as a phantasmal killer spell) does not have proof that an illusion isn’t real and must save against its effect.

[Andorax]

A blanket Nay vote for such rules.

Rule 53: Nay, as per erikun's argument. I don't know why you stuck that clause in, Andorax.

I can't take "blanket" Nays, Jeff...too much interpretation as future rules come out of your pre-emptive vote (as well as remembeirng which pre-emptive votes I have to track). Please continue to vote as they come out.


And as per Rule 053...I suppose I can strike that part with no heartburn, but I do have to ask. If a "suit" of platemail +3 includes boots, greaves, gauntlets, helm, etc...if the whole dang suit of armor was enhanced...doesn't it make sense that each separate bit would still detect as magical, being a piece of said overall armor?

Perhaps an A/B split over this issue? Or I'll just drop it entire if others chime in thinking it's meaningless/pointless/detrimental.

[TuggyNE]

I trawled the Dysfunctional Rules thread for a long list of problems to potentially draft rules for, although I suspect some of them are out of scope for this thread.

Spoiler

Show

History: the DC15 check that makes Divination useless. Specifically: "Determine approximate date of a specific event". Note that it does NOT say that the event has to have already happened.

Although, of course, you have to have some idea what event you're trying to discern.

The Listen DC to hear that people are talking is DC 0, however you have to beat the DC by 10 to understand what was being said.

That means that if an average person with no ranks and Wis 10 is addressed in a clear, strong voice by someone 10 feet away there is only a 50% chance they will understand what is being said and will have extreme difficulty carrying on a conversation with them. As the DC is 11, taking 10 is impossible, meaning that the typical conversation between two ordinary people sounds more like that of the elderly, who are LESS likely to have trouble being hard of hearing.

Fixing this is a bit tricky, but as suggested later in the thread, perhaps reducing either the base DC, or the surplus needed to understand, would be sufficient.

Did he remember to put cross class ranks into knowldege (local)? If not he doesn't know what race HE IS, or anything about this mysterious thing he himself is. If he DID max out his cross class ranks then we're back to a 40% chance that he STILL doesn't know anything whatsoever about his own race, including even the name.

And remember, there are no retries till you level. There's a fair chance that despite having wasted 4 of his skill points on knowldege local and 4 more on knowledge nature will NEVER figure out what race he is or that farm animal.

The rules being based on HD and 1 HD putting it out of common knowledge is utterly and totally stupid. Basically, the people writing these rules didn't read these rules, no PC race, without a skill which is cross class for most classes, can identify other members of their own race.

Another scaling DC that's buggy at the low end.

The Frenzied Berserker's Deathless Frenzy ability prevents them from being disabled at 0 HP, dying at negative 1-9 HP, and even prevents them from being dead at -10 HP and lower. It does not however do anything at all to prevent unconsciousness from nonlethal damage. Such as that which you automatically take every round while in a Frenzy. And since you must be in a Frenzy to use Deathless Frenzy, this means you drop unconscious exactly the same as you would if you did not have this ability.

If your HP is less than 0, your non-lethal damage (0) exceeds it and you fall unconscious.

Both fixed by an extension of 050, presumably.

Then we use Rage claws, with 1 essentia invested. It states you act normally until -12 HP.

Guess what HP you are always at if you're dead? -10HP
Thus, you auto-revive when you die.

Presumably, this is a problem with Incarnum, but I don't know the subsystem well enough to be certain of a fix.

Whenever some but not all of those involved in a combat are aware of it, a surprise round occurs. This can be deliberately exploited, by keeping a small animal such as a monkey within a covered, soundproof enclosure. As the monkey is unaware of what is going on, that means everyone else gets a surprise round. Everyone else includes the enemies (unless they are somehow unaware of you) but getting a free standard action helps some classes a lot more than others for reasons that should be obvious.

There's no apparent solution for this, except to alert DMs to this kind of funky behavior.

Creatures with the cold subtype don't take any extra damage from lava:

Lava Effects

Lava or magma deals 2d6 points of damage per round of exposure, except in the case of total immersion (such as when a character falls into the crater of an active volcano), which deals 20d6 points of damage per round.

Damage from magma continues for 1d3 rounds after exposure ceases, but this additional damage is only half of that dealt during actual contact (that is, 1d6 or 10d6 points per round).

An immunity or resistance to fire serves as an immunity to lava or magma. However, a creature immune to fire might still drown if completely immersed in lava.

nowhere does it say that the damage is Fire damage, RAW it's untyped damage that just so happens to be negated by a resistance or immunity to fire:p

This has a simple fix, and should be folded into 025.

You're a titan. You just threw your huge javelin 150 ft and you couldn't reach a target 200 ft away. How do you feel now?

Also known as, range increments for larger thrown weapons are currently bizarre.

I don't have quotes on me right now, but one that came up in game for me was that I had a player who's character was a harpoon specialist.

Harpoons are thrown weapons.

By RAW, thrown weapons don't work on enemies that are underwater.

Ergo, you can't hunt whales with harpoons.

... And so are some of the other rules for thrown weapons.

'The subject becomes temporarily immune to poison. Any poison in its system or any poison to which it is exposed during the spell's duration does not affect the subject until the spell's duration has expired. Delay poison does not cure any damage that poison may have already done."

The poison is still in your system, its just not affecting you.

"You detoxify any sort of venom in the creature or object touched. If the target is a creature, you must make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against the DC of each poison affecting the target. Success means that the poison is neutralized"

Neutralize poison does, in fact ,specify that it must be affecting the target.

Presumably, neutralize poison should have an additional clause to include poison that is not currently affecting the target because it is delayed.

Lesser Planetouched (such as Lesser Aasimar)

From Player's Guide to Faerun, p.191

Lesser Planetouched
All lesser planetouched have the following trait in common, in addition to all the racial trats detailed elsewhere in this book
-Planetouched: Planetouched are humanoids (not outsiders) with the planetouched subtype. they are susceptible to spells and effects that specifically target both humanoids or outsiders. charm person works against them, so does banishment. This trait replaces the outsider entry in each planetouched description.

SRD, Banishment spell

...A banishment spell is a more powerful version of the dismissal spell. It enables you to force extraplanar creatures out of your home plane...

Problem 1: it only affects extraplanar creatures, all planetouched (lesser or not) have the native subtype. it would not affect them anyway since the material plane is their home plane.
Answer 1: it says that this spell specifically affects lesser planetouched, so by RAW it must affect them. you will have a hard time arguing RAI that it does not.

Problem 2: where would they go, if it does affect them? wink out for a round? would they reappear in the same space? would they be send to a random plane? are they send to the plane most closely related to outsider/ element that the Planetouched is associated with? would they reappear in a random location somewhere on the material plane (or within the spells range)?
Answer 2: first, banishment never says that you send them back tho their home plane. So they could be send to some random plane. Dismissal does though, and most DMs would probably send most outsiders back 'where they belong' (RAI). since the material plane is the that place, they are send back there; i mean, back here; where we are already.

I have no idea how to solve this, since RAI is apparently to ... make them treated like any other creature already is?

Buy a ladder for five copper. Remove all the rungs, and you are left with two ten-foot poles, valued at two silver apiece.

Buy a 100-page spellbook for 15gp. Remove each page and sell them individually for four silver apiece.

Buy a Spiked Chain for 25gp. Remove the spikes. Sell the chain for 30gp.

Buy a Club (free). Sell as Firewood for 1cp.

Instead of Trail Rations, buy Chunks of Meat (or, if you're really brave, horse feed). Both are cheaper and lighter than Trail Rations.

Buy a Glass Wine Bottle for 2gp. Buy a Pitcher of Wine for 2sp. Empty the pitcher into the bottle. Sell as Bottled Wine for 10gp.

Speaking of crafting, can't you make an infinite number of quarterstaves in one crafting attempt, due to a divide by 0 bug?

Empty flasks weigh more than full flasks of Alchemists's Fire, Holy Water, etc.

These are assorted bugs in the equipment list; to start with, nothing should actually be free.

Just at a guess on Improved Precise Shot? "Your ranged attacks ignore the AC bonus granted to targets by anything less than total cover, and the miss chance granted to targets by anything less than total concealment. Total cover and total concealment provide their normal benefits against your ranged attacks. "

Total Cover means you can't hit the target at all: "You can’t make an attack against a target that has total cover." - thus, any AC bonus is "less than total cover", and thus, ignored. That +10 Mountain Plate? Less than total cover - the AC bonus it grants is ignored. That +10 Dexterity modifier? Less than total cover - the AC bonus it grants ignored. That +10 Tower Shield? Ditto. That +8 Size modifier to AC for being Fine? It's less than Total Cover too! Ignore it. You're always targetting AC 10 or less, technically, if you are attacking at range with Improved Precise Shot.

They probably should have worded that first clause something like "Your ranged attacks ignore the AC bonus from cover granted targets by anything less than total cover"

Solution conveniently provided. ;)

Bend Reality's lazy copy-paste from Limited Wish: it notes several times that you can't use its various non-psion-power options to cast spells, but then says: "when bend reality duplicates a spell with a material component, you must pay additional XP equal to the value of the material component divided by 5." So can you, or can't you?

A dread necromancer is the scariest creature alive. You fail one save against his fear aura, and even if you kill him, a whole ten years later, you're still shaken from that one look. (RAW, a dread necromancer's fear aura has no duration so it never ends)

JaronK mentioned later that a lich's similar fear aura has a duration of 1rd/level.

Ruby Knight Vindicators have to expend a Standard Action to gain an additional Swift Action. (Reason: since the Divine Impetus description says nothing about what kind of Action is required, it defaults to Standard Action, as for any Su Ability that doesn't specify otherwise)

Shadow Sun Ninja (ToB) has an ability (Flame of the Shadow Sun) that lets you absorb a cold attack as an immediate action. Doing so grants you the ability to launch a bolt of fire as a swift action on your next turn. Damn shame about how using an immediate action means you don't get a swift action next turn, huh?

There is no RAW provision for making oils (defined as "potion-like things that work on objects"), despite many examples of such existing in the "Potions and Oils" section of the DMG, since Brew Potion specifies that the spell must target a creature. You might find an Oil of Magic Weapon, but you'll never be able to make one. At least, not in the way you think you are.

And now for a couple of responses (more later; the illusionist debate is making my brain hurt ).

That's a problem of balance, not of rules not making sense, and so the proper response is a houserule, not declaring that your houserule is common sense. Note where I said "I'd use [it] myself."

Quoted for agreement on where to draw the line between a houserule, and a houserule that is also common sense.

Rule 053: Piecemeal Magic Items
Disapproved mainly due to non-magical boots and helmets detecting as magical for no discernible reason. If they aren't providing a magical benefit and aren't magical themselves - at least getting the improved hardness and HP - then they shouldn't be detecting as magical either.

I'm inclined to suggest that while such parts are magically enhanced in hardness and HP, and do detect as magical because of that, they have no other function (and are only present as sort of a "package deal").

[Jeff the Green]

I didn't mean for the blanket nay to be official. Just a statement of the fact that I think that such rules are prima facie not RACSD. I should have clarified that; sorry.

Why not just go with the original text I proposed, with a clause that the optional pieces are not magical? (Your modification also leaves out the part specifying that mundane properties are not dependent on having the removable pieces on.) I think it's reasonable to suppose that when you're enchanting armor you're not going to bother with the pieces that are almost guaranteed to be swapped out.

[lesser_minion]

Then just excise Evocation. It'd be far more "reasonable" than keeping a school that has no apparent reason to exist than to be the school idiots pick.

Evocation does have a couple of gems, and Tyndmyr has an interesting argument that save-or-die spells are generally worse than blasting.

It is probably the weakest school, but it is not the giant steaming pile of ass that TLN makes it out to be.

Also, a GSE'd contingency doesn't have a 60% chance of working, it fails outright -- check the description of shadow evocation.

[willpell]

Not sure if this has been covered already in the thread, but I noticed a detail in the Monster Manual that seems like it leads to a good RACSD: the Glossary entry "Manufactured Weapons". This defines any weapon that's not inherent to the creature, just typically carried by it, from three javelins strapped to an orc's back, to a tree that a troll uproots and uses as a club, to the drow's crossbow bolts and the poison they typically put on these. Thusly, it would be simple enough to patch some logical issues with Polymorph et al by simply ruling, "Shapechanging into the form of a creature never gives you the manufactured weapons listed in that creature's Monster Manual entry."

[Malachei]

Evocation does have a couple of gems, and Tyndmyr has an interesting argument that save-or-die spells are generally worse than blasting.

It is probably the weakest school, but it is not the giant steaming pile of ass that TLN makes it out to be.

Also, a GSE'd contingency doesn't have a 60% chance of working, it fails outright -- check the description of shadow evocation.

Good point. This had come up in a previous discussion, and I had forgotten about it.

My objective is not to balance schools, that was just for the rule's funny title, which was probably misleading.

My objective was that the caster should not be able to trick himself to be able to get something working which would have no effect on a disbeliever. As the caster knows the effect is illusory, I find it a very tricky way of reading the rules to gain a desired effect. *tricksy gnomeses*

So I'll reword it:

Rule 54: You can't trick yourself to believe in illusionary Contingency
In case of Greater Shadow Evocation or similar spells being used to duplicate Contingency, the spellcaster automatically succeeds on his save to recognize the spell as an illusion. Thus, the shadow evoked Contingency does not work.

Andorax, I've looked at the first post again and concluded to number this rule 54. If 54 has already been assigned in the meantime, feel free to assign a new number.

[Asheram]

Not sure if this has been covered already in the thread, but I noticed a detail in the Monster Manual that seems like it leads to a good RACSD: the Glossary entry "Manufactured Weapons". This defines any weapon that's not inherent to the creature, just typically carried by it, from three javelins strapped to an orc's back, to a tree that a troll uproots and uses as a club, to the drow's crossbow bolts and the poison they typically put on these. Thusly, it would be simple enough to patch some logical issues with Polymorph et al by simply ruling, "Shapechanging into the form of a creature never gives you the manufactured weapons listed in that creature's Monster Manual entry."

I'd just point out that you never Gain any forms of equipment or even clothes when you Alter self/Polymorph/Shapeshange.

[Jeff the Green]

Rule 54: You can't trick yourself to believe in illusionary Contingency
In case of Greater Shadow Evocation or similar spells being used to duplicate Contingency, the spellcaster automatically succeeds on his save to recognize the spell as an illusion. Thus, the shadow evoked Contingency does not work.

Still Nay. I'll also point out that singling out one spell for such treatment (as opposed to saying "you can't disbelieve your own figments/glamers," which I'll concede there is an argument for calling RACSD, even if I think it's weaker than the argument against) is about as far from RACSD as I can think of without writing something like "despite not having wings, gnomes have an Ex. fly speed of 120 ft (clumsy)." It is a reasonable houserule (and again, one I'd likely make) and patches a serious problem of balance, but that doesn't mean it belongs on this list.

If the rest of y'all think it is RACSD, though, you need to add something: the spellcaster cannot intentionally fail the save. Otherwise you have the possibility of the rules saying both that he automatically succeeded and that he automatically failed.

[Malachei]

singling out one spell for such treatment (as opposed to saying "you can't disbelieve your own figments/glamers," which I'll concede there is an argument for calling RACSD, even if I think it's weaker than the argument against) is about as far from RACSD as I can think of without writing something like "despite not having wings, gnomes have an Ex. fly speed of 120 ft (clumsy)." It is a reasonable houserule (and again, one I'd likely make) and patches a serious problem of balance, but that doesn't mean it belongs on this list.

If the rest of y'all think it is RACSD, though, you need to add something: the spellcaster cannot intentionally fail the save. Otherwise you have the possibility of the rules saying both that he automatically succeeded and that he automatically failed.

Why is a specific ruling automatically a houserule and not worthy of a RACSD entry? Would, for instance, Time Stop, not benefit from a RACSD entry regarding its duration and whether it can be persisted? And how does your gnome example differ from other specific rulings we have in this thread, such as 039 on Kobolds?



I'd like to point out the Rules of the Game: All About Illusions article, which specifies:

The rules don't say so, but if you create an illusion that allows a saving throw for disbelief, you automatically disbelieve it (you know it isn't real because you created it).

I think this clearly indicates a difference between RAW and RAI, and thereby, motivation/need for a RACSD ruling.

I'll rephrase and put this in one broader, one more specific rule (obviously, I'd vote yes on both, but I actually prefer the broader one):

Rule 54: You can't trick yourself into disbelieving your own illusions
A spellcaster faced with proof that an effect is illusionary automatically disbelieves the illusion. If you create an illusion that allows a save for disbelief, you automatically disbelieve it (and therefore cannot voluntarily fail a save). Because phantasms create effects that are personalized mental impressions, a spellcaster does not automatically disbelieve his own phantasm (for instance, if it is turned back on him via Spell Turning or a Helm of Telepathy).

Comment: See All About Illusions (Part I) for the reasoning behind phantasms.

Rule 54b: You can't trick yourself to believe in illusionary Contingency
In case of Greater Shadow Evocation or similar spells being used to duplicate Contingency, the spellcaster automatically recognizes the spell as an illusion, automatically disbelieves (and therefore cannot voluntarily fail the save). Thus, the shadow evoked Contingency does not work.

[lesser_minion]

If the rest of y'all think it is RACSD, though, you need to add something: the spellcaster cannot intentionally fail the save. Otherwise you have the possibility of the rules saying both that he automatically succeeded and that he automatically failed.

It's not actually a houserule at all, it's rules as written: if you have proof that an illusion isn't real, you disbelieve it. You can't voluntarily fail your saving throw when faced with proof, because you no longer need to make one. It's also not a special resistance to magic.

If you're the caster of an illusion spell, then you know that the manifestation of the spell is fake because you know the spell itself is an illusion, and you automatically identify the manifestation of the spell because you were the one who chose it in the first place.

The actual common-sense issue here is that mind-affecting spells should probably be exempt from the rule on proofs, since they actively alter the mind of the target.

[Malachei]

It's not actually a houserule at all, it's rules as written: if you have proof that an illusion isn't real, you disbelieve it. You can't voluntarily fail your saving throw when faced with proof, because you no longer need to make one. It's also not a special resistance to magic.

If you're the caster of an illusion spell, then you know that the manifestation of the spell is fake because you know the spell itself is an illusion, and you automatically identify the manifestation of the spell because you were the one who chose it in the first place.

The actual common-sense issue here is that mind-affecting spells should probably be exempt from the rule on proofs, since they actively alter the mind of the target.

I completely agree with your reasoning, but that this is RAW has been contested often enough.

People have extensively discussed this on the forums, which is my basis to suggest a RACSD entry.

[Jeff the Green]

I still vote Nay on both versions of 54, but I will admit that this is due to a possibly idiosyncratic belief of mine that "magic is weird" and therefore not subject to RACSD unless there's a genuine ambiguity in RAW. I therefore stipulate that should it occur that mine is the single dissenting vote after, oh, 8 votes beyond me, Malachei, and lesser_minion, it changes to an Abstain. I'll confirm that if I'm still around; that's just in case of my sudden absence.

Why is a specific ruling automatically a houserule and not worthy of a RACSD entry? Would, for instance, Time Stop, not benefit from a RACSD entry regarding its duration and whether it can be persisted? And how does your gnome example differ from other specific rulings we have in this thread, such as 039 on Kobolds?

A specific ruling isn't automatically a houserule. Choosing one spell out of tens of spells that have essentially the same effect because it's more troublesome is.

Time Stop would benefit from a ruling because the RAW is clearly ambiguous. The rules of Illusions are not ambiguous, they just lead to apparent contradictions which can be explained by my "magic is weird" theory. And the gnome example isn't different from 039, which I voted Nay on. Unless I'm misinterpreting you?

As for the claim that RAI supports rule 54, I disagree on two fronts. First, Rules as the Designers Declared Them to Be After the Fact (RATDDTTBATF) is not necssarily RAI. They are also potentially a rules patch or an apologia (cf. Monte Cook's statements to the effect that the PHB's imbalance was intentional). Second, he admits the rules don't say so. And they didn't errata it. He is interpreting the rules, using his sensibilities as a guide, and if those sensibilities do not vastly predominate, it's not common sense. So, again, reasonable houserule. I will use it, if/when I DM with an illusionist. Not RACSD.

Finally, read the SRD again; it's not as clear as you think:

Spoiler

Show

A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw.

It is reasonable to interpret the word "needs" to imply one can make a saving throw if one wants (and thus fail intentionally if he wants), in the same way that I "need no chocolate" but I can eat chocolate if I want.

Also, I thought of an argument against 54 which may or may not be relevant, and is a bit sciency, so it's spoilered.

Spoiler

Show

Consider illusions in real life. For example, this illusion:

(For those who don't get the point, the red lines are perfectly horizontal and the squares are actually squares.)

Once you know the trick, you can treat it as if you don't see it. For example, once I know that the lines are in fact straight and the squares are actually squares, I can estimate the sum of the lengths of the red line segments by measuring a square and counting the number of squares.

On the other hand, I don't stop seeing the illusion. I can, if I desire, treat the illusion as if it were in fact reality; in game terms, fail my Will Save.

It is, again, a reasonable interpretation of Illusions that they work like illusions and thus the Will save can be failed.

[TuggyNE]

Also, a GSE'd contingency doesn't have a 60% chance of working, it fails outright -- check the description of shadow evocation.

I'm sorry, but after reading the spell description again, I still don't get what you're driving at here — it does seem to have a 60% (or whatever) chance of working. How is there an exception?


I noted a typo in 038B ("glammer" should be "glamer"); 038C also seems correct to me. Relatedly, why is 054 considered separate from the 038 set (On the Delusions of an Illusionist)?

Finally, I would like to again request adding a provision for the awl pike to 051 (Titan Dagger Reach: 15 Feet; Titan Whip Reach: Also 15 Feet). Once that's in, I can approve the rule.


Within the next few days I plan to start drafting suggested solutions for the problems from Dysfunctional Rules collected in my last post; however, anyone that wants to get a head start is more than welcome. (And hopefully will do a better job than me, for that matter.)

[Malachei]

I'm sorry, but after reading the spell description again, I still don't get what you're driving at here — it does seem to have a 60% (or whatever) chance of working. How is there an exception?

I think lesserminion refers to this part of the spell's text:

Nondamaging effects have normal effects except against those who disbelieve them. Against disbelievers, they have no effect.

[TuggyNE]

I think lesserminion refers to this part of the spell's text:

Nondamaging effects have normal effects except against those who disbelieve them. Against disbelievers, they have no effect.

Critical reading fail.

[Malachei]

Critical reading fail.

Me, too, when I first posted the rule. I had read that part of the text before, but had completely forgotten about it. So I'll join you on the

[Andorax]

I've purged mention of the 'other pieces' from Rule 053. I had hoped to include mention of them for completeness, but it's a cause for contention that shouldn't be allowed to interfere with the core of the rule itself.

I'm presuming upon erikun's and Jeff the Green's non-votes, with the offending sentence removed.

Jeff the Green, I did not include your alternate wording because it's going to still cause argument (see tuggyne's comment and my own explanation).


willpell, thanks for the suggestion, but I don't know of anyone who's tried to presume separate manufactured weapons as part of a polymorph effect...I don't think that one is even in need of clarification.


Malachei, your illusion/disbelief rule 054 (variations A and B) is now in place.


tuggyne, I've added mention of the Awl Pike to rule 051...anyone else who previously weighed in on 051 may want to recheck and be sure they're still in support of it.

And Jeff the Green...qualified or not, I'm still not taking conditional, contingent, or later-revisable votes. With a few minor exceptions, I read this thread from the point of my last post to current, so anything said prior to that last post will likely be lost to the ages (and I *really* don't want the enormous headache that could result if that becomes a precident. One here and there, I probably could handle if I wanted to, but if the contingent votes start rolling in, I'll be overwhelmed).



Rule 054 (both A and B variants) are now in place, but are disapproved at present.

[Jeff the Green]

The new version of 053 has my Aye vote.

[erikun]

And as per Rule 053...I suppose I can strike that part with no heartburn, but I do have to ask. If a "suit" of platemail +3 includes boots, greaves, gauntlets, helm, etc...if the whole dang suit of armor was enhanced...doesn't it make sense that each separate bit would still detect as magical, being a piece of said overall armor?

Perhaps an A/B split over this issue? Or I'll just drop it entire if others chime in thinking it's meaningless/pointless/detrimental.

Enhancing a suit of armor doesn't mean that every bit of the suit is automatically enhanced. After all, when enhancing a spear, only the speartip receives the enhancement - using it as an improvised weapon, or even with feats such that allow additional attacks with polearms, does not receive the enhancement.

I'm inclined to suggest that while such parts are magically enhanced in hardness and HP, and do detect as magical because of that, they have no other function (and are only present as sort of a "package deal").

Alternatively, this is a good idea.

My biggest problem was A.) It presents a red-herring to PCs, who would detect the bit of armor as magical but be unable to identify or access its magical properities, and B.) Present the logical problem of magically-enhanced material that still has retains the strength of the magical enhancement, but does not act like material that went through magical enhancement.

Other than that, I Approve of the current reading for Rule 053: Piecemeal Magic Items. You're free to revise/split it as you'd like from there.

Rule 054A: You can't trick yourself to believe in illusionary Contingency
Disapprove, because both phantasms and patterns are mind-effecting, and would both potentially have their full effect on the spellcaster. Also, it is already covered with Rule 038C; all phantasms are mind-effecting by definition, so we are just restating the same thing with this rule. I would vote for its removal due to irrelevance, if such a vote matters.

The title doesn't even have any relevance to the rule itself.

Rule 054B: You can't trick yourself to believe in illusionary Contingency
As I've approved 38B and 38C already, I'll say Approved for this one as well. However, note that it is already covered by 38C anyways - you don't necessarily need a specific claus for Shadow Contingencies when all shadow illusions are automatically disbelieved by the spellcaster.

[Malachei]

Rule 054A: You can't trick yourself to believe in illusionary Contingency
Disapprove, because both phantasms and patterns are mind-effecting, and would both potentially have their full effect on the spellcaster. Also, it is already covered with Rule 038C; all phantasms are mind-effecting by definition, so we are just restating the same thing with this rule. I would vote for its removal due to irrelevance, if such a vote matters.

The title doesn't even have any relevance to the rule itself.

I think that's a copy/paste error, because in my post above, rule 54A has another title.

In order to improve rule 54A, I'd like to better understand the issues to rephrase it. I'm particularly looking at shadows, figments and glamers, of course so would limiting it to make the rule acceptable to you?